Re: [asa] Adam and the Fall

Does Denis Lamoureux really hold to a "gradual punctiliar polygenism, which means the image of God and 'real humanity' was manifested gradually amongst many humans," as Bethany suggests?
 
If so, this would appear to be be much more consistent with an eastern, karmic view of human origins (e.g. Darwinian evolution), than with an anthropic monotheistic view of human origins. Denis would surely appear to be outside of the western evangelical Christian tradition in suggesting such a thing: polygenism.
 
A significant question arises: what would Denis name/call the first 'authentically/covenant' human individual, if not Adam? Likewise, if he suggests there is no single 'first human' or even an 'Adam' then how does his philosophy of consciousness or pneumatology acknowledge the lineage represented by Jesus in the Gospels? Is Denis a literal lineage-destroyer?
 
It is one thing to appeal to gradualism and continuity. It is another to acknowledge that origins and processes have different meanings (which it seems Denis is weak in distinguishing from a philosophical perspective). It thus seems to me that Denis is stuck within a gradualist, evolutionary paradigm wherein origins and discontinuities (and an alternative paragidm) are deemed foreign and unwelcome by his worldview fiat and not at all by the scientific evidence. Such is an example not of following the evidence where it leads, but rather of retro-bargaining evidence in order to cater to one's theosophical perspective.

Gregory

p.s. Bethany, having recently read your article "Why Modern Science is Your Friend" in the Regent College newsletter, I am grateful for your words: “The Intelligent Design folks oppose the ‘excessive naturalism’ found in science. For this, I applaud them. But vain attempts to therefore overthrow all of science are ludicrous.” I had thought you were against ID tooth and nail, without compromise, as is D.L. Yet I am encouraged by what you say, since trying to 'overthrow all of science' is not the mission of any of the ID leadership that I've met and dialogued with. Not sure who you've spoken with, but there is indeed a question of what 'naturalism' means in today's academy, and space to discuss it outside of the rather simplistic, sophomoric distinction that some use of MN and PN.
 
 
 
--- On Thu, 11/13/08, Bethany Sollereder <bsollereder@gmail.com> wrote:

From: Bethany Sollereder <bsollereder@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [asa] Adam and the Fall
To: "Steve Martin" <steven.dale.martin@gmail.com>
Cc: "George Murphy" <GMURPHY10@neo.rr.com>, asa@calvin.edu
Received: Thursday, November 13, 2008, 5:41 AM

Steve,

The Adam you are talking about (the one that first had a covenantal relationship with God) is exactly the Adam that Denis rejects.  He holds to gradual punctiliar polygenism, which means the image of God and "real humanity" was manifested gradually amongst many humans.

I think that one can be as certain that an Adam didn't exist as one can be sure that there is no firmament...

David,
I can appreciate you wanting to bring in Paul and his beliefs as attesting to the historicity of some sort of Adam.  But it is not necessary, any more than it is to ascribe to Paul's 3-tier universe presented in Phil 2.  He also held to ancient beliefs of science and cosmology, and Adam was part of that package.
Nor do we need the doctrine of original sin being passed down through Adam's sperm to hold to the idea that all people are sinners.  Sin, as it were, is empirically verifiable.  Just look around.

Always,
Bethayn

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu Nov 13 13:57:16 2008