Re: [asa] Two questions...

"Concordism" usually refers to the attempt to match the days of Genesis 1
to geological ages. "Inerrancy/infallibility" have taken a new meaning
quite recently. In the confessions from the time of the Reformation, the
claim is that the canonical scriptures are without error in matters of
faith and practice, not on other matters. That they are inerrant on
matters of history and science was a recent alteration in the classical
view. Calvin clearly taught that scripture was adapted to the
understanding of the public; it was not the data of the scholar. This was
a point that Augustine had earlier made. I note his argument that the
days cannot be normal days because the markers were not made until the
fourth day. But I also note that he aborted his first attempt to
understand Genesis, and felt he had succeeded in interpreting it only at
a much later date.

To try to read the scriptures as if they are contemporary historical and
scientific accounts gets us into trouble. They were not necessarily read
that way by the church fathers or by the reformers. I am amazed at the
way translators twist the words to fit contemporary dogmas about
inspiration.
Dave (ASA)

On Fri, 6 Feb 2009 22:24:02 -0600 "James Patterson"
<james000777@bellsouth.net> writes:
> I don't think it's the science issues that are the most troublesome,
> at
> least for me. It's the lack of foundational doctrines that are, I
> think,
> critical to many mainstream Christian churches. That would be
> concordism,
> and inerrancy/infallibility of the Word of God.
>
> One can only integrate science and religion if they agree with one
> another.
> If you say they don't agree, that will cause problems in the
> church...most
> of them. If you say the Word of God is wrong, then you will
> definitely have
> problems. That basic starting point is where TE went wrong. From
> reading
> Perspectives on an Evolving Creation it is obvious that this is not
> a new
> issue - the historical account early on in the book is well written
> and
> seems clear. The backlash from that early position of non-concordism
> appears
> to be what caused the YEC movement to take such a strong stance...a
> balance
> on the other side of the equation. At least that's how I read it.
>
> God's Word should (does IMO) agree with God's world. And if it
> doesn't, then
> man is either interpreting the Word wrong, or measuring the world
> wrong.
>
> Genesis 1 and 2 are easily reconciled - it's obvious to a child
> reading it
> that one is a specific timeline, and the other is not the same
> sequence. Do
> you think the ancient Jews didn't notice that? Gen 2 is thus fairly
> obviously a story that is told from a viewpoint of what's important
> to the
> Jews telling it, not necessarily in sequence. This is not
> inconsistent with
> the two accounts being from different tribes - but does a better job
> of
> reconciling it. It may have been so obvious that the Jews didn't
> even
> describe the rationale for the difference in the Talmud (I don't
> know, just
> guessing it's not mentioned).
>
> The closest thing I have seen to a reconciliation of the OEC and TE
> s is Bob Russell's chapter...God working through Objective Special
> Providence. That is truly intriguing to me and very worthy of
> further
> examination. However, that's only if it can be couched in the
> doctrines of
> concordism and inerrancy (and it doesn't seem to have problems in
> that
> arena, but I haven't read his other works).
>
> Concordism Inerrancy Truth in Science
> ----------------------------------------------------
> TE - NO NO YES
> OEC - YES YES YES
> YEC - YES YES NO
> ----------------------------------------------------
>
> Now, you may not agree with that "Truth in Science" part for OEC (as
> the
> "Liars for Jesus" label indicates), but the Truth is out there. Is
> RTB
> always right? NO. Humans all. But they will listen, learn, relate,
> change,
> modify models, and do so humbly...if there is accurate data to show
> that
> some component of the model is wrong. I don't see the YEC camp ever
> doing
> that. I don't see the TE camp ever doing that with regard to
> concordism or
> inerrancy. What I do see is OEC as a balanced position that melds
> science
> and faith quite well.
>
> There's just a few bumps left in the road, is all. Nothing much.
> :)
>
> James P
>
____________________________________________________________
FTD.com
Shop now and save $15 on Flowers and Gifts from FTD!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/u4MuScM2CQu3MhmdIBj3bfzkuJVtqpatlrHyfVeOzqnNxvUOvZaRX/

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sat Feb 7 17:36:29 2009