[asa] Proof (was: Our discourse here)

> The problem, as I see it, is that the natural record disproves
> an Adam who was made biologically by fiat.

Reliance upon an incomplete and inconsistent natural record, and calling
that "proof" is less than an optimal solution, in my opinion. However, lay
out the evidence that you consider proof in 5 to 10 concise bullets, if
that's possible. I say "if that's possible", because I realize that many
such topics require much more...sometimes entire books. You might also refer
me to certain chapters in Miller's Perspective's of an Evolving Creation, if
the points you wish to make are in there.

Kind regards, JP

-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of Dehler, Bernie
Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2009 1:32 PM
To: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: RE: [asa] Our discourse here

George said:
" The linchpin of scripture is Jesus Christ, not Adam and Eve or original
sin."

In my seminary class, they say there are these stages:

1. God made everything perfect.
2. Man fell.
3. Christ redeemed.
4. The final state.

We sinned so we need a savior. If you don't have sin, you don't need a
savior. Where did sin come from? Inherited by Adam. Therefore, reject
Adam, and the gospel is all confused and murky. (That's why those who
believe in Adam share the gospel starting at point1, whereas others would
skip right into the solution to sin (3), not explaining where sin came
from.)

I agree- it is a nice and very sharp focus to have a literal Adam in there
doing the first sin, as the Apostle Paul seems to teach (Christ is like the
second Adam, only undoing all the damage rather than causing it).

The problem, as I see it, is that the natural record disproves an Adam who
was made biologically by fiat. And if that 'creation by fiat' isn't
literal, there's no need to take the rest of Gen. ch's 1-2 as literal
either.

Dang- there goes the clarity. But science has a way of complicating
everything, in order to make it simpler in the long run. Removing a literal
Adam creates a lot of theological problems, but I think it also solves many
problems (both in science and theology).

...Bernie
-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of gmurphy10@neo.rr.com
Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2009 6:52 AM
To: asa@calvin.edu; James Patterson
Subject: RE: [asa] Our discourse here

The linchpin of scripture is Jesus Christ, not Adam and Eve or original sin.

Shalom,
George

---- James Patterson <james000777@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> I don't know what you mean by intimately involved but as I stated,
>
> I don't think I and a lot of people on this list neccessarily
>
> believe that and I resent the implication that means I am not
>
> choosing God. This assumes a historical Adam and a literal Genesis
>
> and as you know there are many on this list that reject both.
>
>
>
> In fact, I think the opposite is more true, that the PSI Gulo
>
> pseudogene evidence shows that man was likely not the result of
>
> any intimate involvement (e.g. special creation) unless you
>
> consider the spiritual aspect of man and that would likely be
>
> imperceptible to science anyway, rendering this to be by all
>
> appearances identical to the deistic position anyway.
>
>
>
> So again, we are back to your strawman argument that God NOT being
>
> intimately involved in Adam and Eve means not choosing God and
>
> that God HAD to leave His fingerprints on Adam and Eve to get the
>
> credit for creating them. But neither is true and neither are
>
> scientific statements. And neither are supported by data either.
>
>
>
> Well then, John, perhaps you do have a problem.
>
>
>
> The Bible is an integrated whole, and fits together throughout its
breadth. You want to remove the lynchpin from that completeness by removing
Adam and Eve, and original sin. I am not sure that Adam and Eve were the
first two of all mankind. Even if they were the first two of the Hebrews,
they were the first two. Genesis spends quite a bit of time telling us about
them. If you want to think that Genesis and all the rest of the creation
accounts in the Bible are made-up, then that is your choice. I believe it's
the wrong one.
>
>
>
> Here's a little thought experiment:
>
>
>
> Genesis 1 and 2 are obviously just symbolic. There's no scientific
evidence for Adam and Eve, right? So that means all of Genesis is
tainted...why not just blow the whole of Genesis off? And while we're at it,
Exodus is shaky too. There's no evidence all that really happened. Heck, I
don't like any of the Pentateuch, let's get rid of it as well. And while we
are at it, Revelations doesn't seem right either. I'm not sure it's supposed
to be there.
>
>
>
> So, since God didn't have any supernatural involvement with the creation
of man or his spiritual nature, then why accept any of the supernatural
accounts in the Bible? Why not just become a higher critic, and cut out the
portions of the Bible altogether that reference prophecy, miracles, signs
and wonders, and don't align with science? They obviously are false, since
the supernatural isn't real.
>
>
>
> Why not just be a deist then? If all you need is the moral law of God, why
believe in Christ at all? Why shouldn't we just believe then, that Jesus was
"just a good man"?
>
>
>
> Hopefully from this little thought experiment my message is clear. If you
think that you can "choose God" and deny the Genesis account of creation (as
well as all the other references in the Bible), then I disagree with you, I
believe you are wrong, I believe that your Christianity lacks foundational
strength, and I think therefore that your faith is on shaky ground. You must
deal with my statements as best you can, because that's where I live, and
that's what I believe.
>
>
>
> There is a balance. YEC denies science. You deny the Genesis account. I
accept both. That is not always easy for me to like or deal with. You may
continue to resent that if you wish, but where does that anger come from,
really? Because you really need to deal with the source of that anger - not
with me. I am comfortable discussing these topics. I will defend my position
as best I am able.
>
>
>
> Now...did I touch on a nerve for more than just John? Quite likely.
However, I think that you should be able to see 1 Peter 3:15 above, and I
think it is wholly consistent with Ephesians 4:29. However, perhaps this
modification of my original statement will appease you:
>
>
>
> If you choose not to believe that God was intimately involved with the
creation of man through Adam and Eve, then that's your choice. As for me and
my family, we choose God's intimate involvement with his Creation.
>
>
>
> JP
>
>
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Feb 25 18:15:24 2009