Re: [asa] Proof (was: Our discourse here) ,

Folks,

I want to ask what the following would say about this subject:

The pope.
Radmacher.
Swindoll.
Sproul.
The folks at theopedia.
and others.

A friend tells me many conservative theologians would take Bernie's
position but this position does not come out of or align with any
particular school of criticism or denomination or tradition. I'd like
to know which conservative theologians or groups and what they have to
say in addition to the people listed above.

Thanks,
Dave

PS, More analysis please, less mud slinging. I don't think
biologists have anything to say here - but theologians might be able
to speak to hermenuetics, etc. Can we stop beating up on James?
Whether he has audacity or not is irrelevant.

On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 5:47 PM, John Walley <john_walley@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> JP,
>
> You have the audacity to find fault with Bernie's scientific evidence which is upheld by every notable Christian biologist that is not a YEC or PC including Collins, Miller, Behe, Faulk, McGrath etc, and all you have for your position is your concordant interpretation of Genesis.
>
> One would think you would see the absolute ridiculousness of this.
>
> Thanks
>
> JOhn
>
>
> --- On Wed, 2/25/09, James Patterson <james000777@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>> From: James Patterson <james000777@bellsouth.net>
>> Subject: [asa] Proof (was: Our discourse here)
>> To: asa@calvin.edu
>> Date: Wednesday, February 25, 2009, 6:14 PM
>> > 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.
>
>
>
>
> 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 19:36:58 2009