RE: [asa] (ancient theodicy, 'ancient theology') Deism, Apologetics, and Neglected Arguments

David Clouch said:

"The fall doesn't have to do with physical death of organisms. It has to do with man's relationship with God... So I think you are oversimplifying a complex doctrinal situation. And it isn't core in spite of the fact that both you and AIG may think it is core. So what?"

It may be that the Bible really does clearly teach Adam brought death into the world- specifically, physical death. Denis Lamoureux makes this case in "I Love Jesus and I accept evolution." He says to spiritualize it is to not take into account what the Bible really teaches... and provides those verses to demonstrate it, from the Apostle Paul. (Lamoureux then explains why it can be dismissed because it is based on 'ancient science.') So it seems to me that you dismiss this (Adam's sin brought physical death into the world), unintentionally, as 'ancient theology,' and move on to a more liberal 'modern theology' as seeing death being spiritual only, not realizing, or not caring, that it is against biblical teaching. That's my understanding of your position.

Here's some verses to show that Paul really thought, and taught, in God's Word, that Adam brought real physical death into the world (note how sin brings death, but contrarywise, grace brings eternal life; "sin reigned in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness to bring eternal life"):

Romans 5

 12Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned- 13for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law. 14Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come.

 15But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God's grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many! 16Again, the gift of God is not like the result of the one man's sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification. 17For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God's abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ.

 18Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men. 19For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.

 20The law was added so that the trespass might increase. But where sin increased, grace increased all the more, 21so that, just as sin reigned in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness to bring eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

...Bernie

________________________________________

From: David Clounch [mailto:david.clounch@gmail.com]

Sent: Monday, August 24, 2009 9:29 AM

To: Dehler, Bernie

Cc: asa@calvin.edu

Subject: Re: [asa] (ancient theodicy, 'ancient theology') Deism, Apologetics, and Neglected Arguments

I once wrote a posting called "Was Adam Green" to point out that organisms ate other organisms for energy - humans did not derive their energy due to chloroplasts.

So biology worked like normal before the fall.

The fall doesn't have to do with physical death of organisms. It has to do with man's relationship with God. We don't know what kind of health care benefits Adam possessed. We do know he lost them due to his sin.

So I think you are oversimplifying a complex doctrinal situation. And it isn't core in spite of the fact that bothy you and AIG may think it is core. So what? It is the core principles, such as the virgin birth, resurrection, etc., that are important.

So, why wouldn't someone who thinks through this Adam problem keep their faith but move to a more leftist position? You have been insinuating they will shift all the way to atheism. I don't see that happening. It might have happened to you, and it allegedly happened to Shermer, but what was it you thought you were believing in in the first place?

I don't think scientism and evolutionism are warranted just because AIG makes theological mistakes.

However....Bernie does raise one good point...

I said "We don't know what kind of health care benefits Adam possessed. We do know he lost them due to his sin." To which someone will say "but Adam didnt have health care benefits because nobody was there to provide them (ie, nobody was there to tinker)."

This is another area of the theory of TE that needs explanation. Unless the TE position is that Adam would have been immortal in the evolutionary scheme of things. 9wow! the search is on for the gene of immortality!) So I have to ask what the TE position is with respect to the fall? Is it denial of the fall?

Thanks,

Dave

On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 10:39 AM, Dehler, Bernie <bernie.dehler@intel.com> wrote:

David said:

"Explain to us how this ancient theology is going to cause millions of Christians to lose their faith?"

Because Christians learn a certain popular apologetics, which state that Adam brought sin and death into the world. That is ancient theology and wrong. When they learn that death was in the world long before Adam, they will throw out everything else in Christianity too, because their apologetics teacher told them this was foundational to the faith.

...Bernie

________________________________________

From: David Clounch [mailto:david.clounch@gmail.com]

Sent: Saturday, August 22, 2009 8:43 AM

To: Dehler, Bernie

Cc: asa@calvin.edu

Subject: Re: [asa] (ancient theodicy, 'ancient theology') Deism, Apologetics, and Neglected Arguments

Explain to us how this ancient theology is going to cause millions of Christians to lose their faith?

On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 11:06 PM, Dehler, Bernie <bernie.dehler@intel.com> wrote:

George Murphy said:

"In any case, theodicy is a fairly hot topic today - note debates not only in connection with evolution but also, e.g., the Indian Ocean tsunami (about which one nitwit Anglican bishop said in effect, "It was just plate tectonics. God had nothing to do with it." Theology at its best!) "

If only Jesus would have taught how to deal with things like the tsunami or 911... Wait, I think He did!

I think this passage is the same thing:

Luke 13

Repent or Perish

 1Now there were some present at that time who told Jesus about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices. 2Jesus answered, "Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans because they suffered this way? 3I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish. 4Or those eighteen who died when the tower in Siloam fell on them-do you think they were more guilty than all the others living in Jerusalem? 5I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish."

 6Then he told this parable: "A man had a fig tree, planted in his vineyard, and he went to look for fruit on it, but did not find any. 7So he said to the man who took care of the vineyard, 'For three years now I've been coming to look for fruit on this fig tree and haven't found any. Cut it down! Why should it use up the soil?'

 8" 'Sir,' the man replied, 'leave it alone for one more year, and I'll dig around it and fertilize it. 9If it bears fruit next year, fine! If not, then cut it down.' "

People then knew about a terrible evil that Pilate had done. Jesus, how do you explain that? Or when the tower fell and killed so many innocents- everyone heard of it- how do you explain that?

I think 'ancient theology' explains it this way: these tragedies are due to sin.

Jesus modifies it with saying those people probably died because of their sin, but wait, you better take note and your use of a 'second chance' because you really aren't much better. I think that is Jesus' answer to theodicy, but theologians don't like it today.

Yes- I'm aware of the other passage (John 9:2) when Jesus was asked who was responsible for the man's blindness, the man or his parents, and Jesus said neither because it was a set-up for Him to do a miracle and prove His powers. I think that was a special case to the general theodicy (ancient theology) answer of sin being the reason behind sickness. I think Jesus' disciples where asking Jesus if the 'ancient theology' on theodicy applied to this guy, verse 2 : "His disciples asked him, "Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?""

...Bernie

________________________________________

From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On Behalf Of George Murphy

Sent: Friday, August 21, 2009 6:25 PM

To: Schwarzwald; asa@calvin.edu

Subject: Re: [asa] Deism, Apologetics, and Neglected Arguments

1) I said, "I don't think the issue of theodicy is easily disentangled from questions about science & religion" & I stand by that - if you wish, with the qualification "today." That's not the same as claiming either that all questions of theodicy are due to science or that theodicy has always been as heavily influenced by science as it is today. In any case, theodicy is a fairly hot topic today - note debates not only in connection with evolution but also, e.g., the Indian Ocean tsunami (about which one nitwit Anglican bishop said in effect, "It was just plate tectonics. God had nothing to do with it." Theology at its best!) & when the topic does come up - with or without scientific connections, my approach has something to say & ID-related arguments don't.

<< other parts deleted to save space.>>

Shalom

George

http://home.roadrunner.com/~scitheologyglm

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Aug 24 12:47:19 2009