Re: [asa] Luther Rice University Masters degrees (was: The image of God)

Hi Bernie,

"But one really interesting thing was half the course was about learning
modern biology from a modern biology textbook, esp. regarding DNA and
protein synthesis. Their reason was because the super complex processes and
micromachines point to God as creator. There was no discussion at all about
pseudogenes, however (I had to do that on my own)."

I can see why you are numbed to the fascinating nature of molecular
machines. Unfortunately, there are too many out there who a) try to extract
too much, in terms of conclusion, from such reality and b) who don't present
things in a balanced way. The over-eager desire to over-reach for
apologetic reasons will cause many to throw the whole baby out with the bath
water. And I doubt this is a problem restricted to molecular machines.

Mike

----- Original Message -----
From: "Dehler, Bernie" <bernie.dehler@intel.com>
To: "ASA" <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Sunday, October 11, 2009 11:20 PM
Subject: [asa] Luther Rice University Masters degrees (was: The image of
God)

> Hi Murray-
>
> The degree was changed to now be four different specialized kinds,
> mentioned here:
> http://www.lru.edu/Content.aspx?page=academics
>
> Mine was 39 credits.
>
> Here are the new variants of basically the same thing:
> *Master of Arts in Apologetics (MAA)
> *Master of Arts in Biblical Counseling (MABC)
> *Master of Arts in Christian Studies (MACS)
> *Master of Arts in Leadership (MAL)
>
> Since mine was more general, it has a little of all the above topics,
> instead of focusing on one topic.
>
> Interesting note: one of my most interesting classes was called "Origins
> and worldviews." It had a sharp YEC bent. But one really interesting
> thing was half the course was about learning modern biology from a modern
> biology textbook, esp. regarding DNA and protein synthesis. Their reason
> was because the super complex processes and micromachines point to God as
> creator. There was no discussion at all about pseudogenes, however (I had
> to do that on my own). Also, Denton was portrayed as a evolution denier.
> I believe this is part of the dishonest tactics that YEC's practice,
> unless my instructor truly was ignorant that Denton accepts evolution
> (common descent) for the biological creation of man.
>
> ...Bernie
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
> Behalf Of Murray Hogg
> Sent: Sunday, October 11, 2009 2:30 PM
> To: ASA
> Subject: Re: [asa] The image of God
>
> Hi Bernie,
>
> I couldn't find any reference to a "Masters in Ministry" from on the
> Luther Rice website.
>
> Perhaps you'd like to inform us - concisely - just how many credit hours
> were involved in this study, and, of those, how many involved the study of
> systematic theology.
>
> Blessings,
> Murray
>
> Dehler, Bernie wrote:
>> "If you really want to understand Christian theology - whether or not
>> you want to believe it - then approach the subject with some humility
>> and realize that you have no expertise in the area, just as you
>> would any other discipline that you aren't familiar with."
>>
>>
>>
>> What do you mean that I'm not familiar with theology? I have a Masters
>> in Ministry degree from Luther Rice University (www.lru.edu). I think
>> that credential should say I have some familiarity with it. This is
>> another example of 'heat' feedback, not 'light.'
>>
>>
>>
>> "You simply fail to realize that there is an actual distinction of
>> persons in the Godhead."
>>
>>
>>
>> Yes- I know- it is one of those 'distinctions' that we can't really
>> grasp. That was my point, my conclusion that "the image of God" is a
>> mystery wrapped-up in other "mysteries" like the trinity. So of course
>> science will never have anything to say about that thing (the 'image of
>> God') since that thing can't be coherently defined or understood. Not
>> even theologians in the same sect can understand it (the 'image of God')
>> in the same way.
>>
>>
>>
>> ...Bernie
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> *From:* George Murphy [mailto:GMURPHY10@neo.rr.com]
>> *Sent:* Saturday, October 10, 2009 7:44 PM
>> *To:* Dehler, Bernie; asa@calvin.edu
>> *Subject:* Re: [asa] The image of God- question for Lamoureux
>>
>>
>>
>> 1st, my statement may be incomprehensible because you choose to garble
>> the doctrine of the Trinity but it is plainly false to say that it is
>> incomprehensible to "everyone." Furthermore you have confused the
>> incomprehensibility of the Trinity - i.e., the fact, which all serious
>> theologians will admit, that the inner life of God cannot be fully
>> grasped by us - with a fake incomprehensibility of our doctrines of the
>> Trinity - i.e., human attempts to understand what God has in fact
>> revealed to us. Even a person who doesn't believe in God should be able
>> to understand the distinction (changes being made in the terminology -
>> e.g., "putative God" &c - where necessary
>>
>>
>>
>> Even though you say in your 1st sentence "although he is not the
>> Father," you immediately forget that when you say "it is fully akin to
>> trusting in himself." You simply fail to realize that there is an
>> actual distinction of persons in the Godhead. When Jesus prayed to the
>> Father he wasn't talking to himself. Far from there being any
>> "incomprehensibility" in the idea of the Son trusting in the Father,
>> that is the essence of his Sonship since he receives his being from the
>> Father. That, of course, is what the phrase "eternally begotten of the
>> Father" in the Nicene Creed means.
>>
>>
>>
>> & your insistence on phrasing the issue in terms of an historical Adam
>> shows that you have not escapted from your YEC understanding of
>> Christianity. You may not believe it anymore but I suspect that your
>> understanding of Christianity is still framed in those terms. & that
>> will of course make it difficult for you to understand Christian
>> theology that is not formulated that narrowly.
>>
>>
>>
>> If you really want to understand Christian theology - whether or not you
>> want to believe it - then approach the subject with some humility and
>> realize that you have no expertise in the area, just as you would any
>> other discipline that you aren't familiar with.
>>
>>
>>
>> Shalom
>> George
>> http://home.roadrunner.com/~scitheologyglm
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>>
>> *From:* Dehler, Bernie <mailto:bernie.dehler@intel.com>
>>
>> *To:* asa@calvin.edu <mailto:asa@calvin.edu>
>>
>> *Sent:* Saturday, October 10, 2009 12:52 PM
>>
>> *Subject:* RE: [asa] The image of God- question for Lamoureux
>>
>>
>>
>> George Murphy said:
>>
>> "The perfection of his humanity is shown in his perfect trust in God
>> as his Father"
>>
>>
>>
>> Unfortunately that is incomprehensible to everyone since, although
>> he is not the Father, Jesus is fully God (the incomprehensibility of
>> the trinity). Since Jesus is fully God it is akin to trusting fully
>> in himself, unless Jesus (as son of God) has a different job
>> description than God the Father. So it appears that the 'image of
>> God' is a mystery in itself, and now it is tied-up and bundled into
>> another mystery of the Trinity. (To say that Jesus emptied some of
>> Himself, Philippians, is also a mystery since He is fully God.)
>>
>>
>>
>> I guess it would be unfair to say Jesus is the perfect example of
>> what "the image of God" looks like in a man because while Jesus is
>> fully man, He's also fully God. In other words, He is infinitely
>> more than 'Adam' would be had Adam not sinned and somehow darkened
>> (or degraded) "the image of God" in all of us today. To demonstrate
>> what it would mean to have the "perfect image of God" within a man,
>> it would have to be demonstrated by someone who is also only a man,
>> and not also part (or whole) God.
>>
>>
>>
>> That's how it seems to me.
>>
>>
>>
>> ...Bernie
>>
>>
>>
>> ________________________________________
>>
>> From: George Murphy [mailto:GMURPHY10@neo.rr.com]
>>
>> Sent: Friday, October 09, 2009 4:53 PM
>>
>> To: Dehler, Bernie
>>
>> Cc: asa@calvin.edu
>>
>> Subject: Re: [asa] The image of God- question for Lamoureux
>>
>>
>>
>> The perfection of his humanity is shown in his perfect trust in God
>> as his Father and in his really loving other people as himself. Of
>> course more could be said but that's the herat of it.
>>
>>
>>
>> Shalom
>>
>> George
>>
>> http://home.roadrunner.com/~scitheologyglm
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>>
>> From: Dehler, Bernie
>>
>> Cc: asa@calvin.edu
>>
>> Sent: Friday, October 09, 2009 10:28 AM
>>
>> Subject: RE: [asa] The image of God- question for Lamoureux
>>
>>
>>
>> George said:
>>
>> "So where does humanity become fully the image of God? Maybe 25
>> December, 4 B.C. (with a bit of poetic license)."
>>
>>
>>
>> When you (and other theologians) say Jesus is the perfect example of
>> a human in the full image of God, what would be one example of that
>> manifestation from Jesus? Is there anything you can point to in
>> Jesus (by his works, etc.), and say "ah ha, there is the image of
>> God?" Or is it just a theological spiritual statement that can't be
>> observed? Is it anything different than other humans have, or is it
>> just "on, all the time" (same thing al humans have, just more of it
>> to a degree of 100%, 24x7)?
>>
>>
>>
>> ...Bernie
>>
>>
>>
>> ________________________________________
>>
>> From: George Murphy [mailto:GMURPHY10@neo.rr.com]
>>
>> Sent: Thursday, October 08, 2009 1:16 PM
>>
>> To: Dehler, Bernie
>>
>> Cc: asa@calvin.edu
>>
>> Subject: Re: [asa] The image of God- question for Lamoureux
>>
>>
>>
>> This gets beyond the question of the proper interpretation of the
>> text in Gen.1 & becomes a question for broader Christian theology
>> that reflects on the whole of scripture (including, of course,
>> Gen.1), the Christian theological tradition & what we know of the
>> world from science. I don't know how the author (& possible
>> redactors) of the first creation account thought of the creation of
>> humanity beyond what we're told in the text. Did he think of their
>> being a primordial couple from which all others are descended? I'd
>> guess so, but it's only a guess.
>>
>>
>>
>> In any case humanity from the beginning is seen as commissioned to
>> be God's regent in caring for creation, & that holds for all
>> succeeding generations. We'd immediately have to add 2 caveats.
>> 1st, as you noted, the ability of humans to carry out that
>> commission is limited by their own abilities (understanding of the
>> world, technology &c), as we know, those are things that
>> developed gradually. So from the beginning the command "Have
>> dominion" could be understood only with the qualification "to the
>> extent you're able". & certainly the biblical writers knew this
>> because their abilities to control other creatures, natural forces
>> &c were far less than ours. (& that has to be borne in mind when we
>> think of the implications of "have dominion." While we can read it
>> as a license to exploit, people of the ancient world, with far less
>> power, & who, moreover, were told by surrounding cultures that
>> they'd been created to be slaves of the gods to do their scut work,
>> would have seen it as a word of liberation.)
>>
>>
>>
>> But the other - & theologically more serious considertaion - is that
>> sin deflects us from the task God gives us. The point is not so
>> much, as in traditional descriptions of the fall, that we lost some
>> ability, but that, being turned away from God, we want to use the
>> abilities we have for our own benefit - i.e., not to care for
>> creation but to use it for our own good.
>>
>>
>>
>> So where does humanity become fully the image of God? Maybe 25
>> December, 4 B.C. (with a bit of poetic license).
>>
>>
>>
>> Shalom
>>
>> George
>>
>> http://home.roadrunner.com/~scitheologyglm
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>>
>> From: Dehler, Bernie
>>
>> Cc: asa@calvin.edu
>>
>> Sent: Thursday, October 08, 2009 12:18 PM
>>
>> Subject: RE: [asa] The image of God- question for Lamoureux
>>
>>
>>
>> George said: "My own view is that the image of God refers to the
>> commission given humanity to represent God in ruling/caring for
>> creation - "let them have dominion &" helps to explain the concept. "
>>
>>
>>
>> Did that commission happen at one time for all existing humans, or
>> is it an emergent thing, as they are gradually given representation
>> for God as their capabilities (in intellect, etc.) emerge? One is a
>> direct action by God, the other is sort of built into the system
>> (like fully gifted creation). Since we know that man gradually
>> evolved, an emergence seems rational. Otherwise, you have God
>> looking at the intermediate state of mankind, in various stages
>> within the population, then saying "OK, now is my time to bestow my
>> image upon them all." That would seem to be arbitrary, as if one
>> year prior wasn't good enough, but waiting for the next year might
>> have been too much of a delay.
>>
>>
>>
>> ...Bernie
>>
>>
>>
>> ________________________________________
>>
>> From: George Murphy [mailto:GMURPHY10@neo.rr.com]
>>
>> Sent: Thursday, October 08, 2009 8:57 AM
>>
>> To: Dehler, Bernie
>>
>> Cc: asa@calvin.edu
>>
>> Subject: Re: [asa] The image of God- question for Lamoureux
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Bernie -
>>
>>
>>
>> Since you mention me, let me jump in. It's clear from the use of
>> the plural "them" and the phrase "male and female he created them"
>> in Gen.1:26-28 that the reference is to humanity in general and not
>> just to a single male human. Thus it is proper to translate 'adham
>> in v.26 as "humankind" as NRSV does. (Of course that can also be
>> the sense of "man" in the older KJV.) It's a bit confusing that the
>> male singular is also used in v.27 but it's possible to read this as
>> Westermann does in his Genesis 1-11, "according to the image of God
>> he created it" - "it" being "humanity. Hebrew has no neuter 3d
>> person pronoun. Or the use of the singular my emphasize that each
>> individual shares in the image.
>>
>>
>>
>> It's open to harmonizers to argue that "male and female" refer to
>> Adam and Eve, not humankind in general. But that's artificial since
>> the 1st creation account knows nothing of individuals named Adam and
>> Eve.
>>
>>
>>
>> My own view is that the image of God refers to the commission given
>> humanity to represent God in ruling/caring for creation - "let them
>> have dominion &" helps to explain the concept. But the old idea
>> that it means rationality isn't completely off base since humans
>> have to be rational to exercise such regency.
>>
>>
>>
>> All the speculations aside, nothing is said in Genesis about
>> humanity losing the image of God, how much of it was lost, etc. As
>> a matter of fact that whole idea of humanity as the image of God
>> isn't pursued in the OT. It gets picked up in the NT where Christ
>> is the true image of God - which means that Christ, not "Adam",
>> shows us what humanity is supposed to be.
>>
>>
>>
>> Shalom
>>
>> George
>>
>> http://home.roadrunner.com/~scitheologyglm
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>>
>> From: "Dehler, Bernie" <bernie.dehler@intel.com>
>>
>> Cc: <asa@calvin.edu>
>>
>> Sent: Thursday, October 08, 2009 10:37 AM
>>
>> Subject: [asa] The image of God- question for Lamoureux
>>
>>
>>
>> >I was just reviewing "the image of God" from my favorite textbook
>> and theologian "Christian Theology" by Millard J. Erickson, and I
>> think it leads me to a fascinating question for Denis Lamoureux and
>> his theories.
>>
>> >
>>
>> > Millard describes the three views/theories of "the image of God,'
>> labeled "substantive, relational, and functional." He also says all
>> three views are not completely satisfying (pg. 517 chapter summary),
>> then gives a detailed analysis using Scripture with his own opinion.
>>
>> >
>>
>> > So it seems to me, after looking at Millard's discussion, that the
>> image of God is completely spiritual (as well as a mystery), and in
>> no way can be scientifically measured, etc. (just like the existence
>> of God, the Devil, etc.).
>>
>> >
>>
>> > However- this does pose a very interesting question for Denis
>> Lamoureux. As I understand Denis, he says "there is no Adam" just
>> like there is no firmament. Can we go farther? The only mention of
>> "made in the image of God" is also from the same passage! No
>> firmament, no literal man named Adam... why not also no literal
>> 'image of God' given at one point. Wouldn't that be consistent? It
>> is all Gen. chapter 1! Shouldn't the same hermeneutic be used on
>> the whole chapter?
>>
>> >
>>
>> > Also- since we know that God made humans biologically through
>> evolution, and there is no literal Adam, that means to give 'man and
>> woman' an 'image of God' it would likely have been given to all
>> people everywhere at that point. This solves the problem of man one
>> man being picked as a representative, then trying to figure out how
>> some humans have the image and some don't, and how the image
>> descends to children. So giving the 'image' all at one to all
>> humans at one time means there was no single guy picked-out,
>> contrary to Dick Fischer's thesis. So _with_biological_evolution_,
>> we have these choices for theology:
>>
>> >
>>
>> > 1. "Image" given at one time to all humans, and their
>> descendents. Who teaches this view SPECIFICALLY (I don't know)?
>> This way, there's no mystery as to how descendents get it.. they
>> just get it by birth. (I think George Murphy would likely accept
>> this, amongst many other possible theories too.)
>>
>> >
>>
>> > 2. "Image" given to one representative person, with mystery as to
>> how descendents and peers get it (Dick Fisher, and Roman Catholic
>> church?).
>>
>> >
>>
>> > 3. "Image" is figurative like the firmament. It just describes
>> our God-like attributes (love, compassion, intelligence, etc.).
>> (This is MY extension of Lamoureux's work, although I'm not a
>> believer, it would have been my theory if I remained). This is
>> consistent with saying 'there is no literal Adam like there is no
>> literal firmament.' In this sense, the image is from EMERGENCE.
>> Humans are accountable to sin to the degree that they are able to
>> perceive it (Luke 12). It is a figurative term for a
>> capability/structure that humans have, as it is a part of their
>> structure/make-up (MADE in the image of God).
>>
>> >
>>
>> > Luke 12:
>>
>> > 47"That servant who knows his master's will and does not get ready
>> or does not do what his master wants will be beaten with many blows.
>> 48But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment
>> will be beaten with few blows. From everyone who has been given
>> much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted
>> with much, much more will be asked.
>>
>> >
>>
>> > Interesting quote:
>>
>> > RE: Millord pg. 536 in summary:
>>
>> > "The image is universal in humankind. It was to Adam, human, that
>> the image was given. Whether one regards him as the first human
>> being or as a representative or symbolic being, "Adam" was the whole
>> human race and "Eve" was the mother of all living.
>>
>> >
>>
>> > After this discussion finishes up, I'd like to next talk about
>> "the entrance of sin" into the world in regards to evolution (so
>> please save that for later).
>>
>> >
>>
>> > ...Bernie
>>
>> >
>>
>> >
>>
>> >
>>
>> > 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.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.421 / Virus Database: 270.14.5/2419 - Release Date: 10/07/09
05:18:00

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sun Oct 11 23:48:36 2009