And coincidentally, Bernie's alma mater is here in Atlanta and my mitlitant YEC seminary professor friend that I have introduced to the list taught at Luther Rice during this time and is a colleague of all his professors.
John
> 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.
>
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 Mon Oct 12 00:19:36 2009
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Oct 12 2009 - 00:19:36 EDT