Re: [asa] Pinnock on Climbing out of the Swamp

From: David Opderbeck <dopderbeck@gmail.com>
Date: Mon Mar 03 2008 - 19:43:11 EST

Of possible interest to this thread: some surfing on this theme led me to
what looks like a very interesting new book by Kenton Sparks: "God in Human
Words: An Evangelical Appropriation of Critical Scholarship" (
http://tinyurl.com/2emsw5)

Here's the publisher's blurb:

"In *God's Word in Human Words*, [Sparks] argues that the insights from
historical and biblical criticism can indeed be valuable to evangelicals and
may even yield a new set of solutions to seemingly intractable problems in
biblical studies while avoiding pat answers. This constructive response to
biblical criticism includes taking seriously both the divine and the human
aspects of the Bible and acknowledging the diversity that exists in the
biblical texts. The discussion is substantive, thorough, and even
controversial, as the author offers up challenges to the evangelical status
quo."

  On Mon, Mar 3, 2008 at 5:49 PM, George Murphy <gmurphy@raex.com> wrote:

It depends on what criticisms from science are in view. Some
supposedly scientific
> criticisms are really philosophical in nature. E.g., the
> argument that Jesus couldn't have risen from the dead because science has
> shown us that the dead stay dead - essentially Hume's position - is based
> on
> the assumption that there can be no violations of our present scientific
> understanding of life & death. Or some criticisms (e.g., Dawkins or
> Stenger) assume that if there is a God then we have to be able to find
> scientific evidence for a deity. (Note, BTW, the similarity with P.
> Johnson.) Those are different from a scientific criticism of a YEC
> reading
> of the Bible on the grounds that we have very strong scientific evidence
> for
> an ancient earth & evolution.
> Shalom
> George
> http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jon Tandy" <tandyland@earthlink.net> To: "'ASA list'" <
> asa@calvin.edu>
> Sent: Monday, March 03, 2008 4:40 PM
> Subject: RE: [asa] Pinnock on Climbing out of the Swamp
> George,
> I agree with what you said in the broader sense, but I think Pinnock's
> statement is still correct.
> He didn't say "it is the evidence of the text, rather than the EVIDENCE
> from
> science, which ought to move evangelicals..." Rather, he is saying
> evangelicals shouldn't change their theology simply out of an effort to
> "avoid modern criticism from science". I think this is a very valid point
> that does need to be emphasized. It is the EVIDENCE from science that
> reveals the need for a new explanation, so we turn to the EVIDENCE from
> the
> text to show that such an answer is coherent, and even arguably represents
> a
> "high view" of scripture.
> It is NOT because we are seeking to hide the light of the gospel out of
> embarrassment from scientific critics, or watering down the truth of
> scripture simply to make the gospel more presentable to scholars and
> academics. This is what some fundamentalist critics allege, and it needs
> to
> be answered very firmly (as you have) that it's the evidence itself that
> drives the search for answers. I had a conversation the other day in
> which
> I made the point that even if we didn't have Darwin's theory of evolution
> to
> deal with, scientists and theologians would still have to face the
> evidence
> (of an ancient earth, biological and geological sequences, etc.) and come
> up
> with a theory to could explain it all.
> Jon Tandy
> -----Original Message-----
> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
> Behalf Of George Murphy
> Sent: Monday, March 03, 2008 3:07 PM
> To: ASA list
> Subject: Re: [asa] Pinnock on Climbing out of the Swam (was Lamoureux,
> Concordism, and Inerrancy)
> Don -
> While I agree with what you've said about Genesis itself, I think that
> your
> final sentence - or rather Pinnock - needs some correction. You said:
> "Pinnock says that it is the evidence of the text, rather than the desire
> to
> avoid modern criticism from science, which ought to move evangelicals
> away
> from a misreading of the first creation account as a scientifically
> informative tract and burdening themselves with enormous and unnecessary
> difficulties."
> I think that it is important to emphasize that there is evidence both
> internal to the text (which Pinnock refers to) and external to it (i.e.,
> scientific knowledge about the world) that points to a non-historical,
> non-modern science reading of the Genesis creation accounts. The internal
> evidence tells us that there are other legitimate ways of reading the text
> but cannot in themselves absolutely rule them out. After all, there is a
> long tradition of Jewish & Christian scholars before the rise of modern
> science who did read them in that way. It is then the scientific evidence
> which tells us - if we think that our theology ought to be coherent with
> the
> way the world really is - that among the available choices we should read
> the texts as something other than historical or scientific narratives.
> Science doesn't dictate to theology but theology needs to take science
> seriously.
> I think it's especially important to be clear about this when we're
> talking
> to skeptics or critics of Christian. It will strike them as disingenuous
> in
> the extreme if we seem to be saying, "Well, we didn't really need science
> to
> tell us anything."
> Shalom
> George
> http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Don Nield" <d.nield@auckland.ac.nz>
> To: "David Opderbeck" <dopderbeck@gmail.com>
> Cc: "Michael Roberts" <michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk>; "George Murphy"
> <gmurphy@raex.com>; "ASA list" <asa@calvin.edu>
> Sent: Monday, March 03, 2008 3:38 PM
> Subject: [asa] Pinnock on Climbing out of the Swam (was Lamoureux,
> Concordism, and Inerrancy)
> >I heartily agree with David's recommendation. Back in 2000, in an
> >article
> >in "Stimulus" (a N. Z. publication) in response to an article by Jonathan
> >Sarfati, I wrote:
> > In a long two-part article which traces the centuries-old effort to
> > harmonize the Bible with modern science, written by the evangelical
> > geologist Davis Young12, the author concluded that the effort had
> failed.
> > He wrote (page 1) "The evangelical community is still mired in a swamp
> in
> > its attempt to understand the proper relationship between biblical
> > interpretation and the scientific endeavor." Another evangelical, Clark
> > Pinnock13, took up this theme. He wrote that the way out of the swamp is
> > to begin reading early Genesis appropriately in its own context, in the
> > setting of the life of ancient Israel, and to stop forcing modern
> agendas
> > upon it. Evangelicals who are supportive of the final authority of the
> > Scripture ought to be open to this. Pinnock is convinced that the text
> of
> > early Genesis invites a literary reading which does not call for a close
> > scientific concordance. The purpose of Genesis 1-11 first and foremost
> is
> > to teach certain theological truths which lie behind God's striking a
> > covenant with Abraham and his seed. The statement that God made the sun,
> > moon and stars on the fourth day, ought to tell us that this is not a
> > scientific statement. There are numerous indications that the writer of
> > Genesis 1 wanted to combat the errors contained in the creation myths of
> > the ancient world. There are evidences of literary artistry in the
> > construction of Genesis 1, notably the parallelism between the first and
> > second triad of days. The author is using the Hebrew week as a literary
> > framework for displaying the theology of creation. God creates the
> spaces,
> > and then he populates them. Pinnock says that it is the evidence of the
> > text, rather than the desire to avoid modern criticism from science,
> which
> > ought to move evangelicals away from a misreading of the first creation
> > account as a scientifically informative tract and burdening themselves
> > with enormous and unnecessary difficulties.
> > 12. D.A. Young, "Scripture in the hands of a geologist, " /Westminster
> > Theological Journal, /49 (1987), 1-34, 257-304.
> > 13. C. H. Pinnock, Climbing out of a swamp: The evangelical struggle to
> > understand the Creation texts. /Interpretation/ 43 (1989), 143-155.
> > Don/ /
> >
> > David Opderbeck wrote:
> >> Here is a quiz for everyone. Who said the following about Gen. 1-2,
> >> in criticism of "concordism" in evangelical hermeneutics, and when
> >> was it said? (I think the answer challenges Lamoureux's overly-broad
> >> thesis about evangelical hermeneutics, particularly as the author of
> >> this statement is mentioned en passant in one of Denis' footnotes):
> >>
> >> there is a modern set of presuppositions, linked to the realist
> >> epistemology
> >> most evangelicals favor, which has a profound influence on their
> >> exegesis.
> >> Having a realist epistemology means that they will tend to favor truth
> of
> >> a
> >> factual and scientific kind and not be quite so open to truth of a more
> >> symbolic or metaphorical type. One sees it in the evangelical doctrine
> of
> >> biblical inspiration, which is protective of cognitive truth in general
> >> and
> >> factual inerrancy in particular. It means hermeneutically that the
> >> "natural"
> >> way to read the Bible is to read it as literally and as factually as
> >> possible. In apologetics too evangelicals like to appeal to empirical
> >> reason: They like to ask, If you can't trust the Bible in matters of
> >> fact,
> >> when can you trust it? In many ways then, evangelicals are in
> substantial
> >> agreement with the modern agenda which also prefers the factual and the
> >> scientific over the symbolic and figurative. What could be more modern
> >> that
> >> to search for scientific truth in texts three thousand years old? Such
> a
> >> modern presupposition will demand the right to read the Bible in modern
> >> terms whatever the authorial intention of the text might be. It just
> >> assumes
> >> that our values must have been the same as those entertained by the
> >> ancient
> >> Israelites.
> >>
> >> The influence of these presuppositions and this mindset is
> >> overwhelmingly
> >> powerful, and the difficulty standing in the way of evangelicals
> >> transcending it is enormous. Changing one's presuppositions is a
> painful
> >> business, and it will not be easy for evangelicals to listen to the
> >> Bible's
> >> own agenda and to put their own on the shelf. Yet it can be done, and
> it
> >> is
> >> happening.
> >>
> >> This area of hermeneutics also reveals the "docetic" potential very
> >> near
> >> the surface of the evangelical doctrine of Scripture, an unconscious
> wish
> >> not to have God's Word enter into the creaturely realm.31 A strong
> >> emphasis
> >> on the divine inspiration of the text naturally tends to overshadow the
> >> obligation to read the Bible in its own human and historical setting in
> >> order to grasp its truth. It encourages readers to seek the pure divine
> >> message to themselves here and now and to assume they will grasp its
> >> meaning
> >> best by reading the text in the most "natural" way, which means, in a
> way
> >> congenial to the assumptions of the reader, maximizing the danger of
> text
> >> manipulation.
> >>
> >> Inevitably this also leads to theological impoverishment. So much
> >> time
> >> and
> >> energy is consumed tilting at windmills that little gets said about the
> >> actual doctrine of creation.
> >>
> >>
> >> The answer: Clark Pinnock, in 1989 ("Climbing Out of a Swamp: The
> >> Evangelical Struggle to Understand the Creation Texts," Interpretation
> 43
> >> No. 2 (1989)). If you can gain access to this article, do so -- it is
> >> very
> >> worthwhile.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > 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 Mar 3 19:44:17 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Mar 03 2008 - 19:44:17 EST