RE: [asa] From Denis Lamoureux

From: Dick Fischer <>
Date: Mon Oct 12 2009 - 10:38:40 EDT
Hi Bernie:
Those who try to refute the historical integrity of Scripture in general and Genesis specifically have no justifiable arguments, they only have rhetorical, bombastic, hysterical arguments and become frustrated when you pound them with data and evidence.  (Witness George for example, but what would Batman be without the Joker to harass him?)
But I am far more concerned about anybody falling away from the faith then I am with what they think about Genesis.  It truly saddens me when that happens.  I see YEC apologists as a cancer in the body of Christ and self-avowed atheists as seeking personal gain at the gospel's expense.  But honest seekers are a puzzlement to me.  Isn't there enough in the messages of Christ and Paul to draw one into belief?
I went through what it appears you are going through, Bernie, and I only can hope and pray that you come out the other side strengthened in your faith as I did.
I received my Master's degree from a charismatic seminary although I personally have never been baptized by the Holy Ghost.  I don't pray in tongues, prophesy, or caste out evil spirits, but I know Christians who can and do.  When you are in the midst of a group of students and the Holy Spirit comes over one of them and that student begins to shake and bursts out in a prophetic tongue you can only wonder at the power and complexity of the God we worship.
I know what you're thinking.  Not very scientific is it?

~Dick Fischer, author, lecturer
Historical Genesis from Adam to Abraham

Oct 11, 2009 12:41:30 PM, wrote:

FYI, I don’t respond to such emotional responses, instead looking for content to discuss.  So if others want to respond and heap up more emotion or go off on the same rant, I won’t respond to it, fyi.  If they have actual content, I’ll respond to it.  I’m one that tries to maximize the light and eliminate the heat when disagreeing with others.

Denis’ reply also indicates to me he no longer wants discussion, so it would also be pointless for me to ask him anything more regarding his email that might have some content to it.  Usually the response to such is more of the same.

Another person has wrote me privately and tried to convince me that I’m stubborn and not open-minded.  I responded that changing my belief system proves that I’m open-minded.  I also responded that if I agreed with his position, he would not call me stubborn; he only thinks I’m stubborn because I disagree with him.  It is al emotionalism that I avoid.


From: [] On Behalf Of George Murphy
Sent: Saturday, October 10, 2009 7:29 PM
To: ASA list
Subject: [asa] From Denis Lamoureux

Denis has asked me to post the message below to the list.




Dear Bernie,

I am no longer on the listserv. And for one reason: I'm tired of repeating the

same responses to you over and over and over again.


Your self-aggrandizing "extension" of my work is a shameful proof-texting.

How many times do I have to tell you that you're entrenched in CONFLATION.

NO firmament & NO Adam DOES NOT lead to NO Image of God. You've

collapsed these distinct categories (2 physical, 1 metaphysical) together.

I do the absolute opposite in my books. Which makes me wonder: did you

actually read them?


Look it Bernie, so you've lost the Faith. That's too bad. As far as

I'm concerned, that's a mistake. But don't try to justify yourself

with these silly pseudo-intellectual "arguments." Just be a stand

up guy and say: I choose not to believe.  It's clear to me that your

issues are not academic . . ..




From: Dehler, Bernie <>
Date: Thu Oct 08 2009 - 10:37:13 EDT

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?

To unsubscribe, send a message to with "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message. Received on Mon Oct 12 10:40:52 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Oct 12 2009 - 10:40:52 EDT