At the presentation in Grand Rapids led by Richard Mouw, Deborah Haarsma, and Praveen Sethupathy, Dr Mouw mentioned his meeting with Bernard Ramm (also detailed at “How I changed My Mind About Evolution”).
He recounted how Bernard Ramm got into trouble for positing the possibility of evolution from popular opposition. However, in response to his question as to whether he ever regretted it, "Oh, no,” he said. "All the criticism I ever received was worth it, just to know that there would never be a student of mine who, after studying with me, went off to Harvard and lost his or her faith because I never allowed them to wrestle with the kinds of issues that I raised in that book.”
I suspect that the Haarsmas would think about putting it in as one of the wide variety of views in their “Origins” book; and maybe the Grudems, Moreland and Gaugers would also consider it, in an effort to give another option for young, struggling Christians to struggle forward and combine both science and faith.
God bless, as always.
this was a presentation–I was not a participant–in Lagrave church! Sorry I misrepresented it by mistake.There were 400 people! I did meet Jim Stump, Ryan Bebej, and Dennis Venema. They won’t remember me from Adam (allusion intended).
this was a presentation–I was not a participant–in Lagrave church! Sorry I misrepresented it by mistake.There were probably 300-400 people! I did meet Jim Stump, Ryan Bebej, and Dennis Venema. They won’t remember me from Adam (allusion intended). The title was “Common Ground in Science and Faith.” There was quite a range, from children of 12 to college (some nonChristian) to elderly.
It is not my intention to over-sell, though I am sure my enthusiasm for the “theoretical benefits” of Genealogical Adam does incline me to be ahead of the curve. I hope I am only temporarily ahead of the curve. But I must confess that there is a possibility that @Swamidass’ efforts to find widespread acceptance for Genealogical Adam amongst Creationists may not go as far as any of us would like.
But I do stand firm behind my sincere belief that Genealogical Adam offers Creationists something they have not had in a very long time: a way for Christians who are engaged in professions of Science, and a way for Christians who generally support Evolutionary science, to accept Special Creation of two humans (Adam & Eve) without requiring all the fields of science to be overturned.
Pursuant to this unique accomplishment, Joshua has started to record Creationist endorsements. Below is a link to 2 OEC and 1 YEC scholars (so far) who are willing to take a stance on Genealogical Adam (Posting #1455 of this thread):
When we have more to add, eventually we’ll be able to set up a dedicated thread for these endorsements.
See, if you want to start appealing to the next generation, Randy, what you’re supposed to do in such a gathering is to turn around and use your selfie stick to take a picture just like that but with you in it. Then give us a link to your Instagram post about it… #nofilter
@gbrooks9, @AMWolfe, I think that the mission of Biologos is to improve access to the Christian faith–both to those who might lose their faith when jumping from YEC to evolution, and those who already are in evolution and struggle with faith. So I would think that the target is not only YEC’s, but also evolution-believing atheists and agnostics. Thus, a more naturalistic point of view, like Lamoureux’ and Miller’s, is also valid to keep in mind in the big tent.
But again, the discourse is unrelated to Biologos itself. Talking to the directors is going to the horse’s mouth.
We embrace the historical Christian faith , upholding the authority and inspiration of the Bible.
We affirm evolutionary creation , recognizing God as Creator of all life over billions of years.
We seek truth , ever learning as we study the natural world and the Bible.
We strive for humility and gracious dialogue with those who hold other views.
We aim for excellence in all areas, from science to education to business practices.
What We Believe
We believe the Bible is the inspired and authoritative word of God. By the Holy Spirit it is the “living and active” means through which God speaks to the church today, bearing witness to God’s Son, Jesus, as the divine Logos, or Word of God.
Thanks for sharing. I think this kind of presentation is something we need more of. The problem in my part of the world, is that few churches would be comfortable hosting it. I know in my community, a pastor that hosted such a panel would a best get a lot of angry emails, and at worst would be looking for a job. I agree with the comment made in your link by Dr. Mouw, " I need safe places in which to explore with other Christians who are also willing to explore."
Unfortunately, it is difficult to find that safe place. For many of us this forum is one of the few places we can openly discuss these topics. Hopefully as time goes on, more of these discussions can take place in the areas that need them most.
I believe Creation was revealed to the author (by oral tradition or writing) of Genesis in 7 calendar days, not the the universe was formed in a calendar week. Note that the sun was not even created until day 4 so there were no calendar day until day 4.
Jonah was dead and brought back to life after three days, Jesus said “A wicked generation asks for a sign, but they will only be given the sign of Jonah”. The Book of Jonah is a beautiful illustration of loving your enemy in the Old Testament, but all anyone talks about is the fish.
There was no magic in Samson’s hair. He was committed to be a Nazarene (like John the Baptist) from birth by his mother. He ignored all those commitments. When the Spirit of God finally left him, he didn’t even know it as he was so far gone. The story is analogous to Esau selling his birthright for a bowl of soup, because he placed no value on it. Samson’s strength was from the Spirit of God, not from his magic hair.
This was affirmed when Samson repented before his death and his strength was restored, even without his magic hair.
His hair grew back but he received no strength from it. It was only when he prayed to God to restore his strength (17:28) did he become strong again. His hair was only an outward symbol to others of the covenant his mother made with God.
When Jesus spit into the ground, made mud and healed the blind man, was the dirt magic or was the spit? These are only mechanisms to facilitate the faith of the blind man. I think this is why Jesus healed in many different ways so people would not be caught up in the method but in the Man.
The brazen serpent, the crucifix and the Arc of the Covenant are other examples of mechanisms of faith and symbols of covenants, there is no magic in them. A good example is also in the Book of Judges when Israel marches against the Philistines with the Arc in front of them and they are soundly defeated and the Arc captured as their hearts were far from God. There is no magic in the Bible.
What!!? You mean the Indiana Jones, ummm, documentaries about the ark may have been stretching the truth and that it won’t melt people’s faces if they try to open it?!
The face melting scene is actually right out of the Bible (Zech 14:12), only it occurred a little bit before the end times. Zechariah 3 is one of my favorite chapters in the Bible.
I certainly can’t be the one who challenges your confidence in your conclusion on the Samson matter.
However, one of the fundamental principles of Text-Critical analysis of Biblical text is to ask questions like why would the scribe even mention that his hair is growing back … unless it was a pretty important aspect of the story?
At the very least, all the scribe is doing is throwing confusion into the story. But at the most likely, the scribe is telling you who Samson used to be … a Canaanite sun god, which Jewish scribes intentionally turned into a Hercules-like human, to take the “pagan content” out of the story!
12 This is the plague with which the Lord will strike all the nations that fought against Jerusalem: Their flesh will rot while they are still standing on their feet, their eyes will rot in their sockets, and their tongues will rot in their mouths. 13 On that day people will be stricken by the Lord with great panic. They will seize each other by the hand and attack one another. 14 Judah too will fight at Jerusalem. The wealth of all the surrounding nations will be collected—great quantities of gold and silver and clothing. 15 A similar plague will strike the horses and mules, the camels and donkeys, and all the animals in those camps.
I always have trouble definitively saying something is from something–conjecture is easier. For example, to say that the Genesis days are figurative is easy to speculate, but hard to prove (I personally say that they were not figurative, more likely just science of the day). So–I would hesitate to say that Samson is an adaptation of a Canaanite god–seems every culture likes to have the “necessary abstract” and idealization (heroism) of a given characteristic–female or male. This captures our imagination. Right?
I think it’s an important detail in the lesson of “covenantal cosmetology.” Samson’s hair was the symbol of what God set him apart to be as a Nazirite. He broke other parts of the Nazirite vow in chapters 14-15 (corpses, fruit of the vine) but still had his strength because the symbol remained intact.
Later when it says Samson’s hair “began to grow again,” it is a hope-filled statement that despite Samson’s faithlessness, God will be faithful to keep his vow.
Samson’s hair was the symbol of what God set him apart to be as a Nazirite. He broke other parts of the Nazirite vow in chapters 14-15 (corpses, fruit of the vine) but still had his strength because the symbol remained intact.