Bryan R. Cross wrote:
>
> Dan Eumurian wrote:
>
> > Dan Eumurian wrote:
> > > > 3) If God worked in natural history through a process of variation and
> > > > selection, perhaps there are traces of that process in salvation history
> > > > (Heilsgeschichte) as well. Possible examples include the history of
> > > > Israel's sin and judgment and the survival of a remnant; Jesus'
> > > > references to the delegation of authority (stewardship--cf. Matthew
> > > > 25:14-30) and subsequent rewards and punishments, and the references to
> > > > overcomers in Revelation 2-3. If these are not direct connections,
> > > > perhaps the processes are at least compatible.
> >
> > George Murphy wrote:
> > > I think your basic idea is on target but we can go deeper. The idea of
> > > development of life through natural selection, with its attendant suffering, loss, &
> > > death, is notoriously inconsistent with conventional ideas of God. So is God being on
> > > the side of the slaves rather than the slaveholders in Egypt, God vindicating one who
> > > had died under the curse of God's own law, and God justifying the ungodly.
> > > It's not so much that we see traces of biological natural selection in salvation
> > > history. Rather, believing in the God who is revealed in salvation history, we can
> > > see that same God as the one who creates through the processes of natural selection
> > > which science discovers.
>
> In special revelation, God is constantly helping the weak, lifting up the poor, deposing the
> lofty. He often chooses those that seem most unfit, and therefore unexpected. He shows grace
> to those who do not deserve it. This mode of operation is directly contrary to that of
> Darwinian evolution, where the fittest are rewarded and the weakest are exterminated. There is
> no such thing as 'grace' in the Darwinian system, where rewards are based solely on merit. The
> line of the Messiah is 'contaminated' with Gentiles like Ruth and Rahab. The Beatitudes and
> the Sermon on the Mount extol the anti-Darwinian moral character, "blessed are the meek, turn
> the other cheek, give to him who asks", etc. It is quite safe to say that Christianity is
> completely antithetically to social Darwinism. Anyone who claims to find social Darwinism in
> God's actions described in special revelation is practicing eisegesis.
Your analysis would be correct if natural selection were a matter of individuals
trying to "merit" survival by defeating enemies. In fact it's a matter of populations
being "selected" (note quotes) by environments, including unforseeable environmental
catastrophes. Gould has done a good job of emphasizing this.
Theologically, the significant thing about the evolutionary process is that life
develops out of conditions of privation, competition, & death - which of course is not
the way the conventional beneficent God of philosophical theism is supposed to work, &
why the process creates theodicy dilemmas for such theism. It is, however, coherent
with the character of the biblical God who creates life out of death (Exodus, exile &
return, justification of the ungodly), all centered on new creation out of God's own
participation in death. OTOH this is not a matter of God or believers simply being the
"fittest" who "survive" because God Incarnate gets killed along with the "losers" in the
process & is risen.
The fact that natural selection is a major factor in evolution doesn't mean that
that's where we're to get our ethics. This is just one more example of the toxic
effects of independent natural theology.
> > I think we basically agree. In what ways is the God of salvation history
> > the *same* as the God who creates through the processes of natural
> > selection? The slaves in Egypt were God's holy and spiritually free
> > people, swimming upstream, as it were, against an idolatrous,
> > authoritarian regime. As a far, far distant analogy to Christ, the
> > animal with a positive mutation who dies after having produced progeny
> > and provided for their care and protection has done its duty. (Need I
> > add, in the case of Christ it was no mutation, but rather a conscious
> > act of bringing forgiveness and eternal life to humankind?) God is not
> > satisfied with the development of the best dinosaur; he wants to push
> > the envelope. The theme of our church's annual PraiseFest today was
> > "Sing a New Song." The Lord doesn't simply want the best human
> > morality--he wants us to be open to the "new thing" he is doing, which
> > is founded on the best of the old.
>
> I'm sorry, but this whole paragraph doesn't even make any sense to me. How does any of this
> support the claim that special revelation supports or shows evidence of creation by
> mutation/natural selection?? At what point would you think you are beinning to read into the
> Scripture what is not there?
>
> > > > I suggest that just as God, who began the process of natural history,
> > > > occasionally intervened in it for the higher purpose of salvation as
> > > > recorded in Scripture, so he will occasionally make exceptions to the
> > > > natural laws and processes he has instituted. The exceptions justify the
> > > > rule, and both the rule and the exceptions glorify the Ruler.
> > >
> > > Many of the miracles of salvation history, & especially those of the NT, serve
> > > to point to Jesus as the presence of the God who works all the time through natural
> > > processes in nature - cf. the use of "sign" (semeion) to describe them & C.S. Lewis's
> > > emphasis in _Miracles_. What would be the corresponding sign value of, e.g., miraculous
> > > intervention to create life (something which, in addition, the Bible gives us no reason
> > > to posit)?
>
> Its amazing how God is hamstrung by a priori theology. The claim is that he can't
> supernaturally intervene in nature unless it is part of redemptive history and thereby points
> to Christ. How do you know that God's only supernatural direct action was in redemptive
> history? Just because it would seem useless to you? Just because the only supernatural direct
> actions you are aware of are recorded in redemptive history? Those are poor reasons, and they
> just beg the question. Furthermore, if each of the miracles in the OT point to Christ, then
> why assume that any miracle that wasn't explicitly written down in special revelation does not
> point to Christ?
First, someone who has previously affirmed belief in divine immutability is not
in a good position to criticize anyone else for a priori theology.
Second, I never said or will say that miracles can occur only in salvation
history. The whole separation of a separate realm of phenomena in the world as
"history", & of a separate realm of history as "salvation history" seems questionable to
me. What I pointed out is that the nature miracles in the NT function, _inter alia_, as
signs to point out the presence of the creator who operates all the time in the world
through natural processes, & that a miraculous creation of life in general would not
play that role. That doesn't prove that it couldn't have happened.
Third, I didn't simply say that the NT miracles "point to Christ" but that they
"point to Jesus as the presence of the God who works all the time through natural
processes in nature." The difference is non-trivial.
Finally, there is no reason at all on the basis of special revelation to think
that the origin of life took place in a way which cannot be understood in terms of
natural processes. As I have pointed out repeatedly, Genesis 1 points in just the
opposite direction.
Shalom,
George
-- George L. Murphy gmurphy@raex.com http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jul 16 2000 - 14:46:29 EDT