Re: Assurance of faith (was: Sin & Evolution)

Samantha Gore wrote (in part):
> ...
> By God's providence I found myself as a new Christian at one of the UK's
> leading Evangelical Anglican churches. They taught me the Bible, not
> 'evangelicalism',

I don't understand the difference between being taught "the Bible" and being
taught "evangelicalism".

> and so I have from the beginning understood that
> redemption refers not only to my bodily resurrection but to the
> re-creation of the whole of the cosmos.

In my understanding, the first meaning of "redemption" is what God gives to
a person who personally accepts Christ as Lord, and that immediately. It is
first of all a spiritual reality, which usually has (and should have)
practical consequences for one's present life, i.e. the beginning of the
"new life" as a christian. A future consequence of this, of course, to be
realized upon Christ's return (second coming), is the bodily resurrection.
The re-creation of the cosmos is something else, although the term "new
creation" is used of the new life given to the believer (2 Cor. 5:17; Gal.
6:15). But what will happen to the non-human creation is designated as a
liberation (Rom. 8:21), not a redemption - after all, non-human creation (at
least in the visible part of our earthly world) has no free consciousness,
thus cannot sin. The advent of a "new heaven" and "new earth" (Rev. 21:1)
may be called a "new creation", although the term is not used in the
biblical text.

> ...
> Two key areas I have come across are cosmology and evolution - here's what
> I think so far:
>
> cosmology - size & age of universe doesn't displace God, instead it makes
> Him even larger and greater. and His doing all this to have a relationship
> with us makes us even more amazing (because we are even more tiny compared
> to Him and yet we still have extrinsic value as his creatures). Does he
> sit outside or is he immanent? immanence is more appealing to me but I
> note Polkinghorne's versus Peacocke's views and that my theology is more
> in line with Polkinghorne's not Peacocke's.

"Outside" sounds like being in the same (kind of) dimensions as our world,
the creation. But you probably mean something like "transcendent", rather. I
would say that both transcendence and immanence apply.
(1) Being the Creator, God is, in His essence, distinct from creation, not
just in some sense "outside" of our cosmos, not even if you add more
space-time dimensions to the between 4 and 11 or so cosmologists are talking
about. All our talking about His being in "higher dimensions" is an analogy,
not to be taken literally. He is transcendent in transcending all dimensions
we can ever imagine.
(2) At the same time, just as a higher dimension pervades a lower one (to
return to the analogy), God is everywhere, in this sense immanent in all
created dimensions. - Romans 10:6-8, ``But the righteousness that is by
faith says: "Do not say in your heart, 'Who will ascend into heaven?'" (that
is, to bring Christ down) "or 'Who will descend into the deep?'" (that is,
to bring Christ up from the dead). But what does it say? "The word is near
you; it is in your mouth and in your heart," that is, the word of faith we
are proclaiming.´´
(3) God is in Christ. This is true in various ways, even including Christ
living in the believers' hearts. Maybe this is both transcendent and
imminent at the same time.
 
> evolution - I was tending to creationism because so much that I read (e.g.
> in New Scientist) sees human development in terms of purely natural
> evolution with no acknowledgement of God.

It has been emphasized many times on this list that the opposition of the
action of God and natural processes, and their mutual exclusion, is an
egregious error. Donald M. MacKay wrote of "nothing-buttery". If God exists,
the only rational way of dealing with this is to say "both... and". God
works through evolution, and this includes human evolution (and I am writing
as one who has criticized much of what was said in the name of "evolution" -
there is too much Dawkinsism and Dennettism around).

> ...
> This raises some big questions (in common with many people).
> If man comes from random causes, life has no purpose or meaning.

Random processes are natural processes used by God, and all natural
processes have some random aspects. Randomness is a description of our
ignorance, technical limitations, or it is even inherent in some processes
(quantum!), and that's how God created the physical laws of our world. There
is no such thing as a "random cause", just unknown causes and lawful
indeterminacy. Purpose and meaning are realities inaccessible to science,
but discernible by faith in God.

> Without a literal Fall, there is no need for Jesus and redemption.

What do you mean by "literal fall"? The sinfulness of every human being
(apart from Jesus) is proclaimed in the Bible and confirmed by everyone's
personal experience. There's the fall, very practically and literally.
Adam's fall reported in Gen. 3 is a testimony to this theological truth. In
this, Adam (who I believe was an historical person) is a representative of
all humanity. Our sin, however, does not depend on him having sinned - there
is no inherited sin, biological or otherwise. Rom. 5:12 explicitly states
that death as a consequence of sin came to all because all have sinned. No
need to be Adam's descendent, nor even having lived after him. There
certainly is a need for Jesus and redemption!

> Death and suffering before humanity implies an unmerciful God.

No. It implies that God gave freedom to His creatures, more to some, less to
others. A creation without the possibility of sin would be without a
possibility of creaturely love. A world of puppet creatures would be way
below God's greatness. God creating creatures able to sin and cause
suffering, but then entering Himself into this suffering to redeem the
sinners by taking upon Himself the greatest suffering reveals a mercy beyond
anything! To see the whole cosmic context beyond humans seems to require
thinking of angels (and fallen ones, at that), too (Eph. 6:10-18).

> God would have pronounced death and suffering "very good".

No. God pronounced "all that He had made" "very good" (Gen. 1:31). This
certainly excludes sin (human and angels'), and maybe lots of its
consequences. Corruption of God's good creation may have been going on at
the same time as its creation and development, for long eons, since the fall
of Satan, whenever that occurred. Also, we may need to consider that our
concepts of what is "good" may not always be identical with God's ideas.

> Christ's death was unjust if physical death wasn't the penalty for sin.

I don't understand the logic of this claim. Is it the idea that sin came
with Adam, therefore (animal) death before Adam could not possibly be the
penalty for sin? Even if this idea (typical of YECs) were correct (it is
not: animal death is nowhere in the Bible called a consequence of sin), why
would then Christ's death be unjust? Rather, what is clear, is that the
consequence of sin is spiritual death, and Christ's substitutionary
sacrifice on the cross - his physical death accompanying his spiritual
suffering - provides spiritual and existential redemption of the believers
from sin and from its final consequence of the second spiritual death. What
is also clear is that Christ rose bodily from the dead, and so will the
believers in him at his return (some even without first dying). How far
physical death is contained in those spiritual transactions is not so clear.
The naive equation "sin = physical death" is clearly wrong, as sin does not
result in immediate death, and salvation does not confer immediate
immortality. For the time being, we see much "in a mirror, dimly" (1 Cor.
13:12) or indirectly.

I certainly don't claim to have all the answers, but I hope some of my
responses will help you see somewhat less "dimly".

>...
> - Where God makes an end of teaching, we should make an end of trying to
> be wise. Calvin, Job 38 - 42, some things are beyond us to answer

Yes to your last clause. But I don't accept the first one. We are encouraged
or even enjoined to grow in grace, knowledge etc. There certainly is much in
God's word which I don't yet fully understand, even perhaps not at all - so
why should I stop trying to improve my understanding? Furthermore, there are
lots of things God just chose not to tell us because He gave us the ability
to find out by ourselves, such as science. Did God tell Adam the names of
all animals?! He told us to subdue the earth, rule over the creatures, to
work the garden and take care of it. For that we need science and
technology.

> - some authors with Catholic views have addressed it. I've tried and I can
> occasionally glimpse their meaning but generally I can't relate to their
> theology (where are the evangelical responses that deal with the macro
> level - all of creation was in bondage to sin & decay and has been
> redeemed - and the micro level - I, Samantha Gore, will be resurrected
> bodily?)

I don't know what catholic views you are thinking of, where there wouldn't
be any evangelical ones. About the liberation of non-human creation from
bondage to decay vs the redemption of humans from sin, I wrote shortly
above, but I confess that the meaning of the connection of the two areas
Paul addresses in Romans 8:19-22 is still quite a mystery to me. What you
call the "micro level", personal redemption and assurance, however, is
pretty clear in biblical teaching (though not in catholic one - is this your
problem?).

> - teleology - life-forms aren't getting more complex just better suited
> to their environments...

Life forms clearly got more complex since the prokaryotic-only era! Yet the
bacteria seem to be the ones best suited to their environments, often better
than the more complex organisms. The "automatic" increase in average (and
maximal) complexity, without any teleology, has been illustrated with the
"brick wall" at the lowest complexity compatible with life and the random
walk of biological forms produced. Of course, if taken as an argument
against teleology, this assumes "nothing-buttery". But teleology is
something science, due to its inherent limitations, cannot address.
 
> ... But is this adequate for my brother, and others
> like him, who isn't a Christian and who's response on me becoming one was
> 'what about the dinosaurs - you need a lobotomy!' ? What can I say to
> him?

Tell him to get serious about learning what christianity is about, not YEC.
 
> Do we need clarification of evolution to be made more public/accessible?
> am I asking questions that the apologists haven't caught up with yet?
> because they don't understand the science/language? ...
> Do I/we have to rely far more on the Holy
> Spirit and get on our knees to ask that He reveal the gospel by God's
> grace (resounding YES!!!).

Right!
 
> I wonder if some creationists have fears like me and have retreated into
> creationism rather than facing their fears. Is it possible for us to
> provide better responses to the questions I listed above that might help
> more people realise that evolution doesn't threaten their faith? And what
> about Christians who are OK with evolution but have less confidence in the
> Bible because of the controversy re Genesis?

You are right on target here. And these are some of the crucial areas of
discussion on this list.
 
> Answers on a postcard please! (if you are willing to reply)
>
> Kindest regards, Samantha
>...
> P.P.S. If you think my comments or your answers are worth sending to the
> list, please feel free to do so. S.

I am sorry I wrote too much for a postcard :-) But, thank you, with your
permission I take the liberty of cc-ing the list, as some others might be
interested.

Cheers, Peter

-- 
Dr. Peter Ruest, CH-3148 Lanzenhaeusern, Switzerland
<pruest@dplanet.ch> - Biochemistry - Creation and evolution
"..the work which God created to evolve it" (Genesis 2:3)