Re: God and evolution statements from Harrisburg paper

I can't speak for Ted but IMO he's on target here. OTOH if God did create a dynamic world in which life would develop through evolution (as the scientific evidence indicates) then surely God realized that suffering would be involved in the process even before any moral agents came on the scene. OTOH there are good theological reasons for arguing that the Incarnation was not contingent upon sin but was God's purpose for creation (cf. Eph.1:10). Going further, since the development of moral agents via evolution would almost inevitably mean the occurrence of sin as part of the process, it seems legitimate to say that in creating the universe as he did God intended the cross as the means of bringing the creation to its fulfillment - cf. I Pet.1:19-20 & Rev. 13:8.

Of course Ted did not have space to go into a detailed argument & I am by no means trying to put words into his mouth & suggest that he would agree with all of what I've said here. This is simply my own way of fleshing out his statement.

Shalom
George
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Iain Strachan
  To: Randy Isaac
  Cc: Ted Davis ; asa
  Sent: Monday, October 03, 2005 3:24 AM
  Subject: Re: God and evolution statements from Harrisburg paper

  Ted wrote (Patriot news):

  Biological evolution, with its long and twisted path, suggests further that the creation reflects the character of the suffering servant who upholds it now.

  This is an interesting viewpoint & one I've not seen before. Are you saying that the suffering in the world ( e.g. Richard Dawkins makes much of the amount of suffering due to evolution and struggle for survival) mirrors the suffering of Christ? I'm trying to get my brain round this one - is there not a problem in that it suggests that God deliberately created an evolving world that would suffer, rather than the traditional view that suffering is the result of the Fall ( not necessarily literal, but our deliberate choice to disobey God)? Maybe I've misread what you said though.
Received on Mon Oct 3 12:28:00 2005