Re: [asa] Does ASA believe in Adam and Eve?

Phil -- I think you and I are on the same page. I still think, though, that
George is understanding your position a little differently. As I understood
George's characterization of your position, it would be that the scoffers
had a particular view of nature qua nature, similar to scientific
materialists today -- that nature is characterized by uniform laws that
cannot be interrupted by "miracles" of any sort -- sort of a proto-Humean
view of miracles.

What I hear you saying, or at least what I would agree with, is that the
focus of the scoffers is on the continuity of *human society*. Given the
broader cultural context in which Peter wrote, the scoffers probably
believed there might be a God or gods who could disrupt the regularity of
nature; or at least, if they had given up believing in God or the gods,
their unbelief was not expressed in any self-conscious understanding of the
regularity of natural laws. They scoffed, however, at the idea that God or
the gods would every do anything to put an end to human society -- "eating,
drinking, marrying, and giving in marriage," as Jesus put it. Either God or
the gods were too distant to care, or too arbitrary to follow through on a
promise of final judgment, or simply didn't really exist -- but in any
event, the Christian community's warning that "The End is Near" was to be
laughed away. What they had forgotten, Peter says, is that God already put
an end to human society once at the flood. The flood proves that God is not
arbitrary or passive; He will follow through on His threats of judgment.
Phil, your view is that, whether the human society destroyed by the flood
was a local one, a microcosm of the final judgment, or not, isn't *
necessarily* in view.

Phil, George, have I summarized the state of your discussion right?

One interesting thing none of us has focused on is in verse 5 of chapter 2:
"the earth was formed out of water and by water". Here Peter seems to be
echoing Gen. 1:2, and he could be read to be making a "scientific" statement
about the mechanism by which God made the earth. Of course, we know today
that the earth was not literally formed "out of water and by water" -- it
would be more accurate to say that the earth was formed "by rocks and dust
in a protoplanetary disk out of rocks and dust in a protoplanetary disk."
So it seems that, whatever hermeneutic we want to apply to Peter's
discussion of the flood, it has to be flexible enough to absorb Peter's
reference to the formation of the earth. My preference, of course, is to
focus on the intent of the passage: Peter isn't intending to offer any
authoritative teaching specifically about how the earth was formed, although
his choice of reference may reflect a background belief about this; the
intent of the reference is simply that God created all the elements and
commands them all towards his sovereign purposes, including judgment.

But is there a tension here with whether the hermeneutical assumptions an
apostolic writer brings to the Old Testament are themselves to be taken as
enscripturated or authoritative?

Thoughts on that?

On 3/31/07, philtill@aol.com <philtill@aol.com> wrote:
>
> *George said: What you seem to to be suggesting is that the scoffers in
> question are arguing for the uniformity of nature & against miraculous
> interventions...**I would have to ask why the author has chosen the flood
> as a counterexample instead of many of the other miraculous interventions
> that could be gathered from the OT.*
>
> *David said: The scoffing isn't about God's ability to destroy the earth,
> or generally about God's ability to do miracles in contrast to the
> uniformity of nature, it's about the belief in a personal God incarnate who
> will come to the world specifically to judge. *
> **
> =============
>
> I see this as two aspects of the same situation. There was the general
> worldview of the scoffers, and then there was the specific teaching of the
> Christians that conflicted with that worldview. The scoffers' worldview
> probably assumed uniformity of life or nature in that a supernatural being
> would not significantly intervene. The occaision of their scoffing in this
> case was the Christian teaching about the parousia and judgement, which they
> naturally disbelieved because of their worldview.
>
> One example of an anti-supernatural worldview during that era was
> Epicureanism. It developed during the Hellenistic era and flourished
> throughout the time of the early church. Wikipedia says, "*Epicurus was
> an atomic materialist, following in the steps of Democritus. His materialism
> led him to a general attack on superstition and divine intervention...The
> Epicureans believed in the existence of gods... It was thought that the gods
> were too far away from the earth to have any interest in what man was doing;
> so it did not do any good to pray or to sacrifice to them. The gods, they
> believed, did not create the universe, nor did they inflict punishment or
> bestow blessings on anyone..."*
>
> I wouldn't assume that the author of II Peter had the Epicureans or any
> other particular group in mind -- we don't know what kind of scoffers lived
> in his neighborhood -- but I think it is highly likely that he had these
> words of Jesus in mind:
>
> *"For the coming of the Son of Man will be just like the days of Noah.
> For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking,
> marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark,
> and they did not understand until the flood came and took them all away; so
> will the coming of the Son of Man be."* (Matt 24: 37-39, NASB)
> This passage explains why he connects the Flood to the Parousia. The
> scoffers he mentions in II Peter were echoing the attitude that Jesus
> described in this passage, in that civilization would continue its
> course without fear of divine intervene, characterized by their "eating and
> drinking, marrying and giving in marriage" and that "...they did not
> understand until..."
>
> I think Jesus teaches the same idea later in that same passage when he
> says,
>
> *"But suppose that servant is wicked and says to himself, 'My master is
> staying away a long time,' and he then begins to beat his fellow servants
> and to eat and drink with drunkards. The master of that servant will come on
> a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he is not aware of."* (
> Matt.24:48-50, NASB)
>
> The idea behind "saying away a long time" is that nature and civilization
> will continue its course without fear of intervention for the foreseeable
> future. In both of these examples, the people have a worldview that does
> not expect intervention, while the specific intervention that Jesus has in
> mind is the parousia and judgement.
>
> Phil
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: dopderbeck@gmail.com
> To: gmurphy@raex.com
> Cc: asa@calvin.edu
> Sent: Fri, 30 Mar 2007 9:26 PM
> Subject: Re: [asa] Does ASA believe in Adam and Eve?
>
> Just another thought I wanted to add -- the flood is a type concerning
> scoffers and the second coming because people would have likely scoffed at
> Noah when he was building the ark. * "When is this 'flood' going to
> happen? God isn't going to judge us, if there is a God." *There is also
> perhaps an echo of the serpent's lie in the scoffer's attitude: "*you
> won't surely die." *People live in denial about the surety of God's
> judgment, but he will surely return to judge.
>
> On 3/30/07, David Opderbeck <dopderbeck@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > *George said: What you seem to to be suggesting is that the scoffers in
> > question are arguing for the uniformity of nature & against miraculous
> > interventions.*
> >
> > Phil -- is that what you were suggesting? I didn't take it that way.
> >
> > It seems to me that the scoffers are deriding the idea of a God who
> > personally returns to judge. The scoffing isn't about God's ability to
> > destroy the earth, or generally about God's ability to do miracles in
> > contrast to the uniformity of nature, it's about the belief in a personal
> > God incarnate who will come to the world specifically to judge.
> >
> > If the scoffers are Greeks, it seems to me that their scoffing
> > would be in line with the sort of scoffing that evidently occurred against
> > Christians about the notion of the resurrection of the body. Their view of
> > God or the gods was that of detached, distant, arbitrary force, not of a God
> > whose character is consistent and judgment is sure. They could not conceive
> > of a God who would become man, die, rise again bodily, and keep a promise to
> > return to raise his followers and judge those who reject him: *"the
> > gods cannot be trusted to keep their word. Forget the gods. Give up this
> > foolishness and take your luck as it comes like everyone else."*
> >
> > Or, if the scoffers are Jews, their scoffing would be in line with the
> > rejection of Jesus as Messiah. They could not conceive of a messiah who
> > would first suffer and die and then rise again to return later. If
> > Jesus died, he was dead, and not the messiah. They scoffed at the Christian
> > community's eschatological hope: *"your messiah is dead -- where is
> > this coming you speak of? Why hasn't it happened? It hasn't happened
> > because he's rotting in the grave."*
> >
> > Whether they believed in some notion of the uniformity of nature isn't
> > the point -- and as you suggest, they probably didn't.
> >
> > The reason Peter chooses the flood is that it is *the* typological
> > example of God's judgment from the Jewish perspective. Peter's discussion
> > of the flood in chapter 2 in fact echoes almost precisely Jesus' use of the
> > flood as a type in Matthew 24 and Luke 17.
> >
> > Or Phil, did I miss your point?
> >
> > On 3/30/07, George Murphy <gmurphy@raex.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Phil et al -
> > >
> > > I think your argument is the best has been presented here against my
> > position. What you seem to to be suggesting is that the scoffers in
> > question are arguing for the uniformity of nature & against miraculous
> > interventions. I'll leave it to the historians to decide how likely that is
> > ~ A.D. 100. I would have to ask why the author has chosen the flood as
> > a counterexample instead of many of the other miraculous interventions that
> > could be gathered from the OT. Why the flood, which is at least in some
> > ways comparable to the destruction of the world that he's arguing for,
> > instead of some other disruption of the regularity of natural process such
> > as ( e.g.) Elisha's floating ax head.?
> > >
> > > On your following post: It's worth noting Herodotus' qualification
> > when he reports the circumnavigation of Africa: "which I do not myself
> > believe."
> > >
> > > Shalom
> > > George
> > > http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> ------------------------------
> AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free
> from AOL at *AOL.com*<http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/1615326657x4311227241x4298082137/aol?redir=http://www.aol.com>
> .
>
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sat Mar 31 11:41:11 2007