Thanks George for this clear response below. Without impugning it, I want
to highlight some theological tensions with theistic evolution that
evangelicals attracted to the idea don't seem to think through. I'm
particularly interested in reactions from fellow evangelicals here,
especially those who've just recently migrated to TE.
In popular evangelical books and materials about TE, such as Francis Collins
and Darrel Falk's books and Denis Lamareux's website materials, the primary
theological issue mentioned is the doctrine of scripture and the
interpretation of Gen. 1-11. This issue is usually quickly dismissed with
references to "allegory" or "accommodation." Even those treatments, IMHO,
are unfortunately superficial, but I think here there is the possibility of
more serious and sustained work on this within the broad context of
evangelical theology.
But the questions of scriptural interpretation and hermeneutic seem like a
drop in the bucket compared to these other nodes of tension:
-- harmitology: how does TE relate to the doctrine of sin, particularly
original sin and the fall
-- epistemology: how does accepting the conclusions of science concerning
evolution affect our view of knowledge, particularly the place and authority
of divine revelation in the process of human knowing
-- eschatology: is the final state the completion of an evolutionary
process, or a restoration from a fallen state
-- soteriology:
--- does a TE perspective suggest universalism, or is it
compatible with exclusivism (or evangelical variants thereof, including
inclusivism and accessiblism)
--- does a TE perspective suggest a non-substitutionary view of
the atonement
In short: does a TE position require evangelicals primarily to rethink how
they understand some parts of the Bible, as Collins, Falk and Lamerauex seem
to suggest, or does a consistent TE position *really *require a complete
revisioning / rejection of evangelical theology?
On Nov 29, 2007 11:19 AM, George Murphy <gmurphy@raex.com> wrote:
> David -
>
> Responding to your comments quickly & with no claim to completeness:
>
> >-- how does the image of Rev. 21-22 relate to second temple Jewish
> eschatology with respect to the telos of creation, if at all? Coming out
> of a strongly >dispensational background (having moved into more of a
> reformed amillennial view), it's been helpful to me as I've re-studied the
> NT's apocalyptic literature to >learn about its cultural / literary
> context. I need to learn more here. (Anyone know of a collection of
> non-canonical second temple apocalyptic literature?)
>
> Certainly 2d Temple eschatology provides some ideas & images of Rev.21-22but we shouldn't try to put new wine into old wineskins. "See, I am making
> all things new" in Rev.21:5 is crucial.
>
> >-- my understanding is that the telos of creation as a recapitulation of
> Eden is a strong theme in the tradition. I have started reading a little of
> and about Ireneaus, >but are there other strands of the tradition that
> support a non-recapitulation eschatology?
>
> Irenaeus' view of recapitulation is not just the idea of a return to a
> primordial state. In fact, it's more the idea of Christ going through the
> whole course of a human life & death than a return to Eden. Here's a long
> quote from Gustaf Wingren, *Man and the Incarnation* (London: Oliver and
> Boyd, 1959) that I included in my chapter in *Perspectives on an Evolving
> Creation*:
>
> "The content of the term *recapitulatio* is both rich and diverse. There
> is, for instance, the idea of a restoration of the original in the word, a
> purificatory movement pointing backwards to the first Creation. This
> restoration is accomplished in Jesus's struggle against the Devil in a
> conflict which repeats the history of Adam, but with the opposite outcome.
> The idea of a repetition is thus part of the conception of recapitulation,
> but in a modified form - modified, that is, by the idea of victory. But
> since man was a growing being before he became enslaved, and since he is not
> restored until he has begun again to progress towards his destiny, man's
> restoration in itself is more than a mere reversion to his original
> position. The word *recapitulatio* also contains the idea of perfection
> or consummation, for recapitulation means that man's growth is resumed and
> renewed. That man grows, however, is merely a different aspect of the
> fact that God creates. Growth is always receptive in character, something
> derived from the source of life. Man's resumed growth is for this reason
> identical with the life which streams from Christ, the Head, to all
> believers. And Christ is the Creator's own creative Word, the "hand" by
> which God gives life to man."
>
> & it's also important to remember that Irenaeus didn't have the idea of
> Adam & Eve as mature & perfect humans. "The man was a young child, not
> yet having reached a perfect deliberation" and "It was necessary for him to
> reach full-development by growing in this way." (St. Irenaeus of Lyons, *On
> the Apostolic Preaching* [St. Vladimir's Seminary, Crestwood NY, 1997],
> p.47.)
>
> While I think Irenaeus' ideas are helpful, I'd rather talk about the work
> of Christ as a *reorientation* of creation. I.e., while there may be an
> idea of return to an initial state, it's for the purpose of being able to
> strike out again but this time in the right direction.
>
> >-- I'm concerned theologically that non-recapitulation eschatologies
> seem, in my perception, to tend towards a sort of universalism. There is a
> sense in the >recapitulation theme that the cross is the bridge past the
> seraph's flaming sword back into Eden. Many won't walk over that bridge.
> The idea that the eschaton is not >a recapitulation but rather is a
> completion of the redemption of the cosmos seems sympatico with the notion
> that *everyone* eventually will be redeemed. I would that >this were so,
> but it seems contrary to scripture, and certainly contrary to the tradition.
>
> Texts like Rom.8:18-25, Eph.1:10 & Col.1:20 do in fact suggest "a certain
> kind of universalism." Rev.21:22 does indicate some problem with getting
> Hitler & Stalin into the New Jerusalem & I don't suggest that we just ignore
> such texts but I think we should start from those more inclusive texts & try
> to understand the more exclusive ones in their light rather than vice
> versa.
>
> >-- how does a non-recapitulation eschatology relate to the nature of the
> atonement? If the atonement is fundamentally a penal substitution, that
> seems to fit the >notion that the final state is a removal of the curse of
> being banned from Eden. Does a non-recapitulation eschatology view the
> atonment primarily in terms of a >Christus Victor model?
>
> IMO penal substitution is not the best - or at least the most profound or
> comrehensive - way of understanding atonement. The approach which I've been
> developing emphasizes the idea of atonement as new creation - the talk I
> gave at the Edinburgh meeting, "Science-Theology Dialogue and Atonement," is
> available, with other talks there, at
> http://www.asa3.org/ASA/meetings/Edinburgh2007/Edinburgh_paperlinks.html .
> Christus Victor can be seen as, among other things, a dramatic image of new
> creation - cf. the OT fragments that connect creation with the *Chaoskampf
> *motif.
>
> >-- I don't see the recapitulation theme as a variant of cyclic world
> views. It's still linear and teleological. There's no indication of
> further falls and recapitulations -- the >eschaton is the final state.
>
> Yes, but the fundamental theme is still the return to the primordial
> state. Ultimately history doesn't matter.
>
> Shalom
> George
> http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
>
> .......................................
>
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu Nov 29 12:01:01 2007
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Nov 29 2007 - 12:01:01 EST