> 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.
I would agree that a lot of these sorts of approaches are not very
substantial. Unfortunately, there isn't much serious theological work
specifically on the issue-serious theologians tend to focus on more
important topics than details of the method of creation, and many are
probably under the delusion that they don't need to take evolution
seriously when they do deal with creation-related issues. Perhaps
most of the support for TE comes from scientists who are Christians,
who rarely also have significant theological training.
> But the questions of scriptural interpretation and hermeneutic seem like a
> drop in the bucket compared to these other nodes of tension:
Actually, I think TE doesn't really have much to say about most of
these. Perhaps it would help if you give a bit more on why these
would be perceived as affected by a TE view. In some cases, it has
been popular to claim that evolution has significant theological
implications but not with credible justification.
> -- harmitology: how does TE relate to the doctrine of sin, particularly original sin and the fall<
The fact that many evolutionarily-instilled tendencies readily
encourage sin suggests a more supralapsarian position-as George
suggests, original goodness rather than fallenness is what actually
requires reconciliation with evolution. As a rule, such tendencies
could be used for good or for bad, so I'm not convinced that evolution
provides an absolute barrier to original goodness, though it certainly
makes Adam and Eve's choice unsurprising. Nothing about evolution
forbids one form assuming that once God finished creating people via
the process of evolution, he gave them a place to live and a set of
rules, which then got broken. As new species form most readily from a
very small population, a single pair could be at the root of all
humans, or a selected representative pair could be selected, or the
scenario could play out numerous times, each option producing the
observed current situation of all humans being sinful and needing
salvation. Advantages and disadvantages of these scenarios can be
perused on the ASA archives. Certain models of the transmission of
original sin may be favored or disfavored, but multiple models already
existed before evolution was an issue, and they are largely of only
theoretical interest, given both the limited data available to choose
between them and the limited practical impact-knowing that everyone is
sinful is the important point.
> -- 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
Given the existing issues of body-mind-soul-spirit identity and
interaction and the questions of the nature of inspiration, evolution
doesn't seem to add much-it only tells us how God made the physical
component.
> -- eschatology: is the final state the completion of an evolutionary
> process, or a restoration from a fallen state
Not mutually exclusive options. Theologically, it is important to
recognize being in a fallen state which cannot merely get better by
our hard work nor by an inherent tendency to improve. There is
ultimately a decisive point of intervention (the second coming), but
God is progressively working history towards that point. Different
existing eschatological models propose overall improvement or decline
leading up to that point. Biological evolution isn't very relevant.
> -- soteriology:
> --- does a TE perspective suggest universalism, or is it
> compatible with exclusivism (or evangelical variants thereof, including
> inclusivism and accessiblism)
Compatible with anything.
> --- does a TE perspective suggest a non-substitutionary view of
> the atonement
No, again evolutionary methods of creation don't tell us anything
about how God saves us.
> 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?
Biological evolution merely tells how God makes organisms. Apart from
touching on issues such as providing a connection between the
incarnation and all things (not just humans), it doesn't have much
theological import. It does somewhat favor directional (including
Christian) rather than cyclic (such as Hare Krishna) views of history,
but very weakly-there's nothing that says the two ought to behave
similarly except the fact that God is in control of both.
-- Dr. David Campbell 425 Scientific Collections University of Alabama "I think of my happy condition, surrounded by acres of clams" 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 13:23:33 2007
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Nov 29 2007 - 13:23:33 EST