oops .. one important correction below ... I suspect the discussion of
"universal salvation" (in different flavours) will become more prominent
with Evangelicalism .. "universalism" will definitely not ...
On 11/29/07, Steve Martin <steven.dale.martin@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi David,
>
> > I'm particularly interested in reactions from fellow evangelicals here,
> > especially those who've just recently migrated to TE.
> >
> That pretty much describes myself so here are my brief personal answers -
> in the reverse order you asked them:
>
> > 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?
> >
> I think revision (definitely not rejection) might be the right word.
> Maybe an even better word is reforming. This (I think) as a good thing;
> our theology should be constantly reforming. I am interested in the way
> George phrased it – that science should be a goad to theology. Still trying
> to formulate in my own mind how the relationship should work the other way
> (good theology provides a context for science?).
>
> > -- 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
> >
> I don't think biological evolution really adds much to this discussion.
> On the other hand, I suspect universalism is going to be more of a hot
> topic within Evangelicalism in the next 20 or 30 years. However,
> biological evolution seems tangential to the discussion from my
> perspective.
>
> > -- eschatology: is the final state the completion of an evolutionary
> > process, or a restoration from a fallen state
> >
> There are definitely some opportunities for rethinking here. But given
> that Jesus basically told us not to worry about the details, I don't see
> much of a "threat" here. Ok, for premil dispensationalism, there probably
> is a threat. If TE is a helpful tool for moving away from this position, I
> consider that great progress. (And speaking of eschatology and
> opportunities for rethinking, it would be really nice if there was some good
> Evangelical science fiction – no, no, Left Behind stuff doesn't count. I'm
> thinking along the lines of good Mormon Science Fiction – eg. Orson Scott
> Card).
>
> > -- 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
> >
> Evangelicals who believe the bible is the only book we need, and who think
> there is no such thing as scriptural interpretation because "the truth is
> plain" have, IMHO, a very limited and dangerous view of divine revelation.
> Again, if biological evolution can be the tool to goad them out of this view
> that too is progress I believe.
>
> > -- harmitology: how does TE relate to the doctrine of sin, particularly
> > original sin and the fall
> >
> This to me is definitely troublesome. I honestly believe all the other
> issues above are either easily reconcilable, or are tangential to the
> implications of biological evolution. The implications of evolution for how
> we think about sin and the Fall are not. I've read a bunch of the same
> stuff you have, but none of it really fits for me. I suspect that I may
> never have an answer that fits.
>
> thanks,
>
> On 11/29/07, David Opderbeck < dopderbeck@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > 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.21-22 but 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/
> > >
> > > .......................................
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> --
> Steve Martin (CSCA)
> http://evanevodialogue.blogspot.com
-- -- Steve Martin (CSCA) http://evanevodialogue.blogspot.com 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 18:16:43 2007
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Nov 29 2007 - 18:16:43 EST