Steve said: *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. *
Yes I agree -- and I think most evangelicals who think about such things
seriously would agree as well. (Yes, I know, many folks in the pews, many
YEC leaders, and many populist fundamentalist leaders would not agree. But
most serious "evangelicals" would.)
Here's a thumbnail of the issue I see concerning Christian epistemology and
evolution, at least from my reformed-ish evangelical perspective.
Utlimately knowledge is rooted in God. We know nothing except through God's
revelation, whether in scripture or in the book of God's works (nature).
Moreover, knowledge of our sinfulness and of God himself only truly comes
through the Holy Spirit. Natural theology gives us an inkling that there is
a God, but true knowledge of God only comes through his Word and Spirit.
Further, only a person who has the Holy Spirit is truly free to begin to see
reality as it really is -- that reality has a purpose rooted in God's will.
In contrast, evolutionary epistemology seems to suggest that all human
knowing is thoroughly conditioned by natural selection. It is a
reductionist account of knowing, rooted in a reductionist account of mind,
which in turn is rooted in a reductionist account of nature. In this
reductionist account, where is there room for the Holy Spirit as an
independent entity -- and not only as an independent entity, as a person of
the triune Godhead from which reality and knowledge ultimately proceeds? It
seems to me "evolution" is a package deal -- you can't elide its biological
aspects from its social, behavioural, and mental aspects. I'm not sure
evangelicals who slide over to TE really appreciate that problem.
On Nov 29, 2007 5:15 PM, 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
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 18:28:14 2007
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Nov 29 2007 - 18:28:15 EST