Hi David,
Agree completely with your "Here's a thumbnail .." paragraph ...
Not sure I understand the problem you are referring to in the next one re:
redunctionist way of knowing. The "evolutionary epistemology" you refer to
is really a "reductionist evolutionary epistemology" isn't it? And someone
can accept biological evolution without necessarily holding this
epistemology can't they? I think I do, but then again maybe I'm one of
those Evangelicals that "slide over to TE without appreciating the
problem". And even if Natural selection *may* have *some* explanatory power
for levels above biology, I don't think that necessarily means we are being
reductionist. What about those like Nancey Murphy that talk about a
nonreductive physicalism? I am uncomfortable with some of her conclusions
but I think it would be unfair to say she employs a "reductionist
evolutionary epistemology".
As to "where is there room for the Holy Spirit", I have trouble articulating
*how* exactly it occurs but I fervently believe that the Holy Spirit can &
does influence his children, including myself. (If only we - if only I -
would follow his guidance more often!).
So, I don't think this is a "package deal" - for the simple reason that I
haven't (or don't think I have) bought into the redunctionist epistemology
even at the level of biology. But maybe I'm being naive and don't fully
understand your point.
On 11/29/07, David Opderbeck <dopderbeck@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 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
>
>
>
-- -- 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 19:37:45 2007
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Nov 29 2007 - 19:37:45 EST