Re: election (was: Re: [asa] Neo-Darwinism and God's action)

Re: George Murphy's reply to Christine & Jack, etc.

Thanks George, as always, for your helpful contributions to discussions on
this list.

One related question, which may warrant a new thread if it takes off, is the
matter of hell. In limited reading of Polkinghorne and other
theologian/scientist thinkers I have never seen anything that directly
addresses this topic. Yet, most of our evolving creation viewpoints do
necessarily have logical consequences for our understanding of hell.
Obviously, most of the traditional reformed/evangelical views hold to a
physical hell as a place of eternal anguish for each individual person who
fails to accept Christ. Completely independent of scientific insights about
the creation and entirely on theological (personal understanding), I for one
cannot understand how this traditional view can be correct. If I "inherit"
sin as a descendant of Adam and CANNOT avoid sinning, then it is hardly fair
of God to condemn me to eternal punishment for not accepting him because he
did not choose me for Salvation. If God wanted to annihilate those souls who
don't follow him, that would be "acceptable", but eternal punishment? I know
that there are an increasing number of evangelical theologians who are
rethinking the nature of "hell" because of these issues. (For example, I was
delighted to find Micheal Green say as much in his book "But Don't All
Religions Lead to God?", which was in my daughter's homeschool curriculum
for 7th grade).

Anyway, I just find it curious that I haven't seen any direct discussion of
the nature of hell in the "evolving creation" genre. Does Polkinghorne
address it in his book on eschatology (I can't remember the title). If one
formulates theories about the new heaven and new earth, it seems to me that
the other side of the coin must also be discussed.

Doug Hayworth
Rockford, IL

On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 7:33 AM, George Murphy <gmurphy@raex.com> wrote:

> There's a crucial aspect of this whole question that is being left out.
> In the Bible, God chooses people and nations, not because of their merits or
> their intrinsic superiority but simply because God chooses them. See, e.g.,
> Dt..7:7-8. God did not choose Abram because he was wiser, more righteous,
> or more monotheistic than anyone else at the time - cf. Josh:24:2. He
> simply chose him. Similarly with Israel, similarly with those who are
> brought to faith in Christ. God justifies the ungodly.
>
> People immediately object to the concept of divine election because it's
> often been presented just as a matter of God making arbitrary choices -
> Bill's saved, Jim's damned, Sue will go to heaven, Mary can go to hell,
> etc. Ultimately of course we do have to reply as Paul does in Rom.9, "Who
> are you to argue with God?"
> But what gets left out in all this is the fact that election is for the
> sake of the whole. Abraham is chosen so that "in you all the nations of the
> earth shall be blessed." Similarly for Israel. & election is not just of
> random individuals. As Barth clearly saw, people are elect *in Christ*,
> who is *the* elect one. (& also the one who is chosen for condemnation,
> thus putting a whole new light on the vexed "double predestination" thing.)
> We are elected for him. & as Lewis, pointed out, the history of Israel &
> the cross show that being "chosen" doesn't mean just being called to a
> position of privilege.
>
> Apply this then to the larger evolutionary picture being discussed
> here. 1st, humanity's call to be the image of God is a call to represent
> God in creation, which means a responsibility to care for the world as God
> cares for it. & the God we are to represent is not a deity after the model
> of an exploitative despot but the one whose character is shown in Christ,
> who came serve rather than be served & who is willing to die for his
> creation. Humanity is superior to other species in many ways, not least in
> the fact that we are able to comprehend to a considerable extent our whole
> environment and the implications of our actions. Granted that this
> superiority is in many ways quantitative rather than qualitative, but it's a
> huge quantitative difference. But that's not the main issue. The point is
> that we are called to use the gifts of intelligence &c that we have for the
> good of the whole creation, not just for our own benefit.
>
> 2d, if God's purpose in creation is the Incarnation as a means of
> uniting "all things" with Godself (Eph.1:10), then God had to (to the
> extent that one can say God "had to" do anything) choose a species in which
> to become incarnate, & it's hard to see how that would be anything other
> than an intelligent species. But again, this is for "all things," not just
> for us. I.e., there is eschatological hope not just for humanity but for
> the whole creation, as that Ephesians text and others indicate.
>
> These two aspects are brought together in the fact that it is Christ who
> is ultimately to be the one who has "dominion" - cf. the way Hebrews 2
> applies Ps.8 not just to humanity as such but to Christ.
>
> Of course all this raises the "threat" of universalism. Hmmm ....
>
> Shalom
> George
> http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/ <http://web.raex.com/%7Egmurphy/>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jack" <drsyme@cablespeed.com>
> To: "Christine Smith" <christine_mb_smith@yahoo.com>; <asa@calvin.edu>
> Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2008 7:39 AM
> Subject: Re: [asa] Neo-Darwinism and God's action
>
> >I dont want to demphasize the importance of our stewardship of creation.
> We
> > clearly have a special role here. As I said in a prior thread, all of
> > creation suffers because of our imperfect stewardship of this creation.
> >
> > But, I think that humans differ, in kind, from animals and the rest of
> > creation in one very important way. We have discussed this here before
> and
> > I know that Bergy disagrees with this. But, as I see it, humans are the
>
> > only part of creation (aside from angels) that have the potential to
> live
> > eternally. We have an eternal soul, to put it another way. As a result
> of
> > this, humans, unlike animals that have similar emotional, psychological,
> and
> > cognitive, abilities to a degree like humans, are the only ones capable
> of
> > sin. Christ died to save mankind, not animals. Animals are part of
> > creation, but have no potential for immortality. I know Burgy is going
> to
> > disagree with this, he expects his pets to go to heaven. But he has to
> > answer the question; Where does it stop? If your dog and cat can go to
>
> > heaven, what about the fish you had for dinner, the fly you swatted, or
> the
> > bacteria you killed when you washed off the counter. Burgy's position
> > sounds like Janism.
> >
> > Humans are seperate from animals because 1) we are stewards of creation,
> and
> > 2) we are uniquely spiritual, potentially eternal beings, capable of
> sin,
> > and capable of being forgiven by grace (even the Janists would grant
> that,
> > but they would call it enlightenment).
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Christine Smith" <christine_mb_smith@yahoo.com>
> > To: <asa@calvin.edu>
> > Sent: Friday, February 22, 2008 3:50 PM
> > Subject: Re: [asa] Neo-Darwinism and God's action
> >
> >
> >> Hi Greg,
> >>
> >> First, a correction--my background is not biology
> >> (actually, that's my weakest scientific
> >> discipline)--my B.S. is in geology, I have a minor in
> >> geography, and I have an M.S. in Environmental
> >> Management. :)
> >>
> >> Second, you perhaps attribute to me far more academic
> >> background than I deserve by referencing Wilson and
> >> Trivers--I am relatively new to the faith-science
> >> scene (at least, new to the depth of the discussion);
> >> I've merely heard of Wilson and have not a clue who
> >> Trivers is...it was only last year I discovered C. S.
> >> Lewis, and right now I'm enjoying my first reading of
> >> a work by N. T. Wright--so you'll have to excuse my
> >> ignorance/youth when it comes to the references you
> >> speak of :)
> >>
> >> To the point however...I think the phrase "advanced
> >> ants" is really too simplistic a description of what I
> >> am saying. I am not arguing that we are equal to
> >> animals in status (as many "New Age" philosophies
> >> would say) or that our uniqueness as humans should be
> >> undermined. On the contrary--Being designated by God
> >> as stewards of creation--essentially being delegated
> >> lordship of the earth--and then being biologically
> >> equipped for that task through advancement, clearly
> >> sets us apart from the rest of His creatures--it is
> >> not merely that we've evolved a new (or advanced)
> >> capability, like being able to fly or mutating a gene
> >> to produce a new hair color. It is nothing less than a
> >> gift from God--it is a bestowing of God's grace upon
> >> us, and in that sense, it transforms us--we are not
> >> different, but yet we are. It is, if you will,
> >> analogous to the Incarnation--Christ was 100% human,
> >> yet He was more than man--He was literally God.
> >> Likewise, we are 100% animal, yet we are more than
> >> animal--we are in a sense, (lower case) god--made in
> >> (upper case) God's image. Come to think of it, perhaps
> >> it would be more accurate to say that just as Christ
> >> was simultaneously both different in degree (more
> >> "advanced" human in the sense that He represented the
> >> best we could ever be) and in kind from us (He was
> >> also God), so it is with our relationship with
> >> animals. We represent the fullness of the innate
> >> potential which does manifest itself (to one degree or
> >> another) in all animals to be rational, ethical, and
> >> emotional beings; but yet, the new function that God
> >> bestowed upon us set us forever apart from them...
> >>
> >> Anyway, all must be held in tension--in the
> >> appropriate balance--for one to understand the reality
> >> of our status. And I think it would not be wrong to
> >> think that part of the reason God made us in this way,
> >> is so that we could better comprehend our relationship
> >> with Him and so that we could be better stewards of
> >> creation, seeing as we do from both sides of the
> >> coin--the creaturely side and the side of lordship.
> >>
> >> Anyway, this took way longer to try and articulate
> >> than I intended, so back to work with me!
> >> In Christ,
> >> Christine
> >>
> >> --- Gregory Arago <gregoryarago@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Burgy seeks an 'OBJECTIVE' "attribute of humanity,"
> >>> yet all the while without, it seems, realising the
> >>> importance of the 'SUBJECTIVE' in this case. Just
> >>> the facts!? The degree/kind distinction between
> >>> human beings and other animals is problematic when
> >>> only natural scientists are allowed to pronounce on
> >>> it. When reflexive (social-humanitarian) science are
> >>> given room to interpret alongside of positive
> >>> (natural-physical) science, which is what Burgy
> >>> seems to ask for in terms of 'objectivity,' then a
> >>> welcome balance of views can be achieved.
> >>>
> >>> Desmond Morris recently confirmed during a BBC
> >>> interview that 'human beings are only animals,
> >>> nothing more,' but that they (actually 'we' - but he
> >>> only speaks about us 'objectively') are the most
> >>> extraordinary animal in existence. He is of course
> >>> speaking as a zoologist when he says this, and not
> >>> as a human person! If he were to include his human
> >>> person (a multi-dimensional existence) into the
> >>> conversation, then questions of spirit (IoG) and
> >>> kind-difference would be forthcoming (the
> >>> philosophers would require it!). Such seems to be
> >>> the situation with Christine and Burgy denying
> >>> differences in 'kind' (oh, that awful word - just
> >>> like 'mutations'!) also.
> >>>
> >>> Let's step back and take an 'objective' view of
> >>> who is speaking here. Christine and Burgy are both
> >>> 'natural' scientists (biology, physics). David and I
> >>> are both human-social scientists or scholars (law,
> >>> sociology). By acknowleging a supra-natural (not
> >>> 'super') dimension into the discourse of human
> >>> beings, it becomes rather obvious (elephants writing
> >>> Shakespeare - what a hoot like Horton, David! -)
> >>> that enough of a 'difference' is present that it
> >>> doesn't really matter if you say 'kind' or 'degree.'
> >>> We could just as easily focus on the 'uniqueness' or
> >>> the 'special' character of (note: I DID NOT WRITE
> >>> 'nature of') human beings. 'One of these things is
> >>> NOT like the other ones' (as they used to say on
> >>> Sesame Street)! The bid to make same what is not
> >>> same seems curious to me.
> >>>
> >>> Just to add one thing, perhaps to fuel the fire,
> >>> though it has almost gone out. IFF, human beings
> >>> were to lose their/our uniqueness in the bid for
> >>> continuity and karmic sensibility, as eVo psych's,
> >>> sociobiologists and anti-religious zoologists would
> >>> prefer, then the entire REALM of human-social
> >>> science, at least in its classical formulation,
> >>> would be compromised. Human-social thought is
> >>> predicated on the belief that human beings are
> >>> 'unique,' 'special' different in 'kind' and not
> >>> 'degree' than other animals. It was one of the great
> >>> (meaning big, not necessarily good) contributions of
> >>> Darwinian thought, perpetuated in the mainly
> >>> agnostic or atheist (exceptions: Dobzhansky, Fisher,
> >>> T. de Chardin) 'modern synthesis' a.k.a.
> >>> neo-Darwinism (which was the original topic of this
> >>> thread), that human beings could be considered
> >>> somehow 'alike' with every other entity in
> >>> existence. See S. Fuller's The New Sociological
> >>> Imagination re: this S. Pinkerian perspective.
> >>>
> >>> Yes, Christine, I agree, stewardship/lordship and
> >>> not 'mastery' or 'control of nature.' I am glad you
> >>> agree with a 'functional' difference in 'kind.' But
> >>> let us not consider ourselves as created in the
> >>> image of God being simply equivalent to 'advanced
> >>> (you used the word) ants,' as E.O. Wilson (and
> >>> further, Trivers) does. Do you not recognise the
> >>> danger and compromise in that?
> >>>
> >>> Regards,
> >>> Gregory
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Christine Smith <christine_mb_smith@yahoo.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>> If I might interject...I largely concur with Burgy
> >>> in
> >>> that I see differences in morality, emotions,
> >>> rationality, etc. between us and animals in terms of
> >>> degree, not kind...by that I mean that
> >>> fundamentally,
> >>> the root of animals' and humans' "intangible"
> >>> qualities are the same i.e. they are of the same
> >>> kind,
> >>> and that animals are simply less advanced in these
> >>> areas than humans are i.e. they're are differences
> >>> in
> >>> degree.
> >>>
> >>> To your point/question regarding why animals don't
> >>> produce great writings, works of art, etc. A couple
> >>> of
> >>> thoughts--one, to remind you of what you yourself
> >>> wrote, how do we know what is in an animals' mind?
> >>> In
> >>> truth, our assumptions are nothing more or less than
> >>> guesses. Who knows---when a bird sings a song, who
> >>> says that there isn't more to it than just
> >>> attracting
> >>> a mate? If apes were biologically capable of
> >>> writing,
> >>> maybe they would write poetry? Since we are not a
> >>> bird
> >>> or an ape, we will never know for sure. I say this,
> >>> not because I actually believe that birds and apes
> >>> are
> >>> talking about the meaning of life when they sing a
> >>> song or grunt, but only to point out that your
> >>> critique goes both ways--we can't assume that they
> >>> experience life in the same depth that we do, but
> >>> then
> >>> again, we can't assume they don't. Secondly, as has
> >>> been pointed out in other threads, infants and
> >>> mentally disabled individuals also cannot write
> >>> poetry
> >>> or talk about the meaning of life or fall in love in
> >>> the same way normal adult speak of these
> >>> things--would
> >>> you also say that because of these biological
> >>> incapabilities, they also are different in kind, and
> >>> not just degree, from other humans?
> >>>
> >>> I think the bottom line difference here between
> >>> myself
> >>> (and Burgy?) and you is our understanding of what it
> >>> means to be created in the image of God? As I
> >>> recall,
> >>> it is the same Hebrew word for "breath of life" that
> >>> God breathed into both humans and animals--thus, the
> >>> ONLY distinction between us and animals is this
> >>> "image" and what that means...from my point of view,
> >>> this image refers to our ability, like God's, to
> >>> claim
> >>> lordship...God has delegated to us lordship
> >>> (stewardship) of creation--we have been tasked by
> >>> God
> >>> within certain parameters, to rule the world and the
> >>> creatures in it. We have a functional role in
> >>> creation
> >>> that is different *in kind*, not just *degree* than
> >>> animals--both Genesis 1 & 2 testify to this
> >>> function.
> >>> To be equipped for that task, we had to possess a
> >>> higher *degree* of advancement in emotional,
> >>> ethical,
> >>> and rational capabilities than other animals do, and
> >>> so we evolved in a way that brought these abilities
> >>> out from within us--in fact, I'd argue that having
> >>> evolved along with and from the rest of God's
> >>> creatures, it would be a better guess to assume that
> >>> they have the same (potential) innate emotions,
> >>> ethical nature, and rational capacities that we do,
> >>> than to guess that they don't. It has just been
> >>> according to God's plan and purpose that we were
> >>> designated for this special function, and equipped
> >>> accordingly.
> >>>
> >>> Anyway, I guess that's all for now--you're right
> >>> though--fun conversation :)
> >>>
> >>> In Christ,
> >>> Christine
> >>>
> >>> --- David Opderbeck wrote:
> >>>
> >>> > Ok -- but I thought it was a fun conversation.
> >>> It'd
> >>> > be nice to hear more
> >>> > clearly what you're thinking.
> >>> >
> >>> > On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 9:57 AM, j burg
> >>> > wrote:
> >>>
> >>> > On 2/21/08, David Opderbeck
> >>> > wrote:
> >>> > > > Burgy said: What I seek, and so far the search
> >>> > has come up empty, is
> >>> > > some
> >>> > > > OBJECTIVE attribute of humanity that would
> >>> > distinguish this IOG. For
> >>> > > > me, this has to be a difference of kind, not a
> >>> > difference of degree.
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > > Why is a capacity for understanding of notions
> >>> > of "good" and "evil" not
> >>> > > > "objective?" Why is a capacity for producing
> >>> > sustained ethical
> >>> > > reflection,
> >>> > > > ala Aristotle, etc., not "objective?" Why is a
> >>> > capacity for producing a
> >>> > > > literary tradition on themes of "the good,"
> >>> > "justice," and "evil," ala
> >>> > > > Shakespeare, etc., not "objective?" If that
> >>> > isn't "objective," what is?
> >>> > > > How is that fact that elephants have
> >>> graveyards
> >>>
> >> === message truncated ===
> >>
> >>
> >> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> >> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> > "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
> >
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sat Feb 23 09:14:32 2008