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

Ok, but a question with respect to those passages is whether such gathering
up and reconciliation precludes judgment. I might argue that it assumes
judgment, particularly in light of the apocalyptic literature in scripture.
Part of making things right is the just judgment and condemnation of that
which is wrong. The rider on the white horse (Rev. 19) -- Christ
triumphant, I think -- makes war on evil as the people and powers associated
with evil are cast into the lake of fire (Rev. 19:19-21). Interestingly,
the armies of evil gather for a last stand against the rider on the white
horse in Rev. 19. Perhaps that's a metaphorical / spiritual battle, but
regardless maybe it suggests something of what is involved in gathering up
all things under Christ's headship as per Eph. 1:10.
I agree that we ought to hope that God's saving grace will encompass many,
maybe somehow even most, people. John Stott has spoken in these terms, as
has C.S. Lewis. I've read about Thiessen's "accesibilist" idea, which
appeals to me. Still, I worry very much about evolution as a heuristic for
eschatology. Maybe there's a bigger methodological question here: when we
talk about "dialogue" between science and theology, do we assume a neutral
meeting place, or does theology provide the grammar and ground of the
conversation?

On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 12:36 PM, George Murphy <gmurphy@raex.com> wrote:

> 1st, Ephesians 1:10 speaks of *all things*, *ta panta*, being gathered up
> in Christ and Colossians 1:20 speaks of *all things*, *ta panta*, being
> reconciled to God through the cross. It says *all* things - not Christian
> things, human things, spiritual things &c. *All* things. Of course some
> dismiss that as hyperbole but that is particularly inept in the Colossians
> text, where *ta panta* is the *Leitmotif* of the whole Christ hymn
> vv.15-20. If all things means all things when it speaks of Christ as the
> agent of creation then it means all things when it speaks of his
> reconciliation.
>
> Does this then force us to believe that every single human being, among
> others, will be saved. I grant that that is hard to reconcile with some
> other passages of scripture. But our emphasis should certainly lean in the
> direction of hope for all people & not just for a few.
>
> 2d, notice that this is certainly not an "all roads lead to God" notion.
> Christ is the purpose of creation and the means of its reconciliation with
> God.
>
> 3d, I have not said that election is "a general term for God's
> sovereignty." But in Genesis 1 God is clearly pictured as "electing"
> humanity for a special role in creation.
> & if God's plan in creation was indeed the Incarnation & the uniting of
> "all things" with himself, & if God knew (something that would not require
> omniscience) that sin was inevitable for an intelligent evolved species,
> then the cross would have been part of that plan. Creation & redemption are
> logically distinct but are nevertheless closely connected. If you wish, you
> can put this in the category of a supralapsarian theology, in which God's
> decree of predestination precedes God's decree of creation.
>
> 4th, apropos Douglas' earlier comment that "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." It's worth
> remembering that the Reformed tradition in general has understood "He
> descended into hell" in the Apostles' Creed to refer to Christ having
> suffered the torments of hell on the cross, before his death. Barth gave a
> good deal of emphasis to that. While I don't think that's completely
> adequate (for reasons I won't go into now), it ought to at least relativize
> the idea that hell must be understood as a place rather than a
> condition.
>
> Shalom
> George
> http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* David Opderbeck <dopderbeck@gmail.com>
> *To:* Steve Martin <steven.dale.martin@gmail.com>
> *Cc:* Douglas Hayworth <haythere.doug@gmail.com> ;
> AmericanScientificAffiliation <asa@calvin.edu>
> *Sent:* Saturday, February 23, 2008 11:47 AM
> *Subject:* Re: election (was: Re: [asa] Neo-Darwinism and God's action)
>
> Universalism, or even universal salvation, for me, is one place where all
> this starts to jump the shark. When we start to conceive of evolution as
> moving the universe towards an omega point of perfection, to me, that starts
> to get outside the distinctives of a Christian narrative. It seems pretty
> clear to me that some will never be saved. I like P's take on Lewis below
> about this.
>
> I also wonder about thinking of God' sovereign choice concerning relating
> to humanity as a species as "election." "Election," it seems to me, is a
> soteriological term, not a general term for God's sovereignty.
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 9:35 AM, Steve Martin <
> steven.dale.martin@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > Hi Douglas,
> >
> > From Polkinghorne's "Science & Christian Belief" ("Faith of a Physicist"
> > in the US) - page 171:
> >
> > It is well known that the NT seems sometimes to speak in universalist
> > > terms (eg. Rom 11:32, 1 Cor 15:22) and sometimes in terms of some who will
> > > be lost (eg. Matt 25:46, Rom 2:6-11). I cannot believe that God will
> > > ever foreclose on his loving offer of mercy, but equally I do not believe he
> > > will override the human freedom to refuse. If there is a hell, its
> > > doors are locked on the inside. Those who are there are there by
> > > choice. It is not a place of torment, but rather a place of exquisite
> > > boredom, for it has all the emptiness of life without God.
> > >
> >
> > I think he is echoing CS Lewis here. Also, for clarity I believe JP
> > should probably use the term "universal salvation" above (ie. belief that
> > all will eventually be saved) rather than the generic universalism which can
> > also be interpreted as "All ways lead to God". The latter is (I strongly
> > believe) incompatible with Christianity - the former can be, as JP notes,
> > defended biblically.
> >
> > thanks,
> >
> > On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 9:17 AM, Douglas Hayworth <
> > haythere.doug@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Sorry for forgetting to delete the thread of previous posts in my
> > > message. If you respond to my post, please don't make my mistake and forget
> > > to delete the previous posts in the text body!
> > >
> > > Doug
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > --
> > 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 Sat Feb 23 14:00:50 2008