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

I agree with your first point. As Willem Drees, I think, put it, "Eschatology must be eschatological." I.e., evil must finally & beyond debate be shown to be evil & good shown to be good. But the eternal suffering &/or annihilation of evildoers may not be the only way for that to be accomplished. (BTW, Drees - if that's who said this - is hardly an orthodox theologian, but credit where credit is due.)

(The rider on the white horse is certainly Christ - "his name is called the Word of God." There's a window in Winchester Cathedral, commissioned by George V, with this scene.)

2d, I think 1 of the things you're worried about is the idea that the workk of Christ, cross and resurrection, are to be seen as just part of God's activity in moving evolution along toward its goal. That kind of thing is found, e.g., in Teilhard & in process theology more broadly. That's not what I'm arguing. God created a world with time, a world intended to have a history & to move toward the goal sketched in Eph.1:10. Sin means that humanity - & creation of which we are part - has taken a wrong road, one that leads not to God's intended goal but to destruction. I.e., the problem is not that we're on a road but that we're on a wrong raod. & the work of Christ is then to be understaood as recreation in the sense of a reorientation of creation toward its proper goal.

(Note that I say "a" road rather than "the" road, trying to avoid the idea that there is only one right & one wrong possible history. & for physicists that language may evoke Feynman's idea of probability amplitudes as sums over histories. But I'm rambling.)

Shalom
George
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
  ----- Original Message -----
  From: David Opderbeck
  To: George Murphy
  Cc: ASA list
  Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2008 1:59 PM
  Subject: 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
      To: Steve Martin
      Cc: Douglas Hayworth ; AmericanScientificAffiliation
      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.

      ..........................

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 15:28:57 2008