Re: [asa] Saving Darwin: What theological changes are required?

George: Some good points here. On #1 dealing with the historicity of A&E as
individuals and as "surrogates" are indeed separate issues. And I agree on
#3 as well – I'll be interested in hearing Karl's response to this (part of
my question to him that I'll post later today).

On #2 and "salvation becomes simply part of creation": I'm always
suspicious when I see the word "simply" used in this way (ie. simplifying
someone else's idea in ways that they may not intend). I think you are
referring to the fact that creation & redemption are indeed very much
related & have lots of overlap, but that Karl's position (from your reading)
neuters the essentials of redemption theology. Is this what you mean?

Re: repeatedly referring to your paper on Original Sin, personally I have no
problem with that – a very important contribution to the discussion. I just
wish there was more discussion on it. Any chance you (or someone else) can
arrange a forum where there can be dialogue on that paper specifically?
Maybe a PCSF exchange? Or maybe some electronic forum with a couple of
theological dialogue partners who can critique / exchange ideas? I think
that would be helpful for those of us not trained in theology.

David: I'm not sure this needs to be a case of "theology conceding to
science". These re-articulations need to be done only after a lot dialogue
between theology & science. That is why I'm not now in the "must" camp (and
maybe never will be) … but I'm also open to hearing reasons why a change may
be required. Ie. An absolute "must not" should wait until further
explanation is given. Anyways, I see you've posted a more detailed
response to Karl directly – I'll be very interested in his response.

Mike: Yes, there are many that will take this as one more reason to exit the
evolution discussion (and, as Rich points out, this makes it difficult for
many of us). However, in some forums (like this ASA list) we need to tackle
these issues directly & not avoid them because someone else may mine-quote
us.

thanks,

On 6/9/08, George Murphy <GMURPHY10@neo.rr.com> wrote:
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bethany Sollereder" <
> bsollereder@gmail.com>
> To: "Rich Blinne" <rich.blinne@gmail.com>
> Cc: "David Opderbeck" <dopderbeck@gmail.com>; "Steve Martin" <
> steven.dale.martin@gmail.com>; "ASA list" <asa@calvin.edu>
> Sent: Monday, June 09, 2008 10:03 AM
> Subject: Re: [asa] Saving Darwin: What theological changes are required?
>
>
> I am all for what Giberson says, at least, with these three thesis.
>> Rejecting historical concordism in the Genesis account would lead to
>> #1.
>>
>
> No. To say that Genesis 2 & 3 make theological statements about the first
> humans is not concordism in any reasonable sense of the word.
>
> Shalom
> George
> http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
>

-- 
Steve Martin (CSCA)
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.