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

Steve -

Yeah, using the word "simply" can be sort of lazy. There certainly is continuity between creation & salvation, & in fact the way I suggest understanding the work of Christ is as reorientation of creation - "creation" being understood there as an ongoing process. Pictorially, the distinction is between the "taking the wrong road" image which I suggest for "the fall," in which case Christ gets us back on - or pointed toward - the right road, & that of Christ moving us along the road we were on from the beginning. I don't know if the latter is what Karl would say but it is, e.g., the type of thing one has in Teilhard. (& so no one thinks I'm anti-Teilhard, I quoted him positively in my sermon yesterday, though on another matter.)

OTOH I think Collin overstates things when he says that Karl's ideas "sound quite Pelagian." Basic Pelagian claims have to do with the status of present day humans in relation to God. It is possible to take a strong Augustinian position on that - e.g., that all all people are born without true fear of God and true faith in God - without ascribing this condition to an historical fall from perfaction of the first humans. OTOH, Pelagian or semi-Pelagian views are very attractive to many people, & evolution provides one way for people with such tendencies to support their views.

I would be quite happy for there to be a forum for discussion of my article. However, I'm something of an internet klutz & don't know how to go about setting up such a thing.

Shalom
George
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Steve Martin
  To: George Murphy
  Cc: Bethany Sollereder ; Rich Blinne ; David Opderbeck ; ASA list
  Sent: Monday, June 09, 2008 10:16 AM
  Subject: 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.

  ...........................

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Jun 9 12:50:18 2008