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

For a start (& certainly not he most important point here), Chesterton &
others who say that the doctrine of original sin has empirical proof are
wrong. Sin is a theological concept & has to do first with our relationship
with God. We know empirically that people do lots of nasty things, but
whether or not we fear, love & trust in the true God above all things isn't
something that can be determined quite so easily. The genetic & behavioral
background of early humans indeed hadcomponents tending them toward
violence, sexual promiscuity & deceit. The crucial question, however, is
how they responded when they were given (somehow) an awareness of God and
God's will.

Then yes, we are deeply & profoundly sinful. That's why Augustine was right
& Pelagius wrong, quite apart from questions about why, how or when that
sinful condition originated. But sin is not essential to who we are as
creatures of God. That's why Article I of the Formula of Concord, while it
emphatically rejects anything smelling of Pelagianiam, also rejected the
view of Flacius that sin was of the essence of fallen humanity. & part of
making that distinction is to say that human sinfulness had a beginning,
that the first humans (& how widely spread a group that is in space & time
is unknown) who had some awareness of God's will for them, chose to go in
another direction.

Genesis 3 is, as is often said, the story of every person. But we can't
ignore the canonical structure of scripture which places that story at the
very beginning. Since it is the story of every person it is the story of
the first persons.

Shalom
George
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/

----- Original Message -----
From: "karl.w.giberson@enc.edu" <gibersok@gmail.com>
To: "David Opderbeck" <dopderbeck@gmail.com>
Cc: "Ted Davis" <TDavis@messiah.edu>; "ASA list" <asa@calvin.edu>; "Stephen
Matheson" <smatheso@calvin.edu>; "Steve Martin"
<steven.dale.martin@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, June 09, 2008 10:12 PM
Subject: Re: [asa] Saving Darwin: What theological changes are required?

> David:
>
> You have framed the question in a very clear and helpful way. My
> thinking on this is as follows: all the evidence suggests that our
> species and its predecessors shared a steadily evolving gene pool.
> This gene pool contained the raw material out of which our physical,
> mental and even spiritual natures arise. It is hard to even imagine
> what it would mean for God to choose an "agent" and then do something
> with this agent that would then spread to all subsequent offspring.
> What would happen, for example, to the contemporaries of this agent?
> This is not what a literal reading of Genesis suggests and it doesn't
> fit naturally into the scientific picture, so what do we have to
> commend it? It seems to me that the "Fall" can be understood as that
> part of our human natures that evolved to exhibit a pathological
> selfishness. As G. K. Chesterton observed, this is the only Christian
> doctrine with rigorous empirical proof!
>
> I don't see the problem with our sinful natures emerging slowly,
> through time, rather than suddenly, as suggested in the biblical
> story. The reality of our sinful natures is a deep theological insight
> and one that we should appreciate. There were times in history—think
> Rousseau and Marx—when philosophers dismissed the idea of "natural"
> sinfulness and ridiculed the biblical insight. But nobody would do
> that now. We now understand, as the author of Genesis and the apostle
> Paul both did, that we are deeply and profoundly sinful. I see no
> reason to insist that the fall be anything more than an affirmation
> that this is indeed a true picture of the human condition. (It is
> also the reason why "second work of grace" theology always struck me
> as suspect, although I am, to a first approximation, a Wesleyan.)

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Jun 10 06:14:06 2008