Re: [asa] CS Lewis and going-off the deep-end (spiritual evolution)

Hi all,
I was wondering if someone who uses gmail can tell me why I constantly get
two or more email threads in gmail with the same title (or subject)? The
difference seems to be the RE: in the title, but it may also be the
different originator of the reply. But sometimes I have four or more
separate "bundles" of the thread. This makes a thread difficult to follow.
For example, I have more than one thread for CS Lewis, Going Off The Deep
End. Each of those bundles has more than one email within it.

Is there a way for the listserver to just keep one thread with one subject
so mail programs dont make a new thread for every reply?

I am also wondering if any ASA members have any experience with wiki's?
Wikipedia uses mediawiki, and it seems a great way for a number of authors
to collaborate on adding material to a site. A mediawiki might prove a
valuable asset to the ASA.

Thanks,
David Clounch (ASA member)

On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 10:28 PM, Alexanian, Moorad <alexanian@uncw.edu>wrote:

> George it was nice meeting you and listening to your talk in New Bern, NC.
> I want to view this issue of sin as simply as possible without, I hope,
> distorting or minimizing the depth and importance of this problem.
>
>
>
> Jesus came to undue something we did. However, what did we do? Surely, we
> could have not have "fallen" if we were not in an "un-fallen" state for
> otherwise we would be "fallen" creatures and not deserving of eternal
> punishment. If God turned some sort of lower form of being into a human,
> since evolution could have not accomplished that, would not then that be
> Adam. The issue then becomes, were there many Adams turned or only one? Are
> we then only reinterpreting Scripture to accommodate our knowledge of
> evolution? However, this seems somewhat contrived.
>
>
> Moorad
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu on behalf of George Murphy
> Sent: Fri 11/14/2008 5:04 PM
> To: Dehler, Bernie
> Cc: asa@calvin.edu
> Subject: Re: [asa] CS Lewis and going-off the deep-end (spiritual
> evolution)
>
>
> Bernie -
>
> 1st, sin was not "always there." It only arose in the world when creatures
> came into being who were able to be aware to some extent of God's will for
> them & to be able to either obey or disobey it. (With my qualification "in
> the world" I am bypassing the question of an angelic fall.) There was no
> sin before there were "theological humans" - not because our consciences
> create sin (God decides what is sin) but because there was no one for whom
> the concept "sin" was meaningful.
>
> Then note that I said nothing about a "fall." When humans, in the above
> sense, came into being they could in principle have progressed toward the
> goal God intended. They didn't. That's what I meant by the process getting
> off track.
>
> Of course images of "roads" or the crude diagram I sketched have serious
> limitations. There is no need to think that there was precisely one path
> that would have led from Point A to the eschaton. Similarly, there are many
> wrong paths. & as I tried to indicate in my sketch, the work of Christ
> doesn't immediately put us back on one of the original correct paths but
> rather reorients our path so that we're headed back to where we're supposed
> to end up rather than away from it.
>
> There is a sense in which the "fall" is in each of us, and more than that,
> it's in each of us over & over. Genesis 3 is our story. But it's not just
> the story of everyman and everywoman, for its presented in scripture as a
> story set at the beginning of the human race. When Steve has the 2 parts of
> my response up on his blog, take a look at my responses to Denis L's
> position.
>
> Shalom
> George
> http://home.neo.rr.com/scitheologyglm
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Dehler, Bernie <mailto:bernie.dehler@intel.com>
> Cc: asa@calvin.edu
> Sent: Friday, November 14, 2008 2:42 PM
> Subject: RE: [asa] CS Lewis and going-off the deep-end (spiritual
> evolution)
>
>
> David said:
> "My specific concern is that it starts to sound like panentheism or
> other such systems in which humanity is inevitably becoming more "godlike."
> There are plenty of new-agey worldview systems out there in which humans,
> along with the rest of the universe and "god," are evolving together towards
> a common future. These systems tend not to have any notion of sin and
> redemption, which of course are essential to Christianity."
>
>
>
> The idea is "Christian" (not panentheism) because becoming
> born-again, a new creature, is all about Jesus and His work (the Christian
> gospel). In biological evolution, you have isolated groups, then change.
> In this case, an isolated group is one with the spiritual nature- although
> it is not 'inherited' in the new gene pool but passed along in the meme,
> rather than gene.
>
>
>
> George said:
> "But what's missing here is that after humans form, (at stage 6.1 or
> something like that) the evolutionary process got off track, and the work of
> Christ in his ministry, death and resurrection and the subsequent work of
> Christ and the Spirit through the church (.e., you stage 7)are directed to
> getting the process back toward the ultimate goal God intends."
>
>
>
> Thanks for your contribution, George. You are implying that
> creation was good at some point, and then got corrupted (went off-track).
> But you and I both accept a non-historical Adam- no real person named Adam.
> We did not fall into sin- sin was always there and our conscience arose
> (via evolution) to recognize sin as sin. The creation of the conscience was
> an evolutionary thing, it detected the problem of sin, and God made a way
> for a solution, which is another step in evolution. So there's no literal
> historical "fall event," so I still see the straight-line progression. The
> "fall" is in each one of us when we recognize our sinful nature.
>
>
>
> ...Bernie
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
>
> From: George Murphy [mailto:GMURPHY10@neo.rr.com]
> Sent: Friday, November 14, 2008 10:59 AM
> To: Dehler, Bernie
> Cc: asa@calvin.edu
> Subject: Re: [asa] CS Lewis and going-off the deep-end (spiritual
> evolution)
>
>
>
> Bernie -
>
>
>
> If I may butt in - & not really deal with Lewis's views - it looks
> to me as if you're arguing for the same sort of thing Teilhard & other
> process theologians have in mind. I.e., the work of Christ (which would
> have to be stage 6.5 in your scheme) is seen as part of the general
> evolutionary process. & in one sense it is - in Christ God becomes a
> participant in that process. But what's missing here is that after humans
> form, (at stage 6.1 or something like that) the evolutionary process got off
> track, and the work of Christ in his ministry, death and resurrection and
> the subsequent work of Christ and the Spirit through the church (.e., you
> stage 7)are directed to getting the process back toward the ultimate goal
> God intends.
>
>
>
> Diagramatically (if this shows up right) it's not just
>
>
>
> 1__2__3__4__5__6__7__8
>
>
>
> (8 being the final Kingdom of God) but
>
>
>
> 1__2__3__4__5__6_6.1 8
>
> \ /
>
> \ /
>
> \ 7
>
> \ /
>
> 6.5
>
>
>
> On the gospel being "ther nex step" in evolution, I would prefer to
> speak of the church, the Body of Christ, as the next stage in evolution, as
> Teilhard did. But that needs to be placed in the "crooked" diagram I
> sketched rather than a straight one.
>
>
>
> Shalom
> George
> http://home.neo.rr.com/scitheologyglm
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> From: Dehler, Bernie <mailto:bernie.dehler@intel.com>
>
> Cc: asa@calvin.edu
>
> Sent: Friday, November 14, 2008 1:39 PM
>
> Subject: RE: [asa] CS Lewis and going-off the deep-end
> (spiritual evolution)
>
>
>
> Hi David- let me state it this way, and tell me what you
> think (lots of steps are skipped, like in biblical geneologies :-) :
>
>
>
> Evolutionary sequence:
>
>
>
> 1. Big bang (nothing but energy- no matter)
> 2. Elements form (matter forms)
> 3. Stars form
> 4. Planets form
> 5. Biological life forms
> 6. Humans form
> 7. The "spiritual man" forms
>
>
>
> That is taking Lewis' ch. 11 literally. Where's the error?
> Yes, God does something new in step 7 (directly intervening and creating a
> personal relationship with humans/God), but there's always something
> radically new anyway in each major stage- so why is that a problem? This
> seems like an interesting impact on evangelism- a message for scientific
> people to accept the next stage... become a "new creature" and enter into a
> relationship with God. I feel like I'm spear-heading something here...
> taking Lewis farther than he intended- has anyone else wrote or espoused
> this possibility of the gospel being in-line with evolution as "the next
> step?"
>
>
>
> ...Bernie
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
>
> From: David Opderbeck [mailto:dopderbeck@gmail.com]
> Sent: Friday, November 14, 2008 10:01 AM
> To: Dehler, Bernie
> Cc: asa@calvin.edu
> Subject: Re: [asa] CS Lewis and going-off the deep-end
>
>
>
> I don't think Lewis is making those distinctions; he's
> trying to make an analogy with biological evolution.
>
>
>
> If all you mean is that conversion is an "evolutionary"
> process in the sense that it is gradual and happens over time, I think that
> is a fair statement, at least if we are understanding "coversion" to mean
> the entire ordro salutis.
>
>
>
> But the analogy still breaks down because Christian
> conversion is obviously teleological, while natural evolution is not (at
> least from a human perspective). Moreover, Christian conversion doesn't
> happen in accordance with natural laws -- it specifically requires divine
> intervention.
>
>
>
> So, it seems to me a limited analogy. The classical notion
> of a "pilgrimage" or the Pauline idea of running a race seem more apt.
>
> On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 12:49 PM, Dehler, Bernie <
> bernie.dehler@intel.com> wrote:
>
> Hi David-
>
>
>
> Evolution is different in different realms. For example,
> there is the sex act in some biological evolution, but not all. For
> chemical evolution, there is no sex. Same with planetary evolution. DNA
> mutation plays a part in biological evolution, but no part in planetary or
> star evolution. Therefore, there's nothing wrong with the next step of
> evolution, getting born again, being by choice. Evolution also creates new
> things, for example, the ability to hear, see, talk, think, etc. The new
> thing in this case is the introduction of the spiritual man, and the way it
> is received.
>
>
>
> I'm still looking at to why this chapter can't be taken
> literally. Any other ideas? Does this seem foolish, or am I picking-up on
> something new?
>
>
>
> ...Bernie
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
>
> From: David Opderbeck [mailto:dopderbeck@gmail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2008 3:14 PM
>
>
> To: Dehler, Bernie
> Cc: asa@calvin.edu
> Subject: Re: [asa] CS Lewis and going-off the deep-end
>
>
>
>
> That conversion is analogous to biological evolution.
> Biological evolution happens "naturally." Conversion doesn't.
>
> On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 4:41 PM, Dehler, Bernie <
> bernie.dehler@intel.com> wrote:
>
> I guess a clarifying question of mine would be "What does
> Lewis say in Ch. 11 that is figurative and can't be literal?"
>
>
>
> ...Bernie
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
>
> From: David Opderbeck [mailto:dopderbeck@gmail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2008 12:01 PM
> To: Dehler, Bernie
> Cc: asa@calvin.edu
> Subject: Re: [asa] CS Lewis and going-off the deep-end
>
>
>
>
> It's an interesting analogy. But read it carefully --
> nowhere is Lewis suggesting that we simply evolve into new creations. His
> focus is on transformation, of the sort that only comes through submission
> to Christ. He uses the metaphor of evolution to suggest that this process,
> as it occurs in Christians here on earth, isn't always obvious and often is
> gradual. But without that crucial aspect of transformation by Christ and in
> Christ, you're really starting to talk about a different gospel, I think.
>
>
>
> On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 2:46 PM, Dehler, Bernie <
> bernie.dehler@intel.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> One thing I wanted to share and see what feedback I get.
>
>
>
> I kind of feel like I might be going-off the deep-end. The
> reason why is because of how I understand C.S. Lewis in "Mere Christianity"
> (online here: http://lib.ru/LEWISCL/mere_engl.txt )
>
>
>
> In his last chapter, 11, "The New Men," he offers evolution
> as a metaphor for gospel transformation. Here's why I think I might be
> going-off the deep-end: I'm starting to see what he wrote as literal instead
> of figurative. It seems so profound and touching, I'm wondering if what he
> says about evolution isn't really just an analogy, but literally true.
>
>
>
> By evolution, I mean "total evolution" not just biological
> evolution. Total evolution explains how everything evolves- from the
> big-bang, to elements, to stars, planets, etc. Maybe the work of Christ is
> the latest injection according to total evolution? He talks about "the next
> step" in evolution- the ability to be born-again.
>
>
>
> Anyway, I feel strange taking something that was offered as
> an analogy to be thinking of it quite literally.
>
>
>
> I'll likely be giving a presentation of this chapter 11 at
> one of the meetings I hold, so I would appreciate feedback on this chapter.
>
>
>
> ...Bernie
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sat Nov 15 21:10:30 2008