RE: [asa] Sin, animals, and salvation (was: CS Lewis and going-off the deep-end (spiritual evolution))

Christine said:
" ... put all these things together, and I see a picture of a loving God and Creator not only redeeming and adopting us as children in His kingdom, but also a loving God and Creator who will give eternal life to all His other "good" creatures, His "pets" if you will, in His kingdom too."

Hi Christine- To what level of animals does that hold true? For example, I know tigers, bears, and pandas are cute, so they are in. But what about snakes, spiders, mosquitos, worms, bacteria, and viruses? Where do you draw the line?

I think one of the problems is when people refuse to see the grey-scale in all this. But I think seeing the grey-scale is part of the solution. When did humans become accountable for sin? Grey-scale. Who is or isn't a Christian now? Grey-scale. The black & white thinking brings on the errors. The literal Adam and strict literal interpretation of Genesis is part of that black & white thinking method, I think.

BTW- I know this has probably all been discussed before, but probably it will always need to be re-visited and rehashed- that's human nature, and new people coming into the discussion. Plus, our ideas change over time.

...Bernie

-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On Behalf Of Christine Smith
Sent: Monday, November 17, 2008 10:36 AM
To: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: RE: [asa] Sin, animals, and salvation (was: CS Lewis and going-off the deep-end (spiritual evolution))

Hi Bernie,

I hesistate to bring this up since we've covered this before on the listserv (before you joined us?) and because most people regard this as a side issue, but you pushed one of my buttons here, so I can't resist responding :)

You write:
"the way I see it, is that sin was always there. Only, humans have evolved a conscience so then it became known to us. For example, a bear or lion can kill another of its kind simply for selfish reasons. It can also rape. That is not a sin for them (it is actually normal evolution- part of God's plan). But they are also not offered eternal life and a relationship with God. When humans evolved the conscience, we are able to view that as 'sin' whereas lower animals are 'blind' to that. With our conscience, we are no longer 'blind' to this and many other spiritual things (unless we get calloused to sin and then blind ourselves). We then have a choice to receive God or not- being "born again" and becoming "new creatures in Christ.""

I respond:
I agree with you that actions normally called "sin" for us, are not "sinful" for animals, because they are not under the law, and so cannot be held accountable. Whether or not our moral ethical conscience "evolved" or not I'm not sure, but to be sure, we were specially made aware of our relationship with God and what He has defined as right and wrong. Likewise, I agree that only becoming "new creatures in Christ" do we find salvation and eternal life.

HOWEVER....I see no reason why this excludes animals from eternal life. We have just affirmed they are sinless, and in fact, operate according to God's plan, which includes evolution. I also would affirm that animals have souls (or are souls, whatever terminology you prefer)--again, perhaps not in the same sense that we have them (which includes an awareness of and participation in a relationship with God), but nevertheless, they do share with us the "breath of life" and they do exhibit the (rudimentary) capacity for emotions and reason and sentience that I think are a direct reflection of the divine essence. Put the two together--absense of sinfullness/fulfillment of God's creative plan (translating to NOT needing salvation/redemption through Christ), and their having a spiritual nature, and I see no reason for their exclusion. Moreover, we are taught in Romans that "all creation" is waiting to share in the glory of God, that God saved animals and
 people in the flood, that God cares for His creation through the provision of all their needs, and Scripture speaks of a "new earth" and uses imagery that includes animals, not just humanity---put all these things together, and I see a picture of a loving God and Creator not only redeeming and adopting us as children in His kingdom, but also a loving God and Creator who will give eternal life to all His other "good" creatures, His "pets" if you will, in His kingdom too.

In Christ,
Christine (ASA member)

"For we walk by faith, not by sight" ~II Corinthians 5:7

Help save the life of a homeless animal--visit www.azrescue.org to find out how.

Recycling a single aluminum can conserves enough energy to power your TV for 3 hours--Reduce, Reuse, Recycle! Learn more at www.cleanup.org

--- On Mon, 11/17/08, Dehler, Bernie <bernie.dehler@intel.com> wrote:

> From: Dehler, Bernie <bernie.dehler@intel.com>
> Subject: RE: [asa] CS Lewis and going-off the deep-end (spiritual evolution)
> To:
> Cc: "asa@calvin.edu" <asa@calvin.edu>
> Date: Monday, November 17, 2008, 10:53 AM
> George- the way I see it, is that sin was always there.
> Only, humans have evolved a conscience so then it became
> known to us. For example, a bear or lion can kill another
> of its kind simply for selfish reasons. It can also rape.
> That is not a sin for them (it is actually normal evolution-
> part of God's plan). But they are also not offered
> eternal life and a relationship with God. When humans
> evolved the conscience, we are able to view that as
> 'sin' whereas lower animals are 'blind' to
> that. With our conscience, we are no longer 'blind'
> to this and many other spiritual things (unless we get
> calloused to sin and then blind ourselves). We then have a
> choice to receive God or not- being "born again"
> and becoming "new creatures in Christ." I think
> being born-again is the "next-step" in evolution,
> and then the methods of evolution actually change (no longer
> ONLY "gene-driven" but now additionally driven by
> the head and heart, amongst other biological things). We
> can add !
>
> "gene-therapy" (head) to the evolutionary
> process, for example, along with compassion for the weaker
> (heart).
>
> So when humans evolved, they recognized sin. I don't
> see them as taking a wrong turn. However, when humans are
> individually confronted with God (in general revelation) or
> even ultimately the gospel, then they have a choice to make.
> This is the time they can become new creatures by being
> born again... or stay on the old animalistic path. The old
> path leads to death. The new path is narrow and leads to
> eternal life.
>
> I'd like to know your opinion of what you think I have
> wrong, regarding the above.
>
> And Moorad- yes- 100%- the Bible does get reinterpreted in
> light of modern science. I like the two books approach:
> God's Word and God's works. Both books must be
> read. Both contain truth. To ignore one book would be to
> look at reality in a very warped way (may as well believe
> the Earth is flat and the Sun orbits the Earth). Some
> accept a literal Adam with evolution, but I think with
> evolution Adam must be metaphorical since nothing was passed
> down from just one man genetically and evolution works in
> populations.
>
> ...Bernie
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: George Murphy [mailto:GMURPHY10@neo.rr.com]
> Sent: Sunday, November 16, 2008 3:38 PM
> To: Alexanian, Moorad; Dehler, Bernie
> Cc: asa@calvin.edu
> Subject: Re: [asa] CS Lewis and going-off the deep-end
> (spiritual evolution)
>
> Moorad-
>
> I agree that 'we could have not have "fallen"
> if we were not in an
> "un-fallen" state,' but I think language of
> "fallenness" isn't the most
> appropriate. Rather, as I discussed in my 2006 article, I
> think that the
> image of "taking the wrong road" corresponds
> better both to the picture
> given in the early chapters of Genesis & to what
> happened to early
> humanity - though I don't think the former is a blow by
> blow description of
> the latter.
>
> Shalom
> George
> http://home.neo.rr.com/scitheologyglm
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Alexanian, Moorad"
> <alexanian@uncw.edu>
> To: "George Murphy" <GMURPHY10@neo.rr.com>;
> "Dehler, Bernie"
> <bernie.dehler@intel.com>
> Cc: <asa@calvin.edu>
> Sent: Friday, November 14, 2008 11:28 PM
> Subject: RE: [asa] CS Lewis and going-off the deep-end
> (spiritual evolution)
>
>
> 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.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Nov 17 13:54:24 2008