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

Bernie -

You've already gotten some responses so I'll be brief.

Of course you can use an idiosyncratic definition of sin if you choose but
yours seems to lead to strange consequences. You apparently are saying that
the killing, "rape" &c by animals before the emergence of humans was sin but
wans't recognized as such. If that's so, it is still is sin, & if one dog
kills another it's guilty of the sin of murder. If Rover pushes Fido aside
& eats from his dish, he's guilty of the sin of theft. Do you really want
to say that?

You say that humans didn't take a wrong turn but that without being born
again are spiritually dead. That presumably means that the normal course of
evolution is to produce spiritually dead people - either that or that the
message of the gospel kills them. Neither seems to make sense. There is
proper language about the law (NB, not the gospel) "killing" when it makes
people aware of their sinful condition but, Romans 7:9-10 notwithstanding,
that doesn't mean that they were spiritually alive before. Eph.2:5 says
that all are spiriritally dead before receiving Christ.

Being regenerated does not mean simply going back to a primordial human
condition but neither is it simply "the next step in evolution" in the sense
that sin was God's intention. Rather, regeneration means being put back on
the right path toward the goal God intended. I quoted the following about
Irenaeus view of "recapitulation" in my chapter in _Perspectives on an
Evolving Creation_. Of course Irenaeus, writing before A.D. 200, didn't
have our understanding of evolution in view but he did have a dynamic
picture of creation.

The content of the term recapitulatio is both rich and diverse. There is,
for instance, the idea of a restoration of the original in the word, a
purificatory movement pointing backwards to the first Creation. This
restoration is accomplished in Jesus's struggle against the Devil in a
conflict which repeats the history of Adam, but with the opposite outcome.
The idea of a repetition is thus part of the conception of recapitulation,
but in a modified form - modified, that is, by the idea of victory. But
since man was a growing being before he became enslaved, and since he is not
restored until he has begun again to progress towards his destiny, man's
restoration in itself is more than a mere reversion to his original
position. The word recapitulatio also contains the idea of perfection or
consummation, for recapitulation means that man's growth is resumed and
renewed. That man grows, however, is merely a different aspect of the fact
that God creates. Growth is always receptive in character, something
derived from the source of life. Man's resumed growth is for this reason
identical with the life which streams from Christ, the Head, to all
believers. And Christ is the Creator's own creative Word, the "hand" by
which God gives life to man.[i]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[i]. Gustaf Wingren, Man and the Incarnation (Oliver & Boyd, 1959),173-174.

Shalom
George
http://home.neo.rr.com/scitheologyglm

----- Original Message -----
From: "Dehler, Bernie" <bernie.dehler@intel.com>
Cc: <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Monday, November 17, 2008 11:53 AM
Subject: RE: [asa] CS Lewis and going-off the deep-end (spiritual evolution)

> 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.
Received on Mon Nov 17 15:07:24 2008