Re: [asa] (freewill) Nothing_in_Biology_Makes_Sense_Except_in_the_Light_of_Evolution

Bernie,

First, there are no short replies to the questions you raise. So I'll try
and give an answer that is adequate while keeping a perspective on the wider
debate.

Did God know that the fall would happen? I think God knew sin would enter
the world. But I don't think he knew when or where precisely (if that even
can be known). It certainly did not happen in a garden with a snake and two
"original" humans in a state of perfect righteousness. Rather sin entered
the world (not "the fall happened") in an early homo sapien population,
possibly over generations of increasing awareness of who God is and what
concepts like sin and morality mean.

How do we deal with Gen 6:6-7? This is a hard passage, and is debated over
a lot. A classic answer would be to chalk it up to anthropomorphism. Open
theists would want to take it literally. I like to think of it as
establishing divine precedent for retributive justice that shows up so very
often in the Pentateuch. It is also a part of the ongoing human
crisis-divine mercy cycles that compose Genesis 1-11. There are a lot of
ways to understand this passage. The biggest danger is to try and set it up
as some sort of knock-down proof-text without giving due concern to the fact
that the author certainly was not trying to establish an answer to the
question you are asking.

Finally, Irenaeus first, and then others, did not see the Incarnation as a
contingency plan put into effect after sin entered the world. He saw the
incarnation as the initial reason for creation. That Christ was to come and
fulfill (or even redeem) creation without sin was always the plan. Christ
only came as a saviour of sin as well after the fall. I think this is a
decent way to tackle the issue of whether a prelapsarian knowledge of the
incarnation makes sin inevitable. By this reading, it does not.

Looking forward to your reply.

Bethany

On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 12:43 PM, Dehler, Bernie <bernie.dehler@intel.com>wrote:

> Hi Bethany- for the sake of a short email, I’ll address just one point.
>
>
>
> You said:
> “All in all, we need to be careful about definitions: good (value), bad,
> perfect, good (moral), evil, omniscient, etc. Also, we need to be more
> careful about the relations we make been things like "pain", "suffering" (I
> would also add "death") and "evil". “
>
>
>
> Yes- so much arguing seems to be over definitions. I guess to best argue,
> one should specifically make a point and then define what they mean by their
> words.
>
>
>
> Here’s a question: Did God know that the fall would happen? If yes, then
> why did he say the initial creation was good, then later grieve that He had
> made man (then wiped most of mankind out with a flood, Gen. 6:6)? If not,
> then why does the Bible say that the plan of salvation was from the
> beginning- from the creation of the world (Rev. 13:8)?
>
>
>
> …Bernie
>
>
>
> RE:
> *Genesis 6:6<http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=1&chapter=6&verse=6&version=31&context=verse>
> *
> The LORD was *grieved* that he had *made* *man* on the earth, and his
> heart was filled with pain.
>
> *Genesis 6:7<http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=1&chapter=6&verse=7&version=31&context=verse>
> *
> So the LORD said, "I will wipe *man*kind, whom I have created, from the
> face of the earth—men and animals, and creatures that move along the ground,
> and birds of the air—for I am *grieved* that I have *made* them."
> *Revelation 13:8 (New International Version - UK)8 All inhabitants of the
> earth will worship the beast— all whose names have not been written in the
> book of life belonging to the Lamb that was slain from the creation of the
> world.*
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> *From:* Bethany Sollereder [mailto:bsollereder@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Monday, August 17, 2009 9:24 AM
> *To:* Dehler, Bernie
> *Cc:* asa@calvin.edu
> *Subject:* Re: [asa] (freewill)
> Nothing_in_Biology_Makes_Sense_Except_in_the_Light_of_Evolution
>
>
>
> Bernie,
>
> A couple of comments. "Good" does not necessarily mean "perfect". Many
> philosophers and theologians have argued over this ground, and "good" can
> also mean "good for the purpose it was intended for", which might mean
> having freewill and even possibly abusing that freewill. In Irenaeus' view,
> being "good" meant being destined for a hard-won eventual perfection, which
> even included the so-called "fall". So, in this line of thinking, evil is
> not good, but what is good (freewill and the progress towards perfection)
> will lead a person through all kinds of contingent evil.
>
> 2nd point, and this is probably more volatile and periphery than it is
> worth, but "God is all-knowing" can only mean God knows the future if the
> future is something that can logically be known. That is precisely the
> issue over which the open theism debate has been raging. They claim that
> "omniscience" means "everything that can logically be known", which, they
> insist, does not in fact include the future.
>
> Finally, there are (especially in biology) times where the very goodness of
> a thing is found *in* its badness (not evilness). Think of pain. Our CNS
> protects us as we amble around precisely because pain is unpleasant and we
> avoid it. When pain does not hurt (as with congenital insensitivity to
> pain, or Hansen's disease), it also fails to protect and those who suffer
> from these conditions do so precisely because they cannot suffer in the
> normal ways.
>
> All in all, we need to be careful about definitions: good (value), bad,
> perfect, good (moral), evil, omniscient, etc. Also, we need to be more
> careful about the relations we make been things like "pain", "suffering" (I
> would also add "death") and "evil".
>
> Bethany
>
> On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 9:00 AM, Dehler, Bernie <bernie.dehler@intel.com>
> wrote:
>
> David Clounch said:
> “Why does a loving God allow suffering and evil? It has to do with free
> will. He could easily fix it all if only he would override our free will.”
>
>
>
> God created man with freewill and said it was good. Then the fall
> happened. Evil can’t be because of freewill because God said it was good;
> unless evil is good, because evil flows from freewill. We know that evil is
> not good by definition. It is impossible for humans not to sin, because of
> freewill, so the fall was inevitable. Therefore God designed us knowing
> that we will sin, if God is all-knowing. Correct?
>
>
>
> I think the reason none of this makes sense is because it is ‘ancient
> theology.’ It is like trying to make sense of the science or history of the
> Bible, but it is wrong because it is ancient.
>
>
>
> I appreciate any feedback in showing me the error of my logic.
>
>
>
> …Bernie
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> *From:* David Clounch [mailto:david.clounch@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Friday, August 14, 2009 4:07 PM
> *To:* Dehler, Bernie
> *Cc:* asa@calvin.edu
> *Subject:* Re: [asa]
> Nothing_in_Biology_Makes_Sense_Except_in_the_Light_of_Evolution
>
>
>
>
>
> Consider all the spontaneous abortions (naturally occurring), still
> births, birth defects, etc. God created all those people specifically to
> die? I myself had a daughter that died a few moments after birth, due to
> birth defects. I don’t think that was God’s direct will (you will likely
> say His permissive will). And it is not just about my experience- it is
> multiplied my many times all over the world, even more in undeveloped
> nations (where even healthy babies and mom’s die due to birth complications
> that could be avoided in the USA). So God made you and has plans for your
> life… what about all those others who died way too premature? This is not a
> TE or YEC question, but a question really posed for all Christians to
> consider… one I struggle with too.
>
> Yes, I agree, the universe sucks. And we all suffer tragedy and wonder
> why. There is one decision we all have to make: Do we believe God is good
> in spite of it? That is the million dollar question.
>
> Its not an academic subject by any means. Most people totally avoid
> deciding this until they experience suffering in their personal lives. And
> then it is an agonizing thought process.
>
> Why does a loving God allow suffering and evil? It has to do with free
> will. He could easily fix it all if only he would override our free will.
>
> Fred Heeren's book does a really good job of dealing with this. (Fred is
> a list member - and he gives me a 25% discount for plugging his book. No he
> doesn't.).
>
>
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Aug 18 16:12:28 2009