RDehaan237@aol.com wrote:
> George,
>
> Most often I agree with what you write and am well informed by it. I am
> quite amazed, however, at your response to Kenneth Piers. You wrote:
>
> << The belief that the first humans were in "perfect fellowship with
> God the Creator" is highly problematic. There is no theological reason to
> accept it, and if we do so, evolution will always be something of a foreign
> element in our theology, however much we may be willing to accept it as a
> scientific theory. >>
>
> Reading in Genesis that God brought animals to Adam to name, and that when he
> walked in the Garden in the evening, Adam and Eve hid from him, one can
> reasonable infer that God and A&E had a pretty close if not perfect
> fellowship.. I do not see it as "highly problematic." If this is not
> acceptable theologically, what is the theological alternative--that they had
> no relationship, or a defective one, or a immature one?
"Perfect fellowhip with God the Creator" would mean that no further
development in the relationship would be possible. That was not the case for the
first humans because:
1) The culmination of human fellowship with God comes about through the
Incarnation, which had not yet taken place.
2) Such an assumption does assume an essentially static view and thus
thus is contrary to the belief that time and history are part of God's intention
in creation.
3) Even if one treats Gen.2 as historical accounts, it's a big jump
from naming the animals & hiding from God to "perfect fellowhip with God the
Creator".
Of course to deny "perfect fellowship" doesn't mean that the first humans
had no relationship with God at all. Of the choices you suggest, "immature"
would come closest. This is how some of the Greek fathers spoke of the first
human. "Adam, being yet an infant in age, was on this account as yet unable to
receive knowledge worthily" (Theophilus of Antioch) & "The man was a young child,
not yet having reached a perfect deliberation." .... It was necessary for him to
reach full-development by growing in this way" (Irenaeus).
I don't think, however, that we ought to try to picture the first humans
as completely "infantile" in the moral sense. The story of the tree of knowledge
indicates that they could be given a command & expected to obey it.
> Moreover your reason for not accepting it theologically seems to be because
> "evolution will always be something of a foreign element in our theology."
> That seems pretty weak to me. While I do not hold that the Bible is a filter
> through which all of scientific concepts must pass, in this case, your reason
> seems rather stretched.
No, that is not my reason for arguing against the idea of a creation
already perfect in its beginnings. The value of history as part of creation &
the incarnational goal of creation are my primary theological motives for such an
argument. It is, of course, strongly supported by what we know of cosmic and
biological evolution. I would suggest, on the contrary, that there is very
little biblical basis for the view I'm challenging: You ahve not given any
here. Such views are heavily influenced by the Greek idea of a priority of being
over becoming & a desire for a golden age.
Of course my arguments will make little sense to those who are opposed to
evolution. My argument is addressed more to Christians who think that they can
accept evolution but fit it in to a static view of creation.
<<This is part of an essentially static world view which simply contradicts
> what we know about the general character of God's whole creation. & it
> doesn't help to say that things evolved up to the point where humans emerged.
> In fact, by suggesting that all the rest of creation & cosmic history has
> been here only as a kind of launching pad for humanity, it leads to a
> devaluation of the non-human creation.>>
>
> I'm not sure that Piers said anything like that. In what sense is Piers
> presentation a static world view? That seems to come from somewhere else
> than what he wrote.
No, he didn't say that. But as I already noted, if fellowship is
perfect, in what important sense can there be any change for the better?
>
> << IMO it is much better to understand humanity, having been created by
> God through evolutionary processes, to have the potential to develop (again
> through divine cooperation) toward such fellowship. Where perfect
> fellowship of humanity (& the rest of creation) with God the Creator occurs
> is in the Incarnation, which should not be seen as God's "Plan B" but as the
> plan for creation from the beginning (Eph.1:10)>>
>
> You are conflating evolution and development. You use them interchangeably.
> They are not interchangeable, but rather quite distinct biological processes.
> I do not find that you recognize development in your evo-theo framework.
> That is a serious omission, IMHO.
>
> You have in other notes insisted, as I recall, that IDers spell out in detail
> by what process God introduced design in the biological world, implying, if
> I'm not mistaken that unless and until they did so, their theories would
> never enter the mainstream of scientific work. I think, however, you are
> beholden to the same requirement. By what process did God "divinely
> cooperate" with evolution to produce human beings, and how can this
> cooperation be studied scientifically?
You have missed the point of my criticisms of ID. They are not willing
to accept the idea that God works in the world through cooperation with natural
processes. I am, & in fact work with a very traditional understanding of divine
action. The processes with which God cooperates are studied all the time by
scientists. God isn't.
>
> <<Again I would point out the general view of the Eastern Church, that
> humanity was not created perfect but in an immature state. While this is of
> course not an "evolutionary" view in the modern sense, it is open to
> evolutionary theories in the way that the western idea of humanity created
> in a state of static perfection (with all the totally unbiblical
> speculations about A&E's beauty, wisdom, physical abilities &c) is not. >>
>
> IMHO again, the Eastern Church has it right, but not for the reason that you
> do. Humanity, in an immature state is a developmental, not an evolutionary
> concept (not that the Eastern church is beholden to either view). Development
> is essentially, teleological, with the goal of full maturation (In the image
> of God, theologically speaking), or in the case of animals, full sexual
> maturation. That, I believe, fits the history of the human race. Evolution,
> if defined, as most biologists do, as natural selection, is of all things,
> not teleological. You have chosen the evolutionary route, and yet claim that
> evolution is *directed*, as I understand you. Directed toward what?
It is directed toward the uniting of all things with Christ - Eph.1:10.
Evolution as a scientific theory is not teleological. Placed in a larger
theological context, it can be (depending, of course, on the theology)..
Trying to make the distinction of modern biologists between "development"
and "evolution"
in talking about patristic theology is something of an anachronism. Gregory of
Nyssa, e.g., blurs the lines, & while speaking of "development" seems to come
close to an evolutionary idea.
Shalom,
George
George L. Murphy
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
"The Science-Theology Interface"
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Feb 21 2001 - 14:04:19 EST