Re: [asa] Greg Boyd's Theodicy of Natural Evil

For starters, the biblical evidence for a premundane fall of angels is sketchy at best.

In addition, as some of the argument below for it shows, it fits in a lot better with the notion of an originally perfect (& thus static) creation than with the dynamic picture which both scripture & science give us.

& third, this is simply a cosmic version of the "The devil made me do it" excuse for an individual's sins.

Shalom
George
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Michael Roberts
  To: jack syme ; asa ; 'David Opderbeck'
  Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2007 5:16 PM
  Subject: Re: [asa] Greg Boyd's Theodicy of Natural Evil

  As much as I do not agree with this fall of Satan theodicy , this response is unfair.

  Variants have been held for a long time. eg Boehme in the 18th century. NP Williams an Oxford Anglican scholar in the 1920s with his "The ideas of the Fall and Original sin 1927, and I think CSLewis partially argued for it and John Wenham a signatory of the Chicago statement on inerrancy was sympathetic. It comes out in a different way in Grudem's systematic theology though he is basically YEC

  This idea was aired on the CIS list with this question;

  I've just finished reading Mike Lloyd's excellent book 'Cafe Theology' published by Alpha. His academic speciality is the doctrine of the fall and his chapter on the topic makes for fascinating reading. He advocates what he calls the "fall of angels hypothesis" of the fall.
   
  His proposal is that a fall occurred in the heavenly realms due to Satan's rebellion, long before there was a fall on Earth as suggested by the serpent already being present in the Garden of Eden. What is fascinating is how he uses this theory to explain the fallenness of the natural world and particularly in relation to evolution.
   
  He says "the fall of angels hypothesis allows us to hold the evolutionary mechanism meshed with the purpose of God to the extent that it produced creatures of sufficient intelligence, creativity and relational ability and moral capacity to reflect his nature and to rule His world. And it enables us to hold that belief without requiring us to believe that evolution was God's chosen way of working" (Cafe Theology, p85.
   
   He goes on to say that Richard Dawkins strongest argument against theistic evolution is that nature is bloodthirsty and cruel and not what we would expect a loving God to create. Lloyd says that fall of angels enables us to say that God did not choose to create this way, but his good creative plans were marred by the angelic fall and perpetuated by the human fall.
   
  This is a new idea to me, but seems attractive. Have people come across this before? Any thoughts?
   
  Adam

  I am problems with it as we have to decide which things in the natural world are form God and which from Satan.

  If animal pain is not from God then are our molars created by God and our canines by Satan? That is a very serious question to get one's teeth into.

  We can also end up with some of the nonsense that Tom Wright has written about seasons being part of the futility of creation as we see in Romans 8.

  This is rather flung down but are very important issues and as Ted Davis rabbits on about this (with his incisors) it is the ONE IMPORTANT ISSUE.

  As for I totally accept the reality of sin but cannot give a good answer. That does not stop us needing redemption however.

  Apparently Henri Blocher was wont to say that if one thinks one can explain theodicy and sin then you must be wrong.

  Michael
    ----- Original Message -----
    From: drsyme@cablespeed.com
    To: asa ; 'David Opderbeck'
    Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2007 8:27 PM
    Subject: Re: [asa] Greg Boyd's Theodicy of Natural Evil

    Yes, the Manichaens, the Gnostics, the Essenes.

    On Tue Jul 17 15:07 , "David Opderbeck" sent:

      Seemingly at random :-) I stumbled today onto Gregory Boyd's blog and website. Boyd is a controversial evangelical megachurch pastor who identifies with open theism (and is refreshingly blunt about evangelicals and American politics). Apparently he recently was at a science-theology conference at Eastern Nazarene University, which included some luminaries such as Polkinghorne. He (Boyd) is arguing for a theodicy of natural evil based on a primoridial angelic fall, which involves Satan in the distortion of nature, leading up to and including the fall of humanity. Here is Boyd's blog post on his theory: http://gregboyd.blogspot.com/2007/06/historical-fall-historical-redemption.html as well as a post on his conversation with Westmont College biology prof. Jeff Schloss: http://gregboyd.blogspot.com/2007/06/satan-and-carnage-of-nature.html

      Has anyone heard of this theory before?

    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 Tue Jul 17 19:12:12 2007