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

My point is that the Christus Victor perspective is, I believe, a false interpretation of Biblical apocalyptic literature.

Which comes first, are you espousing, (not that you are but for the sake of argument) the Christus Victor perspective because you believe the Bible teaches of an ultimate destruction/redemption of the heavens and earth, and therefore all of creation must be corrupted, or do you think that the Bible teaches that all of creation is corrupted, and therefore is in need of ultimate redemption?
  ----- Original Message -----
  From: David Opderbeck
  To: drsyme@cablespeed.com
  Cc: asa@calvin.edu ; David Campbell
  Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2007 3:30 PM
  Subject: Re: [asa] Greg Boyd's Theodicy of Natural Evil

  Aye, it was me. Ok, I'm over my post limit for today, but .... Well, the truth is, I don't know that I've thought this through to the extent that I could stake out a position. I think I'd agree that the scriptural reference to the serpent in the garden is in itself too thin a reed to support the notion that all of creation was tainted by Satan's fall prior to the fall of man.

  But, I think there may be other hints in the Christus Victor perspective on the atonement (that the cross is a victory over cosmic evil as well as a substitutionary payment for the sins of those who believe), and in the apocalyptic Biblical literature that portrays the consummation of that cosmic victory. In other words, the whole Biblical picture seems to suggest that concerning evil's effect on the creation, there is more involved than only the fall of man. I wonder sometimes if some of our difficulties concerning theodicy result from scripture's selective emphasis on God's realtionship with humanity, which leaves so much about the "spiritual" realm of creation undisclosed.

  And another interesting question which we've discussed before is temporal causation, God's foreknowledge, and the kenotic perspective on creation. If we say Satanic / human rebellion caused "natural evil," must that entirely fit our linear understanding of temporal causation?

   
  On 7/18/07, drsyme@cablespeed.com <drsyme@cablespeed.com> wrote:
    No it was David O.

    I dont know whether he means that the serpent indicates just the presence of fallen Satan, or does he think that it indicates that all of creation was tainted by Satan and his fall prior to the fall of Man.

    On Wed Jul 18 14:30 , "David Campbell" sent:

> David said: "...the serpent in the Garden does seem to suggest that there is
> rebellion in the creation before the human fall."
>
> I want to be clear about what you mean here. If you mean that this is
> evidence that Satan has fallen (as he was part of creation) then I would
> agree with you that this passage indicates that yes part of creation has
> fallen. But if you mean that all of creation has been tainted, (because he
> takes the form of a snake?) then I would disagree with that interpretation.
>

      I think that David was me. Satan, being part of creation, was fallen
      before humans were. As George noted, there's very little to go on
      Biblically besides that. Ezekiel 28, often invoked as data on Satan's
      fall, is actually taunting the king of Tyre using Canaanite mythology.
      Geologically, it's clear that predation occurred as early as the
      latest Precambrian, but whether that is an evil is theologically
      problematic.

      --
      Dr. David Campbell
      425 Scientific Collections
      University of Alabama
      "I think of my happy condition, surrounded by acres of clams"

      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 Wed Jul 18 21:40:14 2007