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

I don't think the Christus Victor aspect of the atonement necessarily
requires a detailed position on what will happen to the physical creation in
the eschaton. At base, it's simply the notion that Christ's death
accomplished complete victory over sin. I think this is reflected in the
Pauline literature's emphasis on the Christian's freedom from slavery to
sin. (I also say Christus Victor "aspect" of the atonement because I think
the atonement is best thought of as having multiple complementary facets,
including the substitutionary, Christus Victor, and moral example models --
see Hans Boersma's "Violence, Hospitality, and the Cross" for an excellent
argument in this regard). But this aspect of the atonement certainly does
seem complementary to an eschatology that sees the consummation of history
as the fullfillment of the victory won on the cross in all spheres of
creation.

On 7/18/07, Jack <drsyme@cablespeed.com> wrote:
>
> 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 <dopderbeck@gmail.com>
> *To:* drsyme@cablespeed.com
> *Cc:* asa@calvin.edu ; David Campbell <pleuronaia@gmail.com>
> *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 Thu Jul 19 14:57:33 2007