Origin of Sin & Theodicy [was [asa] Greg Boyd's Theodicy of Natural Evil]

As Michael quoting Blocher said below:

> "if one thinks one can explain theodicy and sin then you must be wrong.".

 But, on divine action Charles Hodge also said:

> "The fact of this universal providence of God is all the Bible teaches. It
> nowhere attempts to inform us how it is that God governs all things, or how
> his effectual control is to be reconciled with the efficiency of second
> causes. All the attempts of philosophers and theologians to explain that
> point, may be pronounced failures, and worse than failures, for they not
> only raise more difficulties than they solve, but in almost all instances
> they include principles or lead to conclusions inconsistent with the plain
> teachings of the word of God".

and that hasn't stopped many from grappling with models for divine action,
so here goes:

Has anyone seen any surveys of modern views (post-Darwin) of the origin of
sin and theodicy, in particular with respect to "natural evil" as opposed to
moral evil? Various views from my perspective include:

1. Human sin is the direct cause of natural evil (eg. Theodicy that drives
YEC)
2. Satan's / fallen angels' sin is the direct cause of natural evil (eg.
theodicy of Gap Theorists, Greg Boyd, maybe C.S. Lewis, and I guess lots of
others that Michael pointed too)
3. Human sin is the retroactive cause of natural evil (eg. See Dembski's
essay "Christian Theodicy in Light of Genesis and Modern
Science<http://www.designinference.com/documents/2006.05.christian_theodicy.pdf>
")

I think all of the above could be classed as "free will" theodicies. Are
there any others that would fit in this category? I guess you could extend
this list with "free process" theodicies, which would include process
theologians but some orthodox theologians as well. I'm not sure how the
concept of sin factors into this type of theodicy though.

thanks,

Steve Martin (CSCA)

http://evanevodialogue.blogspot.com/
On 7/17/07, Michael Roberts <michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk> wrote:
>
> 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 <asa@calvin.edu> ; 'David Opderbeck' <dopderbeck@gmail.com>
> *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 Thu Jul 19 16:43:05 2007