Hi Phil,
Thanks for your thoughtful response. You summarized:
> I would say that natural evil exists because of man's sin, but that God
> put it into the world prior to man's sin because he foreknew and pre-planned
> our redemption.
>
>
>
I think this would be another instance of the 3rd "free-will theodicy" above
ie. Human sin retroactively caused natural evil – albeit without the dubious
interpretation of the Genesis creation accounts. Then later in the
paragraph you say:
> There is the interesting possibility, also, that if mankind had chosen not
> to sin, then our purpose would have been to extend he garden of Eden to the
> entire world, bringing God's presence into a world where it was lacking. So
> even without sin, the natural "evil" in the world would have served a good
> purpose.
I think this is something fundamentally different because here you are
explicitly saying that natural evil would have occurred even without human
sin. Am I missing something?
Anyways, your last statement (I think) qualifies for what I understand to be
a "free process" theodicy (Polkinghorne?), which extends "free choice"
through "functional integrity" to non-conscious components of creation.
Steve Martin (CSCA)
http://evanevodialogue.blogspot.com/
On 7/22/07, philtill@aol.com <philtill@aol.com> wrote:
>
> Thanks for pointing out Dembski's essay. I found it very interesting. I
> think he has many good points to make but IMO goes too far when he claims
> that Genesis 1-3 does not describe the creation of the world we are IN, but
> rather the world we MIGHT have been in if A&E had not sinned. That seems
> too much a stretch. I think Moses' audience would have understood in any
> circumstance that Genesis 1 describes the creation of the world we actually
> see, and so this precludes the most fanciful aspects of Dembski's theodicy.
> The fallen world is not a different word than the one God describes in
> Genesis 1-3.
>
> I would suggest that a simpler variation is that God simply foreknew that
> mankind would sin and that Genesis 1-3 describes the creation of the world
> in which He pre-planned natural evil to exist in order to enable our
> redemption. I don't think the Hebrews needed to see a perfect paradise in
> Genesis 1-3 in order to grasp its message. I don't think they actually did
> see a perfect paradise in that passage, either. To my knowledge, the only
> pre-Hellenistic data we have on how the Hebrews understood these parts of
> the Bible come from the later parts of the Bible itself. In particular,
> Psalm 104 shows that they understood that natural "evil" was a part of the
> world prior to man's sin, and that they would not have called it "evil".
>
> Dembski's criticism of Mark Whorton's book seemed weak, IMO. If his
> arguments were valid that mankind would be in a position of being "used" by
> God if subjected to evil without our own choice of sin having caused
> it, then the argument could also be turned against the Christian doctrine of
> the Fall of Man in that (even if the Fall is the cause of natural evil)
> still not all humans chose to become sinners in the Fall -- only Adam made
> the decision -- and therefore we are still all being "used" by God through
> Adam. So I don't think Dembski's arguments against Whorton's position are
> valid. I think a simple foreknowledge of man's sin is enough for God to
> choose to create a world with natural evil in order to use it for our
> redemption. AFAIK, that is Whorton's position. It is really not that
> different than Dembski's position, but it doesn't require the fanciful idea
> that Genesis 1-3 fails to describe the world we are actually living in.
>
> So to summarize, I would add another theodicy alongside Dembski's. I
> would say that natural evil exists because of man's sin, but that God put it
> into the world prior to man's sin because he foreknew and pre-planned our
> redemption. Genesis 1-3 describes a perfect world but doesn't tell us why
> or how it is perfect until after mankind sins. Then we realize it is
> perfect for redemption. There is the interesting possibility, also, that if
> mankind had chosen not to sin, then our purpose would have been to extend he
> garden of Eden to the entire world, bringing God's presence into a world
> where it was lacking. So even without sin, the natural "evil" in the world
> would have served a good purpose.
>
> Phil
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Steve Martin <steven.dale.martin@gmail.com>
> To: Michael Roberts <michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk>
> Cc: jack syme <drsyme@cablespeed.com>; asa <asa@calvin.edu>; David
> Opderbeck <dopderbeck@gmail.com>
> Sent: Thu, 19 Jul 2007 4:42 pm
> Subject: 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.
> >
> >
>
> ------------------------------
> AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free
> from AOL at *AOL.com* <http://www.aol.com/?ncid=AOLAOF00020000000437>.
>
>
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Jul 27 15:56:11 2007
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Jul 27 2007 - 15:56:11 EDT