Re: [asa] What is exactly is a TE?

Moorad:
I am quite happy to defend my own view where it is aligned with that of
Robin Collins.
I do not think that it is necessary to know *how* hominids became aware
of God's requirements. It is sufficient to know that they *did* become
aware. The "Fall" is a theological concept, based on an a particular
interpretation of the Bible. The analogy with a departure from a higher
form to that of a lower one is just that -- an analogy -- and in some
ways it is a misleading analogy.
I would say that "eternity" is also a theological concept, to be applied
when it is appropriate -- after one has interpreted the meaning of
Genesis 2-3, and not before.
Don

Alexanian, Moorad wrote:
> I do not want to put you in the position of defending Robin Collins and instead I should read his book. However, I do not understand how in the natural process of evolution, hominids even those with free choice and self-awareness became aware of God's requirements. How did God become evident to them? A fall indicates a departure from a higher form to that of a lower one. It seems that hominids just became aware that their natural actions were against God's requirements and so there was no choice but disobedience on their part. Their nature was already sinful but they just happen to learn it by becoming aware of God's requirements.
>
>
>
> I do not read anything like eternity in Collins' notion of salvation.
>
>
>
> Moorad
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: Don Nield [mailto:d.nield@auckland.ac.nz]
> Sent: Sun 9/2/2007 4:57 PM
> To: Alexanian, Moorad
> Cc: Gregory Arago; asa@calvin.edu
> Subject: Re: [asa] What is exactly is a TE?
>
>
>
> Moorad:
> The following is no substitute for reading the whole of Robin Collins'
> article "Evolution and original sin" in the book "Perspectives on an
> Evolving Creation", but here is my summary of what he calls his
> Historical/Ideal view.
>
> Genesis 2-3 serves as a symbolic story that provides a sketch of what an
> ideal relation with God would be like. Adam and Eve play two
> representative roles. They represent us and they represent the first
> hominids who had the capacity for free choice and self-consciousness.
> With this capacity, they became aware of God's requirements, but more
> often than not rejected them. The "Fall" refers to the sinful acts of
> these ancestors creating a form of spiritual and moral darkness along
> with an accompanying bondage to sin. Original sin refers to: (1) the
> sinful choices of these hominids, (2) the continuing sinful choices of
> the succeeding generations including ourselves, and (3) the resulting
> bondage to sin and spiritual darkness that is inherited from our
> ancestors and generated by our own choices. This inheritance acts at its
> own ("spiritual") level and cannot be reduced to some sort of cultural
> or genetic inheritance, though it is deeply intertwined with these other
> levels.
>
> On Collins' view salvation consists of fully sharing the life of Christ.
> Because of the incarnation, this life is both fully divine and fully
> human; and because of the cross, it is fully in solidarity with the
> depths of human brokenness, sin, alienation, mortality and the like.
> Because of its fully human component, and because it is in full
> solidarity with the depths of our life situation, we can participate in
> it. As Paul indicates in Romans 6, by participating in this life we are
> redeemed from sin and reconciled to God and freed from spiritual bondage
> and darkness. Thus the effect of original sin is reversed. Collins
> defends his incarnational theory of the atonement as being scripturally,
> morally, and theologically sound. It also works in well with the kenosis
> theme of Phillipians 2:5-11.
>
> Don
>
>
> Alexanian, Moorad wrote:
>
>> Can you summarize Robin Collins's interpretation of the Fall?
>>
>>
>> Moorad
>>
>> ________________________________
>>
>> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu on behalf of d.nield@auckland.ac.nz
>> Sent: Sat 9/1/2007 11:28 PM
>> To: Gregory Arago
>> Cc: asa@calvin.edu
>> Subject: Re: [asa] What is exactly is a TE?
>>
>>
>>
>> Other people such as Keith Miller and Terry Gray have already responded
>> eloquently on this thread, so I confine myself to some personal comments.
>> My position is similar to those espoused by the group of contributors to
>> the book "Perspectives on an Evolving Creation". If that is taken as the
>> definition of a TE then I accept the term, and I see it as also
>> encompassing Lamoureux's position.
>>
>> My theological views are not driven by my views on evolution but they are
>> consistent with them. My view of God is based on what God has revealed in
>> the Books of Scripture and Nature. These books together indicate that God
>> has used accomodation in Scripture and is the sort of God who allows his
>> Creation to evolve -- a kenotic God. The Fall is to be interpreted along
>> the lines taken by Robin Collins in the book mentioned in the previous
>> paragraph.
>>
>> Teihard de Chardin goes well beyond a typical modern day TE view. The
>> Kuyper quote has no relevance to my position. The quote by Phillip Johnson
>> is an illustration that Johnson himself is confused -- notably in his
>> failure to distinguish adequately the distinction between methodological
>> naturalism and metaphysical naturalism.
>>
>> The E in TE refers to Evolution in its scientific sense. It includes
>> cosmological evolution and biological evolution and also those aspects of
>> cultural revolution that are scientific -- it does not include the
>> non-scientific extensions made by some sociologists such as Herbert
>> Spencer or such people as Ken Ham.
>> Don
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> What exactly is a TE? This is a great question, David, and one I would
>>> love to see addressed at ASA. If it is true that ASA is home to many of
>>> the scientists/scholars who contributed to the volume "Perspectives of an
>>> Evolving Creation" and if that is the (or a) definitive text for the TE
>>> (theistic evolution or theological evolution) perspective, then it should
>>> be an excellent place to address this question. Surely, those who hold to
>>> TE will be able to mention the names of the most prominent TEs in history
>>> and point out the main ideas that TE represents.
>>>
>>> David Campbell addresses two categories in answer to 'what exactly is a
>>> TE?' 1) "A Christian who acknowledges that evolution provides the best
>>> current physical description of the origin and diversification of
>>> organisms," and 2) "Someone who seeks to revise theology to conform to a
>>> purportedly more evolutionary mold. This is anchored in evolution..."
>>>
>>> In response to these two categories, I wonder first if a TE is one who
>>> simply acknowledges evolution as a (successful) descriptive theory of
>>> natural history. I'm also curious how to differentiate between 'more
>>> evolutionary' and 'less evolutionary' and if the distinction is worth
>>> making in the sense that a TE still ultimately accepts evolution in
>>> general. Personally, I don't think evolution has anything to do with
>>> 'origins,' despite the title of C. Darwin's most well-known text. It is
>>> rather predominantly about 'processes' of change, while it should be
>>> clearly noted (as was done in a thread months back at ASA) that 'change'
>>> and 'evolution' are not synonymous.
>>>
>>> Does a TE accept ALL forms of evolutionary theories or just some forms?
>>> That is, does a TE accept just biological evolution or also cosmological
>>> evolution, technological evolution and cultural evolution? Or does a TE
>>> not differentiate between various types of evolution and rather
>>> inevitably hold to a kind of ideological, 'universalistic evolution,' of
>>> the type that Pierre Teilhard de Chardin meant when he wrote:
>>>
>>> "Is evolution a theory, a system or a hypothesis? It is much more: it is
>>> a general condition to which all theories, all hypotheses, all systems
>>> must bow and which they must satisfy henceforward if they are to be
>>> thinkable and true. Evolution is a light illuminating all facts, a curve
>>> that all lines must follow." (The Phenomenon of Man, 1940)
>>>
>>> It might be worthwhile distinguishing a TE from an EC ('evolutionary
>>> creationist' - see Denis Lamoureux's definition here: ), but to do so
>>> may distract from the topic, at least at first.
>>>
>>> Here are two additional quotes on this topic to perhaps stir up
>>> discussion:
>>>
>>> "Theistic evolution is woefully-even perniciously-confused." - Phillip
>>> Johnson
>>>
>>> "Our nineteenth century is dying away under the hypnosis of the dogma of
>>> Evolution." - Abraham Kuyper (Vrije University, Presidential Address,
>>> 20/10/1899)
>>>
>>> Looking forward to your responses!
>>>
>>> Warm regards,
>>>
>>> Gregory
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
>> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>

-- 
Donald A. Nield
Associate Professor, Department of Engineering Science
University of Auckland
Private Bag 92019
Auckland 1142, NEW ZEALAND
ph  +64 9 3737599 x87908 
fax +64 9 3737468
Courier address: 70 Symonds Street, Room 235 or 305
d.nield@auckland.ac.nz
http://www.esc.auckland.ac.nz/People/Staff/dnie003/
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.