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

Below is a reposting of a dialog that I had on the ASA list several
years ago. It is relevant to the current thread. My comments are in
response to the posted quotations.

Keith

> The gap between huamns and our closest relatives is so vast that it
> amounts
> to a qualitative difference. Of these differences, one of the most
> significant is probably our capacity for self-awareness and
> self-determination. No naturalistic process is able to satisfactorily
> explain the emergence of these capacities, which are prerequisites
> for moral
> accountability. We are moral beings because we have these
> capacities, and
> when we misuse them, we fall into sin. The doctrine of Original Sin
> not only
> requires that we are morally accountable, but also affirms the
> concept of
> the unity of humankind - that it is through the sin of one that we
> are all
> fallen. IMHO, to deny the historicity of the one Adam is to make
> non-sense
> of the doctrine.
>

Firstly, self-awareness and self-determination are very abstract
concepts.
How do you know that no other animal is self-aware? This has been
debated
for years, and I don't see any clear objective way of determining
it. My
personal view is that at least some higher animals are indeed self-
aware.

Secondly, what does moral accountability have to do with the origin
of the
physical human form? I can see no reason why our moral and spiritual
nature, or our relationship to God, has any direct connection to the
origin
of our physical form. It seems clear to me that the "image of God"
is tied
specifically to our covenant relationship to God. We are God's
representatives, God's ambassadors to the rest of Creation. Past and
contemporary evangelical theologians have seen no necessary connection
between the manner in which our physical bodies were created and our
being
made in the image of God.

Lastly, evolution also affirms the unity of humankind. People like
Warfield used evolution as a strong argument against polygenism
(multiple
human origins) and racism (see the discussion of Warfield in "Darwin's
Forgotten Defenders"). Furthermore, many of those accepting human
evolution, both past and present, also fully accepted the historicity of
Adam. Whether the historicity of Adam is necessary for the doctrine of
original sin is another question, but it can be consistenly held by
those
accepting an evolutionary origin for the human physical form.

__________

> However, to bring up a side issue, I would also argue that our
> physicalness
> is an essential expression of imaging God. This is not to say that
> God is
> physical, but to say that our bodies communicate the essence of who
> we are.
> The only way that I know you truly exist as a person is through your
> physical form. If (as I assume) the person is a unified body and
> soul, then
> both body and soul TOGETHER image God. In fact, I would go further
> to say
> (as Barth argued also, I think) that in some sense, being created
> male and
> female TOGETHER images God. And only our physical bodies expresses our
> maleness or femaleness. Furthermore, both the Incarnation and the
> Resurrection (of Christ and of our bodies) attest to the
> significance of the
> physical body. Therefore, I do think that the image is necessarily
> tied to
> our physical nature.
>

Of course our being in the image of God involves us as whole
physical/spiritual beings. Below is a quote from an article I wrote for
Perspectives:

"An inseparable part of being created as images of God in the world
is the
authority delegated to us by God. We have been chosen out of
creation as
God's representatives, His stewards. God commissioned us to "Be
fruitful
and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the
fish
of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that
moves on the ground" (Genesis 1:28). Adam was placed in the garden "to
work it and take care of it" (Genesis 2:15). Our ability to exercise
this
divine commission to rule and care for creation is, I believe, based
on our
dual nature. Our physical unity with the natural world is as vital
to our
appointed role as image bearers as is our spiritual apprehension of the
divine." (Keith B. Miller, 1993, Theological implications of an evolving
creation: Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith, vol. 45, p.
150-160)

What was at issue was whether an evolutionary understanding of the
manner
in which God created our physical form undermines the Biblical claim
that
we are made in the image of God. I do not see that it does, in fact, I
believe that an evolutionary perspective gives added meaning to the
Biblical claim.

> All of which I don't deny. I am NOT saying that Christian
> evolutionists are
> necessarily any less orthodox in their theology than others. But at
> this
> point, I fail to see how the doctrine of original sin can be
> reconciled with
> a purely evolutionary framework that denies the special creation of
> humans.
> The reason is because there is no satisfactory account of how physical
> processes can lead to the emergence of our moral capacity and
> self-determination, which are necessary for Adam to have sinned.
>

Your first two sentences seem to be in conflict. You first say that
those
who accept human evolution are not less orthodox, and then you say that
such a view cannot be reconciled with the doctrine of original sin.
What
are you trying to say? Why is the evolutionary origin of our
physical form
irreconcilable with original sin?

I have been exclusively addressing the claim that acceptance of an
evolutionary origin of our PHYSICAL FORM is not in any way in
conflict with
our being in the image of God, with the doctrine of original sin, or
with
any other central historical doctrine of the Christian faith.
Nothing you
have said would argue against this.

___________

> You seem to want to make a sharp distinction between the physical
> and the
> spiritual which I am uncomfortable with. You wish to allow for
> evolution to
> be the explanation for the emergence of the physical form and to
> have a
> entirely separate (spiritual?) process for the emergence of
> uniquely human
> capactities. Perhaps I am reading you wrong here.
>

It is helpful to approach such questions one step at a time. The
original
issue as I understood it, was whether or not an evolutionary
understanding
of the origin of the human physical form was in necessary conflict
with a
fully orthodox and evangelical theology. I argue that it is
consistent with
orthodox theology, and that it has been so understood by many prominant
evangelical theologians since the time of Darwin. You seem to make no
rebuttal against that. Therefore, the issue is NOT whether humans
share a
common ancestor with the great apes, and have a genealogical
relationship
to all of creation.

Your questions deal rather with other related, but distinct issues.
These
include: 1) whether humans should be viewed dualistically or
monistically,
or in some other way, 2) the extent to which our moral capacities can be
explained by (or related to) our evolutionary history, 3) what is the
nature of the human soul and what is its origin, 4) whether scripture
demands that Adam be an historical individual, 5) whether Adam need
be the
ancestor of all living humans (rahter than a representative head),
and 6)
whether an historical Adam is necessary to uphold the doctrine of
original
sin. These are all important questions.

I am convinced that the evidence supports common ancestry for all living
things including humans. I am open to the idea that or moral and
spiritual
capacities have some connection to our physical brain (and thus its
evolution) but would deny a reductionist view (ala Donald MacKay's
"nothing
buttery"). I also strongly lean toward the view that Adam was a
representative head (in a way parallel to Christ's headship of the
church)
and not the ancestor of all living humans.

As I stated above, I believe that it is important to keep the issues
clearly in focus and not confuse them. Thus, it is inappropriate to
use an
argument for the historicity of Adam as an argument against human
evolution.
_____________________

How is Christ's righteousness imputed to us? - by grace through faith.
There is some act of the will on my part involved. I must willingly
accept
that offer of grace. What if we make a parallel with the
transmission of
sin? When I am born I am innocent (I do not mean righteous).
However, at
the first opportunity I choose to be disobedient - I sin and come
under the
curse of Adam which is spiritual death. Thus, Adam's curse is
imputed to
me by my sharing in his sin, just as Christ's righteousness is
imputed to
me by faith. "Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man,
and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because
all
sinned" (Rom 5:12). My reading is that there are none who are
without sin
except Christ, thus there are none who are morally righteous yet still
condemned by Adam's sin. We are condemned because we sin. Therefore
I do
not understand that sin itself is something that is passed on thru
direct
descent.

The question then is, why do we all sin? This is where my views get
even
more speculative. It has been suggested by some that our physical
desires
and drives, which were part of God's good creation enabling us to
survive
and flourish as a species, became aspects of our humanity that God
called
us to overcome as His image bearers. In other words, God desires
that His
character be developed in us through our encounter with and
overcoming of
temptation and trial (Gen 2:15-17; Gen 4:6-7). And He has not left
us in
that process without providing us with His gracious power - if we
choose to
accept it. This provides, I believe, a useful basis for working out a
theodicy of pain and suffering. I have found the book "Evil and the
God of
Love" by John Hick to be very helpful to me in thinking through theodicy
issues.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Sep 3 11:15:00 2007