Re: [asa] "Evolutionary Creation" book comments

Hi David,

I don't think it a dumb question at all.

Rather, it actually serves to demonstrate an important point: there are several different ways that the issues at hand can be addressed and each has its own particular advantages and raises its own particular problems.

This isn't to say we should ignore such questions, or diminish their importance, but I do agree with George's point: that it's really the person and work of Christ that is of central importance and the fact of our alienation from God, and our need to resolve that problem, is largely secondary to the question of how that alienation came about in the first place.

Given, then, that the origins question is secondary, I think I'd want to say that whether or not the thread over theological mistakes is "absurd" depends upon the individual and whether the discussion scratches where they itch. To some people it's critical, to others it's not. I think, following George, that it needs to be kept in perspective AND that the proper perspective is obtained by viewing it through a Christological grid. Nobody is under any obligation to lie awake at night worrying about it.

Just to add to your heartburn: I think you're about right when you say that the "traditional view is not even ancient." I have been trying to make the point that pre-modern cultures focus almost entirely on the meaning of a story whilst treating its form with what we might consider a degree of almost reckless abandon. In consequence I think it quite legitimate to ask whether the fall narrative is primarily an attempt to assert the historical claim that humans were created sinless and then broke the rules? Or: is it an attempt at theodicy: to explain why humans sin, why the world is full of suffering, and yet to affirm that God (and creation) is nevertheless essentially good?

I don't claim to be able to get into the mind of the original framers of the Genesis story - but from what I know of the way that stories are used in other ancient cultures I can at least say that it is hardly obvious how such questions are to be addressed. There is, in my opinion, so much uncertainty about what the original framers of the Genesis stories intended, that the ONLY way to approach them is Christologically as per George's very sound advice.

Blessings,
Murray

David Clounch wrote:
> Can I ask a dumb question?
>
> Why is the idea of God breathing a soul into a population of Adams less
> miraculous than breathing a soul into one individual Adam?
>
> And why would it mean there is no historical Adam?
>
> It seems to me there are three scenarios:
>
> 1. Traditional view: Adam the individual (individual soul and
> individual body)
> 2. The TE view: 1000 Adams (a population) (1000 souls, 1000 minds, 1000
> bodies)
> 3. Materialist view: No Adam, no soul, just 1000 bodies with suddenly
> emergent minds.
>
> Please note this is an oversimplification. It ignores the scenario of
> one individual infused mind/soul which then propagated into a ripe
> population.
>
> I'm having trouble understanding the assertion that there is no
> historical Adam (scenario 3) if it turns out that scenario #1 was not
> what the scriptures asserted. In fact, if the theology that goes
> alongside TE is correct, (as I understand it) this means the
> traditional view is wrong, but it also means the traditional view is
> NOT EVEN ANCIENT. Its a modern mistake never originally intended to
> be in the Bible. So how could it then be a mistaken ancient theology?
> Grrrrr. Is my heartburn from feeling cheated or did I just have too
> much pepperoni last night? Is the entire thread over theological
> mistakes sort of absurd?
>
> Thanks Ahead,
> Dave C

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Sep 29 21:19:17 2009