On Mon, 22 May 1995 11:19:01 -0400 you wrote:
>Since, for some reason, I'm having trouble communicating my view to Stephen
>Jones
He's a bit dumb. Keep trying! <g>
>and Tom Goodwin, I thought I'd use your categories to state my view.
>
>You give progressive creation and 2 options for "theistic evolution":
>
>3. Progressive creation. Long age of universe and long period of
>creation of vegitation, animals etc, but with instantaneous creations
>occuring at various timepoints over an extended period.
>
>4. Theistic evolution 1. A God-driven evolution-like mechanism of
>creation, where it is recognised that "divine energising" of the
>process is necessary for success.
>
>5. Theistic evolution 2. As with 1 except that God's involvement
>is more implicit. Ie, God sets up the evolutionary process but
>then stands back and watches it run. The process of our evolution
>can be described without refering to God, much in the same way as
>we can describe Newton's laws without refering to God.
>
>For all who care to understand my view, it is a version of Mark's #4 and
>not his #5.
Terry, I "understand" that you intend something like #4, but what
exactly does "energising" mean? Is it (at least in principle) able
to be identified in nature?
> With Mark I see #4 as distinct from #3.
Yes. PC can be minute steps, and even involve natural process but at
their most essential they must be direct supernatural acts of God.
>My particular view of the origin of man--body and soul is probably
>to be categorized as an amalgam of #3 and #4.
IMHO there is no such thing as "an amalgam of #3 and #4". Ultimately
at its most essential it must be either PC or TE. TE can have no
supernatural direct acts of God (otherwise it would be PC). PC can
have some natural process but "guts" of it is supernatural acts of
design and/or creation. Ramm:
"In progressive creationism there may be much horizontal radiation.
The amount is to be determined by the geological record and biological
experimentation. But there is no vertical radiation. Vertical
radiation is only by fiat creation. A root-species may give rise to
several species by horizontal radiation, through the process of the
unraveling of gene potentialities or recombination. Horizontal
radiation could account for much which now passes as evidence for the
theory of evolution. The gaps in the geological record are gaps
because vertical progress takes place only by creation."
(Ramm B. "The Christian View of Science and Scripture", 1955,
Paternoster, London, p191)
>One comment on #5. Just because we can describe something such as Newton's
>laws (or even evolution) without refering to God, does NOT mean that the
>"divine energising" of the process is NOT necessary for its occurrence.
Agreed. They are not Newton's laws. They are God's laws. Newton just
discovered them. <g>
I would still like to see the word "energising" defined, either
scientifically or theologically.
>Here are quicky answers to your questions on my view:
>
>With each of these models, the following questions need to be asked:
>
>1. Does the concept of the fall of man fit with this model, and if
>so, how?
>
>Of course. Adam and Eve were specially created as body-soul wholes. (This
>does not necessarily mean that Adam's body did not have animal ancestors.)
I agree. God forming of man from the dust of the ground (Gen 2:7),
and Eve from Adam's rib (Gn 2:22) may be a symbol for pre-existing
biological material. Since both animals (Gn 1:24) and man (Gen 2:7)
are depicted as being produced from the earth, it could mean that
man was made by God from animals.
IMHO it is still an open question if there was an individual Adam. He
could be a symbol for early man. Adam literally means "man" But
since: 1. there is no way of knowing for certain, 2. it would raise
great and perhaps insoluble theological problems; and 3. it might
cause our brothers to stumble, I simply keep this in the back of my
mind as a possibility.
>Thus, there was a historical Adam, created in perfect righteousness and in
>God's image, who violated the original covenant with God.
You must admit Terry, this seems a bit "tacked on" to TE? Why is
everything else seamlessly continuous except man? Surely it is more
consistent to believe that God acted discontinuously in the other
major creation areas, eg. the universe, life, and life's major
groups?
>2. What does the garden of Eden refer to?
>
>A real garden (though full of symbolism) where Adam and Eve walked with God
>where the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil were
>located from which they were banished after the Fall.
I tend to agree.
>3. What does it mean to say that death came through Adam?
> Was death around before the fall?
>
>Primarily spiritual death. (They did not die physically in the day that
>they ate of it.) Although human physical death is also a consequence.
Yes. Though man was "of the earth" (ie. an animal) he alone among
the animals was uniquely created in the image of God. Therefore
without sin, man would not have died.
>There was animal death and pre-Adam hominid death before the Fall.
Agreed.
>
>4. Is pain and death an inherent part of life? Was it so before
> the fall? If so, how could God's creation be described as
> "good"?
>
>These things refer primarily to human suffering. These things did not
>exist before the Fall, although I probably would say that if Adam stepped
>on a sharp rock, he would feel "pain".
Yes. Pain is a gift of God. Physical pain warns us of danger to our
bodies . People who do not feel pain have inadvertenly burn their arm.
>5. What is someone's soul? Do animals have souls? What is the
> distinction between man and beast?
>
>Traditional Christian orthdoxy is unapologetically dualist on this matter,
>despite recent objections in some circles. Man is body (his material
>dimension) and soul (an immaterial dimension) in a body-soul unity. This
>is not to disparage the body nor to elevate the soul. Nor is it a retreat
>to an un-Biblical Platonic dualism. Although at death our bodies and our
>souls may become separate, our eternal state with new resurrection bodies
>will be as body-soul unities. Souls in this sense belong uniquely to
>humans. Man's soul-ness in this sense is what makes him distinct from the
>beasts in addition to (and in part consisting in) his being created in
>God's image.
Tend to agree. But there are verses that refer to both men and
animals having souls (see below) spirits (Ecc 3:19-21). The real
difference is that only man is created in God's image.
>This soul is not the *nephesh* ("living" produced as a result of God's
>breath of life) of the Old Testament. The *nephesh* is shared by animals.
So is the "soul" shared by animals. This is masked in our English
translations. Gen 1:24 KJV says: "And God said, Let the earth bring
forth the living creature [Heb. chay nephesh = living soul] after his
kind...". This is exactly the same as in Gn 2:7 "And the LORD God
formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils
the breath of life; and man became a living soul"[Heb. chay nephesh].
If this is doubted, refer to Calvin College's (!) former Prof. Louis
Berkhof's "Systematic Theology" pp192-193, "The very same Hebrew term,
nephesh chayyah (living soul or being) is also applied to the animals
in Gen 1:21,24,30."
Stephen