Re: Evolution and sin

George Murphy (
Mon, 30 Mar 1998 16:46:21 -0500

Pattle Pun wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Mar 1998, Ted Davis wrote:
> > In my view there are at least two very serious problems to be dealt with in
> > any proposed reconciliation of Christianity and evolution. One is the
> > "fall," that is, the source of sin (moral evil) as well as of suffering
> > (including "natural evil"). I for one never found traditional theodicy very
> > helpful on linking these two -- why spiders should lay eggs in paralyzed
> > wasps as a result of Adam and Eve eating fruit never made sense to me -- but
> > I don't find most proposed evolutionary alternatives very satisfying either.
> > George Murphy may well be correct in suggesting that we all need better to
> > understand the theology of the cross, and that we start THERE rather than
> > with creation in understanding such matters.
> >
> I see the major weakness of the theology of the cross which is originated
> from Luther is to propagate a theology of paradox. According to Luther,
> Christians live an earthly kingdom as well as in a heavenly kingdom, and
> are accontable to both man and God. Thus we are to live in perpetual
> tension, especially when the demands of these kingdoms clash.

1) If a theology of paradox is bad, what do you do with I
2) You seem to be confusing Luther's theology of the cross with
the "two kingdoms" doctrine. There are connections between them but
they are by no means the same, & some people today who are strongly
committed to the former don't like the latter. The theology of the
cross & its contrast with theologies of glory (=bad theologies) is
summed up in a couple of the 1518 Heidelberg Theses:
"That person does not deserve to be called a theologian who
looks upon the invisible things of God as though they were clearly
perceptible in those things which have actually happened. [Rom.1:20]"
"He deserves to be called a theologian, however, who comprehends
the visible and manifest things of God seen through suffering and the

George L. Murphy