Re: [asa] Event or process

From: Christine Smith <>
Date: Tue May 08 2007 - 23:00:19 EDT

See comments below....

--- Bill Hamilton <>

> Christine Smith wrote
> In other words, the development of the "soul"
> throughout evolution is the increasing ability to
> perceive/receive into ourselves God's
> characteristics--consciousness/self-awareness (the
> Great I AM), feelings/emotions (God is love),
> logic/reason (God created natural laws), creativity
> (God created, period!), and finally, morality/free
> will (God is the author of good/evil, makes choices,
> etc), which has come about both through God acting
> in/with/under a process and through God's overt
> actions at critical points in time.
> While I agree that development of spiritual
> awareness could have been a process, IMO there has
> to be a definite, discrete step at which God turned
> human into man. Otherwise there could be all
> different degrees of "soulness" existing at the same
> time. Once God had created Adam by breathing His
> spirit into him (Gen 2:7) then Adam passed on his
> awareness of God. IOW as a type of Christ, Adam
> served a similar role: making humans men by telling
> them about God. This is what I gather of Dick
> Fisher's view (corrrect me if I'm wrong, Dick) I
> don't hold this view as the definitive
> interpretation of Scripture -- just as a plausible
> explanation.

Can you define the shorthands of "IMO" and "IOW"?
Thanks :)

I agree that there had to be a defining moment when
God made humans to be mankind in the "likeness of
God", and I think that as in Genesis, that moment is
coupled with our coming into possession of a knowledge
of good/evil & free will (with regards to free will,
see later comments); will have to ponder the latter
part about passing that on to posterity...when you say
different degrees of "soulness existing at the same
time", do you mean within mankind, or between man &
animals/earlier humans?

> Later on she writes
> (God is the author of good/evil, makes choices,
> etc),
> Most if not all Christian theologies explicitly
> state that God is not the author of evil.

Thanks for clarifying that--I realized how poorly I
wrote that after it was posted. What I meant was that
God is the author of the moral law (X is right and
then inherently, Y is wrong); also along with that,
free will (see next note below)

> And I know you labeled it off topic, but I feel the
> need to respond to your comment that
> A potential implication in this
> line of logic is that those humans whose brains have
> not developed to the point of perceiving good/evil
> and
> exercising free will (infants/young children and
> severely mentally disabled) are incapable of sinning
> (like an animal is incapable of sinning), and
> therefore they are already saved (having never
> fallen,
> as it were)
> It may be that such individuals have not sinned. But
> there is the matter of election. Romans 9 says
> 10Not only that, but Rebekah's children had one and
> the same father, our father Isaac. 11Yet, before the
> twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in
> order that God's purpose in election might stand:
> 12not by works but by him who calls—she was told,
> "The older will serve the younger."[d] 13Just as it
> is written: "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."[e]
> This is a hard doctrine we Presbyterians harp on.
> It's made a little easier IMO by something Calvin
> said: He said that a sign of election is a desire on
> the part of the individual to know Christ (or
> something like that) IOW no individual who truly
> wants to know Christ is going to be left out of the
> Kingdom.
> Well, this was labeled off topic, so this will be
> about enough.
> Maybe I haven't contributed constructively to this
> thread, but it is interesting, and I thought it
> would be good to point out some doctrinal problems
> from my point of view.

Doctrinal differences indeed :D As I don't want to go
too far off the science/faith thread, I'll just leave
this by saying that I actually just read that passage
the other day, and in considering the context of what
Paul was writing (Israel & Gentiles), the examples he
gave and other interpretations I hold from the New
Testament, I would take that passage to mean that some
"moral stumbles" (notably, not the first moral
stumble) are predestined by God in order to work a
greater good through them, but that those individuals
are not predestined for hell (or heaven, for that
matter). I'm all up for discussing this further
off-line :D
> Bill Hamilton
> William E. Hamilton, Jr., Ph.D.
> 248.652.4148 (home) 248.821.8156 (mobile)
> "...If God is for us, who is against us?" Rom 8:31
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam
> protection around

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue May 8 23:00:58 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue May 08 2007 - 23:00:58 EDT