Re: [asa] Evolution, theodicy & trinity

From: Jim Armstrong <jarmstro@qwest.net>
Date: Mon Mar 17 2008 - 20:20:16 EDT

What do you take this "taken up" language to mean?
" Thus the involuntary suffering of all of nature--each species and each
individual creature--must be taken up into the voluntary suffering of
Christ on the cross (theopassionism) and through it the voluntary
suffering of the Father(patripassionism)."
Though the language is poetically appealing, how does that deal with the
problem? It doesn't seem to explain, justify, or undo (redeem) anything.
JimA [Friend of ASA]

Ted Davis wrote:

>Several weeks ago, I expressed my inability adequately to state in
>Trinitarian terms the theological view of creation & suffering that I find
>the most convincing. I am now reading Robert J. Russell's new book,
>Cosmology from Alpha to Omega, and on 311 I find the kind of statement I
>have been looking for.
>
>The context is eschatology, which Russell believes holds out the only
>adequate response to the problem of suffering. He notes that a satisfactory
>eschatological vision "must include the redemption of all life in the
>universe," and goes on to say that it must be trinitarian "since it is the
>trinitarian God who will act to bring this about as we know based on the
>revelation of the cross and resurrection of Jesus. Thus the involuntary
>suffering of all of nature--each species and each individual creature--must
>be taken up into the voluntary suffering of Christ on the cross
>(theopassionism) and through it the voluntary suffering of the Father
>(patripassionism)."
>
>I'm not convinced myself that all living things are necessarily part of
>this, although they might be (that's an issue I will bracket here), but I am
>convinced that a conception like this is what is needed to respond
>adequately to theodicy. I've tried to articulate this in the past in
>various ways, but I was unable to arrive at language this precise.
>
>Please note that, from reading Russell's book and also from talking to him
>extensively last week (when I was at CTNS), there can be no doubt that
>Russell, like me, begins his theological understanding of the world with the
>bodily resurrection of Jesus. No doubt at all. His reference to the
>resurrection in the passage above needs to be seen as a reference to the
>orthodox understanding, with an empty tomb and appearances of the glorified
>body of Jesus--which links the resurrection directly to eschatology, with
>Jesus as "the first fruits" of the eschatological transformation that will
>include (in his view) "all things." His references to the Trinity are also
>orthodox. In previous writings, Bob has not always been as frank about his
>views on these theological issues, but in this book the veil is completely
>lifted and we see precisely where he is coming from. This is also
>consistent with the high view of providence that he has in his chapter on
>theistic evolution in Keith Miller's book, "Perspectives on an Evolving
>Creation."
>
>Ted
>
>To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
>"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>
>
>
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Mar 17 20:22:09 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Mar 17 2008 - 20:22:09 EDT