RE: [asa] (fall) biological evolution and a literal Adam- logically inconsistent?

From: Dehler, Bernie <bernie.dehler@intel.com>
Date: Tue Sep 02 2008 - 17:16:26 EDT

-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On Behalf Of David Opderbeck
Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2008 2:01 PM
To: Dehler, Bernie
Cc: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: [asa] (fall) biological evolution and a literal Adam- logically inconsistent?

Bernie said: A "fall" implies
> going from something better to something worse. I think it is the opposite-
> we arose from the animal nature and after being born-again we can rise to a
> higher place.

I respond: Bernie, I think you need to be a bit careful here
theologically. This sounds a bit Pelagian -- that there is some
innate human capacity to improve. The overall arc of scripture, it
seems to me, is that human beings cannot ultimately improve
themselves, and that something has "gone wrong" in human history.
Christ didn't die on the cross to offer the culmination of an
evolutionary process -- he died to redeem us from slavery to sin,
which is both a personal and a primordial slavery.
. . . . . . .
Hi David- read the last chapter of CS Lewis' "Mere Christianity" and then tell me your thoughts. I'm assuming you have the book- it is a classic book for most people in their personal libraries.

The ability to improve is not innate- it comes from the power of God by receiving Christ- the latest evolutionary jump. In that regard, you could say "Christ died on the cross to offer the culmination of an
evolutionary process" (changing your statement slightly).

...Bernie

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Sep 2 17:17:05 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Sep 02 2008 - 17:17:05 EDT