Posted by Sparrow on Apr 14, 2002 at 13:31
(209.161.68.126)
Re: the book AND darwin? (anyman)
You raise good points. I finally understand the problem inherent in the Theistic Evolution postulation. Well done.
But I have a point to make, begging an explanation, but let me preface it this way: I have serrious reservations about the doctrine of Election (hang in for a second, troops, this will get relevant and back to Scientific speculation). This deals with the idea that God has elected only certain individuals to be saved. This lead to the long-dead Presbyterian doctrine of Predestination and Double Predestination, in part. In the few courses that I have had the opportunity to teach, I've held that the problem isn't that God has destined only certain individuals (The Elect) to come to Him, the problem is our narrow interpretation of The Elect. It seems to me that Conception is the only true physical moment when God can directly "elect" His own. (Far be it from me to limit Him, though!) Thus, every Conception stands to be an "election". This gives a much easier time to those who trouble over the "whosoever's" in Scripture. (i.e., John 3:16 "...that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life." -- it's a very serious problem, the way that I see it, if we interpret that narrowly.)
...that said, back to you. I don't think that we can put God in a Time box. (I definitely accept the idea of a young Earth dating, though.) Is the problem of Sin/Death/The Fall solved if we allow, much like the Xian Scientists, that matter has some sense of inherent "Sin" about it? That as material/spiritual beings, we have an inherent (Adamic) Sin, but we have a New Adamic choice to live as Spiritual Beings -- the Born from Above Experience?
The only immediate problem I see as difficult about this is animals' death.
Just wonderin'
8)
hmm anyman 18/4 13:25
(4)