Adam & Eve
November 15, 2004
My buddy Cory has some great thoughts today on Adam & Eve, sin and the current state of the world (I won’t tell you what he says, but he really doesn’t like Augustinian theodicy). He raises some good questions and poses some good thoughts. Was the eventual “fall” of Adam & Eve a fall out of a pristine, perfect condition, or was it more so an eventual progression, the next step of living into the fullness of their humanity? And if Adam & Eve were simply making the next step in their fulfillment of becoming human (which would seem to answer the question, “If God really didn’t want them to eat of that tree, then why did God put it there in the Garden?” - because God would have known that it would be inevitable, and actually “good” for them to eat from it) - what does that say about the state of humanity’s nature, the role of Christ on earth, the role of Christ on the cross…some good questions.
NEWER PAPER UPDATE: I’m not planning on combining the papers…just doing two separate papers. The other paper is going to be on Open Theism and comparing it to Process Theology…should be interesting. Anyone out there read much Open Theism or Process stuff…? Leave me some good links please.
Tags: Open-Theism, Process-Theology, Theology
Posted in 
Adam Walker Cleaveland: 
November 15th, 2004 at 1:15 pm
Sounds sounds like a great plan providing that you have past experience writing papers of that length. If you don’t have that experience, be very careful to maintain focus and flow of argument. It is really easy to loose focus when writing more length than one is used to.
November 15th, 2004 at 1:57 pm
as a recent Princeton Theological grad, my advice is to do as much work as possibly while you’re there. even if it seems like you’re doing work for little immediate payback (i.e. grades or credits), the long-term benefits are many. i go back and read what i wrote often now that i’m in “the real world” of ministry, and i am very thankful when i read the work into which i put a lot of effort.
November 15th, 2004 at 2:31 pm
are you using one paper for two classes?
make sure your profs are all on board with it.
November 15th, 2004 at 8:28 pm
about your paper…
ask if the prof will let you hand in your paper word for word the same in both, because i did that exact thing once…you know got approval from two profs to right the same paper for both but with extra sections fulfilling expactations from either class. i turned in the paper to both, and one of them failed my paper because i didn’t change the wording and crap like that. he failed the paper because he said, and i quote, “i plagerized my own writing” what the hell is that…is that even possible…anyway…cover your bases and make sure.
gregg
November 15th, 2004 at 10:57 pm
You’ll want to read this book:
Searching for an Adequate God: A Dialogue Between Process and Free Will Theists, edited by John Cobb and Clark Pinnock.
You can find it on Amazon or in the library at BT83.6.S43 2000.
November 15th, 2004 at 11:36 pm
Try this article for Open Theism:
http://216.239.39.104/search?q=cache:nGoCoDEtuOoJ:journalofbiblicalstudies.org/Issue5/Heffalumps_and_Heresies.pdf+openness+of+god+clark+pinnock+jihad&hl=en
November 16th, 2004 at 2:05 am
While I don’t personally process stuff. This stuff if processed. http://spam.com/
November 16th, 2004 at 4:27 am
Clark Pinnock, Paul Fiddes (both baptists - Fiddes english, pinnock - usa) and Eberhard Jungel advocate openness theology and draw a lot on process ideas. For a possible critique of process theology see Colin Gunton’s article titled ‚ÄòThe Knowledge of God According to Two Process Theologians: A Twentieth Century Gnosticism‚Äô in Religious Studies 11 (1975):)
November 16th, 2004 at 9:00 pm
The Pinnock-Cobb dialogue is probably a good source, as John Cobb is the Process Guy. Have you been to the Center for Process Studies website?
I haven’t done much with Open Theism — but I concentrated most of my work in seminary on emerging theologies, and worked on process theology quite a bit… I’ll happily answer any questions that I can.
November 18th, 2004 at 12:56 am
Apparently people really want to talk about Adam & Eve and the fall…damn. I thought Cory had some great thoughts…
November 18th, 2004 at 3:17 pm
Adam, it might be possible that two are linked (or I could be way off)? God allowed Adam and Eve the freedom to choose to eat (or not) the fruit and God, in allowing humanity their freedom to choose, accepted that such freedom would have consequences for both humanity and God (the pain of a changed relationship between humanity and God). But God was willing to risk such a changed relationship so that humanity might have freedom to choose and therefore be fully “personal”. God is not a transcendent overlord but a loving personal God who allows humanity to have full personhood and accepts that this has consequences for Godself and humanity.
I really like Fiddes on this stuff. He suggests that in the eschaton there could be unfulfilled potentialities that God is aware of (and senses the loss) but accepts this as necessary to allow humanity to have their full personhood. Humanity won’t know that their is loss in the new creation but God will and accepts this loss for the sake of humanity having the freedom to choose. It’s in Fiddes’ book “Participating in God” (on the Trinity).
November 18th, 2004 at 4:58 pm
cleave,
Here are some of my thoughts on your good friend Derrida. Linguistic negation captures God no more adequately than linguistic affirmation; as such there is a problem with apophatic language in the Dionysian corpus. The terms ‘hyper’ (Greek) or ’super’ (Latin) that refer to the being or essence as beyond what the human mind can understand are in themselves corrupt. They are corrupt because they assume that one can grasp what beyond being is; thus, Derrida argues that the use of such terms is a form of idolatry. Try rereading his essay differance with this in mind. Good luck.
-Drew