In a message dated 2/21/01 2:04:50 PM, gmurphy@raex.com writes:
<< "Perfect fellowship with God the Creator" would mean that no further
development in the relationship would be possible. That was not the case for
the
first humans because:
1) The culmination of human fellowship with God comes about through
the
Incarnation, which had not yet taken place.
2) Such an assumption does assume an essentially static view and thus
thus is contrary to the belief that time and history are part of God's
intention
in creation. >>
By a perfect relationship I meant an ideal one. A perfect relationship is
not necessarily a static one. It can be a developing one, as you seem to
acknowledge. A parent may have a perfect relationship with his/her infant
child, later as a teenager, and still later as a young adult. At each stage
the relationship changes, and at each stage it can be said to be perfect.
The operative word here is not "perfect", but rather "developing".
I agree that A&E were not infantile. I'm not sure how I would characterize
their immaturity. Their behavior as described seemed more adolescent in its
rebelliousness. But I do not think that we need to place them in some stage
of human development as we know it today.
<<No, that is not my reason for arguing against the idea of a creation
already perfect in its beginnings. The value of history as part of creation &
the incarnational goal of creation are my primary theological motives for
such an
argument. It is, of course, strongly supported by what we know of cosmic and
biological evolution. I would suggest, on the contrary, that there is very
little biblical basis for the view I'm challenging: You have not given any
here. Such views are heavily influenced by the Greek idea of a priority of
being
over becoming & a desire for a golden age.>>
I will back off the concept of perfection, if it places me in the camp of
those who hold a static view of creation. I hold a dynamic view of history
also.
<< No, he didn't say that. But as I already noted, if fellowship is
perfect, in what important sense can there be any change for the better?>>
I've back off the concept of perfection. But your argument that perfection
is inherently a static concept is irrelevant in a developmental context,
where perfection in an immature stage changes as the stages change, as I
suggested above.
<<You have missed the point of my criticisms of ID. They are not willing
to accept the idea that God works in the world through cooperation with
natural
processes. I am, & in fact work with a very traditional understanding of
divine
action. The processes with which God cooperates are studied all the time by
scientists. God isn't.>>
Your last sentence does not say anything about the nature of God's
cooperation. Logically, what is the difference between "God designs" and
"God cooperates"? I think the first one means, in broad terms, that God
determines the goals of cosmic and biological processes. What does it mean
that God cooperates?
In my prior note I asked, <<Evolution, if defined, as most biologists do, as
natural selection, is of all things, not teleological. You have chosen the
evolutionary route, and yet claim that evolution is *directed*, as I
understand you. Directed toward what?>>
You responded: <<It is directed toward the uniting of all things with
Christ - Eph.1:10. Evolution as a scientific theory is not teleological.
Placed in a larger
theological context, it can be (depending, of course, on the theology)>>
Your last sentence may be true. However, as soon as one tries to make
evolution teleological he/she will be rejected by the science establishment.
Denton tried it in his last book, without even being theistic about it, but
do you find him being referenced by established biologists?
Thanks for your thoughts,
Bob
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Feb 23 2001 - 06:26:29 EST