From: douglas.hayworth@perbio.com
Date: Thu Sep 18 2003 - 17:50:38 EDT
George:
I don't agree that the Incarnation must somehow be accepted as an
after-the-fact action by God if one does not view it as part of the
ordinary formational economy (sensu the RFEP = Robust Formational Economy
Principle) . As I described in a previous post in this thread, I view our
physical evolution to God-awareness and the ongoing ordinary behavior of
the Creation as products and part of Creation's gifted ontology, but this
does not "require" nor necessarily logically imply that God must operate
exclusively by those means. I think once God's creation evolved (according
to the properties he graced it with) us humans to the point of
God-awareness (or at least the ability for God-awareness) that he began to
approach us and reveal himself to us by various means, some of which were
special or miraculous. Suppose he always intended for his revelation to
culminate in Christ (I think this is what I would describe as my belief);
he must have delighted to watch our "ontogeny" (development) until the day
we were ready to "hear his voice". In a sense, the beginning of scripture
marks the day when he finally said to us, "Hello! Yes, I am here. I've been
waiting for you. Come, let us sup with one another, and I will begin to
teach you many wonderful things that you may delight with me in who I am."
He had in mind to teach us Christ. In this scenario, it was inevitable
that the RFEP would produce a being like ourselves (in the sense of being
ready to receive his "special" revelation) AND the Incarnation would still
have been his intended climax. Does these two ideas have to be a "problem"
or conflict?
Douglas
George Murphy
<gmurphy@raex.co To: "Howard J. Van Till" <hvantill@chartermi.net>
m> cc: asa@calvin.edu
Sent by: Subject: formation & incarnation
asa-owner@lists.
calvin.edu
09/18/03 11:04
AM
Howard J. Van Till wrote:
>
> From: <richard@biblewheel.com>
>
> > Questions for Howard and the supporters of RFEP:
> >
> > I am still hoping for an explanation of how we are to understand basic
> > Christian doctrines in light of the RFEP. It seems to eviscerate all
the
> > fundamental doctrines like Election, Virgin Birth, Prophecy, the
> > Incarnation, Miracles of Christ and the Resurrection.
> >
>
> It's really quite simple. The RFEP is purposely stated in a way that, a)
> limits its application to matters of the formational history of the
> universe, and b) avoids a categorical denial of supernatural divine
actions........................................
Perhaps part of the problem here has to do with how to delimit
"formational
history" from the rest of the history of God with creation - or indeed
whether such a
strict separation is possible. In order to make that separation one would
have to
assume that the Incarnation (if one believes that there was one) & events
preparatory
to it & following from it are not essential to the formational history of
the universe.
That would be the case if one held - to use traditional language - that
Christ would not
have come had humanity not sinned. But if the Incarnation is not solely a
remedy for
sin, if it in fact is the _purpose_ of creation (cf. Ephesians 1:10) then
the
formational history of the universe in its full sense has to include the
coming of
Christ & its subsequent effects.
Howard's older & more limited phrase, "functional integrity of
creation," to
some extent avoids this problem.
Shalom,
George
George L. Murphy
gmurphy@raex.com
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Sep 18 2003 - 17:56:22 EDT