From: George Murphy (gmurphy@raex.com)
Date: Thu Sep 18 2003 - 21:12:50 EDT
I'm not sure that we have a significant disagreement here since I'm in general
agreement with your statement. The "problem" to which I referred was the attempt to
make a strict separation between "formational economy" and the divine "economy" in the
patristic sense - i.e., the Incarnation.
Shalom,
George
douglas.hayworth@perbio.com wrote:
>
> 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/
-- George L. Murphy gmurphy@raex.com http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Sep 18 2003 - 21:13:09 EDT