Re: RFEP and the Heartl of Christianity

From: George Murphy (gmurphy@raex.com)
Date: Thu Sep 18 2003 - 21:06:21 EDT

  • Next message: Alexanian, Moorad: "RE: Fragility and tendentiousness"

    Howard J. Van Till wrote:
    >
    > >From: "Michael Roberts" <michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk>
    >
    > > Surely Christianity is based onm redemption in Christ, George is absolutelty
    > > right. More our focus off-centre as does Howard and others we inevitably
    > > downplay redemption and thus move in afirst a vaguely religious direction
    > > (pace the Peacocke approach) which underplays salvation, then unitarianism,
    > > to desim and ultimately to atheism.
    > >
    > > Sorry to be brief and blunt but I think this is what George is getting at
    >
    > Michael,
    >
    > Your and George's point is well taken. If you wish to craft a theological
    > vision of the world's character and formational history that is uniquely and
    > explicitly an orthodox Christian vision, then the focus on Jesus Christ and
    > redemption should be there. I have never contested that.
    >
    > But that is NOT what the Robust Formational Economy Principle (RFEP) was
    > ever intended to represent. I have intentionally kept its theological
    > content to a minimum so that it could, as I have explicitly stated, be
    > recognized as one of the fundamental presuppositions of all of the
    > historical natural sciences. I doubt very much that "a theological vision of
    > the world's character and formational history that is uniquely and
    > explicitly an orthodox Christian vision" would be able to serve that
    > function.

            Something like RFEP is indeed needed as a "presupposition ... of all of the
    historical natural sciences." It is something else though to say that it must be a
    _fundamental_ presupposition in the sense that it cannot be based on anything more
    fundamental. I do not believe that that is either necessary or theologically adequate.
    What I have argued is not that RFEP should be rejected but that it should be based on
    an appropriate christology. RFEP formulated on that basis can support the sciences at
    least as well as RFEP which is simply postulated.
                                                            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 - 21:13:25 EDT