From: Cmekve@aol.com
Date: Sat Sep 20 2003 - 18:43:19 EDT
In a message dated 9/19/2003 2:25:58 PM Mountain Standard Time,
gmurphy@raex.com writes:
[big snip]
> I'm not arguing "because capable and efficient natural causes, Christ"
> but (sort
> of) "because Christ, capable and efficient natural causes." The claims of a
> theology of
> the crucified should be given (at least) serious attention because (I argue)
> of its
> fruitfulness is grounding the comprehensibility of the natural world and
> other aspects
> of our experience. I presented this argument in a little more detail in
> "Cross-Based
> Apologetics for a Scientific Millennium," also in Perspectives and available
> via the asa
> website.
>
> (I don't mean to just blow you off with a list of references. But the
> things
> I've published will give you a more coherent idea of the arguments than I
> would if I
> tried to pound out a quick summary here.)
>
> Shalom,
> George
>
>
Because George sometimes is criticized for his use of the "theology of the
cross" as being just too, too Lutheran, I thought I'd point out that evangelical
Methodist theologian Alan Padgett has recently published an article
advocating the use of the theologia crucis for the science/faith dialogue. See his
"Crucified Creator: The God of Evolution and Luther's Theology of the Cross" in
Dialog: A Journal of Theology, 2003, v. 42, p. 300-304.
As Padgett put it, "Luther is not the only, or even the first, theologian of
the cross. But his presentation is powerful and central in Christian history,
and deserves serious engagement."
Padgett also has a new book out, which presumably expands on this article. I
haven't seen it yet, but the title is Science and the Study of God (2003,
Eerdmans).
Karl
*******************
Karl V. Evans
cmekve@aol.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Sep 20 2003 - 18:46:21 EDT