Re: Playing the game (was Re: [asa] Wells and traditional Christianity)

----- Original Message -----
From: "Terry M. Gray" <grayt@lamar.colostate.edu>
To: <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2006 11:27 AM
Subject: Re: Playing the game (was Re: [asa] Wells and traditional
Christianity)
...........................

> This is true, but I would argue (a la Hooykaas, Klaaren, others --
> without necessarily committing to the full historical thesis) that there
> are Biblical and theological reasons to expect "naturalism" and these are
> rooted in Biblical doctrines of Creation (don't think origins exclusively
> here) and Providence. These are very traditional headings of doctrine and
> don't even touch more recent reflections of Kenosis and the Theology of
> the Cross that George and others have been raising).
............................
Just to tack on a bit to terry's argument here: It's true that traditional
doctrines of providence can be formulated without reference to the theology
of the cross and kenosis. But it can be argued (academese for "I argue")
that the latter concepts can provide a deeper grounding for those
traditional doctrines.

Shalom
George
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Sep 12 16:21:48 2006