Re: [asa] Designed Kangaroos? - Persons?

Gregory -

I understand - though I do not always agree with - concerns you have about the word "nature" is used in some contexts. In this case, however, you are clearly overreaching. When I said, "The question of an origin of sin in the first humans has to be dealt with - otherwise we're likely to be in the position of saying that human nature itself is "sinful and disobedient" and that therefore God is the creator of sin," I was using the word "nature" in a recognized philosophical & theological sense, as when we speak (following Chalcedon) of the "two natures" of Christ. Of course when I referred to "human nature" here I said nothing at all, & gave no excuse for anyone to imagine that I meant, that "human nature" could be understood exhaustively by what are commonly called "the natural sciences."

My point here was that original sin cannot be understood to be something essential to what it means to be human. (Have I avoided the term "nature" there? Not really - I've just repackaged it as "essence.") If it were then God, as the creator of humanity, would be the creator of sin.

Shalom
George
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Gregory Arago
  To: David Opderbeck ; George Murphy
  Cc: Iain Strachan ; Michael Roberts ; Peter Loose ; asa@calvin.edu
  Sent: Saturday, July 28, 2007 12:33 PM
  Subject: Re: [asa] Designed Kangaroos? - Persons?
  .........................

  When George worries about whether 'human nature' itself is "sinful and disobedient," I can't help but cringe when 'nature' is used in this sense. If the word 'character' was substituted, nothing substantial would be lost, would it?
  ..........................

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sat Jul 28 12:56:35 2007