> Followed consistently (as it is by radical theologians like Tillich and
> Bultmann, and the so-called `Jesus School'), applying Loren's canons to the
> Bible, one would end up with a fully naturalistic Christianity, which would
> be useless for supernatural salvation.
Obviously, there can be no "naturalistic" explanation of the Incarnation.
I offered a few reasons why a Christian -- a Christian who firmly believes
in the Incarnation (and other miraculous acts of God) -- could also
believe that God accomplished one PARTICULAR thing, the formation of first
life, via design-for-self-assembly and governance of natural laws.
To claim that, in order to be consistent, one must follow this
particular claim with the GENERAL claim that God accomplishes EVERYTHING
via natural processes, is such an obvious fallacy that it hardly merits
discussion.
Loren Haarsma