Re: Was the Incarnation necessary?

From: Michael Roberts (michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk)
Date: Thu Jul 04 2002 - 08:33:53 EDT

  • Next message: Jim Eisele: "RE: Bats, bugs, bunnies..."

    For Glenn

    I should hope we don't celebrate 4/7 (and get that the right way round!) .
    We did have something to celebrate last month if you remember and you got
    two days off. Just think how much better life would be if some rebels had
    not got the upper hand. You could have a member of the royal family as
    governor of each state!

    Last 3rd July I went to an Independence Day rodeo at Spearfish SD that was
    an education for me - and the Wheaton students! On a geological field trip
    to Mt Rushmore I found another face - to the left of George Washington.

    For Bob

    I cannot think of any examples in prot theology where the incarnation is
    not necissitated by sin. One could argue (entirely me here ) that had there
    been no sin then incarnation of the word would be spuerfluous as God was in
    total harmony and relationship with his Creation.

    As a good non-liberal and non-catholic Anglican I feel a weakness of much
    anglican incarnational theology is that it plays downs and weakens much
    understanding of redemption atonement and thus of sin. This is based on a
    wide familiarity of Anglican theology over the last 200 years so it is not
    the knee-jerk reaction of a semi-fundamentalist Anglican.

    This is a result of moving the centre of gravity of faith from atonement to
    incarnation. As it has worked out in some anglican theology we have ended up
    with a vacuous theology with nno redemption whatsoever and comes out clearly
    in ultra-liberal anglican theology. It is seen clearly in many recent
    communion services in the Church of England and in the recent Common worship
    rites (2000) several prayers of consecration play down the atonemnt to a
    great extent - and I will not use them.

    I am afraid I find Zach Hayes summary of the Scotian view so speculative and
    airy-fairy that it does nothing for me at all. It is a bit like trying to
    specualte life based on silicon.

    As I am totally non-speculative in my theology I cant see much point in
    considering what might have been the case if things were different, so I
    consider incarnation without sin as pointless as discussing whether God
    created in an instant (he could have done) or over a few billion years.
    A logical extension of an extreme incarnation is in my view the theology of
    Matthew Fox.

    Michael



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 04 2002 - 12:48:54 EDT