"D. F. Siemens, Jr." wrote:
> Bob,
> What Allen posted concerning the soul is standard SDA teaching, usually
> described as "soul sleep." I consider the claims special pleading. The
> nonreductionistic monism of Nancey Murphy and others happens to overlap
> it. As I and Paul noted some time back, the latter group ignores all the
> scriptures that do not fit their view. I will here go further and state
> that nonreductive monism cannot accommodate the incarnation. I have
> submitted a paper to EPS arguing this point.
While granting that there are some problems with the "nonreductive
physicalism" of N. Murphy et al, it should also be recognized that there has
long been a tendency to think that the Bible tells us more about the status
of the human person between death & the resurrection than it in fact does.
No idea about this - "soul sleep", "our souls go to heaven when we die" or
whatever should be considered an essential aspect of Christian faith. What
should be considered crucial is belief in the resurrection of the whole
person. That is what the creeds speak of, not "immortality of the soul" - a
dubious concept in light of I Tim.6:16.
I would like to see the paper setting out the argument "that
nonreductive monism cannot accommodate the incarnation", for the claim sounds
questionable. Belief that Christ is God Incarnate requires that he be fully
human but does not require any specific understanding of what the various
"parts" of the human are.
> Contrary to George's statement that the virgin birth or virginal
> conception is not part of the ASA Statement of Faith, I believe that the
> mention of the Nicene and Apostle's Creeds indicates that it is included.
> I don't know what else may be made of "Born of the Virgin Mary" and "And
> was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary." I believe in an
> earlier post I noted that, apart from the virginal conception, the deity
> would be acting exactly as demon possession is described, usurping the
> individual's selfhood. I grant that the ecumenical creeds later than the
> Nicene (the date of the current form of the Apostles' Creed is not
> certain: it is not part of the Orthodox statements) elaborate the
> statement about the Lord's nature, but they do not introduce either his
> deity or his virgin birth.
I noted in an earlier post how one might interpret these statements
without understanding them as a statement of biological fact. Virginal
conception can be seen as a way of asserting that Jesus' status as Son of God
began with his conception rather than, as in adoptionist christologies, at
his baptism or resurrection e.g. Paul was able to believe that Christ had
"the form of God" before "being born in human likeness" & John said that the
eternal Word of God was "made flesh," both without any indication that they
knew anything about virginal conception.
Let me repeat that I am not here stating my own views but positions
which are not excluded by the ASA Statement of Faith.
Shalom,
George
George L. Murphy
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
"The Science-Theology Interface"
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 18 2002 - 10:38:13 EDT