From: Michael Roberts (michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk)
Date: Thu Sep 18 2003 - 14:30:16 EDT
Surely Christianity is based onm redemption in Christ, George is absolutelty
right. More our focus off-centre as does Howard and others we inevitably
downplay redemption and thus move in afirst a vaguely religious direction
(pace the Peacocke approach) which underplays salvation, then unitarianism,
to desim and ultimately to atheism.
Sorry to be brief and blunt but I think this is what George is getting at
Michael
----- Original Message -----
From: "George Murphy" <gmurphy@raex.com>
To: "Howard J. Van Till" <hvantill@chartermi.net>
Cc: <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2003 3:06 PM
Subject: Re: RFEP and the Heartl of Christianity
> Howard J. Van Till wrote:
> >
> > From: <richard@biblewheel.com>
> >
> > > Questions for Howard and the supporters of RFEP:
> > >
> > > I am still hoping for an explanation of how we are to understand basic
> > > Christian doctrines in light of the RFEP. It seems to eviscerate all
the
> > > fundamental doctrines like Election, Virgin Birth, Prophecy, the
> > > Incarnation, Miracles of Christ and the Resurrection.
> > >
> >
> > It's really quite simple. The RFEP is purposely stated in a way that, a)
> > limits its application to matters of the formational history of the
> > universe, and b) avoids a categorical denial of supernatural divine
actions.
> >
> > As such, it could be found theologically acceptable to a majority of
persons
> > holding to traditional Christian doctrines. It could also be
supplemented
> > with additional qualifications to comport with other theological
systems,
> > including process theology, but process thought is not included within
the
> > RFEP...............................
>
> I direct this not primarily to Howard (though of course he may comment, &
we've
> gone around on this before) but to Richard & others with the types of
concerns stated
> above.
>
> In my view the problem with RFEP is not its content but an attempt to
state it
> as a doctrine independent of christology. Christology - & especially a
theology of the
> crucified - is where we ought to begin. I think that the understanding of
God which is
> developed on that basis makes possible an adequate formulation of
something like RFEP
> while maintaining the "basic Christian doctrines."
>
> However, I would not include all the items Richard does as fundamental
doctrines
> by which the church stands or falls. One does not need to see all
prophecy as
> supernatural, not all the miracles stories of the NT record historical
phenomena, &
> while I accept the virginal conception of Jesus it is _not_ a necessary
condition for
> the Incarnation. To say that we should begin christologically is not to
say that we
> should proceed uncritically.
>
> Shalom,
> George
>
>
> George L. Murphy
> gmurphy@raex.com
> http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Sep 18 2003 - 17:34:16 EDT