Re: Process problems from Re: Evolution: A few questions

----- Original Message -----
From: "Howard J. Van Till" <hvantill@sbcglobal.net>
To: "George Murphy" <gmurphy@raex.com>; "Steve Petermann"
<steve@spetermann.org>; <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Monday, June 28, 2004 8:06 PM
Subject: Re: Process problems from Re: Evolution: A few questions

> On 6/28/04 5:45 PM, "George Murphy" <gmurphy@raex.com> wrote:
>
> > Even though traditional natural theologies in a Christian context
envision
> > the type of ontological separation between God & the world that you
> > describe, they do not
> > think of nature somehow giving evidence of an absent or inactive God.
>
> Nor did I suggest such. I spoke of "distinction," but neither "separation"
> nor "absence."
>
> > The fact that such a natural theology is often said to be based on
"general
> > revelation" shows that God is supposed to be active in providing its
> > material. So I think the attempt to remove process theology from the
> > category of natural theology simply because of the way it conceives of
the
> > God-nature relationship doesn't work.
>
> OK. Would I be justified, then, in expecting the broad Christian community
> to recognize the way in which the meaning of "natural" in process thought
> differs significantly from what it traditionally means? :)

I think that's fair enough, though the difference between PT & traditional
theologies lies more in the understanding of God than of nature.
& I think what qualifies something as "natural" theology in usual parlance
has to do with the accessibility of the knowledge of God more than than with
one's understanding of nature.

Shalom
George
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
Received on Thu Jul 1 12:15:53 2004