Re: PC/TE #1 (was PC/TE definitions, misperceptions...)

Stephen Jones (sjones@iinet.net.au)
Wed, 10 Jan 96 07:09:02 EST

Denis

On Sat, 6 Jan 1996 16:18:55 -0600 (CST) you wrote:

DD>Under the PC definition, rather than saying "it was necessary for
God to
>intervene," it would be safer to say "God chose to intervene for
>whatever reason, or reason X." Saying it was necessary for God to
>intervene gives ammunition to those TE's who claim that PC's are
>espousing an initially flawed creation.

Thanks Denis for this feedback. I agree that it may have been better
to say that God chose to intervene, but I also think it was necessary.

I do not think this reflects any flaw in the original creation, just
that it was originally "without form and void" (Gn 1:2) and needed
God's intervention to fulfil its planned potential.

God bless.

Stephen

----------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen Jones ,--_|\ sjones@iinet.net.au |
| 3 Hawker Ave / Oz \ http://www.iinet.net.au/~sjones/ |
| Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ phone +61 9 448 7439. (These are |
| Perth, Australia v my opinions, not my employer's) |
----------------------------------------------------------------