From: George Murphy (gmurphy@raex.com)
Date: Wed May 28 2003 - 19:17:32 EDT
Howard J. Van Till wrote:
>
> >From: George Murphy <gmurphy@raex.com>
>
> > I agree with the concepts that Howard has described as the functional
> integrity
> > of creation &/or Robust Formational Economy Principle (RFEP) - as far as
> > they go. The
> > theological problem with them is that they don't go far enough. By this I
> > don't mean
> > that they aren't sufficiently thorough in the ways in which they speak about
> things
> > happening in the world through natural processes. The difficulty lies in the
> other
> > direction: These principles, as Howard has expressed and argued for them,
> > do not have
> > adequate theological grounding.
>
> George's judgment here is consistent with the fact that one standard
> reaction to my presentation of the RFEP is, "Sounds like deism to me."
>
> As I noted in my recent PSCF article, the RFEP does not in any way entail
> deism, but evangelical Christians long for more explicit references to
> divine action than my presentation of the RFEP ordinarily includes.
>
> However, because the RFEP fits comfortable in a diversity of theological
> frameworks, I have found it reasonable to leave many theological issues open
> to further reflection.
>
> > In particular, I believe that their major problem is
> > that they are not properly grounded in christology.
>
> George's preferred approach is to ground the RFEP in his christology, which
> is entirely reasonable, and he does this ably. It is not my intention to
> argue against such an approach, even if I do not hold to it.
>
> Howard Van Till
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> >From: George Murphy <gmurphy@raex.com>
>
> > I agree with the concepts that Howard has described as the
> functional
> integrity
> > of creation &/or Robust Formational Economy Principle (RFEP) - as
> far as
> > they go. The
> > theological problem with them is that they don't go far enough. By
> this I
> > don't mean
> > that they aren't sufficiently thorough in the ways in which they
> speak about
> things
> > happening in the world through natural processes. The difficulty
> lies in the
> other
> > direction: These principles, as Howard has expressed and argued for
> them,
> > do not have
> > adequate theological grounding.
>
> George's judgment here is consistent with the fact that one standard
> reaction to my presentation of the RFEP is, "Sounds like deism to me."
> As I noted in my recent PSCF article, the RFEP does not in any way
> entail
> deism, but evangelical Christians long for more explicit references to
> divine action than my presentation of the RFEP ordinarily includes.
>
> However, because the RFEP fits comfortable in a diversity of
> theological
> frameworks, I have found it reasonable to leave many theological
> issues open
> to further reflection.
I'm not sure what you mean here. I understand that your position is not
deistic & have pointed that out to others who have thought that it was. When I say "do
not have adequate theological grounding" I mean something quite different which I
explain in the rest of my earlier post.
> > In particular, I believe that their major problem is
> > that they are not properly grounded in christology.
>
> George's preferred approach is to ground the RFEP in his christology,
> which
> is entirely reasonable, and he does this ably. It is not my intention
> to
> argue against such an approach, even if I do not hold to it.
Thanks for the compliment. But this still leaves one wondering
on what other basis we can claim to know the character of God in a way
that motivates your understanding of divine action.
Shalom,
George
George L. Murphy
gmurphy@raex.com
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed May 28 2003 - 19:17:01 EDT