From: Graham E. Morbey (gmorbey@wlu.ca)
Date: Mon Oct 06 2003 - 11:46:34 EDT
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: RATE
Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2003 11:40:17 -0400
From: Graham E. Morbey <gmorbey@wlu.ca>
Reply-To: gmorbey@wlu.ca
To: Josh Bembenek <jbembe@hotmail.com>
References: <Law10-F250GPlrwAnek0000bef0@hotmail.com>
Dear Josh,
Let me suggest another way of looking at the fall! Since our description
of God includes, perfection, plenitude, fullness and not needing
anything outside God's self, we can surmise that the creation was not
necessary but an act of freedom in which God, in love, chooses to limit
God's self. This means that creation is good because of the Creator, but
limited because not necessary. In other words, whether we sinned or not,
the Incarnation would have taken place. God doesn't coerce, humanity
responds badly with its limited freedom and therefore the great hope of
creation and humanity is in God so loved the cosmos.... Kallistos Ware
in his work on the Creation says "God's motive in creation is his love.
Rather than say that he created the universe out of nothing, we should
say that he created it out of his own self, which is love. We should
think, not of God the Manufacturer or God the Craftsman, but of God the
Lover." Later, he states: "Even before the Incarnation God is directly
involved in the sufferings of his creation....It has been truly said
that there was a cross in the heart of God before there was one planted
outside of Jerusalem." Bishop Kallistos Ware, The Orthodox Way. What I
am getting at is tentative and perhaps not as clear as it should be. It
does, however, suggest human salvation is in a sense secondary to the
salvation of the cosmos. What we have in the Genesis account (chapters
1-11) is the oral and written development of the worldwide traditions of
creation brought to a point where the one Creator God becomes
distinquished from the accumulated attempts to worship aspects of the
creation - Holy Spirit work to be sure. But it also does justice to a
recognition of Babylonian, Mesopotamian and Egyptian influences on the
text. And, not least, when understood, however imperfectly, strongly
suggests that YEC is a modern form of creaturely idolatry.
Graham
Josh Bembenek wrote:
>> At the moment I am choosing not to participate in the argumentation
>> concerning specific cataclysmic interpretations of empirical data, but I
>> would be interested to hear your testimony concerning why holding to
>> a YEC
>> position is so important to you. What is at stake here? If the
>> professional
>> science community turns out to be correct on matters of chronology, what
>> would be the loss to the Christian faith as you understand it?
>
>
>
> Howard, from what I've come to understand the primary importance is
> being able to claim that mankind is fallen and that has been inherited
> from Adam and Eve. In this view, The Fall requires some kind of
> mechanistic transfer into all of humankind from Adam, otherwise we had
> no fall. This is partially bolstered by the idea that God looked at
> His creation and called it "good." Would the creation of hominids
> that die, have disease, etc. and are inherently fallen creatures be
> "good?"
>
> This is an interesting question.
>
>
> Josh
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Share your photos without swamping your Inbox. Get Hotmail Extra
> Storage today! http://join.msn.com/?PAGE=features/es
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Oct 06 2003 - 11:47:22 EDT