From: Graham E. Morbey (gmorbey@wlu.ca)
Date: Mon Oct 06 2003 - 13:34:03 EDT
Hi Moorad,
Would the following biblical texts help soften your rigid categories?
John1:1-4, 1 Corinthians 8:6, Ephesians 1:9-10, Colossians 1:15-20,
Hebrews 1:1-3. Do you think God doesn't love the things he created,
takes delight in them, cares for them? What about John 3:16? Perhaps you
define love to narrowly? If God is love, would it not follow that God
creates what God loves? and therefore loves what is created? Sparrows
and lilies of the field get God's attention! Besides, is there really
any thing purely physical? Things always have a relationship, and
certainly to God who created everything through Jesus Christ. And, hey,
we can still love each other, even if we think differently about things!
Graham
Alexanian, Moorad wrote:
> I suppose then there are those who believe in Kallistos Ware and those
> who believe in Scripture. It does not make sense to me to say that
> the Incarnation is independent of the fact that man is a fallen
> creature. Why then Christ? If love is so important to God, where is
> love in creation except in man? I do not see it in anything purely
> physical, which is what the cosmos is!
>
>
>
> Moorad
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu]
> On Behalf Of Graham E. Morbey
> Sent: Monday, October 06, 2003 11:47 AM
> To: ASA
> Subject: [Fwd: Re: RATE]
>
>
>
>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
>
> Subject:
>
>
>
> Re: RATE
>
> Date:
>
>
>
> Mon, 06 Oct 2003 11:40:17 -0400
>
> From:
>
>
>
> Graham E. Morbey <gmorbey@wlu.ca> <mailto:gmorbey@wlu.ca>
>
> Reply-To:
>
>
>
> gmorbey@wlu.ca <mailto:gmorbey@wlu.ca>
>
> To:
>
>
>
> Josh Bembenek <jbembe@hotmail.com> <mailto:jbembe@hotmail.com>
>
> References:
>
>
>
> <Law10-F250GPlrwAnek0000bef0@hotmail.com>
> <mailto: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 - 13:35:08 EDT