Re: appendix

Other than the effects of man's sin ("environmental
degradation"), on the universe, exactly what do you see as
imperfect in the original creation George?

Are you saying that "when the times have reached their
ultimate fulfillment" there will no longer be plate
tectonics, genetic diseases, hemorrhagic fever viruses, or
any number of other imperfections that are not a result of
mankinds sin?

You have not convinced me that the Incarnation was for
anything more than restoring mankind, who had "gotten off
the proper path for union with God...". Christ didnt come
to redeem creation, he came to redeem man.

On Tue, 4 Jan 2005 08:53:20 -0500
  "George Murphy" <gmurphy@raex.com> wrote:
>I agree with your summary below, except that I wouldn't
>refer to a fall occurring at the big bang. It's
>important to distinguish, at least conceptually, between
>creation as a theological concept & the beginning of sin.
>
>
>God did not create a universe that was perfect in the
>beginning - i.e., a world that was what God wanted it
>ultimately to be. The inclusion of the sabbath in the
>1st creation account is a pointer toward that, at least
>as the sabbath came to be understood in Judaism. God
>intended the universe - including humanity as a crucial
>part - to develop toward the final unity with God spoken
>of in Eph.1:10. So being a work in progress is something
>God intended. That is not sin. What is introduced with
>"the fall" - i.e., the disobedience of the 1st humans,
>however that may have happened - was humanity - and to
>some extent the rest of the world - getting off a proper
>path toward union with God and moving away from God.
> (The spatial metaphor isn't ideal but I don't know how
>better to say it.) The Incarnation then is not only the
>goal of creation but (through the cross & resurrection)
>the means of getting creation back on track. (Cf.
>Irenaeus ideas about recapitulation.)
>
>When I say "to some extent the rest of the world" I don't
>mean any nonsense about human sin causing the 2d law of
>thermo or tectonic activity. But human sin clearly does
>affect the rest of the world - e.g., environmental
>degradation.
>
>Shalom
>George
>http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Don Winterstein
> To: asa ; george murphy
> Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2005 2:59 AM
> Subject: Re: appendix
>
>
> George Murphy wrote:
>
> "Interpreting he ktisis Rom.8:18-25 as referring only
>to humans seems to me very forced...."
>
> --Especially in view of v. 39 of the same chapter,
>where the word applies to inanimate things. A literal
>translation of the key words: "...neither height nor
>depth nor any other creation [ktisis] will be able...."
> ("Creation" here means "created thing.") These Romans 8
>references seem to say that the whole creation, while
>good, has not yet achieved what God intended for it, and
>it "knows" it hasn't. I like this thought because I
>think the "fall" occurred at the big bang, and the world
>has always needed "saving." Note that Paul implies that
>God, not Adam's fall, subjected the creation to frailty
>(v. 20). Did Paul mean through Adam's fall? Possibly;
>but if he knew then what we know now about world
>history.... In any case, given our knowledge of many
>incidents of geophysical violence occurring more than
>100,000 years ago, any claim that Adam's fall caused all
>of the geophysical violence since should not pass the
>laugh test.
>
> Don
Received on Tue Jan 4 09:58:53 2005