Re: ASA, ID, Blogs and my observations

    Jack says,
>As I have said before, you have to accept all three to be Christian. There
>is no way that the resurrection of Christ is anything but type 2.
>
>So, if ASA members are denying the existence of type 2, (which I have not
>heard anyone claim despite what Glenn says), then they shouldnt be ASA
>members as this is contrary to the ASA statement of faith.

    Oops.
    I agree with you, Jack. Thanks for calling an omission to my attention.

    Usually I emphasize this in all writing about theology of evolutionary
creation, but I forgot it before so here it is now:
    We should distinguish between the FORMATIVE HISTORY of nature and the
SALVATION HISTORY of humans. I have theological respect for a proponent of
evolutionary creation (theistic evolution) who says "God did miracles in
salvation history, but -- due to a clever design of nature, and an absence
of humans whose 'personal salvation history' would benefit from observing
miracles -- this was not necessary in formative history."
    As you say, Jack, "I have not heard anyone [in ASA] claim [that they
deny all miracles]."
    By contrast, I think a person who denies all miracles, especially the
resurrection of Jesus, is missing a key doctrine of Christianity. The
cross is important for salvation, but so is the resurrection. I wouldn't
say that a person who denies ALL #2-design (by miraculous-appearing action)
cannot be saved, since only God can know the heart and can judge fairly,
but such a person is certainly theologically deficient in an essential
doctrine.

Craig
Received on Tue May 24 19:55:47 2005