Re: ASA, ID, Blogs and my observations

lol exactly!
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert Schneider" <rjschn39@bellsouth.net>
To: <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2005 7:50 PM
Subject: Re: ASA, ID, Blogs and my observations

> "Every cubic inch of space is a miracle."
>
> Walt Whitman
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Craig Rusbult" <craig@chem.wisc.edu>
> To: <asa@calvin.edu>
> Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2005 7:53 PM
> Subject: 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 21:02:20 2005