Re: Response to Howard on Tillich & Bultmann

From: George Murphy (gmurphy@raex.com)
Date: Thu May 22 2003 - 11:02:41 EDT

  • Next message: Howard J. Van Till: "Re: Response to Howard on Tillich & Bultmann"

    Howard J. Van Till wrote:
    ..................
    > 3. You are correct to presume that my Christology differs in substantial
    > ways from the Christology associated with traditional supernaturalism. So
    > does my concept of the character and authority of the biblical text. (On
    > Christology, I presume that if I were placed back in the 4th century I
    > would have sided with Arius over Athanasius.)............................

            Without debating the theological merits of the views of Arius or Athanasius, it
    should be noted that a preference for the former cannot be based on a choice of
    naturalism rather than supernaturalism. The views of Arius were at least as
    "supernatural" as those endorsed at I Nicea. It could be argued that they are even more
    "supernatural" because one of the basic Arian presuppositions is that God can't
    communicate directly with creation but can do so only via created intermediaries, of
    which the Logos is the first. OTOH the Logos is not simply "natural", as in modern
    unitarianism &c - he is "a creature but not as one of the creatures."
            
                                                            Shalom,
                                                            George

    George L. Murphy
    gmurphy@raex.com
    http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu May 22 2003 - 11:02:24 EDT