From: Howard J. Van Till (email@example.com)
Date: Thu May 22 2003 - 10:42:48 EDT
>From: George Murphy <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Without debating the theological merits of the views of Arius or Athanasius,
> should be noted that a preference for the former cannot be based on a choice
> 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
> 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."
Thannks, George, I should have checked into these issues more carefully.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu May 22 2003 - 11:13:56 EDT