Re: lame creation concepts

From: George Murphy (
Date: Thu Sep 04 2003 - 13:26:13 EDT

  • Next message: George Murphy: "Re: lame creation concepts"

    Howard J. Van Till wrote:
    > >From: George Murphy <>
    > > Are the passages to which I referred - & much else in the NT with a strongly
    > > christocentric emphasis - the exclusive property of Lutherans?
    > Of course not. But I am inclined to award you the prize for advancing that
    > theological emphasis at every opportunity.

            I won't turn down the prize but perhaps you should consider awarding it to
    Torrance or Teilhard, both of whom are/were non-Lutherans & both of whom (though in
    radically different ways) give a strong christological emphasis to their understanding
    of creation.
            Of course I realize that different people will do theology differently, & not
    everyone will place the same emphasis on christology that I do. What I find strange is
    that people on this list generally put no emphasis at all on Christ when they're talking
    about science-theology matters. This is not just the case with your process emphasis
    but with those who have much more traditional theological approaches & who, dealing with
    other matters, would place Christ in the center. But when it comes to creation, he
    > With Ted, I do not ask you to abandon that commitment. My point is to note
    > that it was your especially strong commitment to it that led you to
    > disparage other theological approaches in the rather harsh language of
    > "lame" "very little value" "defect" and the like.
            I make no apology for (a) thinking that not all theological approaches are of
    equal value & (b) that those which are not normed by scripture have little value (I
    do not say "no value") for helping to understand Christian faith.


    George L. Murphy

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Sep 04 2003 - 13:35:22 EDT