Re: lame creation concepts

From: George Murphy (
Date: Thu Sep 04 2003 - 16:03:30 EDT

  • Next message: Ted Davis: "Re: Van Till's Ultimate Gap"

    D. F. Siemens, Jr. wrote:
    > On Thu, 04 Sep 2003 10:04:19 -0400 George Murphy <>
    > writes:
    > >
    > > But traditional theologies have their own problems. I find
    > > it strange &
    > > somewhat disheartening that on this list people think that they can
    > > discuss "God" &
    > > "creation" in some detail without ever referring to the one who by &
    > > for whom, according
    > > to the NT (Jn.1:3, I Cor.8:6, Col.1:16-17, Heb.1:2), all things have
    > > been created. To
    > > put it bluntly, most of the discussions of creation here - from the
    > > standpoints of both
    > > process thought & more traditional theism - are of very little value
    > > because of this
    > > defect.
    > > Shalom,
    > > George
    > George,
    > Must something be defective because not everything is mentioned? Is a
    > chemist's discussion of NaCl crystals somehow faulty because she failed
    > to mention that copper sulfide (the common experiment heating copper and
    > sulfur) does not match the formula assumed from valences? Does the work
    > of the Godhead always have to be allotted to distinct members of the
    > Trinity? Granted, sin and redemption are not the only matters which
    > necessarily connect to the incarnation. But does everything have to be so
    > carefully focused?

            I am precisely _not_ arguing for the kind of "doctrine of appropriation"
    according to which first the Father creates, then the Son redeems, & then the Holy
    Spirit sanctifies. "The external works of the Trinity are undivided." & I don't expect
    people to mention Christ in every sentence when they speak about creation. But if he is
    never mentioned in this connection then something is wrong.

            & my point isn't even limited to the fact that scripture speaks of Christ as the
    agent of creation. If the Incarnation reveals the character fo God then it tells us
    about the character of Father & Spirit as well as Son. The argument from the
    kenosis of Philippians 2 to kenotic divine action is based on the belief that the
    Incarnation & cross aren't just tactical expedients which God employs but are revelatory
    of who God is & how God acts generally.


    George L. Murphy

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Sep 04 2003 - 16:12:50 EDT