Date: Thu Sep 18 2003 - 14:53:39 EDT
In two recent posts, Howard wrote:
> It's really quite simple. The RFEP is purposely
> stated in a way that, a) limits its application to
> matters of the formational history of the universe,
> and b) avoids a categorical denial of supernatural
> divine actions.
> The RFEP does, however, posit that form-imposing
> (coercive) divine intervention is unnecessary as a
> means of bringing about the actualization of novel
> creaturely forms.
The second statement has one slight ambiguity. It states that divine
intervention is *unnecessary*, but it doesn't say that it is *impossible*.
But in either case, we seem to have a logical inconsistency between God's
Agency and the RFEP.
1) If "form-imposing (coercive) divine intervention" is allowed as a
*possible* explanation for the appearance of any "novel creaturely form"
then the RFEP is eviscerated of all significance, because then *all* "novel
creaturely forms" could be a result of divine intervention.
2) If "form-imposing (coercive) divine intervention" is *not* allowed as a
possible explanation for the appearance of any "novel creaturely form" then
the RFEP is inconsistent with the assertion that "it avoids a categorical
denial of supernatural divine actions" since one possible divine action is
the formation of a "novel creaturely form" that would not result from the
natural outworkings and contingencies of a fully gifted creation.
It appears to me that the RFEP is logically inconsistent with the doctrine
of a God who is free to act and create as He will.
Discover the sevenfold symmetric perfection of the Holy Bible at
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Sep 18 2003 - 14:50:17 EDT