From: Jan de Koning (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Thu Sep 18 2003 - 15:39:53 EDT
At 11:53 AM 18/09/2003 -0700, email@example.com wrote:
>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 - 15:40:35 EDT