Re: [asa] The Patient Creator - addendum

From: George Murphy <>
Date: Mon Jun 22 2009 - 07:45:50 EDT

Gregory -

After replying to you last night I realized that I forgot your question about trinitarian aspects. (Maybe the result of getting up at 3 a.m. & a cross-country flight.) In brief, the idea that the Incarnation & its consequences is God's "plan" for creation (as in Eph.1:10) should indeed be expressed in a fully trinitarian way. Although only one Person of the Trinity became incarnate, the whole Trinity is involved. In particular, Mary conceived the Word because "the Holy Spirit will come upon you" (Lk.1:35) & Jesus' ministry was in the power of the Spirit. (Lk.4 on his testing & beginning of his ministry emphasizes this.) You may say that western theologies have tended to downplay or ignore the role of the Spirit here & I agree that historically that's been the case. But it is beginning to change.)


  ----- Original Message -----
  From: George Murphy
  To: Gregory Arago ; ; Nucacids
  Sent: Sunday, June 21, 2009 10:29 PM
  Subject: Re: [asa] The Patient Creator

  Gregory -

  "Theanthropic" & related words has been used before me. It's simply a combination of "theos" = God and "anthropos" = human, & refers to the orthodox belief, stated at Chalcedon, that Jesus Christ is fully God & fully human. It may well be the same idea that is convesyed by the Russian term you mention. But my Russian is limited to a few important phrases (which I won't try to transliterate correctly) such as "Hello", "Good-Bye", "Beer please" and a few others (plus less significant ones like "I eat black bread witrh cheese." At leats I could avoid starvation in Russia.)

  I discussed "The Incarnation as a Theanthropic Principle" (Word & World XIII, 256, 1993)" & also more briefly in The Cosmos in the Light of the Cross, Ch.12.

  On your question: Yes, while scientific anthropic principles provide some support for such a theological principle - if one chooses to do theology, belief in the Incarnation is one moptivation for Christians to pursue anthropic principle arguments in science. But if they do that, they should do it as science - i.e., without invoking theological arguments.


    ----- Original Message -----
    From: Gregory Arago
    To: ; Nucacids ;
    Sent: Sunday, June 21, 2009 12:54 PM
    Subject: Re: [asa] The Patient Creator

          Hi George and Mike,

          To George: what do you mean by <theanthropic>? it,s the first time I,ve seen this word/term/idea. could you please attempt to define it? you'll have to excuse if you did this already and I missed it, in which case a link to where you define it would be appreciated.

          Additionally, if you think that ,anthropic, in ,science, (in its various forms), as you say, <can be used in support of a theanthropic principle in theology>, then why don,t you think the reverse direction could possibly be true with respect to ,design,. That is, a ,design, principle in theology (which I believe you and almost everyone else on the ASA list accept) <can be used in support of a design principle in science>? I find again there is a one-directionality of science dictating to theology, rather than a balanced two-way (or multi-way, if one is willing to include philosophy) street.

          Surely you are not referring to <bogochilovechestvo> (godmanhood), which was coined over a century ago in the ,Eastern, Orthodox tradition...?

          George further wrote: <God's purpose in creation is Christ>

          Is this a fully trinitarian statement or one that reflects a 2/3 trinitarian theology seeking balance?


          --- On Fri, 6/19/09, <> wrote:

            From: <>
            Subject: Re: [asa] The Patient Creator
            To:, "Nucacids" <>
            Received: Friday, June 19, 2009, 10:04 PM

            Mike -

            I didn't mean to attribute the statements you quote to you.

            What I said about God's purpose for creation was indeed generic & deliberately so. I'm quite willing to be more specific: God's purpose in creation is Christ - Eph.1:10. Creation is for the sake of Incarnation. & if that is the case it seems plausible that the development of an intelligent species in which God could be incarnate would be required. That's why I've suggested that anthropic principle arguments in science can be used in support of a theanthropic principle in theology.

            George >

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Jun 22 07:47:44 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Jun 22 2009 - 07:47:44 EDT