[Vision2020] Michael Metzler and the Incarnation; philosophical theology

[Michael]

Dr. Gier,

 

Thanks. One part of my argument is this:

 

The way you define God and man in your essay seems to beg the question. You
have taken what are to me more Hellenistic descriptions of God and man
(instead of biblical or creedal language), assumed their static nature, and
then used two simple syllogisms to prove that God could not become 'flesh'
and that flesh could not be taken up by God.  I'd be happy challenging your
definitions of God and man.  

 

A second part of my argument is this:

 

I'd also want to make a challenge that is willing to, for the sake of
argument, grant your definitions; this is a second way in which your
argument seems to beg the question: even if these were successful
descriptions of God and man before the incarnation, nothing latent in the
definitions themselves logically prohibits God and man to change in nature.
>From this perspective, the 'incarnation' just is the cosmic changing of
these 'categories.' My quote from McLaren was meant to highlight this.

 

Thanks,

Michael Metzler  

 

 

 

Hi Michael,

 

"Philosophical theology" is a real mouth full, but all that it means, and
you know this very well, is that we do theology using reason alone.  You
yourself admitted that all of us on this list are rational beings, so anyone
on this list can do theology without reference to any scripture or alleged
divine revelation.

 

800 years ago Thomas Aquinas argued that the only way to talk about religion
to non-Christians was to use the common ground of human reason.  His
proposal is just as valid today as it was then, and many conservative
evangelical theologians such as Norman Geisler agree with Aquinas.
Surprisingly, Aquinas has become favorite reading among some of them.

 

Thanks for the dialogue,

 

Nick Gier

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20051220/f0bd4471/attachment.htm