Re: Comment's on Allens postings

From: D. F. Siemens, Jr. (
Date: Wed Jul 17 2002 - 17:04:43 EDT

  • Next message: J Burgeson: "Re: Burgy's Testimony"

    What Allen posted concerning the soul is standard SDA teaching, usually
    described as "soul sleep." I consider the claims special pleading. The
    nonreductionistic monism of Nancey Murphy and others happens to overlap
    it. As I and Paul noted some time back, the latter group ignores all the
    scriptures that do not fit their view. I will here go further and state
    that nonreductive monism cannot accommodate the incarnation. I have
    submitted a paper to EPS arguing this point.

    Contrary to George's statement that the virgin birth or virginal
    conception is not part of the ASA Statement of Faith, I believe that the
    mention of the Nicene and Apostle's Creeds indicates that it is included.
    I don't know what else may be made of "Born of the Virgin Mary" and "And
    was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary." I believe in an
    earlier post I noted that, apart from the virginal conception, the deity
    would be acting exactly as demon possession is described, usurping the
    individual's selfhood. I grant that the ecumenical creeds later than the
    Nicene (the date of the current form of the Apostles' Creed is not
    certain: it is not part of the Orthodox statements) elaborate the
    statement about the Lord's nature, but they do not introduce either his
    deity or his virgin birth.

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 18 2002 - 00:12:56 EDT