In my previous post I failed to rebut this rather surprising claim:
No. Not at all. Putting aside for the moment that most would argue that the risen Jesus Christ is the foundation upon which the Gospel rests, I must emphasize this fact:
The Bible provides few details about “direct creating” versus “indirect creating”.
Greg, do you think God directly creates each human? Or did God create the material universe and the laws of physics and chemistry which led to the processes of biology such that human males and females together produce each new human being?
Does God create each rainstorm directly?
Have you considered that God is so omniscient and omnipotent that he could have “directly created” the Big Bang (and thereby all laws of physics with it) so that everything else we observe in his creation naturally arose from it? That would make every atom, every rock, every heavenly body, and every living thing an “indirect” creation of God, wouldn’t it? Would that be a heretical thought under your viewpoint? (Could it be that you limit God and have a deity concept which is far too small?)
I would say that God is both a “direct” and “indirect” Creator—if indeed such a distinction is even all that important. In any case, whether God is solely a “direct Creator” (and never an indirect one) is NOT “the foundation upon which all other Christian theology including the gospel rests!”
I will admit, however, that your view would have fit in extremely well in ancient times when many people assumed that each and every lightning bolt was a “direct creation” of God, and usually also with some sort of judgment purpose (or at least an expression of his anger about something humans had done.)
I don’t believe for a moment that distinctions of direct versus indirect creation are at all the foundation upon which the Gospel of Jesus Christ rests. Indeed, I find the claim quite disturbing—though I nevertheless have said so peacefully. I am also quite willing to be “tolerant” towards your opinion being expressed here on this forum, even though I consider it unscriptural.