Re: Romans 1:20

All our understandings of God will be incomplete, even in the light of
revelation. Thus in one sense all we have are inadequate models. But
there's a big difference between an inadequate model which is developed on
the basis of God's revelation in the cross & resurrection of Christ & the
kind of thing usually developed on the basis of a supposed natural knowledge
of God. The latter results at best in the ruling Caesar, the ruthless
moralist, or the unmoved mover (to use Whitehead's terms). We get what
Luther called a theology of glory instead of the theology of the cross.

Correct me if I'm wrong but in your question about the crucifix I sense a
bit of Reformed iconoclasm. & of course a crucifix, like any creature, can
be an idol. But it doesn't have to be if one's faith & worship are not
directed to the object itself as an end but to the one who hung on the
cross. "Graven images" are idols only if they are objects of worship.
That's why Lutherans (& RCs) treat what Exodus 20 says images as an
explanation of the 1st Commandment ("You shall not bow down to them or
worship them") & not as a separate commandment.

Shalom
George
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Armstrong" <jarmstro@qwest.net>
To: "ASA" <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Monday, July 18, 2005 11:49 AM
Subject: Re: Romans 1:20

> George - A question occurs to me - what might be the essential difference
> between creating an inadequate mental model of God and creating an
> inadequate model of God which includes a physical interpretation as well
> (clay image or crucifix)? Thankfully, I think you know me well enough to
> know I'm not trying to be ugly here. JimA
>
> George Murphy wrote:
>
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "wgreen8" <wgreen8@god4science.com>
>> To: <asa@calvin.edu>
>> Sent: Sunday, July 17, 2005 9:30 PM
>> Subject: Romans 1:20
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Dear friends at ASA:
>>>
>>> Romans 1:20 says that God's "eternal power and divine nature, have been
>>> clearly seen, being understood through what has been made... (NASB)."
>>> Two
>>> questions arise: What exactly does "divine nature" refer to, and how
>>> are
>>> these attributes of God made manifest in nature?
>>>
>>> I think that it is clear that humans have always had a tendency to
>>> believe in
>>> God or gods. In 1911, Brave Buffalo, a Sioux Indian wrote: "When I was
>>> ten
>>> years of age I looked at the land and the rivers, the sky above, and the
>>> animals around me and could not fail to realize that they were made by
>>> some
>>> great power."
>>>
>>> Black Elk also said that it could be seen that the Great Spirit was in
>>> all
>>> nature, and "most importantly," He is above or greater than all of these
>>> things (the sun, streams, all nature).
>>>
>>> Is this because humans perceive design in nature? Or is there some
>>> other
>>> rational perception? Or is this perception not rational, not based on
>>> reason, but mystical?
>>
>>
>> 19. That person does not deserve to be called a theologian who looks
>> upon the invisible things of God as though they were clearly perceptible
>> in those things which have actually happened. [Rom.1:20]
>>
>> 20. He deserves to be called a theologian, however, who
>> comprehends the visible and manifest things of God seen through suffering
>> and the cross.
>>
>>
>> (Luther)
>>
>>
>>
>> Paul's point is not that people actually do know God from their
>> experience of the world but that there is sufficient evidence for God to
>> be known in that way. But in fact people distort that evidence and
>> produce idols, as he goes on to say in the following verses. Our
>> tendency to "believe in a God or gods" is what Calvin meant when he said
>> that the human mind is "a factory of idols." Thus in the real condition
>> of humanity in the world God must first be known in Christ (as Paul
>> finally says in 3:21 ff after dealing with the universal problem of sin)
>> before our experience of the world & reason can tell us anything about
>> God. That is why Luther says that anyone who tries to understand God by
>> starting with "those things which have actually happened" (or "the things
>> that have been made"), echoing Rom.1:20, "does not deserve to be called a
>> theologian."
>>
>>
>>
>> Shalom
>> George
>> http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
Received on Mon Jul 18 20:31:54 2005