[asa] Re: Peacocke's theology and the meaning of "Christian"

I did not argue that you misrepresented AP's theology but referred to your statement about AP sent to this list on 26 May 2006; which KM said came from a digital recording of the meeting.

Nelson: Ah, I would like to begin by actually responding to this slide from
Jim. Ah, it's true that of these scientists named here, ah, are theists I
think, Arthur Peacock I'm not sure would call himself a Christian, he has a
rather heterodox theology, but they are all theists of one strip or another.

Here's the problem though. All of them accept a philosophy of science that
excludes intelligent causation by definition. Ah, for instance, ah, Keith
Miller and I served on a panel that the, ah, American Scientific Affiliation
assembled a few years ago to write a statement on creation, with a variety
of viewpoints. Keith was defending theistic evolution I was arguing for
intelligent design

I presume Paul accepts this as an accurate transcript - otherwise he should have corrected it before.

Paul said of AP "Arthur Peacock I'm not sure would call himself a Christian, he has a
rather heterodox theology,"

The first part of the statement is totally and utterly false. In every contact I had with him it was clear that he would call himself a Christian and did so on many an occasion. I had no grounds whatever to challenge his love of Christ nor his desire to proclaim the Christian faith, hence I get angry at any who does. I find Paul's statement offensive in the extreme and totally bigoted.

I wish Arthur were alive to say what he thinks I would have said to the second part! I am sure he would have said that I am far too biblicist and not critical enough and that by my standards he is heterodox, and he would be right! It basically came out in some of the friendly arguments we had.

So in answer to your question, is it necessary to believe in the bodily resurrection, I would answer NO but it is desirable to do so as to reject it ultimately destroys our faith.

To conclude I recognise Arthur as a fellow Christian whose theology I found lacking.

I have less of a problem with liberals like Arthur than some evangelicals who are so quick to deny or rubbish the faith of others. I don't have space to give examples if only from those who accept the non-traditional doctrine of a young earth.

Michael

----- Original Message -----
  From: Paul Nelson
  To: asa@calvin.edu
  Cc: nelsonpa@alumni.uchicago.edu ; rjschn39@bellsouth.net ; michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk
  Sent: Saturday, January 13, 2007 4:05 PM
  Subject: Peacocke's theology and the meaning of "Christian"

  Michael Roberts and Robert Schneider argue

  that I misrepresented the theology of Arthur Peacocke,

  by saying that I was unsure if Peacocke would

  call himself a Christian. Of course, this depends

  on how "Christian" is defined.

  So I'll ask the ASA list: Must a Christian affirm

  the bodily resurrection of Jesus, as stated (for

  instance) in the ancient creeds of the church,

  e.g., the Apostles' Creed?

  Those unfamiliar with Peacocke's theology should

  consult this lecture:

  http://www.ctinquiry.org/publications/reflections_volume_3/peacocke.htm

  See in particular paragraphs V, VI, and VII

  under the heading "Theology Today and

  Tomorrow."

  Paul Nelson

  Adjunct Professor

  MA Program in Science & Theology

  Biola University

  www.biola.edu/scienceandreligion/

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sat Jan 13 12:24:34 2007