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

Frankly this is a silly argument. It focuses on one point and not the whole gamut of the Christian Faith.

Arthur believed in the resurrection of Jesus but AFAIK did not accept the empty tomb and thus the actual rising of the body in corporeal form. As much as I think that Arthur is wrong I cannot then say he was not a Christian and neither should anyone else.

Arthur came out of the liberal wing of the Anglican church with a nod to Anglo-Catholicism in its liberal form. This approach often involved rejecting the Virgin Birth miracles an empty tomb and often an objective atonement. You will find a whole succession of Anglicans, lay ordained, and Bishops as well as professional theologians who have gone along with this since the 19th century. This includes my own colleagues and some of my bishops. I would challenge the Christian authenticity of none of them. Giving an informed guess Arthur would have looked to the liberal theology of MacQuarrie , Lampe, Wiles, Ian Ramsey and others, and more recently Keith Ward, and various from the states.

I have also personally been involved in Arthur's own spirituality and though it was too catholic for me , it was very Christ centred.

Arthur died two months ago and I lost a fellow Christian who had helped me in my science and religion for over 20 years. In the same month Eric Jenkins who was the first secretary of the Society of Ordained Scientists which Arthur founded for evangelistic reasons also died. He also helped me greatly and we didn't always agree. Incidentally another who helped prior to that when I was at L'Abri in the 70s is now a minister in the SBC and we hope to stay with him this year. We don't always agree! (I often defend the SBC in Britain.)

I am very disturbed by your desire to prove that someone is not a Christian and I regard as very judgemental.

I will conclude by explaining why I rejected ID as even a possible Christian stance. Round about the time of the Concordia conference in 2000 I was quite sympathetic though I had several questions and you may remember me challenging you over the age of the earth at the speakers' dinner. What finished me off was the sheer distortion of Wells' book (of course NOT a Christian), the misrepresentation in Johnson's work . I found the lack of honesty which also mars so much of standard YEC too much to take, along with the dismissal of the faith of Christians they happen to disagree with. I object to being called a compromiser or seeing Keith Miller rubbished.

To put it bluntly to denigrate a fellow Christian as you have done to Arthur simply negates your claims to follow Christ. Explain why he is wrong as I did to his face, point out where he is wrong but never never do what you have done.
2 Cor 10 vs 7

Michael
  ----- Original Message -----
  From: suzannepaul@comcast.net
  To: Robert Schneider ; Michael Roberts ; Paul Nelson ; asa@calvin.edu
  Sent: Sunday, January 14, 2007 5:47 PM
  Subject: Re: [asa] Re: Peacocke's theology and the meaning of "Christian"

  If "Christian" can mean anything one wishes, then,
  of course, anyone can call himself a Christian.
  The word has no meaning (i.e., fixed referent).

  My transcribed remarks, however, assumed

  1. the law of non-contradiction, namely,
  ~ (p and ~p).

  Jesus could not have risen from the dead bodily,
  and NOT have risen from the dead bodily.
  Only one of these propositions can be true.

  and

  2. Christianity has historically affirmed the bodily
  resurrection of Jesus, as the foundational claim of
  the faith.

  Given (1) and (2), Arthur Peacocke could not call
  himself a Christian, unless he was either lying, or
  "Christian" can mean anything at all.

  We agree that Peacocke denied the bodily
  resurrection of Jesus, along with every other
  New (and Old) Testament miracle. These events
  were not in keeping with scientific knowledge.
  It is uncharitable to say that Peacocke was lying.

  Therefore, "Christian" can mean anything at all.

  When one recites the Apostles' Creed, for instance,
  the words "on the third day he rose again" may
  be taken to mean, "on the third day he did not
  rise again."

  I'll be sure to point this out to audiences the next
  time Peacocke's name comes up in discussion.

  Paul Nelson

    -------------- Original message --------------
    From: "Robert Schneider" <rjschn39@bellsouth.net>

    I'm glad that Michael put the words attributed to Paul Nelson back up so he can be reminded of them. They were as I recalled them, and I stand by what I said, and second Michael's criticism. So, Dr. Nelson, are you implying, in giving Peacocke's statement about rethinking Christian theology in the light of scientific discoveries, that what he is doing no longer makes him a Christian? It is not possible for someone to be "heterodox" in your view and still be a Christian? Since I think that Ken Ham's conviction that Genesis, i.e., his YEC interpretation of it, is the foundation of Christianity is heresy, since the foundation is Jesus Christ, should I no longer think that Ham is a Christian? Should I dismiss him as a Christian because he promotes this false belief? (I don't, though I wish he wouldn't.)

    Bob Schneider
      ----- Original Message -----
      From: Michael Roberts
      To: Paul Nelson ; asa@calvin.edu
      Cc: nelsonpa@alumni.uchicago.edu ; rjschn39@bellsouth.net
      Sent: Saturday, January 13, 2007 12:21 PM
      Subject: [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 Sun Jan 14 15:08:30 2007