Re: [asa] Natural theology

 
 Yeah, I believe I'm a two-booker, myself, Christine.

-Mike (Friend of ASA)

-----Original Message-----
From: Christine Smith <christine_mb_smith@yahoo.com>
To: asa@calvin.edu
Sent: Fri, 2 Nov 2007 1:22 pm
Subject: Re: [asa] Natural theology

I've been following this thread with interest; I think
that there is some truth to both sides of this
issue...here's my brief take....

I think that the Romans passage is a good illustration
of the two-book idea...here we see that in nature,
God's power and deity is evident to everyone; not from
a "scientific proof" necessarily, but just plain
common sense; thus, in this sense everyone should know
of God and so all are without exuse at this level. In
short, "natural theology" gets you to theism, which is
a necessary step to Christ, but is obviously not
sufficient. Thus, if you stop with the "book" of
nature, what then happens is your idea of God is
corrupted by His very revelation in nature...thus, the
idolatry Paul describes. You need the other book, the
Bible (historical revelation of God) to go the rest of
the way, ultimately to Christ; only by reading both
"books" will one have a proper understanding of the
Truth.

In Christ,
Christine

--- "Terry M. Gray" <grayt@lamar.colostate.edu> wrote:

> John,
>
> The point is that no one is willing to receive this
> truth. That the
> Calvinist (and Lutheran and others) "total
> depravity". That's the
> human condition.
>
> I have no problems with a Christ-centered,
> revelation dependent
> "natural theology". I'm not really sure I would call
> that a natural
> theology any more, but rather a thinking about
> creation in the
> context of redemptive revelation. It is true that
> pre-fall this was
> different, but then humans knew God and were in
> right relationship
> with him.
>
> TG
>
> On Nov 1, 2007, at 4:28 PM, John Walley wrote:
>
> > Terry,
> >
> > Thanks for this clarification. I am aware of the
> following verses
> > in Romans
> > and depraved man's tendency toward idolatry but I
> contend that this
> > context
> > proves my original point. Idolatry is the result
> of willfully
> > rejecting
> > natural revelation but it does not establish that
> natural
> > revelation is
> > insufficient to prevent this conclusion if they
> were willing to
> > receive the
> > truth.
> >
> > I think it is a mistake to say "the result of
> trying to develop such a
> > knowledge from observation of the world alone is
> inevitable
> > idolatry". I
> > don't think this is true and I don't think this is
> what the passage in
> > Romans is saying, even in context.
> >
> > You yourself agree that God is revealed in
> Creation. This establishes
> > Natural Revelation then. How man then responds to
> it is an entirely
> > separate
> > issue.
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > John
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-
> > owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
> > Behalf Of Terry M. Gray
> > Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2007 11:09 AM
> > To: AmericanScientificAffiliation
> > Subject: [asa] Natural theology
> >
> > John, Mike,
> >
> > The idea of idolatry that George is talking about
> comes out in the
> > next few verses (21-25) of Romans 1. The sinful
> human heart takes the
> > revelation of God in nature and worships and
> serves created things.
> > This is, indeed, the whole context of Romans
> 1:20-3:20. God is truly
> > revealed in creation, but the human response to
> that revelation,
> > apart from faith in Christ, is idolatry. "There is
> no one righteous,
> > not even one." Thus, a "natural theology" apart
> from Christ and
> > scripture will reflect that sinful condition. To
> make Romans 1:20 a
> > proof-text for a revelation independent natural
> theology is to take
> > it out of context.
> >
> > TG
> >
> > On Oct 30, 2007, at 11:49 PM, mlucid@aol.com
> wrote:
> >
> >> It was I who brought up Romans 1:20 in the thread
> and I have to go
> >> with John
> >> on this one, George. I see Romans 1:20 as saying
> that God is
> >> reflected in his creation
> >> (What has been made).
> >>
> >> -Mike (Friend of ASA)
> >>
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: John Walley <john_walley@yahoo.com>
> >> To: 'George Murphy' <gmurphy@raex.com>;
> asa@calvin.edu
> >> Sent: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 11:01 pm
> >> Subject: RE: [asa] D'Souza vs. Hitchens -
> Surrending the debate
> >> epistemologically by subjecting revealed
> knowledge to science
> >>
> >> George,
> >>
> >> Sorry for the delay in the response but I wanted
> to get back to you
> >> on this. I remember your email on 23 October but
> then as now I am
> >> not sure I am in agreement with you on the
> interpretation of Rom
> >> 1:20. That is an interesting perspective but I
> don't see that as
> >> being consistent with the rest of scripture.
> >>
> >> There are many other scriptures that seem to
> imply this same
> >> "idolatry" of natural theology. For instance,
> "The fool has said in
> >> his heart there is no God", "The heavens declare
> the Glory of God"
> >> and God reveals His wrath against those "who
> suppress the truth in
> >> unrighteousness" etc., etc.. To me, these all
> make clear that God's
> >> perspective on the default conclusion of natural
> revelation is that
> >> it leads to Him. I don't know where you get this
> idolatry twist.
> >>
> >> This I would consider valid knowledge and truth
> and therefore
> >> impertinent to surrender that in any debate with
> atheists. I will
> >> concede that this is knowledge from a spiritual
> source ultimately
> >> but as the above scriptures indicate, all the
> evidence leads to it
> >> and the only way to avoid this conclusion is to
> willfully reject it
> >> and live in denial of it. But however, keep in
> mind that the source
> >> of truth or knowledge in no way disqualifies it
> from being so. For
> >> instance, a good example from the ID literature
> is the discovery of
> >> the benzene ring which was the result of a dream.
> >>
> >> John
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-
> >> owner@lists.calvin.edu] On Behalf Of George
> Murphy
> >> Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2007 4:15 PM
> >> To: John Walley; asa@calvin.edu
> >> Subject: Re: [asa] D'Souza vs. Hitchens -
> Surrending the debate
> >> epistemologically by subjecting revealed
> knowledge to science
> >>
> >> John -
> >>
> >> In a post of 23 October I pointed out some of the
> problems with the
> >> type of appeal to Rom.1:20 that you keep trying
> to make. In the
> >> real world in which all people are sinful, one
> can speak of
> >> "knowledge" of God from creation only in an
> extremely limited sense
> >> since the result of trying to develop such a
> knowledge from
> >> observation of the world alone is inevitable
> idolatry. That is
> >> Paul's whole point in that passage & it's a
> serious mistake to try
> >> to make it into an argument for natural
> revelation.
> >>
> >> & in fact "the project of natural theology" to
> which
=== message truncated ===

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.

________________________________________________________________________
Email and AIM finally together. You've gotta check out free AOL Mail! - http://mail.aol.com

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Nov 2 15:43:07 2007