----- Original Message -----
From: Michael Roberts
To: asa@calvin.edu ; cmekve@aol.com
Sent: Friday, November 02, 2007 8:33 PM
Subject: Re: [asa] Natural theology
This also comes out in Karl Barth's wonderful exposition of his reaction and reflection on the Barmen Declaration of 1934 where confessing Christians in Germany put forward their opposition to "nazi theology etc". He saw this as the culmination of German cultureprotestantism as their natural theology was uppermost and the gospel downgraded.
Church Dogmatics Vol II, 1, pp172ff.
It in part explains his opposition to natural theology and he is largely right but needs a corrective from Tom Torrance
Michael
----- Original Message -----
From: cmekve@aol.com
To: asa@calvin.edu
Sent: Friday, November 02, 2007 8:05 PM
Subject: Re: [asa] Natural theology
Therefore we're all guilty (as Romans says). But natural theology doesn't help us out of that.
I'm reading Templeton prize winner Charles Taylor's A Secular Age. I can't be sure yet, but I think part of his argument (so far) is that the natural theology mindset was a key ingredient leading to our current secularism. If so, evangelical natural theologians (including IDers) may actually be sowing seeds to further secularize American evangelicalism. Not exactly the goal they have in mind, is my guess.
Karl [ASA Fellow]
**************
Karl V. Evans
cmekve@aol.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Alexanian, Moorad <alexanian@uncw.edu>
To: cmekve@aol.com; asa@calvin.edu
Sent: Fri, 2 Nov 2007 1:13 pm
Subject: RE: [asa] Natural theology
Only pride can prevent an otherwise sensible person from believing in a Creator.
Moorad
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On Behalf Of cmekve@aol.com
Sent: Friday, November 02, 2007 2:57 PM
To: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: [asa] Natural theology
But I think the point George is making is that the Romans passage indicates that even if there is a "book of nature", we humans always get it wrong. It's been said that original sin was not necessary but was inevitable. The same might be said of natural theology. Misuse of an independent natural theology may not logically be necessary, but Romans indicates it is inevitable.
Karl
***************
Karl V. Evans
cmekve@aol.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Christine Smith <christine_mb_smith@yahoo.com>
To: asa@calvin.edu
Sent: Fri, 2 Nov 2007 12:22 pm
Subject: Re: [asa] Natural theology
I've been following this thread with interest; I thinkthat there is some truth to both sides of thisissue...here's my brief take.... I think that the Romans passage is a good illustrationof the two-book idea...here we see that in nature,God's power and deity is evident to everyone; not froma "scientific proof" necessarily, but just plaincommon sense; thus, in this sense everyone should knowof God and so all are without exuse at this level. In<
/
TT>short, "natural theology" gets you to theism, which isa necessary step to Christ, but is obviously notsufficient. Thus, if you stop with the "book" ofnature, what then happens is your idea of God iscorrupted by His very revelation in nature...thus, the
idolatry Paul describes. You need the other book, theBible (historical revelation of God) to go the rest ofthe way, ultimately to Christ; only by reading both"books" will one have a proper understanding of theTruth. 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 prev
e
nt 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> w
h
at 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-own
e
r@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
e
ven 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< PRE style="BACKGROUND: white">> > 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 the
o
logy. 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-
&
gt; >> 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> revelati
o
n.> >>> >> & 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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
size=2 width="100%" align=center>
Email and AIM finally together. You've gotta check out free AOL Mail!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Email and AIM finally together. You've gotta check out free AOL Mail!
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 16:59:09 2007
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Nov 02 2007 - 16:59:09 EDT