Re: [asa] Natural theology

Alexanian

This is a trifle dogmatic. It may well be because they have not heard of a
creator.

It is more reasonable to say all sensible people believe in/accept evolution
and the geological timescale and its billions of years. Is it pride or folly
which prevents people from accepting that?

Michael
----- Original Message -----
From: "Alexanian, Moorad" <alexanian@uncw.edu>
To: "George Murphy" <gmurphy@raex.com>
Cc: "AmericanScientificAffiliation" <asa@calvin.edu>; <cmekve@aol.com>
Sent: Friday, November 02, 2007 8:27 PM
Subject: RE: [asa] Natural theology

> George, I am saying that all sensible people believe in a Creator, those
> sensible people who do not do so is because of their pride. Everyone can
> think of someone superior to himself or herself. He or she who cannot,
> thinks himself or herself as superior to all and, therefore, thinks
> himself or herself to be God. That is pride. "They exchanged the truth of
> God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the
> Creator-who is forever praised. Amen." Rom. 1:25.
>
>
>
> Moorad
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: George Murphy [mailto:gmurphy@raex.com]
> Sent: Fri 11/2/2007 3:37 PM
> To: Alexanian, Moorad; cmekve@aol.com; asa@calvin.edu
> Subject: Re: [asa] Natural theology
>
>
> Which is kind of like saying "Only sinners sin."
>
> Shalom
> George
> http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Alexanian, Moorad <mailto:alexanian@uncw.edu>
> To: cmekve@aol.com ; asa@calvin.edu
> Sent: Friday, November 02, 2007 3:13 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 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- <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- <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.
>
> ________________________________
>
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>
>

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 17:20:09 2007