Reason can't get you anywhere unless it has something to work with. Any mathematical system, like Euclidean geometry, is a an exceedingly rational process but it has to start with some things that can't be proved - axioms, postulates, &c. That does not make it "irrational." In theology we can deal with something like the Trinity in rational ways: That's what systematic theologians are supposed to do. But you can't get the basic input for that rational work, God's revelation in the death and resurrection of Christ, from pure reason. In fact, when people consider the basic Christian claims in the light of what they may call "reason" - i.e., their a priori notions about God and the world - they may say that they're "irrational." What they should say is that they don't agree with their presuppositions about God - i.e., their mental images of God - i.e, their idols.
Theology - at least good theology - does not reject science or philosophy & in fact needs to make use of them. But they are to have, in a traditional phrase, ministerial rather than magisterial roles in theology.
I have said that we know the true God from God's historical revelation which culminates in Christ - & of course that we can understand what goes on in the world through science. When you assert that I "seem to be arguing that we really can't know anything and everything except science is idolatry," it's quite clear that you are paying no attention at all to what I say, however much you protest that you do. It's clearly a waste of time for me to continue this exchange.
Shalom
George
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
----- Original Message -----
From: John Walley
To: 'George Murphy' ; mlucid@aol.com ; asa@calvin.edu ; 'Janice Matchett'
Sent: Friday, November 02, 2007 9:56 PM
Subject: RE: [asa] Natural theology
George,
With all due respect, I feel this is devolving to the irrational. Yes, I think it is reasonable to see God's design in nature and that be a testimony to Him and I think that it is a reasonable interpretation of the passage in Romans and I think it reasonable for us to use the powers of reason He gave us to know Him and His creation. But that doesn't mean I started with anything preconceived any more than you did. And I don't think that equates to idolatry. I think that charge is bordering on the absurd. And it could cut both ways as well.
In contrast you seem to be arguing that we really can't know anything and everything except science is idolatry. I admit I may not be following some of the deeper nuances of your arguments but I think we are still disconnecting on the fundamental premises.
Thanks
John
-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On Behalf Of George Murphy
Sent: Friday, November 02, 2007 8:38 PM
To: John Walley; mlucid@aol.com; asa@calvin.edu; 'Janice Matchett'
Subject: Re: [asa] Natural theology
"The only reasonable conclusion" - now it's on the table! God is to be subjected to our "reasonable" criteria. N.B., this is not a matter of drawing conclusions from scripture by rational exegesis or from the natural world by rational scientific study, both of which are legitimate activities, but of starting with criteria which we think it "reasonable" for God to obey. It is forcing God into our box - or, in a word, another form of idolatry.
In reality, Romans 1 says that the evidence for God in nature functions to make them (the same "them" to whom this evidence is presented) "without excuse." The notion that it is "similar to the witness of the Holy Spirit in the church age" is utterly without foundation. Yes, the Spirit will condemn sin (Jn.16:8-9) but most important will testify to Christ (Jn.15:26, I Cor.12:3 &c.) Does the bacterial flagellum point to Christ?
& the fact that people without God's historical revelation are "without excuse" for their failure to recognize the true God does not strictly imply that God condemns them. After Paul had appealed to the Athenians' unfocussed sense of God & rather gently rebuked them for their idolatry, he said, "While God has overlooked the times of human ignorance, he now commands all people everywhere to repent" (Acts 17:30). This provides at least an entree to dealing with the question of the status of people in cultures to whom the gospel has never been brought, such as ancient native Americans. It does not seem to have any relevance to the ID debate, scientism, metaphysical naturalism &c in the west.
Shalom
George
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
----- Original Message -----
From: John Walley
To: 'George Murphy' ; mlucid@aol.com ; asa@calvin.edu ; 'Janice Matchett'
Sent: Friday, November 02, 2007 5:51 PM
Subject: RE: [asa] Natural theology
But this gets back to Randy's obvious question asked earlier. How could the remote inhabitants of far away places before NT missionaries reached them possibly read these books in the right order?
I think the only reasonable conclusion is that God intended His natural revelation to be a universal and independent witness for Him in the OT era, similar to the witness of the Holy Spirit in the church age.
John
-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On Behalf Of George Murphy
Sent: Friday, November 02, 2007 5:41 PM
To: mlucid@aol.com; asa@calvin.edu; Janice Matchett
Subject: Re: [asa] Natural theology
The 2 books model is OK but it's important to read them in the right order. Otherwise you're in the position of someone reading The Two Towers before The Fellowship of the Ring: You won't know who the characters are & will get confused about what's going on. My PSCF article "Reading God's Two Books" at http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2006/PSCF3-06Murphy.pdf may be of interest here.
Shalom
George
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
----- Original Message -----
From: Janice Matchett
To: mlucid@aol.com ; asa@calvin.edu
Sent: Friday, November 02, 2007 3:59 PM
Subject: Re: [asa] Natural theology
At 03:42 PM 11/2/2007, mlucid@aol.com wrote:
Yeah, I believe I'm a two-booker, myself, Christine. -Mike (Friend of ASA)
@ Me too.
..........................
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sat Nov 3 06:59:57 2007
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat Nov 03 2007 - 06:59:57 EDT