RE: [asa] Natural theology

George,

I agree our exchange has maxed out its usefulness. And I appreciate the
dialogue in spite of my failing to live up to your expectations in
assimilating your wise counsel.

Quite frankly, this has all taken me by surprise. I was not prepared to run
into thoughtful Christians who denied what I considered to be obvious
doctrine of natural revelation. And to be honest, I find it quite
demoralizing as well. I don't see how this serves any purpose other than to
bolster the atheist argument to further marginalize faith.

Thanks again

John

-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of George Murphy
Sent: Saturday, November 03, 2007 6:56 AM
To: John Walley; mlucid@aol.com; asa@calvin.edu; 'Janice Matchett'
Subject: Re: [asa] Natural theology

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 <mailto:john_walley@yahoo.com>

To: 'George Murphy' <mailto:gmurphy@raex.com> ; mlucid@aol.com ;
asa@calvin.edu ; 'Janice <mailto:janmatch@earthlink.net> 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 <mailto:john_walley@yahoo.com>

To: 'George Murphy' <mailto:gmurphy@raex.com> ; mlucid@aol.com ;
asa@calvin.edu ; 'Janice <mailto:janmatch@earthlink.net> 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 <mailto:janmatch@earthlink.net>

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 14:03:35 2007