Re: [asa] ID, TE, God's action, and Apologetics

On Feb 16, 2008, at 9:20 PM, David Opderbeck wrote:

> Dead-on, I think, Allan -- and this is why I think the missional /
> emergent movement can be something of a partner in discussions about
> the relation of evangelical Christian faith and science.
> Significant portions of the missional / emergent movement are not so
> much "postmodern" as critical realist; and even those who are
> "postmodern," such as James K.A. Smith of Calvin College (http://www.calvin.edu/~jks4/
> ), are not the relativists they're sometimes caricatured to be, but
> rather are focused on how Truth emerges from community and situated
> narratives. The apologetic of missional / emergent folks tends to
> be much more relational than propositional, and resonates with some
> things McGrath and others have written about the ways in which
> scientific and faith claims can be complementary even when they
> explain something in different ways.
>
>

The obsession with the propositional in the Biola school explains the
tie with ID. I would add that so-called emergent evangelicalism is
more Biblical. Scripture is full of "believe in" but has only one
"believe that". By having an attenuated view of truth Doug Grootheis
unintentionally sets up its opposite. The Ninth Commandment is defined
in relational terms and not merely an exposition of the "law of non-
contradiction". In an apologetics context, the obsession with the
propositional sets up contradictions with physical scientists who have
the upper hand. This produces in turn the perception that Christians
are "liars for Jesus". Several years ago in an interview with
Australian Radio, McGrath noted that the relational aspect of
evangelicalism is an aspect that is far more potent against atheism
than the debate/warfare model.

Finally, a clarification from yesterday. When I use the term orthodoxy
I don't mean merely assent to a series of propositions. Rather, it is
worshiping God as he revealed Himself. The beef I have with Open
Theism is not they are too "emergent" but that they are not "emergent"
enough. In Scripture, the object of foreknowledge is people and not
facts. All this speculation about the "future" and whether God
"experiences" his creation simultaneously not only is not helpful but
I believe that it can be dangerous. Scripture clearly affirms both the
love and sovereignty of God. Throughout history people have made this
into a false dilemma, e.g. Rabbi Kushner and "Why Bad Things Happen to
Good People". Merely because we don't know how it resolves should not
make us not affirm both of these truths. The value of Open Theology is
stressing one side of the tension and the relational aspects of God.
By contrast it illustrates another one of the theological deficiencies
of ID. When I design a chip I don't have a relationship with it. But,
the Creator does have a relationship with people made in His image.
The other three options, YEC, OEC, and EC more properly stress this.

The good news in all this is that Tim Keller gets this. This new book
I predict will be the most important apologetic work since Mere
Christianity.

Rich Blinne (Member ASA)

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sun Feb 17 10:28:50 2008