I tried to keep the discussion within a traditional framework & so in this discussion haven't considered the possibility that there are other ways for the work of Christ to be effective for people beyond Word & Sacraments. In other times I am willing & perhaps even eager to consider that speculative possibility. But a person can't look at the world from the standpoint of faith in Christ without faith in Christ. If the question is whether some people outside the orbit of God's historical revelation can come to a knowledge of the true God from consideration of the creation alone, I think that Romans 1 indicates pretty clearly that the answer is "No."
Shalom
George
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
----- Original Message -----
From: David Opderbeck
To: George Murphy
Cc: David Heddle ; Dennis Venema ; ASA
Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2008 10:02 PM
Subject: Re: [asa] Theistic Evolutionists Clos e Ranks < Let the Bloodletting Begin!
George, are you taking an exclusivist position here?
On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 9:33 PM, George Murphy <GMURPHY10@neo.rr.com> wrote:
I don't know what to make of the phrase "those whom he regenerates, even if they have not heard the gospel". Those who are regenerated are those who have heard and believed the gospel - Rom.10:17. While they are elect in Christ and chosen to believe "before the foundation of the world", they do not in fact believe until they have received the gospel (& I would include there the "visible word" in Baptism).
But having said that - yes, as I (& Karl Evens) said, nature can have a secondary revelatory function for those who come to faith in Christ and view the world from that standpoint. As Torrance put it, a proper natural theology must be part of distinctively Christian theology. Otherwise sin inevitably distorts things and results in idolatry. & since Christians are still sinners, some danger of that persists for them, as the long melancholy history of natural theology shows, the ID movement being the latest chapter.
In any case, Paul does not speak of any positive function of a natural knowledge of God in Romans. When he's finished demonstrating the universal sinfulness of humanity in Ch.3 he doesn't say, "OK, now let's develop a proper natural theology." Instead he turns immediately to Christ.
Shalom
George
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
----- Original Message -----
From: David Heddle
To: George Murphy
Cc: Dennis Venema ; David Opderbeck ; ASA
Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2008 5:52 PM
Subject: Re: [asa] Theistic Evolutionists Clos e Ranks < Let the Bloodletting Begin!
George,
I agree with most of what you wrote, but not this:
Paul says in Romans that the information about God in nature means that people who construct idols are "without excuse." It has only a negative function.
I disagree that Romans 1:20 has only a negative function. If something viewed incorrectly leaves you without excuse, it presupposes, it seems to me, that the same thing, viewed properly, must leave you without the need for an excuse. Otherwise, going out of the way to indicate that it leaves you without excuse is a bit redundant. I think Romans 1:20 does imply a positive function, not just a negative one. As a Calvinist, I would say that God would have mercy upon whom he would have mercy, and those whom he regenerates, even if they have not heard the gospel, are obligated to respond favorably to general revelation.
And I think that's my fourth post today, so I shall go into lurker mode.
David Heddle
Associate Professor of Physics
Christopher Newport University &
The Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility
On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 5:28 PM, George Murphy <GMURPHY10@neo.rr.com> wrote:
In the post I just sent I noted the necessary qualifications about God's "revelation" in nature but realized I should comment further. As I have noted many times, Paul's point in Romans 1 is not that we are to learn about God from nature but that people consistently misinterpret what they know of nature and construct idols. Nature can be understood as revelatory when considered from the standpoint of Christian faith, but we do not learn from it about the true God independently of God's historical revelation. Besides failing to recognize this, Dembski's statements involve at least 3 other errors.
1) Barth's position, which rejects a natural knowledge of God and natural theology, may well be judged too extreme, though in view of the excesses of natural theology such a negative view is understandable. But it's more than slightly excessive to label Barth's position "anti-Christian" & to insist that the idea of natural revelation is "part of the Christian worldview."
2) Paul says in Romans that the information about God in nature means that people who construct idols are "without excuse." It has only a negative function. The Intelligent Designer can be as much of an idol as any statue or mental image of the cosmic philosopher, dictator &c.
3) Whatever natural phenomena Paul (or the writer of Ps.19) might have had in mind, they were things with which ordinary people of 2000 or 2500 years ago in the Mediterranean world were familiar with. So it's preposterous to cite such texts in support of the notion that they have anything to do with the design of the bacterial flagellum, the blood clotting cascade, or for that matter the anthropic coincidences.
Shalom
George
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Jun 18 05:52:02 2008
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Jun 18 2008 - 05:52:02 EDT