@Christy @GJDS @Eddie @Relates
Your wish is my command.
1 Like
You attracted many comments - I think you have more stamina for these discussions than I, but getting back to random. I suggest a random/sovereignty approach again avoids the issue, which is that âGod is the Creatorâ. Such a phrase is not simply a matter of tradition that is subject to revision, but a dogma that defines the Christian faith. Put simply, all Christians will agree with the phrase, but making that into an article of faith, a core belief, can lead to outlooks that eventually contradict the meaning of God as Creator. Random becomes one issue that we can obsess and argue. The notion of creation goes back to all major philosophies and beliefs - Christianity shows the creator has acted in a way that cannot be related to anything we know and can test. This approach takes us to the dogmatics of the Church and eventually we are left with discussions on human agency, and some erroneous views emerge to attribute agency to God. When people reach such a point, they indulge in further error, in that they put forward âhow Godâ has done this or that, placing God in either a causal chain, or as someone who is more powerful, but only in degree, than us (and on and on it goes, we are in the image of God, we too can create, nature is free to become, process theology, knowledge from science provides proof, etc. etc). My short remarks show why such outlooks develop into notions that the theology of the Church may be wrong, and become part of great confusion and error (not a personal remark Christy, simply a response to your comments).
Youâre absolutely right. But I donât think most people are downplaying the fact that itâs a theological problem. Peter Enns used those exact words in that Historical Adam roundtable that was linked here a while back.
Do you really think that is what BioLogos is doing? It seems to me thatâs what AiG is doing.
But those be fightinâ words, and itâs so much more gracious to say âthat interpretation is less preferable.â As I see it, and I donât have any inside information or anything, BioLogosâ main focus has been trying to expand the Evangelical tent a bit so that their view is an option on the menu that isnât treated like fried rat or dog food, but maybe more like sushi. Not for everyone, but some people like it, and thatâs okay. I donât think they (in contrast to other groups) have been focused on arguing that their view is the best or right-est, though undoubtedly most of them believe it is. But your rhetoric is shaped by your purpose and your intended audience and the place you feel you have or donât have in the existing structure.
Yes, Iâve been reading ethnographies and must have kinship systems on the brain.
But can you blame people for wanting to stick to their field. Kenton Sparks and Peter Enns and other NT and OT scholars whose names I have not memorized have come out and said as much. They have said in black and white that Paul was mistaken (understandably so) and so was the church for most of its history (understandably so), so now letâs talk about how thatâs relevant to how we understand the Bible and the Christian message.
I have never seen this. Do you remember a specific post you could point out as an example of what you mean?
Well, I think that is one of the reasons we put our faith in the Person of Jesus Christ, not in our preferred systematic theology. In every attempt to systematize theology you end up pounding some square pegs into round holes and telling yourself it sort of fits. If weâre honest, we know the Bible is messy, and the Church is messy, and our Christian history is messy, and itâs never all going to line up in neat little rows.
No, I think science is a lot messier and full of fallible human constructs than scientists pretend it is. Thatâs why science and theology need to be in dialogue. And yes, a no holds barred free-for-all where everyone picks their favorite theological flavor of the month is no good. But, I would say spiritual authority rests with the Church, guided by the Holy Spirit. That is what we are bound by and to, not by or to a tradition or a confession. I believe The Holy Spirit has been and is moving in history and through the Church to bring us more and more in line with Godâs peace and justice. This whole discussion is taking place as the Church is wrestling with the questions of our time and place, as the Church has done throughout history. The Church is an organic and responsive body with a mission, not something static and decontextualized.
Iâm not sure I grasp all of what you are saying, but I agree with the idea that saying God is the Creator has to have a lot of meaning in it. To affirm God is the Creator is to assert more than God is the First Cause or God is the Designer or God is the Source. If you end up with a Creator who doesnât really do anything creative, somewhere youâve messed things up.
@Christy
I cannot use the cut and paste for some reason.
God as Creator places us in a dependent position, but we can only speak of God as absolute, and thus there is no reciprocal dependence that causes God to be related to His creation in some way â the absolute negates such concepts. God as Creator is a phrase that points us to this absolute â what we say is âless than completeâ. My previous reference (Robinette) approaches this by discussing (among other things) power, transcendence and immanence - thus power cannot be discussed as greater strength than something else, or a means to dominate or enforce others into subjection. Transcendence cannot mean a larger distance, while immanence cannot mean God cannot ensure His creation is good, or He is trying His best to make some things good (theodicy). The power to create is far more than the power of a Sovereign (to enforce), although this point is at times mixed up.
St. John of Damascus discusses our limitations when we use terms related to God. Getting back to what I think is the topic; sovereignty is contrasted to an evolving system in which outcomes are unpredictable, and the term ârandomâ (you feel it is scientific, and also philosophical?) provides this false contrast. Sovereignty in this context cannot relate to God, as this makes it appear that He has servants that obey Him and the outcomes are related to this, or the term may mean that God is working daily and the outcomes can enable us to how well (or good) this âgod-activityâ has become (a bit like process theology). A âGod activityâ deals with the Kingdom of God, which is not of this world â that is where we can legitimately speak of the Sovereign and His Kingdom.
Obviously the discussion can be lengthy â the points that should define these discussions, to ensure they are theologically relevant, are:
(a) God as creator is absolute, and the Church has formulated dogma that seek to provide a clear understanding of this â I include doctrines such as the Trinity, eternity, Law of God, and all discussions that speak of the Kingdom of God.
(b) All knowledge of the Universe provided by science are derived from the creation and speak to our capability to access the creation as a material thing (this world) and the legitimate response for a Christian is that the Creation point to its Creator - and we go back to point (a).
© Nothing that we as human beings obtain as knowledge can show us how and what God has done as Creator â science is a product of human activity and intelligence â specifically evolution cannot provide insights that clarify or modify Christian dogma â nor does the Christian faith prevent or force anyone to avoid any knowledge obtained from any of the sciences or any other human activity â this freedom is also part of the creation and this takes us again, back to (a).
If we accept ©, discussions on evolution, or Darwinâs paradigm, must be limited to what can be examined scientifically â all scientists (theists or atheists) are free to provide opinion and theory. Atheists do not have any other concerns, so their comments of theology are nonsense â theists otoh are obligated to either become theologically literate, or should avoid making theological statements derived from any scientific investigation. I prefer scientists to understand enough theology to at least fit in with points (a)-©. If they do not, or cannot, it is legitimate to point this out and negate their opinions.
You love to create and attack straw men.
Not what I said. I said itâs good for people to reflect on their field in light of their faith, and itâs good for people to share their thoughts. It wasnât a point in an argument, it was an opinion.
Again I think the goal of the communication is important. Are they always âmaking claimsâ and arguing for a position, or are they sometimes âsharing thoughtsâ? People who make claims should be expected to defend their claims. But we should also create space where people can process and share their thoughts without the expectation that every thought they put into words is an argument of firmly held beliefs they intend to defend to the bitter end.
We undoubtedly have different conceptions of Church and authority. My husbandâs sister and her husband are Roman Catholic academics. I have seen way more âfuzzinessâ and âpussyfootingâ in the way they defend, justify, and obfuscate their (what I think are) not-Pope-approved beliefs than I have seen from Protestants, but thatâs beside the point. Just because a church insists on doctrinal unity, doesnât mean their members all believe the same thing. Protestants just have more freedom to be renegades. Almost every Protestant I know disagrees or has a different understanding than the official position of their denomination on some issue. Most people draw lines between primary and secondary theological issues. Putting Adam and Eve into the secondary issue category is a debatable choice, but a lot of Protestants would put it there.
Greg Boyd is from my denomination. So is John Piper. So, yeah, the idea of the denomination micromanaging the theology of its members is foreign to my experience. We have a high tolerance for diversity.
Points taken. I understand the frustration. I am off to enjoy my weekend and I will let you all finish off this discussion that Iâm not exactly sure how or why I got into in the first place. 
@GJDS
cited the following work:
[quote=âGJDS, post:
16, topic:2555â]
BRIAN D. ROBINETTE, THE DIFFERENCE NOTHING MAKES: CREATIO EX NIHILO, RESURRECTION, AND DIVINE GRATUITY, Theological Studies 72 (2011).
[/quote]
After a google search I found this text in Academia.edu, which is an excellent resource.
I agree with much of Robinette writes. He does not explicitly use the Trinitarian methodology which I use, but he rejects traditional dualisms such as immanence and transcendence in favor of a both/and point of view to which I ascribe.
I think that he represents a new wave of Trinitarian theological thinking found on Academia.edu, including my writing and that of Ryan Mullins. Theology is far too important to allow to stultify because of old outdated philosophical concepts. God is not God of the dead, but of the living, as Jesus said.
You cannot make an absolute separation between God and Humanity, the Spiritual and the Natural, Theology and Science. Jesus Christ Himself is both God and Human. He is God with us.
While God might be exhausted in Jesus Christ, He is fully God, we cannot say that we thoroughly understand God and Jesus Christ based on human theology, just as we cannot say that we completely understand God Creation based on todayâs science.
The problem I find with Darwinian evolution is not that it leads to bad cosmology, but that it is bad science and for this reason leads to bad cosmology. Current science, the Big Bang Theory, points to the creation out of nothing. Certainly that is not the only or even the primary reason why we believe in God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, it is an important one and a gift we should accept and proclaim.
ââŠhe rejects traditional dualism such as âŠâ
I cannot make sense of some of your remarks - immanence, transcendence, are not dualism, nor is Robinette arguing along such lines. The distinction between the absolute as opposed to the relative regarding human knowledge and activity needs to be understood - perhaps terms such as singular, not-comparable to anything we know, may help you understand âabsoluteâ. As for such an outrageous generalisation. âTheology âŠstultify ⊠outdated ⊠concepts of GodâŠâ, I am astonished and cannot take your remarks seriously. I suggest your read some more and then carefully consider your conclusions.
1 Like
Hello Eddie. It is good to see you on this topic. You are correct that Adam and Eve are accepted as the ancestors of all mankind by the Roman Catholic Church even though the Church accepts Theistic Evolution. As you said, it was Pope Pious who made this statement. Do I accept that God created more groups of people than just Adam and Eve? It is possible. Perhaps that is how Cain found his wife. In this case, I would be expounding the Federal View of Adam and Eve. Adam and his wife represented all mankind, and when they sinned, all sinned. We became spiritually dead. Jesus brought us spiritual resurrection to our souls just as he will one day reunite our souls and physical bodies at the Second Coming. I believe that the Roman Church says the traditional view that we all come from Adam and Eve. Perhaps that is the correct view. A friend of man, a Catholic priest, gave me a copy of Maryknoll Book of Peoples. It says that there was only Adam and Eve even though it accepts Theistic Evolution. I do agree with Christie that scientists have a right to comment on their Christian faith. We theologians do comment on science, donât we? That is the free will of speech that God has given us. I am a Southern Baptist and most members of the church I attend are Young Earthers. Again, we have the dinosaur problem, donât we? Does my pastor know I hold a different view? Yes. He will not tell that to the other members of the church, however. He respects my point of view. God bless you and all others, my friends. Also, I wish to say one more time and Rev. Billy Graham who has a BA in Anthropology would say: âGod could have used any method to create humankind. God the Father spoke and Jesus called all things into being. It does not matter how he did it.â Let us be kind to each other, shall we? No of us were there; God was only there. Let us remember that.
@GJDS
I agree that immanence and transcendence are not a dualism, however in our dualistic culture, they have been mistaken as such. This false dualism is exactly what Robinette is arguing against. To do so one can argue that there is no difference between say the mind and body, because either the mind rules the body or the body rules the mind. Thus they both are one. Or one can say that there are significant differences between the body and the mind, but they are both working together for a common goal, thus the both and the mind are coordinated by the spirit toward a common goal, although it is possible of course that the coordination is not perfect.
God is different from humans, no question, Yet humans are created in Godâs Image and Jesus was both fully human and fully God. God can and does relate to us. Humans need to relate to God and God makes this possible. I do not think that our knowledge is radically different in kind. Certainly they are very different in extent.
Theology has changed and is changing. I think that this is good, but I understand if you disagree.
It is the fundamentalists who say that theology never changes, but it has. You might find the excellent book,
Jesus through the Centuries
by the excellent theologian Jaroslav Pelikan illuminating.
All of the sciences change and often it has been theology as Queen which has led the change. Even the Queen needs to communicate with her subjects. She cannot remain fixed in time and history.
Forgive me for saying so, but for some one who talks so dogmatically about theology, you seem to have precious little understanding of it. You talk of the Council of Nicaea as if it codified Christian thinking about the Trinity, which it did not. This was the beginning of the process, rather than the end.
I am glad that you read all 5 volumes of Pelikanâs history of the development of Christian doctrine, but you seem to have learned nothing from the effort. The Eastern and the Western Churches have two different understandings of the Trinity, and in our last go around on this issue, you dogmatically supported the Eastern view, and attacked the Western Augustinian view.
I expect that you do not understand what Fundamentalism is. It is the codifying of âtraditional Christianityâ that you say you support and saying that this codification is the Standard Theology of the Church that cannot be changed, which is what you are claiming. You might disagree in the details, but not in the intent, and this is where I disagree with you as well as with them.
You make Reality into a struggle for control between Theology and Science, which is a false dualism. The issue today is not whether YHWH is Sovereign, but How does YHWH exercise Godâs sovereignty? Until you are willing to discuss this, you have nothing to contribute.