All very interesting points and worthy of further conversation. However - and this is an indictment for myself as well - not much to do with the topic of the thread at hand!
@Eddie, I think most EC’s agree with limited natural theology. I certainly do. There has been much ink spilt on this. You seem unaware of this. Seems like you need read up a bit. I really like George Murphy’s take…
This is not what I think. Though, I do appreciate your circumspect and tentative tone here. =)
I think (because of Romans 1) we can know something of God from nature. Enough to leave us “without excuse”, just as Romans teaches. Here, however, is where I deviate from the typical ID position (and agree very much with Murphy).
First, I do not think natural theology is strong or reliable.
We also read in Romans that what we find in nature is weak in that it succumbs to both: (1) “conspiracies” of men to “suppress” Truth, and (2) our innate tendency towards idolatry. So while God might speak to us in nature, this revelation is not as helpful as we might hope. Even if natural theology could be correct and clear, it is obfuscated and weakened by our idolatrous nature and the conspiracies of man. This sin (both individually in idolatry and corporately in conspiracy) is the real focus of Romans 1, and this is what leaves us “without excuse:” the final conclusion of Romans. Paul’s natural theology, is not a path to God (it only speaks of his qualities any ways), but one explanation of why we are guilty.
Second, I do not think modern science (in context) has anything to do with Paul’s natural theology.
Paul talks about things seen in nature. In our context, we immediately think that means he is talking about “science,” because that is “how” our world studies nature. However, Paul also says that whatever God is saying in nature, it is “clearly seen since the beginning.” I would assert that almost nothing that modern science sees was clearly seen 400, 1000, 2000 or 4000 years ago. Whatever Paul is talking about, it is most certainly not ID, or the fine tuning argument, or the origin of life, or DNA, or anything that people 4000 years ago would have no words for. So what could he be talking about? I think the study of nature that reveals God’s message in nature exploration, art, and poetry. These things (exploration and art) draw us all into awe and wonder as we experience in nature, and (unlike science and ID) have been around since the “beginning.”
So, with that starting point, it is very hard for me imagine Romans 1 justifying ID or any other scientific effort to uncover natural theology. This seems to be a total misreading of the passage, shaped by our idiosyncratic, skewed, “science-shaped” culture, rather than a correct interpretation of what Paul first meant.
As to the weakness of natural theology (even in art and exploration), I believe the life, death, and Resurrection of Jesus is our corrective. One lesson of Jesus’s ministry is that a conspiracy of men cannot stand against God’s work in Him. The entire world conspired to murder Jesus, and it is through this act God makes his revelation in Jesus most clear, through the Resurrection three days later.
So left with a natural theology that can be suppressed by conspiracies of men (as Romans tells me), and Jesus who triumphs over all conspiracies (as Romans also tells me). I choose to focus on Jesus. I just find Him so much greater. So much greater, that I see why it might seem like I do not think natural theology is real. But natural theology is real. It is just very weak, especially compared to Jesus.
Rather than fight conspiracies to suppress natural theology, I would rather start with Him: the One against whom no conspiracies can prevail.
4 Likes
Are you suggesting, dear sir, that it is not my right to declare what everyone else should do? haha You’re right, of course, but the point that I was making still stands. The 57-67% of evangelicals who reject evolution do so because of their belief in the literal truth of Genesis. And, as you said,
Of course, I agree wholeheartedly with this, and it is the first step in my own work. Honestly, it makes no difference to me whether an individual Christian accepts or rejects evolution. We are not judged by the correctness of our opinion, but by our faith expressed in love (Gal. 5:6). I don’t seek converts to evolution; I seek converts to Christ.
My own particular interest is the younger generation, who are turning away from the Gospel in greater numbers than their parents and grandparents. There are a whole host of issues involved in that trend, and the evolution/origins debate represents only a portion of it. The people whom I am concerned about are the evangelical young adults who have grown up hearing that acceptance of evolution is antithetical to Christian belief and contrary to the teaching of the Bible. For them, I believe the first step is showing that the Bible, properly understood, does not contradict scientific theories of origins. Once that hurdle has been overcome, there are any number of plausible theological formulations that can be adopted. Dogmatists – have at it!
Amen!
Psalm 131
Lord, my heart is not haughty,
Nor my eyes lofty.
Neither do I concern myself with great matters,
Nor with things too profound for me.
Surely I have calmed and quieted my soul,
Like a weaned child with his mother;
Like a weaned child is my soul within me.
O Israel, hope in the Lord
From this time forth and forever.
2 Likes
I’m very glad you got the joke! Humor on the internet can be risky business…
But amen indeed!
Absolutely right. I think that @Eddie is confusing you with me. I have had several conversations with him on Romans 1. (Unfortunately, in addition to not remembering that it was me, he has failed to accept my interpretation. The nerve!) In any case, here is what Douglas Moo had to say about Rom 1:18-21 in his commentary, which Ligonier Ministries (a ministry dedicated to classical apologetics) ranks as its No.1 commentary on Romans (as does almost every other such list).
19 Verses 19-20 have two purposes. On the one hand, Paul justifies his assertion that people “suppress” the truth (v. 18b). On the other hand, he wants to show that people who sin and are correspondingly subject to God’s wrath are responsible for their situation. They are “without excuse” (v. 20b). He accomplishes both purposes by asserting that people have been given a knowledge of God: “for what can be known about God is manifest among them.” For Jews, as Paul will acknowledge later (2:18, 20), this knowledge of God comes above all through the law of Moses. Here, however, he is interested in the knowledge of God available to all people through the nature of the world itself. Therefore, what Paul says in the following verses, though not limited to Gentiles (since Jews, too, have knowledge of God through nature), has particular relevance to them.
The last clause of v. 19 explains “is manifest”: what can be known of God has been made visible because God has “made it known.” Only by an act of revelation from above — God “making it known” — can people understand God as he is.
20 The “for” introducing this verse shows that Paul continues the close chain of reasoning about the knowledge of God that he began in v. 19. He has asserted that what can be known of God is visible among people generally and that this is so only because God has acted to disclose himself. Now he explains how it is that God has made this disclosure. Two different connections among the main elements in the verse are possible: (1) “his invisible attributes … . have been seen through the things he has made, being understood”; (2) “his invisible attributes … . have been seen, being understood through the things he has made.” Probably the latter makes better sense because, on the former rendering, the word “being understood” is somewhat redundant. The subject of this complex clause, “his invisible attributes,” is further defined in the appositional addition, “his eternal power and his deity.” What is denoted is that God is powerful and that he possesses those properties normally associated with deity. These properties of God that cannot be “seen” (aorata) are “seen” (kathoratai) — an example of the literary device called oxymoron, in which a rhetorical effect is achieved by asserting something that is apparently contradictory. God in his essence is hidden from human sight, yet much of him and much about him can be seen through the things he has made. Paul is thinking primarily of the world as the product of God’s creation (see, e.g., Ps. 8), though the acts of God in history may also be included.
But just what does Paul mean when he claims that human beings “see” and “understand” from creation and history that a powerful God exists? Some think that Paul is asserting only that people have around them the evidence of God’s existence and basic qualities; whether people actually perceive it or become personally conscious of it is not clear. But Paul’s wording suggests more than this. He asserts that people actually come to “understand” something about God’s existence and nature. How universal is this perception? The flow of Paul’s argument makes any limitation impossible. (My bold.) Those who perceive the attributes of God in creation must be the same as those who suppress the truth in unrighteousness and are therefore liable to the wrath of God. Paul makes clear that this includes all people (see 3:9, 19-20).
The last clause of v. 20, “so that they are without excuse,” states a key element in our interpretation of vv. 19-20. For **Paul here makes clear that “natural revelation,” in and of itself, leads to a negative result. That Paul teaches the reality of a revelation of God in nature to all people, this text makes clear. But it is equally obvious that this revelation is universally rejected, as people turn from knowledge of God to gods of their own making (cf. vv. 22ff.). Why this is so, Paul will explain elsewhere (cf. Rom. 5:12-21). But it is vital if we are to understand Paul’s gospel and his urgency in preaching it to realize that natural revelation leads not to salvation but to the demonstration that God’s condemnation is just: people are “without excuse.” (My bold.) That verdict stands over the people we meet every day just as much as over the people Paul rubbed shoulders with in the first century, and our urgency in communicating the gospel should be as great as Paul’s.
21 This verse provides the missing link in the argument of v. 20. The refusal of people to acknowledge and worship God (v. 21) explains why the revelation of God in nature (v. 20a) leads to their being “without excuse” (v. 20b). Paul accentuates the accountability of people by claiming that their failure to “glorify” and “give thanks to” God took place “even though they knew God.” Paul’s claim that people through natural revelation “know” God is unexpected. Such language is normally confined to the intimate, personal relationship to God and Christ that is possible only for the believer. In light of the use to which this knowledge is put, this is plainly not the case here. “Knowing God” must therefore be given a strictly limited sense compatible with Paul’s argument in this passage. But how limited? Cranfield suggests a greatly weakened sense: “in their awareness of the created world it is of him that all along, though unwittingly, they have been — objectively — aware.” But the elimination of any subjective perception from the meaning of the verb has no basis in Paul’s usage. People do have some knowledge of God. But this knowledge, Paul also makes clear, is limited, involving the narrow range of understanding of God available in nature: they “knew of God” (Phillips: “They knew all the time that there is a God”). (My bold.) The outward manifestation of God in his created works was met with a real, though severely limited, knowledge of him among those who observed those works.
This limited knowledge of God falls far short of what is necessary to establish a relationship with him. Knowledge must lead to reverence and gratitude. This it has failed to do. Instead of acknowledging God “as God,” by glorifying him and thanking him, human beings perverted their knowledge and sank into idolatry. That idolatry, explicitly discussed in v. 23, might already be in Paul’s mind in this verse is suggested by his claim that people “became futile.” It is in the “reasonings” of people that this futility has taken place, showing that, whatever their initial knowledge of God might be, their natural capacity to reason accurately about God is quickly and permanently harmed. (My bold.) Parallel to, and descriptive of, this futility in thinking is the darkening of the “un-understanding heart.” In the NT, “heart” is broad in its meaning, denoting “the thinking, feeling, willing ego of man, with particular regard to his responsibility to God.” We can understand, then, how Paul can describe the heart as being “without understanding” and recognize also how comprehensive is this description of fallen humanity. At the very center of every person, where the knowledge of God, if it is to have any positive effects, must be embraced, there has settled a darkness — a darkness that only the light of the gospel can penetrate."
In short, Paul here argues that the natural knowledge of God that all men already possess has not led to proper knowledge of God, but to condemnation. Not exactly an endorsement of natural theology, but if others want to pursue it, I won’t stand in their way!
I’m really like this Lutheran…
Exactly. This is the goal of good Theology. =)
I totally agree. @eddie, he puts much more saliently my concerns. It is not only that I think that God hasn’t revealed His action in evolution, I also see great danger and risk in insisting on an answer where has provided none. It belies (it seems) a quest for a version of god distinct from what He has revealed to us in Scripture.
And this is important to the objection I hear from @eddie: “but what about the scholarly effort to define the relationship of faith and science.” Yes, there is value in working out the theology here (as I and others have), but we really loose our way when we miss the ultimate purpose of theology: proclamation of the Gospel.
==============
This brings me back to some of your critiques of my position… Evolutionary Creationists should distance themselves more clearly from deism - #28 by Swamidass
What I have produced is just such a provisional statement, with pointers to more developed though, and a robust theology of why more is not possible in the Christian faith. Why is that not enough? (or perhaps, it is enough, but you are referring to “other EC leaders” here).
I do not think this is true. I think there is a large range. “Mystery” is a better way to describe what might be the dominant view.
I think you missed the reasoning there. I am saying I am indifferent to the “how” question for two reasons:
-
I know it is logically resolvable, so I am not positing an illogical and absurd believe (that God purposefully created us through evolution).
-
I have strong theological reason to believe that God does not care to share the details with me. So I my indifference to “how” is a direct act of obedience to His revelation. Even if I want answers (like Job in the whirlwind), God only offers Himself. I have to decide if He is enough for me or not. So my indifference to the “answers” is a direct consequence of responding the nature of God’s revealing.
And this is exactly what I am doing, and it is not academically inadequate. You focus on what my “answer” to the God’s action question is. But I am also giving a theologically robust reason for why more is not possible, and can be dangerous. Though clearly not as articulate as the theology of an actual theologian (@JustAnotherLutheran is helping fill that in), this coherent theology is clearly Christian and really the focus of my answer.
I would say my response here parallels very closely how the logical problems with reformed thought were dealt with by Plantinga (and also Jon Kvanvig and William Laine Craig for that matter). (1) He draws on Molinism to construct a “possible” solution to the logical problem of free will and God’s total sovereignty. (2) He demonstrates that this solution is logical. (3) Ergo, free will and God’s total sovereignty are not logically incompatible. (4) However, Plantinga does not actually insist that Molinism is truly the correct structure of the world, just that it is a possible solution. This restraint is what gives his argument its strength. He limits the scope appropriately, and does not attempt to definitively resolve the mystery of how God actually acts in reality, and thereby sidesteps the theological concerns I have raised. His strategy recognizes that we cannot understand God beyond what He has revealed to us.
And I would say that the correct response to this question must have a clear appreciation of God hiddenness in all things outside his revelation, which certainly includes evolution.
First off, thanks for recognizing this. =)
And I would point out that I am in this category too. I have listed out several working hypothesis that are not mutually incompatible. In particular, if I were to tentatively guess, I would think it is a some combination of these ways:
This has not at all been my experience with conservative evangelicals. The concerns you are raising seem to be very idiosyncratic to the ID movement leaders (and by extension, you). Most conservative seminaries, pastors and churches (which I work extensively with) want simple assurances that:
-
The authority of the Bible is not challenged.
-
We are not denying that God can work by first cause at times.
I know you think you are advocating on their behalf. You have been arguing this point for a decade. They would often find that fixation unfathomable. If you really want to support our mission, helping your ID colleagues come to a more understanding and respectful relationship with us would really be a coup. You have a lot of relationships with ID, why not work towards that?
Your best hope is to email people directly and be nice to them.
This is how I got a great deal of clarity about ID positions. By talking directly to Walter Bradley, John Sanford, Paul Nelson and Behe (and others too). If you really care about this. Stop posting about it on the forums, and send some kind and personal emails. Most of usually respond.
I’ve already given several answers. Molinism works pretty well. In fact, there are strong logical parallels between evolution and free will.
And I am giving you just this. But it is not the answer you expect. My point is that your quest might very well be misguided in the context of Christian faith.
Well that is great. I think this notion of “hiddenness” seems very uncomfortable to you, and you seem ready to rise to the challenge. Maybe you are fixated on something that cannot be given.
Clarity is great. But I have been clear, and it seems you want more. It seems like you want what I have clearly explained is a true mystery. Not sure what to do with that…
Or maybe I’m reading to much into your statements. Maybe you are really happy with what I have shared, and want to see the same from others? In that case great. We are closer to resolution that I fear. I’d just say that the forum is not the way to get what you want. After 10 years trying, I’d imagine you should know that by now. Go email people directly and build some relationships with people, so they will tell you their positions.
2 Likes
Hi Eddie,
I hope all is going well for you on the other side o’ the pond. 
Thanks for the link to Behe’s 3 minute video. I’ll have to defer the pleasure of watching Behe and Barr’s discussion to a later time.
I don’t see anything in Behe’s 3 minute discussion that differs from what he wrote in Darwin’s Black Box. He observes what he considers to be irreducibly complex biological designs (similar to a house of stones at the bottom of a hill) and implies that stochastic processes + natural selection cannot account for them.
With regard to common ancestry, he thinks that it could be consistent with ID to the extent that the designer either makes one huge intervention at the start or a series of smaller interventions over billions of years.
The reason I referred to Behe having only presented one model (front-loaded) is that he has not actually (in DBB or in this video) presented any model of how the smaller interventions would work and what predictions would be made from the model. His front-loaded model (wherein all the genetic info in biological history is loaded into a single cell 4B years ago) at least allows biologists to make some predictions. None of the predictions would seem to pan out, but at least it’s a model that facilitates predictions, unlike the “many smaller design interventions throughout history” notion.
Perhaps I am fiercely dedicated to upholding truth, I believe “all truth is God’s truth,” and I have come to the conclusion that the evidence points in that direction.
Why would anyone object to that?
It is proper to theology. It is improper to science.
Two things:
(1) I have already gone down this path multiple times. If what I have already written in many forum threads is not enough for you, I don’t think anything else I could write will satisfy you.
(2) I know that you care passionately about trying to figure out everything theological that can be figured out. Personally, I don’t think any of us are going to be able to penetrate the veil "the Deus absconditus" has established–at least through scientific observation. If it helps you, I agree wholeheartedly with what @Swamidass and @JustAnotherLutheran have written in this thread.
As St. Paul stated in 2 Corinthians 3:16 –
But when one turns to the Lord, the veil is removed.
That is the only path God has given us to penetrate the veil in this life, my brother @Eddie.
Warm Advent wishes,
Chris Falter
2 Likes
Between concurrentism and compatibilism, yes. We shouldn’t conflate them so much that we start to attribute ideas like “freedom” or “will” to inanimate nature. Not that you have done this. Just a caution. Pascal also warned about man’s tendency to do just that.
Forgive me for reproducing a response that I originally posted here in response to Jon Garvey’s blog, but it is pertinent:
Concurrentism (see 2.2 for definitions) best fits the biblical data about how God works through secondary causes. The idea is similar to compatibilism in “free will”, in that both concurrentism (nature) and compatibilism (human choice) propose that natural events/human choices are not 50% autonomous and 50% determined by God (or 90/10 or however one wants to divide the responsibility), but 100% autonomous and 100% determined by God. This completely obliterates the natural/supernatural division (physical/spiritual — the “seen” and the “unseen” in biblical terminology — is more appropriate, in my view), but there is a sense in which it “proves too much” from the standpoint of the design movement. If all events, not just creation and evolution, are caused by God, then it seems impossible to point out any one particular item or event in nature to showcase (not “prove”) his involvement in the process, for the skeptic will simply hold up the many counter-examples (also caused by God) that seem “random,” undesigned, or downright detrimental. The evidence will be ambiguous, at best. The situation is comparable to trying to discern evidence of God’s action and purpose in the individual events or overall flow of human history. Unless God has specifically revealed it, we are left in the dark.
An important implication of concurrentism for evolutionary thought is that God is intimately involved in every detail of his creation, from the Big Bang to the sparrow that falls to the ground to the very hairs of your head. It is the opposite of the deist watchmaker conception. God neither blithely ignores his creation, nor occasionally corrects its course. Hebrews 1 — He upholds everything by the word of his power. Colossians 1 — In him all things hold together. Acts 17 — in him we live and move and breath. This does not mean that secondary causes are not real. They are real because God upholds and establishes them.
4 Likes
Yep.
Amen to that, too
I’m sorry, Joshua, but I don’t think you have been clear. Perhaps it is because my mind has become foggy with age, but that excuse surely does not apply to Eddie. For instance, you seem to agree with JAL when you quote him:
No scientist expects to know the truth about the material world with absolute certainty, and to expect such certain knowledge about the spiritual world is even more foolish. However, if our human capacities for recognizing some of God’s attributes are infinitely impaired, then the BioLogs folks are on a fool’s errand. Everyone seems to accept the reasonableness of Francis Collins who puts forth the hypothesis that God may have “sent an asteroid to kill of(f) the dinosaurs to prepare the way for mammals, and then for us.” In my previous post on this thread, I hypothesized that the bolide was a result of the laws governing the Cosmos as God first created them, and He was sufficiently aloof to let the disastrous collision with earth be considered as “collateral damage” rather than to intervene to accomplish a secondary purpose. So when do you think a hypothesis becomes idle speculation? You have not yet responded to my post.
You seem in agreement with JAL’s further statement: "God behind the veil, God as he has not revealed himself, God as he is not known to us; it is within this realm where God’s part in evolution will fall, I think (and this is a preliminary thought worth much more investigation). Which means there is a high risk of vanity and idle speculations.
[/quote]
I have no reputation in this field that is on the line, and so whether what I proposed is considered an interesting hypothesis or just idle speculation is not important. Not so for the folks who want to keep BioLogos operating. But, like Eddie, I am curious.
Al Leo
1 Like
It was in a discussion with vjtorley on July 31. I saved only a portion of it to a Word doc for future reference, so I’m not able to pinpoint it now. Maybe the methodological naturalism thread? The second conversation took place on the Hump, I think. Sorry, but I’m too lazy and ignorant to find much more. Ooops. Was that two mortal sins I just admitted?
Hi @Eddie, welcome back to the Forum! Judging from the sheer number (and length) of your posts, you’re having a lot of fun 
.
I think it could actually be a good idea to keep this thread up from now on. When the meaning of any of your future posts is roughly equivalent to the title of this thread, we could simply transfer them here.
1 Like
Hahahaha. As @beaglelady would say, you win the Internet today. But, actually…
I think, way back here, Eddie decided to drop the gloves. Of course, he could always pick them back up again if provoked …
Yes, as I recall, I made a quip about standing next to Antony Flew at the last judgment to see how that “theism” thing worked out for him. You rightly called me out for my presumption, and eventually I agreed with what you are saying here:
1 Like