Philosophy and Christian Theology (My title)

According to Helmut Thielke, “The present intellectual and spiritual situation is marked by a distinctive dualism” (Evangelical Faith, Vol. I, p.11). This dualist problematic is not, however, a newcomer. It has been with us a long, long time. It is older than my instructors, older also than Thomas and his fellow medievalists, much older therefore also than its reembodiment in the similar mind-set of Protestant scholastic thought during the modern period. It has in fact dogged Western Christianity at almost every step of its nearly two thousand-year history. Thinking in terms of two realms has posed the most “colossal obstacle” (Dietrich Bonhoeffer) to a “unified field of knowledge” (Francis Schaeffer) for Christian scholars in every generation.

The roots of these stubbornly persistent issues are most clearly traceable to the second century. With the emergence of a fourth and fifth generation of Christians, we witness the dramatic transition from the original apostolic proclamation of the gospel to the earliest forms of Christian theologizing. To understand the genius of this early Christian theology we must look at the kind of people engaged in it. The majority were not Christian thinkers of Jewish origin. They were Greco-Roman converts, younger Christians. Moreover, in contrast to medieval theologians who were mostly monks, and modern theologians who are mainly university professors, these early Christian theologians were largely pastors and bishops of local congregations and regional churches. Understandably, therefore, they produced basically a very practical theology, oriented strongly to the mission of the church in a hostile world and to the immediate crisis of faith and life within the Christian community as it evolved from its Hebrew beginnings and moved increasingly outward into the Greco-Roman culture of the empire. Accordingly, the tracts of the early fathers were not only very catechetical and doctrinal but also pointedly apologetic and polemical. For the church and its theologians found themselves headed on a collision course with the prevailing spirits of those times, descendent from various schools of thought in Greek philosophy (Platonism, Aristotelianism, Stocism, Epicureanism – the greatest threat being neo-Platonism, the wellspring of early Gnostic heresies)

Together with the eighteenth century, the second century stands out as perhaps the most decisive turning-point in charting the course of Western Christian theology. It’s thinkers has to wrestle with such questions as these: How should one view the relationship between Christian theology and Greek Philosophy, doing justice to the latter while preserving the integrity of the former? And how is one to negotiate the differences and bridge the gaps between the gospel and pagan ideology? The early fathers had little in the way of clear precedent on which to draw. There were no standing tradition to which they could appeal. They had only the witness of the Old Testament prophets and the New Testament evangelists and, growing out of this, the testimony of the first disciples and early martyrs as this took shape in their own living experience. Not surprisingly, therefore, they offered very diverse and often conflicting answers to the crucial question of the stance Christian theology should take over against Greek philosophy.

On its negative side, the most forcefully stated world-negating answer was formulated by Tertullian (150-225) in his well-known rhetorical question, “What has Jerusalem to do with Athens? – to which the clearly implied response was “Nothing!” Separation, isolation, “get out from among them” – this was his answer. This withdrawal motif took shape in one wing of early Christianity. Recognition of the tremendously seductive powers of surrounding pagan cultures and the comparative weakness of the early church lent to this black-white solution a large measure of plausibility. Of course, it also brought with it clear-cut implications for the theology/philosophy issue. These are discernible by comparing this very negative stance in the later Tertullian during the Montanist stage of his life, with the more accommodating references to Greco-Roman ideas in his earlier career. However attractive Tertullians memorable position and whatever its ong-range impact on Western Christianity, as embodied , for example, in the monastic movement, this was not the worldview which eventually won the day in Christian theology.

The outlook which ultimately triumphed was that developed by another branch of early Christian thinkers led by Justin Martyr (?-165), together with Clement (150-215) and Origen (185-253) of the Alexandrian school. This wing of early Christian theology advocated a more affirmative approach to Greek culture. Seeking accommodation, it developed a complementary model of the relationship between philosophy and theology. As reason is subservient to faith, it was argued, so Greek Philosophy can serve as a preparatory strange in developing a Christian body of truth. Like the proverbial Trojan horse, Christian theology opened its gates to admit and make room for Greek philosophy to play a servant role in the formulation of Christian doctrine. Philosophers were enlisted as “handmaidens” to theologians. So complete was the presumed conquest of theology over philosophy, so fully did some Christians believer they has assimilated into their won theological systems the “natural light” of pagan thinking, that in A.D. 529 the last remaining schools of Greek philosophy were closed.

Increasingly, however, the victor became the victim. The philosopher-servant became the master architect who reconstructed the house of Christian theology. Major Christian thinkers freely adopted Greek forms of thought to shape the content of the Christian faith. The dualist worldview so typical of Hellenist thought was embraced as the basic frame of reference for delineating the contours of Christian theology (note, for example, the antinomy in Augustine between the “City of God” and the “City of the World”). Such dualist-synthesist approaches reflect quite generally the theological models which emerged from the early era of Western Christianity. There was still a large measure of instability and fluidity in understanding the reciprocating relationship between theology and philosophy. The trend, however, was in the direction of viewing the latter as prolegomena to the former. Officially, Greek philosophy had been declared dead. In actuality, however, it was kept alive by the grace of Christian theology. Christian thinkers compromised their biblical distinctiveness by assimilating into their theological structures dualist religious motifs borrowed from the very Greek philosophy which had presumably been vanquished. Thus distortions appeared in Christian theology, in its fundamental starting points as well as in its overall format.

For centuries this accommodation of alien viewpoints, burdened by an irresolvable inner dialect, was able to maintain itself only as an unstable synthesis. It continued to cry aloud for greater internal consistency. For methodologically dualist axioms refuse to yield unifying conclusions. So the search went on for a theory capable of forging a unified totality picture, one capable of incorporating the basic contributions of both Greek philosophy and Christian theology. This ongoing reflection took place, however, without critically reexamining the basic givens as inherited for the past.

In the thirteenth century the historical situation was finally ripe for a new initiative. Greek philosophy in the form of Aristotelian logic, which had managed to survive the “dark ages” largely through the work of Boethius (480-525), experienced a vigorous resurgence, thanks in part to Mohammedan scholarship. Earlier Christian thinkers had relied most heavily on the “vertical”, hierarchial structures of Platonic thought. But now, drawing on the more “horizontal”, cause and effect categories of Aristotelian thought, Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) bequeathed to Western Christianity a masterful synthesis. While updating the ancient problematic, he at the same time projected his restatement of it down through the medieval, Reformation, and modern eras, and on into our times. Instead of the biblical teaching that grace renews and restores nature, Thomas, in continuity with many mainline early church fathers, held that grace complements and elevates nature. Thus the directional antithesis between judgment and redemption as taught in Scripture was turned once again into a structural antinomy between rival sectors of reality held together in bipolar tension. The end product was a split-level view of reality, with nature as a lower and grace as a higher order. Nature, despite sin, was viewed as still basically good; but grace was far better. Philosophy, accordingly, was viewed as belonging to the natural realm of reason, and theology to the supernatural realm of faith.

Clearly, however, the desired organic unity of perspective was still not achieved within the structures of the Thomist blueprint of reality. The inherited dualist dialectic was not relieved in any essential way. Thomism offers at best a functional unity embodied in the career of a philosopher/theologian like Thomas himself and in the convergence of both temporal and eternal qualities in the institutional church. As two swords, the swords of earthly and heavenly authority, ultimately come to rest in a single magisterial hand, so also both the knowledge of natural things (philosophy) and of supernatural things (theology), each in its own way, come to be viewed as subordinate to the magisterial authority of the church. Within the arena of Christian scholarship, therefore, philosophy engages in theoretical reflection on natural things. Its norm is natural law. It operates by unaided human reason, which remains basically intact, unaffected by the fall into sin, leaving Thomism with the notion of an “incomplete fall” (Schaeffer) Appeal to revelation is not an essential trait of philosophy. It stakes its claim to credibility on universal laws of logic common to all rational men of goodwill. Thinking out the implications of the classic rational proofs for the existence of God enters significantly into such a pursuit of philosophy. Thus, philosophy, in the form of a natural theology, serves as prolegomena to theology proper, which in turn is viewed as the theoretical contemplation of supernatural truths. Philosophical argumentation lays a rational basis for Christian faith. As such, it also carries with it an apologetic thrust- the rational defense, justification, and vindication of the positive theology which builds on it.

The Thomist worldview was designed to reconcile age-old tensions, including those between theology and philosophy. It did so by undertaking the magnificent yet futile task of seeking to distil a unified perspective on reality from a dualist starting point. (nature/grace) The result was a pseudo-unity which yields little more than a comprehensive yet precarious synthesis of the very bipolar problematic with which it began, held together in a new tension-laden dialectic. The outcome was a no-win situation. Both theology and philosophy proved to be losers. For Thomism undercuts the very possibility of a truly Christian philosophy. Instead it inserts natural theology as a substructure underneath its theological superstructure. Thus it renders impossible an authentically biblical prolegomena. Theology itself also came out a loser. Spiritualized, it drifted off into ethereal realms of beatific vision. Thus it severed itself from meaningful contact with the down-to-earth life of God’s people in his world.

The Reformation marks a new beginning. Its original impetus proved, however, to be rather short-lived. Yet, while it lasted, it offered Western Christian theology its first decisively different approach to the issue at hand since the close of the apostolic era. As an historical point of departure in developing a new paradigm for doing Reformed dogmatics, we shall take up the story of John Calvin in Geneva during the decades straddling the middle of the sixteenth century. [snip] His theology accordingly reflects a more self-conscious and deliberate methodology. It has a more comprehensive, architectonic wholeness to it. His final definitive edition of ~The Institutes~ in 1559, the seasoned end product of about a dozen earlier editions involving successive revisions, augmentations, and refinements on that original “little booklet” of 1536, encapsulates much of the best of Reformation theology. In his work Calvin was reaching back over a thousand years of errant theology to recapture central ideas embedded in the theology of Augustine. He was at the same time drawing anew on the heart of Pauline teaching, and in it the meaning of biblical revelation as a whole.

[snip] As we have seen, the dualist-dialectical synthesis of Thomas became dominant first in the medieval era. It became dominant again in the pseudo-Protestant thought of the early modern period in its reaction to the Counter-Reformation. As a result, much of the heritage regained in the sixteenth century was lost during subsequent centuries. As a result, much of the heritage regained in the sixteenth century was lost during subsequent centuries. Protestant theology came under heavy pressure from a resurgent Thomism. This was also true of theology as carried on in the Reformed wing. It, too, abandoned the newly rediscovered evangelical style of theologizing so characteristic of the work of Luther and Calvin. It opted instead to counteract the reactionary theology of Roman Catholicism with a reactionary theology of its own. As a result, instead of growth, stagnation set in. Even worse, Reformed thinkers reverted to pre-reformational ways of doing theology arising out of Constantinian, Augustinian, and Thomist worldviews. Of these, the nearest at hand and most fully developed was Thomism. Thus, Protestant scholastic thinkers found themselves opposing the older Thomism with a newer Thomism of their own making. In effect, this meant pouring Protestant wine into Roman Catholic bottles. They relied on the overall dualist structures, together with the forms, categories, and concepts of medieval scholastic theology. This led to seemingly endless, spiritually exhausting rounds of running encounters which pit this latter-day scholasticism against an older version of the same. Both sides armed themselves with strikingly similar ammunition. Structurally the arguments and counterarguments were much alike, since both drew heavily on Aristotelian logic.

The great mastermind of the Enlightenment was Immanuel Kant ( 1724-1804). His synthesis was as formative for the modern period as that of Thomas for the medieval era. In him nearly all subsequent philosophy and theology take their point of departure. All of us walk in his shadow. In his ~Critique of Pure Reason~ Kant forged a synthesis between the idealist and the empiricist traditions. In his ~Critique of Practical Reason~ he set out to salvage a place for religion conceived as morality. This dual critique exposes the basic thought structures of the worldview which has shaped the modern mind. Pure reason is conceived of as the realm of hard facts, the phenomena, the empirical data of sense perception, of reason theorizing bound by the ironclad laws of logic and the scientific method. Beyond it lies the realm of noumenal ideas, of religion, ethics, morality, and value judgements. Here we experience God, freedom, and immortality. Such religious ideas are, however, no more than the postulates of autonomous human reason which comment themselves to us as moral imperatives. They have only an “as if” status- we must act as if their validity were firmly established. For the total meaning of life is dependent on human rationality, as Kant explains in his ~Religion within the Bounds of Reason Alone~. Within this universal frame of reference the long-standing and persistent dualist scheme emerges anew as the fundamental internal structuring principle for dealing with life. It is merely given a new twist: Kant recasts the nature/grace dualism into the science/morality, fact/value, or nature/freedom dichotomy. Science deals rationally with the firm facts of reality. Theology belongs to the religious domain where men contemplate sacred things, act morally, and make value judgments. Theology, therefore, can no longer be regarded as a science. Perhaps at best it is an “art.” In the realm of science “what is” is all that matters; in morality only the “why” and the “whereunto” count. The sciences, including philosophy, deal with hard facts in a value-free way. Theology, on the other hand, has no firm factual basis nor a rational method, but is limited to making moral value judgments. It operates not by (pure) reason, but by moral intuition. Thus in one fell swoop Kant, while drawing on more than a millennium of Western Christian theology, radically overthrew it. He exploded the idea of natural theology, of philosophy providing a rational foundation for theology, of faith supported by reason, and of reason prolegomena as introduction to dogmatics. In the process Kant swept aside and thoroughly discredited the classic rational proofs for the existence of God as philosophical underpinnings for Christian theology.

Thus traditional theology came to be divorced from all other branches of scholarship, including philosophy. It was left to stand alone as a house without foundations. Underneath were only the shifting sands of reason sublimated into moral ideals.

With Kant as grandfather of the modern mind, Daniel Schleiermacher (1768-1834) then follows as the undisputed father of modern theology. His great achievement lies in this, that he adapted Kant’s philosophical vision to theology. It is no exaggeration to say that “the entire nineteenth century belongs to Schleiermacher” (Karl Barth). After Kant, modern theology was destined never to be the same again. He had demolished the long-standing rational arguments on which theology had traditionally rested its case. How then could theology still be rescued? That was the Herculean challenge to which Schleiermacher addressed himself. What new substructure could be laid as a prolegomenal base of support for a systematic exposition of the Christian faith?

Schleiermacher attacked this problem by accepting the Kantian conclusion that the objects of religious belief have no “objective” status. They are postulates of the human mind. Christian doctrine must therefore rest on some “subjective” basis. The idea of Gefuhl (feelings) filled this need. It became the hermeneutic key to doing theology- “feeling” in the sense of “pious self-consciousness,” finite man’s “feeling of absolute dependence” on Another who is infinite. According to Schleiermacher, this deep-seated religious intuition is a universal phenomenon. All men participate in a common quest after God, to which each community bequeaths its own unique spiritual experiences. Christianity, however, represents the highest stage in the development of mankind’s ethical aspirations. As such it merits the allegiance of all rational moral people. Accordingly, he interpreted the Old Testament as the record of Israel’s communion with Yahweh, and the New Testament as eulogies on Jesus by his earliest disciples. Along these lines Schleiermacher developed a reconstructed apology for Christianity as reflected in his well-known fervent appeal to the people of his age, his ~On Religon: Discourse to its Cultured Despisers.~

Schleiermacher believed that he had offered new grounds on which to construct a Christian theology. His approach was, however, just as man-centered and subjectivist as Kant’s. True to Kant, however, Schlieiermacher refused to justify it on the basis of rational argumentation. He appealed rather to the phenomena of religious experience. The result was Christian faith rooted in finely attuned spiritual feeling. The task of theology is to offer a systematic exposition of this universal Gefuhl. Its base of support is the scientific study of the phenomena of human religions, which serves than as the prolegomena for a study of the Christian religion.

Against this background it is not difficult to understand why around 1920 the newly emergent theology of Karl Barth (1886-1968) fell like a bomb into the playground of the theologians. [snip] As an alternative to both Thomism and liberalism he appealed to the ideas of the Reformation, seeking to update them for our times by offering what he regarded as a twentieth-century reinterpretation of Calvin’s theology. [snip] Structurally Barth held that both are guilty of the same heresy. Both accept some form of philosophical base for Christian doctrine- whether that be reason or feeling. Both are alike unacceptable. [snip] Their common error, Barth holds, lies therefore in their false notion of the possibility of providing some sort of prolegomena as a substructure for Christian dogmatics. At bottom, both mistakenly embrace some notion of a natural or general revelation. [snip] In his attempt to turn the tide Barth made a radical switch to the “other side.” Rejecting all immanentist approaches to theology, he allows the full emphasis to fall on the absolute transcendence of God. God is the “wholly Other.” [snip] To clear the decks of the old problematics he swept overboard the historic Christian doctrine of general revelation. [snip] Thus, despite his radical critique of earlier dualist patterns of thought, Barth was unable to escape the trap into which the others had fallen. Like the others, he took up residence in the same split-level house, only he made some major adjustments within it, drastically rearranging the furniture and altering its flow of traffic.

Current trends do not differ fundamentally from past thinking on this issue. Christian theology continues to reflect a persistent inability or unwillingness to break with the established pattern of the two factor perspective. [snip] The result is a waffling concept of normativity which bounces back and forth between divine revelation and human response. Instead of pushing the norm up into heaven or pulling it down to earth, the norm gets suspended tenuously along an indefinable high-tension line between this dual polarity. The result is complexity compounded: instead of locating the pivotal point in one or the other of these two ~relata~, God or man, laborious efforts are expended to locate the focal point in an ambivalent ~relatio~ concept. [snip] Instead of maintaining a clearly focused distinction between revelation and response, contemporary theology projects a blurred image of the two poles. [snip] Caught in the pressure cooker between this “down-draft” and “up-draft”, contemporary theology seeks shelter in some indefinable center. The gravitational center is therefore shifting steadily from “above” to “below” to “up ahead”, from the God-pole to the man-pole to a future pole, from divine transcendence to human immanence to eschatological self-trancendence, from faith to love to hope. In it all, however, there is little looking back to an original and abiding reality behind the resurrection, the cross, and the fall. Creation gets absorbed into the process of salvation history. Biblical witness to the creation order is bypassed in favor of existentialist views of reality. The results are upon us. For when creational revelation gets eclipsed, the meaning of salvation here and now and of the ultimate re-creation of all things also gets eclipsed. [The] intent and purpose [should be] to explicate the meaning-full-ness of the Word of God as the pivotal point, the normative boundary and bridge between the revealing God and his responding creatures.

Dualisms take place within creation, not between the Creator and the creation. Yet, not every historical instance of over-againstness of a duality or couplet, should be construed as a dichotomy. Speaking of the differences between, say, male and female, Jew and Gentile, East and West as dualisms only blurs the picture.

Clarity demands, therefore, that we recognize a real antinomy at work within the world which may also not be called dualism. Such is the case with the biblical idea of antithesis. Think of “seed of the woman” and “the seed of the serpent” (Genesis 3). Recall the words of Moses: “I hold up before you this day blessing and cursing, the way of death and the way of life- therefore, choose life” (Dueteronomy 30:15,19). Recall Joshua’s parting message: “Choose you this day whom you will serve- the gods of your forefathers or Yahweh” (Joshua 24:14-15). Recall Elijah’s challenge to Israel: “How long will you go halting between tow positions; if God be God, serve him; if Baal, then serve him” (1Kings 18:20). Think, too, of the New Testament’s repeated emphasis on the choice between God and Mammon, the “broad way” and the “narrow way.” Christ speaks, furthermore, in word pictures of “wheat” and “tares” growing up side by side in the same field, and of “sheep” and “goats.”

In biblical teaching the antithesis points to a spiritual conflict which cuts across all of life. World history demonstrates this running encounter between two opposing forces- the “kingdom of light” and the “kingdom of darkness.” Both the awesome judgment and the renewing grace of God are big-as-life realities all around us. At heart men are either Christ-believers or disbelievers. Yet the line of the antithesis also cuts through the very life of Christians. The “old man” and “new man” are locked in mortal conflict within our bosoms. Listen to Paul: “The good I would do not, and the evil I would not, that I do. O wretched man that I am!” (Romans 7:15,24). Christians therefore are not strangers to the heart-rending cry for help: “Lord, I believe, help my unbelief” (Mark 9:24).

But again this is not a dualism. For the antithesis represents a spiritual warfare between good and evil which knows no territorial boundaries. It is not geographically, locally, or spatially definable. The enmity between these two hostile forces does not coincide with two parts of reality, as though one sector of life were holy and the other unholy, or one bloc righteous and the other unrighteous. It is a directional antithesis which runs through all the structures of life. Sin is totally pervasive. Grace, too, lays its claim on all reality. The antithesis may therefore not be dualistically misconstrued as though it drives a wedge between soul and body, faith and reason, theology and philosophy, church and world- with the former viewed as good and the latter as evil.

In the beginning God established his thesis for the world- covenant faithfulness and kingdom obedience. After the fall, he reestablished this thesis in Christ. But “the enemy” continues to launch his antithetical counterattacks. Therefore, to set the record straight, we should not label Christian organizations and institutions as “antithetical” or “separate.” The opposite is true. Christian causes stand in principle behind the thesis that Christ is Lord of all. So-called “neutral” organizations and institutions, which are in reality humanist and secular, are in principle “antithetical” and “separate.” For they fail to stand on the side of the biblical thesis. They have in effect separated themselves from the renewed order of reality, namely, that “God is in Christ reconciling all things to himself” (2Corinthians 5:19). So now the basic question we all face is this: Are we for Christ or for some anti-Christ? This thetical/antithetical decision is radical and all-embracing in its impact. But again it is confusing and misleading to call this dualism.

What, then, are we to understand by dualism? If not the Creator/creature distinction, and if not the antithesis, what then? At a deeply religious level dualisms blunt the sharp edge of antithesis. Instead of moving us wholeheartedly in the one spiritual direction or the other, dualism allows for a divided allegiance. Instead of leading to single-mindedness, it draws a line through the world and opts for walking on both sides of it, though with uneven pace. Dualism gives the spiritual antithesis ontological status by defining some parts, aspects, sectors, activities, or realms of life (the ministries of the church) as good and others (politics) as less than good or even evil.

[snip]At bottom, therefore, dualism may be defined as a confusion of structure and direction. It is a view of reality in which two earthly magnitudes are conceived of as standing in opposition to each other, and this opposition (antithesis) is read back ontologically into the very structures of creation. Accordingly, some life-activities and historical structures are regarded as redeemable, others as only remotely redeemable at best. In light of our earlier historical-theological analysis, all this has a ring of long-standing familiarity about it.

In some world religions this dualist conflict between good and evil is projected back on the gods themselves. It assumes the form of an ultimate dualism- as, for example, in Greek mythology with its conflict between Zeus and the Titans; or in the superstitions of many ethnic religions with their belief in hostile and friendly spirits which pervade the world; or in Manichaeism with its view of the good God of the spirit standing over against the evil Demiurge of matter. Within Western Christian theology, too, we encounter hints of such an ultimate dualism, as in Luther’s ~Dues revelatus~ and ~Deus absconditus~. Reformed theology, too, has not always been free of such dualist tendencies.

In dualisms the divine norm is always either kept at a distance, a step removed from everyday living (“upstairs”), or it is identified with some aspect of life (“downstairs”), or it takes the form of a dual normativity which wavers dialectically between the two. Dualism is a deceptive attempt to reject life in the world (in part) while at the same time also accepting it (in part). It tends to break rather than to absorb the tension between the “already” and the “not yet.” Christian faith is often related only extrinsically to scholarship. All such dualisms make it impossible to do justice to the biblical message of creation/fall/redemption as holist realities. For they disrupt the unity of the creation order. They legitimatize the reality of sin in one or another realm of life. They limit the cosmic impact of the biblical message of redemption. They confine Christian witness to only certain limited sectors of life.

Summarizing, we may say that the Creator/creature distinction is an abiding ontic reality. The antithesis stands as a present historical reality. Dualism is, however, a conceptual distortion of reality.

Ought the Holy Scriptures to be read as divine information, or as divine poetry?

I think you have put your finger on something. The words are intended to describe real events, real people, real ideas. So we really aren't free to read just anything into the words. But the words are intended to describe something, they aren't the thing itself obviously. In our efforts to boil everything down into an easily codified doctrine we sometimes squeeze the life out of the words.

The work of building doctrines is how we make sense of things, and if it weren't for our tendency to freeze the doctrine, and to place the doctrine above the thing it is meant to describe, we wouldn't have a problem. Doctrines are tools, and tools can be modified. Truth can't, but doctrine is merely a means of getting at it.

Furthermore, scripture was never intended to be a biology text, or an astronomy text, or any kind of textbook at all. It is what it is, the history of the Hebrews, followed by several accounts of Christ and the early church. This is why some of the evolution threads mystify me... the evolutionists believe that proving the theory disproves God, and the creationists, at least some of them, seem to agree, so they fight back desperately to save God's life from this mortal attack... whereas I just see a discussion about tools. What tools did God use? You seem to be on my wave-length, I think, the IC debate for you is just digging into the details of the design, which is great fun. God is not at risk here, he built it. We're just trying to figure out how. We can afford to turn on the microscope and have a look, he is not going to vanish when we flip on the light.

Or, thats the way I see it.

I believe that God deals with every human, and every race of people, which means that every human chooses and has chosen again and again whether he will or will not serve God. Which is why it does not disturb me to see that Plato and the Greeks happened on to certain truths 300 or 400 years before Christ.

You said it very well, they are not competing with John the Baptist, its apples and oranges. John had his job to do, and Plato had his. Plato is obviously not part of scripture, but he had his earthly mission to carry out just like the rest of us do.

We have talked here about the need to build a purely Christian cosmology... (although I actually think you just did that with your essay Cosmology, Ancient and Modern ). I know some of us are uncomfortable at using metaphors or elements derived from non-Christian sources whether they be classical or modern. Within limits this does not worry me. You wouldn't try to build a bridge based on scripture, and you wouldn't try to fix your plumbing that way either. You develop the technology for the task at hand, gaining the knowledge and experience where you find it.

I think new advances in ontology are going to come from the AI people, the information sciences, at least in the short term. Developing "smart" technologies, and complex software teaches us a lot about how we are designed. Its odd but perhaps not surprising that we are starting to understand DNA better as a result of our familiarity with software, meaning we see information we have seen for a long time, but we now understand it differently as a result of our own efforts at creating intelligence.

Scriptural truth is not threatened by truth found outside of scripture. I used to know a preacher who would challenge people to close their Bibles and open their eyes to what God was doing, right now, all around them. That if there were no Bible, it would be possible to recreate it from simply observing, and participating, in what God is doing, now, in the streets, and in history. Because God is still God, and he is still forging the world. We humans are part of the tool set, and would be witnesses if we just opened our eyes.

The Hebrews and the Church are, respectively, a particular priesthood with a particular mission. But God is at work on all sides of us, and its a much bigger game than just us. Its fine for us to kick around the fine points of doctrine, its important in fact, as long as we remember that we are just the priests. The folks are out there doing God's will, we're just keeping the altar polished.

I think of us sometimes as being like the cooks at a lumber camp. We have to keep the guys fed, but they are the ones out there felling the trees. We are a key part of the operation for sure, but someone still has to fire up the chain saw.

My metaphors could use some work, I know...

Somewhere you quoted Voegelin: “Christianity is not concerned with belief in a literary text, but with man’s confrontation with God through faith.” So while certainly someone has to broadcast God's word out into the culture, and keep doing it, that is not the whole game. There are also trees to fell, and dragons to slay.

I never know if I make any sense at all... Work with me here...

Dear marron,

IMHO, you are simply a superb essayist, natural born. :^)

I just loved this: "...we really aren't free to read just anything into the words. But the words are intended to describe something, they aren't the thing itself obviously. In our efforts to boil everything down into an easily codified doctrine we sometimes squeeze the life out of the words."

And once the life is squeezed out of them, we are then free to simply redefine the words. With the life gone out of them, after a while nobody remembers what they originally meant anyway. I imagine this sort of thing is at the bottom of all progressive political ideologies. It's at the bottom of scientific materialism....

And I also loved this:

"This is why some of the evolution threads mystify me... the evolutionists believe that proving the theory disproves God, and the creationists, at least some of them, seem to agree, so they fight back desperately to save God's life from this mortal attack... whereas I just see a discussion about tools. What tools did God use? You seem to be on my wave-length, I think, the IC debate for you is just digging into the details of the design, which is great fun. God is not at risk here, he built it. We're just trying to figure out how. We can afford to turn on the microscope and have a look, he is not going to vanish when we flip on the light."

You and I are definitely on the same wavelength.

Thank you for noticing that my Cosmology piece really was a Christian cosmology. I just used Greek terms to disguise the fact. I wonder that people would think to construct a cosmology entirely out of Biblical resources. Seems to me the Holy Scriptures are about one-half of God's Revelation to man. The other half is the Creation itself. Or that's the way it seems to me. One can see the Hand of God in all things if one knows how to look. Creature is worth studying to find the marks of God.

With you, I believe that God is not in ANY kind of danger from advances in scientific thought....

Thank you so much, dear marron, for writing.

Thank you so very much for your insightful and encompassing post! As always, your remarks are “golden” to me.

Doctrines are tools, and tools can be modified. Truth can't, but doctrine is merely a means of getting at it.

Indeed and it saddens me whenever doctrine becomes the focus instead of Christ, i.e. “Who is Paul? Who is Apollo?”

Because some doctrine teaches that Adam is the first mortal man, instead of the first ensouled man, those who adhere to that doctrine become ideologically “targeted” by evangelical atheists on the evolution threads. Conversely, those who hold to that doctrine are frequently evangelically compelled to debunk scientists who testify to an much older age for man and the universe.

It never seems right to see a Christian involved in an angry confrontation. Moreover, in this never-ending “age of the universe” debate neither side is willing to discuss space/time, relativity and the inflationary theory. So much would be resolved if they could only agree to the terminology.

I also agree with you concerning the importance of information theory to cosmology and biology, including evolution theory. Biologists have no interest in answering the question ”what is life?” – but a group of physicists and mathematicians have tackled that very question (Pearson, Pattee, Rocha, Yockey, etc.) and it appears the answer is “information”. In this context, “information” is a politically correct pseudonym for soul/spirit. IOW, at bottom, information (as defined by Shannon – successful communication) is a necessary cause for autonomous biological self organizing complexity.

I agree that Scripture is not a textbook; however, it is considerably more than an historical account or even a guide to proper behavior. I have offered personal testimony several times that the Scriptures come alive in the Spirit - no other ancient manuscript, article, book, etc. has this effect. I would that everyone would experience the living Word.

Because the Word is alive, I cannot agree that one could receive it without the facility of either reading or hearing the Scriptures. Nature has much to teach us, but it does not speak of Christ or the Great Commandments, to love God absolutely and our neighbor unconditionally (paraphrased).

However, I also believe that those who diligently seek Him – like Abraham – will be rewarded. I can also think of a few situations in today’s world where a person has neither heard nor read the Truth – aborted babies, young children, severely handicapped people, primitive people and those under oppressive theocracies or communism. But God will be merciful and have compassion as He wills. (Romans)

Biologists have no interest in answering the question ”what is life?” – but a group of physicists and mathematicians have tackled that very question (Pearson, Pattee, Rocha, Yockey, etc.) and it appears the answer is “information”. In this context, “information” is a politically correct pseudonym for soul/spirit. IOW, at bottom, information (as defined by Shannon – successful communication) is a necessary cause for autonomous biological self organizing complexity.

It does seem so odd to me that biology isn't interested in the question, "What is life?" "Information" in the sense defined above -- as soul/spirit manifesting as "successful communication" is precisely the sense I meant in saying that a part of God's revelation is in the Creation.

Alamo-Girl, you wrote: "Because the Word is alive, I cannot agree that one could receive it without the facility of either reading or hearing the Scriptures. Nature has much to teach us, but it does not speak of Christ or the Great Commandments, to love God absolutely and our neighbor unconditionally (paraphrased)."

Oh I completely agree with your insight, A-G. The Word of God is prior to Creation and as such is the absolutely authoritative relevation. IOW, the Holy Scriptures are of higher rank than the revelation of Nature, which cannot give us Christ or the Great Commandments so needful to our spiritual welfare and salvation. I hope I didn't leave anyone with the impression that I believe otherwise.

Thank you oh so very much for your excellent post!

"Information" in the sense defined above -- as soul/spirit manifesting as "successful communication" is precisely the sense I meant in saying that a part of God's revelation is in the Creation.

Very wise and very well said, my sister in Christ!

The Word of God is prior to Creation and as such is the absolutely authoritative relevation. IOW, the Holy Scriptures are of higher rank than the revelation of Nature, which cannot give us Christ or the Great Commandments so needful to our spiritual welfare and salvation. I hope I didn't leave anyone with the impression that I believe otherwise.

I never had that impression from anything that you have said. My comment was to the assertion of the unnamed preacher in post 105 who preached:

"I used to know a preacher who would challenge people to close their Bibles and open their eyes to what God was doing, right now, all around them. That if there were no Bible, it would be possible to recreate it from simply observing, and participating, in what God is doing, now, in the streets, and in history. Because God is still God, and he is still forging the world."

I'm not the unnamed preacher, but I'll reply for my use of his remarks. I did not mean it in the way you may have taken it, but I accept your remarks as putting a necessary limit on how far to take what he said (and I implied).

I think you have already put your finger on it, although if I'm not careful I'll make a mess of it, and you two will have to bail me out. The Word was there from the beginning. Scripture wasn't there from the beginning, but the Word was.

Over time the Word revealed himself, and people wrote it down. That is what is unique about the Hebrews, not simply that God worked with them, as I think God has worked with people in general. The Hebrews are unique in that they understood themselves in that way, they understood their history as an encounter between man and God. And most importantly they wrote it down.

God, the Holy Spirit, did not go to sleep after the final books of the Bible were mailed off to the publisher. God still is very much in the fray, and people are still writing these things down. The difference is that what we write is not canonical, meaning that we don't all agree to what degree the things we experience and write are driven by the Holy Spirit. We all agree on a certain collection of documents, we don't agree on anything past that.

But that does not close the door on God, I believe, he still moves among us. The Holy Spirit is still at work. And the unnamed preacher's challenge was to look up and out and see what God is doing. It was as much a challenge to look at his fingerprints in creation, as to understand that he lives, he moves, he is. We need to be out in the fray as well. I think he was trying to tell people not to be so other-worldly as to miss what is going on right now, and miss your work that is right in front of you, right now.

God is no less in motion now than he was during the days that the scriptures were being written. Scripture gives us a framework to understand what we see and experience. But we should be prepared to recognize that what we see and do now is part of the story that will be written at the end.

And finally, I know what you are referring to, when you note the way in which the Holy Spirit can speak in the immediate through scriptures as you read them... that is a whole different subject, but it is true. Don't think I was disparaging such a thing, I wouldn't do it. If what I wrote seems to imply that, I need to rein in my metaphors. They get me in trouble all the time.

With all respect to the Unknown Preacher: It seems the human mind, completely unaided, would be able to conceive of a general idea of God. But how could it ever imagine what God is doing at any particular time? The mind and action of God are completely incommensurable with human mind and action. We would have to know something about the nature of God before we could imagine "what God is doing, now, in the streets, and in history." And I think that is precisely what we cannot discover for and by ourselves. When man has tried to do that in the past, the result has been concepts of violent nature gods, or lascivious Olympians, etc. For us to really know anything about the nature of God, He would have had to tell us that Himself -- which is exactly what He has done, in the Holy Scriptures.

Definition of Prose: Words in their best order. Definition of Poetry: the BEST words in their best order. But the essence of Scripture is not mystical, unknowable complexity; it is understanding. So while human poetry is dependent on the listener's reaction to it, God's poetry is singular in its intent and manifestation. He wants us to "get it."

I guess I'd say He wants each of those who are His own, to get enough of it, individually and collectively, in order to bring about the harvest of His regenerate disciples. Prophesy may be the most glaring example of what we may know in part, here --especially prophesy yet unfulfilled, but we all only know in part at this point.

Yes, Ll, one explanation, yet one with a panoply of meaning and purposes inherent in the one.

Yes, marron, bb, it is not for us to exalt ourselves to either label God's Logos malleable metaphor, nor dried and brittle hyperdoctrine.

Yes, bb, A-G, the Logos is there in Creation too.

And how do we know these things? "The Bible tells me so."

The Logos Inscribed and the Logos made flesh are more defined, gainable knowledge to us, bb, than mere Creation without them. Wouldn't you say? --more able to be directly and fully related with and known. And the more important the relationship, the more it deals in specific communication --the more it comes by intent gaze and touch --by specified and focused concern, especially if self is to be shared. Especially so, when the sharing is between specific Creator and specifically Created.

With all respect to the Unknown Preacher: It seems the human mind, completely unaided, would be able to conceive of a general idea of God. But how could it ever imagine what God is doing at any particular time? The mind and action of God are completely incommensurable with human mind and action. We would have to know something about the nature of God before we could imagine "what God is doing, now, in the streets, and in history." And I think that is precisely what we cannot discover for and by ourselves. When man has tried to do that in the past, the result has been concepts of violent nature gods, or lascivious Olympians, etc. For us to really know anything about the nature of God, He would have had to tell us that Himself -- which is exactly what He has done, in the Holy Scriptures.

Good point and worth repeating. We have a whole history of examples of how people tried to imagine God unaided by the Holy Spirit. It isn't pretty.

At bottom, the Unknown Preacher seems have taken quite for granted the Christian acculturation of his flock, which would enable them to imagine ways in which God is acting in the world.

I think this is exactly the point. He was speaking to Christians, and challenging them to look at what is going on in their own lives and the world around them. But you are right, this is kind of thing you could only say to a believer. This is the kind of thing I might say to you, or you to me, coming as we do from a similar sensibility. It isn't something you would or could say to someone who didn't already understand God and humandkind in the way that we do, or understand in some way the way that the Holy Spirit moves among us.

And it was really an offhand remark very limited in its context which I repeated to make a very limited point. To push it beyond that is to take it too far.

You said something else "The mind and action of God are completely incommensurable with human mind and action. " Again, true. We can only understand what we understand, in the limited way that we are capable. I make no claim to any knowledge beyond that available to your average guy ruminating over his coffee. My remarks have to be understood in that context, not that I am standing in as this month's prophet, but rather working my way through something and mumbling out loud in earshot of my friends.

Someone I know has a t-shirt that reads "I have lots of friends, you just can't see them"... I probably should find me one like it.

Yes Betty, I agree, partially. For as Scriptures say,

For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.

For even the most ardent atheist knows God through creation but "just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind..." So when you say,

For us to really know anything about the nature of God, He would have had to tell us that Himself.

I would have to disagree. In fact, we know the nature of God, what is more important is that God reveals to us who we are. True knowledge of God is knowing ourselves, firstly. Unspun alluded to that exact "beginning of knowledge." I agree completely with you when you say "that is precisely what we cannot discover for and by ourselves." It seems all we are left with is how is it we come to know ourselves and begin to have a true knowledge of God?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.