Can anything be saved from the wreckage? Barth’s position - another ”Nein!” - is perhaps too extreme. Several Protestant thinkers have found a place for a modified doctrine of Natural Law. Calvin helpfully gives his doctrine of Natural Law clear demarcation in the light of his more Augustinian doctrine of sin. Barclay argues for a “creation ethic” that starts with special revelation and deploys good sense. With greater sophistication, O’Donovan reminds us that the critique of Thomist epistemology (begun by the nominalists and continued in the Reformation) need not affect ontological issues. Thus, while we might seriously doubt human access to “Natural Law”, we need not repudiate the notion of a divine order in the world. Just because until the coming of the Word of God we could discern no meaning in creation does not mean that it had no meaning. In particular, Christian eschatology gives to the world a highly specific telos. O’Donovan also wants to apply salvation-history to creation, to avoid a static view of nature endemic in Thomism. Brunner, in the light of what he saw in Europe in the 1940s, allowed that the “orders of creation” were not hidden from those who do not know the Creator, but that no concept of true Justice may be obtained from this primitive knowledge.
Thus, we may allow a carefully demarcated role for a natural ethic of some type; but only within an understanding of nature (and especially human nature) that is informed from the start by the divine revelation of the scriptures. The Bible itself appeals to inklings of eternity within the human heart; but the construction of an ethical system from this point is a most uncertain enterprise. Most critically, the catastrophe of the Fall cannot be mitigated by an appeal to human reason which, like our other parts, lies also under the Curse.
15 comments:
Thumbs up dude!
Now that was something. Banzai!
"the catastrophe of the Fall cannot be mitigated by an appeal to human reason which, like our other parts, lies also under the Curse."
So, why not take some of your own advice, and read Genesis 1 the way it is supposed to be read i.e. as an historical text, and not according to the instructions of the "Scientific" Academy?
'the way it is supposed to be read'...
well, that's the issue, isn't it?
Actually, no Michael. You guys have transformed it into an issue because of your approval of eisegesis. It wasn't an issue for Calvin, Luther, Aquinas, Theophilus, Lightfoot and even Augustine.
In any case, what so issue-worthy (i.e. unc lear) about Exodus 20:11 and 31:17?
actually, no John.
And it was an issue for Augustine.
And nothing's unclear about those verses in Exodus.
And I'm still right.
If you can find any evidence for the 6 days being understood by Augustine as the millions or billions of years that the majority of your mob and John Spong believe it to be, then you can have Augustine.
Still doesn't address why Calvin and the others (all before Hutton, Lyle and Darwin made inroads with their pagan filth) had zero problem with the text.
And no, you are not right. Not one neo-orthodox (your mob) has ever been able to explain how 6 days can be transformed into a non-6 days. It's only through a prior commitment to the 6 days not being a real 6 days that you believe (i.e. deceive yourselves) that it's possible (i.e. you beg the question). Correct me if I am wrong, but this prior commitment does not arise from being faithful to the biblical text but to some philosophical principle outside of it.
It should be an easier enough task for a genius of your calibre, Michael: Condescend and show us illiterates, who are seldom right, how 6 becomes 6 billion x 365. Or better still, how 6 days doesn't mean 6 days. Then you can maintain you are right, not before.
That's the problem with you guys: You love to claim your rightness in front of your own crowd but never let it stand before outside intelligent scrutiny and risk being proved wrong. Didn't CS Lewis have a little to say about that quality?
We all have our prior commitments. The more arrogant position is to assume that your reading of the text is somehow pure of presuppositions.
Question is: are they reasonable, or are they sitting on, well, what?
Hmm, I thought you'd remove Critias' blog: just too close to the bone as you reject Calvin's and Luther's acceptance that the Bible is able to frame God's encounter with his creation in terms that are congruent with that creation. Pity.
Not really. Just haven't got time to waste with that kind of nastiness. I am expecting more incivility.
Ultimately, while Luther and Calvin are frequently trustworthy guides, they are not infallible. The point founders in irrelevance. In fact, an old earth creation account is, I would argue, far more in keeping with Calvin's hermeneutical principles.
"We all have our prior commitments. The more arrogant position is to assume that your reading of the text is somehow pure of presuppositions.
Question is: are they reasonable, or are they sitting on, well, what?"
Sorry, Michael, the only prior commitment here is your prior commitment that people always have (distorting) prior commitments.
As for me, I was formerly an old earther but came to understand that the biblical text not only doesn't and can't say that but that it unambiguously explains that it is a young world. Furthermore, I researched the scientific evidence as part of my degree (and outside of it) and saw that there are not 2 books of revelation. In other words, God does not deceive. It's a shame you don't trust our saviour a little more.
And as I stated, you give absolutely no exegetical proof that God's Word supports your position. That's very, very sad for someone from your background and who has a more onerous God-given RESPONSIBILITY to pass on God's message as it was first handed on.
So if an old earth creation account is far more in keeping with Calvin's hermeneutical principles why did Calvin believe it to be a young world? Are you saying he was so stupid he couldn't even follow his own understanding of how to read Scripture?
In any case, you CLAIM that as fact but give no supporting argument. Not even a good bluff!
Question is: are [prior commitments] reasonable, or are they sitting on, well, what?"
Yes, Michael, what do YOUR prior commitments sit on? Very interested to know.
As for me, I hold that I am made in the image of God. It is on this biblical basis that I, like God, can understand how language is able to function differently (e.g. historical prose Vs poetry etc etc), that God has given me an ability - which I decide to employ - to discern the difference between them and that propositional information can reveal unambiguous truth. Thus, Genesis 1has no inbuilt capacity to be understood as anything but an account of what the Creator said he did over a 6 day period.
It's your turn Michael.
Hi Michael,
Sorry to see all the flak from the YECS mob - pity the lack of grace.
However, I would like to see you, time permitting, to go on to consider Calvin's treatment of natural law particularly in relation to 2K theology. Not only Calvin of course but later Reformed thought particularly in relation to the challenges posed by the civil authorities.
There is a considerable volume of literature currently being generated in Reformed circles, mainly in the States which is very relevant to our own participation in the public domain. I mentioned earlier vanDrunen's book. Another which has received good reviews though I've yet to get a copy is Stephen Grabill's Rediscovering the Natural Law in Reformed Theological Ethics.
Post a Comment