Taken from the Theological Word of the Day (TWOD) (to which you should all subscribe!)

Let’s discuss. Do you all agree with the concept expressed by the analogia entis? Read first, then comment.

(Lat. “analogy of being”)

also, “analogy of imitation” or “analogy of participation”

The belief that there exists an analogy or correspondence between the creation and God that makes theological conversation about God possible. While many would say that finite beings with finite language cannot describe an infinite God, theologians of the medieval era discussed this problem, seeking to resolve it by developing a theory which alloted the communication of words into three separate categories.

1) Some words are univocal (always used with the same sense)

2) Some were equivocal (used with very different senses)

3) Some were analogical (used with related senses).

It is this third sense that the analogia entis finds meaning.

While finite man cannot describe and infinite God perfectly (univocally), he can do so truly being that God has created man in his image and, through this, has provided and analogical way of communicating himself. To deny the analogia entis is thought, by some, to be a self defeating proposition since it would present the situation where an all-powerful God is not powerful enough to communicate himself to his creation.

Join us in reclaiming the mind for Christ. Start The Theology Program in your church.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

After an always exhausting and worrisome trip over the ‘Pond,’ I arrived in London with three friends on August 16 (or, as the Brits say, 16 August).

Exhausting? Yes, because I choose not to go to sleep the night before flights to Europe so that I can sleep on the plane. OK, maybe ‘choose’ is too strong of a word. The reality is that I have so much work to do before I leave for the airport that I don’t have time to sleep. But it’s a great plan for curing jetlag. Of course, if there are crying babies in the vicinity, then my scheme fails miserably. Or if one of our team happens to lose his lunch due to a migraine and turbulence, and if he happens to be my son, it’s hard to fall asleep. It’s also exhausting hauling 17 large pieces of luggage, paying the increasingly exorbitant extra luggage costs, and wondering if we’ll ever see our bags again. If we don’t, the expedition is over before it begins.

But worrisome? I admit: I’m a worrier. I wish I weren’t. I wish I trusted God much more, especially since he has a pretty decent track record with me. I wish I didn’t get heartburn as I park my big derriere in a tiny seat and try to take my mind off of all that we have to do. I wish I could just relax, believing that our gear is going to be OK, believing that we won’t have hassles from the passport folks or the customs agents when we land, believing that the four of us can haul everything to the next vehicle to take us somewhere without incident. I don’t relax until we get to our new home and I see that the gear is still in one piece. Even though it’s all insured, it’s a lot of delicate equipment. Each person is allowed to take one bag for personal belongings; the other 13 are for our work of photographing manuscripts. Continue Reading »

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Don’t be enamored to quickly by “change.” Barak represents those in a long line of liberal socialists. His call for “change” is nothing of the sort. It may be a change from our current system, but what I mean is that it is nothing “new.”

From an economic standpoint, he is calling for an internal redistribution of Americas wealth. If redistribution is the way America wants to go, that is fine…it is the beauty of a democracy. But people must realize what this means. It is not simply a matter of fixing our current crisis, but placing ourselves under an entirely different type of government sanctioned economic situation which causes “opportunity” to function under the umbrella of a new paradigm. Obama wants to decide who is rich and who is poor. If you are too successful, then you will be punished.

This may sound attractive to the poor. Why wouldn’t it? If you cannot afford health-care, if you cannot pay your mortgage, if you cannot find a job, then the government will take from those who can to provide for you. The government ends up being the hero! Right? Well there are a more than a few major problems with this direction. Let me describe a couple

1. The motive of the labor force will be quit limited. People are motivated by success. There is nothing wrong with this, biblically or otherwise. This does not amount to greed. Even in the Scriptures, we are told to seek treasure in heaven (Matt. 6:20). But when wealth is redistributed the old idea that “hard work pays” will no longer be true. The entrepreneur mentality that has made America great will be drowned as people recognize that, if successful, they will be giving a major portion of their success to the government. Very few people will succeed in this type of socialism because they will have no motive to do so. We will eventually have to reinvent our popular description of America from “The Land of Opportunity” to “The Land of government sanctioned equality.” Continue Reading »

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Here are my basic thoughts about the Presidential debate:

Both were functioning withing the common Rep and Dem framework. Dems want more of a socialist government (which is not wrong in and of itself). Rep want opportunity which prioritizes itself over the lower class.

Mcain sounded like he knew what was going on because of experience, Obama seemed very book smart.

In the end, as I said to my brother-in-law, I could have said everything that Obama said because it was standard liberal politics. Mcain was a different story…he really knew from experience. Really, whatever you are, Dem or Rep, it is the ideals of the party that will be your first step. If you are truly undecided, Obama did not seem equipped to take the most powerful position in the world (from a human perspective).

Frankly, I would not be too scared if Obama becomes pres simply because he will be a non-voice that people pat on the head and say “thanks for you input” but the balance of powers will eventually leave you without a relevant voice. He is not a qualified leader. Mcain seems to be able to have influence and respect.

Here is a good way to put it:

I would like to take a college class from Obama.

I would like to be discipled by Mcain.

Thoughts on the debate?

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

With all the renewed conversation about the emerging church that is blanketing the web once again, I thought that I would enter the “conversation” in a somewhat atypical way.

Some are proclaiming the death of the emerging church saying, “The emerging church is dead—at least in nomenclature, if not in spirit.” Others such as Scot McKnight, Andrew Jones, and Dan Kimball are calling this a nominal death, believing the name itself is no longer descriptive of the original intent of the group, but that the principles expressed will move on. Scot’s post had the spirit of a “call to arms” of the emerging ethos. Others, such as Brian McLaren and Tony Jones may to be holding on to its designation with some hesitant resolve (if you you will allow me to combine those two words).

For those of you ready to sing a courtesy dirge, for those who are preparing their “I-told-you-so” sermon for this Sunday, for those who are breaking out the campaign, hold on. Put the cork back in. I don’t think this type of celebration is yet in order. In fact, I think that this is simply setting up for the second coming of emerging.

To me, this is a good thing that has been in the works for the last few years. It is a natural result of any attempts to reform. The movement is correcting itself. As a result, we see emergers distancing themselves from one another. It is interesting to see the way they are distancing themselves. There are no rope burns on either side. Really, it is just a matter of starting a walk together, holding  the hands of many shared concerns. But while this walk initially allowed some close associations, the ever so slight angle of the direction has proven that they were never really headed the same way to begin with. Its a matter of geometry.

How about a chart to describe this! (Start from the bottom).

(Click to Enlarge) Continue Reading »

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Warning: an imbalanced and emotionally non-irenic post ahead. Don’t read as it may only cause disappointment among many of my more progressive friends.

The latest Barna survey was published last night. Its intent was to evaluate the Evangelical position concerning the environment. In sum, it argues that Evangelicals are “going green.” You can find it here.

One paragraph in particular caught my attention:

“Most Christians are not satisfied to be mere observers of the green movement. Three-quarters of self-identified Christians (78%) agree they would like to see their fellow Christians take a more active role in caring for God’s creation in a way that is both informed and biblical. Among evangelicals, 90% would like Christians to take a more active role in caring for creation, with 67% agreeing strongly. This sentiment is firmly endorsed by a majority of active churchgoers who are Catholic (52%), mainline Protestant (62%), and non-mainline Protestant (67%).”

I would agree with the basic thrust of this as I too am concerned about the environment. However, I am not going “Green” or even “going Green” in any way. Continue Reading »

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Continuing our studies on why people leave the faith, I offer you George. Please read this and let’s discuss what is going on. I will add some questions at the conclusion.

___________________

“My story is as messy as life itself. I’m in the early processes of going public with my deconversion, but it also feels liberating to finally admit the truth out loud, and in the open.

I became a Christian in high school through a youth ministry called Young Life. I went to a week long camp where the gospel was packaged and delivered with great polish and skillful delivery, which was designed for maximum emotional impact. Many girls in the audience at night were in tears as they listened to the account of Jesus. We were all encouraged the final night to go off by ourselves in the dark and commit our lives to Christ. I remember that time vaguely thinking to myself that god really wasn’t there, but I think I prayed to him anyway, just in case. It wasn’t a fervent prayer however, because I wasn’t entirely sure I WANTED him to exist. Still, my friends were doing it, and they seemed cool and nice, so I’d do it to.

I came back from camp somehow oddly pumped up for Christ. I threw myself into bible studies, and developed my Christian friendships a great deal. I still have those Christian friendships, and love my buddies - although now that is a problem (more on that in a moment). I still had nagging doubts in the back of my mind, but kept pushing them aside and just tried harder to be a good Christian. The next few years in college I would vacillate quite a bit. One year I was a volunteer actually helping Young Life. The next year I joined a fraternity and was elected VP, partying heavily and enjoying relationships with sorority women. Continue Reading »

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

I have been asked this quite a few times over the years and the issue was brought up again recently. Can homosexuals be Christians? Or, better, is there such a thing as a “homosexual Christian.” Many would believe that someone who engages in a homosexual life style is necessarily excluded from the Kingdom of God unless they repent. Repentance here would mean a change of thinking about and, shortly following, action to change this lifestyle. In other words, while some would be willing to say that a homosexual can be saved, their salvation guarantees their change of lifestyle within a short period of time. Continue Reading »

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Article 2. Whether it can be demonstrated that God exists?

Objection 1. It seems that the existence of God cannot be demonstrated. For it is an article of faith that God exists. But what is of faith cannot be demonstrated, because a demonstration produces scientific knowledge; whereas faith is of the unseen (Hebrews 11:1). Therefore it cannot be demonstrated that God exists.

Objection 2. Further, the essence is the middle term of demonstration. But we cannot know in what God’s essence consists, but solely in what it does not consist; as Damascene says (De Fide Orth. i, 4). Therefore we cannot demonstrate that God exists.

Objection 3. Further, if the existence of God were demonstrated, this could only be from His effects. But His effects are not proportionate to Him, since He is infinite and His effects are finite; and between the finite and infinite there is no proportion. Therefore, since a cause cannot be demonstrated by an effect not proportionate to it, it seems that the existence of God cannot be demonstrated.

On the contrary, Continue Reading »

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

I am a Calvinist, others are Arminian. I believe in a premillenial eschatology, others are amillinial. I am a traducianist with regards to the creation of the soul, others are creationists. I believe in inerrancy, others believe that this is an archaic naive doctrine. There are many points of doctrinal division that I am going to have with people, some of which are much more important than others.

Why doesn’t everyone agree with me? Who is causing this disunity in the body of Christ, them or me? Do these division demonstrate the doctrinal bankruptcy of sola Scriptura? Should we elect of a Pope of Protestantism? Or could it be that God has a purpose in his allowance of disagreements?

There are a few different ways that I could answer this.

1. Others don’t agree with me because they have not studied deep enough (lack of scholarship).
2. Others don’t agree with me because they have not studied broad enough (lack of perspective).
3. Others don’t agree with me because they have not studied long enough (lack of wisdom).
4. Others don’t agree with me because their traditional prejudices have created a learning disability that keeps them from the truth (lack of freedom of thought).
5. Others don’t agree with me because they have sin in their life that is blinding them to the truth (lack of holiness).
6. Others don’t agree with me because we don’t have an infallible authoritative interpreter of Scripture that would bring doctrinal unity?
7. Others don’t agree with me because they are not Christian. If they were, well . . . they would agree with me! (lack of salvation).

Generally speaking, I do not default to these possibilities. Don’t get me wrong, these are all possibilities. It could be that people deny the truth (assuming that my position is such) due to ignorance, lack of perspective or wisdom, traditional bindings, sin, lack of authority, or a presupposition of godlessness. But I think we need to be careful about any negative prejudgments about people motives and the ultimate reasons for disagreements. Continue Reading »

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Join Michael Patton and Lindsey Price as they discuss reason #4 on the Top Ten Reasons NOT to be a Christian series.

#3 If I become a Christian, God will make me healthy and wealthy.

During this lesson, Lindsey and I draw from the Bible and personal experience concluding that the health-wealth Gospel is not only a different Gospel, but it represents a different God.

 

 Theology Unplugged - Top Ten Reasons NOT to be a Christian - Because God Will Make Me Healthy and Wealthy [27:23m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download (5660)

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Protestantism is not perfect. No informed Protestant would claim such. Evangelicalism has major problems. This is nothing new. But Protestants have always thought the strengths of Protestantism outweigh the weaknesses. Otherwise, we would not be Protestant!

While I often write about the weaknesses of our system, sometimes complaining about Evangelical shames, I want to do something different here. I am going to give a short list of what I believe to be the major strengths of Protestantism:

1. Celebration of diversity: Protestants can appreciate and celebrate the diversity in the Christian faith unlike any other tradition. Whether it be in worship style or liturgy, house churches or mega churches, Protestant recognize that all people are not alike in their subjective preferences. Protestantism, as a movement, cannot dogmatize the way people should be in areas that are based in non-essential personal preferences. We can recognize that God has created people differently—and this was intentionally. If people have a personality that does not respond well to one style of worship, they are free to celebrate their diversity without feeling the obligation of adapting their style to some traditional norm. Therefore, to be Protestant is to be able to celebrate diversity. Continue Reading »

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

I heard recently that Sunday morning (church) is the most segregated hour in America.

I was walking through the halls of my church yesterday and noticed that there were two black people. This caught my attention and, in a very real sense, I was ashamed. Why? Because it caught my attention.

I don’t want to place my experience on others, but it does seem that when the doors to our churches open, they may have the Gospel, they may have Christ, they may have grace and love, but the colors don’t bleed into one.

Am I missing something? Do we have an excuse?

Options:

Where we live. Maybe the segregation does not have to do with any inherent prejudice, pride, or evil, but with the “natural” segregation of geography. But, in my area, this does not explain the numbers. The community is more diverse than the church. Continue Reading »

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

For this week as my Bibliology and Hermeneutics students will be dealing with the issue of the Canon.

I am looking on page 23 of my Bible and it has the list of books. The books all together number 66—39 in the Old Testament and 27 in the New Testament. This is often referred to as the “canon” of Scripture. “Canon” (Gk. kanon) means “rule” or “measuring rod.” The canon of Scripture is the collection or a “rule” of books that Christians believe belong in the Bible. There are some variations among Christian traditions concerning the number of books. The Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox churches all use different canons (as well, some eastern churches will vary still). The Catholic and Orthodox include a group of books in their Bibles referred to as the Deuterocanonical books (”second canon”) or, as Protestants would call it, the “Apocrypha” (although the Orthodox church is not quite as settled upon the status of the Apocrypha).

The question How do you know what books belong in the Bible? is a significant one indeed. The Catholics and Orthodox will normally refer to the establishment of these books as part of the canon by fourth century councils. Catholics would further refer to the teachings of the council of Trent (1545-1563) which dogmatically and infallibly declared the current Catholic canon (including the Apocrypha) as being authoritative.

I believe that the 66 books of the Protestant canon belong in the Bible, no more no less. I believe that all 66 books are inspired, inerrant, and infallible. Yet the list on page 23 of my Bible is not part of the canon. In other words, the list itself is not part of the inspired word of God. I am using the English Standard Version, but it is the same in any version of any language. The NET Bible does not have an inspired list, even in the footnotes! There is no early Greek or Hebrew manuscript that solves the problem either. Therefore I have a potential difficulty. Since do not believe in an infallible human authority that can determine what books belong in the Bible, how can I be certain what books belong in the Bible? Continue Reading »

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Visit Culture11, a new online magazine/social network that was started by Bill Bennett, David Kuo, SteveForbes, et al.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

I don’t know about you, but the copyright date on my Bible is 2002 (I usually read from the ESV). What does that mean? It means that the Bible that I read from, study from, and teach from is nearly 2000 years newer than the original. How do we know that errors have not crept in after 2000 years? You may have an older version. If you use an NASB or NIV, your Bible will not be much better off. Thirty years closer to the original is not saying much. Even if you are a hard core KJV advocate, using an “original” 1611 version, your Bible is still over fifteen hundred years past the original New Testament and over two thousand years newer than the Old Testament. More than that, these Bible’s are all in English and the New Testament was written in Greek and the Old Testament was mostly written in Hebrew. More than that, the Greek and Hebrew of the Scriptures are both dead languages, meaning that they are not spoken anymore.

With all this time and change, doesn’t it seem likely that there have been many errors in transcription that have crept into the text, corrupting the original beyond repair? How can we know our Bible is reliable? Continue Reading »

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

I got this post in an email today and found it very troubling, yet characteristic of the stories I hear everyday about people who leave Christianity after being brought up in a ridged fundementalistic tradition. However, I did find it interesting that Nathan (the man who wrote this) gave Christianity a second chance to alleviate him of his depression.

Sadly folks, this is yet another story about people coming to Christ for all the wrong reasons and therefore leaving Christianity for all the wrong reasons.

What I say deep down inside after reading these stories: “Folks but we need to wake up and understand our disparate condition due to the lack of true balanced discipleship. Quit acting as if we have no responsibility to lead people through intellectually tough issues. Quit acting as if we have it all figured out. Focus on the essentials. Show some grace. How could this person have gone to a Christian school and have no idea what Christianity is really about? God help us!”

What I say publicly: “Read this and tell me what you think. It hurts my heart.”

“I grew up in an ultra-conservative fundamentalist household. Bottom line: Christianity was my life! I attended a Christian middle school and high school. The brand of Christianity I was taught was “hell fire and brimstone”. I believed every word, never questioning. I attended door to door witnessing, and I helped with the church bus route. I personally led several people “to the lord”. Continue Reading »

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

I recently heard that depression is greater today than any other time in history. It is said that today we have more depression—ten times as much—than during the “Great Depression” of the 1940s. Are we living in the “Greater Depression”?

Here are some stats:

• Depressive disorders affect approximately 18.8 million American adults or about 9.5% of the U.S. population age 18 and older in a given year. This includes major depressive disorder, dysthymic disorder, and bipolar disorder. (NIMH. “The Numbers Count: Mental Illness in America,” Science on Our Minds Fact Sheet Series.)
• Everyone, will at some time in their life be affected by depression—their own or someone else’s, according to Australian Government statistics. (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, 1998. “National Health Priority Areas Mental Health: A Report Focusing on Depression.” Depression statistics in Australia are comparable to those of the US and UK.)
• Pre-schoolers are the fastest-growing market for antidepressants. At least four percent of preschoolers—over a million—are clinically depressed. (Study published in Psychiatric Services, April 2004. Reported in our health news archive: Pill-Popping Pre-Schoolers, Even Toddlers Get the Blues)
• The rate of increase of depression among children is an astounding 23% p.a. (Harvard University study reported in Harvard Mental Health Newsletter, February 2002.)
• 15% of the population of most developed countries suffers severe depression. (World Health Organization (WHO) report quoted in BBC-Online January 9, 2001.)
• 30% of women are depressed. Men’s figures were previously thought to be half that of women, but new estimates are higher. (National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH). “The Numbers Count: Mental Illness in America,” Science on Our Minds Fact Sheet Series.)
• 54% of people believe depression is a personal weakness. (National Mental Health Association (NMHA) study reported in MSNBC Health Today, March 10, 2004.)
• 41% of depressed women are too embarrassed to seek help. (NMHA Survey, 1996. NMHA factsheet on women and depression.)
• 80% of depressed people are not currently having any treatment. (“National Healthcare Quality Report”, 2003.)
• 92% of depressed African-American males do not seek treatment. (D F Bailey, and J L Moore, III. “Emotional Isolation, Depression, and Suicide Among African American Men: Reasons for Concern.” In C Rubin (Ed), Linking Lives Across Borders: Gender-Sensitive Practice in International Perspective, [Pacific Grove, CA Books/Cole].)
• 15% of depressed people will commit suicide. (Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, 2003. “National Healthcare Quality Report.” This is a widely quoted statistic, though some experts such as Dr Christopher L Summerville, Executive Director of the Manitoba Schizophrenia Society, member of the Board of Directors of Mood Disorders of Canada, have cited higher figures.)
• Depression will be the second largest killer after heart disease by 2020 — and studies show depression is a contributory factor to fatal coronary disease. (WHO report on mental illness released October 4, 2001. Health news stories: Depression Link to Heart Disease, Hostility, Depression May Boost Heart Diseases)
• Depression results in more absenteeism than almost any other physical disorder and costs employers more than $51 billion per year in absenteeism and lost productivity, not including high medical and pharmaceutical bills. (According to a 2004 Rand Corporation report.)

Now, I’m confused. Continue Reading »

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Is natural revelation God’s word? Or does Scripture only qualify for such a title? In other words, when nature speaks clearly about something can we say that this represents the voice of God to the same degree as Scripture?

Natural revelation is God’s communication through creation. It is seen in the vast expanse of the universe and in the minute details of the human cell. It is found in the very consciousness of humanity and in our capacity for rational and analytic thought. Nature tells us much about the attributes and character of God. While, without the Scriptures we would lack an understanding of God’s ultimate plan of redemption and Christian living, we would still have quite a bit of theological understanding.

Paul tells the Romans:

“For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.” (Romans 1: 18-20)

Notice a few things:

1. “Revealed from heaven . . . being understood through what has been made.” This is what can be know about God without the Scriptures. It is God’s revelation through creation.

2. Against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men. This tells us that natural revelation is evident to all. This is sometimes referred to as “general revelation” because it has a general audience that is not limited to a particular people, nation, or time.

3. God has shown it to them. This tells us it is from God. God is the author of this revelation.

4. Invisible attributes . . . eternal power and divine nature. This lets us know that we can understand many of the characteristics of God through natural revelation. His “eternal power” (aidios autou dunamis) has to do with not only ultimate power and ability, but the necessity of its eternality. His divine nature (theiotes) speaks of his divinity, or the nature that divinity necessary must encompass, including attributes and characteristics.

5. They have been clearly seen. The word for “clearly” (kathoratai) is in the present indicative telling us that this is an ongoing occurrence. The word carries the idea of inward perception coming from our reasoning, not simply seeing with the eye. BADG suggests this translation:”God’s invisible attributes are perceived with the eye of reason in the things that have been made.” In other words, natural revelation is evidently evident!

6. They are without excuse. This is very important to understand. The word here for “without excuse” (anapologetous) has a judicial feel to it. Josephus uses the word in the sense of being “without a defense.” Dio Chrysostom uses this to describe Alexander’s aid to Homer saying that he will not let Homer go “undefended.” This verse is telling us that these characteristics of God are so clear that people are left without a defense of any sort for unbelief.

About natural revelation’s voice, the Psalmist writes:

The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork. Day to day pours out speech, and night to night reveals knowledge. There is no speech, nor are there words, whose voice is not heard. Their measuring line goes out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. (Psalm 19:1-4)

In other words, both these passages teach that we are held accountable for hearing through creation the authoritative voice of God. So much so that we will be without excuse if we ignore what it has to say.

Now, we are evangelicals and biblicists, so we have to make Scripture more authoritative than creation, right? But the problem is How can God’s word (Scripture) be more authoritative than God’s word (creation)? If they are both God’s word speaking with His voice, then they both have the same authority, right?

Some may say, “Yes, but what about Sola Scriptura?” Don’t we believe that the Scriptures are the final and only infallible norm in matters of faith and practice? But this assumes that we have interpreted the Scripture correctly, which is, many times, a rather large assumption. However, creation is the same isn’t it? If we interpret its voice correctly, doesn’t it carry the same authority? This is the key question that I think we need to wrestle with.

Here are some implications:

The acknowledgment of the validity of Natural theology. Natural theology (the theology derived from natural revelation) becomes a primary source of study in which Christians need to engage more often. While natural theology is not emphasized in many of the more fundementalistic Protestant circles, this has not always been the case. Great philosophers and theologians of the past have seen the importance letting God’s voice come through creation. Aristotle’s “Unmoved Mover,” Justin Martyrs “God of the Philosophers,” Anselm’s “Necessary Being,” Aquinas’ “Five Proofs,” and John Calvin’s “sensus divinitatis“ all evidence an understanding of the authority of creation’s voice. We need acknowledge and engage in the study of God’s voice through creation with more confidence.

Issues of faith and science become less dichotomized. Once we recognize that science is simply the interpretation of God’s “book of nature,” it will no longer be seen as a threat. The scientist can give valuable information to the theologian in the same way the exegete does. Seeming conflict will no longer present the dilemma of having to choose which source is more authoritative, but which source speaks to the issue more clearly. Rhetoric between the ones who study human origins from God’s word in Scripture and those who study God’s word in creation will tamed. Both sides will see that we are ultimately on the same team, even if we may sometimes interpret each source of God’s voice differently.

Current issues about the nature of God will be put into perspective. Open theists who claim that the Bible never speaks about certain attributes of God held to by traditional theists such as asiety, immutability, and necessary eternality can recognize that even if Scripture did not speak of such things (which I do not concede), nature does have an authoritative voice to contribute. This means that philosophy and science do matter. This means that the old adage “If it is not in the Bible, I don’t believe it” is not only irresponsible, but unbiblical! If nature says that God must be an Unmoved Mover, the Necessary Being, the Uncaused Cause, or the creator of time, then we must incorporate this into our theology, even if the Bible did not speak on it.

What I am not saying (just so I don’t have to deal with misconceptions)

• I am not saying that natural revelation is sufficient for salvation. I don’t believe it is. Natural revelation does not present the Gospel.
• I am not saying that Scripture is not as important as we once thought. Without the Scriptures we would not know about God’s plan of redemption. As well, Scripture speaks much more clearly in most areas of faith and practice. Its interpretation is not as difficult and, because of this, its message is more exhaustive and louder.
• I am not saying that Sola Scritura is not correct. Sola Scriptura has to do with special revelation, God’s mediating voice through human agencies, not natural revelation. Otherwise, what do we do with Romans 1 and Psalm 19? How would we say that God’s word is more authoritative than God’s word? Scripture is the final and only infallible authority in the sense that no human institution or authority can rise to its level.

In the end, I propose that natural revelation is just as much God’s word as Scripture (AHhhh!). Both have to be interpreted and both speak to different areas. Most importantly, both are authoritative and should be taken seriously. We will be without excuse if we close our ears to the voice of either.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!