George Murphy wrote:
> Bryan R. Cross wrote:
> >
> > George Murphy wrote:
> >
> > > I think that there are good theological reasons (which I sketched briefly before) for
> > > saying that
> > > 1) with possibly a few miraculous exceptions, God does everything though
> > > natural processes,
> >
> > First, (1) is poorly worded. Do you really mean "possibly"? Does Christian theology allow
> > that it is really "possible" that the acts of creation, incarnation, resurrection, and
> > ascension were accomplished by second causes? Second, a rule with ad hoc exceptions is not a
> > rule. Therefore the claim that "God does everything through natural processes, except some
> > things" is trivially true without some way of classifying together all the things that don't
> > fall under the rule. Third, even if (1) were true, progressive creation or formation by
> > direct divine action (DDA) are compatible with it, for (1) leaves the exception clause wide
> > open. Therefore these "good theological reasons" for (1) do not in any way decide the issue
> > in question: macroevolution or formation by DDA (or some other mechanism). And fourth, the
> > "theological reasons" for believing (1) are (in my view) *not* good reasons for believing
> > (1). Redemptive history is filled with events that appear to involve DDA; and they don't
> > appear to be "possibly a few miraculous exceptions". If humans have an immaterial part,
> > then must we assume that God gives it to us and regenerates us solely by natural processes
> > and without DDA? Is all of God's spiritual activity with respect to humans limited to
> > natural processes? And if angels and/or demons are in any way involved in the events of the
> > world today, it seems quite silly to assume that they are not permitted to perform any acts
> > which cannot be explained in terms of natural processes. Moreover, your statement assumes
> > that most of God's acts are the one's He performs through natural processes. How could you
> > possibly know that? When God loves Himself, is that act done through a natural process or is
> > it a "miraculous exception"? Since the correct answer is 'neither', the claim that there are
> > good theological reasons for believing (1) is simply false.
>
> Most people have some sense of what "few" means. If you prefer, "except for a
> set of measure zero." & of course I am referring to God's actions ad extra since that
> has been the whole subject of discussion. Beyond nitpicking, the only point that you
> make is that you don't like the theology of the cross.
Unfortunately "few" is a wax nose that can be twisted to accommodate or exclude whatever one's pet
theory happens to entail. In my discipline (philosophy), such an ambiguous and subjective term is
not acceptable in the construction of an informative or normative proposition. You may call my
demands for precision and carefulness "nitpicky" if you wish, but when you publicly criticize a
position as you did, you have to be prepared to defend it, and take responsibility for whatever
imprecision or error it carries. Furthermore, in regard to your claim that my point is that "I
don't like the theology the cross", you will notice that none of my criticisms above say anything
about my "likes" or "dislikes" of the theology of the cross. In my discipline, likes and dislikes
are not permissible sources of premises. If a syllogism is sound, then I must accept its
conclusion whether I like it or not. I presented four pieces of evidence showing why your claim
above was incorrect; I did not do this by presenting my likes and dislikes. You have responded to
at least some of this evidence by presuming to know, and implicitly criticizing, my personal
dispositions, not by refuting the evidence. And that is clearly an ad hominem. I hope that the
standards of courtesy and professionalism on this list do not include the condoning of ad
hominems.
> > > Concerning Genesis 1, I certainly do not think that the language about the earth
> > > & waters bringing forth life teaches a specific mechanism of the chemical evolution of
> > > life. (Nobody who accepts evolution, e.g., imagines that animals sprang directly out of
> > > the ground.) It does, however, point very strongly toward the earth & waters being able
> > > to bring forth life in accord with God's will. The point can be made more strongly if
> > > we look at the Hebrew. The verb in 1:11, "Let the earth put forth..." is tadhshe' &
> > > that in 1:24, "Let the earth bring forth ..." is totse'. Both are the Hiph`il, or
> > > active causative form, of the of the corresponding verb, & thus mean that the earth is
> > > to cause plants and animals to come forth. (1:20 is not so specific. The verb is in
> > > the Qal & means simply "Let the waters swarm ...".) Thus the text seems to say that the
> > > earth is a genuine secondary cause of living things.
> >
> > If only exegesis were that simple. The exegete must not neglect discourse sensitivity and
> > communicative intent. The Hiph'il does not trump the genre. If the author is making use of
> > phenomenological language, then it would be an exegetical mistake to claim that these verses
> > mean that earth is the efficient (as opposed to material) cause of the formation of plants
> > and animals. In fact, there are good reasons for believing that phenomenological language is
> > being used here. It has been a while since I read it, but I believe that Bruce Waltke's
> > article, "The literary genre of Genesis, chapter one" [Crux 27:4 (December 1991), 2-10]
> > discusses this.
>
> I reluctantly come to agree with what Dave Siemens posted a week or so ago, that
> it's a waste of time to try to carry on a discussion with you.
This is another ad hominem. The evidence I presented stands unacknowledged, unchallenged, and
unrefuted.
- Bryan
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jul 19 2000 - 23:36:00 EDT