Re: Mathematics and Physics from Genesis to Revelation

From: george murphy (gmurphy@raex.com)
Date: Thu Feb 08 2001 - 09:16:29 EST

  • Next message: george murphy: "Re: A NT doctrine of creation (was canon within the canon)"

    "M.B.Roberts" wrote:

    > Seriously, is this a joke? If not see my comments interspersed in capitals
    > ----- Original Message -----
    > From: "Jon Runge" <integer@crosswalkmail.com>
    > To: <asa@calvin.edu>
    > Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2001 12:33 PM
    > Subject: MATH: Mathematics and Physics from Genesis to Revelation

    .........................................................................

            I agree with Michael's criticisms of the original post. But some
    comments on "reason" and its relationship to sin & theology (which aren't
    identical :)) may be helpful.
            There is no justification from Genesis for believing that the first
    humans were "perfect", either in their reasoning abilities or in anything other
    that a _potential_ for not sinning (_posse non peccare_)
    (& even the latter is a theological deduction rather than a direct statement of
    scripture).
            It has usually been held in the Christian tradition that sin does indeed
    affect our use of reason. Luther seems to be a strong exponent of this view
    with statements such as that reason is "the devil's whore" &c. Several things
    are important for understanding this.
            1) When Luther spoke of "reason" he often meant Aristotle - &
    specifically, what he saw as the undue influence influence of Aristotle on
    medieval theology. He did not object to the use of "reason" in theology but
    insisted that it had to serve revelation & not be its master. Reason must have
    a ministerial, not a magisterial, role in theology. "He who wishes to
    theologize with Aristotle must first become thoroughly a fool for Christ."
            2) The problems which "reason" or "philosophy" can introduce into
    theology do not have to do with _logic_ in the strict sense but with the
    presuppositions which philosophy may attempt to impose on theology. E.g., if
    one starts with traditional philosophical assumptions about God which preclude
    genuine incarnation then of course the doctrine of the Incarnation is
    incoherent. That is not the fault of the logic, however, but of the assumptions
    with which the logic works.

    Shalom,

    George



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Feb 08 2001 - 09:13:47 EST