Re: metaphors

Bill Dozier (
Thu, 10 Oct 1996 14:41:25 -0400

Regarding metaphors, Paul Arveson wrote:

> Dr. James Houston, in "I Believe in the Creator" emphasized that all our
> metaphors for the Creator: as Maker, King, Designer, etc. all fall short
>of an
> adequate or consistent description. The whole approach is hopeless, because
> creation and providence -- the relationship between the transcendent God and
> physical nature -- is a total mystery.

Yes, and the attempt to remove mystery from Christianity is a wrong-headed
enterprise. We can all recall attempted explanations of, for example the
Incarnation (the various "kenosis" theories) and other mysteries of the
faith. They all fall flat for me. Perhaps as Dr. Godbold suggests, it is an
aspect of our rationalistic age.

> It's true, as Romans 1 says, that some evidence for God can be seen
> in nature, but this is a general, universal, intuitive sense that is
> to everyone at all times, not just to modern scientists. Romans 1 is
> not a mandate for the development of natural theology.

Gee, I've always thought it was, unless you mean by natural theology a
total systematic theology based on the revelation of nature alone.