Re: Response to: What does the creation lack?

From: Mccarrick Alan D CRPH (MccarrickAD@nswccd.navy.mil)
Date: Tue Dec 11 2001 - 08:38:58 EST

  • Next message: RDehaan237@aol.com: "Re: God acting in creation #4"

    Howard wrote:
    >My question has been, Why limit the "data" of theology to the biblical text alone?
    > I'm eager for theology to be a vital and contemporary discipline that is as relevant to
    >the continuing human experience as are the sciences. Why treat God as essentially silent >
    >(non-revelatory) since the Church chose to close the canon?

    I feel that this is a dangerous position to take (at least for Protestants). The Roman and Orthodox churches accept (I believe) that God continues to reveal truth through the succession of Apostolic authority that resides in the highest leadership of the church. The Protestant position has been (I believe) that no further Revelation (capital "R") occurs beyond the scriptures. Now I realize that exactly what constitutes the "scriptures" is a little fuzzy, but that is not the same as being completely nebulous. Criteria such as apostolic or prophetic authorship or close association (Mark, Luke, Jude), acceptance by the Hebrew communities and early church...

    What we think or speculate about God's nature and purposes are interesting and perhaps inspiring, but are somewhat irrelevant since God has revealed much (to use Schaeffer's terms - true but not exhaustive) knowledge about himself.

    Discoveries about the nature of the world and its history as well as man and his brain function certainly help us to interpret or re-interpret the scriptures a little, but great care must be exercised.

    I suspect that George leans in this direction from his criticisms of "Natural Theology."

    Al McCarrick



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Dec 11 2001 - 08:39:06 EST