Re: Concordist sequence--why be a concordist?

Date: Tue Jun 24 2003 - 20:52:24 EDT

  • Next message: Steve Bishop: "Re: Concordist sequence--why be a concordist?"

    In a message dated 6/24/03 8:14:28 AM Mountain Standard Time, writes:


    << I think these answer entirely or partially all of Howard's questions except
     the first one. As for that one, the answer is all over the place in the
     concordist tradition since Bacon and Galileo in the early 17th century.
     "Obviously," they would have told Howard, "the book of nature and the book
     of scripture have the same author. Therefore they must agree, when rightly
     interpreted." Indeed, although I am not a concordist myself, I think this
     is probably the *strongest* reason one can give in support of *any* general
     attitude/approach toward science and theology--namely, ,the assumption that
     truth is one and has a single ultimate source.
     ted >>

    Perhaps this has been answered before on the list, but when was the "two
    books" analogy first used? As Ted points out, it's obviously in Bacon and Galileo
    but did it originate in late medieval or early modern Scholasticism? What
    were the historical/theological circumstances that prompted its introduction?
    Are there patristic sources?

    Karl V. Evans

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Jun 24 2003 - 20:53:01 EDT