Re: Concordist sequence--why be a concordist?

From: Graham E. Morbey (
Date: Wed Jun 25 2003 - 10:40:40 EDT

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

    My concern with the two books notion is that each book begins to take on
    a life of its own and a language and tradition develops over time that
    seems to make claims about each book not supported by the books
    themselves. An heuristic device becomes an iron clad dogma! Notice that
    the Belgic Confession article2 says that creation is like a beautiful
    book (ie. in certain respects) and that the Bible (his holy and divine
    Word which is much more like a book) makes God's self known to us more
    openly.... It seems to me, that the language of the Confession allows
    for some overlapping of the two books. On this score it seems that
    George's "ordering " of the books might be a fruit of tradition's
    hardening of a good analogy. He may be using the ordering to preserve a
    kind of Lutheran? Christocentrism that down plays to some extent the
    reformed doctrine of Creation. By starting with redemption, creation may
    lose some of its doctrinal power and meaning. Creation is so loved by
    the Creator that it shares fully in Christ's redemption.

    A fine book for the list members to consider is PROCLAIM THE WONDER:
    Engaging Science on Sunday by Scott E. Hoezee, published recently by
    Baker Books. "This world belongs to God, and the pulpit is a crucial
    vehicle for celebrating science's contribution to the understanding of
    This from the back cover.


    George Murphy wrote:

    > wrote:
    >>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?
    > Several Christian sources have been noted by others. Related ideas are also
    >part of the Jewish tradition. E.g., Rabbi Judah Halevi thought of the universe as
    >/sefer/, "text". A discussion of his (& other) ideas is in Barry Kogan, "Judaism and
    >Contemporary Scientific Cosmology - Redesigning the Design Argument" in David Novak and
    >Norbert Samuelson (eds.), _Creation and the End of Days_ (University Press of America,
    > But Halevi also shows one of the pitfalls of the 2 books metaphor, the idea that
    >the "book of nature" is to be read _before_ the "book of scripture." He made use of the
    >tradition that Abraham engaged in astronomical studies, and that only after this
    >received the call described in Genesis 12. But there is absolutely no biblical support
    >for this notion. The citations of Tertullian by Bob Schneider and of the Belgic
    >Confession by Graham Morbey display the same problem. It is a problem because, inter
    >alia, it usually results in having to shoehorn distinctively biblical concepts of God
    >(Incarnation and Trinity) into a unitarian deity supposedly learned of from nature.
    > The difficulty is not with the 2 books idea itself but with the order in which
    >they are read. The book of scripture needs to be read before the book of nature (in
    >order to do theology - not science). In addition, the "book of scripture" should be
    >understood as witness to God's fundamental revelation, not that revelation itself.
    > Shalom,
    > George
    >George L. Murphy

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Jun 25 2003 - 10:42:15 EDT