Re: Concordist sequence--why be a concordist?

From: Jim Armstrong (
Date: Wed Jun 25 2003 - 11:41:51 EDT

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

    George - this "difficulty" in order of reading seems to be in tension with,
    "For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities-his
    eternal power and divine nature-have been clearly seen, being understood
    from what has been made, so that men are without excuse." Rom 1:20 (NIV).
    Comment? Jim Armstrong

    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 - 11:41:56 EDT