Re: Strange Bedfellows, Atheism and Naturaistic Theism

From: Howard J. Van Till (
Date: Tue Sep 16 2003 - 09:21:20 EDT

  • Next message: Walter Hicks: "Re: Evolution and Salvation"

    >From: "Terry M. Gray" <>

    > I'm not ready to cut my theology loose from the
    > "ancient authoritative text" and consequently if scripture leads me
    > to an antinomy then I accept it.

    I know that well. I was quite certain you would say that.

    > As you have noted, the idea of antinomy is not all that unusual in
    > Christian theology. The doctrines of the Trinity and the fully
    > divine/fully human Jesus Christ come to mind here. In the past such
    > rejection of antinomy has often led to forms of Unitarianism and
    > Arianism. How does your theological method that "discourages this
    > kind of both/and proposition" deal with these doctrines?

    It treats them as very interesting and clever theological constructions --
    thoroughly human attempts to deal with the ecclesiastical/political issues
    at stake in the historical circumstances in which they were forged.

    > I'm not trying to "slippery-slope" this discussion here, but
    > wondering if your method cuts through and through.

    Yes, I place the value of consistency and coherence fairly high.

    Howard Van Till

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Sep 16 2003 - 09:24:17 EDT