scholarly journals A ‘transversal’ dialogue with Wentzel van Huyssteen’s theological approach

2021 ◽  
Vol 42 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Klaus Nürnberger
Keyword(s):  
Cultural Anthropology ◽  
Natural Sciences ◽  
Eternal Life ◽  
Christian Faith ◽  
The Bible ◽  
Theology And Science ◽  
Human Uniqueness ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Science And Theology ◽  
Vantage Points

In this essay, I compared notes with Wentzel van Huyssteen, one of the most prominent theologians in the science–religion discussion. I followed the topics dealt with in a casual interview with Frits Gaum, in which Van Huyssteen responded to set questions: on his academic journey, God, the Bible, creation and evolution, human uniqueness, original sin, eternal life, Jesus and the relation between faith and research. Whilst there was considerable consensus between us in most respects, I would change the focus from an ‘apologetic’ agenda (science and theology were describing the same world from equally valid vantage points using comparable rationalities) to a ‘missionary’ agenda (making the Christian faith more accessible to scientists by following the approach of ‘experiential realism’). Science confined its operations to different aspects of the reality that was accessible to human observation, explanation and manipulation, whilst theology concentrated on our relation to the transcendent Source and Destiny of all of reality. To make sense to a scientist, theology must shun unsupported postulates and speculations and confront the scientist with the basic alternative of claiming to be the ultimate authority over the immanent world (presuming to be the owner, master and beneficiary of reality) and being derived from, and responsible to, the ultimate Source and Destiny of reality. The confusion between immanent transcendence (aspects of immanent reality that were not accessible to our observation, explanation and manipulation) and transcendent immanence (immanent reality as a whole was open towards a higher Source and Destiny) bedeviled the interface between science and faith. Science challenged theology to provide experiential evidence; theology challenged science to be responsible to ultimate authority.Intradisciplinary and/or interdisciplinary implications: Both Wentzel van Huyssteen and I have worked consistently on an interdisciplinary basis. However, whilst Wentzel focused strongly on the natural sciences, I spent most of my time on the relation between the Christian faith and the human sciences (economics, ecology, cultural anthropology, politics, etc.) and concentrated on the natural sciences only after my retirement. In my essay, I highlighted the difference between trying to demonstrate the comparability and compatibility between theology and science on the one hand and highlighting the challenge that science posed to faith and faith posed to science on the other hand.

scholarly journals Shaping eschatology within science and theology

2007 ◽  
Vol 28 (1) ◽  
pp. 191-206
Author(s):  
M Pretorius
Keyword(s):  
Common Ground ◽  
Eternal Life ◽  
The Bible ◽  
Theology And Science ◽  
Reign Of God ◽  
Science And Theology ◽  
Relationship Of ◽  
The Relationship

Traditionally, questions about  the reign of God, death and resurrection, God’ s judgment and eternal life, have belonged to eschatology, specifically as presented by Biblical scholars. At times, when eschatology has become a topic of debate, it has unfortunately, resulted in accusations and acrimony among scholars. Yet, the Bible is clear about what the end entails; whether that is towards the believer or non-believer. Furthermore, the relationship of theology and science on eschatology has hardly been a topic of discussion. However, in recent times, there have been serious attempts by modern scholars to find common ground between these two seemingly diverse disciplines when it comes to eschatology.

Principles of Salvation undertaken according to Bible

2021 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 20-36
Author(s):  
Agustinus Faot ◽  
Jonathan Octavianus ◽  
Connie Laurina
Keyword(s):  
Christian Faith ◽  
The Bible ◽  
God's People ◽  
The World ◽  
The Difference

Various polemics about the concept of salvation confuse God's people. The polemic intended is the difference in understanding of what salvation that can be or cannot be achieved. The problems are not only issues in the world of theology but are also developing in churches in Indonesia. So the concept of salvation developed no longer lies in the Bible but lies in the dogmatics of each church. It must be realized that the Christian faith stands on the basis of the Bible, so the Bible must answer every doctrinal problem. Therefore in this article will provide answers to the polemics of the concept of salvation according to the Bible. This research uses exegesis methodology. The main purpose of this writing is to convince God's people to understand the Bible comprehensively and to understand every concept of Salvation subjectively. 

History and future of life on Earth - a synthesis of natural science and theology

DIALOGO ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 233-251
Author(s):  
Andreas May
Keyword(s):  
Natural Sciences ◽  
Christian Faith ◽  
The Earth ◽  
Modern Natural ◽  
History Of ◽  
Science And Theology ◽  
Life On Earth ◽  
Different Cultures ◽  
The Universe ◽  
Intelligent Life

"A synthesis of research results of modern natural sciences and fundamental statements of the Christian faith is attempted. The creation of the universe is addressed. Four important events in the history of the Earth as well as the diversity of living beings are shortly discussed. There are good reasons to believe that the universe was created by a transcendent superior being, which we call God, and that this superior being intervened in evolution and Earth history to promote the development of intelligent life. Furthermore, it can be concluded that intelligent life is very rare in the universe. This is the explanation for the “Fermi paradox”. Intelligent life on planet Earth has cosmic significance. The overabundance of this universe inspires the hope for participating in the fulfilled eternity of the Creator in transcendence. Prehistoric humans had long had hope for life after biological death. While scientific speculation about the end of the universe prophesies scenarios of destruction, the Christian faith says that humanity is destined to be united with Jesus Christ. Furthermore, all evolution will be completed with the Creator in transcendence. Then the whole of creation will “obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God”. From the first primitive living cell, an abundance of the most diverse living beings has evolved. Comparably, humanity has differentiated into a plethora of different cultures. This entire abundance will find its unification and fulfilment in transcendence with the Creator of the universe, without its diversity being erased."

scholarly journals Om Grundtvigs historiesyn

1965 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
pp. 49-54
Author(s):  
William Michelsen
Keyword(s):  
World History ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
Eternal Life ◽  
Christian Faith ◽  
Whole Body ◽  
The Bible ◽  
Biblical History ◽  
Historical Writings ◽  
Historical Truth ◽  
To Receive

On Grundtvigs View of History By William Michelsen. What gave rise to this article was the chapter “Verdenshistorie” in dr. Kaj Thaning’s thesis Menneske først—where, in a note, it has been demonstrated that an anecdote about the old Grundtvig, taken from an article by dr. Holger Kjær, has ben inaccurately reproduced in my thesis Tilblivelsen af Grundtvigs historiesyn, p. 43. Sources older than dr. Kjær’s show that on the occasion in question Grundtvig did not speak of world history but of biblical history; dr. Thaning has emphasized the fact that Grundtvig did not use the expression “genfødt” (reborn) but only said that man was destined to receive regeneration and eternal life.— I agree that the latter distinction is essential, from his point of view; from mine it is irrelevant, because both expressions indicate that Grundtvig’s view of history was biblical; the former distinction is relevant, however, inasmuch as the anecdote cannot be used to show that Grundtvig’s view of world history was biblical. But that it was biblical can be attested by many other examples. And since in the periodical Danske Udsyn, 1964, Thaning has made this hypothesis from the introduction to my thesis a direct object of attack, a series of new quotations from Haandbog i Verdens-Historien are adduced in support of it (U S VI, p. 558, 563-64; VII, p. 379-80 and 703). I agree with Thaning that not until 1832 ff. did Grundtvig consider being a man a condition of being a Christian. But I maintain that already in 1810 he protested against any form of “ gnosticism” (U S II, p. 12). The consequences of this protest, however, dawned upon him only very slowly. Accordingly the subtitle of Thaning’s thesis “Grundtvigs opgør med sig selv” (the heart-searchings of Grundtvig) covers the whole body of his work from 1810 onwards. In my opinion it was Luther who directed Grundtvig away from “ gnosticism” by teaching him to regard the Bible as historical truth. Although the demonstrative emphasis on this point recedes into the background in Haandbog i Verdens-Historien (1833 ff.), it is nevertheless unmistakably there. According to my thesis and its sequel (Den sælsomme forvandling i N. F. S. Grundtvigs liv (1956)) there are two quite distinct reasons for this: 1) All writing of history is conditioned by a minimum of belief in the sources used, including the Bible; and Grundtvig knew this. 2) Grundtvig the historian neither can nor will conceal his Christian faith. From a non-theological viewpoint— that of the historian of ideas—Grundtvig can not, as Thaning maintains, be said to “ sækularisere sit historiesyn” (securalize his view of history) after 1832. I assert that Grundtvig’s personal outlook on life makes itself felt also in his secular historical writings. Already in 1813 Grundtvig had begun to work out a philosophical foundation for his reflections on “Menneskets Vilkaar” (the conditions of man) (see Værker i Udvalg II and Nordisk tidskrift (1946)). He published some of his thoughts on the matter in the periodical Danne-Virke 1816-19. Interesting preparatory studies exist among his manuscripts. A confrontation of these thoughts with those of the mature Grundtvig of 1832 ff. has not yet been undertaken.

Religion and science

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nancey Murphy
Keyword(s):  
Twentieth Century ◽  
Immanuel Kant ◽  
Modern Science ◽  
Natural World ◽  
Science And Religion ◽  
The Bible ◽  
Theology And Science ◽  
Age Of The Universe ◽  
Science And Theology ◽  
Doctrine Of Creation

Philosophical discussion of the relation between modern science and religion has tended to focus on Christianity, because of its dominance in the West. The relations between science and Christianity have been too complex to be described by the ‘warfare’ model popularized by A.D. White (1896) and J.W. Draper (1874). An adequate account of the past two centuries requires a distinction between conservative and liberal positions. Conservative Christians tend to see theology and science as partially intersecting bodies of knowledge. God is revealed in ‘two books’: the Bible and nature. Ideally, science and theology ought to present a single, consistent account of reality; but in fact there have been instances where the results of science have (apparently) contradicted Scripture, in particular with regard to the age of the universe and the origin of the human species. Liberals tend to see science and religion as complementary but non-interacting, as having concerns so different as to make conflict impossible. This approach can be traced to Immanuel Kant, who distinguished sharply between pure reason (science) and practical reason (morality). More recent versions contrast science, which deals with the what and how of the natural world, and religion, which deals with meaning, or contrast science and religion as employing distinct languages. However, since the 1960s a growing number of scholars with liberal theological leanings have taken an interest in science and have denied that the two disciplines can be isolated from one another. Topics within science that offer fruitful points for dialogue with theology include Big-Bang cosmology and its possible implications for the doctrine of creation, the ‘fine-tuning’ of the cosmological constants and the possible implications of this for design arguments, and evolution and genetics, with their implications for a new understanding of the human individual. Perhaps of greater import are the indirect relations between science and theology. Newtonian physics fostered an understanding of the natural world as strictly determined by natural laws; this in turn had serious consequences for understanding divine action and human freedom. Twentieth-century developments such as quantum physics and chaos theory call for a revised view of causation. Advances in the philosophy of science in the second half of the twentieth century provide a much more sophisticated account of knowledge than was available earlier, and this has important implications for methods of argument in theology.

scholarly journals Review of: Science and the Christian Faith: A Guide for the Perplexed. New York: St Vladimir’s Seminary Press Yonkers, 2020 (Foundation Series). 232 p. ISBN-978-088141-671-8

2021 ◽  
pp. 375-388
Author(s):  
Дмитрий Кирьянов
Keyword(s):  
New York ◽  
Science And Religion ◽  
Christian Faith ◽  
Academic Field ◽  
Theology And Science ◽  
Orthodox Theology ◽  
Science And Theology ◽  
The Many ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Science And Faith

Вопросы взаимоотношения науки и религии уже много лет находятся в центре внимания учёных, богословов и философов. Среди множества книг, посвящённых дискуссиям о взаимоотношении науки и веры, встречается не так много работ, написанных православными богословами. Книга британского православного священника и одного из ведущих учёных в области диалога православного богословия и науки Кристофера Найта «Наука и христианская вера: руководство для сомневающихся» представляет особый интерес, поскольку написана человеком, который, как и многие учёные в академической области «наука и религия» обладает естественнонаучным и богословским образованием. The relationship between science and religion has been the focus of scholars, theologians and philosophers for many years. Among the many books devoted to the debate on the relationship between science and faith, there are not many works written by Orthodox theologians. Christopher Knight, a British Orthodox priest and one of the leading scholars in the field of dialogue between Orthodox theology and science, Science and Christian Faith: A Guide for the Doubting, is of particular interest because it is written by someone who, like many scholars in the academic field of "science and religion", has a background in science and theology.

Studi Eksegetis Yohanes 1:1-18 Sebagai Apologetik Terhadap Kristologi Saksi Yehuwa

2016 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 1-41
Author(s):  
Pangeran Manurung
Keyword(s):  
Striking Difference ◽  
Human Being ◽  
John 1 ◽  
Jehovah’S Witnesses ◽  
Jehovah's Witnesses ◽  
Jehovah's Witness ◽  
Search Results ◽  
The Bible ◽  
God The Father ◽  
The Difference

Eksegesa John 1 : 1-18 shows that the Jehovah's Witness teachings deviate from the truth of the Bible and dangerous for Christians . The danger Christology of Jehovah's Witnesses should be bringing us to the prudence and discretion to reject it . It can be said that Jehovah's Witnesses do not include Christianity in accordance with the search results against their teachings . first ; they do not recognize the Bible that has been issued by the Indonesian National Bible Institute and consider if the Bible has too much harm to use their own New Translation of the Holy Scriptures that have been proven not a translation , but just a collection of interpretations and teachings of their leader alone . second ; Jehovah's Witnesses do not acknowledge Jesus as Lord and Savior only . They simply believe that salvation is obtained through belief in Jehovah and his kingdom and perform service message and follow the trial associations .                Before errors interfere Christology Christology of Jehovah's Witnesses Bible , please note that the topic of Christology is the difference between Christianity and other religions . This discussion has also become one of the topics that face many attacks from the outside or from within Christianity , either in the form of religion , philosophy , and ideology . The debate on this topic appeared since the beginning of Christianity , and give rise to a long and complex debate for nearly three centuries ( 300 years ) !! . Such debates will continue to exist throughout the period and just a rehash issues that had once appeared . And Christians should study the various debates and views of the ever emerging that are not easily fooled by the views back to this era .Eksegesa John 1 : 1-18 has been done and produce a biblical Christology and biblical correct . The truth is not in doubt because of the analysis conducted in accordance with the procedures and rules that apply in general . Now if Christology Christology of John compared with Jehovah's Witnesses, it will show a striking difference . Once observed , Christology Witnesses builds upon the interpretation of individuals who previously have had a negative Christological doctrine .                Conclusion those who think that Jesus is the firstborn of Creation ; Jesus was a human being ; Jesus is God in creating a peer ; Jesus lower than God , Jesus is the Angel Gabriel , and other Christological doctrine which basically degrading nature of Christ is a form of insult to the majesty of Christ . The Bible clearly and emphatically teaches that Christ is God incarnate , private alpha and omega , the creator of all that exists , and the equivalent of God the Father . Summing Christ as superior human or clear eldest creation is false teachings . The followers of Jehovah's Witnesses must repent. Amen

The End of the Word as We Know It

2012 ◽  
Vol 6 (1-3) ◽  
pp. 165-184
Author(s):  
Timothy Beal
Keyword(s):  
Cultural Meanings ◽  
Cultural Icon ◽  
The Bible ◽  
Material Objectivity ◽  
The Difference ◽  
The Relationship

This essay attends to a distinction that requires closer examination and theorization in our discourse on iconic books and other scriptures: the difference between iconic object and cultural icon. How do we conceive of relations between the particular, ritualized iconicities of particular scriptures in particular religious contexts and the cultural iconicities of scriptures in general, such as “the Bible” or “the Quran,” whose visual and material objectivity is highly ambiguous? How if at all are the iconic cultural meanings of the ideas of such books related to the particular iconic textual objects more or less instantiate them? These questions are explored through particular focus on the relationship between the particular iconicities of particular print Bibles, as iconic objects, and the general iconicity of the cultural icon of the Bible.

Defending the Difference

2017 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Natural Sciences ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
True Nature ◽  
Natural Entities ◽  
The Social ◽  
The World ◽  
Methodological Difference ◽  
The Difference ◽  
The One

Dreyfus argues that there is a basic methodological difference between the natural sciences and the social sciences, a difference that derives from the different goals and practices of each. He goes on to argue that being a realist about natural entities is compatible with pluralism or, as he calls it, “plural realism.” If intelligibility is always grounded in our practices, Dreyfus points out, then there is no point of view from which one can ask about or provide an answer to the one true nature of ultimate reality. But that is consistent with believing that the natural sciences can still reveal the way the world is independent of our theories and practices.

A DEFENSE OF THE CAROLINGIAN “DEFENSE OF MEDICINE”: INTRODUCTION, TRANSLATION, AND NOTES

Traditio ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 75 ◽  
pp. 87-125
Author(s):  
JOEL L. GAMBLE
Keyword(s):  
Content Analysis ◽  
English Translation ◽  
Natural Sciences ◽  
History Of Ideas ◽  
Christian Faith ◽  
Medical Texts ◽  
The Poor ◽  
Imitation Of Christ ◽  
History Of ◽  
As If

The “Defense of Medicine” prefaces the Codex Bambergensis Medicinalis 1, a Carolingian collection of medical texts. Some scholars have dismissed the Defense as an incoherent patchwork of quotations. Yet, missing from the literature is an adequate assessment of the Defense's arguments. This present study includes the first English translation accompanied by a complete source commentary, a prerequisite for valid content analysis. When read systematically and with attention to the author's use of sources, the Defense is limpid and cogent. Its first purpose is to defend the compatibility of Christian faith and secular medicine. Key propositions include the following: God made nature good, so the natural sciences are reconcilable with divine learning; scripture respects medicine; God expects the sick to avail of physicians and deserves honor for healings done through physicians. Counter-arguments used by the Defense's opponents, who rejected medicine on principle, can also be reconstructed from the text. Two further purposes of the Defense have hitherto been explored insufficiently. After justifying medicine, the Defense addresses sick patients. It encourages them that illness can be spiritually healthful, an instrument for curing their souls. The Defense then addresses caregivers. It tells them why they should succor the sick, even the poor: not for gain or fame, but in imitation of Christ and as if treating Christ himself, whose image the sick bear. The Defense thus contributes to the history of ideas on medicine, health, sickness, and the ethics of altruistic care.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document