This section of posting is reserved for comments relating to Cosmic Revelation and Science. Please post accordingly.
21 comments:
Anonymous
said...
Throughout my studies I have often been fustrated with a certain scholarly view that suggests that Scripture should be tested by scientific means before it can be trusted. The scholarly work surrounding the Exodus event is a prime example. Outside of the Bible there is no record of the Exodus of the Nation of Israel from Egypt, yet, scholars insist upon changing the account of the Exodus to fit their various theories. It was refreshing to read from Dr. Hanna's book that there are those who want to let the Bible speak for itself. As I read through chapter three of his book, The Cosmic Christ of Scripture, I found myself in complete harmony with his "wholistic" approach. Why believe in an event (ex. the Exodus) and not believe in the account of the event? In studying this event (and others) I believe more would be gained if they took Dr. Hanna's suggestion and let the results of archaeology (a physical part of the cosmos) interact with the Scriptural account (a part of inspiration) as it is revealed in the person of God (Christ). Any study of Scripture or any event within the Bible that is not studied with the presupposition that God is very real and very personnal is doomed to ultimately fail to explain the events adiquately. The Bible must form the base of study (the ultimate authority - since it is from the Bible that the event is taken) and from there the study must grow. However, the Scriptures cannot form such a base without the scholar connecting with the God of the Scripture. 9/06/2006 11:26 PM
As Dr. Hanna said to us in a class, chapter one is all there is to it. The rest of the chapters are explaining the model proposed in chapter one. Some comments on this chapter.
The main theme as I grasped it reading, is that God is revealing Himself through not only Scripture but also through nature (cosmos) and Christ. Through Christ is for Christians quite easy to understand. But through nature? That is sounding like new age; would some Christians say.
Indeed New Age is focusing on nature as a god in itself and has all kinds of "doctrines" regarding this idea. How can we then distinguish between the New Age idea's (like pantheism) and the holistic model proposed by dr. Hanna? What is the difference that makes it different?
The major difference is, as I understand dr. Hanna correctly, that altough nature is revealing God it is not god in itself. Besides that, nature is not the only book. The Bible is a book. Christ is a book. All the revelations in nature are to be 'tested' by the rule of faith, the Bible. Which is in essence what New Age is turning away from.
The question however remains, how is God then revealed through nature? How is God revealed in, for example, a tree?
When we take a closer look at a tree in its life span it learns us a great deal about many things. We can see a small tree groing up; just as we grow more mature in faith. It is going step by step. We don't have to be giants in faith at once.
When we look at a tree in the seasons we see a tree loosing its leaves in the fall, it seems to die. But in the spring the tree comes back to life again through the power of God. In this we can find hope. Altough this world, our personal life or anything else may seemingly die, God can bring it to life again.
With looking at nature this way, we can learn a great deal more about God and what He wants to do for us. In this way, getting to know the book of nature better, with the purpose of understanding God better, will be a great blessing. 9/28/2006 3:15 PM
In the book, The Cosmic Christ of Scripture, Dr. Martin Hanna suggests first that God has three books. Before I even got to the point of understanding how to read those three books, I was surprised to know that there were three. I have spent the better part of my life knowing of and learning from two, 1) Incarnation – Christ, and 2) Inspiration – Scripture. To now understand the third, the Book of Creation – is a new concept for me. I am a city girl; about the most nature I ever experienced was riding my bike through the park, or the occasional trip to the beach – which wasn’t that often. So to understand that the third book is Creation – I had to change my entire mindset.
In understanding that God reveals Himself through creation, I took first to understanding how to read that book – since it was the newest to me. Therefore, I breached etiquette, and jumped to part IV, to understand more about this topic. The one theme that supported the idea that the Book of Creation is the God’s third book comes from chapter 10 where Ellen White is quoted, “God’s ‘law is written by his own finger upon every nerve, every muscle, every fiber of our being, upon every faculty which has been intrusted to man.’” (p. 117). This struck a major chord for me having dealt with my father’s eye surgery. I learned more about the human eye than I ever wanted to know. It is through that CREATION, that I know it is a lesser book pointing to the greater books. For those who say that science disproves the existence of an intelligent being, clearly they never used the study of the human body as their defense. While God is too big for our limited technology to explain, clearly in studying nature, especially the intricacies of even the human body – one can see that through CREATION, God speaks.
Study the human eye and you will learn that it can focus faster than any camera shutter. It can withstand contact lenses without difficulty, yet an eyelash will cause great pain. The tissues, cells, blood vessels, and nerves of the human eye are more complex than any human telescope, camera, or digital video equipment, and it has never been equaled by human invention. Creation stands as a testimony to the Cosmic Christ of Scripture, and scripture states, “All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.” (John 1:3). Now, I understand God’s third book and more importantly its significance! Selah!
I think that Dr. Hanna does a wonderful job by his explanation of true and false science. I really never looked at science in the context as being studied by some of the Bible characters, such as Daniel and his friends. This chapter helped me farther understand that if science is studied in its true nature that it will lead those who study it to come to a conslusion that there is a true God and that He designed all. Usually, the scientist who tries to deny that God exists do so from a study of the science (gnosis) that the Bible warns us against. Only the sciences that are studied to try to find the truth will lead to a discovery of God. As Dr. Hanna pointed out in his book "The Cosmic Christ of Scripture," true science is related to salvation and will give one who studies it more wisdom and knowledge. The Bible teaches that any science studied in the right light will prove that there is a Divine Being. It teaches in Psalm 19 that the cosmos and all things that exists declares of God's glory. Since false science was existing in Paul's day we should expect for it to be more rampant now than ever; however, the question is what are we to do? I believe that we should seek to study to true science and stay away from the evolutionary sciences. It may be true that we should know something about these sciences but let's study more of the true sciences. In this way, we can identify the false sciences. As Christains we should think approach science wholestically by studying it with the model that Dr. Hanna proposes. In this way, we will be driven into a pathway that will lead us to God.
In Hanna’s model, the Scriptures are supposed to have “epistemological primacy,” and the cosmos are to have “axiological primacy.” The definitions of these two terms that Hanna seems to be working with are the following: Epistemological primacy answers the question—“How do we know the nature of reality?” And Axiological primacy answers the question—“What difference does it make?”
I’m wondering how much primacy the cosmos really have. If we also look to the Bible for how science (Daniel and friends), and history (Gen. 1, 2) play out in our cosmos, then is it really giving the cosmos axiological primacy? In class, Hanna once said, in talking about the primacy of the cosmos (and I’m paraphrasing): The reason we know if something isn’t true is if it doesn’t happen, then we have to go back and reassess our reading of the nature of reality. Wouldn’t some recent scientific/historical study (that have shown how some things “haven’t happened” as the Bible said) be reason to “go back and reassess our reading of the nature of reality,” thus, giving the cosmos axiological primacy? Where is the line? Are we really giving the cosmos axiological primacy if we are looking to Scripture to serve as a science and history textbook? Is this how the authors intended Scripture to be read for the original (pre-modern) readers? Is this how God wants us to read our sacred, inspired texts? Just trying to grasp how the primacy of the cosmos actually plays out . . . Geoffrey Blake
I found Dr. Hanna’s perspective on the roles of science and scripture to be noteworthy. It gave me the theology perspective of the matter: Science is to be subjected to the Word of God and not the Word of God subjected to science and it reveals wonderful things about the creativity of our God.
In my undergraduate experience, I had the privilege to study a couple of the sciences. Being a Christian, you can’t help but see God’s handy work when you study His creation. When you look at the chemical reactions that take place inside our bodies and in other living organisms, or look at the tiny world of quantum physics, you can’t help but marvel and know that there was a Master Creator who loves order. Without God, there is no way in the universe that such complex systems could have just appeared.
Something I think that we need to keep in mind is that science is only a tool we use to look at the creation and it does not have all the answers. Any scientist worth their salt will confirm that. And as Scriptures are the written authority on God, science must be viewed in that light.
Some readers have commented on the most challenging concepts in my book. These are (1) the multiple primacies of the revelations of Christ, Scripture, and the cosmos and (2) the relation of context and axiology to the revelation in the cosmos. (3) Another difficult issue is the question of how the cosmos can impact our interpretation of Scripture.
First, there is the ontological primacy of Christ Who is the revelation of God Who is God. The epistemological primacy of Scripture makes it the revelation of God which identifies the true Christ and the true theological perspective on the cosmos. The contextual primacy of the cosmos makes it the context for the incarnation of Christ and the inspiration of Scripture.
Second, the cosmos is the context for our practice of the axiological principles which are grounded in the epistemological primacy of Scripture and the ontological primacy of Christ.
Third, the revelation in the cosmos can indicate to us that we need to reconsider our interpretation of Scripture. This does not mean that the cosmos corrects Scripture. Rather, the cosmos can help us to correct our interpretation of Scripture.
For example, the Millerite Movement interpreted the prophecy of Dan 8:14 as indicating that the cosmos would be cleansed by fire in 1844. When this did not happen, some Millerites returned to the study of Scripture and discovered a different interpretation of the prophecy.
1. Is your definition of axiology, in this case, "the context for the incarnation of Christ and the inspiration of Scripture"? That's where we get our "axiological principles"? (This doesn't sound like an actual primacy . . . sounds quite passive, [compared to the two other primacies].) Related: 2. Are you saying that the event of the Great Disappointment triggered the Millerite Movement to "reinterpret Scripture." (Thus acting out "axiological primacy.") But, in the case of modern scientific research, a "reinterpretation of Scripture" would not be warranted because it is not an effect of an event, but rather active study/inquiry?
Thank you for being open to questions, it's appreciated.
There is a distinction without dichotomy (separation) between axiology and context in relation to the cosmos as revelation. Axiology is not the same as context. At the same time, axiology is not unrelated to context. Scripture is the source of Christ-centered axiological principles. The cosmos is the context for the application of these principles. As such, the nature of the revelation in the cosmos does influence the way we apply the biblical principles. Simultaneously, the Scriptures remain the sole final norm for the way we allow the cosmos to influence us.
The use of revelation in the cosmos to motivate a reinterpretation of Scripture is not a matter of axiological principles being derived from the cosmos. Neither is it a matter of the cosmos as a norm for evaluating Scripture. At the same time, Scripture norms the use of the revelation in the cosmos as a way of testing the relevance of our human interpretations.
I would like to comments about the ¨reading the book of the cosmos.” I believe it is hard task to understand science. Scientific language and mythology is not common to those who love arts and abstract concepts as theology and psicología. In the SDA church we can find more family therapist, health care providers and other professional rather than Scientifics. It is difficult to become a scientific. I think that part of this problem is the world paradigm about it. They see nature and its rules apart from God. Must of the great educators have not a cosmologic Christian worldwide view. That helps to force Christian students to swift to another subject of learning rather than science. They would like to avoid spiritual confrontation and challenge. Some of them have suggested that if you cannot support your personal religious beliefs with your own religious material you could never think to support it with the science.
So. What SDA Pastor should do about this problem? I thin k that we should investigate our history. It was very good for me to read how Ellen G. White during am acean excursion reflect about nature. Maybe she could not explain with scientific detail about what she was experimenting. The fact that she reflects in it helps other to find harmony in Gods revelation through his nature. As Ellen g. White did also SDA pastor should reflect theologically. Some young student will be moved to harmonize it with the science principles. Pastor should raise questions and problems that maybe hard to resolve. They should not be embarrassed to not respond to their same question. They should be proud to seduce a wide-open field of learning. Challenge their student intellect in order to receive more light. Promote a thirsty soul to know more about god wonders in nature.
I thought the quotation on p. 66 was profound - the one referring to Mr. Webster. I think it demonstrates the limitations of human reason to comprehend the vastness of God. "If I could comprehend him, he would be no greater than myself." If creation really is a revelation of God, and I agree that it is, we must not expect that we will comprehend everything that is revealed to us there. Thus, I agree with what many have posted here already, that science should not determine whether or not Scripture is trustworthy.
However, in studying for my research paper, and in keeping consistent with Dr. Hanna's wholistic approach, it has also become apparent that we can go to the other extreme and make the claim that science is not trustworthy in light of the Word of God. I think that is a false perception as well. God, in His Word, invites us to use our full capacity as human beings to seek understanding and life. That includes making full use of our reasoning abilities as well as maintaining a humble and faith-centered foundation.
“The atmosphere parted and rolled back; then we could look up through the open space in Orion, whence came the voice of God. The Holy City will come down through that open space.” Ellen G. White
Mark Finley used this statement on one of his “It is Written” television programs. It has intrigued me ever since. Dr. Hannah’s of allowing the cosmos to illuminate scripture as well as scripture illuminating the cosmos seems fitting. Dr. Hanna quotes the Encyclopedia of 7,700 illustrations where a large corridor of empty space exists in the Orion nebula. Certainly Ellen White didn’t know what modern astronomers know through the study of Astronomy. Yet God revealed to her this interesting detail of the Holy City descending through Orion’s open space. Modern astronomy provides interesting information that seems to support this revelation. As I became a new Christian I struggled with the concept of ignoring modern science and accepting only what the Bible had to say. I trusted God enough that I allowed him to show me that not all modern science contradicted scripture. Scripture didn’t always contradict science. I won’t get into the discussion of true vs. false science, but there is a distinction! True science helps us to better understand what God meant in scripture. God speaks to people where they are. God can describe something in nature in such a way that people of different time periods can understand it even though the advancement in knowledge and technology is not the same in each period. I am not saying truth is relative. We can understand something from scripture while further study in the sciences brings the issue into clearer focus.
Implications of this theology for Ethics, Morality, and "Values": How might we as Christians continue to reflect on both our private and public lives, and our witness, in light of the theology presented by Dr. Hanna? (1) If violence used against others for the defence or preservation of the family, tribe, and/or species seems to be normative in Creation (and sadly appears normative in global politics!), how does this compare with the nonviolence of Jesus himself? Or with the nonviolence of the New Testament? Or with the more ambiguous approaches to violence, defense, war, and/or pacifism in the Hebrew Scriptures? At first glance, these three revelations seem to lead to different moral/ethical conclusions. (2) Jesus himself appears to have been silent about homosexuality. Paul seems to condemn it, at least as he may have understood same-sex relations in his day (though not the same as many such relationships today). The Hebrew Scriptures also seem to condemn it, though, again, there are varying interpretations of the "Sodom and Gomorrah" text, some of which interpret this as revealing God's condemnation of inhospitality, and any form of rape, rather than homosexuality per se (Jesus himiself seems to say the same when he commented on Sodom and Gomorrah in the Gospels). Finally, in Creation it appears that some species are entirely heterosexual, others occasionally homosexual, and others a-sexual or bi-sexual. All seem nonetheless to have the capacity to reproduce, with such multiplicity of traits continuing throughut time (i.e. they were not extinguished as being "maladaptive" to species survival, from a Darwinian perspective). Again, it seems that these three Revelations could lead a casual observer to support, condemn, or maintain silence and non-judgement with respect to homosexual relationships. How would one engage in further faithful discernment, then, if and when such apparent contradictions, or differences, occur? Grant Bakewell, Chaplain and Social Worker
The issue has been raised about the implications of my model for ethics, morality, and values. As was mentioned, there are contradictions between interpretations of Christ, Scripture, and the cosmos in respect to the issues of violence and homosexuality. My interpretation may differ from interpretations proposed by others. At the same time, in my model, all our interpretations should be seek to be Christ-centered, biblical, and relevant to the cosmos.
So what is my position? It seems to me that violence and homosexuality are recognized in Scripture as features of a fallen creation. Even heterosexual relations have been twisted by sin. In these and all other areas of life Scripture calls us to aim for God’s ideal through His grace. God has also given various guidelines for dealing with various less than ideal circumstances. Violence is allowed in self-defense, in national defense, and in the execution of justice.
What about sexuality? Monogamous heterosexual marriage for life is Christ’s ideal from the beginning of creation. At the same time he allows for divorce and remarriage in some circumstances due to the hardness of sinful human hearts (Matthew 19:8). Christ’s ideal and his guidelines for a sinful world are grounded in Scripture–the writings of Moses.
While Jesus did not comment on homosexuality, it seems that we should follow his example in following the ideals and guidelines of Scripture. The biblical ideal and guidelines on homosexuality deserve more treatment than I have provided here. My concern here is simply to clarify how my model would begin to approach this issue.
I believe that the consideration of the cosmos (creation/nature), science, and secular knowledge as valid and valuable revelations of God could become a very useful evangelistic tool in the context of postmodernism, if used wisely. Presupposing that one aspect of postmodernism is a rejection of any form of absolute authority – thereby engaging in a relativistic approach to truth – the Bible has once again lost its central and ultimate place in the minds of many today. Such a cultural development leads to an essential question: how can we present the Bible to these minds in a relevant and transformative way?
Perhaps Jesus is the answer. (Of course He is the answer from our perspective!) But even this wonderful man Jesus poses a threat to the postmodern mindset, not by His awesome teachings, but by the seemingly arrogant notion that He is the One True God to the exclusion of other gods. (May we as Christians be able to counter the current complexity of false ideas about who Jesus was/is!)
Thus I believe that nature may be our best and wisest hope, simply because postmoderns do not argue with personal experience. As we seek to relate the divinity of Jesus, as well as Bible truths, let us remember 1 Corinthians 13:9-10, which says , "For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears." In other words, while the application of nature and experience to demonstrate spiritual lessons (similar to Jesus' use of parables?) may not always include a direct reference to Scripture or Christ, these spiritual lessons will prepare the way for postmodern minds to absorb greater light. When this happens, the incomplete message will become complete. Is not the process of faith in unbelievers similar to that of believers who continue to be transformed through increased faith and knowledge?
Another important part of relating Jesus and the Bible to the postmodern world is the demonstration of these truths by the church, through our lived display of the character of God. As the popular saying goes, we may be the only Bible someone reads and/or the only Jesus people meet. How important it is, then, for we as the church to dedicate ourselves to becoming completely transformed by God's three revelations, including that of the cosmos. By allowing ourselves to be transformed by God's creation, I believe we will be able to better relate – through shared experiences of nature and the world around us – to postmodern minds.
In chapter nine, “What Does the Bible Say?” from the book, The Cosmic Christ of Scripture, Dr. Martin Hanna discusses the mind of Christ. He states that there are six words translated as “mind” from the Greek. Psuche (soul), gnome (opinion), noema (thoughts), phronema (dispositions), dianoia (intellect) and nous (seat of understanding and conviction). While this is also the seat of understanding and conviction, this word nous is also used to indicate the content of our minds. As such what is fascinating about it is the complexity that the Greek language gives in describing what in English we simply say as mind. As such it lends itself to greater understanding of just how complex the mind really is if the Greeks felt that they needed six words to describe it. Consider that when the words, “Let this mind be in you” are therefore given referring to the mind of Christ – that the concept is not to just be little robots blindly following Christ, but rather to take on His character. Instead of being brainwashed by the endless television programs with their subliminal seductions and horrific Gameboys, Playstations, Xbox inventions tampering with what really should be only held by the sacred – our minds – we should instead feast upon the word of God daily not just as a routine exercise, but to allow for the Holy Spirit to indeed influence our minds (opinions, thoughts, dispositions, intellect, understanding, and conviction). Then the content (nous) of our brains will reflect a Christ world-view.
One of the most troubling things that I have observed and continue to observ in our society and especially in the media is the disctinction that science puts between creation and belief in God. I have noticed a deliberate use of the scientific term of evolution to contrast the belief that God created this intelligent machinery called the himan body and mind and also to the creative powers of God in the cosmos. I have also tried to keep things in balance by investigating the scientific evidence from Christian scientists who in contrast to secular scientist, utilizing the same data, are able to see the wonderful power of God in creation. THis gave me much hope to realize that there happens to be a deliberate intent on some of our scientist to hide the revealed evidence that confirms the working of a higher power in our world and all its trappings. In your book, p. 121 you contrast false science and theology, you quoted Mrs. E. G. WHite in stating that science has gone beyond their borders and mininterprets the facts of the relationship between the cosmos and the God behind it. I fully agree with this. Natural law alone does not confirm or negate the fact that God is the creator. YOu were also correct in stating that false theology, is also responsible for much of the disbelief that occurs in our world. I was not there when the wonders of creation came together, but by faith, noe simply deductive reasoning, or scientific data, but raw faith, to accept what "thus saith the Lord" is what opened my eyes and step by step GOd confirmed to me that without a doubt, He was and is the creator. There is a place for reason, but it is not the forerunner of faith. Faith must precede reason or fact or it ceases to be faith. GOd however did not leave us to wander in the wilderness of what happened. The scriptures point to the great truths of the reality of God in the cosmos. To sacrifice this treasure for science falsely so-called is to lead the soul to certain ruin. Thank God for the assurance of His word.
Steven Gusse Wrote: When talking about the wisdom and science found in the Bible, its important to remember that the bible makes us wise unto salvation and every good work (2 Tim 3:15-17, p105) The ideas and terms of wisdom and knowledge are spread throughout the bible. Daniel was trained in the sciences of Babylonians. Knowledge and scientific study are not bad in themselves, but can become a problem. 1 Corinthians 3:18-19 18 Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise. 19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness. 1 Corinthians 1:20 20 Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? Ignorance can be bad too. 1 Peter 2:15 15 For so is the will of God, that with well doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men: I think the key to the dilema is light of God's Revelation. When guided by His light, the knowledge and science we learn, will glorify God and bring us closer to him. I look forward to the day when the light that we see will be the full and "perfect" light and not the light that we see though the dark glass (1 Cor 13:10-12, p111).
“But we have the mind of Christ” (1 Cor. 2:16). In Chapter 9, “What does the Bible say?” an extremely important component to the entire discussion of God’s three books, and in particular the book of the Cosmos, is exposed. It is the offering God gives to us, which Paul illuminates in His epistle to the Corinthians – “the mind of Christ.” What a powerful gift and one important to rightly understanding the Cosmos. The understanding of the Cosmos has been and is a challenge for humanity, particularly Christians. Over the years many of have chosen to compromise precious theology in order to accommodate for “scientific discoveries” and others have rejected “modern science” altogether after recognizing its limitations. However, under the headings “The Natural and the Spiritual” and “Philosophy: Love of Wisdom” Dr. Hanna suggests that there is way to do science biblically. Science does not need to be abandoned but there needs to be a metamorphosis of the minds of those attempting to understand the cosmos. As Dr. John Baldwin would put it, we need to view the world through “Son-glasses.” This principle of viewing the world and all of human experience with a transformed mind is central for balance theology and a balance life. While there are many things that the devil has distorted and abused in this world, we should not be so quick to discard and discount. There is much that can be learned and theology that can be expanded when we view the world through “Son-glasses!”
21 comments:
Throughout my studies I have often been fustrated with a certain scholarly view that suggests that Scripture should be tested by scientific means before it can be trusted. The scholarly work surrounding the Exodus event is a prime example. Outside of the Bible there is no record of the Exodus of the Nation of Israel from Egypt, yet, scholars insist upon changing the account of the Exodus to fit their various theories. It was refreshing to read from Dr. Hanna's book that there are those who want to let the Bible speak for itself. As I read through chapter three of his book, The Cosmic Christ of Scripture, I found myself in complete harmony with his "wholistic" approach. Why believe in an event (ex. the Exodus) and not believe in the account of the event? In studying this event (and others) I believe more would be gained if they took Dr. Hanna's suggestion and let the results of archaeology (a physical part of the cosmos) interact with the Scriptural account (a part of inspiration) as it is revealed in the person of God (Christ). Any study of Scripture or any event within the Bible that is not studied with the presupposition that God is very real and very personnal is doomed to ultimately fail to explain the events adiquately. The Bible must form the base of study (the ultimate authority - since it is from the Bible that the event is taken) and from there the study must grow. However, the Scriptures cannot form such a base without the scholar connecting with the God of the Scripture.
9/06/2006 11:26 PM
As Dr. Hanna said to us in a class, chapter one is all there is to it. The rest of the chapters are explaining the model proposed in chapter one. Some comments on this chapter.
The main theme as I grasped it reading, is that God is revealing Himself through not only Scripture but also through nature (cosmos) and Christ. Through Christ is for Christians quite easy to understand. But through nature? That is sounding like new age; would some Christians say.
Indeed New Age is focusing on nature as a god in itself and has all kinds of "doctrines" regarding this idea. How can we then distinguish between the New Age idea's (like pantheism) and the holistic model proposed by dr. Hanna? What is the difference that makes it different?
The major difference is, as I understand dr. Hanna correctly, that altough nature is revealing God it is not god in itself. Besides that, nature is not the only book. The Bible is a book. Christ is a book. All the revelations in nature are to be 'tested' by the rule of faith, the Bible. Which is in essence what New Age is turning away from.
The question however remains, how is God then revealed through nature? How is God revealed in, for example, a tree?
When we take a closer look at a tree in its life span it learns us a great deal about many things. We can see a small tree groing up; just as we grow more mature in faith. It is going step by step. We don't have to be giants in faith at once.
When we look at a tree in the seasons we see a tree loosing its leaves in the fall, it seems to die. But in the spring the tree comes back to life again through the power of God. In this we can find hope. Altough this world, our personal life or anything else may seemingly die, God can bring it to life again.
With looking at nature this way, we can learn a great deal more about God and what He wants to do for us. In this way, getting to know the book of nature better, with the purpose of understanding God better, will be a great blessing.
9/28/2006 3:15 PM
In the book, The Cosmic Christ of Scripture, Dr. Martin Hanna suggests first that God has three books. Before I even got to the point of understanding how to read those three books, I was surprised to know that there were three. I have spent the better part of my life knowing of and learning from two, 1) Incarnation – Christ, and 2) Inspiration – Scripture. To now understand the third, the Book of Creation – is a new concept for me. I am a city girl; about the most nature I ever experienced was riding my bike through the park, or the occasional trip to the beach – which wasn’t that often. So to understand that the third book is Creation – I had to change my entire mindset.
In understanding that God reveals Himself through creation, I took first to understanding how to read that book – since it was the newest to me. Therefore, I breached etiquette, and jumped to part IV, to understand more about this topic. The one theme that supported the idea that the Book of Creation is the God’s third book comes from chapter 10 where Ellen White is quoted, “God’s ‘law is written by his own finger upon every nerve, every muscle, every fiber of our being, upon every faculty which has been intrusted to man.’” (p. 117). This struck a major chord for me having dealt with my father’s eye surgery. I learned more about the human eye than I ever wanted to know. It is through that CREATION, that I know it is a lesser book pointing to the greater books. For those who say that science disproves the existence of an intelligent being, clearly they never used the study of the human body as their defense. While God is too big for our limited technology to explain, clearly in studying nature, especially the intricacies of even the human body – one can see that through CREATION, God speaks.
Study the human eye and you will learn that it can focus faster than any camera shutter. It can withstand contact lenses without difficulty, yet an eyelash will cause great pain. The tissues, cells, blood vessels, and nerves of the human eye are more complex than any human telescope, camera, or digital video equipment, and it has never been equaled by human invention. Creation stands as a testimony to the Cosmic Christ of Scripture, and scripture states, “All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.” (John 1:3). Now, I understand God’s third book and more importantly its significance! Selah!
9/29/2006 4:01 PM
I think that Dr. Hanna does a wonderful job by his explanation of true and false science. I really never looked at science in the context as being studied by some of the Bible characters, such as Daniel and his friends. This chapter helped me farther understand that if science is studied in its true nature that it will lead those who study it to come to a conslusion that there is a true God and that He designed all. Usually, the scientist who tries to deny that God exists do so from a study of the science (gnosis) that the Bible warns us against. Only the sciences that are studied to try to find the truth will lead to a discovery of God. As Dr. Hanna pointed out in his book "The Cosmic Christ of Scripture," true science is related to salvation and will give one who studies it more wisdom and knowledge. The Bible teaches that any science studied in the right light will prove that there is a Divine Being. It teaches in Psalm 19 that the cosmos and all things that exists declares of God's glory. Since false science was existing in Paul's day we should expect for it to be more rampant now than ever; however, the question is what are we to do? I believe that we should seek to study to true science and stay away from the evolutionary sciences. It may be true that we should know something about these sciences but let's study more of the true sciences. In this way, we can identify the false sciences. As Christains we should think approach science wholestically by studying it with the model that Dr. Hanna proposes. In this way, we will be driven into a pathway that will lead us to God.
In Hanna’s model, the Scriptures are supposed to have “epistemological primacy,” and the cosmos are to have “axiological primacy.” The definitions of these two terms that Hanna seems to be working with are the following: Epistemological primacy answers the question—“How do we know the nature of reality?” And Axiological primacy answers the question—“What difference does it make?”
I’m wondering how much primacy the cosmos really have. If we also look to the Bible for how science (Daniel and friends), and history (Gen. 1, 2) play out in our cosmos, then is it really giving the cosmos axiological primacy? In class, Hanna once said, in talking about the primacy of the cosmos (and I’m paraphrasing): The reason we know if something isn’t true is if it doesn’t happen, then we have to go back and reassess our reading of the nature of reality. Wouldn’t some recent scientific/historical study (that have shown how some things “haven’t happened” as the Bible said) be reason to “go back and reassess our reading of the nature of reality,” thus, giving the cosmos axiological primacy? Where is the line? Are we really giving the cosmos axiological primacy if we are looking to Scripture to serve as a science and history textbook? Is this how the authors intended Scripture to be read for the original (pre-modern) readers? Is this how God wants us to read our sacred, inspired texts? Just trying to grasp how the primacy of the cosmos actually plays out . . .
Geoffrey Blake
I found Dr. Hanna’s perspective on the roles of science and scripture to be noteworthy. It gave me the theology perspective of the matter: Science is to be subjected to the Word of God and not the Word of God subjected to science and it reveals wonderful things about the creativity of our God.
In my undergraduate experience, I had the privilege to study a couple of the sciences. Being a Christian, you can’t help but see God’s handy work when you study His creation. When you look at the chemical reactions that take place inside our bodies and in other living organisms, or look at the tiny world of quantum physics, you can’t help but marvel and know that there was a Master Creator who loves order. Without God, there is no way in the universe that such complex systems could have just appeared.
Something I think that we need to keep in mind is that science is only a tool we use to look at the creation and it does not have all the answers. Any scientist worth their salt will confirm that. And as Scriptures are the written authority on God, science must be viewed in that light.
Catherine Parris
Some readers have commented on the most challenging concepts in my book. These are (1) the multiple primacies of the revelations of Christ, Scripture, and the cosmos and (2) the relation of context and axiology to the revelation in the cosmos. (3) Another difficult issue is the question of how the cosmos can impact our interpretation of Scripture.
First, there is the ontological primacy of Christ Who is the revelation of God Who is God. The epistemological primacy of Scripture makes it the revelation of God which identifies the true Christ and the true theological perspective on the cosmos. The contextual primacy of the cosmos makes it the context for the incarnation of Christ and the inspiration of Scripture.
Second, the cosmos is the context for our practice of the axiological principles which are grounded in the epistemological primacy of Scripture and the ontological primacy of Christ.
Third, the revelation in the cosmos can indicate to us that we need to reconsider our interpretation of Scripture. This does not mean that the cosmos corrects Scripture. Rather, the cosmos can help us to correct our interpretation of Scripture.
For example, the Millerite Movement interpreted the prophecy of Dan 8:14 as indicating that the cosmos would be cleansed by fire in 1844. When this did not happen, some Millerites returned to the study of Scripture and discovered a different interpretation of the prophecy.
Martin Hanna.
Dr. Hanna, I'm just wanting to better understand:
1. Is your definition of axiology, in this case, "the context for the incarnation of Christ and the inspiration of Scripture"? That's where we get our "axiological principles"? (This doesn't sound like an actual primacy . . . sounds quite passive, [compared to the two other primacies].)
Related:
2. Are you saying that the event of the Great Disappointment triggered the Millerite Movement to "reinterpret Scripture." (Thus acting out "axiological primacy.") But, in the case of modern scientific research, a "reinterpretation of Scripture" would not be warranted because it is not an effect of an event, but rather active study/inquiry?
Thank you for being open to questions, it's appreciated.
There is a distinction without dichotomy (separation) between axiology and context in relation to the cosmos as revelation. Axiology is not the same as context. At the same time, axiology is not unrelated to context. Scripture is the source of Christ-centered axiological principles. The cosmos is the context for the application of these principles. As such, the nature of the revelation in the cosmos does influence the way we apply the biblical principles. Simultaneously, the Scriptures remain the sole final norm for the way we allow the cosmos to influence us.
Martin Hanna.
The use of revelation in the cosmos to motivate a reinterpretation of Scripture is not a matter of axiological principles being derived from the cosmos. Neither is it a matter of the cosmos as a norm for evaluating Scripture. At the same time, Scripture norms the use of the revelation in the cosmos as a way of testing the relevance of our human interpretations.
Martin Hanna.
I would like to comments about the ¨reading the book of the cosmos.” I believe it is hard task to understand science. Scientific language and mythology is not common to those who love arts and abstract concepts as theology and psicología. In the SDA church we can find more family therapist, health care providers and other professional rather than Scientifics. It is difficult to become a scientific. I think that part of this problem is the world paradigm about it. They see nature and its rules apart from God. Must of the great educators have not a cosmologic Christian worldwide view. That helps to force Christian students to swift to another subject of learning rather than science. They would like to avoid spiritual confrontation and challenge. Some of them have suggested that if you cannot support your personal religious beliefs with your own religious material you could never think to support it with the science.
So. What SDA Pastor should do about this problem? I thin k that we should investigate our history. It was very good for me to read how Ellen G. White during am acean excursion reflect about nature. Maybe she could not explain with scientific detail about what she was experimenting. The fact that she reflects in it helps other to find harmony in Gods revelation through his nature. As Ellen g. White did also SDA pastor should reflect theologically. Some young student will be moved to harmonize it with the science principles. Pastor should raise questions and problems that maybe hard to resolve. They should not be embarrassed to not respond to their same question. They should be proud to seduce a wide-open field of learning. Challenge their student intellect in order to receive more light. Promote a thirsty soul to know more about god wonders in nature.
I thought the quotation on p. 66 was profound - the one referring to Mr. Webster. I think it demonstrates the limitations of human reason to comprehend the vastness of God. "If I could comprehend him, he would be no greater than myself." If creation really is a revelation of God, and I agree that it is, we must not expect that we will comprehend everything that is revealed to us there. Thus, I agree with what many have posted here already, that science should not determine whether or not Scripture is trustworthy.
However, in studying for my research paper, and in keeping consistent with Dr. Hanna's wholistic approach, it has also become apparent that we can go to the other extreme and make the claim that science is not trustworthy in light of the Word of God. I think that is a false perception as well. God, in His Word, invites us to use our full capacity as human beings to seek understanding and life. That includes making full use of our reasoning abilities as well as maintaining a humble and faith-centered foundation.
“The atmosphere parted and rolled back; then we could look up through the open space in Orion, whence came the voice of God. The Holy City will come down through that open space.” Ellen G. White
Mark Finley used this statement on one of his “It is Written” television programs. It has intrigued me ever since. Dr. Hannah’s of allowing the cosmos to illuminate scripture as well as scripture illuminating the cosmos seems fitting. Dr. Hanna quotes the Encyclopedia of 7,700 illustrations where a large corridor of empty space exists in the Orion nebula. Certainly Ellen White didn’t know what modern astronomers know through the study of Astronomy. Yet God revealed to her this interesting detail of the Holy City descending through Orion’s open space. Modern astronomy provides interesting information that seems to support this revelation. As I became a new Christian I struggled with the concept of ignoring modern science and accepting only what the Bible had to say. I trusted God enough that I allowed him to show me that not all modern science contradicted scripture. Scripture didn’t always contradict science. I won’t get into the discussion of true vs. false science, but there is a distinction! True science helps us to better understand what God meant in scripture. God speaks to people where they are. God can describe something in nature in such a way that people of different time periods can understand it even though the advancement in knowledge and technology is not the same in each period. I am not saying truth is relative. We can understand something from scripture while further study in the sciences brings the issue into clearer focus.
Jeff Donaldson
Implications of this theology for Ethics, Morality, and "Values":
How might we as Christians continue to reflect on both our private and public lives, and our witness, in light of the theology presented by Dr. Hanna? (1) If violence used against others for the defence or preservation of the family, tribe, and/or species seems to be normative in Creation (and sadly appears normative in global politics!), how does this compare with the nonviolence of Jesus himself? Or with the nonviolence of the New Testament? Or with the more ambiguous approaches to violence, defense, war, and/or pacifism in the Hebrew Scriptures? At first glance, these three revelations seem to lead to different moral/ethical conclusions.
(2) Jesus himself appears to have been silent about homosexuality. Paul seems to condemn it, at least as he may have understood same-sex relations in his day (though not the same as many such relationships today). The Hebrew Scriptures also seem to condemn it, though, again, there are varying interpretations of the "Sodom and Gomorrah" text, some of which interpret this as revealing God's condemnation of inhospitality, and any form of rape, rather than homosexuality per se (Jesus himiself seems to say the same when he commented on Sodom and Gomorrah in the Gospels). Finally, in Creation it appears that some species are entirely heterosexual, others occasionally homosexual, and others a-sexual or bi-sexual. All seem nonetheless to have the capacity to reproduce, with such multiplicity of traits continuing throughut time (i.e. they were not extinguished as being "maladaptive" to species survival, from a Darwinian perspective). Again, it seems that these three Revelations could lead a casual observer to support, condemn, or maintain silence and non-judgement with respect to homosexual relationships.
How would one engage in further faithful discernment, then, if and when such apparent contradictions, or differences, occur?
Grant Bakewell,
Chaplain and Social Worker
The issue has been raised about the implications of my model for ethics, morality, and values. As was mentioned, there are contradictions between interpretations of Christ, Scripture, and the cosmos in respect to the issues of violence and homosexuality. My interpretation may differ from interpretations proposed by others. At the same time, in my model, all our interpretations should be seek to be Christ-centered, biblical, and relevant to the cosmos.
So what is my position? It seems to me that violence and homosexuality are recognized in Scripture as features of a fallen creation. Even heterosexual relations have been twisted by sin. In these and all other areas of life Scripture calls us to aim for God’s ideal through His grace. God has also given various guidelines for dealing with various less than ideal circumstances. Violence is allowed in self-defense, in national defense, and in the execution of justice.
What about sexuality? Monogamous heterosexual marriage for life is Christ’s ideal from the beginning of creation. At the same time he allows for divorce and remarriage in some circumstances due to the hardness of sinful human hearts (Matthew 19:8). Christ’s ideal and his guidelines for a sinful world are grounded in Scripture–the writings of Moses.
While Jesus did not comment on homosexuality, it seems that we should follow his example in following the ideals and guidelines of Scripture. The biblical ideal and guidelines on homosexuality deserve more treatment than I have provided here. My concern here is simply to clarify how my model would begin to approach this issue.
Martin Hanna.
I believe that the consideration of the cosmos (creation/nature), science, and secular knowledge as valid and valuable revelations of God could become a very useful evangelistic tool in the context of postmodernism, if used wisely. Presupposing that one aspect of postmodernism is a rejection of any form of absolute authority – thereby engaging in a relativistic approach to truth – the Bible has once again lost its central and ultimate place in the minds of many today. Such a cultural development leads to an essential question: how can we present the Bible to these minds in a relevant and transformative way?
Perhaps Jesus is the answer. (Of course He is the answer from our perspective!) But even this wonderful man Jesus poses a threat to the postmodern mindset, not by His awesome teachings, but by the seemingly arrogant notion that He is the One True God to the exclusion of other gods. (May we as Christians be able to counter the current complexity of false ideas about who Jesus was/is!)
Thus I believe that nature may be our best and wisest hope, simply because postmoderns do not argue with personal experience. As we seek to relate the divinity of Jesus, as well as Bible truths, let us remember 1 Corinthians 13:9-10, which says , "For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears." In other words, while the application of nature and experience to demonstrate spiritual lessons (similar to Jesus' use of parables?) may not always include a direct reference to Scripture or Christ, these spiritual lessons will prepare the way for postmodern minds to absorb greater light. When this happens, the incomplete message will become complete. Is not the process of faith in unbelievers similar to that of believers who continue to be transformed through increased faith and knowledge?
Another important part of relating Jesus and the Bible to the postmodern world is the demonstration of these truths by the church, through our lived display of the character of God. As the popular saying goes, we may be the only Bible someone reads and/or the only Jesus people meet. How important it is, then, for we as the church to dedicate ourselves to becoming completely transformed by God's three revelations, including that of the cosmos. By allowing ourselves to be transformed by God's creation, I believe we will be able to better relate – through shared experiences of nature and the world around us – to postmodern minds.
In chapter nine, “What Does the Bible Say?” from the book, The Cosmic Christ of Scripture, Dr. Martin Hanna discusses the mind of Christ. He states that there are six words translated as “mind” from the Greek. Psuche (soul), gnome (opinion), noema (thoughts), phronema (dispositions), dianoia (intellect) and nous (seat of understanding and conviction). While this is also the seat of understanding and conviction, this word nous is also used to indicate the content of our minds. As such what is fascinating about it is the complexity that the Greek language gives in describing what in English we simply say as mind. As such it lends itself to greater understanding of just how complex the mind really is if the Greeks felt that they needed six words to describe it. Consider that when the words, “Let this mind be in you” are therefore given referring to the mind of Christ – that the concept is not to just be little robots blindly following Christ, but rather to take on His character. Instead of being brainwashed by the endless television programs with their subliminal seductions and horrific Gameboys, Playstations, Xbox inventions tampering with what really should be only held by the sacred – our minds – we should instead feast upon the word of God daily not just as a routine exercise, but to allow for the Holy Spirit to indeed influence our minds (opinions, thoughts, dispositions, intellect, understanding, and conviction). Then the content (nous) of our brains will reflect a Christ world-view.
One of the most troubling things that I have observed and continue to observ in our society and especially in the media is the disctinction that science puts between creation and belief in God. I have noticed a deliberate use of the scientific term of evolution to contrast the belief that God created this intelligent machinery called the himan body and mind and also to the creative powers of God in the cosmos. I have also tried to keep things in balance by investigating the scientific evidence from Christian scientists who in contrast to secular scientist, utilizing the same data, are able to see the wonderful power of God in creation. THis gave me much hope to realize that there happens to be a deliberate intent on some of our scientist to hide the revealed evidence that confirms the working of a higher power in our world and all its trappings. In your book, p. 121 you contrast false science and theology, you quoted Mrs. E. G. WHite in stating that science has gone beyond their borders and mininterprets the facts of the relationship between the cosmos and the God behind it. I fully agree with this. Natural law alone does not confirm or negate the fact that God is the creator. YOu were also correct in stating that false theology, is also responsible for much of the disbelief that occurs in our world. I was not there when the wonders of creation came together, but by faith, noe simply deductive reasoning, or scientific data, but raw faith, to accept what "thus saith the Lord" is what opened my eyes and step by step GOd confirmed to me that without a doubt, He was and is the creator. There is a place for reason, but it is not the forerunner of faith. Faith must precede reason or fact or it ceases to be faith. GOd however did not leave us to wander in the wilderness of what happened. The scriptures point to the great truths of the reality of God in the cosmos. To sacrifice this treasure for science falsely so-called is to lead the soul to certain ruin. Thank God for the assurance of His word.
Steven Gusse Wrote:
When talking about the wisdom and science found in the Bible, its important to remember that the bible makes us wise unto salvation and every good work (2 Tim 3:15-17, p105)
The ideas and terms of wisdom and knowledge are spread throughout the bible. Daniel was trained in the sciences of Babylonians. Knowledge and scientific study are not bad in themselves, but can become a problem.
1 Corinthians 3:18-19 18 Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise. 19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.
1 Corinthians 1:20 20 Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?
Ignorance can be bad too.
1 Peter 2:15 15 For so is the will of God, that with well doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men:
I think the key to the dilema is light of God's Revelation. When guided by His light, the knowledge and science we learn, will glorify God and bring us closer to him. I look forward to the day when the light that we see will be the full and "perfect" light and not the light that we see though the dark glass (1 Cor 13:10-12, p111).
This is my December submission.
“But we have the mind of Christ” (1 Cor. 2:16). In Chapter 9, “What does the Bible say?” an extremely important component to the entire discussion of God’s three books, and in particular the book of the Cosmos, is exposed. It is the offering God gives to us, which Paul illuminates in His epistle to the Corinthians – “the mind of Christ.” What a powerful gift and one important to rightly understanding the Cosmos. The understanding of the Cosmos has been and is a challenge for humanity, particularly Christians. Over the years many of have chosen to compromise precious theology in order to accommodate for “scientific discoveries” and others have rejected “modern science” altogether after recognizing its limitations. However, under the headings “The Natural and the Spiritual” and “Philosophy: Love of Wisdom” Dr. Hanna suggests that there is way to do science biblically. Science does not need to be abandoned but there needs to be a metamorphosis of the minds of those attempting to understand the cosmos. As Dr. John Baldwin would put it, we need to view the world through “Son-glasses.” This principle of viewing the world and all of human experience with a transformed mind is central for balance theology and a balance life. While there are many things that the devil has distorted and abused in this world, we should not be so quick to discard and discount. There is much that can be learned and theology that can be expanded when we view the world through “Son-glasses!”
- David B. Franklin
Post a Comment