Theological credibility

Denmark (photo from trekearth.com)

There is snow on the ground in the Lower Mainland. Perhaps we shall have a white Christmas? A problem for me, as well as my good friend, and blog commenter Chucky, is attempting to drive from Maple Ridge to Vancouver for church this morning. The significant minority of poor drivers in the Lower Mainland become significantly scarier when it snows. This is a problem of evil!

Theological credibility

I have completed the rough draft of my PhD dissertation, Introduction. For the entire work, I now have approximately 78,000 words completed and I have read on-line that my University requirements are 70,000 to 100,000 words. I shall email my Introduction to my advisor, revise with his instructions and then work on a fairly short Conclusion.

I thought at this time I would discuss my theological credibility in writing the PhD work and look forward to receiving comments. As I have stated previously, I reason myself to be a moderate conservative theologically. I hold to Biblical fundamentals, but I would not be an extreme conservative fundamentalist. I do not hold to certain views often associated with fundamentalism, although I realize there are a wide range of Christian fundamentalists. This is not black and white terminology. However, I shall list some reasons why I distance myself from the term fundamentalist. I do not avoid listening to secular music, as that is all I mainly enjoy (progressive rock, jazz-fusion, art rock, classical). I do not primarily live in evangelical culture per say. I do not attempt to evaluate Scripture ‘woodenly’ but put emphasis on grammar, context, and background as is done by experts on Biblical books. I reason that Scripture is inspired by God (2 Timothy 3:16) and provides God’s doctrines for the church (2 Peter 3:14-16), but do not hold to a dictation theory of Scripture, or that there is such a thing as inspired copies or translations. Erickson explains the dictation theory is the teaching that God actually dictated the Bible to writers. Erickson (1994: 207). This would mean that the authors in Scripture provide no distinctive style. Erickson (1994: 207). I know from seven years of course work that there is overwhelming agreement among Biblical linguists that there are different writing styles present in the Bible. Thiessen comments that the Bible has been written by authors with various writing styles. Thiessen (1956: 106). God has maintained his word through the human production of a vast amount of copies of the original letters, those original letters having disappeared. God did not use a supernatural force field to protect the original documents from disintegration and copies were created of the originals. There has been opportunity for copying errors, but with the vast amount of copies extant, the Hebrew Bible and New Testament correctly present theology in line with God’s will. There is no compelling evidence of theological corruption of essential Biblical doctrines, within Scripture, and God has used vast amounts of copies from various regions of Asia and Europe to maintain orthodox Biblical doctrine. We have with Bibles that are produced by legitimate scholars, accurate copies of Scripture inspired by God through scribes.

I also do not necessarily insist on believing in a young earth, but I am open-minded concerning the subject. However, I am not at all convinced that human beings were ever anything other than human beings. I do not have a problem viewing Genesis as a religious and not scientific book and therefore reason that the majority of scientists could be correct that the universe and earth are billions of years old. Victor P. Hamilton in his commentary on the Pentateuch explains that although he reviews Genesis, he will leave the creation vs. evolution debate to the scientist rather than the Biblical scholar. Hamilton (1988: 12). I am in no way denying God as creator and that it is a theological issue, but understand that Genesis and the Bible are not science texts. Thiessen writes that the believer in the Bible does not need to fear geology as there is ample room within the Genesis account for all geological formations. Thiessen (1956: 169). Erickson notes that Archbishop James Ussher's deduction that creation took place at 4,000 B.C., making the world 6,000 years old, came prior to the development of modern geology. Erickson (1994: 380). From these geological methods has come a consensus that the earth is five to six billion years old. Erickson (1994: 380). Erickson tentatively favours the age-day theory which reasons that the Hebrew word yom is most frequently used to describe a twenty-four hour period, but can also be used to describe epochs or long periods of time. Erickson (1994: 381-382). Erickson speculates that in the context of Genesis, God created over epochs and long periods. Erickson (1994: 381). In Genesis 1, the existence of evening and morning is noted six times and this could support the cause of literal twenty-four hour days, but this is not a certainty. H.L. Ellison writes that the textual use of the order of evening and morning points towards a gradual development in the creation process. Ellison (1986: 115). Schultz and Smith explain that in Genesis 2:4 the term day represents an era in context, as the Lord is said to have made the earth and heavens in a day. Schultz and Smith (2001:15). Could the use of evening and morning figuratively represent eras of progress?

NASA, Astrophysicist Jonathan Keohane writes:

The evidence for a big bang having taken place about 15 to 20 billion years ago is overwhelming, so I naturally believe that it is the case.

However, if your real question is "why did the big bang happen in the first place?" then that ceases to be an astronomical question, but a religious one.

Some astronomers, who are religious, argue that the big bang theory confirms the existence of God and the basic elements of the creation story as told in the Bible. First came light, then the heavens, then the Earth ...

However, many other scientists do not. Scientists, like people in most any profession, have a vast diversity of religious beliefs. Some of us attend houses of worship, others do not. Some of us consider ourselves very religious, others consider ourselves staunch atheists. Just because we study astronomy does not mean we have any more agreement as to the “why'' questions than anyone else. Keohane, Jonathan (1997: 1).

I reason that my blog supporters with thekingpin68 and satire and theology are primarily moderate conservatives and moderate liberals. I have been told by my advisors in Wales that the University is secular and not conservative. Therefore, it can be reasoned that my University, as would be the case with almost all British Universities would feature mainly moderate and extreme liberals in a Religion and Theology department. How do I maintain my credibility while working within this department? Well, although I am willing to read what they tell me to read and work within their format and rules, I have been allowed to come to my own academic conclusions with Wales. This is very much appreciated. This was not the case at my brief stay at Manchester. I was told that if I wanted to pass I had to abandon the concept of God creating a world where the problem of evil existed. So, therefore a sovereignty theodicy would be out, and by my own choice, and with their ‘encouragement’, so was I!

My dissertation is more restricted in content format than is this blog, but within my work I have been able to state two essential views that I hold to within the context of the PhD dissertation. One, it must be stated that no theodicy is the remedy for the problem of evil. The remedy to the problem of evil comes through the atoning and resurrection work of Christ being applied to persons through God’s election of believers (Ephesians 1: 4-8, Romans 8: 28-30). God completes this process through the culminated Kingdom of God. Mounce (1990: 369-397). I have therefore maintained my theological credibility by holding to the gospel message within an academic dissertation, which is not primarily gospel focused. Two, I have been able to embed my sovereignty theodicy within my dissertation and this allows me to reason and speculate on how, to some degree, God works in his creation to bring it from its corrupt present state to the culminated Kingdom.

Interestingly, one of my advisors at Wales told me on more than one occasion that a North American PhD in Theology did not have the breadth to pass in the United Kingdom academic system. A retired theologian and dissertation reviewer in the United States for almost forty years, who now lives here in the Lower Mainland told me that my British dissertation would not pass at a North American seminary, as it did not have enough theological explanation. He seemed to prefer this blog.:) This difference in academic format is a demonstration of how dangerous academic politics can potentially be and I experienced this at Manchester!

ELLISON, H.L. (1986) ‘Genesis’, in F.F. Bruce (ed.), The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Zondervan.

ERICKSON, MILLARD (1994) Christian Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.

HAMILTON, VICTOR P. (1988) Handbook on the Pentateuch, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.

KEOHANE, JONATHAN, (1997) ‘Big Bang Theory’
http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/971108a.html

MOUNCE, ROBERT H. (1990) The Book of Revelation, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

SCHULTZ SMAUEL J, AND GARY V. SMITH, (2001) Exploring the Old Testament, Wheaton, Illinois, Crossway Books.

THIESSEN, HENRY C. (1956) Introductory Lectures in Systematic Theology, Grand Rapids, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

http://satireandtheology.blogspot.com/2007/11/shoot-uk-teacher-
say-protesters-great_4904.html