Four Fundamental Principles of Science

Christopher Kaiser, in his book Creation and the History of Science, has shown how the Cappadocian theologians developed four fundamental principles that were to shape the development of science through the centuries and up to the present day. The important point to note here is that these principles were formulated on the basis of belief in the divine revelation given in Scripture and supremely in the work of Christ. In brief, these principles were as follows:

 

1. Because the cosmos is the creation of a rational God who has also made us in his image, it follows that the cosmos is in principle comprehensible by the human mind. It is a coherent cosmos, not a chaos of random events. Therefore, (in contrast to important strands in Indian thought) there are no ultimate self-contradictions. It is not to be understood in terms of a yin-yang duality as in Far Eastern thought. It has an ultimate coherence, a coherence of which the central secret is made known in the Incarnation.

 

2. Because the cosmos is a creation by God as a free act of his will and not an emanation of God (as in some elements in Indian thought), the cosmos has a relative autonomy. Not everything that happens is the direct will of God. It follows, then, that the way to knowledge of the cosmos is not opening the mind to ultimate reality through mystical contemplation. To discover how the cosmos works, we must investigate the empirical facts by careful observation.

 

3. Because Scripture says that God created the heavens and the earth, it follows that the “heavenly bodies” are not (as Aristotle said) made of a substance different from the elements that comprise the earth, but are, on the contrary, of the same substance. (It is one of the many ironies in the history of the later conflicts between science and religion that when Galileo, as a result of his use of a telescope, decided that the moon was made of the same substance as the earth, he was condemned by the church because the church had meanwhile co-opted Aristotelian philosophy into its doctrine.)

 

4. Because of the work of Christ in the incarnation, we may use material means for the advancement of human salvation. The implication of this was that the church did not have to follow the Hebrew tradition of rejecting Greek medicine; instead, it could use Greek medicine in the development of the healing ministry which was to be such an important part of its work in succeeding centuries.

 

These four principles, which were to provide the foundation for the subsequent development of science in Europe (a science which was destined to outstrip the far more brilliant thinking of India, China, and the Arab world), were based on faith in the biblical revelation. They were part of the whole reconstitution of thought necessitated by the new fact, the action of God, the incarnation of the Word in Jesus Christ.

 

--- Lesslie Newbigin, Proper Confidence: Faith, Doubt, and Certainty in Christian Discipleship. 1995.

Christianity and the Making of a Distinct Europe

What has made Europe a distinct cultural and spiritual entity is the fact that, for a thousand years, the barbarian tribes who had found their home there were schooled in both the biblical story and the learning of classical antiquity, the legacy of Greece and Rome. These tribes, or at least their intellectual leaders, were taught to think in Greek and Latin, but the story that shaped their thinking was the Bible. Therefore, from the beginning of what we now call “Europe,” there was a tension between historical and philosophical streams, one flowing from Greece and Rome and the other from Israel.

 

The Jews, whose synagogues were in every major city, were a people apart. One could admire their high moral standards and perhaps their noble monotheism, but their religion was outside the main currents of philosophical investigation.

 

Christianity presented itself to the classical world as a development of this Jewish faith, but—unlike Judaism—it reached out in vigorous propaganda among all sectors of the people. Its scriptures were also offered in Greek, but more significantly, commentary and interpretation were available in Greek, not the Aramaic of the emerging rabbinic tradition…… 

 

At the heart of the Christian message was a new fact: God had acted—and let us remember that the original meaning of “fact” is the Latin factum, “something done.” God had acted in a way that, if believed, must henceforth determine all our ways of thinking. It could not merely fit into existing ways of understanding the world without fundamentally changing them.

 

--- Lesslie Newbigin, Proper Confidence: Faith, Doubt, and Certainty in Christian Discipleship. 1995

Paul’s Model of Preaching

We can take a lesson from the way the apostles addressed various audiences in New Testament times. Their initial audiences consisted of the Jews of their day—people steeped in the Old Testament, with a firm grasp of key concepts like covenant, law, sin, and sacrifice. When addressing these audiences, the apostles could simply start with Jesus as the supreme sacrifice, the Lamb of God. With people already looking for the coming Messiah, the apostles could simply announce that Jesus was the One they were waiting for. By contrast, when Paul addressed secular Greek philosophers in Acts 17, the Stoics and Epicureans on Mars Hill, where did he begin? With Creation. 

 

Notice how carefully he builds his argument, step by step. First, he identifies God as the ultimate origin of the world: “The God who made the world and everything in it” is the “Lord of heaven and earth” (v. 24). Then, he identifies this God as the source of our own humanity: “He made from one man every nation of mankind” (v. 26). Finally, he draws the logical conclusion: “Being then God’s offspring, we ought not to think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone” (v. 29). That is, God cannot be akin to material things like idols. Since He made us, He must have at least the qualities we have as personal, moral, rational, creative beings.

In that case, however, we stand in a personal relationship with God—we owe Him our allegiance, just as children owe honor and allegiance to the parents who brought them into the world. In fact, failure to acknowledge God is a moral fault and calls for repentance: “Now He commands all people everywhere to repent” (v. 30). Notice that it is only after having built a case based on Creation that Paul introduces the concepts of sin and repentance.

 

 - Nancy R. Pearcey, Total Truth: Liberating Christianity from Its Cultural Captivity, 2004.

Synagogue

The destruction of the temple during the Jewish exile led the Jews to emphasize the study and application of Old Testament law. This attitude contributed to the establishment of the synagogue as a pillar of Jewish practice. The exact time of the origin of the synagogue is uncertain, but many scholars have suggested that synagogues first appeared during exilic or postexilic gatherings of Jews to read and study the law. By the first century, synagogues were widely located throughout Palestine and the Diaspora. It was customary to form a synagogue whenever as many as ten Jewish men resided in a community.

The synagogue served as the center of religious, social, and educational life for the Jewish community. Jews gathered weekly for the study of the law and the worship of Jehovah. During the week children were instructed in the Jewish faith and learned to read and write. The synagogue also served as a center for receiving offerings for the poor and administering charity to the needy.

The synagogue was organized around a head or president (Mark 5:22), who likely was elected by vote from the body of elders. He presided over synagogue services and intervened in any disputes (Luke 13:14). The elders had general responsibilities for spiritual care of the congregation. An officer known as a hazzan cared for the building and its contents, blew the trumpet announcing the Sabbath day, and sometimes taught in the school at the synagogue. Perhaps the official of Luke 4:20 who received the scroll of Scripture from Jesus held this office. The use of the term rabbi as a reference to an ordained scholar belongs to the period after the destruction of the temple in a.d. 70. In the New Testament, the term was largely used to address Jesus or others as an authoritative teacher or master (Matt. 23:7; Mark 9:5; John 1:38; 3:2).

The synagogue building was normally a substantial stone structure, often elaborately furnished. Each synagogue had a chest containing the law scroll. The speaker’s platform was raised, and the congregation sat on stone benches around the walls or on mats or wooden chairs in the center of the room. To read from the scroll, the speaker stood. To preach, he sat down (Luke 4:16–20).

The synagogue service consisted of a recitation of the Jewish creed known as the Shema (see Deut. 6:4–5). This recitation was accompanied with praises to God known as the Shemone Esreh and was followed by a ritual prayer. The term Shemone Esreh suggests that there were eighteen benedictions of praise, but the actual number of benedictions varied by time and place. The reading of the Scriptures was followed by a sermon, explaining the portion that had been read. A blessing by a priest closed the service. In the absence of a priest, a prayer was substituted.

Jesus regularly attended and participated in synagogue services. Paul made synagogues his initial point of contact in the cities he visited (Acts 13:5). Some early Christian worship may have taken place in the synagogue, ...
 
Title: The New Testament: Its Background and Message, 2nd edition
Authors: David Alan Black, Thomas D. Lea
Publisher: B&H
  

Rhetorical Analysis of Paul's Letters

Why was rhetoric so important to a young evangelistic religious movement like Christianity? T. Engberg-Pedersen explains the matter perfectly: "Paul has also shown that precisely when the question is one of changing other people's lives the very content of the gospel demands a ‘method' of effecting such changes which is directly opposed to any use of force [or trickery].... It is that of speaking to them in ways that do not encroach upon their independence." One cannot command people to believe the gospel but must persuade them, and the art of persuasion in the Greco-Roman world was rhetoric.
 
Even after one has persuaded persons to believe, an apostolic figure like Paul knew that it continued to be better to persuade than to command one's converts, as in his words to his coworker Philemon in the midst of another impressive piece of deliberative rhetoric: "Therefore, although I could be bold and order you to do what you ought to do, yet I prefer to appeal to you on the basis of love.... I did not want to do anything without your consent, so that any favor you do would be voluntary" (Phlm. 8-9, 14). Paul knew perfectly well that proclaiming a monotheistic Jewish message in a polytheistic culture where anti-Semitism was rife required more than just words spoken in earnest and with passion. It required persuasion. The objections and the mental and emotional obstacles in the minds and hearts of the listeners had to be answered and removed if Jesus was to become their Lord and not merely another religious sideshow. And Paul knew that God had not left it simply up to the Holy Spirit to do all the heavy lifting of persuasion. Rather God commissioned proclaimers to do their part so that word and Spirit might work together to persuade and convert. The use of rhetoric was especially apropos and important in cities in the empire heavily influenced by Greco-Roman values, including by rhetoric - cities like Philippi, which had at the turn of the era become a Roman colony.
 
Deliberative rhetoric, had been the rhetoric of the Greek assembly (the ekklesia), the rhetoric of advice and consent, the rhetoric that helped people make decisions about the course they would take into the future. This sort of rhetoric, in the main, is what we find in Paul's persuasive missives as he seeks to shape the course charted by his charges into their future, including when he would no longer be around. As Quintilian stressed, letters that are meant to be proclaimed on arrival are in the main written-out speeches and were closer in both form and substance, in both style and content, to acts of persuasion than to ordinary mundane letters.
 
A bit more should be said at this juncture about the rhetorical device known as "exemplification." According to Quintilian, a named or anonymous person's character is set forth in part to excite or conciliate an audience's feelings and to spur them on to imitation. Using such examples was not merely an effective way to embellish one's oratory and bring it to the point of persuasion, but also a deliberate means of paraenesis, and used precisely that way by rhetoricians and moralists of Paul's era. The importance of this for analysis of Philippians should be obvious. Paul is using theologically charged arguments, including using a Christ hymn to urge the audience to have the same mindset as was found in Christ and in those who, like Paul, imitate Christ, and to walk worthily of the gospel and its principles.
 

--- Ben Witherington III, Paul’s Letter to the Philippians, 2011.

Sins Cannot Overcome God’s Grace

Who was to blame for humankind’s first sin in the Garden of Eden? Was it Adam’s fault for failing to keep the serpent out of the garden and then standing silently beside Eve while the serpent deceived her (Gen. 3:6)? After all, he had been assigned by God the task of guarding the garden. Or was it Eve’s fault, as Adam was so quick to suggest (Gen. 3:12)? Was it really the serpent’s fault, as Eve suggested (Gen. 3:13)? No, as God makes clear in his judgment, all were at fault.

 

Yet even out of that sordid scene in the garden comes a message of hope. God’s purposes for man’s ultimate good will stand; they cannot be frustrated by human failures. This is a tremendously important biblical principle: your sin, even while it may have real and lasting earthly consequences, cannot derail God’s gracious purpose for your life. 

 

This principle of God’s goodness and firm purpose enduring in spite of, and even through, human sinfulness, is evidenced once again in and through the sorry sight of family disharmony that we encounter in Genesis 27.

 

--- Iain M. Duguid, Living in the Grip of Relentless Grace: 

The Gospel in the Lives of Isaac and Jacob, 2002.

20世纪的自由主义神学

受到自由主义神学的影响，一些大学、神学院和教会开始偏离他们原来的信仰。基督教基要派人士则成立了自己的机构，并采取了与现代文化划清界限的方式抵制自由主义神学的侵蚀。当自由主义神学开始侵占神学院和讲台的时候，基要派人士的回应是以激进的、分裂主义的观点看待整个生活——尤其是思想领域。他们消极避世的态度使得“反智主义”在他们当中一度盛行。他们把人们（甚至包括基督徒）接受教育并拥有知识看做危险之事，并把人的情感和经历高举到比思想更重要的地位上。
 
公众对基督教的看法一直很消极，基要派信徒也仍然持守着自己自杀式的、反对一切的分裂主义立场。终于，20世纪40年代，卡尔亨利（Carl Henry）和葛培理出现了。他们向人们展示出保守派基督教的一种更成熟的形式，它并没有在基督教的核心真理上妥协，这标志着现代福音派的诞生。
 
现代福音派重视人的思想，他们相信上帝呼召基督徒更多地参与到社会文化生活中，而不是消极地逃避它。因此，现代福音派在社会上得到了比基督教基要派更广泛的认同，但同时它也面临着挑战，那就是，在维持社会认知度的同时，它是否需要在基督教的核心信仰上有所妥协，或者是在文化无力改变社会现状的情况下，放弃基督徒警戒世人的责任？基督徒必须不断提醒自己，传递真理、影响社会是自己的责任。
 
新正统运动
 
20世纪初，自由主义神学的浪潮席卷了整个欧洲，然而，巴特坚持抵挡住了这股潮流的侵袭，开始了一场神学革命，后来被人们称为“新正统运动”。在面对纳粹党的疯狂举动时，他也表达了自己的反对立场。
 
巴特的思想无异于一枚炸弹，投向了自由主义神学阵营，于是他们开始向他咆哮，基督教保守派人士则开始向他鼓掌。不过，后者很快发现，他对圣经启示及其在基督徒生活中的作用的理解是有问题的。他说，圣经并不完全都是神的话，而是有一部分是神的话；圣经并不是来自神的直接启示，它记载的只是人类对上帝启示的回应。
 
结果，巴特遭到了来自两方面的批评。尽管如此，几乎所有生活在他那个时代和我们这个时代的人都承认，20世纪最伟大的神学家非巴特莫属。虽然他最初也来自自由主义神学的阵营，但后来他一直在尝试将自由主义神学拉回到正统基督教的根基上。即使他自己可能也没有完全归回，但正是他亲手埋葬了自由主义神学发展成为经典神学的希望。

——理查德 W. 科尼什，《简明教会历史》,2010.