Cheerful Charlie
Contributor
It is not a case of revealed theology OR natural theology. Both are part and parcel of theology. Even modern theology.
http://www.theworkofgod.org/dogmas.htm#Dogma-II-Creator
Christianity does no start with natural religion, it starts with supposed revelation. That is a dogma of most major Christian sects.
Because religious skeptics deny that revelation, natural religion is used to bolster the dogmatic claims, to demonstrate that revealed dogma is true. But it does not supplant that dogma. Genesis is still the claim that matters here.
The other aspect of theology is to try to square the supposed attributes of God with the problems that skeptics find with God's supposed attributes. For example, what is omnipotence? But omnipotence is a concept derived from revelation. Revelation underlies that. If it was not for the Bible and its supposed revelations, we would not be arguing any of this. Much of "modern theology" is trying to dig itself out of the holes left by revealed theology. To find definitions of such concepts of omnipotence that do not lead to big holes that demonstrate revelation is not correct. Or trying to finesse the whole issue altogether. Creation of Plantingian "defenses" for example.This is what I am interested in. Theology's problems with supporting revealed theology and failure to be able to support revelation as true or possible.
http://www.theworkofgod.org/dogmas.htm#Dogma-II-Creator
- All that exists outside God was, in its whole substance, produced out of nothing by God.
- God was moved by His goodness to create the world.
Christianity does no start with natural religion, it starts with supposed revelation. That is a dogma of most major Christian sects.
Because religious skeptics deny that revelation, natural religion is used to bolster the dogmatic claims, to demonstrate that revealed dogma is true. But it does not supplant that dogma. Genesis is still the claim that matters here.
The other aspect of theology is to try to square the supposed attributes of God with the problems that skeptics find with God's supposed attributes. For example, what is omnipotence? But omnipotence is a concept derived from revelation. Revelation underlies that. If it was not for the Bible and its supposed revelations, we would not be arguing any of this. Much of "modern theology" is trying to dig itself out of the holes left by revealed theology. To find definitions of such concepts of omnipotence that do not lead to big holes that demonstrate revelation is not correct. Or trying to finesse the whole issue altogether. Creation of Plantingian "defenses" for example.This is what I am interested in. Theology's problems with supporting revealed theology and failure to be able to support revelation as true or possible.