Doctrine of Creation

The biblical portrayal of the cosmos (both its size and age) is significantly different from how we today understand the expanding universe over deep time. How might we go about interpreting the cosmology of the Bible in order to understand its normative theological claims? This blog post for BioLogos explores the biblical idea of the cosmic temple and how it might relate to our contemporary cosmology.

It is hard to think of an area of Christian theology that provides more scope for interdisciplinary conversation than the doctrine of creation. This doctrine not only invites reflection on an intellectual concept: it calls for contemplation of the endlessly complex, dynamic, and fascinating world that human being inhabit. But the possibilities for wide-ranging discussion are such that scholars sometimes end up talking past one another. Productive conversation requires mutual understanding of insights across disciplinary boundaries. Knowing Creation offers an essential resource for helping scholars from a range of fields to appreciate one another's concerns and perspectives. In so doing, it offers an important step forward in establishing a mutually-enriching dialogue that addresses, amongst others, the following key questions:

- Who is the God who creates?
- Why does God create?
- What is "creation"?
- What does it mean to recognize that a theology of creation speaks of a natural world that is subject to the observation of the natural sciences? What does it mean to talk about both a "natural" order and a "created" order?
- What are the major tensions that have arisen between the natural sciences and Christian thinking historically, and why? How can we move beyond such tensions to a positive and constructive conversation, while also avoiding facile notions such as a "god of the gaps"?
- Is it feasible for a natural scientist to maintain a belief in God's continuing creative activity?
- In what ways might a naturalistic understanding of the natural world be said to be limited?
- How can biblical studies, theology, philosophy, history, and science talk better together about these questions?

At a time when the doctrine of creation - and even a mention of "creation" - has been disparaged due to its supposed associations with anti-scientific dogma, and theological offerings sometimes risk appearing a little more than reactionary exercises in naive apologetics, ill-informed by science or distinctly wary of engagement with it, it is more important than ever to offer a cross-disciplinary resource that can voice a positive account of a Christian theology of creation, and do so as a genuinely broad-ranging conversation about science and faith.

Among the many psalms that refer to creation, Pss 8 and 104 stand out in being entirely devoted to this theme. Whereas Ps 8 highlights the prominent, even exalted, human role in the created order, Ps 104 contextualizes humanity as but one creature among many in a complex intertwined cosmos. Nevertheless, upon closer study, it becomes evident that both psalms share elements of a common worldview, including a remarkably similar view of what constitutes being human, a conception of the world as a cosmic temple, and a rejection of the motif of creation-by-combat against primordial enemies. An exploration of the diversity-in-unity of Pss 8 and 104 yields insights into how their common theological vision may address the human vocation of the use of power in a world understood as a sacred realm over which God is enthroned, yet into which evil has intruded.

The need to connect faith and work is perceived nowadays, among others, in some protestant movements in the USA. This has its origin in the reappraisal of ordinary life in the works of Luther and Calvin, which is not alien to the modern process of secularization. Catholic theology and Magisterium have dealt with the importance of work only in recent times. In this context, the teachings of saint Josemaría can be of interest, as they imply to welcome the challenges of reformation without its limitations, thanks to a more balanced view of the relation between creation and redemption.

John Wesley brought together five key dynamics of the Christian faith, effectively combining in thought and practice these five elements:
1. Divine sovereignty and human freedom
2. Doctrine and experience
3. Experience and structure
4. Charismatic and institutional elements
5. Present and future salvation.
This essay suggests that this synthesis is both biblical and powerful. It then takes a fresh look at the much-discussed Wesleyan Quadrilateral, showing the ways it must be reconsidered. (Cowman Lecture, Seoul Theological University, 2016)

Alfa e Omega è un breve manuale che, come indicato dal titolo, studia la protologia e l’escatologia cristiana, alla luce del cristocentrismo trinitario e del principio sintetico. La luminosità di Cristo risorto si espande verso gli inizi della storia e anche verso la fine di essa. Le diverse dimensioni del disegno trinitario creatore e salvifico confluiscono nel mistero di Cristo, in modo tale che né la creazione è solo la questione dell’origine né l’escatologia è solo il problema del destino, ma entrambe si collegano in Colui che ne dà ragione della loro identità presente. Essendo Cristo il Logos, la sua luce non contrasta con la ragione umana, ma la porta al suo vero compimento. In questo senso, ci si avvale in queste pagine in modo particolare della compagnia di due grandi maestri, Tommaso d’Aquino e Joseph Ratzinger, nell’intento di mostrare, nello sviluppo dei diversi temi che compongono la protologia e l’escatologia, non solo la compatibilità della congiunzione dell’approccio metafisico con quello storico-salvifico ed esistenziale, ma anche la fecondità di una tale sintesi. Il manuale è destinato agli studenti del primo ciclo degli studi istituzionali, ed è frutto di più di quindici anni d’insegnamento.

An early undergraduate piece dealing with the extent to which theological language is metaphorical. This draws on concepts of divine transcendence and immanence, creation, the imago dei and the incarnation. Biblical materials used to illustrate the argument are the narratives of creation and the tower of Babel, Job, Ezekiel's merkabah vision and the Johannine call to brotherly love (1 John 4:7-12)

The problem of evil is not only a logical problem about God’s goodness but also an existential problem about the sense of God’s presence, which the Biblical book of Job conceives as a problem of aesthetic experience. Thus, just as theism can be grounded in religious experience, atheism can be grounded in experience of evil. This phenomenon is illustrated by two contrasting literary descriptions of aesthetic experience by Jean-Paul Sartre and Annie Dillard. I illuminate both of these literary texts with a discussion of the 18th Century philosopher Lord Shaftesbury’s concept of ‘enthusiasm’.

May, A. (2010b): Buchbesprechung: 1119. Junker, R. & Scherer, S. (2006): Evolution. Ein kritisches Lehrbuch (mit Beitr. von H. Binder, M. Brandt, N. Crompton, J. Fehrer, S. Hartwig-Scherer, P. Imming, D. Keim, H. Kutzelnigg, R. Süßmuth, H. Ullrich, G. Wagner & N.Winkler). - Zentralblatt für Geologie und Paläontologie Teil II, 2010 (5/6): p. 931-934; Stuttgart.

TEXT DER BUCHBESPRECHUNG:
Junker, R. & Scherer, S. (2006): Evolution. Ein kritisches Lehrbuch (mit Beitr. von H. Binder, M. Brandt, N. Crompton, J. Fehrer, S. Hartwig-Scherer, P. Imming, D. Keim, H. Kutzelnigg, R. Süßmuth, H. Ullrich, G. Wagner & N. Winkler). – 6. akt. u. erw. Aufl., 336 S., 419 Abb. (davon 410 farbig), 23 Tab.; Gießen (Weyel Biologie), 20 x 27 cm, geb., ISBN 3-921046-10-6; € 24,90.

Das vorliegende Buch tritt mit dem mehrfach formulierten Anspruch auf, ein kritisches Lehrbuch zu sein. Ein Lehrbuch ist es, denn es schneidet alle im Zusammenhang mit der Evolution wesentlichen Themenkomplexe an. Aber es ist nur „kritisierend“ und nicht „kritisch“, denn anstatt die beobachteten Fakten entsprechend ihrer Häufigkeit, Evidenz und Bedeutung darzustellen, sucht es immer und überall die Aspekte, die als Schwachpunkte der Evolutionstheorie gelten können, oder die die Bedeutung und Reichweite der Evolutionstheorie reduzieren könnten, oder die „Schöpfungslehren“ Nahrung geben könnten. Vielfach wird Fakten, die zwar richtig, aber nur von sehr begrenzter Bedeutung sind, oder existierenden wissenschaftlichen Minderheitsmeinungen eine ihnen nicht zukommende Bedeutung gegeben. So wird z. B. den Ausnahmen vom universellen genetischen Code der DNS an verschiedenen Stellen große Bedeutung gegeben.
Demgegenüber werden die Aspekte, die starke Belege oder Beweise für die Evolutionstheorie sind, viel knapper und stiefmütterlich behandelt und in ihrer Bedeutung heruntergespielt. So benennen die Autoren zwar kurz die Kategorien des Systems der Lebewesen, machen aber nicht den geringsten Versuch, die Fülle der Lebewesen darzustellen. Oder sie wählen Fallbeispiele aus, die man zumindest als etwas unglücklich bezeichnen kann (z.B. die Orchideen-Gattung Ophrys als Musterbeispiel für Co-Evolution auf S. 72). 
Ein anderes Beispiel für das Vorgehen der Autoren ist das 15. Kapitel, die Entstehung der Menschheit: Zwar werden alle relevanten Taxa zitiert, aber oft erweckt das in den Illustrationen dokumentierte Material einen Eindruck von Bruchstückhaftigkeit und Unvollständigkeit der Fossilüberlieferung, der den großen Fortschritten der Paläoanthropologie in den letzten Jahrzehnten nicht gerecht wird. Und der Text walzt die Unsicherheiten und offen Fragen in den Details so weitgehend aus, dass für einen unkundigen Leser die klaren großen Linien der Evolution des Menschen nicht mehr sichtbar sind.
Auf die hier angesprochenen Weisen wird der Leser systematisch und sehr geschickt manipuliert. Trotzdem ist es oft schwierig, die Manipulation als solche hieb- und stich-fest zu beweisen, denn in den meisten Fällen kann man nicht ausdrücklich sagen, dass das Dargestellte völlig falsch ist, es ist halt immer nur sehr stark verzerrt, verkürzt und verbogen.
Besonders deutlich ist die Manipulation im Abschnitt „Sehen im Tierreich“ (S.81-82), der so beginnt: „Zwar schauderte es schon DARWIN, wenn er an die Evolution eines Wirbeltierauges dachte,...“ Dies erinnert an den alten Creationisten-Trick, eine rhetorische Zuspitzung im 6. Kapitel von Darwin´s „The Origin of Species“, die eine mehrseitige Erklärung der Entstehung des Auges einleitet, aus dem Kontext zu reißen und so gegen Darwin selbst zu richten (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB301.html). Anstatt sich mit den von Darwin gegebenen Argumenten zur Augen-Entstehung und den klassischen Beobachtungen nachfolgender Autoren zu den Augen-Typen der Mollusken auseinanderzusetzen, bietet der Abschnitt dem Leser eine Mischung aus tendenziösen Verallgemeinerungen und verwirrenden Details.

Nachdem die Autoren im gesamten Buch die Evolutionstheorie soweit als möglich in Frage gestellt haben, versuchen sie im letzten Kapitel das Leben unter der Voraussetzung von Schöpfung zu deuten. Die „klassischen“ Ansätze „Schöpfung durch Evolution“ und „Kurzzeit-Schöpfungslehren“ (=Creationismus) finden nicht die Zustimmung der Autoren. Sie favorisieren ein neues Konzept, das mit von Gott geschaffenen „Grundtypen“ arbeitet (wie z.B. Hundeartige, Katzenartige, Pferdeartige), die sich durch Mikroevolution modifizieren und diversifizieren. Offensichtlich werden sie sich der Absurdität des „Grundtypen“-Konzepts nicht bewusst: Dieses Konzept benötigt viele tausende einzelne Schöpfungsakte verstreut über mehrere Milliarden Jahre, denn die Autoren akzeptieren die geologischen Zeiträume. Dieses Konzept erklärt auch nicht, warum es zwischen verschiedenen „Grundtypen“ jene abgestuften Ähnlichkeiten gibt, die zwanglos zum System der Lebewesen führen. Darüber hinaus gibt es auch keine theologische Rechtfertigung für das „Grundtypen“-Konzept, denn beide Schöpfungsberichte am Anfang der Bibel sind „Kurzzeit-Schöpfungslehren“.

Wenn der Leser schon etwas von der Fülle und Vielfalt des Lebens kennengelernt hat, wird dieses Buch vermutlich Verwirrung und Irritation hervorrufen. Wenn der Leser erst durch dieses Buch die Biologie kennenlernt, kann es sein, dass neben einem diffusen Zweifel an der Evolutionstheorie auch ein diffuser Glaube an einen Schöpfergott angeregt wird. Trotzdem ist dieses Buch eigentlich nur interessant für Personen, die entschieden gegen die Evolutionstheorie eingestellt sind und Munition oder Selbstvergewisserung für ihre Position suchen.
Wenn die Autoren mit diesem Buch Gott dienen wollten, so ist es gründlich fehlgeschlagen; denn man kann dem Vater aller Wahrheit nicht mit Manipulationen und Lügen dienen. Vielleicht konnten die Autoren es nicht besser, da sie Gefangene eines Weltbildes oder eines Denkverbotes waren. Man möchte den Autoren zurufen: „Die Wahrheit wird euch frei machen!“ (Joh, 8,32).

Wie könnte nun eine Versöhnung zwischen Evolutionstheorie und jüdisch-christlichem Glaube aussehen? Zuallererst müsste sie beides ernst nehmen, die biologische Wissenschaft und den biblischen Befund. Der biblische Befund ist unbezweifelbar (auch wenn Creationisten ihn systematisch ignorieren): Seit mehr als zweitausend Jahren beginnt das erste Buch der Bibel mit zwei radikal unterschiedlichen und inkompatiblen Schöpfungberichten: Zuerst die hochphilosophische Sieben-Tage-Schöpfung (Gen 1,1-2,4a), danach sofort die ursprungsmythische Adam-und-Eva-Schöpfung (ab Gen 2,4b). Es ist offensichtlich, dass es nicht die Funktion dieser Schöpfungsberichte sein kann, zu beschreiben, wie die Welt entstand; denn dann könnte nur einer von beiden Berichten richtig sein und der andere müsste falsch sein; vielmehr handelt es sich um Texte, die grundlegende Wahrheiten über Gott, den Menschen und die Welt in begreifbare Bilder fassen wollen.
Wenn man die in der Bibel dokumentierte Geschichte des Volkes Israel Revue passieren lässt, entdeckt man einen Gott, der sich und den Seinen Zeit lässt – Zeit um sich zu entwickeln: Von der Berufung Abrahams ausgehend, sozusagen der ersten kleinen Glaubenszelle, entwickelt sich der Glaube immer weiter – über Blütezeiten (David und Salomon) und schwere Krisen (babylonisches Exil) hinweg – bis zur Krone des Ganzen, der Fülle der Offenbarung in Jesus Christus. Eine vergleichbare Entwicklung kann auch jeder Christ im eigenen Glauben beobachten: Am Anfang ist der Glaube noch klein und unreif, aber dann, durch die Kämpfe, Zweifel und Erfahrungen, wächst und reift der Glaube.
Man sieht, wenn man Bibel und Glaube ernst nimmt, bietet sich ganz automatisch das  Bild eines Gottes an, der sich für seine Schöpfung Zeit nimmt und der deshalb die Fülle des Lebens durch Evolution schafft. Wie genau Gott die Lebewelt durch Evolution geschaffen hat, kann der Rez. nicht beantworten. Aber eines ist klar: Gott hat es sicher nicht durch die wunderbare Schöpfung der ersten Hunde, Katzen und Pferde gemacht, wie es uns Junker & Scherer nahelegen wollen; denn Gott hat nicht ein Universum mit wohldurchdachten und beständigen Regeln, den Naturgesetzen, geschaffen, um dann – viele tausend Male – in der Schaffung eines neuen Grundtyps, diese Regeln wunderbarerweise außer Kraft zu setzen. Eine derartige „Flickschusterei“ ist typisch für Menschen, aber Gott und seine Wege sind größer und anders (Jesaja 55,9).

Before I launch into my argument, I'd like to make a couple opening remarks. First, it's an extreme pleasure to pastor at Calvary along with these two colleagues and to sit under the preaching of Pastor Todd, especially during these last weeks of exploring the doctrine of creation. Second, I adamantly submit that there is no doubt in my mind that Todd, Gerald, and I submit to the Rule of Faith, namely the assertions found in both the Apostles and Nicene Creed. In addition, it's clear that all three of us work diligently to construct our exegesis of Scripture and theology of Scripture with the Scripture Rule in mind—we put the interpretation of Scripture by other Scripture in the place of first order for the development of doctrine. This means that none of us—Todd, Gerald, or I—operate from a dangerous place of heterodoxy, nor do any one of us risk undermining Scripture's authority or the integrity of the Creator by our individual expressions of the doctrine of creation. Nonetheless, we differ in our view on science and faith, and it is worthwhile for each of us to share those differing views magnanimously and with deference towards one another. Permit me now to state my reservations concerning evolution of every sort. These reservations fall under two particular heads, partially because I imagine seven minutes really only allows for two arguments. Many other very good arguments might be levied, but I find that these two arguments are especially intriguing and compelling. My argument is that evolution and creation are mutually exclusive systems according to their philosophical and linguistical outworkings. To try to reconcile the two, puts one on the horns of a dilemma where one would not find a home in and be fully accepted by either community. That person is then self-selected out of both communities, and in turn, ultimately becomes extinct, pun intended.

The article surveys recent scholarship on the use of creation imagery in the Gospel of John, with the aim of presenting rather exhaustive register of possible references. Both the obvious and the less clear-cut allusions to Gen 1–3 are discussed, the main focus being to accumulate and assess evidence (for or against) all the apparent references to creation imagery. Included in this examination are several unconvincing and even far-fetched proposals advanced by some modern scholars, in order to give the fullest possible picture of current discourse on these issues. After discussing the creation theme in the Prologue (1:1–18), the article explores the presence of creation imagery in the Book of Signs (1:19–12:50) and the Book of Glory (13:1–21:25)

Un métarécit des origines fondateur de la vision du monde Toute civilisation est construite sur un métarécit des origines. Autrefois, l'Occident était façonné par le métarécit traditionnel de la Genèse et sa cosmologie associée. Aujourd'hui, l'évolution est devenue le métarécit des origines de notre civilisation. L'évolution est beaucoup plus qu'un mécanisme de création, une simple théorie scientifique neutre. En fait, le discours évolutionniste se situe tout à la fois sur les plans scientifique, théologique, ontologique et métaphysique, enraciné dans une vision cosmologique d'ensemble. L'évolution est devenue une vision du monde englobant tout, munie de sa propre métaphysique, de sa propre ontologie et de sa propre théologie. Elle fait office de mythe fondateur se substituant au récit créationnel de la Genèse. Et en tant que mythe fondateur, elle constitue une grille de lecture de l'ensemble de la réalité, une philosophie de la nature qui vient évincer la révélation biblique qui nous a été donnée du cosmos, de la nature et de l'homme.

Heated debates stemming from the confrontation of scientific knowledge with the biblical picture of the creation of man, which had followed the publication of Darwin's theory of evolution, became far less prominent in the second half of the 20th century. This was due to two factors: first, the theory of evolution was partly accepted in theological circles and at the same time biologists showed a growing awareness of the limited epistemological scope of the competence of the natural sciences. This lesson from the history, however, seems to have been forgotten by many who now and again return to controversies which more often than not are caused by ideological quarrels over religion, with true scholarship being too easily lost from sight.
The paper reminds some of the history of the controversy in question and suggests that at least some of the current problems regarding evolution˗and˗creation controversy may have already found their solutions. In part 1, “The Theory of Evolution and the Creation of the Human” it deals with the general issue of human origins. In part 2, “Monogenism and Original Sin” it explores the notion of the ‘first human’ as it is employed in biology and in theology, and shows its completely different meaning in these two realms of knowledge which helps to resolve the recurrent controversy over monogenism.

The theories of Darwinian evolution and Intelligent Design appear to be locked in an intractable debate, partly because they offer rival scientific explanations for the phenomenon of descent with modification in biology. This paper analyses the dispute in two ways: firstly, it seeks to clarify the exact nature of the logical flaw that has been alleged to lie at the heart of Intelligent Design theory. Secondly, it proposes that, in spite of this error, the Intelligent Design theory advocated by Michael Behe takes at least one significant step in the right direction. Although Behe’s suggestion is promising, it is shown to be not nearly radical enough.

The historic view of heaven as the abode of the departed saints has recently been criticized as incompatible with the biblical idea of resurrection. The alternative view that heaven melds with earth in a 'resurrected' universe is shown to be based on flawed assumptions. The cosmos is not fallen, so it does not need redemption, and resurrection does not pertain to any but human beings in Scripture. The 'new heavens and new earth' are rather shown to be a new order of God's working within history, the counterpart to ideas of cataclysmic destruction figuratively spoken of in the day of the Lord. The early Christian view had a clear focus on heaven, with the paucity of attention to 'new heavens and new earth' associated with chiliasm, gradations of salvation or the resurrection of humans.

The Oxford Handbook of Philosophical Theology is a collection of twenty-six essays or articles edited by Thomas Flint, professor of philosophy at the University of Notre Dame, and Michael Rea, also a professor of philosophy at the same university.
In the Introduction to this work, the editors give a definition of what they consider philosophical theology to be: “philosophical theology (as we understand it) is aimed primarily at theoretical understanding of the nature and attributes of God, and God’s relationship to the world and things in the world” (p. 1).
With the publication of Alasdair Maclntyre and Anthony Flew’s New Essays in Philosophical Theology in 1955, there was a great revival of interest in the philosophy of religion in general and, in its wake, in philosophical theology in particular, especially in the latter half of the twentieth century. The topics presented in the book were like the agenda for subsequent work in philosophy of religion for the next two or three decades, such as the meaningfulness of religious discourse and questions about the rationality of religious belief.
This present work, however, covers a new focus of attention apart from those concerning the nature, rationality, and meaningfulness of theistic belief. In the last twenty years, as the editors remark, “a great deal of attention has been devoted recently to philosophical problems arising out of the Christian doctrines of the Trinity, the Incarnation, and the Atonement; there has been an explosion of work on questions about the nature of divine providence and its implications for human freedom; and a fair bit of recent work has also been done on questions about the metaphysical possibility of the resurrection of the dead” (p. 4). At the same time, the authors note that there is a very small literature on the topic of divine revelation and the inspiration of Scripture, only a handful of works on the topics of prayer, original sin, and the nature of heaven and hell, and virtually nothing on the Christian doctrine of the Eucharist from a philosophical standpoint.
The book is divided into five parts covering five general topics:

I. Theological Prolegomena
II. Divine Attributes
III. God and Creation
IV. Topics in Christian Philosophical Theology
V. Non-Christian Philosophical Theology

The recent publication of Laudato si’ by Pope Francis offers a good opportunity to rethink on the theological relation between our faith in God the Creator and the fulfillment of creation in Christ. In this paper, taking as a point of departure for theological reflection the prepositions of the Christological hymn of the Letter to the Colossians, I sustain that the Christocentric approach of contemporary theology has to be conceived in such a way that it can leave a space for the necessary dialogue that Christians are called to hold with Non-Christians and also with Nonbelievers in our multi-cultural society.

The uploaded version of the article is my PDF of the publication.
One of the new constellations which, in my opinion, will be much debated on in the post-pandemic time will be the theological interpretation of Creation and of the aims of Creation within the Christian tradition. In my view, this will represent a central subject within the theological debate, since this topic directly involves the goal as such of Creation, on the one hand, and the position, value, right, and duty of mankind within Creation, on the other. The related questions are whether God’s action of Creation is directed to affirming the pre-eminence of mankind and the right of domination of man over all other created entities, or whether God’s action of Creation includes all the created entities in an equal way without God designating superiority to any created entity over any other entity.
In my contribution, I am therefore going to deal with two mutually opposed interpretations of Creation and of the corresponding relations existing among God, mankind, and all the other creatures. The first interpretation could be synthesised in the formula Dominium Terrae of man over other creatures. The second interpretation could be described as God designating to humankind the stewardship of nature. The notions of the two interpretations of God’s Creation have consequences – for mankind’s attitudes and orientations towards nature – which are completely different from each other.
- The first interpretation, which has, as its central feature, foundation, and principle, the notion of man as the image of God, considers mankind as the centre of creation. This interpretation confers to mankind a position of absolute privilege over all of the other creatures; all of nature bows to mankind. The direction of God’s Creation is anthropocentric meaning all creatures and nature in its entirety are at the disposal of mankind, since mankind has received from the very word of God the legitimation for the dominion over nature. Nature is regarded as an object to be used and which can be used. It has no actual worth, no actual value as such; it has no independent position in reality.
- The second interpretation, which insists on the commonality among all creatures, assigns a common dignity to all creatures. God is seen as being present in all of Creation: through Creation, mankind is assigned the duty of stewardship over all of nature. The direction of God’s Creation is not anthropocentric. Mankind is assigned and has thus a precise responsibility towards nature. This responsibility outlines exact limits as regards the use which mankind can make of nature: mankind may exercise no dominion over nature.
Hence, the two interpretations of the Theology of Creation bring about different considerations of nature and of the relationships between mankind and nature. Furthermore, they express different conceptions of mankind as such. In my opinion, the debate on the interpretation of God’s relationship with the created entities and, within this general relationship, the mutual opposition between an anthropocentric and non-anthropocentric Creation will be more present than ever in the post-pandemic time due to its relevance for the general orientation of mankind towards nature. The Theology of Creation involves furthermore a general meditation on the aims and the limits of the technical power towards nature.
For my analysis, I shall concentrate my attention on some passages taken from Genesis, the Wisdom of Solomon, and from Paul the Apostle. To find ideas and suggestions for my analysis, I have referred to the books of Robin Attfield, Environmental Ethics: An Overview for the Twenty-First Century, and of Jürgen Moltmann, Ethik der Hoffnung.
I take full responsibility for the ideas expressed in the analysis.

This is the synopsis of my new book, which is now available from Stanford University Press, but also Amazon etc/. See further here on the SUP page:
https://www.sup.org/books/title/?id=23207

"A fresh and more capacious reading of the Western religious tradition on nature and creation, Thinking Nature puts medieval Irish theologian John the Scot Eriugena (810-877) into conversation with American philosopher Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803-1882). Challenging the biblical stewardship model of nature and histories of nature and religion that pit orthodoxy against the heresy of pantheism, author Willemien Otten reveals a line of thought that has long made room for nature’s agency as the coworker of God. Embracing this more elusive idea of nature into a world beset by environmental crisis, she suggests, will allow us to see nature not as a victim, but as an ally in a common quest for re-attunement to the divine. Putting its protagonists into further dialogue with such classical authors as Augustine, Maximus the Confessor, Friedrich Schleiermacher, and William James, her study deconstructs the idea of pantheism and paves the way for a new natural theology.”

Check also my website for a colloquium on Pantheism, Creation, Emanation and Other Aspects of Nature at the University of Chicago on April 29-30, 2020,: https://divinity.uchicago.edu/willemien-otten-0

In 2010, the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society published a 32-page brochure, "The Origin of Life", with the intention of supporting its view that life was created by a divine source, as declared in the Hebrew Scriptures. The purpose of this Critique is to examine the manner in which the brochure employs information from scientists to support the Watchtower's position. Their brochure does not claim that any of the cited scientists supports its stance on Creation and indeed makes it very clear that the scientists are evolutionists. When the brochure provides information from a scientist, it appeals to the reader's subjective opinion, asking whether it is possible that unaided Nature could have resulted in the outcomes witnessed by scientists. This is the brochure's strategy and agenda. Truth would thus be determined through subjective opinion. However, this very same information is used by scientists in their support for evolution.

This is the second in a series of courses that survey Orthodox dogmatic theology. Topics include the doctrine of the economy of the Holy Trinity: God in relation to His creation; time and eternity; the spiritual realm, including angels and demons; the sensible realm including the animal kingdom; Man as the microcosm and priest of creation; and related topics.

Christians, more than ever, need a basic introduction to Bible doctrine that is systematic and true to Scripture. This book is a popular introduction to the study of Bible doctrine firmly in the evangelical tradition. Each chapter covers a biblical doctrine, stresses its doctrinal importance and inter-connectedness to formulating a Christian worldview. The study questions provided help reinforce the material and make it usable even for a formal study of Bible doctrine. It is ideal for personal study and in groups for the home, church, school or ministry environment.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1518707378

http://bastionbooks.com/shop/survey-of-bible-doctrine/

I differentiate between Thomas' metaphysical account of creation and his theological account of creation, with the later focusing on his interpretation of the Genesis creation story.  I argue that, while Thomas is committed to harmonizing Scripture, philosophy, and science and provides good principles for doing so, his commitment to the Aristotelian-Ptolemaic science of his age means that many details of his creation account are in fact incompatible with contemporary science and must be revised.

The structure of the tabernacle and the order of the divine service (תמיד) reflect the cosmology and ritual of creation. Through the divine service Israel actualizes the divinely created order, becoming partakers of God's "very good" and bringing holiness and blessing to the world.

The city of Tyre, the significant center of wealth and trade in antiquity, becomes the target of prophetic critique in the prophets’ Oracles Against Foreign Nations (OAN). Amos, Isaiah and Ezekiel have a condemning word for Tyre (including greed, economic oppression and human trafficking), but it is especially Ezekiel’s word of judgment against Tyre that serves as a model for the New Testament, specifically for John, the author of the book of Revelation. John uses Ezekiel’s oracle against Tyre to construct his own accusatory word against Rome.
What is it about Tyre that gave it this bad fame? The purpose of this paper is to explore the Old Testament background of John’s inspiration: Tyre in the biblical imagination. By narrowing down our attention to the Book of Ezekiel, where three whole chapters are devoted to Tyre, our aim is to identify those Tyrian elements/practices perceived as offensive to the ethical sensitivities of Ezekiel, as well as other biblical authors.
What is of particular interest in Ezekiel 28 is the “dehumanization” of the king of Tyre who acts as a representative of the city. One would expect that the “dehumanized” ones are Tyre’s victims, but the biblical author portrays the king of Tyre as the primeval man, known to us as Adam, whose sin of wealth accumulation causes his fall (loss of true humanity). Ezekiel appears to re-read the narrative of Eden locating the fall of humanity in wealth accumulation, economic oppression and hubris. In other words, Tyre loses its original “humanity” because it attempted to supersede it.

In this paper I examine the role of Thomas Aquinas’ cosmological arguments in the natural theologies of early modern Calvinism. Some of the first Calvinistic forays into theistic proofs make use of Thomist arguments which allow for the logical possibility of creation from eternity. In the seventeenth century, many Reformed theologians prefer to use arguments against the possibility of an eternal world—arguments which had been defended by medieval theologians such as Bonaventure. But these arguments in turn faced criticism in the seventeenth century, and many of the Reformed supplemented them or replaced them with others. The argument from the mutability of the world to its temporal beginning became increasingly popular among Calvinists. Historical arguments from the recent rise of arts and sciences or biological species supplemented the philosophical arguments for the world’s beginning. Their theological commitment to the impossibility of eternal creation may explain why the Reformed did not typically use the Clarke/Leibniz argument from contingency.

De probleemstelling van deze afstudeerverhandeling is: Waarom zouden we bij de christologie beginnen om de schepping uit te leggen?

Het zal gaan over de verhouding tussen de christologie en de scheppingsleer. Hierbij komen de volgende deelvragen aan de orde:

Bij de scheppingsleer:
(a) Wat betekent het als we spreken over schepping?
(b) Hoe ziet een christelijke scheppingsleer er volgens Colin Gunton uit?
(c) Wat zegt de bijbel over de relatie tussen de schepper en schepping? Hoe gebruikt Gunton deze gegevens?

Bij de verhouding tussen christologie en schepping:
(d) Hoe ziet Gunton in het Nieuwe Testament de verhouding tussen Christus en de schepping?
(e) Wat bedoelt Gunton met zijn bewering dat Christus hét ultieme paradigma is om te zien hoe God en de wereld in relatie staan?
(f) Wat is volgens Gunton de rol van Christus in de creatio ex nihilo en in de creatio continua?