Tag Archives: characterising creation

Openness in creation

In a recent post, I used this quote from Jeremy Begbie: … humans are not automatons, bound by iron necessity to their environment, but exercise a freedom, an openness that God has granted them. And this itself can be set in a wider context, for such freedom, presuming it is not an illusion, is part

maths and creating

It’s an on-going debate as to whether maths is discovered or created. I was wondering today if we can find a middle way between these. The sketch of the idea is this… In his book Resounding Truth, Jeremy Begbie emphasises that creation has a flexible order — there is structure but in our development of

Osborn on Speech-act creation

Having started down the creation-as-speech-act train of thought I (re)discovered that Lawrence Osborn makes a similar connection in his book Guardians of Creation. Here are a few quotes At eight points in Genesis 1 God speaks creatively: ‘And God said, “Let…”‘… This use of speech as a metaphor for the divine activity of creation suggests

Creation as Speech-act (5)

OK, we set up the speech-act ideas, plus an interesting re-thinking of cause-and-effect. Let’s explore a bit more. Another interesting aspect of Vanhoozer’s speech-act discussion is the Trinitarian spin he puts on it. Let’s start with a quote: There is a connection, I submit, between pneumatology and perlocutions. To return to speech act theory: a

Creation as Speech-act (4)

OK, let’s bring together what we’ve said so far: we’ve noted that the Bible describes God’s acts of creation primarily in terms of speaking; and that Speech-act theory allows us to clarify that speaking frequently does more than convey information. What I want to do is push Vanhoozer’s idea beyond God’s interactions with humans to

Creation as Speech-act (3)

OK, I introduced the idea of speech-act, as explained by Kevin Vanhoozer. Now the other side of the story — looking at the way God creates and acts by speaking. A key passage is clearly Genesis 1. Right from the start we have ‘And God said…’, with the typical formulation And God said, Let …

Creation as Speech-Act (2)

To start I need to talk about the whole idea of speech-acts. I’m borrowing heavily from Kevin Vanhoozer (as usual , so let’s start with a quote from First Theology. Speech acts belong to the twentieth philosophy of language. The main point is that in speaking we also do certain things. Words do not simply label;

Creation as Speech-act (1)

OK, I want to try and push something (tentatively) that has floated in the background of a couple of posts recently: the idea of ‘scientific laws’ as the response of creation to God’s call (e.g. see here). To flesh this out a little bit, I want to attempt a link-up with the idea of ‘speech-acts’

Science and Grace (8)

Following their discussion of ‘laws of nature’, Morris and Petcher look at some of the consequences of the perspective that they have developed. Particularly helpful are two inter-linked discussions of the ‘openness’ and (apparent?) randomness in creation.  (I should say before plunging into these that their discussion at this point goes some way to dampening

Science and Grace (7)

Bringing together the discussion of God’s relationship with creation some thoughts on miracles, Morris and Petcher propose this definition for a natural law (1): A law of nature is God’s sustaining of, or man’s description of, that pattern of regularity that we observe in nature as God works out His purposes towards His own ends