MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4206180850 · doi:10.5325/bullbiblrese.31.4.0536

Gavin Ortlund. <i>Retrieving Augustine’s Doctrine of Creation: Ancient Wisdom for Current Controversy</i>.

2021· article· en· W4206180850 sur OpenAlex
Megan C. Roberts

Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base

Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.

affAu moins un auteur déclare une institution canadienne dans l'instantané OpenAlex épinglé.

Notice bibliographique

RevueBulletin for Biblical Research · 2021
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineArts and Humanities
ThématiqueAugustinian Studies and Theology
Établissements canadiensMcMaster Divinity College
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésDoctrineCreationismHumilityPhilosophyConversationCognitive reframingStalemateEpistemologyEnvironmental ethicsTheologyLawPolitical sciencePsychology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Ortlund’s goal in this well-written and timely study is to envision a conversation in which Augustine’s discussions of Gen 1–3 reframe, redirect, and refocus what Ortlund argues is a stalemate between three major positions among North American Christians regarding the doctrine of creation. He broadly categorizes these three positions as theistic evolution, old-earth creationism, and young-earth creationism. As a work of “theological retrieval” (p. 7), Ortlund often describes Augustine’s thought rather than evaluating it since his goal is thoughtful conversation, not a definitive solution to the stalemate. While not agreeing with all facets of Augustine’s thought, Ortlund carefully demonstrates how Augustine’s doctrine of creation helpfully critiques aspects of all three major positions held today, thereby exposing weaknesses in each position. In the same way we come to know the intricacies of our own culture better by experiencing other cultures, Ortlund argues that “Augustine can be valuable to us precisely where he is different from us” (p. 8).Chapters 1 and 2 discuss some of Augustine’s helpful differences: the significance creation holds in his broad theological vision and the importance of the virtue of humility in his reflections on the relationship between Scripture and science. Ortlund notes that Gen 1–3 is the topic of heated discussion today, yet the doctrine of creation is underdeveloped in many denominations. This contrasts with Augustine’s theology, which is permeated by a robust doctrine of creation. Ortlund argues that we should revisit our doctrine of creation in light of Augustine to assess whether and to what extent this essential doctrine has shaped our theological frameworks. We would also do well to cultivate the virtue of humility, heeding Augustine’s numerous warnings against making rash statements about things we cannot fully grasp. Ortlund argues that Augustine strikes a balance worthy of imitation: we do not “[shirk] the labor of investigation” but “[shun] the rashness of dogmatic assertion” (p. 96). This posture of humility enables Christians to learn from science where Scripture is silent and also to critique science when it rejects Scripture’s theological claims. Augustine’s virtue of humility enables a balance between strong theological affirmations and honesty about the questions surrounding the mysteries of creation.Ortlund next addresses the interpretation of the seven days of creation in Gen 1. Young-earth creationists often argue that their literal interpretation of seven, sequential, twenty-four-hour days is the consensus interpretation of premodern Christianity, but Augustine’s writings demonstrate that this is not the case. Augustine believed that God created the universe instantaneously and that the creation of humans occurred after an unknown amount of time had passed. Ortlund notes that, while Augustine was very concerned about the literal meaning of the text, he was also wary of literalism that eschewed the text’s allegorical, symbolic, and theological import. Thus, Augustine argued that, though Gen 1 sets the pattern for our seven-day week, our experience of twenty-four-hour days is unlike the days in Gen 1 and that the six days of creative work should not be understood as sequential. For Augustine, Gen 1 is structured as such to help humans encounter the mystery of creation within the limits of language that cannot capture instantaneous events.Ortlund next covers the issue of pre-fall animal death and its bearing on the young-earth argument that animal death is a post-fall phenomenon and that old-earth and theistic evolutionist perspectives capitulate to “Darwinian and secular claims” (p. 152). This discussion focuses on whether or not animal death is bad and a result of human sin. The young-earth view argues that animal death and violence is contrary to the original good creation while the old-earth and theistic evolutionist views suggest that it is amoral and distinct from the human experience of death. Ortlund engages two key ideas from Augustine to address this matter: the ideas of “temporal beauty” and of “perspectival prejudice” (p. 154). Augustine argued that animal death is not morally bad and instead reveals beauty, albeit a lower form of beauty, in the passing away of one creature so that it gives space for a new one. Augustine likens the progression of this temporal beauty to a poem whose beauty increases as the poetry unfolds line by line. He recognizes, however, that animal death and violence trouble humans but notes humans’ limited understanding and propensity to assess things as good or bad in reference to ourselves. This is foolish, however, since “God knows how the world works and we do not” (p. 169). God gives creatures purposes about which humans are naïve.The final chapter addresses questions surrounding Adam and Eve in relation to evolutionary theory, genetics, and Augustine’s concept of rationes seminales. Augustine argued that God’s instantaneous creative act contained all the design and potential for creation to reach its fullness, like a single seed that becomes a mature plant. Theistic evolutionists have found Augustine’s perspective advantageous for Christians to affirm evolutionary biology. Augustine, however, affirmed the fixity of species along with a complex understanding of Adam, Eve, and Eden as historical realities that are also symbolic and figurative. As such, Augustine’s rationes seminales certainly critiques secular evolutionary theory, but it also critiques those who insist on a purely historical Adam and Eve and deny that creational growth and development could be embedded within God’s creative design. Ortlund suggests that Augustine’s perspective provides guidance for Christians to engage the claims of modern science, holding firmly to orthodox theological convictions alongside a willingness to learn from science, and refraining from making rash assertions when the Bible is silent.Ortlund’s book will be helpful to all Christians who desire to learn more about the creation-evolution debate, to know how to dialogue with fellow Christians on the matter, and to be equipped to dialogue with secular evolutionary theory from a place of theological conviction. Pastors, university students, and Christians engaged in the sciences will find the book particularly helpful. I would recommend it for small group studies, adult Sunday school discussion, and theological classrooms. Ortlund models nuanced and patient dialogue, a valuable skill for all Christians to practice.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesCharge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,715
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,995

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,004
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,001
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0060,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,178
Tête enseignante GPT0,417
Écart entre enseignants0,238 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle