<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Jonathan Edwards and the Philosophy of History: Part 2</title>
	<atom:link href="http://theologyforum.wordpress.com/2009/08/13/jonathan-edwards-and-the-philosophy-of-history-part-2/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://theologyforum.wordpress.com/2009/08/13/jonathan-edwards-and-the-philosophy-of-history-part-2/</link>
	<description>Serving the joyful cultivation of the theological craft for the life of the church: inquiring honestly, deliberating wisely, acting faithfully</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 15 May 2013 06:00:16 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Griffin</title>
		<link>http://theologyforum.wordpress.com/2009/08/13/jonathan-edwards-and-the-philosophy-of-history-part-2/#comment-12565</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Griffin]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 13 Aug 2009 16:53:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://theologyforum.wordpress.com/?p=2556#comment-12565</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A few words of caution:  1) &quot;enchantment&quot; is a bad word in the Bible; it refers to false prophets and sorcerers, feeding us delusions, illusions, lies, and ... enchantments.  So that the contemporarly &quot;re-enchantment of the world&quot; may not be biblical.  Or at any rate, not on the right side of bibical God/devil dualisms.

Another problem:  2) if Edwards and others were continually in the world, trying to convert it, that does not however connote respect for the world itself; indeed, it usually means the opposite of that.  The world is seen as evil in itself, and can only become good to the extent that it reflects another, more divine sphere.  So it would not quite be right to imply that Edwards or Calvinism really, fully respected the world. 

More intresting to me, are 3) those moment when heaven comes down to earth; when God made the material earth (cf. &quot;world&quot;) and said it was &quot;good,&quot; not evil. Which gives a far more fundamental dignity and worth to the earth.  

4) Edward&#039;s deification or baptism of &quot;atoms&quot; might be closer to the mark; but still not quite as good in justifying the earth, the world, again.  And rediscovering Christianity as more compatible with science.  Which would be my own goal.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A few words of caution:  1) &#8220;enchantment&#8221; is a bad word in the Bible; it refers to false prophets and sorcerers, feeding us delusions, illusions, lies, and &#8230; enchantments.  So that the contemporarly &#8220;re-enchantment of the world&#8221; may not be biblical.  Or at any rate, not on the right side of bibical God/devil dualisms.</p>
<p>Another problem:  2) if Edwards and others were continually in the world, trying to convert it, that does not however connote respect for the world itself; indeed, it usually means the opposite of that.  The world is seen as evil in itself, and can only become good to the extent that it reflects another, more divine sphere.  So it would not quite be right to imply that Edwards or Calvinism really, fully respected the world. </p>
<p>More intresting to me, are 3) those moment when heaven comes down to earth; when God made the material earth (cf. &#8220;world&#8221;) and said it was &#8220;good,&#8221; not evil. Which gives a far more fundamental dignity and worth to the earth.  </p>
<p>4) Edward&#8217;s deification or baptism of &#8220;atoms&#8221; might be closer to the mark; but still not quite as good in justifying the earth, the world, again.  And rediscovering Christianity as more compatible with science.  Which would be my own goal.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
