Andrews University Digital Commons @ Andrews University Master's Theses Graduate Research 2012 Protology and Eschatology in the Writings of John C. Polkinghorne: a Study of Contrastive Roles of Scripture H Nicholas De Lima Andrews University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/theses Part of the Religious Thought, Theology and Philosophy of Religion Commons Recommended Citation De Lima, H Nicholas, "Protology and Eschatology in the Writings of John C. Polkinghorne: a Study of Contrastive Roles of Scripture" (2012). Master's Theses. 36. https://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/theses/36 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate Research at Digital Commons @ Andrews University. It has been accepted for inclusion in Master's Theses by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ Andrews University. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Thank you for your interest in the Andrews University Digital Library of Dissertations and Theses. Please honor the copyright of this document by not duplicating or distributing additional copies in any form without the author’s express written permission. Thanks for your cooperation. ABSTRACT PROTOLOGY AND ESCHATOLOGY IN THE WRITINGS OF JOHN C. POLKINGHORNE: A STUDY OF CONTRASTIVE ROLES OF SCRIPTURE by H. Nicholas De Lima Adviser: John T. Baldwin ABSTRACT OF GRADUATE STUDENT RESEARCH Thesis Andrews University Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary Title: PROTOLOGY AND ESCHATOLOGY IN THE WRITINGS OF JOHN C. POLKINGHORNE: A STUDY OF CONTRASTIVE ROLES OF SCRIPTURE Name of researcher: H. Nicholas De Lima Name and degree of faculty adviser: John T. Baldwin, Ph.D. Date completed: November 2012 Problem The focus of this thesis is to address the problem of the contrastive roles of Scripture in protology and eschatology in the writings of John C. Polkinghorne. On the one hand, Polkinghorne rejects a univocal understanding of Gen 1-2, by invoking symbolic/analogical language for Gen 1-2, so that he can accept scientific protology. On the other hand, Polkinghorne introduces an apparent, relative univocity of biblical language in order to obtain his eschatology, contrary to the claims of pure scientific eschatology. This seems to suggest a dimension of internal methodological and theological incoherence in his system. Methodology This thesis provides a descriptive systematic and evaluative analysis of the contrastive usage of Scripture in Polkinghorne’s protology and eschatology. Chapter 1 provides a brief introduction, outlines the objective and describes the research methodology and delimitations of the study. In chapter 2, Polkinghorne’s scientific and theological methodology is analytically described. Chapters 3 and 4 present two case studies: protology and eschatology. Chapter 5 critically compares and contrasts the two case studies and presents the conclusion to this thesis and recommendations for further study. Conclusions The thesis concludes that Polkinghorne’s symbolic interpretation of biblical protology and his relatively univocal interpretation of biblical eschatology suggests a problem in his hermeneutics, which affects his theological understanding of protology and eschatology. Polkinghorne does not clearly state his criteria for maintaining this distinction between his theological understanding of protology and eschatology. If theological language in protology is interpreted as symbolical rather than univocal, then eschatological language could be interpreted as symbolic as well in order to maintain consistency. Andrews University Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary PROTOLOGY AND ESCHATOLOGY IN THE WRITINGS OF JOHN C. POLKINGHORNE: A STUDY OF CONTRASTIVE ROLES OF SCRIPTURE A Thesis Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Arts by H. Nicholas De Lima 2012 © Copyright by H. Nicholas De Lima 2012 All Rights Reserved PROTOLOGY AND ESCHATOLOGY IN THE WRITINGS OF JOHN C. POLKINGHORNE: A STUDY OF CONTRASTIVE ROLES OF SCRIPTURE A Thesis presented in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree Master of Arts by H. Nicholas De Lima APPROVAL BY THE COMMITTEE: ___________________________ John T. Baldwin, Ph.D., Adviser ___________________________ Fernando L. Canale, Ph.D. ___________________________ ___________________________ Martin F. Hanna, Ph.D. Date approved In loving memory of Adelaide TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .................................... vi Chapter I. INTRODUCTION ...................................... 1 Introduction ........................................ 1 Statement of the Problem .............................. 5 Statement of Purpose ................................ 6 Problem Justification ................................ 6 Methodology ..................................... 7 Delimitations ..................................... 7 Summary ....................................... 7 John C. Polkinghorne: The Scientist and Theologian ................. 8 Summary ......................................... 13 II. POLKINGHORNE’S SCIENTIFIC AND THEOLOGICAL METHOD ........ 14 Introduction ....................................... 14 Theology in the Context of Science ........................... 14 Critical Realism ................................... 23 Revised Natural Theology and Theology of Nature ................ 35 Scientific Methodology and Presuppositions ................. 41 The Authority and Limits of Science ...................... 43 Revelation and Sacred Scripture .......................... 45 The Nature and Authority of Sacred Scripture ................ 45 The Language of Sacred Scripture ....................... 51 Summary and Conclusions ............................... 52 III. SCRIPTURE IN POLKINGHORNE’S PROTOLOGY AND THE REJECTION OF BIBLICAL UNIVOCITY ........................ 55 Introduction ....................................... 55 Protology ......................................... 55 The Anthropic Principle ............................... 59 Kenotic Love and Theodicy ............................. 61 Theistic Evolution .................................. 70 The Authority and Role of Natural Science in Protology ........... 73 iv The Problem of a Biblical Protology ...................... 74 A Reinterpretation of Biblical Protology: Rejection of Biblical Univocity ................................... 78 Summary and Conclusions ............................... 79 IV. SCRIPTURE IN POLKINGHORNE’S ESCHATOLOGY AND THE RE-INTRODUCTION OF BIBLICAL UNIVOCITY .................. 81 Introduction ....................................... 81 Eschatology ....................................... 81 Scientific Cosmology and the Problem of a Scientific Eschatology ......... 85 Biblical Eschatology: Relative Introduction of Biblical Univocity ....................................... 86 The God of Hope and the Resurrection of Christ .................... 89 The New Creation: Ex Vetere in Contrast to Ex Nihilo ............... 91 The Psychosomatic Nature of Humanity and the Resurrection ........... 95 The Four Last Things ................................. 99 Death ........................................ 99 Judgment ..................................... 100 Heaven ...................................... 101 Hell ........................................ 102 Summary and Conclusions ............................... 103 V. CRITICAL DISCUSSION AND EVALUATION: SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION ............................ 105 Summary ......................................... 105 A Critique of Polkinghorne’s Protology and Eschatology .............. 105 Conclusions ........................................ 108 Further Research Needed ................................ 109 BIBLIOGRAPHY .......................................... 110 v ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The research and writing of this thesis have been an arduous journey. I give thanks for all the companiship and assistance I have had while completing this research. First, and foremost, I thank my Lord. He enables me to exceed beyond my inherent limitations because he continues to have a plan for me despite my unworthiness. I dedicate myself and my future theological métier to his honor and glory. Second, I would like to thank my committee for their patient support and critical observations throughtout this endeavor. Beginning with my major adviser, Dr. John Baldwin, I am deeply grateful for introducing me to the creative and critical thinking of John Polkinghorne and for his patience throughout this intellectual exploration; to Dr. Martin Hanna for taking the time in mentoring me as I worked as his graduate assistant; to Dr. Fernando Canale, for his invaluable contribution as a member of this committee; and to Dr. Peter van Bemmelen, for his useful suggestions after the inception of this project when he was originally part of this committee. Third, thanks to my wife, Ana, for believing and sacrificing; to my children, Diana, Dulce, Debora, and Kyllian, for being loving throughout this challenging process; and to my parents, for their sacrifices throughout this journey. Fourth, to my dear friends who kept me in their prayers and were sources of constant support and encouragement. Special mention is due to Rebekah, Enrique, Chris, Arnaldo, Gabriel, Nelson, Ronaldo, Laurence, and Professor Terry Robertson. vi CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Introduction Physicist and theologian, John Polkinghorne, is one of the leading and respected voices1 in the ongoing debate about the complementary relation between science and theology.