Bybel Media, ‘n maatskappy wat aan die NG Kerk behoort, publiseer boeke wat die Christelike godsdiens soos verwoord in die Bybel en belydenisskrifte tot niet wil maak.

Ek verwys na die boek “Evolusie, wetenskap en geloof: ’n Biografiese inleiding tot die denke van Teilhard de Chardin” van Durand  wat hier in Kerkbode adverteer word. 

Dit is skokkend dat Bybel Media ‘n boek wat Teilhard de Chardin se werk aanbeveel uitgee.

Bybel Media het, as deel van die NG Kerk, net een roeping: En dit is om die Evangelie te verkondig. Teilhard de Chardin is een van die vaders van die New Age.

Die belangrikste kenmerk van Teilhard de Chardin se teologie is panenteisme: Die mens is in wese God en ontologies deel van God.

Hierdie wêreldbeeld is totaal en absoluut onverenigbaar met die Nedelandse Geloofsbelydenis wat in Artikel 1 verklaar dat God onveranderlik is en in Artikel 12 dat God uit niks geskep het. (Verwys na hierdie artikel vir ‘n volledige bespreking daarvan) 

Die feit dat Bybel Media hierdie dwaalleraar se werk ondersteun is ‘n ernstige klad op die maatskappy se integriteit omdat dit die skyn skep dat die NG Kerk met hierdie dwaalleer saamgaan. Dit plaas die NG Kerk se Nihil Obstat en Imprimatur op Teilhard de Chardin.

Ek  rig ‘n dringende versoek aan Ds Danie Mouton om ondersoek in te stel na die teologiese beginsels waarvolgens Bybel Media opereer. Miskien is dit tyd dat mense by Bybel Media dringend tot verantwoording geroep word.

Wynand Louw

NS: Ek plaas hier ‘n aanhaling uit Cooper se boek “Panentheism, the other god of the philosophers”

Nevertheless, Teilhard criticizes traditional theology and promotes a “transformed” version of Christianity.75 It is not surprising that some of his views stand in tension with historic Christian doctrines.76 Three that have attracted criticism are the relation between nature and the supernatural, the origin of sin and evil, and the scope of salvation. We briefly consider each.

Teilhard’s philosophy goes a long way toward rendering his faith reasonable. “In a metaphysics of union, the three fundamental `mysteries’ of Christianity [God, creation, and redemption] are seen to be simply the three aspects of one and the same mystery of mysteries, that of pleromiza tion (or unifying reduction of the multiple).”” If pleromization is so natural and necessary for God, it is hard to see anything supernaturally gratuitous in the existence of the world, the incarnation of Christ, or the salvation of the world. Teilhard seems to have lost significant aspects of supernatural transcendence and divine grace.78

Fallibility and evil are natural and integral in evolutionary Neoplatonism, but they are a nonessential intrusion in Augustinian Christianity. The Neoplatonic One creates byway of positing dialectical polarities that necessarily include negativity and nonbeing. Thus sin and evil are inevitable by-products of cosmic evolution and human existence. The negative polarities are actually necessary for good, because the One saves the world by dialectically synthesizing the antitheses. In contrast, Augustinian Christianity regards sin and evil as the negative but just consequences of divinely permitted free human choice that in principle could have been otherwise. Sin and evil are not ontologically inevitable and integral to creation. In fact, there is an irreconcilable antithesis between good and evil. The tension between Neoplatonism and Augustinianism becomes acute with respect to the creation and fall of humans: are sin and death natural evolutionary inheritances or consequences of avoidable disobedience? Teilhard tries unsuccessfully to have it both ways.79 In fact, he is decidedly Neoplatonic at times: “Evil is an inevitable by-product. It appears as a forfeit inseparable from Creation.” Even more sinister: “God is forced into war with evil.”80 His views on original sin are what first brought the censure of church authorities in the 1920s.

Finally, the Neoplatonic Pleroma leaves no room for hell-angels and humans enduring eternal punishment. In the end, all things not united in God cease to exist. Teilhard allows for possible resistance to Omega that might result in an apocalyptic confrontation and separation. And he affirms belief in hell. But hell is inconsistent with the all-inclusive logic of Christogenesis, according to which the entire creation is evolving into spiritual union with God.8′ His progressively positive view of the world religions became a major support to the notion of “implicit” or “anonymous Christianity” that was promoted at Vatican II: Christ is drawing humanity to himself through the non-Christian religions even though they do not know his name.

Given these and other tensions with traditional orthodoxy in Teilhard’s writings, even a sympathetic commentator such as Rideau concludes that the warning of the Roman Catholic authorities “was justified by the danger presented to uninformed Christians by reading Teilhard and becoming familiar with his thought.”82