> ----------
> From: Craig Rusbult[SMTP:rusbult@vms2.macc.wisc.edu]
> Sent: Monday, October 20, 1997 21:31
> To: asa@calvin.edu
> Subject: T/D #2 (sustenance & concurrence)
>
>
> This is Part 2 of a theism/deism thread, beginning with T-D #1.
> Three more definitions,
>
> Sustenance/governance, and concurrence (SGC): Here I'm getting out
> of
> my comfort zone, so I'll just give my definitions and will wait to be
> corrected by those more familiar with these concepts. I understand
> sustenance-and-governance to be God "keeping the universe (with all of
> the
> matter/energy and natural laws) in existence." And concurrence is God
> "working through his created creatures to do his own work."
>
> In reading previous posts, I must admit to being confused by claims
> that
> SGC may be equivalent to TA. I would appreciate some clarification by
> answering this question: Does the concept that "SGC (or SG and C; or
> S, G,
> and C) is a form of TA" have any validity outside a framework that
> assumes
> predestination, with God controlling *everything*?
> Otherwise, it seems that "creatures running naturally wild" (doing
> whatever they want, according to MIRM, with no TA) will not
> necessarily
> accomplish what God wants. And I don't see where "SG with 100% MIRM"
> differs from deism -- except that, with SG, God could "call it off" at
> any
> time by simply removing the SG.
> { I seem to remember a post that described God being "involved in
> everything that happens", and due to this there can be no distinction
> between MIRM and TA; but in the Bible, TA is often clearly described
> (as a
> concept that God *wants* us to understand, internalize, and believe),
> and
> its importance is emphasized. }
>
> Possibly "SGC and TA" will be the most hotly debated part of my
> post,
> partly because we may be "talking past each other."
> And there may be fundamental differences in our approaches to
> freedom
> and the paradox of "predestination plus responsibility", and I'm sure
> we
> won't get this figured out in the near future.
> Anyway, I've given up (at least temporarily) on solving this
> paradox,
> and have adopted a pragmatic "dual improvisational" approach to life;
> I
> improvise each day (moment by moment), and if I follow God's will (as
> in
> "God has a wonderful plan for your life") things will work out best,
> but
> when I wander from God's "Plan A-1" for today, God improvises a
> "revised
> Plan A-2" (and Plan A-3, and so on). All of this occurs in "real time
> as
> perceived by me" and during all of this there is an appropriate use,
> by
> God, of whatever TA is needed to make his plans work. There is some
> control of my environment (both external and internal) by God and some
> freedom for my own choices and the operation of free will.
> This "dual improvisation" view isn't theologically defensible (but
> then,
> I don't know if there is any satisfactory way to explain Romans 9) but
> at
> least this view is consistent with the way that I (and maybe others?)
> perceive my space/time choices, and it retains a sense of personal
> responsibility for my own choices.
>
> So does "SCG = TA" make any sense if this view (or something like
> it) is
> assumed, or does "SCG = TA" only make sense with God controlling
> *everything* (not just some things), or what?
>
> Craig Rusbult
>
>
>