Let me respond to Howard's post one section at a time.
At 11:34 PM 09/04/2001 -0700, Howard wrote:
>Why does "a deity who limits himself" wreak havoc with the traditional
>Christian doctrine of God?
As I've indicated elsewhere, if the Christian God can limit himself, that
suggests at least two things: that God possesses some power that is greater
than his omnipotence, omniscience and omnibenevolence; and that God can
limit himself without losing his essential identity. I find both of those
claims, when examined, to be incoherent.
>BTW, I limit myself in this discussion to Christian doctrine as expounded in
>the Bible, codified in the major creeds (Apostles', Nicene, Anasthasian) and
>taught in the mainstream historic "evangelical" tradition (early church to
>present).
Fair enough. I'm not sure if you are drawing some kind of distinction in
the last phrase of this sentence, but I would treat the mainstream historic
"evangelical" tradition as identical to the mainstream historic "catholic"
tradition.
>Reflecting on "God limiting Himself", we see numerous examples in scripture.
>In regard to sin, Isa 43:25, Isa 44:22, Jer 31:33-34, Jer 50:20, Mic 7:19
>and NT passages quoting these passages tell us that God limits Himself in
>regard to our sins: when we repent and confess them He remembers them no
>more. How God, being omniscient, does this, is a mystery, but His word
>affirms it repeatedly.
I don't see intimations of "God limiting himself" in any of these passages.
Isa. 44:22, Jer. 50:20 and Mic. 7:19 say nothing about God "remembering
our sins no more." For those passages that do, it makes more sense to me
to read the phrase as a reference to our justification by God, in that he
no longer judges us on the basis of our sin, rather than as a case of
divine amnesia. I may be missing something here, but I don't detect
anything that imperils, or even constrains, God's omniscience in these
"remember no more" verses.
>In regard to salvation, 2 Pet. 3:9 (most notable among several similar
>verses) affirms He desires all to be saved. Isa 50:2 & 59:1 affirm that
>"[God's] hand is not shortened that... it cannot save..." Yet all are not
>saved.
We have no certain knowledge of this.
>Why? Either God has limited His operation (so all aren't saved) or
>God is too weak to save all--a nonstarter for any who affirm traditional
>Christian doctrines. This particular limitation is even more severe when
>one considers that God made and preserves the wicked the for day of
>destruction (Pro. 16:4, Rom 9:22 2 Pet 2:3-9).
God may have limited his "operation," but it does not follow that God has
limited himself. In that sense, even the act of creation limits the scope
of God's work, since it sets the parameters within which God's redemptive
activity is carried out. But this does translate into God limiting his own
being, his essential identity, which is constituted in part by those
familiar attributes.
>The NT is has a great deal more to say in regard to salvation (neglecting
>Calvinistic-Arminian arguments re God's predestination) with regard to How
>people come to salvation. Yes, it is by God working alone--imparting within
>us the gift of faith-- that we are saved (Eph. 2:8-10), but God has again
>limited Himself in how His message goes to the world: the church is His
>messenger. Much more can be said along this line too.
God's message can only be conveyed to the world by the church, and by no
other means? In all times, and in all places? This doesn't sound to me
like God limiting himself; it sounds like a theological limitation being
imposed on God.
>If, in regard to the most wighty matter in creation--the redemption of
>mankind, God has limited Himself in a;; the above ways, why couldn't God
>also limit Himself in creation? Why did God create as He did? Whether YEC
>(6 days) or OEC (ages)--why didn't God do it all instantaneously? Isn't He
>great enough to do so? If He is, and He chose to create as we ascertain
>through our senses--in a much, much longer time frame-- one must admit that
>God limited Himself in creation! The pattern of creation reveals His
>character and consistency.
Sorry, but this argument partakes of the fallacy of an appeal to ignorance.
Just because we confess that God could have created instantaneously and
don't know why he didn't, that does not entitle us to infer that God must
then have limited himself. Since the argument is based on an appeal to
ignorance, *any* premise can be used in support of the conclusion. Why
didn't God create three biological sexes for human beings instead of two,
when he could have created three? He must have limited himself. Why
didn't God make the speed of light travel twice as fast as it does, when he
could easily have done so? He must have limited himself. This just won't
wash.
>Likewise, God can limit Himself any way He pleases.
Actually, I think this pretty well indicates the underlying structure of
Howard's argument. To speak of God doing what he pleases is to speak of
God's will. And to say that God can limit himself as he pleases is to say
that God's will is really the power that controls God's being. But this is
tantamount to saying, once again, that God's will is more omnipotent than,
say, God's omnipotence. I continue to think that this simply doesn't make
any sense.
Tom Pearson
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
Thomas D. Pearson
Department of History & Philosophy
The University of Texas-Pan American
Edinburg, Texas
e-mail: pearson@panam1.panam.edu
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Sep 05 2001 - 23:25:48 EDT