on 9/5/01 11:20 PM, Tom Pearson at pearson@panam1.panam.edu wrote:
> At 11:19 AM 09/05/2001 -0400, James Stark wrote:
>
>> Our evidence of God's self-limitation is not confined to scripture.
>>
>> Does not God's gift of freedom imply that God chose to limit God's freedom?
>
> What gift of freedom?
>
> I would certainly support George Murphy's earlier comment today
> discouraging the tendency to oppose human freedom to divine freedom
> (although I'd be more than a "bit" wary of the idea).
I did not read George as opposing human freedom to divine freedom. He was
identifying the proper source of truth for examining self-limiting actions
of God.
>If human beings
> possess significant freedom (and I'm not convinced that they do), it does
> not follow that this would entail any particular consequence for divine
> freedom, as George pointed out.
Human freedom does not act as a causal source for divine freedom. If we
possess freedom as free will, who are we to say that God does not have it.
>
> I'll say it right out loud: why are some folks so interested in cutting God
> down to a managable size?
I see no one cutting God down to a manageable size, except as a challenge to
the human assumption that God is omnipotent. This is an assumption based on
free will. In your other post with the same date, you say:
"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".
I see you as mixing categories that do not mix. God's will is not the same
as power. But one can speak of the power of freedom. God's omnipotence is
the ultimate power of God, which includes decision-making power and physical
power. The power to decide is not the power to physically act. If you
choose to deny free will for humans, you can give that power to decide to
God and choose to see God as omnipotent. If others choose to believe in the
existence of free will for humans, then God is seen as choosing to limit
God's power to decide. Both positions are free will choices.
The ultimate issue is what assumptions ought we to make to explain the
nature of God. We need to build consistent worldviews. No one's worldview
is or can be completely consistent. The truth is always beyond our personal
worldview. We will always find contradictions that will lead to adjustments
in our assumptions. Consistency should be our goal, not conformity to a
fixed unchangeable set of assumptions. Intentional change to our worldviews
demands the truth of free will.
>Why is there such an unwavering commitment to
> the primacy of a notion of will, both divine and human, and to the further
> notion of a "free" will, both divine and human, even if that commitment
> encourages an abandonment of the traditional and orthodox doctrine of God?
> I'd truly like to understand.
> Tom Pearson
Tradition has tended to become dogmatic. It needs to become open to
intentional change in order to abide by the intentions of Jesus. We must
learn how to move out of our comfort zones. It can only be intentional.
James Stark
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Sep 06 2001 - 11:19:24 EDT