Four observations about them:
1. God is no longer omniscience with respect to the future. You explicitly
state "that
they are unpredictable and unknowable even to God". Applied to history
whether human or cosmic, this results in God not knowing the outcome, and,
given that events are contingent even to him, the only way he remains
sovereign is by divine adjustments that turn the course of things back his
way. Seems to me that you've always objected to this kind of divine
interruption, especially in cosmic history.
2. Your objections expressed in questions 5 and 6 are objections to your
inferences from the "control" position. As I said in my post, authentic
creaturely responsibility is not in the least diminished by God's
"control". You may not understand how this works--I sure don't--but
nonetheless God is fully in control and creatures are fully responsible.
3. I think that you are guilty of making God's sovereignty analogous to
human sovereignty (as I pointed out originally) rather than vice versa. I
don't disagree with your comments concerning human sovereignty, but human
lordship is not nearly as comprehensive as divine lordship. After all, who
among human sovereigns sustains his subjects in their very being? Equally
confusing is making God's creativity analogous to human creativity (rather
than vice versa). Who among human creators determines the character,
properties, and being of the material used to create?
4. With respect to the character of the creeds--I don't really think that
there are any new categories here. "Second causes, either necessarily,
freely, or contingently" (WCF V, 2) covers all the things I know about.
Furthermore, authentic contingency is *established* by God's control as WCF
III, 1 says. There is no guarantee that a cause will have its proper effect
or that any creaturely thing will continue to have its properties apart
from God's control. It seems to me that this is philosophical and
theological language that stands behind the language of science. These are
issues of ultimate goverance, ultimate sustenance, ultimate origin, etc.
(in the words you chose to use in *The Fouth Day*). As you have been so
fond of saying, confusion comes when we mix up these ultimate concerns with
science properly conducted.
To be honest here, it seems to me that you are leaning more and more toward
a creation that has been endowed with autonomy, i.e. ultimate governance
lies in the created thing itself. No doubt you would say that it is a
God-endowed and God-gifted autonomy, but it is autonomy that differs little
from the self-governed governance of the Naturalist. No name-calling
intended, but I'm having a hard time seeing the difference if you are
saying what I think you are saying.
TG
1.>Several days ago I formulated a series of questions having to do with the
>conceppt of dvine sovereignty. Since a number of you responded, let try out
>my own reflections on these questions, here responding mostly to Terry's
>answers as a perspective that I find familiar, but highly problematic. (We
>have talked about this often, so Terry will not be surprised.)
>
>1. Does the "sovereignty" of God necessarily entail the idea that God
>"controls all things" (events, processes, etc.)? How does one move from
>"sovereignty" to the concept of "control"?
>
>2. Would this concept of divine "control" (or governance?) mean that God
>directly causes each "event" to happen?
>
>3. In the extreme, then, would God's sovereignty lead inevitably to a
>concept of divine "micromanagement" of all of the affairs of the Creation?
>
>
>Terry answered "Yes," in most cases, with several references to the
>Westminster Confession for support. (In my own heritage we would have
>looked for support in the Heidelberg Catechism, the Belgic Confession, or
>the Canons of Dordt.)
>
>First, with all due respect for the Confessions as an important historical
>documents, I must say that just because the WC says it's so doesn't make it
>so. That humanly crafted document was written in the conceptual vocabulary
>of the 17th century and with little knowledge of the character and
>behavioral capabilities of the Creation compared with what is known today.
>
>Furthermore, I think that both the Confession and contemporary Evangelical
>Christianity move far too fast from the word 'sovereignty' to the concept
>of manipulative control. (Could it be that we are overly impressed with
>power?) To speak of God as 'sovereign' is to compare God to a king--that
>is, to use the 'royal metaphor.' But does a king 'control' or 'micromanage'
>his subjects? No, not ordinarily, unless he is despotic in character. No,
>benevolent kings--and kings who respect the being of their subjects-- make
>their wishes known to all subjects, but the subjects are responsible for
>effecting the king's wishes.
>
>I know that interpreting sovereignty as omnipotent control is commonly done
>in my Calvinistic community, but I sincerely think that this needs to be
>reconsidered.
>
>Jumping quickly ahead, I find it far more meaningful to see divine
>sovereignty as a concept that reminds us that we, as creatures, are fully
>accountable to God, the Creator, for our behavior. As subjects in a kingdom
>are accountable to the king for their behavior, even more so are we
>accountable to God for ours. To me, then, divine sovereignty is not about
>divine control, certainly not about divine micromanagement of all
>creaturely affairs, but about our accountability to the one God who has the
>authority to hold us to certain standards of action.
>
>As have said before, my concept of a "fully-gifted Creaton" places less
>emphasis on control and much more on God's creativity (in conceptualizing
>the robust formational and functional economies of the Creation) and
>generosity (in giving creatures such remarkable capablities for action).
>
>Perhaps my responses to the next series of questions will clarify what I am
>here trying to say very briefly.
>
>
>4. If God micromanages all events and processes in the Creation, then are
>there no authentic contingencies?
>
>5. If God micromanages all events and processes in the Creation, then do
>creatures ever do anything themselves?
>
>6. If God does all and creatures do nothing, what happens to the ideas of
>authentic creaturely being, or of creaturely responsibility? Would not God
>now be responsible for all that happens (since he is said to "control" all
>things)?
>
>In contrast to the perspective that Terry represented well, I think that
>God withholds micromanagement-style control so that the contingencies in
>what takes place in the Creation are fully authentic--so authentic that
>they are unpredictable and unknowable even to God.
>
>By so withholding such coercive control, God allows creatures to do ther
>own action. And, since creatures really do act, they can be held
>accountable for it.
>
>Thus sovereignty, in the spirit of the royal metaphor, is preserved. God is
>sovereign. Creatures are responsible. God gives authentic being to
>creatures. Creatures really do act and are accountable for their use of the
>gift of their being.
>
>Howard Van Till
_________________
Terry M. Gray, Ph.D., Computer Support Scientist
Chemistry Department, Colorado State University
Fort Collins, Colorado 80523
grayt@lamar.colostate.edu http://www.chm.colostate.edu/~grayt/
phone: 970-491-7003 fax: 970-491-1801