On Sat, 8 Apr 2000 11:09:28 -0400 John Burgeson <burgy@compuserve.com>
writes:
> Dave wrote, in the middle of an excelleny (IMHO of course) post,
> " The natural outcome is something like process theology, which is
> not
> properly theistic."
>
> Why is process theology not "properly theistic."
>
> Would you, perhaps, expand on both what you mean by "process
> theology"
> and by "properly?"
>
> In my theology, and it is just my thinking, I see at least the real
> possibility
> of God not being all-powerful, or, at least, deliberately limiting
> his
> powers
> both the see and control the future outcome of life on this earth.
> Is this
> process theology, or merely a pale subset of something else?
>
> Burgy
The quick answer is that process theology is panentheistic, which is a
kind of intermediate between pantheism and theism. It seems to insert
personality into what is essentially impersonal in Hinduism, for example.
Basically, process theology places the deity within time or restricted by
time, so to be as surprised as its (they would say 'his' though I think
they take away too much personality for that) creatures at what comes up
in the future. To put it into the vernacular, the deity is winging it.
A proper theism cannot place God as creator within the universe
_simpliciter_. Even deism meets this criterion, the difference being that
with deism God winds it up and lets it go until he steps in for a final
judgment, whereas theism insists on God's providential care--whether this
is separate from creation as is usual in Reformed thought, or whether
Creator-Providence are merely two aspects of the same divine activity as
in Lutheran thought. This is one of the places where I think Calvinism
tacitly bootlegs time in, even while overtly excluding it.
It is certain that an almighty Being may limit himself: he did it in the
incarnation. But I note that it is the Second Person who emptied himself
to become incarnate, not the Father nor the Spirit. Had the Trinity
emptied themselves, the providential care of the universe would not have
been possible. This is obviously crude language, but I find none better
when faced with the ineffable, the mystery of the Trinity.
In another sense, God limited himself in giving us freedom rather than
making us mere robots programmed to act in certain ways. In other words,
he neither threw the suicide off the roof nor made Mother Teresa care for
the hopeless. Both chose their actions, whatever we may note further of
motivation. This does not mean that God will ever be surprised at any of
the creatures' actions. Because he is outside of the creation as Creator,
and absolutely eternal (timeless), all is known to him.
In process theology, when one rings the changes, one is faced with only
two possibilities. Either God and his universe are eternal, or God and
his universe came into being. The second seems a worse choice than the
beginning of the universe from the quantum vacuum in an atheistic manner.
The first seems to run into insuperable problems with the Big Bang. In
addition, I insist that process theology is constructing a deity in the
image of man, more sophisticated than the beautiful statues in the Greek
temples, but an idol nevertheless.
Finally, thanks for your kind words about my post.
Dave
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Apr 08 2000 - 23:08:41 EDT