Re: [asa] Why believe in the moment by moment "model"

No, it isn't panentheism. Panentheism holds that God and the universe are
ontologically the same stuff. It differs from panetheism in that in
panentheism God is more than just the universe or some subset of the
universe. In panentheism, the creation is God, but God is more than the
creation.

In contrast, Terry's is a classical Reformed view: God is ontologically
separate from, but completely sovereign over, His creation. The creation is
not God, but is governed by God's will.

On Dec 19, 2007 9:45 PM, David Clounch <david.clounch@gmail.com> wrote:

> Terry,
>
> What I have been trying to understand is whether this is panentheism,
> which I understand to mean:
>
> 1) God is immanent everywhere in the universe but also greater than and
> outside the universe (ie, is transcendant)
> 2) He pushes every particle around moment by moment and/or causes their
> existence moment by moment
>
> -OR-
>
> A more traditional view:
>
> Does He merely watch it all, and pokes His finger into selected places
> whenever He wants. (He is transcendant and sometimes immanent). The
> particles exist and move on their own because He caused them to be that way
> by establishing natural law.
>
> -OR-
>
> The deistic view:
> He is just transcendant and doesn't (or cannot) ever poke His finger into
> the universe, but He did cause the natural law (a one-time immanence?).
>
> Are any of these incompatible with the scriptures as you have described?
>
> The 4th option:
>
> He isn't transcendant, isn't immanent, and doesn't exist. Natural law is
> all their is.
>
> And please note, I may not have described the options accurately. I only
> described my limited understanding of them.
>
> Best Regards,
> David Clounch
>
>
> On Dec 19, 2007 3:03 PM, Terry M. Gray <grayt@lamar.colostate.edu> wrote:
>
> > A light went on for me last night while reading on the list. I'm
> > getting the impression that some think that the moment-by-moment
> > "model" that I propose is rooted in science (or at least an
> > observation of creation and then a speculation about how God interacts
> > with it). Thus, the debate about the elegance of the "God making it
> > robust and letting it unroll" vs. the tinkering dimension that my view
> > seems to have.
> >
> > If the argument is cast in those terms then in a sense we are just
> > doing natural theology. We see the results, we know something of who
> > God is, and then we come up with what we think happened. Of course,
> > you all know what I think of natural theology!
> >
> > My view of God's moment by moment governance is not just natural
> > theology model. I claim that this view is what scripture teaches and I
> > am applying here what scripture teaches. If you go to any reformed
> > systematic theology, you can find a discussion of this doctrine of
> > sovereignty and its Biblical basis. Here is a footnote from my paper
> > on concursus (http://www.asa3.org/gray/GrayASA2003OnHodge.html) that
> > contains a sampling of such prooftexts:
> >
> > ____
> > 6A good thorough discussion of this view of providence and the divine
> > will can be found in John Frame's book No Other God: A Response to
> > Open Theism in his chapter entitled "Is God's Will the Ultimate
> > Explanation of Everything?" Using many of the same headings and texts
> > that Hodge uses in his discussion, Frame walks through the Biblical
> > arguments to answer the question with a "yes." Here are the headings
> > and the texts: the natural world—Ps. 65:9-11, Ps.135:5-7, Ps.
> > 147:15-18, Gen. 8:22, Job 38-40, Pss. 104:10-30, 107:23-32, 145:15-16,
> > 147:8-9, Acts 14:17, Prov. 16:33, Ex. 21:13, Judg. 9:53, 1 Kings
> > 22:34, Ex. 9:13-26, Amos 4:7, Gen. 41:32, Matt.5:45, 6:26-30,
> > 10:29-30; human history—Acts 17:26, Pss. 45:6-12, 47:1-9, 95:3, Gen.
> > 18:25, Ps. 33:10-11, Gen. 41:16, 28, 32, Gen. 45:5-8, 51:20, Ex.
> > 23:27, Deut. 2:25, Gen 35:5, Josh. 21:44-45, Deut. 3:22, Josh. 24:11,
> > 1 Sam. 17:47, 2 Chron. 20:15, Prov. 21:31, Zech. 4:6, Isa. 14:26-27,
> > 10:5-12, 14:24-25, 37:26, Jer. 29:11-14, Dan. 2:21, 4:34-35, Isa.
> > 44:28, 45:1-13, Ezra 1:1, Jer. 30:4-24, Gal. 4:4, Matt. 1:22, 2:15,
> > 3:3, 4:14, Acts 2:23-24, 3:18, 4:27-28, 13:27, Luke 22:22, Matt.24:36;
> > individual human lives—Jer. 1:5, Eph. 1:4, Gen. 4:1, 25, 18:13-14,
> > 25:21, 29:31-30:2, 30:17, 23-24, Deut. 10:22, Ruth 4:13, Pss. 113:9,
> > 127:3-5, Ps. 139:4-6, Ex. 21:12-13, Ruth 1:13, 1 Sam. 2:6-7, Ps.
> > 37:23, Rom. 12:3-6, 1 Cor 4:7, 12:4-6, James 4:13-16; human decisions—
> > Gen. 45:5-8, Isa. 44:28, Luke 22:22, Acts 2:23-24, 3:18, 4:27-28,
> > 13:27, Luke 6:45, Prov. 21:1, Rom. 9:17, Ex. 9:16, 14:4, Ps. 33:15,
> > Ex. 12:36, Ex. 3:21-22, Prov. 16:9, 16:1, 19:21, Ex. 34:24, Judg.
> > 7:22, Dan. 1:9, Exra 6:22, John 19:24, 31-37; sins—Jer.17:9, Ps.
> > 105:24, Ex. 3:19, 4:21, 7:3, 13, 9:12, 10:1, 20, 27, 11:10, 14:4, 8,
> > 14:17-18, 8:15, Ps. 95:7-8, Rom. 9:17-18, Deut. 2:30, Josh. 11:18-20,
> > 1 Sam. 2:25, 2 Chron. 25:20, 1 Sam. 16:14, 1 Kings 22:20-23, Isa.
> > 6:10, 63:17, 64:7, 10:5-11, Ezek. 38:16, Judg. 14:4, 2 Sam. 24, 17:14,
> > 2 Kings 12:15, 2 Chron. 25:20, Matt. 13:14-15, John 12:40, John 13:18,
> > 2 Cor. 2:15-16, 1 Peter 2:6-8, Rom. 11:7-8, 9:22-26, 11:11-16, 25-32,
> > Acts 2:23, Acts 4:28, 13:27, Luke 22:22, Rev. 17:17, Prov. 16:4 (In
> > this section Frame mentions the "problem of evil" and comments that
> > there is "no perfectly satisfying solution to it" and "Scripture
> > itself regards this problem as a mystery" (Job 38-42, Rom 8:28-39,
> > 9:17-24, Rev. 15:3-4).); faith and salvation—these are all "standard"
> > Calvinist texts about election and predestination—I won't list them
> > here; summary passages—Lamentations 3:37-38, Romans 8:28, 38-39,
> > Ephesians 1:11, Romans 9:21-24. Later in the book Frame highlights the
> > importance of the distinction between God's decretive will and His
> > perceptive will for providing a solution to the passages where God
> > appears to change his mind, repent, or relent. In his discussion of
> > the problem of evil on pages 135-141 he writes criticizing the radical
> > revision of the doctrine of God found in the open theism literature,
> > "Would it not be better to leave the problem unsolved than to resort
> > to such drastic measures? Is there no point at which we should be
> > silent and take God at his word? Open theists do not seem to have
> > considered how large a price we should pay to solve this theological
> > problem."
> > _____
> >
> > While I'm very willing to say that the Bible has little to say about
> > modern science, the question of God's interaction with the creation
> > isn't really a question of modern science. It's a fundamental
> > theological question that scripture all over the place teaches us about.
> >
> > TG
> >
> > ________________
> > Terry M. Gray, Ph.D.
> > Computer Support Scientist
> > Chemistry Department
> > Colorado State University
> > Fort Collins, CO 80523
> > (o) 970-491-7003 (f) 970-491-1801
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> > "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
> >
>
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Dec 19 21:58:42 2007