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

DavidC. said: *My problem with the YEC view is my YEC friends seem to all
believe that if God didn't hold up the universe, sort of like the stack of
turtles, well, if God went on vacation the atoms in the universe would all
go *poof* and wouldn't exist anymore.
*
That isn't panentheism, because God remains ontologically other than the
universe. And I don't think it's unique to YEC. In fact, I think it's
right even from an evolutionary creationist perspective. The existence of
the universe is contingent on God's will. The universe exists because God
willed it and *continues to will it* to be so. From a Christian theist
perspective, it seems to me, the continued existence of the universe is
inconceivable without God. Otherwise, we're really left with Deism, aren't
we?

On Dec 20, 2007 6:18 PM, David Clounch <david.clounch@gmail.com> wrote:

> I think I understand. Maybe. But I couldn't tell by Terry's original
> posting.
> My problem with the YEC view is my YEC friends seem to all believe that if
> God didn't hold up the universe, sort of like the stack of turtles, well, if
> God went on vacation the atoms in the universe would all go *poof* and
> wouldn't exist anymore.
> As far as I can tell that is their theology. They take those same
> scriptures and interpret them that way. That to me is perhaps a form of
> panentheism because it is 100% saturated immanence causing the nanosecond
> by nanosecond existence of all particles, all energies, and natural
> phenomena. That sounds ontological to me.
>
> And I've read that some Vatican leaders say they are Christian
> Panentheists.
>
> I suppose the difference could be that God "thinking a particle into
> existence" isn't the same as "that particle being part of God". It's like
> the sound waves being different than a singer.
>
>
>
> On Dec 19, 2007 8:57 PM, David Opderbeck <dopderbeck@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > 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 Thu Dec 20 18:35:14 2007