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

On Dec 20, 2007 5:34 PM, David Opderbeck <dopderbeck@gmail.com> wrote:

> *
> *
> 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?
>

Right. Well, maybe.
I do think Deism is the problem in all this business with naturalism.
Deists have theological reasons for being 110% committed to naturalism and
zero % open to the physical resurrection of Jesus The Christ.

When are we going to call for separation of Deism and State?

>
>
> 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 19:36:13 2007