Re: [asa] Re: on TE and PT, a response to Gregory

Dave S. said: *To phrase it differently, if I can surprise God then he
can't foreknow me.*
I haven't read enough Pinnock and Sanders to know, but are their notions of
open theism really dispatched this easily? My understanding -- again
limited -- is that Pinnock and Sanders would say that these passages on
foreknowledge and election are general statements about how people will be
saved -- in Christ -- but not specific statements about God's knowledge of
each individual person's choice whether to accept Christ. They may be
wrong, but is it really fair to dismiss the whole thing with some proof
texts?
On Feb 1, 2008 3:34 PM, D. F. Siemens, Jr. <dfsiemensjr@juno.com> wrote:

> It is easy to claim that classical theology depends on Aristotle rather
> than scripture. If this were true, then form and matter (god and stuff)
> would be equally eternal. Additionally, Aristotle did not become important
> in theology until Aquinas.
>
> In contrast, we need to recognize that the Creator of the world is outside
> the world, and therefore not in space-time/mass-energy. Of course, if you
> want to argue that the engineer is within the engine, I can't forbid you.
> But you can't keep me from thinking you irrational.
>
> There is a tacit assumption in open theology that knowing involves
> causing, at least with the agent of cause. But God from without can know all
> that Paul claims (Romans 8:29, 30; Ephesians 1:4, 5; II Timothy 1:9) without
> causing anything more than the pattern he established for the physical and
> spiritual aspects of the universe. To phrase it differently, if I can
> surprise God then he can't foreknow me. From surprising God, it follows that
> Paul is wrong, and we need to establish a criterion for separating the
> content of the epistles (and probably the gospels) into the acceptable and
> rejected portions. But this is Enlightenment run amok.
> Dave (ASA)
>
> On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 17:27:54 -0600 "Douglas Hayworth" <
> haythere.doug@gmail.com> writes:
>
> Gregory,
>
> The recognition in all areas of science since Darwin (and 18th century
> geology) that process is a real feature of the creation means that we must
> either bury our heads in the sand or consider how we should adjust our
> thinking (philosophically and theologically). The Christian tradition
> (especially since Calvin) has emphasized a view of God that is so
> transcendent that it is difficult to find a way to envision how that kind of
> God could truly interact with a creation that was created with process
> in-built.
>
> I suggest that you read the 1994 book "The Openness of God" by Pinnock and
> others. They review this church history and argue strongly for an openness
> view of God that is Evangelical and not at all Process Theology. Pinnock and
> others acknowledge that it is the recognition of the fact of evolution (read
> process in the most general sense) as a real feature of the created order
> that opened the lid on the "neat and tidy" traditional views on these
> points.
>
> Personally, an openness to the fact of process in creation (both
> physically and with regard to God's plan and purpose in human history) has
> helped me understand things in scripture that seem very odd otherwise. For
> example, why does God not rebuke Noah for getting drunk and passing out
> naked, or Abraham for continually lying, or many other such examples in the
> OT? It seems that God's standards (expectations for human moral behavior)
> have changed considerably over time. Maybe this example is very tangential
> to the current discussion, but it does point out how a serious consideration
> of reality of "process" in history and human interaction with God is
> important.
>
> The traditional picture of Adam and Eve as "perfect" in the sense of being
> "superhuman" and the garden as having "no physical pain or death" just isn't
> possible to reconcile with the real creation that exists. Our physical
> universe cannot function that way because it is not structured to do so.
>
> ...and there are all kinds of ways to think about process issues without
> adopting what is known as Process Theology.
>
> Douglas Hayworth
> Rockford, IL
>
>
>
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Feb 1 16:31:43 2008