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

I know, like the clear statements in Genesis 1 that tie to a ANE pattern,
Paul's statements don't mean what they say. "Before the foundation of the
world" just means current activity. I first encountered this, which I
call the Evangelical Revised Version, from a professor who, faced with
the lexicons' definition of /oinos/, denied them with, "I can't conceive
of my Lord drinking wine." WCTU trumps scholarship.
Dave (ASA)

On Fri, 1 Feb 2008 16:30:50 -0500 "David Opderbeck"
<dopderbeck@gmail.com> writes:
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 17:32:14 2008