Re: [asa] Neo-Darwinism and God's action

How does ID lead to open theism? It seems to me that TE is much more likely
to be paired with open theism. It will be interesting to see, for example,
what approach Karl Giberson takes in his forthcoming book. Giberson,
Francis Collins, Pinnock, Sanders, Greg Boyed, and Polkinhorne are speaking
at an "Open Theology and Science" conference at Eastern Nazarene College
this summer (http://www.enc.edu/history/ot/open_theo.html) Does this
suggest, BTW, that Collins is open to open theism?

I've also seen efforts to reconcile original sin and evolution via
molinism. Again, it seems to me that TE, not ID, is more likely to head
down this route.

On Feb 16, 2008 7:15 AM, Rich Blinne <rich.blinne@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> On Feb 15, 2008, at 10:19 PM, David Opderbeck wrote:
>
> Terry said: *I will
> gladly admit (as do all Reformed theologians) that there is some
> mystery here, but we seek to let scripture determine how to think
> about this rather than unrestrained human philosophizing.*
>
> But in fairness to Pinnock and Sanders (open theists), they argue that
> their position is thoroughly scriptural and that it is the compatibilists
> who are picking and choosing. I tend to agree that the balance is more as
> Terry has said, but something makes me uneasy about trying to squeeze
> scripture too tightly into a systematic theology box here.
>
>
> The difference is where the Open Theist and the Compatibilist -- or even
> the classical Arminian -- stops speculating. You even see this in Gage's
> challenge to Randy.
>
> If Isaac actually thinks an intelligent being can guide randomness, then
> it is up to HIM to explain how that works—not the other way around. I have
> claimed that it is impossible.
>
>
> Open Theism and Molinism IMHO are obsessed with the how it works question.
> Calvinists are incurious here, leaving it to mystery. This is not to say
> that Calvinists are always innocent of over-speculation. An example of where
> Calvinism does get over-speculative is the infra/supra lapsarian debate. As
> for the details I'll let Terry deal with your questions, David. I found that
> he has avoided the speculation trap both inside and outside of our tradition
> better than anyone I know.
> I am currently part of the Evangelical Free denomination which leaves open
> all of the internal debates with evangelicalism -- including Calvinism vs.
> Arminianism -- with one notable exception, Open Theism, which is considered
> out of bounds. It is notable that the discussion of theology is dissuaded on
> Uncommon Descent, to the point I got banned for it. Which is shame because
> as we see here Intelligent Design can and does lead to heresy -- at least
> heresy as defined by my broadly evangelical denomination. Please note I am
> being deliberately narrow here and am critiquing a specific teleological
> argument being made by IDM as being a heresy trap and not all of them. For
> example, the fine tuning argument does not cause such problems.
>
> Rich Blinne (Member ASA)
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sat Feb 16 10:35:58 2008