Cameron Wybrow wrote:
> Terry:
>
> We've reached a definitional impasse, so I'll make just two points,
> then retire (barring a sudden meeting of the minds) from the discussion.
Cameron
I found Terry's article at:
http://www.asa3.org/gray/GrayASA2003OnHodge.html
very helpful, if you have not read it you might want to.
Even though I am reformed I thought that:
> One, the theory of entire dependence, “is founded on the principle
> that absolute dependence includes the idea that God is the only cause.
was the orthodox reformed position but since those I have heard
propounding it seemed like determinists to me and I do not believe that
is a view supported by scripture I rejected it.
Hodge lays out three positions on this subject. The second position
being Concursus and the third below:
"All we know, and all we need to know, is, (1.) That God does govern all
his creatures; and (2.) That his control over them is consistent with
their nature, and with his own infinite purity and excellence.^"
I was wondering which position Terry and David C subscribed to. If as I
assume the third then it seems to me that they are saying that we can
not necessarily separate between primary and secondary causation in any
particular event. In some ways it almost sounds to me that they are
saying that the laws of nature are simply a description of the way God
normally acts and since that is consistent we can reduce them to laws.
This article is certainly something I need to think about and ponder and
I thank Terry for writing it. I might buy a copy of Hodge if necessary
but first I will read what other reformed theologians have to say in
books I already have.
Dave W
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sun Jul 19 09:39:07 2009
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Jul 19 2009 - 09:39:07 EDT