On Tue, 22 Feb 2000 13:45:35 -0500 Moorad Alexanian
<alexanian@uncwil.edu> writes:
> I do not quite follow. If God is not embedded in time, how can He be
> "surprised" by future events? God views us as we view world lines in
> general
> relativity. The whole history is laid down before His "eyes"!
> Moorad
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John W. Burgeson <johnburgeson@juno.com> Tuesday, February 22,
2000 12:52 PM
> >
> >I know that someday I will die. Along the way to that event I am
> all too
> >often surprised by events.
> >
> >God knows I am of the elect. (I'm Presbyterian, BTW, one of the
> "frozen
> >chosen."). Yet he MAY (note the absence of a strong claim here) be
> >surprised at some of the goofs I make along the way, goofs
> performed
> >because I am not a robot. Hopefully, he may well be surprised at
> some of
> >the better stuff I do too!
> > < G >
> > Burgy
> >________________________________________________________________
Moorad, I like your analogy. As you note, the time lines are actual for
God though only theoretical for us. We can only trace a limited set of
time lines, but all are always in God's view, and he does not have to
focus on one at the expense of others, as we do when we pay attention to
something.
Burgy wants God to be surprised, as he is surprised, by what he does.
Because motivation--in its broadest sense--is opaque to us, we often ask,
or want to ask, "Why on earth did you do that?" The response, if the
question is asked, may be a rationalization, a partial reason, or the
admission, "I don't know." Invariably, if a motive is mentioned, it will
be lofty. When the question is, "Why did I do that?", agnosticism is the
usual response. But why must my entire being be opaque to God? The
psalmist was dealing with this when he asked "Whither shall I go from
they spirit? ..." (139:7-12, 15-18).
The only way for God to be surprised is if his knowledge and power are
limited. But then we have something like process theology, and, as I
wrote earlier today, a fear that things will be destroyed because of
something it (not he) did not foresee. The Son emptied himself and became
flesh, sharing our limitations while retaining deity. But to ascribe some
such limits to the Trinity does not provide for a Creator, but only a
_deus in machina mundi_, not even _ex machina_.
Another problem is that Burgy, without recognizing it, is making his
deity in his own image. This is not a proper part of orthodox Reformed
theology, though some quasi-Calvinists I have encountered espouse it.
They remind me of the woman who told my wife, "I don't believe in worms."
She was dogmatic because she did not understand anything about intestinal
parasites. I'm dogmatic on the other side because I've seen them. The
difference is that Burgy is not dogmatic.
Dave
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Feb 22 2000 - 16:00:09 EST