Dave wrote:
"Burgy wants God to be surprised, as he is surprised, by what he does. "
Not quite. I don't "want" that -- I simply see it as a pretty obvious
implication from the biblical record.
"The only way for God to be surprised
is if his knowledge and power are limited."
At least his power; perhaps his knowledge.
"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_."
Sorry -- you are in a foreign tongue here.
"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."
I certainly do not wish to "make the deity in my own image. Your
observation may have some validity; to the extent I can avoid it, I will.
BTW, although I am a Presbyterian, I don't really consider "reformed
orthodox theology" as contributing much to me thinking. Too many years a
So Baptist probably.
Burgy
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Feb 24 2000 - 15:21:02 EST