From: "John W. Burgeson" <johnburgeson@juno.com>
To: alexanian@uncwil.edu, asa@calvin.edu
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 10:59:27 -0700
Whether He is, or is not, the O.T. stories still stand as examples when
God WAS surprised by what we humans did or did not do.
If God is "outside time," whatever that may mean, then he was surprised
"all at once," whatever that may mean.
My claim is simply this -- if God WAS surprised, even once, then that
implies something less than being "all powerful." Note that this is still
not a "strong claim."
Burgy
From: "John W. Burgeson" <johnburgeson@juno.com>
To: dfischer@mnsinc.com, asa@calvin.edu
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 13:46:09 -0700
I understand. Then why was God surprised when his creation went so wrong
in early Genesis?
My point exactly, Dick. So, I'm a robot and so are you? I think not.
"But if God can be surprised by what you may or may not do,
then how could you say you were "elected"? "
Good point. I don't use the term much. I'm not really sure I know what it
means. I do know that, because I have free will, I could freely choose
tomorrow to abandon the faith. I think. Gosh -- I don't think I ever
wrote that before. Where would I go? Maybe I could really NOT do such a
thing after all.
Burgy
On Fri, 25 Feb 2000 10:03:37 -0700 "John W. Burgeson"
<johnburgeson@juno.com> writes:
> Dave wrote
> "Just a word for Burgy: if he expects to surprise God, he's going to
> have
> to get up before the Lord does."
*******See Psalm 121:4 on this**************
There is one other passage where "sleep" is used of God--Psalm 78:63.
Note that this is used figurately of God's restoration of Israel after
judgment.
>
> Not sure what you mean here. Let me try.
>
> Suppose that tomorrow I decide (free will) that I want to emulate
> Charles
> Manson. I begin (until I am caught; hopefully very soon) to do so.
> Would
> that not surprise God? Did he "see it coming?"
>
> I don't know.
>
> Would my salvation be revoked?
>
> I don't know.
>
> What I DO KNOW is that, free will or not, I could not do such a
> thing.
> Did I lose part of my free will then?
>
> Maybe.
>
> I can live with that.
>
> Burgy
>
> ________________________________________________________________
I am at a loss for a reference to God being surprised. I do not find it
in the Genesis passage. The sole reference is Jeremiah 14:9, where the
prophet likens the Lord's failure to defend Jerusalem to that of a
warrior pinioned by an unexpected assault.
Are you trying to argue that the Fall is something God did not foresee
because he asked Adam what he had done? The use of "repented" in Genesis
6:6f and Exodus 32:12, 14 does not imply his astonishment, but rather
man's view of a change in what man had expected. Note that the divine
devastation if the children of Israel to begin again with Moses'
descendants would have kept his promise to Abraham.
As to human free will, are you saying that only a totally random act
qualifies as free? that there must be inderterminism? Determinism assumes
causation, a causal sequence that extends back indefinitely. If my every
action is caused, then I am not free. I am the simply the end result of
physical, social, psychological, or whatever forces in their endless
chain. I cannot help myself. Obviously, under these circumstances, I
cannot be responsible for my actions, for there is nothing I can do to
control them. If I do something good, it's just that the causes lined up
that way. I am not to be commended. On the other hand, if I do something
evil, I am not to be blamed for the same reason.
People then switch to inderterminism, the absence of causation. Under
these circumstances, things just happen because I cannot cause a
difference. If I accidentally do something good, it's just that it
happened randomly. If I do something bad, I cannot be blamed for there
was nothing I could cause different. There is no responsibility.
Maybe I can get something out of combining the two. Maybe there's 50%
determinism and 50% indeterminism. But half no responsibility plus half
no responsibility comes up with zero responsibility. Changing the
proportions does not help. If m+n=1, (mx0)+(nx0)=0, covering every ratio.
While there is nothing that can be done with indeterminism, for
randomness does not yield control, there are special considerations on
the causal side that solve the problem. What I described above is strict
determinism. But there is also self-determination, the person's ability
to initiate or deflect a causal chain. It may be called choice. The
choice may be narrow. It may even be forced. But if the individual
chooses a over b, that is self-determination. And that is the full extent
of human freedom. That a person's choice involves thoughtful control
rather than random action does not detract from self-determination.
This choice is normally available to people. There are limits. There is
no point in urging a chap hurtling past the 12th floor, "Be careful." He
is in the grip of strict determinism. That exhortation would have to have
come earlier, before he leaned too far over the parapet. But the choice
is broader than sometimes recognized. If somebody holds a gun to my head,
almost anything I'm told to do will be forgiven. But I would still have
the choice of saying, "I'll die before I'll do that." That very well
could be the last choice I ever have, and it may be that I don't have the
guts to say it, but it is still a choice. My will is free even under the
threat of immediate death. I lose none of my freedom. On the other hand,
if I am a child of God, my choices will be different that they would have
been were I not. Despite the continuing load of the flesh, I have more
freedom to chose the good.
By the way, I never had freedom to do something either random or causally
impossible. I cannot fly to the moon by flapping my arms. I cannot make
you believe anything I say. And the closest I can come to a random action
is to act on the throw of a die--and then I have chosen to act on
whatever pips come up.
Dave
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Feb 25 2000 - 19:07:17 EST