Re: Fw: Who's Burden of Proof?

Terry brings up a point closely connected to what I intended to convey. I
have submitted a paper showing problems with process theology. There are
also problems with the weaker position of open theology. They posit a
deity who knows in time, therefore can only know what has happened plus
the "laws of nature." Claiming to be evangelical, they also posit Romans
8:29f: foreknown, predestinated, called, justified, glorified.

What can their deity foreknow. 23 pairs of chromosomes randomly assorted
means 2^23 different assortments in reproductive cells produced by an
individual. Square that for the possible variety of genome in each
offspring of that couple. Now add in the appropriate factor for cross
over and mutation, and go for generations. Their deity could know the
probability of an individual with a certain genome (vaguely if mutations
are random, except for lethals), but not the individual. Foreknowledge of
individuals goes. I conclude that one has a choice between open theology
and Paul.
Dave

On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 17:27:12 -0700 "Terry M. Gray"
<grayt@lamar.colostate.edu> writes:
> Steve,
>
> You might check the archives from a year or go (possibly more) where
>
> there was some discussion of David Griffin's process theology.
>
> Personally, I have very little sympathy with process theology and
> believe that it's a form of natural theology consciously divorced
> from theology that relies the Biblical text. The God of process
> theology is a very different sort of being than the God the
> scripture
> and traditional Christian theology with its roots in scripture.
>
> I am curious about your last sentence though.
>
> >>This would also fit well with a God who creates within natural
> >>mutation and selection.
>
> The omnicient, omnipotent, omnipresent, Sovereign God of traditional
>
> Christian theology has no problem with "natural" mutation (even of
> the "random" sort) and selection. I think that one of the reasons
> that the 19th and early 20th Calvinists were better able to come to
>
> grips with evolution than other Christian theologians was their view
>
> of God and his operation in the universe. See the last few pages of
>
> the chapter by Noll and Livingstone in the *Perspectives on an
> Evolving Creation* volume edited by Keith Miller.
>
> Of course, process theology has no problem with natural mutation and
>
> selection, but then process theology doesn't really know the outcome
>
> of the design process, does it?
>
> TG
>
>
>
>
> >(Was off list by mistake)
> >
> >Dave wrote:
> >>Oops! This assumes that God cannot know or cannot control the
> outcome of
> >>what we see as natural selection. I contend that this requires
> making a
> >>god (not God) in our image. If done deliberately, it's idolatry.
> >
> > This brings up my earlier point about a kenotic designer. I'd
> appreciate
> > some comments from the theologians in the group. One of the
> consistent
> > themes of incarnation schemes is the idea of kenosis. In
> incarnations God
> > accepts, in some fashion, the limitations of mundane reality. Now
> I
> >realize
> > that typically kenosis refers the self emptying of the second
> person of the
> > trinity in the incarnation. However, there are examples of
> non-Christian
> > theologies that also posit the self-limitation of the Creator.
> The most
> > current example of this is process theology. Now I think there a
> major
> > problems with the process picture of God, but the view that the
> Creator is,
> > in some sense, self limiting in this reality does have merits in
> the S/R
> > dialog.
> >
> > My question for Christian theology is whether this idea that
> God's ongoing
> >creative activity could also be considered kenotic as well. This
> would mean
> >that in some respect the results of design changes might not be
> totally
> >known to God at least in some aspect. This would also fit well with
> a God
> >who creates within natural mutation and selection.
> >
> >
> > Steve Petermann
>
>
> --
> _________________
> Terry M. Gray, Ph.D., Computer Support Scientist
> Chemistry Department, Colorado State University
> Fort Collins, Colorado 80523
> grayt@lamar.colostate.edu http://www.chm.colostate.edu/~grayt/
> phone: 970-491-7003 fax: 970-491-1801
>
>
Received on Sun Nov 30 00:03:41 2003