Fw: Re: Divine vs creaturely action

From: John W Burgeson (burgytwo@juno.com)
Date: Thu Jun 21 2001 - 14:52:07 EDT

  • Next message: John: "New synthesis of science and religion"

    Terry responded to my post on supernaturalism as follows:

    "What is wrong with the term "free agency"? It seems to cover the kind of
    action that we're talking about here ("breaking into the causal nexus of
    the universe"). The Westminster Confession describes three categories of
    secondary causes: necessary, free, or contigent. Sorry to be such a
    fuddy-duddy, but I'm reluctant to invent new terminology to deal with
    questions that have been around for awhile."

    I understand. But the Westminster Confession hardly applies when we are
    talking to folks outside that tradition. So that's not going to help.

    The issue is simply one that gets glossed over -- either our free agency
    is able to "break into the causal nexus of the universe" (I'm getting
    used to that phrase) or it is not. If it is, then it represents SOMETHING
    that is "not natural." The word "supernatural" fairly describes an action
    which BITCNOTU." (ugh). (sorry). The word "extra-natural" does not seem
    appropriate; the word "non-natural" is sort of insipid.

    John Burgeson (Burgy)

           (science/theology, quantum mechanics, baseball, ethics,
            humor, cars, God's intervention into natural causation, etc.)

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jun 21 2001 - 14:51:04 EDT