Re: How to encourage a former creationist to persevere in faith?

From: Bill Hamilton <williamehamiltonjr@yahoo.com>
Date: Sat Aug 20 2005 - 09:11:28 EDT

--- "D. F. Siemens, Jr." <dfsiemensjr@juno.com> wrote:

>
> On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 18:15:10 -0700 (PDT) Bill Hamilton
> <williamehamiltonjr@yahoo.com> writes:
> >
> >
> > --- "D. F. Siemens, Jr." <dfsiemensjr@juno.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > > By the way, a God who has to tinker to get things right seems to
> > fit the
> > > notion that the deity is not bright enough to get it right from
> > the
> > > beginning. But a proper theology has him omnipotent and
> > omniscient.
> > >
> > I agree that God does not _have_ to tinker with things to get them
> > right.
> > Suppose however, that He _likes_ to tinker, to interact with His
> > creation. I
> > like Howard Van Till's functional integrity concept very much, but I
> > don't
> > believe that precludes God from on occasion "getting His hands
> > dirty".
> >
> > Having said all this, I would add though that the Bible seems to me
> > to chiefly
> > be a record of God's dealings with men. If He intervenes anywhere,
> > it is
> > chiefly in the affairs of men.
> >
> > Bill Hamilton
> > William E. Hamilton, Jr., Ph.D.
> > 586.986.1474 (work) 248.652.4148 (home) 248.303.8651 (mobile)
> > "...If God is for us, who is against us?" Rom 8:31
> >
> >
> I think you've overlooked a problem. If God likes to tinker, then he must
> be temporal,

Not necessarily. God enters time when he deals with men -- after all He
appeared as a man to Abraham, Jacob and others, and He certainly entered time
in the Incarnation.

and you have to answer such questions as (1) what was god
> doing before he created the universe? (2) how could he wait an infinite
> length of time before creating the universe, or, otherwise, when did he
> begin to be? A rational orthodox theology requires a deity outside of
> time.

If all questions about God were answerable, and all paradoxes regarding Him
could be resolved, it would be difficult to establish that He is God.

A deity unfolding in time fits process theology and pantheism, not
> theism.

I am not saying that He is unfolding in time. His revelation is progressive,
but He Himself is unchanging.
>
> I must gree with you that the scritptures are primarily a record of God's
> dealings with human beings. But I go beyond exegesis to philosophy and
> theology, where there are other matters to consider. In theology, I have
> to agree with George that it must be staurocentric.

I couldn't find staurocentric in any of the dictionaries on the web. However, I
assume it means Cross-centered. And I agree with George.

But there are also
> philosophical issues. And the total package has to be logically
> consistent.

However, as I said above, if all paradoxes were resolvable, it would be
difficult to establish that He is God. After all, it would be logically
inconsistent for finite beings to be able to understand the infinite. This of
course doesn't mean we should ever stop trying.

> Dave
>

Bill Hamilton
William E. Hamilton, Jr., Ph.D.
586.986.1474 (work) 248.652.4148 (home) 248.303.8651 (mobile)
"...If God is for us, who is against us?" Rom 8:31

                
____________________________________________________
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
 
Received on Sat Aug 20 09:13:46 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat Aug 20 2005 - 09:13:47 EDT