Thanks for the appreciative words, Andy. I remember you and your question
very well. You've got it right about the monological ditches. When I was at
Gordon-Conwell seminary thirty years ago, there was a particularly assertive
contingent of Presbyterians. In their
sometimes pointed dismissals of professors' viewpoints, they seemed to me at
times to equate the sovereignty of God with a form of methodological
naturalism and determinism. One can, one must keep the reality of human
freedom and the glory of God's sovereignty in healthy tension.

I don't know whether they recorded that lecture. It will form the second
chapter of a book that I am writing this year. (Two lectures already
delivered; three more to go - in May, October, November.) At this point, I
would be reluctant to send out a draft of the chapter, until I have a chance
to expand and revise it.

Thank you again for your salient question the other night. Let's keep in
touch.

All the best,

Roger 


on 4/9/03 9:21 AM, Andy Montgomery at andy@... wrote:


>> Dr. Lundin,
>> 
>> I attended, and greatly enjoyed, your "C. S. Lewis" lecture on Monday
>> night at UTC, (though I must admit to being the one who pressed you on
>> your views of "Openness Theory" there at the end).  I appreciated your
>> candid, even disarming, approach to these issues and am fascinated by
>> your theory on polyphonic interpretation. I find that it resonates with
>> much of what I've been learning recently about both faith and life.  It
>> seems there's a delicate balance to be struck between a confident
>> understanding of God's sovreignty and His willingness, at the same time,
>> to graciously grant man the ability to "choose this day whom he will
>> serve."  Phraseology such as "God risking the creation of characters who
>> might thwart his purposes", throws up red flags for those studying the
>> reformed tradition and combatting the advances of "Openness".  And yet,
>> I greatly appreciate your willingness to seek to hold God's sovreignty
>> and man's responsibility in tension, rather than falling into one or the
>> other of the monological ditches.  I feel many of our reformed brothers
>> and sisters could learn a great deal from this sort of thinking.
>> 
>> Well, knowing that you have 3 email addresses, 4 phone numbers and 5
>> mailboxes to keep up with, I'll not take up any more of your time.  My
>> purpose for writing however, goes beyond mere admiration.  I was
>> wondering if you know if the lecture was taped, and might be available
>> online.  Or if perhaps you'd be comfortable sending me a copy of it via
>> email.  Some friends and I spent some time discussing it afterwards and
>> I suspect a closer reading would promote our cogitations.
>> 
>> Much thanks,
>> 
>> Andy Montgomery