> From: george murphy <gmurphy@raex.com>
> To: "D. F. Siemens, Jr." <dfsiemensjr@juno.com>
> Subject: Re: What does the creation lack?
> Date: Sat, Oct 27, 2001, 6:55 AM
>
> "D. F. Siemens, Jr." wrote:
>
> > As I considered Howard and Peter's views, which look different, I
> > wondered just how different they are in their outworking. A part of the
> > problem seems to be our view of nature, which usually seems to become
> > Nature, which runs on its own. This is obviously deism or worse. But it
> > results in Howard being accused of being a deist. However, his "fully
> > gifted nature" is under the constant care of Providence, so that it is
> > all within the will of the Almighty. Everything works, and works out, as
> > God intends.
> >
> > Peter argues that the possibilities are so varied that God has to direct
> > matters so that the world as we know it will result. This emphasizes
> > "special occurrences" rather than constant care, but seems pretty close
> > to a twin of Howard's view. It strikes me that what we have is more a
> > matter of emphasis than of actual difference. Both hold that the world is
> > as it is because God so wills it and makes it so.
> >
> > Am I missing something?
>
> Perhaps one thing you're missing is that use of the term
> "Providence"
> in describing Howard's view may be misleading. He has expressed some
> approval of the process theology views of Griffin, which differ
> significantly
> from traditional doctrines of providence in which God is omnipotent. In
> process thought God is "lures" the world toward the goals God intends, but
> one can't say that "all [is] within the will of the Almighty. Everything
> works, and works out, as God intends."
> But probably Howard will want to speak for himself on this.
>
> Shalom,
>
> George
>
> George L. Murphy
> http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
> "The Science-Theology Interface"
As process theology contradicts biblical theism, I reject it.
Peter
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Nov 08 2001 - 15:34:11 EST