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
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?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Oct 27 2001 - 00:47:25 EDT