From: Rich Blinne (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Wed May 28 2003 - 11:06:01 EDT
From: email@example.com [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]On
Behalf Of Howard J. Van Till
Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2003 6:44 AM
To: Dr. Blake Nelson; email@example.com
Subject: Re: Response to Howard on Tillich & Bultmann -- follow up
My inclination to move from one way of portraying God to another is complex,
entailing many factors -- some of which I may not be fully aware. Theodicy
questions are very relevant here. [Divine self-limitation does not, in my
view, eliminate responsibility for divine inaction.]
[Rich Blinne] Which questions? How would you compare and contrast your
views with Clark Pinnock's Open Theism? His theodicy so valued human
freedom that he limited not only God's sovereignty but also His
foreknowledge. Do you see God's character that He cannot violate human
freedom? Do you see God's character particularly His love that he cannot
act directly on the Universe?
As you can see from these questions, I am having a very difficult time
understanding your views, particularly what part of God's character makes it
impossible for Him to act directly on the Universe. I am not only curious
about what your view is, but also the logical path from point A to point B.
It is particularly this last part I am having trouble understanding. Why is
it impossible for God to act directly on the Universe, but is possible and
also true that he acts through so-called authentic human experience. Are
you saying there is no mediate human experiece that is authentic, such as
the disciples witnessing their risen Lord? If God can "get through"
directly through authentic human experience why can he not "get through"
directly through nature?
Thank you for your patience as I play the four year old. :-)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed May 28 2003 - 11:07:31 EDT