Re: The state of suburban theology

From: Howard J. Van Till <>
Date: Tue Jun 15 2004 - 12:33:19 EDT

My last reply for the day....

On 6/15/04 12:14 PM, ""
<> wrote:

> The distinction between "can't" and "won't" with regard to how God acts in
> creation does not seem to me to be as knowably clear as your view seems to
> require and assume. Fundamentally, either one was possible for God to
> establish as the way things were to be for his creation. In that sense,
> "can't" and "won't" are the same thing with God. Surely, he could see
> forward enough to understand the concequences of either construction for
> his creation. According to your view, God chose the "can't" construction
> for creation. But that doesn't save God from the theodicy problem unless he
> chose that construction in total ignorance to the likely consequences of
> suffering that would result. It seems to me that "can't" is just a prior
> "won't" decision on God's part. Therefore, that distinction doesn't seem
> very important to me, as long as God is consistent with whichever decision
> he made.

In the process worldview, the "can't" situation is not an outcome of divine
decision at all. Rather it is a consequence of the the very natures of God,
World and the God/World relationship (all co-eternal).

Received on Tue Jun 15 13:20:37 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Jun 15 2004 - 13:20:37 EDT