The Openness of God: A Review (Part V)

I mentioned a fear about discrepancies in the logical coherence of this theological view in the last post. These discrepancies became even more pronounced in the final chapter, where — in the attempt to maintain the position — a number of seeming contradictions sprang. It is the “open view of God,” but the view actually… Continue reading The Openness of God: A Review (Part V)

The Openness of God: A Review (Part IV)

Hasker is obviously a philosophe. He scatters terms around that make a lot of sense, but at the same time isn’t too heavy with them, so as to deter an interested reader. His philosophical treatment of the various, what I would call major, theological systems as it relates to God’s level of determinism is comprehensive,… Continue reading The Openness of God: A Review (Part IV)

The Openness of God: A Review (Part III)

Very much enjoy Pinnock’s attempt to root his theology in experience of God — after all, without experience of life, God and language, the Bible itself would make no sense to anyone; even if we didn’t believe it, we could understand it. And so it should be with theology. It’s a compelling argument: why do… Continue reading The Openness of God: A Review (Part III)

The Openness of God: A Review (Part II)

The historical considerations are entertaining to me; they trace not just the inklings of relationality but the causes of extra-biblical understandings, so that it’s very clear that God, though still and always God, is always willing to bring his people along through time from a certain capacity of understanding to the next — much like… Continue reading The Openness of God: A Review (Part II)

The Openness of God: A Review (Part I)

This is an attempt to bring my reading more into discussion via the blog. I hope you enjoy it! If you are unaware of the book, it can still be controversial in not a few Christian theological circles. You can see more about it here. Basically, these gentleman have a radically different conception of God in terms of (what they would term) his emotional capacity, his temporal experience, and his knowledge.

Brian McLaren on “Reasonable Doubts”

I was invited to listen to Brian McLaren, emerging church forefather (I guess you could say) on a show called “Reasonable Doubts.” The show is basically an intellectual, agnostic show, attempting to reason out issues in religion that people don’t usually realize. In other words, it’s the Skeptic Station. Frankly, I liked the show for their honesty in questions. And I still have some questions, yes.

Sanctifying N.T. Wright — Part II

I believe last time, the final point was “(B),” so here is the continuance. Just as a reminder, the primary text for this reflection is 2 Timothy 2:10-13. (C) Salvation is “in” Christ Jesus. Again, I know no Christian who denies this. And yet, those who disagree with Wright vociferously seem to me to claim… Continue reading Sanctifying N.T. Wright — Part II

Sanctifying N.T. Wright

God has me in 2 Timothy at the time that I am writing this. It’s a letter centered in “grace, mercy and peace from God” (1:2). I’ve learned quite a bit about God’s nature, our identity, the residing Holy Spirit, suffering, and the importance of faithfulness. It’s helped me tremendously to grow in my own suffering, and the purpose I should see behind that.

One thing I didn’t expect was to learn how Tom Wright’s position on “justification” makes sense. And how it doesn’t. At the same time.

Scripture Buffet, Monastic Edition

“If the church had only the four gospels to go by, what would it look like?” ~ Hirsch/Frost, ReJesus I have a serious problem with this quote. Serious problem. Why? It sounds like Marcion reborn. For those who don’t know, Marcion was a first-century heretic in the church, because he claimed that the New Testament… Continue reading Scripture Buffet, Monastic Edition