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)
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)
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 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)
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.
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.