Here, I am pooling three comments by John Burgeson and one by Howard Van
Till.
John W Burgeson <burgytwo@juno.com> wrote (in 3 different postings):
>Peter Ruest wrote: "As process theology contradicts biblical theism, I
>reject it."
>
>In studying David Griffin's book, Religion & Scientific Naturalism, and
>subsequently reviewing it (review copy on my website), and also in a
>private email dialog with him, I think he might say that P does NOT
>contradict "biblical theism," but only certain variants of it. But
>perhaps I'm wrong. So tell me, in what way (to you) does P contradict
>"biblical theism?"
>Peter wrote: "It appears to me that the "not omnipotent" qualification
>disqualifies P from being biblical."
>
>Why is this so? Certainly it is at odds with CONVENTIONAL Christian
>thought, but in the light of the "Open Theism" debates, one ought not
>call it "unbiblical." IMHO of course.
>>>This makes it clear that P is not an option for Christians. Peter>>
>
>FWIW, Peter, David Griffin disagrees with this. He is a P who is also a
>Christian.
>
>John Burgeson (Burgy)
"Howard J. Van Till" <hvantill@novagate.com> wrote:
>>From: Peter Ruest <pruest@pop.mysunrise.ch>
>
>Collecting a few brief remarks:
>
>> As process theology contradicts biblical theism, I reject it.
>
>> It appears to me that the "not omnipotent" qualification disqualifies P
>from being biblical.
>
>"Biblical" is a remarkably flexible term. Note how often two persons in
>radical disagreement each claim the higher moral ground by asserting that
>their view is the "biblical" one.
>
>>From what I have now learnt, I would choose K.
>
>Fair enough. We all make choices
>
>> This makes it clear that P is not an option for Christians.
>
>Not at all fair. Please don't read those who choose P out of the Christian
>family. I think God's family is much larger than the little clans that
>huddle around their own theological campfires.
>
>Howard
I apologize to anyone I may have offended by these comments about
process theology. I certainly never intended to "read those who choose P
out of the Christian family"! It's not up to me to call non-christian
someone believing in Christ.
I may not have been sufficiently careful in my formulations. Here are
the statements causing my remarks about process theology:
George Murphy:
>He [Howard] has expressed some approval of the process theology views of
> Griffin, which differ significantly from traditional doctrines of providence
> in which God is omnipotent.
Howard Van Till:
>God is "supreme in power," but not omnipotent.
George Murphy:
>What I mean by the "general pattern" statement is that in P the limitation of
> God - & also God's participation in the suffering of the world - are general
> truths, of which Christ, & especially his cross, is one exemplar. He may be
> a very important example, & for some P theologians even the motivation for a
> process approach, but the whole system can be presented logically with no
> reference to Christ. One can be a Christian process theologian, but one can
> also be a Jewish one (cf. Kushner) or a philosophical one like Whitehead.
> One important difference between K & P is that in the former Christ can't
> be dispensed with & in P he can be (though he doesn't have to be).
These statements are in line with what (little) I knew of process
theology before. They confirm my rejection of process theology, as I
consider its views to contradict the biblical revelation. Of course,
there may be views I hold which also contradict the biblical revelation,
and I would be thankful for anyone to call my attention to such points.
Peter
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Nov 11 2001 - 10:58:44 EST