http://waynepark.com/2009/10/10/reflections-on-greg-boyds-god-war/ WAYNEPARK.COM: meditations on faith | place | race Sun, 29 Aug 2010 07:59:42 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 http://waynepark.com/2009/10/10/reflections-on-greg-boyds-god-war/comment-page-1/#comment-511 Wayne Sun, 11 Oct 2009 22:30:10 +0000 http://waynepark.com/?p=1315#comment-511 Here's what I really like about Boyd: in his re-addressal of Christian cosmology he's not vindictive, that is to say, he's not out to disprove the foundations of Xian religion, but rather seeking to provide pastoral and pietistc answers to the ques of evil. As Barth would say, "he too, is a Xian" Here’s what I really like about Boyd: in his re-addressal of Christian cosmology he’s not vindictive, that is to say, he’s not out to disprove the foundations of Xian religion, but rather seeking to provide pastoral and pietistc answers to the ques of evil. As Barth would say, “he too, is a Xian”

]]> http://waynepark.com/2009/10/10/reflections-on-greg-boyds-god-war/comment-page-1/#comment-508 Rob Sun, 11 Oct 2009 19:27:27 +0000 http://waynepark.com/?p=1315#comment-508 Thanks for this! I find it very enlightening. I believe Boyd is the one who started the "openness of God" controversy back in the 90s. We have to remember that the "evangelical theological establishment" is essentially Calvinist. Even if many scholars never address those types of issues, they tend to go to Calvinism and Augustinianism when confronted with questions of sovereignty, election, and evil. In fact, I think this is one of the reasons for a certain measure of snobbishness from theologians towards "pop evangelicalism", which is basically unreflective arminianism. So you have the classical notion of God (tied to Greek categories, Augustinian, Anselmian and Calvinist) where perfection implies impassibility (the perfect can never change). A whole view of God flow from this: God is static, all events are predetermined, evil is part of God's plan, the universe occurs in one "timeless" divine moment. It sounds good and orthodox because how can you go wrong if you apply the absolute best and most to God? And yet... I agree with Pinnock that the Bible presents us with a pre-philosophical view of God and of evil. It does not necessarily answer the questions we would like to pose. So the question is whether we will accept these topics in their biblical categories (which Boyd appears to be doing) or we will insert them in philosophical models. I favor the first option, but what are the implications? Is this a question of historical church doctrine vs. Bible? Is it evidence that the Bible is not sophisticated for modern thinking and it thus needs to be supplemented? Actually, no because the Classical view of God has been under criticism by moderns and postmoderns too, from Hegel to process theology. One thing I do believe quite firmly: If we are going to take the personhood of God seriously we cannot invest ourselves in a theology that does not allow him to be relational. Thanks for letting me ramble. Thanks for this! I find it very enlightening. I believe Boyd is the one who started the “openness of God” controversy back in the 90s. We have to remember that the “evangelical theological establishment” is essentially Calvinist. Even if many scholars never address those types of issues, they tend to go to Calvinism and Augustinianism when confronted with questions of sovereignty, election, and evil. In fact, I think this is one of the reasons for a certain measure of snobbishness from theologians towards “pop evangelicalism”, which is basically unreflective arminianism. So you have the classical notion of God (tied to Greek categories, Augustinian, Anselmian and Calvinist) where perfection implies impassibility (the perfect can never change). A whole view of God flow from this: God is static, all events are predetermined, evil is part of God’s plan, the universe occurs in one “timeless” divine moment. It sounds good and orthodox because how can you go wrong if you apply the absolute best and most to God? And yet… I agree with Pinnock that the Bible presents us with a pre-philosophical view of God and of evil. It does not necessarily answer the questions we would like to pose. So the question is whether we will accept these topics in their biblical categories (which Boyd appears to be doing) or we will insert them in philosophical models. I favor the first option, but what are the implications? Is this a question of historical church doctrine vs. Bible? Is it evidence that the Bible is not sophisticated for modern thinking and it thus needs to be supplemented? Actually, no because the Classical view of God has been under criticism by moderns and postmoderns too, from Hegel to process theology. One thing I do believe quite firmly: If we are going to take the personhood of God seriously we cannot invest ourselves in a theology that does not allow him to be relational. Thanks for letting me ramble.

]]>