Product Details
Would you like to update product info or give feedback on images?
|
|
Share your thoughts with other customers:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Most Helpful Customer Reviews
12 of 13 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
A Sheep Amidst Philosophical Wolves,
By
This review is from: Trinity and Process (American University Studies. Series VII. Theology and Religion) (Hardcover)
In finding it so sad that so few reviews, and such unfair rating and explication have been shown here, I'd like to contribute at least a little something. To the lazily determined wolves of dogma, such as my former self, Open Theism might as well be labeled New Age. To those who just don't care, a circus of epic proportions has been going on in the Ivory Tent. And this book is one of the very first philosophical performances to debut, from a highly thoughtful and alternative perspective known as Open Theism, inside the modern theological Tent of Evangelicalism.In defense of their dogma, so many `traditionalists' seem to eat Open Theists for breakfast. At least that's what they think. Their carried-over set of a priori presuppositions have disallowed them the full apprehension of the sets of definitions which are clearly delineated by Open Theists through exegesis. Greg Boyd in particular does appear to distinguish himself in an open embrace of the term "omni", however, whereas some other OT'ers have or do reject this prefix as too limiting upon God. Therein lies the problem for Boyd in particular, within the linguistic mindset of `historical traditionalists'. Historical - whatever that means. Patristical? Traditional - whatever that means. Augustinian? To the Arminianist mind, Open Theism should find the satisfaction that previously only their heart could feel. To the Calvinist mind, if actually penetrable, the historical downspout of Platonic origins to their `historical/traditional/evangelical' philosophy, which is the grounds for so much of their theology, should hopefully be grounds enough to duct tape their mouths long enough to actually hear what OT'ers are really saying! I'm profoundly baffled as to why such fiercely intelligent men cannot yet even reword correctly what Open Theism actually states, nor what its proponents are saying. Other than, I suppose, an ardent and stubborn refusal to allow their presuppositions to stand alongside the presuppositions of Open Theism. There is a reason that Open Theism is referred to as Neo-Platonic. This is because it is not statically Platonic, which predestination is. Luther himself said that predestination is what the Gospel hinges on. Yet Boyd and company disagree, and rightfully so. Why? Granted this book is for techies, God's Truth is not. For his dissertation, Greg gets very technical in his defense of God's Truth. Now, if pre-determinists, free-willists, or processists want to disagree that the content Greg is trying to defend is God's Truth, then rightfully fine. Just stop slandering the man himself, okay? From actually having read the man's works, over and over sometimes until I finally get what HE is saying, I have yet to see the same hateful and smiting bitterness in his tone, as I've seen in most of `Evangelicalism's' rebuttals. Polemics are fine and dandy, but speaking before or without understanding is a violation of the Plenary Word of God being claimed as defended against him. Proverbs, perhaps? Nine o' clock appointment with our good friend Job, anyone? And it's not just Boyd that gets his idea through apart from a slanderous tone and rather with an overwhelming passion. Now, as far as the usefulness of this tome extends, is to the degree that God's simple yet inexhaustive Truth is revealed. This was the cognizant mission, and stated purpose of, the great Church reformer Martin Luther. He had a personal realization that double-predestination was the exegetical Key by which all truth of the Gospels and Canon was to be understood by. And likewise, Gregory Boyd has had some personal realization himself, that this is not the case. But who can be right in this matter? Does John Piper properly represent ALL of the Reformation's `historical' formulary? Does R.C. Sproul `traditionally' burn fellow brethren at the stake like our beloved Protestant Pope of Geneva, John Calvin? And if character is to be set aside, then do either one acknowledge for their laity where both of those Reforming titans borrowed their "essential theology" from? Perhaps Saint Augustine. Yes, that great man of Christological faith, AND pre-salvific lettering in the broad field of philosophy. Imagine that. A late doctrinal patriarch who knew and even recorded for us, his formulations of theological understanding based more on philosophic argumentation, than on linguistic understanding or through Jewish hermeneutic. Quite `historic', eh? And Augustine's prestigious source of revelation on the Key to proper exegesis: The Law? The Prophets? The Writings? The Messiah? The Apostles? Ah, let's try Plato. Our Saint was much more adept in the science of Hellenistic thought and practice than in first century Jewish Palestine. So let's try Aristotle. And Socrates. And Euripides. Same TYPES of reprobate sources that served as felling traps to the Jews and Israelites centuries earlier, resulting in their Divine ejection into the Diaspora, which they still muddle around in today. Same ancient dilemma: the source of individual knowledge, which produces death; or the source of Divine knowledge, which produces Life? I give Augustine a break because of the world he was born into. I give Luther an even bigger break, and believe he deserves most of the praise he already gets. Calvin was a genius, but his pride certainly did go before his fall. He tripped over his own blasphemous arrogance into the pit of hell, in my opinion. If you disagree, then brush up on the portions of history that you're ignoring. Jonathan Edwards, great guy. Perhaps if only he had seen Johnny boy in some of his feverish visions, though. The rest of us: Wake Up! We live in the "Information Age", just for your information. With unprecedented access to history, theology, philosophy, archaeology, linguistics, philology, and the rest of the sciences all interfaced into portable libraries we nickname `computers', we are "without excuse" as someone famous once put it. So what's the review all about? As a former Infralapsarian-turned Supralapsarian Calvinist, and more honestly, at heart, a tortured Compatiblist, I learned that these days God doesn't strike down those who scream out to Him from seething lips for an answer to the mystery of the ages. Seek and ye shall find. Knock and it shall be opened to ye. Refer to Pelagius if you will, in regards to Hartshorne-ites. Or to Augustine, in regards to Calvinites. But at least give Arminianism the common decency of acknowledgment to being man's most common conscious template in the enquiring beginner's theo-philosophical train of thought? It could be reprobate, in dire need of reform. Or, it could be intuitive and a good sign that regeneration has and is taking place. It wasn't me that wrote "My ways are not your ways" and "come, let us reason together". Even Sproul autobiographically went through this phase. A Reformed professor helped him. But for anyone seriously concerned about delving into the etiology of their inherited Church doctrines, this book is a great resource in a very in-depth philosophical and higher-critical way. Anyone serious about `double-checking' the sources of their personal reformation, that is. In the very least, when met on its own terms, it should get the noggin jarred enough to perhaps nab a look also into Boyd's infinitely accessible "God of the Possible" or even "The Openness of God: A Biblical Challenge to the Traditional Understanding of God" with the forbearance in mind to keep the "Traditional" aspect under closest scrutiny, alongside this supposedly "new" doctrine of `ahistorical, untraditional, Neo-Platonic, re-hashed Process-theological bunk'. Anytime someone offers actual reasons for the beliefs of their faith, I, and we all, should listen. Listen until the point that we can properly rework their reasons into our own verbiage, accurately. They are giving an account for the hope that is within them. Therefore, it is not enough to simply accuse them of being wrong. For some reason, though Yale and Princeton Divinity credentials don't seem to reflect much ability to exegete Truth nowadays, to my mind they still exegete their author's mental capacity and intellectual veracity, whether right in the conclusions or not. And if not, then the apologists need how much more of these qualities, to honestly rework what is being said into their defenses? At least worth listening to. Listen close enough, and you just might hear something strange, like the differentiation between: Omniscience and Prescience Presupposition and Logic His a priori and Their a priori Philosophy and Theology Scripture and History Reformers and Prophets Politicians and Apostles Listeners and Disciples Good thinkers and The Good Teacher Tired of the same old logical contradictions plating circular, static Christian philosophy? Seeing right through the good-as-metaphorical life that it tries to dogmatically dictate, more akin to indefinite monism than Sinaitic satisfaction? Afraid also of the reasonably fatalistic inconclusions of Arminianism, as well as the horrifying notions of absurdity that Processism proffers? Tired of helplessly limiting God in the confines of your confounded mind? No sigh of relief in your stagnant theodicy of predetermined `mercy'? A terrible pit of `injustice' in the bowels of your intellect every time the word "Elect" is mentioned? Well then why not consider a life of continuing to reform. "Seek the ancient path" to follow, whether it is of the way of Paul or Apollos or Christ Himself alone; we'll never know for sure until we stop and listen, and give heed to the imperative "come, let us reason together says the Lord". Now that's evangelical. If this `review' has not helped expound the contents within the named book specifically, then it should at least help some grasp the broader context that it... Read more ›
5 of 6 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Not for the fainthearted, but worth the read,
This review is from: Trinity and Process (American University Studies. Series VII. Theology and Religion) (Hardcover)
Like RW says, Trinity & Process is highly technical. That's to be expected of a PhD dissertation in philosophical theology. You'll need a solid grasp on basic metaphysics and process theology in order to follow. But for those who have the interest and the patience (and the cash!) to invest, I promise you won't be disappointed. Trinity & Process is the best kept secret in Process related studies.Thanks RW also for the sensible comments. At least you've read Trinity & Process. The two reviewers previous to you might have at least read the book before reviewing. If by chance they have read it, then they've failed to understand it. This book is not an uncritical endorsement of Process theology or of Hartshorne. Quite the contrary. Boyd is highly critical of much of Hartshorne's philosophy. The core Process beliefs that make it so unorthodox (i.e., no Trinity, a necessary God-World relation, a less than adequate account of freedom and causality, among others) are all thoroughly discussed and rejected. But as he critiques, Boyd reconstructs, showing that it is the historical orthodox beliefs regarding the Trinity and the contingency of the world which are in fact better suited for expressing what's best in Hartshorne's system. True, Boyd says early on that the "fundamental vision of the Process worldview is correct" (especially as it gets worked out in Hartshorne), and some have taken this as a prima facie sell-out of biblical commitments and any concern for historical orthodoxy. Just read the book if you're interested. It's doubtful whether Process theologians would consider Boyd a "process theologian" for the simple reason that he rejects what they feel is necessary to the view and holds to other commitments they wouldn't make. Boyd obviously feels that the best insights of Process theology don't require denying the trinity and creation ex nihilo, and thus are compatible with a Christ-centered, biblical worldview. That's the point of his comment. But if one is tentative about the how, say, panentheism fits with historical core Orthodox commitments, recall Bishop Kallistos Ware's (Easter Orthodox) favorable comments on the matter. One cannot read the Cappadocian fathers or Maximus the Confessor without feeling Boyd has hit the nail on the head in several respects. Boyd's application of the category of `dispositions' is ground-breaking. Does Boyd reject some commitments of `historic' Christiantity? Sure. He rejects the traditional doctrines of divine simplicity, timeless being, and the notion of God as `pure act'. But there's hardly anything new or heretical in these moves. Many theologians whose orthodoxy is unquestioned reject them. And open theists aren't the only folks who have rejected them either. For those who wish they could check out Boyd's dissertation thesis somewhere without having to cough up the cash for the whole enchilada, Boyd has a chapter that briefly summarizes his main argument in A Relational Theology of God, eds. Joseph A. Bracken and Marjorie Hewitt Suchocki (New York: Continuum, 1997).
36 of 76 people found the following review helpful:
1.0 out of 5 stars
Understanding Greg Boyd's Open Theory: This is the Egg,
By A Customer
This review is from: Trinity and Process (American University Studies. Series VII. Theology and Religion) (Hardcover)
To really understand why Greg Boyd believes/writes the curious notions that thread through all his books (Letters to a Skeptic,God of the Possible, God at War, Satan & Problem of Evil, Across Evang. Spectrum, 4 Views/Divine Foreknowledge), it is necessary to read this book. Its primary source is Charles Hartshorne's philosophy which Boyd integrates into his personal theology, sort of a quasi-processistic presupposition that permeates his non-historic thinking. It demonstrates as others have done that Boyd fails to grasp not only Historical Evangelical Theology (not some ultra-Calvinistic strain he seems to be recoiling from and setting up as straw-antagonist), but also the implications of tampering with several of the Attributes of God. Tweaking one or two (Omnipotence to Boyd is more Multipotence, Principotence, not unqualifiedly OMNI; Omniscience is only what Boyd can grasp of that portion of the future said to exist presently based on current factors, NOT what free-agents may or may not decide), tweaks all (Omnipresence, Infinity, Eternality, Holiness, Goodness, Aseity, Transcendence-Immanence, Sovereignty, Perfection, Omnisapience, etc.) Thank you D.A. Carson, Norm Geisler, Hank Hanegraaff, John MacArthur, Millard Erickson for politely, yet almost embarrassingly showing Boyd's aberrations for what they are: May Greg Boyd be 'open' to plenary Scriptural witness about the Real Jesus and true Trinitarian Divine Attributes. Nothing a good dose of Luther or Arminius or Wesley couldn't cure!
Share your thoughts with other customers: Create your own review
|
|
Tags Customers Associate with This Product(What's this?)Click on a tag to find related items, discussions, and people.
|
|
This product's forum
Active discussions in related forums
Search Customer Discussions
|
Related forums
|
