Customer Reviews

Trinity and Process (American University Studies. Series VII. Theology and Religion)

5 star:		(2)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(2)

 

 

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 is having to work within. Between the walls that the other major contentions provide, Open Theism appears to step forth from the midst; the middle area. This is what Compatiblists like Chuck Missler had been claiming for some time, except without having been equipped or able to provide the precise mechanisms by which this is possible. It explains where Arminianism falls just short; defends against hyper-relationality in process; defends against hyper- and even hypo- (critical) predestinating (5-point TULIP, 4-point, etc.); and is the answer of every Compatiblist's desiring heart AND intellect. In short, the mind is satisfied because Scripture is brought to the defense AS the defense, by utilizing more sophisticated levels of philosophic epistemology to both debunk common blindsiding presuppositions heretofore unperceived, as well as rewind us back into proper hermeneutical approach, to the gates of philological fidelity, to thus begin reading Scripture with a more just and consistent exegesis. In this, the heart becomes supremely satisfied also, because the goodness of God is brought to justice in actually DEMONSTRATING how it is that God's "two wills" (one revealed; one `mysterious' and God-forbid that we dare to question this hogwash!) actually DO NOT exist apart from the philosophers' stone, but rather ONE perfect, homogenous, logical, consistent, and revealed Will.

I've been in all these camps save Process and Universalism (also determinate), and long enough to see their strengths and weaknesses. Not to claim that OT is perfect (yet) in how it is currently explicated or exhaustively understood, but it is the ONLY answer so far that brings true justice to God, gives Him alone the supreme sovereign capacities inherent within omnificence as well as omnipotence, without sacrificing any TRUE notions of the other omni's, definitions agreed upon. At last, it appears the `exegetical Key' has resurfaced to put God's character back into His Scriptures. Guess you'll just have to get this book to find out!

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).

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:
UNBIBLICAL, Quasi-Bi-Polar Processistic Philosophizing while in graduate school.

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!

This is Dr.Greg Boyd's doctoral dissertation for his PhD that launched him into the forefront as a main proponent of the Open
Theory of Biblical Interpretation, also called Free-Will Theism.
It is essentially his attempt at synthesizing traditional,
classical theology with selective concepts of Process Thought to create a hybrid, a blend of the 'best of both'. In this book, he actually gives a tribute to Charles Hartshorne, a Process Theist,
saying his view of a Process model of reality/theology is essentially correct, after a bit of a critical re-evaluation, like adding the Trinity, Creation ex nihilo, retaining many of
Classical Attributes of God such as non-dependence on creation,
Supreme Power (not quite Omnipotent/Almighty),exhaustive hindsight/recollection of the past and knowledge of all present
reality (but stopping short on free-will future agency which Boyd
considers 'unrealized possibility, non-existent even to God').

Boyd succeeds in stretching the Biblical interpretive envelope
only to have it tear in so many places that it no longer is able
to contain the Word of God and the God of the Word. With each passing page, he leaves the Bible farther and farther behind.
One of his major sources is Process & Reality by Alfred Whitehead
another philosopher he highly admires. The other major source is
Hartshorne's 'Omnipotence & Other Mistakes', which caused a whole
generation of well-intentioned Bible students in the 60's- 80's
to call into question, challenge then revise Historical
Evangelical Christian beliefs, among them Clark Pinnock, John
Sanders and others.
This book shows the development of Boyd's new hermeneutic or
interpretive grid for evaluating Bible texts and the paradigm of
processistic(quasi-classical/process synthesis)wholesale revision of the Historic,Orthodox,Classical,Evangelical understanding of Scripture interpretation. These presuppositions
are paramount in Open Theorist systemization of theology:

1)Libertarian Free Will, where free agents have no interference
from the outside (Divine or otherwise) in freely choosing between
real alternatives
2)Anthropomorphism/Metaphors are out and Literalism is in for
evaluating texts showing God 'repenting','rueing','regretting',
'changing the divine mind','revising plans/prophecies due to
unforeseen free-agent choices unbeknownst in advance
3)Extensive Temporal Forecasting, eliminating the historic
Omniscience of Exhaustive Divine/Definite Foreknowledge of future free-agency; much of the future is unforeknown by God's
choice thus unsettled/'open', while some of what God chooses to foreknow(what He intends to do) is settled. God can't know it all
because all of it isn't yet there for anyone, even God, to know
4)God is in-process, Di-Polar to some extent (similar to Process,
with some differences): changing or not changing depending on if
it is beneficial to do so; learning,growing,developing,
progressing,discovering,being surprised,experiencing newness,etc.
5)God is temporal to some extent, meaning He must also be spatial
and material (implicitly, by extension) since He created a
space/time/material continuum of reality and must meaningfully
relate to it with genuine relationship in space/time/matter
6)Star Trek's 'prime directive of non-interference' to let agents
freely determine their own destinies without coercion/pre-
determination (although different from Process in that God can on occasion intervene and override agency to keep His overall
purposes on track - open theorists differ here), reducing God's
Sovereignty/Omnipotence/Omnipresence as well as over-emphasizing
God's immanence at the expense of His transcendence
7)Quotes Scripture extensively to support the Open Theory.While
quoting the Bible is perceived as a strength, the rub is which
Scriptures, favorable or unfavorable, selective or plenary,
handling the most texts with the least legerdemain,literal or figurative,which Control
Beliefs,which metaphysical worldview and how Biblical,which
presuppositions, how valid, consistent or inconsistent, etc.
This actually is the most problematic since many Open Theorists
disagree among themselves as to the extent of departing from
Classical interpretations and embracing more Processistic views
(50-50 or 75-25 or 25-75 proportions, etc.)

Overall, not convincing to jettison 100%Classical-0%Processistic
approach to Scripture. Yet, this distorted lens of Classical/
Process Synthesis is carried forward into all
Boyd's subsequent volumes with little pause for reflection as to why Classical views held for millennia by Protestant,Roman Catholic,Eastern
Orthodox,etc. had gotten things so off track it took Socinians
in the 16th Century, some obscure theologians in the late 19th
Century and Boyd,Pinnock,Sanders &Co. in these latter days to set Christendom straight!