"Howard J. Van Till" wrote:
> From: george murphy <gmurphy@raex.com>
>
>
> > The questions that I have raised, however, have to do not
> with whether
> > process theology is internally consistent but with whether
> or not it can be
> > an adequate way of expressing the historic Christian
> faith.
>
>
> I presume that process theologians like Griffin have every intention
> of doing considerably more than re-articulating the historic Christian
> faith (same concepts in different words)-- their goal is to modify
> Christian theology (change its conceptual vocabulary and its
> propositional system) in a way that takes into account what we have
> learned about the world of which we are a part since the "good old
> days" of Aquinas, Calvin or Luther.
The previous passage which you cited expresses the intention to
express different concepts in the same words, which is confusing at
best.
Of course the reference to "the good old days" (especially in
quotes: "Get it? They weren't really that good.") is polemical. It's
not clear that process theology is any better at dealing with the issues
that have been raised by modern science than trinitarian theism, however
old-fashioned the latter may seem to some. The issue that this thread
began with, that of theodicy, is not a new problem. It's as old as Job,
& the process treatment of it does not involve new insights about what
we have learned.
In the last analysis process theology has the same fundamental
problem that has beguiled Christianity since its origins, the temptation
to force Christian thought into a particular philosophical framework
rather than letting philosophy serve a merely magisterial role.
Shalom,
George
George L. Murphy
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
"The Science-Theology Interface"
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Apr 03 2002 - 23:00:44 EST