Sorry for the lack of proofreading. I of course meant "ministerial" in
my last line. Allowing philosophy a magisterial role is the problem!
George
george murphy wrote:
> "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 - 23:02:08 EST