New Theology Mill

________________________________________________

Tom and Nosborne

Thank you both for not being offended. Tom my disseration second chapter (if approved) deals with Process Theology (eg Cobb, Hartshorne-bet you know something about these guys)

How amazing that an evangelical can discuss such things with a liberal Jew and a Unitarian and none of us become angry. My bet is that after five minutes of my discussion with many fundamantalists anger would occur. My heart is warmed! I say this blessing on you in transliterated Greek so as not risk breaking my lucky streak: charis soi,

 

Bill,

Thank you. I think I follow that reasoning. I "knew" it had an answer, but with my limited background it was still a question to me. So, you are saying modern translations might be more accurate than the venerable KJV? Not that is matters, but KJV was always God's word in my upbringing. Of course, living in Utah, well.........sometimes I feel the need to question. Can you give me info on modern translations? Even though I am not interested in really going into the field, for personal study I am very interested.

Yeah, it really isn't on topic, and I apologize.
Thanks again.

Tony

 

_________________________________________________

Tony behind the English version of the New Testament is a Greek text. The English is partly made "correct" when true to the originals because of the accuracy of the text to those autographs. But secondly, the English is only correct to the extent that it truly expresses the Greek.

As you implied we do not the originals. But we know we are very close to them in the present state of the text. Here is one major example of a problem"the only begotten Son" John 1:18 in the King James Version. BUT very likely the original was "the unique God". This is because probably "monogenes"=unique not begotten and likely "theos" (God) not "huios"(Son) was penned by the author of the 4th Gospel account. The earliest manuscripts so have it. Here I blather on. onnn!

 

Bill,

It sounds like an argument could be made. Using the words "probably" and "likely" attest to that. That is probably why, to borrow from an old bromide, one shouldn't talk about religion or politics. Obviously, since there isn't a definitive truth, it comes down to knowledge/faith and how you incorporate the two. It IS interesting though, how people or groups take different meanings from the same passage.

Tony
Who DOES believe in GOD

ps But just has a hard time rationalizing it.

 

Some of my favorite theologians. Do you get the Process and Faith pastoral magazine put out by the Center for Process Studies...? I reviewed Ann Pederson's God, Creation, and All That Jazz for their December 2001 issue, and--in a happy coincidence I'll probably end up telling my grandkids about one day--my review was printed opposite another review written by...John Cobb. Pure luck (he doesn't usually write reviews, and this was the only time I did) but oh, happy day.


Cheers,

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In some areas of theological discussion I use "probably' and "likely" not to suggest uncertainty but consideration for the other opinion. But generally the problem is, even if Scripture as originally given were inspired and inerrent, I am to stupid to figure the whole thing out. I am just beginning to write on one remote (to some church folk) doctrinal issue in my anticipated two+ year dissertation. If I could do that on each subdoctrine which divides even evangelicals then possibly I would use "probably" and "likely" less often. Of course, I intend to give up using those adverbs any way when I get my doctorate. The only way to get rich in religion is to say you know everything!

 

-------------------------------------------------------

Tom I am a novitiate re process theology. This inadequacy will slow me down in this project. As you might guess the slender reading I've done of Cobb, Pittinger, and Hartshorne thus far reveals to me that we are in different camps. But the view that God is becoming not being and is immanent not transcendent connects with my issue re the eternality or temporality of the particular trinal relationship I am investigating.

 

Process Theology - Open Theism

Bill,
I am not sure how familiar you are with Open Theism but I think it would fit right into your dissertation topic. You can read about it at: Open Theism.org and also on Greg Boyd's site at: Christus Victor While it is not process theology there are some connections to it. On Boyd's site they have a fantastic discussion board that goes into great depth on all these issues. Boyd posts there all the time and will be more than willing to engage you on these issues you are studying. While I have a feeling you might have different viewpoints, he is very well studied in the areas of which you speak.

 

Perhaps the theologians viewing this thread will satisfy me as to two points:

1) Given the relatively limited vocabulary and reasonably consistant grammer of Torah Hebrew, why don't Christians follow our custom of dealing with Torah in Hebrew, thus avoiding the disputes about translation? I don't mean just ministers; I mean the average Christian in the pew. If Torah is the Word, why aren't Christians studying it avidly?

2) I understand that the New Testament is translated from the Greek. First, why aren't average Christians studying it in Greek? Or perhaps this IS a common thing? Second, I was under the impression that Jesus spoke the language of the Jews in his time on earth. Surely that language was Aramaic, not Greek, judging from my studies in Talmud? So isn't even the Greek a translation?

Nosborne, JD

(Who thinks that Aramaic is damned difficult!)

 

I'm not a theologian but I'll give my theory anyway.

For hundreds of years a very important goal for Christian religions has been converting new members. Forcing them to learn a new language would significantly hinder that goal therefore, the Bible has been translated.

 

Now look what you did, Nosborne. You got the theologians talking shop again.

While I find theology interesting, I don't think that it is an appropriate topic for the main forum at Degreeinfo, particularly seeing as how discussions of accreditation have been banished. In my opinion this thread should be moved to 'off-topic'. But understanding the workings of our moderators is like understanding the workings of God himself.

I agree with you that theology is an odd subject. It has kind of a love/hate relationship with secular scholarship.

Part of that is internally driven since there has always been an element in most religions of self-segregation from the world. And part of it is the nature of the subject.

I think that's the fundamental problem of the philosophy of religion: How does one have knowledge of a transcendent object that by definition exceeds all human conceptions? If that problem is taken seriously, we immediately are led towards apophatic or 'negative' theology.

Most religions introduce the idea of divine revelations at this point. So we get all kinds of theories about prophecy, incarnations, avatars, verbal inspiration, divine energies, works and accomodations, and so on.

Of course, a similar question could be asked about any of these, namely: How can a finite human being determine which, if any, of these things in fact has a divine source?

I think that's where theology is distinguished from religious studies.

Theology takes place from *within* a particular tradition. It accepts the articles of faith of that tradition as *given*. That's why so many seminaries require their students and faculty to sign doctrinal loyalty-oaths.

So the questions that I raised above don't arise for a theologian. (Actually many theologians have addressed them, from Aquinas to Tillich, but when they do they are veering from theology proper into the philosophy of religion, in my opinion.) Christianity (or Judaism or Islam or...) is true *a-priori*, and then one proceeds from there in trying to understand and to bring some intellecual clarity to the tradition.

But there is another approach to religion, which treats it from *outside*, so to speak. It is an approach which is not bound from the very beginning in assuming the divinely revealed truth of what is being studied. It doesn't need to deny that truth necessarily, but it needs to reduce it from a certainty to a possibility, thus freeing up other possibilities. Disagreement with orthodoxy becomes possible. Treating "heresies" as alternative religious expressions becomes possible. Comparative and historical approaches to religion become possible. You get psychological approaches to religious experience, sociological understandings of religious organization and so on.

There's a question that's particularly pressing in religion, of whether scholars should (or can) separate themselves from their subject, and if so by how great a distance. How much of what is being studied can simply be treated as having been divinely revealed by God himself, while still maintaining one's scholarly integrity? But can scholars maintain their own personal faith and religious practice if they don't?

 

I've never been able to resolve this to my satisfaction--I've seen philosophy of religion classified as a subdiscipline of philosophy, religious studies, and theology, which is one of the reasons I had trouble figuring out which of the fields to specialize in. Natural theology has the same problem--the name would suggest it's a branch of theology but, taken on its face, it seems more like philosophy of religion.

Philosophy of religion has always struck me as an odd specialization for religious studies because, as you mentioned, religious studies is an outsider's study of working systems, while philosophy of religion tends to be an independent exercise. It's sort of like doing a Ph.D. in sociology and, for one's dissertation, discussing the merits of ideal social systems. This is why Charles Hartshorne and other folks who posit the existence of God from a non-religious perspective aren't usually called religious studies scholars, but rather philosophers or theologians.

I managed to jump over this problem entirely by going with an interdisciplinary studies program; my principal supervisor and I are still trying to figure out of my dissertation topic wanders closer to philosophy or psychology of religion, but in all likelihood it will involve both (at the moment, bearing in mind that my Proposal hasn't even made it through committee yet, the three UMI classifications I would give it would be philosophy of religion, psychology of religion, and rabbinics). If I hadn't gone this route, I think I would have ended up settling on philosophy and seeking joint supervision through a religious studies department--because while religious studies seems to be a strange field for philosophy of religion, you're right that most of the prominent non-sectarian philosophers of religion these days teach in religious studies departments.

What a confusing mess.


Cheers,

 

My head hurts.

Nosborne, JD

(Who is running for cover between the pages of K'tuvot!)

 

Re: Process Theology - Open Theism

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thankyou, I'll check into that.

 

Sorry for my spelling mistakes and under par postings. I have this large green sign in the middle of my screen which says"This program has perfrmed an illegal operation..." and haven't yet been able to remove it after repeated calls to "experts."It's hard to work around it.

 

Re: Process Theology - Open Theism

Thanks for posting this very interesting site.

Out of curiousity, where do you personall fall on the Calvinism-Arminism debate? I have a friend who is a pastor who says he is a Calminian.

North

 

From what it's worth coming from a Mac user: I'd reboot and see if that gets rid of it.


Cheers,

 

North,
I am basically Arminian, leaning more and more toward Open Theism. I have read Boyd's "God of the Possible", "God at War" and "Satan and the Problem of Evil". Each of these books deal with Open Theism from different standpoints and give very compelling arguments, answering questions that are not usually addressed by more traditional views. Open Theism is especially strong on the problem of evil. Clark Pinnock and other evangelicals are moving very strongly toward this position. How about you - do you buy into any particular system?