I’m nearing the completion of Roger Olson’s book The Journey of Modern Theology. Consider this on process theology.
“Clearly, then, for Cobb and other process theologians, a main appeal of Whitehead’s process idea of God is its solution to the problem of evil. However, as critics often point out, it solves it at a great cost. A God who is not omnipotent, a God possessing only the power of persuasion, cannot guarantee an ultimate victory of good over evil. Cobb agrees and is happy with that sacrifice.” (411)
I remember in one of my theology classes we were discussing process theology and my professor said that when we die, according to process theology, we will simply be remembered by God–that’s it. While this is not true of all process theologians Olson confirmed my memory was correct.
“What about personal survival of death? What about life after death? Some process thinkers have opted for ‘objective immortality’ in which the deceased person is ‘remembered’ by God and his or her influence for good or evil enters into the stream field of actual occasions being prehended by them.” (415)
So, instead of hearing “Well done thou good and faithful servant” when we die it would rather be something like this: “Aw, Louis, I remember him well.”
From Five Views on Biblical Inerrancy. This is part of Kevin Vanhoozer’s response to Peter Enns’ essay.
“He [Enns] mistakenly thinks that inerrancy is joined at the hip with an unsound hermeneutic. On the contrary: inerrancy tells us only that ‘what is said’ is true; it cannot tell us ‘what is said’ nor defend the truth of ‘what is said.’ I agree with Frame: ‘Inerrancy is a belief about the truth of the document, not about the interpretation of it.’ Yes, there are dangers in the way inerrancy is properly understood, many of these interpretive dangers can be avoided.” (132)
From God and the Gay Christian by Matthew Vines.
“Mandatory celibacy for gay Christians differs from any other kind of Christian self-denial, including involuntary celibacy for some straight Christians. Even when straight Christians seek a spouse but cannot find one, the church does not ask them to relinquish any future hope of marriage. Those divergent responses point to the fundamental difference between celibacy for Christians who cannot find a partner and mandatory celibacy for all gay Christians. For straight Christians, abstinence outside of marriage affirms the goodness both of marriage and of sex within marriage. But for gay Christians, mandatory celibacy affirms something different: the sinfulness of every possible expression of their sexuality.” (17)
From An Introduction to the Apocrypha by Bruce Metzger.
“Though it would be altogether extravagant to call the Apocrypha the keystone of the two Testaments, it is not too much to regard these intertestamental books as an historical hypen that serves a useful function in bridging what to most readers of the Bible is a blank of several hundred years. To neglect what the Apocrypha have to tell us about the development of Jewish life and thought during those critical times is as foolish as to imagine that onc can understand the civilization and culture of America today by passing from colonial days to the twentieth century without taking into account the industrial and social revolution of the intervening centuries.” (151-52)
From Evangelicals and Tradition by D.H. Williams.
“Ironically, the musical portion of services at many churches is preplanned and executed with meticulous attention to detail so that it is anything but spontaneous. Yet while the musical segments of contemporary worship services are expected to be carefully chosen and rehearsed, the use of a preplanned liturgy, on the other hand, is perceived as stiff, repetitious, and deadening.” (38)
“The fathers would not have appreciated the principle of Scripture alone, since the historical and theological issues that gave rise to it were particular to late medieval Christianity. To treat the Bible in isolation from the tradition of the church, as it was located in the ancient rule of faith, baptismal confessions, and conciliar creeds, would have been incomprehensible to the Christian pastors and thinkers of the patristic era. From their perspective, a radically biblicist view might easily be driven by a desire to avoid the truth of the church’s teaching.” (96)