kmoney

I will get back to you soon. Been very busy

:e4e:

I've always liked your motto, especially since I've expended a fair amount of energy in running.

Doing all right, hope you are too. I'm back in school, so very busy. Should keep me out of trouble here for the most part. :chuckle:

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4424886&postcount=120 (whistles a happy little tune)

I hear that not having seen them is the best way to watch the Chiefs.

Progress is overrated.
So, they finally got around to announcing the new Chief's motto, eh?

Shoot, I see the vixen has beat me to the motto. :mmph:

It certainly is. :chuckle:

That would make a great personal motto. :chuckle:

lain:

Oh, and

lain:

And yes... still walking, still not getting anywhere... :chuckle:

Im still significantly inspired Whitehead ontology though. Theologians such as Jenson and Hart (although they can be quite different from each other as well) say many good things. Ultimately though, I think classical thought struggles with really taking the picture of the world given by science seriously enough. There is an issue of deep history, a theistic ontology today must make sense of the hundreds of millions of years preceeding mankind as something more than simply a stage for humanity to emerge onto. Of course, a pure process theology has other problems.

Whoever said that theology is simple did not know what he was talking about

As for relation within the Trinity. It is important to remember that it is God, which for Jenson and classically is irreducably Father, Son and Holy Spirit, that is apathetic. The internal dynamic or relation among Father, Son and Holy Spirit are eternal, they cannot change.

Not sure if I personally support the doctrine of apatheia though. I think process theology makes some interesting points about that doctrine, and that it is ultimately rooted in a doctrine of static perfection that I at least think is not necessarily true. Paul Fiddes touches on this quite a bit in his book, and supports the process theologians on that issue.

:e4e:

I would say that the crucifixion would not make any sense without the reality of sin. There is certainly sin in this view, in fact the revelation of mans sin, according to this view, is made manifest in the act of mankind crucifying God himself. There is a real sense in which God is identified with the crucified Son from eternity. This is why Jenson is skeptical of what is called the logos asarkos (logos without flesh). The Son is the one who is incarnate, identifed as the crucified and risen Son.

Not sure if I can see an aspect where all men are touched by Christ's sacrifice at the present. I'm more of a universalist in the sense that I believe that eventually, God will reveal himself in the culmination of creation as the redeemer and goal of all things.

Conor Cunningham puts it this way: There is no paradise lost, there is only paradise gained. Adams sin is separation from God, which is universal until all are united in Christ so to speak.

My point with that thread is that in such an understanding of creation, I can only accept universalism. Because creation is the self-disclosing of God. I believe that self-disclosure must of the one that is able to perfectly reveal his own goodness in uniting everyone to himself, as the true goal of creation to begin with.

Can you expand your question a bit? I believe the Trinity is inherently relational, that is I believe in what is often referred to as the immanent Trinity in some sense.

:e4e:

There are some things that must be ntoed, and I failed to mention that, when you talk about that the incarnation is not a contingent event. It is that the fall is not strictly speaking a fall in the past where mankind lost some paradisical state. Rather it is a part of the history of creation, it starts off that way, but the goal of all of creation is to be assumed into Christ. This is a more Eastern view, although quite typical in many of the church fathers. For those views, the incarnation is not a rescue attempt of some failed creation, but the process where creation is fulfilled. The goal of all creation is to become new creation. That answers your second question as well. Adams sin touches all, in that we all are that way before we are perfected in Christ. And I lean towards universalism, I believe that ultimately every knee shall bow to Christ. The incarnation is the goal of creation, the absolute central event of it all, where the true purpose of creation is revealed.

Thanks, kmo.

I will probably look for positions when I'm approaching the end of the semester. Once you get a positions, you will be ordained.

I think Jenson would say something along the lines that God is he who identifies himself through the Son. There is nothing contingent about the incarnation and God identifying himself as the crucified Son. That of course brings up other theological questions, then the fall is a necessity in some sense.

I would also hesitate on attributing that to God. Although that is a rather complicated issue. Because if you do not, then where does it come from? Process theology has a coherent answer, but that answer will influence the overall theology quite significantly.

I understand. :chuckle:

anna: "leaving TOL forever since 2010."

The summer is bittersweet. I lost a loved one, in the same month that I lost another loved one, in the same month as my birthday.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tfU_gygDQAY

Think you can expect an insurance claim from that library soon :Plain:

Not sure where I would want to go. Could be fun to take a vacation there and move around a bit. I would like to see New York at least, the US is quite gigantic Some natural wonders would be fun to see as well. And the most silly one, I do want to go to Texas to try real Texas barbeque...

That is not an impossible reading of Luther. Such speculations would be attributed to the hidden God for Luther, almost an infinite abyss we cannot really comprehend. Luther is not a prosperity gospel person, that is for sure. Saw a funny Lutheran meme once: "God has something wonderful planned for you" on a picture of Christians being fed to lions. For Luther, it is the God revealed on the cross we must relate to, which is why he is very careful with the theology of glory.

So there are quite a few conflicts. I do like Jenson's focus on Jesus as God's self-identifying word, and that God is so entirely defined by the life, death and resurrection of Christ. I like Hart's reflections on the identification between God and the classical transcendentals. I think Fiddes has some great resources for really understanding God himself taking on suffering and death on the cross.

Schooling is done in december, so not that much left. Have not decided whether I will go into the army or not. I'm quite flexible on where I want to minister, I can apply for positions all over the country. No potential spouses at the moment :chuckle:

Hart is eastern orthodox (although a universalist) and undying classicist. Jenson is a Lutheran, but he also pays a lot of attention to the church fathers (especially Gregory of Nyssa, which Hart also does). Paul Fiddes is a baptist, heavily influenced by Moltmann and Jüngel, and with some sympathy for some process ideas. Difference between Jenson and Hart is that Jenson understand God as an event of sorts, and that Gods infinity consists in endlesss futurity. Jenson has a more Lutheran realtionship to scriptures as well, while I guess you could argue that Hart is almost primarily Platonic, at least in terms of Christian church father platonism. Both Hart and Jenson affirms divine apatheia, which Fiddes denies, he affirms a more reciprocal relationship between God and creation.