The Seeming Incorrigible Perspective of Christian "Blik"

Bewildered by “seeing as”

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2011/11/bewildered-by-seeing-as/

by Roger Olson

November 27, 2011

I admit to being a soft perspectivalist, but I also admit to being uncomfortable with it. My mind is wired to think rationally, to look at other people who radically disagree with what I see clearly as either ignorant (even if only in the sense of not seeing some evidence I see) or irrational (even if only in the sense of embracing paradox comfortably). And yet, I am convinced by experience that there is such a phenomenon as perspective–two people seeing the exact same evidence and “seeing” different things. It bothers me because it throws a monkey wrench into the works of trying to reason together toward agreement which is important for public truth.

I once had one of those “Aha!” moments about this. I was arguing with a colleague about necessary criteria for being Christian (something I still think we cannot escape). He was one of those cultural relativists I wrote about earlier. I said to him “If someone draws a giraffe it MUST have a long neck.” My point was that there must be essential marks or characteristics of Christianity or else Christianity becomes meaningless, just as there must be essential marks or characteristics of (for example) animals for us to recognize them (for example in a drawing). His reply was “Not if it’s seen from above.” Indeed.

“Seeing as” is illustrated by Wittgenstein (or perhaps it was one of his disciples) with the famous “duck/rabbit” picture–a simple drawing that can be either a duck or a rabbit depending on how one sees it. There are other similar pictures (e.g., the old lady or the peacock). Sometimes a person looks at the drawing and can ONLY see a duck while another person looking at the same drawing can ONLY see a rabbit. Of course, that’s mundane; the point is that we all tend to see the world as something. One person looks at a plot of ground and sees a garden that needs tending; another person looks at the same plot of ground and sees wilderness that coincidentally has some apparent order to it (playing on Flew’s famous example).

Philosopher R. M. Hare called this phenomenon of seemingly incorrigible perspective as a “blik.” Two people look at exactly the same evidence and see very different things and are often radically committed to their own perspective and tempted to think that others looking at the same datum while seeing something else must be either crazy or stupid or blind.

The Enlightenment attempted to do away with bliks–at least in important matters of public truth. The idea was that reason (in either its rationalist or empiricist forms) can settle such disputes and bring all reasonable people to agreement about reality. Of course, even the choice to be either a rationalist (a priori deductive approach) or an empiricist (a posteriori inductive approach) seems to be a matter of blik. Can anyone prove Descartes and his followers right and Locke and his followers wrong? Well, both seem to be wrong about the role of perspective; it seems to be irreducible in some cases. All one can do is appeal to the other person who sees the same evidence radically differently to try looking at it one’s own way rather than their way–to see it “as” something other than how they do see it.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

I have written before here about Calvinism and Arminianism as bliks–perspectives on God and scripture. When I wrote Against Calvinism I didn’t think that I was showing Calvinists some evidence they hadn’t noticed (although that is probably true for some not-so-dyed-in-the-wool Calvinist readers). I was attempting to explain why I see the same evidence Calvinists see and “see” something different. I know some Calvinists believe the same about our disagreement. I routinely invite a group of educated Calvinists to speak to my class on Reformation and post-Reformation theology. At some point in the discussion they usually appeal to some kind of conversion-like experience that gave them a new perspective on God and the meaning of scripture and salvation.

This is what John Wesley meant when he said about Romans 9 (as if both sides don’t read it!) that whatever it proves it cannot prove “that”–the Calvinist interpretation. Why? Because IF that’s what it means God is a monster. (Wesley didn’t use that word, but he meant the same thing I mean by it.) He knew very well that he and Whitefield and others saw the same chapter and book and canon. What he thought was that they, his Calvinist friends (and some enemies like Toplady!), were simply seeing it “as” the wrong thing while he was seeing it “as” the right thing (or at least more closely to right). Of course, Wesley did not think these perspectives were incorrigible or he wouldn’t have written his anti-Calvinist rants.

I tend to think that in some cases, at least, our perspectives so seem to be incorrigible bliks. And I’m bewildered by that AND by the fact that at least most of my Calvinist conversation partners DON’T see our disagreement that way. In other words, my perspective on our disagreement and theirs is itself a matter of bliks. From where I sit, I have trouble fathoming that they think our disagreement is a simple matter of one side honoring scripture and the other side not honoring scripture. (Of course, some Calvinists do seem to have the same blik I have on this–as in the example I gave above of my Calvinist friends who appeal to a conversion-like experience that drew them to Calvinism.)

It seems to me that MOST evangelicals who write about hermeneutics do not take bliks into account. Bultmann did, of course, but most evangelicals shy away from his approach. One of his basic axioms was that there is no such thing as presuppositionless hermeneutics. Most evangelicals who write about hermeneutics seem to think there are objective rules that, if practiced rightly, will always lead reasonable people to the same interpretation of scripture. In that case, of course, either Calvinists or Arminians are simply not practicing sound hermeneutics.

This pops up every time a Calvinist points the finger at me and cries “Where’s your exegesis?” as if exegesis is the solution to everything. If only it were. And I agree it is the solution to some things. In other words, there are cases where people are simply practicing bad exegesis and hermeneutics and arriving at blatantly wrong interpretations of scripture. But I suspect many of our disagreements about scripture have more to do with blik than objective exegesis. I know that no exegesis could convince me that God is a monster. If I thought it possible that God is a monster there would be no point in doing exegesis because a monster cannot be trusted.

And that brings me to a deeper level of blik involved in this disagreement (and no doubt many others). It seems to me that SOME Christians view the Bible as divine. That is, they regard it so highly that they put it on the same level with God himself in terms of authority. This is what Brunner meant when he accused fundamentalists and evangelicals of treating the Bible as a “paper pope.” But I would go further and say that some Christians treat it as if it were God himself or somehow participated in the divine essence. This appears when people say they would believe whatever the Bible said EVEN IF it said God is a monster. Then I know they are investing too much faith in scripture and not enough in the God who inspired scripture. In my opinion, they are flirting with bibliolatry. From my perspective, anyway, scripture is the divinely inspired, infallible witness to God; it identifies God for us. But I only believe that because through it I “hear my Master’s voice” (to use another metaphor from Brunner). My experience of WHO GOD IS is not limited to scripture; I have unmediated experience of God as good that convinces me that scripture is God’s Word–the oracle of God.

I am convinced this is a watershed difference between contemporary evangelicals. There are those of us rooted in Pietism and there are those rooted in Protestant Scholasticism (e.g., Turretin and Hodge and Warfield). I claim Calvin on my side even if it would be wrong to call him a Pietist. He appealed to the Holy Spirit and the inner testimony of the Holy Spirit as the only ground of Scripture’s truth and authority. Post-Calvin Calvinists largely forgot that.

When I look at scripture I see it “as” the testimony to the God who I experience also outside of it. The experience I have of God outside of scripture does not communicate doctrines, but it does “speak” to me of God through my personal relationship with Jesus Christ and through the Holy Spirit within me. But that experience always points me back TO scripture as God’s written self-communication for understanding him more fully. Nothing in my experience of God contradicts scripture; that’s not even possible. But neither is God the prisoner of scripture.

So what is the blik difference I’m talking about here? Some evangelicals seem to see experience of God as always mediated through scripture which, from my perspective, seems to incline them toward bibliolatry. This is why they say they would believe God is a monster (or the author of evil or whatever) IF scripture said so. Other evangelicals (like I) seem to see experience of God as BOTH mediated by scripture AND as unmediated with the latter [e.g., Scripture,] as primary in terms of knowing God’s character as good.

When I got saved I was not converted to the Bible; I was converted to the God of Jesus Christ. THEN I found more about God through the Bible and believed in it BECAUSE it told me about the God of Jesus Christ I encountered in conversion and in my pesonal relationship with him. My experience of God is both unmediated and mediated and the two are inseparable. But when I open the Bible to read and study it I NEVER do so as a tabula rasa–prepared to believe whatever it might say EVEN IF it says (in some passage I had henceforth never noticed) that God is a monster who might hate me and want the worst for me or who loves his own glory more than he loves me (and all of us). If I am tempted to believe that, I go to God and rediscover him in unmediated experience of him through Jesus Christ or at least remember those times when my heart was strangely warmed and I KNEW without any ability to doubt that God loves me and wants the best for me and does not hate me or love his glory at the expense of my (or anyone else’s) well being in its most profound sense (wholeness).

This is my perspective on experiencing God. People experienced God before there was a Bible and have experiences of God apart from the Bible. But the Bible fills experience of God with cognitive content. But it cannot contradict the God I know as good through my unmediated experience of Jesus Christ because the only reason I believe the Bible is because it is GOD’s WORD. In and through it I hear my Master’s voice in a unique way–as communicating himself to me in a cognitive way, filling my unmediated experience of God with information. But that information cannot contradict the very pre-cognitive experience of God as unqualifiedly good that I had in my conversion and have in my post-conversion relationship with Jesus Christ.

Luther’s “tower experience” is what I’m talking about. And that’s what led him to [one time] doubt the spiritual value of the Epistle of James and the Revelation of John. Later, unfortunately, in his dispute with die Schwarmer, Luther backed away from this epistemology. But I think some conservative evangelicals forget or conveniently ignore the fact that Luther always held to the Bible’s authority as rooted in the Holy Spirit and not in some self-authenticating quality. His sola scriptura was not bibliolatry or even close to it. He was just afraid of certain fanatics who wanted to abandon scripture.

It seems to me that this is a fundamental watershed between evangelicals. Those of us in the Pietist tradition claim unmediated experience of God that authenticates scripture to us but makes it impossible to see scripture as proving that God is evil or the author of sin and evil or loves his own glory more than he loves people created in his own image and likeness. Those evangelicals in the Protestant scholastic tradition at least claim to experience God only through scripture and at least say they would believe the Bible even if it said God is a monster, the author of sin and evil, who loves his own glory to the extent that it causes him to hate some of the creatures created in his own image and likeness.

No amount of arguing or crying “exegesis!” is going to solve this blik dilemma - this continental divide among evangelicals. To be perfectly blunt, I shudder when I encounter people who seem to me to be worshiping scripture to that extent–that there is no unmediated experience of God outside of scripture. I shake my head and wonder about their spirituality even as I continue to embrace them as fellow evangelicals (even if they reject me as one to them).

 

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Martin Luther's Tower Experience

http://www.orlutheran.com/html/tower.html

by Dr. Richard P. Bucher

Lutheran Church Missouri Synod

In the minds of many, the Reformation began not when Martin Luther nailed his 95 Theses to the Castle Church door, but when he rediscovered and believed the Biblical Gospel.

This discovery is often called Luther's "Tower Experience," because in one of his "table talks" he mentions that he was studying Romans 1:17 in the heated room (his study) of the tower of the Black Cloister in Wittenberg when the light broke upon him. (The Black Cloister was the monastery of the Augustinian Hermits, and later, when all the monks had voluntarily left, it was Luther's home).

Luther makes it clear in several places that this, not the Theses, was the pivotal event of his life. The most important of these appears in his Preface to the Complete Edition of Luther's Latin Writings of 1545. Several other mentions of the event are recorded from his "Table Talks," one from 1532 (LW 54:193-194), one from 1538 (LW 54:308-309), and one from 1542-43 (LW 54:442-443).

When we examine the above mentioned texts, and especially the 1545 Preface, the following observations beg to be made.

(1) Luther's conversion and breakthrough involved the correct understanding of God's righteousness. The phrase "[in the Gospel] the righteousness of God is revealed" (Romans 1:17) had become the focal point of his struggle with God. Luther had long struggled to blamelessly keep God's Law in order to become righteous. He knew that this is what God demanded of him and all people. Time and again he failed to keep God's Law and achieve the righteousness that God demanded.

Luther's struggle with God came to a head as he was wrestling with this Romans 1:17. He tells us that he was extremely zealous to understand Romans but that this phrase about God's righteousness stood in the way. This phrase, which to us is so clearly good news, was for Luther bad news.

Why? Because the phrase "the righteousness of God" like most Biblical terms (e.g., grace, faith, justification, etc.) had been reinterpreted by scholastic theologians of the high and late Middle Ages 1100-1500 A.D. (esp. Gabriel Biel, Duns Scotus, Peter Lombard, Thomas Aquinus) to support a theology of Law and works. For centuries the Church had taught that the righteousness of God was God's active, personal righteousness or justice by which he punishes the unrighteous sinner.

This, Luther informs us, is what he had learned. Therefore whenever he came across the phrase "the righteousness of God" in Scripture, it terrified him ("struck my conscience like lightning," "was like a thunderbolt in my heart") because he knew that he was an unrighteous sinner who fell far short of God's righteous (perfect) demands.

Even worse, Rom. 1:17, filled Luther with anger and hatred toward God. "I did not love, yes, I hated the righteous God who punishes sinners." Is it not enough, Luther tells us he murmured, that God crushes us miserable sinners with His law, that He has to threaten us with punishment through the Gospel, too?

After meditating day and night, finally the breakthrough came when Luther gave heed to the words at the end of 1:17, "He who through faith is righteous shall live." Then he realized that the verse was not talking about the active righteousness that God demands, but the passive righteousness that He freely gives to those who believe the Gospel. The sinner is justified (declared righteous) by God through faith in the work and death of Jesus, not by our work or keeping of the Law. Put another way, the sinner is justified by receiving (faith) rather than achieving (works). Later Luther would say that we are saved by the alien righteousness of Christ, not by a righteousness of our own doing.

(2) The tower experience, according to Luther was a conversion experience. When he had discovered that God gives His righteousness as a gift in Christ, he felt that he "was altogether born again and had entered paradise itself through open gates . . . that place in Paul was for me truly the gate to paradise." Now his conscience was at rest, now he was certain of his salvation. Before there had been only unrest and uncertainty.

How did Luther now feel about the word "righteousness of God"? "I extolled my sweetest word with a love as great as the hatred with which I had before hated the word `righteousness of God.' Thus that place in Paul was for me truly the gate to paradise." Thus fortified and converted by the Gospel, Luther was now a ready instrument to be used by God for reformation!

Creatio ex Nihilo: Arguments For and Against

¹In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. ²The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.

³And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. ⁴And God saw that the light was good. And God separated the light from the darkness. ⁵God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day.

⁶And God said, "Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters." ⁷And God made the expanse and separated the waters that were under the expanse from the waters that were above the expanse. And it was so. ⁸And God called the expanse Heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, the second day.

⁹And God said, "Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear." And it was so. ¹⁰God called the dry land Earth, and the waters that were gathered together he called Seas. And God saw that it was good.

Genesis 1.1-10 ESV

Author's Note (Feb 2014)

"Directly below are my earliest thoughts on Process Thought as it was still unknown to me. Many of my initial comments below can be seen to be modified over the years ahead..." - r.e. slater


Discussion Proper

As I am able this week I will include some notes to each short discussion below. Here are my initial thoughts ahead of my reviews (and therefore subject to further review afterwards!):

• Classic Theism's epistemology draws upon an "open system" view of a God beyond our imaginings. Hence, process theism's arguments for God as part of His creation appear more as a "closed system" view.
• Accordingly, God is independent and beyond His creation who self limits Himself in some aspect to be inter-related to His creation (a word I prefer over the process term of "inter-dependent"). In this respect then, both classic theism and process theism are "correct" philosophically as well as materially.
• Overall, I would predispose classicism's "open system" over-and-above process' "closed system" in preference and general rule.
• This means that within process' "closed system" interpretation of ex nihilo creation there is no creative void as such. Only a particle-based void that is undetected, unknown, perhaps beyond dimensionality, latent with potential and possibility.
• However, as understood within classic theism's "open system" interpretation, ex nihilo creation can refer to a non-particle based creative void that is part of, or within, the Godhead... even if it were reduced to mean mere thought or expression. Difficult as it may be to comprehend. And even more difficult to allow if using as explanation the materialistic cosmogonous structure of matter-based physics.
• Consequently, I am allowing for God to be incredible, and unrealistic as framed within particle quantum physics, but very credible, and very realistic, when framed in non-materialistic, non-quantum, epistemological terms.

Lastly, I am interested in knowing if classic theism can be upgraded into process-like terminology using postmodernism's post-structuralism as interpretive guide and instructor. But by doing so will this attempt be a limiting factor in the eras ahead or one that establishes a baseline that can widen and deepen our apprehension of the Divine depending upon the prevailing epistemological system present?

Thought another way, will process theology limit the supremacy of God while closing the gap between man and creation? Rather the reverse of classicism's declaration of the supremacy of God while distancing Him at the same time from man and creation. Whereas process focuses on the problem of man, sin, evil, creation chaos and harm, classicism focuses on the problem of God's holiness, righteousness, the shalom of order and blessedness, omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence. Each area as paradoxical as the other.

Hence, eclectically, I'm hoping for the best of both worlds. And am especially stating henceforth that as pertaining to the study of the Godhead, eclecticism is a most proper tool of usage. And so, let us assume that process theology may have some elements that can be helpful to the study of man and creation in relation to God, as classic theology is helpful to the study of God in relation to man and creation. So that whether when discerning the problem of man, sin, evil, creational chaos and harm (process), or when discerning the problem of the supremacy of God (classicism), we must proceed forward in some kind of syncretistic and eclectic form of discovery until a better, more mitigating system can be better proposed.

R.E. Slater
November 27, 2011

*part of the above dilemma of differing viewpoints is explained as instances of phenomenological "blik" - please refer to this post here for further discusion - http://relevancy22.blogspot.com/2011/11/seeming-incorrigible-perspective-of.html.

* * * * * * * * * *

Part 1

Update: The Ongoing Discussions re

"Creatio Ex Nihilo" between Process Theologians

http://relevancy22.blogspot.com/2012/06/update-ongoing-discussions-re-creatio.html

* * * * * * * * * *

AAR - Open and Relational Theologies Session
Creatio ex Nihilo: Arguments For and Against

http://www.ctr4process.org/media/

The Open and Relational Theologies session at AAR included a panel and conversation on Creatio ex Nihilo: Arguments For and Against. The panel included: Philip Clayton, Claremont School of Theology, Claremont Lincoln University; Monica A. Coleman, Claremont School of Theology, Claremont Lincoln University; Catherine Keller, Drew University; Michael Lodahl, Point Loma Nazarene University; Richard Rice, Loma Linda University, and Marit Trelstad, Pacific Lutheran University.

• Philip Clayton, Claremont School of Theology view/download paper
• Monica A. Coleman, Claremont School of Theology view/download paper
• Catherine Keller, Drew University view/download paper

• Michael Lodahl, Point Loma Nazarene University view/download paper
• Richard Rice, Loma Linda University view/download paper
• Marit Trelstad, Pacific Lutheran University

Date Recorded: Nov. 20, 2011 Location: Claremont School of Theology Date Added: November 2011 Philip Clayton [For] Michael Lodahl [For] Monica Coleman [Against] Marit Trelstad [Against] Catherine Keller [Against] Richard Rice [For]

Website -
http://videocenter.cst.edu/videos/channel/50/

  

Audio is Garbled
 6:17

AAR-Open & Relational - Rice
Owner: ProcessCenter
Channel: ProcessCenter 

Audio is Clear

06:07

AAR-Open & Relational - Trelstad
Owner: ProcessCenter
Channel: ProcessCenter

04:57

AAR-Open & Relational - Lodahl
Owner: ProcessCenter
Channel: ProcessCenter

08:11

AAR-Open & Relational - Keller
Owner: ProcessCenter
Channel: ProcessCenter

06:21

AAR-Open & Relational - Coleman
Owner: ProcessCenter
Channel: ProcessCenter

07:17

AAR-Open & Relational - Clayton
Owner: ProcessCenter
Channel: ProcessCenter

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Addendum

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Feb 2014


 Creatio coninua Ex Electione: A Post-Barthian Revision of
the Doctrine of Creatio Ex Nihilo (.pdf)

http://www.academia.edu/658910/Creatio_Continua_Ex_Electione_A_Post-Barthian_Revision_of_the_Doctrine_of_Creatio_Ex_Nihilo

by David Congdon

The case against the classical doctrine of creatio ex nihilo continues to mount as arguments arise from all angles - historical, exegetical, and theological. Many of these critiques are aimed at the Hellenistic framework within which the Christian doctrine originally took shape. Others examine the ambiguities latent within the biblical texts themselves. In this paper I will identify three theological problems with the doctrine in conversation with three theologians.

The first problem is the fact that the doctrine of “creation out of nothing” posits no material relationship between creation and redemption. Here I will engage the work of Catherine Keller, who attacks creatio ex nihilo but ends up perpetuating this same bifurcation between origin and telos in her conception of creatio ex profundis.

The second problem is that “creation out of nothing” indicates no essential connection between the divine will to create and the divine being as creator. In this context I briefly take up the work of Jürgen Moltmann and assess his understanding of divine creation as a creatio ex amore.

The third and final problem is the separation between creation and providence, between original creation and continuing creation. Here I briefly treat Schleiermacher’s account of creation in his Glaubenslehre.

I conclude by using a modified version of Barth’s doctrine of election as the lens through which I reconcile these various strands in modern theology. I argue for what I call a creatio continua ex electione (David Congdon) - a continuous creation out of divine election. In the end, I hope to show that this position addresses these three problems while still upholding the necessary insights of the traditional doctrine of “creation out of nothing.”


... continue reading at link above ...

The Continuum of Open and Relational Theology

Postmodern Relational (Process) Theology (under-developed)
v.  Modernistic Relational (Open) Theology

In a previous post on process theology ( http://relevancy22.blogspot.com/2011/11/why-and-what-of-process-theology.html ) I expressed a desire to elevate Classic Theism into postmodernistic process terms not realizing that Open Theology had already done that. I also declared a new name for this type of theism, calling it Relational Theism. Not realizing that that had been done too having discovered Thomas Jay Oord's version of Relational Theism which he calls by the same name. It is a blending of Open Theology (also called Open Theism), with that of his own Relational Theism, both of which elevate the concepts of Classic Theism into modernistic expressions. And, it seems that process theology had at one time been considered under the label "relational-process theology," which is yet another theme Thomas Oord may have re-packaged from process theology like what I am attempting to do now, however belatedly.

Moreover, as I explore Open Theology I am discovering it to complete Arminianism's questioning of the Calvinistic concepts of God's foreknowledge and election. Which is helpful because a doctrine focused on man's free will in relation to God can only go so far (though Armenianism is more than this but I am generalizing here to pander to its opponents that grant ill-will towards its doctrines). Consequently, Open Theology coupled with that of Oord's Relational Theism helps to complete Arminianism's reaction against Calvinism's overemphasis on God's Sovereignty vs. man's free will. What I want is balance and what I'm finding is that Arminianism is curiously much better positioned to speak to God's sovereignty than Calvinism is (even though Calvinism's many significant themes all revolve around the sovereign, active control of God over His creation!... all of which has been discussed in numerous articles posted on the sidebars here in this website).

Further, Open Theology / Relational Theology are syncretising themselves with their larger, more sophisticated and better developed relative, Process Theology. But with an important distinction that the former differs from Process in terms of being non-panentheistic. However, to my mind, the understanding of "ex nihilo creation" pertaining to God's independence and interdependence to His creation can both be true without the denial of the other. The former as factually explicit in defining a Creator who creates; and the latter, as a Creator who willingly limits Himself to His creation.

However, this is not true panentheism in classic Whiteheadian terminology. But it does seem that a more liberal, modified, version of Process Theology away from its stricter definition of "ex nihilo creation" could allow for a syncretism between Process Theology with Open Theology. Which is the syncreticism that I had earlier mentioned and hope to see (if possible). If this be so, than I continue to be attracted towards investigating all the areas of similarity and dissimilarity between these two systems in hopes of seeing a newer expression of Theism arise. One couched within postmodernistic language and allowing for the double meaning for the concept of "ex nihilo creation."

Moreover, my originating concept of Relational Theism is not strictly at this time, the same as Thomas Oord's expression of Relational Theism.... Though as I read Oord, I find him expressing exactly my own sentiments, and to which am thankful for all of his hard work of "personalizing" Open Theology's animating basis that felt static, cold and impersonal without it.

But I think what I want to further see is whether Open Theology and Oord's Relational Theology will continue to intermingle and elevate themselves systematically towards Process Theology's postmodernistic language. If that then becomes the case then we will have as a consequence a more mature system of Open-and-Relational Theism/Theology. One that is both similar and dissimilar to Classic Theism and more in tune with Process  Theology's pervasive (but not substantive) elements (as mentioned in a previous post). And postmodern. For me, this is where Relational Theism should be headed as I understand it right now. And it is a continuing interest of mine to study and examine in the year ahead once I get past several other topical issues expressed here on this blogsite.

And with these thoughts in mind, let us now continue to explore Thomas Oord's Relational "The-ism/Theo-logy" (sic, "God Study") that re-expresses its earlier historical fellow, Open Theology, into more relational terms between God, man and creation. Leaving us not with an uncaring, distant (or even a damning, judgemental) Godhead. But a Godhead more intimately involved in our lives then we had first imagined in our time-bounded past, present and future. And within the frailty of our fleshly constitutions pitted as they are against the harsher truths of sin, disease, calamities, and ruin. These truths give us hope. Hope any human most requires when apprehending God's divine love through His many salvific acts and benevolent rulership.

R.E. Slater
November 25, 2011

Some Questions to Ask of Open Theism/Theology

1. What does practical ministry look like from an Open view?

2. How should we think about science and culture as Open theists?

3. What biblical insights have Open theists to date either underemphasized or not noticed?

4. How should Open theists think about pain and suffering?

5. Can the Open view help us think better about prayer and pray with greater conviction?

6. What voices at the margins need to be heard for Open theology to be expanded and/or embraced by others?

7. What might missions and missional theology look like from an Open view?

8. Does the Open view suggest any new insights into Christology, pneumatology, or Trinity?

9. Where should the Open theology conversation go in the future? How might the insights of Open theology be more widely disseminated?

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

The Emergence of Open Theology

http://thomasjayoord.com/index.php/blog/archives/the_emergence_of_open_theology/

By Thomas Jay Oord
November 19, 2009

In 1994, a quintet of Evangelical scholars – David Basinger, William Hasker, Clark Pinnock, Richard Rice, and John Sanders – published The Openness of God: A Biblical Challenge to the Traditional Understanding of God. This work has caused – and continues to cause – an uproar within Evangelical circles.

This uproar exposed the reality that many Evangelical Christians are influenced more by the theology of Reformers such as John Calvin and Martin Luther than has been often recognized. The theological voices championed by mainstream Evangelical groups have often explicitly or implicitly identified themselves with a non-open, non-relational view of God.

The uproar also revealed that a large and growing number of Evangelical Christians are looking for theological alternatives that better fit their reading of the Bible and deepest Christian intuitions. Open theology provides a potentially more satisfying alternative.

Open theology has both expanded and matured since 1994. It has become a well-spring for both theological renewal and controversy. Many significant biblical, theological, and philosophical scholars now openly embrace Open theology or at least recognize strong affinities between Open theism and their own work.

While important differences of opinion exist among Open theists, the similarities among them are also striking. Here are core themes affirmed by the majority, if not all, Open theists:

• God’s primary characteristic is love
• Theology involves humble speculation about who God truly is and what God really does
• Creatures – at least humans – are genuinely free to make choices pertaining to their salvation
• God experiences others in some way analogous to how creatures experience others
• Both creatures and God are relational beings, which means that both God and creatures are affected by others in give-and-take relationships
• God’s experience changes, yet God’s nature or essence is unchanging
• God created all non-divine things
• God takes calculated risks, because God is not all-controlling
• The future is open; it is not predetermined or fully known by God
• God’s expectations about the future are often partly dependent upon creaturely actions
• Although everlasting, God experiences time in a way analogous to how creatures experience time

These are brief statements, of course, and they do not address theological nuances that matter to Open theology scholars. But these statements are sufficiently narrow to distinguish Open theology from alternative theological options. And they are sufficiently broad to allow for differences among those who embrace the Open theology label.

I am optimistic about the future of Open theology. My optimism ultimately rests, however, on grace. I believe our loving God is, as John Wesley put it, “strongly and sweetly” calling and empowering us to live lives of love. In doing so, we participate in God’s loving reign. Open theology provides conceptual tools to make sense of these truths.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Characteristics of Evangelical Open and Relational Theology

http://thomasjayoord.com/index.php/blog/archives/characteristics_of_evangelical_open_theology/

By Thomas Jay Oord
February 2, 2010

In a previous blog entry, I noted many of the theological beliefs that open and relational theologians affirm. I now identify three characteristics of Evangelically-oriented open and relational thinkers.

I find these three tendencies among open and relational scholars in the Evangelical tradition:

Scripture First

Open theists appreciate and draw from reason, experience, and the Christian tradition. But open and relational theologians place primary importance on the Bible for things related to God, salvation, and the big questions of life. Scripture is principally authoritative.

Open and relational theists are typically not committed, however, to affirming everything the Bible says about science, history, or culture. Most open theologians are not biblical inerrantists, if biblical inerrancy is defined as the notion that the Bible is without any error whatsoever. This rejection of what I call “absolute inerrancy” distinguishes open and relational theology from Fundamentalism.

Yet the typical open and relational Evangelical theologian also rejects the label “liberal theologian” as a way to identify their views. The primacy of the Bible steers them away from more liberal theologian traditions.

Evangelical Community Influence

While open and relational theologians may reside in just about any Christian denomination or subculture, a good number identify with the Evangelical Christian tradition. Virtually all of the major figures who adopt the label “Open theist” either teach at an Evangelically-oriented institution or attend a congregation whose members consider themselves Evangelicals.

The community with which we locate ourselves affects the way we do theology. Of course, the fact that Evangelical open and relational theists do theology in the broad Evangelical context does not also mean that they affirm all of the political and social issues normally associated with Evangelicals. In fact, Open theology sometimes draws advocates toward positions on political and social issues that do not fit either the typical conservative or liberal labels.

Humble Realists

Most open and relational theologians want to talk about how things really are or might be. This not only includes talking about the world, it also means talking about God in a realistic way.

In terms of epistemology, open and relational theists tend to be realists or critical realists. They realize that language about God and the world has limitations. But they affirm that some language better identifies what is true about God and the world than other language.

These three factors, in themselves, position open and relational theology differently than other theological alternatives. They provide fruitful avenues for engaging the sciences, for instance. They provide ways of engaging Postmodernism in constructive ways that avoids extreme relativism. And they draw upon and support the Evangelical witness and passion to the good news revealed in Jesus Christ and lived out within the Church.

Of course, open and relational theologies have critics. But I believe the ideas and theological proposals in this way of thinking are potentially more helpful today than any of the alternatives.

Brian Greene Hosts "The Fabric of the Universe" on NOVA

^{Genesis 1.1-5: The First Day}

¹In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. ²The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.

³And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. ⁴And God saw that the light was good. And God separated the light from the darkness. ⁵God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Introduction

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/fabric-of-cosmos.html#fabric-of-cosmos

"The Fabric of the Cosmos," a four-hour series based on the book by renowned physicist and author Brian Greene, takes us to the frontiers of physics to see how scientists are piecing together the most complete picture yet of space, time, and the universe. With each step, audiences will discover that just beneath the surface of our everyday experience lies a world we’d hardly recognize—a startling world far stranger and more wondrous than anyone expected.

Brian Greene is going to let you in on a secret: We've all been deceived. Our perceptions of time and space have led us astray. Much of what we thought we knew about our universe—that the past has already happened and the future is yet to be, that space is just an empty void, that our universe is the only universe that exists—just might be wrong.

Interweaving provocative theories, experiments, and stories with crystal-clear explanations and imaginative metaphors like those that defined the groundbreaking and highly acclaimed series "The Elegant Universe," "The Fabric of the Cosmos" aims to be the most compelling, visual, and comprehensive picture of modern physics ever seen on television.

What is Space

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/fabric-of-cosmos.html#fabric-space

Space. It separates you from me, one galaxy from the next, and atoms from one another. It is everywhere in the universe. But to most of us, space is nothing, an empty void. Well, it turns out space is not what it seems. From the passenger seat of a New York cab driving near the speed of light, to a pool hall where billiard tables do fantastical things, Brian Greene reveals space as a dynamic fabric that can stretch, twist, warp, and ripple under the influence of gravity. Stranger still is a newly discovered ingredient of space that actually makes up 70 percent of the universe. Physicists call it dark energy, because while they know it's out there, driving space to expand ever more quickly, they have no idea what it is.

Probing space on the smallest scales only makes the mysteries multiply. Down there, things are going on that physicists today can barely fathom—forces powerful enough to generate whole universes. To top it off, some of the strangest places in space, black holes, have led scientists to propose that like the hologram on your credit card, space may just be a projection of a deeper two-dimensional reality taking place on a distant surface that surrounds us. Space, far from being empty, is filled with some of the deepest mysteries of our time.

The Illusion of Time

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/fabric-of-cosmos.html#fabric-time

Time. We waste it, save it, kill it, make it. The world runs on it. Yet ask physicists what time actually is, and the answer might shock you: They have no idea. Even more surprising, the deep sense we have of time passing from present to past may be nothing more than an illusion. How can our understanding of something so familiar be so wrong? In search of answers, Brian Greene takes us on the ultimate time-traveling adventure, hurtling 50 years into the future before stepping into a wormhole to travel back to the past. Along the way, he will reveal a new way of thinking about time in which moments past, present, and future—from the reign of T. rex to the birth of your great-great-grandchildren—exist all at once. This journey will bring us all the way back to the Big Bang, where physicists think the ultimate secrets of time may be hidden. You'll never look at your wristwatch the same way again.

Quantum Leap

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/fabric-of-cosmos.html#fabric-quantum

Join Brian Greene on a wild ride into the weird realm of quantum physics, which governs the universe on the tiniest of scales. Greene brings quantum mechanics to life in a nightclub like no other, where objects pop in and out of existence, and things over here can affect others over there, instantaneously and without anything crossing the space between them. A century ago, during the initial shots in the quantum revolution, the best minds of a generation—including Albert Einstein and Niels Bohr—squared off in a battle for the soul of physics. How could the rules of the quantum world, which work so well to describe the behavior of individual atoms and their components, conflict so dramatically with the everyday rules that govern people, planets, and galaxies?

Quantum mechanics may be counterintuitive, but it's one of the most successful theories in the history of science, making predictions that have been confirmed to better than one part in a billion, while also launching the technological advances at the heart of modern life, like computers and cell phones. But even today, even with such profound successes, the debate still rages over what quantum mechanics implies for the true nature of reality.

Notes on the DVD: The DVD version of the program stated that one entangled photon is sent from the island of La Palma to the island of Tenerife by laser. The photon is sent via laser-guided telescope. In the DVD version of the program, it appears that the research team led by Anton Zeilinger has successfully teleported photons from La Palma to Tenerife. Although the Zeilinger team has used the method described to teleport photons shorter distances in other locations, as of November 2011, photons have not yet been teleported between La Palma andTenerife. The team plans to continue experiments in the Canary Islands, which attempt to complete the teleportation process there.

Universe or Multiverse?

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/fabric-of-cosmos.html#fabric-multiverse

Hard as it is to swallow, cutting-edge theories are suggesting that our universe may not be the only universe. Instead, it may be just one of an infinite number of universes that make up the "multiverse." In this show, Brian Greene takes us on a tour of this brave new theory at the frontier of physics, showing what some of these alternate realities might be like. Some universes may be almost indistinguishable from our own; others may contain variations of all of us, where we exist but with different families, careers, and life stories. In still others, reality may be so radically different from ours as to be unrecognizable. Brian Greene reveals why this radical new picture of the cosmos is getting serious attention from scientists. It won't be easy to prove, but if it's right, our understanding of space, time, and our place in the universe will never be the same.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Facebook Update on

the Higgs Boson Particle

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

July 4, 2012

Hi Everyone,

Here's the situation just announced at CERN:

Each of the experiments at the Large Hadron Collider has discovered a new particle with properties that are consistent with it being the long-sought Higgs particle. It will require more data and work to definitively establish that the particle is indeed the Higgs, but there's now no doubt that a new particle has been found.

When this result was announced at CERN, the auditorium erupted into prolonged applause, fitting for this historic discovery. No doubt, physicists worldwide erupted into similar applause. Decades of work by thousands of scientists around the globe have resulted in this spectacular achievement.

--BG

July 16, 2012

Hi Everyone,

Following up on my somewhat cryptic statement on twitter (@bgreene), I want to briefly explain a point about the Higgs idea that, on a few occasions, I’ve seen incorrectly reported.

The Higgs field provides mass to fundamental particles like electrons and quarks, and that’s extremely important. But when it comes to the mass of ordinary matter such as you and me and trucks and baseballs, most of the mass does not arise from the Higgs field.

Ordinary matter is made from atoms, whose mass mainly comes from protons and neutrons—which, in turn, are each made from three quarks. But if you add up the masses of the quarks (whose mass comes from the Higgs) the total is only a few percent of the mass of a proton or neutron. So where does the bulk of the mass of protons and neutrons come from?

The answer comes from Einstein’s famous E = mc^2, written in the equivalent but more illuminating form m = E/c^2, where it establishes that energy (E) yields mass (m). The quarks inside a proton are held together by a kind of nuclear glue (“gluons”), and that glue that harbors significant energy. Indeed, most of the mass of protons (and neutrons) comes from that energy.

So, while the Higgs gives mass to the quarks and other fundamental particles, it’s the energy of the gluons that is responsible for most of the mass of the protons and neutrons, and hence the mass of familiar matter.

--BG

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Facebook Update on Nova's Mini-Series

"The Fabric of the Cosmos"

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

July 11, 2012

Hi Everyone,

As I just mentioned on twitter (@bgreene), the first episode of my NOVA mini-series, Fabric of the Cosmos, airs tonight on PBS. Tonight's episode -- "What is Space?" -- explores a range of topics from gravity, to the Higgs field, to dark energy, to the quantum activity that defines nothingness. Check out the program and send on your questions. I'll do my best to answer as many as I can.

--BG

July 24, 2012

Hi Everyone,

Tomorrow night PBS will air the third episode of Fabric of the Cosmos on NOVA--the episode on quantum mechanics (called "Quantum Leap").

For those who haven't yet seen it, a quick word on the physics in this episode.

The program begins by covering the essential core of the quantum framework: Instead of the definite predictions we are familiar with from the older framework of classical physics laid down by Isaac Newton, quantum theory makes probabilistic predictions. For instance, in predicting the position of a particle, quantum physics can only provide the probability that the particle will be found at one location or another.The episode explains why physicists were led to introduce these probabilities into fundamental physical law, what the probabilities mean, how we can test them, and why we believe them.

In making the program, though, I was committed to going further and covering some of the more modern, absolutely stunning developments in quantum physics. In particular, results which speak to what's called "non-locality": the possibility in quantum physics that what you do here can be instantaneously entwined with what happens over there, even if here and there are widely separated. I consider these to be among the most interesting insights of modern theoretical physics, but they are also quite subtle. So, please feel free to send on any questions. (For previous episodes I did not answer as many questions as I'd hoped, largely because I'm giving various talks at European conferences this month. But I'll try to get to as many as I can).

--BG

August 1, 2012

Hi Everyone,

Motivated by tonight's airing of the final episode of Fabric of the Cosmos on NOVA--The Multiverse--I want to say a few words about a development that's now gaining momentum in the physics community: a rethinking of the big bang and cosmology.

For decades, a puzzle that dogged the big bang theory was what "set off" the bang. What fueled the ferocious outward force that drove everything apart? In the 1980s, a proposed solution was finally put forward; as many of you know, it is called Inflationary Cosmology.

The essential idea is that in Einstein's general relativity, gravity can not only be attractive (as in Newton's theory, and attested to by everyday experiences), but in certain exotic circumstances it can also be REPULSIVE. The inflationary theory suggests that the exotic circumstances (a region of space filled with a cosmic "fuel" called an 'inflation field) were realized in the early universe, yielding a fantastically large repulsive push--the BANG.

Wonderfully, the inflationary proposal is not just a vague idea; it's based on solid mathematical analysis which yields testable consequences: the repulsive push would have stretched the universe so enormously that tiny quantum jitters from the micro-realm would have been smeared across the sky, yielding a specific pattern of tiny temperature variations across space. These predicted temperature variations have now been confirmed through precise astronomical observations. And for this reason, inflation has become the dominant cosmological theory for the past two of decades.

So far, this sounds like a spectacular success. But there's another consequence of inflation that's exciting that yet poses a potential problem. Mathematical studies show that the inflationary fuel would be so efficient that it's very difficult to use it all up. Which means that the although ferocious expansion ended in our vicinity of the cosmos, it would continue elsewhere, generating one big bang after another, after another--generating, that is, many universes: the multiverse.

That's a mind-bending idea (and the subject of tonight's NOVA program as well as my latest book, The Hidden Reality). But as I describe in the book (although not fully emphasized in the TV program), it raises a new and subtle challenge:

The other universes would generally have different features from ours, including different patterns of temperature variations. So, the very predictions on which our confidence in the inflationary proposal is based--the observed temperature variations across space--would be compromised: with many different universes you get many different predictions. In fact, there's reason to think that any possible pattern of temperature variations will be realized in some universe in the multiverse. And a theory that "predicts" anything is a theory that predicts nothing.

For some physicists, this means that the inflationary proposal has crashed, plain and simple. Others are more sanguine, suggesting that when we understand the theory better, we will be able say something like: sure, any results are possible, but some outcomes are more likely than others. So, if the inflationary theory is correct, our observations should agree with the more probable outcomes of the theory.

To date, however, there's no consensus on how to calculate the likelihood of one outcome relative to another. I suspect this is an issue we will one day crack. But because we've yet to do so, a small but growing number of physicists are contemplating that the inflationary theory either needs a significant overhaul or we might require a new theory altogether. Both are daunting but exciting prospects.

--BG

P.S. There's a separate point I'd like to explain regarding the Higgs, but as this post is long I will save that for another day.

Testimonial: Rob Bell is NOT a Universalist (and I actually read “Love Wins”)

Just as a reminder, it has been said in many previous articles on this subject that Rob Bell is not a Universalist because it would be inconsistent with his position of "Libertarian Free Will." Further research on this subject may be found through this blog's sidebars on Calvinism/Arminianism, Love Wins, Rob Bell and Universalism. One may also begin here - http://relevancy22.blogspot.com/2011/05/rob-bell-is-not-universalist.html.

Otherwise Greg Boyd makes some deft nuances to the discussion that quickly followed in the weeks and months ahead after the publication was released and which immediately demanded that I, among many others, set the record straight as to what Emergent Christianity was, and wasn't (as declared by well-meaning Emergents and Evangelics, and some who were not so well-meaning nor truthful).

Many long months later Clark Pinnock's statement, "Scripture is normative, but it always needs to be read afresh and applied in new ways” (CT, January 5, 1979: 23-29; pls refer to - http://relevancy22.blogspot.com/2011/11/two-tributes-to-clark-pinnock-olson.html) seems as prevalently true today as ever. And I trust that these many-posts-later within this blog have helped to shape the discussion to what Christianity today should feel and smell like. I believe the emergent, moderating positions found in Catholicism and Protestantism have a lot to offer and continue to promote openness in Christian thinking, relevancy of discussion, and constant reformation from our personally besetting dogmas to the living faith found in Christ Jesus, our Lord and Savior, in His love and grace, truth and justice. Thank you for following along on this journey of self-appraisal and renewed discovery.

- R.E. Slater

November 24, 2011

* * * * * * * * * *

Testimonial: Rob Bell is NOT a Universalist
(and I actually read “Love Wins”)

http://www.gregboyd.org/blog/rob-bell-is-not-a-universalist-and-i-actually-read-love-wins/

by Greg Boyd

March 4, 2011

On the basis of a publisher’s promotional paragraph and an advertising video in which Rob Bell questions someone’s certainty that Ghandi is in hell, Justin Taylor sounded the web-wide alarm that Rob Bell’s forthcoming book Love Wins espouses universalism (the doctrine that everyone will eventually be saved). Though he too had not yet read the book, John Piper followed up with a puzzling melodramatic tweet bidding Rob Bell “Farewell“. An avalanche of tweets ensued — all (so far as I could discern) by people who had not read Bell’s forthcoming book — to the point that this yet-unpublished book became one of the top ten tweeted topics. (If this was planned by HarperCollins, the publisher of Love Wins, it was brilliant!!!)

Well, I would have blogged on this Twitter madness earlier but someone hacked my website the other day [thank you very much] and we’ve just now got it back up and running. I suspect I have a slight advantage over some who have expressed strong opinions on Love Wins inasmuch as I have actually read the book (I received an advanced copy). There are four brief things I’d like to say about this book vis-a-vis the Twitter madness that’s erupted around it.

First, Rob is first and foremost a poet/artist/dramatist who has a fantastic gift for communicating in ways that inspire creativity and provoke thought. Rob is far more comfortable (and far better at) questioning established beliefs and creatively hinting at possible answers than he is at constructing a logically rigorous case defending a definitive conclusion. I enthusiastically recommend Love Wins because of the way it empowers readers to question old perspectives and consider new ones. Unless a person reads this book with a preset agenda to find whatever they can to further an anti-Rob Bell agenda (which, I guarantee you, is going to happen) readers will not put this book down unchanged. To me, this is one of the main criteria for qualifying a book as “great.”

Second, given Rob’s poetic/artistic/non-dogmatic style, Love Wins cannot be easily filed into pre-established theological categories (viz. “universalism” vs “eternal conscious suffering” vs. “annihilationism,” etc.). I am certain some readers — especially those who position themselves as the final arbiters and guardians of evangelical truth — will try to do this (obviously, they already have!). And, having read Rob’s book, I can almost guarantee you that they will find isolated quotes to justify their labels. As I interpret Rob’s work, however, it would be misguided and unfair to apply any of these labels to him (more on this below).

Third, Taylor’s “review” and the ensuing Twitter madness notwithstanding, Rob’s book really isn’t about the population or duration of heaven or hell.... It’s mainly about the unfathomably beautiful character of God revealed in Jesus Christ and therefore about the unfathomably good nature of the Good News. Putting his formidable communicating skills to full use, Rob paints a New Testament-based portrait of God throughout his book that at times almost brought me to tears. In the course of painting this magnificent portrait of God, Rob brilliantly raises pointed questions about the dominant evangelical view of hell as hopeless conscious suffering as well as about common evangelical views of God’s wrath, the nature of salvation and an assortment of other topics. But these are secondary topics next to Rob’s main focus: namely, the incomprehensible and unlimited love of God expressed on Calvary as Jesus prays with his last breath, “Father, forgive them, they don’t know what they’re doing.”

Finally, despite my earlier claim that Love Wins can’t be neatly filed into any preUniversalist. I’m tempted to say — and probably should say —” I’m not sure; read the book for yourself and figure it out.” But far be it from me to shut up when I should, so here’s two thoughts, for what they’re worth.

1) I strongly doubt Rob would describe himself as a “Universalist.” But even if he did, I would recommend Love Wins just as enthusiastically as I already have. Love Wins masterfully raises all the right questions, even if one ends up disagreeing with some of Rob’s conclusions (which, as I said, are at most alluded to rather than dogmatically defended). Not only this, but questions surrounding the nature and duration of hell and the possibility that all will eventually be saved are not questions Christians should be afraid of. What does truth have to fear? (I sometimes wonder if the animosity some express toward Universalists [or toward those some assume are Universalists] is motivated by the fear that the case for Universalism might turn out to be more compelling than they can handle. For several defenses, see the Addendum to this blog).

2) While its clear from Love Wins that Rob believes (as do I ) that God wants all to be saved, it’s also clear Rob believes (as do I) that humans [and, I would add, angels] have free will and that God will never coerce someone to accept his love and be “saved.” Rob doesn’t himself argue this way in his book, but it seems to me that if God will not coerce people into heaven, then hell (which, by the way, Rob does emphatically believe in) cannot have a pre-set, definitive, terminus point. That is, hell is not, at present, finite. Hence, in this sense, hell is, at present, infinite (= not finite). And this holds true even if Rob believes he has warrant to hope everyone will eventually be saved. And for this reason, I would argue that Rob cannot hold to Universalism as a doctrine: he cannot be, in the classic sense of the word, a Universalist.

Then again, I could be wrong…

which is why this is a good conversation worth having…

but not on Twitter…

and not by accusing and labeling and bidding a brother “farewell” before you’ve even read the book!

THAT is madness!

* * * * *  * * * * *

Addendum: As I’ve said, I don’t think it’s accurate to describe Rob’s book as a defense of Universalism, though it expresses a hope for all to be saved. If you’re looking for defenses of Universalism as a doctrine, the best I’ve found are 1) Thomas Talbot, The Inescapable Love of God; 2) Gregory MacDonald, The Evangelical Universalist; and 3) Jan Bonda, The One Purpose of God (quite academic, but insightful). Just to be fair, if you want a sound defense of Annihilationism, see Edward Fudge, The Fire That Consumes. And if you want a sound defense of the tradition view of hell as eternal conscious suffering, see R. Peterson, Hell on Trial and (with an interesting twist) C.S. Lewis, The Great Divorce.