Process Theology
This view holds that God has self limited his power and is not in absolute control of all things. We shouldn't say God wills everything that happens, but that God has a will within everything that happens. Sometimes evil is cause by “misfortune, chance, bad luck intertwine with sin and injustice.” I think with this view God leaves Him to be an optimistic onlooker hoping for the best in all things. Kevin DeYoung says that God "needs us to be freed from our suffering so that he can be free from his. And once you get to this place in your theology you are miles away from Romans 11:34-36." DeYoung also says:
Many, if not most, Christian books you pick up on suffering or the problem of evil, especially books written at a popular level, will offer "God weeps with those who weep" as one of the answers to the problem of pain. God, it is said, is as much grieved by our grief as we are. He hurts as much or more than we hurt. To say anything less is to make God into an unfeeling monster.
Before the nineteenth or twentieth century you could find almost no Christian arguing that God suffered. But in the last hundred years it has become the new orthodoxy. Now you will find almost no one arguing that God doesn’t suffer. (p4)
This theory also denies immutability even though Numbers 23:29, Malachi 3:6, James 1:17 and Hebrews 13:8 say that God can not change, or vary and that Jesus is the same yesterday, today and forever. Of cause Jesus as a person was born, learned to talk, walk, feed himself, took naps etc.., but as the Second Person of the Trinity did none of those. His divinity as God wasn't born, He didn't need to learn how to walk, talk and He didn't take naps. Something called communication of idioms or issue of sharing of attributes comes up.
While the Free Will Defence allows God the possibility to give people freedom, He is not completely unable; Process Theology goes one step further and shrinks God some more saying He is self limited and prone to change.
"Of cause Jesus as a person was born, learned to talk, walk, feed himself, took naps etc.., but as the Second Person of the Trinity did none of those. His divinity as God wasn't born, He didn't need to learn how to walk, talk and He didn't take naps."
ReplyDeleteSo who suffered on the cross? Was it "Jesus as a person" or "the second person of the Trinity"?
The way I see it, it wasn't the manger that made Christ's birth humble, it was being born fully human. That humility was at its fullest extent at the cross.
Hey Rico,
ReplyDeleteThanks for posting. I agree about Christ being humble and born fully human. I think you have Phil 2 to strongly back you up.
I actually cut most of what I wrote on this post in my essay, epically the immutability bit, as I don't think I have really worked through the ideas myself. Yes Jesus was "in the beginning" and then he took on flesh. But as a human, his feet really did touch the ground, he really was tempted and really struggled in garden of Gethsemane. He didn't have a superman costume under His robe, He was real flesh and blood.
In my essay, not only did I cut out this own immutability idea, I said:
"In the Christian faith, God is not an objective observer to our suffering... Jesus experienced suffering and evil first hand and so can sympathize with us and offer mercy and grace to those in need (Heb 2:18, 4:14-16). [Jesus also set out to overcome suffering and evil] Throughout the gospels we see Jesus healing the sick, blind and paralysed... and ultimately through His own suffering “become the source of eternal salvation for all who obey Him” (Heb 5:9 NRSV). In the cross and the resurrection of Jesus we see a Saviour who identifies with our suffering, sin and death and the power He has over it (cite some dude here)."
Cool. Next stop on this train is Theotokos.
ReplyDelete;)