We run our website the way we wished the whole internet worked: we provide high quality original content with no ads. We are funded solely by your direct support. Please consider supporting this project.
The Future of Theology
Chris Moore via Compfight
Roger Olson recently published a blog arguing that there really are no new ideas out there in the realm of theology. Everything has pretty much been thought of or proposed. That idea or book that’s causing such a stir? Rewarmed material that someone else already thought of.
So what is there left for theology to do?
Roger wrote a follow-up article that answers this question. He notes that many of the old ideas have had problems in the way the were articulated, and modern theologians have refined them or presented them in ways that solved these problems. For example:
When Gottfried Thomasius (d. 1875) proposed what came to be called “kenotic Christology” it was fraught with problems and widely rejected as seriously harming the doctrine of God if not the deity of Christ. However, English kenotic theologians such as Peter Taylor Forsyth (d. 1921) fixed those problems (e.g., in the Person and Work of Jesus Christ).
When so-called “open theism” first appeared among evangelicals in the late 20th century it had some serious defects. What was called open theism had been proposed before and those defects had hindered its acceptance by many sympathetic people. Greg Boyd, however, re-articulated open theism in a way that made it more acceptable because, as he articulates it, it isn’t about any limitation of God but about the future.
As to the future of theology, he goes on to say:
So what does the future of Christian theology look like? It will continue to perform its critical tasks. It will continue to explore traditional ideas/doctrines/models of God and attempt to make fruitful ones more intelligible and acceptable to faithful people of God. And it will attempt to find new ways to express traditional ideas/doctrines/models of God such as the Trinity so that they are understandable by contemporary people in many different culture.
We’re grateful here at ReKnew to be a part of this work.
Category: General
Tags: Kenosis, Open Theism, Roger Olson, Theology, Trinity
Related Reading
Greg’s Interview on The Christian Transhumanist Podcast
Here is an interview I did for The Christian Transhumanist Podcast that I wanted to share with all of you. Micah Redding and I discuss everything from Relativity Theory to Politics. I think you’ll find it interesting, but I want to offer a word of clarification before you listen. At one point in this interview…
The Goal For Your Life in 2015
Love is the reason anything exists. God created the world out of love—to express his love and to invite others to share in his love. The central goal of creation is succinctly summed up in a profound prayer Jesus prayed just prior to his crucifixion: For [the disciples’] sake I sanctify myself, so that they…
How do you respond to Matthew 16:21?
“From that time on, Jesus began to show his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and undergo great suffering at the hands of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and on the third day be raised.” The ministry and death of Jesus are the centerpieces of God’s plan in world…
On the Trinity and the Holy Spirit
For many of us, the Trinity is something that we confess, but if we are honest, we are not sure what it means. While the Trinity is a mystery, there are helpful ways of thinking about it and understanding it better. In this brief clip on God’s triune nature, Greg discusses the nature of the Trinity and how the…
Did the Father Suffer on the Cross?
When I argue that the cross is a Trinitarian event (See post), some may suspect that I am espousing Patripassionism, which was a second and third century teaching that held that God the Father suffered on the cross. While this view was often expressed as a form of heretical Modalism, and while the Patristic fathers…
Lighten Up: Believing in Believing
OK, we don’t really think this is the difference between theology and philosophy, but how does this guy not get that not believing in believing is, itself, a belief?
