Originally posted by tabibito
View Post
Nay good sir. BUT it is amazing how often members of Eastern Churches think that I am a member of (someone else's) Eastern Church.
Last semester, I discovered Moltmann and Kitamori. MUCH of what they write of, I can give assent to.
And then there is this - which I used in a submission:
In sum, these examples portray a divergence, beginning before the fourth century, from earlier writings and scripture. The meanings of the latter have been informed by views of impassibility but, beyond the base doctrine that God is a single entity in three identities,[1] very little development has been informed by scripture, as Thomas Torrance notes,
Theologians have been willing to go to great exegetical lengths to reconcile large portions of scripture with their understanding of God’s metaphysical attributes. Hence, any scripture that ascribed change or suffering to God was typically interpreted to depict God as he appears to us, not as he actually is.[2]
[1] The term “identity” is presented as a viable alternative to “person,” imperfect, but with fewer opportunities for misunderstanding than “person.” I have previously stated, in discussions on the net and elsewhere, that man, male and female, is created in the image and likeness of God, which shows that humans are in themselves analogies of God. Humans, themselves triune (body, soul, and spirit), provide an adequate analogy for understanding how an entity can be at once one and three; and that humans are triune is tacitly acknowledged, though in an admittedly restricted sense, even by some notable atheists; including Freud with his “id, ego, and super-ego”.
[2] Gregory A Boyd. The Crucifixion of the Warrior God: Interpreting the Old Testament’s Violent Portraits of God in the Light of the Cross Volumes 1&2 (sample). (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2017), KL 679-681
Are you non-denominational?
Comment