My three reviews of controversial theology books

[Teofrastus]

On Amazon I have written reviews of three controversial theology books that are suitable for discussion:

All Things Come into Being Through Him: A Christology of Creation (2023) by David O. Brown
(Advocates a return to deism in much improved form.)

A Brief Systematic Theology of the Symbol (2021) by Joshua Mobley
(Advocates symbolization on Gnostic lines.)

A Philosophical Anthropology of the Cross: The Cruciform Self (2013) by Brian Gregor
(Advocates a this-worldly form of Christianity in the following of Bonhoeffer.)

So, what is wrong or right with these proposals?

 

[Teofrastus]

I posted this review of a controversial theology book today: In Our Image: The Human Basis of the Christian Faith by Stephen H. Smith.
Comments?

 

[Teofrastus]

Recently I posted these reviews of controversial theology books on Goodreads:

"Man and God" by Xavier Zubiri
(Zubiri argues that God is transcendent in things.)

"The Fifth Dimension: An Exploration of the Spiritual Realm" by John Hick
(Hick has a pluralist perspective according to which all religions are "true myths".)

 

[BelieveItOarKnot]

On Amazon I have written reviews of three controversial theology books that are suitable for discussion:

All Things Come into Being Through Him: A Christology of Creation (2023) by David O. Brown
(Advocates a return to deism in much improved form.)

So, what is wrong or right with these proposals?

This statement in your review is a keeper: "unlike Catholic books, it is void of archaic concretistic thought"

Loved the pretzel example of why transubstantiation has to be the case. Amazing that passes for any kind of logic

Anyway, your review of this one (besides the subordination observation) sounded like the author is trying to play it both ways, for example:

"The particulars of the universe aren’t moved by God but acquire being and causal power through participation in the very ground of being, which is God"

For some reason that just doesn't seem to jive if that was the writers claim. I'd even say flirtation with pantheism on that one.

 

[BelieveItOarKnot]

A Philosophical Anthropology of the Cross: The Cruciform Self (2013) by Brian Gregor
(Advocates a this-worldly form of Christianity in the following of Bonhoeffer.)

Sometimes a single statement defines everything about belief. Yours here for example:

"We are indeed born with both evil and good sides."

Paul defined it clearly when stating when he did good, evil was in fact present with him, presumably within, in the form of the ever present evil conscience. The tempter isn't on our shoulder, but in our head, bound within us in what Paul termed the "flesh." But as we know it's not really the organic material, but what is within it. A power of the adverse sorts that is used to do us all in at our end. This is what we carry to our respective crosses. We each have our own little piece of the dragon head, Psalm 74:14. It was served to us for dinner by Heavenly Dad when we were sent on our temporal wet dust walk journey.

As to externalizing the Christian life, no one can rightly complain about anyone doing good. Thinking good is one thing. Doing, an extension. Just as the Roman catholics recite at service, "we have sinned in thought, word and deed" the same can be said for doing good. It starts in thought and works it's way out to word and deed. It's also never ever a one or the other good or evil proposition, but a present tense both in the brew mix. Which can produce a good bit of angst from time to time.

You do a nice job on religious/philosophical verbiage of the realms

 

[Teofrastus]

This statement in your review is a keeper: "unlike Catholic books, it is void of archaic concretistic thought"

Loved the pretzel example of why transubstantiation has to be the case. Amazing that passes for any kind of logic

Anyway, your review of this one (besides the subordination observation) sounded like the author is trying to play it both ways, for example:

"The particulars of the universe aren’t moved by God but acquire being and causal power through participation in the very ground of being, which is God"

For some reason that just doesn't seem to jive if that was the writers claim. I'd even say flirtation with pantheism on that one.

Participation is a Platonic concept according to which earthly things "imitate" the divine Forms. Causal intervention, on the other hand, comes close to Pantheism, because causality belongs to the material universe. Paul employs Platonic language when he says: "For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive" (1 Cor. 15:22).

Unlike the author of the book, I don't think we need to get away from "naive biblical anthropomorphism", as it is essentially Platonic. We participate in the stories of the bible, even if they are expressed in naive language. Not until he learnt of Platonic truth, could Augustine take the bible seriously. It was St. Ambrose who taught him about the mysteries of the bible.

After having read many modern theology books, many of which promote strange theology, I have become more and more convinced that the bible must guide us in theological matters.

 

[BelieveItOarKnot]

After having read many modern theology books, many of which promote strange theology, I have become more and more convinced that the bible must guide us in theological matters.

It's a big world of variance in Christian theology, as you well know. Pays to study, intensively. And it's also quite fun imho. Keeps the low voltage firing

Exposure to other angles isn't an enemy. We all filter and sift our own thoughts through these things, and truth be known, not a one of us thinks totally, completely identically. Even though such things are foisted upon the masses by religious organizations, as if we were drones. Snowflakes, raindrops, blades of grass and everything else in creation are all unique and different and so it is with God's creation of people. Quite fascinating really. I call it the "locked into individual subjectivity" rule. God being the sole exception. If God had a fence I'd be disappointed

I'm always concerned whenever religious people apologize for God or try to write Him out of any picture. No flirt with pantheism, but non involvement non interventionism by the Big Guy seems kind of a weird claim to me for believers.

It would seem it should be almost the opposite claim, that God is intimately involved in everything in His creation, at a minimum for His Sole Pleasures, whatever that may be or consist of. I really couldn't say

 

[Teofrastus]

It's a big world of variance in Christian theology, as you well know. Pays to study, intensively. And it's also quite fun imho. Keeps the low voltage firing

Exposure to other angles isn't an enemy. We all filter and sift our own thoughts through these things, and truth be known, not a one of us thinks totally, completely identically. Even though such things are foisted upon the masses by religious organizations, as if we were drones. Snowflakes, raindrops, blades of grass and everything else in creation are all unique and different and so it is with God's creation of people. Quite fascinating really. I call it the "locked into individual subjectivity" rule. God being the sole exception. If God had a fence I'd be disappointed

I'm always concerned whenever religious people apologize for God or try to write Him out of any picture. No flirt with pantheism, but non involvement non interventionism by the Big Guy seems kind of a weird claim to me for believers.

It would seem it should be almost the opposite claim, that God is intimately involved in everything in His creation, at a minimum for His Sole Pleasures, whatever that may be or consist of. I really couldn't say

Indeed, as Jeffrey Koperski ("Divine Action, Determinism, and the Laws of Nature", 2020) shows, God may actively govern creation from "outside" the universe without breaking the laws of physics. As the determinism of early modern philosophy is no longer the determinism of physics, a causally involved God no longer poses a philosophical problem. (I review Koperski's book here.)

Personally, I am more attracted to the view that God acts as a motivating force inside the minds of sentient beings, especially human beings. After all, God is himself sentient being. Because volcanoes are insentient, the idea that he causes volcanoes to erupt is less logical.

 

[BelieveItOarKnot]

Personally, I am more attracted to the view that God acts as a motivating force inside the minds of sentient beings, especially human beings. After all, God is himself sentient being. Because volcanoes are insentient, the idea that he causes volcanoes to erupt is less logical.

And that is an excellent sight of the matters that even John the Apostle would agree with, for example, and forgive my generosity of sights that this technically could be much wider spread to mankind in general than we are able to give bonafide theological credits for:

1 John 4:
7 Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God.

Active? Yes, Alive and Active

 

[Teofrastus]

Review of Dick Moes, "Participation and Covenant: Contours of a Theodramatic Theology" (2024).

 

[Teofrastus]

Review of N.T. Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God (2003).

 

[BelieveItOarKnot]

Review of N.T. Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God (2003).

Again, nailed it. ^

I'm not a Wright fan, so there's that

 

[Teofrastus]

Again, nailed it. ^

I'm not a Wright fan, so there's that

Here's a more comprehensive critique of Wright: What's Wrong with Wright: Examining the New Perspective on Paul by Phil Johnson.