You can get more details on the Google+ event, and you can watch either through that link, or using the viewer below.
I apologize for posting this so late. I will post the YouTube and some comments tomorrow. Dr. Weiss is the author of the book I’m using for this study, Meditations on According to John.
This is another brief thought. As I was thinking about politics I also considered some of the questions that come up in theodicy. In politics, many of us look for protection from risk, from the consequences of our own actions. It seems to me that in theodicy many people prevent “consequences” as an example of…
Because you have been graciously given this on behalf of Christ: not only in Him to believe, but also for Him to suffer. (Philippians 1:29, excessively literally) I’ve been meditating on two texts as the new year begins, Philippians 1:27-30, and Ephesians 5:1-2. I’ve been kind of ignoring this suffering thing so far. But last…
I’ve often said that I think people who become angry when their beliefs questioned are actually less confident of those beliefs, rather than more so. But that’s a pretty broad and inadequate statement, I think. I was discussing this with my wife recently, and we were wondering why neither of us get annoyed with people…
While I acknowledge that a seminary has a right to choose their people and support their confession, this suggested ad gets closer to the way I feel about it. Peter Enns was pretty conservative from where I sit.
… at Zwinglius Redivivus.
I was looking for something else, but I can’t resist posting this quote: I advise you never to use the words wisdom, reason, or knowledge, by way of reproach. On the contrary, pray that you yourself may abound in them more and more. If you mean worldly wisdom, useless knowledge, false reasoning, say so; and…
My ears pricked up at the mention of panentheism. Can I suggest that although Dr. Weiss is entirely correct that the term “panentheism” didn’t exist until the 20th century, neither did the term (for instance) “quasar”. That doesn’t mean that there wasn’t a real thing described by panentheism, any more than it means that there wasn’t a real thing described by quasar (noting that all the quasars we see are being seen at a point in time before we coined the term…).
I think F.C. Happold does a good job in “Mysticism” in demonstrating that panentheism is a reasonable term to apply to aspects of the reported experience of a range of people he identifies (rightly, in my eyes) as mystics, including SS. Paul and John…
I think it’s interesting to compare Dr. Weiss’s definition of panentheism with Dr. Epperly’s. Herold is a biblical scholar while Bruce is a theologian and pastor. Note that Herold’s definition deals entirely with function, i.e., how God works in the universe. Bruce’s involves more of a theological affirmation and then how it interacts. Epperly also considers it biblical, while I’m pretty sure Herold would be extremely slow to call anything “biblical” or “unbiblical” in a broader perspective.
I suspect the same thing goes into how they would reply to the question of whether you could call the expression in Colossians, or in various mystics, relates to different things. For Herold, it’s about relating a term/concept from the 20th century to other terms. For Bruce it’s about looking at how similar in feel they are. In both cases there’s a certain amount of occupational hazard involved, and for us there is great value in hearing both perspectives, in my opinion. I don’t see much actual theological distance; just a difference of expression and perspective.
This was a highly anticipated interview and met expectations. It was fun enjoying Professor Weiss enjoying the process. I hope Henry brings him back at the conclusion of this series.
I am in agreement with Chris Eyre’s observation on panentheism. I wonder if we shouldn’t include Jesus in the list of mystics?