It is an odd man who has not heard of Greg Boyd. He has written many books including Letters to a Sceptic and God at War. Besides being an author, he is the pastor of Woodland Hills Church in St. Paul, MN. He also has a website called Christus Victor Ministries. He had a blog on his website but has recently moved it here. Greg Boyd, as many of you may know, holds to a theology called “Open Theism,” which basically states that God did not create a fully determined world but left it open to the free agents, i. e. mankind, which he created. God does not know the future and, thus, cannot be responsible for the bad things that happen. In his blog, Boyd has developed an argument which he calls the “S. I. N. (Satan In Nature) hypothesis.” His contention…well, let him say what his contention is, “My contention [is] that natural evil can only be adequately explained if we accept that fallen spirits have to some degree corrupted nature.” He has seven arguments with which he defends his hypothesis. The argument from animal suffering, the argument from demonically-influenced infirmities, the argument from God’s creational battles, the argument from God’s non-violent creational ideal, the argument from a cursed nature, the argument from cosmic redemption, and an argument from the early church fathers. These seven arguments, he confesses, may not be the only ones he has. If he has further insights he will let us know. Will he gain further insights? We are all on the edge of our seats! We at An Appraisal of Folly would humbly like to take up the challenge of answering these arguments; it is a challenge because, we must admit, we are not as smart as Dr. Gregory Boyd. However, we are confindent in the assertions we are about to make. Stay tuned for “Answers to Boyd’s S. I. N. hypothesis.” Maybe Greg Boyd would be so good as to join us in our discussion.
Archives
Categories
-
Recent Comments
Meta
-
Blog Stats
- 2,335 hits
I know it is very tempting to judge the lives of Christ-followers around us, pronoucing inconsistencies with other people’s walks, but I would caution that such an attitude is more like the people to whom Jesus said “those who are without sin, cast the first stone.”
A also know it is hard to find anything better to talk about than theology–especially if we disagree with it–but I don’t think that theology feeds the sick or hungry, as Jesus did. Theology doesn’t hang out with sinners and orphans, as Jesus did. In fact, I have known people who are strict Calvinists (and, hopefully, followers of Christ) who would rather sit and talk with people who believe the same way that they do than go out and serve someone who doesn’t even believe in God.
Instead of divisive critiques of people you’ve never met, how about insights into scripture and how you are learning to love the people that God has put in your life? Or, how about ways you are reaching people not in the faith? I like reading insights into scripture… do you have any God insights? Because, at the end of the day, God isn’t going to ask us if we know our theology… he’s going to ask us if we know him and we loved those around us who may not yet know him. That even includes people we disagree with, as hard as it is. But that is where humility and grace come in.
“If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal.” ~1 Corinthians 13:1
~Peace!
Jiang,
Perhaps Christ was a little harsh with the Saducees and Pharisees. Why wasn’t He kinder to them? Christ was spieling that divisive doctrine all the time and attacking the Pharisees, etc.
Perhaps, Jiang was a little harsh with those of AN APPRAISAL OF FOLLY. Why wasn’t Jiang kinder to them? Jiang was spieling that divisive critique of A A O F without even knowing A A O F, and not asking any questions of A A O F. Not even showing love to his neighbor.
Jiang, you wouldn’t happen to play in an orchestra as a cymbal player, would you?