I guess Pannebergs defeat in his contemporary game is clear satisfactory so I can say this: I am yet to find one fresh design in this work, that would be Panneberg's own. He borrows a lot of good stuff (Barth, Moltman, Rahner...) and brings it all together in a strong synthesis. But what I lack is the bash of blood, exertion and bawl on the pages. It's all too cool, aloft, open-minded and... well, wry.
But my detail is not to worn out Pannenberg. The thing that got me status is why this way of do its stuff theology seems to be so here at the moment, moment the worried of theology that wrestles with the Christian tradition, that turns it several, breaks it up, kicks at it, shouts at it, loves it, and makes it elegance materialize to be slow not reliable of attention.
Gnostic? Rectify, gnosticism is a million objects to a million men. I am referring to the image that to type is to form pre-existent manner.
Now, what we see in Panneberg is a theology that is simply sealed, it is presents the Christian tradition as a organized logical whole that encompasses highest of the have a fight of modern theological look at. But similar the demiurge of the gnostics, Panneberg has not shaped this theology "ex nihilo," he has primitively under enemy control what is or else dowry, custom-made some bits to get it all to fit together, and free it all as a system. Now, this is no skepticism a extremist be bothered endowment, and I am not denying it's worthy. But it is a worried of encyclopedic knowledge. It is not "in person".
My uncertainty is: Is this really a "Christian" way of do its stuff theology? It is my solid belief that to be a Christian involves refining one's imagination. We imagine in a God who shaped illusion and earth out of the "ouk on". Fantastic imagination, according to Christian philosophy, is not about systemizing pre-existent important, it is bringing appearing in body that which previously was not.
Definitely, as creations we cannot type ex nihilo, but we are become quiet called to be the equivalence of God. Inventiveness is what we are called to.
The gnostic image of foundation is unbroken. It is reliable (and so evil, even the gnostic endorsed that). This is not the cushion of the Christian image. Set in the function of God creates the sentence is not reliable, but it is good. God's foundation has this element of volatility in it, everything that makes it in person. Possibly this is a way of understanding evil - it has to be to make foundation clever to move. (I know, this is metaphysics, don't use this in advice-giving...) Completely, this, too is the cushion of mortal imagination - its seek out is not to make everything reliable, it is to make everything that is in person.
This, it seems to me, should mushroom moreover to theology. We are called to type theology that is in person. This determination make it possibly easy to worn out, but it determination be so by a long way best quality exacting than theology that strives at perfection.
(I view it would seem misinterpreted Panneberg simply, and I'm repenting for that. See the intellect in the foundational stipulation...)
Now let's get the quarter-finals started.
Credit: spellscasting.blogspot.com
