Thanks for posting this Dr. Boersma. I would be grateful to know of a discussion forum either for this paper or the topic. I am interested to know about the extent of an intersection with process philosophy (which I find scientifically compelling), and the possibility of preserving some form of univocity that preserves a special place for God, e.g., as being qua being. Apologies if these questions are out of place here.
Thanks for your question, John. I’m afraid I am not a fan of process theology, which cannot retain divine transcendence as does classical Neoplatonist Christianity. For similar reasons, I retain analogy of being. In my forthcoming book with Eerdmans, Theophanizing Love, I explain my reasoning in somewhat greater detail. I hope you can wait with fuller rationale till then. Peace!
Thanks for posting this Dr. Boersma. I would be grateful to know of a discussion forum either for this paper or the topic. I am interested to know about the extent of an intersection with process philosophy (which I find scientifically compelling), and the possibility of preserving some form of univocity that preserves a special place for God, e.g., as being qua being. Apologies if these questions are out of place here.
Thanks for your question, John. I’m afraid I am not a fan of process theology, which cannot retain divine transcendence as does classical Neoplatonist Christianity. For similar reasons, I retain analogy of being. In my forthcoming book with Eerdmans, Theophanizing Love, I explain my reasoning in somewhat greater detail. I hope you can wait with fuller rationale till then. Peace!
Thank you for the reply. I may have misread your footnote 7. I look forward to the book.