Questions To Consider When Reading The Material On John Hick

Questions to consider when reading about John Hick 1.

What exactly does John Hick think we can say about the resurrection as an event that changed Christianity? (244). Cf. also n. 12, 378. Does he recognize the New Testament picture of the distinctiveness of Jesus’ resurrection? (245) How does his thinking about the distinctiveness of Jesus’ resurrection for instance compare to Barth’s? (245)

2.

What about Hick’s belief that it was easier for people in Jesus’ time to accept his resurrection since it was not then considered as earth-shaking or incredible as it might be today? (244-5)

3.

What, for instance, was the Gnostic view of Christ’s resurrection? (245 and n. 14, 378)

4.

How would you assess Hick’s statement that Jesus was raised by God from the dead not “in virtue of a divine nature which he himself possessed” but instead he was chosen by God for a special task (245) in relation to the view espoused in the text that one cannot separate the incarnation and resurrection? Why exactly would the thinking of T. F. Torrance (and Barth) stand opposed to this view? (246, also n. 15, 378)

5.

What is Hick’s view of the empty tomb? (246) And what exactly does he think the resurrection event was? (247)

6.

What particular experiential model does Hick use to explain the meaning of the resurrection? (248)

7.

What was D. F. Strauss’s view of the resurrection? (248)

8.

What exactly are the consequences of Hick’s view of the Incarnation as a myth for Christian faith? (249-50) What is the connection between his thought and the thinking of Feuerbach? (250)

9.

How might one characterize High’s “Inspiration Christology”? (250) See n. 19, 379. Do you see any connections here with the thinking of Roger Haight? What exactly is the problem involved in assuming that there is a “real historical Jesus” behind the NT confessions that acknowledge his Lordship as Son of God? (250-51)

10. On what basis does Knitter defend Hick against the charge of “subjectivism”? (251) How would you assess Knitter’s defense of Hick by claiming that “Incarnation language refers not just to something that happens in us, but to something that happened in Jesus” (251) 11. Why exactly does Hick reject the teaching of Nicaea and Chalcedon? What do you think of his reasoning? (251-2) See especially n. 21, 379. 12. Why does Hick think Jesus was “deified” in the early Church? Why does he think we need to abandon this idea today? (252) 13. What about Hick’s view of the Trinity? How would you assess his thinking in light of the traditional understanding of the Trinity? (253-54) Seealso n. 25 on 379-80. Why might his view of God be considered unitarian? (254) How does this relate to his understanding of the incarnation and of Jesus as when he says we should begin with God rather than with Jesus? 14. Terminus ad quem refers to the goal of our awareness of God (253). 15. From a Christian standpoint what exactly is the problem with Hick’s idea of God as “The real in itself”? (254) 16. Hick’s “nominalist construal of experience” refers to the fact that, following Kant, he believes the most we can know are the names or ideas we have of reality, but that we can never know reality (the noumenal) in itself (255). This of course is a major problem for a theology of revelation that holds that Jesus himself is the reality of God incarnate among us and thus he enables us to know God as Father, Son and Holy Spirit. 17. What are the main ethical implications of Hick’s theology? (255-60) Whatis his view of atonement? See n. 27, 380? How does that compare with a more traditional understanding? What exactly is the meaning of salvation for Hick? (255). How does this compare with a more traditional view? (256) 18. How does Hick’s application of the Golden Rule lead him into serious misunderstanding of the relation between Christian behavior and the uniqueness of Christ? (256-57) What do you think of his view that the truth of Christianity is determined by how good our own ethical behavior actually is? (256) 19. What exactly is the problem in claiming we have a “spiritual criterion” by which to judge Christology? (257) 20. Why is it a problem to claim, with Hick, that simply following a religious path (Christian or other) will lead us to become righteous? Why might thatbe seen as the ultimate form of self-justification? In other words what is exactly is the problem embedded in the belief that all religions enable people to become saints to the extent that they live the Golden Rule? (259)