A CRITIQUE OF PROCESS THEOLOGY’S EPISTEMOLOGY

AND DOCTRINE OF REVELATION

This essay will attempt to offer criticism against Process Theism.  Given the
limitation of the pages here, it will be assumed that the reader has a basic
understanding of Process Theology.  The critique of Process[1] is done with
the desire to “contend earnestly for the faith” by refuting a system that is
antithetical to the “faith which was once for all handed down to the saints”
(Jude 1:3).  Beyond just providing a critique of Process theology, this essay
is an exercise of critiquing a worldview that doesn’t even begin with the
Bible, and to offer a concrete example of how the rejection of God’s Word
leads God to destroy the wisdom of the wise, and God setting aside the
cleverness of the clever (cf. 1st Corinthians 1:19).
THE DANGERS OF PROCESS THEOLOGY

In his first epistle to Timothy, Paul wrote that to “ensure salvation both for
yourself and for those who hear you,” church leaders such as Timothy should
“pay close attention to yourself and to your teaching; persevere in these
things” (1st Timothy 4:16).  For the Christian who is paying close attention to
doctrines and life, Process Theology turns out to be spiritually dangerous in
regards to its doctrines and also its implication for the Christian life and
ministry.
A theology founded by Alfred North Whitehead (1861-1947) and Charles
Hartshorne, it is doctrinally at odds with Christianity.  It is a theology that is
heavily driven by metaphysical philosophical orientation:  “Specifically,
process theism is a product of theorizing that takes the categories of
becoming, change, and time as foundational for metaphysics.”[2] According
to Stanford’s Encyclopedia of Philosophy,
“For both Whitehead and Hartshorne, it is an essential attribute of God to be
fully involved in and affected by temporal processes. This idea contrasts
neatly with traditional forms of theism that hold God to be in all respects
non-temporal (eternal), unchanging (immutable,) and unaffected by the
world (impassible).”[3]
Not only does Process theism deny the traditional attributes of God, they
also believe that God is dependent on the world, as Process theologian
Robert Mellert states, “Process theologians, therefore, generally hold that
God is in some sense dependent upon the world and that in that sense he is
subject to the changes that take place in the world.”[4] One of the most
popular proponents of Process today is John Cobb, and repeatedly
throughout his works, he emphasizes that God is love even at the expense
of God’s holiness and righteousness.  It is then no surprise then to find Cobb
writes, “From the point of view of process theology, God is never violent in
the usual sense.  Central to our understanding is that God relates to us
persuasively rather than coercively…”[5] Certainly the actual doctrines of
Process should be troubling for Bible-believing Christians, and Christians
should be aware of them.
Christians should also be aware of the danger of Process Theology’s when it
comes to its implication for the Christian life and ministry.  For instance, Joe
Blosser, a preacher who subscribes to Process Theism, has correctly noted
the relationship of how one’s view of God would affects one’s way of
preaching about God: “The preacher describes the type of God to be
modeled and then outlines practical ways to model that notion of God or
become like a particular Christ-conception.”[6] Given Process view of God as
non-imposing, this dramatically affects the authority of preaching:  “With
God no longer conceived as an other imposing the Word on a congregation,
we should no longer feel compelled to understand the preacher as the
divinely appointed conveyer of God’s Word.”[7] Process Theism also affects
in the area of theology of prayer: “In a relational universe, our prayers make
a difference. While our prayers do not supernaturally change the events of
the world, they ‘radiate’ in a non-local way across the universe, shaping the
unconscious and conscious experiences of others, transforming others’
environments, and creating environments in which God’s vision of wholeness
may be more fully realized.”[8] This excerpt is revealing, especially with
Process denial that prayers have any supernatural effect through God. 
Prayer should be done by the Christian primarily to communicate with God
and Scripture does not talk about praying as a way to create some sort of an
environment which the vision of God is realized to a greater degree.
WHAT SHOULD THE CHRISTIAN RESPONSE BE TOWARD PROCESS
THEOLOGY?
In light of the spiritual danger of Process theology, what should be the
appropriate Christian response especially by those who are leaders of the
church?  Surely, Pastors are obligated to watch over their own and their
congregation’s doctrines and life closely (1st Timothy 4:16), and to not be
taken captive “through philosophy and empty deception” (Colossians 2:8),
but Christians (not just church leaders!) are also called to destroy false
speculations such as Process Theology, and take it captive for Christ:
“We are destroying speculations and every lofty thing raised up against the
knowledge of God, and we are taking every thought captive to the
obedience of Christ.” (2nd Corinthians 10:5)
In fact, part of the qualification of an elder is to “be able both to exhort in
sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict” (Titus 1:9).  What
Scripture commands here is clear: refute Process Theology, which
contradicts the sound doctrine of Scripture.
PUBLISHED EVANGELICAL CRITIQUES
Rather than re-invent the wheel, an assessment of what Evangelicals have
already done concerning Process would be a wise course to take.  How has
Evangelicals responded toward Process theology in print?  John Feinberg has
devoted a chapter discussing Process in his book No One Like Him.  The half-
dozen criticisms offered by Feinberg deals with the incoherence of the god of
Process theology.[9] Ronald Nash has edited a volume in which various
Evangelicals contributed their essays responding to Process Theology.  In the
essay that Nash himself contributes, he framed his critique in terms of
Process Theology versus Classical Theism, and faults Process Theology with
committing an either/or fallacy between only Thomistic theism and Process
Theology[10], a paragraph on how Process theologians are indebted to
Greek philosophy and the incoherence of their view of God.[11] In terms of
theologically driven responses, Evangelicals have compared and contrasted
Process to Reformed theology[12], shed Biblical light against Process view of
Jesus and the Trinity[13], addressed Process view of the problem of evil
from a libertarian freewill perspective[14], and defended Creatio ex nihilo
from Process attack[15].  Responses from Evangelicals that have taken more
of a philosophical flavor has largely been metaphysical by nature,
considering whether God could or could not act[16], Process view of Divine
power[17], the relationship of God to the world[18] and the coherence of
the concept of God to Whitehead’s overall metaphysics[19].  An Evangelical
critique in print that is somewhat epistemological in nature was written by
William Lane Craig concerning God’s foreknowledge and future contingency.
[20] However, this deals more with God’s knowledge of the future rather
than the epistemology of how man knows about God. If there can be any
contribution towards an Evangelical response toward Process Theology, it is
an epistemic critique of whether Process theologians can know the things
they claim to know about God.
SIGNIFICANCE OF AN EPISTEMIC CRITIQUE
In his essay critiquing Process theology, Demarest has made an important
observation of the role of epistemology in the debate: “In the realm of
epistemology it is clear that process views of Christ and the Trinity are
derived not from authoritative Scripture but from the philosophy of
Whitehead as refined by his followers.”[21] Certainly, there is a clash
between two competing epistemologies in the Process versus Christianity
debate.  Despite realizing the different epistemology in which Process
theologian operates, Demarest has not developed an epistemological critique
in his essay.[22] It is important that Christians also critique the
epistemology of Process theology.
To translate what the importance of epistemology means in terms that most
preachers can appreciate, epistemology is like hermeneutics when it comes
to theology.  The method of how one interprets the Scripture (hermeneutics)
will determine what one’s interpretation of Scripture is.  For example, the
position one adopts in the debate about the future restoration of Israel
depends largely on whether one employs the historical-grammatical
approach or the covenantal approach in hermeneutics.  Everyone who reads
the Bible has a hermeneutic, whether they have consciously thought through
it or not.  In debating theological issues, it is wise for theologians to be
conscious of their own hermeneutics and to be able to critique an opponent’s
hermeneutics.  Similarly, epistemology determines the content of what one
believes to be true.  Discussion of epistemology is even more important
when interacting with philosophy and theology that does not begin with the
Bible.  While everyone has some form of an epistemology, not everyone has
a hermeneutic of the Bible because some do not believe it is God’s Word;
having never read the Bible before, etc.  This essay can make a contribution
towards the Evangelical response to Process Theology by going after its
epistemological foundation.  The critique also assumes what others
Evangelicals have done, further reinforcing their works by presenting a
refutation of Process Theology from another angle.  John Frame explains the
reasoning behind the importance of a refutation during the rational
exchanges between opposing views:
“Note therefore that when you seek to refute someone’s position, it is never
sufficient merely to set forth arguments for an alternative (and
incompatible) view. Many modern theologians, for example, argue against
the orthodox view of Scripture by presenting arguments for liberal
constructions, without even considering the biblical evidence that motivated
the orthodox view in the first place…In such situations it is best, then, not
only to argue an alternative view but also to refute the arguments that
produced the view you are seeking to overthrow. Even then, of course, an
opponent convinced of the rightness of his cause may take refuge in the
possibility of your being wrong. But the more you cast doubt on those
considerations that weigh most heavily with your opponent, the more
adequate your argument will be.”[23]
DISTINCTION BETWEEN KNOWING AND BELIEVING
At this point, it is important to be aware of the distinction between knowing
and believing.  How one arrives at truth (their presuppositions and method)
is important.  To believe simply means to mentally assent to a claim as
being true.  On the other hand, knowing is to believe what is true, having
arrived to that truth properly. For example, you see that there are two
clocks next to each other, and one that has stopped at 4:20, and the other is
a working clock that has the right time. If one happened to look at the
broken clock at 4:20 PM the belief that it’s 4:20 PM might happen to be true,
but it wasn’t properly arrived at (the clock is faulty in giving the right time). 
Thus, one cannot say they “know” it’s 4:20 PM, unless they arrived at this
truth properly (by looking at the working clock).  Similarly, if one’s method
of knowing God is faulty, then one cannot “know” their theological beliefs
(thought they might believe them), since the beliefs have not been rationally
justified.  While even a broken clock can be right at least twice a day,
similarly a faulty epistemology can coincidently come to some truth, but it
does not provide an adequate reason for it to be true.  Thus, a theological
system with faulty epistemology that has claims about reality in the sphere
of metaphysics or theology can be dismissed since it is arbitrary.
PROCESS’ EPISTEMOLOGY
Coming back to the epistemology of Process theology then, the question is
whether (1) Process epistemology is coherent (internally compatible to make
sense within itself) and (2) whether Process epistemology is adequate for it
to logically lead to its theological statements.

(A) Empiricism[24]
As noted earlier, Process theology heavily emphasizes metaphysics since its
inception by Whitehead.  Due to this emphasis on metaphysics, discussion of
epistemology does not appear as frequently as one would like. Enough
materials do exist from Whitehead’s writings for Process theologian
Loomer[25] to conclude that although “there are elements in his system
which would seem to indicate an uncertainty or a wavering on his part, but
essentially his methodology is truly empirical.”[26] In the same vein as
Whitehead, Loomer has affirmed empiricism: “All knowledge is empirically
tested.”[27] For the record, Whitehead does not wish to identify his
empiricism with the traditional (British) empiricism not because he was
critical of empiricism itself, but because “his basic criticism of traditional
empiricism is that it has not been sufficiently empirical…”[28] What he wants
in epistemology is more empiricism, and one which is more consistently
empirical.
Empiricism as an epistemology suffers from incoherence.  Empiricism really
is an idea.  Unquestionably, an empiricist believes that empiricism is the
proper way to know truth, yet how can one empirically demonstrate that
empiricism is true?  No one has ever seen, tasted, touched, smelled or heard
the idea itself.[29] Empiricism is not a physical entity that triggers
sensations. Empiricism as an epistemology is self-refuting.  Empiricism is
also incompatible with the aim of process philosophy[30].  There is an aim
for empirical investigation:
“By means of empirical investigation, then, philosophy attempts to define
the nature of the most general characters that pertains to all experience
whatsoever.”[31]
“Philosophy is concerned with those structures which are universal and
which must be present if we are to have any experiences at all.  Empirical
analysis is the method which Whitehead uses in attempting to arrive at this
goal.”[32]
Yet, the aim of finding the characteristic of all experience can never be
achieved empirically because it is impossible for any human or group of
humans to empirically investigate all experiences.  As finite human beings
who experience birth and death, no one can empirically analyze all the
experiences of man in the past, nor all the experiences of man in the future
after his death to come to a conclusion about all experiences.  Whitehead
adds further limitation to their epistemology in respect to time, since
according to Loomer, “Sense-perception, for Whitehead, confines us to the
immediate present.  From it we can gain no knowledge of the past or
future.”[33] If knowledge is limited only to the immediate present, then the
endeavor of Process epistemology to know the structures behind all
experiences is already doom from the start.
Assuming empiricism to be true, there are theological pronouncements made
by Process theologians, but pronouncements which cannot be known
according to their own epistemology.  It is presupposed that empiricism is an
adequate tool to discover God: “Whitehead’s concept of god is another
example of the functioning of empirical analysis.”[34] Yet, how can Process
theologians such as Cobb come to empirically know that “God is in all of us,
calling us to be all this is possible in each moment”[35]?  Cobb cannot know
this statement as a Process theologian since as a finite man limited to a
particular space, he did observe God being inside everyone, and at the same
time calling everyone to all that is possible in every moment.  On top of that,
empiricism cannot even account for time: “If anyone thinks he has an image
of time, let him describe its color, its shape, and smell.”[36]
How can a Process theologian know that “God is the source of novelty, of
purpose, of meaning, of openness to others, of freedom, of responsibility,
and of much else besides”[37]?  Has a Process theologian seen, tasted,
touched, smelled and heard God to know the following:
“God is present, therefore, in every experience.”[38]
“Primordially, God is infinite in his conceptual ordering of all possibilities”
and “God as primordial seems to have a firm empirical rootage.”[39]
“Now surely in some sense for process thought, God changes.  Because this
change does not involve any change in the form of God or in God’s nature or
character, it is better not to use the language of ‘evolution’…”[40]
“Whitehead sees God working in our history for a world in which each
respects all others, in which all are free, in which the coordination that is
necessary for society is effected largely by persuasion, and in which there is
such approximation to social and economic equality as is possible.”[41] (11)
Another statement about God that Process cannot account for also has
implication for one’s doctrine of man’s afterlife.  According to Cobb, “The
only immorality would seem to be in God, as both Whitehead and
Hartshorne have emphasized.”[42] He arrived at the conclusion that only
God is immortal because in his view, creatures such as man cannot have
eternal living existence: “Indeed, for process thought, the notion of any form
of creaturely existence enduring forever seems inherently implausible.”[43]
This goes against what Scripture has revealed, that God has set eternity in
the hearts of man (Ecclesiastes 3:11).  And yet, when Cobb’s belief is
epistemologically pressed, his claim that only God exists in the eternal future
(with its corollary, Man will cease to exist) is unfounded: Cobbs cannot
justify his proposition about the eternal future since “sense-perception
furnishes us with knowledge only about the present world expressed in
terms of mathematical structures characterized by sense qualities.”[44]
If empiricism does not lead to the propositions Process Theology claims
about God, then they really can not know the god of Process Theism. 
Believing that “all knowledge is empirically tested,”[45] it turns out that
Process theology is self-refuting.  John Frame’s description of the self-
refuting is indeed applicable to Process Theology:  “Some philosophical
theories are said to be self-refuting because they set up conditions of
meaning, rationality, and/or truth that they themselves are unable to
meet.”[46]
(B) Subjectivism
Some Process theologians probably realize the tension of the coherence of
empiricism in their epistemology. Loomer’s statement is quite telling:
“The primary question is how do we know that our bodies function in sense-
perception anyway?  This knowledge is not derived from sense-experience
itself.  Even if we were to look in a mirror, we would only see our eyes; we
would not see our eyes functioning in sense-perception.  The knowledge of
the witness of our bodily organs in sense-perception is derived non-
sensuously.”[47]
Trying to rescue their epistemology, Process theologians attempt to ground
the basis for empiricism in man’s physical body. Why the human body? 
Loomer explains: “The human body is selected as the basic course for our
data because it is that part of our environment with which we most
intimately react.”[48] The choice makes sense to Process theologian because
“sense-experience is wholly contingent upon the functioning of the body,
what Whitehead calls ‘the withness of the body.’”[49] In grounding
empiricism to man’s physical body, what Whitehead and his followers have
done is actually made man as the authority of all truth instead of God and
His Word.  In other words, truth has to be conformed to what is dictated by
the human body:
“There is another methodological principle which is important in the method
of empirical analysis: what we have called the ‘monastic principle’…
Whitehead attempts to construct, in a sense, a universalized psychology:
the rest of the physical universe is to be interpreted in accordance with what
we know of the human body.”[50]
Of course, the problem with the statement above is that it assumes there is
a correspondence between truths in the physical universe with the human
body.  There is no reason given by Process theologians to believe why the
physical universe should necessarily correspond to the human body.
Ultimately, it boils down to man’s physically subjective feelings.  Note the
following comments from Loomer and Cobb:
“Whitehead’s stress here is that the antecedent functioning of our bodies in
sense-perception is derived from a causal physical feeing—vague to be sure
but important.”[51]
“Thus sense-perception is a simplified and abstracted edition of the data we
have non-sensuously inherited by means of causal physical feelings.”[52]
“That is, sensa are forms of emotional reactions; they are aspects of
affective tones.  They are qualifications of the ‘how’ of specific physical
feelings.”[53]
“The data of God’s physical feelings are our subjective experiences.  It is
these that live on in God in their full immediacy.”[54]
Grounding empiricism in feelings compounds the problem of Process
epistemology rather than resolves it.  Process has reduced the objective
nature of empiricism to nothing more than what physical feelings project:
“Sense perception essentially is projection of our inherited bodily
feelings…”[55] What we sense then, is not so much the physical world
outside our body but in essence what our feelings project.  Empiricism then
is reduced to something that is more autobiographical than something actual
of external reality: “The data of sense-perception (i.e., sensa) are not
primarily perceived as qualifications or attributes of regions external to the
human body.”[56] Thus, Process Theology cannot know any truth of the
world outside the individual.  What has begun as an epistemology for
physical hard facts has turned into a defeated epistemology unable to know
anything of the world outside a person’s mind.
Truth then, becomes very subjective.  If the ultimate authority in Process
epistemology is man, and particularly the authority is man’s feelings,
Process epistemology becomes problematic: Led by men’s feeling, there are
many competing and conflicting opinions man has about God and theology. 
Not all of them could all be true in the same sense at the same time, since
this would violate the Law of Non-Contradiction.
The subjective nature of Process epistemology reduces rationality to nothing
more than a matter of preference.  Truth about God becomes nothing more
than individual preferences, where the value of theology is nothing more
than a fashion statement.  If truth (including the truth of God) is nothing
more than preferences of individuals guided by their feelings, the debate
between Process theology and Biblical Christianity becomes unintelligible and
meaningless in the Process worldview:  It’s absurd to debate about your
preference of chocolate ice cream against another person’s preference of
vanilla ice cream.  It is equally absurd then to debate one’s preference of
Process Theology against another person’s preference of Classical Theism.
Yet, Process theologians are inconsistent in their epistemology.  Process
theologians do not believe rational discourse is reduced to nothing more
than subjective feelings.  They believe truth transcends feelings and that
there is an objective mooring to truth.  Process theologians go on to dispute
with other beliefs.  For instance, Cobbs does not believe that God and
nationalism should go together:  “For those who believe in God, such
patriotism calls for reminding the nation that God cares equally for other
peoples and respects their love of their nations.”[57] He believes this is true
despite what Nationalistic theists might believe; Cobb urges them that
rationally God does not love exclusively only one nation, but other nations as
well.  Furthermore, Cobbs assume that truth is beyond what one may feel
about it.  He laments his opinion that the reason why we find “God Almighty”
in the Scriptures “is the result of a fateful decision made by those who
translated the Hebrew Bible into Greek.  These translators found in Genesis
and Job extensive references to El Shaddai, or just Shaddai.  This was a
proper name for a god who was originally, we may assume, not identical
with Yahweh.  Yahweh they translated as the Lord.”[58] Whether or not his
claim is true, it is definitely true that he believes the basis for this truth is
not subjective feelings but objective historical and lexical factors.
Loomer has stated that “God is not to be treated as an exception to
metaphysical principles but rather as their chief exemplification.  To hold
otherwise is to deny that we can have any natural knowledge of God.”[59] If
this is the natural knowledge of God that Process purports to have, one is
better off with what God has revealed about Himself instead.
(C) Process’ doctrine of revelation
As seen in the above, what Process theologians need is not the wisdom of
man to know God, but to know God from God’s revelation.  Yet, their
doctrine of revelation has attempted to set up roadblocks against the very
thing they need to construct proper theology: God’s authoritative revelation
about Himself.  According to Donald Viney in the Stanford’s Encyclopedia of
Philosophy, “process theism is a genuinely philosophical theology in the
sense that it is not grounded in claims of special insight or revealed truth but
in philosophical reflection.”[60] This however, is not entirely true.  Process
Theologian Russell Pregeant has stated, “A majority of process theologians
also embrace a doctrine of revelation.  They understand it, however, in a
way that does not involve God’s literal intervention in the world.”[61]
Process’ doctrine of revelation emphatically denies the supernatural
characteristic of God’s revelation:  “This communication, in other words,
does not involve the violation of the order of the natural world.”[62] By
denying the supernatural, Process has redefined what they mean when they
say that the Bible is inspired.  Cobb notes, “But inspiration is not something
supernatural.  God works in all events; an element of inspiration is present
in all creative thought.”[63] According to their understanding of inspiration
then, the Bible then is no different than any other book:
“There is inspiration in the writings of the ancient Greeks and Hindus and
Chinese as well.  There is inspiration also in the writings of Shakespeare and
Goethe and of contemporary poets and dramatists.  All this deserves our
respect and listening.”[64]
As seen above, though they may use the term “inspiration”, it clearly is not
meant in the same way Christians have commonly used this term.  In fact,
they reject what “inspiration” really means: “If the question comes from one
who thinks in very conservative categories, the answer must be an emphatic
no!  The words of the text were not dictated by God.”[65] This leads to a
bizarre statement by Cobb of how “today we may be inspired to reject some
of the ideas that are found even in the most inspired passages of
scripture.”[66]
Process’ doctrine of revelation suffers from internal defect when it comes to
their view of the Bible.  On the one hand, the God’s revelation is not
propositional[67] in nature: “This divine self-disclosure is to be distinguished
from the communication of propositional truth or a body of doctrines,
although it does entail cognitive content.”[68] That is because “from a
process prospective, revelation has an event-character, as it does in so
much recent theology, commensurate with its nature as divine self-
disclosure rather than the communication of propositional truth.”[69] Yet on
the other hand, Process theologians would state that the Bible contains
factual errors:  “The Bible is full of errors of fact, of moral judgment, and of
theological teaching.”[70] Thus, they deny inerrancy:  “Clearly a process
thinker cannot affirm Bible inerrancy or literal historical accuracy.”[71]
However, how can the Bible have anything thing false or in error if the Bible
is not propositional to begin with?  To illustrate, take for instance the
following phrase: “Hey You all.”  The phrase gives no propositional truth,
since it is neither a true or false statement (it is just a greeting).  It is
incorrect to say that the statement “Hey You all” is false.  The same is the
situation with Process theologian’s denial of the propositional nature of the
Bible and then saying the Bible is false:  A categorical fallacy has been
committed when they say that the Bible is false, because supposedly the
Bible does not contain statements that are true or false.
Furthermore, Process’ epistemology believes that there can never be
falsehood and error: “In the pure form of either causal efficacy or sense-
perception, Whitehead claims that there is no error.  Error arises from
improper ‘symbolic reference’ which is the fusion of the two pure
modes.”[72] Why then does Process theology suddenly find it convenient to
fault the Bible with error?
THE HOPE: THE BIBLE IS GOD’S WORD
The above has attempted to demonstrate the self-defeating and arbitrary
nature in the epistemology of Process theology.  Rather experience
pessimism, there is hope of knowing God by going to the Bible.
The Bible, being God’s written authoritative revelation, is what Process
theologians need to escape the futility of their system.  Being finite when
God is infinite, being prone to error because of the effect of sin and the Fall,
any knowledge of God has to be disclosed to us by Himself.  The God of the
Bible can reveal Himself to us through His Word because of who God is: He
knows all things, including things about Himself.  Statements about who He
is, will be true for all times because His nature, character and Word never
changes.  The god of Process Theology is unable to reveal himself: it has no
authority, cannot control humans to write exactly what it wants, happens to
change all the time and everything which affects creation and creatures
affects him.  Whether or not God or any false god can or cannot reveal
Himself or itself is determined by what that God or god is like.[73]
The epistemology of Process Theology confirms the glorious truth of God’s
rhetorical boasts when He asks, “Where is the wise man?  Where is the
scribe?  Where is the debater of this age?  Has not God made foolish the
wisdom of the world?” (1st Corinthians 1:20).  Process’ epistemology is
foolishness and self-refuting.  In the end it must be revealed that from the
beginning Process’ epistemology was never meant to discover truth.  Early in
the history of Process Theism, Whitehead was never truly concern about the
truth.  He writes, “It is more important that a proposition be interesting than
that it be true.  The importance of truth is that it adds to interest.”[74]
Christians should not be surprised, because God’s Word has revealed that
man does not want the truth, but rather they suppress the truth in
unrighteousness (Romans 1:18).  They rather worship the creativity of their
own idols (Romans 1:25).  In the end, it is a spiritually moral issue for
Whitehead and his followers:  Will they come to acknowledge their sin of
revolting against the God who has clearly revealed Himself and His invisible
attributes inexcusably to all in general revelation (Romans 1:20), and also in
the self-attesting Word of God (cf. Luke 16:29-31) or perish under the
righteous judgment for their sins of suppressing the truth (Romans 1:18)? 
Will they turn to God to be graciously forgiven and saved through faith alone
by Christ saving work alone?  Process theologians need to repent from the
idol they have constructed.  They need to accept the Bible as the Word of
God and humbly accept the inward testimony of God the Holy Spirit to His
Written Word.[75]