This article presented the critical remarks relating to the understanding of the resurrection, proposed by Ph. Clayton and S. Knapp in their book The Predicament of Belief. Science, Philosophy, Faith. The main objections relate to the incorrect putting the research problem, that is interpretation of the resurrection compatible with modern science and erroneous approach to the New Testament’s relations about the resurrection of Christ. A way of solving of this problem is also causing reservations, that is to support the proposed understanding of the resurrection on the theory of emergence, its participatory approach and an understanding of the resurrection appearances as the personal but nonphysical theory of Jesus’ postmortem presence. Doubts are also caused by panentheism, and above all by the rejection of the deity of Jesus Christ. Taking all this into account, it turns out that the resurrection becomes subjective and deeply spiritual event, and the divine action is performed by the impact on the human minds and is not a miraculous event, and it does not suspend the laws of nature. According to the authors, such an approach is compatible with modern science. It is doubtful, however, whether their understanding of the resurrection of Christ makes it possible to understand the phenomenon of Christianity.

This article presented some critical remarks relating to the understanding of the panen-theism as a postmodern revelation, proposed by David Ray Griffin in his book Panentheism and Scientific Naturalism. Rethinking Evil, Morality, Religious Experience, Religious Pluralism, and the Academic Study of Religion. The main objection relates to the question that the American philosopher and theologian presents the philosophical, not theological conception of revelation. In addition he used the assumptions taken from process philosophy of A.N. Whitehead to construct this conception. The result of these assumptions is a new and original understanding of postmodernism. According to these assumptions panentheism is a conception that reflects properly the God-world relationship. Moreover, panentheism, as Griffin said, avoids mistakes of classical theism and extremes of early and late modernity. This panentheism is an integral part of naturalismppp. Griffin’s attempt to equate panentheism and revelation is based on the interaction recognized by him between God and the world. It manifests in the religious experiences and in the human drive to discover truth, which is, as Griffin said, a divinely-instilled drive. Process panentheism is the attempt to reconcile this revelation with the revelation that comes to us through the Abrahamic and other the-istic traditions. But it is difficult to accept that the revelation that comes to us from these religions, especially the revelation realized in Jesus Christ, gave rise to the recognition of the God-world relationship in terms of panentheism proposed by process theology