Theistic Conception Of God Research Articles

Contemporary Cosmology is Irrelevant to Classical Theistic Christian Eschatology

ABSTRACT Some are of the opinion that cosmological predictions regarding the future of the physical universe contradict or challenge the Christian eschatological hope for a “new heavens and new earth” (2 Pet. 3:13). The present essay argues that cosmological science is irrelevant to classical theistic Christian eschatology on two grounds. First, cosmology does not substantially inform Christian eschatology, which already affirmed the demise of the cosmos on theological grounds. Second, cosmology does not challenge eschatology if a classical theistic conception of God and its corollary doctrines of creatio ex nihilo and divine conservation and concurrence are admitted.

Towards a Political Theology of Vulnerability Anthropological and Theological Propositions

Recent experiences of terror, violence, and catastrophe, such as the terror attacks in Norway in 2011 or the Peshawar School Massacre leaving 132 children and nine staff dead on December 16, 2014, strengthen the sense of the fundamental vulnerability in human existence. In this article, it is argued that political theology, in responding to such experiences, should aim at perceiving and protecting vulnerability as a value. For this purpose, basic propositions for a theological anthropology of vulnerability are put forward. Likewise, propositions for interpreting God as vulnerable are presented, criticizing the traditional theistic concept of God as immutable and hence unable to suffer. The relevance of these propositions for political theology is finally addressed.

Perfect being ethics

In a 1987 paper Thomas Morris introduced the phrase ‘perfect being theology’ and argued that in our efforts to construct an adequate theistic conception of God the most fruitful procedure will be for us to engage in reflection and dialogue about what a maximally perfect being would be like (‘Perfect Being Theology,’ Nous 21:19–30). To some of us that approach seems so obvious as to be without a significant alternative, but there are other approaches that have been followed – such as working up a conception of God solely from the statements in a purported repository of divine revelation, such as the Bible (for example, when I was in seminary in Yale Divinity School in the early 1960's, ‘biblical theology’ was the rage and ‘philosophical theology’ was looked down upon). Another approach has been to study a wide range of religious scriptures to see what common conception of the divine can be found in them or most plausibly constructed from them. Those approaches, Morris said, have left us with something unsatisfactorily incomplete, static, and perhaps self-contradictory. Morris argued, a la St. Anselm and René Descartes, that the notion of a maximally perfect being is the north star that has been at the heart of the theistic traditions of the world, and it is that notion that we must explore and elaborate in order that we might construct an adequate conception of God. I agree.

The Miracle of Being: Cosmology and the Experience of God

The new scientific cosmology which has emerged over the past forty years seems to be forcing philosophers and theologians alike to rethink the traditional theistic conception of God in which God is pictured as a First Cause designer of the universe in favor of what Joseph Campbell more mystically calls an “immanent ground of being, transcendent of conceptualization.” The central thrust of these reflections is that we encounter that “immanent ground of being” through the experience of wonder and awe. Since actual experience is involved, then a phenomenological description of exactly what it is in the new cosmology (and the universe) which induces such wonder is possible. The basic thesis is that we experience wonder in the face of the remarkable and transcendent (beyond finite predicates and understanding) coming-into-being of nature over twelve to fifteen billion years. Wonder is the human reaction to and appreciation for the astounding fact that nature and all of its parts actually are. It is; we are; such is the ineffable beyond in our midst.

Morality and Christian Theism

The relation between morality and religion has often been discussed. However, it is not always recognized that the relation varies greatly according to the variety of religions. I shall here be concerned solely with Christian theism in its traditional form. I take the latter to signify, essentially, belief in a morally perfect Creator who exists in the threefold form of Father, Son and Holy Spirit and who, in the person of the Son, became man in Christ for our salvation. I thus exclude from consideration all non-theistic accounts of God or the Absolute (such as pantheism or process thought). Also I shall consider, not simply bare theism of the kind that Christians share with Jews and Muslims, but also the distinctively Christian form of theism that is generated by distinctively Christian revelation. Many otherwise sound descriptions of the relation between morality and theism are defective because they fail to consider the distinctively Christian contribution to the theistic concept of God and of his relation to the world.

God, Happiness and Evil

In a recent article, George Schlesinger adds his thoughts to the quite extensive literature on the Problem of Evil and the Problem of Suffering. What is noteworthy about this article is the fact that the author, after briefly discussing a number of familiar arguments for and against the traditional theistic conception of God as both omnipotent and perfectly good, attempts to dissolve the problem itself as a pseudo-problem. In the present paper I wish (1) to try to show that Schlesinger's attempt fails, whether or not he is right in his conclusion that the problem of evil is not a genuine problem; and (2) to raise, in the course of my criticism, certain fundamental questions that must be answered if the controversy between theists and their critics is to become logically capable of resolution. Further, in relation to (1) and (2), I shall (3) offer a very preliminary sketch of some of the fundamental terms or concepts involved in the discussion of the problem of evil and related issues of philosophical theology. I shall begin by saying a few things about Schlesinger's discussion of some of the familiar attempts of theists to resolve the problem, and the equally familiar attacks of the sceptics. I shall then pass to a criticism of Schlesinger's main thesis.

The Doctrine of God in Personalism

THE THOMIST A SPECULATIVE QUARTERLY REVIEW OF THEOLOGY AND PHILOSOPHY EDITORS: THE DoMINICAN FATHERS OF THE PRovINCE OF ST. JosEPB Publishers: The Thomist Press, Washington 17, D. C. VoL. XIV APRIL, 1951 No. 9l THE DOCTRINE OF GOD IN PERSONALISM I T HEISM has an obvious significance for any philosophical system which claims to uphold the intrinsic value of finite persons. Historically, the Christian' teaching on the inestimable value of the human person has been closely linked with the theistic conception of God, through the doctrine of man's final end. Personal immortality, and the existence of a personal, Infinite God have been the foci around which Christian thought on this matter has revolved. The notion of God as creative and provident, with the consequent concept of man's personal destiny, was decisive in the formulation of a Christian Personalism. A decisive advance was thereby accomplished on the Greek conception of man and the universe. The necessitarianism of Greek metaphysics, and the lack of a doctrine of creation, prevented the Greeks from ever formulating a comprehensive philosophical explanation of 161 16~ JOHN A. CREAVEN the world and man, and rendered impossible the task of building up a religious world-view which could be validated by philosophic principles. " When Greek philosophy came to an end," says Gilson, " what was sorely needed for progress in natural theology was progress in metaphysics." 1 And, as Gilson remarks, when such progress was made by the fourth century, A. D., it was made wholly and decisively under the influence of the Christian religion. It is but natural, therefore, that the many systems recently competing for favor under the rather elastic title of "Personalism " have, for the greater part, a strongly theistic flavor. Such systems unanimously find in the person the ultimate unit of reality. and agree on giving a primary place· 1)o the doctrine of personality. But the lesson of history is that any attempt to found the value of the human person independently of any relation to a transcendent, personal God is doomed to failure. No true Personalist can, then, afford to neglect the claims of Theism and natural theology to a place in his ..system. Hence the strongly theistic flavor of most forms of Personalism, indicating that they are in this matter, though often unconsciously, the heirs of the Christian tradition. One can scarcely fail to notice the insistence with which the problem of God returns in the successive issues of The Personalist.2 This theistic bias has been strengthened through the strong influence that has been exercised, historically, on Personalism by the current of thought known as "Personal Idealism." s The group o1 British philosophers who were protagonists of this doctrine represent a vigorous reaction, within idealism, against the Absolutism and monism of German Hegelianism. Combating the pantheistic 1 E. Gilson, God and Phuosophy, New Haven, Yale University Press, 1941, p. 87. "Published by the University of Southern California, Los Angeles. 8 R. Metz regards this school as a part of the Neo-ldealist movement (Cf. A Hundred Years of British Philosophy, pp. 880-898). Among the typical representatives of the school he lists A. S. Pringle-Pattison, J. Seth, W. R. Sorley, and H. Rashdall. While their general positions present many similarities, there is no rigid, systematic unity; their writings represent a general attempt often not very original, to strike a compromise between Absolutism and extreme pluralism. Cf. infra for an evaluation of their attempt. THE DOCTRINE OF GOD IN PERSONALISM 168 tendency of Hegel, they defended the personal character of God, and the individual value of the human person. Hegelian panlogism had rendered impossible even a modified pluralism, by its merging of human and divine consciousness in an unique, universal Self. The personal idealists strove to establish the value of :finite personality, by restoring it to the epistemological setting in which it had been envisaged by Kant.4 Such attempts served as a wholesome reaction against the Hegelian Absolutism and the Neo-Hegelianism of Bradley, Bosanquet and Green. Still, the general positions reached were often' unsatisfactory from the theistic standpoint.5 And, in so far as they purported to safeguard :finite personality, their doctrines . were fr_equently, from the metaphysical...