Sentences with phrase «divine omnipotence»

On the other hand, the enormity of suffering by creatures on this earth, and perhaps especially the human suffering of the present century, makes it difficult for us to return to any concept of divine omnipotence in which God stands silently and apathetically beyond the world's evolutionary and historical struggles, able but unwilling to intervene.

In other words, we shall attempt to show that if one desires to pick between process theism and a coherent form of classical theism, one must do so on grounds other than the alleged adequacy or inadequacy of their respective views on divine omnipotence.

The classical theist has to limit divine omnipotence only because of points (1) and (2) above.

For God's omnipotence can create a free responsible being without diminishing created freedom, because divine omnipotence and creaturely responsibility increase together.

Henry also praises Barth for returning divine omnipotence to its proper, preeminent place in Christian dogmatics.

Does scripture teach divine omnipotence of the type that has dominated the tradition?

For the purpose of this discussion, I wish to accept their argument as outlined and to ask whether there remain any differences in the area of beliefs about divine omnipotence and creaturely self - determination that might provide a basis for choosing between classical and process theologies.

They affirm divine omnipotence quite straightforwardly.

Surely, if God could reassert divine omnipotence from time to time, these kinds of things should be done» (PPT 193).

I begin not with the earlier manifestations of proposals that solve the love / power riddle by negating divine omnipotence, thence to move forward in time.

Finally, the doctrine of divine omnipotence runs counter to the idea of the lawfulness of nature which arose with the development of the scientific outlook.

The particular phase of divine omnipotence chosen by David is the marvelous development of a baby in his mother's womb.

On the other hand, the classical theist indicts the process theist for «solving» the problem of evil by forfeiting a meaningful notion of divine omnipotence — i.e., advocating a finite, imperfect deity who is not worthy of worship.

It should not be surprising, accordingly, that one of the chief areas of contention between these rival theisms centers on divine omnipotence.

The process theist indicts the classical theist for proposing a view of divine omnipotence that makes the problem of evil unsolvable — i.e., renders the notion of divine goodness incoherent.

The classical theist indicts the process theist for «solving» the problem of evil by forfeiting a meaningful notion of divine omnipotence while the process theist indicts the classical theist for proposing a view of divine omnipotence that makes the problem of evil unsolvable.

The diminishment of the vital importance of love as an essential aspect of the being of God has been widely repudiated by a return to the New Testament conviction that God is none other than Love itself, with resulting challenges to the established doctrine of divine omnipotence.

This biblical view works against an easy assertion of divine omnipotence.

We may understand why the creation of the cosmos already involves an act of self - humbling on God's part if we reflect briefly upon the theological notion of divine omnipotence.

Hence we shall do well to think of the divine omnipotence as meaning cosmic Love's supreme capacity to work in and through, as well as with, the world, indefatigably and indefeasibly.

According to them, the classical theologian indicts the process theologian with «forfeiting a meaningful notion of divine omnipotence,» while the latter indicts the former with «proposing a view of divine omnipotence that makes the problem of evil insoluble» (PS 11:11).

Recently in these pages David and Randall Basinger discussed the classical and the process theologians» indictments of each other with respect to the relation between evil and divine omnipotence.

To be sure, McCabe wanted to minimize the element of constraint as much as possible, but he felt obliged by his commitment to a literalistic exegesis of biblical prophecy and by a desire to preserve as much of the divine omnipotence as possible to admit that some choices are forced upon persons.

Hartshorne understands classical theism to be characterized by mistaken conceptions of (1) divine perfection, (2) divine omnipotence, (3) divine omniscience, (4) divine sympathy, (5) immortality, and (6) revelation.

The really tough - minded theologians have subordinated such other doctrines as those of God's goodness, justice, and love to that of divine omnipotence.

This is the mistaken notion of divine omnipotence.

God's allowing the world to exist is made possible by a restraining of divine omnipotence.

According to them, the classical theologian indicts the process theologian with «forfeiting a meaningful notion of divine omnipotence,» while the latter indicts the former with «proposing...

From this point of view, the doctrine of divine omnipotence must either be drastically redefined or, I prefer, rejected.

Thomistic and Augustinian traditions at their best have maintained the balance between transcendence and immanence, Infinite and finite, nature and grace, essence and existence, form and matter, universal and particular, human freedom and divine omnipotence.1

These are one way to challenge the hammerlock hold that divine omnipotence has held over its adherents.

Orestes and Sisyphus acknowledge that divine omnipotence is more or less self - evident.

The divine omnipotence does not know the destructive facets of the human exercising of power, but in this world becomes «defenseless» and vulnerable.