Sentences with phrase «divine immutability»

But the notion that began to gain traction, in the midst of the twentieth century's horrors piled one on top of another, that God truly suffers, becomes possible only when the illusion of divine immutability is shed.

To assert the divine immutability is to assert the immutability of soul, at least as soul is collected into itself and not dispersed and confused by its transitory and traumatic union with the body.

But first what argument does Plato present in Republic II for divine immutability?

Underlying all these reflections is Aquinas» modification of the doctrine of divine immutability through his appropriation of Aristotle's definition of the Highest Being as the «Unmoved Mover.»

Aquinas concentrated his attention on the doctrine of divine immutability in Question 9, repeating there that God is «first being» and «pure act, without the admixture of any potentiality.»

McCabe directed his attention to this question of God's foreknowledge because it was a lively concern to his predominantly Methodist audience and also because he believed that the defense of foreknowledge accounted for theology's commitment to divine immutability.

Just this: that, far from being unconcerned about the human plight, the Church Fathers were motivated by their theology of salvation in upholding doctrines of divine immutability and impassibility (God's transcendence of human suffering and passions).

Not exact matches

Consequently, according to Moltmann and others, the only God we can believe in now is a God who suffers, and the ancient Christian doctrines of divine simplicity, immutability, and impassibility must be discarded.

God's perfection is seen in the divine changelessness, immutability, impassability, and eternity.

In The Crucified God (originally, 1972), an intentionally provocative title, Moltmann saw clearly that traditional Christian thought tried to resolve the tension between God's love and God's self - contained immutability by championing the Stoic elevation of apatheia as a way of characterizing a divine love that is no in way affected by the recipient of that love.

First, he believes that in the modern era, the Church Fathers» ideas about divine attributes, traditionally dear to Catholics and Protestants alike — such as divine perfection, simplicity, eternity, and immutability — have to be evaluated anew in light of a narrative reading of the Gospel.

This manifests itself not only in the way in which Aristotelian notions of the «unmoved mover» or neo-Platonic ideas of «being - subsisting from - itself» have been taken to be the proper definition of what is meant when we speak of «God», but also in liturgical language where all too often the basic concept implied or (as most often seems to be the case) affirmed is the utter immutability of deity, along with the rigidly legalistic moralism which it is suggested should mark those who claim to «obey» the divine mandates.

The understanding of God that he came to is sharply critical of many of our inherited notions, particularly concerning divine omniscience, omnipotence, and immutability.

A God not hemmed in by a doctrine of immutability becomes open to the adventure of divine love.

God's immutability has been disputed by the preferability of a divine nature that is open to, and responsive to, new developments, in continuity with the biblical witness.

The understanding of God that Whitehead came to is sharply critical of many of our inherited notions, particularly concerning divine omniscience, omnipotence, and immutability.

Again, when Kierkegaard defended freedom in the same human - divine context (but did not alter the immutability of deity and thus fell behind the Socinians) how long was it before anyone saw what was wrong and that the job had been better done long before?