Sentences with phrase «in classical theism»

This dimension of God's being, however, though hinted at in tentative probings in the Old Testament literature, 2 was indignantly suppressed in classical theism by Greek ideals of perfection, which dictated absolute impassability to God.

Martin wonders, for example, what contradictions I could show in classical theism.

In classical theism, destiny is in the hands of God.

Nevertheless, every thoroughgoing metaphysics must assume or assert some eternal reality or realities, whether it be God in classical theism or the material universe in Marxism or the God - inclusive - of - the - world of Hartshorne.

In classical theism, which insists upon God's simplicity, immutability, and eternality, the eternal essence of God was all that could possibly be revealed of God.

By working out a neoclassical theory of nonliteral religious discourse consistent with his neoclassical theism generally, he has not only overcome the notorious contradictions involved in classical theism's use of analogy and other modes of nonliteral language, he has also given good reasons for thinking that our distinctively modern reflection about God results from two movements of thought, not simply from one.

Second, he points out the logical problems in classical theism.

I know nothing in classical theism that would preclude accepting this principle despite its rarity in classical theism.

Even in classical theism, the question of whether God is «above the law» is deeply complex and quite possibly aporetic, since if God has a nature, it seems to follow that God is dependent on that nature.

Not exact matches

As it happens, the Times Literary Supplement gave the book to the philosopher Anthony Kenny to review, perhaps because he could never be accused of any parti pris in this debate, since he has in the past leveled his own severe criticisms against classical Christian theism for relying on an «outdated Aristotelian cosmology.»

Whatever orthodox believers may think of Kenny's journey over these decades from classical theism to something vaguer, he is at least an equal - opportunity basher: For his aversion to absolutism can equally well be employed against the New Atheists, who affect an apodictic absolutism in their argumentation that makes them as impregnable to counterevidence as anything found in a creationist textbook.

The superman deity uses Basinger's coercionb, and he must realize that the disembodied God of classical theism can, if he is actually able, only coerce in the strong sense (coercion.).

In this sense the above argument can be interpreted as an argument for the coherence of classical theism.

In other words, Griffin's argument is that process theology presents a much more plausible explanation for natural evil than can classical theism.

The God of classical theism is a being who is, in principle, ontologically independent from the world.

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.

In terms of Whitehead's total philosophy the move toward a temporal nature of God seems easy enough, but it was such a novel departure from traditional Western classical theism that it is no wonder that Whitehead was so long blind to these possibilities.

This long discussion of so - called classical theism in its Christian version will have served its purpose if it helps us to understand the reason for the violent antitheistic movements of recent times and to see why some serious thinkers have even said that God is dead.

For this new theism, the significance of Jesus is found first in his providing the classical instance of what is always and everywhere operative, although it is working against serious obstacles that yet can not defeat the cosmic thrust toward loving and sharing.

The systematic question is this: Can one sustain orthodox Protestant soteriology in the long term if one abandons the classical theism and Trinitarianism which underpinned it?

For him, classical theism, as found in the scholastics and in modern philosophy down to Kant, was neither biblical nor intelligently modern.

In one popular study of the problem of God today, John A. T. Robinson questions the relevance of a theism that would think of God as a heavenly, completely perfect person who resides above the world and mankind.4 The same issue is raised by Harvey Cox, who writes: The willingness of the classical philosophers to allow the God of the Bible to be blurred into Plato's Idea of the Good or Aristotle's Prime Mover was fatal.

Indeed, the very topics we neglected in the eighties have become the standard ingredients in the current renaissance of classical theism, where God is established as the ultimate reality.

Process theism might be judged cognitively superior over the classical type kalam model, not because it involves no paradox, but because it involves the least paradox in comparison with the formally possible theological alternatives, when all issues are considered.

If neoclassical theism, like classical theism, is unable to present its vision of God in a way which indicates that God favors the struggle of the oppressed, then the neoclassical alternative will be unacceptable to black theology.

Hartshorne's analysis in Omnipotence and Other Theological Mistakes is defective insofar as it recognizes only three possibilities — the two identified by classical theism and the third which is Whitehead's doctrine of the objective immortality of the past.

Black theology's rootage in the tradition of that other great protest, schism, and reformation which produced the racially separate African - American congregations determines that it is not at all committed to that predominantly white - Western theological tradition which Hartshorne calls «classical theism.»

Classical theism, on the other hand, accepts that only one of any pair of such metaphysical contraries applies to God, and it thereby, in violation of the principle of dual transcendence, produces a monopolar conception of God.

(1) Unlike classical theism, black theology has never conceived of divine perfection in such a way as to entail that God is wholly immutable.

(3) Unlike classical theism, black theology has never conceived divine omniscience in a way that denies that the future is at least partly open.

We may then begin this critical reflection upon Hartshorne's «neoclassical theism» or «process theology» with the observation that both black and neoclassical theologies are defined in large part by their opposition to or protest against certain features of classical Western theism.

(5) Classical theism errs in conceiving of «immortality as a career after death» (OOTM 4).

Hartshorne attributes this consistent violation of the principle of dual transcendence to the fact that classical theism has placed too much faith in Greek philosophy, and to a Western prejudice according to which absolute independence along with the power to the cause of events is regarded as a superior attribute while relativity and the capacity to be an effect is mistakenly regarded as an inferior attribute.»

The opposition between black theology and classical theism, on the one hand, and the opposition between neoclassical theism and classical theism, on the other, tell us little about the status of black theology in respect to neoclassical theism.

(2) Unlike classical theism, black theology has never conceived divine omnipotence in a way that entails that whatever happens is entirely determined by God.

There is nothing in the theory of evolution, nor in astronomy, or in geology, nor in paleontology, or any other branch of the sciences which contradicts Christianity, or any other type of theism (except Mormonism — we know scientifically that the Indian peoples of the Americas are not descended from the Jews — which is a key point of belief for them, much more central than there having been a literal Garden of Eden is for classical Christianity or Judaism).

The primary difference between the process concept of God as creator - preserver of the world and that of classical theism is that the former insists God ought not be conceived as aloof to and unaffected by what happens in the world.

Classical theism opts for the second alternative in the form of conventional views of personal immortality.

I am encouraged by his acceptance of a substantial part of my criticism of classical theism as found in Aquinas; however, he sides with Aquinas and against me on some issues.

In the 17th and 18th centuries, a distinction familiar in classical antiquity was revived: the dividing line was drawn not between Christianity and other religions, but between popular religion, including Christianity, and a purely rational theisIn the 17th and 18th centuries, a distinction familiar in classical antiquity was revived: the dividing line was drawn not between Christianity and other religions, but between popular religion, including Christianity, and a purely rational theisin classical antiquity was revived: the dividing line was drawn not between Christianity and other religions, but between popular religion, including Christianity, and a purely rational theism.

It is the doctrine of panentheism (all in God) as distinct from classical theism (Birch 1990).

Process theologians can share with other critics in pointing out that classical theism developed its doctrines on assumptions derived from Greek rather that biblical thought.

Whereas classical theism had described God as wholly other than the world and classical pantheism had identified God and the world, in Hartshorne's view God includes the world while transcending it.

Though Hartshorne has never given a great deal of attention in his writings to concrete religious phenomena, he has always been concerned about the religious significance of his work, He advocates the neoclassical conception of God partly because he believes it is more in keeping with religious experience than classical formulations of either theism or pantheism.

In this scheme the quantifiers «all,» «some,» and «none» are combined with the ideas of «absolute perfection,» «relative perfection,» and «imperfection'to produce seven different conceptions of deity which are conveniently grouped into three broad types of theism: classical theism, within which God is conceived as absolutely perfect in all respects and in no way surpassable; atheistic views, in which there is no being which is in any respect perfect or unsurpassable; and the «new theism,» in which God is in some respects perfect and unsurpassable by others but is surpassable by himselIn this scheme the quantifiers «all,» «some,» and «none» are combined with the ideas of «absolute perfection,» «relative perfection,» and «imperfection'to produce seven different conceptions of deity which are conveniently grouped into three broad types of theism: classical theism, within which God is conceived as absolutely perfect in all respects and in no way surpassable; atheistic views, in which there is no being which is in any respect perfect or unsurpassable; and the «new theism,» in which God is in some respects perfect and unsurpassable by others but is surpassable by himselin all respects and in no way surpassable; atheistic views, in which there is no being which is in any respect perfect or unsurpassable; and the «new theism,» in which God is in some respects perfect and unsurpassable by others but is surpassable by himselin no way surpassable; atheistic views, in which there is no being which is in any respect perfect or unsurpassable; and the «new theism,» in which God is in some respects perfect and unsurpassable by others but is surpassable by himselin which there is no being which is in any respect perfect or unsurpassable; and the «new theism,» in which God is in some respects perfect and unsurpassable by others but is surpassable by himselin any respect perfect or unsurpassable; and the «new theism,» in which God is in some respects perfect and unsurpassable by others but is surpassable by himselin which God is in some respects perfect and unsurpassable by others but is surpassable by himselin some respects perfect and unsurpassable by others but is surpassable by himself.

Thus, in contrast to the monopolar God of classical theism, Hartshorne's God is dipolar.

In fact, it seems fair to say that the most common criticism process theists level against the God of classical free will theism is the claim that if such a being really existed and were wholly good, we should expect to see displays of divine coercive power more often.

However, those who follow Hartshorne in much of his critique of classical theism often part ways with him on the World - Soul analogy.

I portrayed them, correctly I think, as remaining obsessed — albeit negatively — with the classical god of metaphysical theism, while I was talking about Someone Else, the mysterious and elusive Other of the prophets and Jesus, who — like Jacques Brel — was very much alive although living in unexpected quarters.

By this I mean that we already have before us a way of conceiving the reality of God, in comparison with which the theism of the classical tradition can be seen to be but a first and rather rough approximation.