Friedrich Schleiermacher and omnipotence

Drina Gorge, Serbia (trekearth.com)

A portion of my PhD revisions:

Friedrich Schleiermacher (1768-1834)[1] according to W.A. Hoffecker (1996), is considered to be a very influential theologian of the nineteenth century,[2] and the father of liberal Protestant theology.[3] Schleiermacher’s views on omnipotence can be contrasted with traditional view discussed.[4] Editors H.R. Mackintosh and J.S. Stewart (1821)(1928)(1976) within the Editors Preface of Schleiermacher’s 1821 text The Christian Faith provide the opinion that besides John Calvin’s Institutes[5], The Christian Faith is the most important work covering Christian theology and doctrine within Protestantism.[6] George Cross within his 1913 text, The Theology of Schleiermacher explains that in Schleiermacher’s theology human religious consciousness[7] expresses a relation between God and the world,[8] and therefore the consciousness of a dependence on God only arises in connection with the world.[9] God-consciousness[10] is connected with every human experience[11] and this is a demand upon human nature.[12] and this means every ‘world-impression’ must be able to connect with religious feeling.[13] God-consciousness is not only a contingent aspect of human experience,[14] as this would not allow God omnipotence to be an obtained expression in this world.[15] God’s omnipotence can only be referred to as finite human beings are affected by it through our God consciousness.[16] Divine omnipotence will be conceived by persons as eternal and omnipresent[17] as everything in reality is already ‘posited through finite causes in time and space.’[18] Everything that exists by natural order still takes places through divine omnipotence and therefore through One, that being God.[19] W.B. Selbie (1911)(2009) explains that for Schleiermacher, the almighty nature of God is ‘grounded in the infinite causality’ of the divine God.[20] Persons understand the manifested causality of God through human dependence on everything that comes from this divine being.[21] There is little difference for Schleiermacher between what can do and what God will do.[22] God’s omnipotence is energy everywhere in action and equates to all possible things.[23] God can do what he wills, and ‘whichever is greater than the other, the will or the ability, there is always a limitation.’[24] This limitation is only done away with for Schleiermacher when what God can do and will do, are equal in range.[25] The inner power of God to do something and his will do it cannot be separated.[26] God’s almighty power is not the power to do anything, but instead anything God pleases.[27] The divine power of the Almighty is subject to self-limitations which are connected to both God’s moral nature and the freedom of his human creatures.[28] The one all-embracing divine will is identical with eternal omnipotence.[29]

Schleiermacher’s approach redefines Christian religion as a unique element of human experience, not located in the intellectual and moral aspects of persons as these produce indirect knowledge concerning God only.[30] God is instead experienced through feeling.[31] The infinite God is experienced through human experience with the finite world[32] and not primarily from rational and doctrinal concepts.[33] Therefore, Schleiermacher, unlike many traditional and Reformed approaches with the omnipotence of God[34] is not primarily concerned with a dogma and doctrine[35] concerning the omnipotence of God, but is instead focused on how God is experienced by persons[36], and this would include God’s attribute of omnipotence. I personally still favour a doctrinal approach[37] but also grant that an understanding of God, which can include both intellectual and emotional[38] aspects can be reasonably theologically considered. Also, there is at least minimally, some truth to the notion that the omnipotence of God with the approach of Schleiermacher, can be experienced by persons through the finite world.[39] God’s almighty power and will[40] can be somewhat deduced through his creation that human beings experience daily.[41]

[1] Grenz and Olson (1992: 40). Hoffecker (1996: 983).
[2] Hoffecker (1996: 981). Stephen Neill and Tom Wright explain that Schleiermacher’s influence upon theology was notable by the end of the eighteenth century. Neill and Wright (1964)(1988: 3).
[3] Hoffecker (1996: 981). Stanley J. Grenz and Roger E. Olson reason Schleiermacher is a pioneer in theology. Grenz and Olson (1992: 40). His influence on contemporary theology ‘can hardly be over estimated.’ Grenz and Olson (1992: 39).
[4] Traditional and Reformed.
[5] Calvin, John (1539)(1998) The Institutes of the Christian Religion.
[6] Mackintosh and Stewart (1821)(1928)(1976: v).
[7] As discussed and referenced from Schleiermacher’s text The Christian Faith. See also Selbie (1911)(2009: 68-70).
[8] Cross (1913)(2009: 1). Selbie (1911)(2009: 68-70).
[9] Cross (1913)(2009: 1). Selbie (1911)(2009: 68-70). Schleiermacher (1821)(1928)(1976: 212-213).
[10] This will be further discussed in Chapter Four, as Schleiermacher’s views have influenced John Hick.
[11] Cross (1913)(2009: 1). Schleiermacher (1821)(1928)(1976: 212-213).
[12] Cross (1913)(2009: 1). Schleiermacher (1821)(1928)(1976: 212-213).
[13] Cross (1913)(2009: 1).
[14] Cross (1913)(2009: 1).
[15] Cross (1913)(2009: 1).
[16] Cross (1913)(2009: 1).
[17] Schleiermacher (1821)(1928)(1976: 212).
[18] Schleiermacher (1821)(1928)(1976: 212).
[19] Schleiermacher (1821)(1928)(1976: 212).
[20] Selbie (1911)(2009: 68). Within natural order every effect has been ordained by divine causality. Schleiermacher (1821)(1928)(1976: 212).
[21] Selbie (1911)(2009: 68). Persons understand omnipotence also based on a feeling of ‘absolute dependence’ on God. Schleiermacher (1821)(1928)(1976: 212-213).
[22] Schleiermacher (1821)(1928)(1976: 214). Selbie (1911)(2009: 68).
[23] Selbie (1911)(2009: 68). Selbie further explains that omnipotence for Schleiermacher is the ‘infinity of divine productivity.’ Selbie (1911)(2009: 70).
[24] Schleiermacher (1821)(1928)(1976: 214).
[25] Schleiermacher (1821)(1928)(1976: 214).
[26] Schleiermacher (1821)(1928)(1976: 214). Selbie (1911)(2009: 68).
[27] Selbie (1911)(2009: 68).
[28] Selbie (1911)(2009: 68-69).
[29] Schleiermacher (1821)(1928)(1976: 214).
[30] Hoffecker (1996: 982).
[31] Hoffecker (1996: 982). Schleiermacher (1821)(1928)(1976: 212-213).
[32] Schleiermacher (1821)(1928)(1976: 212-213).
[33] Hoffecker (1996: 982).
[34] Such as Erickson and Frame.
[35] Hoffecker (1996: 982). Schleiermacher (1821)(1928)(1976: 212-213).
[36] Schleiermacher (1821)(1928)(1976: 212-213).
[37] In particular a Reformed perspective.
[38] Including feelings. Hoffecker (1996: 982). Schleiermacher (1821)(1928)(1976: 212-213).
[39] Schleiermacher (1821)(1928)(1976: 212-213).
[40] Schleiermacher (1821)(1928)(1976: 214-215).
[41] Romans, Chapter 1 indicates this idea and C.E.B. Cranfield explains that since creation persons have viewed within that creation God’s eternal power and his divine nature. Cranfield (1992: 32). Robert H. Mounce reasons God is explained within this Chapter as being understandable to persons as powerful and existing beyond natural order. Mounce (1995: 78). The Bible of course does not deal with the philosophical term ‘omnipotence’ but implies in Romans 1 that God is almighty and beyond the visible physical realm.

SCHLEIERMACHER, FRIEDRICH (1799)(1961) On Religion, in Elie Kedourie, Nationalism, New York, Praeger University Series.

SCHLEIERMACHER, FRIEDRICH (1821)(1928)(1976) The Christian Faith, Edited by H.R. Mackintosh and J.S. Stewart, Philadelphia, Fortress Press. My MPhil and PhD theses topics are the problem of evil, and the problem of evil and theodicy have been discussed on my blogs.

Propaganda posters related to the problem of evil have generated some traffic for me and I present some more posters.

I am trying to learn and educate through history and my aim is not to offend.

From

http://www.oddee.com/item_66536.aspx


World War Two: United States


World War Two: Germany

From site:

'This poster makes a direct Christological comparison of Hitler. Just as a dove descended on Christ when he was baptised by John the Baptist, so what looks to be an eagle hovers against the light of heaven over an idealized Hitler.'

Christ obeyed the Father and his Kingdom was not of this world. John 18: 36.

Hilter sought to establish a Kingdom (Third Reich) in this fallen present realm.

Christ's Kingdom is within different realm with a new heaven and new earth. Revelation 21-22.

Hilter was no Christ.

From

http://abduzeedo.com/47-soviet-propaganda-posters


Giant Stalin, World War Two: The Soviet Union

From

http://www.iisg.nl/landsberger/


Giant Mao, 1969: The People's Republic of China

Consciousness, universalism, and Dos Equis

Ljubljana, Slovenia (photo from trekearth.com)

I have been trying to post on my latest revisions concerning consciousness, but between Blogger, Microsoft Word and Internet Explorer 8 it has been a disaster.

For whatever reason, Blogger will not post the new work from my PhD properly! I have posted Word footnotes previously.

Anyway, this post concerning universalism was on this blog previously and to be honest, I reason more of you would find this interesting than my latest work on consciousness. Most of you have not read it and it only had six comments originally.

It relates also to my PhD work.

But here is a sampling of my consciousness work...

Sir John Houghton defines consciousness as ‘a quality possessed by human beings’ and the extent that it may be possessed by higher animals is the subject of debate. Houghton (1995: 219). Although the human brain is sometimes compared to a computer, the human brain seems different as it thinks, feels, and demonstrates the property of self-awareness and consciousness. Houghton (1995: 92).

Rocco J. Gennaro of Indiana State University documents grammatically that the main term under review, 'consciousness' is derived from the Latin con (with) and scire (know). Gennaro (2006: 1). Michael Winkelman of the American Anthropological Association writes that common understanding of a model of consciousness includes attention-awareness, phenomenal experiences, self-referencing, learning and the use of information, interpreting meanings, having goals, and systems of social reference. It is suggested that consciousness manifests itself through the physical properties of the brain. Winkelman (2004: 1).

Biologist Alfred Gierer from Tubingen suggests that consciousness appears as ‘a system’s feature of our brain with neural processes strictly following the laws of physics’. Gierer (2003: 1). Gierer explains that there is not however, a general and exhaustive theory of human consciousness. Gierer (2003: 1).

Houghton admits it is difficult for many observers to accept that consciousness can be defined in a meaningful way or to describe it in terms of other things. Houghton (1995: 92-93).

Within my PhD consciousness is connected to human desires and free will.

Gierer reasons one of the difficulties with the problem of understanding human consciousness and understanding humanity is the question of human free will. Gierer (2003: 13).

GENNARO, ROCCO, J. (2006) ‘Consciousness’, in The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Martin, Tennessee, The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

GIERER, ALFRED (2003) ‘Brain, mind, and limitations of a scientific theory of human consciousness’, Preprint of a contribution to the symposium: Proteus im Spiegel-Kritische Theorie des Subjekts im 20, Tubingen, Max-Planck-Institute Biology, Tubingen.

HOUGHTON, JOHN (1995) The Search for God, Can Science Help?, Lion Publishing, Oxford.

WINKELMAN, MICHAEL (2004) ‘Understanding Consciousness Using Systems Approaches and Lexical Universal’, American Anthropological Association, Arlington, Virginia, American Anthropological Association.

The interesting advertising campaign is from Dos Equis and was not with the original post. I have seen this campaign on television in British Columbia for the first time this week, but viewed it on Jake's blog months ago. The ads are both entertaining and in my mind somewhat philosophical at points.

No, I am not a huge drinker of alcoholic beverages, but I tried Dos Equis and it was quite good.

Please feel free to comment and yes I realize two of the clips seem perhaps identical but they are not.

Within the concept of soul-making theodicy, John Hick explains that once a human being dies a conscious personality continues to exist. Hick (1978: 12). He concludes that for soul-making to succeed post-mortem existence must include the ability to make moral and spiritual choices. Hick (1978: 13). Robert Smid writes that Hick believes that humanity will complete their soul-making via the afterlife, as a loving God must desire the salvation of all people. Smid (1999: 12). Hick reasons that since God has perfect knowledge of the human heart he would eventually succeed in bringing all persons in devotion to him. Hick (1970: 381). Hick holds to universalism, which John Ankerberg and John Weldon explain is the theological idea that salvation is universal and therefore as a result each person will eventually be redeemed in heaven in God’s presence. Ankerberg and Weldon (1999: 503). John Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli explain that universalism is universal salvation and has been considered by some well known orthodox Christians over the centuries as a viable alternative to hell, although Kreeft and Tacelli reject this concept. Kreeft and Tacelli (1994: 286). D.B. Eller writes that universalism affirms the idea that eventually all souls will be released from penalties of sin and restored to God. Eller (1996: 1128).

In Matthew 7:13-14, Jesus uses an illustration relating to the ultimate destiny of individuals and explains that few persons enter by the narrow gate, and the wide and broad way of destruction is found by many. William Barclay points out, that Luke 13:24 is presenting a similar idea which may have come from the same original source, but reached the author of Luke from a different tradition. Barclay (1975: 97). In Luke, Jesus explains that many will strive to enter by the narrow gate, but shall not be able to. Barclay (1975: 97). This idea from Jesus would fit with a compatibilistic theology where God uses soft determinism to elect individuals to salvation. From this perspective, human beings with the use of free will alone cannot choose God. Within a sovereignty perspective, God will choose whom he wills to be present in his culminated Kingdom, and those he elects shall believe and follow him without being forced or coerced to do so. I reason that as God regenerates an individual by the Holy Spirit, he simultaneously determines that the person shall freely with the use of a limited, but significant free will, believe in Christ. Sentimentally, universalism is humanly more comforting, but it appears that Jesus disagreed with Hick on universalism. Laurence E. Porter describes a scenario in Luke 13:24-28 where some religious persons are rejected by God. Porter (1986: 1211). Jesus did not accept the theology that a sincere religious devotion alone would lead one to God’s presence in the culminated Kingdom of God. Let me point out that everlasting existence apart from God is absolutely and positively, not my hope for any individual person, but my theological findings are driven by research and not sentiment. I see no good reason to believe that human beings that have rejected the Biblical God throughout their lives with a corrupt nature and the resulting sinful thoughts and actions would ever in post-mortem existence come to Christ, unless determined to do so by God. Biblically, there appears to be no salvation for those outside of Christ upon death.

Hebrews 9:27, from the New American Standard Bible states:

As inasmuch as it is appointed for man to die once and after this comes judgment.

For deceased children and those who are mentally deficient, it can be deduced that since they do not arrive at a reasonably certain point of consciously rejecting God, and reasonable understanding of the punishment for this rebellion, they may be regenerated by God and included within the culminated Kingdom of God after death. I would view this as reasonable speculation. Biblically persons appear to be judged for sins, which result from a sinful nature, and not for the sinful nature itself. In Revelation 20, those persons who are thrown into the lake of fire are judged for their deeds, and therefore persons are judged for deeds and not nature. A non-regenerated child or mentally deficient person would still have a corrupt nature unacceptable for God’s presence, but I speculate that a certain mental capacity is required to be everlastingly punished for sinful deeds.

In contrast it could be stated that children and the mentally deficient outside of Christ, could be everlastingly separated from God and judged only according to what they know. I view this as a theological possibility that cannot be overlooked. But, the concept of everlasting separation in the New Testament appears to be one of God separating those from his presence that embraced their sinful nature and committed sinful deeds with a definite and not largely deficient understanding.

ANKERBERG, JOHN AND JOHN WELDON (1999) Encyclopedia of Cults and New Religions, Eugene, Oregon, Harvest House Publishers.

BARCLAY, WILLIAM (1975) Introduction to the First Three Gospels, Philadelphia, The Westminster Press.

ELLER, D.B. (1996) ‘Universalism’, in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, p. 1128-1130. Grand Rapids, Baker Books.

HICK, JOHN (1970) Evil and The God of Love, London, The Fontana Library.

HICK, JOHN (1978) ‘Present and Future Life’, Harvard Theological Review, Volume 71, Number 1-2, January-April, Harvard University.

KREEFT, PETER and RONALD K. TACELLI (1994) Handbook of Christian Apologetics, Downers Grove, Illinois, InterVarsity Press.

PORTER, LAURENCE.E. (1986) ‘Luke’, in F.F. Bruce (gen.ed.), The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Marshall Pickering/ Zondervan.

What is certain?

What is certain?

Preface

British Columbia (photo from trekearth.com) 

For my PhD revisions I was required to revise my comments on the work of philosopher Immanuel Kant in greater detail, as an influence on John Hick and his soul making theodicy. 

In a serious discussion, Immanuel Kant may be mentioned and so this is a useful post. This part of my Kant revisions defends a view of philosophical certainty. I am not a Kantian scholar. 

Article originally published 20090501, revised on Blogger for an entry on academia,edu, 20250817.

The noumena and therefore noumenal realm is the non-material, non-empirical realm of reality

The first citation is background from another part of my Kant section. The noumena realm is invisible and has true infinity where Kant believes one can reason that contingent personality is dependent on the universal and necessary connection to the invisible world.[1] [1] Kant (1788)(1898)(2006: 100)... 

John Hick states that natural theology can only at best demonstrate that God is probable;[1] however, I hold that Peter D. Klein’s definition of certainty[2] could possibly be applied to natural theology. [3] Klein (1996) in ‘Certainty’ describes the idea as being that a proposition is true if there are no legitimate grounds whatsoever for doubting it.[4] This is a reasonable concept, and I support the similar idea that a proposition is certain if there are no counter propositions that are superior.[5] Natural theology therefore would never be 100% certain,[6] but could hypothetically at least be philosophically certain as long as arguments that supported natural theology were true beyond any reasonable doubt,[7] or the arguments for natural theology were superior to those opposing them.

In regard to the noumena realm of Immanuel Kant making Christian doctrine clearly metaphorical and indefensible, I respectfully disagree with Hick.[8] Christian doctrine is not primarily established through the use of natural theology, but by what many conservatives and some liberals view as the revelation of God through Hebrew Bible writers, and Christ and his New Testament writers.[9] 

For Hick to demonstrate that Biblical revelation should be interpreted in a way that denies traditional conservative doctrines, or liberal ones for that matter, would be difficult since by Hick’s own standard[10] his denial of any possible reasonable understanding of the noumenal realm[11] makes his evaluation of Scripture subject to the same negative critique by which he judges traditional theology. Christian scholars therefore, whether conservative or liberal, are left with looking at contextual, historical and methodological issues relating to Biblical interpretation, and attempting to reason out what Scripture is stating and related issues.[12] This despite the fact that the noumena realm cannot be empirically known.[13] As for Kant, his view allows for the concept of negative noumena.[14] The idea of noumena, according to Kant was bound to the limit of pretension of sensibility and reason, and therefore only negative noumena was of intellectual use.[15] The use of positive noumena which trusts in pure reason is rejected.[16] 

Christian scholarship does not rely primarily on natural theology,[17] which would be considered by certain scholars to simply use pure reason which some also think Kant had demolished.[18] Scriptural Revelation in my view, is not to be considered a source of the concept of pure reason as discussed by Kant and reviewers,[19] but rather I see it as similar to how Kant approached theodicy within his brief article.[20] 

Scripture, like theodicy approaches can be used as an historical, traditional and authoritative source.[21] Revelation from God in Scripture and resulting claims made within could perhaps be tied to Kantian concepts and intuition arising from empirical sensations.[22] This is not a difficulty for a Reformed and some other approach to Christianity which do not rely primarily on philosophical deductions but in supernatural revelation of God through empirical sensations, such as prophets, Christ, the apostles, scribes.[23] As cited, Plantinga reasons that for Kant the intellectual problem is not that persons cannot think about God but that persons cannot come to speculative metaphysical knowledge of God.[24] 

My proposition and conclusion here, which I realize some will debate, is that Scripture is not primarily metaphysical speculation about God as discussed,[25] but is rather coming from empirically based sources[26] as God speaks through the authors and players within his Bible.[27]

Kant explains in a follow up work entitled The Critique of Practical Reason from 1788, that the noumena is the theoretical department of knowledge denied, while the phenomena is one’s own empirical consciousness. Kant (1788)(1898)(2006: 3).

---

[1] Hick in Geivett (1993: 230-231). Geivett (1993: 49).

[2] Klein (1996: 113).

[3] And Biblical theology as well.

[4] Klein (1996: 113). Blackburn explains that a proposition would be considered certain when there is no doubt concerning its truth. Blackburn (1996: 60). 

[5] This would also accomplish the standard of a proposition being true as it is beyond (reasonable) doubt. 

[6] In my view 100% certainty is impossible to grasp for a finite being that cannot have 100% knowledge. Absolute certainty could only belong to an infinite, omniscient being. 

[7] Klein (1996: 113). Blackburn (1996: 60).

[8] Hick (1993: 126). Geivett points out Kant postulates the existence of God out of practical necessity within a system of morality. Geivett (1993: 87). I would deduce Christian doctrine could be considered in a similar sense, even from a critical perspective.

[9] Otto Weber discusses this issue. Weber (1955)(1981: 169-331). John Murray suggests that through Scripture the activity of God, the Father, is reflected. Murray (1937-1966)(1977: 148). See also Erickson (1994: 176-177).

[10] Hick (1993: 126). Geivett explains that there is no way of knowing whether or not Hick’s theodicy is true. Geivett (1993: 88).

[11] Kant (1781)(1787)(1929)(2006: 393). Guyer and Wood in Kant (1781)(1787)(1998: 10). Smid (1999: 10).

[12] Weber (1955) (1981: 169-331). Lindsell (1976: 200-211). 

[13] Kant (1788)(1898)(2006: 26). Guyer and Wood in Kant (1781)(1787)(1998: 10). Smid (1999: 10). [14] Kant (1781)(1787)(1998: 350).

[15] Kant (1781)(1787)(1998: 350). Smith (1930: 413). Ameriks (1996: 400). 

[16] Williams (1987: 150). Smith (1930: 413). Ameriks (1996: 400).

[17] Weber (1955) (1981: 169-331). Erickson (1994: 176-177).

[18] Hick in Geivett (1993: 230). Weber (1955) (1981: 203). Geivett would not agree and considers it dangerous to completely dismiss natural theology. Geivett (1993: 69-89). Even after accepting Kant’s critique as reasonable and somewhat valuable, I still reason that philosophical truths about God can possibly be deduced without the use of direct divine revelation through a supernatural event and/or Scripture. Deductions concerning a first cause and/or God, do not however qualify as equivalent to the knowledge of knowing God as a result of Scripture and the influence of the Holy Spirit. Philosophical deductions concerning God would not necessarily be of pure reason, and I can agree with Kant that any reasonable deduction and intuition must be tied back to empirical experience by which to make sense of these deductions. Kant (1781)(1787)(1929)(2006: 66). Blackburn (1996: 205).

[19] Williams (1987: 150). Smith (1930: 413). Ameriks (1996: 400).

[20] Kant, Immanuel (1791)(2001) ‘On The Miscarriage of All Philosophical Trials in Theodicy’, in Religion and Rational Theology. 

[21] Weber (1955) (1981: 169-331).

[22] Kant (1781)(1787)(1929)(2006: 66). Blackburn (1996: 205). 

[23] Weber (1955) (1981: 169-331). William G.T. Shedd provides the view that general, natural revelation is not infallible. He differentiates this from Scriptural Revelation. Shedd (1874-1890)(1980: 66). Van Til writes that the Reformers reasoned they were listening to Christ directly through the Scriptures as God revealed himself to humanity. Van Til (1977: 246).

[24] Plantinga (2000: 9).

[25] Plantinga (2000: 9).

[26] Kant (1781)(1787)(1929)(2006: 66). Blackburn (1996: 205). I am not stating that Kant was a Christian philosopher from an orthodox, historical perspective, but Van Til writes that Kant made room for Christ as the Son of God as Christ is viewed as the idea set before humanity for persons to emulate moral perfection. This was done through a historical faith. Van Til (1977: 399). Minimally this does not appear as a complete rejection of Biblical theology. 

[27] Weber (1955) (1981: 169-331). Shedd (1874-1890)(1980: 66). Van Til (1977: 246). Lindsell (1976: 200-211). 

---

AMERIKS, KARL (1999) ‘Kant, Immanuel’, in Robert Audi (ed.), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

GEIVETT, R. DOUGLAS (1993) Evil and the Evidence for God, Philadelphia, Temple University Press. 

GUYER, PAUL AND ALLEN W, in KANT, IMMANUEL (1781)(1787)(1998) Critique of Pure Reason, Translated and edited by Paul Guyer and Allen W. Wood, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 

HICK, JOHN (1970) Evil and The God of Love, London, The Fontana Library. 

HICK, JOHN (1978) ‘Present and Future Life’, Harvard Theological Review, Volume 71, Number 1-2, January-April, Harvard University. 

HICK, JOHN (1981) Encountering Evil, Stephen T. Davis (ed.), Atlanta, John Knox Press.

HICK, JOHN (1993) The Metaphor of God Incarnate, Louisville, Kentucky, John Know Press.

HICK, JOHN (1994) Death and Eternal Life, Louisville, Kentucky, John Knox Press. 

HICK, JOHN (1999) ‘Life after Death’, in Alan Richardson and John Bowden (eds.), A New Dictionary of Christian Theology, Kent, SCM Press. 

KANT, IMMANUEL (1781)(1787)(1998) Critique of Pure Reason, Translated and edited by Paul Guyer and Allen W. Wood, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 

KANT, IMMANUEL (1781)(1787)(1929)(2006) Critique of Pure Reason, Translated by Norman Kemp Smith, London, Macmillan. http://www.hkbu.edu.hk/~ppp/cpr/toc.html. 

KANT, IMMANUEL (1788)(1997) Critique of Practical Reason, Translated by Mary Gregor (ed.), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 

KANT, IMMANUEL (1788)(1898)(2006) The Critique of Practical Reason, Translated by Thomas Kingsmill Abbott, London, Longmans, Green, and Co. http://philosophy.eserver.org/kant/critique-of-practical-reaso.txt 

KANT, IMMANUEL (1791)(2001) ‘On The Miscarriage of All Philosophical Trials in Theodicy’, in Religion and Rational Theology, Translated by George di Giovanni and Allen Wood, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. 

KLEIN, PETER D. (1996) ‘Certainty’, in Robert Audi, (ed.), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. 

LINDSELL, HAROLD (1976) The Battle for the Bible, Grand Rapids, Zondervan Publishing House. 

MURRAY, JOHN (1937-1966)(1977) Collected Writings of John Murray, Vol. 2: Select Lectures in Systematic Theology, Edinburgh, The Banner of Truth Trust. 

PLANTINGA, ALVIN C. (2000) Warranted Christian Belief, Oxford, Oxford University Press. 

SHEDD, WILLIAM G.T. (1874-1890)(1980) Dogmatic Theology, Volume 2, Nashville, Thomas Nelson Publishers. 

SMID, ROBERT W. (1999) ‘John Harwood Hick, His Life’, in The Boston Collaborative Encyclopedia of Modern Western Theology, Boston, The Boston Collaborative Encyclopedia of Modern Western Theology. http://people.bu.edu/wwildman/WeirdWildWeb/courses/mwt/dictionary/mwt_them 

SMITH, NORMAN KEMP (1930) A Commentary to Kant’s ‘Critique of Pure Reason’, MacMillan and Co., Limited, London. 

VAN TIL, CORNELIUS (1977) Christianity and Barthianism, Nutley, New Jersey, Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company. 

WEBBER, OTTO (1955)(1981) Foundations of Dogmatics, Volumes 1 and 2, Translated and annotated by Darrell L. Guder, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. 

WILLIAMS, ROWAN (2007) Wrestling with Angels, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids. 

Related article for reference

Tuesday, June 23, 2015 Absolute Certainty

Saturday, September 19, 2020 PhD Full Version PDF: Theodicy and Practical Theology 2010, Wales TSD

Audio post: a face for radio two

Vista House, Oregon

God's omnipotence. This is a short audio presentation.

I am only allowed 5 MB of audio space per recording and that is roughly 5 minutes and so I have had to work on getting this to fit!

God is not omnipotent because he cannot ride a bicycle, or type a blog article?

I try to avoid 'uhms and ahhs', even though they seem to work for President Obama. Over time I reason I will become a better speaker. I have also increased the volume from my previous two presentations, one of which was on this blog, the other on satire and theology. In the future I hope to have a better audio card and microphone, as I realize they are not first rate.

I agree with Phillips that it is not illogical for God as spirit to ride a physical bike. But he reasons God is therefore not omnipotent as God cannot ride a bike.

In a sense God as spirit could move the bike as if it was being ridden by a person and it could be considered ridden, although strictly speaking he would not be sitting on it and riding it. This first suggestion would not satisfy many critics, but may satisfy some theists in particular.

I can see the point that some may suggest, that it would be illogical for a being of spirit only to do anything physical. But in regard to God I lean away from this view because of my suggestions and because it appears to limit God from logically acting in the physical universe which the infinite, omnipotent God should be able to do and did in Scripture.

I therefore offer the suggestion in agreement with John Frame (I read Frame after I had come to the similar conclusion) that God could remain as spirit in nature only and yet still temporarily take some type of physical form to ride the bike/do a physical action (Phillips suggests bicycle and not Frame). This would not be the same as my other suggestion of Christ riding the bike, which could also be accomplished, as Christ has both the eternal nature of God in spirit and has taken human nature in the incarnation, although the two natures do not mix.

At the same time I can grant Frame the point that God's omnipotence should not be challenged by the physical finite actions that God does not by nature do. He is correct that it is not a weakness. God is in fact beyond physical limitations.

A critic may state that my suggestion is little different than that of the incarnate Christ riding the bicycle. Even though I reason in both scenarios God is riding a bicycle with my suggestion God does not take on a new human nature, rather he simply takes on some type of temporary physicality to perform the action while remaining spirit in nature. We need to remember that the discussion of omnipotence is concerned with God's eternal nature in spirit and not the finite human nature Christ took in the incarnation. That is important in understanding why in the context of this philosophy of religion discussion I make that as my primary suggestion along with the two other scenarios where God could be considered to be riding a bicycle.

Below is the short lecture.

affrt.mp3

FRAME, JOHN M. (2002) The Doctrine of God, P and R Publishing, Phillipsburg, New Jersey.

PHILLIPS, D.Z. (2005) The Problem of Evil and the Problem of God, Fortress Press, Minneapolis.




California


It is barbecue season.