Does God evolve?

Colorado

Non-exhaustive thoughts on process theology and panentheism

Summary upon request:

Please consider that with posts like this one, I deal with some of the material in the comments section as well. As in I provide more opinions. Cheers. Whitehead, like Brightman, Mill, and James, along with others reason the God of the Bible needs to be abandoned for concepts of a finite, developing progressing God. This work is edited from my PhD and is mainly descriptive although I do point out some difficulties with the views as I postulate Biblical, Reformed doctrines and therefore hold to a traditional view of the nature of God.

Jeff Jenkins of the Thoughts and Theology blogs is responsible for the fine art work.

Jenkins

Process Theism: Alfred North Whitehead

David Viney (2008) suggests that Edgar Sheffield Brightman is one of the twentieth century proponents of Process theism.[1] Although Brightman’s views were primarily independently made, process theism refers to a general group of theological concepts attributed to Alfred North Whitehead (1861-1947)[2] and Charles Hartshorne (1897-2000).[3]

Whitehead is the more preeminent exemplar and within Process and Reality (1927-1929)(1957) explains he desired to complete an account of humanity and its experience in relation to philosophical problems.[4] In Religion In The Making (1926) Whitehead explains it is legitimate to attempt with a more definite knowledge of metaphysics, to interpret human experience, but these general principles must be amplified and adapted into one general system of truth.[5]

Whitehead disagreed with a traditional view of a ‘transcendent creator, at whose fiat the world came into being, and whose imposed will it obeys.’[6] The nature of God needed to be philosophically constructed anew.[7] A balance is sought between God’s immanence and transcendence, and a concept of static transcendence is rejected as instead God is understood to have a evolutionary transcendence. God and the physical realm are immanent with each other and God’s transcendence means their realities are not identical and not always determined by each other.[8] God is fully reasoned to be involved and influenced by temporal events and processes.[9] These processes unfold as sequences of events over time. God, contrary to classic and traditional Christian theism is finite, temporal, changeable and experiences intense emotion, pain and sadness. Whitehead explains that ‘It is not true that God is on all respects infinite.’[10] Process theology is a philosophical approach that does not rely on any kind of divine revelation.[11] Instead it relies on a process of change over time as a theory of metaphysics.[12] God’s actual concrete nature is responsive and influenced by the processes that take in the world, and therefore God is limited. Some things are unknowable for God, that he only can realize as they happen, and as these new things develop God’s knowledge processes over time. Divine sovereignty is questionable and certainly no longer absolute within this system.

Whitehead, a mathematician and philosopher, established a speculative philosophy of metaphysics within a scientific non-metaphysical reality.[13] This system is an attempt to adequately explain all individual beings in existence, including God.[14] Basically a system of metaphysics needed to be developed that would work with modern scientific theories and reality, and therefore God was not a ‘static essence’ but a process.[15] The ‘actual entities’[16] that make up this process are non-permanent and transient and each action and activity is dipolar having a physical pole of the past and a mental pole which is a possibility that can be achieved.[17] The physical pole feels the physical reality of actual entity, while the mental pole feels or prehends as Whitehead calls it, the eternal objects by which actual entities have conceptual definiteness.[18] These physical and mental poles are an aspect of every real being/actual entities although they are not real things themselves.[19]

Prehends is the feeling of grasping the physical and conceptual information concerning actual entities.[20] This will occur within a stream and series of occasions.[21] All occurrences take place within the process of these actual entities.[22] Each event is partially self-created and partially influenced by other occasions and entities.[23] God is also dipolar[24] and his nontemporal pole is where God conceives the infinite variety of external objects and sees the possibilities and provides the opportunity for the process of becoming. God is an actual entity and being.[25] God has a primordial nature and consequent nature, with the primordial being conceptual, while the consequent nature is God as conscious.[26] Whitehead explains that the ‘consequent nature is the weaving of God’s physical feelings upon his primordial concepts.’[27] God’s primordial conceptual nature is infinite and does not have negative prehension/feelings, and is eternal and unconscious.[28] This nature is permanent as God works out endless possibilities.[29] God in his vision can determine every possibility and adjust details where needed.[30] The consequent nature of God originates with physical experience with the material temporal world and it is integrated with the primordial conceptual nature.[31] The consequent nature as conscious is determined, finite and incomplete.[32] These two aspects of God’s deity can be distinguished but are inseparable.[33] This consequent conscious nature had God constantly acquiring new experiences.[34]

A problem arises that if God’s primordial nature is eternal and unconscious[35] it precedes the consequent nature that is temporal and has consciousness. I question whether an unconscious deity would in any way proceed to a conscious temporal reality. Where did God’s consciousness come from? I reason consciousness would have to exist eternally to lead to a finite reality of consciousness.

Panentheism

Process theism approaches are sometimes referred to as being panentheistic. The two approaches are not identical but process theism moves in the direction of panentheism.[36] David H. Nikkel defines panentheism as from the Greek meaning ‘all is in God.’[37] Both God’s transcendence and immanence are accepted, as the world and matter is in God, and God is ‘all-encompassing with respect to being.’[38] Panentheism is not identical to pantheism which postulates that ‘God is identical with everything’ or that God is in everything and that God and the universe are one.[39] The difference being that panentheism understands ‘God is in all things’ but not identical with all things as with pantheism. As example, God in pantheism may be considered to be equal with a tree. God in panentheism may be considered beyond the tree, but the vital force within it, whereas in my traditional Christian theistic understanding God is beyond a tree and sustains it, but is not the vital force within it. Panentheism attempts to ‘avoid the pitfalls’ of traditional theism.[40] Panentheism can reasonably be understood as an overarching view within many process theism approaches which I have contrasted with my own views.

BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996) Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

DIEHL, DAVID W. (1996) ‘Process Theology’, in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.

GRENZ, STANLEY J. AND ROGER E. OLSON (1992) Twentieth Century Theology, Downers Grove, Illinois, InterVarsity Press.

NIKKEL, DAVID H. (2003) ‘Panentheism’, in Encyclopedia of Science and Religion, MacMillan Reference USA, New York.

VINEY, DAVID (2008) ‘Process Theism’, in Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Palo Alto, California, Stanford University.

WHITEHEAD, ALFRED NORTH (1926) Religion in the Making, New York, The MacMillan Company.

WHITEHEAD, ALFRED NORTH (1927-1929)(1957) Process and Reality, New York, The Free Press/MacMillan Publishing Company, Incorporated.

WHITEHEAD, ALFRED NORTH (1967)(1986) ‘Adventures of Ideas’, in Forest Wood JR., Whiteheadian Thought as a Basis for a Philosophy of Religion, University of Southern Mississippi, Hattiesburg, University Press of America, Inc.
________________________________________

[1] Viney (2008: 35).
[2] Viney (2008: 1).
[3] Viney (2008: 1).
[4] Whitehead (1927-1929)(1957: vi).
[5] Whitehead (1926: 149).
[6] Whitehead (1927-1929)(1957: 404).
[7] Whitehead (1926: 150).
[8] Viney (2008: 10).
[9] Viney (2008: 1).
[10] Whitehead (1926: 153). Whitehead claims that if God was infinite in all ways this would make him as infinitely evil as he is good. I doubt logically and reasonably that an infinitely holy and good God could at the same time be infinitely evil and so I can grant Whitehead half a point here. However, God could still be infinite completely in nature and willingly allow evil to exist within his creation. I definitely agree with Whitehead that an infinitely good and evil God would be a God of nothingness. Whitehead (1926: 153). I doubt this being could logically exist.
[11] Viney (2008: 1).
[12] Viney (2008: 1).
[13] Grenz and Olsen (1992: 135).
[14] Diehl (1996: 881).
[15] Grenz and Olsen (1992: 135).
[16] Grenz and Olsen (1992: 135).
[17] Grenz and Olsen (1992: 136).
[18] Diehl (1996: 881). Whitehead (1927-1929)(1957: 407).
[19] Viney (2008: 8).
[20] Diehl (1996: 881). Viney (2008: 9).
[21] Grenz and Olsen (1992: 136).
[22] Diehl (1996: 881).
[23] Diehl (1996: 881).
[24] Whitehead (1927-1929)(1957: 407).
[25] Viney (2008: 9).
[26] Whitehead (1927-1929)(1957: 407).
[27] Whitehead (1927-1929)(1957: 407).
[28] Whitehead (1927-1929)(1957: 407).
[29] Viney (2008: 9).
[30] Whitehead (1926: 153-154).
[31] Whitehead (1927-1929)(1957: 407).
[32] Whitehead (1927-1929)(1957: 407).
[33] Viney (2008: 9).
[34] Viney (2008: 9).
[35] Whitehead (1927-1929)(1957: 407).
[36] Grenz and Olsen (1992: 142). I am not stating that this is the case in every documented view of process theism, but it is generally true that the two views are closely related.
[37] Nikkel (2003: 1).
[38] Nikkel (2003: 1).
[39] Blackburn (1996: 276). Blackburn also explains Benedictus de Spinoza (1632-1677) is noted for this view within Western philosophy
[40] Nikkel (2003: 1).


Vancouver (photo from trekearth.com)






Images from Jeff Jenkins:

Jenkins

Christmas martial arts photos of yours truly and controversial thoughts on pragmatism

Yukon River




Brand new from Jeff Jenkins of

September 2015

I deleted some of the old 2009 photos. Through sleep apnea treatment and permanent physical change I have lost significant weight, and do not want to mislead readers with my appearance. I look more like my sidebar photos, today. Not beach body, but not kingpin either, but a lot of muscle...

Thoughts and Theology

Well done, thanks Jeff.

Part One

According to Louis P. Pojman, pragmatism is a theory set forth by C.S. Peirce and William James, which interprets the meaning of a statement by its consequences. Usually a proposition is true or false based on whether it is pragmatic. Pojman (1996: 598).

William James (1842-1910) is a well-known American philosopher, psychologist and a founder of the philosophy of pragmatism. John K. Roth (1892-1907)(1969) explains within the Introduction to The Moral Philosophy of William James that James’ pragmatism emphasizes the human ability to choose an individual lifestyle from several actual and authentic possibilities. Roth (1892-1907)(1969: 3-4). Pragmatism emphasized the need for a community of free thought that was open to inquiry and testing. Roth (1892-1907)(1969: 3-4).

JAMES, WILLIAM (1892-1907)(1969) The Moral Philosophy of William James, John K. Roth (ed.), Thomas Y. Crowell Company, New York.

POJMAN, LOUIS P. (1996) Philosophy: The Quest for Truth, New York, Wadsworth Publishing Company.

ROTH, JOHN K. ‘Introduction’ (1892-1907)(1969) in The Moral Philosophy of William James, John K. Roth (ed.), Thomas Y. Crowell Company, New York.

Above are definitions of pragmatism used within my PhD. I am still waiting for the final passing results from Wales.

Often today pragmatism is commonly understood in terms of being pragmatic, as in being practical.

I have to admit that in two areas of my life, I may not be overly typically pragmatic/practical, but I am actually quite philosophically driven.

1. In regard to work and vocation. By earning almost four academic degrees over the last 18 years, and working only part-time with telemarketing, labouring, security, and census work, I have not been in the work force full-time. I have missed out making much more money than I could have in that time. I also have worked extremely hard to earn my degrees, with the first two course work degrees keeping me busy with up to 60 hours of work a week between classes, travel, research, writing, and internships and the last two theses degrees taking up to 30+ hours a week with a significantly higher standard of work than course work. At the same time while writing theses I put in 20-30 hours a week with theological blogging. All of this was for free, and I was only paid $300 dollars in my undergrad for winning a Bible Studies scholarship. Even so I pursued a PhD in Theology and Philosophy of Religion rather than Biblical Studies. Yes, the two PhD degrees are different. Biblical Studies would be less philosophical and more technical in regard to background studies and languages. I do think I could do a PhD in Biblical Studies but only would if I was offered an offer 'I could not refuse.' I am just tired of the controversy related to trying to please several people with a major theses and not getting paid for it.

By the way, the reason I did not work 60 hours a week on theses is that as many writers will probably tell you, and my MPhil advisor did, that research and especially writing more than 4-6 hours a day soon becomes ineffective. One needs to think about the work while away from it. Some of my best ideas came while sitting awake in bed or while going for a walk. Plus, I used the time to add teaching experience to my curriculum vitae with my blogs thekingpin68 and satire and theology. This was good for me especially as I had for a long time heavy fatigue associated with undiagnosed and untreated sleep apnea.

It has not been pragmatic/practical for me to be a student for so long, but philosophically, I know I need to be able to spend approximately 1/3 of my life working at a career that I am excellent at and enjoy. Perhaps I have been using a more philosophical, less typical pragmatism in the sense of choosing an individual lifestyle from several actual and authentic possibilities. Roth (1892-1907)(1969: 3-4). I want a lifestyle where I am successful and not merely collecting a pay cheque. Money is important though.

2. Okay, this is where I may annoy some people as I have previously. I am not primarily typically pragmatic/practical when it comes to potential romantic relationships. Internet love advisors such as Doc Love and Don Steele (he has some very good insights, but also some very non-Christian views which I strongly disagree with) are teachers I have learned from over the last few years especially, although I will not pay them a dime for various reasons. I have also read and listened to Christian teachers. Steele states that virtually all single attractive young women have boyfriends and if you show a slight interest in one you are just one of many possibilities for her. I see his point, but realize there are of course a few exceptions. I, on the other hand, like some single intellectual Christian men I know, have never dated much and are waiting for someone right, in Christ. I am not stating that one approach or the other is the right one, but perhaps it would be more pragmatic/practical to date more with whatever I can get. Perhaps I should be more willing to settle for someone that is in her late 30s or 40s, does not want to exercise, one I cannot have children with, one that has much baggage, and perhaps one that has her own largely grown-up children. Better yet, one that is not Christian and one that has no appreciation for Reformed theology or theologians.

For some people the above are very good. I am not criticizing you. Stay cool.

But, philosophically, I am not there. I am not even close to being there. I am sexually inexperienced and in my heart would like my own family with someone young enough that is reasonably spiritually, intellectually and physically attractive. In that order. Although looking like a strong man/kingpin and not a classic Hollywood pretty boy or Las Vegas boxer, I have always worked out and would like to be with someone that takes that seriously. I would rather be alone than settle for someone where there is not significant mutual attraction and where Biblically I would be required to put in significant commitment in marriage. Perhaps once again I am being philosophically rather than typically pragmatic though in the sense of choosing an individual lifestyle from several actual and authentic possibilities.

Reason and Facebook experience tells me that certainly finishing my PhD and moving to Christianized America should provide me with more opportunities. I also have friends telling me that if need be Eastern Europe should bode very well for me and Facebook experience has me thinking that this is reasonable.

I conclude that within God's plans my philosophical approach is better for me than any other more typical and practical alternative.

May the Lord lead me and please enjoy the martial arts photos when they are posted.

Four year old drinks beer

‘CHATTANOOGA, Tenn. (AP) -- Tennessee investigators say a 4-year-old boy was found roaming his neighborhood in the night, drinking beer and wearing a little girl's dress taken from under a neighbor's Christmas tree.’

Previously published fine graphic work from:

Jeff Jenkins




This Kingpin has 200 pounds on me!

Part Two

Christmas 2008


That is Chucky, the victim of my 'light' rear naked choke. He is also promoting 'Happiness' from Rick B.


A book I use.

Augustine and Platonic philosophy (non-exhaustive)

Cardiff, Wales (photo from trekearth.com) I am back in BC. 

Augustine was documented to have been influenced by Platonic philosophy. MacDonald (1989: 485-486). Jordan (1996: 52). Scott MacDonald explains in his article ‘Augustine’s Christian-Platonic Account of Goodness’ that Augustine held views influenced by Platonic thought. MacDonald (1989: 485-486).

Platonic philosophy was largely created by Plato (427-347 B.C.). Pojman (1996: 6). Richard Kraut (1996) notes Plato was a preeminent Greek philosopher who conceived the observable world as an imperfect image of the realm of the unobservable and unchanging forms. Kraut (1996: 619-620). Plato, in Timaeus, written in 360 B.C, viewed these forms as divinely moved objects. Plato (360 B.C.)(1982: 35). Mark D. Jordan notes Augustine was primarily affected by Neoplatonism before his conversion to Christianity. Jordan (1996: 52). 

Augustine (398-399)(1992) states in Confessions he examined Platonist writings that supported his Biblical understanding of the nature of God. Augustine (398-399)(1992). Jordan states the Platonic writings helped Augustine to conceive of a cosmic hierarchy in the universe in which God was immaterial and had sovereign control over his material creation. Jordan (1996: 53). 

However, very importantly, Jordan states Augustine saw philosophy alone as being unable to change his life as only God himself could do. Jordan (1996: 53). Augustine’s use of Plato does not in itself invalidate his understanding of Biblical writings where the two may happen to be in agreement. Augustine (398-399)(1992). From my overall research of Augustine and his free will theodicy, he places much emphasis on Biblical theology as primary. Augustine (398-399)(1992). And therefore although it is possible he could read Neoplatonism into his understanding of theodicy, it is also very likely he rejects Neoplatonism where it contradicts his Scriptural findings through in depth study. Augustine (398-399)(1992). 

AUGUSTINE (388-395)(1964) On Free Choice of the Will, Translated by Anna S.Benjamin and L.H. Hackstaff, Upper Saddle River, N.J., Prentice Hall. 

AUGUSTINE (398-399)(1992) Confessions, Translated by Henry Chadwick, Oxford, Oxford University Press. 

AUGUSTINE (400-416)(1987)(2004) On the Trinity, Translated by Reverend Arthur West Haddan, in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series One, Volume 3, Denver, The Catholic Encyclopedia. 

AUGUSTINE (421)(1998) Enchiridion, Translated by J.F. Shaw, Denver, The Catholic Encyclopedia. 

AUGUSTINE (426)(1958) The City of God, Translated by Gerald G. Walsh, Garden City, New York, Image Books. 

AUGUSTINE (427)(1997) On Christian Doctrine, Translated by D.W. Robertson Jr., Upper Saddle River, N.J., Prentice Hall. 

AUGUSTINE (427b)(1997) On Christian Teaching, Translated by R.P.H. Green, Oxford, Oxford University Press. 

JORDAN, MARK D. (1996) ‘Augustine’, in Robert Audi (ed.), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, pp. 52-53. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. 

KRAUT, RICHARD (1996) ‘Plato’, in Robert Audi (ed.), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, pp. 619-629. Cambridge University Press.

MACDONALD, SCOTT (1989) ‘Augustine’s Christian-Platonist Account of Goodness’, in The New Scholasticism, Volume 63, Number 4, pp. 485-509. Baltimore, The New Scholasticism. 

PLATO (360 B.C.)(1982) ‘Timaeus’, in Process Studies, Volume. 12, Number 4, Winter, pp.243-251. Claremont, California, Process Studies.

POJMAN, LOUIS P. (1996) Philosophy: The Quest for Truth, New York, Wadsworth Publishing Company. 

Jugisland, BC (photo from trekearth.com)

Edgar Sheffield Brightman and the finite god

Bosphorus Bridge, Istanbul, Turkey

Europe on the left, Asia on the right.

This will be my first attempt at date publishing an article in the month after actually posting. So it is October 27 and I will place the date as November 1. Blogger only recently has allowed the dates of my articles to be moved ahead. I tried previously on several occasions.

This is good for me as I will have to go away to Arizona and California in November or December and I still want a consistent two postings per blog per month.

Edgar Sheffield Brightman (1884-1953) is a philosopher and theologian noted for believing in a finite God. Lavely (2007: 121). John H. Lavely (2007) explains that Brightman ‘carved out’ a concept of ‘theistic finitism.’ Lavely (2007: 121). Brightman within A Philosophy of Religion (1940) calls God the ‘finite-infinite controller of the given.’ Brightman (1940: 336). Lavely (2007: 122). He developed an original view on the finite God different than John Stuart Mill, William James (both discussed in earlier posts on this blog) and Alfred North Whitehead. His view features a shift from traditional theism, but this is not a rejection of the Christian faith from his perspective. He offers from this perspective, a true Christian expression within a more reasonable approach to traditional supernaturalism. Lavely (2007: 124). Doubts concerning concepts of God within Christian theism need to be contemplated and discussed. Brightman (1930: 9).

Brightman explains in The Problem of God (1930) the new concept of God has not confined the divine creative work to a single week, and God does not cease to produce and maintain newer life forms. Brightman (1930: 68). As there is scientific evolution and progression in the material realm, he reasons there can be expansion with God as in more far reaching goals and development for the physical realm than persons had previously realized. Brightman (1930: 68). He reasons that God is not fixed but is still growing and expanding. Brightman (1930: 70). He questions traditional concepts that God is a metaphysical unity that is perfectly at peace with self, as in no struggle, instead God may not be so separate from the physical world and the struggles that go with it. Brightman (1930: 94). Brightman reasons there are struggles within the divine being and God has genuine problems to deal with in the physical realm as a finite and limited God. Brightman (1930: 94). The expansion of God means he must lack some knowledge and power, and this view contradicts those within theology that place a strong emphasis on God’s sovereignty, as does Calvinism. Brightman (1930: 102).

According to Gordon Clark (1959) Brightman is also a noted empiricist and works out philosophy of religion along these lines. Clark (1959: 34). However, philosophical interpretations should be reasonably understood within human experience and should never be under the subordination of logic or empiricism. Every item of experience properly understood should point a person toward God and is evidence for the existence of God. Brightman (1930: 62). Persons were not to follow the logic of the rationalists, but a reasonable approach is to follow a set of empirical principles and concepts by which human beings organize their experience within the universe. Brightman subscribes to a view of ‘personalism’ as in the term referring to the ‘ultimate and irreducible unit of reality,’ and there exists no realities other than persons. Lavely (2007: 124). James Richmond (1999) notes it is the philosophical viewpoint which views human personality as the starting point, and this may include a personal God as a key to understanding the nature of the world. Richmond (1999: 443). Everything that is in existence, exists in the mind of a person, of some sort, on some level. Brightman (1958: 135). The concept of ‘person’ was a ‘concrete universal.’ Lavely (2007: 124). God was the uncreated creator of humanity, ‘the ground of all being’ and the one that sustains the universe. Lavely (2007: 124). God was also person. Personalism would include God’s creations and reality is a community of persons sustained by God, the Supreme Person. Lavely (2007: 124). The total view of human experience leads one to a belief in some sort of Supreme Being, who is also supremely good, beautiful and of reason. Brightman (1930: 63). Creation did not come ex nihilo from the hand of God, and matter is not something external from God. Lavely (2007: 124). Matter and the physical world is therefore not completely separate from God, and in a sense nature is a representation of the divine creator. God, in fact was capable of growth and can accomplish more within reality than he has presently.

Lavely reasons that Brightman’s view on omnipotence is ‘ambiguous’ and is difficult to explain within his overall description and understanding of God. Lavely (2007: 132). This is a reasonable point. Omnipotence may literally describe the quality of everything to God, in other words God is omnipotent, not in a traditional sense but rather God has all the power there is, and all the power that is available. Lavely (2007: 132). God is omnitemporal as opposed to unchanging. God is all-powerful in a sense, only within the finite realm and not beyond it, and God can also change and expand within that realm. God is ‘creative, supreme, and personal’ yet is limited and there are experiences which are eternally existent which he does not create. Nevertheless, God can control the experiences that he did not create. Any understanding of God as omnipotent would be ‘derived predominantly from abstract thought’ as the view and theory cannot be based on experience alone, although humanity does experience the power of God.

I view the finite God as logically possible but would still leave the need for the infinite first cause. Ultimately I reason that even if human beings were created by a finite God, the ultimate first cause is the one that human beings should ultimately appeal to as this being could overrule the lesser deity. I would make any appeal for everlasting life to the most powerful good being in existence.

Brightman's finite god is logically possible.

A finite god is not Biblical. Otto Weber suggests God has unlimited capacity and unrestricted will. Weber (1955)(1981: 440). God is unrestricted in what he determines within self and outside of self. Presbyterian theologian John M. Frame admits the term omnipotence is not in Scripture, but reasons the concept is Biblical. He deduces that based on the Bible, it is impossible for anything to occur outside of what God has willed to happen. Frame (2002: 518). Also Weber (1955)(1981: 440).

Genesis 1 begins with God that existed prior to his material creation. He therefore has power over finite creation and in that sense, at least it can be reasoned, is omnipotent and infinite.

It can be reasoned God existed prior to the creation of finite angelic creatures, and once again can be reasoned as omnipotent and infinite.

Brightman’s god is hyper-speculative.

BRIGHTMAN, EDGAR SHEFFIELD (1930) The Problem of God, New York, The Abingdon Press.

BRIGHTMAN, EDGAR SHEFFIELD (1940) A Philosophy of Religion, New York, Prentice-Hall.

BRIGHTMAN, EDGAR SHEFFIELD (1958) Person and Reality, New York, Ronald Press.

CLARK, GORDON C. (1959) ‘Special Divine Revelation as Rational’, in Carl F.H. Henry (ed.), Revelation and the Bible: Contemporary Evangelical Thought, London, The Tyndale Press.

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

LAVELY, JOHN H. (2007) ‘Good-and Evil and Finite-Infinite God’, in The Boston Personalist Tradition in Philosophy, Social Ethics, and Theology, Macon, Georgia, Macon University Press.

RICHMOND, JAMES (1999) ‘Personalism’, in Alan Richardson and John Bowden (eds.), A New Dictionary of Christian Theology. Kent, SCM Press Ltd.

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

Here is an article somewhat related to this one from satire and theology:

atheistic praxis and other