God the Father Almighty: A Contemporary Exploration of the Divine Attributes
4/5
()
About this ebook
God the Father Almighty is a companion volume to Erickson's other theological monographs (God in Three Persons and The Word Became Flesh).
Millard J. Erickson
Millard J. Erickson (PhD, Northwestern University) has taught theology at several evangelical seminaries. He has written over twenty-five books and numerous articles. He and his wife, Virginia, have three daughters and live in Mounds View, Minnesota.
Read more from Millard J. Erickson
Introducing Christian Doctrine Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Making Sense of the Trinity (Three Crucial Questions): Three Crucial Questions Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5What Does God Know and When Does He Know It?: The Current Controversy over Divine Foreknowledge Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Christian Theology Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5The Concise Dictionary of Christian Theology (Revised Edition) Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsA Basic Guide to Eschatology: Making Sense of the Millennium Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5The Postmodern World: Discerning the Times and the Spirit of Our Age Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5
Related to God the Father Almighty
Related ebooks
Exploring Christian Theology : Volume 1: Revelation, Scripture, and the Triune God Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Monergism or Synergism: Is Salvation Cooperative or the Work of God Alone? Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsIntegrative Theology Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5The Attributes of God: An Introduction Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5The Word Enfleshed: Exploring the Person and Work of Christ Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsTheology for the Community of God Rating: 3 out of 5 stars3/5Is Jesus the Only Savior? Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Perspectives on the Doctrine of God Rating: 3 out of 5 stars3/5Building on the Foundations of Evangelical Theology: Essays in Honor of John S. Feinberg Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsNo One Like Him: The Doctrine of God Rating: 3 out of 5 stars3/5The Atonement: A Biblical, Theological, and Historical Study of the Cross of Christ Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5The Holy Trinity: Understanding God's Life Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsPrayer, Middle Knowledge, and Divine-Human Interaction Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsThe Quest for Truth: Theology for Postmodern Times Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsBiblical Predestination and the Unconditional Election of Calvinism Rating: 5 out of 5 stars5/5God the Son Incarnate: The Doctrine of Christ Rating: 5 out of 5 stars5/5Father, Son, and Holy Spirit: Relationships, Roles, and Relevance Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5To Know and Love God: Method for Theology Rating: 5 out of 5 stars5/5The Cross and Salvation (Hardcover): The Doctrine of Salvation Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5He Who Gives Life: The Doctrine of the Holy Spirit Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5God the Trinity: Biblical Portraits Rating: 5 out of 5 stars5/5One with Christ: An Evangelical Theology of Salvation Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5God's Lesser Glory: The Diminished God of Open Theism Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Did Jesus Teach Salvation by Works?: The Role of Works in Salvation in the Synoptic Gospels Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsJesus in Trinitarian Perspective Rating: 5 out of 5 stars5/5Suffering and the Goodness of God Rating: 5 out of 5 stars5/5The Holy Spirit Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5The Incarnation of God: The Mystery of the Gospel as the Foundation of Evangelical Theology Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5The Doctrine of Scripture: An Introduction Rating: 3 out of 5 stars3/5
Christianity For You
The Unseen Realm: Recovering the Supernatural Worldview of the Bible Rating: 5 out of 5 stars5/5Decluttering at the Speed of Life: Winning Your Never-Ending Battle with Stuff Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Boundaries Updated and Expanded Edition: When to Say Yes, How to Say No To Take Control of Your Life Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5The Screwtape Letters Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Good Boundaries and Goodbyes: Loving Others Without Losing the Best of Who You Are Rating: 5 out of 5 stars5/5Present Over Perfect: Leaving Behind Frantic for a Simpler, More Soulful Way of Living Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Law of Connection: Lesson 10 from The 21 Irrefutable Laws of Leadership Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5The 5 Love Languages: The Secret to Love that Lasts Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Girl, Wash Your Face: Stop Believing the Lies About Who You Are so You Can Become Who You Were Meant to Be Rating: 3 out of 5 stars3/5Mere Christianity Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5The Four Loves Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5The Purpose Driven Life: What on Earth Am I Here For? Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Uninvited: Living Loved When You Feel Less Than, Left Out, and Lonely Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5NIV, Holy Bible Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Winning the War in Your Mind: Change Your Thinking, Change Your Life Rating: 5 out of 5 stars5/5Less Fret, More Faith: An 11-Week Action Plan to Overcome Anxiety Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Everybody, Always: Becoming Love in a World Full of Setbacks and Difficult People Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Anxious for Nothing: Finding Calm in a Chaotic World Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5I'll Start Again Monday: Break the Cycle of Unhealthy Eating Habits with Lasting Spiritual Satisfaction Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5The 21 Irrefutable Laws of Leadership: Follow Them and People Will Follow You Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5The Good Girl's Guide to Great Sex: Creating a Marriage That's Both Holy and Hot Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Boundaries Workbook: When to Say Yes, How to Say No to Take Control of Your Life Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Changes That Heal: Four Practical Steps to a Happier, Healthier You Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Wild at Heart Expanded Edition: Discovering the Secret of a Man's Soul Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5A Grief Observed Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5The Story: The Bible as One Continuing Story of God and His People Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5The Book of Enoch Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Draw the Circle: The 40 Day Prayer Challenge Rating: 5 out of 5 stars5/5
Reviews for God the Father Almighty
4 ratings0 reviews
Book preview
God the Father Almighty - Millard J. Erickson
Notes
Preface
In the final decade of the twentieth century, the doctrine of God has reemerged as a focus of theological discussion and debate. Much of this discussion centers on the attributes of God, in particular, the natural attributes, such as eternity, omniscience, and impassibility. A number of factors have contributed to changing the entire intellectual context within which these attributes are discussed.
For the most part, the issues on which controversy centers are not primarily exegetical in nature. Rather, they are largely philosophical, and much of the discussion is being carried on by philosophers. The increasing number of Christian philosophers active in major academic centers has produced a real bourgeoning of interest in philosophy of religion. To a larger extent than any of my earlier writings, this book therefore utilizes the resources of philosophical reflection. Most of the philosophical work being done, however, is from the perspective of modern (as contrasted with postmodern) thought. There are two points at which I have reservations about it. Modern thought is rooted in the idea of an objective rationality. Some of us have long held and postmodernism has now made explicit the insight that all thought proceeds from certain presuppositions. This realization should cause us to hold our conclusions with a certain degree of probability rather than absolute certainty. Sometimes the philosophical discussions proceed by refuting every argument for the opposing position and claiming all the relevant considerations support one’s own. Second, there is not always adequate recognition and utilization of the fact that if God is indeed infinite, and we are finite, there are some points at which he will differ from us (even if some of those are only in degree), and some points at which we cannot expect fully to comprehend him. While the idea of mystery (or even of paradox) has often been invoked prematurely in theological thinking, it seems important to recognize this fact. I also have endeavored to make sure that it is the Christian God about whom we are speaking, by attending as fully as possible to the biblical revelation.
In the course of writing my earlier general survey of theology, Christian Theology, I discovered numerous topics on which I wanted to write more extensively. This is one of those topics. At the same time, each of the chapters, or even topics within chapters, could well be developed into an entire book. The brevity of treatment herein cannot begin to match that of such single-attribute books.[1]
Some of the proposals made herein are tentative and exploratory. I am hopeful that continued study and reflection pon these matters will prove fruitful. An example of this is found in the attempt to introduce the concepts of transcendence and immanence into the discussion of God’s eternity. Here the stalemate between atemporalists and temporalists suggests that attempting a new paradigm might be desirable.
I am indebted to students who have studied these subjects with me. These include the students in my doctrine of God elective at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in the fall semester of 1995, at Western Seminary, Portland, in the fall semester of 1996, and at the George W. Truett Theological Seminary, Baylor University, in the January term, 1997. The ten students in my Ph.D. seminar in Contemporary Philosophical Problems at Southwestern in the fall of 1995 also added much to my thinking. Other informal conversations with colleagues and students, especially the members of the Dead Theologians Society at Southwestern, have helped sharpen my thinking. Mr. Bradley Green, a doctoral student at Baylor, was a member of the seminar at Southwestern and serves as my teaching assistant at Truett. His research and discussions with me have enlarged my understanding. I am grateful to the presidents who made the faculty appointments that created these opportunities for exploration of theological topics: Dr. Kenneth Hemphill of Southwestern Seminary, Dr. Ronald Hawkins of Western Seminary, and Dr. Robert Sloan Jr. of Baylor University.
Much of the material in this volume may seem to some to be abstract, dry, and spiritually irrelevant. All the chapters should be read in the light of the final chapter on the practical implications of the doctrine, and even in connection with another work I have written, Does It Matter If God Exists?[2] For in the final analysis, more important than what we know about God will be whether we really know, love, and serve him.
1
The Importance of the Doctrine of God Today
At the beginning of the twentieth century, the Scottish theologian James Orr pointed out that various doctrines have received special attention at different points in the history of the church.[1] In part, this was because different cultural, practical, and ecclesial influences made that particular doctrine of prime importance at that time. Thus, in the fourth and fifth centuries, the focus was successively on the Trinity, the person of Christ, and the integrity or sinfulness of human nature. In the eleventh and twelfth centuries, major attention was given to the doctrine of atonement, and in the sixteenth century, to the doctrines of the church and salvation. In the twentieth century, the doctrines of eschatology, revelation and Scripture, and the Holy Spirit have been especially prominent. And today the doctrine of God is of great importance. There are a number of reasons for this, some of which are not restricted to our time, but speak of the importance of the doctrine of God for the church at all times. Some, of course, have special pertinence to the time in which we live.
Foundational Character of the Doctrine of God
One of these considerations is the fact that the doctrine of God is, in many ways, the first and most basic element of Christian belief. In that respect Christianity shares much with other world religions, for what makes each of these a religion is its conception of God, the fact that it maintains that there is some superhuman or supernatural reality, in this case, a person. If one does not believe in a God, and in the case of Christianity, the Christian God, then the other topics of belief are generally not present either.
That the early Christians recognized this is seen by virtue of the place they gave to their understanding of God. The Apostles’ Creed, one of the most ancient Christian confessions of faith, begins with the statement, I believe in God the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth.
This is the most basic of doctrines, without which the others crumble. It might, of course, be argued that the doctrine of revelation is more basic, since it supplies us with the authority and basis for our belief, and we draw all our other understandings from it. Yet even revelation assumes God, since it is the revelation of God and by God. Without God, there would be no revelation, no one to do the revealing.
This is what separates religious faith from all nonreligious views. It is the most basic issue of worldviews. This unites Christianity with a number of other religions, in some ways. On the other hand, it distinguishes it from naturalism and even materialism. It responds to the question, Is there anything other than this observable system of nature?
God the Framework for the Rest of Theology
The doctrine of God is also most basic, because it serves as the framework for the rest of theology. Indeed, the generic term theology
means the study or the science of God. It is often defined in some fashion as the study of the person and work of God and of his relationship to the creation.
This is a major factor in what is sometimes referred to as the organic character of theology.[2] The position taken on one doctrine greatly affects our conclusions about other doctrines as well. This effect can be seen by observing an organism, such as a human being. The functioning of one organ affects that of other organs. So, if one’s kidneys are not functioning properly, for example, the heart is eventually strained. In fact, different systems or aspects of the person are affected. That we are psychosomatic unities can be seen by observing what happens to our emotions when we are tired or ill. Parallels can even be seen in mechanical realms, where the correct functioning of the brake system of a car affects its steering efficiency, which is why antilock brakes were invented. In the Apollo 13 crisis, as one system failed or went awry, others were affected. Even in teams of humans, this interconnectedness is essential. If a football team’s offense has little success, the defense will eventually also lose its effectiveness as a result of being on the field too long.
This organic character of theology is particularly true of the doctrine of God, which serves as the starting point or presupposition for the Christian’s understanding of the other realities. It may be possible in some of the behavioral sciences to study humans independently of other creatures, or even, to some extent, of other persons. That cannot be the case in theology, however. It is not possible to define the human apart from God, for the basic and most important truth about human beings is that they have been made by God, in his own image and likeness. Any attempt to discuss humanity apart from this reference is not theology at all, but simply psychology or anthropology. Similarly, one cannot develop a theological understanding of the human predicament and what must be done to rectify it apart from consideration of God, for the most basic fact about humanity is that it is separated from and in rebellion against its Creator. All other human problems are secondary to this fact and, in a sense, derived from it. This is true of the church as well. If one attempts to develop a doctrine of the church apart from God as the reference point, what results is not theology, but sociology of religion or something similar. In short, one cannot have theology, even any of its parts, without first considering the nature of God and what he does. Thus, there is no such thing as changing the understanding of God without, sooner or later, also changing the doctrines of humanity, sin, and salvation. The extent of God’s holiness and justice affects the seriousness of the human situation, the radicalism of the solution needed, and even the type of mediator needed to resolve the problem.
This organicism of theology can be seen in the effect of a shift in the doctrine of God on the doctrine of salvation. One of the tendencies in recent years is to emphasize the passibility of God. God definitely has emotions, and is not unaffected by the plight of humans. He is frequently depicted, in fact, as suffering with them.
If this is so, however, then there are implications for both eschatology and salvation. For this means that it brings pain to God to know that there are persons who are lost, who will, in other words, be eternally separated from him. In some versions of this doctrine, these individuals are sent to hell, a place of endless and intense suffering and anguish. If this is the case, however, and if God knows their condition, does this not mean that God will, at the very least, be eternally grieving and perhaps even eternally suffer through his sympathetic identification with his creatures? But this would seem to make God an inferior or at least a less than supremely blissful being.
Those who have recognized this problem have struggled to give some answer. Richard Creel, for example, holds to a rather traditional view of impassibility, but contends that to fail to do so would lead one toward a view of God in which his suffering simply increases.[3] It is interesting to note that a theologian like Clark Pinnock, who holds that God is not impassible,[4] has also made some adjustments in his doctrine of salvation and personal eschatology. So, for example, he has argued for a wider hope
on the basis of the idea of implicit faith, whereby, through God’s general revelation, a person without special revelation is able to exercise sufficient faith to be saved.[5] He also believes that the Bible teaches that there is an opportunity to hear and believe the gospel after death for those who have not heard it during their lifetimes.[6] Finally, he holds that those who do not accept the offer of salvation even after such opportunities will be annihilated, so that no one suffers everlastingly.[7] Is not some such expedient as these, or perhaps even universalism, a necessity in light of the understanding of passibility?
Influence of the Doctrine of God on the Practical Christian Life
The study of the doctrine of God is of great importance because the conclusions reached here greatly influence our understanding and practice of the Christian life. God is basic to our whole theology, and theology, held either consciously or implicitly, does eventually affect our behavior as Christians. Basic to the conduct of the Christian life is the question Who is God?
or What is God like?
The way this happens is seen in J. B. Phillips’ little book, Your God Is Too Small. He shows how we form various pictures of the nature of God, based at least in part on taking only part of the biblical picture of God and amplifying it. One is God as the resident police officer, a severe, demanding God who delights in catching his people in violations of the law and finding them guilty.[8] Another picture, common in our time and in some ways the opposite of this view, is God as the heavenly grandfather. This God is permissive, indulgent, always willing to look the other way, to smile when human beings misbehave, not really being too strict a disciplinarian.
These conceptions of God, if understood and responded to consistently, produce different types of religious experience. These may not function on the conscious level, but they do affect our attitudes and actions. The person or the congregation who see God as the heavenly police officer will frequently be people whose Christian lives are characterized by fear and by judgment, directed both toward themselves and others. There may be a considerable legalism, of measuring spirituality by conformity to the teachings of Scripture, and even a tendency toward Phariseeism, of thinking of oneself as superior to others who do not follow these teachings as closely. On the other hand, a church or individual Christian who thinks of God on the model of the celestial grandfather may turn out to be rather casual about spirituality, and not too sensitive to sin since God does not hold it against us.
Currently there is considerable emphasis on Christian lifestyle. Indeed, there is more talk and concern about this than there is about specific Christian beliefs. Don’t tell me what to believe, just show me how to live
would summarize this view for many. Yet attempting to deal with lifestyle issues, apart from doctrinal questions, will ultimately fail. There is both a general and a specific reason for this. The general reason is that attitudes and actions cannot be sustained indefinitely, apart from some underlying basis of belief. Part of human nature, part of the image of God in which we were created, is rationality, and what is true will eventually have its impact on how we feel and live. One characteristic of the present time is its irrationalism, its tendency to experience and to believe independently of factual considerations. Yet this cannot, in the long run, be maintained. For example, when a close loved one dies, denial of the reality of death is a common reaction, especially at a particular stage of the process. Eventually, however, this cannot be maintained, at least if the person is to remain sane (or in touch with reality, as is sometimes said). Indeed, the very concept of sanity suggests that society is built on the idea of some sort of objectivity of truth. Those who recognize these truths are sane; those who do not are insane. Sooner or later, the fact that the missing one never appears, cannot be communicated with, and so on, becomes overwhelming. Optimism about the progress of the person in his or her struggle with the disease that resulted in death cannot be maintained after one has been to the funeral. The practice of displaying the body (or the remains,
as frequently referred to now) is intended to serve this purpose of bringing about acceptance of the reality of the person’s death. So our theology will sooner or later be affected by the facts we accept, and our lifestyle will have to be adjusted accordingly.
There is, however, a reverse flow as well. Our lifestyle can also affect our theology. The reason is that if we are committed to a given lifestyle and unwilling to alter that, then we will find a way to rationalize our theology so that it fits with how we want to live. I once served as interim pastor of an evangelical inner-city church. Just about four blocks from our church building was a church comprised of persons who practiced an alternative lifestyle
with respect to sexual practice. One day as I drove past this church building, I thought about their beliefs and practices. With respect to the usual doctrines of the Christian faith, these people held an orthodox set of beliefs based on a conservative conception and interpretation of the Bible. Yet when one approaches the Bible with that sort of understanding, one finds that it speaks rather clearly in opposition to the type of sexual ethics these people considered acceptable for Christians. Only by contrived and convoluted interpretations would one be able to justify such practices by Scripture. I asked myself, How can this be, that such interpretations would be accepted?
and realized the answer was probably that having determined that they were going to practice what they did, they had come to Scripture and rationalized that practice by what they found there. Rather than conforming their lifestyle to their theology, they had adjusted their theology to fit their lifestyle.
This effect on our lifestyle can be seen quite clearly with respect to our understanding of God’s knowledge and providence. Does God know everything? If not, is there any meaningful sense in which we can pray for him to guide us in our planning, choosing, and acting with respect to that future? Further, is God really able to control all that occurs, or are there limitations on what he can do? If so, perhaps it is possible for me or another human being actually to frustrate God and his purposes. To take this a step further, is the outcome of the struggle with evil assured? Will God definitely be victorious over evil, or is it possible that he will never gain victory over it? If so, my hope for the future and my own choice of values may be affected. And what about my freedom and consequent responsibility? To what extent am I really the sole determiner of my actions? These are questions that have a very definite bearing on my actions, and they stem directly from the beliefs I hold regarding God, his nature, and his actions.
This Doctrine an Intersection of Theology with Other Disciplines
Another major reason why the doctrine of God is important is also inherent in the nature of the doctrine, but is perhaps more acute in our present time than at some points in the past. It is because this doctrine forms a point of intersection of theology with some other disciplines.
Philosophy
The first is obviously philosophy. Traditionally, philosophy was concerned with God. Western philosophy, in the form of the Pre-Socratic Greek thinkers, began asking metaphysical questions, such as What is ultimately real?
Sooner or later that way of questioning was bound to lead to the idea that there was a supreme being, or god, who had planned and created all that is. So, some sort of supernaturalism and even theism was a major answer given by philosophers. As such, this could be a challenge or alternative to the Christian biblical answer, a support for it, or a modifier of the tradition.
Eventually, however, the theistic tradition in philosophy began to fade. One major objection came from Immanuel Kant’s critical philosophy. Kant was concerned to understand the several varieties of cognitive experience, and wrote three massive Critiques, dealing respectively with the domains of epistemology or theoretical knowledge, ethics, and aesthetics. The first of these, The Critique of Pure Reason, had the greatest direct effect on Christian theology. Kant argued that all genuine knowledge must have two components. There must be the content, supplied entirely by sense perception, and there must be form or structure, supplied by the knowing mechanism of the person’s mind. Without both components, there cannot be genuine knowledge. Percepts without concepts are blind, but concepts without percepts are empty
became the rallying cry of those who adopted this epistemology. If it were somehow possible to have sense perception without having the structuring effect of such categories as quantity and cause, for example, there would not be true knowledge, but simply a blur of confusion, as bits of sense data pour in.[9] Conversely, when we try to apply our concepts of causation, for example, to the ideas that go beyond our experience, we run into difficulty. This comes in the form of antinomies, or mutually possible alternatives. So for example, the ideas that the world has a point of beginning in time and that it has no beginning are equally plausible. This is similarly true of the ideas that there is freedom and that all things are caused.[10]
The impact of this approach to epistemology on theology or the philosophy of religion was obvious and severe. For these disciplines claim to deal with a transcendent object, God, lying beyond human experience. Consequently, although we may have ideas about such a purported object, these ideas can have no real content. The existence of God and his nonexistence are equally plausible. As a result, we can say nothing about him.
If, then, religion is not a matter of the pure or speculative reason, what is it? Here Kant suggested an alternative to the traditional position. There are two other domains of human experience besides the theoretical: the ethical and the aesthetic. Kant proposed that religion be understood as a question of the ethical.[11] Albrecht Ritschl picked up this idea and elaborated on it, contending that religion is a question of value-judgments rather than truth-judgments.[12] Friedrich Schleiermacher followed yet a different path, relating his understanding of religion to the third of Kant’s domains and making it a matter of feeling.[13]
This general hostility to metaphysics and with it to theology was accentuated in the twentieth century. Logical positivists were concerned not so much with the question of truth in a direct fashion, but with the issue of meaning. In what sense is language meaningful? In their analysis of the use of language, they concluded that there are only two cognitively meaningful types of propositions: a priori analytic and a posteriori synthetic. The former are mathematical-type sentences, in which the predicate is contained implicitly within the subject. They do not, therefore, inform us of anything that is not already present in the subject. The latter are scientific-type sentences, in which the predicate adds something to that which is present in the subject. The meaning of such sentences is the set of sense data that would serve to verify or falsify the proposition. All other claimed assertions, even if they take the grammatical form of assertions, do not really express anything. They are simply emotive in nature, giving vent to the subjective state of the person making them. Lacking sensory data that would count for or against their truth, they are literally non-sense, and therefore, meaningless statements. And here, unfortunately, are to be found theology’s propositions about God.[14]
The other challenge to the language of theology came from the school of thought known as pragmatism. Pragmatism was impatient with speculative discussions of abstract issues of truth. In the judgment of the pragmatists, these frequently could not be resolved, and had no real bearing on the practical dimensions of life. Truth was defined functionally, as that which works or produces the desired results.[15] The objection to theology here was not so much to the traditional issues of truth or meaning, but to the relevance or meaningfulness of the concepts.
For a number of years philosophers considered theology an impossible or illegitimate discipline. After languishing for some time, however, the doctrine of God has recently come in for renewed interest and attention by philosophers. One factor in this increased interest has been the surge of Christian philosophers into the field. The rapid growth of the Society of Christian Philosophers and the increasing presence of evangelical Christians within philosophy departments of major universities are evidence of this phenomenon.
At the same time, there has been increased interest on the part of philosophers in general in what are perceived as neglected areas of philosophy. The more radical views of logical positivism had foundered on the fact that the verification principle (the idea that the meaning of a proposition is the sense data that would verify or falsify it) was, on its own criterion, meaningless. So this strongly prescriptive approach to questions of meaning gave way to more descriptive varieties of linguistic analysis. Here, however, there was still some skepticism about the validity of theology’s language. The more recent philosophical discussion, however, has felt that normative questions were being neglected in favor of these purely descriptive types of philosophy. So epistemology has been especially explored. The question became not simply what type of language is being used here or how is it being used, but whether it is true and, in fact, how we discover truth. Metaphysical questions are also being explored again. Because of this long period of neglect, a backlog of questions of epistemology and metaphysics has been created, which has stimulated increased attention. This return to traditional fields of philosophy has been accompanied by a return to discussion of some of the traditional subjects of those fields, such as God. Because philosophy is once again concerned with this matter, it has the potential either to aid and strengthen theology, or to controvert it.
This increased openness to discussion of matters of theological interest has been evident in the resurgence of the discipline of philosophical theology. Once regarded as of interest only to Thomists, this field has generated a considerable literature of its own.[16] Such philosophers as Alvin Plantinga, William Alston, Thomas Morris, Richard Swinburne, Richard Creel, Charles Hartshorne, Nelson Pike, P. T. Geach, Norman Kretzmann, Nicholas Wolterstorff, Peter van Inwagen, George Mavrodes, Eleanor Stump, Keith Ward, and Paul Helm have contributed much to the discussions. Many of these thinkers are quite orthodox theologically and greatly interested in the types of questions that attach to the traditional doctrine of God.
This flourishing of philosophical theology has provided considerable resources for understanding the doctrine of God. The reason for this importance is that exegetical or biblical theology seems unable to contribute much more to new insights into these issues regarding the nature of God. Some of the attributes are quite clearly asserted in Scripture, such as the omnipotence of God, the fact that he can do all things. The difficulty comes, however, when we ask the further question, What does this really mean?
For the biblical statements frequently do not address some of the questions that are asked at this level. There simply is not sufficiently detailed data to help us in this search. It is at this point that philosophical theology goes to work, posing additional questions that help refine and define the doctrine further. Thus, the entire enterprise is enriched by philosophy’s contributions.
Anthropology
Philosophy is the traditional conversation partner with theology regarding the doctrine of God, but it is by no means the only one currently. In particular, anthropology has lately given increasing attention to the subject. The study of comparative religions, with their differing conceptions of the ultimate power, reveals some interesting facts and raises some significant questions. What are the common features of these different religions’ views of God, and what are the notable differences? This in turn raises the question of the nature of religion. Is it some sort of human a priori, an experience based on an intrinsic quality or capacity of the human being? Are the various religions in some way basically the same in terms of the distinctively religious factors?
A further question raised by anthropology is, Is religion’s form a function of the circumstances, the culture, and so on, in which it takes root? Is it transplantable, the way a tree is? Some trees, for example, if taken from one climate and moved to a more northerly one, perish, being unable to adapt to the colder climate, while others seem able to adapt quite well. But when a religion is transplanted from one culture to another, for example, Islam from Africa or the Middle East to North America, does it take on the coloration of that particular culture, or does it change the culture?
This question bears specifically on the idea of God. Are there distinctly Western and Eastern ideas of God, which reflect the mentality and the culture of that area and people? John Hick, for example, asserts that there are distinctly Eastern and Western frames of mind. These color the conception of the object of the religious experience. So the Eastern understanding of God is more pantheistic in nature, considering God pervasive and present everywhere, but not especially personal in nature. The Western way of apprehending the same reality is theism, or the idea of a personal God, who is at least in part transcendent. Hick contends that these are simply different ways of understanding and describing the same reality. If this is the case, then some adjustment in our understanding of God will have to be made. Either we must say that we cannot determine precisely what God is like, or that the conception itself is not really important: what matters is the experience obtained in connection with it. Perhaps, as an extreme, we will have to say that the understanding of God is purely subjective.
Sociology
A final discipline whose interest in God intersects that of theology is sociology. This may sound strange at first, because sociology has usually concerned itself with the manifestation of religion in social groups rather than its specific beliefs, but increasingly of late sociological considerations have borne on the doctrinal considerations people hold as well. This can be seen quite vividly in the case of feminist theology, for example. Essentially, the argument of some feminists is that traditional male terminology for God has had unfortunate sociological effects for women. Specifically, their contention is that such traditional language has contributed to patriarchialism, wherein men were given exalted status, and used this to oppress women. Further, leadership in the church has been affected by this view of God. Since God is male, his servants must be also. Consequently, priests and ministers are to be male, and women are excluded from positions of leadership.[17] So, assert the radical feminists, the traditional idea of God as Father, conflicting with the welfare of women, must be rejected in favor of an alternative view, such as goddess religion. Here more conventional theology, coming from the direction of exegetical and historical studies, shares a common object but a very different understanding of that object from that displayed by feminist theology, which derives its content from sociology.
Religious Pluralism of Popular Culture
There are other reasons currently for the special importance of the doctrine of God and of thorough and careful discussion of it. One of these is that the Christian God is no longer a unique option for belief in today’s world. We have noted that belief in a supernatural being or power is the most fundamental dividing factor among worldviews, separating theism from various kinds of naturalism. For Westerners, it has seemed natural to assume that Christianity, with its strongly theistic view of reality, was the only real alternative to naturalism. This, as a matter of empirical fact, was for most persons the choice. In recent decades, however, this has changed.
In the United States, increasing numbers of immigrants are bringing other religions with them, and these religions are also gaining increasing numbers of converts. For example, the growth of Islam among young African American males is significant. Americans who do not wish to be secular or naturalistic or irreligious now have other options besides Christianity.
Some of these alternatives are quite close to the Christian view of God, but nonetheless also display significant differences. Judaism does not base its view of God on something different than that employed by Christianity, but it lacks or at least does not consult the full Christian revelation. Islam is also a strongly theistic worldview, but its view of God is almost fatalistic.
Other non-Christian religions have views of God quite different from the Christian God. Hinduism and some varieties of Buddhism, for example, are more pantheistic, their view of God being less personal than is the Christian perspective on God. These tend to find God more within oneself and nature than as an external person. Here the option is radically different than Christianity, but it is still an alternative to naturalism. In fact, these religions stress that they represent spirituality, albeit quite a different spirituality than most Christians have associated with that word.
There is also the increasing appeal of nontraditional or noninstitutional religions, particularly New Age
religion. Because its advocates do not form organizations, it differs from most religions, more nearly resembling, in some ways, a philosophy than a religion. Although claiming to be something new, this is actually a contemporary form of a very old type of worldview, pantheism. Here again, as in Eastern religions, God is thought of as within us and everything else, and we are to think of ourselves as channels
of his activity. The appeal of this view to young people is that it is different from conventional religions in which they may have been raised or to which they have been exposed.
These religions, in various forms, will continue to exert an influence on our own understandings. American culture, through the legal and ideological systems that have undergirded our educational systems, tended to be influenced by Christian conceptions. This could be seen, for example, in the Ten Commandments hanging on classroom walls and the Lord’s Prayer being recited. Similarly, the kinds of distinctions among forms of homicide in the Mosaic law found their way into the legal system and became part of people’s ways of thinking. As our culture absorbs more content from religions other than the Judeo-Christian tradition, these values will also become part of that culture and will begin to influence Christians, gradually seeping into their thinking. Consequently, we can begin to expect growing confusion on the part of Christians as they attempt to understand what God is like.
The Shift toward Anthropocentrism
A further, very influential reason for the current importance of the doctrine of God is because of the shift that is progressively occurring toward a human-centered Christian practice, in several areas.
Evangelism
The first of these is evangelism, where we can note an increasing tendency to make appeals on the basis of meeting human needs. The discussion with the non-Christian is begun on the level of the examination of felt needs. The nature of the offer of salvation, or the appeal to accept Jesus Christ, is on the basis of his ability to satisfy these human needs, as experienced by the person.
To be sure, evangelism has always proceeded on some such basis as this, with the contention that Christ would meet the deepest needs of the individual, such as forgiveness, direction of life, and so on. Those were more distinctly spiritual
needs concerning the person’s relationship to God. Here, however, this is not necessarily the case, as physical health, provision of material needs, and solution of personal, social, and family problems become the focus of attention. The more anthropocentric approach differs from the more traditional view in two other ways. For one thing, this approach assumes the correctness of the person’s judgment of his or her real needs. The older approach frequently contended that even in such matters the human is mistaken, and God’s judgment in these things must overrule. The other difference is that many persons do not necessarily consider proper alignment with God’s will, obedience to him, and glorification of him part of human need. Consequently, persons may enter the church on the basis of what they perceive to be the answer to their sense of weakness and their need of God’s help, and then discover that they are expected to serve this Christ and obey his commands. The result may then be disillusionment and resentment.
Worship
This same tendency may also