Thesis (M. A.)--Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, 2007. / Abstract. Description based on print version record. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 123-131).

Thesis (M.A.)--Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, 2007. / Abstract. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 123-131).

Thesis (M.A.)--Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, 2007. / Abstract. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 123-131).

No description available.

The concept of God as it is set forth in Charles Hartshorne's panentheism is undoubtedly influenced by the work of Alfred North Whitehead. This is generally acknowledged. What is not fully appreciated, or at least has not been systematized, is that Whitehead's philosophy was not radically novel, but belonged to a particular philosophical perspective, namely British neo-realism. Whitehead's roots in British neo-realism can be demonstrated by a comparative study which includes contemporaries of Whitehead who also belonged to the neo-realistic school. Such a study demonstrates that Samuel Alexander, C. Lloyd Morgan and Whitehead all had similar viewpoints concerning such matters as ultimate reality, a theory of emergence, the dipolarity of nature, and God. Thus, an affinity of thought in these philosophers can be clearly seen. It is therefore the case that Whitehead's influence on Hartshorne was not merely the influence of one man but was also the influence of the philosophical perspective to which that one man belonged, namely British neo-realism. Consequently, Whitehead's influence on Hartshorne resulted in an affinity of thought not only in two men, but also in two philosophies, British neo-realism and American panentheism This research systematically sets forth this affinity in these two schools of thought. Both British neo-realism and American panentheism belong to the wider context of Anglo-American process philosophy. This philosophical perspective is found under examination to be a synthesis of realism and idealism. Thus the British neo-realists, Alexander, Morgan and Whitehead qualify their realism by retaining the concept of "mind" as central to their cosmology. All three philosophers expound a pan-psychistic view of the universe. In America, Hartshorne's panentheism is likewise panpsychistic in viewpoint, and is also a synthesis of realism and idealism. The major influences on Hartshorne were Whitehead and William Ernest Hocking, the American idealist. Hartshorne's panentheism may then best be understood as a synthesis of British neo-realism (from Whitehead) and American idealism (from Hocking). On the basis of the metaphysical principles of process philosophy, we must conclude that the God who is presented is finite. In conjunction with this, while the process concept of God allows explanation for the temporal process, it allows no explanation for temporal or contingent existence. While such must be regarded as a deficiency, nonetheless the process philosophers rightly remind us of the importance of the topic concerning the nature of God.

No description available.

Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel and Johann Gottfried Herder unwittingly contributed to the political strands of Marxism and Fascism, respectively, but also to the gently progressing secularisation of Christian values that pervades the contemporary age. While Herder conceived of God traditionally, as a transcendent Being, he also sowed the seeds for Hegels philosophy in which God is realised immanently through the development of mans full capacities for reason. Since Hegel also posits that the end is implicit in the beginning, his scheme cannot hold without the kind of necessity that comes from a Godly (transcendent) source. At the same time, Hegels philosophy of history as revealed in The Phenomenology of Spirit and Herders Another Philosophy of History contain remarkable similarities that show how Herders and Hegels quest to reconcile the earthly and the finite with the infinite and the eternal led to the secularisation of philosophy and the beginning of the modern cultural ethos. The reader should see how Herder struggled to reconcile the many competing viewpoints of his age with his awareness that these viewpoints were limited, and how Hegel subsequently attempted to address this conundrum, along with the fundamental philosophical and theological question (left unresolved by Herder) of how man can have free will under God. The reader should realise how Gods immanence in man, partially accorded by Herder, and more substantially accorded by Hegel, leads eventually to the secular perspective of modern times, with both its negative, totalitarian and extreme manifestations, and its positive, pseudo-Christian and mildly socialist outcomes.

Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel and Johann Gottfried Herder unwittingly contributed to the political strands of Marxism and Fascism, respectively, but also to the gently progressing secularisation of Christian values that pervades the contemporary age. While Herder conceived of God traditionally, as a transcendent Being, he also sowed the seeds for Hegels philosophy in which God is realised immanently through the development of mans full capacities for reason. Since Hegel also posits that the end is implicit in the beginning, his scheme cannot hold without the kind of necessity that comes from a Godly (transcendent) source. At the same time, Hegels philosophy of history as revealed in The Phenomenology of Spirit and Herders Another Philosophy of History contain remarkable similarities that show how Herders and Hegels quest to reconcile the earthly and the finite with the infinite and the eternal led to the secularisation of philosophy and the beginning of the modern cultural ethos. The reader should see how Herder struggled to reconcile the many competing viewpoints of his age with his awareness that these viewpoints were limited, and how Hegel subsequently attempted to address this conundrum, along with the fundamental philosophical and theological question (left unresolved by Herder) of how man can have free will under God. The reader should realise how Gods immanence in man, partially accorded by Herder, and more substantially accorded by Hegel, leads eventually to the secular perspective of modern times, with both its negative, totalitarian and extreme manifestations, and its positive, pseudo-Christian and mildly socialist outcomes.

This study explores how successful Alvin Plantinga is in his contention that belief in God can be obtained and maintained in a basic way that attains and retains rationality for reflective persons. Plantinga indeed calls into question any confident presumption that theistic belief is epistemically irresponsible. He not only seriously challenges the necessity for propositional evidence to be available for such belief to be justified, he also supplies significant support for the conclusion that it remains legitimate even if it faces a preponderance of contrary considerations. However, Plantinga does not convincingly demonstrate that basic theistic belief merits privileged status by virtue of a character sufficiently analogous to paradigmatic perceptual, memory and ascriptive beliefs. Nor does he adequately argue its independence from the bearing of evidentialist concerns, especially regarding its background moorings. He needs to do more work to show the full warrant for theistic belief.

In Paul's epistles to the Romans and the Galatians, the Apostle famously opposes "works of the law" within disputes regarding Jews and the law. But what are these works, what do they signify, and why are they rejected? Such questions are widely contested in New Testament scholarship, with responses constituting an important fault line in contemporary debates between "old" and "new" perspectives on Paul. This study engages these debates by investigating the views of the earliest patristic sources on this issue, which carry distinct heuristic value due to their historical, cultural, and personal proximity to Paul. Part I of this thesis presents the theoretical basis for using early reception within a period of "living memory" to engage contested areas of interpretation. Part II outlines the "old" and "new" perspectives on works of the law, with Luther, Calvin, Bultmann and Moo presented for the "old" perspective, and the "new" represented by Sanders, Dunn and Wright. Part III presents a comprehensive investigation of early patristic writings, stretching from the Didache to Irenaeus, which evaluates each source's usage of the relevant Pauline texts and their understanding of the meaning, significance, and reasons for opposing works of the law. Part IV concludes with a synthesis of these early views, an assessment of how they relate to the "old" and "new" perspectives, and implications for what their testimony suggests about Paul's meaning in the biblical texts. While neither perspective aligns uniformly with the patristic sources, it is concluded that contrary to current nomenclature, the "new" perspective finds greater correspondence with Christian antiquity than the "old" on this issue, and given these sources' proximity to Paul and the consistent and uncontroversial nature of their interpretations, the burden of proof in contemporary debates should be carried by those who would run counter to these early perspectives.