Thesis (Th. M.)--Calvin Theological Seminary, 2005. / Abstract. "May 2005." Includes bibliographical references (leaves 89-91).

Thesis (Th. M.)--Calvin Theological Seminary, 2005. / Abstract. "May 2005." Includes bibliographical references (leaves 89-91).

No description available.

The preface gives the background of the postmodern religious context within which a “view of God to consider” has become problematic. The preface also gives the methodology as well as the rationale for the study. The article examines the anatheistic concept of God of the well-known philosopher of religion, Richard Kearney, in order to answer the question whether Kearney’s concept of God is to be regarded in our postmetaphysical age and why. Two books of Kearney are selected to analyse, namely The God Who May Be: A Hermeneutics of Religion (2001) and Anatheism: Returning to God after God (2011). The article indicates that the anatheistic God is not easy to identify and that it mostly involves a risk or wager of hospitality to recognize this God who is amongst other, “weak, functionalist, the other, the stranger and the incarnated kingdom of peace and love”. It is argued that although this non-metaphysical anatheistic God has some positive aspects (creativities, plurality, not militant or dogmatic), it remains difficult to mull over (and accept) this view of God for various reasons (weakness, functionality, unrecognizability). Kearney helps one however through his anatheistic concept of God to think new about the possibilities to “return to God after God” in our post-metaphysical age. / MPhil , North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2015

The preface gives the background of the postmodern religious context within which a “view of God to consider” has become problematic. The preface also gives the methodology as well as the rationale for the study. The article examines the anatheistic concept of God of the well-known philosopher of religion, Richard Kearney, in order to answer the question whether Kearney’s concept of God is to be regarded in our postmetaphysical age and why. Two books of Kearney are selected to analyse, namely The God Who May Be: A Hermeneutics of Religion (2001) and Anatheism: Returning to God after God (2011). The article indicates that the anatheistic God is not easy to identify and that it mostly involves a risk or wager of hospitality to recognize this God who is amongst other, “weak, functionalist, the other, the stranger and the incarnated kingdom of peace and love”. It is argued that although this non-metaphysical anatheistic God has some positive aspects (creativities, plurality, not militant or dogmatic), it remains difficult to mull over (and accept) this view of God for various reasons (weakness, functionality, unrecognizability). Kearney helps one however through his anatheistic concept of God to think new about the possibilities to “return to God after God” in our post-metaphysical age. / MPhil , North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2015

Fideism, or basing one’s religious belief on faith, is popular especially amongst modern Protestant Christians. For the fideist, religious belief-systems are not subject to rational evaluation, and faith as the act of belief forms the essence of truth and the ultimate criterion for embracing a religion. Critics of fideism say that epistemologically, a hierarchy of methods can be used to derive the truth, and each method gives us varying confidence levels. These methods include mathematics and logic, science, personal experience, history, expert testimony, inference and Faith. Among these, the critic says, pure faith in something is the least successful in getting at the truth. Radical fideists like Kierkegaard do not cite logical reasons for defending their belief that God exists. Personal reasons are instead offered for their decision to believe. In this thesis I seek to demonstrate that the radical fideism advocated by Kierkegaard constitutes good justification for belief in the Christian God. I will begin with a discussion on fideism and some of its proponents, followed by a discussion on the place of faith (as a non-rational belief in God’s existence) in religion. I will then appeal to Kierkegaard’s philosophy in defending my view that religious belief in God is a matter of faith and personal commitment, feeling and passion, and this is an inner process not grounded in arguments. References will be drawn from Kierkegaard’s themes of faith, subjectivity and inwardness. I conclude by saying that even if no objective grounds exist to justify our belief, Kierkegaard standpoint remains right in two ways: Firstly, the fideist rejection of the attempt to justify his belief through offering reasons for it is precisely what makes his decision to believe deeply meaningful in his life. Secondly, those who ‘try to judge faith by objective, critical reflection will go on forever that way, and will never reach the point of having faith and of being religious’. (Peterson et al, 2003:53)

The primary focus of this dissertation is the doctrine of the Providence of God and it is approached from a distinctive perspective – that of the doctrine of the Trinity.Its fundamental thesis is that the adoption of a trinitarian perspective on Providence provides us with a conceptual paradigm in which varying theological emphases, which often divide understandings of Providence, are best understood in a form of paradoxical tension or creative balance with each being correctly understood only in the context that the other provides. To demonstrate this, it addresses four issues of Providence that have on occasion divided understandings of Providence in the past and which have become significant issues of contention in the contemporary debate on Providence occasioned by a proposal known as Open Theism. These issues concern the nature of divine transcendence, sovereignty, immutability and impassibility and how each should be understood in the context of divine Providence. Through a detailed examination of three recent trinitarian theologies, which have emanated from the three main communities of the Christian church, it argues that a trinitarian perspective is able to provide significant illumination and explication of these identified issues of Providence and of the tensions that are often intrinsic to this doctrine. In relation to these identified issues of Providence, it affirms tensional truths in our understanding of the issues of Providence and an articulation that necessarily incorporates a binary form of language – that is, utilising language of both-and rather than either-or. In other words, it posits that divine transcendence ought to be held in paradoxical tension with divine immanence; divine sovereignty ought to be held in paradoxical tension with human responsibility; and divine immutability and impassibility ought not to be understood as immobility or impassivity but as affirming the paradoxical tension of active constancy. The articulation of these tensional truths is followed and completed by an examination of how they might be applied pastorally in the specific area of prayer and its relationship to Providence. Consequently, this dissertation not only constructively impacts our understanding of divine Providence but also significantly advances the contemporary debate on Providence concerning Open Theism.

Thesis (Ed.D.)--University of Tulsa, 1971. / Bibliography: leaves 170-177.

Thesis (Th. M.)--Dallas Theological Seminary, 2002. / Includes bibliographical references (leaves 81-90).

Thesis (M.A.)--The Master's College, 2006. / Includes bibliographical references (leaves [125]-128).