God expresses Himself with emotions. This is well attested in Scripture, with statements of love (1Jn 4:8), anger (Ex 4:14), and delight (Isa 62:4). But the real question is not whether God has emotions, but what is the source of those emotions. If God emotes in the context of our suffering, and our suffering is not abated, does this mean that God is impotent or indifferent? Both possibilities yield a frightening conclusion. Rightly understanding the character and nature of God in this regard is paramount. For the past two thousand years, the prevailing doctrine was that God was in some way impassible, in that He is without passions or emotions with respect to his creation. This means that God does not change his feelings or thoughts about events on the earth. Even though certain passages called the “divine repentance” passages in the Old Testament (Ge 6:6-7; Ex 32:12-14; 1Sa 15:11, 35; Nu 23:19) appeared to contradict God’s impassibility, this was solved through the idea of anthropopathism, that is, the belief that God describes Himself with emotional terms. Prior to 1930, most of the English Bible renderings of the divine repentance passages preferred the word “repent,” because the prevailing theology was rooted in the impassibility of God, and these passages were deemed to be anthropopathic. But with the doctrine of God’s impassibility now in question, English Bible translations began to reflect the view that God actually reacts to our suffering with strong emotion. Words such as “sorry,” “grief,” “regret,” and even “changed his mind” were now used to describe the reaction of God whenever God appeared to be disappointed with his creation, or worse, if He was disappointed with his own plan. The purpose of this study is to provide an exegetical solution to the problem of God’s response in the divine repentance passages in four Old Testament historical texts. These passages are labelled as such because of the use of the Hebrew verb ~xn which describe God as “sorry” or “repenting.” For those who hold to God’s full immutability, the preferred view through the ages was that the Hebrew ~xn was to be taken as anthropopathically. This study will want to explore the possibilities of an alternative view for the Hebrew ~xn in the divine repentance passages which allow for God’s passibility while holding to his full immutability. Specifically, this study not only strives to answer the question “Does God repent?”, but through a sound methodology also wants to answer the larger question of the source of God’s emotion when his judgment or grace is in view. The methodology followed in this study is two-fold. First, it is biblical-theological, meaning that it utilises a whole-Bible theology, and following the work of Walter Kaiser and James Hamilton, posits that the Old Testament contains a theme or centre of grace within judgment. At the Fall in Ge 3, God simultaneously introduced judgment and grace into the world. That judgment and grace has never left. As one looks through the Bible, these are the two unbroken strands that weave their way through every chapter and every book. In addition, this study is also an exegetical study, and follows the grammaticalhistorical- lexical-syntactical methodology of Walter Kaiser. God disclosed Himself objectively through the words of a book. This book records actual historical events, as well as specific declarations and commands from God Himself. It is necessary that the words of this book be correctly understood in their context so that a correct understanding of God will result. Using this methodology, this study will explore the meaning of God’s ~xn in each divine repentance passage. The lexical study will be combined with the biblical-theological approach of a theme or centre of “grace within judgment” that flows through the Old Testament. Because of this, is it possible that God, who is fully immutable, provide us everything that we need to navigate a world of sin, suffering and uncertainty? The answer could very well be in the understanding of God’s ~xn in light of our suffering and sin. / PhD (Old Testament), North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2014

This thesis lays out a critique of the libertarian autonomy in Clark Pinnock's open theism. It contends that libertarian autonomy (defined as the choice to do otherwise) is unable to do justice to the fuller sense of freedom described in the biblical narrative. Offering more than a critique, this thesis suggests an alternative definition of freedom by qualifying Karl Barth's "freedom as obedience" as 'freedom as faithfulness'. As such, true freedom is contrasted to the autonomy that leads to evil, and is found beyond the false dichotomy of compatibilism and incompatibilism, heteronomy and autonomy. Freedom is recognized as a good gift of creation and a promise of the eschaton, and thus must be distanced from the shadow of evil which haunts human autonomy. Ultimately, this thesis contends that faithfulness to God as the source and call of life leads to responsive, transformative, and eschatologically unlimited freedom.

Thesis (Th. M.)--Dallas Theological Seminary, 2006. / Includes bibliographical references (leaves [56]-68).

God expresses Himself with emotions. This is well attested in Scripture, with statements of love (1Jn 4:8), anger (Ex 4:14), and delight (Isa 62:4). But the real question is not whether God has emotions, but what is the source of those emotions. If God emotes in the context of our suffering, and our suffering is not abated, does this mean that God is impotent or indifferent? Both possibilities yield a frightening conclusion. Rightly understanding the character and nature of God in this regard is paramount. For the past two thousand years, the prevailing doctrine was that God was in some way impassible, in that He is without passions or emotions with respect to his creation. This means that God does not change his feelings or thoughts about events on the earth. Even though certain passages called the “divine repentance” passages in the Old Testament (Ge 6:6-7; Ex 32:12-14; 1Sa 15:11, 35; Nu 23:19) appeared to contradict God’s impassibility, this was solved through the idea of anthropopathism, that is, the belief that God describes Himself with emotional terms. Prior to 1930, most of the English Bible renderings of the divine repentance passages preferred the word “repent,” because the prevailing theology was rooted in the impassibility of God, and these passages were deemed to be anthropopathic. But with the doctrine of God’s impassibility now in question, English Bible translations began to reflect the view that God actually reacts to our suffering with strong emotion. Words such as “sorry,” “grief,” “regret,” and even “changed his mind” were now used to describe the reaction of God whenever God appeared to be disappointed with his creation, or worse, if He was disappointed with his own plan. The purpose of this study is to provide an exegetical solution to the problem of God’s response in the divine repentance passages in four Old Testament historical texts. These passages are labelled as such because of the use of the Hebrew verb ~xn which describe God as “sorry” or “repenting.” For those who hold to God’s full immutability, the preferred view through the ages was that the Hebrew ~xn was to be taken as anthropopathically. This study will want to explore the possibilities of an alternative view for the Hebrew ~xn in the divine repentance passages which allow for God’s passibility while holding to his full immutability. Specifically, this study not only strives to answer the question “Does God repent?”, but through a sound methodology also wants to answer the larger question of the source of God’s emotion when his judgment or grace is in view. The methodology followed in this study is two-fold. First, it is biblical-theological, meaning that it utilises a whole-Bible theology, and following the work of Walter Kaiser and James Hamilton, posits that the Old Testament contains a theme or centre of grace within judgment. At the Fall in Ge 3, God simultaneously introduced judgment and grace into the world. That judgment and grace has never left. As one looks through the Bible, these are the two unbroken strands that weave their way through every chapter and every book. In addition, this study is also an exegetical study, and follows the grammaticalhistorical- lexical-syntactical methodology of Walter Kaiser. God disclosed Himself objectively through the words of a book. This book records actual historical events, as well as specific declarations and commands from God Himself. It is necessary that the words of this book be correctly understood in their context so that a correct understanding of God will result. Using this methodology, this study will explore the meaning of God’s ~xn in each divine repentance passage. The lexical study will be combined with the biblical-theological approach of a theme or centre of “grace within judgment” that flows through the Old Testament. Because of this, is it possible that God, who is fully immutable, provide us everything that we need to navigate a world of sin, suffering and uncertainty? The answer could very well be in the understanding of God’s ~xn in light of our suffering and sin. / PhD (Old Testament), North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2014

Thesis (Th. M.)--Dallas Theological Seminary, 2006. / Includes bibliographical references (leaves [56]-68).

Thesis (Th. M.)--Capital Bible Seminary, 2005. / Includes bibliographical references (leaves 95-101).

Thesis (Th. M.)--Capital Bible Seminary, 2005. / Includes bibliographical references (leaves 95-101).

The question of reality has traditionally been answered from two broad and separate perspectives, namely natural science and theology. However, in recent times, there has been a growing realism and humility about the limits of the two disciplines, specifically in their pursuit of understanding what makes up reality. Indeed, many are openly speaking about “a new convergence” in the disciplines, opening the way to new insights and understandings about reality. Because of this, many now see both disciplines as complementary ways of seeking to understand reality. As such, this research shows that there is justification to combine science and theology to further the general understanding of what makes up reality. However, the problem expressed, is that even though both disciplines accept their limits, both disciplines have conflicting world-views on what makes up reality. Nevertheless, the research shows that there is commonality, i.e. both study reality from a creation or natural viewpoint, although each differs on the method to use. Natural science basis its findings on empirically verifiable data, whereas theology, basis its findings on revelation and the “Wirkungsgeschichte” thereof. Unfortunately, this research shows that the problem does not end there. Within the two disciplines there is what one could call supplementary-worldviews, meaning, each discipline has multiple world-views within its structures. Taking this into account, the research examines these various world-views, and then suggests a suitable solution to the difficulty of finding pluralism among these views. The research begins with a clear understanding of what the different views consist of. It achieves success by setting up a common frame of reference between each view presented, and then researches each one individually, and where fitting, complementarity sought and explored. The research puts forth that one can only come to a reasonably clear understanding of what makes up reality, if one understands the beliefs and views of each on this. The research further examines world-views such as the open-theism argument for determinism, Darwin’s evolutionary theory, and the different views about the end result of humanity and creation. It also examines God’s providence and how one would connect it to miracles, prayer, personhood and sin. The objective being to show that other than a theistic world-view, none of the alternative views give satisfactory answers to these questions, and neither do they give answers to the purpose for creation and humanity? The research also shows and argues that evil in this present world must not be thought of as something God willingly planned as an instrument of human punishment and education, but rather as something He allows because of human freedom. The research also asks questions such as “What is the Final End of Everything”, a question that science and theology have been trying to answer ever since humanity became aware of its own existence. The research further expresses that as technology has increased, many of the issues surrounding eschatology have become obscure, and difficult to deal with. The research points out that at times, eschatology has become a topic of debate, resulting in accusations and acrimony among scholars. Yet the research shows that the Bible is clear about what the end entails, whether that is towards the believer or non-believer. The research also makes a determination that any view that contradicts itself or destroys itself in the process or act of affirming itself, is self-defeating and false and only theism is actually undeniable. Thus, it is established throughout this work, that theism offers an argument with the undeniable premise that leads one to recognise the existence of an infinitely perfect and powerful Being, who has a purpose for humanity and creation. Indeed, the research shows that any world-view that cannot prove to be true simply based on the premise that it is non-contradictory, must be false. Finally, the research proposes and confidently states, that by implication, this would mean that theism, the only remaining non-contradictory world-view, would be true by the process of falsification of other alternate views, even in today’s scientific and technocratic age. B27/eo / Thesis (PhD)--University of Pretoria, 2009. / Practical Theology / unrestricted

Doctor Theologiae - DTh / This doctoral thesis comprises a critical comparison of the theme of concursus, the way in which God and humanity interact, in the Pentecostal-Charismatic and Process-Relational traditions. The comparison is literature-based; similarities and differences in the theological literature of each tradition are compared in order to determine the extent of compatibilities and incompatibilities. The hypothesis is that similarities in the literature sufficiently leverage differences. The first chapter includes a statement of the problem, namely that the global expansion of the Pentecostal-Charismatic movements necessitates interaction with more academically and philosophically oriented theological traditions such as Process- Relational theology. The second chapter comprises an historical survey of the Pentecostal-Charismatic movements, including key dogmas and practices. Chapter three comprises an historical survey of Process-Relational theology, including its philosophical, metaphysical, and scientific orientations. Seminal Process- Relational theists such as Whitehead, Hartshorne, and Cobb are surveyed. Chapter four consists of a broad historical survey of the theological theme of concursus, including the notions of causation, free will, and determinism in both philosophy and theology. Further, the fourth chapter includesa broad historical survey of pneumatology, which is framed as the basis for a comparison of concursus. Chapters five and six comprise surveys of concursus in the Pentecostal- Charismatic and Process-Relational traditions respectively. Chapter seven entails an extensive analysis of differences and synthesis of similarities between the Pentecostal-Charismatic and Process-Relational notions of concursus. Four differences and four similarities are identified. Differences and similarities are ranked and compared for compatibility. Ultimately, the research question is answered affirmatively and conditionally: yes, according to the literature of both traditions, similarities sufficiently leverage differences, but socio-linguistic barriers may obstruct meaningful mutual transformation. Chapter eight concludes with a brief exploration of ecclesial and social implications.

This doctoral thesis comprises a critical comparison of the theme of concursus, the way in which God and humanity interact, in the Pentecostal-Charismatic and Process-Relational traditions. The comparison is literature-based / similarities and differences in the theological literature of each tradition are compared in order to determine the extent of compatibilities and incompatibilities. The hypothesis is that similarities in the literature sufficiently leverage differences. The first chapter includes a statement of the problem, namely that the global expansion of the Pentecostal-Charismatic movements necessitates interaction with more academically and philosophically oriented theological traditions such as Process- Relational theology. The second chapter comprises an historical survey of the Pentecostal-Charismatic movements, including key dogmas and practices. Chapter three comprises an historical survey of Process-Relational theology, including its philosophical, metaphysical, and scientific orientations. Seminal Process- Relational theists such as Whitehead, Hartshorne, and Cobb are surveyed. Chapter four consists of a broad historical survey of the theological theme of concursus, including the notions of causation, free will, and determinism in both philosophy and theology. Further, the fourth chapter includes a broad historical survey of pneumatology, which is framed as the basis for a comparison of concursus. Chapters five and six comprise surveys of concursus in the Pentecostal- Charismatic and Process-Relational traditions respectively. Chapter seven entails an extensive analysis of differences and synthesis of similarities between the Pentecostal-Charismatic and Process-Relational notions of concursus. Four differences and four similarities are identified. Differences and similarities are ranked and compared for compatibility...