Gijsbert van den Brink and Marcel Sarot (eds.), Understanding the Attributes of God [Contributions to Philosophical Theology,volume 1]

International Journal for Philosophy of Religion -     

Divine Omnipotence and Divine Omniscience: A Reply to Michael Martin

In Atheism: A Philosophical Justification, Michael Martin argues that to posit a God that is both omnipotent and omniscient is philosophically incoherent. I challenge this argument by proposing that a God who is necessarily omniscient is more powerful than a God who is contingently omniscient. I then argue that being omnipotent entails being omniscient by showing that for an all-powerful being to be all-powerful in any meaningful way, it must possess complete knowledge about all states of affairs and thus must be understood to be omniscient.

Divine Transcendence, Religious Pluralism and Barth's Doctrine of God

Abstract:  Pluralists such as John Hick frequently argue that the transcendence, mystery and ineffability of 'God' provide the grounds on which a pluralistic interpretation of religion should be embraced. In this article the author explores the possibility that certain contemporary accounts of divine transcendence, consciously indebted to Karl Barth, may implicitly open the door to Hick's line of argument. After identifying four reasons why Barth's own account of transcendence ( Church Dogmatics II/1) resists a pluralist appropriation, the author examines two contemporary proposals: William Placher's The Domestication of Transcendence and Stacy Johnson's The Mystery of God . He contends that, unlike Barth, the accounts of God's transcendence proposed by these two theologians implicitly open the door to Hick's line of argument.     

Divine self-testimony and the knowledge of God

A proof is offered that aims to show that there can be no knowledge of God, excluding knowledge based on natural theology, without divine self-testimony. Both special and general revelation, if they occur, would be forms of divine self-testimony. It is argued that this indicates that the best way to model such knowledge of God is on the basis of an analogy with knowledge gained through testimony, rather than perceptual models of knowledge, such as the prominent model defended by Plantinga. Appropriate causal chains and reliable cognitive processes only seem at best to ensure that a belief proposed for acceptance is the belief the testifier wants accepted; they do not ensure that it is rational to accept the belief. This particularly applies where there is much at stake, where it seems rational to seek some form of evidence, if available. Some brief comments are made on Trinitarian self-testimony. Another model of the ‘inner witness’ is briefly sketched out, based on the analogy with conscience. This model may capture some of the features of Plantinga’s approach, but leaves room for a free rejection of divine self-testimony, in a way that the perceptual analogy does not. A point connected to Plantinga’s aims is then made about the link between evidence, value and divine self-testimony, in relation to religious experience. Finally, it is suggested that the earlier proof may apply in a particular sense to all knowledge of God, including that based on natural theology.     

Sola Gratia as Divine Attribute: Resurrecting the God of the Gospel

Can we speak of sola gratia as a divine attribute so as to affirm that all that God does is grace? Traditionally, Western Christian theology has answered that question negatively, placing God's justice in opposition with God's grace and presenting a God whose love does not seem to be unconditional. This has been especially evident in the ways in which Scripture, the work of Christ, justification by faith, and the distinction between law and gospel commonly have been interpreted. By rethinking those traditional interpretations on the basis of an understanding of divine grace as unconditional love, we can indeed proclaim a God of sola gratia and a gospel capable of transforming human lives and responding effectively to the crisis of faith we face today.     

Feminist Challenges to Conceptions of God: Exploring Divine Ideals

This paper presents a feminist intervention into debates concerning the relation between human subjects and a divine ideal. I turn to what Irigarayan feminists challenge as a masculine conception of ‘the God’s eye view’ of reality. This ideal functions not only in philosophy of religion, but in ethics, politics, epistemology and philosophy of science: it is given various names from ‘the competent judge’ to the ‘the ideal observer’ (IO) whose view is either from nowhere or everywhere. The question is whether, as Taliaferro contends, my own philosophical argument inevitably appeals to the impartiality and omni-attributes of the IO. This paper was delivered during the APA Pacific 2007 Mini-Conference on Models of God.     

The Divine Triangle: God in the Marital System of Religious Couples

Incoporating both Bowenian and structural approaches, this article offers a constructivist view for dealing with religious belief systems of couples. After exploring the evolving process by which couples mutually define an ongoing triadic relationship with their Deity, different triangular processes from an integrated structural and Bowenian perspective are presented. This view is evaluative in terms of the triangulation process rather than the belief systems themselves, and, as such, it can be useful in marital therapy regardless of the religious beliefs of the therapist. Implications for marital therapy are examined.     

Divine Energies or Divine Personhood: Vladimir Lossky and John Zizioulas on conceiving the transcendent and immanent God

This essay explores a debate between two contemporary Orthodox theolo-gians, Vladimir Lossky and John Zizioulas, over how to adequately conceive the doctrine of the Trinity as an expression of the realism of divine-human communion, and hence, of the God who is transcendent and immanent. The essay critically analyzes the implications of Zizioulas's reworking of the patristic category of hypostasis . Zizioulas's theology is suggesting a paradigm shift in contemporary Eastern Orthodox theology insofar as it prioritizes hypostasis over energies for expressing the realism of divine-human communion. The implications of this study also extend to debates within contemporary trinitarian theologies over the adequacy of the concept of "person" for conceptualizing the Trinity.     

The Divine Essence and the Conception of God in Spinoza

I argue against a prevailing view that the essence of Godis identical with the attributes. I show that given what Spinoza says in 2d2 – Spinoza'spurported definition of the essence of a thing – the attributes cannot be identical withthe essence of God (whether the essence of God is understood as the distinct attributesor as a totality of indistinct attributes). I argue that while the attributes do notsatisfy the stipulations of 2d2 relative to God, absolutely infinite and eternal power does satisfythose stipulations. Hence, I conclude that absolutely infinite and eternal power is God'sessence and that the attributes are expressions of that power.     

Divine Self-Invention: Leontius of Jerusalem'S Reinterpretation of the Patristic Model of the Christian God

This article analyses the Trinitarian theology of the seventh-centurytheologian Leontius of Jerusalem. Leontius’ overridingconcern was to demonstrate that the concept of composition,which seemed to entail change in the component parts, couldbe applied to the incarnation of the Word. However, in developinghis argument he radically reinterpreted traditional Trinitariantheology. He not only reorganized the Trinity according to thechristological model so that the relation between Father andSon mirrors the relation between Word and flesh but also turnedit from a timeless framework, within which the event of theincarnation takes place, into the result of a previous act ofdivine self-constitution. Such reasoning became possible becauseLeontius conceived of God not in terms of being but in termsof action and will: God must act in order to be God in the truesense but at the same time he is not constrained by his ownnature and can therefore reinvent himself whenever he wishes.Leontius’ model of God is not a complete innovation: theconceptual framework had existed for a long time. However, onlyafter the radical deconstruction of the Patristic understandingof God with its careful balance between voluntaristic and ontologicalelements could it become the basis of Christian belief.