Without Absolutes God Is Not God

Absolutes As a Christian it is foundational, I believe, to hold to absolutes. For example; a Christian should have absolutes about God's ontology (the principle of being), absolutes about theology (the study of God), absolutes about Christology (the study of Christ) and absolutes about pneumatology (the study of the Holy Spirit). Each of the foregoing absolutes, I believe, impact upon how one constructs a world view and how one considers the wider implications of God's kingdom work; hence, why I have titled this collection of essays "Without absolutes, God is not God". I guess the reader will be asking him or herself why is there a requirement to hold to absolutes. The need for absolutes is not complex. In reality the argument determines whether one is a believer or non-believer in the triune God. A believer will weigh whether God revelationally' speaks into this world generally and specifically. A non-believer will object to such a proposition and as a consequence leave him or herself open to other belief systems. To perhaps put it another way a non-believer is faced with the choice of deciding whether God is a reality or whether God is a creation of human imagination. Decision making, then, is crucial when accepting the triune God and his work. Does one make a decision to believe in God empirically or does one make a decision to believe in God from a position of faith? It is my view that God cannot be known empirically (i.e. by trial or experience) but rather he can only be known by faith. However, it depends on how we define faith. Those who accept other belief systems would argue that they too have a faith or a belief in some god or person. In the Christian context, however, faith is an action based on the accepted evidence. In other words if one accepts that the written word of God is substantially true (2 Peter 1:20-21)and that the Word of God (Jesus of Nazareth) is who he is recorded as being or is who he claims to be (John 1:1-5; 14:6-7) then faith is given substance. But I would go further and argue that authentic faith is derived from a spiritual encounter with God which then enables the recipient's faith response to be one which is prompted or ignited by God. My argument is supported from Scripture (1 Corinthians 12:9; Ephesians 2:8-9) and from personal experience. Both of the foregoing references I suggest argue that faith is a gift which has its origin in God. Hence, faith is not only prompted by God but also sustained by him. The analysis of such faith is that it is revelatory and constitutes an utter reliance on who God is and why he exists. Revelatory Faith Evangelicals argue that faith is a gift from God. However, this argument is treated with caution by others. Existentialism suggests that faith "is made possible and so granted, by the gracious approach and self-disclosure of being" . Interestingly, at this point, there is no great variance between the latter perspective and Martin Luther who argued that faith originates with, or is at least aroused, by God. Contemplating the third article of the Apostle's Creed, he wrote: I believe that I cannot of my own reason or strength believe in Jesus Christ, my Lord, or come to him. But the Holy Spirit has called me by the Gospel, enlightened me with His gifts, sanctified and kept me in the true faith. Modernists, also argue that faith constitutes a person's response, but only after having been drawn to God's work of salvation. This argument suggests faith to be an a priori act of God, an act that prompts recognition that in the Christ, God is endeavouring to share his own life. This arousal of faith, then, affects worship, praise and prayer and the practise of Christian discipleship. The same argument suggests, further, that the prior love of God and the response of love that it generates are what shape a person's Christian faith. Biblical support for these theological reflections is found in Ephesians

Absolutes As a Christian it is foundational, I believe, to hold to absolutes. For example; a Christian should have absolutes about Gods ontology (the principle of being), absolutes about theology (the study of God), absolutes about Christology (the study of Christ) and absolutes about pneumatology (the study of the Holy Spirit). Each of the foregoing absolutes, I believe, impact upon how one constructs a world view and how one considers the wider implications of Gods kingdom work; hence, why I have titled this collection of essays Without absolutes, God is not God. I guess the reader will be asking him or herself why is there a requirement to hold to absolutes. The need for absolutes is not complex. In reality the argument determines whether one is a believer or non-believer in the triune God. A believer will weigh whether God revelationally speaks into this world generally and specifically. A non-believer will object to such a proposition and as a consequence leave him or herself open to other belief systems. To perhaps put it another way a non-believer is faced with the choice of deciding whether God is a reality or whether God is a creation of human imagination. Decision making, then, is crucial when accepting the triune God and his work. Does one make a decision to believe in God empirically or does one make a decision to believe in God from a position of faith? It is my view that God cannot be known empirically (i.e. by trial or experience) but rather he can only be known by faith. However, it depends on how we define faith. Those who accept other belief systems would argue that they too have a faith or a belief in some god or person. In the Christian context, however, faith is an action based on the accepted evidence. In other words if one accepts that the written word of God is substantially true (2 Peter 1:20-21)and that the Word of God (Jesus of Nazareth) is who he is recorded as being or is who he claims to be (John 1:1-5; 14:6-7) then faith is given substance. But I would go further and argue that authentic faith is derived from a spiritual encounter with God which then enables the recipients faith response to be one which is prompted or ignited by God. My argument is supported from Scripture (1 Corinthians 12:9; Ephesians 2:8-9) and from personal experience. Both of the foregoing references I suggest argue that faith is a gift which has its origin in God. Hence, faith is not only prompted by God but also sustained by him. The analysis of such faith is that it is revelatory and constitutes an utter reliance on who God is and why he exists. Revelatory Faith Evangelicals argue that faith is a gift from God. However, this argument is treated with caution by others. Existentialism suggests that faith is made possible and so granted, by the gracious approach and self-disclosure of being . Interestingly, at this point, there is no great variance between the latter perspective and Martin Luther who argued that faith originates with, or is at least aroused, by God. Contemplating the third article of the Apostles Creed, he wrote: I believe that I cannot of my own reason or strength believe in Jesus Christ, my Lord, or come to him. But the Holy Spirit has called me by the Gospel, enlightened me with His gifts, sanctified and kept me in the true faith. Modernists, also argue that faith constitutes a persons response, but only after having been drawn to Gods work of salvation. This argument suggests faith to be an a priori act of God, an act that prompts recognition that in the Christ, God is endeavouring to share his own life. This arousal of faith, then, affects worship, praise and prayer and the practise of Christian discipleship. The same argument suggests, further, that the prior love of God and the response of love that it generates are what shape a persons Christian faith. Biblical support for these theological reflections is found in Ephesians

Christians know that God loves them, but can easily feel that he is perpetually disappointed and frustrated, maybe even close to giving up on them. As a result, they focus a lot—and rightly so—on what Jesus has done to appease God’s wrath for sin. But how does Jesus Christ actually feel about his people amid all their sins and failures? This book draws us to Matthew 11, where Jesus describes himself as “gentle and lowly in heart,” longing for his people to find rest in him. The gospel flows from God’s deepest heart for his people, a heart of tender love for the sinful and suffering. These chapters take readers into the depths of Christ’s very heart for sinners, diving deep into Bible passages that speak of who Christ is and encouraging readers with the affections of Christ for his people. His longing heart for sinners comforts and sustains readers in their up-and-down lives.

Some of the brightest scientific minds of our time, from Albert Einstein to Stephen Hawking, have made incredible insights into the earliest origins of the universe, but have failed to ultimately discover why there is something rather than nothing—why we exist. In A Case for the Existence of God, Dean L. Overman examines the latest theories about the origins of the universe and explains why even the most sophisticated science can only take us so far. Ultimately we must make a leap of faith to understand the world, and Overman argues that a leap into theism provides the most satisfying conclusions. Overman explores fundamental questions about why our world exists and how it functions, using principles of logic, physics, and theology. In a time when religion and science are often portrayed as diametrically opposed, A Case for the Existence of God presents a refreshing view of the interplay between science and religion and makes a compelling case for the existence of God and his role in our world.

At the creation of the world, God gave mankind the responsibility to exercise dominion over the earth. Man was to use the earth and its abundance of resources to satisfy his physical needs, but he was also to care for the earth and its creatures as a wise and godly steward. Reading about endangered species or another oil spill will make it abundantly clear that the human race has failed miserably in its God-given mandate. How did we get to this point? Where should we go from here? This classic by Francis Schaeffer, now repackaged, looks at contemporary ecological crises through the lens of theology and Scripture. Renowned for his work in applied philosophy and theology, Schaeffer answers serious philosophical questions about creation and ecology. He concludes that we must return to a profoundly and radically biblical understanding of God’s relationship to the earth, and of our divine mandate to exercise godly dominion over it. Repackaged and republished, Pollution and the Death of Man carries an important and relevant message for our day. With concluding chapter by Udo Middelmann.

The doctrine of divine simplicity has long played a crucial role in Western Christianity's understanding of God. It claimed that by denying that God is composed of parts Christians are able to account for his absolute self-sufficiency and his ultimate sufficiency as the absolute Creator of the world. If God were a composite being then something other than the Godhead itself would be required to explain or account for God. If this were the case then God would not be most absolute and would not be able to adequately know or account for himself without reference to something other than himself. This book develops these arguments by examining the implications of divine simplicity for God's existence, attributes, knowledge, and will. Along the way there is extensive interaction with older writers, such as Thomas Aquinas and the Reformed scholastics, as well as more recent philosophers and theologians. An attempt is made to answer some of the currently popular criticisms of divine simplicity and to reassert the vital importance of continuing to confess that God is without parts, even in the modern philosophical-theological milieu.

Can finite humans grasp universal truth? Is it possible to think beyond the limits of reason? Are we doomed to failure because of our finitude? In this clear and accessible book, Barnabas Aspray presents Ricœur's response to these perennial philosophical questions through an analysis of human finitude at the intersection of philosophy and theology. Using unpublished and previously untranslated archival sources, he shows how Ricœur's groundbreaking concept of symbols leads to a view of creation, not as a theological doctrine, but as a mystery beyond the limits of thought that gives rise to philosophical insight. If finitude is created, then it can be distinguished from both the Creator and evil, leading to a view of human existence that, instead of the 'anguish of no' proclaims the 'joy of yes.'