How ought we think about God? (part 2)

In my previous post, I mentioned four sure-fire ways to get it wrong; four ways to think about God that are ultimately incomplete as we try to align our concept of God as close as humanly possible to the reality of God. Still each of the approaches mentioned do hint at a more robust approach to modeling God, an approach that is best encapsulated in Anselm’s motto: faith seeking understanding.

How ought we think about God? (Part 1)

What is the best way to align our concept of God to the reality of God? Is there a methodology that we should use? Or, should we just “wing it” and hope for the best? What are the prospects for us arriving at the truth about God anyhow?

Does God play dice with the universe? Or: What Theological Determinists and Open Theists have in common

Does God play dice with the universe? Theological Determinists answer “no”—there is no place for chance in a world created and sustained by God. Open Theists answer “yes”—there is indeterminacy with respect to humans, and maybe even with respect to quantum phenomena.

Molinism is a Bed of ROSES

As a follow up from my last post, I want to highlight an important book defending the theology of Molinism, Salvation and Sovereignty by Kenneth Keathley. Whether you are a Calvinist, Molinist, Arminian, or whatever, I think this book is important for the following reason.

A Primer on Divine Providence

Traditional theism claims that God is sovereign over all action and events in the world. Traditional theism also maintains that humans are meaningfully free—that our actions mean something, they are genuinely ours, so that we can rightfully be praiseworthy or blameworthy because of them. But, the claim that God is sovereign over all actions and events seems to be at odds with the claim that humans are significantly free. Hence, the age old debate: How should we make sense of the reality of divine sovereignty and human freedom?