DOCSLIB.ORG

An Introduction to the Open Theism Controversy

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
An Introduction to the Open Theism Controversy An Introduction to the Open Theism Controversy by Andy Woods © 2004 INTRODUCTION Welcome to this session, which is entitled —Introduction to the Open Theism Contro ersy." This session is designed to introduce the open theism contro ersy to those with little or no knowledge of the subject. The central (uestion raised by open theists is —what does )od know and when does he know it*" Why should Christian leaders de ote attention to learning about this contro ersy* The answer to this (uestion is that open theism has been embraced by some members of the influential E angelical Theological ,ociety1 and is conse(uently beginning to find its way into mainstream e angelicalism. Thus, as a pastor, you are bound to run into it at some point and therefore it is best to familiari-e yourself with the issue ahead of time. When dealing with the openness contro ersy we are in ol ed in the battle o er how to define )od. This battle is nothing new for the church. There ha e always been numerous ideas that ri al the traditional understanding of )od.2 ,uch ideas include the following. deism, which ad ocates )od/s lack of in ol ement with 0is creation, pantheism, which confuses )od with 0is creation, finite godism, which ascribes limitations to )od, polytheism or the notion of many gods, 2 and atheism, which denies )od/s e1istence. 1 Open theism/s leading proponents include )regory 3oyd, Clark Pinnock, and 5ohn ,anders. 2 3y the —traditional iew of )od" I am referring to the iew that sees no limitations upon )od/s knowledge, power, or presence. The traditional or —classical iew of )od" understands )od as possessing omniscience, omnipotence, and omnipresence. 2 Norman )eisler and 0. Wayne 0ouse, The Battle for God 7)rand 8apids. 9regel, 2001:, 8-9. 1 What is open theism* Open theism impacts how one understands se eral of )od/s attributes.4 0owe er, in this session, our focus will be limited to )od/s omniscience or more specifically 0is foreknowledge. We seek to highlight this aspect of the debate not only for the sake of time but also because it is this facet of the debate that has created the most contro ersy and publicity.5 The (uestion that open theists are proposing is not how )od knows the future6 but if he knows it. Open theists maintain that )od does not know what a gi en human being will do until he acts. They refer to such human actions as human contingencies. 3ecause )od remains unaware of human contingencies, the future remains unsettled in 0is mind. Open theists are careful to note that )od does ha e an e1hausti e knowledge of the past and present. 0e also has an e1hausti e knowledge of things that 0e will bring to pass unilaterally independent of human choices.7 0e is also aware of all the potential choices a person may make.8 0owe er, regarding specific human choices, )od must adopt a —wait and see approach" before 0e knows what people will do. What is the moti ation behind the creation of open theism* Although openness proponents claim that their theology is dri en by the te1t of ,cripture, they are also (uite candid in their admission of the philosophical problems resol ed by their theology. One such philosophical dilemma is the tension between human freedom and di ine foreknowledge. According to Pinnock, —Philosophically speaking, if choices are real and freedom significant, 4 Open theism affects ones understanding of )od/s omniscience, eternality, immutability, simplicity, impassibility, relatability to the world, and so ereignty. 5 Aor a work e1ploring how open theism affects all of )od/s attributes, I recommend )eisler and 0ouse, The Battle for God. 6 The church has always had differences of opinion regarding how )od knows the future. The competing theories used to debate this issue include the simple foreknowledge, middle foreknowledge, and Cal inist positions. Aor a clear definition of each, see Millard Erickson, What Does God Know and When Does He know It?: The Current Contro ersy O er Di ine Foreknowledge 7)rand 8apids. Conder an, 2002:, 12-12. 7 ,uch unilateral acti ity could include the ultimate defeat of e il, the creation of the eternal state, or the e1istence of the tree of life in the New 5erusalem. 8 3oyd uses the e1ample of a chess player to illustrate this concept. The —chess master does not foreknow e1actly what mo es her opponent will make, but she perfectly anticipates all the mo es her opponent might make." )regory 3oyd, —The Open-Theism Diew," in Di ine Foreknowledge: Four Views, ed. 5ames 9. 3eilby 7Eowners )ro e. Inter arsity, 2001:, 45. 2 future decisions cannot be e1hausti ely foreknown."9 Thus, because openness theologians appear unwilling to li e with the tension between human freedom and di ine foreknowledge, an openness theology that challenges )od/s foreknowledge appears to be a con enient alle iation of this tension. Openness ad ocates incorporate a kenosis concept into their theology. They maintain that because )od created people as free moral agents, deciding to lay aside 0is knowledge of what choices people would make was one of the conse(uences associated with 0is decision to create humanity.10 Another philosophical hurdle resol ed by open theism is the problem of e il. 3oyd e1plains that the openness iew helped him in counseling Christians who had e1perienced tragedies. Openness theology allowed him to e1plain to the ictims that )od did not foreknow their tragic circumstances. Thus, they could not blame )od for knowing of a coming tragedy and doing nothing to pre ent it.11 In sum, open theism appears to pro ide a con enient escape from the problem of e il as well as from the tension between di ine foreknowledge and human freedom. In this session we will criti(ue open theism from a classical perspecti e. The criticisms of openness theology that I will share did not originate with me but rather are charges that ha e been le eled against the openness iew from arious prominent classical theists such as )eisler, 0ouse,12 Erickson,12 Ware,14 and Thomas.15 In order to pro ide an o er iew of the 9 Clark Pinnock, —,ystematic Theology," in The Openness of God: A Biblical Challenge to the Traditional Understanding of God 7Eowners )ro e. Inter arsity, 1994:, 122. 10 Clark Pinnock, —There is 8oom for Fs. A 8eply to 3ruce Ware," (ournal of the E angelical Theological Society 45, no. 2 75une 2002:. 214. 11 )regory 3oyd, God of the Possible: A Biblical Introduction to the Open View of God 7)rand 8apids. 3aker, 2000:, 106. 12 )eisler and 0ouse, The Battle for God. 12 Erickson, What Does God Know and When Does He know It?: The Current Contro ersy O er Di ine Foreknowledge. 14 3ruce Ware, God,s -esser Glory: The Diminished God of Open Theism 7Wheaton. Crossway, 2000:. 15 8obert L. Thomas, E angelical Hermeneutics: The .ew Versus the Old 7)rand 8apids. 9regel, 2002:, 472-505. 2 subject, we will look at open theism from the following four angles. hermeneutical, biblical, historical, and practical. HERMENEUTICS16 3oth classical and open theists make certain interpreti e choices when they approach the te1t of ,cripture. Fnderstanding how the hermeneutics of open theism differs from the hermeneutics of classical theism helps us understand both iews better. Open theists employ si1 hermeneutical methods. First, open theists take Old Testament language, which has traditionally been understood figurati ely or anthropomorphically, and they interpret such language literally. An anthropomorphism is of figure of speech that in ol es ascribing to )od a human feature. ,uch a figure of speech is necessary in order for finite man to relate to and understand an infinite )od. 3y interpreting literally numerous passages that ha e traditionally been understood anthropomorphically, open theists are able to conclude that )od/s foreknowledge is limited. A key battle ground te1t in this ongoing debate is )en 22.12 where )od tells Abraham that now 0e knows that Abraham fears )od as Abraham was on the erge of offering Isaac. Open theists use this te1t to teach that )od was not aware of what Abraham would do in such a situation until )od actually obser ed Abraham/s choice. Open theists contend that only this e1planation satisfies the language of the te1t, which says, —for now I know that you fear )od." 3oyd rejects an anthropomorphic understanding of te1ts of this nature when he notes, —We simply do not see anything in narrati es that describe )od as thinking about the future in terms of what may or may not happen 7e.g. E1od 4.1-9H 12.17H 5er 26.2H E-ek 12.2: or changing his mind 7e.g. 22.10- 16 0ermeneutics refers to the science and art of biblical interpretation. It addresses the issue of how ,cripture is to be interpreted. 4 14H 5er 18.7-10H 5onah 2.10: or e1pecting something to happen that does not come to pass 75er 2.6-7H 19-20H Isa 5.1-10: that suggest they are anthropomorphisms."17 0owe er, classical theists ha e pointed out that 3oyd/s hermeneutic, which treats such te1ts literally rather than anthropomorphically, is problematic. If it is applied consistently then the end result is a )od that is far more limited than what open theists would be comfortable with.18 Aor e1ample, using 3oyd/s literal hermeneutic in interpreting )en 2.9, where )od says to Adam —where are you*" would limit )od/s present knowledge.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Statement of the Problem 1
    Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary THE INCOMPATIBILITY OF OPEN THEISM WITH THE DOCTRINE OF INERRANCY A Report Presented in Partial Fulfillment Of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Theology by Stuart M. Mattfield 29 December 2014 Copyright © 2015 by Stuart M. Mattfield All Rights Reserved ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS As with all things, the first-fruits of my praise goes to God: Father, Son and Spirit. I pray this work brings Him glory and honor. To my love and wife, Heidi Ann: You have been my calm, my sanity, my helpful critic, and my biggest support. Thank you and I love you. To my kids: Madison, Samantha, and Nick: Thank you for your patience, your humor, and your love. Thank you to Dr. Kevin King and Dr. Dan Mitchell. I greatly appreciate your mentorship and patience through this process. iii ABSTRACT The primary purpose of this thesis is to show that the doctrine of open theism denies the doctrine of inerrancy. Specifically open theism falsely interprets Scriptural references to God’s Divine omniscience and sovereignty, and conversely ignores the weighty Scriptural references to those two attributes which attribute perfection and completeness in a manner which open theism explicitly denies. While the doctrine of inerrancy has been hotly debated since the Enlightenment, and mostly so through the modern and postmodern eras, it may be argued that there has been a traditional understanding of the Bible’s inerrancy that is drawn from Scripture, and has been held since the early church fathers up to today’s conservative theologians. This view was codified in October, 1978 in the form of the Chicago Statement of Biblical Inerrancy.
    [Show full text]
  • On Jesus' Eschatological Ignorance
    On Jesus’ Eschatological Ignorance Edwin K. P. Chong Version: July 25, 2003 1 Jesus’ ignorance of His return One of the most difficult passages in the New Testament is Mark 13. Epitomizing the difficulty of this chapter is verse 32, which explicitly teaches that Jesus does not know when He will return:1 No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. An identical verse appears in Matthew 24:36. How is this compatible with the orthodox view that Jesus is God and hence is omniscient? Over the centuries, groups like the Ebionites, Arians, and Nestorians2 have used this verse to argue that Jesus was not fully divine.3 In response, the church fathers developed interpretive approaches to Mark 13:32, which today continue to form the basis for theological solutions to this problem. In 451 A.D., the Council of Chalcedon, in Act V, defined the union of the divine and human natures in the person of Christ.4 According to this definition, Christ is “truly God and truly man.” This Chalcedonian formula has since become a hallmark of orthodox Christology. How exactly does this orthodox view reckon with Mark 13:32? In this essay, I outline the prevalent solutions to the controversy surrounding Mark 13:32, the major proponents of each solution, and its basis. I also provide some evaluation of these solutions, indicating which have garnered mainstream acceptance, and why. 1Mark 13:32, New International Version. 2Over the centuries, a number of heresies on the divine and human nature of Christ have emerged.
    [Show full text]
  • Panentheism and Panexperientialism for Open and Relational Theology
    Panentheism and Panexperientialism for Open and Relational Theology Thomas Jay Oord and Wm. Andrew Schwartz Open and relational theologies have a particular affinity for panentheism and panexperientialism (panpsychism). These theologies come in various forms, however. And scholars propose various forms of panentheism and panexperi- entialism. Diversity reigns. We begin this essay by describing open and relational theology. We also describe panentheism and panexperientialism, broadly understood. We note reasons why open and relational theists would be attracted to each. And we argue that panentheism and panexperientialism complement one another, al- though a person could be attracted only to one. Much of the essay argues for one form of open and relational theology we think makes the best sense overall. This form includes belief in a personal/ relational God, makes distinctions between God and creatures, affirms God ev- erlastingly creates (thereby denying creatio ex nihilo), and offers a solution to the theoretical aspect of the problem of evil. Adopting panexperientialism and panentheism offers ways to overcome theoretical problems in contemporary thought, while arguably motivating adherents of the view to love (promote overall well-being). 1. Open and Relational Theology The label »open and relational theology« serves as an umbrella designation for a family of theologies.1 This family shares at least two core convictions. The »open« aspect refers to the idea that both creatures and God experience the ongoingness of time. Consequently, both God and creatures face an open, yet to be determined future. Because the future is not actual, it is inherently 1 These include theologies using labels such as open theism, process theism, various relational theologies, some Wesleyan theologies, some feminist theologies, some ecological theologies, some Arminian theologies, some postcolonial theologies, and more.
    [Show full text]
  • A Scriptural and Philosophical Evaluation of the Open Model of God As an Ontological Necessity and Its Compatibility with Evangelical Theology
    Ouachita Baptist University Scholarly Commons @ Ouachita Honors Theses Carl Goodson Honors Program 2007 A Scriptural and Philosophical Evaluation of the Open Model of God as an Ontological Necessity and Its Compatibility with Evangelical Theology Richard Garrett Ham Jr. Ouachita Baptist University Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.obu.edu/honors_theses Part of the Biblical Studies Commons, Christianity Commons, and the Practical Theology Commons Recommended Citation Ham, Richard Garrett Jr., "A Scriptural and Philosophical Evaluation of the Open Model of God as an Ontological Necessity and Its Compatibility with Evangelical Theology" (2007). Honors Theses. 44. https://scholarlycommons.obu.edu/honors_theses/44 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Carl Goodson Honors Program at Scholarly Commons @ Ouachita. It has been accepted for inclusion in Honors Theses by an authorized administrator of Scholarly Commons @ Ouachita. For more information, please contact [email protected]. CI IAPTER I: INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................. ! Til£ EV.- \ 'I'GELICAL U'I'OEHSTAND II\"G OF SCIHPTUJn: ............................................................................................ 1 1'l1e Nature ofScriplllre ... ................................................................................................................... .................. 3 The Purpose ofScripture. ....... .... ......................
    [Show full text]
  • IS OPEN THEISM EVANGELICAL? . . . Bruce A. Ware
    JETS 45/2 (June 2002) 193–212 DEFINING EVANGELICALISM’S BOUNDARIES THEOLOGICALLY: IS OPEN THEISM EVANGELICAL? bruce a. ware* i. introduction Clark Pinnock is exactly right. After noting (correctly) in his Most Moved Mover that Arminians and Augustinians have co-existed throughout much of the church’s history, and that a number of evangelical theologians today (and not just open theists) are working toward refinements in an evangeli- cal doctrine of God, he asks, “Why draw the line at foreknowledge?”1 A few pages later, he returns to this question: “In raising the issue of the divine foreknowledge, we have not transgressed some rule of theological discourse and placed ourselves outside the pale of orthodoxy. Why can an evangelical not propose a different view of this matter? What church council has de- clared it to be impossible? Since when has this become the criterion of being orthodox or unorthodox, evangelical or not evangelical?”2 What does Pinnock mean when he says that open theists have raised the issue of divine foreknowledge? Simply this: Open theism affirms God’s ex- haustive knowledge of the past and present, but it denies exhaustive divine foreknowledge, in that it denies that God knows—or can know—the future free decisions and actions of his moral creatures, even while it affirms that God knows all future possibilities and all divinely determined and logically- necessary future actualities. As William Hasker explains, “Since the future is genuinely open, since it is possible for a free agent to act in any of several different ways, it follows that it is not possible for God to have complete and exhaustive knowledge of the entire future.”3 So, the specific denial of exhaustive divine foreknowledge is embraced in open theism as central and essential to its own identity.
    [Show full text]
  • Open Theism and Pentecostalism: a Comparative Study of the Godhead, Soteriology, Eschatology and Providence
    OPEN THEISM AND PENTECOSTALISM: A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF THE GODHEAD, SOTERIOLOGY, ESCHATOLOGY AND PROVIDENCE By RICHARD ALLAN A Thesis Submitted to the University of Birmingham for the Degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Theology and Religion School of Philosophy, Theology and Religion College of Arts and Law University of Birmingham March 2018 University of Birmingham Research Archive e-theses repository This unpublished thesis/dissertation is copyright of the author and/or third parties. The intellectual property rights of the author or third parties in respect of this work are as defined by The Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 or as modified by any successor legislation. Any use made of information contained in this thesis/dissertation must be in accordance with that legislation and must be properly acknowledged. Further distribution or reproduction in any format is prohibited without the permission of the copyright holder. ABSTRACT Despite Open Theism’s claims for a robust ‘Social’ Trinitarianism, there exists significant inconsistencies in how it is portrayed and subsequently applied within its wider theology. This sympathetic, yet critical, evaluation arises from the Pneumatological lacuna which exists not only in the conception of God as Trinity, but the subsequent treatment of divine providence, soteriology and eschatology. In overcoming this significant lacuna, the thesis adopts Francis Clooney’s comparative methodology as a means of initiating a comparative dialogue with Pentecostalism, to glean important insights concerning its Pneumatology. By engaging in the comparative dialogue between to the two communities, the novel insights regarding the Spirit are then incorporated into a provisional and experimental model of Open Theism entitled Realizing Eschatology.
    [Show full text]
  • How Does God Respond to Prayer? a Reformed Response to the Openness Position Elizabeth Mehne April 26, 2002 Senior Integration P
    How Does God Respond to Prayer? A Reformed Response to the Openness Position Elizabeth Mehne April 26, 2002 Senior Integration Paper How Does God Respond to Prayer? The controversial debate of Open Theism raises many issues critical to every Christian’s faith. Openness proponents claim to be presenting a newer, more biblically accurate picture of God’s nature. They believe that the God of the Bible has been hardened and obscured by tradition. In contrast to the Reformed view, Open theists elevate the concept of God as love, emphasizing his desire to take risks in a “give and take” relationship with his people.1 The God they describe is dynamic: he moves through time, experiencing with us our joys and our pain. Since God desires a real relationship with his people, he chooses to limit his knowledge of the future. Together, God and his people move through time determining what the future will be. This portrait of God is fascinating and appears to be supported by many proof-texts. Yet is this an accurate account of how Scripture describes God’s full-orbed glory? The God of Open Theism stands in drastic opposition to the Reformed understanding of God. This theology undermines the God who many of us trust, follow, honor, and obey. Open Theism in many ways is antithetical to the Reformed faith, and yet it claims to be an evangelical movement. Under this pretense, Open Theism has permeated many Christian circles and therefore poses a threat to the Church. The implications of Open theology are far reaching. This picture of God can greatly weaken a believer’s confidence in God’s omniscience and power.
    [Show full text]
  • Openness and Inerrancy: Can They Be Compatible?
    JETS 45/4 (December 2002) 629–49 OPENNESS AND INERRANCY: CAN THEY BE COMPATIBLE? jason a. nicholls* i. introduction To some observers, the resolution concerning divine foreknowledge passed at the 2001 ETS Annual Meeting in Colorado Springs might seem rather harmless. “We believe the Bible clearly teaches that God has com- plete, accurate, and infallible knowledge of all events past, present, and future, including all future decisions and actions of free moral agents.”1 It undoubtedly reflects the society’s majority viewpoint. Yet this vote comes on the heels of several years of discussion and debate, albeit rather limited until recently, on the question of whether the position known as the open- ness of God is compatible with evangelical theology.2 In fact, some are in- terpreting the results of this vote as the first step down the road toward outright dismissing advocates of the open view from the ETS. Scholars such as Wayne Grudem have admitted as much by characterizing the vote as a “gentle nudge” for open theists to exit the society.3 But exactly why would critics of the openness view want to see this theological position expelled from the society, and why have its proponents come under such intense fire? * Jason A. Nicholls is lecturer in theology at Marquette University, P.O. Box 1881, Milwaukee, WI 53201. 1 See David Neff’s editorial, “Scholars Vote: God Knows Future,” Christianity Today 46/1 (Jan- uary 7, 2002) 21. As Neff reports, this resolution was passed at the 2001 Annual Meeting in Col- orado Springs by a vote of 253 to 66, with 41 members abstaining.
    [Show full text]
  • Open Theism and the Divine Timelessness Debate
    TMSJ 18/1 (Spring 2007) 43-68 IS IT TIME TO CHANGE? OPEN THEISM AND THE DIVINE TIMELESSNESS DEBATE Marshall Wicks* The recent popularity of Open Theism in evangelical circles has raised questions regarding the traditional doctrine of divine eternality, timelessness, or atemporality. The questions necessitate a three-part investigation of the subject. Part one investigates the present status of temporality studies which define time as either tenseless or dynamic. Part two compares the temporal position with the atemporal. The classical position has been that God is timeless, but some recent evangelical scholars have come to view God as a temporal being, with some others theorizing that He is both temporal and atemporal. The temporal position criticizes atemporalism in three ways: (1) the Bible presents God as a temporal being; (2) the modern consensus is that God is temporal; (3) atemporality is a result of the influence of Greek philosophy on Christian doctrine; (4) the idea of a timeless God is incoherent. In each case, the criticisms prove to be invalid. Part three examines positions that attempt to maintain temporality and atemporality simultaneously, but the composite approach proves to be nothing but another way of stating the atemporal position. A successful defense of the atemporal position proves Open Theism to be an unorthodox version of theism that should be rejected. * * * * * No generation in Christian history has debated like ours about whether God is timeless or whether he has unending duration, that is, whether temporal existence extends interminably forward and backward.1 *Marshall Wicks is Professor of Bible at the Word of Life Bible Institute.
    [Show full text]
  • Open Theism—A Review of the Issues Kwabena Donkor, BRI One Of
    Open Theism—A Review of the Issues Kwabena Donkor, BRI One of the controversies that have created a bit of a stir in evangelical theological circles in recent times is the debate over what has come to be called, among others, “open theism.”1 The term “open theism” is noted to have been introduced in 1980 with the publication of Seventh-day Adventist theologian Richard Rice’s Openness of God. The issue was not broadly discussed, however, until 1994 when five essays were published by five Evangelical scholars, including Rice, under the title The Openness of God.2 The complexity of the subject compels us to limit our presentation in a manner that can be concise and still helpful. Only an overview may be attempted here, and even then this discussion intends to touch mainly on the key issues at stake in the controversy. I. What Is It? What is open theism? As the label implies open theism is a view of God and His relationship to reality that is characterized by openness. What does it mean for God to be open to reality? The critical issue is what is entailed in the caption “open” or “openness.” Gregory Boyd, a key advocate of this view describes the openness in this way: “Open view theists believe that the future exists partly as actualities (future events that God sovereignly determines to bring about) and partly as possibilities (aspects of the future which God sovereignly allows his creatures to bring about).”3 David Basinger, however, more specifically characterizes the openness in the following terms: “(1) God not only created this world
    [Show full text]
  • Open Theism's Attack on the Atonement*
    TMSJ 12/1 (Spring 2001) 3-13 OPEN THEISM’S ATTACK ON THE ATONEMENT* John MacArthur President and Professor of Pastoral Ministries Open theism arose in evangelicalism over a decade ago when evangelicals posited a God to whom one can easily relate and who is manageable in place of a God who punishes sinners for their sin. This they did by proposing a model of Christ’s atonement that was not substitutionary. To do so they adopted the model of the 16th-century Socinian heresy, which taught that God could forgive without the payment of a ransom. The biblical doctrine, however, is that Christ’s atonement was substitutionary, a teaching that was not immediately defined in the early church, but which Anselm stated clearly during the 16th century. Open theists on the other hand tend to vacillate between the inadequate positions of Abelard and Grotius in their views of the atonement. Because of their distorted views of the atonement, open theists do not belong in the ranks of evangelicalism. * * * * * More than a decade ago a controversial article in Christianity Today heralded the rise of open theism. The article, “Evangelical Megashift,” was written by Robert Brow, a prominent Canadian theologian. Brow described a radical change looming on the evangelical horizon—a “megashift” toward “new-model” thinking, away from classical theism (which Brow labeled “old-model” theology).1 What the article outlined was the very movement that today is known as the “open” view of God, or “open theism.” Although Brow himself is a vocal advocate of open theism, his 1990 article neither championed nor condemned the megashift.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 UNIT 1 INTRODUCTION to THEISM Contents 1.0 Objectives
    UNIT 1 INTRODUCTION TO THEISM Contents 1.0 Objectives 1.1 Introduction 1.2 Types of Theism 1.3 Kinds of Theism 1.4 Let Us Sum Up 1.5 Key Words 1.6 Further Readings and References 1.0 OBJECTIVES Is there a God? God is one or many? Do celestial beings (gods, angels, spirits, and demons) exist? Is there life after death? Is religion a need for modern human? If there is a God then why evil exists? Can man comprehend God? Can the human communicate with God? Does God answer prayers? There are many existential questions raised by humans in the realm of religion, spirituality and metaphysics. Theism is a philosophical ideology which answers the questions arose above in its affirmative. In simple words theism is an ideology that propagates belief in the existence of God or gods. The term ‘theism’ is synonymous to “having belief in God”. In the broadest sense, a theist is a person with the belief that at least one deity (God) exists. This God can be addressed as The Absolute, The Being, Ground of Being, The Ultimate, The World-Soul, the Supreme Good, The Truth, The First Cause, The Supreme Value, The Thing in Itself, The Mystery etc. Theism acknowledges that this god is a living being having personality, will and emotions. Theists believe in a personal God who is the creator and sustainer of life. The answers for the questions ‘Who is god?’ ‘What is god?’ are attempted by the theists. In discussing theism there arises another important question. It is like when was the human mind started to think about God? Many theistic theologians believe that “God consciousness” is innate in the human mind.
    [Show full text]