2. Dorothee Solle made the claim that “God needs us”. What does she mean by this statement? What is the reasoning behind her understanding of God’s relationship with humanity? Karl Barth has a different point of view concerning God’s relationship with humanity. State your understanding of Barth’s position and indicate which perspective more closely approximates your position? Why?
Dorothee Solle and Karl Barth hold different ideas about God’s power that allow Solle to claim “God needs us” and Barth to claim that God has absolute independence and sovereignty. In the following essay, I will explain Solle’s reasoning behind her understanding of God’s relationship with humanity before pointing out Barth’s divergent position and concluding with
…show more content…
Solle explains that a “[r]eal encounter in love can only take place in mutuality, not in an asymmetrical relationship of dependence…we know God only if we also know how much God needs us” (184). Love requires mutuality and vulnerability; it requires letting oneself be known. If God is love, then God must allow God’s self to be known. Solle argues that God allows God’s self to be known most clearly in the relational, non-coercive and pacifistic nature of Jesus. She states “The only capital with which [Jesus] came into the world was his love, and it was as powerless and as powerful as love is. He had nothing but his love with which to win our hearts” (187). Solle explains that we know God needs us because God reveals God’s desire for relationship in Jesus and reveals God’s vulnerability in the …show more content…
She explains “the Christian assumption that we recognize God most clearly in this figure of [Jesus] tortured to death goes completely against our fixation on power and domination” (187). However, she claims that if we picture Jesus “as a Greek God, a figure who can do anything...that is really a denial of the incarnation” (187). In addition, Solle argues that “the resurrection of Christ is a tremendous distribution of power” because in crucifixion we were able to witness God’s vulnerability and in resurrection we were given the power of “tremendous certainty of God” (188). In addition, important to Solle is the fact that after the resurrection this power is shared with women. She states “women who were the first to experience were given a share in the power of life” (188). In summary, for Solle, God needs us because God is fundamentally relational and “real relationship[s] mean that an exchange takes place” (188). In Solle’s view, the incarnation is God’s willingness to be known, loved, and to enter into reciprocal
Drawing a distinction between being for someone and being with someone, Father Boyle writes: “Jesus was not a man for others. He was one with others. Jesus didn’t seek the rights of lepers. He touched the leper even before he got around to curing him. He didn’t champion the cause of the outcast. He was the outcast.” Such a distinction has significant implications for understanding ourselves in relation to others. While being for someone implies a separateness, a distinction between “them” and “us”, being with someone requires the recognition of a oneness with another, a unity that eradicates differences and binds people together. “’Be compassionate as God is compassionate’, means the dismantling of barriers that exclude,” writes Father Boyle. Accordingly, true compassion is not only recognizing the pain and suffering of others – it is not just advocating for those in need. It is being with others in their pain and suffering – and “bringing them in toward yourself.” Indeed, scripture scholars connect the word compassion to the “deepest part of the person,” showing that when Jesus was “moved with pity”, he was moved “from the entirety of his
The medieval theologian Julian of Norwich was a mystic, writer, anchoress and spiritual director for her time. She is gaining in popularity for our time as she provides a spiritual template for contemplative prayer and practice in her compilation of writings found in Revelations of Divine Love. The insightful meditations provide the backdrop and basis for her Trinitarian theology’s embrace of God’s Motherhood found in the Trinity. Her representative approach of the all-encompassing unconditional love of a mother who nurtures, depicts Christ as our Mother ascending to the placement of Second hood within the Trinity while giving voice to the duality of God.
Eva is the most explicit in explaining the dynamic between God and his people. She explains this by asking Topsy, "don't you know that Jesus loves all alike? He is just as willing to love you, as me" (412). Earlier in the book Tom had asked a similar question to a downtrodden woman on the boat with him: "Han't nobody never telled ye how the Lord Jesus loved ye, and died for you?" (324). God offers everyone this love, but it can only be claimed by loving God in return. Eva pleads with the people around her that they should, "pray every day," (419) so that they can find God as she has.
Barth’s opening thesis is a view that everything that can be known with confidence about God or divine things is known only or primarily by faith, as opposed to a coherent or cognitive. In addition, existential, in the sense that Barth affirms that scripture has an objective significance, even before considering it through faith and reason. According to Barth, “This circumstance is the simple fact that in the congregation of Jesus Christ, the Bible has specific authority and significance” (p. 56) and without the congregation it becomes only historical. It becomes important to uphold and defend the Bible’s authority and the power does not come from any simple measure employed by us individually. It is up to the congregation to openly confess the analytical propositions without fear and become actively engaged in the faith and obedience of which it asks (p. 56).
In I.17.1 of John Calvin’s work, Calvin argues that people do not need to worry about anything they do not understand because God takes care of everything. It is important to understand that this is not the beginning of Calvin’s Institutes of Christian Religion, because his points in chapter sixteen set the basis for his argument in this next section. Chapter sixteen on providence gives the foundation of
It is by the path of love, which is charity, that God draws near to man, and man to God. But where charity is not found, God cannot dwell. If, then, we possess charity, we possess God, for "God is Charity" (1 John 4:8)
The Canadian philosopher J.L. Schellenberg has recently put forward an argument for atheism based on the idea that God is supposed to be perfectly loving and so would not permit people to be deprived of awareness of his existence. If such a deity were to exist, then, he would do something to reveal his existence clearly to people, thereby causing them to become theists. Thus, the fact that there are so many non-theists in the world becomes good reason to deny the existence of God conceived of in the given way. I first raise objections to Schellenberg’s formulation of the argument and then suggest some improvements. My main improvement is to include among the divine attributes the property of strongly desiring humanity’s love. Since to love God requires at least believing that he exists, if God were to exist, he must want widespread theistic belief. The fact that so many people lack such belief becomes a good argument for atheism with respect to God conceived of in the given way. Some objections to this line of reasoning are considered, in particular the claim that God refrains from revealing himself to people in order to avoid interfering with their free will or to avoid eliciting inappropriate responses from them or some other (unknown) purpose. An attempt is made to refute each of these objections.
Throughout our course we have read and considered many ideas, however for the duration of this paper I will focus on two core ideas. These are the ideas that God is the first efficient cause and whether God is good. For the duration of this paper I will look at Aquinas’s five ways, Hume’s refutation of God being the efficient cause. Also Dostoevsky’s and Hume’s explanation that God is not good because of the abundance of pain. Throughout the class what I have come to learn and was most impacted by is that God is not what we prescribe him to be in our different religions. Also the arguments that always stood out for me were the arguments of Hume and his skepticism. It is my goal through this paper to explain that God is not the entity
As stated earlier, Swiss Reformed theologian, Karl Barth shared a strong and influential opinion concerning Divine Election. He was educated and pastored between Switzerland and Germany before investing great effort to teach theological topics. The theological support for the start of World War I motivated Barth to consider civilization unable to hear and obey divine command. As a result, he returned to scriptural study and composed works which “created a new situation for the Evangelical-Roman Catholic debate”. After thirty two years of writing Barth completed thirteen volumes of his theological manual, Church Dogmatics.
The four fundamental claims of the Catholic Intellectual Tradition, Human beings exist in a relation to a triune God, God’s presence in the world is mediated through nature and reality, faith and reason are compatible, the dignity of the human being is inviolable and therefore the commitment to justice for the common good is necessary. However, the great books in the Catholic Intellectual tradition show that they represent these fundamental claims in a broad distinctive way. This essay will show that these readings better represent one of the fundamental claims, human beings exist in a relation with a triune God, from the view point of three great books from the bible, Genesis, Exodus and the Gospel of Matthew. The Bible clearly supports the
A foundational belief in Christianity is the idea that God is perfectly good. God is unable to do anything evil and all his actions are motives are completely pure. This principle, however, leads to many questions concerning the apparent suffering and wrong-doing that is prevalent in the world that this perfect being created. Where did evil come from? Also, how can evil exist when the only eternal entity is the perfect, sinless, ultimately good God? This question with the principle of God's sovereignty leads to even more difficult problems, including human responsibility and free will. These problems are not limited to our setting, as church fathers and Christian philosophers are the ones who proposed some of the solutions people believe today. As Christianity begins to spread and establish itself across Europe in the centuries after Jesus' resurrection, Augustine and Boethius provide answers, although wordy and complex, to this problem of evil and exactly how humans are responsible in the midst of God's sovereignty and Providence.
Hugo Meynell's book is a clear example of the growing interest in apologetics. Meynell considers four common objections to Christian doctrine, the belief in God is morally irrelevant; that there is no reason to believe in the special claims of Christianity over those of non-Christian religions. Meynell, also says no sense can be made of the doctrines of Incarnation, Atonement, and the Trinity and that Christian doctrine about life after death is based upon an indefensible view of the nature of human persons-and shows to his own views that these remarks can be met. It should be noted that Meynell on the prior assumption that God exists. This is not because Meynell takes that assumption to be indefensible or incapable of demonstration; it is rather that the existence of God is not his topic in this book.
The fall of mankind with Adam and Eve caused an imbalance in the relations between God and mankind. To achieve salvation, this inequity had ...
A Christian apologetic method is a verbal defense of the biblical worldview. A proof is giving a reason for why we believe. This paper will address the philosophical question of God’s existence from the moral argument. The presuppositional apologetic method of Reformed thinkers Cornelius Van Til and John Frame will be the framework. Topics covered here could undoubtedly be developed in more depth, but that would be getting ahead, here is the big picture.
Through out history there have been questions of where we come from and how we got here. It all comes down to the question of God’s existence. God’s existence has never been questioned during the times of when Christianity, Judaism and Islam were born. The question of God’s existence comes from our new way of thinking after these religions. Science has made us think of how things work in our world and brings Gods existence into question. There were no scientific studies done during the days of Jesus to prove that God exists, so where did the people in history get this idea of God from? Many philosophers have been questioning and giving their ideas of God and his existence. The ideas that we may have of God is usually connected with religion and our beliefs. One philosopher that touches on this topic is Descartes. Descartes gives his ideas on God’s existence and his out look on our selves compared to God. Most religions believe that there is a God and that he has created everything around us. Everyone has a different answer to this question that they think is the right one. Throughout this paper, I will be discussing God’s existence, while looking at Descartes ideas and through different perspectives of whether or not God exist as well.