Institutional Repository

Divine providence as risk-taking

Show simple item record

dc.contributor.advisor König, Adrio
dc.contributor.author Sanders, John Ernest en
dc.date.accessioned 2015-01-23T04:24:11Z
dc.date.available 2015-01-23T04:24:11Z
dc.date.issued 1996-06 en
dc.identifier.citation Sanders, John Ernest (1996) Divine providence as risk-taking, University of South Africa, Pretoria, <http://hdl.handle.net/10500/17660> en
dc.identifier.uri http://hdl.handle.net/10500/17660
dc.description.abstract This study seeks to examine the precise way it may be said that God takes risks in creating and governing this world. In order to articulate this model of providence various texts of scripture are studied which have either been overlooked or interpreted differently in discussions of divine providence. These texts reveal a deity who enters into genuine give-and-take relations with creatures, a God who is genuinely responsive and who may be said to take risks in that God does not get everything he desires in these relationships. Furthermore, the traditional texts used to defend the no-risk view of providence are examined and shown that they do not, in fact, teach the idea that God is the cause of everything which happens in the world such that the divine will is never thwarted in the leas detail. The biblical teaching of God in reciprocal relations with his creatures is then discussed in theological and philosophical terms. The nature of God is here understood as loving, wise, faithful yet free, almighty, competent and resourceful. These ideas are explicated in light of the more traditional theological/philosophical understanding of God. Finally, some of the implications of this relational model of God are examined to see the ways in which it may be said that God takes risks and whose will may be thwarted. The crucial watershed in this regard is whether or not there is any conditionality in the godhead. The no-risk view denies, while the risk model affirms, that some aspects of God's will, knowledge, and actions are contingent. In order to grasp the differences between the two models the doctrines and practices involved in salvation, the problem of evil, prayer and guidance are examined to see what each model says about them. It is claimed that· .the relational or risk model is superior to the no-risk model both in terms of theoretical coherence and the practice of the Christian life.
dc.format.extent 1 online reaource (346 leaves) en
dc.subject Divine providence
dc.subject Divine sovereinty
dc.subject Evil
dc.subject Human freedom
dc.subject Omniscience
dc.subject Love
dc.subject Omnipotence
dc.subject Foreknowledge
dc.subject Risk
dc.subject Prayer
dc.subject Contingency
dc.subject Divine will
dc.subject Divine plan
dc.subject Divine-human relationship
dc.subject.ddc 231.5 en
dc.subject.lcsh Good and evil. en
dc.subject.lcsh God -- Omniscience en
dc.subject.lcsh Divine man (Christology) en
dc.subject.lcsh Contingency (Philosophy) en
dc.subject.lcsh Prayer en
dc.title Divine providence as risk-taking en
dc.description.department Philosophy, Practical and Systematic Theology
dc.description.degree Th. D. (Sytematic Theology) en


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Search UnisaIR


Browse

My Account

Statistics