Sayyeda Saida Mirsadri; Mansour Nasiri
Volume 7, Issue 2 , February 2018, , Pages 129-149
Abstract
Open theism is a theological movement rising out of the evangelical tradition at the end of the century. Seeking to resolve the incompatibility existing between the divine infallible foreknowledge and the human free-will, they sought to devise a theology that could be able to uphold human freedom and ...
Read More
Open theism is a theological movement rising out of the evangelical tradition at the end of the century. Seeking to resolve the incompatibility existing between the divine infallible foreknowledge and the human free-will, they sought to devise a theology that could be able to uphold human freedom and free will while keeping God at the centre of its system. According to their focal idea both God and the future are open, that is nothing is predetermined and set beforehand about future and since it has not yet taken place, God has no knowledge of it. The critique raised against them is that in their attempt to defend human free will and to resolve the challenge of incompatibility, they reduce the divine knowledge, hence distorting the image of the traditional God. In this contribution we seek to present a Shi’a theological model that while seeking to resolve the problem, remains loyal to the traditional image of God, hence being immune of the critiques raised against open theism.
Sayyeda Saida Mirsadri; Mansour Nasiri
Volume 6, Issue 1 , January 2017, , Pages 19-44
Abstract
In discussions on religious language, meaningfulness of the religious statements is one of the challenges the philosophers of religion are faced with. Among the responses given, Paul Tillich’s religious symbolism is of special importance. Based on this theory all the religious statements except ...
Read More
In discussions on religious language, meaningfulness of the religious statements is one of the challenges the philosophers of religion are faced with. Among the responses given, Paul Tillich’s religious symbolism is of special importance. Based on this theory all the religious statements except for ‘God exists’ are symbols. Distinguishing between ‘sign’ and ‘symbol’ and regarding the religious statements as non-literal and hence symbolic, he deems religious language as ‘meaningful’ and thus responds to the challenges raised by positivists against all religions in speaking of God. Religious symbolism tries to show how the religious language could be of cognitive nature. But the problem is that by accepting his pan-symbolic view about religious statements and religious language, it becomes impossible to actually and literally talk about God. Thus any way to comprehend and to communicate with God would be blocked out, and this turns his symbolic interpretation to be more of a philosophical nature and preoccupation than a theological tenor and application – to the extent of rendering Christianity devoid of its genuine content. Comprehending this complicated theory is only possible when one would understand it within the framework of his whole theologico-philosophical system of thought.
