Marcel Sarot

In this article, I analyse C.S. Lewis’s attitude towards the theology and the theologians of his time. Lewis often emphasised that he was not a theologian. Sometimes he does so out of modesty, to excuse minor errors that a specialist in the field would not have made. More often than not, however, something else plays a role: Lewis’s dislike of the theology and the theologians of his time. Although he intended not to become a party in theological controversies, Lewis occasionally took sides. He expressed himself in extremely negative terms about the liberal... movement, which in his experience... dominated the theology of his time. By assuming them to be in error, and showing how they had arrived there, he participates in the practice he elsewhere rejected as ‘Bulverism’. Moreover, he employed pejorative, sexually tinged metaphors. Only on one occasion did Lewis provide arguments for his rejection of liberal theology, and on that occasion he limited himself to New Testament exegesis. On another occasion, Lewis states that he allows only marginal, religiously irrelevant revisions of Christian doctrine. Ironically, his own revisions sometimes went beyond this – for example, in the case of the traditional doctrine of hell. In this article I suggested that for Lewis, the practice of faith implicitly is the ultimate criterion.

In our days, the creedal phrase 'I believe in God the Father almighty' is interpreted primarily along Trinitarian lines: It is applied to God as the Father of Jesus Christ. Here I argue that it has a dual background: in Jesus' prayer practice, in which He consistently addressed God as 'Father', and in the Hellenistic habit of referring to the Creator as 'Father'. I discuss Jesus' use of the term 'Father' against its Old Testament background, and argue that it primarily points to the intimacy of Jesus' relationship with His father. Against the Hellenistic background, however, the metaphor 'Father' means 'he who brings forth effortlessly'. Finally, I discuss some gender issues connected with the use of the term 'Father' for God.

In een tweetal artikelen in dit tijdschrift heeft Henk Geertsema aandacht besteed aan de Utrechtse wijsgerige theologie. In het eerste artikel concentreerde hij zich op de bundel Hoe is Uw Naam?, terwijl hij in het tweede vooral ingaat op het werk van Vincent Brümmer. De scheiding is echter niet zo strikt; ook in het artikel over Brümmer komt Geertsema veelvuldig over Hoe is Uw Naam? te spreken. In deze reactie wil ik ingaan op Geertsema’s kritiek op de wijze waarop Gijsbert van den Brink en ondergetekende in Hoe is Uw Naam? twee criteria voor de wijsgerige theologie bespreken, en deze reactie concretiseren door de meer theoretische opmerkingen toe te passen op een voorbeeld dat Geertsema zelf ter sprake brengt, dat van het berouw van God. Daarbij zal ik uitgaan van enkele passages die Geertsema in zijn artikel over Brümmer aan Hoe is Uw Naam? wijdt

Theology and science pose different questions about the same reality. Science is concerned with the factual nature of the physical world around us, whereas theology is concerned with its meaning. This means that theology is in some respects dependent upon science: science provides theology with information about the factual nature of the reality of which theology has to make sense. How this factual information affects theology is shown for the example of divine omniscience. It is argued that (1) the temporal nature of the world in which we live requires an omniscient God to be temporal as well; (2) the real openness of the future makes it in principle impossible even for a perfect knower to know all its details; (3) the factual nature of some experiences makes it impossible for anyone who has not had similar experiences himself to have perfect knowledge of them. It is concluded from this example that it should be one of the main aims of th dialogue between theology and science to find out in which respects our scientific knowledge of physical reality should lead to a revision of theological doctrines

Bij alle aandacht die er op dit moment is voor de aard van zingevingsvragen is de analogie tussen de betekenis van taal enerzijds en leven en werkelijkheid anderzijds wel opgemerkt, maar nog nergens uitvoerig doorgelicht. Marcel Sarot voorziet in dit gemis door een zorgvuldige analyse van de structurele overeenkomsten tussen verschillende theorieën over beide vormen van betekenis. Vervolgens past hij de gemaakte onderscheidingen toe in een weerlegging van de argumenten tegen de theïstische vorm van zingeving van Elmar D. Klemke en Jaap van Heerden.

In this article, I apply the theory of tradition Karl Popper developed in an article on the rationalist tradition to Christianity. Popper helps us to distinguish between four functions of the Christian tradition. The Christian tradition helps people to order their perceptions by suggesting distinctions between what is important and what is less important. The Christian tradition provides people with guidelines for their behaviour. The Christian tradition provides a framework that helps us to understand the past of our own culture, and can also function as a background against which we may form our own authentic views of life. The Christian tradition is closely connected to the Christian community, which functions as a social group to which people may belong and by reference to which they can define their identity. These four functions shed light on the question why people attach value to participating in the Christian tradition, and why they deplore the decline of the Christian tradition

My conclusions are the following:We can distinguish between two sorts of kowledge: intellectual knowledge (knowledge of true propositions) and experiential knowledge (knowledge of how certain experiences feel).If we want the doctrine of divine omniscience to be theologically relevant, we will have to assert that divine omniscience involves experiential as well as intellectual omniscience.In order to be omniscient, God does not need to share all the feelings of His creatures with them. However, in order to be experientially omniscient, God must have undergone at least some experiences Himself.If God would be able to have these experiences only by becoming incarnate, God would need the incarnation in order to become omniscient. In this respect human nature would then be more perfect than the divine nature: it would be capable of knowing things which God could only come to know by becoming human. It is therefore preferable to maintain that the divine nature itself is capable of undergoing certain experiences.If the divine nature were incapable of undergoing any experience, God would nevertheless be able to have a vast knowledge of true propositions concerning experiences. For descriptions of experiences and for the evaluation of these descriptions, however, He would be dependent in principle upon His creatures