ZusammenfassungNach Oswald Bayer ist Schöpfung Gottes Anrede an den Menschen. Glaube an den Schöpfer ist Antwort auf das, was Gott uns in dieser Welt zusagt. Schöpfung bezieht sich auf die Gegenwart, nicht auf die Vergangenheit, auf Gottes persönliche Kommunikation mit uns und nicht nur auf unpersönliche Verursachung, auf Gottes aktive und persönliche Gegenwart in allem, das in dieser Welt geschieht, nicht auf jenseitige Transzendenz. Bayer ist darin zuzustimmen, dass die Schöpfung Gottes Gabe und Zusage ist und dass der Glaube an (...) den Schöpfer eine Antwort auf diese Anrede und eine Form der Welterfahrung ist. Die Art, wie Bayer diese Einsichten entwickelt, wirft jedoch einige schwerwiegende Probleme auf. In diesem Aufsatz werden vier Kritikpunkte vorgestellt. Erstens bringt die Bibel den Schöpfungsglauben nicht nur in Hymnen in der zweiten Person zum Ausdruck, sondern auch in Erzählungen in der dritten Person. Nehmen wir diese narrative Struktur ernst, müssen wir zweitens die Schöpfung als Gottes erste Tat in der Geschichte seines Volkes verstehen. In einer theoretischen Reflexion auf den Begriff der Schöpfung als Gottes ersten Akt, brauchen drittens wir einen theologisch modifizierten der 〉Kausalität〈 als Handeln. Schließlich und viertens ist Gott nicht nur frei in seiner Transzendenz und liebend in seiner Immanenz, wie Bayer behauptet, sondern auch liebend in seiner Transzendenz und frei in seiner Immanenz. Das bedeutet, dass wir im Gegensatz zu Bayers Darstellung auch Unterschiede der Art und Weise anerkennen müssen, wie der wollende und handelnde Gott in der Geschichte seiner Schöpfung wirksam ist.SummaryAccording to Oswald Bayer, creation is God's address to human beings. Belief in the Creator is a response to what God promises us in this world. Creation is about our present, not about the past; about God's personal communication with us, not about impersonal causation; about God's active and personal presence in everything that happens in this world, not about otherworldly transcendence. With Bayer it is right to say that creation is God's gift and promise, and that belief in the Creator is a response to this address and a way of experiencing this world. The manner in which Bayer spells out these insights, however, raises some serious problems. In this article four criticisms are made. First, the Bible expresses belief in God's creation not only in hymns in the second person, but also in narratives in the third person. Second, when we take these narratives seriously, we have to think about creation as the first act of God in the history of His people. Third, in a theoretical reflection about the concept of creation as God's first act, we need a theologically modified concept of ‘causation’ as agency. And last, God is not only free in His transcendence, and loving in His immanence, as Bayer claims, but also loving in His transcendence and free in His immanence. This implies, in contrast to Bayer's account, that we have to acknowledge differences in the way the willing and acting God is involved in the history of His creation. (shrink)

This article discusses whether Christian talk about God can be literal. First, it is argued that the meaning of a word cannot be reduced to its use, that metaphorical language is indirect in its use of words, and that the change of meaning of a word by analogical extension differs from the change of meaning by repeated metaphorical use. Next, it is shown that in Christian talk about God, God can be literally referred to by God's proper name, “YHWH,” and (...) by words that in contexts of prayer and praise function as proper names. Then it is argued that terms for non‐basic actions can be literally applied to the Christian God, and that some of God's essential properties can be literally described on the basis of his self‐revealing actions. (shrink)

Modern scientific models of cosmological space and the theological concept of God’s immensity seem to exclude the possibility that God himself is personally present with us humans at particular places in space. Are God and our spatial reality incompatible? Or, is it possible to conceive the connection between God and space as ‘positive’, that is, in such a way that God himself can be fully and personally present with us at particular places in space? This essay explores how this question (...) may be addressed in a theology which accepts the results of the natural sciences and acknowledges that God is the free creator of physical space. It describes how space can be conceptualised, and presents an overview of five different views on a positive relation between God and space in recent protestant theology. It concludes by some considerations on the question whether a positive relation between God and space requires that God himself is spatial.Contribution: This article contributes to the conversation between natural science and theology by making three points. The scientific understanding of cosmological space and the biblical witness of God’s personal and local presence with humans require an alternative for the traditional theological view on God and space in terms of God’s immensity and omnipresence. It is argued that new theological models for the interrelation between God and space have serious weaknesses. A ‘positive’ relation between God and space may be articulated in terms of the correspondence among God’s uncreated movement, multiplicity and relationality, and the movement, multiplicity and relationality in the physical space of creation. (shrink)

This book interprets and reflects on the conception of God that is implied by the Lord’s Prayer. It explains the epistemic status and ontological implications of the Christian faith in God and proposes a non-essentialist account of central identity-defining attributes of God.