Talk:Classical theism (philosophy of religion)

Creator's note
I intend to expand this over time with quotes and citations.

Please do not make additions or corrections to these concepts unless it is faithful to the concepts as they were taught by church fathers who held these views and relevent to the observations of the philosophers and historical theologians who observed the connections between these concepts.

Scriptural supports need to be added for these concepts.

--Rob Rohrs 07:18, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Please DO NOT merge this with the other article on Classical theism. This usage of Classical theism described here is very specific and the other is too general. The only condition upon which it would be fitting to merge these articles would be to delete the other article and replace it with this one. As for Wikifying, I'll get to it when I get to it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Robert Rohrs (talk • contribs) 00:36, 22 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The articles can probably be merged without doing injustice to either. Let's work together to improve this, anyway. --Blainster 11:15, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

The other definition given seems to refer to more conservative views on scriptures and so forth and it is contrasted with an article on Liberal theism which according to that article "is the philosophical and religous belief in the existence of a deity without adhering to an established religion." You can be a classical theist as described by many philosophers of religion in terms of what I wrote without being a classical theist as described in the other article. That definition has little to do with the effects of Greek philosophy on Christian thought as this article does. Classical theists in the philosophical sense are all over the place in terms of adherence to scripture. There are liberal theists who share much in common with the classic view.

Good work on the citations and additions.

yes, lets work together. Speak with me at the open theism article. Your adjustments are discontinuous with the the rest of the intro and they fail to represent what it is about Classical theism that open theists are objecting to.

--Rob Rohrs 22:20, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Two articles
The scope of this article is more narrow than the one on Classical theism, because this one deals only with Christianity, while the other covers other monotheistic religions as well. This should not be an insurmountable problem in seeking a reconciliation of the two. The other article is just a stub, and its main concern at the present time is to distinguish the thought of contemporary apologists who advocate embracing modern scientific theories from those who don't. It quickly focuses on the inerrancy question of scripture, which has little to do with the topic of classical theism. If the scope of classical theism can be established to include all the monotheistic religions, then there should be no problem with removing the mostly irrelevant discussion on the other page and merging this article into that one. I agree on the influence of Greek thought on Christian classical theism. --Blainster 22:19, 18 August 2006 (UTC)