KontroversieControversy

Sessie 2 — Die God wat Nie ...Session 2 — The God Who Can...

Reeks 1 — GrondslagSeries 1 — Foundation

Sessie 1 — Wat Bedoel Ons met 'God'?Session 1 — What Do We Mean by 'God'?

— deurby Attie Retief

Die Definisie van “God” in Klassieke Teïsme

Inleiding

David Bentley Hart se lesing (gebaseer op sy boek The Experience of God: Being, Consciousness, Bliss) nooi ons om weer te dink oor wat ons met “God” bedoel in die klassieke teïstiese tradisie.

Nota: Ons gebruik Hart se filosofiese raamwerk oor klassieke teisme in hierdie reeks. Lesers moet bewus wees dat Hart sedert 2019 (That All Shall Be Saved) ‘n universalistiese standpunt huldig wat van ons gereformeerde belydenis oor die ewige oordeel verskil. Ons gebruik sy filosofie, nie sy soteriologie nie. Sien die Kontroversie-dokument vir ‘n vollediger bespreking.

In klassieke teïsme, ‘n siening wat histories deur Christene soos Augustinus en Thomas van Aquino gedeel is, sowel as deur Joodse, Islamitiese en selfs sekere Oosterse denkers, verwys “God” nie na ‘n beperkte wese of net ‘n magtige entiteit iewers in die heelal nie. God word verstaan as die oneindige bron en grond van alle werklikheid.

Hart beklemtoon dat God is “the infinite fullness of being, omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient, from whom all things come and upon whom all things depend for every moment of their existence”. Met ander woorde: alles wat bestaan, is voortdurend afhanklik van God, “in whom we live and move and have our being” (Hand. 17:28). Dit beteken God is nie nog ‘n wese onder ander nie, maar die daad van Bestaan self wat alles onderhou. Thomas van Aquino het gesê God se wese is bestaan self (Hy is ipsum esse subsistens, “selfstandige bestaan self”).

Hart wys daarop dat baie moderne ateïste hierdie klassieke begrip mis. Hulle val ‘n karikatuur aan, asof God ‘n supermens in die lug is of ‘n item binne die heelal — wat Hart noem ‘n ”demiurgic god” (‘n soort kosmiese vakman). Om só ’n wese te verwerp is nie dieselfde as om die God van klassieke teïsme te ontken nie. Hart sê selfs al sou daar ’n magtige kosmiese Skepper wees met die naam “God” maar wat self afhanklik is van ’n dieper verklaring, kan die “village atheist” steeds vra: “Who made that god?”. Die God van klassieke teïsme is egter nie ‘n objek wat ‘n oorsaak nodig het nie. Hy is die onveroorsaakte Werklikheid waarop alles anders afhanklik is. Soos Hart dit opsom: “God is not some discrete being out there… Rather, he is himself the logical order of all reality, the ground both of the subjective rationality of mind and the objective rationality of being”. Eenvoudiger gestel: God is die Rede waarom enigiets bestaan of sin maak – die Een in wie beide verstand en materie “deelneem” en daardeur wesenlikheid en orde bekom.

Hart bou sy verduideliking rondom drie grondaspekte van werklikheid: Bestaan (Being), Bewussyn (Consciousness) en Saligheid/Vervulling (Bliss). Volgens hom wys almal na God. Hy wys dat ’n teïstiese wêreldbeskouing hierdie ervarings beter verduidelik as ’n streng materialistiese of naturalistiese siening.

Bestaan/Wese/Eksistensie (Being)

Waarom is daar iets eerder as niks? Hart voer aan dat die blote “daar-wees” van bestaan, dat enigiets hoegenaamd bestaan, ‘n wegwyser is na God. Alle beperkte dinge is afhanklik van ’n uiteindelike grond van bestaan. Die Bybel bevestig dit: Eksodus 3:14, waar God vir Moses sê: “Ek IS wat Ek IS”, openbaar God as die Een wat self bestaan. Thomas van Aquino het geleer dat skepsels “deelhebbende bestaan” het, terwyl God self Bestaan is. Hart herinner ons: God is “perfect actuality and fullness of being”, die noodsaaklike wese wat bestaan gee aan alle afhanklike wesens.

Naturalistiese ateïsme aanvaar eenvoudig dat die heelal bestaan. Klassieke denkers soos Aquino of Augustinus vind dit onbevredigend – bestaan self vra ’n uiteindelike verklaring. Hart, saam met filosowe soos Aristoteles en Leibniz, sou sê daar móét ’n onveroorsaakte werklikheid wees wat alles onderhou. Sonder die oneindige God, sê hy, sou “nothing at all could exist”.

Bewussyn (Consciousness)

Benewens ‘n geordende wêreld beleef ons ook ons eie innerlike lewe van verstand, rede en wil. Hart voer aan dat bewussyn, veral ons vermoë tot rasionele denke en kennis van waarheid, nie volledig deur blote materiële prosesse verklaar kan word nie. Ons subjektiewe ervaring wys op ’n bron buite blote materie.

Hier stem hy saam met Plato (tydlose waarhede dui op ’n hoër geestelike werklikheid) en Aristoteles (daar moet ’n Onbewoë Beweger wees wat Denke self is). Johannes 1 beskryf God as die Logos (Woord of Rede) waardeur alles gemaak is. Hart sê God is “infinite consciousness” – die volmaakte Verstand wat die bron is van alle rasionele verstand.

Hy maak die punt dat geen rekenaar “bewus” is net omdat dit bereken nie: “software no more ‘thinks’ than a clock’s minute hand knows the time”. Ons rasionaliteit en innerlike lewe maak sin as die werklikheid self gegrond is in ’n hoogste Intellek. Plantinga voeg by: as ons verstand bloot ’n produk van doellose evolusie is, het ons min rede om ons denke te vertrou – wat beteken ‘n goddelike Verstand is ‘n beter verklaring.

Saligheid / Vervulling (Bliss)

Mense soek universeel betekenis, goedheid en skoonheid. Hart gebruik die term ”Bliss” (na die Sanskrit ananda, hoogste geluk) vir die vervulling wat ons verstand en harte soek. Ons het ‘n ingeboude verlange na iets uiteindeliks. Augustinus het gebid: “You have made us for Yourself, O Lord, and our heart is restless until it rests in You”.

Hart merk op dat selfs ongelowiges “a natural longing for God” toon wanneer hulle na waarheid soek of goed doen. Vanuit Gereformeerde perspektief moet ons hier egter noukeurig onderskei: die sensus divinitatis (Calvyn, Institusie I.3) plant wel ‘n bewussyn van God in elke mens, maar gevalle mense onderdruk hierdie bewussyn aktief (Rom. 1:18–21; DL 3/4.1–4). Enige werklike beweging na God toe – enige opregte soeke – word nie deur die ongehoude menslike natuur voortgebring nie, maar deur die Heilige Gees wat harte vernuwe en oë open. Hart se waarneming oor menslike hunkering bly waardevol as beskrywing van die rusteloosheid wat die sensus divinitatis skep, maar die Gereformeerde belydenis leer dat hierdie rusteloosheid op sigself nie tot ware Godskennis lei nie – daarvoor is die Gees se werk onontbeerlik. As die wêreld net materie was, sou hierdie honger na transendente ideale onverklaarbaar wees. As God werklik is, maak dit sin – ons begeertes wys na ons ware vervulling in Hom. Skoonheid, sê hy, is “gloriously useless”, en tog wys dit na “a fuller beauty” buite die onvolmaakte dinge wat ons sien.

Opsomming

Hart wys “God” is nie ’n abstrakte idee of ’n mededingende objek in die heelal nie, maar die Een uiteindelike werklikheid wat die bron is van alle bestaan, verstand en goedheid. Hierdie klassieke siening onderlê die Christelike belydenis van God as Skepper van alles, in wie alles saamgehou word. Vanuit eerste beginsels van bestaan, bewussyn en ons hunkering na die transendente, wys Hart dat geloof in God rasioneel en samehangend is.

’n Gestruktureerde Logiese Vloei vanaf Eerste Beginsels

Kom ons breek die logiese redenasie agter klassieke teïsme stap vir stap af, begin by basiese eerste beginsels. Hoe redeneer denkers soos Hart (saam met Augustinus, Aquino en ander) hul pad na die konsep van God? Ons kan dit in drie fundamentele stappe opsom, ooreenkomstig Bestaan (Being), Bewussyn (Consciousness), en Saligheid/Vervulling (Bliss):

a. Hoekom iets bestaan: Die Vraag van Bestaan

Beginsel van Voldoende Rede: Eerstens, oorweeg dat iets bestaan eerder as niks – die heelal, met al sy afhanklike dinge, is hier. Klassieke redenasie (terug na Plato en Aristoteles, en later Aquino en Leibniz) hou vol dat elke afhanklike ding ’n verklaring of oorsaak benodig. Die heelal bestaan uit dinge wat begin, verander, en afhanklik is van ander dinge. Dit is natuurlik om te vra: Waarom is daar ’n heelal? Waarom bestaan enigiets eerder as niks?
Kontingensie en Noodsaaklike Wese: By nadere besinning is enigiets wat nie hoef te bestaan nie (byvoorbeeld ek en jy, die aarde, sterre, ens.) kontingent – sy bestaan is nie selfverduidelikend nie. As ons die kettings van oorsake of voorwaardes terug naspeur, redeneer klassieke denkers dat ons nie ’n oneindige terugwaartse reeks van afhanklike verklarings kan hê nie; daar moet iets wees wat in eie reg bestaan, nie afhanklik van enigiets anders nie. Met ander woorde, daar moet minstens een noodsaaklike wese wees wat die uiteindelike verklaring bied vir die bestaan van alle afhanklike wesens. Hierdie noodsaaklike werklikheid het geen eksterne oorsaak nie en kan nie nie bestaan nie – dit bestaan uit sy eie aard.
God as die Grond van Bestaan: Klassieke teïsme identifiseer hierdie noodsaaklike, self-bestaande werklikheid as God. God is die uiteindelike grond van bestaan wat aan alles anders bestaan gee. Dit pas by hoe God Homself in die Skrif openbaar het. Toe Moses vir God vra wat sy Naam is, antwoord Hy: ”I AM WHO I AM” (Eksodus 3:14), wat selfbestaan impliseer. Soos Aquino verduidelik: ”He Who Is” is die mees toepaslike naam vir God, want dit dui aan dat God se wese self bestaan is. Alle ander wesens het slegs bestaan deur deelname; God is bestaan. Augustinus het soortgelyk geleer dat God is ”that which truly IS”, en dat alles anders minder werklik is in vergelyking, omdat geskape dinge kom en gaan.

Vanuit hierdie eerste beginsel van bestaan kom ons by ‘n God wat nie een wese onder vele is nie, maar Bestaan self, die onuitputlike daad van Om-te-wees. Dit beantwoord die vraag waarom enigiets bestaan: alles bestaan omdat dit voortdurend bestaan ontvang van die Skepper. Soos Paulus verkondig het: ”He himself gives to all mankind life and breath and everything” (Hand. 17:25); ”for in Him we live and move and have our being” (Hand. 17:28). Calvyn skryf in kommentaar op daardie vers: ”in speaking properly [God] alone is,” en ”it belongs to God alone to be, [while] all other things have their being in Him”. God alleen bestaan uit Homself; alles anders bestaan deur Hom. Hierdie redenasie vanaf bestaan (dikwels die kosmologiese of kontingensie-argument genoem) gee vir ons ‘n fondament: enige samehangende wêreldbeskouing het ‘n uiteindelike onveroorsaakte Werklikheid nodig. Klassieke teïsme stel voor dat hierdie Werklikheid ‘n transendente, intelligente en goeie Skepper is.

b. Hoekom verstande bestaan: Die Ingesig van Bewussyn

Materie teenoor Verstand: Ons sien ook ‘n fundamentele verskil tussen materiële objekte en ons eie verstand. Atome en molekules het self geen innerlike lewe of doel nie; hulle volg bloot fisiese wette. Tog is ons hier — bewuste wesens met gedagtes, emosies, wil en rasionele insig. Hoe het verstand uit materie ontstaan? ’n Streng materialis mag sê verstand het “ontstaan” uit komplekse biologiese prosesse, maar klassieke denkers vind dit onvoldoende. Daar is ’n verklaringsgaping tussen onbewuste materie en die eerste-persoon-ervaring van bewussyn.
Die Verstaanbaarheid van Werklikheid: Verder ontdek ons dat werklikheid verstaanbaar is, dit kan deur die verstand begryp word, en ons beskik oor die intelligensie om dit te doen. Ons kan logiese en wiskundige waarhede onderskei wat ’n tydlose, objektiewe aard het (2+2=4, die wette van logika, ens.), en ons neem vanself aan dat ons rede werklike waarheid oor die wêreld kan vasstel. As die heelal uiteindelik verstandloos was, is dit raaiselagtig waarom dit konsekwent rasionele wette sou volg of waarom ons verstand daarmee sou ooreenstem. (Waarom sou ’n suiwer toevallige kosmos so ordelik en wiskundig elegant wees?)
God as Hoogste Verstand (Logos): Vanuit hierdie oorwegings lei klassieke teïsme af dat die uiteindelike oorsaak van die wêreld Verstand of Rede moet insluit — dat die heelal gegrond is in intelligensie eerder as blinde chaos. God, volgens die tradisie, is intellektueel en geestelik van aard – “infinite consciousness,” soos Hart sê. Die Evangelie van Johannes noem God die Logos, wat Goddelike Rede beteken. Die idee is dat ons beperkte verstande waarheid kan begryp omdat hulle gemaak is na die beeld van die Goddelike Verstand wat die werklikheid gestruktureer het. “In your light do we see light”, sê Psalm 36:9, wat impliseer dat ons kennis ’n deelname is in God se kennis. Augustinus het geleer dat onveranderlike waarhede (soos die wette van logika) gegrond is in God se ewige waarheid – “Where I found truth, there I found my God, the Truth itself,” het hy geskryf. Net so het die filosoof Alvin Plantinga geargumenteer dat logiese en morele wette die meeste sin maak as daar ’n hoogste persoonlike Verstand is in wie daardie beginsels uiteindelik geleë is (anders is ons net met abstrakte absolutes sonder grondslag gelaat). Prakties beteken dit dat wanneer ons redeneer of iets as waar herken, ons implisiet staatmaak op ’n rasionele orde wat die materiële wêreld oorskry. Klassieke teoloë identifiseer daardie orde met God se wysheid. Soos Hart dit stel: God is “the ground of the subjective rationality of mind and the objective rationality of being” – die Rede wat ons verstande met die wêreld verbind.
Die Imago Dei (Beeld van God): Die menslike verstand self – met sy vermoëns vir selfbewussyn, vrye wil, kreatiwiteit en liefde, word gesien as bewys van ‘n goddelike oorsprong. Dit is moeilik om te glo dat waardelose, verstandlose prosesse toevallig wesens sou oplewer wat tot wetenskap, kuns en morele nadenke in staat is. C.S. Lewis het tong-in-die-kies opgemerk dat as ons gedagtes bloot atome is wat bots, ons geen rede het om hulle as waar te vertrou nie – wat materialisme self ondermyn. Hart ontleed “reduktionistiese” sienings van bewussyn en wys op verskynsels soos qualia (die subjektiewe gevoel van ervarings), abstrakte redenasie, en intensionaliteit (die verstand se “waaroor/waarvoor” of vermoë om na dinge te verwys). Niks hiervan word deur fisika alleen verklaar nie. Hierdie aspekte van verstand “ought to give even the most convinced materialists pause”. Die meer redelike gevolgtrekking is dat Verstand kom van ’n groter Verstand. Soos Genesis leer, is ons geskape “na die beeld van God” (Gen. 1:27), wat beteken ons persoonlike vermoëns weerspieël, in ’n beperkte mate, die persoonlike aard van ons Skepper. Eerder as dat die heelal ‘n ongeluk is, wys ons bewuste verstande na ‘n bewuste Skepper wat gewil het dat rasionele, verhoudingswesens sou ontstaan. God is dus nie ’n onpersoonlike krag nie, maar het persoonlike eienskappe (intellek en wil) in oneindige, volmaakte mate. Daarom noem klassieke teïsme God gemaklik Vader, of liefde, of waarheid, sonder om te impliseer Hy is ’n letterlike mens – Hy is die bron van alle persoonlike eienskappe in skepsels. (Dit gesê, waarsku klassieke teoloë dat God steeds bo ons menslike kategorieë is – God is nie ’n persoon presies soos ons nie, maar iets oneindig groter, waarvan ons persoonlikheid ’n beperkte weerspieëling is.)
Opsomming van die Logika: Uit die bestaan van bewuste verstande en verstaanbaarheid is die logiese vloei: as rede en persoonlikheid werklike kenmerke van ons wêreld is, moet hul uiteindelike oorsaak minstens soveel rasionaliteit en persoonlike agentskap hê – soos Jesus gesê het, “That which is born of Spirit is spirit” (Joh. 3:6). Dus lei die eerste beginsel van Verstand na God as die Hoogste Verstand. Dit sluit aan by die vroeëre gevolgtrekking dat God die noodsaaklike Wese is – ons sien nou dat hierdie noodsaaklike wese ook intelligent (selfs alwetend) en intensioneel moet wees, nie ’n blinde krag nie. Die wêreld is nie ’n lukrake ongeluk nie; dit is eerder soos ‘n skeppende uitdrukking van ‘n intelligensie. Of, soos klassieke filosowe sou sê: the First Cause is also the Supreme Logos.

c. Hoekom ons na meer smag: Saligheid (Goedheid en Skoonheid) as Aanwyser

Nota: Die volgende redenasie (soms die “argument uit begeerte” genoem, bekend uit C.S. Lewis se werk) is nie ‘n formele logies-dwingend bewys soos die kosmologiese argument hierbo nie. Dit is eerder ‘n eksistensieel suggestiewe aanwyser – ‘n manier waarop menslike ervaring in die rigting van God dui. As sodanig het dit ‘n ander soort oortuigingskrag: nie die krag van ‘n waterdige afleidingsredenasie nie, maar die krag van eksistensiële resonansie. Kritici soos Gregory Bassham en John Beversluis het tereg aangetoon dat die sleutelpremisse (dat elke natuurlike begeerte ‘n werklike objek moet hê) nie voor-die-hand-liggend bewys is nie. Tog bly hierdie aanwyser vir baie gelowiges diep betekenisvol as ‘n ervaringsgetuienis.

Menslike Verlange: Mense word gedryf deur ’n soeke na betekenis, doel en vervulling. Ons het diep morele oortuigings, ‘n gevoel van reg en verkeerd, en ons waardeer skoonheid en liefde. Ons het ook ’n soort “oneindige” begeerte: maak nie saak hoeveel ons bereik of ervaar nie, ons voel ons harte soek iets blywends en uiteindeliks. (Soos Prediker 3:11 dit stel, het God “die ewigheid in die mens se hart gelê”.) Waar kom hierdie drang na die Absolute vandaan?
Morele Waarheid en die Goeie: As ’n mens God ontken, moet jy sê morele waardes en menslike doel is subjektiewe neweprodukte van evolusie of samelewing. Tog voel die meeste mense dat dinge soos geregtigheid, liefde, eerlikheid en genade werklik betekenisvol is – dat byvoorbeeld liefde beter is as haat, objektief. Klassieke teïsme bied ‘n grondslag vir daardie oortuiging: God se natuur is die uiteindelike Goeie, en die morele wet is ’n uitdrukking van daardie natuur. Daarom, wanneer ons goed doen of goedheid aanskou, resoneer dit diep met ons – ons stem in met die grein van werklikheid. Hart voer aan dat selfs sekulêre mense se etiese strewe in wese ”a natural longing for God” weerspieël – ‘n hunkering na die bron van alle goedheid. (Vanuit Gereformeerde oogpunt sou ons byvoeg dat waar hierdie strewe werklik opreg en Godwaarts is, dit aan die werking van die Heilige Gees toegeskryf moet word, eerder as aan die ongehoude menslike natuur – vgl. DL 3/4.3–4.) Filosowe in die Platoniese tradisie het dikwels gesê dat Goodness Itself (wat Plato die “Vorm van die Goeie” genoem het) ononderskeibaar is van God. Die Christendom gaan verder: “God is love” (1 Joh. 4:8) – die persoonlike Goeie wat ons uit liefde geskape het. Dus is enige ware daad van liefde of nastrewing van deug in hierdie lewe ’n deelname aan God se lewe. Ons gewete en ons strewe na goedheid getuig dat ons gemaak is na die beeld van ’n volkome Goeie Skepper. Dit word soms die morele argument vir God se bestaan genoem – sonder God sou morele waarhede geen vaste grondslag hê nie, maar met God het reg en verkeerd ’n ewige basis in Sy karakter.
Skoonheid en Vreugde: Net so wys ons waardering vir skoonheid, of dit nou in die natuur, kuns, musiek of verhoudings is, konsekwent na iets verder of buite onsself. ‘n Pragtige sonsondergang roer ons nie omdat dit nuttig is vir oorlewing nie, maar omdat dit blyk ‘n heerlikheid te openbaar. Hart noem skoonheid “gloriously useless” — dit is waardevol op sigself, ‘n dowwe ervaring van ‘n hoër skoonheid. Dit pas by die klassieke siening: God is die bron van alle skoonheid, en die vreugde wat ons uit mooi dinge kry, is uiteindelik ’n begeerte vir eenheid met die bron van alle skoonheid, wat God is. Soos die Psalms sê: “Worship the Lord in the beauty of holiness” (Ps. 29:2) en “One thing I seek… to behold the beauty of the Lord” (Ps. 27:4). Die feit dat skoonheid vir ons saligheid bring, dui daarop dat ons nie net slim ape is nie; ons is soekers na transendensie. Christene glo dit is omdat ons geskape is om vir ewig die skoonheid van God te geniet. In hierdie lewe is elke mooi oomblik of ware vreugde soos ‘n wegwyser van daardie uiteindelike geluk of saligheid (wat Hart verwoord as “Bliss”).
Teleologie – Ons word na God getrek: Hart merk op dat menslike bewussyn inherent teleologies is: dit is op doelwitte buite onsself gerig. Ons honger nie net vir daaglikse brood nie, maar vir betekenis, waarheid en permanentheid. As die heelal onpersoonlik en doel-loos was, sou so ’n volgehoue aspirasie by ons baie vreemd wees. Maar as God werklik is, maak dit sin dat ons ’n ingeboude “tuiste-instink” vir God sou hê. Augustinus beskryf dit pragtig in sy Confessions: “You have made us for Yourself, and our heart is restless until it rests in You.” Ons rusteloosheid vir meer, vir ‘n vreugde wat nie verdwyn nie, is self ‘n leidraad wat na God wys. Dit is asof ons op ’n diep vlak onthou dat ons van die Oneindige Goeie kom en bestem is om na Hom terug te keer. Daarom bevredig wêreldse suksesse nooit volkome nie; ons wil altyd meer, of iets ewigs, hê. Klassieke Christelike skrywers soos Augustinus en Pascal het opgemerk dat niks behalwe God die “God-vormige vakuum” in die mens se hart kan vul nie.
Gevolgtrekking uit Begeerte: Hierdie oorweging (soms die argument uit begeerte genoem) stel voor dat vir elke natuurlike, ingebore menslike begeerte, daar iets werkliks is wat dit kan bevredig. Ons het honger – daar is kos. Ons dors – daar is water. Ons voel eensaam – daar is vriendskap en liefde. Ons verlang na onophoudelike vreugde en volmaakte liefde – en daarom, voer baie aan, dui dit sterk daarop dat daar ‘n werklikheid (God) is wat hierdie verlange kan bevredig. Hierdie redenasie is nie ‘n waterdige bewys nie; dit bly moontlik dat so ‘n diep begeerte onvervuld kon bestaan. Maar as ervaringsgegronde aanwyser is dit kragtig: as ons onsself met ‘n begeerte bevind wat niks in tyd of op aarde kan bevredig nie, suggereer dit dat ons vir ewigheid en vir God se teenwoordigheid gemaak is. Hart se klem op “Bliss” integreer hierdie idee: ons rasionele begeertes vir waarheid en goedheid is op die oneindige gerig (waarheid self, goedheid self). Dus, menslike ervaring soos dit is, eerder as om weg van God te wys soos skeptici mag dink, wys suggestief na God op elke vlak. Bestaan en verstand bied sterk logiese gronde; begeerte voeg ‘n eksistensiële dimensie by wat die hart aanspreek. Saam konvergeer hierdie aanwysers na dieselfde bestemming: die oneindige, self-onderhoudende God van klassieke teïsme.

Opsomming

Deur hierdie logiese vloei vanaf eerste beginsels te volg, sien ons ‘n samehangende prentjie. Klassieke teïsme is nie op een eng argument gebou nie; dit ontstaan deur te sien hoe verskeie paaie na God lei, elk met sy eie soort oortuigingskrag. Die argument vanuit Bestaan (die kosmologiese argument) bied die sterkste logiese fondament: bestaan het ‘n noodsaaklike grond nodig (God die Skepper). Die argument vanuit Bewussyn versterk dit: rede het ‘n bron nodig (God die Logos). Die aanwyser vanuit Begeerte voeg ‘n suggestiewe, eksistensiële dimensie by: ons diepste verlange dui in die rigting van vervulling in God (God die Goeie). Hierdie derde pad het nie dieselfde logiese afdwingbaarheid as die eerste twee nie, maar spreek die hart en ervaring op ‘n wyse aan wat vir baie mense diep oortuigend is. In ’n sekere sin weerspieël dit Hand. 17:27–28, waar Paulus vir die Ateners sê dat God ons gemaak het “that we should seek God, in the hope that we might feel after him and find him – yet he is actually not far from each one of us”, want ons leef en beweeg in Hom. Die klassieke siening is dat God sowel transendent is (bo die wêreld as sy bron) as immanent (teenwoordig by alles as sy onderhouer). Hy is die antwoord op die diepste “waarom” op elke vlak. Die hele werklikheid, van die feit dat dit bestaan tot by die aspirasies van die menslike gees, getuig van God se teenwoordigheid en heerlikheid.

Noemenswaardige Aanhalings

Hier volg aanhalings van relevante denkers oor God soos verstaan in klassieke teïsme:

“God is not, in any of the great theistic traditions, merely some rational agent, external to the order of the physical universe… He is not some discrete being somewhere out there… Rather, he is himself the logical order of all reality, the ground both of the subjective rationality of mind and the objective rationality of being.” – David Bentley Hart (Ortodokse teoloog)

(God is nie, in enige van die groot teïstiese tradisies, bloot ’n rasionele agent buite die orde van die fisiese heelal nie. Hy is nie ’n afsonderlike wese êrens “daar buite” nie. Hy is self die logiese orde van alle werklikheid – die grondslag van die subjektiewe rasionaliteit van die verstand, sowel as die objektiewe rasionaliteit van wese.)

“Hurling flak at a deity who inhabits the same circle of existence as everything else is fair game – but it isn’t significant with regards to the God… who is the independent Source of all contingent being. Confronted by so constrained a concept of God, the village atheist can still ask, *‘Who made God?’”* – David Bentley Hart – (oor die verkeerde ateïstiese karikatuur van God)

(Om kritiek te lewer op ’n godheid wat op dieselfde vlak van bestaan as alles anders leef, is ’n maklike teiken – maar dit sê niks oor die God wat die onafhanklike Bron van alle afhanklike wese is nie. Teen so ’n beperkte idee van God kan selfs die mees alledaagse ateïs steeds vra: “Wie het vir God gemaak?”)

“All things that exist, exist by having being. A thing whose essence is not its own being exists only by participation in something else – namely, in Being itself. But the first cause (God), having nothing prior to Him, must have as His essence His very act of being… Thus when God told Moses ‘I AM WHO I AM’ (Exod. 3:14), He revealed His proper name to be ‘He Who Is’.” – St. Thomas Aquinas (13de eeu, teoloog)

(Alles wat bestaan, bestaan deur deel te hê aan wese. As ’n ding se wese nie sy eie bestaan is nie, bestaan dit slegs deur deelname aan iets anders – naamlik aan Wese self. Maar die eerste oorsaak, God, wat niks voor Hom het nie, moet Sy eie daad van bestaan as wese hê. Daarom, toe God aan Moses sê “Ek is wat Ek is”, openbaar Hy sy regte Naam as “Hy wat is.”)

“Where I have found Truth, there I have found my God, the Truth itself.” – St. Augustine van Hippo (4de eeu)

(Waar ek Waarheid gevind het, daar het ek my God gevind – die Waarheid self.)

*“You have made us for Yourself, O Lord, and our heart is restless until it rests in You.”** – St. Augustine

(U het ons vir Uself gemaak, o Here, en ons hart bly onrustig totdat dit in U rus vind.)

“There is within the human mind, and indeed by natural instinct, an awareness of divinity. God Himself has implanted in all men a certain understanding of His divine majesty.” – Johannes Calvyn (16de eeu, Hervormer)

(Daar is binne die menslike gees, en inderdaad deur natuurlike instink, ‘n bewussyn van die Goddelike. God self het in alle mense ‘n sekere begrip van sy goddelike majesteit ingeplant.)

Let wel: Calvyn leer in dieselfde Institusie (I.4) dat gevalle mense hierdie bewussyn aktief onderdruk en verdraai (Rom. 1:18–21). Die sensus divinitatis gee bewustheid, maar nie reddende geloof of ware soeke na God nie – daarvoor is die wederbarende werk van die Heilige Gees nodig (Institusie II.2.18–21; DL 3/4.11–12).

“In Him we live and move and have our being” – Paul’s meaning is that we are in a manner contained in God’s power… for it belongs to God alone to BE; all other things have their being in Him.” – Johannes Calvyn –

(“In Hom leef ons, beweeg ons en het ons ons bestaan” – Paulus se bedoeling is dat ons op ’n manier ingesluit is in God se krag… want dit behoort aan God alleen om te wees; alle ander dinge het hul bestaan in Hom.)

“God is defined as a maximally great being, i.e., a being that has all qualities that would make Him maximally great. One quality such a being must have is necessary existence. A ‘God’ who could *not exist or could be one among others would not be maximally great.”* – Alvin Plantinga (21ste eeu, filosoof)

(God word gedefinieer as ’n maksimale groot Wese – een wat alle eienskappe het wat Hom so groot as moontlik maak. Een van daardie eienskappe is noodsaaklike bestaan. ’n “God” wat moontlik nie kon bestaan het nie, of net een onder vele is, sou nie werklik maksimaal groot wees nie.)

“If I find in myself a desire which no experience in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that I was made for another world.” – C.S. Lewis (20ste eeu, skrywer)

(As ek in myself ’n begeerte vind wat geen ervaring in hierdie wêreld kan bevredig nie, is die waarskynlikste verklaring dat ek vir ’n ander wêreld gemaak is.)

“The classical theist starts from the idea that God is that reality which is absolutely ultimate or fundamental, the source of all other reality… He is not ‘a being’ alongside other beings; rather, His essence just is existence… He does not *have intellect and will; rather He just is infinite intellect and will.”* – Edward Feser (Thomistiese filosoof)

(Die klassieke teïs begin by die idee dat God die werklikheid is wat absoluut uiteindelik en fundamenteel is – die bron van alle ander werklikheid. Hy is nie net ’n wese langs ander wesens nie; sy wese is bestaan self. Hy het nie bloot verstand en wil nie – Hy ís oneindige verstand en wil.)

Elke aanhaling beklemtoon ‘n aspek van die klassieke verstaan van God: as die selfbestaande bron van alle wese (Aquinas, Calvin, Feser), as die waarheid en goedheid self waarna ons harte smag (Augustine, Lewis), en as die noodsaaklike, maksimaal volmaakte Wese bo wie geen groter een denkbaar is nie (Plantinga, en by implikasie Anselmus se idee soos by Feser).

Besprekingsvrae

Kom ons dink saam oor hierdie konsepte deur middel van gesprek. Bespreek gerus die volgende vrae. (Daar is geen “eksamen”-antwoorde nie – dit is bloot wegspringpunte om eerlik en oop oor ons verstaan van God te gesels.)

God bo die hemel: Hoe het jy voor hierdie lesing of leesstuk oor “God” gedink? Het jy geneig om God as ’n spesifieke wese binne die heelal te sien (selfs ’n baie magtige een)? Hoe verskil die klassieke siening – God as die grondslag van alle wese – van jou vroeëre begrip?
“Wie het God gemaak?”: ’n Algemene uitdaging is: “As alles ’n oorsaak het, wie het vir God veroorsaak?” Hoe beantwoord die klassieke definisie van God (as die een noodsaaklike Wese wat eenvoudig IS, en dus geen oorsaak benodig nie) hierdie vraag? Vind jy dit bevredigend? Hoekom of hoekom nie?
Lewe in God se teenwoordigheid: Handelinge 17:28 sê, “In Hom leef ons, beweeg ons en het ons ons bestaan.” Wat beteken dit volgens jou om in God te bestaan? Ervaar jy daagliks daardie afhanklikheid van God se teenwoordigheid? Hoe kan ons perspektief oor gewone dinge verander as ons regtig glo dat alles voortdurend deur God onderhou word?
Verstand en betekenis: Hart en ander redeneer dat ons vermoë om te dink en waarheid te soek, ’n aanduiding is van God se verstand. Het jy al ooit oorweeg dat bewussyn of rede ‘n leidraad tot God se bestaan is? Hoekom sou ’n suiwer materialistiese heelal sukkel om wesens voort te bring wat na waarheid, betekenis en moraliteit soek? Kan jy voorbeelde gee waar jou eie rasionele of morele ervaring gevoel het soos “meer as blote atome”?
Verlange na God: Augustine se woorde oor ons hart wat rusteloos bly totdat dit in God rus, is bekend. Het jy al so ’n “rusteloosheid” of ’n gevoel van iets ontbrekend ervaar – selfs wanneer dinge uiterlik goed gaan? Op watter maniere probeer mense hierdie verlange met ander dinge vul? As ons diepste verlange eintlik vir God is (waarheid, liefde, skoonheid in ’n oneindige sin), hoe kan dit ons gebeds- of aanbiddingslewe beïnvloed?
Die Goeie, die Ware, die Skoon: Hierdie drie word soms “transendentale” genoem – eienskappe van wese wat na God wys. Watter een van hulle (goedheid, waarheid, skoonheid) beweeg jou persoonlik die sterkste na geloof in God? Is jy byvoorbeeld meer oortuig deur morele ervaring (’n sterk gevoel van geregtigheid of liefde), deur intellektuele oortuiging (die logika van ’n Eerste Oorsaak), of deur ervarings van skoonheid en verwondering? Deel ’n voorbeeld wat jou geloof of wêreldbeskouing beïnvloed het.
Klassiek vs. Persoonlik: Klassieke teïsme gee ons ’n groot, filosofiese beeld van God. Hoe versoen ons dit met die meer persoonlike manier waarop ons tot God bid en Hom in die Bybel leer ken? (Byvoorbeeld, die God wat Ipsum Esse – Bestaan self – is, is ook die God wat ons “Vader” noem en wat mens geword het in Jesus.) Voel jy spanning tussen hierdie idees, of sien jy dit as aanvullend? Bespreek hoe God tegelyk oneindig verhewe en tog intiem naby kan wees, soos die Christelike geloof leer.
Drie-eenheid en klassieke teïsme (vir diegene wat belangstel): Hart se lesing het meer oor die filosofiese definisie van God gegaan wat deur baie gelowe gedeel word. In ons Christelike konteks – hoe verryk hierdie klassieke begrip van God ons siening van die Drie-eenheid (Vader, Seun, Heilige Gees)? (Byvoorbeeld: Die Drie-eenheid is een in wese – nie drie gode nie, maar een oneindige Wese – en tog persoonlik in drie ewige verhoudings. Help klassieke teïsme om daardie misterie te verwoord, of laat dit jou met meer vrae?)

Voel vry om ook ander vrae of onsekerhede te deel wat tydens die gesprek opkom. Die doel is om eerlik en nadenkend met hierdie idees te werk. Ons kom almal uit verskillende agtergronde – sommige dinge hier sal nuut en selfs uitdagend wees, en dis goed so. Ons leer uit mekaar se insigte én uit mekaar se vrae.

Bybelkommentaar oor Sleutelteksgedeeltes

Kom ons grond ons bespreking in die Skrif deur te kyk na twee sleutelbybelverse wat verband hou met hierdie klassieke begrip van God.

Eksodus 3:14 – “Ek is wat Ek is.” (1953-vertaling)

Dit is ‘n sleutelvers om te verstaan wie God is. In hierdie toneel vra Moses vir God sy Naam, en God antwoord: “I AM WHO I AM… Say this to the people of Israel, ‘I AM has sent me to you.’” (In Hebreeus hou YHWH verband met die werkwoord “to be.”) Die Griekse vertaling (Septuaginta) weergee dit as “I am He Who Is”, en die Latynse Vulgaat het soortgelyk Ego sum qui sum (“Ek is wat Ek is”).

Wat beteken dit? Dit kan eers geheimsinnig klink, maar die klassieke verstaan is dat God hiermee selfbestaan en ewige wese uitdruk. Kerkvaders soos St. Gregory of Nazianzus het daarop gewys dat God hierdie naam gekies het “as most appropriate, for it bespeaks absolute existence, independent of anything else”. Met ander woorde, slegs God kan in die uiterste sin sê “Ek IS” – Sy bestaan is nie afgelei van ’n hoër werklikheid nie. St. Jerome het verduidelik dat toe God sê “Ek IS”, Hy beweer dat Hy “the one whose nature alone truly is… all things else, although they appear to be, are not [truly independent], for they began and may cease. God alone, having no beginning, really deserves to be called ‘Being’ or ‘Essence.’”

Dit is merkwaardig: reeds in Moses se tyd openbaar God dat Sy “Naam” Bestaan self is. Thomas Aquinas het hierop uitgebou deur te sê dat God se wese is om te bestaan, en dat geen geskape wese hierdie unieke Naam “Hy wat IS” deel nie. Vir ons geloof beteken Exodus 3:14 dat God nie nog ‘n wese in die heelal is nie, maar die grondliggende Wese onder die heelal. Dit impliseer ook God se onveranderlike, ewige aard — soos Gregory dit stel: vir God is daar geen “was” of “sal wees” nie, maar slegs ‘n ewige Nou van bestaan.

Wanneer Jesus later in Johannes 8:58 sê: “Before Abraham was, I AM,” eggo Hy hierdie Goddelike Naam en identifiseer Homself met die “Ek IS” van Eksodus. In ’n toegewyde sin is Eksodus 3:14 diep vertroostend: Die Een wat belowe het om by Moses en Israel te wees, is Bestaan self; Hy is onvoorwaardelik daar, dieselfde gister, vandag en vir ewig. Anders as wêreldse dinge wat kom en gaan, verander God nie en misluk Hy nie; Hy IS eenvoudig. As ons op God steun, steun ons op die mees soliede werklikheid moontlik.

Handelinge 17:28 – “Want in Hom leef ons, beweeg ons en bestaan ons.” (2020-vertaling)

In Handelinge 17 spreek die apostel Paulus Griekse filosowe in Athene toe. Hy vertel hulle van die ware God en verwys na hulle eie digters wat gesê het: “we are his offspring.” Paulus gebruik hierdie aanhaling om by hul intuïsie aan te sluit dat die mensdom van God af kom, en voeg dan by: “In Him [God] we live and move and have our being.”

Dit is ‘n kernagtige Bybelse bevestiging van God se immanensie en ons afhanklikheid van Hom. In wese sê Paulus dat ons bestaan en lewe op elke oomblik afhang van God se onderhouende krag. Ons leef nie buite God se invloed nie; ons bestaan binne God se allesomvattende wil en teenwoordigheid.

Vroeë Christelike kommentatore het hierdie vers waardeer omdat dit God as die voortdurende onderhouer van die wêreld bevestig. Byvoorbeeld, Johannes Calvyn skryf: “We are contained in God by His power… He dwells in us by His Spirit… not that all things are God (Paul isn’t saying stones or people are God), but that God’s power and spirit preserve those things which He created out of nothing. He is so present that if He were to withdraw, we would not exist for a moment.” Calvin verbind dit ook aan God se Naam Jehovah (verwant aan “Ek IS”), en wys daarop dat God alleen lewe in Homself het, terwyl “we have our being in Him”, en “He upholds us”.

Net so impliseer die vers God se alomteenwoordigheid. Nie dat God alles is nie (dit sou panteisme wees, wat Paulus in hierdie konteks verwerp deur afgode af te wys), maar dat God ooral teenwoordig is by alles. Die konteks in Handelinge 17 is dat God “is actually not far from each one of us” (vers 27). Waar ons ook al is, wat ons ook al doen — God is die Een wat vir ons asem gee, ons harte laat klop en ons verstand laat dink.

Dit is ‘n intieme prentjie van God se verhouding met die skepping. Ons word voortdurend omhul deur God se onderhouende liefde en krag. As Hy sou ophou om te wil hê dat ons moet bestaan, sou ons eenvoudig ophou wees. Dit mag vir sommige vreesaanjaend klink, maar in die Skrif is dit bedoel om vertroue en die soeke na God te inspireer. Omdat Hy so naby en lewensgewend is, behoort ons Hom te vind en te aanbid. Paulus gebruik hierdie waarheid om teen afgode te argumenteer: aangesien ons in God leef, moet ons nie dink God is beperk tot ’n tempel of ’n beeld nie. Hy is eerder die omgewing van bestaan vir ons.

In praktiese toepassing kan Handelinge 17:28 ons hele lewensperspektief verander: elke oomblik word coram Deo (voor die aangesig van God) geleef. Ons is nooit buite God se sorg of teenwoordigheid nie. Selfs dié wat Hom nie ken nie, word steeds deur Hom in stand gehou – en daarom het ons, solank ons leef en asemhaal, die geleentheid om ons Skepper te soek en te vind.

In albei verse sien ons hoe Bybelse openbaring en klassieke teologie saamvloei. Eksodus 3:14 gee die ontologiese Naam van God (Ek IS – Wese self), en Handelinge 17:28 gee die verhoudings-perspektief van die skepping tot God (volledige afhanklikheid en nabyheid). Saam skets dit die beeld van die God wat klassieke teïsme beskryf: die Een wat eenvoudig IS, wat die bron is van alles wat is, en in wie alles saamgehou word.

Ander ondersteunende skrifgedeeltes: Daar is baie ander Bybeltekste wat hiermee in harmonie is. Psalm 90:2, “From everlasting to everlasting, You are God”, bevestig God se ewige selfbestaan. Colossense 1:16-17 sê van Christus: “all things were created through Him and for Him… and in Him all things hold together,” wat die idee van voortdurende instandhouding uit Handelinge 17 eggo. Hebreërs 1:3 sê ook dat die Seun “upholds the universe by the word of His power.” In die Ou Testament vra Jesaja 40:28: “Have you not heard? The Lord is the everlasting God, the Creator of the ends of the earth. He does not faint or grow weary,” wat God se onuitputlike wese en krag beklemtoon, in kontras met geskape dinge.

Die Bybel wys konsekwent na ‘n God wat ewig, ongeskape en lewensgewend is — presies die God wat Hart ons aanraai om weer te ontdek.

Deur hierdie verse tesame met Hart se insigte te bestudeer, sien ons dat klassieke teïsme nie ’n abstrakte filosofiese byvoegsel tot die Christelike geloof is nie; dit is gewortel in die Bybel se eie beskrywing van God. Die God wat ons in gebed en aanbidding ontmoet, is dieselfde “Ek IS” – die Een in wie ons bestaan en wat nader aan ons is as ons eie siel. Hierdie begrip kan ons ontsag en vertroue verdiep: God is oneindig bo ons, die bron van alles, maar ook genadiglik teenwoordig by ons.

Ten slotte

Sessie 1 se verkenning stel die toneel vir die res van ons reis. Ons het duidelik gemaak “wat ons bedoel met God” in die klassieke sin: ‘n almagtige, alwetende, algoeie Wese wat die grondslag van die werklikheid self is. Met hierdie fondasie kan ons in die komende sessies verder gaan om te ondersoek wat David Bentley Hart en ander sê oor die ervaring van God, met die wete dat ons praat van die Bron van ons wese self.

Mag hierdie begrip ons lei tot intellektuele insig, eerbied en liefde vir God — die Een ”in whom we live and move and have our being,” en in wie alleen ons rustelose harte rus vind.

Bibliografie

Primêre Bron

Hart, David Bentley. The Experience of God: Being, Consciousness, Bliss. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2013. (Asook Hart se openbare lesings.)

Klassieke Christelike Teoloë en Filosowe

Augustine of Hippo. Confessions. Translated by Henry Chadwick. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991. (Veral Boek I vir die “restless heart”-gedeelte.)
Augustine of Hippo. On the Trinity. Translated by Arthur West Haddan. In Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series, Vol. 3. Edited by Philip Schaff. Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1887.
Aquinas, Thomas. Summa Theologiae. Translated by Fathers of the English Dominican Province. New York: Benziger Bros., 1947. (Deel I, Vrae 2–3, oor God se bestaan en wese.)
Anselm of Canterbury. Proslogion. Translated by Thomas Williams. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing, 2001. (Vir die “that than which nothing greater can be conceived”-definisie.)
Gregory of Nazianzus. Orations. Translated by Charles Gordon Browne and James Edward Swallow. In Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. 7. Edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1894.
Jerome, St. Commentary on Exodus 3:14. In Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. 6. Edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1893.

Hervormingsbronne

Calvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion. Translated by Henry Beveridge. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2008. (Veral Boek I, Hoofstukke 3–5 oor die *sensus divinitatis.)*
Calvin, John. Commentary on Acts 17. Translated by Henry Beveridge. Edinburgh: Calvin Translation Society, 1844.

Kontemporêre Christelike Denkers

Plantinga, Alvin. God, Freedom, and Evil. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974. (Sluit bespreking in oor noodsaaklike bestaan en die betroubaarheid van rede.)
Plantinga, Alvin. Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion, and Naturalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011.
Feser, Edward. Five Proofs of the Existence of God. San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2017. (Verduidelik klassieke teïsme en die onderskeid tussen wese en bestaan.)
Lewis, C. S. Mere Christianity. London: Geoffrey Bles, 1952. (Sien Boek III, Hoofstuk 10 vir die “argument from desire”.)

Filosofiese en Kruis-Tradisie Bronne

Plato. The Republic. Translated by G. M. A. Grube, revised by C. D. C. Reeve. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing, 1992. (Veral die “Form of the Good”.)
Aristotle. Metaphysics. Translated by W. D. Ross. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1924. (Oor die Onbewoogde Beweger en kousaliteit.)
Leibniz, Gottfried Wilhelm. “On the Ultimate Origination of Things” (1697). In Philosophical Essays, translated by Roger Ariew and Daniel Garber. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing, 1989. (Formuleer die “Principle of Sufficient Reason”.)

Bybelse Verwysings en Kommentaar

The Holy Bible, English Standard Version (ESV). Crossway, 2001. (Alle Skrifaanhalings tensy anders vermeld.)
The Septuagint (LXX). A New English Translation of the Septuagint, edited by Albert Pietersma and Benjamin G. Wright. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007. (Vir Eksodus 3:14 se Griekse weergawe.)
Matthew Henry. Commentary on the Whole Bible. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1994. (Vir toegewyde insigte oor Eksodus 3:14 en Handelinge 17:28.)

The Definition of “God” in Classical Theism

Introduction

David Bentley Hart’s lecture (based on his book The Experience of God: Being, Consciousness, Bliss) invites us to reconsider what we mean by “God” in the classical theistic tradition.

Note: We use Hart’s philosophical framework on classical theism in this series. Readers should be aware that since 2019 (That All Shall Be Saved) Hart has held a universalist position that differs from our Reformed confession on eternal judgement. We use his philosophy, not his soteriology. See the Controversy document for a fuller discussion.

In classical theism, a view historically shared by Christians such as Augustine and Thomas Aquinas, as well as Jewish, Islamic and even certain Eastern thinkers, “God” does not refer to a limited being or merely a powerful entity somewhere in the universe. God is understood as the infinite source and ground of all reality.

Hart emphasises that God is “the infinite fullness of being, omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient, from whom all things come and upon whom all things depend for every moment of their existence”. In other words: everything that exists continually depends on God, “in whom we live and move and have our being” (Acts 17:28). This means God is not another being among others, but the act of Being itself that sustains everything. Thomas Aquinas said God’s being is existence itself (He is ipsum esse subsistens, “subsistent being itself”).

Hart points out that many modern atheists miss this classical concept. They attack a caricature, as though God were a superman in the sky or an item within the universe — what Hart calls a “demiurgic god” (a kind of cosmic craftsman). To reject such a being is not the same as denying the God of classical theism. Hart says that even if there were a powerful cosmic Creator bearing the name “God” but who himself depended on a deeper explanation, the “village atheist” could still ask: “Who made that god?”. The God of classical theism, however, is not an object that needs a cause. He is the uncaused Reality on which everything else depends. As Hart puts it: “God is not some discrete being out there… Rather, he is himself the logical order of all reality, the ground both of the subjective rationality of mind and the objective rationality of being.” More simply: God is the Reason why anything exists or makes sense — the One in whom both mind and matter “participate” and thereby obtain substantiality and order.

Hart builds his explanation around three fundamental aspects of reality: Being, Consciousness and Bliss. According to him, all three point to God. He shows that a theistic worldview explains these experiences better than a strictly materialistic or naturalistic view.

Being / Existence

Why is there something rather than nothing? Hart argues that the sheer “there-ness” of existence — that anything exists at all — is a signpost to God. All finite things depend on an ultimate ground of being. The Bible affirms this: Exodus 3:14, where God says to Moses: “I AM WHO I AM”, reveals God as the One who exists in and of Himself. Thomas Aquinas taught that creatures have “participated being”, while God is Being himself. Hart reminds us: God is “perfect actuality and fullness of being”, the necessary being who gives existence to all dependent beings.

Naturalistic atheism simply accepts that the universe exists. Classical thinkers such as Aquinas or Augustine find this unsatisfying — existence itself demands an ultimate explanation. Hart, together with philosophers such as Aristotle and Leibniz, would say there must be an uncaused reality that sustains everything. Without the infinite God, he says, “nothing at all could exist.”

Consciousness

Besides an ordered world we also experience our own inner life of mind, reason and will. Hart argues that consciousness — especially our capacity for rational thought and knowledge of truth — cannot be fully explained by mere material processes. Our subjective experience points to a source beyond mere matter.

Here he agrees with Plato (timeless truths point to a higher spiritual reality) and Aristotle (there must be an Unmoved Mover who is Thought itself). John 1 describes God as the Logos (Word or Reason) through whom all things were made. Hart says God is “infinite consciousness” — the perfect Mind who is the source of all rational minds.

He makes the point that no computer is “conscious” merely because it computes: “software no more ‘thinks’ than a clock’s minute hand knows the time.” Our rationality and inner life make sense if reality itself is grounded in a supreme Intellect. Plantinga adds: if our minds were merely the product of purposeless evolution, we would have little reason to trust our thinking — which means a divine Mind is a better explanation.

Bliss / Fulfilment

Humans universally seek meaning, goodness and beauty. Hart uses the term “Bliss” (after the Sanskrit ananda, supreme happiness) for the fulfilment our minds and hearts seek. We have an innate longing for something ultimate. Augustine prayed: “You have made us for Yourself, O Lord, and our heart is restless until it rests in You.”

Hart observes that even unbelievers show “a natural longing for God” when they seek truth or do good. From a Reformed perspective we must carefully discern here: the sensus divinitatis (Calvin, Institutes I.3) does plant an awareness of God in every person, but fallen humans suppress this awareness actively (Rom. 1:18–21; Canons of Dort 3/4.1–4). Any real movement towards God — any genuine seeking — is not produced by unassisted human nature but by the Holy Spirit who renews hearts and opens eyes. Hart’s observation about human longing remains valuable as a description of the restlessness that the sensus divinitatis creates, but the Reformed confession teaches that this restlessness on its own does not lead to true knowledge of God — for that, the Spirit’s work is indispensable. If the world were merely matter, this hunger for transcendent ideals would be inexplicable. If God is real, it makes sense — our desires point to our true fulfilment in Him. Beauty, he says, is “gloriously useless”, and yet it points to “a fuller beauty” beyond the imperfect things we see.

Summary

Hart shows that “God” is not an abstract idea or a competing object in the universe, but the One ultimate reality who is the source of all being, mind and goodness. This classical view underlies the Christian confession of God as Creator of all, in whom all things hold together. From first principles of being, consciousness and our longing for the transcendent, Hart shows that faith in God is rational and coherent.

A Structured Logical Flow from First Principles

Let us break down the logical reasoning behind classical theism step by step, beginning with basic first principles. How do thinkers such as Hart (together with Augustine, Aquinas and others) reason their way to the concept of God? We can summarise this in three fundamental steps, corresponding to Being, Consciousness and Bliss:

a. Why something exists: The Question of Being

Principle of Sufficient Reason: First, consider that something exists rather than nothing — the universe, with all its dependent things, is here. Classical reasoning (going back to Plato and Aristotle, and later Aquinas and Leibniz) maintains that every dependent thing requires an explanation or cause. The universe consists of things that begin, change and depend on other things. It is natural to ask: Why is there a universe? Why does anything exist rather than nothing?
Contingency and Necessary Being: On closer reflection, anything that need not exist (for example you and I, the earth, stars, etc.) is contingent — its existence is not self-explanatory. If we trace back the chains of causes or conditions, classical thinkers reason that we cannot have an infinite backward series of dependent explanations; there must be something that exists in its own right, not dependent on anything else. In other words, there must be at least one necessary being that provides the ultimate explanation for the existence of all dependent beings. This necessary reality has no external cause and cannot not exist — it exists by its own nature.
God as the Ground of Being: Classical theism identifies this necessary, self-existent reality as God. God is the ultimate ground of being who gives existence to everything else. This fits how God revealed Himself in Scripture. When Moses asked God what His Name was, He answered: “I AM WHO I AM” (Exodus 3:14), which implies self-existence. As Aquinas explains: “He Who Is” is the most fitting name for God, because it indicates that God’s essence is existence itself. All other beings merely have existence through participation; God is existence. Augustine similarly taught that God is “that which truly IS”, and that everything else is less real in comparison, because created things come and go.

From this first principle of being we arrive at a God who is not one being among many, but Being itself, the inexhaustible act of To-Be. This answers the question of why anything exists: everything exists because it continually receives existence from the Creator. As Paul proclaimed: “He himself gives to all mankind life and breath and everything” (Acts 17:25); “for in him we live and move and have our being” (Acts 17:28). Calvin writes in his commentary on that verse: “in speaking properly [God] alone is,” and “it belongs to God alone to be, [while] all other things have their being in Him.” God alone exists from Himself; everything else exists through Him. This reasoning from being (often called the cosmological or contingency argument) gives us a foundation: any coherent worldview needs an ultimate uncaused Reality. Classical theism proposes that this Reality is a transcendent, intelligent and good Creator.

b. Why minds exist: The Insight of Consciousness

Matter versus Mind: We also observe a fundamental difference between material objects and our own mind. Atoms and molecules have no inner life or purpose of their own; they merely follow physical laws. Yet here we are — conscious beings with thoughts, emotions, will and rational insight. How did mind arise from matter? A strict materialist may say mind “emerged” from complex biological processes, but classical thinkers find this insufficient. There is an explanatory gap between unconscious matter and the first-person experience of consciousness.
The Intelligibility of Reality: Furthermore, we discover that reality is intelligible — it can be grasped by the mind — and we possess the intelligence to do so. We can discern logical and mathematical truths that have a timeless, objective nature (2+2=4, the laws of logic, etc.), and we naturally assume that our reason can establish real truth about the world. If the universe were ultimately mindless, it is puzzling why it would consistently follow rational laws or why our minds would correspond to them. (Why would a purely accidental cosmos be so orderly and mathematically elegant?)
God as Supreme Mind (Logos): From these considerations classical theism infers that the ultimate cause of the world must include Mind or Reason — that the universe is grounded in intelligence rather than blind chaos. God, according to the tradition, is intellectual and spiritual in nature — “infinite consciousness,” as Hart says. The Gospel of John calls God the Logos, meaning Divine Reason. The idea is that our finite minds can grasp truth because they are made in the image of the Divine Mind who structured reality. “In your light do we see light”, says Psalm 36:9, implying that our knowledge is a participation in God’s knowledge. Augustine taught that unchangeable truths (such as the laws of logic) are grounded in God’s eternal truth — “Where I found truth, there I found my God, the Truth itself,” he wrote. Likewise, the philosopher Alvin Plantinga has argued that logical and moral laws make the most sense if there is a supreme personal Mind in whom those principles ultimately reside (otherwise we are left with abstract absolutes without foundation). Practically, this means that whenever we reason or recognise something as true, we are implicitly relying on a rational order that transcends the material world. Classical theologians identify that order with God’s wisdom. As Hart puts it: God is “the ground of the subjective rationality of mind and the objective rationality of being” — the Reason that connects our minds with the world.
The Imago Dei (Image of God): The human mind itself — with its capacities for self-awareness, free will, creativity and love — is seen as evidence of a divine origin. It is hard to believe that valueless, mindless processes would accidentally produce beings capable of science, art and moral reflection. C.S. Lewis remarked tongue-in-cheek that if our thoughts are merely atoms colliding, we have no reason to trust them as true — which undermines materialism itself. Hart analyses “reductionist” views of consciousness and points to phenomena such as qualia (the subjective feel of experiences), abstract reasoning, and intentionality (the mind’s “aboutness” or ability to refer to things). None of this is explained by physics alone. These aspects of mind “ought to give even the most convinced materialists pause.” The more reasonable conclusion is that Mind comes from a greater Mind. As Genesis teaches, we are created “in the image of God” (Gen. 1:27), which means our personal capacities reflect, in a limited way, the personal nature of our Creator. Rather than the universe being an accident, our conscious minds point to a conscious Creator who willed that rational, relational beings should exist. God is therefore not an impersonal force, but possesses personal attributes (intellect and will) in infinite, perfect measure. That is why classical theism comfortably calls God Father, or love, or truth, without implying He is a literal human — He is the source of all personal attributes in creatures. (That said, classical theologians warn that God remains above our human categories — God is not a person exactly as we are, but something infinitely greater, of which our personhood is a limited reflection.)
Summary of the Logic: From the existence of conscious minds and intelligibility, the logical flow is: if reason and personhood are real features of our world, their ultimate cause must possess at least as much rationality and personal agency — as Jesus said, “That which is born of Spirit is spirit” (John 3:6). Thus the first principle of Mind leads to God as the Supreme Mind. This connects with the earlier conclusion that God is the necessary Being — we now see that this necessary being must also be intelligent (indeed omniscient) and intentional, not a blind force. The world is not a random accident; it is rather like a creative expression of an intelligence. Or, as classical philosophers would say: the First Cause is also the Supreme Logos.

c. Why we long for more: Bliss (Goodness and Beauty) as a Pointer

Note: The following reasoning (sometimes called the “argument from desire”, known from C.S. Lewis’s work) is not a formally compelling proof like the cosmological argument above. It is rather an existentially suggestive pointer — a way in which human experience points in the direction of God. As such it has a different kind of persuasive force: not the force of a watertight deductive argument, but the force of existential resonance. Critics such as Gregory Bassham and John Beversluis have rightly noted that the key premise (that every natural desire must have a real object) is not obviously proven. Yet this pointer remains deeply meaningful for many believers as an experiential testimony.

Human Desire: Human beings are driven by a search for meaning, purpose and fulfilment. We have deep moral convictions, a sense of right and wrong, and we value beauty and love. We also have a kind of “infinite” desire: no matter how much we achieve or experience, we feel our hearts seek something lasting and ultimate. (As Ecclesiastes 3:11 puts it, God has “put eternity into man’s heart.”) Where does this drive towards the Absolute come from?
Moral Truth and the Good: If one denies God, one must say moral values and human purpose are subjective by-products of evolution or society. Yet most people feel that things like justice, love, honesty and mercy are truly meaningful — that, for example, love is objectively better than hate. Classical theism provides a foundation for that conviction: God’s nature is the ultimate Good, and the moral law is an expression of that nature. Therefore, when we do good or behold goodness, it resonates deeply with us — we are in tune with the grain of reality. Hart argues that even secular people’s ethical striving in essence reflects “a natural longing for God” — a yearning for the source of all goodness. (From a Reformed point of view we would add that where this striving is truly sincere and Godward, it must be attributed to the working of the Holy Spirit rather than to unassisted human nature — cf. Canons of Dort 3/4.3–4.) Philosophers in the Platonic tradition have often said that Goodness Itself (what Plato called the “Form of the Good”) is indistinguishable from God. Christianity goes further: “God is love” (1 John 4:8) — the personal Good who created us out of love. Thus any true act of love or pursuit of virtue in this life is a participation in God’s life. Our conscience and our striving for goodness testify that we are made in the image of a perfectly Good Creator. This is sometimes called the moral argument for God’s existence — without God, moral truths would have no firm foundation; with God, right and wrong have an eternal basis in His character.
Beauty and Joy: Likewise, our appreciation of beauty — whether in nature, art, music or relationships — consistently points to something further or beyond ourselves. A beautiful sunset moves us not because it is useful for survival, but because it appears to reveal a glory. Hart calls beauty “gloriously useless” — valuable in itself, a dim experience of a higher beauty. This fits the classical view: God is the source of all beauty, and the joy we derive from beautiful things is ultimately a desire for union with the source of all beauty, which is God. As the Psalms say: “Worship the Lord in the splendour of holiness” (Ps. 29:2) and “One thing I seek… to behold the beauty of the Lord” (Ps. 27:4). The fact that beauty brings us bliss indicates that we are not merely clever apes; we are seekers of transcendence. Christians believe this is because we are created to enjoy the beauty of God forever. In this life, every beautiful moment or true joy is like a signpost of that ultimate happiness or beatitude (which Hart articulates as “Bliss”).
Teleology — We are drawn towards God: Hart observes that human consciousness is inherently teleological: it is directed at goals beyond ourselves. We hunger not only for daily bread but for meaning, truth and permanence. If the universe were impersonal and purposeless, such sustained aspiration in us would be very strange. But if God is real, it makes sense that we would have a built-in “homing instinct” for God. Augustine describes this beautifully in his Confessions: “You have made us for yourself, and our heart is restless until it rests in you.” Our restlessness for more, for a joy that does not fade, is itself a clue pointing to God. It is as if we remember at a deep level that we come from the infinite Good and are destined to return to Him. That is why worldly successes never fully satisfy; we always want more, or something eternal. Classical Christian writers such as Augustine and Pascal observed that nothing besides God can fill the “God-shaped vacuum” in the human heart.
Conclusion from Desire: This consideration (sometimes called the argument from desire) suggests that for every natural, innate human desire, there is something real that can satisfy it. We hunger — there is food. We thirst — there is water. We feel lonely — there is friendship and love. We long for unceasing joy and perfect love — and therefore, many argue, it strongly suggests there is a reality (God) that can satisfy this longing. This reasoning is not a watertight proof; it remains possible that such a deep desire could exist unfulfilled. But as an experience-based pointer it is powerful: if we find ourselves with a desire that nothing in time or on earth can satisfy, it suggests that we are made for eternity and for God’s presence. Hart’s emphasis on “Bliss” integrates this idea: our rational desires for truth and goodness are directed at the infinite (truth itself, goodness itself). Thus, human experience as it is, rather than pointing away from God as sceptics might think, suggestively points to God at every level. Being and mind provide strong logical grounds; desire adds an existential dimension that speaks to the heart. Together these pointers converge on the same destination: the infinite, self-sustaining God of classical theism.

Summary

By following this logical flow from first principles, we see a coherent picture. Classical theism is not built on one narrow argument; it arises from seeing how various paths lead to God, each with its own kind of persuasive force. The argument from Being (the cosmological argument) provides the strongest logical foundation: existence needs a necessary ground (God the Creator). The argument from Consciousness strengthens this: reason needs a source (God the Logos). The pointer from Desire adds a suggestive, existential dimension: our deepest longings point in the direction of fulfilment in God (God the Good). This third path does not have the same logical compulsion as the first two, but it speaks to the heart and experience in a way that is deeply convincing for many people. In a certain sense it reflects Acts 17:27–28, where Paul tells the Athenians that God made us “that we should seek God, in the hope that we might feel after him and find him — yet he is actually not far from each one of us”, for we live and move in Him. The classical view is that God is both transcendent (above the world as its source) and immanent (present with all things as their sustainer). He is the answer to the deepest “why” at every level. The whole of reality — from the fact that it exists to the aspirations of the human spirit — testifies to God’s presence and glory.

Notable Quotations

Here follow quotations from relevant thinkers about God as understood in classical theism:

“God is not, in any of the great theistic traditions, merely some rational agent, external to the order of the physical universe… He is not some discrete being somewhere out there… Rather, he is himself the logical order of all reality, the ground both of the subjective rationality of mind and the objective rationality of being.” — David Bentley Hart (Orthodox theologian)

(God is not, in any of the great theistic traditions, merely a rational agent outside the order of the physical universe. He is not a discrete being somewhere “out there.” He is himself the logical order of all reality — the ground of the subjective rationality of mind, as well as the objective rationality of being.)

“Hurling flak at a deity who inhabits the same circle of existence as everything else is fair game — but it isn’t significant with regards to the God… who is the independent Source of all contingent being. Confronted by so constrained a concept of God, the village atheist can still ask, ‘Who made God?’” — David Bentley Hart — (on the wrong atheistic caricature of God)

(To hurl criticism at a deity who lives on the same level of existence as everything else is an easy target — but it says nothing about the God who is the independent Source of all contingent being. Against so constrained an idea of God, even the most ordinary atheist can still ask: “Who made God?”)

“All things that exist, exist by having being. A thing whose essence is not its own being exists only by participation in something else — namely, in Being itself. But the first cause (God), having nothing prior to Him, must have as His essence His very act of being… Thus when God told Moses ‘I AM WHO I AM’ (Exod. 3:14), He revealed His proper name to be ‘He Who Is’.” — St. Thomas Aquinas (13th century, theologian)

(Everything that exists, exists by having being. If a thing’s essence is not its own existence, it exists only by participation in something else — namely, in Being itself. But the first cause, God, who has nothing before Him, must have His own act of being as His essence. Therefore, when God said to Moses “I AM WHO I AM”, He revealed His proper Name as “He Who Is.”)

“Where I have found Truth, there I have found my God, the Truth itself.” — St. Augustine of Hippo (4th century)

(Where I found Truth, there I found my God — the Truth itself.)

“You have made us for Yourself, O Lord, and our heart is restless until it rests in You.” — St. Augustine

(You have made us for yourself, O Lord, and our heart remains restless until it finds its rest in you.)

“There is within the human mind, and indeed by natural instinct, an awareness of divinity. God Himself has implanted in all men a certain understanding of His divine majesty.” — John Calvin (16th century, Reformer)

(There is within the human mind, and indeed by natural instinct, an awareness of the Divine. God Himself has implanted in all people a certain understanding of His divine majesty.)

Note: Calvin teaches in the same Institutes (I.4) that fallen humans actively suppress and distort this awareness (Rom. 1:18–21). The sensus divinitatis gives awareness, but not saving faith or true seeking after God — for that, the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit is needed (Institutes II.2.18–21; Canons of Dort 3/4.11–12).

“In Him we live and move and have our being” — Paul’s meaning is that we are in a manner contained in God’s power… for it belongs to God alone to BE; all other things have their being in Him.” — John Calvin

(“In Him we live and move and have our being” — Paul’s meaning is that we are in a manner enclosed in God’s power… for it belongs to God alone to be; all other things have their being in Him.)

“God is defined as a maximally great being, i.e., a being that has all qualities that would make Him maximally great. One quality such a being must have is necessary existence. A ‘God’ who could *not exist or could be one among others would not be maximally great.”* — Alvin Plantinga (21st century, philosopher)

(God is defined as a maximally great Being — one who has all properties that would make Him as great as possible. One of those properties is necessary existence. A “God” who possibly could not have existed, or who was merely one among many, would not truly be maximally great.)

“If I find in myself a desire which no experience in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that I was made for another world.” — C.S. Lewis (20th century, writer)

(If I find in myself a desire which no experience in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that I was made for another world.)

“The classical theist starts from the idea that God is that reality which is absolutely ultimate or fundamental, the source of all other reality… He is not ‘a being’ alongside other beings; rather, His essence just is existence… He does not *have intellect and will; rather He just is infinite intellect and will.”* — Edward Feser (Thomistic philosopher)

(The classical theist starts from the idea that God is the reality that is absolutely ultimate and fundamental — the source of all other reality. He is not merely a being alongside other beings; His essence is existence itself. He does not merely have intellect and will — He is infinite intellect and will.)

Each quotation emphasises an aspect of the classical understanding of God: as the self-existent source of all being (Aquinas, Calvin, Feser), as the truth and goodness itself for which our hearts yearn (Augustine, Lewis), and as the necessary, maximally perfect Being than whom no greater can be conceived (Plantinga, and by implication Anselm’s idea as found in Feser).

Discussion Questions

Let us think together about these concepts through conversation. Feel free to discuss the following questions. (There are no “exam” answers — these are simply jumping-off points for honest and open conversation about our understanding of God.)

God beyond heaven: How did you think about “God” before this lesson or reading? Did you tend to see God as a specific being within the universe (even a very powerful one)? How does the classical view — God as the ground of all being — differ from your earlier understanding?
“Who made God?”: A common challenge is: “If everything has a cause, who caused God?” How does the classical definition of God (as the one necessary Being who simply IS, and therefore needs no cause) answer this question? Do you find it satisfying? Why or why not?
Living in God’s presence: Acts 17:28 says, “In him we live and move and have our being.” What does it mean in your view to exist in God? Do you experience that dependence on God’s presence daily? How might our perspective on ordinary things change if we truly believe that everything is continually sustained by God?
Mind and meaning: Hart and others argue that our capacity to think and seek truth is an indication of God’s mind. Have you ever considered that consciousness or reason might be a clue to God’s existence? Why would a purely materialistic universe struggle to produce beings who search for truth, meaning and morality? Can you give examples where your own rational or moral experience felt like “more than mere atoms”?
Longing for God: Augustine’s words about our heart being restless until it rests in God are well known. Have you experienced such “restlessness” or a sense of something missing — even when things are outwardly going well? In what ways do people try to fill this longing with other things? If our deepest longing is actually for God (truth, love, beauty in an infinite sense), how could this influence our prayer or worship life?
The Good, the True, the Beautiful: These three are sometimes called “transcendentals” — properties of being that point to God. Which of them (goodness, truth, beauty) moves you personally most strongly towards faith in God? Are you, for example, more convinced by moral experience (a strong sense of justice or love), by intellectual conviction (the logic of a First Cause), or by experiences of beauty and wonder? Share an example that has influenced your faith or worldview.
Classical vs. Personal: Classical theism gives us a grand, philosophical picture of God. How do we reconcile this with the more personal way we pray to God and know Him in the Bible? (For example, the God who is Ipsum Esse — Being itself — is also the God we call “Father” and who became human in Jesus.) Do you feel tension between these ideas, or do you see them as complementary? Discuss how God can be at once infinitely exalted and yet intimately near, as the Christian faith teaches.
Trinity and classical theism (for those interested): Hart’s lecture focused more on the philosophical definition of God that is shared by many faiths. In our Christian context — how does this classical understanding of God enrich our view of the Trinity (Father, Son, Holy Spirit)? (For example: The Trinity is one in essence — not three gods, but one infinite Being — and yet personal in three eternal relations. Does classical theism help to articulate that mystery, or does it leave you with more questions?)

Feel free also to share other questions or uncertainties that arise during the conversation. The goal is to work with these ideas honestly and thoughtfully. We all come from different backgrounds — some things here will be new and even challenging, and that is fine. We learn from each other’s insights and from each other’s questions.

Bible Commentary on Key Passages

Let us ground our discussion in Scripture by looking at two key Bible verses related to this classical understanding of God.

Exodus 3:14 — “I am who I am.” (ESV)

This is a key verse for understanding who God is. In this scene Moses asks God His Name, and God answers: “I AM WHO I AM… Say this to the people of Israel: ‘I AM has sent me to you.’” (In Hebrew YHWH is related to the verb “to be.”) The Greek translation (Septuagint) renders this as “I am He Who Is”, and the Latin Vulgate similarly has Ego sum qui sum (“I am who I am”).

What does it mean? At first it may sound mysterious, but the classical understanding is that God hereby expresses self-existence and eternal being. Church Fathers such as St. Gregory of Nazianzus pointed out that God chose this name “as most appropriate, for it bespeaks absolute existence, independent of anything else.” In other words, only God can in the ultimate sense say “I AM” — His existence is not derived from a higher reality. St. Jerome explained that when God says “I AM”, He claims that He is “the one whose nature alone truly is… all things else, although they appear to be, are not [truly independent], for they began and may cease. God alone, having no beginning, really deserves to be called ‘Being’ or ‘Essence.’”

It is remarkable: already in Moses’s time God reveals that His “Name” is Being itself. Thomas Aquinas built on this by saying that God’s essence is to exist, and that no created being shares this unique Name “He who IS.” For our faith, Exodus 3:14 means that God is not just another being in the universe, but the foundational Being beneath the universe. It also implies God’s immutable, eternal nature — as Gregory puts it: for God there is no “was” or “will be”, but only an eternal Now of existence.

When Jesus later in John 8:58 says: “Before Abraham was, I am,” He echoes this divine Name and identifies Himself with the “I AM” of Exodus. In a devotional sense, Exodus 3:14 is deeply comforting: the One who promised to be with Moses and Israel is Being itself; He is unconditionally there, the same yesterday, today and forever. Unlike worldly things that come and go, God does not change and does not fail; He simply IS. When we lean on God, we lean on the most solid reality possible.

Acts 17:28 — “For in him we live and move and have our being.” (ESV)

In Acts 17 the apostle Paul addresses Greek philosophers in Athens. He tells them about the true God and refers to their own poets who said: “we are his offspring.” Paul uses this quotation to connect with their intuition that humanity comes from God, and then adds: “In him [God] we live and move and have our being.”

This is a concise biblical affirmation of God’s immanence and our dependence on Him. In essence Paul is saying that our existence and life depend at every moment on God’s sustaining power. We do not live outside God’s influence; we exist within God’s all-encompassing will and presence.

Early Christian commentators valued this verse because it affirms God as the continuous sustainer of the world. For example, John Calvin writes: “We are contained in God by His power… He dwells in us by His Spirit… not that all things are God (Paul isn’t saying stones or people are God), but that God’s power and spirit preserve those things which He created out of nothing. He is so present that if He were to withdraw, we would not exist for a moment.” Calvin also connects this to God’s Name Jehovah (related to “I AM”), pointing out that God alone has life in Himself, while “we have our being in Him”, and “He upholds us”.

The verse also implies God’s omnipresence. Not that God is everything (that would be pantheism, which Paul in this context rejects by dismissing idols), but that God is everywhere present with everything. The context in Acts 17 is that God “is actually not far from each one of us” (v. 27). Wherever we are, whatever we do — God is the One who gives us breath, makes our hearts beat and enables our minds to think.

This is an intimate picture of God’s relationship with creation. We are continually enveloped by God’s sustaining love and power. If He were to cease willing our existence, we would simply cease to be. While this may sound frightening to some, in Scripture it is meant to inspire trust and the seeking of God. Because He is so near and life-giving, we ought to find Him and worship Him. Paul uses this truth to argue against idols: since we live in God, we must not think God is limited to a temple or an image. He is rather the environment of existence for us.

In practical application, Acts 17:28 can transform our entire perspective on life: every moment is lived coram Deo (before the face of God). We are never outside God’s care or presence. Even those who do not know Him are still sustained by Him — and therefore, as long as we live and breathe, we have the opportunity to seek and find our Creator.

In both verses we see how biblical revelation and classical theology converge. Exodus 3:14 gives the ontological Name of God (I AM — Being itself), and Acts 17:28 gives the relational perspective of creation towards God (complete dependence and nearness). Together they sketch the picture of the God described by classical theism: the One who simply IS, who is the source of all that is, and in whom all things are held together.

Other supporting scripture passages: There are many other Bible texts that harmonise with these. Psalm 90:2, “From everlasting to everlasting, you are God”, affirms God’s eternal self-existence. Colossians 1:16–17 says of Christ: “all things were created through him and for him… and in him all things hold together,” echoing the idea of continuous sustaining from Acts 17. Hebrews 1:3 also says the Son “upholds the universe by the word of his power.” In the Old Testament, Isaiah 40:28 asks: “Have you not heard? The LORD is the everlasting God, the Creator of the ends of the earth. He does not faint or grow weary,” emphasising God’s inexhaustible being and power, in contrast with created things.

The Bible consistently points to a God who is eternal, uncreated and life-giving — precisely the God whom Hart urges us to rediscover.

By studying these verses together with Hart’s insights, we see that classical theism is not an abstract philosophical appendix to the Christian faith; it is rooted in the Bible’s own description of God. The God we encounter in prayer and worship is the same “I AM” — the One in whom we exist and who is nearer to us than our own soul. This understanding can deepen our awe and trust: God is infinitely above us, the source of all things, but also graciously present with us.

In Conclusion

Session 1’s exploration sets the stage for the rest of our journey. We have clarified “what we mean by God” in the classical sense: an almighty, omniscient, all-good Being who is the ground of reality itself. With this foundation we can proceed in the coming sessions to further investigate what David Bentley Hart and others say about the experience of God, knowing that we are speaking of the Source of our very being.

May this understanding lead us to intellectual insight, reverence and love for God — the One “in whom we live and move and have our being,” and in whom alone our restless hearts find rest.

Bibliography

Primary Source

Hart, David Bentley. The Experience of God: Being, Consciousness, Bliss. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2013. (As well as Hart’s public lectures.)

Classical Christian Theologians and Philosophers

Augustine of Hippo. Confessions. Translated by Henry Chadwick. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991. (Especially Book I for the “restless heart” passage.)
Augustine of Hippo. On the Trinity. Translated by Arthur West Haddan. In Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series, Vol. 3. Edited by Philip Schaff. Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1887.
Aquinas, Thomas. Summa Theologiae. Translated by Fathers of the English Dominican Province. New York: Benziger Bros., 1947. (Part I, Questions 2–3, on God’s existence and essence.)
Anselm of Canterbury. Proslogion. Translated by Thomas Williams. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing, 2001. (For the “that than which nothing greater can be conceived” definition.)
Gregory of Nazianzus. Orations. Translated by Charles Gordon Browne and James Edward Swallow. In Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. 7. Edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1894.
Jerome, St. Commentary on Exodus 3:14. In Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. 6. Edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1893.

Reformation Sources

Calvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion. Translated by Henry Beveridge. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2008. (Especially Book I, Chapters 3–5 on the *sensus divinitatis.)*
Calvin, John. Commentary on Acts 17. Translated by Henry Beveridge. Edinburgh: Calvin Translation Society, 1844.

Contemporary Christian Thinkers

Plantinga, Alvin. God, Freedom, and Evil. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974. (Includes discussion on necessary existence and the reliability of reason.)
Plantinga, Alvin. Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion, and Naturalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011.
Feser, Edward. Five Proofs of the Existence of God. San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2017. (Explains classical theism and the distinction between essence and existence.)
Lewis, C. S. Mere Christianity. London: Geoffrey Bles, 1952. (See Book III, Chapter 10 for the “argument from desire”.)

Philosophical and Cross-Tradition Sources

Plato. The Republic. Translated by G. M. A. Grube, revised by C. D. C. Reeve. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing, 1992. (Especially the “Form of the Good”.)
Aristotle. Metaphysics. Translated by W. D. Ross. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1924. (On the Unmoved Mover and causality.)
Leibniz, Gottfried Wilhelm. “On the Ultimate Origination of Things” (1697). In Philosophical Essays, translated by Roger Ariew and Daniel Garber. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing, 1989. (Formulates the “Principle of Sufficient Reason”.)

Biblical References and Commentary

The Holy Bible, English Standard Version (ESV). Crossway, 2001. (All Scripture quotations unless otherwise noted.)
The Septuagint (LXX). A New English Translation of the Septuagint, edited by Albert Pietersma and Benjamin G. Wright. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007. (For the Greek rendering of Exodus 3:14.)
Matthew Henry. Commentary on the Whole Bible. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1994. (For devotional insights on Exodus 3:14 and Acts 17:28.)

KontroversieControversy

Sessie 2 — Die God wat Nie ...Session 2 — The God Who Can...

© Attie Retief, 2025