Daniel Castelo Livres

The book explores the tension between divine impassibility and contemporary divine possibility within theological discourse. It aims to reframe the significance of divine impassibility in early church thought, arguing for its relevance today. The author contends that understanding God's character and actions influences Christian discipleship, highlighting the need for a coherent theological vision that bridges historical and modern perspectives. This work invites readers to reconsider foundational beliefs about God in light of evolving theological contexts.

In this commentary Old Testament scholar Bo Lim and theologian Daniel Castelo work together to help the church recover, read, and proclaim the prophetic book of Hosea in a way that is both faithful to its message and relevant to our contemporary context. Though the book of Hosea is rich with imagery and metaphor that can be difficult to interpret, Lim and Castelo show that, with its focus on corporate and structural sin, Hosea contains a critically important message for today’s church.

Pentecostalism, says Daniel Castelo, is commonly framed as "evangelicalism with tongues" or dismissed as simply a revivalist movement. In this book Castelo argues that Pentecostalism is actually best understood as a Christian mystical tradition. Taking a theological approach to Pentecostalism, Castelo looks particularly at the movement's methodology and epistemology as he carefully distinguishes it from American evangelicalism. Castelo displays the continuity between Pentecostalism and ancient church tradition, creating a unified narrative of Pentecostalism and the mystical tradition of Christianity throughout history and today. Finally, he uses a test case to press the question of what the interactions between mystical theology and dogmatics could look like

Offers a clear introduction to the field of Christian pneumatology - the study of the Holy Spirit

A theologian and a biblical scholar work out the four Nicene marks of the church (one, holy, catholic, apostolic) as marks of Scripture, offering a new way of thinking about the Bible.

Exploring the longstanding issue of God's relationship to evil, this work critiques traditional approaches to theodicy for lacking theological depth. It seeks to redefine the theodical task, making it more accessible to nonspecialists while emphasizing the triune God of Christian faith. By reorienting the discussion, the book aims to transform the philosophical nature of theodicy, providing a fresh perspective that intertwines theology with the complexities of evil.

This book lies at the intersection of philosophy of mind and philosophy of religion and operates on the assumption that dialogue between the two disciplines can be fruitful. In particular it focuses on how debates in the philosophy of mind regarding the nature of mental causation relate to debates in the philosophy of religion regarding divine action, creaturely causation, and existence of God. The book is divided into two parts. The first deals with Jaegwon Kim’s so-called Supervenience Argument (SA) against non-reductive physicalism. One important observation is that the structural similarities between non-reductive physicalism and ‘orthodox’ theism make it convenient to co-opt non-reductive physicalist solutions to the SA in defending the possibility of creaturely causation in the philosophy of religion. The SA is used as a foil to discuss the relative merits of Malebranche’s so-called Conservation is Continuous Creation Argument for Occasionalism (CCCA). Moverover, the so-called compatibilist strategy (Karen Bennett 2003, 2009) for developing a non-reductive physicalist response to the Supervenience Argument is defended and developed. This strategy is then deployed in the philosophy of religion to defend the possibility of creaturely causation against the CCCA.