Criticism, toleration, and the Trinity

Red Centre, Northern Territory, Australia (photo from trekearth.com)

The following three propositions below, are from my problem of evil questionnaire. God willing, once I pass my PhD dissertation, I shall publish the entire statistical chapter, but for now I will release some of this copyrighted material. I am in the middle of trying to put my introduction together for my doctorate and do not have the time to present material outside of my thesis work.

Religions should not be beyond criticism.

72.8% of respondents supported this concept.

Differing religious views should be tolerated.

56.3% of persons supported this idea.

The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are the same God.

96.7% accepted the Biblical idea of the Trinity

By examining the first two questions together, one can conclude that the majority of respondents think that religions should be criticized but also tolerated. A question arises. In the mind of respondents, how much should a religion be criticized before it is no longer tolerated? I would be interested in reading your comments. I strongly agree with the 72.8% of respondents that supported the notion that religion should not be beyond criticism, and to some extent agree that differing religions should be tolerated. Must all religious philosophies be tolerated? I think not, if a religion advocates murder for example, or is intolerant of the basic rights of others, it should not be tolerated. I do not think that religions that offer human sacrifice should be tolerated. I do however, in a secular Western world, appreciate the right to worship, write and live as a Christian, and realize that those of other religious or non-religious viewpoints should have the same freedom.

One of the purposes of this blog is to look at religious and non-religious views critically, and with tolerance when possible. My own views come from years of scholarly and personal research, and are open for revision, although I hold to certain views and doctrines more strongly than others. There are essentials within Christian faith and philosophy that are non-negotiable in order to actually legitimately call oneself a Christian, in a Biblical sense. In my writing, I often focus on the nature of God and the atoning and resurrection work of Christ. The nature of God within Christianity is essential to understand and accept, as one cannot reasonably, merely believe in a God of choice and attempt to make that the Biblical God. The understanding revealed within the New Testament is that God is of one undivided nature, but yet in unity. Thiessen (1956: 134). Thiessen quotes Deuteronomy 6:4 and Mark 12:29, where God is called one. Thiessen (1956: 134). A comprehensive evaluation of the doctrine of the Trinity could easily be a PhD dissertation, but there are good explanations of the doctrine. Thiessen admits that the word Trinity is not in Scripture, and he writes that the term was perhaps first used by in the Greek as Trias by Theophilus of Antioch (d. 181) and then in the Latin by Tertullian (d. ca. 220). Thiessen (1956: 135). Thiessen explains that the idea behind the Trinity is that from the New Testament there are three external distinctions, in the one divine nature, as they are known to us as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Thiessen (1956: 135). These three persons are not to be confused as being the same or are they of a different substance. Thiessen (1956: 135). Thiessen points out that the Trinity is not Tritheism, as there are not three distinct Gods. Thiessen (1956: 135). He also explains that Biblical Christianity does not hold to Sabellianism (third century) as this would understand God as having three qualities within one person. Thiessen (1956: 135). Sabellianism does not hold to real distinctions existing, but merely names that are used at different times. Erickson (1994: 334). God would work in different modes, and this is known as modalism. Grenz, Guretzki, and Nordling. (1999: 79). H.E.W. Turner writes that Sabellianism is an alternate description of modalism which gave the doctrine in its most sophisticated form. Turner (1999: 514). Robert M. Bowman notes that the Trinitarian faith does not allow for the dividing of substance. Bowman (1990: 13). The persons present in the Trinity are not representing three separate beings with differing natures of differing substance, but to Bowman they are three personal distinctions each fully God. Bowman (1990: 13).

BOWMAN, ROBERT M. (1990) Why You Should Believe in the Trinity, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.

ERICKSON, MILLARD. (1994) Christian Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.

GRENZ, STANLEY J., DAVID GURETZKI AND CHERITH FEE NORDLING (1999) Pocket Dictionary of Theological Terms, Downers Grove, Ill., InterVarsity Press.

THIESSEN, HENRY C. (1956) Introductory Lectures in Systematic Theology, Grand Rapids, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

TURNER, H.E.W. (1999) ‘Sabellianism’, in Alan Richardson and John Bowden (eds.), A New Dictionary of Christian Theology, Kent, SCM Press Ltd.

Is the world becoming more evil?

Christ Church Cathedral, Dublin (photo from trekearth.com)

Good news: I am as of tonight beginning work on my last PhD dissertation chapter, the Introduction.

The world is becoming more evil.

Within my doctoral problem of evil survey results, 52.1% of respondents within Christian churches supported this proposition. Are individuals and institutions becoming more evil, making the world more evil, and/or are incidents of evil simply being reported in greater numbers due to more television stations and the internet? It would take a dissertation beyond the scope of my PhD, and certainly beyond this blog article, to answer the first part of the question, but the answer to the second part is ‘yes’ in my view. News networks such as CNN, which was founded in 1980 by Ted Turner, provide a worldwide perspective on the problem of evil to local markets, whereas in the 1960’s and 1970’s, local stations primarily provided local news with a secondary emphasis on national, and international news. In the Western world there are commercially far more television stations available today than in the 1970s.The internet and the worldwide web also provide worldwide coverage of events and therefore the problem of evil on a global scale can be digested by persons in local markets, and evil can appear to be greater in amount than it was thirty to forty years ago.

From a Biblical Christian world-view there has been some negative trends in the world, including within Western society and the Christian Church itself. Those within the Christian Church, which hold to a Biblical world-view, may tend to see the world, the Western world, at least, as becoming more evil as many tend to reject Christian concepts. Hal N. Ostrander, Chair of the Religion & Philosophy Division at Brewton-Parker College in Washington State, explains that in today’s post-Christian era and society, Christians will face cultural and intellectual challenges to the faith. Ostrander (2004: 1). The Church is in a defensive position where it needs to defend a faith, not accepted by most in Western society. Ostrander (2004: 1). From those within very liberal Christianity, several of these changes may be viewed in a positive way. Elaine Graham writes that in a post-modern age of uncertainty, many of the foundations of Western society are dissolving. Graham (2000)(2007: 105). Graham reasons there needs to be new ways of looking at Christian practice and the understanding of Divine reality, which feature the use of empathy and solidarity with others. Graham (2000)(2007: 106). I reason that God is adequately supernaturally revealed and explained in Scripture and what is needed is for Christian churches to take historical, contextual study of Scripture seriously. Although I agree with Graham that those within the Church should seek to empathize and have solidarity with others, I do not think that this should take place by abandoning Biblical theology. Harold Lindsell provides the opinion that many Christian institutions have slowly over time moved away from orthodox, Biblical theology and have gone astray. Lindsell (1976: 185). If Biblical theology is rejected within very liberal theology, then what occurs is that Biblical Christianity is replaced by a human made religion. This religion is not of God, but rather represents the attempts of certain religious persons to make God palatable for 21st century consumption.

GRAHAM, ELAINE (2000)(2007) ‘Practical Theology as Transforming Practice’ in James Woodward and Stephen Pattison (eds.), The Blackwell Reader in Pastoral and Practical Theology, Oxford, Blackwell Publishing.

LINDSELL, HAROLD (1976) The Battle for the Bible, Grand Rapids, Zondervan Publishing House.

OSTRANDER, HAL N. (2004) ‘Defending the faith in a post-Christian era’, The Christian Index, Duluth, Georgia, The Christian Index.
http://www.christianindex.org/206.article

TURNER, TED (2007) Turner-A Time Warner Company, Atlanta, Time Warner Company.
http://www.turner.com/about/corporate_history.html

http://satireandtheology.blogspot.com/2007/10/thekingpin68-in-tuxedo-at-cousin-buffs.html

Gratuitous evil

Niagara Falls, Ontario (photo from trekearth.com)

This is material based on MPhil/PhD research:

Gratuitous evil is also known as the evidential argument for evil and has been presented by atheistic philosopher William Rowe on more than one occasion. He presents an argument for gratuitous evil in ‘The Problem of Evil and Some Varieties of Atheism’ in The Problem of Evil.

Rowe’s evidential argument for evil, states the following propositions: Rowe (1990: 1).

(1) God, an omnipotent, omniscient, perfectly good being exists.
(2) Gratuitous evil exists.
(3) A perfectly good being would always eliminate gratuitous evil as far as it can.
(4) There are no limits to what an omnipotent being can do. Rowe (1990: 3).

Rowe concludes that there is no good state of affairs where an omnipotent, omniscient being would be justified in allowing evils where no possible good can arise from them taking place; he also calls these inscrutable evils, which are evils that cannot be understood. Rowe (1990: 3). Rowe’s proposition (1) and those like, seem reasonable from a traditional Christian perspective. Kreeft and Tacelli (1994: 89-99). Proposition (2) is debatable because it assumes that concepts of those within sovereignty and soul-making theodicy are incorrect and that an infinite, omnipotent God cannot use all wrong actions by creatures for the greater good. Calvin (1543)(1996: 37-40). Hick (1970: 292). Proposition (2) really does not prove anything, but simply states a disagreement between Rowe and many within Christian theism on whether or not God’s purposes are being fulfilled, even when horrendous evils occur. Rowe states that there is too much evil that does not make sense in existence. Rowe (1990: 3). Numerous theists would answer that although finite human beings cannot know the purposes of evil, God has a purpose. In my view, the human being is therefore unable to truly judge if too much evil exists. Proposition (3) is questionable because it builds upon the debatable proposition (2). It assumes that God cannot use all evil towards the greater good, and since gratuitous evil would exist, it implies that God likely is not a perfectly good being. Proposition (4) can be challenged by the theist because although God technically could rid the world of evil, both Feinberg and Hick for example, have provided good reasons why the creator would allow preventable evil. Feinberg states that eliminating evil would prohibit other divine plans for the greater good, Feinberg (1994: 130). Hick writes that God must allow a hostile imperfect environment in order for soul-making to occur. Hick (1970: 292).

Rowe has written a logical argument, but it is not necessarily true because theists can debate proposition (2) and claim the infinite, perfectly good God can always use the evil actions of his finite creations for the greater good. Calvin (1543)(1996: 37-40). It also can be stated concerning proposition (3) that as Calvin noted, God’s motives would remain pure even while horrendous evils take place, and God need not be less than perfectly good. Calvin (1543)(1996: 40). This would seem reasonable and possible for an infinite deity to accomplish as he is dealing with finite creatures that could never match him in morality, power, and knowledge.

Frances and Daniel Howard-Snyder reason that a way to deny premise (3) is to state that there is no such thing as a minimum amount of suffering that God must allow in order for the greater good to be accomplished. Howard-Snyder (1999: 129). This idea would not accept the critic’s notion that there is a minimum amount of evil and suffering that God must allow in a situation, and if he goes beyond that amount, gratuitous evil has occurred and God therefore does not exist. Howard-Snyder (1999: 129). Jeff Jordon disagrees and argues that the no minimum of suffering claim is false or implausible, because for any distribution of evil for divine purposes there is always a less painful distribution that would accomplish the same purposes. Jordon (2003: 238). I think it more likely that for each varying amount of suffering that God willingly allows there are resulting amounts of greater good or evil that occur. There is also the possibility that if God allows a certain amount of suffering in a given situation that the greater good will not occur and therefore God would not allow this amount of suffering to take place. Since the amount of suffering is largely related to the amount of greater good, it is not likely that a smaller amount of suffering could accomplish the same results as a greater amount, either good or bad. I therefore doubt Jordon’s claim that a less painful distribution of evil would accomplish the exact same purposes. Jordon (2003: 238).

A critic may state that Jesus could have simply atoned for sins by dying with a much less brutal death. Christ could have been beaten less, not been crucified, died in a less painful way, and still died for sins, but I reason that the exact purposes of God would not have been accomplished through less suffering. I conclude that in the case of the death of Christ, a less painful distribution of evil would not have accomplished the exact same purposes. Unfortunately from our human perspective, what we may often view as gratuitous unnecessary evil, is in a sense, God accomplishing his purposes in a situation. I can certainly relate on a personal level, with the atheist and non-Christian that deems this as wrong and unfair, but as human beings we are in no position to judge God’s motives and plans in working in his creation in regard to the problem of evil. I have determined that my sufferings which are often very annoying, do not provide me with a strong enough intellectual argument to overcome the Biblical, theological and philosophical evidence for God's existence. My suffering, and the suffering of others, is certainly very difficult and often unappreciated, but from Job 40:1-2, from the New American Standard Bible, it states.

Then the Lord said to Job,
‘Will the faultfinder contend with the Almighty? Let him who reproves God answer it.’

CALVIN, JOHN (1543)(1996) The Bondage and Liberation of the Will, Translated by G.I. Davies, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.

FEINBERG, JOHN S. (1994) The Many Faces of Evil, Grand Rapids, Zondervan Publishing House.

HICK, JOHN (1970) Evil and The God of Love, London, The Fontana Library.

HOWARD-SNYDER, FRANCES AND DANIEL (1999) ‘Is Theism Compatible with Gratuitous Evil?’, American Philosophical Quarterly, Volume 26, Number 2, April, pp. 115-130, Chicago, University of Illinois.

JORDAN, JEFF (2003) ‘Evil and Van Inwagen’, Faith and Philosophy, Volume 20, Number 2, pp. 236-238. Wilmore, Kentucky, Asbury College.

KREEFT, PETER AND RONALD K. TACELLI (1994) Handbook of Christian Apologetics, Downers Grove, Illinois, InterVarsity Press.

ROWE, WILLIAM L. (1990) ‘The Problem of Evil and Some Varieties of Atheism’, in Adams and Adams (eds.) The Problem of Evil, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
http://www.otago.ac.nz/philosophy/210/15%20evidential%20prob%20of%20evil.pdf.


Niagara Falls, New York (photo from trekearth.com)

Apologetics and the closed-minded

La Vega, Tajuna, Spain (photo from trekearth.com)

In my previous article on apologetics, in the comments section, I stated that I had been dealing with someone this past weekend that is likely a member of a pseudo-Christian cult, who found this site via another blog. This person would not deal with a contextual evaluation of Scripture and related theology. I spent two hours plus preparing apologetics related emails in reply to his strongly worded criticisms of my theological views, for which he simply breezed over without seriously dealing with the material I presented. He moved on to quoting his next Biblical texts out of context or without full context, and then attempted to change the topic and attack my theology on another point. I put his email address on the blocked senders list, and his latest email went into the 'Deleted Items' folder. I guess he would not accept it when I stated that since he would not deal with the scholarly, Biblical and theological material presented, it was not worthwhile emailing anymore. I sent him a blocked sender email, just in case Outlook Express did not do it automatically. I had email dialogue with the owner of the other blog I mentioned, and found out that the person that I had blocked had been in this kind of dialogue with Christians previously with the results being the same.

This person that I blocked on Outlook Express, as far as I know has never commented on this blog, but I do allow anonymous comments, so in reality at times, I am not aware of who comments on this blog. Quite often when I am challenged it is through the email address I provide with this blog and not through the comments. One can speculate why this is so, but I suppose some persons prefer the confidentiality of email. As ministry, and in the spirit of open-mindedness, if I have the time, I will work on dialoguing with a person of any philosophy on a blog or related topic if the person is open-minded. However, if one is simply in defend and attack mode, it is a waste of my time. My mind will not be changed without the significant use of reason, and as many of you have probably experienced in your own life, dealing with someone over a prolonged period who is closed-minded concerning a issue, is a waste of time since the person does not adequately deal with material and/or information provided that may contrast his/her viewpoint. I have changed my mind in the past on issues, and with God’s help remain open-minded.

I reason that God predestines those who shall follow Christ as in Ephesians 1:4-12, and that God makes the choice to regenerate a certain individual and moulds a person through the work of the Holy Spirit to freely believe. Following Christ is not a human choice primarily, but I do not believe persons follow Christ through compulsion. Calvin (1543)(1996: 68). God must persuade an individual through the work of the Holy Spirit to understand what true Biblical religion entails. Accepting this theology, I reason that many persons are closed-minded regarding religion, including some Christians, and others are closed-minded while holding non-religious views. Some persons have a devotion to belief systems that would be quite subjective in manner. This type of devotion is opposed to being tested intellectually. I do not have the knowledge to judge any human heart, but some persons seem so closed-minded in their approach to religion and/or philosophy that it can deduced that no amount of reason and evidence will persuade he/she to believe otherwise. For these persons apologetics seems useless. Without the moulding and persuasive work of the Holy Spirit, if a person wants to hold to a certain religious and/or philosophical perspective, in many cases nothing will change the mind, because seemingly a person wants to believe what he/she believes. For some, nothing contrary to a personal belief system can be seriously considered.

The late Walter Martin wrote that the belief systems of cults are characterized by closed-mindedness. Martin (1985: 26). These groups are not interested in rational cognitive evaluation of facts. Martin (1985: 26). He writes that such systems are in isolation, and never shift to logical consistency, and the mind of the cultist is almost impossible to penetrate because of a commitment to the thought pattern of his/her organization. Martin (1985: 26). I agree with Martin’s reasoning, and deduce that the closed-minded approach is not only taken by cultists, but by many persons who hold to religious and non-religious philosophical views that do not want to be intellectually challenged. If a person is really pursuing the truth, there must be enough of an emotional detachment from views held to at least consider perspectives that may be contrary to a personal belief system.

CALVIN, JOHN (1543)(1996) The Bondage and Liberation of the Will, Translated by G.I. Davies, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.

MARTIN, WALTER (1985) The Kingdom of The Cults, Minneapolis, Bethany House Publishers.