The Michelin Man

Michelin Man

Night

Not to be confused with a snowman

Neighbourhood Michelin Man watch...

Those are photos taken by Chucky of me in the neighbourhood. Yes, I look like the Michelin Man with my heavy winter jacket on. The senior citizen home owner of the display came out to see what was going on, took one look at me and walked back into his house.



This is Chucky once again, but without being choked.

Jeff Jenkins on Facebook

Jeff Jenkins

Jeff Jenkins

Jeff Jenkins

Me without that heavy jacket

Double feature: God is not my buddy/Two types of knowledge

'God is not my buddy' is a new presentation based on thoughts I have had the last few months.

'Two types of knowledge' is again work from my MPhil/PhD theses that I have presented prior to having more readership. Therefore it is still new to most of you and I have no problem presenting it once again.

Thanks, and comments are appreciated.

God is not my buddy

I hold to orthodox Christian theology within the Reformed tradition. I came to this not primarily by family or by being led to the Lord by a person or persons, but by God providing influences as a child and eventually through years of academic study where with God's help I sought to be as objective as possible, although I do not claim complete objectivity.

I reason that in God's love I am saved by grace through faith in the atoning and resurrection work of Christ, and Ephesians 2: 8-10 is a good summary of my reasoning.

Ephesians 2:8-10 (New American Standard Bible)

8For (A)by grace you have been saved (B)through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is (C)the gift of God;

9(D)not as a result of works, so that (E)no one may boast.

10For we are His workmanship, (F)created in (G)Christ Jesus for (H)good works, which God (I)prepared beforehand so that we would (J)walk in them.

A buddy of mine would rid me of many of my very annoying problems, if possible. If reasonably possible, a buddy would rid me of my vitreous floaters if he/she was an opthamologist. A buddy would assist me with overcoming my sleep apnea, if he/she was a qualified surgeon. A buddy would help me find a good woman to marry, if he/she could.

Basically, from my problem of evil research, I could conclude that often the critic of the New Testament God, rejects this God because this God will often not do the good things for each of us that a buddy would do.

A buddy would not let us suffer and die if he or she could prevent it, and would not, for the most part, allow our dearest friends to suffer and die.

And yet, within Christianity God is viewed as this perfect and holy God and yet so much evil exists.

I reason God created human beings in such a way that he knew they would freely fall into sin. They were not forced to coerced to do so, and yet God willed it. God would save those he predestined and the elect would have experienced the problem of evil, sin, suffering, salvation in Christ, death, and the results of the atoning and resurrection work of Christ culminated in each person within their personal resurrection and existence in the everlasting Kingdom.

In my PhD thesis I speculate that these were the type of human beings that God wished to develop. If Adam and Eve or the first human like beings had been different and were significantly free and never committed evil acts in thought and deed, they would not have developed into the type of human beings the creator God appears to ultimately desire. God has every right and the power to create the significantly good and free creatures he wants. He has chosen to have redeemed and restored human physical beings in his culminated Kingdom, rather than sinless ones, other than Jesus Christ himself, of course, who is both God and man.

I do not agree with theistic and Christian free will theorists that cite incompatibilism and that God could not create significantly free beings that would never commit evil acts. In agreement with compatibilism and many within Reformed theology, I reason this limits God's sovereignty, and frankly overlooks the fact that angels are likely significantly free creatures and many of them stayed loyal to God and never fell into evil. This means that God very likely created significantly free spiritual beings that never sinned and committed evil acts, and therefore I conclude that God could have made significantly free physical creatures that were human like that would not have sinned and committed wrong acts in thought and deed.

The fact that God chose to create human beings as he did does not make him less than perfectly good and holy, as his motives in willingly allowing the problem evil remain pure and the infinite God can use all the sinful acts of fallen finite creatures for the greater good, which includes a culminated everlasting Kingdom.

But, God is not my buddy, although my most important friend, and no one is the Church should treat him as a buddy in this realm. In the completed Kingdom of God, I reason that discipline will not include the use of suffering (Revelation 21: 4), but I am not ruling out that even perfect finite human beings do need direction from God that could be considered a type of discipline. Will we be buddies with Christ? Well perhaps in a sense, he had friends while on this earth, and it shall be interesting to see how things unfold.

Two types of knowledge

Concerning my research on the problem of evil, within formal philosophy comes two important terms related to how human beings obtain knowledge. For those not well educated in theology or philosophy, please do not be intimidated by the terms if they are new to you. Remembering the actual terms in my view is not as important as understanding to some degree, the concepts that may arise in discussions concerning the problem of evil. The terms are a priori and a posteriori. I shall review these terms and related concepts in an obviously non-exhaustive manner.

Louis P. Pojman explains that the term a priori comes from the Latin “preceding” and is knowledge that is not based on sense experience but is innate or known to human beings by the meanings of words and definitions. Pojman (1996: 595). Arthur Pap defines a priori knowledge as being independent of experience. Pap (1973: 666). Since this knowledge leads to truth independent of experience, once a concept is understood it will be seen as necessarily true logically, meaning that it will not be refuted at any time empirically (through the use of the senses). Pap (1973: 667). Simon Blackburn notes that a proposition is knowable a priori if it can be known without experience of a certain set of events in the actual world. Blackburn allows for some experience to be obtained in order for a priori knowledge to occur. Blackburn (1996: 21). He explains that this type of knowledge is very controversial and it is not clear how pure thought without the use of experience can lead to any true knowledge at all. Blackburn (1996: 21). Some empiricists have attempted to deny that any real knowledge can be obtained from a priori means. Blackburn (1996: 21).

Laurence BonJour notes that many empiricists would hold that all actual philosophical concepts are derived and known through experience. BonJour (1996: 30). Blackburn points out that Immanuel Kant dealt with this issue as it was supposed that a priori concepts cannot be understood from experience alone but come from presuppositions in a mode of thought about reality. Blackburn (1996: 22).

In the Critique of Pure Reason of 1781 and revised in 1787, Kant explains that the forms of appearance from which sensations can be understood are not themselves the empirical sensations. Kant (1781)(1787)(1929)(2006: 66). BonJour states that a priori knowledge is independent of empirical experience, meaning that something can be accepted as knowledge if it does not depend upon sensory experience. BonJour (1996: 29).

Very importantly in my view, BonJour explains that a deductively valid argument can use a priori reasoning, even if the correctness of the argument is challenged. BonJour (1996: 30). This would be very important for non-empirical reasoning in the areas of theology and philosophy in regard to the problem of evil and other topics, but even in other disciplines such as scientific theory where logical and reasonable deductions are at times made without empirical evidence. In other words, it is possible to deduce with logic, reason, and argumentation, truth, even without empirical evidence. BonJour mentions that rationalists that state God exists are using a priori reasoning. I do not deny that human beings have presuppositions in the areas of knowledge, but I reason that experience and God given nature influences those concepts. It seems doubtful to me that human beings can have philosophical presuppositions without some innate understanding and experience to make sense of reality in order to presuppose.

It is also Biblical and reasonable to deduce that God creates human beings with certain innate understanding of reality that will be assisted by experience. Romans 1:19 explains that God made human beings with a natural understanding of his existence. Perhaps this would be a priori knowledge and would not exist entirely on human presuppositions. The existence of natural knowledge of God does not necessarily mean that human beings worship or obey God.

Pojman writes that a posteriori comes the Latin “the later” and is knowledge that is obtained from human sense experience only, as in the five senses. Pojman (1996: 595). Blackburn reasons that something can be known a posteriori when it cannot be known a priori. Blackburn (1996: 21-22). From a Christian perspective, God through Jesus Christ has revealed himself to finite humanity in an effective, limited, empirical fashion, and this would be considered a posteriori knowledge of God, although God as pure spirit remains beyond the physical senses.

BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996) ‘A priori/A posteriori’, in Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, p. 21-22. Oxford, Oxford University Press.

BONJOUR, LAURENCE. (1996) ‘A Priori’, in Robert Audi (ed.), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

EDWARDS, PAUL AND ARTHUR PAP (1973) (eds), ‘A priori knowledge: Introduction’, A Modern Introduction To Philosophy, New York, The Free Press.

KANT, IMMANUEL (1781)(1787)(1929)(2006) Critique of Pure Reason, Translated by Norman Kemp Smith, London, Macmillan.
http://www.hkbu.edu.hk/~ppp/cpr/toc.html.

POJMAN, LOUIS P. (1996) Philosophy: The Quest for Truth, New York, Wadsworth Publishing Company.

If God was our buddy the man is white could be correct instead of in error. I am not denying God's ability to heal or provide various kinds of blessings within his sovereign will.

Thoughts on practical and empirical theology

Thoughts on practical and empirical theology

Edited and reformatted for an academia.edu entry, July 1, 2022.

This was PhD research work done in 2008, before the finalized version of my PhD thesis in 2010. This is just part of the finalized PhD work.

---

Preface: December 7, 2008

I will be studying the next month preparing for my PhD defence in Wales in January. I used both practical and empirical theology in my MPhil and PhD theses. Some of this has been presented in other posts but I have added new material.

Definitions 

Practical theology

Charles E. Winquest describes practical theology as the theological specialty that deals with, and is grounded in theory and practice and the need to bring self-consciousness to ministry. Winquest (1987: 1). Don Browning writes that practical theology should be a public enterprise that consists of theological reflection on church ministry in the world and should also deal with the theology of professional ministerial activity within the church. Browning (1985)(2005: 2). Paul Ballard and John Pritchard note that it is a particular field of theology that specifically deals with Christian life and practice within the Church community and in relation to society. Ballard and Pritchard (2001: 1). 

Empirical theology

Leslie J. Francis explains that an element of practical theology is the use of empirical data. Francis (2005: 1). William Dean reasons that empirical theology begins with a particular speculative view of life, which in turn leads to the use of the empirical method. Dean (1990: 85-102). Clive Erricker, Danny Sullivan and Jane Erricker comment that empirical theology questions how theology relates to social sciences. Erricker, Sullivan and Erricker (1994: 6-7). 

Empirical Methodology 

The disciplines of the social sciences will be applied as methodology for studying practical and empirical theology. Francis (2005: 2-3). The work of practical and empirical theology can be tested by the social sciences. Francis (2005: 4). For R. Ruard Ganzevoort, theology is a forum where various scientific disciplines meet. Ganzevoort (2004)(2005: 2). Hans-Gunter Heimbrock notes that since religion and faith is experimental within empirical theology, the social sciences have been used to examine social dynamics, conditions and contexts of religious life. Heimbrock (2005: 273-299). Karl E. Peters reasons that empirical theology is like science in that it affirms naturalism, accepts limitations on human knowledge, and therefore makes all religious knowledge tentative. Peters (1992: 297-325). Y. Krikorian provides the idea that nature contains nothing supernatural, and that the scientific method should be used to explain all aspects of reality, including those assumed to be ‘spiritual’. Krikorian (1944)(2007: 1). 

My approach to empirical theology

I can support practical theology in general terms, as it complements Biblical doctrines, philosophical theology and theory and explains practical application of theology for those within the Christian Church. Practical theology can assist professional theologians, and likely even more so, professional pastors in applying doctrines and theory from the Bible in every day (or everyday) life for those that attend Christian churches. I can support empirical theology as a form of practical theology that provides questionnaire propositions within a survey and then takes the data from respondents and analyses how Biblical doctrines and philosophical theology are being interpreted within the church. This can lead to changes of presentation and application of doctrines, but in my view, should not alter the doctrines themselves. I do not support notions of empirical theology that view theology as strictly experimental and speculative. 

Within my moderate conservative, Reformed perspective, I reason that God has revealed himself supernaturally in Scripture and that he has provided doctrines and theology that correctly reflect his will and plans for the world and church. J.S. Whale writes that all Christians believe in the Bible as God’s word and that Scripture provides testimony rooted in history. Whale (1958: 17). Through Scripture God has taken the initiative to make himself known in an understandable way for human beings. Erickson (1994: 198). The Bible is therefore the primary and supreme source of theological understanding. Erickson (1994: 36). This means the empirical data will not equal or surpass Scripture in explaining God’s plans for humanity. 

Since I reason that God has revealed himself in Scripture, essential and primary Biblical doctrines taken from a textual evaluation of Scripture are therefore not tentative. There is Biblical truth that God revealed to selected persons for them to write down and theology should be primarily developed based on God’s revelation. Granted, no two human theologies will be exactly the same as persons process information in different ways, but Scripture exists in order to provide a consistent message to humanity. Therefore, primary doctrines within Christianity should be agreed upon by all that take a contextual, grammatical, and historical evaluation of the Bible seriously. 

Naturalism assumes that nature is viewed as the fundamental and original source for all that exists, and therefore all reality needs to be explained in terms of nature. Dubray (1911)(2007: 1). All events find an adequate explanation within nature itself. Dubray (1911)(2007: 1). Thiessen explains that since naturalism holds that nature is the whole of reality, everything that occurs is due to the laws of nature. Thiessen (1956: 186). He comments that Scripture recognizes the existence of the laws of nature, but it is reasoned that they do not operate independently of God. Thiessen (1956: 186). 

With Thiessen’s concept naturalists and Christians would not necessarily disagree on scientific facts, but those who trust in New Testament revelation would reason that God is the revealed supernatural source behind nature. Christianity need not dispute scientific, empirical facts, and these should be accepted as God's truth. But, naturalism which depends on scientific empiricism alone is not viewed as the only means of determining truth. 

Christian faith and philosophy can accept scientific fact and as well a rational, philosophical acceptance of reasonable arguments for God's existence, such as the need for an infinite first cause in a finite universe that contains finite matter and time. Christianity also primarily depends on the Biblical and historical revelation that God gave through the Hebrew Bible and New Testament. This is the first cause interacting with his creation and explaining his plans. 

BALLARD, PAUL AND JOHN PRITCHARD (2001) Practical Theology in Action, London, SPCK. 

BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996) Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

BROWN, ROBERT MCAFEE (1984) Unexpected News, Philadelphia, The Westminster Press.

BROWNING, DON S. (1985)(2005) ‘Practical Theology and Political Theology’, Theology Today, Volume 42, Number 1, Article 2, Princeton, Princeton Theological Seminary. http://theologytoday.ptsem.edu/apr1985/v42-1-article2.htm. 

CAMPBELL, ALASTAIR (2000)(2007) ‘The Nature of Practical Theology’, in James Woodward and Stephen Pattison (eds.), The Blackwell Reader in Pastoral and Practical Theology, Oxford, Blackwell Publishing. 

DEAN, WILLIAM (1986) American Religious Empiricism, Albany, State University of New York Press.

DEAN, WILLIAM (1990) ‘Empirical Theology: A Revisable Tradition’, in Process Studies, Volume 19, Number 2, pp. 85-102, Claremont, California, The Center for Process Studies. http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=2791.

DILLISTONE, F.W. (1999) ‘Religious Experience’, in Alan Richardson and John Bowden (eds.), A New Dictionary of Christian Theology, London, SCM Press Ltd.

DUBRAY, C.A. (1911)(2007) ‘Naturalism’ in New Advent: Catholic Encyclopedia, New York, Robert Appleton Company. 

ELWELL, WALTER AND YARBROUGH, ROBERT W., Third Edition (2013) Encountering The New Testament, Grand Rapids, Baker Academic.

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

ERICKSON, MILLARD (2003) What Does God Know and When Does He Know It?, Grand Rapids, Zondervan. 

ERRICKER, CLIVE, DANNY SULLIVAN, AND JANE ERRICKER (1994) ‘The Development of Children’s Worldviews, Journal of Beliefs and Values, London, Routledge.

FEINBERG, JOHN.S. (1986) Predestination and Free Will, in David Basinger and Randall Basinger (eds.), Downers Grove, Illinois, InterVarsity Press. 

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

FEINBERG, JOHN.S. (2001) No One Like Him, John S. Feinberg (gen.ed.), Wheaton, Illinois, Crossway Books.

FRANCIS, LESLIE J. and Practical Theology Team (2005) ‘Practical and Empirical Theology’, University of Wales, Bangor website, University of Wales, Bangor. http://www.bangor.ac.uk/rs/pt/ptunit/definition.php. 

GANZEVOORT, R. RUARD (2004)(2005) ‘Van der Ven’s Empirical/Practical Theology and the Theological Encyclopedia’, in Hermans, pp.53-74, C.A.M. & Moore M.E. (eds), Amsterdam. http://www.ruardganzevoort.nl/a04vdven.htm. 

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

HEIMBROCK, HANS-GUNTER (2005) ‘From Data to Theory: Elements of Methodology in Empirical Phenomenological Research in Practical Theology’ in International Journal of Practical Theology, Volume 9, December, Berlin, Walter D. Gruyter. 

INBODY, TYRON (1995) The Constructive Theology of Bernard Meland: Postliberal Empirical Realism, Atlanta, Scholars Press.

KRIKORIAN, K. (1944)(2007) (ed.), Naturalism and the Human Spirit, New York, Columbia University Press, in Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Stanford University. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/naturalism/ 

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

OXFORD DICTIONARY OF SCIENCE (2010) Oxford, Oxford University Press.

PETERS, KARL, E. (1992) ‘Empirical Theology in the Light of Science, in The Journal of Religion and Science, Volume 27 Issue 3 Page 297-325, September, Oxford, Zygon, Blackwell Publishing. http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1467-9744.1992.tb01068.x 

POJMAN, LOUIS P. (1996) Philosophy: The Quest for Truth, New York, Wadsworth Publishing Company.

SIRE, JAME W (1975) The Universe Next Door, Downers Grove, Illinois, InterVarsity Press.

STACE, W.T. (1952)(1976) Religion and the Modern Mind, in John R. Burr and Milton Goldinger (eds.), Philosophy and Contemporary Issues, London, Collier Macmillan Publishers.

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

WHALE, J.S. (1958) Christian Doctrine, Glasgow, Fontana Books. 

WINQUIST, CHARLES E. (1987) ‘Re-visioning Ministry: Postmodern Reflections’, in Lewis S Mudge and James N. Poling, Formation and Reflection: The Promise of Practical Theology by Lewis S Mudge and James N. Poling, Philadelphia, Fortress Press. 

WOODWARD, JAMES AND STEPHEN PATTISON (2000)(2007)(eds.), The Blackwell Reader in Pastoral and Practical Theology, Oxford, Blackwell Publishing.

Crazy car crashes

 

From Graphic artist, Jeff Jenkins, Florida. Thanks, Jeff

Blessings that last

Winter by Bob Ross

Additional: December 2, 2008

My reply to a former blog link and her latest blog posting:

This will be almost point by point and therefore a bit repetitive.

I thought she would resort to this tactic and sadly I am correct.

She notes that I am no longer on her blogging links list. She does not mention my name or the names of my blogs but an observant person could deduce which blogs and person are being discussed. She also took me off Facebook.

I have therefore removed her links from thekingpin68 and satire and theology.

She states that she had been enrolled in a blogging network. That is a half-truth as I do not own a blog network but do network with other bloggers. This is all done freely by each blogger. No one is enrolled in a network.

She states that these other blogs were a burden to read and even boring.

Well, no one forced her to read any blog. I never would attempt such a silly thing.

She was never put on an update list. I emailed her occasionally, not every day and not after ever comment, if something I thought she may relate to was published on my blogs.

This has been going on for around a year and she had not complained.

She was never pressured to comment on any blog article. I at times stated in my mass BCC emails that my message could of course be trashed/deleted if desired and it would be no problem to me.

I will now send less of these out to avoid potential future hassles.

Contrary to what she states, she did not nicely ask to be taken off my so called blog list, which as a mailing list does not exist. Her letter to me was neither nice or tactful or excessively rude. It was along the lines of her stating she wanted off my (non-existent as I have noted) list and some others would probably like to be off my list but are too kind to state so.

In further emails she noted that she only wanted to receive and leave blog comments.

I pointed out that although I messaged her more than she had messaged me, she has sent me Facebook messages, many of which would arrive by my regular email. She claimed that this was different, but I pointed out correctly, that non-blog Facebook comments messages were still non-blog comment messages whether they were sent through Facebook alone or regular email, and again many of these Facebook messages arrive by regular email.

I stated that I would remove her from my emails concerning blog articles, but did point out the hypocrisy of stating that we should basically only have blog comments sent to each other, when she had sent me Facebook messages.

She became quite angry stating that Facebook was a setup and therefore different. I conclude that one still makes a choice to send a Facebook message or application which arrives as a message. Therefore, although I admittedly messaged her outside of blog comments more than she messaged me, she had still sent me non-blog comment messages.

She also at times has sent me messages regarding that fact her blog was down or having problems. Something she conveniently seemed to forget in her anger. I would sometimes kindly let her know that I could not get into her blog.

She states I was nasty and a bully...hardly. I immediately told her I would stop emailing her, but pointed out that our dialogue had been more than with blog comments alone. I also needed to correct her as my blog update emails were never daily and for every new comment.

I did not show my other side as she states, but merely stood up for myself and the truth to someone, that I realize is very ill, and yet wanted to rail unfairly against me.

My desire was to merely have her look at the situation in a balanced fashion, but she would have no part in that and instead became very angry and told me never to email her again.

She said that her friend stated my actions were immature and self-serving. Well, to that friend please feel free to contact me and in a friendly, Christ-like fashion we shall see if your observations made from her perspective alone can survive.

I state they cannot.

She is right, comments are made freely. If a blogger would like comments it is wise to comment on other blogs unless one is so well-known in his or her field that he or she does not need to do so and receives plenty of traffic.

I have suggested at times that people could leave a comment, and others have suggested that I comment on their blogs, but it is absolutely not an obligation.

She talks about how treating our brothers and sisters well is more important than how many comments one receives on a blog. I agree, but let us look at the situation. She was rather non-tactful in her request and follow up emails to not receive email updates from me. She could have been much nicer to someone that had attempted to help her with blogging traffic when she had asked me for help on two occasions I can remember. But, I right away thanked her and stated I would remove her. For the sake of fairness I needed to point out that she had sent me Facebook messages which often arrive by email and that she was wrong to state that I emailed her every day and after every message.

She is totally free to not want to be emailed by me, but she should be kind and fair with a fellow Christian brother. She was not. Now, as I figured she would do, although she does not mention my name, she makes it public on her blog.

This person is on narcotics by her own admission and states I turned nasty. I was not nasty but merely stood up for myself and I have done so with other bloggers that I am still linked with. It was her choice and not mine to terminate our reciprocal links. It was she that stated I should not email her anymore.

She states that one should stay away from such a network. Again there is no formal network, just a few Christians seeking to have some readership. I am emailed by some of them with blog updates as well, and if at times I am too busy, I can delete a message and check the blog later. It is no big deal.

She states that blogging should not be the all and end all of existence and I agree. But successful blogging for those who are not specifically known in their field will usually require some type of loose networking. If she desires not to do so, fine, but she was merely being corrected for her errors by me via email and now is being corrected on-line as she decided to make this public.

She states that this particular type of networking was counterproductive. Well, I beg to differ and although most of us have small/moderate sized blogs many of us have grown our blogs in the process, but again there is no official blog network that I run.

By email, she also stated my comments often do not relate to her articles.

That is also untrue. I approach an article from my own perspective. Most of the comments I receive on my blogs only loosely relate to my own articles and research. We should not expect a commenter to read an article as we do as the publisher. They usually have not done the same research.

Some of my comments are off topic, and some of the ones I receive are off topic.

She often loosely commented on topic but sometimes was a bit off topic.

Thank you to all my blog supporters! I am imperfect and so are you! LOL.

May the Lord guide us. I pray for this woman that God will have mercy and open her mind, and I pray the same for myself.

In the past on this blog, back when I had fewer readers, I pondered on the concepts of blessings that last, in comparison to blessings that do not. Here are some revised concepts.

At Thanksgiving in October in Canada, and November in the United States, as well at Christmas and New Years, the terms peace, joy, love, happiness, and blessed are used frequently verbally and in print.

I will non-exhaustively look at the use of the term blessed in Matthew 5 which is according to Strong’s (3107) μακάριος/makarios and is a prolonged form of the poetical makar which means the same. Strong (1986: 60). The term is defined as meaning extremely blessed and by extension fortunate, well off, blessed, happy. Strong (1986: 60). Bauer defines the word as meaning blessed, fortunate, happy, usually in the sense of privileged recipient of divine favour. Bauer (1979: 486). Bauer explains that in Matthew 5: 3ff the translated idea of happiness to or hail to persons is favoured by some scholars. Bauer (1979: 486). Bauer reasons that this idea may be correct for the Aramaic original, but scarcely exhausts the context for Greek speaking Christians where the state of being blessed is brought about by ascension into heaven. Bauer (1979: 486).

From
Matthew 5:3

"Word Detail
Word/Inflected Form Lemma Part of Speech Lexical Entry
μακάριοι (36) μακάριος (114) Adjective blessed, happy
Parsing Nominative Plural Masculine
Related Words None found.
Context in Matthew 5:3 αὐτοῦ ἐδίδασκεν αὐτοὺς λέγων ... οἱ πτωχοὶ τῷ πνεύματι
Strongs # 3107 supremely blest; by extension, fortunate, well off
Thayers at Crosswalk Thayer's
LSJ (from Perseus) Click For LSJ
Middle Liddell (from Perseus) Click For Middle Liddell"

Kissinger quotes Soren Kierkegaard from his 1847 work, 'What we Learn from the Lilies of the Field and the Birds of the Air'. Kierkegaard notes that persons are to seek first God’s Kingdom which is the name of eternal (I would use the term everlasting) happiness which is promised to persons and before which the beauty and peace of nature do not compare. God’s Kingdom is righteousness and is to be sought first and shall endure forever. Kierkegaard (1847: 236). Kissinger writes when discussing the work of C.H. Dodd that the ideal Jesus expressed in the Sermon on the Mount, (which includes Matthew 5) would never be completely realized by humanity in this present world. Kissinger (1975: 82). H.L. Ellison writes that Matthew 5 expresses Beatitudes that are addressed to those who live lives beyond what the laws of the Hebrew Bible asked for and now live in grace. Ellison (1986: 1124).

It can be seen through the works of Strong, Bauer and the Zhubert Greek Project that the correct definition can be found in Matthew 5 by understanding what the word means in New Testament Greek, but the word’s context in each individual usage must be sought after for better understanding. Therefore, Bauer points out that a definition of the word in Matthew 5: 3ff would properly express the idea of happiness, but the context of the verses are deeper as happiness is directly related to Christian participation in the culminated Kingdom of God. Kierkegaard picks up on this point as well, and although Christians are to work for this type of blessed happiness in our present reality, it will not happen in this present realm. The establishment of perfected blessed happiness and the end of the problem of evil, my MPhil and PhD dissertation topics, are both dependent on the culmination of the Kingdom of God, which belongs to those who are regenerated and moved by God to accept salvation in Christ through his atoning and resurrection work.

Secular happiness in our present realm can be somewhat synonymous with being blessed from Matthew 5 in that persons can be extremely fortunate and happy and yet this secular concept of being blessed is very importantly different as it is without a Biblical hope in God’s culminated Kingdom. Secular based happiness is fleeting as it philosophically terminates in death.

A related argument:

Premise 1: Strictly speaking, there is no scientific, empirical evidence for everlasting life.

Premise 2: The deduction is made that a famous and respected billionaire receives a life quality rating of 9/10.

Premise 3: The deduction is made that the male drug addict on Main and/or Hastings Street in Vancouver receives a life quality rating of 1/10.

Premise 4: Both of these men shall die and since they cannot take their physical body or any of their material possessions with them their life quality ratings will drop to 0/10. Neither person can take any of their earthly success with them because they are unconscious and dead and all that exists physically is their remains.

Premise 5: The respected billionaire's life will likely provide a superior legacy to that of the drug addict and some will at least enjoy his legacy, and perhaps some will enjoy the legacy of the drug addict but as the centuries and millennia go by the legacy of both men will fade. Even with the billionaire's legacy all persons that enjoy his life work will die and not consciously remember him or experience his impact.

Conclusion: Human life is not substantially meaningful, if permanently terminated.

Explanation:

Any life that permanently terminates in death is not ultimately blessed and happy and substantially everlastingly meaningful.

The historically based gospel through divine regeneration of a person and the atoning and resurrection work of Christ applied to the same, offers blessed happiness that is everlasting and philosophically superior to secular happiness.

BAUER, WALTER. (1979) A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, Translated by Eric H. Wahlstrom, Chicago, The University of Chicago Press.

ELLISON, H.L. (1986) ‘Genesis’, in F.F. Bruce (ed.), The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Zondervan.

KIERKEGAARD, SOREN (1847) 'What we Learn from the Lilies of the Field and the Birds of the Air', in The Sermon on the Mount: A History of Interpretation and Bibliography, The Scarecrow Press, Inc, Metuchen, New Jersey.

KISSINGER, WARREN S. (1975) The Sermon on the Mount: A History of Interpretation and Bibliography, The Scarecrow Press, Inc, Metuchen, New Jersey.

STRONG, J. (1986) Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, Pickering, Ontario, Welch Publishing Company.