Christmas martial arts photos of yours truly and controversial thoughts on pragmatism

Yukon River




Brand new from Jeff Jenkins of

September 2015

I deleted some of the old 2009 photos. Through sleep apnea treatment and permanent physical change I have lost significant weight, and do not want to mislead readers with my appearance. I look more like my sidebar photos, today. Not beach body, but not kingpin either, but a lot of muscle...

Thoughts and Theology

Well done, thanks Jeff.

Part One

According to Louis P. Pojman, pragmatism is a theory set forth by C.S. Peirce and William James, which interprets the meaning of a statement by its consequences. Usually a proposition is true or false based on whether it is pragmatic. Pojman (1996: 598).

William James (1842-1910) is a well-known American philosopher, psychologist and a founder of the philosophy of pragmatism. John K. Roth (1892-1907)(1969) explains within the Introduction to The Moral Philosophy of William James that James’ pragmatism emphasizes the human ability to choose an individual lifestyle from several actual and authentic possibilities. Roth (1892-1907)(1969: 3-4). Pragmatism emphasized the need for a community of free thought that was open to inquiry and testing. Roth (1892-1907)(1969: 3-4).

JAMES, WILLIAM (1892-1907)(1969) The Moral Philosophy of William James, John K. Roth (ed.), Thomas Y. Crowell Company, New York.

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

ROTH, JOHN K. ‘Introduction’ (1892-1907)(1969) in The Moral Philosophy of William James, John K. Roth (ed.), Thomas Y. Crowell Company, New York.

Above are definitions of pragmatism used within my PhD. I am still waiting for the final passing results from Wales.

Often today pragmatism is commonly understood in terms of being pragmatic, as in being practical.

I have to admit that in two areas of my life, I may not be overly typically pragmatic/practical, but I am actually quite philosophically driven.

1. In regard to work and vocation. By earning almost four academic degrees over the last 18 years, and working only part-time with telemarketing, labouring, security, and census work, I have not been in the work force full-time. I have missed out making much more money than I could have in that time. I also have worked extremely hard to earn my degrees, with the first two course work degrees keeping me busy with up to 60 hours of work a week between classes, travel, research, writing, and internships and the last two theses degrees taking up to 30+ hours a week with a significantly higher standard of work than course work. At the same time while writing theses I put in 20-30 hours a week with theological blogging. All of this was for free, and I was only paid $300 dollars in my undergrad for winning a Bible Studies scholarship. Even so I pursued a PhD in Theology and Philosophy of Religion rather than Biblical Studies. Yes, the two PhD degrees are different. Biblical Studies would be less philosophical and more technical in regard to background studies and languages. I do think I could do a PhD in Biblical Studies but only would if I was offered an offer 'I could not refuse.' I am just tired of the controversy related to trying to please several people with a major theses and not getting paid for it.

By the way, the reason I did not work 60 hours a week on theses is that as many writers will probably tell you, and my MPhil advisor did, that research and especially writing more than 4-6 hours a day soon becomes ineffective. One needs to think about the work while away from it. Some of my best ideas came while sitting awake in bed or while going for a walk. Plus, I used the time to add teaching experience to my curriculum vitae with my blogs thekingpin68 and satire and theology. This was good for me especially as I had for a long time heavy fatigue associated with undiagnosed and untreated sleep apnea.

It has not been pragmatic/practical for me to be a student for so long, but philosophically, I know I need to be able to spend approximately 1/3 of my life working at a career that I am excellent at and enjoy. Perhaps I have been using a more philosophical, less typical pragmatism in the sense of choosing an individual lifestyle from several actual and authentic possibilities. Roth (1892-1907)(1969: 3-4). I want a lifestyle where I am successful and not merely collecting a pay cheque. Money is important though.

2. Okay, this is where I may annoy some people as I have previously. I am not primarily typically pragmatic/practical when it comes to potential romantic relationships. Internet love advisors such as Doc Love and Don Steele (he has some very good insights, but also some very non-Christian views which I strongly disagree with) are teachers I have learned from over the last few years especially, although I will not pay them a dime for various reasons. I have also read and listened to Christian teachers. Steele states that virtually all single attractive young women have boyfriends and if you show a slight interest in one you are just one of many possibilities for her. I see his point, but realize there are of course a few exceptions. I, on the other hand, like some single intellectual Christian men I know, have never dated much and are waiting for someone right, in Christ. I am not stating that one approach or the other is the right one, but perhaps it would be more pragmatic/practical to date more with whatever I can get. Perhaps I should be more willing to settle for someone that is in her late 30s or 40s, does not want to exercise, one I cannot have children with, one that has much baggage, and perhaps one that has her own largely grown-up children. Better yet, one that is not Christian and one that has no appreciation for Reformed theology or theologians.

For some people the above are very good. I am not criticizing you. Stay cool.

But, philosophically, I am not there. I am not even close to being there. I am sexually inexperienced and in my heart would like my own family with someone young enough that is reasonably spiritually, intellectually and physically attractive. In that order. Although looking like a strong man/kingpin and not a classic Hollywood pretty boy or Las Vegas boxer, I have always worked out and would like to be with someone that takes that seriously. I would rather be alone than settle for someone where there is not significant mutual attraction and where Biblically I would be required to put in significant commitment in marriage. Perhaps once again I am being philosophically rather than typically pragmatic though in the sense of choosing an individual lifestyle from several actual and authentic possibilities.

Reason and Facebook experience tells me that certainly finishing my PhD and moving to Christianized America should provide me with more opportunities. I also have friends telling me that if need be Eastern Europe should bode very well for me and Facebook experience has me thinking that this is reasonable.

I conclude that within God's plans my philosophical approach is better for me than any other more typical and practical alternative.

May the Lord lead me and please enjoy the martial arts photos when they are posted.

Four year old drinks beer

‘CHATTANOOGA, Tenn. (AP) -- Tennessee investigators say a 4-year-old boy was found roaming his neighborhood in the night, drinking beer and wearing a little girl's dress taken from under a neighbor's Christmas tree.’

Previously published fine graphic work from:

Jeff Jenkins




This Kingpin has 200 pounds on me!

Part Two

Christmas 2008


That is Chucky, the victim of my 'light' rear naked choke. He is also promoting 'Happiness' from Rick B.


A book I use.

Augustine and Platonic philosophy (non-exhaustive)

Cardiff, Wales (photo from trekearth.com) I am back in BC. 

Augustine was documented to have been influenced by Platonic philosophy. MacDonald (1989: 485-486). Jordan (1996: 52). Scott MacDonald explains in his article ‘Augustine’s Christian-Platonic Account of Goodness’ that Augustine held views influenced by Platonic thought. MacDonald (1989: 485-486).

Platonic philosophy was largely created by Plato (427-347 B.C.). Pojman (1996: 6). Richard Kraut (1996) notes Plato was a preeminent Greek philosopher who conceived the observable world as an imperfect image of the realm of the unobservable and unchanging forms. Kraut (1996: 619-620). Plato, in Timaeus, written in 360 B.C, viewed these forms as divinely moved objects. Plato (360 B.C.)(1982: 35). Mark D. Jordan notes Augustine was primarily affected by Neoplatonism before his conversion to Christianity. Jordan (1996: 52). 

Augustine (398-399)(1992) states in Confessions he examined Platonist writings that supported his Biblical understanding of the nature of God. Augustine (398-399)(1992). Jordan states the Platonic writings helped Augustine to conceive of a cosmic hierarchy in the universe in which God was immaterial and had sovereign control over his material creation. Jordan (1996: 53). 

However, very importantly, Jordan states Augustine saw philosophy alone as being unable to change his life as only God himself could do. Jordan (1996: 53). Augustine’s use of Plato does not in itself invalidate his understanding of Biblical writings where the two may happen to be in agreement. Augustine (398-399)(1992). From my overall research of Augustine and his free will theodicy, he places much emphasis on Biblical theology as primary. Augustine (398-399)(1992). And therefore although it is possible he could read Neoplatonism into his understanding of theodicy, it is also very likely he rejects Neoplatonism where it contradicts his Scriptural findings through in depth study. Augustine (398-399)(1992). 

AUGUSTINE (388-395)(1964) On Free Choice of the Will, Translated by Anna S.Benjamin and L.H. Hackstaff, Upper Saddle River, N.J., Prentice Hall. 

AUGUSTINE (398-399)(1992) Confessions, Translated by Henry Chadwick, Oxford, Oxford University Press. 

AUGUSTINE (400-416)(1987)(2004) On the Trinity, Translated by Reverend Arthur West Haddan, in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series One, Volume 3, Denver, The Catholic Encyclopedia. 

AUGUSTINE (421)(1998) Enchiridion, Translated by J.F. Shaw, Denver, The Catholic Encyclopedia. 

AUGUSTINE (426)(1958) The City of God, Translated by Gerald G. Walsh, Garden City, New York, Image Books. 

AUGUSTINE (427)(1997) On Christian Doctrine, Translated by D.W. Robertson Jr., Upper Saddle River, N.J., Prentice Hall. 

AUGUSTINE (427b)(1997) On Christian Teaching, Translated by R.P.H. Green, Oxford, Oxford University Press. 

JORDAN, MARK D. (1996) ‘Augustine’, in Robert Audi (ed.), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, pp. 52-53. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. 

KRAUT, RICHARD (1996) ‘Plato’, in Robert Audi (ed.), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, pp. 619-629. Cambridge University Press.

MACDONALD, SCOTT (1989) ‘Augustine’s Christian-Platonist Account of Goodness’, in The New Scholasticism, Volume 63, Number 4, pp. 485-509. Baltimore, The New Scholasticism. 

PLATO (360 B.C.)(1982) ‘Timaeus’, in Process Studies, Volume. 12, Number 4, Winter, pp.243-251. Claremont, California, Process Studies.

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

Jugisland, BC (photo from trekearth.com)

The importance of theodicy

Las Vegas 

Yes, I know one could state: The impotence of theodicy, but I just used it. Well, I am leaving for my Vancouver-Phoenix-Los Angeles-Phoenix-Las Vegas-Salt Lake City-Vancouver trip next week. I will only be going to the airports at Vegas and Salt Lake, and so I will not be attempting to verbally spar with gamblers and Latter-Day Saints. Too bad, as I know it would help with material for the satire blog, but maybe something will come up in Phoenix and Los Angeles. I aim to have my last post of November an on tour posting for satire and theology. So, since I will not be around in a bit, here is my final academic posting on this blog for the month of November. I will try and check my blog Dashboard on the road and ask Chucky to check as well so please keep commenting and I will keep publishing. Thank you. 

The importance of theodicy 

Some dismiss theodicy entirely and some view it as only having limited value. Hille reasons that a satisfactory self-coherent answer to the question of the justice of God cannot be found in theology or philosophy. Hille (2004: 26). Ferraiolo explains that many critics of theism would claim the existence of gratuitous evil makes a theodicy a difficult thing to establish in our present world filled with evil. He concludes his article by noting it is not obvious that human suffering is reconcilable with theism. Ferraiolo (2005: 1). Pereboom writes that despite some important work within theodicy over the last thirty years, the problem of evil still remains the greatest challenge to theistic belief. Pereboom (2005: 33). Lindsley notes that many persons are unimpressed by Christian attempts at theodicy. He suggests that theodicy must be careful not to portray itself in a way that it is speaking for God. Lindsley (2003: 3). I fully admit and reason that theodicy is a speculative exercise to a degree, and any person writing on the subject should with humility approach it very carefully. 

Marcel Sarot comments that many feminist theologians see theodicy as dominated by white males, and these feminists reject notions of God’s omniscience, omnipotence, and perfect goodness. Sarot (1997: 29). An important point here is that it needs to be remembered that each writer of theodicy is approaching the subject from theological assumptions. Many theodicy views are written by men and some of these male writers may not adequately portray female and feminist perspectives on the problem of evil. Theologian Carl Henry writes that empirical and philosophical considerations devoid of revelation cannot vindicate God in this evil world. Henry (1983: 282). I can accept Henry’s point, as from a traditional Christian perspective, Biblical revelation is viewed as explaining God’s workings in his creation, although this revelation does not exhaustively discuss the problem of evil. Henri Blocher notes theodicy are failures in themselves and must have ideas within that square with Biblical revelation in order to be true and beneficial. Blocher (1994: 84). I do not agree that all theodicy are failures in themselves, but can grant a Christian theodicy needs the support of Scripture, which connects the reader to the salvific work of Christ. 

It should be noted that a theodicy written from a sovereignty perspective, to be very valuable, needs to focus on how God’s divine plans and purposes are accomplished through the development of human beings. Erlandson explains that many theodicy are fatally flawed since they are too focused on the idea of God creating a world for the best possible state of human beings. Erlandson (1991: 1). The ideas of Erlandson are in line with sovereignty theodicy, which places greater emphasis on God’s perfect and holy plans in willingly allowing the problem of evil to exist in creation, than does free will theodicy. 

Scudder comments that if the sovereignty of God is stressed, and evil is still considered to be reality, then this logically leads to the idea that God causes evil and it is part of a predetermined plan. Scudder (1940: 248). I agree with this notion, but Scudder deduces that a strong view of God willing evil for the greater good means evil could be understood as not really being evil. Scudder (1940: 248). I can understand how a scholar could come to such a conclusion, but a Reformed influenced sovereignty theodicy does not need to agree with this idea which is foreign to both traditional Reformed and conservative theology. 

Robert H. Mounce explains that God directs the affairs in life, for those who love him, for the greater good. Mounce (1995: 187). C.E.B. Cranfield comments that although God can will grievous and evil things to occur, God in Christ works these things towards the greater good, in particular in the context of salvation for those that know Christ. Cranfield (1992: 204). Evil and sin are not to be confused with goodness and obedience within Reformed traditions, but as God willingly allows evil things to occur, his purposes and motives are pure. 

David Ray Griffin critically disagrees with this concept of John Calvin and others, but correctly defines the idea that God’s will must be regarded as righteous, even when we as human beings cannot fully understand the rightness of his judgments, since God is the definition of righteousness. Griffin (1976: 129). Wright reasons the problem of evil can be solved in a straightforward manner by proposing that God predestines evils to occur for a particular purpose, and that persons do not have an answer back for God. Wright (1996: 197). This comment from Wright is accurate from a Reformed perspective. I can interject and state that academically solving the logical and gratuitous problems of evil by tying them back to God is an ultimate intellectual solution, but there are still practical ramifications to deal with, such as why certain evils occur. The fact that a sovereignty theodicy can logically and reasonable solve its problem of evil, does not mean that suffering often comes with an explanation. 

Ultimately, Christ’s atoning work and resurrection leads to a culminated Kingdom of God (Revelation 21-22) with resurrected citizens. That is the solution to the problem of evil within the realm that God intended human beings to have dominion over. A critic can rightly state that everlasting hell and therefore, in a sense, the problem of evil, will still exist. My reply is that an actual everlasting realm of hell, as a place of punishment is not intended for human beings to have dominion over and therefore there is no certain need for a remedy for evil within it. 

BLOCHER, HENRI. (1994) Evil and the Cross, Translated by David G. Preston, Leicester, InterVarsity Press. 

CRANFIELD, C.E.B. (1992) Romans: A Shorter Commentary, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. 

ERLANDSON, DOUG (1991) ‘A New Perspective on the Problem of Evil’, in Doug Erlandson PhD Philosophy, Reformed.org, Orange County, Covenant Community Church of Orange County. 

FERRAIOLO, WILLIAM (2005) ‘Eternal Selves and The Problem of Evil’, in Quodlibet Journal, Volume 7, Number 2, April-June, Evanston, Illinois, Quodlibet Journal. 

GRIFFIN, DAVID RAY (1976) God, Power, and Evil, Philadelphia, The Westminster Press. 

HENRY, CARL (1983) God, Revelation and Authority: Volume 6: God Who Stands and Stays, Waco, Word Books. 

HILLE, ROLF (2004) ‘A Biblical-Theological Response to the Problem of Theodicy in the Context of the Modern Criticism of Religion’, in Evangelical Review of Theology, Volume 28, Number 1, pp. 21-37. Carlisle, UK, Evangelical Review of Theology. 

LINDSLEY, ART (2003) ‘The Problem of Evil’, Knowing & Doing, Winter, Springfield, Virginia, C.S. Lewis Institute. 

MOUNCE, ROBERT H. (1995) The New American Commentary: Romans, Nashville, Broadman & Holman Publishers. 

PEREBOOM, DERK (2005) ‘The Problem of Evil’, in The Blackwell Guide to Philosophy of Religion, William E. Mann, (ed.), Oxford, Blackwell Publishing. 

SAROT, MARCEL (1997) ‘Evil, Tragedy and Feminist Theology: New Impulses for Theodicy’, in Theology Digest, Volume 44, Number 1, Spring, pp. 29-33. St. Louis, Missouri, Theology Digest. 

SCUDDER, DELTON, LEWIS (1940) Tennant’s Philosophical Theology, London, Oxford University Press. 

WRIGHT, R.K.McGREGOR (1996) No Place for Sovereignty, Downers Grove, Illinois, InterVarsity Press.

   

Jeff posted this on Facebook. I had a German Shepherd-Husky and Domestic Cat at the same time that looked colour wise a fair bit like these two, but back in the 1980s. They were not 'best buds'!

Edgar Sheffield Brightman and the finite god

Bosphorus Bridge, Istanbul, Turkey

Europe on the left, Asia on the right.

This will be my first attempt at date publishing an article in the month after actually posting. So it is October 27 and I will place the date as November 1. Blogger only recently has allowed the dates of my articles to be moved ahead. I tried previously on several occasions.

This is good for me as I will have to go away to Arizona and California in November or December and I still want a consistent two postings per blog per month.

Edgar Sheffield Brightman (1884-1953) is a philosopher and theologian noted for believing in a finite God. Lavely (2007: 121). John H. Lavely (2007) explains that Brightman ‘carved out’ a concept of ‘theistic finitism.’ Lavely (2007: 121). Brightman within A Philosophy of Religion (1940) calls God the ‘finite-infinite controller of the given.’ Brightman (1940: 336). Lavely (2007: 122). He developed an original view on the finite God different than John Stuart Mill, William James (both discussed in earlier posts on this blog) and Alfred North Whitehead. His view features a shift from traditional theism, but this is not a rejection of the Christian faith from his perspective. He offers from this perspective, a true Christian expression within a more reasonable approach to traditional supernaturalism. Lavely (2007: 124). Doubts concerning concepts of God within Christian theism need to be contemplated and discussed. Brightman (1930: 9).

Brightman explains in The Problem of God (1930) the new concept of God has not confined the divine creative work to a single week, and God does not cease to produce and maintain newer life forms. Brightman (1930: 68). As there is scientific evolution and progression in the material realm, he reasons there can be expansion with God as in more far reaching goals and development for the physical realm than persons had previously realized. Brightman (1930: 68). He reasons that God is not fixed but is still growing and expanding. Brightman (1930: 70). He questions traditional concepts that God is a metaphysical unity that is perfectly at peace with self, as in no struggle, instead God may not be so separate from the physical world and the struggles that go with it. Brightman (1930: 94). Brightman reasons there are struggles within the divine being and God has genuine problems to deal with in the physical realm as a finite and limited God. Brightman (1930: 94). The expansion of God means he must lack some knowledge and power, and this view contradicts those within theology that place a strong emphasis on God’s sovereignty, as does Calvinism. Brightman (1930: 102).

According to Gordon Clark (1959) Brightman is also a noted empiricist and works out philosophy of religion along these lines. Clark (1959: 34). However, philosophical interpretations should be reasonably understood within human experience and should never be under the subordination of logic or empiricism. Every item of experience properly understood should point a person toward God and is evidence for the existence of God. Brightman (1930: 62). Persons were not to follow the logic of the rationalists, but a reasonable approach is to follow a set of empirical principles and concepts by which human beings organize their experience within the universe. Brightman subscribes to a view of ‘personalism’ as in the term referring to the ‘ultimate and irreducible unit of reality,’ and there exists no realities other than persons. Lavely (2007: 124). James Richmond (1999) notes it is the philosophical viewpoint which views human personality as the starting point, and this may include a personal God as a key to understanding the nature of the world. Richmond (1999: 443). Everything that is in existence, exists in the mind of a person, of some sort, on some level. Brightman (1958: 135). The concept of ‘person’ was a ‘concrete universal.’ Lavely (2007: 124). God was the uncreated creator of humanity, ‘the ground of all being’ and the one that sustains the universe. Lavely (2007: 124). God was also person. Personalism would include God’s creations and reality is a community of persons sustained by God, the Supreme Person. Lavely (2007: 124). The total view of human experience leads one to a belief in some sort of Supreme Being, who is also supremely good, beautiful and of reason. Brightman (1930: 63). Creation did not come ex nihilo from the hand of God, and matter is not something external from God. Lavely (2007: 124). Matter and the physical world is therefore not completely separate from God, and in a sense nature is a representation of the divine creator. God, in fact was capable of growth and can accomplish more within reality than he has presently.

Lavely reasons that Brightman’s view on omnipotence is ‘ambiguous’ and is difficult to explain within his overall description and understanding of God. Lavely (2007: 132). This is a reasonable point. Omnipotence may literally describe the quality of everything to God, in other words God is omnipotent, not in a traditional sense but rather God has all the power there is, and all the power that is available. Lavely (2007: 132). God is omnitemporal as opposed to unchanging. God is all-powerful in a sense, only within the finite realm and not beyond it, and God can also change and expand within that realm. God is ‘creative, supreme, and personal’ yet is limited and there are experiences which are eternally existent which he does not create. Nevertheless, God can control the experiences that he did not create. Any understanding of God as omnipotent would be ‘derived predominantly from abstract thought’ as the view and theory cannot be based on experience alone, although humanity does experience the power of God.

I view the finite God as logically possible but would still leave the need for the infinite first cause. Ultimately I reason that even if human beings were created by a finite God, the ultimate first cause is the one that human beings should ultimately appeal to as this being could overrule the lesser deity. I would make any appeal for everlasting life to the most powerful good being in existence.

Brightman's finite god is logically possible.

A finite god is not Biblical. Otto Weber suggests God has unlimited capacity and unrestricted will. Weber (1955)(1981: 440). God is unrestricted in what he determines within self and outside of self. Presbyterian theologian John M. Frame admits the term omnipotence is not in Scripture, but reasons the concept is Biblical. He deduces that based on the Bible, it is impossible for anything to occur outside of what God has willed to happen. Frame (2002: 518). Also Weber (1955)(1981: 440).

Genesis 1 begins with God that existed prior to his material creation. He therefore has power over finite creation and in that sense, at least it can be reasoned, is omnipotent and infinite.

It can be reasoned God existed prior to the creation of finite angelic creatures, and once again can be reasoned as omnipotent and infinite.

Brightman’s god is hyper-speculative.

BRIGHTMAN, EDGAR SHEFFIELD (1930) The Problem of God, New York, The Abingdon Press.

BRIGHTMAN, EDGAR SHEFFIELD (1940) A Philosophy of Religion, New York, Prentice-Hall.

BRIGHTMAN, EDGAR SHEFFIELD (1958) Person and Reality, New York, Ronald Press.

CLARK, GORDON C. (1959) ‘Special Divine Revelation as Rational’, in Carl F.H. Henry (ed.), Revelation and the Bible: Contemporary Evangelical Thought, London, The Tyndale Press.

FRAME, JOHN M. (2002) The Doctrine of God, P and R Publishing, Phillipsburg, New Jersey.

LAVELY, JOHN H. (2007) ‘Good-and Evil and Finite-Infinite God’, in The Boston Personalist Tradition in Philosophy, Social Ethics, and Theology, Macon, Georgia, Macon University Press.

RICHMOND, JAMES (1999) ‘Personalism’, in Alan Richardson and John Bowden (eds.), A New Dictionary of Christian Theology. Kent, SCM Press Ltd.

WEBER, OTTO (1955)(1981) Foundations of Dogmatics,Volumes 1 and 2, Translated and annotated by Darrell L. Guder, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

Here is an article somewhat related to this one from satire and theology:

atheistic praxis and other

The final battles of Revelation

Vancouver (photo from trekearth.com)

Happy Thanksgiving.

This is a non-identical article, with edits from today, of a June 2007 post. This article was not read by most of my current readers. I think it is a slightly different type of article for this blog, and the topic is good for me to review. In other words, it is more Biblical Studies focused than most of my philosophical theology and philosophy of religion posts.

My Mom and I have caught two errors so far in the copied and pasted material from the June 2007 post. The errors were not in the original. That is frustrating! Blogger!!

I fix when I see.

The term eschatology is derived from the Greek word eschaton meaning last and refers to the ultimate culmination of history where Jesus Christ returns to earth and fully establishes his rule and Kingdom. Grenz, Guretzki, and Nordling (1999: 46). Eschatology is the theology that seeks to fully understand the direction and purpose of history and progressing events. Grenz, Guretzki, and Nordling (1999: 46). Henry C. Thiessen writes that eschatology includes the concepts of the second coming of Christ, the resurrection, judgments, the millennium, and the final state. Thiessen (1956: 440).

Revelation is a complex book.

Revelation uses figurative language in parts.

There are a variety of interpretations for parts of Revelation within orthodox Christianity.

Caution should be taken with secondary doctrines established via Revelation.

I am not going to write in any great detail on millennial theory within this article as that is a complex subject apart from the complex subject that I am already discussing in a very non-exhaustive fashion. My purpose in this article is to examine the book of Revelation where it appears to portray the idea of two final battles against evil, and this seems to indicate an understanding of some type of figurative and not plain literal view of much of the book. There is a millennium or some length of time between the defeat of the beast and the false prophet and the ultimate defeat of Satan.

1. The final battle with the beast and false prophet

Robert H. Mounce writes that in Revelation 19:19 the beast, also known as Antichrist has brought his forces against Jesus Christ and his army. Mounce (1990: 349). In Revelation 16:13-16, the dragon, beast, and false prophet send out demons to the kings of the world and gather them for war against Almighty God. Mounce (1990: 349). Mounce explains that in the Hebrew this place is known as Har-Magedon and some scholars read it as Armageddon. Mounce (1990: 301). F.F. Bruce reasons that the term Har-Magedon is better here than Armageddon. Bruce (1986: 1620). Greek scholar, James Strong defines the term Armageddon or Har-Megiddon as referring to a symbol, or name. Strong (1986: 17). Another Greek scholar, Walter Bauer notes that Armageddon is a mystic place said to be Hebrew, and has been identified with Megiddo and Jerusalem, but interpretations have been faced with many difficulties. Bauer (1979: 107). Mounce writes that it is not very clear where this battle will take place exactly, but it could be a mountain or hill country near the ancient city of Megiddo. Mounce (1990: 301). Both Mounce and Bruce pointed out that there is no mountain at Megiddo. Mounce (1990: 301) Bruce (1986: 1620). Mounce writes that if the term Armageddon is favoured over Har-Magedon the reference may relate to the city of Megiddo rather than to a mountain, or hill country. Mounce (1990: 301-302). Revelation 19:20 describes the capture of the beast and false prophet and their casting into the lake of fire that is the place of final judgment. In the first final battle, the one who sits upon the horse, Christ, defeats the beast and false prophet. This is the battle of Har-Magedon, but yet according to the book of Revelation is not the final battle between God and Satan.

2. The final battle with Satan

In Revelation 20:1-3, Satan is captured, and thrown in the abyss for a thousand years. This takes place after the defeat of the beast and false prophet and their casting into the lake of fire. Neither Bruce nor Mounce claim that the abyss is the same place as the lake of fire and Mounce explains that the abyss was thought of as a place of confinement for disobedient spirits. Mounce (1990: 352). Bauer defines the abyss as depth and the underworld. Bauer (1979: 2). Specifically, in Revelation 20, it is an abode where the devil is kept. Bauer (1979: 2). I cannot see any direct connection here with the lake of fire which is the final judgment place for Satan, and those persons outside of Christ, as in Revelation 20:11:15. This means that quite possibly the abyss is not the same place as the lake of fire. I have noticed that Revelation 20 does not state that demonic beings are thrown into the lake of fire, but Erickson correctly points out that Jesus in Matthew 25:41 states that the devil and his angels shall be cast into the same everlasting fire. Erickson (1994: 451). This statement from Jesus appears to rule out demonic beings being punished in the abyss forever. There seems to be a reasonable possibility that the abyss is the same place as Hades, as in Romans 10:7 for example, where Paul uses the term abyss as meaning the abode of the dead. The abyss in one sense is the place of the dead and therefore all departed spirits, and in another sense is Hades where those outside of God and Christ reside in spirit form before the resurrection as in Luke 16:19-31, and where Satan shall be bound for a time until his final battle with God. Revelation 20:7 explains that after the thousand years, Satan is released and will deceive the nations of Gog and Magog that shall be gathered against God and his followers in the beloved city. But, verse 10 notes the devil is captured and thrown into the lake of fire. Chapter 20 continues as those persons outside of Christ are judged and thrown into the lake of fire. Mounce explains that Gog and Magog in Revelation are symbolic figures that do not represent specific geographic regions. They represent hostile nations from all over the earth. Mounce (1990: 362). Bruce agrees the Gog and Magog are symbolic and represent world powers against God. Bruce (1986: 1625).

Interestingly, in the defeat of the beast and false prophet, the one who sat upon the horse, Christ, brings with him an army, and the beast and false prophet are captured and the Lord kills the rest with a sword from his mouth in Revelation 19:21. In Revelation 20:6 after the capture of Satan, the resurrection of those in Christ is described and they are to rule with Christ for a thousand years. In the battle against Satan himself, it does not specifically state that immortal, resurrected, Old Testament followers of God, and New Testament Christians actually participate in fighting against Satanic forces and unregenerate persons, but fire comes down from heaven and devours those that surround the camp of the saints. This fire from heaven ends the battle, but it is interesting to ponder whether any fighting takes place before this occurring. God being infinite and omnipotent could easily take care of matters himself, but it would be fascinating if certain members of the Kingdom of God with immortal, resurrected bodies were actually allowed, and perhaps encouraged to physically battle the powers of darkness. I can imagine that some Christians would be fascinated by this possibility! I know that I would be. I am not stating that this is likely God’s will in this case, but perhaps in a sense, it would allow those in Christ to physically and spiritually fight against the evil that plagued them throughout their original earthly lives. I would reason it more likely that God simply wins the battle against Satan and his forces on his own, but if before the final battle with Satan, the millennium is an actual amount of time, including perhaps a literal thousand years, I ponder on whether or not resurrected saints would be involved in policing the planet. Those outside of Christ are not judged until after the millennium and so this means that there is a possibility that persons that are not resurrected could share the planet with resurrected saints for a thousand years. Mounce writes that the resurrected saints in the millennium are thought by some to only be former martyrs, but this would mean that most followers of the Biblical God are raised with the unregenerate and from looking at Revelation I do not see this as clearly explained. Mounce (1990: 360). Revelation 20:6 notes that blessed and holy are those that participate in the first resurrection over which the second death has no power and this would seem to describe all Old Testament and New Testament followers of God through the atoning and resurrection work of Christ.

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

BRUCE, F.F. (1986) ‘Revelation’, in F.F. Bruce (gen.ed.), The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Marshall Pickering/ Zondervan.

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.

MOUNCE, ROBERT H. (1990) The Book of Revelation, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

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

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

Blackberry photos of the neighbourhood:













From Facebook...once again I am no Bob Ross.

The philosophical problem of evil

New Westminster, BC (photo from trekearth.com)

Please note, although this was written in 2003, it is still a major focus of my current secular PhD work.

From MPhil

2. The Philosophical Problem of Evil

McGrath pointed out a weakness with the philosophical discussion and stated his desire to concentrate on a theological remedy to the problem of evil within his work.

Quote:

Many of the theological and philosophical texts I have wrestled with seem to be much more concerned with upholding the integrity of a God who seems to allow suffering, than with saying anything helpful to those who are bewildered and confused by that suffering. I can think of few things less helpful to someone going through pain than a sophisticated theological defence of the integrity of God, or even a gentle romp through the subtle logic of necessary evil.

Now that kind discussion needs to take place. But it happens too often without any consideration of the anguish of those who need comforting and reassuring in the face of their sadness. Suffering is a pastoral and spiritual issue, not just a theological problem. In the book, I have not the slightest intention of presenting myself either as a spokesman or as some kind of defence attorney for God. God is perfectly capable of looking after himself. The real issue is not about defending God’s honour or integrity, but about making sense of our experience. McGrath (1992: 8-9).

McGrath is espousing a viewpoint similar to one that I took with my Graduating Essay at Trinity Western University. The philosophical discussion concerning the problem of evil is beneficial but the theological remedy is often overlooked in theological works since the critics of God and Christianity have, in the past, attacked the notion of the infinite, omnipotent, perfectly holy God who has evil existing within his creation.

For people suffering with the problem of evil, and that includes all human beings, the theological remedy to evil and suffering through Christ must be a vital part of theological apologetics. It can complement the philosophical discussion, and the revelation of God should be considered.

Carl Henry wrote: "Not even theistic arguments can fully vindicate God’s graciousness in the face of human evil if they appeal simply to empirical consideration or to philosophical reasoning devoid of revelational illumination." Henry (1983: 282).

Henri Blocher had the same sentiment but in slightly stronger terms. In his text Evil and the Cross:

The failure of the explanations of evil that we have examined as exposed in our preceding chapters, taking them according to their fundamental types, shows them for what they are, when confronted with experience and when the concepts are analysed. But it is Divine Revelation which reveals truly and with complete certainty. Holy Scripture, the Word of God, the ‘normative norm,’ is the only standard which allows us to distinguish between those insights which agree with it, and those all too human false trails in those systems of thought. Blocher (1994: 84).

Both Henry and Blocher share with McGrath the idea that in the philosophical problem of evil discussion it is not as central to Christianity as the theological remedy provided through Christ’s atoning work. However, I think Blocher’s words are slightly too strong by calling the explanations of the problem of evil a failure. Yes, the philosophical discussion is limited but it deals with issues not solved within the theological remedy. He is correct in that the theological remedy alone provides complete certainty of the end of suffering. That certainty, however, does not deal with some philosophical questions raised, although it could be argued that the answers to those philosophical questions will no longer matter once people do not suffer. Critics, however, need to see that Christianity is philosophically feasible in order to accept the possibility that divine revelation leads to the defeat of the problem of evil.

I think, however, the philosophical discussion needs to be complemented by the theological remedy. I can understand McGrath’s perspective on suffering as in many post-Enlightenment works the faith has been under attack because of the problem of evil. The attacks were of a philosophical nature and thus dealt with so, but ultimately the defence of Christianity comes down to divine revelation. McGrath stated in Iustitia Dei:

The central teaching of the Christian faith is that reconciliation has been effected between and God and sinful man through Jesus Christ, and that this new relation between God and man is a present possibility for those outside the church, and a present actuality for those within its bounds. McGrath (1986: 1).

Since to McGrath this is the central teaching, it makes sense in apologetics featuring the problem of evil, that the work of Jesus Christ in atonement which includes restoration and reconciliation, must be central. He thus thinks discussions on the problem of evil that do not deal with this in strong fashion, are lacking. Suffering was written to comfort those struggling with the problem of evil and to inform them that ultimate victory over suffering will be had through Jesus Christ.

BLOCHER, HENRI. (1994) Evil and the Cross, Translated by David G. Preston, Leicester, Inter-Varsity Press.

HENRY, CARL. (1983) God, Revelation and Authority: Volume 6: God Who Stands and Stays, Waco, Word Books.

McGRATH, ALISTER. (1986) Iustitia Dei, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

McGRATH, ALISTER (1992) Bridge-Building, Leicester, Inter-Varsity Press.

McGRATH, ALISTER (1992) Suffering, London, Hodder and Stoughton Limited.


New Westminster, BC (photo from trekearth.com)

The dangers of theological error...

On a British comedy television program in 2004, Jonathan Ross stated that a Muslim extremist suicide bomber was expecting to be taken to heaven where he would be rewarded with 72 virgins.

Instead he was given a 72 year old virgin.

Among some in the radical liberal church my blogs should be as popular as head lice in a hair salon.

I just posted this on Jeff's blog in comments:

Jeff

The New Testament claims Christ is God, for example: John 1, the word, John 8: 58, eternal.

Islam denies this theological point.

New Testament manuscript and partial manuscript evidence supports traditional Christian theology.

There is no evidence of great significant corruption of historical New Testament documents, in regard to content and theology.

Religious movements that claim Christ as a prophet or being sent from God, and yet deny the New Testament in context, lack credibility.



From Scripture Jesus Christ is noted as eternal (John 8:58) and is the Alpha and Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end. (Revelation 22:13). Christ is God. Christ's resurrection from the dead and his overall support from historically based Scripture provides him with a huge edge in the credibility department.

Mr. Avatar Adi Da Samraj falsely claims to be the supremely great spiritual being.

A few thoughts

Quotations and my comments in brackets.

- Save the whales. Collect the whole set. (I keep hearing about saving the gay whales, or it is the gays in Wales?)

- Why do psychics have to ask you for your name? (Hint...those ones are phony.)


CD burner for sale.

John Stuart Mill and omnipotence

John Stuart Mill and omnipotence

Castle Conwy, Wales 2001 

Reformatted: November 30, 2021, original 2009

John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) Blackburn states Mill is ‘the most influential liberal thinker of the nineteenth century.’[1] He is the son of Scottish philosopher James Mill (1773-1836).[2] George W. Carey (2002) writes that John Stuart Mill reasoned that traditional Christianity needed to be replaced[3] and Mill introduced a concept of a ‘limited God.’[4] Mill reasons there is a ‘final cause’ that appears to be God working within the natural order,[5] but this God was not omnipotent and had limited powers that were incapable of bringing about the full reality of what God wanted.[6] Mill within Theism from 1833 explains that there could be no real belief in a ‘Creator and Governor’ until humankind had begun to understand the confused phenomena which existed around them.[7] 

Humanity must bring itself out of the chaos and confusion of reality to have a workable system in able to work out ‘a single plan.’[8] This type of world was anticipated ‘by individuals of exceptional genius’ but could only become true after a long period of scientific examination and thought.[9] Mill desired to replace the God of Christianity with a Religion of Humanity.[10] He reasoned traditional Christianity had been overrated in its promotion of human virtue and morality in society.[11] The Christian God was not the actual creator of the world.[12] Mill’s views strike me as influential on modern western religious thought. I can support, in limited terms, human effort to understand reality and improve human conditions. Indeed humanity should come together as much as possible to develop a plan in order to benefit all of humanity. 

I would not support a ‘Religion of Humanity,’ but do favour persons of various religious and non-religious backgrounds working together for human benefit. Mill rejects Christianity and traditional Christian doctrine concerning omnipotence. Mill’s deity is similar to the ‘Platonic Demiurge’ and this deity simply develops matter from preexisting chaos and therefore would not only be limited in power but also finite in nature. Mill supports a concept of a first cause[13] as in a series of events[14] but this leaves the nagging question and problem of what was the cause of the Demiurge? An infinite eternal God can be understood as the first cause not needing a cause.[15] 

A finite deity, although admittedly logically possible, requires further explanation.[16] If the being is not revealed through Scriptural revelation, it is a God of primarily philosophical speculation and requires further elaboration on the part of Mill in regard to, for instance, why humanity should believe in and follow this type of deity, assuming that there is not a greater, infinite, eternal first cause that would necessarily exist behind that being. 

[1] Blackburn (1996: 243). 

[2] Blackburn (1996: 243). 

[3] Carey (2002: 115). 

[4] Carey (2002: 115). 

[5] Carey (2002: 115-116). Mill within Theism discusses the need for a cause and beginning to a series of individual facts. Mill (1833)(1985)(2009: 7). Everything persons know of has a cause and owes existence to a cause. He ponders on how the world can be indebted to a cause for which the world has its existence. He deduces ‘that not everything which we know derives its existence from a cause, but only every event or change.’ Mill (1833)(1985)(2009: 10). 

[6] Carey (2002: 116). David Gordon writes that Mill believed God was limited in nature and therefore not omnipotent. Gordon (2002: 3). 

[7] Mill (1833)(1985)(2009: 6). 

[8] Mill (1833)(1985)(2009: 6).

[9] Mill (1833)(1985)(2009: 6).

[10] Carey (2002: 110). In The Utility of Religion from 1874, Mill explains that Christianity offers rewards in the next life for good conduct and the Religion of Humanity would be superior as human virtue would exist for unselfish reasons. Mill (1874)(2002: 16). Although I reason Christians should do what is good and right, just because it is good and right, and not primarily for a possible reward, Mill does not demonstrate in my mind a conclusive argument in how human beings, as they are, can or will ever operate with completely unselfish motives. Is all selfishness wrong, or does some degree of human self-concern and a desire for self-benefit remain an integral part of how God intended humanity to be? [11] Carey (2002: 114). 

[12] Carey (2002: 116). Gordon reasons that Mill was ‘no Christian.’ Gordon (2000: 2). 

[13] Carey (2002: 116). Gordon (2002: 3). Mill (1833)(1985)(2009: 10). 

[14] Mill (1833)(1985)(2009: 7). 

[15] God’s essence is eternal and necessary (logically must exist), and the finite universe is temporal and contingent (not necessary). Shedd (1874-1890)(1980: 191 Volume 1). [16] Hypothetically, humanity and the universe could have been created by a finite God that was created by another cause. 

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

CAREY, GEORGE W. (2002) ‘The Authoritarian Secularism of John Stuart Mill’, in On Raeder’s Mill and the Religion of Humanity, Volume 15, Number 1, Columbia, University of Missouri Press. 

GORDON, DAVID (2000) ‘John Stuart Mill on Liberty and Control’, in The Mises Review, Volume 6, Number 1, Auburn, Alabama, Ludwig Von Mises Institute. 

MILL, JOHN STUART (1833)(1985)(2009) Theism: John Stuart Mill, The Collected Works of John Stuart Mill, Volume X - Essays on Ethics, Religion, and Society, Toronto, University of Toronto Press. 

MILL, JOHN STUART (1874)(2002) The Utility of Religion, London, Longman, Green, and Reader. 

SHEDD, WILLIAM G.T. (1874-1890)(1980) Dogmatic Theology, Volume 1, Nashville, Thomas Nelson Publishers. 

WAINWRIGHT, WILLIAM J. (1996) ’Demiurge’, in Robert Audi, (ed.), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Blackberry photos: September 2009

Niceness does not equal goodness

Waikiki, Hawaii (photo from trekearth.com)

From my MPhil of 2003, and once again I am using British English.

MPhil

C.S. Lewis

5. Human Wickedness
Within this chapter, Lewis set out to show the reader that the western culture of his day (1940) had a misunderstanding of human wickedness. He stated that his culture put too much emphasis on kindness being the measure of good, and cruelty the measure of wickedness. Lewis pointed out that this kindness was based on the fact that: "Everyone feels benevolent if nothing happens to be annoying him at the moment." Lewis (1940)(1996: 49).

This is a good point, kindness or niceness is certainly not a measure of goodness. Being nice is a way of dealing with people which is most pleasurable, beneficial and brings about, generally, the most pleasurable and beneficial response. However, someone can be nice with evil intentions, an example would be Judas betraying Jesus with a kiss, or someone can act in unkind fashion but mean something for the good. For example, a Doctor re-broke my nose twice by hand without anaesthetic, after I had been assaulted by a bottle attack. This was cruel treatment and it caused me pain. The first attempt caused blood to pour out, however, the treatment straightened my nose and allowed me to look and breath better while lying down, providing me a better night’s sleep.

As well, kindness or niceness, as Lewis alluded to, often disappears when someone is annoyed. This hardly needs much explanation as we can relate to this with ourselves and others we know. I would think true goodness is an objective standard based on one emulating God, and thus one would be good to others regardless of circumstance. Lewis also stated that human beings needed to better understand that they were sinful and that Christ and Scripture saw them as so.

He noted that a human being could misunderstand wickedness by comparing oneself with someone else, and making a favourable review. Lewis pointed out that: "Every man, not very holy or very arrogant, has to ‘live up to’ the outward appearance of other men." Lewis (1940)(1996: 53). The reviewer is not fully aware of the sins of the people under review, and at the same time, within public persona, is hiding from the world around him/her, the depth of wickedness within.

Lewis thought that people tend to desire to see wickedness in the sense of corporate guilt. He believed that this was, in a way, evading the problems of individual sin. He noted: "When we have really learned to know our individual corruption, then indeed we go on to think about corporate guilt and can hardly think of it too much." Lewis (1940)(1996: 54).

Yes, it seems rather easy for individuals to allow social systems to do wicked things, and thus have the blame for evil shifted to it. However, Lewis has a point, individuals must take responsibility for thoughts and actions, clean up their own act, and then set out to change systems, if possible.

Lewis, C.S. (1940)(1996) The Problem of Pain, San Francisco, Harper-Collins.

Note: I had to have both my nose and teeth redone here in Canada!

As well, I reason as Christians even as we emulate God's goodness, sin will still taint our actions until our death and freedom from this realm.

Maps with agendas.:)


Someone's idea of an American map of the world.


A different perspective on a map of the world. From Oceania perhaps?








Ljubljana, Slovenia (photo from trekearth.com)

These are experimental photographs taken with my new Blackberry Curve. The cell phone shall be used in my eventual job search.

Enlightenment?

Gold Coast, Australia 

From my MPhil 

MPhil 

I realize I used some variant, but correct versions of words from British English back in 2003. 6. Enlightenment? In his sixth chapter, entitled Suffering and the God of the Philosophers, McGrath pointed out that suffering was nothing new in the world. He did state, however, that the philosophical way in which suffering was now discussed, had been changed. He noted: Indeed, I spent many years working through most of the major works on Christian theology written between the twelfth and sixteenth centuries, and cannot recall any of them treating the reality of suffering as a serious obstacle to Christian faith. McGrath (1992: 40). 

McGrath noted that the change took place beginning in the seventeenth century which led to the era of the Enlightenment. It shifted the defence of the gospel from revelation and Scripture to philosophy. The view was: "To defend the Christian faith, it was advisable to set aside traditional ways of justifying it, and instead to rely upon the wisdom of philosophy." McGrath (1992: 40). 

McGrath was critical of this approach which overlooked revelation and Scripture, and instead looked to philosophy. It changed the God represented from a personal God of Scripture to a perfect philosophical God. He was particularly critical of seventeenth century philosopher Rene Descartes. McGrath thought that the " . . .enormous emphasis which came to be placed upon the perfection of God by Descartes was totally compromised by the undeniable fact of the existence of evil and suffering. How could a perfect being allow such imperfection to exist?" McGrath (1992: 41). 

McGrath believed that this type of thinking, which he described as creating the god of philosophers, put so much emphasis on God’s perfect attributes that it took away from God’s actual experience in suffering as Christ. So when modern critics were criticizing God, they often criticised this perfect, aloof God whom they thought represented Christianity, whereas the God of revelation and Scripture suffered personally on earth. He died for the sins of humanity, was resurrected and will restore creation. Seventeenth century revision of Christian thought was known as the Age of Reason, which led to the Enlightenment. Colin Brown described the Enlightenment as follows: The Age of Enlightenment (German Die Aufklarung) covers roughly the eighteenth century. It is sometimes identified with the Age of Reason, but the latter term covers both the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Although the Enlightenment had some of its roots in seventeenth century rationalism, the ideas which characterize the Enlightenment went far beyond the rationalism of Descartes, Spinoza, and the thinkers of their time. Brown (1996: 355). So from Brown’s idea, the roots of the Enlightenment started with philosophers like Descartes, but went beyond those men. 

Basically the ideas McGrath was discussing took place in the Enlightenment - Age of Reason. David A. Pailin, of Manchester University, stated: The Enlightenment’s criticism of the authority of tradition led to increasing secularization in attitudes and ideas. Nature is seen as an ordered whole rather than as a stage for divine interventions and supernatural happenings. So far as religious beliefs are concerned, claims to revelation are acceptable only when they are rationally justified and their contents subject to reason’s judgement. Biblical stories and accepted doctrines are not immune from criticism. Works like Bayle’s Historical and Critical Dictionary and Voltaire’s Philosophical Dictionary highlight the faults of revered figures and the questionability of standard doctrines. Historical and literary investigations into the Bible develop. Reports about miracles, especially that of the resurrection, give rise to considerable discussion. There is great hostility to priestcraft and suspicion of ecclesiastical pretensions to guide human understanding. Pailin (1999: 180). 

David Pailin’s comments demonstrate some of the modern assumptions made by philosophers of religion concerning Christianity. As McGrath indicated, there is a distrust of revelation and Scripture. As Pailin pointed out, revelation and ecclesiastical pretensions would often face great hostility philosophically. I agree with the Enlightenment approach to review Christian claims through reason, but it appears that more faith is put in the Enlightenment critics of Christianity than in the people who wrote the original work. Enlightenment thinking is committed to ". . . reason as the proper tool and final authority for determining issues." Pailin (1999: 179). 

Enlightenment thinking has human reason as the final authority, whereas traditional Christianity uses human reason, but it assumes that human nature is fallen and God must reveal himself to that reason. Enlightenment thinking, in my view, rests on the faulty idea that finite man should be able to be the final judge regarding ideas about God. Enlightenment era thinking, which is still prominent in liberal circles today, believes that man has the ability to reason out who God is, whereas traditional Christianity believes that God must reveal himself in order for human beings to come to some understanding of who he is. So the Enlightenment puts greater emphasis on the human mind comprehending God, whereas traditional Christianity puts emphasis on Scripture inspired by God, which must teach human beings about God. Two problems come to mind concerning the human mind’s ability to know God. First, the human mind is finite, God is infinite. It could be said that human beings could only understand God in a limited way. This is not to say that the limited human understanding was in error or without logic, but simply limited. 

For this reason, I think in this relationship God would have to take the initiative in presenting himself to humanity for greater understanding, and this would lead to revelation. Second, I believe there is significant evidence in Scripture and everyday life, that humanity is imperfect and sinful, and in a spiritual condition where they would have to be transformed in order to have a relationship with God. I am not saying that human beings cannot understand things about God without revelation, but I am stating that revelation is required for a changed spirit which could lead to a relationship with God. I, therefore, do not think that human reason outside of revelation should be our final authority in theology. 

BROWN, C. (1996) The Enlightenment, in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books. 

McGRATH, A. (1992) Bridge-Building, Leicester, Inter-Varsity Press. 

McGRATH, A. (1992) Suffering, London, Hodder and Stoughton Limited. 

PAILIN, D.A. (1999) Enlightenment, in Alan Richardson and John Bowden (eds.), A New Dictionary of Christian Theology, Kent, SCM Press Limited.

   

Re: Our after church lunch discussion, this photo is dedicated to Charles I, Charles II, and Trevor.