Sunday, March 01, 2009

Methodology and Post-Modern Influence (PhD edit)

Methodology and Post-Modern Influence (PhD edit)

Whitby Abbey and Saint Mary's Church (photo from trekearth.com) 

So far I have made about 2000 photocopies at Staples copy centre for my PhD revisions. I joke with the female employees that it is because I love photocopying. Two of the employees have suggested I work there. 

In a month's worth of work I have obtained, in my estimation, seventy percent of the materials required to complete revisions. Here is another section of PhD edit that has been trashed from the final copy.;) 

Methodology and Post-Modern Influence: Ray S. Anderson

Post-modernism is a general term used to describe a variety of intellectual and cultural developments in the late twentieth century[1] within Western society.[2] Post-modern views generally embrace pluralism and place value in the diversity within philosophical worldviews and religions that represent modern society.[3] An element of post-modern thought,[4] according to Ray Anderson (2001), is the death of the appreciation of objective truth.[5] Truth is no longer objectively discovered, according to Anderson’s analysis of the times, rather it is experienced.[6] Although, from my Reformed, theological perspective, I do not primarily hold to this view, I can at least acknowledge that there is some truth to Anderson’s claim that truth is not merely objective.[7] I reason that God has revealed objective truth to us in Scripture,[8] but as Anderson explains the human heart is always an element in establishing a person’s mindset.[9]

Erickson explains that although Scripture presents objective truth, the application of Scripture may be different for each person.[10] Even if one reasons that objective truth exists, each person subjectively with his/her own mindset deals with data and knowledge in an individualistic way.[11] There needs to be solid church teachings that adequately explain Biblical doctrines within their original context, staying true to Biblical theology, and yet teaching should be flexible enough to provide explanations that vary at times in order to be relatable to differing modern groups and individuals. Anderson explains three ways in which post-modern thought impacts practical theology,[12] and I deduce these are methodological matters.

One, as post-modern thought celebrates diversity, it brings with it the idea of moral relativism. Anderson writes for practical theology, it is still vital that communities and not just individuals are important in gaining knowledge.[13] Anderson explains that since in post-modern thought reason is mistrusted, the truth of the Christian message must be experienced and lived out by those within the church. He writes that belief in the Christian message will take place when it is properly experienced.[14] I do not deny that the Christian faith needs to be adequately experienced within the process of belief, but within this thesis, in regard to theodicy, I have no desire to abandon reason. By examining theoretical theodicy I am reviewing the reasonable nature of each perspective. It is my view that Christian faith/philosophy has greater believability when it is theoretically reasonable and, as Anderson notes, when it is demonstrated as practical.[15] 

Two, a celebration of diversity leads to a demand for tolerance. There is often an objection to claims of universal truth.[16] Tolerance is defined by J.E. Wood Junior (1996) as the indulgence of belief or conduct other than one’s own. This would include respect for the opinions and practices of others when they are in conflict with one’s own.[17] I am in basic agreement with Wood’s definition and reason that various philosophical and religious concepts need to be tolerated in Western society.[18] However, I also agree with Wood as he noted there are disagreements in perspective,[19] and this is where I see the need within philosophical and practical theology for respectful dialogue with use of reason and data. 

Three, secularism has expanded at the expense of ecclesiastical authority in regard to dealing with social problems.[20] Anderson comments that the Holy Spirit needs to subject human hearts to the truth of Scripture.[21] I accept this proposition and realize that there are opportunities within both philosophical and practical theological approaches to teach theology and deal with social issues within a secular framework. The internet and worldwide web is a modern example where theologians, such as myself, respectfully present Biblical and theological data without the official support of any church or ecclesiastical leaders.[22] Certain Christians concentrate on social issues, and not all are necessarily operating under ecclesiastical support. 

[1] Continuing on into the present early twenty-first century. 
[2] Grenz, Guretzki, and Nordling (1999: 93). 
[3] Grenz, Guretzki, and Nordling (1999: 93).
[4] Post-modern thought shall be further discussed in Chapter Six. 
[5] Anderson (2001: 19). 
[6] Anderson (2001: 19). 
[7] Anderson (2001: 20).
[8] Erickson (1994: 251-253). 
[9] Anderson (2001: 20).
[10] Erickson (1994: 253). 
[11] Establishing theological arguments for and against objective truth would be a fascinating thesis, but I do not have the time and space to deal with this issue exhaustively here. I have presented my personal viewpoint on this topic within the tradition I represent.
[12] Anderson (2001: 20).
[13] Anderson (2001: 20).
[14] Anderson (2001: 20).
[15] Anderson (2001: 20).
[16] Anderson (2001: 20).
[17] Wood (1996: 1098).
[18] Wood (1996: 1098). 
[19] Wood (1996: 1098).
[20] Anderson (2001: 20).
[21] Anderson (2001: 20).
[22] Through Blogging and Facebook discussion groups, for example. 

ANDERSON, RAY S. (2001) The Shape of Practical Theology, Downers Grove, Illinois, InterVarsity Press.

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. 

WOOD J.E., JR. (1996) ‘Tolerance’, in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.

37 comments:

  1. Just while driving in the car listening to the radio, there was a program on which involved a discussion of how modern science has become a closed, authoritarian system, with only one way of doing things, throughout the world, not unlike the control that the Roman Catholic church had on Christian beliefs before the reformation. Thinking about post-modernism, it seems so out of place that science would have become this way. For all the progress we have made in the past century, who knows how much more progress might have been possible?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Are you stating that in academic circles there is politics that can at times prohibit students and scholars from presenting some views contrary to the establishment?

    Brilliant, Saint Chuckles.

    But of course I have no first hand knowledge of such treatment.;)

    I am not a scientist and what you mentioned takes place in the discipline of science, I wonder about other disciplines.

    Russ;)

    ReplyDelete
  3. I love that cartoon!

    I can't really comment because I know absolutely nothing about it.

    ReplyDelete
  4. How much money did you spend on all those photo copies? It's gotta stink not having a job and spending a ton of cash on photo copies. Maybe you should move to the U.S and you can ask Obama for a bailout. rick

    ReplyDelete
  5. Thanks, Rick.

    The photocopying bill will be in the hundreds of dollars. I realize many and probably most theses writers take notes in the library. I personally think this is less professional than photocopying. I have a cabinet filled with ten years of MPhil and PhD photocopies and my newest ones will not fit into that cabinet it is so full.

    I have also downloaded articles off the web and saved them on disc and printed some portions out.

    Why?

    1. Many people, including me, do not have beautiful and neat handwriting for note taking.

    2. Taking notes by hand will likely result in too many important points being missed. By photocopying one gives self more opportunities to look over texts.

    Of course purchasing books and journals is the most professional way of citation, but I cannot afford that practice for the most part.

    There will be no bailout for thekingpin68 from the Excited States, the Socialist Paradise of Canada, or Rip-off Britain.

    Russ;)

    ReplyDelete
  6. When you are finally done, we should do a video of you with an extremely summarized version of your thesis as a song, where you are holding up papers with the words and then tossing them away as each page is sung... (who was it that did that first? Tom Petty?)

    ReplyDelete
  7. I feel sorry for the amount of police manpower and time wasted on false pranks etc. like this one with the HP Sauce. I wish the police had greater resources, pay, and respect!
    -Citizen Cited-

    ReplyDelete
  8. I should have Chucky and Bobby sing the finalized thesis online and have Jamie play bass guitar along for accompaniment.

    I will add filler with some of my bootleg Rush and Mahavishnu Orchestra solos.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Yes, and who would think HP Sauce would be a potential weapon! But, I suppose the vinegar smell was suspicious.

    ReplyDelete
  10. very interesting! a little over my head (as usual) but I tried to translate to 'small' words so I could get it.

    And actually I was just in discussion the other day about the Word being applied differently depending our past "information" (lessons, experiences to that point). So I think we agree that yes the Spirit can tell us all different things from the same scripture depending on 'where we are'.... and we have to give each other that freedom to interpret differently --- all the while making sure that in many circles discussion is taking place to make sure the TRuth is taught when looking at the original text/context so that people don't go too 'off track' from waht was meant in the verse.

    anyway! :) did that make sense? thanks for sharing

    ReplyDelete
  11. p.s. so I can clik the box to get responses emailed to me

    ReplyDelete
  12. Thanks, Randi Jo.

    Most of the time in my life I am more of a student than a teacher.

    I think we agree that the Scripture has an original meaning that should be understood in context and that persons individually do not apply it in the exact same way as persons are not identical.

    Russ:)

    ReplyDelete
  13. Hello Russ,

    Thanks for your comment on Tamela's place you were the first commentor :) I don't believe i am going to have to many comments on this one, i think most won't know how to take me being that is not the usual for tamela's place.

    BTW I did reply back you. Ever since you wrote the post about how to blow up your own blog i began replying back as much as possible :). Chalk 1 up for Russ's blog!

    As i was reading your post there were some scriptures coming to me.

    "Faith comes by "hearing" and "hearing" the Word of God!

    Another scripture:

    "Come now, and let us reason together, saith the Lord: though your sins be as scarlet they will be as white as snow"

    He writes that belief in the Christian message will take place when it is properly experienced.

    When I "heard" the Christian message that was when i first believed. It wasn't until I became a "doer" of the Word that i began experiencing and thus my faith began to grow!

    Maybe that is what this author is trying to convey?. Can't say that i clearly understand where he is coming from?

    God bless you Russ! :)

    BTW thanks for your consistancy at tamela's place. No matter if it's the Heat im throwin or the encouragement, your always right there with a comment no matter what :)

    ReplyDelete
  14. Thanks, Tamela.

    From Anderson:

    'Truth is no longer objectively discovered, according to Anderson’s analysis of the times, rather it is experienced.'

    I reason he is explaining a common understanding of our present Western society. A society which I also discussed in your blog comments.

    In the article, which was material formerly in my PhD, I attempt to understand this position even though I reason that truth should still be objectively discovered as well as experienced.

    Russ:)

    ReplyDelete
  15. The deer cartoon is funny.

    Who is that character attacking Spider-Man on the comic cover? The costume and cape remind me of Mordo, but his face reminds me of DC's Green Arrow.

    Hey, the Word Verification is "extens." Is Google or Blogger promoting male enhancement products now? ; )

    ReplyDelete
  16. As I stated on Facebook:

    ...modern science has become a closed, authoritarian system, with only one way of doing things, throughout the world, not unlike the control that the Roman Catholic church had on Christian beliefs before the reformation....For all the progress we have made in the past century, who knows how much more progress might have been possible?

    I agree, ... Read Morethat IS brilliant. And the movie "Expelled!" presents living, human examples of how that has taken place.

    Are you stating that in academic circles there is politics that can at times prohibit students and scholars from presenting some views contrary to the establishment?

    Nice comparison. If a PhD can only be obtained, or a scientific paper/article can only be published, when a person cooperates with or agrees with the 'establishment,' then very powerful control is held by the 'establishment' within the realms of science, education, and beyond. Teachers can only teach if they teach those things that agree with the 'establishment,' etc.

    ReplyDelete
  17. I'm trying to figure out who has the funnier comments: Rick B. or Chucky.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Thanks very much, Jeff.

    The green character is Xandu. I have him in two books that I know of...

    Doctor Strange #179 (1969)
    Marvel Team-Up #21 (1974)

    Both issues feature Doctor Strange and Spider-Man.

    From:

    xandu

    Characters : Xandu

    Attributes
    Height: 6'3" (Approximate.)

    Weight: 180 lbs. (Approximate.)

    Eyes: Yellow, then Blue.

    Hair: White, then Black, then White again.

    Features: Wears a monocle in his right eye, then in his left eye. That Lucifer mustache and beard.

    Summary
    Created By: Stan Lee, Steve Ditko

    Real Name: Unknown.

    Current Aliases: None.

    Former Aliases: Xandu the Unspeakable, Xandu the All-Powerful, and "Sandy" (according to one of the cops who gets the name wrong when he arrests him).

    Dual Identity: None.

    Current Occupation: In the hoosegow.

    Former Occupation: Half-crazed magician.

    Citizenship: Unknown.

    Legal Status: Cell block resident.

    Place of Birth: Unknown.

    Marital Status: Was engaged but the wedding appears to be indefinitely postponed.

    Known Relatives: None.

    Known Confidants: Melinda Morrison (Former fiancee.)

    Known Allies: The two hypnotized musclebound goons, the hypnotized Spider-Man, the soulless Scarlet Witch body, a squad of demons, a hypnotized Hulk, a hypnotized Wong, the hypnotized employees of New Bedlam Asylum for the Criminally Inclined.

    Major Enemies: Spider-Man, Dr. Strange, Scarlet Witch, the Thing, Captain America

    Usual Bases: None.

    Former Bases: Manhattan, the Xandu dimension, the death dimension.

    Current Groups: None.

    Former Groups: Hanging out with the demons of death.

    Education: Unknown but clearly a student of the mystic arts and was a lecturer at one time.

    Powers & Paraphenalia
    Strength Level: Normal human when not souped up by the Wand of Watoomb.

    Powers: Mediocre magical powers without his various talismans.

    Abilities: One heck of a hypnotist.

    Equipment: Crystal of Kadavus, Eye of Agamotto

    Weapons: Wand of Watoomb, Ruby of Domination

    Limitations: Thinks he loves Melinda but seems more smitten with power instead. Too dependent on his toys.

    Background
    Xandu is a rival magician to Dr. Strange who wishes to be the Master of the Mystic Arts. As a young man, he accidentally releases a spell that strikes Melinda Morrison, his betrothed, and puts her into what he believes is a death- like coma. Searching for a cure, Xandu learns of the powerful Wand of Watoomb. He tracks down one half of the artifact and learns that the other half is in Dr. Strange's possession. Xandu hypnotizes two musclebound thugs, turning them into mindless fighting machines and sends them to Strange's Greenwich Village home where they steal the other half of the wand. But Spider-Man gets involved and eventually his powers in combination with those of Dr. Strange confuse Xandu into defeat. Dr. Strange drains the power from the Wand of Watoomb and then grants Xandu the "gift of total sleep" intending to cleanse his mind of evil ambition.

    But Xandu actually sends his memory off into the mystic void before Strange can complete his spell. His amnesiac body wanders around as a derelict until his "questing mind" returns to him. His new plan is to steal the Crystal of Kadavus from Dr. Strange and use it to restore the power to the Wand of Watoomb. This time he hypnotizes Spider-Man into stealing it. The restored wand makes Xandu so strong that his hair turns black. He grows to about three times his height and starts calling himself Xandu the Unspeakable and Xandu the All-Powerful. He takes Spidey and Strange to his own created dimension where he toys with them but lets slip that he has ordained in this world that neither of his foes can use their powers against him. This gives Strange the idea of magically switching powers with Spidey, which allows them to wrest the wand from Xandu. Strange throws the wand into the void even as Xandu returns to his smaller, grayer self. To add insult to injury, Strange examines Melinda's preserved body and tells Xandu that she is not in a sleep resembling death but a death resembling sleep. Refusing to believe Melinda is dead, Xandu cracks up on the spot. Or so it seems. It's enough to convince Spider-Man and Dr. Strange to walk away without punishing him.

    Xandu is not crazy at all but only faking to get the two heroes off his back. Left alone he searches the dimensions until he finds the Wand of Watoomb and then uses the wand to resurrect Melinda's body. But since Melinda is dead, her spirit is absent. No matter. Xandu uses the wand to capture the soul of the Scarlet Witch. He puts that soul into Melinda's body and keeps the Witch's body as a soulless slave. Somehow he expects the Witch in Melinda's body to love him as Melinda did. This doesn't happen. Xandu then drags Spider-Man into a trap, intending to get revenge but the whole mess is stopped by the spirit of Melinda, called from the death dimension by the reanimation of her body. She tries to convince Xandu to join her in eternity but he assumes she is out for revenge because he killed her and he attacks her instead. By the time the dust settles, Melinda is alive again in her own body, the Scarlet Witch is back in hers, and Xandu has been sucked into the death dimension to take Melinda's place.

    Again, Xandu escapes his fate, this time by finding the Ruby of Domination while fleeing the demons of the death dimension. But his own powers are weak enough that the ruby only allows him to dominate one individual. He picks a member of the Defenders who sneaks up behind a preoccupied Dr. Strange and captures him. Xandu hangs Strange up on a mystical cross in the death dimension, guarded by demons. He takes the Eye of Agamotto, which allows him to magnify the power of the ruby and take over the minds of everyone on Earth. Before that happens, Strange mystically summons the Thing to come beat up the demons and free him. They journey back to New York where they find that Xandu has turned everyone in the city into a zombie. So far, however, he can only dominate one person at a time so that they will actively obey him. Unfortunately, he's still using that same member of the Defenders that he used before: the Incredible Hulk.

    The Thing and the Hulk square off even as Xandu fights a mystical battle with Dr. Strange. With the tide turning against him, Xandu releases the Hulk from his influence and instead uses Wong, Strange's assistant, to whack his boss over the head. With Strange now trapped, Xandu tries to merge his soul with the spirit of the ruby, which will give him the power to enslave the whole universe. But Strange mystically summons the Thing again. The FF's strongman wrests himself from his fight with the Hulk and returns just as Xandu is merging with the ruby. The Thing punches the ruby and shatters it into pieces, breaking the spell. Dr. Strange banishes Xandu to an unnamed "nether dimension".

    Melinda, meanwhile, has been having a hard time of it. She died twenty-five years before. Now she discovers the whole world has changed; everything she remembers either dead or older while she is not. Xandu summons death demons to pursue her. When Spidey and Strange get involved, Xandu takes over the web- slinger's body and snatches the Wand of Watoomb off of Doc's shelf. He sends Melinda back to the death dimension, which he has taken over. (He's even got himself a throne!) But Spider-Man has followed in his astral form. He takes over Xandu's body and returns to where Strange is fighting Xandu in Spidey's body. Strange casts a spell that switches the two misplaced astral forms back to their correct bodies. Xandu reveals that Melissa was never really restored to life but had "wakened to a state of death which merely resembled life" which is why she cannot find contentment. But Doc figures out that either Xandu or Melissa must leave or the whole dimension will collapse. In the end, the Wand of Watoomb is smashed, Melissa becomes the Queen of the death dimension and Xandu is brought back to Earth. There he falls into regret, sorrow and madness; much like the state he feigned once before. Strange promises to take care of him.

    Which apparently means that he shoves Xandu into an asylum because we next find him in the New Bedlam Asylum for the Criminally Inclined. There Xandu manages to summon a reconstituted Wand of Watoomb and use it to take over the minds of the asylum employees. Sensing the return of the wand, Dr. Strange summons Spider-Man and the Scarlet Witch as his Secret Defenders. Captain America also gets involved. Xandu escapes to the death dimension. Since he cannot stay there with Melinda without the whole place coming apart, he plans to use the wand to merge the death dimension with Earth. As the dimensions grow closer, Melinda opposes Xandu. (It doesn't help matters that he calls her "Melissa" at one point.) At the suggestion of Captain America, Dr. Strange merges the death dimension demons into Melinda, which truly makes her the queen of the death dimension. Now stronger than Xandu, she thrusts him out of her reality back to New York where he is captured by the police. Though he let his ambition overwhelm him, Xandu still cares for Melinda and he sheds a tear at the loss of her love.

    Character Appearances
    No Month 1965 App: Amazing Spider-Man (Vol. 1) Annual #2 (Story 1)

    First Appearance.
    May 1974 App: Marvel Team-Up #21

    First Appearance of Melinda Morrison.
    Jan 1983 App: Marvel Fanfare #6
    Steals Scarlet Witch's body.
    May 1985 App: Marvel Fanfare #20
    Finds Ruby of Domination.
    Jul 1985 App: Marvel Fanfare #21
    Ruby smashed by the Thing.
    No Month 1992 App: Spider-Man/Dr. Strange: The Way to Dusty Death
    "Spider-Man/Dr. Strange: The Way to Dusty Death"
    ... Melinda becomes Queen of Death Dimension.
    Aug 1993 App: Secret Defenders #6
    Starts merging Earth with Death Dimension.
    Sep 1993 App: Secret Defenders #7
    Still merging.
    Oct 1993 App: Secret Defenders #8
    Calls Melinda "Melissa". Gets dumped.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Our bible study has just finished a two year long study of Genesis (we only meet once a month, so it took awhile) and we spent lots of discussion time on trying to figure out the relevance of the 'story' to our lives. It all comes down to having faith in God and the truth as he reveals it you. The truth doesn't change, but society does. It's all faith and grace to me...

    ReplyDelete
  20. Thanks, Jennifer.

    The evidence for (or hypothetically against) Scripture stays the same regardless of what society decides concerning it.

    Russ:)

    ReplyDelete
  21. I think that music and lyrics to doctrine or in this case your PhD would be a great way of memorizing important points of your paper.
    -Leddy Be-

    ReplyDelete
  22. Leddy Be, Leddy Be, Leddy Be, Leddy Be.

    This song creates boredom, Leddy Be.

    ReplyDelete
  23. I reason that truth should still be objectively discovered as well as experienced.



    I agree! :) Thanks Russ

    ReplyDelete
  24. Hey Russ,

    I've been a little slow to respond to and read blogs lately (though I finally read and responded to your comment on my latest post--thanks, btw), so I've gotten to this one much later than usual.

    The whole idea of "truth" is philosophically fascinating. Obviously, truth is related to knowledge which is a "product", if you will, of epistemology. I'm not saying that truth is dependant upon epistemology, of course. Truth is truth whether anyone ever comes to know it or believe it--but even in this statement I (not truth) am subject to an epistemological framework.

    So the question, "What is truth?" is really a valid and complicated question. Without an "objective" source of knowledge (or maybe better, without an Omniscient source of knowledge), can anyone really ever discover truth? Einstein supposedly said that in all of his discoveries he never discovered any "truth". And how could he when scientific methodology by its very nature can never prove anything absolute? Einstein understood this, so all he could confirm is that he may have discovered "approximations" of truth.

    I do believe that "truth" (knowledge) is objective, but there is serious question whether or not it is unattainable unless it is justified. If truth is not justified, then isn't it merely opinion no matter how "glorified" or important the opinion is? And for "justification", all we have is Science (with "man" as the arbiter) or "god" (with whatever a person believes to be "god" as the Arbiter. And if it is not the One True Biblical God, then it is still "man" as arbiter but using the divine as the mechanism).

    "What is truth?" is the question of the ages and is inherent in the questions, "Why am I here?" and "What is real?" How do we answer? We must go to God who is the source and interpreter of all truth/knowledge. These questions are answered by Him!

    Of course, the next logical question is, "How do we get past ourselves to interpret God correctly?" Hmm...maybe we have another "million dollar question" on our hands! :-)

    Gordon H. Clark was a prominent Christian Philosopher/Theologian who spent his lifetime answer the Epistemological question and I find his work fascinating. A lot of people dismiss him outright but I think that's because most people haven't tried to read him and understand him sympathetically. If you can get around the arrogance and the...well...ungraciousness of his most ardent disciple John Robbins, I encourage you to check out some of the material at:

    trinityfoundation.org

    Mr. Robbins passed away last year, but his virulence is still evident in his papers. Anyway, this site has a lot of material from Gordon Clark and you can find more if you "google".

    Here's a link to a "sermon" on Clarks "Scripturalism" by Gary Crampton which should explain his epistemology:

    https://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=315081317371

    I haven't heard it yet (I think it's in two parts), but I've read the book and am familiar with the idea. Now that I think about it, I'll probably download it onto my iPod and listen to it this week.

    Anyway, that's my two-cents (or buck forty!) on the subject.

    Thanks again for stopping by. I hope to have the third part of my series up sometime next week. I have a couple of weeks off from "leading" at church, so I should be able to get it done; that is, if I quit writing book-length "comments" on other people's blogs! :-)

    GGM

    ReplyDelete
  25. Upon further review, in my fourth paragraph I say this: "but there is serious question whether or not it is unattainable unless it is justified"

    Hopefully anyone who read this would know that I meant attainable, not unattainable.

    GGM

    ReplyDelete
  26. Thanks, Jason.

    In empirical disciplines evidence through tests can lead to claims of truth.

    In rationalistic/philosophical disciplines such as philosophy and theology truth can be claimed by writing sound arguments that are not overcome and significantly countered by opposing arguments, and by writing arguments that cannnot be shown to be less than sound.

    ReplyDelete
  27. I just left the following comment on 'night writing in the morning light' in my blog comments.

    I am quite busy with revisions, but will take some time here.

    From research on the subject of theodicy and free will and determinism I agree we are dependent on God.

    God more than just allowed Satan to attack Job, but he willed it. In Job 1: 8, God brings up the subject of Job to God. This is telling, as God had a purpose in willing that Satan deal with Job, although God's motives with the issue would differ from Satan's...this is KEY.

    God is the primary cause of all things as the only infinite being, and only first cause. I do not believe he coerces or forces any human actions for which human beings could be held morally accountable.

    Therefore human beings are the secondary cause of what could considered I suppose somewhat independent actions with the use of limited and not libertarian free will. Satanic beings may be considered a secondary cause of human actions as well, for example in the case of a person being demon possessed.

    I do not believe in totally independent human actions. I am a compatibilist and not an incompatibilist, in other words God's determined will is compatible with significant human freedom.

    Thanks, Larry.

    ReplyDelete
  28. From a Facebook email:

    Moh/Mac

    I agree with much of what Mohler and MacArthur state overall, and Mohler is a Facebook friend although I have never dialogued with him.

    I must state though that I thought how they handled the Genesis discussion seemed quite fundamentalistic. Having had to read a bit on this for my PhD there are many conservative Bible believing OT and related scholars that are not evolutionists or 'mythologists' that hold to orthodox views on the atonement, resurrection, nature of God and other views, that do believe in the historical religious Genesis account but do not believe it is all plain literal but is sometimes intentionally figurative literal.

    For example, you have the serpent in Revelation which is viewed by most scholars as figurative and there is the serpent in Genesis, and why cannot this be possibly viewed also as figurative literal? Perhaps it is the very same figurative language for Satan, and never a literal serpent.

    My own church leadership tends to be old earth and quite educated and they are hardly in any way liberals.

    I thought the Moh/Mac presentation was unbalanced as if one had to take all of Genesis plain literal or else one holds to theistic evolution and Genesis as myth.

    This is not good scholarship, even if all of Genesis should hypothetically be read plain literally, they still are not representing other views properly.

    Personally, I am not dogmatic on the issue.

    God could have made the earth in six days even with figurative language used and it could be made to look old. Therefore scientists could through deduction assume a great amount of time was needed for development. Christian and scientist Hugh Ross states that the earth and creation took place billions of years ago.

    Or perhaps the figurative language and scientific deduction means the universe and earth are billions of years old

    But, hey let's present sides fairly.

    I am learning and know a balanced perspective when I hear it.

    I hate to state this but Moh/Mac sounded like the kind of Christian scholars that my UK reviewers were unfairly criticizing me of being until I did so well in the viva/verbal defence.

    My take, feel free to comment on my blog comments if you wish.

    I am not trying to start a debate and I am way too busy...LOL.

    Russ

    ReplyDelete
  29. I happen to agree with your assessment concerning how Moh/Mac presented the Genesis issue--unbalanced. Of course, only giving a little over 5 minutes to the issue in a paltry 37 min program doesn't leave much opportunity to do justice to the topic. I used to really like MacArthur and I'm still blessed by his ministry, but he's becoming more arrogant every year; if it's not what he believes, then it is wrong...period! Now granted, I would agree with much of what he says, but things aren't as simplisitic as he (and in this case Mohler) makes them out to be.

    He creates a false dichotomy between literal and "spiritual" that is not biblical. I'm not a "theistic evolutionist" and I would argue that it is not biblical; but to lump any other understanding of the Creation Story with Theistic Evolutionism is not only simplisitc and arrogant on their part, it is flatly false! Holding to an "old-earth" and/or a "framework theory" of the Creation Story doesn't logically mean that the Bible is "mythical" or that we must now read ALL of the Scripture as what they call "mytho-poetic" or that we must be "theistic evolutionists". Now I realize that he doesn't mention the "framework theory", but he does suggest that if you don't hold to a literal six 24hr day Creation Story, then you are not believing the Bible and that you, by default, think "theistic evolution" is compatable with Genesis 1-2. That's simply not the case at all! The "framework theory" doesn't care about length of time for creation because that's not what Genesis 1-2 is even talking about. In other words, in the Genesis Creation account, the point is not a scientific treatise on Creation; it's about God's purpose in redemption. In years past I would have expected more from John Mac, but as I say, the older he gets the less...how should I say...reasonable and logical he becomes. Even the most ardent "literal/grammatical" hermeneutical method undestands that "myth", as a literary device, is legitimate and in no way harms the "literal" meaning ofany passage. In fact, the use of poetry, "myth" language, etc (literary devices) are means by which the author (Author) helps us to understand the "literal meaning" of a passage. The Story of Creation IS NOT a treatise on the science of Creation! Geez! It's the prologue of the greatest Story of all time--the story of Redemption!

    Holding to an "old earth" does absolutely no damage to the reality of the Creation Story and the Grand Narrative of Creation/Fall/Redemption/Consummation. Holding to the "framework theory" does no damage to the reality of the Creation Story and the Grand Narrative of Creation/Fall/Redemption/Consummation. And I would argue that properly understood, the "framework theory" (as Meredith Kline and others argue) does the best justice to the story of the purpose of God in redemption. I'm not a "theistic evolutionist" by any means; but according to Moh/Mac I must be because I don't necessarily hold to a strict six 24-hr day act of Creation. Maybe this is true, but it doesn't necessarily have to be and not believing in a literal six 24hr day Creation does no violence to the reality of Creation ex nihilo or the story of redemption. In all their learnedness, these guys have forgotton basic logic!

    They think any way of undestanding the Creation Story other than what they believe is tatamount to calling God a liar (I've heard J. Mac say this before--unbelievable!) and disbelieving the Scripture. I know they're talking specifically about the idea of "theistic evolution" (which I deny); but they say that this is what you end up with if you don't understand Genesis they way they do. Wrong.

    On a final note, I will say that the idea of "death" is a powerful refutation of "theistic evolution". But really, the very fact that God created man in His image in the first place is refutation enough. If "theistic evolution" were valid, then God must have created us initially NOT in His image but through the course of "evolutionary processess" we BECAME the "man" who is His image. And this is blatantly unbiblical and hardly worth the argument. Theistic evolutionists are definitely operating outside the bounds of revealed revelation and, in my opinion, do no service whatsoever for the cause of Christ. It's a rabbit trail that only leads away from the truth of who man is as image-bearer, who Christ is as the God-Man, and the inherent dignity of "man" as the pinnacle of God's creative activity and his need for redemption.

    GGM

    p.s. I'm not sure if you were requesting any comments about this to be written on your blog or here, so I chose here. If you would rather have them on one of your blog "comments" to generate dialogue, feel free to cut and paste--I'm at your mercy my King(pin68)! :-)

    ReplyDelete
  30. This is my response to another response on Facebook (are we going to get ourselves confused or what?) :-)

    As Russ has pointed out, A "Long-Day" or "Old -Earth" Creationist is not necessarily any type of "evolutionist". It's simply wrong for anyone to just assume that if a person doesn't hold to a literal 6 24hr day Creation that person has either, at best, simply diluted the Creation Story by relegating it to "myth" (which is not necessarily the case) or he/she is an evolutionist that doesn't believe the Bible (another illogical conclusion).

    But as I said, whether the Creation Story favors an "old earth" or a "young earth", in the "framework theory" it really doesn't matter; there is no damage to the integrity of the Scripture as God's Word either way.

    The Creation Story is not meant to be an explanation of or an apology for a literal 6 24hr day creation; it has a far more important purpose than that. And for Moh/Mac to insinuate that departure from their position is a deprecation of Scripture is disingenuous and borders on fundamentalism (in the negative sense of the word).

    Always ready to cause consternation for your readers...:-)

    ...GGM

    ReplyDelete
  31. Thanks, Jason.

    Some of my other Facebook comments in regard to this discussion:

    From my reading and listening, some of the old earth/long period creation theorists are not even evolutionists, at least not macroevolutionists. They still believe that God created and their view does not interfere will crucial Biblical doctrines.

    I do realize that some theistic evolutionists do try and make their views work with Scripture.

    End

    Not from what I have read and heard. These people do not necessarily believe that human beings are more than the thousands of years old that anthropology/history suggests. They do necessarily not think we were anything less than human and created by God.

    But, I know Hugh Ross based on entropy and the distance of star light for example believes the Universe was created billions of years ago.

    The material I receive from Ross seems to be opposed to traditional evolutionary theory. I have one of his books but have not had a chance to read it with all my unexpected revisions. I have read through a few pamphlets though.

    I know Wiki is not the best, but this seems to support what I read from his work:

    Hugh Norman Ross (born July 24, 1945) is a Canadian-born Old Earth creationist and Christian apologist. An astronomer and astrophysicist, he has established his own ministry called Reasons To Believe that promotes forms of Old Earth creationism known as progressive creationism and day-age creationism. Ross accepts the scientific evidence of the age of the earth and the age of the universe, and he rejects evolution and abiogenesis as explanations for the history and origin of life.[1]

    Ross believes in progressive creationism, which posits that while the earth is billions of years old, life did not appear by natural forces alone but that a supernatural agent formed different lifeforms in incremental (progressive) stages, and day-age creationism which is an effort to reconcile a literal Genesis account of Creation with modern scientific theories on the age of the Universe, the Earth, life, and humans.[7] He rejects the Young Earth Creationist (YEC) position that the earth is younger than 10,000 years, or that the creation "days" of Genesis 1 represent literal 24-hour periods. Ross instead asserts that these days (translated from the Hebrew word yom[8]) are historic, distinct, and sequential, but not 24 hours in length nor equal in length. He agrees with the scientific community at large that the vast majority of YEC arguments are pseudoscience, and finds any version of intelligent design inadequate that doesn't provide a testable hypothesis which can make verifiable and falsifiable predictions.[9]

    End

    Concerning genealogy, I was taught at Bible School and seminary (both conservative) that they are probably not exhaustive and have read it other places. But, it is possible that they are exhaustive. So IF Genesis is using figurative literal language, human beings could have been on earth for a few thousands years and the earth/Universe could be billions of years old. Or maybe it just looks billions of years old if it is plain literal.

    We have discussed animal/plant death before on my blogs.

    Some scholars speculate animal and plant death are natural to a good and 'unfallen' creation, some suggest this death was a result of the fall.

    Either way, human death was the result of the fall.

    I also realize there is a debate on the meaning of macroevolution. This can be seem online.

    End

    I am not sure on the genealogy either, but as Jason and I have noted...the scholars are skeptical.

    I am not an expert on carbon dating and realize it has been challenged. Hugh Ross as an astronomer seems to base his estimation of billions of years somewhat on the expanding universe and how long it would take.

    As noted previously I do reason the flood was likely universal, but that is another debate.

    My apologies to anyone on my email list that is sick of these emails now.

    Blame me but don't hate me cause I am beautiful.

    End

    'The problem occurs when fundamentalists use it as a litmus test for orthodoxy.'

    Yes.

    As Jeff knows, I do not believe humans were ever anything less than human and I believe there was an Adam and Eve.

    Relationship coach Don Steele goes on and on about human evolution...as I told Pailin (former advisor), where are the transitional forms?

    End

    ReplyDelete
  32. Hi Russ,
    As promised, I made my rounds and had a chance to read your blog.

    This topic of Post Modern influence has been looming large in my life these days. I am sitting in on the Truth Project at my church.

    I agree that post modernasim has accepted a tolerance view of the world with in the church and allows variations of scriptural interpretation. However, the only way I would agree that one 'formated' view of Christianity were taught in Christian education is if the Apostle Paul or Jesus were to sit down and write the curriculum.

    Each man must seek his own salvation with fear and trembling.

    God has revealed Himself in creation and in Scripture. And, we do experience our belief in God with more of His presence in our lives.
    Jim

    ReplyDelete
  33. 'However, the only way I would agree that one 'formated' view of Christianity were taught in Christian education is if the Apostle Paul or Jesus were to sit down and write the curriculum.'

    Thanks, Jim.

    Thankfully with the Holy Spirit leading scholars and students alike can properly using Biblical Studies, Theology, Philosophy and other related disciplines significantly understand the teachings of the Hebrew prophets, Christ and his apostles and scribes.

    It does take work however, and open minds.

    Russ:)

    ReplyDelete
  34. Very efficiently written information. It will be beneficial to anybody who utilizes it, including me. Keep up the good work. For sure i will check out more posts. This site seems to get a good amount of visitors. Best PhD Proposal Writing Service

    ReplyDelete