Chamerolles, France (France photos from trekearth.com)
January 22, 2011
I previously did an audio post discussing free will theodicy praxis versus sovereignty theodicy praxis. But file freak continues to pull my old audio posts without my permission and my web provider Shaw only allows me limited audio space so I can only safely and certainly host my latest audio posts online. So this post will feature the information concerning free will, sovereignty and additionally, soul-making/building theodicy, praxis.
I apologize to those of you that attempt to listen to my older audio posts and cannot hear them, but that is a reason I provide text with the audio posts. I do have them backed up on DVDs and if one became a close friend, or asked nicely, I guess I could send one a copy of a certain lecture, after finding it.;)
The older post:
Older post
As well, I did a section in the PhD on Critical/Atheistic praxis and posted it on satire and theology
Critical/Atheistic praxis
Simon Blackburn writes that the term praxis originated in the era of Aristotle[1] and included the concept of goal-directed action, the action in itself being part of the end.[2] Praxis is not concerned with merely applying theoretical knowledge but adding to knowledge in the process of practically applying theory.[3]
When free will is practically applied, what are the results? A rejection by some within the Christian Church of the Reformed idea that God predestines with soft determinism individuals to salvation is important.[4] This would work hand in hand with the rejection of the idea that God causes evil by allowing sin to exist.[5] In both cases God’s divine sovereignty is downplayed, by Reformed standards.[6] With free will theory God would be viewed as allowing the problem of evil for greater purposes, but not willing it.[7] A praxis of free will theodicy would be that God can desire to save all persons, but cannot because human beings refuse to turn to God.[8] Moral choices are not caused or uncaused by another being, but are self-caused.[9] God therefore would be unable to save persons that freely reject him and they have made a moral choice to oppose God.[10] In contrast to the sovereignty perspective, since God does not cause evil and does not predetermine human actions such as who shall believe in him,[11] human beings are a greater impediment to a culminated Kingdom of God with a free will theodicy than with a sovereignty one.[12] This fits into Plantinga’s reasoning that in every situation transworld depravity will cause wrong human actions.[13] Transworld depravity provides the concept that in any possible world, including our own, each person would make at least one wrong decision and the resulting bad action would lead to evil occurring within creation.[14] It can be reasoned that the praxis related end goal of free will theodicy is for God within an incompatibilist, libertarian system to convince many human beings to accept Christ and turn from evil in order to fully establish the Kingdom of God.[15]
In contrast, with a compatibilistic sovereignty perspective, God is reasoned to transform and mould persons he chooses for salvation,[16] so that the culminated Kingdom takes place at God’s appointed time.[17] Both free will and sovereignty perspectives accept the Biblical idea of the culminated Kingdom, but free will places much more emphasis on the individual freely deciding that this is for him/her, rather than being determined in any way to do so.[18] Free will advocates will understand the process as God making an offer and over time convincing persons to believe it.[19] A devotion to God can only be a good thing when persons freely accept it.[20] Sovereignty perspectives reason that God alone makes the choice to begin a regeneration process that leads to salvation in a human being.[21] F.F. Bruce (1996) explains that because of the universal fact of human sin, there is no way to be accepted by God by human means.[22] This divinely guided change in a person must occur in order for salvation to ever take place within a human being with a corrupted nature.[23]
Free will theodicy, unlike soul-making theory, does not necessarily accept universalism[24] as part of its praxis and it could logically be argued that Plantinga’s transworld depravity would apply in all post-mortem situations.[25] In my view, these are perils of a praxis that rejects compatibilism and soft determinism. Even as traditional Christian free will theory would not accept universalism,[26] it still reasons eventually those citizens saved by Christ would not sin within the culminated Kingdom.[27] Those within the Kingdom will have been brought to God through Christ.[28] The resurrection work would be reasoned to change the entire nature of saved persons to sinless and allow everlasting life,[29] but without God also determining[30] that sin would never again occur, I reason that transworld depravity could always be a concern.[31]
A praxis of sovereignty theodicy would be that, from start to finish, salvation is primarily the goal directed[32] plan of God. Human beings are not brought to Christ through compulsion,[33] but when predestined in election[34] shall be convinced to accept the offer of salvation.[35] Praxis shifts from the incompatibilism of free will that assumes God desires to save all persons, but can only save those who are eventually persuaded to believe,[36] to an understanding that whom God desires to save shall be regenerated and placed in a process of salvation.[37] The problem of evil is therefore not primarily subject to, and in existence, because human sin is stalling the culmination of God’s plans.[38] I do not doubt that human beings do often oppose God’s plans, but God being almighty can overcome the problem of evil, and is working through this process slowly in history. Within a sovereignty perspective human sin does oppose God, but God will use sin for his purposes and regenerate and mould those he chooses towards salvation. As long as one can accept the idea that a perfectly moral God wills and allows evil[39] within his plans for the greater good,[40] there is a degree of intellectual certainty with sovereignty theodicy that free will theodicy lacks. God could inevitably bring about, through the use of the regeneration[41] and the resurrection of elected human persons,[42] the end of human corruption,[43] and even Plantinga’s concept of transworld depravity.[44] If God willed and created a finalized Kingdom of restored persons that had experienced the problem of evil and were saved from it, then it could be reasoned that with God’s constant persuasion through the Holy Spirit[45] and human experience and maturity, transworld depravity[46] would never take place again. No human wrong decision[47] would need to occur as God always determines otherwise, and restored human beings do not lack experience as did the first humans who rebelled against God causing corruption. I speculate that theological praxis of sovereignty theodicy is more certain and comforting than free will theodicy, as transworld depravity is overcome by taking the primary choice of human belief in God away from corrupted human beings[48] and placing it in the hands of a sovereign God.[49]
1.2 Soul-Making Theodicy Praxis
A praxis of soul-making is that there is epistemic distance[50] needed to exist between humanity and God in order for persons to properly develop as individuals outside of God’s direct influence.[51] Hick and soul-making theodicy deduce that with free will many will reject God in temporal life,[52] but in post-mortem existence universal devotion to God will ultimately occur for all.[53] Since Hick rejects compatibilism,[54] ultimately God must inevitably convince human beings to freely follow him in a way that was amiss for many in their earthly lives.[55] Contrary to traditional Christian and Reformed doctrine which assumes corruption due to sin,[56] Hick’s soul-making philosophy reasons that human beings are not fallen, but immature and child-like[57] and need to evolve to a status of being able to worship and follow God.[58] There exists a praxis of progression from spiritual immaturity and inability to follow God[59] to the eventual point where all will follow God. The end goal and praxis is to take persons that are distant from God,[60] and to freely bring them into mature community with God.[61] A sovereignty view also believes God shall bring persons into a finalized community with him,[62] but God must determine and persuade selected persons within that process.[63] A soul-making process could be considered an aspect of sovereignty theodicy.[64] As Hick accepts universalism,[65] he rejects the notion that God would select some and reject others for everlasting hell.[66] For soul-making the evolutionary development process leads to the salvation of all persons and, therefore, a universal community of each human being God has ever made will eventually exist.[67] For Hick, God must save all persons or his creation would be a failure.[68] Free will theodicy also consists of an idea of human progression, as God would convince certain persons within this temporal life to follow him.[69] It does not accept that all persons will eventually follow God and credits this to free will.[70] I have explained my difficulty with the idea that God can save corrupt human beings that reject him without the use of compatibilism throughout this thesis.[71] Free will theory would not view a finalized God ruled Kingdom, that is missing some persons, as a failure[72] as God desired all to be saved,[73] but some refused God’s offer of salvation and call to election.[74] This was done freely and is not God’s fault that some have rejected him, as to have these people follow him would require determinism and these persons would be less than significantly free.[75]
[1] Blackburn (1996: 298).
[2] Blackburn (1996: 298).
[3] Anderson (2001: 22).
[4] For some, non-determinism alone allows for significant human freedom. Geisler (1986: 75).
[5] Erickson (1994: 361).
[6] God is not in control of human salvation as this is up to human free will. God can influence persons only and in no way can determine, even simultaneously, a truly free human act. As human beings have incompatibilistic libertarian free will they have caused evil and God is not morally blamable for this because he could only prevent this evil by cancelling significant human freedom. Augustine (388-395)(1964: 33). A problem here is Reformed and atheistic critics have postulated that God could have created significantly free creatures that would not commit evil. Mackie and Flew reason human beings could be made in such a way, and I acknowledge that a type of human being could be made in order to have significant freedom and not sin. I also reason that the angels that did not fall likely are significantly free and did not choose to sin. I here deduce angelic beings are significantly free and not merely robotic as some angels fell and some did not.
[7] Geisler (1986: 75).
[8] Augustine (388-395)(1964: 33).
[9] Geisler (1986: 75).
[10] Augustine (388-395)(1964: 33).
[11] Blackburn (1996: 31).
[12] An atheist and critic could reasonably and rightly suggest that persons use free will to such a corrupt degree that God will never be able to culminate a Kingdom where significantly free creatures do not continue to at times commit horrendous evils.
[13] Plantinga (1977)(2002: 53).
[14] Plantinga (1977)(2002: 53).
[15] This assumes that human beings by grace through faith can be convinced into belief in Christ and then regenerated and indwelled by the Holy Spirit.
[16] Luther (1525)(1972: 133). Calvin (1543)(1996: 204).
[17] Calvin (1539)(1998: Book II, Chapter 3, 6). Calvin (1552)(1995: 13).
[18] Geisler (1986: 75).
[19] Foulkes (1989: 55).
[20] Augustine (388-395)(1964: 78).
[21] Regeneration consists of the Holy Spirit of God beginning the salvation process of spiritual re-creation in a human being. Grenz, Guretzki, and Nordling (1999: 101).
[22] Bruce (1996: 93).
[23] Bruce (1996: 93).
[24] Contrary to Hick. Hick (1970: 381).
[25] Plantinga (1977)(2002: 53).
[26] Kreeft and Tacelli (1994: 286).
[27] Revelation Chapters 21-22 although containing figurative language describe a world free from tears and death and pain (21: 4). The New American Standard Version Bible Version (1984: 1417).
[28] Augustine viewed the atoning work of Christ as a means by which humanity can be brought back to a proper relationship with God. Augustine (398-399)(1992: 178). Christ would mediate humanity back to God. Augustine (398-399)(1992: 219).
[29] Augustine reasoned the resurrection would save believers from everlasting death. Augustine (400-416)(1987)(2004: Book 4: Chapter 13: 11).
[30] Geisler (1986: 75). I reason that as human nature has already demonstrated that it can fall, in the restoration it will need not only culminated perfect nature through resurrection, but also the influence of the Holy Spirit in heavy measure. Citizens will be filled with the Holy Spirit as was Stephen in Acts Chapter 6, for example. The New American Standard Version Bible Version (1984: 1234-1235). As God has developed saved persons to freely follow him with his guidance, I do not see why this would change within the everlasting realm.
[31] Without compatibilism in my view, incompatibilism and free will theory is left with the problem of explaining how human corruption and Plantinga’s transworld depravity will not prevent the salvation of persons and the completed and finalized Kingdom of God.
[32] Teleological. Bloesch (1987: 19).
[33] Shedd (1874-1890)(1980: 136-137 Volume 2).
[34] Whale (1958: 63).
[35] Feinberg (2001: 637).
[36] Peterson (1982: 104).
[37] Calvin (1543)(1996: 204).
[38] Peterson (1982: 104).
[39] Erickson (1994: 361). Many theistic and atheistic critics find this intellectually untenable.
[40] Calvin (1543)(1996: 37-40).
[41] Murray (1937-1966)(1977: 172).
[42] Whale (1958: 65-70).
[43] Berkouwer (1962: 192).
[44] Plantinga (1977)(2002: 53).
[45] Franke (2005: 151).
[46] Plantinga (1977)(2002: 53).
[47] Moral wrong decisions is meant here. A lack of infinite knowledge could still lead to a human being making a non-moral mistake, for example, not playing a perfect game.
[48] Augustine (421)(1998: Chapter 13: 8).
[49] Pink (1968: 20).
[50] Hick in Davis (2001: 48).
[51] Hick in Davis (2001: 48).
[52] Hick in Davis (2001: 48).
[53] Hick (1970: 381). This is the view of universal salvation as discussed in Chapter Four.
[54] Hick (1970: 381).
[55] Hick (1970: 381).
[56] Augustine (421)(1998: Chapter 13: 8).
[57] Hick in Davis (2001: 40-41). Hick cites the views of Irenaeus for support.
[58] Hick in Davis (2001: 40-41).
[59] Hick in Davis (2001: 40-41).
[60] Hick in Davis (2001: 48).
[61] Hick (1970: 289-290).
[62] Calvin (1539)(1998: Book II, Chapter 3, 6).
[63] Feinberg (1986: 24-25).
[64] Not identical to Hick’s approach, however.
[65] Hick (1970: 381).
[66] Hick (1970: 284).
[67] Hick (1970: 381).
[68] Hick (1970: 378).
[69] Augustine (398-399)(1992: 178).
[70] Augustine (388-395)(1964: 33).
[71] A difficulty shared by critics that are both atheistic and Reformed.
[72] Any failure in context would be placed at the feet of humanity. Augustine (388-395)(1964: 33). 167).
[73] Foulkes (1989: 55).
[74] Foulkes (1989: 55).
[75] Plantinga (1982: 166).
Chenonceau, France
Chenonceau, France
Chateau, Les Halles France
ANDERSON, RAY S. (2001) The Shape of Practical Theology, Downers Grove, Illinois, InterVarsity Press.
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 (421)(1998) Enchiridion, Translated by J.F. Shaw, Denver, The Catholic Encyclopedia.
BERKOUWER, G.C. (1962) Man: The Image of God, Grand Rapids, W.M.B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996) Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford, University, Press.
BLOESCH, DONALD G. (1987) Freedom for Obedience, San Francisco, Harper and Rowe Publishers.
BRUCE, F.F. (1985)(1996) Romans, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
CALVIN, JOHN (1539)(1998) The Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book IV, Translated by Henry Beveridge, Grand Rapids, The Christian Classic Ethereal Library, Wheaton College.
CALVIN, JOHN (1543)(1996) The Bondage and Liberation of the Will, Translated by G.I. Davies, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.
ERICKSON, MILLARD (1994) Christian Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.
FEINBERG, JOHN.S. (1994) The Many Faces of Evil, Grand Rapids, Zondervan Publishing House.
FOULKES, FRANCIS (1989) Ephesians, Grand Rapids, Inter-Varsity Press.
FRANKE, JOHN R. (2005) The Character of Theology, Baker Academic, Grand Rapids.
GEISLER, NORMAN L. (1986) Predestination and Free Will, Downers Grove, Illinois, InterVarsity Press.
GRENZ, STANLEY J., DAVID GURETZKI AND CHERITH FEE NORDLING (1999) Pocket Dictionary of Theological Terms, Downers Grove, Ill., InterVarsity Press.
HICK, JOHN (1970) Evil and The God of Love, London, The Fontana Library.
HICK, JOHN (1981) Encountering Evil, Stephen T. Davis (ed.), Atlanta, John Knox Press.
KREEFT, PETER AND RONALD K. TACELLI (1994) Handbook of Christian Apologetics, Downers Grove, Illinois, InterVarsity Press.
LUTHER, MARTIN. (1525)(1972) ‘The Bondage of the Will’, in F.W. Strothmann and Frederick W. Locke (eds.), Erasmus-Luther: Discourse on Free Will, New York, Frederick Ungar Publishing Co., INC.
MURRAY, JOHN (1937-1966)(1977) Collected Writings of John Murray, Vol. 2: Select Lectures in Systematic Theology, Edinburgh, The Banner of Truth Trust.
PETERSON, MICHAEL (1982) Evil and the Christian God, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.
PINK, ARTHUR W. (1968) The Sovereignty of God, London, The Banner of Truth Trust.
PLANTINGA, ALVIN C. (1977)(2002) God, Freedom, and Evil, Grand Rapids, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
SHEDD, WILLIAM G.T. (1874-1890)(1980) Dogmatic Theology, Volume 1, Nashville, Thomas Nelson Publishers.
SHEDD, WILLIAM G.T. (1874-1890)(1980) Dogmatic Theology, Volume 2, Nashville, Thomas Nelson Publishers.
WHALE, J.S. (1958) Christian Doctrine, Glasgow, Fontana Books.
1. Theodicy Praxis: Free will, Sovereignty and Soul-Making (PhD edit)
I previously did an audio post discussing free will theodicy praxis versus sovereignty theodicy praxis. But file freak continues to pull my old audio posts without my permission and my web provider Shaw only allows me limited audio space so I can only safely and certainly host my latest audio posts online. So this post will feature the information concerning free will, sovereignty and additionally, soul-making/building theodicy, praxis.
I apologize to those of you that attempt to listen to my older audio posts and cannot hear them, but that is a reason I provide text with the audio posts. I do have them backed up on DVDs and if one became a close friend, or asked nicely, I guess I could send one a copy of a certain lecture, after finding it.;)
The older post:
Older post
As well, I did a section in the PhD on Critical/Atheistic praxis and posted it on satire and theology
Critical/Atheistic praxis
Simon Blackburn writes that the term praxis originated in the era of Aristotle[1] and included the concept of goal-directed action, the action in itself being part of the end.[2] Praxis is not concerned with merely applying theoretical knowledge but adding to knowledge in the process of practically applying theory.[3]
When free will is practically applied, what are the results? A rejection by some within the Christian Church of the Reformed idea that God predestines with soft determinism individuals to salvation is important.[4] This would work hand in hand with the rejection of the idea that God causes evil by allowing sin to exist.[5] In both cases God’s divine sovereignty is downplayed, by Reformed standards.[6] With free will theory God would be viewed as allowing the problem of evil for greater purposes, but not willing it.[7] A praxis of free will theodicy would be that God can desire to save all persons, but cannot because human beings refuse to turn to God.[8] Moral choices are not caused or uncaused by another being, but are self-caused.[9] God therefore would be unable to save persons that freely reject him and they have made a moral choice to oppose God.[10] In contrast to the sovereignty perspective, since God does not cause evil and does not predetermine human actions such as who shall believe in him,[11] human beings are a greater impediment to a culminated Kingdom of God with a free will theodicy than with a sovereignty one.[12] This fits into Plantinga’s reasoning that in every situation transworld depravity will cause wrong human actions.[13] Transworld depravity provides the concept that in any possible world, including our own, each person would make at least one wrong decision and the resulting bad action would lead to evil occurring within creation.[14] It can be reasoned that the praxis related end goal of free will theodicy is for God within an incompatibilist, libertarian system to convince many human beings to accept Christ and turn from evil in order to fully establish the Kingdom of God.[15]
In contrast, with a compatibilistic sovereignty perspective, God is reasoned to transform and mould persons he chooses for salvation,[16] so that the culminated Kingdom takes place at God’s appointed time.[17] Both free will and sovereignty perspectives accept the Biblical idea of the culminated Kingdom, but free will places much more emphasis on the individual freely deciding that this is for him/her, rather than being determined in any way to do so.[18] Free will advocates will understand the process as God making an offer and over time convincing persons to believe it.[19] A devotion to God can only be a good thing when persons freely accept it.[20] Sovereignty perspectives reason that God alone makes the choice to begin a regeneration process that leads to salvation in a human being.[21] F.F. Bruce (1996) explains that because of the universal fact of human sin, there is no way to be accepted by God by human means.[22] This divinely guided change in a person must occur in order for salvation to ever take place within a human being with a corrupted nature.[23]
Free will theodicy, unlike soul-making theory, does not necessarily accept universalism[24] as part of its praxis and it could logically be argued that Plantinga’s transworld depravity would apply in all post-mortem situations.[25] In my view, these are perils of a praxis that rejects compatibilism and soft determinism. Even as traditional Christian free will theory would not accept universalism,[26] it still reasons eventually those citizens saved by Christ would not sin within the culminated Kingdom.[27] Those within the Kingdom will have been brought to God through Christ.[28] The resurrection work would be reasoned to change the entire nature of saved persons to sinless and allow everlasting life,[29] but without God also determining[30] that sin would never again occur, I reason that transworld depravity could always be a concern.[31]
A praxis of sovereignty theodicy would be that, from start to finish, salvation is primarily the goal directed[32] plan of God. Human beings are not brought to Christ through compulsion,[33] but when predestined in election[34] shall be convinced to accept the offer of salvation.[35] Praxis shifts from the incompatibilism of free will that assumes God desires to save all persons, but can only save those who are eventually persuaded to believe,[36] to an understanding that whom God desires to save shall be regenerated and placed in a process of salvation.[37] The problem of evil is therefore not primarily subject to, and in existence, because human sin is stalling the culmination of God’s plans.[38] I do not doubt that human beings do often oppose God’s plans, but God being almighty can overcome the problem of evil, and is working through this process slowly in history. Within a sovereignty perspective human sin does oppose God, but God will use sin for his purposes and regenerate and mould those he chooses towards salvation. As long as one can accept the idea that a perfectly moral God wills and allows evil[39] within his plans for the greater good,[40] there is a degree of intellectual certainty with sovereignty theodicy that free will theodicy lacks. God could inevitably bring about, through the use of the regeneration[41] and the resurrection of elected human persons,[42] the end of human corruption,[43] and even Plantinga’s concept of transworld depravity.[44] If God willed and created a finalized Kingdom of restored persons that had experienced the problem of evil and were saved from it, then it could be reasoned that with God’s constant persuasion through the Holy Spirit[45] and human experience and maturity, transworld depravity[46] would never take place again. No human wrong decision[47] would need to occur as God always determines otherwise, and restored human beings do not lack experience as did the first humans who rebelled against God causing corruption. I speculate that theological praxis of sovereignty theodicy is more certain and comforting than free will theodicy, as transworld depravity is overcome by taking the primary choice of human belief in God away from corrupted human beings[48] and placing it in the hands of a sovereign God.[49]
1.2 Soul-Making Theodicy Praxis
A praxis of soul-making is that there is epistemic distance[50] needed to exist between humanity and God in order for persons to properly develop as individuals outside of God’s direct influence.[51] Hick and soul-making theodicy deduce that with free will many will reject God in temporal life,[52] but in post-mortem existence universal devotion to God will ultimately occur for all.[53] Since Hick rejects compatibilism,[54] ultimately God must inevitably convince human beings to freely follow him in a way that was amiss for many in their earthly lives.[55] Contrary to traditional Christian and Reformed doctrine which assumes corruption due to sin,[56] Hick’s soul-making philosophy reasons that human beings are not fallen, but immature and child-like[57] and need to evolve to a status of being able to worship and follow God.[58] There exists a praxis of progression from spiritual immaturity and inability to follow God[59] to the eventual point where all will follow God. The end goal and praxis is to take persons that are distant from God,[60] and to freely bring them into mature community with God.[61] A sovereignty view also believes God shall bring persons into a finalized community with him,[62] but God must determine and persuade selected persons within that process.[63] A soul-making process could be considered an aspect of sovereignty theodicy.[64] As Hick accepts universalism,[65] he rejects the notion that God would select some and reject others for everlasting hell.[66] For soul-making the evolutionary development process leads to the salvation of all persons and, therefore, a universal community of each human being God has ever made will eventually exist.[67] For Hick, God must save all persons or his creation would be a failure.[68] Free will theodicy also consists of an idea of human progression, as God would convince certain persons within this temporal life to follow him.[69] It does not accept that all persons will eventually follow God and credits this to free will.[70] I have explained my difficulty with the idea that God can save corrupt human beings that reject him without the use of compatibilism throughout this thesis.[71] Free will theory would not view a finalized God ruled Kingdom, that is missing some persons, as a failure[72] as God desired all to be saved,[73] but some refused God’s offer of salvation and call to election.[74] This was done freely and is not God’s fault that some have rejected him, as to have these people follow him would require determinism and these persons would be less than significantly free.[75]
[1] Blackburn (1996: 298).
[2] Blackburn (1996: 298).
[3] Anderson (2001: 22).
[4] For some, non-determinism alone allows for significant human freedom. Geisler (1986: 75).
[5] Erickson (1994: 361).
[6] God is not in control of human salvation as this is up to human free will. God can influence persons only and in no way can determine, even simultaneously, a truly free human act. As human beings have incompatibilistic libertarian free will they have caused evil and God is not morally blamable for this because he could only prevent this evil by cancelling significant human freedom. Augustine (388-395)(1964: 33). A problem here is Reformed and atheistic critics have postulated that God could have created significantly free creatures that would not commit evil. Mackie and Flew reason human beings could be made in such a way, and I acknowledge that a type of human being could be made in order to have significant freedom and not sin. I also reason that the angels that did not fall likely are significantly free and did not choose to sin. I here deduce angelic beings are significantly free and not merely robotic as some angels fell and some did not.
[7] Geisler (1986: 75).
[8] Augustine (388-395)(1964: 33).
[9] Geisler (1986: 75).
[10] Augustine (388-395)(1964: 33).
[11] Blackburn (1996: 31).
[12] An atheist and critic could reasonably and rightly suggest that persons use free will to such a corrupt degree that God will never be able to culminate a Kingdom where significantly free creatures do not continue to at times commit horrendous evils.
[13] Plantinga (1977)(2002: 53).
[14] Plantinga (1977)(2002: 53).
[15] This assumes that human beings by grace through faith can be convinced into belief in Christ and then regenerated and indwelled by the Holy Spirit.
[16] Luther (1525)(1972: 133). Calvin (1543)(1996: 204).
[17] Calvin (1539)(1998: Book II, Chapter 3, 6). Calvin (1552)(1995: 13).
[18] Geisler (1986: 75).
[19] Foulkes (1989: 55).
[20] Augustine (388-395)(1964: 78).
[21] Regeneration consists of the Holy Spirit of God beginning the salvation process of spiritual re-creation in a human being. Grenz, Guretzki, and Nordling (1999: 101).
[22] Bruce (1996: 93).
[23] Bruce (1996: 93).
[24] Contrary to Hick. Hick (1970: 381).
[25] Plantinga (1977)(2002: 53).
[26] Kreeft and Tacelli (1994: 286).
[27] Revelation Chapters 21-22 although containing figurative language describe a world free from tears and death and pain (21: 4). The New American Standard Version Bible Version (1984: 1417).
[28] Augustine viewed the atoning work of Christ as a means by which humanity can be brought back to a proper relationship with God. Augustine (398-399)(1992: 178). Christ would mediate humanity back to God. Augustine (398-399)(1992: 219).
[29] Augustine reasoned the resurrection would save believers from everlasting death. Augustine (400-416)(1987)(2004: Book 4: Chapter 13: 11).
[30] Geisler (1986: 75). I reason that as human nature has already demonstrated that it can fall, in the restoration it will need not only culminated perfect nature through resurrection, but also the influence of the Holy Spirit in heavy measure. Citizens will be filled with the Holy Spirit as was Stephen in Acts Chapter 6, for example. The New American Standard Version Bible Version (1984: 1234-1235). As God has developed saved persons to freely follow him with his guidance, I do not see why this would change within the everlasting realm.
[31] Without compatibilism in my view, incompatibilism and free will theory is left with the problem of explaining how human corruption and Plantinga’s transworld depravity will not prevent the salvation of persons and the completed and finalized Kingdom of God.
[32] Teleological. Bloesch (1987: 19).
[33] Shedd (1874-1890)(1980: 136-137 Volume 2).
[34] Whale (1958: 63).
[35] Feinberg (2001: 637).
[36] Peterson (1982: 104).
[37] Calvin (1543)(1996: 204).
[38] Peterson (1982: 104).
[39] Erickson (1994: 361). Many theistic and atheistic critics find this intellectually untenable.
[40] Calvin (1543)(1996: 37-40).
[41] Murray (1937-1966)(1977: 172).
[42] Whale (1958: 65-70).
[43] Berkouwer (1962: 192).
[44] Plantinga (1977)(2002: 53).
[45] Franke (2005: 151).
[46] Plantinga (1977)(2002: 53).
[47] Moral wrong decisions is meant here. A lack of infinite knowledge could still lead to a human being making a non-moral mistake, for example, not playing a perfect game.
[48] Augustine (421)(1998: Chapter 13: 8).
[49] Pink (1968: 20).
[50] Hick in Davis (2001: 48).
[51] Hick in Davis (2001: 48).
[52] Hick in Davis (2001: 48).
[53] Hick (1970: 381). This is the view of universal salvation as discussed in Chapter Four.
[54] Hick (1970: 381).
[55] Hick (1970: 381).
[56] Augustine (421)(1998: Chapter 13: 8).
[57] Hick in Davis (2001: 40-41). Hick cites the views of Irenaeus for support.
[58] Hick in Davis (2001: 40-41).
[59] Hick in Davis (2001: 40-41).
[60] Hick in Davis (2001: 48).
[61] Hick (1970: 289-290).
[62] Calvin (1539)(1998: Book II, Chapter 3, 6).
[63] Feinberg (1986: 24-25).
[64] Not identical to Hick’s approach, however.
[65] Hick (1970: 381).
[66] Hick (1970: 284).
[67] Hick (1970: 381).
[68] Hick (1970: 378).
[69] Augustine (398-399)(1992: 178).
[70] Augustine (388-395)(1964: 33).
[71] A difficulty shared by critics that are both atheistic and Reformed.
[72] Any failure in context would be placed at the feet of humanity. Augustine (388-395)(1964: 33). 167).
[73] Foulkes (1989: 55).
[74] Foulkes (1989: 55).
[75] Plantinga (1982: 166).
Chenonceau, France
Chenonceau, France
Chateau, Les Halles France
ANDERSON, RAY S. (2001) The Shape of Practical Theology, Downers Grove, Illinois, InterVarsity Press.
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 (421)(1998) Enchiridion, Translated by J.F. Shaw, Denver, The Catholic Encyclopedia.
BERKOUWER, G.C. (1962) Man: The Image of God, Grand Rapids, W.M.B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996) Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford, University, Press.
BLOESCH, DONALD G. (1987) Freedom for Obedience, San Francisco, Harper and Rowe Publishers.
BRUCE, F.F. (1985)(1996) Romans, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
CALVIN, JOHN (1539)(1998) The Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book IV, Translated by Henry Beveridge, Grand Rapids, The Christian Classic Ethereal Library, Wheaton College.
CALVIN, JOHN (1543)(1996) The Bondage and Liberation of the Will, Translated by G.I. Davies, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.
ERICKSON, MILLARD (1994) Christian Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.
FEINBERG, JOHN.S. (1994) The Many Faces of Evil, Grand Rapids, Zondervan Publishing House.
FOULKES, FRANCIS (1989) Ephesians, Grand Rapids, Inter-Varsity Press.
FRANKE, JOHN R. (2005) The Character of Theology, Baker Academic, Grand Rapids.
GEISLER, NORMAN L. (1986) Predestination and Free Will, Downers Grove, Illinois, InterVarsity Press.
GRENZ, STANLEY J., DAVID GURETZKI AND CHERITH FEE NORDLING (1999) Pocket Dictionary of Theological Terms, Downers Grove, Ill., InterVarsity Press.
HICK, JOHN (1970) Evil and The God of Love, London, The Fontana Library.
HICK, JOHN (1981) Encountering Evil, Stephen T. Davis (ed.), Atlanta, John Knox Press.
KREEFT, PETER AND RONALD K. TACELLI (1994) Handbook of Christian Apologetics, Downers Grove, Illinois, InterVarsity Press.
LUTHER, MARTIN. (1525)(1972) ‘The Bondage of the Will’, in F.W. Strothmann and Frederick W. Locke (eds.), Erasmus-Luther: Discourse on Free Will, New York, Frederick Ungar Publishing Co., INC.
MURRAY, JOHN (1937-1966)(1977) Collected Writings of John Murray, Vol. 2: Select Lectures in Systematic Theology, Edinburgh, The Banner of Truth Trust.
PETERSON, MICHAEL (1982) Evil and the Christian God, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.
PINK, ARTHUR W. (1968) The Sovereignty of God, London, The Banner of Truth Trust.
PLANTINGA, ALVIN C. (1977)(2002) God, Freedom, and Evil, Grand Rapids, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
SHEDD, WILLIAM G.T. (1874-1890)(1980) Dogmatic Theology, Volume 1, Nashville, Thomas Nelson Publishers.
SHEDD, WILLIAM G.T. (1874-1890)(1980) Dogmatic Theology, Volume 2, Nashville, Thomas Nelson Publishers.
WHALE, J.S. (1958) Christian Doctrine, Glasgow, Fontana Books.
END
2. False Prophecy
I saw two of these signs locally today, finally.
As I stated on Facebook. I reason this represents false prophecy. It is from Harold Camping of Family Radio, California. By the way, I use Facebook to socialize and to promote my blogs and have no strong interest in blogging there as well, but ended up in a fairly long discussion which I liked. But, in general, two theology/philosophy blogs with Blogger is enough.:) So, if you like something I state on Facebook in regard to one of topics, thank you very kindly, I like all the comments. But if you would like a long discussion, may I ask that you please comment on one of the Blogger blogs, thekingpin68 or satire and theology, thank you. I accept anonymous comments.
In this rare case a friend wanted me to publicly make a comment because the billboard signs were local and very public and so I posted on Facebook prior to Blogger, but I really do not want to start blogging on Facebook as well, the term 'Get a life' comes to mind.;)
Matthew 24: 34: 41 NASB
34"Truly I say to you, (AS) this generation will not pass away until all these things take place.
35"(AT)Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will not pass away.
36"But (AU) of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone.
37"For the (AV) coming of the Son of Man will be (AW) just like the days of Noah.
38"For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, (AX) marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that (AY)Noah entered the ark,
39and they did not understand until the flood came and took them all away; so will the (AZ) coming of the Son of Man be.
40"Then there will be two men in the field; one will be taken and one will be left.
41"(BA) Two women will be grinding at the (BB) mill; one will be taken and one will be left.
Also in Matthew 24: 24, Jesus warned against false Christs and false prophets that would show great signs and wonders, and if possible even mislead the elect.
I saw two of these signs locally today, finally.
As I stated on Facebook. I reason this represents false prophecy. It is from Harold Camping of Family Radio, California. By the way, I use Facebook to socialize and to promote my blogs and have no strong interest in blogging there as well, but ended up in a fairly long discussion which I liked. But, in general, two theology/philosophy blogs with Blogger is enough.:) So, if you like something I state on Facebook in regard to one of topics, thank you very kindly, I like all the comments. But if you would like a long discussion, may I ask that you please comment on one of the Blogger blogs, thekingpin68 or satire and theology, thank you. I accept anonymous comments.
In this rare case a friend wanted me to publicly make a comment because the billboard signs were local and very public and so I posted on Facebook prior to Blogger, but I really do not want to start blogging on Facebook as well, the term 'Get a life' comes to mind.;)
Matthew 24: 34: 41 NASB
34"Truly I say to you, (AS) this generation will not pass away until all these things take place.
35"(AT)Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will not pass away.
36"But (AU) of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone.
37"For the (AV) coming of the Son of Man will be (AW) just like the days of Noah.
38"For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, (AX) marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that (AY)Noah entered the ark,
39and they did not understand until the flood came and took them all away; so will the (AZ) coming of the Son of Man be.
40"Then there will be two men in the field; one will be taken and one will be left.
41"(BA) Two women will be grinding at the (BB) mill; one will be taken and one will be left.
Also in Matthew 24: 24, Jesus warned against false Christs and false prophets that would show great signs and wonders, and if possible even mislead the elect.
Without compatibilism in my view, incompatibilism and free will theory is left with the problem of explaining how human corruption and Plantinga’s transworld depravity will not prevent the salvation of persons and the completed and finalized Kingdom of God.
ReplyDeleteHello Russ,
In the above paragraph are you referring to the 1000 year reign? If you are referring to the 1000 year reign then this could be understood, because Christ will be ruling with a rod of iron (no physical sin would be allowed, but it does not mean that some will not sin in thier heart)
In the finalized Kingdom there will be no sin in this earth because it will only be filled with those who accepted the work of the cross and know Jesus as thier personal Lord and Savior...There will be no sin.. and we will be back to the beginning when all was perfect and there will be no tempter to tempt us to sin for he will be in the lake of fire with his angels.
Tammy :)
Hello and thanks Tamela.
ReplyDeleteThis is past the millennium as well.
The transformation of the human beings in Christ with election Epheshians 1, Romans 8, will be culminated in resurrection, 1 Corinthians 15 and bodies will be raised in glory.
Persons will be guided by the Spirit not to sin (or fall), a form of compatibilism.
Found a couple interesting comments on Facebook today:
ReplyDelete"In addition to the outward general call to salvation, which is made to everyone who hears the Gospel, the Holy Spirit extends to the elect a special inward call that inevitably brings them to salvation. The external call (which is made to all without distinction) can be, and often is, rejected; whereas the internal call (which is made only to the elect) cannot be rejected; it always results in conversion. By means of this special call the Spirit irresistibly draws sinners to Christ. He is not limited in His work of applying salvation to man's will, nor is He dependent on man's cooperation for success. The Spirit graciously causes the elect sinner to cooperate, to believe, to repent, to come freely and willingly to Christ. God's grace, therefore, is invincible; it never fails to result in the salvation of those to whom it is extended." (H. Wayne House)
"A dead person cannot respond to a call. Effectual calling is the first process of conversion. That's why God gets all of the credit." (comment by a Facebook Friend of a Facebook Friend)
In general, within Reformed theology.
ReplyDeleteThanks, Jeff.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b9acwNHKvoo&feature=related
ReplyDeleteThanks, Walter. Here is what you posted.
ReplyDeleteCamping
Persons will be guided by the Spirit not to sin (or fall), a form of compatibilism.
ReplyDeleteI understand this if this was the millenium.. But in the finalized Kingdom of God we will not be left with our corrupt bodies of sin/sinful nature for we will have already been given a glorified body. All things as i have stated are made perfect and brand new again and there will be no tempter to tempt for satan and his dominions will be thrown into the lake of fire.
Obrigada pela visita em meu blog. Uma excelente semana. Abraços
ReplyDeleteHuman beings in Christ will still be only finitely perfectly good however, meaning that a fall would still be technically possible, unlike God that is infinitely perfectly good and cannot fall.
ReplyDeleteTherefore Christians would be maintained by the Holy Spirit in a form of compatibilism.
Cheers, Tamela.:)
Chris, thanks and may you have an excellent week as well.
ReplyDeleteThanks Russ,
ReplyDeleteplease give the scripture which brings you to this conclusion..
Tammy :)
Created human beings are limited/finite.
ReplyDeleteCreated human being have limited goodness.
Created human beings can be corrupted.
Created human beings were corrupted as in Adam and Eve in Genesis 3. They were deceived by the serpent but also by their own hearts.
With the resurrected bodies of 1 Corinthians 15, that are spiritual and physical, it could be suggested that humanity in Christ will be more powerful than it was in the Garden. Therefore, hypothetically, if there was a fall, which there will not be, it could be worse than the original human one.
I conclude:
God will guarantee that his culminated Kingdom is free from another fall, from the problem of evil as in Revelation 21-22, through the use of compatibilism/soft determinism of persons via the Holy Spirit and the work of Christ done previously.
Thanks, Tamela.;)
They were deceived by the serpent "but also by their own hearts".
ReplyDeleteEve was deceived by the serpent not Adam (Gen. 3).. Adam was tempted to sin and gave in to the temptation and sinned all the while "knowing" that he was in disobedience. Thus man went from being infinite beings to finite beings (sin came into the world by one man's choice to sin..Adam)thus bringing death to the world.
With no opportunity to sin via a tempter Adam's heart would of remained pure. So i can understand what you are saying about created beings having limited goodness but only if there is sin opportunity via a tempter.
But this second time around there will not be a tempter thus there will not be given an opportunity to sin. Because to sin there must be evil in the world, thus there will be no need for compatibilism/soft determination.
Tammy :)
Tamela, I am sorry, you need some help in the philosophy department here. Only God is infinite, and only God can possibly be infinite.
ReplyDeleteHuman beings can have everlasting life, meaning a being with beginning, with no ending.
This is a finite being.
God has eternal life with no beginning and no ending, this is because he is infinite.
The confusion arises in New Testament Greek because the word for everlasting/eternal is the same, but the meaning different. I have done two posts on this blog on eternal/everlasting which can be found in archives.
Also, Adam and Eve are tempted to do what already exists in the heart already.
You are falling into some standard evangelical free will snares. Can I kindly suggest you read...
CALVIN, JOHN (1543)(1996) The Bondage and Liberation of the Will, Translated by G.I. Davies, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.
So, my argument stands.
Thanks, Tamela.;)
I just checked out the we can know site. did not have much time to look it over, so what happens after that can comes and goes and were still here, Then they will be exposed as false morons.
ReplyDeleteGood point, Rick.
ReplyDeleteLet us hope I can find something to post on his excuses!
Via Facebook:
Paul Carden, formerly of CRI now of AC/FAR states on his blog:
AC/FAR
'Harold Camping, the head of the international Family Radio broadcasting empire, is predicting the end of the world for May 21, 2011. (He previously stirred controversy by declaring that 1994 would bring the end of the world and mark the coming of Christ, and by announcing “the end of the church age” in early 2002.)
Camping is taking his latest prophecy around the globe, with a special emphasis on Africa. According to one recently published article, “Family Radio is searching for people who can help them expand their range of broadcast languages. Included in the proposed new mix are Arabic, Armenian, Creole and Khmer. By far the largest component on the list, though, is African languages—and especially South African languages. If Family Radio is successful, listeners will soon be able to hear about the imminent Second Coming of Christ in Sindebele, Northern Sotho, Sesotho, Shona, SiSwati, Tswana, Xhosa and Zulu.” Billboards promoting the false prophet’s message have been placed in Lesotho (above), Tanzania, Ethiopia, and Ghana.
Pray with us that evangelical churches across Africa will actively resist this latest abuse of Camping’s media platform—and help believers to “Test everything. Hold on to the good. Avoid every kind of evil” (1 Thess. 5:21–22).'
While individual false prophets like Harold Camping have come and gone, the Jehovah's Witnesses are the only existing worldwide religious organization formed (in the 1880s) for the sole purpose of preaching that Jesus Christ had already returned in 1874 -- invisibly and secretly to everyone except followers of the WatchTower Society.
ReplyDeleteHere is the internet's BEST and most brief historical summary of the Jehovah's Witnesses -- who are an offshoot of the Adventists:
http://jwemployees.bravehost.com/JWInfo/1001.html
The following webpage explains how the Jehovah's Witnesses worldwide preaching work fulfills Jesus Christ's warning to his followers -- as recorded in Matthew 24 -- that while some false prophets would predict the time of His Second Advent, that a certain False Prophet also would proclaim that He had already returned, and only that False Prophet knew when and where:
http://jwbookstore.bravehost.com/books/signtimes.html
'While individual false prophets like Harold Camping have come and gone, the Jehovah's Witnesses are the only existing worldwide religious organization formed (in the 1880s) for the sole purpose of preaching that Jesus Christ had already returned in 1874 -- invisibly and secretly to everyone except followers of the WatchTower Society.'
ReplyDelete1. Matthew 24: 29:31 states:
29"But immediately after the (AI)tribulation of those days (AJ)THE SUN WILL BE DARKENED, AND THE MOON WILL NOT GIVE ITS LIGHT, AND (AK)THE STARS WILL FALL from the sky, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken.
30"And then (AL)the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see (AM)the SON OF MAN COMING ON THE CLOUDS OF THE SKY with power and great glory.
31"And (AN)He will send forth His angels with (AO)A GREAT TRUMPET and THEY WILL GATHER TOGETHER His (AP)elect from (AQ)the four winds, from one end of the sky to the other.
Whether these verses are taken plain literally or somewhat figurative literally, the conclusion should be drawn...
The Second Advent is visible.
2. The Watchtower Society has no realistic way of demonstrating an invisible, non-Biblical return of Christ.
3. Ankerberg and Weldon state the Watchtower initially taught that Christ returned in 1874, but the date was later changed to 1914. As Christ was supposedly resurrected as a spirit creature he has no physical body and his second coming was invisible. Ankerberg and Weldon (1999: 144).
Throughout the text Ankerberg and Weldon demonstrate how from 1877 to 1979, the Watchtower at least suggested the end could be at hand in regard to Armageddon. Ankerberg and Weldon (1999: 176: 180).
I reason such specific suggestions/notions are not directly supported by Scripture.
ANKERBERG, JOHN AND JOHN WELDON (1999) Encyclopedia of Cults and New Religions, Eugene, Oregon, Harvest House Publishers.
Thank you for your comment.
I support a Reformed, Biblical take on Scripture.
Hello, Russel! Thanks for visiting my blog. I will follow your posts as frequently as I can...I think they´ll help me to improove my christian lecture. Have a nice day!
ReplyDeleteI'm sorry Russ but i will kindly decline the philosophy help (Col. 2:8),(1 Cor. 2). For i believe you have fallen into the philosophical snare of reason and intellectualism.
ReplyDeleteMay i suggest that you look more to trying to understand the Bible via the guidance of the Holy Spirit instead of relying so much on man and his intellect and philosophical teachings, and depend more on and trust the Holy Spirit to teach you. This way you might be able to list more scripture to back up what you are saying, instead of listing mans writings. That is the least you can do if you are going to write about God and the Bible.
I'm sure that you truly beleive that i haven't a clue the difference between infinite and everlasting. You seem to never specifically address my questions or statements with any Biblical references, you go around them.
Also in my studies i have read some of Calvin's writings and i disagree with his stand. I am not one of those weak women in the Bible that listens to anyone that would try and teach me (2Tim 3:7).
I don't mean to offend you Russ, for i can appreciate your studies and all the learning that you have acquired. I do not have all the answers, and i hope that you could say that as well about yourself.
So my argument stands, i will have to agree to disagree on your stand until you or someone else via the Holy Spirit can teach me differently or the Holy Spirit Himself teaches me differently.
Tammy :)
Hi! How are you? So long, i haven´t seen you ( please, sorry my english).
ReplyDeleteIt´s a beautiful pictures! "Congrats" for your blog.
Kisses
Hello, Tammy:)
ReplyDeleteColossians 2:8 NASB
'8(T)See to it that no one takes you captive through (U)philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the (V)elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ.'
Corinthians 2:14 NASB
14But a (A)natural man (B)does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are (C)foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised.
Philosophy is an academic discipline.
There is wrong philosophy.
There is right philosophy.
There is philosophy of religion.
There are Christian studies.
Conclusion
Philosophy of religion can be beneficial for truth within Christian studies.
Further
Of course a conclusion could be made that it is not beneficial for truth within Christian studies, but my point stands.
The reality is that each is true in some cases. The same could be stated for theology.
'May i suggest that you look more to trying to understand the Bible via the guidance of the Holy Spirit…’
You are countering with a spiritualized answer rather than simply admitting you may not be educated enough, on this particular topic. Tamela.
You do fine on many other topics. This is a very technical topic, I respect you for trying and many academics disagree on it. That is why I suggest you read the Calvin/Bondage/Will book.
The fact is we both trust in the guidance of the Holy Spirit, but I have 20 years of academic study under my belt, and 12 plus years in this specific area of free will/determinism.
Your view was not backed up strongly by Scripture, theology, or philosophy.
I was passed with MPhil and PhD degrees because I could tie the views to Scripture.
And I do not only follow 'men' and their writing, I do quote Scripture.
I go the New Testament Greek on several posts.
The fact I do not agree with you should not mean you assume I do not rely in the Holy Spirit properly. Especially, when I go to the Bible.
Conclusion:
I think you have a problem with Reformed theology in some respects, which is represented by my view.
'I'm sure that you truly beleive that i haven't a clue the difference between infinite and everlasting. You seem to never specifically address my questions or statements with any Biblical references, you go around them.'
With the first point I am not sure. No strong view. With the second point, wrong. I do my best to answer your questions.
'Also in my studies i have read some of Calvin's writings and i disagree with his stand. I am not one of those weak women in the Bible that listens to anyone that would try and teach me (2Tim 3:7).'
I do not agree with everything he teaches, but I would like you to consider his view on free will and determinism. Notice I call myself Reformed and not a Calvinist. Yes I do hold to TULIP, but I am basically a Reformed Baptist theologically.
'I don't mean to offend you Russ, for i can appreciate your studies and all the learning that you have acquired. I do not have all the answers, and i hope that you could say that as well about yourself.'
You know I have admitted on my blogs that I do not know everything.
And yet you won't read Calvin's book on the topic?
The Holy Spirit does at times use others and academic learning as part of the teaching process.
Lord, I pray that Tamela and I will just find some common ground here in Christ. In Jesus' name, amen. Thank you for Tammy's support.
Thanks, Tamela
Russ:)
'Hello, Russel! Thanks for visiting my blog. I will follow your posts as frequently as I can...I think they´ll help me to improove my christian lecture. Have a nice day!'
ReplyDeleteThanks, Dani.
Your blog looks good. I am glad I can assist.
Thanks, Ana.
ReplyDeleteYour blog still looks good as well.:)
thank you for your reply Russ.
ReplyDeleteBut You are countering with a spiritualized answer rather than simply admitting you may not be educated enough, on this particular topic. Tamela.
I could say the same about you Russ only that you counter with an educated answer because you have not spiritual understanding.
i will admit that i have alot to still learn, because just when a man thinks he knows and has understanding he finds he knows nothing, and knowledge puffs up but love edifies. (1 Cor.8:1-2).
I will pray in agreement your prayer for us.
Tammy :)
'I could say the same about you Russ only that you counter with an educated answer because you have not spiritual understanding.'
ReplyDeleteSince I quoted plenty of Scripture in context, and I claim a trust in the Lord of the Bible, there is no basis to assume, from my presentation, I do not have spiritual understanding.
Blessings, Tamela.
France has some of the coolest-looking castles. Nice pics.
ReplyDeleteSome interesting before and after pics of Brisbane showing effect of flooding.
ReplyDeleteSeattle has a new phenomenon -- men in tights busting up fights.
ReplyDelete'France has some of the coolest-looking castles. Nice pics.'
ReplyDeleteAgreed.
It also has some lovely greenery and landscapes, the Alps, rolling hills and the French Riviera.
I have been to France twice.
Devastation in Brisbane.
ReplyDeleteWe live quite close to the Fraser River here, and we have been spared from similar disaster.
'Seattle has a new phenomenon -- men in tights busting up fights.'
ReplyDeleteI am thekingpin already, having been named by Bobby Buff, but even with taking the title of Dr. Kingpin, I still have no interest in wearing tights in public (or private).
Thanks, Cardinal Chucklins
My wife went to Chenonceau many years ago. It was our 15th anniversary.
ReplyDeleteI usually think of there only being two options, predestination (sovereignty?) or free-will, ... or some hybrid of these two. Am I right to view the soul-making one as a completely distinct view? And are there other distinct views?
'My wife went to Chenonceau many years ago. It was our 15th anniversary.'
ReplyDeleteNice. Class.
'I usually think of there only being two options, predestination (sovereignty?) or free-will, ... or some hybrid of these two.'
Reasonable. I hold to a limited free will position, in that one chooses within his/her nature, in our case fallen state in need of God's spiritual guidance, as secondary cause, God being primary cause. I do not hold to force/coercion and hard determinism. So, yes with that point and others free will and sovereignty would be related.
The free will and sovereignty perspectives are also both orthodox within conservative Biblical Christianity, whereas the soul-making view with its universalism would not be.
'Am I right to view the soul-making one as a completely distinct view?
Mainly yes. However, both myself and another student writing on the subject at Wales, Lampeter both admitted, and he was Reformed as well, that soul-making was an aspect of God's plan, but not how Hick mainly defined it. A sovereignty theodicy can hold to soul development.
And are there other distinct views?'
I am sure there are other views within Islam for example, and Hinduism. There could be views that deny the existence of evil. There are of course views written against theodicy, so anti-theodicy. My atheistic praxis deals with that somewhat.
Thanks, Looney;)
Video: The Pelagian Captivity of the Church - R.C. Sproul
ReplyDeleteThank you, Jeff. Helpful. From my archives:
ReplyDeleteArminianism and Free Will
Edited:
Pelagianism
It must be noted that Arminianism is not Pelagianism. Pelagianism believes that human beings can achieve salvation from their own powers. It is believed that human beings can choose in free will, good or evil. Original sin was a bad example, and not inherited. Yarnold (1999: 435).
YARNOLD, E.J. (1999) 'Pelagianism', in Alan Richardson and John Bowden (eds.), A New Dictionary of Christian Theology, Kent, SCM Press Ltd.
This blog also has some archived posts on atonement.