Natural Evils (PhD Edit)
Preface
20110313 article from my PhD work with revisions for a posting for academia.edu, 20240520
Augustine’s Perspective
Philip L. Quinn (1996) defines natural evils as the bad consequences of impersonal forces operating in nature, and this is a good secular definition.[1] Feinberg explains the concept of natural evils is often considered to be missing from Augustine’s theodicy;[2] however, ideas taken from Augustine can shed light on his leanings.[3] Feinberg notes the fact Augustine does not deal specifically with natural evils is not a devastating problem. To Feinberg, Augustine’s work is successful because the free will theodicy is logically presented without contradiction, and solves the moral problem of evil presented within Augustine’s work. It accomplishes its purpose as natural evil is not the same as moral evil, and Augustine does not need to deal with natural evils in order for his theodicy to be successful. Augustine wrote that humanity is in bondage to the prince of the world, Satan, who makes people subject to him through persuasion.[4] Augustine understood humanity as losing its dominion over creation,[5] and that dominion has been awarded substantially to Satan who he calls the prince of this world.[6] Feinberg points out that natural evils are not specifically explained by Augustine.[7] Natural evils will be discussed further in this Chapter in the context of Plantinga.
Saturday, September 19, 2020: PhD Full Version PDF: Theodicy and Practical Theology 2010, Wales TSD
Plantinga’s Perspective
Plantinga, although a modern philosopher, postulated the existence of satanic beings that were involved in causing the problem of evil.[8] He emphasized cautiously that significantly free actions of non-human persons/devils were quite possibly responsible for natural evils,[9] so his theory would be in line with basic assumptions of Augustine, and were likely influenced by Augustine.[10] Certainly, such beings as devils would be difficult, if not impossible, to prove empirically.[11] However, it seems Augustine’s and Plantinga’s beliefs that demonic beings could be involved in natural evils are plausible for at least the following reasons: (1) If material human beings were made significantly free[12] and rebelled against an immaterial God[13] then it is logical and reasonable God could create significantly free immaterial beings[14] that could rebel against him. (2) A traditional approach to Biblical interpretation tends to lead to an acceptance of the existence of satanic beings.[15] Erickson explains these beings are understood as Biblical, literal, and historical.[16] Roman Catholic scholar Peter Kreeft, working with Ronald K. Tacelli, states Satan is a deceiver of humanity,[17] and this implies the assumption that Satan has personality.[18] There is of course a debate between those of traditional conservative perspectives and those of liberal, progressive, mainline perspectives on the existence of satanic beings.[19] It would be far beyond the scope of this thesis to exhaustively debate the strengths and weaknesses of arguments of both sides.[20] The conservative, traditional position claims that the context of the Scripture allows for Satan and his demons to be understood as literal, historical beings, and referencing Greek scholars such as Strong,[21] which was done previously, allows this as an academic and intellectual possibility.[22]
Plantinga’s Perspective
Plantinga, although a modern philosopher, postulated the existence of satanic beings that were involved in causing the problem of evil.[8] He emphasized cautiously that significantly free actions of non-human persons/devils were quite possibly responsible for natural evils,[9] so his theory would be in line with basic assumptions of Augustine, and were likely influenced by Augustine.[10] Certainly, such beings as devils would be difficult, if not impossible, to prove empirically.[11] However, it seems Augustine’s and Plantinga’s beliefs that demonic beings could be involved in natural evils are plausible for at least the following reasons: (1) If material human beings were made significantly free[12] and rebelled against an immaterial God[13] then it is logical and reasonable God could create significantly free immaterial beings[14] that could rebel against him. (2) A traditional approach to Biblical interpretation tends to lead to an acceptance of the existence of satanic beings.[15] Erickson explains these beings are understood as Biblical, literal, and historical.[16] Roman Catholic scholar Peter Kreeft, working with Ronald K. Tacelli, states Satan is a deceiver of humanity,[17] and this implies the assumption that Satan has personality.[18] There is of course a debate between those of traditional conservative perspectives and those of liberal, progressive, mainline perspectives on the existence of satanic beings.[19] It would be far beyond the scope of this thesis to exhaustively debate the strengths and weaknesses of arguments of both sides.[20] The conservative, traditional position claims that the context of the Scripture allows for Satan and his demons to be understood as literal, historical beings, and referencing Greek scholars such as Strong,[21] which was done previously, allows this as an academic and intellectual possibility.[22]
Greek scholar, Walter Bauer (1979) in agreement with Strong,[23] describes ‘Satan’ or ‘Satanas’ as the Adversary, enemy of God and those who belong to God.[24] Bauer goes on to note that Revelation, Chapter 2, verse 13, is describing Satan as persecuting the Church.[25] It appears by studying the Greek copies of the New Testament and assuming a type of contextual, literal hermeneutical method of examining Scripture, it is possible to view satanic beings as literal and historical beings,[26] and this makes Augustine’s and Plantinga’s deduction that satanic beings may be involved in natural evils as at least an intellectual possibility to consider academically.[27] The liberal, progressive, mainline perspectives can point out that there is no empirical evidence for such satanic beings,[28] and that it is not a satisfactory explanation for evil.[29] I can also understand how some within a mainline tradition in the post Enlightenment era,[30] would view it as more beneficial to deal with the empirical human problem of evil,[31] as opposed to a hypothetical satanic one.[32] Erickson writes that it would be wrong to too quickly credit physical and psychological phenomena with satanic beings.[33] I agree with this assertion and the human problem of evil should be the main focus of Christian churches and ministries as opposed to a possible satanic problem.[34]
[1] Quinn (1996: 610).
[2] Feinberg (1994: 58).
[3] Augustine (388-395)(1964: 111).
[4] Augustine (388-395)(1964: 111).
[5] Augustine (388-395)(1964: 111).
[6] Augustine (388-395)(1964: 111).
[7] Feinberg (1994: 58). Feinberg (1994: 80).
[8] Plantinga (1977)(2002: 58). The existence of satanic beings are a logical possibility for Plantinga.
[9] Plantinga (1977)(2002: 58).
[10] Plantinga (1977)(2002: 58). Augustine (388-395)(1964: 111). Natural evils for Plantinga could be caused by immoral actions of superhuman fallen angels.
[11] Phillips documents the idea that Plantinga does at times demonstrate a desire to deal with the problem of evil practically and not just with abstract philosophy. Phillips (2005: 56). Plantinga’s comments on natural evils may be an indicator that he at least intellectually can admit that empirical natural evils are a serious concrete problem.
[12] As within both theistic compatibilism and incompatibilism.
[13] God is spirit, as noted in John 4: 24. Erickson (1994: 267).
[14] Sharing God’s immaterial nature.
[15] Within that Biblical worldview which accepts the possibility of fallen angels, for Plantinga natural evils are as compatible with the existence of God as are moral evils.
[16] Erickson (1994: 445-451).
[17] Kreeft and Tacelli (1994: 294).
[18] Kreeft and Tacelli (1994: 294).
[19] Richardson (1999: 521-522).
[20] Richardson (1999: 521-522).
[21] Strong (1890)(1986: 152).
[22] Strong (1890)(1986: 152).
[23] Strong (1890)(1986: 152).
[24] Bauer (1979: 744).
[25] Bauer (1979: 745).
[26] Strong (1890)(1986: 152). Bauer (1979: 744).
[27] Augustine (388-395)(1964: 111).
[28] Richardson (1999: 521-522).
[29] Richardson (1999: 521-522).
[30] Richardson (1999: 521-522).
[31] And to deal with everyday human problems based in science and psychology, along with Scripture.
[32] Richardson suggests demonic beings provide a pictorial description of evil in the universe. Richardson (1999: 521-522). Demonic beings would serve as metaphor.
[33] Erickson (1994: 450).
[34] I therefore do not hold to a fundamentalistic position on demonology. In other words, I am not ‘looking for Satan around every corner.’
Additional, March 13, 2011
Augustine and Plantinga have some good points. I grant in light of the book of Job for example that God willingly allows/wills demonic beings to participate in certain evil acts.
I tend to reason the laws of universe have remained the same since before the fall, but that is a deduction. Romans 8 speaks of in verse 20 creation being subject to futility. Mounce states the universe was frustrated by Adam's sin and there needs to be a new heaven and new earth of 2 Peter 3 and Revelation 21. Mounce (1995: 184-185). In this sense, at least, because of human sin the present universe is corrupted. Therefore, natural evils effect human beings harshly because persons are subject to death and decay because of the fall of Genesis 3.
I reason Quinn's definition is not incorrect if one sees impersonal forces as natural forces in scientific terms. Therefore, I would tend to generally place most Natural Evils in the category of natural forces due to the laws of the nature that overpower human beings subject to suffering, death and decay, as opposed to from Satanic beings, while always allowing that as a possibility as is a combination.
BRUCE, F.F. (1987) Romans, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
[1] Quinn (1996: 610).
[2] Feinberg (1994: 58).
[3] Augustine (388-395)(1964: 111).
[4] Augustine (388-395)(1964: 111).
[5] Augustine (388-395)(1964: 111).
[6] Augustine (388-395)(1964: 111).
[7] Feinberg (1994: 58). Feinberg (1994: 80).
[8] Plantinga (1977)(2002: 58). The existence of satanic beings are a logical possibility for Plantinga.
[9] Plantinga (1977)(2002: 58).
[10] Plantinga (1977)(2002: 58). Augustine (388-395)(1964: 111). Natural evils for Plantinga could be caused by immoral actions of superhuman fallen angels.
[11] Phillips documents the idea that Plantinga does at times demonstrate a desire to deal with the problem of evil practically and not just with abstract philosophy. Phillips (2005: 56). Plantinga’s comments on natural evils may be an indicator that he at least intellectually can admit that empirical natural evils are a serious concrete problem.
[12] As within both theistic compatibilism and incompatibilism.
[13] God is spirit, as noted in John 4: 24. Erickson (1994: 267).
[14] Sharing God’s immaterial nature.
[15] Within that Biblical worldview which accepts the possibility of fallen angels, for Plantinga natural evils are as compatible with the existence of God as are moral evils.
[16] Erickson (1994: 445-451).
[17] Kreeft and Tacelli (1994: 294).
[18] Kreeft and Tacelli (1994: 294).
[19] Richardson (1999: 521-522).
[20] Richardson (1999: 521-522).
[21] Strong (1890)(1986: 152).
[22] Strong (1890)(1986: 152).
[23] Strong (1890)(1986: 152).
[24] Bauer (1979: 744).
[25] Bauer (1979: 745).
[26] Strong (1890)(1986: 152). Bauer (1979: 744).
[27] Augustine (388-395)(1964: 111).
[28] Richardson (1999: 521-522).
[29] Richardson (1999: 521-522).
[30] Richardson (1999: 521-522).
[31] And to deal with everyday human problems based in science and psychology, along with Scripture.
[32] Richardson suggests demonic beings provide a pictorial description of evil in the universe. Richardson (1999: 521-522). Demonic beings would serve as metaphor.
[33] Erickson (1994: 450).
[34] I therefore do not hold to a fundamentalistic position on demonology. In other words, I am not ‘looking for Satan around every corner.’
Additional, March 13, 2011
Augustine and Plantinga have some good points. I grant in light of the book of Job for example that God willingly allows/wills demonic beings to participate in certain evil acts.
I tend to reason the laws of universe have remained the same since before the fall, but that is a deduction. Romans 8 speaks of in verse 20 creation being subject to futility. Mounce states the universe was frustrated by Adam's sin and there needs to be a new heaven and new earth of 2 Peter 3 and Revelation 21. Mounce (1995: 184-185). In this sense, at least, because of human sin the present universe is corrupted. Therefore, natural evils effect human beings harshly because persons are subject to death and decay because of the fall of Genesis 3.
I reason Quinn's definition is not incorrect if one sees impersonal forces as natural forces in scientific terms. Therefore, I would tend to generally place most Natural Evils in the category of natural forces due to the laws of the nature that overpower human beings subject to suffering, death and decay, as opposed to from Satanic beings, while always allowing that as a possibility as is a combination.
Additional, May 20, 2024
Greek scholar, Walter Bauer (1979) in agreement with Strong,[23] describes ‘Satan’ or ‘Satanas’ as the Adversary, enemy of God and those who belong to God.[24] Bauer goes on to note that Revelation, Chapter 2, verse 13, is describing Satan as persecuting the Church.[25]
Again, Bauer writes that σαταν and σατανᾶς (744) is literally the adversary. In the original writing of my PhD thesis which was within a Theology Department, using mainly philosophical theology (Theology) and philosophy of religion (Philosophy), I was advised against using New Testament, Koine Greek as my work was technically not New Testament. Therefore, I add this information for my website.
Blue Letter Bible: Σατανᾶς
Cited
STRONGS G4567: σαταν indeclinable (2 Corinthians 12:7 R G (Tdf. in 1 Kings 11:14 accents σαταν (Lagarde leaves it unaccented))), ὁ, and ὁ σατανᾶς (i. e. with the article (except in Mark 3:23; Luke 22:3)), σατανᾶ (cf. Buttmann, 20 (18); Winer's Grammar, § 8, 1) ((Aram. סָטָנָא, stative emphatic of סָטָן.) Hebrew שָׂטָן), adversary (one who opposes another in purpose or act)
Hoffstadt Creek Bridge, Mount Saint Helens (trekearth.com). This was the original lead photo for this article on 20110313.
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.
BARCLAY, WILLIAM (1976) The Letters of James and Peter, Philadelphia, The Westminster Press.
BARCLAY, WILLIAM (1976) The Letters of James and Peter, Philadelphia, The Westminster Press.
BAUER, W. (1979) A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, Translated by Eric H. Wahlstrom, Chicago, The University of Chicago Press.
BRUCE, F.F. (1987) Romans, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
CRANFIELD, C.E.B. (1992) Romans: A Shorter Commentary, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
DUNN, JAMES D.G. (1988) Romans, Dallas, Word Books.
ERICKSON, MILLARD (1994) Christian Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.
FEINBERG, JOHN.S. (1994) The Many Faces of Evil, Grand Rapids, Zondervan Publishing House.
HOEHNER, HAROLD, ThD, PhD (1985) The Epistle To The Romans, Institute of Theological Studies. (Audio)
FEINBERG, JOHN.S. (1994) The Many Faces of Evil, Grand Rapids, Zondervan Publishing House.
HOEHNER, HAROLD, ThD, PhD (1985) The Epistle To The Romans, Institute of Theological Studies. (Audio)
KREEFT, PETER AND RONALD K. TACELLI (1994) Handbook of Christian Apologetics, Downers Grove, Illinois, InterVarsity Press.
MOUNCE, ROBERT H. (1995) The New American Commentary: Romans, Nashville, Broadman & Holman Publishers.
PAYNE DAVID F.(1986) ‘2 Peter’, in F.F. Bruce, (ed.), The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Marshall Pickering/Zondervan.
MOUNCE, ROBERT H. (1995) The New American Commentary: Romans, Nashville, Broadman & Holman Publishers.
PAYNE DAVID F.(1986) ‘2 Peter’, in F.F. Bruce, (ed.), The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Marshall Pickering/Zondervan.
PHILLIPS, D.Z. (2005) The Problem of Evil and the Problem of God, Fortress Press, Minneapolis.
PLANTINGA, ALVIN.C. (1977)(2002) God, Freedom, and Evil, Grand Rapids, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
PLANTINGA, ALVIN.C. (1982) The Nature of Necessity, Oxford, Clarendon Press.
QUINN, PHILIP L. (1996) ‘Philosophy of Religion’, Robert Audi (ed.), in The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
RICHARDSON, ALAN (1999) ‘Satan’, in Alan Richardson and John Bowden (eds.), A New Dictionary of Christian Theology, Kent, SCM Press Ltd.
STRONG, J. (1890)(1986) Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, Pickering, Ontario, Welch Publishing Company.
PLANTINGA, ALVIN.C. (1977)(2002) God, Freedom, and Evil, Grand Rapids, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
PLANTINGA, ALVIN.C. (1982) The Nature of Necessity, Oxford, Clarendon Press.
QUINN, PHILIP L. (1996) ‘Philosophy of Religion’, Robert Audi (ed.), in The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
RICHARDSON, ALAN (1999) ‘Satan’, in Alan Richardson and John Bowden (eds.), A New Dictionary of Christian Theology, Kent, SCM Press Ltd.
STRONG, J. (1890)(1986) Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, Pickering, Ontario, Welch Publishing Company.
Mount Saint Helens is a good start. My wife and I visited there a few years back and the signs of the eruption were still plenty evident.
ReplyDeleteThinking back, I can't recall the Stoic philosophers actually believing in "natural evils". My reading of Augustine is far from complete. Augustine's City of God, book XIX is a challenge to the philosopher's notion that the primary aim of philosophy is earthly happiness. To rebut, Augustine enumerates all the calamities that face mankind whether they be natural or man made. I don't recall that he made much of a distinction between the two.
This leaves me wondering who "owns" the concept of natural evil. Atheism doesn't believe in the concept of evil and all events are deemed natural, so it isn't theirs. Christianity asserts that God is working a good plan through everything, even if it appears on the surface to be a calamity.
'Mount Saint Helens is a good start. My wife and I visited there a few years back and the signs of the eruption were still plenty evident.'
ReplyDeleteYes, I thought of that too, but the excellent photo just happens to be on my desktop presently. One of my favourites.
As I noted, Augustine did not deal with the issue much, but Plantinga picked up on it. I am fine leaving it as I dealt with it with my addition today, with leaving room for supernatural intervention from demonic and divine powers.
'This leaves me wondering who "owns" the concept of natural evil. Atheism doesn't believe in the concept of evil and all events are deemed natural, so it isn't theirs. Christianity asserts that God is working a good plan through everything, even if it appears on the surface to be a calamity.'
Gratuitous evil is likely going to be something a potential atheist or critic may pick at, and I have dealt with that topic on this blog and in the PhD thesis. Natural evils does not seem to upset too many intellectually. I have of course dealt with the logical problem as well.
Thanks my friend in California.:)
Dear Friend,
ReplyDeleteI’ve greatly enjoyed looking through your blog. I adore your way of presentation.
I was able to get some of the information from your blog as well as by following external links from your blog.
So I have added your link in My Blogroll section. Please check it. If any changes has to be made please mail me. I would be glad if you could provide a link.
It would be great pleasure if you can add my blog. Here is my blog information:
URL: http://boutiquerings.wordpress.com/
I hope you find this link appropriate and useful. Thanks for your help and consideration.
Thanks
Alexis
Done, thank you.
ReplyDeleteReminder to Blog manager:
ReplyDeleteHOW TO BLOCK A FOLLOWER
1) Log in
2) From Blogger Dashboard, click on the text that shows the number of followers
3) Click on a follower
4) Click the block option
Not that there is any immediate need...
Benny Hinn lusts Paula White
ReplyDeleteCanadian documentary on Benny Hinn.
ReplyDelete'Reminder to Blog manager:
ReplyDeleteHOW TO BLOCK A FOLLOWER'
'Not that there is any immediate need...'
True, but there may be a need in the future, and there are some 'scary' follower images out there.
Thank you for the reminder.
'Benny Hinn lusts Paula White'
ReplyDeleteThank you to Jason for mentioning the scandal tonight...
'Canadian documentary on Benny Hinn.'
ReplyDeleteChucky linked to part 1 of 5.
So moral evil and natural evils are different in that moral evil is caused by human choice and natural evils are caused as a result of being in a fallen world and not directly from our own decisions or lifestyle choices.
ReplyDelete-Goody Two Shoes-
'So moral evil and natural evils are different in that moral evil is caused by human choice and natural evils are caused as a result of being in a fallen world and not directly from our own decisions or lifestyle choices.
ReplyDelete-Goody Two Shoes-'
Basically, thanks.
God is still the first cause of our moral choices, but that is another post (s).;)
God is primarily the first cause of natural evil (all things) as well.
Allowing for God to will all things, within that natural evil would be far more resulting from natural occurrences than from other, such as human and demonic.
I feel so dumb reading your articles... it seems after ages, the words become more strange-r to me hehe but it's good to read sensible articles again!
ReplyDeleteI feel a little dumb reading some of my stuff at times...wondering how correct it is. I revise and revise.
ReplyDeleteThank you for the compliment.
Hello Russ,
ReplyDeleteGood post Russ, you always keep me thinking.
Tammy :)
Thanks, Tammy.
ReplyDeleteThese posts allow me to think and revise as well, in Christ.
Hi, thank you for the comment in my post, it's interesting to find someone who speaks Portuguese and lives in Canada! I've just started translating my texts to English, so feel free to visit www.writesharetell.blogspot.com
ReplyDeleteI really like your pictures :) Have a nice day.
Thank you, you leave me a comment on my blog, I could read by the translator of google.
ReplyDeletereally not the autumn and winter are my favorite seasons.
More I take what I can.
Hugs
Hello Georgia,
ReplyDeleteI left a comment on your post 'Gays, lésbicas e bissexuais', but perhaps it did not publish because I left a link. It seemed to appear then disappear. Anyway, thank you for your reply. I managed to leave the comment with a second attempt minus the link.
I stated:
'Hi Georgia, this is my second attempt at the comment. I will leave the link out this time, but the post was 'No surprise this is Canada' from my thekingpin68 blog. Thanks.
Concerning a conservative and Biblical position on homosexuality, it should be considered.
Genesis 3: There was a fall of humanity
Romans 1-3: All persons are in sin
Romans 1-3: Homosexuality is one aspect of this sin
Therefore, today all persons have a corrupted nature.
Further, it is reasoned Biblically the atoning and resurrection work of Christ is the remedy to this (Ephesians 1-3, I Corinthians 15).
So, some evangelicals, for example, would be in error by simply stating homosexuality is a choice alone, but I reason the problem of evil demonstrates than human beings are corrupt and in need of salvation.
Thanks!
Blessings to you.:)'
I do not speak or write Portuguese but I am trying to promote my blogs worldwide and therefore use Yahoo! Babel Fish translation in order that I can understand a reasonable amount of the posts and not simply comment on images.;)
I have found Bloggers in Brazil, Argentina, and Spain, but especially ones from Brazil a fair amount of the time open to exchanging followings and blogging together and so that is good for blog promotion of course.
Cheers and nice to meet you.
Russ:)
'Thank you, you leave me a comment on my blog, I could read by the translator of google.
ReplyDeletereally not the autumn and winter are my favorite seasons.
More I take what I can.
Hugs'
Thank you, Carla.
I like the shades.
Wow. Those views are gorgeous. Absolutely breathtaking.
ReplyDeleteThank you, Abigail.
ReplyDeleteHi Doc,
ReplyDeleteWow I'm born and raised catholic, and I truly believe in what you say in your article. I also believe in karma, some people says maybe japan forget about God and God was just reminding them that everything is just temporary in this world. Have a good night.
Veronica of http://www.everydayfishphil.com
Thank you for the support, Veronica. Much appreciated.
ReplyDeleteBlackburn defines Karma as within Hindu and Buddhist philosophy, the universal law of cause and effect, in regard to human deeds. Blackburn (1996: 207). Deliberate good or bad deeds influence the correct direction of events that occur in a life. Blackburn (1996: 207). This can lead to the cycle of rebirth and reincarnation and it is assumed only deeds free from desire and delusion are free from no consequences. Blackburn (1996: 207).
The Bible teaches we reap what we sow, but there is also grace through faith (Ephesians 2) for those in Christ in salvation.
The Bible does not teach reincarnation, but instead there is Hebrews 9: 27:
Hebrews 9:27 (King James Version)
27And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:
Yes, Japan is quite secular and historically has non-Christian religions such as Shinto and Buddhism. But, many cultures of the world live in non-Christian philosophy.
These kind of tragic events happen to many peoples in the world.
The world is fallen (Genesis 3).
All persons die eventually.
Therefore, I personally am not willing to speculate in specific terms on the reasons why God willingly allowed these events to happen to Japan.
Calvinism Declared By The Church Fathers
ReplyDelete'Augustine (A.D. 370): "If, therefore, they are servants of sin (2 Cor. 3:17), why do they boast of free will?...O, man! Learn from the precept what you ought to do; learn from correction, that it is your own fault you have not the power...Let human effort, which perished by Adam, here be silent, and let the grace of God reign by Jesus Christ...What God promises, we ourselves do not through free will of human nature, but He Himself does by grace within us...Men labor to find in our own will something that is our own, and not God's; how can they find it, I know not."'
ReplyDelete'Augustine: "Of these believers no one perishes, because they were all elected. And they were elected because they were called according to the purpose--the purpose, however, not their own, but God's...Obedience then is God's gift...To this, indeed, we are not able to deny, that perseverance in good, progressing even to the end, is also a great gift of God."'
'Source: Michael Horton, Putting Amazing Back into Grace (Grand Rapids, MI Baker, 2002), Appendix.'
Cheers, Jeff
Rather excellent idea
ReplyDeleteIt is possible and necessary :) to discuss infinitely
ReplyDeleteMr. Casino,
ReplyDeleteIt is a gamble to try and post strange comments in my archives.
I moved the comments here.
Thank you for the positive words.
And how in that case it is necessary to act?
ReplyDeleteIt is not necessary to try all successively
ReplyDeleteDear Mr. Casino Royale,
ReplyDeleteHave you been drinking too much today at the roulette table? You tried to post two more silly comments in my archives and I placed them here.
Perhaps you can entertain my readers on thekingpin68 as some kind of 'drunk philosopher'.
Your idea is brilliant
ReplyDeleteThe same, infinitely
ReplyDelete'Your idea is brilliant' and 'The same, infinitely' were actually posted in the archives of satire and theology, my other academic blog.
ReplyDeleteYou changed blogs, how clever.
But sorry I am not going to let you disrupt the flow here and so I placed the comment here as well.
Perhaps you should put some visine in your eyes to counter the cigarette and cigar smoke and then take a nap.
Thanks for the fun.
Those shyster marketing types never give up...
ReplyDeleteSatan's salesmen?;)
ReplyDeletePerhaps he needs to get out of 'gamblin' debts'.
In some ways the benny hin video is funny, but it's also sad how people believe in him and follow him
ReplyDeleteAgreed. Well-stated, Rick.
ReplyDeletei love your pics
ReplyDeleteAlways appreciated my friend.:)
ReplyDelete