Vienna (Google Images)
John Hick Soul-Making Theodicy (PhD Edit)
A version of this article, with PhD footnotes added was uploaded to academia.edu on October 12 2022
Soul-Making Theodicy Definition and
Introduction
In 1966 British
philosopher of religion, John Hick, wrote his first edition of Evil and
The God of Love. Hick sees soul-making[1] as the developmental process by which human
beings become the perfected creatures that God intended.[2] This is an evolutionary process,[3] but not one that takes place naturalistically
or scientifically.[4] Soul-making is a method by which human
beings experience the problem of evil through hazardous disobedience to God and
a willful desire to commit actions that are not always pleasing to the creator.[5] Phillips writes concerning this general
type of approach, that without the existence of evil, character development
would not place.[6] For Hick, the development that
would take place in humanity was not one of gradual human improvement
throughout generations,[7] but was instead an individual process in each
and every person.[8] This type of approach allows God to
mould human character.[9] Phillips views a moral development
theory as incoherent,[10] as
it creates an immoral indulgence of human beings to self,[11] as in
their own personal development.[12] Persons
should instead be more concerned with other persons reasons Phillips.[13]
Hick
maintains the Irenean type of theodicy is a traditional perspective within the
Christian faith that existed in its earliest days.[14] Meghan
Ramsay (2004) explains that Hick attempts a theodicy within the Irenean
approach, as opposed to the Augustinian one which he calls the majority report
within Christian tradition.[15] Hick
views the approach of Irenaeus (ca.130-ca.200)[16] as the
minority report.[17] According
to John C. McDowell (2005), Hick believes that an Irenean type theodicy
distinguishes between the image of God and likeness of God.[18] Hick
writes in Evil and the God of Love that Irenaeus viewed the
image of God, which resides in the human bodily form, as representing God’s
nature allowing human beings to fellowship with their creator.[19] The
likeness of God was humanity’s final perfection by the work of God’s Holy
Spirit.[20] Irenaeus
within Against Heresies (c 175-185)(2005) did draw a
distinction between image and likeness.[21] The
image is a fixed nature within human beings[22] while
likeness varies depending on how close a person follows God.[23] Father
Anthony Zimmerman (1999) notes that to Irenaeus, the image represented the
spiritual essence of an individual, while the likeness was the sanctifying
presence in which a person became a son of God.[24]
Rejecting
the Augustinian tradition that humanity was made perfect and then rebelled
against God becoming corrupt,[25] Hick
explains in his 2001 presentation found in Encountering Evil that
the Irenean type of theodicy takes place in two phases.[26] In
phase one God creates humanity imperfect and underdeveloped.[27] They
develop over perhaps millions of years through biological evolution to possess
the image of God.[28] Once
humanity reaches a certain level of maturity they complete this stage and exist
in the image of God.[29] When
this image of God exists humanity has the potential for a relationship with
their creator.[30]
According
to Hick, within the second phase humanity becomes intelligent, ethical and
religious.[31] It
is evolving towards the likeness of God which includes achieving goodness and
personal worth.[32] In
the process of humanity becoming like God, soul-making can take place, but it
must occur with human beings possessing significant freedom away from their
creator’s direct influence.[33] Hick
deduces that human beings must have an epistemic[34] distance
from their maker in order to develop an uncoerced consciousness of God.[35] According
to R. Douglas Geivett in his 1993 book Evil and the Evidence for God, Hick
contends that if persons lived in the immediate presence of God, significant
freedom to make moral choices would be precluded and thus an epistemic distance, a
distance between God and created persons, must exist between humanity and God.[36] Hick’s
concept of epistemic distance is an important aspect of his theodicy as human
beings who possess the image of God, but an imperfect likeness, inevitably
create moral evil.[37] Epistemic
distance results in moral evil as human beings struggle within a hostile
environment apart from God’s direct rule and guidance.[38] God
is therefore not clearly and overwhelmingly evident to his creation with this
view.[39]
Hick
(1978) deduces in ‘Present and Future Life’ that once a human being
dies a conscious personality continues to exist.[40] He
concludes that for soul-making to succeed post-mortem[41] existence
must include the ability to make moral and spiritual choices.[42] Robert
Smid (1999) comments that Hick trusts all of humanity will complete their
soul-making via the afterlife, as a loving God must desire the salvation of all
people.[43] Hick
believes that since God has perfect knowledge of the human heart he, in
patience, would eventually succeed in bringing all persons in devotion to him.[44] Geivett
reasons that for Hick, the eschatological[45] fulfillment
of God’s soul-making plan must include universal perfection of every human
being made by God.[46] Hick
subscribes to universalism,[47] which
John Ankerberg and John Weldon (1999) write in Encyclopedia of Cults
and New Religions,[48] is the
theological idea that salvation is universal and therefore each person will
eventually be redeemed in heaven.[49] Kreeft
and Tacelli explain that universalism is universal salvation and has been
considered by some well known orthodox Christians over the centuries[50] as a
viable alternative to hell, although Kreeft and Tacelli reject this
alternative.[51]
Author’s Viewpoints
By
Hick’s definition,[52] my
sovereignty theodicy position would fit within the Augustinian tradition,[53] and
therefore outside of his Irenean approach.[54] In
agreement with Augustine and Feinberg,[55] I would
postulate that humanity from a traditional perspective was created in the image
and likeness of God,[56] spiritually
in tune with their creator, perfectly moral and not sinful.[57] However,
I deduce that original humanity was spiritually and morally immature, and
inexperienced.[58] As
discussed in Chapter Three, due to lack of experience with God, the initial
persons were spiritually and morally immature in relation to their creator, in
comparison to what later human beings who would experience the problem of evil,
atonement, and restoration would become in regard to spiritual
maturity. The idea of the fall from conservative and liberal views
has been discussed in Chapters Two and Three, but I would deduce that since
Genesis 3 describes this event, it is plausible a literal Adam and Eve were
initially morally perfect without sin and eventually fell in corruption.[59] It
is also possible that the somewhat metaphorical language of Genesis[60] allows
for the Adam and Eve story to be describing a fall from God’s plan for humanity
in general, and not specifically two initial persons.[61] I
do agree with Hick that some type of soul-making is an important reason for God
to willingly allow the problem of evil.[62] However,
there will be points of both agreement and disagreement on how this may be
completed by God.
My
concept of original human immaturity is not identical to Hick’s. I
accept that when in Genesis 1:26, God is said to have created humanity in his
image and likeness,[63] that this
was part of their original nature.[64] H.L.
Ellison (1986) explains that in the beginning human beings were made in God’s
image and likeness[65] in order
that they could have dominion over animal creation and have communion with God.[66] If
a literal explanation of Genesis 1:26 is accepted[67] then it
seems plausible that both the image and likeness of God were given to humanity
from the start, and I lean towards this understanding.[68] As
discussed in Chapter Two, scholars such as Fretheim, La Sor, Hubbard, and Bush
explain that Genesis is written with the use of metaphorical language and so an
interpretation such as Hick’s, that is not literal in regard to the image and
likeness of God, is an intellectual possibility.[69] Erickson
thinks that Irenaeus views the image of God as being human resemblance to the
creator with reason and will,[70] and the
likeness of God was the moral qualities of their maker.[71] This
is a reasonable understanding of Irenaeus’ view,[72] but even
if this separation between image and likeness is accepted, it is plausible that
the image and likeness occur in persons simultaneously.[73] I
would therefore theorize that original human spiritual immaturity was not due
to humanity lacking a likeness to God.[74] Rather,
original people could have been created morally perfect within what Hick calls
an Augustinian model.[75] I
subscribe to a Reformed, Calvinistic sovereignty model, and I have explained
throughout this thesis that Augustinian and Calvinistic models and traditions
are similar but not identical. These persons lacked the experience
to properly understand and comprehend the results of disobeying God and the
sort of life that would occur because of that rebellion. The first
human beings may have had little understanding of the idea that their very
nature would change if they disobeyed God. Within an Augustinian or
Calvinistic perspective it seems plausible humanity’s likeness to God was
insufficient after, but not before, the fall as they were no longer in perfect
moral communion with their God.[76]
[1] In my mind, soul-building would also be a
reasonable term for this theory.
[2] Hick (1970: 292). Phillips
discusses the similar idea of ‘Evil as Opportunities for Character
Development.’ Phillips (2005: 56).
[3] Hick (1970: 292). It is not
primarily a scientific presentation.
[4] Hick (1970: 292).
[5] Hick (1970: 292).
[6] Phillips (2005: 56).
[7] Hick (1970: 292).
[8] Hick (1970: 292).
[9] Phillips (2005: 56).
[10] Phillips (2005: 58).
[11] Phillips (2005: 58).
[12] Phillips (2005: 58).
[13] Phillips (2005: 58). In support of
Hick and my own theories of human development, I reason that spiritual building
need not be necessarily only self focused. For example, in Matthew
22 and Mark 12 Jesus tells the listener to love others as
self. Within spiritual development one could and should seek to love
and assist others.
[14] Hick (1970: 221).
[15] Ramsay (2004: 2).
[16] Ferguson (1996: 569).
[17] Ramsay (2004: 2).
[18] McDowell (2005: 1).
[19] Hick (1970: 217).
[20] Hick (1970: 217).
[21] Irenaeus (c 175-185)(2005: Book II: Chapter
34: 4). Irenaeus (c 175-185)(2005: Book II: Chapter 7: 2).
[22] Irenaeus (c 175-185)(2005: Book II: Chapter
34: 4).
[23] Irenaeus (c 175-185)(2005: Book II: Chapter
7: 2).
[24] Zimmerman (1999: 1).
[25] Hick in Davis (2001: 40-41).
[26] Hick in Davis (2001: 40-41).
[27] Hick in Davis (2001: 40-41).
[28] McDowell (2005: 1).
[29] Ramsay (2004: 2).
[30] McDowell (2005: 1).
[31] Hick in Davis (2001: 40-41).
[32] Ramsay (2004: 2).
[33] Hick in Davis (2001: 48).
[34] Epistemology is the theory of knowledge which
includes origins of knowledge and the relationship between knowledge and
reason. Blackburn (1996: 123).
[35] Hick in Davis (2001: 48). Phillips
writes this is a distance that separates God from his created
beings. Phillips (2005: 164).
[36] Geivett (1993: 36).
[37] Geivett (1993: 36).
[38] McDowell (2005: 2). Hick in Davis
(2001: 48).
[39] Phillips (2005: 165).
[40] Hick (1978: 12).
[41] After death is meant.
[42] Hick (1978: 13).
[43] Smid (1999: 12).
[44] Hick (1970: 381).
[45] Thiessen describes eschatology as the
Biblical doctrine of the last things, which includes the Second Advent, the
resurrection of humanity, final judgment from God, the millennium and the final
state of God’s creation. Thiessen (1956: 440).
[46] Geivett (1993: 36).
[47] Hick (1970: 381).
[48] The title of this text is a bit misleading as
it offers more than encyclopedia type referencing for words and concepts but
presents scholarly chapters on religious movements the authors view as cultic.
[49] Ankerberg and Weldon (1999: 503).
[50] This would, of course, provide another
opportunity for a PhD thesis.
[51] Kreeft and Tacelli (1994: 286).
[52] Hick (1970: 121-143).
[53] This would be a broad perspective from Hick’s
view. I would rather define my theodicy as Reformed as opposed to
Augustinian. This can be deduced through the reviews in Chapters Two
and Three.
[54] Hick (1970: 121-143).
[55] That have shown within this thesis to not
have identical or near identical perspectives.
[56] Genesis 1:26 states God created human beings
in both his image and likeness. The New American Standard Version Bible (1984:
2). Victor P. Hamilton in Handbook on the Pentateuch notes
three possible reasons for the writer of Genesis using these terms together:
(1) The terms image and likeness may be interchangeable, in other words
synonyms for each other. (2) The word likeness may modify the word
image. This is done to avoid the idea that man is an exact copy of
God. (3) The term likeness amplifies the term image as human beings are not
simply representative of God, but representational. Hamilton (1988:
26-27).
[57] As can be understood within Chapters Two and
Three within this thesis.
[58] Even if Adam and Eve or original persons were
made as mature adults they could not logically be made with experience as noted
within Chapter Three.
[59] Kreeft and Tacelli (1994: 133-136).
[60] Fretheim (1994: 152).
[61] Fretheim (1994: 153).
[62] Hick in Davis (2001: 51).
[63] Hamilton (1982: 26-27).
[64] Hamilton (1982: 26-27).
[65] Ellison (1986: 115). Hamilton
(1982: 26-27).
[66] Ellison (1986: 115).
[67] Hamilton (1982: 26-27).
[68] Ellison (1986: 115). Hamilton
(1982: 26-27).
[69] Fretheim (1994: 153). La Sor,
Hubbard, and Bush (1987: 72).
[70] Erickson (1994: 500-501).
[71] Erickson (1994: 500-501).
[72] Erickson (1994: 500-501). Irenaeus
(c 175-185)(2005: Book IV: Chapter 39: 2).
[73] Erickson (1994: 500-501).
[74] Hamilton (1982: 26-27). Ellison
(1986: 115).
[75] Hick (1970: 121-131).
[76] Augustine (388-395)(1964: 3). Augustine (421)(1998: Chapter 13: 8). Calvin (1539)(1998: Book II, Chapter 2, 7). Calvin (1543)(1996: 69).
Bibliography
ANKERBERG, JOHN AND JOHN WELDON (1999) Encyclopedia of Cults and New
Religions, Eugene, Oregon, Harvest House Publishers.
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.
BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996) Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford,
Oxford University Press.
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.
ELLISON, H.L. (1986) ‘Genesis’, in F.F. Bruce (ed.), The International
Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Zondervan.
ERICKSON, MILLARD (1994) Christian Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker
Book House.
FERGUSON, EVERETT (1996) ‘Irenaeus’, in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical
Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.
FRETHEIM, TERENCE E. (1985)(2005) ‘The Suffering of God:An Old Testament
Perspective’, in Theology Today, Volume 1, Number 1, Bookreview17.
Princeton, Princeton Theological Seminary.
FRETHEIM, TERENCE E. (1994) ‘Is Genesis 3 a Fall Story?’, in Word and
World, Luther Seminary, pp. 144-153. Saint Paul, Luther Seminary.
GEIVETT, R. DOUGLAS (1993) Evil and the Evidence for God,
Philadelphia, Temple University Press.
HAMILTON, VICTOR P. (1988) Handbook on the Pentateuch, Grand
Rapids, Baker Book House.
HICK, JOHN (1970) Evil and The God of Love, London, The Fontana
Library.
HICK, JOHN (1978) ‘Present and Future Life’, Harvard Theological Review,
Volume 71, Number 1-2, January-April, Harvard University.
HICK, JOHN (1981) Encountering Evil, Stephen T. Davis
(ed.), Atlanta, John Knox Press.
HICK, JOHN (1993) ‘Afterword’ in GEIVETT, R. DOUGLAS (1993) Evil and
the Evidence for God, Philadelphia, Temple University Press.
HICK, JOHN (1993) The Metaphor of God Incarnate, Louisville,
Kentucky, John Know Press.
HICK, JOHN (1994) Death and Eternal Life, Louisville, Kentucky,
John Knox Press.
HICK, JOHN (1999) ‘Life after Death’, in Alan Richardson and John Bowden
(eds.), A New Dictionary of Christian Theology, Kent, SCM Press.
IRENAEUS. (c 175-185)(1998) ‘Against Heresies’, in The Catholic
Encyclopedia, Denver, The Catholic Encyclopedia.
IRENAEUS (c 185)(2005) Proof of Apostolic Preaching, Translated by
J. Armitage Robinson, London, The Macmillan CO.
KREEFT, PETER AND RONALD K. TACELLI (1994) Handbook of Christian
Apologetics, Downers Grove, Illinois, InterVarsity Press.
LA SOR, WILLIAM SANFORD, DAVID ALLAN HUBBARD, AND FREDERIC WILLIAM BUSH.
(1987) Old Testament Survey, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans
Publishing Company.
PHILLIPS, D.Z. (1981) Encountering Evil, Stephen T. Davis (ed.), Atlanta,
John Knox Press.
PHILLIPS, D.Z. (2005) The Problem of Evil and the Problem of God,
Fortress Press, Minneapolis.
RAMSAY, MEGHAN (2004) ‘John Hick: ‘Evil and Soul Making’, in Philosophy
of Religion, (ed.), Philip A. Pecorino, Web Surfers Caveat, Suffolk,
Virginia, Philosophy of Religion.
SMID, ROBERT W. (1999) ‘John Harwood Hick, His Life’, in The Boston
Collaborative Encyclopedia of Modern Western Theology, Boston, The
Boston Collaborative Encyclopedia of Modern Western Theology.
ZIMMERMAN, ANTHONY (1999) ‘In God’s Image and Likeness’, in Lifeissues.net,
Kochi, Japan. Lifeissues.net.
Phillips writes concerning this general type of approach, that without the existence of evil, character development would not place.[6]
ReplyDeleteWithout the existence of evil, there would be no need for character development.
Phillips views a moral development theory as incoherent,[10] as it creates an immoral indulgence of human beings to self,[11] as in their own personal development.[12] Persons should instead be more concerned with other persons reasons Phillips.[13]
This reminds me that, at the judgment seat of Christ, Christians' works will be tested, as if by fire, and only those good works which were done for Christ's sake will survive, and only for what remains will Christians receive reward, and those rewards will ultimately be cast at the feet of Jesus, because without Him, salvation would not be possible in the first place.
In phase one God creates humanity imperfect and underdeveloped.[27]
It would not even seem logical for a perfect God to create something that is imperfect.
They develop over perhaps millions of years through biological evolution to possess the image of God.[28]
Such a process would glorify man, not God.
Once humanity reaches a certain level of maturity they complete this stage and exist in the image of God.[29]
This has similarities to the Mormon teaching that God is merely an evolved man.
When this image of God exists humanity has the potential for a relationship with their creator.[30]
ReplyDeleteIf that is the case, then it would seem that it would be another several million years or so before man could have a relationship with God, because the basic unregenerated nature of man has not changed throughout history.
In the process of humanity becoming like God, soul-making can take place, but it must occur with human beings possessing significant freedom away from their creator’s direct influence.[33] Hick deduces that human beings must have an epistemic[34] distance from their maker in order to develop an uncoerced consciousness of God.[35]
Wow, that runs totally contrary to Scripture.
According to R. Douglas Geivett in his 1993 book Evil and the Evidence for God, Hick contends that if persons lived in the immediate presence of God, significant freedom to make moral choices would be precluded and thus an epistemic distance, a distance between God and created persons, must exist between humanity and God.[36]
Which is impossible, since God is omnipresent. Unless he means spiritually, and that already occurred in the Garden when Adam sinned. Man became separated from God, and the unregenerated person has a snowball's chance in Hell of becoming truly 'good' or holy or perfect, or having a relationship with God, unless God regenerates that person through salvation.
Robert Smid (1999) comments that Hick trusts all of humanity will complete their soul-making via the afterlife, as a loving God must desire the salvation of all people.[43]
Aspects of this remind me of Reincarnation and/or Universalism.
Hick believes that since God has perfect knowledge of the human heart he, in patience, would eventually succeed in bringing all persons in devotion to him.[44]
The problem is that God 'eventually succeeding' implies that God is not perfect.
Hick subscribes to universalism,[46]
As I said earlier...
It is also possible that the somewhat metaphorical language of Genesis[59] allows for the Adam and Eve story to be describing a fall from God’s plan for humanity in general, and not specifically two initial persons.[60]
ReplyDeleteAdam is mentioned by name 30 times in the Bible. Adam is mentioned by name at least 18 times in the first five chapters of the Bible. He is mentioned in at least four books of the Old Testament: Ge. 2-4; De. 32:8; 1 Ch. 1:1; and Job 31:33. Adam is mentioned in five books of the New Testament: Lk. 3:38; Ro. 5:14; 1 Co. 15:22; 1 Co. 15:45; 1 Ti. 2:13-14; and Jude 14. The Bible mentions Adam by name at least 30 times in nine different books.
The third chapter of Luke lists the genealogy of Jesus beginning in verse 23. It traces Jesus through history to show that His humanity came from Adam. This genealogy covers 16 verses and goes back to Adam as seen in verse 38: "And Jesus Himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the Son of Joseph ... Noah ... Lamech ... Methuselah ... Enoch ... Jared ... Mahalalel ... Kenan ... Enosh, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God" (Lk. 3:23-38).
The New Testament speaks of Jesus and Adam in a simple but very significant comparison. "For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive" (1 Co. 15:22). Paul speaks of Adam, the first man, as being given a natural human body, and of Jesus being much more than Adam, for He was a life-giving Spirit. "And so it is written, the first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit" (1 Co. 15:45).
Evolutionists and others who deny parts of the Bible say that Adam was not a real person but simply represents mankind. But Gen. 5:5 says that Adam lived 930 years and then Adam died! If Adam only represented mankind, what happened to mankind after Adam died??
As discussed in Chapter Two, scholars such as Fretheim, La Sor, Hubbard, and Bush explain that Genesis is written with the use of metaphorical language and so an interpretation such as Hick’s, that is not literal in regard to the image and likeness of God, is an intellectual possibility.[68]
Theistic evolution is commonly believed among Christian teachers. Unfortunately, a large number of ministers and teachers in colleges and seminaries, as well as writers of Christian literature, believe in evolution or in theistic evolution and do not believe what the Bible says.
My computer died, possibly the motherboard or the power source. Until I can get it fixed or get another one, I'm using an ancient dinosaur that cannot even fully handle Facebook games, let alone the first-person shooter games like CounterStrike and Day of Defeat I usually play. Not only that, but even simple tasks take an extremely long time on this computer. Not to mention that it has no sound. Therefore, I have not been on the Internet much lately.
'Without the existence of evil, there would be no need for character development.'
ReplyDeleteEven a morally perfect finite creature can develop character. God, being infinite does not need character development.
'It is also possible that the somewhat metaphorical language of Genesis[59] allows for the Adam and Eve story to be describing a fall from God’s plan for humanity in general, and not specifically two initial persons.[60]'
'Adam is mentioned by name 30 times in the Bible. Adam is mentioned by name at least 18 times in the first five chapters of the Bible. He is mentioned in at least four books of the Old Testament: Ge. 2-4; De. 32:8; 1 Ch. 1:1; and Job 31:33. Adam is mentioned in five books of the New Testament: Lk. 3:38; Ro. 5:14; 1 Co. 15:22; 1 Co. 15:45; 1 Ti. 2:13-14; and Jude 14. The Bible mentions Adam by name at least 30 times in nine different books.'
As I noted:
'Although I do hold to a reasoned Biblical belief in Adam and Eve.'
What I am dealing with is different academic perspectives within the Doctorate.
The Biblical historicity of Adam is not being challenged in my work but I am acknowledging that not all accept it. That is part of doing theology and philosophy in a secular University. To not do so was academic suicide. Something I had no interest in.
The Biblical historical Adam ties directly into the Biblical historical Jesus Christ and his atoning and resurrection work with everlasting life as in Romans 5.
'Evolutionists and others who deny parts of the Bible say that Adam was not a real person but simply represents mankind.'
To see any part of the Bible as myth is not intellectually acceptable, in my view.
'As discussed in Chapter Two, scholars such as Fretheim, La Sor, Hubbard, and Bush explain that Genesis is written with the use of metaphorical language and so an interpretation such as Hick’s, that is not literal in regard to the image and likeness of God, is an intellectual possibility.[68]'
'Theistic evolution is commonly believed among Christian teachers. Unfortunately, a large number of ministers and teachers in colleges and seminaries, as well as writers of Christian literature, believe in evolution or in theistic evolution and do not believe what the Bible says. '
I do not think from my research that theistic evolution was the main intention in every case. I would reject myth as explanation and also that Genesis is always written in plain literal language. Context in important and a study of scholarship that attempts a good level of objectivity.
Thanks, Mr. Jenkins.
'Robert Smid (1999) comments that Hick trusts all of humanity will complete their soul-making via the afterlife, as a loving God must desire the salvation of all people.[43]
ReplyDeleteAspects of this remind me of Reincarnation and/or Universalism.'
Yes, is a Universalist.
From:
Universalism
'Within the concept of soul-making theodicy, John Hick explains that once a human being dies a conscious personality continues to exist. Hick (1978: 12). He concludes that for soul-making to succeed post-mortem existence must include the ability to make moral and spiritual choices. Hick (1978: 13). Robert Smid writes that Hick believes that humanity will complete their soul-making via the afterlife, as a loving God must desire the salvation of all people. Smid (1999: 12). Hick reasons that since God has perfect knowledge of the human heart he would eventually succeed in bringing all persons in devotion to him. Hick (1970: 381). Hick holds to universalism, which John Ankerberg and John Weldon explain is the theological idea that salvation is universal and therefore as a result each person will eventually be redeemed in heaven in God’s presence. Ankerberg and Weldon (1999: 503). John Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli explain that universalism is universal salvation and has been considered by some well known orthodox Christians over the centuries as a viable alternative to hell, although Kreeft and Tacelli reject this concept. Kreeft and Tacelli (1994: 286). D.B. Eller writes that universalism affirms the idea that eventually all souls will be released from penalties of sin and restored to God. Eller (1996: 1128).'
Further context around the Hick Chapter. Hick views much of the Bible and Christianity as metaphorical, and of course I disagree. But when reviewing the work I needed to show an understanding of his texts. Also, with the massive PhD work and the potential for controversy to trip one up and cause too much extra work, one as a moderate conservative in that context cannot afford to endlessly fight every theological/philosophical battle in the thesis. In a UK/Euro secular context, or North American secular University context, to come across as even a moderate fundamentalist, which I am not, rather I am a moderate conservative, could be academically fatal. By the way, this was already being told to me by an adviser at TWU/CBS which is Christian before I headed to the UK.
ReplyDeleteEven a morally perfect finite creature can develop character.
ReplyDeleteDefinitions of the word character include:
-moral or ethical quality: i.e., a man of fine, honorable character.
-qualities of honesty, courage, or the like; integrity.
-reputation: i.e., a stain on one's character.
Moral qualities, ethical standards, principles, honesty and reputation all have to do with sin or the lack therof. In that regard, a perfect creature would have a perfect character, morally speaking. And perfection, by definition, cannot be developed further.
Another definition of the word character is:
-the aggregate of features and traits that form the individual nature of some person or thing.
That would seem to speak of things that the person is born with. I would not think that the distinctive traits that a person is born with would significantly change, especially in one who was without sin. A synonym of the word character, individuality, refers to the distinctive qualities that make one recognizable as a person differentiated from others. Another synonym, personality, refers particularly to the combination of outer and inner characteristics that determine the impression that a person makes upon others. Again, these are traits that I would think would not significantly change in a morally-perfect person, though I am no expert in psychology.
As I noted:
'Although I do hold to a reasoned Biblical belief in Adam and Eve.'
Yes, I was addressing Hick's view, rather than your own.
The Biblical historicity of Adam is not being challenged in my work but I am acknowledging that not all accept it.
Thank you, Dr. Murray, for pointing that out.
I would reject...that Genesis is always written in plain literal language.
We probably disagree on some points there, but probably no two persons agree on every single point regarding every subject.
You might find this interesting to check out:
Universalism- a Problem for Everyone
Blackburn defines a person's character as the sum total of dispositions to action including thinking and saying. p. 61. An action is out of character if it does not conform to the pattern so far exhibited although it may demonstrate a far more complex character. p. 61. In the prime object of appraisal the actions are either good or bad, right or wrong, in so far as they would have been the action of a virtuous person. p. 61.
ReplyDeleteI do not see this definition of human character or other understood as being exactly synonymous with human nature. Human nature is quite set, although the Holy Spirit can regenerate and enlighten (John 3, Ephesians 1, Romans 8) but character can be developed through experiences, especially as human beings are finite creatures and learn.
Just because a finite being is perfectly good does not mean that one cannot become more loving, for example. Not all finite human beings will be developed equally in all areas of character and there would be room for development even as persons have unique natures. The same could be stated for patience etc. As long persons have finite perfection there is still room for development. This was also mentioned to me by my advisor at TWU/CBS.
As far as Genesis and science are concerned, I continue to hope to learn from more reasonably objective scholarship.
Mr. Jenkins, on the way home heading East down East 1st in Vancouver I was in a double lane which also has a left turning lane. Someone with a family turned into the left lane instead of one of the East 1st lanes heading West. I sure laughed hard as someone honked and he had such a 'Get me out of here look' on his face.
Cheers, sir:) I am eating Mexican watermelon. It is too frozen.
An action is out of character if it does not conform to the pattern so far exhibited although it may demonstrate a far more complex character.
ReplyDeleteI can agree that 'acting out of character' can mean simply acting very differently than one usually acts. But generally I hear phrases like "the character of a man," which refers to things like honesty, integrity, etc., and so would have to do with moral issues, and therefore relate to sin. But again, I can agree that the word "character" can have a broader meaning.
I suspect that in Heaven, we will likely grow in knowledge, and of course experience, but I do not believe it will be possible to become any more honest, moral, etc. at that point. As far as becoming more patient, being impatient usually has to do with selfishness (or, at a deeper level, lack of trust in God's control of things) and worry, so I'm not sure I can see a redeemed, perfect heavenly person having any lack of patience. I also cannot see how there can be any lack of love in a person who has been made as morally perfect as God Himself is (for we cannot even get into Heaven unless we are as sinless as God is). But at least to a degree, this is probably all speculation, since none of us has ever been perfect before (except positionally through the blood of Christ).
Mr. Jenkins, on the way home heading East down East 1st in Vancouver I was in a double lane which also has a left turning lane. Someone with a family turned into the left lane instead of one of the East 1st lanes heading West. I sure laughed hard as someone honked and he had such a 'Get me out of here look' on his face.
I am so glad that I moved out of Miami several years ago, because the only way to survive there was to drive offensively. Driving is far, far more peaceful and stress-free (and much less dangerous) here where I live now.
Cheers, sir:) I am eating Mexican watermelon. It is too frozen.
We have a good number of Mexicans here, but I don't think I've ever seen one eating a watermelon. Neither have I seen (to my knowledge at least) a watermelon that was from Mexico. Then again, in recent years, more and more food items in grocery stores here, especially fruits, are imported from other countries...including countries that don't have any sort of Food and Drug Administration like we have here, to regulate laws about food that is sold. I would hate to find out, for example, how many pesticides I have ingested over the years, from eating foods that were imported. The only safe way to go is to eat organic foods, but those are more expensive, and you don't really have any guarantee that they truly have been grown organically.
'I suspect that in Heaven, we will likely grow in knowledge, and of course experience, but I do not believe it will be possible to become any more honest, moral, etc. at that point. As far as becoming more patient, being impatient usually has to do with selfishness (or, at a deeper level, lack of trust in God's control of things) and worry, so I'm not sure I can see a redeemed, perfect heavenly person having any lack of patience. I also cannot see how there can be any lack of love in a person who has been made as morally perfect as God Himself is (for we cannot even get into Heaven unless we are as sinless as God is). But at least to a degree, this is probably all speculation, since none of us has ever been perfect before (except positionally through the blood of Christ).'
ReplyDeleteI think a key to consider is that although a resurrected person will be morally perfect it will be finite moral perfection so yes someone could love another more or in a better way (whereas God has infinite moral perfection toward others). This could still be the case with a person even without sin/sin nature once resurrected, for example, because of lack of knowledge and experience concerning another person.
In my opinion, I prefer American watermelon to Mexican, which when cut has a sort of pineapple smell.
Thanks Sir Jenkins, I will post these (satire and theology as well) updates on Facebook.
Beat it
ReplyDeleteCar crash
I am pretty impressed by the acting of that guy who plays the disturbed Michael Jackson wannabe repo victim. Especially his fighting moves.
ReplyDeleteDoggie guilt
ReplyDelete'I am pretty impressed by the acting of that guy who plays the disturbed Michael Jackson wannabe repo victim. Especially his fighting moves.'
ReplyDeleteClassic staged television.
He kicks Matt in a tough place.
'chucky said...
Doggie guilt'
Funny reality video.
Beat it just beat it!! Can you imagine if this young guy really really got fired up!! What kind of moves would we see?? Operation Repo on your blog, interestingly funny!
ReplyDelete-REPO DEPO-
Matt the Repo Boy should have went potty before going out on the job, its really hard to work when you got to go!!
ReplyDelete-JIFFY JOHN ON THE RUN inc.-
I think the name change for your blog is both appropriate and important and an acknowledgement of your academic accomplishments...Congrats again Doctor Murray!
ReplyDelete-Diploma Digest Magazine-
Anonymous said...
ReplyDelete'Beat it just beat it!! Can you imagine if this young guy really really got fired up!! What kind of moves would we see?? Operation Repo on your blog, interestingly funny!
-REPO DEPO-'
One of the more humourous scripted events, in my opinion. One of the funniest shows ever, to me.
'Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteMatt the Repo Boy should have went potty before going out on the job, its really hard to work when you got to go!!
-JIFFY JOHN ON THE RUN inc.-'
Was the script in the toilet?
Did it need to be flushed?
'Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteI think the name change for your blog is both appropriate and important and an acknowledgement of your academic accomplishments...Congrats again Doctor Murray!
-Diploma Digest Magazine-'
Thank you very kindly.
Sadly, I could not name this blog thus, in 2004 when it began.;) I needed the degree first.
Shark attacks non-smoker / Nicorette
ReplyDeleteA funny video of a smoker and a shark attack. LOL
-Vid Kid-
Man fights grizzly and kicks him down for salmon
ReplyDeleteA funny video of a man and a grizzly bear fighting over a fish! LOL
-Vid Kid-
'Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteShark attacks non-smoker / Nicorette
A funny video of a smoker and a shark attack. LOL
-Vid Kid-'
I do not smoke anything, never have, but funny nowadays how smoking is less acceptable and marijuana is more accepted in the secular world.
I have invested too much into my brain...among other reasons.
'Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteMan fights grizzly and kicks him down for salmon
A funny video of a man and a grizzly bear fighting over a fish! LOL
-Vid Kid-'
That is like Uncle Chuckins and I when we work out, minus the weapons...
I had lunch with three friends after church at a fairly new Irish pub. It was the second time there for me and one of the friends. The food and service is above average but my burger 'blew up' on me as in the bun broke and most of the patty ended up on the floor via my clothes. The manager replaced my meal and when one friend asked for a free meal I received a free beer.
That's right just blame the burger malfunction on the Irish and let your friend demand a free beer for you! Your Scottish heritage is rolling over in it's kilt.
ReplyDeleteInterestingly, I am adopted and so not Scottish biologically but Irish.;)
ReplyDeleteCheers.
Oi meu amigo querido, Russel, fiquei muito feliz com sua visita e comentário, muito obrigada, seu post é maravilhoso, com o tradutor, consigo ler e adorei, muito sério e profundo seu artigo, parabéns, muito bem feito, um grande abraço, Feliz Natal!!!!
ReplyDelete'Hi my dear friend, Russell, I was very happy with your visit and comment, thank you, your post is wonderful, with the translator, I can read it and loved it, very serious and profound his article, congratulations, well done, a big hug, Merry Christmas!!'
ReplyDeleteThank you so much, Eva. I am glad that you took the time to read my post and benefit, and again I am pleased by the success of your very professional site, now also in English. It will take my sites years to catch up.
Merry Christmas
It sounds like Hick is trying to reconcile Darwinian human macro-evolution with the Biblical description of humanity made in God's image. I find it hard to imagine how this could be - as if at some point a single early human somehow evolved to a point where he had a sense of morality, but all his fellow early humans did not yet.
ReplyDeleteThanks, Chucky.
ReplyDeleteI did not go into detail with Hick's views on science but I did state in my PhD and on the blog...
'In 1966 British philosopher of religion, John Hick, wrote his first edition of Evil and The God of Love. Hick sees soul-making[1] as the developmental process by which human beings become the perfected creatures that God intended.[2] This is an evolutionary process,[3] but not one that takes place naturalistically or scientifically.[4]'