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.
