Time Almanac 2013 Non-Exhaustive Review

Happy New Year 2013, and I hope the remainder of Christmas Season 2012 is a pleasant one.

I desired a blogging tool for Christmas and I received a reasonable one and so I shall review the 'Time Almanac 2013'.

As well, it provides an option for a different type of very short academic post which is worthy goal.

It is 'powered' by the Encyclopedia Britannica. In my undergrad I was told to never to use Encyclopedias as source for citations, but I found quite frankly with my MPhil and PhD theses writing that quite often, not that I used traditional Encyclopedias, but specialty dictionaries and academic encyclopedias, written by the top scholars were often the best sources for academic information. The sources as the academic books and journals.

Categories:
 
Year In Review
People Awards
Nature, Science, Medicine & Technology
World
United States
Business
Arts, Entertainment & Leisure
Sport

Sport

Examining the category of Sport, and something I have some knowledge about and what might be of interest of many Canadians and relatively speaking, philosophically, a minority of Americans, is 'Ice Hockey', and in particular, The National Hockey League. The text states the National Hockey was formed in 1917 in Canada with the first American team, the Boston Bruins arriving in 1924. Time (2012: 803). The text explains how the Stanley Cup is awarded in the National Hockey League and also mentions that the World Hockey Championships are sponsored by the International Ice Hockey Federation and have been since 1930. Time (2012: 803).

The text appears to do a fine presentation with the listed champions of the World Hockey Championships and also the history of Stanley Cup champions and the standings from the 2011-2012 season.

What is completely lacking is any mention or understanding philosophically of best versus best international tournaments such as the Canada versus Soviet Union 1972, the Canada Cup/World Cup of Hockey tournaments and Olympic hockey which now at this point alternates with the World Cup of Hockey for presenting best vs. best competition. 

As the World Hockey Championships are played simultaneously with the Stanley Cup playoffs, they are not a true best versus tournament.

This intellectual, philosophical oversight is a major flaw with the text. 

Another flaw is a failure to at all mention the National Hockey League lockout which may derail the entire season.

I personally hope it does as the League has philosophically been off the rails since the 1967 expansion and needs to be fixed in several areas...

I deduce from sports websites, such as TSN.CA that many fans of clubs are addicted to their teams playing on television, various computers, and live and just want to watch hockey but philosophically there needs to be a fix.

There needs to be significant relocation and expansion into primarily traditional hockey markets, even if this means shared profitable markets such as in Southern Ontario. As Canada is a small country compared to the United States (and the European Union as an entity) there many not be enough good markets in Canada and the United States for 30 or more teams.

Player's salaries need to be lower on average, all teams need to be profitable after potential revenue sharing and salary capping.

Overall in regard to Ice Hockey, the text is adequate but not very in-depth.

World

On page 505 is the Religion section there is a quite useful 'Chronological List of Popes' which includes the theological assumption made by the Roman Catholic Church and denied by Protestants, in general, that Peter was the first Pope. John Calvin in 'The Bondage and Liberation of the Will' viewed the Papacy of the 16th century as beyond reform.  Calvin (1543)(1996: 18). He called the Pope of that era an Antichrist, mainly because of doctrine. Calvin (1543)(1996: 19). Calvin warned of the dangers of idolatry, superstition, and ritual. Calvin (1543)(1996: 19). However, Peter as noted here is listed as the first Pope. Time (2012: 505). The theological explanation provided is that according to the Roman Catholic Church the Pope is the successor of Saint Peter who was the head of the Apostles. The Pope is therefore viewed to have supreme power of jurisdiction over the universal Church in matters of faith and morals as well as in regard to Church government and discipline. It is further explained that up until the 4th Century Popes were stated to be 'Bishops of Rome' and from 1309-1377 the seat of the papacy was at Avignon, France. Antipopes from this era are listed in the text in italics, but are recognized interestingly. Time (2012: 505).

Seemingly, not a bad academic summary and with a very useful listing of Popes. 

As a Reformed theologian I would be in agreement with much of John Calvin's theology in regard to the nature of God, sovereignty, salvation, free will and determinism. He made many reasonable critiques about the Roman Catholic Church of his era, and was more knowledgeable than I on the subject. That being stated, I view the Roman Catholic Church as a Christian church with like any church, some Christians within it today, because of orthodox views on the nature of God, the Trinity and the resurrection and the atonement, in its basics, although not holding to their sacramental views. There is a classic Roman Catholic/Protestant divide here on whether, although salvation is through grace through faith alone (Ephesians 2), and it could also be stated, faith through grace alone as God provides both, the sacraments, within legal justification can provide the believer with merit.

Roman Catholic theologian Alan Schreck believes so as he notes that although the sacraments are a gift from God and are not magic, that they are natural signs that when properly administered provide the follower with the merits of Jesus Christ. Schreck (1984: 150).

In contrast from my Reformed perspective in light of Ephesians 2 and other Biblical references I would view merit as something not earned in the sacraments at all, instead believers are judged for their works good or bad in Christ at judgment, 2 Corinthians 5: 10-12.

Another point to be made is that Paul seems a more likely head of the Apostles, if there was one, being a Biblical scholar and he wrote or had written via scribes more New Testament works than any other Apostle.

I also see no need for a Papacy.

But then again, those that read my blogs realize I have plenty of 'critiques' some negative for the evangelical church and also for the liberal church.

The Time text also has a 'World Religions' section within the 'World' section with descriptions of Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism and other typically considered major world religions.

It has listed in the world (Selective by author)

The first three are in order

Christians 2, 319, 839, 000
Muslims   1, 609, 200, 900
Hindus         967, 164, 000
Atheists       136, 327, 000
Jews             14, 993, 000

I would deduce not surprisingly this text would be a good preliminary source for what it presents.

It is not an in-depth academic source.

But it is a useful blogging tool for some preliminary level citations.

Additionally, the maps look fairly detailed.

It is good to have maps of each country, however, it would to good to have United States State and Canada Provincial flags, and some for British Isles flags, basically more detailed information.

CALVIN, JOHN (1543)(1996) The Bondage and Liberation of the Will, Translated by G.I. Davies, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.

SCHRECK, ALAN (1984) Catholic and Christian, Ann Arbor, Michigan, Servant Books.

TIME ALMANAC 2013 (2012) Chicago.

Thanks to the Jeff via Facebook

Seventy Times Seven: Matthew 18

Paris-Facebook

I was at good couple friend's Christmas party on the night of the 21st and although the party was an overall blast the subject of forgiveness, as in some now past friends not forgiving after apologies were made, and therefore not accepting the apology within forgiveness and continuing in the friendship, was discussed.

Not my friends, by the way...

Today after thinking about the discussion, Matthew 18 seems to be relevant:

Matthew 18: 21-35 New American Standard Version

21 Then Peter came and said to Him, “Lord, how often shall my brother sin against me and I forgive him? Up to seven times?” 22 Jesus said to him, “I do not say to you, up to seven times, but up to seventy times seven. 23 “For this reason the kingdom of heaven [a]may be compared to a king who wished to settle accounts with his slaves. 24 When he had begun to settle them, one who owed him [b]ten thousand talents was brought to him. 25 But since he [c]did not have the means to repay, his lord commanded him to be sold, along with his wife and children and all that he had, and repayment to be made.

English Standard Version 21

Then Peter came up and said to him, “Lord, how often will my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? As many as seven times?” 22 Jesus said to him, “I do not say to you seven times, but seventy-seven times. 23 “Therefore the kingdom of heaven may be compared to a king who wished to settle accounts with his servants.[a] 24 When he began to settle, one was brought to him who owed him ten thousand talents.[b] 25 And since he could not pay, his master ordered him to be sold, with his wife and children and all that he had, and payment to be made.

Matthew scholar R.T. France explains that the parable with the concept of seventy times seven demonstrates why forgiveness must be unlimited because the original debt is also unlimited. France (2001: 277). The idea being that the sinner can never pay his/her own debt to God. H.L. Ellison writes that Peter realized from the story that if Peter himself was to reconciled to God then by the same reasoning he had to be reconciled to his fellow disciples. Ellison (1986: 1140). Ellison suggests that some Hebrew commentaries documented that a person could be forgiven three times. Ellison (1986: 1140). But from the words of Jesus in Matthew 'seventy times seven' (four hundred and ninety) is not the plain literal intention as in the amount of times one should be forgiven.

As France alluded to, humanity being finite and sinful cannot atone for/cover sin against an infinite perfectly moral and holy God, therefore the debt is unlimited. God would therefore need to forgive humanity through the atoning work of Christ in an unlimited way, and that is what Christ meant when he stated seventy times seven for human to human forgiveness.

The Greek New Testament

Verses 21-22

petroV-Peter
ebdomhkontakiV- seventy times

Biblically, if a person repents of a sin, truly repents, one is obligated to provide forgiveness. I do realize this can be be extremely difficult if the offense is very difficult, but forgiveness can be a process, but a Christian should at least be willing to forgive with a forgiving mind-set.

If one does not repent of a sin against another, I reason the offended Christian should still be willing to forgive that person (or other entity) for at least a couple of key philosophical, theological reasons. I also provide a third practical theological reason.

Although technically, one may gather that sins should only be forgiven if they are repented of, on the other hand, God forgives all sins in Christ even the ones that his people do not necessarily consciously repent of. Therefore, a Christian should have a willingness to forgive all sins, and even the sins that are not technically repented of by a person.

However, sins that are not repented of may mean that there cannot be fellowship, because of personal fracture. The extreme cases of violent crime come to mind. A Christian may attempt to forgive a violent criminal that has repented or not, but for near certain in the case of non-repentance it is just common sense that no fellowship would be sought, desired or needed.

Another reason to forgive someone is to avoid having anger and potential sin build-up inside against the offender.

The third practical reason is to maintain friendships (family relationships as well)...

If one as a sinner is in disputes with friends and as a sinner will not be forgiven seventy times seven, and forgive, seventy times seven, one will soon find a life pattern of broken relationships and few friends.

This is would be fixable if Matthew 18 would be practically obeyed.

ELLISON, H.L. (1986) ‘Matthew’, in F.F. Bruce (ed.), The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Zondervan.

FRANCE, R.T. (1985) Matthew, Grand Rapids, IVP, Eerdmans.

MARSHALL, ALFRED (1975)(1996) The Interlinear KJV-NIV, Grand Rapids, Zondervan.

Inscrutable evils, Unexplainable evils (Brief)

An Allegorical Painting of the Tomb of Lord Somers 1722-29 Canaletto

Atheistic philosopher William Rowe concluded that there is no good state of affairs where an omnipotent, omniscient being would be justified in allowing evils where no possible good can arise from them taking place; he also calls these inscrutable evils, which are evils that cannot be understood. Rowe (1990: 3).

I disagree with his first conclusion as from my Reformed position I reason God wills all things with good motives for the greater good as a primary cause with good motives in moral perfection, although secondary causes that are rational beings, may have sinful motives, and therefore disagree in writing with the concept of gratuitous evil, and this is presented in my Wales, PhD 'Theodicy and Practical Theology' and in two posts on this blog, one the top ranked in pageviews as of December 2012, 'Gratuitous Evil Revisited' and also 'Gratuitous Evil'.

I reason my view would be in line with Romans 8: 28-30 in the life of a Christian believer.

Rowe with his second point does present a concept that many evils from a human perspective, not God's perspective I must make clear in my view, would be inscrutable and therefore would be very difficult if not virtually impossible to understand for humanity. I would also further state that these would be very difficult if not virtually impossible to explain.

Two major problems humanity has in trying to understand certain great evils:

Finite human nature

Human beings simply do not understand with limited minds and knowledge all the reasonings of other human beings, and all the potentials for great amounts of evil.

Human beings do not understand fully the infinite reasonings of God.

Human beings do not understand, apart from little stated in Scripture about them, the reasonings of angelic and demonic beings, and the workings these beings could do in God's will. Angels would work with good motives, demonic beings with sinful motives (Job). The concept of angelic beings performing evils, as in human experienced evils, with good motives may be controversial but 2 Kings 19: 35 for example reads:

New American Standard Version

³⁵ Then it happened that night that the angel of the Lord went out and struck 185,000 in the camp of the Assyrians; and when ^[a]men rose early in the morning, behold, all of them were ^[b]dead.

It appears an angel is performing the work of God. I do realize some Evangelicals will take as a possible interpretation that 'the angel of the Lord' is the pre-incarnate God the Son, but that is speculative theology not clear from the Hebrew Bible.

Human beings do not understand all the reasonings, not rational as in a human or angelic sense, but still reasoning within the intuitive nature of the animal world and all potential evils.

Human beings cannot anticipate all potential Natural Evils.

Sinful human nature

Romans 3:21-26

New American Standard Bible (NASB)

21 But now apart [a]from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, 22 even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those [b]who believe; for there is no distinction; 23 for all [c]have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus; 25 whom God displayed publicly as a [d]propitiation [e]in His blood through faith. This was to demonstrate His righteousness, [f]because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed; 26 for the demonstration, I say, of His righteousness at the present time, so that He would be just and the justifier of the one who [g]has faith in Jesus.

Romans 6:23

New American Standard Bible (NASB)

²³ For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

There is now legal justification and an on going work of justification (1 Corinthians 6: 11) for those in Christ.

Even so, until the resurrection (1 Corinthians 15) and the culminated Kingdom there is human corruption and imperfection that will damage human perception to various degrees including in regard to evil.

I therefore agree with a concept humanly speaking of inscrutable evils as well as unexplainable evils.

Further:

A combination of human finitude and sinfulness makes understanding evil as in knowledge of it, and predicting it, inadequate, including evil in great amounts.

The Bible is of assistance of course, in particular the Book of Job, as is good solid, sound academic work on the problem of evil and theodicy. Fellowship and prayer are also essential.

But certain questions in reality lead to the need for a remedy and that is connected to the historical work of the atonement of Christ on the cross found in the Gospels, and also the documented resurrection of Jesus Christ and the promised resurrection of believers tied into the Second Coming (Matthew 24, 2 Thessalonians 2).

ROWE, WILLIAM L. (1990) ‘The Problem of Evil and Some Varieties of Atheism’, in Adams and Adams (eds.) The Problem of Evil, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

Bayern, Germany-Google Images

Hortes, France-trekearth

Campo, Spain-trekearth 

The Danger Of Presumption And God

Obidos, Vila Natal, Portugal-trekearth

Continuing on from the last post..

13 These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you may know that you have eternal life. 14 This is the confidence which we have [a]before Him, that, if we ask anything according to His will, He hears us. 15 And if we know that He hears us in whatever we ask, we know that we have the requests which we have asked from Him. New American Standard Version I John 5: 13-15

13 I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God that you may know that you have eternal life. 14 And this is the confidence that we have toward him, that if we ask anything according to his will he hears us. 15 And if we know that he hears us in whatever we ask, we know that we have the requests that we have asked of him. English Standard Version I John 5: 13-15

R.W. Orr reasons that this section of Scripture should provide assurance of eternal life (technically theologically and philosophically everlasting life according to the explanations on this blog, please see related posts in archives or on popular posts lists), as there is human fellowship with the Father, Son and Holy Spirit and this should bring about a 'childlike frankness and assurance' while praying. Orr (1986: 1584).

Observing my life and other (s), although of course from more of a distance, I can philosophically see that there is the potential for 'The Danger Of Presumption And God'. I was discussing my career with my brother last night and I noted as I have with friends over the years, that I reasoned the Lord has primarily led me over a twenty year academic degree period to be a Theologian and eventually more clearly Theologian/Philosopher, but there was never a clear leading that I should be necessarily a professor.

I simply secondarily assumed/presumed that becoming a professor was the most likely career move after obtaining BA and MTS degrees and British MPhil/PhD theses only degrees. I am still willing to work as a professor but that is not necessarily my only option. There are other options with my degrees such as academic publishing and media. But work is difficult to find presently in academia, publishing and in media. I am presently working with my family in a network marketing business.

Therefore I conclude, that there was a reason why my directive was to obtain a PhD in Theology/Philosophy primarily and any more than this would have risked a dangerous presumption of God.

Further...

To arrive at a point to realize what should actually be a directive, from God required years of prayer, trial and error, careful theology and philosophy. It was not primarily based on social rules, Church views, family pressures, world philosophies, peer pressure and other factors that often have some benefits but too must be subjected to the will of God within Scripture and the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Millard Erickson writes that God’s perfect will, will 1 as he calls it, is God’s general intention and what pleases him most. Erickson (1994: 361). God’s will 2, is God’s specific intention in every given situation and what God actually decides will occur. Erickson (1994: 361). This is permissible will. Erickson explains that there are many times when evil and sin occur that God, in his perfect will, does not wish these events to take place, but permits them. Erickson (1994: 361). He explains that with will 2, since God does not intervene to prevent particular evil and sin, he permissibly wills it. Erickson (1994: 361).

It is also stated that certain things and events occur within God's will 2, the permissible will that God causes and wills that are not his perfect will. In my mind as God has both a perfect and permissible will and it again highlights 'The Danger of Presumption And God'.

So, to further explain...

A person may assume/presume God may grant an aspect and blessing of life within God's perfect will, or as the person's sees it, but in reality God is willing and planning something permissible.

The person with his/her own perhaps less than optimally open-minded agenda due to non-Biblical and non-Spirit led factors (social rules, family pressures, world philosophies, peer pressure), could miss out on greater blessings because of such thinking and life approach.

God, hypothetically could teach or at least effect someone through a loss of God's perfect will, or something close to it, possibly due to sin and perhaps dangerous presumptions and end up with God's permissible will taking place that is distant from God's perfect will.

I see this as legitimate within a limited free will, non-libertarian free will perspective as although God causes and wills all things as God knows the human spirit and therefore 'heart' of a person, God knows in the case of a believer how that person is going to be effected and taught in life.

Therefore, even within a compatibilistic framework where God causes and wills all things, a person should still take limited free will and moral responsibility seriously as a Christian and seek to be guided by The Holy Spirit (John 20, Acts 2) through prayer, study, and fellowship in order to avoid dangerous presumptions in regard to God.

ERICKSON, MILLARD (1994) Christian Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.

ORR, R.W. (1986) 'The Letters of John' in The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Zondervan.

I John 5: 13-15 Brief

Vienna-Via email

¹³ These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you may know that you have eternal life. ¹⁴ This is the confidence which we have ^[a]before Him, that, if we ask anything according to His will, He hears us. ¹⁵ And if we know that He hears us in whatever we ask, we know that we have the requests which we have asked from Him.

New American Standard Version  I John 5: 13-15

¹³ I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God that you may know that you have eternal life. ¹⁴ And this is the confidence that we have toward him, that if we ask anything according to his will he hears us. ¹⁵ And if we know that he hears us in whatever we ask, we know that we have the requests that we have asked of him.

English Standard Version I John 5: 13-15

R.W. Orr reasons that this section of Scripture should provide assurance of eternal life (technically theologically and philosophically everlasting life according to the explanations on this blog, please see related posts in archives or on popular posts lists), as there is human fellowship with the Father, Son and Holy Spirit and this should bring about a 'childlike frankness and assurance' while praying. Orr (1986: 1584).

ORR, R.W. (1986) 'The Letters of John' in The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Zondervan.

Basically God will answer prayer according to his divine will.

Theologically and philosophically I see some hypothetical issues in regard to this concept: This is a brief and admittedly non-exhaustive list. 

One is a person praying may be in a state of non-repentance and/or lacking faith in a certain area or areas of life, and so although heard by God may have some blessings withheld until repentance takes place. If it does.

Consider James 1: 5-8 from the New American Standard Version:

⁵ But if any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask of God, who gives to all generously and ^[a]without reproach, and it will be given to him. ⁶ But he must ask in faith without any doubting, for the one who doubts is like the surf of the sea, driven and tossed by the wind. ⁷ For that man ought not to expect that he will receive anything from the Lord, ⁸ being a ^[b]double-minded man, unstable in all his ways.

Another possibility is a Job like scenario where a person, although sinful (Romans 1-6), has basically repented, and continually repents of sins in life and in the particular area in life prayed about, but is still not being blessed. In regards to human free will, this person has within in my compatibilistic view made the limited free will decision within God's will and grace to be blessed in certain areas, but for whatever reason (s) God has not yet sanctioned certain blessings in this temporal life.

There is another related possibility and that is other secondary causes, as in human beings could either be sinning or not, and need be to blessed in a way that would influence and bless the first person involved in the sense on I John 5: 13-15.  In other words, a secondary person or persons may need to repent in order for God to change the life of the first person involved or if not the case, God may need to influence and bless the secondary person to influence and bless the primary person involved in our discussion.

My theology is worth considering when one really ponders on it in regard to the web of life that is always relationship orientated whether it involves, work, family, health issues, romantic relationships or other. It is a complex answer to the problem of evil, especially when one really ponders on the many webs of life and suffering and also a Biblical one.

Philosophical & Psychological Tactics

Utah

At this point I am keeping things on an anonymous level...

My ideal preference.

As many of you will realize that know me personally and also online, I have thought it a good idea to pursue a multi-career, or at least a two career path option in life. In other words, I should not just depend on potential work based on my BA, MTS, MPhil, PhD degrees in Religious Studies and Philosophy, and sure enough after 400+ CVs sent out, that is a very reasonable thought.

I have been willing to assist with any family networking marketing endeavours. I have taken internet courses on copywriting, E-book writing and recently internet marketing. I completed 19-20% of the internet marketing course. I reason the material is basically sound and good, but I am not going to attempt to pay for it with outrageous, unreasonable levels of credit. Not with persons calling almost weekly looking for new four figure investments that are virtually mandatory with services not provided under my initial investment. I originally signed with a two figure offer. I then received a couple of phone calls including one from a Vice-President inquiring about training me and the cost originally was going to be a number I rejected and so we agreed on a much lesser amount. I was informed that would be the last major financial investment needed by me. They stated that my word of mouth testimony of success would make up the difference.

Now remember, although I do not have a business background, per say, I do have PhD in Theology/Philosophy and psychological use of words, or lack of use of words, is key in life. In academia and in business. What I was not told initially was that they have business partners that provide services, not provided under my initials fees, that I would need to pay for, in order for the business to work. Doubtless, there is benefit the parent company receives from them receiving new clients, which in itself I do not have a problem with, but I think the parent company should be more up-front with information. So there was calls from an associated company in regard to establishing a Nevada LLC for protection from bankruptcy if sued, a Tax Agreement, as in IRS tax counsellors, and another associated New York City company in regard to a Business Plan. But once the phone call came to the concept of Drop Shipping, I had had enough. If I had been told this business was really a $10, 000-$40, 000 potential start-up venture I would have declined. But instead the company psychologically starts with a two figure promotion to sign a student up, then a reasonable deal on websites is offered from a business partner, then a call from a Vice-President is provided a few days later for potential training which I negotiated down substantially.  I actually negotiated with everyone that called. I specifically asked if any further investment would be requirement and the Vice-President stated, ‘No’ and also stated that a certain income level was guaranteed or my money back, of course I am claiming this at this point in writing.

Now, of course this financial claim of his is a technicality, as more than likely his company, the parent company, receives a commission, kick-back, portion, amount, of the payment that a student pays to the other companies, when the parent company weekly has these companies call students informing them services are basically required. I am not arguing that they are not good services, as when explained to me such as LLC, Tax Guidance and a Business Plan they all makes sense. And once one has a firm business plan finding Drop Shippers, or learning EBay, if one is not experienced, it would almost always pay to have professional companies to work on behalf of a new business, finding suppliers.

The problem is on several levels, but I will mention two. There is lack of transparency by the parent company up-front, and likely lack of available credit from many of those involved in such a venture. Basically, a philosophical and psychological tactic is to commit someone to the program with financial investment as if the only reasonable way out will be to go all the way, maximize out one’s credit card as if ‘failure is not an option’ and find a way to make it in that business. But, a bank and credit card company can always intervene and credit is limited.  As well, I think more than just student coaching should be covered by the initial financial investment. The company I dealt with has only been online since 2011 and has mainly good reviews and good control over them online but I reason these tactics are dangerous public relations on their part. They are very much risking their reputation and those of their business partners. I emailed them all after an initial phone call to the Vice President was not returned.

After the initial post I actually received a very late night offer via email from someone on the 'Team' to give me for free three figures worth of product to 'compensate' me. When I replied this obviously in context would not work, she went ahead with the refund. Now she stated it will take 48 hours to process. I will wait and see whether it is the standard two figure refund or the full negotiated figure for teaching...

Cognitive Dissonance

Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming-trekearth

Philosopher George A. Graham explains cognitive dissonance as the mental discomfort that arises from conflicting beliefs or attitudes held simultaneously, meaning at the very same time. The concept came from a book from Leon Festinger in 1957.  Graham (1996: 127).

 Blackburn mentions that Festinger was an American psychologist, the book was 'Theory of Cognitive Dissonance'. Festinger suggested that cognitive dissonance had 'motivational characteristics' meaning that when it occurs the amount of dissonance depends on the relative intensities with the dissonant elements. Graham (1996: 127).

It may take place in two major areas, as in self-deception and weakness of the will. Graham (1996: 127). A key point raised by Graham is that one may become weak-willed when dissonance arises from the expected and reasonably understood results and consequences of doing what is right. Graham (1996: 128).

Blackburn writes that Festinger's research and concepts led to ideas that a person's known wrong concepts may lead to reformation and strategies of belief that are surprising. Blackburn (1996: 67).

Home caring for my disabled  Mother (among other projects) it serves as a practical extension to my academic life study on the problem of evil and theodicy. I understand that all of us have physical and mental problems as we all have corrupted natures (Romans 3, Romans 6), and only a physical resurrection into perfection and non-decay as described in 1 Corinthians 15 is going to fix these massive problems.

If one is born with a particular physical problem and this is not dealt with at youth, at middle-age, by the time the senior years arrive a person could be faced with severe problems, disability or even premature death before the senior years.

From a mental perspective, mental error at youth, uncorrected, appears to work the same way. Bad thinking habits that begin at youth, or middle-age, whatever middle-age is as that is a debatable concept in itself, can carry on in the senior years. And to make things considerably worse because of the corruption described in Romans not only will a person physically decay and die, because of a physically failing brain due to age in a physical universe where bodies decay and die, but because of bad thinking patterns massive mental failure on certain levels is a real possibility. The Oxford Dictionary of Science in regard to decay and decomposition states that it is (1) the breakdown chemically of organic matter into its constituents by the action of decomposers and also (2) a chemical reaction by which a compound breaks down into simpler compounds and elements (2010: 225).  Cognitive dissonance being a classic and primary example of bad thinking patterns, error that could begin earlier in life because of life pressure in one or more areas of life, 'the amount of dissonance depends on the relative intensities with the dissonant elements'.

Keys appear to be to trust in the Lord for guidance and wisdom. Proverbs 3: 5 being an important verse where it notes to trust in the Lord, not leaning on one's own understanding. Taking this to a New Testament perspective one would need to be guided by the Holy Spirit (John 15 the Helper, Acts 6).

Practically, it seems although perfect or total objectivity is not humanly possible that objectivity would be an enemy of cognitive dissonance. Objectivity would be able to see through the contradiction and eliminate it. Also the truth, as in the truth shall set you free in John 14: 6 would be the enemy of cognitive dissonance.  God is a God of hyper-love, yes, but is also a God of hyper-reason, so within an infinite God and the God-man, also perfectly rational, so there is no cognitive dissonance. It can reasoned his followers should be rational within the truth and not confused.

Therefore cognitive dissonance is a condition to strongly avoid.

BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996) Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

GRAHAM A, GEORGE (1996) ‘Cognitive Dissonance’, in Robert Audi (ed.), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Oxford Dictionary of Science, (2010), Sixth Edition, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

Wyoming, Apple

Dispensationalism & Covenant Theology In Brief

Hohenaschau Castle, Germany-trekearth

Dispensationalism 

Dispensationalism according to J.C. O'Neill is a system of Biblical interpretation that began in the nineteenth century that allowed the students of the Bible to understand the Bible as one book. O'Neill (1999: 158). The concept being that no portion or part of Biblical Scripture would be understood apart from Scripture as a whole, in its entirety, a concept of C. I. Scofield (1843-1921). O'Neill (1999: 158). Dispensationalism is traced back to the teachings and writings of John Nelson Darby from Dublin (1800-1882) that was an early leader of the Plymouth Brethren. O'Neill (1999: 158). This system is referenced in the Scofield Reference Bible of 1902-1909, revised 1917 and 1966. O'Neill (1999: 158). The theology states that Biblically there is one redemption through Christ as planned. God deals with humanity through seven dispensations. These are Innocence (Genesis 1), to the expulsion from the Garden of Eden due to the Fall; Conscience or Moral Responsibility (Genesis 3) to the Flood; Human Government where God set this up, leading to the call of Abraham and following; Promise which is Israel's stewardship of God's law and truth, this would include the Mosaic law and Ten Commandments, Law, disciplinary correction up until the death of Jesus Christ; The Church and The Dispensation of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2) to Christ's return; and the 1000 year Kingdom of Revelation 20: 4 leading to the finalized everlasting state otherwise known as the 'eternal' state.

C.C. Ryrie reasons that at least three dispensations were mentioned by the Apostle Paul; one before the present time (Colossians 1: 25-26), the present time (Ephesians 3: 2), the future administration/Kingdom, and this assumes a fourth dispensation of pre and post fall. This makes five, the other two within Ryrie's view to make seven are after the Noahic flood and another with Abraham his call and followers. Ryrie (1996: 322).

Ryrie writes against a frequent criticism of dispensationalism by stating there have not been several ways of salvation in several dispensations, as the atoning death of Christ has always been the means of salvation. Ryrie (1996: 322). However, Ryrie, correctly on this point, I reason, warns against reading too much of the New Testament back into the Old Testament (Hebrew Bible) and reminds the reader that progressive revelation took place and that the context of faith changed in dispensations Ryrie (1996: 322).

Or if we reject the concept let us state Biblical eras rather than dispensations. True enough as under the old covenant there was mosaic law and under the new covenant there in the atoning work and resurrection of Christ, but both rely on the work of Christ for ultimate completed atoning work.

Ryrie writes that the system was developed by John Nelson Darby in recent history, relatively speaking, but he does not agree concepts were not mentioned previously noting Johnathan Edwards as one older historical example.

To further note, dispensation is from the Latin 'dispenso' to weigh out, to administer as a steward. Richardson (1999: 158). Theologically a system to regulate human obedience to God in religious and moral matters and therefore there is the concept/theory that there have been Biblical dispensations established. C.C. Ryrie places the related words back to New Testament Greek concepts of regulating and administration. Ryrie (1996: 321).

Covenant Theology

Covenant Theology according to M. E. Osterhaven is from the Reformation, so from a Reformed perspective and the sixteenth century. Osterhaven (1996: 279).  Early developments were from writings of Zwingli and Bullinger, Anabaptists and also John Calvin. Calvin being a major theological player. Osterhaven  (1996: 279).

Covenant theology, also known as Federal theology views God in a covenant with humanity similar to how God interacts in the Trinity. Osterhaven (1996: 279).  R. E. Clements describes the covenant tradition as developing very strongly in the Protestant tradition since the Reformation. Within the Westminster Confession of 1647 there is a concept of a unity of Biblical revelation with a denial of any concept that in the Old Testament there was any such thing as a covenant of works in regard to salvation. Clements (1999: 128).

Covenant of Works, this is also known as the Edenic covenant. This included a promise of everlasting life on  the condition of obedience for a certain period, death as a consequence of disobedience, the existence of the trees of life and of the knowledge of good and evil. Osterhaven (1996: 279).

As there was a fall, there is good news that God did intervene with another covenant in grace (Osterhaven (1996: 279).

Covenant of Redemption, reasons the trinue God eternally had a plan to save humankind. Osterhaven (1996: 279-280). Readers of my blogs, this one in particular will see how this fits in with my Doctorate and a compatibilist understanding that God as the cause of all things willingly allowed the fall in order to atone for persons, the elect through Christ, because ultimately, in the everlasting completed Kingdom God wanted persons that had experienced the problem of evil, results of the fall, salvation, and now in the perfected state with the guidance of the Holy Spirit would without a sin nature, having being purged in the resurrection, never sin again, or be seriously tempted to sin again. These persons would have levels of maturity and understanding and experience that Adam and Eve did not have in the Garden. A key point from my PhD thesis.

Covenant of Grace, encompasses the Gospel, atoning work, resurrection, election and culminated Kingdom hoped for, and promised in Revelation and 2 Peter. Osterhaven (1996: 280).

Both approaches include elements of systematic theology and therefore deduction. When I attended Columbia Bible College which was Mennonite and Anabaptist I was taught that the entire dispensational system was too subjective with too much guess work. But at Trinity Western University/Canadian Baptist Seminary one of my theology professors was a dispensationalist and/his main point was that the system wished to take the Bible literally, plain literally when required by context, and figurative literally when required by context. This assuming the Scripture was never fictional or myth. I have never been convinced by dispensationalism, although this professor made very good points on the literal nature of Scripture. I suppose there is something to the point that in the New Testament era I reason that the Apostles has certain spiritual abilities that we do not have today, but that would only make the New Testament a different 'dispensation' in a sense and would not be classic dispensationalism. Rather, just a belief that the Biblical/Apostolic times or in that era it contained certain miraculous events not typical today.  In those eras at times Prophets and Apostles performed miracles in order to foreshadow the coming culminated Kingdom of God. Miracles are possible today, no major theological argument here, but should not be expected, at least in that same context as we do not have Biblical Prophets and Apostles today.

A covenant/theology approach, although I do not list myself as a covenant theologian per say is in line with Reformed theological views, both Presbyterian and at times Baptist. Working through the speculative issues involved here seem less problematic with my Reformed compatiblistic views.

CLEMENTS, R.E. (1999) ‘Covenant’, in Alan Richardson and John Bowden (eds.), A New Dictionary of Christian Theology, Kent, SCM Press Ltd.

O'NEILL, J.C. (1999) ‘Covenant’, in Alan Richardson and John Bowden (eds.), A New Dictionary of Christian Theology, Kent, SCM Press Ltd.

OSTERHAVEN, M.E. (1996) ‘Covenant Theology’, in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.

RICHARDSON, ALAN (1999) ‘Dispensation’, in Alan Richardson and John Bowden (eds.), A New Dictionary of Christian Theology, Kent, SCM Press Ltd.

RYRIE, C.C. (1996) 'Dispensation, Dispensationalism', in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.

Bayern, Keonigssee, Germany-trekearth

Fear

Winter-Windows

Browning in his Oxford Bible Dictionary writes that a typical human expression provided for the emotion of terror would be in a verse such as Exodus 23: 27. Browning (1997: 134).

Exodus 23:27

English Standard Version (ESV)

'27 I will send my terror before you and will throw into confusion all the people against whom you shall come, and I will make all your enemies turn their backs to you.'

He noted the more important Biblical fear, as in awe of God, the holy God. This should induce a hatred of evil. Browning based this on Proverbs. Browning (1997: 134).

Proverbs 8:13

English Standard Version (ESV)

‘13 The fear of the Lord is hatred of evil. Pride and arrogance and the way of evil and perverted speech I hate.’

Browning further explains that there is in the New Testament a fear of the awesome, as in the supernatural, the Resurrection of Christ, being prime example in Mark 16: 8.

A Canadian Anabaptist History Professor of mine at Trinity Western University/Canadian Baptist Seminary stated in lectures that the modern Evangelical Church liked to emphasize very heavily in evangelism, the forgiveness, grace and mercy of God, and negate divine anger. The professor understood as I do that the evangelical position is a Biblical perspective as via Romans in the atonement and legal justification there is no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus (Romans 8: 1-NASB/ESV). The Holy Spirit guided life allows one in Christ to walk in faith, as one not able to fully follow the law. But the professor stated that the Church needed for the sake of sanctification, which is be to set apart, to made holy by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit until glorification at resurrection Grenz, Guretzki, Nordling (1999: 105), to have a healthy fear of God, that also reviews his people at judgment day as mentioned on this blog (Hebrews (9: 27, 2 Corinthians 5: 10).

Therefore, I would reason that there are negative fears such as satanic fears, fears very much of the sinful nature, fears that work against faith, fears of tomorrow which Jesus warned against...

Matthew 6:34

English Standard Version (ESV)

^'34 “Therefore do not be anxious about tomorrow, for tomorrow will be anxious for itself. Sufficient for the day is its own trouble.':

These are fears that are admittedly often very difficult to overcome in life, but these are not examples of healthy Biblical fear.

Healthy Biblical fear is a fear of being on the right side of God in this life in order to receive in grace granted still, a reasonable review in the next life.

As well, from philosophy of religion and psychological perspectives I can without difficulty agree with Browning that it is normal for certain human beings to have particular fears, not all human beings having the same fears, such as fears of physical pain, suffering, death, torture, humiliation, and to some extents the unknown and the future. This is part of being a finite and fallen being in a fallen world, but these fears too should be faced in prayer and in faith. Notice the tension between what Jesus stated about not worrying about tomorrow and a natural human inclination to be concerned about tomorrow. As Christians this requires reasonable, well-reasoned faith.

BROWNING, W.R.F. (1997) Dictionary of the Bible, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

GRENZ, STANLEY J., DAVID GURETZKI AND CHERITH FEE NORDLING (1999) Pocket Dictionary of Theological Terms, Downers Grove, Ill., InterVarsity Press.

Metaphysics

Seoul-trekearth

Metaphysics

Revised for an academia.edu entry on December 26, 2022

Louis P. Pojman  defines metaphysics as beyond physics. The study of ultimate reality, which is not accessible/available through empirical senses. He lists free will, causality, the nature of matter, immortality and the existence of God as being within the study of metaphysics. Pojman (1995: 598).

These are of course familiar topics on this philosophical theology and philosophy of religion website, although I do not use the term 'metaphysics' very often.

British philosopher, Simon Blackburn explains the term was used for three books from Aristotle after 'Physics' and is a term that raises enquiry about questions that cannot be answered by science and its empirical methods. Blackburn (1996: 240). 

Blackburn mentions the hostility to metaphysics throughout modern times especially as David Hume mentioned having it 'committed to the flames' in 'Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding' book  xii Pt 3.  Hume (1748) Blackburn (1996:  240).

It is assumed by some naturalists that the scientific method would be the only way to answer any real questions that would arise within metaphysics. Blackburn (1996: 240).

Panayot Butcharov defines it generally as the philosophical investigation of nature, and its reality, in how it is constituted. The study of non-physical entities, for example God, would be addressed. Butcharov (1996: 489). Metaphysics would be rejected by positivism on the basis of being meaningless. Since it is not empirically viable. Butcharov (1996: 489). Positivism being a form of empiricism viewing empirical science as the means of gaining knowledge and metaphysics, theology, and even aspects of philosophy as being viewed as questionable in obtaining knowledge.

A key point rendered is with that of the philosopher of religion, Pojman: The study of ultimate reality, which is not accessible/available through empirical senses. I view this as correct, and since empirical science is limited on these realities then it cannot be used as the only way to answer any real questions that would arise within metaphysics.

My views are as a Reformed, Biblical, philosophical theologian and also a philosopher of religion that can attempt to look at religion and Christianity from a secular, 'outside' of the Bible perspective.

There is extant:

Documented historical revelation within the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament
Documented historical revelation with the New Testament
These make up the Bible

There is also philosophical reasoning, speculation, propositions and conclusions and therefore arguments within philosophical theology and theistic, philosophy of religion that can be made in regard to free will, determinism, first cause, everlasting existence, life and death, and other issues.

These two areas combine to make up some very serious, academic disciplines that obtain knowledge such as Old Testament Studies, New Testament Studies, Biblical Archeology/Archaeology, Biblical Languages and Linguistics, Biblical Studies, Biblical Theology, Philosophical Theology and Philosophy of Religion.

At the MPhil level quite likely, and at a PhD level most likely, one within a Religion or Philosophy Department will have interaction with modern science. For my PhD revisions after my verbal Viva I was required to consult several science journals in regard to consciousnesses and to implement this scientific research into my Doctoral thesis.

I would reason that the dismissive conclusions of positivism and other empiricists, in basic agreement, are incorrect and that there are legitimate, serious, complex academic metaphysical disciplines related to Theology and Philosophy at times. Science is still, of course, used as an academic discipline to obtain truth as well. 

But, metaphysics and scientific, empirical, research and findings, do not cancel each other out, academically.

ARISTOTLE (1936) Physics, Translated by Apostle, Hippocrates G. (with Commentaries and Glossary). Oxford: University Press. 

ARISTOTLE (2018). Physics, Translated by Reeve, C. D. C. Cambridge, MA: Hackett Publishing Company. 

BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996) Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

BONJOUR, LAURENCE. (1996) ‘A Priori’, in Robert Audi (ed.), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

BUTCHAROV, PANAYOT (1996) ‘Metaphysics’, in Robert Audi (ed.), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

EDWARDS, PAUL AND ARTHUR PAP (1973) (eds), ‘A priori knowledge: Introduction’, A Modern Introduction To Philosophy, New York, The Free Press. 

GUYER, PAUL AND ALLEN W, in KANT, IMMANUEL (1781)(1787)(1998) Critique of Pure Reason, Translated and edited by Paul Guyer and Allen W. Wood, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

HUME, DAVID (1739-1740)(1973) ‘A Treatise of Human Nature’, in Paul Edwards and Arthur Pap (eds.), A Modern Introduction To Philosophy, New York, The Free Press. 

HUME, DAVID  (1748) (1910)(2014) 'An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding', text derived from the Harvard Classics Volume 37, 1910, P.F. Collier & Son, web edition published by eBooks@Adelaide. Last updated Wednesday, February 26, 2014 at 13:38.

An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding

HUME, DAVID (1779)(2004) Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, Lawrence, Kansas. 

KANT, IMMANUEL (1781)(1787)(1998) Critique of Pure Reason, Translated and edited by Paul Guyer and Allen W. Wood, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 

KANT, IMMANUEL (1781)(1787)(1929)(2006) Critique of Pure Reason, Translated by Norman Kemp Smith, London, Macmillan. 

KANT, IMMANUEL (1788)(1997) Critique of Practical Reason, Translated by Mary Gregor (ed.), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 

KANT, IMMANUEL (1788)(1898)(2006) The Critique of Practical Reason, Translated by Thomas Kingsmill Abbott, London, Longmans, Green, and Co. 

KANT, IMMANUEL (1791)(2001) ‘On The Miscarriage of All Philosophical Trials in Theodicy’, in Religion and Rational Theology, Translated by George di Giovanni and Allen Wood, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. 

KENT, JOHN (1999) ‘Positivism’, in Alan Richardson and John Bowden (eds.), New Dictionary of Christian Theology, Kent, SCM Press Ltd. 

POJMAN, LOUIS P. (1996) Philosophy: The Quest for Truth, New York, Wadsworth Publishing Company. 

WEIRICH, PAUL. (1996) ‘Comte, Auguste’, in Robert Audi (ed.), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

----

Of course if one fell over the edge for safety reasons he/she by design would fall into a catchment area of some sort where other water is stored. Even so, not a place where I would want do a martial arts workout.

Photo 1: Seoul-trekearth

Photo 2: Kuala Lumpar-trekearth

Photo 3: Marina Bay Sands Hotel, Singapore at 55 Storeys-Google Images

Lewis: Time Cannot Cancel Sin

Versaille, France via trekearth

Fire Lake, BC via trekearth

From

The Problem of Evil : Anglican and Baptist Perspectives: MPhil thesis, Bangor University (2003)

Russell Norman Murray

Related post:

C.S. Lewis and Wickedness 2008

Lewis (C.S.) also tackled the view that time cancels sin. He made an interesting point here: The guilt is not washed out by time but by the repentance and the blood of Christ: if we repented these early sins we should remember the price of our forgiveness and be humble. As for the fact of sin, is it probable that anything cancels it? All times are eternally present to God. Lewis (1940)(1996: 54-55). I agree that time cannot cancel sin, and that this is a huge error in thinking in today’s western world. The example of divorce comes to mind. It seems to me that an adulterer who has abandoned his/her mate after enough time often thinks that all should be forgiven, and that "we should stay friends." Although, I totally agree with God’s call for forgiveness, in the case of sin, friendship should be conditioned on things being set right with repentance, as well as forgiveness taking place. For things to be set right then, a wrong has to be admitted and seen for what it is, evil, and not simply overlooked after a certain amount of time. Lewis pointed out that nothing could truly cancel sin. Interesting speculation indeed, as he points out Christ paid for our sins, but sin is sin and will have always have taken place. I think, however, that God, as well as paying for sins with Christ, can also render the power of these sins useless in everlasting existence. Lewis warned against the idea that there is safety in numbers. Just because all people are evil does not make it right for individuals to do evil actions. The idea of speeding in a dangerous fashion comes to mind on a lighter note. In a more serious way, the persecution of different groups by a culture may be overlooked by the majority of the population, for example the Jews in Nazi Germany in Lewis’ era.

LEWIS, C.S. (1961)(1983) A Grief Observed, London, Faber and Faber.

LEWIS, C.S. (1941)(1990) The Screwtape Letters, Uhrichsville, Ohio,
Barbour and Company.

LEWIS, C.S. (1940)(1996) The Problem of Pain, San Francisco, Harper-Collins.

2012

To further comment on my MPhil work, those in Christ have sins forgiven within the new covenant as Jesus is the mediator of this in Hebrew 12: 24, and there is an everlasting inheritance 9: 15. There is the promise of the resurrection from First Corinthians 15. There is promise of judgment after death Hebrews 9:27,  and judgment for those in Christ, Second Corinthians 5: 10.

To add to my MPhil work I will state that I still agree that time does not cancel out sin (sins) even as the atoning and resurrection work of Christ is completely theologically and philosophically reasonable and sound.  So, although with the eventual restored Kingdom of God from Revelation Chapters 21-22 in everlasting existence, everlasting life, everlasting paradise, in a restored earth and universe, the power of sin will be rendered useless eventually; at this time, the sins persons that follow God do commit, although forgiven within the atoning work of Christ, the atonement, can have a lasting harmful effect on self and others.

To make matters worse as finite beings with lack of omniscience persons can lack knowledge of some of the damage done to others.

Therefore it is wise to seek Godly guidance now, seeking the Holy Spirit, being willing to repent, repenting when needed.

Atheism Anti-Theodicy And Praxis (PhD Edit)

Wales coast via trekearth

Atheism Anti-Theodicy And Praxis (PhD Edit)

PhD Full Version PDF 

2010 Theodicy and Practical Theology: PhD thesis, the University of Wales, Trinity Saint David, Lampeter 

Edited on July 15, 2022 for an entry on academia.edu.

---

Why an Atheistic Anti-Theodicy is not Included in the Thesis

One, my sample[1] has to be a certain group, and my advisors for both my MPhil[2] and PhD[3] work determined it must be persons within the Christian Church.  Therefore, sampling atheists would need to be necessarily excluded and I would not review as a primary philosophical presentation a perspective that could not provide me with an empirical sampling.[4]  

Two, there are key atheistic presentations within the work.[5]  The problem of evil itself is largely a critical and sometimes an atheistic criticism of theism and Christianity.[6]  This can be seen as the problem, as framed within the initial pages of the introduction,  and with the atheistic objections of Flew and Mackie,[7] as well as with the argument for gratuitous evil from William Rowe,[8] and with critics of John Hick’s theodicy.[9]  Atheism and an overall critical view of Christianity, from traditional and progressive perspectives, will be examined within this work,[10] but the sample group is those that attend Christian Churches.  Therefore, it was deemed not necessary or appropriate within the context of this thesis to review an atheistic position against theodicy as there are plenty of critical and atheistic citations and critiques within my work, and far more importantly I would not be able to sample those that represent noted positions as they are not within the Christian Church.  This work is not seeking to place God in the docks or primarily to take God out of the docks.[11]

I should point out that the majority of scholars cited within this thesis do not agree with my Reformed sovereignty theodicy.  Certainly Feinberg’s view is similar as would be John Calvin’s[12] but Hick’s would be radically different,[13] and I would not likely receive support from the empirical theologians discussed.[14]  I am also citing many atheists and critics of traditional Christian views that would not agree with my perspectives.[15]  I have not attempted to write a thesis where I face little opposition, as on the contrary, even many of the traditional Christians cited would oppose my Reformed sovereignty perspective, such as Plantinga and incompatibilists.[16]  I also have included many positions critical of my own, such as non-traditional views on omnipotence that follows and the views of Immanuel Kant concerning religious dogma and belief.[17]   Within Chapter Three where I discuss Reformed methodology, I also discuss different non-Reformed perspectives.  As shall be discussed in Chapter Five, many of the questionnaire respondents do not agree with my theodicy on key points.[18] 

Critical/Atheistic Praxis

The three approaches all take an ultimately positive view towards reality and that God would eventually succeed in his purposes.[19]  These three theodicy view evil as part of the end goal praxis of bringing about a greater good and justifying God, his perfect goodness and plans in the end.  C. Robert Mesle has noted these types of views that use greater good arguments make God the author of evil and make evil less than genuine.[20]  As noted, atheist William Rowe states that not all evil can be used for the greater good and certainly some must be gratuitous.[21]   The greater good argument can always be challenged with good counter-arguments,[22] and although I disagree with the concept of gratuitous evil, I accept Rowe’s point that some evil is inscrutable,[23] which is evil that cannot be understood reasonably well by human beings[24]  An atheistic[25] praxis concerning the problem of evil could be that life has no deeper meaning or purpose beyond physical death,[26] and that all persons suffer and die with no further meaning to life.[27]  Science does not offer humanity an end directed goal of continued life.[28]  As noted earlier in this work, Darrow writes the best one can do is basically cling to life on earth as we head toward ‘a common doom.’[29]  An atheistic praxis coming from this type of view could be criticized as negative,[30] but science cannot be primarily sought for support of theodicy,[31] and theodicy should be based on solid religious and philosophical reasoning.  In the case of free will and sovereignty perspectives, there is a heavy reliance on Scriptural revelation which is based in history.[32]  Hick’s view has an understanding that God could begin to be understood to some degree in metaphorical terms through the writings of a variety of religious traditions.[33]  He takes a Kantian understanding[34]  that God could not be affirmed as an actual or possible concept,[35] although God can be assumed as possible.[36]  Hick takes this idea of Kant’s and deduces that when it comes to religious doctrine the noumena realm that relates to the phenomena realm may have little in common with resulting phenomena.[37]

Certainly, an idea behind the writing of this thesis has been to make it clear that blind faith fueled theodicy is not intellectually acceptable.[38]  Theodicy should be based on research and reason using and considering a variety of perspectives.[39]  I reason this thesis has demonstrated a support for a reasonable Reformed theodicy and examined its strengths and weaknesses, as well as objectively reviewing other perspectives.

---

[1] The segment of a population selected for research. Bryman (2004: 543).  Therefore in this context, it is the group of people I chose to survey.  The material within my thesis is directly relevant to people within this population segment.

[2] For my MPhil thesis sample, it was Bible school and seminary students within the Christian Church.

[3] For my PhD thesis sample,  it was those that attend culturally Christian churches.

[4] By the same reasoning I also would not sample agnostics, Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus, etcetera.

[5] D.Z. Phillips and his, in a sense anti-theodicy, are quoted throughout this thesis.

[6] Epicurus (341-270 B.C.)(1949: 80).

[7] In regard to Plantinga, in Chapter Two.

[8] Chapter Four.

[9] Chapter Four. 

[10] Any critical evaluation of the problem of evil would include atheistic critiques evaluating theism.

[11] Doubtless many critics of theism and Christianity do place God in the docks and so a work should deal with these concepts. 

[12] Although Calvin did not write a theodicy, his views on free will and determinism are similar to mine as will be documented throughout the thesis.

[13] Hick’s theodicy is a non-traditional approach as he freely admits and I document in Chapter Four.

[14] It will be seen in Chapter Five that Reformed and Calvinist views of God’s retribution and punishment for humanity are not strongly emphasized and supported.  The overall presentation of the Dutch empiricists is Christian, but not Reformed.

[15] Frankly, a thesis minus serious critiques of theism and Reformed Christianity would not only be untenable in a secular PhD context, but also a Christian one as well.

[16] This will be discussed in Chapters Two and Three.

[17] Within Chapter Four.

[18] Please see questionnaire results in Chapter Five, and the graphs in Appendix.

[19] A positive view of ultimate reality has been well challenged by those such as Phillips, Roth and Darrow within this work.  Phillips (2005: 247).  Roth (1981: 19).  Darrow (1932)(1973: 453).  An intellectual problem being that free will, sovereignty and soul-making perspectives are all very speculative and state that eventually reality will be different and far better than it obviously is now empirically.  Tennant, contrary to Hick, reasons with his evolutionary view of theodicy that evil might always exist.  Tennant (1930)(1956: 195).   Hick (1970: 252-253).

[20] Mesle (1986: 418).

[21] Rowe (1990: 1-3).

[22] Rowe (1990: 1-3).  Mesle (1986: 418).

[23] Rowe (1990: 3).

[24] Rowe (1990: 3).  Philosophically certain evils and sufferings are inscrutable as Rowe states, but they can still treated with appropriate pastoral care.  

[25] And certain deistic and agnostic praxis as well.                                                                          

[26] Darrow (1928)(1973: 266).

[27] Darrow (1932)(1973: 453).

[28] Darrow (1932)(1973: 453).

[29] Darrow (1932)(1973: 453).

[30] Phillips (2005: 247). 

[31] I will not support a theodicy that is clearly against science, although I reason that metaphysical theodicy approaches are not scientific.

[32] This has been discussed previously within Chapter Three and is a major reason I support sovereignty theodicy as an overall approach.

[33] Hick (1993: 126). 

[34] Kant (1788)(1898)(2006: 1).  As discussed within Chapter Four.

[35] Kant (1788)(1898)(2006: 1). 

[36] Kant (1788)(1898)(2006: 1).  Guyer and Wood in Kant (1781)(1787)(1998: 14).

[37] Hick in Geivett (1993: 230). 

[38] That type of approach does not reasonably answer the objections and problems of those within and outside of the Church.

[39] As with this thesis and with my MPhil thesis, although I favour a Reformed approach, I do examine other Christian and secular perspectives.

BRYMAN, ALAN (2004) Social Research Methods, 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.

DARROW, CLARENCE (1928)(1973) ‘The Myth of the Soul’ in The Forum, October, in Paul Edwards and Arthur Pap (eds), A Modern Introduction To Philosophy, New York, The Free Press.

DARROW, CLARENCE (1932)(1973) ‘The Delusion of Design and Purpose’, in The Story of My Life,  October, in Paul Edwards and Arthur Pap (eds.), A Modern Introduction To Philosophy, New York, The Free Press.

FEINBERG, JOHN S. (1994) The Many Faces of Evil, Grand Rapids, Zondervan Publishing House.

GUYER, PAUL AND ALLEN W, in KANT, IMMANUEL (1781)(1787)(1998) Critique of Pure Reason, Translated and edited by Paul Guyer and Allen W. Wood, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

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.

KANT, IMMANUEL (1781)(1787)(1998) Critique of Pure Reason, Translated and edited by Paul Guyer and Allen W. Wood, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

KANT, IMMANUEL (1781)(1787)(1929)(2006) Critique of Pure Reason, Translated by Norman Kemp Smith, London, Macmillan.

KANT, IMMANUEL (1788)(1997) Critique of Practical Reason, Translated by Mary Gregor (ed.), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

KANT, IMMANUEL (1788)(1898)(2006) The Critique of Practical Reason, Translated by Thomas Kingsmill Abbott, London, Longmans, Green, and Co.

KANT, IMMANUEL (1791)(2001) ‘On The Miscarriage of All Philosophical Trials in Theodicy’, in Religion and Rational Theology, Translated by George di Giovanni and Allen Wood, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. 

MACKIE, J.L. (1955)(1996) ‘Evil and Omnipotence’, in Mind, in Michael Peterson, William Hasker, Bruce Reichenbach, and David Basinger (eds.), Philosophy of Religion, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

MACKIE, J.L. (1971)(1977)(2002) ‘Evil and Omnipotence’, in The Philosophy of Religion, in Alvin C. Plantinga, God, Freedom, and Evil, Grand Rapids. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. 

MESLE, C. ROBERT (1986) ‘The Problem of Genuine Evil: A Critique of John Hick’s Theodicy’, in The Journal of Religion, Volume 66, Number 4, pp. 412-430. October, Chicago, University of Chicago Press.

MESLE, C. ROBERT (1991) John Hick’s Theodicy, New York, St. Martin’s Press.

MESLE, C. ROBERT (2004) ‘Suffering, Meaning, and the Welfare of Children: What Do Theodicies Do?’, in American Journal of Theology & Philosophy, Volume 25, Number 3, September.  Lamoni, Iowa, Graceland University.

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.

ROTH, JOHN K. ‘Introduction’ (1892-1907)(1969) in The Moral Philosophy of William James, John K. Roth (ed.), Thomas Y. Crowell Company, New York.

ROTH, JOHN K. (1981) Encountering Evil, Stephen T. Davis (ed.), Atlanta, John Knox Press.

TENNANT, F.R.(1906) The Origin and Propagation of Sin, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. 

TENNANT, F.R.(1930)(1956) Philosophical Theology, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.