Blogger Blogging versus Facebook Blogging

Stanford (trekearth)


Stanford University (trekearth)

Blogger Blogging

Blogger is a free service and reasonably reliable to use. There are problems, such as it is more difficult to edit posts with the new interface and so I still use the old one for editing new posts then switch back for everyday use, however the new interface does add some new features such as more statistics. There is also a problem with the post updates with this blog as sometimes it reverts back to the title of a post from months ago and this is not corrected until I publish a new post. There was also a problem in the past on the blog of a post comment count being incorrect on the blog main page although the count was correct associated with the URL of the individual post.

More seriously there is the issue of reader comments not being published occasionally and when this happens please email them to me.

According to Blogger statistics my pageviews have actually increased in 2012 for this blog and Satire And Theology, my other blog, is doing as well in 2012 as in 2011. So there is a slow growth I would deduce in my readership. I of course am attempting to make the blogs better. Adding webcam is an example. At the same time my amount of reader comments from fellow bloggers has declined because many of my fellow bloggers and Blogger bloggers have curtailed their blogging, or perhaps ceased to blog on an independent blogging site blog. Or perhaps some persons have quit blogging.

I am sympathetic. It may often seem like one is writing his or her own online diary, regardless if the work is very good/excellent or pretty good or less. Obtaining readership, comments, links, and followers is difficult to achieve for many unless one has many social connections and/or is very well-known is the field he or she is writing about.

In my particular case as a moderate conservative Reformed Theologian and Philosopher I have found that many, not all, male theological types and students, for example, seemingly do not want to link or follow with others that are too different. So in my case as I am Reformed, one may not like my 'Calvinistic' views or compatibilistic views expressed from my theodicy/problem of evil studies and therefore will not link with me or follow me with Google/Blogger Friend Connect or Facebook Networked Blogs. I am also Canadian (British) not American. Also I have found that bloggers are primarily female and under 25 and so this creates another challenge with age difference and presenting one self as safe, fun, and worth the risk of getting to know. I am of course safe, fun and worth getting to know!

Whatever the situation of the blogger, one can always philosophically use the excuse of 'stranger danger' and 'I do not know that person' and therefore I will not dialogue with him or her or follow or link with that person. To be honest here I reason most Christian bloggers most of which I have viewed on Blogger are simply in a sense for the most part 'preaching to the converted'. They stay within their own groups and preach to each other.

If one will not in a sense evangelize other Christians, say for example, someone like myself, by being willing to be in contact with me as a reciprocal follower, link or social networking friend, how does one realistically expect to reach the unregenerate in a Western World, for example that in many ways is increasingly non-Christian?

I shall answer. One cannot, for the most part. One will be irrelevant to outsiders in a blogging context. So is this being obedient to the spirit of Matthew 28: 19-20?

Matthew 28:19-20

New American Standard Bible (NASB)

19 [a] Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you [b]always, even to the end of the age.”

I do not want to offend anyone here, I state this in love and truth, but I have blogged since 2004. On a related note I also have had to prepare an MPhil survey and PhD survey reaching to largely evangelicals, mainly in the United States and gained the same impression.

I am also aware that nothing makes up for knowing someone in person, and that knowing someone online is not the same, but I reason that sometimes reasonable steps of faith need to be made to give other people a chance. To be obedient to God's will, in all likelihood in certain situations.

With these kinds of challenges it is not a surprise that some persons have opted to blog on Facebook.

Facebook Blogging

On Facebook one is surrounded by family, close friends, casual friends, and 'stranger friends' that at least one knows enough to be trusted as a internet/web friend. This becomes in my mind a safer and perhaps more encouraging place to potentially blog than an independent site such as Blogger. As well as one posts one is more likely to earn the instant gratification of a Facebook 'Like' or a comment from one that somewhat knows that Facebook Friend as opposed to on Blogger where if anyone even reads a post, a comment may be quite unlikely.

Summary

I enjoy Facebook for dialoguing with friends, especially those at a distance and meeting new people in particular through my Blogger blogging. I promote my Blogger blogs through 'headers' or 'teasers' by publishing the latest post titles and some of the comments or portions of those comments. I also at times promote my blogs through my Facebook status updates. Personally, I am not interested in blogging on Facebook because I already have a sufficient theological/philosophical online presence with Blogger and for the sake of a balanced life strongly reason that I should do not blog further. I also personally prefer an independent blog site to blog with where one can have photos and other as opposed to blogging on Facebook.

As well, on Facebook hypothetically let us state from a Christian ministry perspective one has 5, 000 friends, and I have nowhere near that many. So, when a person blogs on Facebook he or she can potentially reach 5, 000 friends plus more persons if the profile is open as mine is open. However on Blogger many more persons potentially can be reached worldwide with a well-marketed blog in time and one can still promote that Blogger blog or WordPress blog, or other blog on Facebook as well. I reason that as a potential ministry tool using Blogger and Facebook together with Blogger as the main blog has in many cases more ministry potential than simply blogging on Facebook. But again I am sympathetic to those that prefer to just blog on Facebook as it definitely has it benefits over Blogger as noted.

Definitions

Calvinism and Reformed

Calvinism being the theological system stemming from the work of Reformation theologian John Calvin and for example his Institutes of the Christian Religion and his doctrine of TUILP. Grenz, Guretzki, and Nordling (1999: 23). I have been influenced by Calvin's work in The Bondage and Liberation of The Will, The Institutes and TULIP, and I am member of a Reformed Presbyterian Church here in Canada. On issues of sovereignty, free will and determinism I could be viewed as basically Calvinistic, Reformed, Presbyterian. But on the issue of Baptism, although I do not view infant baptism as heretical by any means I primarily hold to believers baptism as would a Reformed Baptist. I therefore see myself as Reformed primarily and not a Calvinist or Calvinistic. It can be quite difficult to find a Reformed Baptist church here in Canada and as well many Baptists tend to place too much emphasis on libertarian free will, for example. I am quite comfortable with the PCA as a denomination in a Canadian context.

Compatibilism/Incompatibilism

P.S. Greenspan writes that compatibilism holds to free will and determinism being compatible. Greenspan (1998: 1). Louis P. Pojman, defines compatibilism as the concept that an act can be entirely determined and yet be free in the sense that it was done voluntarily and without compulsion. Pojman (1996: 596). J.S. Feinberg explains that compatibilism does not allow for coercion or force, but holds that God, or some outside force, can simultaneously determine with the use of persuasion, that an action will or will not take place. Feinberg (1986: 24). Feinberg writes that certain nonconstraining conditions could strongly influence actions, in conjunction with human free will performing these actions. Feinberg (1994: 60). With this viewpoint, there will be no contradiction in stating that God would create human beings who were significantly free, unconstrained, and yet committed actions that God willed. Feinberg (2001: 637). W.T. Stace (1952)(1976) explains that moral responsibility is consistent with determinism in the context of soft determinism and requires it. Stace (1952)(1976: 29). If human actions are uncaused then reward or punishment would be unjustified. Stace (1952)(1976: 29). Stace reasons that there must be at least some human cause within human actions to make them morally responsible acts. Stace (1952)(1976: 30).

Indeterminism is equated with incompatibilism which states that God, or any other being, cannot cause by force or coercion any human action, nor can any action be simultaneously willed by God or any other being, for the human action to remain significantly free. Compatibilism would agree with incompatibilism that God or any other being cannot cause by force or coercion any significantly free human action, but contrary to incompatibilism thinks that God can simultaneously will significantly free human actions.

Theodicy

Robert M. Adams notes that the word theodicy is from the Greek, as 'theos' is God and 'dike' is justice. The term arose with the book from Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz in 1710entitled Theodicy. A good definition of theodicy is the explanation of how the infinite, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent God accomplishes his plans within his creation where the problem of evil exists. Simon Blackburn writes that theodicy is the part of theology concerned with defending the omnibenevolence and omnipotence of God while suffering and evil exists in the world. Blackburn (1996: 375).

ADAMS, ROBERT. M (1996) ‘Theodicy’, in Robert Audi (ed.), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

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

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

GRENZ, STANLEY J., DAVID GURETZKI AND CHERITH FEE NORDLING (1999) Pocket Dictionary of Theological TermsPhilosophy: The Quest for Truth, New York, Wadsworth Publishing Company.

STACE, W.T. (1952)(1976) Religion and the Modern Mind, in John R. Burr and Milton Goldinger (eds), Philosophy and Contemporary Issues, London, Collier Macmillan Publishers.

I placed this on the other blog previously. My accidental, originally unknown movie in my attempts to learn Microsoft webcam. I think it at least sort of humourous.

Thank you (August 29, 2012)

Irenaeus and John Hick (PhD Edit)

Notre-Dame, Lyon France (trekearth)

Irenaeus was a Priest in Lyon, France


Lyon Bridge (trekearth)


Lyon (trekearth)


Lyon (trekearth)

Irenaeus

It is widely accepted that Hick is writing a theodicy within the Irenean tradition.[1] To Hick, Irenaeus believed God’s creation of humanity was the initial stage in a process that would lead to persons ultimately possessing the likeness of God.[2] Hick quotes Irenaeus in Against Heresies where humanity, in its original state is called immature.[3] Irenaeus (c 175-185)(2005) in Against Heresies deduces that God could have made humanity originally perfect, but the newness and immaturity of his actual creation made it impossible to grant.[4]

In Proof of Apostolic Preaching (c185)(2005), Irenaeus notes that human beings were as children in the beginning and were easily led astray by the deceiver.[5] A child as such is immature and needs to grow towards perfection.[6] Hick agrees with these concepts and suggests that the approach of Irenaeus is a rejection of the Augustinian idea of a fall in which human beings are viewed as morally perfect beings who rebelled against God.[7] Instead, humanity in a child-like way wandered away from the rule of their creator in a rather innocent fashion.[8] According to Hick, for Irenaeus the breaking away of God’s children from their creator was not so much a crime, but a youthful error,[9] and Hick views this process as a divinely appointed situation for human beings to develop towards the ultimate likeness of God.[10]

It seems clear that Hick and Irenaeus are in agreement that original humanity was spiritually and morally immature.[11] There does, however, appear in Ireneaus’ writings the idea of a loss of moral right standing with God due to an initial disobedience. Irenaeus (c.175-185)(1998) writes, that the disobedience of one man caused many to become sinners and forfeit life, so it was needed for one man to justify and provide salvation to all.[12] This seems to support the possibility Irenaeus believed in original sin that occurred as human beings disobeyed God for the first time.[13] Original sin historically views persons as being born alienated from God,[14] assuming that the sin nature of the literal and historical Adam and Eve has spread to all descendents.[15] Calvin reasonably claims solidarity with Augustine’s view,[16] and indicates that the consequences of original sin means persons do not have the power to resist, as the will is in bondage until set free.[17] Augustine writes there is a ‘chain of original sin’ by which persons die in Adam.[18] He adds that in this condition, persons were born into misery.[19] Erickson suggests that due to Adam’s sin, all human beings received a corrupted nature,[20] and this is viewed as the imputation of original sin to persons.[21] All persons are not personally responsible for Adam’s sin, but all have inherited a corrupt nature.[22]

The doctrine of original sin is related to the fall concept and is viewed by many traditionalists as being a result of the fall.[23] The fall has already been discussed within Chapters Two and Three and therefore an extended discussion of the subject would be redundant. Gebara has a non-traditional perspective and cautiously suggests that original sin could be the somber experience of the transcendence and immanence of evil permeating through existence.[24] With this view evil could be the sin that engulfs all of God’s creation.[25] F.R. Tennant (1906) rejects a traditional doctrine of original sin[26] as he writes that the doctrine is self-condemned as the idea involves original guilt.[27] He reasons that guilt is only applicable to someone who has willingly committed an act,[28] and I would agree. I do not think that all human beings are guilty of the sin of Adam and Eve, or if one prefers, the first persons that disobeyed God.[29] I accept the doctrine of original sin in that the corrupted nature of humanity will inevitably lead to the human choice to commit wrong actions.[30] Tennant’s concept is to reject hypothetical prior causes of ‘sin’[31] and instead views human evil as the normal process of development that takes place in the human race.[32] Moral law would need to be established as humanity gradually develops over centuries.[33]

If Adam and Eve (my view), or the first human beings, disobeyed God and humanity became sinful in Irenaeus’ theology,[34] this means previously persons were not sinful and had been acceptable in the presence of God.[35] In Proof of Apostolic Preaching as previously noted, humanity is described in terms of children that were led astray by the deceiver.[36] They were influenced and transformed from a position of being right with God morally, to a position of being at a wrong place morally with God.[37] This indicates that Irenaeus believed human beings lost their original glorious place of stature and fellowship with God, although not a fall from a perfect, mature righteousness, but rather a departure from living in obedience to God.[38] For Irenaeus, through human disobedience, Adam and Eve were no longer acceptable to live in God’s Eden and were cast out.[39] If Irenaeus did not agree with the Augustinian position concerning the original perfect sinless nature of humanity,[40] he at least seemingly would agree that human beings had lost their moral position and right standing with their maker.[41] Harvard Professor, Everett Ferguson (1996) in his article ‘Irenaeus’ claims Irenaeus believed that what was lost in the disobedience because of the first Adam, was restored through the second Adam, Jesus Christ.[42] This again appears to make it possible that although Irenaeus and Hick have a similar view on the original immaturity of humanity,[43] that to Irenaeus the first human beings lost a right standing with God because of disobedience,[44] forfeiting a life of abundance with God.[45] Clearly it is plausible that Irenaeus would view this as some type of fall or departure from grace.[46] This does not mean that Irenaeus held to an Augustinian view of the fall,[47] but it appears Irenaeus understood human beings as being morally inferior to what they were previous to their initial sin against God.[48]

---

[1] Badham (2003: 27).

[2] Hick (1970: 218). Irenaeus (c 175-185)(2005: Book IV: Chapter 39: 2).

[3] Irenaeus (c 175-185)(2005: Book IV: Chapter 39: 2).

[4] Irenaeus (c 175-185)(2005: Book IV: Chapter 39: 2).

[5] Irenaeus (c 185)(2005: 14).

[6] Irenaeus (c 185)(2005: 14).

[7] Hick in Davis (2001: 40).

[8] Hick (1970: 220-221).

[9] Hick (1970: 220-221).

[10] Hick in Davis (2001: 41).

[11] Irenaeus (c 175-185)(2005: Book IV: Chapter 39: 2). Hick (1970: 218).

[12] Irenaeus (c.175-185)(1998: Book III, Chapter 18: 7).

[13] Irenaeus (c.175-185)(1998: Book III, Chapter 18: 7).

[14] Grenz, Guretzki, and Nordling (1999: 87).

[15] Grenz, Guretzki, and Nordling (1999: 87).

[16] Calvin (1543)(1996: 105).

[17] Calvin (1543)(1996: 105).

[18] Augustine (398-399)(1992: 82).

[19] Augustine (398-399)(1992: 197).

[20] Erickson (1994: 638).

[21] Erickson (1994: 638).

[22] Erickson (1994: 638).

[23] Erickson (1994: 915). Thiessen (1956: 253).

[24] Gebara (2002: 58-59).

[25] Gebara (2002: 58-59).

[26] Tennant (1906: 20).

[27] Tennant (1906: 20).

[28] Tennant (1906: 20).

[29] Tennant (1906: 20).

[30] Augustine (398-399)(1992: 82). Erickson (1994: 638).

[31] Tennant (1906: 20).

[32] Tennant (1906: 81).

[33] Tennant (1906: 81).

[34] Irenaeus (c.175-185)(1998: Book III, Chapter 18: 7).

[35] Irenaeus (c.175-185)(1998: Book III, Chapter 18: 7).

[36] Irenaeus (c.185-2005: 14).

[37] Irenaeus (c.175-185)(1998: Book III, Chapter 18: 7).

[38] Irenaeus (c.175-185)(1998: Book III, Chapter 18: 7).

[39] Irenaeus (c.175-185)(1998: Book III, Chapter 18: 7).

[40] Hick’s conjecture.

[41] Irenaeus (c.175-185)(1998: Book III, Chapter 18: 7).

[42] Ferguson (1996: 569).

[43] Irenaeus (c 175-185)(2005: Book IV: Chapter 39: 2). Hick (1970: 218).

[44] Irenaeus (c.175-185)(1998: Book III, Chapter 18: 7).

[45] Irenaeus (c.175-185)(1998: Book III, Chapter 18: 7).

[46] Irenaeus (c.175-185)(1998: Book III, Chapter 18: 7).

[47] It may be closer to an Augustinian view than John Hick would be willing to admit.

[48] Irenaeus (c.175-185)(1998: Book III, Chapter 18: 7).

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 (398-399)(1992) Confessions, Translated by Henry Chadwick, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

AUGUSTINE (400-416)(1987)(2004) On the Trinity, Translated by Reverend Arthur West Haddan, in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series One, Volume 3, Denver, The Catholic Encyclopedia.

AUGUSTINE (421)(1998) Enchiridion, Translated by J.F. Shaw, Denver, The Catholic Encyclopedia.

AUGUSTINE (426)(1958) The City of God, Translated by Gerald G. Walsh, Garden City, New York, Image Books.

AUGUSTINE (427)(1997) On Christian Doctrine, Translated by D.W. Robertson Jr., Upper Saddle River, N.J., Prentice Hall.

AUGUSTINE (427b)(1997) On Christian Teaching, Translated by R.P.H. Green, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

BADHAM, PAUL (2003) ‘Profile: John Hick’, in Epworth Review, Volume 30, Number 1, pp. 24-31. Peterborough, England, Methodist Publishing House.

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.

FERGUSON, EVERETT (1996) ‘Irenaeus’, in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.

GEBARA, IVONE (2002) Out of the Depths, Translated by Ann Patrick Ware, Minneapolis, Fortress 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 (1978) ‘Present and Future Life’, Harvard Theological Review, Volume 71, Number 1-2, January-April, Harvard University.

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

HICK, JOHN (1993) ‘Afterword’ in GEIVETT, R. DOUGLAS (1993) Evil and the Evidence for God, Philadelphia, Temple University Press.

HICK, JOHN (1993) The Metaphor of God Incarnate, Louisville, Kentucky, John Know Press.

HICK, JOHN (1994) Death and Eternal Life, Louisville, Kentucky, John Knox Press.

HICK, JOHN (1999) ‘Life after Death’, in Alan Richardson and John Bowden (eds.), A New Dictionary of Christian Theology, Kent, SCM Press.

IRENAEUS. (c 175-185)(1998) ‘Against Heresies’, in The Catholic Encyclopedia, Denver, The Catholic Encyclopedia.

IRENAEUS. (c 175-185)(2005) Against Heresies, in The Catholic Encyclopedia, Denver, The Catholic Encyclopedia.

IRENAEUS (c 185)(2005) Proof of Apostolic Preaching, Translated by J. Armitage Robinson, London, The Macmillan CO.

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.

THIESSEN, HENRY C. (1956) Introductory Lectures in Systematic Theology, Grand Rapids, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

End

Jokeroo


Not where I would take a date, or be taken.