Second Peter 3:9 In Brief With Webcam

Ohara Lake, Field British Columbia from trekearth

Agassiz, British Columbia from trekearth

Autumn: October 3, 2012

Post Preface on webcam

 

Edited at later dates

I decided to once again use my trial version of Wondershare and edit a video. I therefore also have a transparent 'tat' on my head as does Chucky on the present 'Jones' post on Satire And Theology.

Preface Authorship

David F. Payne notes that the majority of scholarship does not hold to the Apostle Peter as the author of Second Peter. Payne (1986: 1564).  The stylistic and linguistic objections are primary reasons. Payne (1986: 1564). William Barclay in his 1976 commentary also noted that there are stylistic differences. Barclay (1976: 286). He reasoned another author wrote the book in the name of the Apostle Peter for the sake of humility. Barclay (1976: 289).  Barclay listed differences in subject material between the two texts as a reason to not believe they were written by the same author, but this seems rather subjective.

Why does Part Two of a text necessarily need to duplicate material from Part One as evidence of same authorship?

Payne points out that as of 1986, when the commentary was written, linguistic studies done with computers have shown similarities between First and Second Peter.

As well, as I have mentioned other times on this blog, scribes did write for Apostles at times and that could account for literary and stylistic differences. Payne acknowledges that John Calvin thought Peter was responsible for Second Peter although not technically the writer. Payne (1986: 1565).

Second Peter 3:9

Second Peter 3:9 New American Standard Bible (NASB)

9 The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance.

William Barclay takes the perspective that when the text is stating that God does not want any to perish, like Paul in Romans in certain verses (Barclay lists 11: 32) it is in the context of God shutting persons out to unbelief. Barclay (1976: 343).

However, in the context of Second Peter 3:9 to whom is the writer writing to?

In the NASB it states 'patient toward you' not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance. The English Standard Version states 'but is patient toward you', not wishing that any should perish but that all should reach repentance'. In context the writer is speaking to Christians as in 'you'. Second Peter Chapter 2 was discussing in context false prophets and teachers but in Chapter 3 the writer, as he is writing to 'you', is clearly addressing Christians. The Chapter begins with a reminder of the words spoken of holy prophets (verse 2) and the commandments of the Lord and Saviour spoken by your apostles (verse 2). Mockers are then introduced in verse 3 and their own lusts, but by verse 9 the context is the writer speaking to Christians and that they be ready for the Second Advent of verse 10 as the Lord will arrive like a thief. Verse 10 then goes on to describe in what is likely somewhat figurative language, how the heavens will pass away and this ties into the New Heaven and New Earth of Revelation Chapters 21-22. Verse 11 states that since present things are destroyed that persons should be holy and godly.

Strong's Concordance ‘You’ #2248

Original Greek word ἡμᾶς

Meaning: our, us, we. The meaning is also documented for 2 Peter 3:9. The word being changed slightly in this usage. Strong (1890)(1986: 45). ὑμᾶς

Strong's Concordance ‘Perish’ #622

‘Perish’ Original Word: ἀπόλλυμι

Meaning: to destroy fully, to perish, to lose, literal or figurative , die. Documented in context of Second Peter. Strong (1890)(1986: 16). The word being altered slightly in this usage.  ἀπολέσθαι

In context therefore, it is possible that Second Peter Chapter 3:9 is not directed to non-believers in regard to salvation but is directed to Christians in regard to repentance. It may be stating basically that the Lord is patient with you (Christians), not wishing for any of you to (perish/die) in a state of non-repentance.

BARCLAY, WILLIAM (1976) The Letters of James and Peter, Philadelphia, The Westminster Press.

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

PAYNE. DAVID F.(1986) ‘2 Peter’, in F.F. Bruce, (ed.), The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Marshall Pickering/Zondervan.

STRONG, J. (1890)(1986) Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, Burlington, Welch Publishing Company.  

Evidential Evil (PhD Edit)

Portugal passage from trekearth

Preface

I am working on Chapter One from my PhD for a potential journal article. This struck me as most interesting from today's monotonous 'torture' while dealing with MS Word and the turning of United Kingdom style footnotes into Harvard style in-notes, among other things. If you appreciate my theological, Biblical Studies posts such as the James and Matthew posts, my previous two articles, please comment on them and this is an indicator besides pageviews. Yes, I intend to present both articles related to theodicy/the problem of evil and other on this blog.

Thank you very much.

I am primarily researching and writing on the logical and not the evidential, gratuitous problem of evil, since although I can accept that Plantinga has primarily successfully dealt with the logical problem of evil, as described within his system and assumptions,^[1] I reason that Plantinga’s free will approach is not the best and most effective system within Christian theism for dealing with the issue.[2]  A well-constructed sovereignty approach,[3] such as will be presented by John S. Feinberg in Chapter Three: Sovereignty Theodicy, is better equipped at dealing with both the logical and gratuitous problem.  I also embed my own sovereignty theodicy throughout this thesis, particularly in Chapter Three.^[4]  Within this thesis my own concepts of sovereignty theodicy are discussed in contrast to the approaches reviewed.^[5]  Plantinga’s (1982) approach is problematic due largely to his support of the idea that God could not create significantly free, good creatures that would only commit good acts at all times.^[6]  Welty rejects Plantinga’s idea that God cannot create a world containing moral good and no moral evil,^[7] and raises the objection that God brought Christ into the world as a sinless human being.^[8]  Welty’s point here is that every human being could have therefore been sinless^[9] and the world could contain good and no evil with significantly free human beings that would not commit wrong actions.[10]  I have a similar objection to Welty’s,^[11] which shall be discussed in Chapters Two and Three.  Within my theodicy, I reason that God could have, if he wished, made significantly free human beings, or human like beings who would have been perfectly morally good and would not commit wrong actions.^[12]  God’s choice not to create such beings, in my mind is not a sign of a lack of power, or moral failure, but rather the use of his own perfect and significantly free will for good purposes.  In Chapter Four, with my discussion on the evidential, gratuitous problem of evil, it shall be seen that a sovereignty theodicy can reasonably and successfully deal with both the logical and evidential problem of evil, and therefore the evidential problem is not a greater difficulty for theists than the logical one, rather it is simply a newer type of criticism since theism has been able to defend itself substantially through the use of free will approaches.^[13]  However, I can agree with Durston that even if there is no such thing as gratuitous evil,[14] which is my position, large amounts of evil that appear gratuitous will exist.[15]  This would be evil that I would consider unexplainable, humanly speaking, but would not be gratuitous from God’s perspective.  God can use evil for his greater purposes, but this does not mean that any person will completely understand why certain evils exist.[16]  God’s attribute of omniscience provides him knowledge in order to work his plans for the greater good within creation that no other being can possess without God revealing this information.                                

---

[1] Primarily from Plantinga’s book, God, Freedom, and Evil (1977).

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

[3] With Reformed theological deductions.

[4] It is similar, but not identical to Feinberg’s approach, which I shall point out.

[5] It is not necessary for me to present my own theodicy Chapter within this work, as my views shall be explained throughout this thesis.

[6] Plantinga (1982: 166-167).  This is an aspect of incompatibilism, which shall be primarily defined and discussed in Chapter Two.

[7] Plantinga (1977)(2002: 30).  Welty (1999: 1).

[8] Welty (1999: 1).

[9] Welty (1999: 1).

[10] Welty (1999: 1).

[11] Welty (1999: 1).

[12] This is an aspect of compatibilism, which shall be primarily defined and discussed in Chapters Two and Three.

[13] Freewill approaches can be logically coherent, although not necessarily true. 

[14] Durston (2000: 79).

[15] Durston (2000: 79).

[16] Durston (2000: 79).

 

DURSTON, KIRK (2000) ‘The Consequential Complexity of History and Gratuitous Evil’, in Religious Studies, Volume 36, pp. 65-80. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

PLANTINGA, ALVIN C. (1977)(2002) God, Freedom, and Evil, Grand Rapids, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

PLANTINGA, ALVIN C. (1982) The Nature of Necessity, Oxford, Clarendon Press.

WELTY, GREG (1999)  ‘The Problem of Evil’, in Greg Welty PhD, Fort Worth, Texas.

Philosophy Department, Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary.
---

Further comments

End

James 3: 2 In Brief

James 3: 2 In Brief

Edited on June 28, 2022 for an entry on academia.edu.

Photo: Goring Gap, England (trekearth)

Preface in Brief

New Testament scholar, William Barclay, explains that the Epistle of James had historically a difficult time getting into the New Testament Canon. And even when it did become recognized as inspired Scripture it was considered with caution and suspicion. Martin Luther was famous in the sixteenth century for wanting to ban it from the Canon at one time. Barclay (1976: 3).

Martin Luther

Citing Luther:

'But this James does nothing more than drive to the law and its works; and he mixes the two up in such disorderly fashion that it seems to me he must have been some good, pious man, who took some sayings of the apostles’ disciples and threw them thus on paper; or perhaps they were written down by someone else from his preaching. He calls the law a “law of liberty,” though St. Paul calls it a law of slavery, of wrath, of death and of sin (Galatians 3:23; Romans 7:11). 

Moreover, in James 5:20, he quotes the sayings of St. Peter, “Love covereth the multitude of sins” (1 Peter 4:8) and “Humble yourselves under the hand of God” (1 Peter 5:6), and of St. Paul (Galatians 5:10), “The Spirit lusteth against hatred”; and yet, in point of time, St. James was put to death by Herod, in Jerusalem, before St. Peter. So it seems that he came long after Sts. Peter and Paul. 

In a word, he wants to guard against those who relied on faith without works, and is unequal to the task [in spirit, thought, and words, and rends the Scriptures and thereby resists Paul and all Scripture], and would accomplish by insisting on the Law what the apostles accomplish by inciting men to love. Therefore, I cannot put him among the chief books, though I would not thereby prevent anyone from putting him where he pleases and estimating him as he pleases; for there are many good sayings in him.(130).'

---

T.Carson notes that Origen did quote James as Scripture. Carson (1986: 1535). There were many doubts concerning canonicity also because many relevant persons were unsure of whom the author might be. Carson takes the historical understanding that the author is James the half-brother of Jesus Christ. Carson (1986: 1534).

By the end of the fourth century many of the doubts of canonicity were ended until the Reformation with Martin Luther's objections. Carson (1986: 1535). Carson reasons that Luther mistakenly viewed differences between James and Paul in regard to faith and works. Carson (1986: 1535). Modern scholarship generally reasons that there is no disagreement, instead James is stating that basically 'barren orthodoxy needs obedience to give it life'. Carson (1986: 1535). Therefore not disagreeing with the Apostle Paul that works cannot save someone in the sense of everlasting non-temporal salvation, but that someone in Christ in this life should have works. This very much relates in concept to Ephesians 2 in that someone saved by grace through faith should have works, as the ideal.

I would personally opine that commentaries and scholarship are very helpful in understanding that ultimately, the Book of James, does not contradict Pauline theology. This as opposed to an impression that may be found from an English only read of James itself. The read being essential for the English reader, but not the only key tool available for understanding the Book of James, reasonably well.

James 3 For Context

James 3:1-5 The New Revised Standard Version

1 Let not many of you become teachers, my brethren, for you know that we who teach shall be judged with greater strictness. 2 For we all make many mistakes, and if any one makes no mistakes in what he says he is a perfect man, able to bridle the whole body also. 3 If we put bits into the mouths of horses that they may obey us, we guide their whole bodies. 4 Look at the ships also; though they are so great and are driven by strong winds, they are guided by a very small rudder wherever the will of the pilot directs. 5 So the tongue is a little member and boasts of great things. How great a forest is set ablaze by a small fire!

James 3: 2 In Brief

The New Revised Standard Version is a Bible version I rarely consult. I use the New American Standard Bible, English Standard Version, King James Version and New Testament Greek texts mainly. With my PhD journeys to Wales I decided to purchase a Bible relevant to my academic setting and therefore I bought the New Revised Standard Version, plus I thought it was good to have a Bible version that contained the Apocrypha, which I have only glanced at.

I have found this translation of James 3: 2 theologically and philosophically useful from a Reformed perspective:

2 For we all make many mistakes, and if any one makes no mistakes in what he says he is a perfect man, able to bridle the whole body also.

I appreciate the use of the terms 'we all make many mistakes'. It seems practically true. Mistakes, although more than that by definition granted, are something we do when we commit sins, it seems appropriate. From Marshall and the Greek New Testament there seemed nothing controversial with the either Greek rendering.



From Marshall it provides an interpretation of 'we stumble'. γὰρ πταίομεν

From the New American Standard Bible:

² For we all stumble in many ways. If anyone does not stumble in what he says, he is a perfect man, able to bridle the whole body as well.

Closer to the New Testament Greek version it appears.

From the English Standard Version Bible:
² For we all stumble in many ways. And if anyone does not stumble in what he says, he is a perfect man, able also to bridle his whole body.

As is this, it appears.

Theologically and philosophically one can reason from Scripture that as all 'make mistakes' or more strictly Biblically accurately 'we stumble' that this is in line with the words of Paul in Romans where all humanity in verse 23 has been labelled as sinning and falling short of the glory of God, and not a righteous person exists, not one, verse 10, or even one that seeks after God, verse 11.

Barclay uses the term 'slip up' and also ties this section of Scripture, as I did, to Paul and Romans 3. Barclay (1976: 82). He quotes the Apostle John in 1 John 1: 8 and the fact that every person sins. As a result humanity should be humble concerning the issue. There is no room for human pride in regard to the issue of sin as each person has 'a blot to which to be ashamed.' Barclay (1976: 82).

Whether reading James or Paul based on this type of theological view of imperfect humanity these imperfections due to sin, 'slip ups', 'mistakes', 'many stumbles' are of a sinful/sin nature and lead to sinning and cause a human being to not be in communion with God that is perfect, as persons, other than Jesus Christ, cannot be perfect and sinless. There is not one other than Christ that uses, for example, the tongue perfectly in speech and related conduct. Therefore according to the Biblical record the atonement (The Gospels, Romans, Hebrews) and resurrection (The Gospels, 1 Corinthians 15) of Christ needs to be applied to those God chooses (Romans 8-9, Ephesians 1) to have the righteousness of Christ (Romans 1). In the future culminated Kingdom, resurrected persons, although finite will share in the perfection of the infinite perfect God (Revelation 21-22).

The alternative is to stay imperfect and unacceptable to God, post-mortem (Revelation 20-22).

---

BARCLAY, WILLIAM (1976) The Letters of James and Peter, Philadelphia, The Westminster Press.

BAUER, WALTER. (1979) A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, Translated by Eric H. Wahlstrom, Chicago, The University of Chicago Press.

BRUCE, F.F. (1987) Romans, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. 

CAIRD, GEORGE B. (1977) Paul's Letters from Prison Paperback, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

CARSON, T. (1986) ‘James’, in F.F. Bruce (ed.), The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Zondervan.

COAD, F. ROY (1986) ‘Galatians’, in F.F. Bruce (gen.ed.), The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Marshall Pickering/ Zondervan.

COURSON, JON (2005) Application Commentary, Thomas Nelson, Nashville. 

CRANFIELD, C.E.B. (1992) Romans: A Shorter Commentary, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. 

DUNNETT, WALTER M. (2001) Exploring The New Testament, Wheaton, Crossway Books. 

ELWELL, WALTER AND YARBROUGH, ROBERT W., Third Edition (2013) Encountering The New Testament, Grand Rapids, Baker Academic.

FEE, GORDON (1987) The First Epistle to the Corinthians, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

FOULKES, FRANCIS (1989) Ephesians, Grand Rapids, Inter-Varsity Press.

GUNDRY, ROBERT (1981) A Survey of the New Testament, Grand Rapids, Zondervan.

HARPUR, GEORGE (1986) Ephesians in The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Zondervan.

LIGHTFOOT, JOHN B. (1993) The Destination of the Epistle to the Ephesians in Biblical Essays, New York, Macmillan.

LUTHER, MARTIN (1522-1545) Prefaces to the Books of the Bible, PDF.

file:///E:/DT%20101%20G2/Blog%2066/Prefaces-to-the-Books-of-the-Bible-with-cover.pdf

These prefaces were originally published in Works Of Martin Luther Translated With Introductions and Notes Volume VI, by A. J. Holman Company and The Castle Press, 1932. The copyright was not renewed in 1960, releasing the text into the public domain.

MARSH, PAUL, W. (1986) ‘1 Corinthians’, in F.F. Bruce, (ed.), The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Marshall Pickering/Zondervan.

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

MOUNCE, ROBERT H. (1990) The Book of Revelation, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

MOUNCE, ROBERT H. (1995) The New American Commentary: Romans, Nashville, Broadman & Holman Publishers.

STRONG, J. (1890)(1986) Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, Burlington, Welch Publishing Company.

 
THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT (1993) Stuttgart, United Bible Societies. 

The Orthodox Study Bible, New Testament and Psalms, (1993) Saint Athanasius Orthodox Academy, Thomas Nelson Publishers, Nashville, Tennessee.  

Photo: Bolten Abbey, England (trekearth)

Short Theological/Philosophical Post On Matthew 5: 27-30

Sydney (Google Images)


Vancouver (trekearth)

Preface

Based on personal discussions and issues with friends lately and over the years.

R.T. France provides the opinion that the 'Sermon on the Mount' for which this section is a part, is a series on discipleship. France (1985: 105). Much of it original to Matthew but approximately half of it parallelled in Luke but not always identical in form. France (1985: 105). H.L. Ellison states there is no reason to believe that all the teachings were done at once and that Jesus did not repeat them and sometimes with variation. Ellison (1986: 1124).

Matthew 5: 27-30 English Standard Version

27 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ 28 But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29 If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell. 30 And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body go into hell.

France reasons the seventh commandment does not exist to prohibit a natural sexual attraction (p.121) but rather the desire for 'an illicit relationship'. France (1985: 121).

ἐπιθυμῆσαι (to desire) from verse 28. From Marshall.

28 ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν ὅτι πᾶς ὁ βλέπων γυναῖκα πρὸς τὸ ἐπιθυμῆσαι αὐτὴν ἤδη ἐμοίχευσεν
But I tell you that everyone seeing a woman with a view to desire (her) already committed adultery with
αὐτὴν ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ αὐτοῦ.
her in the heart of him.

France explains Jesus equates such a lustful attitude with 'implicit theft' (p. 121). If Jesus was more so concentrating on the greater sin of adultery as opposed to the lessor sin of fornication (where no married person is concerned) he was still in no way condoning the lessor sin. Ellison (1986: 1124: 1125).

Jesus Christ was using metaphorical, figurative language concerning the eye and the hand in this context. France (1985: 121: 122). One eye and one hand should be metaphorically, figuratively eliminated from the human body if this led to the end of lust. France (1985: 121: 122). This 'self-mutilation is not to be taken literally' (p. 122). The key here is an avoidance of temptation that will involve sacrifice, a changing philosophy, thought pattern and habits.

Theologically and philosophically these concepts can be further connected to 1 Corinthians 7 where it is stated by the Apostle Paul in verse 2:

1 Corinthians 7: 2 English Standard Version

2 But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband.

In Matthew 5 there are theologically and also philosophically concepts that can be related and avoidance of sinful practices that rightly need to be exercised from a Christian's life. However it can be reasoned from the Epistle that it would be Biblical to attempt via the Holy Spirit to find someone in Christ of spiritual, intellectual and physical compatibility, in modern terms of course. This must be done wisely with more of an appeal to spiritual concerns and overall compatibility as opposed to assuming social rules for example, although important in society, the family, and the Church, that may simply and likely solve the issue. This more comprehensive approach too would also serve as a counter to what is being discussed as sin in Matthew 5.

Therefore, there would be both negative and positive active components related to avoiding the sin discussed in Matthew 5 and Jesus' teachings.

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.

F. R. Tennant & Theodicy (PhD Edits) and First Use of New Blogger Interface

Sydney (trekearth)

Preface

Greetings.

This will be my first post done mainly with the new Blogger interface. It has been standard for months but because it has been more difficult to use I have been using the old Blogger interface. However, based on Blogger messages at the Dashboard I reason time is short for the old interface and I should become used to the new set-up which is superior overall with more benefits but at this point has too many problems at the word processing level. I began this post with presenting my usual world tourism photos and as I suspected from previous trials the blog look will be slightly different. So far it has been quite problematic with basic spacing issues between images and text and some of the post will have to be done with the old interface this time. I realize Blogger is a free service, but Google is a multi-billion dollar corporation at the head of Blogger and this should have been corrected months ago.

Tennant and Original Sin

F.R. Tennant (1906) rejects a traditional doctrine of original sin[1] as he writes that the doctrine is self-condemned as the idea involves original guilt.[2] He reasons that guilt is only applicable to someone who has willingly committed an act,[3]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 with some progressive positions which I do not hold to, the first persons that disobeyed God.[4] 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.[5] Tennant’s concept is to reject hypothetical prior causes of ‘sin’[6] and instead views human evil as the normal process of development that takes place in the human race.[7] Moral law would need to be established ashumanity gradually develops over centuries.[8]

Tennant and Evolutionary Type Theodicy

F.R. Tennant (1930)(1956) writes an evolutionary type theodicy[9]and notes that a world characterized by static perfection is incompatible withour known world of evolutionary process.[10] Hick with a Soul-MakingTheodicy writes that some form of a two-stage creation of humanity[11] must be accepted by Christian theodicy in order to provide an effective modern, progressive approach.[12] Human beings must, through uncompelled responses and co-operation with the creator, become children of God.[13] Hick notes importantly that the soul-making evolutionary process would not be caused by natural andinevitable human progress.[14] Although there has been some ethical progress throughout history,[15]the morality of humanity remains much the same as it has always been.[16] To Hick, humanity is not being developed by a preset divine evolutionary condition towards godliness,[17]but rather God will evolve individuals through a personal spiritual experience within each person.[18] Tennant believes that infuture ages good may begin to gain over evil in accelerated speed,[19]but he acknowledges that evil may continue everlastingly, while never being able to overcome good.[20] Hick, in reviewing Tennant’s work on theodicy, views the possibility of everlasting evil as gravely weakening Tennant’s evolutionary approach.[21] It would not guarantee acompletely successful teleological[22] theodicy in which all human beings are eventually redeemed by God.[23] Hick states that there is a universal human process which will continue in most post-mortem souls, as only a few have a proper understanding of God while on earth.[24]

Tennant and Post-Mortem Existence

Tennant (1930) writes that Supreme Being is a God of the living and not of the dead,[25]and that this God would respect persons and not cut them off with everlasting death, but provide them with everlasting life.[26] An evolutionary theodicy that believes in soul-making provides all of humanity with the hope that post-mortem existence[27]will be good and an improvement from earthly life.

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

BLOESCH, DONALDG. (1987) Freedom for Obedience, SanFrancisco, Harper and Rowe Publishers.

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

ERICKSON,MILLARD (2003) What Does God Know andWhen Does He Know It?, Grand Rapids,Zondervan.

GEBARA, IVONE(2002) Out of the Depths, Translatedby Ann Patrick Ware, Minneapolis, Fortress Press.

HICK, JOHN(1970) Evil and The God of Love,London, The Fontana Library.

HICK, JOHN(1978) ‘Present and Future Life’, HarvardTheological Review, Volume 71, Number 1-2, January-April, HarvardUniversity.

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 forGod, 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.

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.

SCUDDER, DELTON,LEWIS (1940) Tennant’s PhilosophicalTheology, London, Oxford University 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.

---

[1] Tennant (1906:20).

[2] Tennant (1906: 20).

[3] Tennant (1906: 20).

[4] Tennant (1906:20).

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

[6] Tennant (1906:20).

[7] Tennant (1906: 81).

[8] Tennant (1906: 81).

[9] Tennant (1930)(1956:184).

[10] Tennant (1930)(1956: 184).

[11] Hick (1970: 291).

[12] Hick (1970: 291).

[13] Hick (1970: 291).

[14] Hick (1970: 292).

[15] Western secularismhas placed an importance on human rights in regard to women’s rights and therights of ethnic minorities. However,Gebara would state that women’s suffering worldwide need to be better understood through a feminist construct. There is a male view of evil that has been predominant throughout Christian history. Gebara (2002: 4-6).

[16] Hick (1970: 292).

[17] Hick (1970: 292).

[18] Hick (1970: 292).

[19] Tennant(1930)(1956: 195).

[20] Tennant (1930)(1956: 195).

[21] Hick (1970: 252-253).

[22] Bloesch (1987: 19).

[23] Hick (1970: 252-253).

[24] Hick in Davis (2001: 51). Phillips (2005: 87).

[25] Tennant (1930:205).

[26] Tennant (1930: 205).

[27] Hick (1978:13).