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.

Regeneration: Reformed Views And Others (PhD Edit)

John Murray (1937-1966)(1977) explains that the Holy Spirit ‘summons men into union and fellowship with his Son so that, united to him in whom all spiritual blessings are treasured, they come to possess Christ and all that belongs to him in his capacity as Saviour and Redeemer.’[1] 

Regeneration[2] takes place which is a powerful change in the human being via the Holy Spirit,[3] which transforms one corrupt and in sin in opposition to God,[4] to one pleasing to God and trusting in God. 

It is a new ‘vital principle, a new habit, the law of God, and a divine nature’ are framed in a human heart.[5] Herman Bavinck (1918)(2006) equates the term regeneration with rebirth.[6] In John 3, Jesus does not literally speak of one being born a second time, but literally insists one be born from above.[7]  

Regeneration consists of a person being converted from a life of giving in to temptation to one living in relationship with God.[8] It is the communication of divine life to a soul.[9] At the instance of regeneration the Holy Spirit begins a new inclination within the fallen human will.[10] The human being is given a divine inclination, not of self, as it is contrary to the his or her fallen inclination, by the Holy Spirit.[11] Within Reformed theology, regeneration is viewed as an initial one time act of the Holy Spirit in a person,[12] and a person is therefore understood to be converted and therefore able to freely believe.[13] My view is that it is indeed God’s choice alone to regenerate and therefore he alone is active in regeneration,[14] but simultaneously as a person is regenerated they believe in Christ.  Therefore although I view God as the initiator of regeneration I reason that logically, in order to avoid any suggestion of force or coercion,[15] as God regenerates the saved person, he or she simultaneously believes.[16] 

There is ‘no compulsion of the will in regeneration.’ states Shedd.[17]  Calvin reasons that a person is not forced or coerced to believe in the gospel.[18] I would view conversion as taking place simultaneously with regeneration in a person, although again I state that God alone via the Holy Spirit causes the regeneration process.[19] This means as God chooses to regenerate a person he simultaneously persuades one to freely believe.[20] Murray states that regeneration is logically antecedent to any conscious response,[21] and I reason that God’s choice to commit the act of regeneration must be antecedent due to the corrupt and sinful nature of persons.[22] The work of salvation was confined to God’s part in the calling.[23] This does not prohibit God from causing a compatibilistic human choice within conversion at the moment that God’s initial eternal choice to regenerate[24] becomes a divine act of regeneration.[25] 

As persons were regenerated they would hear the call of salvation, repent and believe in Christ.[26] I would view conversion as an aspect of regeneration, which is the beginning of the Christian experience.[27] Regeneration was to encompass the entire divine plan of recreation from the initial change in persons to the ultimate culmination of a new heaven and new earth.[28]

I will briefly discuss two other important views of regeneration within the Christian Church, admitting from my review of Reform approaches that there is not complete agreement on the issue.[29] Schleiermacher views regeneration as the turning point where the earlier life breaks and a new life begins.[30] Regeneration requires a change of consciousness of the individual,[31] and as this occurs a person no longer faces God with any type of enmity as a holy and righteous God, but instead experiences God’s love.[32] A new life is introduced to the Christian,[33] and through the ‘impartation of God in Christ and the Holy Spirit,’[34] the human ‘God-consciousness is renewed and made perfect.’[35]  Bavinck states the major difference between a Reformed view on regeneration and Schleiermacher’s view is that with the latter approach the need for a legal justification[36] is eliminated as persons would lose any guilt toward God and would, as stated previously, no longer have any enmity toward the Almighty.[37]

Concerning the idea of baptismal regeneration, Schreck explains that Roman Catholics view infant baptism ‘as normally the first step in accepting God’s salvation.’[38] He admits that the New Testament does not explicitly state whether or not infants or children were baptized,[39] but it is possible they were as ‘whole households’ are mentioned in the New Testament as receiving baptism.[40]  He reasons that there is no solid evidence that before the third century infants and children were baptized in the Church,[41] but by the fifth century this practice was universal in the Church.[42]  The theological hope with the practice of infant baptism is that the initial stages of regeneration have taken place through the faith of the parents,[43] as Schreck notes ‘Jesus does respond in this way when infants and children are baptized.’[44]  In the baptism process it is Christ that saves, and therefore salvation is not merited.[45] 

Whale reasons infant baptism demonstrates that Christ did something for a person, without waiting for human approval.[46]  Rebaptism[47] would never be needed as although baptized Roman Catholics can turn from the faith, if they do turn back to Christ the initial baptism is sufficient.[48] The sacrament of infant baptism is one of the ‘foundational stones of Church.’[49]  Klein, Blomberg and Hubbard reason it is not Biblically clear what type of baptism should be practiced.[50]  Infant baptism is not taught in Scripture directly,[51] and therefore it can be deduced the same could be stated for the associated concepts of baptismal regeneration with Roman Catholics[52] and Eastern Orthodox[53] Churches. However, legitimate theological inference leads to concepts of infant baptism,[54] and so there are also historical arguments for baptismal regeneration within the Christian community which includes Catholic,[55]  Eastern Orthodox,[56]  and even in some cases Presbyterian,[57] Lutheran and Episcopal.[58]

 

---

[1] Murray (1937-1966)(1977: 167).

[2] Murray (1937-1966)(1977: 171).

[3] Murray (1937-1966)(1977: 171).

[4] Murray (1937-1966)(1977: 168-169).  Soren Kierkegaard states that ‘sin is man’s destruction.’  Kierkegaard (1847-1848)(1955)(1966: 108). 

[5] Murray (1937-1966)(1977: 172).

[6] Bavinck (1918)(2006: 46).

[7] Bavinck (1918)(2006: 46).

[8] Erickson (1994: 600).

[9] Thiessen (1956: 367). Although this does not make a person divine, but rather one guided by God.

[10] Shedd (1874-1890)(1980: 136 Volume 2).

[11] Shedd (1874-1890)(1980: 136 Volume 2).  Packer views regeneration as the new birth and an inner re-creating of the fallen human nature through and by the grace of the Holy Spirit.  Packer (1996: 924).  I would not use the term re-create, but instead view regeneration as a process by which God begins to transform an individual to be  Christ-like, as in ultimately being a sinless human being.  This culminates in the resurrection. 1 Corinthians 15.

[12] Murray (1937-1966)(1977: 172).  Erickson (1994: 249).

[13] Murray (1937-1966)(1977: 172). 

[14] Murray (1937-1966)(1977: 172).  I agree with Murray on this point.

[15] Compatibilism allows for limited but significant human freedom.  Kierkegaard suggests that Christianity is a religion of freedom and Christians are convinced to voluntarily give up all contrary to Christ.  Kierkegaard (1847-1848)(1955)(1966: 186).  The term convinced is a good one and I reason this is a work of the Holy Spirit.

[16] This is my compatibilist theory which is in line with that of Feinberg  and which will be discussed later in this Chapter.

[17] Shedd (1874-1890)(1980: 136-137 Volume 2). 

[18] Calvin (1543)(1996: 68). 

[19] Murray (1937-1966)(1977: 172).

[20] This allows for a limited but significant human freedom within the salvation process that is not incompatibilism. Salvation remains alone a work of God.  Weber writes that God with his freedom effects both human freedom and human bondage as he reaches out to a saved person through the Word of God.  Weber (1955)(1981: 245).  This would be a work of the Spirit.

[21] Murray (1937-1966)(1977: 172).

[22] Murray (1937-1966)(1977: 168-169).

[23] Bavinck (1918)(2006: 53).

[24] As God is eternal this choice could be viewed as such. Humans of course are not eternal.

[25] Persons have via the Holy Spirit been molded and transformed in order to freely believe.  Thiessen, an incompatibilist, states that in regeneration the human is passive and is active in conversion. Thiessen (1956: 367).  I agree concerning regeneration, and I can agree in regard to conversion, only if by active the human being is convinced freely via the Holy Spirit and is not assumed to have incompatibilist free will.

[26] Bavinck (1918)(2006: 53).

[27] Franke notes that the Scripture explains that the Holy Spirit continued to guide the earliest Christians.  Franke (2005: 132).  The Spirit continues to work in regenerated/converted believers that embrace the gospel.

[28] Bavinck (1918)(2006: 53).

[29] My review and comments demonstrates that my understanding of compatibilism and regeneration, although generally Reformed, would certainly not be in agreement with Reformed exemplars cited on every point.  How regeneration works exactly is still a subject for open-minded metaphysical debate.  As well, certainly Christian incompatibilists could provide me with different viewpoints.

[30] Schleiermacher (1821)(1928)(1976: 106-109).  Bavinck (1918)(2006: 60-61).

[31] Schleiermacher (1821)(1928)(1976: 106-109).  Bavinck (1918)(2006: 60-61).

[32] Schleiermacher (1821)(1928)(1976: 106-109).  Bavinck (1918)(2006: 60-61).

[33] Bavinck (1918)(2006: 61).

[34] Schleiermacher (1821)(1928)(1976: 728).

[35] Schleiermacher (1821)(1928)(1976: 728).

[36] Erickson provides a Reformed position that justification is God’s actions through Christ in legally pronouncing sinners righteous.  Erickson (1994: 954).  Schreck discusses the Roman Catholic concept and states that justification and salvation are free gifts of God not earned by any work or even faith.  Those who are justified, however, should keep the commandments.  Roman Catholics are to persevere in faith and good works, even though works do not save a person.  Works are a fruit of true faith. Schreck (1984: 26-27). 

[37] Schleiermacher (1821)(1928)(1976: 106-109).  Bavinck (1918)(2006: 60-61).

[38] Schreck (1984: 124). 

[39] Schreck (1984: 126). 

[40] Schreck (1984: 126).  

[41] Schreck (1984: 127).  G.W. Bromiley writes that Irenaeus (ca. 130-ca. 200) and Origen (ca. 185-ca. 254) were Church Fathers that could be traced back to the Apostles, and these men practiced infant baptism. If Irenaeus did practice infant baptism, this would trace the practice to the second century.

[42] Schreck (1984: 127). 

[43] Schreck (1984: 128). 

[44] Schreck (1984: 128). 

[45] Schreck (1984: 128). 

[46] Whale (1958: 158).

[47] Or Believer’s Baptism as it is known within Baptist and Anabaptist theology.

[48] Schreck (1984: 129). 

[49] Whale (1958: 158).  Whale does not view infant baptism as mere dedication or as a rite effecting regeneration and so his position is not identical to Schreck’s, although he does support the sacrament being practiced.

[50] Klein, Blomberg, and Hubbard (1993: 140).

[51] Klein, Blomberg, and Hubbard (1993: 140).

[52] Schreck (1984: 124). 

[53] Kavanagh (1999: 300).

[54] Klein, Blomberg, and Hubbard (1993: 140).

[55] Schreck (1984: 124). 

[56] Kavanagh (1999: 300).

[57] John Calvin raised the possibility that in some cases baptismal regeneration could take place in infants.  Calvin (1539)(1998: Book IV, Chapter 14, 17-20).  There are some Presbyterians that take this view.  However, I am a member of a Presbyterian Church in America that believes in infant baptism, but not in baptismal regeneration.  

[58] Kavanagh (1999: 300).  In Lutheran theology infant baptism and baptismal regeneration must be accompanied by the faith of the parents or future faith of the infant at a more mature age.  Some Lutherans and Presbyterians would reject any concept of baptismal regeneration. 

---

BAVINCK, HERMAN (1918)(2006) Reformed Dogmatics Volume 2: God and Creation, John Bolt (gen.ed.), Translated by John Vriend, Baker Academic, Grand Rapids.

BAVINCK, HERMAN (1918)(2006) Reformed Dogmatics Volume 3: Sin and Salvation in Christ, John Bolt (gen.ed.), Translated by John Vriend, Baker Academic, Grand Rapids.

CALVIN, JOHN (1539)(1998) The Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book II, Translated by Henry Beveridge, Grand Rapids, The Christian Classic Ethereal Library, Wheaton College.

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.

FRANKE, JOHN R. (2005) The Character of Theology, Baker Academic, Grand Rapids.

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

KIERKEGAARD, SOREN (1847-1848)(1955)(1966)  On Authority and Revelation, Translated by Walter Lowrie, New York, Harper and Row, Publishers, Incorporated.

KIERKEGAARD, SOREN (1848-1849)(1961)  Christian Discourses & The Lilies of the Field and The Birds of the Air & Three Discourses at The Communion on Fridays, Translated by Walter Lowrie, New York, Oxford University Press.

KLEIN, WILLIAM W., CRAIG, C. BLOMBERG, AND ROBERT L. HUBBARD, JR. (1993) Introduction to Biblical Interpretation, London, Word Publishing. 

MURRAY, JOHN (1937-1966)(1977) Collected Writings of John Murray, Vol. 2:  Select Lectures in Systematic Theology, Edinburgh, The Banner of Truth Trust.

PACKER, J.I. (1996) ‘Regeneration’ in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.

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

SCHLEIERMACHER, FRIEDRICH (1799)(1961) On Religion, in Elie Kedourie, Nationalism, New York, Praeger University Series.

SCHLEIERMACHER, FRIEDRICH (1821)(1928)(1976) The Christian Faith, Edited by H.R. Mackintosh and J.S. Stewart, Philadelphia, Fortress Press.

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

SHEDD, WILLIAM G.T. (1874-1890)(1980) Dogmatic Theology,  Volume 1, Nashville, Thomas Nelson Publishers. 

SHEDD, WILLIAM G.T. (1874-1890)(1980) Dogmatic Theology,  Volume 2, Nashville, Thomas Nelson Publishers. 

WEBER, OTTO (1955)(1981) Foundations of Dogmatics, Volumes 1 and 2, Translated and annotated by Darrell L. Guder, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

WHALE, J.S. (1958) Christian Doctrine, Glasgow, Fontana Books.