Good scholarship goes a long way...even when some do not like it

Colmar, France-Facebook

Walking late at night.

Good scholarship goes a long way...even when some do not like it.

On what Dr. Michael Brown (Deleted video on You Tube) stated:

Matthew 5: Sexual morals of the Torah are taken to a higher level.

From my Matthew 5 post

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.

As the Biblical model from Genesis 2 is heterosexual marriage, any sexual activity outside of that would be adultery or fornication.

Dr. Brown is correct.

Matthew 15:15-20 New American Standard Version

15 Peter [f]said to Him, “Explain the parable to us.” 16 [g]Jesus said, “Are you still lacking in understanding also? 17 Do you not understand that everything that goes into the mouth passes into the stomach, and is [h]eliminated? 18 But the things that proceed out of the mouth come from the heart, and those defile the man. 19 For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, [i]fornications, thefts, false witness, slanders. 20 These are the things which defile the man; but to eat with unwashed hands does not defile the man.”

Therefore, adultery and fornication defiles.

Dr. Brown is correct.

Matthew 19: 1-9 New American Standard Version

19 When Jesus had finished these words, He departed from Galilee and came into the region of Judea beyond the Jordan; 2 and [a]large crowds followed Him, and He healed them there. 3 Some Pharisees came to [b]Jesus, testing Him and asking, “Is it lawful for a man to [c]divorce his wife for any reason at all?” 4 And He answered and said, “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.” 7 They *said to Him, “Why then did Moses command to give her a certificate of divorce and send her away?” 8 He *said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to [d]divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way. 9 And I say to you, whoever [e]divorces his wife, except for [f]immorality, and marries another woman [g]commits adultery[h].” 

Marriage is stated to be male and female by Jesus Christ. To divorce a wife, except for immorality means one commits adultery.

Again implying all other sexual acts including same-sex would be adultery or fornication.

Dr. Brown is correct.

Loving one's neighbour from Matthew 22, and Mark 12 definitely does not constitute approval of the views, morals and actions of another. Rather it is a respectful love, respectful love of the humanity of the person made in the image of God, Genesis 1: 27.

Dr. Brown is correct.

Leviticus 18

Leviticus 18:22

New American Standard Version 22

You shall not lie with a male as [a]one lies with a female; it is an abomination. Even as the Bible is not flat, as discussed on this blog, the old Covenant being replaced by the new.

Hebrews 12: 24

New American Standard Version

24 and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood, which speaks better than the blood of Abel.

Hebrews 8: 6-7

6 But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, by as much as He is also the mediator of a better covenant, which has been enacted on better promises. 7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion sought for a second.

Luke 22: 20 20

And in the same way He took the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood."

The old covenant and its ceremonial laws have been abandoned in the new covenant. The atoning work of Christ replacing animal sacrifice. However, the moral aspects of the law continue. This makes sense of Jesus' statement that he did not come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it (Matthew 5: 17)

Dr. Brown is correct.

Mr. Hill, a political commentator according to the video, instead of humbling himself and stating that Biblical Studies is not his field, politics is, attempts to debate someone that is an expert in the field of the Hebrew Bible and Old Testament.

Even apart from the topic discussed the issue of a disrespect for Religious Studies as an academic pursuit is once again demonstrated in Western society.

As if a political commentator with some reading from perhaps some scholarly sources thinks he is going to debate this well-known scholar and correct him of his errors; because it is socially proper.

Do you think the same thing would be done with a scientist?

Not nearly as likely.

There is the problem of a disrespect of Religious Studies scholarship as a serious academic pursuit which is philosophically connected to the over-subjectivity of religious issues. As in if religious views are overly subjective and personalized, therefore more objective focused academic scholarship is questionable and can be dismissed when it disagrees with these subjective, personalized views.

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.

Augustine: Brief on Atonement & Resurrection (PhD Edit)

Google Images/Beadwright 

Merry Christmas

Christmas and Christmas season, is not theologically about celebrating the literal calendar day of the birth of Christ. As in celebrating a friend or family member's birthday.

Rather similarly, as with Easter and the death of Christ, Christmas is celebrating the birth of Christ because of his atoning work and resurrection associated with his Gospel ministry and first advent.

A second advent to culminate the Gospel work and leading to the resurrection of believers (1 Corinthians 15) and the New Heaven and New Earth (Revelation 21-22). There is also judgement for humanity in and out of Christ (Revelation 20, 2 Corinthians 5).

Augustine notes that in Adam’s first sin all of humanity died. Augustine deduces Adam, who he believed was the first man as a Biblical position, sinned and therefore the fall took place that corrupted humanity and enslaved all of Adam’s biological descendents to sin. Augustine (398-399)(1992: 197). He describes a literal fall and corruption of humanity that led to the literal problem of evil. Augustine (426)(1958: 254-255).

This connects to Romans 5, as Christ is the second and last Adam.

Augustine assumed God to be perfectly good and that everything God created, including the nature of rational beings, to be perfectly good in origin. It was Augustine’s belief that due to wrong choices made by humanity the race was fallen. Augustine (388-395)(1964: 3, 116-117).

There is a debate on whether Augustine was an incompatibilist or a compatibilist. I reason he seems unclear in his writings, but to be fair he does not translate well. He probably should be in the incompatibilist camp as even though he supports a strong view of the sovereignty of God, he still holds to libertarian free will of a sort.

I would add to his statement, 'It was Augustine’s belief that due to wrong choices made by humanity the race was fallen.' As God is the first cause Biblically and theologically (Genesis 1) and can be reasoned from a theistic perspective to be the first cause philosophically, God caused the fall as well. Not as in force or coercion of Adam and Eve, but in willing it to take place. This is so even if he as sovereign, infinite and omnipotent merely allows the fall.

And I reason his involvement was far more than simply allowing.

He was committed to the course of action as the Gospel was eternally intended as the remedy. The atoning and resurrection work of Christ.

Augustine understood humanity as losing its dominion over creation, and that dominion has been awarded substantially to Satan who he calls the prince of this world. Augustine (388-395)(1964: 111). Augustine thought if God had created creatures that only did right actions, then these creatures would not have the option to commit wrong actions against God’s will. Thus their obedience to God would be meaningless and not truly righteous or, to Augustine, worthy of membership in the Kingdom of God. Augustine (388-395)(1964: 36).

I reason God could create significantly free physical creatures that would worship God and not fall.

The angels that did not fall I reason are significantly free and worship God, yet are immaterial.

If God can create immaterial as such, he can material.

Why did God will humanity to take the course of the fall? As I just noted, the atoning and resurrection work of Christ was intended as remedy and this was the sort of humanity he want to develop, or even evolve in a theological sense.

Person's with a mature, experienced knowledge of evil, suffering and salvation.

Augustine viewed the atoning work of Christ as a means by which humanity can be brought back to a proper relationship with God. Augustine (398-399)(1992: 178). Christ would mediate humanity back to God. Augustine (398-399)(1992: 219). He reasoned the resurrection would save believers from everlasting death. Augustine (400-416)(1987)(2004: Book 4: Chapter 13: 11).

Christmas season and the atoning and resurrection work of Christ is therefore more of a spiritual, objective celebration of theological truths, spiritual truths. There is not a guarantee of a happy Christmas time or life, or a significantly fulfilling life, as it is a fallen world, but there is the triune God to pray to even in times of suffering.

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. http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/130104.htm

AUGUSTINE (421)(1998) Enchiridion, Translated by J.F. Shaw, Denver, The Catholic Encyclopedia. http://www.knight.org/advent

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.

Happy little tree, not enough for a huge family,
but sufficient for our condo.

Lake Geneva-Earth The Incredible Planet

I just found this in my mailbox. The only item that did not go directly into the trash mail bin our complex features. I post this as Hon's I assume has excellent food, is in Coquitlam and is claiming free delivery for those of us in Maple Ridge,
which is a thirty-minute drive away in decent traffic. Maybe twenty minutes at a good time.  I can just hear the (fictional) guarantee in a Chinese accent: 'We guarantee your order in fifteen minutes or free!'  Call me skeptical about the free delivery to Maple Ditch... Marketing error? I can see easily waiting an hour for delivery.

Brief On Bigotry

Earth The Incredible Planet

Burma-Awesome Photos

Earth The Incredible Planet

Neither my Oxford or Cambridge philosophy texts had a formal philosophical definition of bigotry, bigot and related.

However, I reason the 'The Concise Oxford Dictionary' will suffice here.

Bigot: An obstinate and intolerant believer in a religion, political theory etc., bigotry from the 16th c French, origin unknown.

Bigoted: Unreasonably prejudiced and intolerant. Oxford (1995: 125).

Bigotry in philosophical terms then would be a stubborn and intolerant belief in a certain philosophy and worldview and an unreasonable rejection of and opposition to a different, religion, political view, philosophy and worldview.

If one can hold to a religion and/or philosophy without being stubborn and intolerant of evidence and potential facts from for example, theology, philosophy and science that may or may not oppose and contradict his/her views, it is not bigotry.

A key is a reasonably objective evaluation, even if an emotionally charged view is held.

An overly-emotionally charged position can lead to a very subjective view, lacking objectivity.

It can lead to a hateful view.

Therefore, intellectual and philosophical disagreement with a different philosophy and worldview is not necessarily bigotry.

Concise Oxford Dictionary (1995), Oxford, Clarendon Press.

Roman Catholic Theologian Alan Schreck With Views (PhD Edit)

Notre Dame de Paris-trekearth

Preface

Moving on from the previously controversial post on Genesis, also from my PhD work, I wish to thank all those that read and commented, including those on Facebook. Now to perhaps another controversial topic in Christians circles, the Roman Catholic Church.

I found Roman Catholic Theologian, Alan Schreck quite useful academically, and have relied on Roman Catholic scholarship a fair amount in my academic work, on and offline, even with my somewhat different Reformed views.

Cheers, Russ

Tradition

Roman Catholic theologian Alan Schreck states his Church agrees that the Bible is the inspired word of God,[1] but does not believe that the Bible is the only source of Revelation and spiritual guidance for Christians.[2] A dividing point between Protestants and Catholics comes with Schreck’s idea that God within Catholic thought continues to select certain individuals that teach with God’s authority through the Holy Spirit.[3] Protestant and those within the Reformed camp have, at times throughout history disagreed, with the Biblical and theological interpretations of certain Roman Catholic leaders, in particular the Pope,[4] believed to be inspired by the Holy Spirit.[5]

Trinity

Alan Schreck demonstrates the Catholic view is quite similar to Reformed on this issue as he explains it is a central belief of his Church,[6] and that the early Church comprised the word Trinity from the Biblical idea for the one God consisting of three equal and distinct divine persons.[7]  

Baptismal Regeneration

Concerning the idea of baptismal regeneration, Schreck explains that Roman Catholics view infant baptism ‘as normally the first step in accepting God’s salvation.’[8] He admits that the New Testament does not explicitly state whether or not infants or children were baptized,[9] but it is possible they were as ‘whole households’ are mentioned in the New Testament as receiving baptism.[10] He reasons that there is no solid evidence that before the third century infants and children were baptized in the Church,[11] but by the fifth century this practice was universal in the Church.[12] 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,[13] as Schreck notes ‘Jesus does respond in this way when infants and children are baptized.’[14]  In the baptism process it is Christ that saves, and therefore salvation is not merited.[15]  Whale reasons infant baptism demonstrates that Christ did something for a person, without waiting for human approval.[16]  Rebaptism[17] 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.[18] The sacrament of infant baptism is one of the ‘foundational stones of Church.’[19]

Klein, Blomberg and Hubbard reason it is not Biblically clear what type of baptism should be practiced.[20] Infant baptism is not taught in Scripture directly,[21] and therefore it can be deduced the same could be stated for the associated concepts of baptismal regeneration with Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox Churches. However, legitimate theological inference leads to concepts of infant baptism,[22] and so there are also historical arguments for baptismal regeneration within the Christian community which includes Catholic,[23]  Eastern Orthodox, and even in some cases Presbyterian, Lutheran and Episcopal.

BROMILEY, G.W. (1996) ‘Baptism, Infant’, in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.

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

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

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

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

---

[1] Schreck (1984: 41). 

[2] Schreck (1984: 42). Strictly speaking as noted, those in Reformed theology do trust in non-Biblical truths for spiritual guidance.  Calvin admitted this in the context of Scripture and tradition.  Calvin (1543)(1996: 64). I should also add that any reliance on philosophy and philosophy of religion is not strictly Biblical and I and many Reformed scholars look to philosophy for truth.  

[3] Schreck (1984: 42). 

[4] Calvin explains, within The Bondage and Liberation of the Will, his opinion that at that point in history the Papacy was beyond Reform.  Calvin (1543)(1996: 17).

[5] Schreck (1984: 42). 

[6] Schreck (1984: 14). 

[7] Schreck (1984: 14).

[8] Schreck (1984: 124). 

[9] Schreck (1984: 126). 

[10] Schreck (1984: 126).  

[11] 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. Bromiley (1999: 116).  If Irenaeus did practice infant baptism, this would trace the practice to the second century.

[12] Schreck (1984: 127). 

[13] Schreck (1984: 128). 

[14] Schreck (1984: 128). 

[15] Schreck (1984: 128). 

[16] Whale (1958: 158).

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

[18] Schreck (1984: 129). 

[19] 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.

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

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

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

[23] Schreck (1984: 124).  

Genesis (PhD Edit)

Dubai-Facebook

A former Pastor of mine asked me if I had studied Genesis much. I do not claim to be a scholar of the Hebrew Bible and Old Testament, but was required to do some study on Genesis for my PhD thesis. 

This was quite educational although admittedly limited as the focus was theodicy and the problem of evil related, for which I do have expertise. 

I still very much hold to that neither Genesis nor any part of Scripture is myth, but as with Revelation, for example, was impressed upon, even by evangelical, conservative writers that the type of language used is crucial. 

Note, as with all my PhD writing, but in particular work of a controversial nature such as Genesis, I, as a moderate conservative of the Reformed tradition was forced to if I wished to pass, acknowledge many of the academic traditions of liberal Christianity.  

To not do so would be to be labelled an uneducated fundamentalist. This in my case is obviously false. An issue I came across with my first appointment at Manchester. I eventually earned my degrees at Wales. 

Technical acknowledgment and stating something is plausible and possible does not mean I hold to that view. 

Cheers, 

Russ 

Contrary to the Reformed theological position taken in my PhD thesis, many secular and Biblical scholars from mainline denominations, view the Biblical story of the fall as likely fiction. Many liberal Christian apologists do not believe in a literal fall of humanity. Adam and Eve have been relegated to the realm of mythology. 

Terence E. Fretheim (1994) of Luther Northwestern Theological Seminary, is not dogmatic[1] but appears to favour the idea that the fall is metaphorical in Genesis 3.[2]  He does not think a traditional, conservative view of a single human fall into sin is supported by the Genesis text[3] which is filled with metaphorical, symbolic language.[4]  He does, however, believe the Genesis text is providing a general, but not specifically literal, idea of how sin and evil became part of the cosmos.[5]  Fretheim raises a very important point in whether or not a scholar looks at the fall story in Genesis as fiction, or non-fiction, the metaphorical and symbolic use of words and concepts used within should not be ignored.[6]  

William Sanford La Sor, David Allan Hubbard, and Fredric William Bush (1987) from what I deduced was a moderate conservative, evangelical position, reason the author of Genesis is writing as an artist and storyteller who uses literary device.[7]  They point out it is imperative to distinguish which literary device is being used within the text of Genesis.[8]  

I would deduce that since Genesis 3 describes this event, it is plausible a literal Adam and Eve were initially morally perfect without sin and eventually fell in corruption.  It is also possible that the somewhat metaphorical language of Genesis[9] allows for the Adam and Eve story to be describing a fall from God’s plan for humanity in general, and not specifically two initial persons.[10] Not my view, but possible in the context of British, secular academia within a broad concept of cultural Christianity. 

I accept that when in Genesis 1:26, God is said to have created humanity in his image and likeness,[11] that this was part of their original nature.[12]   H.L. Ellison (1986) explains that in the beginning human beings were made in God’s image and likeness[13] in order that they could have dominion over animal creation and have communion with God.[14]   If a literal explanation of Genesis 1:26 is accepted[15] then it seems plausible that both the image and likeness of God were given to humanity from the start, and I lean towards this understanding.[16]  

Since scholars such as Fretheim, La Sor, Hubbard, and Bush explain that Genesis is written with the use of metaphorical language in parts, an interpretation such as John Hick’s with Soul making and building, that is not literal in regard to the image and likeness of God, is an intellectual possibility.[17]   

But not my Reformed position.   

Erickson thinks that Irenaeus views the image of God as being human resemblance to the creator with reason and will,[18] and the likeness of God was the moral qualities of their maker.[19]  This is a reasonable understanding of Irenaeus’ view,[20] but even if this separation between image and likeness is accepted, it is plausible that the image and likeness occur in persons simultaneously.[21]  I would therefore theorize that original human spiritual immaturity was not due to humanity lacking a likeness to God.[22]  Rather, original people could have been created morally perfect within what Hick calls an Augustinian model.[23]  I subscribe to a Reformed, Calvinistic sovereignty model, and I have explained throughout my PhD thesis that Augustinian and Calvinistic models and traditions are similar but not identical.  These persons lacked the experience to properly understand and comprehend the results of disobeying God and the sort of life that would occur because of that rebellion.  The first human beings may have had little understanding of the idea that their very nature would change if they disobeyed God.  Within an Augustinian or Calvinistic perspective it seems plausible humanity’s likeness to God was insufficient after, but not before, the fall as they were no longer in perfect moral communion with their God.[24] 

Victor P. Hamilton in Handbook on the Pentateuch  notes three possible reasons for the writer of Genesis using these terms together: (1) The terms image and likeness may be interchangeable, in other words synonyms for each other. (2) The word likeness may modify the word image.  This is done to avoid the idea that man is an exact copy of God. (3) The term likeness amplifies the term image as human beings are not simply representative of God, but representational.  Hamilton (1988: 26-27). 

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. 

CALVIN, JOHN (1554)(1965) Genesis, Translated by John King, Edinburgh, The Banner of Truth Trust. 

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

FRETHEIM, TERENCE E. (1994) ‘Is Genesis 3 a Fall Story?’, in Word and World, Luther Seminary, pp. 144-153. Saint Paul, Luther Seminary. 

HAMILTON, VICTOR P. (1988) Handbook on the Pentateuch, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House. 

LA SOR, WILLIAM SANFORD, DAVID ALLAN HUBBARD, AND FREDERIC WILLIAM BUSH. (1987) Old Testament Survey, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.  

---

 

[1] Fretheim (1994: 152).

[2] Fretheim (1994: 152).

[3] Fretheim (1994: 152).

[4] Fretheim (1994: 153).

[5] Fretheim (1994: 153).

[6] Fretheim (1994: 153).

[7] La Sor, Hubbard, and Bush (1987: 72).

[8] La Sor, Hubbard, and Bush (1987: 72).

[9] Fretheim (1994: 152).

[10] Fretheim (1994: 153).

[11] Hamilton (1982: 26-27).

[12] Hamilton (1982: 26-27).

[13] Ellison (1986: 115).  Hamilton (1982: 26-27).

[14] Ellison (1986: 115). 

[15] Hamilton (1982: 26-27).

[16] Ellison (1986: 115).  Hamilton (1982: 26-27).

[17] Fretheim (1994: 153).  La Sor, Hubbard, and Bush (1987: 72).

[18] Erickson (1994: 500-501).

[19] Erickson (1994: 500-501).

[20] Erickson (1994: 500-501). 

[21] Erickson (1994: 500-501).

[22] Hamilton (1982: 26-27).  Ellison (1986: 115). 

[23] Hick (1970: 121-131).

[24] Augustine (388-395)(1964: 3).  Augustine (421)(1998: Chapter 13:  8).  Calvin (1539)(1998: Book II, Chapter 2, 7).  Calvin (1543)(1996: 69).  

Donald G. Bloesch (PhD Edit)

Maple Ridge

Brief and non-exhaustive use of theologian Donald G. Bloesch from Doctoral thesis. 

Ethics and Morality

Donald G. Bloesch (1987) explains that the knowledge of God leading to theological dogmatics should be for the sake of ethical service for God.[1]  Dogmatic theology should not exist for the sake of itself.[2]

He mentions that followers are to be holy by being separated by God from the world system, in a nearness to God.[3]  Bloesch deduces this is not the same as ‘moral uprightness’[4] but consists of followers living in Christ.[5]  He notes that in every human system of ethics[6] there is demonstrated a human flaw that prohibits people from fulfilling a moral requirement.[7] In contrast, in the context of atonement and justice[8] in God’s holiness, God forgives and forbears and demonstrates his love.[9]

BLOESCH, DONALD G. (1987) Freedom for Obedience, San Francisco, Harper and Rowe Publishers. 

BLOESCH, DONALD G. (1996) ‘Sin, The Biblical Understanding of Sin’, in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books. 

---

[1] Bloesch (1987: 12).

[2] Christians should live in service to their neighbours. Bloesch (1987: 12).

[3] Bloesch (1987: 211).

[4] Bloesch (1987: 211).

[5] Bloesch (1987: 211).

[6] Bloesch (1987: 34).  Bloesch is discussing ethical systems and not a defence or theodicy, but still the concepts of human nature and actions relate.

[7] Bloesch (1987: 34). 

[8] Bloesch (1987: 97).

[9] Bloesch (1987: 97).

End

Of course I can drum almost as well with my hand drumming and whatever I hit...