Sola Scriptura (Brief & PhD Edit)

Switzerland-Sola Scriptura (Brief & PhD Edit)

Sola Scriptura (Brief & PhD Edit)

Preface

Originally published on Blogger, 20130129, reformatted on Blogger for an entry on academia.edu, 20241026.

From my PhD, Wales, this is a Biblical, Reformed view that I hold to, that within my requested post-Viva revisions was contrasted with Roman Catholic theology.

The doctrine of sola scriptura[1] is the Reformed and Protestant counter to the traditionalism of the Roman Catholic Church.[2] This concept was originally applied by Reformers to particular Roman Catholic doctrines assumed to be over influenced by tradition.[3] Franke with a strong statement indicates the Reformers reasoned that Christian theology must be subject only to the direct authority of God through the Scripture, and not by any human authority or creeds.[4] Their hope was to minimize human interpretation of Scripture.[5] Weber reasons the Reformation standard of sola scriptura firmly upheld Reformed views against counter propositions.[6] The Scripture is authoritative because it is the vehicle by which the Holy Spirit speaks, and therefore has divine authority.[7] The Bible is the product of the Christian community that produced it under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.[8] As Anglican Rowan Williams states, ‘Revelation is the statement of God’s autonomy.’[9] God explains who he is and becomes his own ‘alter ego’ as Christ.[10] Roman Catholic theologian Alan Schreck states his Church agrees that the Bible is the inspired word of God,[11] but does not believe that the Bible is the only source of Revelation and spiritual guidance for Christians.[12] 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.[13] 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,[14] believed to be inspired by the Holy Spirit.[15]
 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 [1] Scripture alone. Schreck (1984: 41). This is the English translation from Latin.
 [2] Franke (2005: 147).
 [3] Franke (2005: 147). John Calvin warns of the danger of appealing to tradition at the expense of Scripture. He implies this insults the Holy Spirit. Calvin (1543)(1996: 50).
 [4] Franke (2005: 149). This is somewhat overstated, although true in general terms. For example, Calvin appeals to Augustine and tradition in his defence against free will theory and Albert Pighius. Tradition has a function in Reformed theology but is to be tested by Scripture at all times. Calvin (1543)(1996: 64).
 [5] Franke (2005: 149). Calvin (1543)(1996: 64).
 [6] Weber (1955)(1981: 113-114).
 [7] Franke (2005: 150). Lindsell (1976: 28-40).
 [8] Franke (2005: 151). Lindsell (1976: 28-40).
 [9] Williams (2007: 116).
 [10] Williams (2007: 116).
 [11] Schreck (1984: 41).
 [12] 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.
 [13] Schreck (1984: 42).
 [14] 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).
 [15] Schreck (1984: 42).

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.

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

GREEN, JAY (1971) Five Points of Calvinism, ‘Forward’, Grand Rapids, Sovereign Grace Publishers.

LINDSELL, HAROLD (1976) The Battle for the Bible, Grand Rapids, Zondervan Publishing House. 

LUTHER, MARTIN. (1516)(1968) Commentary On The Epistle To The Romans, Translated by J.Theodore Mueller, Grand Rapids, Zondervan Publishing House. 

LUTHER, MARTIN. (1518)(1989) ‘Heidelberg Disputation’, in Timothy F. Lull (ed.), Martin Luther’s Basic Theological Writings, Minneapolis, Fortress Press. 

LUTHER, MARTIN. (1525)(1972) ‘The Bondage of the Will’, in F.W. Strothmann and Frederick W. Locke (eds.), Erasmus-Luther: Discourse on Free Will, New York, Frederick Ungar Publishing Co., INC.  

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

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

WILLIAMS, ROWAN (2007) Wrestling with Angels, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids.

Philosophical & Theological Reflections On Forgiveness

Anse-Couleuvre-France-trekearth

Further to thoughts on forgiveness. I mentioned in the recent post December 22, 2012, Seventy Times Seven: Matthew 18, three reasons, in a non-exhaustive fashion based on the Scripture why a Christian and person should strongly consider forgiving another that sins against him or her. I also noted realistically the often difficulties with this humanly speaking, and that this was a Biblical mandate and would require the guidance of the Holy Spirit and therefore God.

There is an another issue that comes to mind and that is if a person has been offended, and reasons he or she is basically within the context of a situation where forgiveness is required, is more morally and ethically correct, let us state for the sake of argument, 80% correct within the situation and 20%  perhaps at fault, because often a person will have difficulties viewing their own fault.

Dividing this into hypothetical percentages in my mind in not an incorrect or foolish exercise because due to the sinfulness of humanity and fallen natures described in Romans 3, born in sin John 3, in bondage to sin, Romans 6, dead in sinfulness, Colossians 2, it can be understood humanity is corrupted by sinfulness.

It can be Biblically understood that humanity in Christ are justified, Romans 1, and born-again John 3, these being Biblical concepts of salvation for regenerated Christians, but that the work is not completed until the resurrection of 1 Corinthians 15, and therefore sinfulness does remain in nature although the Holy Spirit is present (John 20, Acts 2).

John Calvin states, and I reason very wisely and correctly in the Bondage and Liberation of the Will that purity is spoiled by a tiny blemish and implies that sin is included in every good work (in this present realm). Calvin (1543)(1996: 27). This would be a Scriptural theology. 

Therefore, it would be possible for the person in a situation, in this example, 20% at fault, to have sinned or still be sinning.

Should this person therefore ask the greater transgressor for forgiveness?

This may not always be the best thing to do as it could be problematic, for example if two people verbally argue and have both a level of fault in sin, and one person resorts to physical violence, that person would in my mind be very likely guilty of the greater sin. If the victim of the greater sin confesses his or her sins to the more violent offender, in other words the person with the lesser sin confesses, I can understand it may lead to the person guilty of the greater sin to thinking that somehow his or her greater sin is more so excusable, which it would not be.

For the victim, and the person with the lesser sin, instead, perhaps in certain situations because of the known taint of sin in humanity a serious reflection upon own personal sinfulness is required and a seeking of forgiveness from God and repentance of wrong doing where necessary, would be required by the person that was more so wronged. It should be remembered that one is really only responsible for self and one's own final judgment before God.

One cannot change others much with finite power, nor judge others in a final sense with finite knowledge.

There are also examples of criminal assault where I would not suggest that if a victim reasons he or she sinned against an attacker, that one should deal with that person again. There are times when the greater sin is just too great for such an action by the other party.

On the other hand there may be cases where confessing to someone in a situation that one views as the greater sinner, with a lessor sin, may actually lead to to the greater transgresor also confessing, and lead to in Christ, healing.

If outside of Christ, there may be opportunity for witness.

As far as personal growth with God and sanctification, there would be some benefits in reflecting upon possible wrong at least with God in situations where situations occur. This would be the case even when it would be best not to seek forgiveness from a greater offender.

This in my mind, would be a more Biblical and proper Christian theological and philosophical way of dealing with situations where someone is wronged and where sin has occurred than what is at times seen in secular Western society. As if the person that commits the greater sin, let us state again for the sake of argument one at 80% to blame is obviously a 'horrible person' for doing so, so as the victim, the other person, may reason he or she is obviously justified for his/her sinful actions at 20%.

But Biblically this would not be the case. Sin would be sin in God's eyes and all would need to be covered by the atonement. Sinful flesh will not inherit the Kingdom of God as I Corinthians 15 notes as the human nature must be transformed spiritually/physically.

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

Paradise Revisited

Tuscany, Italy-trekearth

Paradise Revisited

Revised December 11, 2020

Paradise from the New Testament Greek

Strong page 1035.

Strong page 72. 

Marshall page 257. Paradise from Luke 23:43.



Marshall page 545. Paradise from 2 Corinthians. I tried to include more text but the way the book fit on the scanner it was distorted.











Marshall page 727. Paradise from Revelation 2: 7.

Commentary

Bauer on page 614 describes paradise from Luke 23, 2 Corinthians 12 and Revelation 2 as a place above the earth. Now from my philosophical/theological perspective I do not take this plain literally, as in some place in the clouds, or above the clouds, or even beyond the solar system or beyond the physical Universe, as in a place that can be physically found via space/travel.

The Bible teaches that paradise is a place where spirits in Christ go after death, and Old Testament/Hebrew Bible saints went to spiritually after death.

The Bible teaches this using figurative literal language.

Therefore, I would conclude paradise is a place of the non-physical spiritual realm.

Now, in discussion at church and with my theological/philosophical friends over the years I have speculated that because human beings are used to and made for physicality, Paradise may consist of, and I state may consist of, a simulated physicality that seems like earth to the persons that are there.

On the other hand there is the school of thought that when one dies in Christ he or she may almost immediately awaken in the resurrected body making the paradise references strongly metaphorical as opposed to figurative literal. This will not be immediate, but will seem to be.

This is certainly orthodox and possible, but I question whether Jesus meant this by the use of 'today' to the criminal on the cross. Strong notes that it has to do with now and present. Strong (1890)(1986: 87).

There is a textual and theological possibility that the Revelation 2: 7 reference is in regard to a future, plain literal restored Eden like planet earth.

This would be a different 'paradise'.

There is also the issue of Paul's 2 Corinthians reference and his willingness to consider departing the body to be with the Lord in Philippians 1.

H. A. Kent Jr. reasons the term 'paradise' although appearing in the Greek New Testament is probably originally of Persian origin. Kent (1996: 826). In Judaism, rabbinic literature used the term as a place to portray the place of blessedness for the righteous dead that knew God, in contrast to those that did not. Kent (1996: 826).

Some scholars have concluded that since the remaining references to paradise after Christ and the cross with Luke 23, refer to Heaven, and then was the resurrection and Christ's ascension, that Paradise has been removed from Hades and taken to the third heaven. Kent (1996: 826).

This seems rather speculative. By my reasoning with my own speculation if paradise would be a simulated realm like earth with simulated physicality for those in Christ and Old Testament Saints, the exact location is a rather irrelevant point, I suppose.

Erickson reasons that based on the same Biblical evidences the righteous in the intermediate state arrive at paradise. Erickson (1994: 1183). The intensity of the condition of paradise and Hades will not be as intense as the finalized states. Erickson (1994: 1183). This would be not only a reasonable theological and philosophical deduction based on the fact it is intermediate state and pre-final judgment (2 Corinthians 5 and Revelation 20 respectively) but also these are simply spiritual states and not spiritual/physical states. As Erickson notes the human condition is incomplete. Erickson (1994: 1183).

I was listening very recently to a well-known online/radio teacher discuss this topic and he suggested when asked that persons in Heaven/Paradise would not be aware of what was occurring in the earthly realm. This despite such verses, as he noted, Hebrews 12: 1 and the cloud of witnesses. This appears figurative language and from his Hebrews commentary, Hughes notes that dramatic imagery is being used. Hughes (1990: 518).  Those mentioned are past martyrs who are champions of faith. Hughes (1990: 518). The online/radio teacher also pointed this out, and this would be a preferred interpretation to a suggestion that they somehow are monitoring occurrences in the earthly realm.

I doubt there is a direct line of access from realm to realm, but I suppose this does not rule out, since paradise would be a supernatural realm, God providing certain information to citizens by his will and choice or because he was asked and is therefore perhaps willing to do so.

Of course this realm in not empirical and is non-scientific and so for many critics it will seem like a ridiculous nonsense concept. The same support for it would come from the same religious history from Scripture written by several authors in different locations with different books that wrote the same basic theology. And as I noted to an advisor at Manchester that doubted the existence of angelic beings because they were non-physical, if God being of spirit (John 4: 24) could make physical rational beings, then he could also make spiritual rational beings. If God could create a physical universe of matter, a physical realm for finite creatures, then he could also create a spiritual realm for finite creatures.  Not theologically, or philosophically huge difficulties in reality.

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

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

HUGHES, PHILIP, EDGCUMBE (1990) A Commentary On The Epistle To The Hebrews, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

KENT H. A. (1996) ‘Paradise', in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.

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

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

Open & Closed-Minded In Brief

Matin Serein, France-trekearth

January 10, 2013 Facebook status update 

‘Unique’ eyes: Just at the optometrist to pick up the prescription for ‘The Boss’ and so I tested the eye chart. My left eye, I can see according to the store owner the proper distance, three lines past 20/20, the entire chart. The right eye, three lines down period and that is thanks to a lens replacement after the vitrectomy (replaced approximately 70% of eye, back of the eye jell) getting rid of those nasty evil vitreous floaters which most Medical Doctors tend to minimize in regards to their psychological impact. Even when the eye is filled with them...

Fini

As blind as a bat?

As blind as Batman?

A few days ago I also posted on Facebook, once again from Gary Habermas.com.

Gary Habermas.com

'Dialog With Atheist Geoff Campos On Belief in Miracles: NEW! On Premier Christian Radio'

Within this interesting debate with an educated atheistic listener with a background in academic biological science, the issue was discussed whether or not he really could be open-minded concerning the evidence, if there was any, for the existence of God, as in theism or Christianity.

From The Concise Oxford Dictionary, Ninth Edition 1995, Oxford.

Open-minded is an adjective meaning an openness to new ideas as in unprejudiced. Oxford (1995: 954).

Closed-minded would reasonably be the opposite in meaning.

Aspects of the discussion seemed to be in regard to whether or not the atheistic participant's philosophical materialism and what he viewed as lack of evidence for theism and Christianity made his mind closed to possible evidence.

Although I do not remember the term being mentioned, 'scientism' as a concept seems a reasonable one in context to consider as being held to perhaps even if subconsciously.

Blackburn writes that scientism is a pejorative term for a belief and philosophy that the methods of science and natural science are the only forms of proper philosophy enquiry. Blackburn (1996: 344). He quotes physicist E. Rutherford: 'There is physics and there is stamp-collecting.' Blackburn (1996: 344).

Another closely related term is a form of empiricism known as positivism:

Blackburn traces this to Comte that held that the highest and only form of knowledge is from the sensory phenomena  Blackburn (1996: 294). This is the empirical senses. Comte held to three stages of human belief, the theological, the metaphysical and the positive which he reasoned avoided speculation. Blackburn (1996: 294).

But of course science does contain speculative aspects as well and changes as new inductive evidence arises over time.

Science is evolving truth in a sense.

Blackburn explains that in 19th century positivism became associated with evolutionary theory.

The gentleman claimed that he was open to actual evidence and he may be, but I gather that if he is actually not, at least to a large extent, he is likely heavily influenced by scientism and positivism, among other related concepts. As are others with similar views. Both are very closed-minded philosophies by definition, as can be seen, in regard to Theology, Philosophy of Religion and Metaphysics.

Further:

A theist and Christian too can be closed-minded and lack an open mind. During my undergraduate degree at Columbia Bible College I upset an older fundamentalistic student by stating that although I held that I was born again John 3, and saved by grace through faith alone, Ephesians 2, I would not believe in the Biblical God without sufficient reason, in other words, I have faith, but not blind faith. I am not a fideist.

From: Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fideism/

'The term itself derives from fides, the Latin word for faith, and can be rendered literally as faith-ism.' 'Fideism” is the name given to that school of thought—to which Tertullian himself is frequently said to have subscribed—which answers that faith is in some sense independent of—if not outright adversarial toward—reason. In contrast to the more rationalistic tradition of natural theology, with its arguments for the existence of God, fideism holds that reason is unnecessary and inappropriate for the exercise and justification of religious belief.'

According to R.K. Johnston, fideism is a term used by Protestant modernists in Paris in the late 19th century. It is often used as a pejorative term to attack various strands of Christianity as forms of irrationalism. Johnston (1999: 415). Fideists, following Kant, who noted that reason cannot prove religious truth are said to base their religious understanding upon religious experience alone. Reason is believed to be incapable of establishing faith's certainty or credibility. Johnston (1999: 415).

Grenz, Guretzki and Nordling note that fideism states religious and theological truth must be accepted without the use of reason. Grenz, Guretzki and Nordling (1999: 51). An extreme form of fideism states that reason misleads one in religious understanding. Grenz, Guretzki and Nordling (1999: 51).

Johnston explains that the concept of fideism has little value as most theologians would not deny the use of reason. The term fideism is useful when it describes an excessive emphasis upon the subjective aspects of Christianity. Johnston (1999: 415).

Within a Reformed, Biblical model through the use of Biblical evidence, theological evidence, philosophy of religion and other, which can include evidence from science, to move the mind/spirit of a person to believe in the Gospel reasonably, I do not see why a Christian cannot not be willing to disbelieve hypothetically if the evidence did not suffice. This is so because the evidence already does exist and God through the work of the Holy Spirit admittedly, used that very evidence in the process of transforming a person, and maintains a person in that evidence.

A willingness to be open-minded allows an objectivity, as in as much as possible objective reality which in standard philosophical usage is the way things actually are in contrast to how they appear to be. A concept associated with Descartes.  Forbes (1996: 677).

I reason this in general a spiritual, intellectual, positive and good thing for a person.

AMESBURY, RICHARD (2012) Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Stanford, Stanford University.

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

FORBES GRAEME (1996) ‘Reality’, in Robert Audi (ed.), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, pp. 677. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

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

JOHNSTON, R.K.(1996) ‘Fideism’, in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books

Bizarre-AllPosters.com

AllPosters.com

Sovereignty Approach Definition (PhD Edit)

Sovereignty Approach Definition (PhD Edit)

Preface 

Photo from a recent trip: Dublin at night, 20240405.  This article from my PhD originally published 20130107 with slight reformat for 20240518 and an entry on academic.edu

Saturday, September 19, 2020:PhD Full Version PDF: Theodicy and Practical Theology 2010, Wales TSD 

Sovereignty Approach Definition

John Calvin (1539)(1998) writes humanity has nothing on its own, but depends totally on God.[1]  God bestows on humanity what he wills.[2]  Arthur Pink (1968) defines God’s sovereignty as meaning that God is the almighty, the possessor of all power in heaven and earth, and no one can defeat his counsels.[3]  Norman Geisler explains the Bible teaches that God is in control of the entire universe, including human events.[4]  According to Jay Green (1971), in the ‘Forward’ of his book Five Points of Calvinism, many scholars within Christian theism, in particular those from Reformed[5] and Calvinist[6] positions, reason that God has sovereign control over his creation, and God’s ultimate plan is being accomplished throughout.[7]  Green explains that Calvinists do not necessarily see themselves as followers of John Calvin.[8]  They do recognize Calvin as a great exegete and one who systemized Scripture, and a vast number of the doctrines that came from Calvin’s work are within the system known as Calvinism.[9]   Calvinist Millard J. Erickson writes that sovereignty is a major tenent within Calvinism as God is considered the Lord of all things, and is free to do as he wills.[10]  Jonathan Edwards (1729)(2006) writes that God has the power to bestow upon anyone of his creatures good, evil, or indifference for the greater good.[11]  This sovereign control is accepted despite the obvious problem of evil occurring in God’s creation.[12]  Attempts to harmonize strong concepts of God’s divine control over his creation, with the apparent corrupt nature of what he has made in regard to the problem of evil, will be described within this thesis as sovereignty theodicy.[13]

David Ray Griffin vigorously challenges Calvinistic notions of sovereignty in regard to theodicy.[14]  Griffin claims that God cannot be shown to be perfectly moral for three reasons.[15]  One, God cannot be understood to be morally perfect because God is an alleged deity and his morality cannot be demonstrated.[16]  Two, since with a Calvininstic view God wills all things, including evil acts, God must be immoral.[17]  Three, since Calvinists believe that God bases all things on eternal decisions, God is not truly free and is therefore amoral.[18]  The Calvinist could reply to Griffin with the words of Calvin himself in The Bondage and Liberation of the Will, that God is moral and as evil human actions occur God is willing a good thing and the sinner another.[19]  This type of explanation needs to be presented in a logical and reasonable way,[20] and a central goal of this Chapter is to present a sovereignty theodicy that is philosophically reasonable.[21]

Pinnock explains that there is a tension in the Biblical text between God determining things and human freedom.[22]  Contrary to strongly Calvinistic or sovereignty orientated approaches,[23] there is within the Bible the idea that God has the power to create any possible universe, including ones with significantly free creatures.[24]  Such a universe would ultimately be under the sovereign control of God, but this does not mean that everything occurring is according to God’s intentions.[25]  Pinnock states that God did not create a world where he determines every detail,[26] and therefore the Biblical idea of God’s sovereignty is not as deterministic as the Calvinistic concept.  Pinnock’s idea is similar to Plantinga’s free will philosophy discussed in the previous Chapter,[27] the conclusion being that if God creates a world with significantly free creatures, the creatures will eventually commit wrong actions.[28]

John Sanders explains that general sovereignty is a concept in contrast to a Calvinistic specific sovereignty[29] that has God allowing general structures to be set up by which human significant freedom and resulting choices allows persons to input on how things turn out.[30]  With general sovereignty, God takes risks in governing the world,[31] but he does not take risks with the concept of specific sovereignty.[32]  Sanders deduces here that when God wants to bring about human acts within the general sovereignty framework he persuades people, whereas Sanders views specific sovereignty as using hard determinism to force people to commit acts.[33]   Bruce Reichenbach (1986) explains that the sovereign cannot compel his subjects to freely follow him.[34]  This understanding would be held by Feinberg,[35] and in general terms, accepted by most scholars that hold to theistic compatibilism  within a Reformed tradition.[36] 

Providence

Oliver Boulnois (2002) defines providence as the manner by which God governs the world.[37]  In other words, providence would be the method that God uses to rule his creation in his sovereignty.[38]  It could be understood that providence would be the method by which God has sovereign control over his creation,[39] and as Calvin notes, God’s providence has him work through persons.[40]  Philip Edgcumbe Hughes (1990) explains that through God’s providence the world is dependent, [41] for if God did not maintain it, it would cease to exist.[42]  In Law of Nature, Edwards  (1731-1733)(2006) explains that providence is the means by which God governs the world as the supreme judge of the universe.[43]  Reichenbach notes that providence is how God guides and cares for his creation.[44]  He further reasons that God on one hand possesses wisdom in order to direct his creation within his plans, and on the other hand has the power by which he attempts to implement his plans.[45]  Reichenbach deduces that God’s providential plans allow for significant human freedom and choices to occur.[46]

Within ‘The Doctrine of Creation’ in Church Dogmatics, Volume III, Karl Barth defines God’s providence as dealing with the history of created beings, in the sense that in every way through this entire span of time, this providence takes place under the care of God the creator.[47]  This includes those that are in Christ in the covenant between God and humanity.[48]  It is God’s fatherly Lordship over the entire world.[49]  Natural events that take place are very personal for God.[50]  God’s providence includes the ‘superior dealings of the Creator with his creation, the wisdom, omnipotence and goodness with which He maintains and governs in time this distinct reality according to the council of his own will.’[51]  God knows all things appropriately and therefore acts in a proper way in relation to each and every creature.[52]  In the act of creation, God  associates himself with his creature as the ‘Lord of its history’[53]  and acts in the appropriate manner.[54]  Both the creator and creation possess types of freedom,[55] and this does not simply leave God’s creatures with a type of freedom[56] but causes the creature to share in the divine glory and the opportunity to serve God.[57]  God can provide his human creation with protection and guardianship along with human purpose and joy.[58]   Schelling, although not noted as a Christian theologian,  within Of Human Freedom states that all earthly creatures are dependent on God.[59]  If God ‘withdrew his power for an instant, man would cease to be.’[60]  There exists ‘nothing before or outside of God.’[61]  Shedd explains that God’s work of providence demonstrates he is the ‘most holy,’ ‘wise’ and ‘powerful’ as he governs his creatures and their actions.[62]  God works in the material universe with its nature and laws.[63]  Phillips explains that a Reformed view is that God has the freedom to act as he wants.[64]  This would be God’s sovereign providence, but Hume is skeptical of this concept.[65]  People throughout the world view certain evils, which may be rectified in other regions of the world or in the future, and understand these good events as being connected to general laws and the existence of a good deity.[66]  Hume suggests that these are superstitions,[67] and questions whether in many cases a ‘cause can be known but from its known effects?’[68]  The idea is then presented that if God is benevolent his providence should lead to a world without suffering and wickedness.[69]

Sanders writes that the Calvinist view on providence is meticulous providence that assumes nothing can stymie God’s will, and that God is in control of every detail.[70]  Compatibilists deny meticulous providence prohibits significant human free will,[71] but Sanders, as an incompatibilist, rejects the compatibilist argument concerning providence.[72]  He instead suggests that a risk model of providence is a better idea.[73]  Within the risk model, God does not control everything that happens, but controls many things.[74]  God alone is responsible for completing his divine plans and these will be completed in a general sense, but that does not mean every specific event is within his plans.[75]  Sander’s risk model is logical and well worth considering, but I question if there is a difficulty with the fact that he states God controls some things and not others.[76]  If God’s control of all things in a Calvinistic/Reformed model is rejected because it would force people to do things, according to Sanders,[77] then how can God control some things?[78]  Does God not influence significant human freedom at some specific points in time in order to bring about his ultimate plans, such as saving rebellious persons?  If God influences significant human freedom at some points in time in order to guarantee that his ultimate plans occur, such as a culminated Kingdom, is this not in the end a form of compatibilism?[79]

BARTH, KARL (1932-1968) Church Dogmatics,  The Doctrine of the Word of God: Volume 1, Part One, Translated by J.W. Edwards, Rev. O. Bussey, and Rev. Harold Knight, Edinburgh, T. and T. Clark. 

BARTH, KARL (1932-1968) Church Dogmatics, The Doctrine of Creation: Volumes 1 and 3.  Translated by J.W. Edwards, Rev. O. Bussey, and Rev. Harold Knight, Edinburgh, T. and T. Clark. 

BARTH, KARL (1932-1968) Church Dogmatics, The Doctrine of God: Volume 2, First Half -Volume, Translated by J.W. Edwards, Rev. O. Bussey, and Rev. Harold Knight, Edinburgh, T. and T. Clark. 

BERKOUWER, G.C. (1962) Man: The Image of God, Grand Rapids, W.M.B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. 

BOULNOIS, OLIVIER (2002) ‘The Concept of God After Theodicy’, in Communio, Volume 29, Number 3, pp. 444-468. Washington, Communio.

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.

EDWARDS, JONATHAN (1729)(2006) Sovereignty of God, New Haven, Connecticut, Jonathan Edwards Center, Yale University.

EDWARDS, JONATHAN (1731-1733)(2006) Law of Nature, New Haven, Connecticut, Jonathan Edwards Center, Yale University.

EDWARDS, JONATHAN (1754)(2006) Freedom of the Will, Flower Mound, Texas. Jonathanedwards.com.  

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

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

FEINBERG, JOHN.S. (2001) No One Like Him, John S. Feinberg (gen.ed.), Wheaton, Illinois, Crossway Books. 

FRAME, JOHN M. (1999) ‘The Bible on the Problem of Evil: Insights from Romans 3:1-8,21-26; 5:1-5; 8:28-39’, IIIM Magazine Online, Volume 1, Number 33, October 11 to October 17, Fern Park, Florida, Third Millennium.  

FRAME, JOHN M. (2002) The Doctrine of God, P and R Publishing, Phillipsburg, New Jersey. 

GEISLER, NORMAN L. (1975) Philosophy of Religion, Grand Rapids, Zondervan Publishing House. 

GEISLER, NORMAN L. (1978) The Roots of Evil, Grand Rapids, Zondervan Publishing House. 

GEISLER, NORMAN L. (1986) Predestination and Free Will, Downers Grove, Illinois, InterVarsity Press. 

GEISLER, NORMAN L. (1996) ‘Freedom, Free Will, and Determinism’, in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books. 

GEISLER, NORMAN, L (1999) ‘The Problem of Evil’, in Baker Encyclopedia of Apologetics, Grand Rapids, Baker Books. 

GREEN, JAY (1971) Five Points of Calvinism, ‘Forward’, Grand Rapids, Sovereign Grace Publishers. 

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

GRIFFIN, DAVID RAY (1976) God, Power, and Evil, Philadelphia, The Westminster Press. 

HUGHES, PHILIP, EDGCUMBE (1990) A Commentary On The Epistle To The Hebrews, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. 

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

HUME, DAVID (1779)(2004)  Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, Digireads.com/Neeland Media LLC, Lawrence, Kansas.  

KREEFT, PETER AND RONALD K. TACELLI (1994) Handbook of Christian Apologetics, Downers Grove, Illinois, InterVarsity Press. 

PINK, ARTHUR W. (1968)  The Sovereignty of God, London, The Banner of Truth Trust.  

PINNOCK, CLARK (1986)  Predestination and Free Will, Downers Grove, Illinois, InterVarsity Press. 

REICHENBACH, BRUCE (1986) Predestination and Free Will, Downers Grove, Illinois, InterVarsity Press. 

SANDERS, JOHN (2003) ‘Open Theism: A Radical Revision or Minuscule Modification of Arminianism?’,  in Wesleyan Theological Journal, Volume 38, Number 2, Fall, pp. 69-102.  Wilmore, Kentucky, Asbury College. 

SCHELLING, F.W.J. (1845)(1936) Schelling, Of Human Freedom, Translated by James Gutmann, The Open Court Publishing Company, Chicago. 

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.   

---

[1] Calvin (1539)(1998: Book II, Chapter 1: 2).

[2] Calvin (1539)(1998: Book II, Chapter 1: 2).

[3] Pink (1968: 20).

[4] Geisler (1986: 63).

[5] Jay Green explains that Reformed theology was not attempting to replace previous Christian theology, but instead was clarifying the Biblical doctrines of the Church Fathers and the Scriptures.  Green (1971: 7).  The Reformed theological movement went from the fourteenth to seventeenth centuries and was a break from Roman Catholic leadership and teaching.  Divine sovereignty was an important emphasis of this movement.  Grenz, Guretzki, and Nordling (1999: 101).

[6] Calvinism is a system which attempts to use Scripture to understand God’s divine theological plan for the ages. Green (1971: 7).  This system stems from the work of John Calvin (1509-1564).  Grenz, Guretzki, and Nordling (1999: 23).

[7] Green (1971: 7).

[8] Green (1971: ii).

[9] Green (1971: ii).

[10] Erickson (1994: 915).

[11] Edwards (1729)(2006: 414).

[12] Edwards (1729)(2006: 414).

[13] Feinberg (1994: 124-143).

[14] Griffin (1976: 116-130).

[15] Griffin (1976: 130).

[16] Griffin (1976: 130).

[17] Griffin (1976: 130).

[18] Griffin (1976: 130).

[19] Calvin (1543)(1996: 37).

[20] While at the same time seriously examining criticisms of the view.

[21] And to also test this approach empirically.

[22] Pinnock (1986: 143).

[23] Pinnock (1986: 143).

[24] Pinnock (1986: 145).

[25] Pinnock (1986: 145).

[26] Pinnock (1986: 145).

[27] Plantinga (1977)(2002: 53).

[28] Plantinga (1977)(2002: 53).

[29] Sanders (1998: 212).

[30] Sanders (1998: 213).

[31] Sanders (1998: 213-214).

[32] Sanders (1998: 213-214).

[33] Sanders (1998: 214).

[34] Reichenbach (1986: 105).

[35] Feinberg, would deny that God would force persons to commit acts, instead it is God’s sovereign plan that certain unconstrained actions should occur.  Feinberg (2001: 637).

[36] Feinberg (2001: 637).  Frame (2002: 153).  Berkouwer (1962: 333).  Calvin (1543)(1996: 68).

[37] Boulnois (2002: 444).

[38] Boulnois (2002: 444).  God uses his providence as he ‘transcends temporal categories.’  Kreeft and Tacelli (1994: 108).

[39] Boulnois (2002: 444). 

[40] Calvin (1543)(1996: 36).

[41] Hughes (1990: 45).

[42] Hughes (1990: 45).

[43] Edwards (1731-1733)(2006: 553).

[44] Reichenbach (1986: 115).

[45] Reichenbach (1986: 115).

[46] Reichenbach (1986: 118).

[47] Barth (1932-1968: 3).  We cannot escape from God, he is everywhere.  Frame (2002: 102).

[48] Barth (1932-1968: 3).

[49] Barth (1932-1968: 28).  God’s providence demonstrates ‘preservation and government.’  Shedd (1874-1890)(1980: 527 Volume 1).  

[50] Frame (2002: 52).

[51] Barth (1932-1968: 3).  God always accomplishes what he sets out to do.  Frame (2002: 47).

[52] Barth (1932-1968: 5).

[53] Barth (1932-1968: 12).

[54] Barth (1932-1968: 12).

[55] Barth (1932-1968: 12).  The human being has freedom, but participates within the life of God.  Schelling (1845)(1936: 11).  G.C. Berkouwer reasons that God wants a free man, not a mechanical tool or creature than can be maneuvered as the Almighty sees fit.  Berkouwer (1962: 333).   I reason human freedom always operates within the framework of God’s sovereignty and providence.

[56] God governs and maintains the creation, in order that it exists by means of its own ‘inherent properties and laws.’ Shedd (1874-1890)(1980: 528 Volume 1).

[57] Barth (1932-1968: 12).   

[58] Barth (1932-1968: 13).

[59] Schelling (1845)(1936: 11).

[60] Schelling (1845)(1936: 11).  Schelling is noted within the ‘Introduction’ to believe in a divine personality and denied that God’s personality was incomprehensible.  Schelling did reason wisdom could be found in God.  Gutmann (1845)(1936: xxv).

[61] Schelling (1845)(1936: 32).

[62] Shedd (1874-1890)(1980: 527 Volume 1).  Frame (2002: 274).

[63] Shedd (1874-1890)(1980: 528 Volume 1).

[64] Phillips (2005: 22).

[65] Hume (1779)(2004: 50).

[66] Hume (1779)(2004: 50).

[67] Hume (1779)(2004: 50).

[68] Hume (1779)(2004: 50).

[69] Hume (1779)(2004: 50).

[70] Sanders (1998: 212).  Frame would agree as God is thought to ‘direct the entire universe.’ Frame (2002: 274).

[71] Frame explains that the freedom is not libertarian, but persons make significantly free choices within divine causation.  Frame (2002: 153).

[72] Sanders (1998: 212).

[73] Sanders (1998: 215).

[74] Sanders (1998: 215).

[75] Sanders (1998: 215-217).

[76] Sanders (1998: 215).

[77] Sanders (1998: 212).  The concept of God forcing and/or coercing  persons to commit actions would be denied by many within Reformed theology.  Frame (2002: 153).  Berkouwer (1962: 333).   Calvin (1543)(1996: 68).

[78] Would God only control the most vital events that must occur in order for his Kingdom to culminate?  If so, what happens to concepts of incompatibilistic free will in these cases?

[79] God can interject in human affairs and influence human decisions. 

Cliffs+Google Images

20240518: Note 

The lead photo from the original 20130107 article posting. Cliffs, possibly British Isles

[71] Frame explains that the freedom is not libertarian, but persons make significantly free choices within divine causation. 

Excellent point, I agree...

Incompatibilism is from my research often viewed synonymously with libertarian free will. In other words, the view is that any significant, libertarian, human freedom is incompatible with God (or anything) significantly causing human thoughts, desires, will, acts and actions. 

In contrast, compatibilism, my version coined limited free will, is a view that, as God is infinite, omnipotent and omniscient; God therefore must logically cause and will all things as the primary cause. This is true whether God causes something directly or allows it more so indirectly. Human nature, consciousness, thoughts, desires, will, acts and actions are a secondary cause in what humanly occurs. This human chain of limited free will has significant compatibilist freedom when it is not forced or coerced by the primary cause (God) (or anything) or any other secondary cause (human, angelic and demonic beings as examples). If a human being within human nature is forced in thoughts, desires, will, acts and actions, this is not compatibilism or soft determinism, but is rather hard determinism (sometimes called determinism). In other words, significant human freedom only exists when the secondary cause can significantly embrace what is caused by the primary cause.