Probability and Certainty

Egypt-trekearth,com

Beherira Desert-trekearth.com

Probability 

Ellery Eells explains probability is a numerical value that can be attached to items of various events, and kinds of events and measures the degree to which this may or should be expected. Eells (1996: 649). Eells reasons there are multiple interpretations of probability and there are abstract formal calculi and interpretations of the calculi. Eells (1996: 649).

Blackburn writes that 'probability is a non-negative, additive set function whose maximum value is unity'. Blackburn (1996: 304). Applying probability in the real world is more difficult and the first application is statistical. Blackburn (1996: 304). Statistical as in the tossing of the coin, heads versus tails and the frequency of a particular outcome and then calculating the probability of the outcome. Blackburn (1996: 304). One account of probability is therefore known as 'frequency theory', as in the probability of an event with frequency of occurrence. Blackburn (1996: 304). A second account of probability is described as 'an hypothesis as probable when the evidence bears a favoured relationship to it'. Blackburn (1996: 304). These are not empirical measures of frequencies. Basically they would be based on philosophical deductions based in reason. A third approach is sometimes referred to as subjectivism or personalism. Basically not an objective or real evaluation of the world, but rather a subjective evaluation of personal reality. Blackburn (1996: 304). However, Blackburn does write that one should not be governed by empirical frequencies and not by 'licentious thinking' (without restraint). Blackburn (1996: 304).

Certainty

As noted previously on this blog, Edward Gettier has argued in ‘Is Justified True Belief Knowledge?’ that believing something is true does not make it knowledge because the person lacks sufficient conditions for knowing a proposition. Gettier (1997)(1963: 3). In other words, many true propositions would have been deduced as true, not by knowledge but by felicitous (fortunate) coincidence. Klein (2005)(1998: 2-3). I can agree that finite human beings can deduce that something is true without really knowing it. As well, with the human lack of 100% knowledge of anything (only the infinite God has 100% knowledge), it does mean that it is also possible that there could be conditions in existence not known and that a proposition that is held as true is really false. However, I do not think that Gettier’s argument should trouble those who view the Christian faith as certain because Klein points out concerning Gettier’s view that to many thinkers felicitous coincidence can be avoided if the reasons which justify belief are such that they cannot be defeated by further truths. Klein (2005)(1998: 2-3). Klein’s certainty concept in regard to felicitous coincidence is similar to the one described below from The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy. In other words, if views are reasoned by deduction and evidence, they can be considered knowledge provided they are not countered by superior arguments. This does not require 100% certainty of anything, but rather an accurate understanding of conditions that would lead to the formation of propositions and arguments.

As mentioned previously on this blog, from my PhD, a definition of certainty which I would consider helpful would be along the lines of what I found in The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy. Peter D. Klein describes the Cartesian account of certainty as being that a proposition is true if there are no legitimate grounds whatsoever for doubting it. Klein (1996: 113). I like the similar idea that a proposition is certain if there are no counter propositions that are superior. Therefore in regard to the religiously historical, Christian faith, and its belief in Scripture inspired by God, the atoning work of Christ, the resurrection, and everlasting life, these things could be viewed as certain provided there are no legitimate counter arguments that are superior. I believe that evidence shows Christianity is philosophically certain in this sense.  I would consider posts/articles from my this blog and my other blog, Satire And Theology, offering cumulative evidences of certainty.

A classic view on certainty discussed in my PhD and in a previous blog article, I shall briefly review is that of Ludwig Wittgenstein:

He does admit that there is in a sense objective truth, but something would be objectively true only within a system of reason and knowledge through the understanding of reasonable persons. Wittgenstein (1951)(1979: 108). His view allows for the logical possibility that something considered objective truth in one system, is not objective truth in another. Wittgenstein (1951)(1979: 108). Philosophy should, therefore, not be understood as primarily making discoveries, as much a reminding persons of the issues that need to be dealt with when one turns to unfamiliar and uncertain issues. Wittgenstein does act with certainty, but it is his own. This does not in his mind justify his view as objective truth to others, it is simply belief. Wittgenstein (1951)(1979: 175). He reasons that ‘knowledge and certainty belong in different categories.’ Obtaining knowledge is very important, and more vital than having certitude. Wittgenstein (1951)(1979: 308) Knowledge and certainty are two different mental states. Wittgenstein (1951)(1979: 308).

A classic view, but not one I hold to from what I noted.

In regard to probability, I suppose that truth claims could also be made in terms of probability as well as certainty. For example, one could hypothetically state Christianity is 9?% probable using Blackburn's second account as in 'an hypothesis as probable when the evidence bears a favoured relationship to it.'  However, providing a number as percentage does seem somewhat subjective in comparison to using certainty, although not without intellectual value.

Eells states three axioms for probability:

1. Pr (Probability)(X)>0 for all
2. Pr (Probability)(X)=1 if X is necessary
3. Pr (Probability)(X  (or) Y) = Pr (Probability) (X) + Pr (Probability) (Y) where   means logical disjunction or set theoretical union, if X and Y are mutually exclusive. X and Y may be contradictions that both cannot both logically occur as events. Eells reasons these are provable axioms. Eells (1996: 649).

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

EELLS, ELLERY (1996) 'Probability', in Robert Audi (ed.), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, pp. 649-650. Cambridge University Press.

GETTIER, EDMUND L. (1997)(1963) ‘Is Justified True Belief Knowledge?’, in Analysis 23, 1963, 121-123, Nottingham, England. Analysis 23. http://www.ditext.com/gettier/gettier.html

KLEIN, PETER D. (1996) ‘Certainty’, in Robert Audi, (ed), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

KLEIN, PETER D. (1998, 2005). ‘Epistemology’, in E. Craig (ed.), Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, London, Routledge.

WITTGENSTEIN, LUDWIG (1951)(1979) On Certainty, Basil Blackwell, Oxford.

A Good Friend Asked Me If I Ever Considered Using An Attack Blog

The Norwalk Island, India-trekearth.com

Ghaiziabad, India-trekearth

Colle, Siena, Italy-trekearth

At a memorial service after party Sunday, the host and good friend asked me with a grin on his face, if with my blogs I ever searched the web seeking to start Theology and Philosophy confrontations. I stated that I did not not.

Here are the main reasons for my approach:

Biblically as I have noted many times on my blogs there are commandments in regard to love. Jesus Christ in John 13 and John 15 commanded his followers to love each other. Therefore, I should not as a Reformed Theologian, Philosopher and Blogger in any way be involved in an attack blog against other Christians as followers of Christ.

My level of education with four degrees that were highly academic has placed me in a position to write very academic blogs. The first two Christian degrees somewhat more so academic by my own determination to accomplish more difficult academic work, as opposed to less academic work, the last two degrees more so by their own design being United Kingdom/European theses only degrees. On the one hand, today I still have much to learn in Theology, Philosophy of Religion, Biblical Studies, in Academia and in life in general and therefore being finite and sinful it is in reality quite easy to be humble. On the other hand, having done two United Kingdom/European theses, one of 40, 000 words the other of 150, 000 words on the problem of evil and Theodicy, free will and determinism and related, including embedding my own successful, by reviewers admission, Reformed Theodicy, the level of academic difficulty was academically high enough that I could certainly be a very effective Reformed attack Blogger. But this would simply be immoral, unethical and sinful at many points I am certain.

There is also of course the Biblical mandate as noted many times on my blogs to love one's neighbour, meaning others as much as self, as in Matthew 22, Mark 12, Luke 10 and reasonably as a theologian and philosopher Biblically I cannot see this being accomplished by attacking persons, Christian or non-Christian via my blogging efforts.

Romans 13: 8 notes that he who loves his neighbour has fulfilled the law.

This same friend basically stated that I am debating theology everyday, which is in a sense true, at least I am debating it in my head everyday by doing the work, and interacting with blog comments daily and certainly interacting with persons weekly. Avoiding an attack blog concept in no way means that I am avoiding the Biblical command to accurately handle the word of God as in 2 Timothy 2:15 and being able to give a defence for the hope that is in us as 1 Peter 3: 15 states. I am open to the concept of within reason debating and more likely discussing issues. Debating is fine and can be very good in its place, but I seek this in a spirit of love and truth not in a spirit of attack that would be sinful or in animosity.

I was called a 'bulldog' by a BA academic review board member at Columbia Bible College for my debating.

My PhD Viva at Wales, Trinity Saint David went very well because of my debating and knowledge, I was informed by the reviewers.

As I was noting to my friend the host and to a another friend at the party that is Eastern Orthodox, although I am definitively Reformed, I could write posts about each definitive Christian group I have learned about with criticisms. The more I learn about Christian Theology and Philosophy of Religion, the more critiques could be written about each group, so there is room for disagreement, definitely, but also humility as in no group in this realm has 'all their ducks in a row'. And yes, non-Christian world-views can be criticized as well.  Although I favour Reformed views on most issues, usually falling within the Presbyterian and Baptist camps, I do not see good Biblical, Theological and Philosophical reasons to violently attack other Christian groups that I think are less correct. Attacking non-believers would also be wrong as it would be unloving and a poor Christian witness.

Of course I can certainly theologically and philosophically disagree with non-Christian worldviews, which I do.

There are from my perspective, also personal reasons to not write an attack blog, or to participate on the blogs of others in an attacking manner.

I am looking for employment. Not only in the areas of my degrees but perhaps in other areas of work, and I do not want to portray myself online in an unnecessary negative light.

Building blog readership, followers and links may in some cases be accomplished through greater negativity and publicity, but if that is what it would take, I would not be interested.

I have generally made three steps forward and two steps back with my blogs. A slow progression, 2013 being my best year so far, although Stats Counter is now only counting I estimate 20-40% of my pageviews.

Blogger is tracking them.

To be honest, 'being wrong' online in a debate would not be the largest concern, not because I think I know everything, hardly. But with my level of education, I know where to look to find information that I do not know and have learned how to use books very well. My actual approach in life is to switch to student mode when I know less than someone else on a topic/subject.

I am single, I would like to portray myself, in the truthful way, as a professional Theologian and Philosopher of Religion of the Reformed tradition, as a person that understands the love aspect of the Gospel as well as other theological components such as justice and truth.

James Montgomery Boice states that in I John the Church is commanded to love one another five times. This is also taught in 1 Thessalonians 4: 9. Boice (1986: 645). It is a love of not only profession but also 'deeds and action'. Boice (1986: 645).

BOICE, JAMES, MONTGOMERY (1986) Foundations of the Christian Faith, Downers Grove, IVP Press.

Ronald McKing-Google

Evil Versus Suffering (PhD Edit)

Butchart Gardens-trekearth

Butchart Gardens-trekearth

Evil Versus Suffering

Preface

PhD Edit published on this website, February 10, 2013, with additional references for an entry on academia.edu on September 23, 2023.

Evil Versus Suffering

Vermeer, within his study, makes a distinction between evil and suffering.[1]  Evil is a harmful event or situation that causes human suffering.[2]  Natural disasters and disease would be considered evil;[3] whereas, in contrast, suffering is the active emotional human response to evil.[4]  Evil is not suffering, but it is only when human beings attempt to find meaning with the negative results of evil that suffering exists.[5]  As Francis Young (1999) points out, there is no simple satisfactory answer for suffering within theodicy,[6] but the cross of Christ has the power to provide a genuine meaning in the lives of Christians.[7]  Suffering was part of Christ’s redemptive work.[8]  Bonhoeffer writes suffering, along with rejection ‘sum up the whole cross of Jesus’ as he died on the cross, Christ faced human rejection.[9]  Gebara offers a different position when she writes that the suffering of a God-man has been used by certain people to accept their own suffering within conformity,[10] and some religious movements can use this concept of suffering to cover up ‘misery or unjust crosses.’[11]  Gebara notes that suffering caused by evil persons committing wrong actions, should be distinguished from ‘anguish present in every human life.’[12]  The existence of evil is understood,[13] but Vermeer and the Nijmegen school are attempting to make empirical sense of resulting suffering, in light of the saving work of Christ on the cross.  

---

[1] Vermeer (1999: 7).

[2] Vermeer (1999: 7).

[3] Vermeer (1999: 7). 

[4] Vermeer (1999: 7). 

[5] Vermeer (1999: 7).

[6] Young (1999: 556).

[7] Young (1999: 556).

[8] Bloesch (1987: 127).

[9] Bonhoeffer (1937)(1963: 96).

[10] Gebara (2002: 90).

[11] Gebara (2002: 90).

[12] Gebara (2002: 90).

[13] From research, at least within liberal and conservative Christian traditions, evil is deemed to exist, as is the problem of evil.  This is not to state that every single documented religious philosophy acknowledges evil and the problem of evil.

-------------------------------------------------

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. 

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.  

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

BONHOEFFER, DIETRICH (1931)(1996) Act and Being, Translated from the German Edition, Hans-Richard Reuter (ed.), English Edition, Wayne Whitson Floyd, Jr., (ed.), Translated by H. Martin Rumscheidt, Fortress Press, Minneapolis.

BONHOEFFER, DIETRICH (1937)(1963) The Cost of Discipleship, Collier Books, Macmillan Publishing Company, New York. 

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. 

DAVIES, BRIAN (1999) ‘Impassibility’, in Alan Richardson and John Bowden (eds.), A New Dictionary of Christian Theology, p. 288. Kent, SCM Press Ltd. 

EDWARDS, JONATHAN (1729)(2006) Sovereignty of God, New Haven, Connecticut, Jonathan Edwards Center, Yale University. http://edwards.yale.edu/archive/documents/page?document_id=10817&search_id=&source_type=edited&pagenumber=1 

EDWARDS, JONATHAN (1731-1733)(2006) Law of Nature, New Haven, Connecticut, Jonathan Edwards Center, Yale University. http://edwards.yale.edu/archive/documents/page?document_id=11207&search_id=606108&source_type=edited&pagenumber=1 

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

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

FLEW, ANTONY (1955) ‘Theology and Falsification’, in Antony Flew and A. MacIntrye (eds.), New Essays in Philosophical Theology, London, SCM, in Paul Edwards and Arthur Pap (eds.), A Modern Introduction To Philosophy, New York, The Free Press. 

FLEW, ANTONY (1983)(1996) ‘The Falsification Challenge’, in Antony Flew and A. MacIntrye (eds.), New Essays in Philosophical Theology, in Michael Peterson, William Hasker, Bruce Reichenbach, and David Basinger (eds.), Philosophy of Religion, Oxford, Oxford University Press. 

FLEW, ANTONY, R.M. HARE, AND BASIL MITCHELL (1996) ‘The Debate on the Rationality of Religious Belief’, in L.P. Pojman (ed.),Philosophy, The Quest for Truth, New York, Wadsworth Publishing Company. 

FLEW, ANTONY AND A.MACINTRYE (1999) ‘Philosophy of Religion’, in Alan Richardson and  John Bowden (eds.), A New Dictionary of Christian Theology, Kent, SCM Press Ltd. 

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

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

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

MOLTMANN, JÜRGEN (1993) The Crucified God, Minneapolis, Fortress Press. 

MOLTMANN, JÜRGEN (1999) ‘Perseverance’, in Alan Richardson and John Bowden (eds.), New Dictionary of Christian Theology, Kent, SCM Press Ltd. 

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

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. 

VERMEER, PAUL (1999) Learning Theodicy, Leiden, Brill.

VOSSEN, H.J.M. ERIC (1993) ‘Images of God and Coping with Suffering’, Translated by S. Ralston, in Journal of Empirical Theology, Volume 6, pp. 19-38. Kampen, The Netherlands, Journal of Empirical Theology.

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

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

Immutable/Impassible (PhD Edit)

Griesbach, Germany-trekearth

My Google Chrome version is looking best. Safari is good.

Professor van der Ven finds Moltmann’s discussion on the ancient view, that God is apathetic towards his creation, useful.[1]  Moltmann notes the related Greek term ‘apatheia’ which is the idea of an irresistible force that cannot be influenced by outside forces.[2]  Historically in early Greek times from Aristotle onwards, God was viewed as being without emotions.[3]  Brian Davies (1999) notes that the term ‘impassibility’ corresponds to ‘apatheia’[4] and defines impassibility as the traditional understanding that God, the divine nature, cannot experience pain or suffering.[5]  Davies believes it is incorrect to assume God’s impassibility should mean that the creator is indifferent or unconcerned about his creation.[6]  For Erickson, the idea of God’s divine nature as impassible is based upon the influence of ancient Greek thought rather than Scripture.[7]  Erickson points out that with the incarnation of Christ, God the Son did experience human suffering.[8]  He possessed a human nature that did suffer in life and in death, even though his divine nature coexisted with his human one.[9]  Kenneth Surin (1982) writes that God is considered by some within orthodox Christian theology to be unable to experience pain or sorrow.[10]  However, others concede that concluding God is impassible is a questionable view within traditional thought.[11]  Surin thinks that perhaps God limits his omnipotence by identifying with human suffering.[12]  Paul Helm (2006), Professor Emeritus of the University of London,[13] reasons impassibility has lost intellectual support,[14] even though throughout the ages many within the Church have accepted the doctrine.[15]  Helm suggests that the doctrine needs to be reconsidered as God is not indifferent to human suffering,[16] nor does God express emotions of anger and passion as humans do.[17] The concept of impassibility opens up a complex discussion beyond this thesis, but it seems reasonable God can be both all-powerful and feel negative emotions.  It should be concluded suffering does not alter his divine attributes. Thiessen describes the immutability of God as meaning his divine nature, attributes, consciousness, and will cannot change.[18]  Erickson explains that God does not grow or develop, as there are no variations in his nature at different points within his existence.[19]  R.C. Sproul and Robert Wolgemuth (2000) deduce that as God is eternal he has no beginning or no end.[20]  As God is understood to be eternal and beyond time without a progression in nature, his infinite being would make a change in nature and character impossible.[21]  My modest proposal reasons since God is infinite and considered immutable,[22] it is impossible for him to suffer in the exact way that human beings do.  David A Pailin (1999) explains that within some process theology[23] approaches, God’s existence may be viewed as absolute, necessary and unchanging.[24]  However, God’s character can change and is determined through interaction with his creation.[25]  Pailin postulates that God’s character can change, as he loves his creatures.[26]  In my view, the divine nature does not have a physical body that can be altered, changed or die, as in John 4:24 where Jesus stated that God is spirit.[27]  Christ could suffer because he was both true God and true man,[28] but God as spirit[29] cannot suffer in human terms.  Since God is immutable,[30] any type or amount of suffering cannot alter his essential nature or being, or divine character.[31]  In contrast, suffering can definitely change the essential nature of human beings as, for example, in the case of an amputated limb or death.  Suffering can also change the mental and spiritual well being of a person, but God would not be altered in the same way.[32]

Erickson explains that it does seem a rational possibility, however, to conclude God does have emotions, although they are controlled.[33]  He indicates anger is involved in the idea of God’s wrath in the Biblical example Romans 1:18.[34]  God also has ‘agape’ love for his creatures, which is a steadfast, unselfish concern for them.[35]  It is reasonable to deduce that God’s love for humanity is not only a decision to care for them, but also includes intense concern for his creation.[36]  An understanding, infinite God could comprehend the sufferings of his finite creatures,[37] but God’s essential nature and being would not be altered by the experience of these feelings.[38]  There is no need to conclude that the sufferings of finite creatures alter the nature of an infinite God who can comprehend and feel those sufferings.[39]  Therefore, even if, for the sake of argument, impassibility is a correct deduction concerning God’s nature,[40] Christ possessing the full nature of God[41] and a full human nature[42] enabled him to experience suffering and evil.[43]  God the Son can therefore relate to human suffering on a personal level.  I reason God’s immutable nature does not necessarily make him impassible.

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. 

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.

DAVIES, BRIAN (1999) ‘Impassibility’, in Alan Richardson and John Bowden (eds.), A New Dictionary of Christian Theology, p. 288. Kent, SCM Press Ltd.

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

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

FEINBERG, JOHN.S. (1986) Predestination and Free Will, in David Basinger and Randall Basinger (eds.), Downers Grove, Illinois, InterVarsity Press.

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

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

HELM, PAUL (2006) ‘Divine Impassibility: Why Is It Suffering?’ in Reformation 21, Philadelphia, Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals, Inc.

http://www.reformation21.org/Past_Issues/2006_Issues_1_16_/2006_Issues_1_16_Articles/Divine_Impassibility/94/

MOLTMANN, JÜRGEN (1993) The Crucified God, Minneapolis, Fortress Press.

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

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

SPROUL, R.C., AND ROBERT WOLGEMUTH (2000) What’s In the Bible, Word Publishing, Nashville.

SURIN, KENNETH (1986) Theology and the Problem of Evil, Oxford,  Basil Blackwell Ltd.

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

VAN DER VEN, JOHANNES (1993) Practical Theology, Translated by Barbara Schultz, AC Kampen, Netherlands, Kok Pharos Publishing House.

VAN DER VEN, JOHANNES (1998) God Reinvented?, Leiden, Brill.

VAN DER VEN, JOHANNES (2005) ‘Theodicy Items and Scheme’, in a personal email from Johannes van der Ven, Nijmegen, Radboud University, Nijmegen.

VAN DER VEN, JOHANNES (2006a) ‘Dates of Nijmegen authors’, in a personal email from Johannes van der Ven, Nijmegen, Radboud University, Nijmegen.

VAN DER VEN, JOHANNES (2006b) ‘Symbols versus Models’, in a personal email from Johannes van der Ven, Nijmegen, Radboud University, Nijmegen.

WILLIAMS, ROWAN (2000) On Christian Theology, Blackwell Publishing, Oxford. 

---

[1] van der Ven (1993: 173).

[2] Moltmann (1993: 267).

[3] Moltmann (1993: 268).

[4] Davies (1999: 288).

[5] Davies (1999: 288).

[6] Davies (1999: 288).

[7] Erickson (1994: 737).

[8] Erickson (1994: 737).

[9] Erickson (1994: 737).

[10] Surin (1982: 97).

[11] Surin (1982: 97).

[12] Surin (1982: 97).

[13] Helm (2006: 1).

[14] Helm (2006: 1).

[15] Helm (2006: 1).

[16] Helm (2006: 1).

[17] Helm (2006: 1).

[18] Thiessen (1956: 127).

[19] Erickson (1994: 274).

[20] Sproul and Wolgemuth (2000: 2).

[21] Sproul and Wolgemuth (2000: 2).

[22] Sproul and Wolgemuth (2000: 2).  Thiessen (1956: 127).  Erickson (1994: 274).

[23] Process theology as discussed previously is a twentieth century approach based on the philosophy of Alfred North Whitehead that presents a God that is involved in the continual process of world through two natures.  God has a transcendent nature which contains God’s perfect character and the consequent immanent nature by which God is part of the changing cosmic process.

[24] Pailin (1999: 469).

[25] Pailin (1999: 469).

[26] Pailin (1999: 469).

[27] The New American Standard Version Bible (1984: 1198).

[28] Schreck (1984:  16). 

[29] The New American Standard Version Bible (1984: 1198).

[30] Sproul and Wolgemuth (2000: 2).  Thiessen (1956: 127).  Erickson (1994: 274).

[31] Pailin (1999: 469).

[32] God has an infinite nature that cannot be changed, but finite human nature can be altered.

[33] Erickson (1994: 605).

[34] Erickson (1994: 605).

[35] Erickson (1994: 180).

[36] Erickson (1994: 180).

[37] Pailin (1999: 469).

[38] Thiessen (1956: 127).

[39] Thiessen (1956: 127).

[40] Surin (1982: 97). 

[41] Barth (1932-1968: 371). Williams (2007: 130).  Franke (2005: 72). 

[42] Williams (2007: 129).  Schreck (1984:  16).  Franke (2005: 72). 

[43] Bloesch (1987: 16).  He suffered as the reconciler between God and the world.  Williams (2007: 130).

Gary Habermas: Short clips