A Philosophy Of Friendship

Rome-Facebook

A Philosophy Of Friendship

Revised due to template changes, November 25 2021

Blackburn explains friendship was a moral philosophy much discussed by Greek philosophers Plato and Aristotle and the Stoics, but much less in the modern era. Friendship concepts came back into play with modern contextualist and feminist ethics. Within friendship there is an openness to the other that can be 'seen as an enlargement of self'. Friendship is an escape from too much emphasize on pursuing one's own self interest. Blackburn (1996: 149).

According to the Nelson's Reference text a friend is described as for example on page 271:

Highly esteemed

Nature of common interest
Nature of common love
Nature of common sympathy
Nature of common sacrifice

Value of

Constructive Criticism
Helpful Advice
Valuable in Time of Need
Always Faithful

Dangers of

May entice to sin
Some are necessary
Some are untrustworthy

An example provided is Proverbs 17: 17...

From the New American Standard Bible

17 A friend loves at all times, And a brother is born for adversity.

Obviously in context this would not always be absolutely true but one can understand the truth of it in an ancient Middle Eastern context. It is inspired Scripture, teaching what a friend should be like and what a family may be like. A family will often tend to hold together in difficult times.

I discussed 'A Philosophy Of Friendship' recently. Yesterday after arriving back from my podiatrist's office I headed to the downstairs part of the condo complex to visit my Mother. We were discussing friendship. I mentioned that philosophically, I have reasoned that seniors and disabled persons as harsh as this reads, actually need to in this fallen world become more extroverted, contrary I realize to what usually actually happens and more flexible and more social as one ages in order to basically not be left behind and alone in many cases. Again I know this is harsh, but this is within a world where there is the problem of evil.

And yes, I understand that when one is ill one does not want to socialize as much. I have an empirical understanding of the concept.

Mom mentioned to me that I had become more extroverted, more flexible and more social in comparison to years ago. I agreed and I mentioned that this was a necessity for me...

No apologies.

Requires social flexibility as a friend.

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

Nelson's Three-In-One Bible Reference (1982), Nashville, Thomas Nelson Publishers.

Encountering The New Testament (Brief Review)

Encountering The New Testament

August 21, 2013 

bethesda.ministries.india@gmail.com 

Jai M Paul a friend of this blog 

Bethesda Church Ministries Hyderabad, India 

Prayers and Funds to be sent please on behalf of orphaned children

Facebook Page

---

Encountering The New Testament (Brief Review)

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

As a Doctor/PhD I receive some email offers to sample textbooks. If the offer is within my academic disciplines of Theology. Philosophy and Biblical Studies and/or an interesting book of any type and for free I accept. This offer appeared free.

This text has the same co-author, Walter A. Elwell as the Dictionary of Evangelical Theology which is a text I used for my United Kingdom theses and blogging and therefore I had some confidence in the text prior to evaluation.

To start the text, from Baker is hardcover and glossy, therefore likely to last longer than a softcover or paperback text.

The paper is fairly glossy and a high grade. It is thick. The images are of a high quality. There are maps inside.

The textbook would serve as a fine gift as well.

Chapter 1: Why Study The New Testament

Is Everything Relative?

A statement is made in regard to the idea in American Universities today that 'truth is relative'. Elwell (2013: 5). Then the point is made from Romans that full knowledge of truth belongs to God alone and Romans 11:33-34 is listed. Elwell (2013: 5).

Romans 11:33-34 New American Standard Bible (NASB)

33 Oh, the depth of the riches [a]both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and unfathomable His ways! 34 For who has known the mind of the Lord, or who became His counselor?

God is infinite, omnipotent and omniscient and his creatures would be finite and not almighty also lacking omniscience.

Philosophical concepts connecting first cause to a Biblical God could yield similar conclusions in regard to finite humanity.

The text states that God through Scripture has 'spoken reliably and authoritatively' and therefore not everything is uncertain and there is a final authority. Elwell (2013: 5).

But the text does correctly point out that there is always an issue because there 'may be ambiguity in our perception of what the Bible says'. Elwell (2013: 5).

This objection was raised to me on more than one occasion by a fellow seminary student.

I stated that it was better to take God's word as inspired and final as it claims with 2 Timothy 2: 15 accurately handling the word of truth, 2 Timothy 3: 16 all Scripture is inspired by God and 1 Peter 3: 15 be ready to give an account, in context than to negate in some way the Scripture and therefore its theological and philosophical meanings and greatly risk negating the Gospel and the nature of God.

A serious study, consideration and acceptance of inspired Scripture as religious history should yield agreement of core doctrines such as the nature of God as triune, the divinity and humanity of Christ, the exclusivity of Christ for salvation through his atoning and resurrection work applied to those in Christ, the eventual second advent, and eventual culminated Kingdom of God.

On secondary issues in the Church there is room for more disagreement, although personally with four degrees and years of academic blogging, I am very comfortable being firmly Reformed in positions but I believe in progressing theologically and philosophically while staying Biblically orthodox.

Chapter 14: Acts

Do Miracles Happen?

Rudolf Bultmann is quoted where he noted that the worldview of Scripture is mythological and unacceptable to modern persons shaped by science. Elwell (2013: 201).

The authors disagree, claiming popular opinion and polls that support direct intervention by God or powers. Therefore stating modern persons would not necessarily agree. Elwell (2013: 201).

A second view used is to suggest that scientists are now more open to concepts of an open universe as opposed to a closed universe as in the past. They reason a closed universe leaves too much unexplained. Elwell (2013: 201).

The third objection is that God is left completely out of the picture. Elwell (2013: 201).

Basically the New Testament and Jesus Christ's work, especially his resurrection is negated.

They make the point: 'If God can make a world, why can't he act in the world he has made'. Elwell (2013: 201).

This is in my mind is where I would deal with and argue.

Via Scripture in the Church there is the historical religious documentation.

Via philosophical theology and philosophy of religion concepts of first cause cannot prove the Christian God but connections can be made.

I reason it technically took a miracle for the infinite non-material God to create a matter universe and therefore it is not unreasonable that God would at times intervene in creation.

Documented non-fictional Scripture takes the idea beyond only philosophy and into religious history.

Further with the text...

Very good to see an academic Glossary of twelve pages near the back of the book.

Encountering The New Testament will be a useful professional tool for me over my career.

God As Infinite (Survey Comparison)

Fishguard Pier, Wales-trekearth

August 21, 2013 

bethesda.ministries.india@gmail.com 

Jai M Paul a friend of this blog 

Bethesda Church Ministries 

Hyderabad, India 

Prayers and Funds to be sent please on behalf of orphaned children 


2003 The Problem of Evil: Anglican and Baptist Perspectives: MPhil thesis, Bangor University 

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

Statement one: The first statement on the survey was stated as: God is infinite/limitless.

My position on this statement is that Scripture and reason demonstrate this to be the case in the affirmative. Scripture does not use the philosophical term infinite to describe God, however, Erickson stated that the idea is indicated.

Jeremiah quotes God as saying, ‘Am I a God at hand,...and not a God afar off? (Jer. 23:23). The implication seems to be that a God at hand does not preclude his being afar as well. He fills the whole heaven and earth (v.24). Thus, one cannot hide oneself in ‘secret places’ so that he cannot be seen. God speaks of heaven as his throne and the earth as his footstool; the idea that man can confine God by building him a dwelling place is then, sheer folly. The psalmist found that he could not flee from presence of God–wherever the psalmist went, God would be there (Ps. 139:7-12). Erickson, Millard, J. (1985), Christian Theology (p. 273).

One could argue that Scripture is not indicating God is infinite as an attribute, but is, instead, stating that he is all powerful and knowing within his creation. In other words, he is simply of greater finite nature than anything in his creation. However, in Genesis 1, it is indicated that God made the Universe from nothing other than his will and power. Thus he must be beyond all things which he has created, so logically he is infinite in comparison to his creation, and nothing else existed before his creation. Therefore it could be deduced that he is infinite as an attribute, as it appears nothing existed beyond him before or after the creation of the Universe. For this first statement, 94% of Anglicans agreed, 4% were not certain, while 2% disagreed. For Baptists, 98% agreed, while 2% were not certain.

There is with this point an agreement between myself and the great majority of my responders.

2010 Theodicy and Practical Theology: PhD thesis, the University of Wales, Trinity Saint David, Lampeter

Question 13: God is close to all persons

With a frequency of 95 (44.6%) respondents ‘AS’ is the top response, followed by 54 (25.4%) respondents for ‘A’. So 70% of respondents support this idea. There are fair numbers of ‘NC’ as 26 (12.2%) respondents made that choice, and 38 (l7.8%) respondents chose ‘D/DS’.

I do not view this question as primarily important for work on theodicy, but interestingly God’s closeness to persons or immanence is accepted by 70% of the respondents in a world where the problem of evil exists.

Question 14: God is beyond his creation

One hundred and fifteen (54%) respondents chose ‘AS’ and 30 (14.1%) chose ‘A’. This indicates 68.1% support of this idea. It is not specifically indicated in the questionnaire due to limitations of empirical theology, but I am within the survey communicating the idea of transcendence, which shall be discussed in the Theology and Application section.

Question 15: God is in all things

This question concerned the concept of pantheism, and not immanence. From the results, bearing in mind the context of the question is not provided with empirical theology, many respondents understood the question as dealing with immanence. Therefore 74 (34.7%) respondents preferred ‘AS’ while 46 (21.6%) respondents selected ‘A’. It is doubtful that 56.3% of those in the Christian Church, whether conservative or liberal, are pantheists!. Sixty-nine (32.4%) respondents chose ‘D/DS’ and therefore I deduce these respondents reasoned pantheism was being discussed. Pantheism will be further discussed in the Theology and Application section. 

Question 16: God separates himself from his creation

This is a difficult question. The idea behind the proposition is a concern on whether or not the transcendent and immanent God, as infinite and omnipresent, limits his influence on creation and, in a sense, separates his will from that of created beings, allowing them significant, but limited free will. Sixty-four (30%) respondents preferred ‘AS/A’ with this question, 41 (19.2%) chose ‘NC’, while 108 (50.7%) respondents selected ‘D/DS’.

Question 13

Question 14

Question 15

Question 16

Which survey questions?

Twisted Sifter

Twisted Sifter

Twisted Sifter

Twisted Sifter

Is The World Becoming More Evil? (Survey Comparison)

Drina Gorge-Serbia-trekearth

Bohinj, Slovenia-trekearth

Ijubijan-Slovenia-trekearth

Note

Happy Sunday

It went from rain to sun as I drove home from Vancouver this afternoon.

I have semi-satirically and hopefully entertainingly noted in my comments of recent posts on this blog and Satire And Theology my thoughts that Stat Counter and Site Meter are not keeping accurate blog statistics lately. The recorded pageviews were at times 15-20% of Blogger's recorded views.

Usually 33-40% of the Blogger total is more typical.

I would view certain persons, that are frequent visitors on my blogs via Revolver, that provides the visual globe and notifies who is presently on the blog (s) and Stat Counter and Site Meter missed a visitor three times. And this was just three times I noticed.

When someone commented the other day on the Satire blog, Stat Counter completely missed the pageview which has been occurring frequently recently, although Site Meter recorded it. Histats seems to record some of the pageviews the other two programs miss, perhaps from handheld devices. I assume this in regard to handheld devices as I know when I view my blogs with my cellphone many times the view does not get recorded by Stat Counter or Site Meter, although Revolver catches it.

My laptop views are virtually always recorded.

Histats also recorded several more visits to both of my sites main URL addresses than Stat Counter and Site Meter recorded, and more visits than I made by far. So this is suspicious.

I have reasoned out that as with every year the pageviews numbers decrease overall in the Summer and it could be as more of us are outside there are less pageviews from desktops and laptops and the pageviews that do occur are more likely from handheld devices which my two main programs are missing.

Seems to me Revolver should be in the business that Stat Counter and Site Meter are...

There is also the possibility that I am just receiving less views and if that is the case I realize although I appreciate the support that life goes on even without certain support.

It is excellent having readers and a 'fan club' but if people move on I still plan, God willing, to work at this ministry and gain experience.

I wish everyone well.

Problem is, I just checked my Blogger pageview statistics and it shows a good day both blogs, especially considering a weekend. Satire And Theology via Stat Counter is only recording 16% of the Blogger numbers for today, although Stat Counter is on PDT and Blogger GMT, and 13% of the pageviews on this blog.

I should note, Blogger only provides the statistics with no ISP addresses or locations. Therefore I can compare and reason Blogger is more accurate with the stats but does not provide the entire picture.

As of a philosopher it is a time to just admit, I do not completely understand what is going on.

As a theologian: God is sovereign.

You see philosophy and theology are practical...

Is The World Becoming More Evil?

Another survey comparison from my theses.

From: 2003 The Problem of Evil: Anglican and Baptist Perspectives: MPhil thesis, Bangor University

Statement thirty-one:

Statement thirty-one stated: The world is becoming increasingly evil. Here 34% of Anglicans agreed, while 26% were not certain, and 40% disagreed. With the Baptists, 58% agreed, 12% were not certain, and 30% disagreed. I tentatively disagree with this statement. I do believe that our present western culture does appear to be on a moral slide downwards. However, I do not think this means that society is necessarily more evil than culture one hundred years ago, but rather people today are allowed to be more open with their evil because society has greater tolerance for immorality and diversity of opinions. This does not mean, however, that people in past generations were not just as evil in thought and deed.

2010 Theodicy and Practical Theology: PhD thesis, the University of Wales, Trinity Saint David, Lampeter

Question 46: The world is becoming more evil

With these questions the scale changed, and is now ranging from 1 to 5, 1 being ‘little’ and 5 being ‘much’. One hundred and eleven respondents (52.1%) chose ‘4 to 5’ meaning a majority favour the proposition.. Sixty persons (28.2%) chose ‘1 to 2’ and 42 (19.7%) chose ‘3’.

Positivism

Bayern-trekearth

John Kent states positivism is a philosophical position belonging to the empirical view according to which humankind can have no knowledge of anything but phenomena, and that is only what is apprehended by the senses empirically. Kent (1999: 454).

The concept would be that positive knowledge is associated in particular with the sciences as in things must be observed and there is no questioning of knowledge beyond. Kent (1999: 454).

Therefore other fields such as theology and metaphysics would be regarded as speculation. Kent (1999: 454).

The term 'positivism' was introduced by French socialist Saint-Simon (1760-1825) and noted by his student Auguste Comte (1798-1857). Both of these men rejected traditional Christianity and its working with the existing social system. Kent (1999: 454). Comte held that the highest or only form of knowledge is the description of sensory phenomena. Blackburn (1996: 294). This being the empirical. He held to three stages of human belief the theological, the metaphysical and the positive. It is a version of traditional empiricism. Blackburn (1996: 294).

Paul Weirich writes that Comte was influenced by Kant and held that the causes of the phenomena (or that phenomena realm one could state, my add) in themselves are not knowable. Comte was critical of speculation on such matters. It is stated that he went beyond many empiricists by denying knowledge other than from observable objects. Weirich (1996: 147).

In other words he was a strict empiricist.

From my PhD research, I was forced post-Viva to do some fairly extensive related work on Kant.

This certainly does make me a Kantian scholar, but I can cite on this subject.

Kant was not a noted Christian, nor an empiricist.

From my PhD and my Kant post edited:

Guyer and Wood point out that Kant was not an empiricist,[1] as while Kant criticized and limited the scope of traditional metaphysical thought,[2] he also sought to defend against empiricism’s claim of the possibility of universal and necessary knowledge which he called a priori [3] knowledge,[4] because no knowledge derived from experience, a posteriori [5] knowledge, could justify a claim to universal and necessary validity. 

Guyer and Wood explain that Kant sought to defend the scientific approach to the acquisition of knowledge against skeptics that dismissed rigorous arguments in favor of  ‘common sense.’[6]  Kant critiqued the dogmatism of certain metaphysicians negatively,[7] and he also negatively noted as dogmatists those that would be intellectually indifferent to metaphysical inquiry.[8]  Kant wished to limit the pretensions of dogmatic empiricists while defending metaphysical theories as a science and necessary in terms of practical reason.[9]  Basically, Kant defended metaphysics as important and necessary, but was sympathetic to the empiricists view that certain metaphysical questions were insoluble.[10]  

Kant noted that a priori is relational without its own inherent content.[11]  It is synthetic and incapable of serving as metaphysical proof.  A priori is relative to an experience only capable of producing appearances, and so a priori is factual as experience which it conditions.[12]  Kant reasons objects that were present in empirical human experience were in the phenomena realm, while objects outside were the noumena realm.[13]  He writes that the contingent things experienced by persons are phenomena.[14]  These are things that could be experienced empirically and would be reasonably accepted as reality.[15]  The noumena realm was not available to empirical senses.

[16]  Kant explains in a follow up work entitled The Critique of Practical Reason from 1788, that the noumena is the theoretical department of knowledge denied, while the phenomena is one’s own empirical consciousness.[17]  All positive speculative knowledge should be disclaimed for the noumena realm according to Kantian thought. 

Kant concludes The Critique of Practical Reason by noting that the phenomena realm is the external realm where consciousness has existence.[18] The noumena realm is invisible and has true infinity where Kant believes one can reason that contingent personality is dependent on the universal and necessary connection to the invisible world.[19] 

Importantly Kant thought it legitimate for one to postulate the noumena realm in a ‘negative sense’ meaning things as they may be independently or how they are represented, [20] but not noumena in the ‘positive sense’ which would be things based on pure reason alone.[21]  Instead, noumena categories were only useful by applying them to empirical data structured in forms of intuition.[22]  

Christian scholarship does not rely primarily on natural theology or it could be stated a vast understanding of the noumena, which would be considered by certain scholars to require pure reason which some also think Kant had demolished. Revelation from God in Scripture and resulting claims made within could perhaps be tied to Kantian concepts and intuition arising from empirical sensations. This is not a difficulty for a Reformed and some other approaches to Christianity, which do not rely primarily on philosophical deductions, but in supernatural revelation of God through empirical sensations, such as prophets, Christ, the apostles and scribes. Scripture is not primarily metaphysical speculation about God but is rather coming through the authors and players within his Bible, which are reasoned to be historically divinely guided by God.

Positivism appears to me to at least risk at times to be what Blackburn describes related to the pejorative term of ‘scientism’ which categorizes things in the natural sciences as the only proper form of academic inquiry. Blackburn (1996: 344).

In other words, positivism risks being a form of scientism.

---

[1] Guyer and Wood in Kant (1781)(1787)(1998: 2). 

[2] Kant was opposed to speculative views of indefensible rationalism. 

[3] Kant called cognitions independent of all experience and the impressions of the senses a priori.  Kant (1781)(1787)(1998: 136). 

[4] Guyer and Wood in Kant (1781)(1787)(1998: 2).

[5] Empirical experiences are called a posteriori.  A posteriori knowledge is empirical knowledge through experience.  Kant (1781)(1787)(1998: 136). 

[6] Guyer and Wood in Kant (1781)(1787)(1998: 2).

[7] Guyer and Wood in Kant (1781)(1787)(1998: 3).

[8] Guyer and Wood in Kant (1781)(1787)(1998: 3).  Kant notes in ‘Critique of Practical Reason’ empiricism needs to be contrasted by the necessity of rational a priori principles.  Kant (1788)(1997: 11).

[9] Guyer and Wood in Kant (1781)(1787)(1998: 3).

[10] Guyer and Wood in Kant (1781)(1787)(1998: 3).

[11] Guyer and Wood in Kant (1781)(1787)(1998: 3).

[12] Kant (1781)(1787)(1929)(2006: 43). 

[13] Kant (1781)(1787)(1929)(2006: 482).  Guyer and Wood note that the phenomena realm is the category applied to appearances whereas things in themselves are the noumena realm, which might be thought of but not known.  Guyer and Wood in Kant (1781)(1787)(1998: 10).  The phenomena realm is that which appears and is therefore empirical.

[14] Kant (1781)(1787)(1929)(2006: 482).

[15] Kant (1781)(1787)(1929)(2006: 482).

[16] Kant (1781)(1787)(1929)(2006: 393).

[17] Kant (1788)(1898)(2006: 3).

[18] Kant (1788)(1898)(2006: 100).

[19] Kant (1788)(1898)(2006: 100).

[20] Guyer and Wood in Kant (1781)(1787)(1998: 13).

[21] Guyer and Wood in Kant (1781)(1787)(1998: 13).

[22] Guyer and Wood in Kant (1781)(1787)(1998: 13).  

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

GUYER, PAUL AND ALLEN W, in KANT, IMMANUEL (1781)(1787)(1998) Critique of Pure Reason, Translated and edited by Paul Guyer and Allen W. Wood, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

KANT, IMMANUEL (1781)(1787)(1998) Critique of Pure Reason, Translated and edited by Paul Guyer and Allen W. Wood, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

KANT, IMMANUEL (1781)(1787)(1929)(2006) Critique of Pure Reason, Translated by Norman Kemp Smith, London, Macmillan.

KANT, IMMANUEL (1788)(1997) Critique of Practical Reason, Translated by Mary Gregor (ed.), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

KANT, IMMANUEL (1788)(1898)(2006) The Critique of Practical Reason, Translated by Thomas Kingsmill Abbott, London, Longmans, Green, and Co.

KANT, IMMANUEL (1791)(2001) ‘On The Miscarriage of All Philosophical Trials in Theodicy’, in Religion and Rational Theology, Translated by George di Giovanni and Allen Wood, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

KENT, JOHN (1999) ‘Positivism’, in Alan Richardson and John Bowden (eds.), New Dictionary of Christian Theology, Kent, SCM Press Ltd.

WEIRICH, PAUL. (1996) ‘Comte, Auguste’, in Robert Audi (ed.), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

encyclopedia.com 

Cited 

The periodicals edited by Saint-Simon, L’industrie (1816–1818), Le politique (1819), L’organisateur (1819–1820), and Du systeme industriel (1821–1822), are often catalogued by libraries under Saint-Simon’s name. Manuel 1962 describes them as appearing intermittently, in part to evade the rules of censorship applied to serial publications, but chiefly because Saint-Simon found it difficult to raise the money necessary to publish them.

1807 Introduction aux travaux scientifiques du dix-neu-vième siècle. Paris: Scherff. 

(1813a) 1876 Memoire sur la science de l’homme. Volume 40 of Oeuvres de Saint-Simon et d’Enfantin. Paris: Dentu. 

1813b Travail sur la gravitation universelle. Paris. → No publisher given. 

(1825) 1952 New Christianity: Dialogue. Pages 81-116 in Saint-Simon, Selected Writings. Edited and translated by F. M. H. Markham. Oxford: Blackwell. → First published in French. A new French edition was published in 1943 by Aubry. 

Henri de Saint-Simon: Social Organization. New York: Harper, 1964. → Also published in 1952 by Macmillan under the title Henri de Saint-Simon: Selected Writings. 

Oeuvres de Claude-Henri de Saint-Simon. 6 vols. Paris: Éditions Anthropos, 1966. → Volumes 1-5 reprinted from Oeuvres de Saint-Simon et d’Enfantin, 1865— 1878. Volume 6 reprinted from other works. 

Oeuvres de Saint-Simon et d’Enfantin. 47 vols. Paris: Dentu, 1865–1878. → Saint-Simon’s writings are in Volumes 15, 18-23, and 37-40. 

Selected Writings. Edited and translated with an introduction by F. M. H. Markham. Oxford: Blackwell, 1952.

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Auguste Comte First published Wed Oct 1, 2008; substantive revision Tue May 8, 2018: Bibliography

God Wills

Moezel, German-trekearth

From MPhil 2003

Originally from

2003 The Problem of Evil: Anglican and Baptist Perspectives: MPhil thesis, Bangor University

Statement four:

The fourth statement was perhaps the most controversial. God wills evil for the greater good. I do take this viewpoint, and I am in agreement with the writings of John Calvin on this matter within The Bondage and Liberation of the Will, as well as in Institutes of the Christian Religion, and has been documented throughout the thesis. This idea has been discussed through this thesis. I am not stating that God sins in any way by willing evil for the greater good, nor does he force people or fallen angels to sin. People sin by nature and choice, and God uses this evil for the greater good. Since he is infinite and dealing with finite creation, all things work under the subjection of his will and I humbly, and without complete understanding, state that he manages the Universe in a far more controlled manner than to simply allow evil to take place.

By not preventing all evil, and by using it for the greater good, he is in a sense willing it. The difference between God’s will and the sinful will when evil takes place, is that God’s will and motives alone remain pure and consistent within God’s good purposes. The idea of human free will alone does not demonstrate why God has to allow evil, as opposed to willing it. I do believe that human beings require a certain level of freedom to choose or reject God, but God could have prevented evil’s existence by not creating angels and then human beings. God knew there would be a fall, and in a sense willed the results of that fall by not preventing it from taking place, but it was within his right to have evil flourish in his creation for a time until the Kingdom of God culminated. It must be stated again that God did not coerce human beings into sinning and thus causing the fall, but he knew that this fall would take place and did not willingly prevent it. It can be deduced that God thought the evil and suffering in a corrupted creation, willed in sinful disobedience, was a tolerable situation for a time. Jesus Christ would, through his work, restore that creation and culminate a Kingdom of God filled with resurrected human beings who had experienced evil, and now through the Holy Spirit willingly rejected evil completely.

There are, as well, many instances in our creation where God could have prevented evils from taking place, for instance the American bombings of September 11, 2001. Some may argue that God must allow human free will and that is why these events took place. However, God could have prevented this from taking place, as it can be shown that many evils are prevented and certainly God would have his hand in this. Many times evil plans are thwarted, such as Nazi Germany’s plans to conquer Europe.

In that case, Adolph Hitler’s free will was not allowed to completely flourish. It was not that God forced Hitler to think differently, but rather the Fuhrer’s plans were defeated by the Allies. I do not think free will is the ultimate answer in the matter of the problem of evil, rather it is largely God’s will that determines what will ultimately take place, at the same time not forcing his creation to sin against him. This sin is achieved by people who are in the sinful biological line of Adam and Eve, and thus possess sinful nature which leads to sinful choices. This is not determinism on God’s part. God has an ultimate plan, and some sinful actions will take place within the plan and some will not. I grant, that in this sense, God allows all to sin against him but their wills are always under the authority of God’s ultimate will, who can thwart sinful plans as he chooses. 

With Anglican 10% agreed, 18% were not certain, 72% disagreed. With Baptists 20% agreed, 6% were not certain, 74% disagreed.

Originally from

2010 Theodicy and Practical Theology: PhD thesis, the University of Wales, Trinity Saint David, Lampeter

Question 22: PhD Questionnaire

Question 22: God does not cause evil

This free will theodicy based question deals with a crucial and original aspect of my PhD thesis and statistical data. I conclude within a sovereignty perspective that God does cause evil and I will explain this concept in this Chapter from both theological and philosophical perspectives from my theoretical research in the Theology and Application section. One hundred and seventy-nine respondents (84%) selected ‘AS/A’ for this question. Only 17 (8%) persons supported my notion by choosing ‘D/DS’.

August 3, 2013

Further explanation

'This is not determinism on God’s part.'  Determinism meaning hard determinism. God is still the cause of all things, but I am acknowledging a limited free will by Adam and Eve. God does not 'cause' as in force or coerce but is the cause of all things as in first cause being infinite and omnipotent.

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.

The stamp when I did some homecare business for my Mother today.

Roadblock by KFC. Daily fat intake check...