1 Kings 22 (Brief)

Google+

This is a brief and non-exhaustive reflection and response to a sermon at church this morning.

The Chapter was 1 Kings 22, in particular a focus on 1 Kings 22: 22.

Apologist Matthew Slick is helpful here explaining context:

CARM

Cited:

 '1 Kings 22:22 and Titus 1:2 God sends a lying spirit (1 Kings 22:22) - “And the Lord said to him, ‘How?’ And he said, ‘I will go out and be a deceiving spirit in the mouth of all his prophets.’ Then He said, ‘You are to entice him and also prevail. Go and do so.'"

God cannot lie (Titus 1:2) - "in the hope of eternal life, which God, who cannot lie, promised long ages ago."

This is an anthropomorphized account of a spiritual reality. In other words, it is a human representation of what happened in the spiritual realm. If you take a look at the text you can see that God is asking questions. v. 20 “The Lord said, ‘Who will entice Ahab to go up and fall at Ramoth-gilead?’ And one said this while another said that. v. 21 “Then a spirit came forward and stood before the Lord and said, ‘I will entice him.’ v. 22 “The Lord said to him, ‘How?’ And he said, ‘I will go out and be a deceiving spirit in the mouth of all his prophets.’ Then He said, ‘You are to entice him and also prevail. Go and do so.’ v. 23 “Now therefore, behold, the Lord has put a deceiving spirit in the mouth of all these your prophets; and the Lord has proclaimed disaster against you."'

Cited:

'God was carrying out the sovereign plan that he had predestined to occur; in this case, the destruction of Ahab by the use of his own false prophets.'

Cited:

'God predestined the death of Jesus at the hands of Herod, Pilate, the Gentiles, and the Jews. Yet God was not the one who forced them to sin. When we say that God ordains, or that he predestines something bad to happen, we're saying that he is allowing it to happen by his sovereign will. We call this his permissive will. It is his will to permit it, because it is part of his greater plan. He plans to permit it. He could alter it, but he decides not to do so.

Likewise, in 1 Kings 22:22, God was revealing to us the reality of the spiritual realm, though in human terms, of His ordained sovereign plan by which Ahab would be destroyed by the counsel of his false prophets.'

Cited:

'No, God sending a deceiving spirit does not mean that he is a deceiver. He was merely sending a demonic force, allowing it to perform what was natural to it, to do something that was part of the greater plan of God.'

End citations

The pastor this morning stated along the lines theologically that King Ahab, because he married Jezebel and participated in the worship of Baal; God was giving Ahab what he desired and in a life disobedient and separate from God.

I agree.

There was no force or coercion in the worship of a false god by the part of Ahab and related at the expense of Yahweh God.

The pastor noted that Ahab had opportunities to repent, and therefore this was why he received the warning

1 Kings 22:23 English Standard Version (ESV)

23 Now therefore behold, the Lord has put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these your prophets; the Lord has declared disaster for you.”

Charles G. Martin notes, 'The mystery of providence cannot be watered down' and 'Any attempt to exclude God from the process ends in dualism...' Martin 1986: 418).

Is the potential repentance of King Ahab central here?

I suppose that many taking an incompatibilist, libertarian free will perspective will state that God with permissible will allowed Ahab not to repent, although God with foreknowledge knew the King would not repent.

A compatibilist, soft-deterministic position could opine that as God must choose whom will follow him as in John 3, one must be born again, meaning God must make a person born-again spiritually, not something a person can choose to do by self, Titus 3: 5 mentions regeneration as does in the Greek, Matthew 19: 28 (Marshall). Then there is the concept of God predestining persons, although in Christ, still in context chosen as individuals in Ephesians 1 and Romans 8.

With this view, no person would repent unless God as sovereign willed it. In light of universal human sin from Romans 1-3, this would be impossible for persons to do with a sinful nature unless God willed it and regenerated, molded and transformed a person spiritually.

Philosophically, God as cause 1, the primary cause, would will all secondary causes, which would include Ahab repenting if it occurred.

If God as cause 1 did not will the repentance of Ahab as a secondary cause 2, then God still through allowance, would have caused Ahab not to repent. God willed as cause 1 for Ahab to willingly stay in sin, cause 2. God is infinite, omnipotent and omniscient and therefore has ultimate responsibility, although I hold to God maintaining holiness and perfect goodness. Therefore in agreement with Slick.

I am in full agreement with Mr. Slick and the pastor that this would not be forced or coerced of Ahab.

The position taken by Ahab, a reflection of his nature, not altered by God.

Therefore, the warning of 1 Kings 22, as directed may not be centrally focused on Ahab's potential repentance, but rather serves a Scriptural, Biblical history of the need for others to repent from the worship of other gods.

In other words, 1 Kings 22 as historical, Scriptural, religious history can be preached and taught and others throughout time, whom God shall choose will be regenerated, molded and transformed in-part through the message and the work of God/The Holy Spirit.

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

MARTIN, CHARLES, G (1986) 1 Kings, The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Zondervan.

SLICK, MATTHEW J. (2014) Why did God send a lying spirit if God cannot lie?, Nampa, Indiana, Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry.

The Knowledge Network: 'Berlin'

Berlin-Google Images

The Knowledge Network: 'Berlin' 

Over the last week or so, between work I have watched significant parts of 'Berlin' on the Knowledge Network, which is owned and operated by the British Columbia government. I cannot state that I philosophically favour government owning media outlets, as I prefer a non-governing source, but will also admit philosophically that the network does provide some fine European/British based and orientated documentaries and dramas.

Another example of shades of gray/grey in philosophy, that is in the negatives and positives of government ownership of a television network.

The Network states that it survives through viewers.

I prefer the Knowledge Network to PBS, which I also do watch, even with the Knowledge Network seemingly often presenting left-wing orientated programming, which I do not relate to and would not watch very much at all, because the network is significantly European focused, as well as being British Columbian and Canadian focused, in comparison to the quite American orientated PBS.

I do realize that there some exceptions in regard to PBS, and that there is some British and European programming.

Here in Canada we tend to receive much American media information and a European perspective is appreciated.

Knowledge Network: Berlin full episodes

Early this morning I watched 'Berlin' followed by another documentary...

Knowledge Network: Last Days of the USSR

A good programming decision as far as one program leading into another.

'Berlin' is a BBC production from 2009.

Contrary to what some persons may assume, I am not a frequent documentary viewer, but when I am working outside of the home I tend to view more television and spend less time on the computer and exercising formally. When one walks for hours in Corporate security, this is understandable.

What moved me to write a short post was in episode three of 'Berlin' where it was stated historically that the Soviet Union troops raped an estimated 100, 000 German women in Berlin at the end of World War II.

'Ich Bin Ein Berliner A look at how the spirit of Berlin's people has been defined by their struggle for freedom. (3 of 3)'

At Columbia Bible College which is Mennonite Brethren and non-resistant and in some cases pacifistic, I am neither, I was taught some of the tragedies of warfare and took a history class which covered World War I and World War II.

In another class, a late Mennonite professor stated that his Father had been forced to serve in the Luftwaffe and was away from home when Soviet troops arrived at their home.

The troops let him as a child hold one of their rifles, as they gang-raped his Mother in another room.

Although, still holding to philosophically, minimally a maintenance of law and order through the Biblical mandate for governments to do so (Romans 13, I Peter 2), and this implies the possible use of internal and external force, I further realized while at Columbia Bible College that World War II was not a clearly defined battle between good and evil.

Romans 1-6 would confirm that all of humanity is this realm is fallen and corrupt, therefore all States are as well.

All States are evil in comparison to God and his future culminated Kingdom.

Yes, I reason that Nazi Germany needed to be opposed, and for the Allies, the Soviet Union was a convenient ally, and pragmatically better to have than an enemy.

But in reality comparing the evils of the Soviet Union to Nazi Germany, would be the subject for much historical and philosophical discussion and debate.

I am not dogmatic on the issue but am opposed to all human dictatorship in this sinful realm, communist, fascist and other.

The Kingdom of God shall be ruled by a sinless God and God-man in a different realm minus the problem of evil. I also reason that God shall allow his regenerated, resurrected citizens a significant level of self-governance. Not far-fetched for those to whom shall judge angels (I Corinthians 6).

The Guardian: November 2009

Cited:

'Such a matter-of-fact exchange summed up how much it came to be taken for granted that German women suffered at the hands of Russian soldiers who captured Berlin. An estimated 2 million German women fell victim to the troops, 100,000 of them in Berlin. An estimated 10% of rape victims died, mostly from suicide. Many had abortions and those who did give birth often gave their babies up for adoption. In 1946 almost 4% of Berlin-born children were estimated to have Russian fathers.'

Daily Mail: October 2008

Cited:

'Stalin's army of rapists: The brutal war crime that Russia and Germany tried to ignore'

'Marta was one of two million German women who were raped by soldiers of the Red Army - in her case, as in so many others, several times over. It was a feature of Russia's 'liberation' and occupation of eastern Germany at the end of World War II that is familiar enough to historians, but which neither country cares to acknowledge took place on anything like the scale it did.'

Cited:

'As so often in war, it was to be defenceless women, girls and even elderly ladies who were to pay in pain and outrage for the crimes of their male compatriots. Many had abortions or were treated for the syphilis they caught. And as for the so-called Russenbabies - the children born out of rape - many were abandoned. 

In his fine new book, World War Two: Behind Closed Doors, the historian Laurence Rees points out that although rape was officially a crime in the Red Army, in fact, Stalin explicitly condoned it as a method of rewarding the soldiers and terrorising German civilians.

Stalin said people should 'understand it if a soldier who has crossed thousands of kilometres through blood and fire and death has fun with a woman or takes some trifle'. On another occasion, when told that Red Army soldiers sexually maltreated German refugees, he said: 'We lecture our soldiers too much; let them have their initiative.' While Stalin condoned rape as an instrument of state military policy, his police chief Lavrenti Beria was a serial rapist.'

Cited:

'Hitler's Vernichtungskampf (war of annihilation) against the Slavs merged into his Rassenkampf (war of racial extermination) against the Jews and Communists to create a Continent-wide slaughter. Behind the advancing Wehrmacht, which won victory after victory in the first six months, were a series of Einsatzgruppen (action squads), whose 'special task' it was to liquidate Jews, Communists, partisans, PoWs, the disabled and anyone else thought to be 'enemies of the Reich'. In forests across eastern and southern Russia, Ukraine, Poland and the Baltic states, the populations of villages and towns were escorted to places of execution, ordered to dig their own shallow graves and then shot.'

The Telegraph: January 2002

Cited:

'To understand why the rape of Germany was so uniquely terrible, the context is essential. Operation Barbarossa, the Nazi invasion of Russia in 1941, began the most genocidal conflict in history. Perhaps 30 million inhabitants of the Soviet Union are now thought to have died during the war, including more than three million who were deliberately starved in German PoW camps. The Germans, having shown no quarter, could expect none in return. Their casualties were also on a vast scale. In the Battle of Berlin alone more than a million German soldiers were killed or died later in captivity, plus at least 100,000 civilians. The Soviet Union lost more than 300,000 men.

Against this horrific background, Stalin and his commanders condoned or even justified rape, not only against Germans but also their allies in Hungary, Romania and Croatia. When the Yugoslav Communist Milovan Djilas protested to Stalin, the dictator exploded: "Can't he understand it if a soldier who has crossed thousands of kilometres through blood and fire and death has fun with a woman or takes some trifle?" And when German Communists warned him that the rapes were turning the population against them, Stalin fumed: "I will not allow anyone to drag the reputation of the Red Army in the mud." The rapes had begun as soon as the Red Army entered East Prussia and Silesia in 1944.

In many towns and villages every female, aged from 10 to 80, was raped. Alexander Solzhenitsyn, the Nobel laureate who was then a young officer, described the horror in his narrative poem Prussian Nights: "The little daughter's on the mattress,/Dead. How many have been on it/A platoon, a company perhaps?"' 

Cited:

'How many German women were raped? One can only guess, but a high proportion of at least 15 million women who either lived in the Soviet Union zone or were expelled from the eastern provinces. The scale of rape is suggested by the fact that about two million women had illegal abortions every year between 1945 and 1948.'

Cited:

'Soviet soldiers saw rape, often carried out in front of a woman's husband and family, as an appropriate way of humiliating the Germans, who had treated Slavs as an inferior race with whom sexual relations were discouraged. Russia's patriarchal society and the habit of binge-drinking were also factors, but more important was resentment at the discovery of Germany's comparative wealth.'

Cited:

'The rape of Germany left a bitter legacy. It contributed to the unpopularity of the East German communist regime and its consequent reliance on the Stasi secret police. The victims themselves were permanently traumatised: women of the wartime generation still refer to the Red Army war memorial in Berlin as "the Tomb of the Unknown Rapist".'

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

Reformed Tradition Versus Calvinism (Non-Exhaustive)

Tellaro, Italy-Travel And Leisure-Facebook

Reformed Tradition

W.S. Reid explains the Reformed Tradition as having the term 'Reformed' distinguishing the Calvinistic from Lutheran and Anabaptist traditions. Reid (1996: 921).

The Reformed tradition being from Ulrich Zwingli, the first reformer from Zurich and John Calvin of Geneva. Reid (1996: 922).

Calvin's views have been followed from the time of the Reformation until today and persons 'have not always followed exactly the same line of thinking or development'. Reid (1996: 921).

Reid states that therefore in the Reformed tradition, Calvinists, while in basic agreement on theological issues have differences based on historical understanding and geography. Reid (1996: 921).

It is stated the tradition was first developed in Northwest Europe in the 16th Century in Switzerland, France, Holland, Germany. Perhaps Germanic Kingdoms or like is better, as Germany was not yet a nation. Also Hungary was influenced as was the Waldensian Church of Italy. Basically, Italian territories, again Italy not yet one nation.

Nation states being more of a development later in history and so the situation with Germany and Italy as known today would be common in the 16 Century.

Cairns notes the 'Reformed and Presbyterian churches', followed Calvin in France, Holland, Scotland, Switzerland and Hungary. Cairns (1981: 283).

Calvinism

Reid writes that Calvin was often regarded as 'the systematizer of the Reformation'. Reid (1996: 186).

He basically made a theological system of/from Biblical doctrines.

Noted in my United Kingdom, PhD:

Calvin was...

...One who systemized Scripture, and a vast number of the doctrines that came from Calvin’s work are within the system known as Calvinism. Green (1971: ii).

My Use Of Terms

Academically, it seems difficult, perhaps not reasonable to academically and technically, definitively, historically separate the terms 'Reformed' from 'Calvinist' and Reformed Tradition from Calvinism.

On the other hand in practical terms today the terms are at times used differently.

In my case as a theologian and philosopher of religion, I prefer the use of Reformed over Calvinist for a few reasons.

True, I do hold to TULIP, but even those theologies are debated within and are complicated.

For example, some deterministic Presbyterians deny any human free will whatsoever and yet claim persons 'freely' believe when regenerated. Although I certainly agree God must initiate regeneration and it is irresistible grace in a sense, I do not see God using force and coercion in the process. Basically theologically, God regenerates and persuades, moves and molds the elect that have limited free will to accept salvation. This could be seen as 'freely', but I intellectual prefer my studied terms and explanation.

Philosophically, I view God as first cause, cause1 causing the regeneration of secondary cause, cause2 in election without force or coercion. Non-election would happen in a similar way as cause1 does not regenerate cause2 and cause 2 remains in sin without force or coercion.

I am definitely and definitively not a 'confused Arminian', as clearly I am a soft-determinist and compatibilist, based on theological and philosophical research and reasoning, not holding to libertarian free will and incompatibilism.

In today's theological and cultural context my view may better fit under an umbrella of Reformed, as in via the Reformation, influenced by John Calvin and John S. Feinberg, notably, and yet not Lutheran or Anabaptist; as opposed to more strictly Calvinistic. Calvin and Feinberg being very crucial guides in the development of views, but philosophical thinking, via philosophy of religion also was very crucial.

I understand that there is a consistency approaching free will and determinism in both the disciplines of theology and philosophy.

Not strictly views developed from Calvin or Calvinism.

But to call myself Protestant would not be more accurate, as today many Protestant churches are apostate and quite liberal. And there are negative political connotations in places such as Ireland and the United Kingdom which do not involve me whatsoever.

I also for social and geographical reason, am no longer attending a Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) church, but am back with the Mennonite Brethren Church (MB) where I was baptized and attended by undergrad Biblical Studies degree.

It was actually a Mennonite Brethren professor, that is now a Pastor of a major local MB church that was the first to tell me in his office, that God did not want to save everyone.

Now perhaps he meant it as God's permissible will (will2) and not his perfect will (will1), but this understanding verified the Reformed track I was on, even at that time, before publicly labeling myself as Reformed about a decade later, as I had done more serious, academic research.

There is significant Reformed thought within Mennonite and Anabaptist circles.

As well, I hold primarily to Believer's Baptism (Matthew 28) and will acknowledge infant baptism as not heresy, but a theological construct that was documented as being practiced by early Church fathers Ireneaus and Origen.

Therefore, it is possible Reformed Theologian is a more accurate term in my situation, but 'Calvinist' would not be untrue, but the term does not seem quite as accurate as description largely based on more modern interpretations of terminology.

CAIRNS, EARLE E. (1981) Christianity Through The Centuries, Grand Rapids, Zondervan Publishing House.

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

REID, W.S. (1996) ‘Calvinism', in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.

REID, W.S. (1996) ‘The Reformed Tradition', in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.

The Planet Of The Cats-Google+

January 15, 2014

Millard J. Erickson (PhD Edit)

Munich-Facebook

Erickson is a major helpful theological source with my MPhil/PhD United Kingdom theses. I am also usually in agreement with his views.

Doctrines

Baptist, Millard J. Erickson (1994) comments that doctrines need not be maintained precisely with the same form of expression that they were in Biblical times.[1]  Erickson also points out that not all other sources of knowledge and truth need to be excluded from Christian teaching.[2]   Erickson’s point that God’s word, although an unchanging message must be interpreted for each era.[3] This in no way allows for an overhaul of major, traditional Christian doctrines from traditional and Reformed perspectives, but with the use of practical and empirical approaches there would be opportunities to understand Christian theology in modern terms.

He explains that systematic theology draws upon the entire Bible and does not exegete texts in isolation.[4]  It attempts to analyze and understand Scriptural teachings in a harmonized way.[5]  He makes it clear that Biblical doctrines may not necessarily be maintained precisely with the same form of expression as they were in Biblical times, and notes philosophical truth can be found from other sources.[6] 

Omnipotence

Millard Erickson writes that God cannot do any arbitrary thing he desires,[7] as he can only accomplish what is logical and not illogical and contradictory.[8]  Erickson also reasons, interestingly, that God cannot undo the past,[9] although he may take away the effects and memory of it.[10] God cannot logically violate his own nature[11] or fail to live up to a promise.[12]  Erickson does point out that within the Bible God is called Almighty,[13] and that for God all things are possible.[14] 

Sovereignty

Erickson takes a reasonable compatibilistic position and writes God with foreknowledge sees many possibilities and influences that will be present, and then acts accordingly to his will.[15]  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.[16] God does not grow or develop, as there are no variations in his nature at different points within his existence.[17] 

God is immanent as he is present and active within creation, human nature, and history.[18]

Corrupted nature

Erickson suggests that due to Adam’s sin, all human beings received a corrupted nature,[19] and this is viewed as the imputation of original sin to persons.[20]  All persons are not personally responsible for Adam’s sin, but all have inherited a corrupt nature.[21]

Perfect and permissible will

For Erickson, God’s perfect will, will 1 as he calls it, is God’s general intention and what pleases him most.[22]  God’s will 2, is God’s specific intention in every given situation and what God actually decides will occur.[23] This is permissible will.  Erickson explains that there are many times when evil and sin occur that God, in his perfect will, does not wish these events to take place, but permits them.[24]  Erickson writes that with will 2, since God does not intervene to prevent particular evil and sin, he permissibly wills it.[25]  Therefore, Biblically and theologically, in one sense, God causes evil.[26]  When God does not intervene and prevent evil and sin, he therefore willingly allows it and is the cause of it.[27]  Erickson points out that God never tells someone to commit evil or sin.[28]  Since God is infinite,[29] omnipotent,[30] and omniscient[31] as discussed, when he does not follow his perfect will causing only good and, instead, follows his permissible will, which at times causes evil and sin, he therefore, theologically, is the cause of evil.[32]

Keeping in my based on Scripture in regard to the holiness of God, via the commandments for example, that God has holy and good motives in all willed.

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.

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

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

ROTH, JOHN K. ‘Introduction’ (1892-1907)(1969) in The Moral Philosophy of William James, John K. Roth (ed.), Thomas Y. Crowell Company, New York.

ROTH, JOHN K. (1981) Encountering Evil, Stephen T. Davis (ed.),  Atlanta, John Knox Press.

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

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

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

---

[1] Erickson (1994: 37).

[2] Erickson (1994: 37).  Including studies in science and medicine.

[3] Erickson (1994: 37).

[4] Erickson (1994: 21). 

[5] Erickson (1994: 21). 

[6] Erickson (1994: 37).

[7] Erickson (1994: 277).

[8] Erickson (1994: 277). For Shedd a logical impossibility is a nonentity and God could not create a nonentity.  Shedd (1874-1890)(1980: 359-360 Volume 1).

[9] Erickson (1994: 277).

[10] Erickson (1994: 277).  The implication being that God could hypothetically change all the results of a past occurrence, but could not logically make the past occurrence to have not occurred, even if only he had any ultimate knowledge of it.

[11] Erickson (1994: 277).  Weber (1955)(1981: 440).

[12] Erickson (1994: 277).

[13] Genesis 17: 1. Erickson (1994: 276).

[14] Matthew 19: 26. Erickson (1994: 277).

[15] Erickson (1994: 360).

[16] Erickson (1994: 915).

[17] Erickson (1994: 274).

[18] Erickson (1994: 302).

[19] Erickson (1994: 638).

[20] Erickson (1994: 638).

[21] Erickson (1994: 638).

[22] Erickson (1994: 361).

[23] Erickson (1994: 361).

[24] Erickson (1994: 361).

[25] Erickson (1994: 361).

[26] As the first cause of all things.  Edwards (1754)(2006 2.1: 1-1-2). 

[27] This concept provides opportunities for a critic such as Roth to state that God should repent of his evil.  Roth (1981: 10).  Atheists will often conclude that such a God is nonsensical and conceivably some incompatibilists will reason this God is unworthy of worship. 

[28] Erickson (1994: 361).

[29] Erickson (1994: 272).  Kreeft and Tacelli (1994: 92).

[30] Thiessen (1956: 126).  Erickson (1994: 276).  Kreeft and Tacelli (1994: 96).

[31] Thiessen (1956: 124).  Erickson (1994: 275).  Kreeft and Tacelli (1994: 96). 

[32] Edwards (1754)(2006 2.1: 1-1-2).  

Looking serious @ corporate security...I walked approximately six hours yesterday, a lot of it by my initiative.

Winter Village /Thoughts On Awkward Moments Children's Bible

Reynisdrangar at Sunset-Iceland-Google+

Annual Winter Village arranged artistically by
my friend Ryan Murphy (Cousin Buff, cousin of Bobby),

He stated it takes ten to twelve hours to arrange and produce.

Primarily Dickensville pieces.

Viewing reminded me of 19 century Europe or
 Eastern North America.
Ryan stated pieces are based on England.

Movable trains not from Dickensville, but fit
in scale-wise.

The red moving train is CN as in Canadian National.

Thoughts On Awkward Moments Children's Bible

Genesis  

I was at Northview Community Church (Mennonite Brethren), Sunday for I think the seventh out of eight weeks now. Before and after the service I met with one of the leadership in discussion and he stated that there were 3500 to 4000 people attending per week.

Five thousand for the Christmas service.

Quite a change from my previous, fine church.

The sermon included a discussion of Genesis 1 and argumentation that God as the maker of human beings had rights over them.

My take:

Biblically and theologically.

God creates humanity in Genesis 1-2.

Physical death as punishment for sin is noted in Genesis 2-3.

In 2 Corinthians 5, the judgement seat of Christ is mentioned for those in Christian faith and philosophy and there is Revelation 20 which is considered a judgement of the unrighteous or perhaps a general judgement.

A demonstration of rights over humanity/creation.

Mounce opines, 'In any case judgement proceeds on the evidence supplied both by the book of deeds and the book of life. This seems to support a general judgment rather than one restricted to the wicked dead.' Mounce (1990: 366).

See Revelation 20: 12, this appears the case.

Philosophically and theologically

As mentioned previously blogging, philosophically, I lean toward. the concept, although admittedly not dogmatically as there would be counter argumentation, that the first cause, which from a Biblical perspective in Genesis 1, John 1, is God, would have the right at any time to destroy his creation, unless God had stated otherwise in regards to humanity.

God is the only necessary existence, being infinite and eternal, and human beings like all finite beings are contingent. God is necessary because he could not have been false, a definition of necessary would be such a thing. A necessary truth could not have been otherwise.  A contingent truth is one that is true but could be false. Blackburn (1996: 257).  Human beings as creations would be contingent.

Philosophically as human beings do not have to exist,  unless God stated otherwise, the creator could philosophically and hypothetically justly have a reality without human beings at any time.

By this I mean complete human non-existence or less, physical death, reasoning physical death would be an aspect of destruction, although in the case of humanity, documented in Scripture to have an immaterial component (Genesis 2), not complete non-existence.

However, I realize as God has made certain promises of everlasting life in Scripture (The Gospel of John as example), thankfully from a human perspective, God is therefore bound by his word to at least maintain the elect (Ephesians 1, Romans 8) in everlasting life physical/spiritual life (1 Corinthians 13) unto a culminated Kingdom of God through the salvific work of Christ. (Revelation 21-22).

Therefore from (zygote) embryo to elderly, all humanity is under the curse of death. From Genesis considered a just judgement.

Awkward Moments Children's Bible

The Pastor at Northview mentioned the Awkward Moments Children's Bible in the sermon and how it is written by someone formerly of Christian ministry that mocks Christianity via use of Scripture.

Letting the Bible supposedly hang itself, so to speak.

But with the Noah example from the You Tube which was also shown at church as image, a major focus seems to be the dead persons and animals by God's judgement. Implying that God is somehow immoral and unethical in this.

But I just provided the reasonable premises that God as first cause has the right to destroy second causes and no longer have them exist.

I just dealt with the issue of human sinfulness.

If human beings are sinful, then God would have the moral and ethical right to take the lives of persons in a world where he states in Genesis 6: 5 from the New American Standard Bible:

Genesis 6:5 New American Standard Bible (NASB)

5 Then the Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

Animals do not sin, not being rational to the point of being able to consciously obey or disobey God in thought, act and action,  but again are secondary causes that God would have the right to terminate.

Not stating I personally prefer this at all, I do not, I am also not in any way supporting human abuse to any living creatures, human beings or animals.

There is also a promise of the new heaven and earth in Revelation 21-22 and therefore other life could be reasoned to exist as well in the new permanent realm, such as animals.

But as a philosopher of religion and theologian I see God as having this right of life and death without a change in his attributes and character which I reason is perfect holiness and goodness.

If God takes the lives of animals and humans his attributes and nature do not change and he remains holy Exodus 3, implied Exodus 20.

Ellison notes that the anthropomorphical is used (Ellison 1986: 120) in describing God's sorrow at this point.

I do not reason that God is demonstrating finite nature at this point in Genesis 6, but rather demonstrating his disappointment with human sin and as human beings have dominion over (Genesis 1) the planet, creation and animals.

The punishment takes place over the realm.

Distasteful and will be considered unfair by many twenty-first century standards, but nonetheless Biblically and theologically consistent.

No finite creature has everlasting physical life within this present realm, theologically or within the material realm as scientifically understood.

Death: 'The point at which the processes that maintain an organism alive no longer function.' Oxford (2010: 223).

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

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

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

OXFORD DICTIONARY OF SCIENCE (2010), Oxford, Oxford University Press.

Dietrich Bonhoeffer (Short PhD Edit)

Loebau, Germany-trekearth

Munich, Germany-trekearth

Miltenberg-Germany-trekearth

PhD work from Wales where I cited famous German theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer (1906-1945), who had some useful quotes for my work in regard to the problem of suffering.

Happy New Year

Holy Spirit

Lutheran Dietrich Bonhoeffer (1937)(1963) explains the Holy Spirit brings Christ to each and every member of the Church and Christ has a presence in the Church through the Holy Spirit.[1]  The Spirit creates fellowship,[2] and God lives through his people.[3]  This would be in agreement with traditional Christian and Reformed views.

Suffering and Compassion

He writes that suffering and rejection sum up the cross of Christ.[4]  This was part of God’s essential plan.[5]  God’s compassion for humanity suffering under the problem of evil is shown as God incarnate Jesus Christ, suffers for the sins of humankind as the crucified God.[6]  God is not uncaring as God the Son was placed within the problem of evil in order to overcome it.[7]  The non-empirical nature of the theological divine compassion concept,[8] would be met disagreeably by many atheists.[9]  They could argue that it would be difficult to show God has compassion for persons since he cannot be shown to be empirically doing anything for humanity.[10]  Bonhoeffer deduces that Christ transforms the mortal agony of his martyrs by granting them peace in his assured presence.[11]  This type of sacrifice, to Bonhoeffer, is how those who follow Christ overcome suffering as Christ did.[12]  He writes suffering, along with rejection ‘sum up the whole cross of Jesus’ as he died on the cross, Christ faced human rejection.[13] 

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.

FLEW, ANTONY (1955) ‘Divine Omnipotence and Human Freedom’, 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 (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.

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.

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.

VAN DER VEN, JOHANNES, PAUL VERMEER, AND ERIC VOSSEN (1996) ‘Learning Theodicy’, in Journal of Empirical Theology, Volume 9, pp. 67-85. Kampen, The Netherlands, Journal of Empirical Theology.

VAN DER VEN, JOHANNES AND ERIC VOSSEN (1996) Suffering: Why for God’s Sake? Grand Rapids, Eerdmans. 

---

[1] Bonhoeffer (1937)(1963: 272).

[2] Bonhoeffer (1937)(1963: 272).

[3] Bonhoeffer (1937)(1963: 272).

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

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

[6] Moltmann (1993: 200-274).  Bonhoeffer (1937)(1963: 96).

[7] Moltmann (1993: 200-274).  Bonhoeffer (1937)(1963: 96).

[8] van der Ven (1993: 174).

[9] Flew (1983)(1996: 92).

[10] Flew (1983)(1996: 92).

[11] Bonhoeffer (1937)(1963: 101).

[12] Bonhoeffer (1937)(1963: 101).

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