Anglican Rowan Williams (Brief PhD Edit)

London via email

Rowan Williams was Archbishop of Canterbury while I worked on my Wales, PhD. I emailed him/his office for assistance with my MPhil questionnaire prior to him having that position.

Revelation

Anglican Rowan Williams states, ‘Revelation is the statement of God’s autonomy.’[1] God explains who he is and becomes his own ‘alter ego’ as Christ.[2]  Roman Catholic theologian Alan Schreck states his Church agrees that the Bible is the inspired word of God,[3] but does not believe that the Bible is the only source of Revelation and spiritual guidance for Christians.[4]  A dividing point between Protestants and Catholics comes with Schreck’s idea that God within Catholic thought continues to select certain individuals that teach with God’s authority through the Holy Spirit.[5]  Protestants and those within the Reformed camp have, at times throughout history disagreed, with the Biblical and theological interpretations of certain Roman Catholic leaders, in particular the Pope,[6] believed to be inspired by the Holy Spirit.[7]

Scripture

Williams suggests Scripture becomes the Word in fidelity to Christ, as preaching becomes the Word in fidelity to Scripture, and Christ is himself the divine act as such.  ‘God reveals himself through himself.’  Williams  (2007: 108-109).  I agree, God reveals himself through the Holy Spirit inspiring Scripture and presenting Christ.

---

[1] Williams (2007: 116).

[2] Williams (2007: 116).

[3] Schreck (1984: 41). 

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

[5] Schreck (1984: 42). 

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

[7] Schreck (1984: 42).  

CALVIN, JOHN (1539)(1998) The Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book II, Translated by Henry Beveridge, Grand Rapids, The Christian Classic Ethereal Library, Wheaton College. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/institutes.html

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. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/institutes.html

CALVIN, JOHN (1540)(1973) Romans and Thessalonians, Translated by Ross Mackenzie, Grand Rapids, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

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

CALVIN, JOHN (1550)(1978) Concerning Scandals, Translated by John W. Fraser, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

CALVIN, JOHN (1552)(1995) Acts, Translated by Watermark, Nottingham, Crossway Books. 

CALVIN, JOHN (1553)(1952) Job, Translated by Leroy Nixon, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.

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

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

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

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

Roman Catholic Philosopher Peter Kreeft (PhD Edit)

Bristol, England-Google+

God and Sovereignty

Peter Kreeft (1988) explains that the problem of evil is the most serious problem in the world,[1] and is a very serious objection to theism.[2] 

Roman Catholics Peter Kreeft and Ronald K. Tacelli (1994) suggest that God faces no real barriers in actions he wishes to commit, and that only what God allows, such as human sin, could thwart God’s plans.[3]   

They note if God did not allow human beings the option to misuse their freedom, they would not be human but animal or machine[4] having less value than creatures that had the potential to be persuaded by God to follow him, and turn from wrong doing.[5]

Satan

Kreeft, working with Ronald K. Tacelli, states Satan is a deceiver of humanity,[6] and this implies the assumption that Satan has personality.[7] 

In Regard to Calvinism

They note that some, but not all, forms of Calvinism subscribe to a view of hard determinism that denies any human free will.[8]  I would reason that in light of their statement[9] that most Calvinists are not hard determinists.[10]  

On Desires and Freewill

Kreeft and Tacelli approach desires in a similar way as Mele as they state that human beings have innate desire for natural things such as food and drink,[11] and external desires such as sports cars and political office.[12]  Kreeft and Tacelli’s innate desires concept would somewhat correspond to Mele’s intrinsic ones as these would be the inner most human desires.[13]  Kreeft and Tacelli’s external desires would be similar to Mele’s extrinsic desires,[14] which would be secondary desires fulfilled in order to fulfill the deepest human desires.[15]

Immanence and Transcendence

Kreeft and Tacelli explain that God’s immanence means the creator must give created beings what they need.[16]  If God was not actively communicating being[17] to all his creation, his creation would cease to exist.[18] 

It is stated that God as transcendent is not part of the material universe.[19]  God is ‘other’ than his creation yet maintains it as transcendent.[20] 

Universalism

Kreeft and Tacelli explain that universalism is universal salvation and has been considered by some well-known orthodox Christians over the centuries[21] as a viable alternative to hell, although Kreeft and Tacelli reject this alternative.[22] 

KREEFT, PETER (1988) Fundamentals of the Faith, San Francisco, Ignatius Press. 

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

MELE, ALFRED R. (1996) ‘Extrinsic Desire’, in Robert Audi, (ed.), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

---

[1] Kreeft (1988: 54-58).

[2] Kreeft (1988: 54-58).

[3] Kreeft and Tacelli (1994: 96).

[4] Kreeft and Tacelli (1994: 138).

[5] Kreeft and Tacelli (1994: 138).  This assumes incompatibilism but it is true that human beings would be vastly different with significantly less freedom due to divine determining factors. 

[6] Kreeft and Tacelli (1994: 294).

[7] Kreeft and Tacelli (1994: 294).

[8] Kreeft and Tacelli (1994: 137).

[9] Kreeft and Tacelli (1994: 137).

[10] My research demonstrates that hard determinism is problematic for the majority of Calvinists and those within Reformed theology because Scripture (Romans 1-3, for example) condemns persons for sin and holds them morally accountable.  Therefore, persons must at least freely embrace their own actions within soft determinism in order for punishment to be just.

[11] Kreeft and Tacelli (1994: 78).

[12] Kreeft and Tacelli (1994: 78).

[13] Kreeft and Tacelli (1994: 78). 

[14] Mele (1996: 259).

[15] Kreeft and Tacelli (1994: 78).

[16] Kreeft and Tacelli (1994: 93-94).

[17] Kreeft and Tacelli with the use of the word ‘being’ are stating that God, in an abstract sense, is communicating himself to his creation.

[18] Kreeft and Tacelli (1994: 93-94).

[19] Kreeft and Tacelli (1994: 93). 

[20] Kreeft and Tacelli (1994: 93). 

[21] This would, of course, provide another opportunity for a PhD thesis.

[22] Kreeft and Tacelli (1994: 286).

---

CBS Denver

I heard this story on 'The Briefing' at Albert Mohler.com

Cited

'Colorado Vets See Spike In Cases Of ‘Stoner Dogs’'

Cited

'The popularity of medical marijuana in Colorado has had an unintended side effect — dogs getting stoned, sometimes with deadly results. Some people firmly believe that if medical marijuana helps people, it also helps their pets, but that’s not always the case.

Marijuana can be harmful and sometimes toxic for dogs. New research shows that with medical marijuana, the number of dogs getting sick from pot is spiking. “They basically have lost a lot of their fine motor control, they have a wide-based stance and they are not sure on their feet,” said Dr. Debbie Van Pelt of VRCC, the Veterinary Specialty and Emergency Hospital in Englewood.' 

Cited

'Most of the time veterinarians say dogs get the medical marijuana by eating their owners food products that are laced with marijuana that were left out in the open. More and more dispensaries sell those kinds of products.' Cited '“We need people to realize it is potentially toxic and potentially fatal to their pets,” Van Pelt said.'

The Colorado Stoner Dogs...

It reads and sounds like a potential new professional sports team for the State...

I do feel bad in regard to the suffering dogs.

I am not interested in marijuana for recreational use, or the use of any substance that is significantly mind altering.

Therefore I would only consume alcohol and as well over-the counter and prescription medication, where applicable, in moderation.

For those that use medical marijuana the common sense approach would be to keep these products stored in a private place as would be potentially lethal over-the counter or prescription drugs.

Recent March Comments On Facebook & Google+

Vancouver evening

William F. Buckley Jr.

 
Moore Engaging William F. Buckley from New Story Media on Vimeo.

William Frank Buckley, Jr. (November 24, 1925 – February 27, 2008)

I do not know much about the man, other than he was a well-known conservative author and commentator. He was a Roman Catholic. I know he had a distinctive spoken English accent that sounded as if it fused American English with British English or Continental English. Viewing his Wikipedia profile I see the accent is called 'Mid-Atlantic English'. I would associate this accent with top American Universities and academia.

A Facebook friend kindly posted this almost hour long interview. It is mostly autobiographical.

I reason I should listen to Buckley more, mainly for increased general knowledge.

However, in a religious, spiritual context, the main point I took from the interview was his argument that there was always hope, because of the (historical) Christian faith.

In context to me he was not primarily spiritualizing as in stating something along the lines of that because we are saved and are covered by the atoning work of Christ and resurrection, we have hope in the next life.

Rather, he was meaning in the temporal life context, there is hope.

I reason Buckley was largely trusting in what God, in Christ could do, as in intervening in human affairs in this temporal realm.

Agreed.

But there is also the work of the Lord through the Church.

Actual present hope is what needs to be stated more by Christians in this life, whether the context is Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant, Reformed, Anabaptist or Non-denominational.

Christian election, salvation through grace by faith alone, should be backed up with works as Ephesians 2 and James 2 note.

Greater Christian works should lead to more hope on private and corporate levels. Within the church and on the outside.

Not denying at all that ultimate culminated salvation and hope resides in the next realm as Revelation describes.

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

Viva Lost Vegas?

On Facebook I posted

Shoalts: Conference imbalance works in favour of Seattle and Las Vegas

I noted as comment...

'Bob Mccown (Rogers Sportsnet) just stated, League is using Eastern Canada as potential transfer spots as many US teams losing money.'

I then found this somewhat humorous French RDS article...

Translated Quote:

'Except ... Gary Bettman seems much more eager to install a team in Seattle Seattle people themselves. The municipal council of the city of northwestern United States recently refused to modify the plans for the new amphitheater to conform to the requirements of the NHL. This would increase costs significantly. We judge that the investment is not essential. It will be for basketball, period!'

Lol... Put a franchise in an American city that will receive good fan support, probably many sell-outs, but would be the fourth professional sport and behind NCAA and wonder why the team is a break even outfit...

Further comment

'IMHO, having lived here in Greater Vancouver most of my life and also observed Seattle culture, much of it I appreciate, the argument that Seattle-Vancouver is some kind of 'Pacific Northwest' huge hockey market is bogus. The two are quite drastically different culturally when it comes to sports. Vancouver is a huge hockey market, Seattle is yet to be proven to be anything special with hockey and is huge on the NFL.'

As I have noted previously the National Hockey League has a near religious, philosophical devotion, somewhat irrational to growing the sport of hockey in the United States instead of Canada in spite of the fact that there are three potential markets in Eastern Canada those being Quebec City and especially Hamilton and Markham, Ontario that would bring about higher franchise values compared in all likelihood to any new market in the United States.

I also disagree with the notion that more new significant hockey fans will be made in newer hockey markets, rather I reason that more new significant hockey fans will be created in markets or near markets where hockey in already established culture and there is less cultural sport competition.

End

On Google+ I commented on a posted article, posted by a very fine young female American Reformed Blogger and Google+ Friend.

She did not write the post but linked it.

See my Google+ account associated with this blog if interested.

On Courtship (In America)

On Courtship

Cited

'The attitude is that by simply not getting married, a person wins by default. But Scripture shows us the reality: That to not get married under normative circumstances is to lose by default.'

'The command of God to marry was actually part of the first command given to the human race (even before the command not to eat of the Tree). (See Genesis 1:27-30; 2:18-25.) It is tied inextricably to God’s most basic purpose for creating the human race. Thus normatively, one cannot fulfill the “chief end of man,” as stated in the catechism, without serving God in marriage. Moreover, it is a command that is restated throughout Scripture in passages such as Jeremiah 29:6 and 1 Timothy 5:14.'

My kind response was typed on a cell with one finger and so I will re-post with some clean edits.

'I am on my cell here so one finger type.)) There are some good points on requirements, LJ. My issue has been finding in a very secular British Columbia, a much less Christian area than the United States, a theological Christian.

Also at my age I do not, having waited for someone reasonable, the experience for someone (a young woman) middle-aged with teens etc..

Also having someone left to choose from that would be middle-aged, meet physical requirements as well becomes very unlikely.

Then as well there are the unbiblical age difference hang-ups within the North American church.

Therefore for some of us theological, philosophical types the issue is far more lack of options as opposed to delay. My good married friend Anjela states I would be married no problem by now if I was living in Eastern Europe, as she is from there.

Married to a younger woman of child-bearing age that is at least a trainable Christian.

I reason this is quite likely true based on overall experience in life.

Blessings LJ:-D'

This in my opinion is a topic where I have my serious doubts that many Evangelical and fundamentalist Christians that have always known a Christianized culture in America, although the United States is seemingly becoming more secular, reasonably philosophically relate with the plight of academic, intellectual, theological, philosophical, somewhat non-conformist Christians in non-Christianized areas the world such as Canada and Western Europe.

Or Islamic nations.

Especially difficult for those having spent many years in academia, being anti-social by design in order to lead to career prospects.

The sort of culture war difficulties that many Evangelical and fundamentalist Christians are fighting a largely losing cultural battle against in the United States today, are over issues that are simply intellectual givens on the secular side here in British Columbia from as far back as I can remember intellectually.

Let us state since the early 1980s when I became more aware.

I had a very kind friend and Pastoral/Missionary Northview intern admit to me that he could not understand my plight having been married at a young age.

This is an honest assessment.

Buckley's view applies here in regard to hope.

There are opportunities for me in Eastern Europe, other, megachurch and there are online options.

W.T. Stace (PhD Edit)

W.T. Stace (PhD Edit) 

Preface

PhD work was edited for a Blogger version on 20140318. More material was added on Blogger and for a version on academia.edu 20250802. 

Stace was cited limitedly within my PhD thesis, but I have quoted this source often because it is so accurate and useful.

W.T Stace: Determinism & Soft determinism

W.T. Stace (1952)(1976) explains that moral responsibility is consistent with determinism in the context of soft determinism and requires it. Stace (1952)(1976: 29). If human actions are uncaused then reward or punishment would be unjustified. Stace (1952)(1976: 29). Stace reasons that there must be at least some human cause within human actions to make them morally responsible. Stace (1952)(1976: 30). If human actions were coerced or forced with hard determinism, persons could not be held morally responsible. Pojman (1996: 596). 

At the same time, if human beings are not at least a secondary cause (Stace (1952)(1976: 30)), of actions primarily caused by God, then human actions would be morally insignificant. Stace (1952)(1976: 30). If one reasons that human actions are random and uncaused, and there is no primary or secondary cause to human actions, meaning neither determinism/hard determinism or compatibilism/soft determinism exists, this would make human actions amoral and morally irrelevant and insignificant.

POJMAN, LOUIS P. (1996) Philosophy: The Quest for Truth, New York, Wadsworth Publishing Company. 

STACE, W.T. (1952)(1976) Religion and the Modern Mind, in John R. Burr and Milton Goldinger (eds.), Philosophy and Contemporary Issues, London, Collier Macmillan Publishers.

---

W.T. Stace (1886-1967): Works

Works by W.T.Stace

Cited 

The Philosophy of Hegel (1924) 

The Teachings of the Mystics (1960) 

Mysticism and Philosophy (1960) 

A Critical History of Greek Philosophy (1920)

Religion and the Modern Mind (1952) 

The Concept of Morals (1937) 

Time and Eternity (1952) 

The Theory of Knowledge and Existence (1932)

The Destiny of Western Man (1942) 

The Meaning of Beauty (1929) 

Man against darkness, and other essays 

Critical History of Greek Philosophy (Papermacs) (1967) 

Hegel Üzerine (2019) 

Mysticism and Philosophy by W. T. Stace (1960-06-01) 

A History of Greek Philosophy (2018) 

The Philosophy of Hegel by Walter Terence Stace (1955-06-26) 

Mysticism and human reason 

The Nature of the World: An Essay in Phenomenalist Metaphysics (1969) 

HEGEL ÜSTÜNE 

---

Incompatibilism/Indeterminism

Indeterminism is also equated with incompatibilism which states that God, or any other being, cannot cause by force or coercion any human action, nor can any action be simultaneously willed by God or any other being, for the human action to remain significantly free. Feinberg (1994: 60). Compatibilism (soft determinism), which I hold to, would agree with incompatibilism that God or any other being cannot cause by force or coercion any significantly free human action, but contrary to incompatibilism states that God can simultaneously will significantly free human actions. Feinberg (1994: 60). God as the primary cause can cause a human action that is not significantly free, but there is only significant moral human responsibility when there is significant free human action as a secondary cause.

An entity that is forced or coerced into conscious, thoughts, will, choices, acts and actions is not morally responsible, where these are done without significant freedom. Of course, only the infinite God is an infinitely accurate, moral judge of guilt or not, in regards to the deeds of a finite entity. (God judges deeds, post-mortem, Revelation 20, also 21-22, 2 Corinthians 5, 2 Peter 3, as some key examples) Significant, human free will, of any kind, would be viewed an incompatible with any form of hard determinism. 

Philosopher Tim Mawson reasons that incompatibilism, which is also known as libertarianism or libertarian free will, in regard to human free will, states that true human free will must be uncaused by preceding states. Mawson (1999: 324). In other words, no external force must cause a legitimate and truly free act of the human will. Within incompatibilist theory, a human action would never truly be free because God or an another external force (non-deistic view, my add) would have willed and determined it, before being simultaneously willed to a given person. Mawson (1999: 324). Pre-determined before committed by the human being. The external force could hypothetically be a first cause within non-theistic theory. The Biblical concept theologically being that God is infinite and is therefore limitless; God is eternal and therefore has always existed (Genesis 1). This concept is connected to philosophical views of first cause. 

David M. Ciocchi describes the incompatibilist idea as being God can determine that an agent commit action x, but he cannot determine that an agent commit action x freely. Ciocchi (2002: 46). The theory is that significantly free human will and actions cannot be caused by an external force. This would include a first cause. This would include God. For Norman Geisler, he describes a form of incompatibilism which he, calls self-determinism. Moral choices are not caused or uncaused by another being, but are self-caused. Incompatibilists, therefore, do not deny there are outside forces that influence significantly free human actions; however, they do not accept any notion that a free act can be caused in a determined sense by one being upon another and remain a significantly free act. An act cannot be determined or simultaneously determined and remain truly free within incompatibilism. Geisler (1986: 75). 

Feinberg, who has written extensively on the concepts of free will and determinism, explains incompatibilism is defined as the idea within free will approaches that a person is free in regard to an action if he or she is free to either commit, or refrain from committing the action. Feinberg (1994: 64). There can be no antecedent (there can be no prior) conditions or laws that will determine that an action is committed or not committed. Feinberg (1994: 64). Feinberg importantly writes that just as the incompatibilist does not claim that all actions are significantly free, the compatibilist also does not attach significant freedom to all acts. Feinberg (2001: 637). Feinberg then admits that it is difficult for compatibilists to determine intellectually if certain acts were done by an individual with significant freedom, or with the use of some type of compulsion. Feinberg (2001: 637). He then states that this intellectual difficulty does not disprove compatibilism. 

Compatibilism/Soft determinism 

Significant, limited free will (limited free will, my term and human, limited free will, in this context) would be viewed as compatible with at least some forms of soft determinism. Louis P. Pojman explains the difference between determinism, which is also known as hard determinism, and compatibilism, which is also known as soft determinism. Pojman (1996: 596). Within determinism or hard determinism, God (or an external force) causes an act and no created being is responsible for his or her moral actions, while for compatibilism or soft determinism, although God causes actions, created beings are responsible where they act voluntarily. Pojman (1996: 596). It could be stated that human secondary causes, through a theoretical chain of human nature, human will and human choice, embrace what has been caused and chosen by God, the first and primary cause, directly or indirectly. The human being could also be influenced by other secondary causes, such as other persons and angelic beings, for example. 

P.S. Greenspan writes that compatibilism holds to free will and determinism being compatible. Greenspan (1998: 1). Pojman, defines compatibilism as the concept that an act can be entirely determined and yet be free in the sense that it was done voluntarily and without compulsion. Pojman (1996: 596). Feinberg explains that compatibilism does not allow for coercion or force, but holds that God, or some outside force, can simultaneously determine with the use of persuasion, that an action will or will not take place. Feinberg (1986: 24). Again with Feinberg, he writes that certain nonconstraining conditions could strongly influence actions, in conjunction with human free will performing these actions. Feinberg (1994: 60). With this viewpoint, there will be no contradiction in stating that God would create human beings who were significantly free, unconstrained, and yet committed actions that God willed. Feinberg (2001: 637). 

Limited free will 

This is not the ability to choose otherwise, as in middle knowledge and versions of libertarian free will. In my compatibilistic model, at least, through a theoretical chain of human nature, human will and human choice, a person embraces as secondary cause, what was caused, willed and allowed by the primary cause. This in regard to human conscious thoughts, will, choices, acts and actions. This first cause would be God in a biblical view. During my British studies I looked for the term limited free will in texts and online and did not see it. Eventually I heard, Dr. Charles Stanley also use it. I highly doubt I invented it, but at least it is somewhat original. I/we have significant moral responsibility in my/our conscious, thoughts, will, choices, acts and actions, that are not significantly forced or coerced. 

Note that human nature, leading to human conscious thoughts, will, choices, acts and actions is not only finite, but is also corrupted and sinfully imperfect due to a human fall (see Genesis 1-3, Romans, Hebrews, as some key examples). According to the New Testament, the post-mortem fix of sin and sinfulness is resurrection (1 Corinthians 15, Revelation 20-22, as examples) within the salvation process, as the atoning and resurrection work of God the Son, Jesus Christ is applied to those in Christ. The spiritually regenerate (John 3, Titus 3, 1 Peter 1) are enlightened, and convinced of salvation, justified and sanctified, leading to eventual post-mortem resurrection. The human nature remains everlastingly finite, but also everlastingly sinless.

Hard determinism 

Simon Blackburn comments that this is the doctrine that human action has no influence on events. Blackburn (1996: 137). Blackburn gives the opinion that fatalism is wrongly confused with determinism, which by itself carries no implications that human actions have no effect. Blackburn (1996: 137).

Tomis Kapitan notes that determinism is usually understood as meaning that whatever occurs is determined by antecedent (preceding cause) conditions. Kapitan (1999: 281). Pojman states that hard determinism holds that every event is caused and no one is responsible for actions, whereas soft determinism holds that rational creatures can be held responsible for determined actions as long as they are done voluntarily and without force or coercion. Pojman (1996: 586). Hard determinism denies secondary causation.

Bibliography   

AUGUSTINE (388-395)(1964) On Free Choice of the Will, Translated by Anna S.Benjamin and L.H. Hackstaff, Upper Saddle River, N.J., Prentice Hall. 

        

AUGUSTINE (398-399)(1992) Confessions, Translated by Henry Chadwick, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

AUGUSTINE (400-416)(1987)(2004) On the Trinity, Translated by Reverend Arthur West Haddan, in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series One, Volume 3, Denver, The Catholic Encyclopedia.

AUGUSTINE (421)(1998) Enchiridion, Translated by J.F. Shaw,  Denver, The Catholic Encyclopedia.

AUGUSTINE (426)(1958) The City of God, Translated by Gerald G. Walsh, Garden City, New York, Image Books.

AUGUSTINE (427)(1997) On Christian Doctrine, Translated by D.W. Robertson Jr., Upper Saddle River, N.J., Prentice Hall.

AUGUSTINE (427b)(1997) On Christian Teaching, Translated by R.P.H. Green, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

BEROFSKY, BERNARD (1996) ‘Determinism’, in Robert Audi, (ed.), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. 

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

BLOESCH, D. (1996) ‘Fate, Fatalism’, in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.

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

CALVIN, JOHN (1539)(1998) The Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book II, Translated by Henry Beveridge, Grand Rapids, The Christian Classic Ethereal Library, Wheaton College.

CALVIN, JOHN (1539)(1998) The Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book IV, Translated by Henry Beveridge, Grand Rapids, The Christian Classic Ethereal Library, Wheaton College. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/institutes.html 

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

CIOCCHI, DAVID M. (2002) ‘The Religious Adequacy of Free-Will Theism’, in Religious Studies, Volume 38, pp. 45-61. Cambridge.

CRANFIELD, C.E.B. (1992) Romans: A Shorter Commentary, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. 

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. http://www.jonathanedwards.com 

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

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

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

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

FOULKES, FRANCIS (1989) Ephesians, Grand Rapids, Inter-Varsity 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. 

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

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

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

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

GEIVETT, R. DOUGLAS (1993) Evil and the Evidence for God, Philadelphia, Temple University Press.

GREENSPAN, P.S. (1998) Free Will and Genetic Determinism: Locating the Problem (s), Maryland, University of Maryland. http://www.philosophy.umd.edu/Faculty/PGreenspan/Res/gen2.html

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

HASKER, WILLIAM (1989) God, Time, and Knowledge, Ithaca, Cornell University Press.

HASKER, WILLIAM (1993) ‘C. Robert Mesle, John Hick’s Theodicy: A Process Humanist Critique’, in Philosophy of Religion, Volume 34, Number 1, pp. 55-56. Dordrecht, Netherlands, Philosophy of Religion.

HASKER, WILLIAM (1994) ‘Can Philosophy Defend Theology?’, in Faith and Philosophy, Volume 11, Number 2, April, pp. 272-278.  Wilmore, Kentucky, Asbury College.

HASKER, WILLIAM (1996) ‘Middle Knowledge’, in Robert Audi (ed.), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

HASKER, WILLIAM (2000) ‘The Problem of Evil in Process Theism and Classical Free Will Theism’, in Process Studies, Volume. 29, Number 2, Fall-Winter, pp. 194-208. Claremont, California, Religion Online.

HASKER, WILLIAM (2003) ‘Counterfactuals and Evil’, in Philosophia Christi, Volume 5, Number 1, pp. 235-249. La Mirada, California, Biola University.

HASKER, WILLIAM (2003) ‘Is Free-Will Theism Religiously Inadequate? A Reply to Ciocchi’, in Religious Studies, Volume 39, Number 4, December, pp. 431-440. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. 

HASKER, WILLIAM (2007) ‘Peter van Inwagen, The Problem of Evil’, in Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews, Notre Dame, Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews. 

HICK, JOHN (1970) Evil and The God of Love, London, The Fontana Library.

HICK, JOHN (1978) ‘Present and Future Life’, Harvard Theological Review, Volume 71, Number 1-2, January-April, Harvard University.

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

HICK, JOHN (1993) ‘Afterword’ in GEIVETT, R. DOUGLAS (1993) Evil and the Evidence for God, Philadelphia, Temple University Press.

HICK, JOHN (1993) The Metaphor of God Incarnate, Louisville, Kentucky, John Know Press.

HICK, JOHN (1994) Death and Eternal Life, Louisville, Kentucky, John Knox Press.

HICK, JOHN (1999) ‘Life after Death’, in Alan Richardson and John Bowden (eds.), A New Dictionary of Christian Theology, Kent, SCM Press.

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

HUGHES, PHILIP, EDGCUMBE (1996) ‘Grace’ in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books. 

KAPITAN, TOMIS (1996) ‘Free Will Problem’, in Robert Audi (ed.), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

MACKIE, J.L. (1955)(1996) ‘Evil and Omnipotence’, in Mind, in Michael Peterson, William Hasker, Bruce Reichenbach, and David Basinger (eds.), Philosophy of Religion, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

MACKIE, J.L. (1971)(1977)(2002) ‘Evil and Omnipotence’, in The Philosophy of Religion, in Alvin C. Plantinga, God, Freedom, and Evil, Grand Rapids. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

MAWSON, TIM (1999) ‘The Problem of Evil and Moral Indifference’, in Religious Studies, Volume 35, pp. 323-345. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

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

MOUNCE, R.H. (1995) The New American Commentary: Romans, Nashville, Broadman & Holman Publishers. 

PAYNE. DAVID F.(1986) ‘2 Peter’, in F.F. Bruce, (ed.), The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Marshall Pickering/Zondervan.

PETERSON, MICHAEL (1982) Evil and the Christian God, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House. 

PETERSON, MICHAEL (1998) God and Evil, Boulder, Colorado, Westview Press.

PETERSON, MICHAEL, WILLIAM HASKER, BRUCE REICHENBACH, AND DAVID BASINGER (1996)(eds.), ‘Introduction: Saint Augustine: Evil is Privation of Good’, in Philosophy of Religion, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

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.

PLANTINGA, ALVIN C. (1977)(2002) God, Freedom, and Evil, Grand Rapids, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. 

PLANTINGA, ALVIN C. (1982) The Nature of Necessity, Oxford, Clarendon Press.

PLANTINGA, ALVIN C. (2000) Warranted Christian Belief, Oxford, Oxford University Press. 

POJMAN, LOUIS P. (1996) Philosophy: The Quest for Truth, New York, Wadsworth Publishing Company. 

REED, HOLLY (2004) ‘Jonathan Edwards’, in The Boston Collaborative Encyclopedia of Modern Western Theology, Boston, The Boston Collaborative Encyclopedia of Modern Western Theology. 

STACE, W.T. (1952)(1976) Religion and the Modern Mind, in John R. Burr and Milton Goldinger (eds), Philosophy and Contemporary Issues, London, Collier Macmillan Publishers.

STORMS, SAM (2006) 'Jonathan Edwards on the Will', Kansas City, Missouri. Enjoying God Ministries. Enjoyinggodministries.com http://www.enjoyinggodministries.com/article.asp?id=368 

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

TCHIVIDJIAN, W. TULLIAN, (2001) ‘Reflections on Jonathan Edwards’ View of Free Will, in IIIM Magazine Online, Volume 3, Number 51, December 17 to December 23, Fern Park, Florida, IIIM Magazine Online.

The Orthodox Study Bible, New Testament and Psalms, (1993) Saint Athanasius Orthodox Academy,Thomas Nelson Publishers, Nashville, Tennessee.

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

---

Photo 1: Sunset At Cabo San Lucas Beach, Mexico g+ 

Photo 2: Rheinstein Castle, Rhineland-Palatinate, Germany-Amz Places g+

John K. Roth And Human Repentance Needing To Be Matched By God? (PhD Edit)

John K. Roth And Human Repentance Needing To Be Matched By God (PhD Edit)

Photo from a British Isles recent trip: 20240402

Preface

This article originally published on 20110801. It has been reformatted for an entry on academia.edu, 20240601.

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

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

John K. Roth

John K. Roth (1981) also explains within ‘A Theodicy of Protest’[1] that the finite, limited God of William James offered him some intellectual appeal.[2] He reasons that to deny God completely would be going too far, but to affirm God’s total goodness and to apologize for a weak God in anyway would also be going too far.[3] Roth’s theodicy of protest puts God on trial,[4] and any human repentance will have to be matched by God.[5] Stephen Davis (1981) suggests that Roth has given up the notion that God is ‘perfectly morally good.’[6] Roth insists that most theodicy approaches very wrongly legitimize evil.[7] They can attempt to make suffering all deserved, and/or create happy endings due to God’s ultimate goodness.[8] There is within this view ‘no legitimation of evil to acknowledge its existence.’[9] The excessive amount of evil that exists in human history demonstrates that there is an evil side to God which willingly allows it.[10] Davis explains that for Roth, God is not really omnipotent as God does not possess the perfect goodness to redeem all evil.[11] Human beings lack the ability to envision how God could use all the evil within world history for the greater good.[12] Roth, in contrast to Davis, states that he actually shares with Davis a belief in God’s omnipotence.[13] Davis speculates that Roth’s approach weakens a view on God’s omnipotence,[14] but Roth’s claim that he holds to omnipotence should be taken seriously.[15] Roth’s interpretation makes sense, as if Roth sees God as all-powerful then the evil God willingly allows that cannot all be used for greater good, is not redeemable[16] and therefore God should repent of his evil.[17]

I share with Roth an intellectual and personal frustration with the evil that God willingly allows.[18] A theodicy of protest is not completely unmerited as all persons have suffered by the hand of God that is ultimately responsible, logically, as he is all-powerful.[19] Within my Reformed sovereignty theodicy view which I explain within Chapter Three in particular (of my PhD), I reason God does use all evil for the greater good with pure motives.[20] This view accepts a traditional view of omnipotence.[21] Roth does have hope as he looks for a resurrection of the dead in the future, and in the present realm hopes that somehow ‘the waste’ as in unnecessary evil, will be placed in check.[22] He views the traditional concept of God that Davis has as a God that is ‘hidden, absent, even non-existent.’[23] A trust and hope in any type of God is risky, but he reasons that the hope does not completely die.[24] I question whether an omnipotent God with less than perfect motives that would will so much evil, not for the greater good throughout history, would ever change his ways or be convinced by finite creatures to do so.[25]

---

[1] Within Encountering Evil, Stephen T. Davis (ed.)

[2] Roth (1981: 9).

[3] Roth (1981: 10). I can agree that if God is indeed weak, it should be pointed out as such, and not defended.

[4] Roth (1981: 10). And God’s supposed omnipotence as well, I would suggest could naturally be challenged.

[5] Roth (1981: 10). Roth’s position assumes that God has moral weakness which finite human beings could intellectually detect. God would have to share the blame for the problem of evil. Phillips (2005: 116-117).

[6] Davis (1981: 22). Phillips writes that Roth’s analysis leads to the idea that God is not perfectly good. Phillips (2005: 27).

[7] Roth (1981: 19).

[8] Roth (1981: 19).

[9] Roth (1981: 19).

[10] Davis (1981: 22).

[11] Davis (1981: 23).

[12] Davis (1981: 23). There is certainly a degree of truth to the idea that the evil God allows often cannot be reasonably understood by persons. This could, however, be due as much, or even more, to finite human nature and reasoning as opposed to a moral deficiency or lack of omnipotence with God.

[13] Roth (1981: 32). Phillips verifies this as well. Phillips (2005: 22).

[14] Davis (1981: 23).

[15] Roth (1981: 32).

[16] Roth (1981: 19). Davis (1981: 23).

[17] Roth (1981: 10).

[18] Roth (1981: 8-10).

[19] Roth (1981: 32).

[20] Gratuitous evil is also reviewed and discussed in Chapter Four.

[21] Kreeft and Tacelli (1994: 96). Bavinck (1918)(2006: 233 Volume 2). Weber (1955)(1981: 440).

[22] Roth (1981: 35). Phillips dislikes the use of the term ‘waste’ in regard to humanity and evil and suffering and reasons a loss and gain approach in regard to individual persons is not reasonable.  Phillips (2005: 70-71). This is an important point, for the loss suffered by a single individual should never be underestimated for the sake of many persons that do not suffer in the same way and may in some way possibly gain from the suffering of one.

[23] Roth (1981: 35).

[24] Roth (1981: 35).

[25] It is also possible that given God’s omnipotence as Roth accepts, what he and others with similar views understand as evil within God’s nature is simply all goodness. Roth (1981:32). This is not my Reformed view which views evil as separate from good, and not part of God’s nature, but is a reasonable deduction based on Roth’s assumptions on the all-powerful nature of God.
---

Bibliography from PhD

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.

DAVIS, STEPHEN T. (1981)(ed.), Encountering Evil, Atlanta, John Knox Press.

JAMES, WILLIAM (1892-1907)(1969) The Moral Philosophy of William James, John K. Roth (ed.), Thomas Y. Crowell Company, New York. 

JAMES, WILLIAM (1893)(2004) William James and a Science of Religions, Wayne Proudfoot (ed.), Columbia University Press, New York. 

JAMES, WILLIAM (1902-1910)(1987) Writings 1902 – 1910, The Library of America, New York. 

JAMES, WILLIAM (1902)(2002) The Varieties of Religious Experience, Prometheus Books, Amherst, New York. 

JAMES, WILLIAM (1904) ‘Does ‘Consciousness’ Exist?’, in Journal of Philosophy, Psychology, and Scientific Methods, Volume 1, pages 477-491. New York, Columbia University. 

JAMES, WILLIAM (1907) Pragmatism: A New Name for Some Old Ways of Thinking, Longman and Green Company, New York. 

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

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.

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.

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

March 15, 2014

The philosophical concept that 'any human repentance will have to be matched by God is presented.'

It has God philosophically and theologically being placed in the docks. The idea of God being in the docks was a criticism of theodicy work from the internal, Wales reviewer, a Roman Catholic philosopher of religion at my PhD Viva. In agreement I do not think God belongs in the docks.

There is historical religious history from Scripture, both the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament that presents God directly and implied as eternal and infinite, existing prior to divine creation of matter in Genesis 1. God has sovereign, providential control. God repeatedly in Scripture claims to be holy as in Exodus 3. Humanity on the other hand is created, finite and sinful (Genesis, Romans, Galatians, Ephesians, Hebrews, James, 1 John, Revelation as some sources). Therefore God is not in need of repenting of how he deals with humanity.

God has also by the grace through faith (Ephesians 1-2) chosen and saved those in Christ from sin/sins for good works. A new resurrection body free from sin and suffering is the end for those in Christ (1 Corinthians 15, Revelation 20-22).

On the other hand, in fairness to critics of theism and Christianity, I, as someone that suffers with sin and finiteness as does all of humanity, can very much understand frustration with God, or a theistic concept. Life is not near what it could be as far as fulfillment for many in humanity. Life is often not one of peace and happiness for many. Seemingly many times God could do much more to assist persons.

Those in the Church do not act in very good ways to assist others, or love others at times. And for those that do have a significantly fulfilling, happy life, it ends in death. At times evangelical answers for the problem of evil and suffering are overly-spiritualized and simplistic. Overly-spiritualized as in downplaying the importance of present life in favour of the next life and realm.

The importance of the next realm and everlasting/eternal life in contrast to this present temporal realm does have its Biblical foundation as can be seen in the writings of the Apostles and words of Christ.

Example

New American Standard Bible

Romans 8: 18-25

18For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory that is to be revealed to us.

19For the anxious longing of the creation waits eagerly for the revealing of the sons of God.

20For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it, in hope

21that the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God.

22For we know that the whole creation groans and suffers the pains of childbirth together until now.

23And not only this, but also we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body.

24For in hope we have been saved, but hope that is seen is not hope; for who hopes for what he already sees?

25But if we hope for what we do not see, with perseverance we wait eagerly for it.

I do not deny Paul and the Scripture in context, whatsoever.

I am reasoning that where with God's help, there is with the use of theology, philosophy and other intellectual and practical, reasonable means ways of alleviating the problem of evil and suffering in the present realm, to contentment and/or blessing; this is preferable for those in the Church along with the Biblical hope of everlasting/eternal life, to an overly-spiritualized approach which often does not seriously deal with serious temporal issues in order to perhaps find solutions.

Bibliography additional

BRUCE, F.F. (1987) Romans, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. 

CAIRD, GEORGE B. (1977) Paul's Letters from Prison Paperback, Oxford, Oxford University Press. 

CALVIN, JOHN (1539)(1998) The Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book II, Translated by Henry Beveridge, Grand Rapids, The Christian Classic Ethereal Library, Wheaton College. 

CALVIN, JOHN (1539)(1998) The Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book IV, Translated by Henry Beveridge, Grand Rapids, The Christian Classic Ethereal Library, Wheaton College. 

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

COURSON, JON (2005) Application Commentary, Thomas Nelson, Nashville.

CRANFIELD, C.E.B. (1992) Romans: A Shorter Commentary, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. 

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

FOULKES, FRANCIS (1989) Ephesians, Grand Rapids, Inter-Varsity Press. 

GUNDRY, ROBERT (1981) A Survey of the New Testament, Grand Rapids, Zondervan. 

LIGHTFOOT, JOHN B. (1993) The Destination of the Epistle to the Ephesians in Biblical Essays, New York, Macmillan. 

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

MOUNCE, ROBERT H. (1995) The New American Commentary: Romans, Nashville, Broadman & Holman Publishers. 

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.