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)

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 of actions primarily caused by God, then human actions would be morally insignificant. Stace (1952)(1976: 30). 

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.

Photo 1: Rheinstein Castle, Rhineland-Palatinate, Germany-Amz Places, Google +

Photo 2: Sunset At Cabo San Lucas Beach, Mexico, Google +

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

London: Daily Mail

I have dealt with this PhD material previously below with link, but I have some more comments:

John K Roth and Limited God

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]

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.


[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.
---

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.

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.

Greg Welty And Christ As Sinless Human Being (PhD Edit)

North Korea black out from Daily Mail and Facebook

Greg Welty rejects Plantinga’s idea that God cannot create a world containing moral good and no moral evil,^[1] and raises the objection that God brought Christ into the world as a sinless human being.^[2]  

Welty’s point here is that every human being could have therefore been sinless^[3] and the world could contain good and no evil with significantly free human beings that would not commit wrong actions.[4] 

I have a similar objection to Welty’s.^[5]  Within my theodicy, I reason that God could have, if he wished, made significantly free human beings, or human like beings who would have been perfectly morally good and would not commit wrong actions. God’s choice not to create such beings, in my mind is not a sign of a lack of power, or moral failure, but rather the use of his own perfect and significantly free will for good purposes. 

March 10, 2014

Note as well, the angels of God not fallen are deduced to be significantly free and have not committed wrong actions (Revelation 12).

I reason significantly free beings can made perfect, holy and good gaining knowledge of good and evil and do not choose evil and do not require the option to choose evil.

Therefore, fallen humanity as is and the atonement and resurrection work of Christ as applied to those chosen and elect in Christ is part of God’s sovereign plans. As is the culminated Kingdom of God with the new heaven and new earth (Revelation 20-22).

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.

WELTY, GREG (1999) ‘The Problem of Evil’, in Greg Welty PhD, Fort Worth, Texas.Philosophy Department, Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, http://www.ccir.ed.ac.uk/~jad/welty/probevil.htm

---

[1] Plantinga (1977)(2002: 30).  Welty (1999: 1).

[2] Welty (1999: 1).

[3] Welty (1999: 1).

[4] Welty (1999: 1).

[5] Welty (1999: 1).

Brief On The Problem Of Evil, God & Violence

More snow today, and no I was not falling...Not a bad very quick amateur photo, it was raining, if I say so myself.

When I left this morning the weather was transforming from snow to rain and so I decided to risk the trek out to Abbotsford and Northview Community Church.

Probably not my best decision ever as it was snowing heavily and I took the usual most direct back road way to the church. The church somewhat surprisingly being a megachurch of 4, 000+ attenders is in a suburban/rural area just outside of town.

The car slipped around a few times, but I was careful as usual. After church speaking with one of the church leaders, he agreed that my idea was wise to drive home through town and not the back roads. It was raining, thankfully.

I stated yesterday, mostly by texting in comments on 'Give Me Cake Liberty Or Give Me...', Satire And Theology.

Cited:

'how many x..mom do not put hand in car door frame... dark outside at safeway on her bday....i close door she screams. only bruised cannot see damage inside store...will ice. could not see her hand in p lot and she should have asked for help instead.'

'Glove probably saved her hand from worse result... Icing.'

The boss got away with a minor bruise, thankfully. She is thankful I was there to open the door. I am thankful she had her gloves on.

I remember as child, her Dad, my Grandpa, did basically the same thing with someone else closing the door. Does not surprise me, there is something to genetics.

Brief On The Problem Of Evil, God & Violence

Today the sermon at Northview dealt with God Biblically commanding Israel in the Hebrew Bible at times and points to take the lives of all enemies, including children within a nation and society.

Some within scholarship attempt to argue, against the more traditional view provided in the sermon, that there are other interpretations where genocide does not occur. The Pastor did not get into these thoroughly, but noted some serious objections to God taking via commanding Israel, the lives of entire civilizations.

I have not studied the Old Testament/Hebrew Bible for this topic in-depth, but did study the problem of evil and theodicy for twelve plus years at three Universities, eventually embedding my own theodicy within a successful PhD.

I do have some philosophical and theological insights, I reason:

Based on a Reformed, compatibilist, Biblical view, God is the first cause of all things.

God as the first cause, is infinite and eternal, based on Scriptural, theological essentials. God is the only necessary being, God exists by necessity.  Something exists by necessity when it is not possible for the proposition to be false. The denial of such being self-contradictory. Bradley (1996: 522).

It could be reasoned contingent beings do not have to exist. Contingent beings 'could have failed to exist'. They 'must be caused to exist by some another being'. Quinn (1996: 609).

Contingent beings, that also if significantly free, serve as secondary causes of thoughts, actions and acts, exist because the first-cause, God, chose for them to exist. He could reasonably, even after creating humanity, chose for them not to exist in various contexts including complete annihilation of both body and spirit, or physical death alone as the spirit lives on (Luke 16 as a figurative literal example, although a parable).

I reason, although not dogmatically, it quite reasonable and possible that God would have been ethically and morally reasonably able to annihilate Adam and Eve prior to their sin and fall, because the creator as necessary only needs to exist; contingent beings that do not have to exist by necessity could be eliminated. Therefore Adam and Eve could have justly been annihilated, outside of an ethical/moral promise by God, including Biblical, to provide them with continued existence.

As the first-cause, Biblical God has promised eternal/everlasting life for those in Christ, and eternal/everlasting death/punishment for those outside of Christ (Revelation 20-22).

Therefore, annihilation is not an ethical, moral option for God as he has promised otherwise. Assuming, reasonably God keeps his word and he does not change in how he deals with humanity within time (Malachi 3).

Yes, I realise there is a debate on whether or not everlasting punishment is actually annihilation and have discussed on both of my blogs. I have argued both positions and hold to the traditional view.

Physical death is however, an ethical/moral option for God because of sin the fall, and punishment (Genesis 1-3, Romans 1-6, Hebrews 9). This leads to judgement after death for all (Hebrews 9: 27), each person appointed one physical death and then judgement.

When and how physical death is issued by God, for persons, corporately or privately is not limited.

It is not specifically limited by Scripture, as persons can physically die in many ways.

Theologically and philosophically I reason God with perfect or permissible will, could ethically, morally and justly end the physical life of persons. This could take place with human beings being secondary causes.

Normally, the person taking the life of another person would be Biblically unlawful as murder (Exodus 20). And this allows for the possibility for alternate philosophical and theological views as some would see any breaking of this commandment as contradiction and God is not a God of contradiction.

However, it is also possible to view such killing as execution, a protection of the people of Israel in a Hebrew Bible context from non-God negative influences.

God willing that secondary causes lawfully kill persons for by divine order, not being totally foreign to the New Testament, although different in focus. Old Testament concepts could be philosophically and theologically connected to preservation of law and order in the New Testament in Romans 13 and 1 Peter 2.

Admittedly in the New Testament context, the State replacing Israel and its Old Testament divine order, for the maintaining of divinely sanctioned law and order. There is no theocracy or attempt at like in the New Testament context.

BRADLEY, RAYMOND D. (1996) ‘Necessity’, in Robert Audi (ed.), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

QUINN, PHILIP L. (1996) 'Philosophy of Religion' , in Robert Audi (ed.), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.



Excellent solo, dumb cartoon.