Philosopher Frederick Ferre: Incompatibilism (PhD Edit)

Paris-Travel+Leisure, Facebook

Frederick Ferre (1973)(1976) presents an incompatibilist view called self-determinism.[1]  Ferre reasons that, although there are external conditions relevant for every action, the outcomes of these actions are not fixed by any causal chain.[2]  Ferre here is suggesting that for some events there is not a prior determined cause.[3] Therefore, within this theory some human actions would not be caused or simultaneously determined by God or any external force,[4] and some human actions could be considered self-determined.[5] 

Feinberg, who has written extensively on the concepts of free will and determinism, explains incompatibilism is defined as the idea within free will theodicy 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.[6]  There can be no antecedent[7] conditions or laws that will determine that an action is committed or not committed.[8] 

Compatibilism, like incompatibilism, holds to free will but in a limited form.[9]  P.S. Greenspan (1998) writes compatibilism holds to free will and determinism being compatible.[10]  Feinberg, a noted compatibilist, describes compatibilism as stating certain nonconstraining conditions could strongly influence actions in conjunction with human free will performing these actions.[11]  Feinberg (2001) explains that with this viewpoint, there will be no contradiction in stating God would create human beings who were significantly free, unconstrained, and yet committed actions that God willed.[12] 

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

FERRE, FREDERICK (1952)(1976) ‘Self-Determinism’, in American Philosophical Quarterly, Volume 10, Number 3, in John R. Burr and Milton Goldinger (eds.), in Philosophy and Contemporary Issues, London, Collier Macmillan Publishers.

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

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

GREENSPAN, P.S. (1998) Free Will and Genetic Determinism: Locating the Problem (s), Maryland, University of Maryland.

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

---

[1] Ferre (1973)(1976: 31-44).

[2] Ferre (1973)(1976: 35).

[3] Ferre (1973)(1976: 35).

[4] Ferre (1973)(1976: 35).

[5] Ferre (1973)(1976: 35).

[6] Feinberg (1994: 64).

[7] In his article entitled ‘Conditional’ Simon Blackburn writes that an antecedent exists if  p causes  q.  P  is the antecedent or prior cause of  q  which is the conditional and the consequence.  Blackburn (1996: 73-74).

[8] Feinberg (1994: 64).

[9] Pojman (1996: 596).

[10] Greenspan (1998: 1).

[11] Feinberg (1994: 60).

[12] Feinberg (2001: 637).

Incompatibilism, Libertarian Free Will and Political Libertarianism (PhD Edit)

Provence, Travel+Leisure and Facebook

Provence, France-Travel+Leisure and Facebook

I noticed this tonight in an edits file, then noticed there was a version in my PhD and so therefore I share...

Based on quick searches, the first appearance of Oxford Philosopher, Tim Mawson on my blogs.

Yes, I do check.

I share, and provide additional perspectives on my material. I hold to compatibilism, but academic balance is needed in PhD work and blogging for that matter.

Philosopher Tim Mawson reasons that incompatibilism, which is also known as libertarianism in regard to human free will,[1] believes that true human free will must be uncaused by preceding states.[2] Thus within incompatibilist theory, a human action would never truly be free because God would have willed and determined it on his own before he simultaneously willed it with a given person.[3] 

Mawson writes that incompatibilism, which is closely related to libertarianism in regard to human free will,[4] states that true human free will must be uncaused by preceding states[5]  This view would rule out God as a preceding force that determines the human will and actions.[6]  Libertarianism[7] is often viewed as a form of indeterminism.[8]  An action cannot be predetermined by any circumstance or desire.[9]  Indeterminism is defined as the idea that there are no antecedent (preceding conditions) or simultaneous causes of human actions.[10]  All human actions are only free if a person could have done otherwise.[11]  

I reason that many church attendees in our modern society make a connection, perhaps unconsciously, between libertarian political,[12] religious, social type freedom, and libertarianism[13] in regard to God.  However, political forces that grant some freedoms are finite (limited) entities and should not be equated with the freedom allowed by the infinite, omnipotent, omniscient God. At the same time, God’s power to determine events is much greater than any political entity.

With a compatibilistic model, if the infinite, omnipotent God restrains himself and allows his permissible rather than perfect will to take place, his will is still being done, and he is still determining events, by allowing evil and sin to occur and not intervening.

---

[1] Mawson (1999: 324).

[2] Mawson (1999: 324).

[3] Mawson (1999: 324).

[4] Mawson (1999: 324).

[5] Mawson (1999: 324).

[6] Mawson (1999: 324).

[7] Libertarianism supposes that human free choice is not causally determined, but is not random either.  Blackburn (1996: 218).

[8] Geisler (1996: 429).

[9] Mawson (1999: 324). 

[10] Geisler (1996: 429).

[11] Geisler (1996: 429).

[12] Political libertarianism maximizes individual rights and the state has its power minimized.  Blackburn (1996: 218).

[13] Blackburn (1996: 218).  

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

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.

GEISLER, NORMAN, L (1999) ‘The Problem of Evil’, in Baker Encyclopedia of Apologetics, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.

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

Brief On Revelation 3:20

Biarritz, France, Travel+Leisure and Facebook

Even with the busy work week, I was pondering this week on Revelation 3: 20 and the various libertarian free will, evangelical freewill and incompatibilist freedom interpretations that would arise, often in missions and evangelism contexts.

Revelation 3:20 New American Standard Bible (NASB)

20 Behold, I stand at the door and knock; if anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and will dine with him, and he with Me.

Revelation 3:20 English Standard Version (ESV)

20 Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and eat with him, and he with me.

Old Third Mill.Org

Cited

'Question

If only Jesus can open my heart in order to save me, why is it that he knocks at the door of the Laodiceans (Rev. 3:20)? How can I fit together Calvinism (specifically that God alone causes men to turn their hearts towards him) and this verse?

Answer

There are at least a couple ways to answer your question:

First, Revelation 3:20 is part of a letter written to the Christian church in Laodicea. There is no indication that the people who open the door to Jesus are not saved prior to opening the door, or that opening the door is a metaphor for receiving Christ in salvation. Opening the door does not appear to be a metaphor for salvation, but for obedience. Those who open the door are those who hear the warning of this letter and repent of their sin. The implication from the context of the verse is that these people are already saved.

Second, Revelation 3:20 does not say anything about the process of how one comes to be able to open the door, or about who is able to open the door. Rather, it simply explains the result of opening the door. Even if one were to interpret this verse as speaking of salvation (which I believe would be an incorrect interpretation), the verse still would not provide any information as to how that person came to be able to open the door, whether or not he was regenerated and/or had faith prior to opening the door, etc. Thus, one could understand the verse to be speaking about initial salvation and be a consistent Calvinist. The verse does not refute the idea that a person must be regenerated by the Holy Spirit prior to being able to open the door.

Third (for the sake of argument assuming that this verse is about initial salvation), Calvinism does not require that Jesus forcibly open the door. Rather, Calvinism teaches that the Holy Spirit regenerates man and gives him faith, and that man then responds positively to the gospel in repentance. Metaphorically, opening the door to Jesus would seem to be a better illustration of the response of repentance than of regeneration and reception of faith. Once a person is regenerated and given faith, opening the door is the natural Calvinistic response.

Answer by Ra McLaughlin'

To be clear, I was not certain what the views of my documented authors would be on this verse prior to the research.  My sources could have stated otherwise and I would have noted such. I have so previously.

F.F. Bruce

By the way, incredibly, according to my very critical adviser, David Pailin of Manchester, causing me along with help from his colleagues to depart, Bruce was his academic adviser. 

What happened?

Bruce stated that 'Christ has no place in the life of the Laodicean Church, and seeks admission; even if the church as a whole pays no heed to his call, those members who do will enjoy mutual fellowship with him'. Bruce (1986: 1605).

Robert H. Mounce

Mounce writes that often, as I alluded to at the beginning, this verse is often used as referring to those outside of the Christian community. Mounce (1990: 128).

It is often pressed in the name of evangelism. Mounce (1990: 128).

However, he reasons in Scriptural context it is 'self-deluded members of the church who are being addressed'. Mounce (1990: 128).

Revelation is documented by many scholars to contain Christ speaking through the Apostle John and letters to seven churches.

Christ then is attempting to re-establish fellowship with this church. 

Therefore the context is not salvation for those outside of the Church.

I have come across free will perspectives online which are basically expressed in Mounce's summation as in being an evangelism verse and tool where those who hear Christ knocking have significant libertarian free will to accept the gospel message, or not.

Even with my Reformed, compatibilist leanings, although researched and educated leanings, the research is not convincing for free will orientated evangelism and libertarian views.

Rather, as this is metaphor, the knocking by Christ and therefore God, is divine movement by God upon the individuals that God is seeking.

Based on research I reason that this is directed in context to the Church at Laodicea.

But even if it directed to non-believers at that church in a salvation context, it is not a clear and concise libertarian free will context provide here.

I agree with McLaughlin's view that 'Rather, it simply explains the result of opening the door. Even if one were to interpret this verse as speaking of salvation (which I believe would be an incorrect interpretation), the verse still would not provide any information as to how that person came to be able to open the door, whether or not he was regenerated and/or had faith prior to opening the door, etc. Thus, one could understand the verse to be speaking about initial salvation and be a consistent Calvinist. The verse does not refute the idea that a person must be regenerated by the Holy Spirit prior to being able to open the door.'

Back to the verse:

'If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and eat with him, and he with me.'

This is still true to a compatibilistic, soft-deterministic view, although not a hard-deterministic/deterministic view void of any significant human freewill, where God would simply by compulsion force and coerce salvation and belief.

With God and Christ taking the initiative and regenerating; preaching, Scripture and gospel related input is used in the process so that at some point, one is saved, as chosen and has belief.

I can acknowledge certainly this may not always be immediately. God regenerating whom he wills (Ephesians 1-2) does not necessarily mean a process does not take place over an extended time in some cases before a  person is actually considered 'born again' (John 3), and regenerated (Titus 3: 5).

I reason God and Christ could knock multiple times with multiple events before one believed within a compatibilistic salvation context.

This would be limited human free will and not libertarian free will. It cannot be stated with certainty exactly how much time irresistible grace via the Holy Spirit shall take, only that it will occur is this realm and lifetime.

This is certainly pragmatically true as there would be a multitude of stories where a person heard the gospel and yet did not publicly acknowledge the Lord until years later.

Was he or she saved earlier or later?

I am a non-adult example of this finding interest in the Christian message at four years old on and even believing Christ was likely God at five to six, but still fearing God in the sense of questionable faith and not seeking the Bible and related. I did not call myself a Christian publicly and in a significant understanding until twelve years old.

I am not certain exactly when I was regenerated and saved, but I know Biblically, theologically and philosophically, I have been.

Even though I do not think salvation is the context of Revelation 3: 20.

BRUCE, F.F. (1986) ‘Revelation’, in F.F. Bruce (gen.ed.), The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Marshall Pickering/ Zondervan.

MCLAUGHLIN, R.A. (2014), 'Knock, Knock', Third Millennium Ministries, Fern Park, Florida, Third Millennium Ministries.

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

Facebook

MPhil: Resurrection Thoughts This Easter

Parador de Oropesa, Spain. Travel+Leisure, Facebook

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

Christianity is a historical faith and it states through Scripture that God supernaturally interacted with human beings through his prophets, apostles, and Jesus Christ himself. So, the examination of Scripture is very important in any study of the problem of evil.

Critics may suggest it is very convenient that the supposed supernatural occurrences in Scripture which support the Christian faith, and its remedy to the problem of evil through Christ’s work, took place thousands of years ago, before our scientific age. These supernatural events, it could be stated, are now rather hard to either prove or disprove. If they cannot be proven, why should the Christian answer to the problem of evil be taken seriously? I admit this is an important criticism, but the Bible is consistent in its message, written within historical periods by historical people. The accounts of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus are in unity, and his resurrection, although disputed by some critics, does have the backing of New Testament authors, who claim to have witnessed the resurrected Christ, or to have personally known those who have.

Alister McGrath

McGrath also discussed in his text the weaknesses of a philosophical problem of evil discussion alone, without mentioning how the work of Christ will help us in human experience. He also mentioned how destructive Enlightenment theories on God have been the last few centuries. He thought the personal nature of the Biblical God was negated for a perfect philosophical God. He pointed the reader to the personal nature of God through the death and resurrection of the Son of God, and the saving work for humanity.

McGrath’s work in Suffering is helpful in that it provides historical, philosophical background on the problem of evil and suffering, and yet stays true to Scriptural historical Christianity and its remedy to evil through Christ.

To play devil’s advocate, a critic could claim that Christianity has not solved suffering any better than Communism or especially western liberalism; however, I think McGrath is correct. A belief in God in society and better yet a spiritual relationship with Christ leads to the tempering of evil in a nation and the world. Christianity’s ultimate answer to evil comes through revelation, but at least that has historical evidence of Scripture behind it. Christians are disobedient to God, just as nonbelievers are, and this is probably part of the reason Christianity has not made more social progress.

But I still agree with McGrath that Christ’s atoning work and resurrection is the only ultimate answer that remedies evil. This work has, of course, not been completely culminated, but I think the Scriptural evidence supports the idea that Christ will return to restore his creation. "In the fourth place, he was liberating us from the fear of death." McGrath (1992: 49).

McGrath explained that western culture was afraid of death to the point of not wanting to discuss it. He noted that Jesus liberated people from this fear as he defeated death through the reality of the resurrection and, at the same time, any power the devil had over people was destroyed. This will not be culminated until all believers are resurrected, but the required work has been accomplished by Christ. Believers’ resurrection is guaranteed. All people will be resurrected and believers will be in Christ’s presence.

Irenaeus stated with regard to Christ’s work defeating death: For it behoved Him who was to destroy sin, and redeem man under the power of death, that He should Himself be made that very same thing which He was, that is, man; who had been drawn by sin into bondage, but was held by death so that sin should be destroyed by man, and man should go forth from death. Irenaeus. (ca. 130-200 AD) Book III, Chapter 18, Section 7. (Note: There does not seem to be a historical date to indicate when Irenaeus wrote this work. It is estimated that he wrote the work near the end of the second century.)

From Irenaeus’ comments, it can be seen that McGrath’s sentiments are echoed by this ancient author. Christ on the cross was the way that God incarnate could, in a loving act, take sin on himself, defeat sin in death, and through his resurrection defeat death itself. Humankind had no deliverance from the bondage of sin and death until Christ committed this work. McGrath is correct in that a future hope of Heaven is something to be considered since Christ has been documented in Scripture to be resurrected. His promises for believers’ resurrection seem to be certain. Suffering and the problem of evil will only end as resurrection and restoration culminate. God, through Christ, sacrificed because he was good, but at the same time because he loved humanity. In all human suffering he has always been present, he has defeated evil through his atoning work and this shall be culminated with the resurrection. Presently he desires that people seek him out when suffering.

IRENAEUS. (c 175-185)(1998) ‘Against Heresies’, in The Catholic Encyclopedia, Denver, The Catholic Encyclopedia.

IRENAEUS. (c 175-185)(2005) Against Heresies, in The Catholic Encyclopedia, Denver, The Catholic Encyclopedia.

IRENAEUS (c 185)(2005) Proof of Apostolic Preaching, Translated by J. Armitage Robinson, London, The Macmillan CO.

McGRATH, A. (1986) Iustitia Dei, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

McGRATH, A. (1992) Bridge-Building, Leicester, Inter-Varsity Press.

McGRATH, A. (1992) Suffering, London, Hodder and Stoughton Limited.

Facebook

G.C. Berkouwer (PhD Edit)

From European Space Agency-Gaia Calibration

Reformed Theologian Gerrit Cornelis Berkouwer from my PhD work.

The Biblical God’s Dealings With Humanity

G.C. Berkouwer explains that ‘Man[1] is-even when alienated from God-not alone.’[2]  God has still gifted fallen humanity[3] and there is a possible limitation to human corruption, that being the grace of Christ and his words and work.[4]  God still has the power and opportunity to save persons,[5] and humanly speaking[6] persons have an opportunity to know Christ in conversion.[7]

Berkouwer reasons that God wants a free man, not a mechanical tool or creature that can be maneuvered as the Almighty sees fit. Berkouwer (1962: 333).  

I reason human freedom always operates within the framework of God’s sovereignty and providence. However, the concept of God forcing and/or coercing persons to commit actions would be denied by many within Reformed theology.  Frame (2002: 153).  Berkouwer (1962: 333).

April 18, 2014

As noted on my blogs, I would agree and therefore deny that compatibilism/soft determinism with significantly free human and secondary cause actions, includes divine force and/or coercion. Rather God simultaneously causes and wills human thoughts, acts/actions. God performing such with infinite knowledge in infinite holiness and moral perfection; secondary beings, such as angels with finite knowledge and limited holiness and limited moral perfection, sinless. Fallen significantly rational creatures with finite knowledge and in unholiness and sin, such as fallen angels and human beings, although God/Holy Spirit can and does influence the Christian believer at times in regard to thoughts, acts/actions (John 20, Acts). The believer having the imputed righteousness of Christ in justification (Romans 1-4). Influence of the non-believer by God is also possible and reasonable, although outside of election and regeneration and other aspects of salvation including justification. Being chosen and regenerated New Testament concepts for those in Christ.

BERKOUWER, G.C. (1962) Man: The Image of God, Grand Rapids, W.M.B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

FRAME, JOHN M. (1999) ‘The Bible on the Problem of Evil: Insights from Romans 3:1-8,21-26; 5:1-5; 8:28-39’, IIIM Magazine Online, Volume 1, Number 33, October 11 to October 17, Fern Park, Florida, Third Millennium.

http://www.thirdmill.org/files/english/html/th/TH.h.Frame.ProblemofEvil.htm

FRAME, JOHN M. (2002) The Doctrine of God, P and R Publishing, Phillipsburg, New Jersey.

---

[1] I prefer the term humankind.

[2] Berkouwer (1962: 183).

[3] Berkouwer (1962: 186).

[4] Berkouwer (1962: 192).

[5] Berkouwer (1962: 192).

[6] Within a compatibilistic framework.

[7] Berkouwer (1962: 192-193).

Harold Lindsell (PhD Edit)

Vancouver

British Columbia-trekearth

PhD edit from Dr. Harold Lindsell, former editor of Christianity Today:

Scripture Harold Lindsell explains that the inerrancy of Scripture is rejected by many within liberal churches.[1] He reasons that inerrancy equals infallibility and a trustworthy Bible.[2]

Within progressive churches the issue of everlasting punishment can be complicated by questioning of inerrancy of related verses. The issue of the trustworthiness of Scripture mentioned by Lindsell,[3] and as well the symbolic nature of the Biblical language describing everlasting hell, could create doubt concerning the doctrine of everlasting punishment within liberal churches.

Figurative literal language, in my mind, does not in Biblical terms mean mythological language, but not plain literal language.

Therefore, everlasting hell and punishment is not Biblically dismissed as fiction because it is not described plain literally. Lindsell would support a traditional understanding of Biblical revelation where he states that through special supernatural revelation in Scripture, Jesus Christ is revealed to selected persons.[4] He does not believe that a human being can be saved outside of this revelation.[5]

Traditionalists such as Lindsell, will view any move within the Christian Church away from Biblical teaching as a negative.[6] He provides the opinion that many Christian institutions have slowly over time moved away from orthodox, Biblical theology and have gone astray.[7]

Some from the conservative perspective, who answered this question in the affirmative, may view secular influence on the Church as leading it into error. This can be seen in many Christian Church contexts today. Lindsell analyses the issue of Scripture philosophically and acknowledges that within the Christian community there have been other non-traditional ways to look at the Bible. There have been debates within the Church over inerrancy, as in the Bible being without error. He states that the term infallible can be considered a synonym of the word inerrant in the context of the Bible. Lindsell (1976: 27).

LINDSELL, HAROLD (1976) The Battle for the Bible, Grand Rapids, Zondervan Publishing House. 

---

[1] Lindsell (1976: 201-202).
[2] Lindsell (1976: 19). I can support inerrancy for the original documents, which no longer exist. No copies or translations are inerrant.
[3] Lindsell (1976: 201-202).
[4] Lindsell (1976: 17).
[5] Lindsell (1976: 17).
[6] Lindsell (1976: 185).
[7] Lindsell (1976: 185).
[8] Lindsell (1976: 185).

Brief On Job 38:3

Monaco-trekearth

Nice Spring day, although I am recovering from night shift, yesterday.

New American Standard Bible

38 Then the Lord answered Job out of the whirlwind and said,

2 “Who is this that darkens counsel By words without knowledge?

3 “Now gird up your loins like a man, And I will ask you, and you instruct Me!

English Standard Version

38 Then the Lord answered Job out of the whirlwind and said:

2 “Who is this that darkens counsel by words without knowledge?

3 Dress for action[a] like a man; I will question you, and you make it known to me.

Browning explains the book of Job is a major text of wisdom literature (p.204) in the Hebrew Bible. The authorship is reasoned to not be certain and was likely written after the exile. Browning (1997: 204). Clines states that the story of Job was present many centuries before the Old Testament book was completed. Clines (1986: 521). This would include oral form, I reason. The story goes back to the second millennium BC and the book written between the seventh and third centuries BC. Clines (1986: 521).

This is deduced based on literary form. Clines (1986: 521).

The fact that Job is mentioned in Ezekiel 14: 14 demonstrates the antiquity of events. Job is mentioned with Noah and Daniel. Clines (1986: 521).

Interestingly listed after the other two Biblical greats. Does this have chronological significance?

La Sor and company state Job is referenced in ancient texts circa 2000 BC (Egypt) and Amarna (Egypt) 1350 BC, meaning the story may very well be of an actual sufferer who was later documented in a setting by a poet. (p. 560). However, the academic text reasons the story still has Biblical value regardless of historical setting and that it was not seriously questioned in the Hebrew Bible canon. (pp. 560-561).

Acceptance in Hebrew Bible canon strongly suggests historicity and relevant historical value.

My short term academic adviser at Manchester University, Professor David Pailin, informed me that because of these issues with Job, that the book was basically mythology, but I do not think that conclusion is warranted.

He was attempting to demerit the book in regard to its use with my theodicy and problem of evil research.

It is according to these sources an ancient historical story documented in the Hebrew Bible at a deduced significantly later date.

I have also come across statements, including pastoral, in my academic career from those that study scholarship that speculate Job may have been written much closer to the occurrence of events, although admittedly not present from my documented sources and seemingly not the more accepted scholarly position.

Further...

The justice of God is questioned. Browning (1997: 204).

Job scholar David J. A. Clines writes that Yahweh's first speech takes place at Job 38: 1-40: 2, and the second speech Job 40: 6-41: 34. Clines (1986: 545-548).

The first speech is largely a series of questions addressed by God to Job. Not intended to 'humiliate Job by exposing his ignorance and inability to answer God, nor are they designed to be such a display of God's wisdom and omnipotence as to require Job to leave off his attempt to understand what is happening to him'. Clines (1986: 545).

Instead Job is challenged to reconsider, even while in a state of much suffering, his knowledge in regard to God and creation. Clines (1986: 545). Job is to consider, natural order, the animal kingdom and the mysteries of life, from a human perspective. Clines (1986: 545).

In Job 38, Job finally has a reply from God and it is divinely pointed out 'how far beyond Job's range are the questions of the governance of the universe'. Clines (1986: 546).

This is theologically and philosophically no surprise as God is infinite and with unlimited knowledge and ability, outside of contradiction of nature and character.

This in contrast with finite human nature also tainted by sinfulness.

God is not 'aloof from Job's sufferings but will meet where he is and reveal himself to him'. Clines (1986: 546).

Job's lack of insight into divine plans of deity made the plans of God, 'dark and made God's dealing seem arbitrary'. Clines (1986: 546).

This can be tied back to concepts from my MPhil and PhD work as in the infinite, sovereign and yet holy and good God, causing and willing evil, as first cause, yet for the good. And for the good for those in Christ that love him called according to his divine purpose (Romans 8).

Many times from a human perspective God's plans and actions seem dark, harsh and cruel and from a human perspective this is true to a point, I admit academically and from personal experience, as human beings do suffer at times in terrible ways, even while acknowledging the goodness of God without sin. And God as holy (Isaiah 6).

I do not view God's plans and actions as arbitrary, whatsoever, instead viewing God with sovereign, providential plans in creation. God being demonstrated in the New Testament as predestining events whether the crucifixion, atonement, resurrection, salvation, second advent and restored creation.

My main focus for this short post is:

Job being told to 'brace yourself like a man'. Clines (1986: 545). A verse I have been pondering on for years. Cline reasons the literal 'gird up your loins' like a man has 'overtones of 'warrior''. Clines (1986: 545). As if in preparation for battle. Cline (1986: 545).

Job is encouraged to 'use all his mental strength to understand the message God will convey to him in indirect fashion'. Cline (1986: 545).

I agree with the Christian theological assertions and argumentation that God should not be challenged outside of faith, for that would be sinful and repentance needed.

But there is Biblically a concept of questioning God in faith and this in light of problems of evil and suffering that God indeed wills, for good divine purposes, is very intense serious business.

Warrior like as Clines states.

In other words, I conclude that not all Christian interaction with God in faith need necessarily be classic evangelical 'God is wonderful' worship type of approach we see in Sunday morning worship songs and written and audio devotional materials, for example.

Not all Christian interaction with God necessarily be evangelistic as in 'sales pitch' for those inside and outside of the Church, of how good God is and how much he loves us. True God is good and does love humanity (John 1, John 15), especially those he chooses in Christ (Ephesians 1-2), but there is also respectful, faithful dialogue in tension with God in regard to serious issues that also needs to occur at times.

A secondary conclusion I arrive at from Job 38: 3 and related is that if human beings are to be respectfully and reasonably firm with God in dialogue with tension, this should also be done in human to human contexts as in the example of employment and relationships.

BROWNING, W.R.F. (1997) Dictionary of the Bible, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

CLINES, DAVID J. A. (1986) Job, The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Zondervan.

CLINES, DAVID J. A. (1986) Proverbs, The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Zondervan.

LA SOR, WILLIAM SANFORD, DAVID ALLAN HUBBARD, AND FREDERIC WILLIAM BUSH. (1987) Old Testament Survey, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

Brief On Consent (MPhil Edit)

Salzburg-Facebook

I am @ home between shifts here and so this shall be short and hopefully sweet, as opposed to sweat, but I have been pondering on this the last few days.

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

'Woods mentioned Playboyism, and stated of Hugh Hefner, Publisher of Playboy Magazine: "Hefner rejects any philosophy that holds a man must deny himself for others. The Playboy outlook says a man should love himself preeminently and pursue only his own pleasure." Woods (1974)(1982: 108).

Considering Playboy, where women are viewed as objects sexually by both Hefner and the willing women participating, this magazine brings its participants money, fame and sexual gratification, but the Playboy philosophy represented in the magazine, through mass media influence, also causes women in society to be viewed as objects by many men. This can cause many women to be overlooked for their intellect, and looked upon more for their sexual beauty.

So, in a subtle fashion, the Playboy philosophy can bring pain to many people in society because Playboy Magazine exploits sexuality when, in reality, sexuality belongs in the context of marriage/committed relationship where the inner beauty of the person is more important than their outer image. With the Playboy philosophy, the outer beauty is far more important than the inner beauty.'

April 7, 2014

Related

Consent in secular Western society in regard to intimate matters seems to often be the philosophical and moral/ethical bottom line in judging thoughts, acts and actions as permissible or not.

I understand this is how these moral/ethical issues are often dealt with in democratic, Western societies.

In this fallen world from a Biblical view, and certainly, imperfect from a secular view, where religion has been politically corrupted in the past, present and will be in the future, I am no supporter of theocracy or theonomy in this present realm.

Religious rule to govern sexual ethics.

The only theocracy I support theologically and philosophically in one ruled by God and Christ in a restored realm explained in part in Revelation and 2 Peter.

Theocracy and theonomy is this present age is bound is be in disagreement with my views and the views of other scholars on many points.

A religious scholar, as one example, could end up breaking the law.

When some segments of Western society view certain thoughts, acts and actions morally and ethically not permissible, there is often an assumption that consent is not possible or not granted by one or more parties involved.

The sex trade industry as an example.

Sometimes this will clearly be an accurate view and sometimes the issue is unclear.

With the sex trade industry, some persons very immorally are forced and/or coerced into it clearly without possibility of consent, as with underage.

I am not going to debate underage consent here philosophically, but will acknowledge and accept it morally, ethically and legally.

Some adults are within the industry, immorally without consent, by force and/or coercion.

At times the issue of consent is clouded in the case of adult professional sex trade industry workers.

The philosophical impression I receive from reading and media is that some anti-sex trade industry advocates, from the left and right, as opposed to primarily the documented writings of a certain writer or scholar per say, admittedly to be clear, reason no one in the adult sex trade industry is providing consent other than the proprietors and clients.

My view can be seen implied in the MPhil work where I stated:

'Considering Playboy, where women are viewed as objects sexually by both Hefner and the willing women participating,'

And yes, I realize there is a wide-range of sex trade industry work and that Playboy is considered on the soft side on the industry.

Pornography by some, erotica by others. Or perhaps both by some.

I do not write as an expert here, but philosophically, morally and ethically, this understanding that no one in the adult sex trade is providing consent other than the proprietors and clients, seems too simplistic. I state this cautiously and in humility but I reason that the corrupt nature of humanity described in Romans and implied elsewhere in Ephesians for example, means that all persons make sinful choices via sinful nature.

A sinful choice certainly is made at times through sinful nature (Romans) to willingly consent to work within the sex industry.

There are many moral, ethical and social negatives associated with the sex trade industry.

A Biblical position, in contrast, prohibits adultery and fornication, Exodus 20: 14 and coveting Exodus 20: 17.

Adultery and fornication of the heart (mind) that can lead to sinful acts and actions is viewed as sinful in Matthew 5 and the solution is Biblical marriage from 1 Corinthians 7, if one is not content being single.

And therefore, it is philosophically, morally and ethically error to primarily judge the adult sex trade industry permissible, or not based on consent.

I am not stating Scripture does not acknowledge the need for consent in matter of sexuality or that it is not vital. In context, Biblical marriage, for example, implies the consent of man and woman in a covenantal relationship.

I also of course do not claim moral perfection in order to judge, rather by the guidance of the Holy Spirit I seek to live by Biblical concepts.

WOODS, B.W. (1974) Christians in Pain, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.

From email