Prayer & Determinism (s)

Paris-Facebook-Travel+Leisure

At church this Sunday the subject of prayer and determinism was discussed in regard to Luke 1 and the Biblical fact that Zacharias' 'petition has been heard' (13) by God in regard to the birth of John.

It had been determined by God after many years of petition and yet was still an answer to prayer.

A brief review of two types of determinism philosophically and theologically,

Determinism also known as Hard Determinism

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).

With determinism and hard determinism, it is philosophically and theologically far more difficult to view human prayer as philosophically reasonable, because within the model only cause1, which would be God causing significant thoughts, acts and actions, would occur.

Certainly, at least thoughts, acts and actions, one could be held morally responsible for with significant freedom.

Soft-Determinism and Compatibilism

Compatibilism and soft determinism does hold that what God determines must happen by necessity, but reasons that contingent rational beings with a significant use of free will are not coerced or forced to commit acts, which must occur by necessity.

A person can hold to hard determinism and believe that God determined all events without the significant use of free will of rational creatures.

P.S. Greenspan writes that compatibilism holds to free will and determinism being compatible. Greenspan (1998: 1).

Louis P. 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).

J.S. 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).

Feinberg 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).

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 acts. Stace (1952)(1976: 30).

Soft-determinism and compatibilism with the understanding of limited human free will present a model which has cause1 with God as first cause and cause2 with human beings as secondary causes of thoughts, acts and actions.

This could in cases include prayer; and would in cases include prayer.

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

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.

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

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.

Ephesians 5: Brief On Giving Thanks

Almalfi Coast, Italy-Facebook-Travel+Leisure

Almalfi Coast, Italy-Facebook-Travel+Leisure

Jon Courson

'Giving Thanks FOR Everything! Thanksgiving 2014 Ephesians 5:20 11-26-14'

I was listening to Pastor Jon Courson of Searchlight, online the other early morning as part of my bedtime wind-down after corporate security work.

He noted from Ephesians 5: 20, contrary to what many Biblical scholars state, based on Ephesians 5: 20, Christians are to always be thankful for all things; as opposed to always thankful for all things in Christ.

I state that theologically this would mean that Biblically one is to always be thankful for everything God wills.

As opposed to being thankful for what are perceived as all good things that do not include suffering, death and the problem of evil.

This includes things willed within both God's perfect will and permissible will.

So this would include suffering and death and the problem of evil within the permissible will of God.

Pastor Courson reasoned his point can be seen by reviewing Scripture.

So I will review three English texts

From the New American Standard Bible

Ephesians 5:20

New American Standard Bible (NASB)

20 always giving thanks for all things in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ to [a]God, even the Father;

Footnotes: Ephesians 5:20 Lit the God and Father New American Standard Bible (NASB) Copyright © 1960, 1962, 1963, 1968, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1975, 1977, 1995 by The Lockman Foundation Ephesians 5:20 in all English translations

From the English Standard Version

Ephesians 5:20

English Standard Version (ESV)

20 giving thanks always and for everything to God the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ,

English Standard Version (ESV) The Holy Bible, English Standard Version Copyright © 2001 by Crossway Bibles, a division of Good News Publishers. Ephesians 5:20 in all English translations 

From the King James Version

Ephesians 5:20

King James Version (KJV)

20 Giving thanks always for all things unto God and the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ;

King James Version (KJV) by Public Domain Ephesians 5:20 in all English translations

Reviewing a KJV-NIV Greek Interlinear

Ephesians 5:20

It is translated as giving thanks

'always'
pantote 

for

'all things'
pantwn

This is consistent with the English translations as well as the Greek manuscript versions presented via link below.

Greek New Testament

Also consistent with Greek New Testament cited.

I therefore, as I have concluded previously before hearing the sermon, from a basic English reading of Biblical texts and listening of Ephesians online reason that Pastor Courson's interpretation is correct.

This fits theologically well with soft-deterministic and compatibilistic concepts presented in Ephesians 1 of God choosing us in him before the foundation of the world (4) and that God predestined us to adoption as sons (daughters also in our modern context) through Jesus Christ through his will (5).

In Ephesians 2 it can be seen that those in Christ are saved by grace through faith, not of self unto good works (8-10).

Romans 8: 28-30 also demonstrates that God causes all things to work together for good for those who love God, to those called according to his purpose.

It would Biblically and theologically correct to view God as causing and willing all things, being perfectly good and for the good of those in Christ, therefore the Christian should always be thankful because God is providentially in charge as sovereign, working toward the good of those in Christ.

However, the great tension and counter is that in this fallen realm cursed with a problem of evil many sufferings befall each person; things occur which certainly persons wish would have not occurred. There is various types of human loss.

I admit my own significant resentment with God over some of these issues.

But a key from a Christian perspective is to stay true to the Scripture with its historical, religious documentation, gospel message, and theological truths in regard to the perfect nature of God and loving nature to persons as can be seen in the Gospel of John, for example.

Another key is to be thankful in principle, in an objective sense, always for all things that God does, as first cause, even when there may be significant human resentment and a subjective distaste for problems of suffering and evil encountered.

I am not in any way downplaying significant human suffering. Rather, I am acknowledging that God is infinite and sovereign, perfectly good and in control of the lives for the good of those in the Church. Christ, the Apostles, Prophets, and Job suffered, within Scripture, for example.

There is not only the future realm hope of the new creation (Revelation 21-22, 1 Corinthians 15) and more immediate the hope of the departed spirit in Paradise (2 Corinthians 12, Luke 23), but also there is hope in this present realm that God is still working for the better of those within the Church (Romans 8).

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

THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT (1993) Stuttgart, United Bible Societies.

Exclusivity of Jesus Christ From PhD

Castletown-Tower, Dundalk, Ireland-trekearth

My PhD work focused on theodicy, the problem of evil, free will and determinism, but the exclusivity of Jesus Christ for salvation can be observed.

Exclusivity of Jesus Christ From PhD with additions from November 21, 2014

Jesus Christ in his atoning work was not only a man, although he did take upon himself full humanity. His atoning death was that of a God-man that can save those that a mere man or creature could not.

Christ remained an incarnated true man even as he was resurrected immortal. Hughes (1990: 55).

A mere human being could not accomplish the mission and work Christ did. Schreck (1984: 16).

Both Christ’s humanity and deity played central roles in his atoning work and resurrection. Hughes (1990: 55).

The indicates the exclusive salvific abilities of Christ. Hebrews indicates Christ is the mediator of the new covenant 9: 15; Christ bore the sins of many 28, and shall appear again without reference to sin for a second time. The second advent to complete salvation, in a sense.

Christ is not simply a man blessed with a very special relationship with God, nor is he a divine being that appears to be human but really is not. Weber explains that only God could bring peace to God and humanity, and this takes place through Christ. Christ stood completely with human beings and yet was God. Weber (1955)(1981: 383).

Augustine viewed the atoning work of Christ as a means by which humanity can be brought back to a proper relationship with God. Augustine (398-399)(1992: 178). Christ would mediate humanity back to God. Augustine (398-399)(1992: 219).

A major reason why a sovereignty theodicy explains God wills all things, including evil and sin or the greater good is that with this and in particular, through the results of the atoning work and resurrection of Christ, God will ultimately rid his creation of the problem of evil. 

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. http://www.knight.org/advent

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.

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

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

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

Galaway, Ireland-Facebook and Travel+Leisure

Gnosis

Hohenschwangau Castle, Bavaria, Germany-Facebook

Blackburn

Gnosis from the Greek meaning knowledge

The root word is found in the words/concepts agnosticism, gnosticism, diagnosis, prognosis and the obsolete word for epistemology, gnoseology. Blackburn (1996: 159).

In the academic discipline of theology, gnosis is noted by Blackburn to be considered higher knowledge of spiritual things, referencing claims of such knowledge within gnosticism.  Blackburn (1996: 159).

Browning writes that gnosis, meaning knowledge, and gnosticism is a term used for 'a kind of religious speculation in vogue in the first two centuries CE'; the Church Fathers being hostile to it because of a perceived opposition to orthodox (Biblical my add) Christianity. Browning (1997: 151).

Gnosticism was a broad movement that did have influence over the Church, particularly in the second century states Grenz, Guretzki and Nordling; I John may, for example be attempting to answer and refute gnostic understandings. Pocket Dictionary (1999: 56).

Gnosticism would emphasize the spiritual realm over the material realm which was considered evil, often claiming it needed to be escaped. Pocket Dictionary (1999: 56).

In I John 2: 22, Jesus is the Christ and whomever denies this is the antichrist. The Father and the Son being denied. Also verse 23.

Jesus was both perfect human being and was and is infinite, eternal God. He was not simply spiritual, but took upon himself human physical nature in the incarnation. He was and is, infinite, eternal God, as God the Son within the trinity, now with a resurrected glorified physical human nature as well as spiritual nature as the Gospels, Acts, I Corinthians 15 and Revelation document.

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

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

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

Scientism

Prague-Facebook-Travel+Leisure

Scientism: A pejorative term for the concept that only the methods of natural science and related categories form the elements for any philosophical or other enquiry. Blackburn (1996: 344).

From Oxford

Scientism: 1 a a method or doctrine regarded as characteristic of scientists b the use of practice of this. 2 often derogatory, an excessive belief in or application of scientific method. Oxford (1995: 1236).

Briefly on Papal controversy

Catholic Herald UK October 31

Patrick Cusworth

Cited

'Pope Francis’s comments on the Big Bang are not revolutionary. Catholic teaching has long professed the likelihood of human evolution'

'Perhaps it was inevitable that Pope Francis’ comments on the Church’s position on scientific theories such as the Big Bang and evolution would cause a stir. In his address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, the Pope cautioned against the image of God the creator as “a magician, with a magic wand”, arguing that belief in both theories around the beginnings of the universe and the birth of humankind are consistent with the Catholic faith.'

'“The Big Bang, which is today posited as the origin of the world, does not contradict the divine act of creation; rather, it requires it”, he stated. Similarly, he argued, “evolution of nature is not inconsistent with the notion of creation because evolution pre-supposes the creation of beings which evolve.”'

'Yet despite further murmurings that Pope Francis was beginning (yet another) revolution in Catholic doctrine, it must be pointed out – the Pope’s declaration on either theory has not broken with established Catholic belief in the slightest.'

'The Big Bang theory, originally hypothesised in 1927 by Jesuit priest and physicist Georges Lemaître, is based on the central proposition that the universe is continually expanding. As a preposition, the universe was originally contained within a single point, in a highly intense state of heat and density. As the universe began to expand it cooled, allowing the formation of subatomic particles, which began a series of physical cosmological processes, which led eventually to the known universe. While this has become the most commonly accepted explanation for the beginnings of the universe, many scientists have previously expressed an instinctive opposition to the notion of a beginning point, since this would represent a question which science could not answer – as Professor Stephen Hawking concluded in his autobiography, “One would have to appeal to religion and the hand of God to determine how the universe started off”.'

'Turning to Pope Francis’ comments on evolution, Catholic teaching has long professed the likelihood of human evolution – albeit with the proviso that this takes place under the guidance of the Creator, and that special creation of the human soul is performed directly by God.'

'While it is refreshing to see the Pope’s pronouncements upon matters scientific reaching and being welcomed by individuals not generally well disposed toward the Church, the implicit suggestion that Pope Francis has somehow brought about a radical change in the Vatican worldview is a misleading one. The Church has a centuries-long history of promoting scientific inquiry – long may it continue.'

End Citations

The Big Bang theory does seemingly allow, as presented above for the philosophical, deductive possibility of a first cause, that theologically parallels the Biblical God.

I have cited Hamilton below, a textbook source from my Columbia Bible College BA work, previously on this site:

I do not have a problem viewing Genesis as a religious and not scientific book and therefore reason that the majority of scientists could be inductively correct that the universe and earth are billions of years old. At the same time, I remain open to how old the Universe may be according to scientific inductive evidence that may change over time.

Biblical history provides insights but most Hebrew Bible, Old Testament scholars, including conservative, do not appear from my PhD research to dogmatically age the earth based on Scripture.

Scientists should not be blamed for holding an inductive position of 'old earth' and 'old Universe' if the evidence supports, even if theologically somehow, it can be deduced that the Universe was created to look older as were Adam and Eve.

I reason Adam and Eve were created to look older (Genesis 2-3), but am not subscribing to that position for the creation of the Universe, but can acknowledge the theological possibility.

Victor P. Hamilton in his commentary on the Pentateuch explains that although he reviews Genesis, he will leave the creation vs. evolution debate to the scientist rather than the Biblical scholar. Hamilton (1988: 12).

It should be noted that every human Church institution is fallible, including the Roman Catholic Church, and that I hold to Reformed views primarily and am not Roman Catholic.

I am evangelical, at least on essential doctrines.

A person holding to scientism may abandon the need for a contextual evaluation of Scripture and the revealed word of God in regard to origins and creation; instead embracing, for example, Darwinian evolution, with macro-evolution.

As a moderate conservative Christian, I agree with other Biblical Christians that macro-evolution is not compatible with the Genesis 1-3 account. Biblically, the Universe was created ex nihlio, out of nothing by God, and then human beings from matter in the Genesis account and not as other creatures that evolved into human beings.

There is a need for openness to scientific truths without holding to scientism, as in being open to inductive scientific evidences, but never at the expenses of Biblical revelation and theological and philosophical, deductive evidences which demonstrate Biblical truths and the gospel.

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

THE CONCISE OXFORD DICTIONARY (1995) Della Thompson (ed.), Oxford, Clarendon Press.

HAMILTON, VICTOR P. (1988) Handbook on the Pentateuch, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.

Reinterpretation For 21st Century?

Northern Light-Norway-XG+

PhD Edit

With John Hick’s work on Soul-Making Theodicy, his approach to Scripture is to look at much of it metaphorically.[1]  Although his theodicy does have some merit, I reason by not looking at Scripture contextually, and instead assuming that it is not to be taken literally as metaphor in many cases,[2] his theodicy becomes hyper-speculative.[3]  I am not a fundamentalist, and do not reason Scripture should at every point be read plain literally,[4] but where contexts suggests,[5] Scripture should be read within the genre intended which could include figurative language.[6]  I reason that the Reformed approach to reading Scripture in context is more beneficial to producing a realistic functional theodicy,[7] than is Hick’s approach.[8]  This should not be interpreted as a complete dismissal of soul-making[9] or related soul-building concepts, as I view this as a reasonable concept within Hick’s approach.[10]

November 1, 2014

The theological concept of Scripture being literally the supernaturally revealed word of God, not intended as fictional metaphor to be later reinterpreted is essential. From the October 30 Briefing of Albert Mohler. Dr. Mohler quotes the ‘Time’ article from October 28, 2014 ‘What Christianity Without Hell Looks Like’.

Time October 28 

Cited

‘The idea that the Bible declares hell a real and literal place is no more valid than the toxic lie that the Bible condemns homosexuality.’

Yet the idea that hell is real persists. Why? Because over the centuries those in positions of power within the institutions of Christianity have methodically, relentlessly, and with great art used the doctrine of hell to exploit the innate fear of death that is harbored by one and all.

Show me a Christian terrified of hell, and I’ll show you a Christian ready to pay good money for the assurance that he is not going there.

If you don’t think the “doctrine” of hell is about the accrual of money and power, then God bless your naiveté.’

End citation

However, a naiveté of Scripture in context is being demonstrated here. 

Even if verses in regard to hell and everlasting punishment are not taken plain literally because of the use of figurative literal language, they are still describing a literal place of everlasting suffering for those outside of Christ, although in a different realm. A fictional, metaphorical abode is not under discussion.

Crockett’s view below is not a metaphorical view as in mythological in Hick’s sense, but rather metaphorical as in a figurative literal view of hell.

William V. Crockett suggests that his view is similar to that of John Calvin, and that eternal fire texts are better understood metaphorically. Crockett pointed out that metaphorical language was used throughout the New Testament, for example, heaven as a city was described in first century terms, a city surrounded by walls and gates.

Today that type of metaphorical language would be obsolete. Crockett also pointed out that hell is described in places like Matthew 8:12, 2 Peter 2:17, and Jude 14 as a place of darkness. So if it were a literally fiery hell, it would not be a place of darkness. Crockett believes that hell is a place of everlasting punishment, but that it is described metaphorically in the New Testament. Crockett noted that Hades is a temporary resting place for the unsaved, until they are thrown into the Lake of Fire, which is Gehenna.

It should also be pointed out as I have previously on my blogs that Christ is infinite God and perfect man, perfectly righteous and outlasted and covered finite and everlasting sin against the infinite God in the atonement.

Only he could serve as a suitable atonement for human sin.

Sin against God is not infinite because it had a beginning, but it is everlasting. Theologically and philosophically, only God is infinite having no beginning and no ending.

No finite, morally imperfect, unrighteous, human being could atone for his or her sin. Certainly not in any complete sense.

This would be true for any amount of time because the everlasting sin is against an infinite God and would not be covered.

Therefore, in justice, everlasting hell is just punishment for sin.

If annihilation took place, in order for it to be just, the atonement of Christ would have to universally cover each person, even the non-chosen, non-elect (Ephesians 1, Romans 8).

I do not see this as a clearly defined Biblical doctrine.

In regard to homosexuality, one can review it from a plain English reading or from the original Hebrew or Greek with lexicons to see that it is condemned, arsenokoitai.

Sodomites

The context of sodomites being within homosexuality.

Those being mentioned in 1 Corinthians 6:9 among those that will not inherit the Kingdom of God, along with fornicators, idolaters, adulterers and effeminate by perversion (according to the New American Standard Version).

Romans 1 explains homosexual activity as unnatural.
I am not stating that by 21^st Century standards this makes homosexual persons the worst sinners or anything like. From a Biblical, Reformed perspective, in Romans 3 in particular it becomes clear that all persons have a sinful nature and are apart from God’s righteousness. The solution is the righteousness of Christ and the atoning and resurrection work of the Gospel as can be seen in Romans 4-5 and throughout the text.

Practically and personally speaking, therefore, I do not create a special worse sinfulness category for my LGBT and related non-Christian readers and friends which I admit sadly is sometimes is done within fundamentalist and evangelical Christianity.

Rather according to Romans, all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God (Romans 3: 23), including me. All would be in need of the atoning and resurrection work of Christ for salvation. Within this salvation repentance needs to occur. 

As an academic, philosopher and theologian, objectively as possible, no one having complete objectivity, I am attempting to state what the Scripture states. 

Reinterpretation does not allow that to take place. 

Greek New Testament

FRETHEIM, TERENCE E. (1985)(2005) ‘The Suffering of God:
An Old Testament Perspective’, in Theology Today, Volume 1, Number 1, Bookreview17. Princeton, Princeton Theological Seminary.

FRETHEIM, TERENCE E. (1994) ‘Is Genesis 3 a Fall Story?’, in Word and World, Luther Seminary, pp. 144-153. Saint Paul, Luther Seminary.

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.

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

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

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. 

---

[1] Hick (1970: 172).  He wrote, for example, in 1993 The Metaphor of God Incarnate, Louisville, Kentucky, John Know Press.

[2] Hick (1970: 172). 

[3] Roth complains that it is overly optimistic in its speculation.  Roth in Davis (2001: 62).

[4] To read anything plain literally when grammar and context provide reasons to read the text otherwise, would be non-academic and philosophically troubling.

[5] Fretheim (1994: 153).  La Sor, Hubbard, and Bush (1987: 72).

[6] Fretheim (1994: 153).  La Sor, Hubbard, and Bush (1987: 72).

[7] The idea being to let God speak, since God is the one being questioned in the context of theodicy.

[8] Hick (1970: 172). 

[9] Hick (1970: 292).

[10] Hick (1970: 292).