 |
| Munich-Facebook |
Erickson is a major helpful theological source with my MPhil/PhD United Kingdom theses. I am also usually in agreement with his views.
Doctrines
Baptist, Millard J.
Erickson (1994) comments that doctrines need not be maintained precisely with
the same form of expression that they were in Biblical times.[1] Erickson also points out that not all other
sources of knowledge and truth need to be excluded from Christian teaching.[2] Erickson’s point that God’s word, although
an unchanging message must be interpreted for each era.[3] This in no way allows for an overhaul of
major, traditional Christian doctrines from traditional and Reformed
perspectives, but with the use of practical and empirical approaches there
would be opportunities to understand Christian theology in modern terms.
He explains that
systematic theology draws upon the entire Bible and does not exegete texts in
isolation.[4] It attempts to analyze and understand
Scriptural teachings in a harmonized way.[5] He makes it clear that Biblical doctrines may
not necessarily be maintained precisely with the same form of expression as
they were in Biblical times, and notes philosophical truth can be found from
other sources.[6]
Omnipotence
Millard Erickson writes that God cannot do any arbitrary thing he
desires,[7]
as he can only accomplish what is logical and not illogical and contradictory.[8] Erickson also reasons, interestingly, that
God cannot undo the past,[9]
although he may take away the effects and memory of it.[10] God cannot logically violate his own nature[11]
or fail to live up to a promise.[12] Erickson does point
out that within the Bible God is called Almighty,[13]
and that for God all things are possible.[14]
Sovereignty
Erickson takes a reasonable compatibilistic
position and writes God with foreknowledge sees many possibilities and
influences that will be present, and then acts accordingly to his will.[15] Erickson writes that sovereignty is a major
tenent within Calvinism as God is considered the Lord of all things, and is
free to do as he wills.[16]
God does not grow or develop, as there
are no variations in his nature at different points within his existence.[17]
God is immanent as he is present and active within
creation, human nature, and history.[18]
Corrupted nature
Erickson suggests that due to Adam’s sin, all
human beings received a corrupted nature,[19]
and this is viewed as the imputation of original sin to persons.[20] All persons are not personally responsible
for Adam’s sin, but all have inherited a corrupt nature.[21]
Perfect and permissible will
Perfect and permissible will
For Erickson, God’s perfect will, will 1 as he
calls it, is God’s general intention and what pleases him most.[22] God’s will 2, is God’s specific intention in
every given situation and what God actually decides will occur.[23] This is permissible will. Erickson explains that there are many times
when evil and sin occur that God, in his perfect will, does not wish these
events to take place, but permits them.[24] Erickson writes that with will 2, since God
does not intervene to prevent particular evil and sin, he permissibly wills it.[25] Therefore, Biblically and theologically, in
one sense, God causes evil.[26] When God does not intervene and prevent evil
and sin, he therefore willingly allows it and is the cause of it.[27] Erickson points out that God never tells
someone to commit evil or sin.[28] Since God is infinite,[29]
omnipotent,[30]
and omniscient[31]
as discussed, when he does not follow his perfect will causing only good and,
instead, follows his permissible will, which at times causes evil and sin, he
therefore, theologically, is the cause of evil.[32]
Keeping in my based on Scripture in regard to the holiness of God, via the commandments for example, that God has holy and good motives in all willed.
Keeping in my based on Scripture in regard to the holiness of God, via the commandments for example, that God has holy and good motives in all willed.
EDWARDS, JONATHAN (1729)(2006) Sovereignty of God, New Haven,
Connecticut, Jonathan Edwards Center, Yale University.
EDWARDS, JONATHAN (1731-1733)(2006) Law of Nature, New Haven, Connecticut,
Jonathan Edwards Center, Yale University.
EDWARDS, JONATHAN (1754)(2006) Freedom of the Will, Flower Mound,
Texas. Jonathanedwards.com.
ERICKSON, MILLARD (1994) Christian Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker
Book House.
ERICKSON, MILLARD (2003) What Does God Know and When Does He Know It?, Grand Rapids, Zondervan.
KREEFT, PETER AND RONALD K. TACELLI
(1994) Handbook of Christian Apologetics,
Downers Grove, Illinois, InterVarsity Press.
ROTH, JOHN K. ‘Introduction’
(1892-1907)(1969) in The Moral Philosophy
of William James, John K. Roth (ed.), Thomas Y. Crowell Company, New York.
ROTH, JOHN K. (1981) Encountering Evil, Stephen T. Davis
(ed.), Atlanta, John Knox Press.
SHEDD, WILLIAM G.T. (1874-1890)(1980) Dogmatic Theology, Volume 1, Nashville, Thomas Nelson
Publishers.
SHEDD, WILLIAM G.T. (1874-1890)(1980) Dogmatic Theology, Volume 2, Nashville, Thomas Nelson
Publishers.
WEBER, OTTO (1955)(1981) Foundations of Dogmatics, Volumes 1 and
2, Translated and annotated by Darrell L. Guder, William B. Eerdmans Publishing
Company.
[1]
Erickson (1994: 37).
[2]
Erickson (1994: 37). Including studies
in science and medicine.
[3]
Erickson (1994: 37).
[5]
Erickson (1994: 21).
[8] Erickson
(1994: 277). For Shedd a logical impossibility is a nonentity and God could not
create a nonentity. Shedd
(1874-1890)(1980: 359-360 Volume 1).
[10] Erickson
(1994: 277). The implication being that
God could hypothetically change all the results of a past occurrence, but could
not logically make the past occurrence to have not occurred, even if only he
had any ultimate knowledge of it.
[15]
Erickson (1994: 360).
[16]
Erickson (1994: 915).
[20]
Erickson (1994: 638).
[21]
Erickson (1994: 638).
[23]
Erickson (1994: 361).
[24]
Erickson (1994: 361).
[25]
Erickson (1994: 361).
[27] This
concept provides opportunities for a critic such as Roth to state that God
should repent of his evil. Roth (1981: 10). Atheists will often conclude that such a God
is nonsensical and conceivably some incompatibilists will reason this God is
unworthy of worship.
[28]
Erickson (1994: 361).
[29]
Erickson (1994: 272). Kreeft and Tacelli
(1994: 92).
[30]
Thiessen (1956: 126). Erickson (1994:
276). Kreeft and Tacelli (1994: 96).
[31]
Thiessen (1956: 124). Erickson (1994:
275). Kreeft and Tacelli (1994:
96).
.jpg) |
| Looking serious @ corporate security...I walked approximately six hours yesterday, a lot of it by my initiative. |
