Revelation: Heaven is tainted by evil?

Edinburgh: Pinterest

From the non-dogmatic theology department

Brief and non-exhaustive

Recently in my studies I listened to a sermon (paraphrased) that opined the new heaven and new earth mentioned in the biblical books of Isaiah and Revelation, would be ultimately recreated (re-created), ex nihilo (out of nothing). This opposed to being restored.

As noted, I am not dogmatic on what exactly the biblical new heaven and earth will entail. However, this view reasons that God had to (paraphrased) complete an ex nihilo creation as opposed to a restoration because heaven, like the physical realm of matter through satanic and human falls (Genesis 1-3), was corrupted by the problem of evil because of Satan's access to God in heaven (Job 1).

Heaven is in one sense, being in the supernatural presence of God. In this sense it is a non-physical and supernatural realm. It is not heaven or the heavens with any material meaning. Browning explains that biblically 'heaven can refer to the region of the atmosphere or also to a supernatural world.' (166). Within the view presented there was not a significant distinction between these two concepts of heaven.

In the future (Revelation 20-22) as satanic beings will be cast into the lake of fire, it can be deduced that they will no longer have access to God in heaven. In a spiritual realm, once Satan or hypothetically, any fallen angel is no longer present, there is no evil present in supernatural heaven. Therefore, there is no required heavenly recreation, or restoration, for that matter. God is infinite and divine eternal goodness is not tainted by evil (Mark 10: 18).

Due to the fall (Genesis, Revelation), there is biblically, minimally a need for the restoration of the physical universe, including the earth. I admit that possibly a physical, material, ex nihilo recreation, is reasonable, biblical theology.

The New Testament concept of 'paradise' presents deceased, human beings, spiritually in the presence of God. It may possibly feature simulated physicality for human benefit. (Luke 23, 2 Corinthians 12, Philippians 1). I do not see good evidence on why this realm of heaven, being within the presence of God, would be tainted by evil and therefore there would be a need for recreation or even restoration, for that matter. It seems to me that the supernatural heaven in any context, is not tainted by either a satanic or human fall. Through the atonement, reasonably sin could be purged from the spiritual state of citizens of paradise.

Mounce acknowledges that Isaiah did mention the concepts of a new heaven and new earth. (368). This he documents within Isaiah, Chapters 65-66. (368). He notes that 'renovation of the old order is a concept which belongs to the common stock of apocalyptic tradition.' (369). This idea would be in contrast to this view, support a restoration theology as opposed to a theology of ex nihilo recreation. The creation is renewed. (369).

Mounce states:

'Probably the new order of things is not to be thought of primarily as a physical transformation.' (369).

Mounce reasons that most scholars allow for varying levels of literal interpretation in regard to the new creation. (369). In contrast, the view presented appears to support largely plain literal interpretations of eschatological and creation texts, likely within a dispensationalist tradition.

Mounce further demonstrates the rather figurative literal (not mythological) nature of this eschatological language in Revelation. The reference to 'no longer any sea' (New American Standard Bible, my add) is likely a reference to a dread of the sea by many ancient cultures. The sea was viewed as an evil. To state that through the metaphorical use of 'sea' that evil will no longer exist in the new order, seems far more intellectually palatable than attempting to explain the lack of major water bodies in a new creation within an everlastingly liveable universe for human beings.

Although resurrected persons have a spiritual body (1 Corinthians 15: 44), they still have physical qualities and live in a physical universe. As resurrected human beings in Christ still have a restored, physical nature and attributes, quite reasonably, the universe and earth should also have restored physical attributes. Perhaps a restored earth will be similar to the pre-fall Garden of Eden? Perhaps it will have more spiritual aspects than at present?

David F. Payne in his 2 Peter commentary opines that everything on the earth will be 'laid bare', is probably a more correct text than stating everything will be 'burned up'. (1569). This would lead to the theology of eschatological restoration as opposed to eschatological recreation.

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

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

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

Tumblr and Google+: This fits with a recreation view?

New York, Boston, London, Paris & symbolic logic

Google+

Continuing on with the review of the Langer philosophical text, learning and sharing findings.

On page 111 it states:

'Express symbolically the propositional forms exemplified by:'

B.

New York is greater than Boston.

London is greater than Paris.

Paris is greater than London.

C.

If Paris is greater than London, then London is not greater than Paris.

If London is greater than Paris, then Paris is not greater than London.

The symbol > as in greater than is suggested for use by Langer. (111).

Some key symbols from the text

˜ = not
⊃ = means the same as
∃ = there exists
∃! = there exists
⊨ = entails

N > B ⊨ B < N
(New York is greater than Boston entails Boston is less than New York)

N > B ⊃ B < N
(New York is greater than Boston means the same as Boston is less than New York)

How New York is supposedly greater than Boston is not defined within this philosophical text.

P ˜ <  L

(Paris is not less than London)

E ⊨ (P, L) Brackets sometimes used for clarification.

Europe entails Paris and London.

∃!E or ∃!(E)
∃E or ∃(E)

Europe exists (There exists Europe).

I can deduce that this type of written communication could, if defined properly, clarify some philosophical and theological issues, or at least provide a different explanation.

LANGER, SUSANNE K (1953)(1967) An Introduction to Symbolic Logic, Dover Publications, New York.

foxlimousines.co.uk

Low probability fallacy and the supernatural

Piclogy: Twitter, Budapest

Low probability fallacy and the supernatural

Preface 

December 14, 2016, edited October 7, 2023 for an entry on academia.edu.

Back to the review of

PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London.

Ex-post-facto statistics

Pirie reasons:

'...there are innumerable statistical fallacies ready to trap the unwary and aid the unethical.' (102).

'I draw the ace of spades. It was only a 1 in 52 chance, but it came up.

(The same applied to all cards, but one had to come up.)' (102).

'We cannot draw too many conclusions from the low 'probability' of certain past events'. (102).

'The fallacy is committed when we go on to suppose, from the occurrence of events of low probability, that something supernatural was operating...' (102).

This is reasonable from Pirie, in my view.

'This fallacy is a great prop for those who suppose themselves the children of destiny.' (103). Basing this view on the unlikely events that occurred in life.' (103).

There is the scientific concept of probability:

'The likelihood of a particular event occurring.  If there are n equally likely outcomes of some experiment, and a ways in which event E could occur, then the probability of event E is a/n.' Oxford (662).

If there were 7 equally likely outcomes of an experiment, and 8 equal ways in which the event (E) could occur: E=7/8 probability.

The science is also reasonable.

Reasonable and rational, Christian faith and philosophy is not primarily based in subjective views with low probability. The resurrection of Jesus Christ, for example, is documented in the textual religious history, known as the New Testament, and was also attested to by Church Fathers, who were basically disciples of the New Testament disciples and apostles. The resurrection is held to as doctrine because it is textually witnessed by disciples, apostles and associates.

Resurrection as doctrine was held to as intellectually certain, as in internal and external evidences 'for' were significantly stronger than internal and external evidences 'against' and those in the Christian community acted accordingly. The Christian belief is the resurrection of Christ, and the future resurrection of believer's in Christ (1 Corinthians 15, Revelation 21-22), for that matter, is not based on either high or low probability.

If interested see in 'search' top right, my writings on 'certainty', which is philosophically, not 100% certainty, because humanity lacks infinite knowledge. From my PhD thesis and website work.

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

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

CLINES, DAVID, J. A. (1986), 2 Corinthians, The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Zondervan. 

DUNNETT, WALTER M. (2001) Exploring the New Testament, Wheaton, Crossway Books. 

EELLS, ELLERY (1996) 'Probability', in Robert Audi (ed.), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, pp. 649-650. Cambridge University Press.

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

FEE, GORDON (1987) The First Epistle to the Corinthians, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

FLEW, ANTONY, R.M. HARE, AND BASIL MITCHELL (1983) (1996) ‘The Debate on the Rationality of Religious Belief’, in L.P. Pojman (ed.), Philosophy, The Quest for Truth, New York, Wadsworth Publishing Company.

HOCKING, DAVID (2014) The Book of Revelation, Tustin, California, HFT Publications.

KLEIN, PETER D. (1996) ‘Certainty’, in Robert Audi, (ed), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. 

KLEIN, PETER D. (1998, 2005). ‘Epistemology’, in E. Craig (ed.), Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, London, Routledge. 

MARSH, PAUL W. in Bruce, F.F. (ed.), (1986), First Corinthians, The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Zondervan.

MOLTMANN, JÜRGEN (1993) The Crucified God, Minneapolis, Fortress Press.

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

Oxford Dictionary of Science, (2010), Sixth Edition, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London.

SLUGA, HANS (1996) ‘Wittgenstein’, in Robert Audi, (ed.), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. 

WITTGENSTEIN, LUDWIG (1951)(1979) On Certainty, Basil Blackwell, Oxford.

Key Problem of Evil texts

Today: The Incredible Hulk's Christmas tree...

I visited my former church in Vancouver today and had an interesting discussion on 'evil' during lunch at a Japanese restaurant. I share this entry in order to relearn and assist.

PhD, University of Wales Trinity Saint David, Lampeter, 2010 

MPhil, Bangor University, 2003

January 2007: Different version 

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 was one of the first ancient writers to deal with the problem of evil. Peterson, Hasker, Reichenbach, and Basinger (1996: 231). Within On Free Choice of the Will, Augustine presents his free will theodicy, theodicy being an explanation for the problem of evil in a theistic universe.

Augustine was somewhat influential on Alvin C. Plantinga’s free will defence in the 1970’s. Plantinga (1977)(2002: 26). Augustine reasons that God is not the cause of evil, but rather human beings create the problem when they choose to follow their own temporal ways rather than God’s. Augustine (388-395)(1964: 3). A possible problem with Augustine’s view is that he blames the problem of evil on human choice but at the same time places a heavy emphasis on God’s sovereignty in creation. Augustine’s view on human free will appears libertarian while, as John Feinberg points out, Augustine’s concept of God’s sovereignty would seemingly require some form of determinism. Feinberg (1994: 98).

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

Plantinga successfully demonstrates that a free will defence is logical and reasonable. Plantinga (1977)(2002: 28). He speculates that the price of God creating a universe with significantly free creatures is that wrong actions will inevitably occur leading to the problem of evil. Plantinga (1977)(2002: 30). Plantinga’s free will approach is not primarily theological as is Augustine’s and therefore offers a different but somewhat related perspective.

A question arises if Plantinga has really successfully answered the objection of theistic critics such as Feinberg, and atheists such as J.L. Mackie on why God could not simply create human beings who were significantly free and never committed wrong actions. I believe that God could have created significantly free human beings, or at least human-like creatures that only committed right actions. Perhaps God desired to create human beings that would ultimately posses a greater spiritual maturity than Adam and Eve prior to the fall because those restored in Christ would have experienced sin, the problem of evil, death and the atoning work and resurrection of Christ.

Quite possibly restored human beings would ultimately be more spiritually mature and valuable to God than persons that never knew what it was like to disobey God and experience evil. I would also point out that Biblically speaking the angels that did not fall would seemingly be significantly free and have not committed wrong actions.

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

Within this text Feinberg presents a defence which could be labelled a sovereignty theodicy. My personal sovereignty theodicy is embedded within my MPhil and more so my PhD and is somewhat similar to Feinberg’s work. As well as presenting his own perspective Feinberg does a thorough job of reviewing various theistic and atheistic concepts on the problem of evil. He reasons that God does not presently eliminate the problem of evil because to do so would violate divine plans and human development. Feinberg (1994: 130).

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

In the case of human sin, John Calvin did not believe that God used hard determinism as in forcing or coercing human sin, and nor do I. I agree that God can use human sin for the greater good, yet human beings have limited free will and freely sin by choice within a sinful nature.

Calvin stated concerning free will: If freedom is opposed to coercion, I both acknowledge and consistently maintain that choice is free and I hold anyone who thinks otherwise to be a heretic. If, I say, it were called free in this sense of not being coerced nor forcibly moved by an external impulse, but moving of its own accord, I have no objection. Calvin (1543)(1996: 68).

Human beings in Calvin’s thinking were not forced by God to sin, but God as an infinite being had and used the power to use their sin for the greater good. So to say that God willed evil for the greater good means that God could use sinful actions of others in order to accomplish his divine purpose.

Calvin stated: For we do not say that the wicked sin of necessity in such a way as to imply that they sin without wilful and deliberate evil intent. The necessity comes from the fact that God accomplishes his work, which is sure and steadfast, through them. At the same time, however, the will and purpose to do evil which dwells within them makes them liable to censure. But, it is said, they are driven and forced to this by God. Indeed, but in such a way that in a single deed the action of God is one thing and their own action is another. For they gratify their evil and wicked desires, but God turns this wickedness so as to bring his judgements (judgments) to execution. Calvin (1543)(1996: 37).

God could set up events in such a way that someone would freely choose to sin, but this is not done in such a way that God is forcing or hard determining one to do so.

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

Hick rejects Augustinian and Calvinistic views on theodicy, and instead supports what he views as the Irenean position. Hick (1970: 221). Ramsay (2004: 2). Hick also rejects conservative Christian doctrines and instead favours the idea of universalism. Hick (1970: 172). Hick (1970: 381). He reasons that human beings were made immature and capable of committing wrong human actions in order that God eventually can bring all persons to the creator through soul-making. Hick (1970: 292).

I can accept that some type of soul-making is used by God in the development of believers, but without the atoning work of Christ and resurrection within a Christian tradition we do not have a revealed divine means of salvation and are left to speculate on how God should or could save persons, as Hick speculates.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RAMSAY, MEGHAN (2004) ‘John Hick: ‘Evil and Soul Making’, Philosophy of Religion, (ed.) Philip A. Pecorino, Web Surfers Caveat, Suffolk, Virginia, Philosophy of Religion. http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/pecorip/

Fear Inspired Silence

Photo taken this evening after arriving home from work in Vancouver

A kind co-worker, at our Vancouver work meeting today suggested I could present a webinar and related in regard to practical problems of suffering and evil.

As in for example: How does a person deal with the death of a loved one?

In agreement with this colleague, I am God-willing, aiming for greater ministry exposure in the future.

I have dealt with practical problems of evil and suffering in my British theses work and independently on this website.

From

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

I can interject and state that academically solving the logical and gratuitous problems of evil by tying them back to God is an ultimate intellectual solution, but there are still practical ramifications to deal with, such as why certain evils occur. The fact that a sovereignty theodicy can logically and reasonably solve its problem of evil, does not mean that suffering often comes with an explanation.

Practical theology and empirical data can strengthen and complement a successful Biblically inspired sovereignty theodicy by explaining how the common church member and attendee deals with theological concepts relating to theodicy.

A theodicy can be adjusted in order to better assist persons in the Christian Church by being adaptable in message without compromising Biblical and intellectual integrity. I also reason that a logical and reasonable sovereignty theodicy presentation, even with its limitations, provides greater comfort to those trusting in the Biblical God and Christ than does fear inspired silence which completely capitulates to notions that human beings cannot in any meaningful way possibly understand why a holy God willingly allows evil within his creation.

From

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

The problem seen from the Road, is very different. Those on the Road are suffering, and are wondering how on earth they will cope with it, and continue the life of faith as they suffer. They are participating in suffering, not observing it at a safe distance. Their difficulties are practical, not theoretical. They need something to help them keep going on that Road. The uncommitted and detached perspective of the Balcony seems to have little bearing on their position. McGrath (1992: 5).

I believe that the true solution to the problem of evil, in practical terms, is the work of Christ. His work leads to the culminated Kingdom of God where evil is arrested. At this point, the philosophical problem may still exist, but it is rather academic!

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

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

Church in Hard Places: Brief Review

NBC news

Some key citations from the PDF version of:

McConnell, Mez and Mike McKinley. Church in Hard Places: How the Local Church Brings Life to the Poor and Needy. Wheaton, IL: Crossway (2016):

I was asked to read this text by the Director of Prayer Current. I read through the book in a day and thought there were some significant theological and philosophical statements. This a very brief review, due to media type limitations.

My further comments underlined.

Citations

'How do you break through the intellectual pride of a worldview that thinks religion is beneath them and that science has all the answers? How do you witness in an area where the average house price is more than $400,000? How do you talk to a guy who feels no need for Christ because he is distracted by his materialism?' (20)

There is a great worldview divide, in Western societies. Secularism is held to by many. Biblical Christianity, by relatively few.

'They don’t need bread; they need an entirely new way of life.'  (28).

This citation is in regard to the poor.

'A false or even an incomplete gospel is like a sugar pill. It might fool the patient into thinking he will get better, but it doesn’t have the power to cure him.' (39).

There is significant false teaching and error both within and outside of the Christian Church. There are of plenty of counterfeit gospels.

'Many people have a sliding scale when it comes to sin. So as long as they feel that they are not harming people or are not at the bad end of the spectrum, then they are going to be all right. But they are wrong. The Bible is clear that we don’t start with a clean slate and then get judged on what we have done. We all start guilty. We are already condemned, however good we think we are or are not.'  (40).

Humanity is corrupt by nature and needs enlightenment and regeneration by the Holy Spirit, through the atonement and resurrection of Christ, applied to believers. John 1-3, Romans, Galatians, Hebrews.

'Conversion is a work of God’s Spirit from start to finish, but people still need to be persuaded. In our teaching, we must be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks (1 Pet. 3:15).' (100).

This is good Biblical, Reformed, theology. In agreement with my Wales' MPhil and PhD theology presented where I highlighted often the need for preaching and teaching in order to persuade persons within a regeneration process from God.

'First, in the garden of Eden God’s people lived in communion with him. After Adam and Eve’s rebellion, he dissolved their immediate fellowship and expelled them from the garden. He established a perimeter around the garden and charged an angelic guard to keep the humans out. While they remained righteous, they were “in”; when they sinned, they were “out.”' (119).

This is a theological key. The Garden of Eden, may have been a physical, spiritual environment, set-apart from the rest of the planet earth. Humanity was barred from this earthyly paradise after the fall. Therefore, the angels stood as guards. This area now no longer in existence. Further, the physical laws of the universe may not have changed due to the human fall; rather humanity was taken from a protected paradise and sent to the present earthly realm.

 'We knew exactly what to do and say in order to get the things that we wanted with minimum engagement. Churches were particularly good targets because the people were generally nice, they would be kind to you, they were less savvy than government agencies, and all we had to do was sit through some God-talk and maybe take a booklet.' (177).

A peril of Christian ministry. A peril of urban Christian work.

Prayer Current.com Website under construction.

The problem of evil and justice (PhD)

Google+

Edited excerpts from Theodicy and Practical Theology, 2010, PhD, The University of Wales, Trinity Saint David.

Theodicy & Justice

The term theodicy arose from G.W. Leibniz’ book in 1710 entitled Theodicy.[1] Robert M. Adams (1996) notes that the word theodicy is from the Greek, as theos is God and dike is justice. [2] 

Theodicy is a defence of the justice of God in the face of objections arising from the problem of evil in the world.[3] 

Dewi Zephaniah Phillips [4] admits that ‘philosophizing about the problem of evil has become common place.’ [5] 

There are ‘theories, theodicies and defences abound.’[6] These are all seeking to somehow justify God,[7] or to render the concept of God as untenable.[8] Phillips rightly reasons that such work should be done with fear,[9] as approaches to the problem of evil in error could ‘betray the evils people have suffered.’[10]

Such explanation should never be overly simplistic, insensitive or ridiculous.[11] Phillips warns that pro-religious philosophical presentations can often do more damage to the cause of theodicy than can the work of critics.[12] 

Critical philosophy & Justice

Hille reasons that a satisfactory self-coherent answer to the question of the justice of God cannot be found in theology or philosophy.[13] Ferraiolo explains that many critics of theism would claim the existence of gratuitous evil makes a theodicy a difficult thing to establish in our present world filled with evil.[14] He concludes his article by noting it is not obvious that human suffering is reconcilable with theism.[15]  Bertrand Russell (1957)(1976) states that since the universe often lacks justice presently there is no good scientific reason to believe that God would eventually bring about justice.[16]

Theology & Justice

However, Augustine (421)(1998) notes that God did well, even in the permission of what was evil, as he permitted it for the sake of judgment, and his justice is perfect.[17] This gospel associated theodicy view allows for the possibility of forgiveness of sins within the atonement for persons and for persons to experience the ultimate justice of God’s culminated Kingdom.[18] Bloesch explains that in the context of atonement and justice[19] with God’s holiness he forgives and forbears and demonstrates his love.[20]  

There is within my Reformed theodicy concepts of ultimate justice[21] and deliverance from the problem of evil and its results,[22] but as a Christian scholar attempting to be as accurate in understanding as possible, I must include the concept that sin must first be atoned for in Christ[23] before a person can experience the benefits of a culminated Kingdom free from evil and suffering.[24]

God’s justice can be understood somewhat, but for the sufferer to realize theologically that death is a result of human sin and a corrupt world system,[25] it is not really all that comforting, although the concept is Biblically and theologically correct. The helpful traditional practical explanation that the resurrection awaits those who trust in Christ, is both theoretically and practically sound, and may be of comfort to a believer. Yes, God is a creator who demands justice, but through the atoning work and resurrection of Christ, his love and grace is also shown to followers. The resurrection of Christ, from a traditional perspective, is also not purely a theological concept, as the Kingdom of God is progressing towards its culmination.[26]  It can be pointed out practically that the resurrection of Christ as King has to take place for a culminated Kingdom of God to ultimately occur.[27]

ADAMS, ROBERT. M. (1996) ‘Theodicy’, in Robert Audi (ed.), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BLOCHER, HENRI. (1994) Evil and the Cross, Translated by David G. Preston, Leicester, InterVarsity Press.

FEINBERG, JOHN.S. (1986) Predestination and Free Will, in 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.

FERRAIOLO, WILLIAM (2005) ‘Eternal Selves and The Problem of Evil’, in Quodlibet Journal, Volume 7, Number 2, April-June, Evanston, Illinois, Quodlibet Journal.

HILLE, ROLF (2004) ‘A Biblical-Theological Response to the Problem of Theodicy in the Context of the Modern Criticism of Religion’, in Evangelical Review of Theology, Volume 28, Number 1, pp. 21-37. Carlisle, UK, Evangelical Review of Theology.

HUME, DAVID (1739-1740)(1973) ‘A Treatise of Human Nature’, in Paul Edwards and Arthur Pap (eds.), A Modern Introduction To Philosophy, New York, The Free Press.

HUME, DAVID (1779)(2004)  Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, Digireads.com/Neeland Media LLC, Lawrence, Kansas.

LEIBNIZ, G.W. (1710)(1998) Theodicy, Translated by E.M. Huggard Chicago, Open Court Classics.

MOLTMANN, JÜRGEN (1993) The Crucified God, Minneapolis, Fortress Press.

MOLTMANN, JÜRGEN (1999) ‘Perseverance’, in Alan Richardson and John Bowden (eds.), New Dictionary of Christian Theology, Kent, SCM Press Ltd.

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

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

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.

RUSSELL, BERTRAND (1957)(1976) Why I am not a Christian, Simon and Schuster Inc., in John R. Burr and Milton Goldinger (eds.), Philosophy and Contemporary Issues, London, Collier Macmillan Publishers.  

---

[1] Leibniz, G.W. (1710)(1998) Theodicy.

[2] Adams (1996: 794).

[3] Adams (1996: 794). David Hume in Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion explains that geniuses over the ages have continued to look for proofs and arguments concerning God.  Hume (1779)(2004: 2). Theodicy would involve demonstrating that God exists and is good even as the problem of evil exists.

[4] Unfortunately Phillips died within the time frame of writing this thesis (1934-2006).

[5] Phillips (2005: xi).

[6] Phillips (2005: xi).

[7] Phillips (2005: xi). 

[8] Phillips (2005: xi).  Most often atheistic attempts, or those critical of Christian thought.

[9] Phillips (2005: xi). 

[10] Phillips (2005: xi). 

[11] Phillips (2005: xi). I can agree with this point in general terms, but there will certainly be disagreement between writers on the negative and positive aspects of various theodicy.

[12] Phillips (2005: xi).  Henry Blocher warns that theodicy as a philosophical defence of God fails on its own, unless backed up by Scripture.  Blocher (1994: 84). Phillips and Blocher would both be critical of poorly constructed theodicy approaches, even as their perspectives on theodicy are not identical.

[13] Hille (2004: 26).

[14] Ferraiolo (2005: 1).

[15] Ferraiolo (2005: 1).

[16] Russell (1957)(1976: 120).

[17] Augustine (421)(1998: Chapter 96: 48).

[18] Mounce explains that the Great White Throne judgment of Revelation 20 is not an arbitrary judgment of God but is based on the works of each person.  Mounce (1990: 365-366).  It is sign of the ultimate justice of God for all persons.

[19] Bloesch (1987: 97).

[20] Bloesch (1987: 97).

[21] Mounce (1990: 365-366). 

[22] Feinberg (1994: 141). Moltmann (1993: 178). Mounce (1990: 372). 

[23] On this matter I do not see myself as a judge of those outside of Christ, but rather as one reporting within the best of my ability, by the guidance of the Holy Spirit, what Scripture states about human sin and salvation.

[24] Sin, death and suffering will not exist in the culminated Kingdom.  Mounce (1990: 372).

[25] Bloesch (1987: 16). 

[26] Moltmann (1993: 171-172).

[27] Moltmann (1993: 171-172).

Holy (PhD Edit)

Morguefile.com

Concerning the idea of God being holy, Stanley J. Grenz, David Guretzki and Cherith Fee Nordling (1999) write the term holy is a Biblical idea, generally meaning to be set apart. Grenz, Guretzki, and Nordling (1999: 60). It is described of God who is set apart from his creation, pure from any of the evil within it. Grenz, Guretzki, and Nordling (1999: 60).

Mennonite Old Testament scholar Elmer A. Martens (1990) suggests holiness is concerned with the idea of separation, not separation from something, but separation to something. Martens (1990: 94). Biblically this type of holiness has to do with separation of a person to God. Martens (1990: 94).

Augustine writes that God is holy and the sovereign divine governor of the universe who is completely just in punishing evildoers, and God is not the cause of their wrong actions. Augustine (388-395)(1964: 3). God can rightly judge people because each evil person is the cause of his/her rebellion against God. Augustine (388-395)(1964: 3).

I would suggest, from a Reformed perspective, what God allows as an omnipotent being, he therefore wills, but remains moral and holy in nature. This is a compatibilistic, yet Biblical model. Divine motivation remains holy and perfectly good. Theologically, the death of Christ leading to the atonement and resurrection, imputed to believers, is probably the best biblical example of God using the evil within his creation, most notably sinful thoughts and actions of humanity and demonic beings, for the good of his Kingdom.

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.

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

MARTENS, ELMER A. (1990) God’s Design: A Focus on Old Testament Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.

All cats are selfish?

All cats are selfish?

The existential fallacy

November 24, 2016 article edited for an entry on academia.edu on January 8, 2023

Photo

cat_hiding_in_the_sofa-700x560 anything.net 2016

PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London.

Note

A formal fallacy is concerned with presenting a logical form to avoid being fallacious, and an informal fallacy occurs when there are errors in reasoning with a premise (s) and conclusion.

Existential Fallacy 

Logically fallacious website referencing...

GOODMAN, M. F. (1983) First Logic, University Press of America, USA.

Cited 

'Description: A formal logical fallacy, which is committed when a categorical syllogism employs two universal premises (“all”) to arrive at a particular (“some”) conclusion. In a valid categorical syllogism, if the two premises are universal, then the conclusion must be universal, as well. The reasoning behind this fallacy becomes clear when you use classes without any members, and the conclusion states that there are members of this class -- which is wrong.'

Cited

'Logical Form: 

All X are Y. 

All Z are X. 

Therefore, some Z are Y. '

Cited 

'Just because the conclusion might be true, does not mean the logic used to produce it, was valid.'

This website is discussing a formal fallacy as problematic. Pirie too documents this as a formal fallacy (219).

PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London. 

It is a curious feature of logic that statements that refer to a whole of a class do not actually tell us whether there are members of that class.' (100).

'All cats are selfish.' (100).

Pirie explains that this documents that there are creatures known as cats. Being cats in themselves does not imply that they are selfish. (100). Rather the statement explains that some cats are selfish. It is a statement about a class and not necessarily each member of that class. (100).

It is a fallacy, according to Pirie to draw universal conclusions (100) in making that statement:

'All cats are selfish'. Rather, a more careful statement would be to state that some cats may demonstrate that they are selfish.

This fallacy brings me back to my United Kingdom academic training and the use of assertions versus arguments which would be premise (s) and conclusions. It would be a mere unproven, unsubstantiated assertion to state that 'All cats are selfish'. Instead a reasonable and sound argument is required.

This fallacy consists of placing something into a conclusion, which was not significantly offered as evidence in a premise (s). (100).

Admittedly, in academia, even in a PhD, at times assertions are used as each and every point in a dissertation cannot be argued in a limited space; but key ideas and points needs to be presented in valid argumentation.

Using the Langer text:

∃!=There exists
K=creatures
c=cats
$=selfishness

Below are more reasonable statements than 'All cats are selfish.' These are more reasonable assertions:

∃!=K (Creatures exist)
∃!=c (Cats exist)
∃!=$ (Selfishness exists)

Selfish creatures do exist, but not necessarily, universally cats.

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

CONWAY DAVID A. AND RONALD MUNSON (1997) The Elements of Reasoning, Wadsworth Publishing Company, New York. 

GOODMAN, M. F. (1983) First Logic, University Press of America, USA. 

LANGER, SUSANNE K (1953)(1967) An Introduction to Symbolic Logic, Dover Publications, New York.

PAPINEAU, DAVID (Gen. Ed) (2016) Philosophy: Theories and Great Thinkers (2016), New York, Shelter Harbour Press.

PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London.

SZUDEK, ANDY & TORSLEY, SARAH (2018) The Little Book of Philosophy, Landau Cecile (Ed), London, DK Publishing.

WALTON, DOUGLAS (1996) ‘Informal Fallacy’, in Robert Audi, (ed), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Travel Destinations on Twitter

Theodicy: Origin in brief

Bachelor Christmas tree: Is that a red rooster (red bird) on the top?

From: Theodicy and Practical Theology, 2010, The University of Wales, Trinity Saint, David.

The term theodicy arose from G.W. Leibniz’ book in 1710 entitled Theodicy.

Robert M. Adams (1996) notes that the word theodicy is from the Greek, as theos is God and dike is justice. Adams (1996: 794). Theodicy is a defence of the justice of God in the face of objections arising from the problem of evil in the world. Adams (1996: 794).

The Eighteenth century was when Leibniz’ book Theodicy, Leibniz, G.W. (1710)(1998) was published and this era of history was when much of the modern debate concerning the problem of evil and theodicy began.

David Hume in Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion explains that geniuses over the ages have continued to look for proofs and arguments concerning God. Hume (1779)(2004: 2). Theodicy would involve demonstrating that God exists and is good even as the problem of evil exists.

ADAMS, ROBERT. M. (1996) ‘Theodicy’, in Robert Audi (ed.), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

HUME, DAVID (1739-1740)(1973) ‘A Treatise of Human Nature’, in Paul Edwards and Arthur Pap (eds.), A Modern Introduction To Philosophy, New York, The Free Press.

HUME, DAVID (1779)(2004) Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, Digireads.com/Neeland Media LLC, Lawrence, Kansas.

LEIBNIZ, G.W. (1710)(1998) Theodicy, Translated by E.M. Huggard Chicago, Open Court Classics.

Star upside down for more light

This is exclusive

The fallacy of exclusive premises

PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London.

Pirie

'The standard three-line argument called a syllogism has two premises and a conclusion, the premises are the evidence and the conclusion is deduced from them.

If both of the premises are negative, no conclusion can be validly drawn from them and the fallacy is called the fallacy of exclusive premises.' (98).

Pirie's example of this fallacy:

'No handymen are bakers, and no bakers are fishermen, so no handymen are fisherman'. (98).

This fallacy incorrectly excludes one category of persons from another category of persons, without sufficient evidence to do so. Pire explains: "...some people genuinely believe that if a group is excluded from something, and that group is excluded from something else, than the first group is also excluded from it.' (99).

In the religious studies context, no baptist is charismatic, no charismatic is Reformed, therefore no baptist is Reformed, should be the type of reasoning strictly avoided!

Lander University: Philosophy

Greenwood, South Carolina

Cited 

[The Fallacy of Two Negative Premisses or Exclusive Premisses[ 

"No internal combustion engines are nonpolluting power plants, and no nonpolluting power plants are safe devices. Therefore, no internal combustion engines are safe devices."

Cited 

'This information is of no use to see how the terms in the conclusion are related.'

In other words, the claims are shown as invalid as the connection between them is not clearly presented by the claims provided. Further, I was taught at British, PhD level to avoid the use of negative premises and conclusions, (especially when preparing survey questionnaires) and I attempt to follow this on my website. This approach does assist with both clarity and in avoiding potentially fallacious presentations.

Lander University is helpful here from the link provided: 

Cited 

'Note also that both premisses are negative. As most people are intuitively aware, knowledge about what a thing is not, does not carry much information about what that thing is.' 

Agreed.

Lander in agreement with Pirie:

Cited

'Our Rule of Quality states that no standard form syllogism with two negative premisses is valid.'

Within a valid syllogism argument, a negative conclusion requires a negative premise, to avoid a formal fallacy. But again, I attempt to avoid the use of negative premises.

Langer

Using symbolic logic with positive statements:

Key

∃! is There exists

h is handyman

b is bakers

f is fisherman

(∃!) h=b (There exists (∃!)  handyman that are bakers)

(∃!) b=f  (There exists bakers that are fisherman)

(∃!) h=f  (There exists handymen that are fishermen)

There exists (∃!)  handyman that are bakers. There exists bakers that are fisherman. There exists handymen that are fishermen. This is reasonable, think Alaska, small rural America, Northern Canada, Northern Russia, Northern China, as hypothetical examples.

I managed to slip in a review of both philosophy texts, under review from cover to cover, on this website, in one entry...

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

CONWAY DAVID A. AND RONALD MUNSON (1997) The Elements of Reasoning, Wadsworth Publishing Company, New York.

LANDER UNIVERSITY (1997-2020)  Syllogistic Fallacies Philosophy 103: Introduction to Logic Syllogistic Fallacies: Exclusive Premisses 

https://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/exclusive_fall.html 

LANGER, SUSANNE K (1953)(1967) An Introduction to Symbolic Logic, Dover Publications, New York.

PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London.

November 19, 2016 article edited for an entry on academia.edu on July 15, 2023

This entails to stay in the system

Google+ Richard Wanderman

LANGER, SUSANNE K (1953)(1967) An Introduction to Symbolic Logic, Dover Publications, New York.

Briefly, back to the Langer, philosophical text in Symbolic Logic, which I am slowly, due to other projects, reviewing from cover to cover:

A statement of a system in entirely specific terms requires a particular statement and equation for each assertion. In a general account, it requires fewer statements and equations. (101). Therefore, 'K (L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S) fm2'
K=interpreted as "creatures".
fm=interpreted as "fellowman of" (101). Or as I explain, in fellowship with. Langer explains, that 'of every two creatures it is either true or false that one is the other's fellowman.' (101).

Some key symbols from the text

˜ = not

⊃ = means the same as

∃ = there exists

∃! = there exists

⊨ = entails (new for my review)

Therefore

(a)˜ (a fm a)=A is not the fellowman of a. One is not the fellowman of self. (101).

(a fm b) ⊃ (b fm a) =A is the fellowman of b means the same as b is the fellowman of a. (101).

John is the fellowman of James, means the same as James is the fellowman of John.

(a fm b) ⊨ (b fm a) =A is the fellowman of b, entails b is the fellowman of a.

Langer writes it is not explained in this system anything beyond that these elements have been documented as creatures. Elements may even be one and the same creature. (102). If, within a different system, two of the creatures were the same, even as represented by two different elements; for example (a, b) were the same creature:

˜ (a fm b)=A is not the fellowman of b, as they are one and the same creature. (102).

This is mental gymnastics, but what can be reasoned is the need for an understanding of a philosophical system in context. A review is required that does not reasonably go beyond the information provided.