Not brushing aside all contrary arguments

Reasons to Believe: Newsletter (2018), March/April, Reasons to Believe, Covina, California.

Confessions of a Former Atheist

The author, Gordon Arbuthnat states:

'I believed that mankind created God and that science resolved any unanswered questions.' (Reasons).

Further:

'I brushed aside all arguments to the contrary.'  (Reasons).

Eventually through church involvement, bible study and reading a book by Hugh Ross of Reasons to Believe, the author was able to reconcile scripture and science. (Reasons).

I can relate to this story. Not that I was ever a atheist or agnostic, admittedly I held to a Christian worldview from a very young age. I have over the years, especially through my British research theses within academia, been able to reasonably reconcile commonly held  to empiricism (knowledge is obtainable through the senses), within the Western world, with philosophical and theological premises and conclusions in support of theism and Christianity.

A key is that God is infinite, the first cause is infinite. Matter, energy and time is finite. Only the finite can be measured empirically. God as infinite can be reasoned out in a limited extent with philosophy of religion, and more importantly to know the gospel, God can reveal through scripture mainly (supernaturally in a personal context as well), divine self to the extent of relationship and fellowship with those God chooses. See Romans and Hebrews, as examples.

From Oxford Science

Empiricism: 'Denotes a result that is observed by experiment or observation rather than by theory.' (287). I view this as a legitimate academic approach in reasonable contexts. 

OXFORD DICTIONARY OF SCIENCE (2010) Oxford, Oxford University Press.

Q & A

Kenneth Samples provides five historical supports for the factual nature of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. (Reasons).

1. The empty tomb
2. Post-crucifixion appearances
3. The apostles' transformation
4. Emergence of the Christian Church
5. Sunday worship, replacing Sabbath worship

Ethical Dilemma (1 Timothy 5: 8)

1 Timothy 5:8

English Standard Version

But if anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.

New American Standard Bible

But if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever. 

King James Bible

But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.
---

I am in agreement with the above translations from the original Koine Greek. I believe in supporting family as an aspect of being a biblical \Christian.

Prior to the Boss having reasoning problems, and then being diagnosed with dementia with significant diminished mental capacity, the Boss and I had a verbal agreement.  Once I had earned my PhD and had related employment, that it was best that I move on. The Boss repeated this several times over the years.

I still hold to this agreement as likely being within the perfect will of God, or at least the preferred will of God. At the same time, I still reason that 1 Timothy 1 5:8 applies.

Within this ethical dilemma, I need to both honour and take care of my Mother and as well pursue travel for ministry/employment.

Less obviously, but also very importantly for my overall development as a person in Christ, I need to travel. Some of my significant spiritual highlights and insights in life have come from travel. It is a key aspect of my Christian faith and philosophy.

For example:

In 1976, as a small child, I toured Scotland (Especially), England, and Western Europe with my family. My brother and I sneaked into castles, for free. The Christian history, the good and bad and the ugly, of the State-Church; the beautiful buildings and the persecution and torture of some citizens, impacted me very much in eventually studying the bible, theology, philosophy and philosophy of religion at an academic level.

My later trip back to the United Kingdom and Ireland in 1995 had similar impact; but this time I was a graduated bible school student, heading to Baptist seminary, back in British Columbia, and I was influenced to pursue a European/British theses only PhD. Which, by God's will, I accomplished at Manchester, for a brief undocumented stay, and then eventually at Wales.

For me a trip abroad is never primarily about 'lying on a beach' or like, it is also life learning.
It is practical theology, even when it includes touring and football. Friends and family are primary when travelling.

Next week, I have ministry/employment training in the Toronto area. Fraser Health covers the personal care for the Boss with five visits a day, but our Strata does not allow a lock box or a key, for a care worker to enter. Some of my fellow apartment owners need to let a worker in to the building  to assist the Boss. As I have noted on Satire Und Theology, this process does not always go well, due to some unhappy owners that need to press 6 on his/her phone while lifting up the receiver.

The Boss is bedridden and was born disabled. The Boss needs professional help with personal care, but is also dead-set against being placed into any kind of institution.  I also, for some of the reasons mentioned, am firmly committed to work and travel with the PhD the Lord placed in my mind and heart, and guided me to accomplish.

As the local President of my ministry/employment stated to me: (Paraphrased).

As if you should stay home the rest of your life and not work.

Correct. May the Lord provide solutions to this ethical dilemma.

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy 2014

What is common to the two well-known cases is conflict. In each case, an agent regards herself as having moral reasons to do each of two actions, but doing both actions is not possible. Ethicists have called situations like these moral dilemmas.

Note, I prefer the terms ethical (external) dilemma to moral (internal) dilemma.

Faith and reason, not just faith

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

Edited from MPhil

Christianity is, of course, a faith and I would argue, since as human beings we only possess finite knowledge, that faith, knowledge and reason always work hand in hand in all philosophy.

Christians do not want to possess a blind faith, but one that can withstand the best criticism because it is philosophically sound. 

Christianity is also 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. My MPhil and PhD subject.

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.

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

Edited from PhD

Philosophically, I reason that for the sake of religious truth, a member of a faith group, and in particular a scholar such as myself, must be willing to, while striving for objectivity, examine his historical religious perspectives and doctrines, and this can occur through the use of disciplines other than Biblical studies, theology, and philosophy/philosophy of religion, but of course, focuses on these disciplines mentioned.

There are those within both conservative and liberal Christian traditions that would reason the historical writers of Scripture wrote what they saw and experienced, and therefore many of these modern scholars accept a doctrine of physical resurrection. The gospel work, including the atonement is also accepted as biblical, as is the triune nature of God. The salvific work of Christ for humanity is a core of Christian faith and philosophy.

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

CALVIN, JOHN (1539)(1998) The Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book II, Translated by Henry Beveridge, Grand Rapids, The Christian Classic Ethereal Library, Wheaton College.

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.

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

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

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

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.

Granting the other side logic

Granting the other side logic

March 26 2018 article, revised and improved for an entry on academia.edu on July 16 2023

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

The continuation of text review:

Key symbols

≡df
= Equivalence by definition
 : = Equal (s)
ε = Epsilon and means is
⊃ = Is the same as
⊨ is Entails
˜ = Not
∃ = There exists
∃! = There exists
∴ = Therefore
· = Therefore
< = Is included
v = a logical inclusive disjunction (disjunction is the relationship between two distinct alternatives).
x = variable
. = Conjunction meaning And
0 = Null class
cls = Class
int = Interpretation
---

Granting the other side logic

Philosopher Langer, explains that within the nature of a logical deductive system (190), there is a best means for description and there is a character of 'granted' propositions. (190).

By granted propositions, this is logically granted. For examples: A theistic approach may not accept an atheistic, logical argument as true, but grant it as valid. An atheist approach may not accept a theistic, logical argument as true, but grant it as valid. Langer explains there needs to be a systematic construction that is a logical edifice. (190) An argument can be deduced within a system via propositions/premises leading to conclusion (s).
---

A=Atheism

E=Evil

G=God

N=Necessary

P=The problem of evil

S=Suffering

(E ⊨ S) ∴ (P ⊨ A)

Evil entails suffering, therefore the problem of evil entails atheism  A classic atheistic equation.

(Logical, but the second bracketed equation is unreasonable and false, in my view)

(E ∃!) ∴ (S ∃!) ⊃ (P)

Evil exists therefore suffering exists, is the same as the problem of evil.

(Logical, reasonable and true, in my view)

(N ∃!) ∴ (G ∃!)

The necessary exists, therefore God exists.

(Logical, reasonable and true, in my view)

---

Practical

Granting the other side logic means the other side, or other world view, for example, may present logical premises and conclusion (s) which are not necessarily true. An argument that is logical, must importantly be reasonable and sound. Soundness means that all the premises and conclusion are true. Pire writes that a sound (true) argument has all true premises. (69). 

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

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

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

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

PLANTINGA, ALVIN C. (1982) The Nature of Necessity, Oxford, Clarendon Press. 

PLANTINGA, ALVIN C. (2000) Warranted Christian Belief, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

Cosmology

NASA

Cosmology 

Whale writes that cosmology is looking at the cosmos and visible universe from a theistic perspective denying that it is self-explanatory. Whale (1958: 22). Pojman mentions that theistic versions of cosmology deduce something outside of the universe is required to explain its existence. Pojman (1996: 37). Paul Edwards (1973) explains cosmology reasons that all things come into being through other things (Edwards (1973: 377-378)) and since a causal series of events cannot go back in infinity, there must be a first cause. Edwards (1973: 377-378) Thomas Aquinas is famous for discussing The Five Ways and his cosmological argument within Summa Theologica. Aquinas, Thomas (1261)(1920). Plantinga reasons that aspects of Aquinas’ presentation (Plantinga (1977)(2002: 80)), are reasonable, but overall the argument is unsuccessful. Plantinga (1977)(2002: 80).

I reason this does not render all arguments for first cause unsuccessful, but Plantinga points out difficulties with Aquinas’ approach, which is perhaps too extensive. Aquinas’ presentation although classic and important, is very speculative and Plantinga has disagreements with his overall work. Plantinga (1977)(2002: 80). Geivett reasons Plantinga is too negative concerning natural theology as possibly working. Geivett (1993: 59-60). Edwards comments would adequately explain a more modest and reasonable idea concerning first cause.

From my PhD 

Cosmodicy Symbols Cosmodicy symbols, to Johannes van der Ven, are an immanent extension, or provide an alternative to transcendent theodicy. van der Ven (1993: 174).  Larry Alderink (1999) explains that cosmology in a general sense, indicates a view of the world or universe, and in particular how it is arranged. Alderink (1999: 126).

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

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

March 24, 2018 

Van der Ven dealt with cosmology in the context of theodicy, and used the term 'cosmodicy'.

My research via my British theses degrees and academic blogging has me not preferring a speculative cosmology defence and instead in basic agreement with the Edwards text, preferring a more narrow, modest and certain argument which presents the necessity of first cause, and God as necessary. Again…Edwards comments would adequately explain a more modest and reasonable idea concerning first cause.

ALDERINK, LARRY J. (1999) ‘Cosmology’, in Alan Richardson and John Bowden (eds.), A New Dictionary of Christian Theology, Kent, SCM Press Ltd.

AQUINAS, THOMAS (1261)(1920) Summa Theologica, London, Fathers of the English Dominican Province.

EDWARDS, PAUL AND ARTHUR PAP (1973)(eds.), A Modern Introduction To Philosophy, New York, The Free Press.

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

PLANTINGA, ALVIN C. (1982) The Nature of Necessity, Oxford, Clarendon Press.

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

VAN DER VEN, JOHANNES (1993) Practical Theology, Translated by Barbara Schultz, AC Kampen, Netherlands, Kok Pharos Publishing House.

VAN DER VEN, JOHANNES (1998) God Reinvented?, Leiden, Brill.

VAN DER VEN, JOHANNES (2005) ‘Theodicy Items and Scheme’, in a personal email from Johannes van der Ven, Nijmegen, Radboud University, Nijmegen.

VAN DER VEN, JOHANNES (2006a) ‘Dates of Nijmegen authors’, in a personal email from Johannes van der Ven, Nijmegen, Radboud University, Nijmegen.

VAN DER VEN, JOHANNES (2006b) ‘Symbols versus Models’, in a personal email from Johannes van der Ven, Nijmegen, Radboud University, Nijmegen.

VAN DER VEN, JOHANNES, PAUL VERMEER, AND ERIC VOSSEN (1996) ‘Learning Theodicy’, in Journal of Empirical Theology, Volume 9, pp. 67-85. Kampen, The Netherlands, Journal of Empirical Theology.

WHALE, J.S. (1958) Christian Doctrine, Glasgow, Fontana Books.

Telos

Google+

I overheard a radio preacher today (paraphrased) mention the atoning and resurrection work of Jesus Christ as 'telos', as in a teleological divine plan.

Telos being the Greek root word of the philosophical terms, teleological and also teleology.

Telos as the end...

Revelation 21:6

English Standard Version (ESV) 6 And he said to me, “It is done! I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. To the thirsty I will give from the spring of the water of life without payment.

Revelation 22:13

English Standard Version (ESV) 13 I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end.”

The ‘end’ being telos in New Testament Greek. τέλος, as seen in the two examples from Revelation below.

Academic bible.com

21: 6

6καὶ εἶπέν μοι, Γέγοναν. ἐγώ [εἰμι] τὸ Ἄλφα καὶ τὸ Ὦ, ἡ ἀρχὴ καὶ τὸ τέλος. ἐγὼ τῷ διψῶντι δώσω ἐκ τῆς πηγῆς τοῦ ὕδατος τῆς ζωῆς δωρεάν.

22: 13

13ἐγὼ τὸ Ἄλφα καὶ τὸ Ὦ, ὁ πρῶτος καὶ ὁ ἔσχατος, ἡ ἀρχὴ καὶ τὸ τέλος.

PhD Edit

Jesus Christ as God the Son, is the beginning and the end, the first and the last, and the gospel work, in regard to humanity, is a key aspect. My theological and philosophical explanations for the support of compatibilism and my Biblical exegesis demonstrates a teleological logical Reformed perspective within the theodicy. There is solid academic evidence of a teleological divine plan where the problem of evil is willingly allowed, dealt with via Christ, and a Kingdom ultimately established. These perspectives and the overall thesis presentation provide reasonable argumentation on why sovereignty perspectives support divine justice as opposed to refuting it.

Bloesch defines teleological as a word coming from the Greek telos, or end, where the emphasis is on goals and consequences. Bloesch (1987: 19). Blackburn also describes teleology from the Greek as 'telos' end. It is the study of the ends or purposes of things. It is described as a Aristotelian view of nature and ethics and is also a view and doctrine of the Christian tradition. Blackburn (1996: 374).

The Teleological May 26 2015

Teleology August 24 2014

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

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

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

BLOESCH, DONALD G. (1987) Freedom for Obedience, San Francisco, Harper and Rowe Publishers.

Primary sources are primary

This book review continues... 

WALLACE TOM Jr. (2015) Refuting Islam, The Christian Patriots Guide to Exposing the Evils of Islam, Bellingham, Fundamental Publishers.

Mr. Wallace reasons that the best English source for learning about Islam is not the Qu'ran, nor it is the Sunnah. (58). The author suggests a classic text on Islamic law titled Reliance of the Traveller (ROT). (58)

This text, according to Mr. Wallace will state an Islamic law, provide an interpretation, and then provide a source (s) from the Qu'ran and/or the Sunnah. (58).

I respect his attempt to assist the reader in studying Islam. It is logical, however...

Based on my academic training, especially from England, Wales, if I quote for example, Islamic Scripture, even though not originally in English, I should primarily attempt to document an original Arabic source. I use online websites that present the original Arab scripture and English translation. Based on my education, I need to use primary sources, that can be translated, and then these can be complemented by secondary sources.

This book review is however reviewing Mr. Wallace's book on Islam, so in many contexts, his text is the primary source. A primary online source I have used for this review when dealing with Islamic Scripture is:

The Noble Qu'ran

Within Biblical studies and biblical theology, the original Scriptural sources, including manuscripts, if need be, should be reviewed in context for the integrity of an overall academic review, as primary sources. Not just the opinions of writers, academics and scholars, as secondary sources, should be considered.

I was advised to follow such an approach when writing my British theses work. This was good, academic advice.

Napoleon discovered America? (Logic v. truth)

Northern Ontario: Canadian Pacific

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

The continuation of text review:

Key symbols

≡df = Equivalence by definition
: = Equal (s)
ε = Epsilon and means is
⊃ = Is the same as
⊨ is Entails
˜ = Not
∃ = There exists
∃! = There exists
∴ = Therefore
· = Therefore
< = Is included
 v = a logical inclusive disjunction (disjunction is the relationship between two distinct alternatives). x = variable
· = Conjunction meaning And 0
= Null class
cls = Class
int = Interpretation
---

Philosopher Langer continues that logic does not bond for any fact. (189). It stands for the conceptual possibility of a system. (189). In other words, a valid system is not necessarily presenting truth, but it is logical. The valid system with premises and conclusions is logically consistent. It represents not factual certainty, but instead logical certainty or validity. (189).

Langer demonstrates the following as logical:

Napoleon discovered America
Napoleon died before 1500 A.D. (189).

Conclusion

America was discovered before 1500 A.D. (189).

These two premises imply that America was discovered before 1500 and Langer opines that a third proposition that would be derived (a conclusion, my add) would also be logical and valid. (189).

Indeed the first two premises are historically false. (189). They are still logically consistent, while the consequent is true that America was discovered before 1500 A.D. (189).

Langer then states:

Columbus discovered America (Note this text was written in 1953 and revised in 1967 with older historical data and assumptions)

Columbus died after 1490

Therefore

America was discovered after 1490 (189).

The author explains that the two premises were true and the conclusion were true. (189-190). But because she used the term therefore, this is an untrue and unsound assertion. (190).

The term therefore makes the argument not sound (true) and the conclusion is logically, false and invalid.

I do not think this is adequately explained enough in the textbook. She explains that therefore expresses the only untrue assertion. (190). I deduce the term is presenting a certainty which is philosophically false. The term therefore, should have been excluded.

A system built on false premises may be as logically valid as one based on facts. (190). False propositions may imply true conclusions. (190).

The only case that is not logical is true premises that imply a false conclusion. (190). As I have documented in archives:

Therefore a valid deductive argument can have

False premises and a true conclusion (s) (FT)
False premises and a false conclusion (s) (FF)
True premises and a true conclusion (s) (TT)

However

True premises and a false conclusion (s) (TF) is invalid.

True premises and valid logical relations will lead to true conclusions, but the truth of premises cannot be established by logic, states philosopher, Langer. (190). This would be (TT). Validity is the only concern, as there could be (FT), (FF) premises and conclusions which were also logically valid.

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

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

The threat of an educated woman?

This book review continues...

WALLACE TOM Jr. (2015) Refuting Islam, The Christian Patriots Guide to Exposing the Evils of Islam, Bellingham, Fundamental Publishers.

Chapter Seven: Borrow Credibility

Mr. Wallace writes that 'Islam is designed to keep the adherent ignorant.' (57). The author then further reasons that people of knowledge ask too many questions. (57). He opines that 80% of Muslims cannot understand the language of the Qur'an. (57). Most who follow Islam cannot read or write Arabic. Mr. Wallace explains that many Muslims parrot sounds heard in Arabic without knowing the actual meaning. (57).

Further, in many Islamic nations, females and women are not allowed to read and write. (57). The educated woman is a threat to 'an oppressive father or husband.' (57). Rather, ignorance is favoured as this means the female and woman will have a lifelong dependence on the Islamic system in power. (57).

I can agree with Mr. Wallace, that at least many orthodox forms of Islam in the world, because they follow a religion/state model through assumed divine sanction, provide power to male religious and government leaders. This power remains significantly unchallenged politically, as the Islam/state model is assumed the correct divine model, and religiously, for the same reason.

An educated female and woman, not only offers a potential critique, politically, religiously, socially and other that is not of the assumed divine paradigm, but also by ontological nature, as the opposite sex, also offers potential views and critiques that will significantly differ from those males in power.

I am certainly not on my websites promoting feminism or chauvinism, or any type of religious worldview which I reason should be free from intellectual critique. However, the beginning of the Hebrew Scripture with Genesis 1: 26-27 documents that ontologically (existence, nature) male and female are both made in the image and likeness of God. Therefore, although equality does not equal sameness, the view of females and women should be acknowledged like males and men as being fully human and a significant aspect of political and religious life and existence.

Genesis 1:26-27 New American Standard Bible (NASB)

26 Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the [a]sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” 27 God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.

Human beings versus angelic beings

Staufenim Breisgau, Germany (Not my photo)

March 13, 2018

I revised this section of my MPhil today, by adding some comments for explanation.
---

Human choice is an element in embracing the atoning and resurrection work of Jesus Christ, applied for salvation, including justification and the righteousness of Christ, imputed to believers; but no fallen human beings can autonomously choose to be saved, a human being must first be moved by the Holy Spirit to choose God.

Why God saves some sinners and not others is not totally understood. It is not by human good works, it is not by unaided human will, but by God’s grace alone, through faith, for good works and not by good works (Ephesians 1-2). It can, however, be deduced that unlike fallen angels, humanity, at least some humanity, is restorable.

I conclude from the Gospel, at least something is present outside of good works in saved humanity, that allows God to restore them, and it appears that since the Gospel was for humankind alone, fallen angels are not restorable. What is the difference between fallen human beings and fallen angels? This is of course unknown, but Thiessen suggests that angels were never a race, since they were and are asexual. They were, instead, a company. He stated: “Because they are a company and not a race, they sinned individually, and in not in some head of the race”. Thiessen (1956:192).

With this idea, Thiessen is noting that with humanity when Adam and Eve sinned, all their human offspring became sinful by nature. With angels, there was no offspring, so each angel had sinned individually making a corporate restoration work by Christ for fallen angels impossible. Under the Thiessen corporate model, Jesus could not die for fallen angels like he did for humanity, because fallen angels were not interconnected in nature as were humans. They could not be changed in nature as a group as restored human beings could be. So, Christ would have to restore each individual fallen angel by changing every angel’s individual corrupted nature.

There is the question why God could not save angels as individuals. Even though each human being was a descendant of Adam and Eve, he/she still had an individual spirit that needed a change in nature, so why could God not do this with fallen angels individually? I would rather conclude that fallen angels have existed in the supernatural realm in great measure and have experienced God in that realm. To reject God after that knowledge and experience is to put oneself beyond the possibility of restoration. Possible as in beyond what God would deem restorable for his Kingdom.

Human beings on the other hand live primarily in the natural physical realm and remain somewhat unaware of the supernatural realm, although guilty of sin. A fallen human being may have, at best, little supernatural experience with God, and certainly not have the heavenly experience of angels. Therefore, in ignorance, at least some human beings are restorable.

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

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

THIESSEN, HENRY C. (1956) Introductory Lectures in Systematic Theology, Grand Rapids, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

Sales approach evangelism

Wales, Facebook

Sales approach evangelism

March 9, 2018

Based on a website, archive search the MPhil material below has been presented twice previously. But as I have stated, I do not believe in 'reinventing the wheel' and I will share archived material. However, I usually add a new perspective.

My new perspective for today is that at times the 'sales nature' of the North American evangelical church in evangelism, as in selling the gospel message (not necessarily for money), and I am not stating this is always error, tends to emphasize the positive nature of the gospel.

This sales approach is often error in regard to prosperity gospel approaches, and in some charismatic movements, as examples, when Scripture, and Scripture as a whole, is not taken in context.

In regard to theodicy and the problem of evil, my British theses research, the problem of evil is often not taken seriously enough in the evangelical church. Human suffering is not taken seriously enough by evangelical church sales approach evangelism which emphasizes the positive at the expense of the negative.

Of course, I do not favour an overly negative approach to sharing the gospel either.

From my MPhil 

Carson noted the tendency within western Christianity to emphasize the positive in Scripture rather than the negative. I, myself, have encountered this in the Evangelical Churches I have attended. As Carson suggests, there is often a tendency to desire to teach the nice stories in Scripture in order to build up the congregation, and be attractive to non-Christians in order to bring in new attendees. I am sympathetic to creating a positive Church environment. For some people it is a safe haven from an outside world of sin and negativity; however, I conclude that Scripture must be preached in balance, and good people do suffer in Scripture.

CARSON, D.A. (1990) How Long, O Lord?, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.

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

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

Reincarnation

Miami Beach, Florida: trekearth

Reincarnation: Philosophy Talk: April 30, 2015: John Perry

Cited

Here’s a definition from the Dalia Lama --- he believes himself to be the reincarnation of previous Dalai Lamas, and as he gets old is starting to think about the next one, and has been writing about it. He says, quite succinctly, "In order to accept reincarnation . . .we need to accept the existence of past and future lives. Sentient beings come to this present life from their previous lives and take rebirth again after death.

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

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

From MPhil

Woods mentioned the Hindu and Buddhist principal of reincarnation:

"The only answer is to try by good works to be reincarnated in an ever higher existence until at last one can escape the cycle of life and find oblivion through union with the great world principle." Woods (1974)(1982:18).

Simon Blackburn defined reincarnation, also known as metempsychosis:

"The transmigration of the soul, whereby upon death the soul takes up residence in a new body." Blackburn (1996: 241).

I will offer two objections to reincarnation.

One is Biblical and is provided by R. M. Enroth. Biblical Christianity, in contrast to reincarnational teaching, emphasizes grace, atonement, and forgiveness for fallen humanity through the once-for-all death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. The Christian’s disavowal of reincarnation is anchored in the biblical assertion that "man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment." (Heb. 9:27). Enroth (1996: 926). Clearly the Biblical world view opposes reincarnation, as a spirit belongs to a body for everlasting existence after resurrection. There is the earthly life and then the afterlife. One’s position in the afterlife is judged by God. A belief in Christ means forgiveness of sins, disbelief in Christ means judgment for those sins. Judgment of sins means guilt and separation from God. There would thus be no need for reincarnation as a person’s destiny had been determined by their one earthly life.

Two, existence of the human spirit cannot be proven empirically, but in Christianity, at least there is Scriptural evidence of Christ’s bodily resurrection in which his body contained his spirit. Scripture states that believers will experience the same type of resurrection. Philosophically, it does not seem far-fetched for human beings in the afterlife, if it existed, to contain the same, yet altered (for everlasting life) spirit and body; however, in my view, there is neither empirical nor deductive evidence to support reincarnation.

Empirically, there would seemingly be no scientific way to prove reincarnation since spirits are seen as entering new bodies with different genetic code, each body thus appears to be distinct from another. From a deductive perspective, most people can barely remember their own past, let alone past lives.

For people who claim to remember past lives it would be extremely hard to prove that they lived these lives, for those past lives would probably not be documented to see if they were actual, and if they were, it could be thought that perhaps the person claiming to have had a past life was simply using historical information. As well, with the idea of reincarnation and karma ("the universal law of cause and effect, as applied to the deeds of people") Blackburn (1996: 206-207), without a clear recollection of past lives, I doubt that people can learn from past failings and achieve oneness with God. How can one learn from past mistakes which one cannot remember? It makes much more sense for one to be judged by God for earthly life and then receive a reward or punishment in understanding.

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

ENROTH, R.M. (1996) ‘Reincarnation’, in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.

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

Reality check

Notre Dame de Paris: Carefreetraveler.net

Reality check 

An acquaintance friend wrote some comments on a Facebook page, recently. As they were not directly stated for me, but relate to my views, which I have discussed with this person on several occasions, I think it is ethical that I can paraphrase part of his essay and then accurately reply.

Paraphrased

This person is concerned that many people in the evangelical church are seeking a potential date and are looking for what they do not offer.

Some persons in the evangelical church are seeking from potential dates, different levels of age, fitness and appearance that he/she does not possess.

This person then also writes that persons should only seek similar levels of maturity and related.

In regard to maturity and related, especially spiritual maturity, I can basically agree with the acquaintance friend that in general, one should consider a date of a similar level of maturity. I would follow this myself, but I cannot rule out that God could, in his perfect will have a dating scenario where one Christian mentors another.

My acquaintance friend did not document any Scripture in the essay presented, however:

2 Corinthians, Chapter 6 could be used by some evangelicals as a proof text for support of dating within one's level of age, fitness and appearance.

David J. A. Clines explains that 6: 14 documents that believers are not to be yoked with unbelievers (1401). In other words, the donkey should not plow with the ox because they will not plow in unison. They are in philosophical terms ontologically (existence and nature) too different to work well closely together.

Note, the context is believer and unbeliever. Not believer and believer. It is a significant theological stretch with this section of 2 Corinthians 6 to fit for an evangelical agenda of some that favour a social rules, market value dating system. Market value dating (MVD) is my term.

My acquaintance friend assumes it is error to seek in a dating context, different levels of age, fitness and appearance, but this person's view, at least, is not significantly biblical. The approach this person disagrees with would not be prohibited by 2 Corinthians 6 in the context of believer/unbeliever, nor by 2 Corinthians 6, in the theological stretch of applying it to believer/believer.

Many commentators have noted that the donkey and ox would not plow well together because they are different animals, they are not uniform and there work would not be in unison.

In unions that require the same world view, Christians should not too tightly associate with non-Christians. This would include in a romantic context. It means that Christians should be careful with too close of associations with those within the world. This does not prohibit evangelism and witness.

Two Christians dating need to yoke together well spiritually. But common sense informs this is not at all guaranteed, nor should it be assumed, by two people having similar age, fitness and level of appearance. Sadly, this view, lacking theological and philosophical depth, from my acquaintance friend, in my opinion, has been heavily influenced by secular views on market value dating (MVD) within the evangelical church.

What my acquaintance friend is stating is logical. In a MVD system one has a much better practical, opportunity for dating if one dates according to social rules and MVD. But dating following modern secular social rules and MVD does not equate to a biblical approach of dating someone of similar spiritual maturity in Jesus Christ.

The logic of dating in what is considered social equality, does not necessarily equate to truth. Using logical premises does not necessarily equate with true conclusions, as I have discussed on this website in archives.

What is true is logical, but what is logical is not always true.

The view of my acquaintance friend overlooks many things, but on some key points, for example:

Maturity it is not necessarily based on age, especially spiritual maturity. Rather philosophically and practically birds of a same feather, flock together. Having the same worldview and similar views on key issues is crucial in dating.

Many males in the evangelical church that can still potentially procreate, desire a female to date that can potentially procreate if marriage occurs. There is a biblical mandate of course to do so if one can find a mate (Genesis 1). Those men excluded would be the aged and those physically and mentally disabled, not simply those that are significantly older. Assuming only younger men should mate with younger women is a secular construct that I would reason has been fueled to some extent by radical feminism. I am not denying that by nature, typically persons wish to date and marry close to their age. I am rather stating that exceptions should be allowed for philosophically and theologically, in regard to youthful older men.

Only dating in one’s league looks wise and social rules wise, is a view this acquaintance friend is really stating in an evangelical spiritual guise; does not necessarily appease the burn of 1 Corinthians 7.

πυροῦσθαι

Purousqai is the New Testament Greek word for ‘burn’ here. The Greek New Testament (1993: 581). Strong defines the root word burn here as purow. He explains that the word burn comes from the Greek word for fire pur. Strong (1986: 84). Strong defines the root word puroo in 7:9 as to kindle, to be ignited, glow, be refined, to be inflamed with anger, grief, lust, to burn, fiery, be on fire, try. Strong (1986: 84). Fee writes that the use of the word ‘burn’ here is metaphorical, and could refer to either burning with desire or burning in judgment. Fee (1987: 289).

Fee thinks the context shows that the meaning is inner desire. Fee (1987: 289). Paul was stating that rather than being consumed by sexual sin, one should marry. Fee (1987: 289). Fee explains that marriage here is the proper alternative for those struggling with desire and sin. Fee (1987: 289).

First Corinthians 7:9 shows that a Christian struggling with sexual sin should pursue marriage, but I must point out that if there is not at least minimal, significant mutual attraction, the ‘burn’ will not be appeased. A person struggling with desire will not very likely overcome the desire to be with someone attractive, by being with someone that he/she does not find attractive, and I am not meaning this in solely or primarily physical terms. We need to be careful in the Church and realize that marriage in itself is not a remedy for sexual sin, but marriage in mutual attraction can be.

My acquaintance friend (paraphrased) wrote that people that are not seeking ‘same’ need a reality check.

God willing, I provide a theological reality check…

The settle for the one's league view and approach to dating, within MVD is pragmatic and logical. But for those that wish to use proof texts in support of such views, this approach is not directly supported by 2 Corinthians 6 and 1 Corinthians 7 implies sexual attraction is required.

If the burn can be dealt with by seeking dating and then marriage ‘sameness’ that is good, but there is no theological guarantee that it would in the case of every single Christian seeking a mate.

A better critique than this agenda from my acquaintance friend would be to encourage those single, seeking dating in Christ to seek mutual, spiritual, intellectual and physical mutual attraction in the name of the Father, Son, Holy Spirit, or to stay single, even while suffering.

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

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

STRONG, J. (1986) Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, Pickering, Ontario, Welch Publishing Company.

Free will is not the ultimate answer for the problem of evil

Notre Dame de Paris: trekearth

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

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

From my MPhil with edits

Statement four:

The fourth statement was perhaps the most controversial. God wills evil for the greater good. I do take this viewpoint, and I am in agreement with the writings of John Calvin on this matter within The Bondage and Liberation of the Will, as well as in Institutes of the Christian Religion, and has been documented throughout the thesis. This idea has been discussed through this thesis. I am not stating that God sins in any way by willing evil for the greater good, nor does he force people or fallen angels to sin.

People sin by nature and choice, and God uses this evil for the greater good. Since he is infinite and dealing with finite creation, all things work under the subjection of his will and I humbly, and without complete understanding, state that he manages the Universe in a far more controlled manner than to simply allow evil to take place. By not preventing all evil, and by using it for the greater good, he is in a sense willing it. The difference between God’s will and the sinful will when evil takes place, is that God’s will and motives alone remain pure and consistent within God’s good purposes.

The idea of human free will alone does not demonstrate why God has to allow evil, as opposed to willing it. I do believe that human beings require a certain level of freedom to choose or reject God, but God could have prevented evil’s existence by not creating angels and then human beings. God knew there would be a fall, and in a sense willed the results of that fall by not preventing it from taking place, but it was within his right to have evil flourish in his creation for a time until the Kingdom of God culminated.

It must be stated again that God did not coerce human beings into sinning and thus causing the fall, but he knew that this fall would take place and did not willingly prevent it. It can be deduced that God thought the evil and suffering in a corrupted creation, willed in sinful disobedience, was a tolerable situation for a time. Jesus Christ would, through his work, restore that creation and culminate a Kingdom of God filled with resurrected human beings who had experienced evil, and now through the Holy Spirit willingly rejected evil completely.

There are, as well, many instances in our creation where God could have prevented evils from taking place, for instance the American bombings of September 11, 2001. Some may argue that God must allow human free will and that is why these events took place. However, God could have prevented this from taking place, as it can be shown that many evils are prevented and certainly God would have his hand in this.

Many times evil plans are thwarted, such as Nazi Germany’s plans to conquer Europe. In that case, Adolph Hitler’s free will was not allowed to completely flourish. It was not that God forced Hitler to think differently, but rather the Fuhrer’s plans were defeated by the Allies. I do not think free will is the ultimate answer in the matter of the problem of evil, rather it is largely God’s will that determines what will ultimately take place, at the same time not forcing his creation to sin against him. This sin is achieved by people who are in the sinful biological line of Adam and Eve, and thus possess sinful nature which leads to sinful choices. 

This is not determinism (hard) on God’s part. it is soft-determinism and compatibilism,  God has an ultimate plan, and some sinful actions will take place within the plan and some will not. I grant, that in this sense, God allows all to sin against him but their wills are always under the authority of God’s ultimate will, who can thwart sinful plans as he chooses.

March 6, 2018

I added for this edit today that this is not hard determinism, and further explained, which is what I meant when I originally stated determinism in 2003. I meant determinism as in hard determinism and was guided by my adviser at Wales to define it as such, while being guided to state determinism. This was further clarified within my PhD and my PhD better represents my view, which did evolve.

CALVIN, JOHN (1509-1564), The Institutes of the Christian Religion (1536), Beveridge, Henry (Translator), R Public Domain.

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

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

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

Stoicism

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

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

From my MPhil: University of Wales Stoicism:

Woods described Stoicism as follows: In direct contrast to escapism stands Stoicism. Founded by Zeno, in 300 B.C., . . . With regard to suffering, Stoicism is apathetic. Without knowing it, many people follow the basic philosophy of Stoicism. Suffering is to be faced with a spirit of self-sufficiency. . . . The Stoic determines to live so that no person or thing is essential to his existence. He strives to arrive at the point where he does not care what happens to anyone, including himself. Woods (1974)(1982: 19-20).
---

March 5, 2018

Blackburn explains that stoicism is a unified, logical, physical and moral philosophy. (363). The name arises from stoa poikile or painted porch in Athens where Stoicism was initially taught. (363).
The first recognized with this philosophy was Zeno of Citium that founded the related school in 300 BC. (363). There were other documented stoics over the next centuries. (363). The philosophy eventually entered into the Roman Empire. (363)

Stoicism is based on apprehensive perception, with a cosmology that supports determinism and order. (363). Interestingly, Blackburn writes that stoicism provided a proof for God's existence that used an argument from design. (363-364).

It holds to an intellectual calmness and the moral order of the universe. (364).

Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Stoicism is a type of eudaimonic virtue ethics, asserting that the practice of virtue is both necessary and sufficient to achieve happiness (in the eudaimonic sense). However, the Stoics also recognized the existence of “indifferents” (to eudaimonia) that could nevertheless be preferred (for example, health, wealth, education) or dispreferred (for example, sickness, poverty, ignorance), because they had (respectively, positive or negative) planning value with respect to the ability to practice virtue. Stoicism was very much a philosophy meant to be applied to everyday living, focused on ethics (understood as the study of how to live one’s life), which was in turn informed by what the Stoics called “physics” (nowadays, a combination of natural science and metaphysics) and what they called “logic” (a combination of modern logic, epistemology, philosophy of language, and cognitive science).

Massimo Pigliucci City
University of New York, U. S. A.

Eudaimonic is happiness and welfare.

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

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

Weeping v. Gnashing

Vancouver

Weeping v. Gnashing

Ligonier April 3 2011

Cited

Also in Matthew 25, Jesus says that those who will be cast into the outer darkness will experience “weeping and gnashing of teeth.” This is a concrete image that any Jew would understand, and one I think we can all readily comprehend. There are different kinds of weeping. There is the weeping of those who mourn. There is the weeping of those who are in pain. And there is the weeping of those who are deliriously happy. 

But when we add to this notion of weeping the idea of gnashing of teeth, it is obvious that Jesus is not describing a pleasant circumstance. He is talking about a deep, mournful kind of wailing. But the gnashing of teeth, as we see in the New Testament, is often associated with hatred. When the crowd heard Stephen proclaim the Word of God, they gnashed their teeth in fury (Acts 7:54). 

Unseen Realities: Heaven, Hell, Angels and Demons, copyright 2011 by R.C. Sproul, Christian Focus Publications.

I just listened to this idea presented on Christian radio, from the late R.C. Sproul, as I drove around with meetings in the area.

Interesting. There is the use of figurative language here in the opinion of many scholars. I embrace this perspective.

Those that are weeping are doing so because he/she regrets the hellish circumstance in Hades (Luke 16). This is not to be confused with any kind of possible human repentance toward salvation.

One can hate being in prison for example, and still love and embrace being a criminal. At this point, biblically, repentance connected to salvation is no longer on the table as an offer. (See Hebrews 9: 27, there is one death then judgement).

This can interpreted as some religious persons that rejected the biblical God, the gospel, and the atoning and resurrection work of Jesus Christ applied to believers by grace through faith, and by no human work, but for works in Christ (Ephesians 1-2, Romans 1-9, Galatians, James).

Instead these persons embraced attempts to please God by works righteousness.

Those weeping likely includes some of those who were not religious.

Those that are gnashing can be interpreted as those that have an everlasting hatred of the triune God, the everlasting life God provides and related. Perhaps these can be interpreted as the unregenerate that most obviously embrace satanic nature.