Not the Cookie Monster theory

This week

Preface

Again, this entry, as with my last entry, deals with my friendly discussion with a very intelligent scholar from the translation department at work.

The Calvinist God is a ‘monster’ theory was expressed.

Well, I pointed out that I refer to myself as Reformed and not a Calvinist. I am not a devotee of Calvin and also theologically with study, prefer believer’s baptism to infant Baptist.

In short, hard determinism, when accepted by someone with a Reformed or other position, could reasonably be connected to a God is a ‘monster’ theory.

Hard Versus Soft Determinism

Louis P. Pojman (1996) explains the difference between determinism, which is also known as hard determinism, Pojman (1996: 596). and compatibilism, which is also known as soft determinism. Within determinism (Pojman (1996: 596)) or hard determinism, God causes an act and no created being is responsible for his or her moral actions, while for compatibilism or soft determinism, although God causes actions, created beings are responsible where they act voluntarily. The human will would be the secondary cause in human decisions. Persons would still therefore be morally responsible for moral actions. Pojman (1996: 596).

Philosophically, the first and/or primary cause could be an outside force, as well, that is not God. An atheist may be a compatibilist and/or an incompatibilist, or one could hold to hard determinism. 

Schelling suggests that ‘absolute causal power in one being leaves nothing but unconditional passivity for all the rest.’ Schelling (1845)(1936: 11). This would be a difficulty with accepting hard determinism.

Incompatinilism

John S. Feinberg, who has written extensively on the concepts of free will and determinism, explains incompatibilism is defined as the idea within free will theodicy or defence that a person is free in regard to an action if he or she is free to either commit, or refrain from committing the action. Feinberg (1994: 64). There can be no antecedent (prior) conditions or laws that will determine that an action is committed or not committed. Feinberg (1994: 64). Feinberg writes that for this view, freedom is incompatible with contingently sufficient nonsubsequent conditions of an action. The contingently sufficient nonsubsequent actions would be God making people in such a way that they only freely did one thing or another. Feinberg (1994: 60). Feinberg importantly writes that just as the incompatibilist does not claim that all actions are significantly free, the compatibilist also does not attach significant freedom to all acts. Feinberg (2001: 637).

Therefore, the compatibilist, soft-deterministic God of Reformed theology allows significant human freedom with the embracing of human thoughts, acts and action via human nature, desires and limited free will.

Although, in a basic agreement with Feinberg, I reason God at times, does force or coerce events in regard to humanity, in those cases, there is not significant human moral accountability. For example, a person unwillingly becomes an amputee. This is against the nature, desires and will. A person does not sin by rejecting the amputation with nature, desires and will.

The human ability with significant freedom to embrace thoughts, acts and actions as a secondary cause, philosophically and theologically eliminates God as forcing or coercing human thoughts, acts and actions where there is human, moral, accountability.

This answers the ‘monster’ theory.

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.

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

SCHELLING, F.W.J. (1845)(1936) Schelling, Of Human Freedom, Translated by James Gutmann, The Open Court Publishing Company, Chicago.

Sesame Street

Questioned on Jeremiah 26: Non-exhaustive reply

Last evening

Last night, while on the Pacific, a kind colleague from work that works within the translation department, questioned me on a verse in Jeremiah 26.

I explained that I had not looked in commentaries in regard to that verse. I am not certain which version he used, I do not recognize it from the three I generally use. But even though I am not commenting on the exact translated text he showed me, I am commenting on the concept.

Jeremiah 26

King James Version

3 If so be they will hearken, and turn every man from his evil way, that I may repent me of the evil, which I purpose to do unto them because of the evil of their doings.

New American Standard Bible

3 Perhaps they will listen and everyone will turn from his evil way, that I may repent of the calamity which I am planning to do to them because of the evil of their deeds.’

English Standard Version

3 It may be they will listen, and every one turn from his evil way, that I may relent of the disaster that I intend to do to them because of their evil deeds.

My reaction from reading what he showed me twice, and I looked at twice, again not one of these versions, was that God as infinite and omniscient, knows the various sides and possibilities of each issue, God knows the options in regard to each issue. The fact God may willingly allow for a secondary cause (or agent) to repent, does not eliminate the fact the God remains the primary cause whether or not God directly wills and causes something or whether God indirectly wills, allows and causes something.

Ra McLaughlin is Vice President of Creative Delivery Systems at Third Millennium Ministries.

From Reformed Answers

There are also at least two ways to approach Jeremiah 26:3. The first is to note that God is not confiding in Jeremiah. Rather, he is instructing Jeremiah to repeat these words to Judah, and Jeremiah is doing just that. Thus, the "perhaps" concept is not God's admission that he doesn't know the future, but a rhetorical prod to Judah that their fate depends on their actions. If they repent at Jeremiah's warning, God may not punish them. If, however, they do not repent, then God may indeed punish them. The "perhaps" indicates that either outcome is possible, not from the perspective of God's eternal decrees, but from the perspective of man's involvement with God in the world. 

---

Now, the second way to deal with each of these passages is to appeal to the doctrine of providence. This is not really a high-profile doctrine in Reformed circles these days, but it is nevertheless valuable. As opposed to the doctrine of the immutability of God's eternal decrees, providence describes God's mutable interactions with the world. "Mutable?" Yes, mutable. The doctrine of immutability does not state that God is incapable of any change, but only that he is immutable in the areas of his character, his covenant promises, and his eternal decrees.

I agree that God's infinite, eternal nature, cannot and does not change.

I reason that immutability allows God to understand several aspects of an issue or 'two sides' of an issue, and acknowledge that either (or several) could occur from the perspective of the human secondary cause. However, as explained, this does not cancel out God as primary cause.

 ---

Frequently, theologians are so eager to emphasize God's eternal decrees that they rush to an eternal perspective even when the Bible does not. For example, consider the common question: Why does the Bible say that God changed his mind? The typical answer runs something like this: God didn't change his mind. God always knew what he would ultimately think and do (eternal decrees, omniscience, etc.). The language of changing his mind is an anthropomorphism (e.g. the first way I explained Jer. 3:7). Well, the typical answer is okay as far as it goes, but it doesn't do justice to the whole picture. It makes God look like an immovable object, not a responsive being that interacts in relationships.

---

Notice how frequently the Bible explains God's actions from the perspective of God's eternal decrees (not very often), and compare that to how many times it says he changed his mind, or repented, or thought better of what he was going to do (all the time). If the important thing is to note God's eternal decrees, why does the Bible so often approach things from the other side? Moreover, even if changing his mind is an anthropomorphic metaphor, what is the point of correspondence between the human quality of changing one's mind and God's behavior? Why portray something immutable as mutable? How does that help us understand the truth about God's actions and attitudes in these situations? 

---

The doctrine of providence helps greatly in these situations because it describes things from the perspective of God's governance of his creation in time rather than from the perspective of his eternal decrees related his temporal governance. In time, God does change his mind (e.g. Exod. 32:14; 1 Sam. 12:22; Jer. 18:1-10; Amos 7:3,6; Jon 3:9-10) -- just as he eternally decreed that he would change his mind.

---

Thus, the second way to interpret Jeremiah 26:3 is according to providence -- it really was "perhaps" from God's perspective. Either outcome was possible, and God was ready for either. This does not mean that in his omniscience God did not know what they would do, but only that they could have done either, and that in his providence God was allowing them a choice.

---

And by allowing something, God is willing it as primary cause.

John Calvin: Jeremiah Commentary

As to God’s repentance, of which mention is made, there is no need of long explanation. No change belongs to God; but when God is said to turn away his wrath, it is to be understood in a sense suitable to the comprehension of men: in the same way also we are to understand the words, that he repents. (Psalm 85:5; 110:4.) It is at the same time sufficiently evident what God means here, even that he is reconcilable, as soon as men truly turn to him: and thus we see that men cannot be called to repent, until God’s mercy is presented to them. Hence also it follows, that these two things, repentance and faith, are connected together, and that it is absurd and an impious sacrilege to separate them; for God cannot be feared except the sinner perceives that he will be propitious to him: for as long as we are apprehensive of God’s wrath, we dread his judgment; and thus we storm against him, and must necessarily be driven headlong into the lowest abyss, hence under the Papacy they speak not only foolishly, but also coldly of repentance; for they leave souls doubtful and perplexed, nay, they take away every kind of certainty. Let us then understand the reason why the Holy Spirit teaches us, that repentance cannot be rightly and profitably taught, unless it be added, that God will be propitious to miserable men whenever they turn to him. (202-203).

From a human perspective, God repents of a position, as humanity in faith in the Biblical God, repents of sin. Again, regardless of what God directly wills, or indirectly allows and wills, God remains the primary cause.

CALVIN, JOHN (1509-1564) (1999), Commentary on Jeremiah and Lamentations, Volume 3, Grand Rapids, Christian Classic Ethereal Library. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom19.html

Briefly: Jude 8-10

Today

Briefly: Jude 8-10

I was listening to the King James Version, audio version today...

Jude 8-10

The King James Version

8 Likewise also these filthy dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities. 9 Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee. 10 But these speak evil of those things which they know not: but what they know naturally, as brute beasts, in those things they corrupt themselves.

Jude 8-10

English Standard Version

8 Yet in like manner these people also, relying on their dreams, defile the flesh, reject authority, and blaspheme the glorious ones. 9 But when the archangel Michael, contending with the devil, was disputing about the body of Moses, he did not presume to pronounce a blasphemous judgment, but said, “The Lord rebuke you.” 10 But these people blaspheme all that they do not understand, and they are destroyed by all that they, like unreasoning animals, understand instinctively.

Jude 8-10

New American Standard Bible

8 Yet in the same way these men, also by dreaming, defile the flesh, and reject authority, and revile [a]angelic majesties. 9 But Michael the archangel, when he disputed with the devil and argued about the body of Moses, did not dare pronounce against him a railing judgment, but said, “The Lord rebuke you!” 10 But these men revile the things which they do not understand; and the things which they know by instinct, like unreasoning animals, by these things they are [b]destroyed.

Footnotes:

Jude 1:8 Lit glories

Jude 1:10 Lit corrupted
---

My focus, admittedly briefly for this post, is the concept in verse 9, which has always interested me since reading (or hearing) it.

Satan (the devil), it appears is respected by the archangel Michael, to the point where Michael did not dare pronounce a judgement against the devil, but instead, left the judgement of Satan, with the Lord.

David F. Payne states that Jude contrasts the arrogance of the false brethren under review and criticism in the Book of Jude, to how Michael dealt with Satan. 'Michael would not speak arrogantly even to the devil.' (1591).

Based on my developed biblical and philosophical theology, Michael is an angel of high rank, that never departed, since his (an asexual entity) creation, by nature and choice from finite, moral, ethical, ontological perfection in serving the Triune God.

Satan, in contrast, departed, some point after his (an asexual entity) creation, from finite perfection, to corrupted, tainted, imperfection, opposing God.

Yet, with an implied correct understanding of conduct, Michael respected Satan.

I have read commentators that have opined that Satan could do damage to Michael in some way, and so Michael showed him respect. Possible theologically.

A Reformed theological perspective could be that Michael understood that Satan was a tool within God's plans, God as a primary cause and Satan as a secondary cause, and by showing respect to Satan, Michael showed respect to God, and for the eventual divine judgement of Satan.

I found it difficult to find what I viewed as clear and concise commentaries on this verse, that I could share on this website that would make much sense to readers (I found them tedious and disorganized), but John Calvin is helpful:

9. Yet Michael the archangel. Peter gives this argument shorter, and states generally, that angels, far more excellent than men, dare not bring forward a railing judgment. [2 Peter 2:11.] But as this history is thought to have been taken from an apocryphal book, it has hence happened that less weight has been attached to this Epistle. But since the Jews at that time had many things from the traditions of the fathers, I see nothing unreasonable in saying that Jude referred to what had already been handed down for many ages. I know indeed that many puerilities had obtained the name of tradition, as at this day the Papists relate as traditions many of the silly dotages of the monks; but this is no reason why they should not have had some historical facts not committed to writing. 

It is beyond controversy that Moses was buried by the Lord, that is, that his grave was concealed according to the known purpose of God. And the reason for concealing his grave is evident to all, that is, that the Jews might not bring forth his body to promote superstition. What wonder then is it, when the body of the prophet was hidden by God, Satan should attempt to make it known; and that angels, who are ever ready to serve God, should on the other hand resist him? And doubtless we see that Satan almost in all ages has been endeavoring to make the bodies of God's saints idols to foolish men. Therefore this Epistle ought not to be suspected on account of this testimony, though it is not found in Scripture. 

That Michael is introduced alone as disputing against Satan is not new. We know that myriads of angels are ever ready to render service to God; but he chooses this or that to do his business as he pleases. What Jude relates as having been said by Michael, is found also in the book of Zechariah, 

"Let God chide (or check) thee, Satan." (Zechariah 3:2.) 

And it is a comparison, as they say, between the greater and the less. Michael dared not to speak more severely against Satan (though a reprobate and condemned) than to deliver him to God to be restrained; but those men hesitated not to load with extreme reproaches the powers which God had adorned with peculiar honors. 

This seems a reasonable interpretation, citing the apocryphal and Hebrew Bible references that are found in scholarship as well as the often referenced from the Bible. (Zechariah, 2 Peter).

2 Peter 2:11

New American Standard Bible (NASB)

11 whereas angels who are greater in might and power do not bring a reviling judgment against them before the Lord.

The respect Michael showed to the condemned by God, Satan, is contrasted with the disrespect which false teachers showed to angelic majesties, those that God had honoured as such with majesty.

CALVIN, JOHN (1542) (2018) Jude, Christian Classics Ethereal Library, Bible Hub, Pennsylvania.
https://biblehub.com/commentaries/calvin/jude/1.htm

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

PAYNE DAVID F. (1986) 'Jude' in F.F. Bruce (ed.), The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Zondervan.

Jude: Bible Study Tools

9 ὁ δὲ Μιχαὴλ ὁ ἀρχάγγελος, ὅτε τῷ διαβόλῳ διακρινόμενος διελέγετο περὶ τοῦ Μωϋσέως σώματος, οὐκ ἐτόλμησεν κρίσιν ἐπενεγκεῖν βλασφημίας, ἀλλὰ εἶπεν · Ἐπιτιμήσαι σοι κύριος.

But Michael, the archangel, when the devil contended argued about the of Moses body did not a judgement to bring on of railing but said rebuke you Lord. (With the use of Greek interlinear text).

Chucky was thrilled when I purchased new gamepads for my old British games computer. It changed how Actua Soccer 3 is played and eliminated massive curved shots. He thought he had more chance. I struggled for a bit to score, but soon discovered the new way to score. Better than watching soap operas on television...Good for the mind.

In Three Minutes: Trusting the Bible?

Cover

JONES, TIMOTHY PAUL, (2007) Why Trust the Bible, Rose Publishing, MA.

Text numbers for the New Testament May 2018

Old Testament Apocrypha May 2008

New Testament Manuscripts May 2008

Canon non-exhaustive September 2017

Manuscript evidence August 2008

ELWELL, WALTER AND YARBROUGH, ROBERT W., Third Edition (2013) Encountering The New Testament, Grand Rapids, Baker Academic.

Daniel B. Wallace

Ancient scribes who copied the handwritten texts of the New Testament frequently changed the text intentionally. Although unintentional changes account for the vast majority of textual corruption, intentional alterations also account for thousands of corruptions. In some cases, to be sure, it does seem that the scribes were being malicious. But these instances are few and far between. The majority of the intentional changes to the text were done by scribes who either thought that the text they were copying had errors in it or by scribes who were clarifying the meaning, especially for liturgical reasons. 

Some of the commonest intentional changes involve parallel passages. This is where the passage that the scribe is copying out has a parallel to it of which the scribe is aware. For example, about 90% of the pericopes (or stories) in Mark’s Gospel are found in Matthew. When a scribe was copying Mark, after he had just finished copying Matthew, he would frequently remember the parallel in Matthew and make adjustments to the wording of Mark so that it would conform to the wording of Matthew. This alteration is known as harmonization. Occasionally, the wording in Matthew would be conformed to that of Mark or Luke. Or when the New Testament quotes from the Old Testament, especially when the quotation is from the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament abbreviated LXX), scribes tended to conform the wording in the NT to the LXX. Parallels between letters of Paul also suffer from this kind of alteration. But when certain manuscripts disagree with such parallels, they are usually considered to reflect the wording of the original text better. A part of the reason for this is that virtually all manuscripts harmonize passages. This shows that there was a concern for the wording of the text and the historical reliability of the text. Consequently, when a manuscript does not harmonize while most others do, it is usually considered to reflect the original wording. 

Scribes also were prone to clarify passages, especially for liturgical reasons. For example, 89 successive verses in Mark do not mention the name of Jesus once nor refer to him by any noun at all. But in the lectionary cycle, a portion of Mark’s Gospel would be read for the assigned day. It would be a bit confusing if the passage began with, “And he went out from Galilee.” Who is the ‘he’? The lectionaries would add the name of Jesus (and they did so in three well-placed locations in these 89 verses) to give a little context to the reader. The lectionaries exercised a great influence on the later manuscripts especially. What was part of the prescribed reading of scripture became so ingrained in the scribes’ minds that they naturally added the words that they knew from such recitations. 

Scribes also were prone to clarify what they thought the text meant. Sometimes they were right, sometimes they were wrong. There could be theological issues involved, or issues of mere orthopraxy (proper conduct in the church)... 

Quote

Even this strong motive to alter the text was never done systematically and was never done completely. For this reason, we can have a great deal of confidence that the essential message of the original text can be recovered, for there is always a witness to it.

In Three Minutes: Bible Overview pamphlet

Cover

Bible Overview (2004-2012), Hendrickson, RW Research Inc, Rose Publishing, MA.

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

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

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

New Testament section

Old Testament section

My brief PhD work in regard to Roman Catholic theology

Within my British PhD work, I found Roman Catholic Theologian, Alan Schreck quite useful academically, and have relied on Roman Catholic scholarship a fair amount in my academic work, on and offline, even with my somewhat different Reformed views.  I also documented work from  Roman Catholic theologian Peter Kreeft along with Ronald Tacelli.

---

Tradition

Roman Catholic theologian Alan Schreck states his Church agrees that the Bible is the inspired word of God,[1] but does not believe that the Bible is the only source of Revelation and spiritual guidance for Christians.[2]  A dividing point between Protestants and Catholics comes with Schreck’s idea that God within Catholic thought continues to select certain individuals that teach with God’s authority through the Holy Spirit.[3] Protestant and those within the Reformed camp have, at times throughout history disagreed, with the Biblical and theological interpretations of certain Roman Catholic leaders, in particular the Pope,[4] believed to be inspired by the Holy Spirit.[5]

Trinity

Alan Schreck demonstrates the Catholic view is quite similar to Reformed on this issue as he explains it is a central belief of his Church,[6] and that the early Church comprised the word Trinity from the Biblical idea for the one God consisting of three equal and distinct divine persons.[7]  

Baptismal Regeneration

Concerning the idea of baptismal regeneration, Schreck explains that Roman Catholics view infant baptism ‘as normally the first step in accepting God’s salvation.’[8]  He admits that the New Testament does not explicitly state whether or not infants or children were baptized,[9] but it is possible they were as ‘whole households’ are mentioned in the New Testament as receiving baptism.[10]  He reasons that there is no solid evidence that before the third century infants and children were baptized in the Church,[11] but by the fifth century this practice was universal in the Church.[12]  The theological hope with the practice of infant baptism is that the initial stages of regeneration have taken place through the faith of the parents,[13] as Schreck notes ‘Jesus does respond in this way when infants and children are baptized.’[14]  In the baptism process it is Christ that saves, and therefore salvation is not merited.[15] Whale reasons infant baptism demonstrates that Christ did something for a person, without waiting for human approval.[16] Rebaptism[17] would never be needed as although baptized Roman Catholics can turn from the faith, if they do turn back to Christ the initial baptism is sufficient.[18] The sacrament of infant baptism is one of the ‘foundational stones of Church.’[19]

Klein, Blomberg and Hubbard reason it is not Biblically clear what type of baptism should be practiced.[20]  Infant baptism is not taught in Scripture directly,[21] and therefore it can be deduced the same could be stated for the associated concepts of baptismal regeneration with Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox Churches. However, legitimate theological inference leads to concepts of infant baptism,[22] and so there are also historical arguments for baptismal regeneration within the Christian community which includes Catholic,[23] Eastern Orthodox, and even in some cases Presbyterian, Lutheran and Episcopal. 

BROMILEY, G.W. (1996) ‘Baptism, Infant’, in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books. 

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

KLEIN, WILLIAM W., CRAIG, C. BLOMBERG, AND ROBERT L. HUBBARD, JR. (1993) Introduction to Biblical Interpretation, London, Word Publishing 

SCHRECK, ALAN (1984) Catholic and Christian, Ann Arbor, Michigan, Servant Books. WHALE, J.S. (1958) Christian Doctrine, Glasgow, Fontana Books.

---

[1] Schreck (1984: 41). 

[2] Schreck (1984: 42). Strictly speaking as noted, those in Reformed theology do trust in non-Biblical truths for spiritual guidance. Calvin admitted this in the context of Scripture and tradition.  Calvin (1543)(1996: 64).   I should also add that any reliance on philosophy and philosophy of religion is not strictly Biblical and I and many Reformed scholars look to philosophy for truth.  

[3] Schreck (1984: 42). 

[4] Calvin explains, within The Bondage and Liberation of the Will, his opinion that at that point in history the Papacy was beyond Reform.  Calvin (1543)(1996: 17).

[5] Schreck (1984: 42). 

[6] Schreck (1984: 14). 

[7] Schreck (1984: 14).

[8] Schreck (1984: 124). 

[9] Schreck (1984: 126). 

[10] Schreck (1984: 126).  

[11] Schreck (1984: 127).  G.W. Bromiley writes that Irenaeus (ca. 130-ca. 200) and Origen (ca. 185-ca. 254) were Church Fathers that could be traced back to the Apostles, and these men practiced infant baptism.  Bromiley (1999: 116).  If Irenaeus did practice infant baptism, this would trace the practice to the second century.

[12] Schreck (1984: 127). 

[13] Schreck (1984: 128). 

[14] Schreck (1984: 128). 

[15] Schreck (1984: 128). 

[16] Whale (1958: 158).

[17] Or Believer’s Baptism as it is known within Baptist and Anabaptist theology.

[18] Schreck (1984: 129). 

[19] Whale (1958: 158).  Whale does not view infant baptism as mere dedication or as a rite effecting regeneration and so his position is not identical to Schreck’s, although he does support the sacrament being practiced.

[20] Klein, Blomberg, and Hubbard (1993: 140).

[21] Klein, Blomberg, and Hubbard (1993: 140).

[22] Klein, Blomberg, and Hubbard (1993: 140).

[23] Schreck (1984: 124).  

God and Sovereignty

Peter Kreeft (1988) explains that the problem of evil is the most serious problem in the world,[1] and is a very serious objection to theism.[2] 

Roman Catholics Peter Kreeft and Ronald K. Tacelli (1994) suggest that God faces no real barriers in actions he wishes to commit, and that only what God allows, such as human sin, could thwart God’s plans.[3]   

They note if God did not allow human beings the option to misuse their freedom, they would not be human but animal or machine[4] having less value than creatures that had the potential to be persuaded by God to follow him, and turn from wrong doing.[5]

Satan

Kreeft, working with Ronald K. Tacelli, states Satan is a deceiver of humanity,[6] and this implies the assumption that Satan has personality.[7] 

In Regard to Calvinism

They note that some, but not all, forms of Calvinism subscribe to a view of hard determinism that denies any human free will.[8]  I would reason that in light of their statement[9] that most Calvinists are not hard determinists.[10]  

On Desires and Freewill

Kreeft and Tacelli approach desires in a similar way as Mele as they state that human beings have innate desire for natural things such as food and drink,[11] and external desires such as sports cars and political office.[12]  Kreeft and Tacelli’s innate desires concept would somewhat correspond to Mele’s intrinsic ones as these would be the inner most human desires.[13] Kreeft and Tacelli’s external desires would be similar to Mele’s extrinsic desires,[14] which would be secondary desires fulfilled in order to fulfill the deepest human desires.[15]

Immanence and Transcendence

Kreeft and Tacelli explain that God’s immanence means the creator must give created beings what they need.[16]  If God was not actively communicating being[17] to all his creation, his creation would cease to exist.[18] 

It is stated that God as transcendent is not part of the material universe.[19]  God is ‘other’ than his creation yet maintains it as transcendent.[20] 

Universalism

Kreeft and Tacelli explain that universalism is universal salvation and has been considered by some well-known orthodox Christians over the centuries[21] as a viable alternative to hell, although Kreeft and Tacelli reject this alternative.[22] 

KREEFT, PETER (1988) Fundamentals of the Faith, San Francisco, Ignatius Press. 

KREEFT, PETER AND RONALD K. TACELLI (1994) Handbook of Christian Apologetics, Downers Grove, Illinois, InterVarsity Press.

MELE, ALFRED R. (1996) ‘Extrinsic Desire’, in Robert Audi, (ed.), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

---

[1] Kreeft (1988: 54-58).

[2] Kreeft (1988: 54-58).

[3] Kreeft and Tacelli (1994: 96).

[4] Kreeft and Tacelli (1994: 138).

[5] Kreeft and Tacelli (1994: 138).This assumes incompatibilism but it is true that human beings would be vastly different with significantly less freedom due to divine determining factors. 

[6] Kreeft and Tacelli (1994: 294).

[7] Kreeft and Tacelli (1994: 294).

[8] Kreeft and Tacelli (1994: 137).

[9] Kreeft and Tacelli (1994: 137).

[10] My research demonstrates that hard determinism is problematic for the majority of Calvinists and those within Reformed theology because Scripture (Romans 1-3, for example) condemns persons for sin and holds them morally accountable. Therefore, persons must at least freely embrace their own actions within soft determinism in order for punishment to be just.

[11] Kreeft and Tacelli (1994: 78).

[12] Kreeft and Tacelli (1994: 78).

[13] Kreeft and Tacelli (1994: 78). 

[14] Mele (1996: 259).

[15] Kreeft and Tacelli (1994: 78).

[16] Kreeft and Tacelli (1994: 93-94).

[17] Kreeft and Tacelli with the use of the word ‘being’ are stating that God, in an abstract sense, is communicating himself to his creation.

[18] Kreeft and Tacelli (1994: 93-94).

[19] Kreeft and Tacelli (1994: 93). 

[20] Kreeft and Tacelli (1994: 93). 

[21] This would, of course, provide another opportunity for a PhD thesis.

[22] Kreeft and Tacelli (1994: 286).

Edited from

Theodicy and Practical Theology (2010), The University of Wales, Trinity Saint David.