LANGER, SUSANNE K (1953)(1967) An Introduction to Symbolic Logic, Dover Publications, New York. (Philosophy)
The review continues...
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
Last time with this review:
Langer 212-213
Philosopher Langer on page 214 further explains that in symbolic logic the uniqueness of 0 and 1 is guaranteed and therefore a more important equation as the system of the Law of Tautology can be shown. (214).
Tautology is repeating the same idea, not identically.
These propositions are called 'tautology' because they show that no matter how many times a term is mentioned in a sum or in a product (within symbolic logic, my add), a product is not changed by being multiplied or by something in it, nor a sum by having one of its summands added to it. (215).
To simplify, she writes:
A class of dogs is simply a class of dogs. (215).
Adding of multiplying dogs in that class, does not change the fact it is only and simply a class of dogs.
Therefore, my examples:
z= Dogs
z x z = z
z + z = z
---
This text is becoming increasingly technical, but practically, philosophically and theologically, the logic here assists with concepts such as...
The infinite class (God) is simply infinite, nothing can be multiplied or added to that class.
The finite class is simply finite, nothing can be multiplied or added to that class.
This logic would counter philosophies and theologies reasoning the finite can become infinite.
This free pamphlet provides some biblical, New Testament verses in regard to Joy and Joy to the World. This is available from Cafe Logos, the Canadian Bible Society @1207 Kingsway,Vancouver.
Joy To The World, Canadian Bible Society (2018).
We are in our soft opening and receiving positive public response.
Reviewing this today, theologically, a reasonable, true, non-exhaustive, definition for Joy is that Joy is from God to the believer in Jesus Christ; and is pleasure in experiencing God, despite circumstances.
Happiness, in contrast is more based on circumstances.
From the archives of my second website, Satire Und Theology...
Browning reasons Biblical 'joy' is more than an emotion, as it combines a sense of human happiness with a state of blessedness. In the Old Testament it is marked by festivals (Deuteronomy 12) and by settlements of grievances brought to the Temple (Psalms 43). In the New Testament he explains that 'joy' is prominent in Luke/Acts due to the gifts of the Holy Spirit, which can also be seen in Galatians 5. Browning (1997: 210).
Creath Davis explains 'joy' is a delight in life that goes deeper than pain or pleasure and from a Biblical perspective would not be limited or tied to external circumstances. Davis (1999: 588). 'Joy' is given from God as a gift and can be experienced during very difficult and extreme circumstances. Davis (1999: 588).
In both Testaments 'joy' is presented as sign of one being a believer and a sign in the believing community, it is a quality of life and not simply an emotional reaction or feeling. Davis (1999: 588). This 'joy' comes from God (Psalms 16, Romans 15), and is an aspect of faith and one's life with God. Davis (1999: 588). 'Joy' is also connected to weakness and suffering when it has redemptive purpose and is bringing persons to depend on God (Matthew 5 and 2 Corinthians 12). Davis (1999: 588).
Further, Davis mentions that psychologically one cannot experience 'joy' while being preoccupied with self-security, pleasure, or self-interest. Davis (1999: 588). There is a freedom that comes when God alone is the 'only adequate center for human existence, and God alone can enable persons to experience life with joyous spontaneity and to relate to others with love.' Davis (1999: 588)
From Strong. Two of the main examples of 'Joy', one from the Hebrew Bible and one from the New Testament.
Page 104
Page 156
BROWNING, W.R.F. (1997) Oxford Dictionary of the Bible, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
DAVIS, CREATH. (1996) ‘Joy’, in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.
STRONG, J. (1890)(1986) Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, Burlington, Welch Publishing Company.
Since I was fairly young, I have found the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, theologically and culturally, interesting. I have attended the open house at the Vancouver Temple (Langley) at its beginning and toured Temple Square in May. I have been to the local Mormon church, once, for a public gathering.
I consider myself friendly to Latter-day Saints, and their various versions, and only friendly, although my theology, being biblical and Reformed/Protestant, is vastly different, as is my worldview. I appreciated their kindness to me on the occasions I visited. I appreciated the tours. This is not an attack, it is a theological (philosophical, biblical) comparison in brief.
Further, I have been watching Mormon Christmas specials, from time to time over the years, not because I am interested in Christmas music; no not very much, although the performances seem first rate.
I am interested in the culture of belief. In other words, in my view, there are very strong emotional and cultural reasons persons embrace Mormonism (and persons that embrace other worldviews, religious and otherwise).
Being the oddball I am, I am one of the minority on the planet that primarily bases my worldview on researched theology (scriptural) and philosophy, while I do give God the credit as the philosophical first cause and the one that theologically regenerates my spirit and person through the Holy Spirit (John 3, Titus 3).
So, in kindness, here are some differences in views.
Theology/Philosophy
At approximately 39: 58-59, Mr. Hugh Bonneville (paraphrased) names the Christmas birth of Jesus Christ and his example showing God's love that does overcome the darkness and evil.
A Christmas example...
I realize he is a performer, but still he is representing their Church at this point, publicly.
In contrast:
The incarnation of Jesus Christ, God the Son actually leads to his crucifixion and his atoning (see gospel accounts on the crucifixion) and resurrection work (1 Corinthians 15) for those chosen and predestined by God (Ephesians 1).
Christ's work in life and in death, as example is rather secondary theologically and in regards to overcoming evil. (See my archives for vast MPhil/PhD work on the problem of evil)
It is secondary, as no finite, sinful human being can duplicate it, so as an example it has its fatal limitations!
Atonement, in particular, examples:
Romans 5:7-8 New American Standard Bible (NASB)
7 For one will hardly die for a righteous man; [a]though perhaps for the good man someone would dare even to die. 8 But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Footnotes: Romans 5:7 Lit for
1 Corinthians 15:3-4 New American Standard Bible (NASB)
3 For I delivered to you [a]as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,
Footnotes:
1 Corinthians 15:3 Lit among the first
Hebrews 10: 10-14 New American Standard Bible (NASB)
10 By this will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
11 Every priest stands daily ministering and offering time after time the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins; 12 but He, having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, sat down at the right hand of God, 13 waiting from that time onward until His enemies be made a footstool for His feet. 14 For by one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified.
Salvation from Sin. To be cleansed from sin through the Savior’s Atonement, an individual must exercise faith in Jesus Christ, repent, be baptized, and receive the gift of the Holy Ghost (see Acts 2:37–38). Those who have been baptized and have received the Holy Ghost through the proper priesthood authority have been conditionally saved from sin. In this sense, salvation is conditional, depending on an individual’s continuing in faithfulness, or enduring to the end in keeping the commandments of God (see 2 Peter 2:20–22). Individuals cannot be saved in their sins; they cannot receive unconditional salvation simply by declaring a belief in Christ with the understanding that they will inevitably commit sins throughout the rest of their lives (see Alma 11:36–37). However, through the grace of God, all can be saved from their sins (see 2 Nephi 25:23; Helaman 5:10–11) as they repent and follow Jesus Christ. ---
I differ from this approach, as theologically we are saved by the atoning work (and resurrection work) of Christ by regeneration, through grace through faith (Romans, Galatians, Ephesians 2).
Biblical repentance is a result during regeneration, simultaneously in conversion of the work initiated by God. No one is going to receive the Holy Spirit without being first regenerated by the triune God.
A proper priesthood authority, biblically has nothing to do with salvation and brings us theologically, firmly to work's righteousness, which is in fatal contrast to the historical, biblical gospel.
A proper priesthood authority, biblically has nothing to do with salvation and brings us theologically, firmly to work's righteousness, which is in fatal contrast to the historical, biblical gospel. Hebrews discusses Jesus Christ as the high priest and mediator of the new covenant. His atoning work makes a priesthood obsolete.
The Latter-day Saints claim to provide a restored gospel, but it is not a biblical one (Galatians 1).
Salvation is not conditional on work's righteousness (again Romans, Galatians, Ephesians 2) and by keeping the commandments of God as the human nature (desires, will, choice) is corrupted by sin and unable to begin or maintain a work's righteousness for salvation.
I reason that God alone plans, creates, initiates salvation. Regenerated human beings, embrace the gospel work of salvation for salvation. Human righteousness, and good works arise from salvation but do not create or maintain salvation. Even when guided by the Holy Spirit, this righteousness and good works remains humanly tainted until the resurrection (1 Corinthians 15, Revelation 21-22), while God remains holy.
The Orthodox Study Bible, New Testament and Psalms, (1993) Saint Athanasius Orthodox Academy,Thomas Nelson Publishers, Nashville, Tennessee.
Purchased from my employer, the Canadian Bible Society @ Cafe Logos, Vancouver.
This text review continues...
This Christmas Eve, almost Christmas Day, in the Pacific time zone, I share from this scholarly text some academic, intellectual support for incarnation of God the Son, the eternal Word.
Contrary to some, theologically and philosophically, I do not view sin against the infinite God as infinite. Sin had a beginning and is, in fact, finite, not infinite.
Ontologically, God (and attributes) is the only infinite entity.
This text is correct that within the New Testament atonement, it took a perfect man and the perfect God, and I will add the infinite God, to outlast and atone for the human sin against the infinite, eternal God.
The Orthodox Study Bible, New Testament and Psalms, (1993) Saint Athanasius Orthodox Academy,Thomas Nelson Publishers, Nashville, Tennessee.
Purchased from my employer, the Canadian Bible Society @ Cafe Logos, Vancouver.
This text review continues...
Although from theologians, philosophers, biblical scholars and scientists, alike, there would be much debate on the degree of biblical literalness in regard to the new heaven and new earth, I have written on this previously on this website (edited).
---
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 is 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, others views presented support largely plain literal interpretations of eschatological and creation texts, at times 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? But the entire earth and universe. 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.
---
In basic agreement, I find the entry below within the Orthodox Study Bible, quite academic and reasonable. I tentatively and cautiously hold to figurative literal (a degree of literalness) theology with the new heaven and new earth.
Page 630
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.
A free booklet provided by my employer, the Canadian Bible Society, @ Cafe Logos, 1207 Kingsway.
The Danger of False Teachers (2011), Bill Crowder, RBC Ministries, Grand Rapids.
Brief review:
The booklet prefaces on page 5 explaining that the first century Roman world resembled the religious pluralism of the 21st century, with numerous gods and various religious groups. (5).
Gnosticism was a philosophy influencing some within the Christian Church. The name comes from the Greek gnosis, meaning knowledge. (5). This philosophy presents this gnosis as hidden knowledge. (5).
The booklet explains three problematic issues with Gnosticism and Christianity...
Gnosticism:
1. Claimed secret, hidden knowledge, in contrast to the gospel, which was publicly declared. (6).
I will add that the Hebrew Bible and New Testament were also scripturally revealed as religious documentation and religious history. (6).
2. Provided its adherents a license to sin, as it emphasized the spiritual and deemphasized
the physical. (6).
3. Viewed Jesus Christ as more of an angelic figure than as God the Son, within the Trinity. (6).
The nature and dangers of false teaching and false teachers is reasonably presented in a small booklet using biblical history and biblical theology.
---
From this website archives
Book of Jude commenter David F. Payne explains that there is a traditional view, widely held, that Jude was the brother of James, both sons of Mary and Joseph, therefore half-brother of Jesus Christ. Payne (1986: 1590).
Many scholars, reason the text was written in the 60s or 70s AD.
Payne states 70s to 80s AD. Payne (1986: 1590).
Payne reasons that the free use of non-canonical text (such as Enoch) points to a first-century date. Payne (1986: 1590).
The text was designed to counter particular heretical theologies and philosophical views that arose in the Church. Payne (1986: 1590).
Antinomianism was one manifestation and was connected to Gnostic thought. Matter was viewed as evil and in contrast, all spiritual was considered good. Payne (1986: 1590). Payne states that this led to cultivated spiritual lives and misdeeds of the physical nature. Payne (1986: 1590).
Gnosticism describes an early religious movement that placed special emphasis upon knowledge (Greek: gnosis) of God and the nature and eventual destiny of humanity. Knowledge was needed to liberate the soul from cosmic forces. Wilson (1999: 226).
PAYNE. DAVID F.(1986) Jude, in F.F. Bruce, (ed.), The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Marshall Pickering/Zondervan.
STRONG, J. (1890)(1986) Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, Burlington, Welch Publishing Company.
WILSON, R. MCL (1999) ‘Gnosticism’, in Alan Richardson and John Bowden (eds.), A New Dictionary of Christian Theology, Kent, SCM Press Ltd.
The Orthodox Study Bible, New Testament and Psalms, (1993) Saint Athanasius Orthodox Academy,Thomas Nelson Publishers, Nashville, Tennessee.
Purchased from my employer, the Canadian Bible Society @ Cafe Logos, Vancouver. This text review continues...
Theotokos
Admittedly, as I am not Orthodox, this is a new theological term for me. As my readers may reason, at times on this website I deal with new theological and philosophical terms.
Live and learn.
From page 809 of the text under review...
Mary is considered the Mother of God because in the incarnation she was blessed by God and gave birth to the Son of God.
Technically, I prefer stating that Mary is the mother of the incarnate Son of God. Consistent with many Protestant and Reformed views and one within the Mennonite Brethren tradition, by which I am a member, I view Mary in high regard with respect for her very important biblical position, but not in the context of any type of veneration.
Page 809
Luke 1:42-45 New American Standard Bible (NASB)
42 And she cried out with a loud voice and said, “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb! 43 And [a]how has it happened to me, that the mother of my Lord would come to me?
Luke 1:42-45 King James Version (KJV)
42 And she spake out with a loud voice, and said, Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb.
43 And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?
Luke 1:42-45 English Standard Version (ESV)
42 and she exclaimed with a loud cry, “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb! 43 And why is this granted to me that the mother of my Lord should come to me?
A title given to God in this context and within that definition in Luke 1: 43, is the Messiah.
Cited
to the Messiah; and that αα. to the Messiah regarded universally: Luke 1:43; Luke 2:11; Matthew 21:3; Matthew 22:45; Mark 11:3; Mark 12:36; Luke 19:34; Luke 20:44
The Orthodox Study Bible, New Testament and Psalms, (1993) Saint Athanasius Orthodox Academy,Thomas Nelson Publishers, Nashville, Tennessee.
Purchased from my employer, the Canadian Bible Society @ Cafe Logos, Vancouver.
This text review continues...
I am filling in for a missing staff member today, as I usually do not drive out to Vancouver, Tuesday, but a couple of visitors noticed this bible and were intrigued.
Based on my reading and research, reasonably, Orthodoxy, does not hold to justification by grace through faith, alone.
This causes a theological separation from
Protestantism
Reformed
Many within the Protestant Church, including many evangelicals and many fundamentalists within, therefore understand Orthodoxy as holding to works righteousness and not justification by grace through faith. In other words, it is reasoned Orthodoxy assumes that the atoning and resurrection work in Christ is not sufficient for salvation.
In my view, as a Reformed theologian and philosopher, within Orthodoxy (or any religious movement, including Protestant, Roman Catholic or other) where works righteousness exists, it will not save anyone (good works are a sign and result of salvation).
As a Protestant within the Reformed tradition, again for clarity, I reason that God alone plans, creates, initiates salvation. Regenerated human beings, embrace the gospel work of salvation for salvation.
From page 801 of the Orthodox Study Bible:
By their own definition...
Orthodoxy here, denies works righteousness for salvation.
But my theological reasoning, in regards to justification by faith, by adding the concept of cooperation by His grace, it denies justification by grace through faith alone.
As I noted in the previous article in review of this text...
If by works righteousness, concepts within James and Romans 4 (4: 22 Therefore it was also credited to him as righteousness) are meant, as in showing salvific faith by works and obedience, I can accept that as embracing salvation, but I would not use the term 'cooperation'.
This theology, from my Reformed perspective also places too much reliance on libertarian free will, as I view regeneration as taking place from God and embraced by the chosen person.
A significantly free response within moral responsibility in faith is not forced or coerced, but it is also not done in libertarian free will. Those whom God chooses, will freely believe (Ephesians 1-2, Romans 8-9), they will not reject salvation as God has regenerated and simultaneously converted the person (s) that believes by grace through faith.
However, I take Orthodoxy and the Orthodox Study Bible at its word here, to be clear...
Dr. Ross's comments, minimally, biblically, present a reasonable interpretation.
2 Peter 3: 5-7
New American Standard Bible
5 For [a]when they maintain this, it escapes their notice that by the word of God the heavens existed long ago and the earth was formed out of water and by water, 6 through which the world at that time was destroyed, being flooded with water. 7 But by His word the present heavens and earth are being reserved for fire, kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men.
Ross's view supports a localized, 'worldwide' flood effecting humanity and animal life.
Therefore some animal life is preserved within the Ark of Noah.
This is not a global flood, by Dr. Ross's interpretation, theologically. But from my previous study of 2 Peter this concept of 'world' and world system, as opposed to global, would (again) be reasonable. The use of figurative literal language at points, as opposed to plain literal is permissible within 2 Peter.
I would deduce that within this view, the 'new world' would have been untouched by the biblical flood, so for example, North and South America and Oceania would have not been flooded.
STRONGS NT 2889: κόσμος
κόσμος kósmos, kos'-mos; probably from the base of G2865; orderly arrangement, i.e. decoration; by implication, the world (in a wide or narrow sense, including its inhabitants, literally or figuratively (morally)):—adorning, world.
Controversially, this would raise the theological possibility, that if there were other human beings in the new world at the time of Noah's flood, they would have remained untouched, as would have been animal life in the new world.
This view from Ross would counter premises from critics stating that not all animal life could have been in the Ark. And as well, that not animal life was destroyed in the flood.
I would reason that not all insect life, was destroyed, for example, in the 'old world' or 'new world'.
Dr.Ross's views may be offensive to many within fundamentalistic Christianity, but they should at least be considered within scholarship.
BARCLAY, WILLIAM (1976) The Letters of James and Peter, Philadelphia, The Westminster Press.
PAYNE. DAVID F.(1986) ‘2 Peter’, in F.F. Bruce, (ed.), The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Marshall Pickering/Zondervan.
Theologically and philosophically and very non-exhaustively within this article, as long as I can remember, I have been fascinated by time; and by the unchanging nature of an infinite, eternal God that exists within created, finite time.
For humanity:
The past cannot be (literally) relived, but can be experienced in a sense, as in remembered and learned from.
The future can never be grasped, but can be planned for.
The present is all we can literally live in.
A positive in regard to a Christian, biblical, worldview is what I shall state is the continued present.
That is being within the salvific work of the triune God through Jesus Christ, when a believer dies, it is most reasonable that his/her disembodied spirit (soon, I am not stating dogmatically, instantaneously) resides in the spiritual realm of Paradise.
Bauer on page 614 describes Paradise from Luke 23, 2 Corinthians 12 and Revelation 2 as a place above the earth. Now from my philosophical/theological perspective I do not take this plain literally, as in some place in the clouds, or above the clouds, or even beyond the solar system or beyond the physical Universe, as in a place that can be physically found via space/travel.
The Bible (New Testament more distinctly) teaches that Paradise is a place where spirits in Christ go after death, and Old Testament/Hebrew Bible saints went to spiritually after death.
The Bible teaches this using figurative literal language.
There is also the issue of Paul's 2 Corinthians reference and his willingness to consider departing the body to be with the Lord in Philippians 1.
Upon the resurrection in 1 Corinthians 15, those in Christ have a restored, immortal body to live within the new heaven and new earth (Revelation 21-22) and the culminated Kingdom of God.
The theological assumption is that Paradise is a temporary realm for those in Jesus Christ and Old Testament saints.
Paradise = Heaven1
The culminated Kingdom of God = Heaven2
Both present the continued present.
BAUER, W (1979) A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, Translated by Eric H. Wahlstrom, Chicago, The University of Chicago Press.
Valid: an argument is valid if and only if it is necessary that if all of the premises are true, then the conclusion is true; if all the premises are true, then the conclusion must be true; it is impossible that all the premises are true and the conclusion is false.
(Cannot have true premises and false conclusion (TF) for validity, my add) Invalid: an argument that is not valid. We can test for invalidity by assuming that all the premises are true and seeing whether it is still possible for the conclusion to be false. If this is possible, the argument is invalid. Validity and invalidity apply only to arguments, not statements. For our purposes, it is just nonsense to call a statement valid or invalid. True and false apply only to statements, not arguments. For our purposes, it is just nonsense to call an argument true or false. All deductive arguments aspire to validity.
Sound: an argument is sound if and only if it is valid and contains only true premises.
Unsound: an argument that is not sound.
Valid: Argument (s)
True: Premises and conclusion (s)
Notice, I will at times state that something is reasonable. This connects to the idea of validity, not necessarily truth or soundness. Although it may be so, in my view.
Absolute necessity might be defined as truth at absolutely all possible worlds without restriction. But we should be able to explain it without invoking possible worlds.
By my definition 1,2 are necessary in all possible worlds.
The standard account defines each kind of relative necessity by means of a necessitated or strict conditional, whose antecedent is a propositional constant for the body of assumptions relative to which the consequent is asserted to be necessary.
The relative necessity of (3) has as antecedent the absolute necessity of (1,2).
Further, God, within his infinite, eternal nature, would only be morally obligated to keep his revealed word, as in promises, in regard to contingent, human beings. These are documented in the Hebrew Bible and New Testament within a theistic, Christian worldview.
In contrast, some may view God’s plans as contingent as opposed to necessary.
If God’s plans for humanity are contingent, because he could have done otherwise, the fact these contingent plans come from a necessary being would still have them supersede the plans and needs of the contingent.
---
Further, God, within his infinite, eternal nature, would only be morally obligated to keep his revealed word, as in promises, in regard to contingent, human beings. These are documented in the Hebrew Bible and New Testament within a theistic, Christian worldview.
December 8, 2018
The necessary, what exists by necessity, to parallel this philosophical concept with that which is biblical, has plans that exist within the contingency of finite creation, in the context of the material universe and as well with the existence of finite angelic and demonic beings.
Biblically and based on theological and philosophical reason:
God, as what is necessary can complete divine plans with options, however, as they take place within a contingent reality...
I see two options:
1. Perfect will
Direct cause
2. Permissible will
Indirect cause
Allowing
---
2 Peter 2: 3
8
But do not let this one fact escape your notice, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like one day. 9 The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance.
New American Standard Bible (NASB)
As I read in Erickson, that is a Calvinist theologian, taking his idea (paraphrased) as a reasonable theological possibility (361).
God's perfect will is that all are saved. (2 Peter 3).
God's permissible will is only those chosen are saved. (Ephesians 1-2, Romans 8-9).
There is also a reasonable objection that it is theologically possible that it is God's perfect will that occurs, at least in regard to human salvation and the citizenship of those within the culminated Kingdom of God. In that case, 2 Peter 3, is not discussing salvation but the repentance of those in Jesus Christ. The 'you' being those already covered by the atoning and resurrection work of Jesus Christ. Those in the Christian Church reading the scripture.
As my mentor at Columbia Bible taught me, sometimes we live with theological tension. Add biblical and philosophical tension, in this case.
BARCLAY, WILLIAM (1976) The Letters of James and Peter, Philadelphia, The Westminster Press.
BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996) Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
BONJOUR, LAURENCE. (1996) ‘A Priori’, in Robert Audi (ed.), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
ERICKSON, MILLARD (1994) Christian Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.
MARSHALL, ALFRED (1975)(1996) The Interlinear KJV-NIV, Grand Rapids, Zondervan.
PAYNE. DAVID F.(1986) ‘2 Peter’, in F.F. Bruce, (ed.), The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Marshall Pickering/Zondervan.
POJMAN, LOUIS P. (1996) Philosophy: The Quest for Truth, New York, Wadsworth Publishing Company.
STRONG, J. (1890)(1986) Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, Burlington, Welch Publishing Company.
Purchased from my employer, the Canadian Bible Society @ Cafe Logos, Vancouver.
Brief review and comments:
Do Christians Believe In 3 Gods? (1992-2002), Mart De Haan & Herb Vander Lugt, RBC Ministries, Grand Rapids, Michigan.
On page 1, this booklet states that (paraphrased) Islam, Judaism, Jehovah's Witnesses and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints all in error, reject the biblically based doctrine of the Trinity. (1).
Do Christians believe in three Gods? (21).
The text explains that the Bible (New Testament, definitively) teaches that there is God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit (Matthew 28, my add). (21). Each has a distinct personality. (21).
However, God is one being. (21). It defines...
God the Father: Originator
God the Son: Agent
God the Holy Spirit: Administrator of Applicator (21).
These seem reasonable definitions, but needless to state there would be much theological debate in regards to these non-exhaustive, limited definitions. None of the distinctions are independent of the others. (21).
This little booklet is biblical and certainly a reasonable free resource to own! It has a lot of free content.
My take on the Trinity from previous website work:
Colossians 2:9-10 (Him is Jesus Christ)
'New American Standard Bible (NASB)
9 For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form, 10 and in Him you have been made [a]complete, and He is the head [b]over all rule and authority;
Footnotes: Colossians 2:10
Lit full Colossians 2:10 Lit of '
N.T. Wright explains in regard to Colossians 2: 9-10, it is an continuation of 1:19 (109), 'for all the fulness to dwell in him.' (NASB).
'He is uniquely God's presence and his very self'. (109). Wright reasons that Paul is teaching monotheistic doctrine here and not that Jesus Christ is a second deity. (109). Christ is the embodiment of full deity. (109).
God the Son, is not a second deity, God the Holy Spirit is not a third deity.
Based on this section of Scripture, a proper interpretation is that although the Father can be reasonably defined as the planner, all of God in nature is involved in the planning process in a sense; in infinite knowledge and agreement. The infinite nature of God in the three distinctions is fully aware of plans. The Godhead is involved in the atoning and resurrection work of Christ, even though it was Jesus Christ that died on the cross and was resurrected.
Jesus Christ, the Word (John 1) remains infinite, eternal God in spirit, and became God incarnate, finite man.
Acts 2: 24 states that God raised Him (Jesus Christ) from the dead and in the process defeated death.
As I noted in a previous article from Hebrews 1: Greek scholar Walter Bauer defines 'Hupostasis' the original ὑπόστασις, (εως, ἡit) from the Greek as substantial nature, essence, actual being, reality. In the context of Hebrews 1: 3 the Son of God is the exact representation of God’s real being. (page 847).
Erickson further explains that each member of the Trinity is quantitatively equal. Erickson (1994: 337).
Matthew 28: 19-20 and Acts 5 are two examples from the New Testament demonstrating the Holy Spirit as God.
Matthew 28:19-20
New American Standard Bible (NASB)
19 [a]Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you [b]always, even to the end of the age.”
Footnotes:
Matthew 28:19 Or Having gone; Gr aorist part.
Matthew 28:20 Lit all the days
Acts 5: 2-6
New American Standard Bible (NASB)
It is stated that one can lie to the Holy Spirit (verse 3) and therefore lie to God. 'You have not lied to men, but to God.' (verse 4).
All three distinctions within the trinity are infinite, of one ontological (existence and being) essence and nature, and yet with distinctions.
As God is eternally relational, humanity in specifically relational in the context of being made in the image and likeness of God (Genesis 1-26-27). God could create finite creatures capable of relationship and communication, because that is also an aspect of God's nature.
BAUER, WALTER. (1979) A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, Translated by Eric H. Wahlstrom, Chicago, The University of Chicago Press.
ERICKSON, MILLARD (1994) Christian Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.
WRIGHT, N.T., Colossians and Philemon, (1986)(1989), IVP, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids.
The Orthodox Study Bible, New Testament and Psalms, (1993) Saint Athanasius Orthodox Academy,Thomas Nelson Publishers, Nashville, Tennessee.
Purchased from my employer, the Canadian Bible Society @ Cafe Logos, Vancouver.
This text review continues...
Theology of salvation is compared:
1. Protestant
This presentation, in my view, is accurate in regards to a mainly Protestant/Evangelical theology which, based on my educational background and teaching on this website, heavily emphasizes libertarian free will.
(Incompatibilism, see archives, but it is non-determinism, in a sense)
In other words, if you believe in the gospel, you are saved, if you do not, you are damned.
However, the speaker, Steve Robinson documents on You Tube... A comparison of the mainstream juridical-substitutionary atonement views and an Orthodox view of salvation illustrated with chairs.
It a limited Protestant perspective, in my view.
I view a Protestant/Reformed perspective as a significantly more theological astute and accurate than a merely a Protestant/Evangelical one.
By the planning, creation and initiation of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit...
The atoning and resurrection work of Jesus Christ is applied to those regenerated by the Holy Spirit (Titus 3) (One must be born again John 3), that with limited free will (my PhD take on compatibilism and soft determinism, see archives), embrace the work of Christ and the regeneration, simultaneous to God's salvific work.
This includes legal justification and the imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ to those chosen in Jesus Christ (Romans).
This includes sanctification.
Those in Christ are chosen (Ephesians 1, Romans 8-9), regenerated and are saved by grace through faith, not by works, but for works.
Works in Jesus Christ are however a sign of salvation (James).
Romans 4 for a New Testament view in regard to Abraham from the Hebrew Bible.
Romans 4:4-5, 20-22 New American Standard Bible (NASB)
What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh, has found? 2 For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. 3 For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.” 4 Now to the one who works, his wage is not credited as a favor, but as what is due. 5 But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness
20 yet, with respect to the promise of God, he did not waver in unbelief but grew strong in faith, giving glory to God, 21 and being fully assured that what God had promised, He was able also to perform. 22 Therefore it was also credited to him as righteousness. John Calvin: Romans 4: 5
Cited
He indeed clearly shews that faith brings us righteousness, not because it is a meritorious act, but because it obtains for us the favor of God.
2. Orthodox
In this video presentation, the love of God was heavily emphasized. I would appreciate a more thorough soteriology (salvation theology). But I understand it was a non-exhaustive presentation, as is my website article.
---
The Orthodox Study Bible defines Salvation
Page 807
However, here, is where Orthodoxy differs from Protestantism. As I noted in previous work, the Protestant view is that those in Christ do not cooperate in human salvation. My Reformed theology is that we embrace our salvation in Jesus Christ.
The second video below demonstrates that Pastor John F. MacArthur views Orthodoxy as false.
(MacArthur will view the Roman Catholic Church as false for similar reasons)
(Paraphrased) This would be based on this view described in the Orthodoxy text. He would understand Orthodoxy as holding to works righteousness and not justification by grace through faith alone. In other words, he reasons Orthodoxy assumes that the atoning and resurrection work in Christ is not sufficient for salvation.
Recent convert to Orthodoxy from Evangelical Christianity, Hank Hanegraaff of the Christian Research Institute, reasons (paraphrased) that MacArthur is interpreting Orthodoxy incorrectly and that the idea of cooperation with God in salvation connects to works in salvation concepts from the Book of James and not works righteousness for salvation.
I am learning about Orthodoxy, and so approach this topic cautiously and humbly, but will state that where and if MacArthur is correct, within Orthodoxy, that works righteousness will not save anyone.
As a Protestant within the Reformed tradition, again for clarity, I reason that God alone plans, creates, initiates salvation.
Based on my philosophical, Reformed theology...
Cause is a confusing philosophical term, and is used in different senses:
The chosen in Jesus Christ, as a secondary cause with limited free will, merely embrace salvation which is entirely of the triune God. Crucially, cause here is not defined as planning, creating or initiating salvation. Salvation is not forced or coerced by God, but humanly embraced.
To clarify:
Primary cause: God, as Father, Son, Holy Spirit, plans, creates, initiates the atoning and resurrection work of God the Son, Jesus Christ and regeneration.
A secondary cause as opposed to hard determinism and force and coercion, as human beings do not merely simply become Christians, but with limited free will, embrace salvation. As the soteriology is entirely divine, there is no human works righteousness that adds to or contributes to salvation.
If by works righteousness, concepts within James and Romans 4 (4: 22 Therefore it was also credited to him as righteousness) are meant, as in showing salvific faith by works and obedience, I can accept that as embracing salvation, but I would not use the term 'cooperation'.
Calvin's Commentaries, Vol. 38: Romans, tr. by John King, [1847-50], at sacred-texts.com
The Orthodox Study Bible, New Testament and Psalms, (1993) Saint Athanasius Orthodox Academy,Thomas Nelson Publishers, Nashville, Tennessee.
Purchased from my employer, the Canadian Bible Society @ Cafe Logos, Vancouver.
This text review continues...
Definition
(Paraphrased)
The text defines heresy as following one's own choice or opinion instead of divine truth. (800). The truth is preserved by the Church. (800). Heresy causes division within the Christian Church. Heresy is a system of thought which contradicts true doctrine. (800). It is false teaching. (800).
I do not disagree with this definition...
Formally, heresy is doctrinal opposition to distinct Christian Church teaching.
But more loosely, by my Protestant, Reformed tradition and theology, I would state that theologically, heresy, also in a sense, is a denial of biblical doctrine which is indeed preserved within the Christian Church. It is preserved via biblical manuscripts and scholarship within the Christian Church which would include tradition.
From what could be considered a more liberal text, or at least as being from a more mainline Christianity perspective, as opposed to evangelical Christianity, which I purchased in England for my British, MPhil-PhD work:
S.W. Sykes explains that heresy was traditionally defined as a baptized person within the Christian Church then denying a key defined doctrine from the Church.(249). More formally, this is a continued adherence to such a denial of defined Church doctrine. (249).
M.R.W.Farrer writes within the Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, that heresy (in agreement with Sykes (249)) is from the Greek word 'hairesis', and means a choice (508). Heresy is a chosen position. (508).
Some New Testament parallels of this theological concept of heresy are ideas of false teaching, false prophecies, false doctrine, doctrines of demons, apostasy. Doctrines of antichrist and antichrists.
1 Timothy 4:1-3 New American Standard Bible (NASB)
4 But the Spirit explicitly says that in later times some will [a]fall away from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons, 2 by means of the hypocrisy of liars seared in their own conscience as with a branding iron, 3 men who forbid marriage and advocate abstaining from foods which God has created to be gratefully shared in by those who believe and know the truth.
Footnotes:
1 Timothy 4:1 I.e. apostacize
FARRER, M.R.W. (1996) ‘Baptism, Infant’, in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.
SYKES, S.W. (1999) ‘Heresy’, in Alan Richardson and John Bowden (eds.), A New Dictionary of Christian Theology, Kent, SCM Press Ltd.
The Orthodox Study Bible, New Testament and Psalms, (1993) Saint Athanasius Orthodox Academy,Thomas Nelson Publishers, Nashville, Tennessee.
Purchased from my employer, the Canadian Bible Society @ Cafe Logos, Vancouver. This text review continues...
Cited
Definition of Paradox
That which is true, but not conventionally logical... (804).
The example listed is that of the virgin birth. From Matthew and Luke (Gospel), that a virgin (Mary) could remain a virgin and yet bear God the Son, as incarnate. (804).
Another example is the triune nature (trinity) of God, as God is one in nature, substance (Hebrews 1: 3 ὑποστάσεως my add) and yet be in three persons (I agree, but favour the term distinctions).(804).
I stated previously on this website, edited:
Philosopher Simon Blackburn explains a paradox arises when a set of apparently incontrovertible premises provides what would be viewed as unacceptable or contradictory conclusions. Blackburn (1996: 276).
John Etchemendy writes that seemingly sound reasoning based on assumptions leads to conclusions contradictory or obviously false. Etchemendy (1996: 558).
Blackburn uses the 'barber paradox' (page 36) where a village has a barber in it, who shaves all and only the persons that do not shave themselves. Therefore who shaves the barber? If he shaves himself, then he does not, but if he shaves himself, then he does. Blackburn (1996: 36). Blackburn provides the opinion that in reality philosophically there would be no such barber. The situation is inconsistent. Blackburn (1996: 36).
He references Russell's paradox and the class of all classes that are not members of themselves.
'If it is, then it is not, and if it not, then it is'. Blackburn (1996: 336).
Again an inconsistency and Blackburn notes what a 'class' is needs to be more clearly defined.
With paradoxes such as these that arise in certain arguments within theology and philosophy it is often important to simply deny certain assumptions, premises, propositions that can lead to illogical, inconsistent and false conclusions.
I agree with Etchemendy as he stated paradoxes are often solved when mistaken principles or assumptions are found and rejected. Etchemendy (1996: 558).
BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996) Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
ETCHEMENDY, JOHN (1996) ‘Paradox’, in Robert Audi (ed.), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
