The Orthodox Study Bible: ὑποστάσεως (Hebrews 1: 3)

The Orthodox Study Bible, New Testament and Psalms, (1993) Saint Athanasius Orthodox Academy,Thomas Nelson Publishers, Nashville, Tennessee. 

New American Standard Bible

Hebrews 1: 3

3 [a]And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature...

ὑποστάσεως

Hypostasis

'A technical theological term for "person" or something which has an individual existence. The word is used to describe the three Persons of the Godhead: the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.' (800).

Hypostasis is also used to describe the one Person of Christ, who is both truly divine and truly human. (800).

ὑπόστασις

Nominative Feminine Singular

Blue Letter Bible

Cited

ὑπόστασις hypóstasis, hoop-os'-tas-is; from a compound of G5259 and G2476; a setting under (support), i.e. (figuratively) concretely, essence, or abstractly, assurance (objectively or subjectively):—confidence, confident, person, substance.

G5287 Hebrews 1:3.

ὑποστάσεως

Speech: Noun Parsing: Genitive Feminine Singular

Genitive (of, belonging to, my add)

From Bauer...

ὑπόστασις

'substantial nature, essence, actual being, reality'. (847). In the context of Hebrews 1: 3 (ὑποστάσεως my add), the Son of God is the exact representation of God's real being. (847). In other words, God the Son, even as in a finite human body, incarnated, still represents the nature of the infinite God in bodily form.

Colossians 2:9 New American Standard Bible (NASB)

9 For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form...

Incarnation added finite human nature to God the Son (two natures, two minds, one person), but it in no way cancels out, changes or mixes with God the Son's infinite, eternal nature.

BAUER, WALTER. (1979) A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, Translated by Eric H. Wahlstrom, Chicago, The University of Chicago Press.

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

STRONG, J. (1890)(1986) Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, Burlington, Welch Publishing Company.

The Orthodox Study Bible, New Testament and Psalms, (1993) Saint Athanasius Orthodox Academy,Thomas Nelson Publishers, Nashville, Tennessee.

Ha ha ha let's laugh: Facebook

Salvation: Human versus fallen angelic

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

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

MPhil edit, April 27, 2019

Human choice embraces salvation, but no fallen human beings can autonomously choose to be saved, a human being must first be moved by the Holy Spirit to choose (embrace) 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.

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 (not stating it is logically impossible for God to save any fallen finite entity). 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.

However, I think that Thiessen’s idea does answer the question why God could not save angels as individuals. Even though each human being was a descendent 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 (although not logically impossible). 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.

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

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

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

The principles of logical proof

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

The review continues... Me learning symbolic logic 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
---

Previous entry

March 14, 2019

Langer explains that the propositions using tautology will use no exponents. (215). In other words, in multiplication, there will not be a smaller exponent number present, to the right of the base number. (215). This is in the context of multiplication.

Therefore, z x z = z, and z2, z3 and related, etcetera in not used. (My example, based on Langer (1953)(1967: 215). In a similar way with addition 2z cannot be arrived at with z + z = z. With addition, 23, 34 etcetera is not arrived at. (My example, based on Langer (1953)(1967: 215).

Summary

Cited

'A calculus is any system wherein we may calculate from some given properties of our elements to others not explicitly stated.' (235).

Calculus is expressed in symbols in general terms and their relations in general it is in algebra. (236). The classes provided through general propositions is genuine algebra. (236).

The principles of logical proof...

Importantly, philosopher Langer explains that there is no guarantee that there is truth in a logical system. (189). Logic does not necessarily promote a fact, rather 'it stands for the conceptual possibility of a system'. (189). Logic documents with the deduction of premises. It stands for 'the consistency of all propositions'. (189). It is standing for logical validity. (189), not factual certainty or truth. (189). This is standard from philosophy, logic, texts. Certainly not something Langer or I manufactured as original.

In many cases when a person states that a premise or argument is logical, the person means that it is true. But a premise or argument can be logical and false. Therefore, it would be more accurate in many cases to claim that a premise or argument is true and or reasonable.

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Cited

On standard views, logic has as one of its goals to characterize (and give us practical means to tell apart) a peculiar set of truths, the logical truths...

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).

Also logical, but a true premise:

n= Napoleon
d= Discover
a= America

n ˜ (d+a)

Napoleon did not discover America.

Apollinarianism

Apollinarianism was discussed in the video lecture below:

Grenz, Guretzki and Nordling explain that this view was the teaching of fourth century bishop of Laodicia, Apollinarius, that reasoned in the incarnation of Christ, God the Son, took on a human body but not a human mind or human spirit. (13).

The divine logos took the place of the human mind or spirit (nous νοῦς) (13).

In other words, the incarnate God-man, had a divine mind and spirit alone. (13).

Erickson explains that  apollinarianism was an overreaction to Arianism. (714).

Nicene Creed: June 2012

Apollinarius taught the dualism of the incarnate Jesus Christ having two complete natures, absurd. (714). Instead Jesus Christ was part human, but mostly divine. (714).

Therefore, the incarnate God-man was different than every other human being. (715). Christ did  not have a human mind or spirit (nous νοῦς) (715). In this view, the centre of Christ's consciousnesses is the divine. (715). This serves as explanation of how Jesus Christ would remain sinless. (715). 

Erickson correctly points out that with this view, the divine nature of Jesus Christ would swallow up the human nature. (715). It also would have Christ lacking human will, human reason, and human mind and this doctrine was condemned at the Council of Constantinople in 381. (716).

Being incarnate implies, fully divine, as in fully God, and fully human, I am in agreement with Erickson and Bruce Gore from the video that in one person, Jesus Christ possessed and still possesses one human nature, spirit/mind and one divine nature, spirit/mind.

The spirit/mind of God, although triune, is infinite and eternal. Jesus Christ's human spirit/mind is finite and everlasting, but not eternal as it was created in the incarnation. This explains, in part, why as God the Son, Jesus Christ in his humanity depended on God and God the Father for guidance. Jesus Christ was still fully God, but humbled himself as fully human.

Philippians 2: 8 New American Standard Bible

Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.

There is a theological debate whether or not Jesus Christ had his sinful human nature purged from his humanity with the incarnation; or that Jesus Christ had the sinful human nature from the fall, and never accessed it.

Thiessen quotes Strong who states that the incarnation purged depravity from Christ. p.305. This view would be contrasted by scholars such as Mounce and Cranfield:

Cranfield in his Romans commentary p.176, comments on the likeness of sinful flesh. Cranfield states with what he thinks is the best explanation, that being that the Greek word for likeness is not to water down Christ's fallen human nature, as in being fully human, but is to draw attention that the fallen nature was assumed but Christ did not become a fallen human being.

So, unlike some views that reason Christ's sinful human nature was purged out at the incarnation, this view reasons it was there but because of his perfect obedience and I would reason deity, he did not become a fallen human being that sinned. So, in a sense in the likeness of sinful flesh, he had fallen human nature. In another sense in the likeness of sinful flesh, he did not have an active fallen human nature that would have led to sinful thoughts and choices.

Mounce in his Romans commentary sees it the same way on p.175-176, Christ took upon a fallen nature but did not become completely like us, as in sinners.

CRANFIELD, C.E.B. (1992) Romans: A Shorter Commentary, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

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

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

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

THEISSEN, HENRY, CLARENCE (1956) Introductory Lectures in Systematic Theology, Grand Rapids, Eerdmans.

The Orthodox Study Bible: John 3: 19-20

The Orthodox Study Bible, New Testament and Psalms, (1993) Saint Athanasius Orthodox Academy,Thomas Nelson Publishers, Nashville, Tennessee.
---

I was discussing Christian evangelism and witnessing and obstacles to them, the other day, while my good friend drove us around.  While pulling into a Chevron station my good friend wisely quoted John 3: 19-20...

From the New American Standard Bible:

19 This is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds were evil. 20 For everyone who does evil hates the Light, and does not come to the Light for fear that his deeds will be exposed.

The Orthodox text explains in regard to 19-21:

'A profound insight. Goodness and a pure heart welcome the light; whereas evil deeds and malice resist the light and seek to hide in the darkness.' (219).

From Strong's:

4655 for darkness in John 3: 19. (88).

σκότος

Page 88

Bauer explains that here is this context, darkness can be understood as 'religious and moral darkness, of darkening by sin, of the state of unbelievers and of the godless.' (757-758).

I appreciate the definitions from Orthodoxy and the Greek New Testament scholarship from Strong and Bauer. From my Reformed perspective, the corrupted, fallen nature of humanity (Genesis 3, Romans) prohibits a person in darkness from embracing the light to the point of salvation.

New American Standard Bible

Romans 5:10 10

For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved [a]by His life. Footnotes: [a] Romans 5:10

Colossians 1: 21-24

21 And although you were formerly alienated and hostile in mind, engaged in evil deeds, 22 yet He has now reconciled you in His fleshly body through death, in order to present you before Him holy and blameless and beyond reproach— 23 if indeed you continue in the faith firmly established and steadfast, and not moved away from the hope of the gospel that you have heard, which was proclaimed in all creation under heaven, and of which I, Paul, was made a minister.

Human beings as enemies of God and being alienated from God with a hostile mind (s), in my opinion cancels out theology/philosophy of person's simply responding to the offer of salvation using libertarian free will (incompatibilism).

In contrast, God, through the Holy Spirit, regenerates the persons (Titus 3, or same makes born again John 3) applying the atonement and resurrection work of Jesus Christ to those persons that simultaneously embrace, as secondary cause, with limited free will, what God has caused, choosing them (Ephesians 1-2) (compatibilism).

This is neither libertarian free will, nor divine force of coercion.

From my Reformed perspective, the goodness and pure heart (I would state purified heart) that welcomes the light is the heart regenerated by the Holy Spirit.

BAUER, WALTER. (1979) A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, Translated by Eric H. Wahlstrom, Chicago, The University of Chicago Press.

STRONG, J. (1890)(1986) Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, Burlington, Welch Publishing Company.

The Orthodox Study Bible, New Testament and Psalms, (1993) Saint Athanasius Orthodox Academy,Thomas Nelson Publishers, Nashville, Tennessee.

Sentimental theology/philosophy

April 19, 2019 

Happy Good Friday

It seems to me, many secular worldviews ignore the Scriptural revelation, as in the bible in context and related theology, and assume Scriptural revelation is irrelevant in the establishment of true, primarily important premises.

Admittedly, some religious worldviews, accept the bible, but with differing non-orthodox, non-traditional, interpretations.

However, biblical studies, theology (religious philosophy within the bible), philosophy of religion (religious philosophy outside the bible) are legitimate academic disciplines as are, for example, science, mathematics and psychology.

(I am not stating the Christian message needs to be complex, but it should be considered even in its most simple context, for example, at children’s Sunday school)

This ignorance of religious studies significantly negates the establishment of a true worldview.

Sentimental theology/philosophy 

Scientifically and empirically (by use of the senses) it appears that human beings die and all that is left are physical remains. Some religions and religious persons believe in an existence of the human spirit that exists after death. In the media, and at funerals it is said sometimes that the person that has passed away has gone to a better place. This is speculative, assumed and hoped for, since the departed was usually and seemingly a good person, humanly speaking.

(I am not trying to be uncaring or mean here. I am attempting to be reasonable and rational.)

This appears to be sentimental theology, and by that I mean theology that is primarily driven by feelings, that is speculative and lacks a significant use of reason that can be supported by historically based religious revelation. Please note, I am not stating that all theological speculation is lacking the significant use of reason.

The naturalist can dismiss this sentimental theology on empirical grounds. If the Scripture is not considered, this type of approach may be more accurately described as sentimental philosophy.

Simon Blackburn defines naturalism as generally a view that nothing resists explanation from methods of natural sciences. A naturalist will therefore be opposed to the concept of mind-body since it allows for the possible explanation of human mental capacity outside of science. Blackburn (1996: 255).

Henry Clarence Thiessen explains that naturalists reject the idea of God and view nature as self-sufficient and self-explanatory. Thiessen (1956: 32). A Christian theist such as myself can reason that the person that has died was morally imperfect as we all are, was part of, and affected by, the problem of evil, did not receive direct communication from God normally, and likely not at any point, prior to death. From this there is not an obvious reason to realistically, and reasonably assume that a person that has passed away goes to a better place within a speculative theistic model which lacks historically based religious revelation.

Within a speculative theistic model, I would reason that if a person lives an earthly temporal life apart from direct communication with God, then it is reasonable to assume that if God does grant everlasting life, it will not be some type of heaven in God’s presence, and therefore not necessarily a better place. Biblical Christianity is not dependent on sentimental theology. Millard Erickson writes that natural theology deduces that God can be understood objectively through nature, history, and human personality. Erickson (1994: 156).

But, it should be stated that although natural theology can perhaps bring a person to a limited knowledge of God, it does not provide revealed information concerning salvation or everlasting life for human beings. In a similar way, the study of philosophy of religion may produce true premises in regard to God and religion, but as it is outside of Scripture, it does not provide scriptural revelation that explains salvation. Erickson explains that Biblical revelation views God as taking the initiative to make himself known to followers. Erickson (1994: 198).

This would be a more effective way than natural revelation as God reveals personal things about himself through his prophets, apostles, scribes, and of course Jesus Christ, who is both God and man. It can be reasoned that this revelation is documented in the Bible with persons that are historical and not mythological.

Thiessen writes that God revealed himself in the history of ancient Israel. Thiessen (1956: 33). God is presented as personally appearing to chosen persons in the Hebrew Bible through dreams, visions and directly. Thiessen (1956: 34). Thiessen explains that miracles were also noted to occur within the Hebrew Bible, miracles being unusual events that were not a product of natural laws. Thiessen (1956: 35). The Hebrew Bible and New Testament present historical persons that experienced the supernatural God and supernatural occurrences.

Some will accept the historicity of these persons, but deny the supernatural aspects of the Bible, but according to the New American Standard Bible presented by Charles Caldwell Ryrie and the Lockman Foundation, approximately 40 authors wrote the Biblical texts over a period of approximately 1600 years. Ryrie (1984: xv).

Not all these persons knew each other and yet spoke of the same God that revealed himself progressively over time. The atoning work and resurrection of Christ was documented and discussed by several historical authors within the New Testament and through this work everlasting life is provided to followers of Christ. The book of Revelation describes the culminated Kingdom of God in Chapters 21-22.

The New Testament provides information about the historical Jesus Christ and his followers in historical setting and this gives much more credibility for theology concerning the concept of life after death in the presence of God, than does sentimental theology which denies or twists the concepts of Scripture in order to fit some type of speculative theistic hope for everlasting life which is devoid of the significant use of reason and revelation.

Without revelation that is legitimate, religious history, there is not convincing evidence for believing that God will provide a departed person with meaningful everlasting life, outside of revelation from God explaining by what means he would bring a person that has passed away into his presence forever, and/or place them in a better place.

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

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

RYRIE, CHARLES, CALDWELL (1984) The New American Standard Version Bible, Iowa Falls, Iowa, World Bible Publishers.

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

Theology/Philosophy of Religion versus Scientism

Facebook

Someone asked me to provide an opinion of some of the challenges facing theology today (I would include philosophy of religion).

Theology, within the West, can often be defined by some, as not of academic relevance. Frankly, many within the Western World have little understanding in regard to the intricacies of Religious Studies, Bible, Theology and Philosophy of Religion.

Scientism, at least radical scientism, challenges the relevancy of theology and philosophy of religion.

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.

Blackburn: Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy

Scientism: A pejorative term for the concept that only the methods of natural science and related categories form the elements for any philosophical or other enquiry. Blackburn (1996: 344). 

From The Concise Oxford Dictionary 

Scientism: 1 a a method or doctrine regarded as characteristic of scientists b the use of practice of this. 2 often derogatory, an excessive belief in or application of scientific method. Oxford (1995: 1236).

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

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

THE CONCISE OXFORD DICTIONARY (1995) Della Thompson (ed.), Oxford, Clarendon Press.

The Orthodox Study Bible: Holy

The Orthodox Study Bible, New Testament and Psalms, (1993) Saint Athanasius Orthodox Academy,Thomas Nelson Publishers, Nashville, Tennessee.

Holy

Cited

'Literally, "set apart"or separated unto God; also, blessed, righteousness, sinless.' (800). God is therefore in Jesus Christ, the source of holiness for members of the Christian Church. (800).

This occurs through applied regeneration (John 3, Titus 3).

This is a transformation by the Holy Spirit for those within Jesus Christ, that become holy as is God. (800).  I would state that these people are in the process through salvation/sanctification of becoming finitely holy, in contrast to God that is eternally, infinitely, holy.

Grenz, Guretzki, Nordling

This text agrees that to be holy has the general meaning of being 'set apart'. (60).

Back to the Orthodox Study Bible...

Sanctification is also literally "being set apart" by God. (807). Being sanctified is being made holy (807). This is a process of growth, that is not culminated as immediate, as are some other aspects of the applied atoning and resurrection work of Jesus Christ.

Romans 12: 1 New American Standard Bible

Therefore I urge you, brethren, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies a living and holy sacrifice, [a]acceptable to God, which is your [b]spiritual service of worship.

Here my Reformed views are in basic agreement with Orthodoxy...

However:

Within a Reformed perspective and evangelical view, the imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ in justification (Romans, Galatians) is applied immediately upon salvation:

2 Corinthians 5:21 New American Standard Bible

21 He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.

In contrast, orthodoxy views justification as 'the act whereby God forgives the sins of the believer and begins to transform him or her into a righteous person.' (801).  It is noted that justification cannot be earned by works of righteousness (801). This is a gift of God (801). It holds to a form of justification by faith, admitted.

Grenz, Guretzki, Nordling

A Protestant, Reformed, evangelical, perspective, views justification as a legal term meaning the sinner is acquitted (69). This justification makes the now regenerated Christian acceptable to the Holy God.

This is through justification by grace through faith (69).  Alone. Justification by grace through faith alone, is a Protestant, Reformed, evangelical doctrine and not held to within Orthodoxy.

Page 801.

On page 346 at Romans 5, the Orthodoxy article states:

Quote:

'Through His mercy we are justified by faith and empowered by God for good works or deeds of righteousness which bring glory to him.'

By their own definition, Orthodoxy here, denies works righteousness for salvation. But by my theological reasoning, by adding the concept of cooperation by His grace, it denies a Protestant/Reformed doctrine of justification by faith, that is, justification by grace through faith alone. My non-exhaustive but correct presentation...

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

The Orthodox Study Bible, New Testament and Psalms, (1993) Saint Athanasius Orthodox Academy,Thomas Nelson Publishers, Nashville, Tennessee.

Theodicy further explained (PhD Edit)

UWTSD, Lampeter

Theodicy further explained

Theodicy and Practical Theology, 2010. University of Wales (UWTSD).

Simon Blackburn (1996)[1] writes that theodicy is the part of theology[2] concerned with defending the omnibenevolence and omnipotence of God while suffering and evil exists in the world.[3]   A reasonable definition of theodicy is the explanation of how the infinite,[4] omnipotent, and omnibenevolent, all loving God accomplishes his plans within his creation where the problem of evil exists.  Philosopher Derk Pereboom (2005) writes that it is a project attempting to defend God in the face of the problem of evil.[5] Christian apologist, Art Lindsley (2003) reasons that it can be understood as a justification of God’s ways.[6]  Kenneth Cauthen explains that it is an attempt to hold to the omnipotence and loving nature of God without contradiction.[7] 

Edward R.Wickham (1964) explains that it asks how human suffering can be reconciled with the goodness of God.[8]  How can evil occur if God loves humanity?[9]  Rolf Hille (2004) notes that the issue with theodicy is not only how God can allow suffering in the world, but on a different turn, why do evil persons prosper in God’s creation?[10]  Hille explains that these considerations on evil and the existence of God led to a criticism of Christianity and religion in Europe in the Eighteenth century and to some degree earlier.[11]  The Eighteenth century[12] was when Leibniz’ book Theodicy[13] was published as was previously noted, and this era of history was when much of the modern debate concerning the problem of evil and theodicy began[14]  William Hasker (2007) in his review of Peter van Inwagen’s book The Problem of Evil, explains that a theodicy, unlike a defence, attempts to state the true reasons why evil exists[15] in a creation and world ruled by God.[16]  Theistic and Christian theodicy are therefore largely a response to initial Seventeenth, and primarily Eighteenth century and forward, secular criticisms of the theology and philosophy of God within religion and Christianity.[17]
---

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

CAUTHEN, KENNETH (1997) ‘Theodicy’, in Frontier.net, Rochester, New York, Kenneth Cauthen, Professor of Theology, Emeritus, Colgate Rochester Crozer Divinity School.

CLARKE, O. FIELDING. (1964) God and Suffering: An Essay in Theodicy, Derby, Peter Smith (Publishers) Limited.

HASKER, WILLIAM (1989) God, Time, and Knowledge, Ithaca, Cornell University Press.

HASKER, WILLIAM (1993) ‘C. Robert Mesle, John Hick’s Theodicy: A Process Humanist Critique’, in Philosophy of Religion, Volume 34, Number 1, pp. 55-56. Dordrecht, Netherlands, Philosophy of Religion.

HASKER, WILLIAM (1994) ‘Can Philosophy Defend Theology?’, in Faith and Philosophy, Volume 11, Number 2, April, pp. 272-278.  Wilmore, Kentucky, Asbury College.

HASKER, WILLIAM (2000) ‘The Problem of Evil in Process Theism and Classical Free Will Theism’, in Process Studies, Volume. 29, Number 2, Fall-Winter, pp. 194-208. Claremont, California, Religion Online.

HASKER, WILLIAM (2003) ‘Counterfactuals and Evil’, in Philosophia Christi, Volume 5, Number 1, pp. 235-249. La Mirada, California, Biola University.

HASKER, WILLIAM (2003) ‘Is Free-Will Theism Religiously Inadequate? A Reply to Ciocchi’, in Religious Studies, Volume 39, Number 4, December, pp. 431-440. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. 

HASKER, WILLIAM (2007) ‘Peter van Inwagen, The Problem of Evil’, in Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews, Notre Dame, Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews. 

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

PEREBOOM, DERK (2005) ‘The Problem of Evil’, in The Blackwell Guide to Philosophy of Religion, William E. Mann, (ed.), Oxford, Blackwell Publishing.

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.

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

LINDSLEY, ART (2003) ‘The Problem of Evil’, Knowing & Doing, Winter, Springfield, Virginia, C.S. Lewis Institute.

WICKHAM, EDWARD R. ‘Forward’, in O.Fielding.Clarke (1964) God and Suffering: An Essay in Theodicy, Derby, Peter Smith (Publishers) Limited.

---

[1] Blackburn is a secular humanist philosopher who has been very helpful in my study of philosophy of religion.

[2] Theodicy is an important aspect of Christian philosophy as well. O. Fielding Clarke writes that theodicy or the justification of God has engaged the attention of philosophers and theologians for centuries.  Clarke (1964: 9).  Obviously not all of these philosophers have been non-Christian and many of my Christian sources in this thesis will be philosophers and not necessarily theologians.

[3] Blackburn (1996: 375).

[4] The unlimited and unfixed. Blackburn (1996: 193).  God is considered infinite and his creation finite and therefore limited.

[5] Pereboom (2005:1).

[6] Lindsley (2003: 3).

[7] Cauthen (1997: 1).

[8] Wickham (1964: vii).

[9] Wickham (1964: vii).

[10] Hille (2004: 21).

[11] Hille (2004: 22).  This took place in the era of the Enlightenment will shall be defined in Chapter Six.

[12] Hille (2004: 22). 

[13] Leibniz, G.W. (1710)(1998).

[14] Hille (2004: 22).

[15] Hasker (2007: 1).

[16] Plantinga states that a defence and theodicy are different, and this shall be discussed in Chapter Two. Plantinga (1977)(2002: 28).  In Chapter Two I explain why a defence can be reviewed under the intellectual umbrella of theodicy.  In my view there are enough similarities between defence and theodicy to allow a defence to be reviewed under the general heading of theodicy.

[17] Hille (2004: 22).

Quote: Perhaps the most famous alleged Bible contradiction

Also, by the fire, past event

Apologetics Press

Cited

By Eric Lyons, M.Min.

Perhaps the most famous alleged Bible contradiction
---

My church sermon this morning featured Matthew 26 (with Luke 22 and John 13) in regard to the biblical story of Peter's denial of Jesus Christ and the crowing rooster. This story reminded me of dealing with this issue while at bible school.

Here is my short, very non-exhaustive, explanation for this biblical difference...

Cited from link above

The passages in question are found in Matthew 26, Mark 14, Luke 22, and John 13. Matthew, Luke, and John all quoted Jesus as saying that Peter would deny Him three times before the rooster crowed. Jesus said to him, “Assuredly, I say to you that this night, before the rooster crows, you will deny Me three times” (Matthew 26:34). Then He said, “I tell you, Peter, the rooster shall not crow this day before you will deny three times that you know Me” (Luke 22:34). Jesus answered him… “Most assuredly, I say to you, the rooster shall not crow till you have denied Me three times” (John 13:38).

Cited

Matthew, Luke, and John all indicated that Peter denied Jesus three times before the rooster crowed. 

Cited

Mark however, says otherwise. He recorded Jesus’ prophecy as follows: “Assuredly, I say to you that today, even this night, before the rooster crows twice, you will deny Me three times” (Mark 14:30, emp. added). Following Peter’s first denial of Jesus, we learn that he “went out on the porch, and a rooster crowed” (Mark 14:68). After Peter’s third denial of Jesus, the rooster crowed “a second time…. Then Peter called to mind the word that Jesus had said to him, ‘Before the rooster crows twice, you will deny Me three times’ ” (Mark 14:72). Mark differs from the other writers in that he specifies the rooster crowed once after Peter’s first denial and again after his third denial. But, do these differences represent a legitimate contradiction? Do they indicate, as some critics charge, that the Bible is not from God?


Cited

no one should assume that, because three of the gospel writers mentioned one crowing while Mark mentioned two crowings, a contradiction therefore exists. Realistically, there were two “rooster crowings.” However, it was the second one (the only one Matthew, Luke, and John mentioned) that was the “main” crowing (like the fourth buzzer is the “main” buzzer at a football game). In the first century, roosters were accustomed to crowing at least twice during the night. The first crowing (which only Mark mentioned—14:68) usually occurred between twelve and one o’clock. Relatively few people ever heard or acknowledged this crowing (Fausset’s Bible Dictionary). Likely, Peter never heard it; else surely his slumbering conscience would have awakened.

Cited

REFERENCES

“Animals” (1986), Nelson’s Illustrated Bible Dictionary (Electronic Database: Biblesoft).

 “Cock” (1998), Fausset’s Bible Dictionary (Electronic Database: Biblesoft). 

 “Cock-crowing,” McClintock, John and James Strong (1968), Cyclopaedia of Biblical Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker). 

Lenski, R.C.H. (1961), The Interpretation of St. Mark’s Gospel (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg). 

McGarvey, J.W. (1875), Commentary on Matthew and Mark (Delight AR: Gospel Light).
---

While briefly considering the four versions in church, listening to the sermon, I eventually remembered my explanation from years back, which is similar, but not identical, to the answer provided by this writer from Apologetics Press.

Jesus and the disciples primarily spoke in Aramaic.

Each of the four Gospel versions requires some translation from Aramaic to New Testament, Koine Greek.

In the case of Mark, it was a Gospel heavily influenced by the Apostle's Peter relationship with John Mark. Barclay explains:

'There is clearly a very close connection between Peter and Mark.' (112).

'There is in our opinion no good reason reason for rejecting the tradition of Mark's gospel connection with Peter.' (127).

Stephen Short notes that the main source of Mark was the preaching and instruction of the Apostle Peter and this verified by certain Church Fathers such as Papias and Justin Martyr, Irenaeus and Clement of Alexandria, all of the second century. (1156).

I can accept that Mark's (with Peter's) account is likely technically accurate with two crowings.

These translations would not always be identical and would include a paraphrase of the Aramaic to Greek.

In the case of the Gospel of Mark, the author included two rooster crowings, whereas the other three Gospels just included the one crowing. Again, I would deduce that as the story took place in Aramaic, when translated to Koine Greek, four times, the versions would not be identical. They are by nature paraphrases.

Of course, it is logically possible, that Mark or Matthew, Luke, John was in error on this issue because of the difference in presentation, one side stated two crows, the other side, one crow. I can understand how some critics and scholars would assume this explanation, but it is not the most reasonable explanation. Admittedly, if one holds to Holy Spirit inspiration and infallibility of the biblical scripture (I do with the original autographs, not copies) this objection is not fatal, whatsoever.

Greek New Testament 

The manuscripts evidence offers as usual, some variance, but the five versions presented all feature diV (twice). So, it is not as if there is an obvious difference where some versions of Mark are stating that the rooster crowed once. If this was obviously the case, then one would need to discuss the possibility of scribal error or scribal alteration, but that does not appear the case, at least based on the New Testament Greek sources cited.

To be blunt, if there was scribal alteration here, harmonization would seem more likely, in other words all four Gospels should indicate either one or two crowings.

BARCLAY, WILLIAM (1976) The Letters of James and Peter, Philadelphia, The Westminster Press.

SHORT, STEPHEN S. (1986) ‘Mark’, in F.F. Bruce (ed.), The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Zondervan.

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