Homological, Autological, Heterological

Wells Cathedral, postcard scan 1997: Green grass.

Some new terms for me from philosopher, Blackburn.

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

Cited

Homological

'Word that applies to itself. See autological, Grelling's paradox.' (177).

Autological

Cited

'A word that applies to itself: 'short' is a short word, 'English' is an English word. (30).

Grelling's Paradox would feature the idea that although 'short' is a short word, 'long' is not a long word.(162). The 'long' example is an example of the heterological. A word that does not apply to itself. (172).  Blackburn explains that there is a question whether or not 'heterological' is actually a word that does not apply to itself as heterological. (163). Quote: 'If it is it is not, and is not if it is'. (163). A semantic paradox. (163).

Both are true...

To me, paradoxes present a case for careful reasoning in context, with the presentation of premises and conclusions.

Is green a green word? No, is that case it is heterological.

Is green a green word? Yes, is that case it is homological.

The Church & Politics (Sermon and comments)

Enjoy it while it lasts...

September 30 2012

Sermon link from Pastor Michael Phillips

I will preface by stating that I have much overall agreement with Pastor Michael Phillips' worldview and theology. I am therefore not surprised to be in basic agreement with his views on the Church and politics.

It should be noted that I live in Canada and not the United States of America. There is less drastic left versus right, politically, present here in Canada, in my humble opinion.

Citations in Italics

Who is on the Lord's Side? Politics and Gospel

In regard to different voting preference...

Cited

THREE BAD OPTIONS 

The easiest way to explain the split vote is also the worst way: The professed Christians who voted for the wrong man did it because they were not true Christians. They said they were, but they were not, because if they had been, they would have voted for the other man, the man you did. 

A second option is slightly better than the first: The Christians who voted for the wrong man were real believers, but in casting the vote they did, they put their own wishes above God's will. 

A third way of seeing it is quite a bit better than the first two: The Christians who voted for the wrong man did not do it on purpose, but because they misread their Bibles or mistook what they heard on the radio for the leading of the Spirit. Vladimir Lenin called such people Useful Idiots, good people who can be fooled into doing bad things.
---

I reason there are useful idiots within Christianity as well. People are deceived because they are not properly being directed by the Holy Spirit, the scripture and the Church to hold to reasonable and true views and theology. May we prayerfully be better with God's help by grace through faith.

Cited

AN ASSESSMENT 

What do we make of these options? 

I think there's some truth in all of them. Not everyone who calls Jesus 'Lord' is a true disciple, and false disciples in life are likely to be false disciples in the voting booth.

It is also true that real disciples of Christ are not always good disciples. We all fail to follow Jesus in some parts of life, and, for some, it's the political part. 

When it comes to the foolish and wrong things we do, we can never rule out ignorance and stupidity. We cast stupid and uninformed votes because we're stupid and uninformed! 

A BETTER OPTION 

While there is truth in all these options, they don't capture all the truth. There is another truth in the mix, and it's one we don't like to think about. It makes us uneasy because it seems to cast doubt on the clarity and sufficiency of God Word. 

I'll put it to you as bluntly as I can: Most of what we want to know about politics is not in the Bible directly, and it cannot be justly inferred from the Bible! 

What do you want to know about politics? I want to know who to vote for, what party to join, what causes to support or oppose, and how to set my priorities. 

On all these topics, the Bible says nothing. I can read it till my eyes fall out, and I won't find the answers I'm looking for. Because they're not there.
---

Through my own studies, having come to similar conclusions, I would suppose there is some significant freedom of conscience for the Christian voter.

What the bible says about politics?

Cited

Firstly, the Bible teaches civil government is appointed by God, Romans 13:1.

Secondly, the Bible teaches us to submit to civil governments except when they command us to sin, Romans 13:5; Acts 5:29. 

Thirdly, the Bible teaches us to honor our rulers and pay the taxes they levy on us, Romans 13:7. 

Fourthly, the Bible commands us to pray for the salvation of our rulers, and for the wisdom to keep the peace and leave the church alone, I Peter 2:1-2.

Fifthly, the Bible tells us our rulers are not divine, our country is not the Kingdom of God, and that the good politics can achieve is never complete or permanent, or redemptive. Roman coins bore the image of Caesar and around his likeness, it said, 'Lord and Savior'. The Christians countered this false claim with a true one, saying no one but Jesus is Lord and Savior.
---

I agree with his assessment via Romans 13 and related verses. This can be seen in this website's archives. Including recently...

May 21 2019

Why not the Mosaic Law?

Cited

The Law of Moses is not a smorgasbord! We're not allowed to pick the rules we like and ignore the ones we don't. If you want to go the Mosaic route, you've got to go the whole way. And that's a dead end, or to quote Peter-- 

It is a yoke which neither we nor our fathers could bear.
---

Progressive revelation means that in Jesus Christ, the Church follows a new covenant, see Hebrews and Luke 22.

Interestingly...

The sermon demonstrates how Joseph's, Hebrew Bible politics would not be acceptable to most Westernized Christians today.

Why not the sermon on the mount?

Cited

The Sermon on the Mount is not a model for the state; its a model for the Kingdom of God, which our country is not, never has been , never will be, and is not supposed to be! As much as the Evangelical Left vilifies the Christian Right for its Legalism, the movements are exactly the same. Both apply the Scripture where it doesn't belong and where it won't work.

Cited

Needless to say, not everyone agrees with me on this. Some think the Bible addresses almost every political matter, and no one is more sure it does than the Theonomist or Reconstructionist. He believes the Jewish Republic is a model for all states under the Lordship of Christ. What God wanted the Jews to do then and there, He wants us to do here and now. Oh, there may be a few difference at the margin, but in substance, the Law of Moses, should be the law of the land.
---

I wrote on theonomy and my disagreements with it. I will post in comments section.

November 1 2008

N.H.G. Robinson and D.W.D. Shaw note that theonomy is an interpretation of a person’s life when ultimate ethical authority is found in the divine will. Autonomy would be self-imposed authority. Robinson and Shaw. (1999: 567). They reference Paul Tillich and note that he states that theonomy is a law or principle which brings together the law of people with the ground and source of all being. Robinson and Shaw. (1999: 567). For some autonomy and theonomy may be understood as the immanent and transcendent aspects of the ethics of theism. Robinson and Shaw. (1999: 567).

Cited

Who is on the Lord's Side?

Christian liberty means, if the Bible does not command or forbid a thing, you are free to do what you want. For example, because the Bible neither commands nor forbids drinking, you're free to drink or not to drink. What you're not free to do, however, is drink without wisdom or brotherly love. What's true of drinking goes double for politics!

ROBINSON, N.H.G. AND SHAW D.W.D. (1999) ‘Theonomy’, in Alan Richardson and John Bowden (eds.), A New Dictionary of Christian Theology, Kent, SCM Press Ltd.

Automa? (MPhil Edit)

Vancouver

Automa? (MPhil Edit)

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

Tuesday, January 10, 2006 MPhil Wales 2003

J. L. Mackie’s contention was that God could have created people with free will that always chose to do good.

He stated: If God has made men such that in their free choices they sometimes prefer what is good and sometimes what is evil, why could he not have made men such that they always freely choose the good? Mackie (1971) (1977: 32).

If there is no logical impossibility in a man’s freely choosing the good on one, or on several occasions, there cannot be a logical impossibility in his freely choosing the good on every occasion. God was not, then, faced with a choice between making innocent automa and making beings who, in acting freely, would sometimes go wrong; there was an open to him the obviously better possibility of making beings who would act freely but always go right. Clearly, his failure to avail himself of this possibility is inconsistent with his being both omnipotent and wholly good. Mackie (1971) (1977: 32).

Plantinga answered this objection by stating that Mackie’s idea is possible in a broad logical sense. However, Plantinga provided arguments against Mackie’s points. Plantinga noted that God, although omnipotent, could not have simply actualized any possible world he desired. This is because human beings who act freely inevitably made one bad judgement causing the problem of evil. So, even if God made a world with no evil in it, eventually a human being would make one mistake causing evil.

To Plantinga, in any world that God created where human freedom existed, it was partially up to God and partially up to the individual what would take place. This was the only way that human beings could truly commit actions freely. Plantinga stated that each person suffered from transworld depravity, meaning that in any possible world, they would make one mistake, causing evil. How is transworld depravity relevant in this?

As follows. Obviously it is possible that there be persons who suffer from transworld depravity. More generally, it is possible that everybody suffers from it. And if this possibility were actual, then God, though omnipotent, could not have created any of the possible worlds containing just the persons who do in fact exist, and containing moral good, but no moral evil. For to do so He’d have to create persons who were significantly free (otherwise there would be no moral good) but suffered from transworld depravity. Such persons go wrong with respect to at least one action in any world God could have actualized and in which they are free with respect to morally significant actions; so the price for creating a world in which they produce moral good in creating one which they also produce moral evil. Plantinga (1977: 48-49).

Plantinga, in my view, produced a plausible counter to Mackie’s challenge of the free will defence. Mackie raised a logical objection, but he went too far by challenging God’s omnipotence and goodness with it. The problem, as I see it, is that freedom is largely a matter of degrees. Mackie reasoned correctly that God could make free human beings who only did good, but I think Plantinga was correct to challenge his objection to God as almighty and good, as the amount of freedom these people would have would be considerably more limited than that of actual human beings. To act freely, as Plantinga put it, human beings needed the opportunity to reject God.

Yes, technically human beings could be made to only commit good acts and avoid sin, but this would not be the type of goodness God was seeking from his creatures. I think Plantinga, by the use of the word freely, indicated a type of freedom which produced a goodness which was good because it rejected evil for God, not merely goodness which avoided evil because human nature could never experience anything contrary to God.

Mackie’s view was plausible in that God could have made human beings who were not automa who would never commit evil, but these beings would quite possibly not bring about the true goodness based in a choice between a life with God and a life without God, which Plantinga, Lewis, and Augustine had all alluded to.

This is not to say, that free will is specifically necessarily the prime factor in the human fall; the cause of the human fall is not clear. J.S. Feinberg, for example, stated that desires and not free will were the cause of human sin. He rejected the free will defence because he believed that the concepts of human freedom and God creating people who do not commit evil were two compatible concepts, he is thus a compatibalist as was Mackie. Many free will defenders would see this as contradiction and would be known as incompatibalists.

I can see the plausibility of the compatibalist position; however, as I stated earlier, the degree of human freedom required to truly do good acts would likely require the ability to do wrong.

However, based on...

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

Saturday, September 19, 2020: PhD Full Version PDF: Theodicy and Practical Theology 2010, Wales TSD

From my PhD forward, I would state this differently. Again, I was required to write a certain way within the British academic system. I would explain that in the case of human beings and angelic beings, as finite; freedom features the logical possibility to choose to do good acts and bad acts. But I do not think the corruption and fall of a finite, significantly free entity, is necessary.

Note from January 2024

In early 2024, I would suggest that 'type' rather than 'degree' of freedom is a more accurate word for my view, PhD work, forward.

I support a compatibalist position; however, the type of human freedom required to truly do good acts did come with the ability to do wrong, which led to an embraced sinful human nature. This occurs within everyone other than God incarnate. In other words, God could create significantly free entities, both physical and non-physical, that would not commit evil and would not fall. God made physical, humanity that would fall, some being saved through the applied atoning and resurrection work of Jesus Christ. In contrast, God made at least some, non-physical, angelic beings that have never committed evil and will never fall. God incarnate, Jesus Christ, as perfect human being, never committed evil, never sinned and never will fall.

End of note

Transworld Depravity can be avoided.

God is by nature infinitely good and unable to do wrong. God is necessarily good and holy. I reason God can create significantly, free entities that would never do wrong. As finite, they could theoretically fall in corruption, but they could be made by God and influenced in such a way that they would never do wrong. I hold to compatibilism in an even stronger sense, today compared to when I wrote my MPhil.

I can basically agree to some extent with Mackie’s compatibilism, but not his atheism.

I reason God created angelic beings (some eventually corrupted and fallen) and human beings (all eventually corrupted and fallen, other than the incarnate God-man, Jesus Christ), with the eternal plan of applying the atoning and resurrection work of Jesus Christ to those  human beings, regenerated (John 3, Titus 3) within the Church.

This was predetermined within eternity:

Revelation 13:8

New American Standard Bible (NASB) 8 All who dwell on the earth will worship him, everyone whose name has not been [a]written from the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who has been slain. Footnotes: Revelation 13:8 Or written in the book...slain from the foundation of the world

In the new creation, humanity shall not become corrupted and fall. (Revelation 20-22)

FEINBERG, JOHN.S. (1986) Predestination and Free Will, in David Basinger and Randall Basinger (eds.), Downers Grove, Illinois, InterVarsity Press.

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

FEINBERG, JOHN.S. (2001) No One Like Him, John S. Feinberg (gen.ed.), Wheaton, Illinois, Crossway Books. 

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

FLEW, ANTONY AND A.MACINTRYE (1999) ‘Philosophy of Religion’, in Alan Richardson and John Bowden (eds.), A New Dictionary of Christian Theology, Kent, SCM Press Ltd. 

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

MACKIE, J.L. (1971)(1977)(2002) ‘Evil and Omnipotence’, in The Philosophy of Religion, in Alvin C.

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

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

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

STACE, W.T. (1952)(1976) Religion and the Modern Mind, in John R. Burr and Milton Goldinger (eds.), Philosophy and Contemporary Issues, London, Collier Macmillan Publishers.

Very brief on war

Wyoming: Apple

My Dad is staying with me for awhile. He was watching the Western/Drama film below, recently...

Wikiquote

Quotes

Shenandoah (1965) is an American drama film set in Virginia during the American Civil War. 

James Stewart character Charlie Anderson:

There's nothing much I can tell you about this war. It's like all wars, I suppose. The undertakers are winning it. Oh, the politicians will talk a lot about the "glory" of it, and the old men'll talk about the "need" of it—the soldiers, they just want to go home.
---

I am a member of an Anabaptist, Mennonite Brethren church (s) of Reformed, pastoral leadership. At Columbia Bible College, which is Mennonite, I was taught forms of pacifism and non-resistance. I have officially never embraced pacifism or non-resistance.

I reason there is a biblical mandate for law and order:

Concerning Romans 13, F.F. Bruce writes that human government is a divine ordinance and has the powers of coercion and commendation which it has been given by God. By Christians obeying the state, they are serving God. Bruce (1987: 221). 

Bruce reasons that Paul does not deal with the issue of unrighteous government here, but as with Acts 5: 29, Christians must obey God and Christ and not the state when the state claims divine honours. Bruce (1987: 221).

Cranfield explains that in Romans 13, Paul is not asking for an uncritical obedience to the state, but rather that God has placed the state in authority over persons. Cranfield (1992: 321).

Mounce states that in Romans 13, that there is a divinely sanctioned role of government and that Christians are responsible to that government. It did not make any difference that the governing authorities were secular. God is the sole source of authority and established the authority for the state.

If the government oversteps its rightful domain, then according to Mounce the Christian should not obey the ruler and he notes this was done in Acts 4: 9 and 5: 29.

Concerning 1 Peter 2 13-15, Barclay explains that the concept of anarchy by the Christian is far from New Testament thought. Barclay reasons what belongs to Caesar (the state) should be given to it, and what belongs to God should be given to God (Matthew 22: 21). Barclay (1976: 205).

Both Cranfield and Barclay mention that Paul is discussing the concept of submitting to an authoritarian state, as in the Roman Empire of the New Testament era. Barclay (1976: 206) Cranfield (1992: 321). Barclay correctly point out in my view that in our modern West the need for Christians to participate in democratic government as it is for and by the people, at least idealistically. Barclay (1976: 206). 

I do agree with many Anabaptist critiques that wars are often overly politicized and not glorious in many ways. I also agree from what is implied in regard to the comments from the film that wars are often too political and lack glory, but I can acknowledge the Union side as the United States of America and its position against slavery, for one key example, was just in contrast to the Confederate States of America support for slavery.

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

BRUCE, F.F. (1987) Romans, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. 

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

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

John Calvin: force & coercion (MPhil/PhD Edits)

Pano, France: trekearth

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

Calvin stated concerning free will:

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

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

Calvin stated:

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

God could set up events in such a way that someone would freely choose to sin, but this is not done in such a way that God is forcing or (hard) determining one to do so.  I believe in a human fall through sinful choice. God can still will, in a sense, that these sinful actions work for the greater good, but I do not believe in a Universe where God forces and (hard) predetermines people to commit individual sin.

People are sinful in nature as they are descendants of Adam. This inherited and sinful nature means people will freely choose to sin and God does not coerce them into doing so. He may provide situations where he knows that certain individuals will sin, but his motives in this are for the greater good. This is not the most satisfying doctrine I suppose, but Biblically and philosophically valid nonetheless. This concept will be discussed throughout my thesis.

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

I wrote my MPhil in 2002-2003, and since then, and in my PhD my understanding of compatibilism has increased. As well, I need to point out that my academic tutor at Wales,Bangor wanted me to clearly point out that God was not, in practical theological terms, the antecedent cause of sin, as in making persons sin.

I still agree with the statement that God does not (hard) determine that people sin in the sense that I do not believe God uses compulsion or force. God was not the antecedent (preceding cause) of sin in the sense of God coercing or forcing people to commit sinful acts.The point I was making was that God does not use hard determinism to cause people to sin as if they were sinning by compulsion and not freely.

However, it should be pointed out that in another more strictly philosophical sense, as God is sovereign over all events, he is the primary cause of evil and sin and he determines and allows human beings to freely sin as the secondary cause. In that sense God is the antecedent of sin. However, God's motives remain pure in all that he wills. The statement was denying hard determinism, but not soft determinism, as in compatibilism.

With my PhD I approached the topic more from the perspective of philosophical theology and philosophy of religion and less from a practical theological perspective as with the MPhil. This is more so the case than a changing of my mind with the topic, although I do confess to have evolved and be evolving theologically, in that sense.

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

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

CALVIN, JOHN (1543)(1998) The Bondage and Liberation of the Will, Translated by G.I. Davies, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.

CALVIN, JOHN (1553)(1952) Job, Translated by Leroy Nixon, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.

Discipline and problems of evil (MPhil Edit)

Discipline is an aspect of practical theology covered in my MPhil writing, but not significantly in my later PhD work.

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

C.S. Lewis indicated that God used his love in discipline for the betterment of his creatures, and that this could lead to the temporary suffering of people.

Lewis compared a man disciplining a dog to God disciplining human beings. The creature is made better for the purposes of the master through this type of discipline which is often physically and emotionally painful.

Kilby stated concerning this view of Lewis: “If we keep Him at center, it is possible to suppose that pain is His method of training us for better things than we understand.” Kilby (1965: 67).

Lewis noted: “Those Divine demands which sound to our natural ears most like those of a despot and least like those of a lover, in fact marshal us where we should want to go if we knew what we wanted.” Lewis (1940)(1996: 46).

I think there is discipline in love which takes people to places of mental anguish and frustration that are not in the least desirable, even if they knew that things were working for the ultimate good. Nonetheless, God puts people through tough times and they will learn their lessons for the greater good; some will grow closer to God and some will harden in position against God.

People, as sinners, generally want to live lives in which their sinful nature can flourish. Even Christians still, at times, need painful discipline in order to take them from wrong attitudes and actions to right attitude and actions. Since God has our best interests at heart, it is my view that no amount of suffering which God gives an individual diminishes at all the total goodness of God.

Woods mentioned the other side of discipline: Now the dangerous thing about discipline is that, while it is designed to draw us nearer the Lord, it may also drive us away unless we understand why God permits it, or administers it, as it may be the case. Woods (1974)(1982: 44).

Hughes stated that: “Discipline, indeed, as the Latin disciplinia implies, is a process of learning or schooling, and in every generation there are believers who pass through the school and who in doing so find blessing.” Hughes (1990: 529).

With Woods’ idea then, suffering is used by God for our discipline and betterment, and ultimately death leading to resurrection clinches the process. To the secular critic of Christianity though, this may seem like a poor existence as people suffer their entire lives and perish to nonexistence.

HUGHES, P. (1990) A Commentary On The Epistle To The Hebrews, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

KILBY, Clyde S. (1965) The Christian World of C.S. Lewis, Appleford, Abingdon, Berks, U.K., Marcham Manor Press.

LEWIS, C.S. (1961)(1983) A Grief Observed, London, Faber and Faber.

LEWIS, C.S. (1941)(1990) The Screwtape Letters, Uhrichsville, Ohio, Barbour and Company. 

LEWIS, C.S. (1940)(1996) The Problem of Pain, San Francisco, Harper-Collins.

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

Quadratus of Athens

Santorini Greece: Facebook

On Sunday, our pastor in his sermon mentioned Quadratus of Athens, that I do not remember hearing or reading about, previously. An interesting non-biblical, post-New Testament era, source.

From

Early Christian Writings

Cited

Quadratus was one of the first of the Christian apologists. He is said to have presented his apology to Hadrian while the emperor was in Athens attending the celebration of the Eleusinian mysteries. The period of the emperor Hadrian, during which Quadratus is said to have made his apology, was from 117 CE to 138 CE. 

Here is the reference from Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. IV.3.

1 After Trajan had reigned for nineteen and a half years Aelius Adrian became his successor in the empire. To him Quadratus addressed a discourse containing an apology for our religion, because certain wicked men had attempted to trouble the Christians. The work is still in the hands of a great many of the brethren, as also in our own, and furnishes clear proofs of the man's understanding and of his apostolic orthodox. 

2 He himself reveals the early date at which he lived in the following words: "But the works of our Saviour were always present, for they were genuine:-those that were healed, and those that were raised from the dead, who were seen not only when they were healed and when they were raised, but were also always present; and not merely while the Saviour was on earth, but also after his death, they were alive for quite a while, so that some of them lived even to our day." Such then was Quadratus. 

Eusebius, (260/265-339/340, Historia Ecclesiastica or Historia Ecclesiae (History of the Church) IV.3

Our pastor cited this source as non-biblical support for the historical (religious history) resurrections performed by Jesus Christ. These persons, of course, ultimately died again, and were not immortal, in contrast to the resurrection of Christ in the gospels which featured the immortal resurrection body. I would state this is the spiritual, physical resurrected body described in 1 Corinthians 15.

New American Standard Bible

42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown [l]a perishable body, it is raised [m]an imperishable body; 43 it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; 44 it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body.

1 Corinthians 15:42 Lit in corruption
1 Corinthians 15:42 Lit in incorruption

Cited again from

Early Christian Writings

Here is the reference from Jerome, Illustrious Men 19.

Quadratus, disciple of the apostles, after Publius bishop of Athens had been crowned with martyrdom on account of his faith in Christ, was substituted in his place, and by his faith and industry gathered the church scattered by reason of its great fear. And when Hadrian passed the winter at Athens to witness the Eleusinian mysteries and was initiated into almost all the sacred mysteries of Greece, those who hated the Christians took opportunity without instructions from the Emperor to harass the believers. At this time he presented to Hadrian a work composed in behalf of our religion, indispensable, full of sound argument and faith and worthy of the apostolic teaching. In which, illustrating the antiquity of his period, he says that he has seen many who, oppressed by various ills, were healed by the Lord in Judea as well as some who had been raised from the dead.

Angers, France: Wikipedia

Claim: The existence of God is not provable or disprovable

From my good friend, Ernest Hepner

Claim: The existence of God is not provable or disprovable

Edited with additions on May 20, 2023 for an entry on academia.edu

Introduction

This was implied by a major (intellectual) American broadcaster, that appears on Canadian media, yesterday, with the question, ‘Does God exist?’ meaning he views it as not provable that God, does or does not exist.

Louis P. Pojman explains that the term a priori comes from the Latin “preceding” and is knowledge that is not based on sense experience but is innate or known to human beings by the meanings of words and definitions. Pojman (1996: 595).

Arthur Pap defines a priori knowledge as being independent of experience. Pap (1973: 666). Since this knowledge leads to truth independent of experience, once a concept is understood it will be seen as necessarily true logically, meaning that it will not be refuted at any time empirically (through the use of the senses). Pap (1973: 667).

Simon Blackburn notes that a proposition is knowable a priori if it can be known without experience of a certain set of events in the actual world. Blackburn allows for some experience to be obtained in order for a priori knowledge to occur. Blackburn (1996: 21). He explains that this type of knowledge is very controversial and it is not clear how pure thought without the use of experience can lead to any true knowledge at all. Blackburn (1996: 21).

A priori reasoning will also be used within rationalism.

Some empiricists have attempted to deny that any real knowledge can be obtained from a priori means. Blackburn (1996: 21).

Laurence BonJour notes that many empiricists would hold that all actual philosophical concepts are derived and known through experience. BonJour (1996: 30).

This could lead to scientism… 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).

Blackburn points out that Immanuel Kant dealt with this issue as it was supposed that a priori concepts cannot be understood from experience alone but come from presuppositions in a mode of thought about reality. Blackburn (1996: 22).

In the Critique of Pure Reason of 1781 and revised in 1787, Kant explains that the forms of appearance from which sensations can be understood are not themselves the empirical sensations. Kant (1781)(1787)(1929)(2006: 66).

BonJour states that a priori knowledge is independent of empirical experience, meaning that something can be accepted as knowledge if it does not depend upon sensory experience. BonJour (1996: 29). Very importantly in my view, BonJour explains that a deductively valid argument can use a priori reasoning, even if the correctness of the argument is challenged. BonJour (1996: 30).

This would be very important for non-empirical reasoning in the areas of theology and philosophy in regard to the problem of evil and other topics, such as the existence of God. But even in other disciplines such as scientific theory where logical and reasonable deductions are at times made without empirical evidence.

In other words, it is possible to deduce with logic, reason, and argumentation, truth, even without empirical evidence, the existence of God.

BonJour mentions that rationalists that state God exists are using a priori reasoning. I do not deny that human beings have presuppositions in the areas of knowledge, but I reason that experience and God given nature influences those concepts. It seems doubtful to me that human beings can have philosophical presuppositions without some innate understanding and experience to make sense of reality in order to presuppose.

Pojman writes that a posteriori comes the Latin “the later” and is knowledge that is obtained from human sense experience only, as in the five senses. Pojman (1996: 595). Blackburn reasons that something can be known a posteriori when it cannot be known a priori. Blackburn (1996: 21-22).

First Cause: Philosophy of Religion &Theology

Even if the Hebrew Bible and New Testament documents could be proven historically false (not my academic or personal, position), this in my mind would in no way by default demonstrate the likelihood of secularism, atheism or agnosticism as correct views. First cause is a major philosophical problem. As matter is finite and cannot be its own cause as this would cause a vicious regress, it requires a cause beyond matter and time and space, which are also finite. As example, one also cannot have a vicious regress of time or the present time would never be arrived.

A vicious regress never solves its own problem...(logical or not).

Philosophical arguments for first cause do not prove the existence of the Biblical God but can serve as parallel truth to the creation story of Genesis 1. I use arguments for God being philosophically and theologically the first cause and this parallels the Genesis (1-3) creation account without being explicitly biblical. Deism or a related theism, in my mind is a far more likely alternative to Christianity than a non-theistic view, although I fully believe in the Biblical texts. Although Deism, and related theisms, do not accept a God that reveals self it still accepts the God of first cause.

First cause provides premises which prove, philosophically and theologically, in a sense, the existence of God.

Bible: Biblical Studies & Theology

It is also Biblical and reasonable to deduce that God creates human beings with certain innate understanding of reality that will be assisted by experience. Romans 1:19 explains that God made human beings with a natural understanding of his existence. Perhaps this would be a priori knowledge and would not exist entirely on human presuppositions. The existence of natural knowledge of God does not necessarily mean that human beings worship or obey God.

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth [a]in unrighteousness, 19 because that which is known about God is evident [b]within them; for God made it evident to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.

Footnotes: Romans 1:18 Or by Romans 1:19 Or among

Within a biblical Christian worldview and Christian theology, the Scripture is legitimate, well-documented with manuscript evidence, religious history. God through Jesus Christ has revealed himself to finite humanity in an effective, limited, empirical fashion, and this would be considered a posteriori knowledge of God, although God as pure spirit remains beyond the physical senses as a priori.

Jesus Christ as God’s key supernatural representative (yet God-man), was preceded by Hebrew Bible, prophets and writers and John the Baptist in the New Testament, and followed by the disciples of Jesus Christ and the apostles and scribes in the New Testament era. Post-New Testament era, followed by the Church Fathers, forward.

The Scripture provides religious history, via supernatural and human sources, which in a sense, proves the existence of God.

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.

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

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

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

KANT, IMMANUEL (1781)(1787)(1929)(2006) Critique of Pure Reason, Translated by Norman Kemp Smith, London, Macmillan. http://www.hkbu.edu.hk/~ppp/cpr/toc.html.

KANT, IMMANUEL (1781)(1787)(1998) Critique of Pure Reason, Translated and edited by Paul Guyer and Allen W. Wood, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 

KANT, IMMANUEL (1788)(1997) Critique of Practical Reason, Translated by Mary Gregor (ed.), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 

KANT, IMMANUEL (1788)(1898)(2006) The Critique of Practical Reason, Translated by Thomas Kingsmill Abbott, London, Longmans, Green, and Co. http://philosophy.eserver.org/kant/critique-of-practical-reaso.txt 

KANT, IMMANUEL (1791)(2001) ‘On The Miscarriage of All Philosophical Trials in Theodicy’, in Religion and Rational Theology, Translated by George di Giovanni and Allen Wood, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

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

May 20, 2023: From Blogger comments for an article version on academia.edu 

God is the first cause of all things within divine perfect and permissible wills. God is also the primary cause of all things, within divine perfect and permissible wills. Angelic, demonic and human beings would be secondary causes, as non-exhaustive examples, of simultaneous (with primary cause) thoughts, will, acts and actions. The primary cause motives of God would be infinite and holy. The secondary cause motives of angels would be finite and holy. The secondary cause motives of demonic beings and human beings would be finite and tainted by evil to various degrees. Demonic motives thoroughly evil, it can be deduced. The Holy Spirit guided believer can prayerfully aim for secondary motives that would be within God's perfect will, although still tainted until the resurrection in body (or at least Paradise in spirit). (1 Corinthians 15, 2 Corinthians 12).

Logic & common sense

Taking concrete theology to abstraction.

Biblical Christian theology states Jesus Christ equals God..

God the Son equals God

(G ∃!) ∴ ⊨ (JC ∃)

(God exists, therefore entails, Jesus Christ exists)

GS = God the Son

(G ∃!) ∴ ⊨  (GS ∃)

(God exists, therefore entails, God the Son exists)

My learning and review continues:

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

The review continues...

Chapter X

Abstraction and Interpretation

Logic is the study of forms. (240). The forms are derived from common experience, reality, life or whatever we choose to call it by abstraction. (240).

I would state that logic should lead to common sense. Non-contradiction in reasoning.

The 'science of logic' (240) is a steady progression from the concrete to the abstract. (240). Langer writes that this continues from contents with certain forms to those forms without those contents, from instances to kinds from examples to concepts. (240).

Langer explains that in symbolic logic there is a replacement of concrete individual elements by formalized elements of variable meaning. (240). Those meanings would be fixed within the context of that symbolic logic. (240).

Langer's example from 241...

K = houses
nt = north of

(a) . ˜ (a nt a)

(House A is therefore not north of itself, House A)

But based on Langer

a nt b. ⊃ ˜ (b nt a)

(House A is north of House B, therefore is the same as House B is not north of House A)

Taking concrete theology to abstraction.

Biblical Christian theology states Jesus Christ equals God.

JC = Jesus Christ

G = God

JC ⊃ G

(Jesus Christ is the same as God)

JC ⊨ G

(Jesus Christ entails God)

(G ∃!) ∴ ⊨  (JC ∃)

(God exists, therefore entails, Jesus Christ exists)

GS = God the Son

(G ∃!) ∴ ⊨  (GS ∃)

(God exists, therefore entails, God the Son exists)

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

One never learns and understands the true nature of reality

On Facebook I recently viewed a critique of religion and Christianity which included, paraphrased, the idea that believing a religious worldview, if false, leads to the following:

One never learns and understands the true nature of reality.

Not learning and understanding reality, is indeed true in some cases, when a person is not significantly open-minded and educated, however...

In an absolute sense, academically and philosophically, I reject this idea because it is possible and reasonable to learn and understand many worldviews and positions on reality; while only accepting one as true. British MPhil/PhD theses research is largely about the pursuit of learning and understanding many worldviews.

In my work I studied various views within Christianity and outside of it.

2003 The Problem of Evil: Anglican and Baptist Perspectives: 

MPhil thesis, Bangor University

Worldview

I fully admit the problem of evil is a difficult topic. There is always much more to learn with this topic but I do have some background with the subject. My world view is one of a Christian conservative who views Scripture as historically and philosophically valid. I believe God guided writers to communicate his word and that Scripture demonstrates the Gospel message of Jesus Christ accurately.

I realize the original Scriptural autographs are missing, and it is not my place here to discuss Greek manuscripts, but there is a consistency in manuscript evidence which can be found, and within the Scriptural message there is philosophical consistency. At times, there is present theological progression in thought, for example Christ’s work established a New Covenant which replaced Old Testament Law, but there appears in Scripture from the Garden of Eden to the Holy City of Revelation, a consistent progressive plan of God to restore his creation.

Although I am conservative in theological position, one of the reasons I entered the University of Wales and the British academic system was because I realized there was liberal theology, and I needed to interact with that theology over time. One must be open minded in order to be scholarly, and realize that truth is truth, and whether written or spoken by a liberal of conservative, it does not matter. I firmly believe that one theological tradition does not contain all the answers, so within my text, most of my authors are conservative as they supported my ideas, but I did not hesitate to quote someone who may be liberal, if what they stated was valid and relevant to my work.

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

Some works on the problem of evil In alphabetical order:

AUGUSTINE (388-395)(1964) On Free Choice of the Will, Translated by Anna S. Benjamin and L.H. Hackstaff, Upper Saddle River, N.J., Prentice Hall. Augustine was one of the first ancient writers to deal with the problem of evil. Peterson, Hasker, Reichenbach, and Basinger (1996: 231). Within On Free Choice of the Will, Augustine presents his free will theodicy, theodicy being an explanation for the problem of evil in a theistic universe.

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

FEINBERG, JOHN S. (1994) The Many Faces of Evil, Grand Rapids, Zondervan Publishing House. Within this text Feinberg presents a defence which could be labeled a sovereignty theodicy. My personal sovereignty theodicy is embedded within my MPhil and more so my PhD and is somewhat similar to Feinberg’s work. As well as presenting his own perspective Feinberg does a thorough job of reviewing various theistic and atheistic concepts on the problem of evil. He reasons that God does not presently eliminate the problem of evil because to do so would violate divine plans and human development. Feinberg (1994: 130). I found Feinberg’s explanation of this a bit repetitive and it would perhaps be good for him to have speculated on God’s reasons for willingly allowing evil in more specific terms as I have to some degree in my work.

GEBARA, IVONE (2002) Out of the Depths, Translated by Ann Patrick Ware, Minneapolis, Fortress Press. Gebara is a Brazilian, feminist, Catholic sister. The back of the text notes that she is one of Latin America’s leading theologians. The book is interesting because, although no formal theodicy or defence is presented, she looks at the problem of evil from the perspective of the suffering of women. Gebara, Ivone (2002: 13-59) I can agree with Gebara that women within this corrupted creation have experienced much suffering, and some of it has not been thoroughly acknowledged. However, I disagree with her tendency to reinterpret the Christian faith, for example concerning the doctrine of physical resurrection which she reasons is idealistic theory. Gebara (2002: 122). She thinks it more valuable to look at resurrection in metaphorical terms today as lives are improved and evil resisted. Gebara (2002: 122).

PLANTINGA, ALVIN C. (1977)(2002) God, Freedom, and Evil, Grand Rapids, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. Plantinga successfully demonstrates that a free will defence is logical and reasonable. Plantinga (1977)(2002: 28). He speculates that the price of God creating a universe with significantly free creatures is that wrong actions will inevitably occur leading to the problem of evil. Plantinga (1977)(2002: 30). Plantinga’s free will approach is not primarily theological as is Augustine’s and therefore offers a different but somewhat related perspective. A question arises if Plantinga has really successfully answered the objection of theistic critics such as Feinberg, and atheists such as J.L. Mackie on why God could not simply create human beings who were significantly free and never committed wrong actions. I believe that God could have created significantly free human beings, or at least human-like creatures that only committed right actions.

Perhaps God desired to create human beings that would ultimately posses a greater spiritual maturity than Adam and Eve prior to the fall because those restored in Christ would have experienced sin, the problem of evil, death and the atoning work and resurrection of Christ. Quite possibly restored human beings would ultimately be more spiritually mature and valuable to God than persons that never knew what it was like to disobey God and experience evil. I would also point out that Biblically speaking the angels that did not fall would seemingly be significantly free and have not committed wrong actions.

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

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

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

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

GEBARA, IVONE (2002) Out of the Depths, Translated by Ann Patrick Ware, Minneapolis, Fortress Press.

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

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

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

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

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

I wrote yesterday...

April 30 2019

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).
---

Today, back to the Orthodox Study Bible at the notes from Hebrews 1: 2-3:

Cited

Hypostasis

'The express image of His person.' (513). This is in regard to God the Son's Person as being distinct from God the Father. (513).

The text from its Orthodox tradition opines that 'The  Son is the perfect and eternal "icon" of the Father.' (513). This is certainly not Protestant theological language, and not one I would use, staying closer to Reformed theology. I would reason some within Protestantism would protest this metaphor, based on how one theologically views an icon.

But we can agree within the universal Christian Church that even as God the Son is distinct from God the Father and God the Holy Spirit, within the Godhead, within the Trinity, the three are all the same God is essence and nature. There is in ontological (existence) one God. The three distinctions are within one nature and essence; they are not three natures and three essences.