Brief on backsliding & apostasy

Conwy Castle 2001

Another audio sermon from Grace Baptist Church and Pastor Michael Phillips. In light of recent news of interest to my circle of influence, I reasoned this sermon on backsliding (and possible apostasy) was relevant. Again, I appreciate Pastor Phillips' reasonably academic, lecture type sermons.

November 3 1999

Cited

Tonight, with the Lord's blessing, we'll complete our study of Richard Baxter on Backsliding. 

Phillips states Baxter was a Puritan. (12 November 1615 – 8 December 1691)

Cited

Thus, tonight, we'll learn what to do if we're not backslidden. Or, how to avoid slipping away from God. The Puritan offers twelve directions.

I will comment on 1. Know the truth

Cited

1. KNOW THE TRUTH

Cited

If you want to "grow in grace", you must study the Bible, think about it, and pray for understanding.

Within a Reformed tradition (and for some within other traditions), the Scripture is the final authority on spiritual and religious matters.

Cited

Why are we so ignorant? For three reasons: 1. We don't study the Bible, 2. we receive many doctrines on the word of men, and 3. we spend too much time on secondary issues.

By God's grace, in my own academic and personal study, I emphasize studying the scripture in context. As well the use of commentaries and sources for the study of the original biblical languages, is crucial. This is done by me on a private level, but with respect for the corporate theology of the Christian Church.

(I am not a linguist but I review biblical languages when needed. In the same way, biblical scholars and linguists need to at times seek to learn reasonable biblically based theology, and perhaps even related philosophy of religion.)

Besides issue 1, issues 2 and 3 are problematic as many individual Christians do not sufficiently, prayerfully study the scripture and related disciplines, and therefore are too prone to doctrinal spin and programming from human beings.

These teachings can place too much emphasis on secondary doctrines.

Cited

The only way to know the truth--and be convinced of it--is to study the Bible on your own, to "prove all things" men tell you (including what I say), and to spend most of your study time on "the weightier matters of the law".

2 Timothy 2:15

New American Standard Bible (NASB) 15 Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling the word of truth.

Further from the audio message:

If you don't want to backslide, digest God's Word.

Cited

"Eternal Security" or "Once Saved Always Saved" are true doctrines. And precious ones too. But beware lest they become your only doctrines. Let no teaching ever make you forget Matthew 10:21 or Hebrews 12:14, "He who endures to the end shall be saved". "Pursue peace with all men and holiness, without which no one will see the Lord".

A sign of true regeneration (John 3, Titus 3) of a believer, within the atoning and resurrection work of Christ, is perseverance in the biblical faith.

Cited

This, I think, is the most important thing he says. Backsliding doesn't begin with big, gross, and scandalous sins. No, it begins with not reading the Bible one day or giving into an impure thought. These sins snowball and before you know it, you're dangerously backslidden. Or lost. 

The best place to prevent backsliding is at the beginning. Before it grieves the Spirit of God and builds a momentum you can't stop. 

Being lost would be synonymous with apostasy. A rejection of the formerly held worldview, in this case the rejection of Christianity.

Cited

If you're not backslidden, give thanks to God for His grace. But remember, everyone is liable to it--even you. Take the advice Baxter gives, ask God to bless it, and "Grow in the grace and in the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ".

As I noted in a recent article, edited for this entry...

July 21 2019

As all persons are finite and sinful (Romans) we all can have doubts. But doubts about Christianity do not form a reasonable worldview alone. A worldview must deal with premises and conclusions to prove as reasonable and true. In other words, rejecting Christianity in doubt, is problematic, unless a more reasonable and true worldview can be presented by premises and conclusions, in its place.

I commented on the news of Joshua Harris and his documented online, change of views. Interesting here are comments from 2005 in regard to Harris and his former views from Christian, baptist theologian, Albert Mohler.

Dr. Mohler is a very committed teacher of biblical Christianity. On that key point at least, Dr. Mohler and I are in agreement.

How relevant to Pastor Phillips' audio sermon...

Albert Mohler July 15 2005

Cited

Not Even A Hint is a ground-breaking book of Christian candor and biblical honesty. Once again, Joshua Harris has given young Christians a great gift--a book that combines Scriptural wisdom with a sense of deep urgency. He writes with passion and credibility, and this author does not duck the hardest issues.

Note that Dr. Mohler cites Philosopher Simon Blackburn, an often quoted useful secular reference on this website.

2 Thessalonians 2 discusses a falling away (KJV) that will occur before the second advent of Jesus Christ. I reason modern backsliding and even apostasy within the Christian Church should therefore not be a shocking development.

In basic theological agreement with the audio sermon; may the Lord keep us in the gospel truth, by grace through faith for good works.

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

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

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

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

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

ERICKSON, MILLARD (2003) What Does God Know and When Does He Know It?, Grand Rapids, Zondervan.

Actually this is not the same photo I have shown for years. Found this second version in my photo album. Conwy Castle 2001.

God's infinity as essential

Conwy Castle 2001

In the previous chronological entry, on this website, I made comments to why the infinity of God is essential for a correct biblical, theological and philosophical understanding.

God's part in human problems of evil and suffering were the focus of my European, British, MPhil and PhD theses. God's part in evil and suffering, although God remains infinite, eternal, perfect, holy and good. Being almighty implies infinity and without finity and/or faults related to finity. If God was infinite and contrary to my biblical theology, both good and evil; in my view evil would not be evil at all. 

Further, it could be stated that God's infinity, eternity and other attributes are of necessity/are necessary, philosophically.

Below I compared survey findings on the question of infinity from my PhD and MPhil surveys.

God As Infinite (Survey Comparison) August 15 2013

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

For my MPhil surveys, I received fifty each, completed of Anglicans and Baptists who have attended a post-secondary denominational college, University or seminary, or are members of one of those denominations who have studied religion at a post-secondary level.

Statement one: The first statement on the survey was stated as: God is infinite/limitless. 

My position on this statement is that Scripture and reason demonstrate this to be the case in the affirmative. Scripture does not use the philosophical term infinite to describe God, however, Erickson stated that the idea is indicated.

Jeremiah quotes God as saying, "Am I a God at hand,...and not a God afar off? (Jer. 23:23). The implication seems to be that a God at hand does not preclude his being afar as well. He fills the whole heaven and earth (v.24). Thus, one cannot hide oneself in ‘secret places’ so that he cannot be seen. God speaks of heaven as his throne and the earth as his footstool; the idea that man can confine God by building him a dwelling place is then, sheer folly. The psalmist found that he could not flee from presence of God–wherever the psalmist went, God would be there (Ps. 139:7-12). Erickson, Millard, J. (1985), Christian Theology (p. 273).

One could argue that Scripture is not indicating God is infinite as an attribute, but is, instead, stating that he is all powerful and knowing within his creation. In other words, he is simply of greater finite nature than anything in his creation.

However, in Genesis 1, it is indicated that God made the Universe from nothing other than his will and power. Thus he must be beyond all things which he has created, so logically he is infinite in comparison to his creation, and nothing else existed before his creation.

Therefore it could be deduced that he is infinite as an attribute, as it appears nothing existed beyond him before or after the creation of the Universe.

For this first statement, 94% of Anglicans agreed, 4% were not certain, while 2% disagreed. For Baptists, 98% agreed, while 2% were not certain. There is with this point an agreement between myself and the great majority of my responders.

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

ERICKSON, MILLARD (2003) What Does God Know and When Does He Know It?, Grand Rapids, Zondervan.

God as absent?

Supposedly, the future Red Skull and Kingpin @ Conwy, Wales.

February 24 2008

The audio sermon above from Grace Baptist Church

Cited

TEXT: Job 23 SUBJECT: Spiritual Depression #12: God's Absence

Previous sermons from Pastor Michael Phillips have dealt with spiritual depression connected to human and satanic causes. This sermon is focused on God as the cause and in my theology/philosophy, God as primary cause.

Cited

What really tore him up was. God. Or, rather, God's Absence. This is what today's sermon is about: God's Absence as a Major Cause of Depression.

God's part in human problems of evil and suffering were the focus of my European, British, MPhil and PhD theses. God's part in evil and suffering, although God remains  infinite, eternal, perfect, holy and good. Being almighty implies infinity and without finity and/or faults related to finity. If God was infinite and contrary to my biblical theology, both good and evil; in my view evil would not be evil at all.

Job 40 from the New American Standard Bible

40 Then the Lord said to Job, 2 “Will the faultfinder contend with the Almighty? Let him who reproves God answer it.” 3 Then Job answered the Lord and said, 4 “Behold, I am insignificant; what can I reply to You? I lay my hand on my mouth. 5 “Once I have spoken, and I will not answer; Even twice, and I will add nothing more.”

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

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

From my MPhil

Simon Blackburn defines determinism as follows:

The doctrine that every event has a cause. The usual explanation of this is that for every event, there is some antecedent state, related in such a way that it would break a law of nature for this antecedent state to exist yet the event not to happen. Blackburn (1996: 102).

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 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 coerces 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.

A PhD argument summarized:

God is the cause of all things.

A technical, philosophical use of the term 'cause' is used.

God can directly cause anything not contrary to his nature or contradictory.

God can indirectly cause and allow evil. via secondary causes.

God has the power to prohibit evil, and therefore what he does not prohibit he sanctions/causes.

God wills evil for the greater good.

God has perfect motives.

Persons are a secondary cause of significantly free human actions.

Therefore: Hard determinism is not used by God when persons sin.
---

God as primary cause of human thoughts, acts and actions is compatible with human thoughts, acts and actions as secondary cause (and secondary agents). This is soft determinism or compatibilism.

Cited

Why would the Lord do this to anyone? 

Here it is: We don't know. Note carefully, I did not say God doesn't know! We don't know, and if the Lord wants to explain Himself to us, He can, but He is under no obligation to do so.

Cited

The cure for this kind of depression is not in us. It is in God, who will come back to us when He wants to. And not before or after.

In my theological and philosophical reasoning, as God is infinite and interacts with his finite creation, he is not ontologically absent; rather God in the book of Job, causes and wills events indirectly, and it is possible, at some points, directly.

Cited

Our sadness does not dethrone our Lord and Savior.

The gospel work of the triune God through Jesus Christ, his atoning and resurrection work, is still applied to those in Jesus Christ that believe and live in faith, by grace through faith.

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

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

Doubt is not a worldview

Doubt is not a worldview

July 27, 2019 article, updated May 19, 2023 for an entry on academia.edu

Very Brief on Skepticism

Skepticism, in contrast, can be a worldview, or within a worldview.

Cited, in-part, below:

Britannica

skepticism, also spelled scepticism, in Western philosophy, the attitude of doubting knowledge claims set forth in various areas. Skeptics have challenged the adequacy or reliability of these claims by asking what principles they are based upon or what they actually establish. They have questioned whether some such claims really are, as alleged, indubitable or necessarily true, and they have challenged the purported rational grounds of accepted assumptions. 

From ancient times onward skeptics have developed arguments to undermine the contentions of dogmatic philosophers, scientists, and theologians.

Skepticism does not equal doubt

Skepticism is not merely doubt, it is its own set of premises and conclusions.

A good friend mentioned to me the news in regard to Joshua Harris and another friend, as well, posted on this issue. Mr. Harris in recent years attended an event at Northview Community Church where I am a member, as well I am a member at TriCity Church, a related church. But, I missed the event.

Sojourners July 19 2019

Cited

Villarreal: You say in the documentary that there are a lot of people who want you to throw out everything that was kind of the basis for your book. But I'm curious when you say “everything,” do you mean your belief in Christianity as a whole or about premarital sex in general? I'm curious what you include in that. 

Harris: I think that there's a push by some people to say being sex positive means — the kind of the historical sexual ethic related to sex outside of marriage, related to homosexuality, is basically laid aside, and embracing a healthy view of sex means just accepting all that as fine within the Christian tradition. … 

I do think though that, for me, in that change of interpretation of such a fundamental level when it comes to sexuality, it's just hard for me to ... 

In a way it's almost easier for me to contemplate throwing out all of Christianity than it is to keeping Christianity and adapting it in these different ways. I don't know if that makes sense, but I think I've just been so indoctrinated in a certain way of interpreting scripture and viewing sexuality that it's just hard for me to see the scriptures and its kind of overall, you know, commands and principles and so on and see how that can be consistent. I think that I probably need to engage with some of those people — like I have people send me their e-books showing why premarital sex is fine, and I just don't have the energy right now. 

Like, I do not want to read your book. I do not want to. I do not want to engage in a massive, you know, theological expedition to think about all these things. So it just sounds really exhausting to me, honestly. But I think what you saw in that moment in the film is it is a real struggle for me. I'm really struggling with — I think that rethinking some of these things and having had my faith look so specific for so long that now as I'm questioning those specifics, it feels like I'm questioning my entire faith.

In a way it's almost easier for me to contemplate throwing out all of Christianity than it is to keeping Christianity and adapting it in these different ways. I don't know if that makes sense, but I think I've just been so indoctrinated in a certain way of interpreting scripture and viewing sexuality that it's just hard for me to see the scriptures and its kind of overall, you know, commands and principles and so on and see how that can be consistent. 

---

For me, sexual ethics is not my primary concern in the determination of a worldview...

a priori/a posteriori

Preface

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). 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)

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 and 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 for these approaches.

As time, space, and matter are finite and cannot be their own cause, this would cause a vicious regress. A vicious regress does not solve its own problem. 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...(whether a vicious regress is still considered a logical problem or not). Please see my archives for articles on vicious regress.

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 as in divinely inspired original autographs. I reason there are extant reasonably accurate copies that provide the biblical worldview and theology that God intended.

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 and 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

(New American Standard Bible/NASB)

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.
---

In light of the Harris interview, the part I cited:.

As all persons are finite and sinful (Romans) we all can have doubts. But doubts about Christianity do not form a reasonable worldview alone. A worldview must deal with premises and conclusions to prove as reasonable and true. In other words, rejecting Christianity in doubt, in regard to sexual ethics, is problematic, unless a more reasonable and true worldview can be presented by premises and conclusions, in its place.

Practical Theology

I have been single my entire adult life and have found the pool of relatable Christians within the evangelical church very limited and frustrating (but my present church offers new possibilities).

But, I do not embrace and present my worldview primarily based on sexual ethics, my sexual sufferings, nor the sexual sufferings of others. As noted, there are larger issues at stake in presenting a reasonable worldview as opposed to sexual ethics, which are important, but not the most important premises to be presented in regard to a worldview.

Doubt is not a worldview.

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

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

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

BONJOUR, LAURENCE. (1996) ‘A Priori’, in Robert Audi (ed.), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

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

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

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. 

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. 

KLEIN, PETER D. (1996) ‘Certainty’, in Robert Audi, (ed.), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. 

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

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

Recapitulation

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

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

From 2003 MPhil

Question B 

Is it still valid to claim that Christ’s death, resurrection, and culminated Kingdom of God are the only ultimate practical remedies for human suffering? 

Jesus Christ and his work, and the culminated Kingdom of God is the only hope of recapitulation for creation. If Christ’s work was ever effective, this would not change over time. Christ was either God incarnate, and capable of completing the work required to save souls, or he was not.

A theology which tries to keep in touch with modern thinking by denying the exclusivity of Christ’s saving work for humanity will find that it cannot deal with those wanting to perpetrate evil. Christ is the ultimate remedy to the problem of evil and suffering because he is ultimate God.

A problem for humanity is that the wait for this complete healing within a culminated Kingdom of God is very painful. Every person on this planet suffers and dies, and this can lead to bitterness against God as this temporal life can be full of disappointments. An everlasting perspective is thus vital.

Irenaeus stated with regard to Christ’s work defeating death:

For it behoved Him who was to destroy sin, and redeem man under the power of death, that He should Himself be made that very same thing which He was, that is, man; who had been drawn by sin into bondage, but was held by death so that sin should be destroyed by man, and man should go forth from death. Irenaeus. (ca. 130-200 AD) Book III, Chapter 18, Section 7.

(Note: There does not seem to be a historical date to indicate when Irenaeus wrote this work. It is estimated that he wrote the work near the end of the second century.)

July 19, 2019 

From Atkinson

Recapitulation is the Latin equivalent of anacephalaiosis (486); this is defined as summing up or summary. (486). The term occurs in Ephesians 1: 10 where it is stated that God summed up (anakefalaiwsasqai) all things in Jesus Christ. Recapitulation was embraced by Irenaeus and by (some, my add) Church Fathers as meaning that God through Jesus Christ sums up human redemption.(486).

This recapitulation includes humanity and creation and therefore problems of evil and suffering are remedied, in a sense, via recapitulation.

ATKINSON, JAMES (1999) ‘Recapitulation’, in Alan Richardson and John Bowden (eds.), A New Dictionary of Christian Theology, Kent, SCM Press Ltd.

IRENAEUS. (c 175-185)(1998) ‘Against Heresies’, in The Catholic Encyclopedia, Denver, The Catholic Encyclopedia.

IRENAEUS. (c 175-185)(2005) Against Heresies, in The Catholic Encyclopedia, Denver, The Catholic Encyclopedia.

IRENAEUS (c 185)(2005) Proof of Apostolic Preaching, Translated by J. Armitage Robinson, London, The Macmillan CO.

The original links with the Irenaeus sources are now 'dead', so I deleted them.

The Orthodox Study Bible: Revelation 2: 13-Satan's throne

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

Revelation 2:13

New King James Version (NKJV) (The version used by this text under review on this website)

Revelation 2: 12...

12 “And to the [f]angel of the church in Pergamos write...forward:

13 “I know your works, and where you dwell, where Satan’s throne is. And you hold fast to My name, and did not deny My faith even in the days in which Antipas was My faithful martyr, who was killed among you, where Satan dwells.

In the notes section, Satan's throne is stated to refer to the city as the seat of idol worship. (595). It is written here that Pergamos was the first city in Asia to build a temple dedicated to the worship of a living emperor. (595).

The text presents the view that Satan's throne is where he holds court, and can indicate where Caesar (the emperor. my add) was worshiped as Lord, and/or the place where the Roman governor sat is judgement seat. (595). This governor had the power to execute capital punishment. (595).

θρόνος is throne from New Testament Greek, Bauer, referencing Revelation 2: 13, documents θρόνος as the throne of the dragon. who provides the beast, power. (364). This is figurative literal language for Satan providing this person on the throne with satanic power. There is eschatological debate on the identity of the beast, in preterist (New Testament era) and futurist (Post New Testament era), contexts.

Bible Hub

Cited

Strong's Concordance 

thronos: a throne

Original Word: θρόνος, ου, ὁ (nominative, genitive, dative, my add)

Part of Speech: Noun, Masculine

Transliteration: thronos

Phonetic Spelling: (thron'-os)

Definition: a throne

Usage: a (king's) throne, seat; meton: power, dominion; a potentate.

Mounce writes that Pergamum (Pergamos) is the 'official cult center of emperor worship in Asia'. (96). Satan here it is reasoned, established his throne as head of state. (96). This is contrast to Rome, which is where Satan's throne was located in the West. (96). Here many Christians had been executed, refusing to acknowledge Caesar as Lord (97), as biblically, it had been specifically revealed in the New Testament, that Jesus Christ, as God the Son and incarnated man, was truly Lord.

Antipas a noted example of Christian martyrdom. (97).

From my newly purchased commentary, from the Canada Prophecy Conference, Biblical linguist and scholar, Dr. David Hocking reasons that Satan was not only present at Pergamos, he was ruling (throne) (139). Hocking writes that Antipas means 'stand against all' (140). He stood for the Christian faith, in opposition to the false Caesar worship which was satanic. The church in that city stayed loyal to God and Jesus Christ, as well. (140).

Jon Courson explains that the historian Tertullian wrote that Antipas, a physician in Pergamos, would not renounce his Christian faith, there and he was 'fried to death'. (1673).

F.F. Bruce offers possibles for Satan's throne from Pergamum:

1. Throne like alter to the Greek god, Zeus on the citadel. (1602).
2. A temple of the healing god, Asklepios---before which stood an image of the god in association with a massive snake. (1602).
3. The provincial Roman cult established in 29 BC, which became the imperial cult. (1602).

Bruce opines (3) is the likely reference in Revelation 2.

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

BRUCE, F.F. (1986) 'Revelation' in F.F. Bruce (ed.), The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Zondervan.

COURSON, JON (2005) Application Commentary, Thomas Nelson, Nashville.

HOCKING, DAVID (2014) The Book of Revelation, Tustin, California, HFT Publications.

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

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.

Facebook

Second Peter 3 & Canada Prophecy Conference

Facebook: The Irony

A friend of mine, Charles (not to be confused with Saint Chuckles) invited me to the 'prophecy conference' at Columbia Bible College, yesterday and today, which is where I earned my Bachelor of Arts in Biblical Studies. and also managed to win a Biblical Studies scholarship, with God's guidance, of course.

Interestingly, the main speaker, well-known pastor and biblical scholar, Dr. David Hocking, stated that in regard to 2 Peter 3: 9, it was (paraphrased) written to Christian readers in regard to repentance before they perish. In context, this would be repentance before death, in Jesus Christ.

I have discussed the issue of 2 Peter 3: 9 and repentance in the noted links below...

Back to the conference today at 3: 30.

2019 Canada Prophecy Conference

Second Peter 3: 9 September 30 2012

Second Peter 3 September 17 2016

Predestination Too October 7 2016

From linked article

Quote

Erickson:

We must distinguish between two different senses of God’s will, which we will refer to as God’s “wish” (will1) and God’s will (will2).’ (361).

Will1 is God’s general intention and Will2 is God’s specific intention.

Or it could be stated

Will1=God’s perfect will and Will2=God’s permissible will.

However, there is a theological and philosophical problem. If it is God’s eternal permissible will to save only some, then God caused this in a sense. I reason it can be traced to the fallen human nature that works through limited free will.

As my Hebrews professor told me at Columbia Bible College (paraphrased), although we all have a fallen nature outside of Christ by default, some have a fallen nature that will never accept Christ and be acceptable to God. Others will be regenerated.

Therefore, God’s eternal, perfect will would actually be for some to reject him and remain everlastingly outside of his Kingdom, although in a sense, God wishes it would be otherwise, as can be seen biblically and theologically in 2 Peter 3: 9 and 1 Timothy 2: 4.

There are various interpretations, however. The question arises if God wishes to save all people as in all individuals or all peoples? I have seen the all peoples explanation raised in Reformed writing and dialogue.

This places doubt that God's wish is God's perfect will. Rather it may be a divine wish. God wishes salvation for all (universalism) within his will, but it will not occur.

This is not outlandish or unreasonable. On one hand, God desires me not sin, he does not tempt me (James 1), but on the other hand God created humanity with an eternal plan of salvation from sin. This implies significantly free creatures that will sin is the eternal plan.

God, in my view, could create significantly free finite creatures than remain morally perfect, in a finite sense.

The classic example, being angels that did not fall. Jesus Christ was both God and perfect man. He never appealed to the sinful nature inherited by Adam and Eve.

The atonement, resurrection and gospel work are from and in God’s perfect will (Ephesians 1, those chosen in Christ before the foundation of the word, implied eternal), I reason, and this leads to God ultimately producing humanity as desired within the Kingdom of God from start to finish.

Second Peter 3 July 1 2018

Second Peter 3 December 8 2018

From linked article

The necessary, what exists by necessity, to parallel this philosophical concept with that which is biblical, has plans that exist within the contingency of finite creation, in the context of the material universe and as well with the existence of finite angelic and demonic beings.

Biblically and based on theological and philosophical reason: God, as what is necessary can complete divine plans with options, however, as they take place within a contingent reality... 

I see two options:

1. Perfect will

Direct cause

2. Permissible will

Indirect cause

Allowing
---

2 Peter 3 8-9

8 But do not let this one fact escape your notice, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like one day. 9 The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance. 

New American Standard Bible (NASB)

As I read in Erickson, that is a Calvinist theologian, taking his idea (paraphrased) as a reasonable theological possibility (361). God's perfect will is that all are saved. (2 Peter 3). God's permissible will is only those chosen are saved. (Ephesians 1-2, Romans 8-9).

There is also a reasonable objection that it is theologically possible that it is God's perfect will that occurs, at least in regard to human salvation and the citizenship of those within the culminated Kingdom of God.

In that case, 2 Peter 3, is not discussing salvation but the repentance of those in Jesus Christ. The 'you' being those already covered by the atoning and resurrection work of Jesus Christ. Those in the Christian Church reading the scripture.

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

Repentance without regeneration is not salvation

Ernest Hepnar photo

Noted in the archives on regeneration and repentance 

PhD, University of Wales, Trinity Saint David, Lampeter, 2010 with edits from July 11, 2019

Biblically, as persons were (are) regenerated they would hear the call of salvation, repent and believe in Christ. Bavinck (1918)(2006: 53).

I would view conversion as an aspect of regeneration, which is the beginning of the Christian experience. Regeneration was to encompass the entire divine plan of recreation from the initial change in persons to the ultimate culmination of a new heaven and new earth. Bavinck (1918)(2006: 53).

God causes this regeneration as primary cause and it is embraced by those in Christ as a secondary cause. The divine, primary cause alone actually saves a person. Secondary cause here means a human being embraces the work of the primary cause as opposed to by force or coercion. This compatibilistic approach therefore features soft and not hard determinism.

This is in no way, human works righteousness and no saved human being, creates his/her own salvation. As secondary cause, there is belief, by grace through faith, alone.

As secondary cause, for example, I seek God by writing these articles. I embrace my salvation, Christian worldview, theology and the bible; but all the salvific work was accomplished by God and Jesus Christ. I am not forced or coerced to embrace what I am morally accountable for.

God certainly can force or coerce human thoughts, acts and actions, but I reason this would prohibit significant human moral accountability.

Philippians 2: 12-13

New American Standard Version (NASB)

12 So then, my beloved, just as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your salvation with fear and trembling; 13 for it is God who is at work in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure.

Repentance is an aspect of biblical salvation as turning from sin, and accepting the atoning and resurrection work of Christ applied to a person. The salvific work is done by God, not by human acts of faith.

Technically speaking we are regenerated through the Holy Spirit (John 3) and saved by the atoning and resurrection work of Christ being applied to us, by the will of God the Father. Repentance is via a regenerated human nature and will.

On a practical theological basis we can realize that due to universal sinful natures and sinful choices, human beings will not 'catch' every sin to repent of, and as well sometimes because of spiritual blindness, persons will not always specifically repent of sinful choices via sinful nature.

The atoning and resurrection work of Christ covers a regenerated person that therefore demonstrates general repentance within trusting, faith-based, belief.

If compatibilism (my Reformed theological position, and my philosophical position) did actually equate with hard determinism, as some incompatibilists claim in error (and some hard determinists, perhaps claim in error), and not soft determinism, why would God as primary cause will for a human secondary cause in Jesus Christ to embrace, for example, repentance?

A regenerated person in Christ, does not just wake up one morning accepting the atoning and resurrection, gospel work for self, justification and sanctification and having no understanding why that is the case. Repentance is a continual process in a believer's life, as in confessing sin in 1 John. 

July 11, 2019

This statement recently came to mind…

Repentance without regeneration is not salvation.

BAVINCK, HERMAN (1918)(2006) Reformed Dogmatics Volume 2: God and Creation, John Bolt (gen.ed.), Translated by John Vriend, Baker Academic, Grand Rapids.

BAVINCK, HERMAN (1918)(2006) Reformed Dogmatics Volume 3: Sin and Salvation in Christ, John Bolt (gen.ed.), Translated by John Vriend, Baker Academic, Grand Rapids.

Fatalism Revisited July 11 2012: Definitions for hard determinism, soft determinism/compatibilism and incompatibilism

Regeneration related sections, please see Titus 3, John 3 as examples.

In Three Minutes: Earn brownie points by going to church? (text and audio)

Near @BC Place Stadium, July 6, 2019

A non-exhaustive explanation of salvation by grace through faith (alone).

The Apostle Paul states that the righteousness of God has been revealed (Romans 1).

The atoning and resurrection, gospel work of Jesus Christ applied, provides salvation and legal justification by grace through faith (alone).

In particular, my words, with a Reformed theology. Romans reasons that those in Jesus Christ, receive God's righteousness. The righteousness of Jesus Christ, infinite God and perfect man.

Works and the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament law could not guarantee human righteousness and therefore could not justify (Romans 4). Abraham too was justified as righteous by faith, not works. (Romans 4).

Those in Jesus Christ receive the imputed righteousness (Romans 1-2, 3) of Jesus Christ and therefore are legally justified by God. This is instead of facing God's wrath and through Christ's death on the cross, human sin is atoned for. This leads to everlasting life and a sanctification (setting apart in holiness) (Romans 6-8) of the sinful human nature toward the perfect human nature of Jesus Christ. To be completed at resurrection (1 Corinthians 15).

Salvation (justification, sanctification, my add) is by grace through faith, not works, and human beings can do nothing to merit God's acceptance.

Sanctification (6-8) is to increase obedience in the Lord. (263). Sin should be diminished, not promoted.

Romans 6: 22

English Standard Version

But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God, the fruit you get leads to sanctification and its end, eternal life.

New American Standard Bible 

But now having been freed from sin and enslaved to God, you derive your benefit, resulting in sanctification, and the outcome, eternal life.

King James Bible 

But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life.

The 'Pocket Dictionary' opines that sanctification is two-fold: One, it is an aspect of salvation via Jesus Christ. Two, those in Christ are to strive for holiness through the Holy Spirit. (105).

As sanctification is an aspect of New Testament salvation, the atoning and resurrection work of Jesus Christ is applied to believers by grace through faith, not by works, but for good works (Ephesians 1-2). Within Reformed theology, by grace alone, through faith alone.

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

Walking home, July 7, 2019

Systematic Theology (Briefly PhD Edit)

Visit Lisbon: Portugal

July 4, 2019

Blessings to my American readers and friends…

I consider myself a philosophical theologian and philosopher of religion as opposed to a systematic theologian, but there definitely is significant overlap in skill-sets.

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

This systemization[1] (of theology and philosophy) would be a task of systematic theology and philosophy of religion.  Practical and empirical theology can provide opportunities to evaluate practically systematic theology and philosophy of religion in regard to the problem of evil.[2]

(As was done in my MPhil and PhD theses. Philosophical Theology can systematize as well.)

S.W. Sykes (1999) in his article ‘Systematic Theology’ describes it as a method by which theology is given a rational and orderly account.[3]  Systematic theology is the systemization of theological concepts.[4]  Erickson explains that systematic theology draws upon the entire Bible and does not exegete texts in isolation.[5]  It attempts to analyze and understand Scriptural teachings in a harmonized way.[6]  I would add that philosophy also plays a part in systemizing theology.  Klein, Blomberg and Hubbard explain systematic theology attempts to make Christian doctrine coherent, Biblical, and written in a culturally contemporary way.[7] Systematic theology will always be influenced by the theological agenda of the writer.[8]

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

ERICKSON, MILLARD (2003) What Does God Know and When Does He Know It? Grand Rapids, Zondervan.

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

MCCANT, JERRY W. (1991) ‘The Development of Doctrine in the New Testament’, in David Alan Black and David S. Dockery (eds.), New Testament Criticism and Interpretation, Grand Rapids, Zondervan Publishing House.

SYKES, S.W. (1999) ‘Systematic Theology’, in Alan Richardson and John Bowden (eds.), A New Dictionary of Christian Theology, Kent, SCM Press Ltd.

WOODWARD, JAMES AND STEPHEN PATTISON (2000)(2007)(eds.), The Blackwell Reader in Pastoral and Practical Theology, Oxford, Blackwell Publishing.

---

[1] McCant (1991: 471).

[2] Woodward and Pattison (2000)(2007: 14).

[3] Sykes (1999: 560). 

[4] Sykes (1999: 560). 

[5] Erickson (1994: 21). 

[6] Erickson (1994: 21). 

[7] Klein, Blomberg, and Hubbard (1993: 384).

[8] Klein, Blomberg, and Hubbard (1993: 384).

On cause and motives, very briefly (PhD Edit)

Facebook

July 2, 2019

My PhD is too large to present in one entry, so I have presented it in sections over the years, in numerous PhD Edits. 

‘Incredibly’ this section I am posting today did not list in either the external or internal Blogger search. This appears 'new' for this website. This section defines very well an aspect of my position on compatibilism. I am pleased to revisit it.

The Blogger archives top right, can be searched for comments on incompatibilism/libertarian free will and as well, hard determinism which are philosophically related, but differing concepts, to compatibilism/soft determinism. The archives can also be searched for listed authors. Thank you...

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

God is the primary cause of all actions including ones leading to evil and sin,[1] and human beings are the secondary cause.[2]  In this way the act is entirely determined[3] by God as the primary cause and yet is done voluntarily by the secondary human cause without force or coercion.[4]  This is in line with Calvin and Feinberg’s theological explanations.[5]  Philosophically, God can determine actions that are also committed by secondary causes,[6] and this does not necessarily mean that the reasoning and motives of the primary and secondary causes are identical or similar.[7] 

I conclude that theologically and philosophically God, with pure motives, can will and permit evil and sin that human beings will and commit with rebellious attitudes, using limited compatibilistic[8] free will and not under compulsion.[9] 

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

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

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

EDWARDS, JONATHAN (1729)(2006) Sovereignty of God, New Haven, Connecticut, Jonathan Edwards Center, Yale University.

http://edwards.yale.edu/archive/documents/page?document_id=10817&search_id=&source_type=edited&pagenumber=1

EDWARDS, JONATHAN (1731-1733)(2006) Law of Nature, New Haven, Connecticut, Jonathan Edwards Center, Yale University.

EDWARDS, JONATHAN (1754)(2006) Freedom of the Will, Flower Mound, Texas. Jonathanedwards.com. 

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.

GREENSPAN, P.S. (1998) Free Will and Genetic Determinism: Locating the Problem (s), Maryland, University of Maryland.

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

PRUSS, ALEXANDER R. (2003) ‘A New Free-Will Defence’, in Religious Studies, Volume 39, pp. 211-223. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. 

---

[1] Edwards (1754)(2006 2.1: 1-1-2).  Calvin (1543)(1996: 37-40).

[2] Pojman (1996: 596).

[3] Pojman (1996: 596).

[4] Pojman (1996: 596).

[5] Calvin (1543)(1996: 37-40).  Feinberg (1986: 24).

[6] Edwards (1754)(2006 2.1: 1-1-2). 

[7] Calvin (1543)(1996: 37-40).

[8] Feinberg (1986: 24). Feinberg (1994: 60).  Greenspan (1998: 1).  Pruss (2003: 216).

[9] Pojman (1996: 596).