Depression from disappointment with others (sermon)

Above the Fraser River

Grace Baptist Church sermon from November 2007: Spiritual Depression #6: Disappointment with Others 

Sermon

A sermon from Pastor Michael Phillips, I have listened to a few times, recently.

Cited  

Today, with God's blessing, we'll move on with the study we began last month called Spiritual Depression. 'Depression', you know, is a sorrow that stays with you for weeks, months, or years. And 'Spiritual' depression is the kind that has no medical cause. If you've been down for a long time, and can't imagine why, go to the doctor. He is God's gift to you, and you mustn't be ashamed of taking what the Lord has given you. 

The depressions I have in mind, however, cannot be healed by doctors. They can treat them and cover them up, but they cannot get rid of them because spiritual sicknesses need spiritual cures. Which come to us, most of the time, through the reading and preaching of God's Word.

Importantly, the message is emphasizing the need for professional medical and psychological help with types of depression, when required. It is not a spiritualized sermon to the point of error.

Cited

When they're not the way we expect them to be, we become disappointed in them, and when they fail time and time again, we slide into bitterness, and, when that's not repented of, we give up all hope and fall off into depression. Other things may contribute to the depression, but the real cause of it is disappointment in other people. 

As I have noted in my online work, all person's are finite and sinful, and only Jesus Christ, God-incarnate, divinely taking upon himself a finite body, did not exercise a corrupted, fallen, sinful mature. The rest of us in humanity are corrupted products of the fall of humanity (Genesis) that cannot follow the ten commandments (Exodus 20, Deuteronomy 5) perfectly.

Humanity posses sinful natures (for example: Romans 1-8)...

Romans 8:6-10 English Standard Version (ESV)

6 For to set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace. 7 For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God's law; indeed, it cannot. 8 Those who are in the flesh cannot please God. 9 You, however, are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you. Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him. 10 But if Christ is in you, although the body is dead because of sin, the Spirit is life because of righteousness.

Those regenerated (Titus 3) through the Holy Spirit via Christ's work are also legally justified by the righteousness of Jesus Christ, by grace through faith (for example Romans 3)...

Romans 3: 21-22 English Standard Version

21 But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it— 22 the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe.

Romans 5: 16-19 English Standard Version

18 Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. 19 For as by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man's obedience the many will be made righteous.

Sinful nature leads to sinful thoughts, desires, wills, choices, acts and actions. Ultimately, outside of Jesus Christ and his applied atoning and resurrection work, persons are damned post-mortem to the lake of fire because of deeds (NASB)...

(There is a theological discussion on whether or not post-mortem, unregenerated souls/spirits receive a resurrected body, but as it is the second resurrection in Revelation, an actual resurrected body of sorts is considered.)

Becoming, in a sense, ultimate disappointments to God, that have a depressing, disappointing everlasting existence apart from God.

Now I am very much aware that being apart from the biblical God, will please many folks, but simultaneously he/she will also be separated from God's common grace and every good in this present realm which comes from God.

It is not just different realm and new location with a freedom from God, it is simultaneously a negative divine judgment for the embracing of sinful nature through committed sin (s).

Revelation 20: 11-15 New American Standard Version Bible

1 Then I saw a great white throne and Him who sat upon it, from whose [a]presence earth and heaven fled away, and no place was found for them. 12 And I saw the dead, the great and the small, standing before the throne, and [b]books were opened; and another [c]book was opened, which is the book of life; and the dead were judged from the things which were written in the [d]books, according to their deeds. 13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead which were in them; and they were judged, every one of them according to their deeds. 14 Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire. 15 And if [e]anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire. ---

The spiritual state of fallen humanity, even those in Jesus Christ awaiting perfection through resurrection (1 Corinthians 15) is corrupted and fallen in this present realm. Disappointment with others and other's disappointment with us, is to be expected.

I can appreciate Phillip's advice from the sermon:

Cited  

Is disappointment in other people wrong? No it isn't. Our Lord Himself felt this way more than once, and it cut him to the bone.

Cited

Are you depressed because someone has let you down? If you are, welcome to the club, everyone has been let down, including Elijah, and the Lord Jesus Christ. The disappointment hurts us badly-it hurt them badly, and Christ worst of all. 

Cited

Loving others increases the likelihood that we will be hurt again. But this is the risk we must take, for Christ took it, and we're called to follow Him.

CRANFIELD, C.E.B. (1985)(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.

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

Problems of evil statements

Ernest Hepnar photo

From

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

MPhil

(Comments from September 27, 2019 in brackets)

Statements twelve, thirteen, fourteen and fifteen:

Statement twelve stated: The philosophical discussion of the problem of evil is beneficial.

With Anglicans 80% agreed, 14% were not certain, and 6% disagreed. In the Baptist group, 84% agreed, 10% were not certain, and 6% disagreed.

The thirteenth statement stated: Philosophers cannot solve the problem of evil.
 
For Anglicans 84% agreed, 8% were not certain, 8% disagreed. With the Baptists 86% agreed, 12% were not certain, and 2% disagreed.

Statement fourteen stated: There is no single philosophical solution solving every aspect of the problem of evil. 

Within the Anglican Church people surveyed, 88% agreed, 6% were not certain, and 6% disagreed. With Baptists, 86% agreed, 8% were not certain, and 6% disagreed.

I believe that Christ’s restoring work is the ultimate remedy for the problem of evil; however, I do not think there is a single philosophical answer to every individual problem of evil that arises. Logically, individual problems of evil are solvable, but only God has ultimate answers for many of these problems.

(An important idea from my key compatibilistic exemplar, John S. Feinberg, is that there are various problems of evil and therefore, various remedies and solutions. My MPhil thesis and especially my PhD thesis, discussed both logical problems of evil and gratuitous problems of evil and their solutions.)

Statement fifteen: Statement fifteen stated: Philosophers can provide theistic solutions to problems of evil. 

For Anglicans, 44% agreed, 26% were not certain, 30% disagreed. For Baptists, 46% agreed, 22% were not certain, and 32% disagreed.

With statement fifteen, I side with the minority of the responders who agreed that philosophers can provide theistic solutions to problems of evil. For example, I think there are logical arguments that can demonstrate that God can be infinite, omnipotent and perfectly holy, yet have evil exist within his creation. I do not believe there is a logical problem of evil for Christianity that theologians and philosophers cannot solve; however, I still think the overall problem of evil, with all of its complexities, can only be intellectually solved by God.

(I view gratuitous evils as also logically solvable by humanity and provided a solution within my PhD thesis, please see archives. But only God can fully intellectually solve and remedy gratuitous evil (s).)

Human beings can rightly reason that God is not a contradictory being by having evil exist within his creation, but they cannot completely understand how this takes place. There is still a tension in existence.

(Both my theses also focused on practical and contextual theologies that can serve as helps to persons within problems of suffering. Empirical theology also produced useful data in both my works.)

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

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

Free will statements

Venice via Ernest Hepnar

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

MPhil

Statements nine, ten and eleven: These statements dealt with the issue of human free will.

Number nine stated: God created human beings with free will. 

Here 92% of Anglicans agreed, while 4% were not certain, and 4% disagreed. With the Baptists, 98% agreed, while 2% disagreed.

Statement ten stated: Human free will means that people have the option to choose either good or evil. 

Here 80% of Anglicans agreed, with 4% not certain, and 16% in disagreement. The Baptists responders consisted of 94% of the people agreeing, with 4% not certain, and 2% disagreeing.

The eleventh statement read: Free will itself is not the main factor in the human rejection of God. 

Here 40% of Anglicans agreed, while 30% were not certain, and 30% disagreed. With Baptists, 62% agreed, 8% being not certain, and 30% being in disagreement with the statement.

Regarding the ninth statement, I agree that God made human beings with free will, although its nature is limited as human beings can only choose to do things which their finite nature allows (human beings can freely desire to fly unaided, but this is not within their physical nature to accomplish).

I do believe the fall of Adam and Eve occurred by their own choice without coercion by God.

I agree with the tenth statement in a pre fall context, but after the fall I think that the human will was no longer able to truly please God by choosing to do good things, or to have a right standing before God. For a person to do good in God’s sight would require a spirit of purity which is impossible to possess for those with a sinful nature, but to even approach purity would require complete reliance upon the Holy Spirit.

I do not think this means that God desires robots which he directs, rather he wants thinking people who are open to his guidance. However, clearly human beings, even those without Christ, still have some freedom of choice as to what sins they will commit and to what level they commit these acts. They cannot commit good acts that are pleasing to God in the context of merit. Paul mentions in Romans 3:23, that all people have sinned and fallen short of God’s glory.

The eleventh statement discusses an issue I have already mentioned I disagreed.

September 21, 2019

Statement ten stated: Human free will means that people have the option to choose either good or evil. 

I reason that the choice of Adam and Eve to disobey God, demonstrated their by then tainted human nature in the fall (Genesis 3, Romans 5, as examples). Prior to the fall they were finitely perfect and at the fall they became finitely imperfect.

From both theological and philosophical perspectives, I researched and wrote in more depth, and with increased understanding in regard to compatibilistic freedom within my PhD thesis.

That being compatibilism, also known as soft determinism, views human freedom as leading to desires, thoughts, will, acts and actions, as a secondary cause. Human beings are secondary agents. This is compatible with the simultaneous cause of these human desires, thoughts, will, acts and actions by a primary cause. From a theistic, biblical, Christian view, this primary or first cause is the triune God.

God's motives remain pure, unlike any secondary cause that is in a fallen, corrupted state. God's loyal angels can also have pure motives, as finite entities and secondary agents.

For academic balance, a non-theistic view could reason the primary cause as naturalistic and scientific. Perhaps even as fate.

Incompatibilism and forms of libertarian free will, deny compatibilism.

As I am not a hard determinist (things are determined by one cause). I reason moral accountability from secondary agents (causes) requires that these entities are not forced or coerced in regard to desires, thoughts, will, acts and actions, but are embraced with limited free will.

The finite nature of humanity is always subject to the infinite nature of God; this with whatever God directly or indirectly causes.

Got Questions

Referencing

PACKER, J.I. (1973) Knowing God, Downers Grove, Illinois, InterVarsity Press.

In Hebrew, the title "God Almighty" is written as El Shaddai and probably means “God, the All-powerful One” or “The Mighty One of Jacob” (Genesis 49:24; Psalm 132:2,5), although there is a question among most Bible scholars as to its precise meaning. The title speaks to God’s ultimate power over all. He has all might and power. We are first introduced to this name in Genesis 17:1, when God appeared to Abram and said, “I am God Almighty; walk before me and be blameless.”

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

This website has several PhD related articles in the archives.

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. 

FLEW, ANTONY (1955) ‘Divine Omnipotence and Human Freedom’, in Antony Flew and A. MacIntrye (eds.), New Essays in Philosophical Theology, London, SCM, in Paul Edwards and Arthur Pap (eds.), A Modern Introduction To Philosophy, New York, The Free Press.

PACKER, J.I. (1973) Knowing God, Downers Grove, Illinois, InterVarsity Press. HICK, JOHN (1970) Evil and The God of Love, London, The Fontana Library.

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, God, Freedom, and Evil, Grand Rapids. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. 

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.

The true reason for the existence of evil in humanity is impossible to construct?

Ernest Hepnar photo: Saint Mark's in Venice

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

MPhil from 2003

Statement eight: 

In hindsight, the eighth statement was perhaps a little too tricky.

It was: The true reason for the existence of evil in humanity is impossible to construct. 

Why do I think this is a tricky statement? Personally, on one hand as a reader, I could read the statement in absolute terms. I would then agree because I think that God alone can answer the statement with knowledge. On the other hand, if I take the statement as a matter of degrees, I can disagree because I believe we can apprehend some of the reasons why evils exists, but that we lack complete comprehension.

I view this statement in somewhat similar fashion to statements on the concepts of Incarnation and Trinity, where complete human comprehension is not possible but levels of apprehension are attainable. Some of the doctrines which deal with God’s infinite nature require this humble and cautious approach. Whereas with some doctrines (such as why adultery is wrong), we can claim to understand them for the most part, leaving the unknown details up to God to explain to us. . . or not, upon the culminated Kingdom of God.

Here, 56% of Anglicans agreed that the existence of evil was humanly impossible to construct, while 18% were not certain, and 26% disagreed. With the Baptists, 44% agreed, 20% were not sure, and 36% disagreed.

September 19, 2019

I did provide a PhD theory within the Reformed tradition, and using philosophy of religion, for human problems of evil.

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

My theory is that human beings that are saved through Christ with the use of compatibilism will eventually have greater spiritual maturity than Adam and Eve did prior to a fall from God.

It can be reasoned that those within the culminated Kingdom of God will surpass those first persons in spiritual maturity as well. This would be so because those God saves will have experienced their own sin, death, and the atoning work of Christ and his resurrection applied to them. These would be citizens of the culminated Kingdom of God.

Persons cannot be created with experience, even if made with a level of initial maturity. God can create a perfect person, but God cannot logically create a perfect person with experience as such. The act of creating implies newness and inexperience. Admittedly, God could hypothetically create a being with false memories of a perfect life, but this would not be the same as having experience. I deduce the results would not be the same.

Human beings can possess finite moral perfection and goodness but not infinite, God-like moral perfection and goodness. Isaiah 43 makes it clear there was no God formed before God and there will be no God formed after. Isaiah 44-46 make similar statements. The New American Standard Version Bible (1984: 816-821).

Those within the culminated Kingdom of God would not possess the initial inexperience and immaturity of the first persons. It is reasonable to deduce that the problem of evil is possibly God’s means of developing certain individuals to eventual Christ-like stature, not sharing Christ’s divinity in nature but becoming like Christ in a mature and moral manner, combined with an unbreakable devotion to God.

Moltmann reasoned that Christ will be God’s lieutenant in this godless world and bring about, through his crucifixion and resurrection, the promise of a better future, which includes hope. The Kingdom of God was present in Christ and this has been defined in history.

MOLTMANN, JÜRGEN (1993) The Crucified God, Minneapolis, Fortress Press.

MOLTMANN, JÜRGEN (1999) ‘Perseverance’, in Alan Richardson and John Bowden (eds.), New Dictionary of Christian Theology, Kent, SCM Press Ltd.

THE NEW AMERICAN STANDARD BIBLE (1984) Iowa Falls, Iowa, World Bible Publishers.

Philippians 4:19 In brief (MPhil)

 Ernest Hepnar photo, presently touring Rome and Italy.

Thursday, November 30, 2017 Philippians & Ephesians: Thankfulness

Sunday, July 28, 2013 Spiritual Education (MPhil)

Tuesday, January 10, 2006 MPhil Wales 2003

From

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

Today, our needs are often misunderstood. In the evangelical Christian church it is sometimes said that God will always meet our needs; however, there could be confusion with the concept of ‘always’. Let us not forget that there are Christians who are blind, or missing limbs for example. Both sight and limbs are basic human needs. Some realize this in philosophical terms, but often these people are living in lonely rooms and homes, away from the mainstream, so they may not be seen and/or experienced by many in the church. In reality, God does always meet what we see as basic human needs, or scientifically what can be deemed as basic human needs such as good health; however, what God promised, mainly, is everlasting life if we believe in Christ as Saviour, and judgement for all humanity.

In Philippians 4:19, Paul promises his readers that God will supply their needs in Christ. However, Martin noted that: "The precise meaning of will meet as a wish-prayer, not a statement of fact, is a helpful insight." Martin (1987: 184). The fact that Paul is waiting for God to supply the reader’s needs means there is an element of faith involved, and in matters of faith, God sometimes does not deliver as expected although he will meet the needs of his people in order for them to best serve him.

God will meet the needs of the believer, mainly in the context of making it feasible for a person to complete his will for their individual life. This unfortunately, from a human perspective, leaves much room for suffering. Yes, God loves his people, but he has knowledge of what must take place in a believer’s life in a more complete way than any human being could be aware of. He alone is omniscient.

MARTIN, R.P. (1987) 'Philippians', in Leon Canon Morris (gen. ed.),Tyndale New Testament Commentary, Leicester/Grand Rapids, Inter-Varsity Press/William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

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

I have shared this work above previously from my British, MPhil thesis and in the Spiritual Education, article.

September 14, 2019

Bible Hub

Cited with my work in brackets:

your needs χρείαν chreian Original Word: χρεία, ας, ἡ

needs, business

Bible Hub

Philippians 4:19 N-AFS (noun, accusative feminine, singular)

(Accusative, meet (verb) needs of you)

GRK: πληρώσει      πᾶσαν  χρείαν      ὑμῶν     κατὰ
(will fill up or meet  all        needs  of you  according to)
---

The New Testament Greek to me with a definition of needs and business, could be described in context, as the needs and business of the individual Christian in serving God, being met, more so than all of the ontological needs of the individual Christian, all being met.

The Orthodox Study Bible: James 1: 26-27

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

James 1:26 was the header verse used in the sermon reviewed on the previous entry...

James 1:26-27 New King James Version (NKJV) (Same version as the Orthodox text)

26 If anyone [a]among you thinks he is religious, and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this one’s religion is useless. 27 Pure and undefiled religion before God and the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their trouble, and to keep oneself unspotted from the world.
---

The Orthodox Study Bible from 26-27, opines on 'three examples of the relationship between faith and works'. (542).

1) Mastery over speech: It is reasoned that the quality of speech from believers in Jesus Christ 'will reveal the quality of our faith in God'. (542).

This connects more specifically to verse 26, and the subject of the previous article on this website, which discussed theoretical theology on lying.

In agreement with Orthodoxy, divinely respectful speech that is grateful in love to God, is in my theology, an indicator of the quality of faith. I personally would place even more emphasis on the worldview embraced and lived, by the person claiming to be a Christian in determining the quality of faith in a Christian. Ultimately only God can adequately and exhaustively judge the spirit, mind and deeds of a person (Revelation 20, 2 Corinthians 5: 10).

2) Ministry to the needy: 'Faithful Christians must be the guardians of the poor.' (542).

This is the 'Pure and undefiled religion' of verse 27. Justification and salvation by grace through faith in the applied atoning and resurrection work of Jesus Christ to believers, not by any human works, but for good human works in Jesus Christ.  (Ephesians 1-2).

3) Moral purity in thought and deed:  'A faith that works produces moral purity.' (542). The idea from James here is in agreement with Ephesians 2. A legitimate Christian walk by grace through faith should lead to general (sinful nature still exists in this realm) obedience in good works.

In regards to James 1: 26, Courson writes that 'a truly religious man, a deep man, does not pop off and throw temper tantrums at God, God is God and we're not. God is good, and we're not.' (1519).

I have been verbally angry at God. I partially agree with Courson here. Tantrums should be repented of where sinful thoughts and speech was expressed. Obviously, humanity is finite and sinful and God is theologically, infinite and perfectly good and holy.

I think that in faith it is at times good to pray to God with emotion, including anger, rather than directing emotion at other people that do not have God's infinite knowledge and complete knowledge of the human heart.

It is good to vent to God in faith, and it is good to avoid foolish misunderstandings of our emotions with other people. It is good to vent with God in faith and not hold a grudge.

Let us remember that anger at God, and other sinfulness, can exist, even without being verbally expressed.

Matthew 15: 19

New American Standard Bible

"For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, slanders.

In regards to James 1: 27, Courson explains that 'true religion is a matter of purity and humility.' (1519).

Unspotted (ἄσπιλον) from James 1: 27

Bible Hub

Strong's Concordance aspilos: spotless, unstained

Original Word: ἄσπιλος, ον Part of Speech: Adjective Transliteration: aspilos

Phonetic Spelling: (as'-pee-los)

Definition: spotless, unstained Usage: unstained, undefiled, spotless, pure.

Englishman's Concordance

James 1:27 Adj-AMS GRK: θλίψει αὐτῶν ἄσπιλον ἑαυτὸν τηρεῖν NAS: oneself unstained by the world. KJV: himself unspotted from INT: tribulation of them unstained oneself to keep.

It is accusative, masculine, singular.

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

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

Brief on lying

Burrard Inlet

Nov 24 1999 

The link presents a Pastor Michael Phillips sermon that I recently listened to.

I provide brief sermon commentary for this website.

James 1:26

New American Standard Bible (NASB)

26 If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not [a]bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless. Footnotes: James 1:26 Or control

Baxter on the Tongue #4: Lying

Cited

Baxter begins this chapter with a few words of definition. What is a lie? He says it is two things:

"Lying is the speaking of a known falsehood, with purpose to deceive". This he calls "the grossest" form of lying (or, the most obvious). Kids often do this. "Who made this mess? you want to know. "It wasn't me" they all reply. Kids often do this. But not only kids. Lying is an even bigger problem with adults.

The second kind of lying--Baxter says--is "Speaking falsely through culpable ignorance, error, or inconsiderateness". 'The key word here is "culpable" or blameworthy...'
---

In general terms, not exhaustively, summarizing these two points:

1. A known falsehood with the motive of deception.

(I live in the 19th century)

2. A falsehood in error, perhaps in intellectual laziness.

(In court: Yes, your honour, that was the accused, even though I saw him running, from fifty feet away, in the rain, in the dark night.)

Cited

One day I asked him about the Mexican state of Chiapas. He knew all about it, of course, and explained every detail with great confidence. It sounded funny to me, so I looked it up and found--the man was wrong on every point! Was he trying to deceive me? I don't think so. What was he doing? He was posing as an authority on a subject he knew nothing about. Baxter says that too is lying.

Again...

Was he trying to deceive me? I don't think so.

There may be self-deception by the person lying!

I listened to this online sermon three times, and when I heard this example, it strikes me as intellectual laziness. The person telling the story about the Mexican state wants to look informed, perhaps informed to the pastor; but rather than performing the intellectual work to be informed, he presents falsehoods.

There are certainly other aspects which lead to lying in error and ignorance, including pride. A person wants to save face. Stating an untruth as opposed to admitting that one is simply ignorant in regards to an issue.

In my view, sometimes a stated guess is more harmful than useful.

Cited

Rather than splitting hairs half-the-night, let me sum up Baxter's view of lying. In effect, you're lying--he says--whenever you're talking...but not telling the truth. 

Cited

DON'T DO THINGS YOU'LL NEED TO LIE ABOUT LATER

"Unclean bodies need a cover and are most ashamed to be seen. [Shameful things] cause lying and lying leads to more [shameful things]. The best way in the world to avoid lying is to be innocent". This is a good point! What sort of things do we lie about? We lie about things we're ashamed to admit. Don't do those things and the temptation to lie about them will be gone.

Based on a fear of God and also pragmatically, by grace through faith, I  have attempted to live this way. Imperfectly.

A sign of being in Jesus Christ (James 1: 26) is the motive in prayer and life, to have the Holy Spirit sanctify human nature, desires, will, thoughts, speech, acts and actions.

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

CARSON, T. (1986) ‘James’, in F.F. Bruce (ed.), The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Zondervan.

Relative dualism

Pitt Meadows: I like the red car.

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. 

The previous question from my MPhil was in regard to Absolute dualism, as was the previous article on this website.

Statement seven: 

This statement stated:

Relative Dualism, a universe containing an eternal, infinite, good God, and a finite created Devil, is permissible within a Biblical world-view. The statement is, of course, related to the previous one, and I think this view is expressed in Scripture. Here 74% of Anglicans agreed, while 14% were not certain, with 12% disagreeing. With the Baptists, 86% agreed, 4% being not certain, and 10% being in disagreement.

Some observers of Christianity like to think of Satan and his fallen angels as a metaphor for evil and wish to deny that these beings exist. Professor David Pailin, who was my advisor for a short time, criticized me for believing in these beings as there was no proof of their existence. I think that Scripture is historical and it certainly accepts their existence.

As well, and this was a point that I made to Professor Pailin, if theists believe that God, who is spirit (John 4:24) created human beings who are of a physical nature, why is it more difficult to believe that God made angels who were of spiritual nature?

To me, it is a more difficult task for God to create matter and physical beings when he is spirit, as opposed to creating spiritual beings who are much like him except finite. I do not have a philosophical problem believing in angels and fallen angels, however, I do not base my belief in angelic beings primarily on my experience but in Scripture and reason.

September 5, 2019

A slight revision and explanation...

In 2003, by 'more difficult' I meant within my MPhil thesis for emphasis, and to previously make emphasis with my debate with Professor David Pailin, that it was more distinct and different from God's divine nature as infinite, eternal spirit, to create a physical being with a spirit (a human being and human beings) as opposed to creating a merely spiritual being, as in the angelic and fallen angelic beings, which includes the eventual demonic beings.

From a human perspective it appears to be more different and difficult in a sense. That was my point. I am not making any claims in regard to God's level of work.

PAILIN, DAVID A. (1999) ‘Deism’, in Alan Richardson and John Bowen (eds.), A New Dictionary of Christian Theology, Kent, SCM Press Ltd.

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

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

On Dualism February 21 2018

Absolute dualism

Ernest Hepnar

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 six: 

This statement stated: Absolute Dualism, a universe containing two co-eternal Gods, one good, the other evil, is Biblically permissible. Of Anglicans 2% were uncertain with this statement, while 98% disagreed with it. With Baptists 2% agreed with the statement, 2% were uncertain, and 96% disagreed with it. Scripture seems to strongly indicate that Satan and his fallen angel partners were created by God, and thus not infinite or equal to God.

In Ephesians 3:9, Colossians 1:16, and Revelation 4:11, it is pointed out that God alone is the creator of all things, and as stated earlier, no being appeared to have existed with God prior to creation.

September 2, 2019

In Trinitarian theology...

There is one God (Isaiah 43-45) that is triune (Matthew 28), as examples...

Colossians 2:9-10 (Him is Jesus Christ)

'New American Standard Bible (NASB)

9 For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form, 10 and in Him you have been made [a]complete, and He is the head [b]over all rule and authority; Footnotes: a Colossians 2:10 Lit full b Colossians 2:10 Lit of ' 

N.T. Wright explains in regard to Colossians 2: 9-10, it is an continuation of 1:19 (109), 'for all the fulness to dwell in him.' (NASB). 'He is uniquely God's presence and his very self'. (109). Wright reasons that Paul is teaching monotheistic doctrine here and not that Jesus Christ is a second deity. (109). Christ is the embodiment of full deity. (109). God the Son, is not a second deity, God the Holy Spirit is not a third deity.

The Holy Spirit as God, regenerates those within salvation (Titus 3: 5).

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).

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

As I have noted in previous recent articles:

If God actually was infinitely and eternally evil, this would actually be what is good, and there would in reality be no distinction between good and evil. But based on the scripture, reasonable theology and reasonable philosophy of religion, that is not the case.

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...

If Satan or a like evil entity, as part of the Godhead was true (blasphemy in our actual reality, see Genesis 3, Revelation 20-22 as examples), it would not be within an absolute dualism, as the Godhead logically and reasonably is of one essential nature, even with trinitarian distinctions within that nature. As God alone is absolutely necessary, what is absolutely necessary and is of absolute necessity is what is good. Therefore all within the Godhead would be infinite, eternal, holy and good.

Biblically, Satan and satanic beings are finite, opponents of God (Genesis 3, Revelation 20-22 as examples) that are a significant aspect of problems of evil, as is fallen humanity.

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

WRIGHT, N.T., Colossians and Philemon, (1986)(1989), IVP, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids.