God understands human suffering?

Lichterkette: Germany-Pixabay

From

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

MPhil 2003

Statement twenty-nine: The twenty-ninth statement stated: God is fully able to understand the suffering of people and all living creatures. For this statement, 100% of Anglicans agreed; 98% of Baptists agreed with 2% in disagreement. I think that the statement is true as an infinite creator should be fully able to understand finite creation. There is nothing that these creatures can reason that God cannot fully understand.

From

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

Real suffering should not be denied for the sake of any theological system, as the logical and reasonable nature of a good theodicy does not take away the seriousness of suffering. Only God alone can ultimately free his creation from suffering, but a theodicy may explain to some degree, how God works within his creation that contains evil and suffering.

November 29 2019

My British, MPhil/PhD theses developed work on the problem of evil and theodicy. I prayerfully and studiously took a Reformed position, but researched and documented other viewpoints as well (see website archives).

My Reformed theodicy work provides a British, University accepted solution to problems of evil, but does not, obviously, solve all practical problems of evil and problems of suffering. Embracing the infinite, eternal, omnipotent God as creator that has revealed self in Scripture, specifically through the atoning and resurrection work, via Jesus Christ, applied to the regenerated (John 3, Titus 3) believer; I reason God does understand human suffering and ultimately remedies it. At death, the believer, in spirit form, enters Paradise, followed by the eventual resurrection of same believers (1 Corinthians 15) and the establishment of the culminated new (restoration) creation via Revelation 21-22.

A dying Jesus Christ, promised another man dying on a cross near him, that via his (perhaps new) faith, that day, the man would be with Jesus Christ in Paradise. The Apostle Paul visited Paradise during his earthly ministry.

Strong, page 1035

Strong, page 72.

Bauer on page 614 describes Paradise from Luke 23, 2 Corinthians 12 and Revelation 2 as a place above the earth.

Now from my philosophical/theological perspective I do not take this plain literally, as in some place in the clouds, or above the clouds, or even beyond the solar system or beyond the physical Universe, as in a place that can be physically found via space/travel.

The Bible teaches that Paradise is a place where post-mortem, spirits in Christ go after death, and Old Testament/Hebrew Bible saints went to spiritually after death. The Bible teaches this using figurative literal language. Therefore, I would conclude Paradise is a place of the non-physical spiritual realm.

January 16 2013

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

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

In Three Minutes: Speculation without Revelation

 

My non-exhaustive comments in under three minutes...

My fifty plus year old wood chair adds sound effects.

Note

In this short lecture, I am comparing speculation within philosophy, philosophy of religion, some forms of non-biblical theology to speculation via scriptural, biblical, revelation. I am not stating or implying that I view all scriptural, biblical, revelation and Christian theology as speculation. I reason there are quite clear biblical teachings, which provide essential New Testament doctrine, for example, but there is also some room for speculation and hence the comparison.

I also, obviously from my academic work, use speculation within philosophy of religion, and I think truth can be found. However, truth in regards to reasonably embraced post-mortem existence requires biblical revelation, in my historical view. I also of course, speculate in regards to some Christian theology.

DAVIS, STEPHEN T. (1981)(ed.), Encountering Evil, Atlanta, John Knox Press. 

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

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

GEIVETT, R. DOUGLAS (1993) Evil and the Evidence for God, Philadelphia, Temple University Press. HICK, JOHN (1970) Evil and The God of Love, London, The Fontana Library.

HICK, JOHN (1978) ‘Present and Future Life’, Harvard Theological Review, Volume 71, Number 1-2, January-April, Harvard University.

HICK, JOHN (1981) Encountering Evil, Stephen T. Davis (ed.), Atlanta, John Knox Press.

HICK, JOHN (1993) ‘Afterword’ in GEIVETT, R. DOUGLAS (1993) Evil and the Evidence for God, Philadelphia, Temple University Press.

HICK, JOHN (1993) The Metaphor of God Incarnate, Louisville, Kentucky, John Know Press. 

HICK, JOHN (1994) Death and Eternal Life, Louisville, Kentucky, John Knox Press.

HICK, JOHN (1999) ‘Life after Death’, in Alan Richardson and John Bowden (eds.), A New Dictionary of Christian Theology, Kent, SCM Press.

PHILLIPS, D.Z. (1981) Encountering Evil, Stephen T. Davis (ed.), Atlanta, John Knox Press. 

PHILLIPS, D.Z. (2005) The Problem of Evil and the Problem of God, Fortress Press, Minneapolis. 

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.

ROTH, JOHN K. ‘Introduction’ (1892-1907)(1969) in The Moral Philosophy of William James, John K. Roth (ed.), Thomas Y. Crowell Company, New York.

ROTH, JOHN K. (1981) Encountering Evil, Stephen T. Davis (ed.), Atlanta, John Knox Press. 

SCUDDER, DELTON,LEWIS (1940) Tennant’s PhilosophicalTheology, London, Oxford University Press.

TENNANT, F.R.(1906) The Origin and Propagation of Sin,Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. 

TENNANT, F.R.(1930)(1956) Philosophical Theology,Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

God as unchangeable/immutable

Filip Mroz on Unsplash

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

MPhil 2003

Statement twenty-eight: 

This statement was: God is unchangeable.

Within the Church of England, 74% agreed, 12% were not certain, 14% disagreed. With the Baptists 90% agreed, 6% were not certain, and 4% disagreed.

I do not believe God is changeable within his substance or character and I do not think that either of these change as he interacts with his creation. I do believe God can change his mind as conditions change, and that God can see all the sides of an issue. For example, God can be said, in a sense, to love humanity because he created them in his image and yet, in another sense, he can also be said to hate humanity because it is sinful. This is not a contradiction. He can love the qualities he manufactured within human beings which still remain, yet hate the corruption which has taken place.
---

November 26 2019

In other words, God is immutable. My modest proposal reasons since God is infinite and considered immutable, God is not changeable in nature as ontologically infinite and eternal. It is impossible for God to suffer in the exact way that human beings do.

Theoretically, as an infinite entity, God could feel (and intellectually reason) sadness for willing problems of evil and problems of suffering, directly or indirectly, upon a human being, while simultaneously remaining unrepentant of what has been willed; as it is for the greater and overall good. God remains perfectly good and holy.

God, while immutable, could also withdraw certain problems of evil and problems of suffering from a person.

Even as God is infinite and eternal, he incarnated God the Son, in a sense, to be viewed as relatable, by his human creation.

1 Peter 2: 21

English Standard Version

For to this you have been called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, so that you might follow in his steps.

New American Standard Bible

For you have been called for this purpose, since Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example for you to follow in His steps,

King James Bible

For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps:

And of course from Hebrews, Jesus Christ is the mediator within the New Covenant through his atoning and resurrection work for those in him.

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.

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

SPROUL, R.C., AND ROBERT WOLGEMUTH (2000) What’s In the Bible, Word Publishing, Nashville.

SURIN, KENNETH (1986) Theology and the Problem of Evil, Oxford, Basil Blackwell Ltd.

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

Greater suffering, greater sin?

Facebook

From

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

MPhil 2003

Statement twenty-seven:

This statement stated: The case of Job demonstrates that the evil experienced by an individual may not be related to their level of personal godliness. With both groups, 96% agreed and 4% disagreed. This response is good to see because a Theology which insists that people suffering in the greatest measure are the greatest sinners, is very dangerous as it is error. Job was a very righteous man and he suffered greatly because God willed it for the greater good.

Referenced with edits

Job April 12 2014

Job's lack of insight into divine plans of deity made the plans of God, 'dark and made God's dealing seem arbitrary'. Clines (1986: 546).

This can be tied back to concepts from my MPhil and PhD work as in the infinite, sovereign and yet holy and good God, causing and willing evil, as first cause (primary cause), yet for the good. And for the good for those in Christ that love him called according to his divine purpose (Romans 8).

Many times from a human perspective God's plans and actions seem dark, harsh and cruel and from a human perspective this is true to a point, I admit academically and from personal experience, as human beings do suffer at times in terrible ways, even while acknowledging the goodness of God without sin.

And God as holy (Isaiah 6). I do not view God's plans and actions as arbitrary, whatsoever, instead viewing God with sovereign, providential plans in creation. God being demonstrated in the New Testament as predestining events whether the crucifixion, atonement, resurrection, salvation, second advent and restored creation.

November 24 2019

In Job's case he was righteous, through faith (Romans 4, as was Abraham and any true Hebrew Bible follower), prior to the atoning and resurrection work of Jesus Christ.

Job like every other human being other than Jesus Christ (perfect man/holy God) was tainted by sin, but the sufferings that greatly damaged Job's life occurred based on God's development of Job, as opposed to Job's sin. Within a Reformed, compatiblistic view, human beings, when there is moral responsibility, as secondary causes, embrace what God has willed, directly or indirectly, as the primary cause. In Job, God is the primary cause of Job's suffering with Satanic and human secondary, causes. (Embraced by these secondary entities)

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

CLINES, DAVID J. A. (1986) Job, The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Zondervan.

CLINES, DAVID J. A. (1986) Proverbs, The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Zondervan.

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

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

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

Prayer: A battle of wills

I love AZ joanthanglica Sedona: Facebook

From

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

MPhil 2003

Statement twenty-six: 

This statement stated: The power of prayer is an important deterrent to evil in creation. For Anglicans 80% agreed, 16% were not certain, and 4% disagreed. While with the Baptists, 86% agreed, 8% were not certain, and 6% disagreed. I think that prayer can prevent some evil from occurring. It is often not clear which evils have been prevented by prayer, but nonetheless, prayer is vital in the prevention of evil. It is good to petition the Almighty and ask for specific help, and it may be within his will to assist in the way sought after.

November 20 2019

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

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.

My prayerful intent, each prayer, is that as God is theologically the cause of all things (first cause in philosophy), that by God's will and my (Holy Spirit aided) obedience, God's perfect will occurs as opposed to God's permissible will.

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

Natural Evils (Three Statements)

From 2003

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

MPhil 2003 

Statements twenty-three, twenty-four and twenty-five: My next three statements dealt with natural evils. 

My position is that there are definitely natural evils. Those occurring within a fallen creation as a result of the fall, and the curses in Genesis 3, however, the extent of these curses is not completely known.

For example, for Adam and Eve to survive before the fall it appeared they ate plants, as did the animals, Genesis 1:29-31. These plants still experienced some type of death and renewal since clearly organic creatures such as human beings and animals can only survive by eating other living organic creatures. So death, in some way, existed before the fall but this was the natural created order. Creation became corrupted after the fall, and the death which occurred was not part of God’s original perfect order of things.

Henry Clarence Thiessen stated on this issue:

Here even inanimate nature is represented as suffering the curse of man’s sin. In view of this the Scriptures tell us elsewhere that the time is coming when "the creation itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the liberty of the glory of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now" (Rom. 8:21, 22). All creation has been "subjected to vanity, not of its own will, but by reason of him who subjected it in hope" (v. 20). Isa. 35 speaks of the restoration of nature to its pristine condition and beauty. And again, Adam and Eve were expelled from the Garden and forced to make their way in this fallen world. At the first they were in the most beautiful and perfect environment; now they were obliged to get along in an imperfect and almost hostile one. Their environment was decidedly changed because of sin. Thiessen, Henry Clarence (1956), Introductory Lectures in Systematic Theology (p. 258).

Plant life was consumed for food before the fall, but the post fall world outside of the Garden of Eden was one filled with the eventual death of all creatures. These are natural evils which were somehow initiated by the human sin of Adam and Eve. It appears that Adam and Eve had been given dominion over creation by God, and when they fell, their creation did as well.

Statement twenty-three stated: 

Natural evils (earthquakes, hurricanes, floods etc) are a direct result of the fall and curses in Genesis. For Anglicans 36% agreed, 20% were not certain, 44% disagreed. For Baptists 62% agreed, 22% were not certain, and 16% disagreed.

Statement twenty-four stated: 

Natural evils are a necessary aspect of God’s creation. For Anglicans 26% agreed, 26% were not certain, 48% disagreed. For Baptists 14% agreed, 26% were not certain, and 60% disagreed. 

Statement twenty-five stated: 

Natural evils as such are not covered by Christ’s atoning work. For Anglicans 20% agreed, 30% were not certain, 50% disagreed. For Baptists 20% agreed, 26% were not certain, and 54% disagreed. I am in agreement with the majority of responders that Christ’s atoning work does cover natural evils, as I believe Christ’s restoration work reverses the destructive workings of Adam and Eve through the fall.

From 2010

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

Natural Evils PhD and forward

I stated in the entry post-PhD in 2011...

Therefore, I would tend to place most Natural Evils in the category of natural forces due to the laws of the nature that overpower human beings subject to suffering, death and decay, as opposed to from Satanic beings, while always allowing that as a possibility as is a combination. 

November 18 2019

The new heaven, new earth (Revelation 21-22) shall feature resurrected humanity that is covered by the atoning (justification, sanctification and related) and resurrection work of Jesus Christ.

1 Corinthians 15 from the New American Standard Bible...

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

l.1 Corinthians 15:42 Lit in corruption
m.1 Corinthians 15:42 Lit in incorruption

Imperishable defined in context

From

Bible Hub



From

Greek New Testament

egeiretai en afqarsia

raised in incorruption (There is agreement with versions presented)

From Strong's

incorruptibility, indestructibility, incorruptibility; hence: immortality.

The human immortal, imperishable, finitely, perfected body, will be protected from natural evils. In the future the concept of natural evils causing human suffering and death will be obsolete.

(Perhaps certain animal life that may end up part of the culminated Kingdom of God would also be immortal and imperishable, such as the desired animals (pets) of the citizens of the Kingdom of God from the original fallen realm.)
---

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.

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

CRANFIELD, C.E.B. (1992) Romans: A Shorter Commentary, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. ERICKSON, MILLARD (1994) Christian Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.

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

KREEFT, PETER AND RONALD K. TACELLI (1994) Handbook of Christian Apologetics, Downers Grove, Illinois, InterVarsity Press.

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. PHILLIPS, D.Z. (2005) The Problem of Evil and the Problem of God, Fortress Press, Minneapolis. 

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.

QUINN, PHILIP L. (1996) ‘Philosophy of Religion’, Robert Audi (ed.), in The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

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

STRONG, J. (1890)(1986) Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, Pickering, Ontario, Welch Publishing Company.

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

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

Non-human creation: sovereignty, providence

Conwy Castle 2001

An interesting sermon in regard to God's sovereignty and non-human creation.

Cited

To be 'sovereign' means 'to rule'-not to reign as a figurehead king-but to actually rule, to control, to have His way, not sometimes and in some place, but all the time in all places. This includes the human world, of course, and we'll get to that presently, but for today, we'll explore God's sovereignty over the non-human parts of His creation. 

Cited

The world is full of superhuman powers, powers that can easily destroy you-either quietly, as cancer eats away at your pancreas, or with the mushroom cloud of an atomic bomb. 

Cited 

Gravity kills people every day as they slip in the bathtub. Momentum kills people when their cars hit embankments. Water drowns people, fire burns people to death, smoke suffocates them, and our arteries are filling up with plaque as I speak. These are all non-human powers, and every one of them threatens each of us and the whole human race.

And then Pastor Phillips mentions the supernatural...

Cited  

And then there's another non-human power. Have you guessed which one I'm thinking of? It's not a natural power, like an avalanche or a virus, but it's every bit as deadly; more deadly, in fact. I mean demonic powers. When looking at the world, I have a grain of respect for atheists. But when they tell me they don't believe in the devil, I cannot take them seriously! Evil is real, and while it is connected to human will, it is not limited to it. Talk to a drug addict, and he'll tell you that something's got a hold of him! Something outside of himself is exerting a hateful and destructive power over him. The Bible calls this 'something' the devil and his angels.

Sermon audio link 
---

Biblically

Biblically, it can be viewed from the Hebrew Bible and Genesis 1, that God created all material things. God created matter, time and space. Anything material and physical was created by God.

God's sovereignty is demonstrated in the New Testament as well. God as triune, documents the religious history by which Jesus Christ died for the sin (s) of humanity and applies his resurrection and atoning work to those in Jesus Christ. Post-mortem, those outside of this gospel work are everlastingly separated (Revelation 20) from the restored Kingdom of God, the new heaven and new earth (Revelation 21-22).

Cited  

In Genesis 1:1, we find Him ruling nothing-by which I do not mean 'not ruling', but ruling the nothing that was before there was something. Christians have always affirmed our belief in- Creatio ex nihilo. That is, God created everything out of nothing. To do this, of course, means He rules the nothing. 

Theologically

God is sovereign and demonstrates providence. 

I noted on 

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

Soverignty

John Calvin (1539)(1998) writes humanity has nothing on its own, but depends totally on God. Calvin (1539)(1998: Book II, Chapter 1: 2). God bestows on humanity what he wills. Calvin (1539)(1998: Book II, Chapter 1: 2).Arthur Pink (1968) defines God’s sovereignty as meaning that God is the almighty, the possessor of all power in heaven and earth, and no one can defeat his counsels. Pink (1968: 20). Norman Geisler explains the Bible teaches that God is in control of the entire universe, including human events. Geisler (1986: 63).

Providence

Oliver Boulnois (2002) defines providence as the manner by which God governs the world. Boulnois (2002: 444). In other words, providence would be the method that God uses to rule his creation in his sovereignty. It could be understood that providence would be the method by which God has sovereign control over his creation, and as Calvin notes, God’s providence has him work through persons. Calvin (1543)(1996: 36).

Philip Edgcumbe Hughes (1990) explains that through God’s providence the world is dependent, for if God did not maintain it, it would cease to exist. Hughes (1990: 45). In Law of Nature, Edwards (1731-1733)(2006) explains that providence is the means by which God governs the world as the supreme judge of the universe. Edwards (1731-1733)(2006: 553).

End citations

Philosophically/Philosophy of Religion 

I agree with the pastor as he in his sermons has (paraphrased) acknowledged God as the infinite, primary, first cause of all things, and in the context of this sermon, this would be non-human creation.

At the same time, the pastor (paraphrased) acknowledges the finite, secondary, second causes within the material, physical realm and the spiritual realm impacting the material, physical realm.

(Human beings serve as secondary causes in the material, physical realm, and arguably through prayer and action can at times impact the spiritual realm.)

These secondary causes include rational entities with nature, desire, will, thought, act and action.

Where desire, will, act and action is not forced or coerced, in other words, where these are significantly embraced, demonic beings (and human beings) have significant moral responsibility by which God can ultimately judge.

Angelic beings can serve as secondary causes, but unlike demonic and human beings are not fallen and are in finite, moral, perfection.

BARTH, KARL (1932-1968) Church Dogmatics, The Doctrine of the Word of God: Volume 1, Part One, Translated by J.W. Edwards, Rev. O. Bussey, and Rev. Harold Knight, Edinburgh, T. and T. Clark.

BARTH, KARL (1932-1968) Church Dogmatics, The Doctrine of Creation: Volumes 1 and 3. Translated by J.W. Edwards, Rev. O. Bussey, and Rev. Harold Knight, Edinburgh, T. and T. Clark.

BARTH, KARL (1932-1968) Church Dogmatics, The Doctrine of God: Volume 2, First Half -Volume, Translated by J.W. Edwards, Rev. O. Bussey, and Rev. Harold Knight, Edinburgh, T. and T. Clark.

BERKOUWER, G.C. (1962) Man: The Image of God, Grand Rapids, W.M.B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

BOULNOIS, OLIVIER (2002) ‘The Concept of God After Theodicy’, in Communio, Volume 29, Number 3, pp. 444-468. Washington, Communio.

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.

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.

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

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.

FRAME, JOHN M. (1999) ‘The Bible on the Problem of Evil: Insights from Romans 3:1-8,21-26; 5:1-5; 8:28-39’, IIIM Magazine Online, Volume 1, Number 33, October 11 to October 17, Fern Park, Florida, Third Millennium.

FRAME, JOHN M. (2002) The Doctrine of God, P and R Publishing, Phillipsburg, New Jersey.

GEISLER, NORMAN L. (1975) Philosophy of Religion, Grand Rapids, Zondervan Publishing House.

GEISLER, NORMAN L. (1978) The Roots of Evil, Grand Rapids, Zondervan Publishing House.

GEISLER, NORMAN L. (1986) Predestination and Free Will, Downers Grove, Illinois, InterVarsity Press.

GEISLER, NORMAN L. (1996) ‘Freedom, Free Will, and Determinism’, in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.

GEISLER, NORMAN, L (1999) ‘The Problem of Evil’, in Baker Encyclopedia of Apologetics, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.

GREEN, JAY (1971) Five Points of Calvinism, ‘Forward’, Grand Rapids, Sovereign Grace Publishers.

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

GRIFFIN, DAVID RAY (1976) God, Power, and Evil, Philadelphia, The Westminster Press.

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

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

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

KREEFT, PETER AND RONALD K. TACELLI (1994) Handbook of Christian Apologetics, Downers Grove, Illinois, InterVarsity Press.

PINK, ARTHUR W. (1968) The Sovereignty of God, London, The Banner of Truth Trust.

PINNOCK, CLARK (1986) Predestination and Free Will, Downers Grove, Illinois, InterVarsity Press.

REICHENBACH, BRUCE (1986) Predestination and Free Will, Downers Grove, Illinois, InterVarsity Press.

SANDERS, JOHN (2003) ‘Open Theism: A Radical Revision or Minuscule Modification of Arminianism?’, in Wesleyan Theological Journal, Volume 38, Number 2, Fall, pp. 69-102. Wilmore, Kentucky, Asbury College.

SCHELLING, F.W.J. (1845)(1936) Schelling, Of Human Freedom, Translated by James Gutmann, The Open Court Publishing Company, Chicago.

SHEDD, WILLIAM G.T. (1874-1890)(1980) Dogmatic Theology, Volume 1, Nashville, Thomas Nelson Publishers.

SHEDD, WILLIAM G.T. (1874-1890)(1980) Dogmatic Theology, Volume 2, Nashville, Thomas Nelson Publishers.

Gospel influence & obedient Church

Very cool Canadiana

From

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

MPhil 2003

Statement twenty-two:

This statement stated: Evil and suffering would decrease if the church were more obedient. With Anglicans, 32% agreed, 20% were not certain, 48% disagreed. With Baptists, 36% of the people agreed, 12% were not certain, and 52% disagreed.

I am not dogmatic with the issue of how much evil and suffering would decrease if the Gospel had more influence in the world and if the Church were more obedient. Indeed, they are hypothetical statements, but I cautiously lean toward believing the world would be a better place if the Gospel was more prominent in it, and if Christians were less secular in their thinking and more Christ focussed.

It can be seen that groups can have large impact on public views. Hollywood and the New York media have had a great impact upon western society. For example, western acceptance of homosexuality and abortion on demand has likely been influenced by these two groups. So I think high profile segments of society can definitely influence morality, and morality relates to the amount of evil in society. I do think that a more prominent, loving Christian Church would limit evil somewhat within the world.

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

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

HICK, JOHN (1978) ‘Present and Future Life’, Harvard Theological Review, Volume 71, Number 1-2, January-April, Harvard University.

HICK, JOHN (1981) Encountering Evil, Stephen T. Davis (ed.), Atlanta, John Knox Press.

HICK, JOHN (1993) ‘Afterword’ in GEIVETT, R. DOUGLAS (1993) Evil and the Evidence for God, Philadelphia, Temple University Press.

HICK, JOHN (1993) The Metaphor of God Incarnate, Louisville, Kentucky, John Know Press. 

HICK, JOHN (1994) Death and Eternal Life, Louisville, Kentucky, John Knox Press.

HICK, JOHN (1999) ‘Life after Death’, in Alan Richardson and John Bowden (eds.), A New Dictionary of Christian Theology, Kent, SCM Press.

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

OSTRANDER, HAL N. (2004) ‘Defending the faith in a post-Christian era’, in The Christian Index, Duluth, Georgia, The Christian Index. http://www.christianindex.org/206.article

PHILLIPS, D.Z. (1981) Encountering Evil, Stephen T. Davis (ed.), Atlanta, John Knox Press. 

PHILLIPS, D.Z. (2005) The Problem of Evil and the Problem of God, Fortress Press, Minneapolis. 

VEITH, GENE EDWARD, JR. (1994) Postmodern Times, Wheaton Illinois, Crossway Books.

November 12 2019

Sixteen years later, and post PhD, I am still not dogmatic on this issue. A more obedient Church would arguably, do more good and limit (some) evils. But, that does not mean that the overall human suffering would decrease. Maybe, maybe not. Most of the world is not within the Christian Church. I reason in a similar way to the previous question and article on this website.

Gospel influence/Peer review

Conwy Castle 2001

Gospel influence

From

MPhil 2003

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

Statement twenty-one: This statement was stated: Human suffering will decrease as the Gospel’s influence increases. For Anglicans 36% agreed, 20% were not certain, 44% disagreed. For Baptists, 36% agreed, 14% were not certain, and 50% disagreed.

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

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

PHILLIPS, D.Z. (1981) Encountering Evil, Stephen T. Davis (ed.), Atlanta, John Knox Press.

PHILLIPS, D.Z. (2005) The Problem of Evil and the Problem of God, Fortress Press, Minneapolis.

November 10, 2019

A tricky question. A true gospel influence (as opposed to a overly-politicized Christianity), over the western world and the world in general, should cause the Christian Church to benefit societies.

On the other hand, in this realm, suffering and death biblically continues until the new realm is established (Revelation 21-22) and the resurrection to perfection (1 Corinthians 15) for those truly within the gospel, atoning and resurrection work of Jesus Christ.
---

Peer review

A good friend with a secular Master's degree, recently opined that an academic needs published journal articles. 'Publish or perish'. An argument is that academic journal articles alone allow for peer review. 

I agree that academic journal articles provide the possibility of peer review.

A blog, as in the traditional  blog, is considered not academically orientated. However, this Blogger blog is presented as an academic website, obviously. It is not a traditional blog. It is merely hosted on Blogger. It is published work.

An academic can search the internet and view my fifteen years of academic entries on this academic website and can provide an academic peer review through comments. My website archives can be searched. Or, I can reviewed on another website, or my ideas can be reviewed, without me being named.

Further, this website is previewed on my Facebook business page, Russell Norman Murray, which also has comments where an academic peer review could take place. The website is promoted on Twitter and LinkedIn where peer review, can occur. I can be reviewed online and offline.

In fact, my fifteen years of academic online work (almost thirty years of academic work), including my entire MPhil thesis and most of my PhD thesis is available for peer review. I would deduce, that unless an academic journal is available online, particularly to the public, that a website such as mine actually reaches more readers.

If I need to revise because I, or someone else, critiques web content, worthy of revision, and I revise, that is because my academic work is publicly available and available for peer review.

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

Necessary v Sufficient

My previous entry deals with the necessary versus the contingent, or what is of necessity versus what is of the contingent.

This entry:

Necessary versus Sufficient conditions

Philosopher Blackburn explains...

'If p is a necessary condition of q, then q cannot be true unless p is true. If p is a sufficient condition of q, then given that p is true, q is so as well.' (73).

Blackburn provides the example:

Steering well is a necessary condition of driving well... (73).

But it is not sufficient, as one can steer well, but be an overall bad driver. (73).

Perhaps, one steers very well, but is overly occupied by texting while driving. (My add, and not my practice)

This concept from Blackburn with the use of symbolic logic, provides a level of complexity, yet consistent and logical at the same time. But providing a true example provides another level of difficulty.

A solid/true example

Infinite attributes (a) are a necessary condition of infinite nature (b).

Infinite attributes (a) are a necessary condition of infinite nature (b), then infinite nature (b) cannot be true unless infinite attributes (a) are true. If infinite attributes (a) are a sufficient condition of infinite nature (b), then given that infinite attributes (a) are true, then infinite nature (b) is so as well.

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

Facebook: Re: Air Transat.

The necessary is good

The necessary is good

Edited for reference for an entry on academia.edu on November 11, 2022 

December 8 2018

I wrote:

Necessary v. Contingent 

1. The necessary must exist.

2. God is necessary.

3. God's plans are necessary. 

4. The contingent exist.

5. The necessary supersedes the contingent.

6. Human beings are contingent.

7. Human being's plans are contingent.

8. Human being's needs are contingent.

Therefore, the suffering of the contingent is permissible.

I am not stating that God by nature had to create anything, or anything finite. God does have significant free will within divine nature. His plans reflect nature. I am stating that God's plans must occur and therefore are necessary.

It could be stated that it is a weaker sense of necessity in point 3 than points 1 and 2.  

1. The necessary must exist.

2. God is necessary

I would view 1,2 as within absolute necessity.

Open Edition Journals: Philosophia Scientia What is Absolute Necessity? Bob Hale 16/2/2012 

Cited 

Absolute necessity might be defined as truth at absolutely all possible worlds without restriction. But we should be able to explain it without invoking possible worlds.

By my definition 1,2 are necessary in all possible worlds. 

3. God's plans are necessary. 

This could be explained as relative necessity.

Relative Necessity Reformulated Bob Hale & Jessica Leech Journal of Philosophical Logic volume 46, pages1–26(2017)

Cited 

The standard account defines each kind of relative necessity by means of a necessitated or strict conditional, whose antecedent is a propositional constant for the body of assumptions relative to which the consequent is asserted to be necessary.

The relative necessity of (3) has as antecedent the absolute necessity of (1,2).

Further, God, within his infinite, eternal nature, would only be morally obligated to keep his revealed word, as in promises, in regard to contingent, human beings. These are documented in the Hebrew Bible and New Testament within a theistic, Christian worldview.

November 2 2019 

Blackburn writes that a proposition is necessary, if it could not have been false.(257). Admittedly, someone can and will always disagree with any provided proposition. But, I agree with the definition here from secular, British, philosopher Blackburn. Further he writes that the necessary, what is of necessity, is true is all possible worlds. (257)

I philosophically hold to a priori truths. 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).

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)

---

Importantly, not all valid and sound argumentation holds to the classic three line syllogism. 

University of Kentucky

Quote

'argument

An Argument is a group of statements including one or more premises and one and only one conclusion. The point of an argument is to give the receiver of the argument good reason to believe new information. assumption a premise that is implied, or is necessary for the argument to be valid, but is unstated.'

University of Windsor

Cited

'G.C. GODDU Department of Philosophy University of Richmond'

'ABSTRACT: Is it possible for an argument to have either zero premises or an infinite number of premises? I shall argue that regardless of how you conceive of arguments you should accept that an argument could have an infinite number of premises. The zero case is more complicated since the matter seems to depend not only on the metaphysics of arguments, but also the nature and function of arguing. I shall argue that at least a plausible case can be made for the possibility of zero premise arguments.'

'How many premises can an argument have?'

'If what I have argued here is correct, then everyone should accept the possibility of infinite premise arguments. On the other hand, whether we should accept zero-premise arguments seems to depend upon the resolution of other highly controversial options in argumentation theory such as—does every argument need a corresponding act of arguing? Does defining argument require an appeal to function? Trying to resolve these issues is a project for another time. At the very least, however, I hope that I have sketched out a position according to which it is straightforwardly possible for there to be zero-premise arguments.'
---

I reason...

1. In every possible world, the necessary exists.

2. The necessary is good.

3. The contingent exists.

4. God, as the first cause of the contingent, is necessary.

Therefore, God is good.

---

Further, philosophically, what is of necessity would certainly be what is good, and what is perfectly good. Anything contingent, opposed to that good, the perfectly good, would be evil.

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

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

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

Note, I am not using syllogism as arguments 

Thursday, July 13, 2017: Quaternio terminorum: The fallacy of four