PhD: Twitter quote 57

PhD: Twitter quote 57 

Omnipotence

Thiessen defines this as meaning the creator is able to accomplish whatever he wills, as long as it does not oppose his nature. Thiessen (1956: 126).

---

I would add that God's infinite attributes, including omnipotence, cannot accomplish the illogical, the contradictory.

There is historical religious history from Scripture, both the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament that presents God directly and implied as eternal and infinite, existing prior to divine creation of matter in Genesis 1. God has sovereign, providential control. God repeatedly in Scripture claims to be holy as in Exodus 3, Leviticus 11. 1 Peter 1:16, ss examples. Infinite goodness.

Matter, time (solar time) and space did not exist prior to Genesis 1:1. Theologically, the angelic realm as well, not being eternal, also being created within God's eternal plans. The spiritual realm, as only God has infinite knowledge, may contain a type of finite time, so finite entities can reason from point a to point b.

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

Photo: Winter Beauty with Nola, February 22 2021, Facebook

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

Archived; omnipotence

The Doctrine of Divine Simplicity: Very non-exhaustive

The Doctrine of Divine Simplicity: Very non-exhaustive 

Photo: BeamZ February 19 2021 

Preface

My good friend, Sir Robin of Florida, asked me through Gmail, if I held to the theory of divine simplicity. 

Outside of biblical doctrines, I tend to not subscribe to an historical or modern writer's theological/philosophical system. But of course I am influenced by writers as I develop my own theology and philosophy, submitting to the Bible as my final religious authority within the Reformed tradition. I admit that although I have heard of the theory of divine simplicity, very rarely mentioned, I had not studied it.

My MPhil/PhD degrees dealt with the nature of God and I have written on issues in regards to the infinite and the finite on my websites, especially this one.

Archived: infinite

Blackburn

British philosopher, Simon Blackburn has an entry under simplicity. In cosmology, where ordinary calculations break down because certain physical qualities become infinite.(352). Examples are listed of via the big bang theory and some additional theories within that the 'density of matter and the curvature of space-time is infinite'. (352).

I reject the idea of infinite, matter, time, space, theologically and philosophically (theistic philosophy of religion) as instead, only the first cause, primary cause, and that which is necessary, the eternal God, is infinite. Note, that the infinite cannot become finite and the finite cannot become infinite. The incarnation of God the Son (The Word, see Gospel of John, especially) does not classically and correctly does not mix finite and infinite natures. God is not limited by finity in nature or attributes, but by logic, God cannot for example, cease to be God, as God is necessary. If anything (or anyone) must exist, it is that of necessity.

Science

Scientifically, time, space and matter are finite. Scientifically the 'big bang theory' is a cosmological theory that all matter and energy in the universe originated from a state of enormous density and temperature 'that exploded at a finite moment in the past' where space and time came into existence. (Oxford Dictionary of Science: 85). According to the Oxford Dictionary of Science, the universe will eventually have a heat death. (386). When entropy is maximized and 'all large-scale samples of matter are at a uniform temperature.' (386). Future 'heat death' indicates a finite universe. I reason that time, space, matter, as finite, cannot logically, become infinite.

Philosophically to avoid a vicious regress (regress with no solution), a first cause exists, that is of absolute necessity in any possible world. 

Archived: Vicious Regress

This God is infinite (where not logically contradictory), eternal, beyond finite, matter, time, space, and yet able to interact within creation.

Thomas Aquinas

New Advent: Summa: First Part (Prima Pars) Sacred Doctrine The One God

Thomas Aquinas

Cited 

ESSENCE: We cannot know what God is, but only what He is not. So to study Him, we study what He has not—such as composition and motion. His simplicity (3) or lack of composition. His perfection: and because everything in so far as it is perfect is called good...

New Advent: Question 3. The simplicity of God

Cited 

Article 3. 

Whether God is the same as His essence or nature? 

Cited 

I answer that, God is the same as His essence or nature.

I often do not cite Wikipedia, but in this case with few academic references on the subject, and even fewer that work for this article, I will use it as it cites legitimate academic sources. This is consistent with me not reading or hearing about the subject much in my academic career which mainly focused on philosophical theology, philosophy of religion and biblical studies.

Critics

Wikipedia: Divine simplicity

Cited

In theology, the doctrine of divine simplicity says that God is without parts. The general idea can be stated in this way: The being of God is identical to the "attributes" of God. Characteristics such as omnipresence, goodness, truth, eternity, etc., are identical to God's being, not qualities that make up that being, nor abstract entities inhering in God as in a substance; in other words we can say that in God both essence and existence are one and the same.[1] " (1) SUMMA THEOLOGIAE: The simplicity of God (Prima Pars, Q. 3)". newadvent.com. Retrieved 2019-10-09.

Cited

(According to Plantinga)

Metaphysical simplicity claims that there is no divine composition, meaning that there is no complexity of properties in God and that he is identical with his nature and each of his properties. There are two difficulties with this view. First, if God is identical with each of his properties, then each of his properties is identical with each of his other properties, so God has only one property. This flies in the face of the idea that God has both power and mercifulness, neither of which is identical with the other. Secondly, if God is identical with his properties, then, since each of God's properties is a property, it follows that God is a property as well. In this case, God has just one property: himself. The problem is that properties do not in and of themselves cause anything. No property could have created the world, and no property could know anything at all. If God is a property, then he isn't a person but a mere abstract object, having no power, life, love, or even awareness.[15] Plantinga, Alvin (2000). Does God have a nature? (Reprinted ed.). Milwaukee: Marquette Univ. Press. p. 47

I can agree that the attributes of God are not all identical within his nature, because it could then be reasonably stated that there is only one (infinite) attribute. Also, Plantinga is right that divine power is not identical to mercifulness. God is not a property, God has properties. A divine property does not create, a divine entity with properties creates.

As example, I state that in salvation, divine love allows punishment and justice to transfer to Jesus Christ. In that God the Son, actually pays for the sin (s) of humanity. In a strict sense, it could be stated that absolute justice for each fallen person would be to face his/her own penalty for sin (s). But there is indeed divine justice in the substitutionary atonement through the applied atoning and resurrection work of Jesus Christ for believers. By his death on the cross and the resurrection within three days and by grace through faith for believers (Ephesians 2, as example).

Divine love takes priority over divine justice, in a sense. Yes, Christ justly died in our place, I very much agree, but it took God to willingly sacrifice the innocent, holy, Son of God. The triune God treated Jesus Christ, God the Son, unjustly within the perfect reasoning and will of God. Here it could be stated that for saved humanity, divine love is emphasized more than divine justice.

Again, I am not stating in any way however, that substitutionary atonement was not real divine justice.  

Let us state here that the theological emphasis on the affective atoning work of Jesus Christ for believers is not cancelled out by a theological/philosophical parsing of the doctrine of divine simplicity.

In post-mortem, damnation (Revelation 20), justice it could be stated, is more divinely emphasized than love, in a strict sense. For the unchosen and unregenerate, God's love does not lead to force or coercion for belief in the triune God and the applied gospel, salvific, work. This is form of divine love. At the same time there is removal of common grace. God is not obligated to allow this fallen, sinful realm to continue to exist. This is just. Damnation is also just/justice based on the deeds of those not in the book of life (Revelation 20). In agreement with some forms of Reformed doctrine, I would state that this is less loving than how persons are treated in the culminated Kingdom of God.

John S. Feinberg

Cited

Quote

"These philosophical problems plus the biblical considerations raised earlier lead me to conclude that simplicity is not one of the divine attributes. This doesn't mean that God has physical parts, but that the implications of the doctrine of metaphysical simplicity are too problematic to maintain the doctrine."[17] John S. Feinberg; John S. Feinberg, general (2006). No one like Him : The doctrine of God ([Rev. ed.]. ed.). Wheaton. Ill.: Crossway Books. p. 335

Reasonable and agreed that God does not have parts and that simplicity is too problematic. This also does not mean that God has spiritual parts.

The properties of God as attributes are not always equally emphasized by God. This is more (a) the doctrine of divine complexity, than simplicity. So, I do not hold to the doctrine of divine simplicity. God's essence/nature as infinite remains unchangeable but this does not equal the use of infinite, divine, attributes which varies. Agreeing with the premises and conclusions from Plantinga and Feinberg (two of my key, MPhil/PhD exemplars), I will state that at the same time, to introduce any finite attributes to God, in my mind, is problematic and illogical. I have reasoned this for  years, although never, prior to this article, formally dealing with this particular doctrine.

AQUINAS, THOMAS (1274)(1911) Summa Theologica, I, q. 3.

Stanford Dictionary of Philosophy: Divine Simplicity (2006)(2019)

AQUINAS, THOMAS (1274) Ed. Kevin Knight. “Summa Theologica.” Trans. Fathers of the English Dominican Province, 1920. http://www.newadvent.org/summa/ (Accessed June 11, 2007). 

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

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

ELWELL, WALTER A. (1996) ‘Atonement, Extent of the’, in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.

Oxford Dictionary of Science, (2010), Sixth Edition, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

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

PLANTINGA, ALVIC C. (1980) Does God Have a Nature?, Milwaukee., Marquette University Press.

Different evil entities? (sermon) II

Different evil entities? (sermon) II

Photo: Antarctica February 17 2020 LinkedIn

Preface

In both my intellectual circles and online, there has been some chatting in regards to eschatology, the end times, and conspiracy theories. Some of it is useful and some of is very speculative, lacking scholarly citations.

Edited version of previous entry with additions and subtractions...

Monday, March 04, 2019: Different evil entities? (sermon)

April 25 2004: Michael Phillips sermon

Cited

Men possessed by the spirit of Antichrist don't know the truth and wouldn't preach it if they did. But what about God-fearing men? Why have they gotten it so wrong so long? I can tell you why. They confuse words that sound alike with ideas that are alike.

If the Antichrist is the enemy of God and the Man of Sin is the enemy of God and the Beast is the enemy of God and the False Prophet is the enemy of God and the Little Horn is the enemy of God then.the Antichrist, the Man of Sin, the Beast, the False Prophet, and the Little Horn are all the same man!

Wrong! 

Who killed the Lord? Pontius Pilate, King Herod, Caiaphas, Annas, Judas Iscariot, the Roman soldiers, the Centurion, and the mob. Are Judas and Pilate the same man? Is Herod another name for Annas? They were all enemies of the Lord, but they were different persons. 

A concordance is like the law, "Good, if it is used lawfully". But comparing a word in Revelation to a word in Daniel to a word in Matthew to a word in I John is no way to study the Bible or to find the truth! 

Read the Bible in context, get the flow of thought, understand one passage before you go on to another. That's the way to keep your doctrine straight and your heart in the truth.
---

Interesting perspective, perhaps on preterist lines on some points. By the Pastor's take, the Antichrist, is not the Man of Sin, and yet again the Beast, False Prophet and Little Horn are all different persons.

(The Beast and False Prophet have often been distinguished in scholarship).

I am by no means dismissing this theology. It is reasonable theology, however, a trillion dollar question arises for me. If these persons, after separating the Beast from the False Prophet, are not the Antichrist, then who are they?

Robert Mounce notes that the preterist position understands the apocalypse from a first-century setting. Mounce (1990: 42).

Strong lists the Antichrist four times from the New Testament, and the term Antichrists once. The references are from First and Second John. Phillips' sermon too ties these terms to John's within his letters.

Strong's number 473 is noted as ἀντί, and therefore is anti, anglicised. Strong (1986: 13). The number 5547 is χριστός, which is Christ, which Strong's states is from 5548 which means the anointed, the Messiah, an epithet of Jesus. Strong (1986: 106). The beast from Revelation 11: 7 onward is figuratively described as θηρίον.

Robert Mounce is a well-known scholar on the Book of Revelation. In contrast to a preterist position, he embraces at least aspects of a futurist position. In Revelation, the Antichrist is the beast and the enemy of the Church in the last days. Mounce states that this may be the beast of Daniel 7: 7. Mounce (1990: 225).

Notice he states, 'may'.

David A. Hubbard writes that the term 'antichrist' is found only in the Johannine letters. Again in support of Phillips' sermon.

The concept is found in both Testaments and in intertestamental writings. Hubbard (1996: 55). Hubbard explains as Christ is not fully revealed in the Old Testament, the Antichrist is not either.

Hubbard notes that in Daniel 7 the little horn symbolizes rebellion, and in eschatological terms seems to depict the defeat of God's final enemy, while Daniel 8 describes Antiochus IV who persecuted the Jews and their religion. Hubbard (1996: 55). The description of the king of the north in Daniel 11 has helped shape the picture of the New Testament Antichrist, as he erected the abomination of desolation, exalted himself to a position of deity, and his helpless death points to Christ's slaying of the Antichrist.

The beast from the sea in Revelation 13 points toward Daniel 7 and ties Daniel to the New Testament. Hubbard (1996: 55). In the Gospels of Matthew and Mark the abomination of desolation recalls Daniel's prophecy and this may be pointing to a single personality according to Hubbard. Hubbard (1996: 55).

Again, note the term 'may'.

In Second Thessalonians, Paul describes the man of lawlessness and the lawless one (Second Thessalonians 2:3, 8-9). This man claims to be deity and according to Hubbard is not a pseudo-Messiah pretending to represent God, but a pseudo-God that viciously opposes all other religions. Hubbard (1996: 56).

(The man of sin)

The Antichrist will do many amazing wonders with satanic power that will be attributed to God (Second Thessalonians 2: 9-10 and Matthew 24). Hubbard reasons that John, like Paul and Daniel, depicts a single Antichrist who demands personal worship. Hubbard (1996: 56).

So, this is in contrast to the sermon, reviewed.

John adds to Paul's version by mentioning the false prophet, the second beast. This person will direct the political and religious workings of the Antichrist. Hubbard (1996: 56). If the Antichrist is a system as opposed to an actual person, the second beast, the false prophet, could also be an aspect of the system.

Mounce writes that the beast has ten horns and seven heads. The ten horns are like Daniel's fourth beast from Daniel 7: 7. Ten kings come from the fourth kingdom. The seven heads can be connected to the seven-headed dragon of Revelation 12: 3. The number seven carries the idea of completeness. Mounce (1990: 250). The beast is given divine permission to rule for forty-two months. Mounce (1990: 254). The beast blasphemes God in a way similar to Antiochus in Daniel's day, and the Roman Empire in John's day. This means the Antichrist is likely a secular authority. Mounce (1990: 254).

The beast will overcome the saints and put them to death, and this too will echo the times of both Antiochus and the later Roman Empire. Mounce (1990: 255). But, as Mounce points out, there is victory in martyrdom for Christians in this era. Mounce explains that the entire world will worship this beast, apart from those written in the Lamb's book of life and the beast will be a type of false Christ described in Matthew 24. Mounce (1990: 255). So, on this last point he appears to differ from Hubbard. To demonstrate how careful one should be in dealing with eschatology and the issue of the Antichrist, consider the following:

Mounce notes that the preterist position understands the apocalypse from a first-century setting. The events and book of Revelation are not relegated to the future, but are understood to have occurred by the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70, or the fall of the Roman Empire in AD 476. Mounce (1990: 41).

Mounce explains that a major problem with this preterism is that the decisive victory over evil described in Revelation is not achieved. John views the overthrow of evil occurring with the defeat of Antichrist. Mounce (1990: 42).

The futurist view is more common among scholars and understands that Revelation describes a final victory over evil. Phillips acknowledges this in his sermon. Some scholars regard everything after Revelation 4:1 as taking place in the future. But, Mounce sees this as problematic as the book still needs to be relevant for the first-century reader. Mounce (1990: 42). Mounce reasons that no single approach is sufficient.

The preterist is correct that the book of Revelation must be understood in a first-century context.

The futurist is correct that the book is centrally eschatological describing how this age will come to an end. Mounce (1990: 44). Mounce also explains the value of the historist approach which sees the importance of specific fulfilment in history. A problem which this view is that it is quite subjective in connecting certain historical events to Scripture. Mounce (1990: 42). The benefits of the idealistic approach are that God can be seen as guiding the events. But, Mounce notes that the idealistic approach may lack a distinct consummation of events. Mounce (1990: 43). Its allegorical method tends to lessen the historical nature of future events. Mounce (1990: 43).

W.R.F. Browning writes that the lawless one is expected before the Second Coming of Christ and has been identified with the Roman Empire and Nero. Beyond the historical dimension, Antichrist is a symbol for a final revolt against Christ, although the revolt is embodied in a historical person such as Judas Iscariot. Browning (1997: 17). By the use of Judas, I reason Browning means that the Antichrist will act as a representative of God and Christ, but in reality represents satanic powers. 

Further:

2 Thessalonians 2: 7-12...

New American Standard Bible

7 For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only he who now restrains will do so until he is taken out of the way. 8 Then that lawless one will be revealed whom the Lord will slay with the breath of His mouth and bring to an end by the appearance of His [f]coming; 9 that is, the one whose [g]coming is in accord with the activity of Satan, with all power and [h]signs and false wonders, 10 and with [i]all the deception of wickedness for those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth so as to be saved. 11 For this reason God [j]will send upon them [k]a deluding influence so that they will believe [l]what is false, 12 in order that they all may be [m]judged who did not believe the truth, but [n]took pleasure in wickedness.

f 2 Thessalonians 2:8 Or presence
g 2 Thessalonians 2:9 Or presence
h 2 Thessalonians 2:9 Or attesting miracles
i 2 Thessalonians 2:10 Or every deception
j 2 Thessalonians 2:11 Lit is sending
k 2 Thessalonians 2:11 Lit an activity of error
l 2 Thessalonians 2:11 Or the lie
m 2 Thessalonians 2:12 Or condemned
n 2 Thessalonians 2:12

Or approved I take it this event, the second coming of Jesus Christ, should be interpreted with a significant level of literalness. However, I admit that the Lord slaying the lawless one with the breath of His mouth is quite possibly significantly figurative language. But the second coming of Christ is a literal, biblical and theological event of the future.

In my mind, the potentially figurative nature of Christ's breath and the slaying of the opposition does not cancel out the literalness of the second advent. Actual (non-fiction, non-mythological) historical events can be described with degrees of literal and figurative language. Jesus Christ literally destroys the lawless one at this point, in some context to do with breath from his mouth. Possibly, it may also be quite literal language, as Jesus Christ as the God-man would be quite capable of destroying an opponent that way.

Regardless, it does not appear this event occurred in the New Testament era.

BROWNING, W.R.F. (1997) Oxford Dictionary of the Bible, Oxford, Oxford University Press. 

HUBBARD, DAVID A.(1996) ‘Antichrist’, in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.

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

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

Scans

Strong 500 page 13

Strong 2342 page 87

Bible Hub: Strong 500 

Cited 

Original Word: ἀντίχριστος, ου, ὁ 

Part of Speech: Noun, Masculine 

Transliteration: antichristos 

Phonetic Spelling: (an-tee'-khris-tos) 

Definition: antichrist, (one who opposes Christ) 

Usage: antichrist, either one who puts himself in the place of, or the enemy (opponent) of the Messiah. 

Bible Hub: Strong 2342

Cited

Original Word: θηρίον, ου, τό

Part of Speech: Noun, Neuter 

Transliteration: thérion

Phonetic Spelling: (thay-ree'-on) 

Definition: a wild beast Usage: properly: a wild beast, hence: any animal; met: a brute. 

Cited 2342 

thēríon – the generic term for wild animal ("beast"); (figuratively) a brutal ("bestial") nature.

---

The Book of Revelation using θηρίον, ου, τό in figurative terms, except for Revelation 6:8 where wild beasts are described in a more literal way. Context being important when interpreting the usage of a word, in any language. Bible Hub: Strong 2342

The Orthodox Study Bible: Gnosticism

The Orthodox Study Bible: Gnosticism

This book review continues...

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

Glossary: Reverend John W. Morris, PhD

Gnosticism

Cited

'A very complex ancient heresy that was manifested in many different forms and beliefs. The Gnostics taught that Christ has imparted secret knowledge, "gnosis" to a select few, who in turn transmitted hidden truths to an elite. Central to Gnosticism is the denial of the goodness of matter, leading to the denial of the reality of the Incarnation of the Son of God and of His bodily Resurrection. Several schools of Gnosticism taught that salvation consisted of liberation from the physical body and growth to a hidden, non-physical, spiritual level of existence. Orthodoxy has always rejected Gnosticism, teaching that the world and man were created good and will be redeemed in Christ and transformed at the end of this age...'(799).

Agreed. The salvific work of the atoning and resurrection work, of God the Son, Jesus Christ, applied to believers through regeneration (John 3, Titus 3) and by grace through faith (Ephesians 2, Romans, Galatians, Hebrews as examples); documents both the physical and spiritual nature of sin, salvation and the culminated Kingdom of God. Salvation is biblically and theologically, reasonably and certainly not a non-physical concept. It is both a physical and spiritual salvific work, leading to the eventual resurrection of believers (1 Corinthians 15, Revelation 20-22) in a restored, culminated Kingdom of God.

Biblical considerations

Example from Hebrews 7: 26-27 New American Standard Version (NASB) 

26 For it was fitting for us to have such a high priest, holy, innocent, undefiled, separated from sinners, and exalted above the heavens; 27 who has no daily need, like those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for His own sins and then for the sins of the people, because He did this once for all time when He offered up Himself.

A physical death of atonement, being forsaken by God the Father on the cross from Matthew 27:46 and Mark 15:34, also includes Jesus Christ as a human being, being spiritually, separated from God the Father for the first time. 

John Piper 

Cited 

"My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” Those terrifying words occur in two Gospels — Matthew 27:46 and Mark 15:34 — as Jesus is hanging on the cross near death. “Jesus seems to have known that the whole of Psalm 22, in some way or other, was about him.”

It says, “About the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice,” — Amazing. How did he have any strength to do it with a loud voice? — “Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?” — the Aramaic form — “that is, 'My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?’” (Matthew 27:46). 

Now, one very important fact to remember is that these words are the exact first words of Psalm 22. And that is important because Jesus seems to have known that the whole psalm, in some way or other, was about him.

Cited 

The judgment was to have God the Father pour out his wrath, and instead of pouring it out on us, he pours it out on him. That necessarily involves a kind of abandonment. That is what wrath means. He gave him up to suffer the weight of all the sins of all of his people and the judgment for those sins. 

We cannot begin to fathom all that this would mean between the Father and the Son. To be forsaken by God is the cry of the damned, and he was damned for us. So he used these words because there was a real forsakenness. 

From Pastor John MacArthur: The MacArthur New Testament Commentary on Matthew 27 

Cited 

At that time Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, “Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?” As Matthew explains, the Hebrew Eli (Mark uses the Aramaic form, “Eloi,” 15:34) means, My God, and lama sabachthani means, Why hast Thou forsaken Me? 

Because Jesus was quoting the well-known Psalm 22, there could have been little doubt in the minds of those who were standing there as to what Jesus was saying. They had been taunting Him with His claim to be God’s Son (v. 43), and an appeal for divine help would have been expected. Their saying, “This man is calling for Elijah,” was not conjecture about what He said but was simply an extension of their cruel, cynical mockery. 

In this unique and strange miracle, Jesus was crying out in anguish because of the separation He now experienced from His heavenly Father for the first and only time in all of eternity. It is the only time of which we have record that Jesus did not address God as Father. Because the Son had taken sin upon Himself, the Father turned His back.

γνῶσις

Bible Hub 

Cited 

Strong's 

Concordance gnósis: a knowing, knowledge 

Original Word: γνῶσις, εως, ἡ 

Part of Speech: Noun, Feminine 

Transliteration: gnósis 

Phonetic Spelling: (gno'-sis) 

Definition: a knowing, knowledge Usage: knowledge, doctrine, wisdom.

Cited 

["Gnosticism" is literally, "the cult based on having special, personal knowledge" (1108 /gnṓsis).] 

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

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

Archived: gnosticism

PhD: Twitter quote 56

PhD: Twitter quote 56

Madrid, Beamz, February 15 2021

Edited

Twitter version I

This work is not seeking to place God in the dock or primarily to take God out of the dock.

 

Twitter version II

Doubtless many critics of theism and Christianity do place God in the dock and so a work should deal with these concepts.

The PhD version states 'docks'. Prisoners in the docks. To place God in various docks.

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

Tuesday, May 02, 2017: God In The Dock? 

UWTSD, (2009), PhD Viva for Theodicy and Practical Theology (2010).

Paraphrased: 

Internal Reviewer: 'A problem with your type of theodicy work is that it places God in the dock.' 

Me: 'I do not place God in the dock, but the theodicy and problem of evil, academic discussion does at points. However, my Reformed theodicy is a reasonable and I reason, at least a significantly true answer.'

PhD: Twitter quote 55

PhD: Twitter quote 55

Photo: Italian Tourist Board-Canada

Twitter version I

My Reformed perspective deduces that human corruption cannot be entirely corrected scientifically, but human beings are changed permanently to avoid evil only by the completed regeneration work of God. 

Twitter version II

Divine supernatural assistance is required to overcome evil.

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

Archives: corruption 

Archives: fall 

Archives: regeneration

PhD: Twitter quote 54

PhD: Twitter quote 54

1 Peter 3:15 tells the believer to always be ready to give a defence to everyone that asks, and therefore Christians, both scholars and student are wise to have some knowledge concerning theodicy. 

Photo: Bridgestone, Facebook, February 10, 2021

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

February 14, 2021

2 Timothy 2: 15: New American Standard Bible (NASB)

15 Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a worker who [g]does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling the word of truth. g 2 Timothy 2:15 Or has no reason to

Christian theodicy should be biblically based with the use of theology, theistic philosophy of religion and knowledge and use of relevant academic disciplines.

The Orthodox Study Bible: Colossians 2: 8 is not against all philosophy

The Orthodox Study Bible: Colossians 2: 8 & Philosophy

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

Non-exhaustive review

Colossians 2: 8

As noted in previous reviews, this study bible uses the New King James Version (NKJV).

8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

On this verse this Orthodoxy bible explains that what is being described in 'The basic principles of the world.' (465). Things within the word system that oppose Jesus Christ (465). These are things resulting from the fall, I reason, such as 'pagan cults and systems of knowledge.' (465). Within the word system is 'human traditions opposed to God's tradition.' (465).

In contrast in verse 9, from the same version, in regards to Jesus Christ:

9 For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead [a] bodily; 10 and you are complete in Him, who is the head of all [b] principality and power. Footnotes (a) Colossians 2:9 in bodily form (b) Colossians 2:10 rule and authority 

The Orthodoxy text states of Jesus Christ, as God the Son, my add: 'He is the sovereign power to head over angelica beings'. (465). 

Agreed.

God the Son, the Word of God (John 1, I John as the Word of life, as examples) is within the trinity, is eternal, having existed before creation, and is the head of the sovereign divine, system that actually rules all creation. The fact that Satan is 'the god of this age' '(2 Corinthians 4: 4) means God as the primary cause of all things, allows Satan to be a secondary cause of some things within the world system.

Further on Colossians 2: 8 

N. T. Wright states that Colossians is warning against Christians being deceived 'through deceptive philosophy.' (101). Wright explains that it is fact that 'Paul is opposed to (what we would call) 'philosophy'. (101).  He explains that 'literally the word (philosophy, my add) means 'love and wisdom'". (101). The philosophy being rejected here in Colossians 2 is 'human tradition and the basic principles of this world'.(101). 

This general interpretation of Wright is in basic agreement with the views with the Orthodoxy text, in at least world systems or the world system is being compared to God's divine system. In a particular philosophical context, Wright reason that "Paul has in mind is undoubtedly the traditions of the Rabbinic schools in which had grown up'. (101). 

Ernest G. Ashby writes that Paul warns his readers against 'false philosophy'. (1456). This could be the Hellenistic syncretism (1456), as in the rudiments of this world (my add from the Orthodoxy text). It could also the Mosaic Law (1456). The 'tradition of men' in agreement with Wright could be connected to Rabbinic teachings which reject Jesus Christ as the Messiah and his atoning and resurrection work applied to regenerated (John 3, Titus 3) humanity. (101).

Bible Hub

φιλοσοφίας (philosophy)

φιλοσοφία, ας, ἡ Root word

Strong's definition: 'the love or pursuit of wisdom'

Noun-Genitive, Feminine, Singular

Genitive meaning 'of' 'possession'. Wenham writes that in New Testament Greek in regards to nouns 'nearly all those denoting women or female animals are feminine'. (37). Love as a 'feminine' concept linguistically in this context. 

For Bauer φιλοσοφία, ας, ἡ is 'philosophy' (861), is found in 'only in one pass, and in an unfavorable sense'. (861). False teaching in Colossians 2: 8. (861).

Theological comments

The writer of Colossians is negatively critiquing false teaching and false philosophy within the world systems or the world system. The writer is not implied to be opposed to all philosophy.

In my modern context, theistic, philosophy of religion, arises from reasoning outside of the bible and  is definitely and definitively not providing revelatory, salvation. However, it can provide, philosophical, theistic truths that parallel biblical truths and Christian theology (Biblical theology, systematic theology, philosophical theology).

Theistic philosophy of religion, is not the philosophy condemned in Colossians 2: 8.

ASHBY, E G. (1986) 'Colossians' in The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Zondervan.

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

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

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

MURRAY, JOHN (1937-1966)(1977) Collected Writings of John Murray, Vol. 2: Select Lectures in Systematic Theology, Edinburgh, The Banner of Truth Trust.

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. 

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

WEBER, OTTO (1955)(1981) Foundations of Dogmatics, Volumes 1 and 2, Translated and annotated by Darrell L. Guder, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

WENHAM, J.W. (1991) The Elements of New Testament Greek, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

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

PhD: Twitter quote 53

PhD: Twitter quote 53

I must be clear: theodicy is not the remedy to the problem of evil, but a speculative, and in my case, Biblically based attempt to explain how God deals with evil in his creation. 

January, 2016 photo, courtesy Mr. Charles Nelson Chuckles

PhD Full Version PDF 

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

Search archives: problems of evil 

Search archives: theodicy

PhD: Twitter quote 52

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

PhD Full Version PDF

James D.G. Dunn (1988) writes it is clear that within the Romans text the concept of God revealing himself through natural theology exists. 

(This is not salvific theology via divine revelation, my add)

DUNN, JAMES D.G. (1988) Romans, Dallas, Word Books

Photo: Visit Dubai February 1 2021, Facebook

PhD: Twitter quote 51

PhD: Twitter quote 51

Photo: Huib Lokerse, Facebook, February 5, 2021, Netherlands

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

Twitter version I

Bloesch reasons naturalism philosophically reduces humans to creatures that commit instinctual drives. Bloesch (1987: 174).

Twitter version II

Miracles are not typical, but were primarily used in the New Testament to highlight the ministry of Christ. Klein, Blomberg, and Hubbard (1993: 340).

This is both a cited theological view and also one I hold to within my Reformed theology. 

BLOESCH, DONALD G. (1987) Freedom for Obedience, San Francisco, Harper and Rowe Publishers. 

BLOESCH, DONALD G. (1996) ‘Sin, The Biblical Understanding of Sin’, in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.

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

Final Events IV: Chapter I Continued

Final Events IV: Chapter I Continued

Edited February 3 2021

REDFERN, NICK (2010) Final Events: And The Secret Government Group On Demonic UFOS And The Afterlife, San Antonio/New York, Anomalist Books.

Preface

Finishing up with Chapter I..

Previous entries for context

Monday, January 18, 2021: Final Events III: Chapter 1 Review

Thursday, August 27, 2020> Final Events II: Introduction Continued

Friday, August 07, 2020: Final Events I: Introduction

Introduction

Author Redfern explains that Ray Boeche, an Anglican priest and Rector at Celebration Anglican Church in Lincoln, Nebraska, is also the founder and former director of the Fortean Research Center. He is as well a former Nebraska State Director for the Mutual UFO Network. In 1991, Boeche, after being contacted, met with two United States Department of Defense physicists in regards to the subject of UFOs. (I). 

Redfern learned about these meetings when he met Boeche in 2006 and then interviewed him in 2007. (I). The book states Boeche had a shorter, and then a longer meeting with the two physicists from the Department of Defense. (I). This led to Boeche being 'plunged headlong into a strange and surreal world of classified Department of Defense projects, secret meetings and follow-up dialogues...'(2). 

What was presented to Boeche from these Department of Defence physicists was descriptions of NHE's or Non-Human Entities, which many within UFO research and analysis reason are aliens (extraterrestrials, my add). (2). However, in contrast, certain persons within the Department of Defence reason these are 'deceptive minions of Satan.' (2).

The two men Boeche met with were 'physicists' (2). They were both Christians and while working for the US Department of Defense, an aspect of their work was to contacts NHE's. (2). The next part of this text is revealing:

Quote:

'And part of this effort was to try and control the NHE's and use their powers in military weapons applications and in intelligence areas, such as remote-viewing and psychotronic weapons.' (2).

These two Department of Defense, physicists reasoned the NHE's 'were not extraterrestrial at all; they believed they were some sort of demonic entities.' (2). Further the scientists stated that all the benevolent or beneficial contacts with these entities were 'tainted'. (2). Eventually the results of the contacts worked out to be 'bad'. (2). The scientists therefore viewed these encounters as demonic as opposed to extraterrestrial. (3). From a biblical context, the entities were viewed as deceivers of humanity. (3).

The two scientists that held to Christian faith and philosophy reasoned that others with the US Department of Defence were 'being lulled into a false sense of security' (4). The text explains that the supposed technology provided by the NHE's, such as psychotronic weapons and  remote viewing was not really being done by the Department of Defence, but the entities 'were always the causal factor'. (4). 

February 1, 2021: 

Chapter I: Thee Quest Begins- Continued

The book written in 2010, explains that the author, Redfern, since meeting with Boeche has 'dug deep into the central theme of his revelations.' (8). Redfern states that this secretive group of American government, military, and intelligence employees collectively call themselves the 'Collins Elite'.

Redfern opines

Quote:

'Yet for all their military-swagger, ingrained machismo. and bravado, the Collins Elite live in a perpetual state  of overwhelming apprehension, fear and absolute dread.' (8).

This state of mind arises from the actions of what this group perceives as 'hostile and ominous intruders from a realm of existence far different than the one we now inhabit..' (8). According to the Collins Elite, states Redfern these aliens/extraterrestrials are not 'friends and allies' (8) of humanity. (8).

Interesting

Quote:

'In essence , the Collins Elite utterly refute and reject any and all notions that extraterrestrials have ever visited planet Earth or have abducted human beings for the purposes relative to medical examination, scientific study, and hybridization-a scenario that many UFO researchers strongly assert is taking place. Instead, the conclusion of the group is that we have in our midst a cold-hearted and sinister intelligence of demonic origins that masquerades as alien, whose presence in our world threatens each and every one of us, and that consigns all of us to, perhaps quite literally a living hell.' (8).

I will continue to work through this chapter within my next  related entry however: I note that at the end of this chapter Redfern explains 'the accounts, beliefs, theories and conclusions that I have uncovered are strictly those of the people who have been willing to have them published. (11). Redfern is providing a message as a messenger. (11).

Academically, it would better to have primary citations from people such as Boeche, the Collins Elite and the United States, Department of Defense. That being stated, I am reviewing this book as a secondary source, and do not academically dismiss it as such.

My expertise is not in UFO research or the occult. But biblically and theologically, I am at least, allowing the intellectual possibility the United States, Department of Defense has been dealing with demonic entities pretending to be aliens. I realize this is less palatable than actual extraterrestrials for many within present, Western and American, secular worldviews. I am claiming no level of relative certainty here in regards to the content of the book under review...

Redfern explains that the Collins Elite has fear and suspicion that through these interactions with the extraterrestrials the human race is being convinced to abandon 'the teachings of religion.' (9). Rather, it is a belief in Satan himself that is being pushed by these alien entities under 'the deceptive guise of an advanced alien entity.-as our savior, shortly before our countdown to Armageddon beings...'(9).

This is connected to UFOlogy and the aliens known as the Grays. (9). Within the US Department and the US government are officials that desire to engage these extraterrestrials in order to make use of alien technologies. (9-10). Quote: 'a technology that appears to be a strange, magical brew comprised of truly advanced science, ancient alchemy, and archaic rite and ritual. (10).

Many secular humanists that deny the relevancy and truthfulness of God's revelation through the Hebrew Bible and New Testament, manuscripts and translations, making up the Bible, would find UFOlogy more palatable within a worldview than a biblical faith and philosophy. However, this approach to UFOlogy requires plenty of faith, including assuming the benevolence and wisdom of extraterrestrials that directly or indirectly allow their extraterrestrial science and weaponry to be used by, in the case under review, the United States government. 

Note, that not all that study UFOlogy would necessarily consider the Grays or all extraterrestrials benevolent.  For example, the author of the book under review, seemingly has his doubts. But, in the content of their acceptance by those in the US government, the aliens are considered well-meaning. 

By biblical standards (Genesis, Romans, Galatians, Hebrews) all government is ruled by finite and sinful (imperfect), human beings, and by secular humanistic standards, finite and imperfect, human beings.

Why should these finite extraterrestrials be assumed to be definitively and definitely, less imperfect?

They evolved? From what?

Who created these aliens? 

Scientifically, time, space and matter are finite. 

Scientifically the 'big bang theory' is a cosmological theory that all matter and energy in the universe originated from a state of enormous density and temperature 'that exploded at a finite moment in the past' where space and time came into existence. (Oxford Dictionary of Science: 85). According to the Oxford Dictionary of Science, the universe will eventually have a heat death. (386). When entropy is maximized and 'all large-scale samples of matter are at a uniform temperature.' (386). Future 'heat death' indicates a finite universe. 

Philosophically to avoid a vicious regress, a first cause exists, that is of absolute necessity in any possible world. This God is infinite (where not logically contradictory), eternal, beyond finite, time, space and matter, yet able to interact within creation. 

Theologically, this is where a reasonable, human, hope, faith and trust should reside, as opposed to reasonable, human hope, faith and trust in other finite entities, fictional or non-fictional. 

Biblically, the sinful fall of humanity (Genesis, Romans, Galatians, Hebrews, Revelation, as examples) leads to both disbelief and false belief in the biblical God. According to the New Testament, this fracture is only repaired through the applied atoning and resurrection work of Jesus Christ for believing humanity by grace through faith alone (Ephesians 1-2).

Archives: Vicious Regress

Archives: First Cause

Archives: Necessary 

Oxford Dictionary of Science, (2010), Sixth Edition, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

REDFERN, NICK (2010) Final Events: And The Secret Government Group On Demonic UFOS And The Afterlife, San Antonio/New York, Anomalist Books.

Please see comments section for more material. Thank you.