The Orthodox Study Bible: Reconciliation part 1

The Orthodox Study Bible: Reconciliation part 1

Bottom photo: Spitzer Space Telescope, NASA. Science News

THE ORTHODOX STUDY BIBLE, NEW TESTAMENT AND PSALMS (1993) Saint Athanasius Orthodox Academy, Nashville, Tennessee, Thomas Nelson Publishers.

Glossary: Reverend John W. Morris, PhD

Quote

'Reconciliation  The removal of hostility and barriers between humans and God, and between individuals, accomplished by God (Rom. 5:11; 2 Cor 5:18-19). (805)'

From New American Standard Bible (NASB) 

Romans 5: 11

11 And not only this, but [a]we also celebrate in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received the reconciliation.  Footnotes (a) Romans 5:11 Lit also boasting

Bible Hub: Romans 5:11 

Cited 

καταλλαγὴν 

reconciliation 

N-AFS 

Noun, Accusative, Feminine, Singular, my add. The accusative is usually connected to the direct object, but has some other uses. The reconciliation of we to God, in Romans 5: 11.

2 Corinthians 5: 18-19

18 Now all these things are from God, who reconciled us to Himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation, 19 namely, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their wrongdoings against them, and [a]He has [b]committed to us the word of reconciliation. Footnotes (a) 2 Corinthians 5:19 Lit having (b) 2 Corinthians 5:19 Lit placed in us

Bible Hub: 2 Corinthians 5: 18 

Cited 

καταλλάξαντος 

having reconciled  (who reconciled from NASB)

V-APA-GMS 

Verb, Aorist, Participle, Active-Genitive, Masculine, Singular, my add.

Google search

Cited

 'What does the aorist active tense in Greek mean? 1. aorist - a verb tense in some languages (classical Greek and Sanskrit) expressing action (especially past action) without indicating its completion or continuation.'    

Aorist and active meaning. There is an action of reconciliation that took place in the past, but the results continue in the present. Those regenerated (John 3, Titus 3: 5, 1 Peter 1: 23) having been reconciled by the applied atoning work of Jesus Christ, his resurrection and the future resurrection of believers. Those persons in Christ has been reconciled through the salvific, gospel work of Jesus Christ to God (Romans, Galatians, Hebrews). The Genitive, is the reconciliation of us from God and to God.      

nygreek.net

Quote

'Participles are fundamentally verbal adjectives. They indicate action as do verbs. But they also modify nouns. Consider the word "walking" in the following sentence: The man walking down the street lost his car.' 

God having reconciled.

Bible Hub: 2 Corinthians 5: 18 

Cited

καταλλαγῆς  

of reconciliation 

N-GFS 

Bauer states here that καταλλαγῆ, more specifically καταλλαγῆς in context is 'the word of reconciliation' in 2 Corinthians 5: 18 (414). Similar to Romans 11: 15 (414). Although I noted that it is technically, καταλλαγὴν.

---

To be continued. A frustrating, but educational part 1, with all the Blogger deletions and errors while writing!

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

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

CLINES, DAVID, J. A. (1986), 2 Corinthians, The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Zondervan.

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

FEE, GORDON (1987) The First Epistle to the Corinthians, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. 

MARSH, PAUL W. in Bruce, F.F. (ed.), (1986) First Corinthians, The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Zondervan.

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

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

PhD: Twitter quote 115/This is necessary/Bonus-Catching some Red Pill problematic philosophy

PhD: Twitter quote 115: This is necessary/Bonus-Catching some Red Pill problematic philosophy

Photo: Kuala Lumpur, Civil Engineering Discoveries, LinkedIn

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

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

PhD: Twitter quote 115: This is necessary

Twitter version I

God’s essence is eternal and necessary (logically must exist), and the finite universe is temporal and contingent (not necessary). 

---

From: Shedd (1874-1890)(1980: 191 Volume 1). 

Twitter version II

God as a necessary being is therefore the cause of contingent creation.

---

January 28, 2022

Note that angelic beings, human beings, and all created entities are finite and contingent. See Genesis 1-3, John 1, Colossians 1, as biblical examples.

Colossians 1: 16 New American Standard Bible (1995) NASB

For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities— all things have been created through Him and for Him.

In Colossians 1, God the Son, that became God incarnate, Jesus Christ, created all things. The infinite, eternal, co-creator along with God the Father and God the Holy Spirit (Genesis 1-3).

God as necessary: archive search

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

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

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.

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. 

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

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

GEIVETT, R. DOUGLAS (1993) Evil and the Evidence for God, Philadelphia, Temple University Press. 

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

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

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

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (2014) (2017), The Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University.

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

---

Catching some Red Pill problematic philosophy

Preface

My #1 life priority as a biblical Christian appears to be to use my God-guided, earned, complex, yet practical, PhD in Theology and Philosophy of Religion, and related academic work, to serve the Lord, with online websites and with official employment. An academic type ministry of sorts.

My #2 life priority, in Jesus Christ and the gospel, within a biblical Christian worldview, appears to be to stay single, or find a youthful woman to marry where there is significant, mutual, spiritual, intellectual, romantic, mutual attraction. 

By my definition, Red Pill, is a largely online, men's movement which attempts to realistically look at dating and marriage with the use of reason. This is not to be confused with MGTOW, which is Men Going Their Own Way, which is related, and is more radically against romantic relationships, in general, it seems to me. 

As a biblical Christian, I am absolutely pro-marriage in a biblical sense, and follow the New Testament for standards. I do agree with much of what I have heard on You Tube in regards to Red Pill, as far as reasonable and often true evaluations of the secular dating and marriage scene, and philosophies within the western world system, in 2022. 

I do not overall, support the sexual ethics of the Red Pill movement, for example:

Example 1

On the one hand, from more the one source within the Red Pill movement, I have heard and read it suggested and taught that a man that does choose to date, should not date a woman again, if the man does not receive sexual benefits from her on the first date or soon once dating.

On the other hand, from more than one source within the Red Pill movement, I have heard it suggested and taught that a man should only date and marry a woman with as few previous sexual partners as possible, preferably zero sexual partners. 

If a person embraces both of these concepts, every dating encounter that features pre-marital sex (biblically known as fornication if both partners are unmarried, or adultery when a married person has sexual relations with someone not his/her spouse), that does not lead to a committed, life-long marriage, actually makes the western dating and relationship pool decrease in quantity and quality for other men trying to find a female partner with less, little or no sexual experience. 

Here with these two points, Red Pill philosophy is working against itself...

Example 2

Some recently listened to videos...

On the one hand, I heard a generally astute, Red Pill coach state, that a young woman with a casual boyfriend, that is not engaged or married, is quote 'fair game', to attempt to date. This could even be as a secret, not public, relationship.

On the other hand, in another video, this coach wisely states (paraphrased)

Don't be her backup plan

Don't be her backup man

---

A secondary dating partner is a backup...

Love triangles to me oppose biblical ideals of courtship and marriage. 

Further, secret relationships, outside of Church, family knowledge, and mutual, spiritual, intellectual, romantic attraction, highlight spiritual darkness, instead of the light of the gospel.

John 3:19, NASB: "And this is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the Light; for their deeds were evil."

Here with these two points, Red Pill philosophy is working against itself...

PhD: Twitter quote 114/With special medical report

Photo: December 12, 2021, Facebook

PhD: Twitter quote 114

Twitter version I

Carson listed & discussed some Biblical examples of compatibilism: Genesis 50:19-20 describes the reactions of the formerly enslaved Joseph to his brothers who had sold him into slavery. 

Twitter version II

Carson stated: Joseph allays his brother's fears, & insists he does not want to put himself in the place of God. 

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

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

From MPhil thesis, which was part I of my British, PhD program...

Carson listed and discussed some Biblical examples of compatibilism:

In Genesis 50:19-20 it describes the reactions of the formerly enslaved Joseph to his brothers who had sold him into slavery. Carson stated: Joseph allays their fears, and insists he does not want to put himself in the place of God. 

Then he looks back at the brutal incident when he was so badly treated, and comments, “You intended to harm me, but God intended it for good to accomplish what is now being done, the saving of many lives.” The parallelism is remarkable. Joseph does not say that his brothers maliciously sold him into slavery, and that God turned it around, after the fact, to make the story have a happy ending. How could that have been the case, if God’s intent was to bring forth the good of saving many lives? Nor does Joseph suggest that God planned to bring him down to Egypt with first-class treatment all the way, but unfortunately the brothers mucked up His plan somewhat, resulting in the slight hiatus of Joseph spending a decade and a half as a slave or in prison. The story does not read that way. 

The brothers took certain evil initiatives, and there is no prior mention of Joseph’s travel arrangements. As Joseph explains, God was working sovereignly in the event of his being sold into Egypt, but the brothers’ guilt is not thereby assuaged (they intended to harm Joseph); the brothers were responsible for this action, but God was not thereby reduced to a merely contingent role; and while the brothers were evil, God himself had only good intentions. Carson (1990: 205-206).

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

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

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. 

CARSON, D.A. (1981) Divine Sovereignty and Human Responsibility, Atlanta, John Knox Press. 

CARSON, D.A. (1990) How Long, O Lord?, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

archives search compatibilism

With special medical report

1. I received my third pandemic injection today, Moderna for the third time. I suppose this is somewhat controversial in conservative and Christian circles. May my good friend, Charles Nelson Chuckles not have his stylish red dome explode as a result of COVID-19.

2. In regards to my sleep apnea, low carb (carbohydrates), low sugar, permanent diet plan, I am down to my lowest weight since I left England in 2001. I think I can still slim down more, but I am built like a tank. With all my working out with martial arts and martial arts weapons, weights and walking, God-willing, I shall continue to be youthful, like Chuck Norris, until the day I die and am in the presence of the Lord.

King James Version (KJV) Philippians 1:23 For I am in a strait betwixt two, having a desire to depart, and to be with Christ; which is far better:

3. I had a new haircut today. There is no balding like with The Rage, Charles Nelson Chuckles, Sir Robin, Saint Zombie, and so on and so on and so on. All with way kool domes. 

See photos as proof. That 'missing piece' of hair, that centre 'chip' in front is something I have always had with a full set of hair. But if my hair is cut too short on the top, I may look a bit 'fake domeish'. Please see my portrait from when I was seven years old and the Zoom photo from today. 

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

 

PhD: Twitter quote 113/After the last sermon, a friend at church asked me about free will

Photo: @vienna_austria fb d3021 places & people

PhD: Twitter quote 113/After the last sermon, a friend at church asked me about free will

Preface

A friend, I consider an amateur philosophical whiz, discussed free will with me last Sunday, after a related sermon. This article is an edited review with some new material.

I am a compatibilist within the Reformed, theological tradition and theistic, philosophy of religion.

Twitter version

After the last sermon, a friend at church asked me about free will.

Libertarian free will

Libertarian free will is usually viewed as a form of indeterminism. The concept in libertarian free will is that a person is able to perform another action in the place of one that has been committed. This action cannot be predetermined by any circumstance or desire. There cannot be another, predetermined, simultaneous cause in a theoretical chain within indeterminism.

Norman Geisler explains that indeterminism is defined as the idea that there are no antecedent (preceding conditions, my add) or simultaneous (at the same time, my add) causes of human actions. All human actions are free if a person could have done otherwise. Geisler (1996: 429).

Incompatibilism/Indeterminism

Indeterminism is also equated with incompatibilism which states that God, or any other being, cannot cause by force or coercion any human action, nor can any action be simultaneously willed by God or any other being, for the human action to remain significantly free. Feinberg (1994: 60). 

Compatibilism, which I hold to, would agree with incompatibilism that God or any other being cannot cause by force or coercion any significantly free human action, but contrary to incompatibilism thinks that God can simultaneously will significantly free human actions. Feinberg (1994: 60). 

An entity that is forced or coerced into conscious, thoughts, will, choices, acts and actions is not morally responsible, where these are done without significant freedom. Of course, only the infinite God is an infinitely accurate, moral judge of guilt or not, in regards to the deeds of a finite entity. (God judges deeds, post-mortem, Revelation 20, also 21-22, 2 Corinthians 5, 2 Peter 3, as some key examples)

Significant free will (human in this context, my add) would be viewed an incompatible with any form of determinism. Philosopher Tim Mawson reasons that incompatibilism, which is also known as libertarianism or libertarian free will, in regard to human free will, believes that true human free will must be uncaused by preceding states. Mawson (1999: 324). 

In other words, no external force must cause a legitimate and truly free act of the human will. Within incompatibilist theory, a human action would never truly be free because God or an another external force (non-deistic view, my add) would have willed and determined it, before being simultaneously willed to a given person. Mawson (1999: 324). Pre-determined before committed by the human being. The external force could hypothetically be a first cause within non-theistic theory. The Biblical concept theologically being that God is infinite and is therefore limitless; God is eternal and therefore has always existed (Genesis 1). This concept is connected to philosophical views of first cause. 

David M. Ciocchi describes the incompatibilist idea as being God can determine that an agent commit action x, but he cannot determine that an agent commit action x freely. Ciocchi (2002: 46). The theory is that significantly free human will and actions cannot be caused by an external force. This would include a first cause. This would include God. 

Again to Norman Geisler, he describes a form of incompatibilism which he, calls self-determinism. Moral choices are not caused or uncaused by another being, but are self-caused. Incompatibilists, therefore, do not deny there are outside forces that influence significantly free human actions; however, they do not accept any notion that a free act can be caused in a determined sense by one being upon another and remain a significantly free act. An act cannot be determined or simultaneously determined and remain truly free within incompatibilism. Geisler (1986: 75). 

Feinberg, who has written extensively on the concepts of free will and determinism, explains incompatibilism is defined as the idea within free will approaches that a person is free in regard to an action if he or she is free to either commit, or refrain from committing the action. Feinberg (1994: 64). There can be no antecedent (there can be no prior) conditions or laws that will determine that an action is committed or not committed. Feinberg (1994: 64). Feinberg importantly writes that just as the incompatibilist does not claim that all actions are significantly free, the compatibilist also does not attach significant freedom to all acts. Feinberg (2001: 637). Feinberg then admits that it is difficult for compatibilists to determine intellectually if certain acts were done by an individual with significant freedom, or with the use of some type of compulsion. Feinberg (2001: 637). He then states that this intellectual difficulty does not disprove compatibilism. 

Limited free will

This is not the ability to choose otherwise, as in middle knowledge and versions of libertarian free will. In my compatibilistic model, at least, through a theoretical chain of human nature, human will and human choice, a person embraces as secondary cause, what was caused, willed and allowed by the primary cause. This in regard to human conscious thoughts, will, choices, acts and actions. This first cause would be God in a biblical view. 

During my British studies I looked for the term limited free will in texts and online and did not see it. Eventually I heard, Dr. Charles Stanley also use it. I highly doubt I invented it, but at least it is somewhat original. I/we have significant moral responsibility in my/our conscious, thoughts, will, choices, acts and actions, that are not significantly forced or coerced.         

Compatibilism/Soft determinism

Significant free will (human in this context) would be viewed as compatible with at least some forms of soft determinism. Louis P. Pojman explains the difference between determinism, which is also known as hard determinism, and compatibilism, which is also known as soft determinism. Pojman (1996: 596). Within determinism or hard determinism, God (or an external force) causes an act and no created being is responsible for his or her moral actions, while for compatibilism or soft determinism, although God causes actions, created beings are responsible where they act voluntarily. Pojman (1996: 596). 

It could be stated that human secondary causes, through a theoretical chain of human nature, human will and human choice, embrace what has been caused and chosen by God, the first and primary cause, directly or indirectly. The human being could also be influenced by other secondary causes, such as other persons and angelic beings, for example.

P.S. Greenspan writes that compatibilism holds to free will and determinism being compatible. Greenspan (1998: 1). Louis P. Pojman, defines compatibilism as the concept that an act can be entirely determined and yet be free in the sense that it was done voluntarily and without compulsion. Pojman (1996: 596). J.S. Feinberg explains that compatibilism does not allow for coercion or force, but holds that God, or some outside force, can simultaneously determine with the use of persuasion, that an action will or will not take place. Feinberg (1986: 24). 

Again with Feinberg, he writes that certain nonconstraining conditions could strongly influence actions, in conjunction with human free will performing these actions. Feinberg (1994: 60). With this viewpoint, there will be no contradiction in stating that God would create human beings who were significantly free, unconstrained, and yet committed actions that God willed. Feinberg (2001: 637).

W.T. Stace (1952)(1976) explains that moral responsibility is consistent with determinism in the context of soft determinism and requires it. Stace (1952)(1976: 29). If human actions are uncaused then reward or punishment would be unjustified. Stace (1952)(1976: 29). Stace reasons that there must be at least some human cause within human actions to make them morally responsible acts. Stace (1952)(1976: 30). 

Hard determinism

Simon Blackburn comments that this is the doctrine that human action has no influence on events. Blackburn (1996: 137). Blackburn gives the opinion that fatalism is wrongly confused with determinism, which by itself carries no implications that human actions have no effect. Blackburn (1996: 137). Tomis Kapitan notes that determinism is usually understood as meaning that whatever occurs is determined by antecedent (preceding cause) conditions. Kapitan (1999: 281). 

Pojman states that hard determinism holds that every event is caused and no one is responsible for actions, whereas soft determinism holds that rational creatures can be held responsible for determined actions as long as they are done voluntarily and without force or coercion. Pojman (1996: 586).

Links

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

Thursday, August 31, 2006 Jonathan Edwards and Libertarian Free Will

Sunday, November 11, 2007 Fatalism

Wednesday, April 20, 2016 Middle Knowledge Revisited

Saturday, June 25, 2016 As exciting as watching a chess match (PhD Edit)

Thursday, February 23, 2017 Limited Free Will

References

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

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

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. 

BEROFSKY, BERNARD (1996) ‘Determinism’, in Robert Audi, (ed.), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. 

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

BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996) ‘Fatalism’, in Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy,. Oxford, Oxford University Press.

BLACKBURN, S. (1996) ‘Reductio ad Absurdum’, Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

BLOESCH, D. (1996) ‘Fate, Fatalism’, in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.

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

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

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

CIOCCHI, DAVID M. (2002) ‘The Religious Adequacy of Free-Will Theism’, in Religious Studies, Volume 38, pp. 45-61. Cambridge.

CLINES, DAVID, J. A. (1986), 2 Corinthians, The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Zondervan.

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

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

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. http://www.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. (1986) Predestination and Free Will, David Basinger and Randall Basinger (eds.), Downers Grove, Illinois, InterVarsity Press. 

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

FOULKES, FRANCIS (1989) Ephesians, Grand Rapids, Inter-Varsity Press.

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

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

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. 

GREENSPAN, P.S. (1998) Free Will and Genetic Determinism: Locating the Problem (s), Maryland, University of Maryland. http://www.philosophy.umd.edu/Faculty/PGreenspan/Res/gen2.html

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

HASKER, WILLIAM (1996) ‘Middle Knowledge’, in Robert Audi (ed.), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

HUGHES, P.E. (1996) ‘Grace’ in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books. 

KAPITAN, TOMIS (1996) ‘Free Will Problem’, in Robert Audi (ed.), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

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

MACKIE, J.L. (1971)(1977)(2002) ‘Evil and Omnipotence’, in The Philosophy of Religion, in Alvin C. Plantinga, God, Freedom, and Evil, Grand Rapids. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

MAWSON, TIM (1999) ‘The Problem of Evil and Moral Indifference’, in Religious Studies, Volume 35, pp. 323-345. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

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

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

PAYNE. DAVID F.(1986) ‘2 Peter’, in F.F. Bruce, (ed.), The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Marshall Pickering/Zondervan.

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

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

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

REED, HOLLY (2004) ‘Jonathan Edwards’, in The Boston Collaborative Encyclopedia of Modern Western Theology, Boston, The Boston Collaborative Encyclopedia of Modern Western Theology. 

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

STORMS, SAM (2006) 'Jonathan Edwards on the Will', Kansas City, Missouri. Enjoying God Ministries. Enjoyinggodministries.com http://www.enjoyinggodministries.com/article.asp?id=368 

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

TCHIVIDJIAN, W. TULLIAN, (2001) ‘Reflections on Jonathan Edwards’ View of Free Will, in IIIM Magazine Online, Volume 3, Number 51, December 17 to December 23, Fern Park, Florida, IIIM Magazine Online.

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

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