Dr. Russell Norman Murray: May 2022

Tuesday, May 24, 2022

It is true love to allow someone you love, to reject you

Photo: Instagram.com, Aurish Sopot, Poland

At the last Bible study of the semester, for our Zoom church group, one of the questions discussed (paraphrased) was how God could willingly allow many human beings to reject him forever in hell (re: Matthew 7 and Luke 13)?

(Paraphrased)

I opined that...

In God's love he allows some of his loved humanity, to reject him forever.

I also stated that...

It is true love to allow someone you love, to reject you.

Website archives: Matthew 7

Sunday, July 29, 2007 Universalism

From the second link with edits for this article...

In Matthew 7:13-14, Jesus uses an illustration relating to the ultimate destiny of individuals and explains that few persons enter by the narrow gate, and the wide and broad way of destruction is found by many. William Barclay points out, that Luke 13:24 is presenting a similar idea which may have come from the same original source, but reached the author of Luke from a different tradition. Barclay (1975: 97). In Luke, Jesus explains that many will strive to enter by the narrow gate, but shall not be able to. Barclay (1975: 97). This idea from Jesus would fit with a compatibilistic theology where God uses soft determinism to elect individuals to salvation. From this perspective, human beings with the use of free will alone cannot choose God. Within a sovereignty perspective, God will choose whom he wills to be present in his culminated Kingdom, and those he elects shall believe and follow him without being forced or coerced to do so. I reason that as God regenerates (John 3, Titus 3, 1 Peter 1) an individual by the Holy Spirit, he simultaneously determines that the person shall freely with the use of a limited, but significant free will, believe in Christ. Sentimentally, universalism is humanly more comforting, but it appears that Jesus disagreed with Hick on universalism.

Laurence E. Porter describes a scenario in Luke 13:24-28 where some religious persons are rejected by God. Porter (1986: 1211). Jesus did not accept the theology that a sincere religious devotion alone would lead one to God’s presence in the culminated Kingdom of God. Let me point out that everlasting existence apart from God is absolutely and positively, not my hope for any individual person, but my theological findings are driven by research and not sentiment. I see no good reason to believe that human beings that have rejected the Biblical God throughout their lives with a corrupt nature and the resulting sinful thoughts and actions would ever in post-mortem existence come to Christ, unless determined to do so by God. Biblically, there appears to be no salvation for those outside of Christ upon death.

ALLEN, C. LESLIE (1986) 'Romans' in F.F. Bruce (ed.), The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Zondervan.

ANKERBERG, JOHN AND JOHN WELDON (1999) Encyclopedia of Cults and New Religions, Eugene, Oregon, Harvest House Publishers.

ANSELM (1962) Anselm's Basic Writings, translated by S.W. Deane, 2nd Ed., La Salle, IL: Open Court Publishing Co.

AQUINAS, THOMAS (1981) Summa Theologica (1a Q2), "Whether the Existence of God is Self-Evident Thomas More Publishing.

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.

AUGUSTINE (398-399)(1992) Confessions, Translated by Henry Chadwick, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

AUGUSTINE (400-416)(1987)(2004) On the Trinity, Translated by Reverend Arthur West Haddan, in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series One, Volume 3, Denver, The Catholic Encyclopedia.

AUGUSTINE (421)(1998) Enchiridion, Translated by J.F. Shaw, Denver, The Catholic Encyclopedia.

AUGUSTINE (426)(1958) The City of God, Translated by Gerald G. Walsh, Garden City, New York, Image Books.

AUGUSTINE (427)(1997) On Christian Doctrine, Translated by D.W. Robertson Jr., Upper Saddle River, N.J., Prentice Hall.

AUGUSTINE (427b)(1997) On Christian Teaching, Translated by R.P.H. Green, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

BARCLAY, WILLIAM (1975) Introduction to the First Three Gospels, Philadelphia, The Westminster Press.

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

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

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

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

BURKE, T. PATRICK (1999) ‘Ontology’, in Alan Richardson and John Bowden (eds.), A New Dictionary of Christian Theology, Kent, SCM Press Ltd.

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.

CALVIN, JOHN (1552)(1995) Acts, Translated by Watermark, Nottingham, Crossway Books.

CALVIN, JOHN (1553)(1952) Job, Translated by Leroy Nixon, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.

COAD, F. ROY (1986) 'Galatians' in F.F. Bruce (ed.), The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Zondervan.

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

CRAIGIE, P.C. (1996) 'Idolatry', in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.

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

DAVIS, STEPHEN T. (1981)(ed.), Encountering Evil, Atlanta, John Knox Press.FEINBERG, JOHN S. (1994) The Many Faces of Evil, Grand Rapids, Zondervan Publishing House.

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

ELLER, D.B. (1996) ‘Universalism’, in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, p. 1128-1130. Grand Rapids, Baker Books.

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. (1986) Predestination and Free Will, in 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.

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

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

GUNDRY, ROBERT (1981) A Survey of the New Testament, Grand Rapids, Zondervan.

HARPUR, GEORGE (1986) 'Ephesians' in The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Zondervan.

HASKER, WILLIAM (1989) God, Time, and Knowledge, Ithaca, Cornell University Press.

HASKER, WILLIAM (1993) ‘C. Robert Mesle, John Hick’s Theodicy: A Process Humanist Critique’, in Philosophy of Religion, Volume 34, Number 1, pp. 55-56. Dordrecht, Netherlands, Philosophy of Religion.

HASKER, WILLIAM (1994) ‘Can Philosophy Defend Theology?’, in Faith and Philosophy, Volume 11, Number 2, April, pp. 272-278. Wilmore, Kentucky, Asbury College.

HASKER, WILLIAM (2000) ‘The Problem of Evil in Process Theism and Classical Free Will Theism’, in Process Studies, Volume. 29, Number 2, Fall-Winter, pp. 194-208. Claremont, California, Religion Online.

HASKER, WILLIAM (2003) ‘Counterfactuals and Evil’, in Philosophia Christi, Volume 5, Number 1, pp. 235-249. La Mirada, California, Biola University.

HASKER, WILLIAM (2003) ‘Is Free-Will Theism Religiously Inadequate? A Reply to Ciocchi’, in Religious Studies, Volume 39, Number 4, December, pp. 431-440. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

HASKER, WILLIAM (2007) ‘Peter van Inwagen, The Problem of Evil’, in Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews, Notre Dame, Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews.

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.

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, Lawrence, Kansas.

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

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

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

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

ORR, R.W. (1986) I John, in F.F. Bruce (ed.), The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Zondervan.

PETERSON, MICHAEL, WILLIAM HASKER, BRUCE REICHENBACH, AND DAVID BASINGER (1996)(eds.), ‘Introduction: Saint Augustine: Evil is Privation of Good’, in Philosophy of Religion, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

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

PORTER, LAURENCE.E. (1986) ‘Luke’, in F.F. Bruce (gen.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.

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

THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT (1993) Stuttgart, United Bible Societies.

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

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

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

Saturday, May 14, 2022

Theism & Deism: Non-exhaustively

Theism & Deism: Non-exhaustively

Edited reworked website material for an academia.edu publication.

Photo, Agassiz, BC area

Preface

Within academia, because of manuscript evidence, historical Scripture, the Church Fathers' writings and witness, biblical studies, theology, philosophy of religion, history and as well, premises from other disciplines, I hold to biblical Christianity, within the Reformed tradition, as a worldview and my faith and philosophy.

Biblically, a legitimate faith is revealed via the triune God. God the Father that sends God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. God the Son that completes the atonement and resurrection imputed to humanity and too sends God the Holy Spirit and the Holy Spirit that regenerates (John 3, Titus 3, 1 Peter 1). Those chosen in Jesus Christ that are justified and saved by grace through faith, alone (Ephesians 1-2, Romans, Galatians, Hebrews, as some key examples).

I have read and heard the intellectual criticism, that biblical Christians are closed-minded in regards to an alternate, possibly correct, worldview. Based on reason, theoretically, my second preferred worldview would be some type of theism, perhaps with similarities to deism, heavily influenced by theistic philosophy of religion. If the biblical revelation was denied (to be clear, absolutely, not my view), I would still hold to many of the philosophical premises, within philosophy of religion which support the existence of an infinite, eternal, first cause, primary cause, necessary (of necessity), God.

Importantly for this particular entry: My conclusion differs, for example, from many in ex-Christian movements that conclude that once Christianity and the Scripture is debunked in his/her mind, that therefore, atheism is the most reasonable worldview to embrace. My church bible study leader actually assumed that atheism was the default, most likely worldview for many, if not most, within the Western world, if Christianity was untrue. But, whether that deduction in regards to the opinions of many is true or not, that is not my view.

Deism or a related theism, in my mind is a far more likely alternative to Christianity than a non-theistic view, although, again, I fully believe in the Biblical texts. Deism, and related theisms, do not accept a God that reveals self, but still, generally at least, accept the God of first cause. First cause (primary cause) provides premises which prove, philosophically and theologically, in a sense, the existence of God. God, as infinite, eternal and omnipotent. The deduced first and sufficient cause of all that is finite. God would also be conscious and within Judaism and Christianity, personal.

Theism

John S. Feinberg states that theism is literally the belief in the existence of God. The term may be recent and a counter to the seventeenth century terms deism and deistic and is used as the opposite of atheist. Feinberg (1996: 1080). Feinberg writes the term theist is used for religious believers and those who hold to certain philosophical and theological positions without necessarily being religious. Feinberg (1996: 1080).

Richard G. Swinburne explains that theism is the idea that there exists a God that is personal, without a body, omnipotent, omniscient, free, and the creator of the universe. Christians, Jews, and Muslims are all theists. Swinburne (1999: 562). Swinburne states that God is personal in theism as he acts intentionally to bring about purposes and has knowledge of all things. Swinburne (1999: 562-563).

Deism

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Anthony Collins is discussed.

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Anthony Collins First published Mon Aug 25, 2003; substantive revision Thu Oct 8, 2020, William Uzgalis

Cited

'Anthony Collins (1676–1729) was a wealthy English free-thinker, deist and materialist who in his later years became a country squire and local government official in Essex.'

Cited

'Collins was a friend of John Locke in Locke’s old age and Locke was one important formative influence on his philosophical views.'

Cited

'Collins rejects Revelation. (Stanford). Collins clearly rejects theism based on revelation. But one could also be a theist based on arguments from natural religion. (Stanford).' 'In A Discourse on the Grounds and Reasons of the Christian Religion, 1724, Collins attacks the basis of Christianity as a revealed religion. (Stanford).'

John Locke is discussed.

'Samuel Hefelbower in The Relation of John Locke to English Deism remarks that among the progressives—theologians, philosophers and deists—all accepted a rationalistic religion. The question then becomes what exactly is the role of reason vis à vis revelation.' (Stanford). 'Locke holds that reason is responsible for determining what counts as a genuine revelation. Locke also holds the view that there is revelation that tells us about things above reason but not contrary to it.' (Stanford).

I can agree with Locke, in the sense that God will move the human mind to grasp divine revelation. I also agree that divine revelation is rational and reasonable. I would add, true. The Hebrew Bible and New Testament are both religious history and provide, documented, manuscript evidence. Church history, theology and theistic, philosophy of religion also provide reasonable evidences for Christian faith and philosophy.

Other sources

M.H. Macdonald writes that deism describes an unorthodox religious view expressed among readers in the first half of the seventeenth century, most notably Lord Herbert of Cherbury. Macdonald (1996: 304). Deism is from the Latin for deus in contrast to theos (θεός my add) from the Greek. Macdonald (1999: 304).

Deism is different than theism and is connected to natural religion that thinks religious knowledge is gained through reason and not revelation or church doctrines. Macdonald (1996: 304). There is a belief in a supreme being, but this being is not directly involved in the affairs of his creation. Macdonald (1996: 304). Therefore, the revelation of the Hebrew Bible and New Testament would be denied as actually occurring, and the gospel and related doctrines would be denied. In agreement with Christianity, would be an understanding of God as first cause and the creator of universal laws. Macdonald (1996: 305).

David A. Pailin, my brief former academic advisor, writes that deism is often in parallel to theism. Pailin (1999: 148). In modern times deism is used to define a supreme being who is the ultimate source of reality, but does not intervene in the natural and historical processes through revelation or salvific acts. Pailin (1999: 148). Pailin writes that the common use of the term ‘theism’ does not carry the same negative implications. Pailin (1999: 148). He explains that historically deism is not so much a set of doctrines, but a movement, largely British, that became popular in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Pailin (1999: 148). Many within deism will have doubts concerning concepts of supernatural religious doctrines, revelation and the authority of the Bible. Pailin (1999: 148). Pailin notes that some within deism desire to replace Christianity with a more ‘reasonable’ faith, and for others it is an attempt to produce a more ‘reasonable’ version of Christianity. Pailin (1999: 149).

William J. Wainwright explains that deism understands true religion as natural, as opposed to supernatural religion. Wainwright (1996: 188). He writes that some self-styled Christian deists accept revelation although they argue that the content is the same as natural religion. Wainwright (1996: 188). Most deists reject revelation as fiction, but many reason that God has ordained that human happiness is possible through natural means that are universally available. Wainwright (1996: 188). Salvation therefore does not come via divine revelation. Wainwright (1996: 188).

FEINBERG, JOHN S. (1996) ‘Theism’, in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.

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.

MACDONALD, M.H. (1996) ‘Deism’, in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.

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.

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

SWINBURNE, Richard G. (1999) ‘Theism’. in Alan Richardson and John Bowden (eds.), New Dictionary of Christian Theology, Kent, SCM Press Ltd.

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.

WAINWRIGHT, WILLIAM J. (1996) ‘Deism’, in Robert Audi (ed.), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Referenced archived articles

Thursday, October 24, 2019: Sufficient cause?

Saturday, November 24, 2018 Brief ponderings on Christianity, Theism, Deism, Atheism

Deism: archives

Listed from Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Anthony Collins First published Mon Aug 25, 2003; substantive revision Thu Oct 8, 2020, William Uzgalis

Primary references

An Essay Concerning the Use of Reason, 1707

Collins contributions to the Clarke Collins controversy: A Letter to Mr. Dodwell, 1706

A Reply to Mr. Clarke’s Defence of His Letter to Mr. Dodwell

Reflections on Mr. Clarke’s Second Defence of His Letter to Mr. Dodwell

An Answer to Mr. Clarke’s Third Defence of His Letter to Mr. Dodwell, 1708

Priestcraft In Perfection 1710 A Vindication of the Divine Attributes, in some Remarks on His Grace the Archbishop of Dublin’s sermon intitled “Divine Predestination Consistent with the Freedom of Man’s Will”, 1710

A Discourse of Free-Thinking, 1713 Philosophical Inquiry Concerning Human Liberty, 1717

A Discourse on the Grounds and Reasons of the Christian Religion, 1724

An Historical and Critical Essay on the Thirty Nine Articles of the Church of England, 1724

The Scheme of Literal Prophecy Considered, 1726

A Discourse concerning Ridicule and Irony in Writing, 1729

Collins, Anthony, 1707 [1984], An Essay Concerning the Use of Reason and A Discourse of Free Thinking, Peter Schouls (ed.), 1707; republished New York: Garland Press, 1984. A republication of Collins’ first book and his 1713 book on free thinking, both in their original eighteenth century type.

1707 [1976], Determinism and Free Will, introduction by James O’Higgins, The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff. Provides the facsimile text of Collins’ A Philosophical Inquiry Concerning Human Freedom along with annotations and a useful introduction that discusses Collins’ place in the debate over free will and determinism and provides an analysis of the text.

1729 [1970], A Discourse concerning Ridicule and Irony in Writing, Edward A. Bloom and Lillian D. Bloom (eds.); republished, Los Angeles: The William Andrews Memorial Clarke Library, No. 142, 1970. A republication of Collins’ last book with an interesting introduction and notes.

Locke, John, 1690 [1975], An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, Peter Nidditch (ed.), Oxford: Oxford University Press. Locke’s magnum opus had a considerable influence on Collins both in respect to his epistemological views and in respect to particular issues such as whether matter can think. This is currently the standard edition of Locke’s Essay.

1989, The Correspondence of John Locke, volume 8, E. S. De Beer (ed.), Oxford: Oxford University Press. Contains Locke’s letters to Collins during the period of their eighteen month friendship. It is thus a major source for the study of their relationship.

Secondary references

Colie, Rosalie L., 1959, “Spinoza and the Early English Deists”, Journal of the History of Ideas, 20(1): 23–46. doi:10.2307/2707965 Develops the political dimension of early English Deism. Colie claims that Collins was the least political of the early English Deists. She discusses the relation of Collins’ views on necessity and the problem of evil to those of Spinoza.

Edwards, Paul, 2009, God and the Philosophers, Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books. Puts Collins in the context of a brief history of Deism.

Hefelbower, Samuel Gring, 1918, The Relation of John Locke to English Deism, Chicago: University of Chicago Press. An effort to characterize the defining features of English Deism

Mossner, Ernest Campbell, 1967, two articles in The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, volume 2, Paul Edwards (ed.), New York: Macmillan. 1967a, “Anthony Collins”, pp. 144–146. Provides a good account of Collins, though significantly shorter and less detailed than the one provided here. 1967b, “Deism”, pp. 326–336. Provides a fine overview of Deism both in England and on the continent with brief biographies of both major and minor figures.

Stephen, Leslie, 1936, History of English Thought in the Eighteenth Century, London: Watts & Co. Gives a detailed history of English Deism in both the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries and on the continent. There are several chapters devoted to Deism and one of these to Collins.

Tuesday, May 10, 2022

Briefly on Doubting God's goodness v Doubting God will give a good thing

Photo: Last evening

Websites archives

Thursday, August 12, 2021 Thursday Bullets: Doubting God's goodness versus Doubting God will give a good thing

Sunday, May 04, 2014 Brief On Idolatry

In 2021, a good friend sent me a short audio, Q & A from a well-known evangelical pastor.

I basically agreed with the pastor's reply to a question, until the end where he, in my humble opinion, fumbled the ball in regards to problems of evil, as is often done within the evangelical church. I state this, I pray in humility, as by God's leading, I did have to work through the topics of problems of evil and theodicy, within two Master's degrees and a PhD.

This well-known pastor (paraphrased) criticized this person with the question, that apparently, according to the claim made in the letter, had been a committed Christian for decades. This person had avoided a specific sin, that was an aspect of his/her fallen nature (see Romans in particular for a fall theology, Galatians, Ephesians, Hebrews and Genesis 1-3, as examples).

This person, rightly so, in my biblical and theological opinion, questioned whether God would bless this person in this particular area, which has been a lifelong struggle. Rather than definitely and definitively acknowledging this a legitimate and reasonable, the pastor questioned the strength of this person's Christian faith. The pastor assumed this person was questioning the goodness of God.

But in reality, the evidence from the person's letter meant that person was more so, at least, questioning whether or not God would bless him/her with a good thing. Understanding in a mature faith an orthodox, reasonable, biblical, New Testament understanding of the goodness of God, is to understand that God created, and sustains the universe and provides salvation, specifically for those in Jesus Christ that are regenerated (John 3, Titus 3, 1 Peter 1). This is within the applied atoning and resurrection work of Jesus Christ, in imputed righteousness (Romans and Galatians as key examples) and sanctification, by grace through faith alone, not by good works (works righteousness), but for good works, created in Jesus Christ. (Ephesians 1-2, Romans as key examples).

In this temporal realm, God definitely does not provide everything good, and/or every good thing for each human being, nor each Christian. For example, the blind person often does not have his/her ontological need for perfect vision provided. I, for example, do not have perfect vision, and I am not technically blind. I function normally and appear normal. I exercise with martial arts weapons. I walk in busy traffic with no problems. I doubt I shall ever have perfect vision in this life but God could heal me.

But for me to doubt God will heal me toward perfect vision, is not doubting God's goodness, rather I doubt God will give me this good thing. There are true needs that in this realm of problems of evil and suffering are not always met by God. As God meets the needs of his followers in order to accomplish his will...

1 John 5:14-15 English Standard Version (ESV): '14 And this is the confidence that we have toward him, that if we ask anything according to his will he hears us. 15 And if we know that he hears us in whatever we ask, we know that we have the requests that we have asked of him.'

I do not find the idea from 1 John or the New Testament, that God meets all of our (ontological, existence) needs in Christ in this realm, but rather his needs for us are met in prayer as in his purposes for persons.

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

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

Philippians 4:19: Bible Hub

Cited with my work in brackets:

your needs χρείαν (chreian)

Original Word: χρεία, ας, ἡ needs, business

5532. χρεία (chreia): Bible Hub

Philippians 4:19 N-AFS (noun, accusative feminine, singular) (Accusative, meet (verb) needs of you) GRK: πληρώσει πᾶσαν χρείαν ὑμῶν κατὰ (will fill up or meet all needs of you according to)

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