Panentheism Revisited

Panentheism Revisited

Preface

London, Greenwich (trekearth.com)

An article which compiles some previous articles on panentheism for a new entry on Blogger and an entry on academia.edu.

Panentheism 

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

Process theism approaches are sometimes referred to as being panentheistic.[1] The two approaches are not identical but process theism moves in the direction of panentheism.[2] David H. Nikkel (2003) defines panentheism as from the Greek meaning ‘all is in God.’[3] Both God’s transcendence and immanence are accepted, as the world and matter is in God, and God is ‘all-encompassing with respect to being.’[4] Panentheism is not identical to pantheism which postulates that ‘God is identical with everything’[5] or that God is in everything and that God and the universe are one.[6] The difference being that panentheism understands ‘God is in all things’[7] but not identical with all things as with pantheism.[8] As example, God in pantheism may be considered to be equal with a tree. God in panentheism may be considered beyond the tree, but the vital force within it, where as in my traditional Christian theistic understanding God is beyond a tree and sustains it, but is not the vital force within it.[9] Panentheism attempts to ‘avoid the pitfalls’ of traditional theism.[10] God is prohibited from having a true and genuine relationship with matter and the universe because of traditional theistic views such as that God is immutable, impassible, and eternal and timeless.[11] Panentheism is an intellectual compromise between traditional theism and pantheism.[12] God is more than just the material universe, as there is an unchanging aspect to God’s being and also a dynamic aspect to God as the divine being changes as matter and the universe do.[13] German philosopher, F.W. J. Schelling [14] (1845)(1936) reasons: ‘As there is nothing before or outside of God, he must contain within himself the ground of his existence.’[15] He reasons God’s nature is inseparable from God and yet can be distinguished.[16] Panentheism can reasonably be understood as an overarching view within many process theism approaches[17] which I have contrasted with my own views.[18] 

________________

[1] Geisler (1975: 153).

[2] Grenz and Olsen (1992: 142). I am not stating that this is the case in every documented view of process theism, but it is generally true that the two views are closely related.

[3] Nikkel (2003: 1).

[4] Nikkel (2003: 1).

[5] Martinich (1996: 556).

[6] Blackburn (1996: 276). Blackburn also explains Benedictus de Spinoza (1632-1677) is noted for this view within Western philosophy

[7] Martinich (1996: 556). The doctrine that all things exist in God. Kreeft and Tacelli (1994: 94).

[8] Martinich (1996: 556).

[9] This is my example based on Erickson’s presentation. Erickson (1994: 303-307).

[10] Nikkel (2003: 1). Many modern theologians and philosophers now question the concept of an eternal God. Kreeft and Tacelli (1994: 94).

[11] Nikkel (2003: 1). God is not eternal within this view. Kreeft and Tacelli (1994: 94).

[12] Kreeft and Tacelli (1994: 94).

[13] Kreeft and Tacelli (1994: 94).

[14] Schelling lived (1775-1854). Blackburn (1996: 341).

[15] Schelling (1845)(1936: 32).

[16] Schelling (1845)(1936: 32). Schelling sought to deflect criticisms that he was a pantheist. ‘Unity is of essence, but so is diversity.’ Gutmann (1845)(1936: xxxi). However, his comments make it possible that he had views which were perhaps panentheistic. Material things are dependent on God and yet independent.

[17] Including that of Whitehead. Nikkel (2003: 2-3). Grenz and Olsen (1992: 142).

[18] My views are Reformed but not strictly within a certain camp such as Presbyterian or Baptist. I have primarily come to my Reformed views through MPhil and PhD research.

---

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

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

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

GRENZ, STANLEY J. AND ROGER E. OLSON (1992) Twentieth Century Theology, Downers Grove, Illinois, InterVarsity Press.

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

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

MARTINICH, A.P. (1999) ‘Pantheism’ in Robert Audi, (ed.), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. 

NIKKEL, DAVID H. (2003) ‘Panentheism’, in Encyclopedia of Science and Religion, MacMillan Reference USA, New York. 

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

---

Process Theism: Alfred North Whitehead

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

David Viney (2008) suggests that Edgar Sheffield Brightman is one of the twentieth century proponents of Process theism.[1] Although Brightman’s views were primarily independently made, process theism refers to a general group of theological concepts attributed to Alfred North Whitehead (1861-1947)[2] and Charles Hartshorne (1897-2000).[3]

Whitehead is the more preeminent exemplar and within Process and Reality (1927-1929)(1957) explains he desired to complete an account of humanity and its experience in relation to philosophical problems.[4] In Religion In The Making (1926) Whitehead explains it is legitimate to attempt with a more definite knowledge of metaphysics, to interpret human experience, but these general principles must be amplified and adapted into one general system of truth.[5]

Whitehead disagreed with a traditional view of a ‘transcendent creator, at whose fiat the world came into being, and whose imposed will it obeys.’[6] The nature of God needed to be philosophically constructed anew.[7] A balance is sought between God’s immanence and transcendence, and a concept of static transcendence is rejected as instead God is understood to have a evolutionary transcendence. God and the physical realm are immanent with each other and God’s transcendence means their realities are not identical and not always determined by each other.[8] God is fully reasoned to be involved and influenced by temporal events and processes.[9] These processes unfold as sequences of events over time. God, contrary to classic and traditional Christian theism is finite, temporal, changeable and experiences intense emotion, pain and sadness. Whitehead explains that ‘It is not true that God is on all respects infinite.’[10] Process theology is a philosophical approach that does not rely on any kind of divine revelation.[11] Instead it relies on a process of change over time as a theory of metaphysics.[12] God’s actual concrete nature is responsive and influenced by the processes that take in the world, and therefore God is limited. Some things are unknowable for God, that he only can realize as they happen, and as these new things develop God’s knowledge processes over time. Divine sovereignty is questionable and certainly no longer absolute within this system.

Whitehead, a mathematician and philosopher, established a speculative philosophy of metaphysics within a scientific non-metaphysical reality.[13] This system is an attempt to adequately explain all individual beings in existence, including God.[14] Basically a system of metaphysics needed to be developed that would work with modern scientific theories and reality, and therefore God was not a ‘static essence’ but a process.[15] The ‘actual entities’[16] that make up this process are non-permanent and transient and each action and activity is dipolar having a physical pole of the past and a mental pole which is a possibility that can be achieved.[17] The physical pole feels the physical reality of actual entity, while the mental pole feels or prehends as Whitehead calls it, the eternal objects by which actual entities have conceptual definiteness.[18] These physical and mental poles are an aspect of every real being/actual entities although they are not real things themselves.[19]

Prehends is the feeling of grasping the physical and conceptual information concerning actual entities.[20] This will occur within a stream and series of occasions.[21] All occurrences take place within the process of these actual entities.[22] Each event is partially self-created and partially influenced by other occasions and entities.[23] God is also dipolar[24] and his nontemporal pole is where God conceives the infinite variety of external objects and sees the possibilities and provides the opportunity for the process of becoming. God is an actual entity and being.[25] God has a primordial nature and consequent nature, with the primordial being conceptual, while the consequent nature is God as conscious.[26] Whitehead explains that the ‘consequent nature is the weaving of God’s physical feelings upon his primordial concepts.’[27] God’s primordial conceptual nature is infinite and does not have negative prehension/feelings, and is eternal and unconscious.[28] This nature is permanent as God works out endless possibilities.[29] God in his vision can determine every possibility and adjust details where needed.[30] The consequent nature of God originates with physical experience with the material temporal world and it is integrated with the primordial conceptual nature.[31] The consequent nature as conscious is determined, finite and incomplete.[32] These two aspects of God’s deity can be distinguished but are inseparable.[33] This consequent conscious nature had God constantly acquiring new experiences.[34]

A problem arises that if God’s primordial nature is eternal and unconscious[35] it precedes the consequent nature that is temporal and has consciousness. I question whether an unconscious deity would in any way proceed to a conscious temporal reality. Where did God’s consciousness come from? I reason consciousness would have to exist eternally to lead to a finite reality of consciousness.

________________

[1] Viney (2008: 35).

[2] Viney (2008: 1).

[3] Viney (2008: 1).

[4] Whitehead (1927-1929)(1957: vi).

[5] Whitehead (1926: 149).

[6] Whitehead (1927-1929)(1957: 404).

[7] Whitehead (1926: 150).

[8] Viney (2008: 10).

[9] Viney (2008: 1).

[10] Whitehead (1926: 153). Whitehead claims that if God was infinite in all ways this would make him as infinitely evil as he is good. I doubt logically and reasonably that an infinitely holy and good God could at the same time be infinitely evil and so I can grant Whitehead half a point here. However, God could still be infinite completely in nature and willingly allow evil to exist within his creation. I definitely agree with Whitehead that an infinitely good and evil God would be a God of nothingness. Whitehead (1926: 153). I doubt this being could logically exist.

[11] Viney (2008: 1).

[12] Viney (2008: 1).

[13] Grenz and Olsen (1992: 135).

[14] Diehl (1996: 881).

[15] Grenz and Olsen (1992: 135).

[16] Grenz and Olsen (1992: 135).

[17] Grenz and Olsen (1992: 136).

[18] Diehl (1996: 881). Whitehead (1927-1929)(1957: 407).

[19] Viney (2008: 8).

[20] Diehl (1996: 881). Viney (2008: 9).

[21] Grenz and Olsen (1992: 136).

[22] Diehl (1996: 881).

[23] Diehl (1996: 881).

[24] Whitehead (1927-1929)(1957: 407).

[25] Viney (2008: 9).

[26] Whitehead (1927-1929)(1957: 407).

[27] Whitehead (1927-1929)(1957: 407).

[28] Whitehead (1927-1929)(1957: 407).

[29] Viney (2008: 9).

[30] Whitehead (1926: 153-154).

[31] Whitehead (1927-1929)(1957: 407).

[32] Whitehead (1927-1929)(1957: 407).

[33] Viney (2008: 9).

[34] Viney (2008: 9).

[35] Whitehead (1927-1929)(1957: 407).

[36] Grenz and Olsen (1992: 142). I am not stating that this is the case in every documented view of process theism, but it is generally true that the two views are closely related.

[37] Nikkel (2003: 1).

[38] Nikkel (2003: 1).

[39] Blackburn (1996: 276). Blackburn also explains Benedictus de Spinoza (1632-1677) is noted for this view within Western philosophy

[40] Nikkel (2003: 1).

---

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

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

GRENZ, STANLEY J. AND ROGER E. OLSON (1992) Twentieth Century Theology, Downers Grove, Illinois, InterVarsity Press.

NIKKEL, DAVID H. (2003) ‘Panentheism’, in Encyclopedia of Science and Religion, MacMillan Reference USA, New York.

VINEY, DAVID (2008) ‘Process Theism’, in Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Palo Alto, California, Stanford University.

WHITEHEAD, ALFRED NORTH (1926) Religion in the Making, New York, The MacMillan Company.

WHITEHEAD, ALFRED NORTH (1927-1929)(1957) Process and Reality, New York, The Free Press/MacMillan Publishing Company, Incorporated.

WHITEHEAD, ALFRED NORTH (1967)(1986) ‘Adventures of Ideas’, in Forest Wood JR., Whiteheadian Thought as a Basis for a Philosophy of Religion, University of Southern Mississippi, Hattiesburg, University Press of America, Inc.

20251121

'God in pantheism may be considered to be equal with a tree. God in panentheism may be considered beyond the tree, but the vital force within it, where as in my traditional Christian theistic understanding God is beyond a tree and sustains it, but is not the vital force within it.'

Pantheism is a form of monism, as in reasoning the theistic is of a single substance, nature and entity. This is error as God is infinite, eternal and necessary, in contrast to created things which are finite, non-eternal, potentially everlasting, contingent, entities. 

Panentheism views God in all things, but not identical with all things. It understands the existence of both the infinite/necessary and finite/contingent within reality and within God. God therefore, within panentheism would be understood as having both a necessary aspect and a contingent aspect. From my Reformed theological, worldview, I view this as contradictory as the finite is not divine and cannot be divine. Note that the classic understanding of the incarnation of Jesus Christ is that his divine (infinite) nature and human (finite) nature cannot logically mix, and do not mix.

My Reformed theological perspective views the infinite, eternal God as creating and sustaining the finite. God is not the vital, infinite, force within the finite, but is the vital, infinite force sustaining the finite.

'Whitehead explains that ‘It is not true that God is on all respects infinite.’[10]'  '[10] Whitehead (1926: 153). Whitehead claims that if God was infinite in all ways this would make him as infinitely evil as he is good. I doubt logically and reasonably that an infinitely holy and good God could at the same time be infinitely evil and so I can grant Whitehead half a point here. However, God could still be infinite completely in nature and willingly allow evil to exist within his creation. I definitely agree with Whitehead that an infinitely good and evil God would be a God of nothingness. Whitehead (1926: 153). I doubt this being could logically exist.'

God is in all respects, infinite. God is at the same time, in all respects logical. God is not contradictory within infinity. God is perfectly good and not evil. Everything God causes is for the good, with good motives, even when evil is secondarily caused. 

A classic example is the death of Jesus Christ on the cross and the resulting atoning and resurrection work of Jesus Christ applied to believers. The triune God, as the primary cause, had perfectly good motives for the gospel. Secondary causes include, Satan that had evil motives in persuading Judas to betray Jesus Christ. Satan desired his own worship, see Matthew 4 and Luke 4, even from Jesus Christ himself. The Jewish and Roman authorities, crucified him with evil motives, which based on the New Testament could be reasoned were primarily religious/political in the first case and political in the second case.

Links

Friday, January 01, 2010 Does God evolve? 

Friday, June 18, 2010 Process Theism: Alfred North Whitehead (PhD edit)

Sunday, April 01, 2012 Panentheism (PhD Edit)/iTunes Personally Evolving Toward Classical 

Wednesday, August 10, 2016 The Trinity: Panentheism & Pantheism

Saturday, July 25, 2020 Pantheism, Panentheism, The Trinity II: Non-exhaustive 

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

The Orthodox Study Bible: Knowledge

The Orthodox Study Bible: Knowledge

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

Preface

My review, as a biblical Christian of the Reformed tradition, of this fine academic source, continues. This Orthodox source uses the New King James Version (NKJV). Originally published on Blogger 20200719, with significant revisions and additions with Blogger 20251113 for an academia.edu entry.

The Orthodox Study Bible: Knowledge

Glossary from Reverend John W. Morris, Ph.D.

Knowledge

Quote:

'Knowing and experiencing the truth of God and salvation through Jesus Christ. Spiritual knowledge (1) is frequently identified with Christian doctrine (2) is applied to the spiritual meaning of the Scripture; and (3) refers to the mystical and contemplative knowledge, not merely intellectual knowledge of God. Its aim and effects are to enhance man's responsibility, to aid in discernment of good and evil and to lead people to God...'(802).

From the verses this study bible provides, I will comment on 2 Corinthians 4: 6.

2 Corinthians 4: 6 The New King James Version (NKJV)

6 For it is the God who commanded light to shine out of darkness, who has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.

2 Corinthians 4: 6 King James Version (KJV)

6 For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. 

2 Corinthians 4: 6 New American Standard Bible (NASB) 

6 For God, who said, “Light shall shine out of darkness,” is the One who has shone in our hearts to give the Light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ. 

Greek New Testament 2 Corinthians 4: 6

From the five Greek New Testament sources provided. 

γνώσεως 

(knowledge)

Bible Hub: 2 Corinthians 4: 6

γνώσεως knowledge N-GFS

Noun: Genitive (of) feminine, singular

of the knowledge

Bible Hub: 1108. gnósis 

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 

2 Corinthians 4:6 

N-GFS GRK: φωτισμὸν τῆς γνώσεως τῆς δόξης 

NAS: to give the Light of the knowledge of the glory 

KJV: [give] the light of the knowledge of the glory 

INT: radiancy of the knowledge of the glory

Bauer documents that in 2 Corinthians 4:6, γνώσεως is 'enlightening of the knowledge' of God (163). This is given by God (163). Therefore it is revelatory knowledge and not found through the use of human reason. Rather human reason, by God's grace, can reasonably comprehend God's revelation. It is not a complete comprehension, but is significant.

Courson provides a practical theology: 'Both the face and the grace of God are revealed in the Person of Jesus.' (1115).

---

Theological & Philosophical reflections

I am in basic agreement with the Orthodox text here. 

1) Knowledge '(1) is frequently identified with Christian doctrine' (802)...

True, legitimate, New Testament knowledge of God, which is spiritual knowledge of God, is directly connected to concepts of New Testament (and biblical) doctrine. Therefore, it is related to theology. Theology, doctrine and Christian dogma (central beliefs), especially within the Christian Church, should not be considered as valuable only for 'theology nerds', 'serious bible students', pastors, elders and academics. Make no mistake, a lack of significant theological understanding, equates to a lack of spiritual knowledge, at least in some areas.

'Knowing and experiencing the truth of God and salvation through Jesus Christ' (802). Idealistically, this should occur with at least a basic, sound, New Testament theological understanding. I am not stating the Christian believer should study academic theology thoroughly, but I do think for accuracy, the New Testament and Hebrew Bible should be read in context, with the assistance of commentaries and biblical tools. I still reason that a basic belief in the gospel (Acts 2, Romans 10) through regeneration (John 3, Titus 3, 1 Peter 1) is legitimate salvation, but without sound theology, is an immature Christian faith and worldview.

2) '(2) is applied to the spiritual meaning of the Scripture' (802).

This spiritual knowledge of God is applied for a correct and reasonable interpretations and meanings of scripture. For correct theology. 

3) This knowledge refers to mystical and not just intellectual knowledge. In the perfect will of God for Christian believers, the Holy Spirit guides the spirit/mind, and physical brain of the regenerate to have a significantly, true, understanding of doctrine and theology, which is both intellectual and spiritual, not either/or in my humble opinion.

It would be possible for a scholar or reader/reviewer to intellectually understand scripture and theology without a proper spiritual understanding. Scholars such as these could still serve as legitimate academic sources of facts within biblical studies, theology and philosophy of religion, for example. I deduce I have cited some of these scholars. Biblical exegesis and analysis can be done by the unregenerate and unregenerate scholar, not by just the believing Christian. However, practical application of scripture should be guided by the Holy Spirit of God, engaging with a studious Christian mind. Practical, obedient, Christian living with the use of scripture requires a person to be guided by the Holy Spirit.

The gospel is indeed understood through revelatory, scriptural knowledge. But, it still requires the use of the human brain as a secondary source for human comprehension. In other words, God reveals as primary source/cause, and the regenerate embrace the gospel as a secondary source/cause. Human cause here is in the sense of embracing the gospel, living within salvation, not creating the means of salvation in any way, whatsoever. Human salvation is not forced or coerced, it is embraced.

I do not deny the value of theistic, philosophy of religion as I reason that some ontological truths about God can be known through the use of reason within philosophy. This includes, non-exhaustively, reasoning God as infinite, logically consistent, eternal, necessary, sufficient as in necessary with key premises, such as God is good and holy. The necessary that exists in each possible reality is good. The necessary that exists in each possible reality is holy and set apart from its creation. 

The necessary would be the first cause. The finite caused is contingent and can be a secondary cause only. 

---

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) ‘A priori/A posteriori’, in Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, p. 21-22. Oxford, Oxford University Press. 

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

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

EDWARDS, PAUL AND ARTHUR PAP (1973) (eds), ‘A priori knowledge: Introduction’, A Modern Introduction To Philosophy, New York, The Free Press. 

GUYER, PAUL AND ALLEN W, in KANT, IMMANUEL (1781)(1787)(1998) Critique of Pure Reason, Translated and edited by Paul Guyer and Allen W. Wood, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 

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.

KANT, IMMANUEL (1781)(1787)(1998) Critique of Pure Reason, Translated and edited by Paul Guyer and Allen W. Wood, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 

KANT, IMMANUEL (1781)(1787)(1929)(2006) Critique of Pure Reason, Translated by Norman Kemp Smith, London, Macmillan. 

KANT, IMMANUEL (1788)(1997) Critique of Practical Reason, Translated by Mary Gregor (ed.), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 

KANT, IMMANUEL (1788)(1898)(2006) The Critique of Practical Reason, Translated by Thomas Kingsmill Abbott, London, Longmans, Green, and Co.

KANT, IMMANUEL (1791)(2001) ‘On The Miscarriage of All Philosophical Trials in Theodicy’, in Religion and Rational Theology, Translated by George di Giovanni and Allen Wood, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. 

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

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

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

Fallacy Of Accent: 'If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him'

Fallacy Of Accent

Preface

Photo: Portofino, Italy, 20221014, Facebook

Article originally published on Blogger 20151104, revised on Blogger for an entry on academia.edu 20251013.

PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London.

The review of the Pirie text continues. Note: A formal fallacy is concerned with presenting a logical form to avoid being fallacious, and an informal fallacy occurs when there are errors in reasoning with a premise (s) and conclusion. This entry deals with an informal fallacy.

Pirie

Cited

'The fallacy of accent defends for its effectiveness on the fact the meaning of statements can change, depending on the stress put on words. The accenting of words or phrases can give a meaning quite different from that intended, and can add implications which are not part of the literal meaning.' (31).

Example used

'Light your cigarette' (31).

a) Without accent it looks like an invitation. (31).
b) As opposed to lighting a tablecloth or something else. (31).
c) Instead of someone else. (31).
d) Instead of sticking it in your ear. (31).

The author notes that by changing the accent, the meaning can be changed. (31)

The large letter emphasis is mine, based on the Pirie examples...

'Light your cigarette', reads like an invitation or instruction.

''Light your CIGARETTE', reads as if an instruction to light the cigarette instead of something else.

'Light YOUR cigarette' read like an instruction to light your own cigarette and not another's.

'LIGHT your cigarette' reads as an invitation, instead of sticking it in your ear.

The author states: 'The fallacy lies with the additional implications introduced by emphasis. (32).

For this website context, that being philosophical theology, philosophy of religion, philosophy and Bible, this following statement from Pirie is relevant and profound:

'Your most widespread use of the fallacy of accent can be to discredit opponents by quoting them with an emphasis they never indented'. (32). He notes that Richelieu needed 'six lines by which to hang an honest man.' (32).

Cardinal Richelieu of France

I reason he is meaning Cardinal Richelieu of France. This would be a good historical example where Christianity was politicized and did not closely follow the Gospel of Jesus Christ and his disciples, the Apostles and scribes which through divine revelation promoted Gospel truth. 

The use of accent in a fallacious manner can twist words for the purpose of a lie. One should pay special attention to the educated and elite, whether in a political, corporate, religious or other context when he or she may be using the fallacy of accent to persuade the masses.

Oxford Reference.com 

Oxford Essential Quotations (5 ed.) Edited by: Susan Ratcliffe 

Publisher: Oxford University Press Published online: 2017

Current Online Version: 2017DOI: 10.1093/acref/9780191843730.001.0001eISBN: 9780191843730 

Cited

'Cardinal Richelieu 1585–1642 French cleric and statesman

If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him. attributed'

Adam Smith Institute 

Cited 

'Cardinal Richelieu is remembered for making France into a centralized state by building up the power of the crown and weakening that of the nobles. He used brutal methods to do so, building up a network of spies and informers, having the rivals and opponents of his power executed, and banning political discussion in public bodies. His reputation was forever cast by Alexandre Dumas in “The Three Musketeers,” who portrayed him as a ruthless, power-hungry and cynical ruler. He will be remembered for his famous observation, “If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him.” And he did have quite a few people hanged.'

---

But of course the masses can use the fallacy as well.

Aristotle

This fallacy was noted by Aristotle. 

The Internet Classics Archive: On Sophistical Refutations By Aristotle: Translated by W. A. Pickard-Cambridge (circa 350 BC)

Cited

'An argument depending upon accent it is not easy to construct in unwritten discussion; in written discussions and in poetry it is easier. Thus (e.g.) some people emend Homer against those who criticize as unnatural his expression to men ou kataputhetai ombro. For they solve the difficulty by a change of accent, pronouncing the ou with an acuter accent. Also, in the passage about Agamemnon's dream, they say that Zeus did not himself say 'We grant him the fulfilment of his prayer', but that he bade the dream grant it. Instances such as these, then, turn upon the accentuation.'

---

Zeus stating something differs from Zeus stating that a dream stated something.

Accent fallacy relies on unclear, unconcise, emphasis and tone presented. This can be verbal or written.

There are various related fallacies, but...

Amphiboly was a related fallacy mentioned by Aristotle. It uses ambiguous, unclear, unconcise syntax and grammar. This can be verbal or written.

--- 

CONWAY DAVID A. AND RONALD MUNSON (1997) The Elements of Reasoning, Wadsworth Publishing Company, New York.

LANGER, SUSANNE K (1953)(1967) An Introduction to Symbolic Logic, Dover Publications, New York. (Philosophy).

PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London.

The Orthodox Study Bible: Zeal: Here is no heathen fanaticism

The Orthodox Study Bible: Zeal: Here is no heathen fanaticism

Preface

Originally published 20200514, significantly revised on Blogger for an article on academia.edu 20250920. My review of this academic study bible continues from my Reformed tradition, as I comment on Orthodoxy from the outside.

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

The Orthodox Study Bible: Zeal

Glossary

Reverend John W. Morris, Ph.D

Zeal

The definition here is 'devotion, enthusiastic obedience to God' (810). The Apostle Paul warns against a misguided zeal not based in knowledge, such as in Romans 10: 2-3. (810).

The Apostle Paul wrote in regards to the religious Jews...

Romans 10:2-3 New American Standard Bible (NASB) 2 For I testify about them that they have a zeal for God, but not in accordance with knowledge. 3 For not knowing about God’s righteousness and seeking to establish their own, they did not subject themselves to the righteousness of God.

Bible Hub: Romans 10: 2

αὐτοῖς ὅτι ζῆλον θεοῦ ἔχουσιν

(to them)  (that)  (a zeal)  (of God)

to them that have a zeal of/for God.

ζῆλον is a noun, accusative, masculine, singular in Romans 10: 2.

Bible Hub: Root word and New Testament examples

Original Word: ζῆλος, ου, ὁ

In the context of Romans 10: 2, Jon Courson states that 'To this day, the Jews are zealous for God'. (958). But, theologically and respectfully to Judaism, this is works righteousness based on keeping the law, and not the imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ to the chosen (Romans 8-9, Ephesians 1), by grace through faith (Romans, Galatians 2, Ephesians 1-2).

I will admit that there is faith in Judaism of course, but works righteousness still exists. There are many religious faiths and non-religious worldviews with good morality and ethics. Within my classically, biblically inspired, Reformed theology, this divine righteousness (Romans, Galatians as textual examples) is imputed and applied to believers as legal and theological, justification, within the atonement.

In regards to Paul's comments concerning the religiously zealous Jews, Cranfield writes: 'Here is no heathen fanaticism' (251). The Jews have the 'right object' (251) that being their Hebrew Bible concept of God, in mind. In Romans 10: 2, both the terms for 'zeal' and 'God' are important. (251). The zeal here is seeking attention for something which is worthy of glory. (251). That in context, being God. 'Zeal for the one true God'. (251). This is not zeal for one of the 'false gods of a corrupt society' (251). But the Apostle Paul here explains that the Jews lacked knowledge (v2), that being knowledge of the gospel (251). Cranfield opines here that there is a 'disastrous flaw' with the zeal of the Jews, according to Paul. It seems to me Paul is stating here the the religious Jews knew about God, but as they did not know and accept the triune God of the gospel and therefore their religious zeal was disastrously in error. 

This divine zeal, unlike human zeal, when gospel focused, has God's righteousness in Jesus Christ, states the Orthodox Study Bible at Romans 10: 3. (362). '3 For not knowing about God’s righteousness and seeking to establish their own, they did not subject themselves to the righteousness of God.' The religious righteousness of the Hebrew religion did not suffice for membership into the Kingdom of God, that could only occur through regeneration (John 3, Titus 3, 1 Peter 1) and being justified in the righteousness of Jesus Christ through his applied atoning work for believers, which also led to the culminated resurrection of believers. Cranfield is correct that the Jews did not have a sufficient righteousness of their own, which they were trying to establish religiously. At the same time, they would not submit to the applied righteousness of God incarnate, Jesus Christ within gospel salvation. (252).

Mounce explains that in regards to Romans 10, the Jews sought righteousness by 'personal merit rather than by faith.' (206). In agreement with the comments of Cranfield, Mounce opines that the text has Paul explaining that the religious Jews zeal was not guided by knowledge (Romans 10: 2) (207). They wanted righteousness of their own, within their own religion, as opposed to the righteousness of Jesus Christ, within the gospel.

Romans 10: 4 New American Standard Bible (NASB) 4 For Christ is the [a]end of the Law for righteousness to everyone who believes.  Footnotes: Romans 10: 4 Or goal

Christ is the end of the law (207). Cranfield writes the end here could be interpreted in three ways .1 fulfillment 2. termination 3. goal (252). Regardless, teleologically, justification within salvation and entrance into the Kingdom of God, was not to be pursued or found through the Hebrew Biblical, Mosaic law, or any Hebrew covenant. But through the applied atoning and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

τέλος 

Cited

Romans 10:4 N-NNS 

GRK: τέλος γὰρ νόμου 

NAS: For Christ is the end of the law 

KJV: For Christ [is] the end of the law for INT: [the] end indeed of law

5056.telos

Cited

Original Word: τέλος 

Lexical Summary telos: End, purpose, goal, completion, fulfillment 

Original Word: τέλος

---

Related

According to Nelson's, Zealotes/Zealot (s) in the historical context was defined as a 'zealous one'. (807). These were a party of Jews violently opposed to the Roman Empire and its occupation of Israel. (807). Noted to be from the 1st Century, in context.

To be zealous is to be full of zeal. (Oxford: 1629). In modern times, and to this day, a zealot (zealots) can be considered someone that is 'an uncompromising or extreme partisan; a fanatic.' (1629). Often used in political contexts for those that are very pro-Israel. I will opine here that false zeal, need not be just religious, but could be political as well. Placing too much hope in the political process at the neglect of trusting in the one and true God. I am not, at all, rejecting the political process, but I am stating that the zeal for politics, in the biblical Christian, should not equate in importance to zeal for the gospel and the triune God.
---

BRUCE, F.F., (1963)(1996) Romans, Grand Rapids, IVP/Eerdmans. 

COAD, F. ROY (1986) ‘Galatians’, in F.F. Bruce (gen.ed.), The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Marshall Pickering/ 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. 

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

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

MARSHALL, ALFRED (1975)(1996) The Interlinear KJV-NIV, Grand Rapids, Zondervan. 

NELSON'S THREE-IN-ONE BIBLE REFERENCE COMPANION, 'Zealous' (1982), Nashville, Thomas Nelson Publishers.

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

THE CONCISE OXFORD DICTIONARY (1995) ‘Sceptical’, Della Thompson (ed.), Oxford, Clarendon Press.

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

Vladimir Lenin & the use of organized terror

Vladimir Lenin & the use of organized terror

Preface

USSR flag from Wikipedia

On 20281110, I had recently viewed a World War I documentary on British Columbia's, Knowledge Network. I published this article on Blogger. This article significantly updated 20250813 on Blogger for a posting on academia.edu.

Below is a link to a related Blogger article where I also discussed this Lenin section, that has previously been placed on academia.edu. This article will have some different material.

Tuesday, July 25, 2023 Baculum, Argumentum Ad III/Appeal to Force
---

Vladimir Lenin & the use of organized terror

I believe that on the documentary, a form of the second quote below was stated from Vladimir Lenin, the first leader of the Soviet Union. His views on the use of terror.

Word Future Fund

Cited

'From the 1 September 1918 edition of the Bolshevik newspaper, Krasnaya Gazeta:'

'“We will turn our hearts into steel, which we will temper in the fire of suffering and the blood of fighters for freedom. We will make our hearts cruel, hard, and immovable, so that no mercy will enter them, and so that they will not quiver at the sight of a sea of enemy blood. We will let loose the floodgates of that sea. Without mercy, without sparing, we will kill our enemies in scores of hundreds. Let them be thousands; let them drown themselves in their own blood. For the blood of Lenin and Uritsky, Zinovief and Volodarski, let there be floods of the blood of the bourgeois - more blood, as much as possible.”'

'Excerpt from an interview with Felix Dzerzhinsky published in Novaia Zhizn on 14 July 1918.'

'We stand for organized terror - this should be frankly admitted. Terror is an absolute necessity during times of revolution. Our aim is to fight against the enemies of the Soviet Government and of the new order of life. We judge quickly. In most cases only a day passes between the apprehension of the criminal and his sentence. When confronted with evidence criminals in almost every case confess; and what argument can have greater weight than a criminal's own confession.”'

'Excerpts from V.I. Lenin, “The Lessons of the Moscow Uprising” (1906) Keeping in mind the failure of the 1905 revolution, Lenin argued that it was imperative for an even more ruthless application of force in the pursuit of overthrowing the Tsar’s regime.'

'“We should have taken to arms more resolutely, energetically and aggressively; we should have explained to the masses that it was impossible to confine things to a peaceful strike and that a fearless and relentless armed fight was necessary. And now we must at last openly and publicly admit that political strikes are inadequate; we must carry on the widest agitation among the masses in favour of an armed uprising and make no attempt to obscure this question by talk about "preliminary stages", or to befog it in any way. We would be deceiving both ourselves and the people if we concealed from the masses the necessity of a desperate, bloody war of extermination, as the immediate task of the coming revolutionary action.'
---

Vancouver 20181110

It is a good thing to see the founding leader of the Soviet Union actually, historically, exposed within this documentary. This to counter views, sometimes expressed within the Western World, that Soviet thuggery and terror only evolved from original more peaceful intentions.

No, historically, the USSR used thuggery and terror from its beginning. It really lacked significant reason behind it, when facing opposing views, and resorted to terror. A related informal fallacy...

Baculum, Argumentum Ad/Appeal to Force 

PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London.

'When reason fails you, appeal to the rod.' (46). Pirie lists Soviet leader, Joseph Stalin as a classic adherent. (47). This fallacious approach uses force as means of persuasion as the argument would be lost without it. (46). Stalin followed Lenin...

As a worldview, the communism of the USSR and other worldviews as examples, have used (or use if present context is valid) terror to varying degrees. Non-exhaustively, I offer up:

Church State Christianity: Notably, Medieval State-Church Christianity

Radical Islam

Fascism: Notably, Nazism

Communism

---

Does New Testament Christianity promote the use of terror on its citizen and non-citizens?

Admittedly, the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament featured the Kingdom of Israel and a kingdom within this temporal realm will use violence and force. Terror can be an aspect of violence and force, of course, whether it is officially sanctified or/or used by some its officials. Biblical Christianity, however, reasonably and accurately interpreted, within its biblical interpretation, promotes progressive revelation which progressed from the Hebrew Bible theocracy and theonomy, which had its warlike aspects.

Progressive revelation is defined as the understanding that God's self-disclosure is in progression from the Old Testament to the New Testament. Grenz, Guretzki, and Nordling (1999: 96). Therefore the New Testament offers a more complete revelation. The Old Testament is to be understood in light of the fuller teaching of the New Testament. Grenz, Guretzki, and Nordling (1999: 96). At Columbia Bible College (Mennonite) and Canadian Baptist Seminary, I was taught that the Bible is not flat, as there is progressive revelation which ended in the apostolic age. This teaching, even now, as I am firmly Reformed theologically, still fits within my Christian worldview.

Jesus is the mediator of the new covenant. (Hebrews 12: 24). The law in particular was only a shadow of good things to come. (Hebrews 10). The law cannot save as in Romans 4, but persons are saved through righteousness of faith fulfilled in Christ. Galatians 2 mentions the folly of following the law as we now have Christ. In the Sermon on the Mount, Matthew 4-6, Jesus explains the deeper spiritual meanings of the law. The Old Testament/Hebrew Bible is as valid as the New Testament, but it is often stated that we must interpret the Old Testament through the New Testament. Well, I can understand this since there is progressive revelation, but the Old Testament must be read in context, or else one risks reading the New Testament into the Old Testament. Christianity explains that the New Testament revelation of Christ/apostles does not contradict the previous revelation and instead adds to it explaining the plan of God. If my concentration academically in a particular article was on the Hebrew Bible, I would have no problem with studying Hebrew scholars for the original context, but I reason the New Testament can shed light on many of the older teachings. 

The Hebrew Bible/Old Testament must be read in context, and the New Testament should not be read into the Old Testament. The Hebrew Bible should be studied for original context. But, I conclude that Biblically a flat Bible hermeneutical approach which does not properly interpret old covenant teaching through a new covenant amplification, should be academically rejected for one that takes a progressive revelation approach, in order for one to posses the fullness of God’s Scriptural revelation and the gospel message. 

The gospel plan of the New Testament is God’s final Scriptural revelation for humanity. There is therefore no other means of salvation (John 14: 6, Acts 4: 12). Theologically, as examples, Islam is rejected for reasons such as the denial of key doctrines about Christ, including his deity, and the Latter-Day Saints theology is rejected for reasons such as holding to polytheism and henotheism (belief in more than one God, or the belief that more than one God in existence is possible, although only one is worshipped) which are against Scriptural teaching. (Isaiah 43, 44, 45). Christ as the Alpha and Omega, as the beginning and the end (Revelation 1: 8, 21: 6, 22: 13) demonstrates theologically his nature as the one and only Almighty God. There is only one God in existence and only one God that should be worshipped. Mounce states that this title of Christ in Revelation sets Christ beyond the created order and Christ is also unlimited as The Son and has the same divine nature as the Father (and I would add the Holy Spirit). Mounce (1990: 393). 

The religious philosophy of worldview progressed to New Testament dogma which teaches the Church to love believers and non-believers alike with truth and witness. God's ultimate and everlasting punishment for those outside of Jesus Christ in Revelation 20 and the likely largely figurative literal, lake of fire, is sanctioned and issued from an infinite, eternal God that is of infinite love and infinite justice.

The present temporal, or the future everlasting, Christian Church and Christian Community is not sanctioned to use any means of terror in order to culminate its existence. New Testament theology and dogma does not sanction force or coercion into the eventually, fully culminated Kingdom of God. 

The unregenerate are not chosen by God and with significant human freedom and moral accountability, the unregenerate reject the applied atoning and resurrection work of Jesus Christ. Post-mortem the unregenerate face everlasting justice and the consequences of sin and death. Hell is described in somewhat metaphorical terms, but the spirit resides in Hades (Luke 16, example) then likely the resurrection body and spirit in the lake of fire (Revelation 20).

The regenerate, chosen by God and with significant human freedom and moral accountability, embrace the applied atoning and resurrection work of Jesus Christ. Post-mortem the regenerate, through grace through faith, alone, face everlasting life within the Kingdom of God. Human works righteousness does not suffice for justification, sanctification or any aspect of salvation. A believer in Christ should do works within salvation, but cannot do works for salvation.

For New Testament Christianity, the terror is not within the culminated Kingdom of God, but remains a possibility post-mortem, for those outside of it...

Revelation 22: 14-15: New American Standard Bible (NASB)

14 Blessed are those who wash their robes, so that they will have the right to the tree of life, and may enter the city by the gates. 15 Outside are the dogs, the sorcerers, the sexually immoral persons, the murderers, the idolaters, and everyone who loves and practices lying.

Bible Hub: 2965.kuón 

Cited: 

κύνες kynes dogs 

'2965 kýōn – literally, a dog, scavenging canine; (figuratively) a spiritual predator who feeds off others. [A loose dog was disdained in ancient times – viewed as a "mooch pooch" that ran about as a scavenger.]'

Bible Hub: Revelation 22:15

Cited

Pulpit Commentary 

'"The dogs" are those who are described in ver. 11 as "the filthy;" the term is proverbial amongst Eastern nations as an expression for what is most degraded.' 

Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers 

'The dog, moreover, was an unclean animal; dogs, therefore, are represented as outside the city, because nothing unclean is allowed to enter.'

Bauer states Revelation 22: 15 uses 'dogs' 'Original Word: κύων', non-literally. It means the unbaptized and impure, he opines (461). In other words, those outside of the Church.

---

Revelation 22 is not prohibiting the regenerate from having a resurrected dog etcetera within the culminated of God. Non-exhaustively, this could be understood as prohibiting spiritual predators from Kingdom membership and as well it could be understood as a prohibition against the spiritually unclean. The second option may be the superior one in context.

---

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

COAD, F. ROY (1986) ‘Galatians’, in F.F. Bruce (gen.ed.), The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Marshall Pickering/ Zondervan.

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

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

HOEHNER, HAROLD, ThD, PhD (1985) The Epistle To The Romans, Institute of Theological Studies.

HOPFE, LEWIS M. (1991) Religions of the World, New York, Macmillan Publishing Company.

HUGHES, PHILIP, EDGCUMBE (1990) A Commentary On The Epistle To The Hebrews, Grand Rapids, 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.

NIGOSIAN, S.A. (1994) World Faiths, New York, St. Martin’s Press. 

PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London. 

ROBINSON, N.H.G. AND SHAW D.W.D. (1999) ‘Theonomy’, in Alan Richardson and John Bowden (eds.), A New Dictionary of Christian Theology, Kent, SCM Press Ltd. 

WALLACE TOM Jr. (2015) Refuting Islam, The Christian Patriots Guide to Exposing the Evils of Islam, Bellingham, Fundamental Publishers.

Vancouver: 20181110