Panentheism Revisited

Panentheism Revisited

Preface

London, Greenwich (trekearth.com

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. 

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.

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.

Below is a link to a related Blogger article:

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

        

The Atonement Is Essential

The Atonement Is Essential 

20240423 View from the Tower: Liverpool Cathedral (built, 1904-1978) 

I. Preface

Dr. Stephen Wellum was one of my theological advisers while I was attending Canadian Baptist Seminary/Trinity Western University, working on my MTS (Master of Theological Studies). As my previous BA (Bachelor of Arts) was within a Mennonite Brethren context and culture, and in Biblical Studies and not Theology, technically; Dr. Wellum assisted me with sources and knowledge in regards to Reformed theology and in particular, the work of John S. Feinberg. This was in the future, my key Reformed exemplar for my British MPhil/PhD theses. I certainly had Reformed leanings while at Columbia Bible College for my BA, but waited until I earned my MPhil at Wales, before publicly embracing the term 'Reformed' for myself. Online, I came across some of Dr. Wellum's recent work. My work in this review is non-exhaustive. A version of my work was previously presented in two articles. 

Referenced from this website

Tuesday, February 18, 2020 The atonement is essential: Part I 

Monday, February 24, 2020 The atonement is essential: Part II

II Atonement

Desiring God: May 4, 2019: The Hill We All Must Die On: Four Questions to Ask About Atonement 

Review: The Hill We All Must Die On: Four Questions to Ask About Atonement 

By Dr. Stephen Wellum 

Cited 

'The doctrine of penal substitution is under attack today — and that’s an understatement. From voices outside of evangelical theology to those within, the historic Reformation view of the cross is claimed to be a “modern” invention from the cultural West. Others criticize the doctrine as sanctioning violence, privileging divine retributive justice over God’s love, condoning a form of divine child abuse, reducing Scripture’s polychrome presentation of the cross to a lifeless monochrome, being too “legal” in orientation, and so on.'

End citation

Penal substitution receives significant negative critique within and outside of the Church. But, this New Testament view is that human sin breaks the law of God (Grenz, Guretzki, Nordling: 90), for which the penalty is death (90), therefore leading to the death of Jesus Christ for those chosen by God, to appease the law of God (90), is definitively and definitely biblical. 

But what is substitutionary atonement?

From the Substitutionary Atonement: The Gospel Coalition

'Definition 

The penal substitutionary view of the atonement holds that the most fundamental event of the atonement is that Jesus Christ took the full punishment that we deserved for our sins as a substitute in our place, and that all other benefits or results of the atonement find their anchor in this truth.' 

'Summary 

All people are in need of a substitute since all are guilty of sinning against the holy God. All sin deserves punishment because all sin is personal rebellion against God himself. While animal sacrifices took on the guilt of God’s people in the OT, these sacrifices could never fully atone for the sins of man. For that, Jesus Christ came and died in the place of his people (substitution), taking upon himself the full punishment that they deserved (penal). While there are other theories of the atonement, which point to other valid aspects of what happened in Christ’s death, the penal-substitutionary element of the crucifixion secures all other benefits that come to God’s people through the death of their representative.' 

Cited

'Human beings need a substitute since “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Rom. 3:23). Sin separates human beings from God as we see from the sin of Adam and Eve in the garden. Only perfect obedience will satisfy God’s justice, and we see this in that Adam and Eve were severed from God for one sin. As Galatians 3:10 says, “For all who rely on the works of the law are under a curse, because it is written, Everyone who does not do everything written in the book of the law is cursed.” The curse falls upon those who transgress God’s commands, and no one is exempted (Rom. 3:9–20, 23). 

Sin deserves punishment because God is holy. Breaking the law is not merely an impersonal reality, for sin represents rebellion against God himself (1 John 3:4). The heart of sin is the failure to glorify God and to give thanks to him (Rom. 1:21). Sin represents a flagrant refusal to submit to God’s lordship, and those who sin rightly deserve the retributive judgment of God. Since God is holy (Lev. 19:2) he judges those who transgress his law. God’s judgment is evident in the flood of Noah, the judgment of pagan nations in the OT, and the judgment of Israel for its sin. John the Baptist warns people to flee the coming judgment of the Lord (Matt. 3:1–12). Human beings are summoned to repent before the coming judgment arrives (Acts 2:14–39; 3:12–26; 4:8–12). Paul often refers to God’s eschatological judgment (Rom. 2:5, 16; 6:23; 9:22; 1 Cor. 1:18; 5:5; 2 Cor. 2:16; Gal. 1:8–9; Phil. 3:18–19; 1 Thess. 1:10; 2:14–16; 5:9). The retributive nature of judgment is as clear as it gets in 2 Thessalonians 1:5–9. Paul argues that God is “just” to punish people forever for their sin. 

God’s anger against sin represents his personal response to sin. Judgment is not merely cause and effect, but is God’s holy wrath against sin, which must be distinguished from sinful human anger.' 

End citation

Important to note that as God is infinitely, eternally, purely, good, therefore, any divine anger is not in any way subject to sin and corruption as is even the most just human anger.

Cited 

'Animal sacrifices do not and cannot finally atone for sin (Heb. 9:1–10:18), and such sacrifices point to the atoning death of Jesus Christ which secures complete and permanent forgiveness of sins.' 

Cited 

'Romans 3:21–26 is a central text on penal substitution. In the preceding section of the letter we see that all without exception are sinners deserving final judgment (Rom. 1:18–3:20). Paul affirms in Romans 3:21–22 that a right relationship with God cannot be obtained through keeping the law (since all sin; Rom. 3:23) but only through faith in Jesus Christ. How can God forgive sinners so that they stand in a right relationship with him? The answer is given in Romans 3:25–26, “God presented him as an atoning sacrifice in his blood, received through faith, to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his restraint God passed over the sins previously committed. God presented him to demonstrate his righteousness at the present time, so that he would be righteous and declare righteous the one who has faith in Jesus.” The words translated “atoning sacrifice” has a more technical meaning and can be rendered as “propitiation” or “mercy seat” (hilastērion). The word propitiation signifies that God’s wrath has been satisfied or appeased in the cross of Christ.'

End Citation

James Strong explains that the word discussed in Romans 3: 25 is ἱλαστήριον (ilastērion hilasterion), is defined as an expiatory place or thing, an atoning victim, mercyseat, and propitiation. Strong (1890)(1986: 48). From Strong’s definition, Romans 3: 25 does allow for the idea of atonement in both the sense of sacrifice and appeasement. Strong (1890)(1986: 48). However, his definition does place more emphasis on expiation than propitiation in the atonement process in Romans 3: 25. Strong (1890)(1986: 48). 

Cited

Bible Hub: Romans 3: 25

Bible Hub: 2435 hilastérion

Strong's Concordance

hilastérion: propitiatory Original Word: ἱλαστήριον, ου, τό 

Part of Speech: Noun, Neuter 

Transliteration: hilastérion 

Phonetic Spelling: (hil-as-tay'-ree-on) 

Definition: propitiatory Usage: (a) a sin offering, by which the wrath of the deity shall be appeased; a means of propitiation, (b) the covering of the ark, which was sprinkled with the atoning blood on the Day of Atonement.

Cited

Englishman's Concordance

Romans 3:25 N-ANS 

GRK: ὁ θεὸς ἱλαστήριον διὰ τῆς 

NAS: displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood 

KJV: hath set forth [to be] a propitiation through

INT: God a mercy seat through the

Walter Bauer explains that the meaning in Romans 3: 25 is uncertain and could be either expiates or propitiates. Bauer (1979: 375). For Strong the definition of the word from 1 John 2:2 and 4:10 is atonement, expiator, propitiation and so 1 John does not solve the issue from Romans according to String. Strong (1890)(1986: 49).

End Citation

From the Substitutionary Atonement: The Gospel Coalition continued

Cited

'Such an idea fits well with the flow of thought in Romans, for we see in Romans 1:18 that “God wrath is revealed from heaven against all godlessness and unrighteousness of people.” We are also told in Romans 2:5 that those who don’t repent and soften their hearts are “storing up wrath for yourself in the day of wrath, when God’s righteous judgment is revealed.” Romans 3:25–26 teaches us, then, that God’s righteousness, God’s holiness and justice, are satisfied in the death of Christ. In the cross of Christ, God is shown to be loving and holy, merciful and just, the “just and justifier” of those who put their faith in Jesus. God has not compromised his justice since Christ has borne the penalty deserved for sin, dying as a substitute in the place of sinners. 

We see the same truth in Galatians 3:10–13. No one can escape God’s curse by works of the law since all without exception sin. The solution to the evil of human beings is set forth in Galatians 3:13: “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, because it is written, Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree.” The curse every person deserves is removed for those who put their trust in Christ, because Christ took the curse we deserved upon himself. He took the penalty we deserved, fulfilling the words of Deuteronomy 21:23 that those who are hanged upon a tree are cursed. 

The same truth is found in 2 Corinthians 5:21: “[God] made the one who did not know sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.” We have here the great exchange. Jesus took our sin by dying in our place, and we received his righteousness. 

Nor is this teaching restricted to Paul. Jesus himself clearly teaches penal substitution in Mark 10:45, “For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.” We have an allusion here to Isaiah 53. Jesus as the Son of Man of Daniel 7 is also the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53. In surrendering his life in death, he died as a ransom in place of many. His death constituted the payment demanded for the sins committed. The same teaching is also present in the Gospel of John: “Here is the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world” (John 1:29). Jesus, as the sacrificial Lamb of God, whether it is the Passover Lamb, the lamb in the sacrificial system, or the lamb of Isaiah 53:7 (or even all three), dies as a sacrifice in the place of sinners.' 

References from this source 

Charles Hill and Frank James, eds., The Glory of the Atonement 

David Peterson, ed., Where Wrath and Mercy Meet James Beilby and Paul Eddy, eds., The Nature of the Atonement: Four Views 

J. I. Packer “Penal Substitution Revisited”

J. I. Packer, “What Did the Cross Achieve? The Logic of Penal Substitution” 

J. I. Packer and Mark Dever, In My Place Condemned He Stood. See a brief summary of chapter 2 here. John Murray, Redemption Accomplished and Applied

John Stott, The Cross of Christ 

Leon Morris, Apostolic Preaching of the Cross 

N. T. Wright, The Day the Revolution Began 

Robert L. Dabney, Christ Our Penal Substitute 

Simon Gathercole, Defending Substitution. See a brief book summary here. 

Steve Jeffrey, Mike Ovey, and Andrew Sach, Pierced for our Transgressions. 

End Citation

The Atonement Is Essential

There are numerous critics of Reformed theology within the Christian Church, and critics of Biblical, Christian theology. My MPhil and PhD writing and questionnaire results (see website archives) demonstrated that significant aspects of Reformed theology were (and are) not embraced by the many evangelicals, liberals and others within Christendom, or if preferred, the Christian Community.

Reformed theology is certainly not generally embraced by critics outside of Christendom or the Christian Community. (Christendom and the Christian Community, being those that confess a form of Christianity, not necessarily Biblical Christianity) 

Atonement is a very complex theological issue and there are various perspectives from Biblical scholars. Millard J. Erickson explains that atonement theory is multifaceted including the concepts of sacrifice, propitiation (appeasement of God), substitution and reconciliation. (1994: 811-823).

Based on scripture, especially the New Testament, I accept expiation, propitiation, substitution and reconciliation as core aspects of the atoning work of Jesus Christ. Through his applied atoning work, regenerate (John 3, Titus, 1 Peter 1, as examples) believers, being divinely moved to embrace the gospel, are justified and sanctified by grace through faith alone, for good works, and never by good works (Ephesians 1-2, Romans, Galatians as key examples).

Non-exhaustive, New Testament examples that support the theology of substitution within the atoning work of Jesus Christ: 

Mark 10:45 English Standard Version (ESV)

For even the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many. Jesus Christ's death is a ransom and substitution for the sinners through the atonement. 

Romans 3:25 English Standard Version (ESV)

Whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins.

Propitiation: The atonement offering that turns away God’s wrath. Christ’s atoning work serves as propitiation. Grenz, Guretzki, and Nordling (96). Mounce explains in his Romans commentary that there is a debate whether propitiation, as in appeasing the wrath of God or expiation, the covering for sin, is a better translation. (116). He reasons that although the term 'propitiation' may not be the best translation, this Greek term is best reasoned as 'placating' God's wrath against sin. (117). This is also theologically connected to God's righteousness applied to those in Jesus Christ (118). Cranfield writes that other meanings, other than 'mercy-seat' have been rejected in his text. (77). He reasons that the idea of propitiation is not excluded here and that 'propitiatory sacrifice' is a reasonable suggestion. (77). 

C.H. Dodd (also mentioned by Mounce and Cranfield) explains that the Greek word in Romans 3: 25 should be translated expiation and not propitiation, and claims that many Greek translations have been incorrect on this issue. Dodd (1935: 82-95). Browning writes that propitiation is a means of warding off the just anger of God. He reasons that modern Biblical translations make it clear that the New Testament teaches that through Christ’s atoning work, expiation takes place, and an angry God is not appeased through the propitiation of Christ. Browning (1996: 305). Anthony D. Palma explains that propitiation can be defined as the idea of appeasing God, while expiation means to atone for sin against God, as in offering or sacrifice. Palma (2007: 1). Palma explains that the New Testament idea of propitiation includes expiation, but expiation does not necessarily include the idea of propitiation. Palma (2007: 1).

III The Nature of God

Desiring God: May 4, 2019: The Hill We All Must Die On: Four Questions to Ask About Atonement continued

Dr. Stephen Wellum continued...

Cited 

'1. Who Is God?

First, we must get right who God is as our triune Creator-Covenant Lord. Mark it well: debates over the nature of the atonement are first and foremost doctrine of God debates. If our view of God is sub-biblical, we will never get the cross right. From the opening verses of Scripture, God is presented as eternal, a se (life from himself), holy love, righteous, and good — the triune God who is complete in himself and who needs nothing from us (Genesis 1–2; Psalm 50:12–14; Isaiah 6:1–3; Acts 17:24–25; Revelation 4:8–11). One crucial implication of this description is that God, in his very nature, is the moral standard of the universe. This is why we must not think of God’s law as something external to him that he may relax at will. Instead, the triune God of Scripture is the law; his will and nature determine what is right and wrong.'

End citation

Nature of God

Biblical theology in regards to the nature of atonement connects to biblical theology in regards to the nature of God. God's infinite, eternal, holy, perfectly moral, nature, requires any and all finite entities that would ever have everlasting life to ontologically (in regards to nature) possess a finite form of holiness and moral perfection. Genesis 3 from the Hebrew Bible, records the fall of humanity and the New Testament (Romans, Galatians, Ephesians, Hebrews, as examples) explains that the atoning and resurrection work of Jesus Christ is the divine remedy for that human fall.

I note the fall because Augustine describes a literal fall. Augustine (426)(1958: 254-255), and the corruption of humanity that led to the literal problem (s) of evil. Augustine (426)(1958: 254-255). For many secular and Biblical scholars from mainline denominations, the Biblical story of the fall is likely fiction. Jackson (1941)(2006: 1). Fretheim (1994: 152). To Feinberg, human freedom and all human attributes had been tainted by the corruption of humanity in the fall. Feinberg (1994: 126-127). I discuss Genesis and the fall in Chapter Two of my PhD thesis and I am not convinced that all of the creation account must be taken plain literally in order to stay true to Scripture. Figurative literal approaches are possible at some points. 

Within my biblical, Reformed theology, I certainly view, based on Romans 5, as a key example, Jesus Christ, the God-man, as the last Adam, and therefore fully accept an actual, non-fictional, historical Adam and Eve. However, Genesis 1-3 allows for interpretations that can be figurative literal while rejecting mythology. In other words, a literal, historical Adam and Eve could be explained with both prose and poetry.

William Sanford La Sor, David Allan Hubbard, and Fredric William Bush (1987) from what I deduced was a moderate conservative, evangelical position, reason the author of Genesis is writing as an artist and storyteller who uses literary device. La Sor, Hubbard, and Bush (1987: 72). They point out it is imperative to distinguish which literary device is being used within the text of Genesis. La Sor, Hubbard, and Bush (1987: 72).

Romans 5 (New American Standard Bible)

12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned— 13 for [h]until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a [i]type of Him who was to come. h. Romans 5:13 Or until law i. Romans 5:14 Or foreshadowing
---

I further agree with Dr. Wellum that God is the moral standard of the universe, his infinite, eternal, holy and perfect nature, makes it so. God's law and moral law especially, is a reflection of his divine nature, and therefore to live everlastingly within the future culminated Kingdom of God, atonement (and resurrection) is required for humanity corrupted within this present, temporary (Revelation 21-22) realm.

The Resurrection

1 Corinthians 15 (New American Standard Bible)

42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown [l]a perishable body, it is raised [m]an imperishable body; 43 it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; 44 it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. 45 So also it is written, “The first man, Adam, became a living soul.” The last Adam became a life-giving spirit. 46 However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural; then the spiritual. 47 The first man is from the earth, [n]earthy; the second man is from heaven. 48 As is the earthy, so also are those who are earthy; and as is the heavenly, so also are those who are heavenly. 49 Just as we have borne the image of the earthy, [o]we will also bear the image of the heavenly. 

l. 1 Corinthians 15:42 Lit in corruption 

m. 1 Corinthians 15:42 Lit in incorruption 

n. 1 Corinthians 15:47 Lit made of dust 

o. 1 Corinthians 15:49 Two early mss read let us also

50 Now I say this, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; nor does [p]the perishable inherit [q]the imperishable. p. 1 Corinthians 15:50 Lit corruption 

q. 1 Corinthians 15:50 Lit incorruption

Even with the use of philosophy of religion (examining religion philosophically), the first cause, the primary cause, that exists as necessary in any possible world, as of necessity would be, by ontological default, what is good and holy. Finite, contingent human beings, soiled and engulfed by moral imperfection and problems of evil would not be by nature fit for everlasting life in the presence of such an entity. Reasonably within a type of theistic philosophy of religion, there is a fracture between humanity and God. Divine atonement through God the Son, as infinite, perfect God, and finite, perfect, incarnate man, is the fix. This makes reasonable sense to me as truth, primarily theologically (from the bible) and secondarily through theistic, philosophy of religion.

---

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. 

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

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

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. 

DODD. C.H. (1935) The Bible and the Greeks, London, Hodder and Stoughton.

DUNNETT, WALTER M. (2001) Exploring The New Testament, Wheaton, Crossway Books.

ELLISON, H.L. (1986) ‘Genesis’, in F.F. Bruce (ed.), The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Zondervan. 

ELWELL, WALTER AND YARBROUGH, ROBERT W., Third Edition (2013) Encountering The New Testament, Grand Rapids, Baker Academic.

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

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

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.

FRETHEIM, TERENCE E. (1985)(2005) ‘The Suffering of God: An Old Testament Perspective’, in Theology Today, Volume 1, Number 1, Bookreview17. Princeton, Princeton Theological Seminary. http://theologytoday.ptsem.edu/apr1985/v42-1-bookreview17.htm

FRETHEIM, TERENCE E. (1994) ‘Is Genesis 3 a Fall Story?’, in Word and World, Luther Seminary, pp. 144-153. Saint Paul, Luther Seminary.

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

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

HAMILTON, VICTOR P. (1988) Handbook on the Pentateuch, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.

JACKSON, JOHN G. (1941)(2006) Pagan Origins of the Christ Myth, New York, Truth Seeker Co. http://www.nbufront.org/html/MastersMuseums/JGJackson/ChristMyth/ChristMythPart1.html

MARSH, PAUL, W. (1986) ‘1 Corinthians’, in F.F. Bruce, (ed.), The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Marshall Pickering/Zondervan.

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

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. 

LA SOR, WILLIAM SANFORD, DAVID ALLAN HUBBARD, AND FREDERIC WILLIAM BUSH. (1987) Old Testament Survey, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

PALMA, ANTHONY (2007) ‘Propitiation’ in Enrichment Journal, Springfield Missouri, Enrichment Journal. http://enrichmentjournal.ag.org/top/Easter_2007/2007_Propitiation .pdf 

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