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

        

Greg Welty on sinless humanity III (PhD Edit)

Greg Welty on sinless humanity III (PhD Edit)

Preface

Photo: Is an abstract photo from a Munich bus tour I took, 20250406.

Updated 20250621. This includes PhD and website work. Short and non-exhaustive.

Greg Welty on sinless humanity III (PhD Edit)

Welty rejects Plantinga’s idea that God cannot create a world containing moral good and no moral evil,^[1] and raises the objection that God brought Christ into the world as a sinless human being.^[2] Welty’s point here is that every human being could have therefore been sinless^[3] and the world could contain good and no evil with significantly free human beings that would not commit wrong actions.[4] I have a similar objection to Welty’s,^[5] which was discussed in Chapters Two and Three of my PhD thesis. Within my theodicy, I reason that God could have, if he wished, made significantly free human beings, or human like beings who would have been perfectly morally good and would not commit wrong actions.^[6] God’s choice not to create such beings, in my mind is not a sign of a lack of power, or moral failure, but rather the use of his own perfect and significantly free will for good purposes.  

---

[1] Plantinga (1977)(2002: 30).  Welty (1999: 1).

[2] Welty (1999: 1).

[3] Welty (1999: 1).

[4] Welty (1999: 1).

[5] Welty (1999: 1).

[6] This is an aspect of compatibilism, which shall be primarily defined and discussed in Chapters Two and Three.

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

Website work

I make the theological deduction that biblically, the loyal angels of God, that did not turn from God, had (have) significantly free natures, which includes desire and will. These angels have not committed wrong actions. I reason significantly free beings can be made perfect, holy and good gaining knowledge of good and evil and do not choose evil and do not require the option to choose evil. Therefore, fallen humanity as is and the atonement and resurrection work of Christ as applied to those chosen and elect in Christ is part of God’s sovereign plans. As is the culminated Kingdom of God with the new heaven and new earth (Revelation 20-22). 

It is an eternal plan of God that some within humanity will be regenerated (notably John 3, Titus 3, 1 Peter 1), justified (the righteousness of Christ applied to believers) and sanctified (set apart in holiness) in salvation and some will not. This being God's perfect will. Christ is the lamb slain from the foundation (foundations also works theologically) of the world (Revelation 13: 8, see also Revelation 5 for related).

Revelation 3: 5

English Standard Version (ESV) 5 The one who conquers will be clothed thus in white garments, and I will never blot his name out of the book of life. I will confess his name before my Father and before his angel

The gospel and the applied atoning and resurrection work of Jesus Christ, are part of God's eternal plans, as are those whose names are within the book of life.

Ephesians 1: 3-4

Ephesians 1:3-4 New American Standard Bible (NASB) 3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ, 4 just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before [a]Him. In love Footnotes: (a) Ephesians 1:4 Or Him, in love

God's eternal plan as the first and primary cause, included a human sin, fall and rebellion. This implies significantly free creatures that will sin, is the eternal plan which makes sense as Christ is the lamb slain from the foundation/foundations of the world, in other words, the atoning and resurrection work of God the Son, Jesus Christ, applied to those chosen is an eternal triune, plan. Persons are morally accountable for sin as secondary causes, as long as they are not forced or coerced to do so, and therefore those not within the Kingdom of God, post-mortem, with limited free will, embrace their exclusion.

God's perfect will is that this temporal, temporary realm exists, but to be clear, I still reason that many human sinful, acts and actions are allowed within his permissible will.

I reason that Welty's argument is very strong for compatibilism versus incompatibilism. Jesus Christ as incarnate was both infinite God and finite man. As finite man he lived in sinless life and yet had significant freedom, and successfully faced and rejected temptation. Christ completed his atoning and resurrection work for those in Christ, via a divine gospel plan with persons as is within this present realm.

The angels that did not fall (Revelation 12) are non-physical beings reasoned to have remained sinless and yet have significant freedom, as they are judged (1 Corinthians 6, fallen angels in Revelation 20). The divine judgement for thoughts and actions of a secondary cause requires moral accountability, otherwise this is hard determinism, where only God the primary cause would be morally responsible, although with perfect and holy motives. This is not soft-determinism/compatibilism.

God, as infinite and eternal has never contradicted his divine nature (logically cannot) and sinned and yet has significant freedom. In the cases of the human nature of Jesus Christ, the finite nature of angels that stayed true to God and the infinite nature of God, there is a significant, reasonable understanding of evil (God's being infinite) but not an ontological/nature requirement of embracing evil and sin as an option. If one's nature is perfectly good, finitely or infinitely, it is logically possible and reasonable to stay in that nature while understanding evil. An entity can be finitely morally perfect and remain so, it does not the require the option to turn from God, although it remains a logical possibility. It is not logically possible for the infinite God to contradict his infinite nature. God cannot contradict God in nature.

---

AUGUSTINE (388-395)(1964) On Free Choice of the Will, Translated by Anna S.Benjamin and L.H. Hackstaff, Upper Saddle River, N.J., Prentice Hall. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CALVIN, JOHN (1539)(1998) The Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book II, Translated by Henry Beveridge, Grand Rapids, The Christian Classic Ethereal Library, Wheaton College. 

CALVIN, JOHN (1539)(1998) The Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book IV, Translated by Henry Beveridge, Grand Rapids, The Christian Classic Ethereal Library, Wheaton College.

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

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

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

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

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

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

GEISLER, NORMAN L. (1986) Predestination and Free Will, Downers Grove, Illinois, InterVarsity Press. 

GEISLER, NORMAN L. (1996) ‘Freedom, Free Will, and Determinism’ in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

HICK, JOHN (1970) Evil and The God of Love, London, The Fontana Library. 

HICK, JOHN (1978) ‘Present and Future Life’, Harvard Theological Review, Volume 71, Number 1-2, January-April, Harvard University.

HICK, JOHN (1981) Encountering Evil, Stephen T. Davis (ed.), Atlanta, John Knox Press.

HICK, JOHN (1993) ‘Afterword’ in GEIVETT, R. DOUGLAS (1993) Evil and the Evidence for God, Philadelphia, Temple University Press. 

HICK, JOHN (1993) The Metaphor of God Incarnate, Louisville, Kentucky, John Know Press.

HICK, JOHN (1994) Death and Eternal Life, Louisville, Kentucky, John Knox Press.

HICK, JOHN (1999) ‘Life after Death’, in Alan Richardson and John Bowden (eds.), A New Dictionary of Christian Theology, Kent, SCM Press.

LEIBNIZ, G.W. (1710)(1998) Theodicy, Translated by E.M. Huggard Chicago, Open Court Classics. 

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

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

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

PLANTINGA, ALVIN C. (2000) Warranted Christian Belief, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

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

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

WELTY, GREG (1999) ‘The Problem of Evil’, in Greg Welty PhD, Fort Worth, Texas. Philosophy Department, Southwestern Baptist Theological  Seminary.  

http://www.ccir.ed.ac.uk/~jad/welty/probevil.htm

Related articles

Monday, March 10, 2014 Greg Welty And Christ As Sinless Human Being (PhD Edit) 

Monday, December 04, 2017 Greg Welty on sinless humanity II (PhD Edit)  

My short, non-exhaustive reply to a 2:15 video from a Rabbi

My short non-exhaustive reply to a 2:15 video from a Rabbi

Jewish Rabbi Message To The Christians: TikTok

@path_towards_jannah

Video Point 1

'the very idea that god would take on human form as repulsive to the Jews'

Genesis 3: 8 

Did God take human form to walk in Genesis 3: 8? 

Bible Study Tools 

New American Standard Bible: NASB 

Genesis 3: 8

They heard the sound of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and the man and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God among the trees of the garden. 

Hebrew Word Study/Skip Moen 

Air Time By Skip Moen, PhD, October 20, 2022

Cited 

'And they heard the sound of the LORD God walking about in the garden . . . Genesis 3:8a Robert Alter 

Walking – Sometimes our English translations cripple Hebrew intention. Verses become pedestrian instead of surprising. We read them as if they had nothing more to say than our simple-minded interpretation. We reduce the biblical chess board to a game of tik-tac-toe. It’s time to complicate things. 

We’ve looked at the underlying Hebrew density in this verse before (HERE and HERE), but we haven’t plumbed the depths yet. Let’s add another layer. 

“The ideal of halakhic man is that the Divine Presence should rest here in this world. . . [Exodus 25:22] This verse represents the ultimate telos of the Halakhah. ‘R. Aba bar Kahana said: It is not written in the text, “And they heard the voice of the Lord God walking [mehalekh: pi’el form] in the garden” but “And they heard the voice of the Lord God skipping [mithalekh: hitpa’el form] in the garden” (Gen. 3:8). This [use of the reflexive] implies that He sprang ever upward [i.e., they heard God departing from the garden]. The principle abode of the Divine Presence was in the lower realms.’”[1] 

Some clarification, perhaps? First, something about the verbal form, hitpa’el. Then a comment about reflexive action: 

Generally speaking, the Hithpael stem expresses the reflexive voice of the meaning of a verb in the Piel stem. However, the Hithpael stem is quite flexible in its use and can express other kinds of verbal action, depending on the context and the specific verb. 

Reflexive voice means that the subject of the verb is both performing and receiving the verbal action. In English, reflexive voice is expressed using a reflexive pronoun as the object of the verb, “I tell myself”.[2] 

Kushner informs us that the voice was moving back and forth in all directions. Rabbi Kahana informs us that the voice was habituated to this world. We conclude: God is everywhere customarily here. Put aside the “God on the white throne in heaven” imagery. Shelve it. The place where God wants to be is here, with us, in His creation, part of the process. The Bible is just about as opposite of the dualism of Plato as it could possibly be, and as a result, any theology that fixes its perspective on a transcendent God is, as Soloveitchik might say, close to heresy. Heaven can wait. In fact, it shouldn’t even be part of the equation. What matters is what happens here, and here is the real place of the divine-human habitation. God skips around all over the earth, enjoying what we’re doing with Him. 

Topical Index: mithalekh, walking, skipping, Avivah Kushner, Rabbi Kahana, Genesis 3:8 [1] Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik, Halakhic Man (JPS, 1983), pp. 53-54. [2] https://uhg.readthedocs.io/en/latest/stem_hithpael.html'

End citations
---

From this Hebrew commentary, I take it that God might have been metaphorically walking through the Garden of Eden in Genesis 3: 8. From this cited scholarship, it is not crystal clear that God walking in the Garden of Eden was strictly metaphorical, but it seems that this cited writer views Genesis as describing the 'God skips around all over the earth'.

Oxford Chabad Society-Serving Oxford Jewish Students 

Cited 

'3. Walking - she-ha-ya’ 

'The above evolution of the text of Rashi from a singular concept of p’shat to a two-level concept of p’shat explains a third variant in the manuscripts. This relates to Rashi’s insertion of the word: ‘she-ha-yah’ (that was), to assist with the understanding of the precise meaning of verse. The verse states: ‘They heard the sound of G-d walking (mit-ha-lech) about in the garden at the breezy time of day.’ Rashi, in the printed edition, adds: ‘she-ha-ya’ (that was) between ‘the sound of G-d’ and ‘walking’ (mit-ha-lech). The difficulty in the meaning fo the text is: does ‘walking’ (mit-ha-lech) relate to ‘G-d’ – the word juxtaposed to the word: ‘walking’ (mit-ha-lech), or the ‘sound’ (kol) – the earlier word? The most literal meaning is the former, relating to ‘G-d,’ since, firstly, ‘sound’ does not ‘walk’ in a garden, in the literal sense; it may be heard in the garden. On the other hand, G-d is omnipresent. For this reason, the midrash interprets in its first explanation that ‘walking’ refers to the ‘sound’ (kol). This, however, by definition is an opinion that appears in the midrash. As Rashi is making a distinction between midrash and p’shat, it would seem to be rejecting this interpretation, as well as other more far-fetched midrashic interpretations, in favour of the p’shat: it refers literally to G-d, who was walking in the garden. To clarify this point in the printed edition, Rashi inserts the word: ‘she-haya’ (that was) between the words: ‘the sound of G-d’ (kol Ha-shem Elo-kim) and ‘walking’ (mit-ha-lech), identifying G-d as the subject that was (she-haya) ‘walking’ in the garden (as opposed to the sound).'

Based on these comments, it might have been God metaphorically walking in the Garden and making a 'sound', or it might be God, literally having walked in the Garden of Eden, 'as opposed to the sound'. 

Cited 

'This understanding of Rashi is the view of R. Judah Loew (d. 1609). The reason he gives for this interpretation is that the verb: ‘mit-halech,’ in the reflexive form, denotes one who is doing something of one’s own volition. If it would refer to the ‘kol’ (sound), it would have stated: ‘yelech,’ as in Exodus (19:19): ‘The blare of the horn went (‘yelech’) louder and louder.’ To clarify this, Rashi adds: ‘she-haya’ (who was), identifying G-d as the subject that was ‘walking’ in the garden.'

Cited

'A second interpretation of Rashi is by R. David HaLevi Segal (1586–1667), in his commentary Divre Dovid, who argues the complete opposite: Rashi intends, with the additional word: ‘she-hayah’ (that was) that it was the ‘sound’ that was ‘walking’ in the garden, as the midrash argues in the first interpretation: ‘We have heard that walking about [hilukh] is [an expression] used regarding sound.’' 

Cited

'While the word ‘she-hayah’ (that was) can, in theory, apply to either: the words immediately juxtaposed (Ha-shem Elo-kim – G-d), or the earlier word: ‘kol’ (sound), the latter is less p’shat and more midrashic, as indicated from the fact that this view is in fact cited in the midrash. The former is more the plain meaning of the text, as the words are juxtaposed.' 

Cited 

'The two interpretations of how to understand Rashi’s intention in his comment explaining what it was that was ‘walking in the garden’ – ‘G-d’ or the ‘voice’ - are reflected in the variants in the manuscripts pertaining to the exact place the word: ‘she-haya’ (that was) is inserted in Rashi’s comment: In MS. Opp. 14 (1340), ‘she-haya’ (that was) is found, as in the printed version, between ‘G-d’ and ‘walking,’ suggesting the possibility it was the ‘sound’ that was ‘walking’ (travelling) in the garden, as per the view of R. David HaLevi Segal. They heard the sound of G-d walking (mit-ha-lech) about in the garden at the breezy time of day' 

Cited

'In other manuscripts, however, it makes it abundantly clear that the intension of Rashi is to interpret the verse that it was G-d who was walking in the garden. In CCCMS165, it states: ‘they heard the sound of the Holy one, blessed be He, that (she-hayah) the Holy one, blessed be He was walking in the garden.’ The double expression: ‘the Holy one, blessed be He’ before and after ‘she-hayah’ (who was) makes abundantly clear that the intension of Rashi is that it was G-d who was walking in the garden. Rashi MS Munich 5, Leiden 1, BL 26917 also follows this wording. Similarly, in MS. Oppenheim 34 (1201-1225), it states: ‘they heard the sound’ and then writes: ‘she-hayah’ (that) the Holy one, blessed be He was walking in the garden. Even though it states ‘the Holy one, blessed be He’ just once, unlike CCCMS165, the placing of the word: ‘she-hayah’ (that) before the words: ‘the Holy one, blessed be He,’ makes clear that the intension of Rashi is that it was G-d who was walking in the garden.' 

Cited 

'Reflecting the ambiguity in the intention of Rashi, MS. Canon. Or. 81 and MS Canon. Or. 35 (1401-1425), omits the word: ‘she-hayah’ (that was) all-together; MS. Michael 384 (1399) goes further and omits, not only the word: ‘she-hayah’ (that was), but the whole (second) comment on the verse: ‘and they heard the sound of G-d walking in the garden at the breezy time of day. Similarly, MS. Opp. 35 (1408) omits ‘in the garden’ (be-gan), writing only: ‘they heard the voice, the Holy one, blessed be He, was (ha-yah) walking (mit-ha-lech) at the breezy time of day.’ This suggests ‘walking’ refers to the sound that was heard at a specific time of day – ‘the breezy time of day’ (l’ru-ach ha-yom), but not saying anything about ‘G-d’ or the ’sound’ in reference to going in the garden. In this regard, the manuscript may be suggesting, as per the interpretation of R. Jonah ibn Janah and R. Jonah ibn Ganach, mentioned above, that it is referring to the ‘man’ who is ‘in the garden’ whom ‘hears the sound of G-d at the breezy time of day,’ avoiding the above dispute.' 

Cited

'It would seem that the two ways to understand Rashi’s interpretation of ‘the voice of G-d going in the garden’ – midrashic, referring to the ‘voice,’ or literal, referring to ‘G-d,’ as proposed by R. Judah Loew and R. David Segal are reflected in our opening question: is Rashi on Genesis 3:8 exclusively p’shat, as it appears from the many of the manuscripts, as explaind earlier, or embraces midrash, albeit only when they explain the words of Scripture.' 

This website referenced

[1] Oxford MS. Opp. 218. 

[2] See: https://www.thetorah.com/article/rashi-on-the-torah-what-kind-of-commentary-is-it. 

[3] See Mishnah Kiddushin 3:4: ‘Rabbi Ḥanina ben Gamliel says: it was necessary to state the matter, as otherwise, it might have meant (b’mash’ma) that they will not inherit even in the land of Canaan.’ Also, Bechorot 9:1: ‘the verse states: “And all the tithe of the herd or the flock, whatever passes under the rod, the tenth shall be sacred to the Lord” (Leviticus 27:32), indicating that with regard to animal tithe, all animals that are included in the term flock are (mash-ma) one species.’ According to this, there may be differences in the use of this word amongst the manuscripts: When employed without the prefix ‘kaf,’ it means: ‘its meaning,’ not necessarily ‘plain meaning.’ This is found in Rashi on Leviticus 11:10: ‘The prolific creatures (she-retz): Everywhere this word denotes (mash-ma’o) a low (small) being that creeps and moves along upon the ground.’ With the prefix ‘kaf’ (‘k’mash’ma’o’), as found in MS. Canon. 81, combined with the mention of the intention to follow p’shat, as in MS. Canon. Or. 35, it seems clear that the intention of the use of the word is plain meaning.'

---

End citations

Reading through this second set of Hebrew interpretations, again, God may have metaphorically walked through the Garden of Eden, as a sound. However, it might actually be a more literal interpretation of God actually having walked through the Garden of Eden. 

So, based on the Rabbis first main point: Did God take human form to walk in Genesis 3: 8? 

From a Hebrew, Judaism, perspective?

Possibly.

--- 

Bible Hub: Genesis 3: 8 

Cited

Englishman's Concordance 

Genesis 3:8 

HEB: יְהוָ֧ה אֱלֹהִ֛ים מִתְהַלֵּ֥ךְ בַּגָּ֖ן לְר֣וּחַ 

NAS: God walking in the garden 

KJV: God walking in the garden 

INT: of the LORD God walking the garden the cool 

Strong's Lexicon 

halak: To go, walk, come, proceed, move 

Original Word: הָלַךְ 

Part of Speech: Verb 

Transliteration: halak 

Pronunciation: hah-lahk 

Phonetic Spelling: (haw-lak') 

Definition: To go, walk, come, proceed, move

Meaning: to walk

---

From my Reformed theological perspective, God is infinite, eternal and spirit. Prior to any creation of time, space, or matter, prior to Genesis 1; or any angelic creation, prior to Genesis 1, God was spirit (John 4: 24) and God can only be spirit, in a pure ontological sense. God was and is infinite, eternal spirit. God is not logically prohibited from possibly taking human form in Genesis 3. If this is a literal example of God walking in the Garden of Eden, it is a theophany, which is the appearance of God in human form. God's infinite, eternal, ontological nature would also not prohibit God, as God the Son, a distinction within the Godhead, within the incarnation, as taking a finite, everlasting human body.  A body that was crucified and resurrected. The two natures of Jesus Christ, do not mix. In basic agreement with the Rabbi, I think, ontologically, I reason that it is impossible for God, as infinite, to have finite attributes, and it is impossible for a human being, as finite, to have infinite attributes.

If Christianity claimed that the two natures, one divine, one human, mixed it would be philosophical, theological, error, but that is not the claim.

Why then did Jesus Christ as Godman, allow worship? 

His deity was incarnate, not mixed or missing.

Colossians 2:9-10 (Him is Jesus Christ) 'New American Standard Bible (NASB) 

9 For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form, 10 and in Him you have been made [a]complete, and He is the head [b]over all rule and authority; 

Footnotes: Colossians 2:10 Lit full Colossians 2:10 Lit of ' 

N.T. Wright explains in regard to Colossians 2: 9-10, it is an continuation of 1:19 (109), 'for all the fulness to dwell in him.' (NASB). 'He is uniquely God's presence and his very self'. (109). Wright reasons that Paul is teaching monotheistic doctrine here and not that Jesus Christ is a second deity. (109). Christ is the embodiment of full deity. (109). God the Son, is not a second deity, God the Holy Spirit is not a third deity. 

Based on this section of scripture, a proper interpretation is that although the Father can be reasonably defined as the planner, all of God in nature is involved in the planning process in a sense; in infinite knowledge and agreement. The infinite nature of God in the three distinctions is fully aware of plans. The Godhead is involved in the atoning and resurrection work of Christ, even though it was Jesus Christ that died on the cross and was resurrected. Jesus Christ, the Word (John 1) remains infinite, eternal God in spirit, and became God incarnate, finite man. 

Acts 2: 24 states that God raised Him (Jesus Christ) from the dead and in the process defeated death. 

From Hebrews 1: Greek scholar Walter Bauer defines 'Hupostasis' the original ὑπόστασις, (εως, ἡit) from the Greek as substantial nature, essence, actual being, reality. In the context of Hebrews 1: 3 the Son of God is the exact representation of God’s real being. (page 847). Erickson further explains that each member of the Trinity is quantitatively equal. Erickson (1994: 337). 

Matthew 28: 19-20 and Acts 5 are two examples from the New Testament demonstrating the Holy Spirit as God. 

New American Standard Bible (NASB)

Matthew 28:19-20 

19 [a]Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you [b]always, even to the end of the age.” 

a Matthew 28:19 Or Having gone; Gr aorist part. 

b Matthew 28:20 Lit all the days 

Acts 5: 2-6 

It is stated that one can lie to the Holy Spirit (verse 3) and therefore lie to God. 'You have not lied to men, but to God.' (verse 4). All three distinctions within the trinity are infinite, of one ontological (existence and being) essence and nature, and yet with distinctions. As God is eternally relational, humanity in specifically relational in the context of being made in the image and likeness of God (Genesis 1-26-27). God could create finite creatures capable of relationship and communication, because that is also an aspect of God's nature. 

Video Point 2

'do you know of any Christian nations that live by this impractical epic'

I do not know of one, what I would consider a biblical, New Testament, Christian, nation.

Very few people are actually regenerate (John 3, Titus 3, 1 Peter 1, as New Testament, regeneration, examples), biblical, New Testament, Christians. Western nations are primarily secular, not Christian. Western nations, overwhelmingly, do not follow biblical, New Testament, Christianity. 

Video Point 3

'he (God, my add) cannot die he cannot suffer'

True. 

This does not logically or reasonably prohibit God from incarnating himself. Again, the infinite and finite natures of God the Son, Jesus Christ, do not mix. Christian orthodox, doctrine and theology, does not teach that God can die, rather that God is immutable. 

From my PhD footnotes 

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

'The concept that God cannot change is one of immutability. God cannot change in ‘attributes, consciousness, and will.’ Thiessen (1956: 127). The idea being that God does not change or develop, but some scholars reason this understanding is to be more attributed to influences from Greek philosophy than the Bible. Grenz, Guretzki and Nordling (1999: 64). Some reason, as do I, that God is eternally immutable, but can change in how he deals within temporal situations with finite beings. Grenz, Guretzki and Nordling (1999: 64).'

---

End citation

The trinity is not a pagan notion. Tritheism is not New Testament doctrine. All three distinctions within the trinity are infinite, of one ontological (existence and being) essence and nature, and yet with distinctions. Finite, sinful and imperfect humanity needs God's enlightenment from revelation to reasonably know God and to have significant intellectual understanding. God is scripturally, in the New Testament, specifically, revealed in three distinctions and three persons, properly biblically defined. This is not completely understandable for the finite mind, but it is reasonable to the finite mind. 

The incarnation of Jesus Christ has the infinite, eternal Word of God (John 1) take upon a finite human nature without the infinite divine nature and finite human nature, mixing. Therefore, Jesus Christ remains infinite, eternal God, but with two natures as both deity and incarnated man. God as trinity is relational in nature and therefore humanity is made in God's image and likeness (Genesis 1:26-27). Humanity is therefore specifically relational and rational in the context of being made in the image and likeness of God. The infinite God could create finite creatures capable of relationship and communication in rationality, because being relational and rational is also an aspect of God's nature.

Video Point 4

'can bring forgiveness to a person's sin'

The Rabbi states that each man must repent of his sins alone. But, the Hebrew, Mosaic law and sacrificial system was continual and was ended by the destruction of the temple, not by a final atoning act of God, sanctioned within Judaism. The sins of humanity were never fully paid for within the law. With no temple post AD 70, without the sacrificial system, repentance, or any kind of works righteousness, does not cause salvation. New Testament repentance is within salvation, not for salvation. Abraham in Romans 4 was not justified by works (1-6), but was righteous, justified by faith through grace (16) in God.

New American Standard Bible (NASB)

Hebrews 10 1-4

For the Law, since it has only a shadow of the good things to come and not the [a]form of those things itself, [b]can never, by the same sacrifices which they offer continually every year, make those who approach perfect. 2 Otherwise, would they not have ceased to be offered, because the worshipers, having once been cleansed, would no longer have had consciousness of sins? 3 But in [c]those sacrifices there is a reminder of sins every year. 4 For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins. 

a Hebrews 10:1 Lit image

b Hebrews 10:1 One early ms they can

c Hebrews 10:3 Lit them there is

Hebrews 8:13 

By calling this covenant “new,” he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and outdated will soon disappear. 

11 But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things [a]having come, He entered through the greater and more perfect [b]tabernacle, not made by hands, that is, not of this creation; 12 and not through the blood of goats and calves, but through His own blood, He entered the holy place once for all time, [c]having obtained eternal redemption. 13 For if the blood of goats and bulls, and the [d]ashes of a heifer sprinkling those who have been defiled, sanctify for the [e]cleansing of the flesh, 14 how much more will the blood of Christ, who through [f]the eternal Spirit offered Himself without blemish to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? 15 For this reason He is the mediator of a new covenant, so that, since a death has taken place for the redemption of the violations that were committed under the first covenant, those who have been called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance. 

a Hebrews 9:11 One early ms to come 

b Hebrews 9:11 Or sacred tent 

c Hebrews 9:12 Or obtaining 

d Hebrews 9:13 I.e., ashes mixed in water 

e Hebrews 9:13 Lit purity 

f Hebrews 9:14 Or His eternal spirit

In regards to the law...

Galatians 3:23-28 

23 But before faith came, we were kept in custody under the law, being shut up to the faith which was later to be revealed. 24 Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith. 25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a [a]tutor. 26 For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. 27 For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is [b]neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 

a Galatians 3:25 Lit child-conductor 

b Galatians 3:28 Lit not male and female

As Jesus Christ was the eternal, infinite God the Word (John 1) and God the Son, he could outlast any finite sin, as a finite, perfect, human atoning, sacrifice on the cross. His documented resurrection in the New Testament, as religious history, testifies to the success of his atoning work.

As well, my philosophy of religion studies, as my MPhil/PhD work was both philosophical theology and philosophy of religion, informs me that God is necessary and perfect and human finite creation is contingent and imperfect (whether one calls it sin or not). Why should any unnecessary, finite, sinful person have everlasting life? What will perfect his/her corrupted human nature without applied atonement and resurrection? Theistic philosophy of religion just adds to my biblical and theological findings. I highly doubt, that without a specific way of salvation, revealed from God, and brought about by God alone, that any form of human works righteousness, or religious ritual will save anyone for post-mortem life with God, within a Kingdom of God. It is the applied atoning, resurrection work of God himself, through divine regeneration, that saves anyone. Not by human works, Ephesians 2, but for good human works within salvation.

Vancouver, February 22, 2025

Bibliography 

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

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

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

BOWMAN, ROBERT M. (1990) Why You Should Believe in the Trinity, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.

BROMILEY, G.W. (1996) ‘Trinity’ in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.

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

CALVIN, JOHN (1539)(1998) The Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book II, Translated by Henry Beveridge, Grand Rapids, The Christian Classic Ethereal Library, Wheaton College. 

CALVIN, JOHN (1539)(1998) The Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book IV, Translated by Henry Beveridge, Grand Rapids, The Christian Classic Ethereal Library, Wheaton College. 

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

COURSON, JON (2005) Application Commentary, Thomas Nelson, Nashville. FOULKES, FRANCIS (1989) Ephesians, Grand Rapids, Inter-Varsity Press.

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. 

FRANKE, JOHN R. (2005) The Character of Theology, Baker Academic, Grand Rapids.

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. 

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

HUGHES, PHILIP, EDGCUMBE (1990) A Commentary On The Epistle To The Hebrews, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. 

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

KIERKEGAARD, SOREN (1847-1848)(1955)(1966) On Authority and Revelation, Translated by Walter Lowrie, New York, Harper and Row, Publishers, Incorporated. 

KIERKEGAARD, SOREN (1848-1849)(1961) Christian Discourses & The Lilies of the Field and The Birds of the Air & Three Discourses at The Communion on Fridays, Translated by Walter Lowrie, New York, Oxford University Press. 

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

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

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

PACKER, J.I. (1996) ‘Regeneration’ in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.

SCHLEIERMACHER, FRIEDRICH (1799)(1961) On Religion, in Elie Kedourie, Nationalism, New York, Praeger University Series. 

SCHLEIERMACHER, FRIEDRICH (1821)(1928)(1976) The Christian Faith, Edited by H.R. Mackintosh and J.S. Stewart, Philadelphia, Fortress Press. 

SCHRECK, ALAN (1984) Catholic and Christian, Ann Arbor, Michigan, Servant Books. 

SHEDD, WILLIAM G.T. (1874-1890)(1980) Dogmatic Theology, Volume 1, Nashville, Thomas Nelson Publishers. 

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

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

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

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

WHALE, J.S. (1958) Christian Doctrine, Glasgow, Fontana Books.

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

Referenced articles from this website

Friday, December 07, 2018 Three Gods? Briefly

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

Sunday, November 05, 2017 Temple Warning

Value of Symbolic Logic for Science & Philosophy

Value of Symbolic Logic for Science & Philosophy

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

Preface

Unlike with my review of the Pirie text, the Langer review text never ended. But I will end this non-exhaustive review with this article, and of course continue to use the book as reference. My PhD was in philosophical theology and philosophy of religion, and my website work consists mainly of these academic disciplines along with biblical studies and philosophy. I am not a scientist or mathematician, but I have reviewed symbolic logic, which has mathematic symbols, for presenting propositions and premises.

Of course when I use science and mathematics, it needs to be accurate. This book review has strengthened my understanding of formal logic as a system, just as the Pirie text review has helped me to better understand informal logic. 

A formal fallacy occurs when a logical form is not used, and therefore is illogical in structure, and an informal fallacy occurs when there are errors in reasoning with a premise (s) and conclusion. In the similar way, formal logic is concerned with a logical form, to follow the rules of a logical system, to avoid being illogical. Informal logic is attempting to avoid fallacious reasoning with use of premise (s) and conclusion. 

Key symbols from Langer text

≡df = Equivalence by definition 

: = Equal (s) 

ε = Epsilon and means is 

⊃ = Is the same as 

⊨ is Entails

˜ = Not ∃ 

= There exists 

∃! = There exists 

 ∴ = Therefore 

. = Therefore 

< = Is included

v = a logical inclusive disjunction (disjunction is the relationship between two distinct alternatives) 

x = variable

. = Conjunction meaning And

0 = Null class

cls = Class

int = Interpretation 

∧ = Logical conjunction

# = Higher in pitch

---

The Value of Logic for Science and Philosophy

Langer opines that the development of logic, such as is used within symbolic logic, is not dependent on psychology or metaphysics. (332). In contrast, the author reasons that logic has greatly influenced the development of science (332-333), and at the same time has 'shifted many a philosophical point of view' (332-333). Using logic it is asked, what are the presuppositions of a view? (333). What are the premises of a view? (333). I agree that presenting logical, reasonable and true premises is crucial within credible academic work.

Langer explains that philosophy, unlike science, does not use sense experience to check errors all the time (333). My add, philosophy is not empirical, at least primarily. It is using reason. I would not go so far to state that the empirical does not at times influence reason, of course it does. Theology may be considered 'philosophy in regards to God', my Reformed, biblical, Christian theology holds to the post-mortem doctrine of the resurrection of Jesus Christ (the gospels/Acts/Revelation, as examples) and the future post-mortem resurrection (1-2 Thessalonians, Revelation 20-22, as examples) of regenerate (John 3, Titus 3, 1 Peter 1, as examples) believers based on the historical, empirically viewed resurrection of the God-man, Jesus Christ.

Cited

'Here let it only be said that general logic is to philosophy what mathematics is to science; the realm of its possibilities, and the measure of its reason.' (334).

Author summary of book

Langer writes that logistics is a specialized system of logic (334), with the purpose to show that the fundamental assumptions of mathematics are all purely logical notions (334), and therefore all mathematics may be deduced within a system of logic. (334).

A number is defined as a class of classes having a certain membership (335). That ''0" is the number in the class of empty classes (335). That "I" is the class of all classes with only identical members (335). 

Cited

'The process of forming a "member" is to define the numerosity of a given class without reference to the number, and then establish the class of all classes similar it. Two classes are similar if the members of one may be put into one to one correspondence with the members of the other. The concept "number", itself, denotes the class of all such classes of similar classes.' (335).

Generalized System of Classes 

Earlier in the Langer text, I reviewed the following: 

Monday, December 11, 2017: An empty class 

This review has progressed where we are now at the point in the textbook where philosopher, Langer explains that we have passed from a system of individuals and predicates, such as a class of white houses (wt) and a class of brick houses (bk). (171). 

This leads to a system of certain classes

< = Is included as in houses = white houses and brick houses. (171). 

Etcetera, including red houses (rd), green houses (gn), wood houses (wd). 

This means that in any universe whose elements are classes there is one class having the logical properties of 'the class of no houses'. (172). This is also known as an empty class, and this class is included in every class of the universe. (172). Langer explains that in each universe there is one 'greatest class' which is analogous to 'the class of all houses'. (172-173). This includes every class is the universe. (173). Langer means in this context, the universe of discourse for symbolic logic. 

Therefore, for any class, there is at least one class 0 included. Therefore, for any class, there is at least one class 1 included. 

(∃0) (a) : 0 < a 

There exists at least one class 0 that for any class a, 0 is included in a. (173). 

(∃1) (a) : 0 < a 

There exists at least one class 1 that for any class a, 1 is included in a. (173). 

0 represents there is a class of no houses in this universe of discourse. 

1 represents there is a class of houses in this universe of discourse. This specific system. (173). 

For any Universe of discourse, such as K (houses) whose elements are classes contains a 0 and a 1. (173). There are houses and non-houses. 

There are Christians and non-Christians, there are Canadians and non-Canadians, etcetera. 

(∃!) (cr) : 0 < cr 

There exists at least one class 0 that for any class cr (Christians), 0 is included in a. 

There is a class of no Christians, in this universe of discourse. 

(∃!) (cr) : 1< cr 

There exists at least one class 1 that for any class cr (Christians), 1 is included in a. 

There is a class of Christians, in this universe of discourse.

---

Boolean

Boolean is an aspect of algebra that is not powerful enough to support mathematics (335). But is used to present values instead of numbers, such as in symbolic logic. I reason symbolic logic also lacks the complexity of premise based, written argumentation. Similarly to symbolic logic, having developed and presented one sentence propositions for both MPhil and PhD questionnaires and surveys, these lack the context needed to develop deeper, sophisticated ideas. When answering these types of questionnaires, one is often left with filling in context and answering based on those deductions. The same could be stated for reviewing argumentation that is strictly using symbolic logic.

The calculus of elementary propositions

The calculus of elementary propositions is extended to general proposition by asserting that the function in an analyzed proposition is true. (336). Not with any specific argument (336), this has to do with format (my add). Because it is format, it has to do with the individual argument, presented this way (336). The calculus of elementary propositions is found to follow the pattern of the elementary calculus. (336).

Any individual, as in the quantifier (x) (336) is taken as primitive (336). Based on what Langer wrote, 

(x) : ax . ⊃ . bx

x equals ax therefore is the same therefore as bx

ax entails bx because the symbols that serve as functions are interchangeable. (336). Every function defines a class, 'namely the class of arguments which it is true.' (336). This class is its extension. (336).

Every function defines a class, namely the class of arguments for which it is true. (336). The class and its extensions. If a class is taken in extension, it can then be stated to be in classes. (336). Therefore, the calculus of classes may be derived from the calculus of general propositions. (336).

Relationship

Defining the relation between classes (336), the author explains that transitions from one sub-system to another have created some difficulties which have been met by developing the 'theory of logical types'. (337). This concept back to Properties of Relations is section 2 in Chapter X: Abstraction and Interpretation. 

With a general or abstract proposition, it is stated 'there is at least one relation, R having certain properties; and the form of the proposition to be expressive of those properties. Relations which have all their logical properties in common are of the same type, and are possible values of the same variable R.' (246). 

The most fundamental characteristic of a relation is its degree. (246). Forming dyads, triads, tetrrads, etc.. (246). Sets of 2, 3, 4, etc..my add. 

A symbol of R2 (246) is also in the form of a R b. (246). The symbolic logic symbols of 'a' and 'b' here are considered identical. (246). These are known as reflexive. (246). Taking one of the examples:

(a) . ˜ (a nt a) (247).

(A) therefore not (house 'a' is north of house 'a') 

In other words, house 'a' is not north of itself. A non-reflexive symbol possibly, but not necessarily, combines a term with itself. (257).

Langer example: 

(∃a) . a likes a (247). (A exists) 

therefore 'a' likes 'a' 

(∃a) . ˜ (a likes a) (247) (A exists) 

therefore 'a' does not like 'a' 

Langer implies that a creature may or may not like itself. (247). 

A transitive relation is such that if it relates two terms to a mean (average my add), it relates the extremes to each other. The significance of this trait lies in the fact that it allows us to pass, by the agency of a mean term, to more and more terms of which is thus related to every one of the foregoing elements. This creates a chain of related terms; in ordering a whole universe of elements, such a relation which transfers itself from couple to couple when new terms are added one at a time, is of inestimable value (too great to accurately calculate in value, my add). This is the type of relation by virtue of which we reason from two premises, united by a mean or "middle terms," to a conclusion''. (248). 

I will not use Langer's now non-politically correct and offensive to many in 2021, language, that was used commonly in the 1950's and 1960's. But the following is based on Langer on page 248. 

All Canadians are human beings 

All human beings are mortals 

----------------------------------- 

Therefore all Canadians are mortals 

--- 

Related equations 

Canadians=c 

Human beings=h

Mortals=m 

(∃c) < (∃h) ∴ (∃m) 

Canadians exist, is included in human beings exist, therefore mortals exist 

(∃c) ⊨ (∃h) = (∃!m) 

Canadians exist, entails human beings exist, equals mortals exist 

Practical philosophy 

The use of a class (term) and related classes (terms) as transitive can assist in the development of valid, logical, reasonable, premises and conclusions (arguments).

Langer finale

For the author, symbolic logic for science is a close relation to mathematics. (337). Logic is indispensable for philosophy because analysis of concepts is the only practical check for error. (338). I agree that propositions/statements always need to be checked for error. I agree that premises and conclusions need to be checked for errors. Symbolically presenting these premises may or may not add clarity to a situation, depending on the writer and as well, the reader. But admittedly, at times, I have found it useful to review premises individually before placing them within an argument in prose form, especially on website work. Such premises could theoretically be presented with symbolic logic and I have done so. Langer opines that symbolic logic 'offers a great deal of direct philosophical material'. (338).

ANDERSON, RAY S. (2001) The Shape of Practical Theology, Downers Grove, Illinois, InterVarsity Press.

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

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

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

CALVIN, JOHN (1539)(1998) The Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book II, Translated by Henry Beveridge, Grand Rapids, The Christian Classic Ethereal Library, Wheaton College.

CALVIN, JOHN (1539)(1998) The Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book IV, Translated by Henry Beveridge, Grand Rapids, The Christian Classic Ethereal Library, Wheaton College. 

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

DARROW, CLARENCE (1928)(1973) ‘The Myth of the Soul’ in The Forum, October, in Paul Edwards and Arthur Pap (eds), A Modern Introduction To Philosophy, New York, The Free Press.

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

ERICKSON, MILLARD (2003) What Does God Know and When Does He Know It?, Grand Rapids, Zondervan. 

FLEW, ANTONY, R.M. HARE, AND BASIL MITCHELL (1983) (1996) ‘The Debate on the Rationality of Religious Belief’, in L.P. Pojman (ed.), Philosophy, The Quest for Truth, New York, Wadsworth Publishing Company. 

FRANKE, JOHN R. (2005) The Character of Theology, Baker Academic, Grand Rapids.

GEBARA, IVONE (2002) Out of the Depths, Translated by Ann Patrick Ware, Minneapolis, Fortress Press.

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

KIERKEGAARD, SOREN (1847-1848)(1955)(1966) On Authority and Revelation, Translated by Walter Lowrie, New York, Harper and Row, Publishers, Incorporated.

KIERKEGAARD, SOREN (1848-1849)(1961) Christian Discourses & The Lilies of the Field and The Birds of the Air & Three Discourses at The Communion on Fridays, Translated by Walter Lowrie, New York, Oxford University Press. 

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

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

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

MOLTMANN, JÜRGEN (1993) The Crucified God, Minneapolis, Fortress Press.

MOLTMANN, JÜRGEN (1999) ‘Perseverance’, in Alan Richardson and John Bowden (eds.), New Dictionary of Christian Theology, Kent, SCM Press Ltd. 

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.

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

PACKER, J.I. (1996) ‘Regeneration’ in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books. 

PHILLIPS, D.Z. (2005) The Problem of Evil and the Problem of God, Fortress Press, Minneapolis. 

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

SCHLEIERMACHER, FRIEDRICH (1799)(1961) On Religion, in Elie Kedourie, Nationalism, New York, Praeger University Series. 

SCHLEIERMACHER, FRIEDRICH (1821)(1928)(1976) The Christian Faith, Edited by H.R. Mackintosh and J.S. Stewart, Philadelphia, Fortress Press.

SCHRECK, ALAN (1984) Catholic and Christian, Ann Arbor, Michigan, Servant Books. 

SHEDD, WILLIAM G.T. (1874-1890)(1980) Dogmatic Theology, Volume 1, Nashville, Thomas Nelson Publishers. 

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

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

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

WHALE, J.S. (1958) Christian Doctrine, Glasgow, Fontana Books.

---