The Importance of Theodicy

The importance of theodicy

Preface 

This article was originally published on Blogger 20091111. I republished 20260226, with significant revisions and additions. 

Photo is of Glasgow Cathedral: Glasgow-Cathedral-09 myhighlands.de 

On the original posting, I mentioned a 2009 USA trip which tied into visiting Wales for my PhD Viva. Now in 2026, quite soon, I will be visiting the UK and France, including Glasgow. This will be my first walking tour of Glasgow, which I have wanted to do for some time. This section below was the basis for some PhD thesis work.

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

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

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

The importance of theodicy 

Some dismiss theodicy entirely and some view it as only having limited value. Hille reasons that a satisfactory self-coherent answer to the question of the justice of God cannot be found in theology or philosophy. Hille (2004: 26). Ferraiolo explains that many critics of theism would claim the existence of gratuitous evil makes a theodicy a difficult thing to establish in our present world filled with evil. He concludes his article by noting it is not obvious that human suffering is reconcilable with theism. Ferraiolo (2005: 1). Pereboom writes that despite some important work within theodicy over the last thirty years, the problem of evil still remains the greatest challenge to theistic belief. Pereboom (2005: 33). Lindsley notes that many persons are unimpressed by Christian attempts at theodicy. He suggests that theodicy must be careful not to portray itself in a way that it is speaking for God. Lindsley (2003: 3). I fully admit and reason that theodicy is a speculative exercise to a degree, and any person writing on the subject should with humility approach it very carefully. 

Marcel Sarot comments that many feminist theologians see theodicy as dominated by white males, and these feminists reject notions of God’s omniscience, omnipotence, and perfect goodness. Sarot (1997: 29). An important point here is that it needs to be remembered that each writer of theodicy is approaching the subject from theological assumptions. Many theodicy views are written by men and some of these male writers may not adequately portray female and feminist perspectives on the problem of evil. Theologian Carl Henry writes that empirical and philosophical considerations devoid of revelation cannot vindicate God in this evil world. Henry (1983: 282). I can accept Henry’s point, as from a traditional Christian perspective, Biblical revelation is viewed as explaining God’s workings in his creation, although this revelation does not exhaustively discuss the problem of evil. Henri Blocher notes theodicy are failures in themselves and must have ideas within that square with Biblical revelation in order to be true and beneficial. Blocher (1994: 84). I do not agree that all theodicy are failures in themselves, but can grant a Christian theodicy needs the support of Scripture, which connects the reader to the salvific work of Christ. 

It should be noted that a theodicy written from a sovereignty perspective, to be very valuable, needs to focus on how God’s divine plans and purposes are accomplished through the development of human beings. Erlandson explains that many theodicy are fatally flawed since they are too focused on the idea of God creating a world for the best possible state of human beings. Erlandson (1991: 1). The ideas of Erlandson are in line with sovereignty theodicy, which places greater emphasis on God’s perfect and holy plans in willingly allowing the problem of evil to exist in creation, than does free will theodicy. 

Scudder comments that if the sovereignty of God is stressed, and evil is still considered to be reality, then this logically leads to the idea that God causes evil and it is part of a predetermined plan. Scudder (1940: 248). I agree with this notion, but Scudder deduces that a strong view of God willing evil for the greater good means evil could be understood as not really being evil. Scudder (1940: 248). I can understand how a scholar could come to such a conclusion, but a Reformed influenced sovereignty theodicy does not need to agree with this idea which is foreign to both traditional Reformed and conservative theology. 

Robert H. Mounce explains that God directs the affairs in life, for those who love him, for the greater good. Mounce (1995: 187). C.E.B. Cranfield comments that although God can will grievous and evil things to occur, God in Christ works these things towards the greater good, in particular in the context of salvation for those that know Christ. Cranfield (1992: 204). Evil and sin are not to be confused with goodness and obedience within Reformed traditions, but as God willingly allows evil things to occur, his purposes and motives are pure. 

David Ray Griffin critically disagrees with this concept of John Calvin and others, but correctly defines the idea that God’s will must be regarded as righteous, even when we as human beings cannot fully understand the rightness of his judgments, since God is the definition of righteousness. Griffin (1976: 129). Wright reasons the problem of evil can be solved in a straightforward manner by proposing that God predestines evils to occur for a particular purpose, and that persons do not have an answer back for God. Wright (1996: 197). This comment from Wright is accurate from a Reformed perspective. I can interject and state that academically solving the logical and gratuitous problems of evil by tying them back to God is an ultimate intellectual solution, but there are still practical ramifications to deal with, such as why certain evils occur. The fact that a sovereignty theodicy can logically and reasonable solve its problem of evil, does not mean that suffering often comes with an explanation. 

Ultimately, Christ’s atoning work and resurrection leads to a culminated Kingdom of God (Revelation 21-22) with resurrected citizens. That is the solution to the problem of evil within the realm that God intended human beings to have dominion over. A critic can rightly state that everlasting hell and therefore, in a sense, the problem of evil, will still exist. My reply is that an actual everlasting realm of hell, as a place of punishment is not intended for human beings to have dominion over and therefore there is no certain need for a remedy for evil within it. 

 

20260226: Compatibilism v Incompatibilism

The revealed biblical Scripture through God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit, presented via inspired biblical authors is the ultimate and final authority on religious matters, including human salvation, theodicy and problems of evil. But this in no way prohibits God's truth from being found within philosophical theology and theistic philosophy of religion. Especially within Reformed theology and compatiblist positions, coherent, reasonable solutions in regards to theodicy and problems of evil can be found. 

A key example is the insights on incompatiblism versus compatiblism through philosophical means which can be extremely insightful when understood correctly with an open-mind. Another key example is how a Reformed, compatibilistic, perspective can effectively deal with the issue of gratuitous evil.

Compatibilism (Soft determinism)

Grenz, Guretzki and Nordling define compatibilism as the theory that human free will is compatible with God’s sovereign prerogative to determine or will all events. Grenz, Guretzki, and Nordling (1999: 28).  P.S. Greenspan writes that compatibilism holds to the philosophical concepts of free will and determinism being compatible. Greenspan (1998: 1). Louis P. Pojman defines compatibilism as the concept that an act can be entirely determined and yet be free in the sense that it was done voluntarily and without compulsion. Pojman (1996: 596). 

John S. Feinberg explains that compatibilism does not allow for coercion or force (for there to be significant human moral accountability with human will and actions, my add), but holds that God, or some outside force, can simultaneously determine, with the use of persuasion, that actions will or will not take place. Feinberg (1986: 24). 

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

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

I personally embrace, what I named limited free will, within compatibilism. Human beings through nature, consciousness, desire and will embrace as secondary causes, thoughts, acts and actions. Simultaneously, God, within theistic compatibilism, is the primary cause of all things, but with holy, pure and good motives. Limited free will is compatibilistic, not incompatibilistic, it is not to be confused with libertarian free will.

Incompatibilism (Indeterminism)

Indeterminism is equated with incompatibilism which states that God, or any other being, cannot cause by force or coercion, any human action, nor can any action be simultaneously willed by God or any other being, for the human action to remain significantly free. This would include concepts of libertarian free will.

Blackburn explains free will theory requires autonomous beings that are able to perform free actions without any significant influence upon their will. He describes autonomy as the ability of agents to govern themselves, and for this to occur autonomous agents must commit actions which are truly their own. Philosopher Tim Mawson reasons that incompatibilism, which is also known as libertarianism in regard to human free will, believes that true human free will must be uncaused by preceding states. Mawson (1999: 324).

Norman Geisler (1986) describes a form of incompatibilism which he calls self-determinism. Geisler (1986: 75). Moral choices are not caused or uncaused by another being, but are self-caused. Geisler (1986: 75). Incompatibilists, therefore, do not deny there are outside forces that influence significantly free human actions; however, they do not accept any notion that a free act can be caused in a determined sense by one being upon another and remain a significantly free act. Ferre (1973)(1976: 35). Geisler (1986: 75). Mawson (1999: 324). An act cannot be determined or simultaneously determined and remain truly free within incompatibilism. Ferre (1973)(1976: 35). Geisler (1986: 75). Mawson (1999: 324). 

Determinism (Hard determinism)

Simon Blackburn comments that this is the doctrine that human action has no influence on events. Blackburn (1996: 137). Blackburn gives the opinion that fatalism is wrongly confused with determinism, which by itself carries no implications that human actions have no effect. Blackburn (1996: 137). In other words, there are forms of determinism where human actions are significant. 

D.G. Bloesch explains that fate is not chance, but instead is cosmic determinism that has no meaning or purpose. Bloesch (1996: 407). He writes that fate/fatalism would differ from a Christian idea of divine providence and its implied use of determinism, in that fatalism is impersonal and irrational, whereas providence is personal and rational. Bloesch (1996: 407). In contrast to 'fate' or fatalism, biblical, theological determinism, has divine meaning. Thiessen comments that fatalism is not determinism because fatalism holds that all events are caused by fate and not natural causes, and nothing can change these events. Determinism, in contrast, holds that all events occur by necessity. Thiessen (1956: 186).

Tomis Kapitan notes that determinism is usually understood as meaning that whatever occurs is determined by antecedent (preceding cause) conditions. Kapitan (1999: 281). Pojman states that hard determinism holds that every event is caused and no one is responsible for actions, whereas soft determinism holds that rational creatures can be held responsible for actions determined, as long as they are done voluntarily and without force or coercion. Pojman (1996: 586).

In contrast, the compatibilist, soft-deterministic God of Reformed theology allows significant human freedom with the embracing of human thoughts, acts and action via human nature, desires and limited free will. The human ability with significant freedom to embrace thoughts, acts and actions as a secondary cause, philosophically and theologically eliminates God as forcing or coercing human thoughts, acts and actions where there is human, moral, accountability.

I reason God at times, does force or coerce events in regard to humanity, in those cases, there is not significant human moral accountability. For example, a person unwillingly becomes an amputee. This is against the nature, desires and will. A person does not sin by rejecting the amputation with nature, desires and will.

20260226: Gratuitous evil

I also dealt within theodicy with the issue of evidential issue or gratuitous evil for my PhD thesis. The evidential problem was considered less solved than the logical problem; I rejected this idea and documented why this was the case. I reason a sovereignty theodicy/approach can reasonably state that as an infinite, omnipotent God can use all evil for the greater good, no amount of evil is too much or gratuitous. God remains perfectly good and holy in the process. God's plans achieved means the evil he willfully allows is not gratuitous.

Romans 8:28 (New American Standard Bible)
New American Standard Bible (NASB)
Copyright © 1960, 1962, 1963, 1968, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1975, 1977, 1995 by The Lockman Foundation

28And we know that [a]God causes (A)all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are (B)called according to His purpose.

However, from our human perspective much evil often remains unexplainable and very painful.

Gratuitous evil is also known as the evidential argument for evil and has been presented by atheistic philosopher William Rowe on more than one occasion. He presents an argument for gratuitous evil in ‘The Problem of Evil and Some Varieties of Atheism’ in The Problem of Evil.

Rowe’s evidential argument for evil, states the following propositions: Rowe (1990: 1).

(1) God, an omnipotent, omniscient, perfectly good being exists.
(2) Gratuitous evil exists.
(3) A perfectly good being would always eliminate gratuitous evil as far as it can.
(4) There are no limits to what an omnipotent being can do. Rowe (1990: 3).

Rowe concludes that there is no good state of affairs where an omnipotent, omniscient being would be justified in allowing evils where no possible good can arise from them taking place; he also calls these inscrutable evils, which are evils that cannot be understood. Rowe (1990: 3). Rowe’s proposition (1) and those like, seem reasonable from a traditional Christian perspective. Kreeft and Tacelli (1994: 89-99). Proposition (2) is debatable because it assumes that concepts of those within sovereignty and soul-making theodicy are incorrect and that an infinite, omnipotent God cannot use all wrong actions by creatures for the greater good. Calvin (1543)(1996: 37-40). Hick (1970: 292). Proposition (2) really does not prove anything, but simply states a disagreement between Rowe and many within Christian theism on whether or not God’s purposes are being fulfilled, even when horrendous evils occur. Rowe states that there is too much evil that does not make sense in existence. Rowe (1990: 3). Numerous theists would answer that although finite human beings cannot know the purposes of evil, God has a purpose. In my view, the human being is therefore unable to truly judge if too much evil exists. 

Proposition (3) is questionable because it builds upon the debatable proposition (2). It assumes that God cannot use all evil towards the greater good, and since gratuitous evil would exist, it implies that God likely is not a perfectly good being. Proposition (4) can be challenged by the theist because although God technically could rid the world of evil, both Feinberg and Hick for example, have provided good reasons why the creator would allow preventable evil. Feinberg states that eliminating evil would prohibit other divine plans for the greater good, Feinberg (1994: 130). Hick writes that God must allow a hostile imperfect environment in order for soul-making to occur. Hick (1970: 292).

Rowe has written a logical argument, but it is not necessarily true because theists can debate proposition (2) and claim the infinite, perfectly good God can always use the evil actions of his finite creations for the greater good. Calvin (1543)(1996: 37-40). It also can be stated concerning proposition (3) that as Calvin noted, God’s motives would remain pure even while horrendous evils take place, and God need not be less than perfectly good. Calvin (1543)(1996: 40). This would seem reasonable and possible for an infinite deity to accomplish as he is dealing with finite creatures that could never match him in morality, power, and knowledge.

Frances and Daniel Howard-Snyder reason that a way to deny premise (3) is to state that there is no such thing as a minimum amount of suffering that God must allow in order for the greater good to be accomplished. Howard-Snyder (1999: 129). This idea would not accept the critic’s notion that there is a minimum amount of evil and suffering that God must allow in a situation, and if he goes beyond that amount, gratuitous evil has occurred and God therefore does not exist. Howard-Snyder (1999: 129). Jeff Jordon disagrees and argues that the no minimum of suffering claim is false or implausible, because for any distribution of evil for divine purposes there is always a less painful distribution that would accomplish the same purposes. Jordon (2003: 238). 

I think it more likely that for each varying amount of suffering that God willingly allows there are resulting amounts of greater good or evil that occur. There is also the possibility that if God allows a certain amount of suffering in a given situation that the greater good will not occur and therefore God would not allow this amount of suffering to take place. Since the amount of suffering is largely related to the amount of greater good, it is not likely that a smaller amount of suffering could accomplish the same results as a greater amount, either good or bad. I therefore, doubt Jordon’s claim that a less painful distribution of evil would accomplish the exact same purposes. Jordon (2003: 238).

A critic may state that Jesus could have simply atoned for sins by dying with a much less brutal death. Christ could have been beaten less, not been crucified, died in a less painful way, and still died for sins, but I reason that the exact purposes of God would not have been accomplished through less suffering. I conclude that in the case of the death of Christ, a less painful distribution of evil would not have accomplished the exact same purposes. 

Unfortunately from our human perspective, what we may often view as gratuitous unnecessary evil, is in a sense, God accomplishing his purposes in a situation. I can certainly relate on a personal level, with the atheist and non-Christian that deems this as wrong and unfair, but as human beings we are in no position to judge God’s motives and plans in working in his creation in regard to the problem of evil. I have determined that my sufferings which are often very annoying, do not provide me with a strong enough intellectual argument to overcome the Biblical, theological and philosophical evidence for God's existence. 

My suffering, and the suffering of others, is certainly very difficult and often unappreciated, but from Job 40:1-2, from the New American Standard Bible, it states.

Then the Lord said to Job,
‘Will the faultfinder contend with the Almighty? Let him who reproves God answer it.’

---

ADAMS, ROBERT. M (1996) ‘Theodicy’, in Robert Audi (ed.), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

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. 

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

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

BLOCHER, HENRI. (1994) Evil and the Cross, Translated by David G. Preston, Leicester, InterVarsity Press.

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

BOURKE, VERNON J. (1958) ‘Introduction’, in The City of God, Translated by Gerald G. Walsh, Garden City, New York, Image 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. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/institutes.html 

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

CALVIN, JOHN (1540)(1973) Romans and Thessalonians, Translated by Ross Mackenzie, Grand Rapids, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. 

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

CALVIN, JOHN (1550)(1978) Concerning Scandals, Translated by John W. Fraser, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. 

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

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

CALVIN, JOHN (1554)(1965) Genesis, Translated by John King, Edinburgh, The Banner of Truth Trust.

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

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

CAUTHEN, KENNETH (1997) ‘Theodicy’, in Frontier.net, Rochester, New York, Kenneth Cauthen, Professor of Theology, Emeritus, Colgate Rochester Crozer Divinity School.

CHADWICK, HENRY (1992) ‘Introduction’, in Confessions, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

CLARKE, O. FIELDING. (1964) God and Suffering: An Essay in Theodicy, Derby, Peter Smith (Publishers) Limited. 

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

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

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

EDWARDS, JONATHAN (1729)(2006) Sovereignty of God, New Haven, Connecticut, Jonathan Edwards Center, Yale University.

EDWARDS, JONATHAN (1731-1733)(2006) Law of Nature, New Haven, Connecticut, Jonathan Edwards Center, Yale University.

EDWARDS, JONATHAN (1754)(2006) Freedom of the Will, Flower Mound, Texas. Jonathanedwards.com.

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. 

ERLANDSON, DOUG (1991) ‘A New Perspective on the Problem of Evil’, in Doug Erlandson PhD Philosophy, Reformed.org, Orange County, Covenant Community Church of Orange County.

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.

FERRE, FREDERICK (1952)(1976) ‘Self-Determinism’, in American Philosophical Quarterly, Volume 10, Number 3, in John R. Burr and Milton Goldinger (eds.), in Philosophy and Contemporary Issues, London, Collier Macmillan Publishers.

FERRAIOLO, WILLIAM (2005) ‘Eternal Selves and The Problem of Evil’, in Quodlibet Journal, Volume 7, Number 2, April-June, Evanston, Illinois, Quodlibet Journal.

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

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

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

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

GEISLER, NORMAN L. (1978) The Roots of Evil, Grand Rapids, Zondervan Publishing House. 

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

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

GEISLER, NORMAN, L (1999) ‘The Problem of Evil’, in Baker Encyclopedia of Apologetics, Grand Rapids, Baker Books

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

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

GRIFFIN, DAVID RAY (1976) God, Power, and Evil, Philadelphia, The Westminster 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.

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. 

HENRY, CARL (1983) God, Revelation and Authority: Volume 6: God Who Stands and Stays, Waco, Word Books. 

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. 

HILLE, ROLF (2004) ‘A Biblical-Theological Response to the Problem of Theodicy in the Context of the Modern Criticism of Religion’, in Evangelical Review of Theology, Volume 28, Number 1, pp. 21-37. Carlisle, UK, Evangelical Review of Theology. 

HILLE, ROLF (2004) ‘A Biblical-Theological Response to the Problem of Theodicy in the Context of the Modern Criticism of Religion’, in Evangelical Review of Theology, Volume 28, Number 1, pp. 21-37. Carlisle, UK, Evangelical Review of Theology.

HOWARD-SNYDER, DANIEL AND JOHN O’LEARY-HAWTHORNE (1998) ‘Transworld Sanctity and Plantinga’s Free Will Defence’, in International Journal for Philosophy of Religion, Volume 44, Number 1, August, Springer, Netherlands, Publisher International Journal for Philosophy of Religion.

HOWARD-SNYDER, FRANCES AND DANIEL (1999) ‘Is Theism Compatible with Gratuitous Evil?’, American Philosophical Quarterly, Volume 26, Number 2, April, pp. 115-130, Chicago, University of Illinois.

HUGHES, PHILIP, EDGCUMBE (1990) A Commentary On The Epistle To The Hebrews, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. The Orthodox Study Bible, New Testament and Psalms, (1993) Saint Athanasius Orthodox Academy,Thomas Nelson Publishers, Nashville, Tennessee.

JORDAN, JEFF (2003) ‘Evil and Van Inwagen’, Faith and Philosophy, Volume 20, Number 2, pp. 236-238. Wilmore, Kentucky, Asbury College.

JORDAN, MARK D. (1996) ‘Augustine’, in Robert Audi (ed.), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, pp. 52-53. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

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

KRAUT, RICHARD (1996) ‘Plato’, in Robert Audi (ed.), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, pp. 619-629. Cambridge University Press.

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

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

LINDSLEY, ART (2003) ‘The Problem of Evil’, Knowing & Doing, Winter, Springfield, Virginia, C.S. Lewis Institute.  

MACDONALD, SCOTT (1989) ‘Augustine’s Christian-Platonist Account of Goodness’, in The New Scholasticism, Volume 63, Number 4, pp. 485-509. Baltimore, The New Scholasticism. 

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

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

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

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

MESLE, C. ROBERT (1991) John Hick’s Theodicy, New York, St. Martin’s Press. 

MESLE, C. ROBERT (2004) ‘Suffering, Meaning, and the Welfare of Children: What Do Theodicies Do?’, in American Journal of Theology & Philosophy, Volume 25, Number 3, September. Lamoni, Iowa, Graceland University. 

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. 

LAFOLLETTE, HUGH (1980) ‘Plantinga on Free Will Defence’, in International Journal for Philosophy of Religion, 11, The Hague, Martimus Nijhoff Publishers.

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

PAILIN, DAVID A. (1994) (David Arthur) 1936- Worldcat.org

 

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

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

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

PEREBOOM, DERK (2005) ‘The Problem of Evil’, in The Blackwell Guide to Philosophy of Religion, William E. Mann, (ed.), Oxford, Blackwell Publishing. 

PETERSON, MICHAEL (1982) Evil and the Christian God, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.

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

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

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.

PLATO (360 B.C.)(1982) ‘Timaeus’, in Process Studies, Volume. 12, Number 4, Winter, pp.243-251. Claremont, California, Process Studies. 

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

ROWE, WILLIAM L. (1990) ‘The Problem of Evil and Some Varieties of Atheism’, in Adams and Adams (eds.) The Problem of Evil, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

ROWE, WILLIAM L. (1994) ‘The Problem of No Best World’, Faith and Philosophy, Volume 11, Number 2, April, pp. 269-278. Wilmore, Kentucky, Asbury College. 

ROWE, WILLIAM L. (1996) ‘Privation’, in Robert Audi, (ed.), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. 

ROWE, WILLIAM L. (1999) ‘The Problem of Divine Sovereignty and Human Freedom’, in Faith and Philosophy, Volume 16, Number 1, January, pp. 98-101. Wilmore, Kentucky, Asbury College

SAROT, MARCEL (1997) ‘Evil, Tragedy and Feminist Theology: New Impulses for Theodicy’, in Theology Digest, Volume 44, Number 1, Spring, pp. 29-33. St. Louis, Missouri, Theology Digest. 

SCUDDER, DELTON, LEWIS (1940) Tennant’s Philosophical Theology, London, Oxford University Press. 

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. 

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

VAN INWAGEN, PETER (2006) The Problem of Evil, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

WICKHAM, EDWARD R. ‘Forward’, in O.Fielding.Clarke (1964) God and Suffering: An Essay in Theodicy, Derby, Peter Smith (Publishers) Limited. 

WRIGHT, R.K.McGREGOR (1996) No Place for Sovereignty, Downers Grove, Illinois, InterVarsity Press.

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)  

The Orthodox Study Bible: Acts 2: 21 & Romans 10: 13 Revised & Non-exhaustive

The Orthodox Study Bible: Acts 2: 21 & Romans 10: 13 Revised & Non-exhaustive

Preface

Revised version of two articles (2021) for one version on Blogger.

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

This Orthodoxy Bible uses the New King James Bible (NKJV) 

Acts 2: 21

21 And it shall come to pass That whoever calls on the name of the Lord Shall be saved.’

In context, the Apostle Peter quotes from the Old Testament/Hebrew Bible, Book of Joel 2: 28-32.

With these New Testament citations of the Old Testament, as Peter is cited in Acts 2: 16-21, the context provided is not identical as the older original. A reason is that the Hebrew Bible and its covenant, although remaining as scripture, are accompanied by, as in progressive revelation, the New Testament and its covenant (Luke 22: 20 & Hebrews as examples). The New Testament emphasis is the new covenant, doctrines and theology, which replaces the old covenant. Still the Hebrew Bible should be understood as well in its original context within the old covenant. 

Joel Briefly

In his Joel commentary, author Paul E. Leonard explains that Joel, the son of Pethuel, is basically unknown other than being the author of this text within the Hebrew Bible. (884). The name 'Joel' means 'Yahweh is God' (884), and Leonard writes that it is unclear whether this was a given name at birth, or a ministry name given later in life. (884). This Hebrew Bible writer presented a clear message and then basically disappeared from history. (884). The Book of Joel's message is that as a plague of locusts strikes (884), it will be 'destroying all plant life in its path' (884). I view this as a termination of the useable plant life, not a complete destruction of the ecological system. Leonard states that based on the text, there will be no harvest, and the cattle and sheep will die because of lack of food. (884). He notes Joel 1: 18. (884).

Joel 1:18 New King James Version (NKJV)

18 How the animals groan! The herds of cattle are restless, Because they have no pasture; Even the flocks of sheep [a]suffer punishment. 

Footnote

a) Joel 1:18 LXX, Vg. are made desolate

Joel is warning his readers that these sufferings are a 'prelude to the coming apocalyptic judgment of God' (884). Joel 2: 1-3 from the same version is referenced:

Blow the [a]trumpet in Zion, And sound an alarm in My holy mountain! Let all the inhabitants of the land tremble; For the day of the Lord is coming, For it is at hand: 2 A day of darkness and gloominess, A day of clouds and thick darkness, Like the morning clouds spread over the mountains. A people come, great and strong, The like of whom has never been; Nor will there ever be any such after them, Even for many successive generations. 3 A fire devours before them, And behind them a flame burns; The land is like the Garden of Eden before them, And behind them a desolate wilderness; Surely nothing shall escape them 

Footnote

a) Joel 2:1 ram’s horn 

Joel 2:28-32 New King James Version (NKJV)

28 “And it shall come to pass afterward That I will pour out My Spirit on all flesh; Your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, Your old men shall dream dreams, Your young men shall see visions. 29 And also on My menservants and on My maidservants I will pour out My Spirit in those days. 30 “And I will show wonders in the heavens and in the earth: Blood and fire and pillars of smoke. 31 The sun shall be turned into darkness, And the moon into blood, Before the coming of the great and awesome day of the Lord. 32 And it shall come to pass That whoever calls on the name of the Lord Shall be [a]saved. For in Mount Zion and in Jerusalem there shall be [b]deliverance, As the Lord has said, Among the remnant whom the Lord calls. 

Footnotes 

a) Joel 2:32 Or delivered 

b) Joel 2:32 Or salvation

Leonard acknowledges that in regards to salvation, both Jew and Gentile are mentioned in the New Testament and so New Testament salvation was wider than in the context of Joel. (889). 'However it is not clear that Joel understood it this way.' (889).

Acts 2: 21 continued

I am more focused however in this limited space, website format, on the Acts version. This article will be unexhaustive.

The new covenant...

Biblia.com

Sourced

Luke 22:20 

New American Standard Bible (NASB) 

20 And in the same way He took the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup which is (a) poured out for you is the (b) new covenant in My blood. 

a Mt 26:28 Mk 14:24

b Ex 24:8 Je 31:31 1 Co 11:25 2 Co 3:6 Heb 8:8 Heb 8:13 Heb 9:15

Defending Inerrency

Cited 

PROBLEM: In Acts 2, Pentecost arrives, and the disciples are filled with the Holy Spirit. In response to criticism, Peter says that what they hear and see was “spoken by the prophet Joel” (cf. Joel 2:28–32). Yet, in the passage that Peter quotes, there are events in it that did not happen at Pentecost, like the moon turning to blood. Does Peter err on this occasion? 

SOLUTION: First, Peter was simply showing that Pentecost involved a partial or initial fulfillment of Joel 2:28–32. This partial fulfillment was in regard to the indwelling Holy Spirit for believers. And this is exactly what happened on the day of Pentecost. Joel says that God “will pour out My spirit on all flesh ... I will pour out My Spirit in those days” (Joel 2:28–29). And God did pour forth His Spirit on the day of Pentecost. 

Second, Peter’s reference was to indicate that the last days had been inaugurated (cf. Heb. 1:1–2; 2:4). The wonders of the sky above and the signs on the earth beneath (Acts 19–21) are to take place later on in earth’s history at the time of Christ’s second coming. Notice that these things will happen “before the ... great and notable day of the Lord” (v. 20) which is yet future (cf. Matt. 24:1ff). 

This excerpt is from When Critics Ask: A Popular Handbook on Bible Difficulties (Wheaton, Ill.: Victor Books, 1992). © 2014 Norman Geisler and Thomas Howe. 

The Orthodoxy text states in regards to Acts 2: 16-21, that Joel was one of the early prophets (ninth century, BCE) that proclaimed God's sovereign Lordship and judgement in the last days. (275). With Pentecost the first part of the prophecy was answered with the outpouring of God the Holy Spirit to believers. The second part will be fulfilled at the second coming of Jesus Christ. (275). 

Bible Gateway: Encylopedia of the Bible-Second Coming

Some key New Testament sections related to the second coming are Matthew 24, 1 Thessalonians 4-5, 2 Thessalonians 2:7-12. (My add)

Cited

Bibliography R. Anderson, The Coming Prince (1915); W. E. Blackstone, Jesus Is Coming (1917); L. S. Chafer, Systematic Theology, IV, 305-307 (1947); L. Berkhof, The Second Coming of Christ (1953); R. Pache, The Return of Jesus Christ (1955); J. F. Walvoord, The Millennial Kingdom (1959), 263-275; J. D. Pentecost, Things To Come (1961), 370-426.

Blue Letter Bible: August 16 2012: Why don't they quote the OT, word for word, in the NT 

Cited 

Key for the Acts-Joel example: 

Different Languages: The Hebrew Bible was written in Hebrew, with parts in Aramaic, the New Testament in Greek, with parts in Aramaic. 

Indirect quotations: The New Testament writers frequently quote the Old Testament without verbal exactness. Most likely, many of the quotations were from memory. At times the citations were made according to the sense of the Old Testament rather than making a direct quote. Sometimes the quotations in Scripture are indirect not direct. An indirect quotation does not cite someone directly but does report accurately what that person said. 

Indirect quotes were used to emphasize the New Testament covenant, doctrines and theology.

Bible Hub: Acts 2: 21 

Strong's Concordance 

Original Word: ἐπικαλέω 

GRK: ὃς ἂν ἐπικαλέσηται τὸ ὄνομα 

Verb-Aorist-Subjunctive-Middle-3rd Person Singular

NT Greek.org 

Corey Keating 

Cited 

As far as the tense of the verb in the subjunctive mood, it should be remembered that the subjunctive only shows the kind of action (verbal aspect or ‘aktionsart’) and not time. Only verbs in the indicative mood indicate time in an absolute sense. (See intermediate discussion of verb tenses). However, the ‘time’ implied by the subjunctive is usually future since it is a mood of contingency. Thus the future indicative and the aorist subjunctive are closely related and sometimes used in substitution for each other. 

Aorist is past tense. Subjunctive is usually, future tense. The middle is neither active or passive.

Humanly speaking, based on the New Testament Greek, and accurate translations, the Lord can be theologically called upon, in biblical times up to present times and future times, within this present realm.

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

---

John Calvin: Acts 2:21

'And it shall come to pass That whoever calls on the name of the Lord' (36)

Calvin reasons 'God invites everyone to himself for salvation, without exception.' (36). One key example mentioned by Calvin is Romans 10: 13. (36). 'Only our disbelief stops us from calling on God.' He quotes Jesus Christ in John 16:24, as in Ask and you shall receive. (36).

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

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

John Calvin’s (1543)(1998) theology holds to a strong view on God’s sovereignty and to a limited view of human freedom. In modern, but not Reformation era terms, Calvin could be considered a compatibilist and explains that those who committed wrong actions performed them willfully and deliberately. Calvin viewed God as working his good purposes through the evil conduct of people, but he pointed out that God’s motives in willing these deeds were pure while those who committed wrong had wicked motives. Calvin (1543)(1998: 37). 

Calvin reasons that a person is not forced or coerced to believe in the gospel. Calvin (1543)(1996: 68).

He suggests outward human preaching ‘strikes only the ears’ while the inward instruction of the Holy Spirit is how a person is enlightened in Christ. Human preaching is valuable in that it works at times in conjunction with the Holy Spirit transforming individuals. Calvin (1543)(1996: 233). There is a traditional Christian and Reformed concept and theology that the Holy Spirit is God and does the work that only God can do. The Holy Spirit works directly upon a human mind, in a sense remaking a person and creating a person after the image of Christ. 

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

Romans 10: 13

Romans 10:13 New King James Version 13 For “whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved.” (NKJV).

In regards to Romans 10: 13, the Orthodox Bible explains 'All may come freely if they will.' (363).  

This is coming from an Orthodox, not Reformed, theological perspective that generally, in my opinion, in philosophical terms, is more incompatiblistic than compatibilistic. In other words, a greater emphasis on human free will and somewhat less emphasis on the sovereignty of God.

John Calvin: Romans 10: 13-17

On Roman 10: 14-17, to follow up on verse 13.

Cited

And this is a remarkable passage with regard to the efficacy of preaching; for he testifies, that by it faith is produced. He had indeed before declared, that of itself it is of no avail; but that when it pleases the Lord to work, it becomes the instrument of his power. And indeed the voice of man can by no means penetrate into the soul; and mortal man would be too much exalted, were he said to have the power to regenerate us; the light also of faith is something sublimer than what can be conveyed by man: but all these things are no hindrances, that God should not work effectually through the voice of man, so as to create faith in us through his ministry. 

It must be further noticed, that faith is grounded on nothing else but the truth of God; for Paul does not teach us that faith springs from any other kind of doctrine, but he expressly restricts it to the word of God; and this restriction would have been improper if faith could rest on the decrees of men. Away then with all the devices of men when we speak of the certainty of faith. (347).

Cranfield in his Romans commentary explains that Paul in Romans 10 reasoned that all who invoke the name of the Lord, 'that is Yahweh, will be saved.' (261). The term 'Lord' here for Paul, is applied to Christ. (261). I reason we have trinitarian theology here as the Lord Jesus is drawn to the Father through God the Holy Spirit. Mounce reminds us that someone must be preaching the good news in order for it to be accepted. (211). I am in agreement with this very New Testament concept as a compatibilist within the Reformed tradition, as I reason the Holy Spirit convinces through regeneration the chosen to embrace the gospel. This is not force or coercion. A person does not simply wake up a regenerate Christian one day, without having embraced the gospel through the Holy Spirit.

Theology

True New Testament regeneration (John 3, Titus 3, 1 Peter 1) is via God the Holy Spirit, by the lead of God the Father within the applied atoning and resurrection work of God the Son, to believers. Human beings within a fallen nature, embrace degrees of sin and evil. They are not forced or coerced to believe in the gospel, although admittedly, God may force or coerce events leading to human beings being regenerated in conversion, which is humanly embraced. Human beings within a fallen nature, embrace sin and evil. They are not forced or coerced, in unbelief, although admittedly God may force or coerce events leading to further hardened views toward God (Romans 9, Exodus 1-18).

It is this theological and philosophical (philosophy of religion) writer's view that human moral accountability exists where within the fallen (Genesis 1-3, Romans) nature, the human will, acts and actions are not forced or coerced. Every believer embraces the gospel even as God first and essentially, regenerates. Every unbeliever rejects the gospel, even as God chooses not to regenerate such a person. This is an aspect of my compatibilism/soft determinism within a Reformed tradition.

Titus 3: 5-7: Regeneration

Titus 3:5-7

New American Standard Bible (NASB)

5 He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit, 6 whom He poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, 7 so that being justified by His grace we would be made heirs [a]according to the hope of eternal life.

Bible Hub

Strong 3824

'Strong's Concordance paliggenesia: regeneration, renewal Original Word: παλιγγενεσία, ας, ἡ Part of Speech: Noun, Feminine Transliteration: paliggenesia Phonetic Spelling: (pal-ing-ghen-es-ee'-ah)

Short Definition: a new birth, regeneration Definition: a new birth, regeneration, renewal.'

From Titus 3: 5

The main text

Spiritual rebirth (figurative), spiritual regeneration (figurative). (72).

Being spiritually transformed by God, to be in relationship, fellowship with God through the applied atoning and resurrection work of Jesus Christ. Spiritually enlightened by the triune God in order to accept the salvific work of God. The Father sends, the Son completes the atoning and resurrection work and the Holy Spirit regenerates and yet the trinity is of one infinite, eternal essence and works together in unity.

Greek scholar Bauer documents this as:

The rebirth of the redeemed person. (606). The regeneration and rebirth via the Holy Spirit. (606).

Greek New Testament: 

With five Greek manuscript versions there is agreement on: paliggenesiaV

Pastor Courson explains that those in Christ have been 'washed and renewed' (1424), not because of our own human righteousness, but because of the work of Jesus Christ. (1424). We have been renewed  and washed. (1424). Washing is symbolic, in part at least through baptism, in my view. Although there is the idea of being cleansed of sin through the sanctification process.

Nute suggests in his commentary that washing is the cleansing in the new birth. (1496). And this may include the thought of baptism as a symbol of cleansing. (1496). The Pocket Dictionary defines regeneration as rebirth or re-creation as in being born again. (101). But salvation does include legal justification and the imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ to believers, and as well, sanctification.

Theology II

My final comments are that Acts 2: 21 and Romans 10: 13, and supporting contexts, not to simply prooftext, work with my Reformed theology that whom God regenerates, he/she freely believe in the gospel. This means that whoever calls upon the name of the Lord and everyone that calls upon the name of the Lord, has belief an in/on the true God and Lord in salvation (justification and sanctification), through grace through faith alone. It does not mean that all believers are particularly theologically or doctrinally astute. In other words, I certainly believe, for example, there are non-Reformed believers and that none of us have perfect belief, theology, doctrines and dogma.

Biblically and throughout Church history, there are false believers that call upon the name of the Lord, but are not regenerated in true belief. These are in my view persons trusting in work's righteousness theology that also have an ontologically wrong view of God.

See

Matthew 7: Lord, Lord

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

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

CALVIN, JOHN (1539)(1509-1564), Tim Perrine, CCEL Staff Writer, Commentary on Romans, Translated, Grand Rapids, Christian Classics Ethereal Library, 

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

CALVIN, JOHN (1540)(1973) Romans and Thessalonians, Translated by Ross Mackenzie, Grand Rapids, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. 

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. 

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

LEONARD, Paul E. (1986) in 'Joel', The International Bible Commentary, F.F. Bruce, General Editor, Grand Rapids, Zondervan/Marshall Pickering.

NUTE, ALAN G. (1986) in 'Titus', The International Bible Commentary, F.F. Bruce, General Editor, Grand Rapids, Zondervan/Marshall Pickering. 

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