The Orthodox Study Bible: Holy

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

Holy

Cited

'Literally, "set apart"or separated unto God; also, blessed, righteousness, sinless.' (800). God is therefore in Jesus Christ, the source of holiness for members of the Christian Church. (800).

This occurs through applied regeneration (John 3, Titus 3).

This is a transformation by the Holy Spirit for those within Jesus Christ, that become holy as is God. (800).  I would state that these people are in the process through salvation/sanctification of becoming finitely holy, in contrast to God that is eternally, infinitely, holy.

Grenz, Guretzki, Nordling

This text agrees that to be holy has the general meaning of being 'set apart'. (60).

Back to the Orthodox Study Bible...

Sanctification is also literally "being set apart" by God. (807). Being sanctified is being made holy (807). This is a process of growth, that is not culminated as immediate, as are some other aspects of the applied atoning and resurrection work of Jesus Christ.

Romans 12: 1 New American Standard Bible

Therefore I urge you, brethren, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies a living and holy sacrifice, [a]acceptable to God, which is your [b]spiritual service of worship.

Here my Reformed views are in basic agreement with Orthodoxy...

However:

Within a Reformed perspective and evangelical view, the imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ in justification (Romans, Galatians) is applied immediately upon salvation:

2 Corinthians 5:21 New American Standard Bible

21 He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.

In contrast, orthodoxy views justification as 'the act whereby God forgives the sins of the believer and begins to transform him or her into a righteous person.' (801).  It is noted that justification cannot be earned by works of righteousness (801). This is a gift of God (801). It holds to a form of justification by faith, admitted.

Grenz, Guretzki, Nordling

A Protestant, Reformed, evangelical, perspective, views justification as a legal term meaning the sinner is acquitted (69). This justification makes the now regenerated Christian acceptable to the Holy God.

This is through justification by grace through faith (69).  Alone. Justification by grace through faith alone, is a Protestant, Reformed, evangelical doctrine and not held to within Orthodoxy.

Page 801.

On page 346 at Romans 5, the Orthodoxy article states:

Quote:

'Through His mercy we are justified by faith and empowered by God for good works or deeds of righteousness which bring glory to him.'

By their own definition, Orthodoxy here, denies works righteousness for salvation. But by my theological reasoning, by adding the concept of cooperation by His grace, it denies a Protestant/Reformed doctrine of justification by faith, that is, justification by grace through faith alone. My non-exhaustive but correct presentation...

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

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

Theodicy further explained (PhD Edit)

UWTSD, Lampeter

Theodicy further explained

Theodicy and Practical Theology, 2010. University of Wales (UWTSD).

Simon Blackburn (1996)[1] writes that theodicy is the part of theology[2] concerned with defending the omnibenevolence and omnipotence of God while suffering and evil exists in the world.[3]   A reasonable definition of theodicy is the explanation of how the infinite,[4] omnipotent, and omnibenevolent, all loving God accomplishes his plans within his creation where the problem of evil exists.  Philosopher Derk Pereboom (2005) writes that it is a project attempting to defend God in the face of the problem of evil.[5] Christian apologist, Art Lindsley (2003) reasons that it can be understood as a justification of God’s ways.[6]  Kenneth Cauthen explains that it is an attempt to hold to the omnipotence and loving nature of God without contradiction.[7] 

Edward R.Wickham (1964) explains that it asks how human suffering can be reconciled with the goodness of God.[8]  How can evil occur if God loves humanity?[9]  Rolf Hille (2004) notes that the issue with theodicy is not only how God can allow suffering in the world, but on a different turn, why do evil persons prosper in God’s creation?[10]  Hille explains that these considerations on evil and the existence of God led to a criticism of Christianity and religion in Europe in the Eighteenth century and to some degree earlier.[11]  The Eighteenth century[12] was when Leibniz’ book Theodicy[13] was published as was previously noted, and this era of history was when much of the modern debate concerning the problem of evil and theodicy began[14]  William Hasker (2007) in his review of Peter van Inwagen’s book The Problem of Evil, explains that a theodicy, unlike a defence, attempts to state the true reasons why evil exists[15] in a creation and world ruled by God.[16]  Theistic and Christian theodicy are therefore largely a response to initial Seventeenth, and primarily Eighteenth century and forward, secular criticisms of the theology and philosophy of God within religion and Christianity.[17]
---

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

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

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

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. 

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.

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

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.

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.

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

---

[1] Blackburn is a secular humanist philosopher who has been very helpful in my study of philosophy of religion.

[2] Theodicy is an important aspect of Christian philosophy as well. O. Fielding Clarke writes that theodicy or the justification of God has engaged the attention of philosophers and theologians for centuries.  Clarke (1964: 9).  Obviously not all of these philosophers have been non-Christian and many of my Christian sources in this thesis will be philosophers and not necessarily theologians.

[3] Blackburn (1996: 375).

[4] The unlimited and unfixed. Blackburn (1996: 193).  God is considered infinite and his creation finite and therefore limited.

[5] Pereboom (2005:1).

[6] Lindsley (2003: 3).

[7] Cauthen (1997: 1).

[8] Wickham (1964: vii).

[9] Wickham (1964: vii).

[10] Hille (2004: 21).

[11] Hille (2004: 22).  This took place in the era of the Enlightenment will shall be defined in Chapter Six.

[12] Hille (2004: 22). 

[13] Leibniz, G.W. (1710)(1998).

[14] Hille (2004: 22).

[15] Hasker (2007: 1).

[16] Plantinga states that a defence and theodicy are different, and this shall be discussed in Chapter Two. Plantinga (1977)(2002: 28).  In Chapter Two I explain why a defence can be reviewed under the intellectual umbrella of theodicy.  In my view there are enough similarities between defence and theodicy to allow a defence to be reviewed under the general heading of theodicy.

[17] Hille (2004: 22).

Quote: Perhaps the most famous alleged Bible contradiction

Also, by the fire, past event

Apologetics Press

Cited

By Eric Lyons, M.Min.

Perhaps the most famous alleged Bible contradiction
---

My church sermon this morning featured Matthew 26 (with Luke 22 and John 13) in regard to the biblical story of Peter's denial of Jesus Christ and the crowing rooster. This story reminded me of dealing with this issue while at bible school.

Here is my short, very non-exhaustive, explanation for this biblical difference...

Cited from link above

The passages in question are found in Matthew 26, Mark 14, Luke 22, and John 13. Matthew, Luke, and John all quoted Jesus as saying that Peter would deny Him three times before the rooster crowed. Jesus said to him, “Assuredly, I say to you that this night, before the rooster crows, you will deny Me three times” (Matthew 26:34). Then He said, “I tell you, Peter, the rooster shall not crow this day before you will deny three times that you know Me” (Luke 22:34). Jesus answered him… “Most assuredly, I say to you, the rooster shall not crow till you have denied Me three times” (John 13:38).

Cited

Matthew, Luke, and John all indicated that Peter denied Jesus three times before the rooster crowed. 

Cited

Mark however, says otherwise. He recorded Jesus’ prophecy as follows: “Assuredly, I say to you that today, even this night, before the rooster crows twice, you will deny Me three times” (Mark 14:30, emp. added). Following Peter’s first denial of Jesus, we learn that he “went out on the porch, and a rooster crowed” (Mark 14:68). After Peter’s third denial of Jesus, the rooster crowed “a second time…. Then Peter called to mind the word that Jesus had said to him, ‘Before the rooster crows twice, you will deny Me three times’ ” (Mark 14:72). Mark differs from the other writers in that he specifies the rooster crowed once after Peter’s first denial and again after his third denial. But, do these differences represent a legitimate contradiction? Do they indicate, as some critics charge, that the Bible is not from God?


Cited

no one should assume that, because three of the gospel writers mentioned one crowing while Mark mentioned two crowings, a contradiction therefore exists. Realistically, there were two “rooster crowings.” However, it was the second one (the only one Matthew, Luke, and John mentioned) that was the “main” crowing (like the fourth buzzer is the “main” buzzer at a football game). In the first century, roosters were accustomed to crowing at least twice during the night. The first crowing (which only Mark mentioned—14:68) usually occurred between twelve and one o’clock. Relatively few people ever heard or acknowledged this crowing (Fausset’s Bible Dictionary). Likely, Peter never heard it; else surely his slumbering conscience would have awakened.

Cited

REFERENCES

“Animals” (1986), Nelson’s Illustrated Bible Dictionary (Electronic Database: Biblesoft).

 “Cock” (1998), Fausset’s Bible Dictionary (Electronic Database: Biblesoft). 

 “Cock-crowing,” McClintock, John and James Strong (1968), Cyclopaedia of Biblical Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker). 

Lenski, R.C.H. (1961), The Interpretation of St. Mark’s Gospel (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg). 

McGarvey, J.W. (1875), Commentary on Matthew and Mark (Delight AR: Gospel Light).
---

While briefly considering the four versions in church, listening to the sermon, I eventually remembered my explanation from years back, which is similar, but not identical, to the answer provided by this writer from Apologetics Press.

Jesus and the disciples primarily spoke in Aramaic.

Each of the four Gospel versions requires some translation from Aramaic to New Testament, Koine Greek.

In the case of Mark, it was a Gospel heavily influenced by the Apostle's Peter relationship with John Mark. Barclay explains:

'There is clearly a very close connection between Peter and Mark.' (112).

'There is in our opinion no good reason reason for rejecting the tradition of Mark's gospel connection with Peter.' (127).

Stephen Short notes that the main source of Mark was the preaching and instruction of the Apostle Peter and this verified by certain Church Fathers such as Papias and Justin Martyr, Irenaeus and Clement of Alexandria, all of the second century. (1156).

I can accept that Mark's (with Peter's) account is likely technically accurate with two crowings.

These translations would not always be identical and would include a paraphrase of the Aramaic to Greek.

In the case of the Gospel of Mark, the author included two rooster crowings, whereas the other three Gospels just included the one crowing. Again, I would deduce that as the story took place in Aramaic, when translated to Koine Greek, four times, the versions would not be identical. They are by nature paraphrases.

Of course, it is logically possible, that Mark or Matthew, Luke, John was in error on this issue because of the difference in presentation, one side stated two crows, the other side, one crow. I can understand how some critics and scholars would assume this explanation, but it is not the most reasonable explanation. Admittedly, if one holds to Holy Spirit inspiration and infallibility of the biblical scripture (I do with the original autographs, not copies) this objection is not fatal, whatsoever.

Greek New Testament 

The manuscripts evidence offers as usual, some variance, but the five versions presented all feature diV (twice). So, it is not as if there is an obvious difference where some versions of Mark are stating that the rooster crowed once. If this was obviously the case, then one would need to discuss the possibility of scribal error or scribal alteration, but that does not appear the case, at least based on the New Testament Greek sources cited.

To be blunt, if there was scribal alteration here, harmonization would seem more likely, in other words all four Gospels should indicate either one or two crowings.

BARCLAY, WILLIAM (1976) The Letters of James and Peter, Philadelphia, The Westminster Press.

SHORT, STEPHEN S. (1986) ‘Mark’, in F.F. Bruce (ed.), The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Zondervan.

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

Problems of suffering 2: Free will, simplified version

Google

As I noted in the previous article:

Years ago, a good friend suggested a part-time, ministry venture for me to complement my main employment. The idea was for me to work on presenting a more relatable and less academic version of my British research theses work, publicly. 

I had considered my own parachurch ministry as a possibility from before I began formal education. Recently, two other people in Christian leadership have made similar suggestions. 

This work would perhaps lead to a booklet and lecture series. My own reasoning is that problems of suffering would be more effectively practical than would problems of evil.

In regard to problems of suffering and my concept of human free will, I shall attempt to simplify.

This is a difficult task!

(The more academic explanations is brackets. These would not be part of the simplified presentation, but can be offered when needed.)

Assuming human problems of suffering exist, how does an infinite (unlimited), eternal, sovereign God allow suffering and evil? Assuming God is also perfectly good and holy (set apart).

My view based in the Protestant tradition that heavily emphasizes God's sovereignty.

(Reformed theology, in my case assisted by philosophical argumentation within philosophy of religion.)

God as unlimited in nature (infinite), either directly wills or indirectly allows (wills) all thoughts, acts/actions of his limited (finite) creatures.

Simultaneously, when a human being with significant free will embraces thoughts, acts/actions, directly or indirectly willed by God; this means there is significant human moral accountability, by the use of what I have coined, limited free will.

(The same can be stated for angelic beings that God has created, assuming they have significant free will and significant moral accountability.).

If significant free will from limited, human beings, does not exist in regard to thoughts, acts/actions; in other words, thoughts, acts/actions are forced or coerced by an external force, then significant moral human accountability does not exist. I would reason that God is not noting human moral accountability with thoughts acts/actions. These would however, be aspects of the fallen creation (Genesis 1-3).

Therefore, where there is significant human free will, limited free will, then person's embrace thoughts, acts/actions.

(My view is philosophically defined as compatibilism as opposed to incompatibilism. Both views agree that God (or an external force) cannot reasonably force or coerce, significantly free thoughts, acts/actions, where there is moral, human responsibility. Where God (or an external force) directly or indirectly forces or coerces human thoughts, acts/actions, there would not be significant, human responsibility.)

(However, compatibilism reasons God as first cause, simultaneously wills, directly or indirectly, all these significantly free thoughts, acts/actions, where there is moral responsibility and it is not forced or coerced. Incompatibilism reasons these thoughts, acts/actions cannot be simultaneously willed by the first cause and remain significantly free.)

(Incompatibilism is often associated with concepts of libertarian free will.)

Human free will, limited free will, although willed secondarily by human beings from their sinful nature, can produce evil and suffering when God willingly allows human opposition to his perfect will, in what is called sin.

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.

CALVIN, JOHN (1539)(1998) The Institutes of the Christian Religion, 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.

EDWARDS, JONATHAN (1729)(2006) Sovereignty of God, New Haven, Connecticut, Jonathan Edwards Center, Yale University. http://edwards.yale.edu/archive/documents/page?document_id=10817&search_id=&source_type=edited&pagenumber=1

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.

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

FLEW, ANTONY (1955) ‘Divine Omnipotence and Human Freedom’, in Antony Flew and A. MacIntrye (eds.), New Essays in Philosophical Theology, London, SCM, in Paul Edwards and Arthur Pap (eds.), A Modern Introduction To Philosophy, New York, The Free Press.

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

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. 

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

Key problem of evil texts: December 11 2016

Facebook