Discipline and problems of evil (MPhil Edit)

Discipline is an aspect of practical theology covered in my MPhil writing, but not significantly in my later PhD work.

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

C.S. Lewis indicated that God used his love in discipline for the betterment of his creatures, and that this could lead to the temporary suffering of people.

Lewis compared a man disciplining a dog to God disciplining human beings. The creature is made better for the purposes of the master through this type of discipline which is often physically and emotionally painful.

Kilby stated concerning this view of Lewis: “If we keep Him at center, it is possible to suppose that pain is His method of training us for better things than we understand.” Kilby (1965: 67).

Lewis noted: “Those Divine demands which sound to our natural ears most like those of a despot and least like those of a lover, in fact marshal us where we should want to go if we knew what we wanted.” Lewis (1940)(1996: 46).

I think there is discipline in love which takes people to places of mental anguish and frustration that are not in the least desirable, even if they knew that things were working for the ultimate good. Nonetheless, God puts people through tough times and they will learn their lessons for the greater good; some will grow closer to God and some will harden in position against God.

People, as sinners, generally want to live lives in which their sinful nature can flourish. Even Christians still, at times, need painful discipline in order to take them from wrong attitudes and actions to right attitude and actions. Since God has our best interests at heart, it is my view that no amount of suffering which God gives an individual diminishes at all the total goodness of God.

Woods mentioned the other side of discipline: Now the dangerous thing about discipline is that, while it is designed to draw us nearer the Lord, it may also drive us away unless we understand why God permits it, or administers it, as it may be the case. Woods (1974)(1982: 44).

Hughes stated that: “Discipline, indeed, as the Latin disciplinia implies, is a process of learning or schooling, and in every generation there are believers who pass through the school and who in doing so find blessing.” Hughes (1990: 529).

With Woods’ idea then, suffering is used by God for our discipline and betterment, and ultimately death leading to resurrection clinches the process. To the secular critic of Christianity though, this may seem like a poor existence as people suffer their entire lives and perish to nonexistence.

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

KILBY, Clyde S. (1965) The Christian World of C.S. Lewis, Appleford, Abingdon, Berks, U.K., Marcham Manor Press.

LEWIS, C.S. (1961)(1983) A Grief Observed, London, Faber and Faber.

LEWIS, C.S. (1941)(1990) The Screwtape Letters, Uhrichsville, Ohio, Barbour and Company. 

LEWIS, C.S. (1940)(1996) The Problem of Pain, San Francisco, Harper-Collins.

WOODS, B.W. (1974) Christians in Pain, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.

Quadratus of Athens

Santorini Greece: Facebook

On Sunday, our pastor in his sermon mentioned Quadratus of Athens, that I do not remember hearing or reading about, previously. An interesting non-biblical, post-New Testament era, source.

From

Early Christian Writings

Cited

Quadratus was one of the first of the Christian apologists. He is said to have presented his apology to Hadrian while the emperor was in Athens attending the celebration of the Eleusinian mysteries. The period of the emperor Hadrian, during which Quadratus is said to have made his apology, was from 117 CE to 138 CE. 

Here is the reference from Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. IV.3.

1 After Trajan had reigned for nineteen and a half years Aelius Adrian became his successor in the empire. To him Quadratus addressed a discourse containing an apology for our religion, because certain wicked men had attempted to trouble the Christians. The work is still in the hands of a great many of the brethren, as also in our own, and furnishes clear proofs of the man's understanding and of his apostolic orthodox. 

2 He himself reveals the early date at which he lived in the following words: "But the works of our Saviour were always present, for they were genuine:-those that were healed, and those that were raised from the dead, who were seen not only when they were healed and when they were raised, but were also always present; and not merely while the Saviour was on earth, but also after his death, they were alive for quite a while, so that some of them lived even to our day." Such then was Quadratus. 

Eusebius, (260/265-339/340, Historia Ecclesiastica or Historia Ecclesiae (History of the Church) IV.3

Our pastor cited this source as non-biblical support for the historical (religious history) resurrections performed by Jesus Christ. These persons, of course, ultimately died again, and were not immortal, in contrast to the resurrection of Christ in the gospels which featured the immortal resurrection body. I would state this is the spiritual, physical resurrected body described in 1 Corinthians 15.

New American Standard Bible

42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown [l]a perishable body, it is raised [m]an imperishable body; 43 it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; 44 it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body.

1 Corinthians 15:42 Lit in corruption
1 Corinthians 15:42 Lit in incorruption

Cited again from

Early Christian Writings

Here is the reference from Jerome, Illustrious Men 19.

Quadratus, disciple of the apostles, after Publius bishop of Athens had been crowned with martyrdom on account of his faith in Christ, was substituted in his place, and by his faith and industry gathered the church scattered by reason of its great fear. And when Hadrian passed the winter at Athens to witness the Eleusinian mysteries and was initiated into almost all the sacred mysteries of Greece, those who hated the Christians took opportunity without instructions from the Emperor to harass the believers. At this time he presented to Hadrian a work composed in behalf of our religion, indispensable, full of sound argument and faith and worthy of the apostolic teaching. In which, illustrating the antiquity of his period, he says that he has seen many who, oppressed by various ills, were healed by the Lord in Judea as well as some who had been raised from the dead.

Angers, France: Wikipedia

Claim: The existence of God is not provable or disprovable

From my good friend, Ernest Hepner

Claim: The existence of God is not provable or disprovable

Introduction

This was implied by a major (intellectual) American broadcaster, that appears on Canadian media, yesterday, with the question, ‘Does God exist?’ meaning he views it as not provable that God, does or does not exist.

Louis P. Pojman explains that the term a priori comes from the Latin “preceding” and is knowledge that is not based on sense experience but is innate or known to human beings by the meanings of words and definitions. Pojman (1996: 595).

Arthur Pap defines a priori knowledge as being independent of experience. Pap (1973: 666). Since this knowledge leads to truth independent of experience, once a concept is understood it will be seen as necessarily true logically, meaning that it will not be refuted at any time empirically (through the use of the senses). Pap (1973: 667).

Simon Blackburn notes that a proposition is knowable a priori if it can be known without experience of a certain set of events in the actual world. Blackburn allows for some experience to be obtained in order for a priori knowledge to occur. Blackburn (1996: 21). He explains that this type of knowledge is very controversial and it is not clear how pure thought without the use of experience can lead to any true knowledge at all. Blackburn (1996: 21).

A priori reasoning will also be used within rationalism.

Some empiricists have attempted to deny that any real knowledge can be obtained from a priori means. Blackburn (1996: 21).

Laurence BonJour notes that many empiricists would hold that all actual philosophical concepts are derived and known through experience. BonJour (1996: 30).

This could lead to scientism… Scientism: A pejorative term for the concept that only the methods of natural science and related categories form the elements for any philosophical or other enquiry. Blackburn (1996: 344).

Blackburn points out that Immanuel Kant dealt with this issue as it was supposed that a priori concepts cannot be understood from experience alone but come from presuppositions in a mode of thought about reality. Blackburn (1996: 22).

In the Critique of Pure Reason of 1781 and revised in 1787, Kant explains that the forms of appearance from which sensations can be understood are not themselves the empirical sensations. Kant (1781)(1787)(1929)(2006: 66).

BonJour states that a priori knowledge is independent of empirical experience, meaning that something can be accepted as knowledge if it does not depend upon sensory experience. BonJour (1996: 29). Very importantly in my view, BonJour explains that a deductively valid argument can use a priori reasoning, even if the correctness of the argument is challenged. BonJour (1996: 30).

This would be very important for non-empirical reasoning in the areas of theology and philosophy in regard to the problem of evil and other topics, such as the existence of God. But even in other disciplines such as scientific theory where logical and reasonable deductions are at times made without empirical evidence.

In other words, it is possible to deduce with logic, reason, and argumentation, truth, even without empirical evidence, the existence of God.

BonJour mentions that rationalists that state God exists are using a priori reasoning. I do not deny that human beings have presuppositions in the areas of knowledge, but I reason that experience and God given nature influences those concepts. It seems doubtful to me that human beings can have philosophical presuppositions without some innate understanding and experience to make sense of reality in order to presuppose.

Pojman writes that a posteriori comes the Latin “the later” and is knowledge that is obtained from human sense experience only, as in the five senses. Pojman (1996: 595). Blackburn reasons that something can be known a posteriori when it cannot be known a priori. Blackburn (1996: 21-22).

First Cause: Philosophy of Religion &Theology

Even if the Hebrew Bible and New Testament documents could be proven historically false (not my academic or personal, position), this in my mind would in no way by default demonstrate the likelihood of secularism, atheism or agnosticism as correct views. First cause is a major philosophical problem. As matter is finite and cannot be its own cause as this would cause a vicious regress, it requires a cause beyond matter and time and space, which are also finite. As example, one also cannot have a vicious regress of time or the present time would never be arrived.

A vicious regress never solves its own problem...(logical or not).

Philosophical arguments for first cause do not prove the existence of the Biblical God but can serve as parallel truth to the creation story of Genesis 1. I use arguments for God being philosophically and theologically the first cause and this parallels the Genesis (1-3) creation account without being explicitly biblical. Deism or a related theism, in my mind is a far more likely alternative to Christianity than a non-theistic view, although I fully believe in the Biblical texts. Although Deism, and related theisms, do not accept a God that reveals self it still accepts the God of first cause.

First cause provides premises which prove, philosophically and theologically, in a sense, the existence of God.

Bible: Biblical Studies & Theology

It is also Biblical and reasonable to deduce that God creates human beings with certain innate understanding of reality that will be assisted by experience. Romans 1:19 explains that God made human beings with a natural understanding of his existence. Perhaps this would be a priori knowledge and would not exist entirely on human presuppositions. The existence of natural knowledge of God does not necessarily mean that human beings worship or obey God.

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth [a]in unrighteousness, 19 because that which is known about God is evident [b]within them; for God made it evident to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.

Footnotes: Romans 1:18 Or by Romans 1:19 Or among

Within a biblical Christian worldview and Christian theology, the Scripture is legitimate, well-documented with manuscript evidence, religious history. God through Jesus Christ has revealed himself to finite humanity in an effective, limited, empirical fashion, and this would be considered a posteriori knowledge of God, although God as pure spirit remains beyond the physical senses as a priori.

Jesus Christ as God’s key supernatural representative (yet God-man), was preceded by Hebrew Bible, prophets and writers and John the Baptist in the New Testament, and followed by the disciples of Jesus Christ and the apostles and scribes in the New Testament era. Post-New Testament era, followed by the Church Fathers, forward.

The Scripture provides religious history, via supernatural and human sources, which in a sense, proves the existence of God.

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

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

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

HUME, DAVID (1739-1740)(1973) ‘A Treatise of Human Nature’, in Paul Edwards and Arthur Pap (eds.), A Modern Introduction To Philosophy, New York, The Free Press. 

HUME, DAVID (1779)(2004) Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, Digireads.com/Neeland Media LLC, Lawrence, Kansas.  

KANT, IMMANUEL (1781)(1787)(1929)(2006) Critique of Pure Reason, Translated by Norman Kemp Smith, London, Macmillan. http://www.hkbu.edu.hk/~ppp/cpr/toc.html.

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

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

KANT, IMMANUEL (1788)(1898)(2006) The Critique of Practical Reason, Translated by Thomas Kingsmill Abbott, London, Longmans, Green, and Co. http://philosophy.eserver.org/kant/critique-of-practical-reaso.txt 

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

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

May 20, 2023: From Blogger 

God is the first cause of all things within divine perfect and permissible wills. God is also the primary cause of all things, within divine perfect and permissible wills. Angelic, demonic and human beings would be secondary causes, as non-exhaustive examples, of simultaneous (with primary cause) thoughts, will, acts and actions. The primary cause motives of God would be infinite and holy. The secondary cause motives of angels would be finite and holy. The secondary cause motives of demonic beings and human beings would be finite and tainted by evil to various degrees. Demonic motives thoroughly evil, it can be deduced. The Holy Spirit guided believer can prayerfully aim for secondary motives that would be within God's perfect will, although still tainted until the resurrection in body (or at least Paradise in spirit). (1 Corinthians 15, 2 Corinthians 12).

Logic & common sense

Taking concrete theology to abstraction.

Biblical Christian theology states Jesus Christ equals God..

God the Son equals God

(G ∃!) ∴ ⊨ (JC ∃)

(God exists, therefore entails, Jesus Christ exists)

GS = God the Son

(G ∃!) ∴ ⊨  (GS ∃)

(God exists, therefore entails, God the Son exists)

My learning and review continues:

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

The review continues...

Chapter X

Abstraction and Interpretation

Logic is the study of forms. (240). The forms are derived from common experience, reality, life or whatever we choose to call it by abstraction. (240).

I would state that logic should lead to common sense. Non-contradiction in reasoning.

The 'science of logic' (240) is a steady progression from the concrete to the abstract. (240). Langer writes that this continues from contents with certain forms to those forms without those contents, from instances to kinds from examples to concepts. (240).

Langer explains that in symbolic logic there is a replacement of concrete individual elements by formalized elements of variable meaning. (240). Those meanings would be fixed within the context of that symbolic logic. (240).

Langer's example from 241...

K = houses
nt = north of

(a) . ˜ (a nt a)

(House A is therefore not north of itself, House A)

But based on Langer

a nt b. ⊃ ˜ (b nt a)

(House A is north of House B, therefore is the same as House B is not north of House A)

Taking concrete theology to abstraction.

Biblical Christian theology states Jesus Christ equals God.

JC = Jesus Christ

G = God

JC ⊃ G

(Jesus Christ is the same as God)

JC ⊨ G

(Jesus Christ entails God)

(G ∃!) ∴ ⊨  (JC ∃)

(God exists, therefore entails, Jesus Christ exists)

GS = God the Son

(G ∃!) ∴ ⊨  (GS ∃)

(God exists, therefore entails, God the Son exists)

Key symbols ≡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