Friday, June 07, 2019
Wednesday, June 05, 2019
Darkness: But not black and white
To continue with the theological concept of darkness from last entry and one in April.
June 3
I had mentioned that I was discussing Christian evangelism and witnessing and obstacles to them, the other day, while my good friend drove us around. While pulling into a Chevron station my good friend wisely quoted John 3: 19-20 from the New American Standard Version
19 This is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds were evil. 20 For everyone who does evil hates the Light, and does not come to the Light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. From Strong's: 4655 for darkness in John 3: 19. (88).
σκότος
![]() |
Page 88 |
June 5, 2019
From Courson's commentary in regards to John 3: 19:
Quote:
'Why don't people come to the light? It is not because they don't believe the gospel intellectually or because they struggle with it philosophically.' (460).
Quote:
'...the one and only reason people don't come to the light is because they prefer darkness.' (460).
I do not completely agree with this analysis. I reason:
Some unbelievers accept the gospel intellectually and philosophically...to a degree.
Common sense and my United Kingdom theses work tells me there are plenty of held to academic premises opposed to the Gospel, embraced by those outside of the Kingdom of God. Certainly many unbelievers do not accept the gospel intellectually and philosophically and reject the Christian worldview and Christian theology.
As I noted in the previous entry, the corrupted, fallen human nature leads to an embracing of human darkness. This is the primary human reason leading to disbelief in the Gospel. But, this does not prohibit premises which can be either true or false, to degrees, which the unbeliever, while in darkness, holds to as objections to Christianity and support for unbelief.
I like aspects of Courson's comments here, but just find them too theologically black and white.
For example:
A relative states (paraphrased) that there are too many radical, crazy, American Christians, as support for his/her unbelief.
Certainly many Christians from Canada, the United States and worldwide, believe that some American Christians are negatively radical.
(Negative on both on the left and right)
The relative in unbelief, in darkness, may actually hold to a reasonable premise against Christianity, a cumulative reason for disbelief (in his/her own mind). At the same time, I reason a conclusion that Christianity and the Gospel are false is wrong. Those in the Church, in the light, that can also hold to the premise mentioned, can correctly hold to a negative premise in regard to Christianity, in reasonable faith, theology and philosophy.
BAUER, WALTER (1979) A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, Translated by Eric H. Wahlstrom, Chicago, The University of Chicago Press.
COURSON, JON (2005) Application Commentary, Thomas Nelson, Nashville.
STRONG, J. (1890)(1986) Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, Burlington, Welch Publishing Company.
Monday, June 03, 2019
Darkness and lack of belief
![]() |
Today |
I recently discussed this topic on April 22
To continue with the theological concept of darkness.
I had mentioned that I was discussing Christian evangelism and witnessing and obstacles to them, the other day, while my good friend drove us around. While pulling into a Chevron station my good friend wisely quoted John 3: 19-20 from the New American Standard Version
19 This is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds were evil. 20 For everyone who does evil hates the Light, and does not come to the Light for fear that his deeds will be exposed.
From Strong's: 4655 for darkness in John 3: 19. (88).
σκότος
Bauer explains that here is this context, darkness can be understood as 'religious and moral darkness, of darkening by sin, of the state of unbelievers and of the godless.' (757-758).
From my Reformed perspective, the corrupted, fallen nature of humanity (Genesis 3, Romans) prohibits a person in darkness from embracing the light to the point of salvation.
New American Standard Bible
Romans 5:10 10
For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved [a]by His life.
Footnotes: [a] Romans 5:10
Colossians 1: 21-24 21
And although you were formerly alienated and hostile in mind, engaged in evil deeds, 22 yet He has now reconciled you in His fleshly body through death, in order to present you before Him holy and blameless and beyond reproach— 23 if indeed you continue in the faith firmly established and steadfast, and not moved away from the hope of the gospel that you have heard, which was proclaimed in all creation under heaven, and of which I, Paul, was made a minister.
Human beings as enemies of God and being alienated from God with a hostile mind (s), in my opinion cancels out theology/philosophy of person's simply responding to the offer of salavtion using libertarian free will (incompatibilism).
In contrast, God, through the Holy Spirit, regenerates the persons (Titus 3, or same makes born again John 3) applying the atonement and resurrection work of Jesus Christ to those persons that simultaneously embrace, as secondary cause, with limited free will, what God has caused, choosing them (Ephesians 1-2) (compatibilism). This is neither libertarian free will, nor divine force of coercion.
From my Reformed perspective, the goodness and pure heart (I would state purified heart) that welcomes the light is the heart regenerated by the Holy Spirit.
Theologically, I reason a human spirit, mind and heart that embraces darkness, outside of divine regeneration, is a reason for lack of belief.
Does this cancel out other possible, reasonable, premises for lack of belief in Christian faith and philosophy?
I do not think so. This explains, biblically, the human spiritual condition, but there can be various human held premises and conclusions that render disbelief. I am not stating that every premise for lack of belief is intellectually and philosophically wrong; rather I am acknowledging the biblical, spiritual condition which via corrupted, fallen human nature, desires and limited free will, renders premises, whether true or false, in such a way to stay in unbelief.
This opposed to holding to certain premises, true or false, in reasonable faith, theology and philosophy.
BAUER, WALTER. (1979) A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, Translated by Eric H. Wahlstrom, Chicago, The University of Chicago Press.
STRONG, J. (1890)(1986) Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, Burlington, Welch Publishing Company.
Friday, May 31, 2019
Homological, Autological, Heterological
![]() |
Wells Cathedral, postcard scan 1997: Green grass. |
Some new terms for me from philosopher, Blackburn.
BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996) Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
Cited
Homological
'Word that applies to itself. See autological, Grelling's paradox.' (177).
Autological
Cited
'A word that applies to itself: 'short' is a short word, 'English' is an English word. (30).
Grelling's Paradox would feature the idea that although 'short' is a short word, 'long' is not a long word.(162). The 'long' example is an example of the heterological. A word that does not apply to itself. (172). Blackburn explains that there is a question whether or not 'heterological' is actually a word that does not apply to itself as heterological. (163). Quote: 'If it is it is not, and is not if it is'. (163). A semantic paradox. (163).
Both are true...
To me, paradoxes present a case for careful reasoning in context, with the presentation of premises and conclusions.
Is green a green word? No, is that case it is heterological.
Is green a green word? Yes, is that case it is homological.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)