God's infinity as essential

Conwy Castle 2001

In the previous chronological entry, on this website, I made comments to why the infinity of God is essential for a correct biblical, theological and philosophical understanding.

God's part in human problems of evil and suffering were the focus of my European, British, MPhil and PhD theses. God's part in evil and suffering, although God remains infinite, eternal, perfect, holy and good. Being almighty implies infinity and without finity and/or faults related to finity. If God was infinite and contrary to my biblical theology, both good and evil; in my view evil would not be evil at all. 

Further, it could be stated that God's infinity, eternity and other attributes are of necessity/are necessary, philosophically.

Below I compared survey findings on the question of infinity from my PhD and MPhil surveys.

God As Infinite (Survey Comparison) August 15 2013

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

For my MPhil surveys, I received fifty each, completed of Anglicans and Baptists who have attended a post-secondary denominational college, University or seminary, or are members of one of those denominations who have studied religion at a post-secondary level.

Statement one: The first statement on the survey was stated as: God is infinite/limitless. 

My position on this statement is that Scripture and reason demonstrate this to be the case in the affirmative. Scripture does not use the philosophical term infinite to describe God, however, Erickson stated that the idea is indicated.

Jeremiah quotes God as saying, "Am I a God at hand,...and not a God afar off? (Jer. 23:23). The implication seems to be that a God at hand does not preclude his being afar as well. He fills the whole heaven and earth (v.24). Thus, one cannot hide oneself in ‘secret places’ so that he cannot be seen. God speaks of heaven as his throne and the earth as his footstool; the idea that man can confine God by building him a dwelling place is then, sheer folly. The psalmist found that he could not flee from presence of God–wherever the psalmist went, God would be there (Ps. 139:7-12). Erickson, Millard, J. (1985), Christian Theology (p. 273).

One could argue that Scripture is not indicating God is infinite as an attribute, but is, instead, stating that he is all powerful and knowing within his creation. In other words, he is simply of greater finite nature than anything in his creation.

However, in Genesis 1, it is indicated that God made the Universe from nothing other than his will and power. Thus he must be beyond all things which he has created, so logically he is infinite in comparison to his creation, and nothing else existed before his creation.

Therefore it could be deduced that he is infinite as an attribute, as it appears nothing existed beyond him before or after the creation of the Universe.

For this first statement, 94% of Anglicans agreed, 4% were not certain, while 2% disagreed. For Baptists, 98% agreed, while 2% were not certain. There is with this point an agreement between myself and the great majority of my responders.

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.

God as absent?

Supposedly, the future Red Skull and Kingpin @ Conwy, Wales.

February 24 2008

The audio sermon above from Grace Baptist Church

Cited

TEXT: Job 23 SUBJECT: Spiritual Depression #12: God's Absence

Previous sermons from Pastor Michael Phillips have dealt with spiritual depression connected to human and satanic causes. This sermon is focused on God as the cause and in my theology/philosophy, God as primary cause.

Cited

What really tore him up was. God. Or, rather, God's Absence. This is what today's sermon is about: God's Absence as a Major Cause of Depression.

God's part in human problems of evil and suffering were the focus of my European, British, MPhil and PhD theses. God's part in evil and suffering, although God remains  infinite, eternal, perfect, holy and good. Being almighty implies infinity and without finity and/or faults related to finity. If God was infinite and contrary to my biblical theology, both good and evil; in my view evil would not be evil at all.

Job 40 from the New American Standard Bible

40 Then the Lord said to Job, 2 “Will the faultfinder contend with the Almighty? Let him who reproves God answer it.” 3 Then Job answered the Lord and said, 4 “Behold, I am insignificant; what can I reply to You? I lay my hand on my mouth. 5 “Once I have spoken, and I will not answer; Even twice, and I will add nothing more.”

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

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

From my MPhil

Simon Blackburn defines determinism as follows:

The doctrine that every event has a cause. The usual explanation of this is that for every event, there is some antecedent state, related in such a way that it would break a law of nature for this antecedent state to exist yet the event not to happen. Blackburn (1996: 102).

Calvin stated concerning free will:

If freedom is opposed to coercion, I both acknowledge and consistently maintain that choice is free and I hold anyone who thinks otherwise to be a heretic. If, I say, it were called free in this sense of not being coerced nor forcibly moved by an external impulse, but moving of its own accord, I have no objection. Calvin (1543)(1996: 68).

Human beings in Calvin’s thinking were not forced by God to sin, but God as an infinite being had and used the power to use their sin for the greater good. So to say that God willed evil for the greater good means that God could use sinful actions of others in order to accomplish his divine purpose. Calvin stated:

For we do not say that the wicked sin of necessity in such a way as to imply that they sin without wilful and deliberate evil intent. The necessity comes from the fact that God accomplishes his work, which is sure and steadfast, through them. At the same time, however, the will and purpose to do evil which dwells within them makes them liable to censure.

But, it is said, they are driven and forced to this by God. Indeed, but in such a way that in a single deed the action of God is one thing and their own action is another. For they gratify their evil and wicked desires, but God turns this wickedness so as to bring his judgements (judgments) to execution. Calvin (1543)(1996: 37).

God could set up events in such a way that someone would freely choose to sin, but this is not done in such a way that God is forcing one to do so. I believe in a human fall through sinful choice. God can still will, in a sense, that these sinful actions work for the greater good, but I do not believe in a Universe where God forces and coerces people to commit individual sin.

People are sinful in nature as they are descendants of Adam. This inherited and sinful nature means people will freely choose to sin and God does not coerce them into doing so. He may provide situations where he knows that certain individuals will sin, but his motives in this are for the greater good.

A PhD argument summarized:

God is the cause of all things.

A technical, philosophical use of the term 'cause' is used.

God can directly cause anything not contrary to his nature or contradictory.

God can indirectly cause and allow evil. via secondary causes.

God has the power to prohibit evil, and therefore what he does not prohibit he sanctions/causes.

God wills evil for the greater good.

God has perfect motives.

Persons are a secondary cause of significantly free human actions.

Therefore: Hard determinism is not used by God when persons sin.
---

God as primary cause of human thoughts, acts and actions is compatible with human thoughts, acts and actions as secondary cause (and secondary agents). This is soft determinism or compatibilism.

Cited

Why would the Lord do this to anyone? 

Here it is: We don't know. Note carefully, I did not say God doesn't know! We don't know, and if the Lord wants to explain Himself to us, He can, but He is under no obligation to do so.

Cited

The cure for this kind of depression is not in us. It is in God, who will come back to us when He wants to. And not before or after.

In my theological and philosophical reasoning, as God is infinite and interacts with his finite creation, he is not ontologically absent; rather God in the book of Job, causes and wills events indirectly, and it is possible, at some points, directly.

Cited

Our sadness does not dethrone our Lord and Savior.

The gospel work of the triune God through Jesus Christ, his atoning and resurrection work, is still applied to those in Jesus Christ that believe and live in faith, by grace through faith.

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

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

Doubt is not a worldview

Doubt is not a worldview

Very Brief on Skepticism

Skepticism, in contrast, can be a worldview, or within a worldview.

Cited, in-part, below:

Britannica

skepticism, also spelled scepticism, in Western philosophy, the attitude of doubting knowledge claims set forth in various areas. Skeptics have challenged the adequacy or reliability of these claims by asking what principles they are based upon or what they actually establish. They have questioned whether some such claims really are, as alleged, indubitable or necessarily true, and they have challenged the purported rational grounds of accepted assumptions. 

From ancient times onward skeptics have developed arguments to undermine the contentions of dogmatic philosophers, scientists, and theologians.

Skepticism does not equal doubt

Skepticism is not merely doubt, it is its own set of premises and conclusions.

A good friend mentioned to me the news in regard to Joshua Harris and another friend, as well, posted on this issue. Mr. Harris in recent years attended an event at Northview Community Church where I am a member, as well I am a member at TriCity Church, a related church. But, I missed the event.

Sojourners July 19 2019

Cited

Villarreal: You say in the documentary that there are a lot of people who want you to throw out everything that was kind of the basis for your book. But I'm curious when you say “everything,” do you mean your belief in Christianity as a whole or about premarital sex in general? I'm curious what you include in that. 

Harris: I think that there's a push by some people to say being sex positive means — the kind of the historical sexual ethic related to sex outside of marriage, related to homosexuality, is basically laid aside, and embracing a healthy view of sex means just accepting all that as fine within the Christian tradition. … 

I do think though that, for me, in that change of interpretation of such a fundamental level when it comes to sexuality, it's just hard for me to ... 

In a way it's almost easier for me to contemplate throwing out all of Christianity than it is to keeping Christianity and adapting it in these different ways. I don't know if that makes sense, but I think I've just been so indoctrinated in a certain way of interpreting scripture and viewing sexuality that it's just hard for me to see the scriptures and its kind of overall, you know, commands and principles and so on and see how that can be consistent. I think that I probably need to engage with some of those people — like I have people send me their e-books showing why premarital sex is fine, and I just don't have the energy right now. 

Like, I do not want to read your book. I do not want to. I do not want to engage in a massive, you know, theological expedition to think about all these things. So it just sounds really exhausting to me, honestly. But I think what you saw in that moment in the film is it is a real struggle for me. I'm really struggling with — I think that rethinking some of these things and having had my faith look so specific for so long that now as I'm questioning those specifics, it feels like I'm questioning my entire faith.

In a way it's almost easier for me to contemplate throwing out all of Christianity than it is to keeping Christianity and adapting it in these different ways. I don't know if that makes sense, but I think I've just been so indoctrinated in a certain way of interpreting scripture and viewing sexuality that it's just hard for me to see the scriptures and its kind of overall, you know, commands and principles and so on and see how that can be consistent. 

---

For me, sexual ethics is not my primary concern in the determination of a worldview...

a priori/a posteriori

Preface

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). 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)

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 and 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 for these approaches.

As time, space, and matter are finite and cannot be their own cause, this would cause a vicious regress. A vicious regress does not solve its own problem. 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...(whether a vicious regress is still considered a logical problem or not). Please see my archives for articles on vicious regress.

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 as in divinely inspired original autographs. I reason there are extant reasonably accurate copies that provide the biblical worldview and theology that God intended.

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 and 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

(New American Standard Bible/NASB)

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.
---

In light of the Harris interview, the part I cited:.

As all persons are finite and sinful (Romans) we all can have doubts. But doubts about Christianity do not form a reasonable worldview alone. A worldview must deal with premises and conclusions to prove as reasonable and true. In other words, rejecting Christianity in doubt, in regard to sexual ethics, is problematic, unless a more reasonable and true worldview can be presented by premises and conclusions, in its place.

Practical Theology

I have been single my entire adult life and have found the pool of relatable Christians within the evangelical church very limited and frustrating (but my present church offers new possibilities).

But, I do not embrace and present my worldview primarily based on sexual ethics, my sexual sufferings, nor the sexual sufferings of others. As noted, there are larger issues at stake in presenting a reasonable worldview as opposed to sexual ethics, which are important, but not the most important premises to be presented in regard to a worldview.

Doubt is not a worldview.

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

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

BRUCE, F.F. (1987) Romans, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

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

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

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

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. 

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. 

KLEIN, PETER D. (1996) ‘Certainty’, in Robert Audi, (ed.), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. 

MOUNCE, ROBERT H. (1995) The New American Commentary: Romans, Nashville, Broadman & Holman Publishers.

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

Recapitulation

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

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

From 2003 MPhil

Question B 

Is it still valid to claim that Christ’s death, resurrection, and culminated Kingdom of God are the only ultimate practical remedies for human suffering? 

Jesus Christ and his work, and the culminated Kingdom of God is the only hope of recapitulation for creation. If Christ’s work was ever effective, this would not change over time. Christ was either God incarnate, and capable of completing the work required to save souls, or he was not.

A theology which tries to keep in touch with modern thinking by denying the exclusivity of Christ’s saving work for humanity will find that it cannot deal with those wanting to perpetrate evil. Christ is the ultimate remedy to the problem of evil and suffering because he is ultimate God.

A problem for humanity is that the wait for this complete healing within a culminated Kingdom of God is very painful. Every person on this planet suffers and dies, and this can lead to bitterness against God as this temporal life can be full of disappointments. An everlasting perspective is thus vital.

Irenaeus stated with regard to Christ’s work defeating death:

For it behoved Him who was to destroy sin, and redeem man under the power of death, that He should Himself be made that very same thing which He was, that is, man; who had been drawn by sin into bondage, but was held by death so that sin should be destroyed by man, and man should go forth from death. Irenaeus. (ca. 130-200 AD) Book III, Chapter 18, Section 7.

(Note: There does not seem to be a historical date to indicate when Irenaeus wrote this work. It is estimated that he wrote the work near the end of the second century.)

July 19, 2019 

From Atkinson

Recapitulation is the Latin equivalent of anacephalaiosis (486); this is defined as summing up or summary. (486). The term occurs in Ephesians 1: 10 where it is stated that God summed up (anakefalaiwsasqai) all things in Jesus Christ. Recapitulation was embraced by Irenaeus and by (some, my add) Church Fathers as meaning that God through Jesus Christ sums up human redemption.(486).

This recapitulation includes humanity and creation and therefore problems of evil and suffering are remedied, in a sense, via recapitulation.

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

IRENAEUS. (c 175-185)(1998) ‘Against Heresies’, in The Catholic Encyclopedia, Denver, The Catholic Encyclopedia.

IRENAEUS. (c 175-185)(2005) Against Heresies, in The Catholic Encyclopedia, Denver, The Catholic Encyclopedia.

IRENAEUS (c 185)(2005) Proof of Apostolic Preaching, Translated by J. Armitage Robinson, London, The Macmillan CO.

The original links with the Irenaeus sources are now 'dead', so I deleted them.