The Orthodox Study Bible: Free will

The Orthodox Study Bible: Free will

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

Preface

Published January 2, 2019, I was disappointed and surprised to see that originally I did not provide in the main text, the free will citation from the Orthodox Study Bible. I will revise and republish this article on March 4, 2024.

Cited from the Orthodox Study Bible, Glossary:

'Free Will

The freedom to choose between good and evil, between God and sin, which is one aspect of humanity created in the image of God. According to Orthodox teaching, sin stains the image of God but does not destroy it. Human beings may choose to reject the gospel, but must suffer the consequences of their decision (see Gen. 3:22, 23, Rev 3:20).' (799).

Based on my MPhil/PhD and website work:

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. Also known as libertarian free will.

I would consider the Orthodox view a form of incompatibilism, philosophically. Theologically it would be generally known as free will or libertarian free will. This is also the case with classic viewpoints within the Roman Catholic Church, the evangelical church (movement) and typically within charismatic and Pentecostal churches. From the citation, I agree that human beings are created in the image and I will add, likeness of God (Genesis 1: 26-27). I agree that the image and likeness of God within the human nature is tainted, but not destroyed through fallen human nature and human embracing of sin. I differ in that I reason, as Reformed, that any free will theology/philosophy of a human being freely choosing or rejecting the gospel in some autonomous way is not accurate.

By default no human being will freely choose the gospel, due to the universal sinful nature of humanity described in Romans, Chapter 3, where it is mentioned that there are none righteous in verse 10, and none that seek God in verse 11. C.E.B. Cranfield states that this passage (vv. 10-18) indicates that without exception, all people are sinners. Cranfield (1992: 66). Cranfield further writes that the idea being put across is that human beings live as if they have no reckoning with God, and are practical, even if not actual atheists. Cranfield (1992: 67). Robert H. Mounce notes concerning this passage that although some may seek a religious experience, it is not the same as seeking the true God. Mounce (1995: 109). To Mounce, God seeks the Christian believer, and not the other way around. Mounce (1995: 109). Therefore with this interpretation of the Romans passage, if libertarian free will was true, no one would ever come to Christ through the gospel, because God would not simultaneously will that a person believe it.

Within a Reformed theology and philosophy...

Philosophically, compatibilism (soft determinism) would agree with incompatibilism that God or any other being cannot cause by force or coercion any significantly free human action, for which there would be significant moral accountability, but contrary to incompatibilism reasons that God can simultaneously will significantly free human actions for which there is significant human, moral accountability.

J.S. Feinberg explains that compatibilism does not allow for coercion or force, but holds that God, or some outside force, can simultaneously determine with the use of persuasion, that an action 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 committed actions that God willed. Feinberg (2001: 637). If a human being is forced or coerced, the moral accountability is significantly diminished (at least) and would be considered determinism/hard determinism, not compatibilism/soft determinism. 

In my compatibilistic model, at least, through a theoretical chain of human nature, consciousness, desires, will and choice, a person embraces as secondary cause, what was caused, willed and allowed by the primary cause. This in regard to human thoughts, choice, acts and actions. This first cause would be God, in a biblical view. This would be the case in regard to both human salvation and a continued rejection of God, outside of salvation. A person cannot simply on his/her own, choose the gospel but must first be chosen by God (Romans 8-9, Ephesians 1, as examples) regenerated (John 3, Titus 3, 1 Peter 1, as examples) through the Holy Spirit, and the atoning and resurrection work of Jesus Christ, applied to him/her. From my Reformed, biblical perspective, God causes regeneration in the chosen person (s).

Page 799

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

FLEW, ANTONY (1955) ‘Theology and Falsification’, 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.

FLEW, ANTONY (1983)(1996) ‘The Falsification Challenge’, in Antony Flew and A. MacIntrye (eds.), New Essays in Philosophical Theology, in Michael Peterson, William Hasker, Bruce Reichenbach, and David Basinger (eds.), Philosophy of Religion, Oxford, Oxford University Press. 

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.

FOULKES, FRANCIS (1989) Ephesians, Grand Rapids, Inter-Varsity Press. 

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

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. http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=3019

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. http://ndpr.nd.edu/review.cfm?id=9064

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.

KREEFT, PETER (1988) Fundamentals of the Faith, San Francisco, Ignatius Press. KREEFT, PETER AND RONALD K. TACELLI (1994) Handbook of Christian Apologetics, Downers Grove, Illinois, InterVarsity Press. LA SOR, WILLIAM SANFORD, DAVID ALLAN HUBBARD, AND FREDERIC WILLIAM BUSH. (1987) Old Testament Survey, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. 

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. 

MELE, ALFRED R. (1996) ‘Extrinsic Desire’, 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.

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.

Blinding With Science

VanCityBuzz: Vancouver 1978

Blinding With Science

PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London.

Preface

Originally published 11/01/2016, revised 25/02/2024. 

Pirie states in regards to this fallacy entry:

'Science enjoys an enormous prestige because it has got so many things right.' (50).

As well:

'In the popular imagination, the dedicated scientist in his white coat is a fount of real knowledge as opposed to mere opinion'. (50). I am in particular agreement with the first statement that science has basically added much to human knowledge throughout history. Including for example, in regard to computer science in order for me to type and produce this online article.

I also view other academic disciplines as viable sources of getting so 'many things right', such as, for example, ones relevant to my academic writing, Biblical Studies, Theology, Philosophy, Philosophy of Religion.

In regard to the second statement, other academic disciplines provide significant real knowledge and not just mere opinion. Even empirically, inductively based academia would not have exhaustive, infinite knowledge and may theorize at times with deduction and opinion.

Therefore from science we read and hear the term 'The theory of" in numerous contexts.

There is as well:

Philosophy of Mathematics

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy 2007 & 2012

Cited

'If mathematics is regarded as a science, then the philosophy of mathematics can be regarded as a branch of the philosophy of science, next to disciplines such as the philosophy of physics and the philosophy of biology. However, because of its subject matter, the philosophy of mathematics occupies a special place in the philosophy of science. Whereas the natural sciences investigate entities that are located in space in time, it is not at all obvious that this also the case of the objects that are studied in mathematics. In addition to that, the methods of investigation of mathematics differ markedly from the methods of investigation in the natural sciences. Whereas the latter acquire general knowledge using inductive methods, mathematical knowledge appears to be acquired in a different way: by deduction from basic principles. The status of mathematical knowledge also appears to differ from the status of knowledge in the natural sciences. The theories of the natural sciences appear to be less certain and more open to revision than mathematical theories. For these reasons mathematics poses problems of a quite distinctive kind for philosophy. Therefore philosophers have accorded special attention to ontological and epistemological questions concerning mathematics.'

End

Pirie reasons: 'Many people, anxious to invest their own views with the authority of the scientist, don the white coat of scientific jargon in an attempt to pass of their own assertions as something they are not.' (50). Deception is taking place, 'that objective experimental evidence supports' (50) scientific claims. The audience is blinded with science. (50).

From my moderate conservative Biblical, Christian worldview within the Reformed tradition, I realize that this 'blinded with science' claim will be made by some conservative Christian Creationists against some secular Darwinian Evolutionists and by some secular Darwinian Evolutionists against some conservative Christian Creationists. (And similar groups could be named).

Therefore an answer from me as an academic, yet non-scientist, is to be as scientifically objective as possible.

The same approach that should be taken with every academic discipline.

Proverbs 23:23

New American Standard Bible (NASB)

23 Buy truth, and do not sell it, Get wisdom and instruction and understanding.

Back to Pirie:

The author provides some rules for using this fallacy such as...

'Remember to use long words' (51).

Use the words to 'prevent communication' (52).

A deceptive goal would be to transfer the 'easily refuted' to something 'profound, impressive and hard to deny'. (52). In other words, as can be done in the fields of philosophical theology and philosophy of religion; use plenty of academic jargon to confuse and baffle the average reader. But of course, everyone is not fooled, all of the time. Pirie states that years of work with this fallacy will 'repay you not only with a doctorate in the social sciences, but with the ability to deceive an audience utterly into believing that you know what you are talking about.' (52). I certainly do not want to, with my academic background in theology and philosophy of religion; a formal education somewhat similar, but not by any means identical to Pirie's philosophy and logic education, broad-brush negatively all those with a Doctorate in the Social Sciences, to be very clear!

Sothebys: Sweden

Blinding With Scientism

Scientism is questionable academically, when it seeks only scientific means as a source of truth.

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). 

From Oxford Scientism: 1 a a method or doctrine regarded as characteristic of scientists b the use of practice of this. 2 often derogatory, an excessive belief in or application of scientific method. Oxford (1995: 1236). It may be considered pejorative when used by critics, from a secular British perspective, but there is significant accuracy to this term. A scientism approach is problematic when it omits and ignores as beneficial the non-empirical, scientifically speaking, premises and conclusions that work as evidences for God with historical, biblical revelation. Noting these as metaphysical and irrelevant. However, the historical characters, for example, within the Hebrew Bible and New Testament are empirically documented. An approach using scientism also ignores philosophical support within philosophy of religion for theism that would parallel theological, biblical concepts in regard to God. Notably, first-cause. 

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

CONWAY DAVID A. AND RONALD MUNSON (1997) The Elements of Reasoning, Wadsworth Publishing Company, New York.

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

OXFORD DICTIONARY OF SCIENCE (2010) Oxford, Oxford University Press.

PAPINEAU, DAVID (Gen. Ed) (2016) Philosophy: Theories and Great Thinkers, New York, Shelter Harbour Press.

PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London.

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

SZUDEK, ANDY & TORSLEY, SARAH (2018) The Little Book of Philosophy, Landau Cecile (Ed), London, DK Publishing.

THE CONCISE OXFORD DICTIONARY (1995) Della Thompson (ed.), Oxford, Clarendon Press.

THE ORTHODOX STUDY BIBLE, NEW TESTAMENT AND PSALMS (1993) Saint Athanasius Orthodox Academy, Thomas Nelson Publishers, Nashville, Tennessee.    

Ignorance Is Not Bliss?

Ignorance Is Not Bliss?

Photo: Marta Sanchez Take Me To Travel, London

Preface

This article was originally published 2017/04/18. Revised with additions on 2024/02/10.

Pirie

PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London.

The argumentation ad ignorantiam is committed when the lack of knowledge is presented to infer that the opposite is true. (126).

Paraphrased, Pirie examples of this fallacy:

Ghosts exist! Millions of dollars have been spent by researchers to disprove the existence of ghosts, and yet ghosts have never been disproven. (126).

The author explains that the positive version of this fallacy states that what has not been disproven, will eventfully be proven. (126). Whether the fallacy is used positively or negatively, both appeal to ignorance. (127).

Pirie reasons that via ignorance both existence and especially non-existence are very difficult to prove. (127).

Reasonable views with theology, philosophy, science and academia, etcetera, should not be presented with a formula of premise (s) (ignorance), therefore conclusion (contrary). Premise (s) and propositions should be made with the use of reason and evidence, leading to conclusion (s).

Premise (s) and propositions should be established with knowledge, leading to reasonable conclusions.

This fallacy:

Negative

Asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false.

Atheism is true, because God has not been demonstrated to exist empirically.

(This depends on empiricism proving the non-physical).

Asserts that a proposition is false because it has not yet been proven true.

Christianity is false, because no one has empirically spoken with God.

(This dismisses Biblical history and Biblical revelation).

Positive

Christianity has not been disproven, but eventually science will prove all religion as mythology.

(This assumes that naturalism will eventually prove the supernatural is false).

2024/10/02 Additions

Bruce Thompson's Fallacy Page

Cited 

'Source: John Locke, Essay Concerning Human Understanding, 1690. Locke takes credit for naming this fallacy.' 

Cited

'Description: The argument offers lack of evidence as if it were evidence to the contrary. The argument says, "No one knows it is true; therefore it is false," or "No one knows it is false, therefore it is true."' 

'Comments: The phrase "ad ignorantiam" is a Latin phrase that means (just as one would expect), "(appeal) to ignorance." Sometimes, in order to make the claim that "no one knows," the argument insists upon an inappropriately strong standard of proof. I have found the fallacy particularly difficult to classify. I currently classify it with the Errors of Observation. It is like Inductive Hyperbole in that both fallacies draw an inappropriately strong conclusion from relatively weak and indecisive observations.'

Lander University 

Cited 

'Argumentum ad Ignorantiam: The Argumentfrom Ignorance Abstract: The argumentum ad ignorantiam (the argument from ignorance or the appeal to ignorance) is characterized with examples and shown to be sometimes persuasive but normally fallacious.' 

Cited

'The Argumentum Ad Ignorantiam (Argument from Ignorance of Appeal to Ignorance) Defined. The Ad ignorantiam fallacy is the logical error which occurs when a proposition is unjustifiably claimed to be true simply on the basis that it has not been proved false or the logical error occurring when a proposition is unjustifiably claimed to be false simply because it has not been proved true.' 

Cited 

'Statement p is unproved. ∴ Not-p is true.' 

(My translation. Statement p is unproved, therefore p is false) 

Cited 

'or 

Statement not-p is unproved. ∴ p is true.' 

(My translation. Statement not-p is unproven, therefore p is true)

Lander University References

John Weston Walch, Complete Handbook on Government Ownership or Railroads (Platform News, 1939), 138.↩ 

William Harvey, “On Conception,” The Works of William Harvey, M.D. trans. Robert Willis (London: Sydenham Society, 1847), 575.↩ 

Sarah Annie Guénette, Marie-Chantal Giroux, and Pascal Vachon, “Pain Perception and Anaesthesia in Research Frogs, Experimental Animals 62 no. 2 (2013), 87-92. doi: 10.1538/expanim.62.87 ↩ 

David Schramm, “The Age of the Elements,” Scientific American 230 no. 1 (January, 1974), 70.↩ Robert Brandenberger and Ziwei Wang, “Nonsingular Ekpyrotic Cosmology with a Nearly Scale-Invariant Spectrum of Cosmological Perturbations and Gravitational Waves,” Physical Review D 101 no. 9 (March 20, 2020), 063522-1 – 0563522-9.doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.101.063522↩ 

“Abominable Snowman Doesn't Exist,” Greenville News 110 no. 99 (April 8, 1984), 11.↩ 

Andrew Holtz, The Medical Science of House, M.D. (New York: Berkeley Publishing, 2006), 27.↩ 

David Schramm, “The Age of the Elements,” 67.↩

John Locke, An Essay Concerning Humane Understanding in Four Books 3rd ed. (1689 London: Awnsham, John Churchil, and Samuel Manship 1695), 306.↩ 10. Dionysius Lardner, Lectures Upon Locke's Essay (Dublin: Hodges and Smith, 1831), 160.↩ Cited 

'Typical types of ad ignorantiam in the popular media often include examples such as these: 

If one argues that God or telepathy, ghosts, or UFO's do not exist because their existence has not been proved, then this fallacy occurs. 

On the other hand, if one argues that God, telepathy, and so on do exist because their non-existence has not been proved, then one argues fallaciously as well.' 

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

PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London.

The unfixed (PhD Edit)

The unfixed (PhD Edit)

1 Preface

Originally published article on 2019/06/14 and revised 2023/12/30. The original website version was very short, so I also republished the new version on Blogger, 2023/12/30.

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

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

2 The Unfixed: December 30, 2023

In the Blackburn text within his entry, infinity, it defines infinity as 'The unlimited which goes beyond any fixed bound.' (193). Theologically and philosophically, I view God as unfixed, but this unfixed nature (ontological nature) would exist within logic. God is not by nature, illogical and contradictory. For example, God could not stop being God, or make another equal, infinite, eternal God.

Referencing my PhD and website work:

John Frame explains that God cannot perform logically contradictory actions, Frame (2002: 518). Erickson (1994: 277). Shedd (1874-1890)(1980: 359-360 Volume 1). God cannot make a square circle, Frame (2002: 518). Thiessen (1956: 126). God cannot commit that which is immoral and sinful, Frame (2002: 518). Thiessen (1956: 126). Weber (1955)(1981: 440). Interestingly, God cannot commit actions ‘appropriate only to finite creatures.’ Frame (2002: 520). 

God cannot logically have finite attributes. All of God's attributes and nature are infinite. In the incarnation, God the Son takes a finite human nature, as Jesus Christ, while remaining the eternal, infinite God. But the infinite and finite natures do not mix. God the Son, as infinite, within the Trinity, did (does) take a finite, human nature in the incarnation. Correctly, and classically, the natures do not mix. Jesus Christ is both finite man and infinite God. There is an aspect of mystery in the incarnation, but the Triune nature of God which is infinite and eternal is not altered by Christ taking on additional finite human nature. According to the Pocket Dictionary, the hypostatic union is the theological term which describes the bringing together of the divine and human natures of Jesus Christ is one person. (62). God the Son, Jesus Christ, being both fully human and fully divine. (62). Hypostasis (ὑπόστασις) from the Greek in this context, is the essential nature and essence of a person/entity.

Jesus Christ remains fully, infinitely, divine and fully, finitely, human, forever as the King that will one day return to fully culminate the Kingdom of God:

Acts 1: 9-11 

New American Standard Bible: NASB 

9 And after He had said these things, He was lifted up while they were watching, and a cloud took Him up, out of their sight. 10 And as they were gazing intently into the sky while He was going, then behold, two men in white clothing stood beside them, 11 and they said, “Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking into the sky? This Jesus, who has been taken up from you into heaven, will come in the same way as you have watched Him go into heaven.”

Hypostasis (philosophy and religion)

3 Symbolic Logic

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

Langer: 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

My philosophical example based on reviewing the Langer text: The infinite class (God) is simply infinite, nothing can be multiplied or added to that class. The finite class is simply finite, nothing can be multiplied or added to that class.   

i = infinite

f = finite 

i ˜ ⊃ f 

The infinite is not the same as the finite. 

i ˜ ⊨ f 

The infinite does not entail the finite. 

And I add: 

i . ˜ f 

The infinite is therefore, not the finite. 

i : ˜ f 

The infinite equals not, the finite. 

(∃! i) + (∃! f) ˜ :

There exists the infinite, plus there exists the finite, they are not equal.

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

CONWAY DAVID A. AND RONALD MUNSON (1997) The Elements of Reasoning, Wadsworth Publishing Company, New York. 

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.

FRAME, JOHN M. (1999) ‘The Bible on the Problem of Evil: Insights from Romans 3:1-8,21-26; 5:1-5; 8:28-39’, IIIM Magazine Online, Volume 1, Number 33, October 11 to October 17, Fern Park, Florida, Third Millennium. 

FRAME, JOHN M. (2002) The Doctrine of God, P and R Publishing, Phillipsburg, New Jersey.

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

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

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.

PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London.

 

SHEDD, WILLIAM G.T. (1874-1890)(1980) Dogmatic Theology, Volume 1, Nashville, Thomas Nelson Publishers. 

SHEDD, WILLIAM G.T. (1874-1890)(1980) Dogmatic Theology, Volume 2, Nashville, Thomas Nelson Publishers. 

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

WEBER, OTTO (1955)(1981) Foundations of Dogmatics, Volumes 1 and 2, Translated and annotated by Darrell L. Guder, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.