Fideism

Fideism 

Lake Como, Italy (photos from trekearth.com)

Fideism explained

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Amesbury, Richard (2022) Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Fideism, Department of Philosophy, Stanford University.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fideism/

'The term itself derives from fides, the Latin word for faith, and can be rendered literally as faith-ism.'

'Fideism” is the name given to that school of thought—to which Tertullian himself is frequently said to have subscribed—which answers that faith is in some sense independent of—if not outright adversarial toward—reason. In contrast to the more rationalistic tradition of natural theology, with its arguments for the existence of God, fideism holds that reason is unnecessary and inappropriate for the exercise and justification of religious belief.'

According to R.K. Johnston, fideism is a term used by Protestant modernists in Paris in the late 19th century. It is often used as a pejorative term to attack various strands of Christianity as forms of irrationalism. Johnston (1999: 415). Fideists, following Kant, who noted that reason cannot prove religious truth are said to base their religious understanding upon religious experience alone. Reason is believed to be incapable of establishing faith's certainty or credibility. Johnston (1999: 415). Grenz, Guretzki and Nordling note that fideism states religious and theological truth must be accepted without the use of reason. Grenz, Guretzki and Nordling (1999: 51). An extreme form of fideism states that reason misleads one in religious understanding. Grenz, Guretzki and Nordling (1999: 51). Johnston explains that the concept of fideism has little value as most theologians would not deny the use of reason. The term fideism is useful when it describes an excessive emphasis upon the subjective aspects of Christianity. Johnston (1999: 415).

Fideism can serve as a useful term when describing the overuse of emotional and subjective experience in Christianity, other religions, and all philosophy in regard to religion. Whenever there is the use of blind faith without the significant use of reason, there is a form of fideism. In my mind, fideism in religious and even may I suggest, non-religious contexts, is one of the most dangerous philosophical approaches to embrace. 

In a religion context, in its mild form, it does not significantly use reason in developing theology and philosophy, and in its extreme form can lead to all kinds of ridiculous views without the use of reason and evidence from a variety of academic disciplines. Fideism is a reason why many cultists and false religionists, can strongly hold to intellectually weak philosophical and theological views which an educated open-minded religious or non-religious person can often debunk in a few moments. Fideism is a form of intellectual laziness and spiritual blindness which can keep persons from truth.

Concerning Kant

Kant explains in The Critique of Practical Reason that the noumena realm is the theoretical department of knowledge denied, while the phenomena realm is one’s own empirical consciousness. All positive speculative knowledge should be disclaimed for the noumena realm according to Kantian thought. Kant concludes the text by noting that the phenomena realm is the external realm where consciousness has existence. The noumena realm is invisible and has true infinity where Kant believes one can reason that contingent personality is dependent on the universal and necessary connection to the invisible world. Kant (1788)(1898)(2006: 100).

In a sense, I do not disagree with the Kantian view that the noumena realm is not empirically knowable. To be more precise, the noumena realm is not of physical matter. I readily admit that God as being spirit is not empirically or scientifically provable. Jesus stated that God is spirit in John 4:24 and therefore God is not of a material nature and cannot be proven by the use of matter, space, energy or scientific experiment. But in contrast to Kantian thought, I reason that God can reveal self to humanity. God can reveal the supernatural realm within the natural realm. Humanity can have reasonable faith in God.

Peter D. Klein’s notes in the article Certainty, the idea that a proposition is true and certain if there are no legitimate grounds whatsoever for doubting it. Klein (1996: 113). This is a reasonable concept, and I support the similar idea that a proposition is certain if there are no counter propositions that are superior. The existence of God therefore would never be 100% certain to finite human beings, but would always be certain to the infinite God. God could reasonably be understood as philosophically certain as long as arguments that supported God's existence were true beyond any reasonable doubt, and/or the arguments for God were superior to those opposing them. Christian arguments for God would primarily come from revealed Scripture and secondarily would come from philosophy and the use of theistic, philosophy of religion.

Certainty within a Christian worldview, is not 100% absolute certainty. Absolute certainty would require infinity and infinite knowledge, which only God has in nature and attributes. But in my view, Christianity is reasonably certain, as key premises for the Christian worldview are both internally and externally consistent. In other words, Christianity can be stated to be of reasonable certainty, especially when the Biblical manuscripts, and Christian theology, are internally consistent and historically true. At the same time, Christianity is reasonably certain when the external premises/arguments, and/or propositions in opposition are inferior. Christianity would therefore be internally and externally consistent and therefore could be stated to have reasonable certainty.

Bibliography

AMERIKS, KARL (1999) ‘Kant, Immanuel’, in Robert Audi (ed.), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. 

FEINBERG, JOHN.S. (1986) Predestination and Free Will, in David Basinger and Randall Basinger (eds.), Downers Grove, Illinois, InterVarsity Press. 

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, 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.

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

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

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

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. 

JOHNSTON, R.K.(1996) ‘Fideism’, in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.

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 (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 (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 (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. 

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

KLEIN, PETER D. (1998, 2005). ‘Epistemology’, in E. Craig (ed.), Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, London, Routledge. 

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.

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. 

WITTGENSTEIN, LUDWIG (1951)(1979) On Certainty, Basil Blackwell, Oxford. 

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Fideism 

Revised and reformatted version placed on academia.edu on 20240629

 

The power of positive linking (The joy of commenting)

Trekearth, Greenich

The power of positive linking, the joy of commenting...or not.

It has been very encouraging the past year with gaining new readers, commenters, and links. I have been gaining more than losing and so the Lord is helping my blogs to progress. Thank you to all my readers, commenters and links with this site and satire and theology.

A blogger can remain primarily within his or her own denomination or group and write a very good blog. I have stated this before, but I will state it again, unless one is quite well-known in his or her field in which he or she is blogging, he or she needs to network with others on-line, or risk basically writing an on-line journal that only a few persons ever read. As it is, even with a very modest roughly 50 unique blog links between my two blogs, it is still difficult to write articles that receive significant attention. Some desire only to have a small blog and that is not wrong.

These are some of my thoughts:

Blog trolls should not be tolerated, and I apologized for involving readers with my latest troll's comments and then deleting all the related troll incident comments. I allowed the blog troll's comments from a person that likely knows me in person and is a Facebook friend. I allowed the comments in order to easily counter the primarily false things stated about me, which were presented in the form of a personal attack. This type of controversy is good for blog traffic as satire and theology had its best day of traffic so far, but I think the negative environment overall puts me in a bad mood and creates unnecessary speculation concerning the troll on the blog. From now on I will likely deal with a troll's comments without publishing a personal attack.

Taking blog trolls out of consideration, on my blogs and related links, we primarily debate issues in a good spirit. On my blogs there have recently been discussions concerning my PhD topic of free will and determinism, and also the topic of singleness. These topics are controversial and have been discussed on both of my blogs as one can see if one searches through the archives. Please remember, I am not trying to offend anyone, but please be open-minded and not overly defensive. If you disagree with me, that is fine and state your case if you desire. There is no point in us ignoring each other, or arguing on and on concerning issues of disagreement when we usually agree and can offer each other much needed blog support. We can state our case and disagree on secondary issues as Christians, agreeing on essentials in Christ. As for my non-Christian links, I will never attempt to force my theological views on anyone, and we can simply agree to disagree on the topic of Christianity and feel free to challenge me respectfully, and once again there is no point ignoring each other, or in arguing on and on, as we can state our case in one or maybe two discussions and move on.

Pragmatically, too much disagreement and debating makes blogging too much of a chore and is too time consuming. As a Christian in a type of ministry, I present my case to Christians and non-Christians and leave it for persons to ponder on. At the same time, I can ponder on the points of others and may change my mind in the future.
If we write-off a blog because we have a significant disagreement with it, although we usually are in agreement, we are hurting our own networking blog cause, and it is very tough to find readers, commenters, and links as already noted.

In my mind, thekingpin68 is a more important blog than satire and theology, however, about half of my readers appear to disagree, including two of my former pastors. Some find thekingpin68 too academic, and others find satire and theology too ridiculous and/or too hard-hitting. The traffic for both blogs is basically identical and satire and theology receives a few more comments and thekingpin68 has a few more links. For those of you that only like one blog that is fine, but I offer my other blog as a link. I have no intention of setting up the program with Blogger that lists blogs and the most recent article, although thank you to those of you that have my blogs listed that way. As long as one of my blogs is listed as a permanent link on your blog I will link you back, provided your blog is not anti-Christian or very objectionable in my view. Many do not use the actual names of my blog in linking me and that is fine. I am stating that I do not have to be on your main links list, but I would like to visible in order to willingly link you back. I am not really concerned if I am in one's featured top list or whatever. The two blogs really feature the same controversial worldview, and both are presented respectfully. I will link with respectful Reformed Christians, non-Reformed Christians and non-Christians under the guidelines I just mentioned.

In regard to comments, I already spend twenty hours or so on blogging per week. I refuse to 'reinvent the wheel' and therefore unapologetically at times do cut and paste previously posted material and will place it in comments. I do not have the time and energy to retype out assertions, arguments and information over and over again and will have even less time to do this as a professor, and when I am looking for work as a professor. It is quite time consuming researching and writing my own blog postings on thekingpin68 and satire and theology, plus commenting for my blog links, and commenting on newly found blogs that I might wish to link with in the future. Thanks for understanding.

Here are some more terms:

With social research methods and statistics:

Validity: A concern with the integrity of the conclusions that come from a piece of research. It usually refers to measurement validity. Bryman (1999: 545). Measurement validity is the degree to which a measure of a concept truly reflects the concept. Bryman (1999: 541).

Within philosophy:

Validity: In its primary meaning it is whether arguments are valid or invalid according to whether conclusion follows the premises. Premises and conclusions themselves are not valid or invalid, but are true or false. Blackburn (1999: 389). From my reading, an argument is considered valid as long as it does not have a true premise and false conclusion. A valid argument can have a true premise and true conclusion, false premise and false conclusion and a false premise and true conclusion. An argument can have more than one premise.

So, one can have these valid combinations:

tt

ff

ft

But not

tf

This is stated in The Elements of Reasoning written by David A. Conway and Ronald Munson on page 34.

Premise: Bloggers can blog primarily within their own group.
Premise: Bloggers can primarily avoid web networking.
Conclusion: This will likely result in a small blog.

I am not stating a small blog is necessarily bad, or that a large blog is necessarily good.

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

BRYMAN, ALAN (2004) Social Research Methods, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

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









Thank you!

http://satireandtheology.blogspot.com/2008/07/happy-little-
semiautomatic-assault.html


Jeff Jenkins sent me this photo of me and an unnamed woman. I do not know who she is but she seems to want to have priority in the photo.

These are my terms

These are my terms

Vestruskaftafellssysla, Iceland (photo from trekearth.com) 

Preface

My MPhil and PhD theses work has included the study of philosophical theology, philosophy of religion, Biblical studies, empirical theology, social research methods and statistics. 

Empirical theology

Leslie J. Francis explains that an element of practical theology is the use of empirical data. Francis (2005: 1). William Dean reasons that empirical theology begins with a particular speculative view of life, which in turn leads to the use of the empirical method. Dean (1990: 85-102). Clive Erricker, Danny Sullivan and Jane Erricker comment that empirical theology questions how theology relates to social sciences. Erricker, Sullivan and Erricker (1994: 6-7). Empirical theology is better known in Europe and the British Isles than in North America, but consists of using social research methods and statistics to come up with empirical data concerning theological concepts. My MPhil and PhD theses both contain the use of questionnaires and sections which include statistical analysis of the data. Interestingly, I have found that within philosophy of religion and social research/statistics the same terms are sometimes used, but not with the exact same meanings. This can make remembering terms tricky, as for my work I need to remember some terms in two contexts, and occasionally more. 

Here are two examples: 

Empiricism

Bryman mentions the classic and philosophical use of the term, which I have found in philosophy and philosophy of religion. This a general approach to reality, which suggests knowledge is only knowable through sense experience. Other forms of knowledge would not be acceptable. Bryman (2004: 7). Bryman then defines the term more specifically in regard to social research and statistics and states that ideas must be subjected to testing before they can be considered knowledge. This would be considered an accumulation of facts. Bryman (2004: 7). Empirical theology would view findings from questionnaires as at least possible actual theology, and some would consider the findings equal with Scripture. I have rejected this approach and still reason that theological deductions based on Scripture are more important in developing doctrine than are findings from questionnaires. Although questionnaires can be helpful in discerning the theological mindset of those surveyed, as God has inspired his Scripture through historical persons his theological views take precedence as truth over any contrary views found statistically. Empirical theology can point out weaknesses in how theology is perceived and presented. My findings for both my MPhil and PhD theses demonstrate that Reformed views concerning God and his sovereignty in regard to the problem of evil are not properly understood within the majority of the Christian Church. 

Positivism

Blackburn writes that within philosophy this view holds that the highest or only form of knowledge can be known through sensory perception. This is a version of empiricism. It focuses on optimism from the hopes of science and originated in the 19th century and relates to evolutionary and naturalist theory. Blackburn (1996: 294). Bryman writes that within social research and statistics, positivism advocates the use of methods of natural sciences for the study of social reality and beyond. This concept can include only knowledge confirmed by the senses. Bryman (2004: 11). Logical positivism, which is also known as logical empiricism, accepts empiricism, but also allows for the power of formal logic to describe the structures of permissible inferences. Blackburn (1996: 223). Richard A. Fumerton explains that some positivists have allowed for the idea that a proposition can be meaningful if it is likely to be true. Fumerton (1996: 445-446). Fumerton notes that a strict positivism leads to a rejection of religious and moral philosophy. Fumerton (1996: 445). A view that combines the need for empiricism as a method of finding truth and allows for non-empirical rational philosophical propositions that are also considered a form of truth, because the rational philosophical propositions are logical and cannot be reasonably contrasted by superior counter propositions, would be a view that would work with a Christian worldview. Perhaps a form of logical positivism could offer this reasonable compromise position between empirical science and related views and philosophy of religion and theology. 

Rationalism is the view that unaided reason can be used in finding knowledge without the use of sense perception. Blackburn (1996: 318). Christian theology uses philosophical reasoning, and a priori knowledge in deducing the existence of God, and this could be considered a form of rationalism and some logical positivists could accept rationalism in conjunction with an acceptance of empirical science. A priori knowledge can be known without the use of sensory experience in the course of events in reality. Blackburn (1999: 21). A posteriori knowledge can be known through the use of some sensory experience, and if something is knowable A posteriori it cannot be known A priori according to Blackburn. Blackburn (1996: 21). I realize the Francis link now appears dead, but I used the information from the page within my PhD. 

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

BRYMAN, ALAN (2004) Social Research Methods, Oxford, Oxford University Press. 

DEAN, WILLIAM (1990) ‘Empirical Theology: A Revisable Tradition’, in Process Studies, Volume 19, Number 2, pp. 85-102, Claremont, California, The Center for Process Studies. http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=2791. 

ERRICKER, CLIVE, DANNY SULLIVAN, AND JANE ERRICKER (1994) ‘The Development of Children’s Worldviews, Journal of Beliefs and Values, London, Routledge 

FRANCIS, LESLIE J. and Practical Theology Team (2005) ‘Practical and Empirical Theology’, University of Wales, Bangor website, University of Wales, Bangor. http://www.bangor.ac.uk/rs/pt/ptunit/definition.php. 

FUMERTON, RICHARD A. (1996) ‘Logical Positivism’ in Robert Audi (ed.), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

     

The dangers of sentimental theology II

Campo Del Moro, Spain (photo from trekearth.com)

This is my first attempt at writing an article earlier than the posted date. This is supposed to post July 1 at 00: 00: 01. This is a revised version of a previous article I wrote on this blog. I view this article as one of my more important ones and have thought that it needs more feedback. I have therefore reposted it with some changes in the hope that with my slightly increased readership more persons will find the article valuable and worth pondering on. The previous article was 'The danger of sentimental theology' and this is 'The dangers of sentimental theology'.

The last few years I have thought more about death than previously. I am not obsessed with the subject, but part of my focus with the Christian faith, and Christian theology, within the problem of evil and theodicy, is attempting to understand in some ways, what exists beyond death. In the last few years a few people that I have known have died, where as in previous times the only deceased persons I had known were my grandparents. I had lost pets to death, which is difficult, but it is not the same as losing a person to death for which one has had personal conversations on more than one occasion.

Scientifically and empirically (by use of the senses) it appears that human beings die and all that is left are physical remains. Some religions and religious persons believe in an existence of the human spirit that exists after death. In the media, and at funerals it is said sometimes that the person that has passed away has gone to a better place. This is speculative, assumed and hoped for, since the departed was usually and seemingly a good person, humanly speaking. This appears to be sentimental theology, and by that I mean theology that is primarily driven by feelings, that is speculative and lacks a significant use of reason that can be supported by historically based religious revelation. Please note, I am not stating that all theological speculation is lacking the significant use of reason. The naturalist can dismiss this sentimental theology on empirical grounds. Simon Blackburn defines naturalism as generally a view that nothing resists explanation from methods of natural sciences. A naturalist will therefore be opposed to the concept of mind-body since it allows for the possible explanation of human mental capacity outside of science. Blackburn (1996: 255). Henry Clarence Thiessen explains that naturalists reject the idea of God and view nature as self-sufficient and self-explanatory. Thiessen (1956: 32).

A Christian theist such as myself can reason that the person that has died was morally imperfect as we all are, was part of, and affected by, the problem of evil, did not receive direct communication from God normally, and likely not at any point, prior to death. From this there is not an obvious reason to realistically, and reasonably assume that a person that has passed away goes to a better place within a speculative theistic model which lacks historically based religious revelation. Within a speculative theistic model, I would reason that if a person lives an earthly temporal life apart from direct communication with God, then it is reasonable to assume that if God does grant everlasting life, it will not be some type of heaven in God’s presence, and therefore not necessarily a better place.

Biblical Christianity is not dependent on sentimental theology. Millard Erickson writes that natural theology deduces that God can be understood objectively through nature, history, and human personality. Erickson (1994: 156). But, it should be stated that although natural theology can perhaps bring a person to a limited knowledge of God, it does not provide revealed information concerning salvation or everlasting life for human beings.

Erickson explains that Biblical revelation views God as taking the initiative to make himself known to followers. Erickson (1994: 198). This would be a more effective way than natural revelation as God reveals personal things about himself through his prophets, apostles, scribes, and of course Jesus Christ, who is both God and man. It can be reasoned that this revelation is documented in the Bible with persons that are historical and not mythological. Thiessen writes that God revealed himself in the history of ancient Israel. Thiessen (1956: 33). God is presented as personally appearing to chosen persons in the Hebrew Bible through dreams, visions and directly. Thiessen (1956: 34). Thiessen explains that miracles were also noted to occur within the Hebrew Bible, miracles being unusual events that were not a product of natural laws. Thiessen (1956: 35). The Hebrew Bible and New Testament present historical persons that experienced the supernatural God and supernatural occurrences. Some will accept the historicity of these persons, but deny the supernatural aspects of the Bible, but according to the New American Standard Bible presented by Charles Caldwell Ryrie and the Lockman Foundation, approximately 40 authors wrote the Biblical texts over a period of approximately 1600 years. Ryrie (1984: xv). Not all these persons knew each other and yet spoke of the same God that revealed himself progressively over time. The atoning work and resurrection of Christ was documented and discussed by several historical authors within the New Testament and through this work everlasting life is provided to followers of Christ. The book of Revelation describes the culminated Kingdom of God in Chapters 21-22.

The New Testament provides information about the historical Jesus Christ and his followers in historical setting and this gives much more credibility for theology concerning the concept of life after death in the presence of God, than does sentimental theology which denies or twists the concepts of Scripture in order to fit some type of speculative theistic hope for everlasting life which is devoid of the significant use of reason and revelation. This is a dangerous way to approach God and life, as there is not convincing evidence for believing that God will provide a departed person with meaningful everlasting life, outside of revelation from God explaining by what means he would bring a person that has passed away into his presence forever, and/or place them in a better place.

There are many spiritual dangers associated with sentimental theology which include false hopes, and false theology. The ultimate danger is being wrong about God, and not receiving his everlasting grace and mercy.

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

ERICKSON, MILLARD (1994) Christian Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.

RYRIE, CHARLES, CALDWELL (1984) The New American Standard Version Bible, Iowa Falls, Iowa, World Bible Publishers.

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