Immutable/Impassible (PhD Edit)

Griesbach, Germany

Immutable/Impassible (PhD Edit)

Preface

My Google Chrome version is looking best. Safari is good.

Immutable/Impassible (PhD Edit)

Professor van der Ven finds Moltmann’s discussion on the ancient view, that God is apathetic towards his creation, useful.[1]  Moltmann notes the related Greek term ‘apatheia’ which is the idea of an irresistible force that cannot be influenced by outside forces.[2]  Historically in early Greek times from Aristotle onwards, God was viewed as being without emotions.[3]  Brian Davies (1999) notes that the term ‘impassibility’ corresponds to ‘apatheia’[4] and defines impassibility as the traditional understanding that God, the divine nature, cannot experience pain or suffering.[5]  Davies believes it is incorrect to assume God’s impassibility should mean that the creator is indifferent or unconcerned about his creation.[6]  For Erickson, the idea of God’s divine nature as impassible is based upon the influence of ancient Greek thought rather than Scripture.[7]  Erickson points out that with the incarnation of Christ, God the Son did experience human suffering.[8]  He possessed a human nature that did suffer in life and in death, even though his divine nature coexisted with his human one.[9]  Kenneth Surin (1982) writes that God is considered by some within orthodox Christian theology to be unable to experience pain or sorrow.[10]  However, others concede that concluding God is impassible is a questionable view within traditional thought.[11]  Surin thinks that perhaps God limits his omnipotence by identifying with human suffering.[12]  Paul Helm (2006), Professor Emeritus of the University of London,[13] reasons impassibility has lost intellectual support,[14] even though throughout the ages many within the Church have accepted the doctrine.[15]  Helm suggests that the doctrine needs to be reconsidered as God is not indifferent to human suffering,[16] nor does God express emotions of anger and passion as humans do.[17] The concept of impassibility opens up a complex discussion beyond this thesis, but it seems reasonable God can be both all-powerful and feel negative emotions.  It should be concluded suffering does not alter his divine attributes. Thiessen describes the immutability of God as meaning his divine nature, attributes, consciousness, and will cannot change.[18]  Erickson explains that God does not grow or develop, as there are no variations in his nature at different points within his existence.[19]  R.C. Sproul and Robert Wolgemuth (2000) deduce that as God is eternal he has no beginning or no end.[20]  As God is understood to be eternal and beyond time without a progression in nature, his infinite being would make a change in nature and character impossible.[21]  My modest proposal reasons since God is infinite and considered immutable,[22] it is impossible for him to suffer in the exact way that human beings do.  David A Pailin (1999) explains that within some process theology[23] approaches, God’s existence may be viewed as absolute, necessary and unchanging.[24]  However, God’s character can change and is determined through interaction with his creation.[25]  Pailin postulates that God’s character can change, as he loves his creatures.[26]  In my view, the divine nature does not have a physical body that can be altered, changed or die, as in John 4:24 where Jesus stated that God is spirit.[27]  Christ could suffer because he was both true God and true man,[28] but God as spirit[29] cannot suffer in human terms.  Since God is immutable,[30] any type or amount of suffering cannot alter his essential nature or being, or divine character.[31]  In contrast, suffering can definitely change the essential nature of human beings as, for example, in the case of an amputated limb or death.  Suffering can also change the mental and spiritual well being of a person, but God would not be altered in the same way.[32]

Erickson explains that it does seem a rational possibility, however, to conclude God does have emotions, although they are controlled.[33]  He indicates anger is involved in the idea of God’s wrath in the Biblical example Romans 1:18.[34]  God also has ‘agape’ love for his creatures, which is a steadfast, unselfish concern for them.[35]  It is reasonable to deduce that God’s love for humanity is not only a decision to care for them, but also includes intense concern for his creation.[36]  An understanding, infinite God could comprehend the sufferings of his finite creatures,[37] but God’s essential nature and being would not be altered by the experience of these feelings.[38]  There is no need to conclude that the sufferings of finite creatures alter the nature of an infinite God who can comprehend and feel those sufferings.[39]  Therefore, even if, for the sake of argument, impassibility is a correct deduction concerning God’s nature,[40] Christ possessing the full nature of God[41] and a full human nature[42] enabled him to experience suffering and evil.[43]  God the Son can therefore relate to human suffering on a personal level.  I reason God’s immutable nature does not necessarily make him impassible.

BARTH, KARL (1932-1968) Church Dogmatics,  The Doctrine of the Word of God: Volume 1, Part One, Translated by J.W. Edwards, Rev. O. Bussey, and Rev. Harold Knight, Edinburgh, T. and T. Clark. 

BARTH, KARL (1932-1968) Church Dogmatics, The Doctrine of Creation: Volumes 1 and 3.  Translated by J.W. Edwards, Rev. O. Bussey, and Rev. Harold Knight, Edinburgh, T. and T. Clark. 

BARTH, KARL (1932-1968) Church Dogmatics, The Doctrine of God: Volume 2, First Half -Volume, Translated by J.W. Edwards, Rev. O. Bussey, and Rev. Harold Knight, Edinburgh, T. and T. Clark. 

BLOESCH, DONALD G. (1987) Freedom for Obedience, San Francisco, Harper and Rowe Publishers.

BLOESCH, DONALD G. (1996) ‘Sin, The Biblical Understanding of Sin’, in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.

DAVIES, BRIAN (1999) ‘Impassibility’, in Alan Richardson and John Bowden (eds.), A New Dictionary of Christian Theology, p. 288. Kent, SCM Press Ltd.

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. (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.

FRANKE, JOHN R. (2005)  The Character of Theology, Baker Academic, Grand Rapids.

HELM, PAUL (2006) ‘Divine Impassibility: Why Is It Suffering?’ in Reformation 21, Philadelphia, Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals, Inc.

http://www.reformation21.org/Past_Issues/2006_Issues_1_16_/2006_Issues_1_16_Articles/Divine_Impassibility/94/

MOLTMANN, JÜRGEN (1993) The Crucified God, Minneapolis, Fortress Press.

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

SCHRECK, ALAN (1984) Catholic and Christian, Ann Arbor, Michigan, Servant Books.

SPROUL, R.C., AND ROBERT WOLGEMUTH (2000) What’s In the Bible, Word Publishing, Nashville.

SURIN, KENNETH (1986) Theology and the Problem of Evil, Oxford,  Basil Blackwell Ltd.

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

VAN DER VEN, JOHANNES (1993) Practical Theology, Translated by Barbara Schultz, AC Kampen, Netherlands, Kok Pharos Publishing House.

VAN DER VEN, JOHANNES (1998) God Reinvented?, Leiden, Brill.

VAN DER VEN, JOHANNES (2005) ‘Theodicy Items and Scheme’, in a personal email from Johannes van der Ven, Nijmegen, Radboud University, Nijmegen.

VAN DER VEN, JOHANNES (2006a) ‘Dates of Nijmegen authors’, in a personal email from Johannes van der Ven, Nijmegen, Radboud University, Nijmegen.

VAN DER VEN, JOHANNES (2006b) ‘Symbols versus Models’, in a personal email from Johannes van der Ven, Nijmegen, Radboud University, Nijmegen.

WILLIAMS, ROWAN (2000) On Christian Theology, Blackwell Publishing, Oxford. 

---

[1] van der Ven (1993: 173).

[2] Moltmann (1993: 267).

[3] Moltmann (1993: 268).

[4] Davies (1999: 288).

[5] Davies (1999: 288).

[6] Davies (1999: 288).

[7] Erickson (1994: 737).

[8] Erickson (1994: 737).

[9] Erickson (1994: 737).

[10] Surin (1982: 97).

[11] Surin (1982: 97).

[12] Surin (1982: 97).

[13] Helm (2006: 1).

[14] Helm (2006: 1).

[15] Helm (2006: 1).

[16] Helm (2006: 1).

[17] Helm (2006: 1).

[18] Thiessen (1956: 127).

[19] Erickson (1994: 274).

[20] Sproul and Wolgemuth (2000: 2).

[21] Sproul and Wolgemuth (2000: 2).

[22] Sproul and Wolgemuth (2000: 2).  Thiessen (1956: 127).  Erickson (1994: 274).

[23] Process theology as discussed previously is a twentieth century approach based on the philosophy of Alfred North Whitehead that presents a God that is involved in the continual process of world through two natures.  God has a transcendent nature which contains God’s perfect character and the consequent immanent nature by which God is part of the changing cosmic process.

[24] Pailin (1999: 469).

[25] Pailin (1999: 469).

[26] Pailin (1999: 469).

[27] The New American Standard Version Bible (1984: 1198).

[28] Schreck (1984:  16). 

[29] The New American Standard Version Bible (1984: 1198).

[30] Sproul and Wolgemuth (2000: 2).  Thiessen (1956: 127).  Erickson (1994: 274).

[31] Pailin (1999: 469).

[32] God has an infinite nature that cannot be changed, but finite human nature can be altered.

[33] Erickson (1994: 605).

[34] Erickson (1994: 605).

[35] Erickson (1994: 180).

[36] Erickson (1994: 180).

[37] Pailin (1999: 469).

[38] Thiessen (1956: 127).

[39] Thiessen (1956: 127).

[40] Surin (1982: 97). 

[41] Barth (1932-1968: 371). Williams (2007: 130).  Franke (2005: 72). 

[42] Williams (2007: 129).  Schreck (1984:  16).  Franke (2005: 72). 

[43] Bloesch (1987: 16).  He suffered as the reconciler between God and the world.  Williams (2007: 130).

Gary Habermas: Short clips

 

Sola Scriptura (Brief & PhD Edit)

Switzerland-Sola Scriptura (Brief & PhD Edit)

Sola Scriptura (Brief & PhD Edit)

Preface

Originally published on Blogger, 20130129, reformatted on Blogger for an entry on academia.edu, 20241026.

From my PhD, Wales, this is a Biblical, Reformed view that I hold to, that within my requested post-Viva revisions was contrasted with Roman Catholic theology.

The doctrine of sola scriptura[1] is the Reformed and Protestant counter to the traditionalism of the Roman Catholic Church.[2] This concept was originally applied by Reformers to particular Roman Catholic doctrines assumed to be over influenced by tradition.[3] Franke with a strong statement indicates the Reformers reasoned that Christian theology must be subject only to the direct authority of God through the Scripture, and not by any human authority or creeds.[4] Their hope was to minimize human interpretation of Scripture.[5] Weber reasons the Reformation standard of sola scriptura firmly upheld Reformed views against counter propositions.[6] The Scripture is authoritative because it is the vehicle by which the Holy Spirit speaks, and therefore has divine authority.[7] The Bible is the product of the Christian community that produced it under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.[8] As Anglican Rowan Williams states, ‘Revelation is the statement of God’s autonomy.’[9] God explains who he is and becomes his own ‘alter ego’ as Christ.[10] Roman Catholic theologian Alan Schreck states his Church agrees that the Bible is the inspired word of God,[11] but does not believe that the Bible is the only source of Revelation and spiritual guidance for Christians.[12] A dividing point between Protestants and Catholics comes with Schreck’s idea that God within Catholic thought continues to select certain individuals that teach with God’s authority through the Holy Spirit.[13] Protestant and those within the Reformed camp have, at times throughout history disagreed, with the Biblical and theological interpretations of certain Roman Catholic leaders, in particular the Pope,[14] believed to be inspired by the Holy Spirit.[15]
 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 [1] Scripture alone. Schreck (1984: 41). This is the English translation from Latin.
 [2] Franke (2005: 147).
 [3] Franke (2005: 147). John Calvin warns of the danger of appealing to tradition at the expense of Scripture. He implies this insults the Holy Spirit. Calvin (1543)(1996: 50).
 [4] Franke (2005: 149). This is somewhat overstated, although true in general terms. For example, Calvin appeals to Augustine and tradition in his defence against free will theory and Albert Pighius. Tradition has a function in Reformed theology but is to be tested by Scripture at all times. Calvin (1543)(1996: 64).
 [5] Franke (2005: 149). Calvin (1543)(1996: 64).
 [6] Weber (1955)(1981: 113-114).
 [7] Franke (2005: 150). Lindsell (1976: 28-40).
 [8] Franke (2005: 151). Lindsell (1976: 28-40).
 [9] Williams (2007: 116).
 [10] Williams (2007: 116).
 [11] Schreck (1984: 41).
 [12] Schreck (1984: 42). Strictly speaking as noted, those in Reformed theology do trust in non-Biblical truths for spiritual guidance. Calvin admitted this in the context of Scripture and tradition. Calvin (1543)(1996: 64). I should also add that any reliance on philosophy and philosophy of religion is not strictly Biblical and I and many Reformed scholars look to philosophy for truth.
 [13] Schreck (1984: 42).
 [14] Calvin explains, within The Bondage and Liberation of the Will, his opinion that at that point in history the Papacy was beyond Reform. Calvin (1543)(1996: 17).
 [15] Schreck (1984: 42).

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. 

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. 

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

FRANKE, JOHN R. (2005) The Character of Theology, Baker Academic, Grand Rapids.

GREEN, JAY (1971) Five Points of Calvinism, ‘Forward’, Grand Rapids, Sovereign Grace Publishers.

LINDSELL, HAROLD (1976) The Battle for the Bible, Grand Rapids, Zondervan Publishing House. 

LUTHER, MARTIN. (1516)(1968) Commentary On The Epistle To The Romans, Translated by J.Theodore Mueller, Grand Rapids, Zondervan Publishing House. 

LUTHER, MARTIN. (1518)(1989) ‘Heidelberg Disputation’, in Timothy F. Lull (ed.), Martin Luther’s Basic Theological Writings, Minneapolis, Fortress Press. 

LUTHER, MARTIN. (1525)(1972) ‘The Bondage of the Will’, in F.W. Strothmann and Frederick W. Locke (eds.), Erasmus-Luther: Discourse on Free Will, New York, Frederick Ungar Publishing Co., INC.  

SCHRECK, ALAN (1984) Catholic and Christian, Ann Arbor, Michigan, Servant Books.

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

WILLIAMS, ROWAN (2007) Wrestling with Angels, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids.

Philosophical & Theological Reflections On Forgiveness

Anse-Couleuvre-France-trekearth

Further to thoughts on forgiveness. I mentioned in the recent post December 22, 2012, Seventy Times Seven: Matthew 18, three reasons, in a non-exhaustive fashion based on the Scripture why a Christian and person should strongly consider forgiving another that sins against him or her. I also noted realistically the often difficulties with this humanly speaking, and that this was a Biblical mandate and would require the guidance of the Holy Spirit and therefore God.

There is an another issue that comes to mind and that is if a person has been offended, and reasons he or she is basically within the context of a situation where forgiveness is required, is more morally and ethically correct, let us state for the sake of argument, 80% correct within the situation and 20%  perhaps at fault, because often a person will have difficulties viewing their own fault.

Dividing this into hypothetical percentages in my mind in not an incorrect or foolish exercise because due to the sinfulness of humanity and fallen natures described in Romans 3, born in sin John 3, in bondage to sin, Romans 6, dead in sinfulness, Colossians 2, it can be understood humanity is corrupted by sinfulness.

It can be Biblically understood that humanity in Christ are justified, Romans 1, and born-again John 3, these being Biblical concepts of salvation for regenerated Christians, but that the work is not completed until the resurrection of 1 Corinthians 15, and therefore sinfulness does remain in nature although the Holy Spirit is present (John 20, Acts 2).

John Calvin states, and I reason very wisely and correctly in the Bondage and Liberation of the Will that purity is spoiled by a tiny blemish and implies that sin is included in every good work (in this present realm). Calvin (1543)(1996: 27). This would be a Scriptural theology. 

Therefore, it would be possible for the person in a situation, in this example, 20% at fault, to have sinned or still be sinning.

Should this person therefore ask the greater transgressor for forgiveness?

This may not always be the best thing to do as it could be problematic, for example if two people verbally argue and have both a level of fault in sin, and one person resorts to physical violence, that person would in my mind be very likely guilty of the greater sin. If the victim of the greater sin confesses his or her sins to the more violent offender, in other words the person with the lesser sin confesses, I can understand it may lead to the person guilty of the greater sin to thinking that somehow his or her greater sin is more so excusable, which it would not be.

For the victim, and the person with the lesser sin, instead, perhaps in certain situations because of the known taint of sin in humanity a serious reflection upon own personal sinfulness is required and a seeking of forgiveness from God and repentance of wrong doing where necessary, would be required by the person that was more so wronged. It should be remembered that one is really only responsible for self and one's own final judgment before God.

One cannot change others much with finite power, nor judge others in a final sense with finite knowledge.

There are also examples of criminal assault where I would not suggest that if a victim reasons he or she sinned against an attacker, that one should deal with that person again. There are times when the greater sin is just too great for such an action by the other party.

On the other hand there may be cases where confessing to someone in a situation that one views as the greater sinner, with a lessor sin, may actually lead to to the greater transgresor also confessing, and lead to in Christ, healing.

If outside of Christ, there may be opportunity for witness.

As far as personal growth with God and sanctification, there would be some benefits in reflecting upon possible wrong at least with God in situations where situations occur. This would be the case even when it would be best not to seek forgiveness from a greater offender.

This in my mind, would be a more Biblical and proper Christian theological and philosophical way of dealing with situations where someone is wronged and where sin has occurred than what is at times seen in secular Western society. As if the person that commits the greater sin, let us state again for the sake of argument one at 80% to blame is obviously a 'horrible person' for doing so, so as the victim, the other person, may reason he or she is obviously justified for his/her sinful actions at 20%.

But Biblically this would not be the case. Sin would be sin in God's eyes and all would need to be covered by the atonement. Sinful flesh will not inherit the Kingdom of God as I Corinthians 15 notes as the human nature must be transformed spiritually/physically.

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

Paradise Revisited

Tuscany, Italy-trekearth

Paradise Revisited

Revised December 11, 2020

Paradise from the New Testament Greek

Strong page 1035.

Strong page 72. 

Marshall page 257. Paradise from Luke 23:43.



Marshall page 545. Paradise from 2 Corinthians. I tried to include more text but the way the book fit on the scanner it was distorted.











Marshall page 727. Paradise from Revelation 2: 7.

Commentary

Bauer on page 614 describes paradise from Luke 23, 2 Corinthians 12 and Revelation 2 as a place above the earth. Now from my philosophical/theological perspective I do not take this plain literally, as in some place in the clouds, or above the clouds, or even beyond the solar system or beyond the physical Universe, as in a place that can be physically found via space/travel.

The Bible teaches that paradise is a place where spirits in Christ go after death, and Old Testament/Hebrew Bible saints went to spiritually after death.

The Bible teaches this using figurative literal language.

Therefore, I would conclude paradise is a place of the non-physical spiritual realm.

Now, in discussion at church and with my theological/philosophical friends over the years I have speculated that because human beings are used to and made for physicality, Paradise may consist of, and I state may consist of, a simulated physicality that seems like earth to the persons that are there.

On the other hand there is the school of thought that when one dies in Christ he or she may almost immediately awaken in the resurrected body making the paradise references strongly metaphorical as opposed to figurative literal. This will not be immediate, but will seem to be.

This is certainly orthodox and possible, but I question whether Jesus meant this by the use of 'today' to the criminal on the cross. Strong notes that it has to do with now and present. Strong (1890)(1986: 87).

There is a textual and theological possibility that the Revelation 2: 7 reference is in regard to a future, plain literal restored Eden like planet earth.

This would be a different 'paradise'.

There is also the issue of Paul's 2 Corinthians reference and his willingness to consider departing the body to be with the Lord in Philippians 1.

H. A. Kent Jr. reasons the term 'paradise' although appearing in the Greek New Testament is probably originally of Persian origin. Kent (1996: 826). In Judaism, rabbinic literature used the term as a place to portray the place of blessedness for the righteous dead that knew God, in contrast to those that did not. Kent (1996: 826).

Some scholars have concluded that since the remaining references to paradise after Christ and the cross with Luke 23, refer to Heaven, and then was the resurrection and Christ's ascension, that Paradise has been removed from Hades and taken to the third heaven. Kent (1996: 826).

This seems rather speculative. By my reasoning with my own speculation if paradise would be a simulated realm like earth with simulated physicality for those in Christ and Old Testament Saints, the exact location is a rather irrelevant point, I suppose.

Erickson reasons that based on the same Biblical evidences the righteous in the intermediate state arrive at paradise. Erickson (1994: 1183). The intensity of the condition of paradise and Hades will not be as intense as the finalized states. Erickson (1994: 1183). This would be not only a reasonable theological and philosophical deduction based on the fact it is intermediate state and pre-final judgment (2 Corinthians 5 and Revelation 20 respectively) but also these are simply spiritual states and not spiritual/physical states. As Erickson notes the human condition is incomplete. Erickson (1994: 1183).

I was listening very recently to a well-known online/radio teacher discuss this topic and he suggested when asked that persons in Heaven/Paradise would not be aware of what was occurring in the earthly realm. This despite such verses, as he noted, Hebrews 12: 1 and the cloud of witnesses. This appears figurative language and from his Hebrews commentary, Hughes notes that dramatic imagery is being used. Hughes (1990: 518).  Those mentioned are past martyrs who are champions of faith. Hughes (1990: 518). The online/radio teacher also pointed this out, and this would be a preferred interpretation to a suggestion that they somehow are monitoring occurrences in the earthly realm.

I doubt there is a direct line of access from realm to realm, but I suppose this does not rule out, since paradise would be a supernatural realm, God providing certain information to citizens by his will and choice or because he was asked and is therefore perhaps willing to do so.

Of course this realm in not empirical and is non-scientific and so for many critics it will seem like a ridiculous nonsense concept. The same support for it would come from the same religious history from Scripture written by several authors in different locations with different books that wrote the same basic theology. And as I noted to an advisor at Manchester that doubted the existence of angelic beings because they were non-physical, if God being of spirit (John 4: 24) could make physical rational beings, then he could also make spiritual rational beings. If God could create a physical universe of matter, a physical realm for finite creatures, then he could also create a spiritual realm for finite creatures.  Not theologically, or philosophically huge difficulties in reality.

BAUER, W (1979) A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, Translated by Eric H. Wahlstrom, Chicago, The University of Chicago Press.

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

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

KENT H. A. (1996) ‘Paradise', in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.

MARSHALL, ALFRED (1975)(1996) The Interlinear KJV-NIV, Grand Rapids, Zondervan.

STRONG, J. (1890)(1986) Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, Pickering, Ontario, Welch Publishing Company.