Brief On Idolatry

Magdeburg, Germany Beautiful Earth, Google+

The sermon today at church was discussing Solomon and his quote 'seven hundred wives and concubines' and his great wealth.

In light of a comment...God does not have any ontological needs, that is not what the article is discussing. It is in context discussing God's needs for a person as in his purposes vs. natural human needs.

1 Kings 11:1-3

English Standard Version (ESV)

'11 Now King Solomon loved many foreign women, along with the daughter of Pharaoh: Moabite, Ammonite, Edomite, Sidonian, and Hittite women, 2 from the nations concerning which the Lord had said to the people of Israel, “You shall not enter into marriage with them, neither shall they with you, for surely they will turn away your heart after their gods.” Solomon clung to these in love. 3 He had 700 wives, who were princesses, and 300 concubines. And his wives turned away his heart.'

The theme of the sermon, in my opinion was King Solomon and his discussion of the vanities of life that were a prime example of making idols of 'things' other than God.

Therefore, the key to happiness it was indicated for a human being was to trust in God and in Jesus Christ, in other words, the triune God of the New Testament.

To trust of things of spirit and soul over temporal things for happiness.

Definitions of Idolatry

Browning writes that it is 'the cult surrounding a statue of a god or goddess'. Browning (1997: 181).

'Paul warns the Corinthian Christians about a kind of idolatry (I Cor. 10: 14) which might have been a form of civic ceremony'. Browning (1997: 181).

'Idolatry is also used metaphorically for evil desires (Col. 3:5)'. Browning (1997: 181).

This I reason is the primary use of terms idol, idols, and idolatry in the Western evangelical church today.

Colossians 3:5

'English Standard Version (ESV)

5 Put to death therefore what is earthly in you:[a] sexual immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire, and covetousness, which is idolatry.

Footnotes: Colossians 3:5 Greek therefore your members that are on the earth'

Evil desires are therefore the theological and philosophical opposite of good desires that would be based on a love for God and desires to serve God, in Christ; although admittedly human beings in a corrupted, sinful state are not perfectly good and holy.

Therefore desires are never perfectly good and holy.

P.C. Craigie defines idolatry as 'The worship of an idol or of a deity represented by an idol, usually as an image. Craigie (1997: 542).

He as did Browning acknowledges that the New Testament deals with idolatry in a more metaphorical context than the Hebrew Bible. Craigie (1996: 542).  As in one should not covet for example (Ephesians 5: 5 and Colossians 3: 5).

Ephesians 5:5

English Standard Version (ESV)

'5 For you may be sure of this, that everyone who is sexually immoral or impure, or who is covetous (that is, an idolater), has no inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God.'

Again in context, this is evil desires, the opposite of good desires. Another way a stating this would be that the Holy Spirit is not being sought in these desires, but sinful human desires are being followed.

A theological key here is the idol becomes 'the immediate focus of a person's desires and 'worship' displacing the worship of God.' Craigie (1996: 543).

The sermon's assumption being, and I agree, that this type of metaphorical idolatry will ultimately in this realm lead to vanity and unhappiness.

However, where I take some issue is with what is lacking, in an admittedly non-theological lecture format of preaching, as the message, as are many evangelical presentations, is over-simplistic.

Clearly it is intellectually and theologically possible to desire things in Christ through the Holy Spirit and still not be happy. 

Personally, I do not even reason that happiness should be our goal in such a fallen realm, rather it should be peace, joy and fulfilment in Christ even while there are problems of evil and suffering.

I do think that lack of misery should be a goal, that is lack of extreme suffering for prolonged periods.

There are many things that could make a sincere Christian unhappy apart from being in a state of idolatry.

These include, non-exhaustively, starvation, physical injury such as a serious wound needing treatment, physical assault, rape, loneliness, poverty, amputation, blindness, deafness, physical deformity and social ramifications, diseases such as cancer, ALS, apparent lack of salvation for friends and family, death of friend or family member and so on.

To simply state that when Christians are suffering with unanswered prayer, that these are 'felt needs' as one pastor stated at another church, when God does not grant them, does not seem accurate.

That type of theology also plays philosophically, in my humble opinion, into the Christian critic's hands because a realistic apologetic of reason is not being used.

Some claim atheism or agnosticism in part I reason because seemingly like many evangelical Christians they expect more from God. But the Christian believes in faith and the critic does not.

But, there are true needs that in this realm of problems of evil and suffering are not always met by God.

I realize that this is very difficult for some evangelicals to accept, but examine the evidence.

As God meets the needs of his saints in order to accomplish his will.

1 John 5:14-15 English Standard Version (ESV)

'14 And this is the confidence that we have toward him, that if we ask anything according to his will he hears us. 15 And if we know that he hears us in whatever we ask, we know that we have the requests that we have asked of him.'

This is my view is not stating that God will meet all needs, 'felt needs' or actual needs such as losing a leg due to amputation and needing a new one, in this realm.

Are we as an apologetic going to seriously state to the amputee that you really do not need that leg, or God would give it to you?

Or rather is the situation more accurately a reflection of God's sovereign will.

Suffering included.

R.W. Orr in regard to I John, notes that persons praying into the will of God are brought into the 'fellowship of divine life'. Orr (1986: 1584).

I do not find the idea from 1 John or the New Testament that God meets all of our needs in Christ in this realm, but rather his needs for us are met in prayer as in his purposes for persons.

Not ontological divine needs of God. There are none.

Therefore, this allows for the possibility for suffering, lack of fulfilment and misery to some extent for a person that has the Holy Spirit and the atoning and resurrection work of Christ applied to them by grace through faith alone, leading to good works.

This is not idolatry. This is not idolatry to desire for things to be better, to be fixed.

Although I can admit that where there is natural good desires, related evil desires can also exist which would be idolatry. Therefore idolatry remains a very significant issue.

BROWNING, W.R.F. (1997) Dictionary of the Bible, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

CRAIGIE, P.C. (1996) 'Idolatry', in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.

ORR, R.W. (1986) I John, in F.F. Bruce (ed.), The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Zondervan.

Too much time...Boom 99.7, Facebook

Philosopher Frederick Ferre: Incompatibilism (PhD Edit)

Paris-Travel+Leisure, Facebook

Frederick Ferre (1973)(1976) presents an incompatibilist view called self-determinism.[1]  Ferre reasons that, although there are external conditions relevant for every action, the outcomes of these actions are not fixed by any causal chain.[2]  Ferre here is suggesting that for some events there is not a prior determined cause.[3] Therefore, within this theory some human actions would not be caused or simultaneously determined by God or any external force,[4] and some human actions could be considered self-determined.[5] 

Feinberg, who has written extensively on the concepts of free will and determinism, explains incompatibilism is defined as the idea within free will theodicy that a person is free in regard to an action if he or she is free to either commit, or refrain from committing the action.[6]  There can be no antecedent[7] conditions or laws that will determine that an action is committed or not committed.[8] 

Compatibilism, like incompatibilism, holds to free will but in a limited form.[9]  P.S. Greenspan (1998) writes compatibilism holds to free will and determinism being compatible.[10]  Feinberg, a noted compatibilist, describes compatibilism as stating certain nonconstraining conditions could strongly influence actions in conjunction with human free will performing these actions.[11]  Feinberg (2001) explains that with this viewpoint, there will be no contradiction in stating God would create human beings who were significantly free, unconstrained, and yet committed actions that God willed.[12] 

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

FERRE, FREDERICK (1952)(1976) ‘Self-Determinism’, in American Philosophical Quarterly, Volume 10, Number 3, in John R. Burr and Milton Goldinger (eds.), in Philosophy and Contemporary Issues, London, Collier Macmillan Publishers.

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.

GREENSPAN, P.S. (1998) Free Will and Genetic Determinism: Locating the Problem (s), Maryland, University of Maryland.

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

---

[1] Ferre (1973)(1976: 31-44).

[2] Ferre (1973)(1976: 35).

[3] Ferre (1973)(1976: 35).

[4] Ferre (1973)(1976: 35).

[5] Ferre (1973)(1976: 35).

[6] Feinberg (1994: 64).

[7] In his article entitled ‘Conditional’ Simon Blackburn writes that an antecedent exists if  p causes  q.  P  is the antecedent or prior cause of  q  which is the conditional and the consequence.  Blackburn (1996: 73-74).

[8] Feinberg (1994: 64).

[9] Pojman (1996: 596).

[10] Greenspan (1998: 1).

[11] Feinberg (1994: 60).

[12] Feinberg (2001: 637).

Incompatibilism, Libertarian Free Will and Political Libertarianism (PhD Edit)

Provence, Travel+Leisure and Facebook

Provence, France-Travel+Leisure and Facebook

I noticed this tonight in an edits file, then noticed there was a version in my PhD and so therefore I share...

Based on quick searches, the first appearance of Oxford Philosopher, Tim Mawson on my blogs.

Yes, I do check.

I share, and provide additional perspectives on my material. I hold to compatibilism, but academic balance is needed in PhD work and blogging for that matter.

Philosopher Tim Mawson reasons that incompatibilism, which is also known as libertarianism in regard to human free will,[1] believes that true human free will must be uncaused by preceding states.[2] Thus within incompatibilist theory, a human action would never truly be free because God would have willed and determined it on his own before he simultaneously willed it with a given person.[3] 

Mawson writes that incompatibilism, which is closely related to libertarianism in regard to human free will,[4] states that true human free will must be uncaused by preceding states[5]  This view would rule out God as a preceding force that determines the human will and actions.[6]  Libertarianism[7] is often viewed as a form of indeterminism.[8]  An action cannot be predetermined by any circumstance or desire.[9]  Indeterminism is defined as the idea that there are no antecedent (preceding conditions) or simultaneous causes of human actions.[10]  All human actions are only free if a person could have done otherwise.[11]  

I reason that many church attendees in our modern society make a connection, perhaps unconsciously, between libertarian political,[12] religious, social type freedom, and libertarianism[13] in regard to God.  However, political forces that grant some freedoms are finite (limited) entities and should not be equated with the freedom allowed by the infinite, omnipotent, omniscient God. At the same time, God’s power to determine events is much greater than any political entity.

With a compatibilistic model, if the infinite, omnipotent God restrains himself and allows his permissible rather than perfect will to take place, his will is still being done, and he is still determining events, by allowing evil and sin to occur and not intervening.

---

[1] Mawson (1999: 324).

[2] Mawson (1999: 324).

[3] Mawson (1999: 324).

[4] Mawson (1999: 324).

[5] Mawson (1999: 324).

[6] Mawson (1999: 324).

[7] Libertarianism supposes that human free choice is not causally determined, but is not random either.  Blackburn (1996: 218).

[8] Geisler (1996: 429).

[9] Mawson (1999: 324). 

[10] Geisler (1996: 429).

[11] Geisler (1996: 429).

[12] Political libertarianism maximizes individual rights and the state has its power minimized.  Blackburn (1996: 218).

[13] Blackburn (1996: 218).  

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

GEISLER, NORMAN L. (1975) Philosophy of Religion, Grand Rapids, Zondervan Publishing House. 

GEISLER, NORMAN L. (1978) The Roots of Evil, Grand Rapids, Zondervan Publishing House. 

GEISLER, NORMAN L. (1986) Predestination and Free Will, Downers Grove, Illinois, InterVarsity Press.

GEISLER, NORMAN L. (1996) ‘Freedom, Free Will, and Determinism’, in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.

GEISLER, NORMAN, L (1999) ‘The Problem of Evil’, in Baker Encyclopedia of Apologetics, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.

MAWSON, TIM (1999) ‘The Problem of Evil and Moral Indifference’, in Religious Studies, Volume 35, pp. 323-345. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Brief On Revelation 3:20

Biarritz, France, Travel+Leisure and Facebook

Even with the busy work week, I was pondering this week on Revelation 3: 20 and the various libertarian free will, evangelical freewill and incompatibilist freedom interpretations that would arise, often in missions and evangelism contexts.

Revelation 3:20 New American Standard Bible (NASB)

20 Behold, I stand at the door and knock; if anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and will dine with him, and he with Me.

Revelation 3:20 English Standard Version (ESV)

20 Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and eat with him, and he with me.

Old Third Mill.Org

Cited

'Question

If only Jesus can open my heart in order to save me, why is it that he knocks at the door of the Laodiceans (Rev. 3:20)? How can I fit together Calvinism (specifically that God alone causes men to turn their hearts towards him) and this verse?

Answer

There are at least a couple ways to answer your question:

First, Revelation 3:20 is part of a letter written to the Christian church in Laodicea. There is no indication that the people who open the door to Jesus are not saved prior to opening the door, or that opening the door is a metaphor for receiving Christ in salvation. Opening the door does not appear to be a metaphor for salvation, but for obedience. Those who open the door are those who hear the warning of this letter and repent of their sin. The implication from the context of the verse is that these people are already saved.

Second, Revelation 3:20 does not say anything about the process of how one comes to be able to open the door, or about who is able to open the door. Rather, it simply explains the result of opening the door. Even if one were to interpret this verse as speaking of salvation (which I believe would be an incorrect interpretation), the verse still would not provide any information as to how that person came to be able to open the door, whether or not he was regenerated and/or had faith prior to opening the door, etc. Thus, one could understand the verse to be speaking about initial salvation and be a consistent Calvinist. The verse does not refute the idea that a person must be regenerated by the Holy Spirit prior to being able to open the door.

Third (for the sake of argument assuming that this verse is about initial salvation), Calvinism does not require that Jesus forcibly open the door. Rather, Calvinism teaches that the Holy Spirit regenerates man and gives him faith, and that man then responds positively to the gospel in repentance. Metaphorically, opening the door to Jesus would seem to be a better illustration of the response of repentance than of regeneration and reception of faith. Once a person is regenerated and given faith, opening the door is the natural Calvinistic response.

Answer by Ra McLaughlin'

To be clear, I was not certain what the views of my documented authors would be on this verse prior to the research.  My sources could have stated otherwise and I would have noted such. I have so previously.

F.F. Bruce

By the way, incredibly, according to my very critical adviser, David Pailin of Manchester, causing me along with help from his colleagues to depart, Bruce was his academic adviser. 

What happened?

Bruce stated that 'Christ has no place in the life of the Laodicean Church, and seeks admission; even if the church as a whole pays no heed to his call, those members who do will enjoy mutual fellowship with him'. Bruce (1986: 1605).

Robert H. Mounce

Mounce writes that often, as I alluded to at the beginning, this verse is often used as referring to those outside of the Christian community. Mounce (1990: 128).

It is often pressed in the name of evangelism. Mounce (1990: 128).

However, he reasons in Scriptural context it is 'self-deluded members of the church who are being addressed'. Mounce (1990: 128).

Revelation is documented by many scholars to contain Christ speaking through the Apostle John and letters to seven churches.

Christ then is attempting to re-establish fellowship with this church. 

Therefore the context is not salvation for those outside of the Church.

I have come across free will perspectives online which are basically expressed in Mounce's summation as in being an evangelism verse and tool where those who hear Christ knocking have significant libertarian free will to accept the gospel message, or not.

Even with my Reformed, compatibilist leanings, although researched and educated leanings, the research is not convincing for free will orientated evangelism and libertarian views.

Rather, as this is metaphor, the knocking by Christ and therefore God, is divine movement by God upon the individuals that God is seeking.

Based on research I reason that this is directed in context to the Church at Laodicea.

But even if it directed to non-believers at that church in a salvation context, it is not a clear and concise libertarian free will context provide here.

I agree with McLaughlin's view that 'Rather, it simply explains the result of opening the door. Even if one were to interpret this verse as speaking of salvation (which I believe would be an incorrect interpretation), the verse still would not provide any information as to how that person came to be able to open the door, whether or not he was regenerated and/or had faith prior to opening the door, etc. Thus, one could understand the verse to be speaking about initial salvation and be a consistent Calvinist. The verse does not refute the idea that a person must be regenerated by the Holy Spirit prior to being able to open the door.'

Back to the verse:

'If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and eat with him, and he with me.'

This is still true to a compatibilistic, soft-deterministic view, although not a hard-deterministic/deterministic view void of any significant human freewill, where God would simply by compulsion force and coerce salvation and belief.

With God and Christ taking the initiative and regenerating; preaching, Scripture and gospel related input is used in the process so that at some point, one is saved, as chosen and has belief.

I can acknowledge certainly this may not always be immediately. God regenerating whom he wills (Ephesians 1-2) does not necessarily mean a process does not take place over an extended time in some cases before a  person is actually considered 'born again' (John 3), and regenerated (Titus 3: 5).

I reason God and Christ could knock multiple times with multiple events before one believed within a compatibilistic salvation context.

This would be limited human free will and not libertarian free will. It cannot be stated with certainty exactly how much time irresistible grace via the Holy Spirit shall take, only that it will occur is this realm and lifetime.

This is certainly pragmatically true as there would be a multitude of stories where a person heard the gospel and yet did not publicly acknowledge the Lord until years later.

Was he or she saved earlier or later?

I am a non-adult example of this finding interest in the Christian message at four years old on and even believing Christ was likely God at five to six, but still fearing God in the sense of questionable faith and not seeking the Bible and related. I did not call myself a Christian publicly and in a significant understanding until twelve years old.

I am not certain exactly when I was regenerated and saved, but I know Biblically, theologically and philosophically, I have been.

Even though I do not think salvation is the context of Revelation 3: 20.

BRUCE, F.F. (1986) ‘Revelation’, in F.F. Bruce (gen.ed.), The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Marshall Pickering/ Zondervan.

MCLAUGHLIN, R.A. (2014), 'Knock, Knock', Third Millennium Ministries, Fern Park, Florida, Third Millennium Ministries.

MOUNCE, ROBERT H. (1990) The Book of Revelation, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

Facebook