Sceptical on Restoration Movements

Coquitlam: Flickr

Sceptical on Restoration Movements

Seems to me that no post New Testament era Christian movement is exactly the same theologically as the biblical original (yes that includes evangelical).

The Protestant Reformation had a considerable biblical basis with Martin Luther and John Calvin, and others that attempted to stay true to Scripture in context. This is also true in the off-shoot Anabaptist movement, such as with the Mennonites.

Millard Erickson explains that systematic theology draws upon the entire Bible and does not exegete texts in isolation. Erickson (1994: 21). It attempts to analyze and understand Scriptural teachings in a harmonized way. Erickson (1994: 21). He makes it clear that Biblical doctrines may not necessarily be maintained precisely with the same form of expression as they were in Biblical times, and notes philosophical truth can be found from other sources. Erickson (1994: 37).

Within my Christian faith, theology and philosophy, I have been sceptical of restoration movements arising from the nineteenth century. With many of these movements there is over-speculation and a lack of hermeneutical approach that will lead to contextual analysis of the Hebrew Bible and New Testament and reasonable, sound, theology based on the Scripture within the Bible.

  

The video

Cited

'During the Second Great Awakening of the early 19th Century, a parallel movement in England produced the innovative eschatological scheme known as Dispensationalism, the creation of John Nelson Darby. This movement was widely popularized in American through James Brooks and his most famous protege, C.I. Scofield. For more free resources, please visit www.brucegore.com.'
---

Presentation includes

The Second Awakening era featured speculation on the Second Advent of Christ
Briefly on the origin of the Jehovah's Witnesses
Briefly on the origin of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints
Briefly on the origin of Dispensatiionalism
Briefly on the origin of Rapture theology

In regard to 'the great disappointment' from Adventists and like of October 22, 1844; these followers that identified as biblical Christians, should have known better. A reasonable contextual evaluation of Scripture would have led to a theology that abandoned date setting and instead would take the words of Jesus Christ plain literally, as context demands. Jesus Christ stated that no one knows when the second advent will take place (Matthew 24, Mark 13). The Church is to be ready for the second coming without assuming when the event will occur.

False predictions on the second advent lead to further error of a theology of Christ's invisible second coming. The second coming is to be physically, empirically observed:

Matthew 24: 30 from the New American Standard Bible:

"And then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the SON OF MAN COMING ON THE CLOUDS OF THE SKY with power and great glory.

See also 2 Thessalonians 2 which implies a physically returned Jesus Christ.

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.

Favouring Democracy over Tyranny

Favouring Democracy over Tyranny

WALLACE TOM Jr. (2015) Refuting Islam, The Christian Patriots Guide to Exposing the Evils of Islam, Bellingham, Fundamental Publishers.

The book review continues...

Chapter Two: The Appeasers

Barbary Pirate Wars

Mr. Wallace opines that America has tried appeasement with Islam previously. (18). He lists some historical examples of political dealings between America and Islamic nations and reasons that the appeasement of Islam only delays inevitable war. (18-19).

However, I would opine that at this time in history with the United States of America having the most powerful military in world history, this makes the NATO alliance the most powerful on the planet. Accepting the existence of Islamic terrorism which includes suicide attacks as a tool of terror, it is still true that the power of the United States of America and NATO does deter an Islamic nation from making war.

I stated in the last review of this text in regard to Shariah, dated December 8:

'An argument that inevitably this will expand to cover criminal law, or all laws of a nation, if there is an Islamic majority (or significant minority) in population, depends on one reasoning that Westernized Muslims in Western countries will embrace Shariah, as opposed to secularism and secular law. Shariah law and Islam is definitely and definitively very religious and Western secularism is (of course) definitely and definitively secular.

At this point, I do not see the West in any form becoming anything other than more secular, but I am open-minded....

Again, as noted in previous reviews, time will tell.'

Driving home from work last evening, I listened to Fortress of Faith, which is Mr. Wallace's fifteen minute radio broadcast (KARI: Blaine, Washington). He made an informative and interesting presentation on (paraphrased) why Islam cannot accept democracy.

Within Christianity and Islam, he noted philosophical concepts of first (God) and second (The created) causes. 'Cause' is often discussed on this website, in the context of theodicy, the problem of evil, free will and determinism. Mr. Wallace listed (paraphrased) laws of nature as a secondary cause. I agree and also have noted that human beings and angelic/demonic beings can also serve as rational secondary causes.

Also within his presentation he provided (paraphrased) an estimation that eight out of ten (80%) of Muslims that immigrate to America would like to be free from Islamic political dictatorship and tyranny, even if still holding to the religion.

If we allowed for a number less that 80% for the rest of Western world with Islamic immigration, it could be reasoned the number will still be over 50%. If these types of deductions are correct, and Mr. Wallace supports the first one, I reason that even if a Western country develops a majority of Islamic population or significant minority, it is reasonable premise to suggest that these Muslims, in majority, will politically embrace democracy as opposed to an Islamic religion-stare model.

A premise that most within Islam that immigrate to the West, favour and will favour, secularism over radical Islam, is a cumulative premise in support of an argument that the main worldview embraced in the Western world will continue to be secularism. At least in this present era and for the foreseeable future.

Is God Misunderstood? (PhD Edit)

I was invited to a Willingdon Church drama last night. Kool, two-tier set.

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

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

Philosopher Theodore P. Rebard (1996) states that the logical problem of evil exists since God is omnibenevolent  and omnipotent, and writes critics can view the logical problem as meaning that if God cannot end evil, he is not omnipotent, and if he can prevent evil and does not, he is not omnibenevolent or all loving. Rebard (1996: 1). Greek philosopher Epicurus was known to have made a similar statement.  Epicurus (341-270 B.C.)(1949: 80). Rebard concludes that God either does not exist or is misunderstood.  Rebard (1996: 1).

It should also be stated that the problem of evil is not only an intellectual problem, but as R.K. McGregor Wright (1996) notes, a great deal of moral and emotional freight goes along with the problem of evil. Wright (1996: 178). He connects this to the fact that many philosophers have viewed the problem of evil as a disproof of God. Wright (1996: 178).  

Throughout my Wales, PhD (2010), I explained that God has been largely misunderstood and, although Biblical revelation, theology, and philosophy do not provide an exhaustive and absolutely conclusive answer to the logical problem, there are reasonable solutions to the difficulty of evil existing within God’s creation.

As a moderate conservative that holds to Reformed theology, I reason that the atoning and resurrection work applied to believers in the eventual culminated Kingdom of God is the ultimate remedy for the problem of evil. I must be clear: theodicy is not the remedy to the problem of evil, but a speculative, and in my case, Biblically based attempt to explain how God deals with evil in his creation. In similar fashion, practical and empirical theology  do not offer solutions to the problem of evil, but are theological disciplines which assist persons to understand how evil is comprehended and dealt with in the Christian community and in society at large.

Even with the understanding that God and Christ will eventually save the world from evil (Mounce (1990: 369-397)), and that this can be explained in ways through theodicy, does not mean that I or any theologian or philosopher can always provide specific reasons and answers for each instance of evil and suffering in creation. I can approach my theodicy presentation with confidence, but should always possess great humility. Although I do not side with critics that doubt that theism can be squared with the evil that takes place in this world, I fully admit that in many cases of evil and suffering, only God has a comprehensive understanding of what is occurring, and why it is occurring.

Therefore, theists and atheists from various perspectives are all left with degrees of ignorance in regard to the problem of evil. No person can fully understand evil and the suffering that results in every case. Theists and atheists are therefore left with using reason, and in the case of the Christian theist, the Bible to work out theories concerning the problem of evil.

---

EPICURUS (341-270 B.C.)(1949) in Overcoming Evil from the German translation, Von der Ueberwindung der Furcht, Zurich, Von der Ueberwindung der Furcht.

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

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

REBARD, THEODORE P. (1996) ‘The Problem of Evil Revisited’, in Catholic.net, North Haven, Connecticut, Christian Philosophy, Catholic. net.http://www.catholic.net/RCC/Periodicals/Faith/1112-96/philos1.html

WRIGHT, R.K.McGREGOR (1996) No Place for Sovereignty, Downers Grove, Illinois, InterVarsity Press.

Scientism II

Standard.co.uk: London 2017

Scientism II

Preface

This article originally published on Blogger, 20171212, revised on Blogger for an entry on academia.edu on 20250323.

Referenced from this website

Friday, November 07, 2014 Scientism 

Tuesday, June 27, 2017 That idea would go over like an atomic bomb: Omitting the benefit 

Scientism

One night, I discussed with a friend on the phone, his online course on early Christianity from a secular University. The teaching included premises which were skeptical of the claimed supernatural, revealed origins of the Hebrew Bible and New Testament. I opined (paraphrased) that much of this was rooted in worldviews of empiricism, naturalism which often feature scientism. I had been educated in regard to aspects of empiricism and naturalism while studying for my bible school and seminary degrees in Canada, well before my interaction with them with the theses research degrees at secular University in Wales-England. I have continued this research online.

Oxford Science

Empiricism: 'Denotes a result that is observed by experiment or observation rather than by theory.' (287). I view this as a legitimate academic approach in reasonable contexts.

Stanford Dictionary of Philosophy: Naturalism

Stanford Dictionary of Philosophy

Cited

'These philosophers aimed to ally philosophy more closely with science. They urged that reality is exhausted by nature, containing nothing “supernatural”, and that the scientific method should be used to investigate all areas of reality, including the “human spirit” (Krikorian 1944; Kim 2003).'

'So understood, “naturalism” is not a particularly informative term as applied to contemporary philosophers. The great majority of contemporary philosophers would happily accept naturalism as just characterized—that is, they would both reject “supernatural” entities, and allow that science is a possible route (if not necessarily the only one) to important truths about the “human spirit”.

Even so, this entry will not aim to pin down any more informative definition of “naturalism”. It would be fruitless to try to adjudicate some official way of understanding the term. Different contemporary philosophers interpret “naturalism” differently. This disagreement about usage is no accident. For better or worse, “naturalism” is widely viewed as a positive term in philosophical circles—few active philosophers nowadays are happy to announce themselves as “non-naturalists”'

Noted Bibliography from this source

Krikorian, Y. (ed.), 1944, Naturalism and the Human Spirit, New York: Columbia University Press.

Mackie, J., 1977, Ethics: Inventing Right and Wrong, Harmondsworth: Penguin.

Plantinga, A., 1996, “Methodological Naturalism?”, in J. van der Meer (ed.), Facets of Faith and Science, Lanham, MD: University Press of America.

---

Interesting definition and explanation from Stanford. In writing and discussion I have focused more on the terms 'empiricism' (nothing wrong with that view in itself) and the extreme position of scientism.

Blackburn

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).

Oxford Dictionary

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).
---

A person holding to scientism may abandon the need for a contextual evaluation of Scripture and the revealed word of God in regard to origins and creation; instead embracing scientific explanations alone.

As a moderate conservative Christian of Reformed and Anabaptist traditions, I reason there is a need for openness to scientific truths, as in being open to inductive scientific evidences and the use of empiricism.

For the sake of a reasonable, balanced academic approach, the entirety of worldview should be never be reasoned at the expenses of biblical revelation and theological and philosophical deductive evidences within the academic disciplines of biblical studies, theology and philosophy of religion. Theistic philosophy of religion based on deduced, reasoned, philosophical premises and conclusions

Scientism should be academically rejected.

Wimp.com

Big Think: December 9, 2020 

The author is Adam Frank

Cited 

'What is scientism, and why is it a mistake?'

'Science is a method of inquiry about nature, while scientism is philosophy.' 

Agreed.

Cited

'And scientism is no longer up to the challenge of meeting the most pressing issues of our day.' 

It never was...

Cited

'Science and Scientism are not the same. You can deeply value the former while rejecting the latter. Scientism is the view that science is the only objective means by which to determine what is true or is an unwarranted application of science in situations that are not amenable to scientific inquiry. Science is a method for asking questions about the world. Scientism is just one philosophy among many about the relationship between human beings and their experiences.'

Scientism definitely has worldview and philosophy aspects to it.

Cited 

'The folly of scientism'

'Now I am a passionate scientist who is passionate about science, but I also think scientism is a huge mistake. The most important reason it is a mistake is because it is confused about what it’s defending. Without doubt, science is unique, powerful, and wonderful. It should be celebrated, and it needs to be protected. Scientism, on the other hand, is just metaphysics, and there are lots and lots of metaphysical beliefs.'

Every academic discipline needs to be handled with objectivity. Scientism risks subjectively dismissing non-scientific academic disciplines.

Cited 

'There are in fact many philosophical positions — many kinds of metaphysics — that you can adopt about reality and science depending on your inclinations. The good ones illuminate critical aspects of what is happening as human beings collectively go about trying to make sense of their experiences. Scientism claims to be the only philosophy that can speak for science, but that is simply not the case. There are lots of philosophies of science out there.' 

Agreed. A philosophy of science, does not have to embrace any kind of scientism.

Big Think: Adam Frank Astrophysicist

Cited

'Adam Frank is a professor of astrophysics at the University of Rochester and a leading expert on the final stages of evolution for stars like the sun. Frank's computational research group at the University of Rochester has developed advanced supercomputer tools for studying how stars form and how they die.'

---

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

BRADLEY, RAYMOND D. (1996) ‘Infinite Regress Argument’, in Robert Audi, (ed.), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

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

CRAIG, WILLIAM LANE, (1991)(2006) ‘The Existence of God and the Beginning of the Universe’,Truth: A Journal of Modern Thought 3 (1991) 85-96. http://www.leaderu.com/truth/3truth11.html pp. 1-18.

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

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

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

SKLAR, LAWRENCE, (1996) ‘Philosophy of Science’, in Robert Audi, (ed), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. 

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

TOLHURST, TOLHURST, WILLIAM (1996) 'Vicious Regress', in Robert Audi, (ed.), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.