MPhil, Bangor University, 2003: The Problem of Evil: Anglican and Baptist Perspectives
Certainly, the historical figures in the Old and New Testaments who claimed to have witnessed miracles have to be considered when one evaluates an explanation for our Universe.
As J.D. Spiceland stated:
Christian faith is informed by the revelation of God to man in Scripture and in the mighty acts recorded there. . . .The continuing work of the church in the world may itself be viewed as evidence for the truth of the biblical concept of miracle. Spiceland (1996: 724).
A belief in the Christian God and Christ is not comparable to a belief in fictional Unicorns, or even UFOs or Atlantis I might add, for which their existence has been speculated but not proven. People and events are documented in sixty-six books of Scripture and other historical books. The Biblical books contain a consistent story of God’s work in humanity, and at times these books contain miracles. PhD, University of Wales, Trinity Saint David, Lampeter, 2010: Theodicy and Practical Theology
SPICELAND, J.D. (1996) Miracles, in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.
Again, this entry, as with my last entry, deals with my friendly discussion with a very intelligent scholar from the translation department at work.
The Calvinist God is a ‘monster’ theory was expressed.
Well, I pointed out that I refer to myself as Reformed and not a Calvinist. I am not a devotee of Calvin and also theologically with study, prefer believer’s baptism to infant Baptist.
In short, hard determinism, when accepted by someone with a Reformed or other position, could reasonably be connected to a God is a ‘monster’ theory.
Hard Versus Soft Determinism
Louis P. Pojman (1996) explains the difference between determinism, which is also known as hard determinism, Pojman (1996: 596). and compatibilism, which is also known as soft determinism. Within determinism (Pojman (1996: 596)) or hard determinism, God causes an act and no created being is responsible for his or her moral actions, while for compatibilism or soft determinism, although God causes actions, created beings are responsible where they act voluntarily. The human will would be the secondary cause in human decisions. Persons would still therefore be morally responsible for moral actions. Pojman (1996: 596).
Philosophically, the first and/or primary cause could be an outside force, as well, that is not God. An atheist may be a compatibilist and/or an incompatibilist, or one could hold to hard determinism.
Schelling suggests that ‘absolute causal power in one being leaves nothing but unconditional passivity for all the rest.’ Schelling (1845)(1936: 11). This would be a difficulty with accepting hard determinism.
Incompatinilism
John S. Feinberg, who has written extensively on the concepts of free will and determinism, explains incompatibilism is defined as the idea within free will theodicy or defence 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. Feinberg (1994: 64).
There can be no antecedent (prior) conditions or laws that will determine that an action is committed or not committed. Feinberg (1994: 64).
Feinberg writes that for this view, freedom is incompatible with contingently sufficient nonsubsequent conditions of an action. The contingently sufficient nonsubsequent actions would be God making people in such a way that they only freely did one thing or another. Feinberg (1994: 60).
Feinberg importantly writes that just as the incompatibilist does not claim that all actions are significantly free, the compatibilist also does not attach significant freedom to all acts. Feinberg (2001: 637).
Therefore, the compatibilist, soft-deterministic God of Reformed theology allows significant human freedom with the embracing of human thoughts, acts and action via human nature, desires and limited free will.
Although, in a basic agreement with Feinberg, I reason God at times, does force or coerce events in regard to humanity, in those cases, there is not significant human moral accountability. For example, a person unwillingly becomes an amputee. This is against the nature, desires and will. A person does not sin by rejecting the amputation with nature, desires and will.
The human ability with significant freedom to embrace thoughts, acts and actions as a secondary cause, philosophically and theologically eliminates God as forcing or coercing human thoughts, acts and actions where there is human, moral, accountability.
This answers the ‘monster’ theory.
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.
POJMAN, LOUIS P. (1996) Philosophy: The Quest for Truth, New York, Wadsworth Publishing Company.
SCHELLING, F.W.J. (1845)(1936) Schelling, Of Human Freedom, Translated by James Gutmann, The Open Court Publishing Company, Chicago.
Last night, while on the Pacific, a kind colleague from work that works within the translation department, questioned me on a verse in Jeremiah 26.
I explained that I had not looked in commentaries in regard to that verse. I am not certain which version he used, I do not recognize it from the three I generally use. But even though I am not commenting on the exact translated text he showed me, I am commenting on the concept.
Jeremiah 26
King James Version
3 If so be they will hearken, and turn every man from his evil way, that I may repent me of the evil, which I purpose to do unto them because of the evil of their doings.
New American Standard Bible
3 Perhaps they will listen and everyone will turn from his evil way, that I may repent of the calamity which I am planning to do to them because of the evil of their deeds.’
English Standard Version
3 It may be they will listen, and every one turn from his evil way, that I may relent of the disaster that I intend to do to them because of their evil deeds.
My reaction from reading what he showed me twice, and I looked at twice, again not one of these versions, was that God as infinite and omniscient, knows the various sides and possibilities of each issue, God knows the options in regard to each issue. The fact God may willingly allow for a secondary cause (or agent) to repent, does not eliminate the fact the God remains the primary cause whether or not God directly wills and causes something or whether God indirectly wills, allows and causes something.
Ra McLaughlin is Vice President of Creative Delivery Systems at Third Millennium Ministries.
There are also at least two ways to approach Jeremiah 26:3. The first is to note that God is not confiding in Jeremiah. Rather, he is instructing Jeremiah to repeat these words to Judah, and Jeremiah is doing just that. Thus, the "perhaps" concept is not God's admission that he doesn't know the future, but a rhetorical prod to Judah that their fate depends on their actions. If they repent at Jeremiah's warning, God may not punish them. If, however, they do not repent, then God may indeed punish them. The "perhaps" indicates that either outcome is possible, not from the perspective of God's eternal decrees, but from the perspective of man's involvement with God in the world.
---
Now, the second way to deal with each of these passages is to appeal to the doctrine of providence. This is not really a high-profile doctrine in Reformed circles these days, but it is nevertheless valuable. As opposed to the doctrine of the immutability of God's eternal decrees, providence describes God's mutable interactions with the world. "Mutable?" Yes, mutable. The doctrine of immutability does not state that God is incapable of any change, but only that he is immutable in the areas of his character, his covenant promises, and his eternal decrees.
I agree that God's infinite, eternal nature, cannot and does not change.
I reason that immutability allows God to understand several aspects of an issue or 'two sides' of an issue, and acknowledge that either (or several) could occur from the perspective of the human secondary cause. However, as explained, this does not cancel out God as primary cause.
---
Frequently, theologians are so eager to emphasize God's eternal decrees that they rush to an eternal perspective even when the Bible does not. For example, consider the common question: Why does the Bible say that God changed his mind? The typical answer runs something like this: God didn't change his mind. God always knew what he would ultimately think and do (eternal decrees, omniscience, etc.). The language of changing his mind is an anthropomorphism (e.g. the first way I explained Jer. 3:7). Well, the typical answer is okay as far as it goes, but it doesn't do justice to the whole picture. It makes God look like an immovable object, not a responsive being that interacts in relationships.
---
Notice how frequently the Bible explains God's actions from the perspective of God's eternal decrees (not very often), and compare that to how many times it says he changed his mind, or repented, or thought better of what he was going to do (all the time). If the important thing is to note God's eternal decrees, why does the Bible so often approach things from the other side? Moreover, even if changing his mind is an anthropomorphic metaphor, what is the point of correspondence between the human quality of changing one's mind and God's behavior? Why portray something immutable as mutable? How does that help us understand the truth about God's actions and attitudes in these situations?
---
The doctrine of providence helps greatly in these situations because it describes things from the perspective of God's governance of his creation in time rather than from the perspective of his eternal decrees related his temporal governance. In time, God does change his mind (e.g. Exod. 32:14; 1 Sam. 12:22; Jer. 18:1-10; Amos 7:3,6; Jon 3:9-10) -- just as he eternally decreed that he would change his mind.
---
Thus, the second way to interpret Jeremiah 26:3 is according to providence -- it really was "perhaps" from God's perspective. Either outcome was possible, and God was ready for either. This does not mean that in his omniscience God did not know what they would do, but only that they could have done either, and that in his providence God was allowing them a choice.
---
And by allowing something, God is willing it as primary cause.
As to God’s repentance, of which mention is made, there is no need of long explanation. No
change belongs to God; but when God is said to turn away his wrath, it is to be understood in a
sense suitable to the comprehension of men: in the same way also we are to understand the words,
that he repents. (Psalm 85:5; 110:4.) It is at the same time sufficiently evident what God means
here, even that he is reconcilable, as soon as men truly turn to him: and thus we see that men cannot
be called to repent, until God’s mercy is presented to them. Hence also it follows, that these two
things, repentance and faith, are connected together, and that it is absurd and an impious sacrilege
to separate them; for God cannot be feared except the sinner perceives that he will be propitious
to him: for as long as we are apprehensive of God’s wrath, we dread his judgment; and thus we
storm against him, and must necessarily be driven headlong into the lowest abyss,
hence under the Papacy they speak not only foolishly, but also coldly of repentance; for they leave souls doubtful
and perplexed, nay, they take away every kind of certainty. Let us then understand the reason why
the Holy Spirit teaches us, that repentance cannot be rightly and profitably taught, unless it be
added, that God will be propitious to miserable men whenever they turn to him. (202-203).
From a human perspective, God repents of a position, as humanity in faith in the Biblical God, repents of sin. Again, regardless of what God directly wills, or indirectly allows and wills, God remains the primary cause.
CALVIN, JOHN (1509-1564) (1999), Commentary on Jeremiah and Lamentations, Volume 3, Grand Rapids, Christian Classic Ethereal Library.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom19.html
Briefly: Jude 8-10
I was listening to the King James Version, audio version today...
Jude 8-10
The King James Version
8 Likewise also these filthy dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities. 9 Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee. 10 But these speak evil of those things which they know not: but what they know naturally, as brute beasts, in those things they corrupt themselves.
Jude 8-10
English Standard Version
8 Yet in like manner these people also, relying on their dreams, defile the flesh, reject authority, and blaspheme the glorious ones. 9 But when the archangel Michael, contending with the devil, was disputing about the body of Moses, he did not presume to pronounce a blasphemous judgment, but said, “The Lord rebuke you.” 10 But these people blaspheme all that they do not understand, and they are destroyed by all that they, like unreasoning animals, understand instinctively.
Jude 8-10
New American Standard Bible
8 Yet in the same way these men, also by dreaming, defile the flesh, and reject authority, and revile [a]angelic majesties. 9 But Michael the archangel, when he disputed with the devil and argued about the body of Moses, did not dare pronounce against him a railing judgment, but said, “The Lord rebuke you!” 10 But these men revile the things which they do not understand; and the things which they know by instinct, like unreasoning animals, by these things they are [b]destroyed.
Footnotes:
Jude 1:8 Lit glories
Jude 1:10 Lit corrupted
---
My focus, admittedly briefly for this post, is the concept in verse 9, which has always interested me since reading (or hearing) it.
Satan (the devil), it appears is respected by the archangel Michael, to the point where Michael did not dare pronounce a judgement against the devil, but instead, left the judgement of Satan, with the Lord.
David F. Payne states that Jude contrasts the arrogance of the false brethren under review and criticism in the Book of Jude, to how Michael dealt with Satan. 'Michael would not speak arrogantly even to the devil.' (1591).
Based on my developed biblical and philosophical theology, Michael is an angel of high rank, that never departed, since his (an asexual entity) creation, by nature and choice from finite, moral, ethical, ontological perfection in serving the Triune God.
Satan, in contrast, departed, some point after his (an asexual entity) creation, from finite perfection, to corrupted, tainted, imperfection, opposing God.
Yet, with an implied correct understanding of conduct, Michael respected Satan.
I have read commentators that have opined that Satan could do damage to Michael in some way, and so Michael showed him respect. Possible theologically.
A Reformed theological perspective could be that Michael understood that Satan was a tool within God's plans, God as a primary cause and Satan as a secondary cause, and by showing respect to Satan, Michael showed respect to God, and for the eventual divine judgement of Satan.
I found it difficult to find what I viewed as clear and concise commentaries on this verse, that I could share on this website that would make much sense to readers (I found them tedious and disorganized), but John Calvin is helpful:
9. Yet Michael the archangel. Peter gives this argument shorter, and states generally, that angels, far more excellent than men, dare not bring forward a railing judgment. [2 Peter 2:11.]
But as this history is thought to have been taken from an apocryphal book, it has hence happened that less weight has been attached to this Epistle. But since the Jews at that time had many things from the traditions of the fathers, I see nothing unreasonable in saying that Jude referred to what had already been handed down for many ages. I know indeed that many puerilities had obtained the name of tradition, as at this day the Papists relate as traditions many of the silly dotages of the monks; but this is no reason why they should not have had some historical facts not committed to writing. It is beyond controversy that Moses was buried by the Lord, that is, that his grave was concealed according to the known purpose of God. And the reason for concealing his grave is evident to all, that is, that the Jews might not bring forth his body to promote superstition. What wonder then is it, when the body of the prophet was hidden by God, Satan should attempt to make it known; and that angels, who are ever ready to serve God, should on the other hand resist him? And doubtless we see that Satan almost in all ages has been endeavoring to make the bodies of God's saints idols to foolish men. Therefore this Epistle ought not to be suspected on account of this testimony, though it is not found in Scripture. That Michael is introduced alone as disputing against Satan is not new. We know that myriads of angels are ever ready to render service to God; but he chooses this or that to do his business as he pleases. What Jude relates as having been said by Michael, is found also in the book of Zechariah,
"Let God chide (or check) thee, Satan."
(Zechariah 3:2.) And it is a comparison, as they say, between the greater and the less. Michael dared not to speak more severely against Satan (though a reprobate and condemned) than to deliver him to God to be restrained; but those men hesitated not to load with extreme reproaches the powers which God had adorned with peculiar honors.
This seems a reasonable interpretation, citing the apocryphal and Hebrew Bible references that are found in scholarship as well as the often referenced from the Bible. (Zechariah, 2 Peter).
2 Peter 2:11
New American Standard Bible (NASB)
11 whereas angels who are greater in might and power do not bring a reviling judgment against them before the Lord.
The respect Michael showed to the condemned by God, Satan, is contrasted with the disrespect which false teachers showed to angelic majesties, those that God had honoured as such with majesty.
CALVIN, JOHN (1542) (2018) Jude, Christian Classics Ethereal Library, Bible Hub, Pennsylvania.
https://biblehub.com/commentaries/calvin/jude/1.htm
MARSHALL, ALFRED (1975)(1996) The Interlinear KJV-NIV, Grand Rapids, Zondervan.
PAYNE DAVID F. (1986) 'Jude' in F.F. Bruce (ed.), The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Zondervan.
But Michael, the archangel, when the devil contended argued about the of Moses body did not a judgement to bring on of railing but said rebuke you Lord. (With the use of Greek interlinear text).
Chucky was thrilled when I purchased new gamepads for my old British games computer. It changed how Actua Soccer 3 is played and eliminated massive curved shots. He thought he had more chance. I struggled for a bit to score, but soon discovered the new way to score. Better than watching soap operas on television...Good for the mind.
