Gospel influence & obedient Church

Very cool Canadiana

From

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

MPhil 2003

Statement twenty-two:

This statement stated: Evil and suffering would decrease if the church were more obedient. With Anglicans, 32% agreed, 20% were not certain, 48% disagreed. With Baptists, 36% of the people agreed, 12% were not certain, and 52% disagreed.

I am not dogmatic with the issue of how much evil and suffering would decrease if the Gospel had more influence in the world and if the Church were more obedient. Indeed, they are hypothetical statements, but I cautiously lean toward believing the world would be a better place if the Gospel was more prominent in it, and if Christians were less secular in their thinking and more Christ focussed.

It can be seen that groups can have large impact on public views. Hollywood and the New York media have had a great impact upon western society. For example, western acceptance of homosexuality and abortion on demand has likely been influenced by these two groups. So I think high profile segments of society can definitely influence morality, and morality relates to the amount of evil in society. I do think that a more prominent, loving Christian Church would limit evil somewhat within the world.

FEINBERG, JOHN S. (1994) The Many Faces of Evil, Grand Rapids, Zondervan Publishing House. 

HICK, JOHN (1970) Evil and The God of Love, London, The Fontana Library.

HICK, JOHN (1978) ‘Present and Future Life’, Harvard Theological Review, Volume 71, Number 1-2, January-April, Harvard University.

HICK, JOHN (1981) Encountering Evil, Stephen T. Davis (ed.), Atlanta, John Knox Press.

HICK, JOHN (1993) ‘Afterword’ in GEIVETT, R. DOUGLAS (1993) Evil and the Evidence for God, Philadelphia, Temple University Press.

HICK, JOHN (1993) The Metaphor of God Incarnate, Louisville, Kentucky, John Know Press. 

HICK, JOHN (1994) Death and Eternal Life, Louisville, Kentucky, John Knox Press.

HICK, JOHN (1999) ‘Life after Death’, in Alan Richardson and John Bowden (eds.), A New Dictionary of Christian Theology, Kent, SCM Press.

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

OSTRANDER, HAL N. (2004) ‘Defending the faith in a post-Christian era’, in The Christian Index, Duluth, Georgia, The Christian Index. http://www.christianindex.org/206.article

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. 

VEITH, GENE EDWARD, JR. (1994) Postmodern Times, Wheaton Illinois, Crossway Books.

November 12 2019

Sixteen years later, and post PhD, I am still not dogmatic on this issue. A more obedient Church would arguably, do more good and limit (some) evils. But, that does not mean that the overall human suffering would decrease. Maybe, maybe not. Most of the world is not within the Christian Church. I reason in a similar way to the previous question and article on this website.

Gospel influence/Peer review

Conwy Castle 2001

Gospel influence

From

MPhil 2003

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

Statement twenty-one: This statement was stated: Human suffering will decrease as the Gospel’s influence increases. For Anglicans 36% agreed, 20% were not certain, 44% disagreed. For Baptists, 36% agreed, 14% were not certain, and 50% disagreed.

FEINBERG, JOHN S. (1994) The Many Faces of Evil, Grand Rapids, Zondervan Publishing House.

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

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.

November 10, 2019

A tricky question. A true gospel influence (as opposed to a overly-politicized Christianity), over the western world and the world in general, should cause the Christian Church to benefit societies.

On the other hand, in this realm, suffering and death biblically continues until the new realm is established (Revelation 21-22) and the resurrection to perfection (1 Corinthians 15) for those truly within the gospel, atoning and resurrection work of Jesus Christ.
---

Peer review

A good friend with a secular Master's degree, recently opined that an academic needs published journal articles. 'Publish or perish'. An argument is that academic journal articles alone allow for peer review. 

I agree that academic journal articles provide the possibility of peer review.

A blog, as in the traditional  blog, is considered not academically orientated. However, this Blogger blog is presented as an academic website, obviously. It is not a traditional blog. It is merely hosted on Blogger. It is published work.

An academic can search the internet and view my fifteen years of academic entries on this academic website and can provide an academic peer review through comments. My website archives can be searched. Or, I can reviewed on another website, or my ideas can be reviewed, without me being named.

Further, this website is previewed on my Facebook business page, Russell Norman Murray, which also has comments where an academic peer review could take place. The website is promoted on Twitter and LinkedIn where peer review, can occur. I can be reviewed online and offline.

In fact, my fifteen years of academic online work (almost thirty years of academic work), including my entire MPhil thesis and most of my PhD thesis is available for peer review. I would deduce, that unless an academic journal is available online, particularly to the public, that a website such as mine actually reaches more readers.

If I need to revise because I, or someone else, critiques web content, worthy of revision, and I revise, that is because my academic work is publicly available and available for peer review.

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

Necessary v Sufficient

My previous entry deals with the necessary versus the contingent, or what is of necessity versus what is of the contingent.

This entry:

Necessary versus Sufficient conditions

Philosopher Blackburn explains...

'If p is a necessary condition of q, then q cannot be true unless p is true. If p is a sufficient condition of q, then given that p is true, q is so as well.' (73).

Blackburn provides the example:

Steering well is a necessary condition of driving well... (73).

But it is not sufficient, as one can steer well, but be an overall bad driver. (73).

Perhaps, one steers very well, but is overly occupied by texting while driving. (My add, and not my practice)

This concept from Blackburn with the use of symbolic logic, provides a level of complexity, yet consistent and logical at the same time. But providing a true example provides another level of difficulty.

A solid/true example

Infinite attributes (a) are a necessary condition of infinite nature (b).

Infinite attributes (a) are a necessary condition of infinite nature (b), then infinite nature (b) cannot be true unless infinite attributes (a) are true. If infinite attributes (a) are a sufficient condition of infinite nature (b), then given that infinite attributes (a) are true, then infinite nature (b) is so as well.

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

Facebook: Re: Air Transat.

The necessary is good

The necessary is good

December 8 2018

I wrote:

Necessary v. Contingent 

1. The necessary must exist.

2. God is necessary.

3. God's plans are necessary. 

4. The contingent exist.

5. The necessary supersedes the contingent.

6. Human beings are contingent.

7. Human being's plans are contingent.

8. Human being's needs are contingent.

Therefore, the suffering of the contingent is permissible.

I am not stating that God by nature had to create anything, or anything finite. God does have significant free will within divine nature. His plans reflect nature. I am stating that God's plans must occur and therefore are necessary.

It could be stated that it is a weaker sense of necessity in point 3 than points 1 and 2.  

1. The necessary must exist.

2. God is necessary

I would view 1,2 as within absolute necessity.

Open Edition Journals: Philosophia Scientia What is Absolute Necessity? Bob Hale 16/2/2012 

Cited 

Absolute necessity might be defined as truth at absolutely all possible worlds without restriction. But we should be able to explain it without invoking possible worlds.

By my definition 1,2 are necessary in all possible worlds. 

3. God's plans are necessary. 

This could be explained as relative necessity.

Relative Necessity Reformulated Bob Hale & Jessica Leech Journal of Philosophical Logic volume 46, pages1–26(2017)

Cited 

The standard account defines each kind of relative necessity by means of a necessitated or strict conditional, whose antecedent is a propositional constant for the body of assumptions relative to which the consequent is asserted to be necessary.

The relative necessity of (3) has as antecedent the absolute necessity of (1,2).

Further, God, within his infinite, eternal nature, would only be morally obligated to keep his revealed word, as in promises, in regard to contingent, human beings. These are documented in the Hebrew Bible and New Testament within a theistic, Christian worldview.

November 2 2019 

Blackburn writes that a proposition is necessary, if it could not have been false.(257). Admittedly, someone can and will always disagree with any provided proposition. But, I agree with the definition here from secular, British, philosopher Blackburn. Further he writes that the necessary, what is of necessity, is true is all possible worlds. (257)

I philosophically hold to a priori truths. Louis P. Pojman explains that the term a priori comes from the Latin “preceding” and is knowledge that is not based on sense experience but is innate or known to human beings by the meanings of words and definitions. Pojman (1996: 595). Arthur Pap defines a priori knowledge as being independent of experience. Pap (1973: 666).

Pojman writes that a posteriori comes the Latin “the later” and is knowledge that is obtained from human sense experience only, as in the five senses. Pojman (1996: 595). Blackburn reasons that something can be known a posteriori when it cannot be known a priori. Blackburn (1996: 21-22)

---

Importantly, not all valid and sound argumentation holds to the classic three line syllogism. 

University of Kentucky

Quote

'argument

An Argument is a group of statements including one or more premises and one and only one conclusion. The point of an argument is to give the receiver of the argument good reason to believe new information. assumption a premise that is implied, or is necessary for the argument to be valid, but is unstated.'

University of Windsor

Cited

'G.C. GODDU Department of Philosophy University of Richmond'

'ABSTRACT: Is it possible for an argument to have either zero premises or an infinite number of premises? I shall argue that regardless of how you conceive of arguments you should accept that an argument could have an infinite number of premises. The zero case is more complicated since the matter seems to depend not only on the metaphysics of arguments, but also the nature and function of arguing. I shall argue that at least a plausible case can be made for the possibility of zero premise arguments.'

'How many premises can an argument have?'

'If what I have argued here is correct, then everyone should accept the possibility of infinite premise arguments. On the other hand, whether we should accept zero-premise arguments seems to depend upon the resolution of other highly controversial options in argumentation theory such as—does every argument need a corresponding act of arguing? Does defining argument require an appeal to function? Trying to resolve these issues is a project for another time. At the very least, however, I hope that I have sketched out a position according to which it is straightforwardly possible for there to be zero-premise arguments.'
---

I reason...

1. In every possible world, the necessary exists.

2. The necessary is good.

3. The contingent exists.

4. God, as the first cause of the contingent, is necessary.

Therefore, God is good.

---

Further, philosophically, what is of necessity would certainly be what is good, and what is perfectly good. Anything contingent, opposed to that good, the perfectly good, would be evil.

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

BONJOUR, LAURENCE. (1996) ‘A Priori’, in Robert Audi (ed.), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

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

Note, I am not using syllogism as arguments 

Thursday, July 13, 2017: Quaternio terminorum: The fallacy of four