Dr. Russell Norman Murray

Saturday, October 12, 2024

The Orthodox Study Bible: Not Miami Vice

The Orthodox Study Bible: Not Miami Vice

The Orthodox Study Bible, New Testament and Psalms, (1993) Saint Athanasius Orthodox Academy, Thomas Nelson Publishers, Nashville, Tennessee.

Preface

Originally published on Blogger, 20200625 with revisions and additions for an entry on academia.edu, 20241012.

Continuing with my review of this useful and informative biblical tool, within the Orthodox tradition (my tradition is Reformed, but I appreciate this academic work). Glossary from Reverend John W. Morris, Ph.D.

Vice

'A particular immoral, depraved, or degrading habit, as contrasted with virtue, Christians are called to flee from the vices and preserve their purity (Rom 13: 13; Eph. 4: 17-24).' (810).

Romans 13:13 King James Version (KJV)

13 Let us walk honestly, as in the day; not in rioting and drunkenness, not in chambering and wantonness, not in strife and envying. King James Version (KJV) Public Domain

Chambering...

Bible Study Tools

Selected citations

Easton's Bible Dictionary - Chambering ( Romans 13:13 ), wantonness, impurity. These dictionary topics are from M.G. Easton M.A., D.D., Illustrated Bible Dictionary, Third Edition, published by Thomas Nelson, 1897. Public Domain.

Bibliography Information

Easton, Matthew George. "Entry for Chambering". "Easton's Bible Dictionary". .

King James Dictionary - Chambering Chambering Sexual immorality; lewdness. The night is far spent, the day is at hand: let us therefore cast off the works of darkness, and let us put on the armour of light. Let us walk honestly, as in the day; not in rioting and drunkenness, not in CHAMBERING and wantonness, not in strife and envying. ( Romans 13:12-13 )

Bibliography Information "Entry for 'Chambering'". A King James Dictionary.

International Standard Bible Encyclopedia - Chambering CHAMBERING cham'-ber-ing: Illicit intercourse; the rendering in English Versions of the Bible since Tyndale of koitias (literally "beds," Romans 13:13). The Greek usage is paralleled in classic authors and the Septuagint; like the English participle, it denotes repeated or habitual acts. The word is not recorded elsewhere in English literature as verb or participle in this sense; in Othello, iii, 3, a chamberer is an intriguer, male wanton, in Byron, Werner, IV, 1, 404, a gallant or carpet knight, and in Chaucer, Clerk's Tale, 766, a concubine.

Bibliography Information Orr, James, M.A., D.D. General Editor. "Entry for 'CHAMBERING'". "International Standard Bible Encyclopedia". 1915.

Encyclopedias - International Standard Bible Encyclopedia - Chambering

End citation

---

Going from chamber to chamber, an interesting definition.

Dative is the indirect object of a verb. Not in chambering....

Pastor Courson is his commentary writes that in verse 13, the Christian is to 'clean up'. (981).

Romans 13:13

Bible Hub

The provided Greek texts agree and Bible Hub translates as

μὴ κώμοις καὶ μέθαις, μὴ κοίταις καὶ ἀσελγείαις

not in reveling and drinking not in sexual immorality and sensuality

Bible Hub II

Cited

Greek Texts are in basic agreement...

Berean Greek New Testament 2016

ὡς ἐν ἡμέρᾳ εὐσχημόνως περιπατήσωμεν, μὴ κώμοις καὶ μέθαις, μὴ κοίταις καὶ ἀσελγείαις, μὴ ἔριδι καὶ ζήλῳ·

SBL Greek New Testament 2010

ὡς ἐν ἡμέρᾳ εὐσχημόνως περιπατήσωμεν, μὴ κώμοις καὶ μέθαις, μὴ κοίταις καὶ ἀσελγείαις, μὴ ἔριδι καὶ ζήλῳ,

Nestle Greek New Testament 1904

Westcott and Hort 1881

ὡς ἐν ἡμέρᾳ εὐσχημόνως περιπατήσωμεν, μὴ κώμοις καὶ μέθαις, μὴ κοίταις καὶ ἀσελγείαις, μὴ ἔριδι καὶ ζήλῳ.

Westcott and Hort / [NA27 variants]

Westcott and Hort / {NA28 variants}

RP Byzantine Majority Text 2005

Ὡς ἐν ἡμέρᾳ, εὐσχημόνως περιπατήσωμεν, μὴ κώμοις καὶ μέθαις, μὴ κοίταις καὶ ἀσελγείαις, μὴ ἔριδι καὶ ζήλῳ.

Greek Orthodox Church 1904

Tischendorf 8th Edition 1872

Scrivener's Textus Receptus 1894

ὡς ἐν ἡμέρᾳ, εὐσχημόνως περιπατήσωμεν, μὴ κώμοις καὶ μέθαις, μὴ κοίταις καὶ ἀσελγείαις, μὴ ἔριδι καὶ ζήλῳ.

Stephanus Textus Receptus 1550

ὡς ἐν ἡμέρᾳ εὐσχημόνως περιπατήσωμεν μὴ κώμοις καὶ μέθαις μὴ κοίταις καὶ ἀσελγείαις μὴ ἔριδι καὶ ζήλῳ

Beza Greek New Testament 1598

Ὡς ἐν ἡμέρᾳ, εὐσχημόνως περιπατήσωμεν· μὴ κώμοις καὶ μέθαις, μὴ κοίταις καὶ ἀσελγείαις, μὴ ἔριδι κατὰ ζήλῳ.

---

F.F. Bruce explains in his Romans commentary at 13:13 that the 'day' is the time for sobriety, in other words, not drunkenness. (229). Christian believers are to put on the new man of Ephesians 4. (229). Cranfield opines here that Paul in Romans is desiring those within the Church to live with 'relative respectability' at night as in done during the day. (333). Romans exhorts readers to flee from drunkenness which can lead to things such as fornication. (334). Mounce writes that the conduct of darkness (13: 12) is (13:13) orgies, drunkenness, sexual immorality and debauchery. (248). There is a very good quote from Mounce:

'The desire for darkness is itself an admission of the wrongness of the act.' (248).

The Orthodox Study Bible notes for Ephesians 4: 17-24 is that the process of Christian growth requires a free will commitment to walk in righteousness and holiness (13:24) (447). Those of the light should not be walking in darkness (447). A change of lifestyle and life practice (my emphasis) is possible because of the work of Jesus Christ, as the new man (447), as Christians should be Christ-like (13:24). In my Reformed theology, within limited free will, the regenerate, sanctified believer embraces, divine, salvific work.

Ephesians 4:17-24 King James Version (KJV)

17 This I say therefore, and testify in the Lord, that ye henceforth walk not as other Gentiles walk, in the vanity of their mind, 18 Having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart: 19 Who being past feeling have given themselves over unto lasciviousness, to work all uncleanness with greediness. 20 But ye have not so learned Christ; 21 If so be that ye have heard him, and have been taught by him, as the truth is in Jesus: 22 That ye put off concerning the former conversation the old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts; 23 And be renewed in the spirit of your mind; 24 And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness.

---

Practical Theology

Many in western society, that are social leaders, reject abstinence as too simplistic a response to vices. Abstinence is likely often too simplistic of an approach for those already committing habitual vices. As a theology professor of mine once taught, the tracks of habitual sin are too long.

For those in the Church committing habitual vices (or dabbling with sin that could become habitual); Courson's take on Romans 13: 13 with the call to 'clean up' is good biblical theology. Abstinence from immoral activity is the preferred, documented, New Testament model, but not primarily through human morality and ethics. Rather, prayerfully in grace through faith in God, through the applied atoning and resurrection work of Jesus Christ for believers.

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

BRUCE, F.F. (1986) 'Revelation' in F.F. Bruce (ed.), The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Zondervan.

COURSON, JON (2005) Application Commentary, Thomas Nelson, Nashville.

CRANFIELD, C.E.B. (1992) Romans: A Shorter Commentary, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

FOULKES, FRANCIS (1989) Ephesians, Grand Rapids, Inter-Varsity Press.

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

HARPUR, GEORGE (1986) Ephesians in The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Zondervan.

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

ORR, JAMES, M.A., D.D. General Editor, Chambeirng', International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, 1915.

The Orthodox Study Bible, New Testament and Psalms, (1993) Saint Athanasius Orthodox Academy, Thomas Nelson Publishers, Nashville, Tennessee.

Wednesday, August 07, 2024

Augustine And Allegory In Brief

Augustine And Allegory In Brief

Preface

Photo: Morocco, trekearth.com

Originally published 20140704, this is a brief section in my PhD work that did not make the final thesis version, before or after the PhD Viva. Not all my Augustine work made the final PhD version. I think it will be an intellectual challenge to update this limited work for an article entry on academia.edu for 20240807.

Augustine And Allegory In Brief

Edited from PhD

Augustine’s hermeneutic included the idea that one should be mentally clear in regard to issues of God in order to receive guidance.[1] This would support Robertson’s idea that Augustine’s hermeneutical assumptions began with a trust in divine guidance over scientific means of understanding the Biblical text.[2] Robertson explains that Augustine did use an allegory method in his exposition of Scripture, but this was done in order to find the fullest possible interpretations of Scripture.[3] Grenz, Guretzki, and Nordling define allegory as a method of Biblical interpretation where ‘hidden’ or ‘deeper’ understandings are sought.[4] This favours a ‘spiritual’ meaning over literal ones.[5] Klein, Blomberg, and Hubbard explain that this was the popular hermeneutical method within the era of the Church Fathers.[6]

New Testament scholar, Klyne Snodgrass (1991) explains allegorical approaches would assign a spiritual meaning to specific texts, in particular ones difficult to interpret.[7] Christian theology was often imposed on texts of the Old Testament, and this approach was common in the Christian Church until the Reformation.[8] Although Augustine, for example, understood satanic beings as actual entities, this does not mean he used a literal hermeneutic in his overall theological approach, as Robertson points out Augustine uses the allegory method.[9]

AUGUSTINE (388-395)(1964) On Free Choice of the Will, Translated by Anna S.Benjamin and L.H. Hackstaff, Upper Saddle River, N.J., Prentice Hall.

AUGUSTINE (398-399)(1992) Confessions, Translated by Henry Chadwick, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

AUGUSTINE (400-416)(1987)(2004) On the Trinity, Translated by Reverend Arthur West Haddan, in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series One, Volume 3, Denver, The Catholic Encyclopedia.

AUGUSTINE (421)(1998) Enchiridion, Translated by J.F. Shaw, Denver, The Catholic Encyclopedia.

AUGUSTINE (426)(1958) The City of God, Translated by Gerald G. Walsh, Garden City, New York, Image Books.

AUGUSTINE (427)(1997) On Christian Doctrine, Translated by D.W. Robertson Jr., Upper Saddle River, N.J., Prentice Hall.

AUGUSTINE (427b)(1997) On Christian Teaching, Translated by R.P.H. Green, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

GRENZ, STANLEY J., DAVID GURETZKI AND CHERITH FEE NORDLING (1999) Pocket Dictionary of Theological Terms, Downers Grove, Ill., InterVarsity Press.

ROBERTSON, F.W. (1887)(1956) ‘Sermons: First Series’, in Thiessen, Henry C. Introductory Lectures in Systematic Theology, Grand Rapids, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

SNODGRASS, KLYNE (1991) ‘The Use of the Old Testament in the New’, in David Alan Black and David S. Dockery (eds.), New Testament Criticism and Interpretation, Grand Rapids, Zondervan Publishing House.

[1] Augustine (427)(1997: 13).

[2] I reason hermeneutically a scholar does not need to choose between a regimented scientific methodology, and trusting in divine guidance.

[3] Robertson (1958)(1997: xi).

[4] Grenz, Guretzki, and Nordling (1999: 8).

[5] Grenz, Guretzki, and Nordling (1999: 8).

[6] Klein, Blomberg, and Hubbard (1993: 32).

[7] Snodgrass (1991: 413).

[8] Snodgrass (1991: 413).

[9] Robertson (1958)(1997: xi).

-------------------------------------------------

August 2024

Veritas: Jurnal Teologi Dan Pelayanan 2021

Cited

file:///E:/DT%20101%20G2/Back%20Up/04-rule-of-love.pdf

VERITAS: JURNAL TEOLOGI DAN PELAYANAN 20, no. 2 (December 2021): 207–218 pISSN: 1411-7649; eISSN: 2684-9194 DOI: https://doi.org/10.36421/veritas.v20i2.499

Rule of Love and Rule of Faith in Augustine’s Hermeneutics: A Complex Dialectic of the Twofold Rules

Steven Yong

Cited

'Abstract: Since the sixteenth-century Reformation, literal interpretation of the Bible has been deemed the best hermeneutical method to unearth the biblical writers’ original meaning. For the Reformers, allegorical interpretation was denigrated for reading an extraneous, or spiritual, meaning into any text. Although Augustine was among the first who champions a literal interpretation of the Scripture—as he outlined in his De doctrina christiana—until recent decades, Augustine is still being perceived as inconsistent in following his hermeneutical method as it is attested in his interpretation of the Good Samaritan. In his interpretation, Augustine seems to have allegorized the parable, thus his method was accused of being inconsistent. Is it really the case? This article attempts to contest such an accusation by showing that Augustine’s method of interpretation cannot simply be categorized as either entirely literal or allegorical. Augustine never professes as a literalist, an exegete who only applies what is now known as a historical-critical method. On the other hand, he did not recklessly legitimate the application of allegorical reading to any text. Taken as a whole, Augustine’s hermeneutics revolves around a complex dialectic of regula dilectionis (the rule of love) and regula fidei (the rule of faith) that allows both interpretations to be considered to be true.'

Note that De doctrina christiana is also known as, in English, 'On Christian Doctrine', and 'On Christian Teaching', both titles were used within my PhD work

Quote: 'Augustine never professes as a literalist, an exegete who only applies what is now known as a historical-critical method. On the other hand, he did not recklessly legitimate the application of allegorical reading to any text.'

This appears to be in general overall agreement with what was documented in my original work: Although Augustine, for example, understood satanic beings as actual entities, this does not mean he used a literal hermeneutic in his overall theological approach, as Robertson points out Augustine uses the allegory method.

Bible and Theology: By Dr. Paul Hoskins | February 11, 2017

Cited

'He (Augustine, my add) provides a lot of helpful guidance on how to interpret the Bible in On Christian Teaching (or De doctrina Christiana). On the one hand, Augustine values the literal sense and encourages readers to find value in it. Even so, he believes that the love command (to love God and to love one’s neighbor) provides a central principle that is useful for biblical interpretation. One should interpret passages that are consistent with the love command literally. However, biblical texts that appear to be in conflict with the love command should be interpreted figuratively (with allegorical interpretation). As one might suspect, he finds more Old Testament texts that appear to require allegorical interpretation than New Testament texts. Even so, Augustine’s spiritual or figurative interpretations are generally related to his interpretation of the literal sense, rather than being wholly fanciful (Smalley 24). As a result, then, Augustine places some limitations on allegorical interpretation, but finds it to be useful, especially in dealing with difficult passages.'

Smalley, Beryl. The Study of the Bible in the Middle Ages. Oxford: Blackwell, 1952.

Cited

Augustine says, “In the first place, then, we must show the way to find out whether a phrase is literal or figurative. And the way is certainly as follows: Whatever there is in the word of God that cannot, when taken literally, be referred either to purity of life or soundness of doctrine, you may set down as figurative. Purity of life has reference to the love of God and one’s neighbor; soundness of doctrine to the knowledge of God and one’s neighbor” (On Christian Teaching, 3.14).

On Christian Teaching taken from Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 1st series, vol. 2. Available online at NewAdvent.org.

My comments

In reviewing Augustine for my MPhil/PhD theses in regards to free will, determinism and problems of evil, I found that Augustine, historically was considered to be embracing free will theodicy, or according to others, a free will defense. Augustine was also considered to be embracing aspects of God's sovereignty which might not support human free will to a significant degree. It was often, in my mind, that the Augustine experts were often not in agreement on Augustine. Even as a great Church Father, I honestly, often, did not then, and do not now, find Augustine as a clear and concise theological and philosophical source. Although he is certainly a legitimate, great, Church Father, defending Christian faith and philosophy. This discussion and debate of literal versus allegorical interpretations to me was/is consistent with that overall, often lack of clarity. I raised successfully, the point of the unclarity of Augustine's writings at my Wales, PhD, Viva.

---

I find overall, an historical-grammatical approach to scripture more clear and concise than any attempt at an allegorical approach. In contrast to historical-critical approaches, I follow a historical-grammatical method.

Cited

Monergism 2008

'Thus, it was “historical,” relating real, interconnected historical events, that must be acknowledged and understood before the various teachings of the bible could make sense or have application; and “grammatical,” using language the way any normal person would. This grammatical-historical hermeneutic is absolutely vital, for it tethers the truth of the scriptures to real, historical events, that have a real impact on our life; and it gives us a way to study the scriptures with confidence, according to well-established dictates of human language.'

Wikipedia: Historical-grammatical method 2024

Wikipedia is helpful here:

Quote

'According to the historical-grammatical method, if based on an analysis of the grammatical style of a passage (with consideration to its cultural, historical, and literary context), it appears that the author intended to convey an account of events that actually happened, then the text should be taken as representing history; passages should only be interpreted symbolically, poetically, or allegorically if to the best of our understanding, that is what the writer intended to convey to the original audience.'

---

In contrast is the historical-critical method: Citing from Pocket Dictionary: Historical criticism places more emphasis on the human aspects and meanings of scripture, as opposed to divine aspects. (59). This reads similar to what I was taught in seminar meetings at Manchester University and The University of Wales, for my MPhil/PhD work, to look quote 'before' (59), 'behind' (59) and 'under' (59) the biblical text, especially reading into what the author (s) really meant. The methodology of the author (s) is considered key within historical criticism. In agreement with the Pocket Dictionary, historical-criticism, quote, 'tends to downplay Scripture as a divine book and instead overemphasizes its humanness.' (59)

I embrace an historical-grammatical method within the Reformed tradition, that seeks to evaluate scripture accurately within context, without completely dismissing, whatsoever, any need for considerations of the methodology of an author (s). I completed methodology work for my PhD and have posted it in my academic website. But, as I stated in Wales, during a PhD seminar, I am more interested in the philosophy/theology, the doctrines and worldview of a biblical author as opposed to primarily trying to deduce an author's reasons for writing such a work.

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

Saturday, September 19, 2020 PhD Full Version PDF: Theodicy and Practical Theology 2010, Wales TSD

Saturday, June 15, 2024

J.S. Whale (Wales PhD Edit)

Munich-Facebook

J.S. Whale (Wales PhD Edit)

Preface

This is selected PhD material that cites the work of J.S. Whale (John Sheldon). Originally published 20131015, but revised for an entry on academia.edu, 20240615. I noticed that I did not include the full footnotes originally. This article will be republished 20240615 on Blogger as well. Slight revisions only.

Note that my writing for my PhD was completed within the rules, regulations and standards of British academia. This work is not primarily a series of my theological and philosophical views, although included in places.

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

Saturday, September 19, 2020: PhD Full Version PDF: Theodicy and Practical Theology 2010, Wales TSD

_____________________________________

The Bible

J.S. Whale (1958) explains that within Protestant thought the Bible represents the whole counsel of God and nothing can be added whether by new revelation or tradition.[1] Whale, however, correctly warns against the idea of the Bible becoming a law book,[2] and the Scripture needs to stay a historical living word as opposed to a narrow book of rules.[3] This goes back to Erickson’s point that God’s word, although an unchanging message must be interpreted for each era.[4] This in no way allows for an overhaul of major, traditional Christian doctrines from traditional and Reformed perspectives,[5] but with the use of practical and empirical approaches there would be opportunities to understand Christian theology in modern terms.[6] In other words, the very same Biblical doctrines that were given in the contexts of ancient Israel, Europe, Asia, and Africa need to be explained in the contexts of twenty-first century Western civilization, and other societies in the world. Theological principles would remain the same, but theological application can vary within eras and locations.[7]

Infant baptism

Whale reasons infant baptism demonstrates that Christ did something for a person, without waiting for human approval.[8] Rebaptism[9] would never be needed as although baptized Roman Catholics can turn from the faith, if they do turn back to Christ the initial baptism is sufficient.[10] The sacrament of infant baptism is one of the ‘foundational stones of Church.’[11] Klein, Blomberg and Hubbard reason it is not Biblically clear what type of baptism should be practiced.[12] Infant baptism is not taught in Scripture directly,[13] and therefore it can be deduced the same could be stated for the associated concepts of baptismal regeneration with Roman Catholics[14] and Eastern Orthodox[15] Churches. However, legitimate theological inference leads to concepts of infant baptism,[16] and so there are also historical arguments for baptismal regeneration within the Christian community which includes Catholic,[17] Eastern Orthodox,[18] and even in some cases Presbyterian,[19] Lutheran and Episcopal.[20]

The Resurrection

Whale writes that the resurrection is not to be considered an addition to the Christian faith, but is the Christian faith.[21] Theologian Robert B. Sloan (1991) reasons that for early Christians the resurrection vindicated Christ in regard to his detractors and gave his message authority.[22] Jürgen Moltmann writes that as the crucified one, the risen Christ is available for humanity.[23] Moltmann explains to some the resurrection of Christ is a counter to the abandonment of humanity of God while Christ was on the cross.[24] For certain observers Christ’s resurrection for all turns them from atheism.[25] This may be because the historical resurrection of Christ would be viewed as God actually participating in the world to remedy the problem of evil.[26] God would not only be judging the world as he did on the cross,[27] but actually bringing about resolution to the problem of evil through Christ[28] and from a human perspective this makes a belief and trust in the Biblical God reasonable and worthwhile.

Transcendence

J.S. Whale explains transcendence makes God inaccessible and unknowable to finite creatures.[29] For Whale, Christ revealed the nature of the transcendent God in his life and ministry.[30] According to Kreeft and Tacelli, God is not part of the physical universe, and is not limited by the universe.[31] God is the creator of the universe and all things, and is ‘other’ than the universe.[32]

Expiation/Propitiation

Whale writes that expiation means God himself purges or covers human sin.[33] To state that Christ expiates sin[34] means that his atoning work enables God to forgive sins[35] and gradually, and eventually, purge sinfulness out of obedient followers.[36] Palma explains that some argue propitiation must be rejected in favour of expiation, since propitiation and its divine wrath is a concept that comes from pagan origins where pagan deities were appeased through sacrifice.[37] He reasons that within the New Testament, propitiation includes the idea of expiation, but expiation does not necessarily include the idea of propitiation.[38] James Strong explains that the word under review in Romans 3: 25, hilasterion, (ἱλαστήριον) is defined as an expiatory place or thing, an ‘atoning victim’ along with ‘mercyseat’ and ‘propitiation.’[39] This definition, although somewhat vague[40] does not contradict Palma’s concept that propitiation does include the idea of expiation.[41] From Strong’s definition, Romans 3: 25 does perhaps allow for the idea of atonement in both the sense of sacrifice and appeasement.[42] However, his definition does place more emphasis on expiation than propitiation in the atonement process in Romans 3: 25.[43]

Walter Bauer writes that the meaning in Romans 3: 25 is uncertain and could be either expiates or propitiates.[44] According to Strong the definition of the word from 1 John 2:2 and 4:10 is ‘atonement’ along with ‘expiator’ and ‘propitiation’ and so 1 John does not solve the issue from Romans.[45] Since this thesis is primarily concerned with theodicy and atonement is a secondary, but important issue, let me conclude by stating that the Greek word allows for discussion and various interpretation.[46] Some within liberal, progressive Christian traditions may insist that expiation is all that is required within the atoning work of Christ;[47] while others such as myself, within moderate conservative traditions may conclude expiation and propitiation, both sacrifice and appeasement are reasonable concepts within Christian atonement.[48]

Suffering/Death

Whale writes creation has an ultimate meaning that is not disclosed until the end where the final purpose becomes clear.[49] Death is the ultimate end of temporal suffering and Whale reasons that natural phenomenon does not completely explain it as human beings are not purely natural, but also posses God’s image.[50] It seems, from a traditional Christian perspective, that in death, resurrection and judgment, the plan symbol[51] of God finally culminates. According to Moltmann, through the history of the crucified and risen Christ, lies the consummation of the Kingdom of God that sets things free and provides them with meaning.[52]

Vicarious Suffering

Specifically, the term ‘vicarious’ is usually, within Christian theology, used in the context of atonement and means ‘in the place of’[53] and that Christ died in the place of sinful humanity. [54] Whale reasons ‘vicarious suffering’ consists of one taking suffering for another.[55]

Cosmology

Whale writes that cosmology is looking at the cosmos and visible universe from a theistic perspective denying that it is self-explanatory.[56] Pojman mentions that theistic versions of cosmology deduce something outside of the universe is required to explain its existence.[57] Paul Edwards (1973) explains cosmology reasons that all things come into being through other things,[58] and since a causal series of events cannot go back in infinity, there must be a first cause.[59] Thomas Aquinas is famous for discussing The Five Ways and his cosmological argument within Summa Theologica.[60] Plantinga reasons that aspects of Aquinas’ presentation[61] are reasonable, but overall the argument is unsuccessful.[62] I reason this does not render all arguments for first cause unsuccessful, but Plantinga points out difficulties with Aquinas’ approach,[63] which is perhaps too extensive.[64] Edwards comments[65] would adequately explain a more modest and reasonable idea concerning first cause.[66]

_____________________

[1] Whale (1958: 15).

[2] Whale (1958: 15).

[3] Whale (1958: 15).

[4] Erickson (1994: 37).

[5] Whale (1958: 15).

[6] Pattison and Woodward (2000)(2007: 14-15).

[7] Whale (1958: 15). Erickson (1994: 37).

[8] Whale (1958: 158).

[9] Or Believer’s Baptism as it is known within Baptist and Anabaptist theology.

[10] Schreck (1984: 129).

[11] Whale (1958: 158). Whale does not view infant baptism as mere dedication or as a rite effecting regeneration and so his position is not identical to Schreck’s, although he does support the sacrament being practiced.

[12] Klein, Blomberg, and Hubbard (1993: 140).

[13] Klein, Blomberg, and Hubbard (1993: 140).

[14] Schreck (1984: 124).

[15] Kavanagh (1999: 300).

[16] Klein, Blomberg, and Hubbard (1993: 140).

[17] Schreck (1984: 124).

[18] Kavanagh (1999: 300).

[19] John Calvin raised the possibility that in some cases baptismal regeneration could take place in infants. Calvin (1539)(1998: Book IV, Chapter 14, 17-20). There are some Presbyterians that take this view. However, I am a member of a Presbyterian Church in America that believes in infant baptism, but not in baptismal regeneration.

[20] Kavanagh (1999: 300). In Lutheran theology infant baptism and baptismal regeneration must be accompanied by the faith of the parents or future faith of the infant at a more mature age. Some Lutherans and Presbyterians would reject any concept of baptismal regeneration. Grenz, Guretzki, and Nordling (1999: 19).

[21] Whale (1958: 69).

[22] Sloan (1991: 449).

[23] Moltmann (1993: 195).

[24] Moltmann (1993: 195).

[25] Moltmann (1993: 195).

[26] Others such as Darrow, Phillips, and Flew would be very skeptical of this concept. Phillips (2005: 247-275). Darrow (1928)(1973: 266-267). Flew (1983)(1996: 92). If one does not believe in the resurrection of Christ, God’s key witness to the world that he wishes to save it from the problem of evil is gone. The remedy to sin and death would be non-existent and therefore concepts of a perfected world far-fetched.

[27] Moltmann (1993: 195).

[28] Moltmann (1993: 195).

[29] Whale (1958: 56).

[30] Whale (1958: 109).

[31] Kreeft and Tacelli (1994: 93).

[32] Kreeft and Tacelli (1994: 93).

[33] Whale (1958: 81).

[34] Whale (1958: 81).

[35] Whale (1958: 81).

[36] Whale (1958: 81).

[37] Palma (2007: 1).

[38] Palma (2007: 1).

[39] Strong (1890)(1986: 48).

[40] Strong (1890)(1986: 48).

[41] Palma (2007: 1).

[42] Strong (1890)(1986: 48).

[43] Strong (1890)(1986: 48).

[44] Bauer (1979: 375).

[45] Strong (1890)(1986: 49).

[46] Palma (2007: 1).

[47] Dodd (1935: 82-95).

[48] Erickson (1994: 809-810). Strong (1890)(1986: 48). Bauer (1979: 375).

[49] Whale (1958: 164).

[50] Whale (1958: 166).

[51] van der Ven (1993: 173). van der Ven (1998: 212-213).

[52] Moltmann (1993: 338).

[53] Grenz, Guretzki, and Nordling (1999: 120).

[54] Grenz, Guretzki, and Nordling (1999: 120).

[55] Whale (1958: 81-82).

[56] Whale (1958: 22).

[57] Pojman (1996: 37).

[58] Edwards (1973: 377-378).

[59] Edwards (1973: 377-378).

[60] Aquinas, Thomas (1261)(1920) Summa Theologica, Translated by Fathers of the English Dominican Province, London, Fathers of the English Dominican Province.

[61] Aquinas, Thomas (1261)(1920).

[62] Plantinga (1977)(2002: 80).

[63] Aquinas, Thomas (1261)(1920).

[64] Aquinas’ presentation although classic and important, is very speculative and Plantinga has disagreements with his overall work. Plantinga (1977)(2002: 80). Geivett reasons Plantinga is too negative concerning natural theology as possibly working. Geivett (1993: 59-60).

[65] Edwards (1973: 377-378).

[66] Grenz and Olson (1992: 16).

____________________

AQUINAS, THOMAS (1261)(1920) Summa Theologica, Translated by Fathers of the English Dominican Province, London, Fathers of the English Dominican Province.

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

BROMILEY, G.W. (1996) ‘Baptism, Infant’, in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.

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

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.Christian Classic Ethereal Library, Wheaton College. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/institutes.html

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.http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/institutes.html

CALVIN, JOHN (1540)(1973) Romans and Thessalonians, Translated by Ross Mackenzie, Grand Rapids, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

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

CALVIN, JOHN (1550)(1978) Concerning Scandals, Translated by John W. Fraser, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

CALVIN, JOHN (1552)(1995) Acts, Translated by Watermark, Nottingham, Crossway Books.

CALVIN, JOHN (1553)(1952) Job, Translated by Leroy Nixon, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.

CALVIN, JOHN (1554)(1965) Genesis, Translated by John King, Edinburgh, The Banner of Truth Trust.

CRANFIELD, C.E.B. (1992) Romans: A Shorter Commentary, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

EDWARDS, PAUL AND ARTHUR PAP (1973)(eds.), A Modern Introduction To Philosophy, New York, The Free Press.

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.

DARROW, CLARENCE (1928)(1973) ‘The Myth of the Soul’ in The Forum, October, in Paul Edwards and Arthur Pap (eds), A Modern Introduction To Philosophy, New York, The Free Press.

DODD. C.H. (1935) The Bible and the Greeks, London, Hodder and Stoughton.

FLEW, ANTONY, R.M. HARE, AND BASIL MITCHELL (1983) (1996) ‘The Debate on the Rationality of Religious Belief’, in L.P. Pojman (ed.), Philosophy, The Quest for Truth, New York, Wadsworth Publishing Company.

GEIVETT, R. DOUGLAS (1993) Evil and the Evidence for God, Philadelphia, Temple University Press.

GRENZ, STANLEY J., DAVID GURETZKI AND CHERITH FEE NORDLING (1999) Pocket Dictionary of Theological Terms, Downers Grove, Ill., InterVarsity Press.

GRENZ, STANLEY J. AND ROGER E. OLSON (1992) Twentieth Century Theology, Downer’s Grove, Illinois, InterVarsity Press.

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

KLEIN, WILLIAM W., CRAIG, C. BLOMBERG, AND ROBERT L. HUBBARD, JR. (1993) Introduction to Biblical Interpretation, London, Word Publishing.

KREEFT, PETER (1988) Fundamentals of the Faith, San Francisco, Ignatius Press.

KREEFT, PETER AND RONALD K. TACELLI (1994) Handbook of Christian Apologetics, Downers Grove, Illinois, InterVarsity Press.

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

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

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

PALMA, ANTHONY (2007) ‘Propitiation’ in Enrichment Journal, Springfield Missouri, Enrichment Journal.http://enrichmentjournal.ag.org/top/Easter_2007/2007_Propitiation.pdf

PHILLIPS, D.Z. (2005) The Problem of Evil and the Problem of God, Fortress Press, Minneapolis.

PLANTINGA, ALVIN C. (1977)(2002) God, Freedom, and Evil, Grand Rapids, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

PLANTINGA, ALVIN C. (1982) The Nature of Necessity, Oxford, Clarendon Press.

PLANTINGA, ALVIN C. (2000) Warranted Christian Belief, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

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

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

SLOAN, ROBERT B (1991) ‘Unity in Diversity’, in David Alan Black and David S. Dockery (eds.), New Testament Criticism and Interpretation, Grand Rapids, Zondervan Publishing House.

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

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.

VAN DER VEN, JOHANNES, PAUL VERMEER, AND ERIC VOSSEN (1996) ‘Learning Theodicy’, in Journal of Empirical Theology, Volume 9, pp. 67-85. Kampen, The Netherlands, Journal of Empirical Theology.

VAN DER VEN, JOHANNES AND ERIC VOSSEN (1996) Suffering: Why for God’s Sake? Grand Rapids, Eerdmans.

WHALE, J.S. (1958) Christian Doctrine, Glasgow, Fontana Books.

WOODWARD, JAMES AND STEPHEN PATTISON (2000)(2007)(eds.), The Blackwell Reader in Pastoral and Practical Theology, Oxford, Blackwell Publishing.