Greg Welty on sinless humanity III (PhD Edit)

Greg Welty on sinless humanity III (PhD Edit)

Preface

Photo: Is an abstract photo from a Munich bus tour I took, 20250406.

This Blogger version of this article is for an entry on academia.edu, 20250621. This includes PhD and website work. Short and non-exhaustive.

Greg Welty on sinless humanity III (PhD Edit)

Welty rejects Plantinga’s idea that God cannot create a world containing moral good and no moral evil,^[1] and raises the objection that God brought Christ into the world as a sinless human being.^[2] Welty’s point here is that every human being could have therefore been sinless^[3] and the world could contain good and no evil with significantly free human beings that would not commit wrong actions.[4] I have a similar objection to Welty’s,^[5] which was discussed in Chapters Two and Three of my PhD thesis. Within my theodicy, I reason that God could have, if he wished, made significantly free human beings, or human like beings who would have been perfectly morally good and would not commit wrong actions.^[6] God’s choice not to create such beings, in my mind is not a sign of a lack of power, or moral failure, but rather the use of his own perfect and significantly free will for good purposes.  

---

[1] Plantinga (1977)(2002: 30).  Welty (1999: 1).

[2] Welty (1999: 1).

[3] Welty (1999: 1).

[4] Welty (1999: 1).

[5] Welty (1999: 1).

[6] This is an aspect of compatibilism, which shall be primarily defined and discussed in Chapters Two and Three.

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

Website work

I make the theological deduction that biblically, the loyal angels of God, that did not turn from God, had (have) significantly free natures, which includes desire and will. These angels have not committed wrong actions. I reason significantly free beings can be made perfect, holy and good gaining knowledge of good and evil and do not choose evil and do not require the option to choose evil. Therefore, fallen humanity as is and the atonement and resurrection work of Christ as applied to those chosen and elect in Christ is part of God’s sovereign plans. As is the culminated Kingdom of God with the new heaven and new earth (Revelation 20-22). 

It is an eternal plan of God that some within humanity will be regenerated (notably John 3, Titus 3, 1 Peter 1), justified (the righteousness of Christ applied to believers) and sanctified (set apart in holiness) in salvation and some will not. This being God's perfect will. Christ is the lamb slain from the foundation (foundations also works theologically) of the world (Revelation 13: 8, see also Revelation 5 for related).

Revelation 3: 5

English Standard Version (ESV) 5 The one who conquers will be clothed thus in white garments, and I will never blot his name out of the book of life. I will confess his name before my Father and before his angel

The gospel and the applied atoning and resurrection work of Jesus Christ, are part of God's eternal plans, as are those whose names are within the book of life.

Ephesians 1: 3-4

Ephesians 1:3-4 New American Standard Bible (NASB) 3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ, 4 just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before [a]Him. In love Footnotes: (a) Ephesians 1:4 Or Him, in love

God's eternal plan as the first and primary cause, included a human sin, fall and rebellion. This implies significantly free creatures that will sin, is the eternal plan which makes sense as Christ is the lamb slain from the foundation/foundations of the world, in other words, the atoning and resurrection work of God the Son, Jesus Christ, applied to those chosen is an eternal triune, plan. Persons are morally accountable for sin as secondary causes, as long as they are not forced or coerced to do so, and therefore those not within the Kingdom of God, post-mortem, with limited free will, embrace their exclusion.

God's perfect will is that this temporal, temporary realm exists, but to be clear, I still reason that many human sinful, acts and actions are allowed within his permissible will.

I reason that Welty's argument is very strong for compatibilism versus incompatibilism. Jesus Christ as incarnate was both infinite God and finite man. As finite man he lived in sinless life and yet had significant freedom, and successfully faced and rejected temptation. Christ completed his atoning and resurrection work for those in Christ, via a divine gospel plan with persons as is within this present realm.

The angels that did not fall (Revelation 12) are non-physical beings reasoned to have remained sinless and yet have significant freedom, as they are judged (1 Corinthians 6, fallen angels in Revelation 20). The divine judgement for thoughts and actions of a secondary cause requires moral accountability, otherwise this is hard determinism, where only God the primary cause would be morally responsible, although with perfect and holy motives. This is not soft-determinism/compatibilism.

God, as infinite and eternal has never contradicted his divine nature (logically cannot) and sinned and yet has significant freedom. In the cases of the human nature of Jesus Christ, the finite nature of angels that stayed true to God and the infinite nature of God, there is a significant, reasonable understanding of evil (God's being infinite) but not an ontological/nature requirement of embracing evil and sin as an option. If one's nature is perfectly good, finitely or infinitely, it is logically possible and reasonable to stay in that nature while understanding evil. An entity can be finitely morally perfect and remain so, it does not the require the option to turn from God, although it remains a logical possibility. It is not logically possible for the infinite God to contradict his infinite nature. God cannot contradict God in nature.

---

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.

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

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. 

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.

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

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

ERICKSON, MILLARD (1994) Christian Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.

FEINBERG, JOHN.S. (1986) Predestination and Free Will, in David Basinger and Randall Basinger (eds.), Downers Grove, Illinois, InterVarsity Press. 

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.

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.

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

HASKER, WILLIAM (1989) God, Time, and Knowledge, Ithaca, Cornell University Press. 

HASKER, WILLIAM (1993) ‘C. Robert Mesle, John Hick’s Theodicy: A Process Humanist Critique’, in Philosophy of Religion, Volume 34, Number 1, pp. 55-56. Dordrecht, Netherlands, Philosophy of Religion. 

HASKER, WILLIAM (1994) ‘Can Philosophy Defend Theology?’, in Faith and Philosophy, Volume 11, Number 2, April, pp. 272-278. Wilmore, Kentucky, Asbury College. 

HASKER, WILLIAM (2000) ‘The Problem of Evil in Process Theism and Classical Free Will Theism’, in Process Studies, Volume. 29, Number 2, Fall-Winter, pp. 194-208. Claremont, California, Religion Online. 

HASKER, WILLIAM (2003) ‘Counterfactuals and Evil’, in Philosophia Christi, Volume 5, Number 1, pp. 235-249. La Mirada, California, Biola University. 

HASKER, WILLIAM (2003) ‘Is Free-Will Theism Religiously Inadequate? A Reply to Ciocchi’, in Religious Studies, Volume 39, Number 4, December, pp. 431-440. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. 

HASKER, WILLIAM (2007) ‘Peter van Inwagen, The Problem of Evil’, in Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews, Notre Dame, Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews.

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.

LEIBNIZ, G.W. (1710)(1998) Theodicy, Translated by E.M. Huggard Chicago, Open Court Classics. 

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

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.

STACE, W.T. (1952)(1976) Religion and the Modern Mind, in John R. Burr and Milton Goldinger (eds.), Philosophy and Contemporary Issues, London, Collier Macmillan Publishers.

WELTY, GREG (1999) ‘The Problem of Evil’, in Greg Welty PhD, Fort Worth, Texas. Philosophy Department, Southwestern Baptist Theological  Seminary.  

http://www.ccir.ed.ac.uk/~jad/welty/probevil.htm

Related articles

Monday, March 10, 2014 Greg Welty And Christ As Sinless Human Being (PhD Edit) 

Monday, December 04, 2017 Greg Welty on sinless humanity II (PhD Edit)  

The Orthodox Study Bible: Acts 2: 21 & Romans 10: 13 Revised & Non-exhaustive

The Orthodox Study Bible: Acts 2: 21 & Romans 10: 13 Revised & Non-exhaustive

Preface

Revised version of two articles (2021) for one version on Blogger and an entry on academic.edu.

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

This Orthodoxy Bible uses the New King James Bible (NKJV) 

Acts 2: 21

21 And it shall come to pass That whoever calls on the name of the Lord Shall be saved.’

In context, the Apostle Peter quotes from the Old Testament/Hebrew Bible, Book of Joel 2: 28-32.

With these New Testament citations of the Old Testament, as Peter is cited in Acts 2: 16-21, the context provided is not identical as the older original. A reason is that the Hebrew Bible and its covenant, although remaining as scripture, are accompanied by, as in progressive revelation, the New Testament and its covenant (Luke 22: 20 & Hebrews as examples). The New Testament emphasis is the new covenant, doctrines and theology, which replaces the old covenant. Still the Hebrew Bible should be understood as well in its original context within the old covenant. 

Joel Briefly

In his Joel commentary, author Paul E. Leonard explains that Joel, the son of Pethuel, is basically unknown other than being the author of this text within the Hebrew Bible. (884). The name 'Joel' means 'Yahweh is God' (884), and Leonard writes that it is unclear whether this was a given name at birth, or a ministry name given later in life. (884). This Hebrew Bible writer presented a clear message and then basically disappeared from history. (884). The Book of Joel's message is that as a plague of locusts strikes (884), it will be 'destroying all plant life in its path' (884). I view this as a termination of the useable plant life, not a complete destruction of the ecological system. Leonard states that based on the text, there will be no harvest, and the cattle and sheep will die because of lack of food. (884). He notes Joel 1: 18. (884).

Joel 1:18 New King James Version (NKJV)

18 How the animals groan! The herds of cattle are restless, Because they have no pasture; Even the flocks of sheep [a]suffer punishment. 

Footnote

a) Joel 1:18 LXX, Vg. are made desolate

Joel is warning his readers that these sufferings are a 'prelude to the coming apocalyptic judgment of God' (884). Joel 2: 1-3 from the same version is referenced:

Blow the [a]trumpet in Zion, And sound an alarm in My holy mountain! Let all the inhabitants of the land tremble; For the day of the Lord is coming, For it is at hand: 2 A day of darkness and gloominess, A day of clouds and thick darkness, Like the morning clouds spread over the mountains. A people come, great and strong, The like of whom has never been; Nor will there ever be any such after them, Even for many successive generations. 3 A fire devours before them, And behind them a flame burns; The land is like the Garden of Eden before them, And behind them a desolate wilderness; Surely nothing shall escape them 

Footnote

a) Joel 2:1 ram’s horn 

Joel 2:28-32 New King James Version (NKJV)

28 “And it shall come to pass afterward That I will pour out My Spirit on all flesh; Your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, Your old men shall dream dreams, Your young men shall see visions. 29 And also on My menservants and on My maidservants I will pour out My Spirit in those days. 30 “And I will show wonders in the heavens and in the earth: Blood and fire and pillars of smoke. 31 The sun shall be turned into darkness, And the moon into blood, Before the coming of the great and awesome day of the Lord. 32 And it shall come to pass That whoever calls on the name of the Lord Shall be [a]saved. For in Mount Zion and in Jerusalem there shall be [b]deliverance, As the Lord has said, Among the remnant whom the Lord calls. 

Footnotes 

a) Joel 2:32 Or delivered 

b) Joel 2:32 Or salvation

Leonard acknowledges that in regards to salvation, both Jew and Gentile are mentioned in the New Testament and so New Testament salvation was wider than in the context of Joel. (889). 'However it is not clear that Joel understood it this way.' (889).

Acts 2: 21 continued

I am more focused however in this limited space, website format, on the Acts version. This article will be unexhaustive.

The new covenant...

Biblia.com

Sourced

Luke 22:20 

New American Standard Bible (NASB) 

20 And in the same way He took the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup which is (a) poured out for you is the (b) new covenant in My blood. 

a Mt 26:28 Mk 14:24

b Ex 24:8 Je 31:31 1 Co 11:25 2 Co 3:6 Heb 8:8 Heb 8:13 Heb 9:15

Defending Inerrency

Cited 

PROBLEM: In Acts 2, Pentecost arrives, and the disciples are filled with the Holy Spirit. In response to criticism, Peter says that what they hear and see was “spoken by the prophet Joel” (cf. Joel 2:28–32). Yet, in the passage that Peter quotes, there are events in it that did not happen at Pentecost, like the moon turning to blood. Does Peter err on this occasion? 

SOLUTION: First, Peter was simply showing that Pentecost involved a partial or initial fulfillment of Joel 2:28–32. This partial fulfillment was in regard to the indwelling Holy Spirit for believers. And this is exactly what happened on the day of Pentecost. Joel says that God “will pour out My spirit on all flesh ... I will pour out My Spirit in those days” (Joel 2:28–29). And God did pour forth His Spirit on the day of Pentecost. 

Second, Peter’s reference was to indicate that the last days had been inaugurated (cf. Heb. 1:1–2; 2:4). The wonders of the sky above and the signs on the earth beneath (Acts 19–21) are to take place later on in earth’s history at the time of Christ’s second coming. Notice that these things will happen “before the ... great and notable day of the Lord” (v. 20) which is yet future (cf. Matt. 24:1ff). 

This excerpt is from When Critics Ask: A Popular Handbook on Bible Difficulties (Wheaton, Ill.: Victor Books, 1992). © 2014 Norman Geisler and Thomas Howe. 

The Orthodoxy text states in regards to Acts 2: 16-21, that Joel was one of the early prophets (ninth century, BCE) that proclaimed God's sovereign Lordship and judgement in the last days. (275). With Pentecost the first part of the prophecy was answered with the outpouring of God the Holy Spirit to believers. The second part will be fulfilled at the second coming of Jesus Christ. (275). 

Bible Gateway: Encylopedia of the Bible-Second Coming

Some key New Testament sections related to the second coming are Matthew 24, 1 Thessalonians 4-5, 2 Thessalonians 2:7-12. (My add)

Cited

Bibliography R. Anderson, The Coming Prince (1915); W. E. Blackstone, Jesus Is Coming (1917); L. S. Chafer, Systematic Theology, IV, 305-307 (1947); L. Berkhof, The Second Coming of Christ (1953); R. Pache, The Return of Jesus Christ (1955); J. F. Walvoord, The Millennial Kingdom (1959), 263-275; J. D. Pentecost, Things To Come (1961), 370-426.

Blue Letter Bible: August 16 2012: Why don't they quote the OT, word for word, in the NT 

Cited 

Key for the Acts-Joel example: 

Different Languages: The Hebrew Bible was written in Hebrew, with parts in Aramaic, the New Testament in Greek, with parts in Aramaic. 

Indirect quotations: The New Testament writers frequently quote the Old Testament without verbal exactness. Most likely, many of the quotations were from memory. At times the citations were made according to the sense of the Old Testament rather than making a direct quote. Sometimes the quotations in Scripture are indirect not direct. An indirect quotation does not cite someone directly but does report accurately what that person said. 

Indirect quotes were used to emphasize the New Testament covenant, doctrines and theology.

Bible Hub: Acts 2: 21 

Strong's Concordance 

Original Word: ἐπικαλέω 

GRK: ὃς ἂν ἐπικαλέσηται τὸ ὄνομα 

Verb-Aorist-Subjunctive-Middle-3rd Person Singular

NT Greek.org 

Corey Keating 

Cited 

As far as the tense of the verb in the subjunctive mood, it should be remembered that the subjunctive only shows the kind of action (verbal aspect or ‘aktionsart’) and not time. Only verbs in the indicative mood indicate time in an absolute sense. (See intermediate discussion of verb tenses). However, the ‘time’ implied by the subjunctive is usually future since it is a mood of contingency. Thus the future indicative and the aorist subjunctive are closely related and sometimes used in substitution for each other. 

Aorist is past tense. Subjunctive is usually, future tense. The middle is neither active or passive.

Humanly speaking, based on the New Testament Greek, and accurate translations, the Lord can be theologically called upon, in biblical times up to present times and future times, within this present realm.

STRONG, J. (1890)(1986) Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, Burlington, Welch Publishing Company.

---

John Calvin: Acts 2:21

'And it shall come to pass That whoever calls on the name of the Lord' (36)

Calvin reasons 'God invites everyone to himself for salvation, without exception.' (36). One key example mentioned by Calvin is Romans 10: 13. (36). 'Only our disbelief stops us from calling on God.' He quotes Jesus Christ in John 16:24, as in Ask and you shall receive. (36).

Edited from 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

John Calvin’s (1543)(1998) theology holds to a strong view on God’s sovereignty and to a limited view of human freedom. In modern, but not Reformation era terms, Calvin could be considered a compatibilist and explains that those who committed wrong actions performed them willfully and deliberately. Calvin viewed God as working his good purposes through the evil conduct of people, but he pointed out that God’s motives in willing these deeds were pure while those who committed wrong had wicked motives. Calvin (1543)(1998: 37). 

Calvin reasons that a person is not forced or coerced to believe in the gospel. Calvin (1543)(1996: 68).

He suggests outward human preaching ‘strikes only the ears’ while the inward instruction of the Holy Spirit is how a person is enlightened in Christ. Human preaching is valuable in that it works at times in conjunction with the Holy Spirit transforming individuals. Calvin (1543)(1996: 233). There is a traditional Christian and Reformed concept and theology that the Holy Spirit is God and does the work that only God can do. The Holy Spirit works directly upon a human mind, in a sense remaking a person and creating a person after the image of Christ. 

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

Romans 10: 13

Romans 10:13 New King James Version 13 For “whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved.” (NKJV).

In regards to Romans 10: 13, the Orthodox Bible explains 'All may come freely if they will.' (363).  

This is coming from an Orthodox, not Reformed, theological perspective that generally, in my opinion, in philosophical terms, is more incompatiblistic than compatibilistic. In other words, a greater emphasis on human free will and somewhat less emphasis on the sovereignty of God.

John Calvin: Romans 10: 13-17

On Roman 10: 14-17, to follow up on verse 13.

Cited

And this is a remarkable passage with regard to the efficacy of preaching; for he testifies, that by it faith is produced. He had indeed before declared, that of itself it is of no avail; but that when it pleases the Lord to work, it becomes the instrument of his power. And indeed the voice of man can by no means penetrate into the soul; and mortal man would be too much exalted, were he said to have the power to regenerate us; the light also of faith is something sublimer than what can be conveyed by man: but all these things are no hindrances, that God should not work effectually through the voice of man, so as to create faith in us through his ministry. 

It must be further noticed, that faith is grounded on nothing else but the truth of God; for Paul does not teach us that faith springs from any other kind of doctrine, but he expressly restricts it to the word of God; and this restriction would have been improper if faith could rest on the decrees of men. Away then with all the devices of men when we speak of the certainty of faith. (347).

Cranfield in his Romans commentary explains that Paul in Romans 10 reasoned that all who invoke the name of the Lord, 'that is Yahweh, will be saved.' (261). The term 'Lord' here for Paul, is applied to Christ. (261). I reason we have trinitarian theology here as the Lord Jesus is drawn to the Father through God the Holy Spirit. Mounce reminds us that someone must be preaching the good news in order for it to be accepted. (211). I am in agreement with this very New Testament concept as a compatibilist within the Reformed tradition, as I reason the Holy Spirit convinces through regeneration the chosen to embrace the gospel. This is not force or coercion. A person does not simply wake up a regenerate Christian one day, without having embraced the gospel through the Holy Spirit.

Theology

True New Testament regeneration (John 3, Titus 3, 1 Peter 1) is via God the Holy Spirit, by the lead of God the Father within the applied atoning and resurrection work of God the Son, to believers. Human beings within a fallen nature, embrace degrees of sin and evil. They are not forced or coerced to believe in the gospel, although admittedly, God may force or coerce events leading to human beings being regenerated in conversion, which is humanly embraced. Human beings within a fallen nature, embrace sin and evil. They are not forced or coerced, in unbelief, although admittedly God may force or coerce events leading to further hardened views toward God (Romans 9, Exodus 1-18).

It is this theological and philosophical (philosophy of religion) writer's view that human moral accountability exists where within the fallen (Genesis 1-3, Romans) nature, the human will, acts and actions are not forced or coerced. Every believer embraces the gospel even as God first and essentially, regenerates. Every unbeliever rejects the gospel, even as God chooses not to regenerate such a person. This is an aspect of my compatibilism/soft determinism within a Reformed tradition.

Titus 3: 5-7: Regeneration

Titus 3:5-7

New American Standard Bible (NASB)

5 He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit, 6 whom He poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, 7 so that being justified by His grace we would be made heirs [a]according to the hope of eternal life.

Bible Hub

Strong 3824

'Strong's Concordance paliggenesia: regeneration, renewal Original Word: παλιγγενεσία, ας, ἡ Part of Speech: Noun, Feminine Transliteration: paliggenesia Phonetic Spelling: (pal-ing-ghen-es-ee'-ah)

Short Definition: a new birth, regeneration Definition: a new birth, regeneration, renewal.'

From Titus 3: 5

The main text

Spiritual rebirth (figurative), spiritual regeneration (figurative). (72).

Being spiritually transformed by God, to be in relationship, fellowship with God through the applied atoning and resurrection work of Jesus Christ. Spiritually enlightened by the triune God in order to accept the salvific work of God. The Father sends, the Son completes the atoning and resurrection work and the Holy Spirit regenerates and yet the trinity is of one infinite, eternal essence and works together in unity.

Greek scholar Bauer documents this as:

The rebirth of the redeemed person. (606). The regeneration and rebirth via the Holy Spirit. (606).

Greek New Testament: 

With five Greek manuscript versions there is agreement on: paliggenesiaV

Pastor Courson explains that those in Christ have been 'washed and renewed' (1424), not because of our own human righteousness, but because of the work of Jesus Christ. (1424). We have been renewed  and washed. (1424). Washing is symbolic, in part at least through baptism, in my view. Although there is the idea of being cleansed of sin through the sanctification process.

Nute suggests in his commentary that washing is the cleansing in the new birth. (1496). And this may include the thought of baptism as a symbol of cleansing. (1496). The Pocket Dictionary defines regeneration as rebirth or re-creation as in being born again. (101). But salvation does include legal justification and the imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ to believers, and as well, sanctification.

Theology II

My final comments are that Acts 2: 21 and Romans 10: 13, and supporting contexts, not to simply prooftext, work with my Reformed theology that whom God regenerates, he/she freely believe in the gospel. This means that whoever calls upon the name of the Lord and everyone that calls upon the name of the Lord, has belief an in/on the true God and Lord in salvation (justification and sanctification), through grace through faith alone. It does not mean that all believers are particularly theologically or doctrinally astute. In other words, I certainly believe, for example, there are non-Reformed believers and that none of us have perfect belief, theology, doctrines and dogma.

Biblically and throughout Church history, there are false believers that call upon the name of the Lord, but are not regenerated in true belief. These are in my view persons trusting in work's righteousness theology that also have an ontologically wrong view of God.

See

Matthew 7: Lord, Lord

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

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

CALVIN, JOHN (1539)(1509-1564), Tim Perrine, CCEL Staff Writer, Commentary on Romans, Translated, Grand Rapids, Christian Classics Ethereal Library, 

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.

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

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

LEONARD, Paul E. (1986) in 'Joel', The International Bible Commentary, F.F. Bruce, General Editor, Grand Rapids, Zondervan/Marshall Pickering.

NUTE, ALAN G. (1986) in 'Titus', The International Bible Commentary, F.F. Bruce, General Editor, Grand Rapids, Zondervan/Marshall Pickering. 

STRONG, J. (1890)(1986) Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, Pickering, Ontario, Welch Publishing Company.

The Atonement Is Essential

The Atonement Is Essential 

20240423 View from the Tower: Liverpool Cathedral (built, 1904-1978) 

I. Preface

Dr. Stephen Wellum was one of my theological advisers while I was attending Canadian Baptist Seminary/Trinity Western University, working on my MTS (Master of Theological Studies). As my previous BA (Bachelor of Arts) was within a Mennonite Brethren context and culture, and in Biblical Studies and not Theology, technically; Dr. Wellum assisted me with sources and knowledge in regards to Reformed theology and in particular, the work of John S. Feinberg. This was in the future, my key Reformed exemplar for my British MPhil/PhD theses. I certainly had Reformed leanings while at Columbia Bible College for my BA, but waited until I earned my MPhil at Wales, before publicly embracing the term 'Reformed' for myself. Online, I came across some of Dr. Wellum's recent work. My work in this review is non-exhaustive. A version of my work was previously presented in two articles. Today, God-willing, I wish to publish one version on Blogger and on academia.edu, so this is a revised version.

Referenced from this website

Tuesday, February 18, 2020 The atonement is essential: Part I 

Monday, February 24, 2020 The atonement is essential: Part II

II Atonement

Desiring God: May 4, 2019: The Hill We All Must Die On: Four Questions to Ask About Atonement 

Review: The Hill We All Must Die On: Four Questions to Ask About Atonement 

By Dr. Stephen Wellum 

Cited 

'The doctrine of penal substitution is under attack today — and that’s an understatement. From voices outside of evangelical theology to those within, the historic Reformation view of the cross is claimed to be a “modern” invention from the cultural West. Others criticize the doctrine as sanctioning violence, privileging divine retributive justice over God’s love, condoning a form of divine child abuse, reducing Scripture’s polychrome presentation of the cross to a lifeless monochrome, being too “legal” in orientation, and so on.'

End citation

Penal substitution receives significant negative critique within and outside of the Church. But, this New Testament view is that human sin breaks the law of God (Grenz, Guretzki, Nordling: 90), for which the penalty is death (90), therefore leading to the death of Jesus Christ for those chosen by God, to appease the law of God (90), is definitively and definitely biblical. 

But what is substitutionary atonement?

From the Substitutionary Atonement: The Gospel Coalition

'Definition 

The penal substitutionary view of the atonement holds that the most fundamental event of the atonement is that Jesus Christ took the full punishment that we deserved for our sins as a substitute in our place, and that all other benefits or results of the atonement find their anchor in this truth.' 

'Summary 

All people are in need of a substitute since all are guilty of sinning against the holy God. All sin deserves punishment because all sin is personal rebellion against God himself. While animal sacrifices took on the guilt of God’s people in the OT, these sacrifices could never fully atone for the sins of man. For that, Jesus Christ came and died in the place of his people (substitution), taking upon himself the full punishment that they deserved (penal). While there are other theories of the atonement, which point to other valid aspects of what happened in Christ’s death, the penal-substitutionary element of the crucifixion secures all other benefits that come to God’s people through the death of their representative.' 

Cited

'Human beings need a substitute since “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Rom. 3:23). Sin separates human beings from God as we see from the sin of Adam and Eve in the garden. Only perfect obedience will satisfy God’s justice, and we see this in that Adam and Eve were severed from God for one sin. As Galatians 3:10 says, “For all who rely on the works of the law are under a curse, because it is written, Everyone who does not do everything written in the book of the law is cursed.” The curse falls upon those who transgress God’s commands, and no one is exempted (Rom. 3:9–20, 23). 

Sin deserves punishment because God is holy. Breaking the law is not merely an impersonal reality, for sin represents rebellion against God himself (1 John 3:4). The heart of sin is the failure to glorify God and to give thanks to him (Rom. 1:21). Sin represents a flagrant refusal to submit to God’s lordship, and those who sin rightly deserve the retributive judgment of God. Since God is holy (Lev. 19:2) he judges those who transgress his law. God’s judgment is evident in the flood of Noah, the judgment of pagan nations in the OT, and the judgment of Israel for its sin. John the Baptist warns people to flee the coming judgment of the Lord (Matt. 3:1–12). Human beings are summoned to repent before the coming judgment arrives (Acts 2:14–39; 3:12–26; 4:8–12). Paul often refers to God’s eschatological judgment (Rom. 2:5, 16; 6:23; 9:22; 1 Cor. 1:18; 5:5; 2 Cor. 2:16; Gal. 1:8–9; Phil. 3:18–19; 1 Thess. 1:10; 2:14–16; 5:9). The retributive nature of judgment is as clear as it gets in 2 Thessalonians 1:5–9. Paul argues that God is “just” to punish people forever for their sin. 

God’s anger against sin represents his personal response to sin. Judgment is not merely cause and effect, but is God’s holy wrath against sin, which must be distinguished from sinful human anger.' 

End citation

Important to note that as God is infinitely, eternally, purely, good, therefore, any divine anger is not in any way subject to sin and corruption as is even the most just human anger.

Cited 

'Animal sacrifices do not and cannot finally atone for sin (Heb. 9:1–10:18), and such sacrifices point to the atoning death of Jesus Christ which secures complete and permanent forgiveness of sins.' 

Cited 

'Romans 3:21–26 is a central text on penal substitution. In the preceding section of the letter we see that all without exception are sinners deserving final judgment (Rom. 1:18–3:20). Paul affirms in Romans 3:21–22 that a right relationship with God cannot be obtained through keeping the law (since all sin; Rom. 3:23) but only through faith in Jesus Christ. How can God forgive sinners so that they stand in a right relationship with him? The answer is given in Romans 3:25–26, “God presented him as an atoning sacrifice in his blood, received through faith, to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his restraint God passed over the sins previously committed. God presented him to demonstrate his righteousness at the present time, so that he would be righteous and declare righteous the one who has faith in Jesus.” The words translated “atoning sacrifice” has a more technical meaning and can be rendered as “propitiation” or “mercy seat” (hilastērion). The word propitiation signifies that God’s wrath has been satisfied or appeased in the cross of Christ.'

End Citation

James Strong explains that the word discussed in Romans 3: 25 is ἱλαστήριον (ilastērion hilasterion), is defined as an expiatory place or thing, an atoning victim, mercyseat, and propitiation. Strong (1890)(1986: 48). From Strong’s definition, Romans 3: 25 does allow for the idea of atonement in both the sense of sacrifice and appeasement. Strong (1890)(1986: 48). However, his definition does place more emphasis on expiation than propitiation in the atonement process in Romans 3: 25. Strong (1890)(1986: 48). 

Cited

Bible Hub: Romans 3: 25

Bible Hub: 2435 hilastérion

Strong's Concordance

hilastérion: propitiatory Original Word: ἱλαστήριον, ου, τό 

Part of Speech: Noun, Neuter 

Transliteration: hilastérion 

Phonetic Spelling: (hil-as-tay'-ree-on) 

Definition: propitiatory Usage: (a) a sin offering, by which the wrath of the deity shall be appeased; a means of propitiation, (b) the covering of the ark, which was sprinkled with the atoning blood on the Day of Atonement.

Cited

Englishman's Concordance

Romans 3:25 N-ANS 

GRK: ὁ θεὸς ἱλαστήριον διὰ τῆς 

NAS: displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood 

KJV: hath set forth [to be] a propitiation through

INT: God a mercy seat through the

Walter Bauer explains that the meaning in Romans 3: 25 is uncertain and could be either expiates or propitiates. Bauer (1979: 375). For Strong the definition of the word from 1 John 2:2 and 4:10 is atonement, expiator, propitiation and so 1 John does not solve the issue from Romans according to String. Strong (1890)(1986: 49).

End Citation

From the Substitutionary Atonement: The Gospel Coalition continued

Cited

'Such an idea fits well with the flow of thought in Romans, for we see in Romans 1:18 that “God wrath is revealed from heaven against all godlessness and unrighteousness of people.” We are also told in Romans 2:5 that those who don’t repent and soften their hearts are “storing up wrath for yourself in the day of wrath, when God’s righteous judgment is revealed.” Romans 3:25–26 teaches us, then, that God’s righteousness, God’s holiness and justice, are satisfied in the death of Christ. In the cross of Christ, God is shown to be loving and holy, merciful and just, the “just and justifier” of those who put their faith in Jesus. God has not compromised his justice since Christ has borne the penalty deserved for sin, dying as a substitute in the place of sinners. 

We see the same truth in Galatians 3:10–13. No one can escape God’s curse by works of the law since all without exception sin. The solution to the evil of human beings is set forth in Galatians 3:13: “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, because it is written, Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree.” The curse every person deserves is removed for those who put their trust in Christ, because Christ took the curse we deserved upon himself. He took the penalty we deserved, fulfilling the words of Deuteronomy 21:23 that those who are hanged upon a tree are cursed. 

The same truth is found in 2 Corinthians 5:21: “[God] made the one who did not know sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.” We have here the great exchange. Jesus took our sin by dying in our place, and we received his righteousness. 

Nor is this teaching restricted to Paul. Jesus himself clearly teaches penal substitution in Mark 10:45, “For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.” We have an allusion here to Isaiah 53. Jesus as the Son of Man of Daniel 7 is also the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53. In surrendering his life in death, he died as a ransom in place of many. His death constituted the payment demanded for the sins committed. The same teaching is also present in the Gospel of John: “Here is the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world” (John 1:29). Jesus, as the sacrificial Lamb of God, whether it is the Passover Lamb, the lamb in the sacrificial system, or the lamb of Isaiah 53:7 (or even all three), dies as a sacrifice in the place of sinners.' 

References from this source 

Charles Hill and Frank James, eds., The Glory of the Atonement 

David Peterson, ed., Where Wrath and Mercy Meet James Beilby and Paul Eddy, eds., The Nature of the Atonement: Four Views 

J. I. Packer “Penal Substitution Revisited”

J. I. Packer, “What Did the Cross Achieve? The Logic of Penal Substitution” 

J. I. Packer and Mark Dever, In My Place Condemned He Stood. See a brief summary of chapter 2 here. John Murray, Redemption Accomplished and Applied

John Stott, The Cross of Christ 

Leon Morris, Apostolic Preaching of the Cross 

N. T. Wright, The Day the Revolution Began 

Robert L. Dabney, Christ Our Penal Substitute 

Simon Gathercole, Defending Substitution. See a brief book summary here. 

Steve Jeffrey, Mike Ovey, and Andrew Sach, Pierced for our Transgressions. 

End Citation

The Atonement Is Essential

There are numerous critics of Reformed theology within the Christian Church, and critics of Biblical, Christian theology. My MPhil and PhD writing and questionnaire results (see website archives) demonstrated that significant aspects of Reformed theology were (and are) not embraced by the many evangelicals, liberals and others within Christendom, or if preferred, the Christian Community.

Reformed theology is certainly not generally embraced by critics outside of Christendom or the Christian Community. (Christendom and the Christian Community, being those that confess a form of Christianity, not necessarily Biblical Christianity) 

Atonement is a very complex theological issue and there are various perspectives from Biblical scholars. Millard J. Erickson explains that atonement theory is multifaceted including the concepts of sacrifice, propitiation (appeasement of God), substitution and reconciliation. (1994: 811-823).

Based on scripture, especially the New Testament, I accept expiation, propitiation, substitution and reconciliation as core aspects of the atoning work of Jesus Christ. Through his applied atoning work, regenerate (John 3, Titus, 1 Peter 1, as examples) believers, being divinely moved to embrace the gospel, are justified and sanctified by grace through faith alone, for good works, and never by good works (Ephesians 1-2, Romans, Galatians as key examples).

Non-exhaustive, New Testament examples that support the theology of substitution within the atoning work of Jesus Christ: 

Mark 10:45 English Standard Version (ESV)

For even the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many. Jesus Christ's death is a ransom and substitution for the sinners through the atonement. 

Romans 3:25 English Standard Version (ESV)

Whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins.

Propitiation: The atonement offering that turns away God’s wrath. Christ’s atoning work serves as propitiation. Grenz, Guretzki, and Nordling (96). Mounce explains in his Romans commentary that there is a debate whether propitiation, as in appeasing the wrath of God or expiation, the covering for sin, is a better translation. (116). He reasons that although the term 'propitiation' may not be the best translation, this Greek term is best reasoned as 'placating' God's wrath against sin. (117). This is also theologically connected to God's righteousness applied to those in Jesus Christ (118). Cranfield writes that other meanings, other than 'mercy-seat' have been rejected in his text. (77). He reasons that the idea of propitiation is not excluded here and that 'propitiatory sacrifice' is a reasonable suggestion. (77). 

C.H. Dodd (also mentioned by Mounce and Cranfield) explains that the Greek word in Romans 3: 25 should be translated expiation and not propitiation, and claims that many Greek translations have been incorrect on this issue. Dodd (1935: 82-95). Browning writes that propitiation is a means of warding off the just anger of God. He reasons that modern Biblical translations make it clear that the New Testament teaches that through Christ’s atoning work, expiation takes place, and an angry God is not appeased through the propitiation of Christ. Browning (1996: 305). Anthony D. Palma explains that propitiation can be defined as the idea of appeasing God, while expiation means to atone for sin against God, as in offering or sacrifice. Palma (2007: 1). Palma explains that the New Testament idea of propitiation includes expiation, but expiation does not necessarily include the idea of propitiation. Palma (2007: 1).

III The Nature of God

Desiring God: May 4, 2019: The Hill We All Must Die On: Four Questions to Ask About Atonement continued

Dr. Stephen Wellum continued...

Cited 

'1. Who Is God?

First, we must get right who God is as our triune Creator-Covenant Lord. Mark it well: debates over the nature of the atonement are first and foremost doctrine of God debates. If our view of God is sub-biblical, we will never get the cross right. From the opening verses of Scripture, God is presented as eternal, a se (life from himself), holy love, righteous, and good — the triune God who is complete in himself and who needs nothing from us (Genesis 1–2; Psalm 50:12–14; Isaiah 6:1–3; Acts 17:24–25; Revelation 4:8–11). One crucial implication of this description is that God, in his very nature, is the moral standard of the universe. This is why we must not think of God’s law as something external to him that he may relax at will. Instead, the triune God of Scripture is the law; his will and nature determine what is right and wrong.'

End citation

Nature of God

Biblical theology in regards to the nature of atonement connects to biblical theology in regards to the nature of God. God's infinite, eternal, holy, perfectly moral, nature, requires any and all finite entities that would ever have everlasting life to ontologically (in regards to nature) possess a finite form of holiness and moral perfection. Genesis 3 from the Hebrew Bible, records the fall of humanity and the New Testament (Romans, Galatians, Ephesians, Hebrews, as examples) explains that the atoning and resurrection work of Jesus Christ is the divine remedy for that human fall.

I note the fall because Augustine describes a literal fall. Augustine (426)(1958: 254-255), and the corruption of humanity that led to the literal problem (s) of evil. Augustine (426)(1958: 254-255). For many secular and Biblical scholars from mainline denominations, the Biblical story of the fall is likely fiction. Jackson (1941)(2006: 1). Fretheim (1994: 152). To Feinberg, human freedom and all human attributes had been tainted by the corruption of humanity in the fall. Feinberg (1994: 126-127). I discuss Genesis and the fall in Chapter Two of my PhD thesis and I am not convinced that all of the creation account must be taken plain literally in order to stay true to Scripture. Figurative literal approaches are possible at some points. 

Within my biblical, Reformed theology, I certainly view, based on Romans 5, as a key example, Jesus Christ, the God-man, as the last Adam, and therefore fully accept an actual, non-fictional, historical Adam and Eve. However, Genesis 1-3 allows for interpretations that can be figurative literal while rejecting mythology. In other words, a literal, historical Adam and Eve could be explained with both prose and poetry.

William Sanford La Sor, David Allan Hubbard, and Fredric William Bush (1987) from what I deduced was a moderate conservative, evangelical position, reason the author of Genesis is writing as an artist and storyteller who uses literary device. La Sor, Hubbard, and Bush (1987: 72). They point out it is imperative to distinguish which literary device is being used within the text of Genesis. La Sor, Hubbard, and Bush (1987: 72).

Romans 5 (New American Standard Bible)

12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned— 13 for [h]until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a [i]type of Him who was to come. h. Romans 5:13 Or until law i. Romans 5:14 Or foreshadowing
---

I further agree with Dr. Wellum that God is the moral standard of the universe, his infinite, eternal, holy and perfect nature, makes it so. God's law and moral law especially, is a reflection of his divine nature, and therefore to live everlastingly within the future culminated Kingdom of God, atonement (and resurrection) is required for humanity corrupted within this present, temporary (Revelation 21-22) realm.

The Resurrection

1 Corinthians 15 (New American Standard Bible)

42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown [l]a perishable body, it is raised [m]an imperishable body; 43 it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; 44 it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. 45 So also it is written, “The first man, Adam, became a living soul.” The last Adam became a life-giving spirit. 46 However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural; then the spiritual. 47 The first man is from the earth, [n]earthy; the second man is from heaven. 48 As is the earthy, so also are those who are earthy; and as is the heavenly, so also are those who are heavenly. 49 Just as we have borne the image of the earthy, [o]we will also bear the image of the heavenly. 

l. 1 Corinthians 15:42 Lit in corruption 

m. 1 Corinthians 15:42 Lit in incorruption 

n. 1 Corinthians 15:47 Lit made of dust 

o. 1 Corinthians 15:49 Two early mss read let us also

50 Now I say this, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; nor does [p]the perishable inherit [q]the imperishable. p. 1 Corinthians 15:50 Lit corruption 

q. 1 Corinthians 15:50 Lit incorruption

Even with the use of philosophy of religion (examining religion philosophically), the first cause, the primary cause, that exists as necessary in any possible world, as of necessity would be, by ontological default, what is good and holy. Finite, contingent human beings, soiled and engulfed by moral imperfection and problems of evil would not be by nature fit for everlasting life in the presence of such an entity. Reasonably within a type of theistic philosophy of religion, there is a fracture between humanity and God. Divine atonement through God the Son, as infinite, perfect God, and finite, perfect, incarnate man, is the fix. This makes reasonable sense to me as truth, primarily theologically (from the bible) and secondarily through theistic, philosophy of religion.

---

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. 

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

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

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

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

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

DUNNETT, WALTER M. (2001) Exploring The New Testament, Wheaton, Crossway Books.

ELLISON, H.L. (1986) ‘Genesis’, in F.F. Bruce (ed.), The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Zondervan. 

ELWELL, WALTER AND YARBROUGH, ROBERT W., Third Edition (2013) Encountering The New Testament, Grand Rapids, Baker Academic.

ERICKSON, MILLARD (1994) Christian Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House. 

FEE, GORDON D. (1987) The First Epistle To The Corinthians, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

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.

FRETHEIM, TERENCE E. (1985)(2005) ‘The Suffering of God: An Old Testament Perspective’, in Theology Today, Volume 1, Number 1, Bookreview17. Princeton, Princeton Theological Seminary. http://theologytoday.ptsem.edu/apr1985/v42-1-bookreview17.htm

FRETHEIM, TERENCE E. (1994) ‘Is Genesis 3 a Fall Story?’, in Word and World, Luther Seminary, pp. 144-153. Saint Paul, Luther Seminary.

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

GUNDRY, ROBERT (1981) A Survey of the New Testament, Grand Rapids, Zondervan.

HAMILTON, VICTOR P. (1988) Handbook on the Pentateuch, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.

JACKSON, JOHN G. (1941)(2006) Pagan Origins of the Christ Myth, New York, Truth Seeker Co. http://www.nbufront.org/html/MastersMuseums/JGJackson/ChristMyth/ChristMythPart1.html

MARSH, PAUL, W. (1986) ‘1 Corinthians’, in F.F. Bruce, (ed.), The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Marshall Pickering/Zondervan.

MARSHALL, ALFRED (1975)(1996) The Interlinear KJV-NIV, Grand Rapids, Zondervan.

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

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

LA SOR, WILLIAM SANFORD, DAVID ALLAN HUBBARD, AND FREDERIC WILLIAM BUSH. (1987) Old Testament Survey, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

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

STRONG, J. (1890)(1986) Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, Pickering, Ontario, Welch Publishing Company.

Free will statements

Venice via Ernest Hepnar, 2019

Free will statements 

Preface

Free will prepositions from my MPhil thesis, which was part one of my PhD work, which concluded with a related PhD thesis.

Originally published 20190921, updated for an entry on academia.edu, 20250309.

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

MPhil

Statements nine, ten and eleven: These statements dealt with the issue of human free will.

Number nine stated: God created human beings with free will. 

Here 92% of Anglicans agreed, while 4% were not certain, and 4% disagreed. With the Baptists, 98% agreed, while 2% disagreed.

Statement ten stated: Human free will means that people have the option to choose either good or evil. 

Here 80% of Anglicans agreed, with 4% not certain, and 16% in disagreement. The Baptists responders consisted of 94% of the people agreeing, with 4% not certain, and 2% disagreeing.

The eleventh statement read: Free will itself is not the main factor in the human rejection of God. 

Here 40% of Anglicans agreed, while 30% were not certain, and 30% disagreed. With Baptists, 62% agreed, 8% being not certain, and 30% being in disagreement with the statement.

Regarding the ninth statement, I agree that God made human beings with free will, although its nature is limited as human beings can only choose to do things which their finite nature allows (human beings can freely desire to fly unaided, but this is not within their physical nature to accomplish).

I do believe the fall of Adam and Eve occurred by their own choice without coercion by God.

I agree with the tenth statement in a pre fall context, but after the fall I think that the human will was no longer able to truly please God by choosing to do good things, or to have a right standing before God. For a person to do good in God’s sight would require a spirit of purity which is impossible to possess for those with a sinful nature, but to even approach purity would require complete reliance upon the Holy Spirit.

I do not think this means that God desires robots which he directs, rather he wants thinking people who are open to his guidance. However, clearly human beings, even those without Christ, still have some freedom of choice as to what sins they will commit and to what level they commit these acts. They cannot commit good acts that are pleasing to God in the context of merit. Paul mentions in Romans 3:23, that all people have sinned and fallen short of God’s glory.

The eleventh statement discusses an issue I have already mentioned I disagreed. 

This statement above is not clear from my MPhil work. The main factor is God as primary cause, willingly allowed humanity to reject him. Human beings as secondary cause, embracing in nature and choice this rejection. I gather that I meant that I also do not agree that free will is the main factor, because that has never been my position in my MPhil, PhD or website work.

September 21, 2019

Statement ten stated: Human free will means that people have the option to choose either good or evil. 

I reason that the choice of Adam and Eve to disobey God, demonstrated their by then tainted human nature in the fall (Genesis 3, Romans 5, as examples). Prior to the fall they were finitely perfect and at the fall they became finitely imperfect.

From both theological and philosophical perspectives, I researched and wrote in more depth, and with increased understanding in regard to compatibilistic freedom within my PhD thesis. That being compatibilism, also known as soft determinism, views human freedom as leading to desires, thoughts, will, acts and actions, as a secondary cause. Human beings are secondary agents. This is compatible with the simultaneous cause of these human desires, thoughts, will, acts and actions by a primary cause. From a theistic, biblical, Christian view, this primary or first cause is the triune God.

God's motives remain pure, unlike any secondary cause that is in a fallen, corrupted state. God's loyal angels can also have pure motives, as finite entities and secondary agents. For academic balance, a non-theistic view could reason the primary cause as naturalistic and scientific. Perhaps even as fate.

Incompatibilism and forms of libertarian free will, deny compatibilism. As I am not a hard determinist (things are determined by one cause). I reason moral accountability from secondary agents (causes) requires that these entities are not forced or coerced in regard to desires, thoughts, will, acts and actions, but are embraced with limited free will. The finite nature of humanity is always subject to the infinite nature of God; this with whatever God directly or indirectly causes.

Got Questions

Referencing

PACKER, J.I. (1973) Knowing God, Downers Grove, Illinois, InterVarsity Press.

In Hebrew, the title "God Almighty" is written as El Shaddai and probably means “God, the All-powerful One” or “The Mighty One of Jacob” (Genesis 49:24; Psalm 132:2,5), although there is a question among most Bible scholars as to its precise meaning. The title speaks to God’s ultimate power over all. He has all might and power. We are first introduced to this name in Genesis 17:1, when God appeared to Abram and said, “I am God Almighty; walk before me and be blameless.”

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

This website has several PhD related articles in the archives.

Sunday, January 05, 2025 PhD and MPhil theses linked

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. 

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

BOURKE, VERNON J. (1958) ‘Introduction’, in The City of God, Translated by Gerald G. Walsh, Garden City, New York, Image Books. 

BRUCE, F.F. (1987) Romans, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

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.

CHADWICK, HENRY (1992) ‘Introduction’, in Confessions, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

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

EDWARDS, JONATHAN (1729)(2006) Sovereignty of God, New Haven, Connecticut, Jonathan Edwards Center, Yale University. 

EDWARDS, JONATHAN (1731-1733)(2006) Law of Nature, New Haven, Connecticut, Jonathan Edwards Center, Yale University. 

EDWARDS, JONATHAN (1754)(2006) Freedom of the Will, Flower Mound, Texas. Jonathanedwards.com.

FEINBERG, JOHN.S. (1986) Predestination and Free Will, in David Basinger and Randall Basinger (eds.), Downers Grove, Illinois, InterVarsity Press.

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.  

FLEW, ANTONY (1955) ‘Divine Omnipotence and Human Freedom’, in Antony Flew and A. MacIntrye (eds.), New Essays in Philosophical Theology, London, SCM, in Paul Edwards and Arthur Pap (eds.), A Modern Introduction To Philosophy, New York, The Free Press.

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

PACKER, J.I. (1973) Knowing God, Downers Grove, Illinois, InterVarsity Press. 

MACKIE, J.L. (1955)(1996) ‘Evil and Omnipotence’, in Mind, in Michael Peterson, William Hasker, Bruce Reichenbach, and David Basinger (eds.), Philosophy of Religion, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

MACKIE, J.L. (1971)(1977)(2002) ‘Evil and Omnipotence’, in The Philosophy of Religion, in Alvin C. Plantinga, God, Freedom, and Evil, Grand Rapids. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. 

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

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.

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

STACE, W.T. (1952)(1976) Religion and the Modern Mind, in John R. Burr and Milton Goldinger (eds.), Philosophy and Contemporary Issues, London, Collier Macmillan Publishers.