Fallacy Of Accent: 'If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him'

Fallacy Of Accent

Preface

Photo: Portofino, Italy, 20221014, Facebook

Article originally published on Blogger 20151104, revised on Blogger for an entry on academia.edu 20251013.

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

The review of the Pirie text continues. Note: A formal fallacy is concerned with presenting a logical form to avoid being fallacious, and an informal fallacy occurs when there are errors in reasoning with a premise (s) and conclusion. This entry deals with an informal fallacy.

Pirie

Cited

'The fallacy of accent defends for its effectiveness on the fact the meaning of statements can change, depending on the stress put on words. The accenting of words or phrases can give a meaning quite different from that intended, and can add implications which are not part of the literal meaning.' (31).

Example used

'Light your cigarette' (31).

a) Without accent it looks like an invitation. (31).
b) As opposed to lighting a tablecloth or something else. (31).
c) Instead of someone else. (31).
d) Instead of sticking it in your ear. (31).

The author notes that by changing the accent, the meaning can be changed. (31)

The large letter emphasis is mine, based on the Pirie examples...

'Light your cigarette', reads like an invitation or instruction.

''Light your CIGARETTE', reads as if an instruction to light the cigarette instead of something else.

'Light YOUR cigarette' read like an instruction to light your own cigarette and not another's.

'LIGHT your cigarette' reads as an invitation, instead of sticking it in your ear.

The author states: 'The fallacy lies with the additional implications introduced by emphasis. (32).

For this website context, that being philosophical theology, philosophy of religion, philosophy and Bible, this following statement from Pirie is relevant and profound:

'Your most widespread use of the fallacy of accent can be to discredit opponents by quoting them with an emphasis they never indented'. (32). He notes that Richelieu needed 'six lines by which to hang an honest man.' (32).

Cardinal Richelieu of France

I reason he is meaning Cardinal Richelieu of France. This would be a good historical example where Christianity was politicized and did not closely follow the Gospel of Jesus Christ and his disciples, the Apostles and scribes which through divine revelation promoted Gospel truth. 

The use of accent in a fallacious manner can twist words for the purpose of a lie. One should pay special attention to the educated and elite, whether in a political, corporate, religious or other context when he or she may be using the fallacy of accent to persuade the masses.

Oxford Reference.com 

Oxford Essential Quotations (5 ed.) Edited by: Susan Ratcliffe 

Publisher: Oxford University Press Published online: 2017

Current Online Version: 2017DOI: 10.1093/acref/9780191843730.001.0001eISBN: 9780191843730 

Cited

'Cardinal Richelieu 1585–1642 French cleric and statesman

If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him. attributed'

Adam Smith Institute 

Cited 

'Cardinal Richelieu is remembered for making France into a centralized state by building up the power of the crown and weakening that of the nobles. He used brutal methods to do so, building up a network of spies and informers, having the rivals and opponents of his power executed, and banning political discussion in public bodies. His reputation was forever cast by Alexandre Dumas in “The Three Musketeers,” who portrayed him as a ruthless, power-hungry and cynical ruler. He will be remembered for his famous observation, “If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him.” And he did have quite a few people hanged.'

---

But of course the masses can use the fallacy as well.

Aristotle

This fallacy was noted by Aristotle. 

The Internet Classics Archive: On Sophistical Refutations By Aristotle: Translated by W. A. Pickard-Cambridge (circa 350 BC)

Cited

'An argument depending upon accent it is not easy to construct in unwritten discussion; in written discussions and in poetry it is easier. Thus (e.g.) some people emend Homer against those who criticize as unnatural his expression to men ou kataputhetai ombro. For they solve the difficulty by a change of accent, pronouncing the ou with an acuter accent. Also, in the passage about Agamemnon's dream, they say that Zeus did not himself say 'We grant him the fulfilment of his prayer', but that he bade the dream grant it. Instances such as these, then, turn upon the accentuation.'

---

Zeus stating something differs from Zeus stating that a dream stated something.

Accent fallacy relies on unclear, unconcise, emphasis and tone presented. This can be verbal or written.

There are various related fallacies, but...

Amphiboly was a related fallacy mentioned by Aristotle. It uses ambiguous, unclear, unconcise syntax and grammar. This can be verbal or written.

--- 

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

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

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

The Orthodox Study Bible: Zeal: Here is no heathen fanaticism

The Orthodox Study Bible: Zeal: Here is no heathen fanaticism

Preface

Originally published 20200514, significantly revised on Blogger for an article on academia.edu 20250920. My review of this academic study bible continues from my Reformed tradition, as I comment on Orthodoxy from the outside.

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

The Orthodox Study Bible: Zeal

Glossary

Reverend John W. Morris, Ph.D

Zeal

The definition here is 'devotion, enthusiastic obedience to God' (810). The Apostle Paul warns against a misguided zeal not based in knowledge, such as in Romans 10: 2-3. (810).

The Apostle Paul wrote in regards to the religious Jews...

Romans 10:2-3 New American Standard Bible (NASB) 2 For I testify about them that they have a zeal for God, but not in accordance with knowledge. 3 For not knowing about God’s righteousness and seeking to establish their own, they did not subject themselves to the righteousness of God.

Bible Hub: Romans 10: 2

αὐτοῖς ὅτι ζῆλον θεοῦ ἔχουσιν

(to them)  (that)  (a zeal)  (of God)

to them that have a zeal of/for God.

ζῆλον is a noun, accusative, masculine, singular in Romans 10: 2.

Bible Hub: Root word and New Testament examples

Original Word: ζῆλος, ου, ὁ

In the context of Romans 10: 2, Jon Courson states that 'To this day, the Jews are zealous for God'. (958). But, theologically and respectfully to Judaism, this is works righteousness based on keeping the law, and not the imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ to the chosen (Romans 8-9, Ephesians 1), by grace through faith (Romans, Galatians 2, Ephesians 1-2).

I will admit that there is faith in Judaism of course, but works righteousness still exists. There are many religious faiths and non-religious worldviews with good morality and ethics. Within my classically, biblically inspired, Reformed theology, this divine righteousness (Romans, Galatians as textual examples) is imputed and applied to believers as legal and theological, justification, within the atonement.

In regards to Paul's comments concerning the religiously zealous Jews, Cranfield writes: 'Here is no heathen fanaticism' (251). The Jews have the 'right object' (251) that being their Hebrew Bible concept of God, in mind. In Romans 10: 2, both the terms for 'zeal' and 'God' are important. (251). The zeal here is seeking attention for something which is worthy of glory. (251). That in context, being God. 'Zeal for the one true God'. (251). This is not zeal for one of the 'false gods of a corrupt society' (251). But the Apostle Paul here explains that the Jews lacked knowledge (v2), that being knowledge of the gospel (251). Cranfield opines here that there is a 'disastrous flaw' with the zeal of the Jews, according to Paul. It seems to me Paul is stating here the the religious Jews knew about God, but as they did not know and accept the triune God of the gospel and therefore their religious zeal was disastrously in error. 

This divine zeal, unlike human zeal, when gospel focused, has God's righteousness in Jesus Christ, states the Orthodox Study Bible at Romans 10: 3. (362). '3 For not knowing about God’s righteousness and seeking to establish their own, they did not subject themselves to the righteousness of God.' The religious righteousness of the Hebrew religion did not suffice for membership into the Kingdom of God, that could only occur through regeneration (John 3, Titus 3, 1 Peter 1) and being justified in the righteousness of Jesus Christ through his applied atoning work for believers, which also led to the culminated resurrection of believers. Cranfield is correct that the Jews did not have a sufficient righteousness of their own, which they were trying to establish religiously. At the same time, they would not submit to the applied righteousness of God incarnate, Jesus Christ within gospel salvation. (252).

Mounce explains that in regards to Romans 10, the Jews sought righteousness by 'personal merit rather than by faith.' (206). In agreement with the comments of Cranfield, Mounce opines that the text has Paul explaining that the religious Jews zeal was not guided by knowledge (Romans 10: 2) (207). They wanted righteousness of their own, within their own religion, as opposed to the righteousness of Jesus Christ, within the gospel.

Romans 10: 4 New American Standard Bible (NASB) 4 For Christ is the [a]end of the Law for righteousness to everyone who believes.  Footnotes: Romans 10: 4 Or goal

Christ is the end of the law (207). Cranfield writes the end here could be interpreted in three ways .1 fulfillment 2. termination 3. goal (252). Regardless, teleologically, justification within salvation and entrance into the Kingdom of God, was not to be pursued or found through the Hebrew Biblical, Mosaic law, or any Hebrew covenant. But through the applied atoning and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

τέλος 

Cited

Romans 10:4 N-NNS 

GRK: τέλος γὰρ νόμου 

NAS: For Christ is the end of the law 

KJV: For Christ [is] the end of the law for INT: [the] end indeed of law

5056.telos

Cited

Original Word: τέλος 

Lexical Summary telos: End, purpose, goal, completion, fulfillment 

Original Word: τέλος

---

Related

According to Nelson's, Zealotes/Zealot (s) in the historical context was defined as a 'zealous one'. (807). These were a party of Jews violently opposed to the Roman Empire and its occupation of Israel. (807). Noted to be from the 1st Century, in context.

To be zealous is to be full of zeal. (Oxford: 1629). In modern times, and to this day, a zealot (zealots) can be considered someone that is 'an uncompromising or extreme partisan; a fanatic.' (1629). Often used in political contexts for those that are very pro-Israel. I will opine here that false zeal, need not be just religious, but could be political as well. Placing too much hope in the political process at the neglect of trusting in the one and true God. I am not, at all, rejecting the political process, but I am stating that the zeal for politics, in the biblical Christian, should not equate in importance to zeal for the gospel and the triune God.
---

BRUCE, F.F., (1963)(1996) Romans, Grand Rapids, IVP/Eerdmans. 

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

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

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

NELSON'S THREE-IN-ONE BIBLE REFERENCE COMPANION, 'Zealous' (1982), Nashville, Thomas Nelson Publishers.

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

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

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

Vladimir Lenin & the use of organized terror

Vladimir Lenin & the use of organized terror

Preface

USSR flag from Wikipedia

On 20281110, I had recently viewed a World War I documentary on British Columbia's, Knowledge Network. I published this article on Blogger. This article significantly updated 20250813 on Blogger for a posting on academia.edu.

Below is a link to a related Blogger article where I also discussed this Lenin section, that has previously been placed on academia.edu. This article will have some different material.

Tuesday, July 25, 2023 Baculum, Argumentum Ad III/Appeal to Force
---

Vladimir Lenin & the use of organized terror

I believe that on the documentary, a form of the second quote below was stated from Vladimir Lenin, the first leader of the Soviet Union. His views on the use of terror.

Word Future Fund

Cited

'From the 1 September 1918 edition of the Bolshevik newspaper, Krasnaya Gazeta:'

'“We will turn our hearts into steel, which we will temper in the fire of suffering and the blood of fighters for freedom. We will make our hearts cruel, hard, and immovable, so that no mercy will enter them, and so that they will not quiver at the sight of a sea of enemy blood. We will let loose the floodgates of that sea. Without mercy, without sparing, we will kill our enemies in scores of hundreds. Let them be thousands; let them drown themselves in their own blood. For the blood of Lenin and Uritsky, Zinovief and Volodarski, let there be floods of the blood of the bourgeois - more blood, as much as possible.”'

'Excerpt from an interview with Felix Dzerzhinsky published in Novaia Zhizn on 14 July 1918.'

'We stand for organized terror - this should be frankly admitted. Terror is an absolute necessity during times of revolution. Our aim is to fight against the enemies of the Soviet Government and of the new order of life. We judge quickly. In most cases only a day passes between the apprehension of the criminal and his sentence. When confronted with evidence criminals in almost every case confess; and what argument can have greater weight than a criminal's own confession.”'

'Excerpts from V.I. Lenin, “The Lessons of the Moscow Uprising” (1906) Keeping in mind the failure of the 1905 revolution, Lenin argued that it was imperative for an even more ruthless application of force in the pursuit of overthrowing the Tsar’s regime.'

'“We should have taken to arms more resolutely, energetically and aggressively; we should have explained to the masses that it was impossible to confine things to a peaceful strike and that a fearless and relentless armed fight was necessary. And now we must at last openly and publicly admit that political strikes are inadequate; we must carry on the widest agitation among the masses in favour of an armed uprising and make no attempt to obscure this question by talk about "preliminary stages", or to befog it in any way. We would be deceiving both ourselves and the people if we concealed from the masses the necessity of a desperate, bloody war of extermination, as the immediate task of the coming revolutionary action.'
---

Vancouver 20181110

It is a good thing to see the founding leader of the Soviet Union actually, historically, exposed within this documentary. This to counter views, sometimes expressed within the Western World, that Soviet thuggery and terror only evolved from original more peaceful intentions.

No, historically, the USSR used thuggery and terror from its beginning. It really lacked significant reason behind it, when facing opposing views, and resorted to terror. A related informal fallacy...

Baculum, Argumentum Ad/Appeal to Force 

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

'When reason fails you, appeal to the rod.' (46). Pirie lists Soviet leader, Joseph Stalin as a classic adherent. (47). This fallacious approach uses force as means of persuasion as the argument would be lost without it. (46). Stalin followed Lenin...

As a worldview, the communism of the USSR and other worldviews as examples, have used (or use if present context is valid) terror to varying degrees. Non-exhaustively, I offer up:

Church State Christianity: Notably, Medieval State-Church Christianity

Radical Islam

Fascism: Notably, Nazism

Communism

---

Does New Testament Christianity promote the use of terror on its citizen and non-citizens?

Admittedly, the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament featured the Kingdom of Israel and a kingdom within this temporal realm will use violence and force. Terror can be an aspect of violence and force, of course, whether it is officially sanctified or/or used by some its officials. Biblical Christianity, however, reasonably and accurately interpreted, within its biblical interpretation, promotes progressive revelation which progressed from the Hebrew Bible theocracy and theonomy, which had its warlike aspects.

Progressive revelation is defined as the understanding that God's self-disclosure is in progression from the Old Testament to the New Testament. Grenz, Guretzki, and Nordling (1999: 96). Therefore the New Testament offers a more complete revelation. The Old Testament is to be understood in light of the fuller teaching of the New Testament. Grenz, Guretzki, and Nordling (1999: 96). At Columbia Bible College (Mennonite) and Canadian Baptist Seminary, I was taught that the Bible is not flat, as there is progressive revelation which ended in the apostolic age. This teaching, even now, as I am firmly Reformed theologically, still fits within my Christian worldview.

Jesus is the mediator of the new covenant. (Hebrews 12: 24). The law in particular was only a shadow of good things to come. (Hebrews 10). The law cannot save as in Romans 4, but persons are saved through righteousness of faith fulfilled in Christ. Galatians 2 mentions the folly of following the law as we now have Christ. In the Sermon on the Mount, Matthew 4-6, Jesus explains the deeper spiritual meanings of the law. The Old Testament/Hebrew Bible is as valid as the New Testament, but it is often stated that we must interpret the Old Testament through the New Testament. Well, I can understand this since there is progressive revelation, but the Old Testament must be read in context, or else one risks reading the New Testament into the Old Testament. Christianity explains that the New Testament revelation of Christ/apostles does not contradict the previous revelation and instead adds to it explaining the plan of God. If my concentration academically in a particular article was on the Hebrew Bible, I would have no problem with studying Hebrew scholars for the original context, but I reason the New Testament can shed light on many of the older teachings. 

The Hebrew Bible/Old Testament must be read in context, and the New Testament should not be read into the Old Testament. The Hebrew Bible should be studied for original context. But, I conclude that Biblically a flat Bible hermeneutical approach which does not properly interpret old covenant teaching through a new covenant amplification, should be academically rejected for one that takes a progressive revelation approach, in order for one to posses the fullness of God’s Scriptural revelation and the gospel message. 

The gospel plan of the New Testament is God’s final Scriptural revelation for humanity. There is therefore no other means of salvation (John 14: 6, Acts 4: 12). Theologically, as examples, Islam is rejected for reasons such as the denial of key doctrines about Christ, including his deity, and the Latter-Day Saints theology is rejected for reasons such as holding to polytheism and henotheism (belief in more than one God, or the belief that more than one God in existence is possible, although only one is worshipped) which are against Scriptural teaching. (Isaiah 43, 44, 45). Christ as the Alpha and Omega, as the beginning and the end (Revelation 1: 8, 21: 6, 22: 13) demonstrates theologically his nature as the one and only Almighty God. There is only one God in existence and only one God that should be worshipped. Mounce states that this title of Christ in Revelation sets Christ beyond the created order and Christ is also unlimited as The Son and has the same divine nature as the Father (and I would add the Holy Spirit). Mounce (1990: 393). 

The religious philosophy of worldview progressed to New Testament dogma which teaches the Church to love believers and non-believers alike with truth and witness. God's ultimate and everlasting punishment for those outside of Jesus Christ in Revelation 20 and the likely largely figurative literal, lake of fire, is sanctioned and issued from an infinite, eternal God that is of infinite love and infinite justice.

The present temporal, or the future everlasting, Christian Church and Christian Community is not sanctioned to use any means of terror in order to culminate its existence. New Testament theology and dogma does not sanction force or coercion into the eventually, fully culminated Kingdom of God. 

The unregenerate are not chosen by God and with significant human freedom and moral accountability, the unregenerate reject the applied atoning and resurrection work of Jesus Christ. Post-mortem the unregenerate face everlasting justice and the consequences of sin and death. Hell is described in somewhat metaphorical terms, but the spirit resides in Hades (Luke 16, example) then likely the resurrection body and spirit in the lake of fire (Revelation 20).

The regenerate, chosen by God and with significant human freedom and moral accountability, embrace the applied atoning and resurrection work of Jesus Christ. Post-mortem the regenerate, through grace through faith, alone, face everlasting life within the Kingdom of God. Human works righteousness does not suffice for justification, sanctification or any aspect of salvation. A believer in Christ should do works within salvation, but cannot do works for salvation.

For New Testament Christianity, the terror is not within the culminated Kingdom of God, but remains a possibility post-mortem, for those outside of it...

Revelation 22: 14-15: New American Standard Bible (NASB)

14 Blessed are those who wash their robes, so that they will have the right to the tree of life, and may enter the city by the gates. 15 Outside are the dogs, the sorcerers, the sexually immoral persons, the murderers, the idolaters, and everyone who loves and practices lying.

Bible Hub: 2965.kuón 

Cited: 

κύνες kynes dogs 

'2965 kýōn – literally, a dog, scavenging canine; (figuratively) a spiritual predator who feeds off others. [A loose dog was disdained in ancient times – viewed as a "mooch pooch" that ran about as a scavenger.]'

Bible Hub: Revelation 22:15

Cited

Pulpit Commentary 

'"The dogs" are those who are described in ver. 11 as "the filthy;" the term is proverbial amongst Eastern nations as an expression for what is most degraded.' 

Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers 

'The dog, moreover, was an unclean animal; dogs, therefore, are represented as outside the city, because nothing unclean is allowed to enter.'

Bauer states Revelation 22: 15 uses 'dogs' 'Original Word: κύων', non-literally. It means the unbaptized and impure, he opines (461). In other words, those outside of the Church.

---

Revelation 22 is not prohibiting the regenerate from having a resurrected dog etcetera within the culminated of God. Non-exhaustively, this could be understood as prohibiting spiritual predators from Kingdom membership and as well it could be understood as a prohibition against the spiritually unclean. The second option may be the superior one in context.

---

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

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.

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

HOEHNER, HAROLD, ThD, PhD (1985) The Epistle To The Romans, Institute of Theological Studies.

HOPFE, LEWIS M. (1991) Religions of the World, New York, Macmillan Publishing Company.

HUGHES, PHILIP, EDGCUMBE (1990) A Commentary On The Epistle To The Hebrews, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

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.

NIGOSIAN, S.A. (1994) World Faiths, New York, St. Martin’s Press. 

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

ROBINSON, N.H.G. AND SHAW D.W.D. (1999) ‘Theonomy’, in Alan Richardson and John Bowden (eds.), A New Dictionary of Christian Theology, Kent, SCM Press Ltd. 

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

Vancouver: 20181110

        

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)