Original sin and the salvation of children

Vancouver, BC (photo from trekearth.com)

Merry Christmas!

Blogging is not generally a forum for a long or exhaustive presentation and I can write on similar topics in posts over time. Sunday after church, a discussion arose concerning the salvation of children, in other words non-adults, or persons that do not have the mental competence of an adult.

Erickson

Millard Erickson, a Baptist and Calvinist theologian within the Reformed tradition, explains the doctrine of original sin, based on Romans 5:12-19. Paul is arguing that death in the human race is the consequence of the sin of Adam. Erickson (1994: 636). This is universal and for all humankind. Erickson (1994: 636). Grenz, Guretzki, and Nordling describe original sin as the state in which all human beings are born. The first humans became unrighteous because of sin against God. Grenz, Guretzki, and Nordling (1999: 87). Erickson explains that infants begin life with a corrupted nature and guilt as a consequence of sin. Erickson (1994: 637). He cautiously reasons that they are not condemned to everlasting hell since they never reach a level of moral competence. Erickson (1994: 638). He writes that Jesus did not regard children as basically sinful and guilty as they were held out as examples of the type of people that would inherit the Kingdom of God, as in Matthew 18:3, 19:14. Erickson (1994: 638). Erickson deduces that children are not under God’s condemnation for sin until attaining an age of responsibility in moral and spiritual matters. Erickson (1994: 638). If the child dies he/she would be regenerated, as all believers need to be from his/her sinful state. The child will experience the same future existence as others that reached the age of moral responsibility and received salvation. Erickson (1994: 639).

For deceased children and those who are persons that are mentally deficient, it can be deduced that since they do not arrive at a reasonably competent point of consciously rejecting God, and reasonable understanding of the punishment for this rebellion, they may be regenerated by God and included within the culminated Kingdom of God after death. I would view this as reasonable speculation. Biblically persons appear to be judged for sins, which result from a sinful nature, and not for the sinful nature itself. In Revelation 20:12, those persons who are thrown into the lake of fire are judged for their deeds, and therefore persons are judged for deeds and not nature. Mounce states here that no one is so important to be immune from judgment, and no one is so unimportant to make judgment inappropriate. Mounce (1990: 365). A non-regenerated child or mentally deficient person would still have a corrupt nature unacceptable for God’s presence, but I speculate that a certain mental capacity is required to be everlastingly punished for sinful deeds.

Those within Reformed Covenant theology traditions, Presbyterians, Baptists, and others, often hold to concepts that children of believers are saved, if they die before the age of accountability. G.N.M. Collins writes that Reformed confessions believe in the possibility of infants being saved. Collins (1996: 560). There is the understanding that all elect children will be saved, despite the incapability of response. Collins (1996: 560). The children have no claim to salvation themselves, but receive the same sovereign grace as elected adults. Collins (1996: 560).

In contrast

I have previously presented this contrasting view within the comments of the Infant Baptism article. It could be stated within Reformed tradition, at least, that children and the mentally deficient outside of the New Covenant of Christ, could be everlastingly separated from God and judged according to deeds within their limited knowledge. Since children and all persons have corrupt natures, they do sin, and therefore could be everlastingly judged for these deeds and a nature which opposes God's, without having a competent understanding of God they are rejecting and the punishment they are receiving. It is possible that their punishment shall be at the level of limited understanding. I view this as a theological possibility that cannot be overlooked. But, the concept of everlasting separation in the New Testament appears to be one of God separating those from his presence that embraced their sinful nature and committed sinful deeds with a definite, competent and not largely deficient understanding. My personal deduction is that when persons with normal mental abilities reach adulthood, or the age of adult like mental competence, they are candidates for God’s judgment. This age of accountability could occur at an earlier age, but I reason that most persons are generally still rather childlike in the early teens.

COLLINS, G.N.M. (1996) ‘Infant Salvation’, in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books

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

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

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

http://satireandtheology.blogspot.com/2007/12/blue-santa.html

Thoughts on preference

Obidos Vila, Natal, Portugal (photo from trekearth.com)

Social rules exist within society. Philosopher Simon Blackburn describes society as a group of persons unified by a set of distinctive and systematic normative relations. Blackburn (1996: 355). Actions of one are perceived as meriting characteristic responses by others, and to be part of society is to be subject to the norms of interaction. Blackburn (1996: 355). Blackburn also writes there is such a thing as social philosophy, which is the attempt to understand and chart the basic categories by which to think about social aspects of human life. Blackburn (1996: 354). Jan Narveson explains that social philosophy is broadly the philosophy of society that includes social science, political philosophy, ethics, and law. Narveson (1996: 747).

Romans 12:2 informs the believer not to be conformed to the world but instead to be transformed by the renewing of the mind. Mounce writes that believers are not to conform themselves to the present age and to set their minds on heavenly and not earthly things. Mounce (1995: 232). Cranfield notes that there have been debates concerning the exact Greek meaning here but writes:

By rendering the second person plural passive present imperatives (in the former case preceded by a negative particle) by ‘stop allowing yourselves to be conformed’ and ‘continue’ to let yourselves be transformed’, respectfully, we have tried to bring out both the sense of the passive imperatives and also, in each case, the significance of the use of the present imperative. Christians still live in ‘this age’. Cranfield (1992: 296).

Christians are to reject the world-system and social norms that would violate the work of God’s Holy Spirit within their lives. This is not to state that all social norms should be rejected, but ones that interfere with God’s plans for an individual need to be abandoned. This allows for the intellectual possibility that Christians as individuals are at times to act contrary to social norms to be within God's will. I reason that Christians should be socially aware, and in some situations certain Christians should follow social norms, and other times certain Christians should not.

I am in my thirties and I have limited experience with dating and romance. I have been very busy working on four academic degrees, and with God’s help striving for academic excellence with some difficult topics including the problem of evil. My main academic discipline for the last three degrees has been theology, but Biblical studies (the major of my first degree) and philosophy (with my two British dissertation degrees) have been important disciplines for me to learn as well. One can see that these three disciplines have all been presented on this blog. Learning three academic disciplines and practical and empirical theology and statistics within theology has been very energy and time consuming, especially for one that has suffered with fatiguing sleep apnea and related surgeries and allergies, and eye problems and related surgeries. I have not been able to meet a compatible Christian young woman, and living within very secular Greater Vancouver has not helped my situation either. I therefore do not share the social experience of many of the women my age who have had relationships, been married, had children, and have perhaps been divorced. Although I consider myself a mature, but imperfect Christian, I am not socially at the same point as many Christian men my age that have experience that parallels the women I mentioned. As a result, I am not ready to, or do I have the desire to date or marry a near or middle-aged woman, and neither do I have any desire at this point to take someone’s pre-teen children or teenagers as my own. Perhaps if I was more romantically experienced I would be willing to be a stepfather, but at this point I am nowhere intellectually there. I also would still like to have my own children, and would consider a relationship with a young woman with a baby or toddler, or perhaps more than one small child. This is my preference, and I reason that God guided me to have such preference. Others can criticize me for my position, as my preference makes it more difficult to find a relationship, but they need to see things from my perspective as an individual Christian that has had a difficult and yet somewhat rewarding life through God’s direction. God’s plans for me and his guidance of my personal preference should always take precedence over social norms. I am a non-conformist, but do not embrace this to be anti-establishment, but I must conform to the life that God has in store for me, and not social norms, when necessary. One should not assume that social norms are what are best for me but should prayerfully look at my individual situation. I need to be open-minded and be willing to change preference if that is God’s will.

Two recent examples of persons that have contacted me via the Christian Café on my free days.

One, 35-40 years old with three teenagers. I do not view it as reasonable to expect me to go from a man with limited experience in his 30s to instant father of teenagers, even if I was attracted to this woman, which I was not.

Two, 40-45 years old, still married but seeking a divorce, with several of her own children and a 32 year old step-son. Again, I do not view this as a reasonable option and I was not attracted to this woman.

I should not be expected to socially follow norms just because of my age, and the fact that due to ageism many younger Christian women in their twenties do not want to date someone in his thirties, despite my commitment to Christ through study, which often seemingly appears unimportant to many. If I cannot find a woman compatible in her twenties to thirties with God’s help, the wise thing is not to conform to social pressure, but to simply stay single. I appreciate those who lovingly and with good intentions provide constructive criticism at church and such, but I must respectfully disagree when needed.

BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996) ‘Social Philosophy’, in Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, p. 354. Oxford, Oxford University Press.

BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996) ‘Society’, in Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, p. 355. Oxford, Oxford University Press.

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

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

NARVESON, JAN. (1996) ‘Social Philosophy’, in Robert Audi (ed.), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.


Ilulissat, Greenland (photo from trekearth.com)

I do not personally relate to any of these situations!

Russ;)









http://satireandtheology.blogspot.com/2007/12/yesterdayi-threw-
my-common-sense-away.html

Social justice? Biblical wrong

Winter

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/12/08/episcopalians.secession.ap/ind
ex.html

I have no desire to make the topic of homosexuality a 'pet' discussion on this blog, but it is simply an issue that has come to mind recently through reading. I would not want someone who reads this post to think that I am just another Christian with a 'fundamentalist agenda'. I am not a fundamentalist and this is only my second article on this topic since 2004 when this blog began. This article is as much about Biblical integrity as homosexuality.

According to the above link and article, in California an Episcopal diocese voted Saturday to split with the national denomination over disagreements about the role of homosexuals in the church. Clergy and lay members of the Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin, California voted 173-22 at an annual convention to remove all references to the national church from the diocese's constitution. Bishop John-David Schofield of the Fresno-based diocese stated:

That the Episcopal Church "has isolated itself from the overwhelming majority of Christendom and more specifically from the Anglican Communion by denying Biblical truth and walking apart from the historic Faith and Order."

I would agree with his view, at least in that Biblical truth has been denied. The reasons I side with his view are not because I am homophobic. I have never struggled with homosexuality, but have struggled with heterosexual desire as most men have. I have not had bad experiences with homosexuals, and humanly speaking do not necessarily consider them the worst type of persons. I do not have difficulty in being friendly with homosexuals and in no way hold any animosity. In a democracy, I can grant in toleration and not philosophical acceptance, that adult persons have the right to engage in homosexual acts. I can also grant that persons that struggle with homosexuality can be part of the Kingdom of God if elected by God, trusting in Christ, and repenting of sins, including homosexuality. I need to repent of my sins, and everyone that enters the Kingdom of God should repent as a sign of conversion. We are saved by election (Romans 8:28-30, Ephesians 1:4-12) and regeneration (John 20:22-23, Acts 2) in Christ through his atoning and resurrection work, and do not necessarily repent of every single sin in life, but a sign of regeneration and belief from a person should be general repentance of sin. I can grant that people can struggle with sin for many years, but those in Christ should understand that works for God should follow faith in Christ (Ephesians 2:8-10, James 2). I personally have absolutely no desire to see anyone condemned, but I am intellectually obligated to share what I have found in my research over many years as a full-time student.

Although application of Biblical doctrines can vary from ancient times, the theological Scriptural teachings remain the same. Erickson makes it clear that Biblical doctrines may not necessarily be maintained precisely with the same form of expression as they were in Biblical times. Erickson (1994: 37). Although the expression may change, the essential teaching does not. Romans 1:26-27 discusses the issue of homosexuality. James D.G. Dunn states that Paul's attitude to homosexual practice is unambiguous. Dunn (1988: 74). For Paul this practice is a passion not worthy of respect and is unnatural. Dunn (1988: 74). Cranfield notes from the Biblical text an abandonment of natural intercourse with the opposite sex, for same sex intercourse. Cranfield writes that Paul is explaining that homosexual acts are contrary to nature and the creator's intention. Cranfield (1992: 35). It is perversion that is condemned. Cranfield (1992: 36). Mounce states that Paul views homosexual practice as shameful, unnatural, indecent, and a perversion. Mounce (1995: 82). Mounce traces it back to the Old Testament condemnation in Leviticus 18:22. Mounce (1995: 82-33). Mounce further writes that in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, Paul notes that homosexual offenders will not be allowed to enter the Kingdom of God. Mounce (1995: 82-83). These offenders are 'soft ones' who allow themselves to be used as women. Mounce (1995: 83). Mounce makes the very reasonable deduction that there is no room for the allowance in the Christian Church of homosexual practice since it is clearly condemned in both Testaments. Mounce (1995: 82-83). There are clear Biblical teachings that homosexual practice is sin. Biblical Christianity requires a commitment to a contextual, grammatical, historical approach to Scripture. Secular philosopher, Simon Blackburn states that homosexuality has been the focus of discussions concerning the relation between law and morality and in contrast, morality and nature when it is accepted that homosexuality is not a moral issue. In this case issues relating to law, majority preference and prejudice are pondered. Blackburn (1996: 178).

Presiding Episcopal Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori, reasons they are guided by biblical teachings on social justice and tolerance to accept homosexual practice.

Christian advocates for accepting gay relationships, including Jefferts Schori, say they are guided by biblical teachings on social justice and tolerance. But Schofield and other conservatives believe Scripture bars same-sex relationships.

The above quote strikes me as a half truth. Yes, in Matthew 22:37-46 the second commandment is to love others as one loves self, and this is repeated in Mark 12:28-37 see also Luke 10: 25-28. Christians are to love those that have differing perspectives, tolerating them when needed, and should support the need for social justice, but logically and reasonably, if the Bible teaches both condemnation and love, both must exist without contradiction! To love homosexuals by accepting them into communion, baptism, marriage and membership would violate Biblical commandments and therefore should not take place. To hate or mistreat homosexuals or to ban them from attending Christian churches in order to hear the gospel message would be wrong and unloving. To attempt to force Christian views and values on homosexuals in a way that they lose basic democratic rights would also be unloving and should not be practiced by those within the Christian Church.

A major mistake many secularists, religionists and liberal Christians make is to assume that the love of God and Christ cancels out God's justice and condemnation of sin. This is untrue. Scripture explains that those that remain outside of Christ, and are not regenerated, stay in their sin. By freely sinning they face a spiritual existence in Hades after death (Luke 16, Revelation 20), and everlasting punishment after resurrection in the lake of fire (Revelation 20). The loving thing for a Christian to do is set aside personal feelings, desires and 21st Century secular notions for religious justice and realize that although homosexuals have at times been persecuted over the years that by giving them 'social justice' in regard to full acceptance as homosexuals and members within Christian churches, will in no way, shape, or form, overturn God's view of justice which he has explained in his Scripture through prophets, apostles, scribes, and of course Christ. The issue of acting homosexuals and their acceptance or rejection for church membership must be approached Biblically, objectively and reasonably and not with mainly emotional and intellectual responses conditioned by 21st Century religious thought. Scripture needs to be applied for the 21st Century, but this does not change the essential meaning of God's word, or God's nature that remains the same now as it was when the Biblical text was inspired.

Theologically, since human beings are corrupt in sin (Jeremiah 17:9, Romans 3:23, 6:23) it should not be a surprise that what seems perfectly natural for some is considered unnatural and corruption by God. For many heterosexual men, sexual activity outside of marriage would seem natural and pleasurable, and yet it breaks a Biblical commandment (Exodus 20:14), for others immoral lives would be normal and yet they stand outside of God's Kingdom (1 Corinthians 6:9-11, Revelation 21:8). Fortunately, for those in Christ who are eventually resurrected, God provides a purified nature and sin is a thing of the past (1 Corinthians 15). The homosexual and all of us as sinners should not have sins accommodated for and need to be respectfully told the truth of God's holy approach to sin.

Christian churches need to reinforce the Biblical truths in regard to church membership and the taking of communion, baptism, and marriage. If this is not done and extreme (not necessarily moderate) liberals are allowed to gain membership and leadership positions, a church and/or denomination can be overrun by theological error. This can lead to legal disputes as well as churches leaving denominations. Personally, if need be, I would rather be in a house church with leadership and believers that are willing to take Scripture and primary Biblical doctrines seriously than to fellowship in the context of church meetings with those persons, however well-meaning and nice that are attempting to speak for God in the 21st Century by muting or presenting a reinterpretation of the Bible. Some Biblically based Christians may remain within a denomination that does not take the Bible seriously in order to provide a witness. This may be admirable in some cases, but my personal position is that I will not submit to unbiblical leadership within a Christian church, although with God's help I shall be loving and respectful to all those who have different views than I do. I also view it as a Christian witness to lovingly and respectfully point out Biblical error. I will submit to secular governments when needed that sanction homosexual relations as I live within Western democracy, but Christian denominations are to obey God's word or risk being Christian in name but not practice. I wish to be a member of a Christian church in practice.

The human nature needs to be regenerated and not accommodated in Christ.

For the Church to do otherwise, is to provide certain persons a false sense of security in regard to God's ultimate judgment of sin. I state this lovingly and with good intentions.

Russ:)

BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996) ‘Homosexuality', in Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, p. 177-178. Oxford, Oxford University Press.

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

DUNN, JAMES D.G. (1988) Romans, Dallas, Word Books

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

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

Blessed, but for how long?

Ontario (photo from trekearth.com)

At Christmas season the terms peace, joy, love, happiness, and blessed are used frequently verbally and in print. It is beyond the scope of this blog to thoroughly examine all these words Biblically, but I wish to look at one usage of the term blessed and then briefly compare the related idea of happiness to secular ideas. I will non-exhaustively look at the use of the term blessed in Matthew 5 which is according to Strong’s (3107) makarios and is a prolonged form of the poetical makar which means the same. Strong (1986: 60). The term is defined as meaning extremely blessed and by extension fortunate, well off, blessed, happy. Strong (1986: 60). Bauer defines the word as meaning blessed, fortunate, happy, usually in the sense of privileged recipient of divine favour. Bauer (1979: 486). Bauer explains that in Matthew 5: 3ff the translated idea of happiness to or hail to persons is favoured by some scholars. Bauer (1979: 486). Bauer reasons that this idea may be correct for the Aramaic original, but scarcely exhausts the context for Greek speaking Christians where the state of being blessed is brought about by ascension into heaven. Bauer (1979: 486).

Kissinger quotes Soren Kierkegaard from his 1847 work, What we Learn from the Lilies of the Field and the Birds of the Air. Kierkegaard notes that persons are to seek first God’s Kingdom which is the name of eternal (I would use the term everlasting) happiness which is promised to persons and before which the beauty and peace of nature do not compare. God’s Kingdom is righteousness and is to be sought first and shall endure forever. Kierkegaard (1847: 236). Kissinger writes when discussing the work of C.H. Dodd that the ideal Jesus expressed in the Sermon on the Mount, (which includes Matthew 5) would never be completely realized by humanity in this present world. Kissinger (1975: 82). H.L. Ellison writes that Matthew 5 expresses Beatitudes that are addressed to those who live lives beyond what the laws of the Hebrew Bible asked for and now live in grace. Ellison (1986: 1124).

It can be seen through the works of Strong and Bauer that the correct definition can be found in Matthew 5 by understanding what the word means in New Testament Greek, but the word’s context in each individual usage must be sought after for better understanding. Therefore, Bauer points out that a definition of the word in Matthew 5: 3ff would properly express the idea of happiness, but the context of the verses are deeper as happiness is directly related to Christian participation in the culminated Kingdom of God. Kierkegaard picks up on this point as well, and although Christians are to work for this type of blessed happiness in our present reality, it will not happen in this present realm. The establishment of perfected blessed happiness and the end of the problem of evil, my MPhil and PhD dissertation topics, are both dependent on the culmination of the Kingdom of God, which belongs to those who are regenerated and moved by God to accept salvation in Christ through his atoning and resurrection work.

Secular happiness in our present realm can be synonymous with being blessed from Matthew 5 in that persons can be extremely fortunate and happy and yet this secular concept of being blessed is very importantly different as it is without a Biblical hope in God’s culminated Kingdom. Secular based happiness is fleeting as it philosophically terminates in death. Any life that permanently terminates in death is not ultimately blessed and happy and therefore the historically based gospel offers blessed happiness that is everlasting and philosophically superior to secular happiness.

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

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

KIERKEGAARD, SOREN (1847) 'What we Learn from the Lilies of the Field and the Birds of the Air', in The Sermon on the Mount: A History of Interpretation and Bibliography, The Scarecrow Press, Inc, Metuchen, New Jersey.

KISSINGER, WARREN S. (1975) The Sermon on the Mount: A History of Interpretation and Bibliography, The Scarecrow Press, Inc, Metuchen, New Jersey.

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

Theological credibility

Denmark (photo from trekearth.com)

There is snow on the ground in the Lower Mainland. Perhaps we shall have a white Christmas? A problem for me, as well as my good friend, and blog commenter Chucky, is attempting to drive from Maple Ridge to Vancouver for church this morning. The significant minority of poor drivers in the Lower Mainland become significantly scarier when it snows. This is a problem of evil!

Theological credibility

I have completed the rough draft of my PhD dissertation, Introduction. For the entire work, I now have approximately 78,000 words completed and I have read on-line that my University requirements are 70,000 to 100,000 words. I shall email my Introduction to my advisor, revise with his instructions and then work on a fairly short Conclusion.

I thought at this time I would discuss my theological credibility in writing the PhD work and look forward to receiving comments. As I have stated previously, I reason myself to be a moderate conservative theologically. I hold to Biblical fundamentals, but I would not be an extreme conservative fundamentalist. I do not hold to certain views often associated with fundamentalism, although I realize there are a wide range of Christian fundamentalists. This is not black and white terminology. However, I shall list some reasons why I distance myself from the term fundamentalist. I do not avoid listening to secular music, as that is all I mainly enjoy (progressive rock, jazz-fusion, art rock, classical). I do not primarily live in evangelical culture per say. I do not attempt to evaluate Scripture ‘woodenly’ but put emphasis on grammar, context, and background as is done by experts on Biblical books. I reason that Scripture is inspired by God (2 Timothy 3:16) and provides God’s doctrines for the church (2 Peter 3:14-16), but do not hold to a dictation theory of Scripture, or that there is such a thing as inspired copies or translations. Erickson explains the dictation theory is the teaching that God actually dictated the Bible to writers. Erickson (1994: 207). This would mean that the authors in Scripture provide no distinctive style. Erickson (1994: 207). I know from seven years of course work that there is overwhelming agreement among Biblical linguists that there are different writing styles present in the Bible. Thiessen comments that the Bible has been written by authors with various writing styles. Thiessen (1956: 106). God has maintained his word through the human production of a vast amount of copies of the original letters, those original letters having disappeared. God did not use a supernatural force field to protect the original documents from disintegration and copies were created of the originals. There has been opportunity for copying errors, but with the vast amount of copies extant, the Hebrew Bible and New Testament correctly present theology in line with God’s will. There is no compelling evidence of theological corruption of essential Biblical doctrines, within Scripture, and God has used vast amounts of copies from various regions of Asia and Europe to maintain orthodox Biblical doctrine. We have with Bibles that are produced by legitimate scholars, accurate copies of Scripture inspired by God through scribes.

I also do not necessarily insist on believing in a young earth, but I am open-minded concerning the subject. However, I am not at all convinced that human beings were ever anything other than human beings. I do not have a problem viewing Genesis as a religious and not scientific book and therefore reason that the majority of scientists could be correct that the universe and earth are billions of years old. Victor P. Hamilton in his commentary on the Pentateuch explains that although he reviews Genesis, he will leave the creation vs. evolution debate to the scientist rather than the Biblical scholar. Hamilton (1988: 12). I am in no way denying God as creator and that it is a theological issue, but understand that Genesis and the Bible are not science texts. Thiessen writes that the believer in the Bible does not need to fear geology as there is ample room within the Genesis account for all geological formations. Thiessen (1956: 169). Erickson notes that Archbishop James Ussher's deduction that creation took place at 4,000 B.C., making the world 6,000 years old, came prior to the development of modern geology. Erickson (1994: 380). From these geological methods has come a consensus that the earth is five to six billion years old. Erickson (1994: 380). Erickson tentatively favours the age-day theory which reasons that the Hebrew word yom is most frequently used to describe a twenty-four hour period, but can also be used to describe epochs or long periods of time. Erickson (1994: 381-382). Erickson speculates that in the context of Genesis, God created over epochs and long periods. Erickson (1994: 381). In Genesis 1, the existence of evening and morning is noted six times and this could support the cause of literal twenty-four hour days, but this is not a certainty. H.L. Ellison writes that the textual use of the order of evening and morning points towards a gradual development in the creation process. Ellison (1986: 115). Schultz and Smith explain that in Genesis 2:4 the term day represents an era in context, as the Lord is said to have made the earth and heavens in a day. Schultz and Smith (2001:15). Could the use of evening and morning figuratively represent eras of progress?

NASA, Astrophysicist Jonathan Keohane writes:

The evidence for a big bang having taken place about 15 to 20 billion years ago is overwhelming, so I naturally believe that it is the case.

However, if your real question is "why did the big bang happen in the first place?" then that ceases to be an astronomical question, but a religious one.

Some astronomers, who are religious, argue that the big bang theory confirms the existence of God and the basic elements of the creation story as told in the Bible. First came light, then the heavens, then the Earth ...

However, many other scientists do not. Scientists, like people in most any profession, have a vast diversity of religious beliefs. Some of us attend houses of worship, others do not. Some of us consider ourselves very religious, others consider ourselves staunch atheists. Just because we study astronomy does not mean we have any more agreement as to the “why'' questions than anyone else. Keohane, Jonathan (1997: 1).

I reason that my blog supporters with thekingpin68 and satire and theology are primarily moderate conservatives and moderate liberals. I have been told by my advisors in Wales that the University is secular and not conservative. Therefore, it can be reasoned that my University, as would be the case with almost all British Universities would feature mainly moderate and extreme liberals in a Religion and Theology department. How do I maintain my credibility while working within this department? Well, although I am willing to read what they tell me to read and work within their format and rules, I have been allowed to come to my own academic conclusions with Wales. This is very much appreciated. This was not the case at my brief stay at Manchester. I was told that if I wanted to pass I had to abandon the concept of God creating a world where the problem of evil existed. So, therefore a sovereignty theodicy would be out, and by my own choice, and with their ‘encouragement’, so was I!

My dissertation is more restricted in content format than is this blog, but within my work I have been able to state two essential views that I hold to within the context of the PhD dissertation. One, it must be stated that no theodicy is the remedy for the problem of evil. The remedy to the problem of evil comes through the atoning and resurrection work of Christ being applied to persons through God’s election of believers (Ephesians 1: 4-8, Romans 8: 28-30). God completes this process through the culminated Kingdom of God. Mounce (1990: 369-397). I have therefore maintained my theological credibility by holding to the gospel message within an academic dissertation, which is not primarily gospel focused. Two, I have been able to embed my sovereignty theodicy within my dissertation and this allows me to reason and speculate on how, to some degree, God works in his creation to bring it from its corrupt present state to the culminated Kingdom.

Interestingly, one of my advisors at Wales told me on more than one occasion that a North American PhD in Theology did not have the breadth to pass in the United Kingdom academic system. A retired theologian and dissertation reviewer in the United States for almost forty years, who now lives here in the Lower Mainland told me that my British dissertation would not pass at a North American seminary, as it did not have enough theological explanation. He seemed to prefer this blog.:) This difference in academic format is a demonstration of how dangerous academic politics can potentially be and I experienced this at Manchester!

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

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

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

KEOHANE, JONATHAN, (1997) ‘Big Bang Theory’
http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/971108a.html

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

SCHULTZ SMAUEL J, AND GARY V. SMITH, (2001) Exploring the Old Testament, Wheaton, Illinois, Crossway Books.

THIESSEN, HENRY C. (1956) Introductory Lectures in Systematic Theology, Grand Rapids, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

http://satireandtheology.blogspot.com/2007/11/shoot-uk-teacher-
say-protesters-great_4904.html

Empirical theology and methodology

Vancouver, BC (photo from trekearth.com)

With the use of the questionnaire within my PhD project, this type of approach is considered empirical (based on experience and observation, through physical senses) theology, which is an aspect of practical theology. I shall explain in brief terms where I support and do not support this type of theological approach.

Definitions (in my own words, as I have been taught at Wales):

Practical theology:

Charles E. Winquest describes practical theology as the theological specialty that deals with, and is grounded in theory and practice and the need to bring self-consciousness to ministry. Winquest (1987: 1).

Don Browning writes that practical theology should be a public enterprise that consists of theological reflection on church ministry in the world and should also deal with the theology of professional ministerial activity within the church. Browning (1985)(2005: 2).

Paul Ballard and John Pritchard note that it is a particular field of theology that specifically deals with Christian life and practice within the Church community and in relation to society. Ballard and Pritchard (2001: 1).

Empirical theology:

Leslie J. Francis explains that an element of practical theology is the use of empirical data. Francis (2005: 1).

William Dean reasons that empirical theology begins with a particular speculative view of life, which in turn leads to the use of the empirical method. Dean (1990: 85-102).

Clive Erricker, Danny Sullivan and Jane Erricker comment that empirical theology questions how theology relates to social sciences. Erricker, Sullivan and Erricker (1994: 6-7).

Empirical Methodology

The disciplines of the social sciences will be applied as methodology for studying practical and empirical theology. Francis (2005: 2-3). The work of practical and empirical theology can be tested by the social sciences. Francis (2005: 4). For R. Ruard Ganzevoort, theology is a forum where various scientific disciplines meet. Ganzevoort (2004)(2005: 2). Hans-Gunter Heimbrock notes that since religion and faith is experimental within empirical theology, the social sciences have been used to examine social dynamics, conditions and contexts of religious life. Heimbrock (2005: 273-299). Karl E. Peters reasons that empirical theology is like science in that it affirms naturalism, accepts limitations on human knowledge, and therefore makes all religious knowledge tentative. Peters (1992: 297-325). Y. Krikorian provides the idea that nature contains nothing supernatural, and that the scientific method should be used to explain all aspects of reality, including those assumed to be ‘spiritual’. Krikorian (1944)(2007: 1).

My approach to empirical theology:

I can support practical theology in general terms, as it complements Biblical doctrines, philosophical theology and theory and explains practical application of theology for those within the Christian Church. Practical theology can assist professional theologians, and likely even more so, professional pastors in applying doctrines and theory from the Bible in every day life for those that attend Christian churches. I can support empirical theology as a form of practical theology that provides questionnaire propositions within a survey and then takes the data from respondents and analyses how Biblical doctrines and philosophical theology are being interpreted within the church. This can lead to changes of presentation and application of doctrines, but in my view, should not alter the doctrines themselves.

I do not support notions of empirical theology that view theology as strictly experimental and speculative. Within my moderate conservative, Reformed perspective, I reason that God has revealed himself supernaturally in Scripture and that he has provided doctrines and theology that correctly reflect his will and plans for the world and church. J.S. Whale writes that all Christians believe in the Bible as God’s word and that Scripture provides testimony rooted in history. Whale (1958: 17). Through Scripture God has taken the initiative to make himself known in an understandable way for human beings. Erickson (1994: 198). The Bible is therefore the primary and supreme source of theological understanding. Erickson (1994: 36). This means the empirical data will not equal or surpass Scripture in explaining God’s plans for humanity.

Since I reason that God has revealed himself in Scripture, essential and primary Biblical doctrines taken from a textual evaluation of Scripture are therefore not tentative. There is Biblical truth that God revealed to selected persons for them to write down and theology should be primarily developed based on God’s revelation. Granted, no two human theologies will be exactly the same as persons process information in different ways, but Scripture exists in order to provide a consistent message to humanity. Therefore, primary doctrines within Christianity should be agreed upon by all that take a contextual, grammatical, and historical evaluation of the Bible seriously. Naturalism assumes that nature is viewed as the fundamental and original source for all that exists, and therefore all reality needs to be explained in terms of nature. Dubray (1911)(2007: 1). All events find an adequate explanation within nature itself. Dubray (1911)(2007: 1). Thiessen explains that since naturalism holds that nature is the whole of reality, everything that occurs is due to the laws of nature. Thiessen (1956: 186). He comments that Scripture recognizes the existence of the laws of nature, but it is reasoned that they do not operate independently of God. Thiessen (1956: 186). With Thiessen’s concept naturalists and Christians would not necessarily disagree on scientific facts, but those who trust in New Testament revelation would reason that God is the revealed supernatural source behind nature. In Romans 1:18-32, through natural theology, God is viewed as revealing himself as the creator. God cannot be demonstrated empirically as the cause of matter, since God is spirit in nature (John 4:24), and his existence cannot be proven through the use of a scientific test using matter. However, God has revealed himself supernaturally in Scripture, in human history, and this serves as the primary evidence for his existence within Christian thought. God's special revelation provides salvation for the elect through the Holy Spirit and Scripture, and natural revelation provides evidence for all, of God's existence.

BALLARD, PAUL AND JOHN PRITCHARD (2001) Practical Theology in Action, London, SPCK.

BROWNING, DON S. (1985)(2005) ‘Practical Theology and Political Theology’, Theology Today, Volume 42, Number 1, Article 2, Princeton, Princeton Theological Seminary.http://theologytoday.ptsem.edu/apr1985/v42-1-article2.htm.

DEAN, WILLIAM (1990) ‘Empirical Theology: A Revisable Tradition’, in Process Studies, Volume 19, Number 2, pp. 85-102, Claremont, California, The Center for Process Studies.http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=2791.

DUBRAY, C.A. (1911)(2007) ‘Naturalism’ in New Advent: Catholic Encyclopedia, New York, Robert Appleton Company.

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

ERRICKER, CLIVE, DANNY SULLIVAN, AND JANE ERRICKER (1994) ‘The Development of Children’s Worldviews, Journal of Beliefs and Values, London, Routledge

FRANCIS, LESLIE J. and Practical Theology Team (2005) ‘Practical and Empirical Theology’, University of Wales, Bangor website, University of Wales, Bangor.http://www.bangor.ac.uk/rs/pt/ptunit/definition.php.

GANZEVOORT, R. RUARD (2004)(2005) ‘Van der Ven’s Empirical/Practical Theology and the Theological Encyclopedia’, in Hermans, pp.53-74, C.A.M. & Moore M.E. (eds), Amsterdam.http://www.ruardganzevoort.nl/a04vdven.htm.

HEIMBROCK, HANS-GUNTER (2005) ‘From Data to Theory: Elements of Methodology in Empirical Phenomenological Research in Practical Theology’ in International Journal of Practical Theology, Volume 9, December, Berlin, Walter D. Gruyter.
KRIKORIAN, K. (1944)(2007) (ed.), Naturalism and the Human Spirit, New York, Columbia University Press, in Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Stanford University.http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/naturalism/

PETERS, KARL, E. (1992) ‘Empirical Theology in the Light of Science, in The Journal of Religion and Sciencee, Volume 27 Issue 3 Page 297-325, September, Oxford, Zygon, Blackwell Publishing.http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1467-
9744.1992.tb01068.x

THIESSEN, HENRY C. (1956) Introductory Lectures in Systematic Theology, Grand Rapids, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

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

WINQUIST, CHARLES E. (1987) ‘Re-visioning Ministry: Postmodern Reflections’, in Lewis S Mudge and James N. Poling, Formation and Reflection: The Promise of Practical Theology by Lewis S Mudge and James N. Poling, Philadelphia, Fortress Press.http://www.religion-online.org/showchapter.asp?title=586&C=850

The problem of evil: Defence vs. Theodicy

Tofino, BC (photo from trekearth.com)

Restoration Why Later 

I had the vitrectomy and lens replacement please see section D of post above. June 21, 2012 Before I discuss my work of the problem evil, I will explain that I have decided after over a year and a half of research, and discussing my vitreous floaters with seven ophthalmologists and my local general practitioner, not to pursue the vitrectomy and the related cataract and lens replacement surgery. A major problem is that with my amblyopic, long eye, by the surgeon’s standards, there is a significant risk of retinal detachment at 5% to 15% with the vitrectomy, and a significant risk of retinal detachment with the cataract surgery as well. I do not want to risk blindness in one eye, or having my eye end up in a jar. The doctors have mentioned these risks to me. I have decided to wait and see if the floaters do eventually sink below my line of sight, or if in the next few years there is a new and better treatment for severe floaters, such as eye injections which one surgeon suggested. 

In the meantime, I have purchased a pair of polarized Ray-Bans (Black: RB3293) to wear while typing on the computer and for bright room, and future public speaking. The Ray-Bans block out much light and the floaters are significantly less noticeable. I am now the Bono, or Ringo of theological blogging. Don’t hate me because I look cool, it is just floaters! So, I have skipped the opportunity to, while under local anesthetic, have a portion of the back of my eye scraped away, while hopefully not dislodging the retina that is a bit back further in the eye. I suppose some of you are disappointed that since the vitrectomy will not take place, I will not be posting photos.;) Please let me know your disappointment. Remember, in a previous posting concerning vitreous floaters, a commenter stated that he would be pursing the vitrectomy soon, but he may not have an amblyopic eye and therefore faces less risks. www.dvra.net/dvra_vitrectomy.jpg

 

If one studies the problem of evil thoroughly he/she will come across the issue of a defence in regard to the problem, and a theodicy that deals with the problem. Theodicy is the explanation of how the infinite, omnipotent, and perfectly good God accomplishes his plans within his creation where the problem of evil exists. Alvin C. Plantinga differentiates between his own free will defence and a free will theodicy. Plantinga (1977)(2002: 28). He states that his defence is mainly a logical presentation, attempting to maintain logical consistency, whereas theodicy is more dogmatic in approach, Plantinga (1977)(2002: 28). Within my MPhil and PhD dissertations, I view defence and theodicy as equally speculative. Philip L. Quinn notes that Plantinga’s view of a defence in contrast to theodicy means Plantinga does not speculate on God’s reasons for permitting evil, but merely argues that God’s existence is logically consistent with the problem of evil. Quinn (1996: 611). I agree with Quinn, somewhat. Plantinga is mainly arguing that God’s existence can be shown as logical in regard to the problem of evil with his defence; however, Plantinga as does every scholar with any type of explanation for the topic of the problem of evil, speculates within his defence. Plantinga (1977)(2002: 45-59). This type of speculation is perhaps not done as forcefully as some in theodicy. Plantinga (1977)(2002: 28). 

I therefore reason that a defence can be reviewed under the umbrella of theodicy and do so within my PhD dissertation. Theodicy is by nature somewhat speculative and therefore, theodicy, like a defence, is also dealing with a possible reason for God to permit evil. A theodicy may be more dogmatic than Plantinga’s defence in its assertions and arguments, but it is still speculative, as is my own work on theodicy. Plantinga comments that one who writes a theodicy assumes that it is true, while one who writes a defense is stating that it is possibly true. Plantinga (1982: 192). However, even a person writing the theodicy does not have exhaustive knowledge of God and his reasoning in regard to the problem, and I therefore conclude that theodicy and defence are both equally speculative, although perhaps not equally dogmatic. 

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. 

QUINN, PHILIP L. (1996) ‘Philosophy of Religion’, Robert Audi (ed.), in The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Fatalism

Edinburgh, Scotland (photo from trekearth.com)

Edinburgh: 1995

I find a rare Jazz Fusion unofficial CD, featuring an artist I was looking for at a flea market. I explain this to the seller and he states. ‘It was fate’ with a strong Scottish accent. ‘Pardon’ I said, ‘It was fate’, he stated. I thought he had said ‘It was fiit’.

Last week someone at church asked me if my views within my MPhil and PhD dissertations, which feature compatibilism, also known as soft determinism, are equated with fatalism. I reason that I do not hold to fatalism. Here is a comparison between compatibilism/soft determinism, fatalism and hard determinism. Thanks to Big D for the idea.

Compatibilism/soft determinism:

P.S. Greenspan writes that compatibilism holds to free will and determinism being compatible. Greenspan (1998: 1). Louis P. Pojman, defines compatibilism as the concept that an act can be entirely determined and yet be free in the sense that it was done voluntarily and without compulsion. Pojman (1996: 596). J.S. Feinberg explains that compatibilism does not allow for coercion or force, but holds that God, or some outside force, can simultaneously determine with the use of persuasion, that an action will or will not take place. Feinberg (1986: 24). Feinberg writes that certain nonconstraining conditions could strongly influence actions, in conjunction with human free will performing these actions. Feinberg (1994: 60). With this viewpoint, there will be no contradiction in stating that God would create human beings who were significantly free, unconstrained, and yet committed actions that God willed. Feinberg (2001: 637). W.T. Stace (1952)(1976) explains that moral responsibility is consistent with determinism in the context of soft determinism and requires it. Stace (1952)(1976: 29). If human actions are uncaused then reward or punishment would be unjustified. Stace (1952)(1976: 29). Stace reasons that there must be at least some human cause within human actions to make them morally responsible acts. Stace (1952)(1976: 30).

Fatalism compared with hard determinism:

Simon Blackburn comments that this is the doctrine that human action has no influence on events. Blackburn (1996: 137). Blackburn gives the opinion that fatalism is wrongly confused with determinism, which by itself carries no implications that human actions have no effect. Blackburn (1996: 137). Tomis Kapitan notes that determinism is usually understood as meaning that whatever occurs is determined by antecedent (preceding cause) conditions. Kapitan (1999: 281). Pojman states that hard determinism holds that every event is caused and no one is responsible for actions, whereas soft determinism holds that rational creatures can be held responsible for determined actions as long as they are done voluntarily and without force or coercion. Pojman (1996: 586).

Fatalism should not be equated with compatibilism/soft determinism, but if fatalism states that no human actions can influence or cause events, and hard determinism holds that human beings do not cause actions or are morally responsible, there is clearly a similarity in definitions. D.G. Bloesch explains that fate is not chance, but instead is cosmic determinism that has no meaning or purpose. Bloesch (1996: 407). He writes that fate/fatalism would differ from a Christian idea of divine providence and its implied use of determinism, in that fatalism is impersonal and irrational, whereas providence is personal and rational. Bloesch (1996: 407). Thiessen comments that fatalism is not determinism because fatalism holds that all events are caused by fate, and not natural causes, and nothing can change these events. Determinism in contrast, holds that all events occur by necessity. Thiessen (1956: 186). Compatibilism and soft determinism does hold that what God determines must happen by necessity, but reasons that rational beings with a significant use of free will are not coerced or forced to commit acts, which must occur by necessity. A person can hold to hard determinism and believe that God determined all events without the significant use of free will of rational creatures, and a fatalist can also believe that events are determined without the use of significant free will of rational creatures, and yet this is caused without any meaning, and without the understanding that God or any rational entity is behind these events.

BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996) ‘Fatalism’, in Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, p. 137. Oxford, Oxford University Press.

BLOESCH, D. (1996) ‘Fate, Fatalism’, in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.

FEINBERG, JOHN S. (1986) Predestination and Free Will, 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.

GREENSPAN, P.S. (1998) Free Will and Genetic Determinism: Locating the Problem (s), Maryland, University of Maryland.
http://www.philosophy.umd.edu/Faculty/PGreenspan/Res/gen2.html

KAPITAN, TOMIS (1996) ‘Free Will Problem’, in Robert Audi (ed.), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

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

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.

THIESSEN, HENRY C. (1956) Introductory Lectures in Systematic Theology, Grand Rapids, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

http://satireandtheology.blogspot.com/2007/11/religious-album-covers-iii.html

Vitreous Floaters and PhD updates

Fraser River, BC (photo from trekearth.com)

Restoration Why Later
I had the vitrectomy and lens replacement please see section D of post above.

June 21, 2012

Vitreous Floaters update

In my August archives one can find my article entitled ‘Vitreous Floaters’. My floaters have nothing to do with cancer.
http://www.diseasesdatabase.com/umlsdef.asp?glngUserChoice=31270
Vitreous floaters:
"A blurry spot that appears to float around in the eye but does not block vision. The blur is the result of debris from the vitreous humour casting a shadow on the retina."Source: National Cancer Institute Thesaurus, 2006_03D

Vitreous floaters:
"Floaters; spots before the eyes caused by opaque cell fragments in the vitreous humor or lens."
Source: National Cancer Institute Thesaurus, 2006_03D

I have visited several eye surgeons here in the Lower Mainland (Greater Vancouver) and my local surgeon/ophthalmologist provided the reference in order that I could go ahead and pursue a vitrectomy from a surgeon in Vancouver, as my local surgeon/ophthalmologist does not perform a vitrectomy.
http://www.stlukeseye.com/Surgical/Vitrectomy.asp
Vitrectomy

Overview

The vitreous is a normally clear, gel-like substance that fills the center of the eye. It makes up approximately 2/3 of the eye's volume, giving it form and shape before birth. Certain problems affecting the back of the eye may require a vitrectomy, or surgical removal of the vitreous. After a vitrectomy, the vitreous is replaced as the eye secretes aqueous and nutritive fluids.

A vitrectomy may be performed to clear blood and debris from the eye, to remove scar tissue, or to alleviate traction on the retina. Blood, inflammatory cells, debris, and scar tissue obscure light as it passes through the eye to the retina, resulting in blurred vision. The vitreous is also removed if it is pulling or tugging the retina from its normal position.

I visited with the surgeon in Vancouver and he stated that there was a 5-10% chance of retinal detachment from a vitrectomy since I have an amblyopic (weak eye) right eye. Retinal detachment is defined below.
http://www.nei.nih.gov/health/retinaldetach/index.asp
What is retinal detachment?The retina is the light-sensitive layer of tissue that lines the inside of the eye and sends visual messages through the optic nerve to the brain. When the retina detaches, it is lifted or pulled from its normal position. If not promptly treated, retinal detachment can cause permanent vision loss.
In some cases there may be small areas of the retina that are torn. These areas, called retinal tears or retinal breaks, can lead to retinal detachment.

Since there is significant chance of detachment by a medical definition, I was asked to get a second opinion from the surgeon across the hall in the Vancouver office. I went yesterday and this slightly more experienced surgeon/ophthalmologist stated there was a 15% chance of a retinal detachment since my right eye, which has the more serious floaters, is amblyopic. This doctor stated that 95% of the time a retinal detachment can be fixed, but I know that things are always different after a surgery, and the eye would not be exactly like it was prior to having floaters. He stated categorically, unlike any of the other surgeons I have visited, that the floaters in both eyes will all eventually sink below my line of sight. I had read that floaters can sink below the line of sight, and he agreed with my suggestion that in ten years that floaters would not be seen anymore. He stated that the vitreous jell shrinks and the floaters will therefore sink below my sight line, in particular in my myopic (near sighted), amblyopic (weak eye) sooner than in my 20 vision left eye. The right eye has by far more floaters, and previously had a large clump in it, which was destroyed by Dr. Scott Geller in Fort Myers, Florida with a YAG laser.
http://www.vitreousfloaters.com/

If this doctor with the second opinion is correct, I am seriously considering holding off on surgeries and I will continue to wear dark sun glasses as I work on the computer (now) and when I am outside, which I do because of light sensitivity anyway. I can see over the next year or so if things improve. There is another consideration as a vitrectomy leads to a cataract, which is a clouding of the lens. A lens replacement with my myopic, amblyopic eye is possible, but the question is how much increased or decreased double vision will there be with a new lens. I will visit the cataract surgeon soon.

PhD update

I received good news today. I was without an academic advisor for 8-9 months, as my original advisor changed jobs. Today, Wales sent me a letter stating that I received a 12 month extension from the last day of this year. This is excellent as I now probably have three months work to do in thirteen months, but trust me I am going to try hard to get it done in three months.

I would be interested in reading comments and entering discussion, in regard to the chart below. But of course feel free to comment on other blog related topics.
http://www.religionfacts.com/christianity/charts/christianity_judaism.htm

History & Stats	Christianity	Judaism
date founded	c. 30 AD	c. 1300 BC
place founded	Palestine	Palestine
founders & early leaders	Jesus, Peter, Paul	Abraham, Moses
original languages	Aramaic and Greek	Hebrew
major location today	Europe, North and South America	Europe, Israel, North America
adherents worldwide today	2 billion	14 million
adherents in USA	159 million	5.6 million
adherents in Canada	21 million	350,000
adherents in UK	51 million	320,000
current size rank	largest	12th largest
major branches	Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant	Orthodox, Conservative, Reform
Religious Authority	Christianity	Judaism
sacred text	Bible = Old Testament (Jewish Bible) + New Testament	Tanakh (Jewish Bible)
inspiration of sacred text	views vary: literal word of God, inspired human accounts, or of human origin only	views vary: inspired human accounts or of human origin only
status of biblical prophets	true prophets	true prophets
status of Jewish Bible	canonical	canonical
status of Jewish Apocrypha	canonical (Catholic); useful but noncanonical (Protestant)	noncanonical but useful
status of New Testament	canonical	noncanonical, not useful
other written authority	church fathers, church councils, ecumenical creeds (all branches); papal decrees, canon law (Catholic)	Talmud, halakhah
modern human authorities	pope (Catholic); each Christian with aid of Holy Spirit (Protestant)	rabbis
summaries of doctrine	Apostle's Creed, Nicene Creed	13 Articles of Faith
Beliefs & Doctrine	Christianity	Judaism
ultimate reality	one God, Jehovah, the God of Abraham	one God, Jehovah, the God of Abraham
nature of God	Trinity - one substance, three persons	unity - one substance, one person
other spiritual beings	angels and demons	angels and demons
revered humans	saints, church fathers	prophets
identity of Jesus	Son of God, God incarnate, savior of the world	false prophet
birth of Jesus	virgin birth	normal birth
death of Jesus	death by crucifixion	death by crucifixion
resurrection of Jesus	affirmed	denied
second coming of Jesus	affirmed	denied
divine revelation	through Prophets and Jesus (as God Himself), recorded in Bible	through Prophets, recorded in Bible
human nature	"original sin" inherited from Adam - tendency towards evil	two equal impulses, one good and one bad
means of salvation	correct belief, faith, good deeds, sacraments (some Protestants emphasize faith alone)	belief in God, good deeds
God's role in salvation	predestination, various forms of grace	divine revelation and forgiveness
good afterlife	eternal heaven	views vary: either heaven or no afterlife
bad afterlife	eternal hell, temporary purgatory (Catholicism)	views vary: either eternal Gehenna, reincarnation, or no afterlife
view of the other religion	Judaism is a true religion, but with incomplete revelation.	Christianity is a false interpretation of Judaism.
Rituals & Practices	Christianity	Judaism
house of worship	church, chapel, cathedral, basilica, meeting hall	synagogue, temple, schul
religious leaders	priest, bishop, archbishop, patriarch, pope, pastor, minister, preacher, deacon	rabbi, rebbe
sacred rituals	sacraments	mitzvot (commandments)
major sacred rituals	baptism, communion (Eucharist)	observing Sabbath, wearing tallit and tefilin, prayer services
head covered during prayer?	generally no	generally yes (especially men)
central religious holy days	Lent, Holy Week, Easter	Yom Kippur, Days of Awe, Passover
other holidays	Christmas, saints days	Chanukah, Purim
major symbols	cross, crucifix, dove, anchor, fish, alpha and omega, chi rho, halo	Star of David, chai, hamsa, tree

http://satireandtheology.blogspot.com/2007/11/busted-unlike-beckham.html

Theology and Religion

Blue Mountains, Sydney

photo from Richard Cross

Richard's website:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/mr_richard_x/

My dialogue with Rick in the comments in the last article has provided some ideas for this article. We were discussing academic and common evangelical ways of interpreting the word ‘religion’. Religion can be correctly understood in evangelical circles as human attempts to know God, whereas Biblical Christianity originates from God revealing himself to humanity in Scripture. I can agree with this explanation, but since I am completing a PhD at a major secular University, I must be prepared to use academic definitions. I am sharing in small amounts some of my dissertation material on this academic philosophical theology blog.

According to S.A.Nigosian, religion is derived from the Latin religio, but its etymology is disputed. Some scholars have tried to connect religio with other Latin terms such relegere (to reread) relinquere (to relinquish), and religare (to relegate, to unite, to bind together). The last word has often been connected to religio, but overall this is too narrow of an approach. Nigosian (1994: 1). Nigosian notes that the term religion has little significance to non-Western persons, who would view religion as some type of relationship between God and human beings. Nigosian (1994: 1-2). Lewis M. Hopfe explains also that the word religion comes from the Latin religio, which refers to fear or awe one feels when in the presence of a spirit or a god. Hopfe (1991: 3). Hopfe writes that religions often deal with the relationship between the unseen world of spirits, demons, and gods, have a system of myths and attempt to commune and appease these unseen forces, are organized and have places of worship and scripture, have statements about the afterlife, and have some type of following. Hopfe (1991: 7). Nigosian comes up with a definition, which states that religion is the creative activity of the human mind that satisfies inherent spiritual needs. Nigosian (1994: 6). Although I acknowledge these are acceptable academic definitions, and would be suitable for my PhD dissertation and questionnaire, they do not accurately fully describe my philosophical theology. There is definitely an element of Christian theology, which understands human beings as seeking to learn more about God, but within my Reformed perspective this would take place through the guidance of God’s Spirit. It has been stated repeatedly on this blog in several ways that God predestines those who shall follow Christ as in Ephesians 1:4-12, and that God makes the choice to regenerate a certain individual and moulds a person through the work of the Holy Spirit to freely believe. Following Christ is not a human choice primarily, but I do not believe persons follow Christ through compulsion. Calvin (1543)(1996: 68). A person is regenerated by God’s choice and freely believes simultaneously. Therefore in the context of this blog, the term religion may suffice in a limited way to describe Christianity as one theological perspective among many claiming to be true, but in a deeper sense the term religion fails to adequately deal with many aspects of my philosophical theology. It must be remembered that when one is writing academic material there needs to be objectivity used at all times and in certain contexts by classifying Christianity as religion in enables the reader to understand that the writer at least can intellectually grant that many in the world, both scholars and students, view Christianity as merely a religion among many. My writings will of course counter this understanding, but the use of the term religion can allow the Christian theologian to enter Biblical Christianity into the debate among what are deemed as world religions, and then respectfully argue for the truth of Christian theological systems.

My approach in dealing with the term ‘religion’ demonstrates how this blog works. On one hand, the material is academic and slightly watered down from what appears in my PhD, and on the other hand, I attempt to make it as readable and relatable as possible to scholars and students alike who may read and comment on this blog. Satire and theology deals with this material at times as well, but I have opted there to make the articles shorter and with less use of citation. On thekingpin68, however, I am dedicated to this being an academic, philosophical theology blog from which I learn more about theology and related subjects, and hopefully help some others. The tension of remaining true to academic criteria and also being understandable to the average reader will always exist. This will take continued learning for all involved in this blog, for myself and my readers and those who comment. But, 1 Peter 3:15 tells the believer to always be ready to give a defense to everyone that asks, and therefore Christians, both scholars and student alike are compelled to learn everlastingly.

On a side note, I am interested with linking in blog links with others. If anyone is considering placing a link to this blog (and/or satire and theology) on your blog or website, I would seriously considering linking you back.

Cheers

Russ:)

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

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

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

http://satireandtheology.blogspot.com/2007/11/facebook-quotes-2-post-halloween_01.html