Universalism

Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia (photo from trekearth.com) I have not been to Asia as of yet. I reason that this is a fantastic photo. The following is a fairly short non-exhaustive, somewhat speculative article on universalism. Within the concept of soul-making theodicy, John Hick explains that once a human being dies a conscious personality continues to exist. Hick (1978: 12). He concludes that for soul-making to succeed post-mortem existence must include the ability to make moral and spiritual choices. Hick (1978: 13). Robert Smid writes that Hick believes that humanity will complete their soul-making via the afterlife, as a loving God must desire the salvation of all people. Smid (1999: 12). Hick reasons that since God has perfect knowledge of the human heart he would eventually succeed in bringing all persons in devotion to him. Hick (1970: 381). Hick holds to universalism, which John Ankerberg and John Weldon explain is the theological idea that salvation is universal and therefore as a result each person will eventually be redeemed in heaven in God’s presence. Ankerberg and Weldon (1999: 503). John Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli explain that universalism is universal salvation and has been considered by some well known orthodox Christians over the centuries as a viable alternative to hell, although Kreeft and Tacelli reject this concept. Kreeft and Tacelli (1994: 286). D.B. Eller writes that universalism affirms the idea that eventually all souls will be released from penalties of sin and restored to God. Eller (1996: 1128). 

In Matthew 7:13-14, Jesus uses an illustration relating to the ultimate destiny of individuals and explains that few persons enter by the narrow gate, and the wide and broad way of destruction is found by many. William Barclay points out, that Luke 13:24 is presenting a similar idea which may have come from the same original source, but reached the author of Luke from a different tradition. Barclay (1975: 97). In Luke, Jesus explains that many will strive to enter by the narrow gate, but shall not be able to. Barclay (1975: 97). This idea from Jesus would fit with a compatibilistic theology where God uses soft determinism to elect individuals to salvation. From this perspective, human beings with the use of free will alone cannot choose God. Within a sovereignty perspective, God will choose whom he wills to be present in his culminated Kingdom, and those he elects shall believe and follow him without being forced or coerced to do so. I reason that as God regenerates an individual by the Holy Spirit, he simultaneously determines that the person shall freely with the use of a limited, but significant free will, believe in Christ. Sentimentally, universalism is humanly more comforting, but it appears that Jesus disagreed with Hick on universalism. 

Laurence E. Porter describes a scenario in Luke 13:24-28 where some religious persons are rejected by God. Porter (1986: 1211). Jesus did not accept the theology that a sincere religious devotion alone would lead one to God’s presence in the culminated Kingdom of God. Let me point out that everlasting existence apart from God is absolutely and positively, not my hope for any individual person, but my theological findings are driven by research and not sentiment. I see no good reason to believe that human beings that have rejected the Biblical God throughout their lives with a corrupt nature and the resulting sinful thoughts and actions would ever in post-mortem existence come to Christ, unless determined to do so by God. Biblically, there appears to be no salvation for those outside of Christ upon death. Hebrews 9:27, from the New American Standard Bible states: As inasmuch as it is appointed for man to die once and after this comes judgment. For deceased children and those who are mentally deficient, it can be deduced that since they do not arrive at a reasonably certain 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, 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. 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. In contrast it could be stated that children and the mentally deficient outside of Christ, could be everlastingly separated from God and judged only according to what they know. 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 and not largely deficient understanding. 

ANKERBERG, JOHN AND JOHN WELDON (1999) Encyclopedia of Cults and New Religions, Eugene, Oregon, Harvest House Publishers.

BARCLAY, WILLIAM (1975) Introduction to the First Three Gospels, Philadelphia, The Westminster Press. 

ELLER, D.B. (1996) ‘Universalism’, in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, p. 1128-1130. Grand Rapids, Baker Books.

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. 

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

PORTER, LAURENCE.E. (1986) ‘Luke’, in F.F. Bruce (gen.ed.), The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Marshall Pickering/ Zondervan.

Thoughts on blog comments and thoughts on questionnaires

Vancouver, BC (photo from trekearth.com)

1. I was in the Seattle-Tacoma and surrounding area with Chucky, for a concert Friday. Seattle-Tacoma is a larger metropolitan area in population than Greater Vancouver and it sure seemed that way as well. I enjoy Washington State, but the gridlock getting over the American border, driving through Seattle-Tacoma and surrounding area in rush hour, and getting in out and of the White River Amphitheater was tiring and irritating. Thankfully, the concert was excellent, even with standing out in the lawn area with some rain for three hours. The rain was light and refreshing. I enjoy the beautiful nature the Lord has made, even though the problem of evil exists in creation (Genesis 3).

2. Unfortunately not all emails sent to me have been arriving. One of Chucky’s emails and one of Wade’s for satire and theology did not arrive. I am apologetic, but my modem and router do not have built in fans and with the summer heat here in my loft, they overheat and need to be turned off and on frequently. I reason that when my modem and router overheat that some emails are delayed and perhaps do not arrive. The odd email also does not arrive due to my ISP. Please know that my desire is to publish every respectfully made blog comment that relates to my blog in general terms. I really appreciate support of my blogs and wish to support other quality blogs! One does not have to agree with me on every point, but I ask that comments relate to my overall blog material (not necessarily the particular article every time) and are respectful. I do not mind someone promoting his/her blog by leaving a comment, but I ask that a relevant, respectful comment be made. A person has tried to leave alien related comments on this blog a few times, and I will not publish those comments since they are promotion with no attempt to interact with my overall blog material. If one wishes to promote his/her blog through a comment, please at least attempt to deal with my blog material. I will not accept comments that are primarily SPAM, unless I wish to make a point by criticizing the material. I do not expect a blogger to comment on every comment I make on his/her blog, but I will try and answer all comments here as long as I can.

3. With this is mind, and realizing that not all my blog comments necessarily arrive to a fellow blogger, when I leave a blog comment elsewhere, I am attempting with God’s help to thoughtfully relate my comment to the article, or sometimes express my legitimate appreciation of the blog. I also greatly appreciate blogging friends, and look at theological blogging as ministry. I as well fully admit to be promoting my blogs. I am a student that is in debt and wish to promote my career, and myself, and I am unapologetic in that fact! I have been a student for 16 years without full-time income and no one can fairly state that I am unduly driven by money, but I need to promote my theological career and by commenting on other blogs, I promote my own blogs and my career. Others may blog for a hobby only and that is fantastic, but my work on the internet may very likely tie into my theology career in the future, God willing. Therefore (and I have someone in mind, but not someone I have dialogued with), if I leave a comment on a blog and it is not published, I will likely not comment again on that blog, unless I know the person decently well from blogging and realize there was probably some type of mess up with the message delivery, or I receive some type of message with a good reason on why it was not published. I do not think a blogger should pick and choose which comments he/she likes of mine and only publish ones he/she prefers. If I reason this is taking place, I will not comment anymore. If a blogger does not like my comments or is questioning the motives (always a dangerous thing to do!) he/she can email me or challenge my comments on his/her blog, or else I will not comment on the blog further. Since I make a strong effort to write well thought out comments that relate to the blog article, or at least the blog, I will not accept having my comments censored without a good explanation. The business of doing philosophical theology is a tough one, and in Christ I need to be humble, loving and forgiving, but I also require respect.

4. As expected with my questionnaire data, aspects of my sovereignty theodicy have been somewhat rejected in favour of free will theodicy approaches. This does not in any way change my views, but I appreciate the fact that these findings provide my PhD with empirical data that adds originality. I will attempt to publish results on thekingpin68 once my PhD is passed, God willing. I do not wish to thoroughly discuss the results on thekingpin68 until my University has officially reviewed them. Statistically there are 213 valid respondents. Validity is the concern with the integrity that is generated from a piece of research. Bryman (2004: 545). Validity is usually measurable in statistics. Bryman (2004: 545). There are 66 questions on the questionnaire, or 66 variables. Variables represent different types of data that have been compiled including numbers, strings, currency and data. SPSS (2006: 51). The frequency is the number of people and percentage that belong in each variable category. Bryman (2004: 227). Julie Pallant notes that frequencies include all the individual variable items that make up the represented scales. Pallant (2004: 42).

Thank you very much, once again to all questionnaire participants! I am sorry some of this article content is a little heavy, but with this type of blog it is unavoidable! I firmly believe that in today's world, respectful, intense type of interaction is sometimes needed.

BRYMAN, ALAN (2004) Social Research Methods, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

PALLANT, JULIE (2004) SPSS Survival Manual, Maidenhead, Berkshire, Open University Press.

SPSS 15.0 BRIEF GUIDE (2006) Chicago, SPSS Inc.

Russ;)

God and two wills

Millard Erickson writes that God’s perfect will, will 1 as he calls it, is God’s general intention and what pleases him most. Erickson (1994: 361). God’s will 2, is God’s specific intention in every given situation and what God actually decides will occur. Erickson (1994: 361). This is permissible will. Erickson explains that there are many times when evil and sin occur that God, in his perfect will, does not wish these events to take place, but permits them. Erickson (1994: 361). Erickson explains that with will 2, since God does not intervene to prevent particular evil and sin, he permissibly wills it. Erickson (1994: 361). Therefore, Biblically and theologically, in one sense, God causes evil, and this was a key question within my problem of evil questionnaire. When God does not intervene and prevent evil and sin, he therefore willingly allows it and is the cause of it, in a sense. Erickson points out that God never tells someone to commit evil or sin. Erickson (1994: 361). Since God is infinite (limitless), omnipotent (almighty, all-powerful), and omniscient (all-knowing) when he does not follow his perfect will causing only good and, instead, follows his permissible will, which at times causes evil and sin, he therefore, theologically, is the cause of evil. It needs to be stated that by God permissibly and willingly allowing evil does not make him evil and sinful in nature. John Calvin reasons that God’s motives remain pure in the simultaneous willing of human actions that are evil and sin. Calvin (1543)(1996: 37-40). Calvin’s idea is that free human actions were first willed and determined by God. Calvin (1543)(1996: 37-40). God’s motives in willing an action were always pure, working toward the greater good even while human beings freely sinned. (1543)(1996: 37-40). I submit that the problem of evil occurs for God's greater purposes within his permissible will.

In both theology and philosophy, compatibilism, which is also known as soft determinism, states that God can simultaneously will significantly free human actions, which are not committed under compulsion. Feinberg (1986: 24). Feinberg (1994: 60). Within this type of model, there is a primary force that determines all actions and human beings will and commit these actions with significant freedom, secondarily. Pojman (1996: 596). Stace (1952)(1976: 29). Thiessen reasons that God’s decrees are what the creator either efficaciously (the desired effect) or permissively wills to pass. Thiessen (1956: 147). Thiessen explains that human freedom and motives are not eliminated from human actions. Thiessen (1956: 147). Both Thiessen and Calvin state that God is not the author of sin. Thiessen (1956: 147) Calvin (1543)(1996: 40). I deduce that the reasoning here is that although God and humanity both will sinful human actions, God's motives are never sinful, while human motives are. Therefore God is actually the author of good intentions through sin, while human beings are the authors of sinful intentions through sin. I should state that God would work through the evil deeds of demonic beings in a similar way.

Job 1:8 And the Lord said to Satan, "Have you considered My servant Job?"

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

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

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

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

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.

A philosophy of singleness: part 3

Whitby Abbey and Saint Mary's Church, England (photo from trekearth.com)

There are some persons that downplay physical attraction’s importance in romantic relationships, and I am not one of those people. A few people that do not know me well have suggested that I am looking for a supermodel (supermodel type). They are incorrect and this is not an aspect of my romantic philosophy. At Chucky and Philosophy Man’s birthday party, a friend of Chucky’s sarcastically suggested to me that a certain supermodel was now single, but that she was probably too old for me. I am looking for a woman with whom I can have mutual spiritual, intellectual, and physical attraction. Some in my family would suggest that I should lower my physical standards in attraction, especially since I have doorman and not pretty boy looks. I attempt to look for a young woman that is at least minimally significantly physically attractive to me, and not maximally significantly attractive to me, but there must be significant physical attraction, although I view spiritual and intellectual mutual attraction as more important in romantic relationships. An important part of my work in theodicy is relevant here. Can I really be significantly satisfied by becoming romantically involved with a woman that is below my minimal physical standards? Are physical standards simply a matter of choice, or are they a matter of both nature and choice?

W. Tullian Tchividjian explains the view of Jonathan Edwards, where Edwards writes that people in their fallen state are freely able to choose what they most desire. Tchividjian (2001: 1). Edwards notes that because of corrupted human nature human beings are free only to sin. Tchividjian (2001: 2). Human beings therefore freely choose within their sinful nature to disobey God. The choices of acts made by human beings do not depart from the motives and desires which fuel them as the motives and desires come from human nature. Edwards (1754)(2006: 4.4: 3). Within Edwards' system God's sovereign will would influence the nature of the elect in order that they would have motives and desires leading to following Christ. John S. Feinberg reasons that desires and not free will are the cause of human rebellion against God. Feinberg (1994: 128). I speculate that human nature and consciousness (the ability to have self-awareness) does not choose to be as it is, but was created by God, and has been corrupt since the fall of humanity. From consciousness and self-awareness, human beings would develop motives and desires, and eventually make limited free will choices. The primary cause of human acts is determined by God who creates the human nature, and influences human choices. The secondary cause of human acts is the individuals that act according to nature, consciousness, motives, desires, and a limited free will influenced by God. It may be correctly pointed out that what God determines and causes must necessarily (logically must occur) take place. However, I do not think that God coerces or forces individuals to commit actions.

My point here is that the desire known as physical attraction comes from our God given human nature, and consciousness, and is expressed in motives, desires, and a limited free will where by which we make our choices. In general terms, and not only with physical attraction, God is willing what occurs in an individual by influence, and willingly allows the person to sin for God's divine purposes. God can also influence both the regenerate and unregenerate person for his purposes. Physical attraction can be traced back to an individual’s nature. By nature an individual will not be attracted to each and every person of the opposite sex. It seems that most persons are not attracted to the majority of persons of the opposite sex. A problem is that sin greatly complicates the matter. A partial remedy I have for this problem is for Christians who are single to only hold out for those they find minimally significantly physically attractive within their own nature, consciousness and desires.

Therefore the person can choose a person to potentially date that is minimally significantly physically attractive and pay more attention to the spiritual and intellectual aspects of the person. I reason that far too many Christians, especially ones considered very attractive in Western society, are rejecting those for which they have minimal significant physical attraction, in favour of those for which they have closer to maximal significant physical attraction. These persons may at times ignore spiritual and intellectual qualities in others. It is therefore no surprise that from my findings on dating sites and interaction with Christians personally, that many Christians date and marry non-believers, since Christians are a minority in Western society and it would be more difficult in the Christian community than in secular society, to find someone close to the standard of maximally significantly physically attractive. It would also be easier to meet minimal standards in the secular world, but the secular world cannot provide persons that spiritually and intellectually belong to Christ.

EDWARDS, JONATHAN (1754)(2006) Freedom of the Will, Flower Mound, Texas. Jonathanedwards.com.http://www.jonathanedwards.com/

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

TCHIVIDJIAN, W. TULLIAN, (2001) ‘Reflections on Jonathan Edwards’ View of Free Will, in IIIM Magazine Online, Volume 3, Number 51, December 17 to December 23, Fern Park, Florida, IIIM Magazine Online.