Everlasting vs. Eternal Reprised

Vernon, BC (photo from trekearth.com)

http://satireandtheology.blogspot.com/2008/06/chuck-norris-on-
chuck-norris.html

This a reprise of an article I did in November 2006, but I am including an additional section and cartoon at the end. Mr. David Esler read and commented on the original article, but most of you have probably not dug through my archives to find it, and frankly, I do not blame you. I reason some of my earlier articles could interest new readers.

Interestingly in New Testament Greek according to Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, the same Greek word can be defined in English as either eternal or everlasting. The Greek word aíwvios (aionios) is explained as meaning perpetual, used of past time or past and future as well, eternal, for ever, and everlasting. Strong (1986: 8). Strong provides only one word for eternal or everlasting from the New Testament.

Walter Bauer notes that in Romans 16: 25, a form of the word is used to describe a mystery of long ages ago without beginning. Bauer (1979: 28). In Hebrews 9: 14, a form of the word is used to describe the eternal Spirit and is mentioned as existing without beginning or end. Bauer (1979: 28). In Mathew 19: 29, Jesus discusses those that shall inherit everlasting life, and the word is used in a form that describes life existing without end. Bauer (1979: 28). The first verse appears to be describing a mystery that always existed with God, and in the second verse it mentions the Spirit of God that has always existed, and did not begin and will not cease. In the third verse the life Jesus discusses did not always exist, but everlasting life shall be given to some by God. There is a clear philosophical difference between the first two meanings and the last one.

The first two examples, in my view, are describing aspects of the eternal God. Something which is eternal according to Simon Blackburn is not moving, and is beyond time, whereas the third example in light of Blackburn's definition is describing something that is everlasting and running within time. Blackburn (1996: 126). In the first two usages of the word the idea being put across is that the mystery existed within the mind of the eternal God, and that God’s Spirit was eternal. God is eternal, as in without beginning or end and is beyond time. Grenz, Guretzki, Nordling (1999: 47). The third verse is not describing eternal life, but everlasting life which has a beginning but no ending. The everlasting life of those in Christ is not eternal, but exists within time and continues to run within time and therefore this life should be properly defined as everlasting life as opposed to eternal life. This philosophical difference is why in my writings I only use the term eternal in the context of God and use the terms everlasting life, everlasting existence, or everlasting punishment when mentioning God’s created beings which exist in time. I am not trying to split hairs here, but rather wish to attempt to define my terms as properly as possible in order to avoid related theological and philosophical difficulties through the use of terminology in the future.

This is not to deny some of the theological concepts which scholars and students use with the concept of eternal life. One student mentioned to me, while I lived in England, that we as Christians will share in the eternal life of God in the culminated Kingdom of God. I agree that we shall exist with God and experience his existence, but technically speaking he has eternal life, and we shall have everlasting life. God alone has always existed and therefore has eternal life. J.F. Walvoord notes that eternal life in Scripture is contrasted with physical life, and I completely agree. Walvoord (1996: 369). Whether the term is translated as eternal or everlasting life, I agree that it is the life that is opposed to physical temporal life from a Scriptural perspective. I would also add that it is contrasted with everlasting punishment for unbelievers. Whether we call it eternal or everlasting life it can only be found through Christ according to the Biblical account.

Additional

Quite philosophically important for clarity, is the idea that the eternal triune God did not exist in any type of state of time prior to the creation of the time, the universe, and matter. I say this to avoid a vicious regress.

In the Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Simon Blackburn discusses ‘infinite regress’ and mentions that this occurs in a vicious way whenever a problem tries to solve itself and yet remains with the same problem it had previously. A vicious regress is an infinite regress that does not solve its own problem, while a benign regress is an infinite regress that does not fail to solve its own problem. Blackburn writes that there is frequently room for debate on what is a vicious regress or benign regress. Blackburn (1996: 324).

In The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, William Tolhurst writes that a vicious regress is in some way unacceptable as it would include an infinite series of items dependent on prior items. A vicious regress may be impossible to hold to philosophically, or it may be inconsistent. Tolhurst (1996: 835).

If the triune God had an infinite amount of time to plan creation, as some Christians state, then we would have the major philosophical difficulty of an infinite amount of time for God to traverse in order to arrive at creation. This would be a vicious regress and a problem that does not solve itself. This vicious regress would be an excellent target for critical philosophers to rightly claim as a major problem with Christian theology and philosophy.

My solution, although not perfect since a finite being cannot fully understand eternity, it to state that prior to time, God was (and is) an infinite being that communicated within the trinity, but not in the sense of interaction that took time. God simply knew God and then created time, the universe and matter. God can now communicate within time with his creation. God did not need an infinite amount of time to plan his creation as with infinite knowledge God did what he desired via his nature. God was (and is) and created.

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

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

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

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

TOLHURST, WILLIAM (1996) 'Vicious Regress', in Robert Audi, (ed.), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

WALVOORD, J. F. (1996) ‘Eternal Life’, in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.

Mr. Jeff Jenkins of Thoughts and Theology sent me this menu. Please click on it to enlarge.

Friday night fun! Rush and Freewill

Rush: Freewill

Rush's song Freewill is noted for its sensational soloing in the middle of the track.

Chucky and I saw Rush for the seventh time on Thursday night. In my view for an electric band they are among the best artists ever. Within a secular band, a Christian should be able to listen to vocals/lyrics and filter out non-Christian or anti-Christian concepts if they are familiar enough with Christian philosophy and faith. Rush drummer Neil Peart is a sometimes noted critic of religion.

http://richarddawkins.net/article,800,Neil-Peart-cites-The-God-Delusion-in-new-albums-liner-notes,Rush

The liner notes to the forthcoming album "Snakes and Arrows" by the legendary rock band Rush mention The God Delusion. The author and lyricist Neil Peart writes the following:

I was also thinking, like Richard Dawkins in The God Delusion, about how children are usually imprinted with a particular faith, along with their other early blessings and scars. People who actively choose their faith are vanishingly few; most simply receive it, with their mother's milk, language, and customs. Thinking also of people being shaped by early abuse of one kind or another, I felt a connection with friends who had adopted rescue dogs as puppies, and given them unlimited love, care, and security. If those puppies had been 'damaged' by their earlier treatment--made nervous, timid, or worse--they would always remain that way, no matter how smooth the rest of their life might be. It seemed the same for children.

Some of us are educated in our religious philosophy and faith, and do not simply follow the worldview of our parents. I reason that many non-religious adults grew up in non-religious homes. Children can also grow up conditioned with atheistic or agnostic views. The bottom line for whether a worldview is true or false is evidence. Sadly many persons in relative intellectual blindness do simply follow the worldview, religious or not, of their parents. If the evidence for the worldview of parents is good then it would not be blind for children to hold the same worldview. Evidence for Christianity includes historical revealed documentation. This documentation is a key to reasonable Christian philosophy.

My views on free will have been discussed on this blog, but here are two major positions I have dealt with in my MPhil and PhD theses. I hold to compatibilism, also know as soft determinism which is in line with Reform theology.

Compatibilism:

Compatibilism, would agree with incompatibilism that God or any other being cannot cause by force or coercion any significantly free human action, but contrary to incompatibilism thinks that God or an outside force can simultaneously determine/will significantly free human actions. Feinberg (1994: 60).

Philosopher Louis P. Pojman explains that within determinism or hard determinism, an outside force causes an act and no created being is responsible for his or her moral actions, while for compatibilism or soft determinism, although an outside force causes actions, created beings are responsible where they act voluntarily. Within hard determinism an outside force would be the only cause of human actions, while with soft determinism an outside force would be the primary cause of human actions and persons the secondary cause. Pojman (1996: 596). God would be the primary cause within Christian theism of a Reformed tradition.

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

Incompatibilism:

Gregory A. Boyd explains that incompatibilism assumes since human beings are free, their wills and resulting actions are not, in any way, determined by any outside force. Boyd (2001: 52).

John Sanders writes that in incompatibilism it is believed genetic or environmental factors are not ignored in the process of human actions, but it is thought that a human being could always have done otherwise in any given situation. Sanders (1998: 221).

Hugh McCann (2001) explains there can be no independent determining conditions of human deeds, and human actions are committed voluntarily. McCann (2001: 115).

BOYD, GREGORY A. (2001) Satan and the Problem of Evil, Downers Grove, Illinois, InterVarsity Press.

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

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

MCCANN, HUGH J. (2001) ‘Sovereignty and Freedom: A Reply to Rowe’, in Faith and Philosophy, Volume 18, Number 1, January, pp. 110-116. Wilmore, Kentucky, Asbury College.

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

SANDERS, JOHN (1998) The God Who Risks, Downers Grove, Illinois, InterVarsity Press.

The Son of Man

Chateau De Menthon, Annecy, France (photo from trekearth.com)

Son of Man

Luke 9:22 is a New Testament example where Jesus uses this phrase of himself. Here he describes his coming death and resurrection.

Strong describes the term for son, υἱὸς which is used widely in an immediate context and also in the remote or figurative context of kinship, child, foal, son. Strong (1986: 99). The word man, aνθρώποs, is defined as man-faced, human being, certain, man. Strong (1986: 12). Each usage of a Greek word needs to be understood individually in context, of course. The exact term aνθρώποu, is used in Luke 9:22. The Greek New Testament (1993: 237). The term is used in the genitive as the Son of Man. Anthropos is the anglicized version of the word defined by Strong and relates to the English word anthropology.

Browning notes the phrase Son of Man is common from Jesus and is in the gospels and in Acts 7 and Revelation 1:13. Browning (1996: 349). Browning reasons that an increasingly accepted view is that Jesus meant the term in an elusive, roundabout way of acknowledging his significance as ‘I, being the man I am’. Christ has dignity and will be enthroned. Browning (1996: 350).

Erickson writes that the resurrection established the fact that the Son of Man is Christ, and that he is both a man that walked on earth and a heavenly being who would come in the future in the clouds of heaven. Erickson (1994: 693). Erickson explains that Jesus used the term Son of Man of himself and that one person, Jesus Christ, was both earthly man and preexistent divine God who became incarnate man. Erickson (1994: 726).

Please leave comments. I do not expect them to be overly intellectual and I appreciate feedback and the continual knowledge that people are reading the articles. My philosophy is that comments build blog interest and so I appreciate comments on the articles, images/cartoons, and even interesting Biblical, theological, and philosophical rants that are not necessarily related to articles. But, I do not appreciate weirdness from persons that want to dump their bizarre views on this site and then take off. This is kind of like my former German Shepherd Husky that would escape from the backyard, leave a parcel on a neighbour's front yard and then split.

Thanks.

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

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

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

THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT (1993) Stuttgart, United Bible Societies.







http://satireandtheology.blogspot.com/2008/05/top-25-grossing-
films-worldwide-theatre.html

Einstein was an atheist? Who cares

Benbulbin, Northern Ireland (photo from trekearth.com)

From

http://www.some-guy.com/quotes/stupid.html

'The word 'genius' isn't applicable in football. A genius is a guy like Norman Einstein.'--Joe Theisman, NFL football quarterback & sports analyst.

http://blogs.nature.com/news/thegreatbeyond/2008/05/einstein_god is_human_weakness.html

Einstein: ‘god is human weakness’ - May 14, 2008

Einstein’s often-debated views on religion look to have been made clearer by a document up for auction tomorrow.

“The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish,” he writes in the 1954 letter to philosopher Eric Gutkind.

Bloomsbury Auctions, which is selling the letter, expects it to go for between £6000 and £8000 (press release). If you don’t have that much spare change, you can always read Einstein’s 1940 Nature article ‘Science and Religion’ (subscription required).

In that piece he notes:

During the youthful period of mankind’s spiritual evolution, human fantasy created gods in man’s own image, who, by the operations of their will, were supposed to determine, or at any rate to influence, the phenomenal world. ... The idea of God in the religions taught at present is a sublimation of that old conception of the gods.

The Guardian has more extracts of the letter than the press release, and its coverage quotes John Brooke of Oxford University thus:

Like other great scientists he does not fit the boxes in which popular polemicists like to pigeonhole him. It is clear for example that he had respect for the religious values enshrined within Judaic and Christian traditions ... but what he understood by religion was something far more subtle than what is usually meant by the word in popular discussion.

Are we the only people who expect Richard Dawkins to bid?

A brilliant scientist that one can learn from does not necessarily make a brilliant philosopher or theologian to learn from. Academic religious education is another complex discipline on its own. Atheism versus Christianity is a discussion where scientists on both sides can agree on actual empirical science and disagree on issues concerning theology and first cause.

A strictly empirical philosophical approach to life can rule out God from being a possible consideration. This is where divine revelation/theology and philosophy of religion come into play.

Science finds empirical truth and is extremely valuable, but science cannot provide information concerning the deepest purposes of life and why a first cause would create human beings. This must be revealed by an infinite, eternal, first cause. A common mistake made by some today is to make science the ultimate source for knowledge, and science has limitations as do all other important academic disciplines, which add to human knowledge.

The problem of evil and theodicy is an issue that arises in the discussion between Christians and critics:

Without the philosophical concept of God existing and delivering humanity from sin, death, and evil, there is no reasonable ultimate purpose for human beings other than to non-exist (death). Human relative goodness is simply a lack of maximization of evil. God willingly allows the problem of evil and human nature and the resulting choices fuel it. This is a reason why with all the human progress in knowledge, including scientific knowledge, over the millennia, persons are as capable as ever of committing much evil. Only God can change the nature of persons and in Christ there is a plan for this with the atoning work, resurrection and culminated Kingdom.

Science and Religion:

For scientists a key issue is that they must have autonomy and science cannot be subjected to some external authority on what has to be believed. Science cannot as well be subjected to the idea of God which cannot be subjected to normal scientific scrutiny. Habgood (1999: 526).

Science should not be subjected to outside rules which govern inquiry and results. The immaterial God of spirit cannot be discovered scientifically. God does not consist of matter, and is not made up of measurable energy which makes matter work.

From:

http://www.ftexploring.com/energy/definition.html

Energy is a property or characteristic (or trait or aspect?) of matter that makes things happen, or, in the case of stored or potential energy, has the "potential" to make things happen.

Scientism:

A pejorative term for the concept that only the methods of natural science and related categories form the elements for any philosophical or other enquiry. Blackburn (1996: 344).

Theodicy:

The aspect of theology concerned with defending God and his goodness and omnipotence, in a world where suffering and evil exist. Blackburn (1996: 375).

Robert M. Adams notes that the word theodicy is from the Greek, as theos is God and dike is justice. Theodicy is a defence of the justice of God in the face of objections arising from the problem of evil in the world. Adams (1996: 794).

ADAMS, ROBERT. M (1996) ‘Theodicy’, in Robert Audi (ed.), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

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

HABGOOD, JOHN (1999) ‘Science and Religion’, in Alan Richardson and John Bowden (eds.), A New Dictionary of Christian Theology, Kent, SCM Press Ltd.


Eagle vs. Swan (thanks Mom)

This scene reminds me of a 1970s Marvel Comics type cover where two superheroes battle.


I received these two kittens for free for some reason. I am not sure if they come from same litter. The one on the left sure eats a lot.