Augustine and satanic beings (PhD edit)

Bristol, England (photo from trekearth.com)

In regard to hermeneutics and the existence of satanic beings, Grenz, Guretzki, and Nordling explain hermeneutics is the discipline that studies the rules, principles, and theories of how a text, including Scripture, should be theologically interpreted. This would include the relationship between the author, text, and reader.[1] Klein, Blomberg, and Hubbard note that the word for hermeneutics comes from the Greek verb hermeneuin, meaning to explain, interpret or translate, while the noun hermeneia means interpretation or translation.[2] Charles Caldwell Ryrie (1974) states hermeneutics is the scientific method, which provides a principal of interpretation of Scripture, and these rules guide each reader’s system of theology.[3]

Augustine, from what has been presented in this Chapter within the context of satanic beings, appears to assume they did actually exist and had limited power and dominion over human beings.[4] Augustine therefore can be deduced to have believed in literal, historical, satanic beings in Scripture. This is not an overall evaluation of Augustine’s hermeneutics as that would be another thesis in itself. Plantinga cautiously supports Augustine’s hermeneutical approach and conclusions in regard to the existence of satanic beings.[5] According to D.W. Robertson, Jr. (1964) the translator of Augustine’s book On Christian Doctrine, explains the text sheds light on Augustine’s interpretation of the Bible.[6] Robertson writes that for Augustine, interpretation was not done by scientific and historical analysis, but by understanding the philosophy and theology of Biblical writers.[7] Augustine’s method was based in faith, hope, and charity (love), and a trust in God rather than in science.[8] It was not the hermeneutical method of modern times but was Augustine’s nonetheless.[9] Augustine’s hermeneutic included the idea that one should be mentally clear in regard to issues of God in order to receive guidance.[10] This would support Robertson’s idea that Augustine’s hermeneutical assumptions began with a trust in divine guidance over scientific means of understanding the Biblical text.[11] Robertson explains that Augustine did use an allegory method in his exposition of Scripture, but this was done in order to find the fullest possible interpretations of Scripture.[12] Grenz, Guretzki, and Nordling define allegory as a method of Biblical interpretation where ‘hidden’ or ‘deeper’ understandings are sought.[13] This favours a ‘spiritual’ meaning over literal ones.[14] Klein, Blomberg, and Hubbard explain that this was the popular hermeneutical method within the era of the Church Fathers.[15] New Testament scholar, Klyne Snodgrass (1991) explains allegorical approaches would assign a spiritual meaning to specific texts, in particular ones difficult to interpret.[16] Christian theology was often imposed on texts of the Old Testament, and this approach was common in the Christian Church until the Reformation.[17] Although Augustine understood satanic beings as actual entities, this does not mean he used a literal hermeneutic in his overall theological approach, as Robertson points out Augustine uses the allegory method.[18]

[1] Grenz, Guretzki, and Nordling (1999: 59).
[2] Klein, Blomberg, and Hubbard (1993: 4).
[3] Ryrie (1974: 86).
[4] Augustine (388-395)(1964: 111).
[5] Plantinga (1982: 192).
[6] Robertson (1964: ix)(1997).
[7] Robertson (1964: ix)(1997).
[8] Robertson (1964: xii)(1997). Augustine (427)(1997: 33).
[9] Robertson (1964: xii)(1997).
[10] Augustine (427)(1997: 13).
[11] I reason hermeneutically a scholar does not need to choose between a regimented scientific methodology, and trusting in divine guidance.
[12] Robertson (1964: xi)(1997).
[13] Grenz, Guretzki, and Nordling (1999: 8).
[14] Grenz, Guretzki, and Nordling (1999: 8).
[15] Klein, Blomberg, and Hubbard (1993: 32).
[16] Snodgrass (1991: 413).
[17] Snodgrass (1991: 413).
[18] Robertson (1964: xi)(1997).

AUGUSTINE (388-395)(1964) On Free Choice of the Will, Translated by Anna S.Benjamin and L.H. Hackstaff, Upper Saddle River, N.J., Prentice Hall.

AUGUSTINE (427)(1997) On Christian Doctrine, Translated by D.W. Robertson Jr., Upper Saddle River, N.J., Prentice Hall.

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

KLEIN, WILLIAM W. CRAIG, C. BLOMBERG, AND ROBERT L. HUBBARD, JR. (1993) Introduction to Biblical Interpretation, London, Word Publishing.

PLANTINGA, ALVIN.C. (1982) The Nature of Necessity, Oxford, Clarendon Press.

RYRIE, CHARLES CALDWELL (1974) Dispensationalism Today, Chicago, Moody Press.

SNODGRASS, KLYNE (1991) ‘The Use of the Old Testament in the New’, in David Alan Black and David S. Dockery (eds.), New Testament Criticism and Interpretation, Grand Rapids, Zondervan Publishing House.

This clip has been receiving some traffic (hundreds of hits) over in my satire and theology archives and so here once again is the Lochness Monster/Giant Haystacks.

African 'booze' tree. Thanks, Mom.

Additional

This is a message from someone, that according to her, is now in Benin, Africa, and was formerly in London and North Carolina. She is on the Facebook 'Are You Interested?' application. She acted ticked when I messaged with her briefly here last week and had not visited her when I was in the UK last month, as she was in London. As if I was going to visit her after two to three short email messages, as she is a stranger and I was nowhere near London.

I have no clue what the hell she is writing about.

'sweetie, if i tell you i love you, it doesnt mean facial loving, you talking about facial loving, i havnt met you ,so i believe i just like you but i love the way you talk to me, message me, i can read the feelings you have for me and i believe definetely we are going to me then that means we will one day. i so much chrish your humbleness and the way you talk to me through mails and also your profile is an evidence of you mylove.'

My reply to this message was...

LOL.

Atonement theories (PhD edit)

My Mom sent me these photos supposedly from Quebec City.

This is an edit from my PhD with the present revisions. Much of this material was presented in the past when most of you were not readers. I do not at all apologize for posting older blog material.:) I do not want to have to 'reinvent the wheel' so to speak and will reuse older material in the main body and especially in comments.

I suggest that you all do the same to save time. I will be swamped with PhD revisions for a time. Older material does get revised though at times, just like with my theses.

Please comment and enjoy the footnotes which I have not used on this blog in years, but this is a paste from the PhD. I would view sacrifice as a definite aspect of the atoning work of Christ, as I would propitiation, substitution and reconciliation. It is a complex subject, no doubt.

Russ

As Millard J. Erickson points out, atonement theory is multifaceted including the concepts of sacrifice, propitiation (appeasement of God), substitution and reconciliation.[1] Bloesch writes that the atonement of Christ must be understood as God’s effort to reconcile divine holiness and compassion.[2] Love does not end the need for holiness, but through Christ answers it.[3] Within Christian thought, both traditional and modern, there are many different atonement theories concerning the work of Christ.[4] Atonement theory in regard to Christ would be another thesis in itself and is beyond the scope of this work. Augustine’s sacrificial atonement views are not central to this thesis, but Augustine describes Christ’s atoning work as a means by which Christ could bring humanity back to a right relationship with God.[5] Augustine (398-399)(1992) discusses the concept of Christ restoring people from the hands of the adversary.[6] He also notes Christ is the true mediator between sinful humanity and God, and this mediation is what brings people to righteousness.[7] Augustine (400-416)(1987)(2004) continues with this theme calling Christ the mediator of life as Christ is viewed taking the punishment for sin in the place of sinful humanity.[8] Further along in the text, Augustine notes Christ died in order that through his death believers could ultimately be saved from everlasting death through the resurrection.[9] Robert D. Crouse (1990)(1998) explains Augustine viewed Christ’s atoning work as a sacrifice for the sins of humanity.[10]

There are Biblical scholars and theologians who would not hold to a sacrifice atonement theory, as does Augustine. There are the Accident, Martyr and Moral Influence Theories which feature similar approaches that are popular among modern scholars.[11] Thiessen notes the modern Accident Theory sees no significant value in the death of Christ.[12] Christ was a good man who died because his religious views differed from the religious leaders of the day, but there was no further significance to his death.[13] The Accident Theory would be a possible explanation for those within the mainline Christian faith that view Christ’s teaching as that of a good man, but question whether Christ died for the sins of humanity. The Lutheran Church Missouri Synod belief and practices volume writers Erwin L. Lueker, Luther Poellot, and Paul Jackson (2000) note the Accident Theory would view Christ’s death as unforeseen, unexpected and unfortunate.[14] This understanding is held by many modern scholars.[15] In other words, many versions of the Accident Theory do not attach a divine plan to Christ’s death.

The modern Martyr Theory is a similar view to the Accident Theory in that through Christ’s example and peaceful opposition to the religious leaders of his day, people could see there was a need for religious reform within religious organizations.[16] This concept would also view human beings as needing to be reformed spiritually, and Christ provided an excellent example of this in his death.[17] This approach would not require Christ to be a sacrifice for sins, but instead be an example of a human being who has become religiously reformed.[18] Lueker, Poellot and Jackson explain a key for the Martyr Theory is that Christ died for a principle of religious truth,[19] the idea being for those who hold this theory was God used Christ to oppose the religious falsehoods that prevented human beings from having true religious experiences with God.

Peter Abelard (1079-1142)[20] is credited with developing the historic Moral Influence Theory.[21] Abelard (1121)(2006) describes his atonement view in Commentaria in Epistolam Pauli ad Romanos, which in English is Commentary on the Epistle of Paul to the Romans.[22] Within it he writes, contrary to Anselm’s Satisfaction Theory, God had forgiven sins through love before Christ came to earth and that Christ had taken the suffering for human sin upon himself.[23] Grenz, Guretzki and Nordling note the Moral Influence Theory views Christ’s death as a good example of love in action.[24] F.W. Robertson (1857)(1956) explains this theory understood God was not angry with his Son, but instead Christ bore the sins of humanity as he clashed with evil and died because of it.[25] As Christ took on evil and prevailed over it by remaining true to God, he was able to influence people through the establishment of Christianity. The Satisfaction Theory of Saint Anselm (ca. 1033-1109) deduces Christ was an atoning sacrifice for the sins of humanity, and this theory is not in drastic opposition to Augustine’s prior theory. Anselm (1094-1098)(1968)(2006) states within Cur Deus Homo, which in English is Why God Became Man, it was fitting as death entered into the human race by one man’s disobedience, life should enter by one man’s obedience.[26] For Anselm, Christ was providing satisfaction to God for sin, but was also the perfect sacrifice for sin, much as Augustine had proposed earlier.[27] Bloesch writes Christ’s righteousness is substituted for human sin in order that believers can be righteous before God.[28]

Origen (ca. 185-254),[29] presents the Ransom View of Atonement. In his Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, Origen (ca 203-250)(2001) explains the atoning work of Christ was a ransom price as Christ gave up his life in order that human beings could have their lives back.[30] The primary modern exponent, that recovered the patristic emphasis of this view is Gustav Aulen, who wrote Christus Victor and the journal article ‘Chaos and Cosmos: The Drama of Atonement’ both in 1950. In Christus Victor, he explains the central theme of atonement is Christ’s dramatic victory over Satan, sin, and death.[31] Through the incarnated Christ’s death and resurrection, Aulen notes in this drama that Christ reconciles the world to himself.[32] In ‘Chaos and Cosmos’ Aulen writes every Christian doctrine of atonement should include the concept that the love of God through Christ destroys the evil powers.[33] The atonement should be primarily viewed as the means by which God provided humanity with victory over evil and reconciliation with God.[34] Aulen, like Anselm, did view Christ’s atoning work as sacrifice, but Aulen points out it was done willingly by Christ who suffered and then overcame evil.[35] The Ransom Theory of Atonement places less importance on God’s need for justice and sacrifice, and more of an emphasis on God freeing humanity from the bonds of Satan, sin, and death. Instead of atonement being mainly about a sacrifice offered to God for sin from humankind in Christ, Gustaf Wingren states Aulen’s view is primarily concerned with God overcoming evil for his people.[36] Bloesch reasons that Christ has purchased and redeemed his followers through the atoning work. From this task God’s love for humanity is shown as persons cannot save themselves through merit.[37]

[1] Erickson (1994: 811-823).
[2] Bloesch (1987: 97).
[3] Bloesch (1987: 97).
[4] Thiessen (1956: 315-320).
[5] Augustine (398-399)(1992: 178).
[6] Augustine (398-399)(1992: 178).
[7] Augustine (398-399)(1992: 219).
[8] Augustine (400-416)(1987)(2004: Book 4: Chapter 13: 10).
[9] Augustine (400-416)(1987)(2004: Book 4: Chapter 13: 11).
[10] Crouse (1990)(1998: 6).
[11] Thiessen (1956: 315).
[12] Thiessen (1956: 315).
[13] Thiessen (1956: 315).
[14] Lueker, Poellot, and Jackson (2000: 4).
[15] Lueker, Poellot, and Jackson (2000: 4).
[16] Thiessen (1956: 316).
[17] Thiessen (1956: 316).
[18] Thiessen (1956: 316).
[19] Lueker, Poellot, and Jackson (2000: 4).
[20] Shelly (1982: 215).
[21] Linder (1996: 2).
[22] Abelard (1121)(2006: 13).
[23] Abelard (1121)(2006: 13).
[24] Grenz, Guretzki, and Nordling (1999: 17).
[25] Robertson in Thiessen (1857)(1956: 174).
[26] Anselm (1094-1098)(1968)(2006: 51).
[27] Anselm (1094-1098)(1968)(2006: 51).
[28] Bloesch (1987: 150).
[29] Kroeger (1996: 803).
[30] Origen (ca 203-250)(2001: 30).
[31] Aulen (1950a: 14).
[32] Aulen (1950a: 5).
[33] Aulen (1950b: 156).
[34] Aulen (1950b: 158).
[35] Aulen (1950b: 162).
[36] Wingren (1965: 310).
[37] Bloesch (1987: 151).

ABELARD, PETER (ca. 1121)(2006) Jeffery E. Brower, and Kevin Guilfoy (eds.), Commentaria in Epistolam Pauli ad Romanos, Commentary on the Epistle of Paul, A complete list of Abelard’s Writings, West Lafayette, Indiana, Purdue University.
http://web.ics.purdue.edu/~brower/Papers/Introduction%20to%20Cam%20Comp.pdf

ANSELM, SAINT (1094-1098)(1968)(2006) Cur Deus Homo, Why God Became Man, in Schmitt, Franciscus Salesius, S. Anselmi Cantuariensis Archiepiscopi Opera Omnia. Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt: Friedrich Fromann Verlag.
http://www.iep.utm.edu/a/anselm.htm#H7

AUGUSTINE (398-399)(1992) Confessions, Translated by Henry Chadwick, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

AUGUSTINE (400-416)(1987)(2004) On the Trinity, Translated by Reverend Arthur West Haddan, in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series One, Volume 3, Denver, The Catholic Encyclopedia.
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/130104.htm

AULEN, GUSTAV (1950a) Christus Victor, Translated by A.G. Hebert, London, S.P.C.K.

AULEN, GUSTAV (1950b) ‘Chaos and Cosmos: The Drama of Atonement’, in Interpretation: A Journal of Bible and Theology, Volume 4, April, Number 2, New York, Interpretation.

BLOESCH, DONALD G. (1987) Freedom for Obedience, San Francisco, Harper and Rowe Publishers.

CROUSE, ROBERT D. (1990)(1998) ‘Atonement and Sacrifice: Doctrine and Worship-Saint Augustine and the Fathers’, in The Idea of the Church in Historical Development, Charlottetown P.E.I., Saint Peter Publications.

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

GRENZ, STANLEY J. AND ROGER E. OLSON (1992) Twentieth Century Theology, Downer’s Grove, Illinois, InterVarsity Press.

KROEGER, C.C. (1996) ‘Origen’, in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, p. 803. Grand Rapids, Baker Books.

LINDER, R.D. (1996) ‘Abelard, Peter’, in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, p. 2. Grand Rapids, Baker Books.

LUECKER, ERWIN L, LUTHER POELLOT, AND PAUL JACKSON, (2000) The Lutheran Church Missouri Synod: Christian Cyclopedia, Saint Louis, The Lutheran Church Missouri Synod.
http://www.lcms.org/ca/www/cyclopedia/02/display.asp?t1=A&t2=t

ORIGEN (ca. 203-250)(2001) Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew,
Peter Kirby, California, Early Christian Writings.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/origen-matthew.html

ROBERTSON, F.W. (1887)(1956) ‘Sermons: First Series’, in Thiessen, Henry C., Introductory Lectures in Systematic Theology, Grand Rapids, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

SHELLEY, BRUCE L. (1982) Church History In Plain Language, Waco, Texas, Word Books.

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

WINGREN, GUSTAF (1965) ‘Gustaf Aulen’, in A Handbook of Christian Theologians, Nashville, Abingdon Press.

PhD passed

PhD passed

Update: January 23, 2009: My revisions list was waiting for me in my email as I arrived back to the Vancouver area today. I reason I have a few months of work and therefore blogging will be lighter than usual. I am going to lose another academic work year and need to work on the revisions as much as possible. I will post some of my findings. Si, Ruth and family, thanks for hosting me! Thanks as well to Mr. X and LX for putting me up for a couple of days! 

Additional

The subject of fatalism came up in my PhD viva/defence. Here are some comments I have from an older article. I do not hold to fatalism. 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’. 

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. 

Update: January 20, 2009

I visited this church today with Mr. X and LX. Original foundations are 1300-1400 years old. The University of Wales, Lampeter Greetings from a public library in Manchester. Please note I do not have any books here from my library and so do not expect my usual Wales inspired citation fest. I was just eating at one of my favourite restaurants, Cafe Rouge, which is an English attempt at French food. It has very good food in my opinion, but offers small portions. 

In some ways, by God's grace I am intellectual, but not all that cultured by European standards, perhaps. I asked the restaurant manager/server for more water for my tea pot and she asked puzzled, 'With the same tea bag?' I explained to her that took place in Canadian restaurants. She insisted on giving me a new pot of tea on the house. My viva examiners and the chairperson stated seemed to be very fine persons, and noted I did very well on my viva. They were impressed. They agreed with my comment at the end that I was able to answer all their questions. In fact the examiners respected me and seemed to like it when I set them straight concerning some of their assumptions concerning my sovereignty theodicy and compatiblism.;) 

The examiners indicated that my viva defence basically answered the objections they had with the thesis and therefore I should have no difficulty with the revisions. There was in their opinion, a disconnect with how I presented my work in person and how it was presented in the thesis. I reason that their objections could have all been answered within the thesis, but it would be impossible for either myself, or my advisers Mark and Rob to anticipate all of the potential objections. The examiners reasoned that without the viva I did not sufficiently defend my worldview and assumptions. I very much disagree having dealt with atheism in the thesis (and on my blogs). I dealt with atheistic objections concerning the three theodicy and included an atheistic praxis in the Afterword. 

The examiners wanted me to have examined other approaches to the nature of God. Well, this could have been done easily within the text and will be done in the revisions. To take this type of objection too far is to basically require a different thesis and this is always a danger. I was reviewing writers and their assumptions primarily! I was not directed to write a Reformed apologetic. My advisor Rob agreed with me that if after these revisions we brought in two more reviewers, they would have another set of revisions. I admit that my reviewers and every advisor I have had is in some way academically ahead of me, but I state humbly, but with confidence that my Biblically and Reformed based sovereignty theodicy still remains seriously unchallenged after development for ten years and challenges from academics, friends, and on-line bloggers. 

I am not trying to be egotistical, but I remain even more convinced of this after the viva. Well, the external examiner is an Anglican systematic theologian, that stated he was non-Reformed when I asked him. The internal examiner is a systematic theologian and is Roman Catholic. Predictably they both had difficulties intellectual accepting my Reformed views. I will write more on this later, but I am running out of time on this computer. 

I am RUSHED. Please leave comments, but I do not wish to attempt to force or coerce you...;) I reason much of their revisions are based on a misunderstanding of my work and the fact that we are coming from different traditions, and the fact that I was simply following the advice to the letter of my very qualified advisers within the British system, Mark and then Rob. Thank you very much Mark Cartlege and Rob Warner for your fine professional assistance. Mark, thanks as well to you and your family for hosting me for a drink/meal on more than one occasion. Mark is a fine empirical theologian and scholar. Rob, thanks for taking over for Mark when he left and the additions you provided were important in the development of the work. Rob is the department head and also a fine empirical theologian and scholar and gave me excellent advice.

Neither of these men would agree with some of the things I state on this blog, but the same can be stated for my regular readers and commenters and so what is new?;) Thank you to Dr. William Kay for helping me with my MPhil thesis which passed without revisions. Dr. Kay has two PhDs and is a fine academic. Please comment if you wish and keep posted. This post is not finished. Russ:) Thanks Simon for taking me to this match! Even though you support Arsenal! January 14, 2009 Manchester 

United 1 Wigan Athletic 0

 

Thanks Jeff! Very good. There is no message here, just a Luthor group.

My first audio post: A face for radio

Plymouth Hoe, England

I will be in the US/Netherlands/UK January 10-22

My first attempt at an audio blog.

a1 face for radio.mp3

A person suggested in regard to the problem of evil questionnaire that I should not exclude persons that do not attend Christian churches, and that it would be useful to sample those who have different views other than Christian. My reply was that my University requires that I sample a certain group. My advisors have concluded that since I am writing within a Christian tradition I am to sample people that attend Christian churches. These churches would be defined as conservative and liberal, including Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and Protestant. I do not doubt that if non-Christians are included that the survey results will be beneficial in a general sense. If I include for example those of other religions in my sample, along with atheists, agnostics, and deists, I will be sampling persons presumed to be outside of the influence of concepts reviewed within the theoretical work which covers theodicy (the problem of evil) from conservative and liberal Christian traditions. Therefore if I include sampled data from people that do not attend Christian churches, I cannot test my theoretical theodicy in regard to Christian practical theology and my dissertation will fail.

An assumption being made is that people within Christian churches are being taught at least minimal aspects concerning concepts within theodicy I write about, and therefore I can test the philosophical, theological theory with the practical findings from the questionnaire. The same assumption cannot be made if I include persons that do not attend Christian churches, as it cannot be assumed that they are at least being taught minimal Christian theology by attending church.

Alan Bryman in his text Social Research Methods explains that a sample is a segment of the population that is selected for research. It is a subset of the population. Bryman (2004: 543). My subset for this PhD will be those that attend Christian churches.

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


Plymouth Hoe, England

More audio!

jeff.mp3


Click on for moving picture...