Evolving theology in a sense

Campo Del Moro, Madrid (photo from trekearth.com)

I have been discussing with my good friend from Florida, Documentary Man, some of the evolution (pardon that term) from my approach with my MPhil thesis (Wales, 2003), to my PhD thesis (Wales, 2010). He is reading the PhD thesis.

Here in this example, we can see how the terms 'in a sense' are relevant to theological and philosophical concepts as what I wrote in my MPhil thesis was more so from a practical theological perspective looking at philosophy of religion, whereas as my PhD thesis has a more developed philosophy of religion perspective.

From MPhil

Within this thesis it will be obvious that my view on God and the problem of evil has been somewhat influenced by the theology of John Calvin. This will be explained throughout the thesis; however, he held that God willed evil for the greater good without being a sinful contradictory being as God’s motives were pure, whereas those that sinned had impure motives. Some would object to this view stating that it is determinism, believing God must be coercing human beings to sin and commit evil actions within this system. Simon Blackburn defines determinism as follows:

The doctrine that every event has a cause. The usual explanation of this is that for every event, there is some antecedent state, related in such a way that it would break a law of nature for this antecedent state to exist yet the event not to happen. Blackburn (1996: 102).

In the case of human sin, John Calvin did not believe that God determined that people sin, and nor do I. God was not the antecedent for sin. I agree that God can use human sin for the greater good, yet human beings have free will and freely sin by choice within a sinful nature. Calvin stated concerning free will:

If freedom is opposed to coercion, I both acknowledge and consistently maintain that choice is free and I hold anyone who thinks otherwise to be a heretic. If, I say, it were called free in this sense of not being coerced nor forcibly moved by an external impulse, but moving of its own accord, I have no objection. Calvin (1543)(1996: 68).

Human beings in Calvin’s thinking were not forced by God to sin, but God as an infinite being had and used the power to use their sin for the greater good. So to say that God willed evil for the greater good means that God could use sinful actions of others in order to accomplish his divine purpose. Calvin stated:

For we do not say that the wicked sin of necessity in such a way as to imply that they sin without wilful and deliberate evil intent. The necessity comes from the fact that God accomplishes his work, which is sure and steadfast, through them. At the same time, however, the will and purpose to do evil which dwells within them makes them liable to censure. But, it is said, they are driven and forced to this by God. Indeed, but in such a way that in a single deed the action of God is one thing and their own action is another. For they gratify their evil and wicked desires, but God turns this wickedness so as to bring his judgements (judgments) to execution. Calvin (1543)(1996: 37).

God could set up events in such a way that someone would freely choose to sin, but this is not done in such a way that God is forcing or determining one to do so. Within this thesis I want to make it clear that I believe the problem of evil is, in large measure, a human problem. I believe in a human fall through sinful choice. God can still will, in a sense, that these sinful actions work for the greater good, but I do not believe in a Universe where God forces and predetermines people to commit individual sin. People are sinful in nature as they are descendants of Adam. This inherited and sinful nature means people will freely choose to sin and God does not coerce them into doing so. He may provide situations where he knows that certain individuals will sin, but his motives in this are for the greater good. This is not the most satisfying doctrine I suppose, but Biblically and philosophically valid nonetheless. This concept will be discussed throughout my thesis.

End of MPhil quote

PhD amendment

The MPhil argument

God wills evil for the greater good.

God does not cause, as in force or coerce significantly free human thoughts and actions.

A practical theological and less philosophical use of the term cause is provided.

Persons cause significantly free human actions.

Therefore:

Hard determinism is not used by God when persons sin.

I wrote my MPhil in 2003, and since then my understanding of compatibilism has increased. Plus, I need to point out that my advisor wanted me to clearly point out that God was not in practical theological terms the antecedent cause of sin, as in making persons sin. I still agree with the statement that God does not determine that people sin in the sense that I do not believe God uses compulsion or force. God was not the antecedent (preceding cause) of sin in the sense of God coercing or forcing people to commit sinful acts.

The point I was making was that God does not use hard determinism to cause people to sin as if they were sinning by compulsion and not freely.

However, it should be pointed out that in another more strictly philosophical sense, as God is sovereign over all events, he is the primary cause of evil and sin and he determines and allows human beings to freely sin as the secondary cause. In that sense God is the antecedent of sin.

However, God's motives remain pure in all that he wills. The statement was denying hard determinism, but not soft determinism.

With my PhD I now approach the topic more from the perspective of philosophy of religion and less from a practical theological perspective as with the MPhil. This is more so the case than a changing of my mind with the topic.

The PhD argument

God wills evil for the greater good.

God is the cause of all things.

A technical, philosophical use of the term cause is used.

God has the power to prohibit evil, and therefore what he does not prohibit he sanctions/causes.

Persons are a secondary cause of significantly free human actions.

Therefore:

Hard determinism is not used by God when persons sin.

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

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

Photos from the Skypark in Marina Bay Sands Hotel, Singapore

Thanks, Mom.

Practical theology and social justice (PhD edit)

Thanks, Mom, for photos sent by email.

Practical theology and social justice (PhD edit)

Practical theology is sociopolitically committed.[1] Persons from ‘below’ are a focus of practical theology, these being people who experience institutionalized injustice and oppression.[2] The Church should not simply attempt to raise itself to heaven in a sense,[3] but needs to focus on working within the world.[4] Robert McAfee Brown (1984) comments that in the Bible, in places such as Exodus, God takes a position against those who promote oppression and injustice.[5] God at times does take sides in human struggles,[6] and God does side with the oppressed.[7] Christians are sometimes in the delicate and tricky position of staying true to Biblical standards and yet standing with those who are oppressed and within the world system,[8] even if they are not believers and live outside of Christian morality. Those in power who call themselves Christians need to be respectfully challenged if they are perceived with a significant deal of evidence, to be involved in abusive practice.[10] Western Christians need to examine the side they are on in many of the world’s social struggles, particularly in regard to the third world.[11]

In my mind there is a danger that Christianity, whether conservative or liberal, becomes overly influenced by cultures where it exists.

Any historical corruption of the Christian Church is, in the end, a poor witness of Christ and the gospel and weakens the credibility of Christian ministry in the minds of many critics.

[1] Pattison and Woodward (2000)(2007: 14-15).

[2] Pattison and Woodward (2000)(2007: 15).

[3] Anderson (2001:181).

[4] Anderson (2001:181). The Church must work within the world without being worldly at the expense of being true to the Holy Spirit. This is no easy task for a large institution such as the Church.

[5] Brown (1984: 34).

[6] Brown (1984: 34).

[7] Brown (1984: 41).

[8] Anderson (2001:181).

[9] Brown (1984: 160-161).

[10] Brown (1984: 160-161). The third world is also known as the developing world.

[11] Anderson reasons the Church needs to repent for wrong doing in its existence. Anderson (2001: 180-181).

ANDERSON, RAY S. (2001) The Shape of Practical Theology, Downers Grove, Illinois, InterVarsity Press.

BROWN, ROBERT MCAFEE (1984) Unexpected News, Philadelphia, The Westminster Press.

WOODWARD, JAMES AND STEPHEN PATTISON (2000)(2007)(eds.), The Blackwell Reader in Pastoral and Practical Theology, Oxford, Blackwell Publishing.

Process Theism: Alfred North Whitehead (PhD edit)

Process Theism: Alfred North Whitehead (PhD edit)

Photo is Lampeter, Wales, Pinterest, 2020

Preface

Slight revisions with additions 20240804.

Process Theism: Alfred North Whitehead

Process theism refers to a general group of theological concepts attributed to Alfred North Whitehead (1861-1947)[1] and Charles Hartshorne (1897-2000).[2] Whitehead is the more preeminent exemplar and within Process and Reality (1927-1929)(1957) explains he desired to complete an account of humanity and its experience in relation to philosophical problems.[3] In Religion In The Making (1926) Whitehead explains it is legitimate to attempt with a more definite knowledge of metaphysics, to interpret human experience, but these general principles must be amplified and adapted into one general system of truth.[4] Whitehead disagreed with a traditional view of a ‘transcendent creator, at whose fiat the world came into being, and whose imposed will it obeys.’[5] The nature of God needed to be philosophically constructed anew.[6] A balance is sought between God’s immanence[7] and transcendence,[8] and a concept of static transcendence is rejected as instead God is understood to have a evolutionary transcendence.[9] God and the physical realm are immanent with each other and God’s transcendence means their realities are not identical and not always determined by each other.[10] God is fully reasoned to be involved and influenced by temporal events and processes.[11] These processes unfold as sequences of events over time.[12] God, contrary to classic and traditional Christian theism is finite, temporal, changeable[13] and experiences intense emotion, pain and sadness.[14] Whitehead explains that ‘It is not true that God is on all respects infinite.’[15] Process theology is a philosophical approach that does not rely on any kind of divine revelation.[16] Instead it relies on a process of change over time as a theory of metaphysics.[17] God’s actual concrete nature is responsive and influenced by the processes that take in the world, and therefore God is limited.[18] Some things are unknowable for God, that he only can realize as they happen,[19] and as these new things develop God’s knowledge processes over time.[20] Divine sovereignty is questionable and certainly no longer absolute within this system.[21]

Whitehead, a mathematician and philosopher,[22] established a speculative philosophy of metaphysics within a scientific non-metaphysical reality.[23] This system is an attempt to adequately explain all individual beings in existence, including God.[24] Basically a system of metaphysics needed to be developed that would work with modern scientific theories and reality, and therefore God was not a ‘static essence’ but a process.[25] The ‘actual entities’[26] that make up this process are non-permanent and transient and each action and activity is dipolar having a physical pole of the past and a mental pole which is a possibility that can be achieved.[27] The physical pole feels the physical reality of actual entity, while the mental pole feels or prehends as Whitehead calls it, the eternal objects by which actual entities have conceptual definiteness.[28] These physical and mental poles are an aspect of every real being/actual entities although they are not real things themselves.[29] Prehends is the feeling of grasping the physical and conceptual information concerning actual entities.[30] This will occur within a stream and series of occasions.[31] All occurrences take place within the process of these actual entities.[32] Each event is partially self-created and partially influenced by other occasions and entities.[33] God is also dipolar[34] and his nontemporal pole is where God conceives the infinite variety of external objects and sees the possibilities and provides the opportunity for the process of becoming.[35] God is an actual entity and being.[36] God has a primordial nature and consequent nature, with the primordial being conceptual, while the consequent nature is God as conscious.[37] Whitehead explains that the ‘consequent nature is the weaving of God’s physical feelings upon his primordial concepts.’[38] God’s primordial conceptual nature is infinite and does not have negative prehension/feelings, and is eternal and unconscious.[39] This nature is permanent as God works out endless possibilities.[40] God in his vision can determine every possibility and adjust details where needed.[41] The consequent nature of God originates with physical experience with the material temporal world and it is integrated with the primordial conceptual nature.[42] The consequent nature as conscious is determined, finite and incomplete.[43] These two aspects of God’s deity can be distinguished but are inseparable.[44] This consequent conscious nature had God constantly acquiring new experiences.[45] A problem arises that if God’s primordial nature is eternal and unconscious[46] it precedes the consequent nature that is temporal[47] and has consciousness. I question whether an unconscious deity would in any way proceed to a conscious temporal reality. Where did God’s consciousness come from? I reason consciousness would have to exist eternally to lead to a finite reality of consciousness.[48]

[1] Viney (2008: 1).

[2] Viney (2008: 1).

[3] Whitehead (1927-1929)(1957: vi).

[4] Whitehead (1926: 149).

[5] Whitehead (1927-1929)(1957: 404).

[6] Whitehead (1926: 150).

[7] God is actively present within reality and creation. Erickson (1994: 302).

[8] God by nature is beyond and separate from his material creation. Grenz, Guretzki, and Nordling (1999: 115).

[9] A balance needed to be sought as there were extreme views concerning God as impersonal force behind the universe as in deism and also the view that God has absolute sovereignty as the sole creator of matter. Whitehead (1926: 150).

[10] Viney (2008: 10).

[11] Viney (2008: 1). Diehl (1996: 880).

[12] Blackburn (1996: 305). The process is not according to a motion of changeless matter. Diehl (1996: 881).

[13] God is not immutable as is classically defined.

[14] God is not impassible according to this view.

[15] Whitehead (1926: 153). Whitehead claims that if God was infinite in all ways this would make him as infinitely evil as he is good. I doubt logically and reasonably that an infinitely holy and good God could at the same time be infinitely evil and so I can grant Whitehead half a point here. I definitely agree with Whitehead that an infinitely good and evil God would be a God of nothingness. Whitehead (1926: 153). I doubt this being could logically exist.

[16] Viney (2008: 1). Diehl (1996: 881).

[17] Viney (2008: 1).

[18] Erickson (1994: 280).

[19] Erickson (1994: 280).

[20] Erickson (1994: 280).

[21] Erickson (1994: 280).

[22] Grenz and Olsen (1992: 135). Diehl (1996: 881).

[23] Grenz and Olsen (1992: 135).

[24] Diehl (1996: 881).

[25] Grenz and Olsen (1992: 135).

[26] Grenz and Olsen (1992: 135). Diehl (1996: 881).

[27] Grenz and Olsen (1992: 136). Diehl (1996: 881).

[28] Diehl (1996: 881). Whitehead (1927-1929)(1957: 407).

[29] Viney (2008: 8).

[30] Diehl (1996: 881). Viney (2008: 9).

[31] Grenz and Olsen (1992: 136).

[32] Diehl (1996: 881).

[33] Diehl (1996: 881).

[34] Whitehead (1927-1929)(1957: 407). Viney (2008: 8).

[35] Grenz and Olsen (1992: 137).

[36] Viney (2008: 9).

[37] Whitehead (1927-1929)(1957: 407).

[38] Whitehead (1927-1929)(1957: 407).

[39] Whitehead (1927-1929)(1957: 407).

[40] Viney (2008: 9).

[41] Whitehead (1926: 153-154).

[42] Whitehead (1927-1929)(1957: 407).

[43] Whitehead (1927-1929)(1957: 407).

[44] Viney (2008: 9).

[45] Viney (2008: 9).

[46] Whitehead (1927-1929)(1957: 407).

[47] Whitehead (1927-1929)(1957: 407).

[48] An eternal reality of unconsciousness should lead to a finite reality of unconsciousness.

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

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

DIEHL, DAVID W. (1996) ‘Process Theology’, in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.

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

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

VINEY, DAVID (2008) ‘Process Theism’, in Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Palo Alto, California, Stanford University.

WHITEHEAD, ALFRED NORTH (1926) Religion in the Making, New York, The MacMillan Company.

WHITEHEAD, ALFRED NORTH (1927-1929)(1957) Process and Reality, New York, The Free Press/MacMillan Publishing Company, Incorporated.

WHITEHEAD, ALFRED NORTH (1967)(1986) ‘Adventures of Ideas’, in Forest Wood JR., Whiteheadian Thought as a Basis for a Philosophy of Religion, University of Southern Mississippi, Hattiesburg, University Press of America, Inc.

Referencing my PhD and website work

John Frame explains that God cannot perform logically contradictory actions, Frame (2002: 518). Erickson (1994: 277). Shedd (1874-1890)(1980: 359-360 Volume 1). God cannot make a square circle, Frame (2002: 518). Thiessen (1956: 126). God cannot commit that which is immoral and sinful, Frame (2002: 518). Thiessen (1956: 126). Weber (1955)(1981: 440). Interestingly, God cannot commit actions ‘appropriate only to finite creatures.’ Frame (2002: 520). God cannot logically have finite attributes. All of God's attributes and nature are infinite.

In the incarnation, God the Son takes a finite human nature, as Jesus Christ, while remaining the eternal, infinite God. But the infinite and finite natures do not mix. God the Son, as infinite, within the Trinity, did (does) take a finite, human nature in the incarnation. Correctly, and classically, the natures do not mix. Jesus Christ is both finite man and infinite God. There is an aspect of mystery in the incarnation, but the Triune nature of God which is infinite and eternal is not altered by Christ taking on additional finite human nature. According to the Pocket Dictionary, the hypostatic union is the theological term which describes the bringing together of the divine and human natures of Jesus Christ is one person. (62). God the Son, Jesus Christ, being both fully human and fully divine. (62). Hypostasis (ὑπόστασις) from the Greek in this context, is the essential nature and essence of a person/entity.

Bible Hub 

Cited 

'Strong's Concordance hupostasis: a support, substance, steadiness, hence assurance Original 

Word: ὑπόστασις, εως, ἡ 

Part of Speech: Noun, Feminine 

Transliteration: hupostasis 

Phonetic Spelling: (hoop-os'-tas-is) 

Definition: a support, substance, steadiness, assurance 

Usage: (lit: an underlying), (a) confidence, assurance, (b) a giving substance (or reality) to, or a guaranteeing, (c) substance, reality.' 

Cited

'Englishman's Concordance'

'Hebrews 1:3 N-GFS (Nominative, Genitive, Feminine, Singular my add)

GRK: χαρακτὴρ τῆς ὑποστάσεως αὐτοῦ φέρων 

NAS: and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds 

KJV: of his person, and INT: [the] exact expression of the substance of him upholding' 

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

ERICKSON, MILLARD (2003) What Does God Know and When Does He Know It?, Grand Rapids, Zondervan.

FRAME, JOHN M. (1999) ‘The Bible on the Problem of Evil: Insights from Romans 3:1-8,21-26; 5:1-5; 8:28-39’, IIIM Magazine Online, Volume 1, Number 33, October 11 to October 17, Fern Park, Florida, Third Millennium. 

FRAME, JOHN M. (2002) The Doctrine of God, P and R Publishing, Phillipsburg, New Jersey.

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

SHEDD, WILLIAM G.T. (1874-1890)(1980) Dogmatic Theology, Volume 1, Nashville, Thomas Nelson Publishers. 

SHEDD, WILLIAM G.T. (1874-1890)(1980) Dogmatic Theology, Volume 2, Nashville, Thomas Nelson Publishers. 

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

WEBER, OTTO (1955)(1981) Foundations of Dogmatics, Volumes 1 and 2, Translated and annotated by Darrell L. Guder, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

Why rebellion?

Why rebellion?

Photo: Me walking from my hotel in Edinburgh to the city centre, 20240411 with Golden filter  

1 Preface 

An 20100605 article revised on Blogger 20250327. This features a revised section below from my PhD thesis that asked why God allowed human rebellion within his creation. 

2010 Theodicy and Practical Theology: PhD thesis, the University of Wales, Trinity Saint David, Lampeter 

Sunday, January 05, 2025 PhD and MPhil theses linked 

Saturday, September 19, 2020 PhD Full Version PDF: Theodicy and Practical Theology 2010, Wales TSD

2 Why Rebellion?

Within a compatibilistic sovereignty theodicy as opposed to the related in content, but somewhat different, incompatibilistic free will theodicy, I deduce a theoretical, possible and suitable reason why God created a good world and willingly, allowed human beings to rebel against him. 

Certain persons will experience evil and atonement 

Certain persons will have experienced their own sin, suffering, death, and the atoning work of Christ and his resurrection applied to them. Post-mortem and at the resurrection, these would be citizens of the culminated Kingdom of God. These certain persons are biblically the predestined, chosen to embrace, in regeneration (John 3, Titus 3, 1 Peter 1, as examples) the gospel message in belief by grace through faith.

Predestination: John 3

Bible Hub: John 3

John 3: 3

γεννηθῇ be born

ἄνωθεν from above

Bible Hub: 1080 

Strong's 1080

Strong's Concordance gennaó: to beget, to bring forth 

Original Word: γεννάω 

Part of Speech: Verb Transliteration: gennaó 

Phonetic Spelling: (ghen-nah'-o) 

Definition: to beget, to bring forth Usage: I beget (of the male), (of the female) I bring forth, give birth to.

Bible Hub: 509 

Strong's 509

Strong's Concordance anóthen: from above 

Original Word: ἄνωθεν 

Part of Speech: Adverb Transliteration: anóthen 

Phonetic Spelling: (an'-o-then) 

Definition: from above 

Usage: (a) from above, from heaven, (b) from the beginning, from their origin (source), from of old, (c) again, anew.

Predestination: Titus 3

Wednesday, September 06, 2017 Titus 3: 5-7: Regeneration

Edited 

'by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit' from the New American Standard Bible (NASB) 

Bible Hub: παλιγγενεσία, ας, ἡ 

Strong's 3824

Strong's Concordance paliggenesia: regeneration, renewal 

Original Word: παλιγγενεσία, ας, ἡ 

Part of Speech: Noun, Feminine 

Transliteration: paliggenesia 

Phonetic Spelling: (pal-ing-ghen-es-ee'-ah) 

Short Definition: a new birth, regeneration 

Definition: a new birth, regeneration, renewal.

From Titus 3: 5 The main text of Strong's presents: Spiritual rebirth (figurative), spiritual regeneration (figurative). (72). Greek scholar Bauer documents this as: The rebirth of the redeemed person. (606). The regeneration and rebirth via the Holy Spirit. (606).

Jon Courson writes that those in Christ have been 'washed and renewed' (1424), not because of our own human righteousness, but because of the work of Jesus Christ. (1424). I suggest this supports a theology of justification, the applied righteousness of Christ to believers, and salvation for believers, through grace through faith, alone. We have been renewed and washed. (1424). Washing is symbolic, in part at least through baptism, in my view. Although there is the idea of being cleansed of sin through the sanctification process. 

Nute suggests in his commentary that washing is the cleansing in the new birth. (1496). And this may include the thought of baptism as a symbol of cleansing. (1496). The Pocket Dictionary defines regeneration as rebirth or re-creation as in being born again. (101). Salvation does include legal justification and the imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ to believers, and as well, sanctification.

Predestination: 1 Peter 1

Bible Hub: 1 Peter 1: 3

ἀναγεννήσας having begotten again

Bible Hub: 313

Strong's 313

Strong's Concordance anagennaó: to beget again 

Original Word: ἀναγεννάω 

Part of Speech: Verb 

Transliteration: anagennaó 

Phonetic Spelling: (an-ag-en-nah'-o) 

Definition: to beget again 

Usage: I beget again, beget into a new life.

The website lists this as aorist, participle, active, and nominative, masculine, singular.

Bauer documents ἀναγεννάω (page 51), defined as beget again, be born again, figurative of spiritual rebirth of Christians. (51). This is the context of 1 Peter 1: 3,  born again. (51).

Biblically and theologically, the new birth, to beget again, being born again equates to regeneration.

Persons cannot be created with experience 

Very importantly, persons cannot be created with experience, even if made with a level of initial maturity. God can create a perfect person, but God cannot logically create a perfect person with experience as such. The act of creating implies newness and inexperience. Admittedly, God could hypothetically create a being with false memories of a perfect life, but this would not be the same as having experience. I deduce the results would not be the same. 

Through problem of evil certain persons will become Christ-like

It is reasonable to deduce that the problem of evil is possibly God’s means of developing certain individuals to eventual Christ-like stature, not sharing Christ’s divinity in nature but becoming like Christ in a mature and moral manner, combined with an unbreakable devotion to God. This would be finite moral perfection and goodness but not infinite, God-like moral perfection and goodness. As example, Isaiah 43 makes it clear there was no God formed before God and there will be no God formed after. Isaiah 44-46 make similar statements.

Conclusion: Those within culminated Kingdom will have greater spiritual maturity than initial persons

A reason for God to willfully allow human rebellion 

My theory and conclusion is that human beings in Christ, post-mortem within the culminated Kingdom of God, with the use of compatibilism will eventually have greater spiritual maturity than Adam and Eve did prior to a fall from God. It would also appear that God ultimately prefers persons (human ones at least) as they will be in the culminated Kingdom, over persons in a different scenario that would have never freely chosen to disobey God. Perhaps in that case as well the former group would have greater spiritual maturity.

Further Explanation 

It is believed that Christ will be God’s lieutenant in this godless world and bring about, through his crucifixion and resurrection, the promise of a better future, which includes hope. Moltmann (1993: 256). The Kingdom of God was present in Christ and this has been defined in history. Moltmann (1993: 263). God would not have to go through such a process as he is infinitely good and human beings are finitely good and capable of falling. That being stated, some angels apparently never did fall and yet had finite goodness. I reason God could theoretically create significantly free finite beings that would fall, and significantly free finite beings that would not.

---

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

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

AUGUSTINE (400-416)(1987)(2004) On the Trinity, Translated by Reverend Arthur West Haddan, in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series One, Volume 3, Denver, The Catholic Encyclopedia. 

AUGUSTINE (421)(1998) Enchiridion, Translated by J.F. Shaw, Denver, The Catholic Encyclopedia. 

AUGUSTINE (426)(1958) The City of God, Translated by Gerald G. Walsh, Garden City, New York, Image Books. 

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

AUGUSTINE (427b)(1997) On Christian Teaching, Translated by R.P.H. Green, Oxford, Oxford University Press. 

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

CALVIN, JOHN (1539)(1998) The Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book II, Translated by Henry Beveridge, Grand Rapids, The Christian Classic Ethereal Library, Wheaton College. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/institutes.html

CALVIN, JOHN (1539)(1998) The Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book IV, Translated by Henry Beveridge, Grand Rapids, The Christian Classic Ethereal Library, Wheaton College. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/institutes.html 

CALVIN, JOHN (1540)(1973) Romans and Thessalonians, Translated by Ross Mackenzie, Grand Rapids, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. 

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

CALVIN, JOHN (1550)(1978) Concerning Scandals, Translated by John W. Fraser, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. 

CALVIN, JOHN (1552)(1995) Acts, Translated by Watermark, Nottingham, Crossway Books. 

CALVIN, JOHN (1553)(1952) Job, Translated by Leroy Nixon, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House. 

CALVIN, JOHN (1554)(1965) Genesis, Translated by John King, Edinburgh, The Banner of Truth Trust.

COURSON, JON (2005) Application Commentary, Thomas Nelson, Nashville.

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

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

FEINBERG, JOHN.S. (2001) No One Like Him, John S. Feinberg (gen.ed.), Wheaton, Illinois, Crossway Books.

FLEW, ANTONY (1955) ‘Divine Omnipotence and Human Freedom’, in Antony Flew and A. MacIntrye (eds), New Essays in Philosophical Theology, London, SCM Press.

FLEW, ANTONY, R.M. HARE, AND BASIL MITCHELL (1996) ‘The Debate on the Rationality of Religious Belief’, in L.P. Pojman (ed.), Philosophy, The Quest for Truth, New York, Wadsworth Publishing Company. 

FLEW, ANTONY AND A.MACINTRYE (1999) ‘Philosophy of Religion’, in Alan Richardson and John Bowden (eds.), A New Dictionary of Christian Theology, Kent, SCM Press Ltd.

GEIVETT, R. DOUGLAS (1993) Evil and the Evidence for God, Philadelphia, Temple University Press.

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

HICK, JOHN (1970) Evil and The God of Love, London, The Fontana Library. 

HICK, JOHN (1978) ‘Present and Future Life’, Harvard Theological Review, Volume 71, Number 1-2, January-April, Harvard University. 

HICK, JOHN (1981) Encountering Evil, Stephen T. Davis (ed.), Atlanta, John Knox Press. 

HICK, JOHN (1993) ‘Afterword’ in GEIVETT, R. DOUGLAS (1993) Evil and the Evidence for God, Philadelphia, Temple University Press. 

HICK, JOHN (1993) The Metaphor of God Incarnate, Louisville, Kentucky, John Know Press. 

HICK, JOHN (1994) Death and Eternal Life, Louisville, Kentucky, John Knox Press.

HICK, JOHN (1999) ‘Life after Death’, in Alan Richardson and John Bowden (eds.), A New Dictionary of Christian Theology, Kent, SCM Press.

LEIBNIZ, G.W. (1710)(1998) Theodicy, Translated by E.M. Huggard Chicago, Open Court Classics. 

MACKIE, J.L. (1955)(1996) ‘Evil and Omnipotence’, in Mind, in Michael Peterson, William Hasker, Bruce Reichenbach, and David Basinger (eds.), Philosophy of Religion, Oxford, Oxford University Press. 

MACKIE, J.L. (1971)(1977)(2002) ‘Evil and Omnipotence’, in The Philosophy of Religion, in Alvin C. Plantinga, God, Freedom, and Evil, Grand Rapids. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

MOLTMANN, JÜRGEN (1993) The Crucified God, Minneapolis, Fortress Press. 

NUTE, ALAN G. (1986) in 'Titus', The International Bible Commentary, F.F. Bruce, General Editor, Grand Rapids, Zondervan/Marshall Pickering. 

PLANTINGA, ALVIN.C. (1977)(2002) God, Freedom, and Evil, Grand Rapids, Wm. B.  Eerdmans Publishing Company.  

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

PLANTINGA, ALVIN C. (2000) Warranted Christian Belief, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

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

---

Photos below: June 2010

Eleven atonement citations

English Standard Version (ESV) 

Romans 3:24-26 

24 And are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. 26 It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.

Romans 3:25 

Whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. 

Romans 5:6-10 

6 For while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. 7 For one will scarcely die for a righteous person—though perhaps for a good person one would dare even to die— 8 but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. 9 Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God. 10 For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life... 

2 Corinthians 5:21 

For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God. 

Hebrews 9:12 

He entered once for all into the holy places, not by means of the blood of goats and calves but by means of his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption. 

1 Peter 2:24 

He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed. 

1 Peter 3:18 

For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit... 

1 John 1:7 

But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin. 

1 John 2:2 

He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.

1 John 4:10 

In this is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins. 

Revelation 5:9 

And they sang a new song, saying, “Worthy are you to take the scroll and to open its seals, for you were slain, and by your blood you ransomed people for God from every tribe and language and people and nation...

Eleven resurrection citations 

English Standard Version (ESV) 

John 6:40 

For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.”

John 11:25 

Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. Whoever believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live...

Romans 6:4 

We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.

Romans 6:5 

For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his.

1 Corinthians 15:12-14 

12 Now if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13 But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. 14 And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain. 

1 Corinthians 15:21 

For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead.

Philippians 3:10 

That I may know him and the power of his resurrection, and may share his sufferings, becoming like him in his death...

1 Thessalonians 4:14 

For since we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so, through Jesus, God will bring with him those who have fallen asleep. 

1 Thessalonians 4:16 

For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the voice of an archangel, and with the sound of the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first.

2 Thessalonians 2: 7-8 

7 For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work. Only he who now restrains it will do so until he is out of the way. 8 And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will kill with the breath of his mouth and bring to nothing by the appearance of his coming.

(This connects to 1 Thessalonians 4, my add)

1 Peter 1:3 

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! According to his great mercy, he has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead...