David Hume (1711-1776) PhD Edit

Saint Petersburg, trekearth

David Hume (1711-1776) PhD Edit

David Hume: Preface

Blackburn describes David Hume (1711-1776) the Scottish philosopher, historian and writer as the most influential modern naturalist. Blackburn (1996: 179). Hume would also be known as an empiricist and Blackburn correctly notes Hume as a key figure in the Enlightenment. Blackburn (1996: 179). The following is edited material where I dealt with Hume within my Doctorate. I add more material for this article.

David Hume on Theodicy

David Hume (1779)(2004) discusses the danger of traditional superstition in religious presentations, Hume (1779)(2004: 7) and doubtless a reasonable, open-minded, philosophical approach from a theist would be far more helpful within a theodicy. He also warns against theistic claims of being able to adequately understand the Supreme Being, if there is one. Hume (1779)(2004: 21-27). This Being’s attributes would be ‘incomprehensible and it basically impossible for the theist to understand the nature of this being. Hume (1779)(2004: 21). If Hume is correct, constructing a theodicy would be largely meaningless. To counter this problem, Biblical Revelation would be required in order that God reveals self in context of the issue of theodicy.

May 29, 2011

Within my PhD research Augustine’s free will approach to theodicy made use of Scripture and yet was also philosophical. Plantinga’s free will defence was philosophical. Feinberg’s sovereignty theodicy was both Biblical and philosophical as was my sovereignty approach which was not formally presented separately but was basically embedded within my work. My project with the use of exemplars and my own earned expertise did not fall prey to Hume’s criticisms of constructing largely meaningless theodicy. This is not a claim of intellectual perfection by any means.

David Hume on God’s Sovereignty

Phillips explains that a Reformed view is that God has the freedom to act as he wants. Phillips (2005: 22). This would be God’s sovereign providence, but Hume is skeptical of this concept. Hume (1779)(2004: 50). People throughout the world view certain evils, which may be rectified in other regions of the world or in the future, and understand these good events as being connected to general laws and the existence of a good deity. Hume suggests that these are superstitions, and questions whether in many cases a ‘cause can be known but from its known effects?’ The idea is then presented that if God is benevolent his providence should lead to a world without suffering and wickedness. Hume (1779)(2004: 50).

May 29, 2011

This is the logical problem of evil. ‘The idea is then presented that if God is benevolent his providence should lead to a world without suffering and wickedness’. Much of the problem of evil and theodicy discussion within my thesis concerning free will, sovereignty, and soul-making presentations and atheistic counters concerns the logical problem of evil and also the gratuitous problem of evil. Other theses, books and articles may deal with various approaches, perhaps of other religions and worldviews. For example, hypothetically, evil could be denied as a reality.

Below is edited from previous work, but is a good summary of the major views to briefly answer Hume:

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.

Within On Free Choice of the Will, Augustine presents his free will theodicy, theodicy being an explanation for the problem of evil in a theistic universe. Augustine was somewhat influential on Alvin C. Plantinga’s free will defence in the 1970’s. Plantinga (1977)(2002: 26). Augustine reasons that God is not the cause of evil, but rather human beings create the problem when they choose to follow their own temporal ways rather than God’s. Augustine (388-395)(1964: 3). A possible problem with Augustine’s view is that he blames the problem of evil on human choice but at the same time places a heavy emphasis on God’s sovereignty in creation. Augustine’s view on human free will appears libertarian while, as John Feinberg points out, Augustine’s concept of God’s sovereignty would seemingly require some form of determinism. Feinberg (1994: 98).

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

Within this text Feinberg presents a defence which could be labeled a sovereignty theodicy. My personal sovereignty theodicy is embedded within my MPhil and more so my PhD and is somewhat similar to Feinberg’s work. As well as presenting his own perspective Feinberg does a thorough job of reviewing various theistic and atheistic concepts on the problem of evil. He reasons that God does not presently eliminate the problem of evil because to do so would violate divine plans and human development. Feinberg (1994: 130). I found Feinberg’s explanation of this a bit repetitive and it would perhaps be good for him to have speculated on God’s reasons for willingly allowing evil in more specific terms as I have to some degree in my work.

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

Plantinga successfully demonstrates that a free will defence is logical and reasonable. Plantinga (1977)(2002: 28). He speculates that the price of God creating a universe with significantly free creatures is that wrong actions will inevitably occur leading to the problem of evil. Plantinga (1977)(2002: 30). Plantinga’s free will approach is not primarily theological as is Augustine’s and therefore offers a different but somewhat related perspective. 

A question arises if Plantinga has really successfully answered the objection of theistic critics such as Feinberg, and atheists such as J.L. Mackie on why God could not simply create human beings who were significantly free and never committed wrong actions. I believe that God could have created significantly free human beings, or at least human-like creatures that only committed right actions. Perhaps God desired to create human beings that would ultimately posses a greater spiritual maturity than Adam and Eve prior to the fall because those restored in Christ would have experienced sin, the problem of evil, death and the atoning work and resurrection of Christ. Quite possibly restored human beings would ultimately be more spiritually mature and valuable to God than persons that never knew what it was like to disobey God and experience evil. I would also point out that Biblically speaking the angels that did not fall would seemingly be significantly free and have not committed wrong actions.

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

Hick rejects Augustinian and Calvinistic views on theodicy, and instead supports what he views as the Irenean position. Hick (1970: 221). Ramsay (2004: 2). Hick also rejects conservative Christian doctrines and instead favours the idea of universalism. Hick (1970: 172). Hick (1970: 381). He reasons that human beings were made immature and capable of committing wrong human actions in order that God eventually can bring all persons to the creator through soul-making. Hick (1970: 292). I can accept that some type of soul-making is used by God in the development of believers, but without the atoning work of Christ and resurrection within a Christian tradition we do not have a revealed divine means of salvation and are left to speculate on how God should or could save persons, as Hick speculates.

David Hume on Consciousness

Consciousness is not a new intellectual subject, as David Hume writes in the article A Treatise of Human Nature’ that most philosophers think personal identity begins with consciousness, which is reflected thought or perception. Although the exact nature of human consciousness is not known, it does work with human thought and perception. Hume found no theory of consciousness provided him with intellectual satisfaction. Rene Descartes (1596-1650) in Conversation with Burman, defined consciousness as the possible internal source of knowledge concerning a person’s own thoughts or mental occurrences. To have consciousness was to be able to understand one’s own thoughts.

I dealt with more philosophical/scientific journals in my PhD in regard to consciousness for post-viva revisions and documented some of the work in this post below. From my reading, academically consciousness and the related subject of desires, still lacked much intellectual clarity even as they were being studied within the fields of philosophy, religion, psychology and psychiatry.

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

---

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.

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

BLOCHER, HENRI (1994) Evil and the Cross, Translated by David G. Preston, Leicester, InterVarsity Press.

DESCARTES, RENE (1648)(1996) Conversation with Burman, in Eric Lormand: University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, The University of Michigan.

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.

GIERER, ALFRED (2003)‘Brain, mind, and limitations of a scientific theory of human consciousness’, Preprint of a contribution to the symposium: Proteus im Spiegel-Kritische Theorie des Subjekts im 20, Tubingen, Max-Planck-Institute Biology, Tubingen.

GUTMANN, JAMES (1845)(1936) ‘Introduction’ in SCHELLING, F.W.J. (1845)(1936) Schelling, Of Human Freedom, Translated by James Gutmann, The Open Court Publishing Company, Chicago.

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.

HUME, DAVID (1739-1740)(1973) ‘A Treatise of Human Nature’, in Paul Edwards and Arthur Pap (eds.), A Modern Introduction To Philosophy, New York, The Free Press.

HUME, DAVID (1779)(2004) Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, Lawrence, Kansas.

PHILLIPS, D.Z. (1981) Encountering Evil, Stephen T. Davis (ed.), Atlanta, John Knox Press.

PHILLIPS, D.Z. (2005) The Problem of Evil and the Problem of God, Fortress Press, Minneapolis.

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.

SCHELLING, F.W.J. (1845)(1936) Schelling, Of Human Freedom, Translated by James Gutmann, The Open Court Publishing Company, Chicago.

Restoration Why Later? (PhD Edit)

Lake Wakatipu, New Zealand (trekearth.com)

I am going to try to write one post per month per blog (thekingpin68 and satire and theology) and I will attempt to place more than one section/article in each post. So two posts per month overall, with always the possibility of more.

I am not personally interested in a 'Twitter' like short blog approach with several monthly posts. Although I admit some have success with it.

Thank you to you loyal readers including the anonymous ones. Commenters, followers and links also appreciated of course. Cheers.

A. Restoration Why Later? (PhD Edit)

Sovereignty approaches such as those of John Feinberg, state that God was just and perfect in how he dealt with creation.[1] These claim that a good God created a good world and that human rebellion and the problem of evil existed for a good reason.[2] Yet sovereignty approaches believe that God would ultimately culminate his Kingdom of God[3] and eliminate the problem of evil.[4] As D.Z. Phillips notes, ‘Theodicists want happy endings.’[5] Feinberg admits the difficulty with his approach because it defends God allowing the problem of evil in his creation for a time period that is unknown to human beings,[6] and at the same time claims that God would eventually restore his creation.[7] He notes that free will and evolutionary theistic approaches to the problem of evil also assume that God would restore his creation, and so this was a common theistic assumption.[8] The fact that his sovereignty approach accepts restoration of the creation within it in no way makes his presentation internally inconsistent.[9] Phillips explains that this general type of approach views God as compensating persons for the sufferings in life.[10] Evil and suffering is therefore redeemed in some way.[11] Evil and suffering would be worthwhile within a Christian world view where Christ prevails. Phillips warns that at its worst Christianity can push one to back the right supernatural force,[12] as in not backing Satan.[13] Phillips suggests that no one wants to back a loser and so Christians should logically, within their worldview, back God and not Satan.[14] God becomes a means and not an end within this type of Christian approach.[15] It should be interjected that Christianity should not be primarily about being on the winning side, rather it should be concerned, for the most part, with doing God’s will obediently in love.[16] Phillips views it as problematic that Jesus stated his Kingdom was not of this world and yet in the Second Coming establishes his Kingdom on this earth.[17]

Feinberg thought it was not his objective to answer why God allowed the problem of evil and would eventually bring restoration, and I view this as a weakness.[18] Rather, Feinberg believes he was successful in presenting an approach that showed God was good,[19] as was his creation.[20] Calvin writes that God would begin anew in humanity by abolishing the fallen will, leaving the human will in its original state.[21] God would turn evil to good, according to Calvin,[22] thus bringing a new humanity which was a new creation.[23] This human restoration and rebirth, Calvin (1552)(1995) notes,[24] would lead to the culmination of the Kingdom of God, and the ultimate blessing of immortality.[25]

Within a sovereignty approach, I deduce a theoretical, possible and suitable reason why God created a good world and allowed human beings to rebel against him.[26] My theory is that human beings that are saved through Christ with the use of compatibilism will eventually have greater spiritual maturity than Adam and Eve did prior to a fall from God. If the idea of a literal Adam and Eve is rejected, as was mentioned by Jackson and Fretheim[27] it can be reasoned that those within the culminated Kingdom of God will surpass those first persons in spiritual maturity as well. This would be so because those God saves will have experienced their own sin, death, and the atoning work of Christ and his resurrection applied to them. These would be citizens of the culminated Kingdom of God.[28] Persons cannot be created with experience, even if made with a level of initial maturity.[29] Those within the culminated Kingdom of God would not possess the initial inexperience and immaturity of the first persons. It is reasonable to deduce that the problem of evil is possibly God’s means of developing certain individuals to eventual Christ-like stature,[30] not sharing Christ’s divinity in nature[31] but becoming like Christ in a mature and moral manner, combined with an unbreakable devotion to God.[32] It is believed that Christ will be God’s lieutenant in this godless world[33] and bring about, through his crucifixion and resurrection, the promise of a better future, which includes hope.[34] The Kingdom of God was present in Christ and this has been defined in history.[35]

[1] Feinberg (1994: 136).

[2] Feinberg (1994: 136). Phillips questions this type of reasoning as there is often a lack of correlation between suffering and virtue. Phillips (2005: 81-82). Humanly speaking this can be granted, but God, traditionally understood at least, could make these correlations.

[3] Mounce (1990: 368-397).

[4] Feinberg (1994: 141). These theories are often viewed with ideas of optimism and progress. Phillips (2005: 82).

[5] Phillips (2005: 247).

[6] Feinberg (1994: 141).

[7] Feinberg (1994: 141). Phillips doubts a notion of life after death makes sense. He uses as example comparing death to being asleep or unconscious. Phillips (2005: 85).

[8] Feinberg (1994: 141).

[9] Feinberg (1994: 141).

[10] Phillips (2005: 81).

[11] Phillips (2005: 81).

[12] Phillips (2005: 247).

[13] Phillips (2005: 247).

[14] Phillips (2005: 247). A decent point is made, however, in light of Reformed views on compatibilism, Christians are not going to primarily choose God, but are chosen by God.

[15] Phillips (2005: 247).

[16] For example, Matthew 22 and Mark 12 has Christ instructing the reader to love God first and foremost, and others as much as self. Jesus in John 15 tells his disciples to love one another just as he loved them.

[17] Phillips (2005: 247). Jesus’ Kingdom is not of this temporal world, not of this present realm. The world shall be changed and restored. Mounce (1990: 368-397).

[18] Feinberg (1994: 141).

[19] Feinberg (1994: 141).

[20] Feinberg (1994: 141).

[21] Calvin (1539)(1998: Book II, Chapter 3, 6).

[22] Calvin (1539)(1998: Book II, Chapter 3, 6).

[23] Calvin (1539)(1998: Book II, Chapter 3, 6).

[24] Calvin (1539)(1998: Book II, Chapter 3, 6).

[25] Calvin (1552)(1995: 13).

[26] This is logical and reasonable and also open to refinement in the future. But I reason this explanation is a superior approach to Feinberg’s non-explanation.

[27] Jackson (1941)(2006: 1). Fretheim (1994: 152).

[28] Moltmann (1993: 256). Calvin (1552)(1995: 415).

[29] 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.

[30] Finite moral perfection and goodness but not infinite, God-like moral perfection and goodness.

[31] 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. The New American Standard Version Bible (1984: 816-821).

[32] By the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

[33] Moltmann (1993: 256).

[34] Moltmann (1993: 256).

[35] Moltmann (1993: 263).

---------

CALVIN, JOHN (1539)(1998) The Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book II, Grand Rapids, Wheaton College.

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

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

FRETHEIM, TERENCE E. (1994) ‘Is Genesis 3 a Fall Story?’, in Word and World, Luther Seminary, pp. 144-153. Saint Paul, Luther Seminary.

JACKSON, JOHN G. (1941)(2006) Pagan Origins of the Christ Myth, New York, Truth Seeker Co.

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

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

PHILLIPS, D.Z. (2005) The Problem of Evil and the Problem of God, Fortress Press, Minneapolis.

Lake Superior, Ontario (trekearth.com)

B. Philosophy of Sport

This is posted on my Facebook page:

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=364902

This was the comment I found amusing

'"I would be personally interested in seeing if we could do a deal with (Research in Motion president Jim) Balsillie," added Lieberman. "I think the best thing we could do is to get him to buy it and keep it here for 10 years and then I don't give a damn what he does with it."'

Glendale looking to renew contract to keep Coyotes

'The City of Glendale wants to reach into its pocket to guarantee at least one more season of NHL hockey in Arizona. City council is set to vote on a propsal on Tuesday to renew the existing contract with the NHL for another year and cover up to $25 million in potential losses.'

As I was stating/texting to Big Bro in AZ last night, the NHL will do almost anything to keep the team in AZ. It has the dream of a huge national t.v. deal in the US and does not want to give up PHX. If it was just about money and having a ...team make a profit the team would be in Canada, but not WPG or QUE but S. ONT. A problem is even though the game is growing in the US it will be in many cities the number 4 or 5 sport.

End

Note Balsillie had his potential purchase of the Phoenix Coyotes blocked in court via the NHL as he wanted to move the team to Hamilton, Ontario with a court process. He offered far more than the team was worth and in court the NHL admitted the team in Southern Ontario would have eventually been a very valuable franchise in the League.

Further in the news, the potential buyer of the Coyotes from the NHL is rumoured to be backing out and interested in another more profitable team which means the city will cover losses for another year while the NHL owns the team for another year while also taking losses.

I am sympathetic to hockey fans in Arizona like my brother and others in my family that just want to attend games.

I am sympathetic to the city of Glendale which needs to have a tenant for its suburban arena for which it has invested millions of dollars. But in reality they could have a minor league team. I realize that is not as profitable, perhaps, but it would still help pay the bills, taking longer.

I am not sympathetic to the NHL which in my mind seems to be using Winnipeg as a pawn with possible relocation for the Coyotes for the last two seasons, and then the NHL simply owns the team for another year in Phoenix. There are the rumours about the Atlanta Thrashers being available for Winnipeg and I expect the League to use the Manitoba city once again as a pawn. As a good friend of my mine notes, news about teams possibly coming to Canada helps generate more interest in hockey. The team moved to Phoenix from Winnipeg in 1996.

Philosophically, I do not think a league should operate this way. As an individual club, break even and/or make a profit in a city as a business in partnership with the other clubs or fold or move on.

C. Philosophy of Sport

The NHL reasons hockey eventually can be sold successfully in non-traditional southern US markets known as the sunbelt because hockey is 'exciting'. In other words, if persons not very culturally familiar with it can see it, they will find it 'exciting'.

My take as a philosopher is that is 'exciting' as they use is a rather subjective term. Hockey may be fast and quick, but 'exciting' is largely tied into cultural connections and cultural appreciation for a sport. So, someone from Glasgow is more likely to typically find 'football' exciting, someone from Alabama is more likely to typically find 'football' exciting, but a different kind of 'football', and someone from the Bronx, more likely to typically find baseball exciting.

It is difficult to establish a sport as substantially culturally relevant when there are already several sports in front of it in a given market already considered more subjectively 'exciting'.

Therefore, the League's approach to marketing is largely flawed on that point.

D. Eye Surgery Update

May 17, 2011

I fully admit here that I have a Doctorate in Theology and Philosophy of Religion and not Ophthalmology, but as I have discussed my vitreous floater issues on this blog previously (see archives via search and also my satire and theology blog) I thought I would update. I received a few emails and comments on the issue. Some people are really suffering with vitreous floaters and related and they are concerned about the issue. I wish to help where I can.

I do have a myopic eye which is also amblyopic. My other is normal. I had a posterior vitreous detachment (PVD) in my one eye and a massive floater and the eye was filled with floaters. In 2007 I went down to Fort Myers, Florida (Dr. Geller) and the massive floater was destroyed but his laser could not destroy the smaller floaters as they could not be seen. In 2009 I went to Los Angeles and had more of the smaller floaters destroyed by an another laser (Dr. Johnson). But the eye still remained flooded with floaters. Both are fine Doctors, by the way. So, I gave in and received a vitrectomy from the fine Doctors at UBC (2010) that I had been in discussion with on the issue for four years. I was warned that there was a significant chance of complications at 5-15% by one Doctor, these included chances of infection, blindness, retinal detachment with 90% chance of reattachment and the possibility my eye could end being tossed in a jar after the surgery. So, one can see why I took the Florida and Los Angeles laser surgery options first, even though UBC did not think them a good idea.

Well, as it turns out, just prior to the vitrectomy, UBC found two retinal tears which my surgeon kindly and quickly fixed with a laser. With investigation I found out from an Ophthalmologist and from reading that the remnants of the PVD and the vitreous can cause such tears. The remaining vitreous may have been tearing away at my retina which is thinner in a larger eye. Now all that remains is the tiny retinal scars. My vision is not damaged.

So, I conclude here if I would have had the vitrectomy very soon after the PVD I would have quite possibly avoided the retinal tears which if left untreated could have led to retinal detachment and blindness in that eye.

This may have been a case of 'Damned if you do and damned if you don't', philosophically speaking. Sorry if I offend a fundamentalist for using the word damned, but that is the saying.;)

Further, having recovered from the vitrectomy I have had a lens replacement in the same eye and vision is now significantly better although still amblyopic. I may need a prescription lens.


Lake Bohara, BC (trekearth.com)


Lake Tahoe, California (Ron Niebrugge)


My 'Estate': May 18, 2011 at a prayer time (thekingpin68)

Deathly Word Study

Deathly Word Study

Lake Como, Italy photos (trekearth.com)

Scans featured below.

A few years ago I looked through Strong's Concordance in regard to 'Death' to see the connection with 'Hell'. Hell is at times referred to within Christianity as eternal death or the term more accurately philosophically would be everlasting death. 

Eternal means to have no beginning and no end, everlasting means to have a beginning and no end. 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.

Some key words for 'Death' from the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament  and New Testament from Strong's.

Scan 1: Strong, page 8. 

Scan 2: Strong, page 84.

Scan 3: Strong page 132.

Scan 4: Strong, page 146.

Scan 5: Strong page 89.

Scan 6: Strong page 16.

From both the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament and New Testament looking at Strong’s and the meaning of the words for ‘Death’ in individual contexts it seems to basically and primarily mean termination of the natural human body. But this does not mean that the Bible, especially the New Testament does not teach an everlasting hell. Browning reasons that Biblically ‘Death' in the Bible is presumed when all sign of life have disappeared; it is the end of natural life’. Browning (1997: 94).

P.H. Davids explains theologically death is a result of being cut off from God and then death causes a separation from God which is highlighted in Biblical places such as Romans 5 in regard to Adam. Davids (1996: 300). The existence of the spirit is assumed after death within a Biblical Christian world-view. Jesus gave up his spirit in John 19: 30 and Paul discusses the possibility of being with Christ and God in spirit in Philippians 1. Death is therefore not only a result of scientific realities but is also a result of sin (Genesis 3, Romans 1-6).

Erickson points out that from a Christian perspective death is not simply a transition from existence to non-existence, it is a transition from one mode of existence to another. Erickson (1996: 1169). The Scripture in the original Biblical languages does happen to technically list ‘Death’ primarily as a termination of physical life. But there is an acceptance of concepts of the existence of the spirit and judgment after death (Hebrews 9: 27). 

There is a concept of Hades for example in Luke 16. It may very well be a parable. Did the dead rich man have a body in Hades? Was he in flames? Would water from the tip of the finger of Lazarus cool off his tongue somewhat from the agony? From scholarship it probably is a parable and not plain literal. Does it mean, however, Hades is not a place at all? Not necessarily so. The parable could be describing a spiritual realm in figurative literal terms. 

As well, with Revelation Chapter 20, Hades is thrown in the lake of fire. The lake of fire appears a figurative literal location for resurrected unbelievers outside of Christ. Verse 15 states that anyone’s name not found in the book of life was thrown into the lake of fire. So, anyone not in Christ ends up in this realm. Literal flames? Not likely, due to the figurative type of language used although possible I suppose if persons have resurrected bodies. Spiritual separation from God, yes. So this could be considered a type of everlasting death of sorts. 

In conclusion, I reason that even with the above linguistic evidence, everlasting hell (everlasting death of sorts) is still a major New Testament concept. 

---

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

DAVIDS P.H. (1996) ‘Death' in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books. 

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

STRONG, J. (1890)(1986) Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible,  Burlington, Welch Publishing Company.

  

Philosophical influences leading to non-Biblical Christianity

Bosphorus Bridge, Turkey connecting Europe to Asia (trekearth.com)

March 30, 2011

My Methodology

This post will be somewhat speculative and definitely non-exhaustive. I am not claiming these are all the influences leading to non-Biblical Christianity with some individuals and movements. These are reasons that come to mind from my studies and my last two degrees were in a secular context in departments where certain persons were moderate and even very liberal and I have had to consider these issues. As well, Westminster Seminary of Pennsylvania recently put on a related conference in Vancouver and so I continue to ponder on these issues.

I am not what I would consider a fundamentalist. I do reason that the Scripture is revelation from God that God guided certain persons to write. The original autographs do not exist, as far it is known, and the copies do have scribal errors, but the essential theology, philosophy and worldview of the Hebrew Bible and New Testament from academic appearances have been maintained. I hold to the inerrant word of God. I favour with the use of an English reading (in my case), seeking the original languages and the use of commentaries and other texts, finding the contextual meaning of Scripture and therefore finding proper theology. I do acknowledge the importance of methodology and background studies in academics, including in religious/philosophical studies. The Bible it is not all written in plain literal language and can be figurative literal.

Therefore, I reason the Bible is not mythology or fiction.

I am not a liberal, because of my stance on the Scripture and my resulting theology. I do see all truth as God's truth and the study of secular philosophy and in particular philosophy of religion can assist in the overall pursuit of knowledge and truth found via Biblical Studies and theology.

I would classify myself as moderate conservative, largely due to my academic approach.

I do not classify those who claim the Biblical God and triune God of the New Testament, that do not share my Reformed views, for example, or other secondary views I hold to, as those that have abandoned Biblical Christianity, and as sell-outs. In this article I am referencing persons and movements that seek to radically modify Christian faith and philosophy in non-Biblical ways.

It should be noted that extreme forms of fundamentalism that fail to exegete Scripture reasonably and properly leading to proper theology, also can lead to a corruption and even abandonment of Biblical Christianity, just as can radical liberal approaches.

Recent related post:

Kant (1724-1804)

The Enlightenment

From my 2009 post on Enlightenment (edited): 'Seventeenth century revision of Christian thought was known as the Age of Reason, which led to the Enlightenment. Colin Brown described the Enlightenment as follows: The Age of Enlightenment (German Die Aufklarung) covers roughly the eighteenth century. It is sometimes identified with the Age of Reason, but the latter term covers both the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Although the Enlightenment had some of its roots in seventeenth century rationalism, the ideas which characterize the Enlightenment went far beyond the rationalism of Descartes, Spinoza, and the thinkers of their time. Brown (1996: 355). So from Brown’s idea, the roots of the Enlightenment started with philosophers like Descartes, but went beyond those men.

David A. Pailin, of Manchester University, stated: The Enlightenment’s criticism of the authority of tradition led to increasing secularization in attitudes and ideas. Nature is seen as an ordered whole rather than as a stage for divine interventions and supernatural happenings. So far as religious beliefs are concerned, claims to revelation are acceptable only when they are rationally justified and their contents subject to reason’s judgment. Biblical stories and accepted doctrines are not immune from criticism. Works like Bayle’s Historical and Critical Dictionary and Voltaire’s Philosophical Dictionary highlight the faults of revered figures and the questionability of standard doctrines. Historical and literary investigations into the Bible develop. Reports about miracles, especially that of the resurrection, give rise to considerable discussion. There is great hostility to priestcraft and suspicion of ecclesiastical pretensions to guide human understanding. Pailin (1999: 180).

David Pailin’s comments demonstrate some of the modern assumptions made by philosophers of religion concerning Christianity. As Pailin pointed out, revelation and ecclesiastical pretensions would often face great hostility philosophically. I agree with the Enlightenment approach to review Christian claims through reason, but it appears that more faith is put in the Enlightenment critics of Christianity than in the people who wrote the original work. Enlightenment thinking is committed to ". . . reason as the proper tool and final authority for determining issues." Pailin (1999: 179).

Enlightenment thinking has human reason as the final authority, whereas traditional Christianity uses human reason, but it assumes that human nature is fallen and God must reveal himself to that reason. Enlightenment thinking, in my view, rests on the faulty idea that finite man should be able to be the final judge regarding ideas about God. Enlightenment era thinking, which is still prominent in liberal circles today, believes that humanity has the ability to reason out who God is, whereas traditional Christianity believes that God must reveal himself in order for human beings to come to some understanding of who he is. So the Enlightenment puts greater emphasis on the human mind comprehending God, whereas traditional Christianity puts emphasis on Scripture inspired by God, which must teach human beings about God.

Two problems come to mind concerning the human mind’s ability to know God. First, the human mind is finite, God is infinite. It could be said that human beings could only understand God in a limited way. This is not to say that the limited human understanding was in error or without logic, but simply limited. For this reason, I think in this relationship God would have to take the initiative in presenting himself to humanity for greater understanding, and this would lead to revelation. Second, I believe there is significant evidence in Scripture and everyday life, that humanity is imperfect and sinful, and in a spiritual condition where they would have to be transformed in order to have a relationship with God. I am not saying that human beings cannot understand things about God without revelation, but I am stating that revelation is required for a changed spirit which could lead to a relationship with God. I, therefore, do not think that human reason outside of revelation should be our final authority in theology.'

Postmodernism

From my PhD:

'Modernity was the dominant worldview heavily influenced by the Enlightenment. Grenz, Guretzki, and Nordling (1999: 79-80). Veith writes that in the late twentieth century these views have been replaced by post-modernism, which has less emphasis on absolute truth. Veith (1994: 19). This is not to state that post-modernism completely sets aside the concept of truth, but post-modern philosophies are often less dogmatic in approach than ones from the modern era.'

Blackburn explains that philosophically postmodernism implies a mistrust in the views of modernity. Blackburn (1996: 294). Post-structuralists deny fixed meanings or correspondences between language and reality and fixed objective truth and fact. Blackburn (1996: 295). Truth is not so much objective, but there can be more or less accuracy. Blackburn (1996: 295).

Philosophically, I would reason for the finite mind there is no such thing as complete objectivity and there are always subjective aspects to reasoning. I reason the infinite God can see things perfectly and fully objectively and also sees the subjective. However, the Scripture does appear to make certain largely and primarily objective claims. For example, in John 14:6 where Jesus claims (from the NASB) that he is the way, the truth and the life, and that no one comes to the Father but through him. This appears to be an objective truth claim in regard to the nature of God and the nature of salvation.

There is a fixed meaning between the language of the text and reality. There is a claim of truth and fact.

Therefore, a postmodern approach to Scripture is in error as it fails to reasonably accept the objective claims made within.

Empiricism

The permanent strand of philosophy that ties knowledge to experience, as in sensory consciousness and in what can be observed as true by the use of the senses. Blackburn (1996: 119). Knowledge outside of this approach is denied and there is no such thing as a priori knowledge or intuitive knowledge that can be found by the use of reason. Blackburn (1996: 119).

A problem with this Blackburn states is explaining how thought does not derive from experience but appears to allow persons to categorize experience. Blackburn (1996: 119). He also noted that mathematics, and the logical appear to have no basis in experience. Blackburn (1996: 119). In can be deduced that there are mathematical and logical truths that exist outside of empirical experience.

Therefore, there would also be philosophical and theological truths that exist outside of empirical experiences.

Further:

Empirical experiences allow the human being to understand in thought mathematics, logic, philosophy and theology.

To use empiricism in Religious Studies at the expense of other forms of thought such as rationalism which uses unaided reason in order to gain knowledge, Blackburn (1996: 318) in the discipline of philosophy/philosophy of religion, and theology which trusts and depends in Biblical supernatural revelation, is to overlook certain means of finding truth.

Therefore, empiricism is a valid and reasonable form of philosophy and very necessary in science, but is limited and should not be the only worldview considered in the pursuit of truth.

A Philosophy of God's Love over God's Justice

No question God's love for humanity is seen in the New Testament by Christ's atoning work (Mark 10: 45, Hebrews 9, 10) including justification (Romans 1-3, Galatians 2) and sanctification (2 Thessalonians 2: 13-15) and his resurrection (John 20, 21, 1 Corinthians 15) for humanity as he elects those in Christ (Ephesians 1, Romans 8). It is also demonstrated in the Hebrew Bible with various covenants.

In my mind often certain conservatives and fundamentalists emphasize their particular secondary doctrines and related cultural beliefs so strongly that they do not sufficiently love others, this love should be a result of loving God fully (Matthew 22, Mark 12, Luke 10). In the name of justice it appears they reason others can be shunned or not fully respected because others outside of these views are not following God properly.

Some liberals, especially the more radical ones, often seem to at times wish to include so many within the Church that they are willing to overlook claims made in the Scripture that would exclude others, at least from membership, such as the Ten Commandment and other morality claims and commands. God's love is emphasized at the expense of justice. Christians should love their neighbour (Matthew 22, Mark 12), and Christians are to love one another (John 13). Others of different non-Biblical views should always be loved. But, there are objective standards given in Scripture and final judgment for those outside of Christ (Revelation 20) and in Christ (2 Corinthians 5: 10).

Supporting persons and churches claiming to be Christian which overemphasize the love of God at the expense of justice are really setting certain many persons up for a disappointing final review from God, whether the persons being judged are in or outside of Christ, although obviously it is much better to be in Christ.

Therefore, I think this philosophy is theologically misguided error which places one aspect of God above the other.

Further: It is not loving in a proper sense.

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

BROWN, C. (1996) The Enlightenment, 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.

PAILIN, D.A. (1999) Enlightenment, in Alan Richardson and John Bowden (eds.), A New Dictionary of Christian Theology, Kent, SCM Press Limited.

VEITH, GENE EDWARD, JR. (1994) Postmodern Times, Wheaton Illinois, Crossway Books.


Las Vegas, Nevada strip (Ron Niebrugge)


Bristol, England (trekearth.com)


Vancouver, BC (trekearth.com)



BA, MTS, MPhil, PhD (Order on wall, PhD, up BA, down MTS, MPhil)
My wall completed after my PhD graduation party.