Monday, March 10, 2014

Greg Welty And Christ As Sinless Human Being (PhD Edit)

North Korea black out from Daily Mail and Facebook
Greg Welty And Christ As Sinless Human Being (PhD Edit)

Greg Welty rejects Plantinga’s idea that God cannot create a world containing moral good and no moral evil,[1] and raises the objection that God brought Christ into the world as a sinless human being.[2]  

Welty’s point here is that every human being could have therefore been sinless[3] and the world could contain good and no evil with significantly free human beings that would not commit wrong actions.[4] 

I have a similar objection to Welty’s.[5]  Within my theodicy, I reason that God could have, if he wished, made significantly free human beings, or human like beings who would have been perfectly morally good and would not commit wrong actions. God’s choice not to create such beings, in my mind is not a sign of a lack of power, or moral failure, but rather the use of his own perfect and significantly free will for good purposes. 

March 10, 2014

Note as well, the angels of God not fallen are deduced to be significantly free and have not committed wrong actions (Revelation 12).

I reason significantly free beings can made perfect, holy and good gaining knowledge of good and evil and do not choose evil and do not require the option to choose evil.

Therefore, fallen humanity as is and the atonement and resurrection work of Christ as applied to those chosen and elect in Christ is part of God’s sovereign plans. As is the culminated Kingdom of God with the new heaven and new earth (Revelation 20-22).

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.

WELTY, GREG (1999) ‘The Problem of Evil’, in Greg Welty PhD, Fort Worth, Texas.Philosophy Department, Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, http://www.ccir.ed.ac.uk/~jad/welty/probevil.htm



[1] Plantinga (1977)(2002: 30).  Welty (1999: 1).
[2] Welty (1999: 1).
[3] Welty (1999: 1).
[4] Welty (1999: 1).
[5] Welty (1999: 1).

https://drrnm.blogspot.com/2020/09/phd-full-version-pdf-theodicy-and.html

Sunday, March 02, 2014

Brief On The Problem Of Evil, God & Violence

More snow today, and no I was not falling...Not a bad very quick amateur photo, it was raining, if I say so myself.

When I left this morning the weather was transforming from snow to rain and so I decided to risk the trek out to Abbotsford and Northview Community Church.

Probably not my best decision ever as it was snowing heavily and I took the usual most direct back road way to the church. The church somewhat surprisingly being a megachurch of 4, 000+ attenders is in a suburban/rural area just outside of town.

The car slipped around a few times, but I was careful as usual. After church speaking with one of the church leaders, he agreed that my idea was wise to drive home through town and not the back roads. It was raining, thankfully.

I stated yesterday, mostly by texting in comments on 'Give Me Cake Liberty Or Give Me...', Satire And Theology.

Cited:

'how many x..mom do not put hand in car door frame... dark outside at safeway on her bday....i close door she screams. only bruised cannot see damage inside store...will ice. could not see her hand in p lot and she should have asked for help instead.'

'Glove probably saved her hand from worse result... Icing.'

The boss got away with a minor bruise, thankfully. She is thankful I was there to open the door. I am thankful she had her gloves on.

I remember as child, her Dad, my Grandpa, did basically the same thing with someone else closing the door. Does not surprise me, there is something to genetics.

Brief On The Problem Of Evil, God & Violence

Today the sermon at Northview dealt with God Biblically commanding Israel in the Hebrew Bible at times and points to take the lives of all enemies, including children within a nation and society.

Some within scholarship attempt to argue, against the more traditional view provided in the sermon, that there are other interpretations where genocide does not occur. The Pastor did not get into these thoroughly, but noted some serious objections to God taking via commanding Israel, the lives of entire civilizations.

I have not studied the Old Testament/Hebrew Bible for this topic in-depth, but did study the problem of evil and theodicy for twelve plus years at three Universities, eventually embedding my own theodicy within a successful PhD.

I do have some philosophical and theological insights, I reason:

Based on a Reformed, compatibilist, Biblical view, God is the first cause of all things.

God as the first cause, is infinite and eternal, based on Scriptural, theological essentials. God is the only necessary being, God exists by necessity.  Something exists by necessity when it is not possible for the proposition to be false. The denial of such being self-contradictory. Bradley (1996: 522).

It could be reasoned contingent beings do not have to exist. Contingent beings 'could have failed to exist'. They 'must be caused to exist by some another being'. Quinn (1996: 609).

Contingent beings, that also if significantly free, serve as secondary causes of thoughts, actions and acts, exist because the first-cause, God, chose for them to exist. He could reasonably, even after creating humanity, chose for them not to exist in various contexts including complete annihilation of both body and spirit, or physical death alone as the spirit lives on (Luke 16 as a figurative literal example, although a parable).

I reason, although not dogmatically, it quite reasonable and possible that God would have been ethically and morally reasonably able to annihilate Adam and Eve prior to their sin and fall, because the creator as necessary only needs to exist; contingent beings that do not have to exist by necessity could be eliminated. Therefore Adam and Eve could have justly been annihilated, outside of an ethical/moral promise by God, including Biblical, to provide them with continued existence.

As the first-cause, Biblical God has promised eternal/everlasting life for those in Christ, and eternal/everlasting death/punishment for those outside of Christ (Revelation 20-22).

Therefore, annihilation is not an ethical, moral option for God as he has promised otherwise. Assuming, reasonably God keeps his word and he does not change in how he deals with humanity within time (Malachi 3).

Yes, I realise there is a debate on whether or not everlasting punishment is actually annihilation and have discussed on both of my blogs. I have argued both positions and hold to the traditional view.

Physical death is however, an ethical/moral option for God because of sin the fall, and punishment (Genesis 1-3, Romans 1-6, Hebrews 9). This leads to judgement after death for all (Hebrews 9: 27), each person appointed one physical death and then judgement.

When and how physical death is issued by God, for persons, corporately or privately is not limited.

It is not specifically limited by Scripture, as persons can physically die in many ways.

Theologically and philosophically I reason God with perfect or permissible will, could ethically, morally and justly end the physical life of persons. This could take place with human beings being secondary causes.

Normally, the person taking the life of another person would be Biblically unlawful as murder (Exodus 20). And this allows for the possibility for alternate philosophical and theological views as some would see any breaking of this commandment as contradiction and God is not a God of contradiction.

However, it is also possible to view such killing as execution, a protection of the people of Israel in a Hebrew Bible context from non-God negative influences.

God willing that secondary causes lawfully kill persons for by divine order, not being totally foreign to the New Testament, although different in focus. Old Testament concepts could be philosophically and theologically connected to preservation of law and order in the New Testament in Romans 13 and 1 Peter 2.

Admittedly in the New Testament context, the State replacing Israel and its Old Testament divine order, for the maintaining of divinely sanctioned law and order. There is no theocracy or attempt at like in the New Testament context.

BRADLEY, RAYMOND D. (1996) ‘Necessity’, in Robert Audi (ed.), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

QUINN, PHILIP L. (1996) 'Philosophy of Religion' , in Robert Audi (ed.), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.



Excellent solo, dumb cartoon.

Monday, February 24, 2014

The Week That Was


Today in Maple Ridge with a rare snowfall.

David Pailin at Manchester stated when I returned in a new year: (Paraphrased) 'I thought you would have been under snow in Canada'. Ah, the importance of doing research...;)

1. Photos Again

On my other blog, one post ago I stated the following in main body: 


'In regard to my other, main blog. Had a complaint via email, I think based on Stat Counter, although it could be redirected, from Boulder, Colorado. Often times Site Meter will state nothing for location, or one location and Stat Counter another. Sometimes they agree. Stat Counter has more locations listed, but I think Site Meter is probably more accurate, based on when I think I know the person, more often. A photographer was 'appalled' that I used some of his photos that he claims were undocumented. They were among my oldest photos from my desktop photos from several computers ago. He claimed I 'stole'. I deleted them from my photos and my posts at once. I explained I did not steal as I documented as from Google Images and his name was on them. That kind of documentation is common ethical practice today. Even so, I do not want to offend anyway or damage rights, so I will likely post shared Facebook and Google+ photos from now on and photos from share sites. Trekearth seems ambiguous as I saw no warning on their site having looked more than once and yet Wikipedia states trekearth photos are not meant to be shared for sites which seems strange. Their site exists to share photos...' 

End citation from Satire And Theology

Further, I have worked through, mainly on the other blog, but both blogs, eliminating many 'Google Images'. Especially on more relatively popular posts. 

Chucky and Bobby were visiting Saturday night and discussing this issue, Chucky, a software tester was ethically appalled by all the parsing that can take place on the web in regard to copyright and noted that basically 'everyone breaks the law' with the level of lack of enforcement of supposed or actual copyright laws and the lack of ethical clarity provided.

Bobby reasoned I should make no changes on my blogs in regard to images at all. 

I have, however, decided at a more conservative approach, attempting a high level of ethics.

I apologize for changes in material in some cases if it was appreciated by readers, but I am replacing any deleted images with equal quality material where possible.

No, I do not plan on using my own amateur photos most of the time, as noted above there are other sources.

Blackburn's noting of 'kinds of problems encountered' in regard to ethics (Blackburn 1996: 126),  is a philosophical reminder that although certainly there can be ethical and moral right and wrong (especially from a Christian, Biblical worldview) there are in this realm and world, grey/gray areas in ethics.

I reason this the case with web-based copyright.

2. Crazy?

A friend explained to me that a mutual friend thought I was crazy, or like, to have public blogs.

The concern, and a quite reasonable, justifiable one, that I could or would be damaging my career in regard to being hired by an academic institution, church or ministry.

I can state from interaction that a President or like of a major Christian academic institution told me by email that although they did not have work for me, he respected my significant blogging ministry.

A Pastoral leader at one of the churches I am now attending stated I demonstrated significant ministry skill and theological skill with my blogs.

I have had Christian ministers with Doctorates and Master's degrees and persons in para-church ministry state my blogs have significant value.

I have been asked, based on my Blogging, to assist a para-church ministry with their blog.

I have advised.

I have never received a negative recommendation from a significant person in Christian ministry to close my blogs down or to make significant changes.

I use my blogs as ministry and teaching, as a way of advancing my abilities in Theology, Philosophy and Biblical Studies. and as an online social outlet.

The level of work is generally difficult, with both blogs, although at times in different ways.

Satire and humour is used, in part to demonstrate to observers that I have everyday relatability.

The humour is family-orientated as much as possible.

However, on both blogs at times I reason it needed to deal with some more serious darker issues.

To be an anonymous Blogger, as I was when I began is not ethically wrong as such, but it lacks a certain degree of credibility because it is as if one is not willing to stand behind his/her work publicly. Readers can also ponder on how trustworthy anonymous writers are. I have read this on professional sites and it is not just my opinion.

As I have noted, I revise often and am learning. But ministry has a price and is challenging. I realize one can take public criticism if he/she is not anonymous. I also realize that many persons have non-ministry main employment and do not wish employers to read related controversial online material.

However, that means Blogs should be researched, accurate, careful and respectful in what is written.

I follow these.

I am professional, restrained and revise.

I conclude, I am still ethically and pragmatically correct to be publicly blogging.

3. Team Canada


Facebook: February 23, 2014
Canada wins its second straight Olympic Gold medal in men's ice hockey. The third win in five Olympic tournaments since the tournament featured National Hockey League, best versus best players. The Czech Republic and Sweden winning the other two Olympic competitions. Many in the Canadian professional hockey media are stating, and with good reason, as the 2014 Olympic Champions were undefeated and only gave up three goals in six games, that this is the best Team Canada ever. 

My philosophical concern of the Canadian professional hockey media is simply comparing the Olympic teams only, in the best Team Canada discussion.

There have been several other best versus best competitions, historically:

There is the Summit Series of 1972, which featured Canada versus the Soviet Union. Won by Canada. This team is sometimes mentioned, being the most famous.

There are Canada Cups in 1976, 1981, 1984, 1987, 1991. Canada winning all but the 1981 series, won by the Soviet Union.

The Canada Cup became the World Cup, won by the United States in 1996 and Canada in 2004.

At the time, I remember some stating that the 2004 Team Canada team was the best ever. That team also going undefeated.

But this best verses best tournament seems largely unmentioned. I did not hear or read anything about it in regard to comparisons from the three major Canadian networks following Olympic hockey.

I am not opining at all, in regard to which team may be better the 2014 Olympic team or the 2004 World Cup team.

The 1991 team was undefeated but did not win every game.

The 1976 and 1987 Canada Cup teams were perhaps, according to experts, the two most talent teams, although not undefeated.

My conclusion is that often more research should be done by Canadian professional hockey broadcasters, and writers before opining on issues on best team, or greatest team.

Lack of research and related reflection also being a philosophical and theological problem in forming reasonable, educated opinions is other areas of life as well, including academic.

To digress, therefore by National Hockey League reasoning, with the tremendous success financially of the seven Canadian based clubs in comparison to the average American based team, and the success and support for the National Team, Team Canada; the League may according to most media reports place the next franchise through expansion or relocation in...

Seattle.

And according to some reports perhaps Las Vegas, building a new NHL style arena, is now ahead of Quebec City and their new NHL style arena under construction in be awarded a franchise after Seattle.

As noted previously on my blogs, I see the National Hockey League's philosophical obsession, being a primarily United States based League, as similar to a religious type devotion to a concept, regardless of significant evidence.

The owners and commissioner's office want more teams in the United States to grow the game and gain more new fans.

Whereas I reason by evidence and reason, more new supporters of clubs would be created in areas where there is already a significant hockey culture in place and hockey not being behind other sports in popularity as it is in the United States.

Therefore new clubs in Canada would in general create a larger overall fan base and more revenue and franchise value than would more new teams in America,.

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

Thursday, February 13, 2014

More On James 2 (Brief)

Lake Garda-Google+

An idea raised to me at church Wednesday night in a discussion in regard to various Reformed and Arminian interpretations.

James 2:14-17

English Standard Version

14 What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him? 15 If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food, 16 and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and filled,” without giving them the things needed for the body, what good[a] is that? 17 So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.

Demons can have dead faith and are not believers in trusting, as in faith in God. In other words they do not simply have no faith, but have dead faith having previously believed was the presumption..

However:

Reasonable and good point.

This makes it possible dead faith is equal to no faith.

But, theologically demons/satanic beings are not salvageable, and will not be saved.

Therefore no faith/dead faith is not something that God will preach on or attempt to change in regard to fallen angels/demons.

However, in a person, or one in Christ, dead faith could be hypothetically at least, revitalized in the Holy Spirit in salvation.

In most of a discussion I reaffirmed my views and was confident in them and was probably influential, but I reason I needed to examine James 2 again.

I affirm often in person and online my work is somewhat in transition and I often revise. Although I hold to the Biblical orthodox essentials.

In regard to James 2

Grace To You and John MacArthur

Sermon

Cited

"As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also." The theme of this very important passage then is "dead faith."

Cited

And as I suggested to you last time, the distinguishing mark of dead faith is the absence of righteous deeds. It reflects a person who believes in the facts of God's truth but feels no particular compulsion to behave in a righteous manner and produces no works of true goodness. And this is of great concern to James. In fact, it's of great concern to God and therefore a great concern to us.'

Cited

'And so, we see then that James is giving us all through his epistle and there are others, tests of a living faith. And in the midst of it, in chapter 2, he points out the character of a dead faith. That is a faith that says all the right things and affirms to believe all the right things but manifests no transformed life.'

Cited

There is a consequence to true belief. It isn't just only believe.'

Cited

'Let's look, then, at the character of dead faith, and then the comparison, the character of living faith in these verses. Three things mark out non-saving dead faith, three things. Number one, empty confession...empty confession, verse 14; "What does it profit, or what good is it, or of what benefit, what gain, my brethren," speaking of his Jewish brethren and of those who were brethren at least in the visible church on the outside, "What does it profit, my brethren, though a man say he has faith and does not have works? Can that kind of faith--parenthesis-- save him?" Now this person claims to have faith in God, claims to be a believer, claims to be in right relationship to God. Perhaps even affirms believing in Jesus Christ. Back in chapter 2, verse 1, "My brethren, have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ the Lord of glory with respect of persons?" In other words, don't have faith in the Lord Jesus Christ that manifests itself this way. So we could assume that the faith here in verse 14 is a faith that would embrace Christ. They believed that Jesus was God, the Messiah. Perhaps they believed, of course, that He died and rose again. All of those facts were in the right perspective. But what good is it, what profit is it, of what use is it to make a claim that you believe that, to say you have faith if you have nothing to evidence it?

End citation

Interesting.

'They believed that Jesus was God, the Messiah. Perhaps they believed, of course, that He died and rose again. All of those facts were in the right perspective.'

This is curious, however, it has been stated by some in the Reform camp that human beings do not have the ability to simply intellectually believe in the gospel, as do demonic beings.

Demonic beings and obedient angels having had direct access to the spiritual realm; not the case for humanity.

In other words, persons outside of the Holy Spirit, could not have a 'right perspective'. The idea being non-believers do not believe the gospel on any true significant basis. Someone that truly believed would have been enlightened by the Holy Spirit. What is commonly reasoned to be intellectual belief only, according to this view, is rather intellectual consideration that the gospel sounds like it could be true.

This may be church attenders that are in a sense, trying the gospel.

Those with a right perspective, therefore it could be reasoned would need to be in Christ, although may not be producing good works.

I remember that a Trinity Western University and Reformed Baptist professor of mine was part of a ministry group with like views. Of course, I am providing interpretation of those views.

I am not dogmatic either for or against, on this concept, but have come across it as noted.

Cited

For the sake of argument, James says a man comes along and makes the claim. He confesses to believe the truth of salvation, present tense. He is constantly saying he has faith. He keeps on making that claim and maybe he even identifies outwardly with the visible church. But what good is such a continual habitual claim to faith if he doesn't have works? And here the works referred to are good works, righteous deeds. If these are not the evidence in his life then where is the salvation.

The point being, you cannot have a true salvation without evidence. You cannot have a genuine conversion without a product. I mean, there has to be a transformation. If before my redemption I live for the flesh and against God and if redemption is transformation then at least has to be a reversal of that so that I now long to live for God and to do those things which His power is working in me. So what good is such faith? The answer is no good. It's no good at all. It's nothing but an empty confession. It's nothing but a meaningless profession. It is like Matthew 7, "Lord, Lord, we did this and we did that..." And He says, "Depart from Me, I never knew you, you workers of iniquity." In other words, the point is this, I don't know you. I hear what you're confession but I see when I look at your life that you are workers of what? Of iniquity. Your claim is meaningless. Of what value is a claim to believe when all the evidence is unrighteousness? The point being that where there is the work of God there will be the evidence. And that is why in looking at false teachers in that same seventh chapter, he says "By their fruit you shall...what?...you shall know them."

That's the evidence. It's the product. I mean, it's so simple, people. Listen, it's this simple. You can not know that anyone possesses saving faith any other way than by their works. There's no other way to know it. It's the only way. And a claim with no evidence substantiates nothing.'

Cited

No one is saved by works, but no one is saved without producing works. Ephesians 2 states that persons are being saved by grace through faith, not of your own works, a gift of God...for good works.

Cited

'How well do you do? "The devils also believe and they go one better than you, they shake. You, my friend, are inferior to demons in your understanding." You see the sarcasm of "you do well, oh, you do well?" You're just one notch below demons. At least they shake. They're orthodox. You know that? They're orthodox. All demons are orthodox, there are no neo-orthodox demons. There are no liberal demons. There are no rationalistic demons. There are no heretical demons. They all believe the truth because they know it's true. They are orthodox and they tremble. The word "tremble" literally is the word "to bristle" from hair standing on end. They know what the godless are going to get and when they believe in God, they believe that God is and they know who God is and they shake because they know God is the judge. They go one better than those with dead faith. Dead faith is inferior, may I say it, dead faith is inferior to demon faith because at least the demons shudder. They don't produce good works either, by the way.'

Cited

'You know what I believe James is saying here? There are a lot of people who believe on the surface, but they really err in misunderstanding dead faith to be living faith. And if you convert them to the reality of a living faith, you will save a soul from what? From death.'

MacArthur would see dead faith basically equaling non-salvific faith.

Monergism and J.I. Packer

Cited

'Faith cannot be defined in subjective terms, as a confident and optimistic mind-set, or in passive terms, as acquiescent orthodoxy or confidence in God without commitment to God. Faith is an object-oriented response, shaped by that which is trusted, namely God himself, God’s promises, and Jesus Christ, all as set forth in the Scriptures. And faith is a whole-souled response, involving mind, heart, will, and affections. Older Reformed theology analyzed faith as notita (“knowledge,” i.e., acquaintance with the content of the gospel), plus assensus (“agreement,” i.e., recognition that the gospel is true), plus fiducia (“trust and reliance,” i.e., personal dependence on the grace of Father, Son, and Spirit for salvation, with thankful cessation of all attempts to save oneself by establishing one’s own righteousness: Rom. 4:5; 10:3). Without fiducia there is no faith, but without notita and assensus there can be no fiducia (Rom. 10:14).' 'When James says that faith without works is dead (i.e., a corpse), he is using the word faith in the limited sense of notita plus assensus , which is how those he addresses were using it. When he says that one is justified by what one does, not by faith alone, he means by “justified” “proved genuine; vindicated from the suspicion of being a hypocrite and a fraud.” James is making the point that barren orthodoxy saves no one (James 2:14-26).

Paul would have agreed, and James’s whole letter shows him agreeing with Paul that faith must change one’s life. Paul denounces the idea of salvation by dead works; James rejects salvation by dead faith. Though the believer’s works do not merit salvation and always have something imperfect about them (Rom. 7:13-20; Gal. 5:17), in their character as expressions of the love and fidelity that faith calls forth they are the basis on which God promises rewards in heaven (Phil. 3:12-14; 2 Tim. 4:7-8). For God thus to reward us according to our works is, as Augustine noted, his gracious crowning of his own gracious gifts.'

Packer states: 'Paul denounces the idea of salvation by dead works; James rejects salvation by dead faith.'

Pondering on this I reason that my tentative view with my first James 2 post that James 2 possibly can be tied to 1 Corinthians 3: 10-15 in regard to a believer dying with works burned up is questionable although certainly not dead.

Those in 1 Corinthians 3, like James 2 not producing good works, but Paul W. Marsh describes the works being burned up in 1 Corinthians as a fire of judgement. Judgement in Christ implied. It could be stated that these workers fail to provide good works, but they apparently still have a live, real faith. I can understand how those in 1 Corinthians 3 and 2 Peter 3 have an actual live faith, and where those in James 2 may not. I still take a Reformed view, although still tentatively, on 2 Peter 3 as being directed to Christians in regard to repentance so that they do not perish as in physically dying, in a state of non-repentance. Not being in the context of salvation.

1 Corinthians 3:10-15

English Standard

10 According to the grace of God given to me, like a skilled master builder I laid a foundation, and someone else is building upon it. Let each one take care how he builds upon it. 11 For no one can lay a foundation other than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. 12 Now if anyone builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw— 13 each one's work will become manifest, for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed by fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each one has done. 14 If the work that anyone has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward. 15 If anyone's work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire.

2 Peter 3: 8-10

8 But do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. 9 The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you,[a] not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance. 10 But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, and then the heavens will pass away with a roar, and the heavenly bodies[b] will be burned up and dissolved, and the earth and the works that are done on it will be exposed.[c]

MARSH, PAUL, W. (1986) ‘1 Corinthians’, in F.F. Bruce, (ed.), The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Marshall Pickering/Zondervan.