Henry C.Thiessen (PhD Edit)

Henry C.Thiessen (PhD Edit) 

Preface 

Photo, May 2025

Henry Clarence Thiessen (1884-1947)

I bought Thiessen’s 1956 theology textbook used while an undergrad at Columbia Bible College. I find his work useful even though he takes an incompatibilist position in contrast to my compatibilist one. 

A Biblical Studies Professor at Columbia Bible College was quite dismissive of Thiessen stating, paraphrased that ‘Thiessen was a dispensationalist’. One of my local unofficial Doctoral, PhD advisers stated, Thiessen was basically a compiler of information and not very original. Also dismissive. Based on this limited work I shall let you form your own opinion.  

Naturalism 

Wheaton professor, Henry Clarence Thiessen (1956) explains that since naturalism holds that nature is the whole of reality, everything that occurs is due to the laws of nature.[1]  He comments Scripture recognizes the existence of the laws of nature, but it is reasoned they do not operate independently of God.[2] God concurs with the laws he has established,[3] and Thiessen reasons that miracles and revelation can occur when God operates outside of laws he established.[4]  

Incompatibilism 

Thiessen writes God knows the future,[5] and that is defined as foreknowledge.[6]  He also points out that God’s prescience does not mean God predetermined these actions.[7]  Thiessen is noting that human acts within God’s prescient foreknowledge are still significantly free.[8] 

Leibniz has a different view than Thiessen,[9] that is deterministic and reasons that foreknowledge has to do with God’s determined will and is not dependent on free human actions.[10] This predetermination should not be understood as by necessity eliminating all human choice.[11]  Erickson takes a reasonable compatibilistic position and writes God with foreknowledge sees many possibilities and influences that will be present, and then acts accordingly to his will.[12]   

Thiessen from an incompatibilist position writes that God does not want to create automaton type beings with no choice in whether or not they would glorify God.[13] For Thiessen, humanity can only truly glorify God by choosing to do so while still having the opportunity to choose not to glorify God in disobedience.[14] This concept appears on the surface to be primarily in line with noted incompatibilism and free will approaches almost verbatim.[15]  

On Scripture 

Thiessen dismisses the idea of a dictation theory of Scriptural inspiration, as the writers of Scripture were not persons that merely had divine information dictated to them.[16] The writers of Scripture were not ‘mere secretaries’ that wrote words dictated to them by the Holy Spirit.[17] It can therefore be reasoned it is not the Holy Spirit’s grammar being used.[18] The distinctive style of Biblical writers based on the study of original languages makes the dictation theory quite unlikely.[19] The concept of Biblical inspiration, with the Holy Spirit serving as guidance for the Biblical writer, seems both orthodox and reasonable.[20] The Biblical authors had full use of their intellect and used their own grammar, but were guided to write God’s word without error and omission.[21] The Holy Spirit guided the thoughts of Biblical writers.[22] Shedd names this basic theory of Biblical inspiration as ‘plenary inspiration’ meaning writers were moved by the Holy Spirit in respect to thought and language and were kept from error.[23]   

Modern theology needs to correctly discern what the Spirit is stating through the Bible and this needs to be done through proper research techniques. 

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.  

GEISLER, NORMAN L. (1975) Philosophy of Religion, Grand Rapids, Zondervan Publishing House. 

GEISLER, NORMAN L. (1978) The Roots of Evil, Grand Rapids, Zondervan Publishing House. 

GEISLER, NORMAN L. (1986) Predestination and Free Will, Downers Grove, Illinois, InterVarsity Press. 

GEISLER, NORMAN L. (1996) ‘Freedom, Free Will, and Determinism’, in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books. 

GEISLER, NORMAN, L (1999) ‘The Problem of Evil’, in Baker Encyclopedia of Apologetics, Grand Rapids, Baker Books. 

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

LINDSELL, HAROLD (1976) The Battle for the Bible, Grand Rapids, Zondervan Publishing House. 

PACKER, J.I. (1996) ‘Regeneration’ in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books. 

PACKER, J.I. (1973) Knowing God, Downers Grove, Illinois, 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. 

---

 

[1] Thiessen (1956: 186).

[2] Thiessen (1956: 186).

[3] Thiessen (1956: 186).

[4] Thiessen (1956: 186).

[5] Thiessen (1956: 125).

[6] Thiessen (1956: 125).

[7] Thiessen (1956: 126).

[8] Thiessen (1956: 126).

[9] Thiessen (1956: 126).

[10] Leibniz (1710)(1998: 147).

[11] Leibniz (1710)(1998: 147).

[12] Erickson (1994: 360).

[13] Thiessen (1956: 248).

[14] Thiessen (1956: 248).

[15] Geisler (1986: 76-77).

[16] Thiessen (1956: 106).

[17] Lindsell (1976: 32).

[18] Thiessen (1956: 106).  People were not robotically inspired to write Scripture.

[19] Erickson (1994: 207).

[20] Thiessen (1956: 106).  Lindsell (1976: 30).

[21] Thiessen (1956: 106).  The Scripture was presented accurately via inspiration, states Erickson.  Erickson (1994: 199).  J.I. Packer reasons God and Christ sent the Holy Spirit to teach his people the truth and to save them from error.  Packer (1973: 61).  

[22] Erickson (1994: 215).

[23] Shedd  (1874-1890)(1980: 72 Volume 1).  

-------------------------------------------------------

20250726

Preface II

Compatibilism versus Incompatibilism has been discussed on various MPhil/PhD related articles and on my website work. Below is the MPhil/PhD link.

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

Scripture has been discussed significantly on my website, with an increased use of New Testament Greek citations within Biblical Studies entries. For the revised version of this article, I wish to further discuss naturalism which has been less reviewed within my work overall.

Naturalism

For Thiessen, he reasoned 'naturalism holds that nature is the whole of reality...' Thiessen (1956: 186).

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Naturalism (2007-2020).

David Papineau (2020)

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy explains that 'The term “naturalism” has no very precise meaning in contemporary philosophy. Its current usage derives from debates in America in the first half of the last century.' This reads as true. 'Naturalism', when used seems to be encompassing a series of varied beliefs, rather than one distinct philosophy. There is philosophical agreement where it is reasoned, reality is based in nature and not in the supernatural. 

My findings over the years with reading, listening online and with in-person discussions, have been that a person may not describe self as a naturalist, but may state he/she believes in science, as opposed to the supernatural; or a person might state they are an empiricist and do not hold to a belief in the supernatural. Such a person is making a naturalistic division philosophically from that which is supernaturalistic. But this does not in many cases mean as certain that such a person is philosophically embracing the term 'naturalism', within his/her worldview. Seems to me the term 'naturalism' is often used by evangelicals to describe the worldview of those that do not believe in the supernatural. Therefore, again, the description from Stanford that “naturalism” has no very precise meaning in contemporary philosophy, rings true and has for years for me via my research.

Stanford states: 'So understood, “naturalism” is not a particularly informative term as applied to contemporary philosophers.' Agreed. Stanford further notes that 'The great majority of contemporary philosophers would happily accept naturalism as just characterized—that is, they would both reject “supernatural” entities, and allow that science is a possible route (if not necessarily the only one) to important truths about the “human spirit”.' I can agree that this is likely the position of many modern philosophers (and scientists), but I do not agree with the rejection of the supernatural. 

Further from Stanford: 'Even so, this entry will not aim to pin down any more informative definition of “naturalism”. It would be fruitless to try to adjudicate some official way of understanding the term. Different contemporary philosophers interpret “naturalism” differently. This disagreement about usage is no accident.' Agreed. It is fruitless to attempt to officially tag everyone that does not hold to supernaturalism as primarily a naturalist, as if 'naturalism' is one uniform philosophy.

Instead Stanford writes that in regards to their entry: 'It will outline a range of philosophical commitments of a generally naturalist stamp...' In agreement, this is how I have viewed naturalism as well.

Cited: 

'As indicated by the above characterization of the mid-twentieth-century American movement, naturalism can be separated into an ontological and a methodological component. The ontological component is concerned with the contents of reality, asserting that reality has no place for “supernatural” or other “spooky” kinds of entity. By contrast, the methodological component is concerned with ways of investigating reality, and claims some kind of general authority for the scientific method.'

Ontologically (existence and reality), I do not view the supernatural as 'spooky', but rather view the non-finite, non-eternal, therefore, infinite and eternal first cause, uncaused cause, as philosophically necessary with sufficient key premises of support. The first cause is sufficiently of infinity, eternality and perfect goodness. Finite, supernatural, non-natural entities can also exist if created by the first cause entity, but are unnecessary, as contingent entities.

Academically, I can support scientific, empirical methodology within scientific research and overlapping academic disciplines. This is inductive reasoning, but I do not reject deductive reasoning within academic disciplines where reasonable, especially within philosophy and theology.

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Bibliography

• Alter, T. and Pereboom, D., 2019, “Russellian Monism”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2019 edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2019/entries/russellian-monism/>.
• Armstrong, D., 1968, A Materialist Theory of the Mind, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
• Baker, A., 2005, “Are there Genuine Mathematical Explanations of Physical Phenomena?”, Mind, 114: 223–38.
• Batterman, R., 2010, “On the Explanatory Role of Mathematics in Empirical Science”, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 61: 1–25.
• Bennett, K., 2003, “Why the Exclusion Problem Seems Intractable, and How, Just Maybe, to Tract It”, Nous, 37: 471–97.
• Bickle, J., 2013, “Multiple Realizability”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2013 edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2013/entries/multiple-realizability/>.
• Blackburn, S., 1993, Essays in Quasi-Realism, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Boyd, R., 1988, “How to Be a Moral Realist”, in G. Sayre-McCord (ed.), Essays on Moral Realism, Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 181–228.
• Braddon-Mitchell, D. and Nola, R. (eds.), Conceptual Analysis and Philosophical Naturalism, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• Brandom, R., 2001, “Reason, Expression, and the Philosophical Enterprise”, in C. Ragland and S. Heidt (eds.), What Is Philosophy?, New Haven: Yale University Press.
• Brown, C., 2017, “A Properly Physical Russellian Physicalism”, Journal of Consciousness Studies, 24: 31–50.
• Burge, T., 1993a, “Mind-Body Causation and Explanatory Practice”, in J. Heil and A. Mele (eds.), Mental Causation, Oxford: Clarendon Press.
• –––, 1993b, “Content Preservation”, Philosophical Review, 102: 457–88.
• Butterfield, J., 2011, “Less is Different: Emergence and Reduction Reconciled”, Foundations of Physics, 41(6): 1065–1135.
• Cappelen, H., 2012, Philosophy without Intuitions, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Cappelen, H., David Plunkett, D. and Burgess, A., 2019, Conceptual Engineering and Conceptual Ethics, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Chalmers, D., 1996, The Conscious Mind, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• –––, 2012, Constructing the World, New York: Oxford University Press.
• Craig, W. and J. Moreland (eds.), 2000, Naturalism: A Critical Analysis, London: Routledge.
• Daly, C. and S. Langford, 2009, “Mathematical Explanation and Indispensability Arguments”, Philosophical Quarterly, 59: 641–658.
• Davidson, D., 1970, “Mental Events”, in L. Foster and J. Swanson (eds.), Experience and Theory, London: Duckworth. Reprinted in Davidson 1980.
• –––, 1980, Essays on Actions and Events, Oxford: Clarendon Press.
• DePaul, M. and W. Ramsey (eds.), 1998, Rethinking Intuition, Lanham, Maryland: Rowman and Littlefield.
• Draper, P., 2005, “God, Science, and Naturalism”, in W. Wainwright (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Religion, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Elkana, Y., 1974, The Discovery of the Conservation of Energy, London: Hutchinson.
• Enoch, D., 2011, Taking Morality Seriously, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Feigl, H., 1958, “The ‘Mental’ and the ‘Physical’”, in H. Feigl, M. Scriven and G. Maxwell (eds.), Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Volume II, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
• Field, H., 1980, Science Without Numbers, Oxford: Blackwell.
• –––, 1989, Realism, Mathematics and Modality, Oxford: Blackwell.
• Fodor, J., 1974, “Special Sciences or: The Disunity of Science as a Working Hypothesis”, Synthese, 28: 97–115.
• Gibbard, A., 2003, Thinking How To Live, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Goldman, A. 2007: “Philosophical Intuitions: Their Target, Their Source, and Their Epistemic Status”, Grazer Philosophische Studien, 74: 1–26.
• Hale, B. and C. Wright, 2003, The Reason’s Proper Study: Essays towards a Neo-Fregean Philosophy of Mathematics, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Hare, R., 1952, The Language of Morals, Oxford: Clarendon Press.
• Harman, G., 1986, “Moral Explanations of Natural Facts”, Southern Journal of Philosophy, 24: 69–78.
• Hempel, C., 1969, “Reduction: Ontological and Linguistic Facets”, in S. Morgenbesser et al. (eds.), Essays in Honor of Ernest Nagel, New York: St Martin’s Press.
• Honderich, T., 1982, “The Argument for Anomalous Monism”, Analysis, 42: 59–64.
• Hornsby, J., 1997, Simple-Mindedness: In Defence of Naïve Naturalism in the Philosophy of Mind, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Jackson, F., 1982, “Epiphenomenal Qualia”, Philosophical Quarterly, 32: 127–36.
• –––, 1986, “What Mary Didn’t Know”, Journal of Philosophy, 83: 291–5.
• –––, 1993, “Armchair Metaphysics”, in J. O’Leary-Hawthorne and M. Michael (eds.), Philosophy in Mind, Dordrecht: Kluwer.
• –––, 1998, From Metaphysics to Ethics, Oxford: Clarendon Press.
• –––, 2003, “Mind and Illusion”, in A. O’Hear (ed.), Minds and Persons, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Jenkins, C., 2008, Grounding Concepts: An Empirical Basis for Arithmetical Knowledge, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• –––, 2012, “A Priori Knowledge: The Conceptual Approach”, in A. Cullison (ed.), The Continuum Companion to Epistemology, London: Continuum Press.
• Joyce, R., 2015, “Moral Anti-Realism”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2015 edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2015/entries/moral-anti-realism/>.
• Kalderon, M., 2005, Moral Fictionalism, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Kim, J., 1998, Mind in a Physical World, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• –––, 2003, “The American Origins of Philosophical Naturalism”, Journal of Philosophical Research, APA Centennial Volume: 83–98.
• Knobe J. and Nichols, S. (eds.), 2008, Experimental Philosophy, New York: Oxford University Press.
• –––,“Experimental Philosophy”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2017 edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2017/entries/experimental-philosophy/>.
• Kornblith, H., 2002, Knowledge and Its Place in Nature, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Krikorian, Y. (ed.), 1944, Naturalism and the Human Spirit, New York: Columbia University Press.
• Kroedel, T., 2015, “Dualist Mental Causation and the Exclusion Problem”, Nous, 49: 357–75.
• Leng, M., 2013, Mathematics and Reality, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Leng, M., 2016, “Taking Morality Mathematically: Enoch’s Indispensability Argument” in U. Leibowitz and N. Sinclair, N. (eds.) Explanation in Ethics and Mathematics: Debunking and Dispensability, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 204–15.
• Lenman, J., 2014, “Moral Naturalism”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2014 edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2014/entries/naturalism-moral/>.
• Lewis, D., 1966, “An Argument for the Identity Theory”, Journal of Philosophy, 63: 17–25.
• –––, 1970, “How to Define Theoretical Terms”, Journal of Philosophy, 67: 427–46.
• List, C. and P. Menzies, 2009, “Non-Reductive Physicalism and the Limits of the Exclusion Principle”, Journal of Philosophy, 106: 475–502.
• –––, 2010, “The Causal Autonomy of the Special Sciences”, in C. Macdonald and G. Macdonald (eds.), Emergence in Mind, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Loewer, B., 2007, “Counterfactuals and the Second Law”, in H. Price and R. Corry (eds.), Causation, Physics, and the Constitution of Reality, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Lowe, E.J., 2000, “Causal Closure Principles and Emergentism”, Philosophy, 75: 571–85.
• –––, 2003, “Physical Causal Closure and the Invisibility of Mental Causation”, in S. Walter and H.-D. Heckmann (eds.), Physicalism and Mental Causation, Exeter: Imprint Academic.
• MacBride, F., 2003, “Speaking with Shadows: A Study of Neo-Logicism”, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 54: 103–63.
• McDowell, J., 1996, Mind and World, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Mackie, J., 1977, Ethics: Inventing Right and Wrong, Harmondsworth: Penguin.
• Maddy, P., 1990, Realism in Mathematics, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Mellor D., 1995, The Facts of Causation, London: Routledge.
• Menon, T. and C. Callender, 2013, “Turn and Face the Strange … Ch-ch-changes”, in R. Batterman (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Physics, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Menzies, P., 2008, “Causal Exclusion, the Determination Relation, and Contrastive Causation”, in J. Kallestrup and J. Hohwy (eds.), Being Reduced: New Essays on Reductive Explanation and Special Science Causation, Oxford: Oxford University Press
• Montero, B., 2015, “Russellian Physicalism”, in T. Alter and Y. Nagasawa (eds.), Consciousness in the Physical World: Perspectives on Russellian Monism, New York: Oxford University Press.
• Montero, B. and D. Papineau, 2005, “A Defence of the Via Negativa Argument for Physicalism”, Analysis, 65: 233–7.
• Moore, G., 1903, Principia Ethica, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Nagel, J., 2007, “Epistemic Intuitions”, Philosophy Compass, 2/6: 792–819.
• Nolan, D., 2011a, “Modal Fictionalism”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2011 edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2011/entries/fictionalism-modal/>.
• –––, 2011b, “Modal Fictionalism and Possible World Semantics” (supplement to “Modal Fictionalism”, Winter 2011 edition), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2011/entries/fictionalism-modal/supplement3.html>.
• Oppenheim, H. and P. Putnam, 1958, “Unity of Science as a Working Hypothesis”, in H. Feigl, M. Scriven, and G. Maxwell (eds.), Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Volume II, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
• Papineau, D., 2001, “The Rise of Physicalism”, in C. Gillett and B. Loewer (eds.), Physicalism and its Discontents, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• –––, 2013, “Causation is Macroscopic but not Irreducible”, in S. Gibb, E. Lowe, and R. Ingthorsson (eds.), Mental Causation and Ontology, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• –––, 2014, “The Poverty of Conceptual Analysis”, in M. Haug (ed.), Philosophical Methodology, London: Routledge.
• –––, 2015, “The Nature of A Priori Intuitions: Analytic or Synthetic?”, in E. Fischer and J. Collins (eds.), Experimental Philosophy, Rationalism, and Naturalism, London: Routledge.
• Parfit, D., 2011, On What Matters, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Parsons, C., 1995, “Platonism and Mathematical Intuition in Kurt Gödel’s Thought”, Bulletin of Symbolic Logic, 1(1): 44–74.
• Plantinga, A., 1996, “Methodological Naturalism?”, in J. van der Meer (ed.), Facets of Faith and Science, Lanham, MD: University Press of America.
• Price, H., 2011, Naturalism without Mirrors, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Pust, J., 2014, “Intuition”, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2014 edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2014/entries/intuition/>.
• Putnam, H., 1971, Philosophy of Logic, New York: Harper.
• Ridge, M., 2014, “Moral Non-Naturalism”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2014 edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2014/entries/moral-non-naturalism/>.
• Robb, D. and J. Heil, 2014, “Mental Causation”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2014 edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2014/entries/mental-causation/>.
• Rosen, G., 1990, “Modal Fictionalism”, Mind, 99: 327–54.
• Russell, B., 1917, “On Scientific Method in Philosophy”, in his Mysticism and Logic, London: Longmans.
• Russell, G., 2008, Truth in Virtue of Meaning, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Shafer-Landau, R., 2003, Moral Realism: A Defence, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Shapiro, S., 2000, “Frege Meets Dedekind: A Neologicist Treatment of Real Analysis”, Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, 41: 335–64.
• Smart, J.J.C., 1959, “Sensations and Brain Processes”, Philosophical Review, 68: 141–56.
• Sosa, E., 1998, “Minimal Intuition”, in DePaul and Ramsey 1998: 257–70.
• –––, 2007, “Experimental Philosophy and Philosophical Intuition”, Philosophical Studies, 132: 99–107.
• Spurrett, D. and Papineau, D., 1999, “A Note on the Completeness of ‘Physics’”, Analysis, 59: 25–29.
• Steward, H., 2012, A Metaphysics for Freedom, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Strevens, M., 2019, Thinking Off Your Feet, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Stoljar, D., 2015, “Physicalism”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2015 edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2015/entries/physicalism/>.
• Sturgeon, N., 1985, “Moral Explanations”, in D. Copp and D. Zimmerman (eds.), Morality, Reason, and Truth, Totowa, New Jersey: Rowman and Allanheld, 49–78.
• Turner, F., 1974, Between Science and Religion. The Reaction to Scientific Naturalism in Late Victorian England, New Haven: Yale University Press.
• Wedgwood, R., 2007, The Nature of Normativity, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Weinberg, J., S. Nichols, and S. Stich, 2001, “Normativity and Epistemic Intuitions”, Philosophical Topics, 29: 429–460.
• Wilson, J., 2006, “On Characterizing the Mental”, Philosophical Studies, 131: 61–99.
• Williamson, T., 2007, The Philosophy of Philosophy, Oxford: Blackwell.
• –––, 2011, “Philosophical Expertise and the Burden of Proof”, Metaphilosophy, 42(2): 215–29.
• –––, 2013, “How Deep is the Distinction between A Priori and A Posteriori Knowledge?”, in A. Casullo and J. Thurow (eds.), The A Priori in Philosophy, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 291–312.
• Woodward, J., 2005, Making Things Happen, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Woolhouse, R., 1985, “Leibniz’s Reaction to Cartesian Interaction”, Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 86: 69–82.
• Wright, C., 1983, Frege’s Conception of Numbers as Objects, Aberdeen: Aberdeen University Press.
• –––, 1992, Truth and Objectivity, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• –––, 2000, “Neo-Fregean Foundations for Real Analysis: Some Reflections on Frege’s Constraint”, Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, 41: 317–34.
• Yablo, S., 1992, “Mental Causation”, Philosophical Review, 101: 245–280.
• Yalowitz, S., 2014, “Anomalous Monism”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2014 edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2014/entries/anomalous-monism/>.
• 
  

Anglican Rowan Williams (Brief PhD Edit)

London via email

Rowan Williams was Archbishop of Canterbury while I worked on my Wales, PhD. I emailed him/his office for assistance with my MPhil questionnaire prior to him having that position.

Revelation

Anglican Rowan Williams states, ‘Revelation is the statement of God’s autonomy.’[1] God explains who he is and becomes his own ‘alter ego’ as Christ.[2]  Roman Catholic theologian Alan Schreck states his Church agrees that the Bible is the inspired word of God,[3] but does not believe that the Bible is the only source of Revelation and spiritual guidance for Christians.[4]  A dividing point between Protestants and Catholics comes with Schreck’s idea that God within Catholic thought continues to select certain individuals that teach with God’s authority through the Holy Spirit.[5]  Protestants and those within the Reformed camp have, at times throughout history disagreed, with the Biblical and theological interpretations of certain Roman Catholic leaders, in particular the Pope,[6] believed to be inspired by the Holy Spirit.[7]

Scripture

Williams suggests Scripture becomes the Word in fidelity to Christ, as preaching becomes the Word in fidelity to Scripture, and Christ is himself the divine act as such.  ‘God reveals himself through himself.’  Williams  (2007: 108-109).  I agree, God reveals himself through the Holy Spirit inspiring Scripture and presenting Christ.

---

[1] Williams (2007: 116).

[2] Williams (2007: 116).

[3] Schreck (1984: 41). 

[4] Schreck (1984: 42). Strictly speaking as noted, those in Reformed theology do trust in non-Biblical truths for spiritual guidance. Calvin admitted this in the context of Scripture and tradition. Calvin (1543)(1996: 64).  I should also add that any reliance on philosophy and philosophy of religion is not strictly Biblical and I and many Reformed scholars look to philosophy for truth.  

[5] Schreck (1984: 42). 

[6] Calvin explains, within The Bondage and Liberation of the Will, his opinion that at that point in history the Papacy was beyond Reform.  Calvin (1543)(1996: 17).

[7] Schreck (1984: 42).  

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.

SCHRECK, ALAN (1984) Catholic and Christian, Ann Arbor, Michigan, Servant Books. 

WILLIAMS, ROWAN (2000) On Christian Theology, Blackwell Publishing, Oxford.

WILLIAMS, ROWAN (2007) Wrestling with Angels, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids.

Roman Catholic Philosopher Peter Kreeft (PhD Edit)

Bristol, England-Google+

God and Sovereignty

Peter Kreeft (1988) explains that the problem of evil is the most serious problem in the world,[1] and is a very serious objection to theism.[2] 

Roman Catholics Peter Kreeft and Ronald K. Tacelli (1994) suggest that God faces no real barriers in actions he wishes to commit, and that only what God allows, such as human sin, could thwart God’s plans.[3]   

They note if God did not allow human beings the option to misuse their freedom, they would not be human but animal or machine[4] having less value than creatures that had the potential to be persuaded by God to follow him, and turn from wrong doing.[5]

Satan

Kreeft, working with Ronald K. Tacelli, states Satan is a deceiver of humanity,[6] and this implies the assumption that Satan has personality.[7] 

In Regard to Calvinism

They note that some, but not all, forms of Calvinism subscribe to a view of hard determinism that denies any human free will.[8]  I would reason that in light of their statement[9] that most Calvinists are not hard determinists.[10]  

On Desires and Freewill

Kreeft and Tacelli approach desires in a similar way as Mele as they state that human beings have innate desire for natural things such as food and drink,[11] and external desires such as sports cars and political office.[12]  Kreeft and Tacelli’s innate desires concept would somewhat correspond to Mele’s intrinsic ones as these would be the inner most human desires.[13]  Kreeft and Tacelli’s external desires would be similar to Mele’s extrinsic desires,[14] which would be secondary desires fulfilled in order to fulfill the deepest human desires.[15]

Immanence and Transcendence

Kreeft and Tacelli explain that God’s immanence means the creator must give created beings what they need.[16]  If God was not actively communicating being[17] to all his creation, his creation would cease to exist.[18] 

It is stated that God as transcendent is not part of the material universe.[19]  God is ‘other’ than his creation yet maintains it as transcendent.[20] 

Universalism

Kreeft and Tacelli explain that universalism is universal salvation and has been considered by some well-known orthodox Christians over the centuries[21] as a viable alternative to hell, although Kreeft and Tacelli reject this alternative.[22] 

KREEFT, PETER (1988) Fundamentals of the Faith, San Francisco, Ignatius Press. 

KREEFT, PETER AND RONALD K. TACELLI (1994) Handbook of Christian Apologetics, Downers Grove, Illinois, InterVarsity Press.

MELE, ALFRED R. (1996) ‘Extrinsic Desire’, in Robert Audi, (ed.), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

---

[1] Kreeft (1988: 54-58).

[2] Kreeft (1988: 54-58).

[3] Kreeft and Tacelli (1994: 96).

[4] Kreeft and Tacelli (1994: 138).

[5] Kreeft and Tacelli (1994: 138).  This assumes incompatibilism but it is true that human beings would be vastly different with significantly less freedom due to divine determining factors. 

[6] Kreeft and Tacelli (1994: 294).

[7] Kreeft and Tacelli (1994: 294).

[8] Kreeft and Tacelli (1994: 137).

[9] Kreeft and Tacelli (1994: 137).

[10] My research demonstrates that hard determinism is problematic for the majority of Calvinists and those within Reformed theology because Scripture (Romans 1-3, for example) condemns persons for sin and holds them morally accountable.  Therefore, persons must at least freely embrace their own actions within soft determinism in order for punishment to be just.

[11] Kreeft and Tacelli (1994: 78).

[12] Kreeft and Tacelli (1994: 78).

[13] Kreeft and Tacelli (1994: 78). 

[14] Mele (1996: 259).

[15] Kreeft and Tacelli (1994: 78).

[16] Kreeft and Tacelli (1994: 93-94).

[17] Kreeft and Tacelli with the use of the word ‘being’ are stating that God, in an abstract sense, is communicating himself to his creation.

[18] Kreeft and Tacelli (1994: 93-94).

[19] Kreeft and Tacelli (1994: 93). 

[20] Kreeft and Tacelli (1994: 93). 

[21] This would, of course, provide another opportunity for a PhD thesis.

[22] Kreeft and Tacelli (1994: 286).

---

CBS Denver

I heard this story on 'The Briefing' at Albert Mohler.com

Cited

'Colorado Vets See Spike In Cases Of ‘Stoner Dogs’'

Cited

'The popularity of medical marijuana in Colorado has had an unintended side effect — dogs getting stoned, sometimes with deadly results. Some people firmly believe that if medical marijuana helps people, it also helps their pets, but that’s not always the case.

Marijuana can be harmful and sometimes toxic for dogs. New research shows that with medical marijuana, the number of dogs getting sick from pot is spiking. “They basically have lost a lot of their fine motor control, they have a wide-based stance and they are not sure on their feet,” said Dr. Debbie Van Pelt of VRCC, the Veterinary Specialty and Emergency Hospital in Englewood.' 

Cited

'Most of the time veterinarians say dogs get the medical marijuana by eating their owners food products that are laced with marijuana that were left out in the open. More and more dispensaries sell those kinds of products.' Cited '“We need people to realize it is potentially toxic and potentially fatal to their pets,” Van Pelt said.'

The Colorado Stoner Dogs...

It reads and sounds like a potential new professional sports team for the State...

I do feel bad in regard to the suffering dogs.

I am not interested in marijuana for recreational use, or the use of any substance that is significantly mind altering.

Therefore I would only consume alcohol and as well over-the counter and prescription medication, where applicable, in moderation.

For those that use medical marijuana the common sense approach would be to keep these products stored in a private place as would be potentially lethal over-the counter or prescription drugs.