G.C. Berkouwer (PhD Edit)

From European Space Agency-Gaia Calibration

Reformed Theologian Gerrit Cornelis Berkouwer from my PhD work.

The Biblical God’s Dealings With Humanity

G.C. Berkouwer explains that ‘Man[1] is-even when alienated from God-not alone.’[2]  God has still gifted fallen humanity[3] and there is a possible limitation to human corruption, that being the grace of Christ and his words and work.[4]  God still has the power and opportunity to save persons,[5] and humanly speaking[6] persons have an opportunity to know Christ in conversion.[7]

Berkouwer reasons that God wants a free man, not a mechanical tool or creature that can be maneuvered as the Almighty sees fit. Berkouwer (1962: 333).  

I reason human freedom always operates within the framework of God’s sovereignty and providence. However, the concept of God forcing and/or coercing persons to commit actions would be denied by many within Reformed theology.  Frame (2002: 153).  Berkouwer (1962: 333).

April 18, 2014

As noted on my blogs, I would agree and therefore deny that compatibilism/soft determinism with significantly free human and secondary cause actions, includes divine force and/or coercion. Rather God simultaneously causes and wills human thoughts, acts/actions. God performing such with infinite knowledge in infinite holiness and moral perfection; secondary beings, such as angels with finite knowledge and limited holiness and limited moral perfection, sinless. Fallen significantly rational creatures with finite knowledge and in unholiness and sin, such as fallen angels and human beings, although God/Holy Spirit can and does influence the Christian believer at times in regard to thoughts, acts/actions (John 20, Acts). The believer having the imputed righteousness of Christ in justification (Romans 1-4). Influence of the non-believer by God is also possible and reasonable, although outside of election and regeneration and other aspects of salvation including justification. Being chosen and regenerated New Testament concepts for those in Christ.

BERKOUWER, G.C. (1962) Man: The Image of God, Grand Rapids, W.M.B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

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

http://www.thirdmill.org/files/english/html/th/TH.h.Frame.ProblemofEvil.htm

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

---

[1] I prefer the term humankind.

[2] Berkouwer (1962: 183).

[3] Berkouwer (1962: 186).

[4] Berkouwer (1962: 192).

[5] Berkouwer (1962: 192).

[6] Within a compatibilistic framework.

[7] Berkouwer (1962: 192-193).

Harold Lindsell (PhD Edit)

Vancouver

British Columbia-trekearth

PhD edit from Dr. Harold Lindsell, former editor of Christianity Today:

Scripture Harold Lindsell explains that the inerrancy of Scripture is rejected by many within liberal churches.[1] He reasons that inerrancy equals infallibility and a trustworthy Bible.[2]

Within progressive churches the issue of everlasting punishment can be complicated by questioning of inerrancy of related verses. The issue of the trustworthiness of Scripture mentioned by Lindsell,[3] and as well the symbolic nature of the Biblical language describing everlasting hell, could create doubt concerning the doctrine of everlasting punishment within liberal churches.

Figurative literal language, in my mind, does not in Biblical terms mean mythological language, but not plain literal language.

Therefore, everlasting hell and punishment is not Biblically dismissed as fiction because it is not described plain literally. Lindsell would support a traditional understanding of Biblical revelation where he states that through special supernatural revelation in Scripture, Jesus Christ is revealed to selected persons.[4] He does not believe that a human being can be saved outside of this revelation.[5]

Traditionalists such as Lindsell, will view any move within the Christian Church away from Biblical teaching as a negative.[6] He provides the opinion that many Christian institutions have slowly over time moved away from orthodox, Biblical theology and have gone astray.[7]

Some from the conservative perspective, who answered this question in the affirmative, may view secular influence on the Church as leading it into error. This can be seen in many Christian Church contexts today. Lindsell analyses the issue of Scripture philosophically and acknowledges that within the Christian community there have been other non-traditional ways to look at the Bible. There have been debates within the Church over inerrancy, as in the Bible being without error. He states that the term infallible can be considered a synonym of the word inerrant in the context of the Bible. Lindsell (1976: 27).

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

---

[1] Lindsell (1976: 201-202).
[2] Lindsell (1976: 19). I can support inerrancy for the original documents, which no longer exist. No copies or translations are inerrant.
[3] Lindsell (1976: 201-202).
[4] Lindsell (1976: 17).
[5] Lindsell (1976: 17).
[6] Lindsell (1976: 185).
[7] Lindsell (1976: 185).
[8] Lindsell (1976: 185).

Brief On Job 38:3

Monaco-trekearth

Nice Spring day, although I am recovering from night shift, yesterday.

New American Standard Bible

38 Then the Lord answered Job out of the whirlwind and said,

2 “Who is this that darkens counsel By words without knowledge?

3 “Now gird up your loins like a man, And I will ask you, and you instruct Me!

English Standard Version

38 Then the Lord answered Job out of the whirlwind and said:

2 “Who is this that darkens counsel by words without knowledge?

3 Dress for action[a] like a man; I will question you, and you make it known to me.

Browning explains the book of Job is a major text of wisdom literature (p.204) in the Hebrew Bible. The authorship is reasoned to not be certain and was likely written after the exile. Browning (1997: 204). Clines states that the story of Job was present many centuries before the Old Testament book was completed. Clines (1986: 521). This would include oral form, I reason. The story goes back to the second millennium BC and the book written between the seventh and third centuries BC. Clines (1986: 521).

This is deduced based on literary form. Clines (1986: 521).

The fact that Job is mentioned in Ezekiel 14: 14 demonstrates the antiquity of events. Job is mentioned with Noah and Daniel. Clines (1986: 521).

Interestingly listed after the other two Biblical greats. Does this have chronological significance?

La Sor and company state Job is referenced in ancient texts circa 2000 BC (Egypt) and Amarna (Egypt) 1350 BC, meaning the story may very well be of an actual sufferer who was later documented in a setting by a poet. (p. 560). However, the academic text reasons the story still has Biblical value regardless of historical setting and that it was not seriously questioned in the Hebrew Bible canon. (pp. 560-561).

Acceptance in Hebrew Bible canon strongly suggests historicity and relevant historical value.

My short term academic adviser at Manchester University, Professor David Pailin, informed me that because of these issues with Job, that the book was basically mythology, but I do not think that conclusion is warranted.

He was attempting to demerit the book in regard to its use with my theodicy and problem of evil research.

It is according to these sources an ancient historical story documented in the Hebrew Bible at a deduced significantly later date.

I have also come across statements, including pastoral, in my academic career from those that study scholarship that speculate Job may have been written much closer to the occurrence of events, although admittedly not present from my documented sources and seemingly not the more accepted scholarly position.

Further...

The justice of God is questioned. Browning (1997: 204).

Job scholar David J. A. Clines writes that Yahweh's first speech takes place at Job 38: 1-40: 2, and the second speech Job 40: 6-41: 34. Clines (1986: 545-548).

The first speech is largely a series of questions addressed by God to Job. Not intended to 'humiliate Job by exposing his ignorance and inability to answer God, nor are they designed to be such a display of God's wisdom and omnipotence as to require Job to leave off his attempt to understand what is happening to him'. Clines (1986: 545).

Instead Job is challenged to reconsider, even while in a state of much suffering, his knowledge in regard to God and creation. Clines (1986: 545). Job is to consider, natural order, the animal kingdom and the mysteries of life, from a human perspective. Clines (1986: 545).

In Job 38, Job finally has a reply from God and it is divinely pointed out 'how far beyond Job's range are the questions of the governance of the universe'. Clines (1986: 546).

This is theologically and philosophically no surprise as God is infinite and with unlimited knowledge and ability, outside of contradiction of nature and character.

This in contrast with finite human nature also tainted by sinfulness.

God is not 'aloof from Job's sufferings but will meet where he is and reveal himself to him'. Clines (1986: 546).

Job's lack of insight into divine plans of deity made the plans of God, 'dark and made God's dealing seem arbitrary'. Clines (1986: 546).

This can be tied back to concepts from my MPhil and PhD work as in the infinite, sovereign and yet holy and good God, causing and willing evil, as first cause, yet for the good. And for the good for those in Christ that love him called according to his divine purpose (Romans 8).

Many times from a human perspective God's plans and actions seem dark, harsh and cruel and from a human perspective this is true to a point, I admit academically and from personal experience, as human beings do suffer at times in terrible ways, even while acknowledging the goodness of God without sin. And God as holy (Isaiah 6).

I do not view God's plans and actions as arbitrary, whatsoever, instead viewing God with sovereign, providential plans in creation. God being demonstrated in the New Testament as predestining events whether the crucifixion, atonement, resurrection, salvation, second advent and restored creation.

My main focus for this short post is:

Job being told to 'brace yourself like a man'. Clines (1986: 545). A verse I have been pondering on for years. Cline reasons the literal 'gird up your loins' like a man has 'overtones of 'warrior''. Clines (1986: 545). As if in preparation for battle. Cline (1986: 545).

Job is encouraged to 'use all his mental strength to understand the message God will convey to him in indirect fashion'. Cline (1986: 545).

I agree with the Christian theological assertions and argumentation that God should not be challenged outside of faith, for that would be sinful and repentance needed.

But there is Biblically a concept of questioning God in faith and this in light of problems of evil and suffering that God indeed wills, for good divine purposes, is very intense serious business.

Warrior like as Clines states.

In other words, I conclude that not all Christian interaction with God in faith need necessarily be classic evangelical 'God is wonderful' worship type of approach we see in Sunday morning worship songs and written and audio devotional materials, for example.

Not all Christian interaction with God necessarily be evangelistic as in 'sales pitch' for those inside and outside of the Church, of how good God is and how much he loves us. True God is good and does love humanity (John 1, John 15), especially those he chooses in Christ (Ephesians 1-2), but there is also respectful, faithful dialogue in tension with God in regard to serious issues that also needs to occur at times.

A secondary conclusion I arrive at from Job 38: 3 and related is that if human beings are to be respectfully and reasonably firm with God in dialogue with tension, this should also be done in human to human contexts as in the example of employment and relationships.

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

CLINES, DAVID J. A. (1986) Job, The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Zondervan.

CLINES, DAVID J. A. (1986) Proverbs, The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Zondervan.

LA SOR, WILLIAM SANFORD, DAVID ALLAN HUBBARD, AND FREDERIC WILLIAM BUSH. (1987) Old Testament Survey, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

Brief On Consent (MPhil Edit)

Salzburg-Facebook

I am @ home between shifts here and so this shall be short and hopefully sweet, as opposed to sweat, but I have been pondering on this the last few days.

From 2003 The Problem of Evil: Anglican and Baptist Perspectives: MPhil thesis, Bangor University

'Woods mentioned Playboyism, and stated of Hugh Hefner, Publisher of Playboy Magazine: "Hefner rejects any philosophy that holds a man must deny himself for others. The Playboy outlook says a man should love himself preeminently and pursue only his own pleasure." Woods (1974)(1982: 108).

Considering Playboy, where women are viewed as objects sexually by both Hefner and the willing women participating, this magazine brings its participants money, fame and sexual gratification, but the Playboy philosophy represented in the magazine, through mass media influence, also causes women in society to be viewed as objects by many men. This can cause many women to be overlooked for their intellect, and looked upon more for their sexual beauty.

So, in a subtle fashion, the Playboy philosophy can bring pain to many people in society because Playboy Magazine exploits sexuality when, in reality, sexuality belongs in the context of marriage/committed relationship where the inner beauty of the person is more important than their outer image. With the Playboy philosophy, the outer beauty is far more important than the inner beauty.'

April 7, 2014

Related

Consent in secular Western society in regard to intimate matters seems to often be the philosophical and moral/ethical bottom line in judging thoughts, acts and actions as permissible or not.

I understand this is how these moral/ethical issues are often dealt with in democratic, Western societies.

In this fallen world from a Biblical view, and certainly, imperfect from a secular view, where religion has been politically corrupted in the past, present and will be in the future, I am no supporter of theocracy or theonomy in this present realm.

Religious rule to govern sexual ethics.

The only theocracy I support theologically and philosophically in one ruled by God and Christ in a restored realm explained in part in Revelation and 2 Peter.

Theocracy and theonomy is this present age is bound is be in disagreement with my views and the views of other scholars on many points.

A religious scholar, as one example, could end up breaking the law.

When some segments of Western society view certain thoughts, acts and actions morally and ethically not permissible, there is often an assumption that consent is not possible or not granted by one or more parties involved.

The sex trade industry as an example.

Sometimes this will clearly be an accurate view and sometimes the issue is unclear.

With the sex trade industry, some persons very immorally are forced and/or coerced into it clearly without possibility of consent, as with underage.

I am not going to debate underage consent here philosophically, but will acknowledge and accept it morally, ethically and legally.

Some adults are within the industry, immorally without consent, by force and/or coercion.

At times the issue of consent is clouded in the case of adult professional sex trade industry workers.

The philosophical impression I receive from reading and media is that some anti-sex trade industry advocates, from the left and right, as opposed to primarily the documented writings of a certain writer or scholar per say, admittedly to be clear, reason no one in the adult sex trade industry is providing consent other than the proprietors and clients.

My view can be seen implied in the MPhil work where I stated:

'Considering Playboy, where women are viewed as objects sexually by both Hefner and the willing women participating,'

And yes, I realize there is a wide-range of sex trade industry work and that Playboy is considered on the soft side on the industry.

Pornography by some, erotica by others. Or perhaps both by some.

I do not write as an expert here, but philosophically, morally and ethically, this understanding that no one in the adult sex trade is providing consent other than the proprietors and clients, seems too simplistic. I state this cautiously and in humility but I reason that the corrupt nature of humanity described in Romans and implied elsewhere in Ephesians for example, means that all persons make sinful choices via sinful nature.

A sinful choice certainly is made at times through sinful nature (Romans) to willingly consent to work within the sex industry.

There are many moral, ethical and social negatives associated with the sex trade industry.

A Biblical position, in contrast, prohibits adultery and fornication, Exodus 20: 14 and coveting Exodus 20: 17.

Adultery and fornication of the heart (mind) that can lead to sinful acts and actions is viewed as sinful in Matthew 5 and the solution is Biblical marriage from 1 Corinthians 7, if one is not content being single.

And therefore, it is philosophically, morally and ethically error to primarily judge the adult sex trade industry permissible, or not based on consent.

I am not stating Scripture does not acknowledge the need for consent in matter of sexuality or that it is not vital. In context, Biblical marriage, for example, implies the consent of man and woman in a covenantal relationship.

I also of course do not claim moral perfection in order to judge, rather by the guidance of the Holy Spirit I seek to live by Biblical concepts.

WOODS, B.W. (1974) Christians in Pain, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.

From email