Brief On Scholarship

Wales-trekearth

Gary Habermas interview from his site 2014 03-19

Dr. Habermas states again and again, basically (paraphrased in interviews) for the most part Biblical scholars conservative and liberal generally reason those that wrote the Scriptures honestly believed what they wrote (therefore the people noted within were real), but there is a difference in the acceptance of the supernatural related doctrines between conservative and liberal scholarship.

He mentioned in the interview that a recognized scholar would need to have to have a terminal degree from a (paraphrased) accredited institution, be working in the field and have a peer reviewed publication.

He stated that blogs are questionable for scholarship. Agreed.

Generally, bloggers are not scholars, but I am an exception, due to the nature of my work.

For disclaimer, I have met Dr. Habermas in person and have emailed with him for career advice.

He is quite helpful and a friend.

Although I do not have a peer reviewed journal article and do not work in the field as a primary career. I do consider myself a scholar, although certainly not well-known, due to the peer review nature of five hundred pages of  major PhD and MPhil, United Kingdom theses, and as well my blogs, particularly this academic one which uses scholarly documentation.

I did do significant work in the areas of theodicy, the problem of evil, free will, determinism and embedded my own Reformed solution the problem of evil, within my PhD thesis.

That qualifies as scholarship.

If I stay outside of primary employment in the fields of philosophy of religion and religious studies and do not write any other major works this will keep me rather unknown but does not prevent me from writing shorter scholarly documented posts on this site or even on Satire And Theology.

I largely agree with Dr. Habermas in his evaluation of what is a scholar and the need to be careful when he states that many of the web sources in regard to philosophy of religion and religious studies today are questionable and lacking proper academic credentials, regardless if whether they are conservative or liberal, Christian or non-Christian in view.

South Wales-trekearth

Just emailed today with a well-known philosopher of religion, historian and New Testament scholar that told me that among his friends, including me, basically no one is being hired, and he knows of another with two PhDs, including one from Wales. I of course have my PhD and MPhil research only degrees from Wales.

I will continue to earn my primary living elsewhere and continue with daily study.

Theologian John Sanders (PhD Edit)

The French Alps-trekearth

John Sanders (1998) writes that in incompatibilism it is believed genetic or environmental factors are not ignored in the process of human actions,[1] but it is thought a human being could always have done otherwise in any given situation.[2]  Sanders explains that general sovereignty is a concept in contrast to a Calvinistic specific sovereignty[3] that has God allowing general structures to be set up by which human significant freedom and resulting choices allows persons to input on how things turn out.[4]  With general sovereignty, God takes risks in governing the world,[5] but he does not take risks with the concept of specific sovereignty.[6]  Sanders deduces here that when God wants to bring about human acts within the general sovereignty framework he persuades people, whereas Sanders views specific sovereignty as using hard determinism to force people to commit acts.[7]  

Bruce Reichenbach (1986) explains that the sovereign cannot compel his subjects to freely follow him.[8]  This understanding would be held by Feinberg,[9] and in general terms, accepted by most scholars that hold to theistic compatibilism within a Reformed tradition.

This would philosophically contrast soft determinism from hard determinism; compatibilism not allowing for force or coercion in regard to significantly free thoughts, acts and actions including human chose in regard to everlasting destiny as secondary causes, as God is primary cause.

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.

REICHENBACH, BRUCE (1986) Predestination and Free Will, Downers Grove, Illinois, InterVarsity Press.

SANDERS, JOHN (1998) The God Who Risks,  Downers Grove, Illinois, InterVarsity Press.

SANDERS, JOHN (2003) ‘Open Theism: A Radical Revision or Minuscule Modification of Arminianism?’,  in Wesleyan Theological Journal, Volume 38, Number 2, Fall, pp. 69-102.  Wilmore, Kentucky, Asbury College. 

---

[1] Sanders (1998: 221).

[2] Sanders (1998: 221).  That would be significant freedom for incompatibilism.

[3] Sanders (1998: 212).

[4] Sanders (1998: 213).

[5] Sanders (1998: 213-214).

[6] Sanders (1998: 213-214).

[7] Sanders (1998: 214).

[8] Reichenbach (1986: 105).

[9] Feinberg, would deny that God would force persons to commit acts, instead it is God’s sovereign plan that certain unconstrained actions should occur.  Feinberg (2001: 637).

England:Goring Gap-trekearth

Limited Free Will (Brief)

South Wales-trekearth

FEATURED MY ASSURANCE: GOD IS IN CONTROL, PART 2

Cited

'God always gives His best to those He loves, but sometimes His will includes something you would never choose for yourself. How do you reconcile God's generous love with the pain and sorrow He allows? Dr. Stanley responds to those of us who wrestle with this question in part two of My Assurance: God is in Control.'

I found a significant Christian teacher that uses the term 'limited free will' in regard to humanity.

Dr. Charles Stanley of In Touch Ministries

My PhD term.

I rarely see the term used online and did not see it used by a significant teacher or writer in my academic research at Wales or prior to.

From

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

Cited

'In contrast, I deduce that God can have very specific intentions in every situation, while allowing significant limited free will, and this has been explained throughout this work.'

End

I wrote three posts on the weekend, the last two on my second blog:

Sovereignty Theodicy

False Story

Robust Enough

Wales, Lampeter-Trinity Saint David

Sovereignty Theodicy And Certainty (PhD Edit)

France-Facebook-Travel+Leisure

My third article today and I would reason that the 32 Celsius local heat and my inability to sleep well up in this basically third floor condo has something to do with it.

Thankfully shortly, I will be playing 'football' outside.

My other two posts from today are short and hopefully sweet: Satire And Theology

A post from the same material and more footnotes February 1 2011

A continuation of the theme of certainty:

Preface

A philosophy point to ponder on in light of progressive attempts to reinvent Christianity for the 21st Century and make human nature as it presently is more acceptable is that universal human death in this realm is a very strong cumulative point and indicator that God is not pleased with humanity in its current state (Genesis 1-3, Romans 1-6) and that the atoning and resurrection work of Christ is essential to be applied to a Christian believer (Hebrew 7-9, I Corinthians 15) for everlasting life with a perfected although still finite nature.

Sovereignty Theodicy And Certainty

A rejection by some within the Christian Church of the Reformed idea that God predestines with soft determinism individuals to salvation is important.[1]  This would work hand in hand with the rejection of the idea that God causes evil by allowing sin to exist. In both cases God’s divine sovereignty is downplayed, by Reformed standards. With free will theory God would be viewed as allowing the problem of evil for greater purposes, but not willing it.[2]  A praxis of free will theodicy would be that God can desire to save all persons, but cannot because human beings refuse to turn to God.[3]  Moral choices are not caused or uncaused by another being, but are self-caused.[4]  God therefore would be unable to save persons that freely reject him and they have made a moral choice to oppose God.[5]  In contrast to the sovereignty perspective, since God does not cause evil and does not predetermine human actions such as who shall believe in him,  human beings are a greater impediment to a culminated Kingdom of God with a free will theodicy than with a sovereignty one.[6]  This fits into Plantinga’s reasoning that in every situation transworld depravity will cause wrong human actions.[7]  Transworld depravity provides the concept that in any possible world, including our own, each person would make at least one wrong decision and the resulting bad action would lead to evil occurring within creation.[8]   It can be reasoned that the praxis related end goal of free will theodicy is for God within an incompatibilist, libertarian system to convince many human beings to accept Christ and turn from evil in order to fully establish the Kingdom of God.[9]

In contrast, with a compatibilistic sovereignty perspective, God is reasoned to transform and mould persons he chooses for salvation,[10] so that the culminated Kingdom takes place at God’s appointed time.[11]  Both free will and sovereignty perspectives accept the Biblical idea of the culminated Kingdom, but free will places much more emphasis on the individual freely deciding that this is for him/her, rather than being determined  in any way to do so.[12]  Free will advocates will understand the process as God making an offer and over time convincing persons to believe it.  A devotion to God can only be a good thing when persons freely accept it.[13]  Sovereignty perspectives reason that God alone makes the choice to begin a regeneration process that leads to salvation in a human being.  F.F. Bruce (1996) explains that because of the universal fact of human sin, there is no way to be accepted by God by human means.[14]  This divinely guided change in a person must occur in order for salvation to ever take place within a human being with a corrupted nature.[15] 

Free will theodicy, unlike soul-making theory, does not necessarily accept universalism[16] as part of its praxis and it could logically be argued that Plantinga’s transworld depravity would apply in all post-mortem situations.[17]  In my view, these are perils of a praxis that rejects compatibilism and soft determinism.  Even as traditional Christian free will theory would not accept universalism, it still reasons eventually those citizens saved by Christ would not sin within the culminated Kingdom. Those within the Kingdom will have been brought to God through Christ.[18]  The resurrection work would be reasoned to change the entire nature of saved persons to sinless and allow everlasting life, but without God also determining that sin would never again occur, I reason that transworld depravity could always be a concern.[19]

A praxis of sovereignty theodicy would be that, from start to finish, salvation is primarily the goal directed[20] plan of God.  Human beings are not brought to Christ through compulsion, but when predestined in election shall be convinced to accept the offer of salvation.  Praxis shifts from the incompatibilism of free will that assumes God desires to save all persons, but can only save those who are eventually persuaded to believe, to an understanding that whom God desires to save shall be regenerated and placed in a process of salvation.[21]  The problem of evil is therefore not primarily subject to, and in existence, because human sin is stalling the culmination of God’s plans.  I do not doubt that human beings do often oppose God’s plans, but God being almighty can overcome the problem of evil, and is working through this process slowly in history.  Within a sovereignty perspective human sin does oppose God, but God will use sin for his purposes and regenerate and mould those he chooses towards salvation.  As long as one can accept the idea that a perfectly moral God wills and allows evil within his plans for the greater good,[22] there is a degree of intellectual certainty with sovereignty theodicy that free will theodicy lacks.  God could inevitably bring about, through the use of the regeneration and the resurrection of elected human persons,  the end of human corruption,  and even Plantinga’s concept of transworld depravity.[23]  If God willed and created a finalized Kingdom of restored persons that had experienced the problem of evil and were saved from it, then it could be reasoned that with God’s constant persuasion through the Holy Spirit and human experience and maturity, transworld depravity would never take place again.  

No human wrong decision[24] would need to occur as God always determines otherwise, and restored human beings do not lack experience as did the first humans who rebelled against God causing corruption.  I speculate that theological praxis of sovereignty theodicy is more certain and comforting than free will theodicy, as transworld depravity is overcome by taking the primary choice of human belief in God away from corrupted human beings and placing it in the hands of a sovereign God.

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.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/130104.htm

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

http://www.knight.org/advent

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.

BLOESCH, DONALD G. (1987) Freedom for Obedience, San Francisco, Harper and Rowe Publishers.

BLOESCH, DONALD G. (1996) ‘Sin, The Biblical Understanding of Sin’, in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.

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.

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.

EDWARDS, JONATHAN (1729)(2006) Sovereignty of God, New Haven, Connecticut, Jonathan Edwards Center, Yale University.

EDWARDS, JONATHAN (1731-1733)(2006) Law of Nature, New Haven, Connecticut, Jonathan Edwards Center, Yale University.

EDWARDS, JONATHAN (1754)(2006) Freedom of the Will, Flower Mound, Texas. Jonathanedwards.com.
http://www.jonathanedwards.com

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.

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.

LUTHER, MARTIN. (1516)(1968) Commentary On The Epistle To The Romans, Translated by J.Theodore Mueller, Grand Rapids, Zondervan Publishing House.

LUTHER, MARTIN. (1518)(1989) ‘Heidelberg Disputation’, in Timothy F. Lull (ed.), Martin Luther’s Basic Theological Writings,  Minneapolis, Fortress Press.

LUTHER, MARTIN. (1525)(1972) ‘The Bondage of the Will’, in F.W. Strothmann and Frederick W. Locke (eds.), Erasmus-Luther: Discourse on Free Will, New York, Frederick Ungar Publishing Co., INC.

MCCANN, HUGH J. (2001) ‘Sovereignty and Freedom: A Reply to Rowe’, in Faith and Philosophy, Volume 18, Number 1, January, pp. 110-116. Wilmore, Kentucky, Asbury College.

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. 

---

[1] For some, non-determinism alone allows for significant human freedom.  Geisler (1986: 75). 

[2] Geisler (1986: 75).  McCann (2001: 115).

[3] Augustine (388-395)(1964: 33). 

[4] Geisler (1986: 75).

[5] Augustine (388-395)(1964: 33).  Geisler (1986: 75).

[6] An atheist and critic could reasonably and rightly suggest that persons use free will to such a corrupt degree that God will never be able to culminate a Kingdom where significantly free creatures do not continue to at times commit horrendous evils.

[7] Plantinga (1977)(2002: 53).

[8] Plantinga (1977)(2002: 53).

[9] This assumes that human beings by grace through faith can be convinced into belief in Christ and then regenerated and indwelled by the Holy Spirit.

[10] Luther (1525)(1972: 133).  Calvin (1543)(1996: 204).

[11] Calvin (1539)(1998: Book II, Chapter 3, 6).  Calvin (1552)(1995: 13).

[12] Geisler (1986: 75).  McCann (2001: 115).

[13] Augustine (388-395)(1964: 78).

[14] Bruce (1996: 93).

[15] Bruce (1996: 93).

[16] Contrary to Hick.  Hick (1970: 381).

[17] Plantinga (1977)(2002: 53).

[18] Augustine viewed the atoning work of Christ as a means by which humanity can be brought back to a proper relationship with God.  Augustine (398-399)(1992: 178).  Christ would mediate humanity back to God.  Augustine (398-399)(1992: 219).

[19] Without compatibilism in my view, incompatibilism and free will theory is left with the problem of explaining how human corruption and Plantinga’s transworld depravity will not prevent the salvation of persons and the completed and finalized Kingdom of God.

[20] Teleological.  Bloesch (1987: 19).

[21] Calvin (1543)(1996: 204).

[22] Calvin (1543)(1996: 37-40).  Edwards (1729)(2006: 414).

[23] Plantinga (1977)(2002: 53).

[24] Moral wrong decisions is meant here.  A lack of infinite knowledge could still lead to a human being making a non-moral mistake, for example, not playing a perfect game.