No stone too heavy (PhD Edit)

No stone too heavy (PhD Edit)

Again dealing with this classic objection...

See entry...

Monday, May 20, 2013 : Can God Create A Rock So Heavy He Cannot Lift It? (PhD Edit)

Humanist Simon Blackburn, from a non-theistic critical perspective, reasons there are difficulties with the concept of an omnipotent God not being able to make a stone so heavy he could not lift it, as this would make God possibly contradictory, but does explain that the classic explanation is that God cannot commit the logically impossible. Blackburn (1996: 268).

William T. Shedd explains that God cannot do what is ‘absurd and self-contradictory’. Shedd (1874-1890)(1980: 359 Volume 1). Theologian Kenneth Cauthen (1997) in ‘Theodicy’ describes God’s omnipotence as meaning God is all-powerful. Cauthen (1997: 1).

Stanley J. Grenz, David Guretzki and Cherith Fee Nordling explain omnipotence as God’s attribute and ability to do whatever is consistent with his character. Grenz, Guretzki, and Nordling (1999: 85-86).

God is only limited by his character (eternal, infinite, nature) and not by a lack of power. R.K. McGregor Wright states that God cannot violate his own attributes and could not, for example, make a stone too heavy for the almighty to lift. Wright (1996: 278).

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

CAUTHEN, KENNETH (1997) ‘Theodicy’, in Frontier.net, Rochester, New York, Kenneth Cauthen, Professor of Theology, Emeritus, Colgate Rochester Crozer Divinity School.

GRENZ, STANLEY J., DAVID GURETZKI AND CHERITH FEE NORDLING (1999) Pocket Dictionary of Theological Terms, Downers Grove, Ill., 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.

WRIGHT, R.K.McGREGOR (1996) No Place for Sovereignty, Downers Grove, Illinois, InterVarsity Press.

---

This article's contents, in-part, used for an entry on academia,edu, 20250614.

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

Judgmentalism (sermon)

Today

       
Judgmentalism (sermon)

Grace Baptist Church May 15 2011

Michael Phillips sermon

Cited

Judgmentalism

(Phillips provides five point on what he considers judgmentalism)

1.  It was quick. They judged according to appearance and not righteous judgment (cf. John 7:24).

2.  It was harsh-Judge not, lest you be judged, for whatever judgment you measure out to others, it will be measured back to you (cf. Matthew 7:1-2).

3. It was proud. They were more eager to remove the speck in their neighbor's eye than the beam in their own eye (cf. Matthew 7:3-4). I don't believe the Pharisee's prayer in our Lord's parable was a caricature; it was more like a quotation: God, I thank you that I am not as other men are. 

4. It was partisan. The Pharisees were a lot softer on themselves and their friends than they were on others-If I cast out devils by Beelzebub, by whom do your sons cast them out? (Luke 11:19). It was one way. The Pharisees were a lot better at dishing it out than they were at taking it-Do you not know that the Pharisees were offended at this saying? (cf. Matthew 15:12). ---

5, It was one way. The Pharisees were a lot better at dishing it out than they were at taking it-Do you not know that the Pharisees were offended at this saying? (cf. Matthew 15:12).

These are five reasonable premises and related points.

Matthew 7:1-2

New American Standard Bible (NASB) 7 “Do not judge so that you will not be judged. 2 For in the way you judge, you will be judged; and [a]by your standard of measure, it will be measured to you. Footnotes: Matthew 7:2 Lit by what measure you measure

Human judgement should be measured in truth. I can agree that a measured judgement eliminates quick, harsh, proud, partisan, one way, judgement.

Extreme viewpoints, not measured, adequately, broadly with depth can lead to judgmentalism.

However, final judgement of human beings is up to God as in Revelation 20 and 2 Corinthians 5: 10 (2 Corinthians here mentions the judgement seat of Christ for those regenerated that embrace the gospel in Jesus Christ).

Courson opines that Christians will not be judged at the Great White Throne judgement of Revelation 20. (1784). In contrast to Courson, Mounce considers this a general judgement for all of humankind. (365). He reasons that because the 'book of life' (Naming those in Christ, including Old Testament believers, my add) is mentioned, a general judgement is meant here in Chapter 20: 11-15. Those not in the book of life are lake of fire, bound. (Revelation 20). Likely figurative literal language for the everlasting hell described.

If Mounce is correct, the Revelation 20 and 2 Corinthians 5 judgements would likely be the same judgement in regard to those in Jesus Christ.

COURSON, JON (2005) Application Commentary, Thomas Nelson, Nashville.

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

The Jeff/The Kingpin

Many thanks to my good friend, The Jeff, from Florida.

I will admit the my frame has become less and less 'Kingpinsh' over the years, and the pants keep needing to get smaller, and the belts tighter; but I still have the muscle and do the martial arts!

I am thankful to the Lord, for the opportunity to make good friends online (offline too of course) as I continue to study the Bible, Theology, Philosophy of Religion and related at an academic level and take the risks by sharing this work publicly!

As Bob Ross would state: The Jeff is a 'fantastic young artist'.

Darkness: But not black and white

To continue with the theological concept of darkness from last entry and one in April.

June 3

I had mentioned that I was discussing Christian evangelism and witnessing and obstacles to them, the other day, while my good friend drove us around. While pulling into a Chevron station my good friend wisely quoted John 3: 19-20 from the New American Standard Version

19 This is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds were evil. 20 For everyone who does evil hates the Light, and does not come to the Light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. From Strong's: 4655 for darkness in John 3: 19. (88).

σκότος

Page 88

Bauer explains that here is this context, darkness can be understood as 'religious and moral darkness, of darkening by sin, of the state of unbelievers and of the godless.' (757-758). From my Reformed perspective, the corrupted, fallen nature of humanity (Genesis 3, Romans) prohibits a person in darkness from embracing the light to the point of salvation.

June 5, 2019

From Courson's commentary in regards to John 3: 19:

Quote:

'Why don't people come to the light? It is not because they don't believe the gospel intellectually or because they struggle with it philosophically.' (460).

Quote:

'...the one and only reason people don't come to the light is because they prefer darkness.' (460).

I do not completely agree with this analysis. I reason:

Some unbelievers accept the gospel intellectually and philosophically...to a degree.

Common sense and my United Kingdom theses work tells me there are plenty of held to academic premises opposed to the Gospel, embraced by those outside of the Kingdom of God. Certainly many unbelievers do not accept the gospel intellectually and philosophically and reject the Christian worldview and Christian theology.

As I noted in the previous entry, the corrupted, fallen human nature leads to an embracing of human darkness. This is the primary human reason leading to disbelief in the Gospel. But, this does not prohibit premises which can be either true or false, to degrees, which the unbeliever, while in darkness, holds to as objections to Christianity and support for unbelief.

I like aspects of Courson's comments here, but just find them too theologically black and white.

For example:

A relative states (paraphrased) that there are too many radical, crazy, American Christians, as support for his/her unbelief.

Certainly many Christians from Canada, the United States and worldwide, believe that some American Christians are negatively radical.

(Negative on both on the left and right)

The relative in unbelief, in darkness, may actually hold to a reasonable premise against Christianity, a cumulative reason for disbelief (in his/her own mind). At the same time, I reason a conclusion that Christianity and the Gospel are false is wrong. Those in the Church, in the light, that can also hold to the premise mentioned, can correctly hold to a negative premise in regard to Christianity, in reasonable faith, theology and philosophy.

BAUER, WALTER (1979) A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, Translated by Eric H. Wahlstrom, Chicago, The University of Chicago Press.

COURSON, JON (2005) Application Commentary, Thomas Nelson, Nashville.

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