Limited atonement

Canaletto, Warwick Castle East Front 1752

http://satireandtheology.blogspot.com/2008/06/birthday-partybad.html

Limited atonement is also known as particular redemption according to the Pocket Dictionary of Theological Terms. Grenz, Guretzki, and Nordling (1999: 72). The view is Jesus’ death secured salvation for only a limited number of persons, which are the elect. This is contrasted with the idea that the atoning work is intended for all of humanity, as in unlimited atonement. Grenz, Guretzki, and Nordling (1999: 72). The understanding with limited atonement is that since not all are elected and saved, God did not have Christ die for all. Grenz, Guretzki, and Nordling (1999: 72). Walter A. Elwell describes this as maintaining Christ’s atoning work was sufficient for all, but only efficient for the elect. Elwell (1996: 99). Erickson writes that most Calvinists reason that the purpose of Christ’s coming was not to make salvation possible for all persons, but to provide salvation for the elect. Erickson (1994: 826).

Erickson provides the view that Biblical verses stating that Christ died for the world and for all men must be understood in context. Romans 8: 32, which states God gave his Son for us all, is in the context of 8: 28, where those called according to his purposes are predestined. Erickson (1994: 833). Also in the context of John 3: 16, it states that whoever believes in him shall not perish, but will have everlasting life. Erickson (1994: 833). A person trusts as God guides him/her to believe and this does not mean that one can believe in the gospel by human means. Erickson notes that verses such as 1 John 2: 2 cannot be ignored where Christ is noted as giving himself for the sins of those in Christ and for the sins of the whole world. Erickson (1994: 834). He provides the view that limited atonement is sufficient to cover the sins of the nonelect, but Christ did not die for them. The idea being that salvation is entirely based on the choice of God and not on an Arminian perspective that in part God has foreknowledge of who will believe with faith and merit. Erickson (1994: 835).

In a sense, Christ universally died for all and his atoning work is sufficient for all, but it is limited in application, and therefore I hold to a form of limited atonement.

Elwell mentions that even with a Calvinistic view of limited atonement, with Christ’s work there is room for all human beings to be saved if they come in. Elwell (1996: 99). I can grant this idea although persons cannot come to Christ on their own, and God must make the choice to regenerate a person. However, the elect at least are restorable by God. This could be stated as human openness, but absolutely not in the sense of a human being with libertarian freedom deciding whether or not to follow Christ, which is often incorrectly taught within evangelical theology. It must be understood that the openness/potential to salvation is insufficient to be saved and that God must by his choice alone regenerate and guide a person to have openness in salvation. This would be a proper understanding of human openness to salvation. It is possible that only the elect are restorable and have a potential openness to salvation, which God exploits to save a person. However, my view is that likely all persons are restorable and have a potential openness to salvation, and God uses this human aspect to regenerate a person, and that God simply and rightly only prefers to save some. I must make it clear that when I mention the concepts of a person being restorable or having openness to God, I am not approaching this from a libertarian free will, or Arminian perspective. The potential restorability or openness of a human being does not change the fact that each person rejects God via a corrupt nature and sinful choices and is unworthy of the Kingdom of God having no merit in order to please God.

The potentiality of human beings to freely believe, if God chooses to regenerate and guide a person to salvation takes philosophical hard determinism out of the process. Human beings would not be forced or coerced to believe, but would be regenerated by God and freely believe in this irresistible, persuasive process with soft determinism/compatibilism.

In philosophical terms this makes God the primary cause of the human action and the human being the secondary cause. Make no mistake, the person’s free acceptance of the gospel truth is not a human work of salvation in any theological sense, as there is no human merit whatsoever in New Testament salvation. It states in Ephesians 2 :8-10, one is saved in grace through faith, and good works should be a result of that process. God does not force or coerce human belief, but guides one to freely believe.

ELWELL, WALTER A. (1996) ‘Atonement, Extent of the’, in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.

ERICKSON, MILLARD (1994) Christian Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.

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

C.S. Lewis and animal pain

Giovanni Antonio Canale, called Canaletto (1697-1768)

Capriccio: River Landscape with a Column, a Ruined Roman Arch, and Reminiscences of England. c. 1754. Oil on canvas. The National Gallery of Art, Washington, DC, USA.

http://satireandtheology.blogspot.com/2008/06/radical-canadian-
liberal-christianity.html

This article features another portion from my MPhil where I reviewed C.S. Lewis' work on the problem of evil.

This is short and hopefully sweet and comments are always appreciated. I will provide new additional comments at the end.

http://thekingpin68.blogspot.com/2006/01/mphil-wales-2003.html

Animal Pain

Lewis was not sure why animals suffer, and stated that no human being knew. He doubted that animals had a soul of consciousness as human beings do. Without consciousness an animal experiences sensations, but does not deal with it in a deep, soulful way as a human being would.

He stated:

But at least a great deal of what appears to be animal suffering need not be suffering in any real sense. It may be we who have invented the ‘sufferers’ by the ‘pathetic fallacy’ of reading into the beast a self for which there is no real evidence. Lewis (1940)(1996: 137).

Animals after all do not build civilizations, nor do they have families as we understand them. Animals communicate and live based on instinct and sensation rather than conscious rational thought, so their pain would be different. I am not minimizing their pain, and I think cruelty to animals is appalling, but I think Lewis correct in indicating that animal pain in not well understood by humanity. What can be deduced is that it is not comparable to human pain which is experienced by rational beings.

Additional

The term rational is a tricky one. In the MPhil I was meaning that the concept of being rational would consist of reasoning. Blackburn provides a good explanation that reasoning would consist of drawing a conclusion from a set of premises. Blackburn (1996: 320).

Osterhaven explains that Biblically animals are considered to have a soul. Osterhaven. (1996: 1036). I provide here again in this article, as with the last article, the most commonly used Greek word for soul ‘psuche’ psoo-khay according to Strong's Concordance. Strong (1986: 106). Osterhaven also notes that beasts as a principle of life are stated to have a spirit as well in Genesis 6:17 and 7:15. Osterhaven (1996: 1041). Strong is in agreement on the verses and the most common Old Testament word for breath or spirit ‘ruwach’ roo’-akh is used, and I provide this once again. Strong (1986: 142).

Theologically in Scripture animals are not described as communicating with God in a spiritual way, and therefore theologically the soul/spirit nature of animals is considered unable to spiritually communicate with God. The theological assumption can be made that the animal soul/spirit is limited to the temporal earthly realm and when an animal body dies, so does the soul. I lean toward this understanding, and do not reason that there are animals in soul/spirit form in God's presence after death. However, in the new heaven and new earth, God if he so pleases could resurrect animals seemingly easily. This could be done if God desires that some of his animals inhabit the Kingdom of God and it could also occur since many resurrected persons will seemingly desire to love their deceased pets.

If there were animals in the culminated Kingdom would they be immortal? Perhaps, but if they were not, certainly God, or even perhaps resurrected persons could in faith with God's power maintain the life of animals as they could be virtually immortal even if they were not technically immortal.

So, do animals go to heaven? Well, the answer could be yes and no. I doubt animals are in God's presence in a strictly spiritual realm, but some animals could be resurrected as the Kingdom of God is culminated.

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

LEWIS, C.S. (1940)(1996) The Problem of Pain, San Francisco, Harper-Collins.

OSTERHAVEN, M.E. (1996) ‘Soul’, in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.

OSTERHAVEN, M.E. (1996) ‘Spirit’, in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.

STRONG, J. (1986) Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, Pickering, Ontario, Welch Publishing Company.




My Mom sent me an email with photos from the Tiger Temple or Wat Pha Luang Ta Bua which is a Theravada Buddhist temple in Thailand. I do not like the idea of the tigers beings chained up and favour, if possible, the idea of wild animals living in the wild. I have no problem with people having domestic pets.




I dare you to try and floss my teeth.


An overgrown house cat?

Do you have soul? Do you have spirit?

Greek Islands

http://satireandtheology.blogspot.com/2008/06/blog-tips.html

A critic of Christianity and theism can make the claim that there is no good reason to believe in the existence of the human soul/spirit as it cannot be shown to exist empirically (with the five senses).

According to John R. Burr and Milton Goldinger there exists a debate within the scientific community on whether or not human beings are entirely physical, or if they could have an immaterial nature. Burr and Goldinger (1976: 319). The existence of the human spirit is not empirically verifiable, and its existence from a Christian perspective would primarily rely on Scripture. Thiessen (1956: 227). Richard Taylor writes that the idea of an immortal soul cannot be seen as necessarily false. Taylor (1969)(1976: 334). However, he reasons that if there is difficulty explaining how the body can do certain things, it would be no less difficult explaining how a soul could do certain things. Taylor (1969)(1976: 336). For Clarence Darrow the immaterial soul does not exist and cannot be reasonably conceived. Darrow (1928)(1973: 261). Jesus stated that God is spirit in John 4:24 and therefore I reason God is not of a material nature and cannot be proven by the use of matter or scientific experiment.

M.E. Osterhaven explains that in the Hebrew Bible, spirit is at times the Hebrew word ‘ruah’ and means breath of air or wind. This breath gives human beings life and rationality. Osterhaven (1996: 1041). He writes that in the New Testament sometimes the terms spirit and soul are used synonymously, at times the spirit is viewed as spiritual and the soul is understood as natural. Osterhaven (1996: 1041). Osterhaven explains that the idea of soul can be used for a living being, person or spiritual nature, and although the term can be used interchangeably with spirit some difference in explaining the two have occurred in the Hebrew Bible and New Testament. Osterhaven (1996: 1036). Thiessen provides a possible explanation that the soul would feature human imagination, memory and understanding, while the spirit features the reason, conscience, and will. Thiessen (1956: 227). This is speculation of course, but I am not convinced that there is definitive difference between the human soul and spirit.

For Strong. the most often documented word used for spirit in the Hebrew Bible is ‘ruwach’ roo’-akh. Strong (1986: 142). The most common word used in the Hebrew Bible for soul is ‘nephesh’ neh’-fesh. Strong (1986: 105). The most used word for spirit in the New Testament is ‘pneuma’ pnyoo’mah. Strong (1986: 78). The most common world for soul is ‘psuche’ psoo-khay. Strong (1986: 106).

As with a belief in God, who is spirit, a Judeo-Christian belief in the soul/spirit is not based in empiricism or scientific explanation, but in the religious philosophy and faith presented by God through numerous scribes, prophets and apostles, and Jesus Christ himself. The existence of God as the ultimate spirit was revealed and the fact that persons are made in the image and likeness of God (Genesis 1:26-27) means that human beings as well share this spiritual nature, although finite in comparison to God’s infinite nature. To insist that only empirical knowledge is true knowledge is to abandon all supernatural revelation that claims that there is a spiritual reality. Although I reason that much of ancient religion is mythology, and much of what in modern times is claimed to be spiritual is natural and not supernatural, I do not reason that all supernatural occurrences in human history are mythology and/or fraudulent. There is a historical consistency of the Biblical message and actual historically documented persons provided information that supported the notion of a spiritual realm and the existence of the human soul/spirit. As well, I reason that since the Bible discusses the supernatural powers of darkness, that some assumed supernatural occurrences within the occult, Hinduism and other non-Christian religions are indeed of a spiritual nature, although from Satanic forces and not God.

BURR JOHN, R AND MILTON GOLDINGER (1976) (eds), Philosophy and Contemporary Issues, London, Collier Macmillan Publishers.

DARROW, CLARENCE (1928)(1973) ‘The Myth of the Soul’ in The Forum, October, in Paul Edwards and Arthur Pap (eds), A Modern Introduction To Philosophy, New York, The Free Press.

OSTERHAVEN, M.E. (1996) ‘Soul’, in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.

OSTERHAVEN, M.E. (1996) ‘Spirit’, in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.

STRONG, J. (1986) Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, Pickering, Ontario, Welch Publishing Company.

TAYLOR, RICHARD (1969)(1976) ‘How to Bury the Mind-Body Problem’, in American Philosophical Quarterly, Volume 6, Number 2, April, in John R. Burr and Milton Goldinger (eds), in Philosophy and Contemporary Issues, London, Collier Macmillan Publishers.

These scans are from Strong's, and I realize that they are not near perfect. I am scanning a huge volume with a small scanner.











http://www.garyhabermas.com/video/video.htm

Dr. Habermas discusses the existence of the human spirit in the context of Near Death Experiences.

Everlasting vs. Eternal Reprised

Vernon, BC (photo from trekearth.com)

http://satireandtheology.blogspot.com/2008/06/chuck-norris-on-
chuck-norris.html

This a reprise of an article I did in November 2006, but I am including an additional section and cartoon at the end. Mr. David Esler read and commented on the original article, but most of you have probably not dug through my archives to find it, and frankly, I do not blame you. I reason some of my earlier articles could interest new readers.

Interestingly in New Testament Greek according to Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, the same Greek word can be defined in English as either eternal or everlasting. The Greek word aíwvios (aionios) is explained as meaning perpetual, used of past time or past and future as well, eternal, for ever, and everlasting. Strong (1986: 8). Strong provides only one word for eternal or everlasting from the New Testament.

Walter Bauer notes that in Romans 16: 25, a form of the word is used to describe a mystery of long ages ago without beginning. Bauer (1979: 28). In Hebrews 9: 14, a form of the word is used to describe the eternal Spirit and is mentioned as existing without beginning or end. Bauer (1979: 28). In Mathew 19: 29, Jesus discusses those that shall inherit everlasting life, and the word is used in a form that describes life existing without end. Bauer (1979: 28). The first verse appears to be describing a mystery that always existed with God, and in the second verse it mentions the Spirit of God that has always existed, and did not begin and will not cease. In the third verse the life Jesus discusses did not always exist, but everlasting life shall be given to some by God. There is a clear philosophical difference between the first two meanings and the last one.

The first two examples, in my view, are describing aspects of the eternal God. Something which is eternal according to Simon Blackburn is not moving, and is beyond time, whereas the third example in light of Blackburn's definition is describing something that is everlasting and running within time. Blackburn (1996: 126). In the first two usages of the word the idea being put across is that the mystery existed within the mind of the eternal God, and that God’s Spirit was eternal. God is eternal, as in without beginning or end and is beyond time. Grenz, Guretzki, Nordling (1999: 47). The third verse is not describing eternal life, but everlasting life which has a beginning but no ending. The everlasting life of those in Christ is not eternal, but exists within time and continues to run within time and therefore this life should be properly defined as everlasting life as opposed to eternal life. This philosophical difference is why in my writings I only use the term eternal in the context of God and use the terms everlasting life, everlasting existence, or everlasting punishment when mentioning God’s created beings which exist in time. I am not trying to split hairs here, but rather wish to attempt to define my terms as properly as possible in order to avoid related theological and philosophical difficulties through the use of terminology in the future.

This is not to deny some of the theological concepts which scholars and students use with the concept of eternal life. One student mentioned to me, while I lived in England, that we as Christians will share in the eternal life of God in the culminated Kingdom of God. I agree that we shall exist with God and experience his existence, but technically speaking he has eternal life, and we shall have everlasting life. God alone has always existed and therefore has eternal life. J.F. Walvoord notes that eternal life in Scripture is contrasted with physical life, and I completely agree. Walvoord (1996: 369). Whether the term is translated as eternal or everlasting life, I agree that it is the life that is opposed to physical temporal life from a Scriptural perspective. I would also add that it is contrasted with everlasting punishment for unbelievers. Whether we call it eternal or everlasting life it can only be found through Christ according to the Biblical account.

Additional

Quite philosophically important for clarity, is the idea that the eternal triune God did not exist in any type of state of time prior to the creation of the time, the universe, and matter. I say this to avoid a vicious regress.

In the Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Simon Blackburn discusses ‘infinite regress’ and mentions that this occurs in a vicious way whenever a problem tries to solve itself and yet remains with the same problem it had previously. A vicious regress is an infinite regress that does not solve its own problem, while a benign regress is an infinite regress that does not fail to solve its own problem. Blackburn writes that there is frequently room for debate on what is a vicious regress or benign regress. Blackburn (1996: 324).

In The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, William Tolhurst writes that a vicious regress is in some way unacceptable as it would include an infinite series of items dependent on prior items. A vicious regress may be impossible to hold to philosophically, or it may be inconsistent. Tolhurst (1996: 835).

If the triune God had an infinite amount of time to plan creation, as some Christians state, then we would have the major philosophical difficulty of an infinite amount of time for God to traverse in order to arrive at creation. This would be a vicious regress and a problem that does not solve itself. This vicious regress would be an excellent target for critical philosophers to rightly claim as a major problem with Christian theology and philosophy.

My solution, although not perfect since a finite being cannot fully understand eternity, it to state that prior to time, God was (and is) an infinite being that communicated within the trinity, but not in the sense of interaction that took time. God simply knew God and then created time, the universe and matter. God can now communicate within time with his creation. God did not need an infinite amount of time to plan his creation as with infinite knowledge God did what he desired via his nature. God was (and is) and created.

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

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

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

STRONG, J. (1986) Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, Pickering, Ontario, Welch Publishing Company.

TOLHURST, WILLIAM (1996) 'Vicious Regress', in Robert Audi, (ed.), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

WALVOORD, J. F. (1996) ‘Eternal Life’, in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.

Mr. Jeff Jenkins of Thoughts and Theology sent me this menu. Please click on it to enlarge.