Wednesday, June 27, 2012

A Problem of Suffering


Automne, France (trekearth)

June 30, 2012

A homecare worker arrives at this condo this morning and my Mom answers the door downstairs. I often do this for her as my Mom is disabled and deaf, even though I live upstairs, but I slept in this morning. I hear the worker state paraphrased, 'Are you alone today, is your grandson not here'?

At a restaurant a few years ago a waitress asked if I was taking grandma out.

June 27, 2012

Introduction

Listening to philosopher Gary Habermas online from time to time on his website, one of the interesting things he states and I am paraphrasing is that theistic disbelief and objections, and therefore it can be deduced, disbelief in and objections to Christianity are often primarily from negative emotional reactions to suffering, life and to concepts of God.

Gary Habermas

Granted there are philosophers and like that do have philosophical differences with theism and Christianity and I have read several of them, especially in United Kingdom theses work. I do fully admit that some skeptical and atheistic authors do make some reasonable and good critiques within the theodicy and problem of evil debate. They are often cited on this blog.

Critics

I was reading an academic advice column connected to one of professional associations I am connected to and some persons that studied to a PhD level with evangelical training were now pondering on skepticism and atheism as more likely worldview options than Christianity. Having studied Reformed Christianity, Evangelical Christianity, and atheism in the context of theodicy and problem of evil from 1998 to 2010 I can somewhat understand someone arriving at those types of conclusions having read authors with similar views, but intellectually with my research the more I studied the more I became convinced a Reformed sovereignty theodicy and defence was the most reasonable explanation for the problem of evil, superior to the free will views and soul-making theory.

Besides not having the best explanations within the theodicy and problem of evil discussion I also thought that philosophically, skepticism, agnosticism and atheism failed to adequately deal with the issues of first cause and the problem of origins that would be larger than the problem of evil as they have to do with the basics of existence.

If somehow the Biblical record could be proven false, as in all of the prophets, apostles and scribes could be shown not be of supernatural origin, which I see no good evidence for, deism in my view would still be a more likely philosophical alternative than skepticism, agnosticism or atheism as at least the problems of first cause and origins would be reasonably dealt with.

First Cause

Deism

I have discussed deism previously on this blog and I will present again with edits:

My brief and former academic advisor David. A. Pailin, defines deism as coming from the Latin word deus and parallels the Greek which is theos. Pailin (1999: 148). In modern times deism is used to define a supreme being who is the ultimate source of reality, but does not intervene in the natural and historical processes through revelation or salvific acts. Pailin (1999: 148). Pailin writes that the common use of the term ‘theism’ does not carry the same negative implications. Pailin (1999: 148). He explains that historically deism is not so much a set of doctrines, but a movement, largely British, that became popular in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Pailin (1999: 148). Many within deism will have doubts concerning concepts of supernatural religious doctrines, revelation and the authority of the Bible. Pailin (1999: 148). Pailin notes that some within deism desire to replace Christianity with a more ‘reasonable’ faith, and for others it is an attempt to produce a more ‘reasonable’ version of Christianity. Pailin (1999: 149).

William J. Wainwright explains that deism understands true religion as natural, as opposed to supernatural religion. Wainwright (1996: 188). He writes that some self-styled Christian deists accept revelation although they argue that the content is the same as natural religion. Wainwright (1996: 188). Most deists reject revelation as fiction, but many reason that God has ordained that human happiness is possible through natural means that are universally available. Wainwright (1996: 188). Salvation therefore does not come via divine revelation. Wainwright (1996: 188).

Henry Clarence Thiessen writes that for deism God is present in his creation by his power and not in his being and nature. He has endowed creation with certain invariable laws that he oversees in general terms. Theissen (1956: 74). God has created creatures and left them under invariable laws to their own destiny. Thiessen (1956: 74). For Thiessen, the Christian world-view rejects deism because it accepts that God has revealed himself in creation through divine revelation, has providential control and does at times use miracles within his creation. Thiessen (1956: 75). For Thiessen, a deistic God is not much better than no God at all for humanity. Thiessen (1956: 75).

Thiessen has an reasonable point, if deistic approaches reject a God who intervenes within his creation, then it allows, practically speaking, for human beings to expect to have the same end in life as if there is no God. Wainwright deduces that God has ordained human happiness to all universally, but ultimately how happy can human existence be when physical death is the end result for every person? The meaning of life, human life is not substantially meaningful, if permanently terminated. People lose their consciousness and life accomplishments without everlasting life, and therefore life loses ultimate meaning and happiness does not result. The deist can speculate that God can and perhaps shall provide everlasting life and ultimate continual meaning for life, but this is merely speculation devoid of any historically grounded revelation from God.

Accepting that human nature is corrupt as described in Romans 1-3, it is very unlikely that the problem of evil would ever be solved but rather merely treated by humanity if deism is true (even if Romans was not considered divinely inspired the concept could still be correct). There would at no time be any solution for sin, death, and the problem of evil, since the infinite, omnipotent God would not interfere with his creation and regenerate and change individuals in order to eventually establish a Kingdom of God where the problem of evil does not exist. With a deistic universe seemingly sin, death, and the problem of evil continue to exist as long as humanity does. Deism seemingly does not offer any ultimate solution to the problem of evil.

There would be meaning to creation, but essentially only the creator would take lasting meaning from it.

God Wills and is Aware

In the Biblical book of Job, God as the first cause willingly allows evil for good purposes and with perfectly good motives it can be reasoned. Satanic beings and human beings will evil as secondary causes with wrong motives.

The same could be said of the historical crucifixion story of Christ. God wills the evil event with the perfectly good motives of atonement, resurrection and restoration for his people while satanic beings and persons that kill Christ have sinful motives.

It would seem that Biblically despite the very great suffering persons can suffer, God is aware of it and in fact in an ultimate cause but with good motives. Of course this is not to deny that human sinfulness can play a significant part in suffering as persons can cause suffering upon self and others. This often takes place, obviously.

A Christian theology therefore needs to understand reasonably well that God does participate in personal suffering, even though it does hurt extremely much at times.

Christians are to pray, fellowship, study and act for the good within the context of suffering and the problem of evil.

I conclude that a worldview, including religious, should primarily be determined by philosophical and theological evidences (Scripture being key) within reason, as opposed to being primarily determined from personal events and experiences.

Further:

This seems straightforward but in actuality is probably often quite difficult for many to accomplish. Grace through faith is required which leads to good works. (Ephesians 2). Another aspect of the problem of evil is problems related to suffering.

PAILIN, DAVID A. (1999) ‘Deism’, in Alan Richardson and John Bowden (eds.), New Dictionary of Christian Theology, Kent, SCM Press Ltd.

THIESSEN, HENRY C. (1956) Introductory Lectures in Systematic Theology, Grand Rapids, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

WAINWRIGHT, WILLIAM J. (1996) ‘Deism’, in Robert Audi (ed.), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.



Cha Grande, Brazil (trekearth)

June 29, 2012

I just saw this story on the news. Stupid move by the coach...



June 29, 2012

Martial Arts 'foolery'












Photos by Saint Chucky Cheese I
Editing by Dr. RNM

Thursday, June 14, 2012

Benefits of Discussing The Problem of Evil & Theodicy (PhD Edit)

Benefits of Discussing The Problem of Evil & Theodicy (PhD Edit) 

Monmouthshire, Hay on Wye, Wales (trekearth)  

Benefits of Discussing The Problem of Evil & Theodicy (PhD Edit)

Theodicy, as an aspect of theology can as well be underdeveloped.[1] For this reason, within the Christian Church, I will review and explain free will, sovereignty, and soul-making theodicy. The free will and sovereignty perspectives exist within a moderate conservative tradition, and soul-making within a progressive liberal one.[2] Within my survey propositions Christians from various theological perspectives will be provided concepts from three general perspectives and four authors[3] to promote better understanding of the problem of evil. This should assist questionnaire respondents to better explain their Christian faith and philosophy with those outside of the Christian Church.[4] I hope that my work can also provide some peace of mind to those suffering in this world of many evils. There is intellectual evidence that the Christian Church can still provide reasonable answers, and that intellectual progress has been made.[5] 

Theodicy is a definite theological problem for Christianity and theism,[6] but Christians can be confident that it can be intellectually, adequately dealt with, in particular in my view, with an emphasis on the sovereignty of God.[7] I do not hold to free will theodicy, but reason that it presents a logical and reasonable case,[8] and that soul-making theodicy has some elements of truth within it.[9] As a moderate conservative that holds to Reformed theology, I reason that the atoning and resurrection work applied to believers in the eventual culminated Kingdom of God[10] is the ultimate remedy for the problem of evil. I must be clear: theodicy is not the remedy to the problem of evil, but a speculative, and in my case, Biblically based attempt to explain how God deals with evil in his creation.[11] In similar fashion, practical and empirical theology do not offer solutions to the problem of evil, but are theological disciplines[12] which assist persons to understand how evil is comprehended and dealt with in the Christian community and in society at large.

Even with the understanding that God and Christ will eventually save the world from evil,[13] and that this can be explained in ways through theodicy, does not mean that I or any theologian or philosopher can always provide specific reasons and answers for each instance of evil and suffering in creation.[14] Although I do not side with critics that doubt that theism can be squared with the evil that takes place in this world,[15] I fully admit that in many cases of evil and suffering, only God has a comprehensive understanding of what is occurring, and why it is occurring. Is this a weakness particular for theism? I reason not, in that atheists and critics such as Ferraiolo[16] will also not be able to fully explain evil and suffering in many cases, and therefore cannot conclusively intellectually deny that the infinite, omnipotent God can use occurrences of evil in creation for his good purposes.[17] Therefore, theists and atheists from various perspectives are all left with degrees of ignorance in regard to the problem of evil. No person can fully understand evil and the suffering that results in every case.[18] Theists and atheists are therefore left with using reason, and in the case of the Christian theist, the Bible[19] to work out theories concerning the problem of evil. 


[1] Therefore, this type of project can still be valuable academically.

[2] This conservative/liberal distinction is not always clear-cut, as some concepts do overlap, and this shall be observed through the reviews.

[3] Augustine and Plantinga both write from a free will perspective.

[4] 1 Peter 3:15 tells the believer to always be ready to give a defence to everyone that asks, and therefore Christians, both scholars and student are wise to have some knowledge concerning theodicy.

[5] Swinburne (1998: 13-20).

[6] Blackburn (1996: 375).

[7] Erlandson (1991: 1). Although objections to this idea are duly noted throughout this thesis.

[8] Peterson (1982: 204).

[9] This will be discussed in Chapter Four.

[10] Mounce (1990: 369-397).

[11] Lindsley (2003: 3).

[12] Winquest (1987: 1).

[13] Mounce (1990: 369-397).

[14] I can approach my theodicy presentation with confidence, but should always possess great humility.

[15] Ferraiolo (2005: 1). Phillips (2005: 265).

[16] Ferraiolo (2005: 1).

[17] The idea of God using evil for the greater good, without being evil in nature himself is central to sovereignty theodicy. This will be discussed in the context of gratuitous evil in Chapter Four.

[18] Henry (1983: 282). Blocher (1994: 84).

[19] Thiessen from examining Scripture reasons that the evil acts of creatures are under the control of God. Thiessen (1956: 183). Henry (1983: 282). Blocher (1994: 84).

---

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

BLOCHER, HENRI. (1994) Evil and the Cross, Translated by David G. Preston, Leicester, InterVarsity Press.

ERLANDSON, DOUG (1991) ‘A New Perspective on the Problem of Evil’, in Doug Erlandson PhD Philosophy, Reformed.org, Orange County, Covenant Community.

FERRAIOLO, WILLIAM (2005) ‘Eternal Selves and The Problem of Evil’, in Quodlibet Journal, Volume 7, Number 2, April-June, Evanston, Illinois, Quodlibet Journal.Church of Orange County.

HENRY, CARL (1983) God, Revelation and Authority: Volume 6: God Who Stands and Stays, Waco, Word Books.

LINDSLEY, ART (2003) ‘The Problem of Evil’, Knowing & Doing, Winter, Springfield, Virginia, C.S. Lewis Institute.

MOUNCE, ROBERT H. (1995) The New American Commentary: Romans, Nashville, Broadman & Holman Publishers.

PETERSON, MICHAEL (1982) Evil and the Christian God, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.

PHILLIPS, D.Z. (2005) The Problem of Evil and the Problem of God, Fortress Press, Minneapolis.

SWINBURNE, RICHARD (1998) Providence and the Problem of Evil, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

WINQUIST, CHARLES E. (1987) ‘Re-visioning Ministry: Postmodern Reflections’, in Lewis S Mudge and James N. Poling, Formation and Reflection: The Promise of Practical Theology by Lewis S Mudge and James N. Poling, Philadelphia, Fortress Press. 

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


Sunday, June 03, 2012

Nicene Creed Second Lecture Notes & Dawkins/Dawson Posts


Castanar, de ibor, Spain (trekearth)

1. 1000+ pageview day satire and theology

My satire and theology blog has according to StatCounter and SiteMeter 1, 000+ pageviews today (June 3, 2012) because of many hits on the following two posts. Blogger has over 2800 pageviews listed as the amount.

Monday, May 19, 2008 Richard Dawkins versus Richard Dawson, sort of 

Monday, August 16, 2010 Richard Dawkins versus Richard Dawson, sort of (reprise)

I woke up this Sunday morning and was getting ready for church and checked my blogs as usual. I noticed many more than usual visitors on the satire blog via the Revolver Maps application. I then started examining some of the ISP addresses via StatCounter and SiteMeter and a few from a couple of locations came across as rather familiar. Perhaps a person or persons has been forwarding these posts on my behalf.

Chucky has noted in comments that Mr. Dawson has died. This is sad to read. Looking through my pageviews I think there has been a combination of searches and perhaps forwarding of my posts.


Campo, Spain (trekearth)

2. Nicene Creed Second Lecture Notes

The preparation for this lecture was only a week to as opposed to 1.5 months from God the Son section (previous post), and therefore this section will be far more simplified.


I gave this lecture more than once during the week.


And we believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and giver of Life,

who proceeds from the Father [and the Son];

who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified;
who spoke by the prophets; and we believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church; we acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins;and we look for the resurrection of the dead,and the life of the world to come. Amen.

Breakdown of this section of the Creed with emphasis on God the Holy Spirit.


And we believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and giver of Life,


who proceeds from the Father [and the Son];


This section of the Creed proclaims the Holy Spirit as God, God the Holy Spirit here is stated as Lord. I noted in my God the Son lecture, Lord often being a replacement term for ‘God (YHWH)’ in both Testaments.


In traditional and ancient Western Theology, Roman Catholic and Protestant traditions the Holy Spirit is understood as proceeding from both the Father and the Son.


Proceeding from:


FILIOQUE-Pronounced FILLY O QUE or QAY (LATIN)


G.W. Bromiley states that the term ‘and from the Son' was not in the original 325 Nicene Creed or 381 Constantinople Creeds and was likely added to the Third Council of Toledo of 589. It was officially endorsed in 1017. Bromiley (1996: 415).


It did, in the minds of some historical commentators, in part, lead to a split between the Western and Eastern Churches with the Eastern Churches rejecting it. Split in 1054.


Both God the Father and God the Son sent the Holy Spirit in John 15: 26.


Bromiley further mentions that the Holy Spirit is called the Spirit of Christ (Son in Galatians) in Romans 8: 9 and Galatians 4: 6 which both support the same idea.


From ‘New Advent and The Catholic Encylopedia’ online edited by Kevin Knight, they call it double procession from the Father whereas typically Eastern/Orthodox churches will hold to views that the Holy Spirit proceeds only from the Father. They express the view that this was as well confirmed at the Third Council of Toledo in 589. Knight (2012).


Council of Toledo 589


Spain


Councils started at 400


At 589 the King and council supported the Filioque clause. 


Personally, I hold to the Protestant position, not primarily because I am Reformed but because of the Biblical text. I do not think this places Orthodox Eastern Christians in the category of cultic (outside of the faith) on this point.


But I do I think it is error.


Something to ponder on as in the ‘why I am Protestant category.’


who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified;


God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit are all worshipped and glorified. Matt joked previously that some within the Church mistakenly call the Holy Spirit ‘It’, but this is very true.

Boice explains that the Spirit is a person because He has knowledge, feelings and will and this is what is stated of God the Holy Spirit in the New Testament. Boice (1981: 376).

Boice further explains that the definition of the Holy Spirit as Counselor (Helper ESV) in John 14 from Christ is certainly that of one person describing another. Boice (1981: 376).

Following are some key examples where God the Holy Spirit is demonstrated as being fully God in glory as are the Father and Son.

We have noted that Holy Spirit is sent by the Father and Son is John 15.

The Holy Spirit as God is of course equally part of the Baptism formula at the ending of Matthew (28: 19).

Acts 2 and Pentecost we see the Holy Spirit is given to the Church along with manifestations in many Biblical cases.

The arrival of the Counselor as God the Son promised.

The disciples received the Holy Spirit in John 20: 22 post resurrection.

Acts 5 lying to the Holy Spirit equals lying to God. Ananias and Sapphira.

who spoke by the prophets; and we believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church;


Not the Roman Catholic Church in context which evolved in time, but the universal Church of the triune God in Christ that has been delivered through the Apostles of Christ such as Peter, John, James and Paul.


The Holy Spirit of course spoke through the Prophets, Apostles and Scribes in the development of the Old and New Testaments.

2 Timothy 3: 16 All Scripture is inspired by God.

we acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins;

and we look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.


In regard to Baptism for the remission of sin, that is a complex issue that is sideline us and I am not going to go into detail on that this afternoon theologically. But, as far the Creed is concerned as can be seen from the Baptismal formula of Matthew 28, God the Holy Spirit is a divine partner in Biblical Baptism. That is the point for today in a discussion of the Holy Spirit.

In regard to the resurrection of the dead, that is of course another complex theological topic and resurrection is essential to orthodox, Biblical Christian faith. Christ’s resurrection is noted in the Gospels and the resurrection of those in Christ in the future (1 Corinthians 15) is Biblical.

Romans 8:11 states that the Spirit raised Christ from the dead and will also raise believers in the future.

Importantly this is a divine Holy Spirit.

Therefore in the world to come the Holy Spirit as fully God would fully play as part the Spirit of God appears in a creation context in Genesis 1. A simple deduction that this same type of work would take place in a future restoration/New Earth/New Heaven/New Universe.

What the Arians believed in brief.


These are related to modern views of Jehovah’s Witnesses (Watchtower Bible and Tract Society) and other groups less famous that are also Arian inspired.


As was discussed in the God the Son section the Arians reasoned that only God the Father could have the divine essence of God, that being infinite and eternal. So therefore not only would Jesus Christ be a created secondary ‘god’ within this false theology, but the Holy Spirit would become less than Almighty God.


The Spirit had to be created by this view.


Simply not as much is written historically about God the Holy Spirit from the Arian perspective as the focus of the debate was the deity of God the Son.


But Roman Catholic scholar:


Rev.
Dr. B.B.M.J. Mackenzie-Hanson that according to the Arian heresy…

‘Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit and God are not part of the same triune but are separate entities.’


Apologist Matt Slick presents the opinion that


‘Some Arians even held that the Holy Spirit was the first and greatest creation of the Son.’


Further explanation on understanding the Holy Spirit.


As noted the Holy Spirit is creator. Noted in Genesis 1: 2.


The Holy Spirit gives prophecy and also inspires Scripture.


Reformed Theologian Erickson notes that the Holy Spirit in the Old Testament produced moral and spiritual qualities associated with holiness and goodness. Erickson (1994: 869-883).


Some Old Testament cases may have permanent but many others simply had the Holy Spirit for a designated time in order to fulfill the purposes of God.
Erickson (1994: 869-883).

It is therefore should not be a theological surprise to see the Holy Spirit of God take a more complete ministry in the lives of those in the Christian Church in the New Testament era.


The Holy Spirit as we hear at Christmas time was central in the incarnation of Christ. Biblically this is seen in the Gospel’s incarnation renderings of Matthew and Luke.


The Holy Spirit is portrayed as being with Christ at his Baptism (descending dove) and Christ was filled with the Holy Spirit (Luke 4:1).


The ministry of Christ was conducted through the power of the Holy Spirit, including the miraculous.


Theologian Boice explains that an aspect of the work of the Holy Spirit is to actually glorify God the Son. Boice (1981: 380-381).


The Spirit will guide believers in the truth and help them to be Christ-like. Boice (1981: 380-381).


So in a sense to glorify Christ.


In the believer, each is to be indwelled with the Holy Spirit and this would include spiritual illumination.


Being filled by the Holy Spirit is in my mind when God has more spiritual influence over a believer that is already indwelled.


Now the Holy Spirit is involved in the choosing of persons in election (Ephesians 1 and Romans 8) and certainly when one is born again as in John 3 the Holy Spirit of God is what makes a person ‘born again’.


Boice mentions that a Christ-like character is to be developed through the Holy Spirit. Boice (1981: 384).


The Holy Spirit is also an intercessor in prayers from believers to the triune God. Romans 8: 26-27.


There are gifts of the Holy Spirit:


Romans 12-Functions within the Church.


1 Corinthians 12-Spiritual abilities of persons via the Holy Spirit.


Ephesians 4-Offices of Church


1 Peter 4-Functions within the Church.


No one person would have every spiritual gift or office, including the spiritual gifts of 1 Corinthians. The body of Christ is inter-dependent on many persons within.


Conclusion


I can fully agree with Erickson that based on Biblical evidence and theological reasoning God the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of God, is an appropriate avenue by which to direct prayer as He is fully God. Erickson reasons this is just as valid as praying to the Father and the Son. Erickson (1994: 869-883).


One of my Theology professors at Trinity Western at the Seminary stated that although he was fully Trinitarian the Holy Spirit was not meant to be addressed primarily in prayer contrary to what Erickson just suggested.


Instead the prayer needed to take place through the Holy Spirit to God the Son as he is the mediator between God and humanity as Hebrews mentions.


Because God is of one substance and nature and therefore Christ was and is the fullness of deity in bodily form (Colossians 2: 9), if one is a Trinitarian Christian and addresses a prayer to the Holy Spirit it will be understood by God the Father and God the Son as well. The prayer will be in Christ.


Bibliography (Week 5)


BOICE, JAMES, MONTGOMERY (1981) Foundations of the Christian Faith, Downers Grove, IVP Press.


BROMILEY, G.W. (1996) ‘Filioque’ in Walter A. Elwell (ed.) Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.


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


HANSON, Rev./Dr. B.B.M.J. Mackenzie-Hanson (2005-2006), Arian/Arianism

http://www.arian-catholic.org/arian/arianism.html

 

KNIGHT, KEVIN (2012) Filioque, New York, New Advent.

SLICK, MATTHEW J. (2012) Arianism, Nampa, Indiana, Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry.


Bibliography (Week 3)


AQUINAS, SAINT THOMAS (1225-1274) Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, translated by Fabian R. Larcher, Html-formated Joseph Kenny, Dominican House.

ASHBY, E G. (1986) 'Colossians' in The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Zondervan.

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

BLAISING, C.A. (1996) ‘Constantinople (381)’ Council of, in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.

BLAISING, C.A. (1996) ‘Monarchianism' in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.

BLAISING, C.A. (1996) ‘Nicea, Council of (325)’ in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.

BOWMAN, ROBERT M. (1990) Why You Should Believe in the Trinity, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.

BROM, ROBERT H. (1983) The Eternal Sonship of Christ, San Diego, CIC 827.

BROMILEY, G.W. (1996) ‘Trinity’ in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.

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

BUCHSEL, HERMANN, MARTIN FRIEDRICH (1967) ‘BUCHSEL on μονογενης’ reproduced from Volume 4. of Theological Dictionary of The New Testament, Edited by Gerhard Kittel, Grand Rapids, Eerdmands.

BOYD, GREGORY A. (1992) Oneness Pentecostals and the Trinity, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.

CALVIN, JOHN (1549) ‘Hebrews’ in Calvin’s Commentaries, Volume 44, Translated by John King (1847-1850), Santa Cruz, Sacred texts.com.

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

HARRISON, E.F. (1996) ‘Only-Begotten’ in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.

HAWTHORNE, GERALD F. (1986) 'Hebrews' in The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Zondervan.

HUGHES, PHILIP. (1990) A Commentary On The Epistle To The Hebrews, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

KNIGHT, KEVIN (2009) First Council of Constantinople, New York, New Advent.

MARLOWE, MICHAEL (2006) The Only Begotten Son, New Philadelphia, Ohio, Bible Researcher Website.

MCCOMISKEY, T. E. (1996) ‘God, Names of’ in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.

ORR, JAMES (1915) ‘Only-Begotten’, General Editor, Grand Rapids, International Standard Bible Encylopedia.

PACKER, J.I. (1993) ‘Incarnation God Sent His Son, To Save Us’ from Concise Theology: A Guide To Historic Christian Beliefs, New York, Tyndale House Publishers Inc.

STEIN, R.H. (1996) ‘Jesus Christ’ in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.

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

TURNER, H. E. W. (1999) 'Sabellianism', in Alan Richardson and John Bowden (eds.), A New Dictionary of Christian Theology, Kent, SCM Press Limited.

WALTER, V.L. WALTER (1996) ‘Arianism’ in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.

WRIGHT, N.T. (1989) Colossians and Philemon, Grand Rapids, IVP.


Sunday, May 20, 2012

My Church Lecture On The Nicene Creed (Notes)


Bosphorus Bridge that bridges Europe and Asia, Istanbul, Turkey (trek earth)

Introduction

Overall I think the lecture went quite well. Pastor Mark's only suggestion after was that an outline would have been helpful as those in the course (sitting in a small circle) were not following along reading from any source and so I could have provided a written or verbal outline. Very reasonable. Next time I shall do so if I am asked to lecture again.

My last church lecture was several years ago for small group leadership and since then my sleep apnea became worse but now with recent (2 years) treatment with pills my condition is better and should stay that way for good. This can be seen empirically with my leaner appearance as well. I did complete two lecturing internships, one with each of the first two Christian degrees and I think my more recent blog audio posts were of assistance to me as well as were, of course, the many lecture rehearsals. But the more lecturing I do the better they shall become.

I am reasonably pleased with the result and it was a stressful week with my Mom returning to the downstairs part of the condo from Ridge Meadows Hospital after five months on Friday and the demands being placed upon me with this move back home and the supplies needed to be picked up via the Red Cross and RMH while trying to get this technical lecture down. Also during the week MS Word 2002 went 'bonkers' while I was working on the lecture leaving some kind of marks that looked a little like musical notations at the end of not only my lecture paragraphs but within all my MS Word 2002 documents, including my Doctorate, my CV, all documents. To Microsoft's credit when I purchased MS Word 2010 from London Drugs it translated all the MS Word 2002 programs to MS Word 2010 with no problem. And I thank God for that as well.

My Church Lecture On The Nicene Creed (Notes)

Greetings, Welcome to week three of Who is God? Featuring the Nicene Creed.

(Not the entire creed is being taught by me this week)

My bio last week in the bulletin was correct my Doctorate was at the University of Wales. It was the University of Wales, Lampeter but through two mergers it is now the University of Wales, Trinity Saint David at Lampeter. It is still one of the largest Universities in the UK. It was earned in that department in the disciplines of both Philosophical Theology and Philosophy of Religion as both disciplines deal with the problem of evil and theodicy.

Now my section of the creed…

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God,
begotten of his Father before all worlds,
God of God, Light of Light,
very God of very God,
begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father;
by whom all things were made;

And in one Lord Jesus Christ,

The term ‘Lord’ is used in the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament in the context of Moses as leader Numbers (32: 25) for example. Browning Page 231.

Also of Jesus as the Son of the Man (Mark 2: 28). Browning Page 231.

Jesus was a person with special authority as Lord. (Matt. 7: 21). Browning Page 231.

In the Old Testament, the term Lord was used to translate names for God. Browning Page 231.

In the New Testament, the terms ‘Lord’ and Christ are almost synonymous (I Cor. 8, I Thess. 4: 17. 5: 12). Browning Page 231.

The term ‘Adonai’ meant ‘lord and father’. McComiskey. ‘Adonai’ was substituted for the name of God. As is Lord in our English Bibles. Erickson Page 691

κύριος and related κυρίου, ὁ according to Greek scholar Walter Bauer on Page 459, has Lord as a designated title for God as its roots in the Orient.

Christ is referred to as Lord in the New Testament Gospels and Epistles.

By referring to Jesus as Lord, Erickson the Apostles and disciples meant to give Jesus Christ the highest possible title (Page 691) meaning an obvious reference to his deity although he was still fully human. For the Jewish observers of Christianity of the New Testament era, the term Lord for Christ was given in part so that they could observe that Christ was equal with the Father. Erickson Page 691.

The name Jesus Christ is a combination of ‘Jesus’ of Nazareth and the title ‘Christ’ (Greek) which is Messiah in Hebrew. R.H. Stein, Page 582. The term Christ means ‘anointed’. Jesus is the Latin form of the Greek translation of the Hebrew Joshua/Jehoshua and means ‘salvation is ‘Yahweh’. Browning, Page 199.

Arius and Arians reasoned as God the Father from the Old Testament was immutable/unchangeable the substance of God could not be shared with another being in any way. Therefore Arius and Arians contended that Jesus Christ had to be a created being. Walter. Page 75.

The Word of God, Logos was viewed as a creation to Arius and it was deduced there was a time when he was not. Walter. Page 75.

There was a time where Jesus Christ assuming he was finite, did not exist. Walter. Page 75.

He was a finite being and not the infinite God as was the Father.

The assertion of the Lordship of Christ within the creed definitively states the opposite.

Arius and the Arians made the mistake of placing far too much emphasis on Greek philosophy as they interpreted Scripture.

With my background with secular MPhil and PhD degrees having to study and earn degrees in philosophy of religion and theology simultaneously I should state that the type error in philosophical approach in broad terms is still rampant today.

I reason philosophy and philosophy of religion are important academic disciplines for understanding truth but God’s word was given by God to persons to be understood historically in context.

Similarly, when I started at the University of Wales Lampeter for my Doctorate, even after passing MPhil theses as part one of the program at Wales, I was heavily criticized by one of the students at a meeting because I favoured the historical-grammatical critical method of analyzing Scripture over what the entire class appeared to prefer which was to concentrate almost entirely on the methodology of a Biblical author as in trying to deduce what the author’s motives were in writing a Biblical book. As opposed to actually reviewing his or her writing for theological content primarily. I did eventually learn the importance of more methodology writing my Doctoral thesis in the end, but still reason historical, grammatical with emphasis on understanding the theology and philosophy of a writer in Scripture is key.

A danger I see with their over-emphasis on methodology is that similar to the Arians and their approach to Scripture is that they may very well not let the Biblical author speak his/her mind in context and we need to remember the historical understanding all Scripture is inspired by God (2 Timothy 3: 16).

This is a very serious spiritual error. And an intellectual one as well.

One should not want to read a philosophy into a text and also one should not want to dismiss a philosophy that is in the Biblical text.

In my opinion, a major error of the Arians was to bring too much Greek philosophical thought into a review of Scripture and in a sense not let Scripture and God speak.

I am not claiming complete objectivity in my own personal way of evaluating Scripture and philosophy and philosophy of religion are valid academic disciplines but they should not be allowed to tarnish what the Scriptures states either by negation or addition.

the only-begotten Son of God,

The New Testament Greek word ‘monogenes’ ‘only-begotten’ (μονογενὴς υἱός) occurs nine times in the New Testament. Harrison. Page 799. Monogenes could reasonably be rendered as and is interpreted by some as meaning ‘one of a kind’ as in an adjective form (describes a noun) derived from ‘genos’ ‘origin’ ‘race’ ‘stock’ etc. page 799. The adjective only begotten provides the idea of uniqueness and not of a subordinate being. Harrison. Page 799.

Therefore, the deity of Christ within the Trinity would stand.

Greek scholar Bauer states that in Johannine literature this term is used only of Christ. Page. 527. Unique may be quite adequate as a description.

Monogenes describes the absolute uniqueness of God the Son to God the Father in his divine nature. So, Christ is the unique Son of God with a specific intimate relationship with God the Father. James Orr, International Standard Bible Encylopedia.

There is a slightly different perspective than the one I quoted from some scholars, stating that Christ as God the Son is not ‘one of a kind’ but is the ‘second of a kind’. But it still agrees with the perspective from that Christ shares the genus of God the Father and therefore has the same divine nature as the Father.

The Son is of the same essence, substance and nature of the Father states Michael Marlowe.

The term ‘Son of God’ is a title Christ accepted for himself which meant that he had a very specific unique personhood and relationship with God the Father. He was not like any other human being. Erickson Page 687-688.

In Christian theology, the Son of God has the concept of the pre-existent divine being entering human life in the person of Jesus Christ. Browning Page 349.

Arius was incorrect that Christ was not God the Son, or that it was just a title of honour. Walter Page 75. The Scriptural context dictates the Son of God has a divine pre-existence which would equal that of God the Father, although yes in the incarnation as can be seen in the Gospels Christ does take on human form as in the resurrection.

It should be noted that Jesus Christ’s human nature is no way is an addition to his divine nature. He is no more or less God.

Granted there is an aspect of mystery in the incarnation but the Triune nature of God which is infinite and eternal is not altered by Christ taking on additional finite human nature. Hypostatic union.

From Erickson a Reformed Baptist Theologian: Biblical Christianity holds that Jesus had a human soul and divine one, yet he was not two persons. In my mind, this is a correct, yet difficult concept. Jesus on the cross gave his spirit to the Father (John 19:30), so he possessed a human spirit and was fully human. My take is that in a sense there is one spirit as in person that is a unity of both human and divine nature. It is one spirit that is a unity of two spirits, which do not mix yet work together as one place of personality. In the Incarnation, the divine nature of Christ was unified with a human spirit/nature. To say that Christ has two spirits or souls will perhaps lead some to the idea that Christ is two persons rather than one person with two natures. The human soul of Christ is unified with the divine soul of Christ, in such a way that the two natures do not mix, yet they work together as one spirit as in one person. Therefore when Christ died he did not give his spirits, but spirit. This one soul/spirit would allow Christ to be fully human but without an active sinful nature.

begotten of his Father before all worlds,

Christ and this unique nature existed before the Creation of any worlds and in fact, Christ as God was co-Creator…

Hebrews 1: 2 NASB

in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world.

God the Son is the only Son of God and therefore is the heir of the Father. The sole heir of all things. Christ had a ‘dynamic agency’ in the creation’ of all things. This naturally implies Christ, God Son’s pre-existence and also co-existence with the Father. Hughes Pages 38-40.

Christ is the author of creation. He is also the efficient cause of their creation as in all things. Gerald F. Hawthorne Page 1506

Colossians 1:15-17 NASB

15 [a]He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. 16 For [b] by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities— all things have been created through Him and for Him. 17 He [c] is before all things, and in Him all things [d]hold together.

It can be seen that Christ is not part of the created world but is the co-creator. Wright Page 71. Christ alone was the Father’s agent is what is indicated.

The world and universe are sustained by God and that would include Christ as God the Son. Wright Page 71.

A scholar by the name of E.G. Ashby points out the mistake made by the Arians that Christ is the first-born of creation was therefore created, instead of being co-eternal with God the Father. But the context does not allow that interpretation. Page 1454. First-born can be defined as having to do with priority and superiority of God the Son in pre-existence as God. This being a reference to his deity, not his humanity. Page 1454.

Firstborn has to do the priority and superiority of Christ over creation as he was the creator and not a mere creation. There is no sense of a literal son being born of a literal father.

However, Bauer from the Greek states the term is used in a figurative sense as in Christ is the first-born of a new humanity. Page 726. Christ would be the first-born of resurrected humanity
within the culminated KOG.

Romans 8: 29 firstborn of many brethren. Πρωτοτοκος, the root word is prototokos, defined as firstborn prwtotokon in Romans 8:29.

God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God,

Reaffirming the equality as deity of God the Son with God the Father.

Both are God, both are light, Jesus states he is the light of the world in John 8: 12.

NASB

12 Then Jesus again spoke to them, saying, “I am the Light of the world; he who follows Me will not walk in the darkness, but will have the Light of life.”

Also, the light is mentioned in John 1.

The Father is the source of light in Genesis 1.1.

Both the Father and Son are Light.

The Son is no less God than is the Father.

There is no secondary God concept in Scripture. Isaiah 43, 44 and 45 point out there is only one God and no other shall be no God formed after.

Back in the late 1980s before starting my long four-degree marathon, I had a friend that basically held to Arian belief. He was excommunicated from the Jehovah’s Witnesses the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. But interestingly although he would keep stating that he as a genius and smart enough to join a high IQ organization even when I would keep quoting him the Scriptures from both the Old and New Testaments that clearly explains there is no secondary true God concept in Scripture, he appealed to reason and philosophy. By reason and philosophy, like Arius, he reasoned there can only be one Almighty God and one person that is God and therefore Jesus Christ even though accepted as the atoner of his sins. My friend even accepted the physical resurrection, unlike those in the Watchtower, but Jesus Christ is his mind must have somehow been a secondary 'god' and saviour.

Again the danger of not letting Scripture speak in context.

begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father; by whom all things were made;

The Son is of the same essence, substance and nature of the Father.

The Nicene council came up with the word as noted previously in the class that God the Son is of the same ‘homoousia’ with the Father. Blaising Page 775. The concept is that they are of the exact same, substance and nature. A similar idea can be found in Hebrews 1:3.

Bauer defines it from the Greek as substantial nature, essence, actual being, reality. In the context of Hebrews 1: 3 the Son of God is the exact representation of God’s real being. page 847.
Hupostasis Original Word: ὑπόστασις, εως, ἡ

The divine substance is the same. Hughes Page 44. Therefore Jesus can rightly state without risking modalism or Sabellianism, ‘He who has seen me has seen the Father’ John 14: 9 even though they are different persons in Trinity because Almighty God, including the Holy Spirit, is of only one divine substance.

Turner explains sabellianism was an alternative example of modalism. Turner Page 514. These were three different modes revealing the same divine person. Blaising Page 727.

Today there are also Oneness Pentecostals. Theologian Gregory A. Boyd wrote a good book dealing with the subject entitled:

Oneness Pentecostals and the Trinity (1992).

He was a former member. Often tend to Baptize in Jesus’ name only, not in name of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Page 139. Some reason that speaking in tongues was a required sign of being baptized in the Holy Spirit, to not speak in tongues was to not have the Holy Spirit at all. Page 197.

This group can be known for mistaking descriptive history in ACTS for prescriptive doctrine in every case, now tongues are a sign, not the sign, but of course not all will speak in tongues as Paul implies in 1 Corinthians 13: 30.

There is only one divine substance of God, but this is represented in three persons within the Trinity and God the Son has taken upon himself a human nature in order to be the King of the Kingdom of God.

In closing

The Creeds of 325 and 381 appeal to Scripture in proper and reasonable context and the resulting Theology adequately serves as a counter to the Arian heresies on a point by point basis.

My deduction would be that Creeds such as this helped immensely to maintain Christian theology, however, the Roman Catholic Church and to a lesser extent Orthodox Churches over time did add practices to Christian faith leading to the need for a Christian Reformation in the 16th C. In the modern era there are pseudo-Christian movements such as the Latter-Day Saints and the Jehovah’s Witnesses that attempt to rewrite Christian history as if they are the true Christian church and that the Creeds are wrong.

Perhaps the Creeds need to be further emphasized within orthodox, Biblical Churches even as a type of evangelism tool.

Bibliography

AQUINAS, SAINT THOMAS (1225-1274) Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, translated by Fabian R. Larcher, Html-formated Joseph Kenny, Dominican House.

ASHBY, E G. (1986) 'Colossians' in The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Zondervan.

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

BLAISING, C.A. (1996) ‘Constantinople (381)’ Council of, in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.

BLAISING, C.A. (1996) ‘Monarchianism' in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.

BLAISING, C.A. (1996) ‘Nicea, Council of (325)’ in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.

BOWMAN, ROBERT M. (1990) Why You Should Believe in the Trinity, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.

BROM, ROBERT H. (1983) The Eternal Sonship of Christ, San Diego, CIC 827.

BROMILEY, G.W. (1996) ‘Trinity’ in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.

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

BUCHSEL, HERMANN, MARTIN FRIEDRICH (1967) ‘BUCHSEL on μονογενης’ reproduced from Volume 4. of Theological Dictionary of The New Testament, Edited by Gerhard Kittel, Grand Rapids, Eerdmans.

BOYD, GREGORY A. (1992) Oneness Pentecostals and the Trinity, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.

CALVIN, JOHN (1549) ‘Hebrews’ in Calvin’s Commentaries, Volume 44, Translated by John King (1847-1850), Santa Cruz, Sacred texts.com.

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

HARRISON, E.F. (1996) ‘Only-Begotten’ in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.

HAWTHORNE, GERALD F. (1986) 'Hebrews' in The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Zondervan.

HUGHES, PHILIP. (1990) A Commentary On The Epistle To The Hebrews, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

KNIGHT, KEVIN (2009) First Council of Constantinople, New York, New Advent.

MARLOWE, MICHAEL (2006) The Only Begotten Son, New Philadelphia, Ohio, Bible Researcher Website.

MCCOMISKEY, T. E. (1996) ‘God, Names of’ in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.

ORR, JAMES (1915) ‘Only-Begotten’, General Editor, Grand Rapids, International Standard Bible Encylopedia.

PACKER, J.I. (1993) ‘Incarnation God Sent His Son, To Save Us’ from Concise Theology: A Guide To Historic Christian Beliefs, New York, Tyndale House Publishers Inc.

STEIN, R.H. (1996) ‘Jesus Christ’ in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.

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

TURNER, H. E. W. (1999) 'Sabellianism', in Alan Richardson and John Bowden (eds.), A New Dictionary of Christian Theology, Kent, SCM Press Limited.

WALTER, V.L. WALTER (1996) ‘Arianism’ in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.

WRIGHT, N.T. (1989) Colossians and Philemon, Grand Rapids, IVP.


Golcuk, Turkey (trekearth)

There will be more lecturing to follow in another post. Something is in the works at Grace Vancouver.


Maple Ridge, BC (June 1, 2012)