Sovereignty Theodicy/Defence & Culture (PhD Edit)

Bora Bora-Facebook

Happy Thanksgiving

My questionnaire data does not demonstrate a complete rejection of Reformed, Calvinistic, sovereignty theodicy, which is not accepted on key points in contrast to the acceptance of free will theodicy.[1]   It can be reasoned that Reformed compatibilistic concepts have been primarily rejected.[2]  With the very important Question 22, if God does not cause evil according to the majority of respondents, the reasonable conclusion would be an acceptance of the idea from free will theodicy that human beings alone cause evil and corruption.[3]  A compatibilistic model, as noted within the work, views both God and humanity as the cause of evil[4] with God as the primary cause,[5] but with sinless motives.[6]  There is also the important non-support of the ideas of God causing human actions, and deciding who shall follow him in election,[7] which are essential within a compatibilistic framework for God to fulfill his purposes and turn certain sinful human beings into members of his everlasting Kingdom.[8]  Sovereignty theodicy is not as publicized as free will theodicy,[9] is not taught as much in post-secondary education, and is not as culturally relevant in Western society as free will concepts, which support libertarianism.[10] 

In order for Reformed concepts of compatibilism and theodicy to gain increased prominence within the Christian Church,[11] sovereignty theodicy needs to be correctly explained, but theoretical theodicy is not sufficient in itself as its practical ramifications must be explained.  A major reason why a sovereignty theodicy explains God wills all things, including evil and sin or the greater good,[12] is that with this and in particular, through the results of the atoning work and resurrection of Christ, God will ultimately rid his creation of the problem of evil.[13] 

---

[1] It can reasoned from the results that Reformed theology in the context of theodicy is not dominating Christian theological thought. 

[2] This is significant enough to demonstrate that Reformed theology in regard to theodicy and free will and determinism has been overshadowed by the free will/incompatibilistic research and work of those such as Augustine and Plantinga.

[3] Augustine (421)(1998: Chapter 13: 8).  Plantinga (1982: 184-189).

[4] Erickson (1994: 361).  Calvin (1543)(1996: 37-40).

[5] Erickson (1994: 361).

[6] Calvin (1543)(1996: 37-40).

[7] Whale (1958: 63).  Calvin (1543)(1996: 136).

[8] Calvin mentions in his Acts Commentary that people who were strangers to the Kingdom of God, were purchased by Christ and flourished within.  Calvin (1552)(1995: 415).

[9] This is quite clear from several years of academic research.

[10] Blackburn (1996: 218). 

[11] In particular within Reformed churches.

[12] Cranfield (1992: 204).  Mounce (1995: 187).  Admittedly human beings often greatly struggle to see and understand this theoretical greater good.  Davis (1981: 23).  Roth reasons some evil willed by God is simply and only that and should be repented for by God. Roth (1981: 10). 

[13] Moltmann (1993: 256).  Calvin (1552)(1995: 415).  Feinberg (1994: 141).  Mounce (1990: 369-397).

Bibliography

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. 

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

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.

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

CALVIN, JOHN (1543)(1996) The Bondage and Liberation of the Will, Translated by G.I. Davies, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.

CALVIN, JOHN (1552)(1995) Acts, Translated by Watermark, Nottingham, Crossway Books.

CRANFIELD, C.E.B. (1992) Romans: A Shorter Commentary, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

DAVIS, STEPHEN T. (1981)(ed.), Encountering Evil, Atlanta, John Knox Press.

FEINBERG. JOHN S. (1986) Predestination and Free Will, 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.

MOLTMANN, JÜRGEN (1993) The Crucified God, Minneapolis, Fortress Press. 

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

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.

ROTH, JOHN K. (1981) Encountering Evil, Stephen T. Davis (ed.), Atlanta, John Knox Press. 

WHALE, J.S. (1958) Christian Doctrine, Glasgow, Fontana Books.

Question 22

Question 22: God does not cause evil

This free will theodicy based question deals with a crucial and original aspect of my PhD thesis and statistical data. I conclude within a sovereignty perspective that God does cause evil and I will explain this concept in this Chapter from both theological and philosophical perspectives from my theoretical research in the Theology and Application section. One hundred and seventy-nine respondents (84%) selected ‘AS/A’ for this question. Only 17 (8%) persons supported my notion by choosing ‘D/DS’.

Additional

Determinism meaning hard determinism and opposed to soft determinism/compatibilism. God is still the cause of all things, but I am acknowledging a limited free will by Adam and Eve. God does not 'cause' as in force or coerce but is the cause of all things as in first cause being infinite and omnipotent.

My backyard...

Autumn, when some trees wear alternate jerseys.

Plitvice Lake, Croatia-Facebook

Some Extrabiblical Evidence For The Existence Of The Historical Jesus Christ

Zaraka, Greece-trekearth

Listening to Gary Habermas lectures and interviews on his website the concept of this short post was created.

From Historian Earle E. Cairns:

In regard to extrabiblical evidence for the existence of the historical Jesus Christ.

Roman and related

Tacitus (55-117) a Roman historian connected the name and origin of Christians with 'Christus' who under Emperor Tiberius was put to death by Procurator Pontius Pilate. Cairns (1981: 45).

Pliny, the propraetor of Bithynia and Pontus in Asia Minor wrote a letter to Emperor Trajan at about 112 for guidance on how he should deal with the Christians. He noted that they 'sing a song to Christ as to a God'. Cairns (1981: 45).

Suetonius in 'Lives of the Twelve Caesars' writes that the Jews were expelled from Rome because of disturbances over 'Chrestos'. Cairns (1981: 45). He is noted to have mentioned the fire in Rome in 64 under Emperor Nero and that Nero inflicted punishment on Christians. McDowell (1999: 121).

Lucian (ca. 125-190) wrote a satirical review of Christians at about 170 and described Christ that was crucified in Palestine after he began 'a new cult'. Cairns (1981: 46). McDowell adds that he 'spoke scornfully of Christ and the Christians'. McDowell (1999: 121).

Jewish

Josephus (37-ca 100) wrote of James the brother of Jesus the so called Christ. There is some debate in regard to the authenticity of Josephus writings. There may have been according to critics 'interpolation by Christians' but Cairns writes that most scholars accept the writing as from Josephus and as original text. What Josephus wrote demonstrates he was not an ally of Christians or Christianity. Cairns (1981: 46).

McDowell mentions that within the Babylonian Talmud it states 'In has been taught: On the of Passover they hanged Yeshu'. McDowell (1999: 123-124). Hanged being a crucifixion reference. McDowell (1999: 123). Jesus and his disciples, five of them are also mentioned. McDowell (1999: 124). In one section Jesus is also called 'Such-an-one is a bastard of an adulteress'. McDowell (1999: 124).

Interesting that McDowell used Gary Habermas as a major source.

Christian

Cairns mentions that there are many Christian 'apocryphal gospels, acts, letters and apocalypses' Cairns (1981: 46). These would depend as in predicate on an historical Christ existing. Cairns (1981: 46).

CAIRNS, EARLE E. (1981) Christianity Through The Centuries, Grand Rapids, Zondervan Publishing House.

MCDOWELL, JOSH (1999) The New Evidence That Demands A Verdict, Nashville, Thomas Nelson Publishers.

Vancouver

Acts 17: 27 Brief

York, England, probably 1995

A well-known and fine Biblical scholar that teaches online and on radio appears to contend, on several occasions that Acts 17: 24-27, 27 in particular, is proof text for libertarian free will and incompatibilism.

I also dealt with this subject with some different content back in 2008:

Could They Become Christians Whenever

Definitions

Blackburn writes that some form of metaphysical libertarianism postulates that free choice is not causally determined, but is also not random. It is suggested that an agency situated outside of human nature, in regard to making human choice, is possible but likely ‘fantasy.’ Blackburn (1996: 218).

Libertarian free will is usually viewed as a form of indeterminism. The concept in libertarian free will is that a person is able to perform another action in the place of one that has been committed. This action cannot be predetermined by any circumstance or desire. Norman Geisler explains that indeterminism is defined as the idea that there are no antecedent (preceding conditions) or simultaneous (at the same time) causes of human actions. All human actions are free if a person could have done otherwise. Geisler (1996: 429).

Indeterminism is also equated with incompatibilism which states that God, or any other being, cannot cause by force or coercion any human action, nor can any action be simultaneously willed by God or any other being, for the human action to remain significantly free. Geisler (1996: 429).

John S. Feinberg explains that compatibilism does not allow for coercion or force, but holds that God, or some outside force, can simultaneously determine with the use of persuasion, that an action will or will not take place. Feinberg (1986: 24). Feinberg writes that certain nonconstraining conditions could strongly influence actions, in conjunction with human free will performing these actions. Feinberg (1994: 60). With this viewpoint, there will be no contradiction in stating that God would create human beings who were significantly free, unconstrained, and yet committed actions that God willed. Feinberg (2001: 637).

W.T. Stace (1952)(1976) explains that moral responsibility is consistent with determinism in the context of soft determinism and requires it. Stace (1952)(1976: 29). If human actions are uncaused then reward or punishment would be unjustified. Stace (1952)(1976: 29). Stace reasons that there must be at least some human cause within human actions to make them morally responsible acts. Stace (1952)(1976: 30).

Pojman explains that hard determinism holds that every event is caused and no one is responsible for actions, whereas soft determinism holds that rational creatures can be held responsible for determined actions as long as they are done voluntarily and without force or coercion. Pojman (1996: 586).

Acts 17: 24-28

24 The God who made the world and all things in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands; 25 nor is He served by human hands, as though He needed anything, since He Himself gives to all people life and breath and all things; 26 and He made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined their appointed times and the boundaries of their habitation, 27 that they would seek God, if perhaps they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us; 28 for in Him we live and move and [t]exist, as even some of your own poets have said, ‘For we also are His children.’

Calvin in his Acts commentary explains that it was the human duty to seek God, and that God will meet human beings and demonstrated clear signs of his existence in creation. Calvin (1552)(1995: 302). Those who do not exert themselves to seek after God are not worthy to live on this earth. Calvin (1552)(1995: 302). Through the creation of the world God has shown his glory. Calvin (1552)(1995: 302). 

Calvin raises the important issue if whether this knowledge concerning God from nature allows persons such as the Athenians to gain true and clear knowledge about God by this nature. Calvin (1552)(1995: 302). He reasons that persons choose not to pay attention to God, but that true knowledge about God is a special gift, which comes by faith and the illumination of the Holy Spirit. Calvin (1552)(1995: 302). Our own human minds cannot penetrate this far if guided by human nature alone, Calvin (1552)(1995: 302).

In this Acts passage, Paul is not dealing with the human ability to believe in saving faith, but is only showing that persons have no excuse when God is not perceived, and Calvin mentions Romans 1:20, which concerns God revealing himself in creation. (1552)(1995: 302-303).

La Sor writes that human beings do not give to God (24-26), but that God gives to all nations breath, life and all things. La Sor (1978: 273). He further suggests that Paul was preaching to the Greeks in Athens, philosophically that God was at the centre of the universe as opposed to humanity. La Sor (1978: 273).

It was an offense to present God in the form of human made idols. La Sor (1978: 273).

Paul was appealing to the superiority of the Biblical God in philosophical terms over Greek concepts and stating that there were signs of the true God in creation that could be known.

27 that they would seek God, if perhaps they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us;

Byzantine Majority--zhtein ton kurion ei ara ge yhlafhseian auton kai euroien kaige ou makran apo enoV ekastou hmwn uparconta

Alexandrian --zhtein ton qeon ei ara ge yhlafhseian auton kai euroien kai ge ou makran apo enoV ekastou hmwn uparconta

Hort and Westcott--zhtein ton qeon ei ara ge yhlafhseian auton kai euroien kai ge ou makran apo enoV ekastou hmwn uparconta

Some minor variations in the Greek manuscripts. A reminder that as far as known, the original texts are not in existence.

Original texts were copied by many scribes to keep overall and theological accuracy. Therefore manuscripts and translations are not representing dictated texts from God, but rather copies of original divinely inspired texts.

This is how God maintained his Scripture.

Marshall using a version that looks almost identical to the Alexandrian and Hort and Westcott versions translates:

to seek - God if perchance they might feel after him and might find though not far from one each of us being

The Greek New Testament, I own also offering a Hort and Westcott version. Noted Hort and Westcott is the basis of their text. The Greek New Testament (1993: viii).

ζητέω to seek (literally or figuratively); specially, (by Heb) to worship (God), or (in a bad sense) to plot (against life) Derivation: of uncertain affinity; Strong (1890)(1986: 44).

Bauer comments with the description for which 17: 27 is under. 'What one desires somehow to bring into relation w. oneself or to obtain without knowing where it is to be found'. Bauer (1979: 338).

εὑρίσκω to find (lit or fig), find, get, obtain, perceive, see. Strong (1890)(1986: 43).

Bauer comments in regard to 17: 27 and 'seeking and finding God', it is placed under the definition of fig. of intellectual discovery based on reflection, examination, or investigation, find. Bauer (1979: 325).

Conclusion

Taking a bit deeper look with this post than the previous one on the same subject, I see no reason from Scripture to conclude that the verse or passage is supporting, theologically or philosophically libertarian free will concepts or incompatibilism.

Calvin was correct, the type of knowledge of God discussed is in concert, in agreement, with what the Apostle Paul also taught in Romans 1, that being, humanity can and should have an intellectual knowledge of God based on nature.

This does not equate to a specific knowledge of the Biblical God in any soteriological sense, in any sense of salvation.

God would still be the initiator of Revelation knowledge that leads to one being born again (John 3) and chosen, predestined in Christ (Ephesians 1 and Romans 8).

As proof text it would work to some extent as a disproof of hard determinism, sometimes called 'determinism', but does not support libertarian free will and incompatibilism, or indeterminism.

The text does not work against the concepts of soft determinism and compatibilism because it could be stated that Paul was preaching to the Greeks in Athens because as human beings of sound mind they posses 'limited free wills' (my MPhil/PhD term) that even within a fallen nature have significant freedom to make actual choices, but importantly as secondary causes.

God when he wills and chooses as primary cause would be within the regeneration process persuading secondary causes to believe in sovereign certainty.

This would eliminate force or coercion.

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

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

CALVIN, JOHN (1543)(1996) The Bondage and Liberation of the Will, Translated by G.I. Davies, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.

CALVIN, JOHN (1552)(1995) Acts, Translated by Watermark, Nottingham, Crossway Books.

FEINBERG. JOHN S. (1986) Predestination and Free Will, 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.

GEISLER, N.L. (1996) ‘Freedom, Free Will, and Determinism’ in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.

LA SOR, William Sanford (1978) Acts: Church Alive, Glendale, California, Regal Books Division.

MARSHALL, ALFRED (1975)(1996) The Interlinear KJV-NIV, Grand Rapids, Zondervan. 

POJMAN, LOUIS P. (1996) Philosophy: The Quest for Truth, New York, Wadsworth Publishing Company.

STACE, W.T. (1952)(1976) Religion and the Modern Mind, in John R. Burr and Milton Goldinger (eds), Philosophy and Contemporary Issues, London, Collier Macmillan Publishers.

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

THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT (1993) Stuttgart, United Bible Societies.

York, England, 1995

York Minster-trekearth

Galatians 1:8-9 Brief

Belgium, I Eclaircie-trekearth

I have been listening to an audio version of Galatians lately...

Galatians 1: 6-10 New American Standard Bible (NASB)

6 I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you [a]by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel; 7 which is really not another; only there are some who are disturbing you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel [b]contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be [c]accursed! 9 As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel [d]contrary to what you received, he is to be [e]accursed! 10 For am I now seeking the favor of men, or of God? Or am I striving to please men? If I were still trying to please men, I would not be a bond-servant of Christ.

Greek New Testament

Scrivener 1894 Textus Receptus
wV proeirhkamen kai arti palin legw ei tiV umaV euaggelizetai par o parelabete anaqema estw

Byzantine Majority
wV proeirhkamen kai arti palin legw ei tiV umaV euaggelizetai par o parelabete anaqema estw

Brief Background Of Galatians

Commentator F. Roy Coad makes the quite clear observation from the context, statement that Galatians is free from authorship controversies as it is virtually unanimous that the Apostle Paul wrote the Book. Coad (1986: 1413). Paul is clearly identified as the author.

There are debates on the date of the letter and the location of churches intended. Coad (1986: 1413). Many American and British scholars conclude Paul established on his first missionary journey a church in the southern part of the Roman Province of Galatia. (1986: 1416).

The writer reasons that Galatians was likely the first New Testament text written, in 48-49 AD, and Paul's conversion was likely in approximately 33 AD. Coad (1986: 1416).

Galatians 1: 6-10

Commentators with different views ask 'Was Paul implying that the Judaizers' message was no gospel at all; or that it was not a different message, but merely a perversion of the true?' Coad (1986: 1418).

The Judaizers being those formerly of Hebrew Religion of the Old Testament/Hebrew Bible in the early Christian Church that were attempting to live under Old Covenant Law and influencing others to do so.

However the Scriptural context states a different gospel (verse 6), contrary to what you received (verse 9).

Marshall states 'another gospel': eteron euaggelion

Coad states one that preaches such as gospel is 'eternally condemned' -anathema. Coad (1986: 1418).

ἀνάθεμα: Is translated as 'a curse' 'let him be' estw in Alfred Marshall's Greek Lexicon.

Bauer documents ἀνάθεμα: it is the 'object of a curse' in Galatians 1: 8 forward. Bauer (1979: 54).

Strong's documents ἀνάθεμα: A religious ban or excommunicated thing or person-accursed, anathema, curse x great. Strong (1986: 10).

Concepts of being everlastingly condemned, being cursed/anathema seem stronger than simply a perversion of the true gospel, or aberrant theology. It appears from the level of Paul's critical critique it is quite possibly beyond legalistic religion that is actually being discussed.

It is presumptuous to assume that core orthodox doctrines were still held to, although this is a possibility based on scholarship.

Rather in being a different gospel means there is a reasonable possibility the particular Judaizers involved had fallen back into the Law to a point where they had theologically and practically rejected the atoning work and resurrection of Christ in soteriology.

Therefore they may have in fact had a different gospel, a different religion. Paul may not just be criticizing the Judaizers and then stating that those with a different gospel in a hypothetical sense are everlastingly condemned and cursed, but some of those mentioned were in fact in that position with God.

However, I can see from the text how there is some room for debate.

As application, any world religion and worldview regardless of how many or few adherents that seriously disagrees and alters itself from Scriptural views in regard to the Nature of God and soteriology would by implication find itself everlastingly condemned, and cursed as a false gospel by God.

This is true even of religions that claim to have post-New Testament angelic and divine origins, Galatians seemingly anticipating this type of attempt to alter the New Testament gospel, verse 8 forward.

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

COAD, F. ROY (1986) ‘Galatians’, in F.F. Bruce (gen.ed.), The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Marshall Pickering/ Zondervan.

MARSHALL, ALFRED (1975)(1996) The Interlinear KJV-NIV, Grand Rapids, Zondervan. 

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

La Campagna, Italy-trekearth

Sole, Portoferraio, Italy-trekearth