11 Temmuz 2012 Çarşamba
10 Temmuz 2012 Salı
9 Temmuz 2012 Pazartesi
So we're looking for a house in Kingston...
To contact us Click HERE
... and this is our search area. It extends down to Lake Ontario's Shore. While it would be cool to live on Wolfe or Howe Island, I don't think Nathan would enjoy taking the Ferry to work every day >.>
View Larger Map
It would be larger, but those long lakes are a real pain to drive around. I guess it would be easier if we stayed within Kingston, but I have this dream of raising alpacas and spinning their fibre on a beautiful spinning wheel I designed and carved myself. Somehow, I don't think I can do that within city limits, aye?
On the other hand, being close to everything Kingston has to offer (I'm still trying to figure out exactly what that is) would be handy. Buses are handy (although I got my G1 last week, after letting it expire nearly 2 years ago, so I can do my G2 test as soon as I practice parking >.>), and I think it would be easier to resell if the house weren't in the middle of nowhere.
I still want to build my Timber-Frame Strawbale house, but I think that might have to wait until I can get Nathan to warm up to the idea.
View Larger Map
It would be larger, but those long lakes are a real pain to drive around. I guess it would be easier if we stayed within Kingston, but I have this dream of raising alpacas and spinning their fibre on a beautiful spinning wheel I designed and carved myself. Somehow, I don't think I can do that within city limits, aye?
On the other hand, being close to everything Kingston has to offer (I'm still trying to figure out exactly what that is) would be handy. Buses are handy (although I got my G1 last week, after letting it expire nearly 2 years ago, so I can do my G2 test as soon as I practice parking >.>), and I think it would be easier to resell if the house weren't in the middle of nowhere.
I still want to build my Timber-Frame Strawbale house, but I think that might have to wait until I can get Nathan to warm up to the idea.
Notes on the Incarnation
To contact us Click HERE
Kassel, Germany (trekearth.com)
Introduction
December 19, 2005
My first post with my new notebook.
This is a repost with edits of a post from the blog when it was called thekingpin68 and I did not receive many comments. The original features a classic troll attack in comments from someone from California. I will share here to be nice and save you from clicking if you wish...
'what an absolute perfect blog of spiritual self indulgence...
I have NEVER read so much INTELLECTUAL TWADDLE in my LIFE [ and i have beem around a LONG time.
whew!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! you are TRULY a legend in your own mind!!!!!!
thanks for sharing.'
For those of that read my work and are not too sure about me, yes I am a legend in my own mind, I told me so. Actually, I still have a lot to learn as a child of God.
The California troll of course propelled me to write for the next 7 years.;)
Thank you.
The notes with revisions...
A pastor at church asked me for some notes for his upcoming sermon.
Colossians 2:9
MARSHALL, ALFRED (1975)(1996) The Interlinear KJV-NIV, Grand Rapids, Zondervan.
2:9 ὅτι �ν α�τῶ κατοικεῖ πᾶν τὸ πλή�ωμα τῆς θεότητος σωματικῶς,
Because in him dwells the fullness of the Godhead bodily.
WRIGHT, N.T. (1989) Colossians and Philemon, Grand Rapids, IVP.
'Bodily form' can be translated as actually or in solid reality. p.103.
The Greek word theotes (Deity) is to be distinguished from theiotes (divinity). The term for divinity could be of a lesser being than God, and Jesus is called Deity. p.103.
There is thus no need for Christian to pay homage to lesser supernatural beings. p.103.
Christ is not a second Deity. p.103.
ASHBY, E G. (1986) 'Colossians' in The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Zondervan.
Colossians 2:9
He mentions that Lightfoot thinks that the term bodily form refers to both the incarnate and glorified Christ. Others see fullness of Deity not being as much corporeally, but corporately. p.1456.
There are of course three distinctions or persons within the Trinity, but if the first interpretation is correct, somehow the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit all work together within the incarnate and glorified body of Christ. Since God has one nature (Christ has nature of Father, Hebrews 1:3) even with the distinctions within the Trinity, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, work together in all things including the literal body of Christ.
MARTINS, RALPH P. (1987) Philippians, Grand Rapids, IVP.
Philippians 2:6
Christ being in very nature God, refers to his pre-incarnate existence. p.100.
Being in a form of God could mean the essential attributes of God. p.101.
Concerning equality with God, one view is that the pre-incarnate God already had equality with God and chose not to cling to it. p.101.
Another view is that it that the pre-incarnate Christ could have claimed equality for himself but refused to do so. p.101.
I would think that the first view is the Biblical one in light of Christ being the eternal word in John 1, and claiming the eternal nature and the name of God for himself in John 8:58 (I AM).
The second view does not do justice to the Biblical text. p.101.
Perhaps although Christ was and is fully God, there was hierarchy in the Trinity before the Incarnation.
Christ was proclaimed as being equal with God by accepting his position as the incarnated, humiliated one. p.103.
HEWLETT, H.C. (1986) 'Philippians' in The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Zondervan.
Philippians 2:6
The participle 'hyparchon', means that Christ was already in existence. p.1444.
Christ was in very nature God and could not be Deity without being fully God. p.1444.
Not grasping at equality was not concerning nature, but state and circumstance according to Gifford. p.1444.
Christ would not exploit his Deity for his own advantage. p.1444.
He was concerned instead with submitting to the will of his Father in order to complete the atoning work, resurrection and culmination of the Kingdom of God.
ERICKSON, MILLARD J. (1994). Christian Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.
Implications of Christ’s Deity
Persons can have real knowledge of God when we see Christ. p.703.
Redemption is available through his death. p.703.
God and humanity can be reunited. p.704.
Persons can worship Christ. p.704.
Implications of Christ’s humanity
Jesus as a human had limited knowledge. p.711.
Some heresies
Docetism
Jesus only seemed to be human, because matter is evil, influenced by Platonic thought. p.713.
Apollinarianism
Denied the fullness of Christ’s humanity. It assumed that if Jesus had two natures that he must have both a human soul and a divine one. He saw this as absurd and thus denied that Christ had a human soul. p.714.
Erickson noted that orthodox, Biblical Christianity holds that Jesus had a human soul and divine one, yet was not two persons. In my mind this is a correct, yet difficult concept and Erickson admits that it is paradox. 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 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. 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.
So, Jesus as a human being would be like Adam before the fall. Sin would not have been within the nature of Christ, but it was not within Adam's nature before the fall either. Christ would have been tempted by sin as a human being, and if he would have been a perfect man alone he could have technically sinned. However, due to the fact the Christ was also God incarnate, and God cannot sin, I would conclude that Christ unlike Adam would not sin.
THEISSEN, HENRY, CLARENCE (1956) Introductory Lectures in Systematic Theology, Grand Rapids, Eerdmans.
Christ did not empty himself of his divine attributes but simply surrendered the exercise of them. p.296.
He quotes Strong who states that the incarnation purged depravity from Christ. p.305.
He did not have a sinful nature. Concerning Christ nature as God and man, Theissen quotes Hodge who states that Christ’s personality resides in the divine nature, not the human one. A divine person and not just a divine nature became incarnate. p.305.
This view would be contrasted by scholars such as Mounce and Cranfield:
Cranfield in his Romans commentary p.176, comments on the likeness of sinful flesh.
Cranfield states with what he thinks is the best explanation, that being that the Greek word for likeness is not to water down Christ's fallen human nature, as in being fully human, but is to draw attention that the fallen nature was assumed but Christ did not become a fallen human being.
So, unlike some views that reason Christ's sinful human nature was purged out at the incarnation, this view reasons it was there but because of his perfect obedience and I would reason deity, he did not become a fallen human being that sinned.
So, in a sense in the likeness of sinful flesh, he had fallen human nature.
In another sense in the likeness of sinful flesh, he did not have an active fallen human nature that would have led to sinful thoughts and choices.
Mounce in his Romans commentary sees it the same way on p.175-176, Christ took upon a fallen nature but did not become completely like us, as in sinners.
So, this could have occurred by having this fallen nature purged out of him at the incarnation or he could have kept the nature, but remained via the Father and Holy Spirit the perfect man and of course God and therefore essentially did not have a fallen nature which allowed him to be the perfect sacrifice.
So he would not have a sinful nature.
REYMOND, R.L. (1996) 'Incarnation' in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.
Essential that the divine Logos did not take himself into union with a human person, otherwise he would become two persons, with two centers of self-consciousness. p.556.
HEBBLETHWAITE, BRIAN, 'Incarnation' in A New Dictionary of Christian Theology, London, SCM Press.
Liberal.
In modern times the doctrine of the Incarnation has been challenged by Unitarians, by deists of the enlightenment, and by liberal protestants. It is seen as mythical, and a barrier to other faiths in a pluralistic world. p.290-291.
Dryburgh, Scotland (trekearth.com)
Beyac et Cazen, France (trekearth.com)
New Lanark, Scotland (trekearth.com)
Anger, Germany (trekearth.com)
ASHBY, E G. (1986) 'Colossians' in The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Zondervan.
CRANFIELD, C.E.B. (1992) Romans: A Shorter Commentary, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
ERICKSON, MILLARD J. (1994) Christian Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.
HEBBLETHWAITE, BRIAN, 'Incarnation' in A New Dictionary of Christian Theology, London, SCM Press.
MARSHALL, ALFRED (1975)(1996) The Interlinear KJV-NIV, Grand Rapids, Zondervan.
MARTINS, RALPH P. (1987) Philippians, Grand Rapids, IVP.
MOUNCE, R.H. (1995) The New American Commentary: Romans, Nashville, Broadman & Holman Publishers.
REYMOND, R.L. (1996) 'Incarnation' in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.
THEISSEN, HENRY, CLARENCE (1956) Introductory Lectures in Systematic Theology, Grand Rapids, Eerdmans.
WRIGHT, N.T. (1989) Colossians and Philemon, Grand Rapids, IVP.
Kassel, Germany (trekearth.com)
Introduction
December 19, 2005
My first post with my new notebook.
This is a repost with edits of a post from the blog when it was called thekingpin68 and I did not receive many comments. The original features a classic troll attack in comments from someone from California. I will share here to be nice and save you from clicking if you wish...
'what an absolute perfect blog of spiritual self indulgence...
I have NEVER read so much INTELLECTUAL TWADDLE in my LIFE [ and i have beem around a LONG time.
whew!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! you are TRULY a legend in your own mind!!!!!!
thanks for sharing.'
For those of that read my work and are not too sure about me, yes I am a legend in my own mind, I told me so. Actually, I still have a lot to learn as a child of God.
The California troll of course propelled me to write for the next 7 years.;)
Thank you.
The notes with revisions...
A pastor at church asked me for some notes for his upcoming sermon.
Colossians 2:9
MARSHALL, ALFRED (1975)(1996) The Interlinear KJV-NIV, Grand Rapids, Zondervan.
2:9 ὅτι �ν α�τῶ κατοικεῖ πᾶν τὸ πλή�ωμα τῆς θεότητος σωματικῶς,
Because in him dwells the fullness of the Godhead bodily.
WRIGHT, N.T. (1989) Colossians and Philemon, Grand Rapids, IVP.
'Bodily form' can be translated as actually or in solid reality. p.103.
The Greek word theotes (Deity) is to be distinguished from theiotes (divinity). The term for divinity could be of a lesser being than God, and Jesus is called Deity. p.103.
There is thus no need for Christian to pay homage to lesser supernatural beings. p.103.
Christ is not a second Deity. p.103.
ASHBY, E G. (1986) 'Colossians' in The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Zondervan.
Colossians 2:9
He mentions that Lightfoot thinks that the term bodily form refers to both the incarnate and glorified Christ. Others see fullness of Deity not being as much corporeally, but corporately. p.1456.
There are of course three distinctions or persons within the Trinity, but if the first interpretation is correct, somehow the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit all work together within the incarnate and glorified body of Christ. Since God has one nature (Christ has nature of Father, Hebrews 1:3) even with the distinctions within the Trinity, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, work together in all things including the literal body of Christ.
MARTINS, RALPH P. (1987) Philippians, Grand Rapids, IVP.
Philippians 2:6
Christ being in very nature God, refers to his pre-incarnate existence. p.100.
Being in a form of God could mean the essential attributes of God. p.101.
Concerning equality with God, one view is that the pre-incarnate God already had equality with God and chose not to cling to it. p.101.
Another view is that it that the pre-incarnate Christ could have claimed equality for himself but refused to do so. p.101.
I would think that the first view is the Biblical one in light of Christ being the eternal word in John 1, and claiming the eternal nature and the name of God for himself in John 8:58 (I AM).
The second view does not do justice to the Biblical text. p.101.
Perhaps although Christ was and is fully God, there was hierarchy in the Trinity before the Incarnation.
Christ was proclaimed as being equal with God by accepting his position as the incarnated, humiliated one. p.103.
HEWLETT, H.C. (1986) 'Philippians' in The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Zondervan.
Philippians 2:6
The participle 'hyparchon', means that Christ was already in existence. p.1444.
Christ was in very nature God and could not be Deity without being fully God. p.1444.
Not grasping at equality was not concerning nature, but state and circumstance according to Gifford. p.1444.
Christ would not exploit his Deity for his own advantage. p.1444.
He was concerned instead with submitting to the will of his Father in order to complete the atoning work, resurrection and culmination of the Kingdom of God.
ERICKSON, MILLARD J. (1994). Christian Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.
Implications of Christ’s Deity
Persons can have real knowledge of God when we see Christ. p.703.
Redemption is available through his death. p.703.
God and humanity can be reunited. p.704.
Persons can worship Christ. p.704.
Implications of Christ’s humanity
Jesus as a human had limited knowledge. p.711.
Some heresies
Docetism
Jesus only seemed to be human, because matter is evil, influenced by Platonic thought. p.713.
Apollinarianism
Denied the fullness of Christ’s humanity. It assumed that if Jesus had two natures that he must have both a human soul and a divine one. He saw this as absurd and thus denied that Christ had a human soul. p.714.
Erickson noted that orthodox, Biblical Christianity holds that Jesus had a human soul and divine one, yet was not two persons. In my mind this is a correct, yet difficult concept and Erickson admits that it is paradox. 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 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. 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.
So, Jesus as a human being would be like Adam before the fall. Sin would not have been within the nature of Christ, but it was not within Adam's nature before the fall either. Christ would have been tempted by sin as a human being, and if he would have been a perfect man alone he could have technically sinned. However, due to the fact the Christ was also God incarnate, and God cannot sin, I would conclude that Christ unlike Adam would not sin.
THEISSEN, HENRY, CLARENCE (1956) Introductory Lectures in Systematic Theology, Grand Rapids, Eerdmans.
Christ did not empty himself of his divine attributes but simply surrendered the exercise of them. p.296.
He quotes Strong who states that the incarnation purged depravity from Christ. p.305.
He did not have a sinful nature. Concerning Christ nature as God and man, Theissen quotes Hodge who states that Christ’s personality resides in the divine nature, not the human one. A divine person and not just a divine nature became incarnate. p.305.
This view would be contrasted by scholars such as Mounce and Cranfield:
Cranfield in his Romans commentary p.176, comments on the likeness of sinful flesh.
Cranfield states with what he thinks is the best explanation, that being that the Greek word for likeness is not to water down Christ's fallen human nature, as in being fully human, but is to draw attention that the fallen nature was assumed but Christ did not become a fallen human being.
So, unlike some views that reason Christ's sinful human nature was purged out at the incarnation, this view reasons it was there but because of his perfect obedience and I would reason deity, he did not become a fallen human being that sinned.
So, in a sense in the likeness of sinful flesh, he had fallen human nature.
In another sense in the likeness of sinful flesh, he did not have an active fallen human nature that would have led to sinful thoughts and choices.
Mounce in his Romans commentary sees it the same way on p.175-176, Christ took upon a fallen nature but did not become completely like us, as in sinners.
So, this could have occurred by having this fallen nature purged out of him at the incarnation or he could have kept the nature, but remained via the Father and Holy Spirit the perfect man and of course God and therefore essentially did not have a fallen nature which allowed him to be the perfect sacrifice.
So he would not have a sinful nature.
REYMOND, R.L. (1996) 'Incarnation' in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.
Essential that the divine Logos did not take himself into union with a human person, otherwise he would become two persons, with two centers of self-consciousness. p.556.
HEBBLETHWAITE, BRIAN, 'Incarnation' in A New Dictionary of Christian Theology, London, SCM Press.
Liberal.
In modern times the doctrine of the Incarnation has been challenged by Unitarians, by deists of the enlightenment, and by liberal protestants. It is seen as mythical, and a barrier to other faiths in a pluralistic world. p.290-291.
Dryburgh, Scotland (trekearth.com)
Beyac et Cazen, France (trekearth.com)
New Lanark, Scotland (trekearth.com)
Anger, Germany (trekearth.com)
ASHBY, E G. (1986) 'Colossians' in The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Zondervan.
CRANFIELD, C.E.B. (1992) Romans: A Shorter Commentary, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
ERICKSON, MILLARD J. (1994) Christian Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.
HEBBLETHWAITE, BRIAN, 'Incarnation' in A New Dictionary of Christian Theology, London, SCM Press.
MARSHALL, ALFRED (1975)(1996) The Interlinear KJV-NIV, Grand Rapids, Zondervan.
MARTINS, RALPH P. (1987) Philippians, Grand Rapids, IVP.
MOUNCE, R.H. (1995) The New American Commentary: Romans, Nashville, Broadman & Holman Publishers.
REYMOND, R.L. (1996) 'Incarnation' in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.
THEISSEN, HENRY, CLARENCE (1956) Introductory Lectures in Systematic Theology, Grand Rapids, Eerdmans.
WRIGHT, N.T. (1989) Colossians and Philemon, Grand Rapids, IVP.
Philosophical & Theological Ponderings
To contact us Click HERE
Zakynthos, Greece (Google Images)
Philosophical & Theological Ponderings on Prayer and Action
The Importance of Prayer
W.R.F. Browning
Prayer is the act of communicating with God in words or in silence, as in conversation between persons and the transcendent God. Browning (1997: 300). It is not regarded as a method of compelling God to do something primarily, but rather is asking that God's will be done and that his Kingdom arrive. Browning (1997: 300).
James Montgomery Boice
Prayer is a privilege, to speak with God.
Christians resist the evil one and his partners.
Things are requested from God.
It is central to the Christian life Biblically.
Prayer was essential to Christ and therefore naturally should be essential to believers.
God provides mercy through prayer.
God provides joy via prayer.
God provides peace from anxiety with prayer.
The Holy Spirit is granted with prayer.
Prayer is a means by which the Second Coming is to be measured, and the Church alert.
The growth of the Church is developed via prayer. Boice (1981: 483-484)
Millard Erickson
Prayer is more than self-stimulation, it is more than positive mental attitude, instead it is a right attitude in regard to God's will. Not so much what persons would like done, but the attitude that God's will should be done. Persistent petition to God for human desires and wishes is important but the goal should be that it be along the will of God. Erickson lists the Lord himself, Jesus Christ, and the Apostle Paul as two Biblical examples of those that prayed to God to have sufferings lifted but did not have sufferings removed. Erickson (1994: 406).
End citations
I am in basic agreement with the citations. As a Reformed theologian, I hold to compatibilism/soft-determinism. The opposite would be incompatibism as in all human actions are free if a person could have done otherwise. 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. Compatibilism, which I hold to, would agree with incompatibilism that God or any other being cannot cause by force or coercion any significantly free human action, but contrary to incompatibilism thinks that God can simultaneously will significantly free human actions.
When a person prays that would be a secondary cause and God the primary cause of thoughts and actions. Because I am not a hard-determinist, but a soft-determinist, I still hold to human beings as a secondary cause as long as they are morally responsible for thoughts and actions.
There is a potential danger related to prayer, not too much prayer, but prayer not connected to action.
I state this because I hear and read in different Church contexts with different persons 'I will pray for you', which is a good thing, a fair amount in Western culture within the Church, but is it possible that at times prayer is replacing needed action in personal lives and ministry.
For example:
I reason in regard to potential actions resulting from prayer:
'Maybe later' as a philosophical thought or statement means many times it will never happen.
'Maybe when I am older' as a philosophical thought or statement means many times it will never happen.
'Someone else will perform that right action in regard to that person' as a thought or statement.
This may very well not occur because other like persons may use similar reasoning within the same culture within similar circumstances.
The solution would seem to be that when guided by God to pray on certain serious issues to follow-up with action, not only to continue in prayer.
Greek Islands (Google Images)
Philosophical & Theological Ponderings on Natural Theology
This is edited from some comments I made on another academic theology blog in regard to Natural Theology, which I admit I am not expert on and the blogger is writing a series. I however, did come across the topic within my PhD research with philosophers such as Geivett, Plantinga, Hick and others and did use academic sources in reply....
I do not think Natural Theology is primarily, or only a discipline of apologetics. But would be of the discipline of theology as well. And it could be dealt with in philosophy as in see Geivett’s book ‘Evil and the Evidence for God’ and see also Plantinga ‘God, Freedom and Evil’.
From Grenz, Guretzki and Nordling:
Natural Theology maintains that humans can maintain particular knowledge about God through human reason by observing the created order as one locus of divine revelation. Dictionary of Theological Terms. Grenz, Guretzki and Nordling. (1999: 82).
Millard Erickson discusses Romans 1-2 with Natural Theology in his text 'Christian Theology' when he favours Calvin's views over those of Barth and Thomas and states that Paul asserts that persons do not clearly perceive God in general revelation. Sin marred this general revelation. General revelation does not allow the unbeliever to know God. Erickson notes that there is nothing within Scripture that would be a formal argument for the existence of God from evidences within general revelation. Thus the conclusion from Erickson is that a general revelation cannot be used to construct a natural theology. Erickson (1994 168:171).
I agree with Calvin and Erickson concerning their conclusions concerning the state of humanity:
I do reason that Natural Theology and Revelation (Romans 1-3 for example) has its place.
I am not clearly suggesting that a general revelation must or would construct a natural theology, but after looking through Geivett’s book for my PhD work, for example, I do think that Scriptures such as Romans 1-3, and Romans 1, in particular, could possibly philosophically influence a non-believer in regard to let us state a very limited natural theology. From a Reformed, Biblical perspective it is of course up to the Holy Spirit of enlighten a person. We know that God uses many things in that process (preaching, Scripture, Bible, etc.).
So, further from what I posted on the other site. I accept the Biblical, Reformed position that non-believers cannot know God merely by evidence of creation, as in general revelation, because the human knowledge of God discussed in 1: 21 is not a general knowledge of God. Cranfield (1985)(1992: 32). God has always been self-disclosed but humans beings have not allowed themselves to see him. Cranfield (1985)(1992: 32). They have known him, according to Cranfield in the sense of experienced him all their lives, he has sustained them, but this is not personal knowledge. It is only to 'know' God in a limited sense'. Cranfield (1985)(1992: 32).
In his commentary Mounce explains that 'Understanding God requires a moral decision, not additional information'. Mounce (1995: 79).
Therefore, again I am in agreement with Calvin and Erickson that Scripture and in particular Romans 1-3, in particular, Romans 1 demonstrates that the corruption of humanity, and that building a general revelation to a natural theology is troublesome and that God cannot be known this way. I have of course on this blog steadfastly taken a Reformed compatiblistic stand.
I am stating that God can use Romans 1-3, in particular Romans 1, in conjunction with nature/creation in influencing a non-regenerate person to consider the gospel. This could be considered in a limited sense natural theology. This could also within a Reformed, Biblical model eventually be an influence in the election of some in Christ (Ephesians 1, Romans 8).
Fira, Santorini, Greece (Google Images)
Mesohori, Karpathos, Dodecanese Islands, Greece (Google Images)
BOICE, JAMES, MONTGOMERY (1981) Foundations of the Christian Faith, Downers Grove, IVP Press.
BROWNING, W.R.F. (1997) Dictionary of the Bible, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
CRANFIELD, C.E.B. (1985)(1992) Romans: A Shorter Commentary, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
ERICKSON, MILLARD (1994) Christian Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.
GEIVETT, R. DOUGLAS (1993) Evil and the Evidence for God, Philadelphia, Temple University Press.
GRENZ, STANLEY J., DAVID GURETZKI AND CHERITH FEE NORDLING (1999) Pocket Dictionary of Theological Terms, Downers Grove, Ill., InterVarsity 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.
Zakynthos, Greece (Google Images)
Philosophical & Theological Ponderings on Prayer and Action
The Importance of Prayer
W.R.F. Browning
Prayer is the act of communicating with God in words or in silence, as in conversation between persons and the transcendent God. Browning (1997: 300). It is not regarded as a method of compelling God to do something primarily, but rather is asking that God's will be done and that his Kingdom arrive. Browning (1997: 300).
James Montgomery Boice
Prayer is a privilege, to speak with God.
Christians resist the evil one and his partners.
Things are requested from God.
It is central to the Christian life Biblically.
Prayer was essential to Christ and therefore naturally should be essential to believers.
God provides mercy through prayer.
God provides joy via prayer.
God provides peace from anxiety with prayer.
The Holy Spirit is granted with prayer.
Prayer is a means by which the Second Coming is to be measured, and the Church alert.
The growth of the Church is developed via prayer. Boice (1981: 483-484)
Millard Erickson
Prayer is more than self-stimulation, it is more than positive mental attitude, instead it is a right attitude in regard to God's will. Not so much what persons would like done, but the attitude that God's will should be done. Persistent petition to God for human desires and wishes is important but the goal should be that it be along the will of God. Erickson lists the Lord himself, Jesus Christ, and the Apostle Paul as two Biblical examples of those that prayed to God to have sufferings lifted but did not have sufferings removed. Erickson (1994: 406).
End citations
I am in basic agreement with the citations. As a Reformed theologian, I hold to compatibilism/soft-determinism. The opposite would be incompatibism as in all human actions are free if a person could have done otherwise. 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. Compatibilism, which I hold to, would agree with incompatibilism that God or any other being cannot cause by force or coercion any significantly free human action, but contrary to incompatibilism thinks that God can simultaneously will significantly free human actions.
When a person prays that would be a secondary cause and God the primary cause of thoughts and actions. Because I am not a hard-determinist, but a soft-determinist, I still hold to human beings as a secondary cause as long as they are morally responsible for thoughts and actions.
There is a potential danger related to prayer, not too much prayer, but prayer not connected to action.
I state this because I hear and read in different Church contexts with different persons 'I will pray for you', which is a good thing, a fair amount in Western culture within the Church, but is it possible that at times prayer is replacing needed action in personal lives and ministry.
For example:
I reason in regard to potential actions resulting from prayer:
'Maybe later' as a philosophical thought or statement means many times it will never happen.
'Maybe when I am older' as a philosophical thought or statement means many times it will never happen.
'Someone else will perform that right action in regard to that person' as a thought or statement.
This may very well not occur because other like persons may use similar reasoning within the same culture within similar circumstances.
The solution would seem to be that when guided by God to pray on certain serious issues to follow-up with action, not only to continue in prayer.
Greek Islands (Google Images)
Philosophical & Theological Ponderings on Natural Theology
This is edited from some comments I made on another academic theology blog in regard to Natural Theology, which I admit I am not expert on and the blogger is writing a series. I however, did come across the topic within my PhD research with philosophers such as Geivett, Plantinga, Hick and others and did use academic sources in reply....
I do not think Natural Theology is primarily, or only a discipline of apologetics. But would be of the discipline of theology as well. And it could be dealt with in philosophy as in see Geivett’s book ‘Evil and the Evidence for God’ and see also Plantinga ‘God, Freedom and Evil’.
From Grenz, Guretzki and Nordling:
Natural Theology maintains that humans can maintain particular knowledge about God through human reason by observing the created order as one locus of divine revelation. Dictionary of Theological Terms. Grenz, Guretzki and Nordling. (1999: 82).
Millard Erickson discusses Romans 1-2 with Natural Theology in his text 'Christian Theology' when he favours Calvin's views over those of Barth and Thomas and states that Paul asserts that persons do not clearly perceive God in general revelation. Sin marred this general revelation. General revelation does not allow the unbeliever to know God. Erickson notes that there is nothing within Scripture that would be a formal argument for the existence of God from evidences within general revelation. Thus the conclusion from Erickson is that a general revelation cannot be used to construct a natural theology. Erickson (1994 168:171).
I agree with Calvin and Erickson concerning their conclusions concerning the state of humanity:
I do reason that Natural Theology and Revelation (Romans 1-3 for example) has its place.
I am not clearly suggesting that a general revelation must or would construct a natural theology, but after looking through Geivett’s book for my PhD work, for example, I do think that Scriptures such as Romans 1-3, and Romans 1, in particular, could possibly philosophically influence a non-believer in regard to let us state a very limited natural theology. From a Reformed, Biblical perspective it is of course up to the Holy Spirit of enlighten a person. We know that God uses many things in that process (preaching, Scripture, Bible, etc.).
So, further from what I posted on the other site. I accept the Biblical, Reformed position that non-believers cannot know God merely by evidence of creation, as in general revelation, because the human knowledge of God discussed in 1: 21 is not a general knowledge of God. Cranfield (1985)(1992: 32). God has always been self-disclosed but humans beings have not allowed themselves to see him. Cranfield (1985)(1992: 32). They have known him, according to Cranfield in the sense of experienced him all their lives, he has sustained them, but this is not personal knowledge. It is only to 'know' God in a limited sense'. Cranfield (1985)(1992: 32).
In his commentary Mounce explains that 'Understanding God requires a moral decision, not additional information'. Mounce (1995: 79).
Therefore, again I am in agreement with Calvin and Erickson that Scripture and in particular Romans 1-3, in particular, Romans 1 demonstrates that the corruption of humanity, and that building a general revelation to a natural theology is troublesome and that God cannot be known this way. I have of course on this blog steadfastly taken a Reformed compatiblistic stand.
I am stating that God can use Romans 1-3, in particular Romans 1, in conjunction with nature/creation in influencing a non-regenerate person to consider the gospel. This could be considered in a limited sense natural theology. This could also within a Reformed, Biblical model eventually be an influence in the election of some in Christ (Ephesians 1, Romans 8).
Fira, Santorini, Greece (Google Images)
Mesohori, Karpathos, Dodecanese Islands, Greece (Google Images)
BOICE, JAMES, MONTGOMERY (1981) Foundations of the Christian Faith, Downers Grove, IVP Press.
BROWNING, W.R.F. (1997) Dictionary of the Bible, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
CRANFIELD, C.E.B. (1985)(1992) Romans: A Shorter Commentary, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
ERICKSON, MILLARD (1994) Christian Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.
GEIVETT, R. DOUGLAS (1993) Evil and the Evidence for God, Philadelphia, Temple University Press.
GRENZ, STANLEY J., DAVID GURETZKI AND CHERITH FEE NORDLING (1999) Pocket Dictionary of Theological Terms, Downers Grove, Ill., InterVarsity 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.
Key Theodicy Related Texts (From Theses)
To contact us Click HERE
Pea Green Sea, Solva, Pembrokeshire Wales (trekearth.com)
Pea Green Sea, Solva, Pembrokeshire Wales (trekearth.com)
I am grateful that the traffic and pageviews have increased somewhat with this blog and the posts have sufficient number of comments in a decent amount of time. I therefore have summarized theodicy material from various posts with new book cover graphics to create something different. I actually discovered in the process that 'The Many Faces of Evil' is now back in print in a new version and ordered it from Amazon. It actually was out of print during my MPhil/PhD theses work and I had a photo copy. That was not good to work with as a primary source for a PhD thesis.
The books are not ordered in any way...
PLANTINGA, ALVIN C. (1977)(2002) God, Freedom, and Evil, Grand Rapids, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
Plantinga successfully demonstrates that a free will defence is logical and reasonable. Plantinga (1977)(2002: 28). He speculates that the price of God creating a universe with significantly free creatures is that wrong actions will inevitably occur leading to the problem of evil. Plantinga (1977)(2002: 30). Plantinga’s free will approach is not primarily theological as is Augustine’s and therefore offers a different but somewhat related perspective. The question does arise if Plantinga has really successfully answered the objection of theistic critics such as Feinberg, and atheists such as J.L. Mackie on why God could not simply create human beings who were significantly free and never committed wrong actions. I reason in my PhD and on this blog (and satire and theology) that God could have created significantly free human beings, or at least human-like creatures that only committed right actions. Perhaps God desired to create human beings that would ultimately possess a greater spiritual maturity than Adam and Eve prior to the fall because those restored in Christ would have experienced sin, the problem of evil, death and the atoning work and resurrection of Christ. Quite possibly restored human beings would ultimately be more spiritually mature and valuable to God than persons that never knew what it was like to disobey God and experience evil. I would also point out that Biblically speaking the angels that did not fall would seemingly be significantly free and have not committed wrong actions.
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.
Within On Free Choice of the Will, Augustine presents his free will theodicy, theodicy being an explanation for the problem of evil in a theistic universe. Augustine was somewhat influential on Alvin C. Plantinga’s free will defence in the 1970’s. Plantinga (1977)(2002: 26). Augustine reasons that God is not the cause of evil, but rather human beings create the problem when they choose to follow their own temporal ways rather than God’s. Augustine (388-395)(1964: 3). A possible problem with Augustine’s view is that he blames the problem of evil on human choice but at the same time places a heavy emphasis on God’s sovereignty in creation. Augustine’s view on human free will appears libertarian while, as John Feinberg points out, Augustine’s concept of God’s sovereignty would seemingly require some form of determinism. Feinberg (1994: 98).
FEINBERG, JOHN S. (1994) The Many Faces of Evil, Grand Rapids, Zondervan Publishing House.
Within this text Feinberg presents a defence which could be labeled a sovereignty theodicy. My personal sovereignty theodicy is embedded within my MPhil and more so my PhD and is somewhat similar to Feinberg’s work. As well as presenting his own perspective Feinberg does a thorough job of reviewing various theistic and atheistic concepts on the problem of evil. He reasons that God does not presently eliminate the problem of evil because to do so would violate divine plans and human development. Feinberg (1994: 130). His work influenced my own significantly in regard to the development of concepts on compatibilism, incompatibilism, and theodicy.
CALVIN, JOHN (1543)(1996) The Bondage and Liberation of the Will, Translated by G.I. Davies, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.
Technically not a text directly concerned with theodicy or with the problem with evil, but the text is concerned with concepts of free will and determinism which are connected to modern concepts of compatibilism and incompatibilism. The text would be very historically influential in the development of Reformed Biblical concepts of compatibilism/soft-determinism. I found it very useful and it guided me as did Feinberg's book. He wrote in 1543 in The Bondage and Liberation of the Will.
'If freedom is opposed to coercion, I both acknowledge and consistently maintain that choice is free and I hold anyone who thinks otherwise to be a heretic. If, I say, it were called free in this sense of not being coerced nor forcibly moved by an external impulse, but moving of its own accord, I have no objection.' Calvin (1543)(1996: 68).
HICK, JOHN (1970) Evil and The God of Love, London, The Fontana Library.
Hick rejects Augustinian and Calvinistic views on theodicy, and instead supports what he views as the Irenean position. Hick (1970: 221). Hick also rejects conservative Christian doctrines and instead favours the idea of universalism. Hick (1970: 172). Hick (1970: 381). He reasons that human beings were made immature and capable of committing wrong human actions in order that God eventually can bring all persons to the creator through soul-making. Hick (1970: 292). I can deduce that some type of soul-making is used by God in the development of believers, but without the atoning work of Christ and resurrection within a Christian tradition we do not have a revealed divine means of salvation and are left to speculate on how God should or could save persons, as Hick speculates.
By the way, I just noticed, sad to read Professor Hick passed away in February at the age of 90.
PHILLIPS, D.Z. (2005) The Problem of Evil and the Problem of God, Fortress Press, Minneapolis.
FRAME, JOHN M. (2002) The Doctrine of God, P and R Publishing, Phillipsburg, New Jersey.
The late D. Z. Phillips was what I found to be an intelligent and interesting, educated, critic of traditional Christianity, although he did not change my Reformed views on God's omnipotence, for example. I was required by my PhD examiners to focus on more of this philosopher's work for my PhD revisions. Phillips argued God was not omnipotent because he could ride a physical bike as was discussed in one of the archived posts that also had an audio version.
I agree with Phillips that it is not illogical for God as spirit to ride a physical bike. But he reasons God is therefore not omnipotent as God cannot ride a bike.
In a sense God as spirit could move the bike as if it was being ridden by a person and it could be considered ridden, although strictly speaking he would not be sitting on it and riding it. This first suggestion would not satisfy many critics, but may satisfy some theists in particular.
I can see the point that some may suggest, that it would be illogical for a being of spirit only to do anything physical. But in regard to God I lean away from this view because of my suggestions and because it appears to limit God from logically acting in the physical universe which the infinite, omnipotent God should be able to do and did in Scripture.
I therefore offer the suggestion in agreement with John Frame (I read Frame after I had come to the similar conclusion) that God could remain as spirit in nature only and yet still temporarily take some type of physical form to ride the bike/do a physical action (Phillips suggests bicycle and not Frame). This would not be the same as my other suggestion of Christ riding the bike, which could also be accomplished, as Christ has both the eternal nature of God in spirit and has taken human nature in the incarnation, although the two natures do not mix.
At the same time I can grant Frame the point that God's omnipotence should not be challenged by the physical finite actions that God does not by nature do. He is correct that it is not a weakness. God is in fact beyond physical limitations.
KANT, IMMANUEL (1781)(1787)(1929)(2006) Critique of Pure Reason, Translated by Norman Kemp Smith, London, Macmillan.
KANT, IMMANUEL (1788)(1997) Critique of Practical Reason, Translated by Mary Gregor (ed.), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
KANT, IMMANUEL (1788)(1898)(2006) The Critique of Practical Reason, Translated by Thomas Kingsmill Abbott, London, Longmans, Green, and Co.
Kantian philosophy originates from philosopher Immanuel Kant (1724-1804). It would take years of research to become a scholar of Kant, it is complex material. In his Inaugural Dissertation of 1770, Kant provides the idea that persons can only have a priori knowledge of space and time by the use of forms of the mind, which are imposed by human experience. With the Introduction to Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason, he noted that a priori knowledge originates independently of senses and experience.
In the Critique of Pure Reason of 1781 and revised in 1787, Kant explains that the forms of appearance from which sensations can be understood are not themselves the empirical sensations. Human experience will determine the method and forms by which particular things are understood by what Kant calls pure intuition. Concerning human experience, Kant reasoned categories are applied to objects not because the objects make the categories possible, but rather because categories themselves provide and constitute necessary conditions for the representation for all possible objects of experience. Therefore any human understanding of metaphysical reality would not be comprehended by empirical knowledge in a posteriori sense.
Kant reasons objects that were present in empirical human experience were in the phenomena realm, while objects outside were the noumena realm. He writes that the contingent things experienced by persons are phenomena. These are things that could be experienced empirically and would be reasonably accepted as reality. The noumena realm was not available to empirical senses. Kant explains in a follow up work entitled The Critique of Practical Reason from 1788, that the noumena is the theoretical department of knowledge denied, while the phenomena is one’s own empirical consciousness. All positive speculative knowledge should be disclaimed for the noumena realm according to Kantian thought.
Kant concludes The Critique of Practical Reason by noting that the phenomena realm is the external realm where consciousness has existence. The noumena realm is invisible and has true infinity where Kant believes one can reason that contingent personality is dependent on the universal and necessary connection to the invisible world.
BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996) Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
I should add a tenth and final entry which was very helpful to me in working through material that was primarily within the Philosophy/ Philosophy of Religion discipline, while working within Wales' Religion and Theology departments. My theses were as much Philosophy of Religion as Theology.
Monmouthshire.com (trekearth.com)
Gwbert, Wales (trekeath.com)
Pea Green Sea, Solva, Pembrokeshire Wales (trekearth.com)
Pea Green Sea, Solva, Pembrokeshire Wales (trekearth.com)
I am grateful that the traffic and pageviews have increased somewhat with this blog and the posts have sufficient number of comments in a decent amount of time. I therefore have summarized theodicy material from various posts with new book cover graphics to create something different. I actually discovered in the process that 'The Many Faces of Evil' is now back in print in a new version and ordered it from Amazon. It actually was out of print during my MPhil/PhD theses work and I had a photo copy. That was not good to work with as a primary source for a PhD thesis.
The books are not ordered in any way...
PLANTINGA, ALVIN C. (1977)(2002) God, Freedom, and Evil, Grand Rapids, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
Plantinga successfully demonstrates that a free will defence is logical and reasonable. Plantinga (1977)(2002: 28). He speculates that the price of God creating a universe with significantly free creatures is that wrong actions will inevitably occur leading to the problem of evil. Plantinga (1977)(2002: 30). Plantinga’s free will approach is not primarily theological as is Augustine’s and therefore offers a different but somewhat related perspective. The question does arise if Plantinga has really successfully answered the objection of theistic critics such as Feinberg, and atheists such as J.L. Mackie on why God could not simply create human beings who were significantly free and never committed wrong actions. I reason in my PhD and on this blog (and satire and theology) that God could have created significantly free human beings, or at least human-like creatures that only committed right actions. Perhaps God desired to create human beings that would ultimately possess a greater spiritual maturity than Adam and Eve prior to the fall because those restored in Christ would have experienced sin, the problem of evil, death and the atoning work and resurrection of Christ. Quite possibly restored human beings would ultimately be more spiritually mature and valuable to God than persons that never knew what it was like to disobey God and experience evil. I would also point out that Biblically speaking the angels that did not fall would seemingly be significantly free and have not committed wrong actions.
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.
Within On Free Choice of the Will, Augustine presents his free will theodicy, theodicy being an explanation for the problem of evil in a theistic universe. Augustine was somewhat influential on Alvin C. Plantinga’s free will defence in the 1970’s. Plantinga (1977)(2002: 26). Augustine reasons that God is not the cause of evil, but rather human beings create the problem when they choose to follow their own temporal ways rather than God’s. Augustine (388-395)(1964: 3). A possible problem with Augustine’s view is that he blames the problem of evil on human choice but at the same time places a heavy emphasis on God’s sovereignty in creation. Augustine’s view on human free will appears libertarian while, as John Feinberg points out, Augustine’s concept of God’s sovereignty would seemingly require some form of determinism. Feinberg (1994: 98).
FEINBERG, JOHN S. (1994) The Many Faces of Evil, Grand Rapids, Zondervan Publishing House.
Within this text Feinberg presents a defence which could be labeled a sovereignty theodicy. My personal sovereignty theodicy is embedded within my MPhil and more so my PhD and is somewhat similar to Feinberg’s work. As well as presenting his own perspective Feinberg does a thorough job of reviewing various theistic and atheistic concepts on the problem of evil. He reasons that God does not presently eliminate the problem of evil because to do so would violate divine plans and human development. Feinberg (1994: 130). His work influenced my own significantly in regard to the development of concepts on compatibilism, incompatibilism, and theodicy.
CALVIN, JOHN (1543)(1996) The Bondage and Liberation of the Will, Translated by G.I. Davies, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.
Technically not a text directly concerned with theodicy or with the problem with evil, but the text is concerned with concepts of free will and determinism which are connected to modern concepts of compatibilism and incompatibilism. The text would be very historically influential in the development of Reformed Biblical concepts of compatibilism/soft-determinism. I found it very useful and it guided me as did Feinberg's book. He wrote in 1543 in The Bondage and Liberation of the Will.
'If freedom is opposed to coercion, I both acknowledge and consistently maintain that choice is free and I hold anyone who thinks otherwise to be a heretic. If, I say, it were called free in this sense of not being coerced nor forcibly moved by an external impulse, but moving of its own accord, I have no objection.' Calvin (1543)(1996: 68).
HICK, JOHN (1970) Evil and The God of Love, London, The Fontana Library.
Hick rejects Augustinian and Calvinistic views on theodicy, and instead supports what he views as the Irenean position. Hick (1970: 221). Hick also rejects conservative Christian doctrines and instead favours the idea of universalism. Hick (1970: 172). Hick (1970: 381). He reasons that human beings were made immature and capable of committing wrong human actions in order that God eventually can bring all persons to the creator through soul-making. Hick (1970: 292). I can deduce that some type of soul-making is used by God in the development of believers, but without the atoning work of Christ and resurrection within a Christian tradition we do not have a revealed divine means of salvation and are left to speculate on how God should or could save persons, as Hick speculates.
By the way, I just noticed, sad to read Professor Hick passed away in February at the age of 90.
PHILLIPS, D.Z. (2005) The Problem of Evil and the Problem of God, Fortress Press, Minneapolis.
FRAME, JOHN M. (2002) The Doctrine of God, P and R Publishing, Phillipsburg, New Jersey.
The late D. Z. Phillips was what I found to be an intelligent and interesting, educated, critic of traditional Christianity, although he did not change my Reformed views on God's omnipotence, for example. I was required by my PhD examiners to focus on more of this philosopher's work for my PhD revisions. Phillips argued God was not omnipotent because he could ride a physical bike as was discussed in one of the archived posts that also had an audio version.
I agree with Phillips that it is not illogical for God as spirit to ride a physical bike. But he reasons God is therefore not omnipotent as God cannot ride a bike.
In a sense God as spirit could move the bike as if it was being ridden by a person and it could be considered ridden, although strictly speaking he would not be sitting on it and riding it. This first suggestion would not satisfy many critics, but may satisfy some theists in particular.
I can see the point that some may suggest, that it would be illogical for a being of spirit only to do anything physical. But in regard to God I lean away from this view because of my suggestions and because it appears to limit God from logically acting in the physical universe which the infinite, omnipotent God should be able to do and did in Scripture.
I therefore offer the suggestion in agreement with John Frame (I read Frame after I had come to the similar conclusion) that God could remain as spirit in nature only and yet still temporarily take some type of physical form to ride the bike/do a physical action (Phillips suggests bicycle and not Frame). This would not be the same as my other suggestion of Christ riding the bike, which could also be accomplished, as Christ has both the eternal nature of God in spirit and has taken human nature in the incarnation, although the two natures do not mix.
At the same time I can grant Frame the point that God's omnipotence should not be challenged by the physical finite actions that God does not by nature do. He is correct that it is not a weakness. God is in fact beyond physical limitations.
KANT, IMMANUEL (1781)(1787)(1929)(2006) Critique of Pure Reason, Translated by Norman Kemp Smith, London, Macmillan.
KANT, IMMANUEL (1788)(1997) Critique of Practical Reason, Translated by Mary Gregor (ed.), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
KANT, IMMANUEL (1788)(1898)(2006) The Critique of Practical Reason, Translated by Thomas Kingsmill Abbott, London, Longmans, Green, and Co.
Kantian philosophy originates from philosopher Immanuel Kant (1724-1804). It would take years of research to become a scholar of Kant, it is complex material. In his Inaugural Dissertation of 1770, Kant provides the idea that persons can only have a priori knowledge of space and time by the use of forms of the mind, which are imposed by human experience. With the Introduction to Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason, he noted that a priori knowledge originates independently of senses and experience.
In the Critique of Pure Reason of 1781 and revised in 1787, Kant explains that the forms of appearance from which sensations can be understood are not themselves the empirical sensations. Human experience will determine the method and forms by which particular things are understood by what Kant calls pure intuition. Concerning human experience, Kant reasoned categories are applied to objects not because the objects make the categories possible, but rather because categories themselves provide and constitute necessary conditions for the representation for all possible objects of experience. Therefore any human understanding of metaphysical reality would not be comprehended by empirical knowledge in a posteriori sense.
Kant reasons objects that were present in empirical human experience were in the phenomena realm, while objects outside were the noumena realm. He writes that the contingent things experienced by persons are phenomena. These are things that could be experienced empirically and would be reasonably accepted as reality. The noumena realm was not available to empirical senses. Kant explains in a follow up work entitled The Critique of Practical Reason from 1788, that the noumena is the theoretical department of knowledge denied, while the phenomena is one’s own empirical consciousness. All positive speculative knowledge should be disclaimed for the noumena realm according to Kantian thought.
Kant concludes The Critique of Practical Reason by noting that the phenomena realm is the external realm where consciousness has existence. The noumena realm is invisible and has true infinity where Kant believes one can reason that contingent personality is dependent on the universal and necessary connection to the invisible world.
BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996) Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
I should add a tenth and final entry which was very helpful to me in working through material that was primarily within the Philosophy/ Philosophy of Religion discipline, while working within Wales' Religion and Theology departments. My theses were as much Philosophy of Religion as Theology.
Monmouthshire.com (trekearth.com)
Gwbert, Wales (trekeath.com)
Theodicy and Resurrection (PhD Edit) with Propaganda Posters
To contact us Click HERE
Neuschwanstein Castle, Germany (trekearth)
April 26, 2012
Propaganda Posters
Allposters.com
For this May, 2012 post I will continue with the graphic and colourful themes of the last article of this blog and also the present satire and theology post concerning major countries and major religions. The present most 'popular' (I state this with humility of course, as popular is a relative term) article on this blog is the 'Gratuitous evil revisited' post which can be seen on the list. It features propaganda posters. I am attempting to stay with my graphic and colour themes, problem of evil and theodicy themes, and please my public. I thought I would provide some more cited propaganda posters.
AllPosters
United States of America, likely World War Two
AllPosters
I deduce this is from the United Kingdom, World War Two era..
Citing
Shorpy
'Circa 1942 silkscreen poster by Louis Hirshman encouraging safe disposal of matches, showing stylized Japanese soldier standing behind a tree with a match, with the rising sun in the background. Federal Art Project / WPA War Services '
AllPosters
United Kingdom, World War Two. And 'Keep Calm' is popular today on many blogs.
AllPosters
The Soviet Union
'The Advance of Socialism: a Crowd Tramples a Bourgeois' by Anton Hansen
It was ugly then as it is now.
Theodicy and Resurrection (PhD Edit)
The resurrection is a complex subject that is far beyond the scope of this thesis and could easily be a topic of a large work. However, the traditional Reformed, Calvinistic perspective accepts the concept of an actual physical resurrection of Christ,[1] and the eventual physical resurrection of humanity.[2] Erickson writes that Scripture teaches the resurrection of those who believe in Christ.[3] He also reasons it is likely that unbelievers too will be raised,[4] although this concept is not as clearly explained as is the idea of the raising of those who trust in Christ.[5] Thiessen bases the traditional Christian belief in physical resurrection in the texts from both Testaments[6] and describes the resurrection bodies as both physical and spiritual in nature.[7] Whale writes that the resurrection is not to be considered an addition to the Christian faith, but is the Christian faith.[8] Theologian Robert B. Sloan (1991) reasons that for early Christians the resurrection vindicated Christ in regard to his detractors and gave his message authority.[9] Jürgen Moltmann writes that as the crucified one, the risen Christ is available for humanity.[10] Moltmann explains to some the resurrection of Christ is a counter to the abandonment of humanity of God while Christ was on the cross.[11] For certain observers Christ’s resurrection for all turns them from atheism.[12] This may be because the historical resurrection of Christ would be viewed as God actually participating in the world to remedy the problem of evil.[13] God would not only be judging the world as he did on the cross,[14] but actually bringing about resolution to the problem of evil through Christ[15] and from a human perspective this makes a belief and trust in the Biblical God reasonable and worthwhile.
Roman Catholic, Ivone Gebara in Out of the Depths within the section entitled ‘The cross mixed with resurrection’ writes that for those within modern feminist thought it is tempting to give up the cross, which includes the idea of resurrection as the supreme symbol of Christian faith.[16] Instead of a complete abandonment of traditional resurrection, reinterpretation takes place.[17] Resurrection becomes more than historical theology[18] but is the actual lived and grasped experience within the lives of women and persons.[19] Gebara notes that one can philosophically go beyond the idea of resurrection as the event following the death of a body, which is ancient idealistic theory.[20] She deduces that the metaphorical resurrection of actual persons today in physical bodies is a more valuable concept than the traditional one of resurrection.[21] C.F. Evans (1970) explains in a similar way that the use of symbolic language to describe historical figures in the context of resurrection complicates the issue of accepting the doctrine of physical resurrection.[22] Evans’ article supports the conclusion that the traditional doctrine largely rests upon an acceptance of the New Testament data,[23] and I agree. Although I disagree with Gebara’s reinterpretation of the doctrine of resurrection,[24] since this thesis involves practical theology[25] I can readily admit that it is important to deal with the problem of evil in actual physical bodies within today’s world.[26] The social redemption discussed by Gebara desires a move towards dealing with the problem of evil in the midst of the trials of life,[27] and I can intellectually support this concept[28] even while maintaining a doctrinal acceptance of the actual physical resurrection of Christ[29] and the eventual resurrection of humanity.[30]
Clarence Darrow (1928)(1973) writes that resurrection of the body is purely a religious doctrine.[31] He reasons that few intelligent persons when faced with evidence would hold to a doctrine of resurrection.[32] He deduces that those within the New Testament era had little scientific knowledge, and therefore resurrection doctrine is a product of those with blind faith, wild dreams, hopeless hopes, and cowardly fears.[33] Darrow’s assumption[34] would more likely be correct if the Hebrew Bible and New Testament were written by persons that were clearly writing mythological literature with the primary use of metaphorical language.[35] However, as noted there are those within both conservative and liberal Christian traditions that would reason the historical writers of Scripture wrote what they saw and experienced, and therefore many of these modern scholars accept a doctrine of physical resurrection.[36] Moltmann writes that after the resurrection the risen Christ appeared to his followers in order to guarantee that the glory of God and his creation would occur in the not too distance future.[37] This is an ultimate of hope of a sovereignty theodicy.
[1] Erickson (1994: 776-779).
[2] Erickson (1994: 1194).
[3] Erickson (1994: 1194).
[4] Erickson (1994: 1194).
[5] Erickson (1994: 1200).
[6] Thiessen (1956: 491).
[7] Thiessen (1956: 491).
[8] Whale (1958: 69).
[9] Sloan (1991: 449).
[10] Moltmann (1993: 195).
[11] Moltmann (1993: 195).
[12] Moltmann (1993: 195).
[13] Others such as Darrow, Phillips, and Flew would be very skeptical of this concept. Phillips (2005: 247-275). Darrow (1928)(1973: 266-267). Flew (1983)(1996: 92). If one does not believe in the resurrection of Christ, God’s key witness to the world that he wishes to save it from the problem of evil is gone. The remedy to sin and death would be non-existent and therefore concepts of a perfected world far-fetched.
[14] Moltmann (1993: 195).
[15] Moltmann (1993: 195).
[16] Gebara (2002: 120).
[17] Gebara (2002: 121).
[18] Gebara (2002: 121).
[19] Gebara (2002: 122).
[20] Gebara (2002: 122).
[21] Gebara (2002: 122).
[22] Evans (1999: 501-503).
[23] Evans (1999: 501-503).
[24] Gebara (2002: 122).
[25] Primarily with Chapters Five and Six.
[26] Gebara (2002: 122).
[27] Gebara (2002: 124).
[28] Gebara (2002: 124).
[29] Whale (1958: 65-70). Anderson (2001: 101). Mounce (1990: 369-397).
[30] Mounce (1990: 360).
[31] Darrow (1928)(1973: 266).
[32] Darrow (1928)(1973: 266).
[33] Darrow (1928)(1973: 266-267).
[34] Darrow (1928)(1973: 266-267).
[35] This as opposed to writing historical based religious history with the use of plain literal and figurative literal language.
[36] Moltmann (1993: 160-199). Erickson (1994: 1194-1204). Excepting that there are those that reinterpret such as Gebara with her feminist views. Gebara (2002: 122-124).
[37] Moltmann (1993: 178).
Chateau De Pierrefonds, France (trekearth)
ANDERSON, RAY S. (2001) The Shape of Practical Theology, Downers Grove, Illinois, InterVarsity Press.
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.
ERICKSON, MILLARD (1994) Christian Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.
FLEW, ANTONY, R.M. HARE, AND BASIL MITCHELL (1983) (1996) ‘The Debate on the Rationality of Religious Belief’, in L.P. Pojman (ed.), Philosophy, The Quest for Truth, New York, Wadsworth Publishing Company.
GEBARA, IVONE (2002) Out of the Depths, Translated by Ann Patrick Ware, Minneapolis, Fortress Press.
MOUNCE, ROBERT H. (1990) The Book of Revelation, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
MOLTMANN, JÃœRGEN (1993) The Crucified God, Minneapolis, Fortress Press.
PHILLIPS, D.Z. (2005) The Problem of Evil and the Problem of God, Fortress Press, Minneapolis.
SLOAN, ROBERT B (1991) ‘Unity in Diversity’, in David Alan Black and David S. Dockery (eds.), New Testament Criticism and Interpretation, Grand Rapids, Zondervan Publishing House.
THIESSEN, HENRY C. (1956) Introductory Lectures in Systematic Theology, Grand Rapids, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
WHALE, J.S. (1958) Christian Doctrine, Glasgow, Fontana Books.
Maple Ridge, BC (May 12, 2012)
Vancouver (May 13, 2012)
Vancouver (May 13, 2012)
Neuschwanstein Castle, Germany (trekearth)
April 26, 2012
Propaganda Posters
Allposters.com
For this May, 2012 post I will continue with the graphic and colourful themes of the last article of this blog and also the present satire and theology post concerning major countries and major religions. The present most 'popular' (I state this with humility of course, as popular is a relative term) article on this blog is the 'Gratuitous evil revisited' post which can be seen on the list. It features propaganda posters. I am attempting to stay with my graphic and colour themes, problem of evil and theodicy themes, and please my public. I thought I would provide some more cited propaganda posters.
AllPosters
United States of America, likely World War Two
AllPosters
I deduce this is from the United Kingdom, World War Two era..
Citing
Shorpy
'Circa 1942 silkscreen poster by Louis Hirshman encouraging safe disposal of matches, showing stylized Japanese soldier standing behind a tree with a match, with the rising sun in the background. Federal Art Project / WPA War Services '
AllPosters
United Kingdom, World War Two. And 'Keep Calm' is popular today on many blogs.
AllPosters
The Soviet Union
'The Advance of Socialism: a Crowd Tramples a Bourgeois' by Anton Hansen
It was ugly then as it is now.
Theodicy and Resurrection (PhD Edit)
The resurrection is a complex subject that is far beyond the scope of this thesis and could easily be a topic of a large work. However, the traditional Reformed, Calvinistic perspective accepts the concept of an actual physical resurrection of Christ,[1] and the eventual physical resurrection of humanity.[2] Erickson writes that Scripture teaches the resurrection of those who believe in Christ.[3] He also reasons it is likely that unbelievers too will be raised,[4] although this concept is not as clearly explained as is the idea of the raising of those who trust in Christ.[5] Thiessen bases the traditional Christian belief in physical resurrection in the texts from both Testaments[6] and describes the resurrection bodies as both physical and spiritual in nature.[7] Whale writes that the resurrection is not to be considered an addition to the Christian faith, but is the Christian faith.[8] Theologian Robert B. Sloan (1991) reasons that for early Christians the resurrection vindicated Christ in regard to his detractors and gave his message authority.[9] Jürgen Moltmann writes that as the crucified one, the risen Christ is available for humanity.[10] Moltmann explains to some the resurrection of Christ is a counter to the abandonment of humanity of God while Christ was on the cross.[11] For certain observers Christ’s resurrection for all turns them from atheism.[12] This may be because the historical resurrection of Christ would be viewed as God actually participating in the world to remedy the problem of evil.[13] God would not only be judging the world as he did on the cross,[14] but actually bringing about resolution to the problem of evil through Christ[15] and from a human perspective this makes a belief and trust in the Biblical God reasonable and worthwhile.
Roman Catholic, Ivone Gebara in Out of the Depths within the section entitled ‘The cross mixed with resurrection’ writes that for those within modern feminist thought it is tempting to give up the cross, which includes the idea of resurrection as the supreme symbol of Christian faith.[16] Instead of a complete abandonment of traditional resurrection, reinterpretation takes place.[17] Resurrection becomes more than historical theology[18] but is the actual lived and grasped experience within the lives of women and persons.[19] Gebara notes that one can philosophically go beyond the idea of resurrection as the event following the death of a body, which is ancient idealistic theory.[20] She deduces that the metaphorical resurrection of actual persons today in physical bodies is a more valuable concept than the traditional one of resurrection.[21] C.F. Evans (1970) explains in a similar way that the use of symbolic language to describe historical figures in the context of resurrection complicates the issue of accepting the doctrine of physical resurrection.[22] Evans’ article supports the conclusion that the traditional doctrine largely rests upon an acceptance of the New Testament data,[23] and I agree. Although I disagree with Gebara’s reinterpretation of the doctrine of resurrection,[24] since this thesis involves practical theology[25] I can readily admit that it is important to deal with the problem of evil in actual physical bodies within today’s world.[26] The social redemption discussed by Gebara desires a move towards dealing with the problem of evil in the midst of the trials of life,[27] and I can intellectually support this concept[28] even while maintaining a doctrinal acceptance of the actual physical resurrection of Christ[29] and the eventual resurrection of humanity.[30]
Clarence Darrow (1928)(1973) writes that resurrection of the body is purely a religious doctrine.[31] He reasons that few intelligent persons when faced with evidence would hold to a doctrine of resurrection.[32] He deduces that those within the New Testament era had little scientific knowledge, and therefore resurrection doctrine is a product of those with blind faith, wild dreams, hopeless hopes, and cowardly fears.[33] Darrow’s assumption[34] would more likely be correct if the Hebrew Bible and New Testament were written by persons that were clearly writing mythological literature with the primary use of metaphorical language.[35] However, as noted there are those within both conservative and liberal Christian traditions that would reason the historical writers of Scripture wrote what they saw and experienced, and therefore many of these modern scholars accept a doctrine of physical resurrection.[36] Moltmann writes that after the resurrection the risen Christ appeared to his followers in order to guarantee that the glory of God and his creation would occur in the not too distance future.[37] This is an ultimate of hope of a sovereignty theodicy.
[1] Erickson (1994: 776-779).
[2] Erickson (1994: 1194).
[3] Erickson (1994: 1194).
[4] Erickson (1994: 1194).
[5] Erickson (1994: 1200).
[6] Thiessen (1956: 491).
[7] Thiessen (1956: 491).
[8] Whale (1958: 69).
[9] Sloan (1991: 449).
[10] Moltmann (1993: 195).
[11] Moltmann (1993: 195).
[12] Moltmann (1993: 195).
[13] Others such as Darrow, Phillips, and Flew would be very skeptical of this concept. Phillips (2005: 247-275). Darrow (1928)(1973: 266-267). Flew (1983)(1996: 92). If one does not believe in the resurrection of Christ, God’s key witness to the world that he wishes to save it from the problem of evil is gone. The remedy to sin and death would be non-existent and therefore concepts of a perfected world far-fetched.
[14] Moltmann (1993: 195).
[15] Moltmann (1993: 195).
[16] Gebara (2002: 120).
[17] Gebara (2002: 121).
[18] Gebara (2002: 121).
[19] Gebara (2002: 122).
[20] Gebara (2002: 122).
[21] Gebara (2002: 122).
[22] Evans (1999: 501-503).
[23] Evans (1999: 501-503).
[24] Gebara (2002: 122).
[25] Primarily with Chapters Five and Six.
[26] Gebara (2002: 122).
[27] Gebara (2002: 124).
[28] Gebara (2002: 124).
[29] Whale (1958: 65-70). Anderson (2001: 101). Mounce (1990: 369-397).
[30] Mounce (1990: 360).
[31] Darrow (1928)(1973: 266).
[32] Darrow (1928)(1973: 266).
[33] Darrow (1928)(1973: 266-267).
[34] Darrow (1928)(1973: 266-267).
[35] This as opposed to writing historical based religious history with the use of plain literal and figurative literal language.
[36] Moltmann (1993: 160-199). Erickson (1994: 1194-1204). Excepting that there are those that reinterpret such as Gebara with her feminist views. Gebara (2002: 122-124).
[37] Moltmann (1993: 178).
Chateau De Pierrefonds, France (trekearth)
ANDERSON, RAY S. (2001) The Shape of Practical Theology, Downers Grove, Illinois, InterVarsity Press.
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.
ERICKSON, MILLARD (1994) Christian Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.
FLEW, ANTONY, R.M. HARE, AND BASIL MITCHELL (1983) (1996) ‘The Debate on the Rationality of Religious Belief’, in L.P. Pojman (ed.), Philosophy, The Quest for Truth, New York, Wadsworth Publishing Company.
GEBARA, IVONE (2002) Out of the Depths, Translated by Ann Patrick Ware, Minneapolis, Fortress Press.
MOUNCE, ROBERT H. (1990) The Book of Revelation, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
MOLTMANN, JÃœRGEN (1993) The Crucified God, Minneapolis, Fortress Press.
PHILLIPS, D.Z. (2005) The Problem of Evil and the Problem of God, Fortress Press, Minneapolis.
SLOAN, ROBERT B (1991) ‘Unity in Diversity’, in David Alan Black and David S. Dockery (eds.), New Testament Criticism and Interpretation, Grand Rapids, Zondervan Publishing House.
THIESSEN, HENRY C. (1956) Introductory Lectures in Systematic Theology, Grand Rapids, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
WHALE, J.S. (1958) Christian Doctrine, Glasgow, Fontana Books.
Maple Ridge, BC (May 12, 2012)
Vancouver (May 13, 2012)
Vancouver (May 13, 2012)
8 Temmuz 2012 Pazar
Martin Luther (and his influence on sovereignty defence/theodicy PhD Edit)
To contact us Click HERE
Matin, Serein France (trekearth)
Schwetzingen, Germany (trekearth)
Siegen, Germany (trekearth)
A short post and I am also hoping that Blogger will self-correct as far as the latest post links application as presently it has this blog's last post at eight months ago! This error happens time and time again but only on this blog and not on my satire and theology blog.
Well, it is a free service...
(Corrected)
A. Martin Luther (and his influence on sovereignty defence/theodicy PhD Edit)
Martin Luther (1483-1546)[1] is known as the father of the German Reformation[2] and preceded Calvin in the Reformation movement.[3] After reading Romans 1:17 he was convinced that only faith in Christ could make one just before God.[4] His core theology became that believers were justified by faith in Christ alone[5] and that Scripture was the only authority for people seeking salvation.[6] Luther (1516)(1968) writes concerning Romans 1:17 that only the gospel reveals the righteousness of God and that a person becomes righteous by trusting in the Word of God, Jesus.[7] Luther believed that the righteousness of God was the cause of human salvation,[8] not primarily since God was righteous, but because the believer is justified by God through faith in the gospel of the righteous Christ.[9] He reasoned that the righteousness of God was contrary to the human righteousness of works,[10] instead when a human being received justification by God the person could then commit truly good works.[11]
In 1525 Luther wrote The Bondage of the Will, which was a debate with a Catholic scholar named Desiderius Erasmus (ca.1466-1536)[12] who was an advocate of the free will theory.[13] Luther reasons that since human beings were fallen and abandoned God, they could not will good but only turned in the direction of their own desires.[14] He comments that human beings were perverted and evil,[15] but this can be used by God for his purposes, although people can do nothing but oppose God by the use of their own will.[16] He dogmatically assumes that there is no middle way between God’s grace and human free will,[17] and postulates that human free will should be theologically denied and everything should be ascribed to God.[18] Luther’s sovereignty perspective[19] may place less emphasis on the human will than the later writings of Calvin and Feinberg. However, even the title of Luther’s book The Bondage of the Will shows that he likely influenced Calvin somewhat in The Bondage and Liberation of the Will. Jay Green writes that Luther can be viewed as an early and continual influence on Calvinism,[20] and it is reasonable to deduce that Luther is perhaps a minor historical influence on Feinberg’s sovereignty theology.[21] Green points out that Luther’s views on theistic determinism are only accepted by a minority of Calvinists today.[22]
[1] Cairns (1981: 288-296).
[2] Cairns (1981: 288-296).[3] Cairns (1981: 288-296).[4] Cairns (1981: 289). [5] Cairns (1981: 289-290).[6] Cairns (1981: 289-290).[7] Luther (1516)(1968: 25).[8] Luther (1516)(1968: 25).[9] Luther (1516)(1968: 25).[10] Luther (1516)(1968: 25).[11] Luther (1516)(1968: 25).[12] Cairns (1981: 263).[13] Erasmus (1525)(1972: 20).[14] Luther (1525)(1972: 128-130).[15] Luther (1525)(1972: 128-130).[16] Luther (1525)(1972: 128-130).[17] Luther is far more forceful in presentation that is Calvin and especially Feinberg. He is very forceful in his debate with Erasmus. I would provide the opinion that he seems closed-minded.[18] Luther (1525)(1972: 133).[19] Luther (1525)(1972: 123).[20] Green (1971: 7).[21] Feinberg is far more sympathetic to differing viewpoints than is Luther.[22] Green (1971: 7).
CAIRNS, EARLE E. (1981) Christianity Through The Centuries, Grand Rapids, Zondervan Publishing House.
CALVIN, JOHN (1543)(1996) The Bondage and Liberation of the Will, Translated by G.I. Davies, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.
FEINBERG, JOHN.S. (1986) Predestination and Free Will, in David Basinger and Randall Basinger (eds.), Downers Grove, Illinois, InterVarsity Press.
FEINBERG, JOHN.S. (1994) The Many Faces of Evil, Grand Rapids, Zondervan Publishing House.
FEINBERG, JOHN.S. (2001) No One Like Him, John S. Feinberg (gen.ed.), Wheaton, Illinois, Crossway Books.
GREEN, JAY (1971) Five Points of Calvinism, ‘Forward’, Grand Rapids, Sovereign Grace Publishers.
LUTHER, MARTIN. (1516)(1968) Commentary On The Epistle To The Romans, Translated by J.Theodore Mueller, Grand Rapids, Zondervan Publishing House.
LUTHER, MARTIN. (1518)(1989) ‘Heidelberg Disputation’, in Timothy F. Lull (ed.), Martin Luther’s Basic Theological Writings, Minneapolis, Fortress Press.
LUTHER, MARTIN. (1525)(1972) ‘The Bondage of the Will’, in F.W. Strothmann and Frederick W. Locke (eds.), Erasmus-Luther: Discourse on Free Will, New York, Frederick Ungar Publishing Co., INC.
B. Propaganda Posters Continued: Problem of Evil Theme
Posters from
Allposters.com
From
The Phrase Finder
'This phrase was coined as a slogan during WWII as part of the US Office of War Information's attempt to limit the possibility of people inadvertently giving useful information to enemy spies. The slogan was actually 'Loose Lips Might Sink Ships. This was one of several similar slogans which all came under the campaigns basic message - 'Careless Talk Costs Lives'.
The slogan was in use by 1942, as this example from the Maryland paper The News, May 1942'
Allposters info on lost the battle poster
UK Archives
From the United Kingdom 1940
No Room for Rumors
United States of America 1940s
C. Matthew Smed is Glad...
On Sunday May 13, my friend and new Blogger Matt took the above photo and placed the comments in the previous post verbally using a cell phone. Obviously we were seeing what can be done with the use of Blogger and a cell.
'I think of black garbage bags with large logo I'm glad so I put garbage to cite garbage logo what do you see?
how many philosophies and garbage containers do you ever find a website specially with logo's in them here's a glad logo unusually large on several bags in an alleyway
I think of black garbage bags with large logo I'm glad so I put garbage to cite garbage logo what do you see?'
Dolphins
Matthew Smed
Maple Ridge, BC (May 14, 2012)
Maple Ridge, BC (May 14, 2012)
Maple Ridge, BC (May 19, 2012)
Matin, Serein France (trekearth)
Schwetzingen, Germany (trekearth)
Siegen, Germany (trekearth)
A short post and I am also hoping that Blogger will self-correct as far as the latest post links application as presently it has this blog's last post at eight months ago! This error happens time and time again but only on this blog and not on my satire and theology blog.
Well, it is a free service...
(Corrected)
A. Martin Luther (and his influence on sovereignty defence/theodicy PhD Edit)
Martin Luther (1483-1546)[1] is known as the father of the German Reformation[2] and preceded Calvin in the Reformation movement.[3] After reading Romans 1:17 he was convinced that only faith in Christ could make one just before God.[4] His core theology became that believers were justified by faith in Christ alone[5] and that Scripture was the only authority for people seeking salvation.[6] Luther (1516)(1968) writes concerning Romans 1:17 that only the gospel reveals the righteousness of God and that a person becomes righteous by trusting in the Word of God, Jesus.[7] Luther believed that the righteousness of God was the cause of human salvation,[8] not primarily since God was righteous, but because the believer is justified by God through faith in the gospel of the righteous Christ.[9] He reasoned that the righteousness of God was contrary to the human righteousness of works,[10] instead when a human being received justification by God the person could then commit truly good works.[11]
In 1525 Luther wrote The Bondage of the Will, which was a debate with a Catholic scholar named Desiderius Erasmus (ca.1466-1536)[12] who was an advocate of the free will theory.[13] Luther reasons that since human beings were fallen and abandoned God, they could not will good but only turned in the direction of their own desires.[14] He comments that human beings were perverted and evil,[15] but this can be used by God for his purposes, although people can do nothing but oppose God by the use of their own will.[16] He dogmatically assumes that there is no middle way between God’s grace and human free will,[17] and postulates that human free will should be theologically denied and everything should be ascribed to God.[18] Luther’s sovereignty perspective[19] may place less emphasis on the human will than the later writings of Calvin and Feinberg. However, even the title of Luther’s book The Bondage of the Will shows that he likely influenced Calvin somewhat in The Bondage and Liberation of the Will. Jay Green writes that Luther can be viewed as an early and continual influence on Calvinism,[20] and it is reasonable to deduce that Luther is perhaps a minor historical influence on Feinberg’s sovereignty theology.[21] Green points out that Luther’s views on theistic determinism are only accepted by a minority of Calvinists today.[22]
[1] Cairns (1981: 288-296).
[2] Cairns (1981: 288-296).[3] Cairns (1981: 288-296).[4] Cairns (1981: 289). [5] Cairns (1981: 289-290).[6] Cairns (1981: 289-290).[7] Luther (1516)(1968: 25).[8] Luther (1516)(1968: 25).[9] Luther (1516)(1968: 25).[10] Luther (1516)(1968: 25).[11] Luther (1516)(1968: 25).[12] Cairns (1981: 263).[13] Erasmus (1525)(1972: 20).[14] Luther (1525)(1972: 128-130).[15] Luther (1525)(1972: 128-130).[16] Luther (1525)(1972: 128-130).[17] Luther is far more forceful in presentation that is Calvin and especially Feinberg. He is very forceful in his debate with Erasmus. I would provide the opinion that he seems closed-minded.[18] Luther (1525)(1972: 133).[19] Luther (1525)(1972: 123).[20] Green (1971: 7).[21] Feinberg is far more sympathetic to differing viewpoints than is Luther.[22] Green (1971: 7).
CAIRNS, EARLE E. (1981) Christianity Through The Centuries, Grand Rapids, Zondervan Publishing House.
CALVIN, JOHN (1543)(1996) The Bondage and Liberation of the Will, Translated by G.I. Davies, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.
FEINBERG, JOHN.S. (1986) Predestination and Free Will, in David Basinger and Randall Basinger (eds.), Downers Grove, Illinois, InterVarsity Press.
FEINBERG, JOHN.S. (1994) The Many Faces of Evil, Grand Rapids, Zondervan Publishing House.
FEINBERG, JOHN.S. (2001) No One Like Him, John S. Feinberg (gen.ed.), Wheaton, Illinois, Crossway Books.
GREEN, JAY (1971) Five Points of Calvinism, ‘Forward’, Grand Rapids, Sovereign Grace Publishers.
LUTHER, MARTIN. (1516)(1968) Commentary On The Epistle To The Romans, Translated by J.Theodore Mueller, Grand Rapids, Zondervan Publishing House.
LUTHER, MARTIN. (1518)(1989) ‘Heidelberg Disputation’, in Timothy F. Lull (ed.), Martin Luther’s Basic Theological Writings, Minneapolis, Fortress Press.
LUTHER, MARTIN. (1525)(1972) ‘The Bondage of the Will’, in F.W. Strothmann and Frederick W. Locke (eds.), Erasmus-Luther: Discourse on Free Will, New York, Frederick Ungar Publishing Co., INC.
B. Propaganda Posters Continued: Problem of Evil Theme
Posters from
Allposters.com
From
The Phrase Finder
'This phrase was coined as a slogan during WWII as part of the US Office of War Information's attempt to limit the possibility of people inadvertently giving useful information to enemy spies. The slogan was actually 'Loose Lips Might Sink Ships. This was one of several similar slogans which all came under the campaigns basic message - 'Careless Talk Costs Lives'.
The slogan was in use by 1942, as this example from the Maryland paper The News, May 1942'
Allposters info on lost the battle poster
UK Archives
From the United Kingdom 1940
No Room for Rumors
United States of America 1940s
C. Matthew Smed is Glad...
On Sunday May 13, my friend and new Blogger Matt took the above photo and placed the comments in the previous post verbally using a cell phone. Obviously we were seeing what can be done with the use of Blogger and a cell.
'I think of black garbage bags with large logo I'm glad so I put garbage to cite garbage logo what do you see?
how many philosophies and garbage containers do you ever find a website specially with logo's in them here's a glad logo unusually large on several bags in an alleyway
I think of black garbage bags with large logo I'm glad so I put garbage to cite garbage logo what do you see?'
Dolphins
Matthew Smed
Maple Ridge, BC (May 14, 2012)
Maple Ridge, BC (May 14, 2012)
Maple Ridge, BC (May 19, 2012)
Kaydol:
Kayıtlar (Atom)