Thursday, March 27, 2025

Why Rebellion?: Satire Und Theology Version

Why rebellion?

Photo: Me walking from my hotel in Edinburgh to the city centre, 20240411 with Golden filter  

1 Preface 

An 20100605 article revised on Blogger for an entry on academia.edu, 20250327. This features a revised section below from my PhD thesis that asked why God allowed human rebellion within his creation. 

2010 Theodicy and Practical Theology: PhD thesis, the University of Wales, Trinity Saint David, Lampeter 



2 Why Rebellion?

Within a compatibilistic sovereignty theodicy as opposed to the related in content, but somewhat different, incompatibilistic free will theodicy, I deduce a theoretical, possible and suitable reason why God created a good world and willingly, allowed human beings to rebel against him. 

Certain persons will experience evil and atonement 

Certain persons will have experienced their own sin, suffering, death, and the atoning work of Christ and his resurrection applied to them. Post-mortem and at the resurrection, these would be citizens of the culminated Kingdom of God. These certain persons are biblically the predestined, chosen to embrace, in regeneration (John 3, Titus 3, 1 Peter 1, as examples) the gospel message in belief by grace through faith.

Predestination: John 3


John 3: 3

γεννηθῇ be born

ἄνωθεν from above


Strong's 1080

Strong's Concordance gennaó: to beget, to bring forth 

Original Word: γεννάω 

Part of Speech: Verb Transliteration: gennaó 

Phonetic Spelling: (ghen-nah'-o) 

Definition: to beget, to bring forth Usage: I beget (of the male), (of the female) I bring forth, give birth to.


Strong's 509

Strong's Concordance anóthen: from above 

Original Word: ἄνωθεν 

Part of Speech: Adverb Transliteration: anóthen 

Phonetic Spelling: (an'-o-then) 

Definition: from above 

Usage: (a) from above, from heaven, (b) from the beginning, from their origin (source), from of old, (c) again, anew.

Predestination: Titus 3


Edited 

'by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit' from the New American Standard Bible (NASB) 


Strong's 3824

Strong's Concordance paliggenesia: regeneration, renewal 

Original Word: παλιγγενεσία, ας, ἡ 

Part of Speech: Noun, Feminine 

Transliteration: paliggenesia 

Phonetic Spelling: (pal-ing-ghen-es-ee'-ah) 

Short Definition: a new birth, regeneration 

Definition: a new birth, regeneration, renewal.

From Titus 3: 5 The main text of Strong's presents: Spiritual rebirth (figurative), spiritual regeneration (figurative). (72). Greek scholar Bauer documents this as: The rebirth of the redeemed person. (606). The regeneration and rebirth via the Holy Spirit. (606).

Jon Courson writes that those in Christ have been 'washed and renewed' (1424), not because of our own human righteousness, but because of the work of Jesus Christ. (1424). I suggest this supports a theology of justification, the applied righteousness of Christ to believers, and salvation for believers, through grace through faith, alone. We have been renewed and washed. (1424). Washing is symbolic, in part at least through baptism, in my view. Although there is the idea of being cleansed of sin through the sanctification process. 

Nute suggests in his commentary that washing is the cleansing in the new birth. (1496). And this may include the thought of baptism as a symbol of cleansing. (1496). The Pocket Dictionary defines regeneration as rebirth or re-creation as in being born again. (101). Salvation does include legal justification and the imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ to believers, and as well, sanctification.

Predestination: 1 Peter 1


ἀναγεννήσας having begotten again


Strong's 313

Strong's Concordance anagennaó: to beget again 

Original Word: ἀναγεννάω 

Part of Speech: Verb 

Transliteration: anagennaó 

Phonetic Spelling: (an-ag-en-nah'-o) 

Definition: to beget again 

Usage: I beget again, beget into a new life.

The website lists this as aorist, participle, active, and nominative, masculine, singular.

Bauer documents ἀναγεννάω (page 51), defined as beget again, be born again, figurative of spiritual rebirth of Christians. (51). This is the context of 1 Peter 1: 3,  born again. (51).

Biblically and theologically, the new birth, to beget again, being born again equates to regeneration.

Persons cannot be created with experience 

Very importantly, persons cannot be created with experience, even if made with a level of initial maturity. God can create a perfect person, but God cannot logically create a perfect person with experience as such. The act of creating implies newness and inexperience. Admittedly, God could hypothetically create a being with false memories of a perfect life, but this would not be the same as having experience. I deduce the results would not be the same. 

Through problem of evil certain persons will become Christ-like

It is reasonable to deduce that the problem of evil is possibly God’s means of developing certain individuals to eventual Christ-like stature, not sharing Christ’s divinity in nature but becoming like Christ in a mature and moral manner, combined with an unbreakable devotion to God. This would be finite moral perfection and goodness but not infinite, God-like moral perfection and goodness. As example, Isaiah 43 makes it clear there was no God formed before God and there will be no God formed after. Isaiah 44-46 make similar statements.

Conclusion: Those within culminated Kingdom will have greater spiritual maturity than initial persons

A reason for God to willfully allow human rebellion 

My theory and conclusion is that human beings in Christ, post-mortem within the culminated Kingdom of God, with the use of compatibilism will eventually have greater spiritual maturity than Adam and Eve did prior to a fall from God. It would also appear that God ultimately prefers persons (human ones at least) as they will be in the culminated Kingdom, over persons in a different scenario that would have never freely chosen to disobey God. Perhaps in that case as well the former group would have greater spiritual maturity.

Further Explanation 

It is believed that Christ will be God’s lieutenant in this godless world and bring about, through his crucifixion and resurrection, the promise of a better future, which includes hope. Moltmann (1993: 256). The Kingdom of God was present in Christ and this has been defined in history. Moltmann (1993: 263). God would not have to go through such a process as he is infinitely good and human beings are finitely good and capable of falling. That being stated, some angels apparently never did fall and yet had finite goodness. I reason God could theoretically create significantly free finite beings that would fall, and significantly free finite beings that would not.
---

AUGUSTINE (388-395)(1964) On Free Choice of the Will, Translated by Anna S.Benjamin and L.H. Hackstaff, Upper Saddle River, N.J., Prentice Hall. 

AUGUSTINE (398-399)(1992) Confessions, Translated by Henry Chadwick, Oxford, Oxford University Press. 

AUGUSTINE (400-416)(1987)(2004) On the Trinity, Translated by Reverend Arthur West Haddan, in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series One, Volume 3, Denver, The Catholic Encyclopedia. 

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

AUGUSTINE (426)(1958) The City of God, Translated by Gerald G. Walsh, Garden City, New York, Image Books. 

AUGUSTINE (427)(1997) On Christian Doctrine, Translated by D.W. Robertson Jr., Upper Saddle River, N.J., Prentice Hall. 

AUGUSTINE (427b)(1997) On Christian Teaching, Translated by R.P.H. Green, Oxford, Oxford University Press. 

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

CALVIN, JOHN (1539)(1998) The Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book II, Translated by Henry Beveridge, Grand Rapids, The Christian Classic Ethereal Library, Wheaton College. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/institutes.html

CALVIN, JOHN (1539)(1998) The Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book IV, Translated by Henry Beveridge, Grand Rapids, The Christian Classic Ethereal Library, Wheaton College. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/institutes.html 

CALVIN, JOHN (1540)(1973) Romans and Thessalonians, Translated by Ross Mackenzie, Grand Rapids, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. 

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

CALVIN, JOHN (1550)(1978) Concerning Scandals, Translated by John W. Fraser, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. 

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

CALVIN, JOHN (1553)(1952) Job, Translated by Leroy Nixon, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House. 

CALVIN, JOHN (1554)(1965) Genesis, Translated by John King, Edinburgh, The Banner of Truth Trust.

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

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.

FLEW, ANTONY (1955) ‘Divine Omnipotence and Human Freedom’, in Antony Flew and A. MacIntrye (eds), New Essays in Philosophical Theology, London, SCM Press.

FLEW, ANTONY, R.M. HARE, AND BASIL MITCHELL (1996) ‘The Debate on the Rationality of Religious Belief’, in L.P. Pojman (ed.), Philosophy, The Quest for Truth, New York, Wadsworth Publishing Company. 

FLEW, ANTONY AND A.MACINTRYE (1999) ‘Philosophy of Religion’, in Alan Richardson and John Bowden (eds.), A New Dictionary of Christian Theology, Kent, SCM Press Ltd.

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.

HICK, JOHN (1970) Evil and The God of Love, London, The Fontana Library. 

HICK, JOHN (1978) ‘Present and Future Life’, Harvard Theological Review, Volume 71, Number 1-2, January-April, Harvard University. 

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

HICK, JOHN (1993) ‘Afterword’ in GEIVETT, R. DOUGLAS (1993) Evil and the Evidence for God, Philadelphia, Temple University Press. 

HICK, JOHN (1993) The Metaphor of God Incarnate, Louisville, Kentucky, John Know Press. 

HICK, JOHN (1994) Death and Eternal Life, Louisville, Kentucky, John Knox Press.

HICK, JOHN (1999) ‘Life after Death’, in Alan Richardson and John Bowden (eds.), A New Dictionary of Christian Theology, Kent, SCM Press.

LEIBNIZ, G.W. (1710)(1998) Theodicy, Translated by E.M. Huggard Chicago, Open Court Classics. 

MACKIE, J.L. (1955)(1996) ‘Evil and Omnipotence’, in Mind, in Michael Peterson, William Hasker, Bruce Reichenbach, and David Basinger (eds.), Philosophy of Religion, Oxford, Oxford University Press. 

MACKIE, J.L. (1971)(1977)(2002) ‘Evil and Omnipotence’, in The Philosophy of Religion, in Alvin C. Plantinga, God, Freedom, and Evil, Grand Rapids. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

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

NUTE, ALAN G. (1986) in 'Titus', The International Bible Commentary, F.F. Bruce, General Editor, Grand Rapids, Zondervan/Marshall Pickering. 

PLANTINGA, ALVIN.C. (1977)(2002) God, Freedom, and Evil, Grand Rapids, Wm. B.  Eerdmans Publishing Company.  

PLANTINGA, ALVIN C. (1982) The Nature of Necessity, Oxford, Clarendon Press.

PLANTINGA, ALVIN C. (2000) Warranted Christian Belief, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

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

Photos below: June 2010

Eleven atonement citations

English Standard Version (ESV) 

Romans 3:24-26 

24 And are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. 26 It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.

Romans 3:25 

Whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. 

Romans 5:6-10 

6 For while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. 7 For one will scarcely die for a righteous person—though perhaps for a good person one would dare even to die— 8 but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. 9 Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God. 10 For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life... 

2 Corinthians 5:21 

For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God. 

Hebrews 9:12 

He entered once for all into the holy places, not by means of the blood of goats and calves but by means of his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption. 

1 Peter 2:24 

He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed. 

1 Peter 3:18 

For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit... 

1 John 1:7 

But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin. 

1 John 2:2 

He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.

1 John 4:10 

In this is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins. 

Revelation 5:9 

And they sang a new song, saying, “Worthy are you to take the scroll and to open its seals, for you were slain, and by your blood you ransomed people for God from every tribe and language and people and nation...

Eleven resurrection citations 

English Standard Version (ESV) 

John 6:40 

For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.”

John 11:25 

Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. Whoever believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live...

Romans 6:4 

We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.

Romans 6:5 

For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his.

1 Corinthians 15:12-14 

12 Now if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13 But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. 14 And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain. 

1 Corinthians 15:21 

For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead.

Philippians 3:10 

That I may know him and the power of his resurrection, and may share his sufferings, becoming like him in his death...

1 Thessalonians 4:14 

For since we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so, through Jesus, God will bring with him those who have fallen asleep. 

1 Thessalonians 4:16 

For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the voice of an archangel, and with the sound of the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first.

2 Thessalonians 2: 7-8 

7 For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work. Only he who now restrains it will do so until he is out of the way. 8 And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will kill with the breath of his mouth and bring to nothing by the appearance of his coming.

(This connects to 1 Thessalonians 4, my add)

1 Peter 1:3 

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! According to his great mercy, he has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead... 

Sunday, March 23, 2025

Scientism II: Satire Und Theology Version

Standard.co.uk: London 2017
Scientism II

Preface

This article originally published on Blogger, 20171212, revised on Blogger for an entry on academia.edu on 20250323.

Referenced from this website



Scientism

One night, I discussed with a friend on the phone, his online course on early Christianity from a secular University. The teaching included premises which were skeptical of the claimed supernatural, revealed origins of the Hebrew Bible and New Testament. I opined (paraphrased) that much of this was rooted in worldviews of empiricism, naturalism which often feature scientism. I had been educated in regard to aspects of empiricism and naturalism while studying for my bible school and seminary degrees in Canada, well before my interaction with them with the theses research degrees at secular University in Wales-England. I have continued this research online.

Oxford Science

Empiricism: 'Denotes a result that is observed by experiment or observation rather than by theory.' (287). I view this as a legitimate academic approach in reasonable contexts.

Stanford Dictionary of Philosophy: Naturalism

Stanford Dictionary of Philosophy

Cited

'These philosophers aimed to ally philosophy more closely with science. They urged that reality is exhausted by nature, containing nothing “supernatural”, and that the scientific method should be used to investigate all areas of reality, including the “human spirit” (Krikorian 1944; Kim 2003).'

'So understood, “naturalism” is not a particularly informative term as applied to contemporary philosophers. The great majority of contemporary philosophers would happily accept naturalism as just characterized—that is, they would both reject “supernatural” entities, and allow that science is a possible route (if not necessarily the only one) to important truths about the “human spirit”.

Even so, this entry will not aim to pin down any more informative definition of “naturalism”. It would be fruitless to try to adjudicate some official way of understanding the term. Different contemporary philosophers interpret “naturalism” differently. This disagreement about usage is no accident. For better or worse, “naturalism” is widely viewed as a positive term in philosophical circles—few active philosophers nowadays are happy to announce themselves as “non-naturalists”'

Noted Bibliography from this source

Krikorian, Y. (ed.), 1944, Naturalism and the Human Spirit, New York: Columbia University Press.

Mackie, J., 1977, Ethics: Inventing Right and Wrong, Harmondsworth: Penguin.

Plantinga, A., 1996, “Methodological Naturalism?”, in J. van der Meer (ed.), Facets of Faith and Science, Lanham, MD: University Press of America.
---

Interesting definition and explanation from Stanford. In writing and discussion I have focused more on the terms 'empiricism' (nothing wrong with that view in itself) and the extreme position of scientism.

Blackburn

Scientism: A pejorative term for the concept that only the methods of natural science and related categories form the elements for any philosophical or other enquiry. Blackburn (1996: 344).

Oxford Dictionary

Scientism: 1 a a method or doctrine regarded as characteristic of scientists b the use of practice of this. 2 often derogatory, an excessive belief in or application of scientific method. Oxford (1995: 1236).
---

A person holding to scientism may abandon the need for a contextual evaluation of Scripture and the revealed word of God in regard to origins and creation; instead embracing scientific explanations alone.

As a moderate conservative Christian of Reformed and Anabaptist traditions, I reason there is a need for openness to scientific truths, as in being open to inductive scientific evidences and the use of empiricism.

For the sake of a reasonable, balanced academic approach, the entirety of worldview should be never be reasoned at the expenses of biblical revelation and theological and philosophical deductive evidences within the academic disciplines of biblical studies, theology and philosophy of religion. Theistic philosophy of religion based on deduced, reasoned, philosophical premises and conclusions

Scientism should be academically rejected.

Wimp.com
Big Think: December 9, 2020 

The author is Adam Frank

Cited 

'What is scientism, and why is it a mistake?'

'Science is a method of inquiry about nature, while scientism is philosophy.' 

Agreed.

Cited

'And scientism is no longer up to the challenge of meeting the most pressing issues of our day.' 

It never was...

Cited

'Science and Scientism are not the same. You can deeply value the former while rejecting the latter. Scientism is the view that science is the only objective means by which to determine what is true or is an unwarranted application of science in situations that are not amenable to scientific inquiry. Science is a method for asking questions about the world. Scientism is just one philosophy among many about the relationship between human beings and their experiences.'

Scientism definitely has worldview and philosophy aspects to it.

Cited 

'The folly of scientism'

'Now I am a passionate scientist who is passionate about science, but I also think scientism is a huge mistake. The most important reason it is a mistake is because it is confused about what it’s defending. Without doubt, science is unique, powerful, and wonderful. It should be celebrated, and it needs to be protected. Scientism, on the other hand, is just metaphysics, and there are lots and lots of metaphysical beliefs.'

Every academic discipline needs to be handled with objectivity. Scientism risks subjectively dismissing non-scientific academic disciplines.

Cited 

'There are in fact many philosophical positions — many kinds of metaphysics — that you can adopt about reality and science depending on your inclinations. The good ones illuminate critical aspects of what is happening as human beings collectively go about trying to make sense of their experiences. Scientism claims to be the only philosophy that can speak for science, but that is simply not the case. There are lots of philosophies of science out there.' 

Agreed. A philosophy of science, does not have to embrace any kind of scientism.


Cited

'Adam Frank is a professor of astrophysics at the University of Rochester and a leading expert on the final stages of evolution for stars like the sun. Frank's computational research group at the University of Rochester has developed advanced supercomputer tools for studying how stars form and how they die.'
---

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

BRADLEY, RAYMOND D. (1996) ‘Infinite Regress Argument’, in Robert Audi, (ed.), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

CONWAY DAVID A. AND RONALD MUNSON (1997) The Elements of Reasoning, Wadsworth Publishing Company, New York. 

CRAIG, WILLIAM LANE, (1991)(2006) ‘The Existence of God and the Beginning of the Universe’,Truth: A Journal of Modern Thought 3 (1991) 85-96. http://www.leaderu.com/truth/3truth11.html pp. 1-18.

LANGER, SUSANNE K (1953)(1967) An Introduction to Symbolic Logic, Dover Publications, New York. 

OXFORD DICTIONARY OF SCIENCE (2010) Oxford, Oxford University Press.

PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London.

SKLAR, LAWRENCE, (1996) ‘Philosophy of Science’, in Robert Audi, (ed), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. 

THE CONCISE OXFORD DICTIONARY (1995) Della Thompson (ed.), Oxford, Clarendon Press.

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

Saturday, March 15, 2025

The Atonement Is Essential: Satire Und Theology Version

The Atonement Is Essential 

20240423 View from the Tower: Liverpool Cathedral (built, 1904-1978) 

I. Preface

Dr. Stephen Wellum was one of my theological advisers while I was attending Canadian Baptist Seminary/Trinity Western University, working on my MTS (Master of Theological Studies). As my previous BA (Bachelor of Arts) was within a Mennonite Brethren context and culture, and in Biblical Studies and not Theology, technically; Dr. Wellum assisted me with sources and knowledge in regards to Reformed theology and in particular, the work of John S. Feinberg. This was in the future, my key Reformed exemplar for my British MPhil/PhD theses. I certainly had Reformed leanings while at Columbia Bible College for my BA, but waited until I earned my MPhil at Wales, before publicly embracing the term 'Reformed' for myself. Online, I came across some of Dr. Wellum's recent work. My work in this review is non-exhaustive. A version of my work was previously presented in two articles. Today, God-willing, I wish to publish one version on Blogger and on academia.edu, so this is a revised version.

Referenced from this website

Tuesday, February 18, 2020 The atonement is essential: Part I 


II Atonement


Review: The Hill We All Must Die On: Four Questions to Ask About Atonement 

By Dr. Stephen Wellum 

Cited 

'The doctrine of penal substitution is under attack today — and that’s an understatement. From voices outside of evangelical theology to those within, the historic Reformation view of the cross is claimed to be a “modern” invention from the cultural West. Others criticize the doctrine as sanctioning violence, privileging divine retributive justice over God’s love, condoning a form of divine child abuse, reducing Scripture’s polychrome presentation of the cross to a lifeless monochrome, being too “legal” in orientation, and so on.'

End citation

Penal substitution receives significant negative critique within and outside of the Church. But, this New Testament view is that human sin breaks the law of God (Grenz, Guretzki, Nordling: 90), for which the penalty is death (90), therefore leading to the death of Jesus Christ for those chosen by God, to appease the law of God (90), is definitively and definitely biblical. 

But what is substitutionary atonement?

From the Substitutionary Atonement: The Gospel Coalition

'Definition 

The penal substitutionary view of the atonement holds that the most fundamental event of the atonement is that Jesus Christ took the full punishment that we deserved for our sins as a substitute in our place, and that all other benefits or results of the atonement find their anchor in this truth.' 

'Summary 

All people are in need of a substitute since all are guilty of sinning against the holy God. All sin deserves punishment because all sin is personal rebellion against God himself. While animal sacrifices took on the guilt of God’s people in the OT, these sacrifices could never fully atone for the sins of man. For that, Jesus Christ came and died in the place of his people (substitution), taking upon himself the full punishment that they deserved (penal). While there are other theories of the atonement, which point to other valid aspects of what happened in Christ’s death, the penal-substitutionary element of the crucifixion secures all other benefits that come to God’s people through the death of their representative.' 

Cited

'Human beings need a substitute since “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Rom. 3:23). Sin separates human beings from God as we see from the sin of Adam and Eve in the garden. Only perfect obedience will satisfy God’s justice, and we see this in that Adam and Eve were severed from God for one sin. As Galatians 3:10 says, “For all who rely on the works of the law are under a curse, because it is written, Everyone who does not do everything written in the book of the law is cursed.” The curse falls upon those who transgress God’s commands, and no one is exempted (Rom. 3:9–20, 23). 

Sin deserves punishment because God is holy. Breaking the law is not merely an impersonal reality, for sin represents rebellion against God himself (1 John 3:4). The heart of sin is the failure to glorify God and to give thanks to him (Rom. 1:21). Sin represents a flagrant refusal to submit to God’s lordship, and those who sin rightly deserve the retributive judgment of God. Since God is holy (Lev. 19:2) he judges those who transgress his law. God’s judgment is evident in the flood of Noah, the judgment of pagan nations in the OT, and the judgment of Israel for its sin. John the Baptist warns people to flee the coming judgment of the Lord (Matt. 3:1–12). Human beings are summoned to repent before the coming judgment arrives (Acts 2:14–39; 3:12–26; 4:8–12). Paul often refers to God’s eschatological judgment (Rom. 2:5, 16; 6:23; 9:22; 1 Cor. 1:18; 5:5; 2 Cor. 2:16; Gal. 1:8–9; Phil. 3:18–19; 1 Thess. 1:10; 2:14–16; 5:9). The retributive nature of judgment is as clear as it gets in 2 Thessalonians 1:5–9. Paul argues that God is “just” to punish people forever for their sin. 

God’s anger against sin represents his personal response to sin. Judgment is not merely cause and effect, but is God’s holy wrath against sin, which must be distinguished from sinful human anger.' 

End citation

Important to note that as God is infinitely, eternally, purely, good, therefore, any divine anger is not in any way subject to sin and corruption as is even the most just human anger.

Cited 

'Animal sacrifices do not and cannot finally atone for sin (Heb. 9:1–10:18), and such sacrifices point to the atoning death of Jesus Christ which secures complete and permanent forgiveness of sins.' 

Cited 

'Romans 3:21–26 is a central text on penal substitution. In the preceding section of the letter we see that all without exception are sinners deserving final judgment (Rom. 1:18–3:20). Paul affirms in Romans 3:21–22 that a right relationship with God cannot be obtained through keeping the law (since all sin; Rom. 3:23) but only through faith in Jesus Christ. How can God forgive sinners so that they stand in a right relationship with him? The answer is given in Romans 3:25–26, “God presented him as an atoning sacrifice in his blood, received through faith, to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his restraint God passed over the sins previously committed. God presented him to demonstrate his righteousness at the present time, so that he would be righteous and declare righteous the one who has faith in Jesus.” The words translated “atoning sacrifice” has a more technical meaning and can be rendered as “propitiation” or “mercy seat” (hilastērion). The word propitiation signifies that God’s wrath has been satisfied or appeased in the cross of Christ.'

End Citation

James Strong explains that the word discussed in Romans 3: 25 is ἱλαστήριον (ilastērion hilasterion), is defined as an expiatory place or thing, an atoning victim, mercyseat, and propitiation. Strong (1890)(1986: 48). From Strong’s definition, Romans 3: 25 does allow for the idea of atonement in both the sense of sacrifice and appeasement. Strong (1890)(1986: 48). However, his definition does place more emphasis on expiation than propitiation in the atonement process in Romans 3: 25. Strong (1890)(1986: 48). 



Strong's Concordance

hilastérion: propitiatory Original Word: ἱλαστήριον, ου, τό 

Part of Speech: Noun, Neuter 
Transliteration: hilastérion 
Phonetic Spelling: (hil-as-tay'-ree-on) 
Definition: propitiatory Usage: (a) a sin offering, by which the wrath of the deity shall be appeased; a means of propitiation, (b) the covering of the ark, which was sprinkled with the atoning blood on the Day of Atonement.

Cited

Englishman's Concordance
Romans 3:25 N-ANS 

GRK: ὁ θεὸς ἱλαστήριον διὰ τῆς 
NAS: displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood 
KJV: hath set forth [to be] a propitiation through
INT: God a mercy seat through the

Walter Bauer explains that the meaning in Romans 3: 25 is uncertain and could be either expiates or propitiates. Bauer (1979: 375). For Strong the definition of the word from 1 John 2:2 and 4:10 is atonement, expiator, propitiation and so 1 John does not solve the issue from Romans according to String. Strong (1890)(1986: 49).

End Citation


Cited

'Such an idea fits well with the flow of thought in Romans, for we see in Romans 1:18 that “God wrath is revealed from heaven against all godlessness and unrighteousness of people.” We are also told in Romans 2:5 that those who don’t repent and soften their hearts are “storing up wrath for yourself in the day of wrath, when God’s righteous judgment is revealed.” Romans 3:25–26 teaches us, then, that God’s righteousness, God’s holiness and justice, are satisfied in the death of Christ. In the cross of Christ, God is shown to be loving and holy, merciful and just, the “just and justifier” of those who put their faith in Jesus. God has not compromised his justice since Christ has borne the penalty deserved for sin, dying as a substitute in the place of sinners. 

We see the same truth in Galatians 3:10–13. No one can escape God’s curse by works of the law since all without exception sin. The solution to the evil of human beings is set forth in Galatians 3:13: “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, because it is written, Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree.” The curse every person deserves is removed for those who put their trust in Christ, because Christ took the curse we deserved upon himself. He took the penalty we deserved, fulfilling the words of Deuteronomy 21:23 that those who are hanged upon a tree are cursed. 

The same truth is found in 2 Corinthians 5:21: “[God] made the one who did not know sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.” We have here the great exchange. Jesus took our sin by dying in our place, and we received his righteousness. 

Nor is this teaching restricted to Paul. Jesus himself clearly teaches penal substitution in Mark 10:45, “For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.” We have an allusion here to Isaiah 53. Jesus as the Son of Man of Daniel 7 is also the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53. In surrendering his life in death, he died as a ransom in place of many. His death constituted the payment demanded for the sins committed. The same teaching is also present in the Gospel of John: “Here is the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world” (John 1:29). Jesus, as the sacrificial Lamb of God, whether it is the Passover Lamb, the lamb in the sacrificial system, or the lamb of Isaiah 53:7 (or even all three), dies as a sacrifice in the place of sinners.' 

References from this source 

Charles Hill and Frank James, eds., The Glory of the Atonement 
David Peterson, ed., Where Wrath and Mercy Meet James Beilby and Paul Eddy, eds., The Nature of the Atonement: Four Views 
J. I. Packer “Penal Substitution Revisited”
J. I. Packer, “What Did the Cross Achieve? The Logic of Penal Substitution” 
J. I. Packer and Mark Dever, In My Place Condemned He Stood. See a brief summary of chapter 2 here. John Murray, Redemption Accomplished and Applied
John Stott, The Cross of Christ 
Leon Morris, Apostolic Preaching of the Cross 
N. T. Wright, The Day the Revolution Began 
Robert L. Dabney, Christ Our Penal Substitute 
Simon Gathercole, Defending Substitution. See a brief book summary here. 
Steve Jeffrey, Mike Ovey, and Andrew Sach, Pierced for our Transgressions. 

End Citation

The Atonement Is Essential

There are numerous critics of Reformed theology within the Christian Church, and critics of Biblical, Christian theology. My MPhil and PhD writing and questionnaire results (see website archives) demonstrated that significant aspects of Reformed theology were (and are) not embraced by the many evangelicals, liberals and others within Christendom, or if preferred, the Christian Community.

Reformed theology is certainly not generally embraced by critics outside of Christendom or the Christian Community. (Christendom and the Christian Community, being those that confess a form of Christianity, not necessarily Biblical Christianity) 

Atonement is a very complex theological issue and there are various perspectives from Biblical scholars. Millard J. Erickson explains that atonement theory is multifaceted including the concepts of sacrifice, propitiation (appeasement of God), substitution and reconciliation. (1994: 811-823).

Based on scripture, especially the New Testament, I accept expiation, propitiation, substitution and reconciliation as core aspects of the atoning work of Jesus Christ. Through his applied atoning work, regenerate (John 3, Titus, 1 Peter 1, as examples) believers, being divinely moved to embrace the gospel, are justified and sanctified by grace through faith alone, for good works, and never by good works (Ephesians 1-2, Romans, Galatians as key examples).

Non-exhaustive, New Testament examples that support the theology of substitution within the atoning work of Jesus Christ: 

Mark 10:45 English Standard Version (ESV)

For even the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many. Jesus Christ's death is a ransom and substitution for the sinners through the atonement. 

Romans 3:25 English Standard Version (ESV)

Whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins.

Propitiation: The atonement offering that turns away God’s wrath. Christ’s atoning work serves as propitiation. Grenz, Guretzki, and Nordling (96). Mounce explains in his Romans commentary that there is a debate whether propitiation, as in appeasing the wrath of God or expiation, the covering for sin, is a better translation. (116). He reasons that although the term 'propitiation' may not be the best translation, this Greek term is best reasoned as 'placating' God's wrath against sin. (117). This is also theologically connected to God's righteousness applied to those in Jesus Christ (118). Cranfield writes that other meanings, other than 'mercy-seat' have been rejected in his text. (77). He reasons that the idea of propitiation is not excluded here and that 'propitiatory sacrifice' is a reasonable suggestion. (77). 

C.H. Dodd (also mentioned by Mounce and Cranfield) explains that the Greek word in Romans 3: 25 should be translated expiation and not propitiation, and claims that many Greek translations have been incorrect on this issue. Dodd (1935: 82-95). Browning writes that propitiation is a means of warding off the just anger of God. He reasons that modern Biblical translations make it clear that the New Testament teaches that through Christ’s atoning work, expiation takes place, and an angry God is not appeased through the propitiation of Christ. Browning (1996: 305). Anthony D. Palma explains that propitiation can be defined as the idea of appeasing God, while expiation means to atone for sin against God, as in offering or sacrifice. Palma (2007: 1). Palma explains that the New Testament idea of propitiation includes expiation, but expiation does not necessarily include the idea of propitiation. Palma (2007: 1).

III The Nature of God

Desiring God: May 4, 2019: The Hill We All Must Die On: Four Questions to Ask About Atonement continued

Dr. Stephen Wellum continued...

Cited 

'1. Who Is God?

First, we must get right who God is as our triune Creator-Covenant Lord. Mark it well: debates over the nature of the atonement are first and foremost doctrine of God debates. If our view of God is sub-biblical, we will never get the cross right. From the opening verses of Scripture, God is presented as eternal, a se (life from himself), holy love, righteous, and good — the triune God who is complete in himself and who needs nothing from us (Genesis 1–2; Psalm 50:12–14; Isaiah 6:1–3; Acts 17:24–25; Revelation 4:8–11). One crucial implication of this description is that God, in his very nature, is the moral standard of the universe. This is why we must not think of God’s law as something external to him that he may relax at will. Instead, the triune God of Scripture is the law; his will and nature determine what is right and wrong.'

End citation

Nature of God

Biblical theology in regards to the nature of atonement connects to biblical theology in regards to the nature of God. God's infinite, eternal, holy, perfectly moral, nature, requires any and all finite entities that would ever have everlasting life to ontologically (in regards to nature) possess a finite form of holiness and moral perfection. Genesis 3 from the Hebrew Bible, records the fall of humanity and the New Testament (Romans, Galatians, Ephesians, Hebrews, as examples) explains that the atoning and resurrection work of Jesus Christ is the divine remedy for that human fall.

I note the fall because Augustine describes a literal fall. Augustine (426)(1958: 254-255), and the corruption of humanity that led to the literal problem (s) of evil. Augustine (426)(1958: 254-255). For many secular and Biblical scholars from mainline denominations, the Biblical story of the fall is likely fiction. Jackson (1941)(2006: 1). Fretheim (1994: 152). To Feinberg, human freedom and all human attributes had been tainted by the corruption of humanity in the fall. Feinberg (1994: 126-127). I discuss Genesis and the fall in Chapter Two of my PhD thesis and I am not convinced that all of the creation account must be taken plain literally in order to stay true to Scripture. Figurative literal approaches are possible at some points. 

Within my biblical, Reformed theology, I certainly view, based on Romans 5, as a key example, Jesus Christ, the God-man, as the last Adam, and therefore fully accept an actual, non-fictional, historical Adam and Eve. However, Genesis 1-3 allows for interpretations that can be figurative literal while rejecting mythology. In other words, a literal, historical Adam and Eve could be explained with both prose and poetry.

William Sanford La Sor, David Allan Hubbard, and Fredric William Bush (1987) from what I deduced was a moderate conservative, evangelical position, reason the author of Genesis is writing as an artist and storyteller who uses literary device. La Sor, Hubbard, and Bush (1987: 72). They point out it is imperative to distinguish which literary device is being used within the text of Genesis. La Sor, Hubbard, and Bush (1987: 72).

Romans 5 (New American Standard Bible)

12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned— 13 for [h]until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a [i]type of Him who was to come. h. Romans 5:13 Or until law i. Romans 5:14 Or foreshadowing
---

I further agree with Dr. Wellum that God is the moral standard of the universe, his infinite, eternal, holy and perfect nature, makes it so. God's law and moral law especially, is a reflection of his divine nature, and therefore to live everlastingly within the future culminated Kingdom of God, atonement (and resurrection) is required for humanity corrupted within this present, temporary (Revelation 21-22) realm.

The Resurrection

1 Corinthians 15 (New American Standard Bible)

42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown [l]a perishable body, it is raised [m]an imperishable body; 43 it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; 44 it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. 45 So also it is written, “The first man, Adam, became a living soul.” The last Adam became a life-giving spirit. 46 However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural; then the spiritual. 47 The first man is from the earth, [n]earthy; the second man is from heaven. 48 As is the earthy, so also are those who are earthy; and as is the heavenly, so also are those who are heavenly. 49 Just as we have borne the image of the earthy, [o]we will also bear the image of the heavenly. 
l. 1 Corinthians 15:42 Lit in corruption 
m. 1 Corinthians 15:42 Lit in incorruption 
n. 1 Corinthians 15:47 Lit made of dust 
o. 1 Corinthians 15:49 Two early mss read let us also

50 Now I say this, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; nor does [p]the perishable inherit [q]the imperishable. p. 1 Corinthians 15:50 Lit corruption 
q. 1 Corinthians 15:50 Lit incorruption

Even with the use of philosophy of religion (examining religion philosophically), the first cause, the primary cause, that exists as necessary in any possible world, as of necessity would be, by ontological default, what is good and holy. Finite, contingent human beings, soiled and engulfed by moral imperfection and problems of evil would not be by nature fit for everlasting life in the presence of such an entity. Reasonably within a type of theistic philosophy of religion, there is a fracture between humanity and God. Divine atonement through God the Son, as infinite, perfect God, and finite, perfect, incarnate man, is the fix. This makes reasonable sense to me as truth, primarily theologically (from the bible) and secondarily through theistic, philosophy of religion.
---

AUGUSTINE (398-399)(1992) Confessions, Translated by Henry Chadwick, Oxford, Oxford University Press. 

AUGUSTINE (400-416)(1987)(2004) On the Trinity, Translated by Reverend Arthur West Haddan, in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series One, Volume 3, Denver, The Catholic Encyclopedia. 

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

AUGUSTINE (426)(1958) The City of God, Translated by Gerald G. Walsh, Garden City, New York, Image Books. 

AUGUSTINE (427)(1997) On Christian Doctrine, Translated by D.W. Robertson Jr., Upper Saddle River, N.J., Prentice Hall. 

AUGUSTINE (427b)(1997) On Christian Teaching, Translated by R.P.H. Green, Oxford, Oxford University Press. 

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

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

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

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

DODD. C.H. (1935) The Bible and the Greeks, London, Hodder and Stoughton.

DUNNETT, WALTER M. (2001) Exploring The New Testament, Wheaton, Crossway Books.

ELLISON, H.L. (1986) ‘Genesis’, in F.F. Bruce (ed.), The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Zondervan. 

ELWELL, WALTER AND YARBROUGH, ROBERT W., Third Edition (2013) Encountering The New Testament, Grand Rapids, Baker Academic.

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

FEE, GORDON D. (1987) The First Epistle To The Corinthians, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

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.

FRETHEIM, TERENCE E. (1985)(2005) ‘The Suffering of God: An Old Testament Perspective’, in Theology Today, Volume 1, Number 1, Bookreview17. Princeton, Princeton Theological Seminary. http://theologytoday.ptsem.edu/apr1985/v42-1-bookreview17.htm

FRETHEIM, TERENCE E. (1994) ‘Is Genesis 3 a Fall Story?’, in Word and World, Luther Seminary, pp. 144-153. Saint Paul, Luther Seminary.

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

GUNDRY, ROBERT (1981) A Survey of the New Testament, Grand Rapids, Zondervan.

HAMILTON, VICTOR P. (1988) Handbook on the Pentateuch, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.

JACKSON, JOHN G. (1941)(2006) Pagan Origins of the Christ Myth, New York, Truth Seeker Co. http://www.nbufront.org/html/MastersMuseums/JGJackson/ChristMyth/ChristMythPart1.html

MARSH, PAUL, W. (1986) ‘1 Corinthians’, in F.F. Bruce, (ed.), The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Marshall Pickering/Zondervan.

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

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

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

LA SOR, WILLIAM SANFORD, DAVID ALLAN HUBBARD, AND FREDERIC WILLIAM BUSH. (1987) Old Testament Survey, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

PALMA, ANTHONY (2007) ‘Propitiation’ in Enrichment Journal, Springfield Missouri, Enrichment Journal. http://enrichmentjournal.ag.org/top/Easter_2007/2007_Propitiation .pdf 

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

Sunday, March 09, 2025

Free will statements: Satire Und Theology Version

Venice via Ernest Hepnar, 2019
Free will statements 

Preface

Free will prepositions from my MPhil thesis, which was part one of my PhD work, which concluded with a related PhD thesis.

Originally published 20190921, updated for an entry on academia.edu, 20250309.

2003 The Problem of Evil: Anglican and Baptist Perspectives: MPhil thesis, Bangor University 

MPhil

Statements nine, ten and eleven: These statements dealt with the issue of human free will.

Number nine stated: God created human beings with free will. 

Here 92% of Anglicans agreed, while 4% were not certain, and 4% disagreed. With the Baptists, 98% agreed, while 2% disagreed.

Statement ten stated: Human free will means that people have the option to choose either good or evil. 

Here 80% of Anglicans agreed, with 4% not certain, and 16% in disagreement. The Baptists responders consisted of 94% of the people agreeing, with 4% not certain, and 2% disagreeing.

The eleventh statement read: Free will itself is not the main factor in the human rejection of God. 

Here 40% of Anglicans agreed, while 30% were not certain, and 30% disagreed. With Baptists, 62% agreed, 8% being not certain, and 30% being in disagreement with the statement.

Regarding the ninth statement, I agree that God made human beings with free will, although its nature is limited as human beings can only choose to do things which their finite nature allows (human beings can freely desire to fly unaided, but this is not within their physical nature to accomplish).

I do believe the fall of Adam and Eve occurred by their own choice without coercion by God.

I agree with the tenth statement in a pre fall context, but after the fall I think that the human will was no longer able to truly please God by choosing to do good things, or to have a right standing before God. For a person to do good in God’s sight would require a spirit of purity which is impossible to possess for those with a sinful nature, but to even approach purity would require complete reliance upon the Holy Spirit.

I do not think this means that God desires robots which he directs, rather he wants thinking people who are open to his guidance. However, clearly human beings, even those without Christ, still have some freedom of choice as to what sins they will commit and to what level they commit these acts. They cannot commit good acts that are pleasing to God in the context of merit. Paul mentions in Romans 3:23, that all people have sinned and fallen short of God’s glory.

The eleventh statement discusses an issue I have already mentioned I disagreed. 

This statement above is not clear from my MPhil work. The main factor is God as primary cause, willingly allowed humanity to reject him. Human beings as secondary cause, embracing in nature and choice this rejection. I gather that I meant that I also do not agree that free will is the main factor, because that has never been my position in my MPhil, PhD or website work.

September 21, 2019

Statement ten stated: Human free will means that people have the option to choose either good or evil. 

I reason that the choice of Adam and Eve to disobey God, demonstrated their by then tainted human nature in the fall (Genesis 3, Romans 5, as examples). Prior to the fall they were finitely perfect and at the fall they became finitely imperfect.

From both theological and philosophical perspectives, I researched and wrote in more depth, and with increased understanding in regard to compatibilistic freedom within my PhD thesis. That being compatibilism, also known as soft determinism, views human freedom as leading to desires, thoughts, will, acts and actions, as a secondary cause. Human beings are secondary agents. This is compatible with the simultaneous cause of these human desires, thoughts, will, acts and actions by a primary cause. From a theistic, biblical, Christian view, this primary or first cause is the triune God.

God's motives remain pure, unlike any secondary cause that is in a fallen, corrupted state. God's loyal angels can also have pure motives, as finite entities and secondary agents. For academic balance, a non-theistic view could reason the primary cause as naturalistic and scientific. Perhaps even as fate.

Incompatibilism and forms of libertarian free will, deny compatibilism. As I am not a hard determinist (things are determined by one cause). I reason moral accountability from secondary agents (causes) requires that these entities are not forced or coerced in regard to desires, thoughts, will, acts and actions, but are embraced with limited free will. The finite nature of humanity is always subject to the infinite nature of God; this with whatever God directly or indirectly causes.

Got Questions

Referencing

PACKER, J.I. (1973) Knowing God, Downers Grove, Illinois, InterVarsity Press.

In Hebrew, the title "God Almighty" is written as El Shaddai and probably means “God, the All-powerful One” or “The Mighty One of Jacob” (Genesis 49:24; Psalm 132:2,5), although there is a question among most Bible scholars as to its precise meaning. The title speaks to God’s ultimate power over all. He has all might and power. We are first introduced to this name in Genesis 17:1, when God appeared to Abram and said, “I am God Almighty; walk before me and be blameless.”

2010 Theodicy and Practical Theology: PhD thesis, the University of Wales, Trinity Saint David, Lampeter

This website has several PhD related articles in the archives.

Sunday, January 05, 2025 PhD and MPhil theses linked

AUGUSTINE (388-395)(1964) On Free Choice of the Will, Translated by Anna S.Benjamin and L.H. Hackstaff, Upper Saddle River, N.J., Prentice Hall.

AUGUSTINE (398-399)(1992) Confessions, Translated by Henry Chadwick, Oxford, Oxford University Press. 

AUGUSTINE (400-416)(1987)(2004) On the Trinity, Translated by Reverend Arthur West Haddan, in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series One, Volume 3, Denver, The Catholic Encyclopedia. 

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

AUGUSTINE (426)(1958) The City of God, Translated by Gerald G. Walsh, Garden City, New York, Image Books. 

AUGUSTINE (427)(1997) On Christian Doctrine, Translated by D.W. Robertson Jr., Upper Saddle River, N.J., Prentice Hall. 

AUGUSTINE (427b)(1997) On Christian Teaching, Translated by R.P.H. Green, Oxford, Oxford University Press. 

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

BOURKE, VERNON J. (1958) ‘Introduction’, in The City of God, Translated by Gerald G. Walsh, Garden City, New York, Image Books. 

BRUCE, F.F. (1987) Romans, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

CALVIN, JOHN (1539)(1998) The Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book IV, Translated by Henry Beveridge, Grand Rapids, The Christian Classic Ethereal Library, Wheaton College. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/institutes.html 

CALVIN, JOHN (1540)(1973) Romans and Thessalonians, Translated by Ross Mackenzie, Grand Rapids, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. 

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

CALVIN, JOHN (1550)(1978) Concerning Scandals, Translated by John W. Fraser, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. 

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

CALVIN, JOHN (1553)(1952) Job, Translated by Leroy Nixon, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House. 

CALVIN, JOHN (1554)(1965) Genesis, Translated by John King, Edinburgh, The Banner of Truth Trust.

CHADWICK, HENRY (1992) ‘Introduction’, in Confessions, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

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

EDWARDS, JONATHAN (1729)(2006) Sovereignty of God, New Haven, Connecticut, Jonathan Edwards Center, Yale University. 

EDWARDS, JONATHAN (1731-1733)(2006) Law of Nature, New Haven, Connecticut, Jonathan Edwards Center, Yale University. 

EDWARDS, JONATHAN (1754)(2006) Freedom of the Will, Flower Mound, Texas. Jonathanedwards.com.

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.  

FLEW, ANTONY (1955) ‘Divine Omnipotence and Human Freedom’, in Antony Flew and A. MacIntrye (eds.), New Essays in Philosophical Theology, London, SCM, in Paul Edwards and Arthur Pap (eds.), A Modern Introduction To Philosophy, New York, The Free Press.

FLEW, ANTONY, R.M. HARE, AND BASIL MITCHELL (1996) ‘The Debate on the Rationality of Religious Belief’, in L.P. Pojman (ed.), Philosophy, The Quest for Truth, New York, Wadsworth Publishing Company.

PACKER, J.I. (1973) Knowing God, Downers Grove, Illinois, InterVarsity Press. 

MACKIE, J.L. (1955)(1996) ‘Evil and Omnipotence’, in Mind, in Michael Peterson, William Hasker, Bruce Reichenbach, and David Basinger (eds.), Philosophy of Religion, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

MACKIE, J.L. (1971)(1977)(2002) ‘Evil and Omnipotence’, in The Philosophy of Religion, in Alvin C. Plantinga, God, Freedom, and Evil, Grand Rapids. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. 

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

PLANTINGA, ALVIN C. (1977)(2002) God, Freedom, and Evil, Grand Rapids, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

PLANTINGA, ALVIN C. (1982) The Nature of Necessity, Oxford, Clarendon Press.

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

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