Tour of LDS Temple, Langley, BC: Satire Und Theology Version

Tour of LDS Temple, Langley, BC

Preface

This Blogger article originally published 20100420, revised on Blogger for an entry on academia.edu, 20250822.

As well as this 2010 visit, I also toured Temple Square in Salt Lake City in 2018. It was a life goal to see that, as I am interested in this particular religious movement, intellectually. The hosts were kind.

Photos: Langley, BC, Google Images

20100420

This evening my friend Zombie and I toured the new Langley Temple of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (LDS). As many of my readers will realize, I have nothing personally against them, or any religious or philosophical group. But my Biblical Reformed theology differs on several points from the LDS and here are two key points of theological difference:

The nature of God

I wrote on a previous post:

Joseph Smith and Gods

Joseph Smith, the founder of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Days Saints writes that there is a plurality of gods. Smith preached on June 16,1844, eleven days before his death, that a plurality of Gods existed and that the head God organized the heavens and the earth. Smith (1844)(2006: 1). He explains that the idea of the God of the Christian Trinity is a strange one. Smith (1844)(2006: 1). He also states that the Bible supports the idea of the plurality of Gods. Smith (1844)(2006: 1). The founder of the Latter-Day Saints reasons that if Jesus Christ had a Father, that God the Father would have a Father as well. This concept would create an infinite regression of Father Gods. Smith (1844)(2006: 1).

The Walter Martin website has some interesting comments on this view. Martin first points out that the Bible in Isaiah, clearly states that there is just one God in Chapters 43:10-11, 44:6, 8; 45:5, and 21–22. He also mentions that the Lord is called one Lord in Deuteronomy 6:4. Martin (2006: 1). He further explains that others are called god in the Bible such as Moses to Pharaoh in Exodus 7:1, but this is a metaphorical use and is not claiming that Moses is the one and only true God. In Psalm 82 and John 10:34, the judges according to Martin are not intrinsic deity, but became mighty ones like Gods in the eyes of the people. In Psalm 82 and John 10:34 the judges are shown to be sinful men that were in no way to be confused with the God of the Bible in nature. Martin (2006: 1). The Bible in both the Hebrew Bible and New Testament is not only stating that there is only one true God to worship, but that there is only one God in existence period.

I am not going to heavily discuss Trinitarian theology within this article, but I shall state that it is believed within Christianity that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three distinct persons (or three distinctions) of one, substance, nature and essence, and therefore are not three eternal Gods, but one eternal God. In Hebrews 1:3, the Son is called the exact representation of God’s nature, and in Acts 5:3-4 the Holy Spirit is called God. Philip Edgcume Hughes writes that in Hebrews 1:3, the Greek word translated 'nature' denotes the very essence of God. Christ is the representation of the Father and shares the same substance as God. Hughes (1990: 43-44). So whatever distinctions can be drawn concerning the Father and Son, Biblically it must be concluded that from Hebrews 1:3 they are of the same nature (υποστασεως ) The Greek New Testament (1993: 741) and substance. Hughes (1990: 43-44). They are not two Gods, but two distinctions within one God, and the Holy Spirit from Acts 5 is also shown to be God sharing in the same nature and substance as the Father and Son. Jesus Christ as both God and man has a finite, everlasting, human body, in the incarnation, but God the Son shares the same infinite, eternal, spiritual substance as the Father and Holy Spirit.

Bible Hub: Hebrews 1:3

ὑποστάσεως hypostaseōs (substance)

Matthew J. Slick notes that the Latter-Day Saints' idea of Gods, which originated with Joseph Smith, teaches an infinite regression of causes. Slick (2006: 1). Each God came into existence from a previous God, and this has gone on in an infinite past. Slick (2006: 1). There cannot be an infinite regression of Gods because this would require an infinite amount of time which would not allow us to arrive at the present. In contrast the idea of the Christian Trinity is that God has always existed and existed prior to time and therefore God has not lived for an infinite amount of time. God created time, but existed in a timeless state prior to the creation of time and matter.

In the Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Simon Blackburn discusses ‘infinite regress’ and mentions that this occurs in a vicious way whenever a problem tries to solve itself and yet remains with the same problem it had previously. Blackburn (1996: 324). A vicious regress is an infinite regress that does not solve its own problem, while a benign regress is an infinite regress that does not fail to solve its own problem. Blackburn (1996: 324). Blackburn writes that there is frequently room for debate on what is a vicious regress or benign regress. Blackburn (1996: 324). In The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, William Tolhurst writes that a vicious regress is in some way unacceptable as it would include an infinite series of items dependent on prior items. A vicious regress may be impossible to hold to philosophically, or it may be inconsistent. Tolhurst (1996: 835).

In conclusion, Smith's and the Latter-Days Saints' view on the nature of God is problematically, unfixable, unreasonable and untrue.

Works salvation

Tonight the kind hostess at the Langley Temple, placed more emphasis on doing good works for salvation, than she did on the atoning and resurrection work of Christ.

My views are contrary to any form of works righteousness. Biblically one is chosen/elected (Ephesians 1, Romans 1-8), born again (John 3), regenerated (Titus 3) and moulded into a believer via the salvific, atoning, justifying and sanctification work of Jesus Christ unto good works. This culminates post-mortem is resurrection and glorification (1 Corinthians 15, Revelation 20-22, as examples).

Ephesians 2: 8-10 is a good summary of my reasoning.

Ephesians 2:8-10 (New American Standard Bible)

8For (A)by grace you have been saved (B)through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is (C)the gift of God;

9(D)not as a result of works, so that (E)no one may boast.

10For we are His workmanship, (F)created in (G)Christ Jesus for (H)good works, which God (I)prepared beforehand so that we would (J)walk in them.

From James 2:17, we know that faith without works is dead, and so a sign (not the only sign) of real Christian faith is to walk in good works. But, I admit that it is possible that these good works can be limited as in the apparent example of a person saved with works burned up in 1 Corinthians 3: 12-15.

The hostess/guide stated incorrectly twice that baptism is required for salvation. In contrast, in the New Testament, Baptism is rather tied to the salvation process as an act of obedience (Matthew 28: 19-20). Baptism being a human work, in a sense, cannot be a cause of salvation.

In conclusion, human salvation is up to God via compatibilism/soft determinism and certainly not up to incompatibilistic libertarian free will decisions of persons. Although I reason that no person is forced or coerced into heaven and embracing the gospel, by God. At the same time the unregenerate by nature and choice reject God and the gospel, and are not forced or coerced to do so.

---

BLACKBURN, S. (1996) ‘Regress’, in Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy,Oxford, Oxford 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. 

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. http://edwards.yale.edu/archive/documents/page?document_id=10817&search_id=&source_type=edited&pagenumber=1 

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.http://www.jonathanedwards.com

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

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

MARTIN, WALTER (1965)(1997) The Kingdom of The Cults, Minneapolis, Bethany House Publishers. Christianity, Cults & Religions (1996) (2010), Hendrickson Publishers, Rose Publishing, MA.

MARTIN, WALTER (2006) 'The Mormon Doctrine of God', San Juan Capistrano, Walter Martin.org.
http://www.waltermartin.org/mormon.html#mormdoc

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.

SLICK, MATTHEW J. (2006) 'A logical proof that Mormonism is false', Meridian, Idaho, Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry,
http://www.carm.org/lds/infinity.htm

SMITH, JOSEPH (1844)(2006) ‘Sermon by the Prophet-The Christian Godhead-Plurality of Gods’, History of the Church, Vol. 6, p. 473-479.
http://www.utlm.org

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

------------

The hosts

Overall the hosts were kind. The Temple seems well constructed in an aesthetic sense. My friend Zombie felt we were being observed and I think the staff was desiring to present the Temple as a holy place of reverence. The refreshments were appreciated and the shuttle from their old meetinghouse to the new one and the Temple was helpful.

Zombie and I decided not to mingle after the presentation as we figured I could get into a debate and Zombie had to get up early the next morning to go to work. On the way to the Temple, Zombie asked me how we were going to play this, as in wondering if I was going to be argumentative that evening.

No, I was respectful and listened...but I do have academic websites. Sure, I am an informed philosopher at some points, but that was not the time or place.

So, we walked back to the old meetinghouse and drove away.

Please stay tuned, I asked Zombie for his own review and he stated that he would write one which I shall place below.

It will be quite a bit different than this one.

Zombie

My review will be quite different from Russ'. Everyone seemed happy to showcase the new Langley temple-the sheer amount of guides and volunteers was intriguing. The structure and the ornate furnishings seemed to impress and captivate some of our group- almost designed to draw new recruits into something large and awe inspiring- to be part of something bigger than themselves.

Though everyone was welcoming I did feel a bit unnerved at the presence of some staff upstairs, watching you intently, making certain you didn't vandalize the temple in some way or wander somewhere you shouldn't be.

I can understand that only members would be allowed into the most private worship chambers- I just felt awkward and out of place as a result. I don't have a background in theology so I'm not qualified to comment on the differences between Christianity and Mormonism. Everyone smiled and was gracious, the interior of the temple was more beautiful than the exterior and maybe that was the problem with me- it seemed the hosts wanted the focus on the structure and elaborate furnishings and not on doctrine.

Maybe as you ask more questions and spend more time in the belief system you would find out more about specific aspects of what the Mormons believe and why.

Thanks to Russ/Kingpin68 for driving that night.

"Zombie"

  

What is certain?: Satire Und Theology Version

What is certain?

Preface

British Columbia (photo from trekearth.com) 

For my PhD revisions I was required to revise my comments on the work of philosopher Immanuel Kant in greater detail, as an influence on John Hick and his soul making theodicy. 

In a serious discussion, Immanuel Kant may be mentioned and so this is a useful post. This part of my Kant revisions defends a view of philosophical certainty. I am not a Kantian scholar. 

Article originally published 20090501, revised on Blogger for an entry on academia,edu, 20250817.

The noumena and therefore noumenal realm is the non-material, non-empirical realm of reality

The first citation is background from another part of my Kant section. 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.[1] [1] Kant (1788)(1898)(2006: 100)... 

John Hick states that natural theology can only at best demonstrate that God is probable;[1] however, I hold that Peter D. Klein’s definition of certainty[2] could possibly be applied to natural theology. [3] Klein (1996) in ‘Certainty’ describes the idea as being that a proposition is true if there are no legitimate grounds whatsoever for doubting it.[4] This is a reasonable concept, and I support the similar idea that a proposition is certain if there are no counter propositions that are superior.[5] Natural theology therefore would never be 100% certain,[6] but could hypothetically at least be philosophically certain as long as arguments that supported natural theology were true beyond any reasonable doubt,[7] or the arguments for natural theology were superior to those opposing them.

In regard to the noumena realm of Immanuel Kant making Christian doctrine clearly metaphorical and indefensible, I respectfully disagree with Hick.[8] Christian doctrine is not primarily established through the use of natural theology, but by what many conservatives and some liberals view as the revelation of God through Hebrew Bible writers, and Christ and his New Testament writers.[9] 

For Hick to demonstrate that Biblical revelation should be interpreted in a way that denies traditional conservative doctrines, or liberal ones for that matter, would be difficult since by Hick’s own standard[10] his denial of any possible reasonable understanding of the noumenal realm[11] makes his evaluation of Scripture subject to the same negative critique by which he judges traditional theology. Christian scholars therefore, whether conservative or liberal, are left with looking at contextual, historical and methodological issues relating to Biblical interpretation, and attempting to reason out what Scripture is stating and related issues.[12] This despite the fact that the noumena realm cannot be empirically known.[13] As for Kant, his view allows for the concept of negative noumena.[14] The idea of noumena, according to Kant was bound to the limit of pretension of sensibility and reason, and therefore only negative noumena was of intellectual use.[15] The use of positive noumena which trusts in pure reason is rejected.[16] 

Christian scholarship does not rely primarily on natural theology,[17] which would be considered by certain scholars to simply use pure reason which some also think Kant had demolished.[18] Scriptural Revelation in my view, is not to be considered a source of the concept of pure reason as discussed by Kant and reviewers,[19] but rather I see it as similar to how Kant approached theodicy within his brief article.[20] 

Scripture, like theodicy approaches can be used as an historical, traditional and authoritative source.[21] Revelation from God in Scripture and resulting claims made within could perhaps be tied to Kantian concepts and intuition arising from empirical sensations.[22] This is not a difficulty for a Reformed and some other approach to Christianity which do not rely primarily on philosophical deductions but in supernatural revelation of God through empirical sensations, such as prophets, Christ, the apostles, scribes.[23] As cited, Plantinga reasons that for Kant the intellectual problem is not that persons cannot think about God but that persons cannot come to speculative metaphysical knowledge of God.[24] 

My proposition and conclusion here, which I realize some will debate, is that Scripture is not primarily metaphysical speculation about God as discussed,[25] but is rather coming from empirically based sources[26] as God speaks through the authors and players within his Bible.[27]

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. Kant (1788)(1898)(2006: 3).

---

[1] Hick in Geivett (1993: 230-231). Geivett (1993: 49).

[2] Klein (1996: 113).

[3] And Biblical theology as well.

[4] Klein (1996: 113). Blackburn explains that a proposition would be considered certain when there is no doubt concerning its truth. Blackburn (1996: 60). 

[5] This would also accomplish the standard of a proposition being true as it is beyond (reasonable) doubt. 

[6] In my view 100% certainty is impossible to grasp for a finite being that cannot have 100% knowledge. Absolute certainty could only belong to an infinite, omniscient being. 

[7] Klein (1996: 113). Blackburn (1996: 60).

[8] Hick (1993: 126). Geivett points out Kant postulates the existence of God out of practical necessity within a system of morality. Geivett (1993: 87). I would deduce Christian doctrine could be considered in a similar sense, even from a critical perspective.

[9] Otto Weber discusses this issue. Weber (1955)(1981: 169-331). John Murray suggests that through Scripture the activity of God, the Father, is reflected. Murray (1937-1966)(1977: 148). See also Erickson (1994: 176-177).

[10] Hick (1993: 126). Geivett explains that there is no way of knowing whether or not Hick’s theodicy is true. Geivett (1993: 88).

[11] Kant (1781)(1787)(1929)(2006: 393). Guyer and Wood in Kant (1781)(1787)(1998: 10). Smid (1999: 10).

[12] Weber (1955) (1981: 169-331). Lindsell (1976: 200-211). 

[13] Kant (1788)(1898)(2006: 26). Guyer and Wood in Kant (1781)(1787)(1998: 10). Smid (1999: 10). [14] Kant (1781)(1787)(1998: 350).

[15] Kant (1781)(1787)(1998: 350). Smith (1930: 413). Ameriks (1996: 400). 

[16] Williams (1987: 150). Smith (1930: 413). Ameriks (1996: 400).

[17] Weber (1955) (1981: 169-331). Erickson (1994: 176-177).

[18] Hick in Geivett (1993: 230). Weber (1955) (1981: 203). Geivett would not agree and considers it dangerous to completely dismiss natural theology. Geivett (1993: 69-89). Even after accepting Kant’s critique as reasonable and somewhat valuable, I still reason that philosophical truths about God can possibly be deduced without the use of direct divine revelation through a supernatural event and/or Scripture. Deductions concerning a first cause and/or God, do not however qualify as equivalent to the knowledge of knowing God as a result of Scripture and the influence of the Holy Spirit. Philosophical deductions concerning God would not necessarily be of pure reason, and I can agree with Kant that any reasonable deduction and intuition must be tied back to empirical experience by which to make sense of these deductions. Kant (1781)(1787)(1929)(2006: 66). Blackburn (1996: 205).

[19] Williams (1987: 150). Smith (1930: 413). Ameriks (1996: 400).

[20] Kant, Immanuel (1791)(2001) ‘On The Miscarriage of All Philosophical Trials in Theodicy’, in Religion and Rational Theology. 

[21] Weber (1955) (1981: 169-331).

[22] Kant (1781)(1787)(1929)(2006: 66). Blackburn (1996: 205). 

[23] Weber (1955) (1981: 169-331). William G.T. Shedd provides the view that general, natural revelation is not infallible. He differentiates this from Scriptural Revelation. Shedd (1874-1890)(1980: 66). Van Til writes that the Reformers reasoned they were listening to Christ directly through the Scriptures as God revealed himself to humanity. Van Til (1977: 246).

[24] Plantinga (2000: 9).

[25] Plantinga (2000: 9).

[26] Kant (1781)(1787)(1929)(2006: 66). Blackburn (1996: 205). I am not stating that Kant was a Christian philosopher from an orthodox, historical perspective, but Van Til writes that Kant made room for Christ as the Son of God as Christ is viewed as the idea set before humanity for persons to emulate moral perfection. This was done through a historical faith. Van Til (1977: 399). Minimally this does not appear as a complete rejection of Biblical theology. 

[27] Weber (1955) (1981: 169-331). Shedd (1874-1890)(1980: 66). Van Til (1977: 246). Lindsell (1976: 200-211). 

---

AMERIKS, KARL (1999) ‘Kant, Immanuel’, in Robert Audi (ed.), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

GEIVETT, R. DOUGLAS (1993) Evil and the Evidence for God, Philadelphia, Temple University Press. 

GUYER, PAUL AND ALLEN W, in KANT, IMMANUEL (1781)(1787)(1998) Critique of Pure Reason, Translated and edited by Paul Guyer and Allen W. Wood, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 

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) 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. 

KANT, IMMANUEL (1781)(1787)(1998) Critique of Pure Reason, Translated and edited by Paul Guyer and Allen W. Wood, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 

KANT, IMMANUEL (1781)(1787)(1929)(2006) Critique of Pure Reason, Translated by Norman Kemp Smith, London, Macmillan. http://www.hkbu.edu.hk/~ppp/cpr/toc.html. 

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. http://philosophy.eserver.org/kant/critique-of-practical-reaso.txt 

KANT, IMMANUEL (1791)(2001) ‘On The Miscarriage of All Philosophical Trials in Theodicy’, in Religion and Rational Theology, Translated by George di Giovanni and Allen Wood, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. 

KLEIN, PETER D. (1996) ‘Certainty’, in Robert Audi, (ed.), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. 

LINDSELL, HAROLD (1976) The Battle for the Bible, Grand Rapids, Zondervan Publishing House. 

MURRAY, JOHN (1937-1966)(1977) Collected Writings of John Murray, Vol. 2: Select Lectures in Systematic Theology, Edinburgh, The Banner of Truth Trust. 

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

SHEDD, WILLIAM G.T. (1874-1890)(1980) Dogmatic Theology, Volume 2, Nashville, Thomas Nelson Publishers. 

SMID, ROBERT W. (1999) ‘John Harwood Hick, His Life’, in The Boston Collaborative Encyclopedia of Modern Western Theology, Boston, The Boston Collaborative Encyclopedia of Modern Western Theology. http://people.bu.edu/wwildman/WeirdWildWeb/courses/mwt/dictionary/mwt_them 

SMITH, NORMAN KEMP (1930) A Commentary to Kant’s ‘Critique of Pure Reason’, MacMillan and Co., Limited, London. 

VAN TIL, CORNELIUS (1977) Christianity and Barthianism, Nutley, New Jersey, Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company. 

WEBBER, OTTO (1955)(1981) Foundations of Dogmatics, Volumes 1 and 2, Translated and annotated by Darrell L. Guder, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. 

WILLIAMS, ROWAN (2007) Wrestling with Angels, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids. 

Related article for reference

Tuesday, June 23, 2015 Absolute Certainty

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

Knowledge and Certainty: Satire Und Theology Version

Victoria: trekearth

Knowledge and Certainty

Preface

Pre-PhD website article published 20060803, revised with additions for Blogger and an entry on academia.edu, 20250816.

1 John 5:13

Those things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, in order that you may know that you have eternal life.[1]

1 John 5: 13 

Bible Hub: 1 John 5:13

εἰδῆτε

Cited

'1 John 5:13' 

Original word: εἴδω 

'GRK: ὑμῖν ἵνα εἰδῆτε ὅτι ζωὴν 

KJV: of God; that ye may know that ye have 

INT: to you that you might know that life'

Knowledge here is to have seen the gospel demonstrated through the life and work of Jesus Christ and to know the gospel. One is trusting in the applied atoning and resurrection of Jesus Christ, also known as God the Son, and therefore have everlasting life.

The primary Christian concepts of a belief in Jesus the Son of God, and his applied atoning and resurrection work for believers, and resulting everlasting life are presented in the verse.[2] Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible defines the Greek word ‘eido’ meaning know, as expressing the idea of being aware, to behold, consider, look, perceive, see, being sure, to tell and understand.[3] The idea of ‘eido’ here seems to be that Christians can be intellectually, reasonably certain that Christ was the actual historical Son of God, who was accurately portrayed in Scripture as atoning for the sins of humanity on the cross and being resurrected from the dead in order that those who believe in him can have everlasting life.

Bible Hub: 1492. εἴδω (eidó)

Cited

'Strong's Greek: 1492. εἴδω (eidó) — 319 Occurrences' 

Bible Hub: 1492. eidó

Cited

'Lexical Summary 

eidó: To see, to know, to perceive, to be aware 

Original Word: εἴδω 

Part of Speech: Verb Transliteration: eidó 

Pronunciation: ay'-do 

Phonetic Spelling: (i'-do) KJV: be aware, behold, X can (+ not tell), consider, (have) know(-ledge), look (on), perceive, see, be sure, tell, understand, wish, wot'

'Strong's Exhaustive Concordance 

be aware, behold, consider, perceive

A primary verb; used only in certain past tenses, the others being borrowed from the equivalent optanomai and horao; properly, to see (literally or figuratively); by implication, (in the perfect tense only) to know -- be aware, behold, X can (+ not tell), consider, (have) know(-ledge), look (on), perceive, see, be sure, tell, understand, wish, wot. Word Origin: [a primary verb]'

---

Knowledge and Certainty

With my research of the problem of evil for my British MPhil and PhD dissertations, I have come across the idea from secular critics that Christians cannot know that the Christian faith is true, or certain, but rather that Christians should state that they believe Christianity is true. The question then arises, can we properly philosophically state that we know Christianity is true, and certain?

Prior to working on my British degrees, I was in agreement with my former theology professor at Trinity Western University that Christianity was certain; but we disagreed on exactly what this meant. He stated that we could know that the Christian faith was true and 100% certain. I disagreed with this point, not because I doubted the faith as true, or thought that any counter argument against Christianity was superior, but because I thought that 100% knowledge of anything, was solely within the attributes and intellectual ability of an infinite God. The secular critic of Christianity can correctly point out that one cannot be 100% certain that Christianity is true, but this is not a philosophical problem for a Christian because as a finite being, one can simply state that he/she has a finite ability to understand anything, even empirical events experienced by the senses. A finite ability to understand something does not make it an incorrect understanding. A finite understanding of knowledge also does not prohibit someone with God’s guidance from having limited but accurate understanding of various philosophies and believing in the ones that are true, in particular the Christian faith.

A definition of certainty which I would consider helpful would be along the lines of what I found in The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy. Peter D. Klein describes the Cartesian account of certainty as being that a proposition is true if there are no legitimate grounds whatsoever for doubting it.[4] I like the similar idea that a proposition is certain if there are no counter propositions that are superior. Therefore in regard to the Christian faith, and its belief in Scripture inspired by God, the atoning work of Christ, the resurrection, and everlasting life, these things could be viewed as certain provided there are no legitimate counter arguments that are superior. I believe that evidence shows Christianity is philosophically certain in this sense. For this to be the case Christianity would have to be both internally and externally, consistent, reasonable and therefore true. Internally true would be premises and conclusions within a biblical, Christian worldview and externally true would be versus premises and conclusions of other worldviews. Obviously this short article does not deal with all these issues. I would state that my PhD/MPhil degrees and website work offers a more full explanation on various issues.

Edward Gettier has argued in ‘Is Justified True Belief Knowledge?’ that believing something is true does not make it knowledge because the person lacks sufficient conditions for knowing a proposition.[5] In other words, many true propositions would have been deduced as true, not by knowledge but by felicitous (fortunate) coincidence.[6] I can agree that finite human beings can deduce that something is true without really knowing it. As well, with the human lack of 100% knowledge of anything, it does mean that it is also possible that there could be conditions in existence not known and that a proposition that is held as true is really false. However, I do not think that Gettier’s argument should trouble those who view the Christian faith as certain because Klein points out concerning Gettier’s view that to many thinkers felicitous coincidence can be avoided if the reasons which justify belief are such that they cannot be defeated by further truths.[7]

Klein’s certainty concept in regard to felicitous coincidence is similar to the one described earlier from The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy. In other words, if views are reasoned by deduction and evidence, they can be considered knowledge provided they are not countered by superior arguments. This does not require 100% certainty of anything, but rather an accurate understanding of conditions that would lead to the formation of propositions and arguments.

[1] New American Standard Bible (1981: 1394).
[2] The Greek word ‘aionios’ can be defined as either eternal or everlasting according to Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible. Strong (1986: 8). Eternal would be defined as having no beginning and no end, and everlasting would be defined as having a beginning and no end. Technically speaking in my view, only God is eternal and therefore alone has eternal life. However, some may view believers as sharing in God’s eternal life and therefore possessing eternal life, but I think it is more accurate to translate the verse with the idea that we know that we have everlasting life.
[3] Strong (1986: 31).
[4] Klein (1996: 113).
[5] Gettier (1997)(1963: 3).
[6] Klein (2005)(1998: 2-3).
[7] Klein (2005)(1998: 2-3)

GEIVETT, R. DOUGLAS (1993) Evil and the Evidence for God, Philadelphia, Temple University Press. 

GETTIER, EDMUND L. (1997)(1963) ‘Is Justified True Belief Knowledge?’, in Analysis 23, 1963, 121-123, Nottingham, England. Analysis 23.
http://www.ditext.com/gettier/gettier.html

KANT, IMMANUEL (1781)(1787)(1998) Critique of Pure Reason, Translated and edited by Paul Guyer and Allen W. Wood, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 

KANT, IMMANUEL (1781)(1787)(1929)(2006) Critique of Pure Reason, Translated by Norman Kemp Smith, London, Macmillan. http://www.hkbu.edu.hk/~ppp/cpr/toc.html. 

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. http://philosophy.eserver.org/kant/critique-of-practical-reaso.txt 

KANT, IMMANUEL (1791)(2001) ‘On The Miscarriage of All Philosophical Trials in Theodicy’, in Religion and Rational Theology, Translated by George di Giovanni and Allen Wood, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. 

KLEIN, PETER D. (1996) ‘Certainty’, in Robert Audi, (ed), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

KLEIN, PETER D. (1998, 2005). ‘Epistemology’, in E. Craig (ed.), Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, London, Routledge.

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. 

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

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

THE NEW AMERICAN STANDARD VERSION BIBLE (1984), Iowa Falls, Iowa, World Bible Publishers.

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

The Orthodox Study Bible: Amen: Satire Und Theology Version

The Orthodox Study Bible: Amen

Preface

This article originally published on Blogger, 20200104, revised on Blogger for an entry on academia.edu, 20250809.

The Orthodox Study Bible, New Testament and Psalms, (1993) Saint Athanasius Orthodox Academy, Thomas Nelson Publishers, Nashville, Tennessee. 

This text review continues...

From the Glossary and Reverend John W. Morris, PhD

Amen

"So be it" in Hebrew. Amen is said or sung at the close of a prayer or hymn, showing the agreement of the people to what has been said (Deut. 27:15-26; 1 Cor. 14:16). (793).

In my view, this entry within that Orthodoxy text, explains the biblical definition, but also how the use of 'amen' fits within the practice and tradition of the Orthodox Church.

The Hebrew from Strong page 16; the Greek from Strong page 10.

---

Using the 1 Corinthians 14: 16 example, listed by the Orthodox Study Bible, from the Courson commentary:

"Amen' is one of the two words understood by every believer in every culture--the other is "Alleluia." Courson (1082).

Why should we say Amen? "Amen" literally means "So be it." (1082).

The Corinthians said 'amen' after prayers. (1082). Courson explains (paraphrased) that the Church should agree on prayer. (1082). Hopefully, being in agreement in prayer through the God the Holy Spirit will lead the Church (and each individual Christian church that prays together) to reasonable, theological, certainty in prayer. There should be a reasonable, theological, certainty when praying that God's will shall be done, as in 'so be it'.

From the Browning, Oxford Dictionary, he explains that 'amen' in Hebrew means 'certainly'. Browning (14). The statement identifies the Church with the preceding prayer, and also notes 1 Corinthians 14: 16 as example (14). The Hebrews connects to ideas of truthfulness and steadfastness (14).

These concepts are transferred from the Hebrew Bible to the New Testament. 

---

Bible Hub New Testament Greek links 

281. amén

543. amen 

539. aman

Cited

'amén: Amen, truly, verily 

Original Word: ἀμήν'

Cited 

'Strong's Exhaustive Concordance amen, verily. 

Of Hebrew origin ('amen); properly, firm, i.e. (figuratively) trustworthy; adverbially, surely (often as interjection, so be it) -- amen, verily.' 

Cited 

'amen: Amen Original Word: אָמֵן'

'Strong's Exhaustive Concordance 

Amen, so be it, truth

From 'aman; sure; abstract, faithfulness; adverb, truly -- Amen, so be it, truth.'

Cited

'aman: To confirm, support, believe, trust, be faithful 

Original Word: אָמַן'

---

Reflections

Stating 'amen' at the end of a prayer, should be done in a trustworthy manner. The prayer should seek the will of the triune God. To pray and expect the request (s) within a prayer, will surely be done and/or will certainly be done, and therefore, so be it, is to be asking of God. There is no guaranteed result (s), unless the prayer is within the perfect will, or at least, the permissible will of God. 'Amen' is not a magical ending of a prayer in order to seal its successful outcome, rather it is stating that the prayer should be answered with a positive outcome, if the contents of the prayer are also within the true will of God. This whether it is something God directly wills in divine, perfect will, or something God indirectly allows in divine, permissible will. The Orthodox text stated that 'amen' showed the 'agreement' of the people to what has been said. I reason that the idea of agreement is sound theology, when the prayer is within God's true will.

---

BLOESCH, D.G. (1996) ‘Prayer’ in Walter A. Elwell (ed.) Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.

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

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

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

FEINBERG. JOHN S. (1986) Predestination and Free Will, David Basinger and Randall Basinger (eds.), Downers Grove, Illinois, InterVarsity Press. 

FEINBERG, JOHN S. (1994) The Many Faces of Evil, Grand Rapids, Zondervan Publishing House. 

FEINBERG, JOHN S. (2001) No One Like Him, John S. Feinberg (gen.ed.), Wheaton, Illinois, Crossway Books.

RICHARDSON, ALAN (1999) ‘Prayer, Theology of’ in Alan Richardson and John Bowden (eds.), A New Dictionary of Christian Theology, London, SCM Press Ltd.

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

The Orthodox Study Bible, New Testament and Psalms, (1993) Saint Athanasius Orthodox Academy, Thomas Nelson Publishers, Nashville, Tennessee.

 

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

W.T. Stace (PhD Edit): Satire Und Theology Version

W.T. Stace (PhD Edit) 

Preface

PhD work was edited for a Blogger version on 20140318. More material was added on Blogger and for a version on academia.edu 20250802. 

Stace was cited limitedly within my PhD thesis, but I have quoted this source often because it is so accurate and useful.

W.T Stace: Determinism & Soft determinism

W.T. Stace (1952)(1976) explains that moral responsibility is consistent with determinism in the context of soft determinism and requires it. Stace (1952)(1976: 29). If human actions are uncaused then reward or punishment would be unjustified. Stace (1952)(1976: 29). Stace reasons that there must be at least some human cause within human actions to make them morally responsible. Stace (1952)(1976: 30). If human actions were coerced or forced with hard determinism, persons could not be held morally responsible. Pojman (1996: 596). 

At the same time, if human beings are not at least a secondary cause (Stace (1952)(1976: 30)), of actions primarily caused by God, then human actions would be morally insignificant. Stace (1952)(1976: 30). If one reasons that human actions are random and uncaused, and there is no primary or secondary cause to human actions, meaning neither determinism/hard determinism or compatibilism/soft determinism exists, this would make human actions amoral and morally irrelevant and insignificant.

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.

---

W.T. Stace (1886-1967): Works

Works by W.T.Stace

Cited 

The Philosophy of Hegel (1924) 

The Teachings of the Mystics (1960) 

Mysticism and Philosophy (1960) 

A Critical History of Greek Philosophy (1920)

Religion and the Modern Mind (1952) 

The Concept of Morals (1937) 

Time and Eternity (1952) 

The Theory of Knowledge and Existence (1932)

The Destiny of Western Man (1942) 

The Meaning of Beauty (1929) 

Man against darkness, and other essays 

Critical History of Greek Philosophy (Papermacs) (1967) 

Hegel Üzerine (2019) 

Mysticism and Philosophy by W. T. Stace (1960-06-01) 

A History of Greek Philosophy (2018) 

The Philosophy of Hegel by Walter Terence Stace (1955-06-26) 

Mysticism and human reason 

The Nature of the World: An Essay in Phenomenalist Metaphysics (1969) 

HEGEL ÜSTÜNE 

---

Incompatibilism/Indeterminism

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. Feinberg (1994: 60). Compatibilism (soft determinism), 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 states that God can simultaneously will significantly free human actions. Feinberg (1994: 60). God as the primary cause can cause a human action that is not significantly free, but there is only significant moral human responsibility when there is significant free human action as a secondary cause.

An entity that is forced or coerced into conscious, thoughts, will, choices, acts and actions is not morally responsible, where these are done without significant freedom. Of course, only the infinite God is an infinitely accurate, moral judge of guilt or not, in regards to the deeds of a finite entity. (God judges deeds, post-mortem, Revelation 20, also 21-22, 2 Corinthians 5, 2 Peter 3, as some key examples) Significant, human free will, of any kind, would be viewed an incompatible with any form of hard determinism. 

Philosopher Tim Mawson reasons that incompatibilism, which is also known as libertarianism or libertarian free will, in regard to human free will, states that true human free will must be uncaused by preceding states. Mawson (1999: 324). In other words, no external force must cause a legitimate and truly free act of the human will. Within incompatibilist theory, a human action would never truly be free because God or an another external force (non-deistic view, my add) would have willed and determined it, before being simultaneously willed to a given person. Mawson (1999: 324). Pre-determined before committed by the human being. The external force could hypothetically be a first cause within non-theistic theory. The Biblical concept theologically being that God is infinite and is therefore limitless; God is eternal and therefore has always existed (Genesis 1). This concept is connected to philosophical views of first cause. 

David M. Ciocchi describes the incompatibilist idea as being God can determine that an agent commit action x, but he cannot determine that an agent commit action x freely. Ciocchi (2002: 46). The theory is that significantly free human will and actions cannot be caused by an external force. This would include a first cause. This would include God. For Norman Geisler, he describes a form of incompatibilism which he, calls self-determinism. Moral choices are not caused or uncaused by another being, but are self-caused. Incompatibilists, therefore, do not deny there are outside forces that influence significantly free human actions; however, they do not accept any notion that a free act can be caused in a determined sense by one being upon another and remain a significantly free act. An act cannot be determined or simultaneously determined and remain truly free within incompatibilism. Geisler (1986: 75). 

Feinberg, who has written extensively on the concepts of free will and determinism, explains incompatibilism is defined as the idea within free will approaches that a person is free in regard to an action if he or she is free to either commit, or refrain from committing the action. Feinberg (1994: 64). There can be no antecedent (there can be no prior) conditions or laws that will determine that an action is committed or not committed. Feinberg (1994: 64). Feinberg importantly writes that just as the incompatibilist does not claim that all actions are significantly free, the compatibilist also does not attach significant freedom to all acts. Feinberg (2001: 637). Feinberg then admits that it is difficult for compatibilists to determine intellectually if certain acts were done by an individual with significant freedom, or with the use of some type of compulsion. Feinberg (2001: 637). He then states that this intellectual difficulty does not disprove compatibilism. 

Compatibilism/Soft determinism 

Significant, limited free will (limited free will, my term and human, limited free will, in this context) would be viewed as compatible with at least some forms of soft determinism. Louis P. Pojman explains the difference between determinism, which is also known as hard determinism, and compatibilism, which is also known as soft determinism. Pojman (1996: 596). Within determinism or hard determinism, God (or an external force) causes an act and no created being is responsible for his or her moral actions, while for compatibilism or soft determinism, although God causes actions, created beings are responsible where they act voluntarily. Pojman (1996: 596). It could be stated that human secondary causes, through a theoretical chain of human nature, human will and human choice, embrace what has been caused and chosen by God, the first and primary cause, directly or indirectly. The human being could also be influenced by other secondary causes, such as other persons and angelic beings, for example. 

P.S. Greenspan writes that compatibilism holds to free will and determinism being compatible. Greenspan (1998: 1). Pojman, defines compatibilism as the concept that an act can be entirely determined and yet be free in the sense that it was done voluntarily and without compulsion. Pojman (1996: 596). Feinberg explains that compatibilism does not allow for coercion or force, but holds that God, or some outside force, can simultaneously determine with the use of persuasion, that an action will or will not take place. Feinberg (1986: 24). Again with Feinberg, he writes that certain nonconstraining conditions could strongly influence actions, in conjunction with human free will performing these actions. Feinberg (1994: 60). With this viewpoint, there will be no contradiction in stating that God would create human beings who were significantly free, unconstrained, and yet committed actions that God willed. Feinberg (2001: 637). 

Limited free will 

This is not the ability to choose otherwise, as in middle knowledge and versions of libertarian free will. In my compatibilistic model, at least, through a theoretical chain of human nature, human will and human choice, a person embraces as secondary cause, what was caused, willed and allowed by the primary cause. This in regard to human conscious thoughts, will, choices, acts and actions. This first cause would be God in a biblical view. During my British studies I looked for the term limited free will in texts and online and did not see it. Eventually I heard, Dr. Charles Stanley also use it. I highly doubt I invented it, but at least it is somewhat original. I/we have significant moral responsibility in my/our conscious, thoughts, will, choices, acts and actions, that are not significantly forced or coerced. 

Note that human nature, leading to human conscious thoughts, will, choices, acts and actions is not only finite, but is also corrupted and sinfully imperfect due to a human fall (see Genesis 1-3, Romans, Hebrews, as some key examples). According to the New Testament, the post-mortem fix of sin and sinfulness is resurrection (1 Corinthians 15, Revelation 20-22, as examples) within the salvation process, as the atoning and resurrection work of God the Son, Jesus Christ is applied to those in Christ. The spiritually regenerate (John 3, Titus 3, 1 Peter 1) are enlightened, and convinced of salvation, justified and sanctified, leading to eventual post-mortem resurrection. The human nature remains everlastingly finite, but also everlastingly sinless.

Hard determinism 

Simon Blackburn comments that this is the doctrine that human action has no influence on events. Blackburn (1996: 137). Blackburn gives the opinion that fatalism is wrongly confused with determinism, which by itself carries no implications that human actions have no effect. Blackburn (1996: 137).

Tomis Kapitan notes that determinism is usually understood as meaning that whatever occurs is determined by antecedent (preceding cause) conditions. Kapitan (1999: 281). Pojman states that hard determinism holds that every event is caused and no one is responsible for actions, whereas soft determinism holds that rational creatures can be held responsible for determined actions as long as they are done voluntarily and without force or coercion. Pojman (1996: 586). Hard determinism denies secondary causation.

Bibliography   

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

        

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

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

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

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

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

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

BEROFSKY, BERNARD (1996) ‘Determinism’, in Robert Audi, (ed.), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. 

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

BLOESCH, D. (1996) ‘Fate, Fatalism’, in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.

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.

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

CIOCCHI, DAVID M. (2002) ‘The Religious Adequacy of Free-Will Theism’, in Religious Studies, Volume 38, pp. 45-61. Cambridge.

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. http://www.jonathanedwards.com 

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

FEINBERG, JOHN S. (1994) The Many Faces of Evil, Grand Rapids, Zondervan Publishing House. 

FEINBERG, JOHN S. (1986) Predestination and Free Will, David Basinger and Randall Basinger (eds.), Downers Grove, Illinois, InterVarsity Press. 

FEINBERG, JOHN S. (2001) No One Like Him, John S. Feinberg (gen.ed.), Wheaton, Illinois, Crossway Books.

FOULKES, FRANCIS (1989) Ephesians, Grand Rapids, Inter-Varsity 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. 

GEISLER, NORMAN L. (1975) Philosophy of Religion, Grand Rapids, Zondervan Publishing House. 

GEISLER, NORMAN L. (1978) The Roots of Evil, Grand Rapids, Zondervan Publishing House. 

GEISLER, NORMAN L. (1986) Predestination and Free Will, Downers Grove, Illinois, InterVarsity Press.

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

GEIVETT, R. DOUGLAS (1993) Evil and the Evidence for God, Philadelphia, Temple University Press.

GREENSPAN, P.S. (1998) Free Will and Genetic Determinism: Locating the Problem (s), Maryland, University of Maryland. http://www.philosophy.umd.edu/Faculty/PGreenspan/Res/gen2.html

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

HASKER, WILLIAM (1989) God, Time, and Knowledge, Ithaca, Cornell University Press.

HASKER, WILLIAM (1993) ‘C. Robert Mesle, John Hick’s Theodicy: A Process Humanist Critique’, in Philosophy of Religion, Volume 34, Number 1, pp. 55-56. Dordrecht, Netherlands, Philosophy of Religion.

HASKER, WILLIAM (1994) ‘Can Philosophy Defend Theology?’, in Faith and Philosophy, Volume 11, Number 2, April, pp. 272-278.  Wilmore, Kentucky, Asbury College.

HASKER, WILLIAM (1996) ‘Middle Knowledge’, in Robert Audi (ed.), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

HASKER, WILLIAM (2000) ‘The Problem of Evil in Process Theism and Classical Free Will Theism’, in Process Studies, Volume. 29, Number 2, Fall-Winter, pp. 194-208. Claremont, California, Religion Online.

HASKER, WILLIAM (2003) ‘Counterfactuals and Evil’, in Philosophia Christi, Volume 5, Number 1, pp. 235-249. La Mirada, California, Biola University.

HASKER, WILLIAM (2003) ‘Is Free-Will Theism Religiously Inadequate? A Reply to Ciocchi’, in Religious Studies, Volume 39, Number 4, December, pp. 431-440. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. 

HASKER, WILLIAM (2007) ‘Peter van Inwagen, The Problem of Evil’, in Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews, Notre Dame, Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews. 

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.

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

HUGHES, PHILIP, EDGCUMBE (1996) ‘Grace’ in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books. 

KAPITAN, TOMIS (1996) ‘Free Will Problem’, in Robert Audi (ed.), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University 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.

MAWSON, TIM (1999) ‘The Problem of Evil and Moral Indifference’, in Religious Studies, Volume 35, pp. 323-345. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

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

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

PAYNE. DAVID F.(1986) ‘2 Peter’, in F.F. Bruce, (ed.), The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Marshall Pickering/Zondervan.

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

PETERSON, MICHAEL (1998) God and Evil, Boulder, Colorado, Westview Press.

PETERSON, MICHAEL, WILLIAM HASKER, BRUCE REICHENBACH, AND DAVID BASINGER (1996)(eds.), ‘Introduction: Saint Augustine: Evil is Privation of Good’, in Philosophy of Religion, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

PHILLIPS, D.Z. (1981) Encountering Evil, Stephen T. Davis (ed.), Atlanta, John Knox Press.

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

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. 

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

REED, HOLLY (2004) ‘Jonathan Edwards’, in The Boston Collaborative Encyclopedia of Modern Western Theology, Boston, The Boston Collaborative Encyclopedia of Modern Western Theology. 

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.

STORMS, SAM (2006) 'Jonathan Edwards on the Will', Kansas City, Missouri. Enjoying God Ministries. Enjoyinggodministries.com http://www.enjoyinggodministries.com/article.asp?id=368 

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

TCHIVIDJIAN, W. TULLIAN, (2001) ‘Reflections on Jonathan Edwards’ View of Free Will, in IIIM Magazine Online, Volume 3, Number 51, December 17 to December 23, Fern Park, Florida, IIIM Magazine Online.

The Orthodox Study Bible, New Testament and Psalms, (1993) Saint Athanasius Orthodox Academy,Thomas Nelson Publishers, Nashville, Tennessee.

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

---

Photo 1: Sunset At Cabo San Lucas Beach, Mexico g+ 

Photo 2: Rheinstein Castle, Rhineland-Palatinate, Germany-Amz Places g+