Jonathan Edwards (PhD Edit): Satire Und Theology Version

New Zealand-Dean Hintz

Jonathan Edwards (PhD Edit)

Photo is from the Green Dragon, where The Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit films have been made.

Preface

A previous article linked below, was also concerning Jonathan Edwards and some of that material ended up in the PhD thesis. There is a version of this on academia.edu. 

Thursday, August 31, 2006 Jonathan Edwards and Libertarian Free Will

This article is also revised on Blogger for a version on academic.edu. The article presents the PhD thesis material where I cited Edwards. This is selective and non-exhaustive.

PhD & MPhil

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

Sovereignty and Providence

Jonathan Edwards (1703-1758)(1729)(2006) writes that God has the power to bestow upon anyone of his creatures good, evil, or indifference for the greater good.[1]  This sovereign control is accepted despite the obvious problem of evil occurring in God’s creation.[2]  Attempts to harmonize strong concepts of God’s divine control over his creation, with the apparent corrupt nature of what he has made in regard to the problem of evil, will be described within this thesis as sovereignty theodicy.[3]  In Law of Nature, Edwards  (1731-1733)(2006) explains that providence is the means by which God governs the world as the supreme judge of the universe.[4]  Reichenbach notes that providence is how God guides and cares for his creation.[5]  He further reasons that God on one hand possesses wisdom in order to direct his creation within his plans, and on the other hand has the power by which he attempts to implement his plans.[6]  Reichenbach deduces that God’s providential plans allow for significant human freedom and choices to occur.[7]

Free Will And Determinism

Edwards thinks there is a major difficulty within libertarian concepts concerning free will.[8]  If the human will determines the will and resulting choices, since every choice must have a cause, then a chain is established where a will and choice is determined by a preceding will and choice. Therefore, if the will determines its own free acts, then every free act of will and choice is determined by a preceding act of will and choice. If a preceding act of will also be of free choice, then that too was self-determined.[9]  What Edwards is stating is that in the act of causing a free choice (choice1), the cause of that choice was also made freely (choice2), and the cause of that choice was made freely (choice3) and so on. 

This theological concept of Edwards would tie into the philosophical concept of vicious regress[10] since with a regress it could not be determined what caused a human choice initially, because every free choice was caused by a previous free choice. Edwards instead reasoned that human choices were a result of human nature originally created by and within God’s will. God therefore wills all things, and is the primary cause of all actions.[11]  I reason human actions, and any angelic or demonic actions would be accepted  as a secondary cause[12] in order to avoid concepts of hard determinism, where only God or the first cause would be morally responsible for acts.[13] 

Blackburn counters that some form of metaphysical libertarianism[14] postulates that free choice is not causally determined, but is also not random.[15]  It is suggested that an agency situated outside of human nature,[16] in regard to making human choice, is possible but likely ‘fantasy.’[17]  It appears human choice should be traced back to human nature.[18] 

Edwards writes that God controls all things.[19]  The sovereignty approach can present the remedy for the problem of evil in a practical sense, not just primarily philosophically.[20]  The approach needs to focus on the idea that the triune God consummates his Kingdom and gives things meaning.  It seems rather meaningless for a Christian to readily accept a notion of God willing all things for a greater good within a theological system when the greater good is not vividly practically explained within the system, at least in general ultimate terms.[21]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CALVIN, JOHN (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. 

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. 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.

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

REICHENBACH, BRUCE (1986) Predestination and Free Will, Downers Grove, Illinois, InterVarsity Press.

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. 

---

[1] Edwards (1729)(2006: 414).

[2] Edwards (1729)(2006: 414).

[3] Feinberg (1994: 124-143).

[4] Edwards (1731-1733)(2006: 553).

[5] Reichenbach (1986: 115).

[6] Reichenbach (1986: 115).

[7] Reichenbach (1986: 118).

[8] Which would correspond to modern concepts of libertarian free will and incompatibilism.

[9] Edwards (1754)(2006 2.1: 1-1-2). 

[10] Blackburn (1996: 324).

[11] Edwards (1754)(2006 2.1: 1-1-2). 

[12] Pojman (1996: 596).  Stace (1952)(1976: 29). 

[13] Pojman and Stace both state a secondary cause must freely commit acts in order to be significantly morally accountable.  Pojman (1996: 596).  Stace (1952)(1976: 29). 

[14] Blackburn (1996: 218).

[15] Blackburn (1996: 218).

[16] It appears Blackburn is discussing a human agency.

[17] Blackburn (1996: 218).

[18] Edwards (1754)(2006 2.1: 1-1-2).  Blackburn (1996: 218).  Within my Reformed world view I reason God created this nature and simultaneously influences and wills all human choice.

[19] Edwards (1729)(2006: 414).

[20] This is where empirical theology can be beneficial.

[21] I can admit this can be a weakness within sometimes overly philosophical Reformed approaches.

Augustine v Feinberg: Satire Und Theology Version

Augustine v Feinberg

Preface

Photo: University of Wales, Trinity Saint David, official.

Article posted originally, 20170504, revised on Blogger for an article on academia.edu, 20250927.

Augustine (354-430)

John S. Feinberg (1946-)

University of Wales, Trinity Saint David (2009), PhD Viva for Theodicy and Practical Theology (2010)

My external and internal reviewers opined that Augustine, my first historical example within incompatibilism, was considered the far better historical source, within the problem of evil/theodicy discussion, than was John S. Feinberg, my main Reformed, compatibilism, example.

I disagreed.

Note that the external reviewer intentionally, he said (paraphrased), wanted to make the Viva a little heated, as I seemed too calm. He wanted to know that I really cared. So, I warmed up...

I based much of my Reformed theodicy approach via John S. Feinberg and secondarily as an historical source, John Calvin. I replied that popularity was irrelevant, and academic truth was not a popularity contest. I also pointed point out that one of my reviewers was a noted Roman Catholic, more likely to follow Augustine than Feinberg, that was a Reformed theologian and philosopher. I also mentioned that I did reference John Calvin in regards to free will and determinism, and he would rival Augustine in the popularity contest department. 

If one wished to play that game.

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

Within On Free Choice of the Will, Augustine presents his free will theodicy, theodicy being an explanation for the problem of evil in a theistic universe. Augustine was somewhat influential on Alvin C. Plantinga’s free will defence in the 1970’s. Plantinga (1977)(2002: 26).

Augustine reasons that God is not the cause of evil, but rather human beings create the problem when they choose to follow their own temporal ways rather than God’s. Augustine (388-395)(1964: 3). A possible problem with Augustine’s view is that he blames the problem of evil on human choice but at the same time places a heavy emphasis on God’s sovereignty in creation. Augustine’s view on human free will appears libertarian while, as John Feinberg points out, Augustine’s concept of God’s sovereignty would seemingly require some form of determinism. Feinberg (1994: 98).

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

Within this text Feinberg presents a defence which could be labeled a sovereignty theodicy. My personal sovereignty theodicy is embedded within my MPhil and more so my PhD and is somewhat similar to Feinberg’s work. As well as presenting his own perspective Feinberg does a thorough job of reviewing various theistic and atheistic concepts on the problem of evil. He reasons that God does not presently eliminate the problem of evil because to do so would violate divine plans and human development. Feinberg (1994: 130).

I found Feinberg’s explanation of this a bit repetitive and it would perhaps be good for him to have speculated on God’s reasons for willingly allowing evil in more specific terms as I have to some degree in my work.

Some of views discussed within the Viva...

Incompatibilism versus Compatibilism

Libertarian free will 

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

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, which I hold to, would agree with incompatibilism that God or any other being cannot cause by force or coercion any significantly free human action, but contrary to incompatibilism thinks that God can simultaneously will significantly free human actions. Feinberg (1994: 60). 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 would be viewed an incompatible with any form of determinism. 

Philosopher Tim Mawson reasons that incompatibilism, which he reasoned was also known as libertarianism or libertarian free will, in regard to human free will, believes 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). Significant freedom for incompatibilism, does not allow pre-determination, on the person, before being 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, John 1, as examples). 

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. Again to 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 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. 

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.

Compatibilism/Soft determinism 

Significant free will (human 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, angelic beings and demonic 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). As 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).

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

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). During the Viva, the external examiner asked me if I believed in fatalism. I stated that I did not as I reasoned that fatalism was an impersonal concept and not within a theistic, planned, reality. Bloesch explains that fate is not chance, but instead is cosmic determinism that has no meaning or purpose. Bloesch (1996: 407). He writes that fate/fatalism would differ from a Christian idea of divine providence and its implied use of determinism, in that fatalism is impersonal and irrational, whereas providence is personal and rational. Bloesch (1996: 407). 

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). 

Fini

I was told by reviewers that I did an excellent job in the Viva. With God's help, I will take it...

---

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.

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

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.

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

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. (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, 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.

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 

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. 

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. 

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.

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

The Orthodox Study Bible: Zeal: Here is no heathen fanaticism: Satire Und Theology Version

The Orthodox Study Bible: Zeal

Preface

Originally published 20200514, significantly revised on Blogger for an article on academia.edu 20250920. My review of this academic study bible continues from my Reformed tradition, as I comment on Orthodoxy from the outside.

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

The Orthodox Study Bible: Zeal

Glossary

Reverend John W. Morris, Ph.D

Zeal

The definition here is 'devotion, enthusiastic obedience to God' (810). The Apostle Paul warns against a misguided zeal not based in knowledge, such as in Romans 10: 2-3. (810).

The Apostle Paul wrote in regards to the religious Jews...

Romans 10:2-3 New American Standard Bible (NASB) 2 For I testify about them that they have a zeal for God, but not in accordance with knowledge. 3 For not knowing about God’s righteousness and seeking to establish their own, they did not subject themselves to the righteousness of God.

Bible Hub: Romans 10: 2

αὐτοῖς ὅτι ζῆλον θεοῦ ἔχουσιν

(to them)  (that)  (a zeal)  (of God)

to them that have a zeal of/for God.

ζῆλον is a noun, accusative, masculine, singular in Romans 10: 2.

Bible Hub: Root word and New Testament examples

Original Word: ζῆλος, ου, ὁ

In the context of Romans 10: 2, Jon Courson states that 'To this day, the Jews are zealous for God'. (958). But, theologically and respectfully to Judaism, this is works righteousness based on keeping the law, and not the imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ to the chosen (Romans 8-9, Ephesians 1), by grace through faith (Romans, Galatians 2, Ephesians 1-2).

I will admit that there is faith in Judaism of course, but works righteousness still exists. There are many religious faiths and non-religious worldviews with good morality and ethics. Within my classically, biblically inspired, Reformed theology, this divine righteousness (Romans, Galatians as textual examples) is imputed and applied to believers as legal and theological, justification, within the atonement.

In regards to Paul's comments concerning the religiously zealous Jews, Cranfield writes: 'Here is no heathen fanaticism' (251). The Jews have the 'right object' (251) that being their Hebrew Bible concept of God, in mind. In Romans 10: 2, both the terms for 'zeal' and 'God' are important. (251). The zeal here is seeking attention for something which is worthy of glory. (251). That in context, being God. 'Zeal for the one true God'. (251). This is not zeal for one of the 'false gods of a corrupt society' (251). But the Apostle Paul here explains that the Jews lacked knowledge (v2), that being knowledge of the gospel (251). Cranfield opines here that there is a 'disastrous flaw' with the zeal of the Jews, according to Paul. It seems to me Paul is stating here the the religious Jews knew about God, but as they did not know and accept the triune God of the gospel and therefore their religious zeal was disastrously in error. 

This divine zeal, unlike human zeal, when gospel focused, has God's righteousness in Jesus Christ, states the Orthodox Study Bible at Romans 10: 3. (362). '3 For not knowing about God’s righteousness and seeking to establish their own, they did not subject themselves to the righteousness of God.' The religious righteousness of the Hebrew religion did not suffice for membership into the Kingdom of God, that could only occur through regeneration (John 3, Titus 3, 1 Peter 1) and being justified in the righteousness of Jesus Christ through his applied atoning work for believers, which also led to the culminated resurrection of believers. Cranfield is correct that the Jews did not have a sufficient righteousness of their own, which they were trying to establish religiously. At the same time, they would not submit to the applied righteousness of God incarnate, Jesus Christ within gospel salvation. (252).

Mounce explains that in regards to Romans 10, the Jews sought righteousness by 'personal merit rather than by faith.' (206). In agreement with the comments of Cranfield, Mounce opines that the text has Paul explaining that the religious Jews zeal was not guided by knowledge (Romans 10: 2) (207). They wanted righteousness of their own, within their own religion, as opposed to the righteousness of Jesus Christ, within the gospel.

Romans 10: 4 New American Standard Bible (NASB) 4 For Christ is the [a]end of the Law for righteousness to everyone who believes.  Footnotes: Romans 10: 4 Or goal

Christ is the end of the law (207). Cranfield writes the end here could be interpreted in three ways .1 fulfillment 2. termination 3. goal (252). Regardless, teleologically, justification within salvation and entrance into the Kingdom of God, was not to be pursued or found through the Hebrew Biblical, Mosaic law, or any Hebrew covenant. But through the applied atoning and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

τέλος 

Cited

Romans 10:4 N-NNS 

GRK: τέλος γὰρ νόμου 

NAS: For Christ is the end of the law 

KJV: For Christ [is] the end of the law for INT: [the] end indeed of law

5056.telos

Cited

Original Word: τέλος 

Lexical Summary telos: End, purpose, goal, completion, fulfillment 

Original Word: τέλος

---

Related

According to Nelson's, Zealotes/Zealot (s) in the historical context was defined as a 'zealous one'. (807). These were a party of Jews violently opposed to the Roman Empire and its occupation of Israel. (807). Noted to be from the 1st Century, in context.

To be zealous is to be full of zeal. (Oxford: 1629). In modern times, and to this day, a zealot (zealots) can be considered someone that is 'an uncompromising or extreme partisan; a fanatic.' (1629). Often used in political contexts for those that are very pro-Israel. I will opine here that false zeal, need not be just religious, but could be political as well. Placing too much hope in the political process at the neglect of trusting in the one and true God. I am not, at all, rejecting the political process, but I am stating that the zeal for politics, in the biblical Christian, should not equate in importance to zeal for the gospel and the triune God.
---

BRUCE, F.F., (1963)(1996) Romans, Grand Rapids, IVP/Eerdmans. 

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

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

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

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

HARPUR, GEORGE (1986) Ephesians in The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Zondervan.

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

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

NELSON'S THREE-IN-ONE BIBLE REFERENCE COMPANION, 'Zealous' (1982), Nashville, Thomas Nelson Publishers.

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

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

Vladimir Lenin & the use of organized terror: Satire Und Theology Version

Vladimir Lenin & the use of organized terror

Preface

USSR flag from Wikipedia

On 20281110, I had recently viewed a World War I documentary on British Columbia's, Knowledge Network. I published this article on Blogger. This article significantly updated 20250813 on Blogger for a posting on academia.edu.

Below is a link to a related Blogger article where I also discussed this Lenin section, that has previously been placed on academia.edu. This article will have some different material.

Tuesday, July 25, 2023 Baculum, Argumentum Ad III/Appeal to Force
---

Vladimir Lenin & the use of organized terror

I believe that on the documentary, a form of the second quote below was stated from Vladimir Lenin, the first leader of the Soviet Union. His views on the use of terror.

Word Future Fund

Cited

'From the 1 September 1918 edition of the Bolshevik newspaper, Krasnaya Gazeta:'

'“We will turn our hearts into steel, which we will temper in the fire of suffering and the blood of fighters for freedom. We will make our hearts cruel, hard, and immovable, so that no mercy will enter them, and so that they will not quiver at the sight of a sea of enemy blood. We will let loose the floodgates of that sea. Without mercy, without sparing, we will kill our enemies in scores of hundreds. Let them be thousands; let them drown themselves in their own blood. For the blood of Lenin and Uritsky, Zinovief and Volodarski, let there be floods of the blood of the bourgeois - more blood, as much as possible.”'

'Excerpt from an interview with Felix Dzerzhinsky published in Novaia Zhizn on 14 July 1918.'

'We stand for organized terror - this should be frankly admitted. Terror is an absolute necessity during times of revolution. Our aim is to fight against the enemies of the Soviet Government and of the new order of life. We judge quickly. In most cases only a day passes between the apprehension of the criminal and his sentence. When confronted with evidence criminals in almost every case confess; and what argument can have greater weight than a criminal's own confession.”'

'Excerpts from V.I. Lenin, “The Lessons of the Moscow Uprising” (1906) Keeping in mind the failure of the 1905 revolution, Lenin argued that it was imperative for an even more ruthless application of force in the pursuit of overthrowing the Tsar’s regime.'

'“We should have taken to arms more resolutely, energetically and aggressively; we should have explained to the masses that it was impossible to confine things to a peaceful strike and that a fearless and relentless armed fight was necessary. And now we must at last openly and publicly admit that political strikes are inadequate; we must carry on the widest agitation among the masses in favour of an armed uprising and make no attempt to obscure this question by talk about "preliminary stages", or to befog it in any way. We would be deceiving both ourselves and the people if we concealed from the masses the necessity of a desperate, bloody war of extermination, as the immediate task of the coming revolutionary action.'
---

Vancouver 20181110

It is a good thing to see the founding leader of the Soviet Union actually, historically, exposed within this documentary. This to counter views, sometimes expressed within the Western World, that Soviet thuggery and terror only evolved from original more peaceful intentions.

No, historically, the USSR used thuggery and terror from its beginning. It really lacked significant reason behind it, when facing opposing views, and resorted to terror. A related informal fallacy...

Baculum, Argumentum Ad/Appeal to Force 

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

'When reason fails you, appeal to the rod.' (46). Pirie lists Soviet leader, Joseph Stalin as a classic adherent. (47). This fallacious approach uses force as means of persuasion as the argument would be lost without it. (46). Stalin followed Lenin...

As a worldview, the communism of the USSR and other worldviews as examples, have used (or use if present context is valid) terror to varying degrees. Non-exhaustively, I offer up:

Church State Christianity: Notably, Medieval State-Church Christianity

Radical Islam

Fascism: Notably, Nazism

Communism

---

Does New Testament Christianity promote the use of terror on its citizen and non-citizens?

Admittedly, the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament featured the Kingdom of Israel and a kingdom within this temporal realm will use violence and force. Terror can be an aspect of violence and force, of course, whether it is officially sanctified or/or used by some its officials. Biblical Christianity, however, reasonably and accurately interpreted, within its biblical interpretation, promotes progressive revelation which progressed from the Hebrew Bible theocracy and theonomy, which had its warlike aspects.

Progressive revelation is defined as the understanding that God's self-disclosure is in progression from the Old Testament to the New Testament. Grenz, Guretzki, and Nordling (1999: 96). Therefore the New Testament offers a more complete revelation. The Old Testament is to be understood in light of the fuller teaching of the New Testament. Grenz, Guretzki, and Nordling (1999: 96). At Columbia Bible College (Mennonite) and Canadian Baptist Seminary, I was taught that the Bible is not flat, as there is progressive revelation which ended in the apostolic age. This teaching, even now, as I am firmly Reformed theologically, still fits within my Christian worldview.

Jesus is the mediator of the new covenant. (Hebrews 12: 24). The law in particular was only a shadow of good things to come. (Hebrews 10). The law cannot save as in Romans 4, but persons are saved through righteousness of faith fulfilled in Christ. Galatians 2 mentions the folly of following the law as we now have Christ. In the Sermon on the Mount, Matthew 4-6, Jesus explains the deeper spiritual meanings of the law. The Old Testament/Hebrew Bible is as valid as the New Testament, but it is often stated that we must interpret the Old Testament through the New Testament. Well, I can understand this since there is progressive revelation, but the Old Testament must be read in context, or else one risks reading the New Testament into the Old Testament. Christianity explains that the New Testament revelation of Christ/apostles does not contradict the previous revelation and instead adds to it explaining the plan of God. If my concentration academically in a particular article was on the Hebrew Bible, I would have no problem with studying Hebrew scholars for the original context, but I reason the New Testament can shed light on many of the older teachings. 

The Hebrew Bible/Old Testament must be read in context, and the New Testament should not be read into the Old Testament. The Hebrew Bible should be studied for original context. But, I conclude that Biblically a flat Bible hermeneutical approach which does not properly interpret old covenant teaching through a new covenant amplification, should be academically rejected for one that takes a progressive revelation approach, in order for one to posses the fullness of God’s Scriptural revelation and the gospel message. 

The gospel plan of the New Testament is God’s final Scriptural revelation for humanity. There is therefore no other means of salvation (John 14: 6, Acts 4: 12). Theologically, as examples, Islam is rejected for reasons such as the denial of key doctrines about Christ, including his deity, and the Latter-Day Saints theology is rejected for reasons such as holding to polytheism and henotheism (belief in more than one God, or the belief that more than one God in existence is possible, although only one is worshipped) which are against Scriptural teaching. (Isaiah 43, 44, 45). Christ as the Alpha and Omega, as the beginning and the end (Revelation 1: 8, 21: 6, 22: 13) demonstrates theologically his nature as the one and only Almighty God. There is only one God in existence and only one God that should be worshipped. Mounce states that this title of Christ in Revelation sets Christ beyond the created order and Christ is also unlimited as The Son and has the same divine nature as the Father (and I would add the Holy Spirit). Mounce (1990: 393). 

The religious philosophy of worldview progressed to New Testament dogma which teaches the Church to love believers and non-believers alike with truth and witness. God's ultimate and everlasting punishment for those outside of Jesus Christ in Revelation 20 and the likely largely figurative literal, lake of fire, is sanctioned and issued from an infinite, eternal God that is of infinite love and infinite justice.

The present temporal, or the future everlasting, Christian Church and Christian Community is not sanctioned to use any means of terror in order to culminate its existence. New Testament theology and dogma does not sanction force or coercion into the eventually, fully culminated Kingdom of God. 

The unregenerate are not chosen by God and with significant human freedom and moral accountability, the unregenerate reject the applied atoning and resurrection work of Jesus Christ. Post-mortem the unregenerate face everlasting justice and the consequences of sin and death. Hell is described in somewhat metaphorical terms, but the spirit resides in Hades (Luke 16, example) then likely the resurrection body and spirit in the lake of fire (Revelation 20).

The regenerate, chosen by God and with significant human freedom and moral accountability, embrace the applied atoning and resurrection work of Jesus Christ. Post-mortem the regenerate, through grace through faith, alone, face everlasting life within the Kingdom of God. Human works righteousness does not suffice for justification, sanctification or any aspect of salvation. A believer in Christ should do works within salvation, but cannot do works for salvation.

For New Testament Christianity, the terror is not within the culminated Kingdom of God, but remains a possibility post-mortem, for those outside of it...

Revelation 22: 14-15: New American Standard Bible (NASB)

14 Blessed are those who wash their robes, so that they will have the right to the tree of life, and may enter the city by the gates. 15 Outside are the dogs, the sorcerers, the sexually immoral persons, the murderers, the idolaters, and everyone who loves and practices lying.

Bible Hub: 2965.kuón 

Cited: 

κύνες kynes dogs 

'2965 kýōn – literally, a dog, scavenging canine; (figuratively) a spiritual predator who feeds off others. [A loose dog was disdained in ancient times – viewed as a "mooch pooch" that ran about as a scavenger.]'

Bible Hub: Revelation 22:15

Cited

Pulpit Commentary 

'"The dogs" are those who are described in ver. 11 as "the filthy;" the term is proverbial amongst Eastern nations as an expression for what is most degraded.' 

Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers 

'The dog, moreover, was an unclean animal; dogs, therefore, are represented as outside the city, because nothing unclean is allowed to enter.'

Bauer states Revelation 22: 15 uses 'dogs' 'Original Word: κύων', non-literally. It means the unbaptized and impure, he opines (461). In other words, those outside of the Church.

---

Revelation 22 is not prohibiting the regenerate from having a resurrected dog etcetera within the culminated of God. Non-exhaustively, this could be understood as prohibiting spiritual predators from Kingdom membership and as well it could be understood as a prohibition against the spiritually unclean. The second option may be the superior one in context.

---

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

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.

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

HOEHNER, HAROLD, ThD, PhD (1985) The Epistle To The Romans, Institute of Theological Studies.

HOPFE, LEWIS M. (1991) Religions of the World, New York, Macmillan Publishing Company.

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

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.

NIGOSIAN, S.A. (1994) World Faiths, New York, St. Martin’s Press. 

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

ROBINSON, N.H.G. AND SHAW D.W.D. (1999) ‘Theonomy’, in Alan Richardson and John Bowden (eds.), A New Dictionary of Christian Theology, Kent, SCM Press Ltd. 

WALLACE TOM Jr. (2015) Refuting Islam, The Christian Patriots Guide to Exposing the Evils of Islam, Bellingham, Fundamental Publishers.

Vancouver: 20181110

        

Benefits of Discussing The Problem of Evil & Theodicy (PhD Edit): Satire Und Theology Version

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

Monmouthshire, Hay on Wye, Wales (trekearth)  

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

^[5] Swinburne (1998: 13-20).

^[6] Blackburn (1996: 375).

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

^[8] Peterson (1982: 204).

^[9] This will be discussed in Chapter Four.

^[10] Mounce (1990: 369-397).

^[11] Lindsley (2003: 3).

^[12] Winquest (1987: 1).

^[13] Mounce (1990: 369-397).

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

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

^[16] Ferraiolo (2005: 1).

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A version placed on academia.edu on 20250906