Review of Reasons To Believe: On evolution (very non-exhaustive); Satire Und Theology Version

Review of Reasons To Believe: On evolution (very non-exhaustive)

Preface

Originally published on Blogger, 20210801, revised 20251225.

Photo

Cologne, Germany, July 2021, I love my Germany, Facebook

(I was at Cologne Cathedral when I was eight years old. Extremely impressive building) 

Reasons to Believe: Newsletter (2021),July/August Reasons to Believe, Covina, California.

On the back page (4), Hugh Ross writes a very short article entitled 'Did God create us or did we evolve from a common ancestor with the apes?'

Dr. Ross immediately states 'I believe God directly intervened to create the first humans. Specifically, I hold the position that all humanity descended from a single male (Adam) and single female (Eve) whom God specially created. The writer of Genesis 1 and 2 uses Hebrew verbs (bara, asa, yatsar) for the origin of Adam and Eve, words that colorfully portray that God directly and miraculously intervened to bring about the origin of Adam and Eve. Genesis 3: 20 states that Eve would become the mother of us all. Acts 17: 26 declares that from one man, God made every nation of people.' (4)

When Dr. Ross states 'colorfully portray', this in my view connects to the biblical, theological concept that Genesis 1-3 is not written as mythology, as in fictional mythology. According to most scholarship, including many biblical conservatives, Genesis 1-3 does contain poetry and some degrees of figurative literal language.

Thursday, December 12, 2013 Genesis (PhD Edit) 

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

Further, from what Dr. Ross wrote, using the New American Standard Bible (NASB), Romans 5 clearly requires a literal Adam, or at least first man, that would most reasonably be known as Adam. Romans 5: 12, through one man (Adam implied) sin entered the world and death to all of humanity. Romans 5: 14, death reigned from Adam to Moses. There was a universal corruption of humanity, see also Romans 1-3. Jesus Christ, the God-man, in Romans 5: 15, through grace covers sin.

Clearly, a literal, non-fictional, Adam, although admittedly described in figurative literal terms in Genesis 1-3, is described in more plain literal terms in Romans 5. Jesus Christ in comparison is the new Adam, last Adam, or second Adam. The existence and fall of Adam (and Eve) is biblically (Genesis 1-3, Romans, implied in Hebrews 2, as examples), theologically connecting the Adam of non-fiction and religious history, to the non-fiction and religious history of the death and resurrection, the atoning and resurrection work of Jesus Christ for his people (Romans 9, Ephesians 1-2, as examples).

Dr. Ross opines that 'Humans are truly exceptional.' (4). One example he cites is that human beings alone can advance technologically. (5). In my view, human beings alone (of the physical beings on earth) can ponder on the spiritual realm, on God, angelic beings, and demonic beings. Dr. Ross reasons that God created a 'sequence of bipedal primate creatures before creating human beings.' (5). Bipedal, as in an animal that walks on two limbs or two feet.

List of human evolution fossils: Wikipedia 

Bibliography from that article

'Tattersall, Ian; Schwartz, Jeffery (2000). Extinct Humans. Boulder CO: Westview Press. ISBN 978-0-8133-3482-0. 

Larsen, Clark Spencer; Matter, Robert M; Gebo, Daniel L (1991). Human Origins: the fossil record. Waveland Press, Prospect Heights, IL. ISBN 978-0-88133-575-0. 

"Smithsonian Human Origins Program". Retrieved 2006-08-29. 

"Prominent Hominid Fossils". Retrieved 2006-08-31.'

Grine, F.E.; Jungers, W.L.; Schultz, J. (1996). "Phenetic Affinities Among Early Homo Crania from East and South Africa". Journal of Human Evolution. 30 (3): 189–225. Bibcode:1996JHumE..30..189G. doi:10.1006/jhev.1996.0019.

Cited

The following tables give an overview of notable finds of hominin fossils and remains relating to human evolution, beginning with the formation of the tribe Hominini (the divergence of the human and chimpanzee lineages) in the late Miocene, roughly 7 to 8 million years ago. 

Cited 

The early fossils shown are not considered direct ancestors to Homo sapiens but are closely related to direct ancestors and are therefore important to the study of the lineage. 

I am not a scientist, but I side more so with evolutionary views of Dr. Ross and Reasons to Believe, than Darwinian Evolution. I can accept that evolution exists, not Darwinian type evolution with a secular, naturalistic, worldview, which of course includes considerable philosophy of science. But as a philosopher of religion and theologian, 'not considered direct ancestors', 'but closely related to direct ancestors' allows for debate and interpretations. Are these fossils demonstrating the same species, or similar species in regards to DNA and ontology? These creatures exist within same and similar ecologies and environments.

These can be the earlier bipedal primates as Dr. Ross suggests.

The Oxford Dictionary of Science 

Cited 

Evolution 

The gradual process by which the present diversity of plant and animal life arise from the earliest and most primitive organisms...(304). This is believed to have taken place the last 3000 million years. (3 billion, my add). (304). 

Cited 

Most controversial, however, and still to be clarified, are the relationship and evolution of groups above the species level. (304). In other words, evolution from scientifically reasoned species to species.

Transitional forms: berkeley.edu

Cited

Transitional forms

Fossils or organisms that show the intermediate states between an ancestral form and that of its descendants are referred to as transitional forms. There are numerous examples of transitional forms in the fossil record, providing an abundance of evidence for change over time. 

Cited 

Our understanding of the evolution of horse feet, so often depicted in textbooks, is derived from a scattered sampling of horse fossils within the multi-branched horse evolutionary tree. These fossil organisms represent branches on the tree and not a direct line of descent leading to modern horses. 

Similar. 

Not a direct line. All horses or horselike?

Thursday, December 12, 2013 Genesis (PhD Edit) 

Edited from my first comment in 2013 on that article, in regards to Genesis 1-3...

Even in light of reasoning a significant degree of literal, fall, within the Genesis 1-3 event, I admit, while I was studying theology of 'the fall' for my PhD, I did not find any evidence or argument that was biblically based or related that had me reason that Adam and Eve were not literal in Scripture, as in  they were instead myth and fictional. The historical story does contain, it appears, figurative literal language as in, for example, the serpent 'on your belly shall you go' New American Standard Bible (NASB). Presumed to be Satan, and it is very doubtful, that as a fallen angel, and spirit, the entity crawls perpetually. Perhaps this is figurative language for being cast in the human realm and the physical universe in some sense. 

But issues like that would still would not make Genesis 1-3 myth. It is still religious history. I did have a Professor at Columbia Bible that speculated that God could have created human beings more than once, perhaps explaining how different human beings differ in ethnicity and skin colour; and therefore he speculated that different human falls may have occurred (not my own view). Also, Adam from Genesis, in Romans 5, ties directly into the gospel message, as mentioned. With increasing study especially the PhD, I was made more aware of the key issue of being very aware using bible tools, of the type of language being used in Genesis 1-3, whether poetry or prose.

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

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

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

DUNN, JAMES D.G. (1988) Romans, Dallas, Word Books. 

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

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

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

LA SOR, WILLIAM SANFORD, DAVID ALLAN HUBBARD, AND FREDERIC WILLIAM BUSH. (1987) Old Testament Survey, 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.

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

The Resurrection and Cultural Rebranding (PhD Edit): Satire Und Theology Version

trekearth.com

The Resurrection and Cultural Rebranding (PhD Edit)

Preface

Originally published on Blogger 20160326, updated 20251217

March 2016 

Happy Easter

A recent online employment posting from an American Lutheran college did not mention Jesus Christ. Neither did the ‘About’ page on the college website. I used the Google Chrome ‘Find’ application to scan both the posting and the ‘About’ page on the site and the Lutheran denomination was mentioned a few times, but Jesus and Christ was not.

There is also not an emphasis on the atonement and resurrection.

The college site focus instead was the Lutheran denomination and mentioned faith and God. These terms of course can be reinterpreted outside of Biblical theology.

This sort of cultural institutional rebranding has been found often in my employment searches. I reason that regardless of one’s view on the historical resurrection of Jesus Christ, this is an example of cultural accommodation and could be termed as cultural rebranding. Others may call it evolution or progress, but it is still cultural accommodation of traditional, Biblical Christian faith and philosophy to make it more palatable in today’s academic market.

I earned my terminal degrees at secular Universities where this type of accommodation/rebranding, evolution began many decades ago and I am therefore not stating these institutions lack significant academic merit or that a Biblical Christian should never attend or seek academic employment at these institutions.

I am thankful to have completed my first two course work degrees in Canadian Christian institutions and my last two thesis research degrees in British, secular Universities. The Christian education providing the Biblical foundation and the British education emphasizing the need for robust theological and philosophical research, analysis and documentation.

This is an imperfect and fallen realm and the greater good, in Christ, needs to be prayerfully measured in a life.

I reason the Christian academic should be aware of the institutional context and also have academic freedom to express Biblical Christian views. This of course was an issue for me in the United Kingdom as a began my Doctorate at one institution and due to lack of academic freedom completed my projects at University of Wales, sites. All of these Universities being secular.

The Resurrection and Cultural Rebranding (PhD Edit)

Edited from

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

PhD Full Version PDF: Theodicy and Practical Theology 2010, Wales TSD

I reason that the atoning and resurrection work of Christ for believers must remain an essential element of Christian preaching, teaching and ministry. However, Brown believes the Bible teaches that there is hope for those in the world who are poor and oppressed. Brown (1984: 14). Gebara (2002: 107). Brown explains that if God sided with these suffering persons in Biblical times, he also does today. Brown (1984: 14).

I can grant this proposition, and state that although the salvific work of Christ for humanity should remain the core of Christian faith and philosophy, simultaneous to this Christians must help in an earthly physical sense, those they are attempting to assist in a spiritual sense. This is an important and essential way of making theology practical.

Within my theology and philosophy of religion, the atoning and resurrection work applied to believers in the eventual culminated Kingdom of God is the ultimate remedy for the problem of evil. 

Jesus Christ the person is held in extremely high regard as is his ministry, atoning work and resurrection, and his person and work cannot be separated in importance. Franke (2005: 72). The New Testament not only demonstrates the witness of the redeeming act of God in Christ, but is also the summation of the man that is the word of God. Hughes (1990: 38). Erickson writes that Scripture teaches the resurrection of those who believe in Christ. Erickson (1994: 1194). He also reasons it is likely that unbelievers too will be raised, Erickson (1994: 1194), although this concept is not as clearly explained as is the idea of the raising of those who trust in Christ. Erickson (1994: 1200).

Thiessen bases the traditional Christian belief in physical resurrection in the texts from both Testaments and describes the resurrection bodies as both physical and spiritual in nature. Thiessen (1956: 491). Whale writes that the resurrection is not to be considered an addition to the Christian faith, but is the Christian faith. Whale (1958: 69).

The resurrection can be debated, and there are progressive liberal views within Christian society, such as Gebara that will question traditional doctrines. Gebara (2002: 121). It can also be denied outright by critics. Darrow (1928)(1973: 266-267). Phillips provides a negative atheistic critique of eschatological Christian concepts in his Chapter, ‘Last things.’ Phillips (2005: 247-275).

Within speculative, non-orthodox theology and in philosophy of religion, those such as Gebara are looking for the greater good now and not primarily in some future realm. She suggests for example, that we need ‘Everyday Resurrections.’ Gebara (2002: 121-132). Phillips reasons that there is not actual hope for persons after death in another realm. Phillips (2005: 248).

This would appear empirically true in one sense as resurrections typically are non-existent, but if the Biblical resurrection is true, there is hope for those in Christ. The resurrected Christ was empirically viewed within documented Scripture.

However, if one does not believe in the resurrection of Christ, God’s key witness through historical documented Scripture to the world that he wishes to save it from the problem of evil is gone. The remedy to sin and death would be non-existent and therefore concepts of a perfected world far-fetched.

BROWN, ROBERT MCAFEE (1984) Unexpected News, Philadelphia, The Westminster Press. 

DARROW, CLARENCE (1928)(1973) ‘The Myth of the Soul’, in The Forum, October, in Paul Edwards and Arthur Pap (eds.), A Modern Introduction To Philosophy, New York, The Free Press. 

DARROW, CLARENCE (1932)(1973) ‘The Delusion of Design and Purpose’, in The Story of My Life, October, in Paul Edwards and Arthur Pap (eds.), A Modern Introduction To Philosophy, New York, The Free Press.

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

ERICKSON, MILLARD (2003) What Does God Know and When Does He Know It?, Grand Rapids, Zondervan.

FRANKE, JOHN R. (2005) The Character of Theology, Baker Academic, Grand Rapids.

GEBARA, IVONE (2002) Out of the Depths, Translated by Ann Patrick Ware, Minneapolis, Fortress Press.

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

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. 

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

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

Logically impossible: Fatal condition: Satire Und Theology Version

Logically impossible: Fatal condition

Preface

This Blogger article was originally published 23122017, slight revisions 20251214.

Naples, Italy Amo, Facebook Logically impossible: 

Fatal condition

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

The continuation of text review:

Key symbols

≡df = Equivalence by definition
: = Equal (s)
ε = Epsilon and means is
⊃ = Is the same as
⊨ is Entails
˜ = Not
∃ = There exists
∃! = There exists
∴ = Therefore
· = Therefore
< = Is included
v = a logical inclusive disjunction (disjunction is the relationship between two distinct alternatives).
x = variable
· = Conjunction meaning And
0 = Null class cls
= Class int
= Interpretation
---

Langer explains that a proposition can only be known via another proposition. (183). Implication is a relation that only holds among propositions. (183). Propositions are regarded as postulates. (185).

2025 note: But a proposition can simply be a statement on its own. This is a proposition that is not part of an argument. An argument requires at least one proposition, known as a premise, in the context of an argument, and a conclusion. For my Wales, MPhil and PhD degrees, I wrote propositions connected to questionnaires and surveys.

End

---

A postulate needs to belong to the system, in the language of that system.
A postulate should imply further propositions of that system.
A postulate should not contradict any other accepted postulate, or any other proposition implied by another postulate. (185).

In other words, symbolic logic requires non-contradiction within its system in a universe of discourse.

Requirements

Coherence: Every proposition in the system must cohere to the established conceptual structure. (185). It must be in coherence with the rest.

Contributiveness : A postulate should contribute and have implication. (185-186).

Consistency: Most important states Langer (186). Two contradictory propositions (or premises) cannot contradict each other in a system. (186). The inconsistent is logically impossible. It is a fatal condition. (186). It is not logic at all. (186).

Independence: Postulates should be independent from each other. (186). If a proposition is deductible from a postulate already provided, then it is a theorem, a necessary fact, not another assumption. (186). Something provable in a theorem would be error to include as a postulate. (186).

I would reason that within philosophy there would be plenty of debate on what is a proposition/premise within systems and what would be a theorem. Langer explains that when a theorem needs elucidation, any proposition  implied by another proposition as granted and proved within a system is a theorem. (186-187).

Within a biblical, system and universe of discourse...

Gd = God

(∃! Gd)

God exists. Would be viewed as necessary and a theorem.

Within an atheistic, system and universe of discourse...

˜ (∃! Gd)

God does not exist. Would be viewed as necessary and a theorem.

Noted: Some atheists would state they do not know if God exists, and not definitely that God does not exist. But my example stands as valid. Some have beliefs which actually are within a range of being atheists/agnostics and do fit within my proposition. 

However:

Ag = Agnostics

(∃! Ag)

Agnostics exist. Would be viewed as necessary and a theorem.

Agnostic atheism: Wikipedia 

Cited

'Agnostic atheism – or atheistic agnosticism – is a philosophical position that encompasses both atheism and agnosticism. Agnostic atheists are atheistic because they do not hold a belief in the existence of any deity, and they are agnostic because they claim that such existence of a divine entity or entities is either unknowable in principle or currently unknown in fact.'

Key sources

Harrison, Alexander James (1894). The Ascent of Faith: or, the Grounds of Certainty in Science and Religion. London: Hodder and Stroughton. p. 21. OCLC 7234849. OL 21834002M.

Smith, George H (1979). Atheism: The Case Against God. Prometheus Books. pp. 10–11. ISBN 9780879751241. 

Barker, Dan (2008). Godless: How an Evangelical Preacher Became One of America's Leading Atheists. New York: Ulysses Press. p. 96. ISBN 9781569756775. OL 24313839M.

End citations

Further

RS = Revelatory Scripture

(∃! RS) ⊨ (∃! Gd)

Revelatory Scripture exists entails God exists. From a Christian worldview, revealed, supernaturally inspired Scripture entails that God exists. Could another supernatural source provide supernatural revelation? Yes. God is reasoned to be God based on divine claims and supernatural interactions within that revelatory scripture that is considered religious history.

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

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

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

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

Composition Fallacy/The Fallacy of Division: Satire Und Theology Version

Blogliasco, Italy:People&countries, Facebook

Composition Fallacy/The Fallacy of Division

Preface

Originally published 20160609, slight revisions and additions 20251213.

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

Composition Fallacy

'The fallacy of composition occurs when it is claimed that what is true for individual members of a class is also true for the class considered as a unit.' (62).

'It is fallacious to suppose that what is true of the parts must also be true of the new entity they collectively make up.' (62).

'This must be a good orchestra because each of its members is a talented musician.' (62).

Pirie explains this is fallacious as members in the orchestra might not play and perform well in unison with others. (62).

For clarity with this weighty material:

Individual to corporate

I t C (My add)

Each member is a talented musician, therefore it must be a good orchestra. (My add)

I would opine that it can take less than each member to not be a good 'team player' to cause an orchestra not to be considered good sounding, it may simply take one or so 'bad apples.'

Pirie then uses the European football example of a club transferring in top players, that are soon transferred out because they do not fit in well with the team. (62).

Therefore I would not merely state:

As it has the best individual talent, therefore, Team Canada will win the 2016, World Cup of Hockey.

Consider:

According to experts and commentators, Team Canada has had the best individual talent almost every 'best on best' tournament, but wins most of the tournaments, not all of them.

In my view, other propositions are required to strengthen a related argument, although with changes in terminology.

Team Canada has excellent individual talent.

Team Canada has excellent individual skill.

Team Canada has players that have won together as a team.

Team Canada has several Stanley Cup champions.

Team Canada has several Olympic Gold Medalists in Ice Hockey.

Team Canada will have home ice advantage.

Therefore:

Team Canada could reasonably win the 2016 World Cup of Hockey in Toronto.

(Team Canada did win, 2025 note)

Blackburn defines this fallacy similarly:

'...arguing because something is true of members of a group or collection, it is true of the group as a whole. (71).

The following example is provided:

'J.S. Mill appears to argue that since each person desires just their own happiness, people together desire the common happiness.  (71).

Blackburn is contrast explains that nobody desires the common happiness. (71). Blackburn means based on Mill's philosophy, and that is reasonable.

My own view would be that almost all persons desire their own happiness (some mentally ill as possible exceptions), and some persons desire the common happiness.
--------------

The Fallacy of Division

BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996) Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
 
Blackburn helpfully explains the converse fallacy...

The fallacy of division is therefore stating:

Corporate to individual

C t I (my add)

'If something is true of a group, then it is also true of individuals belonging to it.' (71).

Example of fallacy:

Real Madrid won the UEFA Champions League, 2016, therefore it must have all the best players.

Logically Fallacious: Bo Bennett, PhD

References:

GOODMAN, M. F. (1993) First Logic. University Press of America.

Logically Fallacious: Fallacy of Division

(also known as: false division, faulty deduction, division fallacy) 

Description: Inferring that something is true of one or more of the parts from the fact that it is true of the whole. This is the opposite of the fallacy of composition 

Example

His house is about half the size of most houses in the neighborhood. Therefore, his doors must all be about 3 1/2 feet high. 

Explanation: The size of one’s house almost certainly does not mean that the doors will be smaller, especially by the same proportions. The size of the whole (the house) is not directly related to the size of every part of the house.

Logically Fallacious also explains the compositional fallacy

Logically Fallacious: Fallacy of Composition

(also known as: composition fallacy, exception fallacy, faulty induction) 

Description: Inferring that something is true of the whole from the fact that it is true of some part of the whole. This is the opposite of the fallacy of division.

Example

'Each brick in that building weighs less than a pound. Therefore, the building weighs less than a pound.'

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

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

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

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

MILL, J. S. (1863) Utilitarianism. London: Parker, Son, and Bourn. 

MILL, J. S. (1972) Letter to Henry Jones (13 June 1868). In John M. Robson (ed.), Collected Works of John Stuart Mill vol. XVI. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. 1413–4.

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

Irenaeus and John Hick (PhD Edit): Satire Und Theology Version

Irenaeus and John Hick (PhD Edit)

Preface

Photo: Notre-Dame, Lyon France (trekearth)

Irenaeus was a Priest in Lyon, France

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

A section from my PhD thesis. Slight edits and revision for an article on academia.edu 20251206.

Irenaeus

It is widely accepted that Hick is writing a theodicy within the Irenean tradition.[1] To Hick, Irenaeus believed God’s creation of humanity was the initial stage in a process that would lead to persons ultimately possessing the likeness of God.[2] Hick quotes Irenaeus in Against Heresies where humanity, in its original state is called immature.[3] Irenaeus (c 175-185)(2005) in Against Heresies deduces that God could have made humanity originally perfect, but the newness and immaturity of his actual creation made it impossible to grant.[4]

In Proof of Apostolic Preaching (c185)(2005), Irenaeus notes that human beings were as children in the beginning and were easily led astray by the deceiver.[5] A child as such is immature and needs to grow towards perfection.[6] Hick agrees with these concepts and suggests that the approach of Irenaeus is a rejection of the Augustinian idea of a fall in which human beings are viewed as morally perfect beings who rebelled against God.[7] Instead, humanity in a child-like way wandered away from the rule of their creator in a rather innocent fashion.[8] According to Hick, for Irenaeus the breaking away of God’s children from their creator was not so much a crime, but a youthful error,[9] and Hick views this process as a divinely appointed situation for human beings to develop towards the ultimate likeness of God.[10]

It seems clear that Hick and Irenaeus are in agreement that original humanity was spiritually and morally immature.[11] There does, however, appear in Ireneaus’ writings the idea of a loss of moral right standing with God due to an initial disobedience. Irenaeus (c.175-185)(1998) writes, that the disobedience of one man caused many to become sinners and forfeit life, so it was needed for one man to justify and provide salvation to all.[12] This seems to support the possibility Irenaeus believed in original sin that occurred as human beings disobeyed God for the first time.[13] Original sin historically views persons as being born alienated from God,[14] assuming that the sin nature of the literal and historical Adam and Eve has spread to all descendents.[15] Calvin reasonably claims solidarity with Augustine’s view,[16] and indicates that the consequences of original sin means persons do not have the power to resist, as the will is in bondage until set free.[17] Augustine writes there is a ‘chain of original sin’ by which persons die in Adam.[18] He adds that in this condition, persons were born into misery.[19] Erickson suggests that due to Adam’s sin, all human beings received a corrupted nature,[20] and this is viewed as the imputation of original sin to persons.[21] All persons are not personally responsible for Adam’s sin, but all have inherited a corrupt nature.[22]

The doctrine of original sin is related to the fall concept and is viewed by many traditionalists as being a result of the fall.[23] The fall has already been discussed within Chapters Two and Three and therefore an extended discussion of the subject would be redundant. Gebara has a non-traditional perspective and cautiously suggests that original sin could be the somber experience of the transcendence and immanence of evil permeating through existence.[24] With this view evil could be the sin that engulfs all of God’s creation.[25] F.R. Tennant (1906) rejects a traditional doctrine of original sin[26] as he writes that the doctrine is self-condemned as the idea involves original guilt.[27] He reasons that guilt is only applicable to someone who has willingly committed an act,[28] and I would agree. I do not think that all human beings are guilty of the sin of Adam and Eve, or if one prefers, the first persons that disobeyed God.[29] I accept the doctrine of original sin in that the corrupted nature of humanity will inevitably lead to the human choice to commit wrong actions.[30] Tennant’s concept is to reject hypothetical prior causes of ‘sin’[31] and instead views human evil as the normal process of development that takes place in the human race.[32] Moral law would need to be established as humanity gradually develops over centuries.[33]

If Adam and Eve (my view), or the first human beings, disobeyed God and humanity became sinful in Irenaeus’ theology,[34] this means previously persons were not sinful and had been acceptable in the presence of God.[35] In Proof of Apostolic Preaching as previously noted, humanity is described in terms of children that were led astray by the deceiver.[36] They were influenced and transformed from a position of being right with God morally, to a position of being at a wrong place morally with God.[37] This indicates that Irenaeus believed human beings lost their original glorious place of stature and fellowship with God, although not a fall from a perfect, mature righteousness, but rather a departure from living in obedience to God.[38] For Irenaeus, through human disobedience, Adam and Eve were no longer acceptable to live in God’s Eden and were cast out.[39] If Irenaeus did not agree with the Augustinian position concerning the original perfect sinless nature of humanity,[40] he at least seemingly would agree that human beings had lost their moral position and right standing with their maker.[41] Harvard Professor, Everett Ferguson (1996) in his article ‘Irenaeus’ claims Irenaeus believed that what was lost in the disobedience because of the first Adam, was restored through the second Adam, Jesus Christ.[42] This again appears to make it possible that although Irenaeus and Hick have a similar view on the original immaturity of humanity,[43] that to Irenaeus the first human beings lost a right standing with God because of disobedience,[44] forfeiting a life of abundance with God.[45] Clearly it is plausible that Irenaeus would view this as some type of fall or departure from grace.[46] This does not mean that Irenaeus held to an Augustinian view of the fall,[47] but it appears Irenaeus understood human beings as being morally inferior to what they were previous to their initial sin against God.[48]

---

[1] Badham (2003: 27).

[2] Hick (1970: 218). Irenaeus (c 175-185)(2005: Book IV: Chapter 39: 2).

[3] Irenaeus (c 175-185)(2005: Book IV: Chapter 39: 2).

[4] Irenaeus (c 175-185)(2005: Book IV: Chapter 39: 2).

[5] Irenaeus (c 185)(2005: 14).

[6] Irenaeus (c 185)(2005: 14).

[7] Hick in Davis (2001: 40).

[8] Hick (1970: 220-221).

[9] Hick (1970: 220-221).

[10] Hick in Davis (2001: 41).

[11] Irenaeus (c 175-185)(2005: Book IV: Chapter 39: 2). Hick (1970: 218).

[12] Irenaeus (c.175-185)(1998: Book III, Chapter 18: 7).

[13] Irenaeus (c.175-185)(1998: Book III, Chapter 18: 7).

[14] Grenz, Guretzki, and Nordling (1999: 87).

[15] Grenz, Guretzki, and Nordling (1999: 87).

[16] Calvin (1543)(1996: 105).

[17] Calvin (1543)(1996: 105).

[18] Augustine (398-399)(1992: 82).

[19] Augustine (398-399)(1992: 197).

[20] Erickson (1994: 638).

[21] Erickson (1994: 638).

[22] Erickson (1994: 638).

[23] Erickson (1994: 915). Thiessen (1956: 253).

[24] Gebara (2002: 58-59).

[25] Gebara (2002: 58-59).

[26] Tennant (1906: 20).

[27] Tennant (1906: 20).

[28] Tennant (1906: 20).

[29] Tennant (1906: 20).

[30] Augustine (398-399)(1992: 82). Erickson (1994: 638).

[31] Tennant (1906: 20).

[32] Tennant (1906: 81).

[33] Tennant (1906: 81).

[34] Irenaeus (c.175-185)(1998: Book III, Chapter 18: 7).

[35] Irenaeus (c.175-185)(1998: Book III, Chapter 18: 7).

[36] Irenaeus (c.185-2005: 14).

[37] Irenaeus (c.175-185)(1998: Book III, Chapter 18: 7).

[38] Irenaeus (c.175-185)(1998: Book III, Chapter 18: 7).

[39] Irenaeus (c.175-185)(1998: Book III, Chapter 18: 7).

[40] Hick’s conjecture.

[41] Irenaeus (c.175-185)(1998: Book III, Chapter 18: 7).

[42] Ferguson (1996: 569).

[43] Irenaeus (c 175-185)(2005: Book IV: Chapter 39: 2). Hick (1970: 218).

[44] Irenaeus (c.175-185)(1998: Book III, Chapter 18: 7).

[45] Irenaeus (c.175-185)(1998: Book III, Chapter 18: 7).

[46] Irenaeus (c.175-185)(1998: Book III, Chapter 18: 7).

[47] It may be closer to an Augustinian view than John Hick would be willing to admit.

[48] Irenaeus (c.175-185)(1998: Book III, Chapter 18: 7).

---

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.

BADHAM, PAUL (2003) ‘Profile: John Hick’, in Epworth Review, Volume 30, Number 1, pp. 24-31. Peterborough, England, Methodist Publishing House.

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.

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

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

FERGUSON, EVERETT (1996) ‘Irenaeus’, in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.

GEBARA, IVONE (2002) Out of the Depths, Translated by Ann Patrick Ware, Minneapolis, Fortress Press.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IRENAEUS. (c 175-185)(1998) ‘Against Heresies’, in The Catholic Encyclopedia, Denver, The Catholic Encyclopedia.

IRENAEUS. (c 175-185)(2005) Against Heresies, in The Catholic Encyclopedia, Denver, The Catholic Encyclopedia.

IRENAEUS (c 185)(2005) Proof of Apostolic Preaching, Translated by J. Armitage Robinson, London, The Macmillan CO.

TENNANT, F.R. (1906) The Origin and Propagation of Sin, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

TENNANT, F.R. (1930)(1956) Philosophical Theology, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

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

---

Website work 

Photo: Saint Nizier d Azergues, Lyon

New Advent

St. Irenaeus: New Advent

'Bishop of Lyons, and Father of the Church.

Information as to his life is scarce, and in some measure inexact. He was born in Proconsular Asia, or at least in some province bordering thereon, in the first half of the second century; the exact date is controverted, between the years 115 and 125, according to some, or, according to others, between 130 and 142. It is certain that, while still very young, Irenaeus had seen and heard the holy Bishop Polycarp (d. 155) at Smyrna. During the persecution of Marcus Aurelius, Irenaeus was a priest of the Church of Lyons. The clergy of that city, many of whom were suffering imprisonment for the Faith, sent him (177 or 178) to Rome with a letter to Pope Eleutherius concerning Montanism, and on that occasion bore emphatic testimony to his merits. Returning to Gaul, Irenaeus succeeded the martyr Saint Pothinus as Bishop of Lyons. During the religious peace which followed the persecution of Marcus Aurelius, the new bishop divided his activities between the duties of a pastor and of a missionary (as to which we have but brief data, late and not very certain) and his writings, almost all of which were directed against Gnosticism, the heresy then spreading in Gaul and elsewhere. In 190 or 191 he interceded with Pope Victor to lift the sentence of excommunication laid by that pontiff upon the Christian communities of Asia Minor which persevered in the practice of the Quartodecimans in regard to the celebration of Easter. Nothing is known of the date of his death, which must have occurred at the end of the second or the beginning of the third century. In spite of some isolated and later testimony to that effect, it is not very probable that he ended his career with martyrdom. His feast is celebrated on 28 June in the Latin Church, and on 23 August in the Greek.' 

End citation

New Advent sources

Poncelet, A. (1910). St. Irenaeus. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08130b.htm 

Nihil Obstat. October 1, 1910. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York. 

The editor of New Advent is Kevin Knight

---

20251206

The late John Hick (1922-2012) was a major exemplar I used for my PhD thesis and is known for writing a Soul-Making Theodicy, which in my opinion, is also a Soul-Building Theodicy. Hick's approach is a liberal theistic approach. It is widely accepted that Hick was writing a theodicy within the Irenean tradition.[1] Badham (2003: 27). 

It seems clear that Hick and Irenaeus were in agreement with each other that original humanity was spiritually and morally immature.[11] Irenaeus (c 175-185)(2005: Book IV: Chapter 39: 2). Hick (1970: 218). Irenaeus and John Hick both believed that original humanity had immaturity, were inexperienced, and had a child-like nature. I can agree with the immaturity and lack of experience from Adam and Eve from my Reformed theological perspective and I reason it did play a part in their sinning and therefore falling from their standing with God. I would not use the term child-like, as they were created by God as fully adult, as implied from Scripture. I will presume they had adult brain function and processing, but still lacked maturity and experience. 

However, John Hick did not believe in the theology of original sin, while Irenaeus, although widely considered as not being from an Augustinian perceptive, did hold to a belief in original sin. Irenaeus reasoned that the human fall from God's presence from sin, did occur, which would be in agreement with biblical and Augustinian perspectives. John Hick disagreed with original sin theology, which is within biblical, Augustinian and Irenean perspectives.