 |
| I am busy this week preparing a visiting lecture/sermon for a church on Sunday, for my ministry employment. Therefore, I am not going to spend much time this week on my more academic website, Dr. Russell Norman Murray, with citations and related. However, I was challenged theologically in regard to 'Calvinism' in contrast to Molinism, on Sunday at church and believe I refuted Molinism and middle knowledge, well. I also explained that I am more so Reformed than a Calvinist. Further thinking on this, prayerfully, here are four ontological entities that do exist and/or will exist that are or will be finite, perfectly holy without the definite and definative option or requirement to fall into any kind of transworld depravity (Plantinga), and or any sort of evil, while having significant freedom by which there could be reasonable judgement of thoughts, acts/actions. These ontological entities love and obey God with significant freedom, as secondary causes, secondary agents, while being determined by the first cause, God, to do so. I shared the first two last Sunday in our friendly discussion. One, the incarnate Jesus Christ, has both the infinite divine mind of God (God is primary cause) and a finite human mind (Humanity is a secondary cause). This finite mind of Christ did not embrace the option to sin, being in perfect obedience to God the Father and guided by God, the Holy Spirit. He loved God. The person that discussed this with me stated that this is because Jesus Christ was/is God the Son. I agree, but my point still stands. Some may state, that Jesus Christ could have sinned, but I reason as incarnate God, he could not. God the Son, incarnate, could understand and live with temptation. Example, one. Two, the angels that did not fall and stayed loyal to God. This worked successfully in my friendly discussion on Sunday, throwing a wrench into the argument of my church friend. It is implied that if these angels, everlastingly, worship and serve God, it is with significant freedom, and after all 1/3 of the angels, based on many interpretations from scholarship, did become demons (Revelation 12: 4). If these fallen angels were forced or coerced to fall, it would be with hard determinism, making punishment within the lake of fire in Revelation 20, unjust, as they would not significantly embrace their nature, desires and choices as secondary causes. Angelic and demonic beings have significant limited free will connected via their ontological nature. Angelic love for God can be deduced as reasonable. Many will assume that all the angels had the option to fall. I do not assume that as fact. As the primary cause, it could be that God only created some that would fall, so the angels that did not fall understood evil, but it was not an option they considered. This would not be a definite and definitive option. Do angels have connected ontological natures? If some rebelled it does not mean that they all realistically would do this by nature. Example, two. Three, with humanity, the aborted and those that are never physically born. The theological reasoning is that these unborn persons do have not deeds of sin against God (Revelation 20) for which the can be judged. Humanity is judged for deeds via sinful nature, not simply sinful nature. They at physical death, prior to birth, in spirit go to paradise (Luke 23, 2 Corinthians 12: 4, Philippians 1), these persons in spirit seemingly have no option or requirement to reject God with free will. Eventually they are resurrected into full, finite perfection as requirement for Kingdom citizenship, as flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God (1 Corinthians 15). There inherited corrupted nature will be changed to incorruptible. There is no 'fall option'. Example, three. Young children and the mentally limited could be placed in a like group, but there would be significant theological debate on whether or not these can embrace their inherited sinful nature and sinful choices, so for simplicity and time in this article, I do not attempt to list this group. Four, the group that will exist is via 1 Corinthians 15, which is all resurrected believers in Jesus Christ with implied compatibilist free will, limited free will, guided by the Holy Spirit to remain in obedience within the culminated Kingdom of God. With soft determinism/compatibilism, the commandments to love God and others will be followed by these persons via restored, perfected, human nature, and so there is no option or requirement to reject God, once again, for the sake of significant, true, freedom. It is logically possible that humanity could fall again, but compatibilism via God and God the Holy Spirit, will present this from occurring. Example, four. The fall from Genesis 3, does not demonstrate incompatibilism, or libertarian free will, rather that as God the Son, was the lamb slain before the foundation of the world (Ephesians 1: 4, Revelation 13: 8), this was central in God's eternal plan to produce ontological, human beings that had experienced the problem of evil and then the applied atonement, resurrection of Jesus Christ, eventually leading to a restored body and physical universe. The unborn in the everlasting Kingdom of God, being the noted exception to this plan, although the fact they were unborn was in itself a problem of evil that effected them.
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.
|
 |
| I have been told that once again I appear to be scaling down in weight. However, I shall not reach this point. |
 |
| Facebook: The issue is less what the owner and or boss drives, but if the employees are treated and paid ethically. |
