Free will statements: Satire Und Theology Version

Venice via Ernest Hepnar, 2019

Free will statements 

Preface

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

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

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

MPhil

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

September 21, 2019

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

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

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

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

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

Got Questions

Referencing

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

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

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

This website has several PhD related articles in the archives.

Sunday, January 05, 2025 PhD and MPhil theses linked

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My short, non-exhaustive reply to a 2:15 video from a Rabbi: Satire Und Theology Version

My short non-exhaustive reply to a 2:15 video from a Rabbi

Jewish Rabbi Message To The Christians: TikTok

@path_towards_jannah

Video Point 1

'the very idea that god would take on human form as repulsive to the Jews'

Genesis 3: 8 

Did God take human form to walk in Genesis 3: 8? 

Bible Study Tools 

New American Standard Bible: NASB 

Genesis 3: 8

They heard the sound of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and the man and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God among the trees of the garden. 

Hebrew Word Study/Skip Moen 

Air Time By Skip Moen, PhD, October 20, 2022

Cited 

'And they heard the sound of the LORD God walking about in the garden . . . Genesis 3:8a Robert Alter 

Walking – Sometimes our English translations cripple Hebrew intention. Verses become pedestrian instead of surprising. We read them as if they had nothing more to say than our simple-minded interpretation. We reduce the biblical chess board to a game of tik-tac-toe. It’s time to complicate things. 

We’ve looked at the underlying Hebrew density in this verse before (HERE and HERE), but we haven’t plumbed the depths yet. Let’s add another layer. 

“The ideal of halakhic man is that the Divine Presence should rest here in this world. . . [Exodus 25:22] This verse represents the ultimate telos of the Halakhah. ‘R. Aba bar Kahana said: It is not written in the text, “And they heard the voice of the Lord God walking [mehalekh: pi’el form] in the garden” but “And they heard the voice of the Lord God skipping [mithalekh: hitpa’el form] in the garden” (Gen. 3:8). This [use of the reflexive] implies that He sprang ever upward [i.e., they heard God departing from the garden]. The principle abode of the Divine Presence was in the lower realms.’”[1] 

Some clarification, perhaps? First, something about the verbal form, hitpa’el. Then a comment about reflexive action: 

Generally speaking, the Hithpael stem expresses the reflexive voice of the meaning of a verb in the Piel stem. However, the Hithpael stem is quite flexible in its use and can express other kinds of verbal action, depending on the context and the specific verb. 

Reflexive voice means that the subject of the verb is both performing and receiving the verbal action. In English, reflexive voice is expressed using a reflexive pronoun as the object of the verb, “I tell myself”.[2] 

Kushner informs us that the voice was moving back and forth in all directions. Rabbi Kahana informs us that the voice was habituated to this world. We conclude: God is everywhere customarily here. Put aside the “God on the white throne in heaven” imagery. Shelve it. The place where God wants to be is here, with us, in His creation, part of the process. The Bible is just about as opposite of the dualism of Plato as it could possibly be, and as a result, any theology that fixes its perspective on a transcendent God is, as Soloveitchik might say, close to heresy. Heaven can wait. In fact, it shouldn’t even be part of the equation. What matters is what happens here, and here is the real place of the divine-human habitation. God skips around all over the earth, enjoying what we’re doing with Him. 

Topical Index: mithalekh, walking, skipping, Avivah Kushner, Rabbi Kahana, Genesis 3:8 [1] Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik, Halakhic Man (JPS, 1983), pp. 53-54. [2] https://uhg.readthedocs.io/en/latest/stem_hithpael.html'

End citations
---

From this Hebrew commentary, I take it that God might have been metaphorically walking through the Garden of Eden in Genesis 3: 8. From this cited scholarship, it is not crystal clear that God walking in the Garden of Eden was strictly metaphorical, but it seems that this cited writer views Genesis as describing the 'God skips around all over the earth'.

Oxford Chabad Society-Serving Oxford Jewish Students 

Cited 

'3. Walking - she-ha-ya’ 

'The above evolution of the text of Rashi from a singular concept of p’shat to a two-level concept of p’shat explains a third variant in the manuscripts. This relates to Rashi’s insertion of the word: ‘she-ha-yah’ (that was), to assist with the understanding of the precise meaning of verse. The verse states: ‘They heard the sound of G-d walking (mit-ha-lech) about in the garden at the breezy time of day.’ Rashi, in the printed edition, adds: ‘she-ha-ya’ (that was) between ‘the sound of G-d’ and ‘walking’ (mit-ha-lech). The difficulty in the meaning fo the text is: does ‘walking’ (mit-ha-lech) relate to ‘G-d’ – the word juxtaposed to the word: ‘walking’ (mit-ha-lech), or the ‘sound’ (kol) – the earlier word? The most literal meaning is the former, relating to ‘G-d,’ since, firstly, ‘sound’ does not ‘walk’ in a garden, in the literal sense; it may be heard in the garden. On the other hand, G-d is omnipresent. For this reason, the midrash interprets in its first explanation that ‘walking’ refers to the ‘sound’ (kol). This, however, by definition is an opinion that appears in the midrash. As Rashi is making a distinction between midrash and p’shat, it would seem to be rejecting this interpretation, as well as other more far-fetched midrashic interpretations, in favour of the p’shat: it refers literally to G-d, who was walking in the garden. To clarify this point in the printed edition, Rashi inserts the word: ‘she-haya’ (that was) between the words: ‘the sound of G-d’ (kol Ha-shem Elo-kim) and ‘walking’ (mit-ha-lech), identifying G-d as the subject that was (she-haya) ‘walking’ in the garden (as opposed to the sound).'

Based on these comments, it might have been God metaphorically walking in the Garden and making a 'sound', or it might be God, literally having walked in the Garden of Eden, 'as opposed to the sound'. 

Cited 

'This understanding of Rashi is the view of R. Judah Loew (d. 1609). The reason he gives for this interpretation is that the verb: ‘mit-halech,’ in the reflexive form, denotes one who is doing something of one’s own volition. If it would refer to the ‘kol’ (sound), it would have stated: ‘yelech,’ as in Exodus (19:19): ‘The blare of the horn went (‘yelech’) louder and louder.’ To clarify this, Rashi adds: ‘she-haya’ (who was), identifying G-d as the subject that was ‘walking’ in the garden.'

Cited

'A second interpretation of Rashi is by R. David HaLevi Segal (1586–1667), in his commentary Divre Dovid, who argues the complete opposite: Rashi intends, with the additional word: ‘she-hayah’ (that was) that it was the ‘sound’ that was ‘walking’ in the garden, as the midrash argues in the first interpretation: ‘We have heard that walking about [hilukh] is [an expression] used regarding sound.’' 

Cited

'While the word ‘she-hayah’ (that was) can, in theory, apply to either: the words immediately juxtaposed (Ha-shem Elo-kim – G-d), or the earlier word: ‘kol’ (sound), the latter is less p’shat and more midrashic, as indicated from the fact that this view is in fact cited in the midrash. The former is more the plain meaning of the text, as the words are juxtaposed.' 

Cited 

'The two interpretations of how to understand Rashi’s intention in his comment explaining what it was that was ‘walking in the garden’ – ‘G-d’ or the ‘voice’ - are reflected in the variants in the manuscripts pertaining to the exact place the word: ‘she-haya’ (that was) is inserted in Rashi’s comment: In MS. Opp. 14 (1340), ‘she-haya’ (that was) is found, as in the printed version, between ‘G-d’ and ‘walking,’ suggesting the possibility it was the ‘sound’ that was ‘walking’ (travelling) in the garden, as per the view of R. David HaLevi Segal. They heard the sound of G-d walking (mit-ha-lech) about in the garden at the breezy time of day' 

Cited

'In other manuscripts, however, it makes it abundantly clear that the intension of Rashi is to interpret the verse that it was G-d who was walking in the garden. In CCCMS165, it states: ‘they heard the sound of the Holy one, blessed be He, that (she-hayah) the Holy one, blessed be He was walking in the garden.’ The double expression: ‘the Holy one, blessed be He’ before and after ‘she-hayah’ (who was) makes abundantly clear that the intension of Rashi is that it was G-d who was walking in the garden. Rashi MS Munich 5, Leiden 1, BL 26917 also follows this wording. Similarly, in MS. Oppenheim 34 (1201-1225), it states: ‘they heard the sound’ and then writes: ‘she-hayah’ (that) the Holy one, blessed be He was walking in the garden. Even though it states ‘the Holy one, blessed be He’ just once, unlike CCCMS165, the placing of the word: ‘she-hayah’ (that) before the words: ‘the Holy one, blessed be He,’ makes clear that the intension of Rashi is that it was G-d who was walking in the garden.' 

Cited 

'Reflecting the ambiguity in the intention of Rashi, MS. Canon. Or. 81 and MS Canon. Or. 35 (1401-1425), omits the word: ‘she-hayah’ (that was) all-together; MS. Michael 384 (1399) goes further and omits, not only the word: ‘she-hayah’ (that was), but the whole (second) comment on the verse: ‘and they heard the sound of G-d walking in the garden at the breezy time of day. Similarly, MS. Opp. 35 (1408) omits ‘in the garden’ (be-gan), writing only: ‘they heard the voice, the Holy one, blessed be He, was (ha-yah) walking (mit-ha-lech) at the breezy time of day.’ This suggests ‘walking’ refers to the sound that was heard at a specific time of day – ‘the breezy time of day’ (l’ru-ach ha-yom), but not saying anything about ‘G-d’ or the ’sound’ in reference to going in the garden. In this regard, the manuscript may be suggesting, as per the interpretation of R. Jonah ibn Janah and R. Jonah ibn Ganach, mentioned above, that it is referring to the ‘man’ who is ‘in the garden’ whom ‘hears the sound of G-d at the breezy time of day,’ avoiding the above dispute.' 

Cited

'It would seem that the two ways to understand Rashi’s interpretation of ‘the voice of G-d going in the garden’ – midrashic, referring to the ‘voice,’ or literal, referring to ‘G-d,’ as proposed by R. Judah Loew and R. David Segal are reflected in our opening question: is Rashi on Genesis 3:8 exclusively p’shat, as it appears from the many of the manuscripts, as explaind earlier, or embraces midrash, albeit only when they explain the words of Scripture.' 

This website referenced

[1] Oxford MS. Opp. 218. 

[2] See: https://www.thetorah.com/article/rashi-on-the-torah-what-kind-of-commentary-is-it. 

[3] See Mishnah Kiddushin 3:4: ‘Rabbi Ḥanina ben Gamliel says: it was necessary to state the matter, as otherwise, it might have meant (b’mash’ma) that they will not inherit even in the land of Canaan.’ Also, Bechorot 9:1: ‘the verse states: “And all the tithe of the herd or the flock, whatever passes under the rod, the tenth shall be sacred to the Lord” (Leviticus 27:32), indicating that with regard to animal tithe, all animals that are included in the term flock are (mash-ma) one species.’ According to this, there may be differences in the use of this word amongst the manuscripts: When employed without the prefix ‘kaf,’ it means: ‘its meaning,’ not necessarily ‘plain meaning.’ This is found in Rashi on Leviticus 11:10: ‘The prolific creatures (she-retz): Everywhere this word denotes (mash-ma’o) a low (small) being that creeps and moves along upon the ground.’ With the prefix ‘kaf’ (‘k’mash’ma’o’), as found in MS. Canon. 81, combined with the mention of the intention to follow p’shat, as in MS. Canon. Or. 35, it seems clear that the intention of the use of the word is plain meaning.'

---

End citations

Reading through this second set of Hebrew interpretations, again, God may have metaphorically walked through the Garden of Eden, as a sound. However, it might actually be a more literal interpretation of God actually having walked through the Garden of Eden. 

So, based on the Rabbis first main point: Did God take human form to walk in Genesis 3: 8? 

From a Hebrew, Judaism, perspective?

Possibly.

--- 

Bible Hub: Genesis 3: 8 

Cited

Englishman's Concordance 

Genesis 3:8 

HEB: יְהוָ֧ה אֱלֹהִ֛ים מִתְהַלֵּ֥ךְ בַּגָּ֖ן לְר֣וּחַ 

NAS: God walking in the garden 

KJV: God walking in the garden 

INT: of the LORD God walking the garden the cool 

Strong's Lexicon 

halak: To go, walk, come, proceed, move 

Original Word: הָלַךְ 

Part of Speech: Verb 

Transliteration: halak 

Pronunciation: hah-lahk 

Phonetic Spelling: (haw-lak') 

Definition: To go, walk, come, proceed, move

Meaning: to walk

---

From my Reformed theological perspective, God is infinite, eternal and spirit. Prior to any creation of time, space, or matter, prior to Genesis 1; or any angelic creation, prior to Genesis 1, God was spirit (John 4: 24) and God can only be spirit, in a pure ontological sense. God was and is infinite, eternal spirit. God is not logically prohibited from possibly taking human form in Genesis 3. If this is a literal example of God walking in the Garden of Eden, it is a theophany, which is the appearance of God in human form. God's infinite, eternal, ontological nature would also not prohibit God, as God the Son, a distinction within the Godhead, within the incarnation, as taking a finite, everlasting human body.  A body that was crucified and resurrected. The two natures of Jesus Christ, do not mix. In basic agreement with the Rabbi, I think, ontologically, I reason that it is impossible for God, as infinite, to have finite attributes, and it is impossible for a human being, as finite, to have infinite attributes.

If Christianity claimed that the two natures, one divine, one human, mixed it would be philosophical, theological, error, but that is not the claim.

Why then did Jesus Christ as Godman, allow worship? 

His deity was incarnate, not mixed or missing.

Colossians 2:9-10 (Him is Jesus Christ) 'New American Standard Bible (NASB) 

9 For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form, 10 and in Him you have been made [a]complete, and He is the head [b]over all rule and authority; 

Footnotes: Colossians 2:10 Lit full Colossians 2:10 Lit of ' 

N.T. Wright explains in regard to Colossians 2: 9-10, it is an continuation of 1:19 (109), 'for all the fulness to dwell in him.' (NASB). 'He is uniquely God's presence and his very self'. (109). Wright reasons that Paul is teaching monotheistic doctrine here and not that Jesus Christ is a second deity. (109). Christ is the embodiment of full deity. (109). God the Son, is not a second deity, God the Holy Spirit is not a third deity. 

Based on this section of scripture, a proper interpretation is that although the Father can be reasonably defined as the planner, all of God in nature is involved in the planning process in a sense; in infinite knowledge and agreement. The infinite nature of God in the three distinctions is fully aware of plans. The Godhead is involved in the atoning and resurrection work of Christ, even though it was Jesus Christ that died on the cross and was resurrected. Jesus Christ, the Word (John 1) remains infinite, eternal God in spirit, and became God incarnate, finite man. 

Acts 2: 24 states that God raised Him (Jesus Christ) from the dead and in the process defeated death. 

From Hebrews 1: Greek scholar Walter Bauer defines 'Hupostasis' the original ὑπόστασις, (εως, ἡit) from the Greek as substantial nature, essence, actual being, reality. In the context of Hebrews 1: 3 the Son of God is the exact representation of God’s real being. (page 847). Erickson further explains that each member of the Trinity is quantitatively equal. Erickson (1994: 337). 

Matthew 28: 19-20 and Acts 5 are two examples from the New Testament demonstrating the Holy Spirit as God. 

New American Standard Bible (NASB)

Matthew 28:19-20 

19 [a]Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you [b]always, even to the end of the age.” 

a Matthew 28:19 Or Having gone; Gr aorist part. 

b Matthew 28:20 Lit all the days 

Acts 5: 2-6 

It is stated that one can lie to the Holy Spirit (verse 3) and therefore lie to God. 'You have not lied to men, but to God.' (verse 4). All three distinctions within the trinity are infinite, of one ontological (existence and being) essence and nature, and yet with distinctions. As God is eternally relational, humanity in specifically relational in the context of being made in the image and likeness of God (Genesis 1-26-27). God could create finite creatures capable of relationship and communication, because that is also an aspect of God's nature. 

Video Point 2

'do you know of any Christian nations that live by this impractical epic'

I do not know of one, what I would consider a biblical, New Testament, Christian, nation.

Very few people are actually regenerate (John 3, Titus 3, 1 Peter 1, as New Testament, regeneration, examples), biblical, New Testament, Christians. Western nations are primarily secular, not Christian. Western nations, overwhelmingly, do not follow biblical, New Testament, Christianity. 

Video Point 3

'he (God, my add) cannot die he cannot suffer'

True. 

This does not logically or reasonably prohibit God from incarnating himself. Again, the infinite and finite natures of God the Son, Jesus Christ, do not mix. Christian orthodox, doctrine and theology, does not teach that God can die, rather that God is immutable. 

From my PhD footnotes 

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

'The concept that God cannot change is one of immutability. God cannot change in ‘attributes, consciousness, and will.’ Thiessen (1956: 127). The idea being that God does not change or develop, but some scholars reason this understanding is to be more attributed to influences from Greek philosophy than the Bible. Grenz, Guretzki and Nordling (1999: 64). Some reason, as do I, that God is eternally immutable, but can change in how he deals within temporal situations with finite beings. Grenz, Guretzki and Nordling (1999: 64).'

---

End citation

The trinity is not a pagan notion. Tritheism is not New Testament doctrine. All three distinctions within the trinity are infinite, of one ontological (existence and being) essence and nature, and yet with distinctions. Finite, sinful and imperfect humanity needs God's enlightenment from revelation to reasonably know God and to have significant intellectual understanding. God is scripturally, in the New Testament, specifically, revealed in three distinctions and three persons, properly biblically defined. This is not completely understandable for the finite mind, but it is reasonable to the finite mind. 

The incarnation of Jesus Christ has the infinite, eternal Word of God (John 1) take upon a finite human nature without the infinite divine nature and finite human nature, mixing. Therefore, Jesus Christ remains infinite, eternal God, but with two natures as both deity and incarnated man. God as trinity is relational in nature and therefore humanity is made in God's image and likeness (Genesis 1:26-27). Humanity is therefore specifically relational and rational in the context of being made in the image and likeness of God. The infinite God could create finite creatures capable of relationship and communication in rationality, because being relational and rational is also an aspect of God's nature.

Video Point 4

'can bring forgiveness to a person's sin'

The Rabbi states that each man must repent of his sins alone. But, the Hebrew, Mosaic law and sacrificial system was continual and was ended by the destruction of the temple, not by a final atoning act of God, sanctioned within Judaism. The sins of humanity were never fully paid for within the law. With no temple post AD 70, without the sacrificial system, repentance, or any kind of works righteousness, does not cause salvation. New Testament repentance is within salvation, not for salvation. Abraham in Romans 4 was not justified by works (1-6), but was righteous, justified by faith through grace (16) in God.

New American Standard Bible (NASB)

Hebrews 10 1-4

For the Law, since it has only a shadow of the good things to come and not the [a]form of those things itself, [b]can never, by the same sacrifices which they offer continually every year, make those who approach perfect. 2 Otherwise, would they not have ceased to be offered, because the worshipers, having once been cleansed, would no longer have had consciousness of sins? 3 But in [c]those sacrifices there is a reminder of sins every year. 4 For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins. 

a Hebrews 10:1 Lit image

b Hebrews 10:1 One early ms they can

c Hebrews 10:3 Lit them there is

Hebrews 8:13 

By calling this covenant “new,” he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and outdated will soon disappear. 

11 But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things [a]having come, He entered through the greater and more perfect [b]tabernacle, not made by hands, that is, not of this creation; 12 and not through the blood of goats and calves, but through His own blood, He entered the holy place once for all time, [c]having obtained eternal redemption. 13 For if the blood of goats and bulls, and the [d]ashes of a heifer sprinkling those who have been defiled, sanctify for the [e]cleansing of the flesh, 14 how much more will the blood of Christ, who through [f]the eternal Spirit offered Himself without blemish to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? 15 For this reason He is the mediator of a new covenant, so that, since a death has taken place for the redemption of the violations that were committed under the first covenant, those who have been called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance. 

a Hebrews 9:11 One early ms to come 

b Hebrews 9:11 Or sacred tent 

c Hebrews 9:12 Or obtaining 

d Hebrews 9:13 I.e., ashes mixed in water 

e Hebrews 9:13 Lit purity 

f Hebrews 9:14 Or His eternal spirit

In regards to the law...

Galatians 3:23-28 

23 But before faith came, we were kept in custody under the law, being shut up to the faith which was later to be revealed. 24 Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith. 25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a [a]tutor. 26 For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. 27 For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is [b]neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 

a Galatians 3:25 Lit child-conductor 

b Galatians 3:28 Lit not male and female

As Jesus Christ was the eternal, infinite God the Word (John 1) and God the Son, he could outlast any finite sin, as a finite, perfect, human atoning, sacrifice on the cross. His documented resurrection in the New Testament, as religious history, testifies to the success of his atoning work.

As well, my philosophy of religion studies, as my MPhil/PhD work was both philosophical theology and philosophy of religion, informs me that God is necessary and perfect and human finite creation is contingent and imperfect (whether one calls it sin or not). Why should any unnecessary, finite, sinful person have everlasting life? What will perfect his/her corrupted human nature without applied atonement and resurrection? Theistic philosophy of religion just adds to my biblical and theological findings. I highly doubt, that without a specific way of salvation, revealed from God, and brought about by God alone, that any form of human works righteousness, or religious ritual will save anyone for post-mortem life with God, within a Kingdom of God. It is the applied atoning, resurrection work of God himself, through divine regeneration, that saves anyone. Not by human works, Ephesians 2, but for good human works within salvation.

Vancouver, February 22, 2025

Bibliography 

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

BAVINCK, HERMAN (1918)(2006) Reformed Dogmatics Volume 2: God and Creation, John Bolt (gen.ed.), Translated by John Vriend, Baker Academic, Grand Rapids. 

BAVINCK, HERMAN (1918)(2006) Reformed Dogmatics Volume 3: Sin and Salvation in Christ, John Bolt (gen.ed.), Translated by John Vriend, Baker Academic, Grand Rapids. 

BOWMAN, ROBERT M. (1990) Why You Should Believe in the Trinity, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.

BROMILEY, G.W. (1996) ‘Trinity’ in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.

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

CALVIN, JOHN (1539)(1998) The Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book II, Translated by Henry Beveridge, Grand Rapids, The Christian Classic Ethereal Library, Wheaton College. 

CALVIN, JOHN (1539)(1998) The Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book IV, Translated by Henry Beveridge, Grand Rapids, The Christian Classic Ethereal Library, Wheaton College. 

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

COURSON, JON (2005) Application Commentary, Thomas Nelson, Nashville. FOULKES, FRANCIS (1989) Ephesians, Grand Rapids, Inter-Varsity Press.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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. 

KAVANAGH, AIDAN (1999) ‘Initiation, Christian’, in Alan Richardson and John Bowden (eds.), A New Dictionary of Christian Theology, Kent, SCM Press Ltd. 

KIERKEGAARD, SOREN (1847-1848)(1955)(1966) On Authority and Revelation, Translated by Walter Lowrie, New York, Harper and Row, Publishers, Incorporated. 

KIERKEGAARD, SOREN (1848-1849)(1961) Christian Discourses & The Lilies of the Field and The Birds of the Air & Three Discourses at The Communion on Fridays, Translated by Walter Lowrie, New York, Oxford University Press. 

KLEIN, WILLIAM W., CRAIG, C. BLOMBERG, AND ROBERT L. HUBBARD, JR. (1993) Introduction to Biblical Interpretation, London, Word Publishing.

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

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

PACKER, J.I. (1996) ‘Regeneration’ in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.

SCHLEIERMACHER, FRIEDRICH (1799)(1961) On Religion, in Elie Kedourie, Nationalism, New York, Praeger University Series. 

SCHLEIERMACHER, FRIEDRICH (1821)(1928)(1976) The Christian Faith, Edited by H.R. Mackintosh and J.S. Stewart, Philadelphia, Fortress Press. 

SCHRECK, ALAN (1984) Catholic and Christian, Ann Arbor, Michigan, Servant Books. 

SHEDD, WILLIAM G.T. (1874-1890)(1980) Dogmatic Theology, Volume 1, Nashville, Thomas Nelson Publishers. 

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

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

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

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

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

WRIGHT, N.T., Colossians and Philemon, (1986)(1989), IVP, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids.

Referenced articles from this website

Friday, December 07, 2018 Three Gods? Briefly

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

Sunday, November 05, 2017 Temple Warning

academia.edu posting on 20250301

Feminism & The Problem of Evil, Revisited: Satire Und Theology Version

Feminism & The Problem of Evil, Revisited

Preface

Question 25 image

Questionnaire data from my PhD, from a slightly revised Blogger article, 20170403, for an entry on academia.edu, 20250223. My work on feminism was strongly suggested by my tutors for my research in the context of the secular, British University, I was attending.

PhD/MPhil full versions

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

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

Questions and graphs from the PhD

Question 25: Scripture describes women as more evil than men

One hundred and thirty-four (62.9%) respondents selected ‘DS’ and fifty-one (23.9%) chose ‘D’. So 86.8% of completed questionnaires contain the view that Scripture does not describe women as more evil than men.

This proposition was soundly rejected. Only 11 (5.2%) persons chose ‘AS/A’. Gebara offers a different perspective stating that within Christian tradition, only male sacrifice is valuable. She also notes that women symbolically have often been represented as weak and ‘evil.’ Biblically, although Christ was male, he died for both genders within Christian tradition. Additionally, within Gebara’s own Roman Catholic tradition, Mary is known as the ‘Mother of God.’ Within this view, Mary is recognized and praised as Jesus was born of a truly ‘human mother.’ This is a key example of a woman being highly esteemed within Gebara’s tradition, and therefore, although I do not dismiss her comments, they should be considered cautiously.

Question 29: God desires that women’s sufferings be understood

Many respondents, 140 (65.7%) supported this idea while only 16 (7.5%) opposed it with a choice of ‘D/DS’. Fifty-seven (26.7%) were ‘NC’. Gebara writes that Biblical Scripture, which emphasizes differences between male and female, has led to a ‘hierarchical dualism’ that is used to exclude women. Gebara reasons evils experienced by women are often linked with the idea they are considered a second, less valuable sex. Gebara’s comments demonstrate that her particular feminist views are not supported by the majority of my respondents.

Question 33: God desires women to have influence in the Church

One hundred and ninety-five (91.6%) persons supported this proposition; 101 (47.4%) agreed strongly with the question. This question was not dealing with thorny issues of women leadership such as being elders and pastors, but was simply dealing with the broader idea of general influence. Therefore, in my estimation, this strong support for the proposition is because the idea of female influence will not cause disagreement between conservative and liberal wings in the Christian Church.

Mennonite New Testament scholar, Willard M. Swartley (1983) reasons ‘the concept of equality’ for women is present in the New Testament, but he asks what these concepts mean in regard to ‘social, political and economic’ contexts. Swartley also ponders on what equality for women means within the Biblical ancient texts, and what it should mean today. Individual churches need to consider concepts of equality for women with men, when deciding where women should have greater influence.

Question 37: God dislikes women being viewed as sex objects

One hundred and eighty-nine (88.7%) respondents supported this proposition; 136 (63.8%) chose ‘AS’. Only 8 (3.8%) persons, four from each category, disagreed. Gebara notes some women have high value as objects of ‘enjoyment’ and ‘pleasure’ or on the flip side, ‘revenge’ and ‘hate.’ She lists prostitution as an example of women being viewed as ‘merchandise.’

Question 41: Christian thought has been dominated by men

One hundred and forty-four (67.6%) respondents chose ‘AS/A’, 44 (20.7%) persons chose ‘D/DS’. This question can be related back to my earlier comments regarding how difficult it is for women to become senior pastors. The concept of ‘Christian thought’ within this question is not necessarily regarding professional leadership alone, but is presented in the context of both professional leadership and lay teaching.

Question 45: Women need freedom from male authority

Seventy-one (33.3%) persons chose ‘AS/A’, while over twenty percent of respondents were ‘NC’ (21.2%). Over forty-five percent (45.5%) of persons were not in support of this idea. Admittedly, this is a strongly worded statement, but two denominations were in support of this idea with a majority. Anglican respondents with 10 out of 18 (55.5%) supported it, as did United Church of Canada respondents with 8 out of 8 (100%). Twenty-nine of forty-eight persons (60.4%) surveyed in my non-denominational group choose ‘D/DS’ for this question. As alluded to earlier, this non-denominational group is not an actual denomination, but some of these persons were from independent, fundamentalist Baptist churches in the United States that have very conservative views that would minimally preclude women from elder and clergy positions. 

Question 52: Churches should assist exploited women

One hundred and forty-one (66.2%) chose ‘5’ as an option. With adding another 36 (16.9%) that chose ‘4’, this brings the total to 177 persons (83%) that supported this idea. Gebara explains that the Church should understand the physical, psychological, and social suffering of women in regard to the cross. The community suffering of women needs to be understood, and this obviously should include those persons that need extra assistance.

Question 25

Question 29

Question 33

Question 37

Question 41

Question 45

Question 52

ANDERSON, RAY S. (2001) The Shape of Practical Theology, Downers Grove, Illinois, InterVarsity Press. 

BLOESCH, DONALD G. (1987) Freedom for Obedience, San Francisco, Harper and Rowe Publishers. 

BRYMAN, ALAN (2004) Social Research Methods, Oxford, Oxford University Press. 

CHOPP, REBECCA S. (1995) Saving Work, Louisville, Kentucky, Westminster John Knox Press. 

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

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

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. 

SWARTLEY, WILLARD M. (1983) Slavery Sabbath War Women, Herald Press, Scottdale, Pennsylvania. 

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.

Are we on shifting ground?: Satire Und Theology Version

Are we on shifting ground?

Amsterdam (2025) photo from Civil Engineering Discoveries, LinkedIn 

Preface

Originally published 20170730, revised on Blogger for an entry on academia.edu, 20250215.

The Pirie entry by entry review continues...

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

The Definitional Retreat

'A definitional retreat takes place when someone changes the meaning of the words in order to deal with an objection raised against the original wording. By changing the meaning, he turns it into a different statement.' Pirie uses an example: 'When I said I hadn't been drinking, officer, I meant that I hadn't had more than I get through in a normal social evening.' (77-78). 

My examples: 

When I said I was a Christian, I meant that I think there is probably a God. 

When I said you were fat, I meant that you were phat, as in excellent. 

The author explains that a definitional retreat allows a person to save face when their argument has been demonstrated to significantly lack merit. (78). Pirie reasons that philosophers often change definitions when shown as questionable. (78). Definitions are not to be subjective, they have objective meanings. This is a reason I revise my writing, because sometimes corrections have to be made in premises, conclusions and reasoning. 

Definition twisting, does not assist with my pursuit of the truth. My revisions are documented when significant. I admit that minor revisions are often made after publish, because some problems are not apparent until after publish. That is a visual issue, not an integrity one. But if I do change my mind...it is better to revise statements and/or arguments when needed and to note it. 

Pirie mentions that UK finance ministers are good at the use of this fallacy. (79). They use definitional retreat. I think politicians often use fallacies when definitions are changed to portray a different story. Statistics can be stated to mean one thing in January and something else in December. 

Shifting ground?

When making arguments, people may hedge with ambiguous premises. (185). Or people may use a definitional retreat to make words within premises mean something else. (185). A type of this defensive type of argumentation is to use shifting ground. (185). This fallacy is used with attempts to avoid criticism of an original premise (s) by shifting the meaning of premise or premises. (185). This would require a new critique of the argument. (185).

My examples:

Premise: I think x is a bad thing.

Conclusion: Yes, x should be banned.

After negative critique from others, the shifting ground fallacy is used:

Premise: Rather, x is usually a bad thing.

Conclusion: Well, x should probably be banned, anyway.

As Pirie explains the arguer will change the ground he/her is standing on and still maintain the continuity of the argument. (185). It is fallacious to change the substance of what is being stated.

In my example, the premise shifts from 'is a bad thing', to 'is usually a bad thing'.

The conclusion shifts from 'should be banned' to 'should probably be banned, anyway'.

Based on my years of discussion and debating, this is a tempting fallacy for intellectual and non-intellectuals, alike, to use as defence. As with my writing on my websites, sometimes arguments simply require edits in humility. The person in my example is attempting to save face, when he/she should more likely reconsider the entire line of reasoning.

Pirie opines that politicians at times use the shifting ground fallacy rather than admit that he/she changed their mind. (186). The shifting ground fallacy is often used when one cannot prove his/her point but does not want to appear to be wrong, or admit he/she is wrong. (186).

Collins

Cited

'in American English'

'shift ground to change position in an argument or situation' 

2019 by Penguin Random House LLC and HarperCollins Publishers Ltd'

---

Hedging

Tuesday, March 28, 2017 Hedging

'Hedging in arguments means sheltering behind ambiguous meanings so that the sense can be changed later.' (120). To paraphrase the author's example: We stated we did not want a full-fledged war in the Middle East; that is still the position, we entered into limited war. (120). This type of argumentation allows for a 'definitional retreat.' (120). 'Hedging is fallacious because it puts two or more different statements under the guise of one'. (120). It is a semantic game in parsing the difference between a 'limited war' and a 'full-fledged' war. Is any war 'full-fledged' without nuclear weapons? Hedging hopes that the reviewer of argumentation, will not know better (120); the information presented becomes useless because it is not presented accurately. (120). To avoid hedging one could state: 'We are entering into war; we are committed.' Or: 'We are not entering into war, because the risks are too great.' Hedging again... We stated we did not want to colonize Mars, that is still the position, but we have several Mars space missions planned. 

Interestingly, Pirie indicates that Nostradamus used hedging to make obscure predictions. (121). The author reasons that observers look for what they want to see as far as what has already occurred and apply what Nostradamus predicted. This does not assist in making accurate predictions. (121). Hedging uses dishonesty and ambiguity. (121). 

Logically Fallacious

Cited

Description: Refining your claim simply to avoid counter evidence and then acting as if your revised claim is the same as the original.

Logical Form: Claim X is made. Claim X is refuted. Claim Y is then made and is made to be the same as claim X when it is not.

References: Dowden, B. (n.d.). Fallacies | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved from http://www.iep.utm.edu/fallacy/ 

---

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.