William G.T. Shedd (PhD Edit): Satire Und Theology Version

Emerald Bay, California, Google+

William G.T. Shedd (PhD Edit)

Preface

This is a section of my PhD originally posted on Blogger 2013110, with slight revisions for an entry on academia.edu, 20250719. Shedd's clarity and precision on issues I cited has been very beneficial to my work. He gets it right.

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

Cited

William Greenough Thayer Shedd (1820-1894) Wikipedia

Cited 

'Shedd's writings reveal the interplay of various intellectual voices such as Kant, Darwin, Emerson, Coleridge, Calvin, Locke, and German intellectuals such as Fichte and Schiller.[6][7] He was known for his teachings on eternal punishment and damnation, his most notable work, Dogmatic Theology, devotes 56 pages to the topic, as opposed to only 2 pages on heaven. [1]' 

1. Jensen, Michael (7 July 2015). "Five Theologians You Should Know (3) – William Shedd". The Gospel Coalition | Australia.

6. Strout, Cushing. "Faith and History: The Mind of William G. T. Shedd." Journal of the History of Ideas, vol. 15, no. 1, 1954, pp. 153–62. JSTOR website Retrieved 15 June 2025. 

7. Noll, Mark A. "Common Sense Traditions and American Evangelical Thought." American Quarterly, vol. 37, no. 2, 1985, p. 235. JSTOR website Retrieved 15 June 2025.'

---

Theology and Culture

Within William G.T. Shedd’s (1874-1890)(1980) text Dogmatic Theology he writes ‘profound insight into theological truth was no mere matter of casual intellectual reflection.’[1]  This is a correct and reasonable approach to the difficult academic field of theology and Reformed theology. Careful and thorough scholarship is required.[2]  Theology is not to be done at the expense of the Scripture,[3] but within a correct study of that Scripture.[4]  Shedd reasons that ‘methods of investigation are continually undergoing correction and modification’[5] and this can lead to better organization of the subject.[6]  Methodologically, ‘theology is disciplined consideration and exploration of the content of divine revelation.’[7] 

Franke cautions that although there is truth in this definition, human knowledge of God is not sufficient without a proper knowledge of humanity while this theology is being considered.[8]  Theology is always considered in the light of cultural and historical setting of the day,[9] the implication being that a culture will influence theology and therefore theology needs to be scrutinized with this concept always in mind.[10]

Biblical Inspiration

The Holy Spirit guided the thoughts of Biblical writers.[11] Shedd names this basic theory of Biblical inspiration as ‘plenary inspiration’ meaning writers were moved by the Holy Spirit in respect to thought and language and were kept from error.[12] Modern theology needs to correctly discern what the Spirit is stating through the Bible and this needs to be done through proper research techniques.[13] Although this section concerns the Reformed methodology in regard to how the Holy Spirit inspires Scripture, ‘intuition theory’[14] is another approach to the Bible that is separate from traditional theory and dictation theory mentioned.  I shall discuss it briefly. 

James Martineau (1889) presents the intuition view[15] which is popular among some within the liberal progressive segment of the Church,[16]  the view being that some are spiritually gifted with intuition and able to write religious literature as were some within the Hebrew people.[17] There would be persons of various religious backgrounds also having this gifting.[18]  This idea would mean the Hebrew Bible and New Testament are not necessarily the only legitimate divine Scripture.[19]  Many persons of different religious viewpoints could have superior insights into morality and religious truth, and they would possess a spiritual genius of higher order.[20]  Schleiermacher and his related view on Biblical inspiration reasons that the Holy Spirit would not be providing within Scripture a set of perfectly inspired doctrines, but would rather have God interact spiritually with persons open to this divine religious experience.[21]  This approach allows for the possible revision of Biblical doctrines over time as needed via human experience with God and his Spirit.[22]

No compulsion

There is ‘no compulsion of the will in regeneration.’ states Shedd.[23]  Calvin reasons that a person is not forced or coerced to believe in the gospel.[24]  I would view conversion as taking place simultaneously with regeneration in a person, although again I state that God alone via the Holy Spirit causes the regeneration process.[25] This means as God chooses to regenerate a person he simultaneously persuades one to freely believe.[26]  Murray states that regeneration is logically antecedent to any conscious response,[27] and I reason that God’s choice to commit the act of regeneration must be antecedent due to the corrupt and sinful nature of persons.[28]  

The work of salvation was confined to God’s part in the calling.  This does not prohibit God from causing a compatibilistic human choice within conversion at the moment that God’s initial eternal choice to regenerate[29] becomes a divine act of regeneration.[30]  As persons were regenerated they would hear the call of salvation, repent and believe in Christ.[31]  I would view conversion as an aspect of regeneration, which is the beginning of the Christian experience.[32]  Regeneration was to encompass the entire divine plan of recreation from the initial change in persons to the ultimate culmination of a new heaven and new earth.

20250719

'As persons were regenerated they would hear the call of salvation, repent and believe in Christ.[31] Note of clarification: Regeneration leads to belief. Repentance and walking in Christ, is in belief.

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

BROWING, W.R.F. (1997) Oxford 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 (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.

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.

HINDSON, EDWARD E. (1874-1890)(1980) ‘Introduction’ within SHEDD, WILLIAM G.T. Dogmatic Theology,  Volume 1, Nashville, Thomas Nelson Publishers.

KREEFT, PETER AND RONALD K. TACELLI (1994) Handbook of Christian Apologetics, Downers Grove, Illinois, InterVarsity Press.

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

MARTINEAU, JAMES (1889) A Study of Religion: Its Sources and Contents, Oxford, Clarendon.

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

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.

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.

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

---

[1] Hindson (1874-1890)(1980: iv).

[2] Hindson (1874-1890)(1980: iv).  This is the case in all theological writing and especially in academic writing and research.

[3] Hindson (1874-1890)(1980: iv).   Frame (2002: 10). 

[4] Scripture is also not to be evaluated in isolation as various Scripture needs to be compared.  Erickson (1994: 21).

[5] Shedd (1874-1890)(1980: 4 Volume 1).

[6] Shedd (1874-1890)(1980: 4 Volume 1).

[7] Franke (2005: 13).

[8] Franke (2005: 14).

[9] Franke (2005: 14).

[10] Franke (2005: 14). Cultural influences and how learning is done always relates to how theology is understood by the reader. Erickson (1994: 21).

[11] Erickson (1994: 215).

[12] Shedd  (1874-1890)(1980: 72 Volume 1). 

[13] Franke (2005: 133).  A student of Scripture must attempt to be more true to what the Scripture actually states than to prior theological positions. As noted previously, many within the Christian community from a liberal and progressive position claim a trust in the Bible but do not view it as without error as in infallible and inerrant.  Since the original Scriptural autographs are all missing, even with many largely accurate copies and parts of copies, there is room for legitimate debate and serious study of Scripture in the original languages and as translated.  Lindsell admits that only the original autographs are free from all error, and I agree.  Lindsell (1976: 30).  A fundamentalist and naïve approach to Scripture through the eyes of a Western reader devoid of serious study of contexts and background has always been strongly rejected by this writer.  This type of fundamentalist approach is also not an aspect of legitimate Reformed scholarship, even as I admit this thesis in not in the field of Biblical Studies but rather Theology and Philosophy of Religion.  

[14] Martineau (1889: 168-171). 

[15] Martineau (1889: 168-171). 

[16] Erickson (1994: 206). 

[17] Martineau (1889: 168-171).

[18] Erickson (1994: 206).

[19] The Bible would not so much be the word of God, but a word of God, or more precisely a word from those that intuitively and naturally understand God to some extent.  Browning suggests there are contradictions and inconsistencies within the Bible that threaten any traditional view of inspiration.  Browning (1997: 186).  Kreeft and Tacelli reason  that modernist reviewers of the Scripture take a sceptical attitude toward it, especially in regard to the supernatural.  Kreeft and Tacelli (1994: 205).  A disbelief in a supernaturally inspired Scripture free from spiritual error would in my mind logically fit within some modern approaches.  But, I do not reason this means these types of modern thinkers would therefore necessarily all completely abandon the Bible as a divine book in any sense.

[20] Lindsell (1976: 33).

[21] Schleiermacher (1821)(1928)(1976: 125).  

[22] Schleiermacher (1821)(1928)(1976: 390).  

[23] Shedd (1874-1890)(1980: 136-137 Volume 2). 

[24] Calvin (1543)(1996: 68). 

[25] Murray (1937-1966)(1977: 172).

[26] This allows for a limited but significant human freedom within the salvation process that is not incompatibilism. Salvation remains alone a work of God.  Weber writes that God with his freedom effects both human freedom and human bondage as he reaches out to a saved person through the Word of God.  Weber (1955)(1981: 245).  This would be a work of the Spirit.

[27] Murray (1937-1966)(1977: 172).

[28] Murray (1937-1966)(1977: 168-169).

[29] As God is eternal this choice could be viewed as such. Humans of course are not eternal.

[30] Persons have via the Holy Spirit been molded and transformed in order to freely believe.  Thiessen, an incompatibilist, states that in regeneration the human is passive and is active in conversion. Thiessen (1956: 367).  I agree concerning regeneration, and I can agree in regard to conversion, only if by active the human being is convinced freely via the Holy Spirit and is not assumed to have incompatibilist free will.

[31] Bavinck (1918)(2006: 53).

[32] Franke notes that the Scripture explains that the Holy Spirit continued to guide the earliest Christians. Franke (2005: 132).  The Spirit continues to work in regenerated/converted believers that embrace the gospel.

Clarence Darrow (1928)(1973) (In Brief/PhD Edit): Satire Und Theology Version

Bermuda, Google+

Clarence Darrow (1928)(1973) (In Brief/PhD Edit)

Preface

Once again a post on this website from my PhD for balance from a different perspective.

I must admit that Clarence Darrow (1857-1938) also puts a smile on my face…

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

On the resurrection

Clarence Darrow (1928)(1973) writes that resurrection of the body is purely a religious doctrine.[1] He reasons that few intelligent persons when faced with evidence would hold to a doctrine of resurrection.[2] He deduces that those within the New Testament era had little scientific knowledge, and therefore resurrection doctrine is a product of those with blind faith, wild dreams, hopeless hopes, and cowardly fears.[3] Darrow’s assumption[4] would more likely be correct if the Hebrew Bible and New Testament were written by persons that were clearly writing mythological literature with the primary use of metaphorical language.[5] However, as noted (in my PhD) there are those within both conservative and liberal Christian traditions that would reason the historical writers of Scripture wrote what they saw and experienced, and therefore many of these modern scholars accept a doctrine of physical resurrection.[6]

On the afterlife

Those such as Clarence Darrow, who wrote ‘The Myth of the Soul’ in The Forum,[7] would disagree claiming belief in the afterlife was a product of blind religious faith, ignoring facts.[8]  Phillips and Roth raised similar objections against Hick’s view, claiming there was no good reason to think that the human condition would become better after death.[9]  For those that deny the existence of the human soul, soul-making would seem untenable and ‘wild dreams’ and ‘hopeless hopes’ as Darrow states.[10]  However, for those within mainline, liberal Christian traditions and other religious systems that believe in a spirit or soul that exists after death, an improved quality of life for all persons after this earthly life,[11] can be a thing to be considered and welcomed. 

Clarence Darrow (1932)(1973) writes that the best one can do is hold on ‘to the same speck of dirt’ as we proceed ‘side by side to our common doom.’[12]  Phillips doubts that there is a God that works things out in the end times in order that there is a reality on earth that consists of happiness[13] and perfection.[14]  Phillips reasons his criticisms will fall on ‘deaf ears.’[15] 

Clarence Darrow doubts there are proofs available for life after death,[16] and states there is strong evidence against the idea of personal consciousness after death.[17] For Darrow the immaterial soul does not exist and cannot be reasonably conceived.[18]  It is true that a culminated Kingdom of God is not presently empirical,[19] but has been presented as Biblical teaching and theology in academic circles for two millennia.[20]  As noted earlier in this work, Darrow writes the best one can do is basically cling to life on earth as we head toward ‘a common doom.’[21] 

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. 

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.

GEBARA, IVONE (2002) Out of the Depths, Translated by Ann Patrick Ware, Minneapolis, Fortress Press. VERMEER, PAUL (1999) Learning Theodicy, Leiden, Brill.

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.

MOLTMANN, JÜRGEN (1993) The Crucified God, Minneapolis, Fortress Press.

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

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

ROTH, JOHN K. ‘Introduction’ (1892-1907)(1969) in The Moral Philosophy of William James, John K. Roth (ed.), Thomas Y. Crowell Company, New York. 

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

---

[1] Darrow (1928)(1973: 266).

[2] Darrow (1928)(1973: 266).

[3] Darrow (1928)(1973: 266-267).

[4] Darrow (1928)(1973: 266-267).

[5] This as opposed to writing historical based religious history with the use of plain literal and figurative literal language.

[6] Moltmann (1993: 160-199).  Erickson (1994: 1194-1204). Excepting that there are those that reinterpret such as Gebara with her feminist views.  Gebara (2002: 122-124).

[7] Darrow (1928)(1973: 266-267).

[8] Darrow (1928)(1973: 267).

[9] Phillips in Davis (2001: 58).  Roth in Davis (2001: 62).

[10] Darrow (1928)(1973: 267).

[11] Hick (1978: 13). 

[12] Darrow (1932)(1973: 453).

[13] Phillips (2005: 265).

[14] Phillips (2005: 266).

[15] Phillips (2005: 273).

[16] Darrow (1928)(1973: 261).

[17] Darrow (1928)(1973: 261).

[18] Darrow (1928)(1973: 261).

[19] It is predicted to occur within Scripture, but has not as of yet. Moltmann (1993: 171-172).  A non-traditional and metaphorical understanding of this concept may view a literal Kingdom of God as a reality where all souls eventually evolve to a place of belief and trust in God. Hick in Davis (2001: 51). 

[20] Moltmann (1993: 166-196).

[21] Darrow (1932)(1973: 453). 

Website work

This website article updated for an entry on academia.edu, 20250712.

Clarence Darrow: Wikipedia

Cited

'As part of a public symposium on belief held in Columbus, Ohio, in 1929, Darrow delivered a speech, later titled "Why I Am An Agnostic", on agnosticism, skepticism, belief, and religion.[45] In the speech, Darrow thoroughly discussed the meaning of being an agnostic and questioned the doctrines of Christianity and the Bible. He concluded that "the fear of God is not the beginning of wisdom. The fear of God is the death of wisdom. Skepticism and doubt lead to study and investigation, and investigation is the beginning of wisdom."[46]' 

45 The Essential Words and Writings of Clarence Darrow. Modern Library. 2007. p. 20. ISBN 978-0812966770. 

46 Darrow, Clarence (1929). "Why I Am An Agnostic" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on February 21, 2016. Retrieved October 15, 2015.

Why I Am an Agnostic: Clarence Darrow 

'From a symposium with three other speakers: a rabbi, a Protestant bishop and a Catholic Judge, in Columbus, Ohio, March 12, 1929. Suggested for reprint by Foundation member Richard Regner, Wis.'

Cited 

'To say that God made the universe gives us no explanation of the beginning of things. If we are told that God made the universe, the question immediately arises: Who made God? Did he always exist, or was there some power back of that? Did he create matter out of nothing, or is his existence co-extensive with matter? The problem is still there. What is the origin of it all? If, on the other hand, one says that the universe was not made by God, that it always existed, he has the same difficulty to confront. To say that the universe was here last year, or millions of years ago, does not explain its origin. This is still a mystery. As to the question of the origin of things, man can only wonder and doubt and guess.'

---

My Blogger article is brief and non-exhaustive, already revised with additions from its original version. I will answer this key Darrow objection to theism and Christianity. 

God is infinite, all things created by God, including time, space and matter, are finite. God is, always was, and always will be. If God had a creator, infinitum, this creates the problem of vicious regress.

A god, is caused by a god, is caused by a god, is caused by a god, ad infinitum, is an infinite regress. It is a vicious regress, because it does not solve its own problem and requires a first cause, without a cause. A vicious regress is not necessarily illogical, but it is unreasonable.

In the Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Simon Blackburn discusses ‘infinite regress’ and mentions that this occurs in a vicious way whenever a problem tries to solve itself and yet remains with the same problem it had previously. Blackburn (1996: 324). A vicious regress is an infinite regress that does not solve its own problem, while a benign regress is an infinite regress that does not fail to solve its own problem. Blackburn (1996: 324). Blackburn writes that there is frequently room for debate on what is a vicious regress or benign regress. Blackburn (1996: 324). An example of a benign regress is infinite numbers both plus and minus, as they in reality represent conceptualized things as opposed to being real things. 'Problem' solved. Bradley mentions that it is not illogical, and not a vicious regress that each act of free choice is caused by another act of free choice. I agree that it is not necessarily illogical, but disagree that the argument as described is not a vicious regress.

Time is caused by time, is caused by time, is caused by time, ad infinitum, is an infinite regress. It is a vicious regress, because it does not solve its own problem and requires a first cause, without a cause. (If there is an infinite distance between Maple Ridge and Vancouver, one will never arrive in Vancouver.)

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

BRADLEY, RAYMOND D. (1996) ‘Infinite Regress Argument’, in Robert Audi, (ed.), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. 

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

---

I do not think the video title is accurate enough, but I do agree with the content.

 

You Tube version

Philosopher Simon Blackburn (PhD Edit): Satire Und Theology Version

Windsor Walkway, London:

Philosopher Simon Blackburn (PhD Edit)

Preface

Philosopher Simon Blackburn's work has been very helpful within my academic career, especially in regard to philosophy and philosophy of religion.

His Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy has provided many educational entries. Professor Blackburn explains philosophical entries in a rational and clear manner and yet with the intellectual depth required. This has allowed me to interact with his text and learn from it, even with various amounts of agreement and disagreement on theological and philosophical issues.

Wikipedia: Simon Blackburn

Cited

'As a patron of the British Humanist Association, he has argued against the existence of God, preferring to describe himself as an "infidel" rather than an "atheist".[5] He was one of 55 public figures to sign an open letter published in The Guardian in September 2010, stating their opposition to Pope Benedict XVI's state visit to the UK,[6] and has argued that religionists should have less influence in political affairs.[5] At the same time, he has also argued, in a televised debate, against the claim of "New Atheist" Sam Harris that morality can be derived from science.[7]'

Professor Blackburn's unique personal website

Simon Blackburn

---

Philosopher Simon Blackburn (PhD Edit)

From my PhD thesis

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

I will document the more important thesis entries in regard to theodicy and the problem of evil.

Theodicy 

Simon Blackburn (1996) writes that theodicy is the part of theology concerned with defending the omnibenevolence and omnipotence of God while suffering and evil exists in the world. Blackburn (1996: 375).

A reasonable definition of theodicy is the explanation of how the infinite, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent, all loving God accomplishes his plans within his creation where the problem of evil exists.

The unlimited and unfixed. Blackburn (1996: 193).  In my reasoning, God is considered infinite and his creation finite and therefore limited. Humanist Simon Blackburn, from a non-theistic critical perspective, reasons there are difficulties with the concept of an omnipotent God not being able to make a stone so heavy he could not lift it, as this would make God possibly contradictory Blackburn (1996: 268), but does explain that the classic explanation is that God cannot commit the logically impossible. Blackburn (1996: 268).

William T. Shedd explains that God cannot do what is ‘absurd and self-contradictory’. Shedd (1874-1890)(1980: 359 Volume 1).  D.Z. Phillips raised similar objections in (2005) The Problem of Evil and the Problem of God.  I also dealt with Phillips' interesting work in the PhD thesis and on this site. (March 12, 2016). In my view, this is an answered objection by those such as Shedd. I reason God cannot commit the logically impossible, and God as infinite does not have finite attributes; although God can without contradiction, incarnate himself. In the case of Jesus Christ, his infinite and finite natures do not mix.

Freewill 

Blackburn explains free will theory requires autonomous beings that are able to perform free actions without any significant influence upon their will. Blackburn (1996: 31). He describes autonomy as the ability of agents to govern themselves, and for this to occur autonomous agents must commit actions which are truly their own. Blackburn (1996: 31). Autonomy cannot occur when an outside force is coercing or forcing a will to act. Blackburn (1996: 31).

This definition relates to incompatibilism and related views:

I hold to a Reformed compatibilist view:

If to both compatibilists and incompatibilists, human beings at times can be forced to commit actions against their will, Pojman (1996: 596), it is ever more likely that the human will is not the primary cause in human actions, but the secondary cause if it is allowed to be a secondary determining factor by the primary cause. Pojman (1996: 596).

This concept is describing soft determinism. Pojman (1996: 596).

If human beings are forced or coerced to commit human actions, this is hard and not soft determinism.

Therefore

These actions would be done without significant human freedom and therefore it would be intellectually untenable to attach human moral responsibility to such actions.

Within compatibilism human freedom is considered to be analogous to God’s freedom but not equal with it; human freedom is considered limited while God’s is absolute. Grenz, Guretzki, and Nordling (1999: 28).

Feinberg, who has written extensively on the concepts of free will and determinism, explains incompatibilism is defined as the idea within free will theodicy that a person is free in regard to an action if he or she is free to either commit, or refrain from committing the action. Feinberg (1994: 64).

There can be no antecedent conditions or laws that will determine that an action is committed or not committed. Indeterminism is defined as the idea that there are no antecedent (preceding conditions) or simultaneous causes of human actions.

Indeterminism and libertarian free will are related terms to incompatibilism. At times used synonymously.

Soft determinism is a related term to compatibilism, at times used synonymously. 

This is contrasted with hard determinism or determinism:

Pojman (1996) explains the difference between determinism, which is also known as hard determinism, and compatibilism, which is also known as soft determinism. Pojman (1996: 596).

Within determinism or hard determinism, God causes an act and no created being is responsible for his or her moral actions, while for compatibilism or soft determinism, although God causes actions, created beings are responsible where they act voluntarily. Pojman (1996: 596).

This could be an outside force, as well, that is not God. An atheist may be a compatibilist and/or an incompatibilist, or one could hold to hard determinism.

Schelling suggests that ‘absolute causal power in one being leaves nothing but unconditional passivity for all the rest.’ Schelling (1845)(1936: 11).

This would be a difficulty with accepting hard determinism.

In his article entitled ‘Conditional’ Simon Blackburn writes that an antecedent exists if p causes q. P is the antecedent or prior cause of q which is the conditional and the consequence. Blackburn (1996: 73-74).

Compatibilism, like incompatibilism, holds to free will but in a limited form. Pojman (1996: 596).

Feinberg, a noted compatibilist, describes compatibilism as stating certain nonconstraining conditions could strongly influence actions in conjunction with human free will performing these actions. Feinberg (1994: 60). Feinberg (2001) explains that with this viewpoint, there will be no contradiction in stating God would create human beings who were significantly free, unconstrained, and yet committed actions that God willed. Feinberg (1994: 60).

Human Nature

Blackburn writes that some forms of metaphysical libertarianism, postulates that free choice is not causally determined, but is also not random. Blackburn (1996: 218). It is suggested that an agency situated outside of human nature, in regard to making human choice, is possible but likely ‘fantasy.’ Blackburn (1996: 218).

It appears human choice should be traced back to human nature. Edwards (1754)(2006 2.1: 1-1-2). Blackburn (1996: 218). It appears Blackburn is discussing a human agency. I agree with the use of the term ‘fantasy’ in context as human will is traced back to human nature, in agreement with Edwards. 

---

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

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

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

EDWARDS, JONATHAN (1754)(2006) Freedom of the Will, Flower Mound, Texas. Jonathanedwards.com. http://www.jonathanedwards.com

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.

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

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

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

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

SCHELLING, F.W.J. (1845)(1936) Schelling, Of Human Freedom, Translated by James Gutmann, The Open Court Publishing Company, Chicago.

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.

Updated for an entry on academia.edu 20250702

Martin Luther (and his influence on sovereignty defence/theodicy PhD Edit): Satire Und Theology Version

Martin Luther (and his influence on sovereignty defence/theodicy PhD Edit)

Matin, Serein France (trekearth)

Preface

Martin Luther was a slightly referenced PhD source.

Martin Luther (and his influence on sovereignty defence/theodicy PhD Edit)

Martin Luther (1483-1546)[1] is known as the father of the German Reformation[2] and preceded Calvin in the Reformation movement.[3] After reading Romans 1:17 he was convinced that only faith in Christ could make one just before God.[4] His core theology became that believers were justified by faith in Christ alone[5] and that Scripture was the only authority for people seeking salvation.[6] Luther (1516)(1968) writes concerning Romans 1:17 that only the gospel reveals the righteousness of God and that a person becomes righteous by trusting in the Word of God, Jesus.[7] Luther believed that the righteousness of God was the cause of human salvation,[8] not primarily since God was righteous, but because the believer is justified by God through faith in the gospel of the righteous Christ.[9] He reasoned that the righteousness of God was contrary to the human righteousness of works,[10] instead when a human being received justification by God the person could then commit truly good works.[11]

In 1525 Luther wrote The Bondage of the Will, which was a debate with a Catholic scholar named Desiderius Erasmus (ca.1466-1536)[12] who was an advocate of the free will theory.[13] Luther reasons that since human beings were fallen and abandoned God, they could not will good but only turned in the direction of their own desires.[14] He comments that human beings were perverted and evil,[15] but this can be used by God for his purposes, although people can do nothing but oppose God by the use of their own will.[16] He dogmatically assumes that there is no middle way between God’s grace and human free will,[17] and postulates that human free will should be theologically denied and everything should be ascribed to God.[18] Luther’s sovereignty perspective[19] may place less emphasis on the human will than the later writings of Calvin and Feinberg. However, even the title of Luther’s book The Bondage of the Will shows that he likely influenced Calvin somewhat in The Bondage and Liberation of the Will. Jay Green writes that Luther can be viewed as an early and continual influence on Calvinism,[20] and it is reasonable to deduce that Luther is perhaps a minor historical influence on Feinberg’s sovereignty theology.[21] Green points out that Luther’s views on theistic determinism are only accepted by a minority of Calvinists today.[22]

[1] Cairns (1981: 288-296).

[2] Cairns (1981: 288-296).

[3] Cairns (1981: 288-296).

[4] Cairns (1981: 289).

[5] Cairns (1981: 289-290).

[6] Cairns (1981: 289-290).

[7] Luther (1516)(1968: 25).

[8] Luther (1516)(1968: 25).

[9] Luther (1516)(1968: 25).

[10] Luther (1516)(1968: 25).

[11] Luther (1516)(1968: 25).

[12] Cairns (1981: 263).

[13] Erasmus (1525)(1972: 20).

[14] Luther (1525)(1972: 128-130).

[15] Luther (1525)(1972: 128-130).

[16] Luther (1525)(1972: 128-130).

[17] Luther is far more forceful in presentation that is Calvin and especially Feinberg. He is very forceful in his debate with Erasmus. I would provide the opinion that he seems closed-minded.

[18] Luther (1525)(1972: 133).

[19] Luther (1525)(1972: 123).

[20] Green (1971: 7).

[21] Feinberg is far more sympathetic to differing viewpoints than is Luther.

[22] Green (1971: 7).

CAIRNS, EARLE E. (1981) Christianity Through The Centuries, Grand Rapids, Zondervan Publishing House.

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

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

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

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

GREEN, JAY (1971) Five Points of Calvinism, ‘Forward’, Grand Rapids, Sovereign Grace Publishers.

LUTHER, MARTIN. (1516)(1968) Commentary On The Epistle To The Romans, Translated by J.Theodore Mueller, Grand Rapids, Zondervan Publishing House.

LUTHER, MARTIN. (1518)(1989) ‘Heidelberg Disputation’, in Timothy F. Lull (ed.), Martin Luther’s Basic Theological Writings, Minneapolis, Fortress Press.

LUTHER, MARTIN. (1525)(1972) ‘The Bondage of the Will’, in F.W. Strothmann and Frederick W. Locke (eds.), Erasmus-Luther: Discourse on Free Will, New York, Frederick Ungar Publishing Co., INC.

A version placed on academia.edu 20250701