The Orthodox Study Bible: Knowledge: Satire Und Theology Version

The Orthodox Study Bible: Knowledge

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

Preface

My review, as a biblical Christian of the Reformed tradition, of this fine academic source, continues. This Orthodox source uses the New King James Version (NKJV). Originally published on Blogger 20200719, with significant revisions and additions with Blogger 20251113 for an academia.edu entry.

The Orthodox Study Bible: Knowledge

Glossary from Reverend John W. Morris, Ph.D.

Knowledge

Quote:

'Knowing and experiencing the truth of God and salvation through Jesus Christ. Spiritual knowledge (1) is frequently identified with Christian doctrine (2) is applied to the spiritual meaning of the Scripture; and (3) refers to the mystical and contemplative knowledge, not merely intellectual knowledge of God. Its aim and effects are to enhance man's responsibility, to aid in discernment of good and evil and to lead people to God...'(802).

From the verses this study bible provides, I will comment on 2 Corinthians 4: 6.

2 Corinthians 4: 6 The New King James Version (NKJV)

6 For it is the God who commanded light to shine out of darkness, who has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.

2 Corinthians 4: 6 King James Version (KJV)

6 For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. 

2 Corinthians 4: 6 New American Standard Bible (NASB) 

6 For God, who said, “Light shall shine out of darkness,” is the One who has shone in our hearts to give the Light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ. 

Greek New Testament 2 Corinthians 4: 6

From the five Greek New Testament sources provided. 

γνώσεως 

(knowledge)

Bible Hub: 2 Corinthians 4: 6

γνώσεως knowledge N-GFS

Noun: Genitive (of) feminine, singular

of the knowledge

Bible Hub: 1108. gnósis 

Cited 

Strong's Concordance 

gnósis: a knowing, knowledge 

Original Word: γνῶσις, εως, ἡ 

Part of Speech: Noun, Feminine 

Transliteration: gnósis Phonetic 

Spelling: (gno'-sis) 

Definition: a knowing, knowledge 

Usage: knowledge, doctrine, wisdom. 

Cited 

2 Corinthians 4:6 

N-GFS GRK: φωτισμὸν τῆς γνώσεως τῆς δόξης 

NAS: to give the Light of the knowledge of the glory 

KJV: [give] the light of the knowledge of the glory 

INT: radiancy of the knowledge of the glory

Bauer documents that in 2 Corinthians 4:6, γνώσεως is 'enlightening of the knowledge' of God (163). This is given by God (163). Therefore it is revelatory knowledge and not found through the use of human reason. Rather human reason, by God's grace, can reasonably comprehend God's revelation. It is not a complete comprehension, but is significant.

Courson provides a practical theology: 'Both the face and the grace of God are revealed in the Person of Jesus.' (1115).

---

Theological & Philosophical reflections

I am in basic agreement with the Orthodox text here. 

1) Knowledge '(1) is frequently identified with Christian doctrine' (802)...

True, legitimate, New Testament knowledge of God, which is spiritual knowledge of God, is directly connected to concepts of New Testament (and biblical) doctrine. Therefore, it is related to theology. Theology, doctrine and Christian dogma (central beliefs), especially within the Christian Church, should not be considered as valuable only for 'theology nerds', 'serious bible students', pastors, elders and academics. Make no mistake, a lack of significant theological understanding, equates to a lack of spiritual knowledge, at least in some areas.

'Knowing and experiencing the truth of God and salvation through Jesus Christ' (802). Idealistically, this should occur with at least a basic, sound, New Testament theological understanding. I am not stating the Christian believer should study academic theology thoroughly, but I do think for accuracy, the New Testament and Hebrew Bible should be read in context, with the assistance of commentaries and biblical tools. I still reason that a basic belief in the gospel (Acts 2, Romans 10) through regeneration (John 3, Titus 3, 1 Peter 1) is legitimate salvation, but without sound theology, is an immature Christian faith and worldview.

2) '(2) is applied to the spiritual meaning of the Scripture' (802).

This spiritual knowledge of God is applied for a correct and reasonable interpretations and meanings of scripture. For correct theology. 

3) This knowledge refers to mystical and not just intellectual knowledge. In the perfect will of God for Christian believers, the Holy Spirit guides the spirit/mind, and physical brain of the regenerate to have a significantly, true, understanding of doctrine and theology, which is both intellectual and spiritual, not either/or in my humble opinion.

It would be possible for a scholar or reader/reviewer to intellectually understand scripture and theology without a proper spiritual understanding. Scholars such as these could still serve as legitimate academic sources of facts within biblical studies, theology and philosophy of religion, for example. I deduce I have cited some of these scholars. Biblical exegesis and analysis can be done by the unregenerate and unregenerate scholar, not by just the believing Christian. However, practical application of scripture should be guided by the Holy Spirit of God, engaging with a studious Christian mind. Practical, obedient, Christian living with the use of scripture requires a person to be guided by the Holy Spirit.

The gospel is indeed understood through revelatory, scriptural knowledge. But, it still requires the use of the human brain as a secondary source for human comprehension. In other words, God reveals as primary source/cause, and the regenerate embrace the gospel as a secondary source/cause. Human cause here is in the sense of embracing the gospel, living within salvation, not creating the means of salvation in any way, whatsoever. Human salvation is not forced or coerced, it is embraced.

I do not deny the value of theistic, philosophy of religion as I reason that some ontological truths about God can be known through the use of reason within philosophy. This includes, non-exhaustively, reasoning God as infinite, logically consistent, eternal, necessary, sufficient as in necessary with key premises, such as God is good and holy. The necessary that exists in each possible reality is good. The necessary that exists in each possible reality is holy and set apart from its creation. 

The necessary would be the first cause. The finite caused is contingent and can be a secondary cause only. 

---

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

BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996) ‘A priori/A posteriori’, in Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, p. 21-22. Oxford, Oxford University Press. 

BONJOUR, LAURENCE. (1996) ‘A Priori’, in Robert Audi (ed.), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. 

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

EDWARDS, PAUL AND ARTHUR PAP (1973) (eds), ‘A priori knowledge: Introduction’, A Modern Introduction To Philosophy, New York, The Free Press. 

GUYER, PAUL AND ALLEN W, in KANT, IMMANUEL (1781)(1787)(1998) Critique of Pure Reason, Translated and edited by Paul Guyer and Allen W. Wood, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 

HUME, DAVID (1739-1740)(1973) ‘A Treatise of Human Nature’, in Paul Edwards and Arthur Pap (eds.), A Modern Introduction To Philosophy, New York, The Free Press. 

HUME, DAVID (1779)(2004) Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, Lawrence, Kansas.

KANT, IMMANUEL (1781)(1787)(1998) Critique of Pure Reason, Translated and edited by Paul Guyer and Allen W. Wood, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 

KANT, IMMANUEL (1781)(1787)(1929)(2006) Critique of Pure Reason, Translated by Norman Kemp Smith, London, Macmillan. 

KANT, IMMANUEL (1788)(1997) Critique of Practical Reason, Translated by Mary Gregor (ed.), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 

KANT, IMMANUEL (1788)(1898)(2006) The Critique of Practical Reason, Translated by Thomas Kingsmill Abbott, London, Longmans, Green, and Co.

KANT, IMMANUEL (1791)(2001) ‘On The Miscarriage of All Philosophical Trials in Theodicy’, in Religion and Rational Theology, Translated by George di Giovanni and Allen Wood, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. 

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

STRONG, J. (1890)(1986) Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, Burlington, Welch Publishing Company. 

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

Immutable/Impassible (PhD Edit): Satire Und Theology Version

Griesbach, Germany 

Immutable/Impassible (PhD Edit)

Preface

Section of my PhD placed on Blogger 20130206. Slight reformat on Blogger for an entry on academia.edu, 20251107.

Photo not mine, as noted.

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

Immutable/Impassible (PhD Edit)

Professor van der Ven finds Moltmann’s discussion on the ancient view, that God is apathetic towards his creation, useful.[1]  Moltmann notes the related Greek term ‘apatheia’ which is the idea of an irresistible force that cannot be influenced by outside forces.[2]  Historically in early Greek times from Aristotle onwards, God was viewed as being without emotions.[3]  Brian Davies (1999) notes that the term ‘impassibility’ corresponds to ‘apatheia’[4] and defines impassibility as the traditional understanding that God, the divine nature, cannot experience pain or suffering.[5]  Davies believes it is incorrect to assume God’s impassibility should mean that the creator is indifferent or unconcerned about his creation.[6]  For Erickson, the idea of God’s divine nature as impassible is based upon the influence of ancient Greek thought rather than Scripture.[7]  Erickson points out that with the incarnation of Christ, God the Son did experience human suffering.[8]  He possessed a human nature that did suffer in life and in death, even though his divine nature coexisted with his human one.[9]  Kenneth Surin (1982) writes that God is considered by some within orthodox Christian theology to be unable to experience pain or sorrow.[10]  However, others concede that concluding God is impassible is a questionable view within traditional thought.[11]  Surin thinks that perhaps God limits his omnipotence by identifying with human suffering.[12]  Paul Helm (2006), Professor Emeritus of the University of London,[13] reasons impassibility has lost intellectual support,[14] even though throughout the ages many within the Church have accepted the doctrine.[15]  Helm suggests that the doctrine needs to be reconsidered as God is not indifferent to human suffering,[16] nor does God express emotions of anger and passion as humans do.[17] 

The concept of impassibility opens up a complex discussion beyond this thesis, but it seems reasonable God can be both all-powerful and feel negative emotions.  It should be concluded suffering does not alter his divine attributes. Thiessen describes the immutability of God as meaning his divine nature, attributes, consciousness, and will cannot change.[18]  Erickson explains that God does not grow or develop, as there are no variations in his nature at different points within his existence.[19]  R.C. Sproul and Robert Wolgemuth (2000) deduce that as God is eternal he has no beginning or no end.[20]  As God is understood to be eternal and beyond time without a progression in nature, his infinite being would make a change in nature and character impossible.[21]  My modest proposal reasons since God is infinite and considered immutable,[22] it is impossible for him to suffer in the exact way that human beings do.  David A Pailin (1999) explains that within some process theology[23] approaches, God’s existence may be viewed as absolute, necessary and unchanging.[24]  However, God’s character can change and is determined through interaction with his creation.[25]  Pailin postulates that God’s character can change, as he loves his creatures.[26]  In my view, the divine nature does not have a physical body that can be altered, changed or die, as in John 4:24 where Jesus stated that God is spirit.[27]  Christ could suffer because he was both true God and true man,[28] but God as spirit[29] cannot suffer in human terms.  Since God is immutable,[30] any type or amount of suffering cannot alter his essential nature or being, or divine character.[31]  In contrast, suffering can definitely change the essential nature of human beings as, for example, in the case of an amputated limb or death.  Suffering can also change the mental and spiritual well being of a person, but God would not be altered in the same way.[32]

Erickson explains that it does seem a rational possibility, however, to conclude God does have emotions, although they are controlled.[33]  He indicates anger is involved in the idea of God’s wrath in the Biblical example Romans 1:18.[34]  God also has ‘agape’ love for his creatures, which is a steadfast, unselfish concern for them.[35]  It is reasonable to deduce that God’s love for humanity is not only a decision to care for them, but also includes intense concern for his creation.[36]  An understanding, infinite God could comprehend the sufferings of his finite creatures,[37] but God’s essential nature and being would not be altered by the experience of these feelings.[38]  There is no need to conclude that the sufferings of finite creatures alter the nature of an infinite God who can comprehend and feel those sufferings.[39]  Therefore, even if, for the sake of argument, impassibility is a correct deduction concerning God’s nature,[40] Christ possessing the full nature of God[41] and a full human nature[42] enabled him to experience suffering and evil.[43]  God the Son can therefore relate to human suffering on a personal level.  I reason God’s immutable nature does not necessarily make him impassible.

---

---

[1] van der Ven (1993: 173).

[2] Moltmann (1993: 267).

[3] Moltmann (1993: 268).

[4] Davies (1999: 288).

[5] Davies (1999: 288).

[6] Davies (1999: 288).

[7] Erickson (1994: 737).

[8] Erickson (1994: 737).

[9] Erickson (1994: 737).

[10] Surin (1982: 97).

[11] Surin (1982: 97).

[12] Surin (1982: 97).

[13] Helm (2006: 1).

[14] Helm (2006: 1).

[15] Helm (2006: 1).

[16] Helm (2006: 1).

[17] Helm (2006: 1).

[18] Thiessen (1956: 127).

[19] Erickson (1994: 274).

[20] Sproul and Wolgemuth (2000: 2).

[21] Sproul and Wolgemuth (2000: 2).

[22] Sproul and Wolgemuth (2000: 2).  Thiessen (1956: 127).  Erickson (1994: 274).

[23] Process theology as discussed previously is a twentieth century approach based on the philosophy of Alfred North Whitehead that presents a God that is involved in the continual process of world through two natures.  God has a transcendent nature which contains God’s perfect character and the consequent immanent nature by which God is part of the changing cosmic process.

[24] Pailin (1999: 469).

[25] Pailin (1999: 469).

[26] Pailin (1999: 469).

[27] The New American Standard Version Bible (1984: 1198).

[28] Schreck (1984:  16). 

[29] The New American Standard Version Bible (1984: 1198).

[30] Sproul and Wolgemuth (2000: 2).  Thiessen (1956: 127).  Erickson (1994: 274).

[31] Pailin (1999: 469).

[32] God has an infinite nature that cannot be changed, but finite human nature can be altered.

[33] Erickson (1994: 605).

[34] Erickson (1994: 605).

[35] Erickson (1994: 180).

[36] Erickson (1994: 180).

[37] Pailin (1999: 469).

[38] Thiessen (1956: 127).

[39] Thiessen (1956: 127).

[40] Surin (1982: 97). 

[41] Barth (1932-1968: 371). Williams (2007: 130).  Franke (2005: 72). 

[42] Williams (2007: 129).  Schreck (1984:  16).  Franke (2005: 72). 

[43] Bloesch (1987: 16).  He suffered as the reconciler between God and the world.  Williams (2007: 130).

---

BARTH, KARL (1932-1968) Church Dogmatics,  The Doctrine of the Word of God: Volume 1, Part One, Translated by J.W. Edwards, Rev. O. Bussey, and Rev. Harold Knight, Edinburgh, T. and T. Clark. 

BARTH, KARL (1932-1968) Church Dogmatics, The Doctrine of Creation: Volumes 1 and 3.  Translated by J.W. Edwards, Rev. O. Bussey, and Rev. Harold Knight, Edinburgh, T. and T. Clark. 

BARTH, KARL (1932-1968) Church Dogmatics, The Doctrine of God: Volume 2, First Half -Volume, Translated by J.W. Edwards, Rev. O. Bussey, and Rev. Harold Knight, Edinburgh, T. and T. Clark. 

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

BLOESCH, DONALD G. (1996) ‘Sin, The Biblical Understanding of Sin’, in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.

DAVIES, BRIAN (1999) ‘Impassibility’, in Alan Richardson and John Bowden (eds.), A New Dictionary of Christian Theology, p. 288. Kent, SCM Press Ltd.

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. 

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.

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

HELM, PAUL (2006) ‘Divine Impassibility: Why Is It Suffering?’ in Reformation 21, Philadelphia, Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals, Inc.

http://www.reformation21.org/Past_Issues/2006_Issues_1_16_/2006_Issues_1_16_Articles/Divine_Impassibility/94/

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

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

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

SPROUL, R.C., AND ROBERT WOLGEMUTH (2000) What’s In the Bible, Word Publishing, Nashville.

SURIN, KENNETH (1986) Theology and the Problem of Evil, Oxford,  Basil Blackwell Ltd.

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

VAN DER VEN, JOHANNES (1993) Practical Theology, Translated by Barbara Schultz, AC Kampen, Netherlands, Kok Pharos Publishing House.

VAN DER VEN, JOHANNES (1998) God Reinvented?, Leiden, Brill.

VAN DER VEN, JOHANNES (2005) ‘Theodicy Items and Scheme’, in a personal email from Johannes van der Ven, Nijmegen, Radboud University, Nijmegen.

VAN DER VEN, JOHANNES (2006a) ‘Dates of Nijmegen authors’, in a personal email from Johannes van der Ven, Nijmegen, Radboud University, Nijmegen.

VAN DER VEN, JOHANNES (2006b) ‘Symbols versus Models’, in a personal email from Johannes van der Ven, Nijmegen, Radboud University, Nijmegen.

WILLIAMS, ROWAN (2000) On Christian Theology, Blackwell Publishing, Oxford. 

20251107 

'In contrast, suffering can definitely change the essential nature of human beings as, for example, in the case of an amputated limb or death. Suffering can also change the mental and spiritual well being of a person, but God would not be altered in the same way.[32]

[32] God has an infinite nature that cannot be changed, but finite human nature can be altered.'

As God has an infinite, eternal, nature, that nature is not mutable by divine knowledge of, or divine experience with finite pain or suffering. Instead of viewing God as traditionally impassible, the view that the divine nature, cannot experience pain or suffering; I would reason that God instead has infinite knowledge of such things, and has infinite knowledge of the finite. I do not embrace, at least, this traditional definition of impassible.

God's infinite nature cannot be altered or changed by anything finite. By anything internal or external. Therefore, God is immutable.

David Hume (1711-1776) PhD Edit: Satire Und Theology Version

Saint Petersburg, trekearth

David Hume (1711-1776) PhD Edit

David Hume: Preface

Blackburn describes David Hume (1711-1776) the Scottish philosopher, historian and writer as the most influential modern naturalist. Blackburn (1996: 179). Hume would also be known as an empiricist and Blackburn correctly notes Hume as a key figure in the Enlightenment. Blackburn (1996: 179). The following is edited material where I dealt with Hume within my Doctorate. I add more material for this article.

David Hume on Theodicy

David Hume (1779)(2004) discusses the danger of traditional superstition in religious presentations, Hume (1779)(2004: 7) and doubtless a reasonable, open-minded, philosophical approach from a theist would be far more helpful within a theodicy. He also warns against theistic claims of being able to adequately understand the Supreme Being, if there is one. Hume (1779)(2004: 21-27). This Being’s attributes would be ‘incomprehensible and it basically impossible for the theist to understand the nature of this being. Hume (1779)(2004: 21). If Hume is correct, constructing a theodicy would be largely meaningless. To counter this problem, Biblical Revelation would be required in order that God reveals self in context of the issue of theodicy.

May 29, 2011

Within my PhD research Augustine’s free will approach to theodicy made use of Scripture and yet was also philosophical. Plantinga’s free will defence was philosophical. Feinberg’s sovereignty theodicy was both Biblical and philosophical as was my sovereignty approach which was not formally presented separately but was basically embedded within my work. My project with the use of exemplars and my own earned expertise did not fall prey to Hume’s criticisms of constructing largely meaningless theodicy. This is not a claim of intellectual perfection by any means.

David Hume on God’s Sovereignty

Phillips explains that a Reformed view is that God has the freedom to act as he wants. Phillips (2005: 22). This would be God’s sovereign providence, but Hume is skeptical of this concept. Hume (1779)(2004: 50). People throughout the world view certain evils, which may be rectified in other regions of the world or in the future, and understand these good events as being connected to general laws and the existence of a good deity. Hume suggests that these are superstitions, and questions whether in many cases a ‘cause can be known but from its known effects?’ The idea is then presented that if God is benevolent his providence should lead to a world without suffering and wickedness. Hume (1779)(2004: 50).

May 29, 2011

This is the logical problem of evil. ‘The idea is then presented that if God is benevolent his providence should lead to a world without suffering and wickedness’. Much of the problem of evil and theodicy discussion within my thesis concerning free will, sovereignty, and soul-making presentations and atheistic counters concerns the logical problem of evil and also the gratuitous problem of evil. Other theses, books and articles may deal with various approaches, perhaps of other religions and worldviews. For example, hypothetically, evil could be denied as a reality.

Below is edited from previous work, but is a good summary of the major views to briefly answer Hume:

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

Within On Free Choice of the Will, Augustine presents his free will theodicy, theodicy being an explanation for the problem of evil in a theistic universe. Augustine was somewhat influential on Alvin C. Plantinga’s free will defence in the 1970’s. Plantinga (1977)(2002: 26). Augustine reasons that God is not the cause of evil, but rather human beings create the problem when they choose to follow their own temporal ways rather than God’s. Augustine (388-395)(1964: 3). A possible problem with Augustine’s view is that he blames the problem of evil on human choice but at the same time places a heavy emphasis on God’s sovereignty in creation. Augustine’s view on human free will appears libertarian while, as John Feinberg points out, Augustine’s concept of God’s sovereignty would seemingly require some form of determinism. Feinberg (1994: 98).

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

Within this text Feinberg presents a defence which could be labeled a sovereignty theodicy. My personal sovereignty theodicy is embedded within my MPhil and more so my PhD and is somewhat similar to Feinberg’s work. As well as presenting his own perspective Feinberg does a thorough job of reviewing various theistic and atheistic concepts on the problem of evil. He reasons that God does not presently eliminate the problem of evil because to do so would violate divine plans and human development. Feinberg (1994: 130). I found Feinberg’s explanation of this a bit repetitive and it would perhaps be good for him to have speculated on God’s reasons for willingly allowing evil in more specific terms as I have to some degree in my work.

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

Plantinga successfully demonstrates that a free will defence is logical and reasonable. Plantinga (1977)(2002: 28). He speculates that the price of God creating a universe with significantly free creatures is that wrong actions will inevitably occur leading to the problem of evil. Plantinga (1977)(2002: 30). Plantinga’s free will approach is not primarily theological as is Augustine’s and therefore offers a different but somewhat related perspective. 

A question arises if Plantinga has really successfully answered the objection of theistic critics such as Feinberg, and atheists such as J.L. Mackie on why God could not simply create human beings who were significantly free and never committed wrong actions. I believe that God could have created significantly free human beings, or at least human-like creatures that only committed right actions. Perhaps God desired to create human beings that would ultimately posses a greater spiritual maturity than Adam and Eve prior to the fall because those restored in Christ would have experienced sin, the problem of evil, death and the atoning work and resurrection of Christ. Quite possibly restored human beings would ultimately be more spiritually mature and valuable to God than persons that never knew what it was like to disobey God and experience evil. I would also point out that Biblically speaking the angels that did not fall would seemingly be significantly free and have not committed wrong actions.

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

Hick rejects Augustinian and Calvinistic views on theodicy, and instead supports what he views as the Irenean position. Hick (1970: 221). Ramsay (2004: 2). Hick also rejects conservative Christian doctrines and instead favours the idea of universalism. Hick (1970: 172). Hick (1970: 381). He reasons that human beings were made immature and capable of committing wrong human actions in order that God eventually can bring all persons to the creator through soul-making. Hick (1970: 292). I can accept that some type of soul-making is used by God in the development of believers, but without the atoning work of Christ and resurrection within a Christian tradition we do not have a revealed divine means of salvation and are left to speculate on how God should or could save persons, as Hick speculates.

David Hume on Consciousness

Consciousness is not a new intellectual subject, as David Hume writes in the article A Treatise of Human Nature’ that most philosophers think personal identity begins with consciousness, which is reflected thought or perception. Although the exact nature of human consciousness is not known, it does work with human thought and perception. Hume found no theory of consciousness provided him with intellectual satisfaction. Rene Descartes (1596-1650) in Conversation with Burman, defined consciousness as the possible internal source of knowledge concerning a person’s own thoughts or mental occurrences. To have consciousness was to be able to understand one’s own thoughts.

I dealt with more philosophical/scientific journals in my PhD in regard to consciousness for post-viva revisions and documented some of the work in this post below. From my reading, academically consciousness and the related subject of desires, still lacked much intellectual clarity even as they were being studied within the fields of philosophy, religion, psychology and psychiatry.

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

---

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.

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

DESCARTES, RENE (1648)(1996) Conversation with Burman, in Eric Lormand: University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, The University of Michigan.

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.

GIERER, ALFRED (2003)‘Brain, mind, and limitations of a scientific theory of human consciousness’, Preprint of a contribution to the symposium: Proteus im Spiegel-Kritische Theorie des Subjekts im 20, Tubingen, Max-Planck-Institute Biology, Tubingen.

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

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.

HUME, DAVID (1739-1740)(1973) ‘A Treatise of Human Nature’, in Paul Edwards and Arthur Pap (eds.), A Modern Introduction To Philosophy, New York, The Free Press.

HUME, DAVID (1779)(2004) Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, Lawrence, Kansas.

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.

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

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

PLANTINGA, ALVIN C. (2000) Warranted Christian Belief, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

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

---

Originally published 20110601 on Blogger, with slight edits 20251101 on Blogger for an entry on academia.edu