Saturday, July 04, 2015

Theologian John Sanders (PhD Edit)

The French Alps-trekearth





















John Sanders (1998) writes that in incompatibilism it is believed genetic or environmental factors are not ignored in the process of human actions,[1] but it is thought a human being could always have done otherwise in any given situation.[2]  Sanders explains that general sovereignty is a concept in contrast to a Calvinistic specific sovereignty[3] that has God allowing general structures to be set up by which human significant freedom and resulting choices allows persons to input on how things turn out.[4]  With general sovereignty, God takes risks in governing the world,[5] but he does not take risks with the concept of specific sovereignty.[6]  Sanders deduces here that when God wants to bring about human acts within the general sovereignty framework he persuades people, whereas Sanders views specific sovereignty as using hard determinism to force people to commit acts.[7]  

Bruce Reichenbach (1986) explains that the sovereign cannot compel his subjects to freely follow him.[8]  This understanding would be held by Feinberg,[9] and in general terms, accepted by most scholars that hold to theistic compatibilism within a Reformed tradition.

This would philosophically contrast soft determinism from hard determinism; compatibilism not allowing for force or coercion in regard to significantly free thoughts, acts and actions including human chose in regard to everlasting destiny as secondary causes, as God is primary cause.

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.

REICHENBACH, BRUCE (1986) Predestination and Free Will, Downers Grove, Illinois, InterVarsity Press.

SANDERS, JOHN (1998) The God Who Risks,  Downers Grove, Illinois, InterVarsity Press.

SANDERS, JOHN (2003) ‘Open Theism: A Radical Revision or Minuscule Modification of Arminianism?’,  in Wesleyan Theological Journal, Volume 38, Number 2, Fall, pp. 69-102.  Wilmore, Kentucky, Asbury College. 



[1] Sanders (1998: 221).
[2] Sanders (1998: 221).  That would be significant freedom for incompatibilism.
[3] Sanders (1998: 212).
[4] Sanders (1998: 213).
[5] Sanders (1998: 213-214).
[6] Sanders (1998: 213-214).
[7] Sanders (1998: 214).
[8] Reichenbach (1986: 105).
[9] Feinberg, would deny that God would force persons to commit acts, instead it is God’s sovereign plan that certain unconstrained actions should occur.  Feinberg (2001: 637).

England:Goring Gap-trekearth

Monday, June 29, 2015

Limited Free Will (Brief)

South Wales-trekearth



















FEATURED MY ASSURANCE: GOD IS IN CONTROL, PART 2

Cited

'God always gives His best to those He loves, but sometimes His will includes something you would never choose for yourself. How do you reconcile God's generous love with the pain and sorrow He allows? Dr. Stanley responds to those of us who wrestle with this question in part two of My Assurance: God is in Control.'

I found a significant Christian teacher that uses the term 'limited free will' in regard to humanity.

Dr. Charles Stanley of In Touch Ministries

My PhD term.

I rarely see the term used online and did not see it used by a significant teacher or writer in my academic research at Wales or prior to.

From

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

Cited

'In contrast, I deduce that God can have very specific intentions in every situation, while allowing significant limited free will, and this has been explained throughout this work.'

End

I wrote three posts on the weekend, the last two on my second blog:

Sovereignty Theodicy

False Story

Robust Enough

Wales, Lampeter-Trinity Saint David