The Hump of the Camel

Blogger “Bilbo” is a veteran of BioLogos, Uncommon Descent and other faith/science sites, as well as a subscriber here on the Hump. He has just posted a short piece on the Lord’s prayer, suggesting it is evidence that God’s will is not done here on earth. The timing and subject suggest he may possibly have picked up the idea from Peter Hickman’s “parting shot” comment to me here, to the same effect. Continue reading →

The nihilist title is not mine! Reluctantly I’ve made this reply to Seenoevo’s comment  a new post, simply to manage the length and formatting better. It didn’t really merit more than an inline comment. Continue reading →

I ended a recent post, which discussed the New Testament’s use of the word “foreknow”, with the question of what kind of view Paul is most likely to have had on the issue of free-will. After all, it’s one thing to see different ways in which a text might be interpreted, or has been interpreted in Christian history. But if, to give one important example, the Renaissance notion of libertarian free-will did not exist in the New Testament world, to interpret the word “freedom” that way would be anachronistic. So knowledge of Paul’s religious culture would be valuable.

Providentially we have a relevant first century Judaean source in the historian Josephus, who actually discusses this very issue in several passages, particularly in those describing the various Jewish parties of his time. These he refers to as “philosophical sects”, which tells us about his intentions as an author: he is writing to a Gentile audience after the defeat of his nation in the Jewish War, to persuade them of the wisdom and worthiness of the Jews. Continue reading →

A very quick postscript to the last post. The word study on “foreknow” to which I linked there has an appendix exploring an idea by Hugh Ross that 11-dimensional string theory might help to reconcile God’s pre-determination with man’s freedom. Now given the questionable status of string theory, I’m doubtful that such a theory is going to stand the test of theological time. Continue reading →

Peter Hickman asked a couple of times about my own views on divine sovereignty and human free-will on the Freedom and Autonomy threads. I deliberately refrained from answering there, because the purpose of that series was to show how much the thing became an issue through the introduction of a non-biblical but addictive concept of human free-will and liberty during the Renaissance. I argued that, starting in a small way with the Arminian controversy, that new concept has gradually taken much modern theology badly off-course since, until the whole structure of Christianity has been transformed. I still believe that is an important challenge, and hope you read the series purely with that in mind. Continue reading →