Biblical Figures of Speech and Theology

I feel bittersweet about Augustine. He lived from 354 to 430 in Romanized North Africa and became a Western Christian bishop, theologian, and philosopher. His legacy dominated Western Christian theology and philosophy for over one thousand years. I appreciate his intellect and devotion while I sometimes strongly disagree with him.

Augustine developed classical theism and combined it with Christian theology. For example, classical theism says that God has always been perfect and beyond improvement while God cannot possibly change. Also, Augustine based classical theism on Platonism. That is, Platonism is the philosophy of Plato and any of his followers throughout history, while Plato lived in Greece during the fifth-to-fourth century B.C. and founded the first institution of higher education in Western civilization.

Consider Augustine, "City of God," book 15, chapter 25. He said that God never experiences any disturbance of mind such as anger, despite numerous Bible passages describing God's anger or "wrath" which is extreme anger.

For example, Exodus 32:9-10: "The Lord said to Moses, 'I have seen this people, how stiff-necked they are. Now let me alone, so that my wrath may burn hot against them and I may consume them; and of you I will make a great nation.'"

The passage says that God wanted to burn in wrath toward the Israelites and kill all of them except for Moses. However, Augustine implied that every reference to God's anger or wrath in the Bible is a figure of speech referring strictly to judicial punishment while divine anger is unreal. Also, Augustine said that all biblical references to unreal divine anger were necessary for the Bible to reach all people with the importance of avoiding divine punishment.

I agree with Augustine that nothing unsettles God's divine nature. However, I strongly disagree with Augustine on some points of divine punishment. For example, Augustine taught that everybody who dies unreconciled with God will suffer never ending torment in hell with no chance of liberation, while my 2012 Resource Publications book "Conditional Futurism: New Perspective of End-Time Prophecy" describes the realistic possibility of postmortem salvation for people who die without salvation.

For the rest of this blog post, I focus not on my theological differences with Augustine but on the process of developing biblical theology. For example, Augustine diligently studied the Christian Bible, Christian theology, and Platonism before he developed his world-renowned theology and philosophy. In this context, he boldly developed and taught his merger of Platonism and Christian theology. He noticed that some Bible passages would contradict each other when literally interpreted and he developed a system of biblical interpretation that implied consistent doctrine throughout the Bible. For instance, any Bible passage that at first glance implies that God felt anger was a figurative biblical accommodation. Likewise, the literal meaning of a Bible passage is not always the objective meaning of the passage.

Serious biblical theologies focus on consistent theology. The consistency requires principles of biblical interpretation which are also called "biblical hermeneutics." For example, Augustine outlined his hermeneutics in "On Christian Doctrine." From those principles, he concluded that God has always been perfect and beyond improvement while God cannot possibly change. This implies that every Bible passage that literally describes that God has changed is figurative. Also, every Bible passage that describes divine revelation or divine intervention never implies that God has ever changed.

Biblical hermeneutics are both necessary and problematic for biblical theology. For example, let me explain the primary dispute between Reformed theology and Arminian theology. John Calvin and other leaders in the 16th-century Protestant Reformation developed Reformed theology based on Augustine's theology. One of their theological points is called "unconditional election" which says that God before creation chose those who eventually enjoy salvation while the basis of the choice is God's mysterious purposes apart from any conditions or qualities of those persons. However, the Dutch theologian Jacobus Arminius in the early 17th century began to challenge the doctrine of unconditional election based on biblical theology. Arminius's followers called "Arminians" formally developed the doctrine of "conditional election" which says that God chooses those who enjoy salvation based on who responds to God's grace with faith.

Ironically, both unconditional and conditional election are supported by various seminaries and biblical scholars. Also, both sides of the election doctrine diligently study the same ancient manuscripts of the Bible and agree on most principles of Protestant hermeneutics, but they derive major difference in how they define the biblical Greek word translated to "predestined."

This blog post summarizes some important concepts of biblical interpretation. My next post will describe why I believe that the Bible teaches "supreme providence" which I described in my last post titled "God's Love and Limits."

Sources:
— Augustine, "City of God," book 15, chapter 25: Of the Anger of God, Which Does Not Inflame His Mind, Nor Disturb His Unchangeable Tranquillity, https://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/ecf/102/1020446.htm.
— Augustine, "On Christian Doctrine," https://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/ecf/102/index.htm.
— James Goetz, "Conditional Futurism: New Perspective of End-Time Prophecy," Resource Publications, 2012, https://wipfandstock.com/conditional-futurism.html.
— James Goetz, "God's Love and Limits," https://theoperspectives.blogspot.com/2019/11/gods-love-and-limits.html.
— Scripture quotations are from the New Revised Standard Version Bible, copyright © 1989 the Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States of America. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

God's Love and Limits

God's love and ability to create a universe from nothing does not imply that God can completely control the universe.

My forthcoming paper "Theodicy, Supreme Providence, and Semiclassical Theism" presents a natural theology based on modern physics which describes creation from nothing and what I call "supreme providence." Supreme providence implies that the Supreme Being governs the universe with inexhaustible love, perception and power. However, God's perception and power created the universe with amazing particles that are beyond complete control. This helps to explain the coexistence of God and extensive, horrific evil in the universe.

I describe the philosophical problem of evil:

"Extensive horrific suffering caused by diseases, accidents, and natural disasters could be prevented by God as defined by traditional divine attributes. Also, theists believe that God wants them to protect and help people who suffer from these horrors of nature. The protection and help includes prayers and practical support. So why does God not prevent these horrors of nature or do more to fix the consequences of the horrors? Furthermore, most theists support the moral rightness of protecting society by incarcerating perpetrators of serial rape, serial killing, mass murder, terrorism, human trafficking, and all crimes against humanity. So why does God not do more to protect society from the horrors caused by horrific perpetrators?"

Traditional theism says that God is all-loving, all-knowing and all-powerful. This means that God can single-handedly and immediately prevent any and all evil, while God has nonetheless permitted the existence of all evil events experienced in history.

Typical justification for the coexistence of God and extensive, horrific evil says the following: God gave humans free will and humans abused the divine gift of free will; the existence of horrific evil is temporary; humans can develop moral excellence while resisting evil; faithful believers will eventually enjoy everlasting love and happiness without evil; and humans cannot always understand the divine reason for the existence of various horrific evil.

Many believers are content with the above reasons for extensive, horrific evil. However, I explain that creation from nothing and God's qualities of everlasting love, perception and power do not imply that God can completely control creation. Also, God always lovingly perceives everything and prayer sometimes results in divine intervention because of synergy between God and humans.

This post begins a new direction for my blogging while I focus on explaining my research on God's love and limits to the general public. Stay tuned for more.

Source: James Goetz, "Theodicy, Supreme Providence, and Semiclassical Theism," Theology and Science (forthcoming) https://philarchive.org/archive/GOETSP-4.

Astronomical Entanglement and ER=EPR Indicate the Universal Wormhole

For Immediate Release

Astronomical quantum entanglement and quantum teleportation indicate nothingness and the universal wormhole. Researcher James Goetz proposes that the recent discovery that quantum entanglement extends to 2,000 light-years (10 quadrillion kilometers) and the ER=EPR conjecture indicate the existence of nothingness and the universal potential for quantum wormholes.

"ER=EPR" is a pseudo acronym that refers to Einstein-Rosen bridges and the EPR paradox. The ER=EPR conjecture says that any pair of entangled particles (EPR) is connected by an Einstein-Rosen bridge (ER), while ER is commonly called a "wormhole." No scientific evidence indicates the reality of any traversable wormhole which would have mouths at each end that permit particles to transport back and forth through the wormhole. However, quantum wormholes have no traversable mouths. The physics that indicates the impossibility or unlikeliness of traversable wormholes has nothing to do with the ER=EPR conjecture.

The EPR paradox refers to the famous 1935 paper by Albert Einstein, Boris Podolsky and Nathan Rosen which describes what is now called "quantum entanglement" and respective "action at a distance." However, the authors rejected the possibility of entanglement and action at a distance because the theory of relativity implies that the entanglement of causally disconnected particles is impossible. Instead, the authors proposed that the appearance of entanglement was actually determinism caused by hidden variables. Standard physics eventually rejected hidden-variable theory and accepted the reality of quantum entanglement while there is no consensus for the structure of entanglement.

Ironically, later in 1935, Einstein and Rosen published their famous paper about relativity and theoretical 'bridges' that can connect causally disconnected regions of spacetime, that is, wormholes or ER. The irony is that wormhole theory can logically explain the entanglement of otherwise causally disconnected particles, for example, the EPR paradox. Also, nobody proposed a wormhole resolution for the EPR paradox until 2013 when Juan Maldacena and Leonard Susskind published "Cool Horizons for Entangled Black Holes" and introduced ER=EPR. Since then, Google Scholar has compiled over 700 references to ER=EPR.

The most amazing cases of entanglement include laboratory generated quantum teleportation and entangled pairs of photons in outer space. For example, quantum teleportation is the instantaneous transfer of quantum information from one location to a so-called causally disconnected location. Also, some entangled photons have endured for eight billion years while the action at distance expands to 2,000 light-years. The endurance of the entanglement is older than the Sun while the distance of the entanglement is 23 times the distance from the Sun to its nearest neighboring star. The cases of quantum teleportation and astronomical entanglement can be logically explained by the ER=EPR conjecture, while there is no other reasonable explanation for the teleportation and entanglement.

Goetz proposes the ER=EPR conjecture and the ubiquity of entanglement in laboratories and outer space indicate the existence of nothingness and the universal potential for quantum wormholes, that is, the universal wormhole. The universal wormhole has no mouths while it nonetheless can collapse the causal disconnection between any two locations in the universe. This permits a preferred focal pathway for a universal chronology despite the relativity of simultaneity which implies that there is no absolute universal chronology. Also, relativity does not imply the B-theory of time, eternalism and temporal parts. For example, relativity does not imply that objects persist through the time dimension in the same way they extend through the three spatial dimensions. Furthermore, Goetz develops more on modern physics for natural theology in his forthcoming paper "Theodicy, Supreme Providence, and Semiclassical Theism."

Source: James Goetz, "Theodicy, Supreme Providence, and Semiclassical Theism," Theology and Science (forthcoming) https://philarchive.org/archive/GOETSP-4.