Observers with Universal Wormhole Sight and Special Relativity Sight

Observers © 2018 by James Goetz is licensed under CC BY 4.0. To view a copy of this license, visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

I applied for this Creative Commons license in 2024, but the copyright is retroactive to the date that I created the image (2018).

For example, I initially uploaded the image to my PhilPeople profile https://philpeople.org/profiles/james-goetz.

Then, I used the image for James Goetz, “Theodicy, Supreme Providence, and Semiclassical Theism,” Theology and Science 19, no. 1 (2021): 53, https://doi.org/10.1080/14746700.2020.1825195.

Later (2024), the managing editor of Theology and Science, Alan Weissenbacher, gave me permission to give my image with "© 2020 Graduate Theological Union (CTNS Program)" the "CC BY 4.0" license.

Updated 7/5/2025.

Baptist Church Freedom Is like a Box of Chocolates

Baptist Church Freedom is like a box of chocolates.

Yes, I plead guilty to parodying an iconic line from the 1994 movie "Forrest Gump."

Please allow me to explain myself.

Earlier this month, I joined First Baptist Church, Greensboro, an affiliate of the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship (CBF).

I had never before identified as a Baptist, but I joined because I heard many good words and felt many good vibes while visiting the church, and I experienced an epiphany.

I realized that I agree with the core four Baptist freedoms as defined by CBF, that is, Soul Freedom, Bible Freedom, Church Freedom, and Religious Freedom.

(Also, Walter Shurden first defined the four Baptist freedoms in his 1993 book "The Baptist Identity: Four Fragile Freedoms.")

This post focuses on Church Freedom. For example, the CBF website says:

Church Freedom — We believe in the autonomy of every local church. We believe Baptist churches are free, under the Lordship of Christ, to determine their membership and leadership, to order their worship and work, to ordain whomever they perceive as gifted for ministry, and to participate as they deem appropriate in the larger body of Christ. https://cbf.net/who-we-are

In other words, Church Freedom implies congregationalist church government. For example, congregationalist churches possess complete autonomy under the Lord.

Types of congregationalist churches apart from most Baptists include Reformed Congregationalism, Quaker, and many nondenominational churches that sprung up in recent generations.

Alternatively, many other churches possess limited autonomy while their clergy are subject to an organization, such as a presbytery or apostolic government. And many other churches lack the autonomy to choose their clergy while bishops make those choices.

Back to my opening line. "Baptist Church Freedom is like a box of chocolates." My parody of the famous line in "Forrest Gump" by Forrest, "My momma said life is like a box of chocolates. You never know what you're gonna get."

I thought of this parallel while considering that Baptist churches range from ultraconservative to liberal.

The ultraconservatives include old school (or "old line") Primitive Baptists who have forbidden the inclusion of musical instruments during worship, Bible studies, youth camps, and missionary and charity organizations https://www.progressivepb.org/history.html.

For example, Primitive Baptists forbid any Non-New Testament practice.

Instead, Progressive Primitive Baptists separated from the old school in the early 20th century while they included musical instruments during worship, Bible studies, youth camps, and missionary and charity organizations because the New Testament does not forbid them and their usefulness https://www.progressivepb.org/history.html.

This 20th-century view of the terms "progressive" and "inclusion" typifies 21st-century conservative Baptists.

However, the current use of the terms "progressive" and "inclusion" typically refers to new meanings.

Today, progressive Baptist churches hold to a theology that is either centrist or liberal. And full inclusion refers to permitting women and LGBTQ Christians in all levels of church leadership.

And many progressive Baptist churches include both centrist and liberal members.

This post begins a series on Baptist Freedoms.

Copyright © 2023 James Edward Goetz

My Propositions for Foundations of Modern Physics

Universal Wormhole Observers
—My paradigm of modern physics begins with the theoretical perspective of universal wormhole observers (2016, section 5.1; 2021 sections, 2.6-7).
—Universal wormhole observers detect every object in the universe as if the object were local to the observer, regardless of the location of the observer.
—Universal wormhole observers detect no universal timescale.
—Universal wormhole observers detect the preferred universal chronology and similarly the preferred foliation of spacetime.
—Universal wormhole observers require a solution of general relativity that permits the theoretical construction of wormholes.
—Universal wormhole observers by no means imply the realistic possibility of traversable wormholes.
—The ER=EPR conjecture and the pervasiveness of quantum entanglement in laboratories and outer space support universal wormhole observers, but the observers do not depend on the validity of the conjecture.

Quantum Mechanics
—Quantum logic can explain all quantum phenomena (2021, section 2.5.2).
—The von Neumann uncertainty principle refers to the certainty of any quantum state and the uncertainty for the evolution of any quantum system (Hogan and Lakey 2005, pages 293-295).
—Quantum physics and quantum chemistry indicate indeterminism in the universe.
—Gravity involves quantum.

Sources
—Jeffrey A. Hogan and Joseph D. Lakey, "Time-Frequency and Time-Scale Methods: Adaptive Decompositions, Uncertainty Principles, and Sampling," 2005, https://doi.org/10.1007/b139077
—James Goetz, "Semiclassical Theism and the Passage of Planck Times," Theology and Science, 2016, volume 14, issue 3, pages 325-339, https://doi.org/10.1080/14746700.2016. 1191881 or the free preprint at https://philpapers.org/rec/GOESTA-2
—James Goetz, "Theodicy, Supreme Providence, and Semiclassical Theism," Theology and Science, 2021, volume 19, issue 1, pages 42-64, https://doi.org/10.1080/14746700.2020.1825195 or the free preprint at https://philpapers.org/rec/GOETSP-4

major revision 12/7/2023

Copyright © 2022-2023 James Edward Goetz

The ArgumentPart 3 of the Semiclassical Cosmological Argument in Sum

Parts 1 and 2 set the stage for my semiclassical cosmological argument.

For example, I defined the general concept of a cosmological argument. That is, a cosmological argument uses premises and deduction to prove the existence of God by logically implying the necessity of God and the dependency of all natural phenomena.

Now, I clarify that my cosmological argument leans toward the kalam cosmological argument proposed by William Lane Craig.

For instance, The syllogism of Craig's kalam cosmological argument follows:

—"Major premise: Whatever begins to exist had a cause."
—"Minor premise: The physical universe began to exist."
—"Conclusion: Therefore, the physical universe had a cause."

My modification follows:

—"Major premise: Whatever begins to exist had a cause."
—"Minor premise: Tensed Planck time intervals foremostly began to exist."
—"Conclusion: Therefore, the foremost beginning of tensed Planck time intervals had a cause."

And this leads to my Proposition 3:

"Proposition 3: The kalam cosmological syllogism implies that an uncaused entity caused the foremost beginning of tensed Planck time intervals."

Now, I clarify a major caveat of the minor premise.

That is, if eternalism is true, then tensed time intervals do not exist. For example, if eternalism is true, then everything considered in the past, present, or future has always existed and will always exist. Therefore, eternalism implies that everything exists without cause and objective tense.

And that explains why I put together parts 1 and 2 to defend clarified presentism.

The Logical Impossibility for an Infinite Passage of Time
Next, let me illustrate how an infinite passage of time, let alone a past infinite passage of time, is logically impossible.

Consider the future from any starting point in time. The future can endure without end, but the amount of elapsed time intervals will always equal a finite number.

For example, we can say that the future is potentially infinite. However, potential infinity is not a number but a process that never ends. And in the case of elapsed time intervals, potential infinity with a starting point always results in a finite age.

A Universe from So-Called Nothing
Some physicists, such as Lawrence Kraus, propose that the physical universe arose from nothing. However, when we read the fine print of his proposal, we see that he defines that nothingness exhibits instability.

All theoretical physics proposals of a universe from nothing ultimately imply an infinite past of quantum instability. Typical references to quantum instability are quantum foam or spacetime foam. And quantum foam exhibits the passage of time.

The Attributes of God
Next, assuming presentism or some other A-Theory of time, an uncaused entity caused the foremost beginning of tensed time intervals. The uncaused entity created the first physical universe. We commonly refer to this entity as God or the Supreme Being.

One attribute of God is the ability to originate a physical universe.

I imagine that God started by generating a finely tuned quantum vacuum.

And the quantum vacuum originated with a radius of a mere Planck length (the theoretically smallest possible measurement of spatial distance).

And the quantum vacuum started with zero-point energy (the lowest possible amount of energy in a quantum system.)

Then, God heated the Planck length, finely tuned quantum vacuum to the Planck temperature (the highest possible temperature, 10 to the power of 32 degrees Kelvin).

And from there, the universe proceeded to expand according to the big bang theory.

However, I clarify that this ability to generate a finely tuned quantum vacuum and then heat it to the Planck temperature does not logically imply that God can meticulously control the universe after the expansion began.

For example, consider my "Proposition 1: God could possibly create a physical universe out of nothing while that universe is beyond meticulous control."

Also, "God's everlasting force that can create a spacetime universe out of nothing cannot meticulously control the particles of the creation,"

"but synergy between God and created agents can exhibit limited intervention in the creation that is subject to the possibilities of physics."

Further, I hold to open theism. That is, God knows everything about the present, which consists of all future possibilities. And that includes God knowing the best responses to the present and all possible future circumstances.

Everything considered, I propose that God's original attributes are everlasting within logical consistency.

And we can tell people that God loves them with everlasting love despite God's inability to immediately eradicate senseless, horrific evil.

Sources
—William Lane Craig and James D. Sinclair, "The Kalam Cosmological Argument," in "The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology," 2009, pages 101-201, https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444308334.ch3
—Lawrence M. Krauss, "A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather than Nothing," 2012.
—James Goetz, "Theodicy, Supreme Providence, and Semiclassical Theism," Theology and Science, 2021, volume 19, issue 1, pages 42-64, https://doi.org/10.1080/14746700.2020.1825195 or the free preprint at https://philpapers.org/rec/GOETSP-4

The Three-Part Series
1) Quantum Entanglement, ER=EPR, and Observers: Part 1 of the Semiclassical Cosmological Argument in Sum
2) Universal Wormhole Observers and Clarified Presentism: Part 2 of the Semiclassical Cosmological Argument in Sum
3) The Argument: Part 3 of the Semiclassical Cosmological Argument in Sum

Copyright © 2022 James Edward Goetz

Universal Wormhole Observers and Clarified PresentismPart 2 of the Semiclassical Cosmological Argument in Sum

In my previous post, I described my universal wormhole observers. Here, I describe how the observers support clarified presentism.

First, I define presentism. Presentism means that only the present exists while the past and future do not exist.

Second, clarified presentism in my 2021 article means phenomena exist only in the present and do not exist in the past or future.

Third, all universal wormhole observers, regardless of their location, detect the preferred universal chronology. Therefore, all of them also detect the associated preferred foliation of spacetime.

(Spacetime refers to the four-dimensional geometry that unifies the three dimensions of space and the one dimension of time. And an event is a point in spacetime with three spatial coordinates and one time coordinate.)

The Preferred Universal Chronology
Albert Einstein's theory of special relativity in 1905 proved the impossibility of classical absolute space and time. For example, special relativity logically implies the relativity of simultaneity, which means that no two events that are distant from each other have the same chronology from every possible reference frame.

For instance, the relativity of simultaneity implies the following scenario:

—Event A and Event B are distant from each other.
—Some distant observers detect that Event A and Event B occur at the same time.
—Other distant observers detect that Event A occurs before Event B.
—Still, other distant observers detect that Event A occurs after Event B.

And the implications of special relativity quickly led to disbelief in the possibility of a preferred reference frame for a universal chronology.

However, universal wormhole observers bridge through all of the distance in the universe. And all universal wormhole observers, regardless of their reference frame, detect the same universal chronology.

Clarified Presentism versus Eternalism
I earlier defined that clarified presentism means that phenomena exist only in the present and do not exist in the past or future. However, most living philosophers of time hold to eternalism. That is, eternalism means that all phenomena from what we consider the past, present, or future have always existed and will always exist.

(Presentism is a type of A-theory of time while eternalism is related to the B-theory of time.)

Contemporary models of eternalism typically incorporate modern physics while focusing on the relativity of simultaneity. For example, C. Wim Rietdijk in 1966 proposed eternalism based on special relativity and said, "A proof is given that there does not exist an event, that is not already in the past for some possible distant observer at the (our) moment that the latter is 'now' for us."

Rietdijk noted that special relativity implies that all events that are present to humans on Earth are already in the past for some distant observer. And from this, he argues that everything considered in the past, present, or future has always existed and will always exist.

And the argument for eternalism based on special relativity is called the Rietdijk-Putnam argument. (Putnam in 1967 proposed a similar argument.)

However, universal wormhole observers bridge through the relativity of simultaneity and permit a preferred universal chronology, which supports clarified presentism.

In the next post, I will use the points from parts 1 and 2 to set the stage for my semiclassical cosmological argument.

Sources
—Albert Einstein, "Relativity: The Special and the General Theory," translated by Robert W. Lawson, 1920
—C. Wim Rietdijk, "A Rigorous Proof of Determinism Derived from the Special Theory of Relativity," Philosophy of Science, 1966, volume 33, issue 4, pages 341–344, https://doi.org/10.1086/288106 or https://www.jstor.org/stable/186637
—Hilary Putnam, "Time and Physical Geometry," The Journal of Philosophy, 1967, volume 64, issue 8, 240-247, https://doi.org/10.2307/2024493 or https://www.jstor.org/stable/2024493
—James Goetz, "Theodicy, Supreme Providence, and Semiclassical Theism," Theology and Science, 2021, volume 19, issue 1, pages 42-64, https://doi.org/10.1080/14746700.2020.1825195 or the free preprint at https://philpapers.org/rec/GOETSP-4

The Three-Part Series
1) Quantum Entanglement, ER=EPR, and Observers: Part 1 of the Semiclassical Cosmological Argument in Sum
2) Universal Wormhole Observers and Clarified Presentism: Part 2 of the Semiclassical Cosmological Argument in Sum
3) The Argument: Part 3 of the Semiclassical Cosmological Argument in Sum

Copyright © 2022 James Edward Goetz

Quantum Entanglement, ER=EPR, and ObserversPart 1 of the Semiclassical Cosmological Argument in Sum

I introduced my cosmological argument in my 2021 paper "Theodicy, Supreme Providence, and Semiclassical Theism." Here, I will summarize my argument for a general audience.

I will begin by defining the term cosmological argument. That is, a cosmological argument uses premises and deduction to prove the existence of God by logically implying the necessity of God and the dependency of all natural phenomena.

Next, I will divide my summary into three parts. And the first two set the stage for Part 3 which focuses on my definition of God and my argument.

This first part centers on my hypothetical model of universal wormhole observers and its relationship to quantum entanglement. Now, I will describe observers, wormhole theory, and quantum entanglement.

First, Albert Einstein used hypothetical observers to illustrate his introduction to the theory of special relativity. And the observers function as a reference frame for making measurements.

Second, Einstein and Nathan Rosen in 1935 introduced what are called either Einstein-Rosen bridges or wormholes. For example, some solutions for the theory of general relativity permit the mathematical construction of wormholes, and wormholes connect otherwise distant (causally disconnected) regions of space and time.

Third, quantum entanglement refers to distant particles that act as if entangled (causally connected).

Also, Einstein, Boris Podolski, and Rosen in 1935 analyzed entangled electrons and defined a thought experiment known as the Einstein-Podolski-Rosen paradox or simply the EPR paradox. The trio juxtaposed the following while defining their paradox:

—Special relativity implies no possibility of distant particles interacting with each other.
—Cases of distant electrons exhibit correlating action with no evidence of determinism caused by local variables.

And Einstein, Podolski, and Rosen concluded that relativity never permits exceptions for distant particles to entangle while the authors proposed local hidden-variable theory. That is, undetectable local variables caused the determinism of electrons to appear as if they interact with each other at a distance while they never actually interact at a distance.

Eventually, Einstein made his famous quip about "spooky action at a distance." He said this while colorfully rejecting the possibility of quantum entanglement.

However, the 2022 Noble Prize in Physics went to Alain Aspect, John Clauser, and Anton Zeilinger for their research on entangled photons.

The ER=EPR Conjecture
Juan Maldacena and Leonard Susskind in 2013 proposed the ER=EPR conjecture. For example, ER refers to Einstein-Rosen bridges (wormholes) and EPR refers to the EPR paradox. More specifically, the ER=EPR conjecture proposes that each case of quantum entanglement involves a quantum wormhole.

(A quantum wormhole has a radius of 1 Planck length, and a Planck length is the theoretically smallest possible measurement of spatial distance and equals 10 to the negative power of 33 meters.)

In my 2021 paper, section 2.6, I referenced fascinating examples that imply the ubiquity of quantum entanglement.

For example, one astrophysics project discovered "30,000 pairs of entangled photons in the Milky Way that were entangled for at least 600 years."

Another project detected two photons that survived entanglement for 8 billion years. And 2,000 light-years separate the photons. (The 2,000 light-years equal 1 quadrillion miles.)

The 8 billion years is older than the Sun. And the 2,000 light-years are "23 times the distance from the Sun to its closest neighboring star," Proxima Centauri.

Also, laboratories routinely generate entangled photons. And they use the established entangled pathways for quantum teleportation.

(Quantum teleportation involves the immediate transfer of quantum information from one location to a distant location.)

In the context of the ER=EPR conjecture, the universal pervasiveness of quantum entanglement implies the pervasiveness of quantum wormholes.

Further, in each case of entanglement, a quantum wormhole connects the otherwise distant particles. Therefore, the entangled particles are distant from each other in the context of space but connected in the context of the quantum wormhole.

Universal Wormhole Observers
I introduced a model of hypothetical universal wormhole observers in my 2016 paper "Semiclassical Theism and the Passage of Planck Times." And I refined the model in 2021 while incorporating the ER=EPR conjecture and the latest research on quantum entanglement.

First, I clarify that the term universal wormhole refers to the universal potential for wormholes and does not imply the realistic possibility of any wormhole that permits particles to travel through it. (A theoretical wormhole that permits one or more particles to travel through it is called traversable wormhole.)

Second, a universal wormhole observer detects everything in the universe with no interval between the observer and the object.

Third, the next post addresses the nature of the past and future in the context of universal wormhole observers.

Sources
—Albert Einstein, Boris Podolsky, and Nathan Rosen, "Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality Be Considered Complete?" Physical Review, 1935, volume 47, pages 777-780, https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRev.47.777
— Albert Einstein and Nathan Rosen, "The Particle Problem in the General Theory of Relativity, Physical Review, 1935, volume 48, pages 73-77, https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRev.48.73
—Juan Maldacena and Leonard Susskind, "Cool Horizons for Entangled Black Holes," Fortschritte der Physik (Progress of Physics), 2013, volume 61, issue 9, pages 781-811, https://doi.org/10.1002/prop.201300020
—James Goetz, "Semiclassical Theism and the Passage of Planck Times," Theology and Science, 2016, volume 14, issue 3, pages 325-339, https://doi.org/10.1080/14746700.2016.1191881 or the free preprint at https://philpapers.org/rec/GOESTA-2
—James Goetz, "Theodicy, Supreme Providence, and Semiclassical Theism," Theology and Science, 2021, volume 19, issue 1, pages 42-64, https://doi.org/10.1080/14746700.2020.1825195 or the free preprint at https://philpapers.org/rec/GOETSP-4

The Three-Part Series
1) Quantum Entanglement, ER=EPR, and Observers: Part 1 of the Semiclassical Cosmological Argument in Sum
2) Universal Wormhole Observers and Clarified Presentism: Part 2 of the Semiclassical Cosmological Argument in Sum
3) The Argument: Part 3 of the Semiclassical Cosmological Argument in Sum

Copyright © 2022 James Edward Goetz

My Dyslexia and Scholarly Vision

In the 1990s, I felt invincible and destined to take academia by the storm while developing the world's best theology and science. I developed many great ideas and sent out many proposals for books and articles, but I never successfully published any article or book until the 2010s.

I overestimated my strengths and underestimated my weaknesses. I knew I suffered from mild dyslexia after I benefited from early childhood intervention that enabled me to learn how to read. However, I did not fully understand that I possess a rare combination of superior matrix reasoning and a learning disability that causes low average brain processing speed, as indicated by recent testing.

1. My childhood and adolescence

Around the age of six in the late 1960s, I remember a kind adult woman who lived two houses down the street. She spent special time with me and even helped me to learn how to ride a bicycle without training wheels. Several years later, I felt surprised when my mom told me that our kind neighbor also worked as my dyslexia therapist. For example, I did not understand that I struggled with a learning disability and that she taught me how to develop communication skills.

During primary and secondary school years at the Millburn Township Public Schools in New Jersey, I typically earned grades of Cs, some Bs, and some As in math. I recall the dread of revising papers during secondary school because I always ended up with new typos when I rewrote or retyped a paper. At the time, I did not know I struggled with mild dyslexia while revising papers. I also did not yet imagine the eventual commonplace of personal computers and word processing.

2. Dropping out of college and then earning a Bachelor of Science

I remember feeling insulted when I started at the Community College of Morris in the fall of 1981 because the college placement tests put me in both remedial English and remedial math. I understood my slowness in reading and writing, but I entered college as a math major while I scored a respectable 600 on my college board math SAT. My pride and impatience overwhelmed me. I pushed the college hard enough and started the fall semester taking precalculus instead of the prescribed remedial math. However, I suffered with complex factoring despite excelling in other areas of math. Instead of slowly building up my skills in remedial math, I earned a D in precalculus. Then, I lost patience in calculus 1. For example, I sometimes correctly answered a question while doing all the work in my head but earned few to zero points for a correct answer because I did not show my work. Also, I sometimes showed my work and made a silly error in addition or subtraction that gave me an incorrect answer, but I ended up with more points for an some incorrect answers showing my work compared to a correct answer without showing my work.

Now, I look back and see that I overstressed without a clear perspective while I struggled with a learning disability. I could not emotionally handle the dilemma of my problems with calculus, and I loved the entertainment industry far more than mathematics. I dropped out of my calculus class and switched my major to communications.

I ended up crashing and burning because excessive marijuana smoking and alcohol binges caught up with me. In July 2013, Carrier Clinic admitted me for inpatient hospital care and treated me for substance abuse and psychotic delusions with hallucinations. After the hospitalization, I tried attending college for the 1983 fall semester but dropped out because I could not concentrate. In September 1984, I once more psychologically snapped and went to another inpatient psychiatric hospital for substance abuse and psychotic delusions with hallucinations.

Fortunately, I turned around and started healthy living after a wonderful spiritual conversion. In the fall of 1985, I went back to college. This time I went for a pastoral and biblical studies degree at a college now called the University of Valley Forge. I enjoyed long hours of study and prayer while integrating various concepts of theology and ministry. I still struggled with slow reading comprehension, but I recall numerous compliments about my spirituality and intellect while I discussed the Bible and theology. I graduated with a 3.0 GPA, above average but not great. Nonetheless, I felt destined to solve many theological problems in the church.

3. Life after graduating college

After I graduated, I married my wonderful wife Laurie, and we moved to State College, Pennsylvania. I started to take one course per semester at Penn State University. I began with two undergraduate courses in writing and eventually developed proficiency in word processing. Over the next two years, I enjoyed taking 10 credits of creative nonfiction writing courses at the Penn State Graduate School while pulling a grade point average of 3.7. However, four things frustrated me, that is, (1) many book proposal rejections; (2) persistent confusion with some of the finer points of grammar and the differences among various style guides, for example, AP, APA, MLA, and Chicago; (3) the slowness of my research and writing processes; and (4) my desire to become an expert of my subjects instead of a reporter.

I also enjoyed exploring the subjects of physics, evolution, and the Old Testament with various Penn State researchers. I recall enjoying compliments for my talent and bravado, but I nonetheless struggled with low average short-term memory. In addition, the remnants of dyslexia during major conflict could result in me struggling with short-term memory loss, stuttering, speech blocks, and vertigo.

Furthermore, I eventually developed sleep apnea that lowered my sleep effectiveness to 33 percent. That is, I needed to sleep 24 hours for me to enjoy the benefits of sleeping 8 hours.

Surgical removal of my tonsils and adenoids along with nasal reformation restored my sleep effectiveness, but I nonetheless failed to advance my career and struggled financially while enjoying my amazing family life with my wife and our four children.

After major financial failure of sinking $1,000 to $2,000 a month in debt while working two part-time jobs and bivocational Christian ministry in a university setting which I loved, I moved my family in July 2003 to take a steady job in the cable industry.

I also shifted to much deeper reflection and analysis while I tried to figure out why I failed at my career goals and what I needed to do to succeed. I furthermore began to develop mastery of searching the internet for scholarly resources.

By 2007, I published only two letters to the editor, both at Perspectives of Science and Christian Faith. I also wrote two archived papers in queue for review at Progress in Complexity, Information and Design (PCID), but PCID abruptly ceased to publish journal issues soon after they said someone would review my papers. Then, I decided to develop a portfolio of articles and start my blog TheoPerspectives. In addition, I needed to resign from my Assemblies of God (AG) ministry credentials for me to publicly teach my newly developed biblical perspective of divine judgement because my perspective fell outside of AG norms.

My analytical and communication skills began to blossom after these years of prayer and independent research. By 2010, I developed a book proposal for a biblical theology while Wipf and Stock Publishers accepted it. I completed the book for publication in 2012, that is, "Conditional Futurism: New Perspective of End-Time Prophecy."

After that, I built upon some of my ideas from the 1990s and published the following peer-reviewed articles despite no postgraduate college degree:

– "Natural Unity and Paradoxes of Legal Persons," Journal Jurisprudence 21 (2014).
– "Identical Legal Entities and the Trinity: Relative-Social Trinitarianism," Journal of Analytic Theology 4 (2016).
– "Semiclassical Theism and the Passage of Planck Times," Theology and Science 14:3 (2016).
– "Theodicy, Supreme Providence, and Semiclassical Theism," Theology and Science (2020).

My original scholarly conjectures in these publications include the universal wormhole, semiclassical cosmology, semiclassical theism, semiclassical Christianity, Relative-Social Trinitarianism, the legal theory of identity, and conditional futurism.

I also enjoyed working as a freelance developmental editor for a theology book and then served as the author's field adviser for his Doctor of Ministry dissertation.

In addition, I enjoy membership in the National Coalition of Independent Scholars.

Now, I envision building upon my research and developing three monographs:

– "Logic, Reality, and Science"
– "Semiclassical Theism"
– "Semiclassical Christianity"

I love working toward my vision. However, my problem follows. I research and write as slow as a tortoise. I sometimes quickly shoot out a first draft based on ideas already integrated in my mind. And I sometimes quickly find new things on the internet, but my overall processes of researching, writing, and revising are slow. For example, I need up to one year of full time writing to professionally write each of the above books while I stand nowhere close to the financial security needed for retirement from my day job.

4) Reflections

I feel thankful for the early childhood intervention that trained me to compensate for dyslexia. I learned satisfactory skills in reading and speaking instead of growing up hopelessly illiterate and stuttering.

I also personally understand prejudice against people with learning disorders. I experienced the following scenarios:

– People negatively judged me for my slowness in some things and my reliance on making lists and notes to keep my focus.
– People accused me of deliberately refusing to help them because they do not understand that I excel in some mental tasks and suffer in others. I impressed some people by resolving difficult problems and then they accused me of holding back because I failed to resolve other difficult problems.
– People with opposing views exploited my weakness while talking to me by repetitively interrupting my speech and rapidly switching subjects back-and-forth over an extended period of time. This instigated me into stuttering, speech blocks, or vertigo. I eventually learned to dodge this scenario most of the time while I continue to develop my communication skills, and I suppose some people try to do this to everybody they oppose while it affects dyslexics and stutterers more than others.

I deeply appreciate the wealth of wisdom available on the internet. If I ever feel confused about word usage or grammar, especially changes from the 1970s to today, I find it on the internet. I also appreciate dictionary audio files when I feel unsure about the pronunciation of a word. In addition, a spell and grammar checker helps me greatly, but every recommendation from the checker needs a judgment call from the author to determine the accuracy of recommendation.

I also appreciate that academia and many businesses try to understand the diversity of thought processes among different people. Prejudice against people with learning disorders continues, but research and education help to expose and eventually heal the prejudice.

-end-

Copyright © 2020 James Edward Goetz

Originally published at https://www.opednews.com/articles/My-Dyslexia-and-Scholarly-by-James-Goetz-Americans-With-Disabilities-Act_Brain_Diversity_Dyslexia-201108-506.html.

My Cosmology and Theodicy

I spent decades of contemplation about the origin of the physical universe and the attributes of God.

I feel excited that Theology and Science published my (2020) paper "Theodicy, Supreme Providence, and Semiclassical Theism." The article focuses on my cosmological argument for the existence of God while I describe that the Supreme Being created the physical universe out of nothing and nonetheless never possesses the traditionally defined attribute of omnipotence.

Semiclassical theism describes that the attributes of God include inexhaustible perception and power while God's power never meticulously controls creation. Also, combining semiclassical theism with Trinitarianism implies that the divine attributes include inexhaustible love, perception, and power.

My (2020) paper also defines three categories of divine providence, that is, meticulous providence, semimeticulous providence, and supreme providence.

First, meticulous providence means that God always completely controls every event in the universe. Theologies of meticulous providence include Augustinianism, Thomism, Molinism, and Reformed.

Second, semimeticulous providence means that God can completely control every event in the universe while God strategically chooses what to control and what not to control. Theologies of semimeticulous providence include Eastern Orthodoxy, Arminianism, Methodism, most Charismatic Christianity, and standard open theism.

Third, supreme providence means that God cannot completely control the universe and God primarily intervenes in creation through synergy with created agents, such as humans. Theologies of supreme providence include Zoroastrianism, process theism, and semiclassical theism.

1. Semiclassical Cosmology

My cosmological argument implies that tensed phenomena had a foremost origin. And the Supreme Being who originally existed solely in tenseless eternity had created the first tensed phenomena out of nothing.

To clarify, I will define tensed phenomena and tenseless eternity. First, tensed phenomena occur in a region subject to tensed time, such as the physical universe. And tensed time is time that progresses from the tangible present to the future while the past and future are intangible. Alternatively, an entity existing in tenseless time exhibits no internal passage of time. For example, semiclassical theism proposes that God before creation was the entire universe and tenseless while nonetheless possessing the potential to create a tensed region and inhabit the tensed region. Also, God's original tenseless nature remained internally unchanged after the origin of creation.

Back to my cosmological argument. There might have been some type of tensed phenomena before the origin of quantum fields, but that is unknown while I focus on the origin of quantum fields.

For more background information, consider standard big bang cosmology, which is called lambda cold dark matter. It is based on the theoretical reversal of current observations documented in astrophysics and particle physics. Also, consider a simplified version of big bang cosmology that assumes a grand unified theory and the possibility for a theory of everything.

In this case, consider the first three epochs of big bang cosmology. The first quantum fields originated in the Planck Epoch when the universe was microscopic and the hottest possible temperature called the Planck temperature, which is 10 to the 32nd power Kelvin. That is, 10 to the 32nd power is the number 1 followed by 32 zeros or also called 100 nonillion. Furthermore, the Planck temperature unified the four fundamental forces, that is, gravity, the strong force, the electromagnetic force, and the weak force. Next, the universe cooled into the Grand Unification Epoch while gravity separated from the other three fundamental forces that remained unified in the strong electroweak force. Then, the universe cooled into the Electroweak Epoch while the strong force separated from the electroweak force in a temperature between 10 to the 15th power and 10 to the 27th power Kelvin. Furthermore, the rapid expansion of space called cosmic inflation likely occurred during the Grand Unification Epoch or the Electroweak Epoch.

My argument concludes that the foremost creation of quantum fields was a fine-tuned quantum vacuum while a quantum vacuum has zero-point energy, which is the lowest possible energy of a quantum system. Furthermore, quantum field theory says that the quantum vacuum has a universal field for the fundamental forces, and actual particles and antiparticles are excited states of the vacuum.

Now, consider semiclassical cosmology and big bang cosmology. First, God created the universe's fine-tuned quantum vacuum out of nothing. Second, God generated a quantum fluctuation that originated the Planck Epoch or the Grand Unification Epoch while the Planck Epoch never actually existed.

I mention that the Planck Epoch might not have existed for two reasons. First, the known laws of physics break down when considering the origin and earliest moments of big bang cosmology. For example, physicists debate various versions of grand unified theory or if there is no possible grand unified theory. Second, cosmologists can only make mathematical inferences of the early universe. For example, the current hottest stars in the universe are less than 1,000,000 Kelvin while laboratory experiments of electroweak theory would require a temperature greater than 10 to the 15th power Kelvin.

I also clarify that semiclassical theism concludes that there was a first quantum field while the observable universe might not have been the first physical universe. That is, the observable universe is the universe that is potentially observable from Earth regardless if technology permits the observation.

2. Creation Out of Nothing and Providence

If God can meticulously control the universe, then I conjecture that God could have created the Planck Epoch out of nothing. This would have involved the instantaneous creation of the fine-tuned quantum vacuum and the maximum possible temperature, which also corresponds to the maximum possible order and the lowest possible entropy.

However, a philosophy of creation out of nothing in the context of big bang cosmology does not necessitate that God created the Planck Epoch out of nothing. For example, the semiclassical two-step approach begins with (1) the fine-tuned quantum vacuum created out of nothing and then (2) the fine-tuned quantum fluctuation. Divine ability to create the fine-tuned quantum vacuum of the observable universe and then propel the fine-tuned quantum fluctuation which gave order to the very early universe is awe-inspiring.

Contemplating the divine ability has led to different perspectives of divine providence. The perspectives include no divine providence and the three models that I previously described, that is, meticulous providence, semimeticulous providence, and supreme providence. The evidence from creation alone is inconclusive.

The scope of my (2020) paper introduces the reasonableness of combining supreme providence and the foremost creation out of nothing. As I said earlier, supreme providence means that God cannot completely control the universe and God primarily intervenes in creation through synergy with created agents, such as humans.

Reference

James Goetz, "Theodicy, Supreme Providence, and Semiclassical Theism," (2020): doi.org/10.1080/14746700.2020.1825195 or the preprint available without a subscription philpapers.org/archive/GOETSP-4.pdf.

-the end-

Copyright © 2020 James Edward Goetz

Originally published at https://www.opednews.com/articles/My-Cosmology-and-Theodicy-by-James-Goetz-Cosmology_God_Philosophy_Physics-201016-225.html.

My Forthcoming Paper and Scholarly Vision

Last September, Theology and Science accepted my submission "Theodicy, Supreme Providence, and Semiclassical Theism. Three months later, I inquired about the proofs and they told me that they have a backlog of papers and hope to publish all papers within two years of their acceptance. Researchers wait like this all the time in the world of academic publishing. Anyway, I felt excited last week when a production editor emailed me with my article's DOI and told me that I would receive my proofs by the end of this month, yeah.

This paper lays an important foundation for my future research in metaphysics, philosophy of science, and theology. More importantly, I see a vision for three academic books based on my research.

Before I describe my envisioned books, here I list my modest bibliography that I worked on in my so-called free time as an independent scholar:

– "Conditional Futurism: New Perspective of End-Time Prophecy," Resource Publication (2012).
– "Natural Unity and Paradoxes of Legal Persons," Journal Jurisprudence 21 (2014).
– "Identical Legal Entities and the Trinity: Relative-Social Trinitarianism," Journal of Analytic Theology 4 (2016).
– "Semiclassical Theism and the Passage of Planck Times," Theology and Science 14:3 (2016).
– "Theodicy, Supreme Providence, and Semiclassical Theism," Theology and Science (forthcoming) https://doi.org/10.1080/14746700.2020.1825195.

My original scholarly conjectures in these publications include the universal wormhole, semiclassical theism, semiclassical Christianity, Relative-Social Trinitarianism, the legal theory of identity, and conditional futurism.

I now envision expanding these concepts in the following three books:

– "Logic, Reality, and Science"
– "Semiclassical Theism"
– "Semiclassical Christianity"

"Logic, Reality, and Science" will focus on my research about the laws of thought, identity, metaphysical realism, scientific realism, presentism, quantum logic, relativity, quantum gravity, quantum field theory, physical cosmology, the origin of life, biological evolution, social groups, moral realism, the neuroscience of death experience, emergent dualism, and restricted free will.

"Semiclassical Theism" will develop my natural theology, semiclassical theism, which coheres with my perspectives on philosophy and science. The book will focus on the semiclassical cosmological argument; God and time; divine attributes; divine providence; theodicy; the problem of evil; the origin of life; biological evolution; moral realism; the neuroscience of death experience; emergent dualism; restricted free will; and the fate of the physical universe.

"Semiclassical Christianity" will introduce a systematic theology that combines my semiclassical theism with my Relative-Social Trinitarianism and biblical studies. Topics will include the development of theology, divine revelation; the Trinity; the Father; the Son; the Holy Spirit; creation; divine providence; angels; demons; humans; the conditional nature of divine covenants and predictive prophecy; the redemptive nature of divine punishments; the atonement; sanctification, continuationism, and eschatology.

However, each book could take up to one year of full-time work to complete, and I currently have no idea how I will have the time and finances to write them or propose anybody a deadline. In the meantime, I plug away at more related papers while I am pray about this vision and many other things.

Copyright © 2020 James Edward Goetz

The Good Place Theology: Spoiler Alert

I love the fantasy comedy "The Good Place." I disagree with some implications of its fantasy world, but I nonetheless enjoy exercising the suspension of disbelief while appreciating the show's combination of comedy and philosophy. This blog post focuses on the theology revealed in the final two episodes, Season 4, Episodes 12-13. Spoiler Alert: I wrote this for fans who already watched the finale.

"The Good Place" exhibits many comedic twists and turns. I note four striking plot twists:

First, the season 1 finale reveals that Michael acted as a Good Place architect while actually a demonic Bad Place architect who designed psychological torment for the damned foursome—Eleanor, Chidi, Tahani, and Jason.

Second, Michael repents and befriends the foursome while conniving with his supernaturally resourceful assistant Janet to help the foursome enter the real Good Place.

Third, the Bad Place arch architect Shawn agrees to work with Michael to overhaul the afterlife judgments.

Fourth, the four humans, Michael, and Janet finally arrive at the real Good Place and soon discover that all other humans in the Good Place struggle with lethargy.

This post focuses on the fourth plot twist which occured in the second to last episode, "Patty." The six friends finally arrive in the Good Place and everybody there receives anything that they request from a Good Place Janet or passage through a portal. That is, all inhabitants experience a magical paradise. Also, Chidi meets Patty, the famous polymath philosopher Hypatia of Alexandria who died in 415. Soon, Patty requests help for the inhabitants of the Good Place because everybody is "screwed." Then, Patty forgot what she requested.

It turns out that everybody in the Good Place becomes numb to the reception of everything that they request while their brains become dull. For example, Patty, once a world-renowned mathematician, can barely refer to numbers such as the number "5" on her shirt. Also, Eleanor observes that every long-term resident of the Good Place acts like a "happiness zombie."

In a related twist, Michael becomes the Good Place arch architect. Then, he designs an optional peaceful last door from the Good Place based on the belief stated by Eleanor that mortality gives meaning to life. Everybody in the Good Place can experience all their fantasies as many times as they like forever or until they feel ready to end their journey by peacefully passing through the last door. The announcement of the last door revitalizes the Good Place residents.

Early in the final episode, "Whenever You're Ready," Jason fulfilled all his fantasies and felt ready to pass through the last door. He perceived that he would peacefully dissolve back into the universe.

Later, Chidi felt ready to pass through the last door and Eleanor asked him to console her by quoting something from Western philosophers such as John Locke or Immanual Kant. However, Chidi said that they focused on rules and regulations while you need to turn to the East for spiritual stuff. Then, Chidi poignantly described a Buddhist concept of human life and death while analogizing a human to a wave in the ocean. My paraphrase follows. The wave exhibits visible and measurable material properties, such as volume and ability to refract light. We can see the wave and know what it is. Then, the wave crashes on the shore and ceases to exist, but the water still exists. The wave was merely a different way for the water to exist for a temporary period of time. The wave returns to the ocean from where it originated and from where it belongs.

The above indicates that "The Good Place" described some Buddhist traditions. Let me explain some more background about Buddhism. All devout Buddhists strive to achieve Nirvana. Nirvana is typically associated with bliss and the liberation of suffering from the cycles of death and rebirth with a different set of genes, also known as reincarnation. The liberation includes the end of desire and identity. Buddhism also rejects the existence of a supreme deity and a foremost origin of the material universe. However, "The Good Place" world never included reincarnation. The architects and Janets developed a system of do-overs, but that drastically differs from any concept of reincarnation in Eastern religions. Likewise, by no means does the "The Good Place" completely represent a Buddhist worldview.

Also, the fantasy paradise of the Good Place resembles various Hindu traditions about Svarga Loka or Swarga Loka, a temporary heaven. For example, some say that Svarga Loka means "Good Kingdom." And some say that inhabitants of Svarga Loka receive everything that they wish.

Perhaps, the Good Place refers to Svarga Loka that means Good Kingdom and grants every wish for every inhabitant. However, inhabitants of Svarga Loka go back to their cycles of rebirth and death until it ends. Also, all devout Hindus strive to end their suffering cycles of rebirth and death while achieving a state of Moksha, sometimes called Nirvana. Some traditions of Moksha include unification with the Supreme Being while other traditions reject the existence of supreme deity, comparable to Buddhism.

As stated in my first paragraph, I greatly enjoy "The Good Place" while exercising the suspension of disbelief. Now, I will describe some of my disbelief in "The Good Place" fantasy world. My worldview begins with the belief that God is love and distinct from creation while God always loves every human come hell or high water, literally. I also believe that human identity never ceases to exist. Alternatively, "The Good Place" world reveals no emphasis for loving relationships between God and humans while describing that the ultimate human goal is to achieve a dissolved state that ends our identity and loving relationships.

I enjoyed "The Good Place" because of its superb comedy, great acting, eye candy, discussions of ethics, emphasis on friendship, and the possibility of redemption for everybody including sadistic Bad Place architects. Yes, I love stories with redemption.

I appreciate that a fantasy Good Place eventually results in boredom. For example, Jesus Christ taught about a never ending heaven but never taught about a never ending paradise filled with earthly pleasures. For instance, Jesus taught in Matthew 22:30, Mark 12:25, and Luke 20 34-36 that everlasting life after the Resurrection excludes sexual relations and marriage. This implies that everlasting life includes loving relationships that surpass the fulfillment of earthly marriage while God centers all loving relationships.

As much as I love "The Good Place" and its characters, I possess no desire to eventually, completely dissolve back into the universe. Also, an ocean wave is not merely water in a temporary form, but it is water and wave energy combined together. The wave crashing on the shore dissipates the energy which leaves the water. In my case, I desire to forever live and love with God and all rational creatures such as humans, while us rational creatures flourish with our identity.

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.

Outline for Christian Marriage

I enjoyed the privilege of officiating for the marriage of my daughter Julie-Anne and my new son-in-law Jon-Michael Miller. I also enjoyed the privileged of sharing premarital counsel with them, and Julie-Anne said that I could share this council on my blog.

I shared six poignant points with minimal elaboration that are designed for lifelong reflection. I started with the most important Christian principal and then five points on marriage.

1. Jesus taught that the greatest commandments are to love God and love our neighbors as ourselves.

Jesus replied: "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself." (Matthew 22:37–40 NIV)

2. Jesus and the New Testament writers upended Ancient Middle East patriarchy.

a. A respectable man would never talk to an unknown woman. But Jesus started a conversation with the Samaritan Woman.

When a Samaritan woman came to draw water, Jesus said to her, "Will you give me a drink?" (John 4:7 NIV)

b. Paul taught that a husband and wife equally belong to each other.

The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife. (1 Corinthians 7:3–4 NIV)

c. Traditional churches mistakenly teach complementarianism that says husbands are the sole head of a family and females cannot be a senior pastor of a church. But that is based on misinterpretation of Scriptures written in the context of a male dominated patriarchal society; while the total sum of the New Testament upends male dominance.

3. The Song of Solomon is an Old Testament book about passion and romance between a husband and wife. Some of the language is odd by modern standards, e.g., comparing a wife to a fine female horse. But that was an accolade in ancient times. The main point is that the Bible promotes passion and romance in marriage.

4. Jesus taught in Matthew 19:4–9 that marriage is a serious commitment that forms a new family. For example, Jesus said that God forms the marriage. This means that marriage is a synergistic union between spouses and God. For instance, Jesus does not support casual marriage or casual divorce.

5. Marriage is a commitment of love and faithfulness between spouses, for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness, and in health. Decisions about children, careers, finances, and property need to consider the good of the family.

6. Marriage involves mutual respect for individual boundaries and the formation of a partnership and family.

Copyright © 2017 James Edward Goetz

The Christian Code of Honor for Men

01. Men understand the love and forgiveness of the Lord.
02. Men trust and obey the Lord in every circumstance.
03. Men love the Lord above all else.
04. Men act with courage and honor.
05. Men speak with courage and honor.
06. Men respect all authority without disobeying the Lord.
07. Men respect and care for all humans.
08. Men never take advantage of females.
09. Men advocate sexually chastity.
10. Men stand against injustice.

updated 07/03/2017

Copyright © 2011, 2017 James Edward Goetz

The Christological Triad of Dale Tuggy II

What is the meaning of the Christian doctrine that says Jesus Christ is one person who is fully divine and fully human? For example, the 451 Chalcedonian Creed teaches this two-nature (divine-human) Christology.

My previous blogpost analyzed Dale Tuggy's challenge to this Chalcedonian doctrine from his "Podcast 180—Apologists on How God Can Die—Part 3." Tuggy's podcast elaborated on his following "inconsistent triad" of propositions:

1. Jesus died.
2. Jesus was fully divine.
3. No fully divine being has ever died

To my surprise, several respondents to Tuggy's triad say in one way or another that all three statements are true. This indicates a misunderstanding of propositional logic. For example, Tuggy is an analytical theologian who is focusing on the propositional logic of his triad. Also, if any part of a simple or complex propositional statement is false, then the statement is false.

One could try to modify the triad to make all three propositions true, but all three original propositions cannot be true. Any two of them are mutually exclusive of the remaining one.

For example, Docetists reject that Jesus had a real human body that could die, so they could say that proposition 1 is false while propositions 2 and 3 are true. Or Unitarians and Nestorians reject that Jesus was fully divine, so they could say that propositions 1 and 3 are true while proposition 2 is false.

In my case, I hold that Jesus Christ was a hypostatic union of a fully divine nature and a fully human nature who suffered biological death. Likewise, I hold that proposition 3 is false because a fully divine being has died.

After listening to "Podcast 180," I also concluded that Tuggy was ambiguous about his proposition 1 that says, "Jesus died." Tuggy then challenged me in his blogpost "Some More Replies to the Triad" to respond to the original presentation of his triad in his "Podcast 145—'Tis Mystery All: The Immortal Dies!"

In "Podcast 145," Tuggy defined that death is the cessation of most or all normal life processes. Part of his justification for that definition is a hypothetical analogy of God killing but not annihilating an angel that has no biological processes. Perhaps this analogy refers to imagery in Revelation where the devil is sent to the bottomless pit for a 1,000 years or when the devil is eventually sent to the lake of fire. In the case of Jesus death, I disagree with Tuggy's definition of death. I stick with my statement from my previous blogpost:

The Incarnation was a hypostatic union of an uncreated divine nature and a created human nature. The death of Christ was the biological death of Christ while his human spirit and divine nature continued to exist.

For proposition 2, Tuggy defines that fully divine equals "divine in the way the one God is divine." Then, he notes some Scripture that emphasize the "immortality" of the sole God.

As far as I can see, Tuggy's semantics for the definition of fully divine excludes the possibility of a fully divine and a fully human hypostatic union. However, the term fully divine in the context of two-nature (divine-human) Christology indicates that Jesus Christ has a complete divine nature. For example, Tertullian and the later Chalcedonian Creed state that Jesus Christ has a complete uncreated divine nature and a complete created human nature. This indicates that Jesus Christ was one person who is both a divine being and a human being.

Tuggy then raises objections and questions to this teaching of the Chalcedonian Creed. The primary objection is that the ontology of one person with two natures cannot cohere with his logic of numerical identity. Tuggy also asks if the natures are abstract or concrete.

I have responses to the above objection and question. For example, I plan on writing a lengthy academic paper that combines my Relative-Social Trinitarianism with my semiclassical theism derived from my respective 2016 papers "Identical Legal Entities and the Trinity: Relative-Social Trinitarianism" and "Semiclassical Theism and the Passage of Planck Times." The combination is what I call semiclassical Christianity. For the purpose of resolving Tuggy's objections to two-nature Christology, I will outline main points of what I will call semiclassical Trinitarian theology and semiclassical Christology.

I briefly cited my 2016 papers in my previous blogpost. But I need to go more in-depth in this response.

First of all, semiclassical theism is my natural theology of God and time, divine attributes, and creation. For example, semiclassical theism coheres with modern physics and proposes that God originally exists in a universe with infinite tenseless time. Additionally, God's primary attributes are inexhaustible love, inexhaustible perception, and inexhaustible force. Furthermore, God bridged from tenseless eternity to create the tensed physical universe from nothing. Also, God focuses of working through synergism with created agents such as believing humans.

Second of all, my Relative-Social Trinitarianism is based on biblical studies and my natural law theory of identity. My natural law theory of identity also includes my law of temporal identity and the formula logic of relative identity. For example, the law of temporal identity says:

Anything is absolutely identical to itself and nothing else at any given point of time.

Additionally, the formula logic of relative identity says:

(RI) x and y are the same F, but x and y are different Gs.

Furthermore, I define that a concrete entity is anything that is not a concept. Likewise, the concepts of intangible government and intangible property are abstract entities; while specific governments and intangible property are concrete entities. This indicates that the uncreated divine nature of Jesus is a concrete entity, despite its intangible nature. Some of my friends say that God is beyond a concrete entity, so that looks like its own article.

Moreover, my link https://philpapers.org/post/18954 contains revised examples of relative identity in the cases of math, natural law, and the Trinity. For an analogy of two-nature Christology, I will focus on the following example of the Roman Lepidus who was both triumvir and pontifex maximus from 44 BCE to 36 BCE:

1. The triumvir was relatively identical to Lepidus, but the triumvir was not absolutely identical to Lepidus.
2. The pontifex maximus was relatively identical to Lepidus, but pontifex maximus was not absolutely identical to Lepidus.
3. Natural person Lepidus who existed as the triumvir was absolutely identical to natural person Lepidus who existed as the pontifex maximus.
4. The triumvir was not identical to the pontifex maximus.

This model of identity is based on the ancient, international custom that indicates a holder of a political office is identical to their political office. I focused on describing this in the context of natural law theory, but the model of identity is the same for the other major schools of legal thought such as legal positivism and legal realism.

Here is another way of looking at the same case of Lepidus:

1. Lepidus was one undivided human person.
2. Lepidus was identical to the triumvir and the pontifex maximus.
3. Lepidus was not absolutely identical to the triumvir and the pontifex maximus.
4. The triumvir and the pontifex maximus were not identical to each other.

One might notice that the transitivity of classical numerical identity do not apply to this international custom. But the formula logic of relative identity does apply.

For the purpose of my analogy of two-nature Christology, the triumvir and the pontifex maximus each had their own complete official nature; while each nature was identical to the one person Lepidus.

Similarly, since the origin of the Incarnation, there was one complete divine nature and one complete human nature; while each nature was identical to the undivided person Jesus.

I clarify that all analogies have similarity and dissimilarity.

One might expect that fully divine means that every nature of a person is divine, which could exclude the possibility of a hypostatic union of a fully divine nature and a fully human nature. However, that was never a part of the Chalcedonian Creed. Regardless, the Christian doctrine of human divinization teaches that humans can develop by God's grace into a class of created divine nature. In this sense, the sinless human nature of Jesus was a created divine nature despite its mortality.

Tuggy also suggested that I support a "fully-creed-compliant christology." I have yet to address this in my academic publications or blog, but my Trinitarian theology and two-nature (divine-human) Christology rejects two points of creedal doctrines. The two points that I reject are (1) eternal generation and (2) eternal spiration/procession. I am not alone in this among contemporary Trinitarians, and I will eventually address this in detail.

This outline with references to my 2016 papers coherently describes basic points of my two-nature Christology. I also engaged Tuggy's inconsistent triad.

Minor Revisions 5/16/2017 10:30 PM EST
Copyright © 2017 James Edward Goetz

The Christological Triad of Dale Tuggy

I appreciated listening to Dale Tuggy's podcast "Apologists on How God Can Die—Part 3." I also enjoyed reading and joining in on the replies for parts 1 and 2.

Tuggy focused on a criticism from a recent blog post by apologist Steve Hays, which criticized Tuggy's recent unitarian criticism of two-nature (divine-human) Christology. For example, Tuggy proposes the following inconsistent triad:

1. Jesus died.
2. Jesus was fully divine.
3. No fully divine being has ever died.

Tuggy supports that his first statement "Jesus died" means something different than "Jesus suffered biological death." Then, he supports that his triad is inconsistent and therefore indicates the inconsistency of two-nature Christology.

Tuggy also mentioned that he was dissatisfied with the clarity of every oppositional reply to his triad. I agree with the dissatisfaction until I wrote this blog post. The ambiguities in Tuggy's triad encouraged me to make careful definitions of (1) an individual human nature and human death; (2) the divine nature; and (3) two-nature Christology. Then, I briefly sift his triad.

First, this paragraph outlines relevant points of an individual human nature and death. I propose some type of substance dualism of the mind. This includes overdetermination of a conscious neurological system and a conscious spirit. Human death is the cessation of human biological life that includes the neurological system; while the postmortem human spirit potentially continues with consciousness and communication. The apostolic church knew little about neurology, but their primary view of human death focused on the cessation of biological life while supporting a potentially conscious intermediate state.

Second, this paragraph outlines relevant points of the divine nature. "The primary attributes of God are inexhaustible love, inexhaustible perception, and inexhaustible force." I quoted this from the abstract for my model of God and time in my 2016 paper "Semiclassical Theism and the Passage of Planck Times." I also support that these divine attributes cohere with my natural law coregency model of the Trinity in my 2016 paper "Identical Legal Entities and theTrinity: Relative-Social Trinitarianism.

Third, I outline relevant points of Christology. "Christ," "the Son of God," and "the second person of the Trinity" are references to the respective divine person who eventually incarnated. The Incarnation was a hypostatic union of an uncreated divine nature and a created human nature. The death of Christ was the biological death of Christ while his human spirit and divine nature continued to exist. I also support a literal descent of Christ into hades in my 2012 Conditional Futurism, chapter 13.

As stated earlier, I disagree with the implications and ambiguities of Tuggy's triad.

First, the statement "Jesus died" implies to me that his biological life ceased to exist while his human spirit and divine nature continued to exist.

Second, the statement "Jesus was fully divine" coheres with belief that the Incarnation was a hypostatic union of an uncreated divine nature and a created human nature.

Third, the statement "No fully divine being has ever died" is false, but no uncreated divine nature has ever ceased to exist.

This is my best effort to date to precisely and coherently address Tuggy's triad. Perhaps more details will unfold in this discussion.

Minor Revisions 4/27/2017
Copyright © 2017 James Edward Goetz

Relativity Predicts Universal Wormhole

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Matterless wormhole theory predicts a potential universal wormhole. Researcher James Goetz theorizes that extra-dimensional relativity indicates a possible omnicluster of matterless wormholes or in other words a universal wormhole. Amazing properties of the wormhole include no dimensions and zero distance to all points in the universe. Moreover, a hypothetical observer in the wormhole could observe a universal chronology despite the relativity of time. This modifies the theory of relativity.

The theory is part of Goetz's introduction to the natural theology called semiclassical theism. Goetz proposes a model of God, time, and creation that fits with modern physics, such as relativity, quantum mechanics, quantum gravity, Big Bang cosmology, zero-energy universe and multiverse geometry. This is a theory of everything.

Apart from physics, the universal wormhole theory helps to explain the theology of divine omniscience and omnipresence. Also, semiclassical theism proposes that God is omnipresent in tenseless eternity and tensed creation.

Goetz published the research this August 22 in the online version of Theology and Science, the scholarly journal of the Center for Theology and the Natural Sciences.

See the online version of the paper:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14746700.2016.1191881

Or freely download the Author's Accepted Manuscript at PhilPapers:
http://philpapers.org/archive/GOESTA-2.pdf
---------------

Source:
James Goetz, "Semiclassical Theism and the Passage of Planck Times," Theology and Science 14:3 (2016), DOI: 10.1080/14746700.2016.1191881.

Copyright © 2016 James Edward Goetz
Permission given for all press releases

Revision of Restricted Free Will and Conditional Universalism

My article "Restricted Free Will and Conditional Universalism" indicates how various models of free will relate to Christian universalism, but my definition of Arminian free will lacked clarity. I thank theologian Roger Olson for bringing this to my attention. Please consider the following revision of my perspective.

My biblical theology Conditional Futurism briefly discusses imagery of postmortem evangelism in 1 Peter and imagery of postmortem conversions in Revelation. I also support that the biblical imagery teaches about the reality of postmortem conversions. Beyond that book, I believe that postmortem conversions will eventually result in universalism, which means that every human will eventually enjoy the gift of salvation. Some critics object to my conclusion of universalism. For example, some object to the conclusions of my biblical research about postmortem conversions. Others object by saying that the concept of universalism is impossible because universalism implies that God would violate human free will while God would never do that. This brief piece focuses on objections to genuine free will and universalism.

Roger Olson in his 2015 blog post "Universalism Is 'In the Air'...." says that universalists are soft-hearted Calvinists while Arminians are immune to universalism. Olson's generalization derives from the contrasting Calvinist and Arminian views of free will and saving grace. For example, Calvinism teaches the doctrine of irresistible grace, which means that humans cannot resist God's gracious gift of faith and salvation. I want to emphasize that irresistible grace implies that humans immediately accept salvation when God offers salvation and that momentary resistance to God's offer is impossible. Alternatively, Arminianism teaches the doctrine of prevenient grace. Prevenient grace is resistible grace that enables humans to accept faith in God and the gift of salvation.

Calvinism is typically associated with theological determinism. Theological determinism means that God meticulously determines every detail in the universe such as the greatest human joys, the foremost human horrors, and trivial events such as the formation of dust bunnies. Some adherents of theological determinism believe that free will is compatible with determinism, which is called classical compatibilist free will or soft determinism. Other theological determinists reject the existence of free will, which is called hard determinism.

In contrast to Calvinism, Arminianism is associated with traditional incompatibilism, which means that free will exists while free will is incompatible with determinism. For example, Arminianism teaches that humans can resist God's loving gift of saving grace. Arminianism also implies partial determinism and concomitant partial indeterminism.

Olson clarifies fine points of traditional Arminian free will:

God concurs with the will of the free and rational creature without laying any necessity on it of doing well or ill. God bestows the gift of free will on people and controls it by putting boundaries around what it can do.... Human free will is always only situated free will; it exists and is exercised within a limiting context, and God's limitation of it is one factor in that context. (Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities, page 125)

Power of contrary choice is the typical Arminian view of free will. ("An Arminian Account of Free Will")

These points indicate that traditional Arminianism teaches that God gives humans a limited gift of free will that nonetheless constantly possesses the power of contrary choice. For example, within boundaries, humans can always choose something other than what they choose. Likewise, no human choice is literally irresistible.

The strongest form of incompatibilism is what I call strong unrestricted free will. Examples include Cartesian free will. Strong unrestricted free will means that human free will lacks the slightest constraint and that humans constantly possess the power of contrary choice in every circumstance while no human choice is literally irresistible.

My second strongest category of incompatibilism is what I call weak unrestricted free will. Examples include traditional Arminian free will. Weak unrestricted free will means that human free will is limited while humans nonetheless constantly possess the power of contrary choice in every circumstance while no human choice is literally irresistible.

Weak forms of incompatibilism are what I call restricted free will. Examples include Peter van Inwagen's model of free will. Restricted free will means that a human sometimes possesses the power of contrary choice. For instance, a human can sometimes choose contrary to what they choose and sometimes face a literally irresistible enticement for a particular choice.

Consider two circumstances of restricted free will. First, a woman faces nothing except three mutually exclusive choices that she supposes are equally beneficial. In this case, she would freely choose among the three alternatives. In the second circumstance, she faces multiple choices and she delights in one possibility while she utterly disdains all other possibilities. The only delightful choice is literally irresistible while she would never choose any other option.

I want to further illustrate these circumstances in an imaginary multiverse with an indefinite number of parallel histories. In the first circumstance, the woman faces the same three mutually exclusive choices that she supposes are equally beneficial. Because of the multiverse, the same woman with the same past faces the same first circumstance an indefinite number of times. This circumstance that is repeated an indefinite number of times results in three different alternate histories because the woman would freely choose among the three options. In the second circumstance, she faces multiple choices and she delights in one possibility while she utterly disdains all other possibilities. Because of the multiverse, the same woman with the same past faces the same second circumstance an indefinite number of times and always chooses the same delightful option. The option is irresistible regardless of how many times that she faces the same circumstance.

I clarify that an enticingly irresistible offer never results in a meticulously determined response. For example, when the woman in the multiverse chooses the same delightful option an indefinite number of times, her behavior during her choice could slightly vary each time that she makes the same choice.

I add that a model human will might reject both determinism and the existence of free will. I categorize such models and hard determinism together into what I call unfree will.

I defined strong unrestricted free will, weak unrestricted free will, restricted free will, compatibilist free will, and unfree will to preface my explanation for how these categories impact the possibility of what I call conditional universalism. Also, the concept of conditional universalism at first glance looks like an oxymoron, but let me explain. Conditional universalism means that every human will eventually enjoy Christ's gift of salvation while the gift of salvation is nonetheless conditional. For example, Hebrews 11:6 emphasizes the vital importance of faith and says that all who approach God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him. Mere awareness of God saves nobody, but people are saved by God's gracious gift through the condition of faith. This condition applies to experiencing salvation in life or afterlife. Also, the concept of universalism is meaningless if some people forever rebel against God and likewise never reconcile with God.

Consider God's love and ministry to humans: Romans 5:8 says that God's love is demonstrated by Jesus Christ dying for the salvation of sinful people; 2 Peter 3:9 says that God wants to save all people; as previously mentioned, 1 Peter and Revelation indicate imagery of postmortem lost people facing opportunities for salvation. Assuming the reality of (1) God desiring to save everybody and (2) postmortem offers of salvation, then one might conclude that God would eventually make an enticingly irresistible offer of salvation to afterlife holdouts if God could make irresistible offers. Among the five categories of human free will that I discussed, strong unrestricted free will and weak unrestricted are the only categories that are incompatible with irresistible offers. These categories leave room for the hope of universalism while God cannot ensure universalism. However, restricted free will, compatibilist free will, and unfree will are compatible with irresistible offers. These models are 

logically consistent with conditional universalism.

I believe in restricted free will and identify that my theology is modified Arminianism. For example, I believe that resistible prevenient grace is the general rule and God wants everybody to convert within the realm of resistible grace. This helps the development of human agency. However, I also believe that God never ceases to reach out to humans regardless of death. Moreover, God's love would eventually reveal a final offer of salvation that is enticingly irresistible to any recalcitrant afterlife holdout. This ensures the glorious universal reconciliation. Marvelous benefits include believers reuniting with loved ones who passed away lost and all archenemies making peace with each other.

Copyright 2015 James Edward Goetz

Originally published 4/9/15:
http://www.opednews.com/articles/Revision-of-Restricted-Fre-by-James-Goetz-Arminianism_Bible_Biblical-Studies_Calvinism-150409-855.html