Network of Filipino Christian Philosophers

03/09/2025

Perhaps the three most important concepts in these philosophical works are 𝐟𝐫𝐞𝐞 𝐰𝐢𝐥𝐥, 𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐚𝐥 𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐩𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐢𝐛𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐲, and 𝐝𝐞𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐢𝐬𝐦.

The notion of freedom at stake in philosophical discussions is usually distinguished from a variety of other freedom concepts, including things like religious and political freedom. Usually, 𝐟𝐫𝐞𝐞 𝐰𝐢𝐥𝐥 is also treated as distinct from several other concepts associated with human agency, such as autonomy and authenticity. There are many different ways of thinking about the nature of free will, and there are serious disagreements about what would constitute an adequate theory of free will. Much of the tradition has taken “free will” to be a kind of ability to make decisions of the sort for which one can be morally responsible, but philosophers have also sometimes thought that free will might be required for a range of other things, including moral value, originality, and self-governance. Two other claims often made about free will are hotly disputed among philosophers. One is the claim that free will requires “alternative possibilities” or the power to do otherwise, and the other is the claim that free will requires that we are the “ultimate sources” of our free actions or the ultimate sources of our wills to perform free actions.

Important to many discussions of free will is the idea of 𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐚𝐥 𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐩𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐢𝐛𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐲. In the context of discussions of free will, moral responsibility is often understood as a kind of status connected to judgments and/or practices of moral praise and blame. This meaning is distinct from another, perhaps more commonly used sense of responsibility: responsibilities as obligations (for example, when we talk about what responsibilities a parent has to a child). There are important connections between responsibility of the sort concerned with praise and blame and responsibility of the sort connected with obligations. However, philosophers writing on free will and moral responsibility are typically concerned with the former and not the latter.

A third concept is 𝐝𝐞𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐢𝐬𝐦 which is often important for philosophical discussions of free will. We can treat determinism as the thesis that at any time (at least right up to the very end) the universe has exactly one physically possible future. Something is deterministic if it has only one physically possible outcome. It is important to bear in mind that a definition of determinism is just that -- a characterization of what things would have to be like if things were deterministic. It does not follow that the universe is actually deterministic. To offer a definition of determinism does not show that the universe is deterministic. It only defines a term, and we may find that the term never properly applies to the world we live in.

02/09/2025

𝐃𝐢𝐯𝐢𝐧𝐞 𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐯𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞: 𝐆𝐨𝐝'𝐬 𝐋𝐨𝐯𝐞 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐇𝐮𝐦𝐚𝐧 𝐅𝐫𝐞𝐞𝐝𝐨𝐦 | 𝐁𝐲 𝐁𝐫𝐮𝐜𝐞 𝐑. 𝐑𝐞𝐢𝐜𝐡𝐞𝐧𝐛𝐚𝐜𝐡

We ask God to involve Himself providentially in our lives, yet we cherish our freedom to choose and act. Employing both theological reflection and philosophical analysis, the author explores how to resolve the interesting and provocative puzzles arising from these seemingly conflicting desires. He inquires what sovereignty means and how sovereigns balance their power and prerogatives with the free responses of their subjects. Since we are physically embodied in a physical world, we also need to ask how this is compatible with our being free agents. Providence raises questions about God's fundamental attributes. The author considers what it means to affirm God's goodness as logically contingent, how being almighty interfaces with God's self-limitation, and the persistent problems that arise from claiming that God foreknows the future. Discussion of these divine properties spills over into the related issues of why God allows, or even causes, pain and suffering; why, if God is all-knowing, we need to petition God repeatedly and encounter so many unanswered prayers; and how miracles, as ways God acts in the world, are possible and knowable. Throughout, the author looks at Scripture and attends to how providence deepens our understanding of God and enriches our lives.

Check the book here: https://a.co/d/g4TmUGM

29/11/2024

This is awesome and brilliant. Staunch atheist Richard Dawkins and his former atheist friend, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, discussed her recent conversion to Christianity, and whether the whole ‘New Atheism’ movement of which they had both been key members had done more harm than good.

📰 Subscribe to UnHerd today at: https://bit.ly/3Qdkd5yAt the UnHerd-sponsored Dissident Dialogues Festival in New York, Richard Dawkins and Ayaan Hirsi Ali ...

11/11/2024

The question of whether or not religious believing is reasonable is one of the most important of all human concerns. This book will explore a virtue-theoretic approach, i.e., the stress on the role of agent-based intellectual virtues, to the justification of religious belief. In this thesis, I will argue that the epistemic justification or the rationality of religious beliefs is primarily based on whether the belief was conscientiously held by an intellectually virtuous agent. Rationality is not determined by the content of a belief per se, but the way in which the belief is formed and maintained. All things considered, it is the behavior of the intellectually virtuous person that determines justified believing and is the paradigm for evaluating what is rational. This means that religious beliefs are considered rational when they originate from the performance of excellent epistemic traits. We are concerned not just with what is believed, but above all with what the belief reveals of the person. Hence, rationality is better defined in relation to how rational agents or wise persons behave. There is a good-making quality about the virtues that enable the epistemic agent to connect his beliefs to the world in a way that opens the door to a heightened attentiveness to reality.

This work will focus on the salient role of intellectual virtues in producing rational beliefs. Intellectual virtues help generate rational beliefs by placing conscientious agents in a better position to acquire excellences. These virtue-driven excellences bring religious believers to at least three rationality-conducive belief-forming states: (1) “epistemic conscientiousness,” (2) “epistemic trust,” and (3) “epistemic grasping.” It is my contention that religious beliefs formed this way are responsible, rational, reliable, warranted, and justified.

Buy the Kindle version or the Paperback version at Amazon. com. Click here: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0768ZN733

19/07/2024

Nothing New Under the Sun: Debunking Modern Marcionism | By Rev. NeilBoyet Fajardo

Marcionism was a heresy in the early Church and Marcion was actually the first heretic in church history. The basic premise of Marcion is that the God of the Old Testament is different from the New Testament. The God of the OT is a vengeful God and the God the NT is a loving God. All of the Church fathers rejected Marcion and argued that the God of the OT and NT is one and the same. Furthermore, Marcion argued that God of the OT is actually Satan—the Devil, something that everyone should be warned of. Origen, Justin Martyr, Ireneaus among others had altogether debunked this claim of Marcion.

Because of his premise, Marcion came up with a different canon, making this attempt the very first in canonical history. Since Marcion thought of himself as disciple of Paul whom he believed the only true apostle since he was called as apostle to the Gentiles, he included 10 of Paul’s letters and shortened version of Luke’s gospel. Therefore, in a glance, this would dictate a Marcionite hermeneutic that furthers his theology. Also, he has anti-Semetic leaning, making his position and theology dangerous.

This video has all the signs of Marcionism. The God of the OT (YAHWEH) is the Devil; the God of the Pharisees and Jews is a vengeful God; Jesus is against the God of the OT. I think the preacher knew that he is furthering Marcionism.

The preacher also cast aspersions towards the “YAHWEH Religion” of today. This means all Evangelical Christians who believed the OT and the OT canon and that the God of the OT and NT is one the same. Basically, he has an ‘axe to grind’ against all Bible believing Christians nowadays (ironic because he is interpreting John’s gospel). So, how should we debunk Marcionism and its modern advocates? Here are my suggestions:

Jesus Use of the OT

Jesus quoted from 12 OT books. He quoted Jeremiah, Daniel, Zechariah, Hosea, Malachi, Psalm, and Isaiah et.al. He said he came to fulfill the entire Jewish Old Testament (Matt. 5:17), which he referred to as “the Law and the Prophets” (Matt. 5:17; Luke 24:26–27), making OT and NT complementary. It has been estimated that over one-tenth of Jesus' recorded New Testament words were taken from the Old Testament. In the four Gospels, 180 of the 1,800 verses that report His discourses are either Old Testament quotes or Old Testament allusions. If Jesus heavily used the OT in his teaching and discourses, it is for us as well.

Next is, Jesus fulfilled more than 351 Old Testament prophecies. This heightens the mathematical probability that Jesus indeed is the Messiah that the Old Testament has predicted. Meaning, we cannot understand Jesus fully without the OT.

Paul, Peter, and other Apostles Quoted and Alluded from the OT

Paul alone quoted or paraphrased from the OT 183 times. Peter quoted nearly 40 allusions and quotations from the OT, while John the Beloved has nearly 60 allusions and quotations from the Old Testament. These quotations, allusions and paraphrase from the OT signify the authority of the Old Testament. Furthermore, Peter told the religious leaders that, “The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the God of our fathers, has glorified his servant Jesus” showing the connection of the God of the Jews is the One that sent Jesus (Acts 3:13). Augustine argued the interconnection of OT and NT: “The new is in the old concealed; the old is in the new revealed.”

Marcion of Sinope was an insider in fact he was a teacher and had some followings that furthered his teachings. As I explained earlier, fundamental to his theology was his view of the OT God as wrathful and Evil which heavily differed from orthodoxy and while biblical revelation. And since he was considered to be the first heretic and tried to come up with a canon, the need for Christian apologies and true canon were sought. At this point, let me delve on his hermeneutics that suggests his theology.

A Great Example of Proof-Texting

For Marcion to promote his theology it has to be backed up by certain authority outside of him, hence the Scripture or portions of it. His anti-Jewish sentiment obviously dictated his teachings and from this flow his unbriddled deductions. Cutting and pasting were employed to fit the Christianity Marcion wanted (the reason why there's many cults today). Basically he had to deduct the whole OT and redact Paul's epistles and Luke to favor his whole premise, all to portray the God of the Jews as Evil while the God of Jesus the true and loving Christian God (dualism). Marcion had to use the OT in his teaching but only for the purpose maligning the God of Israelites(this is the tenor of the preacher in the video and his other videos). Marcion had to pick all passages and allusions that seemingly portray God as a bad deity. This is proof-texting since great portion of the OT see God as a loving, kind, patient, and sincere in his relationship with his chosen people ( Neh. 9:17; Exo. 34:6; Ps. 136; Jon. 3:8-10; Isa. 54:10 et.al). His inference that God is vengeful(Demiurge- a lesser god) boils from God's judgment to the nations towards their sins; that God projected wrath rather than love which the NT God according to him is characterized. J.I. Packer summarizes: “God’s wrath in the Bible is never the capricious, self-indulgent, irritable, morally ignoble thing that human anger so often is. It is, instead, a right and necessary reaction to objective moral evil” (Knowing God, 151). God's judgment was never directed to the Gentiles alone in fact the Israelites received many punishments even included deaths for their transgressions. God therefore is just in his ways even in judgment. Marcion's proof-texting went overboard that's why he was excommunicated and labeled as a heretic. In spite of this, he found untutored people about the Bible and orthodoxy and were swayed by his teachings without questioning him (A salient warning for today). This makes Paul's prediction so true, 2 Timothy 4:3-4"For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; and they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables."

Marcion's Historical Revisionism

By slaughtering the Bible to fit his teachings, he went on revising the biblical history. The Marcionite Gospel is a revised history of Jesus, taking out passages that linked Jesus to the Jews like genealogies, birth narratives of John the Baptist and Jesus in Luke 1-2. Since Marcion was the first to ever come up with a canon , his method of choosing was unhinged hence void of external accountability. Some modern scholars would even suggest that the Gospel of Marcion influenced the 4 gospels making his version at par or even authoritative, in spite of the fact the Synoptic Gospels were written within the three decades post-ascension of Jesus.

Marcion's Better God Theology--A Suspect

Marcion's inclination to Antinomianism is at play here, that the God of the OT used slave-like coercion in stipulating laws for people to obey while Jesus freed people from it hence the God of Jesus is better. To further this idea, he inferred that God of the OT in all his dealings was indeed Evil so that the gap between OT God and NT God deepens and widens making Marcion's God a better choice. So everytime Marcionite hermeneutics is in play when OT passage in on the table, God will not be the hero of the story but the villain. Hence OT passages and as whole were used to portray God as malevolent.

- - - - - - - -
Rev. NeilBoyet Fajardo is the Satellite Pastor at Word of Hope Christian Family Church, and an Ordained Minister at Philippines General Council of the Assemblies of God (PGCAG). He studied Bachelor's Degree of Arts (BA) in Theology at Baptist Theological College-Cebu Graduate School of Theology, Pastoral Leadership and Mission at Bethel Bible College of the Assemblies of God, MDiv in Biblical Studies at Asian Theological Seminary, M.A. Theology (Pastoral Studies) at Baptist Theological College-Cebu Graduate School of Theology, PhD in Theology major in Scriptures at Baptist Theological College-Cebu Graduate School of Theology.

17/07/2024

“God’s holiness without God’s love would be unbearable. God’s love without God’s holiness would be unjust. God’s wisdom found a way to bring them congruently together. It involved a cross” ― Thomas C. Oden, 'Classic Christianity: A Systematic Theology'

15/07/2024

How can we know God exists? How can we be confident the Bible true? How can a loving God allow evil and suffering, and torture people in hell? How can we prove that Jesus is the only way to God?

We need a gathering place where people are welcome to wrestle with difficult questions like these, and allow people to explore truth together.

Starting August 28, 2024 we will begin the Aletheia Life Group — a safe space where people can doubt, disagree, dialogue, debate, and discover answers in a friendly environment without being condemned for their inquiries and questions.

👉 The Case For Faith: Investigating the Toughest Objections to Christianity

👉 Aletheia Life Group | Wednesdays | 7:00 PM to 9:00 PM

👉 Makers Café #60 Eugenio Lopez Drive, Corner Samar Avenue, South Triangle, Quezon City PH

👉 Requirements: Come with an open mind, humble heart, friendly attitude, and gracious spirit.

👉 Open for all. Free admission. Limited seats. SIGN UP NOW to reserve your seat here: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSciRrLSJHEqV99ziwx0aaTvoQL53ar_LX_v76p5sibLxa9HTw/viewform



*What does "aletheia" mean? | "Truth" in John 17:17 is the Greek word "aletheia", which means "reality, the manifested, unconcealed essence of a matter." Truth is the reality lying at the foundation of a righteous example. It is pure unadulterated reality.

15/07/2024

"One Faith: The Evangelical Consensus" | By J. I. Packer (Author) & Thomas C. Oden (Author)

Jesus Christ promised a unity for his church. Are there now clear evidences of that within evangelicalism? Or are evangelicals fragmenting into ever smaller divisions? Renowned theologians J. I. Packer (Reformed-Calvinist) and Thomas C. Oden (Wesleyan-Arminian) make the case that there is a significant theological consensus holding the evangelical church together. With copious citations from statements produced since 1950 that are widely representative of international evangelical faith, Packer and Oden let these witnesses speak for themselves. Packer and Oden survey several key documents of evangelicalism, particularly the Lausanne Covenant (1974), the Manila Manifesto (1989), The Gospel of Jesus An Evangelical Celebration (1999) and The Amsterdam Declaration (2000). Charting sixteen different theological themes, they also include references to numerous documents produced by evangelical theological seminaries and societies, mission agencies, parachurch organizations and assorted special convocations. More than informational, One Faith arises out of the hope that it may not only edify the evangelical church but also provide a potential foundation for a new ecumenism that gives glory to the God of our Lord Jesus Christ according to the good news of his gospel.

23/05/2024

"Humans do not do anything to earn or deserve salvation. Humans are too sinful in nature to seek God independently or take the initiative in their own salvation. Humans can come to salvation only as they are urged to by the conviction of the Holy Spirit, and they are drawn to Christ as He is lifted up in proclamation of the Gospel. God’s grace provides the necessary and sufficient conditions for salvation. However, God in His freedom has sovereignly decided that He will give the gift of salvation to those who believe, who trust Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord. Only God provides for human salvation, and He alone. Before He does so, God requires humans to respond. If humans do not respond, then He does not save." ― Steve Lemke, 'Whosoever Will: A Biblical-Theological Critique of Five-Point Calvinism'

07/05/2024

"The gospel is for every culture, language, and generation. God’s truth is in a cultural container. The truth is absolute, while the container is relative. We must pour the truth out of the container of first-century Hebrew-Greek culture and into the postmodern culture. When done properly, not a drop of truth is lost." — Leith Anderson, 'Dying For Change'

24/04/2024

"In order to receive forgiveness, we need to place our trust in Christ as our Savior and the Lord of our lives. But if we reject Christ, then we reject God's mercy and fall back on His justice. And you know where you stand there. If we reject Jesus' offer of forgiveness, then there is simply is no one else to pay the penalty for your sin-except yourself. Faith is trust or commitment to what you think is true. Therefore, when a person refuses to come to Christ it is never just because of lack of evidence or because of intellectual difficulties: at root, he refuses to come because he willingly ignores and rejects the drawing of God's Spirit on his heart. No one in the final analysis really fails to become a Christian because of lack of arguments; he fails to become a Christian because he loves darkness rather than light and wants nothing to do with God." — William Lane Craig, "Properly Basic Belief In God" | ReasonableFaith.Org

23/04/2024

Free Will Revisited: Fresh Perspective on an Ancient Debate | By Robert Picirilli

A biblical concept of free will is important for many reasons. It does not exalt humanity too highly; no more highly than God Himself lifted them in creating them to bear His own image. Nor does it demean humankind too much; no more than humanity demeaned itself in wicked disobedience against God, thus bearing the consequences of that rebellion in a wholly corrupted and sinful nature that leaves them dead and deaf to spiritual truth, blind and bound in sin. Is it possible that such beings truly have a will free to make choices between alternative courses of action?

To answer that question, I must begin by explaining what I mean by freedom of the will. Free will is not a thing, not a distinct substance or essence that makes up part of a human being. To say a person has free will is not the same as saying a person has a body, spirit, or soul. It is clear, however, that every person has a will. I assume the reader — any Christian reader, at least — agrees. The noun "will" is closely associated with, and its meaning involved with, other words like desire, purpose, intention, determination, and decision. To say a person has a will is to say he experiences purpose, intends things, and makes decisions.

To describe the human will as free is to say something about the way it functions. In one sense, to speak of the will as free is to say something redundant. Be careful how you deny free will; you may very well deny the will itself. To be sure, when we use the term free will, we intend to convey the notion that choices are involved. But that notion is already inherent in the unmodified word. The dictionary defines will as “the power of making a reasoned choice or decision.” To say persons exercise their wills is little more than saying they choose.

I regard it as obvious that the ability of a person to will is part of what it means to bear the image of God, and that fallen humanity still bears that image, as 1 Corinthians 11:7 indicates. I offer, then, that the freedom of the human will is constitutional. One’s will is always present as an aspect of human nature, a way a person functions. Depravity does not change the fact that a person has a will, or that it is constitutionally free to make choices. To be sure, the circumstances in which the will functions bear on whether the person can choose this or that alternative, and that is where depravity gets involved. A person in prison, for example, has not lost the capacity to walk the streets unchained, but his circumstances curtail his ability to exercise that capacity at the time.

Just so, depravity limits our choices without removing the constitutional capacity to choose. How, then, can a fallen person ever be free to choose for God? This requires a deeper study of free will, depravity, and grace. For now, it is enough to say — and this is the point of the latter part of my definition, above — such a person must obtain a level of understanding of the choices available.

To believe in the freedom of the will as I have defined it, then, applies to choices of any sort. These choices include everyday decisions that seem entirely innocent and unimportant, like which socks to wear today (almost, but not quite, inconsequential), or the restaurant to which you will take your wife for your anniversary celebration (very consequential). They also include much more important moral choices: whether to lie to avoid a predicament, or whether to retaliate when wronged. And they include the ultimate choice that leads to eternal life: putting faith in Jesus Christ. But in all of these, there must at least be some understanding of the available choices to be free to choose in the circumstances.

Read the full article:

By Robert Picirilli | This article is re-posted from “Free Will Revisited: Fresh Perspective on an Ancient Debate” written by Robert…