C.S. Lewis concerning free will and Hell

The following is another section I wrote on C.S. Lewis and the problem of evil, from my MPhil in 2003. There is material added in the Additional 2008 section.

http://thekingpin68.blogspot.com/2006/01/mphil-wales-2003.html

To Lewis, Hell was the place where those who were committed to unrepented rebellion against God were separated from their creator in the next life. Lewis noted this was the negative side of free will, that many would reject their creator. "Some will not be redeemed." Lewis (1940)(1996: 119). This is the case even though Jesus Christ did the work required to save all of humanity.

Lewis noted that because of free will, all of humanity could only be saved if God saved them against their own will. I see the logic of his point; however, it appears from Romans for example, that all reject God prior to God’s grace through the Holy Spirit. Romans 3:10-11, mentions that not one person is righteous, not one person really seeks God. This being accepted, then even believers in Christ have their will somehow moved without being violated, since many believers accept the idea that human beings have, to some degree, free will. If a human being does not choose God without God first moving his/her heart, then the question arises, why does God move some and not others? Yes, some do believe and repent, but they cannot do this autonomously, so the reason why some are saved, and some are not, remains somewhat a mystery to humanity, and cannot be Biblically, entirely contributed to the human use of free will. Lewis explained some major objections to Hell, and countered these objections. He dealt with the objection with God’s retributive justice. He made the following point.

The demand that God should forgive such a man while he remains what he is, is based on a confusion between condoning and forgiving. To condone an evil is simply to ignore it, to treat it as if it were good. But forgiveness needs to be accepted as well as offered if it is to be complete: and a man who admits no guilt can accept no forgiveness. Lewis (1940)(1996: 124).

So, based on this idea, God must punish sinners, otherwise he condones sin. I think this true as well, to not believe in God in a relationship sense and fail to ask for forgiveness is a rejection of God. To refuse a relationship with God, one’s own creator, is to arguably commit the greatest crime possible. To reject the being that made you in love, and to reject your very own purpose to serve that God in love, is certainly a punishable offense. If there is anything wrong and offensive in the Universe that would be it!

Lewis also noted that while God does issue punishment to sinners in Hell, he is at the same time letting them live the selfish, Godless lives they desired apart from him, so it appears his love still remains even to those Hell bound. In the Screwtape Letters, Lewis as Uncle Screwtape states: "The whole philosophy of Hell rests on recognition of the axiom that one thing is not another thing, and specifically, the one self is not another self. My good is my good and yours is yours." Lewis (1941)(1990: 92) . This selfishness which leads to the damage of others is allowed by the Lord to flourish in Hell within the spirits of unrepentant sinners.

Lewis mentions the objection of God giving eternal-everlasting punishment for transitory sin. He handles this by stating that perhaps eternity is not necessarily in a line, but a solid, as in timeless state. So, I would take from this idea, that perhaps the actual punishment of the sinner never varies, but stays the same. Hell could be a timeless type of punishment. Also, I would like to counter this objection by stating that in everlasting punishment, the sinner is not primarily being punished for sins against God in the temporal life, but is being punished and separated from God for a sin position against God. Why does a sinner earn everlasting punishment? Because his/her rebellion against God is everlasting. There is thus no injustice because there is not really eternal-everlasting punishment for temporal sin, but everlasting punishment for everlasting rebellion against God.

Concerning the objection of the horrors of Hell, and the intense punishment, Lewis rejected annihilationism because he stated that ". . . the destruction of one thing means the emergence of something else. . . . If souls can be destroyed, must there not be a state of having been a human soul?" Lewis (1940)(1996: 127). This could be the case, but I think it tenable to believe that God could completely destroy what he had created. To say he could not would be troubling in light of the Christian belief in God’s omnipotence. It would not be contradiction for God to destruct what he had constructed, so I think Lewis has a logical point, but one that would not concern annihilationists, or critics of Hell very much, since the God Christians believe in should possess the power to destroy his own creations.

It is quite possible that the level of Hell one endures could very well be proportionate to their level of rebellion against God which takes place in their sin position. Jesus indicated there was greater sin for certain acts, as when he was handed over to the Romans by Judas and the Jews in John 19:11, so perhaps Hell is determined by what the individual makes of it largely.

Additional 2008:

Lewis noted this was the negative side of free will, that many would reject their creator. "Some will not be redeemed." Lewis (1940)(1996: 119).

Within much of Reformed theology persons outside of Christ freely reject God, but are also not elected to salvation. J.S.Whale states sovereign election means that all persons are subjects of double predestination, either in Christ or condemned. Whale (1958: 63). Election is based on God’s plan and initiative to save the elect. Calvin (1543)(1996: 200).

Lewis noted that because of free will, all of humanity could only be saved if God saved them against their own will.

I reason that this is incorrect. God can use compatibilism to save persons. Persons can be determined to believe in God without force or coercion, and freely accept the gospel message as God chooses to regenerate persons and moulds and persuades individuals to believe. Philosopher Louis P. Pojman explains the difference between determinism, which is also known as hard determinism, and compatibilism, which is also known as soft determinism. Within determinism or hard determinism, an outside force causes an act and no created being is responsible for his or her moral actions, while for compatibilism or soft determinism, although an outside force causes actions, created beings are responsible where they act voluntarily. Within hard determinism an outside force would be the only cause of human actions, while with soft determinism an outside force would be the primary cause of human actions and persons the secondary cause. Pojman (1996: 596). Compatibilism, like incompatibilism, holds to free will but in a limited form. This could be an outside force, as noted, that is not God. An atheist may be a compatibilist and/or an incompatibilist.

Alexander R. Pruss notes a key difference between incompatibilism and compatibilism in regard to committing an action. The incompatibilist thinks if someone freely refrains from an action, they must not have been causally determined or significantly influenced to do so. The compatibilist thinks if someone refrains from an action, they have the power to do this and were not constrained from doing the action by an outside force. Compatibilism allows for significantly free human beings to commit free actions, simultaneously influenced and determined by an outside force but never with the use of constraint, coercion or force. Incompatibilism denies that any outside influence can significantly will any action, or impose itself on a significantly free being for a truly free action to occur. Pruss (2003: 216).

He handles this by stating that perhaps eternity is not necessarily in a line, but a solid, as in timeless state.

I personally doubt that hell is timeless, but the lake of fire, although likely described in figurative terms, has a physical nature where physically resurrected bodies are punished (Revelation 20). How time would work in such a place I do not know, but I reason that persons need time to process thoughts and to process punishment.

Finally, I desire that no one end up in hell, but it is a Biblical teaching!

CALVIN, JOHN (1543)(1996) The Bondage and Liberation of the Will, Translated by G.I. Davies, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.

LEWIS, C.S. (1940)(1996) The Problem of Pain, San Francisco, Harper-Collins.

LEWIS, C.S. (1941)(1990) The Screwtape Letters, Uhrichsville, Ohio,
Barbour and Company.

POJMAN, LOUIS P. (1996) Philosophy: The Quest for Truth, New York, Wadsworth Publishing Company.

PRUSS, ALEXANDER R. (2003) ‘A New Free-Will Defence’, Religious Studies, Volume 39, pp. 211-223. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

WHALE, J.S. (1958) Christian Doctrine, Glasgow, Fontana Books.

http://satireandtheology.blogspot.com/2008/02/bloghush-floyd-
mayweather-jr-to-fight.html

Propaganda and Promoganda

Siegen, Germany (photo from trekearth.com)

And now for something completely different…

Propaganda:

‘Selected information, true or false, which is promoted with the aim of persuading people to adopt a particular belief, attitude or course of action. During the 20th Century all the major political ideologies have employed propaganda and made use of modern media to reach a mass audience. It has an important role in modern warfare and by WWII separate bureaus and ministries were established to promote morale and subvert the enemy. The Nazi Ministry of Propaganda, headed by Goebbels was one of the most effective. In the West there has been an increase in professional propagandists such as people in public relations and advertising.’ Concord (1982: 995).

The above is a direct quote with quotation marks, unlike the usual quotes on my blogs, which are paraphrased as I train myself to follow the Wales dissertation standard. I have been interested in propaganda posters for many years and wanted to feature some within an article. One day a few years ago I was scanning through some propaganda posters on-line and I came up with the term promoganda which I did not see anywhere on the web, but today I see that other persons are using it. I wrote the term down in a book and kept it to myself, but others have thought of it as well. With the Concord quote, perhaps much of modern 20th and 21st Century public relations and advertising could be considered promoganda.

In regard to the propaganda posters featured, I went to what appeared to be respectable sites, which would present accurate information, but I am not a scholar concerning propaganda. As well, I in no way whatsoever, politically or militarily support totalitarian regimes. I support Western political democracy and within a fallen world it is the best system to preserve human rights. I also support Western policing and military action when it concerns maintaining law and order. Romans 13 gives the state the right to maintain law and order. Bruce writes that Romans 13:4 explains that the state is the servant of God to execute his wrath on the wrongdoer. Bruce (1987: 224). 

Cranfield notes that from 13:4, the state is God’s servant, as it is an agent of punishment for wrath to those that do evil. Cranfield (1992: 323). Cranfield does tie in the mention of the word sword to the authority of the state to use military power. Cranfield (1992: 323-324). Cranfield points out that Paul in Romans seems to overlook the possibility that a government can use its power for evil rather than good. Cranfield (1992: 322). Cranfield leans to the admittedly difficult view that Paul reasoned that the state would ultimately praise an individual it intended to punish. Cranfield (1992: 323). I prefer another Cranfield suggestion that Paul was aware of the evil a state could commit, but was speaking of a states true and natural duty to do good. Cranfield (1992: 323). I reason the state is to maintain law and order in authority from God, but anything outside of that purpose can be evil. This could include imperialistic warfare, and a disrespect for human rights. Mounce suggests than in 13:4 we have the Biblical basis that the state can use force for the maintenance of law and order. Mounce (1995: 244).
http://www.firstworldwar.com/posters/images/pp_ger_08.jpg


This German World War I poster appears to have Jesus Christ and therefore God blessing the German troops of the Central Powers. Since Romans 13 has God sanctioning each state to maintain law and order it cannot be necessarily assumed that Jesus and God sanctioned each and every German military action, as the Allied Powers too would have the divine right to maintain law and order.
http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/posters2.htm


The quotes provided are in italics.

A disturbing poster from Nazi Germany which supports euthanasia. A nation truly influenced by Christian thinking would tend to care for its ill.

This poster is from the 1930's, and promotes the Nazi monthly Neues Volk (New People}, the organ of the party's racial office. The text reads: "This genetically ill person will cost our people's community 60,000 marks over his lifetime. Citizens, that is your money. Read Neues Volk, the monthly of the racial policy office of the NSDAP."
http://www.oddee.com/item_66536.aspx


I would support the Allied Powers over the Axis Powers, but the Nazis attempted to demonstrate that the Americans were pro-Jewish racists, and of course the Nazis were racists themselves. Such is sinful human nature as persons often condemn others for what they are guilty of themselves.

Liberators
A 1944 Nazi propaganda poster titled "LIBERATORS", which perfectly epitomizes many perennially-recurring themes of anti-Americanism


One totalitarian state battles another, although I can grant the Soviet Union the right to defend itself from an invader.
"Mercilessly, we will humiliate and destroy the enemy!"
Soviet propaganda poster from World War II, depicting a Red Army soldier aiming a bayonet at Hitler's temple. The torn paper document is titled "The Agreement on non-Aggression between Germany and USSR".

http://www.olive-drab.com/gallery/description_0165.php



I would reason the poster was quite effective and I am glad the Allies won the war. It is interesting that the poster was produced by General Motors.

Warning! Our Homes are in Danger Now! Poster

The General Motors Corporation created this poster in 1942, early in World War II. The poster features menacing images of German leader Adolph Hitler and the Japanese Prime Minister, Hideki Tojo, scowling over the American side of the globe. Both are armed and dangerous with Hitler holding a pistol while Tojo wields a bloody knife. Small houses form a line at bottom, underscoring the message of threats to ordinary lives.

At the right, there is a small white circle with a picture of a plane inside it, and the words "Our Job: Keep'em Firing."

The message is clear in the images and colors: America is in mortal danger and you must work long and hard to counter the threat.

BRUCE, F.F. (1985)(1996) Romans, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

CRANFIELD, C.E.B. (1992) Romans: A Shorter Commentary, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

MOUNCE, ROBERT H. (1995) The New American Commentary: Romans, Nashville, Broadman & Holman Publishers.

THE CONCORD DESK ENCYCLOPEDIA (1982) New York, Concord Reference Books, Inc, Time.

http://satireandtheology.blogspot.com/2008/02/council-of-nani.html

A discussion on hell:

http://www.albertmohler.com/radio_show.php?cdate=2008-02-19

C.S. Lewis and total depravity

Dubai

Within thekingpin68 blog, I have shared concepts from my PhD work. I thought for something different I would share two sections from my MPhil dissertation degree, which was also concerning the problem of evil. I realize that C.S. Lewis is quite popular and I reviewed his work on the problem of evil for my 2003 dissertation degree, which is like a mini-PhD in the United Kingdom academic system. I present two sections of my review and the second section concerns the topic of total depravity.

The entire MPhil can be found in the January 2006 archives and the link below:

http://thekingpin68.blogspot.com/2006/01/mphil-wales-2003.html

C.S. Lewis and total depravity

British born, Clive Staples Lewis (1898-1963) was a world renowned British writer whose theological literary works have been influential within Christian apologetics. Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, describes Lewis’ beginnings and places of study.

Anglican scholar-novelist and Christian Apologist, perhaps best known for his literary fantasies that explore theological concepts. Born near Belfast in Northern Ireland, he received his B.A. from University College, Oxford, in 1924, and was fellow and tutor in English literature at Magdalen College, Oxford, from 1925 until 1954. He then accepted the Chair of Medieval and Renaissance English at Cambridge. Hein (1996: 630).

Lewis pointed out some definite examples of human wickedness in his era and culture; however, he rejected the idea of Total Depravity. He stated:

This chapter will have been misunderstood if anyone describes it as a reinstatement of the doctrine of Total Depravity. I disbelieve the doctrine, partly on the logical grounds that if our depravity were total we should not know ourselves to be depraved, and partly because experience shows us much goodness in human nature. Lewis (1940)(1996: 61).

I can see the logic of Lewis’ point of view; however, I don’t agree with his conclusions. I will first give the comments of C.C. Ryrie and then explain my perspective.

The concept of total depravity does not mean

(1) that depraved people cannot or do not perform actions that are good in either man’s or God’s sight. But no such action can gain favor with God for salvation. Neither does it mean

(2) that fallen man has no conscience which judges between good and evil for him. But that conscience has been effected by the fall so that it cannot be a safe and reliable guide. Neither does it mean

(3) that people indulge in every form of sin or in any sin to the greatest extent possible.

Positively total depravity means that the corruption has extended to all aspects of man’s nature, to his being: and total depravity means that because of that corruption there is nothing man can do to merit saving favour with God. Ryrie (1996: 312).

I would think Lewis did not significantly understand the doctrine. Ryrie’s first point answers Lewis’ objection. The doctrine is not about humanity being so evil that no good is possible. The point is that these good works can in no way earn salvation. As well, with Ryrie’s second point, humanity could acknowledge the existence of sin and evil in them because they still had a conscience, although it was scarred. Also, the depravity is not total in the sense of every aspect of evil in people being maximized, it means instead that humanity is corrupt to the point where salvation cannot be merited.

I think Ryrie explains the concept well, and understands it, unlike Lewis. However, I wonder if human beings can commit truly good acts, like both men suggest. I would think since humanity is totally depraved that no true human good is possible. If true goodness is found in perfection, as is God, then we cannot obtain that good. Even as Christians that attempt to perform the will of God with the help of the Holy Spirit, would there not be just a little taint of sin in all our actions? It is my view that human good is likely an absence of a complete maximization of our total depravity. I, for example, may appear to be humanly good compared to a serial murderer; however, that is because the murderer has been found out as someone who has committed heinous crimes, where as Lewis pointed out with an individual, my evil can be hidden in public persona.

HEIN, R. (1996) C.S. Lewis, in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.

LEWIS, C.S. (1940)(1996) The Problem of Pain, San Francisco, Harper-Collins.

RYRIE, C.C. (1996) Total Depravity, in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.


Dubai


Dubai

http://satireandtheology.blogspot.com/2008/02/recent-short-comments-on-society.html

Religious superiority?

Burnaby BC (photo from trekearth.com)

Jurgen Moltmann writes that the resurrection message of the early Christian community was the anticipation of what was to come. Moltmann (1993: 177). The resurrection of Christ created the hope for the eventual world of a new righteousness. Moltmann (1993: 177). Robert Mounce explains that in the new heaven and new earth the life of the believer will be transformed in completion. Mounce (1990: 388). Believers will share the likeness of God, and this will be a life of moral perfection. John Calvin explains that God would begin anew in humanity by abolishing the fallen will, leaving the human will in its original state. Calvin (1539)(1998: Book II, Chapter 3, 6). God would turn evil to good, according to Calvin, thus bringing a new humanity, which was a new creation. Calvin (1539)(1998: Book II, Chapter 3, 6). This human restoration and rebirth would lead to the culmination of the Kingdom of God, and the ultimate blessing of immortality. Calvin (1552)(1995: 13).

Christians of all theological groups that trust in the Biblical God and Christ for salvation can reason that they shall be part of the finalized Kingdom of God. Salvation is a work of God as Christ completed the atoning work and resurrection and believers simply receive the gospel in grace through divine guided faith. Believers are saved by grace through faith, and not through self, as it is a gift from God, as Ephesians 2:8 explains. Ephesians 2:9 notes persons are not saved by works and that no one should boast. Verse 10 reasons that followers as the workmanship of God, should produce good works. Christians are sinners (Romans 1, 2, 3:23, 6:23) that by nature and choice cannot please God by their own power. Salvation since believers are not as of yet resurrected, is a process, although persons in Christ are saved. Christians are at this point therefore imperfect, and even while guided by God this imperfection certainly would be reflected in life, including theology.

Do I ask the Lord that my theology be always correct? Yes. Is it? Well, I think usually the Lord guides me to the truth the first time, but sometimes within God’s will it takes some time and thought to have a better understanding of theology, in particular secondary issues outside of salvific and nature of God doctrines. The need for theological development within a Christian life, and overall spiritual progress to me demonstrates that Christians, even if adhering to Biblical essentials should take a humble approach in theological interaction with others, both Christian and non-Christian.

I have been within the Christian community since 1988 as an adult. I must first state that most of my interaction with Christians both on and off-line has been positive, and so I am not broad-brushing the Christian community here. Without attempting to judge any hearts and motives, I am concerned by the possible attitudes of religious superiority or spiritual superiority, if you prefer, which, I have come across over the last twenty years. I have had pastors who are focused on evangelism and missions work that negate me as a theology student, and now theologian, as some seem to view academic theology as too abstract an unimportant. They somewhat fail to realize that academics and theologians deal with theological issues in order that this information filters down to evangelism and missions work. 1 Corinthians 12:27-31 notes that there are different types of members within the community of Christ in regard to duties, and I see teachers are on the list. Certainly it can be reasoned that some of those teachers should be able to teach and reason at an academic level in order to assist the Christian community.

At a Christian University, I had an advisor who seemingly did not like the fact that I pushed for top grades and desired to be a philosophical theologian and not a pastor, and he appeared to lose interest in advising me properly with my dissertation project. He would strongly criticize many other Christian academics and told me that I listened too much to the previous theologian that he had replaced. My advisor left the University for another job and provided a negative note concerning my work for the review board. Having followed all his instructions, the project did not go as well as I hoped, but I did manage to have the note removed from my record. The University informed me that my former advisor has no experience as an advisor. His actions and attitude demontsrated a possible aura of religious/spiritual superiority over me as if should give up academics and pursue something else. He told the review board I could not do the work. Thankfully, by advancing to a higher level degree and completing a distance learning MPhil dissertation on the problem of evil as a moderate conservative in a liberal institution, with no revisions after making, and no local advisor, I have proven him wrong. God willing, when I pass my PhD dissertation with similar circumstances he shall be proved wrong again, and all my chapters have been accepted by my advisor so far. I am not bragging here, and I would not succeed without God’s guidance and the help of good advisors, but my point is that this Christian advisor would not properly assist me and it very well could be because of an attitude of religious/spiritual superiority. Although we agreed on primary issues and I was an A grade student, he for whatever reasons through his actions and lack of proper assistance caused my career aspirations to come under attack. With my first PhD appointment in England, my advisor was away for a year and the professors there who are religious, but not likely mainly Biblical Christians, forced me out of the department because I would not give up on the idea that God created the world, and the problem of evil existed. They too stated I could not do the work, and they too have been proven wrong…thank God.

Through blogging, I have been disturbed by the dogmatism of a small minority of Reformed blogs that have few links and portray an attitude of religious superiority as if Reformed doctrine is basically equal to Biblical doctrine authority wise. I am a Reformed theologian with some Baptist leanings that is pleased to be a member of a Presbyterian Church, but there is room for debate on secondary issues. On my blogs I take strong Reformed stances on theodicy, free will and sovereignty, but I try to write and interact in a loving and respectful way in order to promote dialogue with those with differing perspectives. I will always be a student first and a teacher second, and so there is room to humbly consider other perspectives, even if I know I will likely not change my mind on certain issues. Lately, I have also been troubled by the minority of Christian blogs I have visited that join BlogRush and then will not even publish my comments on their blog. I am looking for new readers, commenters, and links and one should at least respectfully publish my comment even if my theology is not his/her cup of tea. I do not expect everyone to desire to link with me.

All Christians are to share in the eventual culminated Kingdom and so let us interact respectfully and with an open-mind concerning secondary issues with our brothers and sisters of different Christian camps. Those with very dogmatic largely non-interactive approaches and blogs miss opportunities to share their perspectives and possibly influence others in thought, due to their closed-minded approach.

CALVIN, JOHN (1539)(1998) The Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book II, Grand Rapids, Wheaton College.
http://www.smartlink.net/~douglas/calvin/

CALVIN, JOHN (1552)(1995) Acts, Translated by Watermark, Nottingham, Crossway Books.

MOLTMANN, JURGEN (1993) The Crucified God, Minneapolis, Fortress Press.

MOUNCE, ROBERT H. (1990) The Book of Revelation, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.


Burnaby BC (photo from trekearth.com)

http://satireandtheology.blogspot.com/2008/02/space-real-and-phony.html

Impassibility: Does God suffer?

Bavaria, Hohenschwangau Castle (photo from trekearth.com)

The section from the link below offers interesting advice and relates to why I blog on related PhD material. In my case, on thekingpin68, the material is somewhat altered from what will be presented to Wales. A fear of Universities forbidding publication of material related to theses seems likely unwarranted and is not a good reason to avoid posting, for if one blogs on similar material, one can prove originality and the date published. Blogging on a topic before PhD publication can likely only help the process and I am already publicly sharing the concepts with the questionnaire.

http://rdrop.com/~paulmck/personal/PartTimePhDAdvice.html

Publish as You Go

You must be the first person to cover your topic, otherwise, your work does not qualify as a Ph.D. There are more people pursuing doctorates than there have been at any time in the past, and there is some truth to the old adage that great minds think alike. I have talked to a number of people who worked hard on their dissertation, only to find that someone else beat them to the punch, sometimes by a matter of months. And they were working on it full time!
If you are doing your doctorate part time, you will take longer to get it done. Therefore, you are more likely to be beaten to the punch. But if you publish your findings in an appropriate forum as you go, you have "laid your claim" to that portion of your work before completing work on your dissertation. Once you have published part of your work in a suitable forum, no one can take that part of your work away from you.

University technical reports are one useful tool, as are the relevant conferences and journals, either print or electronic. But check with your committee before going the electronic-publication route, as not all universities recognize electronic publication. In fact, I have heard rumors of universities forbidding publication prior to completion of the dissertation. So make sure that your committee fully supports "publish as you go".

Impassibility: Does God suffer?

Brian Davies explains that impassibility is the traditional understanding that God, the divine nature, cannot experience pain or suffering. Davies believes it is incorrect to assume that God’s impassibility should mean that the creator is indifferent or unconcerned about his creation. Davies (1999: 288). For Millard Erickson, the idea of God’s divine nature as impassible is based upon the influence of ancient Greek thought rather than Scripture. Erickson points out that with the incarnation of Christ, God the Son did experience human suffering. He possessed a human nature that did suffer in life and in death, even though his divine nature coexisted with his human one. Erickson (1994: 737). Kenneth Surin writes that God is considered by some within traditional Christian theology to be unable to experience pain or sorrow. However, others concede that concluding God is impassible is a questionable view within traditional thought. Surin (1982: 97). It seems reasonable God can be both all-powerful and feel negative emotions, but it should be concluded suffering does not alter his divine attributes. Since God is infinite and considered immutable, it is impossible for him to suffer in the exact way that human beings do. Thiessen describes the immutability of God as meaning his divine nature, attributes, consciousness, and will, cannot change. Thiessen (1956: 127). Erickson explains that God does not grow or develop, as there are no variations in his nature at different points within his existence. Erickson (1994: 274). R.C. Sproul and Robert Wolgemuth deduce that as God is eternal he has no beginning or no end. Sproul and Wolgemuth (2000: 2). As God is understood to be eternal and beyond time without a progression in nature, his infinite being would make a change in nature and character impossible.

In contrast, David A Pailin explains that within some process theology approaches, God’s existence may be viewed as absolute, necessary and unchanging. However, God’s character can change and is determined through interaction with his creation. Pailin postulates that God’s character can change, as he loves his creatures. Pailin (1999: 469). Process theology according to Grenz, Guretzki, and Nordling is a twentieth-century view based on the philosophy of Alfred North Whitehead that presents a God that is involved in the continual process of world through two natures. God has a transcendent nature which contains God’s perfect character and the consequent immanent nature by which God is part of the changing cosmic process. Grenz, Guretzki, and Nordling (1999: 95-96).

I see no need to adopt process theology, as God fully understands evil and suffering. In a divine way that cannot be completely humanly understood, God experiences evil and suffering as the infinite, omnipotent God in spiritual nature, and as the God-man, Jesus Christ. Christ suffered as a human being, and in particular died for the sins of persons, and to give his life as a ransom for many (Mark 10:45). God does not have to progress or continue a process to understand anything, but made himself particularly relatable to humanity through a process in which Christ became a human being and completed the atoning and resurrection work. God therefore relates to suffering and provides a remedy for evil and suffering which Scripture promises will be culminated at the end of this age.

DAVIES, BRIAN (1999) ‘Impassibility’, in Alan Richardson and John Bowden (eds.), A New Dictionary of Christian Theology, p. 288. Kent, SCM Press Ltd.

ERICKSON, MILLARD (1994) Christian Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.

GRENZ, STANLEY J., DAVID GURETZKI AND CHERITH FEE NORDLING (1999) Pocket Dictionary of Theological Terms, Downers Grove, Ill., InterVarsity Press.

PAILIN, DAVID A. (1999) ‘Process Theology’, in Alan Richardson and John Bowden (eds.), A New Dictionary of Christian Theology, Kent, SCM Press Ltd.

SPROUL, R.C., AND ROBERT WOLGEMUTH (2000) What’s In the Bible, Word Publishing, Nashville.

THIESSEN, HENRY C. (1956) Introductory Lectures in Systematic Theology, Grand Rapids, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

http://satireandtheology.blogspot.com/2008/02/stupid-questions.html