The University of Wales, Bangor
Happy Canadian Thanksgiving.
Sorry, loyal readers there are no pretty graphs like with the PhD survey.
Please forgive me, or blame my advisor and reviewers for not insisting on them.
It did save me a ton of work. My PhD graphs took a month.
This is edited work from my MPhil thesis:
The Problem of Evil: Anglican and Baptist Perspectives, 2003, The University of Wales, Bangor.
MPhil survey section edited:
Some Anglican and Baptist perspectives will be compared.
4. My Format
This is a work of Empirical Theology. I have chosen Anglican and Baptist because I attended an Anglican church for two years while living in Manchester, England, and I attended a Baptist Seminary for my Master of Theological Studies Degree in Greater Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. I am therefore somewhat familiar with the views of both denominational groups, and both have had writers which have dealt with the problem of evil as recently as post World War II.
CHAPTER SIX
Conclusion
1. The Survey
For my surveys, I have received fifty each, completed of Anglicans and Baptists who have attended a post-secondary denominational college, University or seminary, or are members of one of those denominations who have studied religion at a post-secondary level. There were no other stipulations I set in drawing up the survey. I was not concerned with age, sex or theological position. I was simply looking for people who met the educational and denominational requirements. I used both regular mail and email to send out the questionnaires, and received back forms via both formats.
Statement four:
The fourth statement was perhaps the most controversial. God wills evil for the greater good.
I do take this viewpoint, and I am in agreement with the writings of John Calvin on this matter within The Bondage and Liberation of the Will, as well as in Institutes of the Christian Religion, and has been documented throughout the thesis. This idea has been discussed through this thesis. I am not stating that God sins in any way by willing evil for the greater good, nor does he force people or fallen angels to sin. People sin by nature and choice, and God uses this evil for the greater good. Since he is infinite and dealing with finite creation, all things work under the subjection of his will and I humbly, and without complete understanding, state that he manages the Universe in a far more controlled manner than to simply allow evil to take place. By not preventing all evil, and by using it for the greater good, he is in a sense willing it. The difference between God’s will and the sinful will when evil takes place, is that God’s will and motives alone remain pure and consistent within God’s good purposes.
The idea of human free will alone does not demonstrate why God has to allow evil, as opposed to willing it. God knew there would be a fall, and in a sense willed the results of that fall by not preventing it from taking place, but it was within his right to have evil flourish in his creation for a time until the Kingdom of God culminated. It must be stated again that God did not coerce human beings into sinning and thus causing the fall, but he knew that this fall would take place and did not willingly prevent it. It can be deduced that God thought the evil and suffering in a corrupted creation, willed in sinful disobedience, was a tolerable situation for a time. Jesus Christ would, through his work, restore that creation and culminate a Kingdom of God filled with resurrected human beings who had experienced evil, and now through the Holy Spirit willingly rejected evil completely.
There are, as well, many instances in our creation where God could
have prevented evils from taking place, for instance the American bombings of September 11, 2001. Some may argue that God must allow human free will and that is why these events took place. However, God could have prevented this from taking place, as it can be shown that many evils are prevented and certainly God would have his hand in this. Many times evil plans are thwarted, such as Nazi Germany’s plans to conquer Europe. In that case, Adolph Hitler’s free will was not allowed to completely flourish. It was not that God forced Hitler to think differently, but rather the Fuhrer’s plans were defeated by the Allies.
I do not think free will is the ultimate answer in the matter of the problem of evil, rather it is largely God’s will that determines what will ultimately take place, at the same time not forcing his creation to sin against him. This sin is achieved by people who are in the sinful biological line of Adam and Eve, and thus possess sinful nature which leads to sinful choices.
With Anglican 10% agreed, 18% were not certain, 72% disagreed.
With Baptists 20% agreed, 6% were not certain, 74% disagreed.
Statement seven:
This statement stated: Relative Dualism, a universe containing an eternal, infinite, good God, and a finite created Devil, is permissible within a Biblical world-view.
Some observers of Christianity like to think of Satan and his fallen angels as a metaphor for evil and wish to deny that these beings exist. Professor David Pailin, who was my advisor for a short time, criticized me for believing in these beings as there was no proof of their existence. I think that Scripture is historical and it certainly accepts their existence. As well, and this was a point that I made to Professor Pailin, if theists believe that God, who is spirit (John 4:24) created human beings who are of a physical nature, why is it more difficult to believe that God made angels who were of spiritual nature?
To me, it is a more difficult task for God to create matter and physical beings when he is spirit, as opposed to creating spiritual beings who are much like him except finite. I do not have a philosophical problem believing in angels and fallen angels, however, I do not base my belief in angelic beings primarily on my experience but in Scripture and reason.
Here 74% of Anglicans agreed, while 14% were not certain, with 12% disagreeing.
With the Baptists, 86% agreed, 4% being not certain, and 10% being in disagreement.
The eleventh statement read: Free will itself is not the main factor in the human rejection of God.
Here 40% of Anglicans agreed, while 30% were not certain, and 30% disagreed.
With Baptists, 62% agreed, 8% being not certain, and 30% being in disagreement with the statement.
Statement nineteen:
The earth will be perfected only when Christ returns.
With Anglicans, 70% agreed, 12% were not certain, 18% disagreed.
The Baptists were more emphatic as 88% agreed, 8% were not certain, and 4% disagreed.
Statement twenty:
The statement was: Satanic beings are a major force of evil.
There was much more skepticism concerning these beings within the Anglican camp in comparison to the Baptist group; however, the ministry of Jesus and his Apostles interacted with Satanic beings and there is no scriptural indication that these beings would not exist today.
With the Anglicans, 62% agreed, 18% were not certain, 20% disagreed.
With the Baptists, 92% agreed, 6% were not certain, and 2% disagreed.
Statement thirty-five stated:
Ultimately evil will be confined to an everlasting hell.
I think this is the best position to take from a Biblical perspective, as it appears in Revelation 20:14, that death and hades are thrown into the lake of fire. Some argue that this is describing annihilationism, however, verse 10 describes this as a place of everlasting torment for the devil, beast, and false prophet. It would be too presumptuous, in my view, to assume that human beings thrown into this lake would simply be annihilated.
With this statement there is a substantial difference in opinion between the two groups.
With Anglicans, 54% agreed, 24% were not certain, and 22% disagreed.
With Baptists, 86% agreed, 6% were not certain, and 8% disagreed.
AUGUSTINE. (388-395)(1979) De Liberto Arbitrio (On Free Will), in Earlier Writings on Free Will, Translated by J.H.S. Burleigh, Philadelphia, The Westminster Press.
AUGUSTINE. (421)(1998) Enchiridion, Translated by J.F. Shaw, Denver, New Advent Catholic Website.
BLACKBURN, S. (1996) Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
CALVIN, JOHN (1543)(1996) The Bondage and Liberation of the Will, Translated by G.I. Davies, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.
CALVIN, J. (1543)(1998) The Bondage and Liberation of the Will, Translated by G.I. Davies, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.
CARSON, D.A. (1981) Divine Sovereignty and Human Responsibility, Atlanta, John Knox Press.
CARSON, D.A. (1990) How Long, O Lord?, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.
FEINBERG, J.S. (1994) The Many Faces of Evil, Grand Rapids, Zondervan Publishing House.
MACKIE, J.L. (1971)(1977) Evil and Omnipotence, in The Philosophy of Religion, in Alvin C. Plantinga, God, Freedom, and Evil, Grand Rapids,
Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
PAILIN, D.A. (1999) Enlightenment, in Alan Richardson and John Bowden (eds.), A New Dictionary of Christian Theology, Kent, SCM Press Limited.
PLANTINGA, A.C. (1977) God, Freedom, and Evil, Grand Rapids, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
POJMAN, L.P. (1995)(1996) Atheism, in Robert Audi (gen.ed.), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Sorry, loyal readers there are no pretty graphs like with the PhD survey.
Please forgive me, or blame my advisor and reviewers for not insisting on them.
It did save me a ton of work. My PhD graphs took a month.
This is edited work from my MPhil thesis:
The Problem of Evil: Anglican and Baptist Perspectives, 2003, The University of Wales, Bangor.
MPhil survey section edited:
Some Anglican and Baptist perspectives will be compared.
4. My Format
This is a work of Empirical Theology. I have chosen Anglican and Baptist because I attended an Anglican church for two years while living in Manchester, England, and I attended a Baptist Seminary for my Master of Theological Studies Degree in Greater Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. I am therefore somewhat familiar with the views of both denominational groups, and both have had writers which have dealt with the problem of evil as recently as post World War II.
CHAPTER SIX
Conclusion
1. The Survey
For my surveys, I have received fifty each, completed of Anglicans and Baptists who have attended a post-secondary denominational college, University or seminary, or are members of one of those denominations who have studied religion at a post-secondary level. There were no other stipulations I set in drawing up the survey. I was not concerned with age, sex or theological position. I was simply looking for people who met the educational and denominational requirements. I used both regular mail and email to send out the questionnaires, and received back forms via both formats.
Statement four:
The fourth statement was perhaps the most controversial. God wills evil for the greater good.
I do take this viewpoint, and I am in agreement with the writings of John Calvin on this matter within The Bondage and Liberation of the Will, as well as in Institutes of the Christian Religion, and has been documented throughout the thesis. This idea has been discussed through this thesis. I am not stating that God sins in any way by willing evil for the greater good, nor does he force people or fallen angels to sin. People sin by nature and choice, and God uses this evil for the greater good. Since he is infinite and dealing with finite creation, all things work under the subjection of his will and I humbly, and without complete understanding, state that he manages the Universe in a far more controlled manner than to simply allow evil to take place. By not preventing all evil, and by using it for the greater good, he is in a sense willing it. The difference between God’s will and the sinful will when evil takes place, is that God’s will and motives alone remain pure and consistent within God’s good purposes.
The idea of human free will alone does not demonstrate why God has to allow evil, as opposed to willing it. God knew there would be a fall, and in a sense willed the results of that fall by not preventing it from taking place, but it was within his right to have evil flourish in his creation for a time until the Kingdom of God culminated. It must be stated again that God did not coerce human beings into sinning and thus causing the fall, but he knew that this fall would take place and did not willingly prevent it. It can be deduced that God thought the evil and suffering in a corrupted creation, willed in sinful disobedience, was a tolerable situation for a time. Jesus Christ would, through his work, restore that creation and culminate a Kingdom of God filled with resurrected human beings who had experienced evil, and now through the Holy Spirit willingly rejected evil completely.
There are, as well, many instances in our creation where God could
have prevented evils from taking place, for instance the American bombings of September 11, 2001. Some may argue that God must allow human free will and that is why these events took place. However, God could have prevented this from taking place, as it can be shown that many evils are prevented and certainly God would have his hand in this. Many times evil plans are thwarted, such as Nazi Germany’s plans to conquer Europe. In that case, Adolph Hitler’s free will was not allowed to completely flourish. It was not that God forced Hitler to think differently, but rather the Fuhrer’s plans were defeated by the Allies.
I do not think free will is the ultimate answer in the matter of the problem of evil, rather it is largely God’s will that determines what will ultimately take place, at the same time not forcing his creation to sin against him. This sin is achieved by people who are in the sinful biological line of Adam and Eve, and thus possess sinful nature which leads to sinful choices.
With Anglican 10% agreed, 18% were not certain, 72% disagreed.
With Baptists 20% agreed, 6% were not certain, 74% disagreed.
Statement seven:
This statement stated: Relative Dualism, a universe containing an eternal, infinite, good God, and a finite created Devil, is permissible within a Biblical world-view.
Some observers of Christianity like to think of Satan and his fallen angels as a metaphor for evil and wish to deny that these beings exist. Professor David Pailin, who was my advisor for a short time, criticized me for believing in these beings as there was no proof of their existence. I think that Scripture is historical and it certainly accepts their existence. As well, and this was a point that I made to Professor Pailin, if theists believe that God, who is spirit (John 4:24) created human beings who are of a physical nature, why is it more difficult to believe that God made angels who were of spiritual nature?
To me, it is a more difficult task for God to create matter and physical beings when he is spirit, as opposed to creating spiritual beings who are much like him except finite. I do not have a philosophical problem believing in angels and fallen angels, however, I do not base my belief in angelic beings primarily on my experience but in Scripture and reason.
Here 74% of Anglicans agreed, while 14% were not certain, with 12% disagreeing.
With the Baptists, 86% agreed, 4% being not certain, and 10% being in disagreement.
The eleventh statement read: Free will itself is not the main factor in the human rejection of God.
Here 40% of Anglicans agreed, while 30% were not certain, and 30% disagreed.
With Baptists, 62% agreed, 8% being not certain, and 30% being in disagreement with the statement.
Statement nineteen:
The earth will be perfected only when Christ returns.
With Anglicans, 70% agreed, 12% were not certain, 18% disagreed.
The Baptists were more emphatic as 88% agreed, 8% were not certain, and 4% disagreed.
Statement twenty:
The statement was: Satanic beings are a major force of evil.
There was much more skepticism concerning these beings within the Anglican camp in comparison to the Baptist group; however, the ministry of Jesus and his Apostles interacted with Satanic beings and there is no scriptural indication that these beings would not exist today.
With the Anglicans, 62% agreed, 18% were not certain, 20% disagreed.
With the Baptists, 92% agreed, 6% were not certain, and 2% disagreed.
Statement thirty-five stated:
Ultimately evil will be confined to an everlasting hell.
I think this is the best position to take from a Biblical perspective, as it appears in Revelation 20:14, that death and hades are thrown into the lake of fire. Some argue that this is describing annihilationism, however, verse 10 describes this as a place of everlasting torment for the devil, beast, and false prophet. It would be too presumptuous, in my view, to assume that human beings thrown into this lake would simply be annihilated.
With this statement there is a substantial difference in opinion between the two groups.
With Anglicans, 54% agreed, 24% were not certain, and 22% disagreed.
With Baptists, 86% agreed, 6% were not certain, and 8% disagreed.
AUGUSTINE. (388-395)(1979) De Liberto Arbitrio (On Free Will), in Earlier Writings on Free Will, Translated by J.H.S. Burleigh, Philadelphia, The Westminster Press.
AUGUSTINE. (421)(1998) Enchiridion, Translated by J.F. Shaw, Denver, New Advent Catholic Website.
BLACKBURN, S. (1996) Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
CALVIN, JOHN (1543)(1996) The Bondage and Liberation of the Will, Translated by G.I. Davies, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.
CALVIN, J. (1543)(1998) The Bondage and Liberation of the Will, Translated by G.I. Davies, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.
CARSON, D.A. (1981) Divine Sovereignty and Human Responsibility, Atlanta, John Knox Press.
CARSON, D.A. (1990) How Long, O Lord?, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.
FEINBERG, J.S. (1994) The Many Faces of Evil, Grand Rapids, Zondervan Publishing House.
MACKIE, J.L. (1971)(1977) Evil and Omnipotence, in The Philosophy of Religion, in Alvin C. Plantinga, God, Freedom, and Evil, Grand Rapids,
Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
PAILIN, D.A. (1999) Enlightenment, in Alan Richardson and John Bowden (eds.), A New Dictionary of Christian Theology, Kent, SCM Press Limited.
PLANTINGA, A.C. (1977) God, Freedom, and Evil, Grand Rapids, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
POJMAN, L.P. (1995)(1996) Atheism, in Robert Audi (gen.ed.), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
