Photo: Portugal passage (trekearth.com)
Preface
Article originally published on 20110801. The Roth section has been reformatted for an entry on academia.edu, 20240601.
Article originally published on 20110801. The Roth section has been reformatted for an entry on academia.edu, 20240601.
2010 Theodicy and Practical Theology: PhD thesis, the University of Wales, Trinity Saint David, Lampeter
John K. Roth and limited God (PhD Edit)
John K. Roth (1981) also explains within ‘A Theodicy of Protest’[1] that the finite, limited God of William James offered him some intellectual appeal.[2] He reasons that to deny God completely would be going too far, but to affirm God’s total goodness and to apologize for a weak God in anyway would also be going too far.[3] Roth’s theodicy of protest puts God on trial,[4] and any human repentance will have to be matched by God.[5] Stephen Davis (1981) suggests that Roth has given up the notion that God is ‘perfectly morally good.’[6] Roth insists that most theodicy approaches very wrongly legitimize evil.[7] They can attempt to make suffering all deserved, and/or create happy endings due to God’s ultimate goodness.[8] There is within this view ‘no legitimation of evil to acknowledge its existence.’[9] The excessive amount of evil that exists in human history demonstrates that there is an evil side to God which willingly allows it.[10] Davis explains that for Roth, God is not really omnipotent as God does not possess the perfect goodness to redeem all evil.[11] Human beings lack the ability to envision how God could use all the evil within world history for the greater good.[12] Roth, in contrast to Davis, states that he actually shares with Davis a belief in God’s omnipotence.[13] Davis speculates that Roth’s approach weakens a view on God’s omnipotence,[14] but Roth’s claim that he holds to omnipotence should be taken seriously.[15] Roth’s interpretation makes sense, as if Roth sees God as all-powerful then the evil God willingly allows that cannot all be used for greater good, is not redeemable[16] and therefore God should repent of his evil.[17]
I share with Roth an intellectual and personal frustration with the evil that God willingly allows.[18] A theodicy of protest is not completely unmerited as all persons have suffered by the hand of God that is ultimately responsible, logically, as he is all-powerful.[19] Within my Reformed sovereignty theodicy view which I explain within Chapter Three in particular (of my PhD), I reason God does use all evil for the greater good with pure motives.[20] This view accepts a traditional view of omnipotence.[21] Roth does have hope as he looks for a resurrection of the dead in the future, and in the present realm hopes that somehow ‘the waste’ as in unnecessary evil, will be placed in check.[22] He views the traditional concept of God that Davis has as a God that is ‘hidden, absent, even non-existent.’[23] A trust and hope in any type of God is risky, but he reasons that the hope does not completely die.[24] I question whether an omnipotent God with less than perfect motives that would will so much evil, not for the greater good throughout history, would ever change his ways or be convinced by finite creatures to do so.[25]
---
[1] Within Encountering Evil, Stephen T. Davis (ed.)
[2] Roth (1981: 9).
[3] Roth (1981: 10). I can agree that if God is indeed weak, it should be pointed out as such, and not defended.
[4] Roth (1981: 10). And God’s supposed omnipotence as well, I would suggest could naturally be challenged.
[5] Roth (1981: 10). Roth’s position assumes that God has moral weakness which finite human beings could intellectually detect. God would have to share the blame for the problem of evil. Phillips (2005: 116-117).
[6] Davis (1981: 22). Phillips writes that Roth’s analysis leads to the idea that God is not perfectly good. Phillips (2005: 27).
[7] Roth (1981: 19).
[8] Roth (1981: 19).
[9] Roth (1981: 19).
[10] Davis (1981: 22).
[11] Davis (1981: 23).
[12] Davis (1981: 23). There is certainly a degree of truth to the idea that the evil God allows often cannot be reasonably understood by persons. This could, however, be due as much, or even more, to finite human nature and reasoning as opposed to a moral deficiency or lack of omnipotence with God.
[13] Roth (1981: 32). Phillips verifies this as well. Phillips (2005: 22).
[14] Davis (1981: 23).
[15] Roth (1981: 32).
[16] Roth (1981: 19). Davis (1981: 23).
[17] Roth (1981: 10).
[18] Roth (1981: 8-10).
[19] Roth (1981: 32).
[20] Gratuitous evil is also reviewed and discussed in Chapter Four.
[21] Kreeft and Tacelli (1994: 96). Bavinck (1918)(2006: 233 Volume 2). Weber (1955)(1981: 440).
[22] Roth (1981: 35). Phillips dislikes the use of the term ‘waste’ in regard to humanity and evil and suffering and reasons a loss and gain approach in regard to individual persons is not reasonable. Phillips (2005: 70-71). This is an important point, for the loss suffered by a single individual should never be underestimated for the sake of many persons that do not suffer in the same way and may in some way possibly gain from the suffering of one.
[23] Roth (1981: 35).
[24] Roth (1981: 35).
[25] It is also possible that given God’s omnipotence as Roth accepts, what he and others with similar views understand as evil within God’s nature is simply all goodness. Roth (1981:32). This is not my Reformed view which views evil as separate from good, and not part of God’s nature, but is a reasonable deduction based on Roth’s assumptions on the all-powerful nature of God.
[1] Within Encountering Evil, Stephen T. Davis (ed.)
[2] Roth (1981: 9).
[3] Roth (1981: 10). I can agree that if God is indeed weak, it should be pointed out as such, and not defended.
[4] Roth (1981: 10). And God’s supposed omnipotence as well, I would suggest could naturally be challenged.
[5] Roth (1981: 10). Roth’s position assumes that God has moral weakness which finite human beings could intellectually detect. God would have to share the blame for the problem of evil. Phillips (2005: 116-117).
[6] Davis (1981: 22). Phillips writes that Roth’s analysis leads to the idea that God is not perfectly good. Phillips (2005: 27).
[7] Roth (1981: 19).
[8] Roth (1981: 19).
[9] Roth (1981: 19).
[10] Davis (1981: 22).
[11] Davis (1981: 23).
[12] Davis (1981: 23). There is certainly a degree of truth to the idea that the evil God allows often cannot be reasonably understood by persons. This could, however, be due as much, or even more, to finite human nature and reasoning as opposed to a moral deficiency or lack of omnipotence with God.
[13] Roth (1981: 32). Phillips verifies this as well. Phillips (2005: 22).
[14] Davis (1981: 23).
[15] Roth (1981: 32).
[16] Roth (1981: 19). Davis (1981: 23).
[17] Roth (1981: 10).
[18] Roth (1981: 8-10).
[19] Roth (1981: 32).
[20] Gratuitous evil is also reviewed and discussed in Chapter Four.
[21] Kreeft and Tacelli (1994: 96). Bavinck (1918)(2006: 233 Volume 2). Weber (1955)(1981: 440).
[22] Roth (1981: 35). Phillips dislikes the use of the term ‘waste’ in regard to humanity and evil and suffering and reasons a loss and gain approach in regard to individual persons is not reasonable. Phillips (2005: 70-71). This is an important point, for the loss suffered by a single individual should never be underestimated for the sake of many persons that do not suffer in the same way and may in some way possibly gain from the suffering of one.
[23] Roth (1981: 35).
[24] Roth (1981: 35).
[25] It is also possible that given God’s omnipotence as Roth accepts, what he and others with similar views understand as evil within God’s nature is simply all goodness. Roth (1981:32). This is not my Reformed view which views evil as separate from good, and not part of God’s nature, but is a reasonable deduction based on Roth’s assumptions on the all-powerful nature of God.
---
BAVINCK, HERMAN (1918)(2006) Reformed Dogmatics Volume 2: God and Creation, John Bolt (gen.ed.), Translated by John Vriend, Baker Academic, Grand Rapids.
BAVINCK, HERMAN (1918)(2006) Reformed Dogmatics Volume 3: Sin and Salvation in Christ, John Bolt (gen.ed.), Translated by John Vriend, Baker Academic, Grand Rapids.
DAVIS, STEPHEN T. (1981)(ed.), Encountering Evil, Atlanta, John Knox Press.
JAMES, WILLIAM (1892-1907)(1969) The Moral Philosophy of William James, John K. Roth (ed.), Thomas Y. Crowell Company, New York.
BAVINCK, HERMAN (1918)(2006) Reformed Dogmatics Volume 2: God and Creation, John Bolt (gen.ed.), Translated by John Vriend, Baker Academic, Grand Rapids.
BAVINCK, HERMAN (1918)(2006) Reformed Dogmatics Volume 3: Sin and Salvation in Christ, John Bolt (gen.ed.), Translated by John Vriend, Baker Academic, Grand Rapids.
DAVIS, STEPHEN T. (1981)(ed.), Encountering Evil, Atlanta, John Knox Press.
JAMES, WILLIAM (1892-1907)(1969) The Moral Philosophy of William James, John K. Roth (ed.), Thomas Y. Crowell Company, New York.
JAMES, WILLIAM (1893)(2004) William James and a Science of Religions, Wayne Proudfoot (ed.), Columbia University Press, New York.
JAMES, WILLIAM (1902-1910)(1987) Writings 1902 – 1910, The Library of America, New York.
JAMES, WILLIAM (1902)(2002) The Varieties of Religious Experience, Prometheus Books, Amherst, New York.
JAMES, WILLIAM (1904) ‘Does ‘Consciousness’ Exist?’, in Journal of Philosophy, Psychology, and Scientific Methods, Volume 1, pages 477-491. New York, Columbia University.
JAMES, WILLIAM (1907) Pragmatism: A New Name for Some Old Ways of Thinking, Longman and Green Company, New York.
KREEFT, PETER AND RONALD K. TACELLI (1994) Handbook of Christian Apologetics, Downers Grove, Illinois, InterVarsity Press.
PHILLIPS, D.Z. (1981) Encountering Evil, Stephen T. Davis (ed.), Atlanta, John Knox Press.
PHILLIPS, D.Z. (2005) The Problem of Evil and the Problem of God, Fortress Press, Minneapolis.
ROTH, JOHN K. ‘Introduction’ (1892-1907)(1969) in The Moral Philosophy of William James, John K. Roth (ed.), Thomas Y. Crowell Company, New York.
ROTH, JOHN K. (1981) Encountering Evil, Stephen T. Davis (ed.), Atlanta, John Knox Press.
WEBER, OTTO (1955)(1981) Foundations of Dogmatics, Volumes 1 and 2, Translated and annotated by Darrell L. Guder, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
July 27, 2011
Secular Departments?
Since earning my PhD from Wales officially in October I have spent 2011 sending out over 200 CVs (Curriculum Vitae) looking for employment in the fields of academia, publishing, and media. Since I have degrees in Theology, Philosophy of Religion and Biblical Studies I have been seeking to use my talents and skills in those areas for employment. Within academia I have concentrated mainly on sending CVs to Christian institutions in the United States, but a few elsewhere, most of which are moderate conservative establishments. I am also checking monthly with job listings with the professional associations I have joined.
My last two degrees are research only secular theses degrees in Theology and Philosophy of Religion, and so in the second half of 2011 I will more so, where needed, send out letters to secular institutions. There are some concerns...
As a moderate conservative Christian of the Reformed tradition that holds to the Bible as the inspired, inerrant (the original letters) Scripture, how do I present myself for potential employment in secular departments where this type of view is not often held to, and also where there are views different from mine concerning, for example, the exclusivity of Christ for salvation (John 14:6), and the ever controversial and in a sense popular issue of homosexuality (Romans 1-3, 1 Corinthians 6) ? Not that I will even mention this last issue, but it is well-discussed today, let us face reality.
My take is that if I work in a secular department I am seeking academic freedom to teach my philosophical, intellectual, academic findings within my worldview while at the same time following the instructions of the institution concerning course guidelines etc. I am also allowing others academic freedom. At the very beginning of applying for any job I would respectfully present my views clearly. My reasoning is that God has not primarily guided me to spend my life fighting against those of non-Biblical views as much as God has guided me to teach Theology, Philosophy of Religion and Biblical Studies to those within the Church, and when I have an opportunity, outside of the Church. So, in other words, I will always work (fight when needed) for my rights within this democratic Western World to present my worldview but do not see it as God's will for my life to try to work against the personal lives of others (for example) that disagree with my Christian worldview, although I do believe there are at times within a respectful environment places for dialogue concerning issues of theology, philosophy, morality and related, and academia should be one of these avenues.
There are cultural and legal battles that need to be considered always, and a main focus for me as a Christian Theologian and Philosopher is the maintaining of overall justice is society, yes. But, I am prepared to the let the democratic process take its place while at the same time support freedom of religion for the Biblical Christian Church. The rights of the Christian Church to remain Christian within its institutions is essential.
God's culminated Kingdom of Revelation 21-22 will be a different realm than this one and I await better justice.
Blog Template
Once again I have changed my customized Bowman blog template and by going with a white background instead of the black one this blog has had since 2004 this site looks more like a standard professional website, based on my web searches. Not that the black background did not look as good in my opinion, but I have decided as I am looking for work as a professor or related with my Doctorate I will try and standardize my blogs to look like websites to a point. Typically websites have white, or off-white backgrounds with black or blue as the main text colour with perhaps red or other as a secondary colour.
Now of course blogs with various other coloured backgrounds and text colours can be just as esthetically pleasing, this is not the issue I am dealing with. There are some very creative, fantastic blogs on the web that look little like typical websites and that is excellent.
PHILLIPS, D.Z. (1981) Encountering Evil, Stephen T. Davis (ed.), Atlanta, John Knox Press.
PHILLIPS, D.Z. (2005) The Problem of Evil and the Problem of God, Fortress Press, Minneapolis.
ROTH, JOHN K. ‘Introduction’ (1892-1907)(1969) in The Moral Philosophy of William James, John K. Roth (ed.), Thomas Y. Crowell Company, New York.
ROTH, JOHN K. (1981) Encountering Evil, Stephen T. Davis (ed.), Atlanta, John Knox Press.
WEBER, OTTO (1955)(1981) Foundations of Dogmatics, Volumes 1 and 2, Translated and annotated by Darrell L. Guder, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
July 27, 2011
Secular Departments?
Since earning my PhD from Wales officially in October I have spent 2011 sending out over 200 CVs (Curriculum Vitae) looking for employment in the fields of academia, publishing, and media. Since I have degrees in Theology, Philosophy of Religion and Biblical Studies I have been seeking to use my talents and skills in those areas for employment. Within academia I have concentrated mainly on sending CVs to Christian institutions in the United States, but a few elsewhere, most of which are moderate conservative establishments. I am also checking monthly with job listings with the professional associations I have joined.
My last two degrees are research only secular theses degrees in Theology and Philosophy of Religion, and so in the second half of 2011 I will more so, where needed, send out letters to secular institutions. There are some concerns...
As a moderate conservative Christian of the Reformed tradition that holds to the Bible as the inspired, inerrant (the original letters) Scripture, how do I present myself for potential employment in secular departments where this type of view is not often held to, and also where there are views different from mine concerning, for example, the exclusivity of Christ for salvation (John 14:6), and the ever controversial and in a sense popular issue of homosexuality (Romans 1-3, 1 Corinthians 6) ? Not that I will even mention this last issue, but it is well-discussed today, let us face reality.
My take is that if I work in a secular department I am seeking academic freedom to teach my philosophical, intellectual, academic findings within my worldview while at the same time following the instructions of the institution concerning course guidelines etc. I am also allowing others academic freedom. At the very beginning of applying for any job I would respectfully present my views clearly. My reasoning is that God has not primarily guided me to spend my life fighting against those of non-Biblical views as much as God has guided me to teach Theology, Philosophy of Religion and Biblical Studies to those within the Church, and when I have an opportunity, outside of the Church. So, in other words, I will always work (fight when needed) for my rights within this democratic Western World to present my worldview but do not see it as God's will for my life to try to work against the personal lives of others (for example) that disagree with my Christian worldview, although I do believe there are at times within a respectful environment places for dialogue concerning issues of theology, philosophy, morality and related, and academia should be one of these avenues.
There are cultural and legal battles that need to be considered always, and a main focus for me as a Christian Theologian and Philosopher is the maintaining of overall justice is society, yes. But, I am prepared to the let the democratic process take its place while at the same time support freedom of religion for the Biblical Christian Church. The rights of the Christian Church to remain Christian within its institutions is essential.
God's culminated Kingdom of Revelation 21-22 will be a different realm than this one and I await better justice.
Blog Template
Once again I have changed my customized Bowman blog template and by going with a white background instead of the black one this blog has had since 2004 this site looks more like a standard professional website, based on my web searches. Not that the black background did not look as good in my opinion, but I have decided as I am looking for work as a professor or related with my Doctorate I will try and standardize my blogs to look like websites to a point. Typically websites have white, or off-white backgrounds with black or blue as the main text colour with perhaps red or other as a secondary colour.
Now of course blogs with various other coloured backgrounds and text colours can be just as esthetically pleasing, this is not the issue I am dealing with. There are some very creative, fantastic blogs on the web that look little like typical websites and that is excellent.
