Benefits of Discussing The Problem of Evil & Theodicy (PhD Edit)

Benefits of Discussing The Problem of Evil & Theodicy (PhD Edit)

Monmouthshire, Hay on Wye, Wales (trekearth)

Benefits of Discussing The Problem of Evil & Theodicy

Theodicy, as an aspect of theology can as well be underdeveloped.[1] For this reason, within the Christian Church, I will review and explain free will, sovereignty, and soul-making theodicy. The free will and sovereignty perspectives exist within a moderate conservative tradition, and soul-making within a progressive liberal one.[2] Within my survey propositions Christians from various theological perspectives will be provided concepts from three general perspectives and four authors[3] to promote better understanding of the problem of evil. This should assist questionnaire respondents to better explain their Christian faith and philosophy with those outside of the Christian Church.[4] I hope that my work can also provide some peace of mind to those suffering in this world of many evils. There is intellectual evidence that the Christian Church can still provide reasonable answers, and that intellectual progress has been made.[5]

Theodicy is a definite theological problem for Christianity and theism,[6] but Christians can be confident that it can be intellectually, adequately dealt with, in particular in my view, with an emphasis on the sovereignty of God.[7] I do not hold to free will theodicy, but reason that it presents a logical and reasonable case,[8] and that soul-making theodicy has some elements of truth within it.[9] As a moderate conservative that holds to Reformed theology, I reason that the atoning and resurrection work applied to believers in the eventual culminated Kingdom of God[10] is the ultimate remedy for the problem of evil. I must be clear: theodicy is not the remedy to the problem of evil, but a speculative, and in my case, Biblically based attempt to explain how God deals with evil in his creation.[11] In similar fashion, practical and empirical theology do not offer solutions to the problem of evil, but are theological disciplines[12] which assist persons to understand how evil is comprehended and dealt with in the Christian community and in society at large.

Even with the understanding that God and Christ will eventually save the world from evil,[13] and that this can be explained in ways through theodicy, does not mean that I or any theologian or philosopher can always provide specific reasons and answers for each instance of evil and suffering in creation.[14] Although I do not side with critics that doubt that theism can be squared with the evil that takes place in this world,[15] I fully admit that in many cases of evil and suffering, only God has a comprehensive understanding of what is occurring, and why it is occurring. Is this a weakness particular for theism? I reason not, in that atheists and critics such as Ferraiolo[16] will also not be able to fully explain evil and suffering in many cases, and therefore cannot conclusively intellectually deny that the infinite, omnipotent God can use occurrences of evil in creation for his good purposes.[17] Therefore, theists and atheists from various perspectives are all left with degrees of ignorance in regard to the problem of evil. No person can fully understand evil and the suffering that results in every case.[18] Theists and atheists are therefore left with using reason, and in the case of the Christian theist, the Bible[19] to work out theories concerning the problem of evil.

---

[1] Therefore, this type of project can still be valuable academically.

[2] This conservative/liberal distinction is not always clear-cut, as some concepts do overlap, and this shall be observed through the reviews.

[3] Augustine and Plantinga both write from a free will perspective.

[4] 1 Peter 3:15 tells the believer to always be ready to give a defence to everyone that asks, and therefore Christians, both scholars and student are wise to have some knowledge concerning theodicy.

[5] Swinburne (1998: 13-20).

[6] Blackburn (1996: 375).

[7] Erlandson (1991: 1). Although objections to this idea are duly noted throughout this thesis.

[8] Peterson (1982: 204).

[9] This will be discussed in Chapter Four.

[10] Mounce (1990: 369-397).

[11] Lindsley (2003: 3).

[12] Winquest (1987: 1).

[13] Mounce (1990: 369-397).

[14] I can approach my theodicy presentation with confidence, but should always possess great humility.

[15] Ferraiolo (2005: 1). Phillips (2005: 265).

[16] Ferraiolo (2005: 1).

[17] The idea of God using evil for the greater good, without being evil in nature himself is central to sovereignty theodicy. This will be discussed in the context of gratuitous evil in Chapter Four.

[18] Henry (1983: 282). Blocher (1994: 84).

[19] Thiessen from examining Scripture reasons that the evil acts of creatures are under the control of God. Thiessen (1956: 183). Henry (1983: 282). Blocher (1994: 84).

BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996) Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

BLOCHER, HENRI. (1994) Evil and the Cross, Translated by David G. Preston, Leicester, InterVarsity Press.

ERLANDSON, DOUG (1991) ‘A New Perspective on the Problem of Evil’, in Doug Erlandson PhD Philosophy, Reformed.org, Orange County, Covenant Community.

FERRAIOLO, WILLIAM (2005) ‘Eternal Selves and The Problem of Evil’, in Quodlibet Journal, Volume 7, Number 2, April-June, Evanston, Illinois, Quodlibet Journal.Church of Orange County.

HENRY, CARL (1983) God, Revelation and Authority: Volume 6: God Who Stands and Stays, Waco, Word Books.

LINDSLEY, ART (2003) ‘The Problem of Evil’, Knowing & Doing, Winter, Springfield, Virginia, C.S. Lewis Institute.

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

PETERSON, MICHAEL (1982) Evil and the Christian God, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.

PHILLIPS, D.Z. (2005) The Problem of Evil and the Problem of God, Fortress Press, Minneapolis.

SWINBURNE, RICHARD (1998) Providence and the Problem of Evil, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

WINQUIST, CHARLES E. (1987) ‘Re-visioning Ministry: Postmodern Reflections’, in Lewis S Mudge and James N. Poling, Formation and Reflection: The Promise of Practical Theology by Lewis S Mudge and James N. Poling, Philadelphia, Fortress Press.