Theodicy Symbols
Professor van der Ven’s works, Practical
Theology (1993)[1] and God
Reinvented (1998),[2] both present seven
theodicy symbols. In contrast, the work of Vossen and Vermeer deal with
theodicy models.[3]
I specifically asked the
Professor about the issue of symbols versus models, and Professor van der Ven
emphatically explained to me by personal email which contained his symbols that
there was within his empirical theology no difference between
theodicy symbols and models,[4] and there does not
appear within any of his work to be any clear-cut distinction by comparing the
two.[5] Vermeer does see a difference between
symbols and models, which will be explained when his work is reviewed.[6] In discussing these symbols,[7] I
am not seeking to primarily critique his understanding of theodicy as I did
with Augustine, Plantinga, Feinberg and Hick; that is a secondary
consideration for me with his work.[8]
Professor van der Ven is not writing a
philosophical theodicy approach with the use of his symbols,[9] and
it is my primary concern to understand and explain what these symbols mean and
how van der Ven uses them to relate theodicy to practical theology. He
does make philosophical assumptions in the production of these symbols, but he
is not writing and defending a philosophical theodicy; rather he is
taking philosophical and theological concepts and presenting the symbols[10] in order to empirically test a sample group of
people.
April 5, 2013
Vermeer explains that his three theodicy items are models and not symbols,
because they represent abstract distinct theoretical concepts, as opposed to
straight forward statements associated with certain theodicy ideas.
Professor van der Ven’s first three symbols deal with the absolute
transcendence of God.[11] Transcendence is the
idea that God is completely and distinctively separate from his creation.[12] Grenz and Olson write God is the
‘Transcendent One’[13] and is ‘self-sufficient’
from the world.[14] God is from beyond the world
and universe.[15] J.S. Whale explains
transcendence makes God inaccessible and unknowable to finite creatures.[16] For Whale, Christ revealed the nature of
the transcendent God in his life and ministry.[17]
According to Kreeft and Tacelli, God is not part of the physical universe, and
is not limited by the universe.[18] God is the
creator of the universe and all things, and is ‘other’ than the universe.[19]
With the first symbol, God is viewed as
apathetic and unaffected by suffering.[20]
For God to be apathetic means he is
unmovable and unmoved by what goes on in his creation,[21]
yet he keeps all things in motion and
in existence.[22] Professor van der Ven finds
Moltmann’s discussion on the ancient view, that God is apathetic towards his
creation, useful.[23] Moltmann notes the related
Greek term ‘apatheia’ which is the idea of an irresistible force that cannot be
influenced by outside forces.[24] Historically in
early Greek times from Aristotle onwards, God was viewed as being without
emotions.[25] Brian Davies (1999) notes that the
term ‘impassibility’ corresponds to ‘apatheia’[26] and
defines impassibility as the traditional understanding that God, the divine
nature, cannot experience pain or suffering.[27]
Davies believes it is incorrect to assume God’s impassibility should mean that
the creator is indifferent or unconcerned about his creation.[28]
For Erickson, the idea of God’s divine nature as impassible is based upon the
influence of ancient Greek thought rather than Scripture.[29]
Erickson points out that with the incarnation of Christ, God the Son did
experience human suffering.[30] He possessed a
human nature that did suffer in life and in death, even though his divine
nature coexisted with his human one.[31] Kenneth
Surin (1982) writes that God is considered by some within orthodox Christian
theology to be unable to experience pain or sorrow.[32]
However, others concede that concluding God is impassible is a questionable
view within traditional thought.[33]
Surin thinks
that perhaps God limits his omnipotence by identifying with human suffering.[34] Paul Helm (2006), Professor Emeritus of the
University of London,[35] reasons impassibility
has lost intellectual support,[36] even though
throughout the ages many within the Church have accepted the doctrine.[37] Helm suggests that the doctrine needs to be
reconsidered as God is not indifferent to human suffering,[38] nor
does God express emotions of anger and passion as humans do.[39] The
concept of impassibility opens up a complex discussion beyond this thesis, but
it seems reasonable God can be both all-powerful and feel negative
emotions. It should be concluded suffering does not alter his divine
attributes.
Thiessen describes the immutability of
God as meaning his divine nature, attributes, consciousness, and will cannot
change.[40] Erickson explains that God does not
grow or develop, as there are no variations in his nature at different points
within his existence.[41] R.C. Sproul and Robert
Wolgemuth (2000) deduce that as God is eternal he has no beginning or no end.[42] 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.[43] My modest
proposal reasons since God is infinite and considered immutable,[44] it is impossible for him to suffer in the exact
way that human beings do. David A Pailin (1999) explains that within some
process theology[45] approaches, God’s existence
may be viewed as absolute, necessary and unchanging.[46]
However, God’s character can change and is determined through interaction with
his creation.[47] Pailin postulates that God’s
character can change, as he loves his creatures.[48]
In my view, the divine nature does not have a physical body that can be
altered, changed or die, as in John 4:24 where Jesus stated that God is spirit.[49] Christ could suffer because he was both true
God and true man,[50] but God as spirit[51] cannot suffer in human terms. Since God is
immutable,[52] any type or amount of suffering
cannot alter his essential nature or being, or divine character.[53] In contrast, suffering can definitely change
the essential nature of human beings as, for example, in the case of an
amputated limb or death. Suffering can also change the mental and
spiritual well being of a person, but God would not be altered in the same way.[54]
Erickson explains that it does seem a
rational possibility, however, to conclude God does have emotions, although
they are controlled.[55] He indicates anger is
involved in the idea of God’s wrath in the Biblical example Romans 1:18.[56] God also has ‘agape’ love for his creatures,
which is a steadfast, unselfish concern for them.[57]
It is reasonable to deduce that God’s love for humanity is not only a decision
to care for them, but also includes intense concern for his creation.[58] An understanding, infinite God could comprehend
the sufferings of his finite creatures,[59] but
God’s essential nature and being would not be altered by the experience of
these feelings.[60] There is no need to conclude
that the sufferings of finite creatures alter the nature of an infinite God who
can comprehend and feel those sufferings.[61]
Therefore, even if, for the sake of argument, impassibility is a correct
deduction concerning God’s nature,[62] Christ
possessing the full nature of God[63] and a full
human nature[64] enabled him to experience
suffering and evil.[65] God the Son can therefore
relate to human suffering on a personal level. I reason God’s immutable
nature does not necessarily make him impassible.
Second, the retaliatory symbol views
God allowing suffering as punishment for sin.[66]
Professor van der Ven also calls this the retributive symbol,[67] and
explains that evil was considered to be located in original sin and needed to
be punished ultimately in the end times judgment.[68]
Professor van der Ven notes this symbol is often viewed as problematic, because
it hampers God’s freedom and makes God’s ability to punish based on the sinful
acts of humanity, as in original sin and the sins that follow.[69] A question arises; how is God’s freedom
in danger by the fact that he can punish significantly free will actions of his
creations that disobey him? If God cannot freely punish sin, what can he
freely punish? Can God only freely punish actions that he coerced and
forced? This would likely be far more problematic than God punishing
significantly free beings that disobey him. Even with a sovereignty
theodicy, human beings are viewed to have limited freedom,[70] being
trapped in sin[71] and unable to please God
without the Holy Spirit’s guidance and regeneration of individuals.[72]
Atonement is a multifaceted, complex subject[73] and
would be another thesis in itself. I shall briefly deal with the complex
idea of God punishing sin.[74] Erickson
states Paul mentions the concept of propitiation in Romans 3: 25.[75] C.H. Dodd (1935) explains that the Greek word
in Romans 3: 25 should be translated expiation and not propitiation,[76] and claims that many Greek translations have
been incorrect.[77] Anthony D. Palma (2007) defines
propitiation as to appease or pacify,[78] while
expiation means to atone for as in offering or sacrifice.[79] Grenz,
Guretzki and Nordling explain that expiation is, for the Christian, the concept
that the atoning work of Christ covered over and cancelled out his/her sins.[80] Whale writes that expiation means God himself
purges or covers human sin.[81] To state that
Christ expiates sin[82] means that his atoning
work enables God to forgive sins[83] and gradually,
and eventually, purge sinfulness out of obedient followers.[84] Palma
explains that some argue propitiation must be rejected in favour of expiation,
since propitiation and its divine wrath is a concept that comes from pagan
origins where pagan deities were appeased through sacrifice.[85]
He reasons that within the New Testament, propitiation includes the idea of
expiation, but expiation does not necessarily include the idea of propitiation.[86] James Strong explains that the word under
review in Romans 3: 25, hilasterion, is defined as an
expiatory place or thing, an ‘atoning victim’ along with ‘mercyseat’ and
‘propitiation.’[87] This definition, although
somewhat vague[88] does not contradict Palma’s
concept that propitiation does include the idea of expiation.[89]
From Strong’s definition, Romans 3: 25 does perhaps allow for the idea of
atonement in both the sense of sacrifice and appeasement.[90]
However, his definition does place more emphasis on expiation than propitiation
in the atonement process in Romans 3: 25.[91] Walter Bauer writes that the meaning in Romans 3: 25 is uncertain and could be
either expiates or propitiates.[92] According to
Strong the definition of the word from 1 John 2:2 and 4:10 is ‘atonement’ along
with ‘expiator’ and ‘propitiation’ and so 1 John does not solve the issue from
Romans.[93] Since this thesis is primarily
concerned with theodicy and atonement is a secondary, but important issue, let
me conclude by stating that the Greek word allows for discussion and various
interpretation.[94] Some within liberal,
progressive Christian traditions may insist that expiation is all that is
required within the atoning work of Christ;[95] while
others such as myself, within moderate conservative traditions may conclude
expiation and propitiation, both sacrifice and appeasement are reasonable
concepts within Christian atonement.[96]
Third, van der Ven introduces a
planning symbol, that being God has a hidden plan in the life of each
individual.[97] Suffering has a certain function
for a particular time in each life.[98] The
understanding that God has a plan for everyone in humanity is prevalent
throughout Christian history.[99] Whale writes
creation has an ultimate meaning that is not disclosed until the end where the
final purpose becomes clear.[100] Death is the
ultimate end of temporal suffering and Whale reasons that natural phenomenon
does not completely explain it as human beings are not purely natural, but also
posses God’s image.[101] It seems, from a
traditional Christian perspective, that in death, resurrection and judgment,
the plan symbol[102] of God finally culminates.
According to Moltmann, through the history of the crucified and risen
Christ, lies the consummation of the Kingdom of God that sets things free and
provides them with meaning.[103]
As noted earlier, Antony Flew
(1983)(1996) writes that God cannot be demonstrated to have a plan for guiding
humanity.[104] Therefore the idea of God having
such a plan is meaningless, as such a plan cannot be shown empirically true or
false.[105] Clarence Darrow (1932)(1973) writes
that the best one can do is hold on ‘to the same speck of dirt’ as we proceed
‘side by side to our common doom.’[106] Phillips
doubts that there is a God that works things out in the end times in order that
there is a reality on earth that consists of happiness[107] and
perfection.[108] Phillips reasons his criticisms
will fall on ‘deaf ears.’[109] Many that ponder
of theodicy deal with it in problematic philosophical terms and not in terms of
reality.[110] This understanding would likely
view van der Ven’s plans symbol[111] as a false
concept.
Immanence is an aspect of the last four
symbols.[112] God’s immanence, according to G.R.
Lewis (1996) explains God’s gracious presence in the lives of those forgiven
and converted to Christ.[113] For
Erickson, God is immanent as he is present and active within creation, human
nature, and history.[114] Grenz and Olson warn
that if immanence is over emphasized, theology can be too influenced by
culture.[115] Within each culture religious
error occurs and this should not be blamed on God’s direct presence on
matters.
Professor van der Ven first introduces
this fourth symbol, the therapeutic symbol, which is a combination of
transcendence and immanence.[116] With this
symbol, suffering is a means of purifying people in order for them to realize
their true humanity by serving God.[117] This
view could be described as seeing the transcendent God as willing suffering
upon disobedient humanity in order to immanently, through his Spirit, work
inside believers for their ultimate betterment.[118]
Martens notes salvation, although multi-faceted,[119] is
secure through the suffering of the servant.[120]
Gebara offers a different perspective when she discusses the idea of ‘God in
the Absence of God.’[121] She explains the idea
of God as something unforeseen that can change the course of things, but has
not.[122] From a practical theology perspective
one can understand that God as therapy[123] can
be a hypothetical, but not apparently actual, concept in everyday life.
The immanence symbols include
compassion, the vicarious servant and the mystical.[124]
The fifth symbol is God’s compassion
for humanity.[125] This is shown in the
incarnate Christ and suffering through his atoning work for people.[126] Christ represents God as caring for his
followers,[127] and as J. Clinton McCann, Jr.
(1993) assumes, God’s divine plan that led to Christ’s atoning work, ultimately
enables God’s forgiveness and compassion.[128]
Dietrich Bonhoeffer (1937)(1963) explains that suffering and rejection sum up
the cross of Christ.[129] This was part of God’s
essential plan.[130] God’s compassion for
humanity suffering under the problem of evil is shown as God incarnate Jesus
Christ, suffers for the sins of humankind as the crucified God.[131] God is not uncaring as God the Son was placed
within the problem of evil in order to overcome it.[132]
The non-empirical nature of the theological divine compassion concept,[133] would be met disagreeably by many atheists.[134] They could argue that it would be difficult
to show God has compassion for persons since he cannot be shown to be
empirically doing anything for humanity.[135]
This thesis is not involved in arguing philosophically for God’s existence, but
relies on Biblical and theological argumentation concerning the work of God and
Christ in creation. As Moltmann indicated Christ lived and did God’s
work, and this is important for both historical and eschatological[136] understandings.[137]
Sixth, the vicarious servant is the
innocent sufferer who takes the place of God himself in order to surrender for
people that are suffering.[138] Specifically,
the term ‘vicarious’ is usually, within Christian theology, used in the context
of atonement and means ‘in the place of’[139] and
that Christ died in the place of sinful humanity. [140] Whale reasons ‘vicarious suffering’ consists of one taking suffering for
another.[141] Vicarious atonement, according to
Kreeft and Tacelli, can be sufferings that do not obviously appear to help
someone, but may help certain persons atone for sin.[142]
For van der Ven, the blameless sufferer is God’s martyr and saves others on
God’s behalf.[143] Christ is the ultimate martyr
within a Christian model,[144] but van der Ven
explains that all are brothers and sisters in suffering, and this provides a
fellowship of the weak.[145] Bonhoeffer
deduces that Christ transforms the mortal agony of his martyrs by granting them
peace in his assured presence.[146] This type of
sacrifice, to Bonhoeffer, is how those who follow Christ overcome suffering as
Christ did.[147]
Professor van der Ven’s seventh theodicy
symbol, and third symbol that is exclusively dealing with immanence, is that of
the mystical.[148] He describes this as a
mystical union with God, which sees the sufferer surrendering to the will of
the creator.[149] E.J. Tinsley (1999), notes
although Christian mysticism is difficult to define,[150] its
main characteristics appear to be a sense of union and unity with God,[151] God being experienced beyond time
continuously,[152] the experience between the
believer and God is beyond mere subjectivity, joy is present,[153] and lastly there is a sense of the presence of
the transcendent God.[154] Mysticism is an
attempt through prayer and meditation to achieve a heightened union with God,[155] and this mysticism is not only experiential,
but a perceived actual experience with the transcendent God.[156]
Earl E. Cairns (1981) explains that mysticism exists in three forms.[157] First the epistemological type which
emphasizes how persons come to know God.[158]
With this approach spiritual intuition is crucial and more important than
reason.[159] Second, the metaphysical type
which postulates the absorbing of the spirit of a person into the divine being
that takes place on occasion.[160] Third, the
Biblical type which views mysticism as allowing the spiritual nature of an
individual to relate to God through Christ, and the indwelling Holy Spirit.[161] For one suffering with the problem of evil,
an attempt at some type of mystic understanding with God would seem a
reasonable thing to pursue.[162] Biblical
mysticism[163] does not appear like a practice
that would oppose a traditional Christian understanding, as long as the mystic
does not place mystical interpretations in priority over those found through
studying Scripture and theology. It would be quite natural for one
suffering great evil to attempt, with God’s help, to harness a greater
fellowship and mystical understanding[164] of the
God who is willingly allowing evil to befall that person.
Cosmodicy Symbols
Cosmodicy symbols, to Johannes van der
Ven, are an immanent extension,[165] or provide
an alternative to transcendent theodicy.[166]
Larry Alderink (1999) explains that cosmology in a general sense, indicates a
view of the world or universe, and in particular how it is arranged.[167] Whale writes that cosmology is looking at the
cosmos and visible universe from a theistic perspective denying that it is
self-explanatory.[168] Pojman mentions that
theistic versions of cosmology deduce something outside of the universe is
required to explain its existence.[169] Paul
Edwards (1973) explains cosmology reasons that all things come into being
through other things,[170] and since a causal
series of events cannot go back in infinity, there must be a first cause.[171] Thomas Aquinas is famous for discussing The
Five Ways and his cosmological argument within Summa
Theologica.[172] Plantinga reasons that
aspects of Aquinas’ presentation[173] are
reasonable, but overall the argument is unsuccessful.[174] I
reason this does not render all arguments for first cause unsuccessful, but
Plantinga points out difficulties with Aquinas’ approach,[175] which
is perhaps too extensive.[176] Edwards comments[177] would adequately explain a more modest and
reasonable idea concerning first cause.
Professor van der Ven appears to be
fusing the terms cosmology and theodicy to create the concept of cosmodicy
symbols which parallel the theodicy symbols.[178]
First, the apathy symbol represents a cosmic view that nature is viewed as
indifferent towards humanity.[179] Nature is not
beneficial to humanity and can cause human suffering,[180] and
is governed by coincidence and fate.[181]
Second, opposing this first view is the idea that the cosmos is ordered by
justice.[182] Since law governs the universe, it
naturally retaliates against human wrong actions.[183]
Third, human beings resign themselves to suffering with faith that their
problems fit into an overall cosmic plan.[184]
Fourth, the cosmic therapeutic symbol views suffering as an ascetic[185] vehicle to develop people towards the greater
good.[186] Fifth, the compassion symbol views
nature in a metaphorical way as interacting with the suffering of people in
order that peace can be found in nature.[187]
Sixth, in order to make cosmic tragedy bearable, the concept of vicarious
fellowship is introduced, meaning that people are to share sufferings with one
another.[188] Seventh, the mystic symbol
explains suffering as a way of arriving at a deeper connection with nature.[189] The cosmodicy symbols parallel the theodicy
ones except suffering is approached from a naturalistic, secular or perhaps
atheistic perspective.[190] The basic concept of
the seven items is the same, except in cosmodicy, where naturalism replaces
theism as the primary force of nature.[191]
Additional Symbols
From personal correspondence in
2005 and 2006, Professor van der Ven sent nine theodicy symbols with
corresponding items.[192] Included were
retribution, plan, compassion, apathy, and the mystical.[193]
These five items appear to be covered in his previous work,[194] although
he has added four items.[195] The didactic
symbol was added,[196] which he states consists
of God inviting sufferers to learn from suffering, sufferers turning problems
into learning experiences,[197] and lastly, God
providing people with the strength to become better human beings through
suffering.[198] Professor van der Ven has also
added the substitution symbol which he understands consists of God urging
people to serve others through suffering,[199] God
providing people through suffering the strength to help others, and God
inviting people to make suffering a sacrifice for others.[200]
Notably, the therapeutic symbol is missing from van der Ven’s 2005 scheme,[201] but the substitution symbol provides
therapeutic elements by people helping others who are suffering while they are
suffering simultaneously.[202] The vicarious
servant symbol is also missing from van der Ven’s 2005 scheme.[203] Professor van der Ven has, however, included
in 2005 an accusation symbol, which like the retaliatory symbol would relate to
the concept of God’s justice.[204] He lists the
accusation symbol as consisting of sufferers accusing God of allowing evil,[205] persons blaming God for the amount of evil,[206] and people holding God responsible for evil.[207] Lastly, van der Ven adds a lamentation symbol
which consists of people reaching out to God,[208] sufferers
asking God for support,[209] and finally people
crying out to God while suffering.[210]
ALDERINK, LARRY J. (1999) ‘Cosmology’,
in Alan Richardson and John Bowden (eds.), A New Dictionary of
Christian Theology, Kent, SCM Press Ltd.
ANDERSON, RAY S. (2001) The
Shape of Practical Theology, Downers Grove, Illinois, InterVarsity
Press.
AQUINAS, THOMAS (1261)(1920) Summa
Theologica, London, Fathers of the English Dominican Province.
AUGUSTINE (388-395)(1964) On
Free Choice of the Will, Translated by Anna S.Benjamin and L.H. Hackstaff,
Upper Saddle River, N.J., Prentice Hall.
AUGUSTINE (398-399)(1992) Confessions,
Translated by Henry Chadwick, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
AUGUSTINE (400-416)(1987)(2004) On
the Trinity, Translated by Reverend Arthur West Haddan, in Nicene and
Post-Nicene Fathers, Series One, Volume 3, Denver, The Catholic Encyclopedia.
AUGUSTINE (421)(1998) Enchiridion,
Translated by J.F. Shaw, Denver, The Catholic Encyclopedia.
AUGUSTINE (426)(1958) The City
of God, Translated by Gerald G. Walsh, Garden City, New York, Image Books.
AUGUSTINE (427)(1997) On
Christian Doctrine, Translated by D.W. Robertson Jr., Upper Saddle River,
N.J., Prentice Hall.
AUGUSTINE (427b)(1997) On
Christian Teaching, Translated by R.P.H. Green, Oxford, Oxford University
Press.
BALLARD, PAUL AND JOHN PRITCHARD
(2001) Practical Theology in Action, London, SPCK.
BARTH, KARL (1932-1968) Church
Dogmatics, The Doctrine of the Word of God: Volume 1, Part One,
Translated by J.W. Edwards, Rev. O. Bussey, and Rev. Harold Knight, Edinburgh,
T. and T. Clark.
BARTH, KARL (1932-1968) Church
Dogmatics, The Doctrine of Creation: Volumes 1 and 3. Translated by
J.W. Edwards, Rev. O. Bussey, and Rev. Harold Knight, Edinburgh, T. and T.
Clark.
BARTH, KARL (1932-1968) Church
Dogmatics, The Doctrine of God: Volume 2, First Half -Volume, Translated by
J.W. Edwards, Rev. O. Bussey, and Rev. Harold Knight, Edinburgh, T. and T.
Clark.
BAUER, WALTER. (1979) A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament,
Translated by Eric H. Wahlstrom, Chicago, The University of Chicago Press.
BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996) Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy,
Oxford, Oxford University Press.
BLOESCH, DONALD G. (1987) Freedom
for Obedience, San Francisco, Harper and Rowe Publishers.
BLOESCH, DONALD G. (1996) ‘Sin, The
Biblical Understanding of Sin’, in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical
Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.
BONHOEFFER, DIETRICH (1931)(1996) Act
and Being, Translated from the German Edition, Hans-Richard Reuter (ed.),
English Edition, Wayne Whitson Floyd, Jr., (ed.), Translated by H. Martin
Rumscheidt, Fortress Press, Minneapolis.
BONHOEFFER, DIETRICH (1937)(1963) The
Cost of Discipleship, Collier Books, Macmillan Publishing Company, New
York.
CAIRNS, EARLE E. (1981) Christianity
Through The Centuries, Grand Rapids, Zondervan Publishing House.
CALVIN, JOHN (1539)(1998) The
Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book II, Translated by Henry
Beveridge, Grand Rapids, The Christian Classic Ethereal Library, Wheaton
College.
CALVIN, JOHN (1539)(1998) The
Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book IV, Translated by Henry
Beveridge, Grand Rapids, The Christian Classic Ethereal Library, Wheaton
College.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/institutes.html
CALVIN, JOHN (1543)(1996) The
Bondage and Liberation of the Will, Translated by G.I. Davies, Grand
Rapids, Baker Book House.
DARROW, CLARENCE (1928)(1973) ‘The Myth
of the Soul’, in The Forum, October, in Paul Edwards and Arthur Pap
(eds.), A Modern Introduction To Philosophy, New York, The Free Press.
DARROW, CLARENCE (1932)(1973) ‘The
Delusion of Design and Purpose’, in The Story of My Life,
October, in Paul Edwards and Arthur Pap (eds.), A Modern Introduction To
Philosophy, New York, The Free Press.
DAVIES, BRIAN (1999) ‘Impassibility’,
in Alan Richardson and John Bowden (eds.), A New Dictionary of
Christian Theology, p. 288. Kent, SCM Press Ltd.
DODD, C.H. (1935) The Bible and the Greeks, London, Hodder and Stoughton.
EDWARDS, JONATHAN (1729)(2006) Sovereignty
of God, New Haven, Connecticut, Jonathan Edwards Center, Yale University.
EDWARDS, JONATHAN
(1731-1733)(2006) Law of Nature, New Haven, Connecticut, Jonathan
Edwards Center, Yale University.
EDWARDS, JONATHAN (1754)(2006) Freedom
of the Will, Flower Mound, Texas. Jonathanedwards.com.
EDWARDS, PAUL AND ARTHUR PAP (1973)(eds.), A Modern Introduction To
Philosophy, New York, The Free Press.
ERICKSON, MILLARD (1994) Christian
Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.
ERICKSON, MILLARD (2003) What
Does God Know and When Does He Know It? Grand Rapids, Zondervan.
FRANKE, JOHN R. (2005) The
Character of Theology, Baker Academic, Grand Rapids.
GEBARA, IVONE (2002) Out of the
Depths, Translated by Ann Patrick Ware, Minneapolis, Fortress Press.
GEIVETT, R. DOUGLAS (1993) Evil and the Evidence for God,
Philadelphia, Temple University Press.
GRENZ, STANLEY J., DAVID GURETZKI AND CHERITH FEE NORDLING (1999) Pocket
Dictionary of Theological Terms, Downers Grove, Ill., InterVarsity Press.
HELM, PAUL (2006) ‘Divine
Impassibility: Why Is It Suffering?’ in Reformation 21,
Philadelphia, Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals, Inc.
KREEFT, PETER AND RONALD K. TACELLI
(1994) Handbook of Christian Apologetics, Downers Grove, Illinois,
InterVarsity Press.
LUTHER, MARTIN. (1516)(1968) Commentary
On The Epistle To The Romans, Translated by J.Theodore Mueller, Grand
Rapids, Zondervan Publishing House.
LUTHER, MARTIN. (1518)(1989)
‘Heidelberg Disputation’, in Timothy F. Lull (ed.), Martin Luther’s
Basic Theological Writings, Minneapolis, Fortress Press.
LUTHER, MARTIN. (1525)(1972) ‘The
Bondage of the Will’, in F.W. Strothmann and Frederick W. Locke (eds.), Erasmus-Luther:
Discourse on Free Will, New York, Frederick Ungar Publishing Co., INC.
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.
LEWIS, C.S. (1961)(1983) A
Grief Observed, London, Faber and Faber.
LEWIS, G.R. (1996) ‘God, Attributes
Of’, in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology,
Grand Rapids, Baker Books.
MARTENS, ELMER A. (1990) God’s
Design: A Focus on Old Testament Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.
MCCANN, HUGH J. (2001) ‘Sovereignty and
Freedom: A Reply to Rowe’, in Faith and Philosophy, Volume 18,
Number 1, January, pp. 110-116. Wilmore, Kentucky, Asbury College.
MCCANN, J. CLINTON, JR. (1993) A
Theological Introduction to the Book of Psalms, Nashville, Abingdon Press.
MOLTMANN, JÜRGEN (1993) The
Crucified God, Minneapolis, Fortress Press.
MOLTMANN, JÜRGEN (1993) The
Crucified God, Minneapolis, Fortress Press.
MOUNCE, ROBERT H. (1990) The
Book of Revelation, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
MURRAY, JOHN (1937-1966)(1977)
Collected Writings of John Murray, Vol. 2: Select Lectures in
Systematic Theology, Edinburgh, The Banner of Truth Trust.
NIGOSIAN, S.A. (1994) World
Faiths, New York, St. Martin’s Press.
PACKER, J.I. (1973) Knowing God,
Downers Grove, Illinois, InterVarsity Press.
PACKER, J.I. (1996) ‘Regeneration’ in
Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand
Rapids, Baker Books.
PAILIN, DAVID A. (1999) ‘Deism’, in
Alan Richardson and John Bowden (eds.), A New Dictionary of Christian
Theology, Kent, SCM Press Ltd.
PAILIN, DAVID A. (1999)
‘Enlightenment’, in Alan Richardson and John Bowden (eds.), A New
Dictionary of Christian Theology, Kent, SCM Press Ltd.
PAILIN, DAVID A. (1999) ‘Process
Theology’, in Alan Richardson and John Bowden (eds.), A New Dictionary
of Christian Theology, Kent, SCM Press Ltd.
PAILIN, DAVID A. (1999) ‘Revelation’,
in Alan Richardson and John Bowden (eds.), A New Dictionary of Christian
Theology, Kent, SCM Press Ltd.
PALMA, ANTHONY (2007) ‘Propitiation’, in Enrichment Journal,
Springfield Missouri, Enrichment Journal.
PATTON, JOHN (2000)(2007) ‘Modern
Pastoral Theology in the United States’, in James Woodward and Stephen Pattison
(eds.), The Blackwell Reader in Pastoral and Practical Theology,
Oxford, Blackwell Publishing.
PLANTINGA, ALVIN C. (1977)(2002) God,
Freedom, and Evil, Grand Rapids, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
PLANTINGA, ALVIN C. (1982) The
Nature of Necessity, Oxford, Clarendon Press.
PLANTINGA, ALVIN C. (2000) Warranted
Christian Belief, Oxford, Oxford University 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.
POJMAN, LOUIS P. (1996) Philosophy:
The Quest for Truth, New York, Wadsworth Publishing Company.
SCHRECK, ALAN (1984) Catholic
and Christian, Ann Arbor, Michigan, Servant Books.
SPROUL, R.C., AND ROBERT WOLGEMUTH
(2000) What’s In the Bible, Word Publishing, Nashville.
STRONG, J. (1890)(1986) Strong’s
Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, Pickering, Ontario, Welch Publishing
Company.
SURIN, KENNETH (1982) ‘The
Impassibility of God and the Problem of Evil’, in Scottish Journal of
Theology, Volume 35, Number 1, pp. 97-115. Edinburgh, Scottish Academic
Press.
SURIN, KENNETH (1986) Theology
and the Problem of Evil, Oxford, Basil Blackwell Ltd.
THIESSEN, HENRY C. (1956) Introductory
Lectures in Systematic Theology, Grand Rapids, Eerdmans.
VAN DER VEN, JOHANNES (1993) Practical
Theology, Translated by Barbara Schultz, AC Kampen, Netherlands, Kok Pharos
Publishing House.
VAN DER VEN, JOHANNES (1998) God
Reinvented?, Leiden, Brill.
VAN DER VEN, JOHANNES (2005) ‘Theodicy
Items and Scheme’, in a personal email from Johannes van der Ven, Nijmegen,
Radboud University, Nijmegen.
VAN DER VEN, JOHANNES (2006a) ‘Dates of
Nijmegen authors’, in a personal email from Johannes van der Ven, Nijmegen,
Radboud University, Nijmegen.
VAN DER VEN, JOHANNES (2006b) ‘Symbols
versus Models’, in a personal email from Johannes van der Ven, Nijmegen,
Radboud University, Nijmegen.
VAN DER VEN, JOHANNES, PAUL VERMEER,
AND ERIC VOSSEN (1996) ‘Learning Theodicy’, in Journal of Empirical
Theology, Volume 9, pp. 67-85. Kampen, The Netherlands, Journal of
Empirical Theology.
VAN DER VEN, JOHANNES AND ERIC VOSSEN
(1996) Suffering: Why for God’s Sake? Grand Rapids, Eerdmans.
VOSSEN, H.J.M. ERIC (1993) ‘Images of
God and Coping with Suffering’, Translated by S. Ralston, in Journal of
Empirical Theology, Volume 6, pp. 19-38. Kampen, The Netherlands, Journal
of Empirical Theology.
WHALE, J.S. (1958) Christian
Doctrine, Glasgow, Fontana Books.
WILLIAMS, ROWAN (2000) On
Christian Theology, Blackwell Publishing, Oxford.
WILLIAMS, ROWAN (2007) Wrestling
with Angels, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids.
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.
[1] van
der Ven (1993: 173-174).
[2] van
der Ven (1998: 212-213).
[3] Vossen
(1993: 21). Vermeer (1999: 18).
[4] van
der Ven (2006b: 1).
[5] van
der Ven (2006b: 1).
[6] Vermeer
(1999: 18). There is a difference in approach and definitions between van
der Ven and Vermeer.
[7] van
der Ven (1993: 173-174). van der Ven (2006b: 1).
[8] His
work is more concerned with practical and empirical theology.
[9] van
der Ven (1993: 173-174).
[10] van
der Ven (1993: 173-174).
[11] van
der Ven (1993: 173-174).
[12] Grenz,
Guretzki, and Nordling. (1999: 115).
[13] Grenz
and Olson (1992: 10).
[14] Grenz
and Olson (1992: 10).
[15] Grenz
and Olson (1992: 10).
[18] Kreeft
and Tacelli (1994: 93).
[19] Kreeft
and Tacelli (1994: 93).
[20] van
der Ven (1993: 173).
[21] van
der Ven (1998: 212).
[22] van
der Ven (1998: 212).
[23] van
der Ven (1993: 173).
[24] Moltmann
(1993: 267).
[25] Moltmann
(1993: 268).
[29] Erickson
(1994: 737).
[30] Erickson
(1994: 737).
[31] Erickson
(1994: 737).
[40] Thiessen
(1956: 127).
[41] Erickson
(1994: 274).
[42] Sproul
and Wolgemuth (2000: 2).
[43] Sproul
and Wolgemuth (2000: 2).
[44] Sproul
and Wolgemuth (2000: 2). Thiessen (1956: 127). Erickson (1994:
274).
[45] Process
theology as discussed previously is a twentieth century approach 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).
[49] The
New American Standard Version Bible (1984: 1198).
[50] Schreck
(1984: 16). Franke (2005: 72).
[51] The
New American Standard Version Bible (1984: 1198).
[52] Sproul
and Wolgemuth (2000: 2). Thiessen (1956: 127). Erickson (1994:
274).
[54] God
has an infinite nature that cannot be changed, but finite human nature can be
altered.
[55] Erickson
(1994: 605).
[56] Erickson
(1994: 605).
[57] Erickson
(1994: 180).
[58] Erickson
(1994: 180).
[60] Thiessen
(1956: 127).
[61] Thiessen
(1956: 127).
[63] Barth
(1932-1968: 371). Williams (2007: 130). Franke (2005: 72).
[64] Williams
(2007: 129). Schreck (1984: 16). Franke (2005: 72).
[65] Bloesch
(1987: 16). He suffered as the reconciler between God and the
world. Williams (2007: 130).
[66] van
der Ven (1993: 173).
[67] van
der Ven (1998: 212).
[68] van
der Ven (1998: 212).
[69] van
der Ven (1993: 173).
[70] Feinberg
(1986: 24).
[71] Luther
(1525)(1972: 128). Calvin (1543)(1996: 95-96).
[72] Packer
(1996: 924). Murray (1937-1966)(1977: 172).
[73] Erickson
(1994: 783).
[74] Erickson
(1994: 809-810).
[75] Erickson
(1994: 809-810).
[80] Grenz,
Guretzki, and Nordling (1999: 50).
[87] Strong
(1890)(1986: 48).
[88] Strong
(1890)(1986: 48).
[90] Strong
(1890)(1986: 48).
[91] Strong
(1890)(1986: 48).
[93] Strong
(1890)(1986: 49).
[96] Erickson
(1994: 809-810). Strong (1890)(1986: 48). Bauer (1979: 375).
[97] van
der Ven (1993: 173).
[98] van
der Ven (1998: 212-213).
[99] van
der Ven (1993: 173).
[102] van
der Ven (1993: 173). van der Ven (1998: 212-213).
[103] Moltmann
(1993: 338).
[104] Flew
(1983)(1996: 92).
[105] Flew
(1983)(1996: 92).
[106] Darrow
(1932)(1973: 453).
[107] Phillips
(2005: 265).
[108] Phillips
(2005: 266).
[109] Phillips
(2005: 273).
[110] Phillips
(2005: 273-274).
[111] van
der Ven (1993: 173). van der Ven (1998: 212-213).
[112] van
der Ven (1993: 174).
[113] Lewis
(1996: 458-459).
[114] Erickson
(1994: 302).
[115] Grenz
and Olson (1992: 12).
[116] van
der Ven (1998: 213).
[117] van
der Ven (1998: 213).
[118] van
der Ven (1998: 213).
[119] Martens
(1990: 108).
[120] Martens
(1990: 108).
[121] Gebara
(2002: 155).
[122] Gebara
(2002: 155).
[123] van
der Ven (1998: 213).
[124] van
der Ven (1993: 174).
[125] van
der Ven (1993: 174).
[126] van
der Ven (1993: 174).
[127] van
der Ven (1993: 174).
[128] McCann
(1993: 120).
[129] Bonhoeffer
(1937)(1963: 96).
[130] Bonhoeffer
(1937)(1963: 96).
[131] Moltmann
(1993: 200-274). Bonhoeffer (1937)(1963: 96).
[132] Moltmann
(1993: 200-274). Bonhoeffer (1937)(1963: 96).
[133] van
der Ven (1993: 174).
[134] Flew
(1983)(1996: 92).
[135] Flew
(1983)(1996: 92).
[136] The
doctrines of the last things, including the Second Coming of Christ, the
Resurrection, Judgments, the Millennium and the Final State. Thiessen
(1956: 440).
[137] Moltmann
(1993: 126-127).
[138] van
der Ven (1998: 214).
[139] Grenz,
Guretzki, and Nordling (1999: 120).
[140] Grenz,
Guretzki, and Nordling (1999: 120).
[141] Whale
(1958: 81-82).
[142] Kreeft
and Tacelli (1994: 125).
[143] van
der Ven (1993: 176).
[144] van
der Ven (1993: 176).
[145] van
der Ven (1993: 176).
[146] Bonhoeffer
(1937)(1963: 101).
[147] Bonhoeffer
(1937)(1963: 101).
[148] van
der Ven (1993: 174).
[149] van
der Ven (1993: 174).
[150] Tinsley
(1999: 387).
[151] Tinsley
(1999: 387).
[152] Tinsley
(1999: 387).
[153] Tinsley
(1999: 387).
[154] Tinsley
(1999: 387).
[155] Tinsley
(1999: 388).
[156] Tinsley
(1999: 388).
[157] Cairns
(1981: 100-101).
[158] Cairns
(1981: 100-101).
[159] Cairns
(1981: 100-101).
[160] Cairns
(1981: 100-101).
[161] Cairns
(1981: 100-101).
[162] van
der Ven (1993: 174).
[163] Cairns
(1981: 100-101).
[164] Cairns
(1981: 100-101). Tinsley (1999: 388).
[165] van
der Ven (1993: 174).
[166] van
der Ven (1993: 174).
[167] Alderink
(1999: 126).
[170] Edwards
(1973: 377-378).
[171] Edwards
(1973: 377-378).
[172] Aquinas,
Thomas (1261)(1920).
[173] Aquinas,
Thomas (1261)(1920).
[174] Plantinga
(1977)(2002: 80).
[175] Aquinas,
Thomas (1261)(1920).
[176] Aquinas’
presentation although classic and important, is very speculative and Plantinga
has disagreements with his overall work. Plantinga (1977)(2002:
80). Geivett reasons Plantinga is too negative concerning natural
theology as possibly working. Geivett (1993: 59-60).
[177] Edwards
(1973: 377-378).
[178] van
der Ven (1993: 174).
[179] van
der Ven (1993: 175).
[180] van
der Ven (1998: 214).
[181] van
der Ven (1998: 214).
[182] van
der Ven (1998: 215).
[183] van
der Ven (1993: 175).
[184] van
der Ven (1993: 175).
[185] This
concept would consist of a strict physical discipline which would include
prayer, fasting and abstaining from sexual relations. Blackburn (1996:
227). Asceticism holds that physical nature is evil, and needs to be
resisted. Erickson (1994: 376). An ascetic in a person who lives a
life of religious contemplation and self-denial. Nigosian (1994: 482).
[186] van
der Ven (1993: 175).
[187] van
der Ven (1998: 215-216).
[188] van
der Ven (1993: 176).
[189] van
der Ven (1998: 216).
[190] van
der Ven (1993: 174-175). I question whether many atheists would adopt
these cosmodicy/cosmology symbols which still assume an overall cosmic
plan. Perhaps for many atheists there is no plan but just mutual
existence and mutual death. Human beings simply get along as best
possible. Darrow (1932)(1973: 453).
[191] van
der Ven (1993: 174).
[192] van
der Ven (2005: 1-2).
[193] van
der Ven (2005: 1-2).
[194] The
work just reviewed.
[195] van
der Ven (2005: 1-2). These are four items added that are not in a
published work. My advisor, Dr. Cartledge, having known this as an expert
in the field of empirical theology, had Professor van der Ven share this new
and original information with me in order that this PhD thesis be as recent as
possible. It would be detrimental to this work not to include this
correspondence.
[196] van
der Ven (2005: 1-2).
[197] van
der Ven (2005: 1-2).
[198] van
der Ven (2005: 1-2).
[199] van
der Ven (2005: 1-2).
[200] van
der Ven (2005: 1-2).
[201] van
der Ven (2005: 1-2).
[202] van
der Ven (2005: 1-2).
[203] van
der Ven (2005: 1-2).
[204] van
der Ven (2005: 1-2). There are therefore some similarities to Augustinian
and Reformed concepts of God’s justice. Augustine (421)(1998: Chapter 96:
48). Strong (1890)(1986: 48).
[205] van
der Ven (2005: 1-2).
[206] van
der Ven (2005: 1-2).
[207] van
der Ven (2005: 1-2).
[208] van
der Ven (2005: 1-2).
[209] van
der Ven (2005: 1-2).
[210] van
der Ven (2005: 1-2).
