Thursday, April 04, 2013

Johannes van Der Ven: Theodicy and Cosmodicy Symbols (PhD Edit)

Secret Garden-Facebook
British Columbia-trekearth

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).
[16] Whale (1958: 56).
[17] Whale (1958: 109).
[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).
[26] Davies (1999: 288).
[27] Davies (1999: 288).
[28] Davies (1999: 288).
[29] Erickson (1994: 737).
[30] Erickson (1994: 737).
[31] Erickson (1994: 737).
[32] Surin (1982: 97).
[33] Surin (1982: 97).
[34] Surin (1982: 97).
[35] Helm (2006: 1).
[36] Helm (2006: 1).
[37] Helm (2006: 1).
[38] Helm (2006: 1).
[39] Helm (2006: 1).
[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). 
[46] Pailin (1999: 469).
[47] Pailin (1999: 469).
[48] Pailin (1999: 469).
[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).
[53] Pailin (1999: 469).
[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).
[59] Pailin (1999: 469).
[60] Thiessen (1956: 127).
[61] Thiessen (1956: 127).
[62] Surin (1982: 97). 
[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).
[76] Dodd (1935: 82-95).
[77] Dodd (1935: 82-95).
[78] Palma (2007: 1).
[79] Palma (2007: 1).
[80] Grenz, Guretzki, and Nordling (1999: 50).
[81] Whale (1958: 81).
[82] Whale (1958: 81).
[83] Whale (1958: 81).
[84] Whale (1958: 81).
[85] Palma (2007: 1).
[86] Palma (2007: 1).
[87] Strong (1890)(1986: 48).
[88] Strong (1890)(1986: 48).
[89] Palma (2007: 1).
[90] Strong (1890)(1986: 48).
[91] Strong (1890)(1986: 48).
[92] Bauer (1979: 375).
[93] Strong (1890)(1986: 49).
[94] Palma (2007: 1).
[95] Dodd (1935: 82-95).
[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).
[100] Whale (1958: 164).
[101] Whale (1958: 166).
[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).
[168] Whale (1958: 22).
[169] Pojman (1996: 37).
[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).