Compatibilism (MPhil)

Banpo Bridge, South Korea-Google Images

Earlier work on compatibilism from D.A. Carson and my MPhil thesis.

The Problem of Evil: Anglican and Baptist Perspectives: MPhil thesis, Bangor University, 2003

More recent work done in the context of the Doctorate and presented in blog format:

Middle Knowledge
PhD Passed
Free will, Sovereignty and Soul-Making (PhD edit)
Reformed Theology and Providence
Calvin On Augustine
Jonathan Edwards (PhD Edit)

Compatibilism (MPhil)

7. Compatibilism Definition Chapter 11, entitled The Mystery of Providence, is the centre piece of Carson’s book and sets out his philosophical outlook concerning the problem of evil in light of God’s sovereignty and human freedom.

Carson stated: The Bible as a whole, and sometimes in specific texts, presupposes or teaches that both of the following propositions are true: God is absolutely sovereign, but his sovereignty never functions in such a way that human responsibility is curtailed, minimized, or mitigated. Human beings are morally responsible creatures–they significantly choose, rebel, obey, believe, defy, make decisions, and so forth, and they are rightly held accountable for such actions; but this characteristic never functions so as to make God absolutely contingent.

In what follows, I shall argue that the Bible upholds the truth of both of these propositions simultaneously. The view that both of these propositions are true I shall call compatibilism. We could call this view anything we like, but for various historical reasons this seems like a good term to use. All I mean by it is that, so far as the Bible is concerned, the two propositions are taught and are mutually compatible. Carson (1990: 201). 

Selected Biblical Overview Carson listed and discussed some Biblical examples of compatibilism and I will review some of these. In Genesis 50:19-20 it describes the reactions of the formerly enslaved Joseph to his brothers who had sold him into slavery. Carson stated: Joseph allays their fears, and insists he does not want to put himself in the place of God. Then he looks back at the brutal incident when he was so badly treated, and comments, "You intended to harm me, but God intended it for good to accomplish what is now being done, the saving of many lives." The parallelism is remarkable. Joseph does not say that his brothers maliciously sold him into slavery, and that God turned it around, after the fact, to make the story have a happy ending. How could that have been the case, if God’s intent was to bring forth the good of saving many lives? Nor does Joseph suggest that God planned to bring him down to Egypt with first-class treatment all the way, but unfortunately the brothers mucked up His plan somewhat, resulting in the slight hiatus of Joseph spending a decade and a half as a slave or in prison. The story does not read that way. The brothers took certain evil initiatives, and there is no prior mention of Joseph’s travel arrangements. As Joseph explains, God was working sovereignly in the event of his being sold into Egypt, but the brothers’ guilt is not thereby assuaged (they intended to harm Joseph); the brothers were responsible for this action, but God was not thereby reduced to a merely contingent role; and while the brothers were evil, God himself had only good intentions. Carson (1990: 205-206).

The concept here is similar to that of John Calvin whom I mentioned earlier in this thesis. Human beings sin by choice and nature, yet God uses their actions for the greater good. From Carson’s words, the story of Joseph is not merely that God turned the evil will of the brothers into something good, but that God was working sovereignly in willing, in a sense, Joseph’s temporary captivity in order that, eventually, the Hebrew people would be led out of Egypt by Moses. Many Hebrews in Egypt were descendants of Jacob’s sons. In Old Testament Survey it is stated concerning the story of Joseph: "This carefully constructed story, . . . is one long lesson–God’s providence brings to nought the plots of men and turns their evil intent to his own ends." La Sor, Hubbard and Bush (1987: 113).

Another Old Testament passage used by Carson was 1 Kings 8:46ff. He quotes verse 58: At the dedication of the temple, Solomon not only can ask that God will respond to His people in a certain way when they repent of their sin and turn again to Him, but he can also say "May he turn our hearts to him, to walk in all his ways and to keep the commands, decrees and regulations he gave our fathers." Carson (1990: 206). Carson was pointing out that compatibilism, the idea, was a concept known to Solomon as he spoke those words. He knew the human responsibility of the people in Israel to follow God, but also understood that God had the ability to move people’s hearts. Martin noted: ". . . the behavioural condition is made less harsh by the prayer may he turn our hearts to him, but reappears in its stark demand: But your hearts must be fully committed . . ." Martin (1986: 405).

As Martin noted, there are two ideas being put across in the passage, (1) that God has the ability to turn their hearts, and (2) their hearts must be fully committed to God. It appears necessary for both of these concepts to occur for relationships between human beings and God to continue successfully. The sinfulness of human beings in their will seems to mean that God must influence people in order for them to seek him. At the same time, however, God does not force human beings into submission, so there is a need for human beings to follow God willingly. This is not contradiction but it is compatibilism. It could be concluded that once God enlightens the human mind with his spirit, people retain a sinful nature but have the ability to seek the guidance of God, and thus there is human responsibility to obey God as seen in the context of this passage.

Carson stated that Philippians 2:12-13 was an important verse concerning compatibilism: Therefore, my dear friends, as you have always obeyed–not only in my presence, but now much more in my absence–continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you to will and to act according to his good purpose. This passage is extremely important, as much for what it does not say as for what it does. It does not say that God had done his bit in your salvation, and now it is up to you. Still less does it suggest that because God is working in you "to will and to act according to his good purpose" you should therefore be entirely passive and simply let him take over. Nor is it (as not a few commentators wrongly suggest) that God has done the work of justification in you, and now you must continue with your own sanctification. Paul describes what the Philippians must do as obeying what he has to say, and as working out (not working for!) their own salvation. For assumption is that choice and efforts are required. The "working out" of their salvation includes honestly pursuing the same attitude as that of Christ (2:5), learning to do everything the gospel demands without complaining or arguing (2:14), and much more. But at the same time, they must learn that it is God himself who is at work in them "to will and to act according to his good purpose." God’s sovereignty extends over both their willing and their actions. Carson (1990: 210-211).

According to Carson’s interpretation, God completes all the work for salvation but the pursuing of a Christ like attitude is the working out of one’s salvation; however, Ralph P. Martin, in his Philippians commentary stated concerning this passage: "It seems clear, however, that the true exegesis must begin with a definition of salvation, not in personal terms but in regard to the corporate life of the Philippian church." Martin (1987: 115). H. C. Hewlett agreed and stated: "This salvation is a present one, and not so much individual as collective." Hewlett (1986: 1445). Even if the salvation described in the context of working out is more corporate in nature than it is personal, the compatibilism idea is not dead in this passage for God is still requiring human beings to obey him on a corporate level. As well, any corporate entity is made up of individuals, so if there are not enough individuals working with Christ in obedience then corporate obedience will not be possible.

Compatibilism Discussed First, Carson rightly, in my view, defends compatibilism as logical but somewhat of a mystery. (1) Most people who call themselves compatibilists are not so brash as to claim that they can tell you exactly how the two propositions I set forth in the last section fit together. All they claim is that, if terms are defined carefully enough, it is possible to show that there is no necessary contradiction between them. In other words, it is outlining some of the "unknowns" that are involved and show that these "unknowns" allow for both propositions to be true. But precisely because there are large "unknowns" at stake, we cannot show how the two propositions cohere. I think this analysis is correct. But what it means is that I am still going to be left with mysteries when I am finished. All that I hope to achieve is to locate these mysteries more precisely, and to show that they are big enough to allow me to claim that when the Bible assumes compatibilism it is not adopting nonsensical positions. Carson (1990: 212-213).

I am in agreement with Carson’s concept here. Compatibilism, similar to the idea of God’s existence, has elements of mystery. Christianity does not have to prove that concepts such as these are empirically valid. There are some logical ideas that are neither empirically provable nor, through deduction, can these ideas be completely understood; however, it can be seen in Scripture that compatibilism is taught. There is both God’s sovereignty and human choice and responsibility. One does not cancel out the other. Reason also shows us that human beings have free choice, to some degree, yet there are external factors which influence these choices since human beings are limited and not all powerful. Certainly God could be one of these external factors that influences free choice without determining human choice.

Second, Carson noted that compatibilism being true means God stands behind good and evil, but in different ways. To put it bluntly, God stands behind evil in such a way that not even evil takes place outside the bounds of his sovereignty, yet the evil is not morally chargeable to him: it is always chargeable to secondary agents, to secondary causes. On the other hand, God stands behind good in such a way that it not only takes place within the bounds of his sovereignty, but it is always chargeable to him, and only derivatively to secondary agents. In other words, if I sin, I cannot possibly do so outside the bounds of God’s sovereignty (or the many texts already cited have no meaning), but I alone am responsible for that sin–or perhaps I and those who tempted me, led me astray and the like. God is not to be blamed. Carson (1990: 213). Carson, like Calvin, sees God as willing evil for the greater good, but God remains untainted by sin. This certainly is a mysterious concept but logical. All analogies break down but compatibilism can be deduced in creation. It is as though God’s creation is a chess game. He has sovereignty over the game yet is one of the players, and is the chess master. No matter what moves God’s opponent makes against him, God will ultimately prevail. The moves are freely made by the opponent, but the nature of the game created by God, who is infinite, means that God is in ultimate control and he will not lose the match. The creation, like this chess game, is God’s domain, so it is logical for him to create an opposition and give opponents free will, yet still work out his ultimate purposes without contradicting his perfect nature.

Some points on Carson’s use of mystery with regard to compatibilism. First, intellectually, I would prefer that the term mystery never be mentioned when formulating theological and philosophical concepts. However, in regard to God we are dealing with an infinite being who has chosen not to provide in Scripture, or anywhere, his specific viewpoint on how he can be sovereign and yet deem human beings responsible regarding the problem of evil. Yet, as Carson’s states compatibilism is not an illogical concept and is Scriptural.

Second, Carson’s purpose is writing his text was not to provide a theological defence of the concept of compatibilism. I think that if one was to write such a defence, then a further logical, speculative theology could be developed. The term mystery then could be largely avoided, but some questions about God would still remain unanswered. In my view, because of God’s infinite transcendent nature, all attempts to try to completely understand him will fail. This is true regardless of theological bias, but I think God has revealed himself somewhat in Scripture.

Third, my purpose in writing this thesis is to review four authors and survey their two denominations. I would perhaps, in the future, like to write a theological defence and try to somewhat eliminate the mystery of compatibilism, but this is not my mandate here.

Note I wrote the PhD obviously to accomplish this goal and then there is this blog forward and potential other writing.

Fourth, I think Thiessen’s point on God’s omnipotence can be helpful here. He stated: By the omnipotence of God we mean that He is able to do whatever He wills; but since His will is limited by His nature, this means that God can do everything that is in harmony with His perfections... The possession of omnipotence does not, however, imply the exercise of His power, certainly not the exercise of all His power. God can do what He will to do; but He does not necessarily will to do anything. That is, God has power over His power; otherwise He would act of necessity and cease to be a free being. Nor does omnipotence exclude but rather imply the power of self-limitation. God is limited to some extent by the free will of His rational creatures. That is why He did not keep sin out of the universe by a display of His power; that is also why He does not save anyone by force. Thiessen (1956: 126).

With Thiessen’s idea, God has divine sovereignty, but for the sake of human beings fulfilling their purpose, he limits himself in order that they can freely choose to sin. God could remain in full control of his creation and use evil for the greater good, yet still will freedom for humanity to disobey him, and thus he could rightly hold them responsible for their sinful actions. God is limited by his free creatures by his choice, but he still has every right to hold them responsible for sin against him, and has the power for his ultimate plans to take place.

CALVIN, J. (1539)(1998) Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book II.

CALVIN, J. (1543)(1998) The Bondage and Liberation of the Will, Translated by G.I. Davies, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.

CALVIN, J. (1553)(1952) Job, Translated by Leroy Nixon, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House. 

CARSON, D.A. (1981) Divine Sovereignty and Human Responsibility, Atlanta, John Knox Press.

CARSON, D.A. (1990) How Long, O Lord?, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.

LA SOR, W.S., D.A HUBBARD and F.W BUSH (1987) Old Testament Survey, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

MARTIN, R.P. (1987) Philippians, in Leon Canon Morris (gen. ed.), Tyndale New Testament Commentary, Leicester/Grand Rapids, Inter-Varsity Press/William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

THIESSEN, H.C. (1956) Introductory Lectures in Systematic Theology, Grand Rapids, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

Facebook-It must be very warm in Europe I deduce by the plate and at least the cats are not on the hood.

Spiritual Education (MPhil)

Salzburg-Facebook

Vancouver-Today

Vancouver

Vancouver

Kitsilano Beach

The sermon at church today was on Proverbs and friendship and developing the spiritual wisdom to see that friendship was valuable in our society, even and especially for example within a romantic context. True friendship should also be loyal. I attempted to find some relevant work.

The Problem of Evil (2003): Anglican and Baptist Perspectives: MPhil thesis, Bangor University

6. Suffering and Education

In Chapter 5, Suffering As Education, Woods discussed the seriousness of sin and how God could use this human problem for the education of his people. He mentioned King David’s sin of arranging a situation in battle for Uriah, husband of Bathsheba, that he be killed so David could then take her as his wife. After the murder took place, the prophet Nathan approached David and made it known that God was aware of the King’s sinful action. However, David seemed dulled to his own act of sin, at first, until Nathan made the King’s disobedience to God known to him. Woods stated: David’s problem lay in the idea that sin was serious for others, but not himself. He could become incensed over a man with great herds feeding a guest the only ewe of a poor neighbor (an account related by Nathan in order to awaken David of his sin), but had managed to remain quiet about his own affair with beautiful wife of Uriah–an affair that produced a pregnancy that required the death of the soldier Uriah whose duties in battle clearly eliminated him as father of the child. Woods (1974)(1982: 55).

This certainly is not a hard concept to understand. As human beings, are we not often somewhat blind to our own sin? At the time of sinning believers think that they are in error, but they are more concerned with obtaining that which they desire. Each person commits untold sin for which God must issue correction, especially if people are Christians, and within his everlasting plans. This type of correction may or may not be from God’s wrath, as discussed earlier, but it always seems needed for education. Christians must be subject to God’s laws, especially in spirit. Porter stated that King David was sorry for his actions once Nathan confronted him: David confessed his sin without any attempt at excuses. He clearly acknowledged himself as subject to God’s law, and never showed resentment towards Nathan for his frankness. He was assured by Nathan of God’s forgiveness, and that he would not die. Nevertheless his sin must be punished. Porter (1986: 382). When sinning, David probably thought he needed Bathsheba but, in reality, it was simply lustful desire, and thus after meeting Nathan, David knew his own guilt and was not resentful. Human sin is connected to human desire. Human beings desire things and often will break God’s law to have what is sought after. Often human beings want that which clearly should not be theirs, as in David’s case, but sometimes the desires seem quite just and normal, as in normal physical and mental health.

Today, our needs are often misunderstood. In the evangelical Christian church it is sometimes said that God will always meet our needs; however, there could be confusion with the concept of ‘always’. Let us not forget that there are Christians who are blind, or missing limbs for example. Both sight and limbs are basic human needs. Some realize this in philosophical terms, but often these people are living in lonely rooms and homes, away from the mainstream, so they may not be seen and/or experienced by many in the church. In reality, God does always meet what we see as basic human needs, or scientifically what can be deemed as basic human needs such as good health; however, what God promised, mainly, is everlasting life if we believe in Christ as Saviour, and judgement for all humanity.

In Philippians 4:19, Paul promises his readers that God will supply their needs in Christ. However, Martin noted that: "The precise meaning of will meet as a wish-prayer, not a statement of fact, is a helpful insight." Martin (1989: 184). The fact that Paul is waiting for God to supply the reader’s needs means there is an element of faith involved, and in matters of faith, God sometimes does not deliver as expected although he will meet the needs of his people in order for them to best serve him. God will meet the needs of the believer, mainly in the context of making it feasible for a person to complete his will for their individual life. This unfortunately, from a human perspective, leaves much room for suffering.

Yes, God loves his people, but he has knowledge of what must take place in a believer’s life in a more complete way than any human being could be aware of. He alone is omniscient. Woods discussed, not only suffering as education, but also for spiritual growth, faith, for God to reveal himself, to learn of the reverence for life, to benefit others, and to suffer without reason. These concepts mentioned by Woods can all be summed up as suffering as discipline, as God wills suffering for believers in order that they be better suited to perform his will. In James, Chapter 1, it mentions that various trials produce stronger faith and endurance that lead to a Christian being complete and lacking in nothing. Woods’ reasoning in his discussion on suffering is that God uses suffering as a way of disciplining a believer in order to prepare one for better subsequent service. As well, Woods noted that as Christians we needed to suffer in discipline as Christ did in obedience to God. "Self denial and pain are part of life, and a part of the calling of Him who suffered on the cross". Woods (1974)(1982: 108).

In his Chapter on Suffering Without Reason, Woods appealed to mystery and stated when discussing Job’s struggles that "he must be content being man, and must learn to live with the limited understanding of which man is possessed". Woods (1974)(1982: 118). I agree with Woods point concerning a human being having to accept limited knowledge in regard to why they suffer, but there are always reasons for suffering. God knows the complete reason, and if people are open to God’s spirit and analytical of their life, they may understand some of the reasons for their suffering, as God uses their pain for the greater good as the years go by. So, there is never suffering without reason, and that suffering is generally used by God for discipline, and sometimes punishment as part of that discipline.

MARTIN, R.P. (1989) Philippians, in Leon Canon Morris (gen. ed.), Tyndale New Testament Commentary, Leicester/Grand Rapids, Inter-Varsity Press/William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. 

PORTER, L.E. (1986) 1 and 2 Samuel, in F.F. Bruce (gen.ed.), The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Marshall Pickering/ Zondervan.

WOODS, B.W. (1974) Christians in Pain, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.

Augustine’s Influences (PhD Edit)

Mr. Matt as Zacchaeus in Vancouver today

Vancouver today

Vancouver 

Vancouver

Humblest 'apologies' for another new post. I am not pleased with my latest post not being listed with the Blogger application as latest post and so therefore I offer a shorter post with some repetition, however the repeated material is in pre-finalized PhD form and this post is in post PhD Viva form and so not identical. I also offer some additional material.

Send complaints to

Complaints Department

Dr. Russell Norman Murray

Maple Didge, British Columbia, Socialist Paradise of Canada

Besides many of my main pageviewers spend most of the time in the archives anyway…

Augustine’s Influences

Manichaeism

According to Alan Richardson (1999), as a student Augustine was attracted to Manichaeism,[1] a movement began by the Persian, Manes (ca 215-275).[2]  Vernon J. Bourke (1958) writes that Augustine was in this religion for nine years from 373 A.D.[3]  The Manichees, according to Augustine scholar Henry Chadwick (1992), held that matter itself was evil.[4] Augustine rejected Manichaeism when he converted to Christianity,[5] but this does not mean with certainty the views of Manes have no influence whatsoever on Augustine’s theodicy.[6]  However, Augustine is historically known to have eventually challenged Manichaeism by denying its views as mythology,[7] and in disagreement with what he viewed as orthodox Christianity.[8]  Augustine’s view of the corruption and privation of matter and nature was that they were good things as created originally by God,[9] but had become less than they were originally intended through the rebellion of creatures.[10] This view would therefore contradict Manichaeism[11] which saw matter as always by nature being inherently evil.[12]

Platonic Philosophy

Augustine was also documented to have been influenced by Platonic philosophy.[13]  Scott MacDonald (1989) explains in his article ‘Augustine’s Christian-Platonic Account of Goodness’ that Augustine held views influenced by Platonic thought.[14]  Platonic philosophy was largely created by Plato (427-347 B.C.).[15]  Richard Kraut (1996) notes Plato was a preeminent Greek philosopher who conceived the observable world as an imperfect image of the realm of the unobservable and unchanging forms.[16]  Plato, in Timaeus, written in 360 B.C, viewed these forms as divinely moved objects.[17]  Mark D. Jordan (1996) notes Augustine was primarily affected by Neoplatonism before his conversion to Christianity.[18]  Augustine (398-399)(1992) states in Confessions he examined Platonist writings that supported his Biblical understanding of the nature of God.[19]  Jordan states the Platonic writings helped Augustine to conceive of a cosmic hierarchy in the universe in which God was immaterial and had sovereign control over his material creation.[20]  However, Jordan states Augustine saw philosophy alone as being unable to change his life as only God himself could do.[21]  Augustine’s use of Plato does not in itself invalidate his understanding of Biblical writings where the two may happen to be in agreement.[22]  From my overall research of Augustine and his free will theodicy, he places much emphasis on Biblical theology as primary,[23] and therefore although it is possible he could read Neoplatonism into his understanding of theodicy, it is also very likely he rejects Neoplatonism where it contradicts his Scriptural findings through in depth study.[24]

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.

BOURKE, VERNON J. (1958) ‘Introduction’, in The City of God, Translated by Gerald G. Walsh, Garden City, New York, Image Books.

CHADWICK, HENRY (1992) ‘Introduction’, in Confessions, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

JORDAN, MARK D. (1996) ‘Augustine’, in Robert Audi (ed.), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, pp. 52-53. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

KRAUT, RICHARD (1996) ‘Plato’, in Robert Audi (ed.), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, pp. 619-629. Cambridge University Press.

MACDONALD, SCOTT (1989) ‘Augustine’s Christian-Platonist Account of Goodness’, in The New Scholasticism, Volume 63, Number 4, pp. 485-509. Baltimore, The New Scholasticism. 

PLATO (360 B.C.)(1982) ‘Timaeus’, in Process Studies, Volume. 12, Number 4, Winter, pp.243-251. Claremont, California, Process Studies.

POJMAN, LOUIS P. (1996) Philosophy: The Quest for Truth, New York, Wadsworth Publishing Company.

RICHARDSON, ALAN (1999) ‘Manichaeism’, in Alan Richardson and John Bowden (eds.), A New Dictionary of Christian Theology,  Kent, SCM Press Ltd. 

---

[1] Richardson (1999: 344).

[2] Richardson (1999: 344).

[3] Bourke (1958: 7).

[4] Chadwick (1992: xiv).

[5] Chadwick (1992: xiv).

[6] Chadwick (1992: xv).

[7] Chadwick (1992: xiv).

[8] Chadwick (1992: xv).

[9] Augustine (388-395)(1964: 116-117).

[10] Augustine (388-395)(1964: 116-117).

[11] Chadwick (1992: xv).

[12] Chadwick (1992: xiv).

[13] MacDonald (1989: 485-486).  Jordan (1996: 52).

[14] MacDonald (1989: 485-486).

[15] Pojman (1996: 6).

[16] Kraut (1996: 619-620).

[17] Plato (360 B.C.)(1982: 35).       

[18] Jordan (1996: 52).

[19] Augustine (398-399)(1992).

[20] Jordan (1996: 53).

[21] Jordan (1996: 53).

[22] Augustine (398-399)(1992).

[23] Augustine (398-399)(1992).

[24] Augustine (398-399)(1992). 

Norway-Amazing Places To See

Dewi Zephaniah Phillips (PhD Edit)

Bac Son Valley, Vietnam-Google+

Although Professor Phillips and I had different perspectives in regard to much of Theology and Philosophy of Religion, what I respected about his writing, and what I enjoyed about his writing was that he refused to accept overly simplistic answers in regard to theodicy and the problem of evil.

I am the same, and that includes from the evangelical church.

I do not include the section on God’s omnipotence with Professor John Frame because that has been covered in the blog archives on this blog on more than one post. There is needed repetition on this blog, but then sometimes I reason it is not needed.

Thank you immensely for reading and supporting me in whatever way you can think of… 

Theodicy

Dewi Zephaniah Phillips[1] admits that ‘philosophizing about the problem of evil has become common place.’[2] There are ‘theories, theodicies and defences abound.’[3] These are all seeking to somehow justify God,[4] or to render the concept of God as untenable.[5]  Phillips rightly reasons that such work should be done with fear,[6] as approaches to the problem of evil in error could ‘betray the evils people have suffered.’[7]  Such explanation should never be overly simplistic, insensitive or ridiculous.[8]  Phillips warns that pro-religious philosophical presentations can often do more damage to the cause of theodicy than can the work of critics.[9]  Practical ‘existential’[10]  evils must be dealt with properly by theodicy.[11]  Philosophical presentations should not sidestep practical sufferings[12] in regard to evil, for it is by these problems it is known that there is a logical problem.[13] 

Restoration

As Phillips notes, ‘Theodicists want happy endings.’[14]  Feinberg admitted a difficulty with his approach because it defends God allowing the problem of evil in his creation for a time period that is unknown to human beings,[15] and at the same time claims that God would eventually restore his creation.[16]  He notes that free will and evolutionary theistic approaches to the problem of evil also assume that God would restore his creation, and so this was a common theistic assumption.[17] The fact that his sovereignty approach accepts restoration of the creation within it in no way makes his presentation internally inconsistent.[18]  Phillips explains that this general type of approach views God as compensating persons for the sufferings in life.[19]  Evil and suffering is therefore redeemed in some way.[20]  Evil and suffering would be worthwhile within a Christian world view where Christ prevails. Phillips warns that at its worst Christianity can push one to back the right supernatural force,[21] as in not backing Satan.[22]  Phillips suggests that no one wants to back a loser and so Christians should logically, within their worldview, back God and not Satan.[23] God becomes a means and not an end within this type of Christian approach.[24]  It should be interjected that Christianity should not be primarily about being on the winning side, rather it should be concerned, for the most part, with doing God’s will obediently in love.[25]  Phillips views it as problematic that Jesus stated his Kingdom was not of this world and yet in the Second Coming establishes his Kingdom on this earth.[26]

Feinberg thought it was not his objective to answer why God allowed the problem of evil and would eventually bring restoration, and I view this as a weakness.[27]  Rather, Feinberg believes he was successful in presenting an approach that showed God was good,[28] as was his creation.[29]  Calvin writes that God would begin anew in humanity by abolishing the fallen will, leaving the human will in its original state.[30]  God would turn evil to good, according to Calvin,[31] thus bringing a new humanity which was a new creation.[32] This human restoration and rebirth, Calvin (1552)(1995) notes,[33] would lead to the culmination of the Kingdom of God, and the ultimate blessing of immortality.[34] 

Providence

Phillips explains that a Reformed view is that God has the freedom to act as he wants.[35] This would be God’s sovereign providence, but Hume is skeptical of this concept.[36]  People throughout the world view certain evils, which may be rectified in other regions of the world or in the future, and understand these good events as being connected to general laws and the existence of a good deity.[37] Hume suggests that these are superstitions,[38] and questions whether in many cases a ‘cause can be known but from its known effects?’[39]  The idea is then presented that if God is benevolent his providence should lead to a world without suffering and wickedness.[40]

Soul-Building & Soul-Making

Phillips writes concerning this general type of approach on soul-building and that John Hick, that without the existence of evil, character development would not place.[41]  For Hick, the development that would take place in humanity was not one of gradual human improvement throughout generations,[42] but was instead an individual process in each and every person.[43] This type of approach allows God to mould human character.[44]  Phillips views a moral development theory as incoherent,[45] as it creates an immoral indulgence of human beings to self,[46] as in their own personal development.[47] Persons should instead be more concerned with other persons reasons Phillips.[48]

D.Z. Phillips (2001) criticizes Hick’s view that evolution will continue within humanity after death, noting this implies that the earthly process obviously failed.[49]  Phillips strongly disagrees with Hick’s position calling it horrendous that human beings should be expected to trust in the idea that death is an actual state and everything will work out for the best.[50]  John K. Roth (2001) provides a similar objection when he states that Hick’s progressive theodicy is just too good to be true.[51]  Although, in general terms, I do accept a concept of divine soul-making, both of the above objections[52] are serious ones. Phillips critique seems correct.[53]  It is apparent in many cases soul-making fails in certain individuals this side of the grave.[54]  This being the case, why should critics necessarily believe that God will redeem all post-mortem souls?[55]  If there was little or no evidence from an individual’s life of a disposition towards God while they were alive,[56] then why should it be accepted that there will be a change in attitude after death?[57] 

The philosophical assumption of universalism appears very speculative on Hick’s part.[58]  Phillips correctly points out that life after death is not scientific fact and Hick is trusting in a hypothetical state for the eventual demise of the problem of evil.[59]  Hick is resting his theodicy on the idea that if this state actually exists, persons that previously had rejected God would eventually change their ways bringing about a Kingdom of God without rebellion.[60]  Phillips, correctly in my view, points out that Hick ‘does not treat human life seriously enough.’61]

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.

CALVIN, JOHN (1543)(1996) The Bondage and Liberation of the Will, Translated by G.I. Davies, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.

CALVIN, JOHN (1552)(1995) Acts, Translated by Watermark, Nottingham, Crossway Books. 

DAVIS, STEPHEN T. (1981)(ed.), Encountering Evil, Atlanta, John Knox Press.FEINBERG, JOHN S. (1994) The Many Faces of Evil, Grand Rapids, Zondervan Publishing House.

HUME, DAVID (1739-1740)(1973) ‘A Treatise of Human Nature’, in Paul Edwards and Arthur Pap (eds.), A Modern Introduction To Philosophy, New York, The Free Press.

HUME, DAVID (1779)(2004) Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, Lawrence, Kansas.PHILLIPS, D.Z. (1981) Encountering Evil, Stephen T. Davis (ed.),  Atlanta, John Knox Press.

MOUNCE, ROBERT H. (1990) The Book of Revelation, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. 

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

---

[1] Unfortunately Phillips died within the time frame of writing this thesis (1934-2006).

[2] Phillips (2005: xi).

[3] Phillips (2005: xi).

[4] Phillips (2005: xi). 

[5] Phillips (2005: xi). Most often atheistic attempts, or those critical of Christian thought.

[6] Phillips (2005: xi). 

[7] Phillips (2005: xi). 

[8] Phillips (2005: xi).  I can agree with this point in general terms, but there will certainly be disagreement between writers on the negative and positive aspects of various theodicy.

[9] Phillips (2005: xi). 

[10] Phillips (2005: xii).

[11] Phillips (2005: xii).

[12] And therefore practical theology should not be overlooked.

[13] Phillips (2005: xii). An insightful point, I agree.

[14] Phillips (2005: 247). 

[15] Feinberg (1994: 141). 

[16] Feinberg (1994: 141). Phillips doubts a notion of life after death makes sense.  He uses as example comparing death to being asleep or unconscious.  Phillips (2005: 85). 

[17] Feinberg (1994: 141).

[18] Feinberg (1994: 141).

[19] Phillips (2005: 81).

[20] Phillips (2005: 81).

[21] Phillips (2005: 247).

[22] Phillips (2005: 247).

[23] Phillips (2005: 247).   decent point is made, however, in light of Reformed views on compatibilism, Christians are not going to primarily choose God, but are chosen by God.

[24] Phillips (2005: 247).

[25] For example, Matthew 22 and Mark 12 has Christ instructing the reader to love God first and foremost, and others as much as self.  Jesus in John 15 tells his disciples to love one another just as he loved them. 

[26] Phillips (2005: 247).  esus’ Kingdom is not of this temporal world, not of this present realm. The world shall be changed and restored.  Mounce (1990: 368-397).

[27] Feinberg (1994: 141). 

[28] Feinberg (1994: 141). 

[29] Feinberg (1994: 141).  

[30] Calvin (1539)(1998: Book II, Chapter 3, 6).

[31] Calvin (1539)(1998: Book II, Chapter 3, 6).

[32] Calvin (1539)(1998: Book II, Chapter 3, 6).

[33] Calvin (1539)(1998: Book II, Chapter 3, 6).

[34] Calvin (1552)(1995: 13).

[35] Phillips (2005: 22).

[36] Hume (1779)(2004: 50).

[37] Hume (1779)(2004: 50).

[38] Hume (1779)(2004: 50).

[39] Hume (1779)(2004: 50).

[40] Hume (1779)(2004: 50).

[41] Phillips (2005: 56).

[42] Hick (1970: 292). 

[43] Hick (1970: 292).

[44] Phillips (2005: 56).

[45] Phillips (2005: 58).

[46] Phillips (2005: 58).

[47] Phillips (2005: 58).

[48] Phillips (2005: 58).  In support of Hick and my own theories of human development, I reason that spiritual building need not be necessarily only self focused. For example, in Matthew 22 and Mark 12 Jesus tells the listener to love others as self.  Within spiritual development one could and should seek to love and assist others.

[49] Phillips in Davis (2001: 56). Phillips (2005: 87).

[50] Phillips in Davis (2001: 58).

[51] Roth in Davis (2001: 62). Hick’s theodicy is too speculative and sentimental.

[52] Phillips in Davis (2001: 58). Roth in Davis (2001: 62).

[53] Phillips in Davis (2001: 58). 

[54] Phillips in Davis (2001: 56).

[55] Phillips in Davis (2001: 58).

[56] Phillips in Davis (2001: 58).

[57] Phillips in Davis (2001: 58).

[58] Hick in Davis (2001: 51). 

[59] Phillips in Davis (2001: 58).

[60] Hick (1970: 252-253). Phillips is skeptical that the human race will morally improve as Hicks understands it. Phillips (2005: 89). 

[61] Phillips (2005: 89). Hick does not treat the empirical temporal life seriously enough.