 |
| London: Daily Mail |
I have dealt with this PhD material previously below with link, but I have some more comments:
John K Roth and Limited God
John K. Roth (1981) also explains within ‘A Theodicy of Protest’[1] that the finite, limited God of William James offered him some intellectual appeal.[2] He reasons that to deny God completely would be going too far, but to affirm God’s total goodness and to apologize for a weak God in anyway would also be going too far.[3] Roth’s theodicy of protest puts God on trial,[4] and any human repentance will have to be matched by God.[5] Stephen Davis (1981) suggests that Roth has given up the notion that God is ‘perfectly morally good.’[6] Roth insists that most theodicy approaches very wrongly legitimize evil.[7] They can attempt to make suffering all deserved, and/or create happy endings due to God’s ultimate goodness.[8] There is within this view ‘no legitimation of evil to acknowledge its existence.’[9] The excessive amount of evil that exists in human history demonstrates that there is an evil side to God which willingly allows it.[10] Davis explains that for Roth, God is not really omnipotent as God does not possess the perfect goodness to redeem all evil.[11] Human beings lack the ability to envision how God could use all the evil within world history for the greater good.[12] Roth, in contrast to Davis, states that he actually shares with Davis a belief in God’s omnipotence.[13] Davis speculates that Roth’s approach weakens a view on God’s omnipotence,[14] but Roth’s claim that he holds to omnipotence should be taken seriously.[15] Roth’s interpretation makes sense, as if Roth sees God as all-powerful then the evil God willingly allows that cannot all be used for greater good, is not redeemable[16] and therefore God should repent of his evil.[17]
I share with Roth an intellectual and personal frustration with the evil that God willingly allows.[18] A theodicy of protest is not completely unmerited as all persons have suffered by the hand of God that is ultimately responsible, logically, as he is all-powerful.[19] Within my Reformed sovereignty theodicy view which I explain within Chapter Three in particular (of my PhD), I reason God does use all evil for the greater good with pure motives.[20] This view accepts a traditional view of omnipotence.[21] Roth does have hope as he looks for a resurrection of the dead in the future, and in the present realm hopes that somehow ‘the waste’ as in unnecessary evil, will be placed in check.[22] He views the traditional concept of God that Davis has as a God that is ‘hidden, absent, even non-existent.’[23] A trust and hope in any type of God is risky, but he reasons that the hope does not completely die.[24] I question whether an omnipotent God with less than perfect motives that would will so much evil, not for the greater good throughout history, would ever change his ways or be convinced by finite creatures to do so.[25]
March 15, 2014
The philosophical concept that 'any human repentance will have to be matched by God is presented.'
It has God philosophically and theologically being placed in the docks.
The idea of God being in the docks was a criticism of theodicy work from the internal, Wales reviewer, a Roman Catholic philosopher of religion at my PhD Viva.
In agreement I do not think God belongs in the docks.
There is historical religious history from Scripture, both the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament that presents God directly and implied as eternal and infinite, existing prior to divine creation of matter in Genesis 1. God has sovereign, providential control. God repeatedly in Scripture claims to be holy as in Exodus 3.
Humanity on the other hand is created, finite and sinful (Genesis, Romans, Galatians, Ephesians, Hebrews, James, 1 John, Revelation as some sources).
Therefore God is not in need of repenting of how he deals with humanity.
God has also by the grace through faith (Ephesians 1-2) chosen and saved those in Christ from sin/sins for good works.
A new resurrection body free from sin and suffering is the end for those in Christ (1 Corinthians 15, Revelation 20-22).
On the other hand, in fairness to critics of theism and Christianity, I, as someone that suffers with sin and finiteness as does all of humanity, can very much understand frustration with God, or a theistic concept.
Life is not near what it could be as far as fulfillment for many in humanity. Life is often not one of peace and happiness for many.
Seemingly many times God could do much more to assist persons.
Those in the Church do not act in very good ways to assist others, or love others at times.
And for those that do have a significantly fulfilling, happy life, it ends in death.
At times evangelical answers for the problem of evil and suffering are overly-spiritualized and simplistic.
Overly-spiritualized as in downplaying the importance of present life in favour of the next life and realm.
The importance of the next realm and everlasting/eternal life in contrast to this present temporal realm does have its Biblical foundation as can be seen in the writings of the Apostles and words of Christ.
Example
New American Standard Bible
Romans 8: 18-25
18For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory that is to be revealed to us.
19For the anxious longing of the creation waits eagerly for the revealing of the sons of God.
20For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it, in hope
21that the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God.
22For we know that the whole creation groans and suffers the pains of childbirth together until now.
23And not only this, but also we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body.
24For in hope we have been saved, but hope that is seen is not hope; for who hopes for what he already sees?
25But if we hope for what we do not see, with perseverance we wait eagerly for it.
I do not deny Paul and the Scripture in context, whatsoever.
I am reasoning that where with God's help, there is with the use of theology, philosophy and other intellectual and practical, reasonable means ways of alleviating the problem of evil and suffering in the present realm, to contentment and/or blessing; this is preferable for those in the Church along with the Biblical hope of everlasting/eternal life, to an overly-spiritualized approach which often does not seriously deal with serious temporal issues in order to perhaps find solutions.
[1] Within Encountering Evil, Stephen T. Davis (ed.)
[2] Roth (1981: 9).
[3] Roth (1981: 10). I can agree that if God is indeed weak, it should be pointed out as such, and not defended.
[4] Roth (1981: 10). And God’s supposed omnipotence as well, I would suggest could naturally be challenged.
[5] Roth (1981: 10). Roth’s position assumes that God has moral weakness which finite human beings could intellectually detect. God would have to share the blame for the problem of evil. Phillips (2005: 116-117).
[6] Davis (1981: 22). Phillips writes that Roth’s analysis leads to the idea that God is not perfectly good. Phillips (2005: 27).
[7] Roth (1981: 19).
[8] Roth (1981: 19).
[9] Roth (1981: 19).
[10] Davis (1981: 22).
[11] Davis (1981: 23).
[12] Davis (1981: 23). There is certainly a degree of truth to the idea that the evil God allows often cannot be reasonably understood by persons. This could, however, be due as much, or even more, to finite human nature and reasoning as opposed to a moral deficiency or lack of omnipotence with God.
[13] Roth (1981: 32). Phillips verifies this as well. Phillips (2005: 22).
[14] Davis (1981: 23).
[15] Roth (1981: 32).
[16] Roth (1981: 19). Davis (1981: 23).
[17] Roth (1981: 10).
[18] Roth (1981: 8-10).
[19] Roth (1981: 32).
[20] Gratuitous evil is also reviewed and discussed in Chapter Four.
[21] Kreeft and Tacelli (1994: 96). Bavinck (1918)(2006: 233 Volume 2). Weber (1955)(1981: 440).
[22] Roth (1981: 35). Phillips dislikes the use of the term ‘waste’ in regard to humanity and evil and suffering and reasons a loss and gain approach in regard to individual persons is not reasonable. Phillips (2005: 70-71). This is an important point, for the loss suffered by a single individual should never be underestimated for the sake of many persons that do not suffer in the same way and may in some way possibly gain from the suffering of one.
[23] Roth (1981: 35).
[24] Roth (1981: 35).
[25] It is also possible that given God’s omnipotence as Roth accepts, what he and others with similar views understand as evil within God’s nature is simply all goodness. Roth (1981:32). This is not my Reformed view which views evil as separate from good, and not part of God’s nature, but is a reasonable deduction based on Roth’s assumptions on the all-powerful nature of God.
---
BAVINCK, HERMAN (1918)(2006) Reformed Dogmatics Volume 2: God and Creation, John Bolt (gen.ed.), Translated by John Vriend, Baker Academic, Grand Rapids.
BAVINCK, HERMAN (1918)(2006) Reformed Dogmatics Volume 3: Sin and Salvation in Christ, John Bolt (gen.ed.), Translated by John Vriend, Baker Academic, Grand Rapids.
DAVIS, STEPHEN T. (1981)(ed.), Encountering Evil, Atlanta, John Knox Press.
KREEFT, PETER AND RONALD K. TACELLI (1994) Handbook of Christian Apologetics, Downers Grove, Illinois, InterVarsity Press.
PHILLIPS, D.Z. (1981) Encountering Evil, Stephen T. Davis (ed.), Atlanta, John Knox Press.
PHILLIPS, D.Z. (2005) The Problem of Evil and the Problem of God, Fortress Press, Minneapolis.
ROTH, JOHN K. ‘Introduction’ (1892-1907)(1969) in The Moral Philosophy of William James, John K. Roth (ed.), Thomas Y. Crowell Company, New York.
ROTH, JOHN K. (1981) Encountering Evil, Stephen T. Davis (ed.), Atlanta, John Knox Press.
WEBER, OTTO (1955)(1981) Foundations of Dogmatics, Volumes 1 and 2, Translated and annotated by Darrell L. Guder, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
