 |
| Google+ |
Edited excerpts from Theodicy and Practical Theology, 2010, PhD,
The University of Wales, Trinity Saint David.
Theodicy & Justice
The term theodicy arose from G.W. Leibniz’
book in 1710 entitled Theodicy.[1] Robert M. Adams (1996) notes that the word
theodicy is from the Greek, as theos
is God and dike is justice. [2]
Theodicy is a defence of the justice of God in the face of objections arising from the problem of evil in the world.[3]
Dewi Zephaniah Phillips [4] admits that ‘philosophizing about the problem of evil has become common place.’ [5]
There are ‘theories, theodicies and defences abound.’[6] These are all seeking to somehow justify God,[7] or to render the concept of God as untenable.[8] Phillips rightly reasons that such work should be done with fear,[9] as approaches to the problem of evil in error could ‘betray the evils people have suffered.’[10]
Such explanation should never be overly simplistic, insensitive or ridiculous.[11] Phillips warns that pro-religious philosophical presentations can often do more damage to the cause of theodicy than can the work of critics.[12]
Theodicy is a defence of the justice of God in the face of objections arising from the problem of evil in the world.[3]
Dewi Zephaniah Phillips [4] admits that ‘philosophizing about the problem of evil has become common place.’ [5]
There are ‘theories, theodicies and defences abound.’[6] These are all seeking to somehow justify God,[7] or to render the concept of God as untenable.[8] Phillips rightly reasons that such work should be done with fear,[9] as approaches to the problem of evil in error could ‘betray the evils people have suffered.’[10]
Such explanation should never be overly simplistic, insensitive or ridiculous.[11] Phillips warns that pro-religious philosophical presentations can often do more damage to the cause of theodicy than can the work of critics.[12]
Critical philosophy & Justice
Hille reasons that a satisfactory
self-coherent answer to the question of the justice of God cannot be found in
theology or philosophy.[13] Ferraiolo explains that many critics of
theism would claim the existence of gratuitous evil makes a theodicy a
difficult thing to establish in our present world filled with evil.[14] He concludes his article by noting it is not
obvious that human suffering is reconcilable with theism.[15] Bertrand Russell (1957)(1976) states that
since the universe often lacks justice presently there is no good scientific
reason to believe that God would eventually bring about justice.[16]
Theology & Justice
However, Augustine (421)(1998) notes
that God did well, even in the permission of what was evil, as he permitted it
for the sake of judgment, and his justice is perfect.[17] This gospel associated theodicy view
allows for the possibility of forgiveness of sins within the atonement for
persons and for persons to experience the ultimate justice of God’s culminated
Kingdom.[18] Bloesch explains that in the context of
atonement and justice[19] with God’s
holiness he forgives and forbears and demonstrates his love.[20]
There is within my Reformed theodicy concepts of ultimate justice[21] and deliverance from the problem of evil and its results,[22] but as a Christian scholar attempting to be as accurate in understanding as possible, I must include the concept that sin must first be atoned for in Christ[23] before a person can experience the benefits of a culminated Kingdom free from evil and suffering.[24]
There is within my Reformed theodicy concepts of ultimate justice[21] and deliverance from the problem of evil and its results,[22] but as a Christian scholar attempting to be as accurate in understanding as possible, I must include the concept that sin must first be atoned for in Christ[23] before a person can experience the benefits of a culminated Kingdom free from evil and suffering.[24]
God’s justice can be understood
somewhat, but for the sufferer to realize theologically that death is a result
of human sin and a corrupt world system,[25]
it is not really all that comforting, although the concept is Biblically and
theologically correct. The helpful
traditional practical explanation that the resurrection awaits those who trust
in Christ, is both theoretically and practically sound, and may be of comfort
to a believer. Yes, God is a creator who demands justice, but through the
atoning work and resurrection of Christ, his love and grace is also shown to
followers. The resurrection of Christ, from a traditional perspective, is also
not purely a theological concept, as the Kingdom of God is progressing towards
its culmination.[26] It can be pointed out practically that the
resurrection of Christ as King has to take place for a culminated Kingdom of
God to ultimately occur.[27]
ADAMS, ROBERT. M. (1996) ‘Theodicy’,
in Robert Audi (ed.), The Cambridge
Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
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.
BLOCHER, HENRI. (1994) Evil and the Cross, Translated by David
G. Preston, Leicester, InterVarsity Press.
FEINBERG, JOHN.S. (1986) Predestination and Free Will, in David
Basinger and Randall Basinger (eds.), Downers Grove, Illinois, InterVarsity
Press.
FEINBERG, JOHN.S. (1994) The Many Faces of Evil, Grand
Rapids, Zondervan Publishing House.
FEINBERG, JOHN.S. (2001) No One Like Him, John S. Feinberg
(gen.ed.), Wheaton, Illinois, Crossway Books.
FERRAIOLO, WILLIAM (2005) ‘Eternal
Selves and The Problem of Evil’, in Quodlibet
Journal, Volume 7, Number 2, April-June, Evanston, Illinois, Quodlibet
Journal.
HILLE, ROLF (2004) ‘A
Biblical-Theological Response to the Problem of Theodicy in the Context of the
Modern Criticism of Religion’, in Evangelical
Review of Theology, Volume 28, Number 1, pp. 21-37. Carlisle, UK,
Evangelical Review of Theology.
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, Digireads.com/Neeland Media LLC, Lawrence,
Kansas.
LEIBNIZ, G.W. (1710)(1998) Theodicy, Translated by E.M. Huggard
Chicago, Open Court Classics.
MOLTMANN, JÜRGEN (1993) The Crucified God, Minneapolis, Fortress
Press.
MOLTMANN, JÜRGEN (1999) ‘Perseverance’,
in Alan Richardson and John Bowden (eds.), New
Dictionary of Christian Theology, Kent, SCM Press Ltd.
MOUNCE, ROBERT H. (1990) The Book of Revelation, Grand Rapids,
William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
MOUNCE, ROBERT H. (1995) The New American Commentary: Romans,
Nashville, Broadman & Holman Publishers.
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.
RUSSELL, BERTRAND (1957)(1976) Why I
am not a Christian, Simon and Schuster Inc., in John R. Burr and Milton
Goldinger (eds.), Philosophy and
Contemporary Issues, London, Collier Macmillan Publishers.
[1] Leibniz, G.W. (1710)(1998) Theodicy.
[2] Adams (1996: 794).
[3] Adams (1996: 794). David Hume in Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion explains that geniuses over
the ages have continued to look for proofs and arguments concerning God. Hume (1779)(2004: 2). Theodicy would involve demonstrating that God
exists and is good even as the problem of evil exists.
[4] Unfortunately
Phillips died within the time frame of writing this thesis (1934-2006).
[5] Phillips (2005:
xi).
[6] Phillips (2005:
xi).
[7] Phillips (2005:
xi).
[8] Phillips (2005:
xi). Most often atheistic attempts, or
those critical of Christian thought.
[9] Phillips (2005:
xi).
[10] Phillips (2005:
xi).
[11] 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.
[12] Phillips (2005:
xi). Henry Blocher warns that theodicy
as a philosophical defence of God fails on its own, unless backed up by
Scripture. Blocher (1994: 84). Phillips and Blocher would both be critical
of poorly constructed theodicy approaches, even as their perspectives on
theodicy are not identical.
[13] Hille (2004: 26).
[14] Ferraiolo (2005: 1).
[15] Ferraiolo (2005: 1).
[16] Russell (1957)(1976: 120).
[17] Augustine (421)(1998: Chapter 96: 48).
[18] Mounce explains
that the Great White Throne judgment of Revelation 20 is not an arbitrary
judgment of God but is based on the works of each person. Mounce (1990: 365-366). It is sign of the ultimate justice of God for
all persons.
[19] Bloesch (1987:
97).
[20] Bloesch (1987:
97).
[21] Mounce (1990:
365-366).
[22] Feinberg (1994:
141). Moltmann (1993: 178). Mounce (1990: 372).
[23] On this matter I
do not see myself as a judge of those outside of Christ, but rather as one
reporting within the best of my ability, by the guidance of the Holy Spirit,
what Scripture states about human sin and salvation.
[24] Sin, death and
suffering will not exist in the culminated Kingdom. Mounce (1990: 372).
[25] Bloesch (1987:
16).
[26] Moltmann (1993: 171-172).
[27] Moltmann (1993: 171-172).
