Is God Misunderstood? (PhD Edit)

I was invited to a Willingdon Church drama last night. Kool, two-tier set.

PhD, University of Wales, Trinity Saint David, Lampeter, 2010: Theodicy and Practical Theology

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

Philosopher Theodore P. Rebard (1996) states that the logical problem of evil exists since God is omnibenevolent  and omnipotent, and writes critics can view the logical problem as meaning that if God cannot end evil, he is not omnipotent, and if he can prevent evil and does not, he is not omnibenevolent or all loving. Rebard (1996: 1). Greek philosopher Epicurus was known to have made a similar statement.  Epicurus (341-270 B.C.)(1949: 80). Rebard concludes that God either does not exist or is misunderstood.  Rebard (1996: 1).

It should also be stated that the problem of evil is not only an intellectual problem, but as R.K. McGregor Wright (1996) notes, a great deal of moral and emotional freight goes along with the problem of evil. Wright (1996: 178). He connects this to the fact that many philosophers have viewed the problem of evil as a disproof of God. Wright (1996: 178).  

Throughout my Wales, PhD (2010), I explained that God has been largely misunderstood and, although Biblical revelation, theology, and philosophy do not provide an exhaustive and absolutely conclusive answer to the logical problem, there are reasonable solutions to the difficulty of evil existing within God’s creation.

As a moderate conservative that holds to Reformed theology, I reason that the atoning and resurrection work applied to believers in the eventual culminated Kingdom of God is the ultimate remedy for the problem of evil. I must be clear: theodicy is not the remedy to the problem of evil, but a speculative, and in my case, Biblically based attempt to explain how God deals with evil in his creation. In similar fashion, practical and empirical theology  do not offer solutions to the problem of evil, but are theological disciplines which assist persons to understand how evil is comprehended and dealt with in the Christian community and in society at large.

Even with the understanding that God and Christ will eventually save the world from evil (Mounce (1990: 369-397)), and that this can be explained in ways through theodicy, does not mean that I or any theologian or philosopher can always provide specific reasons and answers for each instance of evil and suffering in creation. I can approach my theodicy presentation with confidence, but should always possess great humility. Although I do not side with critics that doubt that theism can be squared with the evil that takes place in this world, I fully admit that in many cases of evil and suffering, only God has a comprehensive understanding of what is occurring, and why it is occurring.

Therefore, theists and atheists from various perspectives are all left with degrees of ignorance in regard to the problem of evil. No person can fully understand evil and the suffering that results in every case. Theists and atheists are therefore left with using reason, and in the case of the Christian theist, the Bible to work out theories concerning the problem of evil.

---

EPICURUS (341-270 B.C.)(1949) in Overcoming Evil from the German translation, Von der Ueberwindung der Furcht, Zurich, Von der Ueberwindung der Furcht.

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

MOUNCE, ROBERT H. (1995) The New American Commentary: Romans, Nashville, Broadman & Holman Publishers.

REBARD, THEODORE P. (1996) ‘The Problem of Evil Revisited’, in Catholic.net, North Haven, Connecticut, Christian Philosophy, Catholic. net.http://www.catholic.net/RCC/Periodicals/Faith/1112-96/philos1.html

WRIGHT, R.K.McGREGOR (1996) No Place for Sovereignty, Downers Grove, Illinois, InterVarsity Press.