 |
| 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
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.
