Thursday, September 06, 2018

Brief on soul-making (PhD edit)

Facebook has me visually fashion inept, feminized, younger and biracial. 

From 

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

Related work 

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

Although I accept a form of divine souk-making as being theologically, reasonable, it is apparent in many cases soul-making fails in certain individuals this side of the grave.[1]  This being the case, why should critics necessarily believe that God will redeem all post-mortem souls?[2]  If there was little or no evidence from an individual’s life of a disposition towards God while they were alive,[3] then why should it be accepted that there will be a change in attitude after death?[4]  The philosophical assumption of universalism appears very speculative on John Hick’s part.[5]  D.Z. 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.[6]  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.[7]  Phillips, correctly in my view, points out that Hick ‘does not treat human life seriously enough.’[8]

September 6, 2018

Via the New Testament,it is apparent that a fracture exists between humanity and God that will only be repaired by the applied atoning and resurrection work of Jesus Christ to those that believe by the Holy Spirit. Human salvation, culminated in resurrection (1 Corinthians 15, Revelation 21-22).

Otherwise the separation between the divine and humanity continues in this life and post-mortem.

I would add that common sense, common philosophical and theological sense, would lead to the premise a fracture exists between humanity and God. Where is the direct fellowship? Why does God willingly allow human suffering and death?

Approaches which postulate heaven and yet deny the biblical revelation are overly dependent on speculation and what I call ‘sentimental theology’.

Could God save people post-mortem, after death within a non-Christian worldview? 

Yes, it would be logically possible, but not theologically certain or probable. This would feature a theistic/deistic God that it my mind would likely only have limited temporal plans for humanity. Everlasting life for created humanity and fellowship with him, for any human beings, would be unlikely.

People die, within the plans of the infinite, eternal God. If a few were saved for everlasting life that would be fortuitous from a human perspective and not based in sound theology or philosophy of religion.

The probable end result for humanity in theism/deism would equate to an the end result for humanity within atheism. Non-existence.

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.

HICK, JOHN (1970) Evil and The God of Love, London, The Fontana Library.

HICK, JOHN (1978) ‘Present and Future Life’, Harvard Theological Review, Volume 71, Number 1-2, January-April, Harvard University.

HICK, JOHN (1981) Encountering Evil, Stephen T. Davis (ed.),  Atlanta, John Knox Press.

HICK, JOHN (1993)  ‘Afterword’ in GEIVETT, R. DOUGLAS (1993) Evil and the Evidence for God, Philadelphia, Temple University Press.

HICK, JOHN (1993) The Metaphor of God Incarnate, Louisville, Kentucky, John Know Press.

HICK, JOHN (1994) Death and Eternal Life, Louisville, Kentucky, John Knox Press.

HICK, JOHN (1999) ‘Life after Death’, in Alan Richardson and John Bowden (eds.), A New Dictionary of Christian Theology, Kent, SCM Press. 



[1] Phillips in Davis (2001: 56).
[2] Phillips in Davis (2001: 58).
[3] Phillips in Davis (2001: 58).
[4] Phillips in Davis (2001: 58).
[5] Hick in Davis (2001: 51). 
[6] Phillips in Davis (2001: 58).
[7] Hick (1970: 252-253). Phillips is skeptical that the human race will morally improve as Hicks understands it.  Phillips (2005: 89). 
[8] Phillips (2005: 89). Hick does not treat the empirical temporal life seriously enough.

No comments:

Post a Comment