Reasonable problem of evil approaches (PhD Edit)

University of British Columbia

May 9, 2018

Professor Phillips was one of my favourite critics to read. The problem of evil (theodicy), in my opinion, is often mishandled within the evangelical church, because some approaches do not embrace reasonable Reformed premises that provide reasonable answers.

They overemphasize human free will, when clearly within a biblical framework, God is infinite, omnipotent, omniscient and perfectly holy, while evil exists. God wills and allows evil whether directly or indirectly, and often secondary finite causes play a part.

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

Dewi Zephaniah Phillips[1] admits that ‘philosophizing about the problem of evil has become common place.’[2] There are ‘theories, theodicies and defences abound.’[3] These are all seeking to somehow justify God,[4] or to render the concept of God as untenable.[5]  Phillips rightly reasons that such work should be done with fear,[6] as approaches to the problem of evil in error could ‘betray the evils people have suffered.’[7]  Such explanation should never be overly simplistic, insensitive or ridiculous.[8]  Phillips warns that pro-religious philosophical presentations can often do more damage to the cause of theodicy than can the work of critics.[9] 

BLOCHER, HENRI. (1994) Evil and the Cross, Translated by David G. Preston, Leicester, InterVarsity Press.

HENRY, CARL (1983) God, Revelation and Authority: Volume 6: God Who Stands and Stays, Waco, Word Books.

HENRY, CARL (1996) ‘Image of God’, in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.

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. 

---

[1] Unfortunately Phillips died within the time frame of writing this thesis (1934-2006).

[2] Phillips (2005: xi).

[3] Phillips (2005: xi).

[4] Phillips (2005: xi). 

[5] Phillips (2005: xi).  Most often atheistic attempts, or those critical of Christian thought.

[6] Phillips (2005: xi). 

[7] Phillips (2005: xi). 

[8] 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.

[9] 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.