Saturday, June 06, 2020
Happy little theodicy...there (PhD Edit)
 |
| Today |
Preface
I noticed that I have quoted ‘Theodicists want happy endings.’ from the late D.Z. Phillips in my Doctoral thesis, only twice on this website. A classic quote from an interesting thought-provoking author.
Are solutions to problems of evil false happy endings through developed theodicy?
2010 Theodicy and Practical Theology: Ph.D. thesis, the University of Wales, Trinity Saint David, Lampeter
Restoration?
Yet sovereignty approaches believe that God would ultimately culminate his Kingdom of God[1] and eliminate the problem of evil.[2] As Phillips notes, ‘Theodicists want happy endings.’[3] Feinberg admits the difficulty with his approach because it defends God allowing the problem of evil in his creation for a time period that is unknown to human beings,[4] and at the same time claims that God would eventually restore his creation.[5] He notes that free will and evolutionary theistic approaches to the problem of evil also assume that God would restore his creation, and so this was a common theistic assumption.[6]
The fact that his sovereignty approach accepts restoration of the creation within it in no way makes his presentation internally inconsistent.[7] Phillips explains that this general type of approach views God as compensating persons for the sufferings in life.[8] Evil and suffering is therefore redeemed in some way.[9] Evil and suffering would be worthwhile within a Christian world view where Christ prevails. Phillips warns that at its worst Christianity can push one to back the right supernatural force,[10] as in not backing Satan.[11] Phillips suggests that no one wants to back a loser and so Christians should logically, within their worldview, back God and not Satan.[12] God becomes a means and not an end within this type of Christian approach.[13] It should be interjected that Christianity should not be primarily about being on the winning side, rather it should be concerned, for the most part, with doing God’s will obediently in love.[14] Phillips views it as problematic that Jesus stated his Kingdom was not of this world and yet in the Second Coming establishes his Kingdom on this earth.[15]
Feinberg thought it was not his objective to answer why God allowed the problem of evil and would eventually bring restoration, and I view this as a weakness.[16] Rather, Feinberg believes he was successful in presenting an approach that showed God was good,[17] as was his creation.[18] Calvin writes that God would begin anew in humanity by abolishing the fallen will, leaving the human will in its original state.[19] God would turn evil to good, according to Calvin,[20] thus bringing a new humanity which was a new creation.[21] This human restoration and rebirth, Calvin (1552)(1995) notes,[22] would lead to the culmination of the Kingdom of God, and the ultimate blessing of immortality.[23]
Within a sovereignty approach, I deduce a theoretical, possible and suitable reason why God created a good world and allowed human beings to rebel against him.[24] My theory is that human beings that are saved through Christ with the use of compatibilism will eventually have greater spiritual maturity than Adam and Eve did prior to a fall from God. If the idea of a literal Adam and Eve is rejected, as was mentioned by Jackson and Fretheim[25]
It can be reasoned that those within the culminated Kingdom of God will surpass those first persons in spiritual maturity as well. This would be so because those God saves will have experienced their own sin, death, and the atoning work of Christ and his resurrection applied to them. These would be citizens of the culminated Kingdom of God.[26] Persons cannot be created with experience, even if made with a level of initial maturity.[27] Those within the culminated Kingdom of God would not possess the initial inexperience and immaturity of the first persons.
It is reasonable to deduce that the problem of evil is possibly God’s means of developing certain individuals to eventual Christ-like stature,[28] not sharing Christ’s divinity in nature[29] but becoming like Christ in a mature and moral manner, combined with an unbreakable devotion to God.[30] It is believed that Christ will be God’s lieutenant in this godless world[31] and bring about, through his crucifixion and resurrection, the promise of a better future, which includes hope.[32] The Kingdom of God was present in Christ and this has been defined in history.[33]
[1] Mounce (1990: 368-397).
[2] Feinberg (1994: 141). These theories are often viewed with ideas of optimism and progress. Phillips (2005: 82).
[3] Phillips (2005: 247).
[4] Feinberg (1994: 141).
[5] Feinberg (1994: 141). Phillips doubts a notion of life after death makes sense. He uses as example comparing death to being asleep or unconscious. Phillips (2005: 85).
[6] Feinberg (1994: 141).
[7] Feinberg (1994: 141).
[8] Phillips (2005: 81).
[9] Phillips (2005: 81).
[10] Phillips (2005: 247).
[11] Phillips (2005: 247).
[12] Phillips (2005: 247). A decent point is made, however, in light of Reformed views on compatibilism, Christians are not going to primarily choose God, but are chosen by God.
[13] Phillips (2005: 247).
[14] For example, Matthew 22 and Mark 12 has Christ instructing the reader to love God first and foremost, and others as much as self. Jesus in John 15 tells his disciples to love one another just as he loved them.
[15] Phillips (2005: 247). Jesus’ Kingdom is not of this temporal world, not of this present realm. The world shall be changed and restored. Mounce (1990: 368-397).
[16] Feinberg (1994: 141).
[17] Feinberg (1994: 141).
[18] Feinberg (1994: 141).
[19] Calvin (1539)(1998: Book II, Chapter 3, 6).
[20] Calvin (1539)(1998: Book II, Chapter 3, 6).
[21] Calvin (1539)(1998: Book II, Chapter 3, 6).
[22] Calvin (1539)(1998: Book II, Chapter 3, 6).
[23] Calvin (1552)(1995: 13).
[24] This is logical and reasonable and also open to refinement in the future. But I reason this explanation is a superior approach to Feinberg’s non-explanation.
[25] Jackson (1941)(2006: 1). Fretheim (1994: 152).
[26] Moltmann (1993: 256). Calvin (1552)(1995: 415).
[27] God can create a perfect person, but God cannot logically create a perfect person with experience as such. The act of creating implies newness and inexperience. Admittedly, God could hypothetically create a being with false memories of a perfect life, but this would not be the same as having experience. I deduce the results would not be the same.
[28] Finite moral perfection and goodness but not infinite, God-like moral perfection and goodness.
[29] Isaiah 43 makes it clear there was no God formed before God and there will be no God formed after. Isaiah 44-46 make similar statements. The New American Standard Version Bible (1984: 816-821).
[30] By the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
[31] Moltmann (1993: 256).
[32] Moltmann (1993: 256).
[33] Moltmann (1993: 263).
------
CALVIN, JOHN (1539)(1998) The Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book IV, Translated by Henry Beveridge, Grand Rapids, The Christian Classic Ethereal Library, Wheaton College.
CALVIN, JOHN (1543)(1996) The Bondage and Liberation of the Will, Translated by G.I. Davies, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.
CALVIN, JOHN (1552)(1995) Acts, Translated by Watermark, Nottingham, Crossway Books.
DAVIS, STEPHEN T. (1981)(ed.), Encountering Evil, Atlanta, John Knox Press.
FEINBERG, JOHN S. (1994) The Many Faces of Evil, Grand Rapids, Zondervan Publishing House.
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, Lawrence, Kansas.
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.
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.
Archives
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)