Alister McGrath and the philosophical problem of evil

Christ Church Cathedral, Dublin, Ireland

I am working on final advisor revisions for my PhD thesis, and I am quite occupied. My C.S. Lewis presentations from my MPhil received good feedback through Blogger and BlogRush, and I therefore present part of my MPhil discussion on Alister McGrath.

Thank you, and I look forward to receiving comments.

Concerning comments, I do not expect long responses, although those are appreciated as well. I generally leave short responses on other blogs, since I have PhD work, two theology blogs to run, and so many blogs to comment on. I realize that one way to build up blog readers, comments and links is to comment on as many blogs as possible, and so I do not necessarily expect to receive long comments, and hope others do not expect this from me. I just have too much work to do.

Long and short comments are appreciated on this blog.

From:
http://thekingpin68.blogspot.com/2006/01/mphil-wales-2003.html

British and Anglican scholar, Alister McGrath, Wycliffe College, Oxford, has written a significant work on suffering which is a result of the problem of evil. It is entitled Suffering (1992), and he condenses his writings in Suffering within Bridge-Building (1992).

The Philosophical Problem of Evil

McGrath pointed out a weakness with the philosophical discussion and stated his desire to concentrate on a theological remedy to the problem of evil within his work.

He writes:

Many of the theological and philosophical texts I have wrestled with seem to be much more concerned with upholding the integrity of a God who seems to allow suffering, than with saying anything helpful to those who are bewildered and confused by that suffering. I can think of few things less helpful to someone going through pain than a sophisticated theological defence of the integrity of God, or even a gentle romp through the subtle logic of necessary evil.

Now that kind discussion needs to take place. But it happens too often without any consideration of the anguish of those who need comforting and reassuring in the face of their sadness. Suffering is a pastoral and spiritual issue, not just a theological problem. In the book, I have not the slightest intention of presenting myself either as a spokesman or as some kind of defence attorney for God. God is perfectly capable of looking after himself. The real issue is not about defending God’s honour or integrity, but about making sense of our experience. McGrath (1992: 8-9).

McGrath is espousing a viewpoint similar to one that I took with my Graduating Essay at Trinity Western University. The philosophical discussion concerning the problem of evil is beneficial but the theological remedy is often overlooked in theological works since the critics of God and Christianity have, in the past, attacked the notion of the infinite, omnipotent, perfectly holy God who has evil existing within his creation.

For people suffering with the problem of evil, and that includes all human beings, the theological remedy to evil and suffering through Christ must be a vital part of theological apologetics. It can complement the philosophical discussion, and the revelation of God should be considered.

Carl Henry wrote: "Not even theistic arguments can fully vindicate God’s graciousness in the face of human evil if they appeal simply to empirical consideration or to philosophical reasoning devoid of revelational illumination." Henry (1983: 282).

Henri Blocher had the same sentiment but in slightly stronger terms. In his text Evil and the Cross:

The failure of the explanations of evil that we have examined as exposed in our preceding chapters, taking them according to their fundamental types, shows them for what they are, when confronted with experience and when the concepts are analysed. But it is Divine Revelation which reveals truly and with complete certainty. Holy Scripture, the Word of God, the ‘normative norm,’ is the only standard which allows us to distinguish between those insights which agree with it, and those all too human false trails in those systems of thought. Blocher (1994: 84).

Both Henry and Blocher share with McGrath the idea that in the philosophical problem of evil discussion it is not as central to Christianity as the theological remedy provided through Christ’s atoning work. However, I think Blocher’s words are slightly too strong by calling the explanations of the problem of evil a failure. Yes, the philosophical discussion is limited but it deals with issues not solved within the theological remedy. He is correct in that the theological remedy alone provides complete certainty of the end of suffering. That certainty, however, does not deal with some philosophical questions raised, although it could be argued that the answers to those philosophical questions will no longer matter once people do not suffer. Critics, however, need to see that Christianity is philosophically feasible in order to accept the possibility that divine revelation leads to the defeat of the problem of evil.

I think, however, the philosophical discussion needs to be complemented by the theological remedy. I can understand McGrath’s perspective on suffering as in many post-Enlightenment works the faith has been under attack because of the problem of evil. The attacks were of a philosophical nature and thus dealt with so, but ultimately the defence of Christianity comes down to divine revelation. McGrath stated in Iustitia Dei:

The central teaching of the Christian faith is that reconciliation has been effected between and God and sinful man through Jesus Christ, and that this new relation between God and man is a present possibility for those outside the church, and a present actuality for those within its bounds. McGrath (1986: 1).

Since to McGrath this is the central teaching, it makes sense in apologetics featuring the problem of evil, that the work of Jesus Christ in atonement which includes restoration and reconciliation, must be central. He thus thinks discussions on the problem of evil that do not deal with this in strong fashion, are lacking. Suffering was written to comfort those struggling with the problem of evil and to inform them that ultimate victory over suffering will be had through Jesus Christ.

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.

MCGRATH, ALISTER. (1986) Iustitia Dei, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

MCGRATH, ALSITER. (1992) Suffering, London, Hodder and Stoughton Limited.

http://satireandtheology.blogspot.com/2008/04/floyd-mayweather-
defeats-big-show-sort.html


No Stanley Cup, once again.

This just in...

Can i trust you?

Dear Friend,

I am an Executive accountant for a bank here in Italy. I
require your assistance and partnership in transferring huge
amount of funds in United states dollars out of my country.
You will be required to:-

(1) Assist in the transfer of the said sum.
(2) Advise on lucrative areas for subsequent investment.
(3) Assist us in purchase of landed & viable properties.

We have all the information and guidance to enable you and
we realize this opportunity. We have evaluated the risk
analysis and we are convinced that the
risk element is ZERO, as long as you maintain 100%
confidentiality. Once secured communication has been
established between you and us, detailed clarifications will
be dealt with, such as what each party stand to benefit and
time scale and procedures. Time is not in our favour; please
establish secured communication with me through my email
address.

Mr. David Maldini
maldinidavidonline@yahoo.it

ExJesus or Exegesis?

Hawaii (photo from trekearth.com)

ExJesus or Exegesis?

An interesting play on words, but this article concerns the word exegesis. Do not worry, there is no crazy cult here, although I do not control my usually wonderful blog commenters.;) I am thankful for blog moderation, because of a very small minority though.

W.R.F. Browning explains that the term exegesis is found in the LXX (Septuagint) and is not in the New Testament. Today it refers to commentary on the Biblical text, which attempts to relate words and verses and sections of Scripture to others in order to formulate proper understanding. Modern exegesis makes use of textual criticism and literary disciplines as well as archaeology. Browning (1997: 125). Browning points out that mistakes made in the area of exegesis could result in false exegesis. Browning (1997: 125). False exegesis could be related to the idea of eisegesis, which is a negative term used to describe the practice of imposing preconceived meanings into Biblical texts, even when clearly they are not the original meanings. Grenz, Guretzki, and Nordling (1999: 49). Exegesis can also be defined as the process of seeking to understand what a text means and communicates on its own. Grenz, Guretzki, and Nordling (1999: 49).

Gordon D. Fee and Douglas Stuart write that the first job of the Biblical interpreter is called exegesis and this is to find the original, intended meaning. This is a historical task to read the Scripture and find out how the original writers intended it to be understood. Fee and Stuart (1982: 21). The use of the original Biblical languages in doing exegesis is important and learning how to deal with original manuscripts, which have variant readings, is also very useful. Fee and Stuart (1982: 22). But, Fee and Stuart state that good exegesis can be done even without these tools. Fee and Stuart (1982: 22). The implication is that with a good translation, a contextual, exegetical review of Scripture should bring accurate results.

With the use of texts and tools, I do examine Scripture from the original language, and review the writings of actual linguists in order to better understand particular Biblical writings. I find that many of the modern translations, such as the New American Standard Bible, are so accurate that when I exegete the English text, and then examine and exegete texts which feature the original languages, the same basic results are produced.

Hermeneutics is a related discipline, which studies principles and theories of how a text should be interpreted, and reasons out relationships between the Biblical author, the text itself, and original and future readers. Grenz, Guretzki, and Nordling (1999: 59). Exegesis or eisegesis would be done within certain rules of hermeneutics. Fee and Stuart write that the hermeneutics usually covers the entire field of interpretation including exegesis. It is also used for seeking the present relevance of ancient texts. Fee and Stuart (1982: 25).

It is the weekend, and I have had a tedious, but rewarding week of PhD dissertation revisions. I wish to present a couple of fun things for the weekend.

Below are my two most expensive comics in my collection, from kingpinned in links. They are both worth approximately $30 each, and so obviously I am not a major world-class comic book collector.

Each of the photos are of the comic I own, but not the actual copy. I have graded both of my books shown here as very fine, which is one level below near mint by my grading.


Batman 256 (1974)


Doctor Strange 179 (1969)

BROWNING, W.R.F. (1997) ‘Exegesis’ in Oxford Dictionary of the Bible, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

FEE, GORDON D. AND DOUGLAS STUART (1982) How to Read the Bible for All It’s Worth, Grand Rapids, Zondervan Publishing House.

GRENZ, STANLEY J., DAVID GURETZKI AND CHERITH FEE NORDLING (1999) Pocket Dictionary of Theological Terms, Downers Grove, Ill., InterVarsity Press.

http://satireandtheology.blogspot.com/2008/03/nature-receives-
red-card.html

Could they become Christians whenever they wanted?

Hay-on-wye, Wales (photo from trekearth.com)

I was listening to a well-known Christian teacher on-line, that I respect and have learned from over the years. I reason this teacher is an incompatibilist, whereas I am a compatibilist, due to my research concerning the problem of evil.

Gregory A. Boyd explains that incompatibilism assumes since human beings are free, their wills and resulting actions are not, in any way, determined by any outside force. Boyd (2001: 52). John Sanders writes that in incompatibilism it is believed genetic or environmental factors are not ignored in the process of human actions, but it is thought that a human being could always have done otherwise in any given situation. Sanders (1998: 221).

Libertarian free will is often understood as a form of indeterminism. The concept is that a person is able to perform another action in the place of one that has been committed. This action cannot be predetermined by any circumstance or desire. Norman Geisler explains that indeterminism is defined as the idea that there are no antecedent (preceding conditions) or simultaneous (at the same time) causes of human actions. All human actions are free if a person could have done otherwise. Geisler (1996: 429). Indeterminism is also equated with incompatibilism which states that God, or any other being, cannot cause by force or coercion any human action, nor can any action be simultaneously willed by God or any other being, for the human action to remain significantly free.

Compatibilism, would agree with incompatibilism that God or any other being cannot cause by force or coercion any significantly free human action, but contrary to incompatibilism thinks that God or an outside force can simultaneously determine/will significantly free human actions. Feinberg (1994: 60).

This teacher uses Acts 17: 27 where Paul addresses the Athenians and states within the New American Standard Bible:

That they should seek God, if perhaps they might grope for Him and find him, though He is not far from each of us.

The teacher implied that by God’s grace and with incompatibilist libertarian free will, the Athenians could have believed, or not, in the Biblical God and therefore Christ, without being simultaneously determined/influenced by God to do so. But, in contrast, I reason that due to Paul’s comments in Romans 3 that this would not work. Instead the Greeks could know about God through natural revelation, but could not believe in the Biblical God and Christ, in the sense of saving faith, unless regenerated by God’s choice alone through the use of compatibilism. God’s choice would lead to influence over persons to freely believe. Roman 3:10 states that none are righteous; in 3:11 none understand and seek God. In 3:12 all have turned aside, and no one does good. In 3:23 all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.

I thought I would look at my Acts commentary by Calvin. He explains that it was the human duty to seek God, and that God will meet human beings and demonstrated clear signs of his existence in creation. Calvin (1552)(1995: 302). Calvin states that those who do not exert themselves to seek after God are not worthy to live on this earth. Calvin (1552)(1995: 302). Through the creation of the world God has shown his glory. Calvin (1552)(1995: 302).

Calvin raises the important issue if whether this knowledge concerning God from nature allows persons such as the Athenians to gain true and clear knowledge about God by this nature. Calvin (1552)(1995: 302). Calvin explains that persons choose not to pay attention to God, but that true knowledge about God is a special gift, which comes by faith and the illumination of the Holy Spirit. Calvin (1552)(1995: 302). This I reason requires compatibilism as God alone chooses to regenerate an individual and then influences, moulds and illuminates a person. Calvin writes that our own human minds cannot penetrate this far if guided by human nature alone, Calvin (1552)(1995: 302), and I reason that this eliminates libertarian, incompatibilist free will as an option.

Calvin notes that in this Acts passage, Paul is not dealing with the human ability to believe in saving faith, but is only showing that persons have no excuse when God is not perceived, and Calvin mentions Romans 1:20, which concerns God revealing himself in creation. (1552)(1995: 302-303). E.H. Trenchard notes that in Acts 17: 29-31, Paul is pointing out that a true knowledge of God would eliminate the need for man-made idols. Trenchard (1986: 1298).

I am therefore still convinced, as with my MPhil and PhD dissertations that Paul and Calvin both support concepts of compatibilist and not libertarian, incompatibilist free will in regard to human salvation. The teacher I listened to on-line, in my opinion is correct to assert that the Athenians had the option to seek God through natural revelation. This would point towards monotheism and not Greek gods, but in light of Paul’s teaching in Romans and overall New Testament teaching, it should not be assumed that the Athenians were not Christians based on the fact primarily that they did not choose to be. God still needed to regenerate them as their corrupt nature and resulting sinful choices would not allow these persons in themselves to know Christ by simply intellectually accepting the gospel they previously rejected. A human being will not believe in God and Christ simply by being given the intellectual option by God in grace, to do so.

BOYD, GREGORY A. (2001) Satan and the Problem of Evil, Downers Grove, Illinois, InterVarsity Press.

CALVIN, JOHN (1552)(1995) Acts, Translated by Watermark, Nottingham, Crossway Books.

FEINBERG, JOHN S. (1994) The Many Faces of Evil, Grand Rapids, Zondervan Publishing House.

GEISLER, NORMAN L. (1996) ‘Freedom, Free Will, and Determinism’ in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.

SANDERS, JOHN (1998) The God Who Risks, Downers Grove, Illinois, InterVarsity Press.

TRENCHARD, E.H. (1986) ‘Genesis’, in F.F. Bruce (ed.), The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Zondervan.

C.S. Lewis and wickedness

Cha Grande, Brazil (photo from trekearth.com)

I am very busy with final PhD dissertation revisions and so I provide my third and likely final MPhil dissertation C.S. Lewis presentation. I am in greater agreement with this section of his work than with the other two sections I posted as blog articles. I will provide new material in the Additional 2008 section.

http://thekingpin68.blogspot.com/2006/01/mphil-wales-2003.html

Human Wickedness

Within this chapter, Lewis set out to show the reader that the western culture of his day (1940) had a misunderstanding of human wickedness. He stated that his culture put too much emphasis on kindness being the measure of good, and cruelty the measure of wickedness. Lewis pointed out that this kindness was based on the fact that: "Everyone feels benevolent if nothing happens to be annoying him at the moment." Lewis (1940)(1996: 49).

This is a good point, kindness or niceness is certainly not a measure of goodness. Being nice is a way of dealing with people which is most pleasurable, beneficial and brings about, generally, the most pleasurable and beneficial response. However, someone can be nice with evil intentions, an example would be Judas betraying Jesus with a kiss, or someone can act in unkind fashion but mean something for the good. For example, a Doctor re-broke my nose twice by hand without anaesthetic, after I had been assaulted by a bottle attack. This was cruel treatment and it caused me pain. The first attempt caused blood to pour out, however, the treatment straightened my nose and allowed me to look and breath better while lying down, providing me a better night’s sleep.

As well, kindness or niceness, as Lewis alluded to, often disappears when someone is annoyed. This hardly needs much explanation as we can relate to this with ourselves and others we know. I would think true goodness is an objective standard based on one emulating God, and thus one would be good to others regardless of circumstance.

Lewis also stated that human beings needed to better understand that they were sinful and that Christ and Scripture saw them as so.

He noted that a human being could misunderstand wickedness by comparing oneself with someone else, and making a favourable review. Lewis pointed out that: "Every man, not very holy or very arrogant, has to ‘live up to’ the outward appearance of other men." Lewis (1940)(1996: 53). The reviewer is not fully aware of the sins of the people under review, and at the same time, within public persona, is hiding from the world around him/her, the depth of wickedness within.

Lewis thought that people tend to desire to see wickedness in the sense of corporate guilt. He believed that this was, in a way, evading the problems of individual sin. He noted: "When we have really learned to know our individual corruption, then indeed we go on to think about corporate guilt and can hardly think of it too much." Lewis (1940)(1996: 54).

Yes, it seems rather easy for individuals to allow social systems to do wicked things, and thus have the blame for evil shifted to it. However, Lewis has a point, individuals must take responsibility for thoughts and actions, clean up their own act, and then set out to change systems, if possible.

Lewis also tackled the view that time cancels sin. He made an interesting point here:

The guilt is not washed out by time but by the repentance and the blood of Christ: if we repented these early sins we should remember the price of our forgiveness and be humble. As for the fact of sin, is it probable that anything cancels it? All times are eternally present to God. Lewis (1940)(1996: 54-55).

I agree that time cannot cancel sin, and that this is a huge error in thinking in today’s western world. The example of divorce comes to mind. It seems to me that an adulterer who has abandoned his/her mate after enough time often thinks that all should be forgiven, and that "we should stay friends." Although, I totally agree with God’s call for forgiveness, in the case of sin, friendship should be conditioned on things being set right with repentance, as well as forgiveness taking place. For things to be set right then, a wrong has to be admitted and seen for what it is, evil, and not simply overlooked after a certain amount of time.

Lewis pointed out that nothing could truly cancel sin. Interesting speculation indeed, as he points out Christ paid for our sins, but sin is sin and will have always have taken place. I think, however, that God, as well as paying for sins with Christ, can also render the power of these sins useless in everlasting existence.

Lewis warned against the idea that there is safety in numbers. Just because all people are evil does not make it right for individuals to do evil actions

Additional 2008:

Donald G. Bloesch comments that in philosophy a morally good life is inward satisfaction, peace of mind, and happiness in the sense of well-being. In theology a truly good life is vicarious suffering in service for others. Bloesch (1987: 25).

W.R.F Browning notes that both Testaments anticipate certain punishment for the wicked and there is the wonder of why the wicked prosper. There is often the Biblical idea that eventually punishment shall come for the wicked. Wickedness is a deep-seated evil in the heart of persons and inspired by Satan. Browning (1997: 394).

O.T. Allis explains that wickedness is a rendering of more than a dozen Hebrew words in the Hebrew Bible and five Greek, New Testament words. Wickedness always involves a moral state. Wickedness is used less in the New Testament, but is usually rendered poneros (πονηρoς). Allis (1996: 1171).

Please note that in 2006, I had to have nasal reconstruction surgery. My surgeon here in the Lower Mainland stated that the MD in England who had straightened the nose by hand had made it far worse!

ALLIS, O.T. (1996) ‘Wicked, Wickedness’ in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books

BLOESCH, DONALD G. (1987) Freedom for Obedience, San Francisco, Harper and Rowe Publishers.

BROWNING, W.R.F. (1997) Oxford Dictionary of the Bible, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

LEWIS, C.S. (1940)(1996) The Problem of Pain, San Francisco, Harper-Collins.

http://satireandtheology.blogspot.com/2008/03/theology-of-
common-sense.html