Rolf Hille (PhD Edit)

May 3

Rolf Hille (2004) notes that the issue with theodicy is not only how God can allow suffering in the world, but on a different turn, why do evil persons prosper in God’s creation? Hille (2004: 21).

Hille explains that these considerations on evil and the existence of God led to a criticism of Christianity and religion in Europe in the Eighteenth century and to some degree earlier. Hille (2004: 21). He reasons that a satisfactory self-coherent answer to the question of the justice of God cannot be found in theology or philosophy. Hille (2004: 26).

HILLE, ROLF (2004) ‘A Biblical-Theological Response to the Problem of Theodicy in the Context of the Modern Criticism of Religion’, in Evangelical Review of Theology, Volume 28, Number 1, pp. 21-37. Carlisle, UK, Evangelical Review of Theology.

Sunday

On Sunday the kind host at an event by her own admission ‘sparred’ with me on the topic of free will; she being an Alvin C. Plantinga free will devotee.

I asked her if God was infinite and had more freedom than any of his finite creatures.

She stated, yes.

I stated that by his infinite good nature, God did not require the option to commit evil to either be significantly free or to love.

God was infinite goodness by nature and was immutable.

God cannot violate his own nature although he can will evil for good purposes. If he willed evil for bad purposes this would make him a contradictory, illogical being.

It should also be stated that the finite angels that did not fall by nature are deduced to be perfectly finitely good with significant freedom and yet have never chosen to do evil, although some angels did choose to do evil and sin. But the point still stands, even though all angels may have had an option to choose evil and sin.

Jesus Christ as a man was finitely good, in his humanity, not his divinity where he would have infinite goodness, and also never chose to do evil and sin, and I believe would not, although he did face true human temptation.

Therefore, significantly free creatures do not have to have the option to commit evil and sin by nature and choice, nor do they have to choose to commit evil and sin. Neither are these required to love.

The atoning work of Christ and the resurrection (the Gospels, Ephesians 1-2, Romans 1-3) explains that those in Christ are delivered from sin and the problem of evil into the Kingdom of God, ultimately culminated in a new realm described in Revelation 21-22.

May 3

Kenneth Surin & Impassibility (PhD Edit)

Danube, Budapest: Travel+Leisure & Facebook

Impassibility

Kenneth Surin (1982) writes that God is considered by some within orthodox Christian theology to be unable to experience pain or sorrow.

However, others concede that concluding God is impassible is a questionable view within traditional thought. Surin thinks that perhaps God limits his omnipotence by identifying with human suffering. Surin (1982: 97).

I conclude that God suffers but cannot alter his essential infinite and immutable nature.

Statically my PhD questionnaire survey results showed:

Question 17: God cannot suffer.

Seventy-two (33.8%) respondents chose ‘D’, while 78 (36.6%) respondents preferred ‘DS’. Therefore 70.4% of respondents reason that God suffers in some way. It can be deduced that many of these persons would assume God suffers simultaneously with his creation when they experience the problem of evil.

SURIN, KENNETH (1982) ‘The Impassibility of God and the Problem of Evil’, in Scottish Journal of Theology, Volume 35, Number 1, pp. 97-115. Edinburgh, Scottish Academic Press.

SURIN, KENNETH (1986) Theology and the Problem of Evil, Oxford, Basil Blackwell Ltd.

Facebook: Thankfully, I cannot relate but I will state it seems easier to be lighter on the other side of the Atlantic...

Richard Swinburne (PhD Edit)

Wales, Facebook

Richard Swinburne (1998) notes that many theists and atheists, due to Plantinga’s (free will defence) work, have accepted the logical problem of evil has been eliminated, and yet the evidential problem remains. Gratuitous evil.

He explains that whether or not the logical problem has been eliminated depends on how it is defined, and this ends up being a debate between certain theists and atheists on what hypothetical state of affairs would mean that God does not logically exist.

Michael Peterson (1982) reasons that Plantinga’s free will defense is sound in regard to the logical problem of evil and can be used to show that God must allow gratuitous evil or deny human free will. Peterson thinks Plantinga’s defense does not succumb to gratuitous evil.

Philosopher Doug Erlandson (1991) writes that theist and anti-theist have been debating the problem of evil for centuries, and the basic differing philosophical assumptions made by the two groups means that the debate shall continue.

Within my PhD work and online I have taken a compatibilist theistic position contrary to that of Plantinga's incomaptibilism, although in agreement with Plantinga on holding to traditional, Biblical Christian theism.

I reason a Reformed theistic, compatibilism reasonably deals with the logical problem of evil and gratuitous evil and the evidential problem of evil; and is more reasonable than incompatibilism.

ERLANDSON, DOUG (1991) ‘A New Perspective on the Problem of Evil’, in Doug Erlandson PhD Philosophy, Reformed.org, Orange County, Covenant Community Church of Orange County. 

PETERSON, MICHAEL (1982) Evil and the Christian God, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House. 

PETERSON, MICHAEL (1998) God and Evil, Boulder, Colorado, Westview Press.

PETERSON, MICHAEL, WILLIAM HASKER, BRUCE REICHENBACH, AND DAVID BASINGER (1996)(eds.), ‘Introduction: Saint Augustine: Evil is Privation of Good’, in Philosophy of Religion, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

PLANTINGA, ALVIN C. (1977)(2002) God, Freedom, and Evil, Grand Rapids, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

PLANTINGA, ALVIN C. (1982) The Nature of Necessity, Oxford, Clarendon Press.

PLANTINGA, ALVIN C. (2000) Warranted Christian Belief, Oxford, Oxford University Press. 

SWINBURNE, RICHARD (1998) Providence and the Problem of Evil, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

Very Brief On Sikhism

Scotland-Facebook

From Ankerberg and Weldon that document Sikhism on page 429

The religions purpose is to 'foster universal brotherhood'. Ankerberg and Weldon (1999: 429).

Its founder is Guru Nanak (1999: 429).

The Scriptural source of authority is 'The Adi Granth' ('the original book'). (1999: 429).

Guru Nanak claimed divine inspirations as did many of the 'principal Sikh Gurus'. (1999: 429).

In regard to God, God is considered 'Ineffable (too great to be expressed in words, my addition), and 'One' (1999: 429).

Jesus is considered a human teacher. (1999: 429).

Therefore there would be a rejection of the Christian theology of Jesus as God and God the Son.

The Gospel of John, John 1, John 8 and I John as examples for Biblical reference.

In Sikhism, salvation is considered achieved by works through the guru's grace. (1999: 429).

Human beings are considered inwardly divine. (1999: 429).

Sin is 'ignorance; one primarily sins against the Nam (holy name of God) or against the gurus'. (1999: 429).

Satan is viewed as a Christian myth. (1999: 429). Death is 'ultimately inconsequential' (1999: 429).

Heaven and hell are temporal states or places. (1999: 429).

In my present work as a contracted corporate security officer to a trillion dollar, multi-national corporation, I have befriended two Sikh gentleman that appear to act and live consistently with the concept of 'universal brotherhood'.

The one Sikh gentleman I work with most has abandoned the turban but still holds to the religion while the other still wears the turban. Both seem very kind and concerned friends and human beings. The first gentleman has hosted me along with his wife on two occasions when I needed a place to sleep and stay in Vancouver for two days between a security course and work shifts.

Note, this does not change my core theology, philosophy and worldview in regard to soteriology.

I have had religious and philosophical discussions with both gentleman at off times at work when the public and other employees are not present.

I would at least somewhat agree with the Ankerberg and Weldon assessment, although my knowledge on the topic of Sikhism is limited and therefore I write a limited review.

Jesus would be viewed as a human teacher within Sikhism according to the text and I gather by my friends as well from our discussions.

The religious views of these two Sikh gentleman is basically agnostic as they pray to and believe in God but have both stated in regard to God, Scripture, Satan and satanic beings that no one knows the truth in reality.

In other words, Sikhism at least for these two gentleman is largely a cultural, ethnic, faith that is agnostic.

Blackburn states that agnosticism is the view that 'some proposition is not known, and perhaps cannot be known to be true or false.' Blackburn (1996: 10).

This definition from philosopher Blackburn in my opinion would largely sum up the religious and philosophical views of my two Sikh friends.

In regard to everlasting life for example, when I have discussed and stated the Christian position in support of everlasting life and that Christianity is supported by historical religious Scripture; John 3, I Corinthians 15, Revelation 20-22 as examples, my Sikh friends have leaned toward empirical scientific understandings only.

I am fully in support of empirical evidence and science but also support theological and philosophical approaches to finding truth.

My friends I reason would take an agnostic position on everlasting life as in reasoning anything is possible with God, but do not seem too hopeful.

ANKERBERG, JOHN AND JOHN WELDON (1999) Encyclopedia of Cults and New Religions, Eugene, Oregon, Harvest House Publishers.

BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996) Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press.