Problems of evil statements

Ernest Hepnar photo

From

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

MPhil

(Comments from September 27, 2019 in brackets)

Statements twelve, thirteen, fourteen and fifteen:

Statement twelve stated: The philosophical discussion of the problem of evil is beneficial.

With Anglicans 80% agreed, 14% were not certain, and 6% disagreed. In the Baptist group, 84% agreed, 10% were not certain, and 6% disagreed.

The thirteenth statement stated: Philosophers cannot solve the problem of evil.
 
For Anglicans 84% agreed, 8% were not certain, 8% disagreed. With the Baptists 86% agreed, 12% were not certain, and 2% disagreed.

Statement fourteen stated: There is no single philosophical solution solving every aspect of the problem of evil. 

Within the Anglican Church people surveyed, 88% agreed, 6% were not certain, and 6% disagreed. With Baptists, 86% agreed, 8% were not certain, and 6% disagreed.

I believe that Christ’s restoring work is the ultimate remedy for the problem of evil; however, I do not think there is a single philosophical answer to every individual problem of evil that arises. Logically, individual problems of evil are solvable, but only God has ultimate answers for many of these problems.

(An important idea from my key compatibilistic exemplar, John S. Feinberg, is that there are various problems of evil and therefore, various remedies and solutions. My MPhil thesis and especially my PhD thesis, discussed both logical problems of evil and gratuitous problems of evil and their solutions.)

Statement fifteen: Statement fifteen stated: Philosophers can provide theistic solutions to problems of evil. 

For Anglicans, 44% agreed, 26% were not certain, 30% disagreed. For Baptists, 46% agreed, 22% were not certain, and 32% disagreed.

With statement fifteen, I side with the minority of the responders who agreed that philosophers can provide theistic solutions to problems of evil. For example, I think there are logical arguments that can demonstrate that God can be infinite, omnipotent and perfectly holy, yet have evil exist within his creation. I do not believe there is a logical problem of evil for Christianity that theologians and philosophers cannot solve; however, I still think the overall problem of evil, with all of its complexities, can only be intellectually solved by God.

(I view gratuitous evils as also logically solvable by humanity and provided a solution within my PhD thesis, please see archives. But only God can fully intellectually solve and remedy gratuitous evil (s).)

Human beings can rightly reason that God is not a contradictory being by having evil exist within his creation, but they cannot completely understand how this takes place. There is still a tension in existence.

(Both my theses also focused on practical and contextual theologies that can serve as helps to persons within problems of suffering. Empirical theology also produced useful data in both my works.)

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

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

Remedy to problems of evil

Conwy Castle, 2001

From

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

MPhil 2003

Statement sixteen: This statement was stated as: The only true solution to the problem of evil is through the death and resurrection of Christ. 

Here we have 82% of Anglicans in agreement, 8% not certain, 10% in disagreement. With Baptists, there is definitely a stronger opinion, as 96% are in agreement, with 4% not certain. I placed this statement after the philosophical statements because I believe that the true solution to the problem of evil, in practical terms, is the work of Christ. His work leads to the culminated Kingdom of God where evil is arrested. At this point, the philosophical problem may still exist, but it is rather academic!

From

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

As a moderate conservative that holds to Reformed theology, I reason that the atoning and resurrection work applied to believers in the eventual culminated Kingdom of God is the ultimate remedy for the problem of evil. Mounce (1990: 369-397). I must be clear: theodicy is not the remedy to the problem of evil, but a speculative, and in my case, Biblically based attempt to explain how God deals with evil in his creation. In similar fashion, practical and empirical theology do not offer solutions to the problem of evil, but are theological disciplines which assist persons to understand how evil is comprehended and dealt with in the Christian community and in society at large.

Philosophy (Philosophy of Religion, within Philosophy, in particular) and theology have assisted human beings throughout history to better understand life, but neither of these disciplines can provide a remedy to the problem of evil; however, they can help to explain evil and suffering through effective theodicy.

CALVIN, JOHN (1539)(1998) The Institutes of the Christian Religion, 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.

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

MOLTMANN, JÜRGEN (1993) The Crucified God, Minneapolis, Fortress Press.

MOUNCE, ROBERT H. (1990) The Book of Revelation, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

MOUNCE, ROBERT H. (1995) The New American Commentary: Romans, Nashville, Broadman & Holman Publishers.

October 3, 2019 

I will add that my PhD work also dealt with concept of problems of evil.

Quote:

I can interject and state that academically solving the logical and gratuitous problems of evil by tying them back to God is an ultimate intellectual solution, but there are still practical ramifications to deal with, such as why certain evils occur. The fact that a sovereignty theodicy can logically and reasonable solve its problem of evil, does not mean that suffering often comes with an explanation.

The atoning and resurrection work of God the Son, God-incarnate in Reformed, Christian, biblical, New Testament, theology, applied, ultimately remedies all problems of evil, logical and gratuitous. This includes the eventual biblically promised existence of post-mortem, perfected, resurrected persons in Christ (1 Corinthians 15), the judgement/judgment of those whose names are not in the Book of Life (Philippians 4, Revelation 3, 20, 21) and the restoration of creation to the new heaven and new earth (Revelation 21-22). I would reason this equates to a restored universe, solar system and planet earth.

Why does this realm contain evil?

Caught speeding by...

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

MPhil link

Statement seventeen: The seventeenth statement stated: The Bible does not fully explain why God’s creation contains evil. 

For Anglicans, 68% agreed, 12% were not certain, and 20% disagreed. For Baptists, 60% agreed, 10% were not certain, and 30% disagreed. I would take the position that Scripture does not fully explain the problem.

October 10, 2019 

Within my Christian worldview and my Reformed tradition, I embrace the view that the triune God has revealed divine self historically and progressively from the Hebrew Bible to the New Testament. A reasonable contextual exegesis and evaluation of this scripture will lead to a reasonably correct interpretation of both the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament, texts/books. 

The corruption, fall and further corruption of humanity is explained in Genesis 3, in the Hebrew Bible and then in particular, theologically explained within the Apostle Paul's, New Testament, Book of Romans (but not only in Romans). Such biblical texts and others including the gospels and Revelation explain the nature of human sin and evil, in contrast to the holiness and perfect goodness of God.

The key theology of the bible is that God the Son, God incarnate, Jesus Christ, working within the trinity, provides atonement from sin, and ultimate resurrection (victory over death, post mortem) for those in Jesus Christ leading to an eventual culminated Kingdom of God (2 Peter 3, Revelation 20-22) where this present realm is recapitulated with a new perfected realm.

However, I do not reason that the Bible, with either Testament, exhaustively explains why God's creation contains evil. I agree with the majority of the responders.

I therefore, within my MPhil and PhD theses, and on my websites, besides bible and theology, have relied highly on philosophy of religion. For me, theology provides me with biblical explanations in regards to problems of evil; philosophy of religion provides me philosophical explanations is regards to problems of evil.

As Reformed, my final authority in worldview matters is the scripture, and therefore is Christian theology, but as all truth is God's truth, reasonable and good philosophy of religion can also provide truth. It certainly aids my theology in my academic study of problems of evil, theodicy, free will and determinism. My British work was completed in religion and theology departments, but roughly, as many of my exemplars were within the fields of philosophy and philosophy of religion, as theology.

That was a requirement to pass my MPhil and PhD theses, that being a significant use of both theology and philosophy of religion.

BARCLAY, WILLIAM (1976) The Letters of James and Peter, Philadelphia, The Westminster Press.

BRUCE, F.F. (1986) ‘Revelation’, in F.F. Bruce (gen.ed.), The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Marshall Pickering/ Zondervan.

ERICKSON, MILLARD (1994) Christian Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.

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

FLEW, ANTONY, R.M. HARE, AND BASIL MITCHELL (1996) ‘The Debate on the Rationality of Religious Belief’, in L.P. Pojman (ed.), Philosophy, The Quest for Truth, New York, Wadsworth Publishing Company.

FLEW, ANTONY AND A.MACINTRYE (1999) ‘Philosophy of Religion’, in Alan Richardson and John Bowden (eds.), A New Dictionary of Christian Theology, Kent, SCM Press Ltd.

PAYNE. DAVID F.(1986) ‘2 Peter’, in F.F. Bruce, (ed.), The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Marshall Pickering/Zondervan.

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.

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.

POJMAN, LOUIS P. (1996) Philosophy: The Quest for Truth, New York, Wadsworth Publishing Company.

MACKIE, J.L. (1955)(1996) ‘Evil and Omnipotence’, in Mind, in Michael Peterson, William Hasker, Bruce Reichenbach, and David Basinger (eds.), Philosophy of Religion, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

MACKIE, J.L. (1971)(1977)(2002) ‘Evil and Omnipotence’, in The Philosophy of Religion, in Alvin C. Plantinga, God, Freedom, and Evil, Grand Rapids. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

MOUNCE, ROBERT H. (1990) The Book of Revelation, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

The Importance of Theodicy

The importance of theodicy

Preface 

This article was originally published on Blogger 20091111. I republished 20260226, with significant revisions and additions. 

Photo is of Glasgow Cathedral: Glasgow-Cathedral-09 myhighlands.de 

On the original posting, I mentioned a 2009 USA trip which tied into visiting Wales for my PhD Viva. Now in 2026, quite soon, I will be visiting the UK and France, including Glasgow. This will be my first walking tour of Glasgow, which I have wanted to do for some time. This section below was the basis for some PhD thesis work.

Saturday, September 19, 2020:PhD Full Version PDF: Theodicy and Practical Theology 2010, Wales TSD

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

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

The importance of theodicy 

Some dismiss theodicy entirely and some view it as only having limited value. Hille 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). Ferraiolo explains that many critics of theism would claim the existence of gratuitous evil makes a theodicy a difficult thing to establish in our present world filled with evil. He concludes his article by noting it is not obvious that human suffering is reconcilable with theism. Ferraiolo (2005: 1). Pereboom writes that despite some important work within theodicy over the last thirty years, the problem of evil still remains the greatest challenge to theistic belief. Pereboom (2005: 33). Lindsley notes that many persons are unimpressed by Christian attempts at theodicy. He suggests that theodicy must be careful not to portray itself in a way that it is speaking for God. Lindsley (2003: 3). I fully admit and reason that theodicy is a speculative exercise to a degree, and any person writing on the subject should with humility approach it very carefully. 

Marcel Sarot comments that many feminist theologians see theodicy as dominated by white males, and these feminists reject notions of God’s omniscience, omnipotence, and perfect goodness. Sarot (1997: 29). An important point here is that it needs to be remembered that each writer of theodicy is approaching the subject from theological assumptions. Many theodicy views are written by men and some of these male writers may not adequately portray female and feminist perspectives on the problem of evil. Theologian Carl Henry writes that empirical and philosophical considerations devoid of revelation cannot vindicate God in this evil world. Henry (1983: 282). I can accept Henry’s point, as from a traditional Christian perspective, Biblical revelation is viewed as explaining God’s workings in his creation, although this revelation does not exhaustively discuss the problem of evil. Henri Blocher notes theodicy are failures in themselves and must have ideas within that square with Biblical revelation in order to be true and beneficial. Blocher (1994: 84). I do not agree that all theodicy are failures in themselves, but can grant a Christian theodicy needs the support of Scripture, which connects the reader to the salvific work of Christ. 

It should be noted that a theodicy written from a sovereignty perspective, to be very valuable, needs to focus on how God’s divine plans and purposes are accomplished through the development of human beings. Erlandson explains that many theodicy are fatally flawed since they are too focused on the idea of God creating a world for the best possible state of human beings. Erlandson (1991: 1). The ideas of Erlandson are in line with sovereignty theodicy, which places greater emphasis on God’s perfect and holy plans in willingly allowing the problem of evil to exist in creation, than does free will theodicy. 

Scudder comments that if the sovereignty of God is stressed, and evil is still considered to be reality, then this logically leads to the idea that God causes evil and it is part of a predetermined plan. Scudder (1940: 248). I agree with this notion, but Scudder deduces that a strong view of God willing evil for the greater good means evil could be understood as not really being evil. Scudder (1940: 248). I can understand how a scholar could come to such a conclusion, but a Reformed influenced sovereignty theodicy does not need to agree with this idea which is foreign to both traditional Reformed and conservative theology. 

Robert H. Mounce explains that God directs the affairs in life, for those who love him, for the greater good. Mounce (1995: 187). C.E.B. Cranfield comments that although God can will grievous and evil things to occur, God in Christ works these things towards the greater good, in particular in the context of salvation for those that know Christ. Cranfield (1992: 204). Evil and sin are not to be confused with goodness and obedience within Reformed traditions, but as God willingly allows evil things to occur, his purposes and motives are pure. 

David Ray Griffin critically disagrees with this concept of John Calvin and others, but correctly defines the idea that God’s will must be regarded as righteous, even when we as human beings cannot fully understand the rightness of his judgments, since God is the definition of righteousness. Griffin (1976: 129). Wright reasons the problem of evil can be solved in a straightforward manner by proposing that God predestines evils to occur for a particular purpose, and that persons do not have an answer back for God. Wright (1996: 197). This comment from Wright is accurate from a Reformed perspective. I can interject and state that academically solving the logical and gratuitous problems of evil by tying them back to God is an ultimate intellectual solution, but there are still practical ramifications to deal with, such as why certain evils occur. The fact that a sovereignty theodicy can logically and reasonable solve its problem of evil, does not mean that suffering often comes with an explanation. 

Ultimately, Christ’s atoning work and resurrection leads to a culminated Kingdom of God (Revelation 21-22) with resurrected citizens. That is the solution to the problem of evil within the realm that God intended human beings to have dominion over. A critic can rightly state that everlasting hell and therefore, in a sense, the problem of evil, will still exist. My reply is that an actual everlasting realm of hell, as a place of punishment is not intended for human beings to have dominion over and therefore there is no certain need for a remedy for evil within it. 

 

20260226: Compatibilism v Incompatibilism

The revealed biblical Scripture through God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit, presented via inspired biblical authors is the ultimate and final authority on religious matters, including human salvation, theodicy and problems of evil. But this in no way prohibits God's truth from being found within philosophical theology and theistic philosophy of religion. Especially within Reformed theology and compatiblist positions, coherent, reasonable solutions in regards to theodicy and problems of evil can be found. 

A key example is the insights on incompatiblism versus compatiblism through philosophical means which can be extremely insightful when understood correctly with an open-mind. Another key example is how a Reformed, compatibilistic, perspective can effectively deal with the issue of gratuitous evil.

Compatibilism (Soft determinism)

Grenz, Guretzki and Nordling define compatibilism as the theory that human free will is compatible with God’s sovereign prerogative to determine or will all events. Grenz, Guretzki, and Nordling (1999: 28).  P.S. Greenspan writes that compatibilism holds to the philosophical concepts of free will and determinism being compatible. Greenspan (1998: 1). Louis P. Pojman defines compatibilism as the concept that an act can be entirely determined and yet be free in the sense that it was done voluntarily and without compulsion. Pojman (1996: 596). 

John S. Feinberg explains that compatibilism does not allow for coercion or force (for there to be significant human moral accountability with human will and actions, my add), but holds that God, or some outside force, can simultaneously determine, with the use of persuasion, that actions will or will not take place. Feinberg (1986: 24). 

Feinberg writes that certain nonconstraining conditions could strongly influence actions, in conjunction with human free will performing these actions. Feinberg (1994: 60). With this viewpoint, there will be no contradiction in stating that God would create human beings who were significantly free, unconstrained, and yet these were committed actions that God willed. Feinberg (2001: 637). 

W.T. Stace (1952)(1976) explains that moral responsibility is consistent with determinism in the context of soft determinism and requires it. Stace (1952)(1976: 29). If human actions are uncaused then reward or punishment would be unjustified. Stace (1952)(1976: 29). Stace reasons that there must be at least some human cause within human actions to make them morally responsible acts. Stace (1952)(1976: 30). 

I personally embrace, what I named limited free will, within compatibilism. Human beings through nature, consciousness, desire and will embrace as secondary causes, thoughts, acts and actions. Simultaneously, God, within theistic compatibilism, is the primary cause of all things, but with holy, pure and good motives. Limited free will is compatibilistic, not incompatibilistic, it is not to be confused with libertarian free will.

Incompatibilism (Indeterminism)

Indeterminism is 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. This would include concepts of libertarian free will.

Blackburn explains free will theory requires autonomous beings that are able to perform free actions without any significant influence upon their will. He describes autonomy as the ability of agents to govern themselves, and for this to occur autonomous agents must commit actions which are truly their own. Philosopher Tim Mawson reasons that incompatibilism, which is also known as libertarianism in regard to human free will, believes that true human free will must be uncaused by preceding states. Mawson (1999: 324).

Norman Geisler (1986) describes a form of incompatibilism which he calls self-determinism. Geisler (1986: 75). Moral choices are not caused or uncaused by another being, but are self-caused. Geisler (1986: 75). Incompatibilists, therefore, do not deny there are outside forces that influence significantly free human actions; however, they do not accept any notion that a free act can be caused in a determined sense by one being upon another and remain a significantly free act. Ferre (1973)(1976: 35). Geisler (1986: 75). Mawson (1999: 324). An act cannot be determined or simultaneously determined and remain truly free within incompatibilism. Ferre (1973)(1976: 35). Geisler (1986: 75). Mawson (1999: 324). 

Determinism (Hard determinism)

Simon Blackburn comments that this is the doctrine that human action has no influence on events. Blackburn (1996: 137). Blackburn gives the opinion that fatalism is wrongly confused with determinism, which by itself carries no implications that human actions have no effect. Blackburn (1996: 137). In other words, there are forms of determinism where human actions are significant. 

D.G. Bloesch explains that fate is not chance, but instead is cosmic determinism that has no meaning or purpose. Bloesch (1996: 407). He writes that fate/fatalism would differ from a Christian idea of divine providence and its implied use of determinism, in that fatalism is impersonal and irrational, whereas providence is personal and rational. Bloesch (1996: 407). In contrast to 'fate' or fatalism, biblical, theological determinism, has divine meaning. Thiessen comments that fatalism is not determinism because fatalism holds that all events are caused by fate and not natural causes, and nothing can change these events. Determinism, in contrast, holds that all events occur by necessity. Thiessen (1956: 186).

Tomis Kapitan notes that determinism is usually understood as meaning that whatever occurs is determined by antecedent (preceding cause) conditions. Kapitan (1999: 281). Pojman states that hard determinism holds that every event is caused and no one is responsible for actions, whereas soft determinism holds that rational creatures can be held responsible for actions determined, as long as they are done voluntarily and without force or coercion. Pojman (1996: 586).

In contrast, the compatibilist, soft-deterministic God of Reformed theology allows significant human freedom with the embracing of human thoughts, acts and action via human nature, desires and limited free will. The human ability with significant freedom to embrace thoughts, acts and actions as a secondary cause, philosophically and theologically eliminates God as forcing or coercing human thoughts, acts and actions where there is human, moral, accountability.

I reason God at times, does force or coerce events in regard to humanity, in those cases, there is not significant human moral accountability. For example, a person unwillingly becomes an amputee. This is against the nature, desires and will. A person does not sin by rejecting the amputation with nature, desires and will.

20260226: Gratuitous evil

I also dealt within theodicy with the issue of evidential issue or gratuitous evil for my PhD thesis. The evidential problem was considered less solved than the logical problem; I rejected this idea and documented why this was the case. I reason a sovereignty theodicy/approach can reasonably state that as an infinite, omnipotent God can use all evil for the greater good, no amount of evil is too much or gratuitous. God remains perfectly good and holy in the process. God's plans achieved means the evil he willfully allows is not gratuitous.

Romans 8:28 (New American Standard Bible)
New American Standard Bible (NASB)
Copyright © 1960, 1962, 1963, 1968, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1975, 1977, 1995 by The Lockman Foundation

28And we know that [a]God causes (A)all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are (B)called according to His purpose.

However, from our human perspective much evil often remains unexplainable and very painful.

Gratuitous evil is also known as the evidential argument for evil and has been presented by atheistic philosopher William Rowe on more than one occasion. He presents an argument for gratuitous evil in ‘The Problem of Evil and Some Varieties of Atheism’ in The Problem of Evil.

Rowe’s evidential argument for evil, states the following propositions: Rowe (1990: 1).

(1) God, an omnipotent, omniscient, perfectly good being exists.
(2) Gratuitous evil exists.
(3) A perfectly good being would always eliminate gratuitous evil as far as it can.
(4) There are no limits to what an omnipotent being can do. Rowe (1990: 3).

Rowe concludes that there is no good state of affairs where an omnipotent, omniscient being would be justified in allowing evils where no possible good can arise from them taking place; he also calls these inscrutable evils, which are evils that cannot be understood. Rowe (1990: 3). Rowe’s proposition (1) and those like, seem reasonable from a traditional Christian perspective. Kreeft and Tacelli (1994: 89-99). Proposition (2) is debatable because it assumes that concepts of those within sovereignty and soul-making theodicy are incorrect and that an infinite, omnipotent God cannot use all wrong actions by creatures for the greater good. Calvin (1543)(1996: 37-40). Hick (1970: 292). Proposition (2) really does not prove anything, but simply states a disagreement between Rowe and many within Christian theism on whether or not God’s purposes are being fulfilled, even when horrendous evils occur. Rowe states that there is too much evil that does not make sense in existence. Rowe (1990: 3). Numerous theists would answer that although finite human beings cannot know the purposes of evil, God has a purpose. In my view, the human being is therefore unable to truly judge if too much evil exists. 

Proposition (3) is questionable because it builds upon the debatable proposition (2). It assumes that God cannot use all evil towards the greater good, and since gratuitous evil would exist, it implies that God likely is not a perfectly good being. Proposition (4) can be challenged by the theist because although God technically could rid the world of evil, both Feinberg and Hick for example, have provided good reasons why the creator would allow preventable evil. Feinberg states that eliminating evil would prohibit other divine plans for the greater good, Feinberg (1994: 130). Hick writes that God must allow a hostile imperfect environment in order for soul-making to occur. Hick (1970: 292).

Rowe has written a logical argument, but it is not necessarily true because theists can debate proposition (2) and claim the infinite, perfectly good God can always use the evil actions of his finite creations for the greater good. Calvin (1543)(1996: 37-40). It also can be stated concerning proposition (3) that as Calvin noted, God’s motives would remain pure even while horrendous evils take place, and God need not be less than perfectly good. Calvin (1543)(1996: 40). This would seem reasonable and possible for an infinite deity to accomplish as he is dealing with finite creatures that could never match him in morality, power, and knowledge.

Frances and Daniel Howard-Snyder reason that a way to deny premise (3) is to state that there is no such thing as a minimum amount of suffering that God must allow in order for the greater good to be accomplished. Howard-Snyder (1999: 129). This idea would not accept the critic’s notion that there is a minimum amount of evil and suffering that God must allow in a situation, and if he goes beyond that amount, gratuitous evil has occurred and God therefore does not exist. Howard-Snyder (1999: 129). Jeff Jordon disagrees and argues that the no minimum of suffering claim is false or implausible, because for any distribution of evil for divine purposes there is always a less painful distribution that would accomplish the same purposes. Jordon (2003: 238). 

I think it more likely that for each varying amount of suffering that God willingly allows there are resulting amounts of greater good or evil that occur. There is also the possibility that if God allows a certain amount of suffering in a given situation that the greater good will not occur and therefore God would not allow this amount of suffering to take place. Since the amount of suffering is largely related to the amount of greater good, it is not likely that a smaller amount of suffering could accomplish the same results as a greater amount, either good or bad. I therefore, doubt Jordon’s claim that a less painful distribution of evil would accomplish the exact same purposes. Jordon (2003: 238).

A critic may state that Jesus could have simply atoned for sins by dying with a much less brutal death. Christ could have been beaten less, not been crucified, died in a less painful way, and still died for sins, but I reason that the exact purposes of God would not have been accomplished through less suffering. I conclude that in the case of the death of Christ, a less painful distribution of evil would not have accomplished the exact same purposes. 

Unfortunately from our human perspective, what we may often view as gratuitous unnecessary evil, is in a sense, God accomplishing his purposes in a situation. I can certainly relate on a personal level, with the atheist and non-Christian that deems this as wrong and unfair, but as human beings we are in no position to judge God’s motives and plans in working in his creation in regard to the problem of evil. I have determined that my sufferings which are often very annoying, do not provide me with a strong enough intellectual argument to overcome the Biblical, theological and philosophical evidence for God's existence. 

My suffering, and the suffering of others, is certainly very difficult and often unappreciated, but from Job 40:1-2, from the New American Standard Bible, it states.

Then the Lord said to Job,
‘Will the faultfinder contend with the Almighty? Let him who reproves God answer it.’

---

ADAMS, ROBERT. M (1996) ‘Theodicy’, in Robert Audi (ed.), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

AUGUSTINE (388-395)(1964) On Free Choice of the Will, Translated by Anna S.Benjamin and L.H. Hackstaff, Upper Saddle River, N.J., Prentice Hall. 

AUGUSTINE (398-399)(1992) Confessions, Translated by Henry Chadwick, Oxford, Oxford University Press. 

AUGUSTINE (400-416)(1987)(2004) On the Trinity, Translated by Reverend Arthur West Haddan, in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series One, Volume 3, Denver, The Catholic Encyclopedia.

AUGUSTINE (421)(1998) Enchiridion, Translated by J.F. Shaw, Denver, The Catholic Encyclopedia.

AUGUSTINE (426)(1958) The City of God, Translated by Gerald G. Walsh, Garden City, New York, Image Books. 

AUGUSTINE (427)(1997) On Christian Doctrine, Translated by D.W. Robertson Jr., Upper Saddle River, N.J., Prentice Hall. 

AUGUSTINE (427b)(1997) On Christian Teaching, Translated by R.P.H. Green, Oxford, Oxford University Press. 

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

BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996) ‘Fatalism’, in Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press. 

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

BLOESCH, D. (1996) ‘Fate, Fatalism’, in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books. 

BOURKE, VERNON J. (1958) ‘Introduction’, in The City of God, Translated by Gerald G. Walsh, Garden City, New York, Image Books.

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

CALVIN, JOHN (1539)(1998) The Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book II, Translated by Henry Beveridge, Grand Rapids, The Christian Classic Ethereal Library, Wheaton College. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/institutes.html 

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. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/institutes.html 

CALVIN, JOHN (1540)(1973) Romans and Thessalonians, Translated by Ross Mackenzie, Grand Rapids, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. 

CALVIN, JOHN (1543)(1996) The Bondage and Liberation of the Will, Translated by G.I. Davies, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House. 

CALVIN, JOHN (1550)(1978) Concerning Scandals, Translated by John W. Fraser, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. 

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

CALVIN, JOHN (1553)(1952) Job, Translated by Leroy Nixon, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.

CALVIN, JOHN (1554)(1965) Genesis, Translated by John King, Edinburgh, The Banner of Truth Trust.

CARSON, D.A. (1981) Divine Sovereignty and Human Responsibility, Atlanta, John Knox Press. 

CARSON, D.A. (1990) How Long, O Lord?, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.

CAUTHEN, KENNETH (1997) ‘Theodicy’, in Frontier.net, Rochester, New York, Kenneth Cauthen, Professor of Theology, Emeritus, Colgate Rochester Crozer Divinity School.

CHADWICK, HENRY (1992) ‘Introduction’, in Confessions, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

CLARKE, O. FIELDING. (1964) God and Suffering: An Essay in Theodicy, Derby, Peter Smith (Publishers) Limited. 

CLINES, DAVID J. A. (1986) Job, The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Zondervan.

CLINES, DAVID J. A. (1986) Proverbs, The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Zondervan.

CRANFIELD, C.E.B. (1992) Romans: A Shorter Commentary, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. 

EDWARDS, JONATHAN (1729)(2006) Sovereignty of God, New Haven, Connecticut, Jonathan Edwards Center, Yale University.

EDWARDS, JONATHAN (1731-1733)(2006) Law of Nature, New Haven, Connecticut, Jonathan Edwards Center, Yale University.

EDWARDS, JONATHAN (1754)(2006) Freedom of the Will, Flower Mound, Texas. Jonathanedwards.com.

ERICKSON, MILLARD (1994) Christian Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.

ERICKSON, MILLARD (2003) What Does God Know and When Does He Know It?, Grand Rapids, Zondervan. 

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.

FEINBERG, JOHN.S. (1986) Predestination and Free Will, in David Basinger and Randall Basinger (eds.), Downers Grove, Illinois, InterVarsity Press. 

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

FEINBERG, JOHN.S. (2001) No One Like Him, John S. Feinberg (gen.ed.), Wheaton, Illinois, Crossway Books.

FERRE, FREDERICK (1952)(1976) ‘Self-Determinism’, in American Philosophical Quarterly, Volume 10, Number 3, in John R. Burr and Milton Goldinger (eds.), in Philosophy and Contemporary Issues, London, Collier Macmillan Publishers.

FERRAIOLO, WILLIAM (2005) ‘Eternal Selves and The Problem of Evil’, in Quodlibet Journal, Volume 7, Number 2, April-June, Evanston, Illinois, Quodlibet Journal.

FLEW, ANTONY, R.M. HARE, AND BASIL MITCHELL (1996) ‘The Debate on the Rationality of Religious Belief’, in L.P. Pojman (ed.), Philosophy, The Quest for Truth, New York, Wadsworth Publishing Company. 

FLEW, ANTONY AND A.MACINTRYE (1999) ‘Philosophy of Religion’, in Alan Richardson and John Bowden (eds.), A New Dictionary of Christian Theology, Kent, SCM Press Ltd.

GEIVETT, R. DOUGLAS (1993) Evil and the Evidence for God, Philadelphia, Temple University Press.

GEISLER, NORMAN L. (1975) Philosophy of Religion, Grand Rapids, Zondervan Publishing House. 

GEISLER, NORMAN L. (1978) The Roots of Evil, Grand Rapids, Zondervan Publishing House. 

GEISLER, NORMAN L. (1986) Predestination and Free Will, Downers Grove, Illinois, InterVarsity Press. 

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

GEISLER, NORMAN, L (1999) ‘The Problem of Evil’, in Baker Encyclopedia of Apologetics, Grand Rapids, Baker Books

GREENSPAN, P.S. (1998) Free Will and Genetic Determinism: Locating the Problem (s), Maryland, University of Maryland. 

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

GRIFFIN, DAVID RAY (1976) God, Power, and Evil, Philadelphia, The Westminster Press.

GUNDRY, ROBERT (1981) A Survey of the New Testament, Grand Rapids, Zondervan. 

HAMILTON, VICTOR P. (1988) Handbook on the Pentateuch, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.

HASKER, WILLIAM (1989) God, Time, and Knowledge, Ithaca, Cornell University Press. 

HASKER, WILLIAM (1993) ‘C. Robert Mesle, John Hick’s Theodicy: A Process Humanist Critique’, in Philosophy of Religion, Volume 34, Number 1, pp. 55-56. Dordrecht, Netherlands, Philosophy of Religion. 

HASKER, WILLIAM (1994) ‘Can Philosophy Defend Theology?’, in Faith and Philosophy, Volume 11, Number 2, April, pp. 272-278. Wilmore, Kentucky, Asbury College. 

HASKER, WILLIAM (2000) ‘The Problem of Evil in Process Theism and Classical Free Will Theism’, in Process Studies, Volume. 29, Number 2, Fall-Winter, pp. 194-208. Claremont, California, Religion Online. 

HASKER, WILLIAM (2003) ‘Counterfactuals and Evil’, in Philosophia Christi, Volume 5, Number 1, pp. 235-249. La Mirada, California, Biola University. 

HASKER, WILLIAM (2003) ‘Is Free-Will Theism Religiously Inadequate? A Reply to Ciocchi’, in Religious Studies, Volume 39, Number 4, December, pp. 431-440. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. 

HASKER, WILLIAM (2007) ‘Peter van Inwagen, The Problem of Evil’, in Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews, Notre Dame, Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews. 

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

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. 

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. 

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.

HOWARD-SNYDER, DANIEL AND JOHN O’LEARY-HAWTHORNE (1998) ‘Transworld Sanctity and Plantinga’s Free Will Defence’, in International Journal for Philosophy of Religion, Volume 44, Number 1, August, Springer, Netherlands, Publisher International Journal for Philosophy of Religion.

HOWARD-SNYDER, FRANCES AND DANIEL (1999) ‘Is Theism Compatible with Gratuitous Evil?’, American Philosophical Quarterly, Volume 26, Number 2, April, pp. 115-130, Chicago, University of Illinois.

HUGHES, PHILIP, EDGCUMBE (1990) A Commentary On The Epistle To The Hebrews, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. The Orthodox Study Bible, New Testament and Psalms, (1993) Saint Athanasius Orthodox Academy,Thomas Nelson Publishers, Nashville, Tennessee.

JORDAN, JEFF (2003) ‘Evil and Van Inwagen’, Faith and Philosophy, Volume 20, Number 2, pp. 236-238. Wilmore, Kentucky, Asbury College.

JORDAN, MARK D. (1996) ‘Augustine’, in Robert Audi (ed.), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, pp. 52-53. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

KAPITAN, TOMIS (1996) ‘Free Will Problem’, in Robert Audi (ed.), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. 

KRAUT, RICHARD (1996) ‘Plato’, in Robert Audi (ed.), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, pp. 619-629. Cambridge University Press.

KREEFT, PETER AND RONALD K. TACELLI (1994) Handbook of Christian Apologetics, Downers Grove, Illinois, InterVarsity Press.

LEIBNIZ, G.W. (1710)(1998) Theodicy, Translated by E.M. Huggard Chicago, Open Court Classics. 

LINDSLEY, ART (2003) ‘The Problem of Evil’, Knowing & Doing, Winter, Springfield, Virginia, C.S. Lewis Institute.  

MACDONALD, SCOTT (1989) ‘Augustine’s Christian-Platonist Account of Goodness’, in The New Scholasticism, Volume 63, Number 4, pp. 485-509. Baltimore, The New Scholasticism. 

MACKIE, J.L. (1955)(1996) ‘Evil and Omnipotence’, in Mind, in Michael Peterson, William Hasker, Bruce Reichenbach, and David Basinger (eds.), Philosophy of Religion, Oxford, Oxford University Press. 

MACKIE, J.L. (1971)(1977)(2002) ‘Evil and Omnipotence’, in The Philosophy of Religion, in Alvin C. Plantinga, God, Freedom, and Evil, Grand Rapids. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. 

MARSHALL, ALFRED (1975)(1996) The Interlinear KJV-NIV, Grand Rapids, Zondervan.

MAWSON, TIM (1999) ‘The Problem of Evil and Moral Indifference’, in Religious Studies, Volume 35, pp. 323-345. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. 

MESLE, C. ROBERT (1991) John Hick’s Theodicy, New York, St. Martin’s Press. 

MESLE, C. ROBERT (2004) ‘Suffering, Meaning, and the Welfare of Children: What Do Theodicies Do?’, in American Journal of Theology & Philosophy, Volume 25, Number 3, September. Lamoni, Iowa, Graceland University. 

MOUNCE, ROBERT H. (1990) The Book of Revelation, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

MOUNCE, ROBERT H. (1995) The New American Commentary: Romans, Nashville, Broadman & Holman Publishers. 

LAFOLLETTE, HUGH (1980) ‘Plantinga on Free Will Defence’, in International Journal for Philosophy of Religion, 11, The Hague, Martimus Nijhoff Publishers.

LA SOR, WILLIAM SANFORD, DAVID ALLAN HUBBARD, AND FREDERIC WILLIAM BUSH. (1987) Old Testament Survey, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

PAILIN, DAVID A. (1994) (David Arthur) 1936- Worldcat.org

 

PAILIN, DAVID A. (1999) ‘Deism’, in Alan Richardson and John Bowden (eds.), A New Dictionary of Christian Theology, Kent, SCM Press Ltd. 

PAILIN, DAVID A. (1999) ‘Enlightenment’, in Alan Richardson and John Bowden (eds.), A New Dictionary of Christian Theology, Kent, SCM Press Ltd. 

PAILIN, DAVID A. (1999) ‘Process Theology’, in Alan Richardson and John Bowden (eds.), A New Dictionary of Christian Theology, Kent, SCM Press Ltd.

PEREBOOM, DERK (2005) ‘The Problem of Evil’, in The Blackwell Guide to Philosophy of Religion, William E. Mann, (ed.), Oxford, Blackwell Publishing. 

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

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.

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.

PLATO (360 B.C.)(1982) ‘Timaeus’, in Process Studies, Volume. 12, Number 4, Winter, pp.243-251. Claremont, California, Process Studies. 

POJMAN, LOUIS P. (1996) Philosophy: The Quest for Truth, New York, Wadsworth Publishing Company.

ROWE, WILLIAM L. (1990) ‘The Problem of Evil and Some Varieties of Atheism’, in Adams and Adams (eds.) The Problem of Evil, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

ROWE, WILLIAM L. (1994) ‘The Problem of No Best World’, Faith and Philosophy, Volume 11, Number 2, April, pp. 269-278. Wilmore, Kentucky, Asbury College. 

ROWE, WILLIAM L. (1996) ‘Privation’, in Robert Audi, (ed.), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. 

ROWE, WILLIAM L. (1999) ‘The Problem of Divine Sovereignty and Human Freedom’, in Faith and Philosophy, Volume 16, Number 1, January, pp. 98-101. Wilmore, Kentucky, Asbury College

SAROT, MARCEL (1997) ‘Evil, Tragedy and Feminist Theology: New Impulses for Theodicy’, in Theology Digest, Volume 44, Number 1, Spring, pp. 29-33. St. Louis, Missouri, Theology Digest. 

SCUDDER, DELTON, LEWIS (1940) Tennant’s Philosophical Theology, London, Oxford University Press. 

STACE, W.T. (1952)(1976) Religion and the Modern Mind, in John R. Burr and Milton Goldinger (eds), Philosophy and Contemporary Issues, London, Collier Macmillan Publishers. 

THIESSEN, HENRY C. (1956) Introductory Lectures in Systematic Theology, Grand Rapids, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

VAN INWAGEN, PETER (2006) The Problem of Evil, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

WICKHAM, EDWARD R. ‘Forward’, in O.Fielding.Clarke (1964) God and Suffering: An Essay in Theodicy, Derby, Peter Smith (Publishers) Limited. 

WRIGHT, R.K.McGREGOR (1996) No Place for Sovereignty, Downers Grove, Illinois, InterVarsity Press.

PhD: Twitter quote 96

PhD: Twitter quote 96

From my PhD thesis with in-notes (text) replacing footnotes.

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

Saturday, September 19, 2020: PhD Full Version PDF: Theodicy and Practical Theology 2010, Wales TSD 

PhD PDF Version

I must be clear: theodicy is not the remedy to the problem of evil, but a speculative, and in my case, Biblically based attempt to explain how God deals with evil in his creation. Lindsley (2003: 3). In similar fashion, practical and empirical theology do not offer solutions to the problem of evil, but are theological disciplines Winquest (1987: 1) Francis (2005: 1), which assist persons to understand how evil is comprehended and dealt with in the Christian community and in society at large. 

Twitter version I

Theodicy is not the remedy to problems of evil, but is a speculative, in my case, biblical attempt at explaining how God deals with evils in his creation. 

Twitter version II

Practical and empirical theologies do not solve problems of evil, but can assist with comprehension and comfort. 

July 29, 2021 

The applied atoning and resurrection, gospel work of God the Son, Jesus Christ to those in him (Romans 9, 1 Corinthians 15, Ephesians 1-2, 1 Thessalonians 4-5, 2 Thessalonians 2, as examples), is ultimately culminated post-mortem. It is simultaneously applied in the restoration of the universe as in time, space and matter (alluded to in 2 Peter 3, Revelation 20-22 as examples). This  is the ultimate remedy to problems of evil. Problems of evil within the universe and earth will be remedied and will cease within the culminated Kingdom of God. 

The unregenerate ultimately post-mortem, will reside in the lake of fire (hell 2) as death, and hades (hell 1) are thrown into the lake of fire (hell 2)(Revelation 20: 14). I acknowledge the use of figurative language here, but reason there is a figurative, literal aspect to what is being described in this apocalyptic (revealed, revelation) literature, which is eschatological, last things, literature.

As I dealt with in my PhD thesis, the lake of fire was/is not an everlastingly intended existence for humanity to flourish in, it is the second death, everlasting death. It is not restored. A divine legacy of those that reject God and the gospel, perhaps? (Still within my Reformed, compatibilistic model)

BRUCE, F.F. (1986) ‘Revelation’, in F.F. Bruce (gen.ed.), The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Marshall Pickering/ Zondervan.

FRANCIS, LESLIE J. and Practical Theology Team (2005) ‘Practical and Empirical Theology’, University of Wales, Bangor website, University of Wales, Bangor. 

LINDSLEY, ART (2003) ‘The Problem of Evil’, Knowing & Doing, Winter, Springfield, Virginia, C.S. Lewis Institute. 

MOUNCE, ROBERT H. (1990) The Book of Revelation, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

WINQUIST, CHARLES E. (1987) ‘Re-visioning Ministry: Postmodern Reflections’, in Lewis S Mudge and James N. Poling, Formation and Reflection: The Promise of Practical Theology by Lewis S Mudge and James N. Poling, Philadelphia, Fortress Press. 

Job: Non-exhaustive on Zoom Bible Study II

Job: Non-exhaustive on Zoom Bible Study II

Image: Journey to Space, Saturn and our Moon, September 5 2022

Preface

Part II from a Zoom bible study on Job. The study is not from our church, but features good scholarship.

My friend, the professor, mentioned in his introduction that I had worked with theodicy. True. Below is a website link to my academic work on theodicy.

website archives: theodicy 

I do not view the Book of Job as offering a formal theodicy within philosophy/theology based on modern academic standards. In modern terms, this Hebrew Bible text does deal with issues in regards to theodicy. The author/narrator of Job is explaining that God is sovereign, perfectly good, just and holy, while simultaneously, human problems of evil exist.

It needs to be considered that yes Job was righteous in the Hebrew Bible context. As Clines states the text documents: 'That Job is a blameless and upright man, i.e. is beyond reproach, not that he is sinlessly perfect, is affirmed by the narrator, by God (I: 8) and by himself (chs. 29 ff.). (522).' Job was not sinlessly perfect in a New Testament context. Eventually, port-mortem, the pre-New Covenant, Job requires the applied atoning and resurrection work of Jesus Christ, applied to him for salvation (see Hebrews, especially).

As Job in the text, is still part of fallen humanity. Job, although righteous, by Hebrew Bible standards, is still in need of God's justification and sanctification (applying New Testament theology here) and problems of evil and suffering can be divinely, justly, used within this process.

Theodicy explained

Robert M. Adams notes that the word theodicy is from the Greek, as theos (θεός) is God and dike (δίκη) is justice. Theodicy is a defence of the justice of God in the face of objections arising from the problem of evil in the world. Adams (1996: 794). The term arose with the book from Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz in 1710 entitled Theodicy.  

Philosopher Simon Blackburn (1996) writes that theodicy is the part of theology concerned with defending the omnibenevolence and omnipotence of God while suffering and evil exists in the world. Blackburn (1996: 375). A reasonable definition of theodicy is the explanation of how the infinite, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent, all loving God accomplishes his plans within his creation where the problem of evil exists. 

God for many theists is, to note Blackburn, the unlimited and unfixed. Blackburn (1996: 193). God is considered infinite and his creation finite and therefore limited. Humanist Blackburn, from a non-theistic critical perspective, reasons there are difficulties with the concept of an omnipotent God not being able to make a stone so heavy he could not lift it, as this would make God possibly contradictory Blackburn (1996: 268), but does explain that the classic explanation is that God cannot commit the logically impossible. Blackburn (1996: 268).

Philosopher Derk Pereboom (2005) writes that it is a project attempting to defend God in the face of the problem of evil. Pereboom (2005:1). Christian apologist, Art Lindsley (2003) reasons that it can be understood as a justification of God’s ways. Lindsley (2003: 3). Kenneth Cauthen explains that it is an attempt to hold to the omnipotence and loving nature of God without contradiction. Cauthen (1997: 1).

Edward R.Wickham (1964) explains that it asks how human suffering can be reconciled with the goodness of God. Wickham (1964: vii). How can evil occur if God loves humanity? Wickham (1964: vii). 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: 22). The Eighteenth century Hille (2004: 22) was when Leibniz’ book Theodicy, Leibniz, G.W. (1710)(1998), was published. In this era of history, when much of the modern debate concerning the problem of evil and theodicy began. Hille (2004: 22). 

William Hasker (2007) in his review of Peter van Inwagen’s book The Problem of Evil, explains that a theodicy, unlike a defence, attempts to state the true reasons why evil exists in a creation and world ruled by God. Hasker (2007: 1). Theistic and Christian theodicy are therefore largely a response to initial Seventeenth, and primarily Eighteenth century and forward, secular criticisms of the theology and philosophy of God within religion and Christianity.

Plantinga states that a defence and theodicy are different. Plantinga (1977)(2002: 28). In my view, as equally speculative, a defence can be reviewed under the intellectual umbrella of theodicy. In my view, in agreement with my short term academic tutor at Manchester University, Professor David Pailin, there are enough similarities between defence and theodicy to allow a defence to be reviewed under the general heading of theodicy. 

---

ADAMS, ROBERT. M (1996) ‘Theodicy’, in Robert Audi (ed.), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

AUGUSTINE (388-395)(1964) On Free Choice of the Will, Translated by Anna S.Benjamin and L.H. Hackstaff, Upper Saddle River, N.J., Prentice Hall. 

AUGUSTINE (398-399)(1992) Confessions, Translated by Henry Chadwick, Oxford, Oxford University Press. 

AUGUSTINE (400-416)(1987)(2004) On the Trinity, Translated by Reverend Arthur West Haddan, in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series One, Volume 3, Denver, The Catholic Encyclopedia.

AUGUSTINE (421)(1998) Enchiridion, Translated by J.F. Shaw, Denver, The Catholic Encyclopedia.

AUGUSTINE (426)(1958) The City of God, Translated by Gerald G. Walsh, Garden City, New York, Image Books. 

AUGUSTINE (427)(1997) On Christian Doctrine, Translated by D.W. Robertson Jr., Upper Saddle River, N.J., Prentice Hall. 

AUGUSTINE (427b)(1997) On Christian Teaching, Translated by R.P.H. Green, Oxford, Oxford University Press. 

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

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

BOURKE, VERNON J. (1958) ‘Introduction’, in The City of God, Translated by Gerald G. Walsh, Garden City, New York, Image Books.

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

CALVIN, JOHN (1539)(1998) The Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book II, Translated by Henry Beveridge, Grand Rapids, The Christian Classic Ethereal Library, Wheaton College. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/institutes.html 

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. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/institutes.html 

CALVIN, JOHN (1540)(1973) Romans and Thessalonians, Translated by Ross Mackenzie, Grand Rapids, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. 

CALVIN, JOHN (1543)(1996) The Bondage and Liberation of the Will, Translated by G.I. Davies, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House. 

CALVIN, JOHN (1550)(1978) Concerning Scandals, Translated by John W. Fraser, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. 

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

CALVIN, JOHN (1553)(1952) Job, Translated by Leroy Nixon, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.

CALVIN, JOHN (1554)(1965) Genesis, Translated by John King, Edinburgh, The Banner of Truth Trust.

CAUTHEN, KENNETH (1997) ‘Theodicy’, in Frontier.net, Rochester, New York, Kenneth Cauthen, Professor of Theology, Emeritus, Colgate Rochester Crozer Divinity School.

CHADWICK, HENRY (1992) ‘Introduction’, in Confessions, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

CLARKE, O. FIELDING. (1964) God and Suffering: An Essay in Theodicy, Derby, Peter Smith (Publishers) Limited. 

CLINES, DAVID J. A. (1986) Job, The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Zondervan.

CLINES, DAVID J. A. (1986) Proverbs, The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Zondervan.

CRANFIELD, C.E.B. (1992) Romans: A Shorter Commentary, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. 

EDWARDS, JONATHAN (1729)(2006) Sovereignty of God, New Haven, Connecticut, Jonathan Edwards Center, Yale University.

EDWARDS, JONATHAN (1731-1733)(2006) Law of Nature, New Haven, Connecticut, Jonathan Edwards Center, Yale University.

EDWARDS, JONATHAN (1754)(2006) Freedom of the Will, Flower Mound, Texas. Jonathanedwards.com.

ERICKSON, MILLARD (1994) Christian Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.

ERICKSON, MILLARD (2003) What Does God Know and When Does He Know It?, Grand Rapids, Zondervan. 

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.

FEINBERG, JOHN.S. (1986) Predestination and Free Will, in David Basinger and Randall Basinger (eds.), Downers Grove, Illinois, InterVarsity Press. 

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

FEINBERG, JOHN.S. (2001) No One Like Him, John S. Feinberg (gen.ed.), Wheaton, Illinois, Crossway Books.

FERRAIOLO, WILLIAM (2005) ‘Eternal Selves and The Problem of Evil’, in Quodlibet Journal, Volume 7, Number 2, April-June, Evanston, Illinois, Quodlibet Journal.

FLEW, ANTONY, R.M. HARE, AND BASIL MITCHELL (1996) ‘The Debate on the Rationality of Religious Belief’, in L.P. Pojman (ed.), Philosophy, The Quest for Truth, New York, Wadsworth Publishing Company. 

FLEW, ANTONY AND A.MACINTRYE (1999) ‘Philosophy of Religion’, in Alan Richardson and John Bowden (eds.), A New Dictionary of Christian Theology, Kent, SCM Press Ltd.

GEIVETT, R. DOUGLAS (1993) Evil and the Evidence for God, Philadelphia, Temple University Press. 

GRIFFIN, DAVID RAY (1976) God, Power, and Evil, Philadelphia, The Westminster Press.

GUNDRY, ROBERT (1981) A Survey of the New Testament, Grand Rapids, Zondervan. 

HAMILTON, VICTOR P. (1988) Handbook on the Pentateuch, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.

HASKER, WILLIAM (1989) God, Time, and Knowledge, Ithaca, Cornell University Press. 

HASKER, WILLIAM (1993) ‘C. Robert Mesle, John Hick’s Theodicy: A Process Humanist Critique’, in Philosophy of Religion, Volume 34, Number 1, pp. 55-56. Dordrecht, Netherlands, Philosophy of Religion. 

HASKER, WILLIAM (1994) ‘Can Philosophy Defend Theology?’, in Faith and Philosophy, Volume 11, Number 2, April, pp. 272-278. Wilmore, Kentucky, Asbury College. 

HASKER, WILLIAM (2000) ‘The Problem of Evil in Process Theism and Classical Free Will Theism’, in Process Studies, Volume. 29, Number 2, Fall-Winter, pp. 194-208. Claremont, California, Religion Online. 

HASKER, WILLIAM (2003) ‘Counterfactuals and Evil’, in Philosophia Christi, Volume 5, Number 1, pp. 235-249. La Mirada, California, Biola University. 

HASKER, WILLIAM (2003) ‘Is Free-Will Theism Religiously Inadequate? A Reply to Ciocchi’, in Religious Studies, Volume 39, Number 4, December, pp. 431-440. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. 

HASKER, WILLIAM (2007) ‘Peter van Inwagen, The Problem of Evil’, in Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews, Notre Dame, Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews. 

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

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. 

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.

HOWARD-SNYDER, DANIEL AND JOHN O’LEARY-HAWTHORNE (1998) ‘Transworld Sanctity and Plantinga’s Free Will Defence’, in International Journal for Philosophy of Religion, Volume 44, Number 1, August, Springer, Netherlands, Publisher International Journal for Philosophy of Religion.

HUGHES, PHILIP, EDGCUMBE (1990) A Commentary On The Epistle To The Hebrews, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. The Orthodox Study Bible, New Testament and Psalms, (1993) Saint Athanasius Orthodox Academy,Thomas Nelson Publishers, Nashville, Tennessee.

JORDAN, MARK D. (1996) ‘Augustine’, in Robert Audi (ed.), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, pp. 52-53. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

KRAUT, RICHARD (1996) ‘Plato’, in Robert Audi (ed.), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, pp. 619-629. Cambridge University Press.

LEIBNIZ, G.W. (1710)(1998) Theodicy, Translated by E.M. Huggard Chicago, Open Court Classics. 

LINDSLEY, ART (2003) ‘The Problem of Evil’, Knowing & Doing, Winter, Springfield, Virginia, C.S. Lewis Institute. 

MACDONALD, SCOTT (1989) ‘Augustine’s Christian-Platonist Account of Goodness’, in The New Scholasticism, Volume 63, Number 4, pp. 485-509. Baltimore, The New Scholasticism. 

MACKIE, J.L. (1955)(1996) ‘Evil and Omnipotence’, in Mind, in Michael Peterson, William Hasker, Bruce Reichenbach, and David Basinger (eds.), Philosophy of Religion, Oxford, Oxford University Press. 

MACKIE, J.L. (1971)(1977)(2002) ‘Evil and Omnipotence’, in The Philosophy of Religion, in Alvin C. Plantinga, God, Freedom, and Evil, Grand Rapids. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. 

MARSHALL, ALFRED (1975)(1996) The Interlinear KJV-NIV, Grand Rapids, Zondervan.

MOUNCE, ROBERT H. (1995) The New American Commentary: Romans, Nashville, Broadman & Holman Publishers. 

LAFOLLETTE, HUGH (1980) ‘Plantinga on Free Will Defence’, in International Journal for Philosophy of Religion, 11, The Hague, Martimus Nijhoff Publishers.

LA SOR, WILLIAM SANFORD, DAVID ALLAN HUBBARD, AND FREDERIC WILLIAM BUSH. (1987) Old Testament Survey, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

PAILIN, DAVID A. (1999) ‘Deism’, in Alan Richardson and John Bowden (eds.), A New Dictionary of Christian Theology, Kent, SCM Press Ltd. 

PAILIN, DAVID A. (1999) ‘Enlightenment’, in Alan Richardson and John Bowden (eds.), A New Dictionary of Christian Theology, Kent, SCM Press Ltd. 

PAILIN, DAVID A. (1999) ‘Process Theology’, in Alan Richardson and John Bowden (eds.), A New Dictionary of Christian Theology, Kent, SCM Press Ltd.

 

Pailin, David A. (David Arthur) 1936- Worldcat.org

PEREBOOM, DERK (2005) ‘The Problem of Evil’, in The Blackwell Guide to Philosophy of Religion, William E. Mann, (ed.), Oxford, Blackwell Publishing. 

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

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.

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.

PLATO (360 B.C.)(1982) ‘Timaeus’, in Process Studies, Volume. 12, Number 4, Winter, pp.243-251. Claremont, California, Process Studies. 

POJMAN, LOUIS P. (1996) Philosophy: The Quest for Truth, New York, Wadsworth Publishing Company.

ROWE, WILLIAM L. (1990) ‘The Problem of Evil and Some Varieties of Atheism’, in Adams and Adams (eds.) The Problem of Evil, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

SAROT, MARCEL (1997) ‘Evil, Tragedy and Feminist Theology: New Impulses for Theodicy’, in Theology Digest, Volume 44, Number 1, Spring, pp. 29-33. St. Louis, Missouri, Theology Digest. 

SCUDDER, DELTON, LEWIS (1940) Tennant’s Philosophical Theology, London, Oxford University Press. 

VAN INWAGEN, PETER (2006) The Problem of Evil, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

WICKHAM, EDWARD R. ‘Forward’, in O.Fielding.Clarke (1964) God and Suffering: An Essay in Theodicy, Derby, Peter Smith (Publishers) Limited. 

WRIGHT, R.K.McGREGOR (1996) No Place for Sovereignty, Downers Grove, Illinois, InterVarsity Press.