Luke 13:1-5 Brief

Wicklow, Ireland

Luke 13:1-5 Brief

Photo: Wicklow, Ireland (trekearth.com)

My friend and website link, Timothy, from West Virginia, posted an interesting article late 2012, which I commented on in 2013. His website link is now dead in 2022.

Evil and Suffering

My website comment, in-part, was on the audio message by Dr. James White, 'Responding to Evil and Suffering' . I stated: 'I think James White is one of the more enlightened theologians today.'

I reason that this was the video that we discussed in 2013. Included.

 

In reviewing the White video, in regard to the problem of evil and problems of evil and suffering, I would agree that a major difficulty with the public is a lack of related education. I would also add to what was stated in that the lack of knowledge in Theology, Philosophy and Philosophy of Religion, is what leads to in-part the emotional reactions to evil that he mentioned. This is ignorance, as well as, universal sinful nature.

Looking at my MPhil and PhD survey results and how important Reformed doctrines were rejected by those within the cultural Christian Church. How much more they would be rejected by the general public. Yes, God wills, directly or indirectly (allows) what occurs, or from the more traditional Reformed theology, this is described in the language of decrees.

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

Worldview education is absolutely needed at this point. I have pointed out many times on my website work that in regard to the problem of evil and theodicy, persons are finite (and sinful) and as within the Hebrew Bible, Job text, this makes judging God impossible to do accurately.

In the audio presentation by James White, Luke 13 is cited as an example of Jesus Christ discussing the universal sinfulness of human kind:

Luke 13: 1-5 New American Standard Bible 

13

Now on the same occasion there were some present who reported to Him about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had [a]mixed with their sacrifices. 2 And Jesus said to them, “Do you suppose that these Galileans were greater sinners than all other Galileans because they suffered this fate? 3 I tell you, no, but unless you [b]repent, you will all likewise perish. 4 Or do you suppose that those eighteen on whom the tower in Siloam fell and killed them were worse [c]culprits than all the men who live in Jerusalem? 5 I tell you, no, but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish.”

Luke 13: 1-5 English Standard Version Bible 

13

There were some present at that very time who told him about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices. 2 And he answered them, “Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans, because they suffered in this way? 3 No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish. 4 Or those eighteen on whom the tower in Siloam fell and killed them: do you think that they were worse offenders than all the others who lived in Jerusalem? 5 No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish.”

Porter in his Luke commentary, explains the hearers of these events seemed to view the sufferers of these events as persons of exceptional wickedness and evil and this why God allowed this evil and suffering to occur to them. A view similar to that of Job's friends in the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament.  And a view sometimes taken by the disciples. Porter (1986: 1210).

Jesus Christ rejects this understanding and instead states that the hearers need to repent or they too will perish. Porter (1986: 1210).

Matthew Henry-Luke 13

From Matthew Henry's Luke commentary:

'3. On these stories he founded a call to repentance, adding to each of them this awakening word, Except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish, Luke 13:3-5.

(1.) This intimates that we all deserve to perish as much as they did, and had we been dealt with according to our sins, according to the iniquity of our holy things, our blood had been long ere this mingled with our sacrifices by the justice of God. It must moderate our censure, not only that we are sinners, but that we are as great sinners as they, have as much sin to repent of as they had to suffer for.

(2.) That therefore we are all concerned to repent, to be sorry for what we have done amiss, and to do so no more. The judgments of God upon others are loud calls to us to repent. See how Christ improved every thing for the pressing of that great duty which he came not only to gain room for, and give hopes to, but to enjoin upon us--and that is, to repent.

(3.) That repentance is the way to escape perishing, and it is a sure way: so iniquity shall not be your ruin, but upon no other terms.

(4.) That, if we repent not, we shall certainly perish, as others have done before us. Some lay an emphasis upon the word likewise, and apply it to the destruction that was coming upon the people of the Jews, and particularly upon Jerusalem, who were destroyed by the Romans at the time of their passover, and so, like the Galileans, they had their blood mingled with their sacrifices and many of them, both in Jerusalem and in other places, were destroyed by the fall of walls and buildings which were battered down about their ears, as those that died by the fall of the tower of Siloam. But certainly it looks further except we repent, we shall perish eternally, as they perished out of this world. The same Jesus that calls us to repent because the kingdom of heaven is at hand, bids us repent because otherwise we shall perish so that he has set before us life and death, good and evil, and put us to our choice.

(5.) The perishing of those in their impenitency who have been most harsh and severe in judging others will be in a particular manner aggravated.'

Porter makes reasonable points. Christ was definitely and definitively in disagreement with the hearers and was pointing out the universal sinfulness of humanity and the need for repentance.

With Henry (1) does not demonstrate that a greater suffering in death demonstrates greater sinfulness by the persons involved.

In regard to (2) because all persons are sinful universally (Genesis, Romans, Galatians, Ephesians, Hebrews as examples) there would be a need for universal repentance by persons involved. At the time Christ spoke this those in the Hebrew faith were awaiting the Messiah and therefore this was stated prior to the atoning work and resurrection of Christ, but it would still be a religion of faith through the grace of God, and not by works (Ephesians 2). I mention universal repentance, but do not hold to universal salvation as only the elect, those chosen in Christ (Ephesians 1, Romans 8) shall be regenerated.

Divine regeneration (John 3, Titus 3, 1 Peter 1) in the gospel work of Jesus Christ, through his applied atoning and resurrection work being required in order for biblical, human repentance to take place.

Certain types of perishing can be avoided (3), through repentance and the Lord meant what was stated.

But on the other hand because the resurrection work is not completed in this life (1 Corinthians 15) all persons do physically perish because of death. In his audio presentation, James White, in my view correctly states that God can therefore justly because of the fall of Genesis 3 take a person. God's commandment to not kill is a reflection of his character and morality, however, God being perfectly holy has the right to kill a sinful human being because of sin.

There is also a philosophical/theological issue to ponder on whether or not the infinite God that exists by necessity would also have the moral right to destroy his finite creatures that do not exist by necessity, if he so wished. Human beings and finite creatures instead being contingent. I reason that God would have that right, as alone being necessary/of necessity. But in love he chooses not to, having an eternal plan for them. 

As I stated in person many times God can justly take the life of a human being from embryo to elderly, in light of Genesis 3 and the fall/sinful nature.

I reason (4) is probably a strong reasonable candidate as an accurate understanding, in that the Temple did fall in Jerusalem in AD 70, and the same fate could befall many of the listeners too if they did not repent. This point (4) seems to make very good sense if tied to (3) as in something that can be avoided, as in to not perish with the Temple within that type of  Hebrew belief system but to have repented in Christ.

Point (5) is speculative in nature, and I will leave that sort of judgment up to God.

---

ALLEN, C. LESLIE (1986) 'Romans' in F.F. Bruce (ed.), <i>The International Bible Commentary</i>, Grand Rapids, Zondervan.

BAUER, WALTER. (1979) A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, Translated by Eric H. Wahlstrom, Chicago, The University of Chicago Press. 

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

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

BRUCE, F.F. (1987) Romans, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

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.

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.

COAD, F. ROY (1986) 'Galatians' in F.F. Bruce (ed.), The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Zondervan.

COURSON, JON (2005) Application Commentary, Thomas Nelson, Nashville.

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

DUNN, JAMES D.G. (1988) Romans, Dallas, Word Books ELLISON, H.L. (1986) ‘Matthew’, in F.F. Bruce (ed.), The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Zondervan.

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

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.

FOULKES, FRANCIS (1989) Ephesians, Grand Rapids, Inter-Varsity Press.

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

HENRY, MATTHEW (1721), Complete Commentary on Luke.
http://www.studylight.org/com/mhm/view.cgi?bk=41&ch=13&vs=1-5

HUGHES, PHILIP. (1990) A Commentary On The Epistle To The Hebrews, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

PORTER, LAURENCE. E. (1986) ‘Luke’, in F.F. Bruce (gen.ed.), The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Marshall Pickering/ Zondervan.

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

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

STRONG, J. (1890)(1986) Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, Burlington, Welch Publishing Company.

The Orthodox Study Bible, New Testament and Psalms, (1993) Saint Athanasius Orthodox Academy,Thomas Nelson Publishers, Nashville, Tennessee.

WHITE, JAMES DR. (2012)  Responding to Evil and Suffering, You Tube.

Probability and Certainty

Egypt-trekearth,com

Beherira Desert-trekearth.com

Probability 

Ellery Eells explains probability is a numerical value that can be attached to items of various events, and kinds of events and measures the degree to which this may or should be expected. Eells (1996: 649). Eells reasons there are multiple interpretations of probability and there are abstract formal calculi and interpretations of the calculi. Eells (1996: 649).

Blackburn writes that 'probability is a non-negative, additive set function whose maximum value is unity'. Blackburn (1996: 304). Applying probability in the real world is more difficult and the first application is statistical. Blackburn (1996: 304). Statistical as in the tossing of the coin, heads versus tails and the frequency of a particular outcome and then calculating the probability of the outcome. Blackburn (1996: 304). One account of probability is therefore known as 'frequency theory', as in the probability of an event with frequency of occurrence. Blackburn (1996: 304). A second account of probability is described as 'an hypothesis as probable when the evidence bears a favoured relationship to it'. Blackburn (1996: 304). These are not empirical measures of frequencies. Basically they would be based on philosophical deductions based in reason. A third approach is sometimes referred to as subjectivism or personalism. Basically not an objective or real evaluation of the world, but rather a subjective evaluation of personal reality. Blackburn (1996: 304). However, Blackburn does write that one should not be governed by empirical frequencies and not by 'licentious thinking' (without restraint). Blackburn (1996: 304).

Certainty

As noted previously on this blog, Edward Gettier has argued in ‘Is Justified True Belief Knowledge?’ that believing something is true does not make it knowledge because the person lacks sufficient conditions for knowing a proposition. Gettier (1997)(1963: 3). In other words, many true propositions would have been deduced as true, not by knowledge but by felicitous (fortunate) coincidence. Klein (2005)(1998: 2-3). I can agree that finite human beings can deduce that something is true without really knowing it. As well, with the human lack of 100% knowledge of anything (only the infinite God has 100% knowledge), it does mean that it is also possible that there could be conditions in existence not known and that a proposition that is held as true is really false. However, I do not think that Gettier’s argument should trouble those who view the Christian faith as certain because Klein points out concerning Gettier’s view that to many thinkers felicitous coincidence can be avoided if the reasons which justify belief are such that they cannot be defeated by further truths. Klein (2005)(1998: 2-3). Klein’s certainty concept in regard to felicitous coincidence is similar to the one described below from The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy. In other words, if views are reasoned by deduction and evidence, they can be considered knowledge provided they are not countered by superior arguments. This does not require 100% certainty of anything, but rather an accurate understanding of conditions that would lead to the formation of propositions and arguments.

As mentioned previously on this blog, from my PhD, a definition of certainty which I would consider helpful would be along the lines of what I found in The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy. Peter D. Klein describes the Cartesian account of certainty as being that a proposition is true if there are no legitimate grounds whatsoever for doubting it. Klein (1996: 113). I like the similar idea that a proposition is certain if there are no counter propositions that are superior. Therefore in regard to the religiously historical, Christian faith, and its belief in Scripture inspired by God, the atoning work of Christ, the resurrection, and everlasting life, these things could be viewed as certain provided there are no legitimate counter arguments that are superior. I believe that evidence shows Christianity is philosophically certain in this sense.  I would consider posts/articles from my this blog and my other blog, Satire And Theology, offering cumulative evidences of certainty.

A classic view on certainty discussed in my PhD and in a previous blog article, I shall briefly review is that of Ludwig Wittgenstein:

He does admit that there is in a sense objective truth, but something would be objectively true only within a system of reason and knowledge through the understanding of reasonable persons. Wittgenstein (1951)(1979: 108). His view allows for the logical possibility that something considered objective truth in one system, is not objective truth in another. Wittgenstein (1951)(1979: 108). Philosophy should, therefore, not be understood as primarily making discoveries, as much a reminding persons of the issues that need to be dealt with when one turns to unfamiliar and uncertain issues. Wittgenstein does act with certainty, but it is his own. This does not in his mind justify his view as objective truth to others, it is simply belief. Wittgenstein (1951)(1979: 175). He reasons that ‘knowledge and certainty belong in different categories.’ Obtaining knowledge is very important, and more vital than having certitude. Wittgenstein (1951)(1979: 308) Knowledge and certainty are two different mental states. Wittgenstein (1951)(1979: 308).

A classic view, but not one I hold to from what I noted.

In regard to probability, I suppose that truth claims could also be made in terms of probability as well as certainty. For example, one could hypothetically state Christianity is 9?% probable using Blackburn's second account as in 'an hypothesis as probable when the evidence bears a favoured relationship to it.'  However, providing a number as percentage does seem somewhat subjective in comparison to using certainty, although not without intellectual value.

Eells states three axioms for probability:

1. Pr (Probability)(X)>0 for all
2. Pr (Probability)(X)=1 if X is necessary
3. Pr (Probability)(X  (or) Y) = Pr (Probability) (X) + Pr (Probability) (Y) where   means logical disjunction or set theoretical union, if X and Y are mutually exclusive. X and Y may be contradictions that both cannot both logically occur as events. Eells reasons these are provable axioms. Eells (1996: 649).

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

EELLS, ELLERY (1996) 'Probability', in Robert Audi (ed.), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, pp. 649-650. Cambridge University Press.

GETTIER, EDMUND L. (1997)(1963) ‘Is Justified True Belief Knowledge?’, in Analysis 23, 1963, 121-123, Nottingham, England. Analysis 23. http://www.ditext.com/gettier/gettier.html

KLEIN, PETER D. (1996) ‘Certainty’, in Robert Audi, (ed), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

KLEIN, PETER D. (1998, 2005). ‘Epistemology’, in E. Craig (ed.), Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, London, Routledge.

WITTGENSTEIN, LUDWIG (1951)(1979) On Certainty, Basil Blackwell, Oxford.

A Good Friend Asked Me If I Ever Considered Using An Attack Blog

The Norwalk Island, India-trekearth.com

Ghaiziabad, India-trekearth

Colle, Siena, Italy-trekearth

At a memorial service after party Sunday, the host and good friend asked me with a grin on his face, if with my blogs I ever searched the web seeking to start Theology and Philosophy confrontations. I stated that I did not not.

Here are the main reasons for my approach:

Biblically as I have noted many times on my blogs there are commandments in regard to love. Jesus Christ in John 13 and John 15 commanded his followers to love each other. Therefore, I should not as a Reformed Theologian, Philosopher and Blogger in any way be involved in an attack blog against other Christians as followers of Christ.

My level of education with four degrees that were highly academic has placed me in a position to write very academic blogs. The first two Christian degrees somewhat more so academic by my own determination to accomplish more difficult academic work, as opposed to less academic work, the last two degrees more so by their own design being United Kingdom/European theses only degrees. On the one hand, today I still have much to learn in Theology, Philosophy of Religion, Biblical Studies, in Academia and in life in general and therefore being finite and sinful it is in reality quite easy to be humble. On the other hand, having done two United Kingdom/European theses, one of 40, 000 words the other of 150, 000 words on the problem of evil and Theodicy, free will and determinism and related, including embedding my own successful, by reviewers admission, Reformed Theodicy, the level of academic difficulty was academically high enough that I could certainly be a very effective Reformed attack Blogger. But this would simply be immoral, unethical and sinful at many points I am certain.

There is also of course the Biblical mandate as noted many times on my blogs to love one's neighbour, meaning others as much as self, as in Matthew 22, Mark 12, Luke 10 and reasonably as a theologian and philosopher Biblically I cannot see this being accomplished by attacking persons, Christian or non-Christian via my blogging efforts.

Romans 13: 8 notes that he who loves his neighbour has fulfilled the law.

This same friend basically stated that I am debating theology everyday, which is in a sense true, at least I am debating it in my head everyday by doing the work, and interacting with blog comments daily and certainly interacting with persons weekly. Avoiding an attack blog concept in no way means that I am avoiding the Biblical command to accurately handle the word of God as in 2 Timothy 2:15 and being able to give a defence for the hope that is in us as 1 Peter 3: 15 states. I am open to the concept of within reason debating and more likely discussing issues. Debating is fine and can be very good in its place, but I seek this in a spirit of love and truth not in a spirit of attack that would be sinful or in animosity.

I was called a 'bulldog' by a BA academic review board member at Columbia Bible College for my debating.

My PhD Viva at Wales, Trinity Saint David went very well because of my debating and knowledge, I was informed by the reviewers.

As I was noting to my friend the host and to a another friend at the party that is Eastern Orthodox, although I am definitively Reformed, I could write posts about each definitive Christian group I have learned about with criticisms. The more I learn about Christian Theology and Philosophy of Religion, the more critiques could be written about each group, so there is room for disagreement, definitely, but also humility as in no group in this realm has 'all their ducks in a row'. And yes, non-Christian world-views can be criticized as well.  Although I favour Reformed views on most issues, usually falling within the Presbyterian and Baptist camps, I do not see good Biblical, Theological and Philosophical reasons to violently attack other Christian groups that I think are less correct. Attacking non-believers would also be wrong as it would be unloving and a poor Christian witness.

Of course I can certainly theologically and philosophically disagree with non-Christian worldviews, which I do.

There are from my perspective, also personal reasons to not write an attack blog, or to participate on the blogs of others in an attacking manner.

I am looking for employment. Not only in the areas of my degrees but perhaps in other areas of work, and I do not want to portray myself online in an unnecessary negative light.

Building blog readership, followers and links may in some cases be accomplished through greater negativity and publicity, but if that is what it would take, I would not be interested.

I have generally made three steps forward and two steps back with my blogs. A slow progression, 2013 being my best year so far, although Stats Counter is now only counting I estimate 20-40% of my pageviews.

Blogger is tracking them.

To be honest, 'being wrong' online in a debate would not be the largest concern, not because I think I know everything, hardly. But with my level of education, I know where to look to find information that I do not know and have learned how to use books very well. My actual approach in life is to switch to student mode when I know less than someone else on a topic/subject.

I am single, I would like to portray myself, in the truthful way, as a professional Theologian and Philosopher of Religion of the Reformed tradition, as a person that understands the love aspect of the Gospel as well as other theological components such as justice and truth.

James Montgomery Boice states that in I John the Church is commanded to love one another five times. This is also taught in 1 Thessalonians 4: 9. Boice (1986: 645). It is a love of not only profession but also 'deeds and action'. Boice (1986: 645).

BOICE, JAMES, MONTGOMERY (1986) Foundations of the Christian Faith, Downers Grove, IVP Press.

Ronald McKing-Google

Evil Versus Suffering (PhD Edit)

Butchart Gardens-trekearth

Butchart Gardens-trekearth

Evil Versus Suffering

Preface

PhD Edit published on this website, February 10, 2013, with additional references

on September 23, 2023.

Evil Versus Suffering

Vermeer, within his study, makes a distinction between evil and suffering.[1]  Evil is a harmful event or situation that causes human suffering.[2]  Natural disasters and disease would be considered evil;[3] whereas, in contrast, suffering is the active emotional human response to evil.[4]  Evil is not suffering, but it is only when human beings attempt to find meaning with the negative results of evil that suffering exists.[5]  As Francis Young (1999) points out, there is no simple satisfactory answer for suffering within theodicy,[6] but the cross of Christ has the power to provide a genuine meaning in the lives of Christians.[7]  Suffering was part of Christ’s redemptive work.[8]  Bonhoeffer writes suffering, along with rejection ‘sum up the whole cross of Jesus’ as he died on the cross, Christ faced human rejection.[9]  Gebara offers a different position when she writes that the suffering of a God-man has been used by certain people to accept their own suffering within conformity,[10] and some religious movements can use this concept of suffering to cover up ‘misery or unjust crosses.’[11]  Gebara notes that suffering caused by evil persons committing wrong actions, should be distinguished from ‘anguish present in every human life.’[12]  The existence of evil is understood,[13] but Vermeer and the Nijmegen school are attempting to make empirical sense of resulting suffering, in light of the saving work of Christ on the cross.  

---

[1] Vermeer (1999: 7).

[2] Vermeer (1999: 7).

[3] Vermeer (1999: 7). 

[4] Vermeer (1999: 7). 

[5] Vermeer (1999: 7).

[6] Young (1999: 556).

[7] Young (1999: 556).

[8] Bloesch (1987: 127).

[9] Bonhoeffer (1937)(1963: 96).

[10] Gebara (2002: 90).

[11] Gebara (2002: 90).

[12] Gebara (2002: 90).

[13] From research, at least within liberal and conservative Christian traditions, evil is deemed to exist, as is the problem of evil.  This is not to state that every single documented religious philosophy acknowledges evil and the problem of evil.

-------------------------------------------------

BARTH, KARL (1932-1968) Church Dogmatics,  The Doctrine of the Word of God: Volume 1, Part One, Translated by J.W. Edwards, Rev. O. Bussey, and Rev. Harold Knight, Edinburgh, T. and T. Clark. 

BARTH, KARL (1932-1968) Church Dogmatics, The Doctrine of Creation: Volumes 1 and 3.  Translated by J.W. Edwards, Rev. O. Bussey, and Rev. Harold Knight, Edinburgh, T. and T. Clark. 

BARTH, KARL (1932-1968) Church Dogmatics, The Doctrine of God: Volume 2, First Half -Volume, Translated by J.W. Edwards, Rev. O. Bussey, and Rev. Harold Knight, Edinburgh, T. and T. Clark. 

BAVINCK, HERMAN (1918)(2006) Reformed Dogmatics Volume 2: God and Creation, John Bolt (gen.ed.), Translated by John Vriend, Baker Academic, Grand Rapids. 

BAVINCK, HERMAN (1918)(2006) Reformed Dogmatics Volume 3: Sin and Salvation in Christ, John Bolt (gen.ed.), Translated by John Vriend, Baker Academic, Grand Rapids.  

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

BONHOEFFER, DIETRICH (1931)(1996) Act and Being, Translated from the German Edition, Hans-Richard Reuter (ed.), English Edition, Wayne Whitson Floyd, Jr., (ed.), Translated by H. Martin Rumscheidt, Fortress Press, Minneapolis.

BONHOEFFER, DIETRICH (1937)(1963) The Cost of Discipleship, Collier Books, Macmillan Publishing Company, New York. 

DARROW, CLARENCE (1928)(1973) ‘The Myth of the Soul’, in The Forum, October, in Paul Edwards and Arthur Pap (eds.), A Modern Introduction To Philosophy, New York, The Free Press.

DARROW, CLARENCE (1932)(1973) ‘The Delusion of Design and Purpose’, in The Story of My Life,  October, in Paul Edwards and Arthur Pap (eds.), A Modern Introduction To Philosophy, New York, The Free Press. 

DAVIES, BRIAN (1999) ‘Impassibility’, in Alan Richardson and John Bowden (eds.), A New Dictionary of Christian Theology, p. 288. Kent, SCM Press Ltd. 

EDWARDS, JONATHAN (1729)(2006) Sovereignty of God, New Haven, Connecticut, Jonathan Edwards Center, Yale University. http://edwards.yale.edu/archive/documents/page?document_id=10817&search_id=&source_type=edited&pagenumber=1 

EDWARDS, JONATHAN (1731-1733)(2006) Law of Nature, New Haven, Connecticut, Jonathan Edwards Center, Yale University. http://edwards.yale.edu/archive/documents/page?document_id=11207&search_id=606108&source_type=edited&pagenumber=1 

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

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

FLEW, ANTONY (1955) ‘Theology and Falsification’, in Antony Flew and A. MacIntrye (eds.), New Essays in Philosophical Theology, London, SCM, in Paul Edwards and Arthur Pap (eds.), A Modern Introduction To Philosophy, New York, The Free Press. 

FLEW, ANTONY (1983)(1996) ‘The Falsification Challenge’, in Antony Flew and A. MacIntrye (eds.), New Essays in Philosophical Theology, in Michael Peterson, William Hasker, Bruce Reichenbach, and David Basinger (eds.), Philosophy of Religion, Oxford, Oxford University Press. 

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. 

FRANKE, JOHN R. (2005) The Character of Theology, Baker Academic, Grand Rapids. 

GEBARA, IVONE (2002) Out of the Depths, Translated by Ann Patrick Ware, Minneapolis, Fortress Press. 

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

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

MOLTMANN, JÜRGEN (1999) ‘Perseverance’, in Alan Richardson and John Bowden (eds.), New Dictionary of Christian Theology, Kent, SCM Press Ltd. 

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

PHILLIPS, D.Z. (1981) Encountering Evil, Stephen T. Davis (ed.),  Atlanta, John Knox Press. 

PHILLIPS, D.Z. (2005)  The Problem of Evil and the Problem of God, Fortress Press, Minneapolis. 

VERMEER, PAUL (1999) Learning Theodicy, Leiden, Brill.

VOSSEN, H.J.M. ERIC (1993) ‘Images of God and Coping with Suffering’, Translated by S. Ralston, in Journal of Empirical Theology, Volume 6, pp. 19-38. Kampen, The Netherlands, Journal of Empirical Theology.

WHALE, J.S. (1958) Christian Doctrine, Glasgow, Fontana Books.

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