Double feature: God is not my buddy/Two types of knowledge

'God is not my buddy' is a new presentation based on thoughts I have had the last few months.

'Two types of knowledge' is again work from my MPhil/PhD theses that I have presented prior to having more readership. Therefore it is still new to most of you and I have no problem presenting it once again.

Thanks, and comments are appreciated.

God is not my buddy

I hold to orthodox Christian theology within the Reformed tradition. I came to this not primarily by family or by being led to the Lord by a person or persons, but by God providing influences as a child and eventually through years of academic study where with God's help I sought to be as objective as possible, although I do not claim complete objectivity.

I reason that in God's love I am saved by grace through faith in the atoning and resurrection work of Christ, and Ephesians 2: 8-10 is a good summary of my reasoning.

Ephesians 2:8-10 (New American Standard Bible)

8For (A)by grace you have been saved (B)through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is (C)the gift of God;

9(D)not as a result of works, so that (E)no one may boast.

10For we are His workmanship, (F)created in (G)Christ Jesus for (H)good works, which God (I)prepared beforehand so that we would (J)walk in them.

A buddy of mine would rid me of many of my very annoying problems, if possible. If reasonably possible, a buddy would rid me of my vitreous floaters if he/she was an opthamologist. A buddy would assist me with overcoming my sleep apnea, if he/she was a qualified surgeon. A buddy would help me find a good woman to marry, if he/she could.

Basically, from my problem of evil research, I could conclude that often the critic of the New Testament God, rejects this God because this God will often not do the good things for each of us that a buddy would do.

A buddy would not let us suffer and die if he or she could prevent it, and would not, for the most part, allow our dearest friends to suffer and die.

And yet, within Christianity God is viewed as this perfect and holy God and yet so much evil exists.

I reason God created human beings in such a way that he knew they would freely fall into sin. They were not forced to coerced to do so, and yet God willed it. God would save those he predestined and the elect would have experienced the problem of evil, sin, suffering, salvation in Christ, death, and the results of the atoning and resurrection work of Christ culminated in each person within their personal resurrection and existence in the everlasting Kingdom.

In my PhD thesis I speculate that these were the type of human beings that God wished to develop. If Adam and Eve or the first human like beings had been different and were significantly free and never committed evil acts in thought and deed, they would not have developed into the type of human beings the creator God appears to ultimately desire. God has every right and the power to create the significantly good and free creatures he wants. He has chosen to have redeemed and restored human physical beings in his culminated Kingdom, rather than sinless ones, other than Jesus Christ himself, of course, who is both God and man.

I do not agree with theistic and Christian free will theorists that cite incompatibilism and that God could not create significantly free beings that would never commit evil acts. In agreement with compatibilism and many within Reformed theology, I reason this limits God's sovereignty, and frankly overlooks the fact that angels are likely significantly free creatures and many of them stayed loyal to God and never fell into evil. This means that God very likely created significantly free spiritual beings that never sinned and committed evil acts, and therefore I conclude that God could have made significantly free physical creatures that were human like that would not have sinned and committed wrong acts in thought and deed.

The fact that God chose to create human beings as he did does not make him less than perfectly good and holy, as his motives in willingly allowing the problem evil remain pure and the infinite God can use all the sinful acts of fallen finite creatures for the greater good, which includes a culminated everlasting Kingdom.

But, God is not my buddy, although my most important friend, and no one is the Church should treat him as a buddy in this realm. In the completed Kingdom of God, I reason that discipline will not include the use of suffering (Revelation 21: 4), but I am not ruling out that even perfect finite human beings do need direction from God that could be considered a type of discipline. Will we be buddies with Christ? Well perhaps in a sense, he had friends while on this earth, and it shall be interesting to see how things unfold.

Two types of knowledge

Concerning my research on the problem of evil, within formal philosophy comes two important terms related to how human beings obtain knowledge. For those not well educated in theology or philosophy, please do not be intimidated by the terms if they are new to you. Remembering the actual terms in my view is not as important as understanding to some degree, the concepts that may arise in discussions concerning the problem of evil. The terms are a priori and a posteriori. I shall review these terms and related concepts in an obviously non-exhaustive manner.

Louis P. Pojman explains that the term a priori comes from the Latin “preceding” and is knowledge that is not based on sense experience but is innate or known to human beings by the meanings of words and definitions. Pojman (1996: 595). Arthur Pap defines a priori knowledge as being independent of experience. Pap (1973: 666). Since this knowledge leads to truth independent of experience, once a concept is understood it will be seen as necessarily true logically, meaning that it will not be refuted at any time empirically (through the use of the senses). Pap (1973: 667). Simon Blackburn notes that a proposition is knowable a priori if it can be known without experience of a certain set of events in the actual world. Blackburn allows for some experience to be obtained in order for a priori knowledge to occur. Blackburn (1996: 21). He explains that this type of knowledge is very controversial and it is not clear how pure thought without the use of experience can lead to any true knowledge at all. Blackburn (1996: 21). Some empiricists have attempted to deny that any real knowledge can be obtained from a priori means. Blackburn (1996: 21).

Laurence BonJour notes that many empiricists would hold that all actual philosophical concepts are derived and known through experience. BonJour (1996: 30). Blackburn points out that Immanuel Kant dealt with this issue as it was supposed that a priori concepts cannot be understood from experience alone but come from presuppositions in a mode of thought about reality. Blackburn (1996: 22).

In the Critique of Pure Reason of 1781 and revised in 1787, Kant explains that the forms of appearance from which sensations can be understood are not themselves the empirical sensations. Kant (1781)(1787)(1929)(2006: 66). BonJour states that a priori knowledge is independent of empirical experience, meaning that something can be accepted as knowledge if it does not depend upon sensory experience. BonJour (1996: 29).

Very importantly in my view, BonJour explains that a deductively valid argument can use a priori reasoning, even if the correctness of the argument is challenged. BonJour (1996: 30). This would be very important for non-empirical reasoning in the areas of theology and philosophy in regard to the problem of evil and other topics, but even in other disciplines such as scientific theory where logical and reasonable deductions are at times made without empirical evidence. In other words, it is possible to deduce with logic, reason, and argumentation, truth, even without empirical evidence. BonJour mentions that rationalists that state God exists are using a priori reasoning. I do not deny that human beings have presuppositions in the areas of knowledge, but I reason that experience and God given nature influences those concepts. It seems doubtful to me that human beings can have philosophical presuppositions without some innate understanding and experience to make sense of reality in order to presuppose.

It is also Biblical and reasonable to deduce that God creates human beings with certain innate understanding of reality that will be assisted by experience. Romans 1:19 explains that God made human beings with a natural understanding of his existence. Perhaps this would be a priori knowledge and would not exist entirely on human presuppositions. The existence of natural knowledge of God does not necessarily mean that human beings worship or obey God.

Pojman writes that a posteriori comes the Latin “the later” and is knowledge that is obtained from human sense experience only, as in the five senses. Pojman (1996: 595). Blackburn reasons that something can be known a posteriori when it cannot be known a priori. Blackburn (1996: 21-22). From a Christian perspective, God through Jesus Christ has revealed himself to finite humanity in an effective, limited, empirical fashion, and this would be considered a posteriori knowledge of God, although God as pure spirit remains beyond the physical senses.

BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996) ‘A priori/A posteriori’, in Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, p. 21-22. Oxford, Oxford University Press.

BONJOUR, LAURENCE. (1996) ‘A Priori’, in Robert Audi (ed.), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

EDWARDS, PAUL AND ARTHUR PAP (1973) (eds), ‘A priori knowledge: Introduction’, A Modern Introduction To Philosophy, New York, The Free Press.

KANT, IMMANUEL (1781)(1787)(1929)(2006) Critique of Pure Reason, Translated by Norman Kemp Smith, London, Macmillan.
http://www.hkbu.edu.hk/~ppp/cpr/toc.html.

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

If God was our buddy the man is white could be correct instead of in error. I am not denying God's ability to heal or provide various kinds of blessings within his sovereign will.

Thoughts on practical and empirical theology

Thoughts on practical and empirical theology

Note

This was PhD research work done in 2008, before the finalized version of my PhD thesis in 2010. This is just part of the finalized PhD work.

---

Preface: December 7, 2008

I will be studying the next month preparing for my PhD defence in Wales in January. I used both practical and empirical theology in my MPhil and PhD theses. Some of this has been presented in other posts but I have added new material.

Definitions 

Practical theology

Charles E. Winquest describes practical theology as the theological specialty that deals with, and is grounded in theory and practice and the need to bring self-consciousness to ministry. Winquest (1987: 1). Don Browning writes that practical theology should be a public enterprise that consists of theological reflection on church ministry in the world and should also deal with the theology of professional ministerial activity within the church. Browning (1985)(2005: 2). Paul Ballard and John Pritchard note that it is a particular field of theology that specifically deals with Christian life and practice within the Church community and in relation to society. Ballard and Pritchard (2001: 1). 

Empirical theology

Leslie J. Francis explains that an element of practical theology is the use of empirical data. Francis (2005: 1). William Dean reasons that empirical theology begins with a particular speculative view of life, which in turn leads to the use of the empirical method. Dean (1990: 85-102). Clive Erricker, Danny Sullivan and Jane Erricker comment that empirical theology questions how theology relates to social sciences. Erricker, Sullivan and Erricker (1994: 6-7). 

Empirical Methodology 

The disciplines of the social sciences will be applied as methodology for studying practical and empirical theology. Francis (2005: 2-3). The work of practical and empirical theology can be tested by the social sciences. Francis (2005: 4). For R. Ruard Ganzevoort, theology is a forum where various scientific disciplines meet. Ganzevoort (2004)(2005: 2). Hans-Gunter Heimbrock notes that since religion and faith is experimental within empirical theology, the social sciences have been used to examine social dynamics, conditions and contexts of religious life. Heimbrock (2005: 273-299). Karl E. Peters reasons that empirical theology is like science in that it affirms naturalism, accepts limitations on human knowledge, and therefore makes all religious knowledge tentative. Peters (1992: 297-325). Y. Krikorian provides the idea that nature contains nothing supernatural, and that the scientific method should be used to explain all aspects of reality, including those assumed to be ‘spiritual’. Krikorian (1944)(2007: 1). 

My approach to empirical theology

I can support practical theology in general terms, as it complements Biblical doctrines, philosophical theology and theory and explains practical application of theology for those within the Christian Church. Practical theology can assist professional theologians, and likely even more so, professional pastors in applying doctrines and theory from the Bible in every day (or everyday) life for those that attend Christian churches. I can support empirical theology as a form of practical theology that provides questionnaire propositions within a survey and then takes the data from respondents and analyses how Biblical doctrines and philosophical theology are being interpreted within the church. This can lead to changes of presentation and application of doctrines, but in my view, should not alter the doctrines themselves. I do not support notions of empirical theology that view theology as strictly experimental and speculative. 

Within my moderate conservative, Reformed perspective, I reason that God has revealed himself supernaturally in Scripture and that he has provided doctrines and theology that correctly reflect his will and plans for the world and church. J.S. Whale writes that all Christians believe in the Bible as God’s word and that Scripture provides testimony rooted in history. Whale (1958: 17). Through Scripture God has taken the initiative to make himself known in an understandable way for human beings. Erickson (1994: 198). The Bible is therefore the primary and supreme source of theological understanding. Erickson (1994: 36). This means the empirical data will not equal or surpass Scripture in explaining God’s plans for humanity. 

Since I reason that God has revealed himself in Scripture, essential and primary Biblical doctrines taken from a textual evaluation of Scripture are therefore not tentative. There is Biblical truth that God revealed to selected persons for them to write down and theology should be primarily developed based on God’s revelation. Granted, no two human theologies will be exactly the same as persons process information in different ways, but Scripture exists in order to provide a consistent message to humanity. Therefore, primary doctrines within Christianity should be agreed upon by all that take a contextual, grammatical, and historical evaluation of the Bible seriously. 

Naturalism assumes that nature is viewed as the fundamental and original source for all that exists, and therefore all reality needs to be explained in terms of nature. Dubray (1911)(2007: 1). All events find an adequate explanation within nature itself. Dubray (1911)(2007: 1). Thiessen explains that since naturalism holds that nature is the whole of reality, everything that occurs is due to the laws of nature. Thiessen (1956: 186). He comments that Scripture recognizes the existence of the laws of nature, but it is reasoned that they do not operate independently of God. Thiessen (1956: 186). 

With Thiessen’s concept naturalists and Christians would not necessarily disagree on scientific facts, but those who trust in New Testament revelation would reason that God is the revealed supernatural source behind nature. Christianity need not dispute scientific, empirical facts, and these should be accepted as God's truth. But, naturalism which depends on scientific empiricism alone is not viewed as the only means of determining truth. 

Christian faith and philosophy can accept scientific fact and as well a rational, philosophical acceptance of reasonable arguments for God's existence, such as the need for an infinite first cause in a finite universe that contains finite matter and time. Christianity also primarily depends on the Biblical and historical revelation that God gave through the Hebrew Bible and New Testament. This is the first cause interacting with his creation and explaining his plans. 

BALLARD, PAUL AND JOHN PRITCHARD (2001) Practical Theology in Action, London, SPCK. 

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

BROWN, ROBERT MCAFEE (1984) Unexpected News, Philadelphia, The Westminster Press.

BROWNING, DON S. (1985)(2005) ‘Practical Theology and Political Theology’, Theology Today, Volume 42, Number 1, Article 2, Princeton, Princeton Theological Seminary. http://theologytoday.ptsem.edu/apr1985/v42-1-article2.htm. 

CAMPBELL, ALASTAIR (2000)(2007) ‘The Nature of Practical Theology’, in James Woodward and Stephen Pattison (eds.), The Blackwell Reader in Pastoral and Practical Theology, Oxford, Blackwell Publishing. 

DEAN, WILLIAM (1986) American Religious Empiricism, Albany, State University of New York Press.

DEAN, WILLIAM (1990) ‘Empirical Theology: A Revisable Tradition’, in Process Studies, Volume 19, Number 2, pp. 85-102, Claremont, California, The Center for Process Studies. http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=2791.

DILLISTONE, F.W. (1999) ‘Religious Experience’, in Alan Richardson and John Bowden (eds.), A New Dictionary of Christian Theology, London, SCM Press Ltd.

DUBRAY, C.A. (1911)(2007) ‘Naturalism’ in New Advent: Catholic Encyclopedia, New York, Robert Appleton Company. 

ELWELL, WALTER AND YARBROUGH, ROBERT W., Third Edition (2013) Encountering The New Testament, Grand Rapids, Baker Academic.

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. 

ERRICKER, CLIVE, DANNY SULLIVAN, AND JANE ERRICKER (1994) ‘The Development of Children’s Worldviews, Journal of Beliefs and Values, London, Routledge.

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.

FRANCIS, LESLIE J. and Practical Theology Team (2005) ‘Practical and Empirical Theology’, University of Wales, Bangor website, University of Wales, Bangor. http://www.bangor.ac.uk/rs/pt/ptunit/definition.php. 

GANZEVOORT, R. RUARD (2004)(2005) ‘Van der Ven’s Empirical/Practical Theology and the Theological Encyclopedia’, in Hermans, pp.53-74, C.A.M. & Moore M.E. (eds), Amsterdam. http://www.ruardganzevoort.nl/a04vdven.htm. 

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

HEIMBROCK, HANS-GUNTER (2005) ‘From Data to Theory: Elements of Methodology in Empirical Phenomenological Research in Practical Theology’ in International Journal of Practical Theology, Volume 9, December, Berlin, Walter D. Gruyter. 

INBODY, TYRON (1995) The Constructive Theology of Bernard Meland: Postliberal Empirical Realism, Atlanta, Scholars Press.

KRIKORIAN, K. (1944)(2007) (ed.), Naturalism and the Human Spirit, New York, Columbia University Press, in Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Stanford University. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/naturalism/ 

LINDSELL, HAROLD (1976) The Battle for the Bible, Grand Rapids, Zondervan Publishing House.

OXFORD DICTIONARY OF SCIENCE (2010) Oxford, Oxford University Press.

PETERS, KARL, E. (1992) ‘Empirical Theology in the Light of Science, in The Journal of Religion and Science, Volume 27 Issue 3 Page 297-325, September, Oxford, Zygon, Blackwell Publishing. http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1467-9744.1992.tb01068.x 

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

SIRE, JAME W (1975) The Universe Next Door, Downers Grove, Illinois, InterVarsity 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. 

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

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. 

WOODWARD, JAMES AND STEPHEN PATTISON (2000)(2007)(eds.), The Blackwell Reader in Pastoral and Practical Theology, Oxford, Blackwell Publishing.

Crazy car crashes

 

From Graphic artist, Jeff Jenkins, Florida. Thanks, Jeff

Augustine and Privation revisited

Ciboure Clocher, France (photo from trekearth.com) Jeff, thank you and very nice job. Jeff Jenkins Privation is an important topic in my PhD thesis on the problem of evil/theodicy, and was discussed on this blog previously when I had fewer readers. I wish to revisit the concept and add some new material. Privation is not quote... "privatization Definition 1 The repurchasing of all of a company's outstanding stock by employees or a private investor. As a result of such an initiative, the company stops being publicly traded. Sometimes, the company might have to take on significant debt to finance the change in ownership structure. Companies might want to go private in order to restructure their businesses (when they feel that the process might affect their stock prices poorly in the short run). They might also want to go private to avoid the expense and regulations associated with remaining listed on a stock exchange. Also called going private. Opposite of going public. Definition 2 The process of moving from a government-controlled system to a privately run, for-profit system." From Privatization Privation Augustine is one of my exemplars dealing with the problem of evil and within his text Enchiridion discusses privation and the corruption of humanity. Augustine (421)(1998: Chapter 13: 8). The subject is also discussed in On Free Choice of the Will. What follows is a fairly short non-exhaustive article on a complex subject. Augustine’s view of the corruption and privation of created matter and nature was that they were good things as created originally by God, but had become less than they were originally intended through rebellion against God. Augustine (388-395)(1964: 116-117). Augustine reasons that every nature, and by that he means substance that was finite (limited as angels and humans beings are) could be corrupted. Augustine (388-395)(1964: 116). The term substance, particularly in regard to God, is not necessarily physical substance but, instead, is the very core of a being. Augustine (388-395)(1964: 117). Each nature and substance that could become less good would still be good, and every nature would become less good when it was corrupted. Augustine (388-395)(1964: 116-117). With this view both physical matter and spiritual inner being could become corrupt. Rowan Greer indicates Augustine viewed privation as meaning that evil has no ontological status (meaning evil does not exist on its own). Greer (1996: 482). But from his writings Augustine does not necessarily state that as his view. Augustine dealt primarily with the idea of evil as negation, and I doubt he would fail to see that after corruption had taken place in creation that living, existing, beings committed evil acts, and in a sense evil beings existed. Augustine reasons that every human being that exists is good, but is evil where it is defective. Augustine (421)(1998: Chapter 13: 7). Although privation seems true in a negative sense, a problem with the concept in creatures is that corruption and the resulting evil in creatures is not merely an absence of something good, but consists of its own positive, destructive quality, as private creatures not only lack the will to do what is good, but will to do evil. John Hick reasons that Augustine’s idea of privation fails to deal with the fact that corrupted persons do not always tend to disintegrate and cease to exist in will and personality. Hick (1970: 62). This would seem correct as a corrupted and evil entity can grow in intelligence and power, so a mere corruption of a being from original perfection does not appear to weaken it to that status of non-existence. Something is considered evil because it can be seen to have a diminished degree of goodness. This appears reasonable; however, the diminished goodness in a creature is not replaced by non-existence, but by an actual corrupted nature within the person. It should be noted that Augustine is quite difficult to read and understand and it is not surprising that he is interpreted in varying ways. His writing style makes interpretations difficult as well, in my opinion, from the English translations. From a Biblical perspective the remaining goodness left in human beings after corruption is not sufficient for salvation. Romans 3:23 states that all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, and Romans 6:23 explains that the wages of sin are death, but the free gift of everlasting life is for those in Christ. Therefore even if privation is correct negatively, and everything that exists, no matter how evil it is, must contain some goodness, and evil does not exist on its own, human beings are still far from being perfectly morally good. God’s standards for salvation and entrance into the Kingdom of God that were originally broken in Genesis 3, included moral perfection and goodness in obedience to God, and fallen beings do not have perfect goodness. Human beings are therefore dependent on the atoning work and resurrection of Christ to deal with the results of sin and death, allowing those in Christ to obtain true moral perfection and goodness and entrance into the everlasting Kingdom of God. 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 (421)(1998) Enchiridion, Translated by J.F. Shaw, Denver, The Catholic Encyclopedia. GREER, ROWAN A. (1996) ‘Augustine’s Transformation of The Free Will Defence’, Faith and Philosophy, Volume 13, Number 4, October, pp. 471-486. Wilmore, Kentucky, Asbury College. HICK, JOHN (1970) Evil and The God of Love, London, The Fontana Library. My Mom emailed me some SUPPOSED celebrity mansions and so I thought I would edit and share a few of them. Oprah Arnold, the Governor Eddie Murphy Sylvester Stallone Jerry Sienfeld  

O.J. Simpson

Gratuitous evil revisited

Gratuitous evil revisited

Revised and reformatted June 20, 2022

Butchart Gardens (photo from trekearth.com)

This is material based on MPhil/PhD research. When I began my research it was noted by a few writers that the gratuitous/evidential problem of evil was being discussed by some scholars more than the logical problem. I have primary dealt with the logical problem in my MPhil and PhD research only theses and related questionnaires, but I did not want to negate the gratuitous problem and so I discussed it without it being suggested by an advisor.

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.’

---

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. 

CALVIN, JOHN (1539)(1998) The Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book IV, Translated by Henry Beveridge, Grand Rapids, The Christian Classic Ethereal Library, Wheaton College.

CALVIN, JOHN (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.

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

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.

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

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.

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. 

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.

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

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

MESLE, C. ROBERT (1986) ‘The Problem of Genuine Evil: A Critique of John Hick’s Theodicy’, in The Journal of Religion, Volume 66, Number 4, pp. 412-430. October, Chicago, University of Chicago 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. 

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

Images and the problem of evil:

Just to be clear, I realize all human beings are tainted by sin (Romans 3: 23), but I would support the Allies in World War One and Two. I also believe in a military for the defence of the state (Romans 13).


German propaganda poster from 1944 entitled Liberators.

Soviet World War Two propaganda poster.

Canadian World War Two propaganda poster.

World War Two propaganda poster from General Motors.

American World War Two propaganda poster.

German World War One propaganda poster.


American poster from World War Two, prior to the formation of the United Nations in 1945. China became communist in 1949 and here is using the present flag of Taiwan. India and Canada have colonial flags. India became independent in 1947. I personally prefer the old Canadian flag.