Chronology Of New Testament Books

Maple Ridge

Chronology Of New Testament Books

Obviously brief.

In many ways more useful than knowledge of the order of the texts in the Bible.

There is debate among scholars in regard to the dating of several texts and so, therefore I will attempt to provide several sources.

From Bible Study Tools.Com

Quote: 'CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER OF THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.

While no arrangement of these books can be made with absolute confidence, the following dates are sufficiently reliable to serve the purpose of the Bible student.

James - 50 A.D.
First Thessalonians - 52-53.
Second Thessalonians - 52-53.
Galatians - 55.
First Corinthians - 57.
Second Corinthians - 57.
Romans - 57-58.
Philippians - 62-63.
Colossians - 62-63.
Philemon - 62-63.
Ephesians - 62-63.
Luke - 63.
Acts - 64.
First Timothy - 65.
Titus - 65.
Second Timothy - 66.
Mark - 66.
Matthew - 67.
Hebrews - 67.
First Peter - 67-68.
Second Peter - 68.
Jude - 68.
Apocalypse - 68.
John - c. 85.
Epistles of John - 90-95.'

End Quote

Grace Felloship Church and Robert Gundry

Quote: 'New Testament Books in Chronological Order

According to Date Authored

NT Book Date Authored Author

James Mid-40s James, Jesus' half-brother
1 Thessalonians 50-51 Paul
2 Thessalonians 50-51 Paul
Galatians 55 Paul
1 Corinthians 55 Paul
2 Corinthians 56 Paul
Romans 57 Paul
Mark Late 50s-early 60s John Mark
Matthew Late 50s-early 60s Matthew
Philemon 61-62 Paul
Colossians 61-62 Paul
Ephesians 61-62 Paul
Luke 62 Luke Acts 62 Luke
Philippians 62 Paul
1 Timothy 63-64 Paul
Titus 63-64 Paul
1 Peter 63-64 Peter
2 Peter 65 Peter
2 Timothy 65 Paul
Hebrews 68 Unknown
Jude Late 60s-early 70s Jude, Jesus' half-brother
John Late 80s-early 90s John
1 John Late 80s-early 90s John
2 John Late 80s-early 90s John
3 John Late 80s-early 90s John
Revelation Late 80s-early 90s John'

End Quote

From my own texts where noted:

New Testament English Bible order:

Matthew

R.T. France, 80 A.D. or after (page 29) or the early 60s A.D. (page 30).

H. L. Ellison, 75 A.D. to 80 A.D. (page 1121).

Robert Gundry, 50s or 60s A.D. (page 107).

Mark

David Rhoads and Donald Michie, 65 A.D. to 70 A.D. (page xi).

Stephen S. Short, 58 A.D. to 65 A.D. (page 1157).

Robert Gundry, 50s A.D. (page 107).

Luke

Robert Gundry, 60s A.D. (page 107).

Laurence E. Porter, 80-85 A.D., or about 60 A.D. (page 1183).

John

Robert Gundry, 80s or 90s A.D. (page 107).

Acts

E.H. Trenchhard, 64-65 A.D. (page 1266).

Robert Gundry, 63-64 A.D. (page 107).

Romans

Robert H. Mounce, 56 A.D. (page 26).

Leslie C. Allen, 56-57 A.D. (1316).

C.E.B. Cranfield, 55-57 A.D. (page xi).

James D.G. Dunn, 55-57 A.D. (page xliii).

Robert Gundry, 57 A.D. (page 364).

1 Corinthians

Paul W. Marsh, Estimated 55 A.D. (page 1347).

Robert Gundry, 55 A.D. (page 364).

2 Corinthians

Robert Gundry, 56 A.D. (page 364).

Galatians

Robert Gundry, 49 A.D. (page 364).

F. Roy Coad, 48-49 A.D. (page 1416).

Ephesians

Robert Gundry, 61-61 A.D. (page 364).

Philippians

Robert Gundry, 62-63 A.D. (page 364).

Ralph P. Martin describes two theories, where Paul could have written the text: One captivity of Paul, near Ephesus, in 54-55 is possible. There is another proposed Roman captivity from Acts 28: 30 which dates from 61-63 A.D. Martin (37).

Colossians

Robert Gundry, 61-62 A.D. (page 364).

1 Thessalonians

Robert Gundry, 50-51 A.D. (page 364).

2 Thessalonians

Robert Gundry, 50-51 A.D. (page 364).

1 Timothy

Robert Gundry, 64 A.D. (page 364).

2 Timothy

Robert Gundry, 67 A.D. (page 364).

Titus

Robert Gundry, 64 A.D. (page 364).

Philemon

Robert Gundry, 61-62 A.D. (page 364).

Hebrews

Robert Gundry, 60s A.D. (page 364).

Gerald F. Hawthorne, middle of first century to 120 A.D. (page 1503).

Philip Edgeumbe Hughes, prior to 70 A.D. (page 32).

James

Robert Gundry, 40s or 50s A.D. (page 364).

T. Carson, 40 A.D. to 50 A.D. (page 1535).

1 Peter

Robert Gundry, 64-65 A.D. (page 364).

G.J. Polkinghorne, 62-64 A.D. (page 1551).

2 Peter

Robert Gundry, 65-66 A.D. (page 364).

David F. Payne, No earlier than 90 A.D. or perhaps much earlier (page 1564).

1 John

Robert Gundry, late 80s or early 90s A.D. (page 364).

2 John

Robert Gundry, late 80s or early 90s A.D. (page 364).

3 John

Robert Gundry, late 80s or early 90s A.D. (page 364).

Jude

Robert Gundry, 60s or 70s A.D. (page 364).

David F. Payne, 70-80 A.D. (page 1590).

Revelation

Robert Gundry, late 80s or early 90s A.D. (page 364).

F.F. Bruce, 69 A.D. to 96 A.D. (page 1593).

Robert H. Mounce, One view is prior to 70 A.D. (page 35).

Bibliography

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

BRUCE, F.F. (1986) 'Revelation' in F.F. Bruce (ed.), The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Zondervan.

CARSON, T. (1986) 'James' in F.F. Bruce (ed.), The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Zondervan.

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

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.

FRANCE, R.T. (1985) Matthew, Grand Rapids, IVP, Eerdmans.

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

HAWTHORNE, GERALD F. in F.F. Bruce (ed.), The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Zondervan.

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

MARTIN, RALPH P. (1987) Philippians, Grand Rapids, IVP.

MARSH, PAUL, W. (1986) ‘1 Corinthians’, in F.F. Bruce, (ed.), The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Marshall Pickering/Zondervan.

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

PAYNE DAVID F. (1986) 'Jude' in F.F. Bruce (ed.), The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Zondervan.

PAYNE DAVID F. (1986) '2 Peter' in F.F. Bruce (ed.), The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Zondervan.

POLKINGHORNE, G.J. (1986) '1 Peter' in F.F. Bruce (ed.), The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Zondervan.

RHOADES, DAVID AND DONALD MITCIE (1982) Mark As Story, Philadelphia, Fortress Press.

SHORT, STEPHEN S. (1986) ‘Mark’, in F.F. Bruce (ed.), The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Zondervan.

TRENCHHARD, E.H. (1986) 'Acts', in F.F. Bruce (ed.), The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Zondervan.

On Rights (Brief)

Porspoder, France-On Rights (Brief)

On Rights (Brief)

Rights according to Wellman

Philosopher Carl Wellman describes 'rights' as 'advantageous positions conferred on some possessor by law, morals, rules, or other norms'. Wellman (1996: 695). It is noted that 'will theories' hold that rights favour the will of the possessor over the will of some other conflicting party. Wellman (1996: 695). 'Interest theories' maintain that rights serve to promote the interests of the rights holder. He notes that Hohfeld stated four legal advantages, 'liberties, claims, powers, and immunities'. Wellman (1996: 695). 

Wellman writes that the philosophical concept of rights arose in ancient Roman law and was extended to ethics by an understanding of natural law. Wellman (1996: 695). Rights are classified via different sets of rules from various sources in context. Interestingly, Wellman explains that some view a connection between natural rights and moral rights, natural law being connected to moral law, while others limit natural rights to most fundamental rights (and of course these would be debated I reason within a society) and contrasted them with moral rights. Wellman (1996: 695). Others deny moral rights are natural because they are cultural and societal. Wellman (1996: 695). Wellman notes for example in regard to human rights as natural rights, that many in modern thinking now doubt the existence of God and therefore doubt divine commands would relate to natural law. Wellman (1996: 695). In my view, this could also be noted as reasoning appeals to secularism, naturalism and empiricism within western worldviews.

Rights according to Blackburn

British Philosopher, Blackburn reasons rights exist in virtue of positive (historical) law, and moral rights are significantly independent of them and provide a platform by which 'legal arrangements may be criticized'. Blackburn (1996: 331). He too notes the four distinctions of Hohfeld. Rights are frequently held to 'trump' other practical considerations not simply in the interests of the rights holder but viewed as arriving via a virtue owed to society. Blackburn (1996: 331). Blackburn mentions the theological assumption by some that natural law can be used to devise a set of natural rights via natural law. Nature can therefore create moral imperatives. Blackburn (1996: 331).

Briefly my take on Rights

Rights are human made, societal, cultural and via the ethics and morals of a society.

Biblically speaking, the rights of citizens of the restored Kingdom of God, as in the new heaven and new earth of Revelation 21-22 would be reflected in ethics and morality and moral law of resurrected (1 Corinthians 15) believers that are to follow under the Kingship of Jesus Christ and the eternal triune, God. Although I reason there will be limited, compatibilistic (soft determinism) and significant free will brought about through the atoning and resurrection work of Christ, applied to regenerate believers; the rights will be reflected in the ethics and morality of the King, Jesus Christ. Citizens that I reason shall be guided by God, and most likely the Holy Spirit.

In today's Western society, ethics (external) and morality (internal) generally determine what should be deemed as rights and especially in legal contexts. Both the Wellman and Blackburn articles mentioned the theological connection to natural law and natural rights and the Cambridge article correctly stated that many now doubted the existence of God in Western society. Western society is also primarily post-Christian and this shall reflect the decisions of persons that vote for political parties and politicians, and the laws made by those politicians. Judges brought to power shall, for the most part, reflect modern thinking.

Therefore, to play 'Devil's Advocate' as someone that favours a Biblical worldview, and is a moderate conservative, I realize, with libertarian leanings that I do not have the right to force my views on the non-Christian majority, nor do I have the desire, nor do I think it ethical or moral. 

Briefly my take on Full Rights and Equal Rights

But let us consider ideas of full rights and equal rights, briefly.

Hypothetically and philosophically, theoretically, in regards to marriage, full rights and equal rights would not just be for same-sex marriage as being equal to in every way heterosexual marriage, which is not my theological position. But I realize this position has support in Western society, but what about the right of any adult to marry any adult?  Brother to brother, brother to sister, etcetera. What about the right to plural marriage?

Yes, these do work against Biblical ethical and moral standards, especially the New Covenant of the New Testament which offers further, progressive revelation on such matters, compared to what is found within the Hebrew Bible and Old Covenant (Mosaic Law meant primarily here). However, even philosophically with present Western secular standards, if one is going to be intellectually consistent in demanding full rights and equal rights, then reasonably this is where the rights movement should lead.

And of course there are other more distasteful possibilities where a full rights and equal rights movement are concerned involving persons that are non-adults, or persons lacking full metal competency. In my humble opinion, this can happen, if successful lobbies convince enough within society and importantly, lawmakers, in the future that these laws should be changed.

A key point is that rights, or lack of rights, full rights and equal rights, or what is viewed as types of discrimination are tied to, and are the results of the worldview, ethics and morality/moral laws of a given culture and society. Those that demand full rights, or equal rights in present Western society need to philosophically realize that 'rights' do not equate to ethics and morals, but rights come from within ethics (external) and morality (internal) that arrive from worldview.

My views are Biblical, Reformed and moderately conservative. My work is primarily gospel focused, as opposed to primarily or even largely culturally focused in attempts through legal and societal means to maintain the power and influence of the Christian Church in British Columbia, Canada and Western society. I am significantly, on occasions only, politically involved, but it is not a ministry focus. I have at times written letters to politicians and signed petitions. 

Philosophically, I hold to the view that within Western democracy, as long as in obedience to the law of the land, people have the freedom and rights to do as they please. I will not always agree with each law, and I will not always be in agreement with ethics, morality, acts and actions. I attempt to demonstrate love for others and as well, equally important, are concerns for justice and truth. At the same time, I maintain within the Western democratic system, the freedom and rights, for me as an individual, to reason that God is infinite, eternal and revelatory in Scripture. God will definitely, as the only entity that exists by necessity, maintain his freedom and rights to judge humanity, his creation, accordingly. Both is this temporal life and post-mortem (Revelation 20-22, especially).

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

DUNNETT, WALTER M. (2001) Exploring The New Testament, Wheaton, Crossway Books.

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

FEE, GORDON D. (1987) The First Epistle To The Corinthians, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. 

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

MARSH, PAUL, W. (1986) ‘1 Corinthians’, in F.F. Bruce, (ed.), The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Marshall Pickering/Zondervan.    

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

WELLMAN, CARL E. (1996) ‘Rights’, in Robert Audi, (ed), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

From Wesley Newcomb Hohfeld: Wikipedia 

HOHFELD, WESLEY NEWCOMB (1946) Fundamental Legal Conceptions as Applied in Judicial Reasoning, Yale University Press (1946). The article appeared earlier at 26 Yale Law Journal 710 (1917). 

HOHFELD, WESLEY NEWCOMB (1978) Fundamental Legal Conceptions, Arthur Corbin, ed. (Westport, Conn., Greenwood Press (1978).

HOHFELD, WESLEY NEWCOMB (1913) Hohfeld, Wesley. "Some Fundamental Legal Conceptions as Applied in Legal Reasoning," 23 Yale Law Journal 16 (1913). 

Theodicy Models

Dubai-trekearth

Theodicy Models

Preface

Theodicy Models from my PhD. A model of God's divine justice was understood from a European, Dutch perspective as a retaliation model.

Theodicy Models

Vermeer explains that his three theodicy items are models and not symbols, because they represent abstract distinct theoretical concepts, as opposed to straight forward statements associated with certain theodicy ideas.[1]  As noted earlier, in contrast, van der Ven states there is no difference between theodicy symbols and models, and a clear distinction is not found.[2]  Vermeer presents retaliation, plan and compassion models.[3]  He notes that each model contains a different understanding of divine omnipotence and goodness.[4] 

The retaliation model, to Vermeer, answers the question of why people are suffering.[5]  Vermeer appeals heavily to Hick’s critical evaluation of Augustine and Calvin,[6] which has already been reviewed (in my PhD), and views Augustine as the forefather of retaliation thought in regard to the problem of evil.[7]  Vermeer correctly points out that Augustine, with the use of free will theodicy, blames human evil and suffering on free will disobedience to God.[8]  Augustine  writes that divine punishment was allotted to those that freely sinned.[9]  In regard to the suffering of children, Augustine, as does Calvin in the Reformation era, would appeal to original sin to explain why this occurs.[10]  Children, although innocent compared to adults, who reasonably comprehend their sinfulness, would still be corrupt creatures because of original sin and the fall.[11]  Vermeer notes[12] that Calvin, like Augustine, believed human beings freely rebelled in evil against God,[13] and thus all persons were worthy of divine punishment, the full extent of this only avoidable through election to salvation.[14]  For Vermeer, the retaliation model uses the ‘doctrine of divine omnipotence’ which states that God is all powerful and yet human suffering is attributed to human sin.[15]  So ultimately people receive what they deserve and are fully punished for their sins outside of God’s grace in election.[16]  Vermeer, unlike Hick,[17] admits the retaliation model can be reasonably upheld without the justice and goodness of God being questioned.[18] 

The plan model consists of the assumption that human suffering is part of the divine plan.[19]  Vermeer portrays the plan model as stating human rebellion causes evil and suffering, and although it opposes God, suffering is ultimately part of God’s divine plan.[20]  The plan model, like the retaliation model, holds to the doctrine of divine omnipotence, but according to the concepts of Leibniz,[21] and especially Hick,[22] as we have seen God uses suffering for the purpose of soul-making.[23]  Vermeer points out that with the retaliation model, divine punishment results in suffering,[24] in contrast with the plan model where suffering is part of God’s scheme as God created the best possible world where free will creatures would inevitably sin.[25]  For the plan model, for Vermeer, God’s goodness could not be questioned as the problem of evil was all part of a divine plan.[26]

This differentiation presented between the retaliation and plan models seems too simplistic.[27]  It is apparent that the writings of Augustine and Calvin both include the concept of God saving the elect from sin while, at the same time, judging humanity for it.[28]  Augustine (398-399)(1992) describes God’s plan for those in Christ that are, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, justified, separated from the wicked, subjected to the authority of Scripture, and gathered together for a single aspiration of acquiring the celestial reward.[29]  This commentary by Augustine, portrays a divine plan of God to save followers from the evil and suffering in creation.[30]  Calvin (1543)(1996) explains that God can take the wicked actions of people, yet still accomplish his work and execute his judgment.[31]  Within that statement, one can see a judgment or retaliation model, and at the same time God is accomplishing his work concerning humanity which is implying a plan model.[32]  Calvin writes, in the same text, that God does a work of perseverance in a believer, so by grace the believer stays in Christ for life.[33]  God’s work of perseverance in elected individuals[34] is clearly not retaliation, but a divine plan to save sinful persons despite the fact they are worthy of punishment.[35]  Instead, the atoning and resurrection work of Christ allows the elect to avoid the penalty for sin, being part of the divine plan of salvation.[36] 

The compassion model, for Vermeer, has been largely rejected throughout Christian history, although in the twentieth century it gathered some support.[37]  The concept is that God has compassion for human beings and does not focus on retaliation or plan ideas.[38]  As with van der Ven’s symbols,[39] the notion of God’s impassibility is discussed in regard to a compassion model.[40]  Vermeer correctly points out that there exists in Scripture, anthropomorphic language[41]  to describe God as one who, like the human beings he created, has feelings and emotions.[42]  The fact God is a loving being would allow for the logical and reasonable deduction that he is a compassionate being.[43]

A vital point Vermeer makes concerning the compassion model is that it asks how God responds to human suffering,[44] while the retaliation and plan models are more concerned with why God permits evil and suffering.[45]  The compassion model envisions a God that is immanent within his creation,[46] the emphasis on the creator as a God of love, leads to this conclusion.[47]  Within the compassion model, the ‘doctrine of divine goodness’ clearly takes precedence over the doctrine of divine omnipotence.[48]  Theologically and Biblically, the compassion model is a vital aspect of the atoning work of Christ, and therefore would be important for Christian theodicy.[49]  Christ as God renounced his privileges and experienced an agonizing death on the cross.[50]  For Christ as the God-man, to renounce his rights as God and die for the humanity he loves, definitely shows compassion[51] as does God’s participation in the death[52] and resurrection of Christ.  A compassion theodicy symbol or model is therefore acceptable within orthodox Christianity,[53] although I believe judgment and plan are vital theodicy concepts.[54]

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.

http://www.knight.org/advent

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

VAN DER VEN, JOHANNES (1993) Practical Theology, Translated by Barbara Schultz, AC Kampen, Netherlands, Kok Pharos Publishing House.

VAN DER VEN, JOHANNES (1998) God Reinvented?, Leiden, Brill.

VAN DER VEN, JOHANNES (2005) ‘Theodicy Items and Scheme’, in a personal email from Johannes van der Ven, Nijmegen, Radboud University, Nijmegen.

VAN DER VEN, JOHANNES (2006a) ‘Dates of Nijmegen authors’, in a personal email from Johannes van der Ven, Nijmegen, Radboud University, Nijmegen.

VAN DER VEN, JOHANNES (2006b) ‘Symbols versus Models’, in a personal email from Johannes van der Ven, Nijmegen, Radboud University, Nijmegen.

VAN DER VEN, JOHANNES, PAUL VERMEER, AND ERIC VOSSEN (1996) ‘Learning Theodicy’, in Journal of Empirical Theology, Volume 9, pp. 67-85. Kampen, The Netherlands, Journal of Empirical Theology.

VAN DER VEN, JOHANNES AND ERIC VOSSEN (1996) Suffering: Why for God’s Sake? Grand Rapids, Eerdmans.

VAN HOLTEN, WILLIAM (1999) ‘Hell and the Goodness of God’,  in Religious Studies, Volume 35, Number 1, March, pp. 37-55. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

VAN TIL, CORNELIUS (1969) A Christian Theory of Knowledge, Nutley, New Jersey,  Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company.

VAN TIL, CORNELIUS (1977) Christianity and Barthianism, Nutley, New Jersey,  Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company.

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

---

[1] Vermeer (1999: 18). 

[2] van der Ven (2006b: 1).

[3] Vermeer (1999: 21).

[4] Vermeer (1999: 21).

[5] Vermeer (1999: 22).

[6] Hick (1970: 221). 

[7] Vermeer (1999: 22).

[8] Vermeer (1999: 22).  Augustine (388-395)(1964: 3).

[9] Augustine (388-395)(1964: 3).

[10] Vermeer (1999: 25).

[11] Vermeer (1999: 25).

[12] Vermeer (1999: 26).

[13] Calvin (1543)(1998: 37).  Augustine (388-395)(1964: 116-117).

[14] Calvin (1543)(1996: 154, 349).

[15] Vermeer (1999: 27).

[16] Vermeer (1999: 27).

[17] In regard to everlasting hell, for example.  Hick (1970: 377).

[18] Vermeer (1999: 26).

[19] Vermeer (1999: 27).

[20] Vermeer (1999: 33).

[21] Leibniz reasons that God works all things to the greater good.  Leibniz (1710)(1998: 61).  This could perhaps include the idea God would develop in the best possible world, as Leibniz viewed it, human souls.

[22] Hick in Davis (2001: 48).

[23] Vermeer (1999: 34-35).

[24] Vermeer (1999: 27).

[25] Vermeer (1999: 30).

[26] Vermeer (1999: 36).

[27] Vermeer (1999: 35).

[28] Augustine (398-399)(1992: 303).  Calvin (1543)(1996: 37, 178-179). 

[29] Augustine (398-399)(1992: 303).

[30] Augustine (398-399)(1992: 303).

[31] Calvin (1543)(1996: 37).

[32] Calvin (1543)(1996: 37).

[33] Calvin (1543)(1996: 178-179).

[34] Calvin (1543)(1996: 178-179).

[35] Calvin (1543)(1996: 37).

[36] Augustine (398-399)(1992: 303).  Calvin (1543)(1996: 37, 178-179). 

[37] Vermeer (1999: 36).

[38] Vermeer (1999: 36).

[39] van der Ven (1998: 212).

[40] Vermeer (1999: 36).

[41] A figure of speech used in Scripture that describes God with human physical characteristics.  Grenz, Guretzki, and Nordling (1999: 11).  Anthropomorphisms are Biblical attempts to express realities about God through human analogy.  Erickson (1994: 268).

[42] Vermeer (1999: 37).

[43] Pailin (1999: 469).

[44] Vermeer (1999: 38).

[45] Vermeer (1999: 38).

[46] Vermeer (1999: 44).

[47] Vermeer (1999: 44).

[48] Vermeer (1999: 45).

[49] Moltmann (1993: 226-227).

[50] Moltmann (1993: 226-227).

[51] Moltmann (1993: 226-227).

[52] Moltmann (1993: 226-227).

[53] Vermeer (1999: 45).

[54] van der Ven (1993: 173).  van der Ven (1998: 212-213).  Augustine (398-399)(1992: 303).  Calvin (1543)(1996: 37, 178-179).  

PhD Full Version PDF