BECKETT BLOGG

4th of July thoughts

2010-07-03T11:44:00.000-07:00

The Middle of the year is here again. I know..I know..soon the cold winds of Autumn will blow and right now..this very minute as I sit here with my wife relaxing on a perfectly good Summer day... that it will all be just a faint memory. "but life seems so long and death so complete and the grave an impossible portion to cheat."

Yet, the fact is life(as people often claim) is short..how we goin to know that? WE don't have such a perspective on our lives to know that it is short or long. Then there is the problem of subjectivity..is death at 25 short? 45? Maybe a life lived 25 years seemed long, 10 years ago at 43 seems like a long time ago to me..but is it really?..it seems to me that what "seems" to be the case is what really affects us whether it was short or not. But, if it seems short perhaps we'll try and do more things we are supposed to do? or want to do? If it seems long we could grow complacent and grow lax at what we are required to do.So long or short..who really cares!

In any event..What we do know is that each moment of life is fleeting..short or not..there is really no here and now. It seems like with summer we have so much time to get out and enjoy the weather,spend time with family and friends, eat hamburgs and hots, drink beer and cokes...play volley ball and go kayaking...but already its 3:00pm and I have yet to get up off my couch..and it seemed like I had all day!

Of course objectively 75-100 years is short compared to the concept of eternity. But we really don't know this. What we do know by experience..is what Steve Miller observed....time keeps on ticking ticking ticking into the future..

Miller's song repeats a rather fatalist picture of despair...put this in contrast to what Out of The Grey had to sing on this point: "when you wish you could capture this moment and hold it inside...remember this...beyond this moment the love of God exists...remember this..." I want to remember this when in the middle of January I am sitting on the same couch as I am now, looking out the same window except with quite a different picture than I see now and observe 2 things: Winter seemed so far away and so does next Summer...

2010-01-29T12:50:00.000-08:00

Francis S. Collins is a great scientist and I thank God he has found Christ. However, his knowledge of history is skewed: "The Beatitudes spoken by Christ in the Sermon on the Mount were ignored as the Christian church carried out violent crusades in the Middle Ages and pursued a series of inquisitions afterward. While the prophet Muhammad never himself used violence in responding to persecutors, Islamic jihads . . . have created the false impression that the Islamic faith is intrinsically violent." {F.S.Collins -The Language of God, Pg. 41) Hold your DNA Collins! I thought scientists are good at getting "just the facts Ma'am"? Muslim aggression inspired the Crusades . Certianly, at least after the first Crusade, things got a bit messy. However, let everyone know the facts - Muslims aggression and violence against Christian lands kicked off the crusades! I am tired of the PC arguement people use in an attempt to lump Christians into the "religion causes violence mindset" of men like Hitchens and Dawkins.Sadly, Collins' comment is a sign that this myth will not die quickly. Let's be clear on another important matter - Jesus Christ shed his blood for human kind in order to attract followers while Muhammed shed the blood of many and continues to do so through his followers. This is not to say that ALL Muslims are terrorists or condone violence. I am rather certain that just as not all Muslims wanted to invade Christian lands in the Middle Ages not all Christians at that time ignored the Beautitudes as Collins alleges.Collins also takes his PC gun and aims it at Intelligent Design folks. Yes, you heard that right. Collins and others like Karl Gibberson, Owen Gingerich while claiming Christian faith in a Creator despise ID. Why, you may ask? Simply because in their minds ID theory does not tow the Darwinian line. Go figure.
For a healthy truth antidote to the Crusade Myths see - Rodney Stark -"For the Glory of God" and Stark's - "God's Battalions."

A Paper I presented at the SCP meeting. Sorry for the gaps and other anomolies which occurred in the transfer to blog process.

2010-01-22T13:11:00.000-08:00

Paper Title: “The Problem with the Problem of Evil: A Critique of the Trinitarian Warfare Theodicy”

-Kerry B Colling Copy Right 2007

Synopsis: Open Theist, Greg Boyd, in his attempt to respond to the problem of evil, developed the Trinitarian Warfare Theodicy (TWT). He spells out the details of this theodicy in three major works: “God at War,” “Satan and the Problem of Evil” (both by IVP-1997/2001) and, “God of the Possible,” (Baker-2000). In this paper, I will first, explain the main tenets of Greg Boyd’s theodicy and then make a few criticisms of it. I conclude that despite the possible merits in the TWT it does not provide any more of a successful theodicy than others do. In closing, I suggest an approach to the problem of evil that recognizes our creaturely limitations while utilizing resources from our Christian tradition.

The Trinitarian Warfare Theodicy as a Response to the Problem of Evil

In the introduction to God at War, Greg Boyd boldly declares that the warfare worldview “provides a remarkably different and remarkably better, understanding of evil than does . . . any other approach to this problem.”[1] He goes on to state in Satan and the Problem of Evil that, “the narrative of the bible and all events in world history are best understood against the backdrop of this worldview.”[2]

Boyd: God at War

Greg Boyd bases his Theodicy on what he perceives to be the “warfare worldview” of the bible.[3] The warfare worldview is dependent upon controversial Old Testament passages in which God supposedly created the world in the midst of battling with satanic forces.[4] These cosmic forces possess libertarian free will, which enables them “genuinely to resist God’s good creative intentions.”[5] The POE for Boyd lies directly at the intersection between God’s omnipotence and the libertarian free will of his creatures. In God at War, Boyd tells us that the reason why the POE remains unsolvable is due to the “unintelligibility” of the Augustinian equation of omnipotence with omni-control.[6] Boyd asks, “How can the scriptural depiction of God striving to accomplish his will against agents who genuinely resist it be reconciled with Scripture’s uniform testimony that God is all-powerful?” [7] With this question in mind, Boyd traces the “war motif” throughout Scripture and concludes that, “as much as Scripture emphasizes God’s control of the world, this pervasive warfare motif suggests that he does not control everything.”[8] Neither human nor angelic rebellion is under God’s controlling decree. Rather, such rebellion is attributed solely to their libertarian free will.

The Six Theses of the Trinitarian Warfare Theodicy

We are told that Boyd’s book Satan and the Problem of Evil is “an attempt at making philosophical sense of the warfare worldview of the bible.”^{^[9]} Boyd developed six theses that define the TWT: 1. Love must be freely chosen; 2. Love entails risk; 3. Risk implies moral responsibility; 4. Power to influence for the worse must be roughly proportionate to our power to influence for the better; 5. Freedom, within limits, is irrevocable; 6. The Power to Influence is Finite.[10]

1. Love Must be Freely Chosen

In order for love to be genuinely reciprocated, humans must “possess the capacity to refuse [God’s] love.”[11] This of course implies that “human choices are not coerced or determined either by outside forces or by one’s genetic makeup.” [12] In a warfare worldview, angelic beings also have the power to choose God’s love or refuse it.

2. Love Entails Risk

By adopting an incompatibilist view of free will and determinism, thesis #2 affirms the risky nature inherent in God’s relations with his creatures. [13] The implications of affirming this risky nature could have devastating consequences, given the fact that volitional creatures possessing libertarian free will would leave God with little recourse in accomplishing particularly important goals.[14] Yet, God’s goal was such that he could not avoid this risk. Rather than exercise Omni-control over his creation, God willed that his creatures receive his offer of love (freely) and thereby enter into a genuine relationship. For Boyd, “it was not logically possible for God to have this objective without risking the possibility of war breaking out in his creation.”[15]Indeed, “The possibility of love among contingent creatures such as angels and humans entails the possibility of its antithesis - war. If God wanted the former, he had to risk the latter.”[16]

3. Risk Implies Moral Responsibility

The third thesis forms the basis of moral responsibility in a cosmos filled with agents possessing libertarian free will.[17] These agents thus have the real ability to bring either harm or blessing to each other. This, according to Boyd implies these free agents’ moral responsibility for their choices.[18] Furthermore, the bible enforces this responsibility with an implicit covenant of mutual responsibility (love your neighbor . . .etc).[19] In the TWT God cannot guarantee that free agents who decide to ignore this covenant will not adversely affect others. Moral responsibility is thus dependent on God’s “hands off policy.” If God were to interfere with the course of a wayward agent it would render the basis of moral responsibility null and void.

4. Proportionate Responsibility

Thesis 4 ties directly into the previous thesis in that it states that this “moral responsibility is proportionate to the potential to influence others.”[20] According to Boyd, “this thesis stipulates that the greater the potential an agent has for love, the greater the potential this agent must have for the opposite of love.”[21] Because human and angelic agents have been endowed with freedom and moral responsibility it is all the more reprehensible when a free agent chooses to rebel. Boyd explains: “The fact that certain humans and fallen angels behave in grotesquely evil ways testifies to the enormous potential for love and moral goodness they have, or at least had, in their original created natures.”[22]

5. Freedom is Irrevocable

The fifth thesis states that the nature of libertarian freedom and its corollary, self-determination, is such that it forces God to endure the continual misuse of it.[23] This is simply another way of saying that God cannot interfere in the life of a being, human or otherwise, who chooses to give themselves over to evil. Boyd says, “When free agents choose to harm others, to some extent God must tolerate this misfortune.”[24] In other words, God must allow freedom to remain free. In fact, to do otherwise would violate God’s overall purpose of creating reciprocating love relationships. If a free agent chooses to maximize their potential for goodness, God will allow the agent to proceed unhindered. In the same way, if a free agent chooses to maximize their potential for evil, God will allow their evil actions to proceed unhindered. However, Boyd maintains that thesis number five “does not entail that creatures have eternal power to exercise an evil influence on the creation.”[25] Therefore, God has the ability to exercise some type of control on a free agent’s freedom.[26]

6. The Power to Influence is Finite

The final thesis in the TWT stems from Boyd’s qualification regarding thesis #5 that free agents are in fact under some type of constraint, otherwise, they would be able to thwart God’s goodness eternally. Therefore, the power of free agents to influence God’s creation must be finite.[27] Unlike God, created beings are contingent. Contingent agents are “by definition finite.”[28] Therefore, although an agent is necessarily free, the agent is practically limited to particular options. Nevertheless, even these options are subject to the transient nature of time. Moreover, although an agent is freely able to self-corrupt and corrupt others with its great potential for evil, it cannot do so on an infinite scale. According to Boyd, this constraint is necessary in order for God to retain his eternal omnipotence and maintain control of his ultimate goals.[29]

A Case Example: The Variable of Irrevocable Freedom

With the “variable of irrevocable freedom” in mind (Theses #5), Greg Boyd provides us with an example that illustrates how the TWT applies to real life cases of evil.[30] In this example, a young girl named Greta was abducted, raped and decapitated. This evil event occurred despite consistent prayer on the part of her parents and despite the wishes of God who, according to Boyd, was “doing all he could do to stop it.”[31] Indeed, He insists that God’s spirit was “perpetually at work trying to influence the abductor to halt his wicked plan.”[32] Behind the scenes, we are assured that God’s angels were “doing battle with demonic agents involved in influencing this person to carry out this hideous deed.”[33] Yet, “God’s will to protect Greta was thwarted.”[34] Boyd brings the full weight of his TWT in an attempt to answer the ‘why’ of this occurrence.

Why Ask Why- Gratuitous Evil?

In view of the fact that God was somehow justified in risking freedom, Boyd maintains that we can avoid questioning whether God had a particular good reason for supposedly ordaining or allowing Greta to be abducted, raped, and decapitated.[35] It was not due to any lack of power on God’s part for, according to Boyd, “sheer power is never the issue with God.”[36] On the human side of things, this evil event occurred because “the will of the man was too hardened to the Spirit and too receptive to demonic influences to be altered.”[37] On the divine side, this evil event took place because of, “[God’s] ultimate goal for creation, because of his uncompromising integrity and because of the historical contingent particularities that constituted the situation.”[38] (imagine telling somone’s parents that!)

God cannot disrupt these “contingent particularities” because to do so would upset the fine balance needed for God to reach his ultimate goal. We are told that God’s ultimate goal for creation is to establish the conditions necessary to allow the flourishing of loving relationships among free agents and with himself. Therefore, he must tolerate the fact that some free agents (Greta’s abductor) in such established conditions will refuse this ultimate goal. According to thesis #5, we understand that, God cannot simply intervene and stop the man from raping and decapitating Greta, for, the gift of freedom is irrevocable. Therefore, God must settle for the fact that perhaps thousands of “Greta’s” will possibly be subject to the same horror. Yet, apparently, in a warfare worldview God considers the risk of evil worth the few who would choose love; as Boyd declares; “God cannot avoid the possibility of these nightmares without cancelling out the possibility of love.”^{^[39]} Finally, if God did intervene by force and stop this evil, it would “render the morally responsible nature of all the agents involved disingenuous.”^{^[40]} Thus, we can see that the TWT is based on a rigorous Open Theology. Human freedom seems to be the determining factor in whether, and of what sort, evil takes place.

Is it Worth the Risk?

Why would God allow such awesome possibilities? Boyd himself asks this question: “Why does it seem that God risks so much - sometimes, seemingly, too much-on freedom?”[41] The answer, according to Boyd, is similar to the answer found in thesis#3; namely that, although God wishes all agents to maximize their potential for good, he knows he cannot create the conditions conducive to such flourishing without having those same conditions allow for agents to do the opposite and, sadly, maximize their potential for evil.[42] Once again, the risk was worth it because “if God wanted a world where a Mother Teresa is possible, he must be willing to contend with a world in which an Adolf Hitler is possible.”[43] Therefore, in light of this risk, God cannot guarantee that we shall walk through life free from the effects and/or the direct action of wicked beings.

4 criticisms

1) “To Reason Why” - DOES God have reasons for allowing evil?

Philosopher William Rowe argued that, “an all-powerful, all knowing, perfectly good being would have no justifying reason to permit evil.”[44] Boyd would perhaps respond that we do not need to inquire for some divine reason or purpose for evil events in the first place.[45] Rather, his theodicy allows that many evil events are in fact purposeless.[46] If divine purposes where attached to evil acts, the result would imply deterministic control over those events—which is of course anathema for open theologians. Yet, as we will see, Boyd ends up advocating some type of deterministic control over evil.

2) “To COntrol or not to” -

In order to show this, I want to look at a particular criticism of theodicies made by the Australian philosopher, J.L. Mackie. In Mackie’s discussion on evil and omnipotence, he contends that, “We must recognize unsatisfactory and inconsistent solutions, in which there is only a half-hearted or temporary rejection of one of the propositions, which constitute the problem. In these, one of the constituent propositions is explicitly rejected, but it is covertly reasserted or assumed elsewhere in the system.”[47]

Omnipotence and the Variable of Temporal Freedom

Unless I have misunderstood Mackie’s point, I contend that Boyd‘s insistence in one place that God cannot unilaterally exercise omni-control of supposed agents possessing freewill while insisting that there is no possibility that the enemies of God shall finally be able to overcome the divine victory over evil is in effect a “half-hearted” rejection of God’s sovereignty. [48] Boyd “covertly” reasserts elsewhere in his TWT that God has indeed, “ordained temporal parameters around freedom,” thus implying, at the very least, some type of control that would militate against complete libertarian freedom.[49] In my opinion, it seems that in order for God to “ordain temporal parameters” around the freedom of his enemies and to be assured of victory over his enemies, some conception of control must be implied. Open Theists argue strongly for the integrity of human free will to be maintained. If any type of control leaks into the system, the genuineness of human and angelic freedom becomes merely an illusion. How then can God’s victory be assured without rendering the integrity of the God at War motif and the TWT incoherent? Does it make much sense to affirm that God be forced to put up with the waywardness of evil agents, yet in reality, has planned and thus controlled the outcome? (Similar to a fixed fight?). Indeed, if agents are truly free, and the TWT answers the POE, it seems unintelligible that God can be assured that the evil wills involved will be eventually rendered impotent.[50] In other words, how can God ultimately win if he does not control the game? The proposition that God is sovereign and omnipotent, while rejected in one part of Boyds’ theodicy, is reasserted elsewhere.

3) Is God Limited? An apparent Contradiction.

In the case of Greta’s abduction, Boyd insisted that God could only intervene through persuasive, not coercive means.[51] Yet, he insists elsewhere that this irrevocability of freedom “does not entail that God can never exercise coercive power in his interaction with free creatures.”[52] Which is it? If God can intervene coercively, at least some times, why would he not do so in the case of Greta, if he was supposedly “doing all he could do?”[53] It sure appears to be a contradiction to affirm that God can only use persuasive means and then to turn around and allow that he can use coercive means as well.

4) Looking for God’s “Why?”

Although Boyd’s version of Open Theism and his TWT provides many persuasive arguments against other approaches, and has much to commend for those who struggle with the problem of evil. It nevertheless, cannot answer what is perhaps the ultimate question, the real problem we all struggle with – why? The idea that God can intervene coercively in some cases and persuasively in others, leaves us no closer to resolving the POE which consists, in part, with the problem of why God chooses to allow some instances of evil and prevent others.[54] Indeed, Boyd admits such when he states, “If we ask for specific reasons why God could not prevent Greta’s abduction when at other times he intervenes and prevents tragedies, we must simply confess ignorance.”[55] This is truly a confusing reply, for as we have seen, the TWT proposed to “provide a remarkably different and remarkably better, understanding of evil than any other approach to this problem.”[56] Can such a theodicy provide any comfort to believers and add any rational legitimacy to theistic truth claims? Perhaps it can, at least to those who accept Open Theism.

Faith and the Limits of Reason

“If we submit everything to reason our religion will be left without anything mysterious or supernatural. If we offend the principles of reason our religion will be absurd and ridiculous”

-Pascal

Despite my criticism of Boyd and his TWT, I do not claim to have refuted Open Theism nor do I believe Greg Boyd is a heretic. Theodicies and defenses offer many important insights into the nature of God and the human condition. However, as is the nature of theodicies and defenses they are ultimately objective and rational approaches to the often subjective and paradoxical relationship that characterizes the POE. Evil is a harsh reality that reaches far beyond the extent of human rationality. Indeed, the very fact that it is referred to as a problem--a problem that most philosophers and theologians admit cannot be solved--suggests that it surpasses human reason’s ability to fully understand its reality. (I prefer the term Mystery. A mystery cannot be solved. If it were to be solved it would no longer remain a mystery. Indeed, the POE, like the existence of God, cannot be reduced to a mere problem!).

Evil is not an objective mathematical riddle. Evil cannot be comprehended or contained by any philosophical or theological system. According to Christian philosopher, C. Steven Evans, in order to solve the POE we would, “have to possess exhaustive knowledge of God’s purposes in creation and of his plans for eternity. Only then could we know that freedom is not worth the cost or know that God had no good reason for allowing natural diseases, and so on. Clearly we human beings do not and cannot have this knowledge.”[57] Thus, any attempts to apply reason as the ultimate judge in matters that lie outside its domain are futile.

A Christian Proposal

The Riddles of God are more satisfying than the solutions of men

-G.K. Chesterton

In what follows I want to offer a particularly Christian approach to the POE.[58] If one were to accept the limits of human reason and reject attempts at attaining rational certainty, then such a person, in this case a Christian, has at his or her disposal a wealth of resources for dealing with the so called problems inherent in maintaining belief in an omnipotent, omniscient, and loving God in the face of evil.[59]

Limits of Human Reason

How then are we as Christians to deal with the apparent theological, philosophical, and existential ramifications of a worldview, which affirms the existence of a personal loving God, while at the same time, affirms the reality of evil? First, a Christian must realize that skeptical and atheistic challenges to faith suffer from the same limitations of human reason, as do Christian defenses of faith such as the TWT. Evans equalizes the bar of reason for the religious believer:

The skeptics challenge is really presumptuous and arrogant. It is a claim by a finite

creature to know how the world should have been created. How could a skeptic know such a thing? Evil is not a disproof of God’s existence. There may be questions about evil that we cannot answer, but our ignorance is far from a conclusive argument against God’s reality. Instead, it means we humans are not in a position to mount such an argument.[60]

The Christian too often suffers from low philosophical self-esteem. An acknowledgement of our common humanity will remedy any arrogant or pious claims to intellectual superiority.

Faith Seeking Understanding

Secondly, a Christian must humbly admit that many tenets of the Christian faith are neither provable nor demonstrable by reason in any modernist sense. However, human beings are all subject to living without certainty, even with apparent contradictions and paradoxes.[61] Scientists are often bewildered at new discoveries that challenge long held assumptions, and at least appear to be contradictory.[62] This is not to denigrate science or the validity of reason and logic. I just want to help the Christian understand that they can be rationally justified in affirming their beliefs despite the occurrence of certain evils that may cast doubt on those beliefs. If the Christian accepts theological doctrines, such as creation ex nihilo, the sovereignty of God, human freewill, the incarnation, and the trinity, they ought not to treat the existence of God and evil as something detrimental to their belief system. Indeed, I submit that the POE ought not to be thought of in an objective manner outside of the Christian worldview, as if by setting aside ones’ personal experience, history, bias, preconceptions, and psychological states one will attain an acceptable level of rational certitude. Evil, for the Christian, is not to be isolated from other beliefs held in faith.

A Theodicy of the Cross

A Christian must realize that the Christian religion has accounted for the reality of evil on almost every page of the Bible. The Biblical writers themselves often wrote out of the midst of deep suffering and mistreatment at the hands of certain evils.[63] Many New Testament books were specifically written for ministering to those experiencing problems with evil. Perhaps the greatest help the bible can offer the Christian is the belief that therein lays God’s revelation of Jesus Christ. The death and resurrection of Jesus Christ provide perhaps the most valid “answer” to the POE. In Jesus’ death and resurrection, what the Christian discovers is that God is with him/her in the midst of evil and suffering. In the cross of Christ, God demonstrated both his association with humanity in the human experience of evil and his triumph over evil. Paul told the Corinthians: “if only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men” (I Corinthians 15:19). Christianity is primarily a religion of hope. The fact of the cross and the resurrection should give the Christian hope in the midst of his or her sufferings; hope that God will eventually wipe out evil and recompense those who have suffered.[64]

Christian Philosopher, Kelly James Clark encourages us to trust the theodicy of the cross: “God’s redemptive work, although we don’t always understand how, is bringing the greatest good out of all this evil.[65]” The test is to see whether we will cling to our trust in him through our dark night of the soul and, hope in God’s goodness. Although we are frail and weak, Christians should not, “grieve like the rest of mankind who have no hope” (1 Thess. 4:13). In the midst of problems with evil, this hope is “an anchor for the soul, firm and secure” (Heb.6:19). In conclusion, an approach to the POE for the Christian ought to include critical engagement with philosophy and theology while maintaining a subjective appropriation of sound biblical truth. Yet in the end, what all human beings need is, “solace, not syllogisms.”[66]

Bibliography

Adams, Marilyn McCord. Horrendous Evils and the Goodness of God. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2000.

Basinger, David. William Hasker, Michael Peterson, and Bruce Riechenbach, eds., Reason and

Religious Belief: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion, 3^rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003.

-----. Philosophy of Religion: Selected Readings, 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007.

Bouma-Prediger, Steven. For the Beauty of the Earth: A Christian Vision for Creation Care Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2006.

Boyd, Gregory A. God at War: The Bible and Spiritual Conflict. Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 1997.

-----. Satan and the Problem of Evil: Constructing a Trinitarian Warfare Theodicy. Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 2001.

Clark, Kelly James. Return to Reason. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1998.

Evans, Stephen C. Why Believe? Reason and Mystery as Pointers to God. Grand Rapids, MI: Erdmans, 1996.

Gaskin, J.C.A ed., David Hume: Principal Writings on Religion Including Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion and The Natural History of Religion. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998.

Howard-Snyder, Daniel, ed. The Evidential Argument from Evil. Bloomington, IL: Indiana University Press, 1996.

-----. “God, Evil, and Suffering,” in Reason for the Hope Within, ed. Michael J. Murray. Grand Rapids:Eerdmans, 1999.

Kelly, Joseph F. The Problem of Evil in the Western Tradition: From the Book of Job to Modern Genetics .Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2002.

Mackie, J. L. “Evil and Omnipotence.” Mind, new ser., Vol. 64, No. 254 (April, 1955) [journal online]; accessed 17 Nov. 2007; available from: http://spot.colorado.edu/~kaufmad/courses/Mackie.pdf

Middleton, Richard J., The Liberating Image: The Imago Dei in Genesis 1. Grand Rapids, MI: Brazos Press, 2005.

Phillips, D.Z. The Problem of Evil and the Problem of God. Minneapolis, MN: Ausburg Fortress, 2005.

Plantinga, Alvin. Warranted Christian Belief. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000.

-----. God and Other Minds: A Study of the Rational Justification of Belief in God. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1975.

-----. “Supralapsarianism,” or ‘O Felix Culpa,’ in Peter van Inwagen, ed., Christian Faith and the Problem of Evil. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2004.

Plato, The Republic, Book II. Trans. by Benjamin Jowett. [book online]. (Accessed 10 Sept. 2007); available from http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/republic.3.ii.html.

Rowe, William L. “Evil is Evidence against Theistic Belief,” in Michael L. Peterson and Raymond J. Vanarragon eds., Contemporary Debates in Philosophy of Religion. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 2005.

Swinburne, Richard. Providence and the Problem of Evil. New York: Oxford, 1998.

[1] Gregory L. Boyd, God at War: The Bible and Spiritual Conflict (Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 1997), 20.

[2] Boyd, Satan and the Problem of Evil (Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 2001), 15.

[3] In Biblical studies this is referred to as the “war motif.” Boyd contends that this is “the central motif of [all] of Scripture.” Satan and the Problem of Evil, 15. See also Gregory Boyd’s previous work dealing with the war motif – God at War (Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 1997). For an alternative to the war motif see: Richard J. Middleton, The Liberating Image: The Imago Dei in Genesis 1 (Grand Rapids, MI: Brazos Press, 2005), and; Steven Bouma-Prediger, For the Beauty of the Earth: A Christian Vision for Creation Care (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2006), 95.

[4] Boyd claims the Israelites depicted the waters mentioned in Psalm 104 as chaotic or hostile forces. Boyd also interprets the “Leviathan” in Psalm 74:13 and Job 41:18 as a Canaanite mythological monster against whom Yahweh must do battle. See: Satan and the Problem of Evil, pgs. 30-31, and: God at War, 288.

[5] Ibid., 44.

[6] God at War, 47.

[7] Satan and the Problem of Evil, 44.

[8] Ibid., 30.

[9] Satan and the Problem of Evil: Constructing a Trinitarian Warfare Theodicy (Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 2001),

[10] Ibid., 23-24.

[11] Ibid., 53.

[12] Determinists advocate a form of freewill referred to as compatibilism. See: David Basinger, William Hasker, Michael Peterson, and Bruce Reichenbach, Reason and Religious Belief: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion, 3^rd ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003), 132. For a good definition of freewill see: Kelly J.Clark, Richard Lints, and James K.A. Smith eds.101 Key Terms in Philosophy and Their Importance for Theology (Louisville, Kentucky:Westminster John Knox Press, 2004).

[13] Satan and the Problem of Evil, 86.

[14] Among other conceivable goals God would be powerless to achieve would be the redemption of humankind.

[15] Satan and the Problem of Evil, 16.

[16] Ibid., 17.

[17] Satan Problem of Evil,165-177.

[18] Boyd says: “A parent’s potential to love her child and thereby bless him, for example, is also her capacity to harm her child – which is to say, the parent is morally responsible for her child.”

[19] Ibid.

[20] Ibid., 170.

[21] Ibid, 170.

[22] Ibid., 171.

[23] Ibid., 182.

[24] Ibid.

[25] Ibid., 185.

[26] I will leave the reader to judge whether this constitutes a logical contradiction.

[27] Ibid., 186.

[28] Ibid.

[29] Ibid.

[30]Satan, 214-217.

[31] Ibid.

[32] Ibid.

[33] Ibid.

[34] Ibid. We are to assume it was thwarted by the hardened will of the perpetrator as well as by overwhelming demonic influence.

[35] Ibid., 214.

[36] Ibid.

[37] Ibid.

[38] Ibid., 215.

[39] Ibid.

[40] Ibid.

[41] Ibid.

[42] Ibid. Boyd concludes that, “life is a gamble, even for God.” (see pg. 175).

[43] Ibid., 172-175.

[44] William L. Rowe, “Evil is Evidence Against Theistic Belief,” in Michael L. Peterson and Raymond J. Vanarragon eds., Contemporary Debates in Philosophy of Religion (Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 2005), 5.

[45] Gregory A. Boyd, Satan and the Problem of Evil: Constructing a Trinitarian Warfare Theodicy (Downers Grove, Ill: Intervarsity Press, 2001), 214. In the case of Greta, Boyd denies any divine purpose in allowing the event.

[46] Ibid., 16. Boyd unapologetically explains that, “we cannot look for God’s purpose for the explanation of why specific evils occur. In a warfare world-view, the evil in question is a result of intentions and activity of human and angelic agents.”

[47] Ibid.

[48] Ibid. Mackie’s phrase

[49] God at War, 287.

[50] Is a dog truly free if an invisible fence controls its freedom?

[51] Ibid., 215.

[52] Satan and the Problem of Evil, 185. TWT5 states that freedom is irrevocable (pg.24).

[53] Ibid., 214.

[54] Boyd agrees that this is indeed the crucial point in the POE: “the POE centrally concerns the question of why God does not more often, and more speedily, intervene in the world in response to suffering.” God at War, 10.

[55] Ibid.,215. The TWT also cannot avoid the vagueness and confusion characteristic of whether or not God determines evil in some sense or if he simply allows or permits it? Calvin insisted that Gods’ willing, allowing, or, permitting something is to say the same thing, namely that God willed it. See Satan and the Problem of Evil, 403.

[56] God at War, 20.

[57] C. Stephen Evans, Why Believe? Reason and Mystery as Pointers to God (Grand Rapids, MI: Erdmans, 1996), 101.

[58] Here I attempt to take up a small reply to the challenge of philosopher Marilyn McCord Adams: “I challenge us to show the courage of our convictions by drawing on the wide resources of our religion to explain how and omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good God could both permit and defeat horrendous evils.” See: Horrendous Evils and the Goodness of God (Ithica, NY: Cornell University Press, 1999), 4.

[59] Of course, in a small paper such as this one I cannot possibly give a full account of these resources.

[60] C. Stephen Evans, Why Believe? Reason and Mystery as Pointers to God (Grand Rapids, MI: Erdmans, 1996), 101.

[61] Indeed, human nature itself is something of a paradox. Humans seem to be purely biological machines, yet, on the other hand, display characteristics surpassing mere physicalist accounts.

[62] For an interesting discussion of thirteen things which science cannot understand see: http://space.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=mg18524911.600

[63] See in particular the books of Job and the Psalms.

[64] For an extensive treatment of the idea of recompense See: Richard Swinburne, Providence and the Problem of Evil (New York: Oxford, 1998), and Marilyn McCord Adams, Horrendous Evils and the Goodness of God (Ithica, NY: Cornell University Press, 1999.)

[65] Kelly James Clark, Return to Reason (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1990), 91.

[66] Daniel, Howard-Snyder, “God, Evil, and Suffering,” in Reason for the Hope Within, ed. Michael J. Murray (Grand Rapids:Eerdmans, 1999), 80.

We pretty much have gotten over the death of God....but seems the death of the devil is alive and well.

2009-02-11T16:29:00.000-08:00

Look here for further musings on the death of the devil.

Look around you....

the devil is pretty much dead when it comes to theology, philosophy, postmodernism and the emerging church.

Daniel Pipes

2008-10-26T19:07:00.000-07:00

For excellent information and insights into Islam and its extremists check out:

http://radicalislam.org/content/subjection-islamic-women

http://www.obsessionthemovie.com/

http://www.danielpipes.org

Dawkins and Hitchens Guy

2008-06-17T17:10:00.000-07:00

A good friend of mine commented to me recently that he had once been a fundamentalist but is now a "Hitchens and Dawkins guy."

Don't get me wrong..I love this guy. He is a brilliant and talented individual with a great sense of humor. However, it seems to me he has simply switched fundamentalisms.

"The Dawkinsian view of reality is a mirror image of that found in some of the more exotic sections of American fundamentalism."*

"Dawkins simply replicates this fundamentalist scenario, while inverting its frame of reference." *

I can't help but think..."wow...from Jesus to Dawkins and Hitchens... DOH!"

*McGrath