Difference between revisions of "Theodicy"
Daniel1212 (Talk | contribs) m |
Daniel1212 (Talk | contribs) m (→Proposals) |
||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
In response, various proposals have been made, such as, | In response, various proposals have been made, such as, | ||
| − | God could | + | God could, |
| − | *1. made us (and angels) with no moral ability, depriving us from the moral ability to respond to or choose good. | + | *1. have made us (and angels) with no moral ability, depriving us from the moral ability to respond to or choose good. |
| − | *2. granted us free moral agency, but never have given us anything to choose between. | + | *2. have granted us free moral agency, but never have given us anything to choose between. |
*3. always move us to do good, and never allow us to choose evil. | *3. always move us to do good, and never allow us to choose evil. | ||
| Line 22: | Line 22: | ||
*6. allow us to choose between good and evil, and to affect others by it, but not reward or punish us accordingly. | *6. allow us to choose between good and evil, and to affect others by it, but not reward or punish us accordingly. | ||
| − | *7. | + | *7. have given us the ability to choose, and alternatives to chose from, with the ability to effect others and things by our choices, and will reward or punishment us according, especially ultimately, while also making the evil we do to work out for the good of those who want good, and thus who love God who is good. |
==Arminian response== | ==Arminian response== | ||
Revision as of 20:09, January 20, 2010
Theodicy is a branch of theology that defends God's goodness and justice in the face of the existence of evil. It is a response to the problem of evil.
The word was supposedly coined by the German philosopher Gottfried Leibniz (1646-1716), and is derived from two Greek words (theos, God, and dike, justice).
The premise which Theodicy is based upon is that God is omnipotent, just and benevolent, with the question being how can God be the author of evil, or allow evil and suffering to exist?
Proposals
In response, various proposals have been made, such as,
God could,
- 1. have made us (and angels) with no moral ability, depriving us from the moral ability to respond to or choose good.
- 2. have granted us free moral agency, but never have given us anything to choose between.
- 3. always move us to do good, and never allow us to choose evil.
- 4. allow us to do evil, but immediately reverse the effect.
- 5. allow us to do bad, but restrict us to a place where it would harm no one but ourselves.
- 6. allow us to choose between good and evil, and to affect others by it, but not reward or punish us accordingly.
- 7. have given us the ability to choose, and alternatives to chose from, with the ability to effect others and things by our choices, and will reward or punishment us according, especially ultimately, while also making the evil we do to work out for the good of those who want good, and thus who love God who is good.
Arminian response
Christian responses include the Arminian position that argues that evil is a consequence of God giving man freedom to choose, and that, if choice means anything, man must have something to choose from, this being turning away from the good to do the opposite. As angels or man have chosen to do evil, this results in suffering. While God knows what man will do, that is not the same not as ordaining or or decreeing it.
Calvinist response
The Calvinist position is that of "determinism", which holds that man has a much more limited extent of free will, and that God has determined all things that will ever come to pass, as the Westminster Confession of Faith states. (3:1 5:2, 4) The Confession essentially states that God in His sovereignty is the first cause of all things, though many of the things which occur are through the "free" actions of man, which God influences. While, as one authority wrote, God "does not arrange things or control history apart from second causes..." He uses such as instruments, so as to make all things work together to accomplish His plan, which is for the good of those who love Him. (Rom. 8:28)[1]
Others, however, object to the further conclusions of Calvinism related to this.[2] While Armianism believes God has the right and the ability to ultimately determine all things, it seeks to reconcile the actions of God concerning the basis for the predestination of the lost with God's own statements about justice, (Dt. 24:16; etc.) while the Calvinist tends to appeal to God's sovereign right to do as He pleases, as Scripture does, (Rom. 11:20) in which not all things are revealed. (Dt. 29:29)
Non-Christian
Non-Christian attempts to resolve this problem range from denying the omnipotence and or omniscience of God, to denying the reality of evil, to making God consist of a dual nature. However, the Bible upholds that God is both almighty and all-knowing, and of a consistent character, and that evil does exist as a reality, and is in opposition to the character of God.
References
- ↑ http://www.leaderu.com/theology/theodicy.html W. Gary Crampton, A Biblical Theodicy
- ↑ http://www.gospeltruth.net/foster_on_cal/otc_2.htm
