Providence & theodicy

1. Providence & theodicy

2. providence

3. 27 “Consider how the wild flowers grow. They do not labor or spin. Yet I tell you, not even Solomon in all his splendor was dressed like one of these. 28 If that is how God clothes the grass of the field, which is here today, and tomorrow is thrown into the fire, how much more will he clothe you—you of little faith! 29

4. Introduction • Current situation • The reality of evil • Holocaust

5. Calvin • Strong Augustinian influence • Emphasis on divine sovereignty • “…there is no random power, or agency, or motion in the creatures, who are so governed by the secret counsel of God, that nothing happens but what he has knowingly and willingly decreed.” Calvin, InstitutesI.16.3 • Predestination

6. Calvin’s continued influence • From Calvinism emerges the classical (and still much used) three-fold typology: • Preservation • Concurrence • Governance

7. Arminian view • Arminian • Limited self-providence • God’s “self-limiting” • To allow for limited human autonomy • God is currently sovereign by right (de jure) but not in actuality (de facto) • With the fullness of the kingdom, God will be sovereign by right and in actuality • In other words, God has the ability to control but voluntarily limits (chooses), not to do so • A distinction between foreordination and permission • Nothing happens without God’s permission; however, God is not the primary cause of everything • So one could say only in an indirect way that God is the cause of suffering because he permits it to happen

8. Contemporary interpretations of providence • Hans Schwarz • Principle of contingency • World is continuously under the threat of non-being • World as enveloped by God • Two-fold division (not limited to Schwarz) • General Providence • Preservation • God’s dependability • Special Providence • God’s direct intervention

9. Stanley grenz • Focus on Community • Establishment of community as the highest purpose of God’s providence

10. It is in the area of suffering and the presence of evil that the providence of God is most thoroughly tested.

11. theodicy

12. “How long, O Lord?” • Psalm 13.1 • “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” Mark 15.34

16. Introductory thoughts • How do we affirm the God’s providence and Christ’s lordship in the face of evil and suffering • David Hume: Is he (God) willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then is he impotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then is he malevolent. Is he both able and willing: whence then is evil • Evil as incompatible with God’ omnipotence and goodness/love. A negotiation of: • God’s Omnipotence • God’s Goodness • Presence of Evil • Two general types of evil • Moral evil • Natural evil

17. Traditional Approaches to theodicy • Silence • We trust God though as limited beings we cannot explain why there is evil in the world • Divine Punishment • Certainly accounts for some suffering; but we must be careful here. Note Jesus’ admonishment when asked about the sin of the blind man (John 9.1-3) • Opportunity for Spiritual Growth • We are taught through our suffering • E.g. Calvin talked about God sending poverty, disease and so forth so that we would look away from the things of the present life and earth and turn our eyes towards heaven (Calvin, Institutes, 3.9.1) • Going back to what we said earlier in relation to God’s providence, “nothing happens except what is knowingly and willingly decreed by God.” Calvin, Institutes, 1.16.3

18. irenaeus • The world as the “vale of soul-making” • Why does God tolerate evil? • Evil and good are means God uses for us to grow and mature, thus Irenaeus’ view of the world as the “vale of soul-making.” • We are constantly being perfected and formed by the Holy Spirit • Trials are an opportunity for us to grow and mature • John Hick (person -making theodicy) • Develops Irenaeus’ thinking

19. Augustine • God is absolutely good • Evil as the lack of good • Evil as parasitic • Why is there evil? • Human beings exercise their free will and capacity for choice; we misuse that capacity • “An evil will is the cause of all evils” • Result is often suffering because we have misused our freedom • God permits evil but uses events to bring about his purposes • God’s sovereignty is exercised when he brings the good out of evil (cf. Romans 8.28)

20. Response to theodicy • No definitive answer to the problem of evil • The biblical text does not really speculate on the origin of evil; rather it speaks of evil as resisted and overcome in the victory of the cross

21. A trinitarian approach • God is present as co-suffer • Rejection of traditional idea of immutability • God creates space within himself to allow the world to be freely itself • Jeremy’s analogy • God does not overcome evil by raw power and divine will, but through divine love; God truly experiences the suffering of the world and overcomes it • This is consistent with the self-giving love of the Trinity • God’s creatures do not suffer alone • As Daniel Miglore writes, “The power of the triune God is not raw omnipotence but the power of suffering, liberating, reconciling love.” • God is faithful

22. Contemporary approaches to theodicy • Process Thought • Liberation Theodicy • James Cone • Courageous participation in God’s struggle against suffering

23. Sin and the fall

24. Sin and the fall • Taking the Fall seriously • Real consequences to the Fall that effect creation • Romans 8- all of creation is affected by sin of man and is bondage to decay • Exacerbating moral evil • Evil as the result of sin • Structural evil • Collective, societal • God does not create sin; but the options he has provided can result in sin

25. Concluding thoughts • Evil was necessary in accompanying the creation of humankind • For human beings to be truly human, they need to have the capacity to do things that God would not want them to do. • Real freedom entails the possibility that the wrong choices will be made • Not all suffering is ‘evil’ • Part of creating the physical world was to humankind’s finitude • Creating a world with real moral choices meant the possibility of pain and warning signals to help us alter our behavior • Pain as a signal that something is wrong • Millard Erickson’s reevaluation of what constitutes good and evil

26. Concluding thoughts • Different communities may have different responses to suffering • How do we develop a good theology of suffering so that we may better help others? • While intellectual pursuits are good, in this area especially we must be sensitive to the suffering of others • When dealing with specific situations, we need to move from the intellectual to the pastoral.