Theodicy Part 1
This post is in the interest of those who want to have a reasonable explanation of God and the problem of evil from the Calvinist perspective.
A few preliminary points need to be made.
1) Human language is a gift from God, an instrument by which divine revelation is accessible by man. God saw fit to provide man with a rational mind so that, though finite and limited in perspective, he can sufficiently understand essential truths pertaining to the nature of God and his relation to the world. This does not mean, however, that human language is able to comprehensively grasp every aspect of God's being and his relation to the world. In the case of theodicy, i.e. the question of how evil came into existence under the watch of a good and holy and righteous God, no single word would encapsulate the relation between the Creator and all other things in existence, particularly sin as a subset of all other things in existence. What is needed is a causal model instead of a single word. This will be more clear when a slippery word like "author" is considered.
2) It could be argued that at least some members of the early Church were concerned with the relation of divine sovereignty and human responsibilty, a topic that can't really be separated from theodicy. Otherwise, how is it that the apostle Paul delves right into this issue in Romans 9? His flow of thought -- going from the historical perspective to the atemporal perspective of divine decrees -- indicates a bigger issue needed to be identified, underlying the more specific issue of how God's promises reconcile with the widespread rejection of the Gospel by the nation of Israel.
All very well, but there is a tremendous blindspot for all of us. Since questions about God and the existence of evil focus on fairness, and the justice in it all, we must make sure we have a valid starting point with our notions of justice and fairness.
However, as Christians we are bound to a starting point behind that starting point, the teachings of scripture. Earlier in Romans, Paul set out an argument in 1:17-3:20 that all mankind, Jew and Gentile alike, are willing co-conspirators in the problem and propagation of evil. Exhibit A in Paul's case is the Law of God as it operates to implicate both Jew and Gentile universally (the Mosaic covenant for the Jew Rom. 2:1-13, 17-29, and the functional equivalent of the Law in the conscience of the Gentile Rom. 2:9-16). His case is summed up that all are implicated in their violation of God's standards of justice and righteousness (Rom. 3:9) and further corrobative evidence is submitted in Rom. 3:10-20, considering how we all fall short in our actions, our ways, our speech, our very thoughts.
Here is an existential problem then. We are unable to cooly and neutrally consider the problem of the existence of evil and the justice of God. To put it simply: if we don't like the answer we still cannot evaluate the justice of God's ways because we are unjust.
Paul has to remind his audience of this very fact (our moral and thus existential deficiency) in the midst of Romans 9 when he anticipates the objection that God is unjust in judging the actions of those whom he ordained to commit such actions: "But who are you, O man, to talk back to God?" This is not just some accusatory, rhetorical question. We are being asked to take a second look back in Romans 1:17-3:20 for the precise answere to this existential question "Who are you O man". And the answer ain't pretty. If we neglect that answer, we have no basis for asking any further questions.
3) Like the doctrine of the Trinity, there is nothing in human experience that is perfectly analogous to how God as an eternal being relates to all other things in existence. We are, as rational creatures, still creatures and are only capable of time-bound, discursive thoughts.
This ontological limitation compounds the moral limitation explained above in (2). But even if we were in a morally innocent state, and God disclosed all aspects of all things to us, we wouldn't get it anyway. His thoughts are not our thoughts. So God condescends in the way he reveals himself, dressed in language and actions that are pedagogical in context of the contingencies of finite human experpiences, relating to the world in time-bound actions accompanied by anthropmorphisms and symbolisms to help describe who he is and what he has done. All so that we can have sufficient analogous knowledge (not perfectly comprehensive, univocal knowledge) of his eternal character and attributes.
A few preliminary points need to be made.
1) Human language is a gift from God, an instrument by which divine revelation is accessible by man. God saw fit to provide man with a rational mind so that, though finite and limited in perspective, he can sufficiently understand essential truths pertaining to the nature of God and his relation to the world. This does not mean, however, that human language is able to comprehensively grasp every aspect of God's being and his relation to the world. In the case of theodicy, i.e. the question of how evil came into existence under the watch of a good and holy and righteous God, no single word would encapsulate the relation between the Creator and all other things in existence, particularly sin as a subset of all other things in existence. What is needed is a causal model instead of a single word. This will be more clear when a slippery word like "author" is considered.
2) It could be argued that at least some members of the early Church were concerned with the relation of divine sovereignty and human responsibilty, a topic that can't really be separated from theodicy. Otherwise, how is it that the apostle Paul delves right into this issue in Romans 9? His flow of thought -- going from the historical perspective to the atemporal perspective of divine decrees -- indicates a bigger issue needed to be identified, underlying the more specific issue of how God's promises reconcile with the widespread rejection of the Gospel by the nation of Israel.
All very well, but there is a tremendous blindspot for all of us. Since questions about God and the existence of evil focus on fairness, and the justice in it all, we must make sure we have a valid starting point with our notions of justice and fairness.
However, as Christians we are bound to a starting point behind that starting point, the teachings of scripture. Earlier in Romans, Paul set out an argument in 1:17-3:20 that all mankind, Jew and Gentile alike, are willing co-conspirators in the problem and propagation of evil. Exhibit A in Paul's case is the Law of God as it operates to implicate both Jew and Gentile universally (the Mosaic covenant for the Jew Rom. 2:1-13, 17-29, and the functional equivalent of the Law in the conscience of the Gentile Rom. 2:9-16). His case is summed up that all are implicated in their violation of God's standards of justice and righteousness (Rom. 3:9) and further corrobative evidence is submitted in Rom. 3:10-20, considering how we all fall short in our actions, our ways, our speech, our very thoughts.
Here is an existential problem then. We are unable to cooly and neutrally consider the problem of the existence of evil and the justice of God. To put it simply: if we don't like the answer we still cannot evaluate the justice of God's ways because we are unjust.
Paul has to remind his audience of this very fact (our moral and thus existential deficiency) in the midst of Romans 9 when he anticipates the objection that God is unjust in judging the actions of those whom he ordained to commit such actions: "But who are you, O man, to talk back to God?" This is not just some accusatory, rhetorical question. We are being asked to take a second look back in Romans 1:17-3:20 for the precise answere to this existential question "Who are you O man". And the answer ain't pretty. If we neglect that answer, we have no basis for asking any further questions.
3) Like the doctrine of the Trinity, there is nothing in human experience that is perfectly analogous to how God as an eternal being relates to all other things in existence. We are, as rational creatures, still creatures and are only capable of time-bound, discursive thoughts.
This ontological limitation compounds the moral limitation explained above in (2). But even if we were in a morally innocent state, and God disclosed all aspects of all things to us, we wouldn't get it anyway. His thoughts are not our thoughts. So God condescends in the way he reveals himself, dressed in language and actions that are pedagogical in context of the contingencies of finite human experpiences, relating to the world in time-bound actions accompanied by anthropmorphisms and symbolisms to help describe who he is and what he has done. All so that we can have sufficient analogous knowledge (not perfectly comprehensive, univocal knowledge) of his eternal character and attributes.
posted by Joe Branca | 2:29 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home