No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 February 2009
Christian theists have not normally wished to deny either of the following tenets:
T1: God creates human agents such that they are free with respect to certain actions and, therefore, morally responsible for them.
T2: God is an omniscient, wholly good being who is omnipotent in the sense that he has (sovereign, providential) control over all existent states of affairs.
Why this is so is quite obvious. If T1 is denied, it is difficult to make sense of the standard Christian belief that God can justifiably discipline human agents when they perform actions which violate his commands — i.e., it is difficult to make sense of the basic Christian concepts of sin and punishment. T2 is equally important. If it is denied, it is difficult to make sense of such standard Christian beliefs as (1) God is in control of the significant aspects of our lives, (2) God will bring about his desired goals regardless of the action of human agents, and (3) God is capable of responding in a positive manner to any petitionary prayer that is in keeping with his will.
page 98 note 1 That evil which is itself not entailed by a greater good which outweighs it.
page 102 note 2 This challenge seems especially serious for Conservative theology. Conservatives are quick to condemn ‘Liberals’ for affirming a ‘sweet sentimentality’ which cannot be supported by an objective, rational study of the Scriptures. The Neo-orthodox is likewise condemned for abandoning a rational faith based on propositional truth in favor of an experimental faith based on some sort of ineffable encounter with God. But if the Conservative must admit that his or her selective emphasis of T1 and T2 is based on his own moral and/or intellectual intuitions, then it seems that the Conservative, no less than the Liberal or Neo-orthodox, can rightly be accused of ‘creating’ a God consistent with his own subjective expectations.
page 103 note 3 Calvin, John, Institute of the Christian Religion, II, vi. 6–7.Google Scholar
page 104 note 4 Luther, Martin, On the Bondage of the Witt in Luther and Erasmus: Witt and Salvation, eds. Rupp, E. G. and Watson, P. S. (Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1961), p. 118.Google Scholar
page 105 note 5 Plantinga, Alvin, Cod, Freedom and Evil (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1974), pp. 29–64Google Scholar
page 105 note 6 Leibniz, Gottfried, ‘The Theodicy’ in Philosophical Classics, ed. Kaufmann, Walter (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1961), pp. 260–268.Google Scholar
page 106 note 7 Lewis, C. S., Miracles: A Preliminary Study (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1947), pp. 180–187.Google Scholar