Tag Archives: trinitarian warfare theodicy

Is God Good?

Is God good? If so, then why is there evil and suffering in the world? Have you heard this before? If you’re like me, you’ve wrestled with it yourself.

It’s a legitimate question that we must answer.

Epicurus (Greek philosopher, 4th cent. BC) is believed to be the first to argue the following:

  1. If an all-powerful and perfectly good god exists, then evil does not.
  2. There is evil in the world.
  3. Therefore, an all-powerful and perfectly good god does not exist.

David Hume (Scottish philosopher, 18th cent. AD) said…

“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?” (Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion)

Theologians and philosophers throughout history have responded to the scoffing of skeptics and accusations made by agnostics against a “good” God creating a world where evil is possible.

From Irenaeus, Augustine, and Aquinas to contemporary voices like John Hick, Alvin Plantiga, and William Lane Craig, a great deal of ink has been devoted to the issue of theodicy (moral defense of God in the face of evil).

I personally subscribe to the Trinitarian Warfare Worldview proposed by Greg Boyd. It is a serious theological, as well as philosophical, treatment of the problem of evil. See my summary of Greg’s views here.

Is it logical for a good God to create a world where evil is possible? Yes, I believe so. However, philosophy (logic & reason) must also make room for theology (natural & divine revelation) for a full, satisfactory response.

God has expressed his true nature in the cross of Jesus. Contrary to the sentiments of Richard Dawkins, the crucifixion is not a “petty” matter inconsequential to human history and the cosmos.

In orthodox Christian perspective, the cross of Christ is the climax of incarnation. God displays the depths of his love for all of creation by bearing the ultimate consequence of the evil our free will has brought into the world.

We also learn that God’s omnipotence doesn’t look like that of Zeus, king of the gods. The power of God is revealed in Jesus’ giving of his life by his own free will for the purpose of reconciling a broken humanity.

Greg Boyd writes…

“The cross refutes the traditional notion that omnipotence means God always gets his way. Rather, the cross reveals God’s omnipotence as a power that empowers others—to the point of giving others the ability, if they so choose, to nail him to the cross. The cross reveals that God’s omnipotence is displayed in self-sacrificial love, not sheer might. God conquers sin and the devil not by a sovereign decree but by a wise and humble submission to crucifixion. In doing this, the cross reveals that God’s omnipotence is not primarily about control but about his compelling love. God conquers evil and wins the heart of people by self-sacrificial love, not by coercive force.”  God of the Possible, p.18

The logic is sound, but the true beauty of it is only discovered in faith.

Do you find this video helpful in articulating God’s righteousness in the face of evil? Let’s renew our belief in the goodness of God by looking upon Jesus as the full and final revelation of his character. 


Resisting the Devil

Resisting the Devil—Satan’s Role in Suffering & the Christian’s Response

Considering how skeptical and even downright critical that American pop-culture is regarding the Christian faith, today there is a particular fascination with witchcraft, paranormal activity, and the Devil himself.

This demonic allure is a bit of a two-sided coin. It is somewhat unnerving to see a society so enamored with the occult that it has become fodder for our hearts and minds in books, movies, and music. It could be that a people with that sort of interest in the Devil may come to find him show up off the big screen and in their personal lives without a formal invitation.

Nevertheless, the recognition of such a principle figure in the story of Jesus and the Gospels may place folks in a better position to receive salvation. It is rather difficult to believe in the Devil, and not then acknowledge the One who stands opposed to him.

As popular as the Devil is in media today, there are plenty of Christians that seldom recognize him as a genuine threat and an ongoing force of evil in their lives. There have even been those within the Christian faith who have tried to dismiss the Devil as a superstitious relic of little importance to the church. However, historic Christianity is quite clear that the Devil is a real spiritual being that leads the demonic opposition to God’s divine program.

Jeffrey Burton Russell writes, “The Devil is not a peripheral concept that can easily be discarded without doing violence to the essence of Christianity. He stands at the center of the New Testament teaching that the Kingdom of God is at war with, and is now at last defeating, the Kingdom of the Devil.”[1]

As the archenemy of God, the Devil seeks to “steal, kill, and destroy” God’s good creation, especially those who are made in his image (Jn 10:10). Again, Russell writes, “The central message of the New Testament is salvation: Christ saves us. What he saves us from is the power of the Devil. If the power of the Devil is dismissed, the Christ’s saving mission becomes meaningless.”[2]

According to the Scripture, how much power does the Devil have in the fight against God’s people? What role does he play in the everyday trials and tribulations of the saints? How can Christians resist the Devil and secure God’s victory in their individual lives, as well as in the community of God—the church? How do saints fight against spiritual evil?

In order to answer these questions, it is best to first learn of the historical and theological development of the Devil—beginning with the Old Testament, moving through the intertestamental literature, and coming to rest in the New Testament. After a brief synopsis of this evolution in evil, attention can then be properly given to the ways in which Christians should resist the Devil and his evil schemes.

The purpose of this article is to briefly examine the theological development of the Devil in order that the believer might fully appreciate the call to Christian resistance in the New Testament, specifically in the epistles of James and 1 Peter. This article will move beyond a sound theodicy as it seeks a proper application of the wisdom and the altruism of Jesus concerning Christian discipleship in the face of suffering.

In this examination, the Christian will be challenged to recognize the “evil impulse within” and be intentional in spiritual formation; as well as to take serious the evil “tempter without” who needs to be aggressively opposed.[3]

THEOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE DEVIL 

Old Testament

“I form the light and create the darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the LORD do all these things” (Isa 45:7 NIV).

It is critical to notice that pre-exilic Hebrew religion did not recognize the Devil as an active evil agent in the world. Yahweh is the only heavenly power in heaven and earth. However, after long periods of suffering in exile, and viewing certain tensions within their concept of Yahweh, the Hebrew religion came to see a cosmic dualism at work.

The Hebrews eventually concluded that God could not be directly responsible for their suffering. Instead, the world is in bondage to the Devil and in need of deliverance.

The fact that the Devil is not fully developed in the Old Testament is not a ground for rejecting existence in modern Jewish and Christian theology. That would be the genetic fallacy: the notion that the truth of a word—or concept—is to be found in its earliest form. Rather, historical truth is development through time.[4]

“Devil” (diabolos) is the Greek translation of the transliterated Hebrew word “Satan” (1 Chron 21:1; Job 1:6-8, 12; 2:1-7; Zech 3:1-2).[5] The Hebrew word satan means “to accuse” or “to oppose” in bringing slander and accusations (cf. TDNT, 2:71-81; 7:151-65). The Latin is diabolus, the German teufel, and the English devil.

In the OT, the word “satan” appears several times as a common noun in reference to a human opponent (1 Sam 29:4; 2 Sam 19:22; 1 Kings 5:4, etc.).[6] Early in the OT “satan” is used to describe those who oppose and obstruct as an adversary. Angels even act as obstructers and are called “a satan” working for the Lord (Num 22:22-35). It is only in the books of Job and Zechariah that “the Satan” is given a distinct personality as a superhuman adversary of God.[7] This is a noticeable development.

The accuser (“the Satan”) and his role become especially pronounced in the drama of Job. The Satan is a member of the heavenly court of God (1:6; 2:1). He is functioning in accordance with God’s interests: to test mankind for the purpose of righteousness (1:6-12; 2:1-5). However, as time moves on in the OT and beyond, the Satan is portrayed as the great rebel of God and the “accuser of the saints.”

Stanley Grenz writes, “Somewhere in his story… the accuser in the court of God develops a hostile intent. Rather than simply acting as the one who tests the righteous on God’s behalf, he becomes the one who maliciously tempts them to sin.”[8] This has prompted some scholars to consider a “cosmic dimension” to certain prophecies—in hopes that it might shed some light on the circumstances leading to the fall of the Satan.[9]

What about the serpent in the Garden of Eden (Gen 3:1-6)? The serpent is not identified in the text as being the Devil, only as a creature “more crafty than any other wild animal the LORD God had made” (3:1).

In the ancient world the serpent was a symbol of life, but instead this serpent brings death to Adam and Eve. Some scholars believe this account only to be a mythological explanation as to how humanity was cursed and why snakes crawl on their bellies. This is possible when you simply consider the immediate context. Russell writes, “Only in Apocalyptic and later literature does the serpent become the tool of Satan or Satan himself.”[10]

This does not necessarily diminish the evangelical interpretation of the serpent as Satan, but rather furthers the idea of a theological development of the Devil through history. The explicit designation of the serpent as the Devil by the inspired New Testament authors is theologically satisfying to say the least (1 Tim 3:13; Rom 16:20; Rev 12:9; 20:2).

Pseudepigrapha & Apocrypha

The literature excluded from the canon, written from 200 B.C. to about 150 A.D., had a great influence on Jewish thinking and interpretation in the first century. This period produced a variety of writings described as “apocalyptic.” Revelation is NT attestation to this bizarre literary genre.

It was during this period of suffering and oppression that the Jewish people began to look again at the prophecies of Scripture. These apocalyptic authors freely interpreted the Scripture in fresh ways to understand their present world, and the hope of the one to come.

Messianic expectations were born out of Syrian and Roman oppression. What’s God doing about evil? It is in this context that the Pseudepigrapha and Apocrypha were written. DeSilva writes, “The Apocrypha contain the testimony of faithful Jews who sought to live out their loyalty to God in a very troubled (and often hostile) world.”[11]

The names of the Devil are plentiful in the Apocalyptic period: Azazel, Belial, Mastema, Satanail, Sammael, Semyaza, or Satan. During this era, the Devil comes to personify evil itself.[12] These dark days provoked new theodicies. 4 Ezra states: “Call heaven and earth to witness; call them to witness, for I have left out evil and created good, because I live, says the Lord” (2:14)—a clear development from Isaiah 45:7.

In the Book of Jubilees 16:15-18, a retelling of Genesis 22:1-19, it is originally Satan’s (Mastema) idea to test Abraham by sacrificing Isaac—just as he did in Job! And it is Satan that meets Moses in the desert purposing to kill him, not Yahweh (Jub 48:1-3; Ex 4:24).

In Jubilees, it is Satan and his demons that tempt, accuse, and destroy, taking upon themselves all of the evil characteristics that were once ignorantly attributed to Yahweh in the OT (48:9-15; 49:2).

It is in 1 Enoch that “the Watchers” (angels) are said to have a leader named Semyaza—the Devil (6:3).[13] Enoch attributes sin to the fallen angels (“sons of God”) in Genesis 6:1-8, but that man is ultimately responsible (En 98:4). The Watchers do not introduce sin, but they certainly exacerbate the sins of the world.

The Wisdom of Solomon declares that the Devil and his angels are not only the opponents of mankind, but opponents of the Lord as well: “God created man for immortality, and made him the image of his own eternal self; it was the devil’s envy that brought death into the world, and the experience of it is reserved for those who take his side” (2:24). Satan’s hatred of man has also become hatred of the Lord.[14]

New Testament

In the NT, the Devil retains the OT role of the “accuser of the saints” but will synthesize Jewish concepts from apocalyptic literature and Greek Hellenistic thought.[15] The Devil, or Satan, is the evil one (1 Jn 2:13,14; 3:12; 5:18, 19), the ruler of this age (1 Cor 2:6, 8), the serpent (Rev 12:9, 14, 15; 20:2), the dragon (Rev 12; 13), and a variety of other titles (1 Jn 4:4; 1 Pet 5:8).[16]

The Devil’s activity and influence is much more pronounced in the NT. Jesus even has a personal confrontation with the Devil where he is tempted in the wilderness before beginning his ministry to preach the kingdom of God (Matt. 4:1-11; Lk 4:1-13). It would appear that the Devil still has access to the heavenly court (Lk 22:31), yet Jesus says, “I saw Satan fall like lightening from heaven” (Lk 10:18), an indicator that the Devil no longer functions in the court of God.[17]

The Devil in the NT will tempt people to sin (1 Jn 3:8), inspire false teaching (1 Jn 4:1-4), create doubt and fear (Rev 12:10), and incite hatred of Christians (1 Pet 5:8-9). Hermas, in his Mandate, says that “the devil lives in an angry temper” (5:1). The Devil exploits anger and rage. Paul warns believers not to sin in their anger—lest the Devil gain a “foothold” (Eph 4:27).

In the NT, the Devil has the power to steal away the good news from the hearts of the lost (Lk 8:12). He is the “ruler of the air” (Eph 2:2) and the “prince of demons” able to possess men (Matt. 12:24; Jn 14:30). The Devil has a significant amount of power over humans—even the natural world.[18] However, there is not a full dualism at work in the NT. Russell writes, “Christianity is in fact a semidualist religion.”[19] The Devil is a fallen angel, not the evil polar opposite of Jesus.

The essential scenario of the struggle appears something like this: The good Lord creates a good world, which is injured by the Devil and the demons, who bring disease and other ills. The world is also injured by the free choice of humanity, as represented by Adam and Eve, to do evil instead of good. The Devil may or may not have tempted Adam and Eve to their original sin; he has certainly been active in the world since. Through the activity of Satan, aided by the demons and by those human beings who fall into sin, the world has fallen under the domination of the Devil. The natural and moral evils of the world are the fault, not of the good Lord, but of these creatures. The conflict between this world, dominated by the Devil, and the Kingdom of God, now brought to earth by Christ, is an important emphasis of the NT.[20]

In this war of the worlds, the “father of lies” is being driven out with all of his sorcery, idolatry, perversion, and disease. Jesus said that it is time for judgment on this world (Jn 12:31). The “prince of this world” will soon be driven out forever and cast into the “lake of fire” (Rev 20:10).

Jesus has overcome by the cross and his followers are promised the victory in his blood (Rev 12:11). Disciples are presently called to “resist” in the momentary struggle and usher in the kingdom of God with good works until Christ comes to establish the new heavens and earth.

THE EPISTLE OF JAMES 

Wisdom in Action

Peter H. Davids believes the epistle of James to be a collection of oral discourses, delivered by James—the brother of Jesus—that were gathered up soon after his death and edited into a book to be published and circulated.[21] The epistle contains wisdom teachings, many which are similar to the sayings of Jesus, that are meant to encourage believers in their trials and spur them on to prove their faith through works—even in the face of evil and suffering.

The epistle is “primarily a theology of suffering, an expression of a Jewish theology of suffering with a long history before James’ Christian version.”[22] Furthermore, Davids states that James’ concern is primarily the “health of the community” instead of the wellbeing of the individual. Wisdom “from above” (3:15), even in the midst of trial, leads to “perfect virtue.”[23] James states:

Who is wise and understanding among you? Let him show it by his good life, by deeds done in the humility that comes from wisdom. But if you harbor bitter envy and selfish ambition in your hearts, do not boast about it or deny the truth. Such “wisdom” does not come down from heaven but is earthly, unspiritual, of the devil. For where you have envy and selfish ambition, there you find disorder and every evil practice. But the wisdom that comes from heaven is first of all pure; then peace-loving, considerate, submissive, full of mercy and good fruit, impartial and sincere. Peacemakers who sow in peace raise a harvest of righteousness. (3:13-18 NIV)

James calls for the wisdom of Christ to be set into action. The testing of the communal faith ought to lead to Christian maturity (1:3). No one in the community should respond to temptation with “I am being tempted by God” because God is not the author of this evil (1:13).

It is the evil desires within humans that lure and entice (1:14). So what of the Devil in James? Is the Devil at work in the community of believers? If so, how does James suggest they respond?

Christian Resistance in James 4:1-10

James says, “What causes fights and quarrels among you? Don’t they come from your desires that battle within you (4:1 NIV)?” Before the reader can hear James speak of resistance against the Devil, it is crucial to understand that James believes the first problem is the yeser (desires or “evil inclination”) that begins in the hearts of those in the Christian community (1:14-15; 4:5).

When yeser is conceived it gives birth to sin (1:15). The believer that overcomes his yeser will not sin in anger (1:19), for he does not allow his yeser to ignite a fire within and corrupt his whole body (3:5-6). In his good works he destroys his yeser (2:14-26). His yeser is under control and does not war against the soul (4:1-3).[24] For James, temptation begins with evil inclinations of the heart (1:13-14).

So where is the Devil in this and how do Christians respond?

After attributing temptation to the impact of the evil inclination within individuals (Jas 1:13-15), James draws a close connection between the evil impulse and the work of the devil. He observes that the tongue is set on fire by Gehenna (Jas 3:6; a way of referring to Satan as the ultimate source) and that the so-called wisdom of the opposition is not only “earthly and un-spiritual” but “of the devil” (daimoniodes, Jas 3:15).[25]

Therefore, the Devil is behind the evil inclination! What does Christian resistance look like when the evil impulse burns within? James says, “Submit yourselves, then, to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you” (4:7 NIV). First, James calls his listeners to “submit” to God in obedience to Christ’s teachings. The Lord must sit on the throne of the heart! This requires total surrender and allegiance to the “covenant” of God.[26]

Following submission, the church is told to “resist” the Devil. “Resist” (antistete) is the same word used in the context of the spiritual struggle in Ephesians 6:11-13. James is envisioning a resistance by faith in God.

The Devil will “flee” when he is resisted through submission to Christ’s law. As the Devil fled from Jesus in the wilderness, after having failed to tempt the Lord to sin, so he will do with those who “humble” themselves and “draw near to God” in reliance upon the power of God (4:6, 8, 10). “That will be the experience of the Christian as well if he or she learns to say no.”[27] Therefore, the key to resisting the Devil is to humbly submit to God’s desires—denying the evil inclinations—drawing near to Christ who then gracefully comes to the Christian’s aid.[28]

Be patient, therefore, beloved, until the coming of the Lord. The farmer waits for the precious crop from the earth, being patient with it until it receives the early and the late rains. You also must be patient. Strengthen your hearts, for the coming of the Lord is near. Beloved, do not grumble against one another, so that you may not be judged. See, the Judge is standing at the doors! As an example of suffering and patience, beloved, take the prophets who spoke in the name of the Lord. Indeed we call blessed those who showed endurance. You have heard of the endurance of Job, and you have seen the purpose of the Lord, how the Lord is compassionate and merciful. (Jas 5:7-11 NRSV)

THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER

Following Christ in Suffering

“Therefore, since Christ suffered in his body, arm yourselves also with the same attitude, because he who has suffered in his body is done with sin. As a result, he does not live the rest of his earthly life for evil human desires, but rather for the will of God” (1 Pet 4:1-2 NIV).

The first epistle of Peter was written in the context of suffering and persecution. Some of the suffering of Christians is described in a general fashion (1:6; 4:12, 19; 5:9, 12) and some of their trials are more specifically mentioned as being brought on due to their identification with Christ (3:15-6; 4:4, 14, 16). The Christian lifestyle has certainly brought them hardship.

Regardless of who was emperor at the time of 1 Peter’s message, whether that be Nero, Domitian, or Trajan, Christians are suffering all over the empire (5:9).[29] Suffering is a mark of authentic Christian discipleship.

Together with the Book of Revelation, 1 Peter is unrivaled among NT documents for its concern with questions of Christian identity, constitution, and behavior in a hostile world. For 1 Peter, Christian communities must struggle with how to maintain a peculiar identity as God’s people in the midst of contrary cultural forces. This is accomplished by identifying with Christ, both in his suffering and in the promise of restoration and justice. Through maintaining their allegiance to God the Father, theirs is a living hope certified by the resurrection of Jesus to life and animated by the Holy Spirit. Their inheritance is nothing less than eschatological salvation.[30]

Peter encourages the saints to follow Christ in suffering as “aliens” and “exiles” in enemy territory (2:11). For Peter, it is not at the hands of flesh and blood that they are being persecuted; instead, the true nature of their opposition is made known: the Devil is on the prowl (5:8)!

The Devil is masked in the human powers that are oppressing the people of Christ. Peter reminds the saints of the battle tactics of Christ—this is a war that must be fought with spiritual weapons.

Christian Resistance in 1 Peter 5:1-11

Peter says, “Be self-controlled and alert. Your enemy the devil prowls around like a roaring lion looking for someone to devour” (5:8 NIV). This is the only place in the Bible where the Devil is identified as a lion.

However, the lion is used elsewhere in the OT to describe the enemies of Israel (Jer 27:17; Ps 21:14; Ezek 22:25).[31] This imagery is likely taken from Psalm 22:13, “They open their mouths wide at me, like a ravening and roaring lion.” Peter means to communicate that the Devil’s intentions are to annihilate the believer through ungodly men.

Christian resistance also begins with humility in 1 Peter. However, in the context, Peter is asking younger believers to accept the authority of the elders (5:5-6). These young believers need to heed the wisdom of the elders in this suffering. “Cast all your anxiety on him, because he cares for you” (5:7 NIV).

Peter uses the imperative: “Resist him, standing firm in the faith…” (5:9). Resistance to the Devil in suffering will require humility and submission to men, as well as God. Standing “firm in faith” reveals that the Devil’s aim is for apostasy. He seeks to destroy the faith of believers in suffering.

There are more than cultural and social consequences at work here. Paul Achtemeier says, “It is a matter of the final fate of the universe itself, since the one the community follows is none other than the creator and sustainer of the universe who will in the end see to the triumph of the divine will.”[32]

Like the Book of Revelation, Peter draws his audience in to confirm that the suffering is demonic and the battle is cosmic. The Lord will triumph, and those that share in his sufferings will overcome—restored, supported, strengthened, and established till he comes (5:10).

For Peter, Christian resistance to the Devil demands a “standing firm on the basis of what one knows to be true, and this makes the shaping of what one ‘knows’ all the more crucial.”[33]

CONCLUSION—EMBRACING THE BIBLICAL TENSION

It should be evidently plain from the historical and theological development of the Devil that the people of God have for a long time acknowledged the reality of this malevolent being. His destructive work cannot be ignored throughout the Bible. And it should not be forgotten today.

The authors of the NT will certainly not allow their audience to forget about the one who “masquerades as an angel of light” (2 Cor 11:14) yet moves under the cover of darkness (Acts 26:17-18; Eph 5:8-11).

The biblical corpus testifies to a great cosmic battle between heaven and earth. On the other side of the curtain is a world of angelic and demonic beings that are well aware of what is at stake here. This article is a reminder for those who embrace the biblical narrative to keep their head in the game.

The Christian must avoid exaggerating the power of the Devil.[34] Gregroy Boyd writes, “Admitting that Satan and demons can sometimes influence our thinking and behavior does not mean that they can determine our thinking and behavior.”[35]

James has made this much clear concerning temptation: the Devil did not make anyone do it—while Peter assures us that it is safe to assume, and even to know with certainty, that the Devil is working behind the scenes to bring about our demise.

Dear saints of God, be humble, resist him, stand firm in the faith, and pray as righteous people of God (Jas 5:16). For as the apostle Paul has written: “The God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet” (Rom. 16:20 NIV).

May the Lord grant us his peace.

Put on the full armor of God so that you can take your stand against the devil’s schemes. For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. Therefore put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground, and after you have done everything, to stand. (Eph 6:11-13 NIV)

D.D. Flowers, 2011.


[1] Jeffrey Burton Russell, The Devil: Perceptions of Evil From Antiquity to Primitive Christianity (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1977), 222.

[2] Ibid., 229.

[3] Peter H. Davids, James. New International Biblical Commentary (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1989), 14, 16.

[4] Russell, 174.

[5] Clinton E. Arnold, “Satan, Devil.” Dictionary of the Later New Testament & Its Developments. eds. Ralph P. Martin & Peter H. Davids, 1077-1082 (Downers Grove: IVP, 1997), 1077.

[6] Russell, 189.

[7] Ibid., 190. Compare 1 Chron 21:1 and 2 Sam 24:1. It may be that the Chronicler edited his later account to reflect the historical and theological development being argued in this paper. See Boyd’s God At War, pgs. 153-54.

[8] Stanley Grenz, Theology for the Community of God (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994), 226.

[9] See Gregory Boyd’s God At War, pgs. 157-162 on Isaiah 14:1-23 & Ezekiel 28.

[10] Russell, 182.

[11] David A. DeSilva, Introducing the Apocrypha: Message, Context, and Significance (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2002), 16.

[12] Russell, 188.

[13] The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs also name Belial (Satan) as leader of the fallen angels.

[14] See T.J. Wray, The Birth of Satan: Tracing the Devil’s Biblical Roots (New York: PALGRAVE MACMILLAN, 2005), pgs. 95-112 “Satan Between the Testaments” for further study; also see Boyd’s God At War, 172-180 over the intertestamental period.

[15] Russell, 221.

[16] Arnold, 1078.

[17] Grenz, 227.

[18] Boyd, 206-207. Boyd says that Jesus’ “rebuking” (epitimao) of the wind and sea is paralleled with his many exorcisms (e.g. compare Matt. 8:18-27 and Mk 9:25).

[19] Russell, 228.

[20] Ibid., 231. I am extremely indebted to both Russell and Boyd’s historical and theological insights.

[21] Davids, 7.

[22] Ibid., 13.

[23] Peter H. Davids, “Theological perspectives on the Epistle of James.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 23, no. 2 (June, 1980): 97-103. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed April 16, 2011), 98.

[24] Joel Marcus, “The evil inclination in the Epistle of James.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 44, no. 4 (October 1, 1982): 606-621. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed April 16, 2011), 620-21.

[25] Arnold, 1079.

[26] Luke Timothy Johnson, The Letter of James: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. The Anchor Bible (New Haven: Doubleday, 2005), 283.

[27] Davids, James, 102.

[28] Hermas wrote that angels came in aiding and strengthening for the struggle with the Devil (Man. 12:6). An angel(s) strengthened Christ after he had been tempted (Matt 4:11) and when he was weak (Lk 22:43).

[29] Paul J. Achtemeier, 1 Peter: A Commentary on First Peter. Hermeneia—A Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Fortress, 1996), 28-29. Achtemeier believes that the persecutions mentioned in 1 Peter are more likely due to “unofficial harassment” than official imperial policy.

[30] Joel B. Green, 1 Peter. The Two Horizons New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 2007), 11.

[31] Achtemeier, 341.

[32] Ibid., 338.

[33] Green, 180.

[34] For further study, see Sydney Page, “Satan: God’s servant.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 50, no. 3 (September 1, 2007): 449-465. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed April 16, 2011). Page is concerned to point out that the Devil is working for the Lord even now.

[35] Gregory Boyd, Satan and the Problem of Evil: Constructing a Trinitarian Warfare Theodicy (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2001), 168.


An Open Theism Theodicy

Gregory Boyd on the Problem of Evil

Where is God when a seven-year-old child is kidnapped, viciously raped, and her decapitated body is left in a plastic bag beside a cold riverbed?[1] Gregory Boyd believes that evil “cannot be captured in abstract definitions”[2] but must be known in concrete experiences, like that of seven-year-old Greta, before any serious answers may be given to the problem of evil—lest “abstractions… distract us from that immediate reality [of evil] and reduce evil to a statistic,” as suggested by Jeffery Burton Russell.[3]

Traditionally, classical theism has largely conditioned her adherents to accept that God, who is omnipotent, must allow Greta’s brutal murder for some good purpose and that Christians should accept this as being a part of God’s secret plan—often expressed in the popular cliché: “There is a reason for everything.”

Gregory Boyd, who previously taught theology at Bethel College in St. Paul Minnesota, where he is now a pastor of Woodland Hills Church, has in the last decade, encroached upon many long-held doctrines and traditions that Christians, particularly in America, hold dear.

His book, Myth of a Christian Nation: How the Quest for Political Power is Destroying the Church (Zondervan 2006) is an example of his willingness to confront issues within cultural Christianity.

Boyd is a strong proponent of “open theism,” perhaps the most controversial of his challenges directed at classical theism. It is within Boyd’s open view of God’s sovereignty that he finds satisfactory solutions for the problem of evil and the way by which he constructs his “Trinitarian Warfare Theodicy.”[4]

The purpose of this article is to give reasonable consideration of the theodicy espoused by Gregory Boyd. The theodicy of Gregory Boyd will be appraised as a sensitive engagement of the issues pertaining to the problem of evil as it relates to the Christian life, showing the strengths of contemporary open theism, and thereby arguing for a respected position within evangelicalism.

This article will begin by briefly examining classical theism and will then direct full attention to the open theism of Gregory Boyd. How then does Boyd’s doctrine of God deal with the problem of evil and suffering in the world? What practical implications might his view have on Christians living in the present, as well as their hope for the future?

Finally, in what ways do Boyd’s theodicy enhance our understanding of God and the Gospel of Jesus Christ?[5]

THE CLASSICAL DOCTRINE OF GOD

A Synopsis of Classical Theism

What does “classical theism” mean? Classical theism generally describes the way the Christian theological tradition handles the doctrine of God.[6] In other words, it describes the traditional or “classic” way in which Christians have answered the question, “Who is God?” or “What is God like?” Classical theists focus on certain attributes of God and build a systematic theology from what they have decided about God’s attributes.

For the sake of this article, it is only necessary that a few of those attributes be briefly addressed.[7]

According to classical theism, God is “immutable” and “impassible.” Immutability says that God is unchanging in nature. However, the tradition has gone as far as God being inert and unmoved. Impassibility, an attribute often closely associated with the former, suggests that God does not experience true sorrow, sadness, or pain. Therefore, any emotions attributed to God are purely metaphorical.

Classical theism also upholds the belief that God is “omnipotent” and “omniscient.” These attributes have been historically central to the Christian doctrine of God. Omnipotence says that God is “all powerful” and capable, within the limits of his attributes, of doing whatever he pleases. Omniscience means that God is “all knowing” and that there is nothing beyond his knowledge; this would include God’s foreknowing all things in the future.

It should be noted that these attributes have been largely expounded upon and articulated in Hellenic philosophical terminology, and more popularly defined by the likes of Augustine, Aquinas, and John Calvin.[8]

Rethinking Classical Theism

There are a growing number of evangelical theologians who are finding themselves dissatisfied with classical theism, and they propose an alternative to the traditional doctrine of God.[9] This controversial movement, and contemporary trend in the doctrine of God, has been dubbed “open theism”—a term coined by Richard Rice in his 1980 book, The Openness of God: The Relationship of Divine Foreknowledge and Human Free Will.[10]

Open theism calls into question the way in which the divine attributes have been traditionally defined. Language about God in the Scripture, according to open theists, is not always intended to be anthropological or metaphorical. If God is “immutable” and never changes, then how, for example, is God sorry that he made humankind (Gen. 6:5)? How does God change his mind (Exod. 32:14)? And what about the incarnation (Jn. 1:14)?

Clark Pinnock, a major proponent of open theism, says, “God is unchanging in nature and essence but not in experience, knowledge and action.”[11] Open theists also call for a redefining of God’s sovereignty and his foreknowledge; if God already knows the future exhaustively, and the future is predetermined, then free will is merely an illusion.

Finally, open theists say that if God is in complete control of the cosmos, as proposed by classical theism, then he must be behind evil. Therefore, God could have done something about seven-year old Greta, but simply chose to “allow” it for his good purposes.

Open theists suggest that maybe it is time for evangelicals to rethink classical theism and realign their views with Scripture.

THE OPEN THEISM OF GREGORY BOYD

Free Will, Foreknowledge, & the Problem of Evil

Gregory Boyd believes that true freedom is incompatible with determinism.[12] The belief that God can foreknow all things, and that man can at the same time operate out of free will, is logically incoherent. This is a major point of contention for open theists. For Boyd, the future is partly open and full of possibilities. Only the past can be known exhaustively—for the past is gone, the present is ongoing, and the future is yet to come.

If the relational Triune God is love, then the very nature of love involves a certain level of risk.[13] Classical theists believe that this undermines God’s sovereignty.[14] Boyd argues, a God “who knows all possibilities, experiences novelty, and is willing to engage in an appropriate level of risk is more exalted than a God who faces an eternally settled future.”[15] And Boyd believes that this is the God presented in the Bible.

According to Boyd, God knows the future as “unsettled possibilities” (e.g. Gen. 23:12; Jer. 3:6-7; 2 Pet. 3:12) and “settled certainties” (e.g. Gen. 15:13-15; Matt. 24:1-32; Eph. 1:3-10) where God invites human beings, made in his image, to join him as agents of new creation.[16] God perfectly anticipates the actions of free creatures and knows all that is knowable about the future. Boyd says, it’s really about the nature of the future.

In this way God is truly immanent and operates within his creation according to its laws and nature. Since God’s knowledge is perfect in knowing possibilities, as if they were all certainties, he will forever be a step ahead of his creatures. However, those creatures are always given an “appropriate degree of freedom” to operate within creation and shape the future.[17]

Boyd believes the cross best speaks to the open view of the future, God’s sovereignty, and how God has judged evil once and for all in the death of Jesus:

The cross refutes the traditional notion that omnipotence means God always gets his way. Rather, the cross reveals God’s omnipotence as a power that empowers others—to the point of giving others the ability, if they so choose, to nail him to the cross. The cross reveals that God’s omnipotence is displayed in self-sacrificial love, not sheer might. God conquers sin and the devil not by a sovereign decree but by a wise and humble submission to crucifixion. In doing this, the cross reveals that God’s omnipotence is not primarily about control but about his compelling love. God conquers evil and wins the heart of people by self-sacrificial love, not by coercive force.[18]

Jesus taught his disciples to pray, “your kingdom come, your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven” (Matt. 6:10 NIV). According to Boyd, this presupposes that God’s will is not always done. Therefore, in Boyd’s view, genuine free will affords mankind the choice to align with God’s good intentions for creation and say, “not my will be done, but thine” or otherwise join the forces of evil that fight against God.

Boyd is convinced that there is a real war being waged between human and angelic agents of free will. He rejects what he calls the “blueprint worldview” where God ordains everything that comes to pass—which in the end makes God responsible for evil.[19]

Therefore, he says, “The blueprint worldview intensifies the problem of evil, and it is rooted in fundamental philosophical assumptions that are highly questionable.”[20] Instead, Boyd offers the “warfare worldview” as a way of making sense of the problem of evil within the doctrine of God. He calls it his “Trinitarian Warfare Theodicy.”

A Trinitarian Warfare Theodicy

Gregory Boyd says, “This intellectual problem of evil constitutes the single most difficult challenge to classical-philosophical Christian theism.” He continues, “Indeed, it is not overstating the case to claim that no single theological problem has occupied more intellectual energy, time, and ink than this one.”[21]

As Clark Pinnock has pointed out, modern atheism is largely due to philosophical distortions that have entered into the doctrine of God.[22] Boyd is determined to clear up these distortions with his “philosophical theology” set forth in his book, Satan and the Problem of Evil: Constructing a Trinitarian Warfare Theodicy.[23] Boyd says:

I call it a trinitarian warfare theodicy for two reasons. First, I want clearly to distinguish the warfare worldview I espouse and defend from the warfare worldview that most other cultures in history have in some form espoused. The biblical warfare worldview is unique in that it has at its foundation the belief in a triune Creator God who is all-powerful and all-good. This is why the trinitarian warfare worldview is unique: it must reconcile the reality of spiritual war with the belief in an all-powerful and all-good God.[24]

Boyd says he is motivated by his encounter with Scripture, not philosophy.[25] However, because his theodicy is a work in philosophical theology, Boyd says that reason will play a more dominant role than it would in a biblical theology. He states, “Scriptural revelation goes beyond reason, but I do not believe it ever goes against reason.”[26]

Boyd explains his methodology:

The method I employ to arrive at the six theses that constitute the core of the trinitarian warfare worldview is based on Wesley’s methodological quadrangle of Scripture, reason, experience, and tradition as the criteria for theological truth.[27]

These six theses form the core of his position and perspective:

  1. Love must be freely chosen. This entails that creatures possessing the capacity to love, must also have self-determining freedom.
  2. Love involves risk. There is no way God could have created beings with self-determining freedom without suffering some losses.
  3. Love and freedom mean that creatures are to some degree “morally responsible for one another.”
  4. The ability an agent has to do good is roughly proportionate to the ability that creature has to do evil.
  5. Freedom must be, within limits, irrevocable. For Boyd, this explains why God cannot always prevent evil or interfere in human affairs.
  6. The capacity to choose love is not endless. Human beings are finite and their choices only extend so far. This means that self-determined creatures have a limited capacity to accept or reject God’s purposes.[28]

Boyd says that the final theses, “renders intelligible why God must genuinely war against rebellious creatures at the present time, though he is certain to overcome them in the future.”[29] In fact, Boyd believes that the entire narrative of Scripture is the telling of one great spiritual war.

In his book, God At War: The Bible and Spiritual Conflict, Boyd first laid out the framework for his warfare worldview.[30] He examined both the Old and New Testaments in order to prove that behind the scenes of human history there has been an ongoing battle of cosmic forces. Satan and his angels began a war against the God of heaven some time in the primordial past and brought their rebellion to earth.[31]

What began in the Garden of Eden (Gen. 3:1-15), continued through the trials of Job (1:6-12), warred against the prayers of Daniel (10:1-21), and demonized the man along the Sea of Galilee (Mk. 5:1-20), was finally confronted by Jesus with spiritual and physical “acts of war.”

According to Boyd, even “natural evils” (e.g. earthquakes, floods, birth defects, mental illness etc.) are a result of these evil powers and they should be attributed to Satan, “the god of this world” (2 Cor. 4:4; Eph. 2:2) and his fallen angels that have turned against God.[32]

Boyd believes that every evil act or event is a result of free agents choosing to oppose God’s will. Whether that is humans or angels, all evil comes to us because of acts of defiance against God.[33]

Boyd says, “Evil is a mystery, but it is not a mystery concerning Yahweh’s character… the mystery of evil is not located in the heart of God but in the heart of humanity and in the hidden world between humans and God.”[34] God is not to blame for evil in his world.

Boyd contends that the early Christians were well aware of this spiritual war and it constituted “the only ‘problem of evil’ they knew or cared about.” It was a matter of aligning their lives with God’s will in Jesus. Boyd says, “It was a problem solved by spiritual activism, not by intellectual contemplation and pious resignation.”[35] The early believers were urged to join the angelic forces of God, in spiritual battle, with spiritual armor, through prayer (Eph. 6:10-18).

As Paul said, “For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms” (Eph. 6:12 NIV).

There was no need for the early Christians to ponder “why bad things happen to good people,” because they were ever mindful of the war that rages on until Christ comes to establish his kingdom forever on the earth (Rev. 20-21). They were at war with evil—fighting with weapons not of this world (2 Cor. 10:4)! They resonated with the words of Paul: “The God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet” (Rom. 16:20).

Practical Implications

So what then can be said about seven-year old Greta who was abducted and raped before being brutally murdered? Where was God in this wretched evil?

In this light we must conclude that it is at least as true to say that God could not prevent Greta’s abduction as it is to say that God chose not to prevent it.  God chose not to prevent this abduction in the sense that he alone chose to create the kind of risky world where this kind of evil could happen. Moreover, because God made this choice, he now could not guarantee that this evil would be prevented. Where free agents are involved, God’s omnipotent will can at times be thwarted (Lk. 7:30).[36]

Gregory Boyd’s “Trinitarian Warfare Theodicy” does more than somehow let God off the hook for evil. His theodicy implies that both humans and angels are in a real war with God. Therefore, human and angelic actions really do matter in this world. Free agents can choose to join the Lord in works of the kingdom to resist evil and “speed his coming” (2 Peter 3:8-13) in the world, or capitulate to evil through actions that are antithetical to the new heaven and earth.

Boyd says, “If we believe that possibilities are not real, we will be more inclined to accept things that we could, and should, revolt against.”[37] Boyd calls for a proactive stance toward evil.

How then should Christians revolt? Boyd suggests that followers of Christ ought to understand prayer as “morally responsible behavior” in confronting evil in the world.[38] He believes that many Christians do not pray passionately against evil because somewhere deep down they don’t believe it can make any real difference.

People often pray out of obligation without any sense of urgency.[39] Boyd is convinced that if Christians get their minds right about what’s really going on, they will then see God opposed to all evil and join him in that opposition.

Embracing this “open” warfare worldview may not entirely solve the problem of evil, but Boyd believes that “it offers a more plausible way out of the dilemma of assuming God has a purpose for allowing particular evils.”[40] It is then necessary to reject the blueprint worldview.

Jesus taught his followers to align themselves with the Father’s will in prayer in order that he might have his way in them and the world (Matt. 6:10). Prayer joins heaven and earth. It moves people, angels, and all of creation to action against evil in order that God’s forces advance in the universe.

So when evil momentarily gets the upper hand, Boyd reminds Christians that God’s power is so great that he can use evil for the good of those who are concerned with kingdom alignment (Rom. 8:28). God weeps for Greta and others like her that have suffered at the hands of Satan. God is not sitting idly by doing nothing—and neither should his people.

It is plain that Boyd’s theodicy is a serious treatment of spiritual warfare. It implies that Christian living really does matter for kingdom’s sake. Boyd’s theodicy also reminds believers that God is for his people, always. He comes alongside his people and suffers with them (Heb. 4:15-16).

The cross of Christ reminds God’s people that he has himself experienced the full weight of evil. The resurrection says that God has conquered and that he is recreating the world in Jesus. Sin and death are on the way out. Boyd’s warfare worldview assures believers of God’s certain triumph, but in the meantime, there is a real battle being fought in heaven and earth.

Most importantly, Christians are reminded that Jesus reveals the God of Scripture. Jesus shows us that God is not behind evil, but instead, he stands utterly opposed to it. Boyd suggests that this also means that believers should see Jesus’ own actions as God’s way of rebuking evil.[41]

Where there is hate, let there be love. Where there is darkness, let there be light. Where there is unrest, let there be peace. And where there exists the most horrendous evils in the world, let God’s people overcome that evil with the good of Christ—for he has given us the victory.

CONCLUSION—A PLEA FOR OPEN DIALOGUE WITHIN EVANGELICALISM

Clark Pinnock has said, “No doctrine can be more important than the doctrine of God.”[42] Pinnock stands as a great testimony to evangelicals of what semper reformanda truly means. As an evangelical, he knew what it was like to be on a theological journey of discovery.

Pinnock (1937-2010) went from being a fundamentalist to ending his days as a respected open theist. He was familiar with the turmoil that comes from having his views challenged and making adjustments when needed.

Pinnock said:

After the initial anxiety of rethinking, one will find God again in a fresh way around the next bend in the reflective road. Rather than worry about our discomfort, perhaps we should be concerned about God’s reputation. Does it not concern us that God’s name is often dishonored because of poor theologies of God? How can we expect Christians to delight in God or outsiders to seek God if we portray God in biblically flawed, rationally suspect and existentially repugnant ways? We cannot expect it.[43]

As long as men let their guiding light be Christ and the Scriptures, how can another brother or sister stifle the growth and discovery of perceived truths? It goes to the heart of what it means to be an evangelical. There is room for open theists at the table of Christian orthodoxy.[44]

The challenge facing classical theism is not one that undermines biblical Christianity. Open theism is no doubt a perceived threat to classical theists, but this is because there are fundamental philosophical nuances between the two positions.[45]

After having examined the theodicy of Gregory Boyd, it should be clear that the conclusions he has drawn are biblically founded and Christ honoring. Who can deny open theists a place in serious evangelical discussion and debate?

May evangelicalism be enriched by the contributions of open theists.

D.D. Flowers, 2010.

Listen to Gregory Boyd give an intro lecture on open theism. Listen to Gregory Boyd at Altar Video Magazine.


[1] Gregory A. Boyd, Satan and the Problem of Evil: Constructing a Trinitarian Warfare Theodicy (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2001), 214-215.

[2] Boyd, God at War: The Bible and Spiritual Conflict (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1997), 34.

[3] Jeffrey Burton Russell, The Prince of Darkness (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1988), 257.

[4] Boyd sets forth his “Trinitarian Warfare Theodicy” in his book, Satan and the Problem of Evil. His open theism theodicy will be discussed in detail later in the third section of this article, The Open Theism of Gregory Boyd.

[5] As an open theist, Gregory Boyd is especially concerned with evil and what God is doing about it. Therefore, this article will focus primarily on his “open” perspective to the problem of evil. He has made a great effort to address his concerns with classical theism and present his theodicy as the “warfare worldview” in the following books: God at War: The Bible and Spiritual Conflict (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1997); Satan and the Problem of Evil: Constructing a Trinitarian Warfare Theodicy (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2001); Is God to Blame? Beyond Pat Answers to the Problem of Suffering (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2003).

[6] Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen, The Doctrine of God: A Global Introduction (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2004), 53.

[7] For a full discussion, see Stanley Grenz, Theology for the Community of God (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994), 78-97; and Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994), 156-184.

[8] Robert M. Grant, The Early Christian Doctrine of God (Charlottesville, VA: Univ. of Virginia, 1966), 12; also Charles Hartshorne and W. Reese, Philosophers Speak of God, 2nd ed. (Amherst, NY: Humanity Books, 2000).

[9] Richard Rice, God’s Foreknowledge and Man’s Free Will (Minneapolis: Bethany, 1985); John Sanders, The God Who Risks: A Theology of Providence (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1998); William Hasker, God, Time, and Knowledge (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1989); David Basinger, The Case for Freewill Theism: A Philosophical Assessment (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1986); and Gregory Boyd, God of the Possible: A Biblical Introduction to the Open View of God (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2000); also R. Nash’s, The Concept of God: An Exploration of Contemporary Difficulties with the Attributes of God (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1983).

[10] The book was so controversial that publication was halted. Due to the efforts of Clark Pinnock, the book was later republished as, God’s Foreknowledge and Man’s Free Will (Minneapolis: Bethany, 1985).

[11] Clark Pinnock, The Openness of God: A Biblical Challenge to the Traditional Understanding of God (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1994), 118.

[12] Boyd, Satan and the Problem of Evil, 419. Boyd says, “compatibilism and the problem of evil are inextricably connected” (p.61).

[13] Sanders, The God Who Risks: A Theology of Providence (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1998).

[14] As John Piper argues in his book: Beyond the Bounds: Open Theism and the Undermining of Biblical Christianity (Wheaton: Crossway Books, 2003); also in Millard Erickson’s, What Does God Know and When Does He Know It? (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2003).

[15] Boyd, God of the Possible, 15.

[16] Ibid., 16. Boyd says, “I see no way to know for certain what is and is not open” (p. 146).

[17] Ibid., 68.

[18] Ibid., 49.

[19] Boyd, Is God to Blame?, 41.

[20] Ibid., 55.

[21] Boyd, God At War, 43.

[22] Pinnock, The Openness of God, 102.

[23] Boyd, Satan and the Problem of Evil, 18.

[24] Ibid.

[25] Boyd, God of the Possible, 12-13.

[26] Boyd, Satan and the Problem of Evil, 21.

[27] Ibid., 20

[28] Ibid., 24.

[29] Ibid.

[30] Boyd, God At War.

[31] Ibid., 93-113. Boyd entertains the “gap theory” or what he calls the “restoration theory.” This theory proposes that there was a cosmic battle between Genesis 1:1-2; see Jon Levenson, Creation and the Persistence of Evil: The Jewish Drama of Divine Omnipotence (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1988), 121-122.

[32] Ibid., 206. Boyd says that we can’t possibly know the exact cause of every evil act or event, but it is safe to assume that the activity belongs to Satan and his forces of evil that continue to rebel against their Creator.

[33] Boyd, Satan and the Problem of Evil, 49.

[34] Boyd, God At War, 149.

[35] Ibid., 283.

[36] Boyd, Satan and the Problem of Evil, 215.

[37] Boyd, God of the Possible, 93.

[38] Boyd, Satan and the Problem of Evil, 229.

[39] Boyd, God of the Possible, 95. Boyd believes the blueprint worldview propagates this idea.

[40] Ibid., 99.

[41] Boyd, Is God to Blame?, 72.

[42] Pinnock, The Openness of God, 102.

[43] Ibid., 104.

[44] Clark Pinnock, “There is room for us: a reply to Bruce Ware.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 45, no. 2 (June 1, 2002): 213-219. * Other notable open theists include: Adrio Konig, Jürgen Moltmann, Thomas Finger, Terence Fretheim, Keith Ward, John Goldingay, Kenneth Archer, Winkie Pratney, and H. Berkhof.

[45] See, Gregory Boyd, “Christian love and academic dialogue: a reply to Bruce Ware.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 45, no. 2 (June 1, 2002): 233-243.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 490 other followers

%d bloggers like this: