Customer Reviews

Satan & the Problem of Evil: Constructing a Trinitarian Warfare Theodicy

5 star:		(21)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(3)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(9)

 

 

As a pastor and student of theology, I have leaned more on the Calvinist side of the fence in regards to the free will/sovereignty debate. I understand the implications of different views on God's foreknowledge. My position has always been that much of this issue is mystery and we as finite beings will never fully understand how we can have the experience and responsibility of freedom and yet be created by a God who is omniscient and omnipotent.

The reason, though, that I have always leaned on the Calvinist side is that Reformed theologians always seemed more consistent and cogent in their thoughts. 'Arminian' theology always seemed weak to me. It seemed like it took a middle ground that never cleared up the logical confusion of human freedom and divine foreknowledge. Of course, strict Reformed theology never cleared it up either. It was just comfortable with the logical conclusion that God chooses some to be objects of eternal wrath for His own glory, as well as with the problem of evil in this age. It is honest, but it's honest conclusion does not line up with the God of love who wills that all men be saved. But due to the weakness of Arminian scholarship, I accepted most of classic Calvinism (except for limited atonement) and chalked my confusion up to mystery.

Gregory Boyd's two-fold work in God at War and Satan & the Problem of Evil is the first that I have read from 'the other side' that has provoked me to much thought. I have never been 'open' to openness theology (and have thus never read anything from this stream until now) because of its association with process theology, but after reading Boyd's work I see that openness is not an embracing of process thought. Though I do not agree with everything Boyd has written, his understanding of & respect for Scripture are definitely within the bounds of evangelicalism (regardless of what other reviewers on this site have written- these reviews smack of hyper-Calvinists who think that anyone who is not a strict 5 point Calvinist is a heretic!) The problem of evil and an honest, biblical understanding of foreknowledge are too large of issues to be settled in one book, but this volume has made me think about openness thought in a new light. I recommend it to anyone who is delving into these deep things regarding God's foreknowledge and our freedom & responsibility as His creatures. All glory to Him!

It is true that the focus of the book is anti-Augustinian in its emphasis, but there is no reason any Armenianist should have a problem with the book's central thesis. The author argues that Augustine's emphasis on God's will being the overriding factor in all that happens logically led to a de-emphasis of the importance of the forces of evil (since if nothing that happens except as God's will, the evil forces become as puppets in his hand to accomplish His will). Boyd argues that the emphasis of the early Christians, and of Scripture, is on their being an actual battle between good and evil. This is the central thesis of the book. The Open view stuff is a sideline, which Boyd points out several times in the book is not necessary in order to hold to the central premis of the book. I'm mentioning this because it seems to me that there are reviewers who have gotten hung up on this issue (i.e. the Open View issue).

I really liked the book a lot. It supported exhaustively the concept of warfare in Scripture, from virtually every book in Scripture. Seeing the problem of evil as one where what happens is not necessarily God's will, but the result of those opposed to His will, has profound practical applications.

edit:

It's been a long time since I've been here. I read my review below with both amusement and slight embarrassment. I remember being irked the day I wrote it, and I must apologize for it's tone. It was not the most Christian way to go about writing.

However, I do stand by the central point I was making. Disagreement is fine, but avoid making accusations. I must disagree with a following reviewer about preconceptions. I was merely pointing out that many people come to read Boyd with the purpose of striking him down; I was simply advising the readers to avoid this purpose and to examine their own background. Obviously, reading a book with an empty mind is both impossible and irresponsible, but when we evaluate our own influences we can better handle debates such as this one. The reviewer's logic is circular about Boyd; we all have outside philosophical influences, "liberal" or "conservative," and he seemingly thinks that the label of conservative automatically entails correctness. Any objective person will say that Augustine had influences from Hellenistic philosophy; this does not automatically mean that his biblical interpretations are illegitimate. Likewise, Boyd, like all of us, has influences from Harthorne (I think "indoctrinate" is highly inaccurate), but this does not mean he is incorrect all of a sudden. To argue this way borderlines arrogance, for it assumes that "those" people don't have philosophical influences as others. The very term Calminian is curious as well; obviously, both Arminians are Calvinists are concerned about the Bible and differ on interpretation; saying that they would be "Calminian" if they truly were wholly Scriptural is, again, somewhat arrogant. I disagree with Calvinists, but I have no doubt that they are concerned with the Bible and I would not question that.

To the unfortunate reviewer with the bad experience with Boyd, I must say that I'm sorry. I do not know the guy personally. However, I will say that to be careful with accusations of him not being a "true" Christian. Boyd is not perfect, nor are the members of church. All Christians have acted un-Christian at some point of their lives; thank goodness God will forgive such errors. If you are correct that Boyd is un-Christian and an incurable hypocrite, then I know I'm in trouble because I have acted unloving many times before (as my post below indicates). Leave final judgment to God.

Back to the book. I highly recommend it. Is Boyd perfect? No. Does he have outside philosophical influences? Yes, as we all do. Does he love God and does he care about the Bible? For what I can see, yes he does. If you disagree, please treat him as a Christian brother regardless.

...



Gregory Boyd has obviously become quite a controversial figure. However, this is probably more due to, quite frankly, many Christians' arrogance and alarm over hearing something different than they grew up with.

I've always been annoyed with people throwing around heretic labels and writing with a clear axe to grind. Obviously, nobody is forced to agree with Boyd on every point, but if you read this man's work, you know that he has nothing but respect for the Bible and in general his life and views land him squarely within conservative evangelical Christianity, contrary to what many reviewers would like us to believe. Boyd's book refuting the Jesus Seminar is a favorite among evangelicals.

Wow. Somebody disagrees on a doctrinal point. What a crisis. This issue is not nearly as threatening to the biblical concepts of God's majesty and love than people are treating it.

I've always been remarkably unimpressed with Calvinism due to its arrogance in interpreting Scripture and its curious desire to attribute every single detail, including evil, to "God's plan." Boyd does a good job in exposing many flaws of Calvinism, and Christians, regardless if they agree completely or not, should definitely be open to this criticism.

To me, it does sound like the Calvinists here are no different than the ones I have met personally. Except for arguing, rightly, in a civil manner that is seeking to correct mistakes, they would rather accuse of intentionally screwing up doctrine. For instance, it's NOT legitimate to accuse an Arminian for devaluing God's sovereignty on purpose; obviously, a Christian would not be an Arminian if he thought so. Calvinists throw a fit, likewise, when Arminians accuse them of making God morally ambiguous. If Calvinists do not like people accusing them right off the bat of jeopardizing a central attribute of God, then they should not do the same.

To the reader, I'll tell you this much: Boyd departs from some traditional UNDERSTANDING of God's attributes, but he in no way tries to throw any out the window. Disagree with him, but do NOT throw a temper tantrum just because he has a doctrinal difference. You're pathetic if you do. Ignore these accusations of Boyd being a souped-up liberal heretic; Boyd would defend to the death the historicity of Jesus and the saving power of his death and resurrection.

Oooooo... he's from Princeton and Yale. He must be a naughty New Age psycho in disguise. Please, people... if anything, that shows Boyd is intelligent and the he has a wide range of experiences from different areas, unlike many pastors who simply grow up glued into their ultraconservative surroundings.

Read this book. Try to read it without too many preconceptions, and you'll appreciate its effort and thought-provoking material, even though you disagree with some areas (as I do).

It's inteeresting to see Calvinist responces to Boyd's excellent thesis in God at War and Satan & the Problem of Evil and their charges of hersy, delusional misinterpretation of Scripture, and so on. Having read both books let me just make a few comments:

1) Augustine's Neo-Platonic 'reading' of the bible on the issue of God's Decrees, the denial of free will, and so on which has become Calvinistic orthodoxy in the West, was never accepted in the Eastern Church and always considered 'heterodox' and not Orthodox.

2) St John of Damascus and the Cappadocian Fathers all distitinquished between God's Decrees and Gods' foresight and did not see the two as 'the same'

3) The 'dark side' of Augustinian/Calvinism is that it makes God the author and ultimate cause of evil in the world, as Boyd rightly objects to because to make God the source of evil is totally unbiblical. just as the denial of libertarian freedon and responsible choice.

4) It is possible that Boyd, in seeking to correct this distortion, has moved too much in the opposite direction and claims clarity in areas (on the basis of a one-sided interpretation of a few difficult biblical texts) which are actually shrouded in mystery because it is really impossible for finite human beings, by logic. to understand the relationship between tme and eternity.

5) I feel Boyd's argumentation in support of his biblical and other evidence would have been a lot stronger if he had been more aquainted with Patristic and Orthododox exegesis and theology (which resolves the problem of the relationship between God's will and our will in terms of the doctrine of 'synergy') as the thinking of the Chruch generaly during its first millinium was actually more clear, more biblical and ballanced in this area than it is in Calvins one-sided Protestant Auguistinianism.

Finally, modern Calvinists tend to argue their case against the freedom of the will by means of a Lockean empirticism (which they get through Jonathan Edwards and the Puritans) and to this extent argue for a complete Netwonian type determinism.

Human beings do not have free will, they can only choose in the direction of their strongest desires and these desires arise through forces extrinsic to both the will and the mind. The are all rooted in God's Decrees, so the arguement goes.

In this detrministic thinking Gods Decrees are such that ALL effects in time (including all human choices) lie folded up, as it were, in the First Cause and then developed in time proceeding with both logical and phenomenal irresistibility with iron-clad necessity.

Effects IN TIME (what actually happens, including all good and evil actions of human beings and fallen and unfallen angels) are never spontaneous or creative (although they may be experienced as such by creatures) because all that happens, happen only by the predetermined will of God.

I will not harp on the neoPlatonic overtones of this accept to say that they are just as present in Calvin as they are in Augustine.

My main point, which is one of Boyd's, is that such thinking can not be found in the bible at all and is no part of God's revelation. It is a Western theological constuction based on Greek Philosophy 'read back' into thje biblical text.

Some of the above reviewers, especially those who feel it necessary to SHOUT to get their point across, appear to me to have closed minds, to wit, seem to have decided everything before they read the book, as well as having seemingly skipped Boyd's seminal work, "God at War." To accurately review this work, whatever your ultimate opinion, please read the first one then this one. "God at War" changed my whole life, revolutionized and revitalized my faith, and brought me back to God and Christ by shining clear light on many dilemmas within classical-philosophical Augustinian Christianity. I'm not saying Boyd is all correct - but he ain't all wrong neither, Vern. Bottom line: it explores areas that need to be explored, and relates truths you may never have considered.

This book is primarily an open theist book, but one need not be an open theist to agree with its conclusions. In fact, his six warfare theses only require a standard Arminian approach to interpreting the bible. However, the real treasure of the book is the second half, where he deals with prayer, natural evil, and hell. His chapter on prayer is nothing short of intellectually stimulating, his review of the accounts of natural evil are concise and yet systematic. His treatment of Hell, however, is the singularly most fascinating aspect of this book, and it would be well worth one's money just to buy the book for the last 2 chapters on hell alone. However, this book is packed full of philosophical insight that no thinking theist can afford not to read this book.

What a surprise to again see people using this forum for their own rants on God or to speak in long, drawn out words and terms that people cannot understand, nor refute. Like it's predecessor, God at War, this book brings forth a very good point, when read in it's entirety - the fact that Scripture does not support the view Augustine brought forth as to Who God is, or how He does what He does. Both books create a picture of a God who is infinitely MORE sovereign, (He doesnt have to control every nuance of the world to prove it) more understandable, and every bit as all-powerful, all-knowing, etc etc as Scripture says he is.
Dogmatists of the world, unite, I guess, and shoot the book down. People who want to KNOW God, read it in prayer, and decide for yourself.

I found this book to be extremely helpful. Before reading Satan and the Problem of Evil and God at War, I believed that I was hated by God just like Esau. In this book, Boyd provides a plausable explanation for how it was possible that I was caught in the crossfire of a world at war rather than being a "vessel for destruction". I believe that I have been loved by god before the foundation of the world, and that I am loved with an infinite love, and god does not want me or anyone else to perish. I am not a theologian, and did not realize when I read this how controversial this writing seems to be. For me, it was a God send.

It sort of rattles the whole structure of predestination that was built by the Dictator of Geneva, Calvin himself. There is possibly no way that a book of this caliber should receive one star. The content is presented rather lucidly, and a strong case is made for the thesis throughout.

The subject is rather a difficult one to contain, let alone discuss with out running into some kind of controversy. It is one subject matter that can not be analyzed using aristotelian methodologies. Scriptures abound with many mysteries and we can not suppose to decipher and know it all given our earthly minds and limited capabilities. Calvinistic theology strives in vain to find an explanation to all matters divine;but, this is easily said than done.

One such enigma that has perplexed the theological mind for ages is the one that concerns the origin of evil. Why create Lucifer if he was to turn into a devil? Why did God show rage and "repentance for creating man" during the scene of the flood?

These and other questions need to be addressed. But I doubt our finite minds will ever find a satisfying answer in the here and now.

In contrast to the widely accepted protestant view of Calvinistic Determinism, Dr. Boyd has laid forth the early Jewish and Church's understanding and view of God's foreknowledge, free agency, and evil as it is experienced. This view is definitely in more harmony with the totality of Scripture rather than the selective and illogical view of Calvinism.

The main premise is that Love Requires Freedom (choice), thus, a holy, righteous and loving God cannot arbitrarily force or cause agents to "love" Him nor suffer damnation if they are not the initial cause of their "choices." Subsequently, free agents' choices may cause suffering, as we witness today in the physical and spiritual realm. Since Christ never attributed evil to be an element of "God's Plan" neither should His disciples today.

Mr. Boyd does, though, get sidetracked addressing various views concerning each premise which is unneeded since once the truth is unearthed, the counterfeits will be clearly exposed. Highly recommended, especially chapters 1-3. [....]