All in Academic

Theodicy and the Problem of Evil: Toward a Christian Theodicy Which Explains all of Evil

This was a paper I submitted for a Systematic Theology class at Seminary a while back, but I never published it here because it is flawed. It can be verbose, broad-brushing, lacking detail and subtlety, and annoying to anyone currently suffering. And yet, I stand by the thesis. God allows evil in order to have something to redeem, to start a holy war that would reveal His character and glory for all to see. But that is a hard pill to swallow.

Jonathan Edwards vs Charles Finney: On the Causes of Conversion and Revival

Jonathan Edwards’s view on the causes of conversion and revival is more biblical than Charles Finney’s because Edwards maintains the biblical tension of God’s sovereignty and man’s responsibility in conversion—between God’s immediate and mediate actions—while Charles Finney loses that tension by overemphasizing the responsibility of man and the mediated nature of God’s work, and thereby loses grip on some key doctrines like the depravity of man and the sovereignty of God.

Augustine vs. Cassian: On the Tension Between the Sovereignty of God and the Responsibility of Man

Augustine’s view of the sovereignty of God and the responsibility of man is more biblical than Cassian’s because he honors the paradox of compatibilism presented in the biblical text while Cassian charges ahead too far into the mystery of God’s character and ends up diverting from other biblical doctrines, like original sin and the free will of man, in order to make this paradox more comprehensible.

Job begins his response to Bildad (the science guy) with some science of his own, just to prove Bildad isn't as smart as he thinks he is. Then Job directs the argument back to the questions at hand, finishing the chapter with one of the most profound wishes in the book. If Job just had a Mediator, he could come to God and get fair representation and justice. Little does he know...