As iron sharpens iron,
one person sharpens another. (Proverbs 27:17)
I notice that I do not have any OT or NT Theology books and was thinking about getting at least one next month when my budget resets and books that will meet my book budget per month. I do not wish to get anything too complicated or too long and so have the following in mind.
OT
Gospel and Kingdom, The
Dominion and Dynasty: A Biblical Theology of the Hebrew Bible (New Studies in Biblical Theology)
NT
New Testament Theology by Leon Morris
[amazon 0062071475 thumbnail]
I picked up a used book on this topic and plan to give it a read soon. The book or this topic seems to be one which would be explored in a Biblical Theology course at the seminary level, as by looking at the book it appears to be of that nature. But I have to wonder if the moral law is relevant or to be applied to todays dispensation? I am aware I am a heavy advocate of the moral law in todays Dispensation, which may indeed not make me a Dispensationalist for advocating this view, of perhaps a confused Dispensationalist, but I am not alone for not fully understanding this topic.
Read the series so far.
Within the various religious traditions there is broad agreement that evil exists and that it is a central theme in the comparative doctrines, yet justification for the existence of evil and magnitude of the paradox differs significantly from belief system to belief system. While each system gives at least some attention to the problem, it seems readily apparent that within the Christian tradition one will find the greatest consideration of and more numerous propositions for resolution of the problem. Perhaps the problem of evil is a central issue for the biblical system, since it is more precisely definitive of the character of God than it is in any other system.
In Plato’s dialogue between Socrates and Euthyphro, Socrates asks “Is the pious loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?” The question reflects a dilemma related to the problem of evil. If the former is affirmed then the gods are governed by an absolute standard which would necessarily be superior to them by virtue of its governance. If the latter is affirmed then any absolute standard of piety (or goodness) must be dismissed. If the latter is affirmed then the gods (or God) could not accurately be described as absolutely good since there would be no absolute standard of good, but again if the former is affirmed then the gods (or God) could not be described as all powerful, since they (or He) would be governed by piety (or goodness).
This is one that you CANT mess up, and this is one that separates the true converts from the false. The doctrine of Justification or Sola Fide means God declares the sinner righteous and IMPUTES his righteousness on the sinner. This is by faith alone.
2 Corinthians 5:21 (ESV)
21 For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.
Eph 2:8-10 (NIV)
The seemingly unavoidable contradiction between the existence of a personal God and the reality of evil provides a crucial point of entry not only for (1) argument for and against the existence of God and (2) discussion of the nature and character of such a God; but also, as Neiman suggests, the problem of evil is itself an organizing principle for history of philosophy.1 Thus the theologian will not be the only interlocutor on the subject, but rather in fact the philosopher must also dedicate significant energies to understanding and ultimately dealing with the problem. Perhaps if Neiman is correct, the problem has even less to do with philosophy of religion than with philosophy itself, or then again, as I would suggest the problem of evil affords an example of the unbreakable bond between religion and philosophy and the resultant necessity of interdisciplinarity between the two.
Noting the significance, then, of the issue, this present discussion will (1) identify major theorists and their statements of the problem within context, and (2) give attention to various attempts at resolution also within a chronological context. I will neither offer critiques of these various attempts nor propose a theodicy (explanation or defense of why God permits evil), nor will I attempt to offer a comprehensive discussion of pertinent thinkers and their views. The focus here will be an introductory survey intended to provide a working and historically informed definition of the problem of evil from theological and philosophical vantage points.
This is what I wonder. My view on alcohol is not exactly a common one, as many in the Disp camp are into Teetotalism. It seems the best arguments for alcoholic beverages comes from Reformed pens. But this is not saying all Dispensationalists are against alcohol.
Discussion