Greg Boyd vs Thomas Jay Oord Debate on The Problem of Evil
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 17 окт 2024
- I talk with theologians Greg Boyd and Thomas Jay Oord about their unique responses to the problems of evil and suffering. Why did each of them find traditional responses to the problem of evil in various forms of classical theism unsatisfying? What is similar and different about their respective positions?
Does either Boyd's Open Theism or Oord's Essential Kenosis/God Can't theodicy provide more satisfying answers than what people like Augustine, Aquinas, Luther, Calvin, Leibniz, Barth provided in the past?
How do they both respond to some of the more challenging theological or philosophical critiques aimed at their ideas?
Dr. Gregory A. Boyd is theologian with advanced degrees from Yale and Princeton, senior pastor of Woodland Hills Church in St. Paul, Minnesota, and is author of numerous books. Some of the more relevant books to today's conversation are:
God of the Possible: A Biblical Introduction to the Open View of God
God at War: The Bible and Spiritual Conflict
Satan & the Problem of Evil: Constructing a Trinitarian Warfare Theodicy
The Crucifixion of the Warrior God: Volumes 1 & 2
Dr. Thomas Jay Oord is a theologian and philosopher with advanced degrees from Nazarene Theological Seminary and Claremont Graduate University. He directs the doctoral program at Northwind Theological Seminary and the Center for Open and Relational Theology. He's also authored numerous books and articles including:
God Can't: How to Believe in God and Love After Tragedy, Abuse, and Other Evils
The Uncontrolling Love of God: An Open and Relational Account of Providence
Defining Love: A Philosophical, Scientific, and Theological Engagement
#theodicy #theproblemofevil #opentheism #gregboyd #thomasjayoord #theologicaldebate
If you'd like to support this channel and the Deep Talks podcast, consider becoming a member on Patreon:
/ deeptalkstheologypodcast
____________________________________
About:
Paul Anleitner holds degrees in history from the University of Michigan & a Master's in Christian Thought from Bethel Seminary (St. Paul, MN) where he graduated with highest honors.
He's taught theology, philosophy, and biblical studies courses for over a decade and is a pastor with 15 years of experience working in a variety of denominational contexts.
Since 2017, he's hosted a podcast called "Deep Talks: Exploring Theology & Meaning-Making" available wherever you subscribe to podcasts.
So grateful for Tom Oord's work!
Christians calm down. We can have discussions or debates without being damned. We can listen to various presentations. God gave us a brain to use for thinking and reasoning. Fear not, that considering a point of view will not condemn us to hell or cause us to lose salvation.
Obviously, both Boyd and Oord have some controversial perspectives that many (if not most) in Reformed, Evangelical, Catholic, and even Eastern Orthodox circles would object to; but after listening, do you find their perspectives to be worthy of such controversy & fierce disagreement?
What do you agree with them on and what do you disagree on?
If you had to choose between the two of them, who's perspective do you find most viable?
Who would be some theological voices from the past and present that you'd love to see have a dialogue with either of these men? Why?
Gregg Boyd in my opinion is much more biblical. He definitely has more emphasis on the scriptures. Thomas in my opinion is more of a philosopher and a deist. I’m a believer in Universal reconciliation with ALL men and ALL creation. Gregg deep down wants universal reconciliation to be true, and I really wish he’d fully embrace it. One question I’d ask is Who is greater Adam or Christ? If Adam brought ALL humanity into being sinners , but Christ died for ALL and he has reconciled the whole world to God the Father then how are we still condemned as sinners? We are justified by Christs faith and “saved” because of his work. Humanity was rescued 2,000 years ago on the tree.
Dr Boyd has proven to be a sound theologian and he gets my support and better yet- he has a heart towards JESUS.
Thom had me until he rejected pantheism.
Always like hearing him speak, though. He's been a great source of inspiration.
How would your guests account for prophecy? Isaiah 11:11 for instance... unless he is somehow directing events?
So true. Humans hate uncertainty. So we search for answers to everything. And our answers can be wrong.
Search for truth and ask God to provide the answers we need to know Him and His will.
Love is simply “commitment to the good of another.” What satisfies my simple mind is that love is always freely given. It cannot be forced. The thing that gives my wife’s love for me value is that she can give it to another man at any time but does not. The Bible says that “God is love.” That tells me that there is good for one another within the Godhead not out out of an inability to do otherwise but rather out of a fierce commitment to do no other.
God has always possessed an eternity of knowledge that love reigns supreme. He knew that when He created creatures that could also love that they would not possess that body of knowledge. Therefore, God figured out a contingency should His creatures not draw the same conclusion that He has always had. Then God created and mankind did not rely on the knowledge of his Creator. The disappointment became great enough that God regretted making man, but He is “love” and will remain faithful to His contingency until completion.
I'm excited for this one!! Just to thrown out my own answer to theodicy, as a non-christian theist I think the only satisfying answer is that we voluntarily accepted our incarnation knowing the suffering we'd endure beforehand. I don't think there is any other way to get God off if you are going to say this terrible existence is forced upon us.
Now, if I was going to posit an answer to theodicy based solely upon the bible then it seems to be pretty straight forward. Why does not a single Christian offer the answer of theodicy by citing the book of Job? The entire book is dedicated to this question but it's likely not cited because we don't like the answer. So, according to the bible, one reason we suffer is God made a bet with satan to see if we will remain loyal in the face of great suffering. Another answer we find in the OT is we suffer because we don't obey God. God causes the Israelites to starve by destroying their crops and allows them to be conquered by foreign enemies because they do not obey Him. He even threatens them by saying they will be forced to eat their own children due to starvation if they disobey Him. So, according to the bible we suffer because we disobey God. From the NT we get a completely different concept which is that we suffer because the world is locked in a cosmic battle between good and evil forces and the evil forces temporarily have the upper hand on earth. So, we suffer because God temporarily allows satan to have power on earth.
I love my christian brothers and sisters but here's a challenge: why don't christians cite these biblical reasons given for our suffering? Why invent new reasons? Open theism is not in the bible. The free-will argument is not in the bible. If the bible is supposed to answer this ultimate question, why do we look elsewhere for answers rather than going by the plain reading of the scripture?
Hi Jonathan, thank you for your reply. In my expirience, some Christians use the book of Job to explain some suffering, and it definetly carries wisdom, but given the new covenant in Christ, check out Hebrews, we obey a high priest who not just died for my burdens, but who ressurrected for my hope. We have a God willing to suffer to redeem us from our wickedness. Its a gift to embrace it, it requires faith, and hope, and formost love. Gods redeeming purpose was revealed in Christ, for you and me, we can acces this through faith in him, in his work on the cross out of pure, pure love, because he is a good father. God bless you my friend, may the love of Christ draw you to his heavenly peace, which transcends everything.
@@peterlindal3352 Hi Peter, I appreciate your response. How does Jesus’ death and resurrection give you peace with the problem of theodicy?
@@jonnyw82 Great question, while there definetly still are stuggles, God identifying with us in suffering, redeeming us through his death, and giving us hope that one day, the tears will be no more, is some lf the ways. This was the hope that motivated Paul, to abandon everything for a life under constant persecution, 11 of the 12, and millions of Christians today. Because while we suffer, Christ, our hope, suffered before us, and we live in hope that evil is not the end, to quote Paul, to live is Christ, to die is gain. Hope some of it made sense Jonathan, thanks for the conversation, God bless you in the name of his son, who loves you!
@@peterlindal3352 I’ll have to chew on that a bit. What about those who lived before Jesus? Was there no justification to the problem of suffering before Jesus?
@@jonnyw82 Great question friend! I think we in Christ have the source of true humanity, revealed in the fullness of time, logos incarnated, to redeem us to our true purpose. I think people before in a sense had something lacking, while many ancient cultures used different sacrifices and so on, it was a reflection of what was coming. Old testament figures did not have acces directly to Christs redeeming sacrifice, but they had hope in what was lying ahead, that the current state contained glimps of hope, while not the fullness of it. God said to Jeremiah, he would give him future and hope, and forgivness of sins, to Isaiah he would give us a suffering servant, people wandering in dark shall see light. I think we have a benefit with theodicies in the sense that we have seen Gods purpose in flesh, the light which shined on the previous darkness. Thank you for your questions Jonathan, you are awesome to interact with, God bless you through Christ in love!
the title is misleading. This wasn't a debate but 2 interviews done at once where both interviewees interact.
Hard to see how Oord’s view doesn’t render unilateral miracles in the Bible as pure fiction. Something tells me he would disavow such narratives in the same way he disavows and dismisses scriptures that speak of God’s loving and wise prohibitions concerning certain sexual behaviors.
I feel that Greg is oversimplifying when he says that if God has a good reason for allowing an evil, it makes the evil good. For example, God may have other goods that He wants, like freely chosen love, that require Him to allow some evils.
How does Thomas deduce that “love comes first in Gods nature”, that “God must love” etc etc and then affirm that since that is the case God can’t control anyone? Seems like these are all just assumptions that sound nice but are just affirmed without any evidence or chain of logic.
I think there’s a difficult question for Oord about how a non-interventionist God communicates his nature and attributes to us. How do we know God’s nature to be love? This is a good question
If God doesn’t intervene, then God can’t intervene.
Is that what Greg is saying?
I think that's a pretty fair summary. For Tom's perspective, God can't intervene at all ever.
no, thats not what I took from it. God gives free will. He's not a puppet master. Dr Boyd's books go into more detail such as IS GOD TO BLAME? great book.
This entire discussion boils down to Augustines view of evil, a view he superimposed on scripture. A view largely influence by his Manecean background, his gnostic view that he never abandoned but unfortunately injected into Christianity.
Determinism comes out of a human desire for certainty, even if that certainty is devastating. Calvin's determinism is really awful ( a saved and unsaved group created by God) and in opposition to Christ crucified.
Think about a God that condemns a group to hell before they were created.
Hard for me to listen to this. I was halfway through one of Oord's books when he started affirming "climate change" and evolution. Has this guy not cracked a book on these topics other than from the extreme Left? He seems absolutely clueless on these topics and is just buying into the leftist narrative. So, I searched other books under his authorship and found "Why the Church of the Nazarene Should Be Fully LGBTQ+ Affirming" Paperback - April 13, 2023, by Thomas Jay Oord. Has this guy not heard of James Lindsey's work?
Boom lets get open and relational
ha, well if thats what you're looking for, this is the video for you 😂
@@DeepTalksTheology been following Oord for a long time now. Glad to see this connection with you. Really connection to his kenotic love leading Gods action. Always felt as a charismatic bent has always been moving to a more and more open and relational blend.
Boyd is more biblical and places a higher standard on the scriptures. Oord seems more philosophical and has a much lower view of scripture. He seems more like a Deist…
This work is first for God. Not man.