What do you think?
Rate this book
Satan and the Problem of Evil: Constructing a Trinitarian Warfare Theodicy
In this important book Gregory A. Boyd mounts a thorough response to these ages-old questions, which remain both crucial and contentious, both practical and complex. In this work Boyd defends his scripturally grounded trinitarian warfare theodicy (presented in God at War ) with rigorous philosophical reflection and insights from human experience and scientific discovery. Critiquing the classical Calvinist solution to the problem of evil, he advocates an alternative understanding of the sovereignty of the trinitarian God and of the reality of Satan that sheds light on our fallen human condition. While all may not agree with Boyd's conclusions, Satan and the Problem of Evil promises to advance the church's discussion of these critical issues.
456 pages, Paperback
First published October 1, 2001
20 people are currently reading
584 people want to read
About the author
Gregory A. Boyd
93 books344 followersGregory A. Boyd is the founder and senior pastor of Woodland Hills Church in St. Paul, Minn., and founder and president of ReKnew. He was a professor of theology at Bethel College (St. Paul, Minn.) for sixteen years where he continues to serve as an Adjunct Professor.
Greg is a graduate of the University of Minnesota (BA), Yale Divinity School (M.Div), and Princeton Theological Seminary (PhD). Greg is a national and international speaker at churches, colleges, conferences, and retreats, and has appeared on numerous radio and television shows. He has also authored and coauthored eighteen books prior to Present Perfect, including The Myth of a Christian Religion, The Myth of a Christian Nation, The Jesus Legend (with Paul Eddy), Seeing Is Believing, Repenting of Religion, and his international bestseller Letters from a Skeptic.
Greg is a graduate of the University of Minnesota (BA), Yale Divinity School (M.Div), and Princeton Theological Seminary (PhD). Greg is a national and international speaker at churches, colleges, conferences, and retreats, and has appeared on numerous radio and television shows. He has also authored and coauthored eighteen books prior to Present Perfect, including The Myth of a Christian Religion, The Myth of a Christian Nation, The Jesus Legend (with Paul Eddy), Seeing Is Believing, Repenting of Religion, and his international bestseller Letters from a Skeptic.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 24 of 24 reviews
January 2, 2020
I am going to preface this review as I did the first one: Boyd's book is both large and complex. No review I could write would be able to do it justice, and I do run the risk of misunderstanding or misrepresenting something he holds to, though I will certainly try not to. While I will try to give enough insight to guide anyone's choice on whether or not to read the book, I am sure any review I write will seem to be overlooking or oversimplifying quite a bit, and there is no way not to. Boyd's writing is very deep.
This is the second book in Greg Boyd's Trinitarian Warfare Theodicy explanation. The first book, with the review linked above, was called "God at War," and in that book, Boyd sought to establish that the overarching viewpoint the Bible espoused from Genesis to Revelation was one of warfare between God and Satan. Through this viewpoint, Boyd argued, we would have the best chance of understanding why evil exists in the world. Boyd set up his view in opposition to what he called the "blueprint worldview" that would be taught most strongly from a Reformed/Calvinistic standpoint and still espoused (albeit less strongly) in a traditional Arminian worldview. The main goal of Boyd's first book was merely establishing that the Bible contained a warfare paradigm. But it did not delve too deeply into how that would play out in the problem of evil, necessarily.
This second book, "Satan and the Problem of Evil," seeks to do just that. In this book, Boyd seeks to explain the finer details of how this warfare worldview would be a better explanation of why evil exists in the world than a blueprint worldview.
The book itself is 456 pages long. This includes the book itself, 5 appendices, a glossary of terms, a bibliography, and author/subject index, and a scripture index. There is one major adjustment to the layout of this book that I love, and that is that the notes are throughout as footnotes on each page rather than as endnotes in the back of the book. Since Boyd uses quite a few notes, I think this was a great publishing choice, as it made it easier to check the notes without having to flip to the back of the book each time. I appreciated that greatly.
The first part of the book focuses specifically on the issues of God's sovereignty, God's foreknowledge, and the free will of personal beings (humans, angels, demons, and Satan), especially as these relate to the problem of evil. If you have not read God at War, Boyd does offer a much abbreviated overview in the first chapter, but it really helps to have read the first book prior to this one.
As Boyd discusses free will, he sees it as a necessary component of God's creating people who could truly choose to love Him. Boyd sees this free will as necessary and irrevocable. But he does still see the freedom as limited (after all, there is only one completely free being, and that is God; all other freedom is granted by Him to beings).
It is in this first part of the book that Boyd really looks into the contrast between a divine blueprint view (especially as it requires "eternal divine foreknowledge") and an open view of God's knowledge. The open view teaches (as I understand it) that God can fully know the past and present, but cannot completely know the future, as it is not yet determined by creatures with freedom. God may be able to know all possibilities of what creatures will choose, but until they choose, the future does not exist in actuality, so God cannot know that perfectly. This is not a limitation on God's part, but is something God chose to set in place by allowing creatures to have non-compatabilist freedom. To Boyd (and others who hold to the open view of God's knowledge), this does not weaken God. Rather, it shows His strength and power because despite not knowing how creatures will choose, God is so wonderful and sovereign that He will still bring about His ultimate will, and can redeem anything creatures do, even evil actions.
Here is the biggest difference in the trinitarian warfare theodicy Boyd espouses and a blueprint worldview. A blueprint worldview sees every evil action as being at least permitted by God (with His foreknowledge that it would occur) if not ordained by Him. In either case, every evil action is a part of God's larger plan from the very beginning. The view Boyd argues for is that because we are in a war zone, with God at variance with some evil free creatures, there are some things that happen for no purpose. Still, God is able (as Romans 8:28 states) to bring good out of every evil occurrence eventually.
The hinge is really that God chose to allow the risk of creaturely evil against His will in order to give personal beings the choice to either love or reject Him, and the only way to guard this choice was to permit the possibility of evil and continue to allow it.
Boyd would be quick to point out that God can, and sometimes does, intervene in situations, but that He does not always do so, and we cannot understand all the various reasons why this occurs. Many things can impact whether or not God intervenes, from His overall purposes to the prayers of others to even "chance" occurrences (set up, of course, by prior actions). So while God does not always intervene, He does sometimes, and we cannot fathom all the reasons that go into why the intervention sometimes occurs and sometimes does not.
Part 2 focuses on miracles, natural evil, and even tackles the concept of suffering in the afterlife. Boyd does argue that supernatural beings can occasionally be behind "natural" evil, as we think of it. He also tackles the idea of eternal conscious torment versus annihilation in the afterlife, coming up with a combined view that people do suffer forever, but they do so in a sort of self-contained existence, where they cease to exist to anyone but themselves. He alludes greatly to C. S. Lewis and "The Great Divorce" for some of these ideas, and, while I don't know whether I accept them fully or not, I do admit the concepts were intriguing.
There are 5 appendices in the book.
The first deals with remaining objections to his trinitarian warfare theodicy, including arguing whether it works on a practical level; that is, does it provide comfort to those who are suffering. I was quite surprised to find myself agreeing that it is possible that an open view of God's knowledge could provide better comfort than a blueprint worldview. I think Boyd did an outstanding job of explaining his perspective there.
The second deals with philosophical arguments regarding the incompatibility of eternal define foreknowledge and self-determining free will.
The third deals with the idea of incomplete probationary periods and the possibility of salvation after death.
The fourth deals with a theology of chance and how it relates to God and freedom.
The fifth tackles some proof-texts from the Bible often used to support a compatabilistic view of God's sovereignty and human freedom. Here, Boyd tackles some of the stronger texts Calvinists and other compatabilists would bring up to argue that God is in control of everything all the time, both good and evil. He works on dealing with them exegetically to show how they do not necessarily rule out his views of God. There were a few verses that I'm not sure Boyd argued very well, but overall, I found his arguments very strong.
While I am still not sure where I stand regarding Open Theism, I found Boyd's book extremely well argued regarding the idea of viewing evil from a trinitarian warfare theodicy worldview. I suppose it could still work with Arminianism, though I would have to think it through quite a bit to determine how that would work as well as it seems to with an open view of God's knowledge.
If you have read other books on theodicy, especially those from a blueprint worldview model, I would strongly encourage you to read this book (and Boyd's first book) to help provide another picture. Even if you do not ultimately agree with Boyd, I think his argument is strong enough that it needs to be considered.
I highly recommend Boyd's book, though be prepared for an often deep and complex read.
*Note: I received a complimentary copy of the book from the publisher in exchange for my honest review.
This is the second book in Greg Boyd's Trinitarian Warfare Theodicy explanation. The first book, with the review linked above, was called "God at War," and in that book, Boyd sought to establish that the overarching viewpoint the Bible espoused from Genesis to Revelation was one of warfare between God and Satan. Through this viewpoint, Boyd argued, we would have the best chance of understanding why evil exists in the world. Boyd set up his view in opposition to what he called the "blueprint worldview" that would be taught most strongly from a Reformed/Calvinistic standpoint and still espoused (albeit less strongly) in a traditional Arminian worldview. The main goal of Boyd's first book was merely establishing that the Bible contained a warfare paradigm. But it did not delve too deeply into how that would play out in the problem of evil, necessarily.
This second book, "Satan and the Problem of Evil," seeks to do just that. In this book, Boyd seeks to explain the finer details of how this warfare worldview would be a better explanation of why evil exists in the world than a blueprint worldview.
The book itself is 456 pages long. This includes the book itself, 5 appendices, a glossary of terms, a bibliography, and author/subject index, and a scripture index. There is one major adjustment to the layout of this book that I love, and that is that the notes are throughout as footnotes on each page rather than as endnotes in the back of the book. Since Boyd uses quite a few notes, I think this was a great publishing choice, as it made it easier to check the notes without having to flip to the back of the book each time. I appreciated that greatly.
The first part of the book focuses specifically on the issues of God's sovereignty, God's foreknowledge, and the free will of personal beings (humans, angels, demons, and Satan), especially as these relate to the problem of evil. If you have not read God at War, Boyd does offer a much abbreviated overview in the first chapter, but it really helps to have read the first book prior to this one.
As Boyd discusses free will, he sees it as a necessary component of God's creating people who could truly choose to love Him. Boyd sees this free will as necessary and irrevocable. But he does still see the freedom as limited (after all, there is only one completely free being, and that is God; all other freedom is granted by Him to beings).
It is in this first part of the book that Boyd really looks into the contrast between a divine blueprint view (especially as it requires "eternal divine foreknowledge") and an open view of God's knowledge. The open view teaches (as I understand it) that God can fully know the past and present, but cannot completely know the future, as it is not yet determined by creatures with freedom. God may be able to know all possibilities of what creatures will choose, but until they choose, the future does not exist in actuality, so God cannot know that perfectly. This is not a limitation on God's part, but is something God chose to set in place by allowing creatures to have non-compatabilist freedom. To Boyd (and others who hold to the open view of God's knowledge), this does not weaken God. Rather, it shows His strength and power because despite not knowing how creatures will choose, God is so wonderful and sovereign that He will still bring about His ultimate will, and can redeem anything creatures do, even evil actions.
Here is the biggest difference in the trinitarian warfare theodicy Boyd espouses and a blueprint worldview. A blueprint worldview sees every evil action as being at least permitted by God (with His foreknowledge that it would occur) if not ordained by Him. In either case, every evil action is a part of God's larger plan from the very beginning. The view Boyd argues for is that because we are in a war zone, with God at variance with some evil free creatures, there are some things that happen for no purpose. Still, God is able (as Romans 8:28 states) to bring good out of every evil occurrence eventually.
The hinge is really that God chose to allow the risk of creaturely evil against His will in order to give personal beings the choice to either love or reject Him, and the only way to guard this choice was to permit the possibility of evil and continue to allow it.
Boyd would be quick to point out that God can, and sometimes does, intervene in situations, but that He does not always do so, and we cannot understand all the various reasons why this occurs. Many things can impact whether or not God intervenes, from His overall purposes to the prayers of others to even "chance" occurrences (set up, of course, by prior actions). So while God does not always intervene, He does sometimes, and we cannot fathom all the reasons that go into why the intervention sometimes occurs and sometimes does not.
Part 2 focuses on miracles, natural evil, and even tackles the concept of suffering in the afterlife. Boyd does argue that supernatural beings can occasionally be behind "natural" evil, as we think of it. He also tackles the idea of eternal conscious torment versus annihilation in the afterlife, coming up with a combined view that people do suffer forever, but they do so in a sort of self-contained existence, where they cease to exist to anyone but themselves. He alludes greatly to C. S. Lewis and "The Great Divorce" for some of these ideas, and, while I don't know whether I accept them fully or not, I do admit the concepts were intriguing.
There are 5 appendices in the book.
The first deals with remaining objections to his trinitarian warfare theodicy, including arguing whether it works on a practical level; that is, does it provide comfort to those who are suffering. I was quite surprised to find myself agreeing that it is possible that an open view of God's knowledge could provide better comfort than a blueprint worldview. I think Boyd did an outstanding job of explaining his perspective there.
The second deals with philosophical arguments regarding the incompatibility of eternal define foreknowledge and self-determining free will.
The third deals with the idea of incomplete probationary periods and the possibility of salvation after death.
The fourth deals with a theology of chance and how it relates to God and freedom.
The fifth tackles some proof-texts from the Bible often used to support a compatabilistic view of God's sovereignty and human freedom. Here, Boyd tackles some of the stronger texts Calvinists and other compatabilists would bring up to argue that God is in control of everything all the time, both good and evil. He works on dealing with them exegetically to show how they do not necessarily rule out his views of God. There were a few verses that I'm not sure Boyd argued very well, but overall, I found his arguments very strong.
While I am still not sure where I stand regarding Open Theism, I found Boyd's book extremely well argued regarding the idea of viewing evil from a trinitarian warfare theodicy worldview. I suppose it could still work with Arminianism, though I would have to think it through quite a bit to determine how that would work as well as it seems to with an open view of God's knowledge.
If you have read other books on theodicy, especially those from a blueprint worldview model, I would strongly encourage you to read this book (and Boyd's first book) to help provide another picture. Even if you do not ultimately agree with Boyd, I think his argument is strong enough that it needs to be considered.
I highly recommend Boyd's book, though be prepared for an often deep and complex read.
*Note: I received a complimentary copy of the book from the publisher in exchange for my honest review.
November 25, 2024
I read this book over 1.5 years, not because it is bad or boring, but because it is very good and intellectually engaging. But, it was a challenging read for me. I am not a theologian or a philosopher, but I often pretend to be both. This means reading works of philosophical theology at my station in life (working dad, husband of the year, homeowner, etc.) requires patience and quite a bit of mulling.
I am an avid Greg Boyd reader and proponent of open theism generally, and an open view of the future specifically. For my fellow Boyd fans, I’d say this book is an effective deep dive into his popular works and general approach to theology. It is worth reading, but only if you have time to mull. Much mulling required.
Strengths of this work include a very well developed set of 6 theses on which the rest of the book is built. My favorite is love and war (thesis 3) which provides a baseline for understanding the relationship between freedom to love and influence versus the risk of bad things happening (thesis 4). Another strength is Boyd’s treatment of natural evil and the role of the enemy. These chapters helped clarify the parity of spiritual warfare and God’s perfect love.
Weaknesses were few, but challenging nonetheless. The biggest weakness is Boyd’s attempt to reconcile a doctrine of hell with creaturely freedom and annihilationism. No amount of mulling could clarify this for me. However, I appreciated the attempt and the humility with which Boyd presented his arguments and the critiques presented in related works.
Still reading this review? You must be a serious muller. In that case, read this book, but do so after reading Boyd’s other work such as God of the Possible and Benefit of the Doubt. My journey of seeking to understand the problem of evil has been shaped by these books but refined by Satan and the Problem of Evil.
I am an avid Greg Boyd reader and proponent of open theism generally, and an open view of the future specifically. For my fellow Boyd fans, I’d say this book is an effective deep dive into his popular works and general approach to theology. It is worth reading, but only if you have time to mull. Much mulling required.
Strengths of this work include a very well developed set of 6 theses on which the rest of the book is built. My favorite is love and war (thesis 3) which provides a baseline for understanding the relationship between freedom to love and influence versus the risk of bad things happening (thesis 4). Another strength is Boyd’s treatment of natural evil and the role of the enemy. These chapters helped clarify the parity of spiritual warfare and God’s perfect love.
Weaknesses were few, but challenging nonetheless. The biggest weakness is Boyd’s attempt to reconcile a doctrine of hell with creaturely freedom and annihilationism. No amount of mulling could clarify this for me. However, I appreciated the attempt and the humility with which Boyd presented his arguments and the critiques presented in related works.
Still reading this review? You must be a serious muller. In that case, read this book, but do so after reading Boyd’s other work such as God of the Possible and Benefit of the Doubt. My journey of seeking to understand the problem of evil has been shaped by these books but refined by Satan and the Problem of Evil.
November 12, 2022
As usual, Boyd is challenging, thought provoking and intellectually impressive. Much to digest after reading this book.
July 3, 2021
I just finished "Satan and the Problem of Evil," by Greg Boyd. This was a 3 in difficulty, 4 being very hard to read and 1 being, usually, a feel good spiritual living book. But it, and its companion and Vol 1 "God at War," are great and should be read by all.
Intro.
Boyd lays down some historical references for theological determinism. He begins to make a case for why this is not just bad theology and theodicy but just unlivable. Sometimes you just cant say that X happened for the glory of God, or for some secret plan since X goes against scripture and the character of God.
Ch. 1: the world at war. Here Boyd lays down that the world looks chaotic because it is. It is this way because of the demonic who have turned from God, cosmically fell, and attack His creation. Even natural evil is demonically influenced. He backs this with scripture and tradition. Quickly: it can be said that because of the above God doesnt always get what He wants. Because this concept is foreign to those deeply influenced by Augustine, Boyd is spending the next chapter on free will.
Ch. 2: the free fall. Boyd lays out his three objectives for this chapter: show that scientific determinism is false, philosophical objections to determinism/compatablism, and theological/scriptural evidence against determinism. In so doing he will establish his first thesis: love must be chosen.
While I understand that Boyd begins from the love of God and that determinism begins from the power of God, I dont see how worshiping and serving God as Power-forward-God is in the least coherent. This suggest that one serves and worships out of fear. This appears as check-box Christianity, which, oddly enough for RT, looks like legalism. I know yall are, rightly, big on grace, as am I, but if your model is that of power first then you move love to second at best, and this gives the impression that you are serving and worshipping out of not-love but fear.
Boyd covers the philosophical point of view in response to the scientific side of determinism, and then the theological objections to determinism.
Ch. 3: A risky creation. Boyd's second thesis is that freedom implies risk. If love must be chosen and one could choose to or not to love God in a reciprocal manner then the future is not set in stone and this is the Divine risk of love.
This is a good cover of open theism. He does well in covering prophecy, which is usually thrown out as the "gotcha" against open theists. God can prophesy because God can make it come to pass, not that He is a slave to His knowledge and has to see what will come to pass. (Come on, detractors, read a book on this and challenge your paradigm.) He points out what appear as conditional prophecies (Jonah, Hezekiah and Jeremiah) and show how God changed His mind. This disturbs the concept that the future is settled and set in stone. Rather and thankfully the future is open and all possibilities are known as "maybe" with a higher and lower degree of certainty of which "maybe" will come to fruition.
Ch. 4: a question of balance. This chapter is where Boyd places stress on open theism by taking on the best scriptural data for EDF (exhaustive definite foreknowledge: God sees all as it will come to pass). He first takes on Rm. 8:29 to distinguish between individual and corporate election. He then takes on Molinism (or middle knowledge: counterfactual knowledge, or the "what-ifs," what would free agent X do in Z situation rather than Y situation? This is an "all possible worlds" view of foreknowledge from which God picks the least evil one to actualise). He also spends some time with relativity theory and physics.
Ch. 5: Love and War. Boyd starts off by stating that the metaphysical price God has to pay for a creation in which love is possible is one where the creature can choose to do otherwise. He deals with questions such as can the Lord guarentee He will have a Bride to come back for? Also, he states that moral and social responsibility are equal in power to influence others, or to shoot for a breakdown: Hitler and mother Teresa were roughly equal in power and opposites in direction of execution. Makes one wonder about the trail of dominoes in Hitlers life and what was the first one(s) to fall. This principal can be applied to humans and Angels.
Ch. 6: no turning back. This laid out the last two thesis which are that the power to influence is irrevocable and the power to influence is finite.
Part II
Ch. 7: praying in a whirlwind. To be honest I often wonder why those who believe in simple foreknowledge or theological determinism pray. Since this is my version of journaling and i dont necessarily believe anyone reads what I write, i dont mind throwing this thought out there. The SF guy is basically looking at what appears to be the future and assuming God foresees this future and they ask God to make the future otherwise than the future God knows it to be, thus saying the God knew something that was false. Then the determinist: I love yall but really praying for yall, what does that even mean? Are you enacting a ritual you believe you were preordained to enact to ask for something God wanted you to ask for so that the future that already exists in the mind of God will come to fruition? But wait, theres more: it doesnt matter because you could not have prayed or done otherwise (?).
At the cancer ward, ER, IRS, ICU, police checkpoint, and marriage councilor everyone prays as an open theist and looks for the miraculous like a Pentecostal in a big tent revival.
This chapter covers not just prayer but miracles. Which I believe miracles are the crux of a theodicy. The question is not about if God is all good and powerful why do bad things happen; the question is why dont more miracles happen. Boyd covers prayer and miracles well. I will sum up the chapter with a quoted quote by Walt Wink: "God has heard our prayer, and the Powers are blocking Gods response." Engaging the Powers, p. 311
Ch. 8: red in tooth and claw; on natural evil. One quote I quite like occured when Boyd was speaking about the classical Augustinian view of natural evil: "It is not even clear what the word good means if it is used to describe the 'design' that orchestrates such things as killer diseases, mudslides that bury children alive or typhoons that drown thousands. If such things are in any sense good, what does evil look like? If such things are the work of a loving and all-good God, what would the work of a hateful devil look like?" Or, if I may, what does "good" even mean? Why must i act good while Gods good looks totally different and has no relation to how He expects me to be good? In determinism, good, when used between the divine and creature is pure equivocation.
Ch. 9: when nature becomes a weapon. Boyd first kicks process theology out of the pool as a adequate theodicy. He covers John Hick's theodicy, Ellis' and Murphy's Kenotic theodicy, Polkinghorn's more scientific, quantum theodicy, and finally Barth's Das Nichtige theodicy finding that they all lack the same element: personhood or a free agent on the side of the evil in a theodicy of natural evil.
Ch. 10: this an enemy has done. In this chapter Boyd articulates the source of natural evil is who scripture says it is, who the previously mentioned in ch 9 missed: Satan. That is the totality of the chapter and he covers it well; when one sees evil look for the causal agent behind it: Satan.
Ch. 11: a clash of doctrines. Here Boyd is going to attack the common concept of eternal torment in hell, and the outlier, annihilolationalism. His is one that synthesizes the views, I believe. Coverage is basically pointing out what these two views are and their weaknesses. The following chapter will develop his doctrine of punishment. And yes, basically one in this state has fulfilled their earthly direction in self absorption and pride, their free will conformed them into beasts who chase after their nature; they become compatible with their nature (being/becoming vs becoming/being). To paraphrase: at this point they loose their "I" and are not human.
Appendix 1: Rm. 9, of course.
Appendix 2: five philosophical arguments for open theism. He really drives home that if the future is meticulously known in the mind of God then we have no freewill. Simple foreknowledge may seem like a safe view but it is full of holes.
Appendix 3: incomplete probationary periods
Appendix 4: a theology of chance
Appendix 5: exegetical notes on texts used to support compatablism
Intro.
Boyd lays down some historical references for theological determinism. He begins to make a case for why this is not just bad theology and theodicy but just unlivable. Sometimes you just cant say that X happened for the glory of God, or for some secret plan since X goes against scripture and the character of God.
Ch. 1: the world at war. Here Boyd lays down that the world looks chaotic because it is. It is this way because of the demonic who have turned from God, cosmically fell, and attack His creation. Even natural evil is demonically influenced. He backs this with scripture and tradition. Quickly: it can be said that because of the above God doesnt always get what He wants. Because this concept is foreign to those deeply influenced by Augustine, Boyd is spending the next chapter on free will.
Ch. 2: the free fall. Boyd lays out his three objectives for this chapter: show that scientific determinism is false, philosophical objections to determinism/compatablism, and theological/scriptural evidence against determinism. In so doing he will establish his first thesis: love must be chosen.
While I understand that Boyd begins from the love of God and that determinism begins from the power of God, I dont see how worshiping and serving God as Power-forward-God is in the least coherent. This suggest that one serves and worships out of fear. This appears as check-box Christianity, which, oddly enough for RT, looks like legalism. I know yall are, rightly, big on grace, as am I, but if your model is that of power first then you move love to second at best, and this gives the impression that you are serving and worshipping out of not-love but fear.
Boyd covers the philosophical point of view in response to the scientific side of determinism, and then the theological objections to determinism.
Ch. 3: A risky creation. Boyd's second thesis is that freedom implies risk. If love must be chosen and one could choose to or not to love God in a reciprocal manner then the future is not set in stone and this is the Divine risk of love.
This is a good cover of open theism. He does well in covering prophecy, which is usually thrown out as the "gotcha" against open theists. God can prophesy because God can make it come to pass, not that He is a slave to His knowledge and has to see what will come to pass. (Come on, detractors, read a book on this and challenge your paradigm.) He points out what appear as conditional prophecies (Jonah, Hezekiah and Jeremiah) and show how God changed His mind. This disturbs the concept that the future is settled and set in stone. Rather and thankfully the future is open and all possibilities are known as "maybe" with a higher and lower degree of certainty of which "maybe" will come to fruition.
Ch. 4: a question of balance. This chapter is where Boyd places stress on open theism by taking on the best scriptural data for EDF (exhaustive definite foreknowledge: God sees all as it will come to pass). He first takes on Rm. 8:29 to distinguish between individual and corporate election. He then takes on Molinism (or middle knowledge: counterfactual knowledge, or the "what-ifs," what would free agent X do in Z situation rather than Y situation? This is an "all possible worlds" view of foreknowledge from which God picks the least evil one to actualise). He also spends some time with relativity theory and physics.
Ch. 5: Love and War. Boyd starts off by stating that the metaphysical price God has to pay for a creation in which love is possible is one where the creature can choose to do otherwise. He deals with questions such as can the Lord guarentee He will have a Bride to come back for? Also, he states that moral and social responsibility are equal in power to influence others, or to shoot for a breakdown: Hitler and mother Teresa were roughly equal in power and opposites in direction of execution. Makes one wonder about the trail of dominoes in Hitlers life and what was the first one(s) to fall. This principal can be applied to humans and Angels.
Ch. 6: no turning back. This laid out the last two thesis which are that the power to influence is irrevocable and the power to influence is finite.
Part II
Ch. 7: praying in a whirlwind. To be honest I often wonder why those who believe in simple foreknowledge or theological determinism pray. Since this is my version of journaling and i dont necessarily believe anyone reads what I write, i dont mind throwing this thought out there. The SF guy is basically looking at what appears to be the future and assuming God foresees this future and they ask God to make the future otherwise than the future God knows it to be, thus saying the God knew something that was false. Then the determinist: I love yall but really praying for yall, what does that even mean? Are you enacting a ritual you believe you were preordained to enact to ask for something God wanted you to ask for so that the future that already exists in the mind of God will come to fruition? But wait, theres more: it doesnt matter because you could not have prayed or done otherwise (?).
At the cancer ward, ER, IRS, ICU, police checkpoint, and marriage councilor everyone prays as an open theist and looks for the miraculous like a Pentecostal in a big tent revival.
This chapter covers not just prayer but miracles. Which I believe miracles are the crux of a theodicy. The question is not about if God is all good and powerful why do bad things happen; the question is why dont more miracles happen. Boyd covers prayer and miracles well. I will sum up the chapter with a quoted quote by Walt Wink: "God has heard our prayer, and the Powers are blocking Gods response." Engaging the Powers, p. 311
Ch. 8: red in tooth and claw; on natural evil. One quote I quite like occured when Boyd was speaking about the classical Augustinian view of natural evil: "It is not even clear what the word good means if it is used to describe the 'design' that orchestrates such things as killer diseases, mudslides that bury children alive or typhoons that drown thousands. If such things are in any sense good, what does evil look like? If such things are the work of a loving and all-good God, what would the work of a hateful devil look like?" Or, if I may, what does "good" even mean? Why must i act good while Gods good looks totally different and has no relation to how He expects me to be good? In determinism, good, when used between the divine and creature is pure equivocation.
Ch. 9: when nature becomes a weapon. Boyd first kicks process theology out of the pool as a adequate theodicy. He covers John Hick's theodicy, Ellis' and Murphy's Kenotic theodicy, Polkinghorn's more scientific, quantum theodicy, and finally Barth's Das Nichtige theodicy finding that they all lack the same element: personhood or a free agent on the side of the evil in a theodicy of natural evil.
Ch. 10: this an enemy has done. In this chapter Boyd articulates the source of natural evil is who scripture says it is, who the previously mentioned in ch 9 missed: Satan. That is the totality of the chapter and he covers it well; when one sees evil look for the causal agent behind it: Satan.
Ch. 11: a clash of doctrines. Here Boyd is going to attack the common concept of eternal torment in hell, and the outlier, annihilolationalism. His is one that synthesizes the views, I believe. Coverage is basically pointing out what these two views are and their weaknesses. The following chapter will develop his doctrine of punishment. And yes, basically one in this state has fulfilled their earthly direction in self absorption and pride, their free will conformed them into beasts who chase after their nature; they become compatible with their nature (being/becoming vs becoming/being). To paraphrase: at this point they loose their "I" and are not human.
Appendix 1: Rm. 9, of course.
Appendix 2: five philosophical arguments for open theism. He really drives home that if the future is meticulously known in the mind of God then we have no freewill. Simple foreknowledge may seem like a safe view but it is full of holes.
Appendix 3: incomplete probationary periods
Appendix 4: a theology of chance
Appendix 5: exegetical notes on texts used to support compatablism
August 30, 2007
This is a book that requires a lot of thinking and reflection. It was helpful to have a dictionary close at hand. Dr. Boyd continues on from “God at War” but takes a closer look at the classical positions and what it means for God to be “in control”, freedom and the origin of evil, risk and the sovereignty of God to mention a few. This book is premised on six foundations that structure this trinitarian warfare theodicy and how God interacts with this world as well as their implementation;
Love must be freely chosen.
Love entails risks.
Love and freedom entails that we are morally responsible for one another.
The power to influence for the worse must be roughly proportionate to our power to influence for the better.
Love entails freedom and this freedom, within limits, must be irrevocable.
Angels and humans are finite beings who thus possess only a finite capacity to embrace or thwart God’s purposes for our lives.
He spends quite a bit of time discussing the open view of the future but whether you agree with his position or not one has to grapple personally with the warfare worldview of Scripture and the trinitarian warfare theodicy on its own merits. It is well worth the effort. This is another book that is a resource to be returned to often. I highly recommend it.
Love must be freely chosen.
Love entails risks.
Love and freedom entails that we are morally responsible for one another.
The power to influence for the worse must be roughly proportionate to our power to influence for the better.
Love entails freedom and this freedom, within limits, must be irrevocable.
Angels and humans are finite beings who thus possess only a finite capacity to embrace or thwart God’s purposes for our lives.
He spends quite a bit of time discussing the open view of the future but whether you agree with his position or not one has to grapple personally with the warfare worldview of Scripture and the trinitarian warfare theodicy on its own merits. It is well worth the effort. This is another book that is a resource to be returned to often. I highly recommend it.
September 7, 2024
THE PROGRESSIVE (AND CONTROVERSIAL) THEOLOGIAN LOOKS AT EVIL
Gregory A. Boyd (born 1955) is a Christian theologian, Senior Pastor of the Woodland Hills Church, and President of Christus Victor Ministries. He has also written a number of other books such as 'Letters from a Skeptic: A Son Wrestles with His Father's Questions about Christianity,' 'Cynic Sage or Son of God?,' 'The Myth of a Christian Nation: How the Quest for Political Power Is Destroying the Church,' 'God of the Possible: A Biblical Introduction to the Open View of God,' 'Oneness Pentecostals and the Trinity,' etc.
He wrote in the Introduction to this 2001 book, "God genuinely strives against rebellious creatures... the head of this rebellion is a powerful angel named Satan. Under him are a myriad of other spiritual beings and humans who refuse to submit to God's rule... God shall someday vanquish this rebel kingdom, but... in the meantime he genuinely wars against it. This motif expresses what I call the 'warfare worldview' of the Bible... Since the warfare worldview denies that God always has a specific reason for allowing evil deeds to occur, must it not deny that God is ABLE to prevent events he wishes would not take place?... But how then can we continue to affirm that God is all-powerful? In essence, the goal of this book is to answer this question." (Pg. 15-16)
He asks, "Would any of the six million Jews who suffered under the Nazi regime agree that the possibility that Hitler could have greatly helped the world was worth the risk that he might choose rather to greatly harm the world? Wagering the potential destruction of six million people on how one person will use his freedom seems to be a very poor wager. Wagering the welfare of the entire creation throughout history on the will of one agent (Lucifer) seems even worse. The objection is weighty and must be addressed." (Pg. 173-174)
He summarizes, "WHY cannot God, the omnipotent Creator, do whatever he wants, wherever he wants, however he wants? ... the answer would be that love involves freedom... and that freedom involves genuinely open alternatives and thus genuine risks... God genuinely faces in every particular situation a reality distinct from himself that has some say-so over and against himself. By giving every free agent an irrevocable domain of genuine say-so in the flow of history... God has restricted the exercise of his own omnipotence." (Pg. 212-213)
He explains, "God's ultimate goal is to have creatures eternally participate in his triune love. The integrity with which he gives the risky gift of freedom is what makes this love possible... But this freedom is also what makes nightmares possible... He must therefore tolerate the consequences of how these agents use their freedom. Because of his own noble decision to have this kind of cosmos, God cannot guarantee that he will always get his way." (Pg. 214-215) He adds, "I thus suggest that we have no compelling philosophical or biblical reason to locate the primary cause of tornadoes that kill children, genetic mutations that reduce them to vegetables or mudslides that bury them alive to any other source than the enemy of God." (Pg. 292)
He admits, "When all the biblical evidence is viewed together, it must be admitted that the case for annihilation is quite compelling. Not without reason have such notable evangelical scholars as Philip Hughes ['True Image'], John Stott ['Evangelical Essentials'], I. Howard Marshall ['Beyond the Bible'], John Wenham ['Facing Hell'], and Clark Pinnock ['Four Views on Hell'] endorsed this view... Though the case for annihilation is admittedly strong, it is questionable whether it is strong enough to overturn the majority view throughout church history. Among its weaknesses, the annihilationists' symbolic reading of Revelation 14:10 and 20:10 is not altogether compelling... It seems that Jesus is contrasting two different eternal PLACES in which people dwell (Mt 25:34, 41)... For my part, it leaves me in a conundrum. I do not believe that either the traditional position or the annihilationists' position adequately accounts for all the biblical evidence cited in support of the opposing side's position..." (Pg. 337)
While some of Boyd's positions will be controversial among Christians, this remains one of the most challenging and discussion-provoking discussions of these issues written by an evangelical. It merits serious study and reflection, whether or not one agrees with all of his views.
Gregory A. Boyd (born 1955) is a Christian theologian, Senior Pastor of the Woodland Hills Church, and President of Christus Victor Ministries. He has also written a number of other books such as 'Letters from a Skeptic: A Son Wrestles with His Father's Questions about Christianity,' 'Cynic Sage or Son of God?,' 'The Myth of a Christian Nation: How the Quest for Political Power Is Destroying the Church,' 'God of the Possible: A Biblical Introduction to the Open View of God,' 'Oneness Pentecostals and the Trinity,' etc.
He wrote in the Introduction to this 2001 book, "God genuinely strives against rebellious creatures... the head of this rebellion is a powerful angel named Satan. Under him are a myriad of other spiritual beings and humans who refuse to submit to God's rule... God shall someday vanquish this rebel kingdom, but... in the meantime he genuinely wars against it. This motif expresses what I call the 'warfare worldview' of the Bible... Since the warfare worldview denies that God always has a specific reason for allowing evil deeds to occur, must it not deny that God is ABLE to prevent events he wishes would not take place?... But how then can we continue to affirm that God is all-powerful? In essence, the goal of this book is to answer this question." (Pg. 15-16)
He asks, "Would any of the six million Jews who suffered under the Nazi regime agree that the possibility that Hitler could have greatly helped the world was worth the risk that he might choose rather to greatly harm the world? Wagering the potential destruction of six million people on how one person will use his freedom seems to be a very poor wager. Wagering the welfare of the entire creation throughout history on the will of one agent (Lucifer) seems even worse. The objection is weighty and must be addressed." (Pg. 173-174)
He summarizes, "WHY cannot God, the omnipotent Creator, do whatever he wants, wherever he wants, however he wants? ... the answer would be that love involves freedom... and that freedom involves genuinely open alternatives and thus genuine risks... God genuinely faces in every particular situation a reality distinct from himself that has some say-so over and against himself. By giving every free agent an irrevocable domain of genuine say-so in the flow of history... God has restricted the exercise of his own omnipotence." (Pg. 212-213)
He explains, "God's ultimate goal is to have creatures eternally participate in his triune love. The integrity with which he gives the risky gift of freedom is what makes this love possible... But this freedom is also what makes nightmares possible... He must therefore tolerate the consequences of how these agents use their freedom. Because of his own noble decision to have this kind of cosmos, God cannot guarantee that he will always get his way." (Pg. 214-215) He adds, "I thus suggest that we have no compelling philosophical or biblical reason to locate the primary cause of tornadoes that kill children, genetic mutations that reduce them to vegetables or mudslides that bury them alive to any other source than the enemy of God." (Pg. 292)
He admits, "When all the biblical evidence is viewed together, it must be admitted that the case for annihilation is quite compelling. Not without reason have such notable evangelical scholars as Philip Hughes ['True Image'], John Stott ['Evangelical Essentials'], I. Howard Marshall ['Beyond the Bible'], John Wenham ['Facing Hell'], and Clark Pinnock ['Four Views on Hell'] endorsed this view... Though the case for annihilation is admittedly strong, it is questionable whether it is strong enough to overturn the majority view throughout church history. Among its weaknesses, the annihilationists' symbolic reading of Revelation 14:10 and 20:10 is not altogether compelling... It seems that Jesus is contrasting two different eternal PLACES in which people dwell (Mt 25:34, 41)... For my part, it leaves me in a conundrum. I do not believe that either the traditional position or the annihilationists' position adequately accounts for all the biblical evidence cited in support of the opposing side's position..." (Pg. 337)
While some of Boyd's positions will be controversial among Christians, this remains one of the most challenging and discussion-provoking discussions of these issues written by an evangelical. It merits serious study and reflection, whether or not one agrees with all of his views.
October 31, 2022
This book took me forever to read — just a few pages nightly because I really felt I had to absorb fully its arguments. As wonderfully talented Boyd is at synthesizing, his arguments involve many components. That’s not a weakness but simply a reality when exploring mystery while defending against deeply ingrained counterthoughts. Boyd has convicted me to take more responsibility for my actions, empowered me to pray boldly, and has added weight to my worldview. And he does it all through theology and philosophy, not through a practical manual. I wish all would read this and liberate God from their antagonistic accusations.
All this said, the section on hell was quite weak. I feel he didn’t actually blend the ECT and annihilationist views like he said he would — it was more the stuff of ponderings rather than scriptural — and it seemed rather irrelevant to the rest of the text. There’s danger in making completely original theologies.
Also, read the appendix — lots of my questions about his arguments were explained there
(Also-also, I read that Boyd wrote a problematic book — “Cross Vision,” published 16 years after this book — that some reviewers claim reads like the heresy Marcionism. I have not read that book so I can’t speak to the the accuracy of that accusation. But “Satan and the Problem of Evil” reads scripture holistically and responsibly.)
All this said, the section on hell was quite weak. I feel he didn’t actually blend the ECT and annihilationist views like he said he would — it was more the stuff of ponderings rather than scriptural — and it seemed rather irrelevant to the rest of the text. There’s danger in making completely original theologies.
Also, read the appendix — lots of my questions about his arguments were explained there
(Also-also, I read that Boyd wrote a problematic book — “Cross Vision,” published 16 years after this book — that some reviewers claim reads like the heresy Marcionism. I have not read that book so I can’t speak to the the accuracy of that accusation. But “Satan and the Problem of Evil” reads scripture holistically and responsibly.)
June 8, 2020
I like this one for the same reason I like pretty much everything I've read by Boyd. I don't necessarily agree with all his conclusions, but his arguments are clear and compelling. He maintains a grounding in scripture (I see why people might disagree with his particular exegesis but he does stick to his conviction than any philosophical arguments need to be in agreement with scripture).
A couple issues: I'm not sure he clearly articulates the difference between open theism and neo-molinism. I thought he'd rejected molinism, but here he seems to draw it into open theism in a new form through the consideration of maybe-counterfactuals (which I don't buy as having the same sort of truth content as counterfactuals).
His writing on hell at the end of this book is interesting, but convoluted. He successfully blends traditional and annihilationist view through Barth's concept of das Nichtige, but it's a very speculative foray into strange territory (questions of reality and unreality). I find Lewis's The Great Divorce to be much more effective (and it's a key part of Boyd's own thinking here, too).
A couple issues: I'm not sure he clearly articulates the difference between open theism and neo-molinism. I thought he'd rejected molinism, but here he seems to draw it into open theism in a new form through the consideration of maybe-counterfactuals (which I don't buy as having the same sort of truth content as counterfactuals).
His writing on hell at the end of this book is interesting, but convoluted. He successfully blends traditional and annihilationist view through Barth's concept of das Nichtige, but it's a very speculative foray into strange territory (questions of reality and unreality). I find Lewis's The Great Divorce to be much more effective (and it's a key part of Boyd's own thinking here, too).
May 21, 2023
A little good; mostly bad. Unsatisfying as an actual theodicy, because by the book's own admission almost all of God's acts will look totally arbitrary to us The best we can do is to take comfort in the idea that God did all he could and really tried his best, which is, apparently, somehow more emotionally satisfying than believing God ordains events for a specific reason. (It also has the very odd consequence of implying that humans are morally obligated to do things it may be impossible for God to do directly, a strange conclusion to say the least.) Boyd's definition of love is, let us say, highly idiosyncratic and his responses to the theological objections to compatibilism are poor. (The most powerful objection—namely that God does not seem to require libertarian free will to loveBoyd disposes of in a single paragraph.) Others have said the true things Boyd says, without all of the poor philosophical argument. In my opinion, it is probably impossible to construct an emotionally satisfying theodicy, despite the best efforts of hyper-Arminians like Boyd and the highest of Calvinists.
September 26, 2017
La teodicea trinitaria del conflicto presenta con argumentos sólidos bíblicos, lógicos y de experiencia respuestas a dudas esenciales para creyentes y no creyentes. Muy importante para el día de hoy, sufriente por nuestras propias decisiones y azotado por males naturales que no tienen que ver con un propósito divino como se cree generalmente.
Nuestro mundo está involucrado en una guerra cósmica entre agentes (humanos y angelicales) que se han alineado con Dios o con Satanás pero batalla que se está librando actualmente no es eterna, y cuando termine, estamos seguros de la victoria de Dios. Dios creó el mundo con el propósito de mostrar su amor trino e invitar a otros a participar en él, lo cual implicaba un riesgo real pues posibilidad del amor entre criaturas contingentes tales como ángeles y seres humanos implica la posibilidad de guerra.
Nuestro mundo está involucrado en una guerra cósmica entre agentes (humanos y angelicales) que se han alineado con Dios o con Satanás pero batalla que se está librando actualmente no es eterna, y cuando termine, estamos seguros de la victoria de Dios. Dios creó el mundo con el propósito de mostrar su amor trino e invitar a otros a participar en él, lo cual implicaba un riesgo real pues posibilidad del amor entre criaturas contingentes tales como ángeles y seres humanos implica la posibilidad de guerra.
October 5, 2022
Boyd's epistemology allows him to presuppose libertarian free will because his experiential "yuck" reaction to orthodox theism tells him it must be true. From there he subjects his exegesis of Scripture to that presupposition of libertarian free will, thereby discovering a cosmic warfare theology that explains evil and suffering - two more topics where orthodox theism makes Boyd squeamish. Sure, the central positions of historic Christian belief have to go, but Boyd gets to sleep at night knowing he has preserved both his free will and the reputation of the only god he cannot hate - the god fabricated by his own presuppositions.
July 7, 2025
Boyd's defense of his warfare theodicy is nothing short of spectacular. The work is a thorough, well-argued and sensitive engagement with various theodicy-adjacent topics such as free will, foreknowledge, final judgement, heaven and spiritual beings. While I am not convinced of every part of Boyd's thesis, I would go as far as to say this is the single best book on theodicy I have read. Boyd's defense of God's goodness in the face of natural evils gets to the heart of the issue in a way that other approaches I've encountered do not. I read the book in a period of only a few days, as I found it unusually gripping for a work of philosophical theology.
June 21, 2024
Boyd always challenges my thinking. I love that he has a foot in the academic world as well as the local church. Personally through this book and his other "God at War" I find the war motive very compelling and have adopted it in my own thinking. Even parts which were complex I felt like I could get something out of it. I did find his last two chapters on Hell as something I have to think through more. Personally he tried to synthesize everlasting punishment with annihilation mixing in C.S. Lewis and Barth. Personally I was not sold on it. Overall a great compliment to the first book.
November 18, 2019
I'm convinced. God fights for us, and it is a real fight.
June 2, 2013
I purchased this book because it was cheap and because it seemed to interact with the same questions we were discussing in one of my classes (free will, the origin of evil, etc.). Greg Boyd is also one of the most famous proponents of open theism, which I didn't know much about.
So, the main point of this book is that all evil in the world is due to the choices of human and demonic agents, not due to God or God's bigger plan. Boyd also rejects the idea that God allows evil in order to use it for a better purpose (although God sometimes does find a way to bring something better out of it). However, Boyd spent almost the entire book defending the philosophical basis of his beliefs instead of discussing how this "warfare" between evil and God actually plays out in real life. I probably shouldn't have expected anything different, given the subtitle of the book promised he would be "building" his theodicy, but I still wish he had focused more on the big picture.
The final chapter moved into a discussion of hell, and I didn't like it at all. He claims his perspective unifies the "traditional" and "annihilationist" views of hell, but it really didn't. His version of hell still is characterized by eternal suffering, and doesn't solve any of the ethical problems inherent in this view. Also, Boyd's perspective of hell seems to be something he made up all on his own. A good rule of thumb for theology (and life in general) is that uniqueness is a sign of incorrectness -- if you're the only one to make a conclusion, you're probably wrong.
I thought the main point of the book was interesting and valid, but was disappointed by the way this idea was discussed. I'm sure the underlying message will stick with me and get incorporated into my perspective, but for the most part I did not enjoy reading this.
So, the main point of this book is that all evil in the world is due to the choices of human and demonic agents, not due to God or God's bigger plan. Boyd also rejects the idea that God allows evil in order to use it for a better purpose (although God sometimes does find a way to bring something better out of it). However, Boyd spent almost the entire book defending the philosophical basis of his beliefs instead of discussing how this "warfare" between evil and God actually plays out in real life. I probably shouldn't have expected anything different, given the subtitle of the book promised he would be "building" his theodicy, but I still wish he had focused more on the big picture.
The final chapter moved into a discussion of hell, and I didn't like it at all. He claims his perspective unifies the "traditional" and "annihilationist" views of hell, but it really didn't. His version of hell still is characterized by eternal suffering, and doesn't solve any of the ethical problems inherent in this view. Also, Boyd's perspective of hell seems to be something he made up all on his own. A good rule of thumb for theology (and life in general) is that uniqueness is a sign of incorrectness -- if you're the only one to make a conclusion, you're probably wrong.
I thought the main point of the book was interesting and valid, but was disappointed by the way this idea was discussed. I'm sure the underlying message will stick with me and get incorporated into my perspective, but for the most part I did not enjoy reading this.
August 8, 2015
Lots to think through here and very helpful on creating a more robust understanding of evil, not to mention encourage your prayer life. This helps empower one to confront evil and not just think about it. Very helpful for a better pastoral response in front of human tragedy. Enjoyed the understanding of this book around a loving God first and foremost who is all powerful and all knowing. Also great thoughts around the God of the probabilities and understanding natural disasters and evils. I think this may be the best book I have read since Walter Wink´s powers series years ago, which explains well some areas and leaves many areas weakly explained and wanting more. This series does a great job and makes me feel more content with answers about evil. However, this does build quite a lot on some hypothesis about Satan and angelic fall as well as what happens between Genesis 1:1-1:2 (Restoration theory is really interesting). However, very interesting and enlightening at least for me, but I know I am a little bit weird that I enjoyed a book called Satan and the Problem of evil!
December 17, 2015
Boyd has an amazing ability to synthesize and clearly articulate current philosophical debate and theological conversation. This book is worth having on your shelf, even if only for the way he summarizes and responds to so many theodicy perspectives. That being said, I found his overall argument quite persuasive. Each pillar of the "trinitarian warfare theodicy" is clearly spelled out and supported by philosophy, logic, and most importantly, scripture. He takes time and care to respond to concerns and questions laypeople are likely to have, and this is where his pastor's heart shines through.
You may not be ready to adopt a "partly open future" perspective after reading this, but I can guarantee you will see a nuanced, careful articulation of it that you may not have been exposed to before. For that, I can highly, highly recommend this book (though you really should read "God at War" first, to understand the perspective more fully).
You may not be ready to adopt a "partly open future" perspective after reading this, but I can guarantee you will see a nuanced, careful articulation of it that you may not have been exposed to before. For that, I can highly, highly recommend this book (though you really should read "God at War" first, to understand the perspective more fully).
November 23, 2012
Very interesting read. I read the companion book (God at War) a few years ago and found it to be very well argued. This one was much more philosophical, which I don't typically go for, but Boyd's argument was spot on.
The only thing I would say was missing from his argument was the consequences of the Cross in light of the warfare worldview, specifically in regards to how one should live in light of this worldview. While I agree with the world-view, the implications could get a little sketchy for less level-headed or cross-focused believers. I suppose this may not have been in the scope of a book about the problem of evil, it would have been nice to see his take on what life looks like in response.
The only thing I would say was missing from his argument was the consequences of the Cross in light of the warfare worldview, specifically in regards to how one should live in light of this worldview. While I agree with the world-view, the implications could get a little sketchy for less level-headed or cross-focused believers. I suppose this may not have been in the scope of a book about the problem of evil, it would have been nice to see his take on what life looks like in response.
August 23, 2007
Does God know everything about the future? Boyd argues that if God is to allow for the greatest amount of love, then He must allow for the greatest amount of evil. And this means that He will not know every action that all humans will make.
Good stuff to think and ponder about.
Good stuff to think and ponder about.
December 7, 2012
I didn't read every word of this book, nor the appendixes, but overall I found his arguments interesting and compelling and have already led to some great conversations. Book wise, I prefer the preceding book to this one, but this is a nice addition.
October 15, 2007
this book is not and easy read by any means, but I'm learning a lot from it! read this if you want to be kicked in the butt with regards to how you deal with questions about evil in our culture!
March 26, 2012
An excellent follow-up to the in-depth, "God at War."
Read
August 18, 2009Profound sequel to "God at War". No, I don't believe evil finds its ultimate source in God. Here's why...
January 5, 2014
This book along with the previous istallment "God at War" were paradigm shifting for me. Excellent read. Makes me view both the world and the Bible in an entirely different light.
Displaying 1 - 24 of 24 reviews