Existential Theodicies?

[GoldenKingGaze]

Does anyone here have to provide, an existential theodicy? I have been looking into Hans Urs Von Balthasar.

 

[Bob Crowley]

Being rather ignorant when it comes to various theological terms I went looking for "Hans Urs Von Balthasar" and "existential theodicy".

One reference i came upon was -

George MacDonald against Hans Urs von Balthasar on Universal Salvation

by Jordan Daniel Wood, Ph.D. Many a wrong, and its curing song; Many a road, and many an inn; Room to roam, but only one home For all the world to win. (Eve, in MacDonald’s Lilith) I want to …

afkimel.wordpress.com

It compared and contrasted Hans Urs von Balthasar and George McDonald in their philosophy. Perhaps this is a strange combination as Balthasar was Catholic whereas McDonald "... was at once a staunch Christian universalist (though he never claims the label)—a position carefully hewn from the hard ore of Scottish Presbyterian Calvinism—and a renowned dramatis."

CS Lewis was influenced by George McDonald, and in "The Great Divorce" he invokes McDonald as one of the fictional characters.

It's a long article so I'll have to read it first before I attempt to make any comments on it, or on "existential theodicy" in general.

It could be an interesting discussion.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Does anyone here have to provide, an existential theodicy? I have been looking into Hans Urs Von Balthasar.

No, I don't have any existential theodicy to provide, even though I'm an existentialist who is familiar with Balthasar and likes some of his suggestions about Gestalt psychology interfacing with our concepts of faith.

But no, I don't do theodicy, only odyssey.

 

[com7fy8]

an existential theodicy

Well . . . as well as I can explain what I have just read > a theodicy, by itself, has to do with making reason out of the awful suffering of this evil world. So, then, I mean, a theodicy is more of a logical and intellectual approach to suffering.

Meanwhile, an existential theodicy means an idea which has us dealing with suffering . . . along with God who is with us through it all.

Ok . . . so yes Jesus did come here and suffer on Calvary. But He did not do that only in order to face suffering and make some sort of good use out of it. But Jesus was not focusing on the evil, but His focus was on bringing us to God so we become like Jesus and love like Jesus.

So . . . in case you can see what I am offering > theodicy can overly give attention to suffering, and so can existential theodicy.

Instead, our practical theology needs to first stay with God and how our Heavenly Father desires to bring us to Himself and change us into the image of His own Son Jesus who is so pleasing to Him >

"For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He may be the firstborn among many brethren." (Romans 8:29)

Before creation, I consider in my theology . . . our Father was so greatly pleased with His own Son Jesus. ***This*** had His attention, then, mainly. So, suffering and evil and human free will were not major things to get His attention and demand that He deal with or negotiate with such things. He knew there was evil . . . the spirit of evil > "the spirit who now works in the sons of disobedience" (in Ephesians 2:2). That spirit of Satan existed while our Father was so sharing with His Son before creation. However, all that stuff could not hurt or defeat our Father, plus Jesus so delighting to Him mainly had His attention. And our Father determined that He wanted to have many children who are so pleasing to Him, like His own Son is. And "therefore" He destined that there will be "many brethren" of Jesus.

And while He would take care of having many children like Jesus, He was able to manage the spirit of evil and to flush Satanic spiritual stuff to the flaming sewer which burns with fire and brimstone. This is what is now happening to evil and its cruelly stupid nonsense > it is on its way to "hell". And so, with God, we are not making some point of facing evil along with God, but mainly with God we are gaining His real correction of our character, into the perfection of our Father's love >

"Love has been perfected among us in this: that we may have boldness in the day of judgment; because as He is, so are we in this world." (1 John 4:17)

This has our attention, mainly, as much as we are submissive to God who is giving this His main attention >

"To this end I also labor, striving according to His working which works in me mightily." (Colossians 1:29)

"for it is God who works in you both to will and to do for His good pleasure." (Philippians 2:13)

So, our main function, then, in >Biblical< existential theodicy, is we keep our attention to God . . . not making some special point of being so impressed with evil that it can keep our attention and have us trying to deal with it. But, instead, we keep attentive to God and staying submissive to how He personally rules each of us in His own peace >

"And let the peace of God rule in your hearts, to which also you were called in one body; and be thankful." (Colossians 3:15)

And God is the One who takes care of the evil and suffering . . . always using it as His tool, somehow, for His all-loving good which has His main focus always.

And therefore . . . constantly, even . . . like Paul says > we can take "pleasure" in any suffering and trouble . . . because of how we are obeying God in His grace which is the action of God in His own love with His own Heavenly beauty and goodness which is the "pleasure" we can share with Him, no matter what physical things we go through. Because God in this love's grace is almighty and incapable of being corrupted or hurt or changed by any evil, at all. And His grace favors this, by sharing this with us. And so Paul shares this . . . from his actual experience >

"Therefore I take pleasure in infirmities, in reproaches, in needs, in persecutions, in distresses, for Christ's sake. For when I am weak, then I am strong." (2 Corinthians 12:10)

So, in order to deal with suffering and other evil, do not try to face it like it is some sort of challenge worthy of our attention. But let us always first make sure we are with God and attentive to Him and how He has us being submissive to Him in His creativity of His love. For nothing and nobody is a worthy opponent or challenge for God; and therefore He does not have to answer to any evil or suffering or human will or whatever less than He is. But first do what Jesus says to do "first" >.

"'But seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things shall be added to you.'" (Matthew 6:33)

So, yes I will do compassionate things for suffering people, plus I have done a thing of two about my own suffering and troubles. However, what has helped me the most is . . . while I am in trouble or hoping to help someone else . . . I do best to first look to God, and answer to Him and submit to whatever He has me doing. And so we can be taking "pleasure" in the LORD and enjoying Him, first. And He is very good and kind and encouraging . . . and creative to have us doing the best possible love things in dealing with hard things . . . indeed doing this in sharing with Him in us guiding us along with, fitting what He has us do along with however He is ***already*** taking care of evil and suffering >

"casting all your care upon Him, for He cares for you." (1 Peter 5:7)

 

[Bob Crowley]

After quickly reading the linked article, it seemed to me that both von Balthasar and McDonald were "universalists" with some differences between them.

"Christian Universalism" is the belief that all men (and women) will be saved, and some apparently think some creatures might be saved. I like to think that I might see my dogs again, but I draw the line at sharing heaven with Tyrannosaurus Rex and saltwater crocodiles.

The trouble is that the harshest words about judgement come from Christ - not St. Paul or anybody else.

In the case of the prodigal son, one might think this is a case of a grievous sinner being offered salvation. But there is a preceding condition - the prodigal son had to come to HIS senses first. Once he did that and started moving towards the Father, his Father came running.

But not before! What if the prodigal son never came to his senses?

I'm biased as I've said many times my father appeared in my room the night he died. He materialised near the door, and basically started with an apology for having wrecked my life by deliberately destroying my confidence, and he carried on like that for 20 years. He also pleaded for forgiveness, saying it wasn't for him but for me, otherwise I'd destroy myself. "It's too late for me!" he said.

At one point he cried out "I always was doomed! I didn't really have any choice!" I argued back saying that can't be right, but he said if I was standing where he was I would see that it was "right". Then he added "I was WILLING!" to act the way he did, and to keep doing it.

It the end he gave this appalling scream and disappeared. It was obvious something was coming for him.

He did not "come to his senses" like the prodigal son. So from sheer personal experience I disagree with both von Balthasur and McDonald in their universalist tendencies. I KNOW there is a judgement, and I think it's permanent, but we make the choice with our own willingness. Was Adolf Hitter willing to act the way he did and be responsible for the slaughter of millions? I think he most certainly was - more than willing, and even had conspirators against him strung up with piano wire.

The problem these days is that we live in a world which witnessed World Wars 1 and 2, and the holocaust. Meanwhile God sees another holocaust taking place - the wholesale slaughter of the unborn. Unlike politicians who sit in their comfortable chairs in parliament, decreeing laws to make it easier, and even celebrating their "heroism", GOD SEES every single abortion, and I think He's getting fed up with it and is bringing judgment against us. I think the trouble we're seeing in the Middle East and other places is a precursor to that judgement.

But because we have witnessed the Holocaust and two world wars for example, these days for the modern Westerner it is "God..." who is "...in the dock", to quote one of CS Lewis's apologetic essays. Theodicy when it is all said and done is an attempt to justify God's alleged goodness and love in light of all the suffering and evil in the world. Trying to maintain faith in a "God of Love" when the Black Death was ravaging Europe and other areas would have been no easy task.

It would have been much easier in those times to believe in a God of Judgement.

I suppose my old Presbyterian pastor summed it up - "Love and judgement are two sides of the same coin."

 

[GoldenKingGaze]

Summing up existentialism, it is finding your real self, your identity in amidst the world you live in, in the universe, both of which may seem meaningless and absurd, depending on your discernment.

Theodicy here can refer instead of a logical explanation, to your existence as basis to explain, experiencing or seeing pain...

Ideas come like it is an opportunity to become resilient, patient love, fire, one who draws good from evil, things working together for your good in our perilous world. Ultimately becoming like Christ, despite temptation and pressures, forever free from temptation in your glorified state, fully able to see and hear temptation, for some great gain, yet without persuasion in yourself and much more 'becoming'.

Discovering who you really are. As with, could have been, obedience in the beginning in Eden, we'd discover who we are in pleasure, but now at least in some suffering. Some find the world of now is absurd.

 

[GoldenKingGaze]

After quickly reading the linked article, it seemed to me that both von Balthasar and McDonald were "universalists" with some differences between them.

"Christian Universalism" is the belief that all men (and women) will be saved, and some apparently think some creatures might be saved. I like to think that I might see my dogs again, but I draw the line at sharing heaven with Tyrannosaurus Rex and saltwater crocodiles.

The trouble is that the harshest words about judgement come from Christ - not St. Paul or anybody else.

In the case of the prodigal son, one might think this is a case of a grievous sinner being offered salvation. But there is a preceding condition - the prodigal son had to come to HIS senses first. Once he did that and started moving towards the Father, his Father came running.

But not before! What if the prodigal son never came to his senses?

I'm biased as I've said many times my father appeared in my room the night he died. He materialised near the door, and basically started with an apology for having wrecked my life by deliberately destroying my confidence, and he carried on like that for 20 years. He also pleaded for forgiveness, saying it wasn't for him but for me, otherwise I'd destroy myself. "It's too late for me!" he said.

At one point he cried out "I always was doomed! I didn't really have any choice!" I argued back saying that can't be right, but he said if I was standing where he was I would see that it was "right". Then he added "I was WILLING!" to act the way he did, and to keep doing it.

It the end he gave this appalling scream and disappeared. It was obvious something was coming for him.

He did not "come to his senses" like the prodigal son. So from sheer personal experience I disagree with both von Balthasur and McDonald in their universalist tendencies. I KNOW there is a judgement, and I think it's permanent, but we make the choice with our own willingness. Was Adolf Hitter willing to act the way he did and be responsible for the slaughter of millions? I think he most certainly was - more than willing, and even had conspirators against him strung up with piano wire.

The problem these days is that we live in a world which witnessed World Wars 1 and 2, and the holocaust. Meanwhile God sees another holocaust taking place - the wholesale slaughter of the unborn. Unlike politicians who sit in their comfortable chairs in parliament, decreeing laws to make it easier, and even celebrating their "heroism", GOD SEES every single abortion, and I think He's getting fed up with it and is bringing judgment against us. I think the trouble we're seeing in the Middle East and other places is a precursor to that judgement.

But because we have witnessed the Holocaust and two world wars for example, these days for the modern Westerner it is "God..." who is "...in the dock", to quote one of CS Lewis's apologetic essays. Theodicy when it is all said and done is an attempt to justify God's alleged goodness and love in light of all the suffering and evil in the world. Trying to maintain faith in a "God of Love" when the Black Death was ravaging Europe and other areas would have been no easy task.

It would have been much easier in those times to believe in a God of Judgement.

I suppose my old Presbyterian pastor summed it up - "Love and judgement are two sides of the same coin."

Pro-life is of central importance. Ancient civilisations were judged and ended by God's arm and hand. The children need a fair chance. But idolaters would sacrifice their children. People who do even that, aren't really trustworthy with other responsibilities. Their civilisation is a waste of God's resources.

One preacher says, "We are not here to judge your journey but to celebrate your steps."

 

[Bob Crowley]

Summing up existentialism, it is finding your real self, your identity in amidst the world you live in, in the universe, both of which may seem meaningless and absurd, depending on your discernment.

I copied this from Post #6. Quoting my pastor again, I once asked him if there was any philosophy which was closest to Christianity.

He thought for a minute, and replied "I think existentialism is about as close as you'll get. Most people 'exist' and that's about it".

In that existence they make their own decisions on how they will behave, try to work out what to believe and so on.

Jean Paul Sartre was probably the most influential existential novelist. The characters in his books were often unpleasant, but I suppose they were realistic in his experience. He was in the French resistance during WWII, although his role was more intellectual than physical.

Kierkegaard was the Christian existentialist and possibly did more than anyone else to put existentialism on the intellectual map.

 

[GoldenKingGaze]

Being rather ignorant when it comes to various theological terms I went looking for "Hans Urs Von Balthasar" and "existential theodicy".

One reference i came upon was -

George MacDonald against Hans Urs von Balthasar on Universal Salvation

by Jordan Daniel Wood, Ph.D. Many a wrong, and its curing song; Many a road, and many an inn; Room to roam, but only one home For all the world to win. (Eve, in MacDonald’s Lilith) I want to …

afkimel.wordpress.com

It compared and contrasted Hans Urs von Balthasar and George McDonald in their philosophy. Perhaps this is a strange combination as Balthasar was Catholic whereas McDonald "... was at once a staunch Christian universalist (though he never claims the label)—a position carefully hewn from the hard ore of Scottish Presbyterian Calvinism—and a renowned dramatis."

CS Lewis was influenced by George McDonald, and in "The Great Divorce" he invokes McDonald as one of the fictional characters.

It's a long article so I'll have to read it first before I attempt to make any comments on it, or on "existential theodicy" in general.

It could be an interesting discussion.

With Urs there is Karl Barth and Thomas Torrance. But they may stop short of Universalism. What changed McDonald's mind?

 

[Bob Crowley]

I don't know enough about George MacDonald himself to be able to answer the question about what "changed his mind". I really only became aware of him through CS Lewis's writings. I've probably read most of them.

An AI search on "What changed George MacDonald's mind about universalism" (assuming I've got the correct change of mind) came up with the following -

Based on the provided search results, there is no evidence that George MacDonald changed his mind about universalism (the belief that all will eventually be saved) to reject it. Rather, the sources suggest the opposite: he held to his belief in the ultimate salvation of all souls throughout his mature life, despite pressure to renounce it. Instead, the key shifts in MacDonald’s thinking involved how he arrived at and viewed universalism, along with the theological and personal influences that shaped it:

Rejection of Calvinist Predestination: Originally raised in a strict Calvinist environment, MacDonald shifted to a firm conviction that God is the loving Father of all mankind, not a vengeful deity. He rejected the idea of limited atonement and penal substitutionary atonement, seeing God’s justice as a purifying "fire" rather than an irrational, eternal hell.

The Influence of His Father: His father's character and his rejection of the harsher, more extreme points of Calvinism helped shape George’s belief that fatherhood and love were at the very core of the universe.

"Hell" as Purifying Mercy: MacDonald did not discard the concept of hell entirely; he redefined it as a necessary, purgatorial experience. He believed the fire of God's love would destroy sin and amend the sinner, maintaining that "no hell will be lacking which would help the just mercy of God to redeem his children".

Persistent Conviction: While some, like C.S. Lewis, were heavily influenced by him, they did not follow him all the way to his final, optimistic belief in universal salvation, often arguing that his views "ignored the free-will of man".

Contextual Misunderstanding: Because the term "Universalist" can be defined in various ways, and because he feared that some "universalists" were dismissing the need for repentance altogether, MacDonald sometimes appeared to reject the label, even though his actual beliefs aimed at the universal reconciliation of all souls.

It would seem one of the main factors in his universalist leadings was the strict Calvinism of his younger years. He rejected its harshness, and his father encouraged him to do so, either directly or indirectly.