Thesis (M.A.)--Denver Conservative Baptist Seminary, 1995. / Includes bibliographical references (leaves 139-143).

Thesis (D. Min.)--Austin Presbyterian Theological Seminary, 2000. / Abstract. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 100-108).

Thesis (M. Div.)--St. Vladimir's Orthodox Theological Seminary, 2000. / [Abstract]. Includes bibliographical references (leaf 51).

Thesis (M.A.)--Liberty University, 2009. / Includes bibliographical references.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Texas at Austin, 2001. / Vita. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 280-288). Available also in a digital version from Dissertation Abstracts.

Thesis (M.A.)--Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, 2002. / Abstract. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 106-111).

Thesis (DTh)--University of Stellenbosch, 2008. / Bibliography. Also available via the Internet.

published_or_final_version / Philosophy / Master / Master of Arts

The problem of evil is supposed to challenge belief in God’s existence by calling attention to the wickedness and suffering in the world. God is wholly good and all-powerful. Thus, according to the argument, He would be both willing and able to put a stop to all evil. Evil exists, however; so, the argument concludes, a wholly good God must not exist. I examine different formulations of the argument from evil and defend their cogency against some of the contemporary responses to these arguments. On the other hand, the various arguments from evil depend on accounts of God’s goodness that turn out to be difficult to justify. Drawing from the work of Christopher Coope, I suggest another way of looking at the problem. If we piously believe that God exists and accept that we experience different varieties of evil, we must reject any belief about God’s goodness that in conjunction with our other beliefs entails an inconsistency. In this way, we can rule out accounts of God’s goodness that are incompatible with His omnipotent, omniscient character and with the testimony of creation. Using the testimony of creation, we may develop constraints on the ways we are able to understand God’s goodness. Any explanation of God’s goodness must take these constraints into account if it is to be able to explain the existence of the various kinds of evils we experience. If God exists then everything, including all instances of sin and suffering, are manifestations of God’s goodness. I argue that the accounts of John Hick and Peter van Inwagen fail to give satisfactory explanations for the ways in which sin and suffering are manifestations of God’s goodness, but that St. Augustine’s account of evil in On Free Choice of the Will successfully explains such evil. He argues that all evil is either sin or the punishment for sin, and that the existence of sinners and the punishment of sinners are each manifestations of God’s goodness. He believes that while we genuinely experience evil, evil as such lacks being and thus cannot count as evidence against God’s existence.

This study examines the differences between Luke and Paul’s understanding of the Spirit by examining the specific question of the relationship of the concept of the Spirit to the concept of the kingdom of God in each writer.  In Chapter 1, the research begins with a review of the significant contributions of recent scholarship about the relationship between the pneumatologies of Luke and Paul on the basis of three major positions presented by three key scholars, J.D.G. Dunn, M.M.B. Turner, and R.P. Menzies, who are the main dialogue partners in this study. Chapter 2 explores the role of the Spirit in intertestamental Jewish literature, noting that the Spirit of prophecy is here not strongly associated with life-giving wisdom.  This pattern is reflected in Luke-Acts (chapter 4) which demonstrates that Luke also does not generally understand the gift of the Spirit as the source of life-giving wisdom.  However, the pneumatological perspective found in Paul (chapter 3) is not fully mirrored in the Jewish literature.  Paul, rather, is an innovator in that he presents the Spirit as the life of the kingdom of God. Chapter 3 discusses the relationship between the Spirit in Paul and the kingdom of God in the Synoptics.  Paul’s concept of the Spirit supplants the concept of the kingdom by showing how life in the Spirit is virtually synonymous with life in the kingdom of God in the Synoptics. Chapter 4 elucidates that Luke’s dissociation of the Spirit from the kingdom blessings is a sharp contrast with Paul’s clear association between them. Chapter 5 explores the nature of the relationship between the Spirit and the kingdom in Luke-Acts.  Unlike Paul, who views the Spirit as the essence of the kingdom of God, the role of the Spirit is related in a specific or restricted way to the kingdom according to Luke.  Luke sees the Spirit as primarily the divine means by which the kingdom is proclaimed.  So, for Luke where the Spirit is at work, there the kingdom is being proclaimed.