The dual relationship between God's creative purposes and the nature of sin and evil in Karl Barth's account of das Nichtige : in dialogue with the monist account of Alvin Plantinga
Abstract
John Hick argues for a two-fold typology of Christian theodicies, namely,
those which offer monist accounts of good and evil and those which offer dualist
accounts. Neither approach, he goes on to argue, is compatible with the basic claims
of Christian thought. On the one hand, monism risks denying the distinction between
good and evil by incorporating evil into the unitary intentionality of the one sovereign
God. Dualist accounts, on the other, risk undermining the sovereignty of God by
affirming the existence of evil as that which conflicts with God’s good (and singular)
will. Hick’s typology presents us, therefore, with the option of either affirming the
full sovereignty of God and denying the truly malevolent nature of evil, or affirming
God’s opposition to evil but then undermining the full sovereignty of God.
Two immensely influential Christian thinkers, namely, Karl Barth and Alvin
Plantinga, are considered as a means of testing this claim. Barth, who is the primary
focus, tends toward a dualistic understanding of good and evil whereas Plantinga
toward a more monistic understanding. Hick’s typology, however, fails to serve their
differing understandings of good and evil adequately. An alternative analysis of this
distinction is proposed drawing on their distinctive understandings of the relationship
between sin and evil and God’s creative purposes. This leads to an analysis of the
conditions under which it is possible to affirm the truly malevolent nature of evil and
God’s full sovereignty. It is contended that Barth’s approach offers a consistent means
of affirming God’s radical opposition to evil while also affirming his full sovereignty.
Type
Thesis, MPhil Master of Philosophy
Collections
Items in the St Andrews Research Repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.