St John Chrysostom, Voltaire, and Leibniz Ask: Why Would a Loving God Permit Earthquakes?
Early Church Writing

St John Chrysostom, Voltaire, and Leibniz Ask: Why Would a Loving God Permit Earthquakes?

Theodicy is the term that Gottfried Leibniz coined in 1710 to describe this so-called problem of how an Almighty God permits suffering in the world.[1] The famed textual critic Bart Ehrman describes how he lost his faith over his concern about Theodicy in his book, On God’s Problem: Why We Suffer. As he points out, different books of the Bible answer this question differently. Many of the prophets, like St John Chrysostom, proclaim that natural disasters are often punishment meted out because we do not take care of the widows, orphans, and the poor.
On the other hand, in the Book of Job God does not give a reason for Job’s suffering, instead asking if Job can fathom the purposes of any of God’s inscrutable actions. why God permits the actions of God.  Although I often do not agree with Bart Ehrman’s conclusions, I rarely disagree with the evidence he cites in his works. Another recent best seller is by Rabbi Harold Kushner: When Bad Things Happen to Good People. We plan to reflect on both these works sometime in 2025. […]

Parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man: Church Fathers, Reformers, and Commentators
Bible Stories and Parables

Parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man: Church Fathers, Reformers, and Commentators

James Boice teaches us: “It is true that the rich man’s riches worked to his hurt, for he lived for those and nothing else. It is hard for the rich to enter heaven, as Jesus said elsewhere in Luke. It is also true that Lazarus’ poverty worked to his spiritual good, for lacking earthly joys and comfort he turned his eyes to heaven and sought divine consolation.”
James Boice remarks on the contrasts in the parable. Spiritually, “the rich man was actually poor, and the poor man was actually rich. This contrast continues after their death: the poor rich man grew poorer, and the rich poor man grew richer.” “The final contrast is between the hopelessness of the rich man’s condition after death and the hopefulness of his condition before. After death there is no possibility of change, but in this life there is.” […]