For the past several years, I’ve been contemplating a framework for how we “do” theology. With the assistance of AI, I have begun developing it. It is built on an epistemology called Critical Realism (or theological fallibilism). It sounds complex, or even heretical perhaps, but it boils down to a very simple, vital, humble distinction: We must learn to distinguish between divine revelation and our theological models of that revelation.1

1. The Map is Not the Territory

In the philosophy of science, there is a fundamental distinction between a model (like a model of an atom) and the phenomenon itself (the actual atom). A model is a simplified, conceptual representation designed to help us understand a complex reality.

I believe theology works the same way. All systematic theologies - whether Thomistic, Calvinistic, Arminian - are human-constructed conceptual models. They are fallible maps drawn to make sense of the primary, infallible data of divine revelation found in Scripture.

The “Territory” is the objective, mind-independent reality of the Triune God and His acts in history, recorded in Scripture. The “map” is our doctrinal system, or model. A map is incredibly useful - indispensable, even, for navigating the Christian life. But the map is not the Territory. Mistaking our theological models for the exhaustive, one-to-one reality of God is a form of epistemic idolatry that collapses the Creator-creature distinction.

When we recognize that theology is a process of model-building, it frees us from dogmatic absolutism without plunging us into theological relativism. We can vigorously debate which map possesses the greatest verisimilitude (truth-likeness) while acknowledging we are all looking at the same objective landscape.2

2. The Shared Territory (What All Christians Believe)

So, what is the shared landscape? If a map omits the highest mountain range, it’s a bad map. In Christian theology, there are non-negotiable boundary stones that any viable model must successfully map to be considered historically orthodox. The early ecumenical creeds act as the foundational landmarks for this terrain.

Regardless of our specific systematic models, here is the bedrock Revelation/Reality we share:3

• The Triune God: There is one God who exists eternally as three distinct - but never separate - Persons (Father, Son and Holy Spirit) who share a single divine nature.

• Christology (The Chalcedonian Box): Jesus Christ is one Person, the Son, with two distinct natures (truly God, truly human), united without confusion, change, division or separation.

• Spiritual Inability (The Fall): Humanity is born into a fallen, spiritually dead condition. We are completely incapable of perfectly fulfilling God’s moral law or initiating our own rescue without God’s prior, intervening grace.

• Soteriology (Objective Rescue): Christ’s substitutionary death and physical resurrection objectively solved the problem of human guilt. Salvation is a sovereign gift of grace alone, received by faith alone.

• Eschatology: Jesus Christ will visibly, bodily return to judge the living and the dead, resulting in a physical resurrection and the restoration of the cosmos.

• Bibliology: The 66 books of the Bible are God-breathed, functioning as the supreme, final and enduring authority for Christian faith and practice.

• Ecclesiology: There is one universal, apostolic body of Christ, expressed in local embassies, tasked with the Great Commission and the administration of the ordinances.

If you stand inside these boundary stones, you are standing in the Shared Territory of historic, orthodox Christianity.

3. Competing Cartographies: How Models Differ

If we agree on the Territory, why do we argue so fiercely? Because we use radically different architectural blueprints to draw our maps. Why? Because we are fallen, finite creatures.

Consider the fierce debates over the Doctrine of God. Classical Theism (the model heavily favored by much of the Reformed tradition) uses a “top-down” blueprint. It begins with philosophical, metaphysical deductions about what a “perfect being” must be - timeless, completely simple (without parts), and impassible (unable to be affected). When it encounters biblical texts showing God repenting or grieving, this model uses a “protective belt” of doctrine (like accommodation) to categorize those texts as purely metaphorical. It prioritizes philosophical coherence.

On the other hand, a model like my Theistic Personalist Realism uses a “bottom-up” (or “revelation-first”) blueprint. It starts inductively with the narrative data of Scripture, which overwhelmingly portrays God as an active, responsive Person who engages with creation in time. It takes the relational and affective descriptions of God seriously, relying on philosophy as a secondary, ministerial tool to systematize that revelation. It prioritizes narrative fidelity and existential resonance over classical metaphysics.4

We see this same modeling dynamic regarding Soteriology. Both the Calvinist and the Arminian affirm the objective reality of Total Depravity (Spiritual Inability). That is the Territory. But they use different conceptual models to map how God overcomes it. The Arminian maps it via synergistic prevenient grace, while the Calvinist maps it via monergistic effectual calling. They are both trying to map the exact same biblical data regarding human brokenness and divine rescue.

The same modeling process is evident when we consider the sacrament of Baptism. The Shared Territory is undeniable: Christ instituted a physical rite involving water and the Triune name to mark His people, and it is intrinsically tied to our union with His death and resurrection. Every orthodox Christian agrees on this Reality.

But look at how our theological maps draw the boundaries of this territory. The Reformed Paedobaptist map draws a straight, continuous topographical line from the Old Covenant to the New. It views baptism as the fulfillment of circumcision - the sign of the covenant community - and therefore applies it to believers and their infant children. Alternatively, the Credobaptist map draws a distinct structural boundary between the covenants. It views the New Covenant as composed entirely of regenerate individuals, and therefore maps baptism strictly as an outward sign of an already-actualized inward faith.5 Finally, the Lutheran or Sacramental map views the water not merely as a sign, but as the instrumental means of regeneration itself.

All three camps are looking at the exact same biblical texts and the exact same physical water. Yet, because they are using different underlying blueprints regarding covenant theology and sacramental efficacy, they produce radically different maps of who should receive the water and what the water is actually doing.

However, acknowledging that we use different maps is not a surrender to theological relativism. Not all cartographies are equally valid; some maps simply chart the terrain with greater accuracy, internal coherence, and less distortion of the source text. In upcoming posts, we will explore a specific framework for how we can evaluate these competing models — a way to determine which map possesses the greatest verisimilitude (truth-likeness) to the biblical narrative.

A Call for Epistemic Humility

When we look at these competing cartographies, it is easy to see why theological debates become so heated. The infighting we see across denominations usually stems from a deeply noble place: a fierce passion for the truth of Scripture and a desire to honor God’s revelation. But in our zeal to defend the truth, we often forget our own creaturely limitations.

My own church background and formal biblical education are rooted deeply in Reformed theology. I know firsthand how easy it is to look at the maps we inherited from Geneva and Westminster - maps that are majestic, colossal and deeply useful - and mistakenly treat them as exhaustive, infallible, one-to-one photographs of God (or at least the best human beings can do). But they are not. Like all theological systems, they are fallible, human-constructed models of fallen creatures striving to map the absolute Reality of God.6

This is the ultimate point of Theological Cartography: it demands a profound epistemic humility. It reminds us that because we are finite and fallen, our maps can be mistaken. So if I shift my theological framework from Covenant Theology to something similar to Progressive Covenantalism, I am adopting a map that I believe better charts the biblical data, not abandoning the faith or falling into heresy.7 Recognizing this shared Reality allows us to hold our deepest convictions firmly, yet graciously. It allows us to look across the theological aisle and say to one another, “I believe my model traces the contours of Scripture with greater fidelity, but I acknowledge that we are both looking at the exact same beautiful, terrifying, and inexhaustible Mountain, bowing before the one God who made it all.”8

We should always strive to draw a perfect map, but we must humbly recognize that we will never fully possess one this side of glory. Ultimately, the map is not the destination. Our purpose is to use the best, most faithful map available to navigate our way toward the Triune God, until the day comes when the maps can be rolled up, and we finally see the Territory face to face.

Previously in this series: In our introductory essay, we explored why deterministic blueprints and impassible deities fail to address the visceral reality of suffering. We established the need for a “Warfare Worldview” grounded in Theistic Personalist Realism (TPR).

Logic at a Glance (The Anatomy)

• The Proposition: A theodicy is only as viable as its underlying doctrine of God; we must trade the “Unmoved Absolute” of Hellenistic philosophy for the “Passible, Perfect Person” of the biblical witness.

• The Logic Block:

  • The Problem: Strict determinism makes God the direct author of evil, while Classical Theism’s doctrine of impassibility renders Him relationally insulated from the groaning of the cosmos.

  • The Logic: TPR utilizes Kenotic Omnipotence (sovereign self-limitation) and Molinist Providence (Middle Knowledge) to preserve both exhaustive divine sovereignty and genuine creaturely freedom.

  • The Resolution: The universe is a Causally Open System—a genuinely contested history where God is a responsive participant to the libertarian free choices of His creatures. Yet, unlike a vulnerable combatant, God sovereignly guarantees the ultimate triumph of His kingdom, not through deterministic coercion, but through the infallible orchestration of His Middle Knowledge.

• The Exegetical Core: Romans 8:19 — “For the anxious expectation of the creation eagerly awaits the revelation of the sons of God.” (LEB)

I. Introduction: Re-Mapping the Territory of Theodicy

The endeavor to reconcile the existence of a perfectly good, all-powerful God with the reality of horrific suffering remains the most persistent metaphysical and existential challenge in Christian theology. Theology serves as a cartographic discipline; it builds conceptual maps of divine reality and redemptive history. When confronting the sheer volume of moral and physical evil in the world, the theological maps we deploy inevitably shape not only our intellectual coherence but our doxological and pastoral viability. Historically, theodicy has been dominated by two primary frameworks: theological determinism and classical theism. However, when measured against the biblical narrative of a genuinely responsive God engaged in a cosmic conflict, both models reveal fatal conceptual fractures. This monograph proposes a new cartography, grounded in Theistic Personalist Realism (TPR), arguing that evil is best understood within the matrix of a cosmic conflict, sustained by a passible, perfectly personal God who exercises kenotic omnipotence and Molinist providence to secure a genuinely free and ultimately perfected creation.

The Failure of Deterministic and Classical Models

Any viable theodicy must satisfy the criteria of biblical fidelity, logical coherence, and existential resonance. Strict theological determinism, while prioritizing a specific formulation of divine sovereignty, fundamentally fails on both the logical and moral fronts. If God meticulously decrees and determines every molecular interaction and human volition, the necessary consequence is that God becomes the direct author of evil.1 This deterministic causal closure collapses the moral distinction between the Creator and the creature. If human beings lack Libertarian Free Will (LFW)—the categorical ability to choose between alternate possibilities without deterministic coercion—then moral evil is reduced to a divine script played out by organic automatons. Such a framework logically invalidates the biblical witness of God’s genuine grief over human rebellion and fractures the coherent meaning of a covenantal relationship, which requires reciprocal, uncoerced love (Plantinga, 1974). A coerced love is a logical contradiction; thus, a deterministic theodicy secures sovereignty only at the cost of divine goodness.

Conversely, traditional Classical Theism struggles to provide a relationally resonant theodicy due to its reliance on Hellenistic philosophical imports, specifically the doctrines of absolute Divine Simplicity (DDS) and strict impassibility. In an effort to guard divine aseity (ontological independence) and pure actuality (actus purus), the classical model posits a God who is timelessly eternal, lacking any passive potency, and therefore utterly insulated from being affected by the creation (Mullins, 2016). If God is strictly impassible, He cannot genuinely suffer in solidarity with His creatures, rendering Him relationally distant from the groaning of the cosmos. While the classical model successfully protects God from metaphysical vulnerability, it struggles to cohere with the biblical portrait of a dynamically responsive, covenantal Lord who experiences wrath, grief, and ultimately, the profound agony of the cross. A God who is an unmoved absolute may be philosophically secure, but such an entity is categorically distinct from the Tri-Personal God of holy love who voluntarily enters into the relational alienation of humanity. We must retrieve divine aseity without tethering it to an impassible staticism.

The Theistic Personalist Proposal

In response to the inadequacies of both deterministic and classical models, this monograph constructs a theodicy based on Theistic Personalist Realism (TPR). The foundational axiom of this framework is that God is the Perfect Person. Personhood—encompassing consciousness, rationality, agency, and relational love—is not an anthropomorphic limitation but a “great- making property.” God is the ultimate, perfected instantiation of personhood. From this ontological baseline, the thesis of this work emerges: Evil is best understood through the lens of a cosmic conflict within a causally open system, where a passible, Perfect Person exercises kenotic omnipotence and Molinist providence to legally defeat evil and ultimately secure a genuinely free, perfected creation.

To understand this proposal, we must redefine divine power and providence. Omnipotence is not the sheer, coercive domination of all variables, but rather Kenotic Omnipotence. The highest expression of the power of a Perfect Being involves the sovereign, voluntary choice to self-limit in order to make metaphysical and relational space for authentic creaturely agency (Peckham, 2018). God does not suspend His power to allow freedom; rather, the granting of libertarian freedom is the very manifestation of His kenotic power. This self-limitation renders God Perfectly Passible—possessing the willed, perfected capacity to be affected by the beloved without compromising His ontological aseity.

Furthermore, this kenotic power is navigated via Molinist Providence. Rejecting the false dichotomy between exhaustive sovereignty and libertarian freedom, Molinism argues that God possesses Middle Knowledge—an exhaustive comprehension of the counterfactuals of creaturely freedom (Flint, 1998). God knows what any free creature would freely choose in any given set of logically possible circumstances. Using this Middle Knowledge, God optimally instantiates a world where He providentially weaves together billions of free human choices, the actions of rebellious spiritual powers, and His own covenantal interventions to actualize His ultimate teleological goal.

Crucially, this unfolds within an “Open System.” The universe is not a causally closed material machine, nor is it a predetermined script. It is an open theater populated by free human agents and highly intelligent, hostile spiritual powers engaged in a cosmic insurgency (Boyd, 2001).2 The volume of suffering we witness is the horrific, yet expected, byproduct of a fractured, contested cosmos where the Triune God has permitted temporary rebellion for the sake of an eternal, uncoerced communion. God’s response to this rebellion is not a detached decree but Triune Kenotic Substitution—the Incarnation and the Cross—whereby God absorbs the ultimate consequence of evil, legally disarming the hostile powers, and inaugurating a victorious Christus Victor trajectory.

The Scope of the Monograph

To robustly defend this Theistic Personalist theodicy, this monograph proceeds through a systematic re-mapping of the origin, nature, and ultimate defeat of evil.

The journey begins by examining the ontology of evil and the “Cosmic Rupture.” We will reject dualism, defining evil strictly as a privatio boni (a privation of good) generated by the corruption of an originally perfect creaturely will. This section will explore the angelic fall, defining the primordial sin of Satan as localized madness born from the envy of divine aseity. Using Molinism, we will argue that “Transworld Depravity” makes localized rebellion a high probability in any feasible world containing powerful libertarian agents, yet God proceeded with creation because the teleological glory of an expanded, reciprocal fellowship outweighs the temporary cost of the insurgency. Furthermore, we will establish that humanity’s fall was an act of cosmic treason that, due to our organic headship, fractured the ontological structure of physical creation, subjecting it to the “bondage of decay” (Rom 8:19-21).

Following the establishment of evil’s origin, the monograph will address the Logical and Evidential problems of moral evil. We will dismantle the Epicurean trilemma by demonstrating that coerced love is logically impossible, and thus, a Perfectly Good God cannot actualize a world of genuine communion without permitting the possibility of evil. Addressing the sheer volume of suffering, we will deploy epistemic humility against the “noseeum” fallacy, arguing that finite creatures lack the cognitive bandwidth to assess the tapestry of Molinist providence. Ultimately, the evidential problem finds its answer in Christology: God’s Perfected Passibility culminates at the Cross, proving that God is both willing and able to redeem the most concentrated horrors of history.

The inquiry will then transition to the physical thermodynamics of “futility,” separating moral evil from natural evil. We will dismantle the retributive “karma” model of divine micromanagement, utilizing biblical texts (Luke 13, John 9) to demonstrate that tragedies like natural disasters or congenital diseases are the entropic baselines of a decaying world, which God permits and redemptively actualizes, rather than sadistic, localized punishments.

This discussion necessitates a rigorous philosophy of science, exploring the interaction between natural law, chaotic systems, and spiritual warfare within an open universe. Adopting Critical Realism, we will demonstrate that spiritual agents can inject causal energy into highly sensitive atmospheric and biological systems without violating the normative physical baseline of creation. Here, the theology of prayer is illuminated: via A-Theory time and Molinism, free human prayer functions as a genuine causal weapon in the cosmic conflict, prompting dynamic divine responses and the strategic teleology of holy angels.

As the argument approaches its culmination, it will pivot from theodicy to sociodicy, analyzing the modern secularization of the cosmic powers. We will trace how the Enlightenment and subsequent materialist philosophies erased transcendent categories of evil, resulting in an “anthropological flattening” that reduces human beings to systemic nodes. This secular immanent eschatology attempts to inaugurate justice through coercive violence and “social murder”—a tragic counterfeit of kenosis that inadvertently serves the very demonic powers it claims to dismantle. In contrast, the Triune method of warfare is defined by cruciformity.

Finally, the monograph will secure the eschatological horizon. We will explore the “already/not yet” tension of Christus Victor, distinguishing between the legal disarmament of the powers at the cross and their ongoing capacity as illegal insurgents. The climax of the Theistic Personalist vision is the New Heavens and New Earth: a perfected, open system where physical futility is eradicated. Most critically, we will provide a fourfold guarantee—epistemological, historical, Molinist, and ontological—demonstrating that while redeemed humanity retains libertarian free will, the historical inoculation of the cross and substantive union with the Incarnate Son render a second fall categorically impossible.

Through this cartography, we will see that believers are not helpless victims of fate in a closed deterministic machine, nor are they alone under the gaze of an impassible deity. They are deputized royal-priests enlisted in the actualized New Covenant, destined to co-reign in a perfected cosmos with the victorious Perfect Person.

Next Week: Packet 2: The Origin and Ontology of Evil: The Cosmic Rupture

Leave a comment

This is Packet 1 of The Groaning and the Glory, a serialized monograph on Theistic Personalist Theodicy. To follow the thread of this argument from the origin of evil to the final restoration, ensure you are subscribed to the full series.

Suppose you find yourself reading the sixth chapter of John’s Gospel. It is a magnificent text, but it is also the site of a long-standing theological skirmish between monergists (who believe God alone decisively brings about salvation) and synergists (who believe human free will plays a cooperating role).

Now, theologians can argue until they are blue in the face about what certain Greek words feel like they should mean. But it seems to me that we might make better progress if we take a step back, roll up our sleeves, and look at the actual logical structure of Jesus’s claims. If we map out the necessary and sufficient conditions Jesus gives us, we might just find that the text is logically tighter than we thought.

(For those who want to see the formal logical proofs, I’ve linked my full formal essay at the bottom of this post)

The Setup: Necessary vs. Sufficient

In John 6, Jesus uses a network of specific verbs to describe how a person is saved: being given by the Father, being drawn, being taught, and being granted. The central question is simply this: do all these terms refer to the exact same group of people?

Let’s look at the promises:

• Sufficiency: Jesus says, “Everyone whom the Father gives to me will come to me” (John 6:37, LEB). Logically, this means being “given” is a sufficient condition for coming. If you are given, you will inevitably come. The same goes for being “taught” by God (John 6:45).

• Necessity: Conversely, Jesus says, “No one is able to come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him” (John 6:44, LEB). This establishes a necessary condition. You absolutely cannot come unless you are drawn. He says the same thing about it being “granted” by the Father (John 6:65).

So, giving and teaching are sufficient; drawing and granting are necessary. But here is where the synergist usually raises a hand.

The Poodle Fallacy (and the Inferential Gap)

A popular, though entirely invalid, logical move is to look at John 6:37 (”All the Father gives will come”) and infer the inverse: “Anyone not given by the Father will not come”.

But that simply doesn’t follow. To see why, consider the statement: “If it is a poodle, then it is a dog”. This is eminently true. But the invalid inverse would be to conclude, “Therefore, if it is not a poodle, it is not a dog”. This is obviously false; our non-poodle friend could very well be a golden retriever.

Applying this to John 6, the synergist might say: “Sure, all who are ‘given’ will come. But perhaps others - our theological golden retrievers, if you will - might also come by an act of their own unaided free will!”. John 6:37, by itself, doesn’t logically rule this out. To close this gap and prove the monergist case, we have to prove that being “given” is also a necessary condition for coming. We need what philosophers call “bridge premises”.

Building the Bridges: An Unbreakable Chain

Fortunately, the text itself supplies these bridges, and it does so quite forcefully through structural parallelism.

Bridge 1: The “Granted” are the “Given” Look at the exact syntactic equivalence between verses 44 and 65.

• Verse 44: “No one can come to me unless the Father... draws him.”

• Verse 65: “No one can come to me unless it has been granted to him by the Father.”

These two restrictive clauses mirror each other identically. They occupy the exact same functional slot as the divine precondition for coming. Because both “giving” and “granting” serve as the ultimate, effectual preconditions for the exact same individuals who inevitably come, we can validly link them.

Bridge 2: The “Drawn” are the “Taught” Verses 44 and 45 form a classic problem-solution structure. Verse 44 presents the problem: universal inability (no one can come unless drawn). Verse 45 immediately supplies the mechanism: everyone who is taught by the Father comes. The drawing isn’t some vague, passive wooing; it is the effectual divine instruction that infallibly results in coming.

Furthermore, look at the end goal. The text repeatedly hammers home an unbreakable chain with a single destination. Those given, those who come, and those drawn all share the exact same eschatological outcome: the Son will lose none of them, and will raise them up on the last day.

When we apply these textual bridges, the logic snaps shut. The “given” are the “drawn” are the “taught” are the “granted”. Divine action is both necessary and sufficient.

The John 12 Objection: What about “All People”?

Now, a sharp critic will inevitably point to a few chapters later, where Jesus says, “And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself” (John 12:32).

The objection goes like this: If drawing is an effectual, irresistible force that guarantees salvation, and Jesus draws every individual human, then every individual human is saved. That’s Universalism. Since we know Universalism is false, the synergist argues we must redefine “draw” (helkuō) into a weak, resistible invitation.

But redefining a Greek verb that literally means to forcefully drag (like a heavy net of fish or men before a magistrate) is a desperate, ad hoc maneuver. We don’t need to weaken the verb; we just need to look at the context to see who “all” refers to.

What happens just twelve verses prior to trigger Jesus saying this? A group of Greeks (Gentiles) show up to see Him (John 12:20). This is a monumental shift. Jesus immediately declares that the hour of His glorification has come (v. 23). In Greek syntax, “all” can mean “all without exception” or “all without distinction”. In context, Jesus isn’t declaring universal salvation for every human who will ever live; He is declaring the end of Jewish exclusivity. The net of the Father’s effectual drawing is going global—to Jews and Gentiles alike.

Conclusion

Logic alone cannot interpret a text for us; it can only tell us what logically follows from our interpretations. If one chooses to reject the structural bridges in John 6, a non-effectual reading remains logically coherent - though I’d argue it severely strains the tight rhetorical mesh of the chapter.

However, if we take the structural parallelism of John 6 seriously, the formal deduction isolates a profound truth: a monergistic framework isn’t just an arbitrary theological preference; it is logically inescapable. Coming to the Son is the reliable effect of the Father’s initiative, and the Son’s keeping and raising perfects that initiative.

For the full symbolic logic proofs and a deeper dive into the Greek, you can read my complete formal essay here. The core ideas and insights are my own. I utilized Gemini Pro to help formulate the logical analysis, then synthesize and draft the final manuscript under my strict direction.

Interpreting John 6 In Logical Form A Philosophical Theological Essay

388KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Summary of The Groaning and the Glory

The Groaning and the Glory is a systematic re-mapping of the problem of evil. Moving beyond the sterile logical equations of traditional apologetics, this work utilizes Theistic Personalist Realism (TPR) to frame suffering as the byproduct of a genuine cosmic insurgency. It tracks the logic of the conflict from the initial angelic rupture to the final eschatological guarantee in the New Heavens and New Earth.

The Table of Contents

New installments are published weekly. Links will become active as each Packet is released.

• [Intro] The God Who Bleeds: Why the “Problem of Evil” is a War Story

• [Packet 1] Re-mapping the Territory and the Nature of Evil

• [Packet 2] The Origin and Ontology of Evil

• [Packet 3] Moral Evil and the Freedom of the Beloved

• [Packet 4] Natural Evil and the Karma Fallacy

• [Packet 5a] Science, Natural Law, and the Open System

• [Packet 5b] Spiritual Warfare and the Ministry of Administration

• [Packet 6] From Theodicy to Sociodicy

• [Packet 7a] The Already and the Not Yet

• [Packet 7b] The Security of the New Heavens

• [Packet 8] Conclusion: The Victorious Perfect Person

The endeavor to reconcile the existence of a perfectly good, all-powerful God with the reality of horrific suffering remains the most persistent metaphysical and existential challenge in Christian theology. Traditionally, theology serves as a cartographic discipline; it builds conceptual maps of divine reality and redemptive history to help the believer navigate a world marked by profound darkness. However, many of the “maps” currently offered by the church are failing.

When measured against the sheer volume of moral and physical evil—from the algorithmic crushing of the poor to the entropic shuddering of a tsunamis—the two dominant frameworks of theodicy reveal fatal conceptual fractures.

The Failed Maps of the Modern Church

Historically, theodicy has been dominated by two primary models: Theological Determinism and Classical Theism. While both seek to protect the majesty of God, they often do so at the cost of His character or His relational resonance.

Strict Theological Determinism prioritizes a specific formulation of divine sovereignty that results in causal closure. If God meticulously decrees and determines every human volition, He becomes, by logical necessity, the direct author of evil. In this map, the moral distinction between the Creator and the creature collapses. If human beings lack Libertarian Free Will (LFW)—the categorical ability to choose between alternate possibilities—then moral evil is reduced to a divine script played out by organic automatons. Such a framework invalidates God’s genuine grief over rebellion and turns the covenantal relationship into a coerced performance.

Conversely, Classical Theism relies on Hellenistic philosophical imports such as Absolute Divine Simplicity (ADS) and Strict Impassibility. In an effort to guard divine aseity (ontological independence), this model posits a God who is timelessly eternal and utterly insulated from being affected by His creation. But a God who is an “Unmoved Absolute” cannot genuinely suffer in solidarity with His creatures. While this protects God from metaphysical vulnerability, it leaves Him relationally distant from the groaning of the cosmos.

The Theistic Personalist Proposal

This monograph series proposes a new cartography grounded in Theistic Personalist Realism (TPR). The foundational axiom of this framework is that God is the Perfect Person. Personhood—encompassing consciousness, agency, and relational love—is not a limitation but a “great-making property.”

From this baseline, we suggest that evil is best understood through the lens of a Cosmic Conflict within an Open System (causally open, not epistemologically open - that is, Open Theism is rejected). In this model, divine power is redefined as Kenotic Omnipotence. The highest expression of a Perfect Being’s power is not coercive domination, but the sovereign, voluntary choice to self-limit in order to make metaphysical space for authentic creaturely agency.

God does not suspend His power to allow freedom; rather, the granting of Libertarian Free Will is the very manifestation of His power. This self-limitation renders God Perfectly Passible—possessing the willed capacity to be affected by the beloved without compromising His ontological independence.

Navigating the Open System

To maintain sovereignty within this open theater, we deploy Molinist Providence. Utilizing Middle Knowledge (scientia media), God possesses an exhaustive comprehension of the counterfactuals of creaturely freedom. He knows what any free agent would freely choose in any given set of circumstances. Using this knowledge, God optimally instantiates a world where He weaves together free human choices, the actions of rebellious spiritual powers, and His own interventions to actualize His ultimate goal: Perfect Fellowship.

This fellowship, however, has been interrupted by an unauthorized insurgency. The volume of suffering we witness is the byproduct of a fractured, contested cosmos. The Cosmic Rupture began with an angelic fall—a localized madness born from the envy of aseity—and was compounded by humanity’s cosmic treason. As the organic head of creation, humanity’s rebellion subjected the physical theater to thermodynamic futility and the bondage to decay.

“For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself also will be set free from its bondage to decay into the glorious liberty of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groans together and suffers birth pains together until now.” (Romans 8:20–22, LEB)

The Victory of the Perfect Person

The ultimate answer to this “groaning” is not found in abstract philosophy, but in Triune Kenotic Substitution (TKS). God’s response to the insurgency was not a detached decree from an insulated boardroom, but the Incarnation. In an act of unparalleled kenotic power, the Son descended into the fractured theater to absorb the ultimate consequence of the cosmic rupture—the relational alienation and un-creation of death.

Through this suffering, God achieves Christus Victor. By absorbing the penalty of the covenantal breach, Christ legally disarmed the hostile powers, stripping them of their jurisdiction over the physical cosmos. We now live in the “Already/Not Yet” tension—a time of scorched-earth retreat by a defeated insurgency, awaiting the final eschatological resurrection where the Perfect Person will permanently secure a genuinely free, permanently redeemed creation.

Over the coming weeks, we will serialize this monograph, mapping the journey from the origin of the Cosmic Rupture to the final security of the New Heavens and New Earth.

Next Week: Packet 1: The Failed Cartographies of Theodicy—Dismantling Determinism and the Impassible Absolute

This is the introductory essay to The Groaning and the Glory, a serialized monograph on Theistic Personalist theodicy. To follow the thread of this argument from the origin of evil to the final restoration, subscribe below.

Subscribe now

Leave a comment

That is the question behind this Substack. I have said before I turned 19, my main question was How. I wanted to know how everything worked. So I read a lot of science books. Then when I turned 19, my question turned to Why. And it’s been downhill ever since.

This stack will be a landing page and launching site for a project I’ve been working on for about a year now. The Why applied to philosophical-theology. I have two degrees in Biblical Studies (B.A., M.A.). I work in Financial Technology. I first taught myself computer programming when I was 11, in 1986. And I enjoy the written word. And music. And photography. A variegated tapestry of disconnected endeavors.

Another “downhill” moment was when I discovered AI, of the LLM variety.

Having philosophical and theological conversations with AI has been quite the experience. Others’ mileage may vary, but I find it to be comprehensive and broad, yet subtle and insightful. I have learned some nuances and strategies for getting “better” answers (that don’t simply reaffirm what you’re saying), but I wanted more. More spice. More depth.

So I created two web-based applications to help me dive further into the Bible. One I call Exegetica. It has various modes, such as Exegesis, Passage Analysis, Discourse Analysis, Word Study, Topic Study, and others. You provide it with a prompt (Bible passage or word), and it will do web research and then using predefined, complex templates, generate a full, structured result - around 30-40 pages. This provides a great starting place for self-directed study and research.

The other I call, less creatively, Paper Writer. It takes a long, detailed outline file, plus an optional context file, and then creates a full-length paper based on the outline and context. The paper can range from 10 pages to 95 pages.

With these tools, and many long conversations with AI (tweaked with extended system prompts to adopt specific personas and beliefs), I created my own system of philosophical-theology.

I call it Theistic Personalist Realism.

This Substack will be where I start publishing the essays and monographs I have created with the assistance of AI (specifically Gemini Pro), explicating this system in full. So if you’re wondering what I mean by Personalist, it will be fully explained. Paper titles include:

• The Perfect Person: A Constructive Model of the God of Christian Revelation

• Cosmic Treason: A Systematic Hamartiology

• Convenantal Realism: From Potentiality to Actuality in God’s Redemptive Plan

• Sovereign Selection: A Molinist Defense of Divine Providence and Creaturely Freedom

• The Divine Naming: A Referential Theory of Baptism within a Theistic Personalist Framework

I will try to post on a weekly schedule, currently every Thursday. It will all be free. I do not have Subscriptions enabled. I do have Pledges enabled. There is a “Subscribe now” button below, but it’s for Pledges - not Subs. (so I guess this is really Pledgestack for me!)

Subscribe now