Posted on 03/05/2015 10:46:00 AM PST by Gamecock
It has been called the Achilles’ heel of the Christian faith. Of course, I’m referring to the classical problem of the existence of evil. Philosophers such as John Stuart Mill have argued that the existence of evil demonstrates that God is either not omnipotent or not good and loving — the reasoning being that if evil exists apart from the sovereign power of God, then by resistless logic, God cannot be deemed omnipotent. On the other hand, if God does have the power to prevent evil but fails to do it, then this would reflect upon His character, indicating that He is neither good nor loving. Because of the persistence of this problem, the church has seen countless attempts at what is called theodicy. The term theodicy involves the combining of two Greek words: the word for God, theos, and the word for justification, dikaios. Hence, a theodicy is an attempt to justify God for the existence of evil (as seen, for instance, in John Milton’s Paradise Lost). Such theodicies have covered the gauntlet between a simple explanation that evil comes as a direct result of human free will or to more complex philosophical attempts such as that offered by the philosopher Leibniz. In his theodicy, which was satired by Voltaire’s Candide, Leibniz distinguished among three types of evil: natural evil, metaphysical evil, and moral evil. In this three-fold schema, Leibniz argued that moral evil is an inevitable and necessary consequence of finitude, which is a metaphysical lack of complete being. Because every creature falls short of infinite being, that shortfall must necessarily yield defects such as we see in moral evil. The problem with this theodicy is that it fails to take into account the biblical ideal of evil. If evil is a metaphysical necessity for creatures, then obviously Adam and Eve had to have been evil before the fall and would have to continue to be evil even after glorification in heaven.
To this date, I have yet to find a satisfying explanation for what theologians call the mystery of iniquity. Please don’t send me letters giving your explanations, usually focusing on some dimension of human free will. I’m afraid that many people fail to feel the serious weight of this burden of explanation. The simple presence of free will is not enough to explain the origin of evil, in as much as we still must ask how a good being would be inclined freely to choose evil. The inclination for the will to act in an immoral manner is already a signal of sin.
One of the most important approaches to the problem of evil is that set forth originally by Augustine and then later by Aquinas, in which they argued that evil has no independent being. Evil cannot be defined as a thing or as a substance or as some kind of being. Rather, evil is always defined as an action, an action that fails to meet a standard of goodness. In this regard, evil has been defined in terms of its being either a negation (negatio) of the good, or a privation (privatio) of the good. In both cases, the very definition of evil depends upon a prior understanding of the good. In this regard, as Augustine argued, evil is parasitic — that is, it depends upon the good for its very definition. We think of sin as something that is unrighteous, involving disobedience, immorality, and the like. All of these definitions depend upon the positive substance of the good for their very definition. Augustine argues that though Christians face the difficulty of explaining the presence of evil in the universe, the pagan has a problem that is twice as difficult. Before one can even have a problem of evil, one must first have an antecedent existence of the good. Those who complain about the problem of evil now also have the problem of defining the existence of the good. Without God there is no ultimate standard for the good.
In contemporary days, this problem has been resolved by simply denying both evil and good. Such a problem, however, faces enormous difficulties, particularly when one suffers at the hands of someone who inflicts evil upon them. It is easy for us to deny the existence of evil until we ourselves are victims of someone’s wicked action.
However, though we end our quest to answer the origin of evil, one thing is certain: since God is both omnipotent and good, we must conclude that in His omnipotence and goodness there must be a place for the existence of evil. We know that God Himself never does that which is evil. Nevertheless, He also ordains whatsoever comes to pass. Though He does not do evil and does not create evil, He does ordain that evil exists. If it does exist, and if God is sovereign, then obviously He must have been able to prevent its existence. If He allowed evil to enter into this universe, it could only be by His sovereign decision. Since His sovereign decisions always follow the perfection of His being, we must conclude that His decision to allow evil to exist is a good decision.
Again, we must be careful here. We must never say that evil is good, or that good is evil. But that is not the same thing as saying, “It is good that there is evil.” Again, I repeat, it is good that there is evil, else evil could not exist. Even this theodicy does not explain the “how” of the entrance of evil into the world. It only reflects upon the “why” of the reality of evil. One thing we know for sure is that evil does exist. It exists, if nowhere else, in us and in our behavior. We know that the force of evil is extraordinary and brings great pain and suffering into the world. We also know that God is sovereign over it and in His sovereignty will not allow evil to have the last word. Evil always and ever serves the ultimate best interest of God Himself. It is God in His goodness and in His sovereignty who has ordained the final conquest over evil and its riddance from His universe. In this redemption we find our rest and our joy — and until that time, we live in a fallen world.
Sorry, the answer inevitably involves free will, beginning with Satan’s choice to deny God, and Adam’s choice to eat the forbidden fruit.
Do I take it that Sproul is a Calvinist who denies that God gives man the freedom to choose? If so, then, indeed, the explanation is difficult.
Two good places to start are Milton’s “Paradise Lost” and C. S. Lewis’s “The Problem of Pain.”
I think evil is strictly a human trait. I do not believe that evil even exists to God.
Many of my superstitious South American Christian/Catholics believe God would answer prayers for good care, when God is mostly about the resilience of good despite adversity, and that is a the realest of all gifts: ie. That of Job, Jesus etc...
there is not a prophet that did not suffer the robbing of God that occured in the Garden of Eden and doubled down with Jesus.
Want to find a good person from a bad one: simply check how they would treat God if He was omnipotent vs. how they would treat Him if He was not when He was in the flesh and just like us.
God can be omnipotent and still permit freedom of action. Otherwise, his creation would be nothing more than robotic...and that wouldn't be interesting to God or anyone else.
Life is life because it is free to choose and act.
Angels have also fallen.
**Do I take it that Sproul is a Calvinist**
Yes
**who denies that God gives man the freedom to choose?**
No.
Man’s will is so corrupted he will always choose things against God’s will. But he does so freely.
During Christ’s forty day temptation, Satan offered him the world and all its kingdoms. If he did not in fact own them, that would not have been a temptation and Christ would have noted it. After His resurrection, Jesus stated that all authority, in heaven and Earth, had been given to Him. Some theologians use this to suppose that God is working under legal constraints He had imposed. It will all turn out to His satisfaction.
You do realize that there are many verses talking about God’s omnipotent knowledge and his ability to know what we are going to do even before we do them.
You will also find many verse talking about how God’s chooses those he will save.
But you will never find the term “free will” in the Bible, nor do you see an ongoing message in the Bible about man’s free will.
Man does what he does because of his nature. The natural man does not understand that which is spiritual, because it is not his nature, and therefore, will not chose what is spiritual.
Of course, you probably won’t believe me, but God already knew that...
Of course, God is omniscient. He foresees how we will choose before we do. One way of putting it is that God lives in Eternity, so that all of time is Present to Him.
But the fact that God foresees how we will choose does not prevent us from choosing freely.
Nor does it preclude Him from foreordaining our actions.
Let me elaborate:
Judas was free to choose his path, but he chose evil, since by nature, he was a thief. But God knew and foreordained the actions of Judas down to point where Jesus said that the one who dipped after Him would betray Him.
Unless you believe Judas did not have “free will”.
Well, I would use the word “foresaw” rather than “foreordained.” Because God did not MAKE Judas betray Jesus. But presumably Jesus chose Judas to be one of his disciples because He foresaw from the beginning that Judas would choose to betray Him.
Do you really think you go through life with absolute free will?
Take religion out of the equation for a second.
Can you really be anything you want? Are there some jobs you want to do and can’t? Skills? Other abilities? Why or why not? Discuss.
That's the long and short of it.
Meanwhile the believer can take comfort in this.
Romans 8:18 For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that is to be revealed to us.
** Of course not. There are always limits, restrictions on what you can do.**
Case closed.
If this is causing you read Romans 9. Paul addresses your arguments.
Amen.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.