Why Does God Allow Evil?

www.khouse.org ^ | Dr. Mark Eastman

[P-Marlowe]

Why Does God Allow Evil?

by Dr. Mark Eastman

---

In my experience, it is the most commonly asked question by honest skeptics: "If God is real, if God is personal, if God loves us, why does God allow evil?" A proper understanding of this issue not only provides great insight into the nature of God, it ties together a comprehensive understanding to some of life's ultimate questions: the answers to my origin, meaning, morality and destiny!

Email from A Skeptic

The question of evil was brought into clearer focus in an email I recently received from a skeptic:

The Christian worldview is an impractical, even phony, view of the Cosmos because it embraces a God who is either incapable of stopping evil and suffering, and he is therefore not omnipotent, or is unwilling to do so and therefore a devil!

The skeptic's point is well taken because the Bible states that one of God's attributes is love. "He who does not love does not know God, for God is love." (I John 4:8) In the book of Romans, Paul the Apostle stated that the invisible attributes of God "are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead."¹

However, what the skeptic is saying, in effect, is this: "If your God is love, I see no evidence of that attribute in creation. All the death, disease, pain and suffering seems to be out of place if this God of yours is love. Surely an all-powerful God could, and a loving God would, eliminate all evil. Since evil exists, then no such God exists."

To answer this objection we need to examine some principles of logic, the nature of God, the nature of man, the nature of love and the nature of evil.

Evil and Moral Law

When someone states that they do not believe in God because a good God would not allow evil, they make a fatal error in logic. First, the recognition of evil is the recognition that certain actions are "right" and certain actions are "wrong." But how do we determine what actions are morally right and morally wrong? We discern this on the basis of a moral law: a universal sense that certain states of affairs are right and others are wrong. Even most atheists will admit that certain actions are universally wrong and, conversely, universally right.

For example, no one could seriously argue with the statement that it is better to love a child than to torture it. The point is that there is an innate, universal sense of right and wrong within all of us. What is the basis of this moral sense? Some would argue that it is based on cultural customs or traditions. But can this be so?

The famous atheist Bertrand Russell once debated a Christian who asked him if he believed in right and wrong. Russell replied "of course." Then he asked him how he determined what is right and wrong. Russell replied that he determined right and wrong on the basis of his feelings. His opponent replied, "Well, in some cultures they feel it is okay to eat you, and in others they don't. Which do you prefer." The point is that social customs, attitudes, traditions or feelings cannot determine a universal sense of right and wrong.

A universal sense of moral right and wrong can only come from a source outside of ourselves: a transcendent source, a moral Lawgiver. So the recognition of moral law is by default the recognition of a moral Lawgiver. To argue that the existence of evil proves that there is no God is equivalent to stating that the existence of moral law proves that there is no Lawgiver! It's like declaring that the Chrysler automobile that I drive proves without a doubt that there is no Chrysler Motor Company!

Atheists often present the problem of evil to theists as if it is a fatal argument for the existence of God. Nothing could be further from the truth. In reality, it is an absolutely unsolvable problem for the atheist. How does the atheist explain evil-the sense of moral right and wrong-in the absence of a moral Lawgiver? They can't! If there is no moral Lawgiver, then there is no way to explain the sense of moral wrong and moral right we all possess. C.S. Lewis said that evil is God's megaphone to a non-believing world. Evil speaks of moral law. Moral law demands a moral Lawgiver, and it is He that we call God!

Evil Often Begets Good

A second principle of logic we need to consider is the fact that an apparently evil state of affairs will often bring about an even better state of affairs. The problem is that we often do not recognize this fact until we have the advantage of hindsight. In my own field of medicine I see this on a daily basis: the process of childbirth, surgical intervention, and many medical therapies often present physical pain (an evil state of affairs according to non-theists), and yet they bring about an even better state of affairs: improved health. Physical pain is often highly beneficial as well. When a child touches a hot stove, the nervous system sends a neurological signal to the brain which is perceived as pain (a form of evil). Yet without that sense of pain, an even worse state of affairs would arise: the destruction of the limb.

The skeptic might object that while this provides a partial answer to the problem of evil, it does not address some of the most disturbing forms of evil: war, murder, rape, incest and the senseless death of the innocent.

God, Freedom, and Evil

The problem of human evil is rooted in the nature of God and the nature of love and the nature of mankind. I argued in last month's Personal UPDATE that God is a personal being because an impersonal force is an insufficient agent to create personal beings.² What is the greatest passion of personal beings? I would argue that, above all else, personal beings desire personal relationships with other personal beings. So it makes sense that God, as a personal being, would desire to create us in such a way that He could have a meaningful, personal, and loving relationship with us. But this has a severe price.

Let us consider the nature of love and its consequences. I cannot experience love from you unless you have the capacity to do otherwise. If you have the capacity to not love me, and you choose instead to love me, then that choice has validity. It has meaning. You cannot have a love relationship with a computer. It is pre-programmed to serve you. Love requires choice: unencumbered choice. And that's where the problem lies.

When God created mankind, He too had a choice. If He created us as beings that were pre-programmed to follow and serve Him, there could be no love. But, if He created us with the capacity of choice, the capacity to love and serve Him, and the capacity not to do so, then there is the possibility of relationship: the possibility of real love. As a personal being with the capability of creating us in the first place, it makes sense that He would want to create us as personal beings with the capability of choice (free will) and, thus, the capability of love. But where there is choice and the capability of love, there is also the capability to choose wrong and to do great evil.

But the skeptic says, "why did God do this when he knew in advance that the result of free will would be so disastrous? Did this God of love not care that war, murder, rape and so much senseless violence would be the result of his choice to give us free will?" A real life illustration will help us to understand.

The Love of a Mother

During my 15 years as a physician I have seen an enormous amount of physical suffering. During that time I have had five children in my practice die by disease and injury. All of these children came from Christian families. Several months after the death of one of these children, the child's mother was in my office and was very distraught over her loss. She asked me, "Why did God allow this? I love God. Why did this happen?"

What could I say in this situation? Rather than providing an answer I asked her this question. "You have three children. One of them has died. If you could go back to the time before you had any children, with the knowledge that one of them would die this horrible death, would you have children again?"

After a long pause, with many tears in her eyes and a broken heart she said, "Oh yes. Oh yes. yes I would. Because, you see, the love and the joy and the happiness I have received from my children far outweighs the pain, suffering and misery I experienced from the loss of that one child. Oh yes. Oh yes. I would have children again."

In this tragic story we see an incredible insight as to why God allows evil to exist. As discussed earlier, a loving God can allow an evil state of affairs to exist if, in allowing it to occur, it brings about an even better state of affairs. For this woman, the loss of her child was an unequalled and tragic evil. But, with the advantage of hindsight, she said she would do it all again because the love she received as a result of being a mother outweighed the evil state of affairs in the death of her child.

In the hypothetical scenario I presented to this woman, with the advantage of hindsight (foreknowledge in this case) she was in a position comparable to God's before He created humankind. Because He is outside time and knows all things, He knew that there would be tremendous pain and suffering as a result of His decision to create a people with the capacity of choice and, consequently, the capacity to sin (moral evil).

But God, like this mother, knew that the love He and his human creatures would experience would outweigh the pain and suffering that would result from His decision to create us as He did. But the consequences of God's decision were not unforeseen. They were foreknown!

The Incredible Answer

The skeptic that emailed me stated, in effect, that if an all-powerful God did not eliminate evil, then He was a devil! The implication is that the removal of all evil would permit a better, more loving world. A truly loving God, the skeptics assert, would have desired and created such a world because it is clearly superior to the one we have. Any God that did not follow this logic was not a God of love, but an evil tyrant.

As we have seen, this logic crumbles under its own weight. The existence of evil is the "side effect" of creating a world with love. But as we have seen, there are compelling arguments that a world possessing both evil and love is superior to a world where neither is possible. For God to eliminate evil, He would have to eliminate our capacity of choice and thus our capacity to do both evil and good. And such a world is inferior to the one we have: one where love is possible, despite its inherent evil. What kind of God would do this? Only one kind. A God of love.

Why does a God of love allow evil? Because He is a God of LOVE.

So Great a Salvation

So, how practical is Christianity? The Bible presents an infinite Creator with the very attributes we would expect when we examine the things that are made. And God, as a personal Being, in order that He might have a love relationship with us, gave us the capacity of choice. In order that we might have a practical revelation of His love, His wisdom, His power, His glory, He became one of us in the person of the Messiah, Jesus Christ.

In order that we might not suffer the penalty of our evil choices (sin), He, like a loving father, paid the penalty for our sins. He allowed his only begotten Son, Jesus Christ, to be murdered on a Roman cross (arguably the most evil act in the history of the universe, if He is indeed God's Son). But this act of great evil gave rise to an even better state of affairs, and the greatest act of love in the universe: paying the penalty for the wrong choices we make, which were the result of the way He created us in the first place! In the cross of Christ He has provided a full pardon from the consequences of the evil in our lives. Consequently, we cannot look to God and declare that He is unfair. Far from being a devil, in this examination of the problem of evil, God becomes the hero of the plot and the solution to the problem of evil. And it all hinges on LOVE. Indeed, God is love.³ What must we do to receive this pardon?

For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life. John 3:16

If you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. Romans 10:9

* * *

---

Notes:

1. Romans 1:18-20.
2. Personal UPDATE, May 1999
3. For those that would like an in-depth treatment of the problem of evil and a God of love, I highly recommend Alvin Plantinga's book, God, Freedom and Evil.

---

---

Taken from Personal Update NewsJournal from Koinonia House.

[P-Marlowe]

I Googled it.

There wasn't enough information to google. You had to know something. Did you just google "alive, alive"? Or did you figure out the "Real Don Steele" from the "Actual Godfather of a Carbon and Iron Alloy" clue?

[AnalogReigns]

Evil has to be understood in a way more profound than human choices....since Satan was evil, tempting humans, before Adam chose to heed his wife's bad choice and plunge his dominion, this world, into sin, with its resultant death. As to the unknown (and unknowable?) ancient choice of Lucifer to rebel against God, that's a mystery too profound to ponder...even St. Augustine says we can't (and shouldn't) try to figure it out.

That said, as the Apostle Paul taught in Romans, the whole of creation is under a curse, groaning as it were, (with Christians) to be released from evil and its effects. Whether this has anything to do with the theory in physics of chaos, I really don't know--we just need to understand that besides human nature being fallen, so is our world--and its also affected by fallen angels. These 3 fallen things, do logically make for the chaotic nature of evil.

Thanks be to Christ who defeated death itself, and will redeem not just our souls, or even our bodies, but all of fallen creation itself. Thanks also that all things--even if now seemingly purposeless--do work together for the good....for those who know God and are called by His plan.....

[PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain]

Google "Alive Alive" on KHJ and it shows up. :)

BigMack

[P-Marlowe]

"KHJ" -- one too many clues. Darn. I should have used AM 930 instead. Oh well. I owe you 40 points.

I'd rather owe it to you than cheat you out of it.

[Jean Chauvin]

"Let us consider the nature of love and its consequences. I cannot experience love from you unless you have the capacity to do otherwise. If you have the capacity to not love me, and you choose instead to love me, then that choice has validity. It has meaning. You cannot have a love relationship with a computer. It is pre-programmed to serve you. Love requires choice: unencumbered choice. And that's where the problem lies."

I do not love my children because I "choose" to do so.

I love my children because they are my children. In reality, I don't have a "choice" but to do so.

I guess, according to your author, I don't ~really~ love them.

Jean

[Jean Chauvin]

"...one of God's attributes is love. "He who does not love does not know God, for God is love." (I John 4:8"

" But where there is choice and the capability of love, there is also the capability to choose wrong and to do great evil."

Does God have this "capability to choose wrong and to do great evil"?

If he does not have the "capability to choose wrong and to do great evil", then, according to your author's argument, he is not ~really~ capable of true love.

If he does have the "capability to choose wrong and to do great evil", then he must not be truly sovereign, because he must ~co-exist~ with the 'evil'. 'Evil' is a ~reality~ that God must ~always~ deal with and that he has no ~choice~ but to deal with.

Jean

[Jean Chauvin]

"But as we have seen, there are compelling arguments that a world possessing both evil and love is superior to a world where neither is possible. For God to eliminate evil, He would have to eliminate our capacity of choice and thus our capacity to do both evil and good."

Well, there goes the idea of "heaven"!

Since we will not have the ~capability~ to "do evil" in the "New Creation" (1 Corinthians 15:51,52), we will not have the "capacity of choice". Therefore, according to the author's argument, this current sin filled earth "is superior to" the New Heavens and the New Earth.

Jean

[drstevej]

Ever notice how the Arminians never complain that there will be no "free will," as they construct it, in heaven?

Do they conclude God is therefore cruel to so constrain people for eternity? No.

Why not?

[RobbyS]

Bertrand got into a famous debate with Father Coppleston about half a century ago. When I read it several years ago, I thought that Russell probably came out ahead when they were arguing metaphysics. When they turned to morality, however, Russell simply could not propose a principle that required him to oppose the Holocaust. His only recourse was that Victorian morality that he spent such much of his life helping overturn. .

[RobbyS]

The "free will debate" has to be conducted within the confines of that existence you and I know. "Heaven" and "hell" are. apart from what little we know about them from Revelation, logical constructs. But blame it on the Jews. Until their Prophets and sages began posing their questions about justice to their God, did the matter even come up?

[lockeliberty]

Thanks for the ping.

This is one of those ~very tough~ subject matters.

I think I'll use the better part of discretion.

Dropping the thread and backing away slowly.

[P-Marlowe]

In a debate against Dr. Ray Bradley, William Lane Craig was asked why God didn't just create heaven as the world and forego the rest.

Craig responded:
"No,Heaven may not be a possible world when you take it in isolation by itself. It may be that the only way in which God could actualize a heaven of free creatures all worshiping Him and not falling into sin would be by having, so to speak, this run-up to it, this advance life during which there is a veil of decision-making in which some people choose for God and some people against God. Otherwise you don't know that heaven is an actualizable world. You have no way of knowing that possibility."

Dr. Bradley:
"You're saying, in effect, that when I characterize heaven as a possible world in which everybody freely receives Christ, I'm wrong insofar as that had to be preceded by this actual world, this world of vale of tears and woe in which people are sinful and the like."

Dr. Craig:
"I'm saying that it may not be feasible for God to actualize heaven in isolation from such an antecedent world."

[Ex-Wretch]

Great to see you back in action.

[P-Marlowe]

I think I'll use the better part of discretion. Dropping the thread and backing away slowly.

[lockeliberty]

LOL

I've found that the very tough questions are not welcome here at times.

If you truly want to explore this issue, which is a very important issue to explore, then I would suggest you first come up with a definition of 'evil'.

[White Mountain]

Post #28: Ever notice how the Arminians never complain that there will be no "free will," as they construct it, in heaven? Do they conclude God is therefore cruel to so constrain people for eternity? No. Why not?

Take a look at this post, and others of mine, on the Mixed Swimming thread.

Again and again I see Calvinists presuming, in various ways, that with the unregenerate, then the regenerate, then with the righteous in heaven, there cannot be any real free will.

But true free will, properly understood, is of the essence of our being. It is God-given, and God does not take it away. That is why the righteous are righteous, because they choose to be faithful and obedient to the commandments of God. Apart from that, they are not righteous.

That is why Lucifer rebelled, and became Satan, because he chose to devote his energies to try to destroy the work of God, destroy the Truth, put his falsehoods in its place. That is why God allows evil to occur here in mortality, because people have God-given free will, and God does not prevent them from choosing evil, nor does He prevent the just consequences of their evil from coming upon the unrepentant.

Neither will He allow the evil ones to spoil heaven for the righteous. The wicked will have to be elsewhere, to enjoy what they are willing to receive, since they rejected what they might have received.

There will be no attacking or accusing, no condemnation or cutting off, among those who inherit the kingdom of heaven. Those who love to do that here (and thus they freely choose to do it) will be elsewhere, unless they repent.

Those who are in heaven are those who freely choose to forsake all evil, and become firmer and firmer in righteous ways by consistent, righteous choices, until they become stedfast, unshakeable, and immovable in keeping the commandments of God, and thus make their calling and election sure, sanctified by the Holy Spirit, for no unclean thing can enter heaven.

They become more and more righteous by consistent application of their God-given free will in righteous ways. And vice versa for the wicked.

Helaman 3:35
35 Nevertheless they did fast and pray oft, and did wax stronger and stronger in their humility, and firmer and firmer in the faith of Christ, unto the filling their souls with joy and consolation, yea, even to the purifying and the sanctification of their hearts, which sanctification cometh because of their yielding their hearts unto God.

D&C 93:30
30 All truth is independent in that sphere in which God has placed it, to act for itself, as all intelligence also; otherwise there is no existence.

[Gamecock]

Those who are in heaven are those who freely choose to forsake all evil, and become firmer and firmer in righteous ways by consistent, righteous choices, until they become stedfast, unshakeable, and immovable in keeping the commandments of God, and thus make their calling and election sure, sanctified by the Holy Spirit, for no unclean thing can enter heaven.

Sounds like works based theology to me. But then I thought sanctification comes from God, not from ourselves....

[RnMomof7]

Ever notice how the Arminians never complain that there will be no "free will," as they construct it, in heaven?
Do they conclude God is therefore cruel to so constrain people for eternity? No.
Why not?

Also interesting that they attribute to man what they deny to God..

[ThomasMore]

Ever notice how the Arminians never complain that there will be no "free will," as they construct it, in heaven?

Did Satan have free will?

[ThomasMore]

PS: I am not consigning my self to your (Calvinist) label of "Arminian" by questioning your position.