Sin no mater the
degree or function has been a concern of man since the dawn of time. Whether in
the form of moral evil or its associate natural evil the basis for the problem
of evil is realized.
The problem of
evil is both a question of logical consistency in propositions of a theological
system and more chiefly it’s a string of problems that encompass God and evil.[1]
Biblically the book of Job details the problem of evil and other places in
Scripture give account of evil by suffering in the face of doing good (1 Pet.
3:13-14). Plato took up this problem in his work Euthyphro, which outlines questions that relate to the cause of
this problem. Plato however missed the mark here; the answer to his dilemma
should be stated, God wills the good because He is good.[2]
God as a holy can have no part in evil thus cannot be the cause of evil (Jas.
1:13).
Among the
definitions of evil two classes exist, moral and natural evil. Moral evil is evil
that is the product of moral agents; the first murder by Cain (Gen. 4:8), Uriah’s
assassination by David (2 Sam. 11:14-17). Natural evil is that problem which
arises as a result of natural processes such as earthquakes, or tsunami’s. Each
problem must be addressed using different arguments and approaches. For example
one cannot hope to answer the suffering of a cancer patient by appealing to free
will.[3]
Tackling the issue
of why sin exists is important in addressing the problem of evil. Prior to the
fall in Genesis 3, the world was made whole and unblemished (Gen. 1:31). Adam
and Eve existed in an unabated relationship with the creator of the universe.
Subsequent to the fall both moral and natural evils became prevalent. God as
the all-powerful, all-knowing and all-loving God cannot do anything contrary to
his nature. According to Leibniz, out of the many possible worlds that were
feasible for God to actualize he chose the one we experience to actualize which
was the best possible world. In order for man not to be an automaton God had to
endow his creation with free will. If he offers free will then he cannot limit
the influence of evil in the world. This would be a direct inconsistency with
free will. However, because of God’s providence he can use evil to ultimately
bring about good in the world, namely the saving work of Christ at Calvary.[4]
John Hick espoused that God’s intent was not to create perfect creatures rather
he sought to create beings in need of development towards perfection. [5]
However this view errs because the use of evil in the world seems to turn
people away from God and not the opposite.
When developing a
theodicy it is extremely important to ensure it is internally consistent. If
God is all loving and omnipotent and evil exists the theodicist must show that
there is no inconsistency with these claims. Is it inconsistent for God to
allow evil? Certainly not, what would be inconsistent is for a God, who allows
the free will decisions of moral agents, to restrict the decisions of free
creatures to ensure no evil can arise. This as stated previously would be
inconsistent with the idea of free will making the theodicy internally
inconsistent. In my view, God actualized the best possible world. Since God is
the only Metaphysically necessary being he alone can will the world into existence.[6]
Though evil exists it does not raise an issue of inconsistency in this theodicy
because it can be shown that people (agents who propagate evil by free will
decisions) are certainly less perfect than a necessary being because their
existence is contingent on that being. Thus evil is consistent with God
creating man.
Personal
experience can both lend to and hinder one’s relationship with God. When a
person experiences evil in their life they make ask the question, “why me God?”
This can cause a rift in the relationship the person assumed they had with God.
However if the person would spend time in the Scriptures stories would inspire
the downtrodden. Joseph described evil used for good by God (Gen. 50:20). David
found refuge in God during trials (Ps. 18:6). A person seeking to dispute a
belief about God can only do so if the theodicy accurately portrays God.[7]
Because theodicies are constructs of human thought it is possible to deny a
theodicy without actually denying an attribute or the existence of God.
Though the problem
of evil will certainly not go away anytime soon the theodicist can be confident
that if their view is consistent it can be used to explain one’s view of God. This
may offer hope for others aspiring to defend God in a logically consistent way.
Word count: #799
Bibliography
Feinberg, J. S., “Evil, Problem of.”
In Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, ed. Walter A. Elwell, 2nd ed., 413-15.
Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2001
Feinberg, J. S., “Theodicy.” In
Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, ed. Walter A. Elwell, 2nd ed., 1184-87.
Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2001
Lewis, G. R., “God, Attributes of.”
In Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, ed. Walter A. Elwell, 2nd ed., 492-99.
Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2001
[1] J.S.
Feinberg, “Evil, Problem of.” in Evangelical
Dictionary of Theology, ed. Walter A. Elwell, 2nd Ed. (Grand
Rapids: Baker, 2001), 413.
[2] G.R.
Lewis, “God, Attributes of.” in Evangelical
Dictionary of Theology, ed. Walter A. Elwell, 2nd Ed. (Grand
Rapids: Baker, 2001), 496.
[3] Feinberg,
414.
[4] J.S.
Feinberg, “Theodicy.” in Evangelical
Dictionary of Theology, ed. Walter A. Elwell, 2nd Ed. (Grand
Rapids: Baker, 2001), 1186.
[5] Feinberg,
1186.
[6] Feinberg,
1185.
[7] Ibid,
1187.
No comments:
Post a Comment