Quick thought on God and Evil

"Some things are necessarily true"

In reading God, Freedom and Evil by Alvin Plantinga I came across an explanation that opened my eyes to logic and necessity a little further.

Atheist or Atheologians as Plantinga puts it are essentially saying of God that:

(1)  God is omnipotent

(2)  God is wholly good

and

(3)  Evil exists

Their claim is of course that this is logically inconsistent with a God existing. But in terms of inconsistencies, where this argument currently stands, there is no inconsistency with this set of propositions.

The atheologian must adopt certain additional premises which John Mackie lays out:

(4)  A good thing always eliminates things as far as it can

and

(5)  There are no limits to what an omnipotent being can do

If in fact these premises are true then in it would follow that

            (6) Therefore, God does not exist

I think when you properly examine these additional premises; you discover they are false in their assumptions. On (5) for example, is it possible for this all-powerful being to create, say a round-triangle? How about a married-bachelor? Can God bring it about that He both exists and does not exist? I think we can see from these quick examples that even a being that is all-powerful cannot create/do things in logical contradiction to themselves. Neither is this evidence against God nor is it evidence against God being less than omnipotent. If we eliminate the validity of these hidden premises the argument that God does not exist as a result of evil is defeated. I think we can show that (5) is false which would result in the conclusion (6) being false:

Short Essay on the Problem of Evil

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, 2^nd Ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001), 413.

[2]             G.R. Lewis, “God, Attributes of.” in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, ed. Walter A. Elwell, 2^nd Ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001), 496.

[3]             Feinberg, 414.

[4]             J.S. Feinberg, “Theodicy.” in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, ed. Walter A. Elwell, 2^nd Ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001), 1186.

[5]             Feinberg, 1186.

[6]             Feinberg, 1185.

[7]             Ibid, 1187.

Short Essay on Angelology and Satanology

Angels and Demons, it is not just a book title or a Hollywood movie; these topics are a must for the Christian to understand and discuss. At the root of this discussion exists the problem of evil and more specifically whether or not God is the author of such evils. For if God created Satan, that fallen angel of evil, it’s possible he created evil, however Scripture attests to something quite different (Jas. 1:13; 1 Cor. 14:33).

            From this debate of evil the question of dualism is raised. Ethical dualism is the doctrine that avows the existence of two reciprocated beings, one the provenance of all-good and the other an equal provenance of all-evil.[1] Though God and Satan might seem to fit this synopsis the two beings are certainly not equal in attributes. God created all things including the angels (Gen. 1:1), which is a display of his awesome power. He is the everlasting, eternal being (1 Tim. 1:17) to which none can be the creator. Satan himself has been described as one disguised as an angel of light (2 Cor. 11:14). If Satan is an angel then no matter his efforts creation is subject to the creator. Though his power is second only to God (Ezek. 28:12-17) he is subject to God’s will for the use of his power (Job 1:12).[2]

            The downfall of Satan and his ultimate demise has been well documented in Scripture. This once high angel called the morning star (Isa. 14:12); the symbol of perfection that inhabited the Garden of Eden (Ezek. 28:12-13) will ultimately be judged and condemned to the fiery pit prepared for him and his fallen angels (Rev. 20:10).  Though he still roams the earth today seeking those whom to devour (1 Pet. 5:8), Satan has already been judged to perish which explains the fervor at which he pursues his mission to disrupt the work of God.

            Though Ezekiel 28 and Isaiah 14 appear to be speaking directly about Satan himself some have offered their defeaters to the notion that this speaks explicitly of that serpent of old. The naysayers claim that these passages are specifically addressing the king of Tyre and Babylon not Satan. [3] Though it is true these verses appear to speak about these earthly kings the attributes such as son of the dawn (Isa. 14:12), the model of perfection (Ezek. 28:12), anointed guardian cherub (Ezek. 28:14), and so on, do not speak of a mortal man. These attributes must be applied to a heavenly host, and Satan fits that description as the fallen one quite agreeably.

            From Satan’s own desire to be like the most high (Isa. 14:13-14) his ultimate nature can be discovered. Satan is a liar (Jn. 8:44), sinner from inception (1 Jn. 3:8) and as such God cannot be accredited with his fall. If God was to intervene and stop Satan from his evil plans in the beginning this would have been a contradiction of God-given free will.[4] Viewing God’s restraint in this manner leads one to conclude God could not be the author of evil though he was the creator of Satan (Jas. 1:13).

            A reading of the first chapter of the book of Job speaks volumes to the power and position Satan has in reference to God. Satan is first seen as presenting himself before God (Job 1:6) a sign of submission to God. He is also viewed as being restricted to harm only Job’s circumstances and not Job himself (Job 1:12) a denial of Satan’s omnipotence. Next God asks Satan if he has considered Job as a righteous man (Job 1:8) alluding to the fact that Satan’s knowledge is not ultimate. God as the uncreated one (Col. 1:15-17) cannot have an end yet Satan’s obliteration has been predicted since the beginning (Gen 3:15; Rev 20:10). He is not eternal nor is Satan equal on any level with the one he seeks to overthrow.

            Though it has been utilized as a phrase for copping out, “the devil made me do it” couldn’t be farther from the truth. Satan certainly has the power to tempt as is evidenced by his discourse with Christ (Lk. 4:1-13), yet he cannot force one to do something much in the same way God cannot force someone to accept him. Both examples would clearly violate the function of free will. It is true that demonic activity will increase in the latter days and many will be seduced to follow them (1 Tim. 4:1)[5] however, it does not follow that seduction is the same as extortion. You have the power to resist the devil and he will turn from his pursuit (Jas. 4:7) but if you yield to temptation you alone are responsible for your fall, not some external cause.

---

[1]             H.B. Kuhn, “Dualism,” in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, ed. Walter A. Elwell, 2^nd Ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001), 357.            

[2]             M.F. Unger, “Satan,” in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, ed. Walter A. Elwell, 2^nd Ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001), 1054.

[3]             M.F. Unger, “Satan,” in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, ed. Walter A. Elwell, 2^nd Ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001), 1054.

[4]             Elmer Towns, Theology for Today (Mason: Thomson Custom Solutions Center, 2001), 367.

[5]             S.E. McClelland, “Demon, Demonization,” in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, ed. Walter A. Elwell, 2^nd Ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001), 332.