The Persistence of Evil
So far, we have dealt with God’s responsibility for evil and the nature evil itself. This obviously a difficult topic and even believers with similar theological premises struggle to find the right way to deal with it. So, we may never be able to put the refutation to this challenge on a bumper sticker. In any case we will soldier on and turn to the question of regardless of how evil entered the world, why does God allow it to persist?
Given the situation we find ourselves in after the fall of mankind, this question is actually quite easy to deal with. The only way for God to eliminate evil from this world is to destroy those who do evil—you, me , and everyone else.
We’ll take a look at Dr. Geisler’s work again. In this case, his high esteem for human freedom is quite evident. He says that love is only possible if there the possibility of hate. I’ll leave it to you to decide if that is valid.
There is another aspect of the problem of evil. Why does God allow it? Even if he did not produce it, he does permit it. Yet he is all-powerful and could destroy it. So why doesn’t he do so?
The classical way to state the problem of the persistence of evil is this:
1. If God is all good, he would destroy evil.
2. If God is all powerful, he could destroy evil.
3. But evil is not destroyed.
4. Therefore, there is no such God.Put this way, the argument leaves open the possibility of a finite god, but theists reject such a concept. For every finite or limited being has a cause. So a finite god is only a creature that needs an infinite Creator. And since God is powerful, then he must be infinitely powerful. Likewise, since he is good, he must be infinitely good. So, a finite god is not an option for a theist. God has both the desire and ability needed to do anything possible.
Is it possible to destroy evil? The theist responds as follows:
1. God cannot do what is actually impossible.
2. It is actually impossible to destroy evil with-out destroying free choice.
3. But free choice is necessary to a moral universe.
4. Therefore, God cannot destroy evil without destroying this good moral universe.It is impossible for God to do what is contradictory. He cannot make an affirmation to be true and false at the same time. He can do nothing which involves such an impossibility, such as, making a square circle or a stone so heavy he cannot lift it.
Even an omnipotent being cannot do anything. It can only do what is possible. But it is not possible to force people to freely choose the good. Forced freedom is a contradiction. Therefore, God cannot literally destroy all evil without annihilating free choice. The only way to destroy evil is to destroy the good of free choice. But when there is no moral free choice, then there is no possibility of moral good. Unless hate is possible, love is not possible. Where no creature can blaspheme, no creatures can worship either. Therefore, if God were to destroy all evil, he would have to destroy all good too.
However, theism holds that even though God could not destroy (annihilate) all evil without destroying all good, nevertheless, he can and will defeat (overcome) all evil without destroying free choice. The argument can be summarized as follows:
1. God is all good and desires to defeat evil.
2. God is all powerful and is able to defeat evil.
3. Evil is not yet defeated.
4. Therefore, it will one day be defeated.The infinite power and perfection of God guarantee the eventual defeat of evil. The fact that it is not yet accomplished in no way diminishes the certainty that it will be defeated. Even though evil cannot be destroyed without destroying free choice, nonetheless, it can be overcome.
An all-powerful God could, for example, separate good persons from evil ones according to what persons freely choose. Those who love God will be separated from those who do not. Those who desire the good but are hindered by evil will no longer have their good purposes frustrated. And those who do evil and are hampered by good influences will no longer be nagged by the prod-dings of good. Each, whether in heaven or hell, will have it according to their free choice. In this way God’s victory over evil would not violate free choice.
Not only can a theistic God defeat evil, but he will do it. We know this because he is all good and would want to defeat evil. And because he is all-powerful and is able to defeat evil. Therefore, he will do it. The guarantee that evil will be over-come is the nature of the theistic God.
What does this mean for the Trinity? Do they not love each other without the possibility of hate (since they have no evil in themselves).
If the three persons of the Godhead are able to love without hate then I would think that God could create man in such a way that he could love without hate too.
Another problem with Geisler’s overall argument is that it seems overly man centered to me. He claims that the reason God allowed evil in the world was so that man would have the opportunity to love him. But this doesn’t really answer the question. God had already created angels who chose to love or hate him. If he already had free beings who could choose evil or good then why did he create man at all.
I think the answer to the problem of evil has to be God centered instead of man centered. I personally believe that God ordained evil because having evil in creation allows all of God’s character and attributes to be shown. How could we ever know of God’s mercy or God’s wrath without there having been evil?
God created this world in the way it has been created because it is the way he would be most glorified. This is a very unsatisfactory answer to most non-Christians and even to many Christians. Yet I believe it to be the ultimate answer to the problem of evil.
One must then argue that it is not wrong of God to glorify himself. The simplest argument for this is to say that God is the only thing of ultimate worth. For God to honor and glorify anything other than himself would be considered a sin.
Another argument against this might be how could allowing evil actually give God more glory. This is usually a matter of perspective. For example, picture one of those paintings done by making a bunch of tiny dots (instead of paint strokes). From a very close perspective it is a bunch of random looking dots which does not make a pretty picture. Taken from a distance the dots seem to overlap and the picture is seen as a work of art.
Or another analogy is the idea of a woven tapestry. From the back it is a mess of strings going every direction. But from the front it shows the pattern intended by the weaver.
Personally, I do not think that this answer for the problem of evil will satisfy many non-Christians. But I do not think the truth often satisfies non-Christians.
This does bring up another question though. If God ordained that evil would be present in creation then is he justified in condemning men to eternal damnation for committing acts of evil? This is where I would basically state that man’s will is compatible with God’s so that even though something occurs as God ordains it, man is still responsible for the action. How this all works out is a mystery (at least for men) but it is not philisophically contradictory.
Ahhh, Matt Hodge, the only time we get to interact is on a blog….
I wrestle sense out of your last thought by viewing God removing a degree of grace to allow a person to express evil to a specific degree and not one inch more. For example, God removed His grace from Hitler and he was allowed to express his evil a whole bunch. God removed a lesser amount of His grace from a person like Simon from American Idol, and allowed him to express personal evil to a much lesser degree. The bottom line is that God expands/removed his grace to some and therefore, their expression of evil can be greater yet still be securely their evil. God is in control of how much they can express it, but never out of control in that any person can only express it to the degree that God removes his grace. So, each person, whether Pharaoh or Judas is absolutely responsible for their evil, yet God is absolutely able to be in control.
Wow, this is hard without a white-board.
Dan,
Where do you find this in Scripture?
I think the idea that the only way any sin takes place is by the removal of God’s grace seems to move towards the open theist positions where God can only do those things that man allows him to do. Would every man that God removed his grace from become a Hitler? Would any individual that Jesus choose as the “twelth” disciple choose to turn him over? Or was God limited in the fact that Jesus had to come at just that moment in time when Pontius Pilate and Herod and Judas, etc were available for him to use for his plan?
I think God is more active then simply removing his grace. I would say that God even created those men with greater inclinations towards the evil acts which they performed. Even today some individuals are more easily tempted by different vices – and that makeup was created in us by God (of course it is also because of the fall, but still we are not random genes but God’s pottery).
Secondly, if God allows us to sin or even puts us in situations where he knows we will sin, how does this absolve God from allowing it to happen? As Christians we are commanded not to put stumbling blocks before our brothers when we know that it will lead them to sin against their own conscience (Romans 14) so why is God allowed to and we aren’t?
A few posts back, Matt wrote:
So here’s a question. God puts Adam and Eve in the garden and gives them a commandment not to do something. Does that very commandment create an “evil” by introducing a form of disobedience that didn’t exist before the commandment?
Also, I see a lot in these threads about man’s will being “compatible” with God’s (or something like that). I’m not familiar with that whole subject – can somebody shed some light there?
Sorry, all, here’s another question.
Consider the difference between left and right: “left” has no meaning other than “not right,” and vice-versa. You can’t have “left” without there being “right” as well.
In the same way, can there be any defined reality of “good” without evil in some defined and real form?
(Sorry, an even more esoteric analogy…) Or consider the electrical principle of inductance. If you have one object charged one way (like a cloud), it induces an opposite charge on another object (like the ground, producing lightning).
I know it’s kind of a stretch, but does the goodness of God “induce” a form of evil on everything else? That’s kind of a relativistic idea, but when you’re talking about God as your relativistic frame of reference, maybe that’s OK…
Sorry all. These are the sort of things that kept me from getting really good grades in school. 😉
I think what Matt might have meant more specifically is that man’s will is compatible with his essential nature as created by God. But Matt can clarify more explicitly.
What you are picking up on is the argument of libertarian (not in the political sense) vs. compatibilistic free will. In a nut shell, libertarian free will allows that people are perfectly free to do as one so chooses without any constraint from God’s election. They would state that faith is the basis for election, not the product of election. (Do a search on Arminianism and the Five Points of the Remonstrance.) On the other hand, compatibilistic free will is the notion that mankind makes choices within the constraints of his essential nature. Unfortunately, many people associate this with mechanical determinism, but I don’t see a necessary connection. As a fallen creature, man makes decisions compatible with that of a creature, not deity. Obviously, as creatures, we are high functioning creatures with the capacity for love, hate, intuition, reason, etc. But we cannot think as God thinks, love as God loves, etc., in the full capacity as God. As we are sanctified, we progress toward that state with the help of the Holy Spirit, but we will not fully realize it until we are reborn in our glorified bodies.
Wow, lots of different questions. I don’t think you can say that because good exists then evil must as well. Before God created anything there was only Himself (the Trinity) and there was no evil present. Once God created anything then it must by definition be less than 100% perfect or else it would be God himself. This lack of perfection opens the possibility to evil but does not guarantee that it must exist.
Specifically in the case of the commandment I do not think the commandment itself creates evil. I would say that it creates the potential for evil. Paul speaks to the issue of the law and sin in Romans 7. In Romans 7:7 he says that he would not know anything about coveting if the law hadn’t said “Do not covet.” Now this could be taken to mean that the law itself does something wrong but in the next verse Paul says that it was sin which took opportunity through the commandment which produced the coveting. The commandment itself is “holy and righteous and good” (Romans 7:11).
As for the difference between compatibilistic and libertarian views of free will I would say that Rob summed them up fairly well. A compatibilist says that man will freely choose what it is in his nature to choose. Our choices are not “completely” free (libertarian freedom) because we have both internal and external influences in our life which will lead us to make a certain decision. Yet the decision is still ours to make.
A libertarian view of free will states that all choices are completely free. In any given situation we may always choose either of two choices no matter what internal and external influences are present. I believe that the libertarian view of free will ultimately leads to open theism (the belief that God doesn’t know the future – it is open). For a choice to be completely free (in the liberarian sense) then man must be able to choose either choice. Yet if God knows what is going to happen then man cannot choose either choice, he must choose the one God knows. So this is where open theists make the statement that God limited himself so that he does not know what choices man is going to make – and this is the only way man is truly free.
Of course, this also fails … If open theism is correct then there was a time when God did not limit himself. Before God chose to limit himself he was all knowing. To be able to make the choice to limit himself he would already know the outcome of that choice. But if he already knows the outcome of that choice then man isn’t free even after limiting himself (which is the whole point of open theism).
Disclaimer: I just made that argument up and haven’t really thought through all the details so it may not really work as an argument against open theism.
Open theism ultimately boils down to: what did God know and when did He know it?
Essentially yes. They think that man must be libertarian free to be able to “truly” love God (returning to Geisler’s point above – though Geisler is not an open theist – just an Arminian). To give man that freedom God cannot know what choices they are going to make. So the open theist thnks that God has made the decision to limit his own omniscience so that man will be free.