Saturday, September 12, 2009
Friday, September 11, 2009
Answering The Problem of Evil
a. Read Wikipedia Article: Virginia Tech Massacre.
b. It’s times like this where we can’t help but ask, “What is the World coming to?”
c. And every time something bad happens in the world you can always count on one thing: People (especially anti-religious) will come to you with a myriad of questions expecting you to answer their questions.
d. They raise a real issue: THE PROBLEM OF EVIL.
i. It’s the #1 Question in response to tragedy: “How could a loving God allow this to happen?” What would you say?
ii. Albert Einstein: This was Einstein’s objection to the existence of the God of the Bible. His scientific discoveries convinced him that there must be a God, but he opted for an impersonal account of God because of the problem of evil.
iii. C.S. Lewis: Famous Christian writer (Chronicles of Narnia) Got married late in life (55) and a couple years into the marriage lost his wife. He didn’t question the existence of God, but His character.
2. Expose Need:
a. Not only do we need to be ready to give a reason (1 Peter 3:15) for the hope that we have as Believers, but we also need to take advantage of unfortunate events like this and use them to point people to the truth.
i. When Peter wrote his epistle, he was talking to believers who were suffering for doing good. The punch line was for them to “set apart Christ as lord and always be prepared to give a reason for the hope that is in them.”
ii. We can apply this to ourselves when we address unbelievers and critics: Set apart Christ in us and give a reason for our hope!
b. And we need to realize that situations like this don’t really prove that God doesn’t exist anyways!
i. First, situations like this actually prove God exists and that the Bible is true and…
ii. Second, situations like this show us how much people really need to admit that they need God and stop suppressing the truth (Romans 1).
c. But, then again, there is no easy way to address the Problem of Evil.
i. You can’t offer a quick fix (30 sec rebuttal)
ii. It’s also raised in the midst of some crazy catastrophe.
d. We can’t even begin to calculate all the evil, pain and suffering that mankind has experienced.
3. Orient to Message/Big Idea:
a. The Problem of Evil goes like this:
i. If God is all powerful and all loving, then why would he allow so much suffering and evil in the world?
ii. He is either all powerful, but not all loving or he is all loving, but not all powerful.
iii. He either CAN’t destroy evil or he DOESN’t Care.
iv. Or, maybe there is no such thing as God and the fact that Evil exists is proof.
b. And to make the Problem of Evil more difficult, it also refers to NATURAL EVIL.
i. Nature: Floods, Earthquakes, tornados
ii. Diseases: Cancer, small pox
iii. Developmental Disability: Autism, Downs Syndrome
iv. Accidents/injuries: Being burned, drowining, falling.
v. Note: Sometimes natural and moral evil are combined. In Ethiopia, thousands of people are starving to death, but it was cauased by the political leaders who were using food as a political weapon against the resistance.
c. Remember that this is the #1 Argument for Atheism and it’s not even that good. Keep these thing in mind:
i. There is a perfectly good explanation why God allows evil.
ii. It’s because of his Love and Goodness that he allows it.
iii. In fact, Evil in this life is part of the Master plan. W/o it the plan doesn’t make sense. It plays a part.
TRANSISTION: We’re going to use our time to learn how to respond to THAT question, but first, we must lay out some ground rules. It will challenge your thinking. This is how church should be.
1. First Point: Evil Is Something. Evil Exists. It’s Real.
a. Some believe in RELATIVISM. That is, they believe everything is RELATIVE.
b. How can we know if somebody is a relativist?
i. What’s right for you isn’t right for me.”
ii. You can’t legislate morality!” But, the law IS morality! (Don’t kill, steal or destroy).
c. Relativism is SELF-refuting!
i. IF THEY SAY: “I don’t believe in moral absolutes. What’s right for you is right for you, etc…”
ii. ASK: “are you absolutely sure?”
iii. THEN: Take his car keys and he’ll start believing in Absolutes real quick.
d. Examples of moral relativism and the notion of “Tolerance.”
i. Premarital relations? If that’s what they want to do its okay.
ii. Abortion? It’s their body. Let them do what they want.
iii. Killing? “It depends, if the person deserves to be killed.”
iv. Homosexuality? “Who are we to say that isn’t true love?”
e. People are drowning in a sea of Moral Relativism.
f. BUT, no matter what, built inside us is knowledge of God. Men just suppress the truth.
2. The Problem: Relativism simply says EVIL does not Exist. How do we prove this?
a. If everything is relative (allowed) then nothing is ultimately wrong. Then nothing can be considered evil!
i. We can only say something is evil if (and only if) we assume that there is GOOD (i.e. absolute truth).
ii. Evil = the opposite of Good (aka. Absolute Moral Truth).
iii. You cannot have evil without having Good!
iv. All in all, Evil is simply a departure from the way things ought to be.
b. NOTE: If there is no Standard (way things should be), then there can be no departure; and thus no EVIL.
i. C.S. Lewis: “My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I gotten his idea of just and unjust? A man does not call something crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line” (Lewis, Mere Christianity, p. 31).
ii. If relativists believe there is no standard; no absolutes.
iii. Then, they can’t complain about evil.
CASE IN POINT: That’s like someone complaining about crooked lines but doesn’t believe in straight lines either.
c. AGAIN: The problem of evil argument is based on the existence of evil, which is an absolute!
i. The phrase, “evil exists” is an absolute.
ii. For evil to exists, then there MUST be things that are ABSOLUTELY wrong.
iii. These departures from good are called EVIL.
d. But REMEMBER the problem with Relativism: Everything is subjective (i.e. it depends on the SUBJECT). Imagine how silly this conversation would sound:
“I can’t believe in God!” -- “Why not?” -- “Kim-Chee!” -- “Kim-Chee? What does Kim-Chee have to do with anything!?”
“I hate Kim-Chee! and I can’t believe that an all loving God would create something I hate so much. I almost die when my
workmates open their Tupperware’s full of kim-Chee.”
e. The PROBLEM with relativism is seen in this translation:
“How could a good God allow things that make me mad or sad exist? If it offends me then God should not allow it!!!!!!!!”
f. Relativism is completely self-centered! It’s all about YOU and what makes YOU mad/sad/angry.
3. Relativism and the problem caused by objective evil are strange bedfellows. They couldn’t possibly both be true at the same time.
a. If morality is ultimately a matter of personal tastes (like preferring a snickers over Kim-Chee)
b. Then the objection vanishes, because the objection depends on the fact that some things are absolutely evil.
c. But, If there’s no absolute right or wrong then there is no evil, and how can we hold God responsible for something that doesn’t exists?
d. A relativist can’t complain about the problem of evil because there is no EVIL to create a problem.
i. There is no Right, and therefore no wrong.
ii. To complain about it is nonsense.
iii. You can’t have both feet firmly planted in mid air.
4. However, if you can complain about evil (because true evil does exist), then you can’t be an atheist. Real evil must mean there’s a real Good and a real God.
a. If there is no God, there’s no perfect standard, no absolute right or wrong, and therefore no departure from that standard.
b. If there is no God, then, there is no evil, and we’re back to personal likes and dislikes again (relativism).
5. How do we know what’s ABSOLUTELY(intrinsically) evil?
a. God is the one to define it!
b. Our standards are too subjective because the truth is we just care about ourselves!
i. Everyone thinks he’s basically a good person (ROLL PLAY).
ii. “I’m a good person. At least I’m not like HIM; he doesn’t go to Church…”
c. You may not be a Hitler, but you’re’ not a Jesus Christ either, and you’re probably a lot more like Hitler than you are like Jesus.
d. If God defines evil, it involves a lot more than kill, steal and destroy.
6. So we face an ironic situation: The problem of evil only exists if a personal, moral God exists.
a. This is why the existence of evil is one of the best evidences for the existence of God, not against it.
b. Once cannot even BEGIN the debate if there is no God.
i. There will be no true evil to discuss, just OPINIONS.
ii. Pluralistic Lady Story:
“people should worship God however they want.”
Philistines worshiped Molech by baby sacrifice
(lev. 18:21- don’t sacrifice your child to Molech!)
c. The alternative if God doesn’t exist?
i. Everything becomes relative.
ii. No right or wrong, and you do what you want.
iii. Problem: that will be chaotic.
SO FIRST, evil is something. If it’s real, it must be grounded in an objective, personal, moral standard of Good. Therefore, God exists.
1. Second Point: Evil is Not Some Thing.
a. Evil is not “stuff.”
b. Evil isn’t a blob of “stuff” crawling around infecting the universe.
c. It isn’t something that gets into to a man, forcing him to do bad.
d. We can’t put it in a piety dish and observe it.
2. It IS an unnatural or improper use of things (that are not evil in themselves).
a. Illustration: A Knife and a Human Body.
i. Are either items evil? No.
ii. The knife starts cutting up the Human. Is the knife then evil?
iii. What if there is a surgeon behind the knife? Is it evil?
b. What is the point of the illustration?
i. Evil didn’t need to be created. It is not a substance!
ii. Therefore, God did not create it!
3. Evil is a word that describes the condition of something missing, a privation (Augusting, Thomas Aquinas).
a. Doughnut holes and shadows are not things in themselves, but things missing.
i. Evil is a “hole” in goodness, a “shadow” that results when goodness is missing.
ii. “Sin” (Gk. Hamartia) refers to a target that was missed!
b. THE POINT: If evil isn’t some thing, then it wasn’t created.
Transition: Since the attack here is on the God of the Bible, let’s let Him answer for Himself.
Read the first three chapters and the last three chapters of the Bible to find the issue described, explained, and resolved.
So evil is something, but It’s not some thing.
What does the Bible say about where it came from?
1. THIRD POINT: Evil Is an Intruder, Brought by Man, Not God.
a. It was not something created by God.
i. Genesis 1:31 “God saw all that He had made and it was very good.”
ii. Genesis 1 uses the word “good” seven times to describe the world that God made.
b. Evil is a description of what happened when man refused God’s leadership.
i. It is a condition that resulted from man’s choice to disobey God.
1. Genesis 2:15-17 “You must not eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die.”
2. Genesis 3:17 “Because you…ate from the tree…cursed is the ground because of you.”
ii. Adam chose to disobey. That infers that man has free will.
iii. The first Adam Failed! Now the whole world is born in sin.
c. We live in a world that WE messed up, and a messed up world produces messed people and messed situations.
i. What does the Bible say?
1. Romans 5:12 “Sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned.”
2. Jeremiah 17:9 “The hear is deceitful above all things and beyond cure. Who can understand it?
d. The point: Evil is an intruder. THE WORLD WAS NEVER MEANT TO BE MESSED UP!
And it’s man’s fault, not God’s.
1. POINT FOUR: Evil exists because man is FREE to Choose.
a. If man has the choice between right and wrong, someone, sometime, will definitely choose evil; it is inevitable.
b. Back to the Problem of Evil
i. Review The Argument
ii. Critique the Argument
c. Two Hidden Assumptions
i. if God is all powerful than He can create any world He wishes.
ii. if God is all good, than He would prefer a world without evil over a world with evil.
d. ASSUMPTION 1: The objector reasons that since God is all-powerful He could create a world containing free creatures who always choose to do what is right or morally good.
i. Such a world would be an evil-free world.
ii. By the same token, since He is all-powerful He could also create a world where no natural evil/suffering exists. It would be a world free of all pain and suffering.
(VIDEO- QUIZZNOS COMMERCIAL) → God cannot create a world where we are free to always choose Good.
e. ASSUMPTION 2: he would prefer such a world over one that is affected with evil. If God had the choice of allowing a perfect world or a world with evil, they believe in his all-goodness/lovingness he would prefer the perfect one otherwise He himself would be evil.
(Illustration- Picture of PENUEL on Ramp) → God may have good reasons for allowing us to experience pain/suffering now.
f. The problem with the “Problem of Evil” is the two assumptions mentioned above:
i. they are simply not necessarily true.
ii. It is simply not necessarily true that God’s omnipotence entails that He could create any world He wishes,
iii. nor is it necessarily true that his omnibenevolence entails that He would prefer a world with no evil in it.
g. Omnipotence does not mean that he has the power to contradict himself.
i. God’s omnipotence does not mean He has the power to bring about logical contradictions.
ii. He could not create a round square, make 1+1=3, or makes something true and not true at the same time and in the same context.
iii. Thus, he could not create a world where he makes people always do good and be loving at the same time. Dictatorship is not love.
h. The point is that God cannot create a world where people freely choose to always do good.
i. If people are truly free, then not even God could make them choose good; they must be allowed the possibility of choosing to do wrong even though others might suffer because of it.
ii. So in a sense, God creates the person who has free will and stands back when that person wants to deviate from His ways.
i. In sum, the notion of a world where people always choose to freely do good is contradictory.
i. If they were truly free, then over time, it would probably be the case that eventually some time down the timeline that one individual would deviate from God’s ways and freely choose to do evil.
ii. The only way God could prevent this would be to take away that individual free will or to force them to choose good.
j. Conclusion: On those grounds alone, the argument of the logical problem of evil becomes invalid.
TRANSITION: Now we believers may be sitting there thinking, that’s nice, but why would God allow ME (a lover God) to suffer? I know man has free will, but why would God allow me (a good Christian) to suffer?
I. Possibilities (DOGS → Discipline | Others | God | Self
a. The choice is ours: We can do one of 2things:
i. React in PRIDE:
1. I must be doing something wrong.
2. No. Why doe it have to be YOU?
3. God may just be trying to get your attention.
4. Other considerations
a. Resist the temptation to FIX yourself.
b. Resist the temptation to react.
ii. Respond in HUMILITY:
1. Listen for God’s voice: “I’m going to let you experience what’s really goin on! [To let you see who you really are].
2. Pause: “Okay Lord. You have my attention.”
3. Reflect: This is an invitation to dialogue with God. Maybe God is trying to get your attention.
A Philosophical Response to the Problem of Evil
.JPG)
Undoubtedly the greatest intellectual obstacle to the belief in the existence of God is the widespread and trendy “Problem of Evil” argument. For the Problem of Evil advocate, it just seems unbelievable that an all loving and all-powerful God could permit evil to exist as it has in this world. Indeed, the amount of evil or pain and suffering in this world is beyond measure, whether caused by humans (moral evil)[1] or natural disaster (natural evil); the amount of pain and suffering in the world is unfathomably incalculable. Christian theists in return challenge the contention that the problem of evil posits with a theodicy. This term, theodicy, refers to a counter-argument, which seeks to defend the existence of God including his all powerfulness (omnipotence) and all goodness (omnibenevolence/moral perfection) in light of the evil that exists. Countless attempts by atheistic, agnostic, and non-believers of various types have all shared aims in the attack of theism based on the presence of pain and suffering among the innocent.
Not only is this topic bound to come up in the workplace, at home, or in a classroom setting, but also the believer could be put on the spot, and may not have an adequate answer to give. Perhaps the real problem here is for the believers who are left speechless in a spur-of-the-moment predicament when confronted with the issue. Or it may just be the case that not enough time and preparation takes place in the local Church for such a test. Whether or not the Bible calls for theodicy, one thing is for sure: the Bible calls all believers to be ready in and out of season for the defense of the Gospel (cf. 1 Peter 3:15). And it is safe to say that the attack on theism is an indirect attack on the gospel of Jesus Christ. Therefore, when the problem of evil is presented, which is an indirect attack on the message of the gospel, it is the job of the believers to make a defense.
The major proponents of the Problem of Evil are David Hume, J.L. Mackie, Paul Draper, and Richard Gale. Alvin Plantinga, Doug Geivett, and William Lane Craig are the major respondents who offer the theodicy’s that will be considered in this paper. The purpose of this paper is to evaluate and respond to various forms of the problem utilizing a freewill defense. In addition, it will provide some practical conclusions for the believer on the basis of observing the debate and its effect on the contemporary culture/church setting.
Overview
The heart of the Problem of Evil lies in an apparent contradiction between God’s attributes of omnibenevolence and omnipotence in light of the existence of evil in the world. The proponent of the argument argues: if God is all loving and all-powerful, since evil exists in the World, either God cannot defeat it, or he will not defeat it. Consequently, if God cannot stop evil, he cannot be omnipotent. And if God does not wish to stop it, he cannot be all loving. The 18th century Scottish skeptic David Hume, in Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion posed the questions that stabbed the conscious’ of Christian theists: “Is he [God] willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then is he impotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then is he malevolent. Is he both able and willing? When then is evil?”[2]
By and large, the common thread that ties all logical formulations together is the apparent contradiction with the existence of evil in the world in light of God’s character. Although the form may vary, the focus of the attack is directed toward theism. Consider the following syllogisms:
Traditional formulation
P1: If evil exists, an omnipotent and omnibenevolent God cannot exist.
P2: Evil exists
C: Therefore, an omnipotent and omnibenevolent God does not exist.[3]
Expanded form
P1: If God exists, then God is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect.
P2: If God is omnipotent, then God has the power to eliminate all evil.
P3: If God is omniscient, then God knows when evil exists.
P4: If God is morally perfect, then God has the desire to eliminate all evil.
P5: Evil exists.
P6: If Evil exists and God exits, then either God doesn’t have the power to eliminate all evil, or
doesn’t know when evil exists, or doesn’t have the desire to eliminate all evil.
C: Therefore, God doesn’t exist.[4]
Various formulations
P1: If God is perfectly loving, He must wish to abolish evil
P2: If He is all powerful, He must be able to abolish evil
P3: But evil exists
C: Therefore, an all powerful, loving God does not exist.[5]
P1: God is the author of everything.
P2: Evil is something
P3: Therefore, God is the author of evil.[6]
P1: God made everything perfect.
P2: Imperfection cannot come from perfection.
P3/C: Therefore, perfectly created beings cannot be the origin of evil.
C2: Therefore, God must be the origin.[7]
Attack Based on the Persistence of Evil
P1: If God is all good, He would destroy evil
P2: If God is all-powerful, He could destroy evil.
P3: But evil is not destroyed.
C: Hence, there is no such God.[8]
J.L. Mackie, a leading proponent of the argument proposes what he believes is the “simplest form:” “God is omnipotent; God is wholly good; and yet evil exists.”[9] He goes on to clarify in his celebrated article, “God and Omnipotence,” that God could have created a world where people freely chose to always do good.[10]
In addition to these logical formulations is the “probabilistic” approach, which is not so rigid, and is perhaps a “safer” argument. It says: If evil exists, then it is highly improbable that an omnipotent, morally perfect God exists. If it is highly improbable that an omnipotent, morally perfect God exists, then you should not believe in God. Evil exists. Therefore, it is highly improbable than an omnipotent, morally perfect God exists. Therefore, you should not believe in God. In either the traditional or probabilistic approach, it is understood that such objectors have an agenda to deny God’s existence as well as his attributes of omnipotence and omnibenevolence. Also, it is likely that the problem of evil proponents will accuse their theistic adversaries with irrationality.
In sum, the “problem” arises from the speculation that a perfectly good God would not tolerate evil or suffering to subsist and persist in the world, and that an omniscient and omnipotent God ought to set up an evil-free world in accord with his perfection. Since evil and suffering are noticeably present, it gives the impression that God either intends it that way and is therefore not entirely good; or He lacks an adequate amount of knowledge to foresee pain and suffering, or lacks sufficient power to arrange a world free of pain and suffering.
A Closer Look: Variations of the Problem of Evil[11]
Prior to a response and critique of the problem, a distinction between the two major formulations is needed; namely, the distinction between the “Intellectual problem of evil” and the “Emotional problem of evil.” The first type concerns how to give a rational explanation of the existence of God and evil while the emotional problem of evil focuses on how to comfort those who are going through intense suffering. This emotional problem of evil lies in the territory of the pastor or the counselor while the intellectual problem of evil lies in the area of the philosopher. The answer to the intellectual form appears to be dry and insensitive to someone who is experiencing intense suffering while the answer to the emotional problem of evil will appear shallow and unsatisfactory to someone who is actually contemplating it merely on an academic level. This paper seeks to take a look at both types in hopes of providing sufficient reasons to believe that God co-exists with evil for a season that we are currently living in.
In addition to the intellectual type and the emotional formulations are two versions; namely, the logical version and the probalistic or evidential version. The first version holds that it is logically impossible for both God and evil to co-exist. Since both seem to be incompatible, they say that both cannot exist simultaneously. [12] These proponents all agree that evil exists and thus they build their case that God cannot exists in light of that reality. On the other hand, the probabilistic or evidential version of the problem of evil admits that it is logically possible for God and evil to co-exist, but nevertheless they maintain that it is highly improbable that God exists given the reality of evil in the world. They say, since evil exists, then God probably does not exist.
The Logical version of the problem of evil states that it is logically impossible for God to co-exists with evil; they are two logically incompatible premises. However, at face value, these two statements: God exists and Evil exists are not in and of themselves contradictions. After all there is no explicit inconsistency here. Therefore, the objector is really saying that there are implicitly contradictory. If that is the case then the objector must be assuming something that would bring out this contradiction to make it explicit. The quest for the believer/apologist is to point out those assumptions.
Evaluation and Critique
In any attempt to construct a problem of evil, one must keep in mind that finite man is trying to comprehend an infinite God. Although the skeptics have no problem accepting his omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent attributes, it seems as if they totally disregard the attribute of transcendence, which basically says that God is not limited to what man is capable of understanding. Be that as it may, the task of the apologist is to make a defense for the gospel, which in this case, involves breaking down and responding to their logic.
As it stands, the Problem of Evil argument appears deductively valid. But as is the case with all logical arguments, there are still several ways in which the argument could backfire. First and foremost, an argument could contain a false premise, based on mere assumption. Secondary, it may contain an equivocation. The Problem of Evil violates both of these principles, and thus would be considered an invalid argument. Furthermore, a solid argument must demonstrate that something is true; if the debater cannot fulfill this task, then his or her argument ceases to be a good argument and ought not to be referred to as such.
The Freewill Defense to the Problem of Evil
St. Augustine is perhaps the first great theologian to rebut the contention that theism contains an internal contradiction in, On Free Choice of the Will. This indispensable treatise on the free choice of the will delineates a theodicy, which affirms that God is not the cause of evil; but rather, the individual who exercises his or her freedom.[13] Following in the footsteps of Augustine is Alvin Plantinga, a world-renowned Christian philosopher and professor at the University of Norte Dame. He sums up the free will defense as:
“…an effort to show that there may be a very different kind of good that God can’t bring about without permitting evil… [it] is the idea that of being free with respect to an action (italics mine).”[14]
He goes on to specify that:
“…God can create free creatures, but he can’t cause or determine them to do only what is right. For if He does so, then they aren’t’ significantly free after all; they do not do what is right freely(italics his).…He must create creatures capable of moral evil; and He can’t give these creatures the freedom to perform evil and at the same time prevent them from doing so.”[15]
The heart of the Free Will Defense is the belief that it is possible that God could not have created a universe containing moral good, but no moral evil. And if so, then it is possible that God has morally sufficient reasons for creating a world containing evil.[16]
Three Apologetic Methods of Response[17]
Alongside the Free Will defense Theodicy rests three major methods of dealing with the Problem of Evil, which makes for a compelling rebuttal. The first method is to point out the unclear allegations, which merely assume what God should do in light of his all-powerfulness and moral perfection. Secondly, there is the option to demonstrate the consistency of the propositions in question. Finally, the responder could provide positive reasons for God’s existence in an effort to cast any undemonstrated inconsistency as only “apparent.” The remainder of this paper will seek to show that by utilizing each methodological principle, the argument, regardless of its form or version will come up invalid. In fact, the first methodological principle alone is sufficient in disproving the validity of the Problem of Evil argument.
The Major Weakness of the Problem of Evil Argument
There are two hidden assumptions in the logical problem of evil. The first assumption is that if God is all-powerful than He could create any world He wishes; namely, a world without evil, pain, or suffering. The second assumption is that if God is all good and loving, than He would prefer a world without evil. If God had the choice of allowing a perfect world or a world with evil, they believe in his all-goodness he would prefer the perfect one otherwise He himself would be evil. The weakness in this argument is that these two assumptions do not logically follow. It is not necessarily true that God’s omnipotence entails that He could create any world He wishes, nor is it necessarily true that His omnibenevolence entails that He would prefer a world with no evil in it.
A good reason for rejecting the first assumption is that God’s omnipotence does not mean He has the power to bring about logical contradictions. He could not create a round square, make 1+1=3, or make something true and not true at the same time and in the same context. Omnipotence does not mean that he can violate the law of non-contradiction. Accordingly, God cannot create impossible worlds. Possible worlds are ones that do not contain within them any logical contradictions. And it is only possible worlds that God is able to create. C.S. Lewis’ book on The Problem of Pain harmonizes all-powerfulness with the problem of evil:
“[God’s] Omnipotence means power to do all that is intrinsically possible, not to do the intrinsically impossible. You may attribute miracles to Him, but not nonsense. This is no limit to His power. If you choose to say “God can give a creature free will and a the same time withhold free will from it,” you have not succeeded in saying anything about God: meaningless combinations of words do not suddenly acquire meaning simply because we prefix to them the two other words “God can.” It remains true that all things are possible with God: the intrinsic impossibilities are not things but nonentities. It is no more possible for God than for the weakest of His creatures to carry out both of two mutually exclusive alternatives; not because His power meets an obstacle, but because nonsense remains nonsense even when we talk it about God.”[18]
The notion of a world where people always choose to freely do good, although it is a possible world, it is not really a feasible world, for certain logically possible worlds are not feasible ones. If they were truly free, then over time, it would probably be the case that eventually some time down the timeline that one individual would deviate from God’s ways and freely choose to do evil. The only way God could prevent this would be to take away that individual free will or to force them to choose good. It is possible that every world God created would result in some sort of evil in it because God created each individual with the freedom to choose between right and wrong; He does not build sinless robots. Such a world is merely a hypothetical one, which may be logically possible, but in all reality may be actually unachievable and perhaps morally less desirable.[19]
The purpose up to this point is to show that although the possible worlds theory may be logically possible, it may not be feasible. Furthermore, there is no logical incompatibility with the co-existence of God and evil. Those facts, side by side do not contradict one another. Thus, the first assumption, namely that God could create any world He wishes, is simply not necessarily true. On those grounds alone, the argument of the logical problem of evil is invalid.
The second assumption needs to be rejected because it is not necessarily true that a morally perfect God would never prefer a world with any moral evil in it over one where it is absent, for he may have morally sufficient reasons for permitting the evil that he does. Again, this notion of God preferring a world with no evil is merely an assumption, which they only hope is true. Furthermore, it does not seem obvious that just because God is morally perfect, that he has to create a world that is morally perfect. He is justified to allow that evil for the sake of the greater good. His holiness is still safeguarded even though he allows evil in this world.
A few illustrations are helpful in rejecting the second assumption. Imagine a parent who “loves” his or her child so much that he or she shelters them from encountering the evil beyond the shelter of home. Would this parent be regard as a “good” parent? Most people would say that treatment is evil itself. A bad parent is not one who lets their children outside to encounter evil. It is over ridden by the fact that the child will gain life experience in hopes of growing up into a matured individual. In fact, to rob a child of his or her childhood not only is cruel, but it sets up that child for failure. Their first encounter with the “real world” may be too much for them to handle if it comes later on in life. Consider a second illustration regarding child rearing. For parents, there is an overriding morally sufficient reason to discipline their children. Of course the discipline must be given if the child has committed a wrong. A parent who inflicts pain and “suffering” upon their child, is not a bad parent for doing so because there is a morally sufficient reason for doing so; namely, parental discipline, which teaches the child about rules, regulations, and consequences. Take a look at one last illustration of an 8yr old boy named Penuel. For his birthday, we built a skateboard ramp. When it came time for his first “drop in” I realized there was high probability that he would fall and experience some pain. In fact, I knew that he would get hurt eventually; it is an inevitable occurrence in skateboarding. Nonetheless, the reason why I did not prevent him from falling is because I wanted him to have a sense of accomplishment, which he would eventually have after dropping in the ramp. A short time of pain is a small price to pay for the glory that comes in executing a skateboard trick. On his first try, he fell on his rear, but after mastering “drop in,” he became a new kid; he had a sense of pride that experience and courage could only impart. The greater morally sufficient reason in letting this child experience pain was the pride and sense of accomplishment that he gained in the long run. In the same manner, it is likely that God has similar morally sufficient reasons to create a world with the amount of freedom that ours has. He has morally sufficient reasons for allowing humans to feel the effects of living in a fallen world. In light of this, assumption number two is dead; God would not just prefer a morally perfect world just because he is all good and all loving.
Having engaged in the first method of responding the to the Problem of Evil, we can now turn briefly to the second and third methodological principles, which reiterate and reinforce the first method. As mentioned earlier, this second method or response seeks to demonstrate the consistency of the propositions in question. Consider the following two points. First, God could not have created a world with just as much freedom and resultant good as the actual world, but had less evil, whether moral or natural in terms of quantity and quality. Such a world is infeasible. Furthermore, God may have morally sufficient reasons for allowing the amount of freedom into the world he has, with all of its resultant evil. The last method of handling this problem is to simply provide positive reasons to think God does exist in an effort to cast any undemonstrated inconsistency as only “apparent.” That is to say, we can take this argument, which focuses on the reality of evil and turn it around for establishing God’s existence.
Logical Argument from Evil for God
Beyond the simple defense against the problem of evil argument is an attempt to establish theism based upon the existence of evil.
William Lane Craig’s Version
P1: If objective moral values exist, then God exists.
P2: Evil exists.
C1/P3: Therefore objective moral values do exist.
C2: Therefore, God exists.
P1: Evil cannot exist without an opposite
P2: Evil exists.
C1/P3: Therefore objective moral values do exist.
C2: Therefore, God exists.
R. Douglas Geivett’s Version
P1: If evil exists, it is a departure from the way things ought to be.
P2: If evil is a departure from the way things ought to be, then there is a way things ought to be.
P3: If there is a way things ought to be, then there is a design plan for how things ought to be.
P4: If there is a design plan, there is a designer (i.e., God).
P5: Evil exists.
C: Therefore, God exists.
Forallbelievers.org
P1: Evil cannot exist without an opposite.
P2: The opposite of evil is objective moral values.
P3: Only God could create objective moral values.
C2: Therefore, God exists.
Each of these logical arguments plays off the direct claims that the problem of evil posits. What the objectors do not realize is that they presuppose an ultimate standard of good with their reference to evil. Josef Pieper says, “the incomprehensibility of evil in the world becomes fully apparent only against the background of the indestructible happiness of God.”[20] Any attempt to object to the way things are infers that there is a way, which things should be. Overall, although their arguments are sincere, this paper has shown that they are sincerely wrong.
Biblical Considerations
From a Biblical standpoint, the believer should keep several things in mind when formulating a theodicy. To begin with, the believer could concentrate on the fact that God created the fact of freedom while man performs the act of freedom. There is no evidence in the Bible that says God forces or coerces individuals to disobey what he has commanded. Along the same lines, it is safe to say that God made evil possible, but man makes evil actual. What the problem of evil proponent must come to grips with is that the ability to do something does not necessitate the actual doing it. God is able to control everything, yet he allows man to exercise volition even if it is negative. In his omnipotence, God allows individuals the freedom to choose. Secondly, the proponent of the problem of evil must avoid an equivocation of why God allows the persistence of evil from why he permitted it in the first place. One must take into account God’s sovereign overall purpose -- His divine plan for mankind. Lastly, the Bible speaks of a time where evil will be eradicated. In the final stage of salvation, commonly referred to as Glorification salvation, the believer will be saved from the presence of sin, which includes any pain or suffering. Just because God is allowing some pain and suffering in this life does not mean His divine plans are not working out for the best.
FINAL CONCLUSION
Ironically, in an argument called “The Problem of Evil,” the only problem is for the one who presents the argument in an attempt to disprove the existence of God. Without God there is no concept of evil. Without the existence of objective moral values, there can be no deviation from that which is right; there is no evil. There are no “crooked” lines without a straight line with which to compare it. Any person objecting to the existence of God in light of evil in the world only create more reasons to believe in God.
In the midst of a focus on evil and the characteristics of this fallen world, individuals have missed the big picture; namely, that not only will evil be dealt with, but the God who will deal with it also provides the solution to the penalty and the power of sin in the life of the believer. It is true, evil exists, and has dreadfully affected the human race, but God has provided the solution to the problem, which is by grace through faith in the work of the Lord Jesus Christ (John 3:16; 20:31; Acts 16:31). So it seems ludicrous to disregard what God has provided for all eternity in exchange for what we experience in this short life.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Adams, Marylin McCord. Horrendous Evils and the Goodness of God. Ithaca, NY: Corness
University Press, 1999.
Augustine, On Free Choice of the Will, trans. Anna Benjamin and L.H. Hackstaff. New York:
The bobs-Merrill company, Inc., 1964.
Copjec, Joan. ed. Radical Evil. New York, NY: Verso, 1996.
Craig, William Lane, The Problem of Evil. Audiocassette (1-2). In 1997 Masters Series in
Christian Thought. Signal Hill, Ca: Stand To Reason, 1997.
Feinberg, John S. The Many Faces of Evil: Theological Systems and the Problem of Evil. Grand
Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1979, 1994.
__________."And the Atheist Shall Lie Down with the Calvinist: Atheism, Calvinism, and the
Free Will Defense." Trinity Journal . 1 NS (Fall 1980).
Geisler, Norman L. The Roots of Evil. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 1978, 2002.
Kwak, John. Apologetics Syllabus, Talbot School of Theology, Spring 2004.
Lewis, Clive Staples. The Problem of Pain. New York, NY: Macmillan, 1944.
Mackie, J.L., “Evil and Omnipotence,” Mind 64, 1955.
McCallum, Dennis. The Problem of Evil. Internet. www.xenos.org/essays/evilpo.htm
Pojman, Louis P. Philosophy of Religion: An Anthology. Belmont, Ca: Wadsworth Publishing
Company, 1998, p. 186.
Plantinga, Alvin C. God, Freedom, and Evil. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1974, 1977, 1980.
Rowe, William L. ed. God and the Problem of Evil. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers Inc,
2001.
Simon, Ulrich. A Theology of Auschwitz. Altanta, GA: John Knox Press, 1967, 1978.
Tooley, Michael. “The Problem of Evil.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Internet.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/evil/
[1] Perhaps some of the worst cases of moral evil were the anti-Semitic acts of the Germans during World War II. See Ulrich Simon’s, A Theology of Auschwitz: The Christian Faith and the Problem of Evil (Atlanta, GA: John Knox press, 1967, 1978).
[2] Quoted in John Feinberg’s book Theologies and Evil (Portland: OR: University Press of America, Inc., 1979), p. 1.
[3] John Kwak, Apologetics Syllabus. Talbot School of Theology, Spring 2004.
[4] Michael Tooley, “The Problem of Evil.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Internet. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/evil/
[5] Dennis McCallum, The Problem of Evil. Internet. www.xenos.org/essays/evilpo.htm.
[6] Ibid.
[7] Ibid.
[8] Ibid.
[9] Louis P. Pojman ed. Philosophy of Religion: An Anthology (Belmont, Ca: Wadsworth Publishing Company, 1998), p. 186.
[10] J.L. Mackie, “Evil and Omnipotence,” Mind 64 (1955): 200-12.
[11] William Lane Craig, The Problem of Evil. Audiocassette (1-2). In 1997 Masters Series in Christian Thought (Signal Hill, CA: STR, 1997).
[12] William L. Rowe, ed. God and the Problem of Evil (Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers Inc., 2001), p. 75-76.
[13] Augustine, On Free Choice of the Will, trans. Anna Benjamin and L.H. Hackstaff (New York: The Bobbs-Merrill Company, Inc., 1964), Bk. I, Chap 1, p.3.
[14] Alvin Plantinga, God, Freedom, and Evil (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1974, 1977, 1980), p. 29.
[15] Ibid., p. 30.
[16] Ibid., p. 31.
[17] Three methodologies adapted in John Kwaks Apologetics syllabus, Talbot School of Theology, Spring 2004.
[18] Clive Staples Lewis, The Problem of Pain (New York: NY: Macmillan, 1946), p. 25.
[19] Norman L. Geisler, The Roots of Evil (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 1978, 2002), p. 59.
[20] Josef Pieper, Happiness and Contemplation (New York: Pantheon Books, 1958), p. 57.
WORD DOCUMENT AVAILABLE HERE ENJOY.
Sunday, August 30, 2009
The Doctrine of Sanctification
What does it mean to be holy? to live a holy life? What is the connection to holiness and sanctification? They are the same thing. To be "holy" or "sanctified" mean simply to be "set apart." But to determine what one is set apart from is contingent on the context.
Friday, August 28, 2009
Sunday, August 23, 2009
Sunday, August 16, 2009
R.B. THIEME 1918-2009 S.Y.L.B.
On 16 August, 2009 R.B. Thieme Jr. (AKA. The Colonel) went home to be with the Lord. S.Y.L.B Pastor Thieme (i.e. See You Later Brother!).
I will never forget the first time I discovered Pastor Thieme. I had isolated myself in a hidden corner of the addict of the Old School Biola Library in 2000. I was doing a research paper for my class on the Gospel of John. I discovered an outline of the entire book by none other than R.B. Theime. I was very impressed by the outline and decided to share my findings with my best friend Freddy Cortez who lived on the east coast. Freddy was surprised that I had discovered him because he was being mentored by a man named Robby Dean who was mentored by R.B. Thieme. Freddy was listening to tapes and reading Thieme's books and told me I could order tapes free of charge. I ordered some tapes on the Prison Epistles and Hebrews and from then on have not stopped listening to his teachings. Listening to tapes got me though Bible College and Seminary because every sermon was packed with exegesis, hermeneutics and isogogics (i.e. historical background).
Pastor Thieme, only the Lord knows how much you have impacted my life and I will see you soon. Thanks for being faithful to the teaching of the Word. You will be missed, but not forgotten.
Below is Pastor Thieme's Obituary:
--------------
ROBERT B. THIEME, JR., of Houston, Texas, passed from life through death and into eternity on Sunday, the 16th of August 2009. He is now absent from the body and face to face with the Lord Jesus Christ. Bob was born on the 1st of April 1918 in Ft. Wayne, Indiana, to Robert Bunger and Anna Cloakey Thieme. He was the beloved husband of Betty Beal Thieme and devoted father of Robert B. Thieme III. He is also survived by his sister, Ann T. Wallis, and his cousins, Fredericka Botts and Nancy N. Harder. Bob was pastor of Berachah Church in Houston, Texas, where he faithfully shepherded his congregation for fifty-three years. He was also president of R. B. Thieme, Jr., Bible Ministries, established in 1967 to distribute his eleven thousand hours of Bible lessons and numerous books without charge or obligation. Pastor Thieme was called to Berachah Church in 1950 following distinguished academic achievements at the University of Arizona (Phi Beta Kappa) and Dallas Theological Seminary (summa cum laude). His seminary studies were interrupted by the impending entry of the United States into World War II. By the end of the war he had attained the rank of lieutenant colonel in the Army Air Corps. Throughout his ministry he was affectionately known as "Colonel." Pastor Thieme accepted Jesus Christ as his Savior while a young man and began to prepare himself for the ministry. His extensive academic training in Greek, Hebrew, theology, history, and textual criticism equipped him for a life dedicated to studying, instructing, exhorting, and comforting with God's truth. Pastor Thieme began every Bible class with Hebrews 4:12: "The Word of God is alive and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a critic of the thoughts and intents of the heart." His tireless devotion to Bible teaching and enduring love for his congregation provided those who studied under his ministry the opportunity to grow in grace and knowledge of Jesus Christ. Pastor Thieme made his transfer from time to eternity in God's provision of dying grace and with the firm understanding that "for me, living is Christ, dying is profit" (Philippians 1:21); for Jesus Christ proclaimed, "I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in me shall live even if he dies" (John 11:25). The apostle Paul wrote a eulogy for this faithful servant in 2 Timothy 4:7, "I have fought the good fight, I have finished the course, I have kept the faith." The Bible doctrine taught by R. B. Thieme, Jr., will challenge those positive to God's Word to seek the high ground of spiritual maturity and glorify God. The Memorial service will be conducted at ten o'clock in the morning on Sunday, the 23rd of August, at Berachah Church, 2815 Sage Road in Houston. During the service, the nursery will be available for infants through 4 years of age and childcare services will be available for ages 5 - 13 in the primary department. In lieu of usual remembrances, contributions in memory of Pastor Thieme may be directed to R. B. Thieme, Jr., Bible Ministries, 5139 West Alabama St., Houston, TX, 77056.
http://www.legacy.com/obituaries/houstonchronicle/obituary.aspx?n=robert-b-thieme&pid=131604527
http://rbthieme.org/