 |
| F/A-18 Super Hornet-Facebook |
From: 2003 The Problem of Evil: Anglican and Baptist Perspectives: MPhil thesis, Bangor University
5. God’s Love Within his fourth chapter, A Loving God?, McGrath presented the traditional problem of evil, God being almighty and loving, yet evil remained in his creation. He stated that these ideas are not contradictions unless God can eliminate suffering all together, or there are no good reasons for God allowing suffering. He noted: "If either or both of these could be shown to be right, a serious problem with the Christian view of God might well have been exposed. But they have not been shown to be true." McGrath (1992: 23). McGrath does not go into detail on these two points since, as he stated earlier, he was not writing a philosophical defence of God; however, I believe that God could eliminate suffering and evil from the world but he wills not to. That is bound up in his will and promises but, as I stated, it is not a matter of lack of omnipotence, nor is it a matter of his lack of benevolence. For human development to take place the way God planned it, it would likely have something to do with human beings’ ability to freely choose or reject God. Evil is part of God’s creation, not in its original state, but in its present functional state. People suffer through it, yet God works his ultimate good purpose within a creation that contains evil. J.S. Feinberg stated: God can remove evil if that is all He wants to do in our world. However, I will argue that God cannot remove evil without (1) contradicting other valuable things He has decided to do, (2) casting doubts on or directly contradicting the claim that He has all the attributes predicated of Him in Scripture, and/or (3) performing actions that we would neither desire nor require Him to do, because they would produce a greater evil than we already have in our world. Feinberg (1994: 126). I agree with the general idea in Feinberg’s quote. It is very possible that if God were to remove evil from his fallen creation, it would interfere with other valuable things needed for human development. Both Feinberg and McGrath indicated this could contradict things stated in Scripture--Feinberg mentioned attributes, and McGrath mentioned promises. As well, greater evils could occur if God ridded the world of certain evils at this point. I think there are certain human developments, a type of human spiritual evolution which experiences certain evils for a set period of time before complete restoration through Christ occurs. So from this idea, I would conclude that God is still omnipotent, but yet he wills the continuation of the problem of evil for the greater good, and he remains holy, without sin. As well, with McGrath’s second point, he is correct. It has not been shown that there are no good reasons for God allowing suffering. As Feinberg’s idea points out, there is definitely some logical theological reasoning for evil existing within God’s creation.
McGrath noted in this chapter, that God allows suffering, and I think this is true in a sense, in that demonic beings and human beings make conscious decisions to sin against God. Thus, God does not force people to sin against him. John Calvin stated concerning human sin, that human beings were not forced to sin against God: "If freedom is opposed to coercion, I both acknowledge and consistently maintain that the choice is free, and I hold anyone who thinks otherwise to be a heretic." Calvin (1543) (1996: 68). He again noted: "So it follows that the will with its self-determined movement comes from nature, wickedness from the corruption of nature, . . ." Calvin (1543)(1996: 115). He also stated: "Now no one can claim that anything else is responsible for his sinning except an evil will. Moreover, the evil character of the will has no other source but its inherited corruption." Calvin (1543)(1996: 169). However, at the same time, I believe that the buck ultimately stops with God. All things can ultimately be traced back to him for he created the beings that he knew would turn against him, but he did this for the greater good. John Calvin, in Chapter Two of this thesis, described how God could will evil for the greater good without being tainted by sin himself. He mentioned that God could use even bad tools well. Calvin also discussed in The Institutes the case of the Chaldeans attacking Job, that God, Satanic beings and human beings can all participate in the same evil acts: How can we attribute the same work to God, to Satan, and to man, without either excusing Satan by the interference of God, or making God the author of the crime? This is easily done, if we look first to the end, and then to the mode of acting. The Lord designs to exercise the patience of his servant by adversity; Satan’s plan is to drive him to despair; while the Chaldeans are bent on making unlawful gain by plunder. Such diversity of purpose makes a wide distinction in the act. . . . We thus see that there is no inconsistency in attributing the same act to God, to Satan, and to man, while, from the difference in the end and mode of action, the spotless righteousness of God shines forth at the same time that the iniquity of Satan and of man is manifested in all its deformity. Calvin, (1539)(1998) Book II, Chapter 4, Section 2.
My idea is that the term allowing evil is too weak with regard to God’s ultimate sovereignty in his creation. God wills evil for the greater good and, as Calvin noted, God’s motive is perfectly good, not sinful and contradictory to his nature, while his fallen creation can still choose to disobey him freely. Their nature is fallen and they cannot do good work without the help of God. Left to their own means, their evil nature leads to evil actions. Blocher stated: "One may as well take one’s position from the stern candour of Scripture: if evil occurs under the rule of God, then his will is involved." Blocher (1994: 95-96). I am not stating that God predetermines the evil actions of demonic and human beings but he has foreknowledge of their choices and can create situations in which beings will choose to sin. With ultimate power, God can use the sin of opposition towards the greater good. God wills evil, not in the sense of coercion, but he has the ability to use actions for the greater good. For example, the Romans with the help of the Jews, execution of Christ was an evil and a sin. God did not force this but he foreknew this would occur and with this death worked out salvation for humanity. It would, however, be too weak to say that God simply allowed the execution of Christ because as an infinite, omnipotent being, he had the power to prevent the execution as he has the power to prevent all sin. So, in this sense, God wills evil, but he does not force people to sin, nor does he sin himself.
Later addition to website:
God predetermines all things in a sense, but does not force or coerce human or angelic rebellion. This is what is meant in the above paragraph.
BLOCHER, HENRI. (1994) Evil and the Cross, Translated by David G. Preston, Leicester, Inter-Varsity Press. CALVIN, JOHN (1539)(1998) Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book II.
CALVIN, JOHN (1543)(1998) The Bondage and Liberation of the Will, Translated by G.I. Davies, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.
CALVIN, JOHN(1553)(1952) Job, Translated by Leroy Nixon, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.
FEINBERG, JOHN S. (1996) Evil, Problem of, in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.
FEINBERG, JOHN S. (1994) The Many Faces of Evil, Grand Rapids, Zondervan Publishing House.
McGRATH, ALISTER (1992) Bridge-Building, Leicester, Inter-Varsity Press.
McGRATH, ALISTER (1992) Suffering, London, Hodder and Stoughton Limited.
 |
 |
| No, it was bad drivers too... |
 |
| Maybe Norris sleeps on nails? |
