LIBERTY THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY SCHOOL OF THEOLOGY

THEODICES AND THE PROBLEM OF EVIL

A PAPER SUBMITTED TO DR. CHRISTOPHER MOODY IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE CLASS SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY I THEO 525

BY MICHAEL BOLING

BELLEVILLE, IL MAY 14, 2010

TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION...1 II. THE NEED FOR A THEODICY...2 III. AUGUSTINIAN THEODICY......3 IV. JOHN HICKS IRENAEAN THEODICY....5 V. J. L. MACKIES LOGICAL PROBLEM OF EVIL...8 VI. ALVIN PLANTINGAS FREE WILL DEFENSE...11 VII. A BIBLICAL THEODICY..13 VIII. CONCLUSION......15 BIBLIOGRAPHY15

iii

THEODICES AND THE PROBLEM OF EVIL INTRODUCTION The problem of evil is an issue that has continually perplexed humanity. Philosophers such as David Hume, John Hume, J. L. Mackie, and Alvin Plantinga, along with theologians such as Augustine have developed theodices in an effort to provide an answer to not only the existence of evil, but also why an omnipotent God allows the existence of evil. Many, when attempting to postulate a solution to the problem of evil still ponder the ancient philosopher Epicurus age old question: 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? Whence then is evil?1 How one engages this complex issue greatly influences their perception of God as well as His interaction with humanity. One must broach the problem of evil through the lens of scriptural exposition. Given finite man is incapable of holistically understanding the actions of an omnipotent God, any theodicy will encounter difficulties explaining the existence and purpose of evil. This paper will outline four respected theodices arguing for a combination of the ideas presented by Augustine and Alvin Plantinga as the basis for both a biblically sound approach to an ultimate solution for the problem of evil based on the concomitant ideas of Gods goodness and mans sinfulness. THE NEED FOR A THEODICY John Stott rightly commented, the fact of suffering undoubtedly constitutes the single greatest challenge to the Christian faith."2 In a world fraught with suffering, it is

M. B. Ahern, The Problem of Evil (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1971), 2. John Stott, The Cross of Christ (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2006), 303.

2 necessary for the believer to develop a cogent theodicy. The multifarious solutions presented by philosophers and theologians have only served to obfuscate the underlying issue that must be addressed, namely how an omnipotent God allows evil to exist. C. S. Lewis saliently explains the prospect of answering [the problem] depends on showing that the terms good and almighty, and perhaps also the term happy are equivocal: for it must be admitted from the outset that if the popular meanings attached to these words are the best, or the only possibly meanings, then the argument is unanswerable.3 Those who reject Christian theism typically refer to the problem of evil as the basis for questioning the Gods existence and altering Gods attributes. Atheistic philosophers note the amount and character of the negative evidence is so compelling that a nontheistic conclusion is entirely justified.4 The need to develop a Biblical theodicy is necessary to combat this atheistic challenge. Believers must find ways of showing why apparently meaningless evil is not really meaningless.5 Those who respond to the problem of evil with a reductionist answer that evil is the result of sin provide only a cursory response to a fundamentally more profound issue. D. A. Carson rightly notes they (believers) have brief theological answers that satisfy them: suffering is the result of sin; free will means that God has to leave people to make their own mistakes; heaven and hell will set the record straight.6

C. S. Lewis, The Problem of Pain (New York: Harper Collins Publishers, 1996), 16.

Michael Peterson, Christian Theism and the Problem of Evil, Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society no. 1 (March 1978): 45.
5

Ibid. D. A. Carson, How Long O Lord? (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2006), 18.

3 A Biblical theodicy is necessary to ensure believers do not succumb to a diminished view of God, the hallmark of many unfounded soidisant theological and philosophical theodices. AUGUSTINIAN THEODICY John Hick called Augustine of Hippo the fountainhead of Christian theodicy.7 Augustine averred, Adam was exempted from all physical evils, and endowed with immortal youth and health which could not be touched by the taint of sickness or the creeping debility of old age.8 He also asserted that, along with being the cause for suffering and death, Adams sin made us guilty for that sin.9 Augustine further refined his approach to the problem of evil, in particular the source of suffering by bifurcating evil into the evil a man does and the evil he suffers.10 Evil is not anything realtherefore the Creator is not chargeable with creating itit is always a defect, that is, a deficiency or lack, the absence of something needed.11 Moreover, God is not the source or author of sin despite the tendency to postulate that God is the source of the second (category) when he inflicts just punishments.12 In rejecting the Manichean perspective of sin, a belief centered on the concept that the earth foments in a struggle between good and evil, Augustine conversely held to the belief of

Mark Larrimore, The Problem of Evil: A Reader (Malden: Blackwell Publishing, 2001), 53. Ibid., 39. Richard Swinbourne, Providence and the Problem of Evil (Oxford: Oxford University Press,

1998), 40.
10

Gillian Evans, Augustine on Evil (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), 114.

Dickinson Miller, The Problem of Evil in the Present State of the World, Anglican Theological Review 1, no. 1 (May 1918): 7.
12

11

Ibid.

4 man as the source of wickedness. He firmly believed God, being perfect, was not at fault for mans wicked nature. Augustine advanced the idea of mans wickedness being so replete that only God in His divine mercy could intervene in a manner that would save man from his evil ways. For Augustine the source of evil was Adams original disobedience resulting in sin forevermore being imputed to his descendants. Richard Lowry notes, it was not in the flesh itself that Augustine perceived the flaw but in the soulhe saw the evil engendered by the bodys passions and desires as merely a secondary manifestation of something much deeper.13 In the Augustinian theodicy, the source of evil cannot be attributed to God; conversely, sin is the result of mans free will given him by God to choose between right and wrong. Adam, though originally created in a perfected state chose to disobey Gods commands. Concomitant to this choice is the resulting consequence of sin as annotated in Genesis 2:17, most notably the idea that by partaking of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, dying you shall die. The cause of evil is rooted in Adams sin and as a result, his progeny suffer the consequences of his sinful act. JOHN HICKS IRENAEAN THEODICY Philosopher and author John Hicks approach to the problem of evil reflects a recent attempt to treat the problem of evil in light of modern scientific exigencies and to frame a theodicy that stands up under contemporary philosophical constraints.14 Scholars often describe Hicks theodicy as soul-making because Hick believes Gods

Richard Lowry, The Dark Side of the Soul: Human Nature and the Problem of Evil in Jewish and Christian Traditions, Journal of Ecumenical Studies 35, no. 1 (Winter 1988): 96. R. Douglas Geivett, Evil and the Evidence for God: The Challenge of John Hicks Theodicy (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1993), 29.
14

13

5 purpose in creation is the growth of all human creatures away from self-centeredness and toward God consciousness.15 Hick rejects Augustines approach to the problem of evil with its belief in a historical event known as the fall in favor of what he calls a necessary fall.16 In response to the Augustinian theodicy, Hick comments that current scholarship increasingly approaches the biblical story of Adam and Eve and the fall as mythical rather than historical fact as averred by Augustine. In adherence to a more evolutionary laced philosophy, Hick developed the concept of a necessary fall. Hicks beliefs on the problem of evil hearken back to the theological perceptions of the early church father St. Irenaeus. While not developing a theodicy per se, Hick credits Irenaeus with the construction of thought within which a theodicy became possible which does not depend upon the idea of a fall, and which is consonant with modern knowledge concerning the origins of the human race.17 In Hicks theodicy, God did not create humanity in His image as understood by traditional evangelical Christianity. Conversely, the image of God was a potentiality for knowledge of and relationship with ones Maker rather than such knowledge and relationship as a fully realized state18 thus connoting the idea of a two-stage process of development for humanity. Hick avers the first state of creation was quite easy for an omnipotent God. However, the second stage cannot come to fruition through the efforts of fiat creation alone. Hick argues this is because personal life is essentially free and
Stephen Davis, The Problem of Evil in Recent Philosophy, Review and Expositor 82, no. 4 (Fall 1985): 541.
16 15

Ibid., 542.

John Hick, An Irenaean Theodicy in Encountering Evil: Live Options in Theodicy (Scotland: John Knox Press, 1981), 41.
18

17

Ibid.

6 self-directing. It cannot be perfected by divine fiat, but only through the uncompelled responses and willing cooperation of human individuals in their actions and reactions in the world in which God has placed them.19 For Hick, God did not create man through fiat creation in a perfect paradise for the purpose of immediate relationship. Man instead had to endure danger and struggles vital for the development of spiritual and moral maturity. He further asserts the reason there is both moral and natural evil is thus to be accepted as necessary to Gods purposes indeed as good. A world of chance, luck, sin, and suffering is the loving product of a God of love.20 Rather than evil being the product of the entrance of sin and death resulting from the free will choice of Adam, the current state, according to Hick, is the product of Gods original plan. Additionally, Hicks theodicy presents God to have been wise and good in creating this sort of world. It is the best available arena in which we finite creatures can reach the end-statethe existence of natural and moral evil is a good thing since without them we would still be spiritually immature creatures who are not conscious of God.21 Hick views the Augustinian theodicy as essential reductionist in its perception of evil and suffering. He posits the divine creative purpose was not so much the love of the personal Infinite for finite beings, as the inexhaustible creative divine fecundity, expressed in the granting of being to a dependent universe with its innumerable grades of creatures.22 He further argues that while it is difficult for humanity, in particular those
19

John Hick, Evil and the God of Love (London: Macmillan, 1975), 291. Davis, 542. Ibid., 543. Geivett, 43.

20

21

22

7 who have suffered the affects of evil, to observe at this point in time the denouement of Gods soul-making plan, there will be a point in the afterlife when all will become clear. Hick avers the solution to the problem of evil lies directly within the universal salvation of all mankind in keeping with Gods creative purpose that humanity, through the process of suffering, will eventually come to a spiritually mature relationship with their Creator. John Feinberg notes that for Hick the purpose of the world isnt to grant us maximal pleasure but rather to grant us maximal opportunity for soul-building.23 Evil and suffering are a necessary part of mans evolutionary progression and spiritual development as we journey through the fires of suffering towards the afterlife. God created the world with suffering as a necessary element. Man is ultimately responsible for his choices; however, those choices are the result of Gods foreordained plan. J. L. MACKIES LOGICAL PROBLEM OF EVIL Philosopher and author J. L. Mackie derives much of his stance on the problem of evil from the writings of noted philosopher and author David Hume. In Evil and Omnipotence, Mackie asserts the following stance on the issue of developing a theodicy: The problem is this: God is omnipotent; God is wholly good; and yet evil exists. There seems to be some contradiction between these three propositions, so that if any two of them were true the third would be false. But at the same time all three are essential parts of most theological positions: the theologian, it seems, at once must adhere and cannot consistently adhere to all three.24

John Feinberg, The Many Faces of Evil: Theological Systems and the Problem of Evil (Wheaton: Crossway Books, 2004), 144.
24

23

J. L. Mackie, Evil and Omnipotence, Minds 64, no. 254 (Apr 1955): 200.

8 In order to prove his thesis, Mackie developed the principles of good is always opposed to evil in a manner that good always eliminates evil as much as possible, and finally, there are no limits to the abilities of an omnipotent being.25 Based on the aforementioned principles, Mackie purports to show the internal contradictions of the traditional Orthodox or Augustinian approach to addressing the problem of evil. The easiest solution to any purported contradiction is to deny Gods omnipotence and evil. The oft utilized position that evil is often necessary as a means to good26 or the idea that something considered evil is deemed causally necessary to some good end27 is insufficient as God is not subject to the confines to the laws of causality. If God is omnipotent, then the laws of causality were created by Him and thus by definition, He should be able to override what He has created. Mackie further claims, If there is a god, then, he does not need to use means to attain his ends. So it is idle to refer, in a theodicy, to any ordinary, factual, means-end, or in general causal, relationships.28 Mackies theodicy appeals to the idea that things that are evil in themselves may contribute to the good of an overall whole in which they are found29 thus creating a connection between evil and good. Such a position holds that if first order evil does not exist, it is impossible to have a second order good that feeds on the aforementioned first order evil. Furthermore, one cannot rely on a connection between evil and good as the basis of their theodicy. Conversely, the second order good must be understood as
25

Ibid., 201. J. L. Mackie, Miracle of Theism (Oxford: Clarendon, 1982), 152. Feinberg, 216. Mackie, Miracle of Theism, 153. Feinberg, 216.

26

27

28

29

9 greater in magnitude or importance that the first order evil which is logically necessary for it, that the good outweighs the evil it involves.30 According to Mackie, the verdict is out on exactly how to deal with the problem of evil that has the appearance of achieving not inherent good purpose. Additionally, he proposes the existence of second order evil that cannot be included in second order good, in particular, those actions in stark contrast to any second order good. Mackie notes in such second order evils there is not progress but decline, where things get worse rather than better.31 He asserts a belief in unabsorbed evils as evidence against a God who would likely eliminate evil of this sort if he existed,32 a belief that he affirms reveals the Paradox of Omnipotence.33 This leads to the concomitant inquiry as to whether an omnipotent being would create that which he cannot control or be bound to rules that he cannot supersede. Mackie believes one cannot provide either a negative or an affirmative answer to the aforementioned questions without diminishing Gods omnipotence positing the issue must lie in the notion of omnipotence itself.34 Mackie provides a solution by suggesting a differentiation between first order laws that govern individuals and second order laws that govern those who create laws.35 He asserts a distinction between a first order sovereignty with unlimited authority and a second order sovereignty with unlimited
30

Mackie, Miracle of Theism, 154. Ibid., 155. Feinberg, 217. Mackie, Evil and Omnipotence, 210. Ibid. Ibid., 211.

31

32

33

34

35

10 authority to devise second order laws.36 Mackie submits a final distinction, namely that of a first order omnipotence that has unlimited power to act and second order omnipotence that has an unlimited power to determine the limits by which things shall have to act.37 Only then can one assert a consistent argument that God either has unlimited omnipotence and is able to act as He chooses with no constraints or He was omnipotent in the past and utilized His omnipotence at that time to grant independence to others to act on their own free will. Either choice succumbs to the paradox of God not being fully omnipotent or able to overcome evil. Mackie avers a solution requires the suspension or altering of Gods omnipotence at some point in time. ALVIN PLANTINGAS FREE WILL DEFENSE Alvin Plantinga, noted author and philosopher, developed the free will defense in an effort to show that there may be a very different kind of good that God cant bring about without permitting evil.38 The foundation for the free will defense is the concept that if a person is free with respect to a given action, then he is free to perform that action and free to refrain from performing itit is within his power, at the time in question, to take or perform the action and within his power to refrain from it.39 The free will defense attempts to be consistent with a belief that God is omniscient, omnipotent, and wholly good while affirming the existence of evil and suffering.40

36

Ibid. Ibid., 212. Alvin Plantinga, God, Freedom, and Evil (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1977),

37

38

29.
39

Ibid. Ibid., 31.

40

11 Such an assertion presupposes God created humans with the capacity to freely choose between right and wrong. To do otherwise would result in creatures without the capacity for free will, essentially a created automaton. Plantinga notes that since God created creatures fully capable of morally good choices, it can be logically stated they also have the ability to perform morally evil actions.41 Furthermore, as creatures created with free will, God would not humanity the ability to do evil while concurrently preventing them from doing the very evil He gave them free will to choose to do. Much like the theodicy developed by Augustine, the free will defense states moral evil exists not because God wanted or willed it to exist, but because morally free creatures whom God created freely decided to sin.42 Adam and Eve were created with the ability to choose freely between right and wrong. This is due to Gods overwhelming desire for His creation to have the opportunity to freely choose a relationship with Him. Creation without an ability to choose maintains a possibility the creation will choose evil vice good. Such a position begs the question as to why an omnipotent Being would create a world devoid of the opportunity for evil. Peter van Inwagen comments, even an omnipotent being is unable to control the exercise of the power of free choice, for a choice that was controlled would ipso facto not be free.43 While such a defense seems to, on a cursory level, answer the question as to how good, evil, and an omnipotent God can all exist, there are nevertheless difficulties with maintaining such a position. Proponents of the free will defense have difficulty

41

Ibid., 30. Davis, 544. Peter van Inwagen, The Problem of Evil (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006), 71.

42

43

12 addressing Gods omniscience. D. A. Carson notes that some free will adherents believe God has assigned such awesome freedom to his creatures, he cannot even know in advance what they are going to doothersthink God has the knowledge but not (because of his self-limitations) the power.44 Plantinga clearly states he does not present a free will theodicy; conversely, his position is a free will defense that offers a possible account of Gods purposes in creating this world that defends theism against the logical and probabilistic problems of evil.45 Such a defense delivers a logical though incomplete response to atheistic assertions that God and evil cannot concomitantly exist. A BIBLICAL THEODICY In order to develop a biblically sound theodicy, one must first admit the limits of finite mans ability to comprehend the actions of an omnipotent God. Additionally, a biblical theodicy must have as its foundation the concomitant assertions of Gods divine attributes and mans sinfulness. These a priori assumptions are necessary and any theodicy that seeks to alter them is antithetical to scriptural exposition. One must assert with Augustine and Plantinga that God provided man with the ability to freely choose right and wrong actions. As such, God is not the author or source of evil; conversely, He created man with the ability to freely make decisions. As noted by Augustine, it was man who decided to incorrectly make the choice to disobey Gods command. The presence of evil cannot be argued against and it is clear the theodices presented in this paper do not attempt to argue that. The point of contention is largely based on Gods involvement or lack thereof in assisting His creation to overcome evil.
44

Carson, 33-34. Davis, 545.

45

13 Scripture clearly declares God is not an absentee deity who left His creation to endure pain and suffering as the method by which they would become more spiritually mature as outlined in Hicks theodicy. Conversely, God created a good and perfect world that was in turn marred by the result of mans choice to pursue evil. The missing element of both Augustine and Plantingas respective theodices is the biblical message of redemption revealed in the gospel of Jesus Christ. A biblical theodicy is centered not on the question of how finite man can comprehend why God permits evil in the world, but rather How can God have such love for a sinner like me?46 While Augustine and Plantinga rightly aver man is responsible for evil based on the element of free will, their approach is too man-centric. The solution to the problem of evil cannot be found within the confines of logic, philosophical syllogisms or even developed theological arguments. The answer to the problem of evil lies in the saving message of Christs death on the cross and the promise of eternal life free from suffering for those who place their fact and trust in that salvific event. In that event, God defeated evil. The promise noted by the Apostle Paul in Romans 6:14 can function as a promise about not only our present moral life but our ultimate future bliss47 where death will be swallowed in victory in the new heavens and the new earth God will create. Until that time, we must admit our inability to fully comprehend why evil exists. It is clear; however, man has been granted free will to choose eternal life or eternal damnation. Perhaps that is the more important question, a question that only a biblical theodicy can

46

Charles Cameron, A Biblical Approach to Theodicy, Evangel 10, no. 2 (Summer 1992): 26. N. T. Wright, Evil and the Justice of God (Downers Grove: IVP Books, 2006), 143.

47

14 answer and one that garners a higher degree of importance than conjuring philosophical reasons for momentary physical afflictions. CONCLUSION Charles Cameron rightly comments the problem of evil is a thoroughly existential problem which confronts man at the very centre of his beingRegardless of ones leanings towards theism or atheism, one must still face the problem of evil, for it is a problem from which man cannot escape.48 As such, addressing the problem of evil is necessary in order for the believer to engage those who question the very existence of God based on their personal experiences with a world replete with moral and natural evil. To ignore this issue or to respond with simplistic answers wholly insufficient. Believers must develop a cogent biblically based theodicy focused on the message of salvation. While it is unarguable that evil and suffering exist and furthermore, that it is difficult to comprehend why a loving and omnipotent God would allow such suffering to exist, any approach devoid of the gospel message avoids the underlying issue of mans sin and the necessity for redemption. The answer to the problem of evil is Jesus Christ, the Divine Theodicy.49 Through Gods goodness and Christs sacrifice, mans sinfulness and evil have been defeated.

48

Cameron, 25. Ibid., 26.

49

15 BIBLIOGRAPHY Ahern, M. B. The Problem of Evil. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1971. Cameron, Charles. A Biblical Approach to Theodicy. Evangel 10, no. 2 (Summer 1992): 25-29. Carson, D. A. How Long, O Lord? Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2006. Davis, Stephen. The Problem of Evil in Recent Philosophy. Review and Expositor 82, no. 4 (Fall 1985): 535-548. Evans, Gillean. Augustine on Evil. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994. Feinberg, John S. The Many Faces of Evil: Theological Systems and the Problems of Evil. Wheaton: Crossway Books, 2004. Geivett, R. Douglas. Evil and the Evidence for God: The Challenge of John Hicks Theodicy. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1993. Hick, John. An Irenaean Theodicy in Encountering Evil: Live Options in Theodicy. Edited by Stephen Davis. Scotland: John Knox Press, 1981. _________. Evil and the God of Love. London: Macmillan, 1975. Larrimore, Mark. The Problem of Evil: A Reader. Malden: Blackwell Publishing, 2001. Lewis, C. S. The Problem of Pain. New York: Harper Collins Publishers, 1996. Lowery, Richard. The Dark Side of the Soul: Human Nature and the Problem of Evil in Jewish and Christian Traditions. Journal of Ecumenical Studies 35, no. 1 (Winter 1988): 88-100. Mackie, J. L. Evil and Omnipotence. Mind 64, no. 254 (Apr 1955): 200-212. __________. Miracle of Theism. Oxford: Clarendon, 1982. Miller, Dickinson. The Problem of Evil in the Present State of the World. Anglican Theological Review 1, no. 1 (May 1918): 3-23. Peterson, Michael. Christian Theism and the Problem of Evil. Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 21, no. 1 (March 1978): 35-46. Plantinga, Alvin. God, Freedom, and Evil. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1977.

16 Stott, John. The Cross of Christ. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2006. Swinburne, Richard. Providence and the Problem of Evil. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998. Van Inwagen, Peter. The Problem of Evil. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006. Wright, N. T. Evil and the Justice of God. Downers Grove: IVP Books, 2006.