Why Does Evil Exist?

meluckycharms

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 15, 2016
Messages
248
Age
38
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Anglican
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
5. DOES EVIL HAVE A PURPOSE?
If God is omnibenevolent, He would have a good purpose for everything (Rom. 8:28). However, as described in the introduction, what good purpose can be found when a father is watching helplessly as a terminal illness takes the life of his young child? Can we conclude that because there seems to be purposeless suffering in the world that God cannot be all good? I would first state that just because we, as limited, finite beings, cannot fathom a purpose for some evil, does not mean none exists. It does not prove God to be malevolent. Instead, it demonstrates our ignorance. Seemingly purposeless evil has been a topic that I have been working to address since early 2014 when my wife was killed as a result of an apparently purposeless evil. Since then, I have found several possibilities to reconcile this issue, and Erickson has outlined many of them. First, suffering as a direct result of divine retribution, such as that mentioned in Isa.45:6-7, is not evil at all. Instead, it is a divine judgment that God uses to correct much like a parent disciplining a child (Heb. 12:6). Second, evil can be a byproduct of good. We see this in nature through food chains. It is good for a lion to eat a zebra for its survival. However, it is not necessarily good from a zebra’s perspective (Erickson 1998, 395). Third, God can redeem evil for good purposes. The story of Joseph is an example of such redemption (Gen 50:20).
Lastly, evil has the purpose of testing disinterested faith. Gustavo Gutiérrez, in his book On Job: God-Talk and the Suffering of the Innocent, describes disinterested faith as “[believing] in God without looking for rewards and fearing punishments” (Gutiérrez 1987, loc. 271). Job's situation was a test of disinterested faith. Gutiérrez explains, “It is impossible for the satan to deny that Job is a good and devout man. What he questions is rather the disinterestedness of Job’s service of God, his lack of concern for a reward. The satan objects not toJob's works but their motivation" (Gutiérrez 1987, loc. 318).
I find this concept of disinterested faith most promising. As stated in the wind-up doll analogy, free will is a critical requirement for a meaningful relationship with God to be possible.
However, taking it further, let's say we had the freedom to choose to love someone who was perfect and without flaw. With nothing preventing us from doing so, loving that person would be inevitable. Not to say that the love would have no meaning. The love shared between the triune God is without flaw, and yet it is meaningful. However, seemingly unavoidable. The same holds true for our love for God. Even with free will, if nothing exists to prevent humanity from loving God, there is no choice!
The skeptic may argue that if God is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent, he would have foreseen the existence of evil and would have the desire and capability of preventing it. The skeptic will conclude that because God seemingly failed to anticipate or avoid the existence of evil proves that no such God exists. My response to the argument is simple. In regards to good and evil, free will is merely the ability to make decisions. However, Evil exists to make a choice possible. Therefore, a world void of evil would be a world void of any moral choices. Thus, rendering it inferior.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:

meluckycharms

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 15, 2016
Messages
248
Age
38
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Anglican
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
6. Conclusion (So What?)
I first want to clarify that the intent of my paper is not to prove or disprove the existence of God. Instead, it is to provide a logical and rational response to the problems associated with evil that will disarm the skeptic and bring reconciliation between God and the suffering. In the
introduction, I provided three reasons for the significance of this paper. First, all of the problems associated with evil that has been addressed in this paper have been weaponized by skeptics in a full-frontal assault on the very existence of God. Unfortunately, many skeptics in academia have succeeded in using these arguments to encourage apostasy. Second, the problems are universally felt around the globe regardless of nationality, race, gender, age, or geographical location. Third and most importantly, the problem is not merely academic, but a harsh reality that people face today. Admittedly, this is my motivation for researching this topic, having the tragic experience of losing a wife to a seemingly preventable evil. I believe that faith is essential. However, if I
depended entirely on an unjustified blind faith, I would not be a Christian today. We are instructed to “take up the shield of faith” to defend ourselves against the “flaming arrows of the evil one.” (Eph. 6:16). However, it is not enough to settle for the paper shield of blind faith. I
believe that those who remain entirely dependent on an unjustifiable blind faith are leaving themselves vulnerable. God does not desire blind faith (Matt. 22:37). Instead, we ought to have a reasonable and justifiable faith that is grounded in biblical truths (1 Peter 3:15). The reasons for these instructions are clear. Having faith that is reasonably justified is essential to our spiritual protection. Like a warrior forging a shield for battle, I pray that my apologetical attempt to address the problems associated with evil may assist others in forging a strong, justifiable faith,
lest it withers in the heat of the day (Matt. 13:6,20-21).

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
 

meluckycharms

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 15, 2016
Messages
248
Age
38
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Anglican
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
7.BIBLIOGRAPHY
Aquinas, Thomas. n.d. Summa Theologica. Trans. Fathers of the English Dominican Province. London: Burns Oates & Washbourne

Craig, William. 2008. God Is Not Dead Yet: How Current Philosophers Argue for His Existence. Christianity Today 52, no. 7 (July): 25.

Erickson, Millard J. 1998. Christian theology. 2d ed. Grand Rapids: Baker.

Geisler, Norman. 2011. If God, Why Evil?: A New Way to Think about the Question.
Minneapolis: Bethany House.

Gutiérrez, Gustavo. 1987. On Job: God-talk and the Suffering of the Innocent. Maryknoll: Orbis Books. Kindle e-book

Kreeft, Peter, and Ronald K. Tacelli. 1994. Handbook of Christian Apologetics: Hundreds of Answers to Crucial Questions. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press.

Lewis, C. S. and Wayland Moore. 1976. The Screwtape Letters. Special Illustrated ed. Chicago: Lord and King Associates.

Lewis, C. S. 2001. The Problem of Pain. San Francisco: Harper San Francisco.
Menn, Stephen. 2002. Descartes and Augustine. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
 

MennoSota

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 24, 2017
Messages
7,102
Age
53
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Moderate
Marital Status
Married
Layered Causality...
This then is the truth, goodness, and beauty of the Christian answer to the problem(s) of evil. It is the confession of Jesus Christ, the Divine Author who never himself does evil, but instead conquers all evil by enduring the greatest evil, and thereby delivers all those enslaved and oppressed by evil who put their hope in him.
Confronting the problems of evil
https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/confronting-the-problem-s-of-evil
 

meluckycharms

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 15, 2016
Messages
248
Age
38
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Anglican
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Layered Causality...
This then is the truth, goodness, and beauty of the Christian answer to the problem(s) of evil. It is the confession of Jesus Christ, the Divine Author who never himself does evil, but instead conquers all evil by enduring the greatest evil, and thereby delivers all those enslaved and oppressed by evil who put their hope in him.
Confronting the problems of evil
https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/confronting-the-problem-s-of-evil

It was a good essay. However, I noticed some flaws. It is interesting that the author repeatedly quotes C.S. Lewis. However, C.S. Lewis also stated:

"C. S. Lewis states, "I would pay any price to be able to say truthfully, ‘All will be saved.' But my reason retorts, ‘Without their will, or with it?' If I say ‘without their will' I at once perceive a contradiction; how can the supreme voluntary act of self-surrender be involuntary? If I say ‘With their will,’ my reason replies, ‘How if they will not give in?’” (Lewis 2001, 106-7).

Second, the author mentioned God's "hardening Pharaoh's heart" but failed to mention all the occasions where Pharaoh hardened his own heart.

Third, you stated:

Jesus Christ, the Divine Author who never himself does evil, but instead conquers all evil by enduring the greatest evil, and thereby delivers all those enslaved and oppressed by evil who put their hope in him.

This does not fit with the "limited attonement". The "L" in the Calvinist T.U.L.I.P "5 point Calvinism. Because apparently God did not deliver "all those enslaved", only the elect. If limited atonement is not your position, then you must ask why Jesus died to "deliver all those enslaved" and only elect to save a few. Assuming free will does not exist.

Staying on topic. The essay failed to answer the questions as to the origin of evil, the persistence of evil, and the nature of evil. It only seems to suggest that God is not responsible for evil.
 

meluckycharms

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 15, 2016
Messages
248
Age
38
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Anglican
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Your reference stated,

"I believe the reason why Satan could be created perfect, and yet fall, is that while he was perfect, he was still a creature, not a creator. He was not a deity — he was lower than God. Only God is immutable (1 Samuel*15:29; Malachi*3:6; James*1:17). Thus, Satan could "naturally" degrade without God forcing him to sin or inject him with unbelief. God allowed it to happen for his greater glory, but he did not force it upon Satan or mankind."

Will we also "naturally degrade" back to sin when we are in heaven?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
 

meluckycharms

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 15, 2016
Messages
248
Age
38
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Anglican
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married

atpollard

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 6, 2017
Messages
2,573
Location
Florida
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Baptist
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Your definition of Limited Atonement seems to differ greatly from what I was taught that phrase means by Calvinist sources.
Ironically, I came to the other 4 points of TULIP from reading the bible for myself while attending the Church of God (non-Calvinist) before I had ever even heard of Calvinism or Arminianism. Limited Atonement was the last point of Calvinism that I came to accept, and the point about which I am most indifferent, because I never gave any thought early in my walk to whether Jesus took only the sins of the eternally saved with him to the cross (justifying God's eternal punishment for the sin of unbelievers) or if Jesus died for all sins (so God punishes the same sin twice). I was content in the knowledge that Jesus had died for MY sins and the rest seemed a matter best left to God to work out the balance of divine justice.

You seem to throw out 'Limited Atonement' as a catch phrase for something completely different. Your definition of Free Will seems to have more to do with a denial of 'Total Depravity' since you seem to grant fallen man the power to choose or reject God when the bible often describes us as 'dead' before God's grace granted us faith and life and drew us to Christ.
 

meluckycharms

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 15, 2016
Messages
248
Age
38
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Anglican
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Your definition of Free Will seems to have more to do with a denial of 'Total Depravity' since you seem to grant fallen man the power to choose or reject God when the bible often describes us as 'dead' before God's grace granted us faith and life and drew us to Christ.
Well, total depravity is a debatable topic in itself. The good news is that regardless of who is right or wrong, we will both have a chance to ask God ourselves.[emoji16]


Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
 

atpollard

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 6, 2017
Messages
2,573
Location
Florida
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Baptist
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Well, total depravity is a debatable topic in itself. The good news is that regardless of who is right or wrong, we will both have a chance to ask God ourselves.[emoji16]


Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

Aw heck, people can debate the topic "a". I have spilled many an electron with JWs over "and the Word was (a) God". :thumbsdown:
But Calvinism and Arminianism do not seem to fall into THAT category. It is one thing to deny who Jesus is, that is 'shake the dust off' territory and leave them to God to deal with. To have a difference of opinion on the details of how God does what only God does, is something completely different. I like the Moravian motto: "In essentials, Unity. In non-essentials, Liberty. In all things, Charity."

I don't always walk it as well as I should. I tend to take attacks on Calvinism too personally. Especially if I feel Reformed Theology is being misrepresented as a bad characture of what it actually teaches.

So when we get to heaven, I'll be able to tell you 'told you so.' :;-):
 
Last edited:

Josiah

simul justus et peccator
Valued Contributor
Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2015
Messages
13,647
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
I can't (or won't) theorize. It just does. IMO, the important question is not "how come?' but "what now?"


Why does lead exist? I can tell you HOW it exists, but not why.....

IMO, nothing suggested in this thread even addresses the issue of why.

Yes, it seems unavoidable that God - IN SOME MYSTERIOUS SENSE - permits much. But that has nothing whatsoever to do with why it exists, and it certainly has nothing whatsoever to do with God willing or desiring it (either as primary or secondary will).

IMO, the Bible teaches THAT it exists. And then focuses on our response to it (both God and man's). The issue the Bible is focused in what the issue of WHAT NOW than HOW COME?



- Josiah
 

MennoSota

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 24, 2017
Messages
7,102
Age
53
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Moderate
Marital Status
Married
Why does lead exist? I can tell you HOW it exists, but not why.....

IMO, nothing suggested in this thread even addresses the issue of why.

Yes, it seems unavoidable that God - IN SOME MYSTERIOUS SENSE - permits much. But that has nothing whatsoever to do with why it exists, and it certainly has nothing whatsoever to do with God willing or desiring it (either as primary or secondary will).

IMO, the Bible teaches THAT it exists. And then focuses on our response to it (both God and man's). The issue the Bible is focused in what the issue of WHAT NOW than HOW COME?



- Josiah
Are you arguing with yourself now?
 

Imalive

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 3, 2017
Messages
2,315
Gender
Female
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Single
Why does lead exist? I can tell you HOW it exists, but not why.....

IMO, nothing suggested in this thread even addresses the issue of why.

Yes, it seems unavoidable that God - IN SOME MYSTERIOUS SENSE - permits much. But that has nothing whatsoever to do with why it exists, and it certainly has nothing whatsoever to do with God willing or desiring it (either as primary or secondary will).

IMO, the Bible teaches THAT it exists. And then focuses on our response to it (both God and man's). The issue the Bible is focused in what the issue of WHAT NOW than HOW COME?



- Josiah

For the plumbers.
 

meluckycharms

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 15, 2016
Messages
248
Age
38
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Anglican
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
I don't always walk it as well as I should. I tend to take attacks on Calvinism too personally. Especially if I feel Reformed Theology is being misrepresented as a bad characture of what it actually teaches.

So when we get to heaven, I'll be able to tell you 'told you so.' :;-):

Or what my theology professor would say, "Tolerance is merely respecting another person's right to be wrong."

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
 

atpollard

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 6, 2017
Messages
2,573
Location
Florida
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Baptist
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Or what my theology professor would say, "Tolerance is merely respecting another person's right to be wrong."

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
My mentor has a Masters from Moody and likes to say "I'm not their mother. My responsibility is to tell what I know. I am not responsible for making them believe it."
 
Top Bottom