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
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:
