Necessity of evil

[QvQ]

Predestination makes far more logical sense. And it’s more congruent with the idea that God is the ultimate universal sovereign, and nothing can happen that’s not in accordance with God’s will. But it would put a lot of evangelists out of business. What’s the point of an evangelical ministry if God’s already chosen who’ll be a believer

Edited to add: I forgot to mention that pre-ordained election—although logical—is not a popular doctrine. It negates the concept of free will. And that makes it a hard sell.

I can't think of one doctrine in Christianity that is popular. Christ himself said that would be so
We are commanded to proclaim the Gospel. Who can hear or who can respond and why those can or cannot is not my concern. I plant the seed, God is the power of grow and harvest the crop. That is evangelical no matter what a person may believe about sufficiency or efficiency.
Christ preached to the multitudes yet He stated that not everyone could hear. Those could not "will" themselves to hear.

 

[Mark Quayle]

That's not an answer to the question of why God doesn't make himself known clearly and unmistakably to every person on Earth. 1 Corinthians says God is not the author of confusion. But that's exactly what we have.

He's not the author of sin either, but that's exactly what we have. Actually, you don't even need a Bible to see around that. It's not really a problem, but, IF, (or SINCE), he is God, things are not as WE see them.

One way of looking at it is the same as how I answer those who say, "Why didn't God make everyone obey him and love him from the get-go?" To the best I can understand the notion that if he is God, he is outside of time, (among other things), and not subject to it, then from his point of view, it seems reasonable to say that he DID speak the final product into existence. It is we ignorant temporally bound creatures that think of this as reality, and this suffering and trouble as meaningful. But this life is not for this life.

So it is with why he doesn't make himself known clearly and unmistakably to every person on earth. It's not a question of his ability. It is US —WE are unable to understand what he is. As CS Lewis said, in Till We Have Faces, "I saw well why the gods do not speak to us openly, nor let us answer. Till that word can be dug out of us, why should they hear the babble that we think we mean?"

And like it, there is also the Biblical reason —faith. Faith takes us beyond this temporal existence, and is the best way —maybe the only way— to know him. And I'm not talking about your garden variety faith, as good for the Muslim as for the Christian, but the kind of faith that is generated by God himself. AKA, Salvific Faith. Not something a human is able to produce.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I can't think of one doctrine in Christianity that is popular. Christ himself said that would be so
We are commanded to proclaim the Gospel. Who can hear or who can respond and why those can or cannot is not my concern. I plant the seed, God is the power of grow and harvest the crop. That is evangelical no matter what a person may believe about sufficiency or efficiency.
Christ preached to the multitudes yet He stated that not everyone could hear. Those could not "will" themselves to hear.

You've got a point there! Although there are several 'doctrines' that fall short of Scriptural comprehensiveness, that are very popular. Eg, "Judge not", and "God is love".

 

[zippy2006]

I was just wondering why God, if he has the power to stop evil (as evidenced by the fact he has stepped in and taken action to stop it in some cases as per your claim in post 2) and presumably a desire to stop evil, why he doesn't use this power and desire to stop ALL evil.

The only thing I can think of is that for whatever reason, God wants certain acts of evil to occur.

Can you propose a different reason?

Probably you will need to start a new thread, since your inquiry is off-topic here. And then once you start that thread you will soon realize that such a discussion is "Christian Apologetics," and is no longer allowed on CF, as is true of so many of your discussions.

 

[zippy2006]

I know your response wasn’t directed at me. But regarding illogic— if the Bible God is indeed the one and only true god, why are so many other gods worshipped around the world? Even Christians don’t all agree on God’s nature. Unitarians believe God is one, not 3 personages. Mormons (who aren’t considered to be Christians by CF) believe the god of this world was once a human being who was raised to godhood. Many Quakers believe each person finds and envisions God in his/her own manner. Christians currently comprise a plurality of the world’s religious believers. But they’re not a majority. More people in the world believe in different gods. This is what’s illogical. Why would the one, true God—if such an entity exists—allow so many people to worship so many false gods? It makes no sense.

Sorry for going off on a tangential topic.

Like Kylie's question, this is off-topic but also against the rules.

But I will give a preliminary answer in noting that there are really only two possible responses: Either The Fall is true, or else God antecedently intended our current state of religious pluralism. Alternatively, either pluralism is an evil effect of an evil cause, or else it is praiseworthy and appropriate. The second option is currently popular; the first is available to the Christian. But I won't say more until the CF rules are changed.

 

[Kylie]

Probably you will need to start a new thread, since your inquiry is off-topic here. And then once you start that thread you will soon realize that such a discussion is "Christian Apologetics," and is no longer allowed on CF, as is true of so many of your discussions.

No more so than the OP was, and that was allowed. And let's not forget that it was you who opened this line of discussion in post 2 of this thread.

In any case, if we are talking about reasons why evil might be necessary, then that would indeed play a part in why God doesn't just stop evil acts altogether. So I don't see that it is off topic.

 

[jayem]

And like it, there is also the Biblical reason —faith. Faith takes us beyond this temporal existence, and is the best way —maybe the only way— to know him. And I'm not talking about your garden variety faith, as good for the Muslim as for the Christian, but the kind of faith that is generated by God himself. AKA, Salvific Faith. Not something a human is able to produce.

All religious belief ultimately comes down to faith. But doesn't the Bible say faith is a gift?

By grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.”

Ephesians 2:8-9

I apparently haven't been given that gift. As I see it, this again confirms the logic of predetermined election. God decides who receives the gift of faith and becomes a believer. If there is a God, how would it please him if I claimed to be a faithful believer, but really had overwhelming doubts? Wouldn't God know I'm lying?

 

[Neutral Observer]

All religious belief ultimately comes down to faith. But doesn't the Bible say faith is a gift?

By grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.”

Ephesians 2:8-9

It depends upon how one chooses to interpret the original Greek. Which in this case isn't entirely obvious.

Explanation of Ephesians 2:8-9

Basically you can break it down into three parts:

1. "By grace you have been saved through faith"​

​

In other words you have received salvation.

2. "and that not of yourself, it is a gift of God"​

I.E it's salvation that's the gift of God.

3. "not as a result of works, so that no one may boast"​

​

This part is pretty straightforward... salvation isn't a result of works.

So what the phrase "and that not of yourself" is referring to isn't grace nor faith, it's salvation

Of course, as per usual there are those who'll disagree.

 

[Mark Quayle]

All religious belief ultimately comes down to faith. But doesn't the Bible say faith is a gift?

By grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.”

Ephesians 2:8-9

I apparently haven't been given that gift. As I see it, this again confirms the logic of predetermined election. God decides who receives the gift of faith and becomes a believer. If there is a God, how would it please him if I claimed to be a faithful believer, but really had overwhelming doubts? Wouldn't God know I'm lying?

Well, the doubts are not necessarily condemning ("Lord, I believe. Help my unbelief"), since the faith is not judged by doubts. More to the point is obedience, submission, desire for righteousness and such. But, regardless, experience is a poor judge of facts in this, since it is mainly subjectively judged. I could be fooling myself, and my unrighteousness does serve to make me wonder.

 

[zippy2006]

No more so than the OP was, and that was allowed. And let's not forget that it was you who opened this line of discussion in post 2 of this thread.

In any case, if we are talking about reasons why evil might be necessary, then that would indeed play a part in why God doesn't just stop evil acts altogether. So I don't see that it is off topic.

The questions themselves are substantially different, but so too is their tone. In one case you have a 'Seeker' asking whether it is possible, in certain circumstances, that God might interfere with the free will of a few individuals to lessen evil. In the other case you have a combative 'Atheist' posing the philosophical problem of evil. We all know that the conclusion of this argument is that God does not exist. The first is theological inquiry; the second is atheist apologetics.

 

[Kylie]

The questions themselves are substantially different, but so too is their tone. In one case you have a 'Seeker' asking whether it is possible, in certain circumstances, that God might interfere with the free will of a few individuals to lessen evil. In the other case you have a combative 'Atheist' posing the philosophical problem of evil. We all know that the conclusion of this argument is that God does not exist. The first is theological inquiry; the second is atheist apologetics.

I'd remind you of "Judge not, lest ye be judged." You just assume that I am being combative, when all I have done is ask a simple question. I'll repeat that question again, just so I am being clear:

If it is possible that God interferes with the free will of certain individuals in certain circumstances to lessen evil, how does he decide for any individual and/or circumstance if he will interfere or not?

It's a perfectly legitimate follow up question to ask. If you prefer, you can imagine a conversation like this:

Person 1: "Is it possible, in certain circumstances, that God might interfere with the free will of a few individuals to lessen evil?"

Person 2: Yes."

Person 1: Then how does God decide whether to interfere or not?"

And like it or not, if believers are going to present "God exists" as an accurate representation of reality, then they have to provide an answer for the problem of evil. You can't just sweep it under the rug and pretend that it doesn't exist.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I'd remind you of "Judge not, lest ye be judged." You just assume that I am being combative, when all I have done is ask a simple question. I'll repeat that question again, just so I am being clear:

If it is possible that God interferes with the free will of certain individuals in certain circumstances to lessen evil, how does he decide for any individual and/or circumstance if he will interfere or not?

It's a perfectly legitimate follow up question to ask. If you prefer, you can imagine a conversation like this:

Person 1: "Is it possible, in certain circumstances, that God might interfere with the free will of a few individuals to lessen evil?"

Person 2: Yes."

Person 1: Then how does God decide whether to interfere or not?"

And like it or not, if believers are going to present "God exists" as an accurate representation of reality, then they have to provide an answer for the problem of evil. You can't just sweep it under the rug and pretend that it doesn't exist.

To me, the question is, "If God can (does, will) interfere with one, why not with all? If he is just to interfere with one, why unjust to interfere with all?

 

[jayem]

It depends upon how one chooses to interpret the original Greek. Which in this case isn't entirely obvious.

Explanation of Ephesians 2:8-9

Basically you can break it down into three parts:

1. "By grace you have been saved through faith"​

​

In other words you have received salvation.

2. "and that not of yourself, it is a gift of God"​

I.E it's salvation that's the gift of God.

3. "not as a result of works, so that no one may boast"​

​

This part is pretty straightforward... salvation isn't a result of works.

So what the phrase "and that not of yourself" is referring to isn't grace nor faith, it's salvation

Of course, as per usual there are those who'll disagree.

That's an interesting interpretation. But if God's gift is not faith, but salvation, then faith is superfluous. The implication would be that faith is not necessary to have everlasting life. Which clearly contradicts other NT verses. The most obvious is John 3:16-18:

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.

It should be indisputable that the passage declares that eternal life is dependent upon belief in Jesus. And in this context, belief and faith are clearly synonymous.

 

[zippy2006]

You just assume that I am being combative, when all I have done is ask a simple question.

We all know you. You are not a new poster.

 

[Kylie]

We all know you. You are not a new poster.

And yet you have not answered my question. I think it's a very reasonable question given what you said in post two of this thread. Let me remind you.

From a Christian perspective it is surely true that God intervenes to lessen evil.

My question as to why God would intervene in some cases but not others is perfectly reasonable. Why don't you answer?

 

[zippy2006]

And yet you have not answered my question.

And I explained why in detail.

 

[Kylie]

And I explained why in detail.

I literally just looked at every post you have in this thread.

At no point did you provide any explanation at all, detailed or otherwise, of why God would choose to intervene in some cases but not others.

If you disagree, could you please tell me in which post you provided such an explanation.

 

[Tranquil Bondservant]

All religious belief ultimately comes down to faith. But doesn't the Bible say faith is a gift?

All beliefs are predicated upon faith, not just religious ones. You first need to believe that you exist in order to have any following beliefs. Then you need to believe that observation is able to determine facts, if you don't then the previous observation cannot be proven. Both of these beliefs are taken upon faith because they're unable to be justified yet predicate all belief. Regardless, if this line of thinking doesn't work then take your own dogma of Naturalism; on what basis do you claim that existence (including your own) can be explained through natural phenomena without it being entirely circular and/or assumed?

Edit: Even if this fails then do you not take your beliefs on what experts say about reality on faith? You don't know what an astrophysicist, doctor or biologist says is true nor do you even know why what they say is true. The basis for the claims you believe about reality are taken and believed in entirely upon faith.

I apparently haven't been given that gift. As I see it, this again confirms the logic of predetermined election. God decides who receives the gift of faith and becomes a believer. If there is a God, how would it please him if I claimed to be a faithful believer, but really had overwhelming doubts? Wouldn't God know I'm lying?

It's not the predetermined election that would be confirmed, but the monergistic eternal decree to election. Predetermined election does not inherently imply that you will stay elected. It's one of the reason why the 5 points all kind of hinge on one another.

Also it's probably better you have a broader understanding of what a Christian means when they are talking about faith;

God bless .

 

[Mark Quayle]

All beliefs are predicated upon faith, not just religious ones. You first need to believe that you exist in order to have any following beliefs. Then you need to believe that observation is able to determine facts, if you don't then the previous observation cannot be proven. Both of these beliefs are taken upon faith because they're unable to be justified yet predicate all belief. Regardless, if this line of thinking doesn't work then take your own dogma of Naturalism; on what basis do you claim that existence (including your own) can be explained through natural phenomena without it being entirely circular and/or assumed?

Edit: Even if this fails then do you not take your beliefs on what experts say about reality on faith? You don't know what an astrophysicist, doctor or biologist says is true nor do you even know why what they say is true. The basis for the claims you believe about reality are taken and believed in entirely upon faith.

It's not the predetermined election that would be confirmed, but the monergistic eternal decree to election. Predetermined election does not inherently imply that you will stay elected. It's one of the reason why the 5 points all kind of hinge on one another.

Also it's probably better you have a broader understanding of what a Christian means when they are talking about faith;
View attachment 331704

God bless .

Would you then say that salvific faith is no different from any other faith? Does salvation depend on the sincerity of the belief of the redeemed?

 

[zippy2006]

All religious belief ultimately comes down to faith. But doesn't the Bible say faith is a gift?

All beliefs are predicated upon faith, not just religious ones.

Whereas I am inclined to say that not all religious beliefs are faith-based, only Judeo-Christian ones. Our tendency to refer to religions as 'faiths' is really a projection of our Western Judeo-Christian values.