The Problem of Evil/Suffering

[Halbhh]

How can you have free will if God works in you to will?

One can resist and thus stumble into sin, like Peter did, as shown in Galatians chapter 2. But then one can confess their wrong and be restored, as instructed to us in 1rst John chapter 1.

 

[Dave L]

One can resist and thus stumble into sin, like Peter did, as shown in Galatians chapter 2. But then one can confess their wrong and be restored, as instructed to us in 1rst John chapter 1.

Did God use Peter's sin to make him into the super Apostle he became?

 

[TedT]

How can you have free will if God works in you to will?

GOD will only work HIS will in a sinner, not in a non-sinner with a free will. A sinner has no free will, being enslaved to the addictive power of evil and GOD's working against our enslaved will to be evil is only against our sinful will, NOT our free will since a free will decision must be sacrosanct or it is not free at all but is at the whim of a greater power.

Since light cannot create darkness, (GOD is light!) only a free will that is innocent, ie not yet committed to dark or light, can create evil by choosing dark evil.

Sinfulness then is a proof of a free will since GOD will not, to the point of can not, create the choice to sin in people: James 1:13 When tempted, no one should say, “ God is tempting me.” For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does He tempt anyone. 14 But each one is tempted when by his own evil desires he is lured away and enticed.…

Our free will is an absolute necessity for our marriage and love affair with HIM to be by our consent and not fake ie, forced upon us by some trick of Stepford wife-ism.

Calvinism that denies all free will totally refuses to deal with this topic of HIS purpose for us to become HIS BRIDE. Arminianism totally denies the reality of a sinner's lack of a free will, conveniently redefining any choice as the outcome of a free will decision while enslavement to sin is totally redefined as immaterial, an illogical bit of babble by our Lord.

 

[tstor]

After reading your post earlier today I made a simple note to myself, "One becomes good, they are not made good."

Without free will we cannot be conformed to Christ in a way that involves real agency on our part. Being conformed cannot happen by God snapping his fingers and making us into perfect beings (or something). Cooperation is essential.

Yes, that would be something maintained by someone who embraces free will. I can't help but wonder why God chose to give humans the limitations or dispositions we have though. Part of conforming to Christ (and the most important part in my mind) is conforming to the love of Christ, i.e., to love others as oneself. We humans don't do that by default, typically. We are often selfish and self-centered. Of course, we are the products of our genetics and our environment. Those two aren't entirely independent things. Environment has historically informed humanity's evolution and, thus, our genetics. Our genetics play a role in the environments we construct. The conventionally omnipotent God has a lot of control over these variables. The new world presumably won't have earthquakes, tsuamis, predatory animals, or any of the rest of the natural causes of suffering we face in our world today. In other words, God could maintain the free will we have now while reducing the amount of evil and suffering.

How so? You have accounted for God's failure to prevent evil, but you have not accounted for evil itself. I assume you would appeal to free will for that.

The open solution does hinge on free will, yes. The fact that there is evil in the world is a result of the freedom that an all-loving God must preserve. However, the open solution doesn't maintain that God is conventionally omnipotent and omniscient. Accounting for all of the evil and suffering in this world with a God who has those attributes appears to be impossible.

It seems to me that Open Theism "solves" the problem of evil by getting rid of God, for on atheism there is no problem of evil. Perhaps this is tongue-in-cheek, but it's surely not far off. The Open Theist is talking about an individual being that is not omnipotent, omniscient, or atemporal, and to riff on Aquinas, "No one understands this to be God."

Not by getting rid of God, but by defining God in terms that make a lot more sense (imo). To speak of the God of creation and power isn't to speak of the God we experience in this life. The God concept of open theism is rather intuitive in some ways once the conceptions of God found in traditional theology are accepted as things that can be questioned.

 

[mmarco]

First of all it is necessary to distinguish the concept of evil from that of suffering/death. Evil is a moral problem and concerns the sphere of our intentions, not our ability to carry out our plans. A person may decide to kill someone, but that does not mean that he can then do it. Whatever plan we are able to carry out, whether good or bad, if we carry it out it is only because God wanted to allow us to carry it out; and if God wanted to allow it, it is because he will draw good from it. So, the fact that we have free will does not explain directly why suffering and death exist in the world (besides, most kinds of sufferings are not caused by human actions).

I believe that God loves us infinitely and desires to lead each of us to true life and true happiness, a condition that exists only in communion with God. But God cannot tolerate evil and sin, because they are incompatible with his good and holy nature. A profound inner change is therefore necessary for all of us to achieve eternal happiness; we must be sanctified and cleansed of all our sinful desires. God has the power to change us, but He wants to do it with our consent. In fact, God has chosen to create man with free will, he wants to respect our free will. Man cannot truly accept being changed by God and cannot be in communion with God as long as even the shadow of doubt and mistrust remains in him (it is necessary to understand that such mistrust can exist even without man being conscious, on an unconscious level).
To destroy every shadow of doubt and distrust in us, God has chosen to give us the greatest proof of love that can exist: the Passion of Christ. The Passion of Christ has reconciled us with God because it has eradicated from our hearts our distrust and our doubts about God's love; he satisfied our desire / need (conscious or unconscious) for a proof of love, so that he communicated the strength to trust in God and to feel loved by him.
I believe that each of us needed to know that God was willing to accept suffering for us, in order to truly trust in God. Every man needed that proof of love, and God, who knew it, agreed to give it all. man what he asked him knowingly or unknowingly. Jesus had to suffer and die like that to convince us of God's goodness and God's love for us, to help us understand that God is close to us and that we can totally trust God.

So, one reason why suffering exists in the world is that through suffering we can understand how much God loves us. If suffering and death had never existed in the world, Christ could not have suffered and died, and we could not understand how much God loves us.

Apart from this, I also think that the existence of suffering and death in the world makes us understand how precarious our life is, and this leads us to seek the true good, and not to attach ourselves to material goods. In a world without suffering, men would be more hedonistic and superficial than they are in this world. In my experience, suffering has helped me become a better person.

Of course, I do not think that what i have written represents the global solution to the problem of suffering.

 

[zippy2006]

Yes, that would be something maintained by someone who embraces free will. I can't help but wonder why God chose to give humans the limitations or dispositions we have though. Part of conforming to Christ (and the most important part in my mind) is conforming to the love of Christ, i.e., to love others as oneself. We humans don't do that by default, typically. We are often selfish and self-centered.

I think it is the same answer. Like being conformed, love also requires agency. Love is a giving of oneself. Without free will there can be no love, no self-gift. Love is a moving out of oneself for the sake of the other, and so if one does not begin within oneself and freely move out for the sake of the other, it is not love. Being nice is not love.

The open solution does hinge on free will, yes. The fact that there is evil in the world is a result of the freedom that an all-loving God must preserve. However, the open solution doesn't maintain that God is conventionally omnipotent and omniscient. Accounting for all of the evil and suffering in this world with a God who has those attributes appears to be impossible.

So you think that free will can account for evil, but only if God is not omniscient and omnipotent? Why must the all-loving God of Open Theism preserve free will?

Not by getting rid of God, but by defining God in terms that make a lot more sense (imo). To speak of the God of creation and power isn't to speak of the God we experience in this life. The God concept of open theism is rather intuitive in some ways once the conceptions of God found in traditional theology are accepted as things that can be questioned.

It seems to me to be a reversion to Zeus or Odin. We're back to "God" as just a powerful guy. Like Bill Gates, but with lots of power instead of lots of money.

 

[tstor]

I think it is the same answer. Like being conformed, love also requires agency. Love is a giving of oneself. Without free will there can be no love, no self-gift. Love is a moving out of oneself for the sake of the other, and so if one does not begin within oneself and freely move out for the sake of the other, it is not love. Being nice is not love.

I agree, but the world we find ourselves in is hardly conducive to a loving embrace. I see no reason why this is the world an omnipotent and omniscient God would come up with if that God were also omnibenevolent.

So you think that free will can account for evil, but only if God is not omniscient and omnipotent? Why must the all-loving God of Open Theism preserve free will?

You hinted at it above: "Without free will there can be no love, no self-gift." If God is all-loving, i.e., God is love, then God would necessarily preserve free will due to God's nature. To infringe on free will would be to contradict love. A loving Father, to use that image, should seek to provide guidance to a child without the use of coercion. Of course, what that God is able to do has some bearing on the creator/creation dynamic.

It seems to me to be a reversion to Zeus or Odin. We're back to "God" as just a powerful guy. Like Bill Gates, but with lots of power instead of lots of money.

I'd say that it's the exact opposite. We should altogether stop speaking of God as a just some powerful deity. The God that's typically held by Christians, for example, is powerful, wrathful, the creator of all that exists, judgemental, vengeful, etc. The image is of a God who hold creation in God's hands. Rather, we should recognize that such a God is something we've historically wielded as a weapon. That God has been in our hands, not the other way around.

 

[Lukaris]

We have free will in the sense to obey the will of God to choose good or evil ( I would think ). Examples of this seem to be in Deuteronomy 30, Ezekiel 18, Psalms 15 etc. I think Solomon sums this up in Ecclesiastes 12:13-14.

The Lord completed the inability of us to accomplish this with the cross but still calls us to follow the commandments in living by faith. John 14:15-18, Matthew 19:16-19, Romans 13:8-10 etc. This is our “reasonable service” (KJV) as St. Paul tells in Romans 12:1-2 ( “spiritual service in the link)in which the Lord saves us by grace ( Ephesians 2:8-10).

 

[zippy2006]

I agree, but the world we find ourselves in is hardly conducive to a loving embrace. I see no reason why this is the world an omnipotent and omniscient God would come up with if that God were also omnibenevolent.

I mean, if God desires creatures who can love and be conformed to himself then free will is a necessary condition. I don't know that I agree that a world of trials is not conducive to love. Trial is precisely where love is proved, such as on the cross. Kant makes a very similar point in more detail in his Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals with respect to moral actions. Plato does a similar thing in the Republic.

You hinted at it above: "Without free will there can be no love, no self-gift." If God is all-loving, i.e., God is love, then God would necessarily preserve free will due to God's nature. To infringe on free will would be to contradict love. A loving Father, to use that image, should seek to provide guidance to a child without the use of coercion. Of course, what that God is able to do has some bearing on the creator/creation dynamic.

Yes, but in this case you yourself have justified free will. Even on Open Theism free will is necessary.

Free will entails creatures who can make choices and therefore progress. In your OP you rebut free will by claiming that God could have just made them at the finish line, without any progression. But like I said, if they start at the finish line they will not be truly good or loving.

I'd say that it's the exact opposite. We should altogether stop speaking of God as a just some powerful deity.

But what's the difference between the Open Theist's conception of God and the classical conception? On Open Theism God is defined in terms of finite power. The god of Open Theism is a being who is very powerful but not as powerful as the standard God.

On classical theism God is not "just some powerful deity." He is ipsum esse subsistens, being itself, the ground of being, Pure Act, etc. In Tolkien's language the Open Theist has confused Manwe with Illuvatar.

 

[tstor]

I mean, if God desires creatures who can love and be conformed to himself then free will is a necessary condition. I don't know that I agree that a world of trials is not conducive to love. Trial is precisely where love is proved, such as on the cross. Kant makes a very similar point in more detail in his Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals with respect to moral actions. Plato does a similar thing in the Republic.

I don't find the notion of trial being where love is proven as immediately problematic, but how does that fit with your image of God? You presumably believe that God has always been all-loving, even before any trials, i.e., prior to the incarnation. Did God not need to prove God's love prior to that point? If you were to say that God's love was proven in God's interactions and trials with Israel, did God's love not need to be proven before then? God appears to have not proven God's love for most of the history of the universe. There's also the nearly unintelligible notion of God's existence before creation. How did God prove God's love then? I suppose social trinitarianism might work to some extent, but what trials would have been faced within the godhead?

Yes, but in this case you yourself have justified free will. Even on Open Theism free will is necessary.

Free will entails creatures who can make choices and therefore progress. In your OP you rebut free will by claiming that God could have just made them at the finish line, without any progression. But like I said, if they start at the finish line they will not be truly good or loving.

See above. I said that about the free will solution because the standard free will solution maintains that God is conventionally omnipotent and omniscient (though I didn't state this explicitly). If those attributes are maintained, then I don't see why God couldn't just start us at the finish line. God would certainly have the power to do so. God would also know that almost anyone would prefer it. In fact, almost everyone would freely choose it!

But what's the difference between the Open Theist's conception of God and the classical conception? On Open Theism God is defined in terms of finite power. The god of Open Theism is a being who is very powerful but not as powerful as the standard God.

Yes. However, even the standard conception of God has limitations, e.g., "God can't make a square circle." "God can't make a rock that's too heavy for God to life." The God concept found in open theism maintains that God's absolute power is limited by God being love. A God who isn't love would certainly have more absolute power. That wouldn't be the God we encountered in Jesus though.

On classical theism God is not "just some powerful deity." He is ipsum esse subsistens, being itself, the ground of being, Pure Act, etc. In Tolkien's language the Open Theist has confused Manwe with Illuvatar.

Except all of these labels, "being itself," "the ground of being," "Pure Act," etc., lack any relational notions. I can't relate to "being itself," "the ground of being," or "Pure Act." These are largely meaningless labels. I can relate to "father," "mother hen," "shepherd," etc. These are relational labels. They identify a God who is in relation with us, a God we actually encounter and experience.

 

[ViaCrucis]

I would like to hear some thoughts on my analysis of the problem of evil/suffering and my objections to some of the popular solutions. I hope this is the right board for this post. We non-Christians have slim pickings.

Introducing the Problem
Not that many will need this, but I will start by introducing the problem of evil/suffering. We all witness and experience both evil and suffering in this world. We observe and experience suffering in the form of poverty, illness, heartbreak, death, and too many others to name. This problem is one that saturates our world. However, Christianity has maintained that there is a loving God out there. Do the experiences we face in this life contradict the existence of a loving God? This problem has been a thorn in the side of many people who are doing their level best to discern truth about the nature of reality and their place in the universe. I cannot say that anything I offer here is a solution to those who are afflicted.

The Free Will Solution
I will start with what I believe is the most common of the proposed solutions to this problem. The free will solution has it that there is evil and suffering in this world because God made us free creatures. Just as Adam and Eve were free to disobey God in the Garden, so today we are free to disobey God in our perpetuating evil in this world.

Implicit in this solution is the desirability of free will. While I see no reason to argue against this desirability, I do believe there are a few issues with this view from a strictly biblical perspective. The Bible explicitly tells us that this world we currently reside in is not the only possible world. In fact, the Bible offers us three possible worlds:

1. The Garden - pleasant, abundance of food, all needs cared for, intimate communion with God (Gn. 2-3)
2. Our World - suffering, evil, death, sin, remoteness from God
3. The New Earth - paradise, no suffering, no evil, intimate communion with God (Rv. 21)

The question is whether those who inhabit/will inhabit these three worlds have free will. Did Adam and Eve have free will in the Garden? It would appear that way. They freely chose to disobey God. Do we have free will today? Well, the efficacy of this solution hinges on us having free will in this world, so we’d better! What about those who will inhabit the new earth? Will they have free will? The new earth is an eternal paradise for those who gain access. It would appear that those who inhabit it will not have free will; it would appear that they will not have the freedom to inflict suffering onto others. Yet even without this freedom, they are still said to prosper and find joy in paradise and communion with God. Is free will really desirable if one of the possible alternatives is eternal paradise without it?

One potential way around this consideration is to suggest that those who enter into the new earth have been conformed to Christ, i.e., they no longer desire to pursue that which is evil. If this is true, then why not conform humanity now? Why wait hundreds of thousands of years? It would appear that this solution to the problem of evil/suffering does not actually solve all that much for us. Either the desirability of free will is called into question by the biblical narratives of other possible worlds or the motives of a loving God still remain shrouded in secrecy.

There is a further problem with this solution though. While it is a valiant attempt at solving the problem of human evil, it does very little to solve the problem of suffering at large. Humans are not the only ones who inflict suffering onto others. Animals also inflict suffering onto others. Nature itself inflicts suffering in the form of natural disasters, inhospitable environments, and all sorts of other ways. How does our having free will account for these evils?

In conclusion, the free will solution to the problem of evil/suffering fails to account for the biblical narratives of other possible worlds and the existence of suffering perpetuated by non-free agents.

The Reformed Solution
The reformed solution to the problem of evil/suffering takes a different approach from the free will solution. The reformed solution has it that everything in this world is foreordained and decreed from eternity past by God. All of the evil and suffering we observe and experience is actually the result of God's will. Why would God do this? It is simple: The entire purpose of creation is to bring glory to God. That is why we were created; that is why we are here. All of the evil and nasty things in this world are actually working for God's purposes. Consider, for example, the story of the patriarch Joseph. He was sold into slavery by his brothers and taken away from his home to Egypt. However, Joseph reveals something special to his brothers: "Even though you intended to do harm to me, God intended it for good, in order to preserve a numerous people, as he is doing today." (Gn. 50:20) There are several instances in the Bible where we are told that God uses evil for good. (Ex. 14:4; Rm. 9:22-24)

This solution is often extremely unsavory for many people. To think that God decrees the molestation of children in order to bring about some plan or another for God's own glory just does not sit right with many people. I am in that camp. Reformed theologians maintain that God is omnipotent (all-powerful), omniscient (all-knowing), and omnibenevolent (all-loving). Assuming this is true, why could God not devise a better plan? You know, a plan like the new world. Except instead of it being a "new" world, it should have just been the world. An eternal world with no suffering and constant glorification of God.

The reformed solution really does not appear to be much of a solution at all. It suffers from the same difficulty as the free will solution, i.e., biblical narratives tell us about better possible worlds. God appears to receive maximum glory in the new world to come and there is not any suffering. What gives with this world?

The Open Solution
I must admit that this is my favorite solution. I find it to be the most unique and the most persuasive. However, it still has difficulties.

The open solution rejects two of the three attributes of God I mentioned when discussing the reformed solution: omnipotence and omniscience. Or I should say that the open solution rejects them as they are conventionally understood. The open solution maintains that God is not all-powerful. God does not have the power to stop a rapist, a murderer, a thief, or even an earthquake. That sort of power would contradict God's omnibenevolence. To be all-loving (or to be love; 1 Jn. 4:16) means to not be coercive, authoritarian, dictatorial, overbearing, or any of the other adjacent concepts. The open solution also maintains that God is not all-knowing in the conventional sense. Rather than thinking of God as outside of time and, thus, perceiving all of time and everything that takes place in it in the same way we perceive past events, God is in time and experiences time as we do. God knows all that has happened in the past and is powerless to change it. God also knows all that is currently unfolding in the present. As for the future, it is unknowable. The future is open. God cannot know it and neither can anyone else.

You might think this describes a gutted God, but this solution does have some power behind it. Suffering and evil is accounted for. An all-loving God experiences our pain and suffering and is there with us in enduring it. However, that same love prevents God from being able to force God's will onto others. God also lacks knowledge about future events like a murder, theft, or rape. There cannot be any forewarning. This solution even appears to get past the conflict with other possible worlds recorded in the Bible. It could be argued that certain events in the future can be known with some certainty. For example, we can be fairly certain that our sun will die. Perhaps God is aware that the opportunity for a better world is on the horizon. A lot more could be said here, but it looks promising.

The difficulty with this view is that there appears to be some inconsistencies (at least as I understand it). Consider, for example, these words form Greg Boyd:



If this is the case, it runs into same problems as the other two solutions.

I don't think there is a philosophically satisfying answer to the problem.

The distinctively Christian answer to the problem of evil isn't a philosophical resolution, but the crucified Jesus.

That is, the Christian response to the problem of evil is to point to the place where, we believe, God has definitively dealt with evil: the cross and empty tomb.

For a far better treatment on this than I could provide here, I would highly recommend N.T. Wright's "Evil and the Justice of God".

Evil and the Justice of God - InterVarsity Press

Again, this isn't a philosophical answer to the question, and so the answer is not going to be philosophically satisfying. But I don't think there is a philosophically satisfying answer to the problem; it's one of myriad things which weigh upon the person of faith. And thus for Christians part of what constitutes the cross of discipleship.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[zippy2006]

I don't find the notion of trial being where love is proven as immediately problematic, but how does that fit with your image of God? You presumably believe that God has always been all-loving, even before any trials, i.e., prior to the incarnation. Did God not need to prove God's love prior to that point? If you were to say that God's love was proven in God's interactions and trials with Israel, did God's love not need to be proven before then? God appears to have not proven God's love for most of the history of the universe. There's also the nearly unintelligible notion of God's existence before creation. How did God prove God's love then? I suppose social trinitarianism might work to some extent, but what trials would have been faced within the godhead?

Love can exist without being proven, but trials are conducive to love insofar as trial is where love is proved. Presumably one had more opportunity to doubt God's love before he adopted Israel, or before he became incarnate. I do not think love presupposes trial, but rather that love proves itself in trial. So a world of trials is conducive to love.

See above. I said that about the free will solution because the standard free will solution maintains that God is conventionally omnipotent and omniscient (though I didn't state this explicitly). If those attributes are maintained, then I don't see why God couldn't just start us at the finish line. God would certainly have the power to do so. God would also know that almost anyone would prefer it. In fact, almost everyone would freely choose it!

I claimed that progression is necessary for love and being conformed to Christ. Your counter-claim is that an omnipotent God could do it without progression. I don't see it. Even an omnipotent God cannot do what is logically impossible. If progression is necessary for a certain end then you can't get the end without it. That's what I've been arguing from the get-go.

The God concept found in open theism maintains that God's absolute power is limited by God being love. A God who isn't love would certainly have more absolute power. That wouldn't be the God we encountered in Jesus though.

I don't see how love is the limit. Going back to your OP, I don't see how someone who stops an earthquake or a murderer is therefore not loving. Presumably they would be just the opposite, no? Honestly I don't follow the argument:

1. God is not omnipotent or omniscient.
2. ..Because he is not coercive.
3. ..Because he is loving.

I don't see why someone who is not coercive musn't be omnipotent or omniscient, nor do I see why someone who is loving musn't be coercive. The classical conception of God says that God allows some things for the sake of freedom and non-coercion, and yet does not allow other things. In human affairs it is similar. If a parent never had recourse to strength or coercion they would be thought to be weak and unloving. Surely constant dictatorial coercion is a problem, but not all coercion is a problem.

In reality it is only if we have been created by an omnipotent God that we would know he is not coercive. We know we have freedom, so if God is omnipotent then we know he is not coercive in nature (because he would have the power to coerce). If "God" is finite then another possibility arises: he is coercive but lacks the power to coerce.

Except all of these labels, "being itself," "the ground of being," "Pure Act," etc., lack any relational notions. I can't relate to "being itself," "the ground of being," or "Pure Act." These are largely meaningless labels. I can relate to "father," "mother hen," "shepherd," etc. These are relational labels. They identify a God who is in relation with us, a God we actually encounter and experience.

Not so. When Paul says that "In him we live and move and have our being" he is connecting the two types of descriptors. To say that God is the ground of being means that everything that exists was created by him, is sustained by him, and participates in his own being. "Mother" and "father" are shadows of such a relational notion.