The Purpose of Death – Part 6 - The Problem of Evil and a Sovereign God

In this section, it’s my intention to present another solution to the problem of evil (theodicy). I realize that the question of free-will vs. sovereignty and the Arminian and Calvinist debate has raged for centuries. Not everyone is going to agree with this position – but I want to present what I believe.

Another point to note is that CAT does not specifically dive into the free will issues with the problem of evil – however since this is a natural outflow to their argument of “God didn’t make it that way,” we are therefore visiting this topic now.

Note that the ideas presented here came largely from Matt Slick and several episodes from his Faith and Reason Radio show. (http://www.carm.org/radio/radio.htm) as well as a very excellent article by Gary Crampton hosted on the LEADERU web site.

Previously, we reviewed the free will theodicy argument that states that God did not create things the way we see them today and that man actualized his evil potential. Further we saw that the other position sees free will as only being effective if we have the potential for both good and evil.

My disagreement with this approach is in the nature of free will and not in the notion of free will itself. Many times Arminians (and other libertarians) object to Calvinism because they think that we reject free will. That is not the case. We would affirm that mankind has a free will – we just would differ from the libertarian as to the nature of that free will.

The problem with the Arminian theodicy is that it stops short in its explanation of evil. It rightly says that God did not create the world with human sin. It rightly states that things have not always been like we see them today. It even rightly states that free will choices account for evil. Yet it does not answer why God would allow evil.

The Calvinist position is described in section 3 of the Westminster Confession of Faith as it comments on the eternal decrees of God:

3.1 God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass;[1] yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin,[2] nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.[3]

1) Eph 1:1-11 says that God works all things after the counsel of His will.
That is ALL things – both what we would term good and evil.

2) Does God predestine that bad things will happen? Or put another way, Does God predestine that sin occurs?

3) To answer this we must look at the two wills of God. Within God’s eternal will and knowledge, there is a decretive will (God’s decrees) and His permissive (perceptive) will. Some things God decrees, some things God permits.

4) As an example of a decretive will: 1) the creation of the world, 2) the crucifixion of Christ. God directly decrees these things because He directly wants this to happen. There is no stopping the decretive will of God.

5) God’s permissive will is when he permits things to occur – like sin, evil, murder, mayhem…

6) Now if God permits something that is evil, the He is willing that it occur – He is allowing it because it is within His will for it to occur. (not to mention God’s exhaustive foreknowledge of what will happen)

7) Summary – within God’s will he ordains certain things specifically and allows certain things to happen (passively) but both of them are by His desire to let them occur. So does God ordain bad things to happen? Does God ordain sin? The answer is yes.

8) As an example, let’s look at Acts 4:27-28

27for truly in this city there were gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel,28to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place. (ESV)

This does not mean that He looked into the future to see what was going to occur and then predestined that – that would be illogical. If God looks through the corridor of time and finds that something takes place and says, “Wala – I think such and such should take place,” it’s a mockery of God to call that predestination. It doesn’t follow.

Herod, Pilate, the romans, and the people of Israel all acted on their free will and yet we find that their free will choices brought forth exactly what God had planned from the beginning of time.

God foreknew, even foreordained, the crucifixion of His Son by the hands of sinful men. The godless men who carried out the act are responsible for their sin (Acts 2:22-23; 4:27-28). Could they have done differently? Could Judas Iscariot not have betrayed Jesus Christ? To ask the questions is to answer them. Christian theology does not deny that Adam (and all men after him, for that matter) had a "free will" in the sense of "free moral agency." Men are not rocks or machines. All men think and choose in this sense of the term; otherwise, they could not act. Men choose to do what they want to think and to do; in fact, they could do no other than choose. What Christian theology does deny is that man has the "freedom of indifference." His ability to choose is always governed by factors: his own intellections, habits, and so forth. All his choices are determined by the eternal decrees of God. [4]

9) So God ordains what occurs – he allows or plans things to occur.

10) Now we take that a step further. God can also plan for an allowance. Since He knows all things, He can plan to allow something. Then we say in this sense that He is decreeing it or ordaining that thing in which he plans to allow.

11) Does God cause evil to occur directly? NO. Thus the Westminster Confession states: “yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin.[2]” God is Holy Perfect Pure – he does not create and bring into existence evil directly.

12) But, God can ordain for something to exist – by arranging the circumstances so that it will exist or come to pass – yet it is not God that directly performs or forces evil.

13) Some would say that if God works behind the scenes to allow things to happen, then is God not doing the sin/evil directly? No. Let’s use an analogy to help flesh this out.

14) Let’s suppose that I were to take my son and put before him on the table a bowl of ice cream on the left, and a bowl of worms, grubs, compost, and manure on the right. At that moment in time, my son has a choice in what dish he will partake of. However its pretty clear which one he is going to choose. I know my son, and he is not one that would cherish manure mouth. In this instance, he is going to choose the dish that most closely adheres to his desires at the time. Ice cream it will be.

This brings us to a more Biblically based definition of free-will. Calvinists believe that man’s will is enslaved in sin and totally and completely impacted by sin. Free will is defined as acting in accordance with the strongest desire at a given point in time and acting thus in accordance with our nature.

So in the analogy, by arranging the circumstances in the way I did, I am in essence ordaining what my son will choose. Then he makes a freewill choice to do what I want him to do.

15) Does this lesson in any way his free will choice? Absolutely not – he still has a choice. Does this mean that I was the author of him eating the ice cream? No he ate it not me. Can it be said that because I knew which one he would choose, that his choice was none the less a real choice? No – it was a real free will choice. It’s just that it was NOT a libertarian choice apart from any external influence.

16) Thus God is able to work things and bring things about where he allows it to happen and can ordain it to happen, but he is not the author of it. This is the source of the Westminster Confession statement “nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures”

17) Now all analogies break down at some point, and we can not compare my knowledge of my sons likes and dislikes to the exhaustive knowledge of God. Nonetheless it illustrates a different type of free will in man, and illustrates how man’s free will actions are compatible with the ordaining decrees of God.

18) The Westminster Confession continues with, “nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.”

God, says the Confession, is the sovereign first cause of all things, many of which occur through the free acts of man. Man is free from the control of molecules in his brain, but not from the decrees of God. The end that is decreed by God must never be separated from the means that He has also decreed, as second causes. God, wrote Clark, "does not arrange things or control history apart from second causes.... God does not decree [the end] apart from the means. He decrees that the end shall be accomplished by means of the means."[5]

This is the reason, according to the Confession, that God is not to be considered "the author or approver of sin." God is the sovereign first cause of sin, but He is not the author of sin. Only creatures can commit and do commit sin.[6]

19) As a final point, there are certain aspects of God’s character that can only be seen in the presence of evil. God’s wrath is poured out on sinners. If there were no sin and no evil, God would have nothing to pour his wrath on – and thus we would not see that portion of His character. God’s amazing grace is a grace that SAVES us from sin. If there were no sin or evil, we would not need saving. We would not need a savior. And if God were never to reveal His wrath, His mercy would not be so amazing.

So as a summary – here is a consistent and biblical theodicy.

God is the first cause of all things. He ordains sinful actions by men to further His plan. Sin and evil exist for pure and holy reasons and they are part of God’s plan. They work for and towards the furtherance of God’s glory and they ultimately are turned to the good of God’s people (even though such a turn be contrary to the one doing the sin/evil).

Gary summarizes his article like this:

It seems, then, that this … view of the purpose of creation is in agreement with a number of the Puritans who referred to the Genesis 3 event as "the fortunate Fall." Not only is the only logically consistent universe one in which evil exists for God's purposes, but God's people will be far more blessed because of the incarnation and Christ than they could ever have been blessed by an obedient Adam. [7]

Notes:

[1][2][3] are from the scripture proofs from the Westminster Confession of Faith –
http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/index.html

[1] EPH 1:11 In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will. ROM 11:33 O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out! HEB 6:17 Wherein God, willing more abundantly to shew unto the heirs of promise the immutability of his counsel, confirmed it by an oath. ROM 9:15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. 18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.

[2] JAM 1:13 Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man. 17 Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning. 1JO 1:5 This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.

[3] ACT 2:23 Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain. MAT 17:12 But I say unto you, That Elias is come already, and they knew him not, but have done unto him whatsoever they listed. Likewise shall also the Son of man suffer of them. ACT 4:27 For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together, 28 For to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done. JOH 19:11 Jesus answered, Thou couldest have no power at all against me, except it were given thee from above: therefore he that delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin. PRO 16:33 The lot is cast into the lap; but the whole disposing thereof is of the Lord.

[4] W. Gary Crampton in A Biblical Theodicy - http://www.leaderu.com/theology/theodicy.html (accessed 7/9/2007)

[5] Ibid. quoting Gordon H. Clark, What Do Presbyterians Believe? (Presbyterian and Reformed, 1956, 1965), 38.

[6] Ibid.
[7] Ibid.

The Purpose of Death - Part 5 - The Problem of Evil and Free Will

By tackling the problem of evil – we have somewhat strayed from our original intent of discussing the age of the earth. However, since CAT has taken us down this path, we are simply following their lead.

The first approach to the problem of evil focuses on the libertarian free will of man. It is an approach that would be characterized as Arminian [1] in its outlook. Hank Hanegraaff (the Bible Answer Man) uses this approach along with many other evidential apologists, as well as the authors of CAT. The key is a dual appeal to 1) the original creation being different than today, and 2) appealing to the notion that God created with the potentiality of evil – and that man actualized that evil by his free will choice – not God.

They [non-Christians and/or PC] fail to see that God created a perfect world, a world free from death. (CAT-19)

Essentially, this boils down to a perfect paradise until the Fall. Then death, disease, carnivorous activity and every other spiritual and natural evil entered into creation.

There is some merit to this approach. YEC and OEC agree that the Fall had an impact on creation. We do not agree that animal death was a result of the fall, but we agree that the introduction of sin into humanity had negative consequences to nature, animals, and the environment. This would primarily be based on the effects of sinful humans on their surroundings.

This approach further narrows in on the Fall and in particular the libertarian free will of man. It should be noted that CAT does not mention free will in its discussion since it is focused mainly on the purpose of death. However, we must address this since it’s an integral part of this approach to the problem of evil.

The approach claims that God created Adam with a potential for evil. It was Adam (and Eve) that actualized that evil and brought about the devastating consequences from the fall. Free will actions of men continue to this day and this is the cause of evil in our world today. This argument is best exemplified by Greg Koukl in this article Stand to Reason Sixty Second Theodicy [2].

Here is the essential quote from the article answering how could a good God and a powerful God allow evil in the world?

First point: "Would you like to see laws prohibiting a person from choosing an abortion?" Keep in mind that I am presuming that I'm speaking to a non-Christian who is fairly liberal and this is the last thing they want. If they happen to be pro-life, I could change the question to "Would you like to see laws passed prohibiting premarital sex?" Or "prohibiting homosexual behavior?" Now I suspect that when I ask them if they want to have laws passed on any of those things, they would say "no". My question, "Why?" And their answer is going to be, "Because I think people ought to be allowed to choose." Now there's the key. If you ask a question that beckons the response that people ought to be allowed to choose between moral alternatives, that's the whole key.

Second point: "So, it's a good thing that you have freedom to make moral choices, is that right?" "Yes, of course."

Third point: "Would it be fair to say that it's part of the nature of moral freedom to be possible to choose either good or evil? In other words, how can you say you are morally free if you can only choose good? You say it's a good thing to have moral choices and that entails that one can choose either good or evil, correct?" "Yes."

Last point: "Can raw power make it possible to have genuine moral freedom, but no possibility of doing evil?" The answer there is "No." Having genuine moral freedom entails the notion that you might choose evil, as we just said. And being strong can't change that. You can have all the power in the entire universe and you can't create a being who has moral freedom and at the same time has only one thing he can choose: good things, not bad things. Moral freedom requires that a person be capable of choosing evil and having moral freedom is a good thing.

That was the fourth question and here's how it comes together. Moral freedom requires that we can freely choose either good or evil; therefore, the possibility of choosing evil is a good thing, because moral freedom is a good thing. The fact that evil is possible is a good thing. Do you see that? Evil isn't good; but the fact that it's possible is a good thing because it means that you have genuine moral freedom.

Let's get back to our original question. A good God would want to remove the possibility of evil. False. Based on our little discussion we just had, a really good God
would make evil possible…. What about the second point? If He was powerful enough, He would get rid of evil. But how does having more power allow God to have a world of true moral choices where the only choice is to do good? Do you see that is contradictory? [2]

Here we see the first approach to theodicy – by appeal to free will. Some theologians, like Hank Hanegraaff narrow the focus more to something called libertarian free will. Libertarian free will is defined as:

Freedom as understood in the libertarian sense means that a person is fully able to perform some other action in place of the one that is actually done, and this is not predetermined by any prior circumstances, our desires or even our affections. In other words, our choices are free from the determination or constraints of human nature. All free will theists hold that libertarian freedom is essential for moral responsibility, for if our choice is determined or caused by anything, including our own desires, they reason, it cannot properly be called our decision or free choice. Libertarian freedom is, in fact, the freedom to act contrary to our nature, wants and greatest desires. [3]

The free will theodicy accounts for evil in our world from Adam until the present. The approach is biblically based and it tries to honor God. It is not a heretical view and neither is Arminianism. However, it does not really answer the problem. You see this really only redirects the question a little. It deflects the question from God to man - but it does not account for God's purpose in evil (if there is one) Be prepared for a come back which would go something like this:

OK, fine, but if God made things the way he did, and he knew that man would choose to reject him causing all this evil and suffering, and yet he created things like this anyway – then you still have not answered the problem – if God could have avoided evil but didn’t then why call him God. [4]

If you are an open-theist then your answer is that God didn’t know exactly what would happen. Open Theism asserts that God does not exhaustively know the future and He is in the process of learning [5]. Orthodox Christianity rejects open-theism as heresy.

Gary Crampton summarizes this point well:

Arminianism... fails to give us a solution. Arminian theologians attribute the origin of evil to the free will of man, rather than the will of God, positing a dualism of sorts. In his freedom, Adam chose to sin, apart from God's sovereign will. Adam had a "liberty of indifference" to the will of God. God "merely permitted" man to sin. The idea, however, of God's "permitting" man to sin does not solve the problem. Clark explained: "Somehow the idea of God¹s permitting evil without decreeing it seems to absolve God from the charge that He is the author of sin, but one must be careful, both with respect to the logic of the argument and to the full Scriptural data. God permitted Satan to afflict Job; but since Satan could not have done so without God's approval, the idea of permission hardly exonerates God. Is perfect holiness any more compatible with approving or permitting Satanic evil? If God could have prevented, not only Job's trials, but all the other sins and temptations to which mankind is subject—if He foresaw them and decided to let them occur--is He less reprehensible [on this view] than if He positively decreed them? If a man could save a baby from a burning house, but decided to permit the baby to burn, who would dare say that he was morally perfect in so deciding?"[6]

I (TODDL) do not agree with the concept of a libertarian free will theodicy. We will spend the next installment looking into the Calvinist solution that God is the first cause of all things and the He ordains everything that comes to pass – even evil – for the purpose of the fullness of His glory.

Notes:
[1] By claiming this approach is Arminian, we are not suggesting that this rules out the fact that there are YEC and OEC in both Calvinist and Arminian camps. In general the answer to the question of evil stems from your outlook on God’s sovereignty and man’s freedom – which is one of the major disagreements in the Calvinist vs. Arminian debate.

[2] http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5629&printer_friendly=1
(accessed 7/6/2007)

[3] Eleven (11) Reasons to Reject Libertarian Free Will. by John Hendryx
http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/libertarian.html
(accessed 7/7/2007)

[4] the atheist rebel would not capitalize pronouns directed to God – so I did not do so in this quote of a hypothetical atheistic objector.

[5] An in-depth look at free will and open theism can be found at the CARM website (Matt Slick) Open Theism and Libertarian Free Will.
http://www.carm.org/open/free_will.htm (accessed 7/9/2007)

[6] W. Gary Crampton in A Biblical Theodicy - http://www.leaderu.com/theology/theodicy.html (accessed 7/9/2007)
quoting Gordon H. Clark, First Corinthians (The Trinity Foundation, 1975, 1991), 156-157

The Purpose of Death - Part 4 - The Problem of Evil

We have previously seen that God has a fuller purpose in death than just the judgment of sin. We have also seen that YEC and OEC are really not that far off in their models. We move now to the problem of evil. When reading this section of CAT – we can not help but see the authors trying to make a link between death and evil.

Why did God send physical death to the world He gave Adam to rule? Many people are frightened of death. Most non-Christians look at the suffering and death in our world and conclude that God must not really be good or loving or even all-powerful. Why would God create a world filled with suffering and death? (CAT-19)

We see here a hint of equating death and evil in the first phrase of the section,

“Why did God send physical death to the world…?" We pause here in agreement with the CAT authors. They basically recognize correctly that God was the cause. We are going to differ on the question of WHEN God sent or allowed physical death, but let’s start from the point of agreement - God is the ultimate cause.

Then we have the language of "many people are frightened by death" and the classical non-Christian objection to a good, loving, all-powerful God. In this we see the continued equating that death is a bad thing (evil). By equating death and evil – what we really find here is just a modified version of the classic question of a good God and His relation to suffering, evil, and death. The reconciling of these two entities (God/evil) is called THEODICY in theological terms.

Epicurus (341BC to 270BC see picture above) is generally credited with being the first to lay out the problem of evil. (see here for more information) His riddle is thus:

If God is willing to prevent evil, but is not able to then He is not omnipotent.
If He is able, but not willing then He is malevolent.
If He is both able and willing then whence cometh evil?
If He is neither able nor willing then why call Him God?

Atheists think that this is a compelling argument. They fail to see that they have borrowed from the Christian worldview to even account for the dilemma. This is because atheism can not account for morality or the laws of logic – yet this dilemma assumes the evil is something that can be quantified. Without morality you can not define what is evil. This is a subject for another time – that is presuppositional apologetics and the argument of the absurdity of the contrary.[1]
However, ignoring this for now – atheists often try to stump the Christian with the problem of evil, and to the unlearned Christian, it can often be a stumper. There are valid responses to this dilemma – some better than others. The answer to the problem of evil is generally answered in two ways.

CAT and many evidential apologists rely on pointing out that God did not really create things the way we see them today. This is generally the answer given by Arminian based apologetics that rely on the (libertarian) free will choices of man.

A better and fuller answer comes from the Calvinistic perspective and that is that God is sovereign over everything - even evil actions - and that He has a purpose and a plan that He is working out in time for His own glory. We will look at these approaches more closely in the entries that follow.

Notes:

[1] The issue of atheism and its failure to account for logic and morality is basically set forth in the apologetic method known as Presuppositional Apologetics. For an in-depth audio primer on this topic I recommend Gene Cook and The Narrow Mind radio show at unchainedradio.com. In particular – please look for the 9 part series on Presuppositional Apologetics. See http://tnma.blogspot.com/search/label/Apologetics