Easter through Evil: God's pleasing purposes in the path to glory (original) (raw)

A Philosophical Enquiry Into the Scandal of Evil and Suffering

The South African Baptist Journal of Theology 1&2 Peter Vol.13 pp. 214-230., 2004

In 1 Peter 1:3-7 we read that the Christians were facing persecution because of their faith and the author reminds them that every trial is a test of their faith. The trials and consequential suffering can be withstood because they are able to look forward to an inheritance – eternal life with God. Christians can endure all trials and suffering because of the hope of glory and ultimate joy. There is a grace afforded by God in the presence to match whatever trial or suffering they might face. Thus it appears that there is both a purpose – one being the testing, transforming and purifying of one’s faith and a great prize for those who endure suffering – the Lord himself rewarding us. It is with this thought I will end this essay - with this belief of an inheritance, a resurrection and the gift of immortality. However, I will not shun asking the difficult questions, nor will I avoid critical reflection and analysis of a number of the contradictory or unpleasant answers. I will not eschew the lack of answers relating to evil and suffering – the pains of the scourges of poverty, persecution and oppression, the ravages of war and natural disasters, and all the inequity and injustice that has fallen throughout history – often on the innocent. This wickedness and agony that has throughout history indiscriminately befallen Christians and non-believers alike, has initiated great dismay, depression and consternation for many and some have even rejected the concept of God and the Gospel because of the malevolence and affliction they have been subjected to. The horrendous profundity and extent of human suffering and the history of the inhumanity of people makes the idea of a loving Creator seem quite implausible and predisposes many to accept a naturalistic theory of religion. At the end of this essay I will attempt to show that the declarations that the writer of 1 Peter makes concerning the Christian’s inheritance and suffering proffers some expectation for those who are faced with the quandary of evil and offer some hope now to enable them to endure whatever life has thrown onto their journey. Whilst I will with candour endeavour to query the issues and questions relating to evil I am conscious of the fact that many books and essays have been written by vastly more erudite authors. Consequently I acknowledge that what I have to say is ultimately nothing more than the personal reflection birthed in my own life’s experiences and learning. This paper will explore some of the issues and arguments and offer some critical reflection on the ideas and ways that people have proposed to overcome or uphold the dilemma or conflict between the existence of the God of classical theism and evil and the consequence of evil - suffering. I seek explanation of the plain fact of evil and suffering but I do not seek it in the arrogant belief that I can explain evil away. My Christian faith is not meant to provide complete answers and understanding to all life’s vexing questions. The purpose of my faith is to become aware and share in the life of the infinite and unlimited creator God. My belief provides strength and wisdom to live all of life but does not provide the perfect philosophical apologetic. My faith leaves me with much unsolved mystery and perplexing puzzle, often my faith is accompanied by doubt and existential pain and anxiety. Evil is not a theoretical problem but an existential problem. In the face of evil we are challenged to examine who we are and what we value as well as seeking a deeper insight into the nature and purposes of God. And sometimes what we see frightens us into denial or we respond wrongly to our finite understanding and experience of the infinite God. It is then that we feel compelled to provide a philosophical theory or theological dogma that explains it all and allows us to live – but with blinkers as we are often not willing to see the inconsistency, contradictions and sometimes falseness of our dogma.

THE PROBLEM OF EVIL AND THE NATURE OF GOD: DIVINE MERCY AND SORROW

The question of whether and how one might reconcile the existence of evil and suffering with the goodness of the divine, long considered the most formidable objection against the existence of God, was familiar to St. Thomas Aquinas. 1 The version of the problem to which St. Thomas responds, in the article containing his famous five ways, asserts succinctly an absolute opposition between the infinite goodness of God and the existence of any evil, such that if there were a God, then no evil would be found in the world. 2 To this objection, St. Thomas replies that "it pertains to the infinite goodness of God to permit evils and to draw good things out of them." 3 As with other perennial philosophical problems, there can be as much disagreement about how to articulate the problem of evil as there is about whether and how the problem might be resolved. St. Thomas's brief formulation of the problem, which centers on the alleged inconsistency of the existence of evils with the infinite divine goodness, leaves much room for interpretation and constructive elaboration. Furthermore, the problem of evil and the question of theodicy are closely tied to a wide range of philosophical and theological issues treated by St.

The Problem of Evil: Exonerating God

Boston Catholic Journal, 2022

No single factor is invoked more often in people turning away from God, or in their failing to believe in Him, than the occurrence — note that I do not say “existence” *— of evil, especially as it manifests itself in suffering. The occurrence of evil appears incompatible with God, or at least a coherent conception of God as both — and simultaneously — absolutely good and absolutely powerful. That God and the occurrence of evil should coexist appears logically contradictory and ontologically incompatible. The one is effectively the abrogation of the other. The existence of God, it is argued, precludes (or ought to preclude) the occurrence of evil and the occurrence of evil precludes (or ought to preclude) the existence of God. While we can readily adduce empirical evidence, that is to say, tangible instances, of evil to discredit the existence of God, the availability of evidence to corroborate the existence of God, on the other hand, is so exiguous that even when such instances are invoked they are deemed extraordinary events in the affairs of men; indeed, events so far from commonplace that we call them miraculous — that is to say, inexplicable interventions conditionally attributed to God in the absence of alternate explanations that may yet be forthcoming. Whether or not this is a sufficient, if concise, summary, the general implication is clear: evidence of evil overwhelmingly exceeds evidence of God. If sheer preponderance is the criterion to which we appeal, God loses. Evil comes as a scandal to the believer who asks, “How can this be, given the existence of God?” To the disbeliever no such scandal arises — only scorn for the believer who is left in perplexity, unable to deny the existence of God on the one hand while equally unable to deny the occurrence of evil on the other. We appear to be consigned to either nihilistic resignation in the one camp (evil is somehow ontologically inherent and rampant in the universe although we cannot explain why), or an unreasoned and therefore untenable affirmation of the existence of God — despite the contradictory concurrence of evil — in the other. Both appear to be damned to perplexity. Neither has satisfactorily answered the question implicit within every occurrence of evil: “Why?” 2. The Problem ... and why we must respond to it Before we begin our attempt to arrive at an answer to the problem of evil, we must first clearly summarize and completely understand the nature of the problem itself. While this may appear obvious, all too often our efforts to make sense of the experience of evil in our lives and in the world fail to adequately address implicit or unstated premises apart from which no answer is either forthcoming or possible. Failing to follow the premises, we fail to reach a conclusion. Instead, we reflexively seize what is incontrovertible (the occurrences of evil) and, understanding nothing of its antecedents, satisfy ourselves that it is entirely a mystery — in other words, utterly incomprehensible to us — in fact, so opaque to our ability to reason it through (which we do not) that we throw up our hands in either frustration or despair, declaring that either it is the will of God in a way we do not understand, or that there can be no God in light of the enormities that we experience. In either case — whether we affirm that God exists despite them, or deny that He exists because of them — we confront the experience of evil as an impenetrable mystery. Such a facile answer, I suggest, is not a satisfactory state of affairs at all.

Comments and Questions on Evil and the Justice of God

Philosophia Christi, 2008

N. T. Wright's book on evil is an insightful one. 1 Before offering any comments, I should first say that I have a high regard for his scholarship and have been greatly influenced and spiritually enriched by his writings. I frequently cite him-thus far, always positively!-both in lectures and in various books I have written. In my book, Loving Wisdom: Christian Philosophy of Religion, I appropriate various insights of his on topics such as the image of God, evil, atonement, and resurrection. 2 And for some time now, at my Web site I have had a link to the fairly official-looking "Unofficial N. T. Wright Page." 3 Now on to Wright's excellent book! Wright declares that he does not pretend to "provide a full, or even a balanced, treatment either of the problem of evil or. .. the meaning of Jesus' crucifixion" (9). Indeed, evil is not a problem we shall "solve" in the present world (11). Wright's primary task is modest: it is "not so much to give answers to impossible philosophical questions as to bring signs of God's new world to birth, on the basis of Jesus' death and in the power of his Spirit, even in the midst of 'the present evil age'" (11). Wright's approach to evil takes seriously both a fides quarens intellectum (faith seeking understanding) as well as a spes quarens intellectum abStraCt: Theologian N. T. Wright's book Evil and the Justice of God offers a biblical response to the problem of evil without attempting to "solve" the issue, but to shed light on the problem from a Christian theological perspective. This essay affirms Wright's approach, but notes the need for greater clarity of the ontological language related to evil. The essay also seeks further answers to questions regarding animal suffering and the fall as well as the role of (just) force in preventing gross evils and restoring peace.

God and fruitless evil: A holistic response to the problem of evil

2015

The contemporary debate originates with the publishing of J. L. Mackie's "Evil and Omnipotence." 2 In this article, Mackie articulates the standard version of the logical argument from evil by claiming that the three core tenants of theism ("God is omnipotent; God is wholly good; and yet evil exists") are logically inconsistent. 3 H. J. McCloskey follows Mackie by taking a more general approach to the problem and examining a wider range of potential solutions. 4 The logical argument's momentum comes to a screeching halt with the publication of Alvin Plantiga's landmark work, The Nature of Necessity. 5 In this work Plantinga employs modal logic and possible world semantics to demonstrate "that it is possible that God could not have created a universe containing moral good without creating one containing moral evil." 6 By demonstrating this possibility, Plantinga shows that there is no necessary logical inconsistency between the existence of God and evil. Using this demonstration, he accomplishes a rare feat in the contemporary philosophical landscape: near universal agreement. Robert Adams states, "It is fair to say that Plantinga has solved this problem." 7 William Alston agrees: "It is now acknowledged on (almost) 2

The Problem of Evil: Exonerating God - Revised August 17, 2024

2024

No single factor is invoked more often in people turning away from God, or in their failing to believe in Him, than the occurrence — note that I do not say the “existence” of evil, especially as it manifests itself in suffering. The occurrence — not the existence — of evil appears incompatible with God, or at least a coherent conception of God as both — and simultaneously — absolutely good and absolutely powerful. That God and the occurrence of evil should coexist appears logically contradictory and ontologically incompatible. The one is effectively the abrogation of the other. The existence of God, it is argued, precludes (or ought to preclude) the occurrence of evil, and the occurrence of evil precludes (or ought to preclude) the existence of God. While we can readily adduce empirical evidence, that is to say, tangible instances, of evil to discredit the existence of God, the availability of evidence to corroborate the existence of God, on the other hand, is so exiguous that even when such instances are invoked, they are deemed extraordinary events in the affairs of men; indeed, events so far from commonplace that we call them miraculous — that is to say, inexplicable interventions conditionally attributed to God in the absence of alternate explanations that may yet be forthcoming. Whether or not this is a sufficient, if concise, summary, the general implication is clear: evidence of evil overwhelmingly exceeds evidence of God. If sheer preponderance is the criterion to which we appeal, God loses. Evil comes as a scandal to the believer who asks, “How can this be, given the existence of God?” To the disbeliever no such scandal arises — only scorn for the believer who is left in perplexity, unable to deny the existence of God on the one hand … while equally unable to deny the occurrence of evil on the other.

The Problem Of Evil: A Case Against The Omnipotence And The Goodness Of God

2017

Evil is the opposite of good. This phenomenon has unleashed serious threat to human existence. The problem is that it is difficult to understand and even to deal with. Evil is a subject that has defied solution politically, socially or religiously. This paper examined the issue of the origin, effect and ways of dealing with evil for a better society. The research adopted the historical and literary methods of research. Various views are examined. Findings affirmed that God created evil as well as good. However, this view challenged the omnipotence and the goodness of God. The research identified bloodshed, corruption, demonic activities, human trafficking, child abuse and child dumping/abuse and many others as social vices associated with evil. This research recommends that man should learn to live with it, overcome it with good, while religious groups should lead in the campaign to end evil and/or reduce its effect on society.