The Problem of Evil.

[delizzle]

One of the "greatest" philosophical challenges ever presented to refute the existence of God is the P.O.E. Many theologians recognize this argument as a sort of test.

The Problem of Evil closely relates to the argument over the existence of God and it is commonly suggested that if there is a God then He is evil.

As a theologian I feel it is vitally important (absolutely necessary) to maintain ALL of God’s Holy attributes, His Nature as 100% True and this is a hill I would die on before conceding on even one point concerning this.

Determinists and Atheist rationalize very similar in regard to God having evil traits wherein the Soft Determinist simply resorts to saying things like, “it isn’t evil because God meant it for good” and/or agrees with Classical Theology that God foreknows all things therefore He must have determined all things including evil but He is not evil with little logical rhyme or reason to back his argument up and finally Hard Determinists commonly attribute evil to God without apology. The Atheist discounts the existence of a Good God and therefore uses the POE to support the argument about the non-existence of God entirely.

This is why the P.O.E. is, well, such a famous/infamous problem to the theologian, in that if one theorizes that God exists but is not Only Good then he/she has a serious problem in trying to separate good from evil, or IOWs separating God from the Devil! (The result of Theological Fatalism)

Great post. I posted my research paper on the topic on post #22 if you are interested. I would like to hear some feedback.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

 

[Yeshua1]

Finally! We are getting somewhere! Thank you for your well written response. However, I did notice that the explanation brought up choices. I am assuming you are then advocating for free will.

Does anyone else have a response to Van's post from a Calvinist perspective. Btw...i posted a research paper I wrote on post # 22. I am interested to here your feedback.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

How can anything exist contrary to the Will of God though?

 

[Van]

Finally! We are getting somewhere! Thank you for your well written response. However, I did notice that the explanation brought up choices. I am assuming you are then advocating for free will.

Does anyone else have a response to Van's post from a Calvinist perspective. Btw...i posted a research paper I wrote on post # 22. I am interested to here your feedback.

Yes, I am presenting the biblical basis for fallen mankind to bring glory to God by choosing to repent. But I do not advocate for free will, but rather that many fallen people still posses limited spiritual ability, sufficient to respond to the gospel and repent.

I did not read your paper, but if your view is that the bible presents God as "omnibenevolet" you might want to consider that contention to be fiction.

 

[utilyan]

Some may argue that God could have created a better world. He could have created a world where:

A. Nobody sinned and everyone was saved.

B. People sinned and everyone was saved.

C. He could have not created at all.

Some would argue that any of these three options would have been better. All of them do not require God sacrificing his Son.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

Yet a common presumption on the universe is that Happiness must be earned and the currency is SUFFERING.

You want to be happy, SUFFER, you need a job, SUFFER you need money, SUFFER you need the girl, SUFFER you need this and that. SUFFER You want to help others? SUFFER, You got a greater right to tell folks the way it is, you've paid up in SUFFERING.

Jesus Christ is paying off YOUR BILL, you just might have not realize you are the one ringing it up.


The truth is you got bigger fish to fry then the existence of God, Even the chair you sit on ultimately isn't a chair anymore then everything in the world is a chair. There is no chair, there is no spoon!. Maybe wood, plastic, molecules, atoms, bunch of stuff. Show us where YOU are.....that is the ultimate mystery.

 

[delizzle]

How can anything exist contrary to the Will of God though?

That is a good question that has raised much debate. I cannot honestly claim that the answer is definitive. Here is a copypaste from a research paper I wrote for my systematic theology class.

Many theologians seem to suggest that even an omnipotent God has limitations. "By [God's omnipotence] we mean that God is able to do all things that are proper objects of his power" (Erickson 1998, 247).

There seem to be two types of limitations to God's omnipotence. First, God has natural limitations. He cannot do what is contradictory to His nature. God cannot lie (Titus 1:2), sin (James 1:13), deny Himself (2 Tim. 2:11-13) or force willful obedience (Matt. 23:37). In this case, the omnipotence of God does not mean that He can do anything. God’s omnipotence means that He can do anything that is possible (Geisler 2011, 37). As long as we have free will, God cannot remove evil by forcing us to choose goodness. This coercion would be a contradiction that goes against his nature.

C. S. Lewis states, "I would pay any price to be able to say truthfully, ‘All will be saved.' But my reason retorts, ‘Without their will, or with it?' If I say ‘without their will' I at once perceive a contradiction; how can the supreme voluntary act of self-surrender be involuntary? If I say ‘With their will,’ my reason replies, ‘How if they will not give in?’”[/b] (Lewis 2001, 106-7).

Second, God can put limitations on himself by His choosing. The most notable of His self-imposed restrictions can be found in the incarnation. For it is written,

"Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage; rather, he made himself nothing by taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to death – even death on a cross!” (Phil. 2:6-8).

In light of these limitations, we can conclude that the destruction of evil would be an action which is contradictory to free will. It is possible for God to destroy evil by destroying free will. However, this will result in a world void of any moral value. It is comparable to a wind-up doll. By pulling the string, the toy robotically says, "I love you." However, this is merely a pre programmed response which renders any value to be insignificant. Unlike the wind-up doll,when a spouse looks you in the eyes and says "I love you," the value lay in the fact they are willingly choosing to love. God is love, and it is God's desire that He is loved in return (1 John 4:8). However, one of the self-imposed limitations of God is that by giving humans free will, He cannot force us to return that love freely. C.S. Lewis states,

“Merely to over-ride a human will…would be for Him useless. He cannot ravish. He can only woo” (Lewis 1976, 12).

Evil cannot be destroyed without the collateral destruction of free will. However, evil will be overcome (Rom. 8:18-21; Rev. 21:1-4) by separating the good from the evil (Matt 25:31-46; Rev. 20:11-15) and that this separation will be based on the individual’s choosing (Matt. 23:37; 2 Thess. 1:7-9).

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

 

[delizzle]

I did not read your paper, but if your view is that the bible presents God as "omnibenevolet" you might want to consider that contention to be fiction.

The word omnibenevolentcomes from the Latin word omni, meaning “all,” and the word benevolent, meaning “good” or “charitable.” When we say that God is omnibenevolent, we are saying that God is absolutely good and that no action or motive or thought or feeling or anything else about Him is not purely good. He is “all-good.” The Bible provides many testimonies of God’s goodness, including Jesus’ own, when He asserted that no one is truly good except God Himself (Mark 10:18). This can only mean that, although human beings can do good things, only God is omnibenevolent, or wholly good.

To believe in a perfect being, one must accept that God can be omnibenevolent. If God is completely self-sustaining, independent of need, the “un-caused cause” and “un-moved mover,” He must also be perfectly good. If God were simply a good and powerful being, but not perfectlygood, there would be an element of contingency. That is, we could conceive of a being of potentially greater benevolence—and someone with greater goodness would be greater than God. Since the goodness of anything is measured by its perfection, God must be perfectly good in order to also be omniscient and omnipotent. All three aspects of His person must be in place for us to conceive of any one of the three.

The most common objection to the assertion that God is omnibenevolent, as well as omnipotent and omniscient, is the problem of evil. If God is all-knowing and all-powerful and perfectly good, why does evil exist? Philosophers debate this question endlessly. Some solve the problem by saying that Lucifer’s and then, later, man’s free will was the cause of evil and that God was not involved in causing evil. One might then ask, “Why then did God create a being who could choose evil?” and the typical answer to that is “because He wanted beings who would be able to make choices”; i.e., He did not want robots.

Philosophically speaking, God’s omnibenevolence is a complicated issue. The problem of evil is a complex one. However, we do know that, for God to be God, He must be omnibenevolent, omnipotent, and omniscient. And, really, the issue comes down to believing the Bible, which presents God as always good (Psalm 106:1; 135:3; Nahum 1:7). His message to sinners, through Christ, is “good news” (Luke 2:10); His revelation of Christ is called the appearing of “the goodness and loving kindness of God our Savior” (Titus 3:4, ESV). It is the goodness of God that leads us to repentance (Romans 2:4), goodness is one of the results of His indwelling Spirit (Galatians 5:22), and He brings goodness to fruition in our lives through faith (2 Thessalonians 1:11).

Source: What does it mean that God is omnibenevolent?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

 

[Van]

No question God is good, but are all His actions good for all people? Nope. So the term "all good" is too easily misinterpreted. Try finding a better way to convey the concept, while avoiding the pitfall. In order for God to be God, He must be all powerful, all knowing, and good.

And on the other front, if we are compelled to repent (or compelled to freely choose to repent ) then there is no reason for God to allow the evil choices of people. No, I presented the actual answer from scripture, and it does not fit with your doctrine. Food for thought.

 

[Yeshua1]

Yes, I am presenting the biblical basis for fallen mankind to bring glory to God by choosing to repent. But I do not advocate for free will, but rather that many fallen people still posses limited spiritual ability, sufficient to respond to the gospel and repent.

I did not read your paper, but if your view is that the bible presents God as "omnibenevolet" you might want to consider that contention to be fiction.

What passages support what you claim here though?

 

[Yeshua1]

That is a good question that has raised much debate. I cannot honestly claim that the answer is definitive. Here is a copypaste from a research paper I wrote for my systematic theology class.

Many theologians seem to suggest that even an omnipotent God has limitations. "By [God's omnipotence] we mean that God is able to do all things that are proper objects of his power" (Erickson 1998, 247).

There seem to be two types of limitations to God's omnipotence. First, God has natural limitations. He cannot do what is contradictory to His nature. God cannot lie (Titus 1:2), sin (James 1:13), deny Himself (2 Tim. 2:11-13) or force willful obedience (Matt. 23:37). In this case, the omnipotence of God does not mean that He can do anything. God’s omnipotence means that He can do anything that is possible (Geisler 2011, 37). As long as we have free will, God cannot remove evil by forcing us to choose goodness. This coercion would be a contradiction that goes against his nature.

C. S. Lewis states, "I would pay any price to be able to say truthfully, ‘All will be saved.' But my reason retorts, ‘Without their will, or with it?' If I say ‘without their will' I at once perceive a contradiction; how can the supreme voluntary act of self-surrender be involuntary? If I say ‘With their will,’ my reason replies, ‘How if they will not give in?’”[/b] (Lewis 2001, 106-7).

Second, God can put limitations on himself by His choosing. The most notable of His self-imposed restrictions can be found in the incarnation. For it is written,

"Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage; rather, he made himself nothing by taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to death – even death on a cross!” (Phil. 2:6-8).

In light of these limitations, we can conclude that the destruction of evil would be an action which is contradictory to free will. It is possible for God to destroy evil by destroying free will. However, this will result in a world void of any moral value. It is comparable to a wind-up doll. By pulling the string, the toy robotically says, "I love you." However, this is merely a pre programmed response which renders any value to be insignificant. Unlike the wind-up doll,when a spouse looks you in the eyes and says "I love you," the value lay in the fact they are willingly choosing to love. God is love, and it is God's desire that He is loved in return (1 John 4:8). However, one of the self-imposed limitations of God is that by giving humans free will, He cannot force us to return that love freely. C.S. Lewis states,

“Merely to over-ride a human will…would be for Him useless. He cannot ravish. He can only woo” (Lewis 1976, 12).

Evil cannot be destroyed without the collateral destruction of free will. However, evil will be overcome (Rom. 8:18-21; Rev. 21:1-4) by separating the good from the evil (Matt 25:31-46; Rev. 20:11-15) and that this separation will be based on the individual’s choosing (Matt. 23:37; 2 Thess. 1:7-9).

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

God cannot choose to be anything other than God....

 

[delizzle]

God cannot choose to be anything other than God....

Agreed. But there are things that God cannot do because if He did them, He would no longer be God.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

 

[delizzle]

No question God is good, but are all His actions good for all people? Nope. So the term "all good" is too easily misinterpreted.

It's not a matter if "if His actions are good for all people", His actions are good for all people regardless if we don't see the goodness at the time. To a child, discipline, homework, and vegetables are not good. But the parent knows they are good things. Numerous scriptures compare God to a loving parent who disciplines and corrects out of love. Even His wrath is good in that it brings justice and encourages obedience. If we begin to entertain the notion that God is good but not all good, then we have reason to be afraid.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

 

[thatbrian]

Sorry, I got lost in all the threads I have been working on. Could you please reference the post you are referring to.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

The Problem of Evil.

 

[thatbrian]

C. S. Lewis states, "I would pay any price to be able to say truthfully, ‘All will be saved.' But my reason retorts, ‘Without their will, or with it?' If I say ‘without their will' I at once perceive a contradiction; how can the supreme voluntary act of self-surrender be involuntary? If I say ‘With their will,’ my reason replies, ‘How if they will not give in?’”[/b] (Lewis 2001, 106-7).

Although synergists like Lewis being with the idea that "self-surrender" is a prerequisite to the new birth, there is no scriptural evidence for such an idea. Indeed, salvation is necessary because men do not surrender their wills to His.

 

[utilyan]

Although synergists like Lewis being with the idea that "self-surrender" is a prerequisite to the new birth, there is no scriptural evidence for such an idea. Indeed, salvation is necessary because men do not surrender their wills to His.

Its easy to prove your position true.

Name one person who is elect and never heard of Jesus Christ.


The obstacle being that a person must cooperate and agree to hear scripture "SYNERGY" for the slightest inch of regeneration to occur.

 

[Van]

What passages support what you claim here though?

I have presented many verses and passages over the years, yet you have no knowledge of them, or so you say. What would make this time any different.

 

[Van]

It's not a matter if "if His actions are good for all people", His actions are good for all people regardless if we don't see the goodness at the time. To a child, discipline, homework, and vegetables are not good. But the parent knows they are good things. Numerous scriptures compare God to a loving parent who disciplines and corrects out of love. Even His wrath is good in that it brings justice and encourages obedience. If we begin to entertain the notion that God is good but not all good, then we have reason to be afraid.

I do not think the people taken to Hades would agree. As long as we are physically alive, we have an opportunity to put our faith fully in God, but if, while still lost our life is cut short by a flood, or storm, we would never see that calamity as good for us as individuals. And to repeat, it is the meaning of "all good" that is the problem, God is not good to all the people consigned to Hades.

 

[delizzle]

Although synergists like Lewis being with the idea that "self-surrender" is a prerequisite to the new birth, there is no scriptural evidence for such an idea. Indeed, salvation is necessary because men do not surrender their wills to His.

Unless I am seriously misreading things, this sounds awfully like self-surrender.


"Then he said to them all: “Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves and take up their cross daily and follow me. For whoever wants to save their life will lose it, but whoever loses their life for me will save it."
Luke 9:23‭-‬24 NIV
Luke 9:23-24; Then he said to them all: “Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves and take up their cross daily and follow me. For whoever wants to save their life will lose it, but whoever loses their life for me will save it.

"Then Jesus said to his disciples, “Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me. For whoever wants to save their life will lose it, but whoever loses their life for me will find it."
Matthew 16:24‭-‬25 NIV
Matthew 16:24-25; Then Jesus said to his disciples, “Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me. For whoever wants to save their life#:25 The Greek word means either life or soul; also in verse 26. will lose it, but whoever loses their life for me will find it.



Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

 

[delizzle]

The Problem of Evil.

I just want to make sure I am understanding you clearly. Are you suggesting we should abandon apologetics and simply cite Romans 1?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

 

[delizzle]

I do not think the people taken to Hades would agree.

First, People are in Hades because they chosen to reject God. God loves you too much to force you to spend eternity with Him.

Second, I believe that God is the omniscient, righteous, and perfect judge. There are no calls for appeals. I believe that everyone who is thrown in Hell will only blame themselves because God would have explained it so perfectly why they are at fault that there would be no denying that God is good, His justice is good, His wrath is good.

Third, goodness is not merely a trait that God has....He is goodness and the source, declarer and standard of ALL goodness. Thus, evil is defined simply as a privation (lack in something that ought to be there). Sin is merely choosing separation from God (the source of goodness).

You see, denying the omnibenevolence of God will no longer allow God to be God. Because if God is not "omni" good, you are implying that there is a moral law that is above God. Which would imply a moral lawgiver above God. Which would mean God isn't God...the superior "moral lawgiver" would be God.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

 

[Van]

First, People are in Hades because they chosen to reject God. God loves you too much to force you to spend eternity with Him.

Second, I believe that God is the omniscient, righteous, and perfect judge. There are no calls for appeals. I believe that everyone who is thrown in Hell will only blame themselves because God would have explained it so perfectly why they are at fault that there would be no denying that God is good, His justice is good, His wrath is good.

Third, goodness is not merely a trait that God has....He is goodness and the source, declarer and standard of ALL goodness. Thus, evil is defined simply as a privation (lack in something that ought to be there). Sin is merely choosing separation from God (the source of goodness).

You see, denying the omnibenevolence of God will no longer allow God to be God. Because if God is not "omni" good, you are implying that there is a moral law that is above God. Which would imply a moral lawgiver above God. Which would mean God isn't God...the superior "moral lawgiver" would be God.

1) Yet, those in Hades have received perfect justice, but from their point of view God did not treat them with goodness.
2) To repeat, God is not good to all people all the time, because what is good (i.e. perfect justice) from God's point of view is not good from the view of the sinner receiving perfect justice. Your concept is a fiction.
3) Please do not distort my view, I am not saying God does non-good things from God's point of view.

God is the cause of calamity, but calamity as used reflects the view of those adversely affected. Omnibenevolence meaning God is always good to all people, is not an attribute of God because not all people obtain salvation, but instead end up in the lake of fire.

The biblical view I presented resolves the so called "problem of evil" but no other view resolves it. To deny the fallen can choose life or death, is to create the "problem of evil." The biblical view provides a basis for supporting our shield of faith.