Well worth the time:
Posts
Rick Phillips on the PCA (Gabriel Fluhrer)
2 hours ago
Saturday, May 30, 2009
Thursday, May 21, 2009
The Problem of Evil 4 - The Theological Problem
Continuing our series on the Problem of Evil, we come to the Theological Problem of Evil. As I mentioned briefly in a note in my last post in the series, this has to do with potential objections raised to the idea that God has planned all of history, including all evil (from first to last). This is a broadly ranging issue over which Christians themselves are often divided. I am not going to attempt an exhaustive response here, but would like to respond as simply, briefly and clearly as I can to three common objections. Namely, (1) God planning evil makes Him the "author of sin"; (2) God planning evil makes God evil in some sense; (3) How does the first instance of evil occur in God's good creation without God being responsible (or how is God not responsible for The Fall of Man?)?
It should be noted at the outset that it is the clear biblical testimony that God is absolutely in control of everything, including evil (for a sampling see Joshua 11:20; 1 Kings 22:20-23; Isaiah 45:7, where God is said to "create evil"; Amos 3:6). Indeed Acts 2:23 and 4:28 shows us that even the most heinously wicked act in all of history, the state-sanctioned crucifixion of the only perfectly guiltless man, Jesus Christ, was always part of God's plan for history. Indeed, in an argument from the greater to the lesser, it would appear that my stealing a pack of gum as a child was no less part of God's plan.
(Note: I have chosen to speak of God's relationship to evil in terms of planning in order to emphasize his Lordship and control over all things. There is, I think, a biblical case to be made for using the language of Divine permission with reference to evil as well (see Genesis 31:7; Deuteronomy 18:14; Hebrews 6:3). However, this Divine permission is no less planned than anything else (Ephesians 1:11).)
Objection 1. God planning evil makes Him the "author of sin"
This objection is often asserted with little or no demonstration. The fact of the matter is that, despite the long tradition of its use, the phrase "author of sin" is rather ambiguous at best. What exactly does it mean? For one, it rests on an analogy to writing and composition. But we don't blame Stephen King or John Grisham for the crimes committed by the characters in their novels. That would be ludicrous. If God is the "author" of the "book of history" and the book contains "villains" in what way does this imply that He is culpable for their actions? The analogy needs some clarification before it can be clearly assessed.
Ambiguities aside, at bottom the objection appears to assert that this doctrine makes God the responsible cause of evil, which implies that God is evil (at least in part, if not entirely). Which brings us to our second objection.
Objection 2: God planning evil makes God evil in some sense
The Scripture teaches us that God is good and only good and that He hates all evil; yet it also teaches that He plans to bring about in history the evil which He hates. We reject the notion that this is a contradiction in the text, nor is it a problem of interpretation (the statements of Scripture on both counts are clear and unambiguous).
Also, the assertion of the various iterations of the Problem of Evil can always gain rhetorical force by borrowing emotional capital from the Existential Problem of Evil: if God planned the Holocaust, he must be no less guilty than the war criminals of Nuremburg, right?
Many seek shelter at this point in philosophical commitments to a certain formulation of the freedom of humans to make contrary choices (Arminianism or Molinism) or in a philosophical commitment to a limitation on God's knowledge in relation to His creation (Open Theism or Process Theology), by and large in an effort at absolving God from the accusations of His rebel creatures. No such efforts are necessary, however, from a biblical perspective.
An answer can be offered without doing violence to God's holiness or His sovereignty by recognizing that God's relationship to good and evil is asymmetrical in nature. That is, that God positively acts as both the ultimate and a mediate cause behind good events, but is negatively the ultimate, though not mediate, cause of evil. God acts to bring about good; His permissive non-action (allowing others to act in accordance with their own desires) brings about evil.
By way of analogy, the darkness of night is created by the absence of the sun's light shining on the earth, not by the sun actually being dark. Evil occurs in accordance with God's plan but utterly apart from His actions. The sun is the ultimate cause of day and night, light and darkness, but not in the same way. The sun causes night and day asymmetrically, just as God causes good and evil.
This answer affirms that God is both perfectly good and absolutely sovereign even in relationship to evil events (especially when one considers that humanity's nature is sinful and wicked), but it often raises another objection. Namely:
Objection 3. How does the first instance of evil occur in God's good creation without God being responsible (or how is God not responsible for The Fall of Man?)?
A great deal can (and possibly should) be said with respect to this objection. I have briefly argued elsewhere for a compatibilistic understanding of the relationship between God's sovereign determinations and humanity's responsibility. The assertion above (that God's relationship to good and evil is asymmetrical) makes legitimate sense if we grant that humanity has a nature which is under the control of sin.
When we sin, we are doing exactly what we want to do and even when presented with alternatives, we do what we want as if there were no alternatives. Freedom is defined here as doing what you want, or acting according to your nature. So every decision you make is a free one, despite the fact that every one of them is (apart from God's positive intervention) sinful and evil. From the perspective of being able to make decisions predicated upon our circumstances, we are entirely free. However, our circumstances include a nature which is inherently predisposed toward self-centered evil. So from the perspective of having any ability to freely choose good or evil, we are bound and determined by our own natures to choose evil. In this way, God is never the responsible agent for our evil acts. But how did evil first enter the good creation without God having any culpability for it?
Before we proceed, I would like to point out for the benefit of the readers that the question of how sin first entered God's good creation is probably the most difficult and complex question to be considered in the realm of Christian theology. John Piper, a man far more knowledgeable and ostensibly wiser than myself, has said on the matter, "How can a perfectly pure being with no evil inclinations suddenly have an evil inclination? And the answer is: I don't know. The most ultimate mystery to me is the origin of sin in created beings."
"Fools rush in where angels fear to tread."
That being said, I'll still offer an answer to the question for your consideration. I certainly wouldn't consider it the last word on the matter, and I won't take the time to "tease out" all of the implications and potential objections (I'll leave that for the combox, if any reader is inclined to discuss the matter further).
I would say that while God planned that sin would enter a world where there was no sin, He planned it wisely, such that He remains no more tainted or responsible for the first sin than for any other evil actions. He does this by making His creation good but mutable. There are many reasons why mutability (or being changeable) could, in fact, be inherent in the goodness of creation. This mutability allows for adaptation to various environments and circumstances, gaining relationships within an ever-growing population, growing in knowledge and love with an infinite God in a nearly infinite universe, etc. However, Adam's mutability allowed for the possibility of negative change, of sin and evil. Adam was made in God's image and inherently responsible to God above all of creation. His ability to gain knowledge, love and dominion over creation was also the ability which he used to rebel, at the temptation of Satan (whose mutability had already been used in a similar rebellion).
That God creates everything as good (and inherent in good is mutability) does not make God culpable for the misuse of that goodness. Indeed, God could have intervened at any time to prevent this rebellion, but so could Adam. It defeats the purpose of giving Adam responsibility for all of creation if God is going to intervene upon it shortly thereafter. Adam abused the goodness of God and in so doing abused himself and all of creation thereafter.
Adam's rebellion was his own responsibility, just as my rebellion is my responsibility; and God remains demonstrably blameless, holy and perfect... despite our constant accusations, blame-shifting and philosophical "rescuing devices" (such as libertarian free will formulations). God is sovereign and good, while planning every instance of evil for His good purposes. Lord willing, we will next consider some of those good purposes in proposing a Theocentric Best of All Possible Worlds Theodicy.
It should be noted at the outset that it is the clear biblical testimony that God is absolutely in control of everything, including evil (for a sampling see Joshua 11:20; 1 Kings 22:20-23; Isaiah 45:7, where God is said to "create evil"; Amos 3:6). Indeed Acts 2:23 and 4:28 shows us that even the most heinously wicked act in all of history, the state-sanctioned crucifixion of the only perfectly guiltless man, Jesus Christ, was always part of God's plan for history. Indeed, in an argument from the greater to the lesser, it would appear that my stealing a pack of gum as a child was no less part of God's plan.
(Note: I have chosen to speak of God's relationship to evil in terms of planning in order to emphasize his Lordship and control over all things. There is, I think, a biblical case to be made for using the language of Divine permission with reference to evil as well (see Genesis 31:7; Deuteronomy 18:14; Hebrews 6:3). However, this Divine permission is no less planned than anything else (Ephesians 1:11).)
Objection 1. God planning evil makes Him the "author of sin"
This objection is often asserted with little or no demonstration. The fact of the matter is that, despite the long tradition of its use, the phrase "author of sin" is rather ambiguous at best. What exactly does it mean? For one, it rests on an analogy to writing and composition. But we don't blame Stephen King or John Grisham for the crimes committed by the characters in their novels. That would be ludicrous. If God is the "author" of the "book of history" and the book contains "villains" in what way does this imply that He is culpable for their actions? The analogy needs some clarification before it can be clearly assessed.
Ambiguities aside, at bottom the objection appears to assert that this doctrine makes God the responsible cause of evil, which implies that God is evil (at least in part, if not entirely). Which brings us to our second objection.
Objection 2: God planning evil makes God evil in some sense
The Scripture teaches us that God is good and only good and that He hates all evil; yet it also teaches that He plans to bring about in history the evil which He hates. We reject the notion that this is a contradiction in the text, nor is it a problem of interpretation (the statements of Scripture on both counts are clear and unambiguous).
Also, the assertion of the various iterations of the Problem of Evil can always gain rhetorical force by borrowing emotional capital from the Existential Problem of Evil: if God planned the Holocaust, he must be no less guilty than the war criminals of Nuremburg, right?
Many seek shelter at this point in philosophical commitments to a certain formulation of the freedom of humans to make contrary choices (Arminianism or Molinism) or in a philosophical commitment to a limitation on God's knowledge in relation to His creation (Open Theism or Process Theology), by and large in an effort at absolving God from the accusations of His rebel creatures. No such efforts are necessary, however, from a biblical perspective.
An answer can be offered without doing violence to God's holiness or His sovereignty by recognizing that God's relationship to good and evil is asymmetrical in nature. That is, that God positively acts as both the ultimate and a mediate cause behind good events, but is negatively the ultimate, though not mediate, cause of evil. God acts to bring about good; His permissive non-action (allowing others to act in accordance with their own desires) brings about evil.
By way of analogy, the darkness of night is created by the absence of the sun's light shining on the earth, not by the sun actually being dark. Evil occurs in accordance with God's plan but utterly apart from His actions. The sun is the ultimate cause of day and night, light and darkness, but not in the same way. The sun causes night and day asymmetrically, just as God causes good and evil.
This answer affirms that God is both perfectly good and absolutely sovereign even in relationship to evil events (especially when one considers that humanity's nature is sinful and wicked), but it often raises another objection. Namely:
Objection 3. How does the first instance of evil occur in God's good creation without God being responsible (or how is God not responsible for The Fall of Man?)?
A great deal can (and possibly should) be said with respect to this objection. I have briefly argued elsewhere for a compatibilistic understanding of the relationship between God's sovereign determinations and humanity's responsibility. The assertion above (that God's relationship to good and evil is asymmetrical) makes legitimate sense if we grant that humanity has a nature which is under the control of sin.
When we sin, we are doing exactly what we want to do and even when presented with alternatives, we do what we want as if there were no alternatives. Freedom is defined here as doing what you want, or acting according to your nature. So every decision you make is a free one, despite the fact that every one of them is (apart from God's positive intervention) sinful and evil. From the perspective of being able to make decisions predicated upon our circumstances, we are entirely free. However, our circumstances include a nature which is inherently predisposed toward self-centered evil. So from the perspective of having any ability to freely choose good or evil, we are bound and determined by our own natures to choose evil. In this way, God is never the responsible agent for our evil acts. But how did evil first enter the good creation without God having any culpability for it?
Before we proceed, I would like to point out for the benefit of the readers that the question of how sin first entered God's good creation is probably the most difficult and complex question to be considered in the realm of Christian theology. John Piper, a man far more knowledgeable and ostensibly wiser than myself, has said on the matter, "How can a perfectly pure being with no evil inclinations suddenly have an evil inclination? And the answer is: I don't know. The most ultimate mystery to me is the origin of sin in created beings."
"Fools rush in where angels fear to tread."
That being said, I'll still offer an answer to the question for your consideration. I certainly wouldn't consider it the last word on the matter, and I won't take the time to "tease out" all of the implications and potential objections (I'll leave that for the combox, if any reader is inclined to discuss the matter further).
I would say that while God planned that sin would enter a world where there was no sin, He planned it wisely, such that He remains no more tainted or responsible for the first sin than for any other evil actions. He does this by making His creation good but mutable. There are many reasons why mutability (or being changeable) could, in fact, be inherent in the goodness of creation. This mutability allows for adaptation to various environments and circumstances, gaining relationships within an ever-growing population, growing in knowledge and love with an infinite God in a nearly infinite universe, etc. However, Adam's mutability allowed for the possibility of negative change, of sin and evil. Adam was made in God's image and inherently responsible to God above all of creation. His ability to gain knowledge, love and dominion over creation was also the ability which he used to rebel, at the temptation of Satan (whose mutability had already been used in a similar rebellion).
That God creates everything as good (and inherent in good is mutability) does not make God culpable for the misuse of that goodness. Indeed, God could have intervened at any time to prevent this rebellion, but so could Adam. It defeats the purpose of giving Adam responsibility for all of creation if God is going to intervene upon it shortly thereafter. Adam abused the goodness of God and in so doing abused himself and all of creation thereafter.
Adam's rebellion was his own responsibility, just as my rebellion is my responsibility; and God remains demonstrably blameless, holy and perfect... despite our constant accusations, blame-shifting and philosophical "rescuing devices" (such as libertarian free will formulations). God is sovereign and good, while planning every instance of evil for His good purposes. Lord willing, we will next consider some of those good purposes in proposing a Theocentric Best of All Possible Worlds Theodicy.
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
What Is Marxism?
"Marxists and socialists in general care a lot about the distribution of material wealth. But they have no idea how to bring about the creation of the material wealth that they wish to redistribute. They just assume it all gets produced all by itself. That is why people in communist regimes starve."
"Marxists claim that workers in capitalist societies feel "alienated." In reality, pampered children in capitalist society feel alienated because capitalism produces wealth, makes material comfort possible, and so creates the opportunities for idleness and leisure that lead to recreational feelings of alienation."
"Marxists think that Marx understood economics. In fact, virtually all Marxist "theories" were completed debunked 160 years ago. Marx was wrong about virtually everything he wrote on economics. It is more difficult to say whether he was correct about anything in sociology, but that is more a commentary on the nebulous and muddled nature of sociological thinking."
"There is not a single Marxist scholar or expert on earth who could produce a pencil by himself."
You must read: What Is Marxism?
"Marxists claim that workers in capitalist societies feel "alienated." In reality, pampered children in capitalist society feel alienated because capitalism produces wealth, makes material comfort possible, and so creates the opportunities for idleness and leisure that lead to recreational feelings of alienation."
"Marxists think that Marx understood economics. In fact, virtually all Marxist "theories" were completed debunked 160 years ago. Marx was wrong about virtually everything he wrote on economics. It is more difficult to say whether he was correct about anything in sociology, but that is more a commentary on the nebulous and muddled nature of sociological thinking."
"There is not a single Marxist scholar or expert on earth who could produce a pencil by himself."
You must read: What Is Marxism?
The Housing Boom and Bust
"Riskier mortgage lending practices, imposed by government, were what set the stage for many mortgage payments to stop and thus for the financial disasters that followed. Political rhetoric, echoed in the media, seeks to obscure that painfully plain fact." -Tom Sowell (possibly the wisest living economist)
See: The Housing Boom and Bust
See: The Housing Boom and Bust
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)