The Problem of Evil Answered

Introduction

One of the oldest, and still most popular, arguments against the Christian God is the so-called problem of evil. Dr. Walter Kaufmann, who tragically lost family members in the Holocaust, refers to the problem of evil as his strongest argument against Christianity, a "complete refutation of popular theism". H. J. McCloskey, in a 1960 Philosophical Quarterly article, wrote that "Evil is a problem, for the theist, in that a contradiction is involved in the fact of evil on the one hand and belief in the omnipotence and omniscience of God on the other."

Perhaps the original problem of evil argument was attributed Epicurus by Lactantius (See Lactantius - A Treatise on the Anger of God; Chap. XIII. - Of the Advantage and Use of the World and of the Seasons; AD 260-330). Although it is debatable if Lactantius chose the correct philosopher, it is clear that the "problem of evil" argument existed very early in Christendom. The Apostle Paul, in some rhetorical measure, dealt with the problem of evil in regards to the doctrine of unconditional election (Romans 9:14 - See Jay Adams' answer below).

The problem of evil is presented as a logical problem in regards to an omnipotent and omnibenevolent Deity. With a few variations, the arguments is stated as such:

P1: If God were omnipotent, He would be able to prevent all evil.
P2: If God were omnibenevolent, He would want to prevent all evil.
P3: Evil exists.
Conclusion: There is no omnipotent, omnibenevolent God.


The Atheist's Problem of Evil

While the problem is presented as an obstacle to Christianity, it must be pointed out that it presents two huge (and I would say, insurmountable) challenges to atheism. The first is the premise P3: Evil exists. The entire argument is based on the idea the evil is an objective reality. However, such a reality cannot be accounted for in an atheistic worldview. A judgment of "evil exists" requires an absolute moral standard, an objective "right and wrong" that goes well beyond simply subjectivism and "conventional wisdom". But how can a moral absolute come into existence in a materialistic universe? In an atheistic world, complete with its "survival of he fittest" ontology, there may be things that are painful, tragic, and grate against our sensibilities. However, such a worldview logically leads to genetic determinism, thus no grounds for proclaiming that evil exists. Yet, aside from Stoics who deny the existence of evil, every man has an innate and inescapable knowledge of evil, because they "by nature do what the law requires" (Romans 2:14), proving their knowledge of the one true God. And even if variable "secular" ethical theories could provide an objective moral standard, there is no grounds for demanding any life form to subject themselves to that standard. Materialism cannot produce morality, and "is" cannot justify "ought". C.S. Lewis explains this problem by looking back on his days as an atheist:

“My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust?... Of course I could have given up my idea of justice by saying it was nothing but a private idea of my own. But if I did that, then my argument against God collapsed too--for the argument depended on saying the world was really unjust, not simply that it did not happen to please my fancies." (C. S. Lewis Mere Christianity - Touchstone: New York, 1980 p.45-46)

The second obstacle is that the problem of evil argument presupposes, not just a god, but the one and True Christian God. To suppose any other deity would eliminate evil as being a problem. From a standpoint of "general theism" (whatever form it may take), there are many logical reasons why evil may exist. There could be an evil god, who loves to do evil things. There could be an irrational god, who cannot tell the difference between good and evil. There could be a weak god, who is unable to prevent evil.

So we must concluded that, if the problem of evil is a valid problem, then atheism is refuted, and the Christian God is presupposed a priori. Nonetheless, the Christian is commanded by His Lord to answer the problem (1 Peter 3:15), though the problem itself is proof of the unbeliever's suppressed knowledge of God (Romans 1:18).


Past Answers Attempted

There have been many attempts throughout history to answer the logical problem of evil, yet without examining the truth of it's premises. Irenaeus suggested that evil is necessary and useful for men to seek God. Variations consider that evil is necessary for free will to exist (Plantinga). Justin Martyr attributed evil to angels who "transgressed their appointment", but does not explain how this idea is compatible with God's omnipotence. Dionysius echoed the Stoic view that evil does not exist. Augustine suggested that evil was simply an absence of good, but unwittingly denies the omnipresence of God in the process. Various "Best Possible World" Theories have abounded. C.S. Lewis holds to a combination of the "best possible world" and "free will" theories. He suggests that "Perhaps this is not the 'best of all possible' universes, but the only possible one" (C.S. Lewis, The Problem of Pain, p. 26). In Lewis's view, evil is a result of a "fixed nature of matter" (pp. 23-25), and is necessary for free will to exist. He writes, "We can, perhaps, conceive of a world in which God corrected the results of this abuse of free will by His creatures at every moment,...But such a world would be one in which all wrong actions would be impossible, and in which, therefore, freedom of the will would be void." (p. 24)

However, The Christian Doctrine of a perfect heaven is a death blow to "free will", necessary evil, or "best possible worlds" arguments. No Christian truly believes that this is the best possible world, for we all look for a better world yet to come, where evil will finally be defeated, and man's "will" shall truly be free of it's sinful nature.

Other theories tend to compromise God's attributes, making Him less than God. Monism holds that God is above good and evil, thus denying God's omnibenevolence. Dualism denies God's sovereignty, teaching that God produces only good, but a separate power (usually Satan) produces evil. Process Theology ("open" theism) flatly denies the omnipotence of God. The unthinkable result is that, in order to satisfy a weak intellect concerning the problem of evil, these poor deluded souls have no rational hope that evil won't eventually triumph in the universe. Those who hold that evil is "necessary" deny the solitariness of God, who does not need "anything, since he himself gives to all mankind life and breath and everything." (Acts 7:24-25). Whatever answer we come up with for the problem of evil, we cannot let that answer make God to be anything less than God.


The Problem of Evil Answered

Lactantius' answer to Epicurus' alleged statement over 1700 years ago was very close to the correct answer.

"For God is able to do whatever He wishes, and there is no weakness or envy in God. He is able, therefore, to take away evils; but He does not wish to do so, and yet He is not on that account envious. For on this account He does not take them away, because He at the same time gives wisdom, as I have shown; and there is more of goodness and pleasure in wisdom than of annoyance in evils. For wisdom causes us even to know God, and by that knowledge to attain to immortality, which is the chief good. Therefore, unless we first know evil, we shall be unable to know good." (Lactantius - A Treatise on the Anger of God; Chap. XIII. - Of the Advantage and Use of the World and of the Seasons.)

Thomas Aquinas expounded this line of thought even further, holding that God is the primary cause of evil (as penalty), but not the secondary cause (as fault) (See Summa Theologica: Question XLVIII - The Distinction of Things in Particular.) Jay Adams was short to the biblical point, Evil exists for God to show his wrath on evildoers and "in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory" (Romans 9:23). While this is true, (as well as the broad argument that everything, including evil, exists for the glory of God), it doesn't provide a direct answer to the logical problem presented. Using a combination of the arguments above, let us re-examine the premises presented in the problem of evil.

P1: If God were omnipotent, He would be able to prevent all evil.
P2: If God were omnibenevolent, He would want to prevent all evil.
P3: Evil exists.
Conclusion: There is no omnipotent, omnibenevolent God.

Premise 1 is sound, God is clearly omnipotent and "he does all that he pleases." (Psalms 115:3). "...he does according to his will among the host of heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth; and none can stay his hand or say to him, "What have you done?" (Daniel 4:35). These passages can be considered God's job description.

As we saw earlier, Premise 3 poses a problem for atheists, thus is a good starting point for discussion with one who uses this argument. But from the Christian perspective, it is quite obvious that evil does exist. Unbelievers are aware of evil, though they have issues defining it or accounting for it.

The real issue is Premise 2. Does an omnibenevolent God necessarily want to prevent all evil? How does this premise match the God of Scripture?

"I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things." (Isaiah 45:7 KJV)

Therefore Premise 2 is false. The Bible teaches that the omnibenevolent God does not want to prevent evil, but actually creates evil and uses it for His own ends. It will come as no surprise that many Christians are uncomfortable with this rendering, thus many translations substitute "calamity" in place of "evil", as though it really makes any difference (See also Amos 3:6). But why would a omnipotent, omnibenevolent God create evil? Based on the clear teachings of Scripture concerning God's omnipotence and His omnibenevolence, we may propose the following correction to Premise 2:

P2: If God were omnibenevolent, He would have a good purpose behind the evil He creates.

With this corrected premise, the problem of evil ceases to be a problem. The premise is biblical, and solves the logical problem with evil in God's universe. We may conclude that evil exists, therefore there is an omnipotent, omnibenevolent God who uses that evil for his own good purposes. We have also established that, without God, there can be no evil, only a material world governed by undesigned chance or blind fate. So it is the atheist worldview that has the real "problem with evil".

One may object to my correction of Premise 2 by asking what precisely is the "good purpose" for evil. That I have no answer for, nor do I need to in order to validate this answer for the problem with evil. "The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things that are revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law." (Deuteronomy 29:29)

We have clues as to why God sovereignly works in certain evil events. The kidnapping and enslavement of Joseph was a direct act of God (Genesis 45:7), yet while Joseph's brothers meant it for evil, "...God meant it for good, to bring it about that many people should be kept alive...". (Genesis 50:20). The most evil act in history was the death of God's own Son, delivered into the hand of wicked men according to the "determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God" (Acts 2:23), for all these did nothing but "what the hand and counsel of God had decreed" (Acts 4:27-28). Yet the good that has come about by the evil act is wondrous indeed, the redemption of poor, deformed sinners, deserving of God's wrath, into adopted sons who have the promise of an inheritance.

We may not know what the ultimate "good" purpose for evil is in God's most wise and determinate counsel, for He has not revealed that to us. However, let not this keep us from the One who has all power and authority, and guarantees "that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose." (Romans 8:28)

Atheism's Groundless Epistemology Exposed

"Tim The Teacher" tries to build his case against God by using arguments based on radical empiricism. In the end, he has no ground on which to stand. Let's pray that he will treat his own materialistic worldview with equal skepticism, and that the Master will claim Tim for His own.

See A Question Of Faith.

Eternal Security and Sanctification

“… In love he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will,” (Ephesians 1:4-5)

It is often said by the critics of the doctrine of Perseverance of the Saints that such security trends to lead to lasciviousness. There is some cause for concern in this area, especially when this doctrine is mixed with “free will” salvation. I’ve met more than one poor deluded soul who, despite living a godless life, considered himself saved on the basis that, at one point in his life, he went to an altar and repeated a prayer (more on this tragic practice in a few weeks). In such cases, the problem with the “once saved, always saved” approach isn’t with the “always saved”, but rather with the “once saved”. Eternal security is not meant to be fire insurance for the wicked, and abuses of doctrine are not the cause of the doctrine itself. Those who profess such a vain religion would to well to heed the words of our Saviour.

"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?' And then will I declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.'" (Matthew 7:21-23)

For the believer, however, the Doctrine of Eternal Security should lead to greater sanctification, for it is the secure believer who has the freedom to dig deep within his wicked heart and purge whatever great deformity he may find. He may pray as David did, with confidence:

“Search me, O God, and know my heart! Try me and know my thoughts! And see if there be any grievous way in me, and lead me in the way everlasting!” (Psalms 139:23-24)

In contrast, those who fear losing their salvation are rarely led to greater sanctification. They are dangerously relying on what Charles Spurgeon referred to as “Carnal Security”. Rather than take joy in their adoption, they rely on their own works to maintain their justification, and then foolishly think that they have succeeded. They must lower God’s standard of perfection, and cannot be honest about their own sinfulness. They think well of themselves if they attend a church service, say a few prayers and devotions, and avoid any “big” sins. I would ask such a person, “How much is required in order to maintain ones justification? How many sins does it take to lose it? Do sins such as gossip and private, lustful thoughts count?” Indeed, “Cursed is the man who trusts in man and makes flesh his strength…” (Jeremiah 17:5)

Look at these beautiful words. “In love he predestined us for adoption as sons…” (Ephesians 1:4-5). What glorious confidence that should provide for us as we continue to examine our hearts! Friend, there is no reason to hold anything back, for the Lord already sees it. Let us approach the Great Physician as a son approaches a father, allowing Him to perform the necessary heart surgery, confident that He is preparing us for glory.

Egalitarianism: An Examination of the Alleged Supporting Scriptures

“For those things which I have already mentioned might easily be performed by many even of those who are under authority, women as well as men; but when one is required to preside over the Church, and to be entrusted with the care of so many souls, the whole female sex must retire before the magnitude of the task, and the majority of men also… The divine law indeed has excluded women from the ministry, but they endeavor to thrust themselves into it; and since they can effect nothing of themselves, they do all through the agency of others; and they have become invested with so much power that they can appoint or eject priests at their will; things in fact are turned upside down, and the proverbial saying may be seen realized —“The ruled lead the rulers:” and would that it were men who do this instead of women, who have not received a commission to teach. Why do I say teach? For the blessed Paul did not suffer them even to speak in the Church.” (Chrysostom - The Priesthood 2:2 , 3:9).

“In the New Testament the Holy Spirit, speaking through St Paul, ordained that women should be silent in the churches and assemblies (1 Cor. 14:34), and said that this is the Lord's commandment? In the congregations or churches where there is a ministry women are to be silent and not preach (1 Timothy 2:12).” (Martin Luther - Infiltrating and Clandestine Preachers, Works 40:390-91).

In light of the recent close vote (446 to 427) in the PCA concerning the ordination of “deaconesses”, as well as the increasing number of female pastors in many denominations, I thought it would be profitable to examine some of the Scriptures that are commonly used in support of women in ordained ministry, despite the very clear commandment of 1 Timothy 2:12. The following arguments appear in a publication by a well known Pentecostal denomination which practices the ordination of women ministers.

1.) “Junia was a female apostle” (Romans 16:7).

Romans 16:7 does not state the Junia was an apostle, or any type of church leader. Some translations say that she was “of note among the apostles” (ASV. KVJ, etc.) The meaning is clarified by the ESV, that she was “well known to the apostles”. For that matter, it’s not even clear that Junia was a woman, since the Greek “Iounian” could also be translated “Junias” (a male name), as some early transcripts read.

In any case, there were only 14 Apostles (the original 12, plus Mattias and Paul). The term “Apostle” here referring to the church office, not the generic term that many try to cause confusion with.

2.) “in Christ, there is neither male or female” (Galatians 3:28).

Clearly a misused text (See Most Misused Bible Passages Poll). Taken to its logical extreme, this sort of exegesis could be used to support gay marriage (Don’t laugh, this is being done). The passage is clearly used to emphasize the fact that salvation is not dependent on social standing. The passage is not meant to blur the clear distinction between men and women, and thus their qualification for church office or teaching in public ministry.

3.) “Paul also allowed women to “teach” in (Romans 16:1-6; Philippians 4:2-3). Thus he presumably addressed 1Timothy to the specific situation in a specific community.”

The cited passages do not suggest that women are allowed to teach (not to mention that those who use this argument never manage to explain what the “specific situation” in 1 Timothy was). There are many ways that a woman can (and should) be “workers in Christ Jesus” without holding an ordained office or teaching in public worship. That same is true with Philippians 4, and there are many ways to “labor…in the gospel” without holding an ordained office or teaching in public worship.

The clearest passage regarding women teaching is 1 Timothy 2:12, and Paul really leaves no ambiguity in his statement. To suggest that Paul was addressing a “specific situation in a specific community.” is presumptuous indeed. Especially when Paul was clearly addressing Timothy in regards to “all people” (without distinction) (v. 1, 4, 6). Paul goes on to suggest that “in every place the men should pray” (v.8). Does that apply only to the specific situation in Timothy, or to men in every place? On what basis, then, would anyone suggest that Paul suddenly shift gears and applies vs. 12 to “a specific situation”? Certainly not sound biblical exegesis.

4.) “Joel explicitly emphasized that when God poured out His Spirit, women as well as men would prophesy (Joel 2:28-29).”

This is the most common argument, with another misused passage, though not quite as clear, since preaching is a form of prophesying. When Peter was citing this passage, he was applying it to what had just happened on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:16-21). There were 3,000 people with him, and yet he was the only one “preaching”. No one else was preaching, and no women had been ordained to church office. It’s best to let the Bible apply its own meaning to a passage rather than try to make it say something that it doesn’t.

5.) “Slaves can be saved and also receive gifts for ministry equally, so can Gentiles, so can women.”

Gifts for ministry do not necessarily entail preaching or ordination for church office. Over and over again, those offices are strictly limited to men. In 1 Timothy 2:12, God left no wiggle room for interpretation, nor did He contradict Himself on the other passages that we just dealt with.
I would ask those who voted “yes” in the GA, as I have often asked in regards to 1 Timothy 2:12: Let’s suppose, just for a second, the Paul had actually meant that he does “not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man”, and that “she is to remain quiet” in church. How else could he have expressed that sentiment any clearer than he did here? Versa ipsa loquitur.

6.) “Women ministers have led many to Christ”.

True or not, this is a common argument adopting a pragmatic worldview, that the end justifies the means. It is used to support everything from altar calls, church clowns and jugglers, Rock and Roll “Worship” services, and false TBN preachers. I would ask those who use this argument to consider if what Judas Iscariot did should be justified on the basis that it has saved so many people. Truth should never be expendable for perceived successful results. The ends never justify the means, especially when those means are unbiblical.

If it make anyone feel better, there are very few men that are qualified for ordained office as well, but those who do qualify are exclusively men. This last vote was a bit too close for my comfort.

Justification by Calvinism?

And I thought I was a doctrinal hardcase...

There is an interesting discussion on the Puritan Board concerning Arminianism and Salvation. Not a few posters have expressed the belief that Arminianism in any form disqualifies one from the kingdom of God.

As a former "saved Arminian" who knows quite a few saved Arminians, I needed to take exception to such a broad sweeping statement. The difficulty comes in trying to define what Arminianism is. Granted, the classic historical Arminian belief system is incompatible with Biblical Christianity. Fortunately, there are very few pure Arminians today. The vast majoity of those who call themselves Arminians would be shocked at what Arminianism actually teaches (ie. Christ death offered no payment for sins, etc.)

The question is whether one can obtain saving faith and still be in error about how that faith was obtained. I would answer in the affirmative. The Galatian Church taught justification by works. Paul unapologetically refuted the error, but never once suggested that the Galatian Church was anything other than a true church. We need the grace to recognize that "The purest Churches under heaven are subject both to mixture and error" (WCF Chapter XXV:V.).

Arminianism in any form is a gross error, and we should do all in our power to correct it. But there is an equal danger of adding "Belief in Calvinism" to the Ordo Salutis, and teaching "Justification by Calvinism". I'm just not there.