Evaluating Theodicies
/
The issue over the existence of evil is a perpetual concern for the Christian church. Christians are routinely challenged by secularists, philosophers, and anti-theists with the “problem of evil,” which asks if God is truly omnibenevolent and omnipotent, how can evil exist in his world? J. L. Mackie alleges, “There seems to be some contradiction between these three propositions, so that if any two of them were true the third would be false.”[1] Such persons attempt to charge that it is irrational to believe God exists in light of the presence of evil. Christians are required to respond to this allegation by presenting an apologetic argument that not only accounts for the presence of evil in the world but also provides a defense of God’s purposes in allowing it to afflict his people. This paper will demonstrate that God intentionally decrees the existence of evil for the express purpose of glorifying his name through the redemptive work of Jesus Christ. This will be done by examining the claim put forth by Mackie that theists are contradictory and irrational in their beliefs against two of the most common theodicies: the Free Will Defense and the Greater-Good/Greater-Glory Theodicies.
God’s Goodness and Omnipotence Challenged
While there are various efforts to attempt to disprove the existence of God, one of the most common efforts by anti-theists is to appeal to the existence of evil in the world. As John Frame explains, the charge of the problem of evil can be explained by the following formulation:
Premise 1: If God were all-powerful, he would be able to prevent evil.
Premise 2: If God were all-good, he would desire to prevent evil.
Conclusion: So if God were both all-powerful and all-good, there would be no evil.
Premise 3: But there is evil.
Conclusion: Therefore, there is no all-powerful, all-good God.[2]
This formula appeals to Christian teaching about the character and nature of God to disprove his very existence. Mackie further argues this point in his paper, Evil and Omnipotence, when he writes, “the several parts of the essential theological doctrine are inconsistent with one another, so that the theologian can maintain his position as a whole only by a much more extreme rejection of reason.”[3] Therefore, at its heart, the problem of evil is presented as an attempt to reframe Christian truth in such a way that the anti-theist constructs a trap from which Christians cannot seemingly escape.
It is worth addressing that for anti-theists to argue that the existence of evil disproves God’s existence, they must first concede that there is an objective standard of good and evil. Travis James Campbell states, “Before one can be in a position to call any action or state of affairs truly or objectively evil, one must have an objective standard for adjudicating what is good and what is evil. In other words, the claim that evil exists is meaningless in a world wherein objective moral values do not exist.”[4] For there to be categories of good and evil to examine, one must acknowledge that there is an objective standard and an objective standard giver. Therefore, those who seek to eradicate God from existence by pointing to evil’s presence already concede the debate. This, however, does not absolve the Christian of a responsibility to answer the question of why God permits evil to exist. It is then necessary to examine the anti-theist’s argument.
Mackie attempts to frame this argument by stating “that good is opposed to evil, in such a way that a good thing always eliminates evil as far as it can, and that there are no limits to what an omnipotent thing can do.”[5] Mackie seeks to position his definitions of good and omnipotent in such a way that Christians cannot seemingly defend the existence of evil against them. According to his premise, God can only be good if he eliminates evil, meaning that God cannot be good if he allows or has a purpose for evil to exist. It is essential to Mackie’s argument that there cannot be a viable Christian response that God is good if he not only allows for but has a specific purpose for the existence of evil. However, this contradicts Scripture’s teachings, which state that God purposes evil for good, as seen in Genesis 50:20a, “As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good.”[6] Therefore, it is necessary to present a theodicy which addresses both God’s goodness and his purposes for evil.
The second definition that Mackie makes determinative of his argument is that of omnipotence. The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia defines omnipotence as “The condition of being all-powerful; an attribute of God.”[7] Mackie adds to this definition by stating that there are no limits to what an omnipotent being can do. This would appear to include challenging that omnipotence can only do that which is logically impossible. While addressing the theist argument that good cannot exist without evil, Mackie addresses the matter of logical impossibilities. He describes that theists, “have held that logic itself is created and or laid down by God, that logic is the way in which God arbitrarily chooses to think...And this account of logic is clearly inconsistent with the view that God is bound by logical necessities—unless it is possible for an omnipotent being to bind himself.”[8] He wrongly understands the argument in this matter, for the Christian position holds that logic is not merely how God chooses to think, but it is based on his nature and existence, and that his rationality is reflected in his creation.[9] Therefore, a Christian theodicy should incorporate a truly biblical understanding of God’s omnipotence.
These definitions significantly influence Mackie’s efforts to refute various Christian solutions to the problem of evil. For example, he argues that if God permits as a necessary means to good, then he could not be omnipotent, for “he must be subject to some causal laws.”[10] Concerning the free will argument, Mackie questions why God could not make men who only choose God, and that his failure to do so demonstrates a paradox of an omnipotent being who makes things he cannot control.[11] In examining both of these theodicies, it will be demonstrated that, while the anti-theist does wrongly inject unbiblical meaning into these terms, only one Christian response rightly addresses these objections and demonstrates that God is the supremely good and omnipotent Being deserving of all glory in the face of evil.
God’s Goodness and Glory are Limited Under Free Will
To address the charges that God cannot be both omnipotent and wholly good if he permits evil to exist, some theologians present the defense that God created beings that have complete free agency to choose what actions they will take. For these beings to truly worship God, they must be free from any outside influence that would determine the outcome of their choices. To this end, Alvin Plantinga argues, “Now God can create a world containing moral good only by creating significantly free persons.”[12] It is only because these persons are free to choose without external influence that good may come of actions. Therefore, to create a world where his creation will freely choose to obey his commandments and worship him, God must take the chance that these persons will choose to act wrongly, resulting in evil existing in the world.
This defense does not attempt to deny the existence of evil, rather, it argues that God is limited to creating a world in which evil occurs due to the free will choices of man. Charles Hodge explains that, according to this theodicy, man “must always be able to act contrary to any degree of influence brought to bear upon him, or he ceases to be free. God, therefore, of necessity limits Himself when He creates free agents.”[13] In other words, God exercises a divine limitation on his power because he esteems the free will of man of utmost value. This being the case, Plantinga argues, “then it is possible that God has a good reason for creating a world containing evil.”[14] God’s good purposes in creating a world with evil, therefore, is that he could not create any other world where there is moral good without free will.
The free will defense places the responsibility for evil on man and attempts to free God from the responsibility for its existence. As Frame notes, “Since that free choice was in no sense controlled or foreordained or caused by God, he cannot be held accountable for it.”[15] This then addresses the issue of God’s goodness. If man is entirely free in his choices and chooses evil apart from any external influence, then God’s goodness is not affected by evil’s existence, for he is not its author. Likewise, since God values the free will of man, he demonstrates his goodness by not overriding man’s will, thus treating him as an automaton. However, this defense requires that his goodness can only be demonstrated by man having the libertarian freedom to choose good or evil. Greg Welty argues that God could have given man a restricted free will wherein he freely chooses from a diversity of good actions. In this manner, God does not actively intervene in man’s choices, but instead, “restricts the range of thoughts that could occur to us in the first place,” thus eliminating the charge of creating mere robots but still creating “a world without moral evil.”[16] Therefore, God does not need man to have libertarian free will to demonstrate his goodness.
Free will adherents also have a problem concerning God’s omnipotence. As noted above, Plantinga admits that God is not free to create any world he chooses. According to him, the number of possible worlds God can create is at least partly up to the choices man will make.[17] This, coupled with absolute adherence to libertarian free will, argues for a God that is not directly involved and cannot even limit evil in his creation. If God is not free to act or create due to the free will choices of man, this strengthens Mackie’s charge that God cannot truly be omnipotent. While the Free Will defense seeks to frame God as disconnected from any responsibility for evil, it makes him powerless to do anything to stem the flow of evil in his creation.
Other Christian theologians have noted this problem as well. Addressing the claim that God cannot influence man’s choice to commit evil, Scott Christensen argues, “Scripture indicates that God intervenes to stop evil all the time,” citing numerous Scriptural examples, from God’s drowning the armies of Egypt (Ex. 14:21–29) to the warning of the Magi of Herod’s schemes (Matt. 2:12–15).[18] Whether God acts in spectacular and miraculous means to prevent evil or he orchestrates matters through his meticulous providence, he demonstrates his omnipotence over all events in history. By choosing what evils he will stop and which he permits to occur, Christensen argues, “God sovereignly intends all evil to happen that he does not prevent.”[19] Rather than being neutered by man’s libertarian freedom, God actively acts in his creation by allowing or preventing evil acts to occur. This not only asserts a biblical view of God’s omnipotence, but it also points to a God who has a definitive plan and purpose for evil. The Free Will Defense fails to rightly account for Scripture’s revelation of God in this manner and is thus lacking as a biblical response to the problem of evil.
God’s Purpose for Evil is the Revealing of His Great Glory
Where the Free Will defense frames God as dependent on the free will choices of man, the Greater-Good and Greater-Glory theodicies present him as sovereignly decreeing evil for the express purpose of accomplishing a specific good. As Welty explains, the Greater-Good theodicy reveals, “That the pain and suffering in God’s world play a necessary role in bringing about greater goods that could not be brought about except for the presence of that pain and suffering.”[20] This argument finds biblical support in passages such as James 1:2–3, which states, “Count it all joy, my brothers, when you meet trials of various kinds, for you know that the testing of your faith produces steadfastness.” Unlike the Free Will defense, which prevents God from acting with regard to evil, the Greater-Good argues that he purposely decrees evil to accomplish a specific good that could not come about if that evil did not occur. This argument directly challenges Mackie’s premise that if God were all-good and all-powerful, he would seek to completely eliminate evil because it argues that God has a specific reason for evil to exist.
The question arises, if God is good, then how can he decree evil to exist and yet be free from being the author of that evil? Christensen argues that “If God has sufficiently good and excellent reasons for the evil he decrees that outweigh any adverse effects that the evil might produce…then God cannot be charged as blameworthy for the evil.”[21] As God in his essence is pure light and goodness, having no darkness in him at all (1 John 1:5), all of his divine intentions are always good. In explaining the Greater-Good argument, Jonathan Moreno writes, “Not only does good often come out of evil, but many goods are dependent upon evil for their expression. For example, man would never experience courage without conflict, compassion without distress, mercy without offense, or perseverance without hardship. In light of this, God remains good in permitting evil because he uses it for good.”[22] Therefore, God’s purposes in ordaining evil always have a good end.
While God’s good intentions may explain his purpose for ordaining evil, it does not fully answer the question of how he cannot be held responsible for evil. This is found in understanding the doctrine of compatibilism. According to the Westminster Confession of Faith:
GOD from all eternity did, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass: yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, 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).[23]
In other words, “God does not act on behalf of the choosing agent,” as he is the primary cause of evil since he decrees that evil occur; however, man is the secondary cause as he “deliberately, willingly, voluntarily acts without any divine coercion.”[24] God purposely decrees the existence of evil for his purposes. Man willfully carries out evil to satisfy his own wicked plans, therefore bearing the full weight of moral responsibility. This is demonstrated in Isaiah 10:5–11 where God ordains that Assyria attack Israel in his wrath for Israel’s sins against him. Yet, he also pronounces woe against Assyria because the nation’s motivations are borne out of evil desire. God is shown to be the primary cause of Israel’s suffering, yet he judges the secondary cause, Assyria, for her evil. It is through this understanding of primary and secondary causation that it can be shown that God is not the author of evil.
While the Greater-Good theodicy addresses both God’s goodness and omnipotence, there is, in a sense, a mystery to what good God intends to accomplish by ordaining evil. Welty argues that a sound theodicy must address the fact that God aims to achieve goods that are only obtained through evil and that those goods must be worth pursuing.[25] However, he later admits that the, “Greater-Good theodicy presented in these biblical passages doesn’t seem to satisfy the very definition of theodicy that was earlier endorsed!”[26] This is because the theodicy is not always able to determine just what good is obtained and why it would be necessary why a specific evil was needed to obtain that good. It is then appropriate to look at the Greater-Glory theodicy, which expands on the Greater-Good by turning to the ultimate good that God obtains, his glorification through the redemption of fallen mankind through Jesus Christ. Christensen explains that God is most glorified through the redemptive work of Christ on the cross:
More specifically, God’s glory shines supremely in the Son’s supremely manifested weakness exemplified in the incarnation and his bloody death (Phil. 2:6–8). The resurrection, exaltation, and return of Christ…find their glory in the risen Lamb that was slain—whose precious blood purchased a people for God (Rev. 5:6–14).[27]
If evil had not entered into God’s creation, there would be no need for the cross and the atoning work of Christ. God would still be glorified if no evil existed in the world, but that would not be the resplendent glory of the God who entered into creation and redeemed it from the fall. Therefore, for God to maximize his glory and to show his love for his creation, the fall, the entrance of evil into creation, was necessary for God to accomplish this greatest good.[28]
It is because God chose to reveal his glory in this manner that people can experience his love and mercy. Jesus Christ manifests God’s fullness to all creation, pouring out the riches of his divine grace on undeserving people.[29] When God decreed the existence of evil, it ensured that his good and perfect creation would be totally and completely devastated by sin. His divine purpose in permitting this destruction then sets the stage where, “The remarkable work of Christ in redeeming the good that seemed irreparably ruined gives that good a sweetness in the final paradisiacal state (i.e., the new creation) that would be unrealized if it had never been ruined in the first place.”[30] In other words, humanity would never have been able to experience the mercy of God had he not allowed them to fall into sin and redeem them through Christ. God’s perfect glory would not have been fully revealed if creation had not been ruined so that it might be restored. It is through this Greater-Glory theodicy that God’s goodness and omnipotence are exemplified because he purposed evil specifically from eternity past that he might enter into creation and redeem fallen humanity for his own glory.
Conclusion
Christians face multiple challenges from anti-theist proponents to the existence of God. Some of those challenges attempt to use biblical truth and principles against the Christian argument. By seeking to redefine the nature of God’s goodness and omnipotence, such proponents attempt to use God’s categories against him. Christians may feel the need to exempt God from evil by appealing to man’s free will. However, such efforts reduce God to a being who is unable to create a world of his own choosing and who cannot interfere in the choices of man. Therefore, Christians must examine the Scriptures closely, whereby they will understand that God is not only fully omnipotent but that he sovereignly decreed evil exists that he may reveal the fullness of his glory. Through his decree, God achieved the greatest good imaginable, the redemption of fallen man and creation through the atoning work of Jesus Christ. Only through this Greater-Glory argument can Christians rightly address the problem of evil and demonstrate the hope that comes by looking to God alone.
[1] J. L. Mackie, “Evil and Omnipotence,” Mind, New Series, 64, no. 254 (April 1955): 200.
[2] John M. Frame, Apologetics: A Justification of Christian Belief, ed. Joseph E. Torres (Phillipsburg, New Jersey: P&R Publishing, 2015), 155–56.
[3] Mackie, “Evil and Omnipotence,” 200.
[4] Travis James Campbell and Kenneth Richard Samples, The Wonderful Decree: Reconciling Sovereign Election and Universal Benevolence (Bellingham: Lexham Press, 2020), 38.
[5] Mackie, “Evil and Omnipotence,” 201.
[6] All Scripture citations in this work are taken from The Holy Bible: English Standard Version (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles, 2016) unless otherwise noted.
[7] Geoffrey W. Bromiley, ed., The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Revised (Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1979-1988).
[8] Mackie, “Evil and Omnipotence,” 203.
[9] Frame, Apologetics, 70.
[10] Mackie, “Evil and Omnipotence,” 205.
[11] Mackie, 209–10.
[12] Alvin Plantinga, God, Freedom, and Evil (Grand Rapids, Mich: Eerdmans, 1989), 53.
[13] Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Reasearch Systems, Inc., 1997), 434.
[14] Plantinga, God, Freedom, and Evil, 34.
[15] Frame, Apologetics, 164.
[16] Greg Welty, Why Is There Evil in the World, Revised edition (Christian Focus, 2018), 161.
[17] Plantinga, God, Freedom, and Evil, 42.
[18] M. Scott Christensen, What about Evil?: A Defense of God’s Sovereign Glory (Phillipsburg, New Jersey: P&R Publishing, 2020), 92.
[19] Christensen, 92.
[20] Welty, Why Is There Evil in the World, 47.
[21] Christensen, What about Evil?, 212.
[22] Jonathan Moreno, “A Good God in a Wicked World: Considering the Problem of Evil,” Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal, Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal, 22 (2017): 85.
[23] Westminster Assembly, The Westminster Confession of Faith: Edinburgh Edition (Philadephia: William S. Young, 1851).
[24] Christensen, What about Evil?, 213.
[25] Welty, Why Is There Evil in the World, 43–45.
[26] Welty, 71.
[27] Christensen, What about Evil?, 283.
[28] Christensen, 285.
[29] Christensen, 297.
[30] Christensen, 299.
Hello, World!