Defense of the Great Giver

Foreword

All arguments in justification of suffering provoke bitter resentment against the author. You would like to know how I behave when I am experiencing pain, not writing books about it. You need not guess, for I will tell you; I am a great coward. But what is that to the purpose? When I think of pain �" of anxiety that gnaws like fire and loneliness that spreads out like a desert, and the heartbreaking routine of monotonous misery, or again of dull aches that blacken our whole landscape or sudden nauseating pains that knock a man’s heart out at one blow, of pains that seem already intolerable and then are suddenly increased, of infuriating scorpion-stinging pains that startle into maniacal movement a man who seemed half dead with his previous tortures �" it “quite o’er crows my spirit”. If I knew any way of escape I would crawl through sewers to find it. But what is the good of telling you about my feelings? You know them already: they are the same as yours. I am not arguing that pain is not painful. Pain hurts. That is what the word means. I am only trying to show that the old Christian doctrine of being made “perfect through suffering” is not incredible. To prove it palatable is beyond my design.

-C.S. Lewis The Problem of Pain

Dedicated to Elaina

“We gained control of many things. But we had to let go of others.”[1] Lois Lowry’s classic novel “The Giver” invites us into a world without pain, suffering, and evil. However this highly fantasized fairytale land proved to be a dystopia that robbed its inhabitants of all the joys of life. There seemed to be a direct correlation between the blissful pleasures of life and the heart wrenching agonies. The former does not exist without the possibility of the latter. When the God of all creation began to craft man in His image He had divine intentions. When discussing the problem of evil one must first understand God’s intent for creating man. Elementary thinking hastily assumes that we would be better off if there was no possibility for us to choose evil. Better off to achieve what end? A football player would be greatly mistaken to deduce that since his helmet occasionally obstructs his view that he would be better off playing without it. Thus, this treatise seeks to demonstrate that evil was ordained as a necessary possibility in order that Man could willingly choose God and ultimately fulfill the purpose for which he was created resulting in God receiving glory and Man achieving ultimate satisfaction.

The traditional argument for the problem of evil utilizes the law of non-contradiction in order to disprove the existence of God. The logic concludes that an all-knowing, all-powerful, perfectly good God cannot exist if evil also exists.[2] The logic then purports that if a God does exist, it is either not all-powerful, not all-knowing, or not perfectly good. For if there existed a God who knew how to stop evil and possessed the power to stop it, then he must not be all that good. If he is perfectly good then he must then be lacking the knowledge or the power to prevent evil. This argument is sound, but insufficient because it fails to take into account all of the necessary factors to make it a complete. The logic above takes for granted that an all-knowing, all-powerful, perfectly good God wants to do away with evil in the same manner that they would choose to do away with evil. The argument then continues by adding the qualification that it is possible for God to have a morally sufficient reason for allowing evil and suffering.[3] This assertion requires explanation before moving forward with the argument. We must understand that evil can be defined in multiple ways: moral evil, involves willful acts of human beings, and natural evil which refers to natural disasters.[4] Thus, a morally sufficient reason for human evil, though it may cause harm, has moral good at its end. For example, a parent allows his child to endure the pain of a shot in order that he may be protected from deadly diseases is said to have a morally sufficient reason.

At this point, the argument begins to target a different component of the problem of evil. Accepting that God could possibly allow evil for a morally sufficient reason, demands a logically sufficient reasoning. This is where Alvin Plantinga has made much progress in explaining the necessity of free-will. His first morally sufficient reason was as follows (MSR1):

God’s creation of persons with morally significant free will is something of tremendous value. God could not eliminate much of the evil and suffering in this world without thereby eliminating the greater good of having created persons with free will with whom he could have relationships and who are able to love one another and do good deeds.[5]

This explains that God chose to allow evil to be a possible choice for Man in order that he may have the greatest good: enjoying Him, which we will discuss later. According to Plantinga’s critics, his explanation above is sufficient to explain why God allows moral evil but does not deal with the problem of natural evil.[6] For this Plantinga proposed MSR2, “God allowed natural evil to enter the world as part of Adam and Eve’s punishment for their sin in the Garden of Eden.”[7] This can be supported by referencing Gen. 1:26-28 when God created Man to “rule over” all of God’s creation and to “subdue it”.[8] Thus, when Man fell, everything under Man’s rule also fell, which was evident when God cursed the ground because of Man’s sin.[9] At this point, many scholars have agreed that Plantinga has provided a legitimate explanation to the problem of evil, but feel as though his treatment was “too easy”.[10] Nonetheless, his argument is viable and proves that God and evil can co-exist.

However, there is another prominent solution to the problem of evil that opposes some of the logic of Plantinga’s solution. The difference between Plantinga’s rendering and this other school of thought, called process theodicy, is that they do not maintain the traditional understanding of the nature of God’s attributes. Dr. Barry Whitney, a professor of Christian Philosophy, explains how process theodicy seeks to reconstruct the doctrine of God by affirming that God’s immutability, omnipotence and omniscience is dependent upon His creation.[11] They believe that God does not predetermine, control, nor coercively interfere with creatures’ actions and affairs.[12] Though they claim to rework only a couple aspects of the doctrine of God, His attributes are intricately woven together; they actually begin to redefine them all. They dangerously run the risk of re-creating God in their image, raising a legitimate reason for alarm.

From this point forward, the aim will be to debunk the assertions of the process theodicy view and reaffirm Plantinga’s view as previously described. In order to have solid ground to tread later, the doctrine of God must first be solidified. The traditionally understood doctrine of God’s immutability is inaccurate according to process. David Ray Griffin, co-founder of the Center of Process Studies, Scripture does not sufficiently support the doctrine of immutability.[13] He uses the example of Mal. 3:6-7 where God says, “For I, the LORD, do not change.”[14] He argues that since God followed that statement by saying “return to me, and I will return to you,” that a change in Man leads to a change in God.[15] However, Griffin has drastically missed what the doctrine of immutability actually affirms. Wayne Grudem defines God’s immutability clearly as follows: “God is unchanging in his being, perfections, purposes, and promises, yet God does act and feel emotions, and he acts and feels emotions differently in response to different situations.”[16] Thus, Griffin has argued against something that the doctrine does not readily affirm. The immutability of God rests in His person, not His actions. He commands us to draw near to Him that He may draw near to us is because He is immutable. God will never change the way He understands or feels about sin, but His posture towards individuals can change because individuals can change.

The second attribute of God that is often brought into question is the nature of His omniscience. Dr. Whitney claims that God does not know nor control everything “from some nontemporal, eternal realm,” but persuades human decisions to avoid impeding their free-will.[17] This too, can be debunked by clarifying exactly what Plantinga is saying in his free-will argument. The key word in Plantinga’s argument for the type of free-will that God grants Man is morally significant. The process theodicy view appears to understand free-will to be more absolute than the traditional view would hold to. God never forfeited His ability to impede the free-will that He has given. However, He has granted us the ability to make decisions in order that Man may have a genuine relationship with Him and each other, and perform deeds he can be held accountable for.[18]

Another common objection to God’s omniscience is that if He knows and predestines all things, then we really do not have free-will. Matt Slick, Founder and President of Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry (CARM), argues that God’s knowledge of the future does not rob Man of its free will. He gives an example from a human perspective: “If I were to set [chocolate cake and dead mice] before my child, it is safe to say she will not eat the dead mice.”[19] This may seem like a puerile example, but if a father with minimal knowledge of the interworking of his daughter’s heart and mind can know that, then an all-knowing God who can say, “I, the LORD, search the heart, I test the mind,” can also know what Man will choose will absolute precision.[20] Jesus displayed an eternal and transcendent God’s ability to be intimately involved in the present. When the woman with the issue of bleeding touched His cloak, He was amazed, and though He knew Judas would betray Him, He treated Him like a beloved disciple. It is hard for us to understand how God could have genuine interaction with Man if He possesses absolute knowledge, but that may be because “we are not strong enough to exult in monotony”, as G.K. Chesterton would say:

But perhaps God is strong enough to exult in monotony. It is possible that God says every morning, “Do it again” to the sun; and every evening, “Do it again” to the moon. It may not be automatic necessity that makes all daisies alike; it may be that God makes every daisy separately, but has never got tired of making them. It may be that He has the eternal appetite of infancy; for we have sinned and grown old, and our Father is younger than we.[21]

It seems plausible that God, having an absolute knowledge of all things including the future, can be intimately involved with Man in the present while maintaining the integrity of Man’s morally significant free-will.

The last attribute of God that will be discussed is brought to question by J. L. Mackie. He too critiques the traditional argument dealing with the problem of evil and asserts that God’s goodness is not compatible with the existence of evil.[22] His argument assumes that God is omnipotent and omniscient, but rejects His goodness because an omniscient and omnipotent God can and should eliminate every evil affair without sacrificing the greater good.[23] This statement is problematic in more ways than one. The illogical nature of his statement will become apparent after addressing some of Mackie’s misconceptions.

Firstly, this statement assumes that God’s omnipotence means that He can do literally anything, even if it is contradictory. Dr. Ronald H. Nash, an astute philosopher and apologist, admits that “there are certain things that even an omnipotent God cannot do”.[24] This may sound alarming at first, but it is rather rudimentary. God cannot lie, change, sin, contradict Himself, and the list goes on. In this case, the key truth is that God cannot contradict or be illogical. Thus, God’s omnipotence means, “God can do anything that is an absolute possibility and not inconsistent with any of His basic attributes.”[25]

This takes us back to the opening quote of this treatise, which C.S. Lewis addresses with eloquence. In “The Problem of Pain”, he states, “if fire comforts [Man] at a certain distance, it will destroy [him] when the distance is reduced”.[26] To ask God to allow Man to enjoy fire but eliminate the possibility of being burned is illogical. That would compromise the integrity of the fire. James, the New Testament writer, tells us that all good and perfect things come from God.[27] A.W. Tozer affirms that it is by God’s very nature that “He is inclined to bestow blessedness.”[28] The third century philosopher Plotinus even understood that emanation, like light shining from the sun or water flowing from a spring, was essential to God’s being.[29] Therefore, God did not see fit to withhold from us the pleasures of life. He is the Great Giver, who gives perfect gifts unsparingly. Man then has no business shaking his fist at God for lavishing him with good gifts, but should cry “O wretched man that I am,” for he is too weak to properly wield the gifts of God.[30]

Now that we have treated the common attacks toward God, we will now look at Man’s place in this discussion. Aristotle was highly concerned with the essential property and the Telos, or final cause, of a substance. An essential property is one that, if lost, causes the substance to cease being the kind of thing it is, and the Telos is the purpose for which a thing exist.[31] For example, if you cut out the bottom of a cup, it would cease to be a cup, and it would no longer be able to fulfill the purpose for which it was made. Aristotle would say you ruined its “cupness”, or its essence. So, when we consider questions like, “why would God create us if He knew we would suffer” and “why did God allow us to sin”, we have to consider the purpose for which God wanted man to exist.

Having understood that God is indeed omniscient, we can trust that He knows all the possible ways that He could have created Man, yet He chose our present state. To assume that there was a better option would be to insult His intelligence. C.S. Lewis suggested that if God saw free-will as a price worth paying so, “creatures can do real good and harm and something of real importance can happen,” then we should consider it a price worth paying.[32] His rendering of the Paradisal Man proposes that Man’s chief purpose can be seen in the Garden of Eden. Though God granted Man with the gift of consciousness, allowed him to enjoy the pleasures of the world, and granted him the gift of companionship, Man always chose God first.[33] Thus, Man’s Telos may be found in the two greatest commandments: love God with the entirety of Man’s being and love thy neighbors as thyself, in that order. The essence of Man, then, would have to be the image of God, for it is God’s communicable attributes that make Man human. For as John writes in 1 John, “we love, because He first loved us.”[34] Therefore, it is essential that God allow Man to have free-will if Man is to love Him, for love is a choice.

Knowing that God has created Man to have an intimate relationship with Him and to enjoy all of His creation still does not explain the presence of evil. Aristotle’s Golden Mean is a good place to start when describing the issue at hand. The Golden Mean teaches that between every two opposing vices lies a virtue.[35] For example, between the overtly rash and shamefully cowardly individual, lies a virtuous man of courage.[36] St. Augustine adds to the discussion the idea of ordo amoris, or ordered loves. In “The City of God”, he explains that a thing can be good, but loved evilly when it is loved inordinately.[37] C.S. Lewis further explains Augustine’s theory in “The Abolition of Man” by asserting that Man “must be trained to feel pleasure, liking, disgust, and hatred at those things which really are pleasant, likeable, disgusting and hateful”.[38] When Man fell, his priorities were cast into disarray, causing evil to wreak havoc throughout the entire world. With remnants of the image of God still lingering in their hearts, Man desperately sought the pleasure and satisfaction he once experienced, but in all the wrong places. Man became enslaved to His appetites and began to abuse the good gifts of God with malicious intent. Thus, evil is not its own entity; perhaps it is better understood as the term by which we refer to the absence or distortion of goodness. Plantinga describes sin as binding what God separated and breaking what God bound; twisting what was meant for a worthy end to achieve an unworthy end; polluting good things by addition and disintegrating good things by subtraction; ultimately taking on a parasitic character, “tapping its host for substance.”[39] In other words, “goodness is, so to speak, itself: badness is only spoiled goodness.”[40] Thus, to abolish evil is really to redeem man, and so God does.

We have observed how God’s person remains perfectly intact despite the presence of evil, man is indeed God’s beloved creation designed to love Him and find satisfaction in Him, and sin has warped God’s beautiful picture. Rather than ask the obvious question as to how God will remedy it all, we will explore why God would bother. St. Athanasius wrote a spectacular book called “On the Incarnation” explaining the necessity and nature of Christ sacrifice. He declares that it is because Man is the bearer of the image of God.[41] “Thus, the Word of God came in His own Person, because it was He alone, the Image of the Father Who could recreate man made after the image.”[42] Recreation was necessary because mere repentance would not suffice to restore what was broken.[43] For this reason, the Son of God descended from His heavenly dwelling and took on human flesh to atone for our sins. This is why the writer of Hebrews declares “it was fitting that he, for whom and by whom all things exist, in bringing many sons to glory, should make the founder of their salvation perfect through suffering.”[44] But He would not merely suffer and die; He would rise again and reign victorious!

Man now finds himself, at this present time, with the same plight as the inhabitants of Ithaca in Homer’s “The Odyssey”. Man’s hero has not yet returned to conquer the terrors that now pain and exploit them. Man’s Savior warns him that in this world he will have tribulation, but encourages him to take heart for He has overcome the world.[45] Moreover, Christ has not left Man here to endure the evils of this world alone, but He has left for him a Helper to be with him forever: the Holy Spirit.[46] It is by the Spirit that Man can live in the midst of this twisted age and regain him humanity. All the while, Man awaits the return of his Great Giver to rescue him and restore all of creation to its rightful order.

___________________________

“They say of some temporal suffering, ‘No future bliss can make up for it’, not knowing that Heaven, once attained, will work backwards and turn even that agony into a glory…Ah, the Saved…what happens to them is best described as the opposite of a mirage. What seemed, when they entered it, to be a vale of misery turns out, when they look back, to have been a well; and where present experience saw only salt deserts memory truthfully records that the pools were full of water.”[47]- C.S. Lewis “The Great Divorce”

[1] Lowry, Lois. The Giver. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1993. Print.

[2] Beebe, James R. “Logical Problem of Evil.” Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. N.p., n.d. Web. 23 Nov. 2014

[3] Beebe, “Logical Problem of Evil.”

[4] Myers, Allen C. The Eerdmans Bible Dictionary. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1987.

[5] Beebe, “Logical Problem of Evil.”

[6] Ibid.

[7] Beebe, “Logical Problem of Evil.”

[8] Gen. 1:26-28 (NASB)

[9] Gen. 3:17b (NASB)

[10] Beebe, “Logical Problem of Evil.”

[11] Whitney, Barry L. Evil and the Process God. New York: E. Mellen, 1985. Print, 42.

[12] Ibid.

[13] Griffin, David Ray. God, Power, and Evil: A Process Theodicy. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1976. Print, 36.

[14] Mal. 3:6-7 (NASB)

[15] Griffin, God, Power, and Evil: A Process Theodicy, 36.

[16] Grudem, Wayne A. Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine. Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity, 1994. Print, 163.

[17] Whitney, Evil and the Process God, 42.

[18] Beebe, “Logical Problem of Evil”.

[19] Slick, Matt. “If God Is All Knowing and He Knows Our Future, Then How Is That Free Will?” CARM. N.p., n.d. Web. 07 Dec. 2014.

[20] Isaiah 17:10 (NASB)

[21] Chesterton, G. K. Orthodoxy. San Bernardino, CA: n.p., 2014. Print.

[22] Reichenbach, Bruce R. Evil and a Good God. New York: Fordham UP, 1982. Print, 2.

[23] Reichenbach, Evil and a Good God, 6.

[24] Nash, Ronald H. Life’s Ultimate Questions: An Introduction to Philosophy. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan House, 1999. Print, 306.

[25] Nash. Life’s Ultimate Questions, 314.

[26] Lewis, Clives Staples. The Problem of Pain. New York, NY: Macmillan, 1962. Print, 32.

[27] James 1:17 (NASB)

[28] Tozer, A. W. “The Goodness of God.” The Knowledge of the Holy: The Attributes of God, Their Meaning in the Christian Life. New York: Harper & Row, 1961. N. pag. Print.

[29] Nash, Life’s Ultimate Questions, 128.

[30] Romans 7:24 (NASB)

[31] Nash, Life’s Ultimate Questions, 100-101.

[32] Lewis, C. S. Mere Christianity. New York, NY.: HarperCollins, 1980. Print, 48.

[33] Lewis, The Problem of Pain, 78-79.

[34] 1 John 4:19 (NASB)

[35] Nash, Life’s Ultimate Questions, 115.

[36] Ibid.

[37] Augustine, Marcus Dods, and Thomas Merton. The City of God. New York: Modern Library, 1950. Print.

[38]Lewis, C. S. The Abolition of Man. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 2001. Print, 16.

[39] Plantinga, Cornelius. Not the Way It’s Supposed to Be: A Breviary of Sin. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1995. Print.

[40] Lewis, Mere Christianity, 44.

[41] Athanasius. On the Incarnation. N.p.: Blue Letter Bible, n.d. Kindle.

[42] Ibid.

[43] Athanasius, On the Incarnation.

[44] Hebrews 2:10 (ESV)

[45] John 16:33 (ESV)

[46] John 14:16 (ESV)

[47] Lewis, C. S. The Great Divorce. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1996. Print, 67.