THEODICY
The "god" of this twentieth century no
more resembles the Supreme Sovereign of Holy Writ than does the dim
flickering
of a candle the glory of the midday sun. The "god" who is now talked
about
in the average pulpit, spoken of in the ordinary Sunday School,
mentioned
in much of the religious literature of the day, and preached in most of
the so-called Bible Conferences is the figment of human imagination, an
invention of maudlin sentimentality. The heathen outside of the pale of
Christendom form "gods" out of wood and stone, while the millions of
heathen
inside Christendom manufacture a "god" out of their own carnal mind. In
reality, they are but atheists, for there is no other possible
alternative
between an absolutely supreme God, and no God at all. A "god" whose
will
is resisted, whose designs are frustrated, whose purpose is checkmated,
possesses no title to Deity, and so far from being a fit object of
worship,
merits nought but contempt.
The Attributes of God; chap 5
The Supremacy of God. A. W. Pink
WHAT IS
THEODICY?
Simply stated
it
is an attempt to find an answer or answers to the problem of evil.
Apart from any belief in God the problem of evil boils down to one of
relativity
because apart from God there are no absolutes to base one's definition
of good and evil on. What is evil for one man may very well be good for
another and who's to say otherwise? For example, one relative solution
is the popular "majority is right" rule. In this system, good and evil
are determined, not by an absolute standard, but by the majority of the
populace's decree. Thus the majority might determine that murder is
evil
and wrong whereas a minority says it's ok to murder according to their
judgment. An organization such as the Mafia might find the "unlawful"
taking
of a life to be a "good" thing according to their standards. If then
the
"hit" man fails to carry out his contract his conscience might bother
him
because he has violated the Mafia's given standard of right and wrong.
However, the majority has ruled that murder is evil and is therefore a
crime and if the Mafia men are apprehended and found guilty by majority
standards they must suffer the consequences. What happens then if the
populace
of the Mafia grows to the point where it is the majority and contracts
on people become legal by law? What if Mafia standards become the law
of
the land because they are approved and accepted by the majority?
Clearly
what one calls "evil" another might not accept it as such. If
relativity
were all we had then we might as well close the books because there can
never be one and only correct standard of right and wrong for all men.
Everyone will do what he thinks is right in his own judgment and wars
and
crime will continue to occur. Another effect of this approach is that
people's
idea of what is "good" and what is "evil" is subject to change.
Abortion
is a good example. Years ago it was against the law for someone to have
an abortion and a doctor found guilty of such would have lost his
license
to practice medicine and gone to jail. But today abortion is not only
an
acceptable practice but is now under the protection of the law. You see
then that relativism is unstable and unreliable as a standard of
morality.
What we need is an absolute standard of morality; one that never
changes.
One that defines what is good and what is evil in every and all
situations
of life. That absolute standard can only come from one who is himself
absolute
and the only one who meets this description is God Himself. The reality
of evil therefore necessitates the existence of God! The only
way
to define evil and be able to address it is within the context of the
existence
of God. In other words, the fact of evil requires that God
exist!
Without God there are no moral absolutes on which to judge something as
evil. Good and evil are whatever I say it is and who's to argue to the
contrary? Therefore evil is necessarily a religious issue requiring the
existence of God.
When
we enter the realm of the religious with the belief in God the matter
takes
on a whole different outlook. If we are discussing good and evil in the
context of the existence of God we can define Theodicy as... a
vindication
of divine justice in allowing evil to exist. This is a dictionary
definition
and is a bit shallow but will suffice for the moment. In considering
the
existence of God questions come into view that would not normally apply
in a non-religious setting. For example, we now must consider the need
of an absolute standard of right and wrong that has been given by God
and
would apply to all men. Questions concerning God's knowledge, power,
purpose
and goodness must also be considered. Further, the very nature of God
must
be defined and the definition must consider the existence of evil.
Because
of this, defining God must be done in such a way as to not leave us
with
a "monster" instead of a God. In this context evil is normally
considered
that which is opposed to the nature of God. The problem basically boils
down to the question of how God and evil are able to co-exist in the
same
universe? Pitfalls such as deism, dualism, idealism, pantheism, wimpism
and ascribing human qualities and attributes to God must be avoided.
Some
may think that this is a tall order but they are wrong. With men this
is
not a tall order; it is impossible! This is so because any "god' that
man
can define is no God at all. When it comes to "defining God" there are
but two choices; 1. An extension of the mind of man which is an
idol.
2. A God who is undefinable and must engage in self-revelation in order
to be known. If we choose the former this paper is now ended and we are
back in relativity. This is so because you may "define" God in whatever
way you like while I do the same and never the twain shall meet. We are
therefore left with the latter situation; a God who is beyond the power
and ability of man to define and we must depend on some form of
self-revelation
in order to discover who God is. This paper will take this approach. It
will do so within the confines of the historic Christian religion as it
is presented to man in the Bible. With this approach several points
need
to be noted here.
PRESUPPOSITIONAL
PLATFORM:
A presupposition
is that which is regarded as fact from the outset. It may be regarded
as
an ipso facto truth and no "proof" given for its support. The
fact
itself is the support upon which other facts or truths are built. This
paper will pre-suppose the following;
1. Every system
of truth rests on some starting point that is indemonstrable. This is
true
of both Religion and Philosophy as well as Science. This
'starting
point' is known by the term 'axiom'. In this study the Bible is taken
as
our axiom or starting point. We shall regard the Bible as the
self-revelation
of God and is the Word of God. As such it is the truth. Therefore every
proposition will be examined and proven in the light of it.
2. God necessarily
exists. This is the clear proclomation of the Bible. It never
argues
for the existence of God but rather presents His existence as bare
fact.
Argumentation for His existence is a subject for another study but this
article is based on the existence of God as it is proclaimed ipso facto
by Scripture. In the beginning... God!
3. Evil is also
very much a reality because the Bible plainly tells us so. Evil
is
not an illusion of the mind of man nor is it a thing of
relativity.
It is very real and God takes it very seriously.
I shall not attempt to give a "detailed" definition of God for such a task can never be achieved by mortal man. The Bible is filled with many passages which contain descriptions of God; for example in 1 John 1:5 we are told that God is light. More to the point of this paper we are told in other places that He is Holy! Whatever else this might mean it is a testimony to the fact that God is in absolute opposition to evil and His nature is unaffected by it. His attitude towards evil is one of hatred and He has committed Himself to the punishment of those who engage in it. A Biblical Theodicy must show how God is separate from evil. Here is where the great danger of deism, dualism, idealism, wimpism and ascribing human qualities to God must be especially watched out for. Many attempts to keep God separate from evil have ended in these errors. In the opposite direction, trying to avoid these pitfalls by putting God "too close" to evil can land us in pantheism and evil then becomes an extension of His nature or we end up making Him to be the author of sin! Thus we need to avoid two extremes of the pendulum and strike a balance. The only place where a proper balance can be found is the Scriptures of the living God.
THE PROBLEM
STATED:
In simple language
the problem of evil can be boiled down to the question; How can the
existence
of God be harmonized with the existence of evil? By "God" we mean God
as
He is described in the Bible as both Benevolent and Omnipotent. We can
then give a fuller statement of the question considering these two
attributes;
If God is good and wants to eliminate evil but cannot, then He is not
omnipotent.
But if God is omnipotent and can eliminate evil but does not, then He
is
not good.
Since evil exists
and continues to do so, how can God be both good and omnipotent?
This problem is not unique to the Christian religion for any religious
discipline must deal with it regardless of what the nature of their god
might be. Thus Buddha, Allah, Krishna and Evo (the god of evolution)
are
all open to this challenge along with the God of the Bible. If
Evolution
is such a wonderful explanation as to the origin of the human species
then
how come it left us with such men as Judas and Hitler? The next time
you
are talking with someone with different religious convictions ask him
how
his god answers the problem of evil as stated here! They will probably
offer some form of either dualism or deism in response saying
that
evil entered the world through some other means than their deity.
Some who profess Christianity have even resorted to wimpism by saying
that
God is not omnipotent and cannot do anything about evil! This presents
a "god" who is a wimp and is in subjection to his own creation, which
is
absurd. Others resort to a hybrid form of "divine permission" and try
to
have their cake and eat it too. They tell us that somehow God
"controls"
evil apart from controlling the one who is doing the evil. God "orders
circumstances" and leaves the creature to the power of his own choice,
unaffected by God. Somehow man's activity in sinning is beyond the
omnipotence
of Almighty God! This, as we shall see, is a subtle form of deism.
Christianity
teaches that God is both benevolent and omnipotent and in addition He
is
completely sovereign over all the evil in the world and has full
control
of it. How complete is God's sovereign control of evil? Very.
But before we proceed to the main body of this study a word needs to be said about the effect of this, or any other sound Biblical doctrine relative to the sovereignty of God. The effect I am referring to is the age-old 'objection' to any teaching on Divine Sovereignty... that it makes God out to be the so-called author of sin! I say age-old because the Apostle Paul dealt with this carnal objection back in the first century in the book of Romans. In his uncanny ability to stay 'one step ahead' of the carnal mind he frequently interjects the expected carnal objection to his arguments concerning God's dealings with His creatures by asking... "Is there therefore unrighteousness with God?" See Rom 3:5 and 9:14. In chapter nine of Romans Paul is dealing directly with the issue of Divine Sovereignty in the salvation and damnation of His creatures showing that the eternal destinies of all men are in God's hands and not men's. Therefore this is an old objection and in the light of proper doctrine actually carries little weight if any! In fact the objection itself is really nothing but a manifestation of an attempt to apply carnal thinking to the Bible. It betrays a spirit of rebellion against one's Maker! Yet men enjoy nothing better than to go out of their way to find excuses against the God of the Bible because they refuse a God of such absolute power and sovereignty and this is no exception even in the Christian community. Let me offer some quotes from a well known author who expresses my concern aptly. Although the subject is God's sovereignty in man's destiny it is well applicable to the question of theodicy since it rests on the exact same 'tension' between Divine sovereignty and human responsibility.
"This truth that
God determines sovereignly who shall be saved, and who shall not be
saved,
the doctrine that God is GOD, that He is the sovereign Lord, even in
the
matter of the salvation and damnation of man, is not according to the
flesh
and does not meet with general approval. How could it find grace
in the eyes of sinful men? It humbles all the pride of man.
It casts him prostrate in the dust. In relation to God it makes him a
mere
nothing. It presents him as he truly is, as less than a drop of
the
bucket and the dust of the balance. It leaves him no power, no
wisdom,
no goodness, no glory whatever. And it exalts God as the only
sovereign
Lord, Who is in the heavens and Who does whatsoever He pleases, Who
forms
the light and creates darkness, Who makes peace and creates evil.
Is 45:7 Who is the Potter while we are the clay, and who forms
according
to His good pleasure, vessels unto honor and vessels unto
dishonor....
How could it ever be expected that this doctrine that exalts God and
lays
low all the pride of man, could find favor with sinful men that always
exalt themselves against the living God?
...
First I would like
to repeat that the objection is a very old one, and that it has always
been raised against the truth of God's sovereign dealings with men in
the
matter of salvation. You may study the history of the Church and
her doctrine, and you will discover that the principal objection of the
opponants of the doctrine of absolute sovereign grace was always the
same.
Always they accuse those, who faithfully proclaimed this fundamental
truth,
that they made God the author of sin, and that they denied the
responsibility
of man. We may find comfort in this. In this very
indictment,
if brought against us, we may find a proof that we are preaching the
truth.
This is especially of force, in the view of the fact that the same
accusations
were lodged against the Apostle Paul, and that, therefore, this very
objection
is raised against the truth as revealed in Scriptures."
He then makes
reference
to the ninth of Romans and continues...
"If, therefore,
one proclaims a gospel against which these objections are not raised,
he
may well draw the conclusion that there is something wrong with his
preaching;
while on the other hand, those whose preaching causes these objections
to be raised, may find comfort in the fact that they are in good
company."
Cited from Whosoever
Will by Herman Hoeksema; chapter 12. Reformed Free publishing
Asc.
ppb
CONDITION ALPHA
ETERNAL
DECREE
CREATION
REALMS OF GOD pt 1
REALMS OF GOD pt 2
PERMISSION
PROVIDENCE
THE FALL
FREE WILL
Calvin &
Permission
More Calvin &
Permission
Calvin's use of the
word 'Permitted'
John Calvin Disclaimer