In
the July 1st sermon on Hosea 1:2-11 we talked about how God can
demonstrate his love through hardships. Behind this sermon stands a perennial
problem that plagues many people and leads a significant number away from
belief in God. I am talking about the problem of evil. The problem of evil is
this: If God is all-powerful, it seems he would be able to prevent the presence
of evil in the world and, at the same time, if God is all-good, it seems he
would want to do so. Since evil does exist in the world, then many conclude
either that God lacks one or both of these attributes or that he does not
exist.
How have Christians usually answered
this problem? In one of two ways.
(1) First, many have suggested that if man is truly to love God, then he
must have a kind of freedom wherein his decision to love is has very little or
no influence from God behind it. (Some, not all, of those who hold this view
also go on to argue that the decision to love God cannot be determined.) Since
God had to take a hands-off approach to man, he had to allow man to make absolutely
free choices (a view of freedom known as Libertarian Freewill) and this
resulted in evil. Based upon this understanding, the problem of evil is dealt
with since that God purposefully limited his power in order to create the best
of all possible worlds—one in which man is free in the libertarian sense. So,
the proponent of this view disagrees with the first part of the statement of
the problem of evil as classically stated—that if God is all-powerful, he could
prevent evil. A greater good (the achievement of true love) propelled him to
limit his power (or one might say that it is logically impossible to cause or
strongly influence man to love God truly).
(2) Second, many have suggested that God ordained to allow evil for the
purposes of displaying the glory of his grace and mercy in a fuller sense than
if he had not. Yet, God did this in such a way that he does not render men mere
robots and in a way he is not morally responsible for, he is not the author of
sin. In this understanding man still has freedom, yet it is a freedom that
allows for God’s absolute sovereignty and power, his strong influence upon
those who come to love him, and also for determined free outcomes. This view of
freedom is known as compatibilistic freedom since it views absolute sovereignty
and man’s freedom (and responsibility) as compatible. With this view of the problem of evil, the
second part of the problem, as classically stated, is rejected—namely that a good
God would always prevent evil or that he would not allow it. A greater good
(the magnification of the glory of God) is behind God’s decree that evil is
present in the world.
I
believe very strongly that the Bible teaches view #2 as the answer to the problem
of evil and that view #1 brings with it many problems that need to be avoided.
Recently,
I wrote a response to a friend of mine on this topic. This pastor holds to the
libertarian view of man’s freedom and so answers the problem of evil in accordance
with view one above. This friend had shared a paper of his with me from a class
and desired my response.
Below
I have included my response to this friend. My desire is that it serves not
only as a model for how to engage in theological discussion among Christian
friends who disagree, but also that it will serve to give support for my
approach to this all-important problem of evil.
I
have changed the name of my friend. In this post I have called him “Todd”.
Todd,
I am very excited to see your treatment of the problem of evil (hereafter P.O.E.)
because in it you are wrestling with two very important biblical
foundations: God’s sovereignty and man’s
responsibility. Anytime anyone does this, I find it encouraging. This is
especially so with you since I know you have such a passion for God, as well as
a desire to see people trust Jesus Christ as savior. What is more, you have
applied your keen intellect to a very serious, disciplined approach to
defending the faith and helping answer people’s questions. So, I commend you
wholeheartedly, not only for your overall work, but also for a well-written
paper.
Because
I believe you desire me to respond to your paper, I offer the following as part
of a familial discussion on this very difficult topic. As you will see, there
is agreement with you on more major points than disagreement. Nevertheless,
there is some disagreement on some points. I will try to explain my
disagreement with you at those points in such a way that will benefit both of
us. I am looking forward to the future
dialogue.
My
Understanding Of Your Position
In
this section I want to set forth in two syllogisms (along with some additional
text) what I understand your argument to be. Once I have done that I will then
proceed to explain the points at which I differ from you with the hope that we
can sharpen each other.
I
will begin by setting forth what I believe to be the most basic argument in
your paper. I will call this Syllogism #1:
1: God exists.
2: The God who exists is good and he is all-powerful.
3: Evil cannot exist if the God who exists is both good and he is
all-powerful in an unqualified sense.
4: Therefore, since evil does exist, God cannot be both good and
absolutely all-powerful in an unqualified sense.
In
this first part of your argument it seems to me that you conclude the way to
take care of the problem is to be more precise in our definition of the
omnipotence of God. You conclude: “I do not believe God can do ALL things! …Can
God make a circle with four corners? Can
God make a ‘married bachelor?’ Can God create a rock that is so big that even
He can’t lift it? Can God sin? The
answer to all the above is a resounding, ‘No!’”
So, if I understand you accurately, you are saying God can do all things
he desires, that are not self-contradictory, and that do not violate his
attributes (a very classic and good way of defining omnipotence).
Next,
you present what appears to be a foundational principle that true love is only
possible between two persons who freely choose to enter into that loving
relationship together. You write, “Moreover, it is logically impossible for
someone to make someone else do something freely” and this applies to making
someone love another (which by definition must be done freely). As such, though
God desires people to love him, He cannot make people love him, which
necessitated him to create in such a way people have libertarian freewill
(hereafter LFW). [For the purpose of our readers LFW is that view of freewill that
states a choice is free only if there is very little or no constraint or
causation upon the person. Some who hold to LFW also argue that the decision
cannot be determined.] Because of this LFW, people chose to sin and
continue to choose to sin, which is at the bottom of the presence of evil in
the world. So, it seems that evil exists since God made the best of all
possible worlds—a world in which people can love him, which necessitates LFW
and which results in evil.
To
put this in a syllogism would look something like this (Syllogism #2):
1: God created the best of all possible worlds.
2: This best world God created is one in which sentient beings can love
him.
3: Love demands LFW.
4. LFW demands God limit himself and not coerce people to love him.
5: Such LFW has led to the presence of evil.
6: Therefore, evil can exist in the world without calling into question
God’s goodness, his power, or even his existence.
Todd,
once you move into the discussion of what evil proves and the existence of
objective moral values (pp. 6-10) I am in agreement with what you say. So, I
will confine my response to your first five plus pages and then also your
assessment on pages 10-11.
Response
To Syllogism #1
As
you probably assume, I am in virtually complete agreement with your first
syllogism. I do, however, want to address one implication present in most
Christian answers to the P.O.E, namely, that if God is good, he would not be
the direct cause of evil. In fact, I believe virtually all Christians would
agree on this. Yet, the question then emerges, for what purpose did God allow
evil? You have answered that question, as represented in Syllogism #2, by
saying, in essence, there was a divine contingent necessity. In other words,
contingent upon the realities that God determined to create and he determined
to create sentient beings who could love him (this demanding LFW), then the
possibility for evil was necessary since such sentient beings (angels and men)
were created capable of LFW.
Now,
I believe you would also argue that the ultimate purpose for God creating was
for His glory. I believe you would say that glory is carried out to its fullest
extent by sentient beings who freely love (in the LFW sense) God, which also
means that some sentient beings turn their back on God.
Now,
it seems to me that this or something like it would be the understanding of the
person holding to the LFW answer to the P.O.E. regarding the purpose of
creation and the allowance of evil. If I am correct in this, the conclusion is
that even though God allowed evil and even though God created a world knowing
evil would enter it, he is not morally responsible for it, since he is not the
near cause of sin and he also allowed evil for good and moral purposes—namely
his glory and man’s benefit.
Now,
my understanding of the interplay of God’s purpose in creation and the
allowance of evil is similar, but also slightly different. I agree that God’s
ultimate purpose for creation was his glory (Ps. 8:5-6; Is. 43:7; Rom. 11:36).
Yet, I believe the biblical answer to why God allowed sin was so that the
riches of his glory, namely his mercy, could be shown to a greater degree in
the light of sin (Rom. 9:22-23). This appears to be Paul’s meaning in this text
and it is given in the context of an epistle that clarifies that no man can stand
before God someday in judgment and accuse him of injustice (Rom. 1:18ff.), man
is morally responsible for his sin and for truly rejecting God—not as a robot,
but a free agent (Rom. 1:18-23), and also no one who desires to trust in Jesus
Christ as Savior will be turned away (Rom. 10:13-17). I take all this to mean
that God’s driving force in the allowance that man would sin is his glory through
the display of his mercy and power rather than the preservation of LFW.
I
will defend this in greater detail below. For now I simply want to show that
though the two views differ slightly, one point is the same. We each say that
God is not morally responsible for evil, even though he allowed it—and this
because he allowed it for morally good purposes and also he is not the near
cause of it.
I
believe what I have just established is important since sometimes it is alleged
that those who hold to compatibilistic freewill (hereafter CFW) and God’s
absolute sovereignty (as opposed to general sovereignty) somehow make God
morally responsible for sin. The reality is that neither side truly makes God
morally responsible for sin, even though both sides similarly say he allowed
near causes (sentient beings) to bring about sin for morally good purposes.
Response
To Syllogism #2:
As
you probably anticipated, the bulk of my response will be found underneath this
syllogism.
The
heart of my response is pointed at premise #3:
“Love demands LFW”. My understanding of LFW is this: Some argue freedom
or freewill is present when a person always has more than one choice to make
and can truly go more than one direction with that decision up until the time
she actually makes the decision (i.e. it has an uncertain outcome). What is
more, virtually all adherents of LFW require that little or no coercion can take
place, lest freedom be lost. Throughout your paper you talk about love not
being true love if one is “made” or “forced” to love against their will.
I
have several problems with this line of reasoning.
1. Classic Calvinists or
Compatibilists Do Not Assert God Makes, Forces, Or Coerces Love Upon Unwilling
People.
What
is asserted instead is that God works on the will so that the person desires to
trust in Christ and to love him (Phil. 2:13). Such is a change of the heart from
the inside out (Jeremiah 31:31-34) that comes about as God lovingly allures
people to him so that they will love him (Hosea 2:14-15) and desire to do his
will (Ezekiel 36:25-27; Titus 2:11-14; 3:5-6). Such a work of God is necessary
since left to himself the sinner is spiritually dead and incapable of seeing
his need for Christ, not much less trusting in him (1 Cor. 2:14; Eph. 2:1-3).
“Irresistible
grace” is not a matter of God making anyone come to him who does not want to.
It is a matter of taking people who do not want to come to him and working in
them such that they see Christ as glorious and they see their need for the
gospel (1 Cor. 2:14; 2 Cor. 4:6).
2. The Bible Appears To Define
Freedom As Truly Wanting To Do Something (CFW), Rather Than Defining It As the
Absence Of Influence Or The Presence Of Uncertain Outcome (LFW).
In
Philemon Paul seeks to convince Philemon to receive the slave Onesimus as a
beloved brother rather than merely a slave. The apostle writes that “for love’s
sake” (9) he wants Philemon to take these actions and not “by compulsion but of
your own free will” (14). Though Paul is seeking to influence Philemon
strongly, he does not want Philemon to carry out his request in a way that is
forced, but in a way that he truly wants to do it, yet it is part of his
obedience (21). It is true that this Christian brother certainly could refuse
Paul. Because of this, perhaps the sense of “your own free will” might be that
he do it free of influence and in such a way he might or might not do it. Yet,
I believe it is far more likely that Paul’s point is that he truly desires
Philemon to want do this. It is a similar argument that Paul makes to the
Corinthians in 2 Corinthians 8-9 where he exhorts them strongly to carry
through on their promise to give toward helping poor believers in Jerusalem,
yet he wants them to respond as cheerful givers who really want to do it—and
this because God can provide for and enable them to do this, all to his glory
(2 Cor. 9:6-15). So, very strong influence in Scripture is not contrary to
freedom.
What
is more, a certain or determined end is not contrary to free love for God.
Regardless of how one defines election (conditional or unconditional), the
outcome is certain (Rom. 8:29-30). Yet, such persons are defined as those who
love God (8:28). What this means is that freedom or free love cannot necessarily
be defined as the ability to choose more than one option with no certain
outcome.
Additionally,
free love of God is not inconsistent with a very strong influence by God that
brings a certain outcome. The ultimate certain outcome for the saint is
glorification (Rom. 8:30), which includes moral perfection, i.e. it is certain
that throughout the age-to-come one will not sin (Heb. 12:23; Rev. 21:27). This
means that free love of God cannot be defined biblically as the lack of strong
influence. This glorification is wholly the work of God upon the saint (Rom.
8:28).
3. Our Own Experience Demonstrates
The Weakness Of The LFW Position And The Strength Of The CFW Position
In
my estimation one of the weaknesses of those who hold to the necessity of LFW
for a choice or act of love to be free is that it does not match with our
experience. I would not make this argument without having made the first two
points. What the Bible presents as to how God works in a person to save or grow
them by changing their heart and will and thereby rendering a certain
outcome—and yet the person believes, repents, and loves God freely—matches
experiences we have in life. Consider some examples.
I
had a biology professor during my undergraduate days from India. One day
in class he surprised us by telling the story of how his marriage to his wife
was arranged by their two sets of parents. It was decided by parents, not him
(or his wife-to-be), whom he would marry. He admitted he did not know or love
her at first. Nevertheless, over the course of time, they learned to love each
other. Here is a certain outcome (an arranged marriage) with a great amount of
influence by the parents, yet the end result is a free love by the CFW
definition—namely, they now want to live together and they deeply love each
other because their hearts, their wills were changed.
I
can tell a similar story of my son and his early martial arts days as opposed
to his later martial arts days or his study skills ten years ago versus now. As
Jeff progressed in martial arts and as he progressed through his school career,
his heart and will changed such that he wanted to do martial arts and he now
wants to study. Many adults who had parents engage in similar activity of
providing very strong influence to change their will during their childhood or
youth years (at times not giving them a choice) would now say that very
parental approach was a sign of love.
Another
example would be a hiker lost in the Rockies
for five days without food and water. Once he is found, is it certain that he
will accept the canteen of water offered to him by the rescue workers? If he is
conscious and unless something else is wrong (e.g. for some reason he thinks
the canteen poison), it is certain he will freely and without coercion drink
even though the outcome is certain and his choice is heavily influenced by
antecedent events.
I
could multiply examples to show that decisions with certain outcomes, heavy
influence, and even minimized choices can be free because we want to do them.
Of course, you could counter with examples out of each category where it did
not work out the same way (arranged marriages, for example, that did not end in
love). Yet, my point is not that such circumstances always end in free choices,
but that often they do. In other words, as the Bible appears to teach over and
over, divinely-decreed, certain outcomes can at one and the same time be truly
free actions on the part of the sentient beings.
Since
this is the case, we should be able to hold to CFW when it comes to God’s
saving and sanctifying work, as well as his governance of the affairs of men,
as I believe Scripture demands.
Yet,
you might ask, “In addition to what you have just asserted, Tom, what other
reason would lead you to espouse CFW over LFW? This brings me to my fourth
reason for denying the LFW position.
4.
There Are Many Other Biblical Reasons For Holding To CFW Over LFW.
Here
I will try merely to set forth bullet points since this paper is already
becoming quite lengthy. If there is need for further exposition I can do that
in a follow-up communication.
·
The Bible asserts that God is absolutely
sovereign, not merely generally sovereign. In other words, he does not merely
set forth the general direction of the world or decide the main things, but
leave the details up for grabs. He works all things in accordance with the
counsel of his will (Eph. 1:11), including the very sustaining of the universe
(Col. 1:17; Heb. 1:3), and even those things that are evil (Gen. 50:20; Hab.
1:6; Acts 2:23)—and all of this without being the author of sin (James 1:13).
This sovereignty is so absolute he can even control the amount of temptation or
testing that can come our way (1 Cor. 10:13). Such absolute sovereignty
necessitates a CFW view of freedom.
·
The Bible asserts the bondage of the will and
the total inability of the sinner when it comes to seeing the need for Christ
and trusting in him (Jer. 17:9; 1 Cor. 2:14; Eph. 2:1-3). This demands that God
must radically change the person so they desire to trust Christ and love him.
Without such a work, there is no salvation (John 3:1-8; Titus 3:5-6).
·
The Bible asserts that God ordained the current
situation, namely that sin blinds us and we cannot figure out salvation
ourselves and that salvation must happen through the humbling proclamation of
the humbling gospel (1 Cor. 1:21) and this all that he might be glorified (1
Cor. 1:31). Did man truly sin and rebel against God in a free way? Yes. Yet,
did God determine in eternity-past this would take place so that his glory
could be magnified to an even greater degree?
Yes.
So,
however, we “tie together God’s sovereignty and man’s freedom, I believe we must
be tying together absolutel sovereignty and a freedom that allows for certain outcomes
and great influence, namely CFW.
As
I wrap up my thoughts about Syllogism #2, Todd, I will merely say that given
what I have written to this point it should be fairly clear I disagree with
premises 4 and 5.
Reasons
The Above Differences Matter:
Todd,
as I bring this paper to a close I want to state briefly why I believe it is
important that we hold to the absolute sovereignty view of God and also the CFW
view of man’s freedom. After all, you and I are in agreement on so much. Yet,
why do I believe the points at which we disagree are important?
A
Number Of Other Practical Biblical Doctrines May Be At Stake
I
say “may” because I have known plenty examples of people answering the P.O.E.
as you have and yet the following problems have not arisen (or at least not all
of them). Yet, I have also known far more (perhaps a majority) where they have
arisen.
First,
there can often be far less of an ability to see God’s sovereign purpose in and
behind suffering. Because there is a strong desire behind LFW (and the General
Sovereignty view that often goes with it) to provide a theodicy in behalf of
God, he can be so distanced from the hard, evil, and difficult things of life,
that it is very difficult for a person to say about their sufferings the same
thing Joseph did: “You meant it for
evil, but God meant it for good.” (Gen. 50:20) I believe one of the callings I
have as a pastor is to prepare people for suffering. It appears to me that this
task is much more difficult to do with a LFW and/or a General Sovereignty view.
Second,
LFW tends to be more at home with “decisional salvation,” i.e. our salvation is
first and foremost a decision we make. Once we make this “decision,” then God gets
involved, saves us, and gives us eternal life. Such a view of salvation either
diminishes or shortchanges the biblical teaching on Total Depravity and Total
Inability (e.g. Rom. 3:9ff.; 1 Cor. 2:14, et. al). It also usually does not
hold to the need for God’s gracious and supernatural
regeneration/transformation to take place so that one can believe (Matthew
11:25-27; John 3:1-8; 2 Cor. 4:6; Eph. 2:6-10; Col. 2:13; Titus 3:5-6). This
often places too much emphasis upon human argumentation and not enough on the
need for God’s Spirit to work through God’s Word in response to prayer.
Third,
among most Christians there is a difficulty seeing how the grace of God not
only saves, but also transforms (e.g. Titus 2:11-14). I believe part (though
not all) of the issue is thinking that salvation is a free gift of God’s grace,
but then sanctification is kind of our own thing. Additionally, it is not that
important to God. “If we want to grow, we get more rewards, but if not, it’s
really not that big of a deal,” some conclude. This discounts the reality that
the Spirit’s strong influence upon the believer to transform them (Eph.
1:13-14) is such a certain part of true salvation that New Testament assurance is
connected, in large part, to the evidence of God’s transforming grace in the
life of a person (Mt. 7:21-24; 25:31-46; Rom. 2:6-10; James 2:14-16; 2 Peter 1:3-11;
I John 2:15-17). This also involves none other than the New Testament principle
that the imperative (commands or our ethics) flows out of the indicative (what
Christ has done in us). Such a way of viewing sanctification is best supported
by a view of God’s love in the believer that includes a very strong divine
influence deriving from divine initiative (e.g. Phil. 2:12-13).
Fourth,
you testified to a reality in your paper that I believe can become a potential
problem for philosophical theologians of the LFW persuasion, namely, they do
not like tension. On the one hand, I see what they mean and agree that too
often Christians invoke tension too early and just because they do not want to
do their theological homework. I believe we can say far more about God’s
sovereignty and man’s responsibility than is normally done by the average
believer. On the other hand, we also must preserve the incomprehensibility of
God. This doctrine does not suggest we cannot understand God at all, but that we
cannot fully understand him. Such seems to be part of the point of Paul in
Romans 11:33-36. Whether it is God’s
sovereignty and man’s freewill or whether it is the relation of the two natures
of Jesus Christ, there comes a point in our view of God where the greatest and
most capable of theologians ought to be willing to say, “I acknowledge I cannot
fully explain the nature or the ways of God.”
We
Must Not Lose The War For The Sake Of Winning A Battle
One
of the attractive aspects of holding to LFW and General Sovereignty is that
more quickly and up front we “let God off the hook” when it comes to the P.O.E.
After all, with CFW and Absolute (or Specific) Sovereignty, we then have to
follow up and deal with a number of questions both on the intellectual, as well
as the personal/pastoral level. For example, there are hard truths to grapple
with when we come to see that God, though not the author of sin, ordained: The
existence of Satan, Sin, 9/11, the death of a child, the collapse of the bridge
over the Mississippi River in Minneapolis, my mom’s Parkinson’s, etc., etc.
Certainly, we must exercise care in the communication of such truths (and
especially in the timing of such communication). Yet, ultimately I believe the
only thing harder than facing these difficult facts is concluding that God does
not have a purpose in such hardships because he either could not stop them or
has chosen to limit himself.
We
want to make sure we do not have to win people to Christianity with a view of
God that we then have to change once they become a Christian. After all, we
will win people to the same gospel with which we win them. If the latter is a
gospel that puts us in the “driver’s seat” to make a decision and gives us a
view of God such that he is not sovereign over and in the specifics of our
lives, the gospel they will follow as a Christian may cause them to struggle
with trusting God and submitting to him. We must keep in mind that one of the
major views of New Covenant salvation found in the Synoptic Gospels is that of
the inauguration of the kingdom
of God. At the very heart
of our knowing God, then, is submitting to him as our King (our absolute
Sovereign) and following him as his servants.
We
Must Not Lose Our Trust In The Gospel As The Power Of God For Salvation
I
have noticed a tendency among Christians, especially those who lean toward LFW,
to conclude that since “God is a loving gentleman and will not force himself
upon people,” they conclude that what is necessary is for the herald to help
the person to takes steps toward God. Along with this comes a desire often to
tweak or change the message, to make it more palatable, so that the lost person
is not turned off. I believe truth-be-told, the advocate of LFW has to ask
himself, “Have I taken my position so that I can ‘let God off the hook’ and so
that some of the offense of the gospel is removed?” If so, this can lead to an
approach that will not boldy proclaim the very gospel that is needed for salvation
(part of the point of Paul’s argument in 1 Cor. 1:17-2:16).
We
Want To Preserve A Healthy And Biblical View Of Reason
Finally,
we want to make sure we view reason the way the Bible does. We get a taste of
this in 2 Timothy 2:7, where Paul writes: “Think over what I say, for the Lord
will give you understanding in everything.” Paul has exhorted Timothy away from
fear and toward the bold, Christ-empowered work of the gospel and
disciplemaking (1:6-2:6). He wants Timothy to think about what he has just
said. This is similar to all the times in Paul’s epistles where he makes some
very long, detailed argument and then says, “Therefore….” Paul wants us to
reason, he wants us to think, he believes God made us as rational people and
this is part of the way we come to know things. At the same time, Paul believes
God is necessary to help us in the process. This is the same note Paul strikes
elsewhere when he makes it clear that our fully understanding things as they
are—especially things related to the gospel and our morality, things we are
predisposed against by sin—must come by divine help (1 Cor. 2:14; 2 Cor. 4:6;
Col. 1:9, et al). Such an interplay of reason and the need for divine
illumination fits with CFW.
Again,
let me emphasize I am not saying all LFW proponents fall prey to a troublesome
view toward reason, but there is a tendency to do so, since they tend to
minimize Total Depravity and Total Inability, as well as the need for
regeneration prior to faith.
In
Closing
Todd,
let me sign off by clarifying that in my final section I have addressed
tendencies LFW proponents can have. Not all have every tendency. These are
merely things to watch out for and that often do derive from the overall
theology.
Finally,
let me suggest (if you have not already done this), that you read other
philosophical theologians who do not hold to LFW. Some good choices would be
John Feinberg
and John
Frame. Though D. A. Carson is not technically a philosophical theologian, but
more primarily an exegete and biblical theologian, he does at times show great
awareness of philosophical issues as he writes. His
Divine Sovereignty And Human Responsibility is very helpful and
very well done.
I
will look forward to our further dialogue.
