# Another spin on the problem of evil... sort of



## blakerussell (Sep 1, 2010)

I recently heard an unbelieving coworker voice this question.
"If God is all loving- why would he doom his creation to death and sin? He could've prevented this but he didn't."

Another way of rewording his question could be "If God loved Adam, why didn't he take more action in preventing Adam's fall into death."

This question of course seemingly puts the fault on God rather than Adam himself. 
How would one answer this question?

God certainly warned Adam that if he ate of the tree, He would surely die. 
It's not like Adam was oblivious as to what would happen.

There is also a sense that God wanted to show his creatures just what kind of love he had for them (Romans 5:8) and the only way to demonstrate that was dying for sinful creatures. So then could it be argued that it was indeed loving to let Adam fall- so God could show just what kind of dying love he has for his elect children? 

So in effect- the most loving thing God could do is actually allow his creatures to fall into sin- and redeem them- to further reveal just what kind of God He is. Because of this, our happiness might be fuller- because we more fully understand who God is because of the existence of sin.

Kind of an emotionally loaded question that's hard to approach from a human perspective. If someone we loved was heading toward death and destruction- it's likely we would do everything in our power to prevent that from happening.

So. Therein lies the proposed "problem". God either is not all powerful- or he did not love adam because he did not "prevent" his plunge into sin and death and suffering (etc.)

Any help in answering this one would be extremely helpful. I'm not sure if my answers are sufficient.


----------



## Andres (Sep 1, 2010)

I would try to explain to your friend that they should perhaps focus less on why God does the things He does (He is God, He doesn't have to explain Himself to us). Rather your friend needs to focus on the problem of their sin. The fact of the matter is there was a fall and it has affected all of humanity, including your friend. He is fallen creature that is accountable to God and He needs to be reconciled to God.


----------



## Mushroom (Sep 2, 2010)

His logic assumes that God's primary aim in creating is to demonstrate His love for humans. It is not. His primary aim in creating is to glorify Himself, for which purpose humans were created. Men make innumerable arrogant assumptions, and this one is very common. But the nations will tremble at His appearing.

My reply to this 'fool who has said in his heart that there is no God' would be to ask him who convinced him that God was "all-loving"?


----------



## Hilasmos (Sep 2, 2010)

> Kind of an emotionally loaded question that's hard to approach from a human perspective. If someone we loved was heading toward death and destruction- it's likely we would do everything in our power to prevent that from happening.



Here is one way I have dealt with this situation, taken from John 11. The “problem of evil” arises from operating according to an anthropocentric rather than theocentric ethic.

*Jesus chose to let Lazarus die when he could have prevented it *

(John 11:6: When He heard he was sick, He then stayed two days longer in the place where he was.”)

*This was motivated by a desire to display the glory of God*

(John 11:4: “This sickness is not to end in death, but for the glory of God, so that the Son of God may be glorified by it.”)

*Yet, both the death (which is evil from an anthropocentric ethic) and the magnification of God’s glory were motivated by love*

John 11:4-5: “Now Jesus loved Martha and her sister and Lazarus. So when He heard that he was sick, He then stayed two days longer…”)

I love the irony of this in light of the problem of evil. When Jesus, who loved Lazarus and Martha, heard about the sickness of Lazarus, he hurried up and waited. Christ, who could have prevented this death and suffering, chose not to out of love for both those who suffered and his own glory. 

Although the death is a “human evil” it is right based on how it served God’s glory. However, it also proves to be good for the creature as they are able to behold this glory of Christ which is ultimately better than avoiding human pain and suffering. For God to love us is to bring us to a knowledge of his being and glory.



> *Jonathan Edwards: *So evil is necessary, in order to the highest happiness of the creature, and the completeness of that communication of God, for which he made the world; because the creature’s happiness consists in the knowledge of God, and the sense of his love. And if the knowledge of him be imperfect, the happiness of the creature must be proportionally imperfect.


----------



## jandrusk (Sep 2, 2010)

I hear this argument in various forms all the time. The person asking the question is essentially seeking to switch roles and make themselves the Creator and thereby making God the creature. They are attempting to force their own autonomy on God instead of submitting to His will as revealed in His word. Bahnsen's article on the problem of evil is a good source as well. The person asking the question is presupposing they know better than God from the outset.


----------



## jwright82 (Sep 4, 2010)

In dealing with this issue one thing I deal with at the outset is the hidden presupossitions lurking under the very form of the question. 
1. The form of the question assumes that God can or may only do things for a "good" reason, but who decides what is a "good" reason?. 
2. Also He must make these reasons known to us, for approval maybe? 

Assumption 1 errs in the fact that it logicaly assumes a view of good that is both idependent from God and is greater than God, because God must conform to this standered of "good." The second point logically assumes that we are more important than God because He owes us an explination for what He does. Now I said these were logical assumptions and not consciess or syllogistic assumptions. 

A consciess assumption would be that the person putting forth this argument decides to develop this argument with these assumptions in mind but has no intention of arguing them or something similer to that but they know that this is what they consciessly believe. A syllogistic assumption would only be that these two points make up premises in their argument and their conclusion rests on these premises.

No these assumptions are more unconsciess in nature, they reflect the ultimate spiritual place of the questioner. These assumptions are more importantly logical in nature though. If "good" as a standered is defined by God than everything He does is "good" and point one disapears, also if "good" is ethicaly speaking only a standered that applies to creatures and not God than again the first point disapears. If God is more iportant than us and He is the Creator than we have no inherent right to demand any information from Him at all and point two goes away. Once these two assumptions go away than the original argument no longer makes sense at all. It is only if these two points are assumed or true that the question itself makes sense you could say. 

It is only after we have settled the argument over these presupossitions that we can go on to discuss possible reasons given in scripture for why God does what He does.


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist (Sep 4, 2010)

NOTHING happens apart from the good pleasure of God (Eph. 1:11). God's will is not divided to two or more wills which contradict one another. Such thinking is contrary to the clear teaching of the Word of God: God is ONE in mind, that is, He has ONLY ONE ULTIMATE passion, namely, His own glory, and He accomplishes ALL His will (Is. 46:10-11; Eph. 1:11; Dan. 4:35; Ps. 135:6; Job 23:13; Is. 14:24; Is. 14:27; Rom. 9:19). Whenever we hear terms used, such as God's "will of precept" and "will of decree", we should remind ourselves that there is only ONE will in God. I say, we do can use these terms - HOWEVER, the word "will" _cannot_ be used in the same sense. God's _proper_ will is only that which he has ordained to take place, that is, what SHALL take place. This we would call God's "will of decree". Now, God's "will of precept" has NOTHING to do with God's "will of decree", that is, what SHALL take place. Rather, the will of God is here directed to what SHOULD take place - by men. It is undeniable God commands men not to kill, yet we see dying people all the time in the world. Thus, in the light of God's single-mindedness, we could not possibly suggest it is God's _proper_ will that NO KILLING SHALL HAPPEN AT ALL. Rather, it is God's will that men be OBLIGATED to perform all that He has commanded.

I was first introduced to this line of thinking by Rev. Matthew Winzer in his great article in the Blue Banner, "Murray on the Free Offer: A Review". Here is the web address for the blue banner article:

http://www.thebluebanner.com/pdf/bluebanner9-10&12.pdf

Finally, my answer to your question, "If God loved Adam, why didn't he take more action in preventing Adam's fall into death."

- Simply: It wasn't God's will and purpose for Adam to not fall in death. Intricately: Since Adam's fall was God's very will, then the idea of "preventing Adam's sin" goes reverse; the things which you think were for the prevention of Adam's death were actually purposed to serve Adam's fall.

God's dealing with the reprobate is very much alike. In Psalm 69:22 we read,

"Let their (the wicked) table become a snare before them: and _that which should have been for their welfare, let it become a trap_."

We should also consider Proverb 1:32,

"For the turning away of the simple shall slay them, 
and _the prosperity of fools shall destroy them_."

There are many such verses in the Scriptures declaring the same message (Job 24:18, 23, 24; Malachi 3:9, 15; Psalm 90:5, 6; Psalm 37:1, 2, 7, 16, 21, 22; Malachi 2:2; Psalm 69:22-25, 27, 28; Proverb 11:31; Psalm 73:17-19; Malachi 1:2-4; Psalm 92:6, 7; Psalm 3:33).

The fact that the seeming goodness which God bestows upon all mankind doesn't work for the same purpose for them all is simply due to the other fact that a gift from God, in and of itself, is of no benefit at all to the receiver, if not received _with thanksgiving_ (1 Tim 4:4, 5) - it only serves the destruction of the wicked and therefore, by their unthankfulness the reprobate are just treasuring up wrath for themselves against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God (Rom. 2:5).


----------

