The Problem of Evil and Adam

[T.A.G.]

I ask this because one of the objections my Philosophy book has towards God is that evil exists. The book was dealing with some of the common answers. It basically said that none of the answers given by theists give an answer to why animals die.


Let me make sure my answer to the problem with evil is orthodoxy

God decreed before the creation, that He would decree the fall in order to redeem them. The fall was apart of the process in which brought evil into the world. By Adam falling He cursed everything, having cursed everything and by man being represented by Adam we now are conceived in sin deserving damnation forever. Therefore there is not one person who deserves good to happen to them for all are evil and cursed. My only problem is explaining why animals die and bad things happen to them, that's why I am asking the question
I would also add that if we wanted God to get rid of all evil, in order to be consistent He would have to get rid of all of us. He could not just stop at the murder level or lying level etc. that would be arbitrary, He would have to get rid of all of it. We all participate in evil and have evil deeds so in order for God to fix evil would first either eliminate us or fix us ala cross of Christ.

Would this be your answer?
Thanks

also I failed to mention that the book brings up Job to show that our sin is not the reason for sin, thoughts?

 

[MMasztal]

I don't see that evil is a problem for a Christian's defense of God, but can see that it is a problem for atheists. Try this link for a good argument for the existence of God because evil exists. All these books are a free download.

http://www.vincentcheung.com/other/problemevil.pdf

Most secular arguments are based on Epicurus' syllogism and later expanded:

1. God exists.
2. God is omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good.
3. A perfectly good being would want to prevent all evils.
4. An omniscient being knows every way in which evils can come into existence.
5. An omnipotent being who knows every way in which an evil can come into existence has the power to prevent that evil from coming into existence.
6. A being who knows every way in which an evil can come into existence, who is able to prevent that evil from coming into existence, and who wants to do so, would prevent the existence of that evil.
7. However evil exists, therefore
8. God doesn't exist.

This is a valid syllogism, but not a sound argument in that point 3 incorrectly ascribes certain motives to God which are less than conprehensive. You could add as point 8: God has a purpose for evil which He has not revealed to us. Then point 9 God exists

Are animals not part of the creation? They too are affected by the curse on the rest of creation.

 

[awretchsavedbygrace]

All of creation fell with Adam.

 

[puritan lad]

The Problem Of Evil Answered

 

[Peairtach]

If the God of the Bible doesn't exist then evil can't exist. See works by e.g. Bahnsen, Frame, Blanchard (''Does God Believe in Atheists?")

Why do innocent animals have to suffer when Man is the sinner?

Quite a difficult one. Maybe more difficult for those who believe animal suffering came in before the Fall (?) Some Reformed believe that animal suffereing is both logically and chronologically related to the Fall, while others seem to drop the chronologically and maybe even the logicaly.

Adam was the prophet, priest and king (human mediator) over the whole creation. As priest he represented the whole creation unto God. Also the whole creation was made to glorify God and also for Man.

It would have sent the wrong message to sinful Man through the general revelation to leave the creation unspoiled. An unspoiled creation would be a constant reminder and confirmation to sinful man from God that nothing was (really) wrong.

The suffering of innocent animals - including the animals that died as sacrifices in the OT - is a reminder that sin is so wicked that it brings suffering and death upon the innocent as well as the guilty.

What redress is there for the temporary suffering of these poor innocent animals? This would go into speculation about whether there are animals in the Heavenly Kingdom, for which see another recent thread. Suffice it to say - whether our little furry friends turn up in some other form in the New Heavens and New Earth, the lion literally lying down with the lamb(!), God has a sufficient moral purpose for all animal suffering, as well as, more importantly, all human suffering.

The atheist demand of answers to everything leads them to turn from the God of the Bible and end up with answers to nothing.

There must be (Dutch?) theologians that expand upon the subject of how Adam was Mediator of the pre-Fall world. Also ask others wiser than ourselves who may know of where to find theological reflection on this subject.

 

[T.A.G.]

if someone asked this what would be your response


"This is still contradictory to me, if he created everything, did he not create sin?"

This is in reference to answering a classmate

 

[Peairtach]

Sin isn't a physical or spiritual entity or substance but a wrongful attitude by a moral creature - angelic or human - to God. The angel or human is using what God created in a wrong way.

Sin was ordained by God for adequate moral ends (an adequate moral end), not created or generated by Him.

God in one sense hasn't created everything anyway, or that's a simplistic way of putting things. E.g. Did God create this website?

 

[T.A.G.]

Sin isn't a physical or spiritual entity or substance but a wrongful attitude by a moral creature - angelic or human - to God. The angel or human is using what God created in a wrong way.

Sin was ordained by God for adequate moral ends (an adequate moral end), not created or generated by Him.

God in one sense hasn't created everything anyway, or that's a simplistic way of putting things. E.g. Did God create this website?

i copied your answer word for word hope you dont mind

 

[Paul Trask]

Adam was our federal head representing us that is why we are born into sin a die.
Adams sin brings down all creation. There is not proof text you just have to look at what happens over the course of time early in Genesis.

 

[Peairtach]

Sin isn't a physical or spiritual entity or substance but a wrongful attitude by a moral creature - angelic or human - to God. The angel or human is using what God created in a wrong way.

Sin was ordained by God for adequate moral ends (an adequate moral end), not created or generated by Him.

God in one sense hasn't created everything anyway, or that's a simplistic way of putting things. E.g. Did God create this website?

i copied your answer word for word hope you dont mind

I do mind in a way because I'm not someone who has studied harmatiology in any specific or deep way, and I was just "talking off the top of my head" on what I think might be an adequate answer

 

[T.A.G.]

Sin isn't a physical or spiritual entity or substance but a wrongful attitude by a moral creature - angelic or human - to God. The angel or human is using what God created in a wrong way.

Sin was ordained by God for adequate moral ends (an adequate moral end), not created or generated by Him.

God in one sense hasn't created everything anyway, or that's a simplistic way of putting things. E.g. Did God create this website?

i copied your answer word for word hope you dont mind

I do mind in a way because I'm not someone who has studied harmatiology in any specific or deep way, and I was just "talking off the top of my head" on what I think might be an adequate answer

ah regardless they did not know any better it seemed to close the argument haha

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

God decreed before the creation, that He would decree the fall in order to redeem them.

This seems to be the supralapsarian version, no? An infra would probably state a logical ordering as follows (Berkhof):

(a) The decree to create man in holiness and blessedness.
(b) The decree to permit man to fall by the self-determination of his own will.
(c) The decree to save a certain number out of this guilty aggregate.
(d) The decree to leave the remainder in their self-determination in sin, and to subject them to the righteous punishment which their sin deserves.

Not wanting to start the usual supra vs. infra debate here, but only pointing out that some greater precision in your statement is in order.

AMR

 

[The Calvin Knight]

Not wanting to start the usual supra vs. infra debate here,

AMR

Or we can just follow Bavinck and conclude that they both fail .

 

[charliejunfan]

Not wanting to start the usual supra vs. infra debate here,

AMR

Or we can just follow Bavinck and conclude that they both fail .

I agree completely!

I use Supra to defend God's Sovereignty and Infra to defend God's Justice