The problem of evil without becoming an open theist

[Dan N]

I was asked for a recommendation--a booklet if at all possible--to explain the problem of evil without what this person thinks it's a drifting into open theism.

It was explained to me that they feel they're explaining evil as the result of sin and God then weavers his provision throughout to cause all things to work together for good. Their concern is that in the process of explaining it they feel they're not adequately explaining that these evils were decreed by God because of the obvious tension so they use the language that expresses God weaving his sovereign power and implementing his provision so Rom 828 is accomplished and they're concerned about drifting into open theism.

Any good, short booklets or books that I could recommend?

 

[RamistThomist]

Open Theism doesn't solve the problem. The open theist hopes God wins in the end, but he can't really know that. In fact, God can't even know that.

One good book (among many) is Geisler and House, The Battle for God.

 

[jwright82]

I was asked for a recommendation--a booklet if at all possible--to explain the problem of evil without what this person thinks it's a drifting into open theism.

It was explained to me that they feel they're explaining evil as the result of sin and God then weavers his provision throughout to cause all things to work together for good. Their concern is that in the process of explaining it they feel they're not adequately explaining that these evils were decreed by God because of the obvious tension so they use the language that expresses God weaving his sovereign power and implementing his provision so Rom 828 is accomplished and they're concerned about drifting into open theism.

Any good, short booklets or books that I could recommend?

I would say my go to book is "Beyond The Bounds" edited by John Piper, Paul Helselth, and Justin Taylor.

 

[jwright82]

Open Theism doesn't solve the problem. The open theist hopes God wins in the end, but he can't really know that. In fact, God can't even know that.

One good book (among many) is Geisler and House, The Battle for God.

Didn't Ronald Nash write a good book on this back in the day, as the kids say?

 

[Ryan&Amber2013]

Berkhof writes on it I think in his section on providence, and even recognizes it is a problem we can't figure out. The section is short and sweet I believe. Ultimately I think it comes down to faith. The Bible clearly teaches TULIP, so do we have faith to embrace it?

 

[RamistThomist]

Didn't Ronald Nash write a good book on this back in the day, as the kids say?

I remember in his lectures he was talking about writing a book on the topic

 

[Contra_Mundum]

I was asked for a recommendation--a booklet if at all possible--to explain the problem of evil without what this person thinks it's a drifting into open theism.

It was explained to me that they feel they're explaining evil as the result of sin and God then weavers his provision throughout to cause all things to work together for good. Their concern is that in the process of explaining it they feel they're not adequately explaining that these evils were decreed by God because of the obvious tension so they use the language that expresses God weaving his sovereign power and implementing his provision so Rom 828 is accomplished and they're concerned about drifting into open theism.

Any good, short booklets or books that I could recommend?

I think you are correct to infer that, if God simply takes evil as a given, even if just as a result of the fall and sin, and from there "works around it" to bring about his success; then God has gone from having all the initiative, to being a reactor. It is vital for a truly Christian concept of God to recognize him as eternally the Actor.

I once had a sincere, but unclear thinking Christian first deplore "Calvinism" as fatalist, as lacking respect for human free-will, and as "Greek" rather than "Hebrew" and thus truly biblical. The irony that followed was thick. To explain how God was always able to get his will accomplished, this same person explained that God, looking down from his height over all things and able to see where all events are converging, leaving men to their own wills, nevertheless boxed a man in, and left him with circumstances where he was "bound" to freely choose what God wanted him to do.

In case this needs explaining, HIS conception of God's omnipotent and secure result is exactly what the Greeks taught. He explained Greek fatalism in virtually textbook fashion. The reason why Oedipus kills his father and marries his mother, contrary to his desire and effort to invalidate the prophecy that he will fall victim to these events, is because he is "boxed in" and cannot escape his fate at the hands of the cruel gods. God's divine sovereignty, and the Bible's explanation of foreordination and prophecy and man's real, meaningful choices, all without compromise of God's decree and man's responsibility--these are nothing like philosophical determinism and ex eventu "prophecy," while remaining at odds with the humanistic notion of libertarian free will.

It is next to impossible for the captive mind to conceive that the tragic evils we encounter in this world need not be the end of the story. Scripture teaches that the worst things that can happen in this world 1) are less terrible than an eternity apart from the grace of God, and 2) if they happen to the object of God's eternal love, are most certain to be more than compensated; sometimes even in this life, but most assuredly in the next. Because these evils are (in fact) horrific, and because death appears to be so final, many refuse to be comforted by the thought of "Lazarus in Abraham's bosom" Lk.16:23. The "light and momentary afflictions," which in the hour of their visitation do not seem so trivial or transitory, will in time appear as nothing and less than nothing, compared to the surpassing weight of glory that is the destiny of them who have Christ for their Lord. But those who despise the thought of a God in control of history consider only the event itself, not its potential purpose or meaning.

Ask one who finds God's guilty--if he is so much in control of history yet does not impose against every wickedness or disaster--if he also finds a great human storyteller guilty of sin against his characters, even his heroes, if he had the power to prevent the evil that befell them, and did not intervene? Did victory in conclusion exonerate the author? Or did that simply mitigate the evil he "allowed," even wrote into the tale? The crime itself was evil, so how is the author absolved? Or what if the lesson of the story has no relief for the sufferers, only for the reader? Is it justice for the author to show so callous and "instrumental" treatment of his characters, in order to provide some "good" for the readers of his work?

The authorial analogy is fitting for describing actual history, when viewed from God's position as the figure who writes history, not simply as the greatest Character within it. God's "higher ways" are not properly the stuff to be tried in a human court. He has (to quote Bahnsen and others) "morally sufficient reasons" to permit what he permits, to ordain what he ordains. These reasons may redound to the blessing of his saints, proving their path of travail to be the means of their greatest glorification in the end. These reasons may prove his own justice as he is shown to be the One who finds and punishes evil. In the end, he owes no creature justification for himself. The distance between him and his image bearing creatures is greater than the distance between a human author and his characters on the page, or on the stage.

God has written a history for his own name's sake. And for the angels. And for his redeemed, who marvel at not only the grand storyline--Creation, Fall, Redemption in, by, and for Christ, followed by glory--but their own places in that story. There is a "problem of evil," and even Christians struggle often with the "darkness" of their plotline, or that of another person with whom they would not want to trade place. But it is not a problem for God, at least for the God of the Bible. Christians have the answer to the problem, a good answer, one that fits perfectly in the outline of the story contained in Holy Scripture. The answer encompasses also our own trials and tribulations, if we by faith adopt a place in the story he tells concerning Christ, the sacrificing sacrificial serving Savior, God come himself to suffer and die in our stead, in order to grant his believers everlasting life.

Making room in his grand narrative for evil, in order to demolish it and put it away forever, and that by a selfless loving design, was conceptually necessary in order to bring about the greater good of salvation of undeserving sinners. Evil exists to be rectified, compensated for, paid back, condemned and removed, blasted away from the Presence of the Lord by his opposite purity and holiness, chased into the everlasting and ever-retreating darkness by the echoes of unending praises of the redeemed.

 

[jwright82]

I remember in his lectures he was talking about writing a book on the topic

He did, I can't remember the name for it. But I read it when I was like nineteen. Ancient history my man.

 

[Sovereign Grace]

I was asked for a recommendation--a booklet if at all possible--to explain the problem of evil without what this person thinks it's a drifting into open theism.

It was explained to me that they feel they're explaining evil as the result of sin and God then weavers his provision throughout to cause all things to work together for good. Their concern is that in the process of explaining it they feel they're not adequately explaining that these evils were decreed by God because of the obvious tension so they use the language that expresses God weaving his sovereign power and implementing his provision so Rom 828 is accomplished and they're concerned about drifting into open theism.

Any good, short booklets or books that I could recommend?

I've felt for a long time that only the Reformed folk can truly explain the presence of evil. Look at a non-Reformed person trying to explain the presence of evil to an atheist for existence. All they can do is dance around the subject and say God allows evil, though it is not part of His plan. That gives the atheist the upper hand as they can say they expect them to believe in a god who allows evil, could have stopped it, yet didn't, and it serves Him no purpose whatsoever, seeing He didn't decree it. We know that He decreed evil to take place and it serves a purpose in the redemptive plan for His elect ppl.

This may seem weird, but I think the best book on topic of the OP is the bible.

ETA: If this is not pertinent to the OP topic, admins/mods, please delete this post. I do not wish to derail the thread.

 

[Sovereign Grace]

I was asked for a recommendation--a booklet if at all possible--to explain the problem of evil without what this person thinks it's a drifting into open theism.

It was explained to me that they feel they're explaining evil as the result of sin and God then weavers his provision throughout to cause all things to work together for good. Their concern is that in the process of explaining it they feel they're not adequately explaining that these evils were decreed by God because of the obvious tension so they use the language that expresses God weaving his sovereign power and implementing his provision so Rom 828 is accomplished and they're concerned about drifting into open theism.

Any good, short booklets or books that I could recommend?

I would think deism is the default position to the OP as God just sets back and watches the evil unfold. That is the very essence of deism.

 

[arapahoepark]

Might be helpful for you: https://www.amazon.com/Excusing-Sin...id=1677592493&sprefix=bignon+,aps,1456&sr=8-2

 

[Dan N]

Thanks, guys! If you come up with any other resources that simply address this issue, let me know.
Grace and peace.

 

[RamistThomist]

I would think deism is the default position to the OP as God just sets back and watches the evil unfold. That is the very essence of deism.

I'm not sure. The open theist god is very involved with the world. He's just not that strong and can't do much. In fact, he changes a lot based on the responses of man.

 

[No Other Name]

Excellent suggestions.

My personal go-to is God and Evil: The Problem Solved by Gordon H. Clark

 

[ZackF]

My fall back position is the Problem of Good. If God is not good, why does he allow it? He allows good so a greater evil may be brought out of it?