|
Posts: 118
Joined: July 2025
|
|
|
|
Forums31
Topics8,376
Posts56,576
Members992
| |
Most Online4,295
May 22nd, 2026
|
|
|
#21799
Wed Feb 09, 2005 12:13 AM
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 969
Old Hand
|
OP
Old Hand
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 969 |
Recently in the newspaper one of the pastors who write for the faith and values section of the newspaper tried to give what he referred to as a theodicy for the tsunami in response to comments in the opinion page on why the tsunami and for that matter evil showed there was no God. The pastor's response was (surprise! surprise!) that God allows evil so that man can have free will. What I would like to know is what components should a reformed theodicy have in answer to a free will theodicy?
Peter
If you believe what you like in the gospels, and reject what you don't like, it is not the gospel you believe, but yourself. Augustine of Hippo
|
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 406
Addict
|
|
Addict
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 406 |
Well, to begin, I believe any meaningful theological system has to have the ability to define terms. For instance, what sort of evil are we talking about? Natural evil or moral evil? Natural evil would be any type of natural disaster like the tsunami you mention, where as moral evil would be human agents acting immorally. So, once we have established our categories, the apologist is going to have to defend each category within its defined parameters.
Turning to natural evil first, the pastor writing the opinion piece has made a fundamental flaw in that he is mixing categories. How exactly does human free will have any bearing upon a tsunami which is a natural disaster outside of the control of any human on the planet? A person can exercise his free will all he wants, but it is not in his power to cause a 9 point earthquake that will result in a quarter million people being wiped out in flooding. The inquirer asks: "Did God send this tsunami and if so, why?" "Well," answers the pastor, "God gave men freewill so that he will love God from the heart and with the giving of freewill there is a potential for evil to happen in the world." What sort of lame answer is that? This fellow's response is irrelevant to the over all question.
Then, turning to moral evil, one will have to define what is moral, or what it is that exactly establishes morality. The so-called "atheist" objector reacting to the tsunami is himself mixing categories just like the pastor by wrongfully equating natural disaster with morality. Moreover, by his very objection, he is acting inconsistently with his own world view, because he is claiming there is some objective standard of morality outside of humaninty by which he can judge God's actions. Atheism is naturalistic, so morality is generally considered relative and coming from within individuals, so who is to really say God is acting contrary to morality? Whose morality are we talking about? The athiest has to deal with these two fundamental flaws to his own system of belief before he can genuinely offer a complaint against the theist.
I hope that has given you something to chew on. Maybe some others would like to add their thoughts?
Fred
"Ah, sitting - the great leveler of men. From the mightest of pharaohs to the lowest of peasants, who doesn't enjoy a good sit?" M. Burns
|
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 969
Old Hand
|
|
OP
Old Hand
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 969 |
First of all Fred thanks for the reply. I was beginning to think that our friends on the board thought theodicy was a greek sailor trying to return home from the war. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />
However, to be fair to the pastor who wrote the piece I reread the article again after reading your reply. Pastor M. did say that the natural evil was a result of the curse put upon the earth by the fall of our ancestors Adam and Eve. But of course that still begs the question could not a sovereign God still not keep natural disasters from happening even on a cursed world? To say no because it would violate our free will doesn't make sense.
Many of the author's that I have read say that the ordaining of evil is logical if God uses for ultimate good. Pardon the analogy but its sort of like going to the dentist to get your teeth drilled. Yes the pain is an evil but it is for our ultimate good, no tooth ache.
Others point toward the glory of God being the purpose of evil. If evil didn't exist then God could not demonstrate His mercy upon us. If God couldn't demonstrate His mercy to us then He wouldn't be demonstrating all of His characteristics and so His glory wouldn't be completely revealed. And since God's glory is the ultimate good evil must be ordained.
Comments?
Peter
If you believe what you like in the gospels, and reject what you don't like, it is not the gospel you believe, but yourself. Augustine of Hippo
|
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 1,579
Veteran
|
|
Veteran
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 1,579 |
Robert Reymond, in his A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith, writes: I would suggest the following as the only possible direction in which to look for a biblical and thus a defensible theodicy: The ultimate end which God decreed he regarded as great enough and glorious enough that it justified to himself both the divine plan itself and the ordained incidental evil arising the foreordained path to his plan's great and glorious end. But is there, indeed, can there be such an end? Yes, indeed there is such an end. Paul can declare: "I consider that our present sufferings (which are ordained of God; the reader is referred to 2 Cor. 11:23-33 and 12:7-10 for a sampling of Paul's sufferings) are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us"; and again: "our light and momentary troubles are achieving for us an eternal glory that far outweighs them all" (Rom 8:16; 2 Cor 4:17; 1 Cor 2:7). And what is that anticipated and destined end for us? It is this: Someday the elect will be conformed to the image of Christ -- our highest good according to Romans 8:28-29. But our conformity to Christ's likeness is not the "be all and end all" of God's eternal purpose. We have not penetrated God's purpose sufficiently if we conclude that we are the center of God's purpose or that his purpose terminates finally upon us by accomplishing our glorification. Rather, our glorification is only the means to a higher, indeed, the highest end conceivable - "that God's Son [N.B.: not Adam] might be the Firstborn [that is, might occupy the place of higest honor] among many brothers" (Rom. 8:29), and all to the praise of God's glorious grace (Eph. 1:6,10,12,14; 2:7). (pages 376-377)
True godliness is a sincere feeling which loves God as Father as much as it fears and reverences Him as Lord, embraces His righteousness, and dreads offending Him worse than death~ Calvin
|
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 969
Old Hand
|
|
OP
Old Hand
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 969 |
You know I'm going to have to pick up that book. Thanks for sharing I'm definitely seeing how to respond here.
Peter
If you believe what you like in the gospels, and reject what you don't like, it is not the gospel you believe, but yourself. Augustine of Hippo
|
|
|
|
|
0 members (),
201
guests, and
16
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
|
S |
M |
T |
W |
T |
F |
S |
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There are no members with birthdays on this day. |
|
|
|
|
