Saturday, July 30, 2011

Romans 8:28 and Gratuitous Evil

There is some disagreement among theologians and philosophers as to whether or not there exists gratuitous evil in the world. Gratuitous evil is generally defined as evil that does not serve a greater good or purpose. Those who deny gratuitous evil, then, would claim each and every moral evil or works together to serve the greater good. Those who affirm gratuitous evil claim that while God is in control, he has necessarily limited himself by endowing creatures with free will, so that there really is individual evil that itself does not work toward some greater good. Romans seems to indicate that there really is not gratuitous evil in the world.

And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.

Let us first point out the things this verse is not saying. It is not saying that “all things are good.” This is not only counterintuitive and counter-experiential, but counter-biblical as well. There are things, actions, and events which are clearly bad and anti-God. Next, it is not saying that “all things work together for good to everyone.” Not every thing that happens is going to be good for those who will ultimately be lost forever in an eternal Hell. That itself should be obvious. So, this means that there may be some evil that happens to unbelievers that does not serve any sort of redeeming purpose at all as it relates to them specifically. “Aha!” one may say, “gratuitous evil does exist!”

Not so fast! We must cover what the text does in fact say. It says that all things work together for good to believers! It seems the text does indicate that every single event, good, evil, and morally neutral, works together for the ultimate good of believers. That sure sounds a bit like a greater good theodicy to me. Consider just one of the implications of this view of the text: there are actions and events that are totally evil in and of themselves but that nevertheless work together with other things to bring about an individual to believe and receive salvation! This, along with all other events, work together to form the set of all believers that would believe. Analytically, this goes right along with the idea that the world that God created was the world that had the optimal balance of those who are saved to lost and the highest number of those saved.

Some may object that this verse may be hyperbolic in nature. However, consider the context. Romans 8:18, 22-23 mentions:

For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us. For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now. And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body.

This is not hyperbolic, but an encouraging promise of the apostle Paul to his Christian audience. See the idea in these preceding verses? All of creation groans and suffers; all of the believers share in that suffering. But there is ultimate glory, and all things really do work together for good. So is there gratuitous evil? I don’t think so. Even evil is used by God to serve a greater purpose.
------------------------------------
All posts, and the blog Possible Worlds, are the sole intellectual property of Randy Everist. One may reprint part or all of this post so long as: a) full attribution is given (Randy Everist, Possible Worlds), b) all use is non-commercial, and c) one is in compliance with the Creative Commons license at the bottom on the main page of this blog.

12 comments:

  1. Doesn't the greater-good theodicy set on the Christian an enormous burden of proof? If there is no gratuitous evil, we should be able to show some sort of evidence to support the claim, no? I don't think it can be done.

    And doesn't some evil bring about the exact opposite effect? We too often see that when something tragic happens and instead of greater good coming out, a person's heart becomes so hardened to where they never would believe in God. I guess I'm very skeptical that the greater good theodicy has as much power as some believe it does.

    ReplyDelete
  2. In the following I’m presenting an attempt of a solution to the Problem of Evil, which may show that there is no gratuitous evil, even for unbelievers:

    - God’s perfect justice prevents Him from relieving people with unforgiven sins from their sufferings (see Isaiah 59,1-2).
    - Unlike God Christians are not perfectly just. Therefore, unlike God, they are in a position to help people with unforgiven sins. By doing this they may make those among them who haven’t yet accepted God’s salvation receptive of it (Matthew 5,16, 1 Peter 2,11-12, and 3,1-2), which in turn frees these persons from suffering in the afterlife.
    - The greater God’s beneficial power due to His love, the greater God’s destructive power due to His justice (see Matthew 13,27-29). Striving to prevent as much suffering as possible God can only interfere to such a degree that the beneficial effect of the interference is not neutralized by the destructive effect of it.
    - Someone who dies before he or she reaches the age of accountability, i.e. before he or she can distinguish between good and evil (see Genesis 2,16, Deuteronomy 1,39, and Isaiah 7,16) faces no punishment in the afterlife, as he or she would not have been able to commit sins. So, God may not be inclined to prevent such a person’s death.
    - A person’s suffering in this life may have a redeeming effect (Luke 16,25) and consequently contribute to a decrease of the respective person’s suffering in the afterlife; the amount of suffering in this life is so to speak subtracted from the amount of suffering in the afterlife. So, God may not be inclined to relieve this person’s suffering.
    - A person’s suffering in this life may make the person receptive of God’s salvation (Luke 15,11-21), which in turn frees this person from suffering in the afterlife.
    - Those people who suffer more in this life than they deserve due to their way of life are compensated for it by receiving rewards in Heaven.

    Discussions of this theodicy can be found in the following threads, in which my comments have been sent under the names “Patrick” or “Patrick (Christian)”.

    http://www.daylightatheism.org/2011/07/they-have-no-answer.html#comments

    http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=15584

    http://atheismblog.blogspot.com/2011/03/morality-test-for-god.html

    ReplyDelete
  3. Hi Erik, thanks for your thoughts! I think it's important to point out that I was approaching this from a biblical perspective--something the skeptic will surely not grant us. Therefore, I was approaching it more philosophically/theologically rather than apologetically. My intent was to show that the Bible does teach that gratuitous evil, strictly defined, does not exist.

    I myself prefer a defense/theodicy hybrid where I postulate what is most likely given what we know about God.

    As to your second paragraph, remember this article only contends that each individual moral evil (not to be confused with mere natural evil) works together with every other action and thing for the greater good of those who will be saved. Therefore, if moral evil experienced by a person does not bring them closer to a saving knowledge of Christ, it nonetheless does not follow that that particular evil is gratuitous.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Hi Patrick, thanks for sharing your argument. I am open to various theodicies, so I won't attempt to tear yours down. However, I do have a suggestion that I hope is helpful to you. When it is said, "God’s perfect justice prevents Him from relieving people with unforgiven sins from their sufferings," it seems as though a categorical claim can be made: whatever suffering is done cannot be prevented by God. But in that case, it follows analytically that those who suffer less in this life owe that to themselves, which seems to contradict the biblical record (where God's mercies also fall on the unjust in this life). Perhaps a rewording would help, but I am very open to and interested in your argument. It seems very well thought-out. God bless you.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Randy, just to make sure I'm clear. So what you are saying is that moral evil suffered by the Christian is to work out to the believers' good? For example, persecution suffered (which seems to be the context vss. 17, 32-39) is working for the believer's greater good. If so, I think I can get on board with that.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I am saying that indeed! My claim also extends to every act whatsoever. But to be sure, I do not think, for instance, that a solitary act of moral evil in China five hundred years from now works together for my good only. Rather, the verse is to say that every act works together for good for the entire set of those who love God. This ties in with my belief that this world contains the highest balance of those saved to those lost with the highest number of the saved and the least amount of evil. I hope that helps! :)

    ReplyDelete
  7. I think it does. Persecution can produce fortitude, the early church seemed to have grown to it's strongest and purest under the hand of heavy persecution. I can follow that.

    Now forgive me if I'm being dense, are you also saying that every moral evil done is somehow beneficial to the body of Christ at large? In other words, say a little girl gets beaten, raped and murdered in Saudi Arabia. That somehow is working for the good of the body of Christ? Because that would be a tough pill for me to swallow and I think impossible to prove. It also seems to make that evil necessary to be allowed for the best interest of the body of Christ, which seems sort of crazy. It seems to imply evil is necessary to the plan of God. For if the good that obtains is necessary, then it would follow that so also is the evil. That doesn't seem too far from O Felix Culpa. I have to be missing the point somewhere.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Well let me assure you I am one of the first in line to deny O Felix Culpa! I am not saying that such an action is good, but rather works together for good. You are absolutely right that this is impossible to prove; that's why it works as a defense. What I mean is that since we are not in a good epistemic position, one cannot say something such as "the evil that girl experienced is gratuitous." We simply have no way of knowing that. While I assert that it is not gratuitous, it is on the basis of Romans 8 (hence why I say I would not demand, on the offensive, that an atheist accept that there is no gratuitous evil. With him I would merely use the defense).

    Now modal necessity is a very difficult thing, and hence I would never call you dense about it! :) What I postulate is that of all the worlds that are feasible to God for actualizing, God would choose a world with the highest balance of saved-to-lost people. Now that is not good enough, for suppose there is a feasible world that contains 10 people, 8 of whom are redeemed. That ratio is far better than this world, but then God would be restricting himself to create a very small world indeed. So enter the next qualification: that this also includes the highest number of saved individuals with the least number of evil actions performed (which is, strictly speaking, out of God's control--if an agent commits an evil, it is because he has been permitted to choose it, and has done so).

    Now here's where we get back to your question about necessity. Modal necessity only arrives if in every possible world a particular characteristic is exemplified. Since the particular example in point is not in every possible world (on pain of question-begging--it seems we can conceive of a possible world including all of the same features except the lack of this deed), it is not necessary. I also happen to believe there is possibly more than one world that meets the above criteria. In that case, exactly which world God actualizes is contingent upon his free decision, making the actions themselves not-necessary.

    Now as to why God selects one world over and against another is a different subject, as it would not, as far as I can tell, affect whether any evil is gratuitous. Now for one last point: isolated examples are extremely tough for one reason: no act is done in isolation. We can easily think it possible that the man committing the atrocity eventually comes to Christ (apostle Paul, anyone?), and while we may the evil Paul did was not any good, God used it for good. I don't see any reason why we ought to think that the evil done serves no ultimate purpose in light of the biblical record. What's interesting about Romans 8 is that it is contextually all-inclusive. "The whole creation groans" it says. Quite interesting. :)

    ReplyDelete
  9. Randy Everist

    Thanks for commenting on my theodicy. I appreciate it very much.

    You wrote: “When it is said, "God’s perfect justice prevents Him from relieving people with unforgiven sins from their sufferings," it seems as though a categorical claim can be made: whatever suffering is done cannot be prevented by God.”

    It is only the suffering done to people with unforgiven sins that cannot be prevented by God, not suffering in general. The respective people include unbelivers, but also believers with unconfessed sins.

    You wrote: “But in that case, it follows analytically that those who suffer less in this life owe that to themselves, ...”

    I don’t see why this is supposed to be the case. Apart from his or her own behaviour the amount of a person’s suffering depends on the circumstances, which is beyond the respective person’s control.

    You wrote: “[This] seems to contradict the biblical record (where God's mercies also fall on the unjust in this life).”

    It’s not clear to me what exactly you mean by the mercies that also fall on the unjust in this life. I assume that you refer to Matthew 5,45 (“He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.”, NIV). That’s not what I’m thinking of. I’m thinking of God’s miraculous intervention on behalf of a person. So, maybe the first point of my theodicy should be reformulated as follows:

    - God’s perfect justice prevents Him from relieving a person with unforgiven sins from his or her sufferings (see Isaiah 59,1-2).

    Now it should be clear that we don’t speak about God helping people in general by providing them with an environment that enables them to subsist.

    ReplyDelete
  10. hi patrick thanks for commenting. if you mean miraculous intervention instead of providence I understand. it will be the first premise that will be controversial. an interesting question would be if it is unjust for god to act miraculously in these cases then is it also unjust for god to act providentially? just some thoughts not objections.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Thanks for answering my questions, Randy. This is a topic I am definitely interested in learning more about. I'm not trying to just poke holes in what you're saying because it's a subject I have much more to learn about. (If you know of any articles, books you would recommend, let me know)

    I guess I would find it implausible that every moral evil works for the good of the body of Christ, and I'm sure the skeptic would too, although that is not necessarily who you seem to be addressing in this post. I could see persecution working for the good because at least I think there is a good argument for that from scripture. It would seem logical to say that to stop evil would seem to eliminate the good, but obviously the Christian is committed to things like justice or compassion. We have to also commit ourselves, as you seem to indicate, to say that it is beyond our ken, we have no idea how much good counterbalances a particular evil.

    Now, you bring up a middle knowledge perspective, that God has the optimal balance, etc. God would be committed to picking some such world out of the many possible worlds, but prima facie at least, that doesn't seem to be the case. Again, we have to be skeptical and say we don't really know. But it seems to be denying a premise that the skeptic and even some theists (that there is gratuitous evil) find to be obviously true, as true as the fact that there are moral facts. It just clashes with our moral intuitions. Anyway, just some thoughts. Obviously I haven't posed any alternatives. :)

    ReplyDelete
  12. Randy

    You wrote: “an interesting question would be if it is unjust for god to act miraculously in these cases then is it also unjust for god to act providentially?”

    An answer to your objection may be given based on another point of my theodicy, namely the following one:

    - The greater God’s beneficial power due to His love, the greater God’s destructive power due to His justice (see Matthew 13,27-29). Striving to prevent as much suffering as possible God can only interfere to such a degree that the beneficial effect of the interference is not neutralized by the destructive effect of it.

    A good illustration of the idea that the greater God’s beneficial power is the greater is God’s destructive power may be found in the description of the church in Jerusalem in the Book of Acts. Here God’s beneficial power was so great that it could heal a crippled beggar (Acts 3,1-10) yet at the same time His destructive power caused the death of two persons who committed what might be regarded a minor sin; they had been cheating (Acts 5,1-11). From this one can draw the conclusion that God may only be inclined to intervene supernaturally to a large degree, if people’s spiritual levels are such that such intervention doesn’t cause more harm than good. Apart from Matthew 13,27-29 2 Peter 3,9 may be supportive of this idea.

    So, the point referred to above provides the principle lying behind the first point of my theodicy.

    ReplyDelete

Please remember to see the comment guidelines if you are unfamiliar with them. God bless and thanks for dropping by!