A Partial Response To A Partial Response

A friend of mine, James Lazarus, posted a response to Steve Hays'response to his partial response to Steve's response to James' original post which started the whole thing.

So, I was going to offer some brief comments on his latest post in his combox, but I decided just to post them here. You could say that this is a partial response to some partial responses. :-)


James,

You wrote: " I’m emphasizing the need for moral intuition in the sense that I discussed at the beginning of this post. I think that what I suggested earlier is sensible: a sensible answer to the problem of suffering will present to us a higher-order good that justifies or trumps the amount of suffering or evil that goes on in the world."

According to the Bible God's glory is the highest good. According to the Bible God does all things for glory, that it might be manifested. And, so, we at least know that the highest order good is God's glory and that's why He allows anything that we call evil to happen. So, why would this not be the answer to gratuitous evil?

Second, you grant that even if this is an answer then we still have a problem of ignorance.

You write: "Given this example, we can ask a question. Would the doctor who cares about this young girl explain to her the reason why she has to suffer? The explanation, I’d wager, would help her understand the purpose of her treatments, and it would give her assurance that there was a sensible reason for why she has to experience what she does. It would, in fact, help her to know why her suffering was necessary."

And

"Similarly, God is a being who loves his creation, just as the doctor cares for the young girl. I think it is clear that just as in the doctor example, God would not abandon us to our ignorance. Instead, He would reveal to us exactly why we must go through the suffering that we do, why it was necessary for whatever higher good He has in mind."

And so I've already mentioned the broad reason. God has told us that it's for his glory.

But, second, why assume that even if God were to tell us how it is for his glory in explicit detail (which I think your request is asking, and I think this is unfair, especially considering who God is, i.e., he's not "the Bible answer man!":-) ) we would understand?

The flaw in your analogy assumed that we're fairly close in intelligence to God and so God just needs to tell us the answers. The doctor can tell the girl and she, knowing English, rules of grammar, concepts, etc., can understand what the doctor is saying. But the more correct analogy may be that of Einstein trying to explain E=MC2 through the stomach of a pregnant mother who has a 1 week old fetus inside her! The only problem is that the gap between God and us is greater!

So, I think I have given the broad reason why and so that should satisy your request. To the extent that you want to know all the details I'm suggesting that we may not even be able to comprehend the answer. This is what happened to Job.

Job 40:
1 Moreover Jehovah answered Job, and said,

2 Shall he that cavilleth contend with the Almighty? He that argueth with God, let him answer it.

3 Then Job answered Jehovah, and said,

4 Behold, I am of small account; What shall I answer thee? I lay my hand upon my mouth.

5 Once have I spoken, and I will not answer; Yea, twice, but I will proceed no further.

6 Then Jehovah answered Job out of the whirlwind, and said,

7 Gird up thy loins now like a man: I will demand of thee, and declare thou unto me.

8 Wilt thou even annul my judgment? Wilt thou condemn me, that thou mayest be justified?

9 Or hast thou an arm like God? And canst thou thunder with a voice like him?

And so I think what you have is a psychological problem with evil. Regarding this problem Dr. Greg Bahnsen writes,

"The Problem is Not Logical, But Psychological

It turns out that the problem of evil is not a logical difficulty after all. If God has a morally sufficient reason for the evil which exists, as the Bible teaches, then His goodness and power are not challenged by the reality of evil events and things in human experience. The only logical problem which arises in connection with discussions of evil is the unbeliever's philosophical inability to account for the objectivity of his moral judgments.

The problem which men have with God when they come face to face with evil in the world is not a logical or philosophical one, but more a psychological one. We can find it emotionally very hard to have faith in God and trust His goodness and power when we are not given the reason why bad things happen to us and others. We instinctively think to ourselves, "why did such a terrible thing occur?" Unbelievers internally cry out for an answer to such a question also. But God does not always (indeed, rarely) provide an explanation to human beings for the evil which they experience or observe. "The secret things belong to the Lord our God" (Deuteronomy 29:29). We might not be able to understand God's wise and mysterious ways, even if He told us (cf. Isaiah 55:9). Nevertheless, the fact remains that He has not told us why misery and suffering and injustice are part of His plan for history and for our individual lives.

So then, the Bible calls upon us to trust that God has a morally sufficient reason for the evil which can be found in this world, but it does not tell us what that sufficient reason is. The believer often struggles with this situation, walking by faith rather than by sight. The unbeliever, however, finds the situation intolerable for his pride, feelings, or rationality. He refuses to trust God. He will not believe that God has a morally sufficient reason for the evil which exists, unless the unbeliever is given that reason for his own examination and assessment. To put it briefly, the unbeliever will not trust God unless God subordinates Himself to the intellectual authority and moral evaluation of the unbeliever -- unless God consents to trade places with the sinner.

The problem of evil comes down to the question of whether a person should have faith in God and His word or rather place faith in his own human thinking and values. It finally becomes a question of ultimate authority within a person's life. And in that sense, the way in which unbelievers struggle with the problem of evil is but a continuing testimony to the way in which evil entered human history in the first place. The Bible indicates that sin and all of its accompanying miseries entered this world through the first transgression of Adam and Eve. And the question with which Adam and Eve were confronted way back then was precisely the question which unbelievers face today: should we have faith in God's word simply on His say-so, or should we evaluate God and His word on the basis of our own ultimate intellectual and moral authority?

God commanded Adam and Eve not to eat of a certain tree, testing them to see if they would attempt to define good and evil for themselves. Satan came along and challenged the goodness and truthfulness of God, suggesting He had base motives for keeping Adam and Eve from the delight of the tree. And at that point the whole course of human history depended upon whether Adam and Eve would trust and presuppose the goodness of God. Since they did not, the human race has been visited with torments too many and too painful to inventory. When unbelievers refuse to accept the goodness of God on the basis of His own self-revelation, they simply perpetuate the source of all of our human woes. Rather than solving the problem of evil, they are part of the problem.

Therefore, it should not be thought that "the problem of evil" is anything like an intellectual basis for a lack of faith in God. It is rather simply the personal expression of such a lack of faith. What we find is that unbelievers who challenge the Christian faith end up reasoning in circles. Because they lack faith in God, they begin by arguing that evil is incompatible with the goodness and power of God. When they are presented with a logically adequate and Biblically supported solution to the problem of evil (viz., God has a morally sufficient but undisclosed reason for the evil that exists), they refuse to accept it, again because of their lack of faith in God. They would rather be left unable to give an account of any moral judgment whatsoever (about things being good or evil) than to submit to the ultimate and unchallengeable moral authority of God. That is too high a price to pay, both philosophically and personally."

Lastly, as to the reason why the fall brought even natural disasters, Laz asked,

"I understand that this is a standard response to arguments from suffering that emphasize natural disasters. However, what confuses me is the causal link between the occurrence of the Fall and the occurrence of natural disasters. How does one lead to the other? "

The causal link is that Adam represented not only all of his people, but also the good creation God made. I defended the doctrine of Federal Headship here and here. Adam's sin had repercussions for creation. The second Adam (Jesus) brings about restoration. And so we read in Romans 8 about the effects of the fall on creation,

Romans 8:18 I consider that our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us. 19 The creation waits in eager expectation for the sons of God to be revealed. 20 For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope 21 that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God. 22 We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time. 23 Not only so, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies. 24 For in this hope we were saved. But hope that is seen is no hope at all. Who hopes for what he already has? 25But if we hope for what we do not yet have, we wait for it patiently.

Not only was man cursed because of the fall, the ground was (cf. Gen. 3:1-24). But because of the second Adam we will live in a world where there is no more curse (cf. Rev. ch. 21-22).

All of this was ordained by God for the glory of God, which is the highest good.

Ephesians 1:11 In him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will, 12 in order that we, who were the first to hope in Christ, might be for the praise of his glory.

Lastly, you wrote,

"For instance, if a literal interpretation of Genesis is correct, then the Flood took place somewhere during the Xing dynasty in China, at least according to creationist critic Frank Zindler. If Zindler is correct about this, then we have every historical reason to suppose that a literal interpretation of Genesis is incorrect, and that we ought to seek out alternative understandings of the Fall and other events as told in the Book of Genesis."

I don't think the Bible commits us to an exact date of creation and the fall. Indeed, one could have an orthodox view of the fall and have plenty of time between the fall and the flood account. At any rate, I don't see how a "literal" interpretation of Genesis places the flood during the Xing dynasty. And, as I said, one could still have an orthodox view of the fall and allow for various amounts of time to have passed between the fall and the flood. And, if the fall is secured, then that's what matters as far as it's an answer to many of the questions regarding the problem of evil.