Reconciling Evil, Sovereignty, Free Choice, etc

[The_Exodus]

It seems here lately that many posts have sprang up relating to questions about evil, God’s sovereignty, human choice and responsibility, predestination and such things. I want to take the chance to lay down what I think the answers to these questions are, and I want others who have questions to pose them directly to me. This is not because I think others are unable to answer these questions (though that may be the case), but because I think it would be most helpful for everyone with such questions to be able to read a definite, coherent train of thought from one person in response to many objections. It would be more easy to follow, and also avoid many red herrings, dead ends and obscurities that I continue to read on the forums.

This post is designed mainly for Christians, and those who share the traditional understanding of evil as a defective act towards good. But atheists are welcome to pose questions as well.

Here, then, is how I want to start off:

God is totally sovereign over both good and evil in all creation. The defect of evil comes from creatures, though the defectibility, as a potency towards evil, is not an evil. The permission of this defect, and the motion towards the physicality of the evil as it is personified in an act, is from God. God is not bound to hold defectible creatures in a state of perfection, and he can allow (not cause) defectible creatures to fail for the greater good. Thus God does not will evil to be done, or will it not to be done, but wills to permit it to be done, which is good.

 

[rittenour]

Sorry to see no response to this. Tonight I attended a talk on the subject of how suffering can be an agent of spiritual formation. Although the subject is probably a good one, I was sorely disappointed and confused by the content presented. As example, one point which continues to clank in my ears is the statement that “pain is part of God’s providence”. Which, to me, sounds dreadfully close to “God desires to harm me”.

I’m a very recent convert to Catholicism (RCIA, this year) with a very confused spiritual past (from Oneness Pentecostalism, UPCI, charismaniacism, satanism, various streams of eastern philosophy/Buddhism) which, as you might imagine, has me layered under some bad theology.

My recent conversion was lubricated by the writings of Flannery O’Connor … a women who suffered heroically, lived and died in faith. I think she’s a testimony to what it means to suffer faithfully … redemptively…? Her two novels helped me to see evil for what it truly is and to not be confused by the oft sentimentalizion of evil for good - Flannery was master at separating good from evil. Unfortunately, I am not … hence my uncertainty with the notion that pain is part of God’s providence.

On quick reflection, I find it offensive. The problem with reconciling evil is it impugns God’s reputation as less than good. Saying “pain” is part of God’s providence is to say that God wills our pain. As a loving but imperfect mom, do I desire my children to experience pain? No, I don’t. If their choices are dangerous I desire that the suffering they experience would effect a change of will toward healthier living, but I desire the experience of pain only as instrument of change and their greater good. I desire as little pain as possible; ultimately, I desire no pain at all. How could God desire less? How could god desire pain? Is God’s providence not his desire?

Does not evil cause pain? In response to evil’s invitation, sin turns us from God and causes self-harm and harm to others. Doesn’t such a statement as “pain is part of God’s providence” quickly deteriorate into “God wills evil”?

 

[tonyrey]

Sorry to see no response to this. Tonight I attended a talk on the subject of how suffering can be an agent of spiritual formation. Although the subject is probably a good one, I was sorely disappointed and confused by the content presented. As example, one point which continues to clank in my ears is the statement that “pain is part of God’s providence”. Which, to me, sounds dreadfully close to “God desires to harm me”.

“to permit” should not be equated with “to cause”. Pain is an inevitable consequence of sentience.

My recent conversion was lubricated by the writings of Flannery O’Connor … a women who suffered heroically, lived and died in faith. I think she’s a testimony to what it means to suffer faithfully … redemptively…? Her two novels helped me to see evil for what it truly is and to not be confused by the oft sentimentalizion of evil for good - Flannery was master at separating good from evil. Unfortunately, I am not … hence my uncertainty with the notion that pain is part of God’s providence.

Pain and suffering are only evil when they are unnecessary.

Does not evil cause pain? In response to evil’s invitation, sin turns us from God and causes self-harm and harm to others. Doesn’t such a statement as “pain is part of God’s providence” quickly deteriorate into “God wills evil”?

It need not! Evil causes pain deliberately but pain is not necessarily evil. To think so is to be a hedonist. Pain is unpleasant but it is a physical defence mechanism. So from that point of view it is good!