Name: Ham, Timothy J.
Writing Style Used: MLA
(e.g., Turabian, APA, or MLA)
Course and Section Number: THEO 202 D25
(e.g. THEO 202 B01)
Essay on Hamartiology: The Problem of Evil (Theodicy)
I arrive home from church one Sunday morning to find my neighbor Sam outside caring
for his lawn. We stop and chat for a bit, and I discuss my time at church. He is rather
disinterested in the concept of God given the Ebola crisis and ISIS' beheadings of innocent
people. He wonders how a God who claims to be all-powerful and all-loving could exist as
Christians portray Him when there is so much evil in the world.
The objection he has to God is the classic problem of evil, which is actually broken down
into four main categories: (1) the “religious problem”, whereby “someone is actually
experiencing” “some concrete instance of evil;” (2) the “philosophical/theological problem”,
which is broken down into moral evil and natural evil; (3) “degrees...intensity
and...gratuitousness of evil”, whereby man questions “why God needs so much evil...to do” what
He is trying to accomplish with it; and finally (4) “evil that seems to serve no useful purpose
whatsoever.” (Feinberg 414)
With regards to the “philosophical/theological problem” (Feinberg 414), said problem is
broken down into two categories: moral evil and natural evil. Moral evil is defined as the
“activities of moral agents” (Feinberg 414); specifically, disobeying God. (Gerstner 412) Any
abridgment of one of God's commandments, such as using His name in vain (Exodus 20:7),
serves as an example of moral evil. Man's sinful nature was imputed to man though its initial
representative, Adam, when he sinned and ate of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.
Ham 2
(Demarest 436) Natural evil “occurs in the process of the functioning of...natural order.”
(Feinberg 414) A person's affliction with cancer or the destruction of one's home by a tornado
are examples of natural evil. Natural evil exists in this world due to man's fateful initial break
from God's will which occurred when he turned away in the Garden of Eden. (Genesis 3:16-19,
23)
When dealing with the problem of evil, a theodicy is typically constructed that addresses
this and other problems. The definition of a theodicy is “God-justice”, as it “attempts to justify
the ways of God to man.” (Feinberg 1184) According to Gottfried Leibniz' theodicy, God has
reasons that are “necessary laws” for creating the world the way He did, and God created the best
world He could. Leibniz takes a metaphysical view of evil as a “lack of being” and good as a
plenty of being. As God doesn't do something without sufficient reason and creates the best
world He can out of obligation, the system is said to be consistent. (Feinberg 1185)
According to St. Augustine's theodicy, God has no obligation to “create any world, for
[His] own existence is the supreme good.” While “creating a world is a fitting thing for God to
do”, it is “not the only fitting thing for [Him] to do.” The “best possible world” of which Leibniz
speaks does not exist in Augustine's theodicy. God had the freedom to choose whether or not to
create a world and which one he should create. The problem of evil arises with the question of
which contingent world God created is good despite its containment of evil. (Feinberg 1185)
Both of the previous theodicies shift the onus of the onus of the presence of evil on God,
while refraining from focusing on the human element of choice in the matter of evil. Enter: the
free-will theodicy, which concludes that God does “does...not...cause evil in the world,” but
“abuse of human free will” does. As humans choose to use free will to do evil, they “are
responsible for” it. “God is...good for giving humans” this free will nonetheless, “because a
Ham 3
world in which” free will exists is still better than a world “that contains no evil but is populated
by automatons.” The good of free will outweighs the absence of evil. “God can” only “do
whatever is logically consistent;” accordingly, the system is consistent. This system puts the
onus of choice on humans, where, in my opinion, it belongs. Despite our fallen nature, we
possess the ability to choose the general direction in which we will head, despite any failings we
may have on the way.
John Hick's theodicy of “soul-building” posits that God intended “to create a being in
need of moral development” as well as a world “most conducive to” that end. This necessarily
means man must “be confronted by problems and evil.” “God is not to be blamed for” evil, as
He plans on using evil “to build souls and ultimately develop people to a point where they are
ready for the kingdom of God.” Every soul will be built; all will make it to God's kingdom, and
“no evil will prove to be unjustified or unjustifiable.” (Feinberg 1186) At no point is God
blamed for evil, since it is a necessary condition to build souls. (Feinberg 1187). This theodicy,
while consistent and seemingly satisfying with regards to its explanation of evil's existence, has a
flawed view of salvation, as not all will be saved. (Matthew 7:21-23)
Any multi-point position one holds on a given topic, theodicy or otherwise, must
maintain consistency between all of its respective points, as the points are often inter-dependent
on one another. Failure of one point affects the others as dependencies fail, rendering the entire
position invalid.
With regards to moral evil, I believe this occurs any time we intentionally deviate from
God's commandments. God is not the cause of evil in the world, but the abuse of human free
will is. (Feinberg 1186) This nature is imputed to us ultimately from Adam when he chose to
fall at the Garden of Eden. Unintentional deviations stem from our lack of omniscience; we have
Ham 4
a responsibility to own up to them as our hand commits them and seek a solution to avoid their
recurrence. I believe natural evil exists due to the fallen world in which we live, which was
cursed at the time Adam sinned by eating of the Tree of the Knowledge of good and evil. As
God wanted to be loved, thus requiring persons as free-will agents to choose Him, he gave us the
freedom to choose. When we choose evil, God cannot stand our actions or their results
anywhere in His presence. (Lewis 496) They are not of Him but of ourselves. God's
omnipotence is irrelevant because of the manner in which He created His world with free-will;
overruling said principle contradicts the principles of His world and Himself. (Lewis 494)
(Feinberg 1185)
The problem of how a believer of Christ can suffer...sometimes greatly...as a result of evil
is no uncommon question in the spiritual realm. This can be the result of moral evil, done at the
hand of man...or a natural evil, resulting from the fallen nature in which we live. Many different
views may attempt to explain such a phenomenon; whenever one rejects a given view, they are
rejecting one of man's many portrayals of God. The only time such an action is an actual
rejection of God is when one of said portrayals is accurate. (Feinberg 1187)
Sam thanks me for my insight and returns to caring for his lawn. I sincerely hope the
knowledge I impart leads him to greater consider his presence on this earth and how such an
impact should guide his life.
Word count: 1216
Bibliography
Demarest, B., ed. Walter A. Elwell: Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids,
Mich.: Baker Academic, 2001. Print.
Ham 5
Feinberg, J.S., ed. Walter A. Elwell: Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. 2nd ed. Grand
Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2001. Print.
Gerstner, J.H., ed. Walter A. Elwell: Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. 2nd ed. Grand
Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2001. Print.
The Holy Bible, New King James Version. Thomas Nelson, Inc., 1982. Print.
Lewis, G.R., ed. Walter A. Elwell: Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids,
Mich.: Baker Academic, 2001. Print.