Why The Problem Of Evil Does Not Disprove Historic Christianity? (Understanding The Felix Culpa Theodicy) – Part 3

 

            Christian theologians and Christian philosophers have offered sufficient, reasonable, and philosophically sophisticated rebuttals to the problem of evil i.e. rebuttals to why God allows evil, pain, and suffering. Defense and theodicies constitute these rebuttals. One such theodicy is the Felix Culpa theodicy.

            Felix Culpa (O Happy Fault or Oh Blessed Sin) is a Latin expression used by the pre-medieval theologian Augustine when he said, “O happy fault that merited such and so great a Redeemer.” This he said in the context of man’s fall and the original sin.

            Two terms should be primarily defined in this context: Infralapsarianism and Supralapsarianism. These terms are associated with God’s decrees of the fall of man and the salvation plan of the Cross.

            To state more precisely, which of these decrees preceded the other? Did God decree the fall of man logically prior to the salvation plan?

            Supralapsarians claim that God decreed the salvation plan logically prior to the fall. Infralapsarians argue that the fall was logically prior to the salvation plan. (Felix Culpa theodicy is a derivative of Supralapsarianism.) This is an ongoing debate between the Supras and the Infras in the Christian community.

            Although Infralapsarians assert that the fall was logically prior to the salvation plan, this cannot be construed as God being ignorant of the fall or as a lapse in God’s knowledge.

            William Lane Craig’s explanation about infra and supra is a must-read, “The question is – does God decree the cross in order to rectify the fall, or does he decree the fall in order to bring about the cross? Which one is logically prior? Normally, I think most of us would think that the reason God decrees the cross is to solve this problem. God knows from the moment he creates human beings – he knows they will fall into sin – so he has predestined before the foundations of the world that he will send his Son to die to rectify that problem. That is Infralapsarianism. Supralapsarianism is different. It says God, in the council halls of eternity, says The greatest good that I could bring about would be sending my Son to die for humanity and redeeming this people for myself through Him. The cross is such a great good that this is my first desire. How am I going to bring about the cross? I need to have them fall. Otherwise I don’t have anything to redeem them from. Having decided to do the cross, he now decrees the fall in that light. You see the difference? It is just a different logical order. But both of the views affirm that God always foreknows what will happen. It is just a matter of which one has priority in his motivations.”¹

            The Incarnation & The Atonement Are The Greatest Goods: Alvin Plantinga, while postulating the theodicy of Felix Culpa, asserts that the Incarnation of the Lord Jesus Christ and HIS Atoning death (Atonement) on the Cross as the greatest goods, by far. He adds that the Incarnation and the Atonement as tremendous goods, better than any combination of other goods or any combination of evils (horrendous evils included).²

            Plantinga then postulates the Value Hypothesis about goodness, which states that every possible way that things could have been that includes Incarnation and Atonement is better than any possible way things could have been without Incarnation and Atonement.

            Fall Of Man Is A Necessary Condition: Now imagine this scenario. God’s desire is to create a magnificent world. But, given the value hypothesis, that level of value is achieved only when Incarnation and Atonement are present in the world. For incarnation and atonement to be present, the fall of man is a necessary condition (cf. Supralapsarianism).

            Plantinga writes[Emphasis Mine]:³

I believe that any world with incarnation and atonement is a better world than any without it--or at any rate better than any world in which God does nothing comparable to incarnation and atonement...So consider the splendid and gracious marvel of incarnation and atonement. I believe that the great goodness of this state of affairs, like that of the divine existence itself, makes its value incommensurable with the value of states of affairs involving creaturely good and bad. Thus the value of incarnation and atonement cannot be matched by any aggregate of creaturely goods. No matter how many excellent creatures there are in a world, no matter how rich and beautiful and sinless their lives, the aggregated value of their lives would not match that of incarnation and atonement; any world with incarnation and atonement would be better yet. And no matter how much evil, how much sin and suffering a world contains, the aggregated badness would be outweighed by the goodness of incarnation and atonement, outweighed in such a way that the world in question is very good. In this sense, therefore, any world with incarnation and atonement is of infinite value by virtue of containing two goods of infinite value: the existence of God and incarnation and atonement...

            When human beings sin, there would be evil and suffering. Moreover, only if human beings sin would there be a need for incarnation and atonement.

            God Created Our World With The Incarnation & The Atonement: So Plantinga concludes one very good reason for God to allow evil to exist is to create a world with incarnation and atonement, which are the greatest goods even better than any combination of evil. This then entails the necessity of sin whose natural and logical corollary is evil.   

            Supralapsarians Win: This theodicy also paves way for the Supralapsarians to win the battle against the Infralapsarians. The Felix Culpa theodicy necessitates God’s decree of the Incarnation and the Atonement to be logically prior to God’s decree of the fall of man. It is only by virtue of the incarnation and the atonement that the fall of man was necessitated. Plantinga writes:⁴

And as a bonus, we get a clear resolution of the supra/infra debate: the Supras are right. God's fundamental and first intention is to actualize an extremely good possible world, one whose value exceeds; but all those worlds contain Incarnation and Atonement and hence also sin and evil; so the decree to provide incarnation and atonement and hence salvation is prior to the decree to permit fall into sin. The priority in question isn't temporal, and isn't exactly logical either; it is a matter, rather, of ultimate aim as opposed to proximate aim. God's ultimate aim, here, is to create a world of a certain level of value. That aim requires that he aim to create a world in which there is Incarnation and Atonement--which, in turn, requires that there be sin and evil. So there is a clear sense in which the decree to provide salvation precedes the decree to permit sin; but there is no comparable sense in which the decree to permit sin precedes the decree to permit evil.

      Coming back to the Felix Culpa theodicy, Plantinga evaluates his theodicy against common objections such as: (1) Why God permits so much evil, and why God permits suffering? (2) Why is there so much sin and suffering? (3) God’s actualization of a world with incarnation and atonement requires suffering and evil on the part of HIS creatures, and a good deal of innocent suffering and evil (cosmic Munchausen-by-Proxy syndrome); is this fair and right?

     Answers to these objections are outside the scope of this article. However, if you are interested in learning more, then please read Plantinga’s answer to these objections in his article cited in the endnotes.⁵

Endnotes:

¹https://www.reasonablefaith.org/podcasts/defenders-podcast-series-1/s1-the-doctrine-of-man/the-doctrine-of-man-part-8/

²https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=le4C8QuUsMs&ab_channel=CenterforPhilosophyofReligion

³https://andrewmbailey.com/ap/FelixCulpa.pdf

⁴Ibid.

⁵Ibid.

Websites last accessed on 14^th August 2021. 

Why The Problem Of Evil Does Not Disprove Historic Christianity? (Understanding the Evidential Problem Of Evil) – Part 2

             My previous blog addressed the logical problem of evil. This blog will focus on the probabilistic or the evidential problem of evil.

            The logical problem of evil claims it is logically impossible for God and evil to coexist. Whereas the probabilistic or the evidential problem of evil argues it is highly unlikely or improbable that God exists, given the abundance of evil in our world.

            Professor Greg Ganssle expounds on the evidential problem of evil, “Even though it is possible that God has a reason to allow the evils we find in the world, it does not seem likely that there are good reasons for some of the evils we see. We cannot prove that there is no good reason, but if we have lots of cases in which it seems as though there is none, we will conclude that there probably is no good reason to allow these evils. If it is true that probably there is no good reason to allow these cases of evil, then it is probable that God does not exist. This argument is called the “evidential argument” because we cannot prove that there is no good reason to allow the particular evils we are thinking about. These evils do, then, look like good evidence that God does not exist.”¹

            He further emphasizes that the premise “there probably is no good reason to allow these evils” is dubious and can be debunked.

            Is it even reasonable for man, who is so limited in his epistemic ability (his finiteness) and who is prone to error (fallible), to grasp the metaphysical nature of God and HIS reasons to allow evil?

            So the atheologian’s assertion that we should know the reason for the existence of evil is not reasonable. Greg Ganssle offers two reasons:

            (1) Since God has given free will to man, he is prone to evil.

            (2) A finite and a fallible man cannot expect to know every reason that God may have to allow evil.

            Ganssle states, “There are two reasons we can’t always make this claim. First, we can figure out reasons that God might have for many (perhaps most) of the evils in the world. For example, both human freedom and a stable, cause-effect universe are necessary for any meaningful action. Meaningful action, then, may be a reason that God allows various kinds of evil. Second, it is reasonable to think that God will have reasons that we cannot grasp for allowing evils in our lives. In fact, to think that we should be able to figure out God’s reasons for allowing every case of evil implies that we think God is not much smarter than we are. If God is the almighty creator of the universe, there will be evil the reason for which we cannot discern. This is exactly what we should expect if there is a God. It cannot be counted as evidence against God.”²

            William Lane Craig, in his response to the evidential problem of evil, posits doctrines in the Christian faith that increases the probability of the coexistence between God and evil. These are the four doctrines:³

            A. The chief purpose of life is not happiness, but the knowledge of God.

            B. Mankind is in a state of rebellion against God and His purpose.

            C. The knowledge of God spills over into eternal life (cf. 2 Cor. 4:16-18).

            4. The knowledge of God is an incommensurable good.

            Therefore, human freedom, the finiteness and the fallibility of man, and the four doctrines of the Christian faith offers a reasonable first line of defense against the evidential problem of evil.

Endnotes:

¹http://northsidebaptistlakeland.com/home/180006826/180006826/Images/Problem%20of%20evil.pdf

²Ibid.

³https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/popular-writings/existence-nature-of-god/the-problem-of-evil/

Websites last accessed on 10^th August 2021. 

Why The Problem Of Evil Does Not Disprove Historic Christianity? (Understanding the Logical Problem Of Evil) – Part 1

 

            The Problem of Evil is a legitimate obstacle to belief in any theistic religion because it posits the nonexistence of God. So, theistic beliefs should present either a Theodicy (explanation as to why God is justified in allowing evil) or a Defense (stating the probable existence of God-justifying reasons) against the problem of evil.

            Historic Christianity presents, arguably, the most plausible theodicies and defenses against the problem of evil. Dr. William Lane Craig asserts that “Christian theism is man’s last best hope of solving the problem of evil.”¹

            Significantly, the problem of evil proves God’s existence. As Ravi Zacharias said, If there is ‘evil,’ then one should assume there’s ‘good.’ When ‘good’ and ‘evil’ are assumed then we should also assume there is a ‘moral law’ based on which we differentiate between ‘good’ and ‘evil.’ If we assume a ‘moral law,’ then there must be a ‘moral law giver.’ But that’s who the atheologians are trying to disprove!

            So if there is no objective ‘moral law giver,’ then there is no objective ‘moral law.’ If there’s no ‘moral law,’ there is no ‘good.’ If there is no ‘good,’ there is no ‘evil.’ Hence, the problem of evil self-destructs.

            Notwithstanding this argument, we should also consider the intellectual problem of evil. There are two versions:

            1. The Logical Problem of Evil or The Deductive Problem of Evil.

The atheologian argues that is not logical for the coexistence of evil and a loving, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent God. Apparently, God and evil are logically incompatible.

            2. The Probabilistic Problem of Evil or the Evidential Problem of Evil.

The atheologian concedes it is logically possible for God and evil to coexist. Nevertheless, he argues that it is highly improbable or unlikely for God’s existence given the abundance of evil and suffering.

Response to the Logical Problem of Evil:

            Before a Christian responds to the atheologian’s claim that it’s logically impossible for God and evil to coexist, it is the atheologian who ought to bear the burden of proof i.e. the atheologian has to prove that it is logically impossible for God and evil to coexist.

            Now, to the Christian response: All that needs to be established here is a possibility of morally sufficient reason(s) for God to permit evil. If there are morally sufficient reasons (or even if there is one morally sufficient reason) for the coexistence of God and evil, then it is logically possible for God and evil to coexist.

            There is a hidden assumption in the argument of the atheologian. He assumes that God, who is all-loving and all-powerful, should be able to create a world without evil and suffering. But is this argument necessarily true? This is the question a Christian must ask.

            Is the atheologian asking God to do the logically impossible? Is the atheologian’s claim that God should be able to create a world without suffering similar to asking if God can create a rock so heavy that HE cannot lift it?  

            Alvin Plantinga, a highly distinguished Christian philosopher, offers a ‘Free Will Defense.’ He claims that if God creates man with free will, then it is incumbent upon God to allow man to make free choices. As William Lane Craig explains, “So if God grants to people genuine freedom to choose as they like, it is impossible for God to guarantee what their choices will be. He can simply create the circumstances in which he places the person with free will and then, so to speak, stand back and let the person make that free choice... Thus, it is possible that there is no world of free creatures which is feasible to God which is a sinless world. It is possible that in every world of free creatures that God could create that someone in that world would go wrong and would freely sin and introduce evil into that world”²

            Hence, it is clear that the atheologian is asking God to do the logically impossible. But God will not do the logically impossible, so God cannot/will not create a world with free creatures and at the same time prevent them from exercising their freedom to do evil.  

            William Lane Craig further explains Alvin Plantinga’s free will defense with respect to natural evils (earthquakes, tsunami, landslides, etc.) He posits evil spirits or demons as the cause of natural evils, “Demons have free will just as human beings do, and it might be the case that God could not preclude these natural disasters without taking away the free will of these demonic beings. You might think that such a solution to the problem of natural evil is ridiculous and maybe even frivolous, but then you would be confusing the logical version of the problem of evil with the probabilistic version of the problem of evil. Someone who is offering merely a defense does not have to offer a plausible solution. All he has to do is show a possible solution – a possible explanation – and if he can show that it is even possible that God and evil coexist then it follows that the atheist’s argument has been unsuccessful. The atheist has not been able to show that God and evil are logically incompatible with each other.”³

            So by way of conclusion, the atheologian’s claim that it is logically impossible for God and evil to coexist is not valid. Since God has blessed man with free will, God will not prevent man to make choices that may even go against HIS Holy will, which is to do evil. Therefore, because of free will, it is logically possible for God and evil to coexist.

(To be continued...)

Endnotes:

¹https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/popular-writings/existence-nature-of-god/the-problem-of-evil/

²https://www.reasonablefaith.org/podcasts/defenders-podcast-series-1/s1-the-problem-of-evil/the-problem-of-evil-part-1/#_ftn4

³Ibid.

Websites last accessed on 7^th August 2021. 

God Will Not Heal Everyone! Why?

             The ‘Problem of Evil’ is a significant factor for apostasy in Christianity. It is more often an unanswered prayer or an unrealized hope in the context of much-anticipated healing and deliverance that prompts a [so-called] believer to recant his faith in the Lord Jesus.

            The Bible assures believers of healing (Exodus 23:25; Jeremiah 30:17; Matthew 4:23-24; James 5: 14-15 etc.). The same Bible also assures us that God will not always heal (2 Corinthians 12:7-9; Hebrews 11: 35b-40; 1 Timothy 5:23; 2 Timothy 4:20; Jesus did not heal everyone during HIS ministry on earth.).

            So if we expect healing or deliverance with certainty from a particular sickness or a problem, we expose our ignorance of the Biblical teaching in this context.

            Gotquestions.org highlights Joni Eareckson Tada’s testimony in this context: (Emphasis Mine)¹

Often, Christians have an over-simplified idea of healing. They think that, if they are sick, they have only to ask God to heal them and, because God loves them, He will heal them straightaway. Healing is seen as proof of a person’s faith and of God’s love. This idea persists in some circles in spite of the truth that every mother knows: a parent does not give her child everything he asks for every time, no matter how much she loves him.

Joni Eareckson Tada struggled with this issue for a long time. As she recounts in her book Joni, she sought physical healing of her quadriplegia. She prayed and fully believed that God would heal her. In her words, “I certainly believed. I was calling up my girlfriends saying, ‘Next time you see me I’m going to be running up your sidewalk. God’s going to heal me’” (quoted in an interview with Marvin Olasky, January 17, 2013). Yet Joni is still in a wheelchair today. Forty-five years after the accident that left her paralyzed, God has still not healed her. Her perspective is one of great faith: “God may remove your suffering, and that will be great cause for praise. But if not, He will use it, He will use anything and everything that stands in the way of His fellowship with you. So let God mold you and make you, transform you from glory to glory. That’s the deeper healing” (quoted on Grace to You, October 16, 2013). Some feel that God will never heal anyone miraculously today. Others feel that God will always heal a person if he or she has enough faith. But God will not be put into either box.

            At the same time, it is incorrect to blame the believer for lack of faith or accuse him of being in sin when sickness or problems persists in his life.

            Ironically, the Bible reveals healing in people who did not exhibit faith in God. The sick man in the pool of Bethesda did not have faith in Jesus that HE could heal him (cf. John 5:1-5). Nevertheless, Jesus healed this man, who was sick for 38 years.

            Sin need not necessarily be the sole factor for sickness or troubles in our life. The Bible affirms this fact, “Or those eighteen who died when the tower in Siloam fell on them—do you think they were more guilty than all the others living in Jerusalem? I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish.”” (Luke 13: 4-5, NIV).

            Why does God not heal everyone? If God heals everyone then people will flock to God for healing instead of flocking to God to love HIM for who HE is.

            Jesus came to make dead people live (i.e. spiritually dead people). HE did not come to make bad people good or to heal all the sick people in our world.

            So should we hope and pray for healing or deliverance? Yes, by all means! That’s the most appropriate action of a believer. Pray for God’s will to happen in our lives.

            When we learn that God will not heal everyone, it’s not that God does not heal at all. God still heals and delivers us even to this day, it’s just that healing and deliverance need not be for all who ask.

            God may not heal us, but HE will offer us peace, strength, power, and wisdom to navigate through all our trials and tribulations: “When life-threatening illness strikes, by all means pray for healing if the Spirit so moves you. But also pray that, if cure is not according to God’s will, he might equip you and your loved ones with strength, clarity, and discernment. Pray he might grant us all peace to endure — through the pain, through the infirmity, with eyes cast heavenward even as fear drives us to our knees. Pray that as the shadows encroach, and the light within us dwindles, that the light of the world might illuminate our minds and hearts, drawing us toward himself in our final moments on this earth. Pray we would know in our hearts that our end on this earth is by no means the end.

            However dark death seems, it is fleeting and transient, a mere breath before the eternal life to come.”

Endnotes:

¹https://www.gotquestions.org/God-heal-everyone.html

²https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/if-god-doesnt-heal-you

Websites last accessed on 8^th March 2021. 

This Christmas, When Suffering Overwhelms Joy….

            Christmas is a time of celebration. Colorful decorations, new accessories, gifts, good food are a part and parcel of the celebration. Online or physical attendance at Christmas Eve or Christmas day service at our local church is a mandatory aspect of the celebration.

            So we reckon our Christmas celebration is complete when we have decorated our homes, attended the church service, placed our offering, eaten good food, gifted ourselves and our friends and family good gifts, and invited carolers and/or our friends to our home to reminisce the birth of our good Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

            A joyful Christmas season is one marked by each of these activities being performed in the best manner possible.

            Some Christians would add a noble gesture during the Christmas season. They would visit and bless those in the orphanages, hospitals, old age homes, and institutions for special people. Indeed a noble and a gracious gesture admirably appropriate for the Christmas season.

            Joy, happiness, contentment, fun, frolic, merry making, and to an extent blessing those in need symbolizes our Christmas season. 

            Hundreds of years before Christ, the Bible prophesying about HIS birth mentions a gory detail about Christ’s imminent life, “Yet it was the Lord’s will to crush him and cause him to suffer…” (Isaiah 53:10, NIV).

            Christ did not come to enjoy a luxurious life, HE came into this world to suffer and die. Gory suffering was the means to the salvation of mankind.

            Suffering is thus intrinsic to the Christmas season.

            As it is, the presence of evil in our world makes many lives wallow in pain and misery. If we are to add the consequences of Covid to this situation, many more households are likely to be in pain and misery.

            So during this Christmas season let us be alert to people around us.

            Some of them may be mourning or silently suffering. They may not even have a shoulder to cry on or someone to empathize with their sorrow. They may also be in financial crisis.

            These brothers and sisters are longing for deliverance or at least some encouragement and comfort from their pain and misery.

            Their homes are not decorated this Christmas. No one is there to give them gifts. There is no special meal for them on Christmas day.

            Christmas day is another routine day - another day managing their suffering by bearing pain; another day longing for someone to care for them.

            They do think of and count their blessings. They do have an undying faith in God.

            But their pain overwhelms their joys.

            Why should their Christmas be a day of suffering when there are so many Christians who can afford to make their lives at least a little bit better than the other days?

            Do not count on the local church to encourage and comfort these souls in pain. The church of Jesus Christ is hardwired to cater to a larger group. The church cares less about that one single family in pain or that one single brother or sister neck-deep in suffering.

            It is incumbent upon every Christian who has been blessed abundantly by the Triune God to bless those in [intense] pain and suffering.

            This Christmas, you and I can…

            “Then Jesus said to his host, “When you give a luncheon or dinner, do not invite your friends, your brothers or sisters, your relatives, or your rich neighbors; if you do, they may invite you back and so you will be repaid. But when you give a banquet, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind, and you will be blessed…”” (Luke 14:12-14a, NIV).

            May this Christmas be merry even in those households burdened with sorrow.

To Build Or Feed? (Why God Allows A Quick Rebuilding Of Notre Dame Than Alleviating Poverty?)

           We were not only shocked to see the iconic Notre Dame Cathedral engulfed in flames, but we were also shocked to see the speed at which donors pledged money to rebuild this cathedral. “Within hours of the fire that destroyed much of the cathedral on Monday, donors pledged more than $1 billion to restore the Parisian icon to its former glory,” reports The Washington Post.¹

            The New York Times relays the just anger of those who recognize the evil disparity in rebuilding iconic structures over feeding the millions who remain in utter poverty, “But the spectacle of billionaires trying to one-up one another quickly intensified resentments over inequality that have flared during the Yellow Vest movement, just as President Emmanuel Macron was looking to transform the calamity into a new era of national unity…

            “Can you imagine, 100 million, 200 million in one click!” said Philippe Martinez, the head of the militant CGT labor union. “It really shows the inequalities in this country.”

            “If they’re able to give dozens of millions to rebuild Notre Dame,” he added, “they should stop telling us that there is no money to pay for social inequalities.”

            Ollivier Pourriol, a French philosopher and novelist, summed up the sentiment more drolly.

            “Victor Hugo thanks all the generous donors ready to save Notre Dame and proposes that they do the same thing with Les Misérables,” he wrote on Twitter, referring to another one of Hugo’s famous novels, about the lives of the poor.”²

            Yes, this anger is indeed appropriate.

            What’s the big need to rebuild an iconic structure when more than a million lives are in danger of dying because of the acute poverty they are in?  

            Well, this is precisely the world that we live in. The optics of rebuilding an iconic structure seems more significant than the optics of rehabilitation of the millions who lack the basic necessities of life.

            Regrettably, we even err in the optics!

            The frenzied response of the donors to the rebuilding of Notre Dame has ignited anger towards God in the minds of some who seek the truth amidst the multitude of hypocrisies in this world. The question they ask is this, ‘Why does God allow a quick rebuilding of an iconic structure rather than alleviating poverty?’

            An answer that does not multiply causes beyond necessity does justice to Occam’s razor. Let’s then strive for such an answer.

            First, be cognizant of the hypocrisy of importing God into this theme. When we zealously reject God while we kill our unborn babies (cf. Pro-Choice movement), why do we itch to import God in the rebuilding of Notre Dame?

            Let this remain a rhetorical question.  

            Second, everyone in whose mind this question resides knows we are not living in a theocratic society. We are neither ruled by God directly nor by priests claiming a divine commission. Given this reality, why do we even strive to import God into the decision-making process of a man? Or are we alluding that these billionaires are absolutely devout and godly that they look to the Triune God for every business decision?

            Let this also remain a rhetorical question.

            Third, what is God’s role in such situations as rebuilding Notre Dame? God has created us as free creatures. We are free to do this or that.

            God did not coerce the billionaires to donate a portion of their wealth towards rebuilding Notre Dame. Of this, we can be sure.  

            In fact, I posit godlessness to be the driving force that motivated these billionaires to pledge their millions.

            In our dispensation, we are cognizant of God’s mind with respect to such predicaments. If a godly man is presented an option to either feed the poor or build an extravagant structure (rather unnecessary) that would only serve as a good optics for that city or society, the godly man would inevitably choose to feed the poor.

            The Bible remarkably associates God’s final judgment to our care for the needy and the poor in our society:

“When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne. All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.

“Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’

“Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’

“The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’

“Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’

“They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’

“He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’

“Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.” (Matthew 25: 31-46, NIV)

            This passage, significantly, reveals that it’s not that those who feed the poor and care for the needy are made righteous in God’s presence. But it is the righteous (those who are already righteous by virtue of their belief and discipleship in Christ) that genuinely feed the poor and care for the needy.

            Therefore, every righteous believer of the Triune God would zealously strive to alleviate the suffering of God’s people than building extravagant structures that gratify the carnal passions of a secular man.

            So to conclude, if God is the active ruler of every wealthy person, poverty would have been extinct years ago. However, since God does not violate the freewill HE has offered to man, HE allows the man to decide on every matter. So man has the freedom to decide on every matter either by being obedient to God or by casting God out of his decision making purview.

            The rebuilding of Notre Dame is a recent instance of man’s decision that reveals the extent of his allegiance to the Triune God. 

Endnotes:

¹https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/billionaires-raced-to-pledge-money-to-rebuild-notre-dame-then-came-the-backlash/2019/04/18/7133f9a2-617c-11e9-bf24-db4b9fb62aa2_story.html?fbclid=IwAR3xi__SeXPM57L2_Ft8X1NSlghAL3mAsa2tQyeP5wT_cU_6VF6yFlRhOds&utm_term=.36b8775f8d5d

²https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/17/world/europe/yellow-vest-notre-dame-fire-donations.html

Websites last accessed on 20^th April 2019.

Would Heaven Offset The Horrible Pain We Suffer In This World?

            Our neighborhood consists of people experiencing incredible suffering.

            A child born to a mother who’s a drug addict lives a wretched life. Born out of wedlock, this child remains fatherless. This in itself is to add insult to injury. He suffers immensely because of his mother’s immature and cantankerous life. Abused incessantly by his mother, her boyfriends, and by the society that refuses to give him an opportunity to live a better life, he lives dangerously.

            This child matures into a teenager enduring these horrendous evils. He takes several wrong decisions that are essentially predicated on the countless insults, neglect, cruelty, and the brutal violence he suffers from.

            One such wrong decision kills him.

            Thankfully, he lives no more to experience the horrendous evils of this world. 

            Ergo, we ask two questions:

            (A) Would this teenager go to heaven? (If this teenager goes to hell, then the eternal torment of hell added to the pain he suffered during his life on earth, would lead to a very questionable God, to say the very least.)

            (B) More importantly, would heaven compensate for the untold suffering experienced in this world by this teenager? If so, how?

            First, would this teenager go to heaven?

            If this teenager died as a Christian, he would indeed go to heaven.

            But there are other possibilities too.

            This teenager could have been born into a non-christian household. In this instance, this teenager may not have been a Christian. Then again, this teen may have carried a deep anger against God.

            What happens then?

            An incessantly abused human being, living in utter pain and poverty, has a very remote chance to encounter God. Unless God pursues this person either through a direct or an indirect [divine] intervention, we can assume that he will not seek God.

            (Even if there is a divine intervention, what are the chances that this young man would believe in God? His pain is so horrendous that he would ask God why he’s been forsaken into such a dreadful life, for no fault of his.) 

            If this teen dies as a non-christian and goes to hell to undergo eternal torment, why did God create this person, to begin with? Isn’t it unfair of God to create such a person, who’s born into a painfully dysfunctional [non-christian] household? It is not the fault of the child to have been born into such a painfully horrendous life. It is God, who put him into that very position. So the onus is on God to save this human being.

            The Triune God revealed by the Bible is a loving, merciful, gracious and a just God. Such a God would do everything that HE ought to, to bring this person into HIS eternal presence (cf. Luke 16:22). The onus has to be on God because, in HIS infinite wisdom, HE allowed this child to be born into a painful existential situation.

            Can we then assume that every non-christian suffering horrendous pain will go to heaven? The parable of the rich man and Lazarus seems to suggest that the poor man was taken to heaven merely because of the pain he endured while on earth (cf. Luke 16:25).  But this verse cannot be used to formulate a doctrine of salvation that every suffering person will go to heaven irrespective of their religion or irreligion.

            So what happens to every non-christian who suffers horrendous pain? Will he/she go to heaven merely because they experience brutal suffering while on earth? No! If God does everything HE should, to bring this person to HIS presence, and if this person continues to consciously reject God, then we could posit a future of eternal torment for him/her.

            Having said this, we should remember that God, who places people, whom HE loves, in such hazardous existential lifestyles, would act according to HIS infinite love, grace, and mercy for these suffering souls. HIS decision about the eternal destination of these suffering souls would be a perfectly just decision.

            The second question we ask is this, would heaven compensate for the untold suffering experienced in this world by this teenager? If so, how?

            Memories of our life on earth and the ensuing disappointment are vital factors to be considered. If heaven erases our earthly memories, then our life in heaven could be devoid of any form of disappointment.

            But heaven would not erase our earthly memories. The parable of the rich man and Lazarus suggests this fact:

“There was a rich man who dressed in purple and fine linen and who feasted sumptuously every day. But at his gate lay a poor man named Lazarus whose body was covered with sores, who longed to eat what fell from the rich man’s table. In addition, the dogs came and licked his sores.

 “Now the poor man died and was carried by the angels to Abraham’s side. The rich man also died and was buried. And in hell, as he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far off with Lazarus at his side. So he called out, ‘Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in anguish in this fire.’ But Abraham said, ‘Child, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things and Lazarus likewise bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in anguish. Besides all this, a great chasm has been fixed between us, so that those who want to cross over from here to you cannot do so, and no one can cross from there to us.’ So the rich man said, ‘Then I beg you, father—send Lazarus to my father’s house (for I have five brothers) to warn them so that they don’t come into this place of torment.’ But Abraham said, ‘They have Moses and the prophets; they must respond to them.’ Then the rich man said, ‘No, father Abraham, but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.’ He replied to him, ‘If they do not respond to Moses and the prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’” (Luke 16: 19-31, NET, Emphasis mine)

            The rich man, who is in Hades, can vividly remember his earthly life. Ergo, we will remember our earthly life and along with it, its sorrows and joy. If we will remember our earthly lives in heaven, it is quite possible that we could carry the disappointment of our earthly life into our heavenly existence.

            The other possibility is that the joy of being with God and enjoying the perfect comforts of heaven will more than adequately compensate for the pain that we endure during our earthly life.

            Let us consider some earthly instances of the latter possibility to aid our understanding. If a blind man regains his sight, would he not celebrate his sight and be joyful (that he can now enjoy God’s creation)? Similarly, if a person confined to bed with illness is healed, would this person continue being bitter about his past illness or would he enjoy his healing and live a normal life?

            A blind man, if he regains his sight, would thank God and will be joyous that he can now enjoy the sight of God’s wonderful creation. Similarly, a person bedridden with illness, upon healing, will be thankful to God and celebrate his healing by enjoying the fullness of life that God has given to him.

            Likewise, when we are in heaven, the sadness or the bitterness of our past, even if we remember them, would be lost or would become insignificant while we are in the glorious presence of the Triune God. Considering the fact that we will be enjoying the abundant comforts of heaven, would we even have time in heaven to rue the sadness and pain of our earthly life?

            I don’t think so. 

Human Suffering - Should God Be Punished?

            God created this world where evil is an existential reality. Evil is not an illusion. When evil attacks us with all its force, we do feel the pain and, at times, we succumb.

            Speak to anyone who lost their job for no fault of theirs or speak to those whose baby was raped and murdered. Try listening to people who lost their loved one because a shooter lost his mind and randomly shot everyone in his eyesight.

            We may be able to find some reasonable answers for God allowing evil in this world. Those answers may be predicated on the love of God and the freewill of man:

            1. The love of God necessitates mankind’s freewill i.e. man should not be compelled to love God, but the man should have the freedom to love God.  

            2. Man’s freewill allows for the possibility of evil. Man can freely reject God. When man freely rejects God, evil is a certain possibility.

            3. Evil would not rule forever. The Bible teaches that God would defeat evil once and for all. And in the life to come, in heaven with God, there would be no evil. So those who believe in Christ would be spending the eternity in heaven without any pain or suffering.

            So God may have very good reasons to allow evil. Hence the existence of God and evil need not be incompatible.

            However, an agnostic/skeptic/honest seeker could wonder about God and evil through the following thought process:

            A. God exists (or assume that God exists).

            B. Evil is an existential reality.

            C. When evil hurts God’s people; God should be punished, because HE fails to protect     HIS people.

            D. But God is not punished.

            E. Hence, there is no God or there is an evil God.

Why Should God Be Punished?

            Justice demands punishment for evil and any type of wrongdoing. Since God is just, evil should be punished. Since justice demands that the perpetrators of evil should be punished in this world or in the world to come, God has assured that Satan and his cohorts (angels and evil mankind) would be punished unto eternity. 

            God is our ultimate source of love, care, comfort, and protection. We expect and desire that God protect us from evil. Hence we pray, “…lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one…” (Matthew 6:13, NIV).

            But it is quite evident that God’s protection is lacking in many lives that trust in God fully. There is untold suffering in many Christian homes.

            So there seems to be a degree of validity to the thought process that God should be punished!

            Consider this problem from another vantage point.

            Governments and governing authorities are to care for and protect their people. If they fail in their duty, they may not be reelected. This is their punishment. 

            Similarly, God is the supreme governing authority. So HE should protect HIS people. If HIS people suffer for illegitimate reasons, then God should assume responsibility. In other words, God should be punished.

            Assume an instance where an old lady was robbed by a young man. Also, assume that a perfectly able police officer was in the vicinity and he watched this event unfold. But he did nothing to prevent the theft. At the very least, that police officer could be deemed inefficient. An inefficient police officer is to be punished.

            The very duty of a police officer is to prevent crime from happening. If a police officer remains passive and allows crime to happen, then the police officer fails in his duty. Thus he is to be punished. 

            If you disagree with the above conclusion to posit that this police officer should not be punished, it is plausible that this police officer was tolerant of the crime. A logical corollary, then, is that anyone who is tolerant of evil is evil. Since justice demands that evil should be punished, the police officer who does not prevent a crime should be punished.

            This analogy could be extended to God.

            God has created a world where evil exists. And in many instances, evil triumphs over good. If evil triumphs over good, there is something wrong with the world that God has created (at least in the here-and-now).

            God alone is present everywhere (omnipresent).  Hence, HE is the only one who is present in every evil situation where good people suffer.

            God is the only all-powerful (omnipotent) being. Hence, HE alone can prevent any and every evil that occurs in this world.

            Since God is the only all-powerful and the only omnipresent being, HE is perfectly capable of preventing every evil that occurs in the world. If God fails to prevent evil, then HE may be either evil or inefficient. Hence, God should be punished!

Has God Been Punished?

            The Bible teaches us that God, in the form of the Lord Jesus Christ, suffered punishment for the sins of the whole world, “For God presented Jesus as the sacrifice for sin. People are made right with God when they believe that Jesus sacrificed his life, shedding his blood. This sacrifice shows that God was being fair when he held back and did not punish those who sinned in times past, for he was looking ahead and including them in what he would do in this present time. God did this to demonstrate his righteousness, for he himself is fair and just, and he makes sinners right in his sight when they believe in Jesus.” (Romans 3: 25-26, NLT).  

            But some could argue that this punishment is not sufficient, considering the fact that, not one, but millions and billions of people are being slaughtered by evil. So a onetime punishment that God took upon HIMSELF, even if it were gory, is insufficient.

Would Our Afterlife Reward Suffice?

            The Bible teaches that although evil remains triumphant in this world (in many instances), there is an afterlife without evil and that afterlife is the reward for those who suffer evil now.

            But the pain experienced by those suffering should be healed in this world. A prospect of healing and restoration in the afterlife remains an intangible prospect in this life, whereas the pain we suffer is tangible in this life.

            Consider two people who are suffering. There is always a prospect that, in this life, one is healed and the other is not. This is what we observe now.

            The one who has been healed will enjoy peace and joy in this life, whereas the one who suffers without healing, does not experience peace and joy in this life. But the reward these people would receive in their afterlife could be similar. In fact, they would enjoy a similar quality of peace and joy in the afterlife, whereas in their life on earth, one enjoyed more peace and joy than the other. So the afterlife reward does not seem to offer justice in this instance.     

Why Should God NOT Be Punished?

            Punishment should only be invoked upon injustice. If God has done nothing wrong, then HE need not be punished.

            Positing any arguments to assert that God cannot be punished without any legitimate reasons would be to ascribe evil upon God – as if God is an untouchable evil dictator. Justifiable reasons should be provided to establish that God has done no wrong.

            God cannot do any wrong. God is the ‘greatest conceivable being’ or the ‘maximally great being.’ Hence, HE can only be perfect and good.

            Imperfection cannot be a part of God. Evil is an imperfection, hence evil, too, cannot be God’s character.

            Therefore, if God, in HIS perfect knowledge, has allowed HIS people to suffer for a particular period of time in this world without receiving justice in this world, then HE would have good reasons to do so.

            Should the good and perfect God necessarily broadcast the good reasons for the suffering of HIS people? No, a good and a perfect God is not required to publicize the reasons for the suffering of HIS people. Since God is perfect and good, HIS reasons would also be perfect and good. People should have faith in God.

            Thankfully, the Bible is not silent about this theme. The Bible does address this situation.

            The Bible affirms that God’s people (not everyone, but some) will continually suffer in this world, especially when they are striving to live for God. In fact, Paul spoke about his suffering with an emphasis that God’s servants will indeed suffer for the sake of God, “Rather, as servants of God we commend ourselves in every way: in great endurance; in troubles, hardships and distresses;  in beatings, imprisonments and riots; in hard work, sleepless nights and hunger; in purity, understanding, patience and kindness; in the Holy Spirit and in sincere love; in truthful speech and in the power of God; with weapons of righteousness in the right hand and in the left; through glory and dishonor, bad report and good report; genuine, yet regarded as impostors; known, yet regarded as unknown; dying, and yet we live on; beaten, and yet not killed; sorrowful, yet always rejoicing; poor, yet making many rich; having nothing, and yet possessing everything.” (2 Corinthians 6: 4-10, NIV, Emphasis Mine).

            The very fact that the Bible addresses this theme is an affirmation to God’s goodness and perfection. So it is evident that God allows evil to attack HIS people. It is also obvious in the Bible that God heals or delivers some and not the others (for reasons that are only known to HIM or better known to HIM).

            Christians should not be surprised if and when they suffer, instead, they should trust God while they suffer, “Friends, when life gets really difficult, don’t jump to the conclusion that God isn’t on the job. Instead, be glad that you are in the very thick of what Christ experienced. This is a spiritual refining process, with glory just around the corner. If you’re abused because of Christ, count yourself fortunate. It’s the Spirit of God and his glory in you that brought you to the notice of others. If they’re on you because you broke the law or disturbed the peace, that’s a different matter. But if it’s because you’re a Christian, don’t give it a second thought. Be proud of the distinguished status reflected in that name! It’s judgment time for God’s own family. We’re first in line. If it starts with us, think what it’s going to be like for those who refuse God’s Message! If good people barely make it, What’s in store for the bad? So if you find life difficult because you’re doing what God said, take it in stride. Trust him. He knows what he’s doing, and he’ll keep on doing it.” (1 Peter 4: 12-19, MSG).

            God pours HIS abundant grace upon those who are suffering. God is with HIS people during their suffering. Those who are suffering can always seek and gain help from God.

            God sustains HIS people during their times of trials and tribulation. God would fail if HE neither delivers nor sustains those who are suffering. Those who suffer need a great help. The Bible is replete with instances of God helping those who are in pain.

            Apostle Paul’s life is a classic case in point, “Because of the surpassing greatness of the revelations, for this reason, to keep me from exalting myself, there was given me a thorn in the flesh, a messenger of Satan to torment me—to keep me from exalting myself! Concerning this I implored the Lord three times that it might leave me. And He has said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for power is perfected in weakness.” Most gladly, therefore, I will rather boast about my weaknesses, so that the power of Christ may dwell in me. Therefore I am well content with weaknesses, with insults, with distresses, with persecutions, with difficulties, for Christ’s sake; for when I am weak, then I am strong.” (2 Corinthians 12: 7-10, NASB).  

            In fact, as these verses teach us, those who earnestly seek God during their suffering would be filled with God’s power to endure their suffering.

Conclusion

            God has done nothing wrong to warrant any punishment. The Bible is also unequivocally clear that God’s people would be called to suffer. But God does not abandon us while we suffer. Instead, HE offers us HIS abundant grace and power to endure suffering.

            “And the God of all grace, who called you to his eternal glory in Christ, after you have suffered a little while, will himself restore you and make you strong, firm and steadfast. To him be the power for ever and ever. Amen.” (1 Peter 5: 10-11, NIV).