Is The Covid Vaccine The Mark Of The Beast?

 

            Some Christians think that the Covid vaccine is the ‘Mark of the Beast.’ Hence, they avoid taking the vaccine.

            Is it theologically correct to think so? If we understand more about the mark of the beast, then we would know whether the Covid vaccine could be the mark of the beast or not.

            What is the Mark of the Beast? Let’s collate answers from a few credible Christian websites:

            Gotquestions.org teaches that “The main passage in the Bible that mentions the “mark of the beast” is Revelation 13:15-18. Other references can be found in Revelation 14:9, 11, 15:2, 16:2, 19:20, and 20:4. This mark acts as a seal for the followers of Antichrist and the false prophet (the spokesperson for the Antichrist). The false prophet (the second beast) is the one who causes people to take this mark. The mark is literally placed in the hand or forehead and is not simply a card someone carries... it is important to realize that a medical implant chip is not the mark of the beast. The mark of the beast will be something given only to those who worship the Antichrist. Having a medical or financial microchip inserted into your right hand or forehead is not the mark of the beast. The mark of the beast will be an end-times identification required by the Antichrist in order to buy or sell, and it will be given only to those who worship the Antichrist” [Emphasis Mine].¹

            Pastor John Macarthur (expounding on Revelation 13:16-17) teaches that the mark “...will consist of either the name of the beast or the number of his name. Antichrist will have a universal designation, his name within a numbering system...What is clear is that everyone will be required to have the identifying mark or suffer the consequences.” [Emphasis Mine].²

            He goes on to add, “God sealed, with a mark on the forehead, the 144,000 to preserve them from His wrath against the unbelieving world (7:2–3); the false prophet marks the unsaved to preserve them from Antichrist’s wrath against God’s people. The mark will signify that the person bearing it is a worshiper and loyal follower of the Antichrist... The pressure to give in to the worship of Antichrist will be far worse than anything ever experienced in human history. Life will be virtually unlivable, so the people are forced to bow to the demonized king, not prompted merely by religious deception, but also by economic necessity.” [Emphasis Mine].³

            Theologian Curtis Chang, writing on the website of Biologos, emphasizes that Christians, through the years, have incorrectly predicted the mark of the beast. He recollects how Christians were quick to deem the government, or the CDC, or some other institution as the beast.⁴

            An article entitled COVID-19 and The Mark of the Beast in the website of theLAB states, “I know of no reputable biblical scholar or theologian who would endorse that the COVID-19 quarantine or a vaccine is related to the “mark of the beast”. For starters, in Revelation, the “mark of the beast” is by no means a medical procedure... the mark of the beast (Rev. 13:16-18) is a mark that is closely tied to the worship of the beast (13:12, 15; cf. 19:20; 20:4). Thus, the mark of the beast is a mark of loyalty and devotion to the beast... the “mark of the beast” is most likely a spiritual, non-visible mark; it’s a mark of loyalty and worship and is not, therefore, something you could accidentally accept.” [Emphasis Mine].⁵

            Dr. Matthew L. Halsted teaches that the mark of the beast will force us to curse the Lord Jesus Christ and worship HIS enemy (i.e. the Antichrist), “the historical data does not permit us to think the “mark of the beast” is something you can accidentally take. It’s a mark of loyalty and worship, which requires full cognitive and heart-felt awareness of what you are doing (otherwise it’s not worship)... There is no biblical reason to think that accepting government-mandated social security numbers is the equivalent of taking the mark of the beast. Whatever the current issue may be (vaccines, SSN, chip implants, SIM cards, etc), we need to be careful about confusing our personal and/or political convictions with the meaning of a biblical text...But either way, unless “They” require you to forsake your faith in Jesus as the exclusive object of your worship, They have no relation to the mark of the beast. Again, given what we know about the historical context of these biblical texts, the “mark of the beast” must be tied back into worship if it is to be applied properly.”⁶

            To conclude, these teachings agree on one point i.e. the mark of the beast requires the bearer to renounce/curse Christ the Lord and worship the Antichrist. Since the Covid vaccine neither requires us to curse the Lord Jesus Christ nor worship anyone in particular, Covid vaccine cannot be the mark of the beast.

Endnotes:

¹https://www.gotquestions.org/mark-beast.html

²https://www.gty.org/library/bibleqnas-library/QA0174/what-is-the-mark-of-the-beast

³Ibid.   

⁴https://biologos.org/series/should-christians-take-the-vaccine/resources/is-the-covid-vaccine-the-mark-of-the-beast

⁵https://academic.logos.com/covid-19-and-the-mark-of-the-beast/

⁶http://academiclogos.wpengine.com/the-covid-vaccine-has-666-written-all-over-it-and-why-that-doesnt-matter-according-to-revelation/

Websites last accessed on 26^th May 2021.

Should Christians Take Covid Vaccine?

            The anti-vaccine movement is rather rampant. Quite a few anti-vaxxers are actively feeding seeds of doubt into the cautious and contemplative minds of certain Christians, who are uncertain about receiving vaccine shots.

            Some critical objections of the anti-vaxxers are:

1.      Vaccines have not been tested properly. Animal tests have been either inadequate or the vaccine made animals deathly ill in trials.¹

2.      Some Covid vaccines are mRNA vaccines, which are completely new type of vaccine. We are clueless if these vaccines will be effective or safe.²

3.      mRNA vaccines will alter our DNA. We would, then, become genetically modified organisms, if we received the vaccines.³

4.      Vaccine hooks us all up to an artificial intelligence interface.⁴

5.      Some vaccines (Oxford University/AstraZeneca) were developed using HEK-293 cells that were obtained from a human fetus (unborn baby) who was legally aborted.⁵ So it would be a violation of Christian ethics if we are to take these vaccines.

6.      Covid vaccines are related to the “mark of the beast.”⁶

How should we respond to these doubts?

A.     mRNA vaccines cannot alter the human DNA, according to the fact-checking website Snopes. “The mRNA is incapable of crossing the nuclear envelope of the cell where that human DNA lives. It means the vaccine cannot alter human DNA,” says Snopes.⁷

Christian biochemist, Dr. Fazale Rana, in his article entitled The COVID-19 Vaccines and God’s Providence claims God’s presence in the rapid developments of the Covid vaccines. mRNA vaccines are safe to use, he claims.⁸

B.     Should we receive a ‘morally tainted’ vaccine? John Wyatt, who was the Emeritus Professor of Neonatal Paediatrics, Ethics & Perinatology at University College London, encourages Christians to receive vaccines that may be ‘morally tainted.’ A Covid patient or a relative of the Covid patient is not as morally responsible as the Christian technologist or  a Christian pharmaceutical executive making decisions about which vaccine candidates to invest in or a Christian politician with responsibilities for public spending.

If our viable option is only the ‘morally tainted’ vaccine, we should receive that vaccine than risk our lives by not receiving one. But if there is another option, then we could opt for the ‘non-morally-tainted’ option.⁹ 

This, of course, matters only to those Christians who are staunch ‘pro-lifers.’ (Pro-choice Christians don’t care about abortion.)

C.     Many Christian leaders (Fazale Rana, Franklin Graham, s/o famous evangelist Billy Graham, Robert Jeffress, Francis Collins etc.) have encouraged vaccination.¹⁰

The ‘mark of the beast’ is not a medical procedure and most certainly is not at all something that could be accidentally taken, claims an article in the Logos Academic Blog entitled COVID-19 and The Mark of the Beast.¹¹

D.     There is no concrete evidence for the vaccine to hook us all up to an artificial intelligence interface.

These assertions negate doubts about the inadequacy of the vaccine tests.

            Aside from these doubts, Snopes has refuted an apparent claim that Covid vaccines are called Luciferase, indicating that the vaccines possess satanic connotations. In reality, Luciferase refers to a group of enzymes which act upon a chemical compound called luciferins.¹²

            Believers of the Lord Jesus should not worry about death with respect to receiving Covid vaccination. Unless, God allows, we will not die. If God allows our death through Covid infection, we would be in God’s presence – a much better place than this evil world.

            Finally, if our government makes vaccine mandatory, could Christians resist receiving the vaccine? “Therefore, since the word of God gives us no specific direction on medical treatment (including on taking vaccines), believers have no Scriptural basis for choosing to disobey a government requirement to take the vaccine,” according to an article entitled Should Christians receive the COVID-19 vaccine?¹³

            In conclusion, when we have overwhelming evidence to receive vaccination, what then prevents us?

Endnotes:

¹https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/covid-19-critical-thinking-pseudoscience/enough-make-scientists-cry

²https://www.hartleychiropracticsaintaugustine.com/letter-from-frank-shallenberger-md-hmd-regarding-the-covid-19-vaccine/

³https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/covid-19-critical-thinking-pseudoscience/enough-make-scientists-cry

⁴Ibid.  

⁵https://johnwyatt.com/2021/01/04/article-coronavirus-vaccines-and-christian-ethics/

⁶https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/02/16/covid-vaccine-misinformation-evangelical-mark-beast/

⁷https://www.snopes.com/news/2020/12/17/frank-shallenberger-covid-vaccine/

⁸https://reasons.org/explore/blogs/the-cells-design/read/the-cells-design/2020/12/23/the-covid-19-vaccines-and-god-s-providence

⁹https://johnwyatt.com/2021/01/04/article-coronavirus-vaccines-and-christian-ethics/

&

https://pastorsacademy.org/blog/pro-life-christians-are-free-to-get-a-covid-vaccine/

&

https://pastorsacademy.org/blog/can-christians-get-a-covid-vaccine/

¹⁰https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-03-26/u-s-evangelical-leaders-preach-vaccine-to-holdout-flocks

¹¹http://academiclogos.wpengine.com/covid-19-and-the-mark-of-the-beast/

¹²https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/covid-19-vaccine-luciferase/

¹³https://www.versebyverseministry.org/bible-answers/should-christian-receive-the-covid-19-vaccine

Websites last accessed on 14^th March, 2021

Prayers In The Name Of Jesus Still Works! (Modern Miracles)

            Could we still pray for miracles?¹ Yes, most certainly.

            God continues to be active. Miracles do occur.

            Christian apologist Sean McDowell mentions two recent² instances of the miraculous. The first instance, published in a peer-reviewed medical journal, was that of a 23-year old man who was miraculously healed from gastroparesis – a condition he was suffering for 16 years. Sean writes: [Emphasis Mine]³

Last week as I was teaching on the topic of miracles in my Resurrection class at Biola University, one of my students shared a remarkable instance of a miracle story from a peer-reviewed medical journal. He is working on a documentary of modern miracles and also spear-heading a movement to document recent miracle claims in peer-reviewed journals.

The journal article is available online with public access, so you can check out the details for yourself. Essentially, the case is about a 23-year old white male who experienced intermittent cramping and projectile vomiting at one week of age. He was soon was diagnosed with gastroparesis (a chronic, lifelong condition that is known to significantly impact the quality and length of life).

Maximal medical treatment was administered, but ineffective. For the next sixteen years, his symptoms remained severe and refractory and he was dependent on a feeding tube.

Intercessory Prayer

Yet in November 2011, he experienced “proximal intercessory prayer” (PIP) from an evangelist who reported his own story of having his life spared when his intestines were severed in a serious car accident. With the permission of the family, the evangelist prayed in the name of Jesus for the healing of the boy.

Halfway through the prayer, the boy described experiencing a shock throughout his body. That night after the prayer, the boy ate a meal for the first time without any complications. According to the article, this kind of sudden, lasting recovery from gastroparesis is unique in the scholarly literature. The journal authors write:

“For 16 years the patient was totally dependent on j-tube feedings and could not tolerate any form of oral feeding. After receiving PIP, his intolerance to oral feedings was completely resolved. He was able to tolerate oral feedings and was completely taken off of the j-tube feedings one month after the PIP experience” (p. 291).

            Regarding the prayer in the name of the Lord Jesus - a means to the miraculous healing, the journal authors write:⁴

This case report ¹⁵ examines proximal intercessory prayer (PIP) as an intervention to resolve symptoms related to gastroparesis when maximal medical management was administered but not effective. PIP, as described by Brown and colleagues¹⁶ refers to direct-contact prayer typically less than 15 min, frequently involving touch, by placing hands on the recipient and sometimes embracing them in a hug, keeping the intercessor’s eyes open to observe results. The prayer is typically done in “soft tones”. The intercessor may “petition God to heal, invite the Holy Spirit’s anointing, and/or command the healing and departure of any evil spirits in Jesus’ name.”¹⁶

            The journal article also mentions the testimony of the person who was miraculously healed: [Emphasis Mine]⁵

“Living with feeding tubes was a struggle, to say the least. Growing up being an active child, it was difficult to get the hydration and nutrition necessary with a drip feeding process. During the prayer, I felt an electric shock that started from my right shoulder traveling down through my stomach. That was the moment that I knew I had been touched by the holy spirit. Since I have been healed of my illness, I have had more energy than ever before, and have thoroughly enjoyed the new adventure of trying all different types of foods. I have entered into the medical field in search to help the sick and needy, and to give back the great care I received as a patient.”

            The second instance of the modern miraculous mentioned by Sean is that of a blind woman receiving sight:⁶

Last summer a student of mine in the Talbot M.A. Apologetics program sent me a remarkable case of a modern miracle that was peer-reviewed in a medical journal. Amazingly, he just sent me another modern miracle case from Explore: The Journal of Science & Healing.

This case is about a young woman who was legally blind, but after receiving prayer, had her vision restored immediately and permanently. You can read the journal article directly, but here are the relevant details.

Receiving Sight after 12 years

The young woman was diagnosed with Juvenile Macular Degeneration (JMD) and lost her vision over three months in 1959 when she was eighteen years old. Initial reports show that her vision was 7/200 in each eye.

In 1972, after being legally blind for over a dozen years, she received proximal intercessory prayer (PIP) from her husband, which is a kind of direct contact, petitionary prayer that often lasts over fifteen minutes. They went to bed at midnight, which was later than normal for them, and he read her two Bible verses and then began to pray. Although he had never heard of a miraculous present-day healing, and he did not speak in tongues, fast or perform other common spiritual practices associated with Pentecostal or Charismatic circles, he began to pray boldly for her healing.

According to the authors of the article, “At the close of the prayer, his wife opened her eyes and saw her husband kneeling in front of her, which was her first clear visual perception after almost 13 years of blindness.”

In 1974, her visual acuity was 20/100 without correction, and then in 2001, she vision had improved to 20/40 in each eye. Except for common age-related problems, her sight has remained intact for the past 47 years.

            Find below an excerpt from the journal article about the healing prayer, which the husband prayed over his blind wife:⁷

When the couple went to bed later than normal (after midnight), her husband performed a hurried spiritual devotional practice (reading two Bible verses) and got on his knees to pray. She describes that they both began to cry as he began to pray, with a hand on her shoulder while she laid on the bed, and with great feeling and boldness he prayed: “Oh, God! You can restore […] eyesight tonight, Lord. I know You can do it! And I pray You will do it tonight.” At the close of the prayer, his wife opened her eyes and saw her husband kneeling in front of her, which was her first clear visual perception after almost 13 years of blindness.

The couple were not cessationists (i.e., believing that spiritual gifts such as glossolalia, healing, and prophecy are not for the present age), but they had never heard of anyone receiving a miraculous healing in the present day. The patient reported, “The only healings we knew about were in the Bible”. She indicated that her husband had never before prayed for someone who subsequently experienced a remarkable recovery. Their only prior experience with prayer for healing seems to be when the patient and her husband had briefly visited the meeting of a well-known healing evangelist, but they left before the time in the meeting when the healing practices began. The patient and her husband were involved with a Baptist church at the time that did not practice the laying on of hands while praying for the sick. They also did not practice glossolalia, nor fasting, which are more commonly associate with Pentecostal or Charismatic sects that believe miraculous healings happen in the present age as opposed to only in the ancient world.

            Here’s the testimony of the woman who was healed of her blindness: [Emphasis Mine]⁸

“What people need to understand is ‘I was blind’, totally blind and attended the School for the Blind. I read Braille and walked with a white cane. Never had I seen my husband or daughters [sic] face. I was blind when my husband prayed for me- then just like that- in a moment, after years of darkness I could see perfectly! It was miraculous! My daughter's picture was on the dresser. I could see what my little girl and husband looked like, I could see the floor, the steps. Within seconds, my life had drastically changed. I could see, I could see!”

            Please observe that these are not random reports of the miraculous without credibility. These instances of the miraculous are credible because they have been published in peer-reviewed medical journals. So miracles happen in our time and age.

            As prayerful Christians, let us continue praying in Jesus’ name for the miraculous healing of our relatives and friends. If God so wills, HE will heal. Meanwhile, let us keep praying without giving up (cf. Luke 18:1-8).   

Endnotes:

¹Dr. William Lane Craig defines a miracle as, “So a miracle, I think, properly defined, is an event which the natural causes at a time and place cannot produce at that time and place. Or, more succinctly, a miracle is a naturally impossible event – an event which the natural causes at a certain time and place cannot bring about. It is beyond the productive capacity of nature…” (https://www.reasonablefaith.org/media/reasonable-faith-podcast/when-is-It-rational-to-believe-in-miracles/)

²The term recent refers to the date in which the healing was published in a peer-reviewed medical journal.

³https://seanmcdowell.org/blog/a-remarkable-case-of-a-peer-reviewed-modern-miracle

⁴https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0965229918313116

⁵Ibid.

⁶https://seanmcdowell.org/blog/the-blind-receive-sight-a-peer-reviewed-modern-miracle

⁷https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1550830720300926?fbclid=IwAR0tgsnm-fRTDImK5eGZSndVW1bNzfijdyIiqF9pkZo07ywT3wHyFWfkr-Y

⁸Ibid.

Websites were last accessed on 25^th April 2020.

Who Saves Us From Coronavirus - Science Or God?

            The statement ‘Pray as much as you like, only science will save us’ cannot be uttered by a sincere Christian because a Christian believes in prayer. This statement could not have come from the theistic bandwagon, for those who sincerely believe in God would not entertain such a thought process. Hence those who subscribe to this statement ought to be from the atheistic or the scientific materialistic worldview.

            Pray as much as you like, only science will save us pits God against science. This, however, is an artificial conflict.

            Science per se does not engineer this conflict, but scientists and their adherents do. Interestingly, there are Christian scientists, even those that are much acclaimed in their domain, who believe in God and prayer.

            Christian scientists view the same data or information that the atheist or agnostic scientists view. Fascinatingly, the very same data that guides Christian scientists towards God motivates the agnostic and atheist scientists to disregard God.

            So it’s not the data, but it is the interpretation of that data that motivates scientists to move towards or away from God. Digging deeper, it can also be reasoned out that the innate bias against God impels certain scientists to disregard God. 

            Richard Lewontin, a leading evolutionist, famously expressed that innate bias against God. His dogged determination to prevent God from entering through the door is verbalized here, “Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.” [Emphasis Mine]¹

            An a priori commitment to materialism induces a scientist to preclude any notion of God to enter his realm. Thus the scientific materialist suffers from this innate bias against God.

            We have great regard for science, no doubts. The fact of the matter is science is yet to conquer COVID-19. In fact, science is learning from the human immune system designed by God to overcome the Coronavirus.

            Although God can heal everyone, the Bible does not teach that God would heal every single person who pleads for healing.

            Consider the healing narrative at the Pool of Bethesda. A great number of sick, blind, lame, and paralyzed people were lying there. But Jesus did not heal all of them. He healed only one (John 5:1-13).

            Paul pleaded with God to heal him, but God chose not to heal him (2 Corinthians 12: 7-10).

            Timothy was not healed of his frequent ailments (1 Timothy 5:23).

            Trophimus was also not healed of his sickness (2 Timothy 4:20).

            If God were to heal every believer, it is quite plausible that all the sick people would become Christians. They’d become Christians for the sake of healing. That’s a wrong intent!

            We don’t become a Christian for health and wealth. We become a Christian so that we are forgiven of all our sins and to be in right standing with God.

            Those who believe in the Lord Jesus believe in HIM for their salvation. Only the Triune God can forgive sins, hence we believe in the only true and living God – the God revealed in the Bible.

            If God does not heal everyone, they why pray?

            An excerpt from my blog entitled Why Pray When Everything Happens As How God Determines? should suffice:²

First, we pray because we can ask for that which we need. Just as how a child requests a parent, we can ask our Heavenly Father. It’s our prerogative to ask and it’s God prerogative to answer. Second, we need to be humble enough to accept whatever God offers us, for we know that God is just, good and loving. Hence, HIS decisions are always correct.

But you may still ask, “What would one learn here that otherwise would not be possible without prayer?”

We pray to love, trust, and understand God in a growing measure. When we pray we get spiritually closer to God. Significantly, when we pray, we are at peace with God. We will be at peace with God even when our prayers are not answered or when things do not go our way (e.g. betrayal, death, joblessness etc) despite our fervent pleas.

But you may still ask, “Do our prayers of asking God to change the situation make any sense? How then should we pray? Moreover, how do the prayers in Old Testament make sense (e.g. 2 Samuel 12:16)?

Yes, it does make sense to ask God to change the situation, for no one wants to exist in an adverse situation. Even the second person of the blessed Trinity, the Son, asked the first person of the blessed Trinity, the Father, to change HIS situation, “Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me…” (Luke 22:42, NIV).

The second part of this verse offers an answer to the question, “How should we pray?” The second part of Luke 22:42 states, “…yet not my will, but yours be done.” So let us pray for God’s will to be done and let us pray according to the will of God, “And this is the confidence which we have in him, that if we ask anything according to his will he hears us.” (1 John 5:14, RSV, Emphasis Mine).

(This does not mean that God does not hear any prayer that is not offered according to HIS will, for God, as an omniscient being, knows what we will say, even before we say it.)  

            So no one could claim that prayer is ineffective. Any assertion about the ineffectiveness of prayer is an argument from ignorance.

            If a Christian claims that prayer is ineffective, then he needs to learn more about God and the Bible.

            If an atheist claims that prayer is ineffective, he is being [willfully] ignorant of God and HIS Word.

            Recently, the governor of New York infamously disregarded God while discussing the flattening of the curve in New York, “The number is down because we brought the number down. God did not do that. Fate did not do that. Destiny did not do that. A lot of pain and suffering did that.” [Emphasis Mine]³

            But the governor of Texas Greg Abbott believes and trusts in God, “Pastor Jack Graham interviewed Texas governor Greg Abbott Sunday during Prestonwood Baptist Church’s service. Abbott told Graham that we can see the hand of God working in the fight against coronavirus. He went on to describe his own personal crisis and how that informs what he’s doing to get Texas ready to reopen for business.

            “When I was just 26 years old, I suffered, literally, a back-breaking injury,” Abbott told Graham. Abbott was permanently paralyzed from the accident. It was that injury that put him in a place to lead Texas effectively. Abbott said that while it tested his faith, he kept reaching out to God. “I found in the aftermath of that, as I continued to reach out to God, I found God reaching out right back to me.” His relationship with God and Jesus Christ was strengthened after the injury. “It empowered me to go on and become the governor of the great state of Texas.”

            Abbott added that everyone is challenged and tested. Regardless of the challenge, Jesus will support people, and He will always be there for them. “[If you believe] Jesus Christ and God, you will be able to weather this storm. God never promised us a life free of storms. What God promised was a pathway through those storms. That’s what I’ve seen in my own life, that’s what I’m seeing in Texas.” [Emphasis Mine]⁴  

            For every atheist who throws a tantrum against God, there are two or more theists who thank God and trust in HIM during times of trials and tribulations. 

            Believe in the Lord Jesus and you will be saved - you and your household (Acts 16:31).

            To God be the glory!

Endnotes: 

¹https://www.drjbloom.com/Public%20files/Lewontin_Review.htm

²https://rajkumarrichard.blogspot.com/2017/10/why-pray-when-everything-happens-as-how.html

³https://stream.org/while-ny-gov-cuomo-rejects-gods-help-in-this-crisis-texas-governor-abbott-says-put-your-faith-in-god/

⁴Ibid.

Websites last accessed on 23^rd April 2020.

Why God Did Not Create A World Without Coronavirus (Evil or Natural Disasters)?

            We live in an unprecedented situation. This worldwide disaster resulting in curfews and lockdowns across the world with an impending [worldwide] economic catastrophe looming large is happening for the very first time in my 50 plus years of existence.

            Tsunamis, earthquakes, and typhoons result in localized disasters. But the Covid-19 disaster resonates worldwide.

            ‘Why did God create a world such as this?’ is a common yet honest question of a person in pain and misery. Agony & despair prompts this question.

            The question 'Could God not have created a better world than this wherein we need not suffer so much?’ need not include the innocence of the questioner of the previous question.

            The question ‘Why did God not create a world without Coronavirus?’ presupposes that God had the power to create a better world but chose not to create one. The question ‘Could God not create a world without Coronavirus?’ presupposes a notion that God may be powerless to create a world without evil i.e. Coronavirus.

            Whatever the case may be, these questions are legitimate because it is the sinking man who always extends his hands out for help. This sinking man has the right to ask such questions.

            Today we seem to be sinking. So we ask!

            What do we even hope to achieve by asking such a question?

            If this is the best world that God could have created then we could take comfort from the fact that God did HIS very best. It reflects upon God’s perfect goodness, knowledge, power, and justice.

            On the other hand, if God could have created a better world, but chose not to create, then it reflects poorly on God’s justice. It also portrays God as a weak or an evil being. Since we are in the midst of suffering, we could feel betrayed by God.

            So is this the best possible world that God could come up with?

            Gottfried Leibniz, the 18^th century German philosopher, argued that the universe (as it is) is the best world God could have created. He argued that God, being omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent, created this world since HE knew that this world was the best of all possible worlds. This is commonly referred to as the Leibnizian Optimism.

            But J.L Mackie, an Australian philosopher, argued that the presence of an all-loving and an all-powerful God is logically incompatible with the existence of evil. In other words, if there is an all-loving and an all-powerful God, then there cannot be evil (because a good and powerful God should either overcome evil or should have created a world without evil). This is the Logical Problem of Evil.

            This is Mackie’s argument:

A. If God exists, God is an omnipotent and wholly good being.

B. A good being always eliminates evil as far as it can.

C. There are no limits on what an omnipotent being can do.

D. Evil exists.

E. Therefore, God does not exist.

            Alvin Plantiga, one of the most acclaimed Christian philosophers in existence, rejected Mackie’s claim and responded with the Free Will Defence.

            The Free Will Defender aims to show that there is a possible world in which God is omnipotent, omniscient, and wholly good, yet there is evil. So a world containing creatures who are sometimes significantly free (and freely perform more good than evil actions) is more valuable, all else being equal, than a world containing no free creatures at all.

            When God creates humans, HE creates them with free will - an ability to perform moral evil and moral good. If God had to eliminate evil, then HE should do that only at the cost of eliminating the possibility of doing moral good. Therefore, it is possible that God could not have created a universe containing moral good (or as much moral good as this one contains) without creating one containing moral evil.

            An objection to the free will defense is that it is logically possible for God to create a world containing significantly free creatures who always do what is right.

            But to cause free creatures to always do the right is to determine that they perform the moral good always. However, this condition can be actualized by eliminating or excising their free will. If so, free creatures are not free in reality.

            Therefore, one can conclude that evil can coexist in God’s presence. Alternatively, God can permit evil despite HIS presence (as an all-loving and an all-powerful God).

            Could there be a best of all possible worlds? Is our world the best of all possible worlds?

            In one of my earlier blogs, I wrote, “Alvin Plantinga differed from Leibniz by positing that there cannot be a best world, for one more palm tree or one more morally righteous person can make any world better. So Plantinga concluded that there is no such thing as the best world. [Even if God does not create anything, HE alone will exist as the greatest good (Summum bonum)]. Therefore, God is merely obligated to create a good world and not a best world.”¹

            Yes, this is the best world or the good world that God could have created.

            But what about the natural evils such as the Coronavirus we are suffering from now?

            St. Augustine attributed natural evil to Satan and his cohorts. Since his rebellion against God, Satan has been wreaking havoc in the world. The result is natural evil. So the natural evil we find is due to the free actions of non-human spirits.

            Even in the instance of natural evils, we observe that the presence of natural evil (e.g. Coronavirus) is logically compatible with the existence of a wholly good, all-powerful and an all-knowing God. The free will of the non-human spirits (i.e. Satan and his cohorts) causes natural evil (e.g. Coronavirus) because God created both the humans and the non-humans with free will.

            A world with free will is any day better than a world without free will. 

            So God has done HIS best.

            Therefore, since we have been blessed with free will, we also need to endure the consequences of free will – which is evil.

            When we reel under the devastation caused by Coronavirus, let us understand that God has not abandoned us.

            God is with us. The Lord Jesus is Immanuel, which means God with us.

            If we seek Jesus, HE will carry us through. Even if we are to die, we will be in a much better situation, for those who believe in Christ will be with God forever and ever.

Endnote:

¹http://rajkumarrichard.blogspot.com/2015/02/why-did-god-create-satan-knowing-that.html, last accessed on 30^th March 2020.

Material for Free Will Defense of Alvin Plantinga has been sourced from: Adams & Adams, The Problem of Evil, Edited by Marilyn McCord Adams & Robert Merrihew Adams, p 83-109.