MPhil Wales 2003

Bangor University

University of Wales, Bangor

THE PROBLEM OF EVIL
ANGLICAN AND BAPTIST PERSPECTIVES

With amendments from PhD work

CHAPTER ONE

Introduction

1. The Problem of Evil Defined

"The problem of reconciling the imperfect world with the goodness of God." Blackburn (1996: 128). If we reason that the creator God has revealed himself as infinite, omnipotent and perfectly holy, we have to intellectually deal with questions arising in regard to evil. It seems very apparent that creation is full of corruption. J.S. Feinberg stated:

The issue of god and evil is a most important matter for a proselyte considering the claims of a given religion. He wants to know if the religion commits him to belief in a God who does evil or who fails to do good. On the other hand, the problem of evil is a question about the logical consistency of several propositions central to various theological systems. Feinberg (1996: 385-386).

2. Its Importance

It is essential to be able to demonstrate through revealed Scripture and reason that the Christian God is logically consistent. It is believed that within his creation, evil exists yet he remains perfectly holy. 

By surveying and interacting with two Anglican and two Baptist writers, I desire to deal with this problem from a Christian perspective to demonstrate that God has a good, valid reason for creating a Universe where evil eventually existed and still exists, and that his plans include salvation in Christ for the elect, and eventually a complete restoration of creation in the culminated Kingdom of God. 

Christianity is, of course, a faith and I would argue, since as human beings we only possess finite knowledge, that faith, knowledge and reason always work hand in hand in all philosophy. Christians do not want to possess a blind faith, but one that can withstand the best criticism because it is philosophically sound. Christianity is also a historical faith and it states through Scripture that God supernaturally interacted with human beings through his prophets, apostles, and Jesus Christ himself. So, the examination of Scripture is very important in any study of the problem of evil. 

Critics may suggest it is very convenient that the supposed supernatural occurrences in Scripture which support the Christian faith, and its remedy to the problem of evil through Christ’s work, took place thousands of years ago, before our scientific age. These supernatural events, it could be stated, are now rather hard to either prove or disprove. If they cannot be proven, why should the Christian answer to the problem of evil be taken seriously? I admit this is an important criticism, but the Bible is consistent in its message, written within historical periods by historical people. The accounts of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus are in unity, and his resurrection, although disputed by some critics, does have the backing of New Testament authors, who claim to have witnessed the resurrected Christ, or to have personally known those who have.

3. My World View

I fully admit the problem of evil is a difficult topic, but this is my second major piece of writing on the subject as I wrote a Graduating Essay while at Trinity Western University. There is always much more to learn with this topic but I do have some background with the subject. My world view is one of a Christian conservative who views Scripture as historically and philosophically valid. I believe God guided writers to communicate his word and that Scripture demonstrates the Gospel message of Jesus Christ accurately. I realize the original Scriptural autographs are missing, and it is not my place here to discuss Greek manuscripts, but there is a consistency in manuscript evidence which can be found, and within the Scriptural message there is philosophical consistency. At times, there is present theological progression in thought, for example Christ’s work established a New Covenant which replaced Old Testament Law, but there appears in Scripture from the Garden of Eden to the Holy City of Revelation, a consistent progressive plan of God to restore his creation.

Although I am conservative in theological position, one of the reasons I entered the University of Wales and the British academic system was because I realized there was liberal theology, and I needed to interact with that theology over time. One must be open minded in order to be scholarly, and realize that truth is truth, and whether written or spoken by a liberal of conservative, it does not matter. I firmly believe that one theological tradition does not contain all the answers, so within my text, most of my authors are conservative as they supported my ideas, but I did not hesitate to quote someone who may be liberal, if what they stated was valid and relevant to my work. 

Within my interviews and surveys I made no attempt to interact with conservatives only as I felt the liberal perspective could be valid and useful as well. 

Within this thesis it will be obvious that my view on God and the problem of evil has been somewhat influenced by the theology of John Calvin. This will be explained throughout the thesis; however, he held that God willed evil for the greater good without being a sinful contradictory being as God’s motives were pure, whereas those that sinned had impure motives. Some would object to this view stating that it is determinism, believing God must be coercing human beings to sin and commit evil actions within this system. Simon Blackburn defines determinism as follows:

The doctrine that every event has a cause. The usual explanation of this is that for every event, there is some antecedent state, related in such a way that it would break a law of nature for this antecedent state to exist yet the event not to happen. Blackburn (1996: 102).

In the case of human sin, John Calvin did not believe that God determined that people sin, and nor do I. God was not the antecedent for sin. I agree that God can use human sin for the greater good, yet human beings have free will and freely sin by choice within a sinful nature. 

Calvin stated concerning free will:

If freedom is opposed to coercion, I both acknowledge and consistently maintain that choice is free and I hold anyone who thinks otherwise to be a heretic. If, I say, it were called free in this sense of not being coerced nor forcibly moved by an external impulse, but moving of its own accord, I have no objection. Calvin (1543)(1996: 68). 

Human beings in Calvin’s thinking were not forced by God to sin, but God as an infinite being had and used the power to use their sin for the greater good. So to say that God willed evil for the greater good means that God could use sinful actions of others in order to accomplish his divine purpose.

Calvin stated:

For we do not say that the wicked sin of necessity in such a way as to imply that they sin without wilful and deliberate evil intent. The necessity comes from the fact that God accomplishes his work, which is sure and steadfast, through them. At the same time, however, the will and purpose to do evil which dwells within them makes them liable to censure. But, it is said, they are driven and forced to this by God. Indeed, but in such a way that in a single deed the action of God is one thing and their own action is another. For they gratify their evil and wicked desires, but God turns this wickedness so as to bring his judgements (judgments) to execution. Calvin (1543)(1996: 37). 

God could set up events in such a way that someone would freely choose to sin, but this is not done in such a way that God is forcing or determining one to do so. Within this thesis I want to make it clear that I believe the problem of evil is, in large measure, a human problem. I believe in a human fall through sinful choice. God can still will, in a sense, that these sinful actions work for the greater good, but I do not believe in a Universe where God forces and predetermines people to commit individual sin. People are sinful in nature as they are descendants of Adam. This inherited and sinful nature means people will freely choose to sin and God does not coerce them into doing so. He may provide situations where he knows that certain individuals will sin, but his motives in this are for the greater good. This is not the most satisfying doctrine I suppose, but Biblically and philosophically valid nonetheless. This concept will be discussed throughout my thesis.

I wrote my MPhil in 2002-2003, and since then my understanding of compatibilism has increased. As well, I need to point out that my academic tutor at Wales,Bangor wanted me to clearly point out that God was not, in practical theological terms, the antecedent cause of sin, as in making persons sin. 

I still agree with the statement that God does not determine that people sin in the sense that I do not believe God uses compulsion or force. God was not the antecedent (preceding cause) of sin in the sense of God coercing or forcing people to commit sinful acts.The point I was making was that God does not use hard determinism to cause people to sin as if they were sinning by compulsion and not freely. 

However, it should be pointed out that in another more strictly philosophical sense, as God is sovereign over all events, he is the primary cause of evil and sin and he determines and allows human beings to freely sin as the secondary cause. In that sense God is the antecedent of sin. However, God's motives remain pure in all that he wills. 

The statement was denying hard determinism, but not soft determinism. With my PhD I now approach the topic more from the perspective of philosophical theology and philosophy of religion and less from a practical theological perspective as with the MPhil. This is more so the case than a changing of my mind with the topic, although I do confess to evolving theologically, in that sense. 

4. My Format

This is a work of Empirical Theology. This means I am using surveys and interviews within the thesis. I thus need at least two distinct groups to compare my findings. I have chosen Anglican and Baptist because I attended an Anglican church for two years while living in Manchester, England, and I attended a Baptist Seminary for my Master of Theological Studies Degree in Greater Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. I am therefore somewhat familiar with the views of both denominational groups, and both have had writers which have dealt with the problem of evil as recently as post World War II.

5. The Four Authors

I began with Anglican authors. I chose C.S. Lewis who was not a professional Theologian but a literary writer and Christian Apologist. I thought the writings of a non-Theologian would provide a different perspective on this theological issue, and although it seemed clear at times that he was not as theologically skilled as my other three authors, he did present some interesting and valid arguments. My base text for Lewis was The Problem of Pain and I also used A Grief Observed. I generally wanted to avoid using his fiction literature to try to prove his theological stance on the problem of evil. I am not stating here that one cannot take Lewis’ fictional writings and discuss the problem of evil. I did use, as my third text, his fictional Screw Tape Letters, as I thought some ideas concerning the problem of evil could be clearly taken from that text which discusses the work of Satanic beings in human lives. I do not want to risk being criticised for reading into his fiction theological views which may or may not be there, but would prefer to use nonfiction material clearly discussing evil and suffering.

My second Anglican author, Alister McGrath, had one major text on the subject entitled Suffering. McGrath is a well-known Wycliffe College, Oxford, Theologian.

In Suffering, he explains that Christian Theologians should assist the Church with two main perspectives on the problem of evil and suffering. One is the primarily objective approach, as in an observer being up on a balcony looking down on a road, providing analysis. The other being primarily subjective, a person being down on the road himself experiencing the hard realities of life. In this way, the Theologian provides both objective analysis on suffering in the world and can relate similar experiences to his audience.

McGrath also discussed in his text the weaknesses of a philosophical problem of evil discussion alone, without mentioning how the work of Christ will help us in human experience. He also mentioned how destructive Enlightenment theories on God have been the last few centuries. McGrath thought the personal nature of the Biblical God was negated for a perfect philosophical God. He pointed the reader to the personal nature of God through the death and resurrection of the Son of God, and the saving work for humanity.

McGrath’s work in Suffering is helpful in that it provides historical, philosophical background on the problem of evil and suffering, and yet stays true to Scriptural historical Christianity and its remedy to evil through Christ.

My first Baptist exemplar is D.A. Carson of Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. Carson wrote the text entitled How Long, O Lord? This book was written primarily to Christians as a manual to help them establish Biblical logical patterns of thinking and preparation in dealing with evil and suffering. He wanted Christians to be aware of the nature of evil so that when tragedy struck they would be better prepared.

Carson began with the harsh realities of evil on this planet. He discussed several mistaken secular beliefs concerning suffering, and then mentioned Christian errors in regard to suffering. Carson also mentioned the price of sin and its causes that led to much evil and suffering.

Carson provided an important chapter on compatibilism that discussed the tension between God’s sovereignty and human moral responsibility. This is the most complicated chapter of his text. He demonstrated that both these ideas are Scriptural and philosophically sound, although there exists a tension which means that how the two concepts coexist is not completely humanly understood.

My second Baptist writer is Bobby (B.W.) Woods, who was a Pastor of First Baptist Church in Oklahoma. He wrote the book Christians In Pain. Woods is not nearly as well known as my other three authors but the text had some interesting ideas. I appreciated his discussion of the deficiencies of Non-Christian perspectives such as Atheism, Escapism and Reincarnation, Hedonism, and Stoicism. Although at times I disagreed with his analysis, his writing provided me an opportunity to discuss these philosophies as well. It is helpful for a Christian writer to learn about these ideas and compare them to Biblical concepts, especially in regard to the problem of evil and related suffering.

Woods’ work on Christian perspectives was helpful, and he ultimately connected the idea of God’s purposes in human suffering to concepts of discipline and God’s love. This is a helpful concept as Scripture notes that our suffering is not expressed as in vain. For example James, in James Chapter 1, mentions that trials lead to a testing of faith that produces endurance and eventual spiritual maturity.

CHAPTER TWO

Anglican Author - C. S. Lewis

1. C.S. Lewis Introduction

British born, Clive Staples Lewis (1898-1963) was a world renowned British writer whose theological literary works have been influential within Christian apologetics. Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, describes Lewis’ beginnings and places of study.

Anglican scholar-novelist and Christian Apologist, perhaps best known for his literary fantasies that explore theological concepts. Born near Belfast in Northern Ireland, he received his B.A. from University College, Oxford, in 1924, and was fellow and tutor in English literature at Magdalen College, Oxford, from 1925 until 1954. He then accepted the Chair of Medieval and Renaissance English at Cambridge. Hein (1996: 630).

Concerning the problem of evil, his most related work is The Problem of Pain which will serve as the base text for this section. Within the text are ten Chapters which I will use as nine sections for this part of my work.

These Chapters within his book are Introductory, Divine Omnipotence, Divine Goodness, Human Wickedness, The Fall of Man, Human Pain, and Human Pain Continued, which I shall deal with together, Hell, Animal Pain, and Heaven.

2. Introductory

Lewis began this chapter by explaining the reasoning for his atheistic belief of the past. He noted that the world and Universe appeared to be consisting of "empty space, completely dark, and unimaginably cold." Lewis (1940)(1996: 1). The world existed by beings "preying upon one another." Lewis (1940)(1996: 2). Lewis in his past atheism concluded that: "Either there is no spirit behind the universe, or else a spirit indifferent to good or evil, or else an evil spirit." Lewis (1940)(1996: 3). Clyde S. Kilby described Lewis’ view concerning the idea of a possible God as creator in relation to humanity: "With man it was worse still for, unlike animals, he has both consciousness and reason, the first allowing pain to be a ceaseless reality, and the second making it a reality to be always anticipated until the time of that last and greatest pain called death." Kilby, (1965: 66).

Lewis’ atheism appeared to be a plausible explanation of the world and Universe he lived in. He observed throughout most of the Universe, a lack of sustainable life, and that the life that existed on earth was hostile to itself as animals and people inflicted pain upon one another and eventually each individual being ceased to exist. As Kilby pointed out, Lewis believed human beings’ rational understanding of these problems made their pain far worse than that of the animals who did not fully understand their present suffering, nor their impending doom in death. The spirit behind this reality, if there was one, was either indifferent or evil because it, or he, failed to rid the world of the vast amount of suffering that Lewis observed.

There was a troubling obstacle to his atheism. Lewis asked: "If the universe was so bad, or even half so bad, how on earth did human beings ever come to attribute it to the activity of a wise and good Creator?" Lewis (1940)(1996: 3). Lewis struggled with the idea that the very nature of reality which he saw as being naturalistic and not needing a creator, showed the very signs of being made by a creator. The fact that human beings struggled with what they saw as evil meant that they were by nature contrasting evil with the perfect good which did not make sense as coming from randomness, but rather a perfect God. If this perfect God did not exist, then the supposed evil that humanity suffered should not bother people at all, it is natural, and should not be a problem. This type of evidence undermined his atheistic conclusions because if an atheist claimed something to be evil, he/she must have something good to contrast it with. Without a perfect creator establishing something as evil or good becomes very difficult and subjective. It could be said that if all the pain and death in the Universe is natural, then there is no evil or good, just existence and no problem at all.

The atheist, for example, can argue that rational beings suffering is a wrong because it causes pain which is not good for the mind and body. However, without a perfectly good God as a model, it can be strongly argued that for evolutionary reasons suffering is needed. The weak must suffer and die in order for stronger beings to emerge, so thus what we see as a problem of evil could be seen simply a necessity of reality.

When the perfect God is introduced into the equation then his nature can be contrasted with that of fallen creation and indeed we can see that there is a problem of evil!

3. Divine Omnipotence

Within this chapter, Lewis constructed his definition for the problem
of pain. He stated:

If God were good, He would make His creatures perfectly happy, and if he were almighty He would be able to do what He wished. But the creatures are not happy, therefore God either lacks goodness, or power, or both. Lewis (1940)(1996:16).

Lewis then set out to deal with the issue of God having the attribute of being almighty or, in other words, being omnipotent. He stated that Scripture portrayed God as having the power to do all things, however, Lewis did not believe that this included the impossible, because even God could not contradict himself. Lewis stated that God’s omnipotence meant that God can do what is intrinsically possible, not the impossible. He stated concerning God’s omnipotence and human free will:

If you choose to say ‘God can give a creature free will and at the same time withhold free will from it’ you have not succeeded in saying anything about God: meaningless combinations of words do not suddenly acquire meaning simply because we prefix them to other words ‘God can’. It remains true that all things are possible with God: the intrinsic impossibilities are not things but nonentities. It is no more possible for God than for the weakest of His creatures to carry out two both mutually exclusive alternatives; not because His power meets an obstacle, but because nonsense remains nonsense even when we talk it about God. Lewis (1940)(1996: 18).

If God’s omnipotence made his creations love and obey him, Lewis’ reasoning was that this would not be free will, but God using his will to overpower that of his creations. So, to Lewis, humanity needed to have a will in freedom outside of God’s will in order to experience a life with any type of self-direction. When God made human beings with free will, even in his omnipotence, he could not force free beings to oppose their own freedom without altering them as creations. Basically, human beings as we now know them, could not exist without the freedom to oppose God.

Lewis was basically espousing a form of the free will defence. This has been presented by Augustine in ancient times, and after Lewis in the 1970s by Alvin C. Plantinga. Augustine noted that human beings could not live rightly without freedom, which also allowed the option of disobedience to God.

If man is good, and if he would not be able to act rightly except by willing to do so, he ought to have free will because without it he would not be able to act rightly. Because he also sins through having free will, we are not to believe that God gave it to him for that purpose. It is, therefore, a sufficient reason why he ought to have been given it, that without it man could not live aright. Augustine (388-395) (1979: 134).

Augustine believed if human beings did not have free will they could not live in a right fashion choosing to please God. However, the automatic flip side of this point is that human beings can disobey God in sin with the use of this same freedom.

Lewis was not presenting a new idea so to speak for the most part. In later years the free will idea was challenged by those such as J.L. Mackie and Antony Flew. The two men’s views are often reviewed together, but Alvin C. Plantinga, who I shall discuss shortly, dealt more with the former’s views, so I will deal with Mackie’s work. Mackie’s contention was that God could have created people with free will that always chose to do good. He stated:

If God has made men such that in their free choices they sometimes prefer what is good and sometimes what is evil, why could he not have made men such that they always freely choose the good? If there is no logical impossibility in a man’s freely choosing the good on one, or on several occasions, there cannot be a logical impossibility in his freely choosing the good on every occasion. God was not, then, faced with a choice between making innocent automa and making beings who, in acting freely, would sometimes go wrong; there was an open to him the obviously better possibility of making beings who would act freely but always go right. Clearly, his failure to avail himself of this possibility is inconsistent with his being both omnipotent and wholly good. Mackie (1971) (1977: 32).

Plantinga answered this objection by stating that Mackie’s idea is possible in a broad logical sense. However, Plantinga provided arguments against Mackie’s points.

Plantinga noted that God, although omnipotent, could not have simply actualized any possible world he desired. This is because human beings who act freely inevitably made one bad judgement causing the problem of evil. So, even if God made a world with no evil in it, eventually a human being would make one mistake causing evil. To Plantinga, in any world that God created where human freedom existed, it was partially up to God and partially up to the individual what would take place. This was the only way that human beings could truly commit actions freely.

Plantinga stated that each person suffered from transworld depravity, meaning that in any possible world, they would make one mistake, causing evil.

How is transworld depravity relevant in this? As follows. Obviously it is possible that there be persons who suffer from transworld depravity. More generally, it is possible that everybody suffers from it. And if this possibility were actual, then God, though omnipotent, could not have created any of the possible worlds containing just the persons who do in fact exist, and containing moral good, but no moral evil. For to do so He’d have to create persons who were significantly free (otherwise there would be no moral good) but suffered from transworld depravity. Such persons go wrong with respect to at least one action in any world God could have actualized and in which they are free with respect to morally significant actions; so the price for creating a world in which they produce moral good in creating one which they also produce moral evil. Plantinga (1977: 48-49).

Plantinga, in my view, produced a plausible counter to Mackie’s challenge of the free will defence. Mackie raised a logical objection, but he went too far by challenging God’s omnipotence and goodness with it. The problem, as I see it, is that freedom is largely a matter of degrees. Mackie reasoned correctly that God could make free human beings who only did good, but I think Plantinga was correct to challenge his objection to God as almighty and good, as the amount of freedom these people would have would be considerably more limited than that of actual human beings. To act freely, as Plantinga put it, human beings needed the opportunity to reject God. Yes, technically human beings could be made to only commit good acts and avoid sin, but this would not be the type of goodness God was seeking from his creatures. I think Plantinga, by the use of the word freely, indicated a type of freedom which produced a goodness which was good because it rejected evil for God, not merely goodness which avoided evil because human nature could never experience anything contrary to God.

Mackie’s view was plausible in that God could have made human beings who were not automa who would never commit evil, but these beings would quite possibly not bring about the true goodness based in a choice between a life with God and a life without God, which Plantinga, Lewis, and Augustine had all alluded to.

This is not to say, that free will is specifically necessarily the prime factor in the human fall; the cause of the human fall is not clear. J.S. Feinberg, for example, stated that desires and not free will were the cause of human sin. He rejected the free will defence because he believed that the concepts of human freedom and God creating people who do not commit evil were two compatible concepts, he is thus a compatibalist as was Mackie. Many free will defenders would see this as contradiction and would be known as incompatibalists.

I can see the plausibility of the compatibalist position; however, as I stated earlier, the degree of human freedom required to truly do good acts would likely require the ability to do wrong. As well, with Feinberg’s view of desires as the cause of human evil, I must ask, does not desire have to start within the will? He stated that: "Instead I go ‘behind’ the will to desires." Feinberg (1994: 128). However, I think with our rather vague understanding of the human spirit and mind, that to try and separate desire from free will is rather tricky and ambiguous.

So, even with modern criticisms of the free will defence, Lewis’ concept that God’s omnipotence must allow for opposition in order for freedom and true goodness to exist, still stands as a solid argument.

As Lewis stated:

Try to exclude the possibility of suffering which the order of nature and the existence of free wills involve, and you find that you have excluded life itself. Lewis (1940)(1996: 25).

My speculative view was that within human beings the chain worked as follows: God causes human beings and human nature, which results in will1 (not choice), meaning people have consciousness which leads to self awareness or personal identity, from which comes motives, desires, and finally will2 which is a compatibilistic, limited free will. I now believe I have made an improvement to this chain, as follows: God causes human beings and human nature, which results in consciousness (not choice), which leads to self awareness or personal identity, from which comes motives, desires, and finally will which is a compatibilistic, limited free will.

4. Divine Goodness

Within this chapter, Lewis portrayed God as demanding both discipline and compassion from people and demonstrating both himself in his character. He was a God who punished sin, yet sent his Son to die for that same sin. Lewis stated:

You asked for a loving God: you have one. The great spirit you so lightly invoked, the ‘lord of terrible aspect’, is present: not a senile benevolence that drowsily wishes you to be happy in your own way, not the cold philanthropy of a conscientious magistrate, not the care of a host who feels responsible for the comfort of his guest, but the consuming fire himself. Lewis (1940)(1996: 39).

Lewis indicated that God used his love in discipline for the betterment of his creatures, and that this could lead to the temporary suffering of people. Lewis compared a man disciplining a dog to God disciplining human beings. The creature is made better for the purposes of the master through this type of discipline which is often physically and emotionally painful. Kilby stated concerning this view of Lewis: "If we keep Him at center, it is possible to suppose that pain is His method of training us for better things than we understand." Kilby (1965: 67).

Lewis noted: "Those Divine demands which sound to our natural ears most like those of a despot and least like those of a lover, in fact marshal us where we should want to go if we knew what we wanted." Lewis (1940)(1996: 46).

This seems plausible that God uses some of his toughest commands to bring about the greatest growth in his creatures. However, I would say perhaps it is more likely that God marshals us where we should go if we wanted what we should. I think that Lewis was correct that God used pain in love to strengthen his creations, but I like Kilby’s observation on the concept that some of the things we need we cannot understand, and often, I would think, do not want to understand. In human beings there often seems to be a certain tendency to believe and act on what is comfortable and brings pleasure at the expense of the truth and right living, which may not be nearly so comfortable.

I think there is discipline in love which takes people to places of mental anguish and frustration that are not in the least desirable, even if they knew that things were working for the ultimate good. Nonetheless, God puts people through tough times and they will learn their lessons for the greater good; some will grow closer to God and some will harden in position against God. People, as sinners, generally want to live lives in which their sinful nature can flourish. Even Christians still, at times, need painful discipline in order to take them from wrong attitudes and actions to right attitude and actions.

Since God has our best interests at heart, it is my view that no amount of suffering which God gives an individual diminishes at all the total goodness of God.

I think it a mistake for the critic of God, to begin to doubt God’s goodness, omnipotence, or very existence, when this individual believes that his/her particular acceptable level of frustration and pain and been surpassed. How is any human to know why or how he/she must suffer? How is any human being to know God’s reasoning behind it?

Lewis raised this problem as Uncle Screwtape in The Screwtape Letters. He noted that it was important for demonic beings to attempt to move a human being struggling with problems from considering philosophical debate to concentrating on the everyday sense experience.

Even if a particular train of thought can be twisted so as to end in our favour, you will find that you have been strengthening in your patient the fatal habit of attending to universal issues and withdrawing his attention from the stream of immediate sense experiences. Your business is to fix his attention on the stream. Teach him to call it "real life" and don’t let him ask what he means by "real". Lewis (1941)(1990: 12).

It can become normal for a human being to become so self-absorbed in his/her suffering that serious difficult thinking about God and his reasons for willing suffering for the greater good, are overlooked. Instead, anger and bitterness against God grows and temporal sensory suffering can lead to a philosophy which can seriously doubt God’s ultimate power and goodness.

Once one individual holds to what I think is the most plausible explanation, that both reason and revelation demonstrate that there exists an all-powerful, loving God, then this God is entitled to the benefit of the doubt. For if this God does exist, he alone knows completely why a person must suffer and has infinite knowledge in which to draw from. Every human being on the other hand, has finite knowledge on which to build his case against the evil that exists in God’s creation that God does not eliminate.

5. Human Wickedness

Within this chapter, Lewis set out to show the reader that the western culture of his day (1940) had a misunderstanding of human wickedness. He stated that his culture put too much emphasis on kindness being the measure of good, and cruelty the measure of wickedness. Lewis pointed out that this kindness was based on the fact that: "Everyone feels benevolent if nothing happens to be annoying him at the moment." Lewis (1940)(1996: 49).

This is a good point, kindness or niceness is certainly not a measure of goodness. Being nice is a way of dealing with people which is most pleasurable, beneficial and brings about, generally, the most pleasurable and beneficial response. However, someone can be nice with evil intentions, an example would be Judas betraying Jesus with a kiss, or someone can act in unkind fashion but mean something for the good. For example, a Doctor re-broke my nose twice by hand without anaesthetic, after I had been assaulted by a bottle attack. This was cruel treatment and it caused me pain. The first attempt caused blood to pour out, however, the treatment straightened my nose and allowed me to look and breath better while lying down, providing me a better night’s sleep.

As well, kindness or niceness, as Lewis alluded to, often disappears when someone is annoyed. This hardly needs much explanation as we can relate to this with ourselves and others we know. I would think true goodness is an objective standard based on one emulating God, and thus one would be good to others regardless of circumstance.

Lewis also stated that human beings needed to better understand that they were sinful and that Christ and Scripture saw them as so.

He noted that a human being could misunderstand wickedness by comparing oneself with someone else, and making a favourable review. Lewis pointed out that: "Every man, not very holy or very arrogant, has to ‘live up to’ the outward appearance of other men." Lewis (1940)(1996: 53). The reviewer is not fully aware of the sins of the people under review, and at the same time, within public persona, is hiding from the world around him/her, the depth of wickedness within.

Lewis thought that people tend to desire to see wickedness in the sense of corporate guilt. He believed that this was, in a way, evading the problems of individual sin. He noted: "When we have really learned to know our individual corruption, then indeed we go on to think about corporate guilt and can hardly think of it too much." Lewis (1940)(1996: 54).

Yes, it seems rather easy for individuals to allow social systems to do wicked things, and thus have the blame for evil shifted to it. However, Lewis has a point, individuals must take responsibility for thoughts and actions, clean up their own act, and then set out to change systems, if possible.

Lewis also tackled the view that time cancels sin. He made an interesting point here:
The guilt is not washed out by time but by the repentance and the blood of Christ: if we repented these early sins we should remember the price of our forgiveness and be humble. As for the fact of sin, is it probable that anything cancels it? All times are eternally present to God. Lewis (1940)(1996: 54-55).

I agree that time cannot cancel sin, and that this is a huge error in thinking in today’s western world. The example of divorce comes to mind. It seems to me that an adulterer who has abandoned his/her mate after enough time often thinks that all should be forgiven, and that "we should stay friends." Although, I totally agree with God’s call for forgiveness, in the case of sin, friendship should be conditioned on things being set right with repentance, as well as forgiveness taking place. For things to be set right then, a wrong has to be admitted and seen for what it is, evil, and not simply overlooked after a certain amount of time.

Lewis pointed out that nothing could truly cancel sin. Interesting speculation indeed, as he points out Christ paid for our sins, but sin is sin and will have always have taken place. I think, however, that God, as well as paying for sins with Christ, can also render the power of these sins useless in everlasting existence.

Lewis warned against the idea that there is safety in numbers. Just because all people are evil does not make it right for individuals to do evil actions. The idea of speeding in a dangerous fashion comes to mind on a lighter note. In a more serious way, the persecution of different groups by a culture may be overlooked by the majority of the population, for example the Jews in Nazi Germany in Lewis’ era.

Lewis pointed out some definite examples of human wickedness in his era and culture; however, he rejected the idea of Total Depravity. He stated:

This chapter will have been misunderstood if anyone describes it as a reinstatement of the doctrine of Total Depravity. I disbelieve the doctrine, partly on the logical grounds that if our depravity were total we should not know ourselves to be depraved, and partly because experience shows us much goodness in human nature. Lewis (1940)(1996: 61).

I can see the logic of Lewis’ point of view; however, I don’t agree with his conclusions. I will first give the comments of C.C. Ryrie and then explain my perspective.

The concept of total depravity does not mean

(1) that depraved people cannot or do not perform actions that are good in either man’s or God’s sight. But no such action can gain favor with God for salvation. Neither does it mean

(2) that fallen man has no conscience which judges between good and evil for him. But that conscience has been effected by the fall so that it cannot be a safe and reliable guide. Neither does it mean

(3) that people indulge in every form of sin or in any sin to the greatest extent possible.
Positively total depravity means that the corruption has extended to all aspects of man’s nature, to his being: and total depravity means that because of that corruption there is nothing man can do to merit saving favour with God. Ryrie (1996: 312).

I would think Lewis did not significantly understand the doctrine. Ryrie’s first point answers Lewis’ objection. The doctrine is not about humanity being so evil that no good is possible. The point is that these good works can in no way earn salvation. As well, with Ryrie’s second point, humanity could acknowledge the existence of sin and evil in them because they still had a conscience, although it was scarred. Also, the depravity is not total in the sense of every aspect of evil in people being maximized, it means instead that humanity is corrupt to the point where salvation cannot be merited.

I think Ryrie explains the concept well, and understands it, unlike Lewis. However, I wonder if human beings can commit truly good acts, like both men suggest. I would think since humanity is totally depraved that no true human good is possible. If true goodness is found in perfection, as is God, then we cannot obtain that good. Even as Christians that attempt to perform the will of God with the help of the Holy Spirit, would there not be just a little taint of sin in all our actions? It is my view that human good is likely an absence of a complete maximization of our total depravity. I, for example, may appear to be humanly good compared to a serial murderer; however, that is because the murderer has been found out as someone who has committed heinous crimes, where as Lewis pointed out with an individual, my evil can be hidden in public persona.

6. The Fall of Man

Lewis stated: "According to that doctrine, man is now a horror to God and to himself and a creature ill-adapted to the universe not because God made him so but because he had made himself so by the abuse of free will." Lewis (1940)(1996: 63).

Lewis tied in his free will concept with what he saw as the doctrine of the fall. He concluded that this concept was developed by the church fathers to counteract the heresy of Monism, that God produces effects being both good and evil, and Dualism, where two Gods existed, one good and one evil.

Lewis proclaimed that the Christian view opposed this and stated that God made things good, but that they were corrupted through free will. He then went on to discuss the theological idea that the fall somehow resulted from Adam’s sin. He seemed unsure whether or not the story of Adam was fact or fiction. He stated on this point : "Wisely, or foolishly, they believed that we were really-and not simply by legal fiction-involved in Adam’s actions." Lewis (1940)(1996: 64).

On the idea that Adam can perhaps be fictional the question should be asked: "then where does sin come from?, and why did Jesus Christ, the God-man, come to earth to rescue us from Adam’s sin?" The apostle Paul in Romans 5:12-21 seems to clearly portray a literal Adam as falling, and thus a literal Christ is needed for restoration. I think if Adam is deemed as not necessarily literal true man, then Christ may just as well be fiction, and this basically challenges the core of the Christian faith.

I believe that within Christian orthodoxy, it is plausible that Adam could be seen as fiction and somehow another non-defined person may have sinned, and this lead to the need for Christ to die for humanity. Why, however, should Christians believe this without any documented evidence? If believers seek to deny the literal story of Adam, since we do not have historical evidence outside of Scripture, then we are faced with a worse problem with a hypothetical first sinful human with no evidence to back up his/her existence whatsoever.

7. Human Pain

Lewis dealt with this subject in two chapters. He began by noting that previously within the book he had stated: "the possibility of pain is inherent in the very existence where souls can meet. When souls become wicked they will certainly use this possibility to hurt one another....". Lewis (1940)(1996: 86).

This point again ties back to his free will concept. Where two or more free souls meet, there will be the option of doing harm to another, and certainly this is what is often done. Lewis stated that humankind realized this type of pain was not natural, nor was it good in itself. He stated: "Pain is unmasked, unmistakable evil; every man knows that something is wrong when he is being hurt." Lewis (1940)(1996: 90). Human beings though continue with their destructive self-will and misuse their freedom. Kilby stated concerning Lewis’ idea:

An inflamed and swollen self-will does not give itself up easily, and when it does it may be properly described as a kind of death. Pain is one of God’s methods of enabling a man to face his self-will and have it destroyed before self-will destroys the man. Kilby (1965: 70).

From the reasoning put forward by Lewis and Kilby, humankind is abusing its free will, and God will justly use suffering to lead it to a point where their will is open to him. This is feasible, but by Biblical standards it would appear that most people still stay true to their own desires and spend everlasting existence apart from God. In Matthew 7:13-14, Jesus stated that the majority found their way to destruction, and a minority to life, so even with the possible truth of suffering as lesson, it appears that although lessons can be learned, that most people do not come to God through these lessons in suffering. Now, if many believers in Christ grow spiritually through pain and suffering then I suppose it worthwhile nonetheless.

In his second chapter on Human Pain, Lewis mentions six propositions.

1. He notes that there is a paradox concerning tribulation in Christianity.
Lewis makes a good point, that God uses evil for the greater good but human disobedience to God is still sin. He stated: "Now the fact God can make complex good out of simple evil does not excuse--though by mercy it may save--those who do the simple evil." Lewis (l940)(1996: 111). God can use evil for the betterment of his creation overall, but this does not change his character, and those who oppose his will still sin because their motives are not good as are God’s. However, God remains non-sinful and thus not a contradictory being. John Calvin had stated:

Then we shall understand that God is not made the author of evil deeds when he said to lead the ungodly where he wills and to accomplish and execute his work through them, but rather we shall acknowledge that he is a wonderfully expert craftsman who can use even bad tools well. We shall be compelled to admire his justice, which not only finds a way through iniquity but also employs that very iniquity to a good end. Calvin (1543) (1996: 40).

So, from the words of both Lewis and Calvin, the idea is being put forward that God is in ultimate, but not robotic control of his creation. His creation sins against God with anti-God motives, and thus are guilty of crimes against him. God, however, is still able to use these evil works for the greater good. This means that tribulation, although largely caused by sins of human beings, and perhaps at times, fallen angels, is still being used by God for his final purposes of good.

2. Since tribulation is necessary in redemption, then it will not stop until the world is fully redeemed or no longer seen as redeemable. Lewis’ point here was that social improvements were good, but they were not the ultimate answer. He stated: "I am only reminding the reader that a particular medicine is not to be mistaken for the elixir of life." Lewis (1940)(1996: 115). Lewis stated that reform from the hands of humanity can only bring so much good, but that a heaven on earth can only take place through God’s direct intervention through Christ.

3. Lewis made the point: "Since political issues have crossed our path, I must make it clear that the Christian doctrine of self-surrender and obedience is a purely theological, and not in the least a political, doctrine." Lewis (1940)(1996: 115). He made a separation between allegiance to God and allegiance to government. I am not so sure that it is purely a theological allegiance, as Romans 13 states: "Let every person be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God." The New American Standard Bible (1984).

This seems to indicate that there is at least some level of surrender to the government required by Christians, although it is of a lessor degree and importance than a devotion to God. However, in a sense, to serve the state in obedience is serving God as long as the two do not contradict each other, it can be concluded logically.

4. Lewis stated: "Our Father refreshes us on the journey with some pleasant inns, but will not encourage us to mistake them for home." Lewis (1940)(1996: 116) God does bless human beings in his fallen creation with good times, but none of these must be mistaken as anything other than temporal. For everlasting life, God must be depended on for a new creation without evil and death.

5. Lewis noted that there is no such thing as the unimaginable sum of human misery. He stated: "There is no such thing as a sum of suffering." Lewis (1940)(1996: 116). His point was that no one person suffers the sum of all suffering, so critics that make the problem of evil worse by discussing the overall sum of suffering are not dealing with the issue realistically, for each person only can suffer so much, humanity does not suffer as a group, but, in reality, individually. Yes, a group of people can share in suffering, but each person, as Lewis noted, has his/her own level of suffering and then it is not surpassed. As every person is in this position, for humanity there does not exist a sum of suffering, but there exist many individuals with different levels of suffering. Interestingly, only the infinite God is aware of all the suffering that takes place.

6. He noted that: "Of all evils, pain only is sterilised or disinfected evil." Lewis (1940)(1996: 117). Lewis thought that since God used pain to teach his fallen creatures, that this was not as bad as many of the types of human evils which just bred error after error. Lewis indicated that not only did suffering potentially bring people closer to God, but it also brought human beings to pity each other.

Lewis did not, in his two chapters, deal in great detail with the problem that suffering turns some people against God. He did state, however, that: "No doubt Pain as God’s megaphone is a terrible instrument; it may lead to final and unrepented rebellion." Lewis (1940)(1996: 93). His argument was valid that God does use suffering to teach his people and bring them to him, but it must be admitted that the evil within God’s creation also has the reverse effect upon many.

Again the words of Uncle Screwtape: "There is nothing like suspense and anxiety for barricading a human’s mind against the enemy (God)." Lewis (1941)(1990: 34).

Human beings can become fed up with God’s ways as he wills suffering for the greater good. If this greater good is not apparent to the sufferer, God can be seen as not a friend but a foe.

However, I leave this in God’s hands, as he is just as right to use suffering to repel beings already opposed to him as he is to use suffering to bring people into his Kingdom.

It must also be asked, at least from a human perspective, does not human suffering sometimes, at least temporarily, turn even Christians to anger against God? I am not stating this would lead to rebellion, but just anger and frustration with a perfect, omnipotent deity that wills evil for the greater good. Lewis himself, in A Grief Observed complained about God’s treatment in light of his wife’s passing.

Meanwhile where is God? This is one of the most disquieting symptoms. When you are happy, so happy that you have no sense of needing him, so happy that you are tempted to feel His claims upon you as interruption, if you remember yourself and turn to Him with gratitude and praise, you will be-or so it feels-welcomed with open arms. But go to Him when your need is desperate, when all other help is vain, and what do you find? A door slammed in your face, and a sound of bolting and double bolting on the inside. After that, silence. You may well turn away. The longer you wait, the more emphatic the silence will become. There are no lights in the windows. It might be an empty house. Was it ever inhabited? It seemed so once. And that seeming was so strong as this. What can this mean? Why is He so present a commander in our time of prosperity and so very absent a help in time of trouble? Lewis (1961) (1983: 9).

Lewis’ questioning of God, after the death of his wife is, in my view, natural. When the God, who Christians realize through reason and revelation is perfect and omnipotent, disappoints us, people can of course struggle with sadness, anger, and frustration, but this does not equal unbelief even if faith waivers and weakens for a time.

What concerns me about Lewis’ comments is the tendency for western Christians to be carefree with God when they are happy. I realize that in order to bring in new people to the faith the Gospel is emphasized as the Good News which it is; however, bad news goes along with it. God is a personal imminent God who loves people and made salvation for them, but he is also transcendent and distant and often apparently cold to those that seek Him. I am not doubting God’s infinite love and care, but I am stating that the Christian Church needs to present a balanced view on the Christian life.

It must be remembered that no matter how much God blesses us with this life, it all ends in a single lonely, solitary death. Yes, there is a resurrection, but not before much suffering. Perhaps Christians should not subscribe to a happiness that could lead to living as though God is not needed at all times. If Christians are so happy that they are living carefree lives, perhaps they should focus in on those suffering and then they will be provided with a balanced perspective, and not be quite as shattered when disaster strikes.

8. Hell

To Lewis, Hell was the place where those who were committed to unrepented rebellion against God were separated from their creator in the next life.
Lewis noted this was the negative side of free will, that many would reject their creator. "Some will not be redeemed." Lewis (1940)(1996: 119). This is the case even though Jesus Christ did the work required to save all of humanity.

Lewis noted that because of free will, all of humanity could only be saved if God saved them against their own will. I see the logic of his point; however, it appears from Romans for example, that all reject God prior to God’s grace through the Holy Spirit. Romans 3:10-11, mentions that not one person is righteous, not one person really seeks God. This being accepted, then even believers in Christ have their will somehow moved without being violated, since many believers accept the idea that human beings have, to some degree, free will. If a human being does not choose God without God first moving his/her heart, then the question arises, why does God move some and not others? Yes, some do believe and repent, but they cannot do this autonomously, so the reason why some are saved, and some are not, remains somewhat a mystery to humanity, and cannot be Biblically, entirely contributed to the human use of free will. Lewis explained some major objections to Hell, and countered these objections. He dealt with the objection with God’s retributive justice. He made the following point.

The demand that God should forgive such a man while he remains what he is, is based on a confusion between condoning and forgiving. To condone an evil is simply to ignore it, to treat it as if it were good. But forgiveness needs to be accepted as well as offered if it is to be complete: and a man who admits no guilt can accept no forgiveness.  Lewis (1940)(1996: 124).

So, based on this idea, God must punish sinners, otherwise he condones sin. I think this true as well, to not believe in God in a relationship sense and fail to ask for forgiveness is a rejection of God. To refuse a relationship with God, one’s own creator, is to arguably commit the greatest crime possible. To reject the being that made you in love, and to reject your very own purpose to serve that God in love, is certainly a punishable offense. If there is anything wrong and offensive in the Universe that would be it!

Lewis also noted that while God does issue punishment to sinners in Hell, he is at the same time letting them live the selfish, Godless lives they desired apart from him, so it appears his love still remains even to those Hell bound. In the Screwtape Letters, Lewis as Uncle Screwtape states: "The whole philosophy of Hell rests on recognition of the axiom that one thing is not another thing, and specifically, the one self is not another self. My good is my good and yours is yours." Lewis (1941)(1990: 92) . This selfishness which leads to the damage of others is allowed by the Lord to flourish in Hell within the spirits of unrepentant sinners.

Lewis mentions the objection of God giving eternal-everlasting punishment for transitory sin. He handles this by stating that perhaps eternity is not necessarily in a line, but a solid, as in timeless state. So, I would take from this idea, that perhaps the actual punishment of the sinner never varies, but stays the same. Hell could be a timeless type of punishment. Also, I would like to counter this objection by stating that in everlasting punishment, the sinner is not primarily being punished for sins against God in the temporal life, but is being punished and separated from God for a sin position against God. Why does a sinner earn everlasting punishment? Because his/her rebellion against God is everlasting. There is thus no injustice because there is not really eternal-everlasting punishment for temporal sin, but everlasting punishment for everlasting rebellion against God.

Concerning the objection of the horrors of Hell, and the intense punishment, Lewis rejected annihilationism because he stated that ". . . the destruction of one thing means the emergence of something else. . . . If souls can be destroyed, must there not be a state of having been a human soul?" Lewis (1940)(1996: 127). This could be the case, but I think it tenable to believe that God could completely destroy what he had created. To say he could not would be troubling in light of the Christian belief in God’s omnipotence. It would not be contradiction for God to destruct what he had constructed, so I think Lewis has a logical point, but one that would not concern annihilationists, or critics of Hell very much, since the God Christians believe in should possess the power to destroy his own creations.

It is quite possible that the level of Hell one endures could very well be proportionate to their level of rebellion against God which takes place in their sin position. Jesus indicated there was greater sin for certain acts, as when he was handed over to the Romans by Judas and the Jews in John 19:11, so perhaps Hell is determined by what the individual makes of it largely.

9. Animal Pain

Lewis was not sure why animals suffer, and stated that no human being knew. He doubted that animals had a soul of consciousness as human beings do. Without consciousness an animal experiences sensations, but does not deal with it in a deep, soulful way as a human being would.

He stated:

But at least a great deal of what appears to be animal suffering need not be suffering in any real sense. It may be we who have invented the ‘sufferers’ by the ‘pathetic fallacy’ of reading into the beast a self for which there is no real evidence. Lewis (1940)(1996: 137).

Animals after all do not build civilizations, nor do they have families as we understand them. Animals communicate and live based on instinct and sensation rather than conscious rational thought, so their pain would be different. I am not minimizing their pain, and I think cruelty to animals is appalling, but I think Lewis correct in indicating that animal pain in not well understood by humanity. What can be deduced is that it is not comparable to human pain which is experienced by rational beings.

10. Heaven

Lewis cautiously stated that this was perhaps what we as human beings desired more than anything else. He noted that human beings wanted "‘something better’-not this or that experience, but beyond it." Lewis (1940)(1996: 154). I think there is an aspect of humanity which desires a better, perhaps perfect life. However, in our fallen state is what we humans really desire anywhere near what God has in store for his followers?

CHAPTER THREE

Anglican Theologian - Alister McGrath

1. Theological Perspective

British and Anglican scholar, Alister McGrath, Wycliffe College, Oxford, has written a significant work on suffering which is a result of the problem of evil. It is entitled Suffering (1992), and he condenses his writings in Suffering within Bridge-Building (1992).

McGrath began Chapter 1 of Suffering by appealing to a book written by John Mackey, Preface to Christian Theology. Chapter 2 of this book was entitled Two Perspectives: The Balcony and the Road. This idea was influenced by the time Mackey had spent in Spain.

McGrath took this imagery and used it to explain his basic approach to the problem of evil. Using this idea, he described people on the Road as facing the hard reality of life, whereas people on the Balcony objectively observed what was taking place on the Road. McGrath stated:

The problem seen from the Road, is very different. Those on the Road are suffering, and are wondering how on earth they will cope with it, and continue the life of faith as they suffer. They are participating in suffering, not observing it at a safe distance. Their difficulties are practical, not theoretical. They need something to help them keep going on that Road. The uncommitted and detached perspective of the Balcony seems to have little bearing on their position. McGrath (1992: 5).

McGrath stated that the Balcony could be an ivory tower type of escape from the harshness of the Road. "At its worst, the Balcony approach involves merely noticing other people suffering." McGrath (1992: 5). However, he thought it need not be that way. Those viewing events from the Balcony could see more of what was going on than those on the Road. They thus could have a more balanced objective perspective. McGrath stated: "For at its best, the Balcony perspective can be profoundly helpful. Those on the Balcony can see further, on account of their elevated position." McGrath (1992: 5).

McGrath noted that: "High above the Road, those on the Balcony have overheard the questions being asked by travellers. They could--if they wanted to--come down from the Balcony and be of some use to those on the Road." McGrath (1992: 6). He introduced the idea that the Theologian could serve the world in an objective sense by being someone on the Balcony that had a wide and deep understanding of reality and the sufferings which took place. At the same time, the Theologian could go down to the Road and experience the harshness of life. So he/she could provide both objective and subjective analysis and experience on the problem of evil. He stated:

Those who are struggling with the life of faith need be consoled and reassured. Yet the consolation offered must be genuine. It must be based on the bedrock of Christian truth, not on the white lies of well-meant deception. Given that suffering happens, what can be said to those passing beneath its shadow? What consolation can be offered to them?

Theology may not be able to abolish suffering - but it can allow that suffering to be seen in a new light. Although the way things are cannot be changed, the way in which people view them and respond to them can. The theologian can reassure believers concerning the validity of their faith and help them to apply it to the riddles of life. For faith makes a vital difference to the way we see and experience things. Just as the sun shines upon the righteous and the unrighteous, so both the believer and the non-believer suffer and die. The vital difference lies in the way in which they experience and understand what is happening to them. McGrath (1992: 8).

It is my view that McGrath’s explanation of the Balcony and the Road, and the Theologian’s importance in that, defines not only a theological perspective on the problem of evil but a perspective on life itself. All of life’s experiences, good or bad, need to be looked at both objectively and subjectively. To be just on the Balcony or just on the Road is not good. By being on the Balcony in life the Theologian, with the use of Scripture, the Gospel, and philosophy can gather information and develop systems and practical approaches in which to deal with life, including the problem of evil. Objectivity is needed in order to avoid being blinded by one’s desires, experiences and hurts to the point where God’s purpose for the individual is distorted from his/her perspective. The Theologian must be on the Road as well to subjectively experience life and suffering, including the successes and hardships of others.

Through human interaction, the Theologian develops the heart to complement his objective information gathered. From the Balcony he may be able to see why someone is acting in a particular way, but without subjective interaction he is still missing a piece of the puzzle, that being the deeper motivation leading to human action. As well, by sharing in the suffering of fellow human beings, the Theologian can sympathize with these people and is better equipped to help them.

As McGrath indicated, God, through Jesus Christ, entered this dimension and became a man and suffered in sympathy with human beings to the point where he died and rose again for humanity. "The Christians outlook on suffering is grounded in the self-revelation of God, and is not the product of despairing human imagination." McGrath (1992: 8).

This revelation is seen in Scripture and the person of Christ which gives it a divine seal of approval. The Christian world view of seeking a supernatural God points people to the cross and the resurrection. It turns them from trusting in self to trusting in God, who alone can provide the philosophical solution to the problem of evil and, more importantly, provide the theological remedy through Christ’s atoning work, which culminates in full restoration upon his return.

Martin Luther stated, concerning the use of suffering for good: "It is impossible for a person not to be puffed up by his good works unless he has first been deflated and destroyed by suffering and evil until he knows that he is worthless and that his works are not his but God’s." Luther (1518) (1989: 44). This paradigm from McGrath points people to look to God and revelation for the answers to the problem of evil and the realization that their experience is for the greater good, as Luther pointed out.

2. The Philosophical Problem of Evil

McGrath pointed out a weakness with the philosophical discussion and stated his desire to concentrate on a theological remedy to the problem of evil within his work.
Many of the theological and philosophical texts I have wrestled with seem to be much more concerned with upholding the integrity of a God who seems to allow suffering, than with saying anything helpful to those who are bewildered and confused by that suffering. I can think of few things less helpful to someone going through pain than a sophisticated theological defence of the integrity of God, or even a gentle romp through the subtle logic of necessary evil.

Now that kind discussion needs to take place. But it happens too often without any consideration of the anguish of those who need comforting and reassuring in the face of their sadness. Suffering is a pastoral and spiritual issue, not just a theological problem. In the book, I have not the slightest intention of presenting myself either as a spokesman or as some kind of defence attorney for God. God is perfectly capable of looking after himself. The real issue is not about defending God’s honour or integrity, but about making sense of our experience. McGrath (1992: 8-9).

McGrath is espousing a viewpoint similar to one that I took with my Graduating Essay at Trinity Western University. The philosophical discussion concerning the problem of evil is beneficial but the theological remedy is often overlooked in theological works since the critics of God and Christianity have, in the past, attacked the notion of the infinite, omnipotent, perfectly holy God who has evil existing within his creation.

For people suffering with the problem of evil, and that includes all human beings, the theological remedy to evil and suffering through Christ must be a vital part of theological apologetics. It can complement the philosophical discussion, and the revelation of God should be considered.

Carl Henry wrote: "Not even theistic arguments can fully vindicate God’s graciousness in the face of human evil if they appeal simply to empirical consideration or to philosophical reasoning devoid of revelational illumination." Henry (1983: 282).

Henri Blocher had the same sentiment but in slightly stronger terms. In his text Evil and the Cross:

The failure of the explanations of evil that we have examined as exposed in our preceding chapters, taking them according to their fundamental types, shows them for what they are, when confronted with experience and when the concepts are analysed. But it is Divine Revelation which reveals truly and with complete certainty. Holy Scripture, the Word of God, the ‘normative norm,’ is the only standard which allows us to distinguish between those insights which agree with it, and those all too human false trails in those systems of thought. Blocher (1994: 84).

Both Henry and Blocher share with McGrath the idea that in the philosophical problem of evil discussion it is not as central to Christianity as the theological remedy provided through Christ’s atoning work. However, I think Blocher’s words are slightly too strong by calling the explanations of the problem of evil a failure. Yes, the philosophical discussion is limited but it deals with issues not solved within the theological remedy. He is correct in that the theological remedy alone provides complete certainty of the end of suffering. That certainty, however, does not deal with some philosophical questions raised, although it could be argued that the answers to those philosophical questions will no longer matter once people do not suffer. Critics, however, need to see that Christianity is philosophically feasible in order to accept the possibility that divine revelation leads to the defeat of the problem of evil.

I think, however, the philosophical discussion needs to be complemented by the theological remedy. I can understand McGrath’s perspective on suffering as in many post-Enlightenment works the faith has been under attack because of the problem of evil. The attacks were of a philosophical nature and thus dealt with so, but ultimately the defence of Christianity comes down to divine revelation. McGrath stated in Iustitia Dei:

The central teaching of the Christian faith is that reconciliation has been effected between and God and sinful man through Jesus Christ, and that this new relation between God and man is a present possibility for those outside the church, and a present actuality for those within its bounds. McGrath (1986: 1).

Since to McGrath this is the central teaching, it makes sense in apologetics featuring the problem of evil, that the work of Jesus Christ in atonement which includes restoration and reconciliation, must be central. He thus thinks discussions on the problem of evil that do not deal with this in strong fashion, are lacking. Suffering was written to comfort those struggling with the problem of evil and to inform them that ultimate victory over suffering will be had through Jesus Christ.

3. God to Blame?

In McGrath’s second chapter entitled Blaming God he mentions some prominent modern twentieth century philosophies and discusses some of the results of these world-views. He noted that atheistic communism and western liberalism had failed to deal with the harsh realities of life that had taken place in the twentieth century, particularly during World War II. Communism and liberalism removed God from the equation, however, to McGrath, it caused more evil to take place. He stated: "Belief in God is a vital restraining factor. It curbs human evil by stressing God’s condemnation of those who inflict suffering on others." McGrath (1992: 11). McGrath believed that neither communism nor western liberalism had eliminated suffering, and thus their disbelief in God was not on strong intellectual footing.

To him, the great suffering which occurred in the twentieth century indicated there was something wrong with human nature, and that many people who attempted to blame God for those woes should, instead, have looked at world philosophies such as communism and western liberalism which ignored God. McGrath stated these philosophies that overlooked God, at the same time, overlooked his love. He noted: "Occasions of history are stained by the tears of our God who was working to bring about the day when ‘there will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain.’ (Revelation 21:4)." McGrath (1992: 14).

I am in agreement with McGrath that the sinfulness of human nature was overlooked by communist states such as the Soviet Union. In fact, the utopia of socialism actually led to the Soviet Union committing acts of violence in great numbers against their own citizens and those of other nations.

Communism is faulty in that it depends on the state forcing equality among people. This, however, does not end the evil of poverty, for example, but simply takes away initiative from people to advance themselves economically, and gives economic and political power to a select few government and military officials. At the same time, tyranny takes place as these select few must strongly enforce the equality that they see as necessary in order for the communist state to advance.

Christianity, on the other hand, favours shared equality. By this I mean people willingly sharing some, and sometimes all, of what they possess. But the idea is not that a state or ruling counsel should dictate this, but that it should be done willingly in love. With this world view, people have the freedom to willingly help others.

Now with western liberalism, I think it can be argued that, unlike Communism, it does have some major social benefits because it still allows for individualistic human thought which can lead to creativity. When this is taken too far, however, it can be seen that without God, human creativity can only solve few problems because human beings are fallen and imperfect and will still commit evil acts. A person who does not believe in the God and follow Him, can make social progress, but this will be limited because social ethics can make him/her moral but cannot make him/her spiritual as in believing in and following Jesus Christ. A spiritual person seeking God’s guidance should, at least, be theoretically more open to loving and caring for others, to show other people the love God has shown each of them. God’s love being shown within someone should take them beyond morality to a personal concern about the spiritual state of others.

To play devil’s advocate, a critic could claim that Christianity has not solved suffering any better than Communism or especially western liberalism; however, I think McGrath is correct. A belief in God in society and better yet a spiritual relationship with Christ leads to the tempering of evil in a nation and the world. Christianity’s ultimate answer to evil comes through revelation, but at least that has historical evidence of Scripture behind it. Christians are disobedient to God, just as nonbelievers are, and this is probably part of the reason Christianity has not made more social progress. But I still agree with McGrath that Christ’s atoning work and resurrection is the only ultimate answer that remedies evil. This work has, of course, not been completely culminated, but I think the Scriptural evidence supports the idea that Christ will return to restore his creation.

Western liberalism shares some of Christianity’s positive views on sharing and even love, but it depends too much on the goodness of humanity. The twentieth century demonstrates that social evolution in humankind is good, but always limited. This is part of the reason why the advanced, modern, western world still produced a nation like Nazi Germany.
These people were cultured and socialized, but still spiritually blind.

4. God’s Power

In Chapter 3 of Suffering entitled God Almighty, McGrath tried to clear up possible misunderstandings concerning the idea of God’s omnipotence. Firstly, he indicated that God cannot contradict himself. "‘God can’t make a square circle! He would contradict himself if he did.’ The logic of this is undeniable." McGrath (1992: 15)

Secondly, McGrath points out that although God can do anything that is not contradictory to his nature, he is bound by certain promises.

The simple fact of the matter is that God is not able to do everything. His hands are tied. He has made promises - promises which limit his freedom of action. And he is faithful to those promises. And those promises are not arbitrary. They reflect and rest upon God’s unchanging character. Those promises tell us about the way God is. They express the consistency and faithfulness, as well as offer us salvation. What God promises expresses what God is. McGrath (1992: 17).

Theologian, Millard J. Erickson, is in basic agreement with these two points. He stated:
There are, however, certain qualifications of this all-powerful character of God. He cannot arbitrarily do anything whatsoever that we may conceive of. He can do only those things which are proper objects of his power. Thus, he cannot do the logically absurd or contradictory. He cannot make square circles or triangles with four corners. He cannot undo what happened in the past, although he may wipe out its effects of even the memory of it. He cannot act contrary to his nature–he cannot be cruel or unconcerned. He cannot fail to do what he has promised. In reference to God’s having made a promise and having confirmed it with an oath, the writer to the Hebrews says: "So that through two unchangeable things, in which it is impossible that God should prove false, we . . . might have strong encouragement" (Heb. 6:18). All of these "inabilities" however, are not weaknesses, but strengths. The inability to do evil or to lie or to fail is a mark of positive strength rather than of failure.

Another aspect of the power of God is that he is free. While God is bound to keep his promises, he was not initially under any compulsion to make those promises. Nothing in Scripture suggests that God’s will is determined or bound by any external factors. On the contrary, it is common to attribute his decisions and actions to the "good pleasure of his will" (eudokia). Paul in particular attributes them to God’s will (Eph. 1:5, 9; Phil. 2:13). God’s decisions and actions are not determined by consideration of any factors outside himself. They are simply a matter of his own free choice. Erickson (1994: 277-278).

Both McGrath and Erickson are stating that God is not a contradictory
being in any of his actions. This means, for example, that God would not have the power to stop being God, or to make someone else God. This, however, has nothing to do with omnipotence, and being all-powerful means God is able to do what can be done logically, but never what cannot done be logically.

Concerning the assertion that God is bound by his promises, I agree, Scripture makes it clear in Hebrews 6:18 that he cannot lie, and also when Jesus promises he is the only way of salvation in John 14:6, it can be concluded that this system of salvation will not be altered. One can be sure that God will save those in Christ who believe, and at the same time, there will never be another way of salvation. God could have chosen not to save humanity from its sins, but once this decision was made and God made a promise, it would not be broken.

With these concepts in mind, according to McGrath, God is restricted in the future as to how he deals with humanity, because he has promised certain things for humankind’s ultimate salvation. With regard to the problem of evil this means that much of the suffering in God’s creation was because God "has deliberately limited his possibilities." McGrath (1992: 20).

McGrath notes the approach of William of Ockham who, according to McGrath, described God’s omnipotence in the following way:

Ockham uses two terms to refer to these different options. The absolute power of God refers to God’s options before he had committed himself to any course of action or world ordering. The ordained power of God refers to the way things are, which reflects the will of God their creator. These do not represent two different sets of options now open to God. They represent two different moments in the history of human salvation. And our concern is with the ordained power of God, the way in which God orders his creation at present. McGrath (1992: 20).

These definitions by Ockham adequately described McGrath’s ideas and made sense; however, McGrath went on to ask: "So where does this leave all the abstract talk about God being omnipotent? In something of a state of ruin, is the short answer." McGrath (1992: 21).

I agree with McGrath’s "Ockham" concept that God had ordained power at this point which included God limiting himself within his promises. However, I do not think this, in any way, puts the idea of God’s omnipotence in ruins because, technically speaking, God still has absolute power so it is not his lack of power that is the issue, it is instead his lack of will.

God possesses will and desire to make certain promises for humanity’s ultimate salvation through him and life with him. He stays omnipotent through all of this but he wills not to do certain things, including not to stop certain evil because to will the cessation of certain evil would interfere with his ultimate will and plan. So although I agree with McGrath’s concept, I would not, in any way, challenge God’s omnipotence but would simply state that he can will evil for the greater good, meaning that people and demonic beings have the freedom to sin. He remains without contradiction and perfectly good, but can use the actions of all finite beings within his ultimate plan for he is infinite. It is logical and plausible to think that the infinite God can create a Universe where an ultimate plan prevails, even while his finite creations plot against him. For God to stop all sin at this time may not be within his plan because human beings may need to experience sin and redemption in order to appreciate God in the greatest measure. It is possible that under every circumstance, humanity would have fallen eventually, and that this type of scenario, where God incarnate must die for humanity, would be needed.

5. God’s Love

Within his fourth chapter, A Loving God?, McGrath presented the traditional problem of evil, God being almighty and loving, yet evil remained in his creation. He stated that these ideas are not contradictions unless God can eliminate suffering all together, or there are no good reasons for God allowing suffering. He noted: "If either or both of these could be shown to be right, a serious problem with the Christian view of God might well have been exposed. But they have not been shown to be true." McGrath (1992: 23).

McGrath does not go into detail on these two points since, as he stated earlier, he was not writing a philosophical defence of God; however, I believe that God could eliminate suffering and evil from the world but he wills not to. That is bound up in his will and promises but, as I stated, it is not a matter of lack of omnipotence, nor is it a matter of his lack of benevolence. For human development to take place the way God planned it, it would likely have something to do with human beings’ ability to freely choose or reject God. Evil is part of God’s creation, not in its original state, but in its present functional state. People suffer through it, yet God works his ultimate good purpose within a creation that contains evil.

J.S. Feinberg stated:

God can remove evil if that is all He wants to do in our world. However, I will argue that God cannot remove evil without (1) contradicting other valuable things He has decided to do, (2) casting doubts on or directly contradicting the claim that He has all the attributes predicated of Him in Scripture, and/or (3) performing actions that we would neither desire nor require Him to do, because they would produce a greater evil than we already have in our world. Feinberg (1994: 126).

I agree with the general idea in Feinberg’s quote. It is very possible that if God were to remove evil from his fallen creation, it would interfere with other valuable things needed for human development. Both Feinberg and McGrath indicated this could contradict things stated in Scripture--Feinberg mentioned attributes, and McGrath mentioned promises. As well, greater evils could occur if God ridded the world of certain evils at this point. I think there are certain human developments, a type of human spiritual evolution which experiences certain evils for a set period of time before complete restoration through Christ occurs. So from this idea, I would conclude that God is still omnipotent, but yet he wills the continuation of the problem of evil for the greater good, and he remains holy, without sin. As well, with McGrath’s second point, he is correct. It has not been shown that there are no good reasons for God allowing suffering. As Feinberg’s idea points out, there is definitely some logical theological reasoning for evil existing within God’s creation.

McGrath noted in this chapter, that God allows suffering, and I think this is true in a sense, in that demonic beings and human beings make conscious decisions to sin against God. Thus, God does not force people to sin against him. John Calvin stated concerning human sin, that human beings were not forced to sin against God: "If freedom is opposed to coercion, I both acknowledge and consistently maintain that the choice is free, and I hold anyone who thinks otherwise to be a heretic." Calvin (1543) (1996: 68). He again noted: "So it follows that the will with its self-determined movement comes from nature, wickedness from the corruption of nature, . . ." Calvin (1543)(1996: 115). He also stated: "Now no one can claim that anything else is responsible for his sinning except an evil will. Moreover, the evil character of the will has no other source but its inherited corruption." Calvin (1543)(1996: 169).

However, at the same time, I believe that the buck ultimately stops with God. All things can ultimately be traced back to him for he created the beings that he knew would turn against him, but he did this for the greater good. John Calvin, in Chapter Two of this thesis, described how God could will evil for the greater good without being tainted by sin himself. He mentioned that God could use even bad tools well.

Calvin also discussed in The Institutes the case of the Chaldeans attacking Job, that God, Satanic beings and human beings can all participate in the same evil acts:

How can we attribute the same work to God, to Satan, and to man, without either excusing Satan by the interference of God, or making God the author of the crime? This is easily done, if we look first to the end, and then to the mode of acting. The Lord designs to exercise the patience of his servant by adversity; Satan’s plan is to drive him to despair; while the Chaldeans are bent on making unlawful gain by plunder. Such diversity of purpose makes a wide distinction in the act. . . . We thus see that there is no inconsistency in attributing the same act to God, to Satan, and to man, while, from the difference in the end and mode of action, the spotless righteousness of God shines forth at the same time that the iniquity of Satan and of man is manifested in all its deformity. Calvin, (1539)(1998) Book II, Chapter 4, Section 2.

My idea is that the term allowing evil is too weak with regard to God’s ultimate sovereignty in his creation. God wills evil for the greater good and, as Calvin noted, God’s motive is perfectly good, not sinful and contradictory to his nature, while his fallen creation can still choose to disobey him freely. Their nature is fallen and they cannot do good work without the help of God. Left to their own means, their evil nature leads to evil actions. Blocher stated: "One may as well take one’s position from the stern candour of Scripture: if evil occurs under the rule of God, then his will is involved." Blocher (1994: 95-96).

I am not stating that God predetermines the evil actions of demonic and human beings but he has foreknowledge of their choices and can create situations in which beings will choose to sin. With ultimate power, God can use the sin of opposition towards the greater good. God wills evil, not in the sense of coercion, but he has the ability to use actions for the greater good. For example, the Romans with the help of the Jews, execution of Christ was an evil and a sin. God did not force this but he foreknew this would occur and with this death worked out salvation for humanity. It would, however, be too weak to say that God simply allowed the execution of Christ because as an infinite, omnipotent being, he had the power to prevent the execution as he has the power to prevent all sin. So, in this sense, God wills evil, but he does not force people to sin, nor does he sin himself.

God predetermines all things in a sense, but does not force or coerce human or angelic rebellion. This is what is meant in the above paragraph.

McGrath chides the critics of God who stated that this world is not the best possible world. But he noted: "We have nothing else to compare it with. We have not absolutely valid reasoning for suggesting that this is the best of all possible worlds - or indeed, that this is not the best of all possible worlds." McGrath (1992: 24). The world could always be hypothetically happier with less evil; however, McGrath also points out, correctly, that human ideas of happiness are often misconstrued. I see his point. Many of the happy people in the world become happy at the expense of others. Drug dealers are a fine example. The most elite live in mansions, while illegal drug users often suffer with addiction and damaged lives.

McGrath then goes on to note that, historically, human kind is in no position to think it knows better than God as to what is best for humanity. In this supposed era of enlightenment and definite technological increase, he mentioned human catastrophes such as World War I and World War II, and the Soviet Union and their atrocities. He pointed out that human kind was in a state of sin and could not save itself. Humanity needs God’s intervention in love to be freed from sin, but humanity must first realize it is in bondage and needs salvation.

So powerful is the hold of sin upon us that we have lowered our sights, fixing them upon the creation rather than the creator. And so love, in the full and Christian sense of the term, must free us from this mess. Sin, like a swamp, bogs us down, preventing us from breaking free. So how can we be liberated? McGrath (1992: 29).

McGrath went on to state: "Suffering stripped away our illusions of immortality. . . It confronts us with the harsh facts of life." McGrath (1992: 30). To McGrath, there is plenty of evidence available for human beings to see that the way of humanity has fallen. Not only do human beings suffer, but they cannot completely eliminate suffering and it can come at any time, even at an unexpected moment. The terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon are two examples. Suffering can be a tool used by God in love to demonstrate the human need for salvation.

6. Enlightenment?

In his sixth chapter, entitled Suffering and the God of the Philosophers, McGrath pointed out that suffering was nothing new in the world. He did state, however, that the philosophical way in which suffering was now discussed, had been changed. He noted:
Indeed, I spent many years working through most of the major works on Christian theology written between the twelfth and sixteenth centuries, and cannot recall any of them treating the reality of suffering as a serious obstacle to Christian faith. McGrath (1992: 40).

McGrath noted that the change took place beginning in the seventeenth century which led to the era of the Enlightenment. It shifted the defence of the gospel from revelation and Scripture to philosophy. The view was: "To defend the Christian faith, it was advisable to set aside traditional ways of justifying it, and instead to rely upon the wisdom of philosophy." McGrath (1992: 40). McGrath was critical of this approach which overlooked revelation and Scripture, and instead looked to philosophy. It changed the God represented from a personal God of Scripture to a perfect philosophical God.

He was particularly critical of seventeenth century philosopher Rene Descartes. McGrath thought that the " . . .enormous emphasis which came to be placed upon the perfection of God by Descartes was totally compromised by the undeniable fact of the existence of evil and suffering. How could a perfect being allow such imperfection to exist?" McGrath (1992: 41).

McGrath believed that this type of thinking, which he described as creating the god of philosophers, put so much emphasis on God’s perfect attributes that it took away from God’s actual experience in suffering as Christ. So when modern critics were criticizing God, they often criticised this perfect, aloof God whom they thought represented Christianity, whereas the God of revelation and Scripture suffered personally on earth. He died for the sins of humanity, was resurrected and will restore creation.

Seventeenth century revision of Christian thought was known as the Age of Reason, which led to the Enlightenment. Colin Brown described the Enlightenment as follows:
The Age of Enlightenment (German Die Aufklarung) covers roughly the eighteenth century. It is sometimes identified with the Age of Reason, but the latter term covers both the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Although the Enlightenment had some of its roots in seventeenth century rationalism, the ideas which characterize the Enlightenment went far beyond the rationalism of Descartes, Spinoza, and the thinkers of their time. Brown (1996: 355).

So from Brown’s idea, the roots of the Enlightenment started with philosophers like Descartes, but went beyond those men. Basically the ideas McGrath was discussing took place in the Enlightenment - Age of Reason. David A. Pailin, of Manchester University, stated:

The Enlightenment’s criticism of the authority of tradition led to increasing secularization in attitudes and ideas. Nature is seen as an ordered whole rather than as a stage for divine interventions and supernatural happenings. So far as religious beliefs are concerned, claims to revelation are acceptable only when they are rationally justified and their contents subject to reason’s judgement. Biblical stories and accepted doctrines are not immune from criticism. Works like Bayle’s Historical and Critical Dictionary and Voltaire’s Philosophical Dictionary highlight the faults of revered figures and the questionability of standard doctrines. Historical and literary investigations into the Bible develop. Reports about miracles, especially that of the resurrection, give rise to considerable discussion. There is great hostility to priestcraft and suspicion of ecclesiastical pretensions to guide human understanding. Pailin (1999: 180).

David Pailin’s comments demonstrate some of the modern assumptions made by philosophers of religion concerning Christianity. As McGrath indicated, there is a distrust of revelation and Scripture. As Pailin pointed out, revelation and ecclesiastical pretensions would often face great hostility philosophically. I agree with the Enlightenment approach to review Christian claims through reason, but it appears that more faith is put in the Enlightenment critics of Christianity than in the people who wrote the original work. Enlightenment thinking is committed to ". . . reason as the proper tool and final authority for determining issues." Pailin (1999: 179).

Enlightenment thinking has human reason as the final authority, whereas traditional Christianity uses human reason, but it assumes that human nature is fallen and God must reveal himself to that reason. Enlightenment thinking, in my view, rests on the faulty idea that finite man should be able to be the final judge regarding ideas about God. Enlightenment era thinking, which is still prominent in liberal circles today, believes that man has the ability to reason out who God is, whereas traditional Christianity believes that God must reveal himself in order for human beings to come to some understanding of who he is. So the Enlightenment puts greater emphasis on the human mind comprehending God, whereas traditional Christianity puts emphasis on Scripture inspired by God, which must teach human beings about God.

Two problems come to mind concerning the human mind’s ability to know God. First, the human mind is finite, God is infinite. It could be said that human beings could only understand God in a limited way. This is not to say that the limited human understanding was in error or without logic, but simply limited. For this reason, I think in this relationship God would have to take the initiative in presenting himself to humanity for greater understanding, and this would lead to revelation. Second, I believe there is significant evidence in Scripture and everyday life, that humanity is imperfect and sinful, and in a spiritual condition where they would have to be transformed in order to have a relationship with God. I am not saying that human beings cannot understand things about God without revelation, but I am stating that revelation is required for a changed spirit which could lead to a relationship with God. I, therefore, do not think that human reason outside of revelation should be our final authority in theology.

7. The Cross

In Chapter 7, entitled What was God Doing on the Cross?, McGrath took the idea that God needed to reveal himself to humanity and he stated this was done through Jesus Christ. McGrath noted that Christ was no ordinary human being and explained:

From the perspective of the Road, Jesus Christ may seem like a fellow traveller, someone who shares our journey along that difficult and winding way we call ‘the life of faith’. But from the Balcony, he is seen to be very different from all of us. Here is God - the same God who made the heaven and the earth - who has chosen to spend time on the Road. McGrath (1992: 46).

God not only revealed himself supernaturally through miracles, as well as inspiring Scripture, he also became incarnate and thus God the Son became man while keeping his divinity. Christ went to the cross and died for humanity and those who believe in him, in the sense of having a relationship with him, will receive salvation. McGrath offered several keys to the cross:

"First, if Jesus is God, then he is the best visual aid for God the world has ever known." McGrath (1992: 46). McGrath believed that this visual aid took away from the thought that God was an abstract idea and made him a real friend who was in our dimension to assist us. The incarnation of Christ certainly demonstrates to humanity the love God has for his fallen creatures and his commitment to saving them. Throughout the New Testament, Christ’s words and actions can be seen, and his life’s commitment was to serve the God of the Old Testament and to save those who would believe. God’s love and care for humanity could be seen in physical form.

"The second thing which God achieved through the cross is that he brings home to us how much he loves us." McGrath (1992: 47). I have already mentioned Christ’s love for humanity, but McGrath mentioned that actions speak louder than words and the atoning sacrifice made by Christ can clearly be seen in Scripture. Scripture notes humanity’s sin and lack of perfect goodness, so clearly Christ’s atoning work was a demonstration of love. Christ died for the unworthy in love.

"A third vital aspect of what God was doing on the cross, then, can be summed up like this. God was breaking the stranglehold of sin in our lives." McGrath (1992: 49). The death of Christ was a point in the salvation process. He took the sins of humanity upon himself. Thiessen stated concerning Christ’s work with sin:

He came to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. (Hebrews. 9:26b). . . Christ came to teach men, to aid them in material and physical respect, to give them an example, etc., but above all these things He came to die for man’s sins. His death is the foundation requirement of every other blessing that we enjoy." Thiessen (1956: 291-292).

"In the fourth place, he was liberating us from the fear of death." McGrath (1992: 49). McGrath explained that western culture was afraid of death to the point of not wanting to discuss it. He noted that Jesus liberated people from this fear as he defeated death through the reality of the resurrection and, at the same time, any power the devil had over people was destroyed. This will not be culminated until all believers are resurrected, but the required work has been accomplished by Christ. Believers’ resurrection is guaranteed. All people will be resurrected and believers will be in Christ’s presence.

Irenaeus stated with regard to Christ’s work defeating death:

For it behoved Him who was to destroy sin, and redeem man under the power of death, that He should Himself be made that very same thing which He was, that is, man; who had been drawn by sin into bondage, but was held by death so that sin should be destroyed by man, and man should go forth from death. Irenaeus. (ca. 130-200 AD) Book III, Chapter 18, Section 7.

(Note: There does not seem to be a historical date to indicate when Irenaeus wrote this work. It is estimated that he wrote the work near the end of the second century.)

From Irenaeus’ comments, it can be seen that McGrath’s sentiments are echoed by this ancient author. Christ on the cross was the way that God incarnate could, in a loving act, take sin on himself, defeat sin in death, and through his resurrection defeat death itself. Humankind had no deliverance from the bondage of sin and death until Christ committed this work.

8. Suffering and Hope

McGrath pointed out in his text that "suffering is education" McGrath (1992: 56), but that Christ "shows us how to suffer with hope." McGrath (1992: 61). McGrath also stated:
Christ does not empathise with our sufferings, trying to work out how we must feel about the sorrows and woes of human existence. He already knows. He has been through them himself. He has experienced them at first hand. In short: he sympathises with us. McGrath (1992: 73).

McGrath noted that there was a real difference between knowing about something and knowing it first hand. McGrath believed that through Christ’s work on earth, he personally suffered and can relate to the human problem of evil first hand, and God thus experienced the pain and misery first hand.

Theologically, I think this is a valid point and it comforts people who realize that God cared enough for them to suffer and sympathise with them; however, I think this was completely for human benefit, not God’s. God, even without becoming incarnate, as an infinite being could completely understand all within his creation. It was thus not necessary for him to become human in order to sympathise with his creation, but it was good in that human beings could see the depth of his love through his work.

McGrath noted that the hope of heavenly glory was compensation for suffering in this life. He indicated that many critics would disbelieve this idea, but he stated: "Their comments are made from our side of the veil which separates history from eternity." McGrath (1992: 97).

At this point, there is certainly an element of faith, but I think Christian revelation which proclaims future heavenly glory is not worthy of fairy tale status. Biblical figures from Moses to the Apostle Paul are historical, as are their writings, so the Christian faith has historical foundation.

McGrath is correct in that a future hope of Heaven is something to be considered since Christ has been documented in Scripture to be resurrected. His promises for believers’ resurrection seem to be certain. Suffering and the problem of evil will only end as resurrection and restoration culminate.

CHAPTER FOUR

Baptist Theologian - D. A. Carson

1. Preface

At the time of writing his book, How Long, O Lord?, The Reverend Dr. D. A. Carson was a Professor at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. Within the Preface of this book Dr. Carson explained that his text was written primarily to Christians, not to nonbelievers. The following paragraph seemingly summarized his thesis statement:

Primarily, this is a book of preventative medicine. One of the major causes of devastating grief and confusion among Christians is that our expectations are false. We do not give the subject of evil and suffering the thought it deserves until we ourselves are confronted with tragedy. If by that point our beliefs–not well thought out but deeply ingrained–are largely out of step with God who has disclosed himself in the Bible and supremely in Jesus, then the pain from the personal tragedy may be multiplied many times over as we begin to question the very foundations of our faith. Carson (1990: 9).

Carson wrote the text, not as a complex philosophical, theological guide to the problem of suffering, nor the intellectual problem of evil, but instead designed a type of manual to help Christians establish Biblical logical patterns of thought. Carson desired the reader to be ready for the evil that would strike at any time. In being prepared for evil and suffering, he reasoned Christians would have a better understanding of their life while in suffering and with God’s place in that life.

Carson’s approach is similar to that of Lewis and McGrath, especially McGrath, in that there is a very strong pastoral element within. Carson’s book is useful because of the emphasis he puts on Scripture and his explanations of his theology on suffering through his interpretation of the Bible. By explaining God’s role in evil and evil’s role in the believer’s life throughout Scripture, these stories and theologies can clear up misunderstandings some readers may have about suffering and evil within the Christian life. These misunderstandings include the role of God and Satan in evil, and the depth of human sin, as well as the fact that, as fallen creatures, human beings have no merit before God.

So Christians do not necessarily have some type of special protection from suffering and evil, even though they have a relationship with God. At the same time, suffering endured is within God’s plan for their lives and for growth in Christ. Carson hoped, through this book, and by a greater understanding of suffering, that the Christian would excel in growth rather than be repelled by God’s discipline which could take place through suffering.

2. Harsh Reality

Carson began Chapter 1, First Steps, by noting stories of people who had suffered. He stated:

The truth of the matter is that all we have to do is live long enough, and we will suffer. Our loved ones will die; we ourselves will be afflicted with some disease or other. Carson (1990: 16).

This is a cold yet a realistic statement. Suffering touches virtually every human being. If a person believes in God, yet he/she suffers, how should this individual deal with this intellectual tension? I think suffering, in one way, should be seen as a sign of human weakness, we have a fallen nature which resulted from sin. We all pay the price, and it does not always correspond to how good or evil we appear compared to our fellow human compatriots. God makes use of human suffering despite, as Scripture repeatedly says, loving us. This suffering, from a human perspective, can help people find God by reminding them of the temporary nature of human life.

As human beings, at best, no matter how much one is dedicated to God in Christ or how much one loves others, no matter how successful a person is in life, and no matter how many goods deeds are accomplished, each person perishes in a single solitary death. This is likely in old age and, as Carson stated, people may witness their loved ones dying and may suffer with disease themselves.

If God is not to be ignored concerning suffering and death as uncaring, powerless, or nonexistent, then when one thinks of God, one should also ponder on human death which exists within God’s creation. This seemingly is more productive than sweeping death under the rug philosophically, and seeking to live the best possible life, ignoring the Grim Reaper until he won’t leave!

This harsh reality should be considered by anyone serious about knowing God. I think this can be a motivator to seek God and avoid sin which can be pleasurable, but in the end is destructive. In Hebrews 9:27 it is stated: " And inasmuch as it is appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgement ." New American Standard Bible (1984).

Christian life on earth should be seen as temporal, but sin can be largely avoided by viewing daily life as within God’s directive, realizing judgement follows death.

Yes, all sin, but knowing that death is certain (hopefully later, than sooner) means that God’s ever present judgement awaits us. I admit that I sin but, by God’s grace, it is tempered by the harsh reality of eventual death and a certainty that an infinite, omnipotent and loving God awaits to speak to me in person for the first time. My suffering now is a reminder that this leads ultimately to death. . . sobering but effective.

3. False Assumptions

Secular Errors

From the secular view, Carson listed five false beliefs concerning evil and suffering. First, that a certain type of evil should not occur in my area, i.e., my realm:

"That sort of violence should occur only in black neighborhoods, in the slums, in the Third World, or among drug addicts; it is outrageous that it should happen in decent, white, upper-middle-class suburban areas." Carson (1990: 23).

Carson noted with this philosophy that the harshest evil is reserved for other people, and there is no understanding of radical human evil of which humanity cannot rid itself . The Apostle Paul stated, in Romans 3:23 "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." New American Standard Bible (1984). All groups of people are evil. All are fallen, not one person is righteous, as it says in Romans 3:10, so evil is universal in humanity. It should be no great surprise when, from the human perspective, the most intense evil such as murder, for example, takes place in so-called respectable "white" neighborhoods. Culture and neighborhoods can vary so that one area appears more evil than the next; however, the human sin condition exists in all neighborhoods. Therefore, great evil should be of no shock in any neighbourhood.

Second, money can buy security. "I want to believe that my money can buy me security. I trust no one but myself and my resources; God is among the first I will blame if something goes amok." Carson (1990: 24). Carson mentions that there are always greater calls for security when great evil occurs. These are often reasonable; however, his point seems to be that money and the security it buys does not change the human condition, so evil will continue to exist in human beings.

Third, the evil we know is worse than the evil we do not know. "The death of my child is far more important than the deaths by starvation of hundreds of Ethiopian children every week." Carson (1990: 24). Carson noted that this kind of separation is natural for human beings. Human beings cannot care for everyone so they will care primarily for those within their circle of influence, but this narrow way of approaching evil means that most of the wickedness that occurs in life is not thought about in a serious manner. In reality, there is much more suffering in the world than the typical western mind comprehends, westerners are shielded from some evil, such as mass starvation, first hand. This is due to some superior aspects of western culture which negate some evil; however, the capacity for evil in the entire world remains the same, as does its inability to heal itself.

Fourth, evil and circumstance. "Any notion of radical evil, of a fallen world, must be qualified by how good I am." Carson (1990: 24). Carson’s point here was that many people fail to see the world’s radical evil because they compare themselves to others who are suffering more; however, he mentions the importance of a person putting oneself in another person’s shoes. In other words, circumstance greatly dictates the type of evil that one suffers and the type of evil that one perpetrates, so those who live in the west, in middle and upper-class cultures, may not necessarily react better than those in cultures struggling more, providing the circumstances were the same. People do not think deeply enough about this issue. Fallen human nature exists throughout the world. Different circumstances determine how radical evil plays itself out.

Harry Blamires made this fascinating point on modern man’s view of evil: "Simply this: that modern man thinks, not in terms of good and evil, but in terms of the normal and the abnormal." Blamires (1957)(1981: 13). This point roughly relates to Carson. Carson believed that many in the west falsely assumed themselves good compared to those seemingly suffering in greater measure, but this is somewhat similar to Blamires idea of normal versus abnormal. Modern humanity, however, misunderstands radical evil and thus considers itself good compared to others perhaps less fortunate. This is not an objective type of goodness based in comparison to God and his nature, but a comparison to other people.

This concept of normal and abnormal can be seen in western society’s acceptance of, for example, abortion on demand and the deaths of the unborn; homosexuality as normal, when in fact homosexuality opposes nature in that it cannot reproduce human beings through union, and divorce when one party is no longer happy. Is not love a commitment first? Should not happiness be a result of mutual giving in commitment? It is not my place in this paper to debate these three complex issues; however, I do not think the western world has struggled with these issues and what a Biblical world view might do to challenge these viewpoints. In other words, I think society has missed the depths of evil in these three issues and others, largely by accepting things because large segments of society think they are permissible; however, permissiveness and "normal" does not equal goodness.

Carson’s fifth point, when prayers are offered they are too focussed on physical and not spiritual well-being. "Among those who were religious, the prayers offered up for protection had to do almost exclusively with physical safety, property, and natural well-being." Carson (1990: 25).

In the Book of James it states: "Come now, you rich, weep and howl for your miseries which are coming upon you. Your riches and your garments have become motheaten." Chapter 5:1-2 New American Standard Bible (1984). James is speaking to the rich but he is mentioning how material things fade away. They fade away because material things decay. They are temporal, not everlasting. So when tragedy strikes it should point people to the limitations of their material well-being. Tragedy has demonstrated that a person should not put trust in physical things. Spirituality must be considered if there is to be a lasting meaning to existence.

Christian Errors

Misunderstanding of Scripture is first. Carson noted the tendency within western Christianity to emphasize the positive in Scripture rather than the negative. I, myself, have encountered this in the Evangelical Churches I have attended. As Carson suggests, there is often a tendency to desire to teach the nice stories in Scripture in order to build up the congregation, and be attractive to non-Christians in order to bring in new attendees. I am sympathetic to creating a positive Church environment. For some people it is a safe haven from an outside world of sin and negativity; however, I conclude that Scripture must be preached in balance, and good people do suffer in Scripture.

Second, people want instant relief from their suffering. Carson discussed the fast paced modern world and contrasted it with Moses’ forty years in the wilderness. It is my view that when Christians suffer, it is usually God’s will for them to suffer for a time, and not usually his will for them to suffer to be instantly healed. I realize it is natural for human beings to want to be pain and suffering free, but I think there are lessons to be learned in suffering which usually take time as opposed to being learned through healing after a short period. Much seems to be learned through struggle. It is true, Jesus healed people at times. Some of them suffered for long periods, perhaps some did not, but quick healing and relief from suffering is always possible. We may desire God’s urgent help, but often he may be desiring our patient endurance.

Third, interpreting Scripture with selfish motives. Carson mentions Romans 8:28 where it is stated that all things work for the good for those who love him, according to his purpose, but this should not be interpreted, according to Carson, in selfish materialistic ways because, humanly speaking, bad things still will occur. The key to the text is that good things will be brought about by God even through suffering. The evil that strikes will be used for the greater good for those in Christ.

Fourth, there is an acceptance of theology with all the answers. Carson stated: "It becomes important, then, to decide just where the mysteries and certainties are. Christianity that is nothing but certainties quickly becomes haughty and arrogant, rigid and unbending." Carson (1990: 27). Carson noted that when these certainties within crises are proven untrue, then a person’s Christian faith could suffer. In Scripture, God tells us about his character. He promises Heaven and Hell judgement and salvation for those who believe and seek him. From a human perspective a great deal of evil can still befall people, though theologically we should not be certain about the type of evil that will or will not befall a person. Christians should, instead, be certain that God has promised in Scripture that he will always be with those who believe in him.

Fifth, the cross is seen as providing salvation, but the suffering of taking up the cross for Christians is sometimes overlooked. Carson noted that many Christians struggle with the concept of dying daily and suffering as Christ was willing to suffer. This problem may be due to a lack of emphasis on discipline in the Church which must go hand in hand with belief. The believing part is not as difficult as the discipline part, as discipline often requires pain which people naturally like to avoid.

World View Errors

First, atheism and a mechanistic Universe. In fairness, the following is a definition of atheism from

The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy:

Atheism (from Greek a-, ‘not’, and theos, ‘god’), the view that there are no gods. A widely used sense denotes merely not believing in God and is consistent with agnosticism. A stricter sense denotes a belief that there is no God; this use has become the standard one. In the Apology Socrates is accused of atheism for not believing in the official Athenian gods. Some distinguish between theoretical atheism and practical atheism. A theoretical atheist is one who self-consciously denies the existence of a supreme being, whereas a practical atheist may believe that a supreme being exists but lives as though there were no god. Pojman (1995)(1996: 51-52).

Carson stated on atheism:

There are many variations on this worldview. The basic problem with it, as far as the subject of this book is concerned, is how to avoid depreciating evil. If there is no God and no criterion of goodness outside the universe itself, if all that happens is simply the wastage of evolution, the chance bumping of atomic and subatomic particles, what rational person should feel any outrage before ostensible "evils" at all?

Atheism holds no attractions to the committed believer. What we must see, however, for our own peace of mind, is that it offers no solution to the problem of evil. It "resolves" the problem by saying, in effect, that evil is not there. Christian witness must press the matter home: atheism has often challenged Christianity with the problem of evil, but its own version of the same problem is surely less believable, at the end of this violent twentieth century, than any difficulty that must be faced by Christians. Carson (1990: 28)

Concerning Carson’s point on evolution, I think what he says is valid. Without a creator God, the Universe is just a chance happening, and a rational person should not be outraged about things occurring which some may call evil. If things occur by chance without a creator, then there is not a mind behind them. There is thus not a creative mind present who will possess morality.

Creation will exist not via a moral creator, but via amoral evolution. Therefore, morality cannot be imposed on this chance creation and evil, technically, would not exist at all. In other words, for evil to exist, it must have a moral good standard to be compared to. Without the existence of God, the idea of morality is left to human thinking which is on shaky ground, rejecting God as the absolute moral authority.

An atheist can be moral, but I think this morality is not based on a solid foundation without a belief in an objective God who is the final source of universal law.

A few years ago, I debated this point with an atheist acquittance (acquaintance)and he stated that, for example, it was wrong to kill a human being because he/she was sentient which meant that he/she had the power of perception. I think the term rational would have been a better word to use in this case. It would better separate humankind from animals, as human beings have higher reasoning power than animals with the ability to set up civilizations and write history, to name two examples. His point, however, was that human beings with higher rational thought should not be murdered, and that nature showed that this was wrong. I agreed with him but then asked how would we know that all rational human beings have equal value. Many people are mentally disabled and not fully rational in a sense. By his model, some observers with extreme views could consider these mentally disabled people less valuable and worthy of murder.

I noted that if, instead, we accepted that all humanity was made by God and that all people had equal value because God had made them, and if as stated (in Scripture) it was wrong to murder, then we would have a solid reason not to murder. God could have made mentally disabled people with a purpose, and perhaps with the idea of eventually correcting their problem in this life or the next.

My atheist acquaintance was wise enough to admit that my point was valid, and that even though he and I had a similar morality on the issue of murder, that his concept had a weak intellectual foundation. The key was to make God the highest moral law, and not purely human rationality.

Concerning Carson’s statement on atheism, he noted that atheism solves the problem of evil by denying it, yet it must be said that Christianity is criticized by some atheists because of suffering. So it is assumed by these critical atheists that suffering is wrong, but again where is the moral basis for this assumption?

Second, God as less than omnipotent. Carson first set out to mention, what I have already discussed in this thesis, that God could not commit the logically impossible. Carson then stated: "By confessing that God is omnipotent, then, we mean that God can do anything that is not logically impossible". Carson (1990: 29). He then mentioned the idea that many people have sought to "solve the problem of evil" by denying that God is omnipotent. Thus, "God they say, does not stand behind evil in any sense. If evil and suffering take place, it is because someone or something else did it". Carson (1990: 29).

Carson gave a variety of variations of this view, and then stated that they cannot be squared with Scripture. He discussed these verses in his Chapter 11, where he stated that God’s sovereignty is compatible with human choice and responsibility. This will be discussed later in this thesis.

However, when I examine the Book of Job for example, I see in 1:8 God mentioning Job to Satan, it seems that God was desiring Satan to take action against Job. Indeed in 1:12, he allows Satan to destroy Job’s possessions, and later in 2:6 Satan was allowed to harm Job but not take his life. This story certainly seems to demonstrate God’s power over Satanic evil. God is sovereign over it and indirectly sanctions it.

Erickson stated, concerning the problem of evil and God:

God is like a counterpuncher or, perhaps more accurately, like a judo expert who redirects the evil efforts of sinful men and Satan in such a way that they become the very means of doing good. We must recognize here the amazing nature of divine omnipotence. If God were great and powerful, but not all-powerful, he would have to originate everything directly, or he would lose control of the situation and be unable to accomplish his ultimate purposes. But our omnipotent God is able to allow evil men to do their very worst, and still he accomplishes his purposes. Erickson (1984: 400).

I agree with Erickson here in that God is redirecting the works of evil for good, and that he must be omnipotent to do this with complete success; however, when looking at Job, it appears that God does more than merely redirecting evil. He initiated the situation with Satan and Job. So to use Erickson’s martial arts analogy, God can counterpunch and redirect evil, but it seems he actually challenged the opponent. Therefore, like a martial artist who challenged another martial artist to a fight and then counteracted the attacker, God challenged Satan in regard to Job, and then turned the evil committed towards good purposes. It can clearly be seen here that God is in ultimate control. He initiated the situation in which evil would befall Job, and then used the work of the evil one for good purposes.

Third, Deism. Carson stated:

A deist believes there is a transcendent god, and may hold that this god is a person, but denies that this god reveals himself personally. The deist thinks of god as the creator who set this universe on its present way, in much the same way as a watchmaker takes care to produce a well designed and working mechanism but has no interest or control in his product once it has left his hand. This god is too "big" and transcendent to bother with little things like human beings and what we perceive to be "evil" and "suffering" in much the same way that we human beings do not give a lot of thought to whatever suffering and accidents may befall, say slugs or head lice. Carson (1990: 31)

David A. Pailin stated:

‘Deism’ is now used to refer to belief in the existence of a supreme being who is regarded as the ultimate source of reality and ground of value but as not intervening in natural and historical processes by way of particular providences, revelations and salvific acts.
Pailin (1999: 148).

Carson noted that deism was not Scriptural as God is continually seen in Scripture as caring for and interacting with his creation. Carson also stated: "Like the god who is not omnipotent (if for different reasons), the deist god is unable to offer any solace to those who suffer." Carson (1990: 32).

I agree with these points. For a person to hold to deism, he/she for the most part, must reject the supernatural revelation which inspired Scripture and the supernatural presence of the prophets, Christ, the Apostles and modern works of the Holy Spirit. Deism thus largely becomes a philosophical viewpoint separate from any type of divine revelation. Its findings are merely deduced by human reason and God is viewed as not demonstrating himself to the creation in a personal way. Therefore, evil is not something that God can be held responsible for. It is a result of nature and bad human choices.

Fourth, Pantheism. Carson stated:

Once again, there are many variations. The heart of the matter, however, is that this structure of thought insists that "god" and the universe are one. There is no chasm between creator and created. All that is, is god; god is whatever is.

In this worldview, not only adopted by most Hindus but the working assumption of the entire New Age movement, god is not a transcendent "other" who is personal, who can come from beyond to help us. The entire universe belongs to one order. Within this universe, however, there are levels of attainment. What Christians see as sin or evil, pantheists are likely to see as imperfections in reality that need to be removed by progressive self-realization, progressive self-improvement. The goal of human beings is not to have their sins forgiven and to be reconciled to a God who holds them to account, but to spiral up the cycle of life, perhaps through reincarnation, but certainly through meditation, self-focus, self-improvement. Carson (1990: 32) Simon Blackburn stated concerning pantheism: "The view that God is in everything, or that God and the universe are one." Blackburn (1996: 276)

There are two major reasons why I, philosophically, dismiss pantheism. One, to me it is illogical to propose that an impersonal God can create, or somehow cause, personal beings. It makes sense that an infinite personal being could create finite personal beings with some similar characteristics, but for an impersonal being to create beings with personality seems untenable.

Two, Carson mentioned that the removal of evil in pantheism is believed to take place through self-progression. Without an objective personal God, however, what basis does pantheism have to call something evil? How is pantheism to determine what is out of order with the cosmic order? It would seem to me that an impersonal "it" that creates the Universe does not have character and is amoral, and thus it is neither good nor evil. The cosmos resulting from it would be amoral and nothing should be seen as evil within it.

It should be noted that there is a difference between God being in everything in pantheism, and God being omnipresent in Christianity. Pantheism assumes monism, God and Universe are one, God is everywhere and in everything so that each human being is in fact God. Christianity assumes God is everywhere but yet separate from his creation. What is the difference? Why am I not God? God is present where my spirit and body are present, yet he wills that I have a will separate from his, a life separate from his, the same is true for all his created beings. Therefore, I could, hypothetically, think that there is no God. As well, I could disobey him and sin.

Whereas in pantheism, those who do wrong are considered to be misunderstanding what they are a part of, however, I think this is untenable. If indeed we were part of God we could not depart from what we were, and there would be no fracture. The fact that we sin demonstrates that although God is infinite we still have the power to will not to be one with him in obedience, and thus evil exists.

The evil that exists in the world is a much greater testament to human separation from God as opposed to the concept of human union with God with misunderstanding. Human beings sin against God because their will is apart from him although his infinite being is always present, however, he can be present yet still have disobedience exist in his creation. To make a convincing argument of how humanity, being divinity, fails to realize this fact and act accordingly, is very difficult. For divinity to remain pure and able to reincarnate human beings, for example, seems almost intellectually impossible to accomplish, when human beings within divinity continue to commit wrong actions. Pantheism does not make sense because it fails to separate God’s nature from that of his creation. If the nature was indeed the same, there would be no fracture.

4. Understanding Sin

Within Chapter 3 of Carson’s work entitled The Price of Sin, Carson explained sin’s beginning, what it was and how it related to suffering and evil. He described Adam and Eve and the Garden of Eden. He related sin to suffering in this way:

Between the beginning and the end of the Bible, there is evil and there is suffering. But the point to be observed is that from the perspective of the Bible’s large scale story line, the two are profoundly related: evil is the primal cause of suffering, rebellion is the root of pain, sin is the source of death. Carson (1990: 42)

Carson’s idea tied in with Paul’s comments in Romans 6:23 that the wages of sin is death. To Carson, disobedience to God in the Garden of Eden caused human evil which led to suffering and death. Carson mentioned that evil was evil, and a rejection of God:

In this primal sense, then, evil is evil because it is rebellion against God. Evil is the failure to do what God demands or the performance of what God forbids. Not to love God with heart and soul and mind and strength is a great evil, for God has demanded it; not to love our neighbor as yourself is a great evil, for the same reason. To covet someone’s house or car or wife is a great evil, for God has forbidden covetousness; to nurture bitterness and self-pity is evil, for a similar reason. The dimensions of evil are thus established by the dimensions of God; the ugliness of evil is established by the beauty of God; the filth of evil is established by the purity of God; the selfishness of evil is established by the love of God. Carson (1990: 44)

So, as Carson understood it, human actions outside of the nature, character and commands of God, were sin. This led to moral decay with moral suffering and Carson included natural evils within this as well. He did not attempt to explain how sin directly worked towards moral and natural evil in an individual’s life.

In the end, I agree with Bloesch that natural evil is a mystery. He stated:

The origin of sin is indeed a mystery and is tied in with the problem of evil. The story of Adam and Eve does not really give us a rationally satisfactory explanation of either sin or evil (this was not its intention), but it does throw a light on the universal human predicament. It tells us that prior to human sin there was demonic sin which provides the occasion for human transgression. Orthodox theology, both Catholic and Protestant, speaks of a fall of the angels prior to the fall of man, and this is attributed to the misuse or abuse of the divine gift of freedom. It is the general consensus among orthodox theologians that moral evil (sin) sets the stage for physical evil (natural disaster), but exactly how the one causes the other will probably always remain a subject of human speculation. Bloesch (1996: 1013).

5. Hell

Carson discussed this concept in his Chapter 6, Curses and Holy Wars-and Hell. He made some interesting points.

First, he attempted to defend the reality and harshness of Hell. He noted that metaphorical use in Scripture does not demerit Hell’s harshness.

Even if we note that many of these images are drawn from parables, even if we assume that the language is metaphorical, metaphors are doing their job, they are evoking images of a horrible existence. And the shocking language Jesus uses is confirmed elsewhere in the New Testament. Carson (1990: 101).

Second, Jesus is certain of Hell’s existence and sure of the wickedness of the human heart. Jesus’ perspective was in line with others throughout Scripture. In Jeremiah 17:9 it states in clause a, "the heart is more deceitful than all else," and in clause b, "and is desperately sick;" New American Standard Bible (1984). Again, we see that Paul said in Romans 3:23 "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." New American Standard Bible (1984). Jesus did not seem to struggle with the existence of Hell, nor the need for it.

Third, there is no repentance in Hell. Carson mentioned the rich man from Luke 16:19-31. There is a cry for relief and concern for his brothers, but yet no repentance. Interestingly, from strictly a human perspective, the rich man is still showing human goodness, in that he wants his brothers warned about their impending doom. Perhaps this demonstrates the great difference between God’s perfection standard which is true goodness, and human goodness which, in my opinion, is engulfed in total depravity meaning all areas of the human being are affected, yet evil is limited in degree. So, even those who are evil can still care for their loved ones.

Human goodness does not equal repentance that, through Christ’s work, can lead to our transformation into beings like Christ. Because there is no repentance, Hell continues. Carson stated:

Perhaps, then, we should think of hell as a place where people continue to rebel, continue to insist on their own way, continue societal structures of prejudice and hate, continue to defy the living God. And as they continue to defy God, so he continues to punish them. And the cycle goes on and on and on. Carson (1990: 102).

I have mentioned this concept previously and I think it is in line with both God’s punishment and with God in love, allowing people to choose their ultimate destination.

Fourth, Carson mentions that some Theologians favour annihilationism believing eternal punishment is not just. As I noted before, Hell is not a temporal punishment for temporal sin, but everlasting punishment for an everlasting sin position against God.

Fifth, Carson noted that if God only saved one person that would be by his grace as none are deserving. Carson stated that God did not arbitrarily consign some to Heaven and some to Hell, but in light of Romans 3:28, where is says that man is justified by faith apart from works of the law, it seems that God does not choose believers based on good works or their personal goodness.

Therefore, I conclude that God’s basis for the choice of some is somewhat of a mystery. In his grace alone, through the Holy Spirit, he knows which human beings, those who contain no real goodness and have no merits for salvation, will join him for all everlasting existence.

Human choice is an element in this but no fallen human beings can autonomously choose to be saved, a human being must first be moved by the Holy Spirit to choose God. Why God saves some sinners and not others is not totally understood. It is not by human good works, it is not by unaided human will, but by God’s grace alone.

It can, however, be deduced that unlike fallen angels, humanity, at least some humanity, is restorable. I conclude from the Gospel, at least something is present outside of good works in saved humanity, that allows God to restore them, and it appears that since the Gospel was for humankind alone, fallen angels are not restorable.

What is the difference between fallen human beings and fallen angels? This is of course unknown, but Thiessen suggests that angels were never a race, since they were and are asexual. They were, instead, a company. He stated: "Because they are a company and not a race, they sinned individually, and in not in some head of the race". Thiessen (1956:192). With this idea, Thiessen is noting that with humanity when Adam and Eve sinned, all their human offspring became sinful by nature. With angels, there was no offspring, so each angel had sinned individually making a corporate restoration work by Christ for fallen angels impossible.

Under the Thiessen corporate model, Jesus could not die for fallen angels like he did for humanity, because fallen angels were not interconnected in nature as were humans. They could not be changed in nature as a group as restored human beings could be. So, Christ would have to restore each individual fallen angel by changing every angel’s individual corrupted nature. However, I think that Thiessen’s idea does answer the question why God could not save angels as individuals. Even though each human being was a descendent of Adam and Eve, he/she still had an individual spirit that needed a change in nature, so why could God not do this with fallen angels individually?

I would rather conclude that fallen angels have existed in the supernatural realm in great measure and have experienced God in that realm. To reject God after that knowledge and experience is to put oneself beyond the possibility of restoration. Human beings on the other hand live primarily in the natural physical realm and remain somewhat unaware of the supernatural realm, although guilty of sin. A fallen human being may have, at best, little supernatural experience with God, and certainly not have the heavenly experience of angels. Therefore, in ignorance, at least some human beings are restorable.

6. Death

Carson discussed death in Chapter 7, Illness, Death, Bereavement. Carson made five interesting comments concerning death and suffering.

"First, death must be seen, not as the supreme instance of cosmic lack of fairness, but as God’s well-considered sentence against our sin." Carson (1990: 110). Carson stated that death was God’s judicial sentence against human beings, as in Genesis 2:17, where if they ate of the forbidden fruit they would die. Carson goes on to state:

Death is God’s limit on creatures whose sin is that they want to be gods (Gen. 3:4-5; Rom. 1:18-23). The true God is holy; he is unique, and cannot, by his very nature, tolerate those who try to relativize him. We are not gods; and by death we learn that we are only human. Our pretensions are destroyed. We are cast off, and all our yesterdays "are one with Nineveh and Tyre."

At the same time, we cry out against this limitation, not only because in our rebellion we still want to become gods, but because we have been made in the image of God. We are not mere mammals. We are persons. Carson (1990: 111).

So, to Carson, death was a valid punishment to human beings, and it also showed that they were limited and not god in any sense; but, being made in the image of God, human beings desired to live, and God is gracious and provides everlasting life for those who live in Christ. Salvation is given to those who believe and, thus, everlasting life.

I do not believe that humankind was necessarily created immortal. The fact that human beings could die demonstrates this. I believe that if human beings would not have sinned, God would have transformed them into a state similar or identical to that of future resurrected Christians (and Old Testament believers). So, they were not immortal, but had that potential. Erickson stated:

Since physical death is as a result of sin, it seems probable that man was created with the possibility of living forever. He was not inherently immortal, however; that is, he would not by virtue of his nature have lived on forever. Rather, if he had not sinned, he could have partaken of the tree of life and thus have received everlasting life. He was mortal in the sense of being able to die; and when he sinned, that potential or possibility became a reality. We might say that he was created with contingent immortality. He could have lived forever, but it was not certain that he would. Upon sinning he lost that status. Erickson (1994: 1171).

"Second, illness and death can be the immediate judicial consequence of a specific sin." Carson (1990: 112). Carson pointed out that some people in Scripture suffered because of sin. An example he used was a paralysed man (John 5:14), as Jesus warns him to cease sinning in order to avoid something worse than being paralysed. Carson mentioned it should not be assumed that people suffering because of sin are the worst sinners. He stated: "The conclusion, rather, is that sin merits such punishment." Carson (1990: 113). The idea being that it is only by God’s grace that the Lord spares us from instant death, so anyone could suffer because of their sin.

"Third, illness and death are not necessarily the immediate judicial consequence of a specific sin." Carson (1990: 113). Logically, most ailments fall within this category as not being traceable to one specific sin or sins.

I agree with Carson’s view that it is wrong to assume that specific sin causes specific suffering, unless it can be clearly demonstrated otherwise through reason or revelation. I, instead, conclude that suffering is a result of sin in general terms, in most cases. Carson stated:

Practically speaking, this means that it is almost always wrong, not to say pastorally insensitive and theologically stupid, to add to the distress of those who are suffering illness impending death, or bereavement, by charging them with either: (a) some secret sin they have not confessed, or (b) inadequate faith, for otherwise they would certainly have been healed. The first charge wrongly assumes that there is always a link between a specific ailment and a specific sin; the second wrongly assumes that it is always God’s will to heal any ailment, instantly, and that he is blocked from doing so only by inadequate or insufficient faith. Carson (1990: 114).

Carson is correct. It is usually unwise to attempt to tie in a person’s sin with struggles and suffering, particularly in the context of divine judgement as if we know when God will judge someone in this earthly life.

"Fourth, there are some illnesses and deaths that are the consequences of sinful acts or behavior, where there is no supernatural judicial sentence but the "natural" outworking of cause and effect, under God’s providence." Carson (1990: 114). Carson’s point here is that often sinful behaviour naturally results in suffering. This needs little explanation. An example would be anger leading to physical fighting, leading to damage to the body. "

Fifth . . . . suffering and pain, including that which derives from illness and bereavement, may serve to bring about a good end when they are mingled with faith." Carson (1990: 115). The lesson here is that Christians can learn from suffering and this, again, needs little explanation, but when people are weak they often turn to God and others for support.

7. Compatibilism

Definition

Chapter 11, entitled The Mystery of Providence, is the centre piece of Carson’s book and sets out his philosophical outlook concerning the problem of evil in light of God’s sovereignty and human freedom. Carson stated:

The Bible as a whole, and sometimes in specific texts, presupposes or teaches that both of the following propositions are true:

God is absolutely sovereign, but his sovereignty never functions in such a way that human responsibility is curtailed, minimized, or mitigated.

Human beings are morally responsible creatures–they significantly choose, rebel, obey, believe, defy, make decisions, and so forth, and they are rightly held accountable for such actions; but this characteristic never functions so as to make God absolutely contingent.

In what follows, I shall argue that the Bible upholds the truth of both of these propositions simultaneously. The view that both of these propositions are true I shall call compatibilism. We could call this view anything we like, but for various historical reasons this seems like a good term to use. All I mean by it is that, so far as the Bible is concerned, the two propositions are taught and are mutually compatible. Carson (1990: 201).

Selected Biblical Overview

Carson listed and discussed some Biblical examples of compatibilism and I will review some of these. In Genesis 50:19-20 it describes the reactions of the formerly enslaved Joseph to his brothers who had sold him into slavery. Carson stated:

Joseph allays their fears, and insists he does not want to put himself in the place of God. Then he looks back at the brutal incident when he was so badly treated, and comments, "You intended to harm me, but God intended it for good to accomplish what is now being done, the saving of many lives."

The parallelism is remarkable. Joseph does not say that his brothers maliciously sold him into slavery, and that God turned it around, after the fact, to make the story have a happy ending. How could that have been the case, if God’s intent was to bring forth the good of saving many lives? Nor does Joseph suggest that God planned to bring him down to Egypt with first-class treatment all the way, but unfortunately the brothers mucked up His plan somewhat, resulting in the slight hiatus of Joseph spending a decade and a half as a slave or in prison. The story does not read that way. The brothers took certain evil initiatives, and there is no prior mention of Joseph’s travel arrangements.

As Joseph explains, God was working sovereignly in the event
of his being sold into Egypt, but the brothers’ guilt is not thereby assuaged (they intended to harm Joseph); the brothers were responsible for this action, but God was not thereby reduced to a merely contingent role; and while the brothers were evil, God himself had only good intentions. Carson (1990: 205-206).

The concept here is similar to that of John Calvin whom I mentioned earlier in this thesis. Human beings sin by choice and nature, yet God uses their actions for the greater good. From Carson’s words, the story of Joseph is not merely that God turned the evil will of the brothers into something good, but that God was working sovereignly in willing, in a sense, Joseph’s temporary captivity in order that, eventually, the Hebrew people would be led out of Egypt by Moses. Many Hebrews in Egypt were descendants of Jacob’s sons. In Old Testament Survey it is stated concerning the story of Joseph: "This carefully constructed story, . . . is one long lesson–God’s providence brings to nought the plots of men and turns their evil intent to his own ends." La Sor, Hubbard and Bush (1987: 113).

Another Old Testament passage used by Carson was 1 Kings 8:46ff.

He quotes verse 58:

At the dedication of the temple, Solomon not only can ask that God will respond to His people in a certain way when they repent of their sin and turn again to Him, but he can also say "May he turn our hearts to him, to walk in all his ways and to keep the commands, decrees and regulations he gave our fathers." Carson (1990: 206).

Carson was pointing out that compatibilism,the idea, was a concept known to Solomon as he spoke those words. He knew the human responsibility of the people in Israel to follow God, but also understood that God had the ability to move people’s hearts. Martin noted: ". . . the behavioural condition is made less harsh by the prayer may he turn our hearts to him, but reappears in its stark demand: But your hearts must be fully committed . . ." Martin (1986: 405).

As Martin noted, there are two ideas being put across in the passage, (1) that God has the ability to turn their hearts, and (2) their hearts must be fully committed to God. It appears necessary for both of these concepts to occur for relationships between human beings and God to continue successfully. The sinfulness of human beings in their will seems to mean that God must influence people in order for them to seek him. At the same time, however, God does not force human beings into submission, so there is a need for human beings to follow God willingly. This is not contradiction but it is compatibilism. It could be concluded that once God enlightens the human mind with his spirit, people retain a sinful nature but have the ability to seek the guidance of God, and thus there is human responsibility to obey God as seen in the context of this passage.

Carson stated that Philippians 2:12-13 was an important verse concerning compatibilism:
Therefore, my dear friends, as you have always obeyed–not only in my presence, but now much more in my absence–continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you to will and to act according to his good purpose.

This passage is extremely important, as much for what it does not say as for what it does. It does not say that God had done his bit in your salvation, and now it is up to you. Still less does it suggest that because God is working in you "to will and to act according to his good purpose" you should therefore be entirely passive and simply let him take over. Nor is it (as not a few commentators wrongly suggest) that God has done the work of justification in you, and now you must continue with your own sanctification.

Paul describes what the Philippians must do as obeying what he has to say, and as working out (not working for!) their own salvation. For assumption is that choice and efforts are required. The "working out" of their salvation includes honestly pursuing the same attitude as that of Christ (2:5), learning to do everything the gospel demands without complaining or arguing (2:14), and much more. But at the same time, they must learn that it is God himself who is at work in them "to will and to act according to his good purpose." God’s sovereignty extends over both their willing and their actions. Carson (1990: 210-211).

According to Carson’s interpretation, God completes all the work for salvation but the pursuing of a Christ like attitude is the working out of one’s salvation; however, Ralph P. Martin, in his Philippians commentary stated concerning this passage: "It seems clear, however, that the true exegesis must begin with a definition of salvation, not in personal terms but in regard to the corporate life of the Philippian church." Martin (1987: 115). H. C. Hewlett agreed and stated: "This salvation is a present one, and not so much individual as collective." Hewlett (1986: 1445).

Even if the salvation described in the context of working out is more corporate in nature than it is personal, the compatibilism idea is not dead in this passage for God is still requiring human beings to obey him on a corporate level. As well, any corporate entity is made up of individuals, so if there are not enough individuals working with Christ in obedience then corporate obedience will not be possible.

Compatibilism Discussed

First, Carson rightly, in my view, defends compatibilism as logical but somewhat of a mystery.

(1) Most people who call themselves compatibilists are not so brash as to claim that they can tell you exactly how the two propositions I set forth in the last section fit together. All they claim is that, if terms are defined carefully enough, it is possible to show that there is no necessary contradiction between them. In other words, it is outlining some of the "unknowns" that are involved and show that these "unknowns" allow for both propositions to be true. But precisely because there are large "unknowns" at stake, we cannot show how the two propositions cohere.

I think this analysis is correct. But what it means is that I am still going to be left with mysteries when I am finished. All that I hope to achieve is to locate these mysteries more precisely, and to show that they are big enough to allow me to claim that when the Bible assumes compatibilism it is not adopting nonsensical positions. Carson (1990: 212-213)

I am in agreement with Carson’s concept here. Compatibilism, similar to the idea of God’s existence, has elements of mystery. Christianity does not have to prove that concepts such as these are empirically valid. There are some logical ideas that are neither empirically provable nor, through deduction, can these ideas be completely understood; however, it can be seen in Scripture that compatibilism is taught. There is both God’s sovereignty and human choice and responsibility. One does not cancel out the other. Reason also shows us that human beings have free choice, to some degree, yet there are external factors which influence these choices since human beings are limited and not all powerful. Certainly God could be one of these external factors that influences free choice without determining human choice.

Second, Carson noted that compatibilism being true means God stands behind good and evil, but in different ways.

To put it bluntly, God stands behind evil in such a way that not even evil takes place outside the bounds of his sovereignty, yet the evil is not morally chargeable to him: it is always chargeable to secondary agents, to secondary causes. On the other hand, God stands behind good in such a way that it not only takes place within the bounds of his sovereignty, but it is always chargeable to him, and only derivatively to secondary agents.

In other words, if I sin, I cannot possibly do so outside the bounds of God’s sovereignty (or the many texts already cited have no meaning), but I alone am responsible for that sin–or perhaps I and those who tempted me, led me astray and the like. God is not to be blamed. Carson (1990: 213).

Carson, like Calvin, sees God as willing evil for the greater good, but God remains untainted by sin. This certainly is a mysterious concept but logical. All analogies break down but compatibilism can be deduced in creation. It is as though God’s creation is a chess game. He has sovereignty over the game yet is one of the players, and is the chess master. No matter what moves God’s opponent makes against him, God will ultimately prevail. The moves are freely made by the opponent, but the nature of the game created by God, who is infinite, means that God is in ultimate control and he will not lose the match. The creation, like this chess game, is God’s domain, so it is logical for him to create an opposition and give opponents free will, yet still work out his ultimate purposes without contradicting his perfect nature.

Some points on Carson’s use of mystery with regard to compatibilism.

First, intellectually, I would prefer that the term mystery never be mentioned when formulating theological and philosophical concepts. However, in regard to God we are dealing with an infinite being who has chosen not to provide in Scripture, or anywhere, his specific viewpoint on how he can be sovereign and yet deem human beings responsible regarding the problem of evil. Yet, as Carson’s states compatibilism is not an illogical concept and is Scriptural.

Second, Carson’s purpose is writing his text was not to provide a theological defence of the concept of compatibilism. I think that if one was to write such a defence, then a further logical, speculative theology could be developed. The term mystery then could be largely avoided, but some questions about God would still remain unanswered. In my view, because of God’s infinite transcendent nature, all attempts to try to completely understand him will fail. This is true regardless of theological bias, but I think God has revealed himself somewhat in Scripture.

Third, my purpose in writing this thesis is to review four authors and survey their two denominations. I would perhaps, in the future, like to write a theological defence and try to somewhat eliminate the mystery of compatibilism, but this is not my mandate here.

Fourth, I think Thiessen’s point on God’s omnipotence can be helpful here. He stated:
By the omnipotence of God we mean that He is able to do whatever He wills; but since His will is limited by His nature, this means that God can do everything that is in harmony with His perfections...

The possession of omnipotence does not, however, imply the exercise of His power, certainly not the exercise of all His power. God can do what He will to do; but He does not necessarily will to do anything. That is, God has power over His power; otherwise He would act of necessity and cease to be a free being. Nor does omnipotence exclude but rather imply the power of self-limitation. God is limited to some extent by the free will of His rational creatures. That is why He did not keep sin out of the universe by a display of His power; that is also why He does not save anyone by force. Thiessen (1956: 126).

With Thiessen’s idea, God has divine sovereignty, but for the sake of human beings fulfilling their purpose, he limits himself in order that they can freely choose to sin. God could remain in full control of his creation and use evil for the greater good, yet still will freedom for humanity to disobey him, and thus he could rightly hold them responsible for their sinful actions. God is limited by his free creatures by his choice, but he still has every right to hold them responsible for sin against him, and has the power for his ultimate plans to take place.

CHAPTER FIVE

Baptist Theologian - B. W. Woods

1. Forward

The text Christians In Pain was written by Bobby W. Woods, from here on referred to as B.W. Woods. This work was originally written in 1974, but when re-released in 1982, Woods was a Pastor at First Baptist Church in Muskogee, Oklahoma. Woods received his Doctorate at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Fort Worth, Texas. John P. Newport, a Professor of that same seminary wrote the forward for the text. He noted that:

The book is based on basic Biblical doctrines and is practical. Christianity can help explain suffering. Dr. Woods has given these basic explanations in a clear and helpful manner. . . . The genius of Christianity, however, is the practical help it gives in the midst of suffering. This book reflects this emphasis. Newport (1974)(1982: 9).

Woods dealt with some of the philosophical issues associated with the problem of evil. His book had Biblical emphasis, and dealt with the practical elements of suffering as well. He demonstrated that the work of Christ was the remedy to the problem of evil. The problem needed to be discussed but, thankfully, Christianity provided a logical, workable solution.

2. Non-Christian Alternatives

In Chapter 1, entitled The Non-Christian Perspective, Woods discussed alternative viewpoints concerning the problem of evil, and pointed out their deficiencies.

Atheism: Woods demonstrated that human existence would be largely meaningless if atheism was philosophically true. He stated:

Atheism sees suffering as another proof in its portfolio that life and history are meaningless. . . . Atheism has nothing to offer to those in the throes of suffering except to say that the sufferer merely bolsters its argument–an argument which, if won, would only bring a reward of utter emptiness. In his attempt to live without recourse to God by denying His existence, the atheist creates a much greater problem than that of suffering. He is left with the problem of how his own personality and rationality could have ever arisen in an impersonal and irrational world. Woods (1974)(1982: 16)

Regarding Woods’ first comment, I doubt that a typical atheist, or even Atheism as a movement, sees life and history as meaningless. Instead, they see life as temporal and not everlasting. This lends some validity to Woods’ comment since the depth of meaning of anything temporal is questionable. However, if life has temporal meaning leading to everlasting existence, life truly has more importance. I agree with Woods’ second comment. If through Atheism we accept that God does not exist, we are still left with the problem of suffering, but a much greater problem exists.

The problem being how it would be possible for rationality and personality to arise from scientific explanation alone, outside of an existence of a rational first cause Creator.

The Atheist is also left to make huge assumptions with limited knowledge concerning the idea of God. Thiessen stated: "Limited knowledge can infer the existence of God, but exhaustive knowledge of all things, intelligence, and time is needed to state dogmatically that there is none." Thiessen (1956: 66).

Apart from Scripture, on philosophical grounds alone, Atheism is not convincing. It makes a claim that it cannot prove by stating there is no God and/or a belief that there is no God. It seemingly requires a scientific explanation for God’s existence. An infinite, nonphysical God could never be proven this way, although creation which is physical, seemingly needs a creative mind behind it. If God was to be considered philosophically as a viable option, cumulative points would have to be considered, such as a need for a first cause and a personality to direct creation. When considering the infinite God as a concept, Atheism is not cautious enough. Since we are finite beings, our knowledge of an infinite God, if he existed, would be limited, and yet, at the same time, explaining the Universe without such a being seems untenable.

It should be noted that there exists an anti-clerical bias with some critics of Christianity in western society. There is a distrust of organized religion, and this viewpoint is likely a factor for many who choose Atheism as a philosophy. This is a mistake because many in the Christian church can see the errors within it, including the failings of the clergy, but Christianity and a belief in God is primarily about Christ’s work on earth and in heaven. It is not primarily about the conduct of God’s representatives on earth. In other words, instances of bad or even false representation of God and Christ on earth do not make Christianity invalid. Christianity should be examined by the words and philosophy in Scripture. Within the Bible it clearly points out that human beings cannot match God’s standards. This means that critics should judge the faith primarily by God’s standards in Scripture, and not by the standards of struggling Christians.

Escapism: Interestingly, Woods tried to categorize eastern religions as one group who did not deny God but attempted to escape suffering. Woods made two valid points in regard to Islam and Hinduism, but it must be noted that they are different in that Islam is a monotheist faith, Hinduism being polytheist. The fact that they have drastically different concepts of God alone means that they do not fit under the same religious umbrella. A concept that both faiths have in common is the denial of Christ’s work alone being essential for salvation, but these denials are true of all non-Christian philosophy.

Woods described Islam as deterministic, and thus the concepts of evil and God were difficult to intellectually separate. This thought needed to be articulated, however, Woods did not provide this work. If he was going to philosophically place Islam with Hinduism in regard to the problem of evil, some further explanation was needed. Not only are Islam and Hinduism under different religious umbrellas in regard to the concept of God, but Hinduism does not share the deterministic tendencies of Islam. Hinduism does not believe in one God who has preordained everything but, instead, the cosmos must work itself out.

He also mentioned the Hindu and Buddhist principal of reincarnation: "The only answer is to try by good works to be reincarnated in an ever higher existence until at last one can escape the cycle of life and find oblivion through union with the great world principle." Woods (1974)(1982:18).

Simon Blackburn defined reincarnation, also known as metempsychosis. "The transmigration of the soul, whereby upon death the soul takes up residence in a new body." Blackburn (1996: 241).

I will offer two objections to reincarnation. One is Biblical and is provided by R. M. Enroth.

Biblical Christianity, in contrast to reincarnational teaching, emphasizes grace, atonement, and forgiveness for fallen humanity through the once-for-all death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. The Christian’s disavowal of reincarnation is anchored in the biblical assertion that "man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment." (Heb. 9:27). Enroth (1996: 926).

Clearly the Biblical world view opposes reincarnation, as a spirit belongs to a body for everlasting existence after resurrection. There is the earthly life and then the afterlife. One’s position in the afterlife is judged by God. A belief in Christ means forgiveness of sins, disbelief in Christ means judgment for those sins. Judgment of sins means guilt and separation from God. There would thus be no need for reincarnation as a person’s destiny had been determined by their one earthly life.

Two, existence of the human spirit cannot be proven empirically, but in Christianity, at least there is Scriptural evidence of Christ’s bodily resurrection in which his body contained his spirit. Scripture states that believers will experience the same type of resurrection. Philosophically, it does not seem far-fetched for human beings in the afterlife, if it existed, to contain the same, yet altered (for everlasting life) spirit and body; however, in my view, there is neither empirical nor deductive evidence to support reincarnation.

Empirically, there would seemingly be no scientific way to prove reincarnation since spirits are seen as entering new bodies with different genetic code, each body thus appears to be distinct from another. From a deductive perspective, most people can barely remember their own past, let alone past lives. For people who claim to remember past lives it would be extremely hard to prove that they lived these lives, for those past lives would probably not be documented to see if they were actual, and if they were, it could be thought that perhaps the person claiming to have had a past life was simply using historical information.

As well, with the idea of reincarnation and karma ("the universal law of cause and effect, as applied to the deeds of people") Blackburn (1996: 206-207), without a clear recollection of past lives, I doubt that people can learn from past failings and achieve oneness with God. How can one learn from past mistakes which one cannot remember? It makes much more sense for one to be judged by God for earthly life and then receive a reward or punishment in understanding.

Reincarnation as escapism does not free one from the problem of evil. I cannot see a human being overcoming evil without God’s direct intervention, and without a conscious understanding of their own personal evil, as well as a need for divine deliverance. Even if reincarnation was true, all I could see occurring would be the continuation of everlasting evil as one would keep on committing the same mistakes over and over again, not having learned from unknown number of years of wrong actions.

Hedonism was also discussed by Woods. James A. Montmarquet defined Hedonism in the following way: "the view that pleasure (including the absence of pain) is the sole intrinsic good in life." Montmarquet (1996: 311).

Woods provided a similar definition: "Hedonism is a broad term used to encompass all theories that see pleasure as the ultimate goal of life and criterion for conduct. Anything that is fun is good. Anything that is not fun is bad and should be avoided." Woods (1974)(1982: 18). Basically, Hedonism sees pleasure as the most important thing in reality. Interestingly, Woods mentioned Playboyism, and stated of Hugh Hefner, Publisher of Playboy Magazine: "Hefner rejects any philosophy that holds a man must deny himself for others. The Playboy outlook says a man should love himself preeminently and pursue only his own pleasure." Woods (1974)(1982: 108).

Woods noted that happiness should be a result of a responsible life. Hedonism is not responsible since ones pleasure often exists at the expense of someone else’s pain. For example, considering Playboy, where women are viewed as objects sexually by both Hefner and the willing women participating, this magazine brings its participants money, fame and sexual gratification, but the Playboy philosophy represented in the magazine, through mass media influence, also causes women in society to be viewed as objects by many men. This can cause many women to be overlooked for their intellect, and looked upon more for their sexual beauty.

So, in a subtle fashion, the Playboy philosophy can bring pain to many people in society because Playboy Magazine exploits sexuality when, in reality, sexuality belongs in the context of marriage/committed relationship where the inner beauty of the person is more important than their outer image. With the Playboy philosophy, the outer beauty is far more important than the inner beauty.

It must be admitted that Hedonism is pleasurable to people. For example, as a pastor of a local church recently stated, most men struggle with pornography at some time. An advocate of the Playboy philosophy may state that its critics secretly desire that lifestyle. There can be an element of truth in this, but a wiser person, and certainly a Christ-centred person, should see that sexual conduct outside of a healthy marriage can lead to many destructive things such as divorce, abortion, venereal disease, HIV, and public disgrace. Only sexuality in commitment leads to something fulfilling over a long period.

The Hedonism represented with Playboy is irresponsible in that it hurts people and puts short term pleasure before long term fulfilment. Thus, it escapes the struggle of a serious relationship leading to long term fulfilment and instead seeks easier, shorter relationships. This, in no way, avoids evil. It simply promotes more evil in that extreme human selfishness just leads to more people being hurt.

Stoicism: Woods described Stoicism as follows:

In direct contrast to escapism stands Stoicism. Founded by Zeno, in
300 B.C., . . . With regard to suffering, Stoicism is apathetic. Without knowing it, many people follow the basic philosophy of Stoicism. Suffering is to be faced with a spirit of self-sufficiency. . . . The Stoic determines to live so that no person or thing is essential to his existence. He strives to arrive at the point where he does not care what happens to anyone, including himself. Woods (1974)(1982: 19-20).

Woods noted that Stoicism lead to the idea of not caring about oneself or others but this is not a solution to the problem of evil. Stoicism is merely a coping mechanism. I admit it can work to some degree, and one can be shielded from a lot of pain; however Biblically, Christians are not to be stoic but are to be aware of pain, to learn from it, and to seek to lessen it where possible. A danger of Stoicism is that the need for salvation through Christ could ultimately be overlooked, as well as the welfare of others.

3. Christian Perspectives

The Universe: Woods noted that the Universe could be explained by three possibilities, those being mechanical-natural order, natural laws, or by God and divine providence. Woods stated that the last option was the Christian one.

While God is the author of natural law, He is not its prisoner. He stands above it and uses it as he pleases. Science has increasingly become aware that the natural law is not as rigid as it once supposed. There are many unexplained variations that occur. Woods (1974)(1982: 24).

This description of the Universe by Woods, allows for at least a valid explanation of God’s interaction with humanity and miracles. If natural law was created by God and not equal to God, or part of God’s nature, then God could break the natural laws found in science and commit what some call miracles. There is no philosophical need to see God as equal to his creation, as God is infinite and beyond time and space, and thus beyond the physical. The physical was created by him and, thus, to temporarily break physical laws to commit a miracle, is tenable. The work of Christ’s incarnation, death, resurrection, and second coming is thus compatible with a scientific reality established by God who created the world, and yet is beyond it.

Certainly, the historical figures in the Old and New Testaments who claimed to have witnessed miracles have to be considered when one evaluates an explanation for our Universe. 

As J.D. Spiceland stated:

Christian faith is informed by the revelation of God to man in Scripture and in the mighty acts recorded there. . . .The continuing work of the church in the world may itself be viewed as evidence for the truth of the biblical concept of miracle. Spiceland (1996: 724).
A belief in the Christian God and Christ is not comparable to a belief in fictional Unicorns, or even UFOs or Atlantis I might add, for which their existence has been speculated but not proven. People and events are documented in sixty-six books of Scripture and other historical books.The Biblical books contain a consistent story of God’s work in humanity, and at times these books contain miracles.

Human Freedom: This subject has already been discussed within this thesis, and Woods takes a similar view to my previous three authors. He stated: "If man is to be a real person instead of a robot he must be free to make choices. God has allowed his freedom. Man holds in his hand the possibility of good and evil." Woods (1974)(1982: 25).

I have no major objection to Woods’ point although, because of humankind’s fallen nature and will to sin, true good is only possible by obeying God through his Holy Spirit. J.S. Whale stated: "Corruption touches even this. Even at its best, man’s goodness is poisoned; there is this canker or flaw in it, so that it actually becomes a barrier to his reconciliation with God." Whale (1958: 37).

God’s Will: Woods described God’s will in two ways. The first is permissive will. Here is his definition: "God operates with the tension of carrying out His divine purposes and respecting man’s freedom of choice." Woods (1974)(1982: 26). What Woods is stating here is that because of human freedom God lets human beings freely choose to sin. This is against his law and nature, and against what he wants for humanity; however, for his greater purposes human rebellion exists in his creation.

The second is purposeful will. Woods described this as the supreme good. Basically, this is the idea which has already been discussed via Calvin and Carson, that out of every circumstance, God works everything towards the good, particularly in the life of the believer. So this will could also be called God’s ultimate will. This is his primary will where his objectives will be met, whereas permissive will contains human rebellion, but since God is infinite and omnipotent, permissive will never stops purposeful will from taking place.

4. Impersonal Suffering

The Fall: Within Chapter 3, Impersonal Causes for Suffering, Woods begins with a discussion of the fall:

Man’s fall, his act of rebellion, was not experienced in solitary confinement. His whole environment was affected. There is a sense in which the natural world fell along with man. To be sure, the world of nature did not sin, for natural law is impersonal. Yet man’s fall required a divine rearrangement of nature. Man had been forewarned that rebellion would bring the curse of death (Gen. 2:17). Whereas man’s act of rebellion was an attempt to play god over the world of creation, now he must die at the hands of that world of nature. The world must become a dangerous place to live–so dangerous that no man can escape death! Woods (1974)(1982: 33).

Basically, the fall was rebellion against God. This altered God’s natural creation making it imperfect. It had become corrupted and human immorality could take place within it. The fall of Satan and demons, which occurred earlier since Satan was likely the Serpent of Genesis 3, had some effect in the supernatural realm, but nature fell when human beings fell. Genesis 3:17 mentions that the ground is now cursed, for example, and this did not take place until humanity fell.

The fall also introduced death and, of course, a dangerous existence for humanity, plants and animals. There exists within creation, Satanic beings, dangerous animals who hunt other animals, and human beings who are dangerous to themselves because of their corruption. There is total corruption in humanity in every area. This does not mean that the human being is as evil as possible, as discussed in my Lewis chapter. As Whale stated:

Total Corruption does not and never did mean that the stream of human history, instead of being crystal clear, is solid mud; but that it is impure, corrupted in every part of its course; that even the purest ideals and the most disinterested achievements of individuals and societies are, as we have already seen, tainted by sinful self-interest and pride. Whale (1958: 40).

Humanity is dangerous after the fall, but not because total corruption means people are totally evil from a human perspective. Human beings can still be kind to each other, but total corruption or depravity means that throughout every part of its being, humanity is sick and can only be healed by God. Humanity is a danger to itself and all natural creation. This is why, although humanity has made technological advances and some philosophical advances in regard to the acceptance of democracy in many countries, that humanity is still capable of the most brutal kind of evil. Humanity has not evolved to a point of overcoming evil. For humanity to be free of evil would require a change of nature which only God could provide.

Natural Disasters: Woods linked the fall of humanity and creation under human dominion, to the terrible natural disasters that took place. Although he mentioned that classifying natural events and calamities can be dangerous because often many good things in nature come out of what appear to be calamities. An example that comes to mind is that excessive rain can cause flooding and death but can also provide an area with ample water supply. He stated concerning disaster:

Natural calamities -- The divine rearrangement of nature from that of a protective environment to that of a dangerous one, allowing for human death as punishment of sin, permits nature to go on the rampage. Part of its "groaning" (Rom. 8:22) includes the area of natural catastrophe, floods, earthquakes, and hurricanes. Woods (1974)(1982: 37).

Mounce described the situation in Romans 8:22 as: "Currently, however, the entire universe is in travail as if it were giving birth." Mounce (1985:185). Mounce then goes on to quote Bruce, as will I, when he stated: "But the condition here described has apparently been going on since the fall; in any case, it carries with it hope of new life for all creation." Bruce (1996: 164). The damage done by humankind in the fall can be restored through the atoning work of Christ and his culmination upon his return. Cranfield stated of this verse:

Two thoughts, already implicit in v.19, are here expressed more clearly, on the one hand, the thought of the creation’s present painful condition, and on the other hand, the thought that the painful condition is not to no purpose but will have a worthwhile issue (expressed by the image of travail). Cranfield (1992: 198).

This idea is in agreement with Woods who stated: " . . . every aspect of the fallen natural world not only contributes to man’s death, but also points man towards divine delivery." Woods (1974)(1982: 37). Natural disasters, like death, demonstrate human weakness and the fact that creation is a dangerous place. It is not within the human capability to defeat the evils of death and natural disaster, only God himself can overcome these.

Moral Attributes: Woods stated that as the Universe contained "a moral system of cause and effect that operates." Woods (1974)(1982: 38). In other words, the law of nature in the Universe included moral law which was a reflection of the Creator’s nature. Woods stated:

The Ten Commandments are the basis of the moral law of the universe. They are the key to an understanding of life. Rather than being objective commands, they reveal the secret to a full life. They set forth the way of life that can be blessed. To transgress them is to fly in the face of a morally constituted universe which includes the make-up of the human soul. Woods (1974)(1982: 38).

Woods noted that as humanity broke these Commandments, suffering occurred. He noted: "Immorality always produces suffering in a moral universe." Woods (1974)(1982: 40). The fact that immorality causes suffering shows that something wrong has been committed, a law of nature has been broken and, thus, cause and effect takes place, and people suffer because of wrong actions in a corrupt Universe.

This does not mean that each time a person suffers it is their specific fault that causes them harm, rather human suffering is a result of human sin and a corrupted reality. Woods believed that the fall of humanity produced both human sin and a fallen creation, which both caused suffering for humanity.

5. Suffering from God

In Chapter 4, Divine Chastisement, Woods discussed the idea that the wrath of God could also be a cause of human suffering. He quoted Hebrews 12:5-6, where the Lord is said to chasten his children, and they are told not to despise this treatment. Woods stated that: "The idea of a holy God reacting in a personal way to the sins of men is everywhere portrayed in the Holy Writ." Woods (1974)(1982: 42). He, however, provided balance by noting that Christians should not judge if another person is suffering by God’s hand in wrath. This, in the context of this thesis, echoes Carson’s warning against making foolish spiritual judgements upon others who are suffering.

Woods described how suffering in wrath could lead the believer to a loving father, and direct a person towards Christlikeness, thus the evil suffered could lead a believer to spiritual growth. But Woods mentioned the other side of discipline:

Now the dangerous thing about discipline is that, while it is designed to draw us nearer the Lord, it may also drive us away unless we understand why God permits it, or administers it, as it may be the case. Woods (1974)(1982: 44).

Hughes stated that: "Discipline, indeed, as the Latin disciplinia implies, is a process of learning or schooling, and in every generation there are believers who pass through the school and who in doing so find blessing." Hughes (1990: 529).

Christians should examine themselves in prayer and fellowship with others whenever suffering takes place. If God is directly disciplining a person because of wrath, he/she may eventually have some understanding of why such discipline is taking place.

6. Suffering and Education

In Chapter 5, Suffering As Education, Woods discussed the seriousness of sin and how God could use this human problem for the education of his people. He mentioned King David’s sin of arranging a situation in battle for Uriah, husband of Bathsheba, that he be killed so David could then take her as his wife. After the murder took place, the prophet Nathan approached David and made it known that God was aware of the King’s sinful action. However, David seemed dulled to his own act of sin, at first, until Nathan made the King’s disobedience to God known to him.

Woods stated:

David’s problem lay in the idea that sin was serious for others, but not himself. He could become incensed over a man with great herds feeding a guest the only ewe of a poor neighbor (an account related by Nathan in order to awaken David of his sin), but had managed to remain quiet about his own affair with beautiful wife of Uriah–an affair that produced a pregnancy that required the death of the soldier Uriah whose duties in battle clearly eliminated him as father of the child.

Woods (1974)(1982: 55).

This certainly is not a hard concept to understand. As human beings, are we not often somewhat blind to our own sin? At the time of sinning believers think that they are in error, but they are more concerned with obtaining that which they desire. Each person commits untold sin for which God must issue correction, especially if people are Christians, and within his everlasting plans. This type of correction may or may not be from God’s wrath, as discussed earlier, but it always seems needed for education. Christians must be subject to God’s laws, especially in spirit. Porter stated that King David was sorry for his actions once Nathan confronted him:

David confessed his sin without any attempt at excuses. He clearly
acknowledged himself as subject to God’s law, and never showed resentment towards Nathan for his frankness. He was assured by Nathan of God’s forgiveness, and that he would not die. Nevertheless his sin must be punished. Porter (1986: 382).

When sinning, David probably thought he needed Bathsheba but, in reality, it was simply lustful desire, and thus after meeting Nathan, David knew his own guilt and was not resentful.

Human sin is connected to human desire. Human beings desire things and often will break God’s law to have what is sought after. Often human beings want that which clearly should not be theirs, as in David’s case, but sometimes the desires seem quite just and normal, as in normal physical and mental health.

Today, our needs are often misunderstood. In the evangelical Christian church it is sometimes said that God will always meet our needs; however, there could be confusion with the concept of ‘always’. Let us not forget that there are Christians who are blind, or missing limbs for example. Both sight and limbs are basic human needs. Some realize this in philosophical terms, but often these people are living in lonely rooms and homes, away from the mainstream, so they may not be seen and/or experienced by many in the church. In reality, God does always meet what we see as basic human needs, or scientifically what can be deemed as basic human needs such as good health; however, what God promised, mainly, is everlasting life if we believe in Christ as Saviour, and judgement for all humanity.

In Philippians 4:19, Paul promises his readers that God will supply their needs in Christ. However, Martin noted that: "The precise meaning of will meet as a wish-prayer, not a statement of fact, is a helpful insight." Martin (1989: 184). The fact that Paul is waiting for God to supply the reader’s needs means there is an element of faith involved, and in matters of faith, God sometimes does not deliver as expected although he will meet the needs of his people in order for them to best serve him.

God will meet the needs of the believer, mainly in the context of making it feasible for a person to complete his will for their individual life. This unfortunately, from a human perspective, leaves much room for suffering. Yes, God loves his people, but he has knowledge of what must take place in a believer’s life in a more complete way than any human being could be aware of.
He alone is omniscient.

Woods discussed, not only suffering as education, but also for spiritual growth, faith, for God to reveal himself, to learn of the reverence for life, to benefit others, and to suffer without reason. These concepts mentioned by Woods can all be summed up as suffering as discipline, as God wills suffering for believers in order that they be better suited to perform his will. In James, Chapter 1, it mentions that various trials produce stronger faith and endurance that lead to a Christian being complete and lacking in nothing. Woods’ reasoning in his discussion on suffering is that God uses suffering as a way of disciplining a believer in order to prepare one for better subsequent service.

As well, Woods noted that as Christians we needed to suffer in discipline as Christ did in obedience to God. "Self denial and pain are part of life, and a part of the calling of Him who suffered on the cross". Woods (1974)(1982: 108).

In his Chapter on Suffering Without Reason, Woods appealed to mystery and stated when discussing Job’s struggles that "he must be content being man, and must learn to live with the limited understanding of which man is possessed". Woods (1974)(1982: 118). I agree with

Woods point concerning a human being having to accept limited knowledge in regard to why they suffer, but there are always reasons for suffering. God knows the complete reason, and if people are open to God’s spirit and analytical of their life, they may understand some of the reasons for their suffering, as God uses their pain for the greater good as the years go by. So, there is never suffering without reason, and that suffering is generally used by God for discipline, and sometimes punishment as part of that discipline.

7. Death and Heaven

Woods made this comment concerning death:

Death forces every person to have a philosophy of life, to attempt to make some sense of existence, or to deny all sense of meaning, as the case may be. This places many in the category of the man who discovered he had been speaking prose all his life without knowing it. We each have an outlook on life, a philosophy. Woods (1974)(1982: 167).

Death can be ignored by people, which is often the case, seen as the empirical end of existence alone, or another view is to consider the concept of an earthly demise as leading to everlasting existence. Woods noted that many critics of Christianity had blasted the doctrines of heaven as nonsense, but he retorted: ". . . some of the greatest tragedies of human existence have grown out of naturalist beliefs that have caused men to grasp for everything now, believing there is no tomorrow." Woods (1974)(1982: 168). He then mentioned Hitler and Stalin as examples. His point is valid, but of course the poor reasoning behind that type of extreme naturalism does not make a belief in an afterlife valid.

Woods, wisely moved on to describe heaven in Scripture to strengthen his argument. He discussed heaven as a place of survival, where death has lost its sting and the problem of evil and suffering has ended. Hell, on the other hand, was described this way: "Perhaps the most fearful aspect of hell is its utter meaninglessness--its utter separation from all purpose, from all good, and most of all from God." Woods (1974)(1982: 170).

So death for the person who does not know Christ is an existence and continuation of the problem of evil in hell, while death for the Christian is in fact a release. He stated of the suffering believer: "He will indeed get better as soon as death grants his release." Woods (1974)(1982: 173).

With Woods’ concept, death is the ultimate end in the human problem of suffering of evil. As for the Christian, the method by which God ultimately turns suffering toward the greater good, is by the resurrection and transformation of dead mortal bodies into immortal ones in the Kingdom of Heaven. This is a Biblical concept as Revelation Chapter 21 describes this Kingdom.

With Woods’ idea then, suffering is used by God for our discipline and betterment, and ultimately death leading to resurrection clinches the process. To the critic of Christianity though, this seems like a poor existence as people suffer their entire lives and perish to nonexistence.

A Christian world-view sheds light on the problem of evil and suffering as it is all part of a process by which God wills his people into better creatures, fit for everlasting existence. This is a valid concept and documented throughout historical scripture. It is comforting but does not diminish the pain of suffering, but to know that one is suffering with a God-guided purpose is, in my opinion, more appealing than naturalistic views which exclude God and provide no purpose, or other religious views which fail to deal with the problem of sin and evil adequately. Woods, in his text has provided a good explanation of why Christians suffer and, in general. God’s purpose in that suffering.

8. God’s Love

It must be stated that Woods believed that the suffering and discipline involved in this world filled with evil, came from a loving God who cared for his human creation. This is a Biblical concept, as God’s purposes include a great care for his creation. Erickson noted that God demonstrated his love to humanity through his atoning work:

If you and I are having and argument on the bank of a stream, and you fall into the water and are in danger of drowning, and I, at great danger to my life, leap into the water to rescue you, my action will be regarded as a demonstration of love. But if you are standing safely on the bank of the stream, and I say, "See how much I love you!" and leap into the water and begin to thrash around, my action will not move you to love me or forgive me or be reconciled to me. You will more likely conclude that I am emotionally and mentally unstable.

So it is with the atonement. The death of Christ is a beautiful demonstration of God’s love and thus a powerful incentive to us to abandon our hostility towards God and respond in repentance and faith to the offer of grace. But it is effective as a demonstration of love precisely because we were lost and God cared enough about our condition to offer his Son as a sacrifice. Erickson (1994: 820).

Using Erickson’s thought, it can be concluded that God does not ask for discipline and sacrifice and then not perform these things himself. God is a being beyond physical suffering and sin, yet he comprehends these things and chose to intervene in history and participate in the atonement of humanity. Christ, as the God-man, disciplined himself and obeyed the Father to the point of death, even when he could have easily destroyed the Romans and Jews who were executing him. This demonstrated that God in Christ disciplined himself to complete a task that was humbling and difficult. Christ, as God, allowed his own creation to treat him terribly, yet he completed his required task to save humanity, and this surely demonstrated that he loved and cared for people.

God, through Christ, sacrificed because he was good, but at the same time because he loved humanity. In all human suffering he has always been present, he has defeated evil through his atoning work and this shall be culminated with the resurrection. Presently he desires that people seek him out when suffering.

Now does the divine Christ’s suffering as man mean that God within the Trinity understands evil and suffering in greater measure than before the atoning work? I personally think not, as I hold firmly to God having infinite knowledge and understanding, but the work of Christ supplies God with a superior method in which to relate with, and atone for his human creation. The pre-incarnate Christ was spirit, but Christ took a body for himself as well. God’s essential nature has not been changed, yet the Son of God had taken for himself an additional human nature and thus he was capable of dying and atoning for sinful humanity as both God and man. This could not have taken place without the incarnation.

This additional human nature allows Christ as a member of the human race to be its human restorer, as after the resurrection humanity will be like him with a perfect body and nature. Christ as a resurrected human being now has personal human experience with the problem of evil, as he has suffered himself and is an excellent mediator between God and humankind. He not only has understanding of humanity’s pain, but has personally suffered that pain, and can relate that to people in love.

CHAPTER SIX

Conclusion

1. The Survey

For my surveys, I have received fifty each, completed of Anglicans and Baptists who have attended a post-secondary denominational college, University or seminary, or are members of one of those denominations who have studied religion at a post-secondary level.

There were no other stipulations I set in drawing up the survey. I was not concerned with age, sex or theological position. I was simply looking for people who met the educational and denominational requirements. I used both regular mail and email to send out the questionnaires, and received back forms via both formats.

For my interviews, I selected five religious leaders from each denomination. These were a combination of people that I knew via my previous educational experiences, churches I had attended, and people that I had contacted via the Internet.

The findings from the surveys and interviews, and the examination of the four authors will shed light on the problem of evil and how it is being considered within two Christian groups. The statements within my survey were a result of my research on the problem of evil. I thought it best to make statements which seemed obviously required for the topic, and I wanted them to appear in a logical order. As well, I wanted to avoid only making statements that supported my own viewpoints on the topic. This means that I would make statements which could support an opposite viewpoint to previous statements. I wanted to demonstrate understanding of other viewpoints from my reading and, as well, I wanted the person filling out the survey to see a logical connection between statements and, that for the sake of consistency, to agree with one statement would sometimes mean that they could not agree with another.

I realize that this could be difficult for a person answering the questionnaire that had not researched the problem of evil, nor read any of my work, but I think a logical consistency in answers demonstrates better understanding of the topic. As well, a problem with the survey method is that the statements are short and do not always explain the full context of what is being stated. This can lead to confusion when answered. I was not, as accused by one person who answered my survey, trying to confuse Christians! I was simply attempting to put across relevant important statements on the problem of evil, and staying logical within that approach.

Statement one:

The first statement on the survey was stated as: God is infinite/limitless. My position on this statement is that Scripture and reason demonstrate this to be the case in the affirmative. Scripture does not use the philosophical term infinite to describe God, however, Erickson stated that the idea is indicated.

Jeremiah quotes God as saying, ‘Am I a God at hand,...and not a God afar off? (Jer. 23:23). The implication seems to be that a God at hand does not preclude his being afar as well. He fills the whole heaven and earth (v.24). Thus, one cannot hide oneself in ‘secret places’ so that he cannot be seen. God speaks of heaven as his throne and the earth as his footstool; the idea that man can confine God by building him a dwelling place is then, sheer folly. The psalmist found that he could not flee from presence of God–wherever the psalmist went, God would be there (Ps. 139:7-12). Erickson, Millard, J. (1985), Christian Theology (p. 273).

One could argue that Scripture is not indicating God is infinite as an attribute, but is, instead, stating that he is all powerful and knowing within his creation. In other words, he is simply of greater finite nature than anything in his creation. However, in Genesis 1, it is indicated that God made the Universe from nothing other than his will and power. Thus he must be beyond all things which he has created, so logically he is infinite in comparison to his creation, and nothing else existed before his creation. Therefore it could be deduced that he is infinite as an attribute, as it appears nothing existed beyond him before or after the creation of the Universe.

For this first statement, 94% of Anglicans agreed, 4% were not certain, while 2% disagreed. For Baptists, 98% agreed, while 2% were not certain.

There is with this point an agreement between myself and the great majority of my responders.

Statements two and three:

God is omnipotent.
God is perfectly holy.

These statements had to do with whether or not one believed that God was omnipotent and perfectly holy. Logically, once one believes that God is infinite, then he or she will very likely believe that God is omnipotent and holy beyond measure. It is not a surprise then that 92% of Anglicans stated that God was omnipotent with 8% not certain, and that 100% of Baptists agreed that God was omnipotent. As well, 100% of each denomination believed that God was perfectly holy.

Statement four:

The fourth statement was perhaps the most controversial. God wills evil for the greater good. I do take this viewpoint, and I am in agreement with the writings of John Calvin on this matter within The Bondage and Liberation of the Will, as well as in Institutes of the Christian Religion, and has been documented throughout the thesis. This idea has been discussed through this thesis. I am not stating that God sins in any way by willing evil for the greater good, nor does he force people or fallen angels to sin. People sin by nature and choice, and God uses this evil for the greater good. Since he is infinite and dealing with finite creation, all things work under the subjection of his will and I humbly, and without complete understanding, state that he manages the Universe in a far more controlled manner than to simply allow evil to take place. By not preventing all evil, and by using it for the greater good, he is in a sense willing it. The difference between God’s will and the sinful will when evil takes place, is that God’s will and motives alone remain pure and consistent within God’s good purposes.

The idea of human free will alone does not demonstrate why God has to allow evil, as opposed to willing it. I do believe that human beings require a certain level of freedom to choose or reject God, but God could have prevented evil’s existence by not creating angels and then human beings.

God knew there would be a fall, and in a sense willed the results of that fall by not preventing it from taking place, but it was within his right to have evil flourish in his creation for a time until the Kingdom of God culminated. It must be stated again that God did not coerce human beings into sinning and thus causing the fall, but he knew that this fall would take place and did not willingly prevent it. It can be deduced that God thought the evil and suffering in a corrupted creation, willed in sinful disobedience, was a tolerable situation for a time. Jesus Christ would, through his work, restore that creation and culminate a Kingdom of God filled with resurrected human beings who had experienced evil, and now through the Holy Spirit willingly rejected evil completely.

There are, as well, many instances in our creation where God could
have prevented evils from taking place, for instance the American bombings of September 11, 2001. Some may argue that God must allow human free will and that is why these events took place. However, God could have prevented this from taking place, as it can be shown that many evils are prevented and certainly God would have his hand in this. Many times evil plans are thwarted, such as Nazi Germany’s plans to conquer Europe. In that case, Adolph Hitler’s free will was not allowed to completely flourish. It was not that God forced Hitler to think differently, but rather the Fuhrer’s plans were defeated by the Allies.

I do not think free will is the ultimate answer in the matter of the problem of evil, rather it is largely God’s will that determines what will ultimately take place, at the same time not forcing his creation to sin against him. This sin is achieved by people who are in the sinful biological line of Adam and Eve, and thus possess sinful nature which leads to sinful choices. This is not determinism on God’s part. God has an ultimate plan, and some sinful actions will take place within the plan and some will not. I grant, that in this sense, God allows all to sin against him but their wills are always under the authority of God’s ultimate will, who can thwart sinful plans as he chooses.

With Anglican 10% agreed, 18% were not certain, 72% disagreed. With Baptists 20% agreed, 6% were not certain, 74% disagreed.

Statement five:

My fifth statement was another dealing with the logical nature of God.

God cannot commit the logically impossible such as ceasing to exist. With Anglicans, 66% agreed with this point, while 22% were not certain, and 12% disagreed. With Baptists, 78% agreed with the statement’s concept, while 14% were not certain, and 8% disagreed. My main consideration in creating this statement was to put across the idea that God is not a contradictory being. He is a being of consistency, in my view, and this means both that he could not manage to cease to exist or create another God equal to him. In the same way, he could not work against his own holy nature by sinning as he willed evil for the greater good. I think, instead, he wills it within his perfect character, realizing that in a fallen creation, evil and suffering will take place and that he can fulfill his good purposes by using evil within his holy plans.

Statement six:

This statement stated: Absolute Dualism, a universe containing two
co-eternal Gods, one good, the other evil, is Biblically permissible. Of Anglicans 2% were uncertain with this statement, while 98% disagreed with it. With Baptists 2% agreed with the statement, 2% were uncertain, and 96% disagreed with it. Scripture seems to strongly indicate that Satan and his fallen angel partners were created by God, and thus not infinite or equal to God. In Ephesians 3:9, Colossians 1:16, and Revelation 4:11, it is pointed out that God alone is the creator of all things, and as stated earlier, no being appeared to have existed with God prior to creation.

Statement seven:

This statement stated: Relative Dualism, a universe containing an eternal, infinite, good God, and a finite created Devil, is permissible within a Biblical world-view. The statement is, of course, related to the previous one, and I think this view is expressed in Scripture. Here 74% of Anglicans agreed, while 14% were not certain, with 12% disagreeing. With the Baptists, 86% agreed, 4% being not certain, and 10% being in disagreement. Some observers of Christianity like to think of Satan and his fallen angels as a metaphor for evil and wish to deny that these beings exist. Professor David Pailin, who was my advisor for a short time, criticized me for believing in these beings as there was no proof of their existence. I think that Scripture is historical and it certainly accepts their existence. As well, and this was a point that I made to Professor Pailin, if theists believe that God, who is spirit (John 4:24) created human beings who are of a physical nature, why is it more difficult to believe that God made angels who were of spiritual nature?

To me, it is a more difficult task for God to create matter and physical beings when he is spirit, as opposed to creating spiritual beings who are much like him except finite. I do not have a philosophical problem believing in angels and fallen angels, however, I do not base my belief in angelic beings primarily on my experience but in Scripture and reason.

Statement eight:

In hindsight, the eighth statement was perhaps a little too tricky. It was: The true reason for the existence of evil in humanity is impossible to construct. Why do I think this is a tricky statement? Personally, on one hand as a reader, I could read the statement in absolute terms. I would then agree because I think that God alone can answer the statement with knowledge. On the other hand, if I take the statement as a matter of degrees, I can disagree because I believe we can apprehend some of the reasons why evils exists, but that we lack complete comprehension. I view this statement in somewhat similar fashion to statements on the concepts of Incarnation and Trinity, where complete human comprehension is not possible but levels of apprehension are attainable. Some of the doctrines which deal with God’s infinite nature require this humble and cautious approach. Whereas with some doctrines (such as why adultery is wrong), we can claim to understand them for the most part, leaving the unknown details up to God to explain to us. . . or not, upon the culminated Kingdom of God.

Here, 56% of Anglicans agreed that the existence of evil was humanly impossible to construct, while 18% were not certain, and 26% disagreed. With the Baptists, 44% agreed, 20% were not sure, and 36% disagreed.

Statements nine, ten and eleven:

These statements dealt with the issue of human free will. Number nine stated: God created human beings with free will. Here 92% of Anglicans agreed, while 4% were not certain, and 4% disagreed. With the Baptists, 98% agreed, while 2% disagreed.

Statement ten stated: 

Human free will means that people have the option to choose either good or evil. Here 80% of Anglicans agreed, with 4% not certain, and 16% in disagreement. The Baptists responders consisted of 94% of the people agreeing, with 4% not certain, and 2% disagreeing.

The eleventh statement read: Free will itself is not the main factor in the human rejection of God. Here 40% of Anglicans agreed, while 30% were not certain, and 30% disagreed. With Baptists, 62% agreed, 8% being not certain, and 30% being in disagreement with the statement.

Regarding the ninth statement, I agree that God made human beings with free will, although its nature is limited as human beings can only choose to do things which their finite nature allows (human beings can freely desire to fly unaided, but this is not within their physical nature to accomplish). I do believe the fall of Adam and Eve occurred by their own choice without coercion by God.

I agree with the tenth statement in a pre fall context, but after the fall I think that the human will was no longer able to truly please God by choosing to do good things, or to have a right standing before God. For a person to do good in God’s sight would require a spirit of purity which is impossible to possess for those with a sinful nature, but to even approach purity would require complete reliance upon the Holy Spirit. I do not think this means that God desires robots which he directs, rather he wants thinking people who are open to his guidance. However, clearly human beings, even those without Christ, still have some freedom of choice as to what sins they will commit and to what level they commit these acts. They cannot commit good acts that are pleasing to God in the context of merit. Paul mentions in Romans 3:23, that all people have sinned and fallen short of God’s glory.

The eleventh statement discusses an issue I have already mentioned I disagreed.

Statements twelve, thirteen, fourteen and fifteen:

Statement twelve stated: The philosophical discussion of the problem of evil is beneficial. With Anglicans 80% agreed, 14% were not certain, and 6% disagreed. In the Baptist group, 84% agreed, 10% were not certain, and 6% disagreed.

The thirteenth statement stated: Philosophers cannot solve the problem of evil. For Anglicans 84% agreed, 8% were not certain, 8% disagreed. With the Baptists 86% agreed, 12% were not certain, and 2% disagreed.

Statement fourteen stated: 

There is no single philosophical solution solving every aspect of the problem of evil. Within the Anglican Church people surveyed, 88% agreed, 6% were not certain, and 6% disagreed. With Baptists, 86% agreed, 8% were not certain, and 6% disagreed.

I believe that Christ’s restoring work is the ultimate remedy for the problem of evil; however, I do not think there is a single philosophical answer to every individual problem of evil that arises. Logically, individual problems of evil are solvable, but only God has ultimate answers for many of these problems.

Statement fifteen:

Statement fifteen stated: Philosophers can provide theistic solutions to problems of evil. For Anglicans, 44% agreed, 26% were not certain, 30% disagreed. For Baptists, 46% agreed, 22% were not certain, and 32% disagreed.

With statement fifteen, I side with the minority of the responders who agreed that philosophers can provide theistic solutions to problems of evil. For example, I think there are logical arguments that can demonstrate that God can be infinite, omnipotent and perfectly holy, yet have evil exist within his creation. I do not believe there is a logical problem of evil for Christianity that theologians and philosophers cannot solve; however, I still think the overall problem of evil, with all of its complexities, can only be intellectually solved by God. Human beings can rightly reason that God is not a contradictory being by having evil exist within his creation, but they cannot completely understand how this takes place. There is still a tension in existence.

Statement sixteen:

This statement was stated as: The only true solution to the problem of evil is through the death and resurrection of Christ. Here we have 82% of Anglicans in agreement, 8% not certain, 10% in disagreement. With Baptists, there is definitely a stronger opinion, as 96% are in agreement, with 4% not certain. I placed this statement after the philosophical statements because I believe that the true solution to the problem of evil, in practical terms, is the work of Christ. His work leads to the culminated Kingdom of God where evil is arrested. At this point, the philosophical problem may still exist, but it is rather academic!

Statement seventeen:

The seventeenth statement stated: The Bible does not fully explain why God’s creation contains evil. For Anglicans, 68% agreed, 12% were not certain, and 20% disagreed. For Baptists, 60% agreed, 10% were not certain, and 30% disagreed. I would take the position that Scripture does not fully explain the problem.

Statement eighteen:

This statement stated: The remedy set in motion through Christ’s atoning work on the cross will not culminate until Christ’s second coming. For Anglicans, 68% agreed, 18% were not certain, 14% disagreed. For Baptists, 66% agreed, 12% were not certain, and 22% disagreed. I am in agreement with this statement that obviously Christ’s work will not be culminated until he returns and fully establishes his kingdom.

Statement nineteen:

This statement is related. The earth will be perfected only when Christ returns. With Anglicans, 70% agreed, 12% were not certain, 18% disagreed. The Baptists were more emphatic as 88% agreed, 8% were not certain, and 4% disagreed.

Statement twenty:

The statement was: Satanic beings are a major force of evil. There was much more skepticism concerning these beings within the Anglican camp in comparison to the Baptist group; however, the ministry of Jesus and his Apostles interacted with Satanic beings and there is no scriptural indication that these beings would not exist today. With the Anglicans, 62% agreed, 18% were not certain, 20% disagreed. With the Baptists, 92% agreed, 6% were not certain, and 2% disagreed.

Statement twenty-one:

This statement was stated: Human suffering will decrease as the Gospel’s influence increases. For Anglicans 36% agreed, 20% were not certain, 44% disagreed. For Baptists, 36% agreed, 14% were not certain, and 50% disagreed.

Statement twenty-two:

This statement stated: Evil and suffering would decrease if the church were more obedient. With Anglicans, 32% agreed, 20% were not certain, 48% disagreed. With Baptists, 36% of the people agreed, 12% were not certain, and 52% disagreed. I am not dogmatic with the issue of how much evil and suffering would decrease if the Gospel had more influence in the world and if the Church were more obedient. Indeed, they are hypothetical statements, but I cautiously lean toward believing the world would be a better place if the Gospel was more prominent in it, and if Christians were less secular in their thinking and more Christ focussed. It can be seen that groups can have large impact on public views. Hollywood and the New York media have had a great impact upon western society. For example, western acceptance of homosexuality and abortion on demand has likely been influenced by these two groups. So I think high profile segments of society can definitely influence morality, and morality relates to the amount of evil in society. I do think that a more prominent, loving Christian Church would limit evil somewhat within the world.

Statements twenty-three, twenty-four and twenty-five:

My next three statements dealt with natural evils. My position is that there are definitely natural evils. Those occurring within a fallen creation as a result of the fall, and the curses in Genesis 3, however, the extent of these curses is not completely known. For example, for Adam and Eve to survive before the fall it appeared they ate plants, as did the animals, Genesis 1:29-31. These plants still experienced some type of death and renewal since clearly organic creatures such as human beings and animals can only survive by eating other living organic creatures. So death, in some way, existed before the fall but this was the natural created order. Creation became corrupted after the fall, and the death which occurred was not part of God’s original perfect order of things.

Henry Clarence Thiessen stated on this issue:

Here even inanimate nature is represented as suffering the curse of man’s sin. In view of this the Scriptures tell us elsewhere that the time is coming when "the creation itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the liberty of the glory of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now" (Rom. 8:21, 22). All creation has been "subjected to vanity, not of its own will, but by reason of him who subjected it in hope" (v. 20). Isa. 35 speaks of the restoration of nature to its pristine condition and beauty. And again, Adam and Eve were expelled from the Garden and forced to make their way in this fallen world. At the first they were in the most beautiful and perfect environment; now they were obliged to get along in an imperfect and almost hostile one. Their environment was decidedly changed because of sin. Thiessen, Henry Clarence (1956), Introductory Lectures in Systematic Theology (p. 258).

Plant life was consumed for food before the fall, but the post fall world outside of the Garden of Eden was one filled with the eventual death of all creatures. These are natural evils which were somehow initiated by the human sin of Adam and Eve. It appears that Adam and Eve had been given dominion over creation by God, and when they fell, their creation did as well. Statement twenty-three stated: Natural evils (earthquakes, hurricanes, floods etc) are a direct result of the fall and curses in Genesis 3. For Anglicans 36% agreed, 20% were not certain, 44% disagreed. For Baptists 62% agreed, 22% were not certain, and 16% disagreed.

Statement twenty-four stated: 

Natural evils are a necessary aspect of God’s creation. For Anglicans 26% agreed, 26% were not certain, 48% disagreed. For Baptists 14% agreed, 26% were not certain, and 60% disagreed.

Statement twenty-five stated:

Natural evils as such are not covered by Christ’s atoning work. For Anglicans 20% agreed, 30% were not certain, 50% disagreed. For Baptists 20% agreed, 26% were not certain, and 54% disagreed. I am in agreement with the majority of responders that Christ’s atoning work does cover natural evils, as I believe Christ’s restoration work reverses the destructive workings of Adam and Eve through the fall.

Statement twenty-six:

This statement stated: The power of prayer is an important deterrent to evil in creation. For Anglicans 80% agreed, 16% were not certain, and 4% disagreed. While with the Baptists, 86% agreed, 8% were not certain, and 6% disagreed.

I think that prayer can prevent some evil from occurring. It is often not clear which evils have been prevented by prayer, but nonetheless, prayer is vital in the prevention of evil. It is good to petition the Almighty and ask for specific help, and it may be within his will to assist in the way sought after.

Statement twenty-seven:

This statement stated: The case of Job demonstrates that the evil experienced by an individual may not be related to their level of personal godliness. With both groups, 96% agreed and 4% disagreed.

This response is good to see because a Theology which insists that people suffering in the greatest measure are the greatest sinners, is very dangerous as it is error. Job was a very righteous man and he suffered greatly because God willed it for the greater good.

Statement twenty-eight:

This statement was: God is unchangeable. Within the Church of England, 74% agreed, 12% were not certain, 14% disagreed. With the Baptists 90% agreed, 6% were not certain, and 4% disagreed.

I do not believe God is changeable within his substance or character and I do not think that either of these change as he interacts with his creation. I do believe God can change his mind as conditions change, and that God can see all the sides of an issue. For example, God can be said, in a sense, to love humanity because he created them in his image and yet, in another sense, he can also be said to hate humanity because it is sinful. This is not a contradiction. He can love the qualities he manufactured within human beings which still remain, yet hate the corruption which has taken place.

Statement twenty-nine:

The twenty-ninth statement stated: God is fully able to understand the suffering of people and all living creatures. For this statement, 100% of Anglicans agreed; 98% of Baptists agreed with 2% in disagreement. I think that the statement is true as an infinite creator should be fully able to understand finite creation. There is nothing that these creatures can reason that God cannot fully understand.

Statement thirty:

This statement stated: Evil is a lack of good. This is an idea of Augustine’s which has some merit.

In Chapter 11 of the Enchiridion Augustine argued that:

"For what is that which we call evil but the absence of good? . . . . what are called vices in the soul are nothing but privations of natural good." Augustine (421)(1998) Enchiridion, Chapter 11. In Chapter 12 he stated: "An uncorrupted nature is justly held in esteem. But if, no further, it be incorruptible, it is undoubtedly considered of no higher value. When it is corrupted, however, its corruption is an evil, because it is deprived of some sort of good." Augustine (421)(1998) Enchiridion, Chapter 12.

In Chapter 13, Augustine stated:

"Accordingly, there is nothing of what we call evil, if there be nothing good. But a good which is wholly without evil is a perfect good. A good, on the other hand, which contains evil is a faulty or imperfect good; and there can be no evil where there is no good. ... Nothing, then, can be evil except something which is good. . . . . Therefore every being, even if it be a defective one, is insofar as it is a being is good, and insofar as it is defective is evil. Augustine (421) (1998) trans by J.F. Shaw, Enchiridion, Chapter 13.

Augustine believed that God created things good, and that evil occurred when a previously perfectly good creation now lacked complete goodness. He called this privation. A creature could not be privated unless it was created good, so to Augustine, evil was the corruption of good and could not exist on its own. This rings true as evil could not exist without good things that were corruptible. The finite nature of creation made this possible, as although God’s creation was originally perfect, it was limited, and angels and human beings had the capacity to be corrupted into a lessor good, and thus evil.

Of Anglicans 46% were in agreement, 12% were not certain, and 42%
disagreed. Of Baptists 40% agreed, 20% were not certain, and 40% disagreed.

Statement thirty-one:

Statement thirty-one stated: The world is becoming increasingly evil.
Here 34% of Anglicans agreed, while 26% were not certain, and 40% disagreed. With the Baptists, 58% agreed, 12% were not certain, and 30% disagreed.

I tentatively disagree with this statement. I do believe that our present western culture does appear to be on a moral slide downwards. However, I do not think this means that society is necessarily more evil than culture one hundred years ago, but rather people today are allowed to be more open with their evil because society has greater tolerance for immorality and diversity of opinions. This does not mean, however, that people in past generations were not just as evil in thought and deed.

Statement thirty-two:

This statement stated: Human beings have a fallen, sinful nature.
Here the Anglican responders agreed with 86% in agreement, 6% not certain, and 8% in disagreement. In the Baptist camp, 96% of people agreed with 2% not certain, and 2% disagreeing.

Romans Chapter 3 mentions that not one person is righteous and that all have sinned against God. If people sin, this is representative of a sinful nature. People would not sin if their nature was perfect and holy. Evil exists largely in this world because of the sinful nature of humanity which is set against God.

Statement thirty-three:

The thirty-third statement stated: Social conditioning plays a major part in the development of human evil. I think that social conditioning with laws, and social rules can help somewhat to prohibit sinful human nature from exploring and developing evil in greater measure. The fact that we as human beings require laws to live by, shows that our sinful nature needs to be kept in check in order to prevent greater amounts of evil from taking place.

With this statement, 62% of Anglicans agreed, with 20% not certain, and 18% disagreeing. In the Baptist group, 52% of responders agreed, while 20% were not certain, and 28% disagreed.

Statement thirty-four:

This statement stated: Human beings will not seek God, unless God calls them to himself. I believe if one thinks human beings have a sinful nature, then that nature makes it impossible for individuals to choose God autonomously. God, through his Spirit, must first reach out to the individual making a belief and trust in God possible.

My point here is that because of human sinful nature, which leads to sinful choices against God, humanity is unable to save itself from the problem of evil. Humanly speaking, nations and many special interest groups desire to rid the world of evil, and I do not doubt that their motives are sincere, and at times some evil is prevented. However, I believe that the human position is one of dependency on God for deliverance and eventual restoration from personal sin, fallen creation and the problem of evil.

With this point, 60% of Anglicans agreed, with 28% being not certain, and 12% disagreeing. With the Baptists, 76% agreed, 8% were not certain, and 16% disagreed.

Statement thirty-five:

Statement thirty-five stated: Ultimately evil will be confined to an everlasting hell. I think this is the best position to take from a Biblical perspective, as it appears in Revelation 20:14, that death and hades are thrown into the lake of fire. Some argue that this is describing annihilationism, however, verse 10 describes this as a place of everlasting torment for the devil, beast, and false prophet. It would be too presumptuous, in my view, to assume that human beings thrown into this lake would simply be annihilated.

With this statement there is a substantial difference in opinion between the two groups. With Anglicans, 54% agreed, 24% were not certain, and 22% disagreed. With Baptists, 86% agreed, 6% were not certain, and 8% disagreed.

Statement thirty-six:

This statement stated: Eventually evil will cease to exist in any form. In light of the position I take with the previous statement, I thus would disagree with this one. I believe that Biblically evil is described as ultimately being imprisoned and set apart from the rest of creation, rather than being annihilated. However, in the Anglican denomination, 44% agreed with the statement, 34% were not certain, and 22% disagreed. With Baptists, 52% agreed, while 18% were not certain, and 30% disagreed.

Statement thirty-seven:

The thirty-seventh statement stated: Those who do not believe and trust in Jesus Christ will cease to exist after judgement. This is, of course, another related statement. I believe that God in his love will allow beings who oppose him to exist in hell. This will serve as punishment as well. For Anglicans, 8% agreed with the statement, while 28% were not certain, and 64% disagreed. With the Baptist responders, 12% agreed, with 18% being not certain, and 70% disagreeing.

Statement thirty-eight:

This statement stated: Evil is greater in the developing world.

I am in agreement with the majority of responders with this statement. I think that evil is comparably great in the west, but often takes place in more subtle forms which are not as apparent as mass starvation for example. With the Anglican denomination, 2% were in agreement, with 10% being not certain, and 88% disagreeing. With the Baptist group, 2% agreed, with 20% being not certain, and 78% disagreeing.

Statement thirty-nine:

This statement stated: Christians are less affected by the problem of evil than non-Christians. I think this is a tricky statement. I believe, in many ways, Christians are as affected by evil as non-Christian, for example by natural evils. However, on the other hand, a moral life of trusting in God does keep one away from certain evils. Proverbs 9 states that years will be added to a person’s life if they are wise and follow God. This is a general principle and, of course, some wise Christians die young, but I believe that a moral life tends to keep one away from immoral people and lifestyle choices which lead to all kinds of evil.

With Anglicans 2% agreed with the statement, with 6% not certain, and 92% disagreed. With the Baptist denomination, 14% agreed, with 8% being not certain, and 78% being in disagreement.

Statement forty:

The last statement stated: Eventually the Kingdom of God will be completely free from any evil. I would contend that Revelation 21-22 describes a Kingdom of God free from evil. I believe that the work of Christ beginning with his death and resurrection will culminate with this Kingdom. With Anglicans, 78% agreed, 14% were not certain, and 8% disagreed. With the Baptists, 94% agreed, with 6% being not certain.

2. The Interviews

My interviewees were:

Rvd. David Adams, Anglican Church of Canada
Rvd. Daniel Clark, Curate, Holy Trinity Anglican Church Manchester England
Rvd. Stephen W. Felkner, All Saints Anglican Church, Fountain Valley, California
Dr. Wayne Mouritzen, Retired, Former Presbyterian Minister, now a Lay Anglican
Rvd. Tony Roache, Priest-in-charge, Parish of Ringley with Prestolee in the Diocese of Manchester, Church of England
Dr. Kenton C. Anderson, Dean, Northwest Baptist Seminary, Fellowship of Evangelical Baptist Churches, British Columbia
William Badke, Associate Professor, Associate Librarian, Associated Canadian Theological Schools
Dr. Sydney Page, Professor of New Testament, Taylor Seminary, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Dr. Larry Perkins, Associated Canadian Theological Schools, Trinity Western University
Dr. Brian Rapske, Professor of New Testament. Associated Canadian Theological Schools, Trinity Western University

Question A

A person within your denomination comes to you with a serious problem, for example the death of his/her small child. What would be one key Christian concept to mention that you would see as vital?

With this question, I was looking for a pragmatic use of the Christian faith in times of crisis, in other words, a Christian concept offered to effect real hope in a time of tragedy. Rvd. David Adams mentioned: " The resurrection. Without it, we have no hope." Adams (2002). Dr. Wayne Mouritzen stated: "I would refer to Paul’s teachings of the resurrection from 1st Corinthians 15. However, I believe sympathy is most needed." Mouritzen (2002). I agree that the concept of resurrection is vital at a time of tragic death because this alone is God’s ultimate remedy and reversal of the tragedy. It is not immediate but promised in Scripture.

The Rvd. Daniel Clark stated: The Incarnation. Through that we understand that God himself has felt and experienced our human pain–he has known isolation, grief, betrayal, mocking, torture, false accusations and illegal trial, death. He has been a refugee and known taunting at his ‘dubious’ parentage, etc. It is because God knows our pain, knows what life is like, that we can draw comfort from him in times of distress. Clark (2002).

This would be another important concept at a time of tragedy. Through Christ’s resurrection, humanity will be resurrected, but through Christ’s Incarnation, Christ experienced the human experience, and thus is a suitable high priest to be sought by sufferers. He is relatable to human beings because he took suffering upon himself

Dr. Kenton Anderson stressed that God was in control. 

He stated:

"I would emphasize the sovereignty and the grace of God. While there is mystery in this, God can be trusted to act according to his character and his word, and in ways that are good for his people." Anderson (2002).

William Badke mentioned the sovereignty of God as well. 

He stated:

I would work on the concept of the sovereignty of God, along these lines – If God is sovereign, we feel we can blame him for what has happened. That may be the case, but the alternative is that what happened came about by chance. While the alternative may be more comforting than believing that God actually allowed the problem and could have stopped it, in fact we are left with a universe in which there is no one to help us, no one in control. We thus abandon the only God who can give us the strength to carry on. The dark side (if you want to see it as such) of acknowledging that God is sovereign, is that you have to allow him to work in ways that seem disastrous to you, that seem cruel and unfair. It’s here that we have to balance God’s sovereignty with his love, his justice and his knowledge which is vastly superior to us. We may never know why certain things happen, but God calls on us to trust his working in our lives, regardless of how things look to us. The alternative is to have a universe in which there are no explanations and only chaos rules. Badke (2002).

Mr. Badke makes an interesting point. Because God is sovereign, Christians must take comfort in that, even in times of personal suffering and devastation because the alternative, a creation without God, is one without meaning. With a faith in a sovereign God who wills suffering, at least we know that tragedy has a purpose and it is not just part of a chaotic meaningless existence.

Dr. Sydney Page stated:

"I would try to encourage them not to see this as God punishing them, but as a consequence of living in a fallen world (i.e., I would not play down the evil character of what had happened, but affirm the rightness of being angry that such things happen)." Page (2002). He also notes the importance of showing God’s love and compassion, and that this type of discussion should not take place immediately in the wake of a tragedy.

This is good advice, as people do need time to adjust to their new situation, and I think a healthy anger with suffering and tragedy can at times assist in healing. The suppression of hurt and anger is not healthy. It is better to be honest in anger with God and to seek his understanding in times of great turmoil.

Dr. Larry Perkins noted that: 

"I think that one concept to share would be our confidence in the goodness of God." Perkins (2002). Dr. Brian Rapske stated that he "would gently and confidently assert the greatness of God based upon Scriptures, and resist the temptation to ‘redefine’ greatness to something less (which is idolatry)." Rapske (2002). Both comments are valid. God is still good; he has demonstrated saving goodwill to humanity through Christ. Also, he is still great, and not unable or totally unwilling to prevent tragedy. Instead, at times, he uses human tragedy and suffering for his own good purposes.

Rvd. Stephen Felkner stated concerning this question and this type of suffering: 

"The context is eternity. The extreme pain of this world makes no sense outside of this context." Felkner (2002). God’s plans indeed do not make sense unless everlasting life, and the healing that will take place within it are considered when dealing with pain and suffering.

Question B

Is it still valid to claim that Christ’s death, resurrection, and culminated Kingdom of God are the only ultimate practical remedies for human suffering?

Dr. Perkins stated:

In my view, yes. Human suffering has a variety of ‘causes’, some of which are cosmic (i.e. the result of the Fall), and some of which are due to human ignorance or foolishness. When we enter into relationship with God through Jesus Christ, the cosmic causes of suffering hold promise of eternal reversal and the immediate issues of ignorance and foolishness have some remedy in the presence of the Holy Spirit. Suffering for the sake of our testimony for Jesus will continue in this world as part of the spiritual struggle between God and Satan. Perkins (2002).

This is very much in line with concepts in my thesis. Jesus Christ and his work, and the culminated Kingdom of God is the only hope of recapitulation for creation.

Rvd. Tony Roache stated concerning this question:

The question begs another, has it ever been valid to claim that Christ’s death, resurrection and culminated kingdom of God are the only ultimate practical remedies for human suffering? If the answer is yes or no then it is still yes or no because nothing has changed in the last two thousand years to change that.

The key word has got to be ultimate. Whatever human remedies we may devise will pass away and be made useless by the creativity of those wanting to perpetrate evil. The remedy once again has got to be our security in the knowledge of God’s justice. We must be able to trust God to do what is right and just with those who behave inhumanly. Yes, I think that it is still valid to claim that Christ’s death, resurrection and culminated kingdom of God are the only ultimate practical remedies for human suffering. Roache (2002).

This is good reasoning, since if Christ’s work was ever effective, this would not change over time. Christ was either God incarnate, and capable of completing the work required to save souls, or he was not. A Theology which tries to keep in touch with modern thinking by denying the exclusivity of Christ’s saving work for humanity will find that it cannot deal with "the creativity of those wanting to perpetrate evil". Christ is the ultimate remedy to the problem of evil and suffering because he is ultimate God.

Dr. Rapske states the salvation provided by Christ is holistic, designed to save the entire human being. 

Yes! Peter’s response to the Sanhedrin continues to be right: "Salvation is found in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved." (Acts 4:12; cf. 3:11-16) Remember, however, that Peter said, "what I have I give you"—this is a compassionate Christian response to the whole man in all of his need. The "remedy" is both "practical" (the crippled man was healed) and "ultimate" (it had interest in his salvation)—the healing and the salvation are conjoined. Rapske (2002).

A problem for humanity is that the wait for this complete healing within a culminated Kingdom of God is very painful. Every person on this planet suffers and dies, and this can lead to bitterness against God as this temporal life can be full of disappointments. An everlasting perspective is thus vital. Rvd. Felkner stated: " The ‘Rub’ is that eternal perspective. God’s way’s are not our ways. His timing is not our timing. And the more we recreate him in our own image, as this age loves to do, the less comfort we shall receive." Felkner (2002).

Question C

Is the Christian Church, in light of its many denominations and churches, significantly impacting western society with evil and suffering?

Rvd. Tony Roache stated:

No, as a body corporate the Christian Church cannot have a significant impact on society in anything. Its role is to introduce individual people to God and nurture the growing relationship. This relationship will change lives and perspectives, thus changing that person as a member of society. The more changed persons there are in society the more society will be changed. Roache (2002).

Dr. Page stated: "Although it gives hope to countless individuals, I do not see a significant impact on the larger society." Page (2002).

Dr. Anderson stated: "Probably not. We have a bad reputation in the world at large around these kind of issues. People within and without the church have a hard time with theodicy." Anderson (2002).

Dr. Perkins stated:

I think this is very difficult to estimate. As individuals are included within a church family some help, both conceptual and practical becomes available to help people understand evil and its relationship to suffering and thereby to confront it and cope with it. Further, as the Holy Spirit indwells a person and schools them in the ways of God, the individual becomes more able to recognize evil and resist its insidious ways. I believe this does happen by and large through the local church. Perkins (2002).

My thinking with this question is that there likely has been limited impact from the church on western society. The lack of unity with all the denominations in one purpose is perhaps a difficulty in reaching the world for Christ. A definite problem is that the Gospel message has been challenged in some denominations and churches by liberal theology. I do agree with Dr. Perkins though that the local church today is still used by the Holy Spirit to battle all kinds of evil.

Perhaps we as Christian should not be too discouraged when society does not seem to be changing for the better. I think it must be remembered that the message of Christ is not popular to a world that loves darkness. The Christian Church is always going to be unpopular and this is because it offers the light of Christ for a world that loves darkness.

The world can always use the sin and lack of unity within the Church for a reason not to become a disciple of Christ, but this is wrong reasoning. Christianity is a faith which claims that people need grace to know God. It is not a faith that claims to have representatives beyond a fault. However, from a human perspective, if the claims of Christ are true then the sins of his followers are not valid reasons to keep nonbelievers from becoming interested in following Jesus.

It must be added that love is crucial for the Christian Church to have impact by demonstrating understanding for suffering people in society. Dr. Mouritzen stated that: "Many denominations have little meaning. Look for a common thread." Mouritzen (2002). People within the Christian Church must show love and understanding to those outside in order to be given the opportunity to have an impact with the Gospel message.

Question D

What could be done to make Christian Churches more effective and relevant in regards to dealing with evil in society?

Rvd. David Adams stated that it was important for the church to reclaim its heritage. "Once we know our heritage that is in Christ we are children of God, we are winners. It is harder to participate in the losing strategies of the world around us." Adams (2002). In other words, once we who are in Christ realize what we have, and who we are in Christ, following many of the ideas of the world seems useless. By claiming the great heritage believers have in Christ, they can become a more effective help for a world that has no real remedy to the problem of evil.

The Rvd. Daniel Clark stated:

We should be unafraid to condemn evil when we see it. Often that will mean simply being committed to biblical truth, and proclaiming biblical truth boldly, without compromise. That can operate on a variety of levels. As we do that, the Spirit will convict us as individual Christians where we are guilty of evil actions and thoughts (let's not pretend we're not part of the problem!). We will also be emboldened to challenge evil where we see it - the parents who see their children acting wrongly; the employee who sees books being fiddled at work or false claims being put in; the board member or chief exec etc who sees some injustice in their workplace policy or practice; the voter who writes to their MP or PM or President about national policies which discriminate or act for injustice etc. We all have voices we can use to challenge - to be the 'prophetic word' in our society, calling it back to following God's laws. Those who are Christians whose voices can be heard at higher levels (eg people high up in large companies, in politics, high up in church hierarchies etc) especially need the support and encouragement to take a stand. Clark (2002).

This is a good point and connects to the previous one. Not only should Christians know who and what they are in Christ and live accordingly in their private lives, but they should take positive steps with this knowledge. This would include standing up for truth in the world, and standing up against evil. If the Christian Church would like to be more effective in dealing with evil and suffering in our society, then individual Christians and Christian groups must be willing to take positions which may at times be controversial, but are the right position to take based on Biblical standards and reason. As

Rvd. Tony Roache stated:

What would help in bringing about a changed society is the developing of a mindset in our congregations that encouraged determination in speaking out against wrongdoing.
Today we seem to be fairly apathetic in most areas of life that don’t threaten our own personal security. Our own personal call within the kingdom of God is a call to love each other. That must include looking out for the welfare of our neighbour whether local or global. Roache (2002).

As well, as the need for Christians to stand up against evil in society, the idea was also given that those in the Church must be willing to share their suffering with those in the world, for the sake of witness.

Rvd. Stephen Felkner stated that: "We don’t want to suffer. We don’t want to offer up our suffering as ‘a sweet smelling savor’." Felkner (2002). When the Christian Church, corporately and individually, can be seen as a participant in suffering, it will be a more effective witness to the world. Yes, the Church is to stand up for Biblical standards and denounce evil, and be separate from the world philosophically, but it can relate in that Christian individuals do suffer under evil. This sharing of suffering can provide a positive Christian witness.

Bibliography

AUGUSTINE. (388-395)(1979) De Liberto Arbitrio (On Free Will), in Earlier Writings on Free Will, Translated by J.H.S. Burleigh, Philadelphia, The Westminster Press.

AUGUSTINE. (421)(1998) Enchiridion, Translated by J.F. Shaw, Denver, New Advent Catholic Website.

BLACKBURN, S. (1996) Pantheism, in Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

BLAMIRES, H. (1957)(1981) A God Who Acts, Ann Arbor, Servant Books.

BLOCHER, H. (1994) Evil and the Cross, Translated by David G. Preston, Leicester, Inter-Varsity Press.

BLOESCH, D. (1996) Sin, The Biblical Understanding of Sin in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.

BROWN, C. (1996) The Enlightenment, in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.

BRUCE, F.F. (1996) Romans, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

CALVIN, J. (1539)(1998) Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book II.

CALVIN, J. (1543)(1998) The Bondage and Liberation of the Will, Translated by G.I. Davies, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.

CALVIN, J. (1553)(1952) Job, Translated by Leroy Nixon, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.

CARSON, D.A. (1981) Divine Sovereignty and Human Responsibility, Atlanta, John Knox Press.

CARSON, D.A. (1990) How Long, O Lord?, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.

CLARKE, O.F. (1964) God and Suffering: An Essay in Theodicy, Derby, Peter Smith (Publishers) Limited.

CRANFIELD, C.E.B. (1992) Romans: A Shorter Commentary, Grand Rapids,
William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

ENROTH, R.M. (1996) Reincarnation, in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books,

ERICKSON, M. (1994) Christian Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.

FEINBERG, J.S. (1996) Evil, Problem of, in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.

FEINBERG, J.S. (1994) The Many Faces of Evil, Grand Rapids, Zondervan Publishing House.

FITCH, W. (1967) God and Evil, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

GEISLER, N. (1978) The Roots of Evil, Grand Rapids, Zondervan Publishing House.

HEIN, R. (1996) C.S. Lewis, in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.

HEWLETT, H.P. (1986) Philippians, in F.F. Bruce (gen. ed.), The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Marshall Pickering/Zondervan.

HENRY, C. (1983) God, Revelation and Authority: Volume 6: God Who Stands and Stays, Waco, Word Books.

HUGHES, P. (1990) A Commentary On The Epistle To The Hebrews, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

KILBY, Clyde S. (1965) The Christian World of C.S. Lewis, Appleford, Abingdon, Berks, U.K., Marcham Manor Press.

LA SOR, W.S., D.A HUBBARD and F.W BUSH (1987) Old Testament Survey, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

LEWIS, C.S. (1961)(1983) A Grief Observed, London, Faber and Faber.

LEWIS, C.S. (1941)(1990) The Screwtape Letters, Uhrichsville, Ohio,
Barbour and Company.

LEWIS, C.S. (1940)(1996) The Problem of Pain, San Francisco, Harper-Collins.

LUTHER, M. (1518)(1989) Heidelberg Disputation, in Timothy F. Lull (ed.), Martin Luther’s Basic Theological Writings, Minneapolis, Fortress Press.

MACKIE, J.L. (1971)(1977) Evil and Omnipotence, in The Philosophy of Religion, in Alvin C.
Plantinga, God, Freedom, and Evil, Grand Rapids,
Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

MARTIN, C. (1986)1 and 2 Kings, in F.F. Bruce, (gen. ed.), The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Marshall Pickering/Zondervan.

MARTIN, R.P. (1987) Philippians, in Leon Canon Morris (gen. ed.),Tyndale New Testament Commentary, Leicester/Grand Rapids, Inter-Varsity Press/William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

McGRATH, A. (1986) Iustitia Dei, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

McGRATH, A. (1992) Bridge-Building, Leicester, Inter-Varsity Press.

McGRATH, A. (1992) Suffering, London, Hodder and Stoughton Limited.

MONTMARQUET, J.A. (1996) Hedonism, in The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

MOUNCE, R.H. (1995) The New American Commentary: Romans, Nashville, Broadman & Holman Publishers.

PAILIN, D.A. (1999) Enlightenment, in Alan Richardson and John Bowden (eds.), A New Dictionary of Christian Theology, Kent, SCM Press Limited.

POJMAN, L.P. (1995)(1996) Atheism, in Robert Audi (gen.ed.), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

PORTER, L.E. (1986) 1 and 2 Samuel, in F.F. Bruce (gen.ed.), The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Marshall Pickering/ Zondervan,

PLANTINGA, A.C. (1977) God, Freedom, and Evil, Grand Rapids, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

SPICELAND, J.D. (1996) Miracles, in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.

THE NEW AMERICAN STANDARD VERSION BIBLE (1984), Iowa Falls, Iowa, World Bible Publishers.

THIESSEN, H.C. (1956) Introductory Lectures in Systematic Theology, Grand Rapids, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

WHALE, J.S. (1958) Christian Doctrine, Glasgow, Fontana Books.

WOODS, B.W. (1974) Christians in Pain, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.

RYRIE, C.C.. (1996) Total Depravity, in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.

Interviews

ADAMS, D. Rvd. (2002) Anglican Church of Canada.

ANDERSON, K.C. Dr. (2002) Dean, Northwest Baptist Seminary, Fellowship of Evangelical Baptist Churches, Langley, British Columbia.

BADKE, W. (2002) Associate Professor, Associate Librarian, Associated Canadian Theological Schools, Langley, British Columbia.

CLARK, D. Rvd. (2002) Curate, Holy Trinity Anglican Church, Manchester England.

FELKNER, S.W. Rvd. (2002) All Saints Anglican Church, Fountain Valley, California.

MOURITZEN, W. Dr. (2002) Retired, Former Presbyterian Minister, now an Anglican presbyter.

PAGE, S. Dr. (2002) Professor of New Testament, Taylor Seminary, Edmonton, Alberta.

PERKINS, L. Dr. (2002) Associated Canadian Theological Schools, Trinity Western University, Langley, British Columbia.

RAPSKE, B. Dr. (2002) Professor of New Testament, Associated Canadian Theological Schools, Trinity Western University, Langley, British Columbia.

ROACHE, T. Rvd. (2002) Priest-in-charge, Parish of Ringley with Prestolee in the Diocese of Manchester, Church of England.