The Christian Defense Of God's Infinite Goodness And Power

The perceived problem of evil has been a persistent challenge to belief in an all-good, all-powerful God. This challenge, often presented in philosophical and theological circles, questions how a deity possessing both infinite goodness and omnipotence can allow the existence of evil and suffering in the world. If God is truly good, why does He not eliminate evil? And if He is truly powerful, why is He unable to do so? Throughout history, Christian thinkers have wrestled with this dilemma, offering a variety of defenses, known as theodicies, attempting to reconcile the existence of evil with the attributes of God.

The Problem of Evil: A Formidable Challenge

The problem of evil is not a single, monolithic argument, but rather a cluster of related objections. It is often presented in two main forms: the logical problem of evil and the evidential problem of evil.

The logical problem of evil asserts that the existence of an all-good, all-powerful God is logically incompatible with the existence of evil. This argument claims that the very concept of such a God necessitates a world devoid of unnecessary suffering, and since suffering manifestly exists, God cannot exist.

The evidential problem of evil, on the other hand, does not claim a strict logical contradiction. Instead, it argues that the sheer amount and types of evil in the world provide strong evidence against the existence of God. The argument emphasizes the seemingly pointless or gratuitous nature of much suffering, suggesting that a loving God would have prevented it.

Major Christian Theodicies: Reconciling God and Evil

Christian theologians and philosophers have developed several theodicies, each offering a different perspective on the relationship between God, goodness, power, and the presence of evil.

1. The Free Will Defense: The Gift and Risk of Choice

One of the most influential and widely accepted theodicies is the free will defense. This argument, championed by thinkers like Augustine and Alvin Plantinga, centers on the idea that God created human beings with the capacity for free choice. This freedom, a necessary condition for genuine love and moral responsibility, inherently includes the possibility of choosing evil.

• God's Purpose: God desired creatures capable of choosing to love Him and each other freely. This kind of love is only possible if individuals have the genuine ability to reject it.
• The Cost of Freedom: Free will necessarily entails the possibility of making wrong choices, leading to sin and its consequences, including suffering.
• Moral Evil: Much of the evil in the world is a direct result of human choices—violence, injustice, exploitation, and cruelty. The free will defense attributes this "moral evil" to the misuse of human freedom.
• Natural Evil: While moral evil is attributed to human choices, "natural evil" (earthquakes, diseases, floods) presents a greater challenge. Proponents of the free will defense often argue that natural evil is either a consequence of the fallen state of the world due to human sin or that it plays a role in shaping character and providing opportunities for moral growth.

Addressing Objections:

• God's Foreknowledge: A common objection is that God, being omniscient, knew humans would choose evil. Why, then, did He create them? The response is that God valued the potential for genuine love and relationship, even knowing it would come with the risk of suffering. To prevent all evil would require eliminating free will itself, resulting in a world of automatons incapable of real love or moral action.
• Gratuitous Evil: Another objection points to instances of seemingly pointless suffering. The free will defense argues that while we may not always understand God's purposes, our limited perspective prevents us from fully grasping the complex web of cause and effect. Some suffering might have unforeseen positive consequences or serve a purpose we cannot currently comprehend.

2. The Soul-Making Theodicy: Suffering as a Catalyst for Growth

The soul-making theodicy, popularized by Irenaeus and further developed by John Hick, proposes that God's primary purpose in creation is not to create a paradise devoid of suffering, but to create beings capable of developing into mature, virtuous individuals. Suffering, in this view, is not necessarily a punishment for sin, but a catalyst for spiritual and moral growth.

• The "Vale of Soul-Making": Hick describes the world as a "vale of soul-making," a challenging environment designed to foster character development.
• Learning Through Adversity: Difficult experiences, including suffering, can lead to compassion, resilience, empathy, and other virtues.
• God's Purpose: God allows suffering because it is necessary for humans to grow into the likeness of Christ. Without challenges, we would remain morally and spiritually immature.
• Eschatological Hope: The soul-making theodicy often emphasizes an eschatological perspective, suggesting that the full fruits of our suffering will be revealed in the afterlife. The struggles we face in this life contribute to our ultimate transformation and union with God.

Addressing Objections:

• Excessive Suffering: Critics argue that the amount of suffering in the world is disproportionate to any conceivable soul-making purpose. Proponents of the soul-making theodicy respond that while some suffering may seem excessive, we cannot fully grasp God's plan. Furthermore, they emphasize the importance of viewing suffering within the context of eternity.
• Unequal Distribution of Suffering: Another objection is that suffering is unfairly distributed. Some people experience far more suffering than others. The soul-making theodicy suggests that God's justice will be revealed in the afterlife, where all will receive their due reward.

3. The Augustinian Theodicy: Evil as a Privation of Good

The Augustinian theodicy, based on the teachings of Augustine of Hippo, argues that evil is not a positive substance or entity in itself, but rather a privation or absence of good. God created a perfect world, but evil entered through the misuse of free will by angels and humans.

• Original Perfection: God's creation was initially without flaw. There was no evil, suffering, or death.
• The Fall: Evil originated with the rebellion of Lucifer and the subsequent disobedience of Adam and Eve. This "Fall" introduced sin and corruption into the world.
• Evil as Lack: Evil is not a thing in itself, but a deficiency or corruption of something that is inherently good. Just as darkness is the absence of light, evil is the absence of good.
• Divine Justice: Suffering is a consequence of sin and serves as a just punishment for wrongdoing.

Addressing Objections:

• The Origin of Evil: A major challenge to the Augustinian theodicy is explaining how evil could arise in a perfect creation. If God created everything good, where did the initial inclination toward evil come from? Augustine argued that even in a perfect creation, there was the possibility of free creatures turning away from God.
• God's Responsibility: Critics argue that if God knew that creating free creatures would lead to evil, He is ultimately responsible for its existence. Augustinian theists respond that God's goodness is demonstrated in His willingness to create beings capable of genuine love and relationship, even if it meant risking the possibility of evil.

4. The Process Theodicy: God as Persuader, Not Controller

Process theology, based on the philosophy of Alfred North Whitehead, offers a different perspective on God's power and the nature of reality. This theodicy suggests that God is not all-powerful in the sense of being able to unilaterally control every event in the universe. Instead, God is a persuasive force, gently guiding creation toward goodness and order.

• God's Limited Power: Process theology rejects the classical notion of divine omnipotence. God cannot simply impose His will on the world. Rather, He works through persuasion and influence.
• Creativity and Freedom: All beings, including humans, possess a degree of freedom and creativity. This freedom limits God's ability to prevent evil.
• God as Sufferer: God is not detached from the suffering of the world. He empathizes with all creatures and experiences their pain.
• Overcoming Evil: God works to overcome evil by guiding creatures toward more harmonious and fulfilling relationships.

Addressing Objections:

• A Limited God: Critics argue that process theology presents a diminished view of God. If God is not all-powerful, can He truly be worthy of worship? Process theologians respond that God's love and compassion are more evident in His willingness to work within the constraints of creation than in an arbitrary display of power.
• The Problem of Unexplained Evil: Process theology may not fully explain the existence of gratuitous suffering. If God is always working to overcome evil, why does so much seemingly pointless suffering persist? Proponents argue that God's persuasive power is limited by the freedom of creatures and the inherent complexities of the universe.

5. The Calvinistic Perspective: God's Sovereign Plan

The Calvinistic perspective on the problem of evil emphasizes God's absolute sovereignty and His meticulous control over all things. From this viewpoint, nothing happens outside of God's plan, including evil and suffering.

• Divine Sovereignty: God is in complete control of all events, both good and evil.
• Predestination: God has predetermined who will be saved and who will be condemned.
• God's Hidden Purposes: God's reasons for allowing evil are often beyond human understanding. We must trust that He has wise and just purposes, even when we cannot see them.
• Evil as Instrumental: Evil may serve God's purposes in ways we cannot comprehend. It may be used to bring about greater good or to demonstrate His justice.

Addressing Objections:

• God as the Author of Evil: Critics argue that if God controls all things, He is ultimately responsible for evil. Calvinists respond that God does not cause evil in the same way that humans do. Rather, He permits it to occur for His own purposes.
• Human Responsibility: Another objection is that if God has predetermined all events, humans cannot be held responsible for their actions. Calvinists argue that while God is sovereign, humans still make genuine choices and are accountable for their sins.

Beyond Theodicies: Practical Responses to Suffering

While theodicies attempt to provide intellectual explanations for the problem of evil, they often fall short of addressing the emotional and existential challenges posed by suffering. Many Christians find comfort and meaning not in abstract arguments, but in practical responses to suffering, such as:

• Compassion and Empathy: Sharing in the suffering of others and offering practical assistance.
• Prayer and Lament: Expressing grief, anger, and confusion to God.
• Trust in God's Love: Believing that God is present in the midst of suffering and that He will ultimately bring good out of it.
• Hope for the Future: Looking forward to a time when suffering will be no more.

The Mystery of Suffering: Acknowledging the Limits of Understanding

Ultimately, the problem of evil remains a profound mystery. While theodicies can provide helpful frameworks for understanding the relationship between God and suffering, they cannot fully explain the complexities of human experience. A humble and honest approach to the problem of evil acknowledges the limits of human understanding and recognizes that some questions may not have easy answers.

Conclusion: Faith in the Face of Suffering

The Christian defense of God's infinite goodness and power in the face of evil is a multifaceted and ongoing endeavor. While no single theodicy provides a perfect solution to the problem of evil, the various perspectives offered by Christian thinkers can help believers grapple with the challenges posed by suffering and maintain their faith in a loving and powerful God. Ultimately, the Christian response to evil is not simply a matter of intellectual assent, but a commitment to compassion, hope, and trust in the midst of a broken world. The mystery remains, but so does the unwavering belief in a God who suffers with us and works to redeem all things.