You've heard, I'm sure, of the classical "problem of evil." There is evil in the world. If there is evil in the world and there is a God, why hasn't He stopped it? Well, they come up with two possibilities (which doesn't preclude both are true). Either 1) God can't stop it -- not omnipotent -- or 2) God doesn't care -- not all-loving. Ergo, no God. Now, there are several ways to approach that challenge, and I've even done it before, but that's not what is currently of interest to me.
Turn in your Bible with me, if you will, to Psalm 59. The psalm was written by David. This one specifies the occasion of the writing. It was "when Saul sent men and they watched the house in order to kill him." The story is told in 1 Sam 19:1 and following. You get the picture. David is being hunted by the king and it's too dangerous to go home. This is David's prayer in a difficult time. So he begins, obviously, with "Deliver me from my enemies, O my God; Set me securely on high away from those who rise up against me" (Psa 59:1). You can read it. They're not hunting him for anything bad he's done (Psa 59:3-4). They're out to get him (Psa 59:6). "But You, O YHWH," he says, "laugh at them" (Psa 59:8). Nice! "O my Strength, I will watch for You, for You, O God, are my fortress. My God in His steadfast love will meet me; God will let me look in triumph on my enemies" (Psa 59:9-10).
Now isn't that interesting. David bases his confidence in God in the worst of times on the very two things on which skeptics challenge God -- omnipotence and love. "I will sing of Your strength," David declares. "I will sing aloud of Your steadfast love in the morning. For You have been to me a fortress and a refuge in the day of my distress. O my Strength, I will sing praises to You, for You, O God, are my fortress, the God who shows me steadfast love" (Psa 59:16-17). Where naysayers challenge God, believers find their greatest comfort. And, of course, if you begin with belief in God, His omnipotence, His love, and the certainty that He can do what's best for you, then the whole "question of evil" becomes moot. His love and power are evident. We have experienced both. Look somewhere else for someplace to attack God.
7 comments:
Their version of God simply isn't as loving and powerful as ours.
Regarding your mention of “the problem of evil” here: If it’s OK for your readers/commenters to reference other blogs, I would like to mention a very interesting article linked to at Tim Challies’ blog today (8/12/23). “Where does sin come from?” gave me some good food for thought regarding whether God created sin and how Satan chose ungodliness and therefore established sin’s presence in the world (and the rest is history). You might have already considered the exact notions described in this article and even posted along these lines in the past, but I mention it anyway, since I found it so enlightening.
I've never had a problem with the concept of the origin of sin. God didn't have to create it. I think in terms of light, for instance. Light is a thing. It has substance. It exists. Darkness, on the other hand, does not. Darkness is the absence of light. You get darkness by blocking light. Darkness doesn't exist on its own. In the same way, I don't think of evil as existing. It is the absence of good. It occurs when the good is blocked. Satan merely had to obscure the view of God's goodness to achieve "evil." God allowed it, of course, for His good purposes, but He didn't have to make it (as Scripture explicitly says - James 1:13-18).
That is exactly the premise of the article. It does seem odd to think of something in existence that God did not create, though. Hard to think that through sometimes. Obviously, you have done so way ahead of me!
The point is it doesn't exist -- have substance. It is the absence of good.
So there is evil in the world, but it doesn't exist. Still confusing to say that, much less to understand it! How can something without substance be clearly seen and felt? Kinda sounds to me like what Christian Scientists believe. Do you have a post of yours to recommend to me to understand this better?
I guess it all depends on what you mean by "exist." Consider, for instance, the vacuum of space. Is it there? What does it consist of? What are its constituent parts? Ignoring, of course, the fact that there are always "things" in space ... just talking about the vacuum part that consists of ... nothing. So, what does it take to make ... nothing? And is that nothing there? Does it "exist"? We can recognize it. We can even measure it. But it isn't anything but the absence of something. (And, no, I don't have much in the way of philosophical posts built around my guesses.)
Post a Comment