Patheos

BuddhistCatholicContemplativeEvangelicalGeneral ChristianHinduJewishLatter-day SaintMuslimNew VisionsProgressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Patheos

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos Patheos on Facebook Patheos on YouTube

rogereolson

God and evil

Last updated on: August 18, 2011 at 7:31 pm   by Roger E. Olson

God and evil 2011-08-18T19:31:58-05:00 Roger E. Olson

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Obviously, one posted message cannot begin to solve the problem(s) of God and evil.  All I want to accomplish here is clear up some misconceptions about the Arminian view and ask some questions about the classical Calvinist view as some haver articulated it here (and elsewhere).

First, all classical Arminians AGREE that evil is not a “thing” or a substance; it is strictly no-thing: the absence of the good.  That is not a notion of evil unique to Calvinism.  And Augustine did not come up with it, either.  It is clearly articulated by Gregory of Nyssa before Augustine.

What evil is, exactly, is not pertinent to the Calvinist-Arminian debate.  We can agree that it is the absence of the good.  The issue is WHY evil exists.  (I realize “exists” not not the best word for “absence,” but any better way of stating the question eludes me right now.  By “exists” I simply mean “is.”)  Even though evil, like darkness, exists in the mode of absence and not substance it is still real.  (Try going on a cave tour and having the guide turn out the lights and sit in the dark for a while.  The absence of light is very real!)

The question, then, is not WHAT evil IS but WHY evil is.  From the Arminian perspective, the Calvinist (or any believer in what we regard as determinism whether they use that language for their view or not) MUST say (althought they do not always say) that the ultimate cause of evil is God.  That is not because we Arminians think Calvinists believe God forced Lucifer or Adam or anyone to sin but because we think the Calvinist system necessarily implies that God positively planned and rendered it certain. 

Contrary to the accounts of Calvinism offered here by some, Calvin himself strongly denied that God merely permitted the fall of Adam and Eve.  His language against that is quite strong; he scoffs at the idea that God would ever merely permit something.  We Arminians are confused and even bemused by contemporary Calvinists’ use of “permission” when referring to God’s relationship to sin and evil.

One reason is classical and contemporary Calvinists’ strong doctrine of providence.  (See Paul Helm, Providence and R. C. Sproul’s books as examples.)  According to this doctrine, God foreordains and renders certain and controls everything in creation including the very thoughts and intentions of every creature without exception.

After articulating this very strong idea of God’s sovereignty, some Calvinists turn around and say that God did not cause the fall of humanity but that it was freely chosen by Adam and Eve and that God permitted it.  When I look deeper into the meaning of “permitted it” in the leading Calvinists’ books, however, what they seem to mean is “efficacious permission.”  That is, God planned for the fall to happen, it was willed by God and God rendered it certain by withdrawing the grace Adam and Eve needed not to sin.  This is clearly and unequivocally stated by Edwards and other Calvinists.

So when I hear Calvinists talking about God’s permission of sin and evil, in light of their doctrine of God’s providence and their rejection of libertarian free will (as ability to do otherwise), I hear their language of “permission” as meaning something quite different than “the man in the street” or I mean by it.  I wish they would abandon it (following Calvin) and come up with some clearer language for what they mean.

Sure, no Calvinist I know believes God forced Adam and Eve to sin against their wills.  God exercised no compulsion on them.  But that’s not sufficient to say God is not the author of sin and evil.  EVEN if God only planned and rendered certain the fall by withdrawing the grace they needed not to fall, God is the author of sin and evil.  Sin and evil, in the Calvinist view, in contrast to the Arminian view, are positively the will of God to glorify himself (by overcoming them). 

What I still want to know that, no Calvinist here or anywhere, in my experience, has sufficiently answered, is why anything is considered truly evil in the Calvinist account of God and creation.  If everything is planned and rendered certain by God for his glory, including sin and evil (even as only absences and not substances) why not praise God for sin and evil?  They are, after all, his will and necessary for his full glorification. 

So, to sum up, we agree that evil is not a “something” but rather a “nothing” (in the sense of an absence, not a substance).  What we disagree about (among other things) is whether God positively willed evil to glorify himself and whether God’s causal agency with regard to sin and evil is determinative or not.  I think ONLY the Arminian (or person who holds a similar view of God’s sovereignty) can consistently say that God is not in any sense the author of sin and evil and use the language of permission for God’s relationship to them.  I wince when a Calvinist uses that language because it seems to me misleading at best and disingenuous at worst.

Uncategorized

Previous Post



August 30, 2010

God's self-limitations

Next Post



September 2, 2010 A good, new, non-Arminian, Arminian book!


Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Against Liberal Theology Uncategorized

Select a Month October 2026 September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 May 2026 April 2026 March 2026 February 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 September 2025 August 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010




TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

Who opposed the rebuilding of the Temple and tried to discourage the Jews?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Their enemies/Samaritans Moabites Philistines Amalekites

Related posts from Roger E. Olson

Family

The Abolition of Man: Chapter 3: The Abolition...

Roger E. Olson

Family

She Survived Her Execution. Should the State Try...

Roger E. Olson

Family

The Abolition of Man Part 2: Chapter 2:...

Roger E. Olson

Family

Ambiguity without Ambivalence in Faith

Roger E. Olson

TRENDING AT PATHEOS Evangelical

The British Museum-- Part Two

I was strolling through the top floor of the brand new Parthenon...

What Does Gêvâh Mean For Kimberley Guifoyle &...

This week, a lot of the news is focused on Kimberly Guilfoyle....

INNER CIRCLE: Profound Mystery (Of Christ In All...

Ephesians 5:31-32 “For this reason, a man will leave his father and...

Do Not Rejoice When Your Enemy Falls: The...

Turning an execution into a public spectacle is a disturbing expression of...

'The Chosen' S6 Trailer: The Passion Gets Very...

Not many watching 'The Chosen' worry about spoilers, but just because they...

The purpose-driven labor priest

A labor activist reads Rick Warren and it gets me wondering about...

view all Evangelical blogs

Patheos on Facebook Patheos on YouTube

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Copyright 2008-2026, Patheos. All rights reserved.

Subscription Support Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In

Follow Patheos Patheos on Facebook Patheos on YouTube