2006年的系统神学若干作业之一。希望能帮助一点这里关于罪恶问题的讨论。 Answers to the Second Set of Study Questions on the Problem of Evil from Erickson’s Christian Theology (p.448-456) In theologizing the problem of evil, Erickson takes a mild, dualistic approach of Calvinism that emphasizes God’s sovereignty primarily while positively relating it to human freedom and individuality. Six themes are developed in addressing and partly alleviating the seemingly intractable problem of evil. I will summarize each theme with relevant points immediately followed by my comments and critique to minimize undesirable discontinuity. (1) Evil as a Necessary Accompaniment of the Creation of Humanity First, an omnipotent God still cannot and will not do some things out of his character. One such thing is that God would not and did not create robotic-like human without genuine free will. Evil is an undesirable but necessary byproduct of such a creation. I think there is a more fundamental reason to human freewill, that is, the God of perfect freewill has chosen to create human in his image and likeness, one of which is individual freedom and personal sovereignty, however limited and albeit under the Creator’s lordship. The imago dei has to be free. A possible critique stems from the fact that God’s own freewill does not lead any of the three divine persons to sin (defined operationally here as against the totality of God’s own moral character). Furthermore, the ultimate segregation of humanity into confines of heaven and hell will necessarily mean that all redeemed people of God shall never again exercise freewill in a manner unbecoming of being beloved and saved throughout the long eternity. Thus God’s redeeming love and transforming power is, after all, sufficient to maintain a sinless and evil-free status of divine-humanity harmonious relation. So what is it that makes the original Creation susceptible to the fall? In this light, the creation of a human race with genuine freewill need not automatically lead to the unfortunate evil reality of sin and death that prevail in the present cosmos. It thus looks like that this first argument based on the creation of human endowed with freewill still begs to answer the question of evil. Evil does not have to emerge with freewill. Granted that the freewill gives the potential to sin, then the “evil” of pain and death must accompany it to serve as loud warning and deterrent. This seems to be a reasonable argument. I may add that pain and death, a horrific portrait of hell, will be eternally absent from the new heaven and new earth (Revelation 21:4). Second, from the perspective of a natural dimension of evil, death is well within the possibility of the natural laws and phenomena such as tectonic movement causing earthquakes and tsunamis while maintaining a life-sustaining geography and biosphere. Likewise, the laws of gravity and electromagnetic waves have the proven potential to both benefit and harm mankind. This too is a reasonable argument, if we take this cosmos as the best of all possible worlds per Gottfried von Leibniz (p.447). But then the new heaven and earth must be the very best of all. Third, despite the fallibility of man endowed with freewill, God apparently and somewhat mysteriously chose to create. It thus appears that God-man fellowship and love is a treasured premium regardless of the heavy cost of sin and death. Fourth, God cannot eradicate evil as soon as evil surfaces without also eradicating mankind, the evil agents. Thus evil will have to be present, but only for a season, until the white throne judgment. (2) A Reevaluation of What Constitutes Good and Evil There are three dimensions to this theme of greater good from evil: divine, time or duration, and extent of evil. First, we must wear the divine lens to know what good and evil really are. According to Romans 8:28-29 and other passages, goodness cannot be measured by personal health or accrued material wealth. Instead, goodness is measured by godliness, our being molded into the glorious image of the Son of God. What delights God is good, what upsets God is evil. Second, another aspect of our divine lens is viewing our temporary suffering in light of eternity perspective. If suffering eventually helps to distill the godly character of perseverance, endurance, forgiveness and forbearance, and wins us eternal crown of glory, then the road of cross is well worth our suffering through. In fact, we ought to rejoice and be thankful amid the suffering. This by no means suggests Christians are holy masochists. We are followers of Christ whose earthly journey from the manger to the Cross to the tomb has ended up in exaltation to himself and salvation to many. Third, while God’s communication channel is certainly 24/7 with unlimited broadband, and his goodness is beyond measure, this does not mean that God will distribute his blessing to each individual in a manner that no one suffers from the slightest of inconvenience. The same rain welcomed by local farmers will be disliked by golfers and outdoor runners. The problem becomes even accentuated when the same farmer happens to be an avid golfer and jogger. (3) Evil in General as the Result of Sin in General This theme correctly attributes the general origin of evil to the universal fall of human race. First, when commenting on the natural evil, Erickson prefers to view the natural condition of the physical world as very much neutral until sinful human, out of ignorance and greed, corrupts it to beget natural evil. An example in sight is earthquake. Here I find the explanation to be rather strained. Earthquake and tsunami are natural consequences of tectonic plate movement, which is vital to life on earth. Notwithstanding human’s long ignorance about this scientific fact, God has designed the tectonic movement. One would be hard pressed to blame man for ignorance while God foreknows all along the reason for such natural design. Personally, I entertain instead the view of anticipatory design (p.452) by an omniscient God in light of the inevitable fall of mankind in the created space time. All the physical attributes of the cosmos must be designed in a way that takes into full account a priori the ultimate, posteriori, fall of man. The more troublesome question rests with the origin of human sin in the first place. Erickson places the fall of Satan sometime between the completion of the “very good” creation and the temptation of Eve (p.453). Erickson acknowledges that this pushing back the cause of sin does not really solve the problem of evil, especially in view of the fact that Lucifer and other fallen angels were in the very presence of God. Was there sin as if a germ already present in the creation? Erickson refutes this argument by offering an alternative: sin is not so much a germ to be caught as an abuse or misuse of freedom in a wrong way. Admittedly, one still faces the daunting task of explaining why on earth the tragic choice of rebelling against God must be a part of our freewill repertory. Why should some choices be so against God’s moral code that utterly detestable sins devoid of God’s glory are committed by mankind? Why can’t our freewill choices be more narrowly constrained between obeying 90% to 100% of God’s moral code? Isn’t it true that in the future heavenly home we will not entertain even for a moment the rebellious thought against God? (4) Specific Evil as the Result of Specific Sins It is relatively easy to understand this theme: our own and/or others’ specific acts of sin or imprudence cause personal suffering and specific evil. Notable exception exists, such as the man born blind (John 9). Neither his nor anyone else’s sin caused his inborn blindness, but God’s sovereign plan to bring glory by the Son of God. This seems to place the cause of his suffering at a benevolent God. Is then God malevolent in this case? The bible does not allow this portrait of God despite the appearance. Since God is in ultimate control, one may be tempted to blame God for all the evils. Personally I do not view God’s sovereignty down to the finest details of human choice and freedom. To whatever freedom man exercises, God holds us morally accountable. (5) God as the Victim of Evil I find this the most persuasive theme of all. God is said to be long suffering. The Son of God even humbled himself to become a fellow man, experienced the earthly troubles and trials, and even tasted a full dose of death on a cross. He thus identified with our suffering and bore the sin of all mankind. By resurrection, he triumphed over death and paved the only way to our salvation. The raised Son of Man indeed attracts a multitude to follow him. Praises be to God! As evangelist, I often find myself sympathizing with God who lovingly and affordably gets into the mess of mankind. In essence, the God-man love saga is supremely bittersweet. (6) The Life Hereafter The eternal promise of a sinless and evil-free life in heaven has indeed been consoling and comforting to many pilgrims going through countless sufferings. The blessed hope certainly alleviates the earthly burden of sin and suffering. This blissful thought is moderated by the fearful prospect of the presence of hell, a tormenting place that is said to forever confine sin and eternal death away from righteousness and eternal life. Some question why rebellion within a finite lifetime would deserve an infinite, irreparable, and unending suffering in hell. Must human freedom to choice of rebellion be respected by the Almighty God to the catastrophic uttermost? From the co-mingling of goodness and evil in the present cosmos to the eternal segregation of heaven and hell, the problem of evil will have taken on the purest and fully subdued form.