The Evangelical Universalist Forum

The Difficulty of Sin's Necessity and the Christian God

Theology Philosophical
#1

Many here (myself at times included) simultaneously admit two contradictory ideas.

a) Before Adam (or any person for that matter) sinned, he was free; and
b) Sin was/is a necessary/inevitable part of creation.

I don’t believe these two statements can both be true. If sin was indeed necessary, it was not within Adam or anyone’s power to prevent its occurrence. Therefore, no one is free to either sin or not sin. And, if indeed it is within the power of a person to either sin or not sin, its occurrence was and is not necessary, but contingent on the free will of humans.

Now, since I think - despite what is often said - most people here really intuitively believe b) over a), I want to address what I find the main difficulty in actually holding that the Christian God created a universe in which sin was a necessary part of its perfection.

The main reason most hold that “we must experience sin” is that it is somehow “needed” for us to experience ultimate happiness and perfection. I think, among other people, Dr. Talbott holds this, as well as Bob Wilson and perhaps many more. “Only in a universe in which creatures learn through experiencing sin can such creatures fully come into glory or perfection” or “only by being educated through the bitter experiences of sin and evil can such beings as ourselves fully appreciate the good” are typical arguments employed.

This notion, however, that sin is “needed” for the perfection of the universe, is I think incompatible with the notion of the Christian God.

A being which has omnipotent power - as the Christian God is claimed to have - cannot be hindered by various means to achieve a certain end (this is assuming man is not really free and that sin was “necessary”). In fact, the more limited ones means to achieve a desired end, the so much less is omnipotence present. I have to eat in order to live. If I was omnipotent, I would not need to do so. In fact, I would not “need” properly speaking anything outside my own will for my own perfect fulfillment. In other words, an all powerful, all perfect God could achieve the good of the perfected universe without employing the means of sin. Whatever reason that can be given for sin’s “necessity” can only get that necessity from the omnipotent will of God. To say at one and the same time that God does not will sin, and yet that he willed its existence as a necessary means by which to achieve his end is to state something logically contradictory. An omnipotent being could achieve his desired result (perfection of the universe) without using evil as a means. If we say he had to use evil means, or that he was bound to, we are admitting that he is not omnipotent, for the use of certain means (as opposed to any means imaginable) to achieve a desired end are evidence against his omnipotence itself. And if we say he actually could have created as much good without the evil but didn’t want to then we’re admitting he delights in evil.

It can again be put another way. Some say we need “bitter medicine” to bring us into perfection. But the fact that the medicine tastes bitter would not be an obstacle to an omnipotent being. He could make it taste sweet. As Lewis said in Problem of Pain: “To say, as was said in the last chapter, that good, for such creatures as we now are, means primarily corrective or remedial good, is an incomplete answer. Not all medicine tastes nasty: or if it did, that is itself one of the unpleasant facts for which we should like to know the reason.”

Such is the problem I see with many responses to the statement that sin was or is a “necessary” part of the creation of an all-perfect, all-powerful, all-loving God. I do not think most here see the actual weight of the problem itself, which is why I’m making a post specifically addressing it. Again, to sum it up, if sin is necessary, it must be because God willed it, but an omnipotent being would not have to have evil as part of his creation to achieve his desired ends; and an all loving God would not want to.

Now, assuming there are some who actually believe with me that a) is true - that is, that rational beings were and are free to sin or not (and any case in which they are not free they cannot be held accountable for “sinning”) - and believe also that sin was and is not necessary… assuming this, I say, I think gets us much further along regarding the problem of evil.

But I will just leave it here for now, and invite those who hold that sin was inevitable/necessary to reflect on the dilemma between its existence and God’s omnipotence/benevolence; and also the seemingly conflicting idea that man is still somehow “free”.

edit In an attempt to make myself more clear, I want to add the following. I think it’s fair to say, logically speaking, evil cannot come from an all-powerful, all-good being. For where would it come from? If such a being is, as the Christian God is claimed to be, perfect goodness, it is quite literally impossible for anything evil to come from him. Metaphysically speaking, good is independent of evil. It (i.e. God) exists “by itself”. In other words, Goodness is self-existent. Evil is what is dependent. Evil needs good; good does not need evil. There can therefore be no necessity in creating a world with evil, for good is self-existent and independent of evil for its existence, God’s will (on determinism) is responsible for the existence of all that is, and God is all good, all perfect, without any darkness in him at all. Again, all this is simply the necessary conclusion of believing the total picture of the Christian God. He cannot do evil, cannot create it, cannot author it; nor does he in any way need it, desire it, or will it. The alternative – supposing he actually doescreate the evil we observe, destroys our notion of evil altogether. But who would say certain things (like the Holocaust) were not evil? Of course, if we admit freedom all this changes. For one, God has lain down his omnipotence, so much of the above may not necessarily be true. And second – which is just as important – it no longer makes sense to say that sin or evil was “necessary”. I do not believe evil adds anything positive to the creation; though God, being omnipotent and omnibenevolent, can “draw forth” good (even goods otherwise impossible) from evil.

#2

Hi Chris

Maybe it’s just my naivety, but I don’t see any problem here :smiley: .

In my belief, human beings are ‘free’ in the sense that God does not control our actions. This doesn’t mean we have strong libertarian freedom, inasmuch as very often we cannot act other than we do (or don’t), because we are subject to all sorts of ‘influencing factors’ - genetics, instinct, conscience etc. But we *do *have genuine moral freedom.

But …

In practice it is *impossible *for us not to sin. Not because we are ‘cursed’ by Original Sin, rather because simply by being human we are prey to so many of these influencing factors that no matter how ‘good’ we try to be, we will inevitable do something bad somewhere along the line.

These ‘bad’ things, which we call sin, are the *inevitable *corollary of the freedom we have. I believe it is *impossible *for God to simultaneously give us genuine moral freedom and eradicate or prevent all the ‘bad’ things we do as a result of our human natures. Of course, being omnipotent, God could indeed prevent all the bad, could stop all suffering and pain in an instant. But if He did so, we would not be free.

So for me, the only dilemma is whether or not it was ‘worthwhile’ for God to actualise this free world if the price of that freedom is sin and suffering. Clearly, if God exists, He thought so. And because I remain a believer, despite being massively challenged by this dilemma, I think so too. After all, I 'm glad I exist, even though there is some pain in my life. And I suspect that many, even most of those with massive pain - withering, denaturing pain - in their lives can say the same thing. And if apocatastasis is true - and for me, apocatastasis is equally ‘necessary’ to the whole show - then, to my way of thinking, it becomes a racing certainty that it was indeed all worthwhile.

All the best

Johnny

#3

Hi Chris, :smiley:
I agree with this from someone on a thread awhile back…great stuff and worth reading again. (And better said than I ever could.) I’ve only quoted part of the OP, the whole thing is really wonderful in my opinion… :smiley: evangelicaluniversalist.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=4451

#4

Alec, that was a great thread! Unfortunately pog doesn’t post as much as he used to. But you are aware, surely, that in that very thread he check-mated me into Open Theism? :stuck_out_tongue:

By the way - I posted an edit to my initial post, just FYI.

#5

Johnny,

Thanks for the reply.

But push those “factors” (genes, environment, psychology, etc.) all the way back and where do they come from? God, eh?

Ah, but these two sentences do not logically follow. While I think it the case that it is impossible for God to give us freedom and simultaneously prevent all the bad we do as a result of that freedom, it need not be the case that we ever exercise our freedom in a bad way.

I certainly agree with the practical conclusion you draw here, 100%.

#6

Hi Chris,

I think your OP on the thread I linked to still holds and if anything, your Open Theism makes it easier to accept. :smiley: That being said, I agree whole-heartedly with this from your OP on this thread:

I also agree with this:

I also don’t think evil adds anything to the equation, but I think we, as conscious beings that are separate from–who are** not** God—will **inevitably **do things God wouldn’t do. I think it must be that there was no other way to create beings that were not God or of the “divine essence” (as our Eastern brothers would say) than to initiate this painful and messy process with the potential for all sorts of evil. The evil isn’t necessary, nor is it wanted. If these “free” creatures chose (perhaps randomly) to do only good things, so much the better. The evil that is the nasty by-product of the process is not needed and in fact is hated. The more evil and the more people stray from following the Will of the Creator, the longer it takes for them to get to the place they must end up— as creatures freely doing right and communing with the Trinity.

So that’s how I see it, Chris. Metaphysically in order to create the kind of creatures He wants, the creatures have to be separate from him, with their own wills and desires and go through the process of individuation—developing their own “self”—and then be brought to the point where that self wants only what the Father does. The choice for God (if you can call it that) was between no creatures to relate to or creatures like us and the messy process that entails. The evil is only a by-product of that process—not necessary, but inevitable. At least that’s how I see it. :wink:

#7

Hi Chris,

You focus on questioning why one would think “sin” (and thus evil) would metaphysically be “inevitable” (thus, ‘necessary’). And you focus on a philosophical rationale for why you think God’s omnipotence could produce ‘perfection’ without any evil. But I’ve admitted that a satisfying explanation of evil (and for me also the nature of will) seems to elude great thinkers, and I’ve often admitted they remain mysterious to me. Thus my focus has simply been that it’s arguably the nature of the reality we actually find ourselves in that sin & evil indeed appear inevitable.

I may repeat Johnny, but perhaps you can expand on how you maintain the contrary belief that finite creatures who enter existence as ignorant, ego-centered, and inexperienced, could indeed end up sinless? It’s easy to say, “it need not be the case.” But doesn’t the empirical actuality that every such creature universally makes some evil choices not leave you wondering if that outcome could not fairly be described as “inevitable”?

#8

Hi Bob and Chris,

I hate to step in and post before Chris, but your post, Bob, made me realize something I think is important—at least it is to me. I thought I’d post before I lose my train of thought… :smiley:

The point I wish to make is that perhaps in these discussions we (at least some of us) may be starting from the wrong point. We’re discussing these things as if we were impartial observers, people without beliefs or experiences…What if we truly believe Christ died and rose again based on what evidence we have and start from there? If we start with a Christocentric approach in questions like this it might change the conversation—i.e. we believe Christ died and was resurrected and who He said He was and what the Father is like. Given that, what can explain the way the world we live in actually IS? Why the presence of sin and evil? The unspoken assumption in so many of these theodicy threads is that God may not, in fact, exist if we can’t solve the PoE. We’re not debating with atheists here so why act as if we are? Determining if we really believe Christ died and was resurrected is far easier than solving the PoE.

Sorry for the detour… :frowning:

#9

Sin’s ubiquity is indeed a good question. I’m not sure I have a completely satisfying answer. I do have a few things to say, though.

As you state - we have here empirical evidence that, perhaps, it is inevitable. But it seems to me that for sin to be sin inevitable is exactly what it can’t be. For if sin was determined, it would not be ultimately caused by the agent. God therefore would be its author, we would be removed of all responsibility and culpability and be reduced to the mere instrumentality of the divine will and our personhood would be destroyed. In short, if sin was inevitable it would cease to be sin (this is my view, anyway, and I know a lot here would vehemently deny most of what I affirm!)

What about its ubiquity then? Well, for one, I’m not convinced that all people everywhere continue to sin their entire lives. It certainly seems possible that one may in a certain sense “conquer” earthly sin. At any rate, I have no reason to believe that everyone is always sinning all day every day. Second, is it really the case that all people ever born have sinned? You say this is the empiric “actuality”. But is it? You know, even one exception to your statement would nullify your argument. One 8 year old who overcame his first temptation and then died in a car-wreck: would he meet your criteria?

Nevertheless, I feel your objection. I’m not sure I’ve ever known anyone who believes (with good reason) that they’ve never been in the wrong. (However, I must say, that even if I knew every living person in the United States, this pool of people is still very small, considering the entire history of humanity, and our country is very full of temptation and evil comparatively as well.)

Part of sin’s ubiquity may be mitigated by the doctrine of concupiscence: “that which is of sin and inclines to sin but is not sin”. In other words, I think sinful acts actually lead towards concupiscence within not only the doer of the sin, but even other people - “witnesses” or “bystanders” in some way. Thus a child may grow up with a feeling of resentment in his heart due to the sinful acts of his father. This at any rate presents a much greater opportunity for free willed beings to commit sin.

So that, at the moment, is my tentative answer to your question. But logically, if one supposes that any particular sin is avoidable, would it not follow that it is at least possible for sin never to occur - even if this probability is infinitesimally small? Physicists, you know, believe it possible to run full speed through a brick wall. The odds are just so astronomically small you run out of lead writing down the number of 0’s in the fraction.

#10

Lewis seemed to believe it would be possible for a people to NOT fall to the temptation to sin. (As portrayed in Perelandria.) I wonder if he was right about that? I like to think he was, but on the other hand it seems very unlikely. Still, who knows? I don’t.

#11

If your view needs to reject sin’s universality & plead some never sin, it requires rejecting**:** A. my direct perception of human nature’s profound bent B. the saints’ consensus(Yancey says they all perceive, “I am the worst of sinners”) C. orthodoxy’s doctrinal consensus (Rom. 3:23?).

Yet you concede:

and counter with two arguments: 1. You repeat that this would contradict your theology. But when does a theological belief annul empirical evidence of how things actually work? Shouldn’t preference go to philosophical views that match the evidential realities that we encounter?
Note: E.g. you specify:

Yet many have said here that sin’s inevitability needn’t require such ‘determinism.’ The conditions established for our development may make it inevitable. Even Arminians who think we always ‘can’ do the right thing often agree that sin’s universality is the actual result of our plight.

  1. Your philosophic logic allows that

But what would the theoretical ‘possibility’ of such an “astronomical” chance satisfy? Does it require assuming God was not aware of what would result from the origination of finite creatures who begin experientially ignorant and ego-centered? And if God was a decent odds-maker of the actual results, does creating such conditions provide God enough ‘distance’ from the painful reality of our world that he shares no responsibility for the outcome?

Again, I would find the power or ability to get everything right that you presume we have to be an attractive belief, helpful for theodicy. My hard questions reflect that I’m just doubtful that the evidence confirms that this is our actual experience.

#12

Could sin be inevitable due to the absolute impossibility - even for omnipotence - to create a metaphysically perfect state of affairs? I’ve just posted a thread on this called “Leibniz’s Theodicy” which I’d be interested to hear reflections on.