Explore BrainMass

The Problem of Evil and Free Will

This content was STOLEN from BrainMass.com - View the original, and get the already-completed solution here!

1. Do humans have free will?
2. Are human beings individually responsible for our bad behavior?
3. Are human beings essentially evil?
4. What is evil? What makes something evil?

We will improve our understanding of the problem of evil if we compare our answers for questions 1-4 with answers given by followers of faiths other than Christianity. Find an internet site sponsored by a religion other than your Christianity. Research and report their answers to questions 1-4 and state how their answers affect their problem of evil (150-200 words).

© BrainMass Inc. brainmass.com October 25, 2018, 7:59 am ad1c9bdddf

Solution Preview

Hi there! Thanks for the opportunity to help you; I hope this does so.

As I am sure you can imagine, naturally with a different religion there will probably be a different response to the Problem of Evil. In fact, even different views exist within Christendom. So it will be no surprise to find that there exist myriad approaches to the philosophical issue in any other religion. Now, from the instructions you posted I am certain that gathering the right resources is important, and you would want multiple resources to use. So I took the liberty of ...

Solution Summary

The problem of Evil and Free Will are examined. Whether human beings are individually responsible for our bad behavior is determined.

See Also This Related BrainMass Solution

The Theological Problem of Evil

Having a couple debates with two classmates, can you tell me what your scholarly response would be to this:

Millard Erickson posits three possible solutions to the problem of evil. The first of these is "Finitism" which concludes that God is not omnipotent. Brightman's version of this asserts that there are factors beyond God's control and inherently part of His nature. The important distinction is that God cannot cross these limitations by virtue of giving free will to humanity versus choosing not to cross them, which would be a theist's view. Erickson's summation of this view is that God is actually still uncertain that He can or will overcome evil. I agree with Erickson, that finitism makes God something less than He claims. If God can promises to have ultimate victory over evil, yet unable to have that knowledge or power for certain, how can he be trusted?

The second solution to evil in the world is espoused by Gordon C. Clark. This is a "modification of the concept of God's goodness." This idea does not view God as the author of sin, but as the ultimate cause of it. It is difficult to perceive God would be acting in accordance with His own character if He authored sin, yet difficult passages beg the question. For example, Lamentations 3:38 states, "Is it not from the mouth of the most high that both good and bad come?" This view that God is still sovereign yet not held guilty for sin or "edualistic" in nature is where Erickson finds problems with God's goodness. This is a very Reformed view of sovereignty and while it helps explain the issue of evil, it diminishes the goodness of God.

The third solution is a denial of evil. This view explains that what we perceive as evil is simply an illusion. There is a dichotomy between anything material and anything spiritual, and only spiritual realities exist. All material things are created in the mind, including evil, sickness, and death. Erickson explains the Christian science position as a failure because those who believe it still die. This is the weakest of all three explanations. Scripture clearly refers to both spirit and body as realities, calling humanity to account for actions done in the body, whether good or evil. (2 Cor. 5:10) The repeated promises of God to judge evil in the world indicate that it is very real and will be judged. (Hebrews 9:27)

Erickson's view that evil is necessary to the creation of humans is closer to reality. I believe that by God giving freedom to humanity, as exercised in Gen. 3, evil is an available choice, otherwise we would be less than human. Thwarting God's master plan is not in our power, yet clearly we have the freedom to choose sin, and God is not guilty for our choice.

Erickson, Milliard. Christian Theology. 2nd edition. MI: Baker Academic, 1998.

View Full Posting Details