Toward a Greater Good Theodicy - Part Four

Over the past several weeks, we have been discussing Theodicy, God's relation to evil. First, we outlined the different positions that people typically take on this issue. Then we discussed the favored view, evidence for it, and then discussed God's purposes for suffering in this world. I would say that my argument is fairly strong, but with any argument, there will be people who disagree. Today we will examine three objections to the greater good theodicy, and evaluate their own personal strengths.

In the first volume of his Systematic Theology, Charles Hodge outlines two objections to the Greater Good Theodicy, which I will refer to as the limitation and happiness objections. In addition to this, I will also discuss the objections raised by those who adhere to a theology of openness.

The limitation objection argues that the greater good theodicy actually limits God. The limitation objection argues that if God was truly omnipotent, then he would not need to use suffering or pain to produce the product of his will. This argument further advances the notion that the greater good theodicy leads to the belief of a finite God in that it supposes that God cannot make anything greater or better, that this world exists as it is simply because God could not do any better. This is a fairly interesting objection, and at first I was not sure as to how to answer it. However, this objection fails to recognize God’s purpose for the creative act, mainly the glorification and exaltation of Jesus Christ. This purpose in creation requires the Earth and humanity to exist in the state that it is, so that Christ may redeem humanity from its sin, and establish himself as Lord.

Second, the happiness objection argues that the greater good theodicy suggests that human happiness is the end goal of creation. The "happiness" objection argues that this is both unscriptural and contrary to moral reasoning. This objection correctly notes that the Bible declares that the glory of God, an infinitely higher end, is the final cause for which all things exist. This objection further argues that if the purpose of suffering is the glorification or happiness of man, even through suffering, it is contrary to God’s own will, the glorification of himself. However, this objection fails in that it does not understand what glorifies God. The things that glorify God are the expansion of his kingdom through evangelism and the deepening of his people in holiness and righteousness which, according to Piper, is achieved through man’s suffering.

Finally, those who hold to a theology of openness argue that the open view of God is the best way to deal with the problem of evil. Open theists argue that evil has been difficult for conventional theism of its reluctance to see divine power as something which is shared with creation. However, open theists argue that in order to exonerate God from guilt, His "monopoly" of power must be rejected. Open theists argue that classical theism’s view of theodicy lays the guilt of evil upon God, and labels him as the author of sin. Open theism further argues that classical theism ignores the fact that there are many forces at work within creation. These forces include God, Satan, angels, demons, and men, all of whom may freely choose to rebel, disobey, and cause evil things to happen. Open theists also argue that their "logic of love" theodicy is also superior to classical theism as it can rationalize evils that are not the result of a moral agent, such as earthquakes and floods. Open theists argue that these natural disasters occur because of the randomness that underlies creativity and the byproduct of the orderly natural processes that sustain life. While the open theist’s objection is interesting in that it advocates a theodicy that is easily accepted, it must be rejected as it limits God’s omnipotence. The open theist’s goal is to absolve God of the guilt of evil, but in doing so it strips Him of his power, thus replacing a supposedly guilty God for an impotent one.