I will add an additional thought (related to the previous article) on the future “justice” of God. There are many who imagine theologically that at some later point, a final judgment, God’s justice will be manifest. In this manifestation of justice, the punishments of hell figure prominently. Of course, this is simply poor theology. Eternity in hell is not a matter of justice nor can it ever be. Justice involves equality. For what failure or crime is eternity in hell an equal payment? And, of course, such justice is unsatisfactory at best. There is nothing that can be done to the murderer of a child that in any way creates a balance. Nothing satisfies. This is the point of Ivan in the chapter “Rebellion” in the Brothers Karamazov. This chapter is a tour de force demonstrating not the bankruptcy of belief in God, but the bankruptcy of the concept of justice interjected into the theological mix.
I belong to a family that has lost two members by murder. I am familiar with the grief and anger that accompany those experiences. I have also, for a time, been involved in “victim’s rights” ministry and been deeply aware of the pain of those involved and the hunger for justice that often accompanies grief. It is certainly the case that no punishment inflicted by the state ever satisfies this hunger for “justice.” I know, I have been there.
The truth is that this hunger for “justice,” is, in fact, a hunger for the event never to have happened. The injustice is not created by the lack of punishment (for there are no truly “just” punishments). The injustice is created by the event itself – an event in which an innocent is made to suffer for no reason whatsoever. That innocence is not restored by any amount of punishment inflicted on the perpetrator. Hell is not a scheme of justice anymore than the American prison system is a scheme for justice. Any thought that either of them have anything to do with justice is a fiction and a dangerous fiction.
These deep wounds inflicted on us by the evil wills of others can only be healed by mercy and forgiveness. Such mercy and forgiveness is nothing less than miraculous and does not come easily or naturally to us. It is something which belongs to the character of God, and only by being transformed by the grace of God can we become people who are capable of such extraordinary love and mercy.
I have seen such love and mercy. It is astounding and utterly without justification. To show mercy upon a murderer or someone who is guilty of inflicting deep injustice is an act of pure grace. It is a gift whose existence can only be explained by the love of God. It is the voice of Christ to the thief on the cross, “This day you will be with me in paradise.”
I wonder what the thoughts of those who had been the victims of this thief would have been had they heard the words of Christ? Would they have shouted that an injustice was being done? Would they have said that his death on the cross was insufficient punishment for all that he had put them through and that paradise was an unjust reward for the simple request, “Remember me when you come into your kingdom?”
Of course, the victims have justice (as we humans understand it) on their side. Justice has a voracious appetite that can never be satisfied. For no matter how much the thief were to suffer, the crimes he committed would not be undone. The money would not be replaced. The fear and shame inflicted on the innocent would not be undone. Once the passion for justice is awakened it is insatiable.
There are many stories of political madness that have at their core the lust for justice. The insanity of the Bolsheviks was, in many ways, fed by the perversions of the human lust for justice. The crimes (real and imagined) of the Tsar and of those who held power in pre-revolutionary Russia, fed the imagination of those who were “setting things right.” There was no humiliation or crime that they themselves were forbidden to inflict in the name of a Marxist version of justice. By the time of Stalin this “justice” had murdered many more millions than had ever suffered in the entire history of Russia. Such is the insatiable appetite for justice.
On smaller scales, this same appetite has accompanied every revolution in the history of the world. Those who come to power feel compelled to administer justice. But no amount of blood-letting is ever truly sufficient.
The one revolution that stands apart is the revolution of the love of God who answered injustice with mercy, who answered hatred with love. Love does no harm and does not add to the madness of the scales of justice. It relieves the burdens created by our own sense of entitlement that we call “justice.”
The commandment to “love your enemies,” is frequently a painful commandment – for it asks us to forego our perceived rights. We renounce our claims to justice and give ourselves over to the hands of a merciful God. It is an act of faith which accepts that unless we become conformed to the image of Christ – unless we can love as He loves – we will never be free of the madness and the self-made hell that our lust for justice births in us. The Cross is the only form of freedom. Nothing less than its radical mercy will heal the human heart.
Comments
134 responses to “More on the "Justice" of God”
God is Father, not “judge”. Even when He judges it is as Father and so is for redemptive and restorative purposes, not retributive. Those who are parents, consider your attitude toward your own children. God’s is even greater!
David,
Are you then saying that when the priest says in the Divine Liturgy, “And for a good defense before the AWSOME JUDGEMENT SEAT OF CHRIST,” he means that Christ’s Last Judgment is redemptive and restorative?
When Christ spoke to the woman at the well she said to the people in her village, “Come meet a man who told me everything I ever did…” His “judgment” of her (bringing into the light what had been in darkness) was redemptive for her, though she could have had an opposite reaction. It revealed the goodness of her heart and the mercy of God, though the details were shameful.
The purpose of everything God does in our life, including the dread day of judgment, is for our well-being and not our hurt. Why would God want to hurt His creation? It is my rebellion and the hardness of my heart that could make His judgment (the bringing into the light what has been hidden) seem bitter. I have already, to a certain extent, been facing the judgment of Christ, as I come to repentance, in my reception into the Church and when I go to confession. Regardless of my sins (which Christ in His mercy has allowed me to see in His light), I always find Him ready to forgive and willing me nothing but good. Sometimes, this is the benefit of having a priest hear your confessions. I would (in my own perversion) judge myself differently than God does. He does not hate me the way I hate myself, neither does He love me the way I love myself (His love is infinitely better).
I pray for mercy on that day (as the Church teaches) and everyday I prepare my heart for that day to come. May I love Him when I see Him face to face.
Thank you. Your last words here are a consolation to my spirit and a reminder that “the word” is truly the last word, my hope and joy. Pray that the Lord would have mercy on me also.
We can come to understand matters rightly only in the light of Christ. He introduced a radically new way which can be summarized, “Ye have heard that it hath been said…But I say unto you…” The old way of justice, an eye for an eye, has been surpassed and fulfilled in Christ’s law of love. Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you. Love you enemy? Our ordinary understanding of justice is wholly inad
From Fr. Sophrony, “We see that He Himself lives in accord
message cont’d
Our ordinary understanding of justice is wholly inadequate.
From Fr. Sophrony, “We see that He Himself lives in accord with His own commandments. The Gospel precepts contain God’s revelation of Himself. The more deeply we enter into their spirit, the more specific will be our vision of God.” -from “We Shall See Him as He Is”
Fr. Bless: What a beautiful post. But this is not something, I think, we can do on our own without the help of the Holy Spirit. It is only by the grace of God that the liberation of forgiveness can be found.
Athanasios Boeker–
I would like to address the patristic quotations and various theological arguments you made, perhaps by writing a blog post in response. I happen to agree with some of what you have said, but think that the quotes from the Fathers that you gave are compatible with what Father Stephen is saying, when it is clarified. Would you read a blog post on this subject if I wrote it?
To quickly state what I think about the issue:
It seems like the Fathers and Scripture understand justice as moral harmony–the right-ordering of things by partaking of God’s righteousness–not retribution. As such, the motivation for punishment is not that “its simply right to harm people that have done wrong in proportion to the wrong done” (which is a rough definition of retribution); instead, active divine punishment is corrective (character-improving) or preventative (vice-stopping), and ultimately geared toward the restoration of moral harmony within human beings and throughout the cosmos. Sometimes divine punishment/wrath/judgment is just the natural consequence of sin, whereby we experience the necessary effects of our sins, without God choosing to will the consequences. God may issue a death sentence, but this can be understood predictively (you will die) instead of as an imposition of retributive response (I will kill you). It can also involve a divine decision to not remove death from the world, without this implying that death happens because of God’s will to retributively punish; God can let death have its effect on humanity because it serves a corrective and preventative purpose.
When justice, law, wrath, and punishment are understood in this way, we can interpret the patristic quotations about death as a judgment for sin, Christ dying for our sins, being an offering to the Father, taking away our penalty, etc. in a way that is consistent with what Fr. Stephen is saying. Death is a judgment for sin because it is both a natural consequence of sin, and something that God does not remove from the world automatically because He wants to use it to prevent evil and to correct vice. Christ takes away God’s wrath (Romans 5); but this wrath (ala Romans 1) is the natural consequences of our sins (ie. the experience of death and corruption)–not God’s will to retributively punish. Christ dies because of the law of death; but this law is a natural law about how sin inevitably leads to corruption, as St. Athansius says, not a divine decision to impose retribution. Christ takes away our debt by dying; but He pays the price to *death*, not God (as Athanasius also points out). Christ takes the place of the guilty; but not by having guilt imputed to him, but by taking on the consequences of the sins for which we are guilty. Christ offers himself to the Father; but this can mean that his decision to die is an accomplishment of the Father’s will ie. that humanity would be saved from annihilation, death, and corruption.
Like I said, I’d be glad to argue this out, and explain the biblical argument, how this view of justice relates to the eternality of hell, and whatever else. For now I’m just offering the framework, and hopefully it will clarify how I would deal with each patristic quote. If you would like to discuss any of the individual patristic citations I’d be glad. What do you think–does this make sense?
Here are some links to places where I have already argued for aspects of this view:
http://wellofquestions.wordpress.com/2009/01/21/natural-consequences-5-athanasius-on-the-law-of-death/
http://wellofquestions.wordpress.com/2008/09/10/natural-consequences-4-death-and-natural-union-2/
http://wellofquestions.wordpress.com/2008/05/28/natural-consequences-3-jeremiah-on-suffering-and-punishment/
http://wellofquestions.wordpress.com/2008/05/05/natural-consequences-1-jeremiah-on-word-fire-and-wrath/
Again, I’d be interested in input from anyone who is willing (but this is an awful lot of material, so I won’t mind if no one responds).
One thing I didn’t notice here was a Trinitarian perspective on the Atonement: the Son, outside of time and space, eternally offers himself the Father in a movement of Divine Perichoresis. The Incarnate Logos offers Himself to the Father and by doing so allows humanity to participate in this Perichoretic offering. Indeed, one might think of this as a primary understanding of Christ’s offering himself to the Father and of our participation with God in the Eucharist. The one thing I would observe is that this is always an (the supreme) act of Love.
Nothing happens without God either willing it or purposely allowing it. Would you not agree?
I very strongly recommend David Bentley Hart’s The Doors of the Sea to you. It is quite short and very readable. There was also a good First Things online article on the problem of evil that quotes from it at length – you should be able to find it via google, but the book is an extended answer to this question.
Darlene,
I hope this doesn’t come across as an intrusion in your conversation with Father Stephen, but perhaps this will help.
The Orthodox view is that man’s spiritual vision is blurred, but that we didn’t lose all ability or desire to seek God. This is why, for example, Cornelius in Acts 10:1-2 is referred to as “devout and God-fearing.” When one looks at such an example, s/he has to wonder how such a view could possibly fit into the Reformed point-of-view. This man hadn’t heard the message of the Gospel and there’s nothing to assume that God had in some way created an extra dose of grace to regenerate Corenelius’ heart. He was simply exercising his free will in a God pleasing manner.
The following from St. Justin Martyr is pretty good summation of the Orthodox view:
We have learned from the prophets, and we hold it to be true, that punishments, chastisements, and rewards are rendered according to the merit of each man’s actions. Otherwise, if all things happen by fate, then nothing is in our own power. For if it be predestined that one man be good and another man evil, then the first is not deserving of praise or the other to be blamed. Unless humans have the power of avoiding evil and choosing good by free choice, they are not accountable for their actions-whatever they may be…. For neither would a man be worthy of reward or praise if he did not of himself choose the good, but was merely created for that end. Likewise, if a man were evil, he would not deserve punishment, since he was not evil of himself, being unable to do anything else than what he was made for. 110-165AD St. Justin Martyr First Apology chap. 43)
Many blessings to you!
Adam
Darlene,
Here’s another good one:
“…if anyone has drawn close to God, he has evidently approached Him by means of His energy. In what way? By natural participation in that energy? But this is common to all created things. It is not, therefore, by virtue of natural qualities, but by virtue of what one achieves through free choice that one is close to or distant from God.
But free choice pertains only to beings endowed with intelligence. So among all creatures only those endowed with intelligence can be far from or close to God, drawing close to Him through virtue or becoming distant through vice. Thus such beings alone are capable of wretchedness or blessedness. Let us strive to lay hold of blessedness. (St. Gregory Palamas The Philokalia Vol. 4 edited by Palmer, Sherrard and Ware; Faber and Faber pg. 382)
Blessings in Christ,
Adam
Darlene–
(to add to what Adam just said about Cornelius)
We know that God does not hear sinners (John 9:31) and without faith it is impossible to please God (Heb 6). The fact that God heard Cornelius, then, implies that he was in some sense faithful, and therefore in some sense saved, prior to confessing Christ (though he was fully saved later, of course Acts 11:14).
It seems that when humanity fell in Adam, we were not completely deprived of grace. We have the image of God still, and Christ is that image (2 Cor 4:4), so we all (even fallen humans) have union with Christ in some sense. St. Paul notes that the Gentiles are able by nature to do what the law requires (Rom 2:14) and attain justification (2:12-13). This is because God’s image, which is the logos of human nature (a divine energy that indwells us, by which God predestines us to immortality and goodness) shapes and gives reality to our human nature.
The state of fallen humanity is complex, not simply evil, in Paul’s impersonation of the unregenerate Jew or Gentile (Rom 7:13-25). On the one hand, nothing good dwells in the flesh (which here means corruption) because the corrupted aspect of us is necessarily directed away from the good. But there is more to us than our corruption. We have a mind/nous (7:16, 22-23, 25) by which we perceive the goodnesses (energies) of God. We have a will (7:20-1) which wills to do good, even though it falls short of attaining to God’s glory (Rom 3:23) because it cannot accomplish the good that it wills (lacking the divine empowerment that comes from personally uniting oneself to the Holy Spirit).
So we are totally depraved in the sense that apart from the gracious presence of God indwelling us, we have no power to do good (in fact, we wouldn’t even exist if we became separated from the image of God). But the unregenerate are not totally depraved in the sense that God’s activity still indwells them and allows them to do good. They cannot attain to the glory of God by effort. But Christians can do this, because the Spirit of God pours love into their hearts (Rom 5:5) enabling them to walk according to the Spirit and fulfill the righteous requirements of the law (Rom 8:1-4) because to love is to fulfill the law (Rom 13:10).
Does that make sense?
Father, forgive me if this is an intrusion; I don’t want to be a nuisance on your great blog.
Greg quotes Athanosius Boeker’s earlier question, “Nothing happens without God either willing it or purposely allowing it. Would you not agree?”
Indeed Hart’s book addresses this question. The short answer is: no. We do not agree as it does not account for the real freedom bestowed by God upon HIs finite creatures. For the long answer, read the book.
What this has to do with justice, I have no clue.
Sea, Can you please tell me how your view of Divine Providence and justice, and denial of mine, squares with these passages of St. John Damascene?
“Also one must bear in mind that God’s original wish was that all should be saved and come to His Kingdom. For it was not for punishment that He formed us but to share in His goodness, inasmuch as He is a good God. But inasmuch as He is a just God, His will is that sinners should suffer punishment.
The first then is called God’s antecedent will and pleasure, and springs from Himself, while the second is called God’s consequent will and permission, and has its origin in us. And the latter is two-fold; one part dealing with matters of guidance and training, and having in view our salvation, and the other being hopeless and leading to our utter punishment, as we said above. And this is the case with actions that are not left in our hands.
But of actions that are in our hands the good ones depend on His antecedent goodwill and pleasure, while the wicked ones depend neither on His antecedent nor on His consequent will, but are a concession to free-will For that which is the result of compulsion has neither reason nor virtue in it. God makes provision for all creation and makes all creation the instrument of His help and training, yea often even the demons themselves, as for example in the cases of Job and the swine”.
St. John Damascene, Book II Chapter XXIX
I would like to mention that I appreciate David Bently Hart. And I would also like to mention that in his book “The Beauty of the Infinite,” the chapter called “A Gift Exceeding Every Dept” He makes a thorough defense for Anselm’s Cur Deus Homo. And I would add Anselm’s “Satisfaction Theory”
That squares quite well, actually. It tells us that God does not will evil, that corruption is a result of free choice – itself a gift and manifestation of Love – and that God will not ultimately suffer defeat in his Good purposes.
I think the River of Fire goes way too far to the point of distortion, however Fr. Stephen’s general point is consistent with any kind of coherent patristic synthesis, at least in my somewhat limited experience.
Anyway, read the Hart book, read any patristic oriented work on theodicy or immutability, you’ll get the extended perspective.
Why don’t you just explain it to me?
Great discussion! Ron Jung said, “God is always seeking sinners out. The voice of God walks in the garden calling out for the sinners.”
The Reformed Calvinist understanding would be that God is ONLY seeking those whom He has predestined to eternal life. He has no interest in a salvific sense toward those whom He has already predestined to damnation. The only grace they receive is His common grace, not saving grace. So it is that Christ’s atonement, His passion is “limited” only toward those whom He has already chosen in eternity past. While this may be a comfort to those who have the inner witness that they are the elect, to those who have the tendency toward hyper-introspection and scrupulosity it can cause doubt. Am I really saved? Did God really choose me, such a wicked person? What if I possess a false faith and not a saving faith? Did God really love me from eternity past and am I among those for whom Christ died? The questions can be tormenting and the doubt overwhelming. Some Calvinists can actually come to the conclusion that even if they are among the predestined damned, then God still is glorified in His choice/election.
Recently a Calvinist friend sent my husband and I a YouTube segment of the Calvinist gospel, although the title was something to the effect of how to rightly preach the gospel. In it, one of the pastors/theologians said, “God is not promiscuous with His love.” I think he meant this in the sense that God is not indiscriminate with His love. He doesn’t just offer it to anyone. (I’ll go back and view it again) At first, that statement sounded right to me – after all, isn’t God a just God and would He allow His love to be trampled upon and misused? My Protestant misconceptions die hard! Yes, actually God’s love is vulnerable, it allows itself to be misunderstood and misused, as is said of our Lord, “Like a lamb that was led to the slaughter, and like a sheep that before its sheerers is dumb so He opened not His mouth.” Even in the midst of mocking and derision He pleaded, “Father forgive them for they know not what they do.” Yes, “God so loved the world (not just the “elect world”) that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him has everlasting life. For God sent the Son into the world not to condemn the world (and this is not just the “elect” world), but that the world might be saved through Him.
Old patterns of thinking are difficult to assuage. Oddly, I found myself fighting and resisting the Calvinist gospel the whole time I attended that Reformed church.
May I truly come to understand the meaning of the gospel of Christ as He desires us to know it, to live it, to communicate it to others.
In Christ’s Immeasurable Love,
Darlene
The reconstruction of the main thrust of Cur Deus Homo in The Beauty of the Infinite is on page 366. I would simply point out two things: first, his representation is explicitly to align it with the patristic synthesis, which he draws most heavily from Gregory of Nazianzus in the surrounding discussion: which is to say he explicitly attempts to free the text from the a theory centered on a judicial transaction; second, I really think that you need to read the preceding chapter on sacrifice/violence to grasp this discussion in context.
I am not Orthodox, by the way, at least not yet, and I don’t have any motivation to stick it to “the West”, but I do think that there is enough consistency in the patristic texts to support what Father Stephen is trying to get across, though I would caveat that by pointing out that there are clearly exceptions and that any attempt to reduce the Atonement to a “theory” is a mistake in my judgment (which is admittedly not worth much).
You want me to summarize the book? I can cut and paste what I guess you could take to be a summation (though not the sustained argument) from the article I mentioned:
The Doors of the Sea was published in 2005 in the aftermath of the great Asian tsunami that killed an estimated 225,000 people. Throughout his reflection, Hart wrestles with the hauntingly brilliant statement of the theodicy question posed by Dostoyevsky’s Ivan Karamazov. Herewith a few of the things Hart says in this very impressive little book: “God has fashioned creatures in his image so that they might be joined in a perfect union with him in the rational freedom of love. For that very reason, what God permits, rather than violate the autonomy of the created world, may be in itself contrary to what he wills. But there is no contradiction in saying that, in his omniscience, omnipotence, and transcendence of time, God can both allow created freedom its scope and yet so constitute the world that nothing can prevent him from bringing about the beatitude of his Kingdom.
“Indeed we must say this: as God did not will the fall, and yet always wills all things toward himself, the entire history of sin and death is in an ultimate sense a pure contingency, one that is not as such desired by God, but that is nevertheless constrained by providence to serve his transcendent purpose. God does not will evil in the sinner. Neither does he will that the sinner should perish (2 Peter 3:9; Ezekiel 33:11). He does not place evil in the heart. He does not desire the convulsive reign of death in nature. But neither will he suffer defeat in these things.
“Every free act—even the act of hating God—arises from and is sustained by a more original love of God. It is impossible to desire anything without implicitly desiring the infinite source of all things; even the desire of the suicide for the peace of oblivion is born of a love of self—however tragically distorted it has become—that is itself born of a deeper love for the God from whom the self comes and to whom the self is called. . . .
“Until that final glory, however, the world remains divided between two kingdoms, where light and darkness, life and death, grow up together and await the harvest. In such a world, our portion is charity, and our sustenance is faith, and so it will be until the end of days. As for comfort, when we seek it, I can imagine none greater than the happy knowledge that when I see the death of a child, I do not see the face of God but the face of his enemy. Such faith might never seem credible to someone like Ivan Karamazov, or still the disquiet of his conscience, or give him peace in place of rebellion, but neither is it a faith that his arguments can defeat: for it is a faith that set us free from optimism long ago and taught us hope instead.
“Now we are able to rejoice that we are saved not through the immanent mechanisms of history and nature, but by grace; that God will not unite all of history’s many strands in one great synthesis, but will judge much of history false and damnable; that he will not simply reveal the sublime logic of fallen nature but will strike off the fetters in which creation languishes; and that, rather than showing us how the tears of a small girl suffering in the dark were necessary for the building of the Kingdom, he will instead raise her up and wipe away all tears from her eyes – and there shall be no more death, nor sorrow, nor crying, nor any more pain, for the former things will have passed away and he that sits upon the throne will say, ‘Behold, I make all things new.’”
Father,
You said regarding the adulterous woman, “It revealed the goodness in her heart,’ referring to Christ’s judgement. This sort of phrase offends my Protestant understanding, yet I am aware of how much I need to learn and unlearn. I have been taught that there is no goodness within fallen, sinful humans. Jeremiah 17:9 says, “The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately corrupt; who can understand it?” and regarding our Lord’s interaction with humans, “but Jesus did not trust himself to them, because he knew all men and needed no one to bear witness of man; for he himself knew what was in man.” St. John 2:24
Now however, I look at these verses a little differently. The verse immediately following in Jeremiah says, “”I the Lord search the mind and try the heart, to give every man according to his ways, according to the fruit of his doings.” So God is truly fair and righteous, and He rewards us according to His righteous standards, which are far more equitable than mans’ standards.
Regarding the verse in St. John, those to whom Christ did not trust Himself could not mean ALL men, because He entrusted Himself to His disciples, to the twelve. He revealed much about His nature, His calling, His love, His committment toward those who had “ears to hear.”
I do need some clarification though. What is the Orthodox understanding of the nature of man? I know it can’t be the Total Depravity understanding as taught in Calvinism where there is nothing whatsoever within us that can do good, that nothing in unregenerate man can reach out toward God or call upon Him, since He is dead in his sins and a dead man cannot “do” anything to save himself. Even the regenerate man’s good deeds are considered to be “filthy rags” and our good works can be stained with sinful motives and therefore are worthless.
I look forward to your comments.
In Christ’s Immeasureable Love,
Darlene
How is this: “but that is nevertheless constrained by providence to serve his transcendent purpose” then different from, “Nothing happens without God either willing it or purposely allowing it.”
BTW greg, I completely agree with you on this point. “I think the River of Fire goes way too far to the point of distortion.”
Athanasios Boeker–
You wrote:
“Nothing happens without God either willing it or purposely allowing it. Would you not agree?”
I think what Greg and Hart (and most of the Fathers) are saying is that God may either will or allow all things, but that not everything he allows is for the sake of a purpose. In other words, evil is not a necessary instrument to the accomplishment of God’s purposes. Rather, it is an unintended, unwanted side-effect of the misuse of free will. Evil has no necessary role to play in God’s economy, because as St. Maximus says, evil has no logos–it has no inherent teleology. The possibility of evil was necessary for free creatures to be able to freely choose to have an incorruptible character. If they couldn’t freely choose an incorruptible character, then their virtue would not be praiseworthy, and would be empty of moral value. After all, they wouldn’t be the source of their own character if God determined them to have it.
Regardless of the fact that the possibility was necessary, sin itself was not a necessary occurrence, only a possibility present in God’s good creation. When it did occur, (when free creatures actualized that possibility) God had anticipated its occurrence and foreordained to use it to bring about good (when possible). But God does not need to use evil as a necessary means to bring about good, and it would have been better had the fall not happened. Some evils are utterly gratuitous in the sense that they do not serve to accomplish any higher good purpose of God. God is not culpable for permitting them, because they are a consequence of free will; and God could only prevent them if He took free will (and various other goods associated with it) away. So some evils are gratuitous, and some evils are used by God to bring about good, but no evils are a necessary part of God’s plan.
Some Western theologians have thought that the fall was permitted by God for the sake of bringing about a greater good. In other words, God didn’t want the fall to happen, but thought it was necessary in order perhaps to make his creatures gain virtues like courage and mercy. So God brought the fall about not by directly causing sin, but by directly causing the conditions that would inevitably lead to sin. Other westerners have said that God basically willed that the fall happen for the sake of a greater good, such as God being able to display his justice in punishing the damned. These understandings both seem to compromise divine goodness and sovereignty. They compromises God’s goodness because God would be culpable if He had to use evil to fulfill his purposes; He would have to will or permit the means (evil) with the same necessity with which He wills the end (good). It also compromises God’s sovereignty because it makes God’s plans dependent on evil for their accomplishment.
Is the difference between what I take the patristic view to be, and what I take the view of some Westerners to be, clear? And what do you think of this matter?
How is this: “but that is nevertheless constrained by providence to serve his transcendent purpose” then different from, “Nothing happens without God either willing it or purposely allowing it.”
I dodged answering your question directly – I would have said yes rather than no, but I think that a simple yes could easily be misunderstood.
MG,
I just wanted to let you know I agreed with the overwhelming majority of you earlier post.
But. I need to know how, “God had anticipated its occurrence and FOREORDAINED IT’S USE to bring about good (when possible).” differs from, “Purposely allowing it.”
Thanks Greg for understanding my point.
Forgive me if I am misunderstanding the point you are making Athanasios and Greg, but I see a difference between Hart’s quote and Athanasios’. If we think of all evil as either willed or purposefully permitted, there is no tragedy. Whereas Hart speaks of evil as constrained, that is to say it is limited in its scope by providence, thus the death of a child is a real tragedy without purpose in itself (it is pure tragedy). God will turn it for good, but it is God’s transformation of the tragedy that infuses it with meaning, the event itself is not from Him or approved by Him.
I would take Hart to say that God by his providence limits the scope of evil by bringing good from the evil. Therefore, the corruption of the evil remains the full and total result of the evil agent, however it is constrained by the fact that no matter what the evil one may desire, God will bring the salvation of the world from it. Thus the act of evil is truly evil as well as its purposed effect, all the while God is actively turning it for the salvation of His creation (though He would have preferred that it never happen in the first place).
This is a far different thing than saying that God purposefully allows the death of a child so he can bring about someone’s salvation (or something akin to it). Hart seems to hold that the omnipotence of God is found in his ability to take human suffering on himself and transfigure it, whereas my understanding of Athansios’ comment would leave God as the gatekeeper for evil. Therefore, evil would never happen except that God gave it his approval for the purpose of bringing some great good from it. Ethically this means that, for God at least, the ends justifies the means.
Hart does not seem to believe this. Evil is constrained by providence in that its scope is always limited by the fact that no matter what the evil one desires it will never reach his goal. There is no good in evil, what good comes from it comes down from the Father of lights in whom there is no darkness whatsoever.
I hope this made sense, and pardon me if I misunderstood anyone or seem to be argumentative. I just saw a difference that seemed worth noting.
Athanasios–
I think kcvest has basically stated the difference between what I was saying and what I *thought* you were saying.
You asked how
“God had anticipated its occurrence and FOREORDAINED IT’S USE to bring about good (when possible).” differs from, “Purposely allowing it.”
Saying God purposely allows evil seems to make it sound like God allows evil for the sake of bringing about greater good–that evil is necessary for God’s purposes to be accomplished. I was saying that evil is not part of God’s plan–it contingently enters into the picture through misuse of free will. God anticipated its occurrence and foreordained to use it for good *as a consequence of the fact that it was already going to happen* by the misuse of free will. God did not foreordain its occurrence, because He does not will that evil occur; but He did foreordain that *if it were to occur* He would make use of the sins of creatures to curb their own sins and the effects of their sins.
I get the concern about remaining true to scripture. What I don’t get is the attachment to a vengeful God when a far more tenable alternative is provided. People believe things about God which they would be ashamed to believe about their own merely earthly fathers.
I genuinely appreciate the level the discussion has maintained and am particularly pleased that Hart’s work has been introduced. I remember encountering his treatment of Anselm with some consternation when I first read Beauty of the Infinite, but, as others have mentioned here, understood that he was defending Anselm as indeed part of the patristic synthesis (reconciling Anselm) rather than defending the portrayal of Anselm that has come to be rather standard.
It is simply a consistent presentation of Orthodox theology and of the faith that whatever God does, He does for our salvation – and is not a God who has need of punishment in order to mete out justice. God serves no abstract concept. The use of language similar to the language of the OT, when challenged, is defended in an a manner (typologically or theologically) in which the literal quality is quickly set aside for a deeper theological interpretation. This is especially true in the Hesychast fathers – who probably represent the Patristic synthesis in its most mature form (as is generally true of the Divine Liturgy).
More importantly – and in this I anticipate my next posting – there are very important considerations for theology when it is turned to “how we live,” when the theological lens is turned from questions that may seem somewhat abstract – to questions of my next encounter with evil, etc. I look forward to posting.