Thanks for pointing this out :)

Mathew adds a good point as well.

Satan seems more like a prosecutor/lying, stealing, breaking, word-twisting kinda guy anyway, and did actually serve some purpose in God's army before his fall, rather than being God's exact opposite to begin with.

Therefore it would not be the action requiring prevention so much as the thought itself, if the fall was to be prevented. If this follows through then, under Open Theism, it would have been virtually impossible to prevent the fall. What do you think?

Sorry, Duane, I had totally missed this. My bad.

To Open Theists I tend to posit the following question: If the fall of Adam and Eve was truly against God’s will, if indeed God had no ordained purpose for sin appearing in his creation, then why did he plant a forbidden tree in the garden at all? It would not have been impossible to prevent the fall: place them in paradise with no forbidden tree.

There are some who have replied, “God didn’t know they would eat of it.” But such a reply seems to miss the whole point, doesn’t it? They cannot eat the forbidden fruit if there is no forbidden tree to pick from. But there was. Ergo: “Why?”

If the existence of gratuitous evil is supposed to mean there is no God, does that mean that the existence of gratuitous good means there is no Satan?

When it comes to Problem of Evil arguments (there a few different versions), the intent is to prove that “it’s unlikely the Christian God exists because (a) gratuitous evil exists and (b) that runs contrary to God as defined in Christianity.” But the real ‘problem’ is that all such arguments actually fail (for very subtle reasons that, when flushed out, prove to be embarrassingly basic). I’m currently working on a series devoted to looking at this particular species of arguments against the existence of God, the first of which I hope to have published this week. (I was supposed to have it up by last Saturday but ended up getting swamped by real life demands.) Hopefully you and others will come away with a better understanding of not only what Problem of Evil arguments try to prove but also why the true and living God stands impervious to the attacks.

Not once in my experiences have I ever heard someone propose a Problem of Goodness argument against the existence of Satan. When it comes to unbelievers, their energies are invested in arguing against God; it is the clear knowledge of God they constantly combat and try to suppress. The more arguments they develop against God and the louder they target him for their rants, the more they prove the inspired words of the apostle Paul in the first chapter of Romans.

For the discussion to work, wouldn't Evil need to be properly defined within the Biblical framework as well?

It all depends on what the argument is aiming to do. In most cases, a Problem of Evil argument proposes that what the Bible teaches about God and evil is inconsistent with how the world really is; in other words, given the probability of gratuitous evil, God as revealed in the Bible is unlikely to exist. Insofar as they argue this way, then the terms ‘God’ and ‘evil’ must correspond to the biblical witness, yes.

And if so, is small children dying of hunger or by natural disaster really a matter of Evil, or does it fall under cause-and-effect?

That’s a nuanced question, getting at the heart of how evil is understood in the Bible. When it comes to morality, no action is ever sinful in and of itself. It is always the intention that counts as sin. If it was true that actions are sinful in themselves, then God would be guilty of sin. For example, if the action of selling Joseph into slavery was in itself a sin, then God would be just as guilty of sin as his brothers, for both God and Joseph’s brothers were involved in that action. But it is not the act itself that is a sin, but rather the intention of the agent. For the brothers it was a sin, because by it they meant to harm him; for God it was not a sin, because by it he meant to save countless lives. (Genesis 45:4-8; cf. Genesis 50:15-21.) So, was selling Joseph into slavery really a matter of Evil? Depends on the agents responsible and their intent.

Consider also Sennacherib, the Assyrian king, how the sovereign hand of God wielded him as an instrument of his just wrath and yet, nevertheless, he punished the king for his sins. It was not about ‘what’ Sennacherib did but rather ‘why’ he did it. They were both involved in that action; God planned it and brought it to pass, but the king also planned it and brought it to pass. Yet while God’s intent was righteous judgment, the king’s intent was sinful pride. (Isaiah 10:5-16; cf. 2 Kings 19:22-28) So, are violent sieges against cities really a matter of Evil? Depends on the agents responsible and their intent.

What about torturing and crucifying the Son of God? Is that really a matter of Evil? God planned it and brought it to pass, in as much as certain leaders and rulers had. The question depends on the agents responsible and their intent.

Contemplate a thought experiment. You have two people, Smith and Jones. Smith sees a homeless person on the side of the road and buys him a sandwich to eat. The next day Jones sees that same homeless person and likewise buys him a sandwich. Both cases are exactly the same action. According to what the Bible tells us about morality, was that good or sin? Seems a bit difficult to answer, yes?

Suppose I were to tell you that Smith is someone with a seething hatred for anything to do with God and his authority, that he is an avowed atheist whose action was guided by his God-defying commitment to secular humanism. And suppose also that Jones has an overwhelming love for God, that he is a committed follower of Christ whose action was guided by his God-revering commitment to glorify God in all things. Does the moral question become easier to answer? Notice that the action didn’t change. In both cases it was identical. The only change was discovering the intent of the agent involved.

Moral culpability arises not from ‘what’ we do but ‘why’ we do it. Adam and Eve fell in the garden not because they ate some fruit, but rather why they ate it.

Forgive me if my comment missed the point of the entry. I tend to speak what comes to me, and sometimes miss important points and need to think more before writing :)

Forgiveness is unnecessary. Sometimes a tangent can raise a point more valuable than the one being examined in the post. Your thoughts are more than welcomed.

It's important to note that Good can exist without Evil, but that Good is a necessary requirement in order for Evil to exist at all. Evil is not the opposite of Good, nor equal to it. It is a perversion, a parasite that cannot survive without leeching off of its host.

I don't think you necessarily meant that – I just thought I'd through out the distinction. Good points though.

-Marshall Jones Jr.

It seems to me that the problem is not the definition of gratuitous, but rather the problem is the definition of Evil.

For the disucssion to work, wouldn't Evil need to be properly defined within the Biblical framework as well? And if so, is “small children dying of hunger or by natural disaster” really a matter of Evil or does it fall under cause and effect (which God's creation is brilliantly covered in)? I.e children could die of hunger because of corruption in a country, resulting in unequal distribution of sources, which in itself sounds more Evil.

The way I see it, there is (the direct act of) God, there is (the direct act of) Satan, and there is the (direct and indirect) effects of our choices for or against God, which may or may not effect people around us as well.
We are also supposed to take responsibility for our actions. God intervering with that would strip us of our responsibility (and ultimately make Jesus' sacrifice unnecesary).

Finally, God is still a righteous God, we can trust Him to be righteous in His judgment. We need not worry over things that some might perceive as 'pointless evil'.

PS: forgive me if my comment missed the point of the entry. I tend to speak what comes to me, and sometimes miss important points and need to think more before writing :)

But from the other side, gratuitous must – or at least it seems to – denote something. When sin entered the world, suddenly it wasn't perfect. Anything imperfect would be gratuitous for a perfect God. At least in a sense.

In other words, I see both sides. On one side, God had a perfect plan for sin. But on the other, He doesn't command us to sin (that doesn't even make sense).

-Marshall Jones Jr.

The cross was not some emergency plan enacted upon the unforeseen failure of the original plan.