Is God the Author of Sin?

09264ede4c882d9399d35b817595cbec.jpg~original.jpeg

Is God the author of sin? The question assumes paramount importance when evaluating the construal of divine and human agency advanced by Hugh J. McCann. Popular theodi­cies seek to protect God from responsibility for human evil. That’s the upshot of the free-will defense, after all: God cannot be justly blamed for the evils and horrors perpetrated by human beings because of the gift of freedom. He is therefore off the hook . . . yet perhaps not totally. “To be sure,” comments McCann, “this is not the end of the matter. God is still res­ponsible for creating a world that contains beings with free will, and thus for risking moral evil. And he also creates and sustains the natural order that allows our acts of will to have deleterious consequences.”1 But in the end we trust that the terrible costs will prove ulti­mately worthwhile. Matters become trickier, however, with theories of double agency. The double-agency philosopher recog­nizes that if God is the transcendent cause and sustainer of absolutely everything that exists, then he cannot be exempted from respon­sibility for the freely chosen actions of human beings, including their sinful ones. The only question is, what kind of responsibility does he bear? McCann tackles the question head-on.

Let’s first recall a few of his statements that pose the problem:

God belongs to an order of being entirely his own, one that transcends com­pletely the order of secondary causes. . . . Whatever we take event-causa­tion to consist in, causal relations exist only contingently, and so must be created by God. On pain of another regress, therefore, there can be no event-causal means—not even the operation of his own will—which God employs as cre­ator. Rather, his will is, in itself, immediately efficacious in the task of cre­ation, so that all that is, including rational creatures and all that they do, find their being in the very act through which they are created. A fortiori, there is no nexus that binds God’s will to ours, nor is there any causal distance what­ever between God and us or any of our willings. Indeed, there is not even causal contiguity. Rather, we and all that we do have our being in God, and the first manifestation of God’s creative will regarding our deci­sions and acts is not a command that causes those acts, but nothing short of the acts themselves.2

The relationship between God’s will and ours is not, then, one of control in the sense of manipulation. Rather, just as everything is up to God as creator, so everything is up to me as creature—exactly what we should expect if we take seriously the adage often repeated by the pious: that we should pray as though everything depends on God, and then act as though everything depends on us. There is, of course, something that cannot happen on this view: it cannot be that God should will as creator that I act in one way, and that I act differently. And this is an ontological reality as well as a logical one. But the reason is not that, were I to try to behave differently, I would run up against any obstacle. Rather, were I to will differently, God would be doing so as well. What the impossibility comes to, therefore, is simply that neither God nor I can at once will something and not will it. But that is not a curtailment—of his freedom or mine.3

For while the present view [of double agency] offers help with traditional problems regarding human freedom and responsibility, it only makes the problem of evil, especially moral evil, more pressing. No longer may we claim that those acts in which we sin escape God’s creative power, so that his responsibility for them is alleviated. Rather, we have to face the fact that as creator, God is just as involved in our wrongful decisions and actions as he is in all else that goes on in the world—that is, fully, as the source of their being. Is he, then, to be charged with moral evil in their occurrence?4

In light of these statements, as well as others quoted in “The World is a Novel” and “Breaking the Cords of Fate,” we have no choice but to put Dr McCann into the dock and interrogate him further. Will we end up concluding that God too should join him there?

McCann sets out the question of God’s authorship of sin:

With this in mind, consider the relation between God’s will as creator and Smith’s will to kill Jones. If the position defended in the last chapter is correct, this relation is even closer than that of an event-cause to an immediate effect. God creates Smith in his willing to kill Jones, in such a way that the actual process of Smith’s deciding and voliting counts as the content and embodi­ment of God’s will as creator. But then, someone will surely argue, God too must be held to perform acts of will that are intrinsically morally evil. Smith’s murder seems on this account to be equally an ex­pres­­sion both of Smith’s will and of God’s, and so should equally be imputed to both. How, then, can God not be guilty of the injustice? Indeed, why is he not even more guilty than Smith, since it is God’s will alone that directly and finally accounts for the existence of Smith’s deeds? In short, according to this argument, even if the account in chapter 5 of the relation between God’s will and ours succeeds in preserving both his sovereignty and our freedom, it does so at the cost of making that relation too intimate—to the extent that God becomes guilty, even para­digmatically guilty, of all the moral wrong­doing that ever occurs.5

McCann begins his defense of the Almighty Creator with a concession: “There is no denying that the relation in question makes God the author of sin in one sense: namely, that he is the First Cause of those acts of will in which we sin. All of our willings owe their existence directly to God, just as we do, and could never take place but for his active parti­cipation, in the form of willing that they occur.”6 This seems to follow from the creatio ex nihilo, and I have long thought (long before I had ever heard of double agency) that this must be the case. If God is the Creator, then he upholds in being my sinful thoughts, sinful volitions, and sinful actions, as well as their historical consequences. He gives them actuality. Even if we insist that God does not directly will them as an ex­pres­sion of his antecedent good will, at the very least he permits and underwrites them via his consequent will. That moral evil exists in the universe flows from God’s creation and conservation of free acting beings. McCann thus cuts off retreat into even a partial deism. God is God. The ontological buck stops with him.

Is God morally culpable for our evil acts? Does he incur guilt? McCann answers no and makes an important distinction: God does not will our decisions in their immorality and wickedness; he wills them in their freedom. He wills that we will freely. The divine Creator is the subject of our being the subjects of our decisions and actions. Let’s return to the example of Smith who decides to kill Jones (poor Jones is always getting murdered in McCann’s writings):

Why might someone think that God’s creatively willing the occurrence of this event makes him guilty of anything? Perhaps the worry is that God might actually participate in Smith’s decision, that when Smith decides to kill Jones there actually occurs a joint exercise of agency, in which Smith and God together settle on doing Jones in. If this were so, it might seem that God must share in the malice of the decision, just as he shares in the deci­sion itself, in which case Smith’s sin is also God’s. This view of things is, however, mis­taken. When Smith decides to kill Jones, the decision is predicated of Smith alone, and belongs entirely to him. He alone forms the intention to kill Jones, hence he alone can incur the guilt of doing so. God does not and cannot participate in Smith’s decision, for he belongs to an entirely different order of being. To predicate the decision of him would be the equivalent of saying that when a mystery writer has one character decide to do away with another, she herself is guilty of deciding to commit murder. Nor does God, in provi­ding for the existence of Smith’s decision, decide in his own right to kill Jones. The content of God’s will is not that Jones should die . . . but rather Smith’s act of deciding. In propositional terms, God wills that Smith decide to murder Jones. And of course, as in all things, his will is efficacious. So if God incurs any blame in the transaction, it has to be for that—for willing Smith’s act of deciding.7

For every human act, suggests McCann, we may specify two sets of predicates. While it is certainly true that God wills Smith’s willing the murder of Jones—if he didn’t, it wouldn’t occur—only Smith intends the crime. Perhaps Smith is having an affair with the lovely but deceitful wife of Jones. Overcome by jealousy and desire, he plans the perfect murder and on the fateful day executes it. Smith alone forms the intention to kill Jones; he alone decides to disobey the sixth commandment; he alone chooses to pull the trigger. Smith does not col­laborate with God in the murder nor God with him; nor does God purpose the murder as murder or will Smith’s wicked act for ulterior and malicious purposes. Smith’s reasons to murder Jones are different from God’s reasons to will Smith’s willing. God makes himself the ontological source and ground of the sin, but the sin belongs to Smith alone.

God, on the other hand, has his own reasons to will Smith’s decision to murder Jones. Perhaps he has a standing policy not to override or tinker with the free decisions of human beings, no matter how wicked. “Freedom would mean nothing,” comments McCann, “if an evil intention could never be carried off.”8 Perhaps God knows that he can redeem this evil and thus bring into the world a greater good. Perhaps he intends to bring Smith to a deep repen­tance and transform him into a powerful evangelist. Perhaps the killing will set into motion a series of events that will bear good fruit decades or even generations later. The most famous example of providential working is told in the Book of Genesis. Filled with jealousy and anger, the sons of Jacob plan the murder of their brother Joseph but at the last moment change their minds and sell him to slavers. Joseph eventually becomes the viceroy of Egypt, thereby achieving a position of power that would enable him to assist his family during the great famine. As Joseph later told his brothers: “As for you, you meant evil against me; but God meant it for good, to bring it about that many people should be kept alive, as they are today” (Gen 50:20).

gn45_01p04.jpg~original.jpeg

We are now in a position to better assess McCann’s strong assertion of divine providence and how it relates to the reality of sin and evil:

Our destinies are entirely subordinate to God’s creative will; he exercises full control in all that we do, notwithstanding the fact that our deeds are fully voluntary, and we have every reason to expect that all that takes place in the world will reflect the providence of a perfectly loving father. As for omni­science, here too there is no difficulty. God knows about our decisions and actions simply by knowing his own inten­tions, for he wills that they occur. Nor is his will exercised from the fastidious distance preferred by Molinists, in which God creates us knowing what we will do, but has no hand in our actually doing it. Rather, God is as much the cause of our sinful actions as of our virtuous ones, or of any other event. Yet, Augustine and Aquinas would both insist, he remains perfectly good and absolutely holy, a being deserving of our complete reverence and absolute devotion. How might such a thing be possible?

Part of the answer lies in the fact that even if my act of deciding to go to the concert tonight has its existence grounded in God’s creatively willing that I so decide, it is still I who act, still I who decide. God’s willing that I decide as I do does not make my decision God’s. Indeed, if it did, if my decision were predicated of God rather than me, his will would fail to achieve its object. But it is not possible for God’s will to be frustrated, as long as what he wills is consistent. So regardless of what we may think of the traditional view’s contention that divine sovereignty and creaturely freedom are fully com­patible, that view does not take the operations of our will, or the actions founded upon them, away from us. They remain our own. Consequently, any sin they involve remains ours also. Thus, if I decide sinfully to go to the concert tonight—if, say, I am neglecting duties I know should take priority—the sin is mine, not God’s. If he is to be faulted, it must be for some other reason. . . .

On the traditional view God does have complete control: he can create any possible world, and he is as much involved as creator in those acts in which we sin as he is in any others. And that means the standard free will defense, which works only by diminishing God’s authority and circumscribing his providence, is not available. But another may be. It must be remembered that even though the actions of free creatures do not escape providence, such creatures are still an enhancement to creation, in that their nature reflects more closely what we suppose to be God’s own nature. As such, free creatures are more suited to the kind of fellowship with God that believers understand to be their ultimate destiny.9

Is God the author of sin? No, for he only wills the good of his creatures. Yes, for he is the divine Creator who has brought into being a world in which evil became possible and, apparently, virtually inevitable. We may speculate on why he did so. Here is where free will theodicists come into their own. Mutual love is only possible between persons who are truly free, as C. S. Lewis so eloquently reminds us. The perfections of a world populated by free beings, even with its (hopefully redeemable) horrors and sufferings, outweighs its noncre­ation. Perhaps we might entertain the proposals of John Hick, Thomas Talbott, and Tom Belt that an epistemic distance from God is necessary for the development of the kind of personhood that he intends for us. But McCann even goes so far as to controversially suggest that God purposefully created a world in which free human beings must sin, as only those who have alienated themselves from the divine presence can appreciate the good of com­munion and thus make an informed decision to live with God. McCann’s suggestion neatly solves the aporia of moral evil, but I imagine that most believers, including myself, would judge it heterodox. The critical point for McCann: God is not guilty of evil in willing the evil acts of his creatures. The sin is ours, not God’s.

But what about hell? Every novel is ultimately judged by its conclusion. A bad ending can ruin a good story, while a great ending can redeem a mediocre plot. According to Mc­Cann’s understanding of divine and creaturely agency, God could, if he so willed, save all human beings—yet he doesn’t. Although expressing a measure of sympathy for the uni­ver­salist hope, McCann takes his stand with the long tradition of the Western Church:

How, then, might God be justified in consigning a sinner to damnation? The answer to this question will depend in part of what the sufferings of the lost consist in. And I think that here it is easy to be misled by the concept of hell as mere retribution: as endless suffering imposed on the sinner in recom­pense for unrepented evils—especially, perhaps, the evil of offending an infinitely magisterial God. The more plausible view is that whatever else their fate may include, the greatest evil sustained by the lost is final and irremediable separation from God. Nothing could be worse than to be cut off from the love and friendship of a Father whose power extends to every detail of the universe, and who invites us to a share in his very life. But if this is the greatest evil of damnation, then no one who ends that way is treated unfairly, for this separation is precisely what one chooses by insisting on a life of rebellion rather than seeking reconciliation with God. Indeed, having once created beings destined to be lost, it is hard to see how a loving God could do anything but honor their choice in the matter. The alternative, after all, would be to undercut the capacity of would-be reprobates to frame their own destinies—perhaps by simply refusing to take No for an answer, and waiting out the millennia it might take for them to change their minds; or, should that fail, by simply overriding their freedom, and placing them in some motivational situation where there is no legitimate alternative but to accept his rule over their lives. Either of these courses would amount to God diminishing his own project of creation, by effectively nullifying the dignity not just of those headed for perdition but of all free agents: those who would reject his friendship would find their capacity for effective decision making destroyed, and those who would join with him would find their choice trivialized. If God were reduced to dealing in this way with those who try to refuse him, then evil would indeed have scored a major victory. Humans may begin as God’s children, but if any are truly to become his friends as well, then he must finally treat all as adults and potential partners—which means honoring their decisions.10

I find McCann’s theodicy of hell curious and incoherent. Throughout his book McCann distances himself from the free-will defense of suffering, insisting that the relation between divine and creaturely agency cannot be understood as a zero-sum game. Yet at the last moment he tells us that the sovereign, omnipotent author of the cosmic novel is incapable of saving those who choose perdition over the transcendent Good. God has no choice but to “honor” the definitive decisions of his creatures. Anything else would be a form of coercion. Thus is the justice of God revealed: “Terrible though the end of the lost may be, therefore, this manifestation of the good that is justice could not exist but for the creation of those destined for unrepen­tance.”11 Nor am I the only one to perceive this problem in McCann’s theology. In a 2007 essay Katherin Rogers presents an extended critique of McCann’s formulation of double agency. Among her many objections, she incidentally notes that his position ultimately calls into question the divine goodness, given his affirmation affirmation of eternal damnation:

If you love someone you desire their good. God, on McCann’s view, creates sinning agents whom He will eternally damn for their sins. Per­haps, as the Augustinian tradition holds, it is better to exist in eternal damnation than not to exist at all, and so Hell is better than nothing. In an Anselmian uni­verse in which God leaves creatures free to sin, this point would explain why God does not permit the sinful to simply destroy themselves utterly and blink out of being. But it would be perverse to insist that eternal damnation is the good of the creature that love would desire. If McCann does not want to embrace universalism he is committed to God’s wanting and causing terrible, perma­nent harm to at least some of his creatures.12

In a follow-up essay, Rogers expands upon this point:

Were McCann a universalist, then the charge of painting a picture of an unloving God could be somewhat mitigated. Then we might say that God wishes a temporary ill to some of His created agents, but in the final analysis He wishes all to be saved. . . . McCann is not a universalist. He asks, “Could a loving God possibly will not only the existence of [the rep­robate], but also the very decisions on their part in which they continually turn aside from him, as well as the final reprobation to which they are condemned?” He believes it is possible. He sets out the traditional view that the greatest evil suffered by the damned is being separated from God. “But if this is the greatest evil of damnation, then no one who ends that way is treated unfairly, for this separation is precisely what one chooses by insisting on a life of rebellion rather than seeking reconciliation with God.” But if this is a defense of divine love, I do not understand the argument. God prefers that these sinners be damned rather than not. He could will them to choose well and be saved, without, in McCann’s view, any infringement on their free will, and He does not. He produces their act of rebellion. Perhaps there is some definition of “fair” by which it is fair to create a vessel fit for wrath complete with its sinful choices and then visit wrath upon it, but “loving” seems the wrong word to use here.13

But Rogers is not a universalist, and her interest here is purely logical. She happens to believe that the proto-libertarianism of St Anselm escapes the contradiction she discerns in McCann (and St Thomas Aquinas); but her analysis is spot-on. If double agency secures God’s providential control of all happenings and his victory over evil, as McCann certainly believes, then the divine feet must be held to the fire for an eschatological conclusion that he could have written otherwise.

As we saw in “Breaking the Cords of Fate,” Kathryn Tanner affirms a non-competitive understanding of divine/human agency, which in turn makes possi­ble a strong assertion of divine sovereignty. Be­cause God is the transcendent origin and source of all that exists, his “creative inten­tion for the world cannot be hindered, diverted or otherwise redi­rect­ed by crea­tures,” she avers. “What God wills for the world as its creator must happen just the way God wills.”14 She makes no excep­tion for the exercise of creaturely freedom: “Given God’s infallible work­ing, human beings must choose when and what God chooses.”15 But what about sin? If God is su­premely good and only wills the good, then by definition he does not and cannot will that which contradicts his nature. The presence of moral evil in the world should be impossible, yet clearly it is very possible.

After reviewing several accounts of the origin of sin, Tanner concedes that we are confronted with an aporia and surd. “The origi­nation of sin,” she writes, “is properly a mystery, properly inexplicable in a scheme of thought where God is the ultimate principle of explanation.”16 Sin should not exist, must not exist, has no right to exist in God’s good creation. She is there­fore unwilling to offer an explanation for the apparent ability of creatures to choose other than what God wills. God does not will or cause sin. Period.

But Tanner is willing to speculate on how it is possible for God to know, and therefore account for, that which he does not bring into being:

God’s intention for the world, the creative intention that holds up into being the whole of the world, includes sets of pseudo­subjunctive propositions; propositions, that is, about what else will happen in the world should the creature sin, and what will happen within the world should the creature not. These are pseudo­subjunctive propositions in that God knows from all eternity whether or not the creature does sin. Let us say God intends the salvation of all persons, then with infinite detail what God intends includes the saving of x in such a way y if x does not sin and the saving of x in such and such a way z if x does sin, with the knowledge of whether or not and, if so, when, x sins. If the creature sins, that is contrary to God’s will in that God’s will does not extend to the bringing to be of sin. If the creature sins, what happens in the world will be different (subsequent events will be different), but God’s will for the world will not be.

How does God know whether and when sin occurs? The only crucial point to make here (if the premises we have given above are not to be violated) is that this knowledge of the existence of sin is not a condition of God’s form­ing God’s very complicated intentions with respect to the world. God’s knowledge of sin is dependent upon, and is logically subsequent to, God’s creative inten­tion for the world. It is therefore part of what could be called God’s practical knowledge, or knowledge of what the created world is like in God’s will for it. God does not directly will sin but sin (insofar as it is a defect) presupposes God’s will for the world in which it occurs.17

If you’re like me, you’ll probably need to reread the above passage a few times to grasp its gist. Given that God does not will moral evil, how is it possible for God to know the dis­obediences of his creatures without introducing passivity into the divine nature? Tanner’s answer: God knows all possibilities and eventualities, including the possibility of sin, and therefore provides for them within his eternal plan. God does not will evil, but he is not surprised by it. The Creator does not bring evil into being, but its possible emergence in the world is taken into account in his providential intention: “the world happens just the way God intends it to, even should sin exist.”18 McCann, as far as I can tell, does not explicitly address this question, perhaps because he does not believe that he needs to, given his conviction that God wills equally the well- and ill-chosen acts of human beings: “God knows about our decisions and actions simply by knowing his own inten­tions, for he wills that they occur.”18 Is God the author of sin? For Tanner and McCann, the answer is no. For Tanner, sin is a surd that inexplicably exists in God’s good creation; for McCann, while the sinner intends his or her sinful act, God never does, even while holding it in being.

In any case, both Tanner and McCann wish to strongly affirm the freedom and power of the Creator to accomplish his salvific intentions for the world. His sovereign will is infrus­trable; his providential plans cannot be defeated. But unlike McCann, Tanner is not com­mit­ted to the doctrine of everlasting damnation. Though I do not recall her addressing apokatastasis in her later writings, her understanding of God as the unconditional giver of good gifts, as well as her understanding of the Incarnation and its universal reach, seems to imply it.20 If God wills apokatastasis, so it will be:

We can affirm therefore that the existence of sin cannot frustrate God’s intention for the world. At most the existence of sin brings about a different way of getting to the ends God wills, without altering God’s intention about what is to happen on that supposition. With or without sin, or whatever the particular sinful choices made, the same end that God wants will happen. The sinner’s intentions are taken up within the intention of God for the world and are inevitably redirected to the end God wills, in virtue of the fact that God’s will is directly efficacious of everything else in the world besides sin and the fact that God can always will with the same necessary efficacy that a sinner’s heart be transformed. The will of God for the world remains infallible, therefore, in a form much like the fate of the classical Greek tragedies—in whichever way one strikes out one will be brought back to the same point. But, now, what is fated, if one believes in the benevolence and mercy of God, is the good.21

And that is very good news. God is not the author of sin, and his good will for the world will be infallibly actualized.

(10 January 2017; rev.)

Footnotes

[1] Hugh, J. McCann, Creation and the Sovereignty of God, p. 77.

[2] Ibid., p. 103.

[3] Ibid., pp. 109-110.

[4] Ibid., p. 112.

[5] Ibid., pp. 114-115.

[6] Ibid., p. 116.

[7] Ibid., pp. 116-117.

[8] Hugh J. McCann, “Divine Providence” in Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

[9] McCann, Creation, p. 77.

[10] Ibid., p. 129.

[11] Ibid., p. 131.

[12] Katherin Rogers, “God is Not the Author of Sin,” Faith and Philosophy, 24 (2007): 304-305; cf. Hugh J. McCann, “God, Sin, and Rogers on Anselm,” Faith and Philosophy, 26 (October 2009): 420-431.

[13] Katherin Rogers, “Anselm Against McCabe on God and Sin,” Faith and Philosophy, 28 (October 2011): 205.

[14] Kathryn Tanner, “Human Freedom, Human Sin, and God the Creator,” The God Who Acts, ed. Thomas Tracy, p. 114.

[15] Ibid., p. 127.

[16] Ibid., p. 112.

[17] Ibid., pp. 133-134.

[18] Ibid., p. 133.

[19] McCann, “Divine Providence.”

[20] See Kathryn Tanner, Jesus, Humanity, and the Trinity (2001). If Tanner does address universal salvation somewhere, please let me know!

[21] Tanner, “Human Freedom,” p. 135.

(Return to first article)

This entry was posted in Hugh McCann, Philosophical Theology and tagged , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

17 Responses to Is God the Author of Sin?

  1. Calvin says:

    “ But McCann even goes so far as to controversially suggest that God purposefully created a world in which free human beings must sin, as only those who have alienated themselves from the divine presence can appreciate the good of com­munion and thus make an informed decision to live with God.”

    This is nonsensical. If goodness is truly convertible with existence, as classical Christian theism claims that it is, then it needs no “supplement” of evil to reveal itself in the fullness of its plenitude. To say otherwise is to say evil has a real existence over and against the good.

    Like

  2. Ahmed Fares says:

    “Evil does not exist; once you have crossed the threshold, all is good. Once in another world, you must hold your tongue.” —Franz Kafka

    That’s not to say that there aren’t evil people. There are, but they hold no power in this world. All power rests with God and never leaves God for an instant.

    People are free to choose their nature but not their acts. All acts come from God as He works His acts through people in accordance with their nature. It is for that nature that the creatures are rewarded or punished. Also, there is no such thing as a life being cut short. People die at their appointed time, in the manner and at the place of God’s choosing.

    This maintains both divine sovereignty and human responsibility. As for acts, all creatures are powerless in this regard.

    “He Most High wills all that exists and directs all events. Nothing occurs in the physical or spiritual world, be it meager or much, little or great, good or evil, of benefit or detriment, faith or unbelief, knowledge or ignorance, triumph or ruin, increase or decrease, obedience or sin; save through His ordinance, apportionment, wisdom, and decision. What He wills is, and what He does not will is not. Neither sidelong glance nor passing thought is beyond His design. He originates all and returns it, does what He wills, and none can repulse His command. There is no rescinding His destiny, no flight for a servant from disobeying Him except through divinely given success therein and mercy, and no strength to obey Him save through His choice and decree. If all mankind, jinn, angels, and devils combined their efforts to move or to still a single particle of the universe without His will and choice, they would be unable to.” —Al-Ghazali (The Jerusalem Treatise)

    Like

    • Calvin says:

      No, I would say it’s the opposite of that. Humans are not free to choose their nature, they remain human in general, male or female, of their ethnic heritage, etc. whatever happens. What they are free to choose is what they do with what they are given. But one of the things which have been given is in fact a nature which cannot escape it’s primordial orientation to the good as such, and hence its eventual return to the God who made it.

      Like

      • Ahmed Fares says:

        It is not possible that God is all-powerful, God is all-good, and evil exists. This is known as the impossible trinity. One of these three must go. Here it is as summarized by David Hume:

        1. If God is unable to prevent evil, then he is not all-powerful.
        2. If God is not willing to prevent evil, then he is not all-good.
        3. If God is both willing and able to prevent evil, then why does evil exist?

        As soon as you say people have the power to create acts, then they have the power to create evil, which is not possible given what is stated above.

        “But one of the things which have been given is in fact a nature which cannot escape it’s primordial orientation to the good as such, and hence its eventual return to the God who made it.”

        This is beautifully stated, and I agree with this. However, that primordial nature is covered by ego, hence the requirement for tribulation, in this life or the next, to burn away the ego, in the same way that men place gold in fire to purify it of its dross.

        Like

        • Calvin says:

          Evil acts exist. Either man creates them, or God does. If the latter, then it is impossible for him to be all-good, because he positively intends evil. As his actions are convertible with his essence, that means he himself is evil. Moreover, being quite literally the creator of every falsehood in the universe, he cannot be trusted. If it is God who tells every lie from least to greatest, then it is madness to think he speaks the truth in any given instance. He is a liar and the father of lies.

          As Hart says regarding Calvinists, by taking such an expansive view of divine sovereignty what is effectively done is simply to collapse it into absolute identity – with the world, the devil, and us. If there is no separation of creatures’ acts from the divine will, then God is merely the sum total of all that exists.

          Like

          • Ahmed Fares says:

            Compatibilism is the belief that free will and determinism are mutually compatible, and that it is possible to believe in both without being logically inconsistent. —Wikipedia

            By determinism here, we mean divine determinism. Free will and divine determinism do not conflict with each other. It’s like a play that has been written and people show up to play the role of heroes or villains. Here’s a quote from Thomas Aquinas:

            [quote]
            Free will

            Aquinas argues that there is no contradiction between God’s providence and human free will:

            … just as by moving natural causes [God] does not prevent their acts being natural, so by moving voluntary causes He does not deprive their actions of being voluntary: but rather is He the cause of this very thing in them; for He operates in each thing according to its own nature.
            — Summa, I., Q.83, art.1.
            [end quote]

            Like

          • Calvin says:

            That is because Aquinas was an unabashed predestinarian who believed you were either destined for heaven or utterly screwed before being born, with no input whatsoever on your side. Compatibilism is an attempt to redefine what freedom is, and to studiously ignore the fact that “their nature” is whatever nature God chose to give. If their nature prompts them towards wickedness, or towards being the villain in your play, then that is the fault of the one who gave it. And, again, God’s nature being convertible with his acts, for him to thus will evil would be synonymous with him being evil, which would mean that he is not the good as such and hence our ultimate end must lie elsewhere.

            Like

        • Iain Lovejoy says:

          The irony of this trilemma being over and over quoted is that it has its origins in the writings of the Christian apologist Lactantius, who puts this argument in the mouth of Epicurus in order to refute it. Lactantius answers it by saying that God does not prevent evil because without the existence of evils there can be no exercise of wisdom or virtue, that not only are wisdom and virtue in themselves greater goods than just avoiding suffering, but also through them we attain to knowledge of God and then to immortality, which is an even greater good. You don’t have to agree with the entirety of the argument to see that if demonstrates the gaping hole in the trilemma that it ignores that there may be positive goods outweighing it that may come out of evil, or at least out of allowing for the possibility of evil. Whether there are such goods or what they might be is up for debate but as a logical syllogism the trilemma simply doesn’t work.

          Like

          • Grant says:

            That makes wisdom and dependent on evil to exist, be nurtured and flourish. It makes those ‘greater goods’ (bit of advice, never trust someone who argues for what necessary for ‘the greater good’) dependent on evil and suffering to be. It makes death, evil and suffering vital and a key tool to producing the final ‘blessed’ state, making it part of it’s very foundation. It also therefore makes it entirely intended, part of God’s intentions and therefore every evil He would desire and intend. God would not be Good as we mean it,, and ultimate reality wouod something cold and malevolent.

            Arguments of ‘greater good’, ‘soul development’ only underline the necessity of evil in those schemes and it’s intentional place as part of God’s tools of creation, which would make Him their author. You csnnot maintain God is the Good by such arguments, good cannot in anyway be dependent on evil, if it does that evil serves God to help produce the end fruits He desires, and ever evil He intends. And ut makes a mockery of any real idea of good, love and morality. All would just be a sick and cruel joke of cosmic proportions which all of creation would be the dismal and pathetic butt of.

            Like

          • Iain Lovejoy says:

            Just to be clear on the above, I mention Lactantius’ argument because he is the source of the trilemma, not because his answer is necessarily spot on.
            Regarding his answer, I may be misrepresening it: though I only have an English translation, it appears Lactantius is talking about evils (plural) – i.e. sufferings, not moral evil, being necessary for wisdom and virtue. I also don’t actually fully agree with him on this – what I think is necessary for wisdom and virtue is free will, rather than sufferings / setbacks per se, but part of meaningful free will is that actions have consequences, but this does inevitably mean at least the possibility of bad consequences as well as good.

            Like

  3. Reblogged this on Talmidimblogging and commented:
    Excellent piece!!

    Like

  4. Fr Aidan Kimel says:

    I almost regret having written the following sentences, as they are drawing disproportionate attention:

    But McCann even goes so far as to controversially suggest that God purposefully created a world in which free human beings must sin, as only those who have alienated themselves from the divine presence can appreciate the good of com­munion and thus make an informed decision to live with God. McCann’s suggestion neatly solves the aporia of moral evil, but I imagine that most believers, including myself, would judge it heterodox.

    Let it be stipulated that we all agree that McCann is wrong in suggesting that sin is necessary to human moral development, etc., etc. May we now move onto other facets of the article. Thank you.

    Like

    • John H says:

      Father, Thank you for such an enlightening article. I especially liked the paragraph that so many folks seem to be having problems with. It does indeed accurately state McCann’s views (and probably the view of Aquinas as well) on divine sovereignty and causation of moral evil. The aporia/mystery of moral evil and responsibility for same will certainly not be clarified this side of the eschaton. So while McCann’s views are definitely unorthodox, possibly even heterodox to some, I don’t think that it is possible to unequivocally state that he is wrong. We just don’t know.

      Like

  5. JBG says:

    McCann: “Either of these courses would amount to God diminishing his own project of creation, by effectively nullifying the dignity not just of those headed for perdition but of all free agents: those who would reject his friendship would find their capacity for effective decision making destroyed, and those who would join with him would find their choice trivialized.”

    If a creature’s free will can ultimately conflict with a creature’s divinely intended end (total happiness/fulfillment), why should God honor the former rather than the latter? It seems that one or the other would need to be violated, if they can indeed be in conflict.

    The mere intimation that God might violate a creature’s freedom is always met with fierce indignation, but the violation (in an unimaginably horrific fashion) of a creature’s innate God-given desire for happiness/fulfillment is deemed perfectly acceptable. This is extremely disquieting.

    This all depends on the double-willed God. God wills/desires complete and unending happiness/fulfillment for his creatures…but the caveat is that he also desires the operation of a creature’s free will. And when these clash, as we are told that they inevitably will with at least some of his creatures, it turns out that God desires your free-will (irrespective of its derangement) over and above his desire for your experiential well-being. Once again, this is so very odd.

    Freedom is valuable only insofar is it ultimately coincides with Goodness. Freedom that results in eternal suffering is obviously neither valuable, nor desirable. And yet oddly, we are told that God values and desires it more than anything in respect to his creatures.

    Like

  6. mercifullayman says:

    Just to take a whirl, especially after reading Cosmic Liturgy, and starting (at my guy Brian’s suggestion) The Perfection of Freedom by Schindler, where I just now am encountering Schiller’s very intriguing views of “drama,” I can’t help but think about the extension of the myth of the fall. There has always been an apparent tension that has been accepted by a lot of church fathers, especially within the Alexandrian fold. I mean Origen seems to think its necessary to ascend, right? Nyssen sees it as the counterbalance to which we overcome and fully find our rest in the Good, that its a necessary psychological encounter in which we overcome in the plenitude of the divine. Maximus, extends the fall into an instant where we are fallen as soon as we come to ourselves. Essentially in our “freedom” we choose what we see/sense instead of realizing the more that lies beyond and gives it meaning. You extend that outward and even the likes of SL Frank, much like Cusa before him, sees Being as an “antinomian mono-dualism,” to the degree that while evil is privative it is also an “allowed” piece of existence precisely because all transcendentals have a shadow side in existence. Schiller’s point, and I would argue even Schelling, does help with the notion that if we see the unfolding of the drama of existence, we see that, evil isn’t a thing that God “knows” in the sense in which say Origen uses it (intimately, to the ground/core of ourselves, thoroughly). He is aware, obviously because it is apparent, but he doesn’t KNOW it. So if it cannot be known, then it cannot be a fault of his within the tension of created existence. It comes off as a piece of a story that not only is overcome as Schiller, I think, rightly points out, “An enemy that is vanquished merely has the chance to rebel again. One that has been reconciled has truly and reliably been made one.” (On Grace and Dignity) (Also, if you think about it, Death, as Maximus et al. also point out, is not only overcome, but is made the tool by which we finally encounter a fuller existence, it has even been reconciled itself, ie baptism/the grave/empty tomb)

    Evil, as this privative of goodness still retains a piece of goodness. Every act could be otherwise, and even in existence, the calls for justice/mercy/redemption/correction are seemingly the good screaming out from Being itself via the act itself, and it is this redemptive work in existence (and in the eschaton) that will finally allow all to be hypostasized. We, as free creatures are only guaranteed the freedom of choices we have at the ground of who we are. Our identity is wrapped up in every piece of datum that allows us to choose, but as I’ve said before, we can only concretely come to be when the essence of us, and the existence of us, meet. Evil becomes a surd that isn’t truly real because in a world of false appearances, we go to the mirage to drink when water is nowhere to be found. The ability to be free means we have the ability to create, and not all of those things are lasting. God’s allowance of a state of ontic movement to be doesn’t necessitate anything other than overcoming the false delusions, “the vulgarity” as Schiller points out, which is us choosing the surface of ourselves. Evil is us refusing to move the internal call of the natural will we have (the God, or image within all of us if you will) externally.

    If one wants to say that by allowing us to be makes him the author, then so be it, but in my lowly opinion, that just seems like a refusal to accept our own role. Passing the buck, when he never made us do it in the first place. All He’s guaranteeing is that we, in the end, will find see through the falsehoods and fake desires and grasp the real thing. And, as Berdyaev points out, Dostoyevsky is very clear that in the tear of the girl, is Christ. Even in the worst moments, the evils we encounter, Goodness calls forth. It will overcome. It is a piece of the drama unfolding that I’d rather live out and help create, than the scripted malfeasance of a bad playwright.

    Like

  7. Andrew of MO says:

    “If Tanner does address universal salvation somewhere, please let me know!”

    To the best of my knowledge, she does not, although it seems to be implied in her work, particularly the last chapter of Jesus, Humanity, and the Trinity. She does not really engage the topic at all in Christ the Key, but it is fair to say that Tanner sees grace as the final word (or Word, if you prefer).

    I highly recommend Christ the Key if you have not read it.

    Liked by 1 person

  8. Pingback: Is God the Creator of Sin? | We Are What We Think

Comments are closed.