Questions about whether God is really in control when a tragedy like the Minnesota bridge collapse happens point to the classic theological dilemma known as theodicy. The argument goes like this:
- An all-powerful God could prevent innocent suffering.
- An all-loving God would choose to prevent innocent suffering
- Innocent suffering exists in the world
- Therefore God is not bot all-powerful and all-loving
There is little appeal to be drawn to the extreme version of this theology. Logically, it leads to the Deist version of a "clockmaker God," i.e. God made all that is, "wound it up" and just sits back and watches things unfold. But in the end, even the strictest Calvinist acts as if free will exists. This is the point where I have gone hammer and tong with conservative "Bible-believing" Christians. I contend that even to accept what is purported to be an objective truth requires first a subjective choice. I understand why they won't accept this point, because it then becomes a slippery slope of deciding where to draw the line between subjective and objective truth. I can see the appeal in possessing the kind of certainty that they claim, but sadly I don't think we have that option.
When all is said and done, more is said than done. That is why in the face of innocent suffering I will choose to act as if God is all-loving and not worry what that says about the possibility of God not being all-powerful. If logic forces the choice, then I'm betting on love every time.
Blog you later,
Pastor Ian
0 comments:
Post a Comment