"But suppose that the design of God involved the perfecting of men as the CHILDREN OF GOD--'I said ye are gods,'--that he would have them partakers of his own blessedness in kind--be as himself;--suppose his grand idea could not be contented with creatures perfect ONLY by his gift, so far as that should reach, and having no willing causal share in the perfection, that is, partaking not at all of God's individuality and free-will and choice of good; then suppose that suffering were the only way through which the individual could be set, in separate and self-individuality, so far apart from God, that it might WILL, and so become a partaker of his singleness and freedom;--and suppose that this suffering must be and had been initiated by God's taking his share, and that the infinitely greater share;--suppose next, that God saw the germ of a pure affection, say in your friend and his wife, but saw also that it was a germ so imperfect and weak that it could not encounter the coming frosts and winds of the world without loss and decay, while, if they were parted now for a few years, it would grow and strengthen and expand, to the certainty of an infinitely higher and deeper and keener love through the endless ages to follow--so that by suffering should come, in place of contented decline, abortion, and death, a troubled birth of joyous result in health and immortality;--suppose all this, and what then?"
Faber was silent a moment, then answered,
"Your theory has but one fault: it is too good to be true."
"My theory leaves plenty of difficulty, but has no such fault as that. Why, what sort of a God would content you, Mr. Faber? The one idea is too bad, the other too good to be true.
( From "Thomas Wingfold, Curate" by George MacDonald . )
The argument against the existence of God from the existence of evil assumes that God really can do anything. I agree He is powerful and wise, but He cannot have things both one way and the other at the same time. How will a newly created, finite being truly understand good and evil without seeing both? How can such a being choose good as opposed to evil without the opportunity to choose evil? How could such a finite being develop his own individuality and personal will while overwhelmed from the beginning (while he is still new, small and highly malleable) with the full, awesome presence of God?
Satan is limited in some ways at some times, but why is he allowed so much freedom to do evil? I will quote St. George again:
"Annihilation itself is no death to evil. Only good where evil was, is evil dead. An evil thing must live with its evil until it chooses to be good. That alone is the slaying of evil."-- Lilith, by George MacDonald
Some beings may have to do a great deal of evil and invoke great suffering on others through eons of time before evil finally turns their stomach. They may have to become worse and worse by acting out their worst desires before they become so horrible that they finally see the horror of what they are and turn to God to be remade. Pursuing sin always makes us worse; acting out the evil within us always makes us more evil. Evil will ultimately bring misery and every being will reach a point when they become conscious of that misery. Then they will have to return to their creator to help destroy the person they have made themselves and to be remade.
So, of course, Satan was not created as he is now; he made his first evil choice at some point in the distant past and it marred him, making him more evil. He has gone on becoming worse for ages. Eventually, his strength will not be great enough to hold the misery of such evil from his consciousness. The same is true for each of us. Some souls have a remarkable capacity for enduring misery and maintaining the denial of its existence. However, God is infinite and, through Jesus, is in union with His creation. No one will hold out forever against the infinite good surrounding them, for good and not evil is the universe. The battle between good and evil may go on for countless ages, but it will have an end.
This brings forth the reason I have a primarily libertarian governing philosophy regarding personal morality. Though I respect other points of view on such matters and used to have some myself, I think we should hesitate to legislate against pornography, drugs, and other ways in which people unwisely seek fulfillment through means which may be ultimately self-destructive. If I am not allowed certain vices in my locality, I might think I would be happier if I only had the freedom to pursue my favorite vices. My ultimate hopeless misery would be delayed, while I was kept by force from acting out what is in my heart. Such a thing can dominate my heart as much when I don't have it as when I do. When I do have it, I will find my illusions shattered. Given the freedom to pursue these things, I will come to understand that they don't make me happy after all and, instead, make me a miserable slave. Jesus said, "he who commits sin in the slave of sin...if therefore the Son makes you free, you will be free indeed." There is only one who can free us, but we may need to be given a long leash to learn that we need Him to free us.
Return Home