駱鴻銘譯自：
歷世歷代有許多思想卓越的人都在絞盡腦汁，想要把邪惡和苦難的存在，和聖經關於一個慈愛的上帝的觀念加以調和。誠然，許多人拒絕聖經裏的上帝，那是因為他們難以相信祂會容許在他們周遭的世界所見到的巨大邪惡和極度的苦難。例如，伊利·威賽爾（Eli Wiesel；譯按：1986年諾貝爾和平獎得主與猶太人大屠殺的倖存者）說，他在大屠殺中所經歷的極度恐怖，讓他徹底失去了對上帝的信仰。Many thoughtful
people throughout the ages have struggled to reconcile the existence of evil
and suffering with the Biblical concept of a loving God. Indeed, many have rejected the God of the
Bible because they cannot believe that He would allow the profound evil and
extreme suffering they see in the world around them. Eli Wiesel, for example, says that he lost
all faith in God when he experienced the utter horror of the Holocaust.
威賽爾寫到一個大約12歲的男孩被納粹吊死。這個小男孩的體重太輕，在絞刑台被撤除之後，無法折斷頸子，因此被吊掛在那裏好幾分鐘，窒息而死。與威賽爾同時被關押的囚犯問道：「上帝在哪裏？祂在哪裏？」（《夜》，44頁）Wiesel writes about a little
boy, about 12, who was hanged by the Nazis.
The little boy’s body was not
heavy enough to cause his neck to break when the scaffold was released. The boy hung there, choking, for many
minutes. One of Weisel’s fellow
prisoners asked, “Where is God? Where is
He?” (Night, p. 44).
引用古拉格一位蘇聯刑訊人所說的話：「我感謝上帝，雖然我不信祂，但我可以活到今日，以至於可以完全表達潛藏在我內心裏面的邪惡。」A soviet torturer
in the Gulag was quoted as saying, “I
thank God, in whom I don’t believe, that I
have been allowed to live to this day that I may fully express the evil that
lies in my heart.”
面對如此的邪惡，我們很自然地會問「上帝在哪裏」這個問題。In the face of such
evil, it is certainly fair to ask, “Where
is God?”
邪惡的難題The Problem of Evil
有人把所謂的「邪惡的難題」（Problem of Evil）簡潔地總結如下：The so-called “Problem of Evil” has been succinctly summed up as follows:
若上帝是全能、全善的，祂怎能容許邪惡和苦難存在呢？既然邪惡和苦難很明顯是存在的，上帝就不會是全能或全善的。因此，聖經對上帝的看法在邏輯上就是不一致的。If God is
all-powerful and all good, how can He allow evil and suffering to exist? Since evil and suffering clearly exist, God
cannot be all-powerful or all good.
Therefore, the Biblical view of God is logically inconsistent.
倘若上帝想要禁止邪惡卻辦不到，祂就不是全能的；倘若祂想禁止邪惡，卻選擇不這麼作，祂要麼是反覆無常的，或更糟的是祂自己就在積極地參與邪惡。If God wishes to
prevent evil but cannot, He cannot be all-powerful. If He can prevent evil, but chooses not to,
He is at best capricious and at worst actively evil Himself.
讓我們換另一種說法：
前提一：上帝是全能的
前提二：上帝是全善的
觀察：邪惡存在
我們所觀察到的與這兩個前提是互相抵觸的；因此，它們不可能是真的。
Put
another way:
Premise
1: God is all-powerful.
Premise
2: God is all-good.
Observation: Evil Exists
The
observation contradicts the two premises; therefore, they cannot both be true.
許多相信上帝的作家與學者都在邪惡的難題上絞盡腦汁。庫希納（Harold Kushner）在他的暢銷書《壞事為什麼發生在好人身上》裏，用拒絕第一個前提來解決這個明顯的矛盾：「上帝是一位公義的上帝，卻不是全能的」（第43頁）。Various writers and scholars
who believe in God have wrestled with the Problem of Evil. Harold Kushner, in his best-selling book, Why
Bad Things Happen to Good People, resolves the apparent contradiction by
rejecting Premise #1: “God is a God of
justice, not of power” (p. 43).
史鮑羅（R.C.Sproul）也接受這個矛盾，但是反駁說：「按照最後的分析看來，善（上帝）的存在證據，並沒有因邪惡這個異常而失效。」（泥巴按：这是一句极不负责任的说话，参看这裡）（Objections
Answered, p. 128-129）Theologian R.C.
Sproul also accepts the contradiction, but argues: “In
the final analysis, the evidence for the existence of the good (God) is not
vitiated by the anomaly of evil” (Objections Answered, p. 128-129).
我們必須坦白地說，這些「解決方案」並沒有解答問題，它們都沒有公正地直面邪惡的難題。庫希納所提議的是一個被稀釋過的上帝，雖然良善，卻是無能的。史鮑羅在其他方面的思想是最敏捷的，卻單純地論證說因為「善」的證據壓過了「惡」的證據，因此我們不能懷疑上帝的存在。但是這並沒有解釋邪惡的確是存在的這個問題。邪惡的難題並沒有說邪惡佔了上風，只是主張邪惡的存在而已。倘若有任何邪惡是上帝可以禁止的，邪惡的難題就仍然適用。It must be frankly
stated that each of these “solutions” is no
solution at all. Neither fairly addresses
the Problem of Evil on its own terms.
Kushner offers a watered-down God, one who is good but ultimately
powerless. Sproul, who is otherwise one
of the keenest of thinkers, simply argues that because the “good” outweighs the
“evil,” we should not doubt God’s existence.
Yet, it does not account for the evil that does exist. The Problem of Evil does not posit a
preponderance of evil, but merely that it exists. If any evil exists that God could prevent,
the Problem of Evil still applies.
基督徒作家楊腓力（Phillip Yancey）的回答比較接近事實，他在基督的死與復活的模式中找到盼望：Christian author
Phillip Yancey comes closer to the mark by finding hope in the pattern of
Christ’s death and
resurrection:
上帝要的是大屠殺嗎？讓我們換一種方式問這個問題：上帝希望祂自己的獨生子死亡嗎？顯然，基於祂的屬性，祂不可能會希望這種暴行。然而這兩者都發生了，因此問題就從我們無法回答的「為什麼」換成另一個問題：「為了什麼目的？」Did God desire the
Holocaust? Ask the question another
way: Did God desire the death of His own
Son? Obviously, because of his
character he could not possibly desire such atrocities. And yet both happened, and the question then
moves from the unanswerable “Why?” to another question, “To what end?”
在痛苦的瞬間，我們似乎無法想像從悲劇裏能產生出良善來……我們絕對無法事先知道苦難如何會被轉變成一個值得慶祝的理由。但是上帝要求我們要如此相信。信心的意思是要預先相信如果順序倒過來就會變得合理的事。（《有話問蒼天》Where is God When
it Hurts, p. 160）At the instant of
pain, it may seem impossible to imagine that good can come from tragedy…. We can never know in advance exactly how
suffering can be transformed into a cause for celebration. But that is what we are asked to
believe. Faith means believing in
advance what will only make sense in reverse (Where is God When it Hurts, p.
160).
不過，楊腓力沒有為他的分析建立一個邏輯基礎——這不是他的目的。他的文筆優美、誠實，並且是衷心地要探索問題，但目的卻不是為了護教。Yancey does not
build a logical foundation for his analysis, however – such is not his purpose. His book is a beautifully written, honest,
and heartfelt exploration, but is not intended as an apologetic.
因此，基督徒對邪惡的難題是否有適當的回應呢？我相信有的，而且是很深刻的。它來自范泰爾的著作，以及所謂的「預設前提派」（Presuppositionalism）的護教學學派。范泰爾的方法是根據聖經，以及對無神論者的「世界觀」的一種嚴謹的批判。這篇論文其餘的內容來自范泰爾及其他預設前提護教學家，尤其是邦森（Greg Bahnsen）。如果你想要進一步研究，可參考文末的參考資料。So, is there an
adequate Christian response to the Problem of Evil? I believe there is, and it is a profound
one. It comes from the writings of
Cornelius Van Til and a “school” apologetics known as “Presuppositionalism.” Van Til’s approach is based on the Bible and
a careful critique of the atheistic “worldview.” The remainder of this paper is derived from
Van Til and other presuppositionalist thinkers, in particular Greg
Bahnsen. Within the scope of this paper,
I can only briefly outline the presuppositionalist response to the Problem of
Evil; if you’d like to do more in depth research, please refer to the short
bibliography at the end of this paper.
對誰來說，邪惡是個難題呢？For Whom is Evil a Problem?
讓我們從兩個互相排斥的「世界觀」這個角度來思考邪惡的難題。世界觀是一個人對終極事實所持有的一些基礎信念的集合。一個人的世界觀經常被人視為是理所當然的。這些「事先同意」的組成部分，被人稱為「預設前提」。預設前提是一種基礎性的信念，相信這個基礎信念的人經常覺得這是不需要證明的。例如，我們也許會相信自然界是一成不變的——太陽明天依舊會升起，或者滿月總是會在月缺之後來到——並且把這個信念視為是我們感知現實的基礎，到一個地步，認為它是不需要證明的。Let us consider the
Problem of Evil from the perspective of two mutually exclusive “worldviews.” A
worldview is the foundational collection of beliefs one holds with regard to
ultimate reality. Often, the components
of one’s worldview are taken for granted.
These “pre-agreed upon” components may be termed “presuppositions.” A presupposition is a foundational belief
that is often felt by the believer to not require proof. For example, we may believe that nature is
uniform – that the sun will rise tomorrow, or that a waning moon will always
follow a full moon – and take this belief as so fundamental to our perception
of reality, that it need not require proof.
無神論的世界觀認為上帝是不存在的。所有的物質、生命、光，以及空間本身，都是自然過程的產物。有神論的世界觀——基督信仰和其他偉大的一神論宗教所接受的世界觀——相信有一位超越的、創造主上帝，祂在人類歷史裏向人啟示祂自己。The atheistic
worldview holds that there is no God.
All matter, life, light, and space itself, are the products of natural
processes. The theistic worldview – the
worldview embraced by Christianity and the other great monotheistic religions –
holds that there is a transcendent, Creator God who has revealed Himself in
human history.
關於邪惡的難題，我們可以問每個世界觀是如何解釋邪惡的。也就是說，每個世界觀的持守者是根據什麼邏輯基礎下結論說某個特定的行動是邪惡的？With regard to the
Problem of Evil, we may ask how each worldview accounts for evil. That is, on what logical basis do adherents
of each worldview conclude that a particular act is evil?
基督教世界觀是假設聖經的上帝創造了宇宙，並且向人類啟示祂絕對的善惡標準，來解釋邪惡。上帝的話——實際上是聖經裏所啟示的上帝的性情本身——提供了一個邏輯的基礎，來決定何為善、何為惡。The Christian
worldview accounts for evil by presupposing that the God of the Bible created
the universe and has revealed to humanity His absolute measure of good and
evil. God’s word – indeed, His very
character as revealed in the Bible – provides a logical basis for determining
what is good and what is evil.
另一方面，無神論的世界觀無法解釋邪惡。誠然，在一個無神論的宇宙裏，並沒有絕對的惡。善與惡被理解為傳統的「共識」，由一個特定的社會或文化的成員來決定。因此，對無神論者來說，善與惡是一個相對的概念。的確，在今日，我們聽到那些宣揚一種敵對基督信仰的世界觀的人正在倡導，要對先前世代被譴責為無法接受的、敗壞的，或邪惡的行為給予「寬容」。擁護無神論世界觀的人提到「道德相對論」，以及「正在改變中的社會道德」。The atheistic
worldview, on the other hand, cannot account for evil. Indeed, in an atheistic universe, there is no
absolute evil at all. Good and evil are
perceived as conventional “agreements” among members of a particular society or
culture. Thus, for the atheist, good and
evil are relative concepts. Indeed,
today, we hear those who proclaim a worldview antithetical to Christianity
advocating “tolerance” for acts that previous generations had condemned as
unacceptable, depraved, or evil.
Proponents of the atheistic worldview speak of “moral relativism,” and
the “changing morals of society.”
我們會問，按照善與惡的相對本質，無神論者是在什麼基礎上決定某個特定的行為是邪惡的呢？無神論的護教學家史坦（Gordon Stein）曾說，他認為大屠殺是邪惡的理由是它與歐洲社會的多數看法相左（“The Great Debate:
Does God Exist?”）既然德國是西歐的一部分，而西歐的道德標準認為種族屠殺是邪惡的，納粹的行動就是邪惡的。然而，我們會問，假使德國贏得了戰爭，史坦博士會如何形容大屠殺呢？在這種情況下，納粹也許會變成西歐的相對多數。在一個道德相對主義的宇宙裏，一個社會的道德標準會與時俱進。而既然邪惡是由觀察者來判斷的，根據無神論者的世界觀，我們就沒有權利去批判對一個忠心的納粹警察來說，什麼是「善」行。的確，我們連這樣爭辯都是不合邏輯的，即既然納粹是藉著征服把他們的道德觀強加在西歐人身上，這種道德觀的改變就不是有效的——因為，再次說——大多數人的看法有可能是征服本身是件好事。此外，我們可以爭論說西歐是藉著征服把它的道德觀強加在德國人身上；而既然沒有一個絕對的對錯標準，我們這樣作就無法被證明是合乎道德的。We may ask, in
light of the relative nature of good and evil, on what basis the atheist may
determine that a particular act is evil?
Atheist apologist Gordon Stein has said that the reason he views the
Holocaust as evil is that it was counter to the mores of European society (“The
Great Debate: Does God Exist?”). Since
Germany was a part of Western Europe, and the moral standards in Western Europe
held genocide to be evil, the Nazis were guilty of committing evil. We may ask, though, how Dr. Stein would have
characterized the Holocaust had Germany won the war? In that case, the mores of Western Europe
would have become those of the Nazis. In
the universe of moral relativism, the morals of a society may change over
time. And since evil is in the eye of
the beholder, according to the atheistic worldview, we would have no right to
criticize what to a loyal Nazi was a “good” act. Indeed, it could not even be logically argued
that since the Nazi’s forced their morality on Western Europe by conquest, the
change in morality was not valid, for – again – the majority view would have
been that the conquest itself was a good thing.
Further, it could be argued that Western Europe forced its morality on
Germany through conquest; and since there is no absolute measure of right and
wrong, there is no moral justification for doing so.
有些無神論者主張，引發苦難的就是邪惡的，減少苦難的就是良善的。然而，我們可以問，無神論者是根據什麼得到這個結論的呢？苦難為什麼是邪惡的？讓某些人受苦可以減輕另一些人的痛苦，該怎麼說呢？例如，蘇丹政府有系統地餓死、殺害、奴役基督徒。在一個無神論者的世界裏，這是邪惡的嗎？這會使基督徒受苦，但是蘇丹政府說這是為了更大的善，大多數信伊斯蘭教的人可以得到更多食物。宗教統一是好的；不同的信仰必須被剷除。無神論者是在什麼基礎上可以批判蘇丹政府所作的是邪惡的呢？Some atheists have
suggested that evil is that which causes suffering. That which mitigates suffering is good. However, we may ask on what basis the atheist
reaches this conclusion? Why is
suffering evil? What if causing some to suffer mitigates the suffering of
others? For example, in the Sudan, the
government is systematically starving, killing, and enslaving Christians. Is this evil in an atheistic universe? It is causing suffering for the Christians,
but the government of the Sudan says that a greater good is being served. There is more food for the Islamic majority. Religious homogeneity is good; the heterodox
must be removed. On what basis can the
atheist criticize what the Sudanese government is doing as evil?
倘若無神論者徹底地遵循這個來自他的世界觀的不可動搖的邏輯，邪惡就真的不存在了。這個觀點在休謨（David Hume）的極端不可知論裏得到最好的描繪。他爭辯說上帝若是不存在的，我們就不可能確信任何事物。If the atheist
follows the inexorable logic of his worldview to its conclusion, there really
is no evil. This view is represented in
the radical skepticism of David Hume, who argued that in the absence of God, it
is impossible to know anything with certainty.
很少有無神論者實際上以這樣的信念來過他們的人生，彷彿他們無法確信任何事情。有些人，譬如休謨，也許採取這種哲學立場，而我會因此向他們在理智上的誠實致敬。但是很少數，假使有的話，實際上以彷彿沒有絕對標準一樣來生活。即使是道德相對論最堅定的擁護者，也把寬容當作彷彿是一個道德的絕對標準一樣來爭論。誠然，我們絕大多數人——包括無神論者——對邪惡的行動會感覺到一種直覺上的厭惡，即使它們是被某個地區的社會所容忍的。奴隸制是邪惡的，儘管幾乎每個曾經存在過的社會，至少在某個時期都曾經相信奴隸制是可以被人接受的。Few atheists
actually live their lives as though they cannot know anything with
certainty. Some, like Hume, may take
this position philosophically – and I applaud their intellectual honesty in
doing so. But few, if any, actually live
as though there are no absolutes. Even
the staunchest proponents of moral relativism argue as if tolerance were a
moral absolute. Indeed, there is an
instinctive revulsion most of us feel – atheists included – to acts of evil,
even when they are condoned by a local society.
Slavery is evil despite the fact that almost every society that has ever
existed at least at one time believed slavery to be acceptable.
無神論者在譴責邪惡時，實際上是在「借用」有神論的世界觀。雖然在無神論的世界裏，並不包含一個客觀的、足以決定什麼行為是善良的或邪惡的客觀標準，絕大多數的無神論者都以彷彿這樣的標準是存在的，用這樣的方式來行動和思考。即使他們在哲學上承認缺乏一個客觀的標準，也拒絕對於在道德上不那麼重要的事「妄下判斷」，他們仍然在直覺上譴責肆意的暴行，即使這個暴行是在社會贊同的背景下發生的。In their
condemnation of evil, atheists are actually “borrowing”
from the theistic worldview. Though the
atheistic universe does not contain an objective standard by which to determine
if an act is good or evil, most atheists behave and think as though such a
standard exists. Even if they
acknowledge philosophically the lack of an objective measure, and may refuse to
be “judgmental” about less consequential matters of morality, they nevertheless
instinctively decry wanton cruelty, even if it occurs within a context of
societal approval.
絕大多數的無神論者並不明白他們關於善於惡的世界觀和他們的「核心」信念之間所存在的這種內在的不一致。如果被人指出來，他們有以下三種選擇：
Most
atheists do not realize the internal inconsistency between their worldview and their
“core” beliefs regarding good and evil.
When it is pointed out to them, they have one of three choices:
1. 建立一個哲學基礎，在無神論的世界觀裏解釋邪惡。這會是個令人卻步的工作，因為他們必須能回應休謨的極端懷疑主義。Build a
philosophical foundation to account for evil within the atheistic
worldview. This will prove daunting, as
they will have to adequately respond to David Hume’s radical skepticism.
2. 接受無神論的世界觀及其所有的內涵，如此，邪惡的難題就必須被丟棄，不能作為反對上帝存在的論證。因為「邪惡存在」只是一個相對的詞彙，也因此，無神論無法證明上帝容許祂認為是邪惡的事存在。Embrace the
atheistic worldview with all of its implications, in which case the Problem of
Evil must be abandoned as an argument against the existence of God. For “evil exists” is only a relative term,
and as such, atheists cannot prove that God allows what He perceives to be evil
to exist.
3. 考慮到這個可能性，即一個客觀的善惡標準是存在的，果真如此，這個客觀的標準就必須有一個「成因」，這個客觀標準也必須藉由一個機轉傳遞給人類——這正是有神論的世界觀所宣稱的。Consider the
possibility that an objective measure for good and evil exists, and if so,
there must be a ‘cause’ for that objective measure, and a mechanism by
which that objective measure has been communicated to human beings – precisely
the claims of the theistic worldview.
因此，邪惡的難題對無神論者來說，和對有神論者來說，都同樣是問題。的確，如同我們會見到的，對無神論者來說，問題其實更大，因為基督徒對邪惡的問題有一個合乎邏輯的答案，而無神論者卻沒有這樣的答案。
Thus,
the Problem of Evil is just as much a problem for the atheist as it is for the
theist. Indeed, as we shall see, it is
actually a greater problem for the atheist, because Christians have a logical
answer for the Problem of Evil, while the atheist does not.
萬事互相效力Working All Things for Good
到此，無神論者會主張，儘管他的世界觀無法解釋邪惡為什麼會存在，然而，基督徒的世界觀，就其本身而論，在邏輯上仍然不是前後連貫的。有神論的世界觀是通過主張一位超越的、創造主上帝來解釋邪惡。祂是一切道德觀念的源頭。祂也介入人類歷史，至少是一部分歷史，將這個道德觀念傳達給我們。然而，在這個世界觀裏面，在這個允許邪惡猖狂的全能、全善的上帝之間，仍然有明顯的矛盾存在。The atheist may, at
this point, suggest that while his worldview cannot account for the existence
of evil, nevertheless, the Christian worldview is still logically inconsistent
on its own terms. The theistic worldview
accounts for evil by positing a transcendent, Creator God who is the author of
all morality and who has intervened in human history at least in part to
communicate that morality to us.
However, within that worldview, there still exists an apparent
contradiction between that all-powerful and all-good God who allows evil to
flourish.
既然我們現在考慮的是基督徒的世界觀，適當的做法是翻開聖經，看我們是否在其內容裏可以找到適當的答案，來解答邪惡的難題。Since we are now
considering the Christian worldview, it is appropriate to turn to the Bible and
see if we can find within its pages an adequate answer for the Problem of Evil.
首先，聖經告訴我們，當上帝創造世界的時候，世界原本是好的。事實上，在創世記一章31節，上帝稱祂所創造的一切為「甚好」，是亞當和夏娃選擇忽略上帝唯一的命令時，邪惡才開始進入這個世界的。邪惡的起因不是上帝，而是罪——用我們自己的意志來取代上帝的旨意。但是上帝為什麼不在一開始就阻止人去作惡事就好了呢？First, the Bible
tells us that when God created the world, it was originally good. In fact, in Genesis 1:31, God calls all that
He has made “very good.” It was when
Adam and Eve chose to ignore God’s sole commandment that evil first entered the
world. The cause of evil is not God, but
sin – the act of supplanting God’s will with our own. But why doesn’t God simply stop people from
doing evil things?
使徒保羅在他寫給羅馬教會的書信裏告訴我們，上帝已經藉著祂創造的宏偉世界，讓人類認識祂了（這也許包括一種天生的，對善惡客觀標準的認識），而那些堅持拒絕祂的人，上帝就「任憑」他們背叛的本性去作惡（羅一24）。換句話說，上帝容許那些悖逆祂的人收穫他們自己撒種的結果。因此，邪惡存在的這個事實——也如此猖狂，無所不在——僅僅表明人類離開上帝，就沒有能力做成任何的善行。The apostle Paul
tells us in his letter to the church in Rome that God has made Himself known to
all people through the grandeur of His creation (which, perhaps, includes an
innate understanding of an objective measure for good and evil), and those who
persist in rejecting him are ‘given over’ to their own rebellious nature
(Romans 1:24). In other words, God allows
those who rebel against Him to reap the consequences of what they sow. Thus, the fact that evil exists – and indeed
is so pervasive – merely indicates the inability of humanity to achieve any
good apart from God.
但是假若上帝僅僅是容許那些拒絕祂的人經歷他們背叛的結果，祂為什麼也容許那些信靠祂的人在惡者的手中受苦呢？But if God is
merely allowing those who reject Him to experience the consequences of their
rebellion, why does He allow those who believe in Him to also suffer at the
hands of evildoers?
羅馬書八章28節告訴我們，上帝使「萬事互相效力，叫愛上帝的人得益處，就是按祂旨意被召的人」。翻譯成「萬事」的希臘文表明的是一個整體——在一切發生的事上，無論是好是壞，上帝都叫那些愛祂的人得益處。因此，當「壞事發生在好人身上」時，聖經告訴我們，即使在這些處境當中，上帝為了他們最終的益處，也正在行事。儘管邪惡在短時間內看似正在橫行，聖經宣告說上帝有一個在道德上站得住腳的理由，允許邪惡存在，因為祂讓萬事——包括惡事——互相效力。Romans 8:28 tells
us, “in all things, God
works for the good of those who love Him, who are called according to His
purpose” (NIV). The Greek phrase
translated “in all things” signifies a totality – in every thing that happens,
whether good or evil, God is working for the good of those who love Him. Thus, when “bad things happen to good
people,” the Bible tells us that God is working even in these circumstances for
their ultimate good. While it may appear
that evil is flourishing in the short term, the Bible declares that God has a
morally sufficient reason for allowing evil to exist, for He is working in all
things – including that evil – for good
在約瑟的故事裏，聖經為這個過程提供了一個極佳的例子（創三十七～五十章）。倘若你不熟悉這個故事，我邀請你按照這個討論來閱讀。在約瑟故事裏的任何一個時候——從他父親給他一件禮物，點燃了他兄弟的嫉妒，到他被丟在坑裏，被賣給奴隸販子，到波提乏的妻子，到遺忘約瑟有兩年之久的酒政——很清楚，約瑟都在惡人的手中受苦。在任何一個處境當中，或在整個事件中，邪惡都可以說是勝過了約瑟。然而，到頭來，當約瑟與他的家庭重逢時，以色列這個國家就得救了，約瑟也可以宣告說：「從前你們的意思是要害我，但神的意思原是好的，要保全許多人的性命，成就今日的光景。」（創五十20）約瑟因為他堅定的信仰而得到了獎賞——不只是在最後，而是在整個過程中，都得到上帝的祝福和恩惠。然而，直到最後，我們才清楚看見，並且明白上帝為他伸冤的計劃。約瑟的兄弟，奴隸販子，波提乏的妻子——都要為他們自己的行動負責任。從他們的觀點來看，他們是按照他們自己的自由意志、為了他們自己的利益來行動的。然而，在這些邪惡的行動中，聖經描繪上帝是為了祂的榮耀，也為了那些愛祂的人的益處，而在運作並塑造這些事件。The Bible provides
an excellent example of this process in the story of Joseph (Genesis 37 –
50). If you are unfamiliar with this
story, I invite you to read it in light of this discussion. At any point in the story of Joseph – from
the time his father gave him a gift that inflamed the jealousy of his brothers,
to the pit, to the slave traders, to Potipher’s wife, to the cupbearer who
forgot about Joseph for two years – it was clear that Joseph was suffering at
the hands of evil men. Evil might be
said to be overcoming Joseph in any one of those circumstances, or in their
collective whole. And yet, at the end,
when Joseph is reunited with his family, and the nation of Israel is saved,
Joseph can declare, “You intended to harm me, but God intended it for good to
accomplish what is now being done, the saving of many lives.” (Genesis 50:20
NIV). Joseph is rewarded for his
steadfast faith – not just at the end, but also through God’s blessing and
favor throughout. However, it is only at
the end that the vindication of God’s plan is clearly seen and understood. Joseph’s brothers, the slave traders,
Potipher’s wife – all are responsible for their individual actions. From their perspective, they acted of their
own free will and for their own gain.
Yet, in these acts of evil, the Bible portrays God as working and
shaping events to His glory and to the ultimate good of those who love Him.
解決方案The Solution
根據聖經所說有關邪惡存在的問題，我們可以重述邪惡的問題如下：Based on what we
have found in the Bible regarding the existence of evil, we may restate the
Problem of Evil as follows:
上帝是全能和全善的。因此，祂並不會容許邪惡存在，只除了有在道德上站得住腳的理由之外，才會容許邪惡的存在。God is all-powerful
and all good. Thus, He does not allow
evil to exist, except that for which He has a morally sufficient reason to
allow.
或者換句話說，Or, put another way:
前提一：上帝是全能的
前提二：上帝是全善的
觀察：邪惡存在
前提三：上帝有一個在道德上站得住腳的——雖然對我們來說是隱藏的——理由，容許邪惡的存在。
Premise
1: God is all-powerful.
Premise
2: God is all good.
Observation: Evil Exists
Premise
3: God has a morally sufficient, though
hidden, reason for allowing the evil that exists.
加上第三個前提就除去了邪惡的難題中在邏輯上的矛盾。儘管我們無法明白在道德上站得住腳的理由是什麼，以至於上帝會容許像大屠殺這麼恐怖的事存在，然而，對這樣的預設前提來說，本身沒有什麼不合邏輯之處。聖經宣告說，上帝的意念高過我們的意念——的確，一位能創造整個宇宙，藉著說話就使這個宇宙存在的上帝，當然能通過任何人所製造的邪惡來行善——即使是在二戰當中，像納粹所製造的那種巨大災難。The addition of
Premise #3 removes the logical contradiction in the Problem of Evil. While it may be impossible for us to
understand what morally sufficient reason there could be to allow something as
horrific as the Holocaust, nevertheless, there is nothing inherently illogical
about such a supposition. The Bible
declares that God’s ways are higher than ours – indeed, a being who could
create the entire universe by speaking it into existence is surely able to work
good through any evil Man may create – even an evil as vast as the Nazi atrocities
during World War II.
當然，無神論者可以自由地拒絕前提三，因為這需要信心，相信上帝有一個在道德上站得住腳、但沒有揭示出來的理由，容許邪惡的存在。但是這種拒絕並不是基於形式邏輯，而是說明他們缺乏信心。無神論者攻擊基督教的世界觀，首先是爭論說邪惡與上帝的能力和良善是無法配合的。當我們給他們一個合乎邏輯，也符合聖經的解釋，來說明邪惡的存在，他們再次是根據他們對上帝之缺乏信心來加以拒絕。引用邦森的話說，「他們寧可留在無法解釋任何道德判斷的境地，而不願意順服上帝那最終極的、無法挑戰的道德權柄。」（Bahnsen, Always
Ready, p. 174）Atheists are free,
of course, to reject Premise #3 because it requires faith to believe that God
has a morally sufficient but undisclosed reason for allowing evil to
exist. But this rejection is not based
on formal logic, but is rather an expression of their lack of faith in the
first place. Atheists attack the
Christian worldview by first arguing that evil is incompatible with God’s power
and goodness. When presented with a
logical and Biblically sound explanation for the existence of evil, they reject
it again on the basis of their lack of faith in God. To quote Greg Bahnsen, “They would rather be
left unable to give an account of any moral judgment (about things being good
or evil) than to submit to the ultimate and unchallengeable moral authority of
God” (Bahnsen, Always Ready, p. 174).
如此，上帝在哪裏呢？祂是無所不在的，存在於萬事當中，即使在極深的黑暗之中，仍然在為愛祂的人精巧地造作一些事件，好叫他們得益處。願一切榮耀歸給祂！Where, then, is
God? He is everywhere and in all things,
even in the very heart of darkness, crafting events for the ultimate good of
those who love Him. To Him be the glory!
參考資料：
Bahnsen,
Greg. 1996. Always Ready: Directions for
Defending the Faith. Atlanta, GA: American Vision. Texarkana, AR: Covenant Media Foundation.
________. 1998.
Van Til’s Apologetic: Readings and Analysis. Phillipsburg, NJ: R&R Publishing.
________,
and Stein, Gordon. 1985. “The Great Debate: Does God Exist.” This is the famous formal debate between Dr.
Bahnsen and atheist promoter Dr. Gordon Stein held at the university of
California (Irvine). Available from
Covenant Media Foundation (http://www.cmfnow.com).
Sproul,
R.C.. 1978. Objections Answered. Glendale, CA:
Regal Books.
Wiesel,
Elie. 1969. Night.
New York, NY: Avon Books.
Yancey,
Phillip. 1988. Disappointment with God. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.
________. 1990.
Where is God When it Hurts. Grand
Rapids. MI: Zondervan.