The Irenaean theodicy is a Christian theodicy (a response to the problem of evil). It defends the probability of an omnipotent and omnibenevolent (all-powerful and perfectly loving) God in the face of evidence of evil in the world. Numerous variations of theodicy have been proposed which all maintain that, while evil exists, God is either not responsible for creating evil, or he is not guilty for creating evil. Typically, the Irenaean theodicy asserts that the world is the best of all possible worlds because it allows humans to fully develop. Most versions of the Irenaean theodicy propose that creation is incomplete, as humans are not yet fully developed, and experiencing evil and suffering is necessary for such development.
The second-century Church Father, theologian and philosopher Irenaeus, after whom the theodicy is named, proposed a two-stage creation process in which humans require free will and the experience of evil to develop. Another early Christian theologian, Origen, presented a response to the problem of evil which cast the world as a schoolroom or hospital for the soul; theologian Mark Scott has argued that Origen, rather than Irenaeus, ought to be considered the father of this kind of theodicy. The theologian Friedrich Schleiermacher argued in the nineteenth century that God must necessarily create flawlessly, so this world must be the best possible world because it allows God's purposes to be naturally fulfilled. In 1966 the philosopher John Hick discussed the similarities of the preceding theodicies, calling them all "Irenaean". He supported the view that creation is incomplete and argued that the world is best placed for the full moral development of humans, as it presents genuine moral choices. The philosopher Richard Swinburne proposed that, to make a free moral choice, humans must have experience of the consequences of their own actions and that natural evil must exist to provide such choices.
The development of process theology has challenged the Irenaean tradition by teaching that God using suffering for his own ends would be immoral. The twentieth-century philosopher Alvin Plantinga's free will defense argues that, while this may be the best world God could have created, God's options were limited by the need to allow freewill. Plantinga's ultimate response to the problem of evil is that it is not a problem that can be solved. Christians simply cannot claim to know the answer to the "Why?” of suffering and evil. Plantinga stresses that this is why he does not proffer a theodicy but only a defense of theistic belief as rational in the face of unanswered questions. The philosopher Dewi Zephaniah Phillips and the author Fyodor Dostoevsky challenged the instrumental use of suffering, suggesting that love cannot be expressed through suffering. However, Dostoyevsky also states that the beauty of love is evident, in that love can continue to grow, withstand and overcome even the most evil acts. The philosopher Michael Tooley argued that the magnitude of suffering is excessive and that, in some cases, cannot lead to moral development. The theologian Henri Blocher criticised Hick's universalism, arguing that such a view negates free will, which was similarly important to the theodicy.
Outline The Irenaean theodicy was first identified as a form of theodicy by John Hick in Evil and the God of Love (1966). For Augustine of Hippo, humans were created perfect but fell, and thereafter continued to choose badly of their own freewill. In Irenaeus' view, humans were not created perfect, but instead, must strive continuously to move closer to it. The Irenaean theodicy is distinguished by its acceptance that God is responsible for evil, but that he is not at fault since it is necessary for a greater good.Svendsen & Pierce 2010, p. 15
The key points of a soul-making theodicy begin with its metaphysical foundation:
"The purpose of God in creating the world was soul-making for rational moral agents." Humans choose their responses to the soul-making process, thereby developing moral character. This requires that God remain hidden, otherwise freewill would be compromised. This hiddenness is created, in part, by the presence of evil in the world. The distance of God makes moral freedom possible, while the existence of obstacles makes meaningful struggle possible. The end result of beings who complete the soul-making process is "a good of such surpassing value" that it justifies the means. Those who complete the process will be admitted to the kingdom of God where there will be no more evil.
Hick argues that, for suffering to have soul-making value, "human effort and development must be present at every stage of existence including the afterlife".Hall 2003, p. 132
Evidential problem of evil The Irenaean theodicy is a response to the evidential problem of evil which raises the problem that, if an omnipotent and omnibenevolent (all-powerful and perfectly loving) God exists, there should be no evil in the world. Evidence of evil in the world would make the existence of God improbable. The theodicy attempts to demonstrate that the existence of God remains probable, despite the occurrence of evil.Svendsen 2010, p. 43
Creation and development of humans According to the Irenaean tradition, humans are not created perfectly, but in a state of imperfection.Svendsen & Pierce 2010, p. 51 The theodicy teaches that creation has two stages: humans were first created in the image of God, and will then be created in the likeness of God. Humans are imperfect because the second stage is incomplete, entailing the potential, not yet actualised, for humans to reach perfection. To achieve this likeness of God, humans must be refined and developed.Engel, Soldan & Durand 2004, p. 214 The theodicy proposes that evil and suffering exists in the world because this is the best way for humans to develop. As such, the Irenaean theodicy is sometimes referred to as the "soul-making theodicy", a phrase taken from the poet John Keats.
Greatest possible world Typical to variations of the Irenaean theodicy is the notion that the present world is the greatest possible world, or the best of all possible worlds.Eriksen 1998, p. 447 This is based on the Irenaean idea of human development, suggesting that the best possible world would be best suited to human development: a world containing evil and suffering would allow development better than one which does not, so the world is considered the best possible world.Ellwood & Alles 2006, p. 446
Development
Irenaeus According to its proponents, the second-century philosopher Irenaeus developed a theodicy based on the idea that the creation of humans is still in progress.Davis 2001, pp. 40–42 He proposed that creation consists of two distinct parts: first in the image of God, then in the likeness of God. Irenaeus believed the first stage is complete, but the second stage requires humans to develop and grow into the likeness of God, a stage which Irenaeus believed is still in progress. He believed that, in order to achieve moral perfection, humans must be given free choice, with the actual possibility of choosing to do evil.Engel, Soldan & Durand 2007, p. 214 Irenaeus argued that for humans to have free will, God must be at an epistemic distance (or intellectual distance) from humans, far enough that belief in God remains a free choice.Davis 2001, p.41 As Irenaeus said, "there is no coercion with God, but a good will [towards us] is present with Him continually".
Because Irenaeus saw the purpose of the world to be the development of the moral character of humans, he believed that a good world would be best suited to that purpose. Irenaeaus believed that this world would include some suffering and evil to help people draw closer to God. He perceived God's declaration in the Book of Genesis that his creation was good to mean that the world is fit for purpose, rather than being free from suffering. To illustrate the benefits of suffering, Irenaeus cited the Biblical example of Jonah, from the Book of Jonah. His suffering, being swallowed by a whale, both enabled God's plan to be fulfilled and also brought Jonah closer to God: Jonah ended up repenting for his sin and the people of Nineveh turn to God. As Irenaeus said, "For as He patiently suffered Jonah to be swallowed by the whale, not that he should be swallowed up and perish altogether, but that, having been cast out again, he might be the more subject to God, and might glorify Him the more who had conferred upon him such an unhoped-for deliverance, and might bring the Ninevites to a lasting repentance, so that they should be converted to the Lord, who would deliver them from death".
Irenaeus' eschatology was based on a literal interpretation of the Bible, especially the Book of Revelation.Minns 2010, p. 144 He believed that there would be 6000 years of suffering before the world ends in a fiery purge. This fire would purify believers ahead of a new human community existing in the New Jerusalem.Barber & Neville 2005, p. 82 The afterlife, Irenaeus proposed, focuses more on time than space; he looked forward to a time in which humans are fully developed and live the life of God.Bretherton 2011, Ch. 10
Origen The early Christian theologian Origen also presented suffering as necessary for the development of human beings. The theologian Mark Scott has argued that John Hick's theodicy is more closely aligned with Origen's beliefs than Irenaeus' and ought to be called an "Origenian theodicy". Origen used two metaphors for the world: it is a school and a hospital for souls, with God as Teacher and Physician, in which suffering plays both an educative and healing role. Through an allegorical reading of Exodus and the books of Solomon, Origen casts human development as a progression through a series of stages which take place in this life and after death. Origen believed that all humans will eventually reach heaven as the logical conclusion of God being 'all in all'. Hell is a metaphor for the purification of our souls: our sinful nature goes to 'Hell' and our original nature, created by God, goes to heaven. Scott argues that significant aspects of Origen's theology mean that there is a stronger continuation between it and Hick's theodicy. These aspects are Origen's allegorical treatment of Adam and Eve, the presentation of the world as a hospital or schoolroom, the progression he advocates of the human soul, and his universalism.Scott 2010, pp. 322-333
Friedrich Schleiermacher In the early 19th century, Friedrich Schleiermacher wrote Speeches and The Christian Faith, proposing a theodicy which John Hick later identified as Irenaean in nature. Schleiermacher began his theodicy by asserting that God is omnipotent and benevolent and concluded that, because of this, "God would create flawlessly". He proposed that it would be illogical for a perfect creation to go wrong (as Augustine had suggested) and that evil must have been created by God for a good reason.Engel & Soldan 2008, p. 213 Schleiermacher conceived a perfect world to be one in which God's purposes can naturally be achieved, and will ultimately lead to dependence on God. He conceived sin as being an obstruction to humanity's dependence on God, arguing that it is almost inevitable, but citing Jesus as an example of a sinless man, whose consciousness of God was unobstructed.Bennett, Peters, Hewlett & Russell 2008, pp. 127–128 This theology led Schleiermacher to universalism, arguing that it is God's will for everyone to be saved and that no person could alter this.Hall 2003, pp. 21–22
John Hick