Similarities Between Augustine And Irenaeus

The problem of evil in this world poses a significant challenge to theism. There have been several responses from theists of varying religious backgrounds and schools of thought to this problem; in Christianity the two main ones being the theodicies of St Augustine and Irenaeus. A ‘theodicy’ from the greek words ‘theos’ meaning God and dike meaning ‘justice’ literally means a justification of God in response to the problem of evil.

The problem of evil is the apparent inconsistency between God’s qualities and the existence of evil in the world. The Abrahamic concept of God is one who is supposedly omniscient, omnibenevolent and omnipotent. However the questions arise: if God is omnipotent then how can He not be powerful enough to prevent evil? If God is omnibenevolent then why is He not loving enough to prevent evil? Finally, if God is both willing and able to prevent evil, then this indicates He must be unaware of it; thus where is His omniscience? Surely, evil must exist; only yesterday there was the massacre of 129 people in Paris, ironically in the name of God.

Yet what if evil does not actually exist, and is merely a

‘privatio boni’ or absence of goodness? This is the foundation upon which the 5th century St Augustine of Hippo bases his theodicy. Augustine argues that the world was created perfect because it’s creator, God, is perfect. Due to Adam and Eve’s misuse of their free will and the seminal sin, the world and all of it’s inhabitants were thrust into imbalance. The world in imbalance is why there is ‘evil’ in nature, and humans and their ill choices explains the moral ‘evil’ of humans. As God did not cause the evil and suffering, He is not accountable for it nor is its removal expected of Him. However, He did in fact remove it through the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross, giving all humans the chance to lead good lives and enter heaven for all eternity. This viewpoint shows not only does eternal life in heaven compensate for the unfairness in this world, it goes further than that,
expressing the benevolence of God.

Irenaeus, 200 years prior to Augustine, disagreed; for him evil was without doubt a substance in itself rather than a mere absence of good.

In Irenaeus’ mind, all humans were created in God’s likeness and image as described in the Bible however although we possess the same qualities as God, there is a vast difference in quantity. As a result, God created and uses evil as a tool to develop the human being to the point of perfection. Irenaeus believed that we would all eventually achieve heaven whether directly from this life or through the purification of our souls in purgatory but that our actions in this life only dictated the amount of time we will spend there suffering. Arguably, the unfairness of this world does not require compensation through heaven or any other means as the result should be enough in itself; to achieve

perfection.

Immanuel Kant in the 18th century believed in an innate sense of moral awareness in human beings, placed there by God. This sense of morality is what leads us to do good things for the sake of duty and when ignored, causes us to bad things. The fact that this innateness exists suggests there would be a reward for following it as otherwise it could and would simply be ignored by all people. Kant believed that the purpose of human life is to achieve Summum Bonum or the ultimate good: when goodness and happiness are one. This reward is rarely, if ever awarded in this world as can be attested to by the fact that those who do good deeds in this world tend to suffer the most. Therefore Kant postulates an afterlife where it will be awarded by God as surely there must come eternal bliss after years of suffering if God is truly omnibenevolent.

On the other hand, Hindus argue that even an eternal reward would not be compensation enough for the suffering suffered in this life. Their alternative is reincarnation which comes from the latin ‘re’- meaning again, ‘in’-to place inside of, ‘carne’- flesh and ‘tion’ the process of doing something or simply having the soul reborn in another body. Another fundamental part of reincarnation is the belief in ‘Karma’; the idea being that if you live unethically the body you are reborn into will reflect this and you will suffer. For example, if you are rich yet never do any good with your money and are cruel and arrogant, once you die, you may be reborn as a peasant or an orphaned child. In other words; a lifetime of evil lands you a lifetime of suffering.
All Hindus believe in this.

Where you go if you are good however becomes slightly more complicated. The Advaita school of Hinduism believe that once you die, instead of being reborn into another body, you will escape the cycle of life and death known as samsara. You will achieve Moksha or union with Brahman which is akin to becoming one with God and being blissful until the next cycle of destruction and recreation of the world. The Dvaita school similarly but not identically believe that you will escape samsara but rather than uniting with Brahman, you will become an eternal servant of Bhagvan.