Volume 5, Issue 1 (2025)
jpt 2025, 5(1): 1-11 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Ahmadizade H. The Problem of "Salvation as a Natural Evil"; a Thomistic Solution. jpt 2025; 5 (1) :1-11
URL: http://jpt.modares.ac.ir/article-34-79356-en.html
URL: http://jpt.modares.ac.ir/article-34-79356-en.html
Department of Philosophy & Religions, Faculty of Literature & Foreign Languages, University of Kashan, Kashan, Iran
Full-Text [PDF 592 kb]
(136 Downloads)
| Abstract (HTML) (319 Views)
Full-Text: (3 Views)
Introduction
Many people have been born and have died throughout history without ever hearing anything about the sacred books and the message of God through revelation. From the perspective of the philosophy of religion, one might ask why God has allowed such individuals to be born and to live. Has God acted justly regarding the creation of those who have never heard His message and, as a result, have inadvertently been deprived of true and eternal happiness [Dupuis, 2002a: 3]? This is while God Himself has promised the salvation of all humans, or at least the believers, in the sacred texts, as stated in the Quran: "Thus it is a right upon us to save the believers" (Yunus/103). Some Christian theologians have presented various responses to such questions, but generally, these answers have not been very satisfactory. No matter what theological or philosophical response is provided regarding this discussion, there can be no doubt that living in conditions where one can directly understand the life-affirming message of God from the words of prophets or religious leaders of the community is far better than living in conditions where this message is understood indirectly or never understood at all.
To arrive at a convincing answer or justification regarding this issue, it is necessary to have a broad and rich set of theological tools and provide a proper and significant analysis of the concept of natural evil. Therefore, in this essay, we aim to achieve a better perspective and justification of this issue by considering Thomas Aquinas's theological views and analyses of natural evil.
The problem of evil and the issue of salvation and happiness for all humanity
After the Second Vatican Council, a group of theologians expressed that revelation can also be observed in other religions. As a result, other religions can also be salvific [Dupuis, 2002: 143]. The Christian theologians who proposed this view believed that the spirit of Christ is present and active in other religions. Therefore, other religions, like Christianity, pursue the goals and ideals of Christ and can be salvific. These theologians, largely influenced by Karl Rahner, argue that God does not communicate His message to people solely in one way or through one individual but may do so through various chosen means and individuals. Nevertheless, some Christian theologians believe that although followers of other religions may also be able to attain salvation, they will never be able to grasp the truth of the Scriptures, as God has revealed not the full truth of the Christian message but only a glimpse of it to those outside of Christianity [Collins, 2013: 81]. It is only through this limited revelation that non-Christians can also achieve salvation.
However, if individuals from other religions have never heard the message and truth of Christianity and fundamentally cannot understand it, and on the other hand, true salvation is only possible through Christianity, then how can one assert that non-Christians are also capable of salvation? This issue, namely the impossibility or possibility of non-Christians attaining salvation, can be seen as an evil many have faced throughout history and even now [Peterson, 1997: 113]. In response to this issue, two viewpoints have been presented; some Christian theologians believe that although the truth of God's revelation is manifested only in Christ, reaching an understanding of this truth can be possible or impossible for each person depending on their cognitive abilities [Costa, 2000: 105]. God can reveal the truth of His revelation and Christianity to people in various ways, and it is even possible that some who are not Christians may possess a higher cognitive capacity than some Christians for understanding the truth of God's revelation. Therefore, it may even be the case that some non-Christians are closer to God and, as a result, increase their distance from the evil arising from the inability to comprehend the truth of Christianity.
Thomas Aquinas's thought, the problem of evil and its relation to salvation
Throughout history, many people have lived in times and places where they have not heard the message of Christ and the Bible, and they have been unable to respond to it in any way. Even those who were born years after the emergence of Christianity have not been able to understand the truth of God's message through Christ in the same way that Christians who lived during Christ's time did. While Christianity presents God as loving towards humanity, how can a God who loves humanity be satisfied that the message and truth of the sacred text do not reach many people or that it reaches them in a distorted or incomplete manner? Additionally, why do so many people have a limited capacity for understanding and cannot grasp the true meaning of the sacred text? This question does not pose significant theological difficulties for the supporters of the philosophy and thought of Thomas Aquinas. Thomists may argue that although God has willed for all humans to be saved, the critics' question—why God has not provided convincing conditions for all humans to hear the message of the sacred text and respond to it directly—is irrelevant. From the Thomist perspective, the underlying assumption of such a question is that God possesses moral and emotional characteristics similar to humans, but this leads to a misunderstanding of God and His attributes and qualities [Davies, 2006: 79]. The discussion of the relationship between God and the problem of evil should not begin with the belief that we fully understand God's attributes, as we may express many of God's qualities in ways that resemble human traits. At the same time, the sacred texts explicitly state that God is fundamentally unlike anything or anyone.
Some may question why God should manifest solely through Christ when He could have various manifestations. In response to this question, as previously mentioned, Thomists believe that God should not be conceived as a moral human being. If we hold this assumption, answering such questions will not be particularly difficult; however, the answer becomes challenging when a critic asks why God did not create an equal opportunity for all humans to understand the message and truth of the sacred text [Rout, 2006: 63]. Such a question primarily challenges God's justice in providing equal opportunities for all humans to attain salvation. In response, Thomists express that God's message is singular: the invitation to eternal happiness through faith in Christ. It does not matter in which time and place this message is manifested or through which worthy individual; what is important is that each person, at any time and place, conveys the message of Christ to others, effectively guiding humanity toward the truth of revelation, whether that individual existed before Christ or after Him [Dulles, 1992: 45].
Conclusion
According to Thomistic theology, God should not be described using human moral concepts and attributes. In other words, saying that God could have done a better job or been more efficient aligns with human actions rather than with the actions and will of God, which transcend time and space. Therefore, Thomists believe that when faced with this issue, we must first have a correct understanding of God and His attributes and then also consider critics' atheistic and sometimes pluralistic assumptions. As a result, although God has manifested Himself in the person of Christ, His message is singular. It has reached humanity in various ways before and after Christ, even if the sacred text is limited to a specific time and place.
Many people have been born and have died throughout history without ever hearing anything about the sacred books and the message of God through revelation. From the perspective of the philosophy of religion, one might ask why God has allowed such individuals to be born and to live. Has God acted justly regarding the creation of those who have never heard His message and, as a result, have inadvertently been deprived of true and eternal happiness [Dupuis, 2002a: 3]? This is while God Himself has promised the salvation of all humans, or at least the believers, in the sacred texts, as stated in the Quran: "Thus it is a right upon us to save the believers" (Yunus/103). Some Christian theologians have presented various responses to such questions, but generally, these answers have not been very satisfactory. No matter what theological or philosophical response is provided regarding this discussion, there can be no doubt that living in conditions where one can directly understand the life-affirming message of God from the words of prophets or religious leaders of the community is far better than living in conditions where this message is understood indirectly or never understood at all.
To arrive at a convincing answer or justification regarding this issue, it is necessary to have a broad and rich set of theological tools and provide a proper and significant analysis of the concept of natural evil. Therefore, in this essay, we aim to achieve a better perspective and justification of this issue by considering Thomas Aquinas's theological views and analyses of natural evil.
The problem of evil and the issue of salvation and happiness for all humanity
After the Second Vatican Council, a group of theologians expressed that revelation can also be observed in other religions. As a result, other religions can also be salvific [Dupuis, 2002: 143]. The Christian theologians who proposed this view believed that the spirit of Christ is present and active in other religions. Therefore, other religions, like Christianity, pursue the goals and ideals of Christ and can be salvific. These theologians, largely influenced by Karl Rahner, argue that God does not communicate His message to people solely in one way or through one individual but may do so through various chosen means and individuals. Nevertheless, some Christian theologians believe that although followers of other religions may also be able to attain salvation, they will never be able to grasp the truth of the Scriptures, as God has revealed not the full truth of the Christian message but only a glimpse of it to those outside of Christianity [Collins, 2013: 81]. It is only through this limited revelation that non-Christians can also achieve salvation.
However, if individuals from other religions have never heard the message and truth of Christianity and fundamentally cannot understand it, and on the other hand, true salvation is only possible through Christianity, then how can one assert that non-Christians are also capable of salvation? This issue, namely the impossibility or possibility of non-Christians attaining salvation, can be seen as an evil many have faced throughout history and even now [Peterson, 1997: 113]. In response to this issue, two viewpoints have been presented; some Christian theologians believe that although the truth of God's revelation is manifested only in Christ, reaching an understanding of this truth can be possible or impossible for each person depending on their cognitive abilities [Costa, 2000: 105]. God can reveal the truth of His revelation and Christianity to people in various ways, and it is even possible that some who are not Christians may possess a higher cognitive capacity than some Christians for understanding the truth of God's revelation. Therefore, it may even be the case that some non-Christians are closer to God and, as a result, increase their distance from the evil arising from the inability to comprehend the truth of Christianity.
Thomas Aquinas's thought, the problem of evil and its relation to salvation
Throughout history, many people have lived in times and places where they have not heard the message of Christ and the Bible, and they have been unable to respond to it in any way. Even those who were born years after the emergence of Christianity have not been able to understand the truth of God's message through Christ in the same way that Christians who lived during Christ's time did. While Christianity presents God as loving towards humanity, how can a God who loves humanity be satisfied that the message and truth of the sacred text do not reach many people or that it reaches them in a distorted or incomplete manner? Additionally, why do so many people have a limited capacity for understanding and cannot grasp the true meaning of the sacred text? This question does not pose significant theological difficulties for the supporters of the philosophy and thought of Thomas Aquinas. Thomists may argue that although God has willed for all humans to be saved, the critics' question—why God has not provided convincing conditions for all humans to hear the message of the sacred text and respond to it directly—is irrelevant. From the Thomist perspective, the underlying assumption of such a question is that God possesses moral and emotional characteristics similar to humans, but this leads to a misunderstanding of God and His attributes and qualities [Davies, 2006: 79]. The discussion of the relationship between God and the problem of evil should not begin with the belief that we fully understand God's attributes, as we may express many of God's qualities in ways that resemble human traits. At the same time, the sacred texts explicitly state that God is fundamentally unlike anything or anyone.
Some may question why God should manifest solely through Christ when He could have various manifestations. In response to this question, as previously mentioned, Thomists believe that God should not be conceived as a moral human being. If we hold this assumption, answering such questions will not be particularly difficult; however, the answer becomes challenging when a critic asks why God did not create an equal opportunity for all humans to understand the message and truth of the sacred text [Rout, 2006: 63]. Such a question primarily challenges God's justice in providing equal opportunities for all humans to attain salvation. In response, Thomists express that God's message is singular: the invitation to eternal happiness through faith in Christ. It does not matter in which time and place this message is manifested or through which worthy individual; what is important is that each person, at any time and place, conveys the message of Christ to others, effectively guiding humanity toward the truth of revelation, whether that individual existed before Christ or after Him [Dulles, 1992: 45].
Conclusion
According to Thomistic theology, God should not be described using human moral concepts and attributes. In other words, saying that God could have done a better job or been more efficient aligns with human actions rather than with the actions and will of God, which transcend time and space. Therefore, Thomists believe that when faced with this issue, we must first have a correct understanding of God and His attributes and then also consider critics' atheistic and sometimes pluralistic assumptions. As a result, although God has manifested Himself in the person of Christ, His message is singular. It has reached humanity in various ways before and after Christ, even if the sacred text is limited to a specific time and place.
Article Type: Original Research |
Subject:
Philosophy of Religion (Medieval)
Received: 2025/02/3 | Accepted: 2025/03/3 | Published: 2025/03/10
Received: 2025/02/3 | Accepted: 2025/03/3 | Published: 2025/03/10
References
1. Aquinas T (1903). SUMMA THEOLOGICA. Leonine, editor. Rome: Wentworth Press. [Link]
2. Aquinas T (1954). COMPENDIUM THEOLOGIAE. In: Verardo A, editor. OPUSCULA THEOLOGICA (t. 1). Rome: Taurini. [Latin] [Link]
3. Avicenna (1983). AL-SHEFA: ELAHYAT. Madkur E, editor. Qom: AYATOLLAH MARASHI NAJAFI Press. [Arabic] [Link]
4. Copleston F (2009). History of philosophy: Philosophy of medieval. Dadju E, translator. Tehran: ELMI & FARHANGI Press. [Persian] [Link]
5. D'costa G (2000). The meeting of the religions and the trinity. Maryknoll: Orbis. [Link]
6. Davies B (2006). The reality of God and the problem of evil. New York: Continuum. [Link]
7. Davies B (2011). Thomas Aquinas on God and evil. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [Link] [DOI:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199790890.001.0001]
8. Dennett D (2006). Breaking the spell: Religion as a natural phenomenon. New York: Viking. [Link]
9. Dupuis J (2002a). Christianity and the religions: From confrontation to dialogue. Maryknoll: Orbis. [Link]
10. Dupuis J (2002b). Toward a Christian theology of religious pluralism. Maryknoll: Orbis. [Link]
11. Heim M (2000). The depth of the riches: A trinitarian theology of religious ends. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. [Link]
12. Ilkhani M (2010). History of philosophy in medieval and renaissance. Tehran: SAMT Press. [Persian] [Link]
13. Journet C (1963). The meaning of evil. New York: P.J. Kenedy & Sons. [Link]
14. O'Collins G (2013). The second Vatican council on other religions. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [Link] [DOI:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199672592.001.0001]
15. Peterson MT (1997). Reason and religious belief. Naraghi A, Soltani E, Translators. Tehran: TARHE NO Press. [Persian] [Link]
16. Rahner K (1978). Foundations of Christian Faith: An introduction to the idea of Christianity. Dych WV, translator. New York: Seabury Press. [Link]
17. Rout P (2006). "Bonaventure", Jesus, the complete guide. Houlden L, editor. London: Continuum. [Link]
18. Rowe WL (1979). The problem of evil and some varieties of Atheism. American Philosophical Quarterly. 16(4):335-341. [Link]
19. Swinburne R (1998). Providence and the problem of evil. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [Link] [DOI:10.1093/0198237987.001.0001]
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |