“ONLY THAT WHICH IS GOOD CAN BE EVIL.” AUGUSTINE ON EVIL AS PRIVATIO BONI by Matthew J. Monahan B.A. Covenant College 1999 A THESIS Submitted to the faculty in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS RELIGION at Reformed Theological Seminary Charlotte, North Carolina June 2012 Accepted: _______________________________ Dr. William C. Davis _______________________________ _______________________________ ii ABSTRACT “Only that which is good can be evil.” Augustine on evil as privatio boni Matthew J. Monahan The aim of my thesis is to suggest that the church consider adopting a privative view of evil. St. Augustine’s ontology of evil is the subject of the thesis. Augustine’s views are first explained, and then compared to Plotinus’ view of evil to show that Augustine radically transformed Plotinus’ teaching in light of Scripture. Augustine’s views are then compared to Scripture’s teaching on evil to show that a privative account of evil is consistent with and complimentary to language of Scripture as well as systematic theology. Some fruitful pastoral applications are offered at the end to show that this issue is far more than merely philosophical or abstractly theological. Of the views of evil present to the church today, the best available option is a privative account of evil. iii CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES ...............................................................................................................v ABBREVIATIONS ........................................................................................................... vi Chapter 1. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................1 Thesis ...........................................................................................................3 Overview of project .....................................................................................4 2. AUGUSTINE ON GOD, CREATION, GOODNESS, AND EVIL ........................6 God ...............................................................................................................6 Goodness ......................................................................................................8 Creation ........................................................................................................9 Measure, Form, and Order .........................................................................11 Evil as Privation of Measure, Form, and Order .........................................14 3. AUGUSTINE’S TRANSFORMATION OF PLOTINUS .....................................18 Augustine the Transformer of Neoplatonism ............................................19 Plotinus on The One...................................................................................20 Plotinus on Intellect ...................................................................................20 Plotinus on Soul .........................................................................................21 Plotinus on Evil ..........................................................................................21 Comparison of Plotinus and Augustine .....................................................22 iv 4. AUGUSTINE’S DOCTRINE OF EVIL EVALUATED ......................................27 Privation of Measure, Form, and Order as a model ...................................28 Privation of Measure, Form, and Order compared to Scriptural Vocabulary for sin ..................................................................................30 Augustine used Scripture to transform Plotinus ........................................33 Privation of Measure, Form, and Order evaluated according to systematic theology .................................................................................35 Privation is the best option for describing evil in relation to God’s permissive decree towards evil ................................................37 5. AUGUSTINE’S DOCTRINE OF EVIL APPLIED ..............................................39 Counseling a failing marriage ....................................................................40 Over emphasis on sinful nature in preaching .............................................43 6. CONCLUSION ......................................................................................................45 BIBLIOGRAPHY ..............................................................................................................49 v TABLES Table Page 7. Creator/Creature Distinction in Augustine ..............................................................9 8. Comparison of Old Testament and Augustine’s Vocabulary for Evil ...................31 9. Comparison of Old Testament, Augustine, and Plotinus on Evil ..........................34 vi ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I’m indebted to a number of people for their help with this project. Dr. Mark Ross gave an extensive reply to a previous paper I wrote on Augustine and privation. He did a lot of the initial steering that saved me from both wasted time and error. He also introduced me to the work of Paul Helm, whose writings in philosophical theology gave me the confidence to advocate a privative view of evil for more than just cultural comparison. David Ponter, our librarian, was vital to finding, scanning, and sending all kinds of articles from other libraries for me. Additionally, he was helpfully meticulous and patient in terms of all things editing, and I’ve learned so much from just a handful of his emails regarding this paper. I’m thankful for the men in my church that listened to me as I thought through these ideas. Dan Gilchrist and Paton Williams in particular logged many hours listening to me and asking questions to help clarify things and I was carried along by their encouragement. My father-in-law Rick Herder has also been a tremendous help and inspiration. Having just finished his doctorate, he had a wealth of experience to share with me and has also been a tremendous encouragement to me. Although, one is not supposed to thank their advisor, Bill Davis needs to be thanked for his longsuffering patience with me over the past fifteen years as I’ve slowly grown as a writer. No one has helped me to improve more than Bill. His gift of showing students that vii they and their ideas are valuable by the time and thoughtfulness of his critique inspires his students to do better than they thought possible. Finally, I’m thankful for my wife, Karen and my children, Dana, Jane, Clara, Jonathan, and Josie. It’s been a long seven years since I started this program. If I didn’t have their support, I never would have finished it. I dedicate this paper to them. viii ABBREVIATIONS civ. Dei De civitate Dei conf. Confessiones ench. Enchiridion (ad Laurentium) de fide spe at caritate Gn. litt. De Genesi ad litteram MFO Measure, Form, and Order mor. De moribus ecclesiae catholicae at de moribus Manichaeorum nat. b. De natura boni ord. De ordine PMFO Privation of Measure, Form, and Order Trin. De Trinitate ix CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION When people say that a child is deprived, they typically mean that there is something that he should have, but doesn’t. Saying that all evil is privation is similar to this. At the most basic level, to say that all evil is privation is to believe that all evil reduces down to a lack of something that should be there. On this model, evil is an absence of goodness, rather than a positive, independently existing thing. Since the ancient church, theologians have believed evil to be privative. Origen, Athanasius, Anselm, Aquinas, Calvin and countless others have believed this doctrine to be true, and it remains a staple in the Thomistic tradition of the Roman Catholic Church. When and how this doctrine came to be discarded by Protestants is an interesting question, but beyond the scope of this project of suggesting that readers consider readopting a privative view of evil. There are Protestants today who hold to a privative concept of evil. Many cyber- apologists find themselves excited about evil as privation, but often misunderstand or misuse the doctrine. In such contexts, privation is often used as a kind of trump card of definition to attempt to dissolve variations of the logical problem of evil. Versions of the problem of evil all boil down to the claim that belief in a God who is good and omnipotent is inconsistent with the existence of evil. The cyber apologist retorts that evil is privative and therefore doesn’t really exist. Therefore he somehow wins the debate. 1 The atheist rightfully feels annoyed at a misunderstanding and misuse of a doctrine for a purpose it was not intended. A great example of a full and proper understanding of a privative view of evil is found in St. Augustine. For him, a privative view of evil was not an answer to the problem of evil but a clarification of terms before dealing with the problem. The problem of evil asks, “From where does evil come if God is good?” Augustine would reply that “What is evil?” is an essential and logically prior question to “Where did evil come from?” Thus Augustine’s dealing with the problem of evil presupposes a definition of evil as privation of goodness.1 Compared to the preliminary explaining evil as privation, Augustine spends much more time writing on the topic of the problem of evil. In many ways he is the father of the free will defense. He couples this with a version of the stoic or aesthetic theodicy and greater good defense (“O Felix Culpa!”2). These all work together to show that the beings