Irenaeus also stated that temporary evil was justified as it was a means to completion. When humans make the choice toward good rather than toward evil, they achieve translation into God’s likeness. Therefore evil is not only a result of our free will, it is necessary in order for us to achieve true perfection in the image of God and has a purpose in life.
Augustine’s theodicy contradicts Irenaeus’ in that it suggests that evil is not an integral part of God’s plan, but arose from flawed beings- i.e. humanity. God is a perfect and omnibenevolent being and Augustine stated that evil could not logically stem from something perfect. Augustine believed that Adam and Eve were created faultless and were the first human beings given free choice. When they subsequently abused this choice, the idea that the whole human race is descended from or was “seminally present in” Adam means that this Original Sin is innate in all humanity. Augustine stated that natural evil was a fitting punishment for this sin and justified the fact that this might appear to contradict the idea of a loving and forgiving God by stating that God was clearly merciful as he had allowed the sacrifice of his only son; he also used the idea of innate sin to dismiss the idea of innocent suffering. He said that since all human beings were present in Adam then we all bear his sin and there is no longer such thing as an innocent or perfect human being.
Augustine stated that evil did not stem from God, but was brought in through human abuse of the natural order. When Adam and Eve committed the Original Sin and gained knowledge, they abused nature and introduced evil into the world. Therefore evil stems entirely from humanity, and not from God, which means that the question of God’s involvement in evil and suffering is not necessary.
Both theodicies evidently have different foundations. Where Irenaeus seeks to justify the existence of evil through the idea of it as necessary in achieving God’s purpose and his likeness as well as his image, Augustine states that evil is purely as a result of human failure and was introduced by humanity when it disrupted the natural order. Both are, however, based on the concept of humanity having free will and moral autonomy.
Despite this similarity, Irenaeus’ theodicy is more sustainable under examination than Augustine’s. In a modern world, Augustine’s theodicy seems unrealistic. It is based on a fundamentalist view of Biblical creation myths and the story of The Fall. However, modern scholars see the creation myths of Genesis 1-3 as insubstantial and much more likely to have been vehicles for explaining the qualities of God than being meant as absolutely factual accounts of the creation of the Earth. The recent Darwinian theory of evolution also contradicts the ideas expressed by Augustine, suggesting that humans were not placed on Earth as we are currently but evolved from primates. There are also inherent moral questions raised as a result of the theodicy: if God is omnipotent and omniscient then he could have foreseen and prevented the fall from grace, and if truly omnibenevolent would have done so.
The scientific evidence against the Augustinian theodicy does not apply to the Irenaean theodicy, making it more acceptable to modern ideals. Irenaeus’ ideas have also been supported and built upon by modern philosophers Hick and Swinburne, who maintain Irenaeus’ idea that goodness must be developed to have any meaning. However, there are still inherent problems with the ideas expressed by Irenaeus. Man’s choices do not always lead to development and growth and there is evidence that humans can occasionally prevent this. This refutes Irenaeus’ ideas about human choices resulting in development.
Although logically Irenaeus is much more satisfactory than Augustine, the argument that love can never be expressed by such huge suffering as has been experienced in the world, no matter as to what end, is still valid in the case of both the Augustinian and the Irenaean theodicies. It seems that the quantity and inhumanity of recent suffering, even during the 20th century alone, would render an explanation of a loving God allowing this to occur for any reason appalling. Neither theodicy really addresses this problem or justifies a reason for an omnipotent God allowing this to happen. Furthermore, the problem of evil is not dismissed entirely by either theodicy, and both remain reflective and insubstantial.
