The problem of evil and suffering in light of biblical
teachings
Introduction:
The problem of evil and suffering, also known as the problem of pain, refers
to the theological dilemma posed by the existence of evil in the world if there
exists an omnibenevolent, omnipotent God. It is considered to be one of the
oldest and most perplexing issues faced by philosophers and theologians
alike. As sentient beings, we experience pain and suffering on a daily basis
through sickness, natural disasters, accidents and human atrocities. This
raises a profound question – if God is perfectly good, why does he allow evil
and suffering to exist? The aim of this essay is to examine different
responses to this issue by analyzing relevant biblical passages and teachings
on the nature and purpose of evil and suffering.
The Problem Stated:
For something to be considered a genuine problem or paradox, it must meet
three basic criteria1) There must be an apparent logical contradiction or
inconsistency, (2) There must not yet be a satisfactory or widely accepted
resolution, and (3) Attempts at resolution must lead to further difficulties or
questions. The problem of evil seems to meet all three criteria and poses a
serious intellectual challenge. It maintains that the existence of an
omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent God is logically incompatible
with the existence of evil and suffering in the world. The argument can be
summarized as follows:
1. God is omnipotent, which means he has the power to prevent all evil.
2. God is omniscient, which means he knows when evil exists and has the
ability to prevent it.
3. God is omnibenevolent, which means he has the desire to prevent all
evil.
4. Evil and suffering exist in our world.
5. Therefore, either God lacks the power to prevent evil (is not
omnipotent), lacks the desire (is not omnibenevolent), or lacks the
knowledge that evil exists (is not omniscient).
6. Therefore, the existence of evil is logically inconsistent with the
existence of an omnipotent, omniscient and perfectly good God.
In philosophical terms, it is considered to be a deductive logical argument in
the form of a modus tollens, where the negation of the conclusion implies the
negation of one of the premises. This poses a serious dilemma for classical
theism and monotheistic religions like Christianity which affirm that God
possesses these divine attributes.
Free Will Defense:
One of the most common and widely accepted responses to this
philosophical problem has been the free will defense. This argument
postulates that God, in his omnibenevolence, wished to create creatures who
are morally significant – that is, able to freely choose between good and evil.
For humans to have free will, God had to allow the possibility for moral evil
through the abuse of free choice. As such, moral evil exists in the world as an
unwanted but necessary consequence of free creatures with free will. God
did not create humans as somehow morally predetermined or programmed
robots – to have done so would have denied them their dignity, morality and
humanity.
This finds support from various biblical passages which suggest that humans
were granted significant freedom and responsibility over their choices and
actions. Genesis 1-2 depicts humans as moral agents created in God’s
image, distinct from other creatures, who were given dominion over creation
and commanded to care for the Garden of Eden. However, they were also
warned not to eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, indicating
that their actions were neither fully predetermined nor controlled. They had
to freely choose to obey God or disobey, with clear moral consequences laid
out. Adam and Eve’s decision to disobey demonstrates that evil entered the
world through an act of free will rather than divine causation.
The presence of moral choice is also evident from other key passages like
Deuteronomy 30:19 which says: “I call heaven and earth to witness against
you today, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse.
Therefore choose life, that you and your offspring may live.” Here humans
are called upon to freely choose between obeying God’s commands which
will lead to life or rejecting them which will result in curses. Biblical wisdom
literature like Ecclesiastes and Proverbs also assume that humans freely
make both good and bad moral choices every day which shape their
character and destinies. God does intervene and provide guidance at times,
but he has also chosen to respect human freedom.
However, some objections have been raised against this defense. It is argued
that an omnipotent God could have created humans with free will yet in a
world with less physical and natural evil like natural disasters, diseases and
physical pain/suffering which don’t seem to be a necessary result of human
free choices. God could have possibly created a world with less incidences of
tsunamis, pandemics and cancer even if moral evil resulted from free will. It
is also debated whether God could have imbued humans with significant free
will while also intervening more directly to prevent specific evils and tip the
scales of choice more towards good without undo violation of freedom. A full
discussion of this defense would require addressing these kinds of rebuttals
and looking at the biblical material more deeply.
Soul Building Theodicy:
Another response is based on the idea that God uses suffering and moral
difficulties as a means to spiritually strengthen and transform believers.
Known as Irenaean or soul-building theodicy, it draws from the writings of 2nd
century Church Father Irenaeus of Lyons who argued that God created
humans as imperfect beings who need to progress and grow towards moral
and spiritual perfection through exercising their free will and overcoming
difficulties and temptations. While Genesis depicts the originally created
humans as completely good, they were more like children who had to learn
and mature rather than morally perfect beings. The presence of suffering,
disease, temptation and moral evils serve as opportunities for character
development, deepening wisdom and trust in God.
Irenaeus pointed to the story of Adam and Eve as an example – while their
disobedience brought evil into the world, it also allowed for human
progression out of a state of moral immaturity into greater spiritual and
moral maturity. The Christian journey of trials, obedience and sanctification
depicted in scripture follows a similar narrative arc. Romans 5 reflects this
perspective in stating that suffering produces endurance, character and hope
in believers. Similarly, James 1 says trials should be faced with joy as they
result in maturation and ability to stand approved before God. Biblical
wisdom literature often depicts righteous individuals as those who have been
refined and strengthened through difficulties, learning obedience and trust
through their experience of evil rather than being shielded from it.
However, this defense is limited in explaining natural evils and immense
suffering which seem to exceed what would be considered necessary for
spiritual development. It also raises uncomfortable questions about God’s
initial creative work and why he did not make humans in a state of greater
perfection and maturity from the beginning rather than leaving their
development contingent on experiencing evil and pain. A case can be made
that humans today still face levels of evil far surpassing what they require for
moral progress. While Bible affirms spiritual good can come out of suffering,
it does not present suffering as only morally positive experience. A balance
needs to be maintained acknowledging both its refining and destructive
effects.
Free Will and Soul Building Synthesis:
Some theologians have proposed that both defenses provide valid yet partial
insights and work best when taken together rather than separately. Free will
defense acknowledges moral evil as an unwanted byproduct of giving
humans meaningful freedom while soul-building defense sees how God can
work even this to ultimate good in transforming believers. Taken together,
they provide a more robust multi-faceted theodicy.
This finds support from Romans 8 where Paul affirms God works all things
together for ultimate good of those who love him, even though evidently not
all things are directly caused or intended by him (like moral/natural evils
resulting from free will). Jesus’ own suffering, death and resurrection
demonstrate God’s power to transform even the worst evils devised by
humans into the highest good of salvation. In his incarnation, Jesus also
modeled how one can face the full gamut of moral, physical and spiritual
sufferings with obedience, wisdom and trust in God rather than by
miraculously avoiding them.
At the same time, Bible acknowledges not everything that occurs fits into
clearcut patterns of moral retribution or spiritual progress. Book of Job
challenges simplistic equations of righteousness with absence of suffering
and Book of Lamentations gives voice to raw anguish without neatly
resolving origins of suffering. God is ultimately portrayed as mysterious and
works in complex rather than overly simplistic ways, involving a mixture of
providence and permissive will in relation to evil and its effects.
Overall, it seems a position balancing and blending elements from different
defenses provides a more robust response to the intellectual challenge posed
by problem of evil while staying grounded in biblical framework. No single
answer can satisfactorily resolve all the mind-boggling complexities, but
together they allow space for mystery while rejecting logical contradictions in
God’s character. The Bible presents a God working in and through the
complex realities of creation with both wrath and mercy, justice and grace.
A Biblical Vision of Hope:
While the problem of evil poses profound intellectual challenges, biblical
revelation ultimately points to a vision of hope transcending its perplexities.
At its core, the Bible depicts God as not only omnipotent Creator but also as
a loving heavenly Father who has entered into intimate relationship with his
people through covenants and incarnation of Jesus Christ. Given a personal
God who cares for and identifies with human suffering, the problem takes on
a different significance compared to being just an abstract logical
conundrum.
The Bible presents god taking moral evil seriously through the atoning work
and victory of Christ over sin and death on the cross. Romans 8:18-25 speaks
of creation itself being set free from bondage and corruption into glorious
liberty, paralleling ultimate redemption of humanity. New Testament epistles
overflow with hope that in Christ all things will one day be reconciled and
made new, with God wiping away every tear. Believers participate in this
present and eschatological victory by persevering in faith through difficulties,
as exhorted by numerous New Testament passages.
The paradise lost in Genesis is envisioned as paradise regained in Revelation,
with God making all things right and free of pain, suffering and injustice.
Ultimate answers to the problem may elude human understanding in the
present, but biblical hope anchors believers waiting for God to set all things
right and for justice to fully triumph at the end of the age. A proper
understanding of God emerging from Scriptures resists reducing him to a
mere philosophical category while embracing the God who bore costly love
and mercy in Christ in the midst of profound mystery of evil’s existence.
God’s goodness and power are upheld not by logical arguments but by these
acts of salvific love culminating in the resurrection of Jesus Christ. That is the
final answer and sure hope anchored in living God of the Bible.
Objections and Response:
While the above perspectives attempt to offer careful biblical responses to
the problem of evil, some objections still require thoughtful engagement:
Objection 1: If God is omnipotent, he could simply eliminate evil without
compromising human freedom. Creating a world with no suffering and
temptation would not deprive humans of morally significant choices between
relative goods.
Response: This assumes an oversimplistic conception of omnipotence that is
not consistent with biblical portrayal of God always acting in harmony with
his other attributes like righteousness and love. Eliminating possibility of real
moral/spiritual dangers could undermine human dignity, maturity and
relationship with God who does not treat us as mere automatons. Some level
of danger and risk may be inevitable for meaningful freedom. Complete
prevention of evil is also not clearly logically possible without removal of
freedom altogether, which God did not want to do.
Objection 2: Why did God not make humans capable of free will yet with
greater natural resistance to sin and temptation like unfallen angels
apparently have in Bible?
Response: The Bible does not give full details on angelic nature or their exact
pre-fall state. Humans were evidently made different, with God fashioning us
from dust, breathed life as living beings and crowned with dignity above rest
of creation. Our first parents failed in paradise, but we are also promised
glory beyond angels through redemption in Christ. Overall picture shows God
choosing to let human history play out in a complex yet redemptive manner
rather than rendering sin/failure logically impossible.
Objection 3: Scripture also speaks of natural evils/calamities unrelated to
human free will. How do these fit with arguments that portray suffering as
only resulting from freewill and/or morally/spiritually beneficial?
Response: Neither defense claims evil only arises from human free agency or
that it is exclusively positive. Rather, God in his wisdom often brings
redemption even out of tragic natural events and uses righteous individuals
strengthened through suffering as witnesses. Overall biblical framework
upholds the reality of evil exceeding our understanding of its purposes while
still asserting God’s goodness triumphant in Christ. Mystery remains, but
final hope is assured through promises of New Creation.
Objection 4: What about immense horrors like Auschwitz and genocides? Do
these have any meaningful purpose that outweighs the unfathomable
suffering involved?
Response: Valid questions are raised here exceeding any rational
explanations. At the same time, Bible depicts God’s heartbreaking anguish
over evil (Genesis 6) and deep anger at oppression throughout prophetic
literature. In Christ’s incarnation, death and conquest of death, God showed
solidarity with all victims of such atrocities and overcame ultimate depths of
evil. Ultimately biblical hope anticipates coming Judgment and justice of God
making all things right. This does not satisfy intellect but provides solace to
brokenhearted awaiting God’s promises coming to fruition beyond theodicies
and dystheism.
Conclusion:
In conclusion, while the problem of evil and suffering poses profound
intellectual challenges, the biblical framework offers theodicies and
perspectives grounded in progressive revelation which provide some
reasonable yet imperfect responses without compromising divine attributes
or reducing mystery involved in God’s sovereignty. No single argument can
adequately solve this deep dilemma which involves complex notions of free
will, providence, sin, natural order and God’s ultimate purposes spanning
history and eternity. However, a God who identifies with humanity in
suffering love revealed through incarnation, atonement and resurrection of
Jesus Christ anchors believers in sure yet often incomprehensible hope that
justice, redemption and new creation even of this broken world await in
God’s perfect timing. Ultimately, redemption triumphs over all shadows
through trusting relationship with the God of biblical promise in spite of
unanswered puzzles. The promises that evil, suffering and death will not
have the final say provide solace, even if intellect is not fully satisfied.
The problem of evil and suffering, also known as the problem of pain, refers
to the theological dilemma posed by the existence of evil in the world if there
exists an omnibenevolent, omnipotent God. It is considered to be one of the
oldest and most perplexing issues faced by philosophers and theologians
alike. As sentient beings, we experience pain and suffering on a daily basis
through sickness, natural disasters, accidents and human atrocities. This
raises a profound question – if God is perfectly good, why does he allow evil
and suffering to exist? The aim of this essay is to examine different
responses to this issue by analyzing relevant biblical passages and teachings
on the nature and purpose of evil and suffering.
The Problem Stated:
For something to be considered a genuine problem or paradox, it must meet
three basic criteria1) There must be an apparent logical contradiction or
inconsistency, (2) There must not yet be a satisfactory or widely accepted
resolution, and (3) Attempts at resolution must lead to further difficulties or
questions. The problem of evil seems to meet all three criteria and poses a
serious intellectual challenge. It maintains that the existence of an
omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent God is logically incompatible
with the existence of evil and suffering in the world. The argument can be
summarized as follows:
1. God is omnipotent, which means he has the power to prevent all evil.
2. God is omniscient, which means he knows when evil exists and has the
ability to prevent it.
3. God is omnibenevolent, which means he has the desire to prevent all
evil.
4. Evil and suffering exist in our world.
5. Therefore, either God lacks the power to prevent evil (is not
omnipotent), lacks the desire (is not omnibenevolent), or lacks the
knowledge that evil exists (is not omniscient).
6. Therefore, the existence of evil is logically inconsistent with the
existence of an omnipotent, omniscient and perfectly good God.
In philosophical terms, it is considered to be a deductive logical argument in
the form of a modus tollens, where the negation of the conclusion implies the
negation of one of the premises. This poses a serious dilemma for classical
theism and monotheistic religions like Christianity which affirm that God
possesses these divine attributes.
Free Will Defense:
One of the most common and widely accepted responses to this
philosophical problem has been the free will defense. This argument
postulates that God, in his omnibenevolence, wished to create creatures who
are morally significant – that is, able to freely choose between good and evil.
For humans to have free will, God had to allow the possibility for moral evil
through the abuse of free choice. As such, moral evil exists in the world as an
unwanted but necessary consequence of free creatures with free will. God
did not create humans as somehow morally predetermined or programmed
robots – to have done so would have denied them their dignity, morality and
humanity.
This finds support from various biblical passages which suggest that humans
were granted significant freedom and responsibility over their choices and
actions. Genesis 1-2 depicts humans as moral agents created in God’s
image, distinct from other creatures, who were given dominion over creation
and commanded to care for the Garden of Eden. However, they were also
warned not to eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, indicating
that their actions were neither fully predetermined nor controlled. They had
to freely choose to obey God or disobey, with clear moral consequences laid
out. Adam and Eve’s decision to disobey demonstrates that evil entered the
world through an act of free will rather than divine causation.
The presence of moral choice is also evident from other key passages like
Deuteronomy 30:19 which says: “I call heaven and earth to witness against
you today, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse.
Therefore choose life, that you and your offspring may live.” Here humans
are called upon to freely choose between obeying God’s commands which
will lead to life or rejecting them which will result in curses. Biblical wisdom
literature like Ecclesiastes and Proverbs also assume that humans freely
make both good and bad moral choices every day which shape their
character and destinies. God does intervene and provide guidance at times,
but he has also chosen to respect human freedom.
However, some objections have been raised against this defense. It is argued
that an omnipotent God could have created humans with free will yet in a
world with less physical and natural evil like natural disasters, diseases and
physical pain/suffering which don’t seem to be a necessary result of human
free choices. God could have possibly created a world with less incidences of
tsunamis, pandemics and cancer even if moral evil resulted from free will. It
is also debated whether God could have imbued humans with significant free
will while also intervening more directly to prevent specific evils and tip the
scales of choice more towards good without undo violation of freedom. A full
discussion of this defense would require addressing these kinds of rebuttals
and looking at the biblical material more deeply.
Soul Building Theodicy:
Another response is based on the idea that God uses suffering and moral
difficulties as a means to spiritually strengthen and transform believers.
Known as Irenaean or soul-building theodicy, it draws from the writings of 2nd
century Church Father Irenaeus of Lyons who argued that God created
humans as imperfect beings who need to progress and grow towards moral
and spiritual perfection through exercising their free will and overcoming
difficulties and temptations. While Genesis depicts the originally created
humans as completely good, they were more like children who had to learn
and mature rather than morally perfect beings. The presence of suffering,
disease, temptation and moral evils serve as opportunities for character
development, deepening wisdom and trust in God.
Irenaeus pointed to the story of Adam and Eve as an example – while their
disobedience brought evil into the world, it also allowed for human
progression out of a state of moral immaturity into greater spiritual and
moral maturity. The Christian journey of trials, obedience and sanctification
depicted in scripture follows a similar narrative arc. Romans 5 reflects this
perspective in stating that suffering produces endurance, character and hope
in believers. Similarly, James 1 says trials should be faced with joy as they
result in maturation and ability to stand approved before God. Biblical
wisdom literature often depicts righteous individuals as those who have been
refined and strengthened through difficulties, learning obedience and trust
through their experience of evil rather than being shielded from it.
However, this defense is limited in explaining natural evils and immense
suffering which seem to exceed what would be considered necessary for
spiritual development. It also raises uncomfortable questions about God’s
initial creative work and why he did not make humans in a state of greater
perfection and maturity from the beginning rather than leaving their
development contingent on experiencing evil and pain. A case can be made
that humans today still face levels of evil far surpassing what they require for
moral progress. While Bible affirms spiritual good can come out of suffering,
it does not present suffering as only morally positive experience. A balance
needs to be maintained acknowledging both its refining and destructive
effects.
Free Will and Soul Building Synthesis:
Some theologians have proposed that both defenses provide valid yet partial
insights and work best when taken together rather than separately. Free will
defense acknowledges moral evil as an unwanted byproduct of giving
humans meaningful freedom while soul-building defense sees how God can
work even this to ultimate good in transforming believers. Taken together,
they provide a more robust multi-faceted theodicy.
This finds support from Romans 8 where Paul affirms God works all things
together for ultimate good of those who love him, even though evidently not
all things are directly caused or intended by him (like moral/natural evils
resulting from free will). Jesus’ own suffering, death and resurrection
demonstrate God’s power to transform even the worst evils devised by
humans into the highest good of salvation. In his incarnation, Jesus also
modeled how one can face the full gamut of moral, physical and spiritual
sufferings with obedience, wisdom and trust in God rather than by
miraculously avoiding them.
At the same time, Bible acknowledges not everything that occurs fits into
clearcut patterns of moral retribution or spiritual progress. Book of Job
challenges simplistic equations of righteousness with absence of suffering
and Book of Lamentations gives voice to raw anguish without neatly
resolving origins of suffering. God is ultimately portrayed as mysterious and
works in complex rather than overly simplistic ways, involving a mixture of
providence and permissive will in relation to evil and its effects.
Overall, it seems a position balancing and blending elements from different
defenses provides a more robust response to the intellectual challenge posed
by problem of evil while staying grounded in biblical framework. No single
answer can satisfactorily resolve all the mind-boggling complexities, but
together they allow space for mystery while rejecting logical contradictions in
God’s character. The Bible presents a God working in and through the
complex realities of creation with both wrath and mercy, justice and grace.
A Biblical Vision of Hope:
While the problem of evil poses profound intellectual challenges, biblical
revelation ultimately points to a vision of hope transcending its perplexities.
At its core, the Bible depicts God as not only omnipotent Creator but also as
a loving heavenly Father who has entered into intimate relationship with his
people through covenants and incarnation of Jesus Christ. Given a personal
God who cares for and identifies with human suffering, the problem takes on
a different significance compared to being just an abstract logical
conundrum.
The Bible presents god taking moral evil seriously through the atoning work
and victory of Christ over sin and death on the cross. Romans 8:18-25 speaks
of creation itself being set free from bondage and corruption into glorious
liberty, paralleling ultimate redemption of humanity. New Testament epistles
overflow with hope that in Christ all things will one day be reconciled and
made new, with God wiping away every tear. Believers participate in this
present and eschatological victory by persevering in faith through difficulties,
as exhorted by numerous New Testament passages.
The paradise lost in Genesis is envisioned as paradise regained in Revelation,
with God making all things right and free of pain, suffering and injustice.
Ultimate answers to the problem may elude human understanding in the
present, but biblical hope anchors believers waiting for God to set all things
right and for justice to fully triumph at the end of the age. A proper
understanding of God emerging from Scriptures resists reducing him to a
mere philosophical category while embracing the God who bore costly love
and mercy in Christ in the midst of profound mystery of evil’s existence.
God’s goodness and power are upheld not by logical arguments but by these
acts of salvific love culminating in the resurrection of Jesus Christ. That is the
final answer and sure hope anchored in living God of the Bible.
Objections and Response:
While the above perspectives attempt to offer careful biblical responses to
the problem of evil, some objections still require thoughtful engagement:
Objection 1: If God is omnipotent, he could simply eliminate evil without
compromising human freedom. Creating a world with no suffering and
temptation would not deprive humans of morally significant choices between
relative goods.
Response: This assumes an oversimplistic conception of omnipotence that is
not consistent with biblical portrayal of God always acting in harmony with
his other attributes like righteousness and love. Eliminating possibility of real
moral/spiritual dangers could undermine human dignity, maturity and
relationship with God who does not treat us as mere automatons. Some level
of danger and risk may be inevitable for meaningful freedom. Complete
prevention of evil is also not clearly logically possible without removal of
freedom altogether, which God did not want to do.
Objection 2: Why did God not make humans capable of free will yet with
greater natural resistance to sin and temptation like unfallen angels
apparently have in Bible?
Response: The Bible does not give full details on angelic nature or their exact
pre-fall state. Humans were evidently made different, with God fashioning us
from dust, breathed life as living beings and crowned with dignity above rest
of creation. Our first parents failed in paradise, but we are also promised
glory beyond angels through redemption in Christ. Overall picture shows God
choosing to let human history play out in a complex yet redemptive manner
rather than rendering sin/failure logically impossible.
Objection 3: Scripture also speaks of natural evils/calamities unrelated to
human free will. How do these fit with arguments that portray suffering as
only resulting from freewill and/or morally/spiritually beneficial?
Response: Neither defense claims evil only arises from human free agency or
that it is exclusively positive. Rather, God in his wisdom often brings
redemption even out of tragic natural events and uses righteous individuals
strengthened through suffering as witnesses. Overall biblical framework
upholds the reality of evil exceeding our understanding of its purposes while
still asserting God’s goodness triumphant in Christ. Mystery remains, but
final hope is assured through promises of New Creation.
Objection 4: What about immense horrors like Auschwitz and genocides? Do
these have any meaningful purpose that outweighs the unfathomable
suffering involved?
Response: Valid questions are raised here exceeding any rational
explanations. At the same time, Bible depicts God’s heartbreaking anguish
over evil (Genesis 6) and deep anger at oppression throughout prophetic
literature. In Christ’s incarnation, death and conquest of death, God showed
solidarity with all victims of such atrocities and overcame ultimate depths of
evil. Ultimately biblical hope anticipates coming Judgment and justice of God
making all things right. This does not satisfy intellect but provides solace to
brokenhearted awaiting God’s promises coming to fruition beyond theodicies
and dystheism.
Conclusion:
In conclusion, while the problem of evil and suffering poses profound
intellectual challenges, the biblical framework offers theodicies and
perspectives grounded in progressive revelation which provide some
reasonable yet imperfect responses without compromising divine attributes
or reducing mystery involved in God’s sovereignty. No single argument can
adequately solve this deep dilemma which involves complex notions of free
will, providence, sin, natural order and God’s ultimate purposes spanning
history and eternity. However, a God who identifies with humanity in
suffering love revealed through incarnation, atonement and resurrection of
Jesus Christ anchors believers in sure yet often incomprehensible hope that
justice, redemption and new creation even of this broken world await in
God’s perfect timing. Ultimately, redemption triumphs over all shadows
through trusting relationship with the God of biblical promise in spite of
unanswered puzzles. The promises that evil, suffering and death will not
have the final say provide solace, even if intellect is not fully satisfied.
The problem of evil and suffering, also known as the problem of pain, refers
to the theological dilemma posed by the existence of evil in the world if there
exists an omnibenevolent, omnipotent God. It is considered to be one of the
oldest and most perplexing issues faced by philosophers and theologians
alike. As sentient beings, we experience pain and suffering on a daily basis
through sickness, natural disasters, accidents and human atrocities. This
raises a profound question – if God is perfectly good, why does he allow evil
and suffering to exist? The aim of this essay is to examine different
responses to this issue by analyzing relevant biblical passages and teachings
on the nature and purpose of evil and suffering.
The Problem Stated:
For something to be considered a genuine problem or paradox, it must meet
three basic criteria1) There must be an apparent logical contradiction or
inconsistency, (2) There must not yet be a satisfactory or widely accepted
resolution, and (3) Attempts at resolution must lead to further difficulties or
questions. The problem of evil seems to meet all three criteria and poses a
serious intellectual challenge. It maintains that the existence of an
omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent God is logically incompatible
with the existence of evil and suffering in the world. The argument can be
summarized as follows:
1. God is omnipotent, which means he has the power to prevent all evil.
2. God is omniscient, which means he knows when evil exists and has the
ability to prevent it.
3. God is omnibenevolent, which means he has the desire to prevent all
evil.
4. Evil and suffering exist in our world.
5. Therefore, either God lacks the power to prevent evil (is not
omnipotent), lacks the desire (is not omnibenevolent), or lacks the
knowledge that evil exists (is not omniscient).
6. Therefore, the existence of evil is logically inconsistent with the
existence of an omnipotent, omniscient and perfectly good God.
In philosophical terms, it is considered to be a deductive logical argument in
the form of a modus tollens, where the negation of the conclusion implies the
negation of one of the premises. This poses a serious dilemma for classical
theism and monotheistic religions like Christianity which affirm that God
possesses these divine attributes.
Free Will Defense:
One of the most common and widely accepted responses to this
philosophical problem has been the free will defense. This argument
postulates that God, in his omnibenevolence, wished to create creatures who
are morally significant – that is, able to freely choose between good and evil.
For humans to have free will, God had to allow the possibility for moral evil
through the abuse of free choice. As such, moral evil exists in the world as an
unwanted but necessary consequence of free creatures with free will. God
did not create humans as somehow morally predetermined or programmed
robots – to have done so would have denied them their dignity, morality and
humanity.
This finds support from various biblical passages which suggest that humans
were granted significant freedom and responsibility over their choices and
actions. Genesis 1-2 depicts humans as moral agents created in God’s
image, distinct from other creatures, who were given dominion over creation
and commanded to care for the Garden of Eden. However, they were also
warned not to eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, indicating
that their actions were neither fully predetermined nor controlled. They had
to freely choose to obey God or disobey, with clear moral consequences laid
out. Adam and Eve’s decision to disobey demonstrates that evil entered the
world through an act of free will rather than divine causation.
The presence of moral choice is also evident from other key passages like
Deuteronomy 30:19 which says: “I call heaven and earth to witness against
you today, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse.
Therefore choose life, that you and your offspring may live.” Here humans
are called upon to freely choose between obeying God’s commands which
will lead to life or rejecting them which will result in curses. Biblical wisdom
literature like Ecclesiastes and Proverbs also assume that humans freely
make both good and bad moral choices every day which shape their
character and destinies. God does intervene and provide guidance at times,
but he has also chosen to respect human freedom.
However, some objections have been raised against this defense. It is argued
that an omnipotent God could have created humans with free will yet in a
world with less physical and natural evil like natural disasters, diseases and
physical pain/suffering which don’t seem to be a necessary result of human
free choices. God could have possibly created a world with less incidences of
tsunamis, pandemics and cancer even if moral evil resulted from free will. It
is also debated whether God could have imbued humans with significant free
will while also intervening more directly to prevent specific evils and tip the
scales of choice more towards good without undo violation of freedom. A full
discussion of this defense would require addressing these kinds of rebuttals
and looking at the biblical material more deeply.
Soul Building Theodicy:
Another response is based on the idea that God uses suffering and moral
difficulties as a means to spiritually strengthen and transform believers.
Known as Irenaean or soul-building theodicy, it draws from the writings of 2nd
century Church Father Irenaeus of Lyons who argued that God created
humans as imperfect beings who need to progress and grow towards moral
and spiritual perfection through exercising their free will and overcoming
difficulties and temptations. While Genesis depicts the originally created
humans as completely good, they were more like children who had to learn
and mature rather than morally perfect beings. The presence of suffering,
disease, temptation and moral evils serve as opportunities for character
development, deepening wisdom and trust in God.
Irenaeus pointed to the story of Adam and Eve as an example – while their
disobedience brought evil into the world, it also allowed for human
progression out of a state of moral immaturity into greater spiritual and
moral maturity. The Christian journey of trials, obedience and sanctification
depicted in scripture follows a similar narrative arc. Romans 5 reflects this
perspective in stating that suffering produces endurance, character and hope
in believers. Similarly, James 1 says trials should be faced with joy as they
result in maturation and ability to stand approved before God. Biblical
wisdom literature often depicts righteous individuals as those who have been
refined and strengthened through difficulties, learning obedience and trust
through their experience of evil rather than being shielded from it.
However, this defense is limited in explaining natural evils and immense
suffering which seem to exceed what would be considered necessary for
spiritual development. It also raises uncomfortable questions about God’s
initial creative work and why he did not make humans in a state of greater
perfection and maturity from the beginning rather than leaving their
development contingent on experiencing evil and pain. A case can be made
that humans today still face levels of evil far surpassing what they require for
moral progress. While Bible affirms spiritual good can come out of suffering,
it does not present suffering as only morally positive experience. A balance
needs to be maintained acknowledging both its refining and destructive
effects.
Free Will and Soul Building Synthesis:
Some theologians have proposed that both defenses provide valid yet partial
insights and work best when taken together rather than separately. Free will
defense acknowledges moral evil as an unwanted byproduct of giving
humans meaningful freedom while soul-building defense sees how God can
work even this to ultimate good in transforming believers. Taken together,
they provide a more robust multi-faceted theodicy.
This finds support from Romans 8 where Paul affirms God works all things
together for ultimate good of those who love him, even though evidently not
all things are directly caused or intended by him (like moral/natural evils
resulting from free will). Jesus’ own suffering, death and resurrection
demonstrate God’s power to transform even the worst evils devised by
humans into the highest good of salvation. In his incarnation, Jesus also
modeled how one can face the full gamut of moral, physical and spiritual
sufferings with obedience, wisdom and trust in God rather than by
miraculously avoiding them.
At the same time, Bible acknowledges not everything that occurs fits into
clearcut patterns of moral retribution or spiritual progress. Book of Job
challenges simplistic equations of righteousness with absence of suffering
and Book of Lamentations gives voice to raw anguish without neatly
resolving origins of suffering. God is ultimately portrayed as mysterious and
works in complex rather than overly simplistic ways, involving a mixture of
providence and permissive will in relation to evil and its effects.
Overall, it seems a position balancing and blending elements from different
defenses provides a more robust response to the intellectual challenge posed
by problem of evil while staying grounded in biblical framework. No single
answer can satisfactorily resolve all the mind-boggling complexities, but
together they allow space for mystery while rejecting logical contradictions in
God’s character. The Bible presents a God working in and through the
complex realities of creation with both wrath and mercy, justice and grace.
A Biblical Vision of Hope:
While the problem of evil poses profound intellectual challenges, biblical
revelation ultimately points to a vision of hope transcending its perplexities.
At its core, the Bible depicts God as not only omnipotent Creator but also as
a loving heavenly Father who has entered into intimate relationship with his
people through covenants and incarnation of Jesus Christ. Given a personal
God who cares for and identifies with human suffering, the problem takes on
a different significance compared to being just an abstract logical
conundrum.
The Bible presents god taking moral evil seriously through the atoning work
and victory of Christ over sin and death on the cross. Romans 8:18-25 speaks
of creation itself being set free from bondage and corruption into glorious
liberty, paralleling ultimate redemption of humanity. New Testament epistles
overflow with hope that in Christ all things will one day be reconciled and
made new, with God wiping away every tear. Believers participate in this
present and eschatological victory by persevering in faith through difficulties,
as exhorted by numerous New Testament passages.
The paradise lost in Genesis is envisioned as paradise regained in Revelation,
with God making all things right and free of pain, suffering and injustice.
Ultimate answers to the problem may elude human understanding in the
present, but biblical hope anchors believers waiting for God to set all things
right and for justice to fully triumph at the end of the age. A proper
understanding of God emerging from Scriptures resists reducing him to a
mere philosophical category while embracing the God who bore costly love
and mercy in Christ in the midst of profound mystery of evil’s existence.
God’s goodness and power are upheld not by logical arguments but by these
acts of salvific love culminating in the resurrection of Jesus Christ. That is the
final answer and sure hope anchored in living God of the Bible.
Objections and Response:
While the above perspectives attempt to offer careful biblical responses to
the problem of evil, some objections still require thoughtful engagement:
Objection 1: If God is omnipotent, he could simply eliminate evil without
compromising human freedom. Creating a world with no suffering and
temptation would not deprive humans of morally significant choices between
relative goods.
Response: This assumes an oversimplistic conception of omnipotence that is
not consistent with biblical portrayal of God always acting in harmony with
his other attributes like righteousness and love. Eliminating possibility of real
moral/spiritual dangers could undermine human dignity, maturity and
relationship with God who does not treat us as mere automatons. Some level
of danger and risk may be inevitable for meaningful freedom. Complete
prevention of evil is also not clearly logically possible without removal of
freedom altogether, which God did not want to do.
Objection 2: Why did God not make humans capable of free will yet with
greater natural resistance to sin and temptation like unfallen angels
apparently have in Bible?
Response: The Bible does not give full details on angelic nature or their exact
pre-fall state. Humans were evidently made different, with God fashioning us
from dust, breathed life as living beings and crowned with dignity above rest
of creation. Our first parents failed in paradise, but we are also promised
glory beyond angels through redemption in Christ. Overall picture shows God
choosing to let human history play out in a complex yet redemptive manner
rather than rendering sin/failure logically impossible.
Objection 3: Scripture also speaks of natural evils/calamities unrelated to
human free will. How do these fit with arguments that portray suffering as
only resulting from freewill and/or morally/spiritually beneficial?
Response: Neither defense claims evil only arises from human free agency or
that it is exclusively positive. Rather, God in his wisdom often brings
redemption even out of tragic natural events and uses righteous individuals
strengthened through suffering as witnesses. Overall biblical framework
upholds the reality of evil exceeding our understanding of its purposes while
still asserting God’s goodness triumphant in Christ. Mystery remains, but
final hope is assured through promises of New Creation.
Objection 4: What about immense horrors like Auschwitz and genocides? Do
these have any meaningful purpose that outweighs the unfathomable
suffering involved?
Response: Valid questions are raised here exceeding any rational
explanations. At the same time, Bible depicts God’s heartbreaking anguish
over evil (Genesis 6) and deep anger at oppression throughout prophetic
literature. In Christ’s incarnation, death and conquest of death, God showed
solidarity with all victims of such atrocities and overcame ultimate depths of
evil. Ultimately biblical hope anticipates coming Judgment and justice of God
making all things right. This does not satisfy intellect but provides solace to
brokenhearted awaiting God’s promises coming to fruition beyond theodicies
and dystheism.
Conclusion:
In conclusion, while the problem of evil and suffering poses profound
intellectual challenges, the biblical framework offers theodicies and
perspectives grounded in progressive revelation which provide some
reasonable yet imperfect responses without compromising divine attributes
or reducing mystery involved in God’s sovereignty. No single argument can
adequately solve this deep dilemma which involves complex notions of free
will, providence, sin, natural order and God’s ultimate purposes spanning
history and eternity. However, a God who identifies with humanity in
suffering love revealed through incarnation, atonement and resurrection of
Jesus Christ anchors believers in sure yet often incomprehensible hope that
justice, redemption and new creation even of this broken world await in
God’s perfect timing. Ultimately, redemption triumphs over all shadows
through trusting relationship with the God of biblical promise in spite of
unanswered puzzles. The promises that evil, suffering and death will not
have the final say provide solace, even if intellect is not fully satisfied.
The problem of evil and suffering, also known as the problem of pain, refers
to the theological dilemma posed by the existence of evil in the world if there
exists an omnibenevolent, omnipotent God. It is considered to be one of the
oldest and most perplexing issues faced by philosophers and theologians
alike. As sentient beings, we experience pain and suffering on a daily basis
through sickness, natural disasters, accidents and human atrocities. This
raises a profound question – if God is perfectly good, why does he allow evil
and suffering to exist? The aim of this essay is to examine different
responses to this issue by analyzing relevant biblical passages and teachings
on the nature and purpose of evil and suffering.
The Problem Stated:
For something to be considered a genuine problem or paradox, it must meet
three basic criteria1) There must be an apparent logical contradiction or
inconsistency, (2) There must not yet be a satisfactory or widely accepted
resolution, and (3) Attempts at resolution must lead to further difficulties or
questions. The problem of evil seems to meet all three criteria and poses a
serious intellectual challenge. It maintains that the existence of an
omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent God is logically incompatible
with the existence of evil and suffering in the world. The argument can be
summarized as follows:
1. God is omnipotent, which means he has the power to prevent all evil.
2. God is omniscient, which means he knows when evil exists and has the
ability to prevent it.
3. God is omnibenevolent, which means he has the desire to prevent all
evil.
4. Evil and suffering exist in our world.
5. Therefore, either God lacks the power to prevent evil (is not
omnipotent), lacks the desire (is not omnibenevolent), or lacks the
knowledge that evil exists (is not omniscient).
6. Therefore, the existence of evil is logically inconsistent with the
existence of an omnipotent, omniscient and perfectly good God.
In philosophical terms, it is considered to be a deductive logical argument in
the form of a modus tollens, where the negation of the conclusion implies the
negation of one of the premises. This poses a serious dilemma for classical
theism and monotheistic religions like Christianity which affirm that God
possesses these divine attributes.
Free Will Defense:
One of the most common and widely accepted responses to this
philosophical problem has been the free will defense. This argument
postulates that God, in his omnibenevolence, wished to create creatures who
are morally significant – that is, able to freely choose between good and evil.
For humans to have free will, God had to allow the possibility for moral evil
through the abuse of free choice. As such, moral evil exists in the world as an
unwanted but necessary consequence of free creatures with free will. God
did not create humans as somehow morally predetermined or programmed
robots – to have done so would have denied them their dignity, morality and
humanity.
This finds support from various biblical passages which suggest that humans
were granted significant freedom and responsibility over their choices and
actions. Genesis 1-2 depicts humans as moral agents created in God’s
image, distinct from other creatures, who were given dominion over creation
and commanded to care for the Garden of Eden. However, they were also
warned not to eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, indicating
that their actions were neither fully predetermined nor controlled. They had
to freely choose to obey God or disobey, with clear moral consequences laid
out. Adam and Eve’s decision to disobey demonstrates that evil entered the
world through an act of free will rather than divine causation.
The presence of moral choice is also evident from other key passages like
Deuteronomy 30:19 which says: “I call heaven and earth to witness against
you today, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse.
Therefore choose life, that you and your offspring may live.” Here humans
are called upon to freely choose between obeying God’s commands which
will lead to life or rejecting them which will result in curses. Biblical wisdom
literature like Ecclesiastes and Proverbs also assume that humans freely
make both good and bad moral choices every day which shape their
character and destinies. God does intervene and provide guidance at times,
but he has also chosen to respect human freedom.
However, some objections have been raised against this defense. It is argued
that an omnipotent God could have created humans with free will yet in a
world with less physical and natural evil like natural disasters, diseases and
physical pain/suffering which don’t seem to be a necessary result of human
free choices. God could have possibly created a world with less incidences of
tsunamis, pandemics and cancer even if moral evil resulted from free will. It
is also debated whether God could have imbued humans with significant free
will while also intervening more directly to prevent specific evils and tip the
scales of choice more towards good without undo violation of freedom. A full
discussion of this defense would require addressing these kinds of rebuttals
and looking at the biblical material more deeply.
Soul Building Theodicy:
Another response is based on the idea that God uses suffering and moral
difficulties as a means to spiritually strengthen and transform believers.
Known as Irenaean or soul-building theodicy, it draws from the writings of 2nd
century Church Father Irenaeus of Lyons who argued that God created
humans as imperfect beings who need to progress and grow towards moral
and spiritual perfection through exercising their free will and overcoming
difficulties and temptations. While Genesis depicts the originally created
humans as completely good, they were more like children who had to learn
and mature rather than morally perfect beings. The presence of suffering,
disease, temptation and moral evils serve as opportunities for character
development, deepening wisdom and trust in God.
Irenaeus pointed to the story of Adam and Eve as an example – while their
disobedience brought evil into the world, it also allowed for human
progression out of a state of moral immaturity into greater spiritual and
moral maturity. The Christian journey of trials, obedience and sanctification
depicted in scripture follows a similar narrative arc. Romans 5 reflects this
perspective in stating that suffering produces endurance, character and hope
in believers. Similarly, James 1 says trials should be faced with joy as they
result in maturation and ability to stand approved before God. Biblical
wisdom literature often depicts righteous individuals as those who have been
refined and strengthened through difficulties, learning obedience and trust
through their experience of evil rather than being shielded from it.
However, this defense is limited in explaining natural evils and immense
suffering which seem to exceed what would be considered necessary for
spiritual development. It also raises uncomfortable questions about God’s
initial creative work and why he did not make humans in a state of greater
perfection and maturity from the beginning rather than leaving their
development contingent on experiencing evil and pain. A case can be made
that humans today still face levels of evil far surpassing what they require for
moral progress. While Bible affirms spiritual good can come out of suffering,
it does not present suffering as only morally positive experience. A balance
needs to be maintained acknowledging both its refining and destructive
effects.
Free Will and Soul Building Synthesis:
Some theologians have proposed that both defenses provide valid yet partial
insights and work best when taken together rather than separately. Free will
defense acknowledges moral evil as an unwanted byproduct of giving
humans meaningful freedom while soul-building defense sees how God can
work even this to ultimate good in transforming believers. Taken together,
they provide a more robust multi-faceted theodicy.
This finds support from Romans 8 where Paul affirms God works all things
together for ultimate good of those who love him, even though evidently not
all things are directly caused or intended by him (like moral/natural evils
resulting from free will). Jesus’ own suffering, death and resurrection
demonstrate God’s power to transform even the worst evils devised by
humans into the highest good of salvation. In his incarnation, Jesus also
modeled how one can face the full gamut of moral, physical and spiritual
sufferings with obedience, wisdom and trust in God rather than by
miraculously avoiding them.
At the same time, Bible acknowledges not everything that occurs fits into
clearcut patterns of moral retribution or spiritual progress. Book of Job
challenges simplistic equations of righteousness with absence of suffering
and Book of Lamentations gives voice to raw anguish without neatly
resolving origins of suffering. God is ultimately portrayed as mysterious and
works in complex rather than overly simplistic ways, involving a mixture of
providence and permissive will in relation to evil and its effects.
Overall, it seems a position balancing and blending elements from different
defenses provides a more robust response to the intellectual challenge posed
by problem of evil while staying grounded in biblical framework. No single
answer can satisfactorily resolve all the mind-boggling complexities, but
together they allow space for mystery while rejecting logical contradictions in
God’s character. The Bible presents a God working in and through the
complex realities of creation with both wrath and mercy, justice and grace.
A Biblical Vision of Hope:
While the problem of evil poses profound intellectual challenges, biblical
revelation ultimately points to a vision of hope transcending its perplexities.
At its core, the Bible depicts God as not only omnipotent Creator but also as
a loving heavenly Father who has entered into intimate relationship with his
people through covenants and incarnation of Jesus Christ. Given a personal
God who cares for and identifies with human suffering, the problem takes on
a different significance compared to being just an abstract logical
conundrum.
The Bible presents god taking moral evil seriously through the atoning work
and victory of Christ over sin and death on the cross. Romans 8:18-25 speaks
of creation itself being set free from bondage and corruption into glorious
liberty, paralleling ultimate redemption of humanity. New Testament epistles
overflow with hope that in Christ all things will one day be reconciled and
made new, with God wiping away every tear. Believers participate in this
present and eschatological victory by persevering in faith through difficulties,
as exhorted by numerous New Testament passages.
The paradise lost in Genesis is envisioned as paradise regained in Revelation,
with God making all things right and free of pain, suffering and injustice.
Ultimate answers to the problem may elude human understanding in the
present, but biblical hope anchors believers waiting for God to set all things
right and for justice to fully triumph at the end of the age. A proper
understanding of God emerging from Scriptures resists reducing him to a
mere philosophical category while embracing the God who bore costly love
and mercy in Christ in the midst of profound mystery of evil’s existence.
God’s goodness and power are upheld not by logical arguments but by these
acts of salvific love culminating in the resurrection of Jesus Christ. That is the
final answer and sure hope anchored in living God of the Bible.
Objections and Response:
While the above perspectives attempt to offer careful biblical responses to
the problem of evil, some objections still require thoughtful engagement:
Objection 1: If God is omnipotent, he could simply eliminate evil without
compromising human freedom. Creating a world with no suffering and
temptation would not deprive humans of morally significant choices between
relative goods.
Response: This assumes an oversimplistic conception of omnipotence that is
not consistent with biblical portrayal of God always acting in harmony with
his other attributes like righteousness and love. Eliminating possibility of real
moral/spiritual dangers could undermine human dignity, maturity and
relationship with God who does not treat us as mere automatons. Some level
of danger and risk may be inevitable for meaningful freedom. Complete
prevention of evil is also not clearly logically possible without removal of
freedom altogether, which God did not want to do.
Objection 2: Why did God not make humans capable of free will yet with
greater natural resistance to sin and temptation like unfallen angels
apparently have in Bible?
Response: The Bible does not give full details on angelic nature or their exact
pre-fall state. Humans were evidently made different, with God fashioning us
from dust, breathed life as living beings and crowned with dignity above rest
of creation. Our first parents failed in paradise, but we are also promised
glory beyond angels through redemption in Christ. Overall picture shows God
choosing to let human history play out in a complex yet redemptive manner
rather than rendering sin/failure logically impossible.
Objection 3: Scripture also speaks of natural evils/calamities unrelated to
human free will. How do these fit with arguments that portray suffering as
only resulting from freewill and/or morally/spiritually beneficial?
Response: Neither defense claims evil only arises from human free agency or
that it is exclusively positive. Rather, God in his wisdom often brings
redemption even out of tragic natural events and uses righteous individuals
strengthened through suffering as witnesses. Overall biblical framework
upholds the reality of evil exceeding our understanding of its purposes while
still asserting God’s goodness triumphant in Christ. Mystery remains, but
final hope is assured through promises of New Creation.
Objection 4: What about immense horrors like Auschwitz and genocides? Do
these have any meaningful purpose that outweighs the unfathomable
suffering involved?
Response: Valid questions are raised here exceeding any rational
explanations. At the same time, Bible depicts God’s heartbreaking anguish
over evil (Genesis 6) and deep anger at oppression throughout prophetic
literature. In Christ’s incarnation, death and conquest of death, God showed
solidarity with all victims of such atrocities and overcame ultimate depths of
evil. Ultimately biblical hope anticipates coming Judgment and justice of God
making all things right. This does not satisfy intellect but provides solace to
brokenhearted awaiting God’s promises coming to fruition beyond theodicies
and dystheism.
Conclusion:
In conclusion, while the problem of evil and suffering poses profound
intellectual challenges, the biblical framework offers theodicies and
perspectives grounded in progressive revelation which provide some
reasonable yet imperfect responses without compromising divine attributes
or reducing mystery involved in God’s sovereignty. No single argument can
adequately solve this deep dilemma which involves complex notions of free
will, providence, sin, natural order and God’s ultimate purposes spanning
history and eternity. However, a God who identifies with humanity in
suffering love revealed through incarnation, atonement and resurrection of
Jesus Christ anchors believers in sure yet often incomprehensible hope that
justice, redemption and new creation even of this broken world await in
God’s perfect timing. Ultimately, redemption triumphs over all shadows
through trusting relationship with the God of biblical promise in spite of
unanswered puzzles. The promises that evil, suffering and death will not
have the final say provide solace, even if intellect is not fully satisfied.
The problem of evil and suffering, also known as the problem of pain, refers
to the theological dilemma posed by the existence of evil in the world if there
exists an omnibenevolent, omnipotent God. It is considered to be one of the
oldest and most perplexing issues faced by philosophers and theologians
alike. As sentient beings, we experience pain and suffering on a daily basis
through sickness, natural disasters, accidents and human atrocities. This
raises a profound question – if God is perfectly good, why does he allow evil
and suffering to exist? The aim of this essay is to examine different
responses to this issue by analyzing relevant biblical passages and teachings
on the nature and purpose of evil and suffering.
The Problem Stated:
For something to be considered a genuine problem or paradox, it must meet
three basic criteria1) There must be an apparent logical contradiction or
inconsistency, (2) There must not yet be a satisfactory or widely accepted
resolution, and (3) Attempts at resolution must lead to further difficulties or
questions. The problem of evil seems to meet all three criteria and poses a
serious intellectual challenge. It maintains that the existence of an
omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent God is logically incompatible
with the existence of evil and suffering in the world. The argument can be
summarized as follows:
1. God is omnipotent, which means he has the power to prevent all evil.
2. God is omniscient, which means he knows when evil exists and has the
ability to prevent it.
3. God is omnibenevolent, which means he has the desire to prevent all
evil.
4. Evil and suffering exist in our world.
5. Therefore, either God lacks the power to prevent evil (is not
omnipotent), lacks the desire (is not omnibenevolent), or lacks the
knowledge that evil exists (is not omniscient).
6. Therefore, the existence of evil is logically inconsistent with the
existence of an omnipotent, omniscient and perfectly good God.
In philosophical terms, it is considered to be a deductive logical argument in
the form of a modus tollens, where the negation of the conclusion implies the
negation of one of the premises. This poses a serious dilemma for classical
theism and monotheistic religions like Christianity which affirm that God
possesses these divine attributes.
Free Will Defense:
One of the most common and widely accepted responses to this
philosophical problem has been the free will defense. This argument
postulates that God, in his omnibenevolence, wished to create creatures who
are morally significant – that is, able to freely choose between good and evil.
For humans to have free will, God had to allow the possibility for moral evil
through the abuse of free choice. As such, moral evil exists in the world as an
unwanted but necessary consequence of free creatures with free will. God
did not create humans as somehow morally predetermined or programmed
robots – to have done so would have denied them their dignity, morality and
humanity.
This finds support from various biblical passages which suggest that humans
were granted significant freedom and responsibility over their choices and
actions. Genesis 1-2 depicts humans as moral agents created in God’s
image, distinct from other creatures, who were given dominion over creation
and commanded to care for the Garden of Eden. However, they were also
warned not to eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, indicating
that their actions were neither fully predetermined nor controlled. They had
to freely choose to obey God or disobey, with clear moral consequences laid
out. Adam and Eve’s decision to disobey demonstrates that evil entered the
world through an act of free will rather than divine causation.
The presence of moral choice is also evident from other key passages like
Deuteronomy 30:19 which says: “I call heaven and earth to witness against
you today, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse.
Therefore choose life, that you and your offspring may live.” Here humans
are called upon to freely choose between obeying God’s commands which
will lead to life or rejecting them which will result in curses. Biblical wisdom
literature like Ecclesiastes and Proverbs also assume that humans freely
make both good and bad moral choices every day which shape their
character and destinies. God does intervene and provide guidance at times,
but he has also chosen to respect human freedom.
However, some objections have been raised against this defense. It is argued
that an omnipotent God could have created humans with free will yet in a
world with less physical and natural evil like natural disasters, diseases and
physical pain/suffering which don’t seem to be a necessary result of human
free choices. God could have possibly created a world with less incidences of
tsunamis, pandemics and cancer even if moral evil resulted from free will. It
is also debated whether God could have imbued humans with significant free
will while also intervening more directly to prevent specific evils and tip the
scales of choice more towards good without undo violation of freedom. A full
discussion of this defense would require addressing these kinds of rebuttals
and looking at the biblical material more deeply.
Soul Building Theodicy:
Another response is based on the idea that God uses suffering and moral
difficulties as a means to spiritually strengthen and transform believers.
Known as Irenaean or soul-building theodicy, it draws from the writings of 2nd
century Church Father Irenaeus of Lyons who argued that God created
humans as imperfect beings who need to progress and grow towards moral
and spiritual perfection through exercising their free will and overcoming
difficulties and temptations. While Genesis depicts the originally created
humans as completely good, they were more like children who had to learn
and mature rather than morally perfect beings. The presence of suffering,
disease, temptation and moral evils serve as opportunities for character
development, deepening wisdom and trust in God.
Irenaeus pointed to the story of Adam and Eve as an example – while their
disobedience brought evil into the world, it also allowed for human
progression out of a state of moral immaturity into greater spiritual and
moral maturity. The Christian journey of trials, obedience and sanctification
depicted in scripture follows a similar narrative arc. Romans 5 reflects this
perspective in stating that suffering produces endurance, character and hope
in believers. Similarly, James 1 says trials should be faced with joy as they
result in maturation and ability to stand approved before God. Biblical
wisdom literature often depicts righteous individuals as those who have been
refined and strengthened through difficulties, learning obedience and trust
through their experience of evil rather than being shielded from it.
However, this defense is limited in explaining natural evils and immense
suffering which seem to exceed what would be considered necessary for
spiritual development. It also raises uncomfortable questions about God’s
initial creative work and why he did not make humans in a state of greater
perfection and maturity from the beginning rather than leaving their
development contingent on experiencing evil and pain. A case can be made
that humans today still face levels of evil far surpassing what they require for
moral progress. While Bible affirms spiritual good can come out of suffering,
it does not present suffering as only morally positive experience. A balance
needs to be maintained acknowledging both its refining and destructive
effects.
Free Will and Soul Building Synthesis:
Some theologians have proposed that both defenses provide valid yet partial
insights and work best when taken together rather than separately. Free will
defense acknowledges moral evil as an unwanted byproduct of giving
humans meaningful freedom while soul-building defense sees how God can
work even this to ultimate good in transforming believers. Taken together,
they provide a more robust multi-faceted theodicy.
This finds support from Romans 8 where Paul affirms God works all things
together for ultimate good of those who love him, even though evidently not
all things are directly caused or intended by him (like moral/natural evils
resulting from free will). Jesus’ own suffering, death and resurrection
demonstrate God’s power to transform even the worst evils devised by
humans into the highest good of salvation. In his incarnation, Jesus also
modeled how one can face the full gamut of moral, physical and spiritual
sufferings with obedience, wisdom and trust in God rather than by
miraculously avoiding them.
At the same time, Bible acknowledges not everything that occurs fits into
clearcut patterns of moral retribution or spiritual progress. Book of Job
challenges simplistic equations of righteousness with absence of suffering
and Book of Lamentations gives voice to raw anguish without neatly
resolving origins of suffering. God is ultimately portrayed as mysterious and
works in complex rather than overly simplistic ways, involving a mixture of
providence and permissive will in relation to evil and its effects.
Overall, it seems a position balancing and blending elements from different
defenses provides a more robust response to the intellectual challenge posed
by problem of evil while staying grounded in biblical framework. No single
answer can satisfactorily resolve all the mind-boggling complexities, but
together they allow space for mystery while rejecting logical contradictions in
God’s character. The Bible presents a God working in and through the
complex realities of creation with both wrath and mercy, justice and grace.
A Biblical Vision of Hope:
While the problem of evil poses profound intellectual challenges, biblical
revelation ultimately points to a vision of hope transcending its perplexities.
At its core, the Bible depicts God as not only omnipotent Creator but also as
a loving heavenly Father who has entered into intimate relationship with his
people through covenants and incarnation of Jesus Christ. Given a personal
God who cares for and identifies with human suffering, the problem takes on
a different significance compared to being just an abstract logical
conundrum.
The Bible presents god taking moral evil seriously through the atoning work
and victory of Christ over sin and death on the cross. Romans 8:18-25 speaks
of creation itself being set free from bondage and corruption into glorious
liberty, paralleling ultimate redemption of humanity. New Testament epistles
overflow with hope that in Christ all things will one day be reconciled and
made new, with God wiping away every tear. Believers participate in this
present and eschatological victory by persevering in faith through difficulties,
as exhorted by numerous New Testament passages.
The paradise lost in Genesis is envisioned as paradise regained in Revelation,
with God making all things right and free of pain, suffering and injustice.
Ultimate answers to the problem may elude human understanding in the
present, but biblical hope anchors believers waiting for God to set all things
right and for justice to fully triumph at the end of the age. A proper
understanding of God emerging from Scriptures resists reducing him to a
mere philosophical category while embracing the God who bore costly love
and mercy in Christ in the midst of profound mystery of evil’s existence.
God’s goodness and power are upheld not by logical arguments but by these
acts of salvific love culminating in the resurrection of Jesus Christ. That is the
final answer and sure hope anchored in living God of the Bible.
Objections and Response:
While the above perspectives attempt to offer careful biblical responses to
the problem of evil, some objections still require thoughtful engagement:
Objection 1: If God is omnipotent, he could simply eliminate evil without
compromising human freedom. Creating a world with no suffering and
temptation would not deprive humans of morally significant choices between
relative goods.
Response: This assumes an oversimplistic conception of omnipotence that is
not consistent with biblical portrayal of God always acting in harmony with
his other attributes like righteousness and love. Eliminating possibility of real
moral/spiritual dangers could undermine human dignity, maturity and
relationship with God who does not treat us as mere automatons. Some level
of danger and risk may be inevitable for meaningful freedom. Complete
prevention of evil is also not clearly logically possible without removal of
freedom altogether, which God did not want to do.
Objection 2: Why did God not make humans capable of free will yet with
greater natural resistance to sin and temptation like unfallen angels
apparently have in Bible?
Response: The Bible does not give full details on angelic nature or their exact
pre-fall state. Humans were evidently made different, with God fashioning us
from dust, breathed life as living beings and crowned with dignity above rest
of creation. Our first parents failed in paradise, but we are also promised
glory beyond angels through redemption in Christ. Overall picture shows God
choosing to let human history play out in a complex yet redemptive manner
rather than rendering sin/failure logically impossible.
Objection 3: Scripture also speaks of natural evils/calamities unrelated to
human free will. How do these fit with arguments that portray suffering as
only resulting from freewill and/or morally/spiritually beneficial?
Response: Neither defense claims evil only arises from human free agency or
that it is exclusively positive. Rather, God in his wisdom often brings
redemption even out of tragic natural events and uses righteous individuals
strengthened through suffering as witnesses. Overall biblical framework
upholds the reality of evil exceeding our understanding of its purposes while
still asserting God’s goodness triumphant in Christ. Mystery remains, but
final hope is assured through promises of New Creation.
Objection 4: What about immense horrors like Auschwitz and genocides? Do
these have any meaningful purpose that outweighs the unfathomable
suffering involved?
Response: Valid questions are raised here exceeding any rational
explanations. At the same time, Bible depicts God’s heartbreaking anguish
over evil (Genesis 6) and deep anger at oppression throughout prophetic
literature. In Christ’s incarnation, death and conquest of death, God showed
solidarity with all victims of such atrocities and overcame ultimate depths of
evil. Ultimately biblical hope anticipates coming Judgment and justice of God
making all things right. This does not satisfy intellect but provides solace to
brokenhearted awaiting God’s promises coming to fruition beyond theodicies
and dystheism.
Conclusion:
In conclusion, while the problem of evil and suffering poses profound
intellectual challenges, the biblical framework offers theodicies and
perspectives grounded in progressive revelation which provide some
reasonable yet imperfect responses without compromising divine attributes
or reducing mystery involved in God’s sovereignty. No single argument can
adequately solve this deep dilemma which involves complex notions of free
will, providence, sin, natural order and God’s ultimate purposes spanning
history and eternity. However, a God who identifies with humanity in
suffering love revealed through incarnation, atonement and resurrection of
Jesus Christ anchors believers in sure yet often incomprehensible hope that
justice, redemption and new creation even of this broken world await in
God’s perfect timing. Ultimately, redemption triumphs over all shadows
through trusting relationship with the God of biblical promise in spite of
unanswered puzzles. The promises that evil, suffering and death will not
have the final say provide solace, even if intellect is not fully satisfied.
The problem of evil and suffering, also known as the problem of pain, refers
to the theological dilemma posed by the existence of evil in the world if there
exists an omnibenevolent, omnipotent God. It is considered to be one of the
oldest and most perplexing issues faced by philosophers and theologians
alike. As sentient beings, we experience pain and suffering on a daily basis
through sickness, natural disasters, accidents and human atrocities. This
raises a profound question – if God is perfectly good, why does he allow evil
and suffering to exist? The aim of this essay is to examine different
responses to this issue by analyzing relevant biblical passages and teachings
on the nature and purpose of evil and suffering.
The Problem Stated:
For something to be considered a genuine problem or paradox, it must meet
three basic criteria1) There must be an apparent logical contradiction or
inconsistency, (2) There must not yet be a satisfactory or widely accepted
resolution, and (3) Attempts at resolution must lead to further difficulties or
questions. The problem of evil seems to meet all three criteria and poses a
serious intellectual challenge. It maintains that the existence of an
omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent God is logically incompatible
with the existence of evil and suffering in the world. The argument can be
summarized as follows:
1. God is omnipotent, which means he has the power to prevent all evil.
2. God is omniscient, which means he knows when evil exists and has the
ability to prevent it.
3. God is omnibenevolent, which means he has the desire to prevent all
evil.
4. Evil and suffering exist in our world.
5. Therefore, either God lacks the power to prevent evil (is not
omnipotent), lacks the desire (is not omnibenevolent), or lacks the
knowledge that evil exists (is not omniscient).
6. Therefore, the existence of evil is logically inconsistent with the
existence of an omnipotent, omniscient and perfectly good God.
In philosophical terms, it is considered to be a deductive logical argument in
the form of a modus tollens, where the negation of the conclusion implies the
negation of one of the premises. This poses a serious dilemma for classical
theism and monotheistic religions like Christianity which affirm that God
possesses these divine attributes.
Free Will Defense:
One of the most common and widely accepted responses to this
philosophical problem has been the free will defense. This argument
postulates that God, in his omnibenevolence, wished to create creatures who
are morally significant – that is, able to freely choose between good and evil.
For humans to have free will, God had to allow the possibility for moral evil
through the abuse of free choice. As such, moral evil exists in the world as an
unwanted but necessary consequence of free creatures with free will. God
did not create humans as somehow morally predetermined or programmed
robots – to have done so would have denied them their dignity, morality and
humanity.
This finds support from various biblical passages which suggest that humans
were granted significant freedom and responsibility over their choices and
actions. Genesis 1-2 depicts humans as moral agents created in God’s
image, distinct from other creatures, who were given dominion over creation
and commanded to care for the Garden of Eden. However, they were also
warned not to eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, indicating
that their actions were neither fully predetermined nor controlled. They had
to freely choose to obey God or disobey, with clear moral consequences laid
out. Adam and Eve’s decision to disobey demonstrates that evil entered the
world through an act of free will rather than divine causation.
The presence of moral choice is also evident from other key passages like
Deuteronomy 30:19 which says: “I call heaven and earth to witness against
you today, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse.
Therefore choose life, that you and your offspring may live.” Here humans
are called upon to freely choose between obeying God’s commands which
will lead to life or rejecting them which will result in curses. Biblical wisdom
literature like Ecclesiastes and Proverbs also assume that humans freely
make both good and bad moral choices every day which shape their
character and destinies. God does intervene and provide guidance at times,
but he has also chosen to respect human freedom.
However, some objections have been raised against this defense. It is argued
that an omnipotent God could have created humans with free will yet in a
world with less physical and natural evil like natural disasters, diseases and
physical pain/suffering which don’t seem to be a necessary result of human
free choices. God could have possibly created a world with less incidences of
tsunamis, pandemics and cancer even if moral evil resulted from free will. It
is also debated whether God could have imbued humans with significant free
will while also intervening more directly to prevent specific evils and tip the
scales of choice more towards good without undo violation of freedom. A full
discussion of this defense would require addressing these kinds of rebuttals
and looking at the biblical material more deeply.
Soul Building Theodicy:
Another response is based on the idea that God uses suffering and moral
difficulties as a means to spiritually strengthen and transform believers.
Known as Irenaean or soul-building theodicy, it draws from the writings of 2nd
century Church Father Irenaeus of Lyons who argued that God created
humans as imperfect beings who need to progress and grow towards moral
and spiritual perfection through exercising their free will and overcoming
difficulties and temptations. While Genesis depicts the originally created
humans as completely good, they were more like children who had to learn
and mature rather than morally perfect beings. The presence of suffering,
disease, temptation and moral evils serve as opportunities for character
development, deepening wisdom and trust in God.
Irenaeus pointed to the story of Adam and Eve as an example – while their
disobedience brought evil into the world, it also allowed for human
progression out of a state of moral immaturity into greater spiritual and
moral maturity. The Christian journey of trials, obedience and sanctification
depicted in scripture follows a similar narrative arc. Romans 5 reflects this
perspective in stating that suffering produces endurance, character and hope
in believers. Similarly, James 1 says trials should be faced with joy as they
result in maturation and ability to stand approved before God. Biblical
wisdom literature often depicts righteous individuals as those who have been
refined and strengthened through difficulties, learning obedience and trust
through their experience of evil rather than being shielded from it.
However, this defense is limited in explaining natural evils and immense
suffering which seem to exceed what would be considered necessary for
spiritual development. It also raises uncomfortable questions about God’s
initial creative work and why he did not make humans in a state of greater
perfection and maturity from the beginning rather than leaving their
development contingent on experiencing evil and pain. A case can be made
that humans today still face levels of evil far surpassing what they require for
moral progress. While Bible affirms spiritual good can come out of suffering,
it does not present suffering as only morally positive experience. A balance
needs to be maintained acknowledging both its refining and destructive
effects.
Free Will and Soul Building Synthesis:
Some theologians have proposed that both defenses provide valid yet partial
insights and work best when taken together rather than separately. Free will
defense acknowledges moral evil as an unwanted byproduct of giving
humans meaningful freedom while soul-building defense sees how God can
work even this to ultimate good in transforming believers. Taken together,
they provide a more robust multi-faceted theodicy.
This finds support from Romans 8 where Paul affirms God works all things
together for ultimate good of those who love him, even though evidently not
all things are directly caused or intended by him (like moral/natural evils
resulting from free will). Jesus’ own suffering, death and resurrection
demonstrate God’s power to transform even the worst evils devised by
humans into the highest good of salvation. In his incarnation, Jesus also
modeled how one can face the full gamut of moral, physical and spiritual
sufferings with obedience, wisdom and trust in God rather than by
miraculously avoiding them.
At the same time, Bible acknowledges not everything that occurs fits into
clearcut patterns of moral retribution or spiritual progress. Book of Job
challenges simplistic equations of righteousness with absence of suffering
and Book of Lamentations gives voice to raw anguish without neatly
resolving origins of suffering. God is ultimately portrayed as mysterious and
works in complex rather than overly simplistic ways, involving a mixture of
providence and permissive will in relation to evil and its effects.
Overall, it seems a position balancing and blending elements from different
defenses provides a more robust response to the intellectual challenge posed
by problem of evil while staying grounded in biblical framework. No single
answer can satisfactorily resolve all the mind-boggling complexities, but
together they allow space for mystery while rejecting logical contradictions in
God’s character. The Bible presents a God working in and through the
complex realities of creation with both wrath and mercy, justice and grace.
A Biblical Vision of Hope:
While the problem of evil poses profound intellectual challenges, biblical
revelation ultimately points to a vision of hope transcending its perplexities.
At its core, the Bible depicts God as not only omnipotent Creator but also as
a loving heavenly Father who has entered into intimate relationship with his
people through covenants and incarnation of Jesus Christ. Given a personal
God who cares for and identifies with human suffering, the problem takes on
a different significance compared to being just an abstract logical
conundrum.
The Bible presents god taking moral evil seriously through the atoning work
and victory of Christ over sin and death on the cross. Romans 8:18-25 speaks
of creation itself being set free from bondage and corruption into glorious
liberty, paralleling ultimate redemption of humanity. New Testament epistles
overflow with hope that in Christ all things will one day be reconciled and
made new, with God wiping away every tear. Believers participate in this
present and eschatological victory by persevering in faith through difficulties,
as exhorted by numerous New Testament passages.
The paradise lost in Genesis is envisioned as paradise regained in Revelation,
with God making all things right and free of pain, suffering and injustice.
Ultimate answers to the problem may elude human understanding in the
present, but biblical hope anchors believers waiting for God to set all things
right and for justice to fully triumph at the end of the age. A proper
understanding of God emerging from Scriptures resists reducing him to a
mere philosophical category while embracing the God who bore costly love
and mercy in Christ in the midst of profound mystery of evil’s existence.
God’s goodness and power are upheld not by logical arguments but by these
acts of salvific love culminating in the resurrection of Jesus Christ. That is the
final answer and sure hope anchored in living God of the Bible.
Objections and Response:
While the above perspectives attempt to offer careful biblical responses to
the problem of evil, some objections still require thoughtful engagement:
Objection 1: If God is omnipotent, he could simply eliminate evil without
compromising human freedom. Creating a world with no suffering and
temptation would not deprive humans of morally significant choices between
relative goods.
Response: This assumes an oversimplistic conception of omnipotence that is
not consistent with biblical portrayal of God always acting in harmony with
his other attributes like righteousness and love. Eliminating possibility of real
moral/spiritual dangers could undermine human dignity, maturity and
relationship with God who does not treat us as mere automatons. Some level
of danger and risk may be inevitable for meaningful freedom. Complete
prevention of evil is also not clearly logically possible without removal of
freedom altogether, which God did not want to do.
Objection 2: Why did God not make humans capable of free will yet with
greater natural resistance to sin and temptation like unfallen angels
apparently have in Bible?
Response: The Bible does not give full details on angelic nature or their exact
pre-fall state. Humans were evidently made different, with God fashioning us
from dust, breathed life as living beings and crowned with dignity above rest
of creation. Our first parents failed in paradise, but we are also promised
glory beyond angels through redemption in Christ. Overall picture shows God
choosing to let human history play out in a complex yet redemptive manner
rather than rendering sin/failure logically impossible.
Objection 3: Scripture also speaks of natural evils/calamities unrelated to
human free will. How do these fit with arguments that portray suffering as
only resulting from freewill and/or morally/spiritually beneficial?
Response: Neither defense claims evil only arises from human free agency or
that it is exclusively positive. Rather, God in his wisdom often brings
redemption even out of tragic natural events and uses righteous individuals
strengthened through suffering as witnesses. Overall biblical framework
upholds the reality of evil exceeding our understanding of its purposes while
still asserting God’s goodness triumphant in Christ. Mystery remains, but
final hope is assured through promises of New Creation.
Objection 4: What about immense horrors like Auschwitz and genocides? Do
these have any meaningful purpose that outweighs the unfathomable
suffering involved?
Response: Valid questions are raised here exceeding any rational
explanations. At the same time, Bible depicts God’s heartbreaking anguish
over evil (Genesis 6) and deep anger at oppression throughout prophetic
literature. In Christ’s incarnation, death and conquest of death, God showed
solidarity with all victims of such atrocities and overcame ultimate depths of
evil. Ultimately biblical hope anticipates coming Judgment and justice of God
making all things right. This does not satisfy intellect but provides solace to
brokenhearted awaiting God’s promises coming to fruition beyond theodicies
and dystheism.
Conclusion:
In conclusion, while the problem of evil and suffering poses profound
intellectual challenges, the biblical framework offers theodicies and
perspectives grounded in progressive revelation which provide some
reasonable yet imperfect responses without compromising divine attributes
or reducing mystery involved in God’s sovereignty. No single argument can
adequately solve this deep dilemma which involves complex notions of free
will, providence, sin, natural order and God’s ultimate purposes spanning
history and eternity. However, a God who identifies with humanity in
suffering love revealed through incarnation, atonement and resurrection of
Jesus Christ anchors believers in sure yet often incomprehensible hope that
justice, redemption and new creation even of this broken world await in
God’s perfect timing. Ultimately, redemption triumphs over all shadows
through trusting relationship with the God of biblical promise in spite of
unanswered puzzles. The promises that evil, suffering and death will not
have the final say provide solace, even if intellect is not fully satisfied.
The problem of evil and suffering, also known as the problem of pain, refers
to the theological dilemma posed by the existence of evil in the world if there
exists an omnibenevolent, omnipotent God. It is considered to be one of the
oldest and most perplexing issues faced by philosophers and theologians
alike. As sentient beings, we experience pain and suffering on a daily basis
through sickness, natural disasters, accidents and human atrocities. This
raises a profound question – if God is perfectly good, why does he allow evil
and suffering to exist? The aim of this essay is to examine different
responses to this issue by analyzing relevant biblical passages and teachings
on the nature and purpose of evil and suffering.
The Problem Stated:
For something to be considered a genuine problem or paradox, it must meet
three basic criteria1) There must be an apparent logical contradiction or
inconsistency, (2) There must not yet be a satisfactory or widely accepted
resolution, and (3) Attempts at resolution must lead to further difficulties or
questions. The problem of evil seems to meet all three criteria and poses a
serious intellectual challenge. It maintains that the existence of an
omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent God is logically incompatible
with the existence of evil and suffering in the world. The argument can be
summarized as follows:
1. God is omnipotent, which means he has the power to prevent all evil.
2. God is omniscient, which means he knows when evil exists and has the
ability to prevent it.
3. God is omnibenevolent, which means he has the desire to prevent all
evil.
4. Evil and suffering exist in our world.
5. Therefore, either God lacks the power to prevent evil (is not
omnipotent), lacks the desire (is not omnibenevolent), or lacks the
knowledge that evil exists (is not omniscient).
6. Therefore, the existence of evil is logically inconsistent with the
existence of an omnipotent, omniscient and perfectly good God.
In philosophical terms, it is considered to be a deductive logical argument in
the form of a modus tollens, where the negation of the conclusion implies the
negation of one of the premises. This poses a serious dilemma for classical
theism and monotheistic religions like Christianity which affirm that God
possesses these divine attributes.
Free Will Defense:
One of the most common and widely accepted responses to this
philosophical problem has been the free will defense. This argument
postulates that God, in his omnibenevolence, wished to create creatures who
are morally significant – that is, able to freely choose between good and evil.
For humans to have free will, God had to allow the possibility for moral evil
through the abuse of free choice. As such, moral evil exists in the world as an
unwanted but necessary consequence of free creatures with free will. God
did not create humans as somehow morally predetermined or programmed
robots – to have done so would have denied them their dignity, morality and
humanity.
This finds support from various biblical passages which suggest that humans
were granted significant freedom and responsibility over their choices and
actions. Genesis 1-2 depicts humans as moral agents created in God’s
image, distinct from other creatures, who were given dominion over creation
and commanded to care for the Garden of Eden. However, they were also
warned not to eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, indicating
that their actions were neither fully predetermined nor controlled. They had
to freely choose to obey God or disobey, with clear moral consequences laid
out. Adam and Eve’s decision to disobey demonstrates that evil entered the
world through an act of free will rather than divine causation.
The presence of moral choice is also evident from other key passages like
Deuteronomy 30:19 which says: “I call heaven and earth to witness against
you today, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse.
Therefore choose life, that you and your offspring may live.” Here humans
are called upon to freely choose between obeying God’s commands which
will lead to life or rejecting them which will result in curses. Biblical wisdom
literature like Ecclesiastes and Proverbs also assume that humans freely
make both good and bad moral choices every day which shape their
character and destinies. God does intervene and provide guidance at times,
but he has also chosen to respect human freedom.
However, some objections have been raised against this defense. It is argued
that an omnipotent God could have created humans with free will yet in a
world with less physical and natural evil like natural disasters, diseases and
physical pain/suffering which don’t seem to be a necessary result of human
free choices. God could have possibly created a world with less incidences of
tsunamis, pandemics and cancer even if moral evil resulted from free will. It
is also debated whether God could have imbued humans with significant free
will while also intervening more directly to prevent specific evils and tip the
scales of choice more towards good without undo violation of freedom. A full
discussion of this defense would require addressing these kinds of rebuttals
and looking at the biblical material more deeply.
Soul Building Theodicy:
Another response is based on the idea that God uses suffering and moral
difficulties as a means to spiritually strengthen and transform believers.
Known as Irenaean or soul-building theodicy, it draws from the writings of 2nd
century Church Father Irenaeus of Lyons who argued that God created
humans as imperfect beings who need to progress and grow towards moral
and spiritual perfection through exercising their free will and overcoming
difficulties and temptations. While Genesis depicts the originally created
humans as completely good, they were more like children who had to learn
and mature rather than morally perfect beings. The presence of suffering,
disease, temptation and moral evils serve as opportunities for character
development, deepening wisdom and trust in God.
Irenaeus pointed to the story of Adam and Eve as an example – while their
disobedience brought evil into the world, it also allowed for human
progression out of a state of moral immaturity into greater spiritual and
moral maturity. The Christian journey of trials, obedience and sanctification
depicted in scripture follows a similar narrative arc. Romans 5 reflects this
perspective in stating that suffering produces endurance, character and hope
in believers. Similarly, James 1 says trials should be faced with joy as they
result in maturation and ability to stand approved before God. Biblical
wisdom literature often depicts righteous individuals as those who have been
refined and strengthened through difficulties, learning obedience and trust
through their experience of evil rather than being shielded from it.
However, this defense is limited in explaining natural evils and immense
suffering which seem to exceed what would be considered necessary for
spiritual development. It also raises uncomfortable questions about God’s
initial creative work and why he did not make humans in a state of greater
perfection and maturity from the beginning rather than leaving their
development contingent on experiencing evil and pain. A case can be made
that humans today still face levels of evil far surpassing what they require for
moral progress. While Bible affirms spiritual good can come out of suffering,
it does not present suffering as only morally positive experience. A balance
needs to be maintained acknowledging both its refining and destructive
effects.
Free Will and Soul Building Synthesis:
Some theologians have proposed that both defenses provide valid yet partial
insights and work best when taken together rather than separately. Free will
defense acknowledges moral evil as an unwanted byproduct of giving
humans meaningful freedom while soul-building defense sees how God can
work even this to ultimate good in transforming believers. Taken together,
they provide a more robust multi-faceted theodicy.
This finds support from Romans 8 where Paul affirms God works all things
together for ultimate good of those who love him, even though evidently not
all things are directly caused or intended by him (like moral/natural evils
resulting from free will). Jesus’ own suffering, death and resurrection
demonstrate God’s power to transform even the worst evils devised by
humans into the highest good of salvation. In his incarnation, Jesus also
modeled how one can face the full gamut of moral, physical and spiritual
sufferings with obedience, wisdom and trust in God rather than by
miraculously avoiding them.
At the same time, Bible acknowledges not everything that occurs fits into
clearcut patterns of moral retribution or spiritual progress. Book of Job
challenges simplistic equations of righteousness with absence of suffering
and Book of Lamentations gives voice to raw anguish without neatly
resolving origins of suffering. God is ultimately portrayed as mysterious and
works in complex rather than overly simplistic ways, involving a mixture of
providence and permissive will in relation to evil and its effects.
Overall, it seems a position balancing and blending elements from different
defenses provides a more robust response to the intellectual challenge posed
by problem of evil while staying grounded in biblical framework. No single
answer can satisfactorily resolve all the mind-boggling complexities, but
together they allow space for mystery while rejecting logical contradictions in
God’s character. The Bible presents a God working in and through the
complex realities of creation with both wrath and mercy, justice and grace.
A Biblical Vision of Hope:
While the problem of evil poses profound intellectual challenges, biblical
revelation ultimately points to a vision of hope transcending its perplexities.
At its core, the Bible depicts God as not only omnipotent Creator but also as
a loving heavenly Father who has entered into intimate relationship with his
people through covenants and incarnation of Jesus Christ. Given a personal
God who cares for and identifies with human suffering, the problem takes on
a different significance compared to being just an abstract logical
conundrum.
The Bible presents god taking moral evil seriously through the atoning work
and victory of Christ over sin and death on the cross. Romans 8:18-25 speaks
of creation itself being set free from bondage and corruption into glorious
liberty, paralleling ultimate redemption of humanity. New Testament epistles
overflow with hope that in Christ all things will one day be reconciled and
made new, with God wiping away every tear. Believers participate in this
present and eschatological victory by persevering in faith through difficulties,
as exhorted by numerous New Testament passages.
The paradise lost in Genesis is envisioned as paradise regained in Revelation,
with God making all things right and free of pain, suffering and injustice.
Ultimate answers to the problem may elude human understanding in the
present, but biblical hope anchors believers waiting for God to set all things
right and for justice to fully triumph at the end of the age. A proper
understanding of God emerging from Scriptures resists reducing him to a
mere philosophical category while embracing the God who bore costly love
and mercy in Christ in the midst of profound mystery of evil’s existence.
God’s goodness and power are upheld not by logical arguments but by these
acts of salvific love culminating in the resurrection of Jesus Christ. That is the
final answer and sure hope anchored in living God of the Bible.
Objections and Response:
While the above perspectives attempt to offer careful biblical responses to
the problem of evil, some objections still require thoughtful engagement:
Objection 1: If God is omnipotent, he could simply eliminate evil without
compromising human freedom. Creating a world with no suffering and
temptation would not deprive humans of morally significant choices between
relative goods.
Response: This assumes an oversimplistic conception of omnipotence that is
not consistent with biblical portrayal of God always acting in harmony with
his other attributes like righteousness and love. Eliminating possibility of real
moral/spiritual dangers could undermine human dignity, maturity and
relationship with God who does not treat us as mere automatons. Some level
of danger and risk may be inevitable for meaningful freedom. Complete
prevention of evil is also not clearly logically possible without removal of
freedom altogether, which God did not want to do.
Objection 2: Why did God not make humans capable of free will yet with
greater natural resistance to sin and temptation like unfallen angels
apparently have in Bible?
Response: The Bible does not give full details on angelic nature or their exact
pre-fall state. Humans were evidently made different, with God fashioning us
from dust, breathed life as living beings and crowned with dignity above rest
of creation. Our first parents failed in paradise, but we are also promised
glory beyond angels through redemption in Christ. Overall picture shows God
choosing to let human history play out in a complex yet redemptive manner
rather than rendering sin/failure logically impossible.
Objection 3: Scripture also speaks of natural evils/calamities unrelated to
human free will. How do these fit with arguments that portray suffering as
only resulting from freewill and/or morally/spiritually beneficial?
Response: Neither defense claims evil only arises from human free agency or
that it is exclusively positive. Rather, God in his wisdom often brings
redemption even out of tragic natural events and uses righteous individuals
strengthened through suffering as witnesses. Overall biblical framework
upholds the reality of evil exceeding our understanding of its purposes while
still asserting God’s goodness triumphant in Christ. Mystery remains, but
final hope is assured through promises of New Creation.
Objection 4: What about immense horrors like Auschwitz and genocides? Do
these have any meaningful purpose that outweighs the unfathomable
suffering involved?
Response: Valid questions are raised here exceeding any rational
explanations. At the same time, Bible depicts God’s heartbreaking anguish
over evil (Genesis 6) and deep anger at oppression throughout prophetic
literature. In Christ’s incarnation, death and conquest of death, God showed
solidarity with all victims of such atrocities and overcame ultimate depths of
evil. Ultimately biblical hope anticipates coming Judgment and justice of God
making all things right. This does not satisfy intellect but provides solace to
brokenhearted awaiting God’s promises coming to fruition beyond theodicies
and dystheism.
Conclusion:
In conclusion, while the problem of evil and suffering poses profound
intellectual challenges, the biblical framework offers theodicies and
perspectives grounded in progressive revelation which provide some
reasonable yet imperfect responses without compromising divine attributes
or reducing mystery involved in God’s sovereignty. No single argument can
adequately solve this deep dilemma which involves complex notions of free
will, providence, sin, natural order and God’s ultimate purposes spanning
history and eternity. However, a God who identifies with humanity in
suffering love revealed through incarnation, atonement and resurrection of
Jesus Christ anchors believers in sure yet often incomprehensible hope that
justice, redemption and new creation even of this broken world await in
God’s perfect timing. Ultimately, redemption triumphs over all shadows
through trusting relationship with the God of biblical promise in spite of
unanswered puzzles. The promises that evil, suffering and death will not
have the final say provide solace, even if intellect is not fully satisfied.
The problem of evil and suffering, also known as the problem of pain, refers
to the theological dilemma posed by the existence of evil in the world if there
exists an omnibenevolent, omnipotent God. It is considered to be one of the
oldest and most perplexing issues faced by philosophers and theologians
alike. As sentient beings, we experience pain and suffering on a daily basis
through sickness, natural disasters, accidents and human atrocities. This
raises a profound question – if God is perfectly good, why does he allow evil
and suffering to exist? The aim of this essay is to examine different
responses to this issue by analyzing relevant biblical passages and teachings
on the nature and purpose of evil and suffering.
The Problem Stated:
For something to be considered a genuine problem or paradox, it must meet
three basic criteria1) There must be an apparent logical contradiction or
inconsistency, (2) There must not yet be a satisfactory or widely accepted
resolution, and (3) Attempts at resolution must lead to further difficulties or
questions. The problem of evil seems to meet all three criteria and poses a
serious intellectual challenge. It maintains that the existence of an
omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent God is logically incompatible
with the existence of evil and suffering in the world. The argument can be
summarized as follows:
1. God is omnipotent, which means he has the power to prevent all evil.
2. God is omniscient, which means he knows when evil exists and has the
ability to prevent it.
3. God is omnibenevolent, which means he has the desire to prevent all
evil.
4. Evil and suffering exist in our world.
5. Therefore, either God lacks the power to prevent evil (is not
omnipotent), lacks the desire (is not omnibenevolent), or lacks the
knowledge that evil exists (is not omniscient).
6. Therefore, the existence of evil is logically inconsistent with the
existence of an omnipotent, omniscient and perfectly good God.
In philosophical terms, it is considered to be a deductive logical argument in
the form of a modus tollens, where the negation of the conclusion implies the
negation of one of the premises. This poses a serious dilemma for classical
theism and monotheistic religions like Christianity which affirm that God
possesses these divine attributes.
Free Will Defense:
One of the most common and widely accepted responses to this
philosophical problem has been the free will defense. This argument
postulates that God, in his omnibenevolence, wished to create creatures who
are morally significant – that is, able to freely choose between good and evil.
For humans to have free will, God had to allow the possibility for moral evil
through the abuse of free choice. As such, moral evil exists in the world as an
unwanted but necessary consequence of free creatures with free will. God
did not create humans as somehow morally predetermined or programmed
robots – to have done so would have denied them their dignity, morality and
humanity.
This finds support from various biblical passages which suggest that humans
were granted significant freedom and responsibility over their choices and
actions. Genesis 1-2 depicts humans as moral agents created in God’s
image, distinct from other creatures, who were given dominion over creation
and commanded to care for the Garden of Eden. However, they were also
warned not to eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, indicating
that their actions were neither fully predetermined nor controlled. They had
to freely choose to obey God or disobey, with clear moral consequences laid
out. Adam and Eve’s decision to disobey demonstrates that evil entered the
world through an act of free will rather than divine causation.
The presence of moral choice is also evident from other key passages like
Deuteronomy 30:19 which says: “I call heaven and earth to witness against
you today, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse.
Therefore choose life, that you and your offspring may live.” Here humans
are called upon to freely choose between obeying God’s commands which
will lead to life or rejecting them which will result in curses. Biblical wisdom
literature like Ecclesiastes and Proverbs also assume that humans freely
make both good and bad moral choices every day which shape their
character and destinies. God does intervene and provide guidance at times,
but he has also chosen to respect human freedom.
However, some objections have been raised against this defense. It is argued
that an omnipotent God could have created humans with free will yet in a
world with less physical and natural evil like natural disasters, diseases and
physical pain/suffering which don’t seem to be a necessary result of human
free choices. God could have possibly created a world with less incidences of
tsunamis, pandemics and cancer even if moral evil resulted from free will. It
is also debated whether God could have imbued humans with significant free
will while also intervening more directly to prevent specific evils and tip the
scales of choice more towards good without undo violation of freedom. A full
discussion of this defense would require addressing these kinds of rebuttals
and looking at the biblical material more deeply.
Soul Building Theodicy:
Another response is based on the idea that God uses suffering and moral
difficulties as a means to spiritually strengthen and transform believers.
Known as Irenaean or soul-building theodicy, it draws from the writings of 2nd
century Church Father Irenaeus of Lyons who argued that God created
humans as imperfect beings who need to progress and grow towards moral
and spiritual perfection through exercising their free will and overcoming
difficulties and temptations. While Genesis depicts the originally created
humans as completely good, they were more like children who had to learn
and mature rather than morally perfect beings. The presence of suffering,
disease, temptation and moral evils serve as opportunities for character
development, deepening wisdom and trust in God.
Irenaeus pointed to the story of Adam and Eve as an example – while their
disobedience brought evil into the world, it also allowed for human
progression out of a state of moral immaturity into greater spiritual and
moral maturity. The Christian journey of trials, obedience and sanctification
depicted in scripture follows a similar narrative arc. Romans 5 reflects this
perspective in stating that suffering produces endurance, character and hope
in believers. Similarly, James 1 says trials should be faced with joy as they
result in maturation and ability to stand approved before God. Biblical
wisdom literature often depicts righteous individuals as those who have been
refined and strengthened through difficulties, learning obedience and trust
through their experience of evil rather than being shielded from it.
However, this defense is limited in explaining natural evils and immense
suffering which seem to exceed what would be considered necessary for
spiritual development. It also raises uncomfortable questions about God’s
initial creative work and why he did not make humans in a state of greater
perfection and maturity from the beginning rather than leaving their
development contingent on experiencing evil and pain. A case can be made
that humans today still face levels of evil far surpassing what they require for
moral progress. While Bible affirms spiritual good can come out of suffering,
it does not present suffering as only morally positive experience. A balance
needs to be maintained acknowledging both its refining and destructive
effects.
Free Will and Soul Building Synthesis:
Some theologians have proposed that both defenses provide valid yet partial
insights and work best when taken together rather than separately. Free will
defense acknowledges moral evil as an unwanted byproduct of giving
humans meaningful freedom while soul-building defense sees how God can
work even this to ultimate good in transforming believers. Taken together,
they provide a more robust multi-faceted theodicy.
This finds support from Romans 8 where Paul affirms God works all things
together for ultimate good of those who love him, even though evidently not
all things are directly caused or intended by him (like moral/natural evils
resulting from free will). Jesus’ own suffering, death and resurrection
demonstrate God’s power to transform even the worst evils devised by
humans into the highest good of salvation. In his incarnation, Jesus also
modeled how one can face the full gamut of moral, physical and spiritual
sufferings with obedience, wisdom and trust in God rather than by
miraculously avoiding them.
At the same time, Bible acknowledges not everything that occurs fits into
clearcut patterns of moral retribution or spiritual progress. Book of Job
challenges simplistic equations of righteousness with absence of suffering
and Book of Lamentations gives voice to raw anguish without neatly
resolving origins of suffering. God is ultimately portrayed as mysterious and
works in complex rather than overly simplistic ways, involving a mixture of
providence and permissive will in relation to evil and its effects.
Overall, it seems a position balancing and blending elements from different
defenses provides a more robust response to the intellectual challenge posed
by problem of evil while staying grounded in biblical framework. No single
answer can satisfactorily resolve all the mind-boggling complexities, but
together they allow space for mystery while rejecting logical contradictions in
God’s character. The Bible presents a God working in and through the
complex realities of creation with both wrath and mercy, justice and grace.
A Biblical Vision of Hope:
While the problem of evil poses profound intellectual challenges, biblical
revelation ultimately points to a vision of hope transcending its perplexities.
At its core, the Bible depicts God as not only omnipotent Creator but also as
a loving heavenly Father who has entered into intimate relationship with his
people through covenants and incarnation of Jesus Christ. Given a personal
God who cares for and identifies with human suffering, the problem takes on
a different significance compared to being just an abstract logical
conundrum.
The Bible presents god taking moral evil seriously through the atoning work
and victory of Christ over sin and death on the cross. Romans 8:18-25 speaks
of creation itself being set free from bondage and corruption into glorious
liberty, paralleling ultimate redemption of humanity. New Testament epistles
overflow with hope that in Christ all things will one day be reconciled and
made new, with God wiping away every tear. Believers participate in this
present and eschatological victory by persevering in faith through difficulties,
as exhorted by numerous New Testament passages.
The paradise lost in Genesis is envisioned as paradise regained in Revelation,
with God making all things right and free of pain, suffering and injustice.
Ultimate answers to the problem may elude human understanding in the
present, but biblical hope anchors believers waiting for God to set all things
right and for justice to fully triumph at the end of the age. A proper
understanding of God emerging from Scriptures resists reducing him to a
mere philosophical category while embracing the God who bore costly love
and mercy in Christ in the midst of profound mystery of evil’s existence.
God’s goodness and power are upheld not by logical arguments but by these
acts of salvific love culminating in the resurrection of Jesus Christ. That is the
final answer and sure hope anchored in living God of the Bible.
Objections and Response:
While the above perspectives attempt to offer careful biblical responses to
the problem of evil, some objections still require thoughtful engagement:
Objection 1: If God is omnipotent, he could simply eliminate evil without
compromising human freedom. Creating a world with no suffering and
temptation would not deprive humans of morally significant choices between
relative goods.
Response: This assumes an oversimplistic conception of omnipotence that is
not consistent with biblical portrayal of God always acting in harmony with
his other attributes like righteousness and love. Eliminating possibility of real
moral/spiritual dangers could undermine human dignity, maturity and
relationship with God who does not treat us as mere automatons. Some level
of danger and risk may be inevitable for meaningful freedom. Complete
prevention of evil is also not clearly logically possible without removal of
freedom altogether, which God did not want to do.
Objection 2: Why did God not make humans capable of free will yet with
greater natural resistance to sin and temptation like unfallen angels
apparently have in Bible?
Response: The Bible does not give full details on angelic nature or their exact
pre-fall state. Humans were evidently made different, with God fashioning us
from dust, breathed life as living beings and crowned with dignity above rest
of creation. Our first parents failed in paradise, but we are also promised
glory beyond angels through redemption in Christ. Overall picture shows God
choosing to let human history play out in a complex yet redemptive manner
rather than rendering sin/failure logically impossible.
Objection 3: Scripture also speaks of natural evils/calamities unrelated to
human free will. How do these fit with arguments that portray suffering as
only resulting from freewill and/or morally/spiritually beneficial?
Response: Neither defense claims evil only arises from human free agency or
that it is exclusively positive. Rather, God in his wisdom often brings
redemption even out of tragic natural events and uses righteous individuals
strengthened through suffering as witnesses. Overall biblical framework
upholds the reality of evil exceeding our understanding of its purposes while
still asserting God’s goodness triumphant in Christ. Mystery remains, but
final hope is assured through promises of New Creation.
Objection 4: What about immense horrors like Auschwitz and genocides? Do
these have any meaningful purpose that outweighs the unfathomable
suffering involved?
Response: Valid questions are raised here exceeding any rational
explanations. At the same time, Bible depicts God’s heartbreaking anguish
over evil (Genesis 6) and deep anger at oppression throughout prophetic
literature. In Christ’s incarnation, death and conquest of death, God showed
solidarity with all victims of such atrocities and overcame ultimate depths of
evil. Ultimately biblical hope anticipates coming Judgment and justice of God
making all things right. This does not satisfy intellect but provides solace to
brokenhearted awaiting God’s promises coming to fruition beyond theodicies
and dystheism.
Conclusion:
In conclusion, while the problem of evil and suffering poses profound
intellectual challenges, the biblical framework offers theodicies and
perspectives grounded in progressive revelation which provide some
reasonable yet imperfect responses without compromising divine attributes
or reducing mystery involved in God’s sovereignty. No single argument can
adequately solve this deep dilemma which involves complex notions of free
will, providence, sin, natural order and God’s ultimate purposes spanning
history and eternity. However, a God who identifies with humanity in
suffering love revealed through incarnation, atonement and resurrection of
Jesus Christ anchors believers in sure yet often incomprehensible hope that
justice, redemption and new creation even of this broken world await in
God’s perfect timing. Ultimately, redemption triumphs over all shadows
through trusting relationship with the God of biblical promise in spite of
unanswered puzzles. The promises that evil, suffering and death will not
have the final say provide solace, even if intellect is not fully satisfied.
The problem of evil and suffering, also known as the problem of pain, refers
to the theological dilemma posed by the existence of evil in the world if there
exists an omnibenevolent, omnipotent God. It is considered to be one of the
oldest and most perplexing issues faced by philosophers and theologians
alike. As sentient beings, we experience pain and suffering on a daily basis
through sickness, natural disasters, accidents and human atrocities. This
raises a profound question – if God is perfectly good, why does he allow evil
and suffering to exist? The aim of this essay is to examine different
responses to this issue by analyzing relevant biblical passages and teachings
on the nature and purpose of evil and suffering.
The Problem Stated:
For something to be considered a genuine problem or paradox, it must meet
three basic criteria1) There must be an apparent logical contradiction or
inconsistency, (2) There must not yet be a satisfactory or widely accepted
resolution, and (3) Attempts at resolution must lead to further difficulties or
questions. The problem of evil seems to meet all three criteria and poses a
serious intellectual challenge. It maintains that the existence of an
omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent God is logically incompatible
with the existence of evil and suffering in the world. The argument can be
summarized as follows:
1. God is omnipotent, which means he has the power to prevent all evil.
2. God is omniscient, which means he knows when evil exists and has the
ability to prevent it.
3. God is omnibenevolent, which means he has the desire to prevent all
evil.
4. Evil and suffering exist in our world.
5. Therefore, either God lacks the power to prevent evil (is not
omnipotent), lacks the desire (is not omnibenevolent), or lacks the
knowledge that evil exists (is not omniscient).
6. Therefore, the existence of evil is logically inconsistent with the
existence of an omnipotent, omniscient and perfectly good God.
In philosophical terms, it is considered to be a deductive logical argument in
the form of a modus tollens, where the negation of the conclusion implies the
negation of one of the premises. This poses a serious dilemma for classical
theism and monotheistic religions like Christianity which affirm that God
possesses these divine attributes.
Free Will Defense:
One of the most common and widely accepted responses to this
philosophical problem has been the free will defense. This argument
postulates that God, in his omnibenevolence, wished to create creatures who
are morally significant – that is, able to freely choose between good and evil.
For humans to have free will, God had to allow the possibility for moral evil
through the abuse of free choice. As such, moral evil exists in the world as an
unwanted but necessary consequence of free creatures with free will. God
did not create humans as somehow morally predetermined or programmed
robots – to have done so would have denied them their dignity, morality and
humanity.
This finds support from various biblical passages which suggest that humans
were granted significant freedom and responsibility over their choices and
actions. Genesis 1-2 depicts humans as moral agents created in God’s
image, distinct from other creatures, who were given dominion over creation
and commanded to care for the Garden of Eden. However, they were also
warned not to eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, indicating
that their actions were neither fully predetermined nor controlled. They had
to freely choose to obey God or disobey, with clear moral consequences laid
out. Adam and Eve’s decision to disobey demonstrates that evil entered the
world through an act of free will rather than divine causation.
The presence of moral choice is also evident from other key passages like
Deuteronomy 30:19 which says: “I call heaven and earth to witness against
you today, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse.
Therefore choose life, that you and your offspring may live.” Here humans
are called upon to freely choose between obeying God’s commands which
will lead to life or rejecting them which will result in curses. Biblical wisdom
literature like Ecclesiastes and Proverbs also assume that humans freely
make both good and bad moral choices every day which shape their
character and destinies. God does intervene and provide guidance at times,
but he has also chosen to respect human freedom.
However, some objections have been raised against this defense. It is argued
that an omnipotent God could have created humans with free will yet in a
world with less physical and natural evil like natural disasters, diseases and
physical pain/suffering which don’t seem to be a necessary result of human
free choices. God could have possibly created a world with less incidences of
tsunamis, pandemics and cancer even if moral evil resulted from free will. It
is also debated whether God could have imbued humans with significant free
will while also intervening more directly to prevent specific evils and tip the
scales of choice more towards good without undo violation of freedom. A full
discussion of this defense would require addressing these kinds of rebuttals
and looking at the biblical material more deeply.
Soul Building Theodicy:
Another response is based on the idea that God uses suffering and moral
difficulties as a means to spiritually strengthen and transform believers.
Known as Irenaean or soul-building theodicy, it draws from the writings of 2nd
century Church Father Irenaeus of Lyons who argued that God created
humans as imperfect beings who need to progress and grow towards moral
and spiritual perfection through exercising their free will and overcoming
difficulties and temptations. While Genesis depicts the originally created
humans as completely good, they were more like children who had to learn
and mature rather than morally perfect beings. The presence of suffering,
disease, temptation and moral evils serve as opportunities for character
development, deepening wisdom and trust in God.
Irenaeus pointed to the story of Adam and Eve as an example – while their
disobedience brought evil into the world, it also allowed for human
progression out of a state of moral immaturity into greater spiritual and
moral maturity. The Christian journey of trials, obedience and sanctification
depicted in scripture follows a similar narrative arc. Romans 5 reflects this
perspective in stating that suffering produces endurance, character and hope
in believers. Similarly, James 1 says trials should be faced with joy as they
result in maturation and ability to stand approved before God. Biblical
wisdom literature often depicts righteous individuals as those who have been
refined and strengthened through difficulties, learning obedience and trust
through their experience of evil rather than being shielded from it.
However, this defense is limited in explaining natural evils and immense
suffering which seem to exceed what would be considered necessary for
spiritual development. It also raises uncomfortable questions about God’s
initial creative work and why he did not make humans in a state of greater
perfection and maturity from the beginning rather than leaving their
development contingent on experiencing evil and pain. A case can be made
that humans today still face levels of evil far surpassing what they require for
moral progress. While Bible affirms spiritual good can come out of suffering,
it does not present suffering as only morally positive experience. A balance
needs to be maintained acknowledging both its refining and destructive
effects.
Free Will and Soul Building Synthesis:
Some theologians have proposed that both defenses provide valid yet partial
insights and work best when taken together rather than separately. Free will
defense acknowledges moral evil as an unwanted byproduct of giving
humans meaningful freedom while soul-building defense sees how God can
work even this to ultimate good in transforming believers. Taken together,
they provide a more robust multi-faceted theodicy.
This finds support from Romans 8 where Paul affirms God works all things
together for ultimate good of those who love him, even though evidently not
all things are directly caused or intended by him (like moral/natural evils
resulting from free will). Jesus’ own suffering, death and resurrection
demonstrate God’s power to transform even the worst evils devised by
humans into the highest good of salvation. In his incarnation, Jesus also
modeled how one can face the full gamut of moral, physical and spiritual
sufferings with obedience, wisdom and trust in God rather than by
miraculously avoiding them.
At the same time, Bible acknowledges not everything that occurs fits into
clearcut patterns of moral retribution or spiritual progress. Book of Job
challenges simplistic equations of righteousness with absence of suffering
and Book of Lamentations gives voice to raw anguish without neatly
resolving origins of suffering. God is ultimately portrayed as mysterious and
works in complex rather than overly simplistic ways, involving a mixture of
providence and permissive will in relation to evil and its effects.
Overall, it seems a position balancing and blending elements from different
defenses provides a more robust response to the intellectual challenge posed
by problem of evil while staying grounded in biblical framework. No single
answer can satisfactorily resolve all the mind-boggling complexities, but
together they allow space for mystery while rejecting logical contradictions in
God’s character. The Bible presents a God working in and through the
complex realities of creation with both wrath and mercy, justice and grace.
A Biblical Vision of Hope:
While the problem of evil poses profound intellectual challenges, biblical
revelation ultimately points to a vision of hope transcending its perplexities.
At its core, the Bible depicts God as not only omnipotent Creator but also as
a loving heavenly Father who has entered into intimate relationship with his
people through covenants and incarnation of Jesus Christ. Given a personal
God who cares for and identifies with human suffering, the problem takes on
a different significance compared to being just an abstract logical
conundrum.
The Bible presents god taking moral evil seriously through the atoning work
and victory of Christ over sin and death on the cross. Romans 8:18-25 speaks
of creation itself being set free from bondage and corruption into glorious
liberty, paralleling ultimate redemption of humanity. New Testament epistles
overflow with hope that in Christ all things will one day be reconciled and
made new, with God wiping away every tear. Believers participate in this
present and eschatological victory by persevering in faith through difficulties,
as exhorted by numerous New Testament passages.
The paradise lost in Genesis is envisioned as paradise regained in Revelation,
with God making all things right and free of pain, suffering and injustice.
Ultimate answers to the problem may elude human understanding in the
present, but biblical hope anchors believers waiting for God to set all things
right and for justice to fully triumph at the end of the age. A proper
understanding of God emerging from Scriptures resists reducing him to a
mere philosophical category while embracing the God who bore costly love
and mercy in Christ in the midst of profound mystery of evil’s existence.
God’s goodness and power are upheld not by logical arguments but by these
acts of salvific love culminating in the resurrection of Jesus Christ. That is the
final answer and sure hope anchored in living God of the Bible.
Objections and Response:
While the above perspectives attempt to offer careful biblical responses to
the problem of evil, some objections still require thoughtful engagement:
Objection 1: If God is omnipotent, he could simply eliminate evil without
compromising human freedom. Creating a world with no suffering and
temptation would not deprive humans of morally significant choices between
relative goods.
Response: This assumes an oversimplistic conception of omnipotence that is
not consistent with biblical portrayal of God always acting in harmony with
his other attributes like righteousness and love. Eliminating possibility of real
moral/spiritual dangers could undermine human dignity, maturity and
relationship with God who does not treat us as mere automatons. Some level
of danger and risk may be inevitable for meaningful freedom. Complete
prevention of evil is also not clearly logically possible without removal of
freedom altogether, which God did not want to do.
Objection 2: Why did God not make humans capable of free will yet with
greater natural resistance to sin and temptation like unfallen angels
apparently have in Bible?
Response: The Bible does not give full details on angelic nature or their exact
pre-fall state. Humans were evidently made different, with God fashioning us
from dust, breathed life as living beings and crowned with dignity above rest
of creation. Our first parents failed in paradise, but we are also promised
glory beyond angels through redemption in Christ. Overall picture shows God
choosing to let human history play out in a complex yet redemptive manner
rather than rendering sin/failure logically impossible.
Objection 3: Scripture also speaks of natural evils/calamities unrelated to
human free will. How do these fit with arguments that portray suffering as
only resulting from freewill and/or morally/spiritually beneficial?
Response: Neither defense claims evil only arises from human free agency or
that it is exclusively positive. Rather, God in his wisdom often brings
redemption even out of tragic natural events and uses righteous individuals
strengthened through suffering as witnesses. Overall biblical framework
upholds the reality of evil exceeding our understanding of its purposes while
still asserting God’s goodness triumphant in Christ. Mystery remains, but
final hope is assured through promises of New Creation.
Objection 4: What about immense horrors like Auschwitz and genocides? Do
these have any meaningful purpose that outweighs the unfathomable
suffering involved?
Response: Valid questions are raised here exceeding any rational
explanations. At the same time, Bible depicts God’s heartbreaking anguish
over evil (Genesis 6) and deep anger at oppression throughout prophetic
literature. In Christ’s incarnation, death and conquest of death, God showed
solidarity with all victims of such atrocities and overcame ultimate depths of
evil. Ultimately biblical hope anticipates coming Judgment and justice of God
making all things right. This does not satisfy intellect but provides solace to
brokenhearted awaiting God’s promises coming to fruition beyond theodicies
and dystheism.
Conclusion:
In conclusion, while the problem of evil and suffering poses profound
intellectual challenges, the biblical framework offers theodicies and
perspectives grounded in progressive revelation which provide some
reasonable yet imperfect responses without compromising divine attributes
or reducing mystery involved in God’s sovereignty. No single argument can
adequately solve this deep dilemma which involves complex notions of free
will, providence, sin, natural order and God’s ultimate purposes spanning
history and eternity. However, a God who identifies with humanity in
suffering love revealed through incarnation, atonement and resurrection of
Jesus Christ anchors believers in sure yet often incomprehensible hope that
justice, redemption and new creation even of this broken world await in
God’s perfect timing. Ultimately, redemption triumphs over all shadows
through trusting relationship with the God of biblical promise in spite of
unanswered puzzles. The promises that evil, suffering and death will not
have the final say provide solace, even if intellect is not fully satisfied.
The problem of evil and suffering, also known as the problem of pain, refers
to the theological dilemma posed by the existence of evil in the world if there
exists an omnibenevolent, omnipotent God. It is considered to be one of the
oldest and most perplexing issues faced by philosophers and theologians
alike. As sentient beings, we experience pain and suffering on a daily basis
through sickness, natural disasters, accidents and human atrocities. This
raises a profound question – if God is perfectly good, why does he allow evil
and suffering to exist? The aim of this essay is to examine different
responses to this issue by analyzing relevant biblical passages and teachings
on the nature and purpose of evil and suffering.
The Problem Stated:
For something to be considered a genuine problem or paradox, it must meet
three basic criteria1) There must be an apparent logical contradiction or
inconsistency, (2) There must not yet be a satisfactory or widely accepted
resolution, and (3) Attempts at resolution must lead to further difficulties or
questions. The problem of evil seems to meet all three criteria and poses a
serious intellectual challenge. It maintains that the existence of an
omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent God is logically incompatible
with the existence of evil and suffering in the world. The argument can be
summarized as follows:
1. God is omnipotent, which means he has the power to prevent all evil.
2. God is omniscient, which means he knows when evil exists and has the
ability to prevent it.
3. God is omnibenevolent, which means he has the desire to prevent all
evil.
4. Evil and suffering exist in our world.
5. Therefore, either God lacks the power to prevent evil (is not
omnipotent), lacks the desire (is not omnibenevolent), or lacks the
knowledge that evil exists (is not omniscient).
6. Therefore, the existence of evil is logically inconsistent with the
existence of an omnipotent, omniscient and perfectly good God.
In philosophical terms, it is considered to be a deductive logical argument in
the form of a modus tollens, where the negation of the conclusion implies the
negation of one of the premises. This poses a serious dilemma for classical
theism and monotheistic religions like Christianity which affirm that God
possesses these divine attributes.
Free Will Defense:
One of the most common and widely accepted responses to this
philosophical problem has been the free will defense. This argument
postulates that God, in his omnibenevolence, wished to create creatures who
are morally significant – that is, able to freely choose between good and evil.
For humans to have free will, God had to allow the possibility for moral evil
through the abuse of free choice. As such, moral evil exists in the world as an
unwanted but necessary consequence of free creatures with free will. God
did not create humans as somehow morally predetermined or programmed
robots – to have done so would have denied them their dignity, morality and
humanity.
This finds support from various biblical passages which suggest that humans
were granted significant freedom and responsibility over their choices and
actions. Genesis 1-2 depicts humans as moral agents created in God’s
image, distinct from other creatures, who were given dominion over creation
and commanded to care for the Garden of Eden. However, they were also
warned not to eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, indicating
that their actions were neither fully predetermined nor controlled. They had
to freely choose to obey God or disobey, with clear moral consequences laid
out. Adam and Eve’s decision to disobey demonstrates that evil entered the
world through an act of free will rather than divine causation.
The presence of moral choice is also evident from other key passages like
Deuteronomy 30:19 which says: “I call heaven and earth to witness against
you today, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse.
Therefore choose life, that you and your offspring may live.” Here humans
are called upon to freely choose between obeying God’s commands which
will lead to life or rejecting them which will result in curses. Biblical wisdom
literature like Ecclesiastes and Proverbs also assume that humans freely
make both good and bad moral choices every day which shape their
character and destinies. God does intervene and provide guidance at times,
but he has also chosen to respect human freedom.
However, some objections have been raised against this defense. It is argued
that an omnipotent God could have created humans with free will yet in a
world with less physical and natural evil like natural disasters, diseases and
physical pain/suffering which don’t seem to be a necessary result of human
free choices. God could have possibly created a world with less incidences of
tsunamis, pandemics and cancer even if moral evil resulted from free will. It
is also debated whether God could have imbued humans with significant free
will while also intervening more directly to prevent specific evils and tip the
scales of choice more towards good without undo violation of freedom. A full
discussion of this defense would require addressing these kinds of rebuttals
and looking at the biblical material more deeply.
Soul Building Theodicy:
Another response is based on the idea that God uses suffering and moral
difficulties as a means to spiritually strengthen and transform believers.
Known as Irenaean or soul-building theodicy, it draws from the writings of 2nd
century Church Father Irenaeus of Lyons who argued that God created
humans as imperfect beings who need to progress and grow towards moral
and spiritual perfection through exercising their free will and overcoming
difficulties and temptations. While Genesis depicts the originally created
humans as completely good, they were more like children who had to learn
and mature rather than morally perfect beings. The presence of suffering,
disease, temptation and moral evils serve as opportunities for character
development, deepening wisdom and trust in God.
Irenaeus pointed to the story of Adam and Eve as an example – while their
disobedience brought evil into the world, it also allowed for human
progression out of a state of moral immaturity into greater spiritual and
moral maturity. The Christian journey of trials, obedience and sanctification
depicted in scripture follows a similar narrative arc. Romans 5 reflects this
perspective in stating that suffering produces endurance, character and hope
in believers. Similarly, James 1 says trials should be faced with joy as they
result in maturation and ability to stand approved before God. Biblical
wisdom literature often depicts righteous individuals as those who have been
refined and strengthened through difficulties, learning obedience and trust
through their experience of evil rather than being shielded from it.
However, this defense is limited in explaining natural evils and immense
suffering which seem to exceed what would be considered necessary for
spiritual development. It also raises uncomfortable questions about God’s
initial creative work and why he did not make humans in a state of greater
perfection and maturity from the beginning rather than leaving their
development contingent on experiencing evil and pain. A case can be made
that humans today still face levels of evil far surpassing what they require for
moral progress. While Bible affirms spiritual good can come out of suffering,
it does not present suffering as only morally positive experience. A balance
needs to be maintained acknowledging both its refining and destructive
effects.
Free Will and Soul Building Synthesis:
Some theologians have proposed that both defenses provide valid yet partial
insights and work best when taken together rather than separately. Free will
defense acknowledges moral evil as an unwanted byproduct of giving
humans meaningful freedom while soul-building defense sees how God can
work even this to ultimate good in transforming believers. Taken together,
they provide a more robust multi-faceted theodicy.
This finds support from Romans 8 where Paul affirms God works all things
together for ultimate good of those who love him, even though evidently not
all things are directly caused or intended by him (like moral/natural evils
resulting from free will). Jesus’ own suffering, death and resurrection
demonstrate God’s power to transform even the worst evils devised by
humans into the highest good of salvation. In his incarnation, Jesus also
modeled how one can face the full gamut of moral, physical and spiritual
sufferings with obedience, wisdom and trust in God rather than by
miraculously avoiding them.
At the same time, Bible acknowledges not everything that occurs fits into
clearcut patterns of moral retribution or spiritual progress. Book of Job
challenges simplistic equations of righteousness with absence of suffering
and Book of Lamentations gives voice to raw anguish without neatly
resolving origins of suffering. God is ultimately portrayed as mysterious and
works in complex rather than overly simplistic ways, involving a mixture of
providence and permissive will in relation to evil and its effects.
Overall, it seems a position balancing and blending elements from different
defenses provides a more robust response to the intellectual challenge posed
by problem of evil while staying grounded in biblical framework. No single
answer can satisfactorily resolve all the mind-boggling complexities, but
together they allow space for mystery while rejecting logical contradictions in
God’s character. The Bible presents a God working in and through the
complex realities of creation with both wrath and mercy, justice and grace.
A Biblical Vision of Hope:
While the problem of evil poses profound intellectual challenges, biblical
revelation ultimately points to a vision of hope transcending its perplexities.
At its core, the Bible depicts God as not only omnipotent Creator but also as
a loving heavenly Father who has entered into intimate relationship with his
people through covenants and incarnation of Jesus Christ. Given a personal
God who cares for and identifies with human suffering, the problem takes on
a different significance compared to being just an abstract logical
conundrum.
The Bible presents god taking moral evil seriously through the atoning work
and victory of Christ over sin and death on the cross. Romans 8:18-25 speaks
of creation itself being set free from bondage and corruption into glorious
liberty, paralleling ultimate redemption of humanity. New Testament epistles
overflow with hope that in Christ all things will one day be reconciled and
made new, with God wiping away every tear. Believers participate in this
present and eschatological victory by persevering in faith through difficulties,
as exhorted by numerous New Testament passages.
The paradise lost in Genesis is envisioned as paradise regained in Revelation,
with God making all things right and free of pain, suffering and injustice.
Ultimate answers to the problem may elude human understanding in the
present, but biblical hope anchors believers waiting for God to set all things
right and for justice to fully triumph at the end of the age. A proper
understanding of God emerging from Scriptures resists reducing him to a
mere philosophical category while embracing the God who bore costly love
and mercy in Christ in the midst of profound mystery of evil’s existence.
God’s goodness and power are upheld not by logical arguments but by these
acts of salvific love culminating in the resurrection of Jesus Christ. That is the
final answer and sure hope anchored in living God of the Bible.
Objections and Response:
While the above perspectives attempt to offer careful biblical responses to
the problem of evil, some objections still require thoughtful engagement:
Objection 1: If God is omnipotent, he could simply eliminate evil without
compromising human freedom. Creating a world with no suffering and
temptation would not deprive humans of morally significant choices between
relative goods.
Response: This assumes an oversimplistic conception of omnipotence that is
not consistent with biblical portrayal of God always acting in harmony with
his other attributes like righteousness and love. Eliminating possibility of real
moral/spiritual dangers could undermine human dignity, maturity and
relationship with God who does not treat us as mere automatons. Some level
of danger and risk may be inevitable for meaningful freedom. Complete
prevention of evil is also not clearly logically possible without removal of
freedom altogether, which God did not want to do.
Objection 2: Why did God not make humans capable of free will yet with
greater natural resistance to sin and temptation like unfallen angels
apparently have in Bible?
Response: The Bible does not give full details on angelic nature or their exact
pre-fall state. Humans were evidently made different, with God fashioning us
from dust, breathed life as living beings and crowned with dignity above rest
of creation. Our first parents failed in paradise, but we are also promised
glory beyond angels through redemption in Christ. Overall picture shows God
choosing to let human history play out in a complex yet redemptive manner
rather than rendering sin/failure logically impossible.
Objection 3: Scripture also speaks of natural evils/calamities unrelated to
human free will. How do these fit with arguments that portray suffering as
only resulting from freewill and/or morally/spiritually beneficial?
Response: Neither defense claims evil only arises from human free agency or
that it is exclusively positive. Rather, God in his wisdom often brings
redemption even out of tragic natural events and uses righteous individuals
strengthened through suffering as witnesses. Overall biblical framework
upholds the reality of evil exceeding our understanding of its purposes while
still asserting God’s goodness triumphant in Christ. Mystery remains, but
final hope is assured through promises of New Creation.
Objection 4: What about immense horrors like Auschwitz and genocides? Do
these have any meaningful purpose that outweighs the unfathomable
suffering involved?
Response: Valid questions are raised here exceeding any rational
explanations. At the same time, Bible depicts God’s heartbreaking anguish
over evil (Genesis 6) and deep anger at oppression throughout prophetic
literature. In Christ’s incarnation, death and conquest of death, God showed
solidarity with all victims of such atrocities and overcame ultimate depths of
evil. Ultimately biblical hope anticipates coming Judgment and justice of God
making all things right. This does not satisfy intellect but provides solace to
brokenhearted awaiting God’s promises coming to fruition beyond theodicies
and dystheism.
Conclusion:
In conclusion, while the problem of evil and suffering poses profound
intellectual challenges, the biblical framework offers theodicies and
perspectives grounded in progressive revelation which provide some
reasonable yet imperfect responses without compromising divine attributes
or reducing mystery involved in God’s sovereignty. No single argument can
adequately solve this deep dilemma which involves complex notions of free
will, providence, sin, natural order and God’s ultimate purposes spanning
history and eternity. However, a God who identifies with humanity in
suffering love revealed through incarnation, atonement and resurrection of
Jesus Christ anchors believers in sure yet often incomprehensible hope that
justice, redemption and new creation even of this broken world await in
God’s perfect timing. Ultimately, redemption triumphs over all shadows
through trusting relationship with the God of biblical promise in spite of
unanswered puzzles. The promises that evil, suffering and death will not
have the final say provide solace, even if intellect is not fully satisfied.
The problem of evil and suffering, also known as the problem of pain, refers
to the theological dilemma posed by the existence of evil in the world if there
exists an omnibenevolent, omnipotent God. It is considered to be one of the
oldest and most perplexing issues faced by philosophers and theologians
alike. As sentient beings, we experience pain and suffering on a daily basis
through sickness, natural disasters, accidents and human atrocities. This
raises a profound question – if God is perfectly good, why does he allow evil
and suffering to exist? The aim of this essay is to examine different
responses to this issue by analyzing relevant biblical passages and teachings
on the nature and purpose of evil and suffering.
The Problem Stated:
For something to be considered a genuine problem or paradox, it must meet
three basic criteria1) There must be an apparent logical contradiction or
inconsistency, (2) There must not yet be a satisfactory or widely accepted
resolution, and (3) Attempts at resolution must lead to further difficulties or
questions. The problem of evil seems to meet all three criteria and poses a
serious intellectual challenge. It maintains that the existence of an
omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent God is logically incompatible
with the existence of evil and suffering in the world. The argument can be
summarized as follows:
1. God is omnipotent, which means he has the power to prevent all evil.
2. God is omniscient, which means he knows when evil exists and has the
ability to prevent it.
3. God is omnibenevolent, which means he has the desire to prevent all
evil.
4. Evil and suffering exist in our world.
5. Therefore, either God lacks the power to prevent evil (is not
omnipotent), lacks the desire (is not omnibenevolent), or lacks the
knowledge that evil exists (is not omniscient).
6. Therefore, the existence of evil is logically inconsistent with the
existence of an omnipotent, omniscient and perfectly good God.
In philosophical terms, it is considered to be a deductive logical argument in
the form of a modus tollens, where the negation of the conclusion implies the
negation of one of the premises. This poses a serious dilemma for classical
theism and monotheistic religions like Christianity which affirm that God
possesses these divine attributes.
Free Will Defense:
One of the most common and widely accepted responses to this
philosophical problem has been the free will defense. This argument
postulates that God, in his omnibenevolence, wished to create creatures who
are morally significant – that is, able to freely choose between good and evil.
For humans to have free will, God had to allow the possibility for moral evil
through the abuse of free choice. As such, moral evil exists in the world as an
unwanted but necessary consequence of free creatures with free will. God
did not create humans as somehow morally predetermined or programmed
robots – to have done so would have denied them their dignity, morality and
humanity.
This finds support from various biblical passages which suggest that humans
were granted significant freedom and responsibility over their choices and
actions. Genesis 1-2 depicts humans as moral agents created in God’s
image, distinct from other creatures, who were given dominion over creation
and commanded to care for the Garden of Eden. However, they were also
warned not to eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, indicating
that their actions were neither fully predetermined nor controlled. They had
to freely choose to obey God or disobey, with clear moral consequences laid
out. Adam and Eve’s decision to disobey demonstrates that evil entered the
world through an act of free will rather than divine causation.
The presence of moral choice is also evident from other key passages like
Deuteronomy 30:19 which says: “I call heaven and earth to witness against
you today, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse.
Therefore choose life, that you and your offspring may live.” Here humans
are called upon to freely choose between obeying God’s commands which
will lead to life or rejecting them which will result in curses. Biblical wisdom
literature like Ecclesiastes and Proverbs also assume that humans freely
make both good and bad moral choices every day which shape their
character and destinies. God does intervene and provide guidance at times,
but he has also chosen to respect human freedom.
However, some objections have been raised against this defense. It is argued
that an omnipotent God could have created humans with free will yet in a
world with less physical and natural evil like natural disasters, diseases and
physical pain/suffering which don’t seem to be a necessary result of human
free choices. God could have possibly created a world with less incidences of
tsunamis, pandemics and cancer even if moral evil resulted from free will. It
is also debated whether God could have imbued humans with significant free
will while also intervening more directly to prevent specific evils and tip the
scales of choice more towards good without undo violation of freedom. A full
discussion of this defense would require addressing these kinds of rebuttals
and looking at the biblical material more deeply.
Soul Building Theodicy:
Another response is based on the idea that God uses suffering and moral
difficulties as a means to spiritually strengthen and transform believers.
Known as Irenaean or soul-building theodicy, it draws from the writings of 2nd
century Church Father Irenaeus of Lyons who argued that God created
humans as imperfect beings who need to progress and grow towards moral
and spiritual perfection through exercising their free will and overcoming
difficulties and temptations. While Genesis depicts the originally created
humans as completely good, they were more like children who had to learn
and mature rather than morally perfect beings. The presence of suffering,
disease, temptation and moral evils serve as opportunities for character
development, deepening wisdom and trust in God.
Irenaeus pointed to the story of Adam and Eve as an example – while their
disobedience brought evil into the world, it also allowed for human
progression out of a state of moral immaturity into greater spiritual and
moral maturity. The Christian journey of trials, obedience and sanctification
depicted in scripture follows a similar narrative arc. Romans 5 reflects this
perspective in stating that suffering produces endurance, character and hope
in believers. Similarly, James 1 says trials should be faced with joy as they
result in maturation and ability to stand approved before God. Biblical
wisdom literature often depicts righteous individuals as those who have been
refined and strengthened through difficulties, learning obedience and trust
through their experience of evil rather than being shielded from it.
However, this defense is limited in explaining natural evils and immense
suffering which seem to exceed what would be considered necessary for
spiritual development. It also raises uncomfortable questions about God’s
initial creative work and why he did not make humans in a state of greater
perfection and maturity from the beginning rather than leaving their
development contingent on experiencing evil and pain. A case can be made
that humans today still face levels of evil far surpassing what they require for
moral progress. While Bible affirms spiritual good can come out of suffering,
it does not present suffering as only morally positive experience. A balance
needs to be maintained acknowledging both its refining and destructive
effects.
Free Will and Soul Building Synthesis:
Some theologians have proposed that both defenses provide valid yet partial
insights and work best when taken together rather than separately. Free will
defense acknowledges moral evil as an unwanted byproduct of giving
humans meaningful freedom while soul-building defense sees how God can
work even this to ultimate good in transforming believers. Taken together,
they provide a more robust multi-faceted theodicy.
This finds support from Romans 8 where Paul affirms God works all things
together for ultimate good of those who love him, even though evidently not
all things are directly caused or intended by him (like moral/natural evils
resulting from free will). Jesus’ own suffering, death and resurrection
demonstrate God’s power to transform even the worst evils devised by
humans into the highest good of salvation. In his incarnation, Jesus also
modeled how one can face the full gamut of moral, physical and spiritual
sufferings with obedience, wisdom and trust in God rather than by
miraculously avoiding them.
At the same time, Bible acknowledges not everything that occurs fits into
clearcut patterns of moral retribution or spiritual progress. Book of Job
challenges simplistic equations of righteousness with absence of suffering
and Book of Lamentations gives voice to raw anguish without neatly
resolving origins of suffering. God is ultimately portrayed as mysterious and
works in complex rather than overly simplistic ways, involving a mixture of
providence and permissive will in relation to evil and its effects.
Overall, it seems a position balancing and blending elements from different
defenses provides a more robust response to the intellectual challenge posed
by problem of evil while staying grounded in biblical framework. No single
answer can satisfactorily resolve all the mind-boggling complexities, but
together they allow space for mystery while rejecting logical contradictions in
God’s character. The Bible presents a God working in and through the
complex realities of creation with both wrath and mercy, justice and grace.
A Biblical Vision of Hope:
While the problem of evil poses profound intellectual challenges, biblical
revelation ultimately points to a vision of hope transcending its perplexities.
At its core, the Bible depicts God as not only omnipotent Creator but also as
a loving heavenly Father who has entered into intimate relationship with his
people through covenants and incarnation of Jesus Christ. Given a personal
God who cares for and identifies with human suffering, the problem takes on
a different significance compared to being just an abstract logical
conundrum.
The Bible presents god taking moral evil seriously through the atoning work
and victory of Christ over sin and death on the cross. Romans 8:18-25 speaks
of creation itself being set free from bondage and corruption into glorious
liberty, paralleling ultimate redemption of humanity. New Testament epistles
overflow with hope that in Christ all things will one day be reconciled and
made new, with God wiping away every tear. Believers participate in this
present and eschatological victory by persevering in faith through difficulties,
as exhorted by numerous New Testament passages.
The paradise lost in Genesis is envisioned as paradise regained in Revelation,
with God making all things right and free of pain, suffering and injustice.
Ultimate answers to the problem may elude human understanding in the
present, but biblical hope anchors believers waiting for God to set all things
right and for justice to fully triumph at the end of the age. A proper
understanding of God emerging from Scriptures resists reducing him to a
mere philosophical category while embracing the God who bore costly love
and mercy in Christ in the midst of profound mystery of evil’s existence.
God’s goodness and power are upheld not by logical arguments but by these
acts of salvific love culminating in the resurrection of Jesus Christ. That is the
final answer and sure hope anchored in living God of the Bible.
Objections and Response:
While the above perspectives attempt to offer careful biblical responses to
the problem of evil, some objections still require thoughtful engagement:
Objection 1: If God is omnipotent, he could simply eliminate evil without
compromising human freedom. Creating a world with no suffering and
temptation would not deprive humans of morally significant choices between
relative goods.
Response: This assumes an oversimplistic conception of omnipotence that is
not consistent with biblical portrayal of God always acting in harmony with
his other attributes like righteousness and love. Eliminating possibility of real
moral/spiritual dangers could undermine human dignity, maturity and
relationship with God who does not treat us as mere automatons. Some level
of danger and risk may be inevitable for meaningful freedom. Complete
prevention of evil is also not clearly logically possible without removal of
freedom altogether, which God did not want to do.
Objection 2: Why did God not make humans capable of free will yet with
greater natural resistance to sin and temptation like unfallen angels
apparently have in Bible?
Response: The Bible does not give full details on angelic nature or their exact
pre-fall state. Humans were evidently made different, with God fashioning us
from dust, breathed life as living beings and crowned with dignity above rest
of creation. Our first parents failed in paradise, but we are also promised
glory beyond angels through redemption in Christ. Overall picture shows God
choosing to let human history play out in a complex yet redemptive manner
rather than rendering sin/failure logically impossible.
Objection 3: Scripture also speaks of natural evils/calamities unrelated to
human free will. How do these fit with arguments that portray suffering as
only resulting from freewill and/or morally/spiritually beneficial?
Response: Neither defense claims evil only arises from human free agency or
that it is exclusively positive. Rather, God in his wisdom often brings
redemption even out of tragic natural events and uses righteous individuals
strengthened through suffering as witnesses. Overall biblical framework
upholds the reality of evil exceeding our understanding of its purposes while
still asserting God’s goodness triumphant in Christ. Mystery remains, but
final hope is assured through promises of New Creation.
Objection 4: What about immense horrors like Auschwitz and genocides? Do
these have any meaningful purpose that outweighs the unfathomable
suffering involved?
Response: Valid questions are raised here exceeding any rational
explanations. At the same time, Bible depicts God’s heartbreaking anguish
over evil (Genesis 6) and deep anger at oppression throughout prophetic
literature. In Christ’s incarnation, death and conquest of death, God showed
solidarity with all victims of such atrocities and overcame ultimate depths of
evil. Ultimately biblical hope anticipates coming Judgment and justice of God
making all things right. This does not satisfy intellect but provides solace to
brokenhearted awaiting God’s promises coming to fruition beyond theodicies
and dystheism.
Conclusion:
In conclusion, while the problem of evil and suffering poses profound
intellectual challenges, the biblical framework offers theodicies and
perspectives grounded in progressive revelation which provide some
reasonable yet imperfect responses without compromising divine attributes
or reducing mystery involved in God’s sovereignty. No single argument can
adequately solve this deep dilemma which involves complex notions of free
will, providence, sin, natural order and God’s ultimate purposes spanning
history and eternity. However, a God who identifies with humanity in
suffering love revealed through incarnation, atonement and resurrection of
Jesus Christ anchors believers in sure yet often incomprehensible hope that
justice, redemption and new creation even of this broken world await in
God’s perfect timing. Ultimately, redemption triumphs over all shadows
through trusting relationship with the God of biblical promise in spite of
unanswered puzzles. The promises that evil, suffering and death will not
have the final say provide solace, even if intellect is not fully satisfied.
The problem of evil and suffering, also known as the problem of pain, refers
to the theological dilemma posed by the existence of evil in the world if there
exists an omnibenevolent, omnipotent God. It is considered to be one of the
oldest and most perplexing issues faced by philosophers and theologians
alike. As sentient beings, we experience pain and suffering on a daily basis
through sickness, natural disasters, accidents and human atrocities. This
raises a profound question – if God is perfectly good, why does he allow evil
and suffering to exist? The aim of this essay is to examine different
responses to this issue by analyzing relevant biblical passages and teachings
on the nature and purpose of evil and suffering.
The Problem Stated:
For something to be considered a genuine problem or paradox, it must meet
three basic criteria1) There must be an apparent logical contradiction or
inconsistency, (2) There must not yet be a satisfactory or widely accepted
resolution, and (3) Attempts at resolution must lead to further difficulties or
questions. The problem of evil seems to meet all three criteria and poses a
serious intellectual challenge. It maintains that the existence of an
omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent God is logically incompatible
with the existence of evil and suffering in the world. The argument can be
summarized as follows:
1. God is omnipotent, which means he has the power to prevent all evil.
2. God is omniscient, which means he knows when evil exists and has the
ability to prevent it.
3. God is omnibenevolent, which means he has the desire to prevent all
evil.
4. Evil and suffering exist in our world.
5. Therefore, either God lacks the power to prevent evil (is not
omnipotent), lacks the desire (is not omnibenevolent), or lacks the
knowledge that evil exists (is not omniscient).
6. Therefore, the existence of evil is logically inconsistent with the
existence of an omnipotent, omniscient and perfectly good God.
In philosophical terms, it is considered to be a deductive logical argument in
the form of a modus tollens, where the negation of the conclusion implies the
negation of one of the premises. This poses a serious dilemma for classical
theism and monotheistic religions like Christianity which affirm that God
possesses these divine attributes.
Free Will Defense:
One of the most common and widely accepted responses to this
philosophical problem has been the free will defense. This argument
postulates that God, in his omnibenevolence, wished to create creatures who
are morally significant – that is, able to freely choose between good and evil.
For humans to have free will, God had to allow the possibility for moral evil
through the abuse of free choice. As such, moral evil exists in the world as an
unwanted but necessary consequence of free creatures with free will. God
did not create humans as somehow morally predetermined or programmed
robots – to have done so would have denied them their dignity, morality and
humanity.
This finds support from various biblical passages which suggest that humans
were granted significant freedom and responsibility over their choices and
actions. Genesis 1-2 depicts humans as moral agents created in God’s
image, distinct from other creatures, who were given dominion over creation
and commanded to care for the Garden of Eden. However, they were also
warned not to eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, indicating
that their actions were neither fully predetermined nor controlled. They had
to freely choose to obey God or disobey, with clear moral consequences laid
out. Adam and Eve’s decision to disobey demonstrates that evil entered the
world through an act of free will rather than divine causation.
The presence of moral choice is also evident from other key passages like
Deuteronomy 30:19 which says: “I call heaven and earth to witness against
you today, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse.
Therefore choose life, that you and your offspring may live.” Here humans
are called upon to freely choose between obeying God’s commands which
will lead to life or rejecting them which will result in curses. Biblical wisdom
literature like Ecclesiastes and Proverbs also assume that humans freely
make both good and bad moral choices every day which shape their
character and destinies. God does intervene and provide guidance at times,
but he has also chosen to respect human freedom.
However, some objections have been raised against this defense. It is argued
that an omnipotent God could have created humans with free will yet in a
world with less physical and natural evil like natural disasters, diseases and
physical pain/suffering which don’t seem to be a necessary result of human
free choices. God could have possibly created a world with less incidences of
tsunamis, pandemics and cancer even if moral evil resulted from free will. It
is also debated whether God could have imbued humans with significant free
will while also intervening more directly to prevent specific evils and tip the
scales of choice more towards good without undo violation of freedom. A full
discussion of this defense would require addressing these kinds of rebuttals
and looking at the biblical material more deeply.
Soul Building Theodicy:
Another response is based on the idea that God uses suffering and moral
difficulties as a means to spiritually strengthen and transform believers.
Known as Irenaean or soul-building theodicy, it draws from the writings of 2nd
century Church Father Irenaeus of Lyons who argued that God created
humans as imperfect beings who need to progress and grow towards moral
and spiritual perfection through exercising their free will and overcoming
difficulties and temptations. While Genesis depicts the originally created
humans as completely good, they were more like children who had to learn
and mature rather than morally perfect beings. The presence of suffering,
disease, temptation and moral evils serve as opportunities for character
development, deepening wisdom and trust in God.
Irenaeus pointed to the story of Adam and Eve as an example – while their
disobedience brought evil into the world, it also allowed for human
progression out of a state of moral immaturity into greater spiritual and
moral maturity. The Christian journey of trials, obedience and sanctification
depicted in scripture follows a similar narrative arc. Romans 5 reflects this
perspective in stating that suffering produces endurance, character and hope
in believers. Similarly, James 1 says trials should be faced with joy as they
result in maturation and ability to stand approved before God. Biblical
wisdom literature often depicts righteous individuals as those who have been
refined and strengthened through difficulties, learning obedience and trust
through their experience of evil rather than being shielded from it.
However, this defense is limited in explaining natural evils and immense
suffering which seem to exceed what would be considered necessary for
spiritual development. It also raises uncomfortable questions about God’s
initial creative work and why he did not make humans in a state of greater
perfection and maturity from the beginning rather than leaving their
development contingent on experiencing evil and pain. A case can be made
that humans today still face levels of evil far surpassing what they require for
moral progress. While Bible affirms spiritual good can come out of suffering,
it does not present suffering as only morally positive experience. A balance
needs to be maintained acknowledging both its refining and destructive
effects.
Free Will and Soul Building Synthesis:
Some theologians have proposed that both defenses provide valid yet partial
insights and work best when taken together rather than separately. Free will
defense acknowledges moral evil as an unwanted byproduct of giving
humans meaningful freedom while soul-building defense sees how God can
work even this to ultimate good in transforming believers. Taken together,
they provide a more robust multi-faceted theodicy.
This finds support from Romans 8 where Paul affirms God works all things
together for ultimate good of those who love him, even though evidently not
all things are directly caused or intended by him (like moral/natural evils
resulting from free will). Jesus’ own suffering, death and resurrection
demonstrate God’s power to transform even the worst evils devised by
humans into the highest good of salvation. In his incarnation, Jesus also
modeled how one can face the full gamut of moral, physical and spiritual
sufferings with obedience, wisdom and trust in God rather than by
miraculously avoiding them.
At the same time, Bible acknowledges not everything that occurs fits into
clearcut patterns of moral retribution or spiritual progress. Book of Job
challenges simplistic equations of righteousness with absence of suffering
and Book of Lamentations gives voice to raw anguish without neatly
resolving origins of suffering. God is ultimately portrayed as mysterious and
works in complex rather than overly simplistic ways, involving a mixture of
providence and permissive will in relation to evil and its effects.
Overall, it seems a position balancing and blending elements from different
defenses provides a more robust response to the intellectual challenge posed
by problem of evil while staying grounded in biblical framework. No single
answer can satisfactorily resolve all the mind-boggling complexities, but
together they allow space for mystery while rejecting logical contradictions in
God’s character. The Bible presents a God working in and through the
complex realities of creation with both wrath and mercy, justice and grace.
A Biblical Vision of Hope:
While the problem of evil poses profound intellectual challenges, biblical
revelation ultimately points to a vision of hope transcending its perplexities.
At its core, the Bible depicts God as not only omnipotent Creator but also as
a loving heavenly Father who has entered into intimate relationship with his
people through covenants and incarnation of Jesus Christ. Given a personal
God who cares for and identifies with human suffering, the problem takes on
a different significance compared to being just an abstract logical
conundrum.
The Bible presents god taking moral evil seriously through the atoning work
and victory of Christ over sin and death on the cross. Romans 8:18-25 speaks
of creation itself being set free from bondage and corruption into glorious
liberty, paralleling ultimate redemption of humanity. New Testament epistles
overflow with hope that in Christ all things will one day be reconciled and
made new, with God wiping away every tear. Believers participate in this
present and eschatological victory by persevering in faith through difficulties,
as exhorted by numerous New Testament passages.
The paradise lost in Genesis is envisioned as paradise regained in Revelation,
with God making all things right and free of pain, suffering and injustice.
Ultimate answers to the problem may elude human understanding in the
present, but biblical hope anchors believers waiting for God to set all things
right and for justice to fully triumph at the end of the age. A proper
understanding of God emerging from Scriptures resists reducing him to a
mere philosophical category while embracing the God who bore costly love
and mercy in Christ in the midst of profound mystery of evil’s existence.
God’s goodness and power are upheld not by logical arguments but by these
acts of salvific love culminating in the resurrection of Jesus Christ. That is the
final answer and sure hope anchored in living God of the Bible.
Objections and Response:
While the above perspectives attempt to offer careful biblical responses to
the problem of evil, some objections still require thoughtful engagement:
Objection 1: If God is omnipotent, he could simply eliminate evil without
compromising human freedom. Creating a world with no suffering and
temptation would not deprive humans of morally significant choices between
relative goods.
Response: This assumes an oversimplistic conception of omnipotence that is
not consistent with biblical portrayal of God always acting in harmony with
his other attributes like righteousness and love. Eliminating possibility of real
moral/spiritual dangers could undermine human dignity, maturity and
relationship with God who does not treat us as mere automatons. Some level
of danger and risk may be inevitable for meaningful freedom. Complete
prevention of evil is also not clearly logically possible without removal of
freedom altogether, which God did not want to do.
Objection 2: Why did God not make humans capable of free will yet with
greater natural resistance to sin and temptation like unfallen angels
apparently have in Bible?
Response: The Bible does not give full details on angelic nature or their exact
pre-fall state. Humans were evidently made different, with God fashioning us
from dust, breathed life as living beings and crowned with dignity above rest
of creation. Our first parents failed in paradise, but we are also promised
glory beyond angels through redemption in Christ. Overall picture shows God
choosing to let human history play out in a complex yet redemptive manner
rather than rendering sin/failure logically impossible.
Objection 3: Scripture also speaks of natural evils/calamities unrelated to
human free will. How do these fit with arguments that portray suffering as
only resulting from freewill and/or morally/spiritually beneficial?
Response: Neither defense claims evil only arises from human free agency or
that it is exclusively positive. Rather, God in his wisdom often brings
redemption even out of tragic natural events and uses righteous individuals
strengthened through suffering as witnesses. Overall biblical framework
upholds the reality of evil exceeding our understanding of its purposes while
still asserting God’s goodness triumphant in Christ. Mystery remains, but
final hope is assured through promises of New Creation.
Objection 4: What about immense horrors like Auschwitz and genocides? Do
these have any meaningful purpose that outweighs the unfathomable
suffering involved?
Response: Valid questions are raised here exceeding any rational
explanations. At the same time, Bible depicts God’s heartbreaking anguish
over evil (Genesis 6) and deep anger at oppression throughout prophetic
literature. In Christ’s incarnation, death and conquest of death, God showed
solidarity with all victims of such atrocities and overcame ultimate depths of
evil. Ultimately biblical hope anticipates coming Judgment and justice of God
making all things right. This does not satisfy intellect but provides solace to
brokenhearted awaiting God’s promises coming to fruition beyond theodicies
and dystheism.
Conclusion:
In conclusion, while the problem of evil and suffering poses profound
intellectual challenges, the biblical framework offers theodicies and
perspectives grounded in progressive revelation which provide some
reasonable yet imperfect responses without compromising divine attributes
or reducing mystery involved in God’s sovereignty. No single argument can
adequately solve this deep dilemma which involves complex notions of free
will, providence, sin, natural order and God’s ultimate purposes spanning
history and eternity. However, a God who identifies with humanity in
suffering love revealed through incarnation, atonement and resurrection of
Jesus Christ anchors believers in sure yet often incomprehensible hope that
justice, redemption and new creation even of this broken world await in
God’s perfect timing. Ultimately, redemption triumphs over all shadows
through trusting relationship with the God of biblical promise in spite of
unanswered puzzles. The promises that evil, suffering and death will not
have the final say provide solace, even if intellect is not fully satisfied.
The problem of evil and suffering, also known as the problem of pain, refers
to the theological dilemma posed by the existence of evil in the world if there
exists an omnibenevolent, omnipotent God. It is considered to be one of the
oldest and most perplexing issues faced by philosophers and theologians
alike. As sentient beings, we experience pain and suffering on a daily basis
through sickness, natural disasters, accidents and human atrocities. This
raises a profound question – if God is perfectly good, why does he allow evil
and suffering to exist? The aim of this essay is to examine different
responses to this issue by analyzing relevant biblical passages and teachings
on the nature and purpose of evil and suffering.
The Problem Stated:
For something to be considered a genuine problem or paradox, it must meet
three basic criteria1) There must be an apparent logical contradiction or
inconsistency, (2) There must not yet be a satisfactory or widely accepted
resolution, and (3) Attempts at resolution must lead to further difficulties or
questions. The problem of evil seems to meet all three criteria and poses a
serious intellectual challenge. It maintains that the existence of an
omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent God is logically incompatible
with the existence of evil and suffering in the world. The argument can be
summarized as follows:
1. God is omnipotent, which means he has the power to prevent all evil.
2. God is omniscient, which means he knows when evil exists and has the
ability to prevent it.
3. God is omnibenevolent, which means he has the desire to prevent all
evil.
4. Evil and suffering exist in our world.
5. Therefore, either God lacks the power to prevent evil (is not
omnipotent), lacks the desire (is not omnibenevolent), or lacks the
knowledge that evil exists (is not omniscient).
6. Therefore, the existence of evil is logically inconsistent with the
existence of an omnipotent, omniscient and perfectly good God.
In philosophical terms, it is considered to be a deductive logical argument in
the form of a modus tollens, where the negation of the conclusion implies the
negation of one of the premises. This poses a serious dilemma for classical
theism and monotheistic religions like Christianity which affirm that God
possesses these divine attributes.
Free Will Defense:
One of the most common and widely accepted responses to this
philosophical problem has been the free will defense. This argument
postulates that God, in his omnibenevolence, wished to create creatures who
are morally significant – that is, able to freely choose between good and evil.
For humans to have free will, God had to allow the possibility for moral evil
through the abuse of free choice. As such, moral evil exists in the world as an
unwanted but necessary consequence of free creatures with free will. God
did not create humans as somehow morally predetermined or programmed
robots – to have done so would have denied them their dignity, morality and
humanity.
This finds support from various biblical passages which suggest that humans
were granted significant freedom and responsibility over their choices and
actions. Genesis 1-2 depicts humans as moral agents created in God’s
image, distinct from other creatures, who were given dominion over creation
and commanded to care for the Garden of Eden. However, they were also
warned not to eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, indicating
that their actions were neither fully predetermined nor controlled. They had
to freely choose to obey God or disobey, with clear moral consequences laid
out. Adam and Eve’s decision to disobey demonstrates that evil entered the
world through an act of free will rather than divine causation.
The presence of moral choice is also evident from other key passages like
Deuteronomy 30:19 which says: “I call heaven and earth to witness against
you today, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse.
Therefore choose life, that you and your offspring may live.” Here humans
are called upon to freely choose between obeying God’s commands which
will lead to life or rejecting them which will result in curses. Biblical wisdom
literature like Ecclesiastes and Proverbs also assume that humans freely
make both good and bad moral choices every day which shape their
character and destinies. God does intervene and provide guidance at times,
but he has also chosen to respect human freedom.
However, some objections have been raised against this defense. It is argued
that an omnipotent God could have created humans with free will yet in a
world with less physical and natural evil like natural disasters, diseases and
physical pain/suffering which don’t seem to be a necessary result of human
free choices. God could have possibly created a world with less incidences of
tsunamis, pandemics and cancer even if moral evil resulted from free will. It
is also debated whether God could have imbued humans with significant free
will while also intervening more directly to prevent specific evils and tip the
scales of choice more towards good without undo violation of freedom. A full
discussion of this defense would require addressing these kinds of rebuttals
and looking at the biblical material more deeply.
Soul Building Theodicy:
Another response is based on the idea that God uses suffering and moral
difficulties as a means to spiritually strengthen and transform believers.
Known as Irenaean or soul-building theodicy, it draws from the writings of 2nd
century Church Father Irenaeus of Lyons who argued that God created
humans as imperfect beings who need to progress and grow towards moral
and spiritual perfection through exercising their free will and overcoming
difficulties and temptations. While Genesis depicts the originally created
humans as completely good, they were more like children who had to learn
and mature rather than morally perfect beings. The presence of suffering,
disease, temptation and moral evils serve as opportunities for character
development, deepening wisdom and trust in God.
Irenaeus pointed to the story of Adam and Eve as an example – while their
disobedience brought evil into the world, it also allowed for human
progression out of a state of moral immaturity into greater spiritual and
moral maturity. The Christian journey of trials, obedience and sanctification
depicted in scripture follows a similar narrative arc. Romans 5 reflects this
perspective in stating that suffering produces endurance, character and hope
in believers. Similarly, James 1 says trials should be faced with joy as they
result in maturation and ability to stand approved before God. Biblical
wisdom literature often depicts righteous individuals as those who have been
refined and strengthened through difficulties, learning obedience and trust
through their experience of evil rather than being shielded from it.
However, this defense is limited in explaining natural evils and immense
suffering which seem to exceed what would be considered necessary for
spiritual development. It also raises uncomfortable questions about God’s
initial creative work and why he did not make humans in a state of greater
perfection and maturity from the beginning rather than leaving their
development contingent on experiencing evil and pain. A case can be made
that humans today still face levels of evil far surpassing what they require for
moral progress. While Bible affirms spiritual good can come out of suffering,
it does not present suffering as only morally positive experience. A balance
needs to be maintained acknowledging both its refining and destructive
effects.
Free Will and Soul Building Synthesis:
Some theologians have proposed that both defenses provide valid yet partial
insights and work best when taken together rather than separately. Free will
defense acknowledges moral evil as an unwanted byproduct of giving
humans meaningful freedom while soul-building defense sees how God can
work even this to ultimate good in transforming believers. Taken together,
they provide a more robust multi-faceted theodicy.
This finds support from Romans 8 where Paul affirms God works all things
together for ultimate good of those who love him, even though evidently not
all things are directly caused or intended by him (like moral/natural evils
resulting from free will). Jesus’ own suffering, death and resurrection
demonstrate God’s power to transform even the worst evils devised by
humans into the highest good of salvation. In his incarnation, Jesus also
modeled how one can face the full gamut of moral, physical and spiritual
sufferings with obedience, wisdom and trust in God rather than by
miraculously avoiding them.
At the same time, Bible acknowledges not everything that occurs fits into
clearcut patterns of moral retribution or spiritual progress. Book of Job
challenges simplistic equations of righteousness with absence of suffering
and Book of Lamentations gives voice to raw anguish without neatly
resolving origins of suffering. God is ultimately portrayed as mysterious and
works in complex rather than overly simplistic ways, involving a mixture of
providence and permissive will in relation to evil and its effects.
Overall, it seems a position balancing and blending elements from different
defenses provides a more robust response to the intellectual challenge posed
by problem of evil while staying grounded in biblical framework. No single
answer can satisfactorily resolve all the mind-boggling complexities, but
together they allow space for mystery while rejecting logical contradictions in
God’s character. The Bible presents a God working in and through the
complex realities of creation with both wrath and mercy, justice and grace.
A Biblical Vision of Hope:
While the problem of evil poses profound intellectual challenges, biblical
revelation ultimately points to a vision of hope transcending its perplexities.
At its core, the Bible depicts God as not only omnipotent Creator but also as
a loving heavenly Father who has entered into intimate relationship with his
people through covenants and incarnation of Jesus Christ. Given a personal
God who cares for and identifies with human suffering, the problem takes on
a different significance compared to being just an abstract logical
conundrum.
The Bible presents god taking moral evil seriously through the atoning work
and victory of Christ over sin and death on the cross. Romans 8:18-25 speaks
of creation itself being set free from bondage and corruption into glorious
liberty, paralleling ultimate redemption of humanity. New Testament epistles
overflow with hope that in Christ all things will one day be reconciled and
made new, with God wiping away every tear. Believers participate in this
present and eschatological victory by persevering in faith through difficulties,
as exhorted by numerous New Testament passages.
The paradise lost in Genesis is envisioned as paradise regained in Revelation,
with God making all things right and free of pain, suffering and injustice.
Ultimate answers to the problem may elude human understanding in the
present, but biblical hope anchors believers waiting for God to set all things
right and for justice to fully triumph at the end of the age. A proper
understanding of God emerging from Scriptures resists reducing him to a
mere philosophical category while embracing the God who bore costly love
and mercy in Christ in the midst of profound mystery of evil’s existence.
God’s goodness and power are upheld not by logical arguments but by these
acts of salvific love culminating in the resurrection of Jesus Christ. That is the
final answer and sure hope anchored in living God of the Bible.
Objections and Response:
While the above perspectives attempt to offer careful biblical responses to
the problem of evil, some objections still require thoughtful engagement:
Objection 1: If God is omnipotent, he could simply eliminate evil without
compromising human freedom. Creating a world with no suffering and
temptation would not deprive humans of morally significant choices between
relative goods.
Response: This assumes an oversimplistic conception of omnipotence that is
not consistent with biblical portrayal of God always acting in harmony with
his other attributes like righteousness and love. Eliminating possibility of real
moral/spiritual dangers could undermine human dignity, maturity and
relationship with God who does not treat us as mere automatons. Some level
of danger and risk may be inevitable for meaningful freedom. Complete
prevention of evil is also not clearly logically possible without removal of
freedom altogether, which God did not want to do.
Objection 2: Why did God not make humans capable of free will yet with
greater natural resistance to sin and temptation like unfallen angels
apparently have in Bible?
Response: The Bible does not give full details on angelic nature or their exact
pre-fall state. Humans were evidently made different, with God fashioning us
from dust, breathed life as living beings and crowned with dignity above rest
of creation. Our first parents failed in paradise, but we are also promised
glory beyond angels through redemption in Christ. Overall picture shows God
choosing to let human history play out in a complex yet redemptive manner
rather than rendering sin/failure logically impossible.
Objection 3: Scripture also speaks of natural evils/calamities unrelated to
human free will. How do these fit with arguments that portray suffering as
only resulting from freewill and/or morally/spiritually beneficial?
Response: Neither defense claims evil only arises from human free agency or
that it is exclusively positive. Rather, God in his wisdom often brings
redemption even out of tragic natural events and uses righteous individuals
strengthened through suffering as witnesses. Overall biblical framework
upholds the reality of evil exceeding our understanding of its purposes while
still asserting God’s goodness triumphant in Christ. Mystery remains, but
final hope is assured through promises of New Creation.
Objection 4: What about immense horrors like Auschwitz and genocides? Do
these have any meaningful purpose that outweighs the unfathomable
suffering involved?
Response: Valid questions are raised here exceeding any rational
explanations. At the same time, Bible depicts God’s heartbreaking anguish
over evil (Genesis 6) and deep anger at oppression throughout prophetic
literature. In Christ’s incarnation, death and conquest of death, God showed
solidarity with all victims of such atrocities and overcame ultimate depths of
evil. Ultimately biblical hope anticipates coming Judgment and justice of God
making all things right. This does not satisfy intellect but provides solace to
brokenhearted awaiting God’s promises coming to fruition beyond theodicies
and dystheism.
Conclusion:
In conclusion, while the problem of evil and suffering poses profound
intellectual challenges, the biblical framework offers theodicies and
perspectives grounded in progressive revelation which provide some
reasonable yet imperfect responses without compromising divine attributes
or reducing mystery involved in God’s sovereignty. No single argument can
adequately solve this deep dilemma which involves complex notions of free
will, providence, sin, natural order and God’s ultimate purposes spanning
history and eternity. However, a God who identifies with humanity in
suffering love revealed through incarnation, atonement and resurrection of
Jesus Christ anchors believers in sure yet often incomprehensible hope that
justice, redemption and new creation even of this broken world await in
God’s perfect timing. Ultimately, redemption triumphs over all shadows
through trusting relationship with the God of biblical promise in spite of
unanswered puzzles. The promises that evil, suffering and death will not
have the final say provide solace, even if intellect is not fully satisfied.
The problem of evil and suffering, also known as the problem of pain, refers
to the theological dilemma posed by the existence of evil in the world if there
exists an omnibenevolent, omnipotent God. It is considered to be one of the
oldest and most perplexing issues faced by philosophers and theologians
alike. As sentient beings, we experience pain and suffering on a daily basis
through sickness, natural disasters, accidents and human atrocities. This
raises a profound question – if God is perfectly good, why does he allow evil
and suffering to exist? The aim of this essay is to examine different
responses to this issue by analyzing relevant biblical passages and teachings
on the nature and purpose of evil and suffering.
The Problem Stated:
For something to be considered a genuine problem or paradox, it must meet
three basic criteria1) There must be an apparent logical contradiction or
inconsistency, (2) There must not yet be a satisfactory or widely accepted
resolution, and (3) Attempts at resolution must lead to further difficulties or
questions. The problem of evil seems to meet all three criteria and poses a
serious intellectual challenge. It maintains that the existence of an
omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent God is logically incompatible
with the existence of evil and suffering in the world. The argument can be
summarized as follows:
1. God is omnipotent, which means he has the power to prevent all evil.
2. God is omniscient, which means he knows when evil exists and has the
ability to prevent it.
3. God is omnibenevolent, which means he has the desire to prevent all
evil.
4. Evil and suffering exist in our world.
5. Therefore, either God lacks the power to prevent evil (is not
omnipotent), lacks the desire (is not omnibenevolent), or lacks the
knowledge that evil exists (is not omniscient).
6. Therefore, the existence of evil is logically inconsistent with the
existence of an omnipotent, omniscient and perfectly good God.
In philosophical terms, it is considered to be a deductive logical argument in
the form of a modus tollens, where the negation of the conclusion implies the
negation of one of the premises. This poses a serious dilemma for classical
theism and monotheistic religions like Christianity which affirm that God
possesses these divine attributes.
Free Will Defense:
One of the most common and widely accepted responses to this
philosophical problem has been the free will defense. This argument
postulates that God, in his omnibenevolence, wished to create creatures who
are morally significant – that is, able to freely choose between good and evil.
For humans to have free will, God had to allow the possibility for moral evil
through the abuse of free choice. As such, moral evil exists in the world as an
unwanted but necessary consequence of free creatures with free will. God
did not create humans as somehow morally predetermined or programmed
robots – to have done so would have denied them their dignity, morality and
humanity.
This finds support from various biblical passages which suggest that humans
were granted significant freedom and responsibility over their choices and
actions. Genesis 1-2 depicts humans as moral agents created in God’s
image, distinct from other creatures, who were given dominion over creation
and commanded to care for the Garden of Eden. However, they were also
warned not to eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, indicating
that their actions were neither fully predetermined nor controlled. They had
to freely choose to obey God or disobey, with clear moral consequences laid
out. Adam and Eve’s decision to disobey demonstrates that evil entered the
world through an act of free will rather than divine causation.
The presence of moral choice is also evident from other key passages like
Deuteronomy 30:19 which says: “I call heaven and earth to witness against
you today, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse.
Therefore choose life, that you and your offspring may live.” Here humans
are called upon to freely choose between obeying God’s commands which
will lead to life or rejecting them which will result in curses. Biblical wisdom
literature like Ecclesiastes and Proverbs also assume that humans freely
make both good and bad moral choices every day which shape their
character and destinies. God does intervene and provide guidance at times,
but he has also chosen to respect human freedom.
However, some objections have been raised against this defense. It is argued
that an omnipotent God could have created humans with free will yet in a
world with less physical and natural evil like natural disasters, diseases and
physical pain/suffering which don’t seem to be a necessary result of human
free choices. God could have possibly created a world with less incidences of
tsunamis, pandemics and cancer even if moral evil resulted from free will. It
is also debated whether God could have imbued humans with significant free
will while also intervening more directly to prevent specific evils and tip the
scales of choice more towards good without undo violation of freedom. A full
discussion of this defense would require addressing these kinds of rebuttals
and looking at the biblical material more deeply.
Soul Building Theodicy:
Another response is based on the idea that God uses suffering and moral
difficulties as a means to spiritually strengthen and transform believers.
Known as Irenaean or soul-building theodicy, it draws from the writings of 2nd
century Church Father Irenaeus of Lyons who argued that God created
humans as imperfect beings who need to progress and grow towards moral
and spiritual perfection through exercising their free will and overcoming
difficulties and temptations. While Genesis depicts the originally created
humans as completely good, they were more like children who had to learn
and mature rather than morally perfect beings. The presence of suffering,
disease, temptation and moral evils serve as opportunities for character
development, deepening wisdom and trust in God.
Irenaeus pointed to the story of Adam and Eve as an example – while their
disobedience brought evil into the world, it also allowed for human
progression out of a state of moral immaturity into greater spiritual and
moral maturity. The Christian journey of trials, obedience and sanctification
depicted in scripture follows a similar narrative arc. Romans 5 reflects this
perspective in stating that suffering produces endurance, character and hope
in believers. Similarly, James 1 says trials should be faced with joy as they
result in maturation and ability to stand approved before God. Biblical
wisdom literature often depicts righteous individuals as those who have been
refined and strengthened through difficulties, learning obedience and trust
through their experience of evil rather than being shielded from it.
However, this defense is limited in explaining natural evils and immense
suffering which seem to exceed what would be considered necessary for
spiritual development. It also raises uncomfortable questions about God’s
initial creative work and why he did not make humans in a state of greater
perfection and maturity from the beginning rather than leaving their
development contingent on experiencing evil and pain. A case can be made
that humans today still face levels of evil far surpassing what they require for
moral progress. While Bible affirms spiritual good can come out of suffering,
it does not present suffering as only morally positive experience. A balance
needs to be maintained acknowledging both its refining and destructive
effects.
Free Will and Soul Building Synthesis:
Some theologians have proposed that both defenses provide valid yet partial
insights and work best when taken together rather than separately. Free will
defense acknowledges moral evil as an unwanted byproduct of giving
humans meaningful freedom while soul-building defense sees how God can
work even this to ultimate good in transforming believers. Taken together,
they provide a more robust multi-faceted theodicy.
This finds support from Romans 8 where Paul affirms God works all things
together for ultimate good of those who love him, even though evidently not
all things are directly caused or intended by him (like moral/natural evils
resulting from free will). Jesus’ own suffering, death and resurrection
demonstrate God’s power to transform even the worst evils devised by
humans into the highest good of salvation. In his incarnation, Jesus also
modeled how one can face the full gamut of moral, physical and spiritual
sufferings with obedience, wisdom and trust in God rather than by
miraculously avoiding them.
At the same time, Bible acknowledges not everything that occurs fits into
clearcut patterns of moral retribution or spiritual progress. Book of Job
challenges simplistic equations of righteousness with absence of suffering
and Book of Lamentations gives voice to raw anguish without neatly
resolving origins of suffering. God is ultimately portrayed as mysterious and
works in complex rather than overly simplistic ways, involving a mixture of
providence and permissive will in relation to evil and its effects.
Overall, it seems a position balancing and blending elements from different
defenses provides a more robust response to the intellectual challenge posed
by problem of evil while staying grounded in biblical framework. No single
answer can satisfactorily resolve all the mind-boggling complexities, but
together they allow space for mystery while rejecting logical contradictions in
God’s character. The Bible presents a God working in and through the
complex realities of creation with both wrath and mercy, justice and grace.
A Biblical Vision of Hope:
While the problem of evil poses profound intellectual challenges, biblical
revelation ultimately points to a vision of hope transcending its perplexities.
At its core, the Bible depicts God as not only omnipotent Creator but also as
a loving heavenly Father who has entered into intimate relationship with his
people through covenants and incarnation of Jesus Christ. Given a personal
God who cares for and identifies with human suffering, the problem takes on
a different significance compared to being just an abstract logical
conundrum.
The Bible presents god taking moral evil seriously through the atoning work
and victory of Christ over sin and death on the cross. Romans 8:18-25 speaks
of creation itself being set free from bondage and corruption into glorious
liberty, paralleling ultimate redemption of humanity. New Testament epistles
overflow with hope that in Christ all things will one day be reconciled and
made new, with God wiping away every tear. Believers participate in this
present and eschatological victory by persevering in faith through difficulties,
as exhorted by numerous New Testament passages.
The paradise lost in Genesis is envisioned as paradise regained in Revelation,
with God making all things right and free of pain, suffering and injustice.
Ultimate answers to the problem may elude human understanding in the
present, but biblical hope anchors believers waiting for God to set all things
right and for justice to fully triumph at the end of the age. A proper
understanding of God emerging from Scriptures resists reducing him to a
mere philosophical category while embracing the God who bore costly love
and mercy in Christ in the midst of profound mystery of evil’s existence.
God’s goodness and power are upheld not by logical arguments but by these
acts of salvific love culminating in the resurrection of Jesus Christ. That is the
final answer and sure hope anchored in living God of the Bible.
Objections and Response:
While the above perspectives attempt to offer careful biblical responses to
the problem of evil, some objections still require thoughtful engagement:
Objection 1: If God is omnipotent, he could simply eliminate evil without
compromising human freedom. Creating a world with no suffering and
temptation would not deprive humans of morally significant choices between
relative goods.
Response: This assumes an oversimplistic conception of omnipotence that is
not consistent with biblical portrayal of God always acting in harmony with
his other attributes like righteousness and love. Eliminating possibility of real
moral/spiritual dangers could undermine human dignity, maturity and
relationship with God who does not treat us as mere automatons. Some level
of danger and risk may be inevitable for meaningful freedom. Complete
prevention of evil is also not clearly logically possible without removal of
freedom altogether, which God did not want to do.
Objection 2: Why did God not make humans capable of free will yet with
greater natural resistance to sin and temptation like unfallen angels
apparently have in Bible?
Response: The Bible does not give full details on angelic nature or their exact
pre-fall state. Humans were evidently made different, with God fashioning us
from dust, breathed life as living beings and crowned with dignity above rest
of creation. Our first parents failed in paradise, but we are also promised
glory beyond angels through redemption in Christ. Overall picture shows God
choosing to let human history play out in a complex yet redemptive manner
rather than rendering sin/failure logically impossible.
Objection 3: Scripture also speaks of natural evils/calamities unrelated to
human free will. How do these fit with arguments that portray suffering as
only resulting from freewill and/or morally/spiritually beneficial?
Response: Neither defense claims evil only arises from human free agency or
that it is exclusively positive. Rather, God in his wisdom often brings
redemption even out of tragic natural events and uses righteous individuals
strengthened through suffering as witnesses. Overall biblical framework
upholds the reality of evil exceeding our understanding of its purposes while
still asserting God’s goodness triumphant in Christ. Mystery remains, but
final hope is assured through promises of New Creation.
Objection 4: What about immense horrors like Auschwitz and genocides? Do
these have any meaningful purpose that outweighs the unfathomable
suffering involved?
Response: Valid questions are raised here exceeding any rational
explanations. At the same time, Bible depicts God’s heartbreaking anguish
over evil (Genesis 6) and deep anger at oppression throughout prophetic
literature. In Christ’s incarnation, death and conquest of death, God showed
solidarity with all victims of such atrocities and overcame ultimate depths of
evil. Ultimately biblical hope anticipates coming Judgment and justice of God
making all things right. This does not satisfy intellect but provides solace to
brokenhearted awaiting God’s promises coming to fruition beyond theodicies
and dystheism.
Conclusion:
In conclusion, while the problem of evil and suffering poses profound
intellectual challenges, the biblical framework offers theodicies and
perspectives grounded in progressive revelation which provide some
reasonable yet imperfect responses without compromising divine attributes
or reducing mystery involved in God’s sovereignty. No single argument can
adequately solve this deep dilemma which involves complex notions of free
will, providence, sin, natural order and God’s ultimate purposes spanning
history and eternity. However, a God who identifies with humanity in
suffering love revealed through incarnation, atonement and resurrection of
Jesus Christ anchors believers in sure yet often incomprehensible hope that
justice, redemption and new creation even of this broken world await in
God’s perfect timing. Ultimately, redemption triumphs over all shadows
through trusting relationship with the God of biblical promise in spite of
unanswered puzzles. The promises that evil, suffering and death will not
have the final say provide solace, even if intellect is not fully satisfied.
The problem of evil and suffering, also known as the problem of pain, refers
to the theological dilemma posed by the existence of evil in the world if there
exists an omnibenevolent, omnipotent God. It is considered to be one of the
oldest and most perplexing issues faced by philosophers and theologians
alike. As sentient beings, we experience pain and suffering on a daily basis
through sickness, natural disasters, accidents and human atrocities. This
raises a profound question – if God is perfectly good, why does he allow evil
and suffering to exist? The aim of this essay is to examine different
responses to this issue by analyzing relevant biblical passages and teachings
on the nature and purpose of evil and suffering.
The Problem Stated:
For something to be considered a genuine problem or paradox, it must meet
three basic criteria1) There must be an apparent logical contradiction or
inconsistency, (2) There must not yet be a satisfactory or widely accepted
resolution, and (3) Attempts at resolution must lead to further difficulties or
questions. The problem of evil seems to meet all three criteria and poses a
serious intellectual challenge. It maintains that the existence of an
omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent God is logically incompatible
with the existence of evil and suffering in the world. The argument can be
summarized as follows:
1. God is omnipotent, which means he has the power to prevent all evil.
2. God is omniscient, which means he knows when evil exists and has the
ability to prevent it.
3. God is omnibenevolent, which means he has the desire to prevent all
evil.
4. Evil and suffering exist in our world.
5. Therefore, either God lacks the power to prevent evil (is not
omnipotent), lacks the desire (is not omnibenevolent), or lacks the
knowledge that evil exists (is not omniscient).
6. Therefore, the existence of evil is logically inconsistent with the
existence of an omnipotent, omniscient and perfectly good God.
In philosophical terms, it is considered to be a deductive logical argument in
the form of a modus tollens, where the negation of the conclusion implies the
negation of one of the premises. This poses a serious dilemma for classical
theism and monotheistic religions like Christianity which affirm that God
possesses these divine attributes.
Free Will Defense:
One of the most common and widely accepted responses to this
philosophical problem has been the free will defense. This argument
postulates that God, in his omnibenevolence, wished to create creatures who
are morally significant – that is, able to freely choose between good and evil.
For humans to have free will, God had to allow the possibility for moral evil
through the abuse of free choice. As such, moral evil exists in the world as an
unwanted but necessary consequence of free creatures with free will. God
did not create humans as somehow morally predetermined or programmed
robots – to have done so would have denied them their dignity, morality and
humanity.
This finds support from various biblical passages which suggest that humans
were granted significant freedom and responsibility over their choices and
actions. Genesis 1-2 depicts humans as moral agents created in God’s
image, distinct from other creatures, who were given dominion over creation
and commanded to care for the Garden of Eden. However, they were also
warned not to eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, indicating
that their actions were neither fully predetermined nor controlled. They had
to freely choose to obey God or disobey, with clear moral consequences laid
out. Adam and Eve’s decision to disobey demonstrates that evil entered the
world through an act of free will rather than divine causation.
The presence of moral choice is also evident from other key passages like
Deuteronomy 30:19 which says: “I call heaven and earth to witness against
you today, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse.
Therefore choose life, that you and your offspring may live.” Here humans
are called upon to freely choose between obeying God’s commands which
will lead to life or rejecting them which will result in curses. Biblical wisdom
literature like Ecclesiastes and Proverbs also assume that humans freely
make both good and bad moral choices every day which shape their
character and destinies. God does intervene and provide guidance at times,
but he has also chosen to respect human freedom.
However, some objections have been raised against this defense. It is argued
that an omnipotent God could have created humans with free will yet in a
world with less physical and natural evil like natural disasters, diseases and
physical pain/suffering which don’t seem to be a necessary result of human
free choices. God could have possibly created a world with less incidences of
tsunamis, pandemics and cancer even if moral evil resulted from free will. It
is also debated whether God could have imbued humans with significant free
will while also intervening more directly to prevent specific evils and tip the
scales of choice more towards good without undo violation of freedom. A full
discussion of this defense would require addressing these kinds of rebuttals
and looking at the biblical material more deeply.
Soul Building Theodicy:
Another response is based on the idea that God uses suffering and moral
difficulties as a means to spiritually strengthen and transform believers.
Known as Irenaean or soul-building theodicy, it draws from the writings of 2nd
century Church Father Irenaeus of Lyons who argued that God created
humans as imperfect beings who need to progress and grow towards moral
and spiritual perfection through exercising their free will and overcoming
difficulties and temptations. While Genesis depicts the originally created
humans as completely good, they were more like children who had to learn
and mature rather than morally perfect beings. The presence of suffering,
disease, temptation and moral evils serve as opportunities for character
development, deepening wisdom and trust in God.
Irenaeus pointed to the story of Adam and Eve as an example – while their
disobedience brought evil into the world, it also allowed for human
progression out of a state of moral immaturity into greater spiritual and
moral maturity. The Christian journey of trials, obedience and sanctification
depicted in scripture follows a similar narrative arc. Romans 5 reflects this
perspective in stating that suffering produces endurance, character and hope
in believers. Similarly, James 1 says trials should be faced with joy as they
result in maturation and ability to stand approved before God. Biblical
wisdom literature often depicts righteous individuals as those who have been
refined and strengthened through difficulties, learning obedience and trust
through their experience of evil rather than being shielded from it.
However, this defense is limited in explaining natural evils and immense
suffering which seem to exceed what would be considered necessary for
spiritual development. It also raises uncomfortable questions about God’s
initial creative work and why he did not make humans in a state of greater
perfection and maturity from the beginning rather than leaving their
development contingent on experiencing evil and pain. A case can be made
that humans today still face levels of evil far surpassing what they require for
moral progress. While Bible affirms spiritual good can come out of suffering,
it does not present suffering as only morally positive experience. A balance
needs to be maintained acknowledging both its refining and destructive
effects.
Free Will and Soul Building Synthesis:
Some theologians have proposed that both defenses provide valid yet partial
insights and work best when taken together rather than separately. Free will
defense acknowledges moral evil as an unwanted byproduct of giving
humans meaningful freedom while soul-building defense sees how God can
work even this to ultimate good in transforming believers. Taken together,
they provide a more robust multi-faceted theodicy.
This finds support from Romans 8 where Paul affirms God works all things
together for ultimate good of those who love him, even though evidently not
all things are directly caused or intended by him (like moral/natural evils
resulting from free will). Jesus’ own suffering, death and resurrection
demonstrate God’s power to transform even the worst evils devised by
humans into the highest good of salvation. In his incarnation, Jesus also
modeled how one can face the full gamut of moral, physical and spiritual
sufferings with obedience, wisdom and trust in God rather than by
miraculously avoiding them.
At the same time, Bible acknowledges not everything that occurs fits into
clearcut patterns of moral retribution or spiritual progress. Book of Job
challenges simplistic equations of righteousness with absence of suffering
and Book of Lamentations gives voice to raw anguish without neatly
resolving origins of suffering. God is ultimately portrayed as mysterious and
works in complex rather than overly simplistic ways, involving a mixture of
providence and permissive will in relation to evil and its effects.
Overall, it seems a position balancing and blending elements from different
defenses provides a more robust response to the intellectual challenge posed
by problem of evil while staying grounded in biblical framework. No single
answer can satisfactorily resolve all the mind-boggling complexities, but
together they allow space for mystery while rejecting logical contradictions in
God’s character. The Bible presents a God working in and through the
complex realities of creation with both wrath and mercy, justice and grace.
A Biblical Vision of Hope:
While the problem of evil poses profound intellectual challenges, biblical
revelation ultimately points to a vision of hope transcending its perplexities.
At its core, the Bible depicts God as not only omnipotent Creator but also as
a loving heavenly Father who has entered into intimate relationship with his
people through covenants and incarnation of Jesus Christ. Given a personal
God who cares for and identifies with human suffering, the problem takes on
a different significance compared to being just an abstract logical
conundrum.
The Bible presents god taking moral evil seriously through the atoning work
and victory of Christ over sin and death on the cross. Romans 8:18-25 speaks
of creation itself being set free from bondage and corruption into glorious
liberty, paralleling ultimate redemption of humanity. New Testament epistles
overflow with hope that in Christ all things will one day be reconciled and
made new, with God wiping away every tear. Believers participate in this
present and eschatological victory by persevering in faith through difficulties,
as exhorted by numerous New Testament passages.
The paradise lost in Genesis is envisioned as paradise regained in Revelation,
with God making all things right and free of pain, suffering and injustice.
Ultimate answers to the problem may elude human understanding in the
present, but biblical hope anchors believers waiting for God to set all things
right and for justice to fully triumph at the end of the age. A proper
understanding of God emerging from Scriptures resists reducing him to a
mere philosophical category while embracing the God who bore costly love
and mercy in Christ in the midst of profound mystery of evil’s existence.
God’s goodness and power are upheld not by logical arguments but by these
acts of salvific love culminating in the resurrection of Jesus Christ. That is the
final answer and sure hope anchored in living God of the Bible.
Objections and Response:
While the above perspectives attempt to offer careful biblical responses to
the problem of evil, some objections still require thoughtful engagement:
Objection 1: If God is omnipotent, he could simply eliminate evil without
compromising human freedom. Creating a world with no suffering and
temptation would not deprive humans of morally significant choices between
relative goods.
Response: This assumes an oversimplistic conception of omnipotence that is
not consistent with biblical portrayal of God always acting in harmony with
his other attributes like righteousness and love. Eliminating possibility of real
moral/spiritual dangers could undermine human dignity, maturity and
relationship with God who does not treat us as mere automatons. Some level
of danger and risk may be inevitable for meaningful freedom. Complete
prevention of evil is also not clearly logically possible without removal of
freedom altogether, which God did not want to do.
Objection 2: Why did God not make humans capable of free will yet with
greater natural resistance to sin and temptation like unfallen angels
apparently have in Bible?
Response: The Bible does not give full details on angelic nature or their exact
pre-fall state. Humans were evidently made different, with God fashioning us
from dust, breathed life as living beings and crowned with dignity above rest
of creation. Our first parents failed in paradise, but we are also promised
glory beyond angels through redemption in Christ. Overall picture shows God
choosing to let human history play out in a complex yet redemptive manner
rather than rendering sin/failure logically impossible.
Objection 3: Scripture also speaks of natural evils/calamities unrelated to
human free will. How do these fit with arguments that portray suffering as
only resulting from freewill and/or morally/spiritually beneficial?
Response: Neither defense claims evil only arises from human free agency or
that it is exclusively positive. Rather, God in his wisdom often brings
redemption even out of tragic natural events and uses righteous individuals
strengthened through suffering as witnesses. Overall biblical framework
upholds the reality of evil exceeding our understanding of its purposes while
still asserting God’s goodness triumphant in Christ. Mystery remains, but
final hope is assured through promises of New Creation.
Objection 4: What about immense horrors like Auschwitz and genocides? Do
these have any meaningful purpose that outweighs the unfathomable
suffering involved?
Response: Valid questions are raised here exceeding any rational
explanations. At the same time, Bible depicts God’s heartbreaking anguish
over evil (Genesis 6) and deep anger at oppression throughout prophetic
literature. In Christ’s incarnation, death and conquest of death, God showed
solidarity with all victims of such atrocities and overcame ultimate depths of
evil. Ultimately biblical hope anticipates coming Judgment and justice of God
making all things right. This does not satisfy intellect but provides solace to
brokenhearted awaiting God’s promises coming to fruition beyond theodicies
and dystheism.
Conclusion:
In conclusion, while the problem of evil and suffering poses profound
intellectual challenges, the biblical framework offers theodicies and
perspectives grounded in progressive revelation which provide some
reasonable yet imperfect responses without compromising divine attributes
or reducing mystery involved in God’s sovereignty. No single argument can
adequately solve this deep dilemma which involves complex notions of free
will, providence, sin, natural order and God’s ultimate purposes spanning
history and eternity. However, a God who identifies with humanity in
suffering love revealed through incarnation, atonement and resurrection of
Jesus Christ anchors believers in sure yet often incomprehensible hope that
justice, redemption and new creation even of this broken world await in
God’s perfect timing. Ultimately, redemption triumphs over all shadows
through trusting relationship with the God of biblical promise in spite of
unanswered puzzles. The promises that evil, suffering and death will not
have the final say provide solace, even if intellect is not fully satisfied.
The problem of evil and suffering, also known as the problem of pain, refers
to the theological dilemma posed by the existence of evil in the world if there
exists an omnibenevolent, omnipotent God. It is considered to be one of the
oldest and most perplexing issues faced by philosophers and theologians
alike. As sentient beings, we experience pain and suffering on a daily basis
through sickness, natural disasters, accidents and human atrocities. This
raises a profound question – if God is perfectly good, why does he allow evil
and suffering to exist? The aim of this essay is to examine different
responses to this issue by analyzing relevant biblical passages and teachings
on the nature and purpose of evil and suffering.
The Problem Stated:
For something to be considered a genuine problem or paradox, it must meet
three basic criteria1) There must be an apparent logical contradiction or
inconsistency, (2) There must not yet be a satisfactory or widely accepted
resolution, and (3) Attempts at resolution must lead to further difficulties or
questions. The problem of evil seems to meet all three criteria and poses a
serious intellectual challenge. It maintains that the existence of an
omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent God is logically incompatible
with the existence of evil and suffering in the world. The argument can be
summarized as follows:
1. God is omnipotent, which means he has the power to prevent all evil.
2. God is omniscient, which means he knows when evil exists and has the
ability to prevent it.
3. God is omnibenevolent, which means he has the desire to prevent all
evil.
4. Evil and suffering exist in our world.
5. Therefore, either God lacks the power to prevent evil (is not
omnipotent), lacks the desire (is not omnibenevolent), or lacks the
knowledge that evil exists (is not omniscient).
6. Therefore, the existence of evil is logically inconsistent with the
existence of an omnipotent, omniscient and perfectly good God.
In philosophical terms, it is considered to be a deductive logical argument in
the form of a modus tollens, where the negation of the conclusion implies the
negation of one of the premises. This poses a serious dilemma for classical
theism and monotheistic religions like Christianity which affirm that God
possesses these divine attributes.
Free Will Defense:
One of the most common and widely accepted responses to this
philosophical problem has been the free will defense. This argument
postulates that God, in his omnibenevolence, wished to create creatures who
are morally significant – that is, able to freely choose between good and evil.
For humans to have free will, God had to allow the possibility for moral evil
through the abuse of free choice. As such, moral evil exists in the world as an
unwanted but necessary consequence of free creatures with free will. God
did not create humans as somehow morally predetermined or programmed
robots – to have done so would have denied them their dignity, morality and
humanity.
This finds support from various biblical passages which suggest that humans
were granted significant freedom and responsibility over their choices and
actions. Genesis 1-2 depicts humans as moral agents created in God’s
image, distinct from other creatures, who were given dominion over creation
and commanded to care for the Garden of Eden. However, they were also
warned not to eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, indicating
that their actions were neither fully predetermined nor controlled. They had
to freely choose to obey God or disobey, with clear moral consequences laid
out. Adam and Eve’s decision to disobey demonstrates that evil entered the
world through an act of free will rather than divine causation.
The presence of moral choice is also evident from other key passages like
Deuteronomy 30:19 which says: “I call heaven and earth to witness against
you today, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse.
Therefore choose life, that you and your offspring may live.” Here humans
are called upon to freely choose between obeying God’s commands which
will lead to life or rejecting them which will result in curses. Biblical wisdom
literature like Ecclesiastes and Proverbs also assume that humans freely
make both good and bad moral choices every day which shape their
character and destinies. God does intervene and provide guidance at times,
but he has also chosen to respect human freedom.
However, some objections have been raised against this defense. It is argued
that an omnipotent God could have created humans with free will yet in a
world with less physical and natural evil like natural disasters, diseases and
physical pain/suffering which don’t seem to be a necessary result of human
free choices. God could have possibly created a world with less incidences of
tsunamis, pandemics and cancer even if moral evil resulted from free will. It
is also debated whether God could have imbued humans with significant free
will while also intervening more directly to prevent specific evils and tip the
scales of choice more towards good without undo violation of freedom. A full
discussion of this defense would require addressing these kinds of rebuttals
and looking at the biblical material more deeply.
Soul Building Theodicy:
Another response is based on the idea that God uses suffering and moral
difficulties as a means to spiritually strengthen and transform believers.
Known as Irenaean or soul-building theodicy, it draws from the writings of 2nd
century Church Father Irenaeus of Lyons who argued that God created
humans as imperfect beings who need to progress and grow towards moral
and spiritual perfection through exercising their free will and overcoming
difficulties and temptations. While Genesis depicts the originally created
humans as completely good, they were more like children who had to learn
and mature rather than morally perfect beings. The presence of suffering,
disease, temptation and moral evils serve as opportunities for character
development, deepening wisdom and trust in God.
Irenaeus pointed to the story of Adam and Eve as an example – while their
disobedience brought evil into the world, it also allowed for human
progression out of a state of moral immaturity into greater spiritual and
moral maturity. The Christian journey of trials, obedience and sanctification
depicted in scripture follows a similar narrative arc. Romans 5 reflects this
perspective in stating that suffering produces endurance, character and hope
in believers. Similarly, James 1 says trials should be faced with joy as they
result in maturation and ability to stand approved before God. Biblical
wisdom literature often depicts righteous individuals as those who have been
refined and strengthened through difficulties, learning obedience and trust
through their experience of evil rather than being shielded from it.
However, this defense is limited in explaining natural evils and immense
suffering which seem to exceed what would be considered necessary for
spiritual development. It also raises uncomfortable questions about God’s
initial creative work and why he did not make humans in a state of greater
perfection and maturity from the beginning rather than leaving their
development contingent on experiencing evil and pain. A case can be made
that humans today still face levels of evil far surpassing what they require for
moral progress. While Bible affirms spiritual good can come out of suffering,
it does not present suffering as only morally positive experience. A balance
needs to be maintained acknowledging both its refining and destructive
effects.
Free Will and Soul Building Synthesis:
Some theologians have proposed that both defenses provide valid yet partial
insights and work best when taken together rather than separately. Free will
defense acknowledges moral evil as an unwanted byproduct of giving
humans meaningful freedom while soul-building defense sees how God can
work even this to ultimate good in transforming believers. Taken together,
they provide a more robust multi-faceted theodicy.
This finds support from Romans 8 where Paul affirms God works all things
together for ultimate good of those who love him, even though evidently not
all things are directly caused or intended by him (like moral/natural evils
resulting from free will). Jesus’ own suffering, death and resurrection
demonstrate God’s power to transform even the worst evils devised by
humans into the highest good of salvation. In his incarnation, Jesus also
modeled how one can face the full gamut of moral, physical and spiritual
sufferings with obedience, wisdom and trust in God rather than by
miraculously avoiding them.
At the same time, Bible acknowledges not everything that occurs fits into
clearcut patterns of moral retribution or spiritual progress. Book of Job
challenges simplistic equations of righteousness with absence of suffering
and Book of Lamentations gives voice to raw anguish without neatly
resolving origins of suffering. God is ultimately portrayed as mysterious and
works in complex rather than overly simplistic ways, involving a mixture of
providence and permissive will in relation to evil and its effects.
Overall, it seems a position balancing and blending elements from different
defenses provides a more robust response to the intellectual challenge posed
by problem of evil while staying grounded in biblical framework. No single
answer can satisfactorily resolve all the mind-boggling complexities, but
together they allow space for mystery while rejecting logical contradictions in
God’s character. The Bible presents a God working in and through the
complex realities of creation with both wrath and mercy, justice and grace.
A Biblical Vision of Hope:
While the problem of evil poses profound intellectual challenges, biblical
revelation ultimately points to a vision of hope transcending its perplexities.
At its core, the Bible depicts God as not only omnipotent Creator but also as
a loving heavenly Father who has entered into intimate relationship with his
people through covenants and incarnation of Jesus Christ. Given a personal
God who cares for and identifies with human suffering, the problem takes on
a different significance compared to being just an abstract logical
conundrum.
The Bible presents god taking moral evil seriously through the atoning work
and victory of Christ over sin and death on the cross. Romans 8:18-25 speaks
of creation itself being set free from bondage and corruption into glorious
liberty, paralleling ultimate redemption of humanity. New Testament epistles
overflow with hope that in Christ all things will one day be reconciled and
made new, with God wiping away every tear. Believers participate in this
present and eschatological victory by persevering in faith through difficulties,
as exhorted by numerous New Testament passages.
The paradise lost in Genesis is envisioned as paradise regained in Revelation,
with God making all things right and free of pain, suffering and injustice.
Ultimate answers to the problem may elude human understanding in the
present, but biblical hope anchors believers waiting for God to set all things
right and for justice to fully triumph at the end of the age. A proper
understanding of God emerging from Scriptures resists reducing him to a
mere philosophical category while embracing the God who bore costly love
and mercy in Christ in the midst of profound mystery of evil’s existence.
God’s goodness and power are upheld not by logical arguments but by these
acts of salvific love culminating in the resurrection of Jesus Christ. That is the
final answer and sure hope anchored in living God of the Bible.
Objections and Response:
While the above perspectives attempt to offer careful biblical responses to
the problem of evil, some objections still require thoughtful engagement:
Objection 1: If God is omnipotent, he could simply eliminate evil without
compromising human freedom. Creating a world with no suffering and
temptation would not deprive humans of morally significant choices between
relative goods.
Response: This assumes an oversimplistic conception of omnipotence that is
not consistent with biblical portrayal of God always acting in harmony with
his other attributes like righteousness and love. Eliminating possibility of real
moral/spiritual dangers could undermine human dignity, maturity and
relationship with God who does not treat us as mere automatons. Some level
of danger and risk may be inevitable for meaningful freedom. Complete
prevention of evil is also not clearly logically possible without removal of
freedom altogether, which God did not want to do.
Objection 2: Why did God not make humans capable of free will yet with
greater natural resistance to sin and temptation like unfallen angels
apparently have in Bible?
Response: The Bible does not give full details on angelic nature or their exact
pre-fall state. Humans were evidently made different, with God fashioning us
from dust, breathed life as living beings and crowned with dignity above rest
of creation. Our first parents failed in paradise, but we are also promised
glory beyond angels through redemption in Christ. Overall picture shows God
choosing to let human history play out in a complex yet redemptive manner
rather than rendering sin/failure logically impossible.
Objection 3: Scripture also speaks of natural evils/calamities unrelated to
human free will. How do these fit with arguments that portray suffering as
only resulting from freewill and/or morally/spiritually beneficial?
Response: Neither defense claims evil only arises from human free agency or
that it is exclusively positive. Rather, God in his wisdom often brings
redemption even out of tragic natural events and uses righteous individuals
strengthened through suffering as witnesses. Overall biblical framework
upholds the reality of evil exceeding our understanding of its purposes while
still asserting God’s goodness triumphant in Christ. Mystery remains, but
final hope is assured through promises of New Creation.
Objection 4: What about immense horrors like Auschwitz and genocides? Do
these have any meaningful purpose that outweighs the unfathomable
suffering involved?
Response: Valid questions are raised here exceeding any rational
explanations. At the same time, Bible depicts God’s heartbreaking anguish
over evil (Genesis 6) and deep anger at oppression throughout prophetic
literature. In Christ’s incarnation, death and conquest of death, God showed
solidarity with all victims of such atrocities and overcame ultimate depths of
evil. Ultimately biblical hope anticipates coming Judgment and justice of God
making all things right. This does not satisfy intellect but provides solace to
brokenhearted awaiting God’s promises coming to fruition beyond theodicies
and dystheism.
Conclusion:
In conclusion, while the problem of evil and suffering poses profound
intellectual challenges, the biblical framework offers theodicies and
perspectives grounded in progressive revelation which provide some
reasonable yet imperfect responses without compromising divine attributes
or reducing mystery involved in God’s sovereignty. No single argument can
adequately solve this deep dilemma which involves complex notions of free
will, providence, sin, natural order and God’s ultimate purposes spanning
history and eternity. However, a God who identifies with humanity in
suffering love revealed through incarnation, atonement and resurrection of
Jesus Christ anchors believers in sure yet often incomprehensible hope that
justice, redemption and new creation even of this broken world await in
God’s perfect timing. Ultimately, redemption triumphs over all shadows
through trusting relationship with the God of biblical promise in spite of
unanswered puzzles. The promises that evil, suffering and death will not
have the final say provide solace, even if intellect is not fully satisfied.
The problem of evil and suffering, also known as the problem of pain, refers
to the theological dilemma posed by the existence of evil in the world if there
exists an omnibenevolent, omnipotent God. It is considered to be one of the
oldest and most perplexing issues faced by philosophers and theologians
alike. As sentient beings, we experience pain and suffering on a daily basis
through sickness, natural disasters, accidents and human atrocities. This
raises a profound question – if God is perfectly good, why does he allow evil
and suffering to exist? The aim of this essay is to examine different
responses to this issue by analyzing relevant biblical passages and teachings
on the nature and purpose of evil and suffering.
The Problem Stated:
For something to be considered a genuine problem or paradox, it must meet
three basic criteria1) There must be an apparent logical contradiction or
inconsistency, (2) There must not yet be a satisfactory or widely accepted
resolution, and (3) Attempts at resolution must lead to further difficulties or
questions. The problem of evil seems to meet all three criteria and poses a
serious intellectual challenge. It maintains that the existence of an
omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent God is logically incompatible
with the existence of evil and suffering in the world. The argument can be
summarized as follows:
1. God is omnipotent, which means he has the power to prevent all evil.
2. God is omniscient, which means he knows when evil exists and has the
ability to prevent it.
3. God is omnibenevolent, which means he has the desire to prevent all
evil.
4. Evil and suffering exist in our world.
5. Therefore, either God lacks the power to prevent evil (is not
omnipotent), lacks the desire (is not omnibenevolent), or lacks the
knowledge that evil exists (is not omniscient).
6. Therefore, the existence of evil is logically inconsistent with the
existence of an omnipotent, omniscient and perfectly good God.
In philosophical terms, it is considered to be a deductive logical argument in
the form of a modus tollens, where the negation of the conclusion implies the
negation of one of the premises. This poses a serious dilemma for classical
theism and monotheistic religions like Christianity which affirm that God
possesses these divine attributes.
Free Will Defense:
One of the most common and widely accepted responses to this
philosophical problem has been the free will defense. This argument
postulates that God, in his omnibenevolence, wished to create creatures who
are morally significant – that is, able to freely choose between good and evil.
For humans to have free will, God had to allow the possibility for moral evil
through the abuse of free choice. As such, moral evil exists in the world as an
unwanted but necessary consequence of free creatures with free will. God
did not create humans as somehow morally predetermined or programmed
robots – to have done so would have denied them their dignity, morality and
humanity.
This finds support from various biblical passages which suggest that humans
were granted significant freedom and responsibility over their choices and
actions. Genesis 1-2 depicts humans as moral agents created in God’s
image, distinct from other creatures, who were given dominion over creation
and commanded to care for the Garden of Eden. However, they were also
warned not to eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, indicating
that their actions were neither fully predetermined nor controlled. They had
to freely choose to obey God or disobey, with clear moral consequences laid
out. Adam and Eve’s decision to disobey demonstrates that evil entered the
world through an act of free will rather than divine causation.
The presence of moral choice is also evident from other key passages like
Deuteronomy 30:19 which says: “I call heaven and earth to witness against
you today, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse.
Therefore choose life, that you and your offspring may live.” Here humans
are called upon to freely choose between obeying God’s commands which
will lead to life or rejecting them which will result in curses. Biblical wisdom
literature like Ecclesiastes and Proverbs also assume that humans freely
make both good and bad moral choices every day which shape their
character and destinies. God does intervene and provide guidance at times,
but he has also chosen to respect human freedom.
However, some objections have been raised against this defense. It is argued
that an omnipotent God could have created humans with free will yet in a
world with less physical and natural evil like natural disasters, diseases and
physical pain/suffering which don’t seem to be a necessary result of human
free choices. God could have possibly created a world with less incidences of
tsunamis, pandemics and cancer even if moral evil resulted from free will. It
is also debated whether God could have imbued humans with significant free
will while also intervening more directly to prevent specific evils and tip the
scales of choice more towards good without undo violation of freedom. A full
discussion of this defense would require addressing these kinds of rebuttals
and looking at the biblical material more deeply.
Soul Building Theodicy:
Another response is based on the idea that God uses suffering and moral
difficulties as a means to spiritually strengthen and transform believers.
Known as Irenaean or soul-building theodicy, it draws from the writings of 2nd
century Church Father Irenaeus of Lyons who argued that God created
humans as imperfect beings who need to progress and grow towards moral
and spiritual perfection through exercising their free will and overcoming
difficulties and temptations. While Genesis depicts the originally created
humans as completely good, they were more like children who had to learn
and mature rather than morally perfect beings. The presence of suffering,
disease, temptation and moral evils serve as opportunities for character
development, deepening wisdom and trust in God.
Irenaeus pointed to the story of Adam and Eve as an example – while their
disobedience brought evil into the world, it also allowed for human
progression out of a state of moral immaturity into greater spiritual and
moral maturity. The Christian journey of trials, obedience and sanctification
depicted in scripture follows a similar narrative arc. Romans 5 reflects this
perspective in stating that suffering produces endurance, character and hope
in believers. Similarly, James 1 says trials should be faced with joy as they
result in maturation and ability to stand approved before God. Biblical
wisdom literature often depicts righteous individuals as those who have been
refined and strengthened through difficulties, learning obedience and trust
through their experience of evil rather than being shielded from it.
However, this defense is limited in explaining natural evils and immense
suffering which seem to exceed what would be considered necessary for
spiritual development. It also raises uncomfortable questions about God’s
initial creative work and why he did not make humans in a state of greater
perfection and maturity from the beginning rather than leaving their
development contingent on experiencing evil and pain. A case can be made
that humans today still face levels of evil far surpassing what they require for
moral progress. While Bible affirms spiritual good can come out of suffering,
it does not present suffering as only morally positive experience. A balance
needs to be maintained acknowledging both its refining and destructive
effects.
Free Will and Soul Building Synthesis:
Some theologians have proposed that both defenses provide valid yet partial
insights and work best when taken together rather than separately. Free will
defense acknowledges moral evil as an unwanted byproduct of giving
humans meaningful freedom while soul-building defense sees how God can
work even this to ultimate good in transforming believers. Taken together,
they provide a more robust multi-faceted theodicy.
This finds support from Romans 8 where Paul affirms God works all things
together for ultimate good of those who love him, even though evidently not
all things are directly caused or intended by him (like moral/natural evils
resulting from free will). Jesus’ own suffering, death and resurrection
demonstrate God’s power to transform even the worst evils devised by
humans into the highest good of salvation. In his incarnation, Jesus also
modeled how one can face the full gamut of moral, physical and spiritual
sufferings with obedience, wisdom and trust in God rather than by
miraculously avoiding them.
At the same time, Bible acknowledges not everything that occurs fits into
clearcut patterns of moral retribution or spiritual progress. Book of Job
challenges simplistic equations of righteousness with absence of suffering
and Book of Lamentations gives voice to raw anguish without neatly
resolving origins of suffering. God is ultimately portrayed as mysterious and
works in complex rather than overly simplistic ways, involving a mixture of
providence and permissive will in relation to evil and its effects.
Overall, it seems a position balancing and blending elements from different
defenses provides a more robust response to the intellectual challenge posed
by problem of evil while staying grounded in biblical framework. No single
answer can satisfactorily resolve all the mind-boggling complexities, but
together they allow space for mystery while rejecting logical contradictions in
God’s character. The Bible presents a God working in and through the
complex realities of creation with both wrath and mercy, justice and grace.
A Biblical Vision of Hope:
While the problem of evil poses profound intellectual challenges, biblical
revelation ultimately points to a vision of hope transcending its perplexities.
At its core, the Bible depicts God as not only omnipotent Creator but also as
a loving heavenly Father who has entered into intimate relationship with his
people through covenants and incarnation of Jesus Christ. Given a personal
God who cares for and identifies with human suffering, the problem takes on
a different significance compared to being just an abstract logical
conundrum.
The Bible presents god taking moral evil seriously through the atoning work
and victory of Christ over sin and death on the cross. Romans 8:18-25 speaks
of creation itself being set free from bondage and corruption into glorious
liberty, paralleling ultimate redemption of humanity. New Testament epistles
overflow with hope that in Christ all things will one day be reconciled and
made new, with God wiping away every tear. Believers participate in this
present and eschatological victory by persevering in faith through difficulties,
as exhorted by numerous New Testament passages.
The paradise lost in Genesis is envisioned as paradise regained in Revelation,
with God making all things right and free of pain, suffering and injustice.
Ultimate answers to the problem may elude human understanding in the
present, but biblical hope anchors believers waiting for God to set all things
right and for justice to fully triumph at the end of the age. A proper
understanding of God emerging from Scriptures resists reducing him to a
mere philosophical category while embracing the God who bore costly love
and mercy in Christ in the midst of profound mystery of evil’s existence.
God’s goodness and power are upheld not by logical arguments but by these
acts of salvific love culminating in the resurrection of Jesus Christ. That is the
final answer and sure hope anchored in living God of the Bible.
Objections and Response:
While the above perspectives attempt to offer careful biblical responses to
the problem of evil, some objections still require thoughtful engagement:
Objection 1: If God is omnipotent, he could simply eliminate evil without
compromising human freedom. Creating a world with no suffering and
temptation would not deprive humans of morally significant choices between
relative goods.
Response: This assumes an oversimplistic conception of omnipotence that is
not consistent with biblical portrayal of God always acting in harmony with
his other attributes like righteousness and love. Eliminating possibility of real
moral/spiritual dangers could undermine human dignity, maturity and
relationship with God who does not treat us as mere automatons. Some level
of danger and risk may be inevitable for meaningful freedom. Complete
prevention of evil is also not clearly logically possible without removal of
freedom altogether, which God did not want to do.
Objection 2: Why did God not make humans capable of free will yet with
greater natural resistance to sin and temptation like unfallen angels
apparently have in Bible?
Response: The Bible does not give full details on angelic nature or their exact
pre-fall state. Humans were evidently made different, with God fashioning us
from dust, breathed life as living beings and crowned with dignity above rest
of creation. Our first parents failed in paradise, but we are also promised
glory beyond angels through redemption in Christ. Overall picture shows God
choosing to let human history play out in a complex yet redemptive manner
rather than rendering sin/failure logically impossible.
Objection 3: Scripture also speaks of natural evils/calamities unrelated to
human free will. How do these fit with arguments that portray suffering as
only resulting from freewill and/or morally/spiritually beneficial?
Response: Neither defense claims evil only arises from human free agency or
that it is exclusively positive. Rather, God in his wisdom often brings
redemption even out of tragic natural events and uses righteous individuals
strengthened through suffering as witnesses. Overall biblical framework
upholds the reality of evil exceeding our understanding of its purposes while
still asserting God’s goodness triumphant in Christ. Mystery remains, but
final hope is assured through promises of New Creation.
Objection 4: What about immense horrors like Auschwitz and genocides? Do
these have any meaningful purpose that outweighs the unfathomable
suffering involved?
Response: Valid questions are raised here exceeding any rational
explanations. At the same time, Bible depicts God’s heartbreaking anguish
over evil (Genesis 6) and deep anger at oppression throughout prophetic
literature. In Christ’s incarnation, death and conquest of death, God showed
solidarity with all victims of such atrocities and overcame ultimate depths of
evil. Ultimately biblical hope anticipates coming Judgment and justice of God
making all things right. This does not satisfy intellect but provides solace to
brokenhearted awaiting God’s promises coming to fruition beyond theodicies
and dystheism.
Conclusion:
In conclusion, while the problem of evil and suffering poses profound
intellectual challenges, the biblical framework offers theodicies and
perspectives grounded in progressive revelation which provide some
reasonable yet imperfect responses without compromising divine attributes
or reducing mystery involved in God’s sovereignty. No single argument can
adequately solve this deep dilemma which involves complex notions of free
will, providence, sin, natural order and God’s ultimate purposes spanning
history and eternity. However, a God who identifies with humanity in
suffering love revealed through incarnation, atonement and resurrection of
Jesus Christ anchors believers in sure yet often incomprehensible hope that
justice, redemption and new creation even of this broken world await in
God’s perfect timing. Ultimately, redemption triumphs over all shadows
through trusting relationship with the God of biblical promise in spite of
unanswered puzzles. The promises that evil, suffering and death will not
have the final say provide solace, even if intellect is not fully satisfied.
The problem of evil and suffering, also known as the problem of pain, refers
to the theological dilemma posed by the existence of evil in the world if there
exists an omnibenevolent, omnipotent God. It is considered to be one of the
oldest and most perplexing issues faced by philosophers and theologians
alike. As sentient beings, we experience pain and suffering on a daily basis
through sickness, natural disasters, accidents and human atrocities. This
raises a profound question – if God is perfectly good, why does he allow evil
and suffering to exist? The aim of this essay is to examine different
responses to this issue by analyzing relevant biblical passages and teachings
on the nature and purpose of evil and suffering.
The Problem Stated:
For something to be considered a genuine problem or paradox, it must meet
three basic criteria1) There must be an apparent logical contradiction or
inconsistency, (2) There must not yet be a satisfactory or widely accepted
resolution, and (3) Attempts at resolution must lead to further difficulties or
questions. The problem of evil seems to meet all three criteria and poses a
serious intellectual challenge. It maintains that the existence of an
omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent God is logically incompatible
with the existence of evil and suffering in the world. The argument can be
summarized as follows:
1. God is omnipotent, which means he has the power to prevent all evil.
2. God is omniscient, which means he knows when evil exists and has the
ability to prevent it.
3. God is omnibenevolent, which means he has the desire to prevent all
evil.
4. Evil and suffering exist in our world.
5. Therefore, either God lacks the power to prevent evil (is not
omnipotent), lacks the desire (is not omnibenevolent), or lacks the
knowledge that evil exists (is not omniscient).
6. Therefore, the existence of evil is logically inconsistent with the
existence of an omnipotent, omniscient and perfectly good God.
In philosophical terms, it is considered to be a deductive logical argument in
the form of a modus tollens, where the negation of the conclusion implies the
negation of one of the premises. This poses a serious dilemma for classical
theism and monotheistic religions like Christianity which affirm that God
possesses these divine attributes.
Free Will Defense:
One of the most common and widely accepted responses to this
philosophical problem has been the free will defense. This argument
postulates that God, in his omnibenevolence, wished to create creatures who
are morally significant – that is, able to freely choose between good and evil.
For humans to have free will, God had to allow the possibility for moral evil
through the abuse of free choice. As such, moral evil exists in the world as an
unwanted but necessary consequence of free creatures with free will. God
did not create humans as somehow morally predetermined or programmed
robots – to have done so would have denied them their dignity, morality and
humanity.
This finds support from various biblical passages which suggest that humans
were granted significant freedom and responsibility over their choices and
actions. Genesis 1-2 depicts humans as moral agents created in God’s
image, distinct from other creatures, who were given dominion over creation
and commanded to care for the Garden of Eden. However, they were also
warned not to eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, indicating
that their actions were neither fully predetermined nor controlled. They had
to freely choose to obey God or disobey, with clear moral consequences laid
out. Adam and Eve’s decision to disobey demonstrates that evil entered the
world through an act of free will rather than divine causation.
The presence of moral choice is also evident from other key passages like
Deuteronomy 30:19 which says: “I call heaven and earth to witness against
you today, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse.
Therefore choose life, that you and your offspring may live.” Here humans
are called upon to freely choose between obeying God’s commands which
will lead to life or rejecting them which will result in curses. Biblical wisdom
literature like Ecclesiastes and Proverbs also assume that humans freely
make both good and bad moral choices every day which shape their
character and destinies. God does intervene and provide guidance at times,
but he has also chosen to respect human freedom.
However, some objections have been raised against this defense. It is argued
that an omnipotent God could have created humans with free will yet in a
world with less physical and natural evil like natural disasters, diseases and
physical pain/suffering which don’t seem to be a necessary result of human
free choices. God could have possibly created a world with less incidences of
tsunamis, pandemics and cancer even if moral evil resulted from free will. It
is also debated whether God could have imbued humans with significant free
will while also intervening more directly to prevent specific evils and tip the
scales of choice more towards good without undo violation of freedom. A full
discussion of this defense would require addressing these kinds of rebuttals
and looking at the biblical material more deeply.
Soul Building Theodicy:
Another response is based on the idea that God uses suffering and moral
difficulties as a means to spiritually strengthen and transform believers.
Known as Irenaean or soul-building theodicy, it draws from the writings of 2nd
century Church Father Irenaeus of Lyons who argued that God created
humans as imperfect beings who need to progress and grow towards moral
and spiritual perfection through exercising their free will and overcoming
difficulties and temptations. While Genesis depicts the originally created
humans as completely good, they were more like children who had to learn
and mature rather than morally perfect beings. The presence of suffering,
disease, temptation and moral evils serve as opportunities for character
development, deepening wisdom and trust in God.
Irenaeus pointed to the story of Adam and Eve as an example – while their
disobedience brought evil into the world, it also allowed for human
progression out of a state of moral immaturity into greater spiritual and
moral maturity. The Christian journey of trials, obedience and sanctification
depicted in scripture follows a similar narrative arc. Romans 5 reflects this
perspective in stating that suffering produces endurance, character and hope
in believers. Similarly, James 1 says trials should be faced with joy as they
result in maturation and ability to stand approved before God. Biblical
wisdom literature often depicts righteous individuals as those who have been
refined and strengthened through difficulties, learning obedience and trust
through their experience of evil rather than being shielded from it.
However, this defense is limited in explaining natural evils and immense
suffering which seem to exceed what would be considered necessary for
spiritual development. It also raises uncomfortable questions about God’s
initial creative work and why he did not make humans in a state of greater
perfection and maturity from the beginning rather than leaving their
development contingent on experiencing evil and pain. A case can be made
that humans today still face levels of evil far surpassing what they require for
moral progress. While Bible affirms spiritual good can come out of suffering,
it does not present suffering as only morally positive experience. A balance
needs to be maintained acknowledging both its refining and destructive
effects.
Free Will and Soul Building Synthesis:
Some theologians have proposed that both defenses provide valid yet partial
insights and work best when taken together rather than separately. Free will
defense acknowledges moral evil as an unwanted byproduct of giving
humans meaningful freedom while soul-building defense sees how God can
work even this to ultimate good in transforming believers. Taken together,
they provide a more robust multi-faceted theodicy.
This finds support from Romans 8 where Paul affirms God works all things
together for ultimate good of those who love him, even though evidently not
all things are directly caused or intended by him (like moral/natural evils
resulting from free will). Jesus’ own suffering, death and resurrection
demonstrate God’s power to transform even the worst evils devised by
humans into the highest good of salvation. In his incarnation, Jesus also
modeled how one can face the full gamut of moral, physical and spiritual
sufferings with obedience, wisdom and trust in God rather than by
miraculously avoiding them.
At the same time, Bible acknowledges not everything that occurs fits into
clearcut patterns of moral retribution or spiritual progress. Book of Job
challenges simplistic equations of righteousness with absence of suffering
and Book of Lamentations gives voice to raw anguish without neatly
resolving origins of suffering. God is ultimately portrayed as mysterious and
works in complex rather than overly simplistic ways, involving a mixture of
providence and permissive will in relation to evil and its effects.
Overall, it seems a position balancing and blending elements from different
defenses provides a more robust response to the intellectual challenge posed
by problem of evil while staying grounded in biblical framework. No single
answer can satisfactorily resolve all the mind-boggling complexities, but
together they allow space for mystery while rejecting logical contradictions in
God’s character. The Bible presents a God working in and through the
complex realities of creation with both wrath and mercy, justice and grace.
A Biblical Vision of Hope:
While the problem of evil poses profound intellectual challenges, biblical
revelation ultimately points to a vision of hope transcending its perplexities.
At its core, the Bible depicts God as not only omnipotent Creator but also as
a loving heavenly Father who has entered into intimate relationship with his
people through covenants and incarnation of Jesus Christ. Given a personal
God who cares for and identifies with human suffering, the problem takes on
a different significance compared to being just an abstract logical
conundrum.
The Bible presents god taking moral evil seriously through the atoning work
and victory of Christ over sin and death on the cross. Romans 8:18-25 speaks
of creation itself being set free from bondage and corruption into glorious
liberty, paralleling ultimate redemption of humanity. New Testament epistles
overflow with hope that in Christ all things will one day be reconciled and
made new, with God wiping away every tear. Believers participate in this
present and eschatological victory by persevering in faith through difficulties,
as exhorted by numerous New Testament passages.
The paradise lost in Genesis is envisioned as paradise regained in Revelation,
with God making all things right and free of pain, suffering and injustice.
Ultimate answers to the problem may elude human understanding in the
present, but biblical hope anchors believers waiting for God to set all things
right and for justice to fully triumph at the end of the age. A proper
understanding of God emerging from Scriptures resists reducing him to a
mere philosophical category while embracing the God who bore costly love
and mercy in Christ in the midst of profound mystery of evil’s existence.
God’s goodness and power are upheld not by logical arguments but by these
acts of salvific love culminating in the resurrection of Jesus Christ. That is the
final answer and sure hope anchored in living God of the Bible.
Objections and Response:
While the above perspectives attempt to offer careful biblical responses to
the problem of evil, some objections still require thoughtful engagement:
Objection 1: If God is omnipotent, he could simply eliminate evil without
compromising human freedom. Creating a world with no suffering and
temptation would not deprive humans of morally significant choices between
relative goods.
Response: This assumes an oversimplistic conception of omnipotence that is
not consistent with biblical portrayal of God always acting in harmony with
his other attributes like righteousness and love. Eliminating possibility of real
moral/spiritual dangers could undermine human dignity, maturity and
relationship with God who does not treat us as mere automatons. Some level
of danger and risk may be inevitable for meaningful freedom. Complete
prevention of evil is also not clearly logically possible without removal of
freedom altogether, which God did not want to do.
Objection 2: Why did God not make humans capable of free will yet with
greater natural resistance to sin and temptation like unfallen angels
apparently have in Bible?
Response: The Bible does not give full details on angelic nature or their exact
pre-fall state. Humans were evidently made different, with God fashioning us
from dust, breathed life as living beings and crowned with dignity above rest
of creation. Our first parents failed in paradise, but we are also promised
glory beyond angels through redemption in Christ. Overall picture shows God
choosing to let human history play out in a complex yet redemptive manner
rather than rendering sin/failure logically impossible.
Objection 3: Scripture also speaks of natural evils/calamities unrelated to
human free will. How do these fit with arguments that portray suffering as
only resulting from freewill and/or morally/spiritually beneficial?
Response: Neither defense claims evil only arises from human free agency or
that it is exclusively positive. Rather, God in his wisdom often brings
redemption even out of tragic natural events and uses righteous individuals
strengthened through suffering as witnesses. Overall biblical framework
upholds the reality of evil exceeding our understanding of its purposes while
still asserting God’s goodness triumphant in Christ. Mystery remains, but
final hope is assured through promises of New Creation.
Objection 4: What about immense horrors like Auschwitz and genocides? Do
these have any meaningful purpose that outweighs the unfathomable
suffering involved?
Response: Valid questions are raised here exceeding any rational
explanations. At the same time, Bible depicts God’s heartbreaking anguish
over evil (Genesis 6) and deep anger at oppression throughout prophetic
literature. In Christ’s incarnation, death and conquest of death, God showed
solidarity with all victims of such atrocities and overcame ultimate depths of
evil. Ultimately biblical hope anticipates coming Judgment and justice of God
making all things right. This does not satisfy intellect but provides solace to
brokenhearted awaiting God’s promises coming to fruition beyond theodicies
and dystheism.
Conclusion:
In conclusion, while the problem of evil and suffering poses profound
intellectual challenges, the biblical framework offers theodicies and
perspectives grounded in progressive revelation which provide some
reasonable yet imperfect responses without compromising divine attributes
or reducing mystery involved in God’s sovereignty. No single argument can
adequately solve this deep dilemma which involves complex notions of free
will, providence, sin, natural order and God’s ultimate purposes spanning
history and eternity. However, a God who identifies with humanity in
suffering love revealed through incarnation, atonement and resurrection of
Jesus Christ anchors believers in sure yet often incomprehensible hope that
justice, redemption and new creation even of this broken world await in
God’s perfect timing. Ultimately, redemption triumphs over all shadows
through trusting relationship with the God of biblical promise in spite of
unanswered puzzles. The promises that evil, suffering and death will not
have the final say provide solace, even if intellect is not fully satisfied.
The problem of evil and suffering, also known as the problem of pain, refers
to the theological dilemma posed by the existence of evil in the world if there
exists an omnibenevolent, omnipotent God. It is considered to be one of the
oldest and most perplexing issues faced by philosophers and theologians
alike. As sentient beings, we experience pain and suffering on a daily basis
through sickness, natural disasters, accidents and human atrocities. This
raises a profound question – if God is perfectly good, why does he allow evil
and suffering to exist? The aim of this essay is to examine different
responses to this issue by analyzing relevant biblical passages and teachings
on the nature and purpose of evil and suffering.
The Problem Stated:
For something to be considered a genuine problem or paradox, it must meet
three basic criteria1) There must be an apparent logical contradiction or
inconsistency, (2) There must not yet be a satisfactory or widely accepted
resolution, and (3) Attempts at resolution must lead to further difficulties or
questions. The problem of evil seems to meet all three criteria and poses a
serious intellectual challenge. It maintains that the existence of an
omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent God is logically incompatible
with the existence of evil and suffering in the world. The argument can be
summarized as follows:
1. God is omnipotent, which means he has the power to prevent all evil.
2. God is omniscient, which means he knows when evil exists and has the
ability to prevent it.
3. God is omnibenevolent, which means he has the desire to prevent all
evil.
4. Evil and suffering exist in our world.
5. Therefore, either God lacks the power to prevent evil (is not
omnipotent), lacks the desire (is not omnibenevolent), or lacks the
knowledge that evil exists (is not omniscient).
6. Therefore, the existence of evil is logically inconsistent with the
existence of an omnipotent, omniscient and perfectly good God.
In philosophical terms, it is considered to be a deductive logical argument in
the form of a modus tollens, where the negation of the conclusion implies the
negation of one of the premises. This poses a serious dilemma for classical
theism and monotheistic religions like Christianity which affirm that God
possesses these divine attributes.
Free Will Defense:
One of the most common and widely accepted responses to this
philosophical problem has been the free will defense. This argument
postulates that God, in his omnibenevolence, wished to create creatures who
are morally significant – that is, able to freely choose between good and evil.
For humans to have free will, God had to allow the possibility for moral evil
through the abuse of free choice. As such, moral evil exists in the world as an
unwanted but necessary consequence of free creatures with free will. God
did not create humans as somehow morally predetermined or programmed
robots – to have done so would have denied them their dignity, morality and
humanity.
This finds support from various biblical passages which suggest that humans
were granted significant freedom and responsibility over their choices and
actions. Genesis 1-2 depicts humans as moral agents created in God’s
image, distinct from other creatures, who were given dominion over creation
and commanded to care for the Garden of Eden. However, they were also
warned not to eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, indicating
that their actions were neither fully predetermined nor controlled. They had
to freely choose to obey God or disobey, with clear moral consequences laid
out. Adam and Eve’s decision to disobey demonstrates that evil entered the
world through an act of free will rather than divine causation.
The presence of moral choice is also evident from other key passages like
Deuteronomy 30:19 which says: “I call heaven and earth to witness against
you today, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse.
Therefore choose life, that you and your offspring may live.” Here humans
are called upon to freely choose between obeying God’s commands which
will lead to life or rejecting them which will result in curses. Biblical wisdom
literature like Ecclesiastes and Proverbs also assume that humans freely
make both good and bad moral choices every day which shape their
character and destinies. God does intervene and provide guidance at times,
but he has also chosen to respect human freedom.
However, some objections have been raised against this defense. It is argued
that an omnipotent God could have created humans with free will yet in a
world with less physical and natural evil like natural disasters, diseases and
physical pain/suffering which don’t seem to be a necessary result of human
free choices. God could have possibly created a world with less incidences of
tsunamis, pandemics and cancer even if moral evil resulted from free will. It
is also debated whether God could have imbued humans with significant free
will while also intervening more directly to prevent specific evils and tip the
scales of choice more towards good without undo violation of freedom. A full
discussion of this defense would require addressing these kinds of rebuttals
and looking at the biblical material more deeply.
Soul Building Theodicy:
Another response is based on the idea that God uses suffering and moral
difficulties as a means to spiritually strengthen and transform believers.
Known as Irenaean or soul-building theodicy, it draws from the writings of 2nd
century Church Father Irenaeus of Lyons who argued that God created
humans as imperfect beings who need to progress and grow towards moral
and spiritual perfection through exercising their free will and overcoming
difficulties and temptations. While Genesis depicts the originally created
humans as completely good, they were more like children who had to learn
and mature rather than morally perfect beings. The presence of suffering,
disease, temptation and moral evils serve as opportunities for character
development, deepening wisdom and trust in God.
Irenaeus pointed to the story of Adam and Eve as an example – while their
disobedience brought evil into the world, it also allowed for human
progression out of a state of moral immaturity into greater spiritual and
moral maturity. The Christian journey of trials, obedience and sanctification
depicted in scripture follows a similar narrative arc. Romans 5 reflects this
perspective in stating that suffering produces endurance, character and hope
in believers. Similarly, James 1 says trials should be faced with joy as they
result in maturation and ability to stand approved before God. Biblical
wisdom literature often depicts righteous individuals as those who have been
refined and strengthened through difficulties, learning obedience and trust
through their experience of evil rather than being shielded from it.
However, this defense is limited in explaining natural evils and immense
suffering which seem to exceed what would be considered necessary for
spiritual development. It also raises uncomfortable questions about God’s
initial creative work and why he did not make humans in a state of greater
perfection and maturity from the beginning rather than leaving their
development contingent on experiencing evil and pain. A case can be made
that humans today still face levels of evil far surpassing what they require for
moral progress. While Bible affirms spiritual good can come out of suffering,
it does not present suffering as only morally positive experience. A balance
needs to be maintained acknowledging both its refining and destructive
effects.
Free Will and Soul Building Synthesis:
Some theologians have proposed that both defenses provide valid yet partial
insights and work best when taken together rather than separately. Free will
defense acknowledges moral evil as an unwanted byproduct of giving
humans meaningful freedom while soul-building defense sees how God can
work even this to ultimate good in transforming believers. Taken together,
they provide a more robust multi-faceted theodicy.
This finds support from Romans 8 where Paul affirms God works all things
together for ultimate good of those who love him, even though evidently not
all things are directly caused or intended by him (like moral/natural evils
resulting from free will). Jesus’ own suffering, death and resurrection
demonstrate God’s power to transform even the worst evils devised by
humans into the highest good of salvation. In his incarnation, Jesus also
modeled how one can face the full gamut of moral, physical and spiritual
sufferings with obedience, wisdom and trust in God rather than by
miraculously avoiding them.
At the same time, Bible acknowledges not everything that occurs fits into
clearcut patterns of moral retribution or spiritual progress. Book of Job
challenges simplistic equations of righteousness with absence of suffering
and Book of Lamentations gives voice to raw anguish without neatly
resolving origins of suffering. God is ultimately portrayed as mysterious and
works in complex rather than overly simplistic ways, involving a mixture of
providence and permissive will in relation to evil and its effects.
Overall, it seems a position balancing and blending elements from different
defenses provides a more robust response to the intellectual challenge posed
by problem of evil while staying grounded in biblical framework. No single
answer can satisfactorily resolve all the mind-boggling complexities, but
together they allow space for mystery while rejecting logical contradictions in
God’s character. The Bible presents a God working in and through the
complex realities of creation with both wrath and mercy, justice and grace.
A Biblical Vision of Hope:
While the problem of evil poses profound intellectual challenges, biblical
revelation ultimately points to a vision of hope transcending its perplexities.
At its core, the Bible depicts God as not only omnipotent Creator but also as
a loving heavenly Father who has entered into intimate relationship with his
people through covenants and incarnation of Jesus Christ. Given a personal
God who cares for and identifies with human suffering, the problem takes on
a different significance compared to being just an abstract logical
conundrum.
The Bible presents god taking moral evil seriously through the atoning work
and victory of Christ over sin and death on the cross. Romans 8:18-25 speaks
of creation itself being set free from bondage and corruption into glorious
liberty, paralleling ultimate redemption of humanity. New Testament epistles
overflow with hope that in Christ all things will one day be reconciled and
made new, with God wiping away every tear. Believers participate in this
present and eschatological victory by persevering in faith through difficulties,
as exhorted by numerous New Testament passages.
The paradise lost in Genesis is envisioned as paradise regained in Revelation,
with God making all things right and free of pain, suffering and injustice.
Ultimate answers to the problem may elude human understanding in the
present, but biblical hope anchors believers waiting for God to set all things
right and for justice to fully triumph at the end of the age. A proper
understanding of God emerging from Scriptures resists reducing him to a
mere philosophical category while embracing the God who bore costly love
and mercy in Christ in the midst of profound mystery of evil’s existence.
God’s goodness and power are upheld not by logical arguments but by these
acts of salvific love culminating in the resurrection of Jesus Christ. That is the
final answer and sure hope anchored in living God of the Bible.
Objections and Response:
While the above perspectives attempt to offer careful biblical responses to
the problem of evil, some objections still require thoughtful engagement:
Objection 1: If God is omnipotent, he could simply eliminate evil without
compromising human freedom. Creating a world with no suffering and
temptation would not deprive humans of morally significant choices between
relative goods.
Response: This assumes an oversimplistic conception of omnipotence that is
not consistent with biblical portrayal of God always acting in harmony with
his other attributes like righteousness and love. Eliminating possibility of real
moral/spiritual dangers could undermine human dignity, maturity and
relationship with God who does not treat us as mere automatons. Some level
of danger and risk may be inevitable for meaningful freedom. Complete
prevention of evil is also not clearly logically possible without removal of
freedom altogether, which God did not want to do.
Objection 2: Why did God not make humans capable of free will yet with
greater natural resistance to sin and temptation like unfallen angels
apparently have in Bible?
Response: The Bible does not give full details on angelic nature or their exact
pre-fall state. Humans were evidently made different, with God fashioning us
from dust, breathed life as living beings and crowned with dignity above rest
of creation. Our first parents failed in paradise, but we are also promised
glory beyond angels through redemption in Christ. Overall picture shows God
choosing to let human history play out in a complex yet redemptive manner
rather than rendering sin/failure logically impossible.
Objection 3: Scripture also speaks of natural evils/calamities unrelated to
human free will. How do these fit with arguments that portray suffering as
only resulting from freewill and/or morally/spiritually beneficial?
Response: Neither defense claims evil only arises from human free agency or
that it is exclusively positive. Rather, God in his wisdom often brings
redemption even out of tragic natural events and uses righteous individuals
strengthened through suffering as witnesses. Overall biblical framework
upholds the reality of evil exceeding our understanding of its purposes while
still asserting God’s goodness triumphant in Christ. Mystery remains, but
final hope is assured through promises of New Creation.
Objection 4: What about immense horrors like Auschwitz and genocides? Do
these have any meaningful purpose that outweighs the unfathomable
suffering involved?
Response: Valid questions are raised here exceeding any rational
explanations. At the same time, Bible depicts God’s heartbreaking anguish
over evil (Genesis 6) and deep anger at oppression throughout prophetic
literature. In Christ’s incarnation, death and conquest of death, God showed
solidarity with all victims of such atrocities and overcame ultimate depths of
evil. Ultimately biblical hope anticipates coming Judgment and justice of God
making all things right. This does not satisfy intellect but provides solace to
brokenhearted awaiting God’s promises coming to fruition beyond theodicies
and dystheism.
Conclusion:
In conclusion, while the problem of evil and suffering poses profound
intellectual challenges, the biblical framework offers theodicies and
perspectives grounded in progressive revelation which provide some
reasonable yet imperfect responses without compromising divine attributes
or reducing mystery involved in God’s sovereignty. No single argument can
adequately solve this deep dilemma which involves complex notions of free
will, providence, sin, natural order and God’s ultimate purposes spanning
history and eternity. However, a God who identifies with humanity in
suffering love revealed through incarnation, atonement and resurrection of
Jesus Christ anchors believers in sure yet often incomprehensible hope that
justice, redemption and new creation even of this broken world await in
God’s perfect timing. Ultimately, redemption triumphs over all shadows
through trusting relationship with the God of biblical promise in spite of
unanswered puzzles. The promises that evil, suffering and death will not
have the final say provide solace, even if intellect is not fully satisfied.
The problem of evil and suffering, also known as the problem of pain, refers
to the theological dilemma posed by the existence of evil in the world if there
exists an omnibenevolent, omnipotent God. It is considered to be one of the
oldest and most perplexing issues faced by philosophers and theologians
alike. As sentient beings, we experience pain and suffering on a daily basis
through sickness, natural disasters, accidents and human atrocities. This
raises a profound question – if God is perfectly good, why does he allow evil
and suffering to exist? The aim of this essay is to examine different
responses to this issue by analyzing relevant biblical passages and teachings
on the nature and purpose of evil and suffering.
The Problem Stated:
For something to be considered a genuine problem or paradox, it must meet
three basic criteria1) There must be an apparent logical contradiction or
inconsistency, (2) There must not yet be a satisfactory or widely accepted
resolution, and (3) Attempts at resolution must lead to further difficulties or
questions. The problem of evil seems to meet all three criteria and poses a
serious intellectual challenge. It maintains that the existence of an
omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent God is logically incompatible
with the existence of evil and suffering in the world. The argument can be
summarized as follows:
1. God is omnipotent, which means he has the power to prevent all evil.
2. God is omniscient, which means he knows when evil exists and has the
ability to prevent it.
3. God is omnibenevolent, which means he has the desire to prevent all
evil.
4. Evil and suffering exist in our world.
5. Therefore, either God lacks the power to prevent evil (is not
omnipotent), lacks the desire (is not omnibenevolent), or lacks the
knowledge that evil exists (is not omniscient).
6. Therefore, the existence of evil is logically inconsistent with the
existence of an omnipotent, omniscient and perfectly good God.
In philosophical terms, it is considered to be a deductive logical argument in
the form of a modus tollens, where the negation of the conclusion implies the
negation of one of the premises. This poses a serious dilemma for classical
theism and monotheistic religions like Christianity which affirm that God
possesses these divine attributes.
Free Will Defense:
One of the most common and widely accepted responses to this
philosophical problem has been the free will defense. This argument
postulates that God, in his omnibenevolence, wished to create creatures who
are morally significant – that is, able to freely choose between good and evil.
For humans to have free will, God had to allow the possibility for moral evil
through the abuse of free choice. As such, moral evil exists in the world as an
unwanted but necessary consequence of free creatures with free will. God
did not create humans as somehow morally predetermined or programmed
robots – to have done so would have denied them their dignity, morality and
humanity.
This finds support from various biblical passages which suggest that humans
were granted significant freedom and responsibility over their choices and
actions. Genesis 1-2 depicts humans as moral agents created in God’s
image, distinct from other creatures, who were given dominion over creation
and commanded to care for the Garden of Eden. However, they were also
warned not to eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, indicating
that their actions were neither fully predetermined nor controlled. They had
to freely choose to obey God or disobey, with clear moral consequences laid
out. Adam and Eve’s decision to disobey demonstrates that evil entered the
world through an act of free will rather than divine causation.
The presence of moral choice is also evident from other key passages like
Deuteronomy 30:19 which says: “I call heaven and earth to witness against
you today, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse.
Therefore choose life, that you and your offspring may live.” Here humans
are called upon to freely choose between obeying God’s commands which
will lead to life or rejecting them which will result in curses. Biblical wisdom
literature like Ecclesiastes and Proverbs also assume that humans freely
make both good and bad moral choices every day which shape their
character and destinies. God does intervene and provide guidance at times,
but he has also chosen to respect human freedom.
However, some objections have been raised against this defense. It is argued
that an omnipotent God could have created humans with free will yet in a
world with less physical and natural evil like natural disasters, diseases and
physical pain/suffering which don’t seem to be a necessary result of human
free choices. God could have possibly created a world with less incidences of
tsunamis, pandemics and cancer even if moral evil resulted from free will. It
is also debated whether God could have imbued humans with significant free
will while also intervening more directly to prevent specific evils and tip the
scales of choice more towards good without undo violation of freedom. A full
discussion of this defense would require addressing these kinds of rebuttals
and looking at the biblical material more deeply.
Soul Building Theodicy:
Another response is based on the idea that God uses suffering and moral
difficulties as a means to spiritually strengthen and transform believers.
Known as Irenaean or soul-building theodicy, it draws from the writings of 2nd
century Church Father Irenaeus of Lyons who argued that God created
humans as imperfect beings who need to progress and grow towards moral
and spiritual perfection through exercising their free will and overcoming
difficulties and temptations. While Genesis depicts the originally created
humans as completely good, they were more like children who had to learn
and mature rather than morally perfect beings. The presence of suffering,
disease, temptation and moral evils serve as opportunities for character
development, deepening wisdom and trust in God.
Irenaeus pointed to the story of Adam and Eve as an example – while their
disobedience brought evil into the world, it also allowed for human
progression out of a state of moral immaturity into greater spiritual and
moral maturity. The Christian journey of trials, obedience and sanctification
depicted in scripture follows a similar narrative arc. Romans 5 reflects this
perspective in stating that suffering produces endurance, character and hope
in believers. Similarly, James 1 says trials should be faced with joy as they
result in maturation and ability to stand approved before God. Biblical
wisdom literature often depicts righteous individuals as those who have been
refined and strengthened through difficulties, learning obedience and trust
through their experience of evil rather than being shielded from it.
However, this defense is limited in explaining natural evils and immense
suffering which seem to exceed what would be considered necessary for
spiritual development. It also raises uncomfortable questions about God’s
initial creative work and why he did not make humans in a state of greater
perfection and maturity from the beginning rather than leaving their
development contingent on experiencing evil and pain. A case can be made
that humans today still face levels of evil far surpassing what they require for
moral progress. While Bible affirms spiritual good can come out of suffering,
it does not present suffering as only morally positive experience. A balance
needs to be maintained acknowledging both its refining and destructive
effects.
Free Will and Soul Building Synthesis:
Some theologians have proposed that both defenses provide valid yet partial
insights and work best when taken together rather than separately. Free will
defense acknowledges moral evil as an unwanted byproduct of giving
humans meaningful freedom while soul-building defense sees how God can
work even this to ultimate good in transforming believers. Taken together,
they provide a more robust multi-faceted theodicy.
This finds support from Romans 8 where Paul affirms God works all things
together for ultimate good of those who love him, even though evidently not
all things are directly caused or intended by him (like moral/natural evils
resulting from free will). Jesus’ own suffering, death and resurrection
demonstrate God’s power to transform even the worst evils devised by
humans into the highest good of salvation. In his incarnation, Jesus also
modeled how one can face the full gamut of moral, physical and spiritual
sufferings with obedience, wisdom and trust in God rather than by
miraculously avoiding them.
At the same time, Bible acknowledges not everything that occurs fits into
clearcut patterns of moral retribution or spiritual progress. Book of Job
challenges simplistic equations of righteousness with absence of suffering
and Book of Lamentations gives voice to raw anguish without neatly
resolving origins of suffering. God is ultimately portrayed as mysterious and
works in complex rather than overly simplistic ways, involving a mixture of
providence and permissive will in relation to evil and its effects.
Overall, it seems a position balancing and blending elements from different
defenses provides a more robust response to the intellectual challenge posed
by problem of evil while staying grounded in biblical framework. No single
answer can satisfactorily resolve all the mind-boggling complexities, but
together they allow space for mystery while rejecting logical contradictions in
God’s character. The Bible presents a God working in and through the
complex realities of creation with both wrath and mercy, justice and grace.
A Biblical Vision of Hope:
While the problem of evil poses profound intellectual challenges, biblical
revelation ultimately points to a vision of hope transcending its perplexities.
At its core, the Bible depicts God as not only omnipotent Creator but also as
a loving heavenly Father who has entered into intimate relationship with his
people through covenants and incarnation of Jesus Christ. Given a personal
God who cares for and identifies with human suffering, the problem takes on
a different significance compared to being just an abstract logical
conundrum.
The Bible presents god taking moral evil seriously through the atoning work
and victory of Christ over sin and death on the cross. Romans 8:18-25 speaks
of creation itself being set free from bondage and corruption into glorious
liberty, paralleling ultimate redemption of humanity. New Testament epistles
overflow with hope that in Christ all things will one day be reconciled and
made new, with God wiping away every tear. Believers participate in this
present and eschatological victory by persevering in faith through difficulties,
as exhorted by numerous New Testament passages.
The paradise lost in Genesis is envisioned as paradise regained in Revelation,
with God making all things right and free of pain, suffering and injustice.
Ultimate answers to the problem may elude human understanding in the
present, but biblical hope anchors believers waiting for God to set all things
right and for justice to fully triumph at the end of the age. A proper
understanding of God emerging from Scriptures resists reducing him to a
mere philosophical category while embracing the God who bore costly love
and mercy in Christ in the midst of profound mystery of evil’s existence.
God’s goodness and power are upheld not by logical arguments but by these
acts of salvific love culminating in the resurrection of Jesus Christ. That is the
final answer and sure hope anchored in living God of the Bible.
Objections and Response:
While the above perspectives attempt to offer careful biblical responses to
the problem of evil, some objections still require thoughtful engagement:
Objection 1: If God is omnipotent, he could simply eliminate evil without
compromising human freedom. Creating a world with no suffering and
temptation would not deprive humans of morally significant choices between
relative goods.
Response: This assumes an oversimplistic conception of omnipotence that is
not consistent with biblical portrayal of God always acting in harmony with
his other attributes like righteousness and love. Eliminating possibility of real
moral/spiritual dangers could undermine human dignity, maturity and
relationship with God who does not treat us as mere automatons. Some level
of danger and risk may be inevitable for meaningful freedom. Complete
prevention of evil is also not clearly logically possible without removal of
freedom altogether, which God did not want to do.
Objection 2: Why did God not make humans capable of free will yet with
greater natural resistance to sin and temptation like unfallen angels
apparently have in Bible?
Response: The Bible does not give full details on angelic nature or their exact
pre-fall state. Humans were evidently made different, with God fashioning us
from dust, breathed life as living beings and crowned with dignity above rest
of creation. Our first parents failed in paradise, but we are also promised
glory beyond angels through redemption in Christ. Overall picture shows God
choosing to let human history play out in a complex yet redemptive manner
rather than rendering sin/failure logically impossible.
Objection 3: Scripture also speaks of natural evils/calamities unrelated to
human free will. How do these fit with arguments that portray suffering as
only resulting from freewill and/or morally/spiritually beneficial?
Response: Neither defense claims evil only arises from human free agency or
that it is exclusively positive. Rather, God in his wisdom often brings
redemption even out of tragic natural events and uses righteous individuals
strengthened through suffering as witnesses. Overall biblical framework
upholds the reality of evil exceeding our understanding of its purposes while
still asserting God’s goodness triumphant in Christ. Mystery remains, but
final hope is assured through promises of New Creation.
Objection 4: What about immense horrors like Auschwitz and genocides? Do
these have any meaningful purpose that outweighs the unfathomable
suffering involved?
Response: Valid questions are raised here exceeding any rational
explanations. At the same time, Bible depicts God’s heartbreaking anguish
over evil (Genesis 6) and deep anger at oppression throughout prophetic
literature. In Christ’s incarnation, death and conquest of death, God showed
solidarity with all victims of such atrocities and overcame ultimate depths of
evil. Ultimately biblical hope anticipates coming Judgment and justice of God
making all things right. This does not satisfy intellect but provides solace to
brokenhearted awaiting God’s promises coming to fruition beyond theodicies
and dystheism.
Conclusion:
In conclusion, while the problem of evil and suffering poses profound
intellectual challenges, the biblical framework offers theodicies and
perspectives grounded in progressive revelation which provide some
reasonable yet imperfect responses without compromising divine attributes
or reducing mystery involved in God’s sovereignty. No single argument can
adequately solve this deep dilemma which involves complex notions of free
will, providence, sin, natural order and God’s ultimate purposes spanning
history and eternity. However, a God who identifies with humanity in
suffering love revealed through incarnation, atonement and resurrection of
Jesus Christ anchors believers in sure yet often incomprehensible hope that
justice, redemption and new creation even of this broken world await in
God’s perfect timing. Ultimately, redemption triumphs over all shadows
through trusting relationship with the God of biblical promise in spite of
unanswered puzzles. The promises that evil, suffering and death will not
have the final say provide solace, even if intellect is not fully satisfied.
