Responding to "The Problem of Evil"

[Clete]

First and foremost, Christians should not begin by accepting the atheist’s framing of the so-called problem of evil. Before answering the challenge, the atheist should be pressed to define evil in the first place. If there is no God, then there is no objective standard of right and wrong. Morality becomes just a matter of personal opinion, or worse, the arbitrary result of mindless chemical processes. But, if evil is real, if it truly exists and not just as a feeling or social construct, then it requires a moral standard. The atheist must borrow from the Christian worldview just to object to it and thus defeats himself by voicing the objection. In truth, it is not the Christian who has a "problem of evil". It is the atheist because they cannot define it, justify it, or explain its existence in a godless universe. So, the problem of evil, rather than challenging the existence of God, it exposes the weakness of atheism.

The typical atheist argument goes like this: If God is all-good and all-powerful, why does He allow evil? They present it as a contradiction, but their premises are wrong. They assume that power means control of everything at all times. They also assume that goodness means eliminating all pain and suffering, and they assume that God is obligated to act according to their own preferences and timetables. But the God of the Bible is not a puppeteer or a micromanager. He is a personal, relational, rational being who made us in His image, with reason, choice, and moral responsibility.

God could have created a world with no evil, but it would also be a world with no freedom, no love, no virtue, and no meaningful relationships. Love is only possible if it is chosen. Obedience only matters if rebellion is an actual option. Courage, sacrifice, redemption, and joy all require a context where pain and evil are possible. A world without the possibility of evil would be safe but sterile, orderly but lifeless. Instead, God chose to create a world where people could freely grow into greatness or fall into destruction. That choice is essential to the kind of beings we were made to be.

God does not cause evil, but He permits it for a time because He values the greater goods that come from a world with moral freedom. Evil is not a thing in itself. It is the absence or corruption of good, just as darkness is the absence of light. It is a parasite, not a product. It is what happens when created beings misuse the good faculties God has given them. And God, in His wisdom and patience, allows this brokenness temporarily so that redemption, restoration, and genuine love can emerge. The existence of evil is not an innate or necessary aspect of our existence nor is it a permanent one.

The clearest evidence that God has not abandoned us to evil is the cross. God Himself entered our world, endured suffering, and bore the weight of sin and death—not to excuse evil, but to overcome it. The execution of the innocent Son of God became the foundation of redemption for the entire world. This was not weakness. This was victory. Love proved stronger than evil, and life triumphed over death. Christ's suffering was not a failure in God's plan. It was the plan.

So evil exists because bad choices were made. Choice exists because love exists and love exists because God made us like Himself. That is not a flaw in the system, it's the very heart of it. The story ends not in chaos but in justice. Evil is not eternal, God is! He will not merely destroy evil, He will defeat it in the eyes of all creation; not by force, but by reason; not by programming minds, but by persuading hearts; not by overriding freedom, but by winning over sons and daughters who freely choose life.

Ironically, this answer to the problem of evil does not fit within the mouths of many Christians. It cannot be spoken from a pulpit that teaches that God decreed every event from eternity past. It cannot be taught by those who believe that God ordained evil for His own mysterious glory. Augustine would have choked on it and so would any of his doctrinal progeny (Catholicism, Calvinism, et al). The idea that God genuinely values human freedom, that He takes relational risks, and that He permits evil without causing it, is anathema to deterministic systems, which is why it is such a favored weapon for the atheists. But the God revealed in Scripture is a God who reasons, pleads, warns, grieves, relents, repents and even weeps. A God who does not fear the temporary presence of evil because He knows it will be overcome and that it will be He who overcomes it. Not by the application of mere brute force, but by the triumph of all the things that define His character and bring Him glory; truth and reason, righteousness and justice, relationship and love.

 

[Nick M]

The clearest evidence that God has not abandoned us to evil is the cross. God Himself entered our world, endured suffering, and bore the weight of sin and death—not to excuse evil, but to overcome it. The execution of the innocent Son of God became the foundation of redemption for the entire world. This was not weakness. This was victory. Love proved stronger than evil, and life triumphed over death. Christ's suffering was not a failure in God's plan. It was the plan.

Beautiful. It is as if Saul of Tarsus wrote it.

 

[Clete]

Beautiful. It is as if Saul of Tarsus wrote it.

Wow! I don't deserve that, but thank you!

Remember that list of 100 books I posted a few weeks ago? The first two books were by C. S. Lewis. I simply love the way that man said things and it inspired me to put a lot more effort into paying attention to how I say things rather than just stating it. I'll never reach the level of eloquence that seems to have just flowed naturally from C. S. Lewis but just the little bit of effort I've put into it really adds a lot of punch! Its' fun!!!

 

[Halster]

This reminds me of something C.S. Lewis touched on, that the greater story is not just about the defeat of evil, but the transformation of suffering into something redemptive. It’s not just that God tolerates pain for some vague greater good, but that He actively works through it to bring about a kind of beauty that could exist no other way.

That doesn’t make suffering less painful in the moment, but it gives it dignity and hope, especially when viewed through the cross

 

[Clete]

This reminds me of something C.S. Lewis touched on, that the greater story is not just about the defeat of evil, but the transformation of suffering into something redemptive. It’s not just that God tolerates pain for some vague greater good, but that He actively works through it to bring about a kind of beauty that could exist no other way.

That doesn’t make suffering less painful in the moment, but it gives it dignity and hope, especially when viewed through the cross

Yes! In "The Problem with Pain" I think, yes? I've heard a lot about that book but haven't fully read it yet, but I intend to do so soon.

Lewis is exactly right to highlight that God's answer to suffering is not merely endurance, but transformation. The cross is the ultimate example. It isn't merely the enduring of suffering, but its defeat and redemption.

That said, it is, unfortunately, necessary to distinguish between God working through evil vs. God causing it. God's glory may emerge despite evil, but not because God intended it from the start. It’s one thing to say God redeems suffering but it’s quite another to claim He preordained every tragedy as part of some divine plan. The former exalts His grace and wisdom, the latter compromises His righteousness.

God’s glory isn’t found in orchestrating evil, but in overcoming it without needing to be in meticulous control of everything and without compromising justice.

That is a point that ought not need to be said, but that isn't the world we live in.

 

[Bladerunner]

Yes! In "The Problem with Pain" I think, yes? I've heard a lot about that book but haven't fully read it yet, but I intend to do so soon.

Lewis is exactly right to highlight that God's answer to suffering is not merely endurance, but transformation. The cross is the ultimate example. It isn't merely the enduring of suffering, but its defeat and redemption.

That said, it is, unfortunately, necessary to distinguish between God working through evil vs. God causing it. God's glory may emerge despite evil, but not because God intended it from the start. It’s one thing to say God redeems suffering but it’s quite another to claim He preordained every tragedy as part of some divine plan. The former exalts His grace and wisdom, the latter compromises His righteousness.

God’s glory isn’t found in orchestrating evil, but in overcoming it without needing to be in meticulous control of everything and without compromising justice.

That is a point that ought not need to be said, but that isn't the world we live in.

it is not good for a person's eternal destination to question God's righteousness "the latter compromises His righteousness." To what extent does His wisdom compromise His righteousness?

 

[Clete]

it is not good for a person's eternal destination to question God's righteousness "the latter compromises His righteousness." To what extent does His wisdom compromise His righteousness?

The question makes no sense. Wisdom is righteousness. You must have misread my point.

The "former" and "later" refer to what is said in the previous sentence...

"It’s one thing to say God redeems suffering but it’s quite another to claim He preordained every tragedy as part of some divine plan."​

Saying that God redeems suffering being the "former" because it was mentioned first and saying that God preordained every tragedy as part of some divine plan being the "later".

The "later" there being typical Augustinian (a.k.a. Catholic and/or Calvinist) doctrine making it such a common belief in Christian circles that one is all but compelled to make the distinction my post was intended to make.

God is glorified by His overcoming of evil precisely because He did NOT preordain it. Had He preordained it then He would be the opposite of wise, the opposite of righteous - the opposite of glorified. He would have won a rigged game and then commanded His followers to worship Him for it. It's a monstrous doctrine that I can't understand why anyone would buy for ten seconds.

 

[Derf]

it is not good for a person's eternal destination to question God's righteousness "the latter compromises His righteousness." To what extent does His wisdom compromise His righteousness?

Abraham, who was called the friend of God, questioned His righteousness.
James 2:23 KJV — And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.

Genesis 18:25 KJV — That be far from thee to do after this manner, to slay the righteous with the wicked: and that the righteous should be as the wicked, that be far from thee: Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?

 

[Bladerunner]

Abraham, who was called the friend of God, questioned His righteousness.

where was the scripture that Abraham questioned God's righteousness.

James 2:23 KJV — And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.

Genesis 18:25 KJV — That be far from thee to do after this manner, to slay the righteous with the wicked: and that the righteous should be as the wicked, that be far from thee: Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?

This the righteousness of man if any, not the righteousness of GOD, who wrote the book on righteousness.

 

[Derf]

where was the scripture that Abraham questioned God's righteousness.

You didn't really ask me and then respond to where I quoted it, did you? Hmmm, yes you did.

This the righteousness of man if any, not the righteousness of GOD, who wrote the book on righteousness.

Isnt that the only way we can question the righteousness of anyone? My point isn't whether Abraham was correct in what he did, but merely to show that he did exactly what you said nobody does in the bible. Please don't let that slide off your mind as unimportant. When you say something doesn't occur in the bible, then someone shows you where it occurs in the bible, you should at least meditate on it a bit before responding.

 

[Bladerunner]

You didn't really ask me and then respond to where I quoted it, did you? Hmmm, yes you did.

Isnt that the only way we can question the righteousness of anyone? My point isn't whether Abraham was correct in what he did, but merely to show that he did exactly what you said nobody does in the bible. Please don't let that slide off your mind as unimportant. When you say something doesn't occur in the bible, then someone shows you where it occurs in the bible, you should at least meditate on it a bit before responding.

I went back over those two scriptures you provided and I still did not see the same as you..Yes, to question the righteousness of man is one thing, but to question the righteouness of GOD is totally different. I take everything you say, well almost everything as something that indeed takes a measure of meditation to understand your point of view. Do not think I lightly set your words aside.

 

[Clete]

I went back over those two scriptures you provided and I still did not see the same as you..Yes, to question the righteousness of man is one thing, but to question the righteouness of GOD is totally different. I take everything you say, well almost everything as something that indeed takes a measure of meditation to understand your point of view. Do not think I lightly set your words aside.

You understand that I was not questioning the righteousness of God. On the contrary, God's righteousness was the premise of my argument. If God is righteous, which He is, then the doctrine that teaches that "He preordained every tragedy as part of some divine plan" is false.

Get it?

 

[Derf]

You understand that I was not questioning the righteousness of God. On the contrary, God's righteousness was the premise of my argument. If God is righteous, which He is, then the doctrine that teaches that "He preordained every tragedy as part of some divine plan" is false.

Get it?

I'm not sure that particular premise is false, but if you include "preordained every sin" it would be.

 

[Derf]

I went back over those two scriptures you provided and I still did not see the same as you..Yes, to question the righteousness of man is one thing, but to question the righteouness of GOD is totally different. I take everything you say, well almost everything as something that indeed takes a measure of meditation to understand your point of view. Do not think I lightly set your words aside.

Why do you think Abraham was questioning the righteousness of man in that scripture? Here is the scripture again. Abraham is speaking to God:
[Gen 18:25 KJV] That be far from thee to do after this manner, to slay the righteous with the wicked: and that the righteous should be as the wicked, that be far from thee: Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?

Here's the New Living Translation (gives the sense of the passage, though it might not always be as accurate) of the same:
[Gen 18:25 NLT] Surely you wouldn't do such a thing, destroying the righteous along with the wicked. Why, you would be treating the righteous and the wicked exactly the same! Surely you wouldn't do that! Should not the Judge of all the earth do what is right?"
After God told Abraham what he was going to do, Abraham pushed back by saying "Surely you wouldn't do that!" And his reasoning is that it is not "right" for God to do that. Abraham is questioning God's actions by saying they aren't "right". That's exactly what "questioning God's righteousness" would entail, if you or I were to do it. And Abraham did it. And it is recorded in the bible for us.

Let's go back to your original statement:

it is not good for a person's eternal destination to question God's righteousness

Abraham's eternal destination was not affected by questioning God's righteousness in that way. Rather, as far as we can tell, such questioning might have been very good for other people's eternal destination (Lot's, or his two daughter's), because it seems to have resulted in God saving them from destruction with the city.

 

[Clete]

I'm not sure that particular premise is false, but if you include "preordained every sin" it would be.

Even the suggestion that it might not be false is blasphemy, Derf! God does not preordain every tragedy as part of some divine plan.

What would ever cause you to question such a thing?

Jeremiah 19:5 They have also built the high places of Baal, to burn their sons with fire for burnt offerings to Baal, which I did not command or speak, nor did it come into My mind.​

​

Isaiah 30:1 Woe to the rebellious children,” says the Lord, “Who take counsel, but not of Me, and who devise plans, but not of My Spirit, that they may add sin to sin.​

​

Ezekiel 18:23 Do I have any pleasure at all that the wicked should die?” says the Lord God, “and not that he should turn from his ways and live?​

 

[Derf]

Even the suggestion that it might not be false is blasphemy, Derf! God does not preordain every tragedy as part of some divine plan.

What would ever cause you to question such a thing?

Jeremiah 19:5 They have also built the high places of Baal, to burn their sons with fire for burnt offerings to Baal, which I did not command or speak, nor did it come into My mind.​

​

Isaiah 30:1 Woe to the rebellious children,” says the Lord, “Who take counsel, but not of Me, and who devise plans, but not of My Spirit, that they may add sin to sin.​

​

Ezekiel 18:23 Do I have any pleasure at all that the wicked should die?” says the Lord God, “and not that he should turn from his ways and live?​

You just proved my point, It's because He doesn't preordain wickedness that He doesn't preordain every tragedy. If wickedness didn't exist, that wouldn't necessarily negate the potential benefit of tragedy in strengthening and molding God;s people. Look at Job, for instance. Tragedy wasn't due to his wickedness, and God, in a sense, preordained it when He gave permission to Satan,

 

[Clete]

You just proved my point, It's because He doesn't preordain wickedness that He doesn't preordain every tragedy.

How is that your point and how would I have proven it?

You just said that you weren't even sure that the premise which states that He doesn't preordain every tragedy is true!

If wickedness didn't exist, that wouldn't necessarily negate the potential benefit of tragedy in strengthening and molding God's people. Look at Job, for instance. Tragedy wasn't due to his wickedness, and God, in a sense, preordained it when He gave permission to Satan,

Derf, this has more than a toe or two over the line into blasphemy! I can't even believe you wrote that!

You are attributing to God the actions of Satan! What was done to Job was evil - period. Job's wickedness wasn't the cause, but Satan's was!

By this logic, maybe the occasional tragedy will occur in heaven! Maybe if Adam and Eve had never sinned, one of their children might’ve still died in childbirth! That’s completely absurd. There’s no death or tragedy apart from sin.