Approaching the Problem of Evil as We Should—Biblically and Theologically

I. Introduction

For many, the Christian commitment to a view of God as omnipotent yet omnibenevolent means that we must live with the problem of evil as the proverbial ‘thorn in the side’ of Christianity. Why is that? Because Christians are committed to what the Bible says about God. Scripture declares that the Lord does ‘whatever he pleases’ (Ps. 135:6).[1] Psalm 33 speaks of God’s great power, glory, justice, and goodness as the Creator, having brought creation into existence by speaking. The everlasting God ‘never becomes faint or weary; there is no limit to his understanding’ (Isa. 40:28). He does not merely observe the flow of history, rather, he has written the flow of history, in that he declares ‘the end from the beginning, and from long ago what is not yet done, saying: my plan will take place, and I will do all my will’ (Isa. 46:10). Reading such passages should cause us, as we are commanded, to ‘stand in awe of him’ (Ps. 33:8).

But in reading such passages about God, the lingering sting of evil persists. Because if God is as Scripture says he is, why, if he has such power, does he allow evil to exist? While Christian theologians have offered treatments or explanations in an effort to justify what seems to be a paradox, those who are committed to the Bible as the authoritative Word of God must rest with the ‘tension’ (i.e., mystery), the problem of evil creates. However, for some, an appeal to mystery is not a satisfying conclusion.[2] Modern objections to God’s love and power as described in the Bible is because the objectors insist that if God’s nature is truly love and he has all power, then he would at once eradicate all the evil in the world.[3] The problem with this argument is that it assumes we know how God should deal with evil. Yet because humans are part of a universe that has been tainted by evil, we are not in the proper position to construct theodicies. We lack the mind of God; therefore, we are unable to answer for him. However, what we can do is take note that God works through evil, as demonstrated by the sufferings of Christ. He did not question why God has permitted evil; but rather, he submit his will to God because he knew that to do contrary is evil, as Adam and Eve discovered.

II. Scope of the essay

This essay will not follow other contemporary philosophers of religion, such as John Hick, Alvin Plantinga, and Richard Swinburne.[4] The problem with philosophical approaches, as Karen Kilby points out, is that they isolate and treat evil independently. We must not think of the problem of evil as a stand-alone subject, detached from its theological context.[5] Rather, as I will argue, if we follow a biblical-theological approach, regardless of any philosophical antimonies or paradoxes, we will better position ourselves to see evil in context, where God has included it as a story-board through which he achieves his redemptive purposes. And in doing so, a theme emerges that traces out a path that leads to glory through evil.

What follows is a theologically-centered road map, showing that God works in and through evil, which I will be careful to define. This approach does not discount or dismiss such passages that express God’s sovereign power or his love; rather, I hope, it will lead the believer, in good conscience, to affirm that while evil exists in the world, when Scripture says God ‘does whatever he pleases’ (Ps. 135:6), evil is included in his pleasing purposes in a manner that does not conflict or contradict with his power, goodness, and love. On this road map, God’s almighty manifestation of his glory, the only visible archetype of divine action and power on earth, culminates at the location of the Easter event, where the cross marks the spot.

Click here to download the full article.

[1] Unless otherwise noted, all Scripture citations will be taken from the Christian Standard Bible. Nashville, Tenn.: Holman Bible Publishers, 2017.

[2] For example, Thomas Jay Oord, God Can’t! How to Believe in God and Love after Tragedy, Abuse, or Other Suffering (SacraSage Press, 2019). For a recent work offering various theodical accounts see Chad Meister and James K. Dew Jr, eds., God and the Problem of Evil: Five Views (Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP Academic, 2017).

[3] This stems from the argument of dilemma regarding the problem of evil as articulated by David Hume in Part X of Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion: ‘Is he willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then is he impotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Whence then is evil?’, in David Hume, Writings on Religion, ed. by Antony Flew (La Salle, Ill.: Open Court, 1999), 261.

[4] For an exposition and engagement of their positions, see John S. Feinberg, The Many Faces of Evil: Theological Systems and the Problems of Evil, 3rd ed. (Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway Books, 2004).

[5] Karen Kilby, ‘Evil and the Limits of Theology’, New Blackfriars, 84.983 (2003), 13–29, (p.5). The article I am referencing from is a reproduction of the original publication; page numbers will differ from original citation.

Comments

Gregory of Nyssa: Trinity–Not Tri-deity

Gregory, a bishop of Nyssa in 371, was part of the Cappadocian trio, and was instrumental in the development of Trinitarian orthodoxy. His theological prowess proved vital in response to the Arian and Sabellian heresies. Key to Gregory’s theology we find “an emergence of a pro-Nicene ‘grammar’ of divinity through his developed account of divine power,” [1] conceived through a nature-power-activity formulation revealed in the created order and articulated in Scripture. Understanding the Triune God in this manner afforded a conception of the Trinity that was logical and thoroughly biblical. And this letter is paradigmatic on Gregory’s account of the divine nature. (* This article was later published with Credo Magazine, titled, “ The Grammar of Divinity (On Theology). ” See link below) To Ablabius, though short, is a polemical address whereby Gregory lays out a complex argument in response to the claim that three Divine Persons equal three gods. Basically put, Ablabius (his opponent,

St. John Chrysostom — for God is simple

Below is part of the introductory section to my exposition of John Chrysostom’s doctrine of God. I posted it because I thought it was fascinating to find such an important theologian known for avoiding (even having a disdain of) speculative theology refer to the classical doctrine of divine simplicity as common place in his thoroughly biblical doctrine of God. Toward the end I include a link to my full exposition. John Chrysostom (ca. 347–407) was the archbishop of Constantinople. Being the most prolific of all the Eastern fathers, he fought against the ecclesiastical and political leaders for their abuse of authority. He was called Chrysostom (meaning “golden-mouthed”) for his eloquent sermons. [1] This most distinguished of Greek patristic preachers excelled in spiritual and moral application in the Antiochene tradition of literal exegesis, largely disinterested, even untutored in speculative and controversial theology. [2] On the Incomprehensible Nature of G

John 17:3 – Eternal Life is Knowing God and Christ–the One, True God

John 17:1–5. “ Jesus spoke these things, looked up to heaven, and said, “Father, the hour has come. Glorify your Son so that the Son may glorify you, since you gave him authority over all people, so that he may give eternal life to everyone you have given him. This is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and the one you have sent—Jesus Christ. I have glorified you on the earth by completing the work you gave me to do. Now, Father, glorify me in your presence with that glory I had with you before the world existed .”

A Brief Exposition of Augustine's Doctrine of Divine Immutability

To much of the Western world, Augustine has no rival. He is the preeminent—uninspired—theologian of the Christian faith. When reading the titans of the church—i.e., Aquinas, Luther, and Calvin—Augustine’s theology and ideas are voluminously parroted all throughout their writings. His influence is unparalleled. Even the secular world sees Augustine as a mammoth figure in the shaping of human history. And its Augustine’s doctrine of God we will divert our attention to, looking specifically at his articulation of divine immutability Augustine’s doctrine of God is classical, through and through. He writes, “There is One invisible, from whom, as the Creator and First Cause, all things seen by us derive their being: He is supreme, eternal, unchangeable, and comprehensible by none save Himself alone” ( Ep . 232.5).[1] When reading his works, the doctrine of immutability is paramount, coming forth repeatedly. For Augustine, immutability, or God’s unchangeableness, is consequential

Gregory of Nazianzus: The Trinity - Not a Collection of Elements

Gregory of Nazianzus One of the Cappadocian fathers, Gregory of Nazianzus (c.330–389), given the title, “The Theologian,” was instrumental in the development of the doctrine of the Trinity, specifically the distinct terms to describe the Persons of the Godhead (Unbegotten, eternally begotten, and procession). Gregory’s main contribution to the development of Christology was in his opposition to Apollinarius. He argued that when Adam fell, all of humanity fell in him; therefore, that fallen nature must be fully united to the Son—body, soul, and mind; ‘for the unassumed is the unhealed’. Gregory’s Doctrine of the Trinity His clearest statement on the Trinity is found in his Oration 25.15–18. Oration 25 is part of a series of sermons delivered in 380. As a gesture of gratitude, Gregory dedicates Oration 25 to Christian philosopher Maximus the Cynic, as a sort of ‘charge’ for him to push forward and remain strong in the orthodox teachings of the faith. And these sections are that or

First Timothy 2:12 - On Women in the Pastorate - A Critical Response to Nijay Gupta

Does 1 Timothy 2:12 prohibit women from leading and preaching over men in the church? I recently posted an article examining an approach to this question, specifically evaluating interpretive consistency. In the article, I looked at two passages that appealed to the Old Testament to support the claim being made in the text. The point of the blog post was to shed light on an inconsistency of interpretation by looking at one common argument from the Bible in favor of women in the pastorate and another biblical argument supporting the view of monogamous marriage, between one man and one woman. My general observation is that many Christians who advance this particular argument, allowing for women in the pastorate, also affirm the particular argument for the biblical view of marriage. They both have the same methodological starting point; however, both arrive at their conclusions in completely different ways, demonstrating interpretive inconsistency, which I conclude ste

Ambrose: A Nicene Defense of Jesus Not Knowing the Day or the Hour ~ Mark 13:32

Ambrose (c. 339–397), was Bishop of Milan (northern Italy). His name is familiar to many because of Augustine, in that it was through Ambrose’s preaching that Augustine was saved by the gospel. Ambrose was a rigorous exponent of Nicene orthodoxy, and as with his other contemporaries, he was an ardent opponent against Arianism. His works, therefore, were aimed at refuting Arian heresy, paying special attention to the exposition and defense of the divinity of Christ and the Trinity. In his most prominent work, The Exposition of the Christian Faith (abbr. De fide ), Ambrose makes a lucid, scripturally saturated articulation of the Christian faith couched in Nicene orthodoxy. De fide is devoted to proving the full divinity of Christ, co-equal in substance, wisdom, power, and glory as God the Father, derived through elucidating the plain sense of the text. Ambrose’s aim is polemical and apologetic, addressing and refuting objections from the Arians. This post will ex

Isaiah 45:7 - “ . . . I make peace, and create evil.” — Does God create evil?

My daughter watched a video this morning where a deconstructionist, an ex vangelical, was attempting to profane the goodness of God, by pointing out that Isaiah 45:7 says God creates evil. She was referring to the KJV version of this passage which says, “I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.” So, what do we do with that? Below is a brief response. Proper biblical interpretation considers context when seeking the meaning of a passage. Furthermore, when it comes to difficult or obscure passages, a helpful rule of interpretation is to look to the plainer passages of the Bible and draw examples from them to shed light on the more obscure passages ( thanks Augustine ). We let Scripture interpret Scripture. The point is to remove all hesitation on doubtful passages. So, in this passage, on the face it seems to imply that God creates evil, thus making God evil. But is that what the Bible teaches about God? The plainer passages te

Boethius: The Logic of Unity and Plurality in One God

In the “Introduction” to a standard English translation of Boethius’ Theological Tractates and the Consolation of Philosophy , it is stated that “Boethius was the last of the Roman philosophers, and the first of the scholastic theologians” (X). Philosophy is aimed at explaining the nature of the world ( the natural ). Theology’s aim is to understand and explain doctrines delivered by divine revelation ( the supernatural ). Boethius was the seminal figure in preparing the way for the synthesis of these two disciplines, with philosophy serving the task of theology (i.e., the handmaiden to the King of sciences) .

Piper vs. Calvin: The Role of Good Works in Salvation

In his book Future Grace , John Piper writes, “Faith alone is the instrument that unites us to Christ who is our righteousness and the ground of our justification. But the purity of life that confirms faith’s reality is also essential for final salvation , not as the ground of our right standing, but as the fruit and evidence that we are vitally united by faith to Christ who alone is the ground of our acceptance with God.” [1] His purpose in writing that statement is to “explode the great error that says . . . [y]ou get your justification by faith, and you get your sanctification by works. You start the Christian life in the power of the Spirit, you press on in the efforts of the flesh.” [2] The emphasized portion above (and other such statements) has raised critical concerns over Piper’s Reformed theology in that his words seem to veer away from orthodox Reformed teaching. These critics contend Piper teaches a two-stage justification where one is “ initially justified by grace alon

Read. Reflect. Write.

Search This Blog