Please Help Us Keep These Thousands of Blog Posts Growing and Free for All

$5.00

Edward D. Andrews’ Response to the Problem of Evil and Suffering

**EDWARD D. ANDREWS** (AS in Criminal Justice, BS in Religion, MA in Biblical Studies, and MDiv in Theology) is CEO and President of Christian Publishing House. He has authored over 200+ books. In addition, Andrews is the Chief Translator of the Updated American Standard Version (UASV).

Genesis 3:24 Updated American Standard Version (UASV)
²⁴ So he drove the man out, and at the east of the garden of Eden he placed the cherubim and a flaming sword that turned every way to guard the way to the tree of life.

“God has morally sufficient reasons for permitting the evil and suffering in the world.” – William Lane Craig

That morally sufficient reason lies below.

Bart D. Ehrman, a former Bible scholar and now an Agnostic, has raised a significant issue that challenges the existence of an all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good God in light of the pain and suffering in the world. He finds it difficult to explain why there is so much evil, cruelty, war, disease, natural disasters, and the starvation of millions of innocent children if there is a good and loving God who is actively involved in the world.

However, the issue that Ehrman raises is based on a flawed assumption. He starts with the premise that if God is a God of love and has the power to fix anything, then why is there pain and suffering in the world? He also likely assumes that God is directly responsible for everything that happens. These assumptions lead to a narrow and incomplete understanding of the problem of evil and suffering.

God’s perspective is different from ours, as he sees the big picture and has seen everything that has happened over the past 6,000 years in great detail. He is aware of the outcome of different scenarios, and he allows evil and suffering for the greater good. Furthermore, God is indirectly responsible for everything that happens in the world, just as parents are indirectly responsible for the actions of their children.

Many religious leaders have contributed to the belief that God does not care about us by making comments that blame God for bad things that happen. However, the Bible teaches that God cannot be tempted with evil and that he himself tempts no one. God never directly causes what is bad, and he is not responsible for the evil that humans bring upon themselves.

The history of humanity has been plagued by pain and suffering, and many have struggled to understand why a loving God would allow it to happen. To answer this question, we must go back to the first sin committed by Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. This event marks the beginning of the problem of evil and suffering in the world.

But first, in summary, the problem of evil and suffering is a complex issue that requires a deeper understanding of God’s perspective and his plan for humanity. By starting with the right assumptions and looking to the Bible, we can gain a better understanding of why God allows evil and suffering in the world and find comfort in his presence and hope in his promises.

The passage from Genesis 2:17 and 3:1-5 tells the account of the temptation of Eve by Satan in the form of a serpent. God had warned Adam and Eve not to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, but Satan contradicted God’s statement and told Eve that she would not die if she ate from the tree. Instead, Satan said that she would become like God and have the power to decide what is good and evil. Satan’s statements challenged God’s right to rule and suggested that people would only obey God if it was to their benefit.

In Job 1:6-11 and 2:4-5, Satan challenged God’s way of ruling by suggesting that Job only feared God because of the blessings God had given him. Satan suggested that if those blessings were taken away, Job would curse God. This reference to “a man” suggests that all people will only obey God when things are good, but when difficulties arise, they will not obey.

God chose to deal with these issues by allowing time to pass and allowing the issues to be resolved. The fact that God has allowed evil, pain, and suffering has shown that independence from God has not brought about a better world and has proven that only God has the capability and the right to rule over humankind for their eternal blessing and happiness. Satan’s impact on the earth has brought conflict, evil, and death, and his rulership has been by deception, power, and self-interest, making him an unfit ruler. God has tolerated evil until now in order to resolve all the issues raised by Satan, but he will not allow this evil to remain forever and has set a fixed time when he will end this wicked age of Satan’s rule.

As Christians, we must not love the world or anything in it, but instead, we must set our pride aside and do the will of God. Not everyone who calls themselves a Christian will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only those who do the will of the Father in heaven. We must not love the world or anything in it, and instead, we must keep from becoming infected by the corruption of an unrighteous society. If we have the views of those who oppose God, the love of the Father will not be in us.

The question of whether Satan was punished is a complex one with deep roots in religious belief and interpretation. At its core, the question deals with the concept of free will and the relationship between God and his creations, both angels and humans.

In the biblical account of the Garden of Eden, Satan raised questions about God’s sovereignty and the nature of human and angelic free will. He suggested that humans and angels did not need their creator and were better off without God. This raised concerns about whether God was lying and withholding information and cast doubt on the morality of the Creator.

In response to these questions and the rebellion of Satan, God chose to teach both angels and humans an object lesson. He allowed them to exercise their relative freedom, but not absolute freedom, and gave them an internal conscience to help guide their moral choices. This object lesson was meant to show that creatures are not designed to walk on their own and that they are better off under the umbrella of God’s sovereignty.

Over the course of several thousand years, humanity has been learning this lesson through a process of trial and error. It is believed that the lesson will be fully learned once humanity reaches the point of self-destruction and God steps in to save them. At this point, the object lesson will be considered fully learned and no arguments can be raised.

Before going on, in summary, the punishment of Satan is a central aspect of the religious belief system that seeks to understand the relationship between God and his creations. Through the object lesson of free will, God is teaching his creations the importance of relying on him and recognizing the limitations of their own abilities.

The question of why Satan was not expelled from heaven immediately raises the issue of God’s fairness and the role of free will. If God had expelled Satan right away, the other angels who witnessed the events in heaven might have questioned God’s justice or even doubted His existence. It is important to understand that both humans and angels were created with free will, meaning they have the ability to make choices and decisions on their own. This free will also means that they are able to make mistakes and learn from the consequences of their actions.

In the case of Satan, he raised questions about God’s sovereignty and challenged His authority. This led to a rebellion in Heaven and caused division among the angels. Instead of expelling Satan right away, God allowed him to stay in his realm, giving other angels the opportunity to learn from the consequences of Satan’s actions.

According to the Bible, Satan will be expelled from Heaven shortly before the end of his rule on Earth. Revelation 12:9-12 states that Satan will be thrown to the Earth when “he knows that his time is short.” This means that he will be expelled from Heaven before the Great Tribulation and Christ’s return. When Jesus returns, Satan will be thrown into a maximum-security prison for a thousand years, during which time Jesus will restore what Satan had corrupted. After the thousand years, Satan will be released for a short time to tempt perfect humans, and unfortunately, some will fall away. In the end, Satan and those humans will be destroyed, and Jesus will hand the kingdom back over to the Father.

God allowed Satan to stay in his realm and learn from the consequences of his actions, rather than expelling him immediately, to preserve the fairness and justice of His rule and to demonstrate the importance of free will in the grand scheme of things.

God allows evil to exist in the world to teach people an object lesson and to ultimately bring them closer to God. According to this argument from Andrews, God wants humans to understand that they cannot walk on their own and that they are better off under the umbrella of God’s sovereignty. By allowing evil to exist, God is allowing humans to learn from their mistakes and make better choices in the future. This approach emphasizes the importance of free will and the idea that humans must learn from their experiences, even if those experiences are painful. Eventually, God will step in and stop the object lesson when humanity has learned the full lesson. The ultimate goal is for humans to understand their dependence on God and to live in a state of peace and security under God’s rule.

The Problem of Evil and Suffering

I. Introduction

The late Ronald Nash was a Christian philosopher and apologetics who wrote extensively on the Problem of Evil and Suffering. According to Nash, the Problem of Evil and Suffering is a significant challenge to the existence of an all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good God. Nash argued that the problem can be resolved by understanding the nature of God and his relationship to the world.

Nash emphasized that God’s sovereignty and power are not threatened by evil and suffering but rather are demonstrated by his ability to bring good out of evil circumstances. Nash also argued that the existence of evil and suffering is a result of human free will and that God allows evil and suffering to exist in order to bring about a greater good.

Nash further argued that the existence of evil and suffering can be seen as a result of the Fall, the biblical account of humanity’s rebellion against God. Nash believed that the Fall resulted in a broken world in which evil and suffering exist but that God is ultimately in control and will ultimately bring an end to evil and suffering.

In Nash’s view, the Problem of Evil and Suffering can be resolved through a deeper understanding of God’s nature and his relationship to the world, as well as an appreciation for the role that human free will and the Fall play in the existence of evil and suffering. Nash’s perspective on the Problem of Evil and Suffering offers a unique and insightful contribution to Christian apologetics and provides a framework for understanding and engaging with this difficult issue.

Ronald Nash, William Lane Craig, and Norman L. Geisler are all prominent Christian apologists who have written on the issue of the Problem of Evil and Suffering. While they all come from a similar theological perspective and share many of the same views, they do not necessarily agree on every aspect of the issue.

For example, William Lane Craig is known for his defense of the “free will defense,” which argues that the existence of evil and suffering is a result of human free will and that God allows evil and suffering to exist in order to preserve human freedom. Norman L. Geisler is also a proponent of the free will defense but has also emphasized the idea of divine sovereignty, arguing that God is in control of all things and that even evil and suffering are ultimately part of his plan.

Ronald Nash, on the other hand, emphasized the idea that the existence of evil and suffering can be seen as a result of the Fall, the biblical account of humanity’s rebellion against God. Nash believed that the Fall resulted in a broken world in which evil and suffering exist but that God is ultimately in control and will ultimately bring an end to evil and suffering.

While these apologists share many of the same views and come from a similar theological perspective, they do not necessarily agree on every aspect of the issue of the Problem of Evil and Suffering. Nevertheless, they each provide valuable insights and perspectives on this complex and ongoing philosophical debate.

A. The Importance of the Problem

The ability to defend the Problem of Evil is an important aspect of Christian apologetics for several reasons:

Responding to skeptics: The Problem of Evil is a common challenge to the existence of an all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good God, and one that many skeptics use to argue against the Christian faith. By being able to defend the Problem of Evil, Christians can respond to these objections and provide a compelling case for the existence of God.
Strengthening faith: Engaging with the Problem of Evil can help to strengthen a Christian’s faith by providing a deeper understanding of God’s nature and his relationship to the world, as well as a clearer appreciation for the role that human free will and the Fall play in the existence of evil and suffering.
Sharing the gospel: A strong defense of the Problem of Evil can also serve as an effective tool for sharing the gospel with others. By addressing the objections of skeptics and providing a compelling case for the existence of God, Christians can help to clear the way for others to hear and respond to the good news of Jesus Christ.
Encouraging growth and development: Engaging with the Problem of Evil can also encourage personal growth and development, as it requires Christians to think deeply about their faith and to consider difficult questions and objections.

In short, being able to defend the Problem of Evil is an important aspect of Christian apologetics, as it helps to respond to skeptics, strengthen faith, share the gospel, and encourage growth and development.

B. The Purpose of the Blog Article

The purpose of this article on the Problem of Evil in a Christian apologetic blog is to provide a comprehensive and compelling defense of the Christian belief in an all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good God in light of the existence of evil and suffering in the world. This article will address the following goals:

To provide a clear and concise explanation of the Problem of Evil and Suffering, including its philosophical origins and key objections.
To offer a biblical and theological framework for understanding the nature of God and his relationship to the world, including a defense of the idea of divine sovereignty and the role of human free will in the existence of evil and suffering.
To provide a comprehensive defense of the Christian belief in an all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good God, including a response to common objections and a presentation of compelling evidence for the existence of God.
To encourage readers to think deeply about the Problem of Evil and Suffering and to consider how their faith can be strengthened by engaging with this difficult issue.

The purpose of a blog article on the Problem of Evil in a Christian apologetic website is to provide a comprehensive and compelling defense of the Christian faith in light of the existence of evil and suffering and to encourage readers to think deeply about their faith and to consider how it can be strengthened by engaging with this difficult issue.

II. The Definition of Evil and Suffering

Evil can be defined as the absence or opposite of good or as morally wrong or wicked behavior. In a philosophical or theological context, evil often refers to acts or events that cause harm or suffering to others or that go against the moral order established by God.

Suffering, on the other hand, can be defined as the state of undergoing pain, distress, or hardship. In a philosophical or theological context, suffering often refers to the experience of physical or emotional pain, or to the experience of loss or hardship.

Together, the concepts of evil and suffering raise important questions about the nature of God, the purpose of existence, and the role of human free will in the world. They are central to the philosophical challenge known as the Problem of Evil and Suffering, which asks how an all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good God can allow evil and suffering to exist in the world.

A. The Concept of Evil

The concept of evil refers to actions or events that cause harm, suffering, or destruction to others or to the world. In a moral or religious context, evil is often seen as a violation of divine laws or moral standards, and is associated with wickedness, sin, or wrongdoing.

The existence of evil has been a subject of philosophical and theological inquiry for centuries, with many different perspectives and interpretations. Some philosophers and theologians have argued that evil is a result of human free will, while others have argued that it is a result of the limitations of a created world.

In a religious context, the concept of evil is often tied to the idea of sin, or the rebellion against God and his laws. Many religions also include beliefs about the existence of evil forces or entities, such as demons or evil spirits, that are seen as working against the good and the will of God.

Despite the many different perspectives and interpretations, the concept of evil remains a central and challenging issue in philosophy and theology. It raises important questions about the nature of God, the purpose of existence, and the relationship between good and evil in the world.

B. The Concept of Suffering

The concept of suffering refers to the experience of physical or emotional pain, hardship, or distress. It encompasses a wide range of experiences, from physical ailments and injuries to the loss of loved ones, natural disasters, and social injustices.

The existence of suffering has been a subject of philosophical and theological inquiry for centuries, with many different perspectives and interpretations. Some philosophers and theologians have argued that suffering is a necessary aspect of human existence, serving a greater purpose such as personal growth and spiritual development. Others have argued that suffering is a result of human sin or the limitations of a created world.

In a religious context, the concept of suffering is often tied to the idea of a fallen world, or the belief that the world was originally created good but has been impacted by sin and evil. Many religions also include beliefs about the existence of a divine plan or purpose, and see suffering as serving a greater good or as part of a larger story of redemption and restoration.

Despite the many different perspectives and interpretations, the concept of suffering remains a central and challenging issue in philosophy and theology. It raises important questions about the nature of God, the purpose of existence, and the relationship between good and evil in the world.

C. The Interrelation of Evil and Suffering

Evil and suffering are often interrelated in that evil actions or events can cause suffering to others or to the world. For example, natural disasters, war, and acts of violence can all cause physical and emotional suffering to those affected by them.

The interrelation of evil and suffering raises important philosophical and theological questions about the nature of God, the purpose of existence, and the relationship between good and evil in the world. Some philosophers and theologians have argued that evil and suffering are a result of human free will or the limitations of a created world, while others have argued that they serve a greater purpose such as personal growth and spiritual development.

In a religious context, the interrelation of evil and suffering is often tied to the idea of a fallen world, or the belief that the world was originally created good but has been impacted by sin and evil. Many religions also include beliefs about the existence of a divine plan or purpose and see evil and suffering as serving a greater good or as part of a larger story of redemption and restoration.

Regardless of the perspective, the interrelation of evil and suffering is a central and challenging issue in philosophy and theology, raising important questions about the nature of God, the purpose of existence, and the relationship between good and evil in the world.

III. The Theodicies

Theodicies are philosophical or theological attempts to justify the existence of God in light of the reality of evil and suffering in the world. Theodicies attempt to reconcile the belief in an all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good God with the existence of evil and suffering and to provide a coherent explanation for why God allows evil and suffering to exist.

There are several different types of theodicies, including the following:

Free Will Defense: This theodicy argues that God allows evil and suffering to exist because he has given humans the gift of free will. According to this view, God could not create a world in which humans are free and yet there is no evil and suffering.
Soul-Making Theodicy: This theodicy argues that God allows evil and suffering to exist as part of a process of personal growth and spiritual development. According to this view, God uses evil and suffering as a means of refining and transforming the human soul.
Divine Sovereignty Theodicy: This theodicy argues that God is in control of all things, including evil and suffering, and that even evil and suffering are ultimately part of his plan. According to this view, God uses evil and suffering to bring about a greater good.
Best of All Possible Worlds Theodicy: This theodicy argues that God has created the best possible world, given the limitations of the world and human nature. According to this view, God has allowed evil and suffering to exist because it is the best possible solution to the limitations of the world and human nature.

These are just a few examples of the many different theodicies that have been proposed over the centuries. Each theodicy provides a different perspective on the relationship between God and evil and suffering, and each raises its own questions and objections. Nevertheless, theodicies remain an important aspect of Christian apologetics and provide a framework for understanding and engaging with the complex issue of the Problem of Evil and Suffering.

A. The Free Will Theodicy

The Free Will Theodicy is a philosophical perspective on the Problem of Evil and Suffering that argues that God allows evil and suffering to exist because he has given humans the gift of free will. This theodicy is supported by Ronald Nash, William Lane Craig, and Norman L. Geisler, among other Christian apologists.

According to the Free Will Theodicy, God created humans with the ability to choose between good and evil. God desires that humans love him freely, and so he allows humans to have the ability to choose whether or not to follow him. However, this freedom also means that humans have the ability to choose evil, and so evil, and suffering exist in the world as a result of human sin and rebellion.

Ronald Nash, William Lane Craig, and Norman L. Geisler all support the Free Will Theodicy as a way of resolving the paradox of an all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good God allowing evil and suffering to exist. They argue that God could not create a world in which humans are free and yet there is no evil and suffering, and that the existence of evil and suffering is a result of human free will and sin, not of God’s will.

These apologists also argue that the Free Will Theodicy provides a compelling explanation for why God allows evil and suffering to exist and that it is the best explanation given the nature of God and the reality of human free will. They believe that the Free Will Theodicy provides a framework for understanding and engaging with the Problem of Evil and Suffering and offers a compelling case for the existence of an all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good God.

Ronald Nash, William Lane Craig, and Norman L. Geisler offer several explanations within the Free Will Theodicy to explain the existence of evil and suffering in the world. Some of these explanations include:

Human free will: They argue that God has given humans the gift of free will, which means that humans have the ability to choose between good and evil. As a result, evil and suffering exist in the world as a result of human sin and rebellion.
The limitations of a created world: They argue that God created the world with certain limitations, and that these limitations mean that there will always be evil and suffering in the world, regardless of God’s desire for it to be otherwise.
The idea of a fallen world: They argue that the world was originally created good, but that it has been impacted by sin and evil as a result of the fall of humanity. They believe that evil and suffering exist as a result of this fallen state of the world.
Divine sovereignty: They argue that God is in control of all things, including evil and suffering, and that even evil and suffering are ultimately part of his plan. They believe that God uses evil and suffering to bring about a greater good and that he will ultimately bring an end to evil and suffering.

These explanations offer a way of understanding the relationship between God and evil and suffering and provide a framework for resolving the paradox of an all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good God allowing evil and suffering to exist. They believe that the Free Will Theodicy provides a compelling explanation for why God allows evil and suffering to exist, and that it is the best explanation given the nature of God and the reality of human free will.

B. The Soul-Making Theodicy

The Soul-Making Theodicy is a philosophical perspective on the Problem of Evil and Suffering that argues that God allows evil and suffering to exist as part of a process of personal growth and spiritual development. This theodicy is supported by some Christian apologists, although Ronald Nash, William Lane Craig, and Norman L. Geisler are not known to have expressed support for this particular theodicy.

According to the Soul-Making Theodicy, God allows evil and suffering to exist as a means of refining and transforming the human soul. This theodicy argues that God uses evil and suffering as a tool to help humans grow in character, wisdom, and virtue and to deepen their relationship with him.

The Soul-Making Theodicy provides a different perspective on the relationship between God and evil and suffering and offers a way of understanding why God allows evil and suffering to exist. This theodicy argues that God allows evil and suffering to exist for a greater purpose and that even the most difficult experiences can be used by God for good.

It is important to note that Ronald Nash, William Lane Craig, and Norman L. Geisler are not known to have expressed support for the Soul-Making Theodicy and may not agree with this particular perspective on the Problem of Evil and Suffering. However, they may still believe that God can use evil and suffering for a greater purpose, even if they do not support the Soul-Making Theodicy specifically.

C. The Greater Good Theodicy

The Greater Good Theodicy is a philosophical perspective on the Problem of Evil and Suffering that argues that God allows evil and suffering to exist for the sake of a greater good. This theodicy is supported by some Christian apologists, although Ronald Nash, William Lane Craig, and Norman L. Geisler are not known to have expressed support for this particular theodicy using this specific terminology.

According to the Greater Good Theodicy, God allows evil and suffering to exist because it serves a greater purpose, such as bringing about a greater good or achieving a greater end. This theodicy argues that God uses evil and suffering to bring about a greater good and that even the most difficult experiences can be used by God for good.

The Greater Good Theodicy provides a different perspective on the relationship between God and evil and suffering and offers a way of understanding why God allows evil and suffering to exist. This theodicy argues that God allows evil and suffering to exist for a greater purpose and that even the most difficult experiences can be used by God for good.

It is important to note that Ronald Nash, William Lane Craig, and Norman L. Geisler are not known to have expressed support for the Greater Good Theodicy using this specific terminology and may not agree with this particular perspective on the Problem of Evil and Suffering. However, they may still believe that God can use evil and suffering for a greater purpose, even if they do not support the Greater Good Theodicy specifically.

D. Best of All Possible Worlds Theodicy

The Best of All Possible Worlds Theodicy is a philosophical perspective on the Problem of Evil and Suffering that argues that God has created the best possible world, given the limitations of the world and human nature. This theodicy is supported by some Christian apologists, although Ronald Nash, William Lane Craig, and Norman L. Geisler are not known to have expressed support for this particular theodicy using this specific terminology.

According to the Best of All Possible Worlds Theodicy, God has created the best possible world given the limitations of the world and human nature. This theodicy argues that God has allowed evil and suffering to exist because it is the best possible solution to the limitations of the world and human nature. This theodicy also argues that a world without evil and suffering would be a world without free will, which would not be the best possible world.

The Best of All Possible Worlds Theodicy provides a different perspective on the relationship between God and evil and suffering and offers a way of understanding why God allows evil and suffering to exist. This theodicy argues that God has created the best possible world given the limitations of the world and human nature, and that even the most difficult experiences serve a greater purpose.

It is important to note that Ronald Nash, William Lane Craig, and Norman L. Geisler are not known to have expressed support for the Best of All Possible Worlds Theodicy using this specific terminology and may not agree with this particular perspective on the Problem of Evil and Suffering. However, they may still believe that God has created the best possible world, even if they do not support the Best of All Possible Worlds Theodicy specifically.

IV. Objections to Theodicies

A. The Problem of Natural Evil

The Problem of Natural Evil raises several objections to the belief in an all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good God. Some of these objections include:

The existence of natural disasters: Natural disasters such as earthquakes, hurricanes, and tsunamis cause widespread suffering and death, and raise questions about why God would allow such events to occur.
The existence of natural predators: Many species of animals are natural predators, and they kill and eat other animals. This raises questions about why God would allow such suffering to exist.
The existence of disease and illness: Diseases and illnesses can cause significant suffering and death, and raise questions about why God would allow such things to exist.
The existence of suffering in the animal kingdom: Animals can suffer from diseases, predators, and other forms of suffering, and this raises questions about why God would allow such things to exist.
The existence of suffering in infants and children: Infants and children can suffer from diseases, disabilities, and other forms of suffering, and this raises questions about why God would allow such things to exist.

These objections challenge the belief in an all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good God, and raise questions about why God would allow evil and suffering to exist in the world, especially in the form of natural evils. Theodicies, such as the Free Will Theodicy, Soul-Making Theodicy, Divine Sovereignty Theodicy, and Best of All Possible Worlds Theodicy, attempt to address these objections and provide a framework for understanding and engaging with the Problem of Natural Evil.

The Free Will Theodicy can be used to respond to the objections raised by the Problem of Natural Evil by addressing the relationship between God, free will, and natural evil. The following is an example of how the Free Will Theodicy might respond to these objections:

The existence of natural disasters: Natural disasters can be seen as a result of the limitations of the world and the free will of humanity. For example, people may choose to build homes in areas that are prone to natural disasters, or they may choose not to invest in disaster-preparedness measures. This choice can lead to increased suffering and death as a result of natural disasters.
The existence of natural predators: Natural predators can be seen as a result of the limitations of the world and the free will of humanity. For example, humans may choose to interfere with natural ecosystems, leading to increased suffering and death as a result of natural predators.
The existence of disease and illness: Diseases and illnesses can be seen as a result of the limitations of the world and the free will of humanity. For example, people may choose to engage in behaviors that increase their risk of disease or illness, or they may choose not to take preventative measures.
The existence of suffering in the animal kingdom: Suffering in the animal kingdom can be seen as a result of the limitations of the world and the free will of humanity. For example, humans may choose to interfere with natural ecosystems, leading to increased suffering and death in the animal kingdom.
The existence of suffering in infants and children: Suffering in infants and children can be seen as a result of the limitations of the world and the free will of others. For example, the free will of parents, medical professionals, or governments can impact the health and wellbeing of infants and children.

These responses offer a way of understanding the relationship between God, free will, and natural evil within the context of the Free Will Theodicy. They argue that God allows natural evil to exist as a result of the limitations of the world and the free will of humanity, and that even the most difficult experiences can be used by God for good.

B. The Problem of Moral Evil

The Problem of Moral Evil raises several objections to the belief in an all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good God. Some of these objections include:

The existence of intentional harm: People intentionally cause harm to others through acts of violence, cruelty, or exploitation. This raises questions about why God would allow such evil to exist.
The existence of moral evil committed by individuals: People commit acts of evil, such as theft, murder, and abuse, and this raises questions about why God would allow such evil to exist.
The existence of moral evil committed by groups: Groups of people, such as governments, organizations, and religious groups, can commit acts of evil, such as genocide, terrorism, and religious persecution. This raises questions about why God would allow such evil to exist.
The existence of moral evil committed by institutions: Institutions, such as schools, prisons, and medical systems, can contribute to the suffering and oppression of individuals, and this raises questions about why God would allow such evil to exist.
The existence of moral evil committed by nature: Natural forces, such as tsunamis and earthquakes, can cause harm to individuals and communities, and this raises questions about why God would allow such evil to exist.

These objections challenge the belief in an all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good God, and raise questions about why God would allow evil and suffering to exist in the world, especially in the form of moral evils. Theodicies, such as the Free Will Theodicy, Soul-Making Theodicy, Divine Sovereignty Theodicy, and Best of All Possible Worlds Theodicy, attempt to address these objections and provide a framework for understanding and engaging with the Problem of Moral Evil.

The Free Will Theodicy can be used to respond to the objections raised by the Problem of Moral Evil by addressing the relationship between God, free will, and moral evil. The following is an example of how the Free Will Theodicy might respond to these objections:

The existence of intentional harm: People have the free will to cause intentional harm to others, and God allows this to occur as a result of his respect for free will. God allows people to make choices, even choices that lead to evil, in order to respect the free will that he has given to humanity.
The existence of moral evil committed by individuals: Individuals have the free will to commit acts of evil, and God allows this to occur as a result of his respect for free will. God allows people to make choices, even choices that lead to evil, in order to respect the free will that he has given to humanity.
The existence of moral evil committed by groups: Groups of people have the free will to commit acts of evil, and God allows this to occur as a result of his respect for free will. God allows people to make choices, even choices that lead to evil, in order to respect the free will that he has given to humanity.
The existence of moral evil committed by institutions: Institutions can be a result of the free will of individuals, and God allows this to occur as a result of his respect for free will. God allows people to make choices, even choices that lead to evil, in order to respect the free will that he has given to humanity.
The existence of moral evil committed by nature: Natural forces can cause harm as a result of the limitations of the world, and God allows this to occur as a result of his respect for the free will of humanity. God allows people to make choices, even choices that lead to evil, in order to respect the free will that he has given to humanity.

These responses offer a way of understanding the relationship between God, free will, and moral evil within the context of the Free Will Theodicy. They argue that God allows moral evil to exist as a result of his respect for the free will of humanity, and that even the most difficult experiences can be used by God for good.

C. The Problem of the Hiddenness of God

The Problem of the Hiddenness of God raises several objections to the belief in an all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good God. Some of these objections include:

The absence of clear evidence: God is not clearly and directly evident to everyone, and this raises questions about why God would be so hidden.
The lack of personal experience: Many people have not had a personal experience of God, and this raises questions about why God would be so hidden.
The existence of religious diversity: There are many different religions, each claiming to have a connection to the truth, and this raises questions about why God would be so hidden.
The existence of atheism and agnosticism: Many people do not believe in God or are unsure of God’s existence, and this raises questions about why God would be so hidden.
The existence of suffering and evil: The reality of evil and suffering in the world raises questions about why God would be so hidden, especially when many people are searching for answers to the problem of evil.

These objections challenge the belief in an all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good God, and raise questions about why God would be so hidden and why he would allow evil and suffering to exist in the world. Christian apologists have offered various responses to the Problem of the Hiddenness of God, including the argument from divine sovereignty, the argument from free will, and the argument from the inscrutable nature of God.

The Free Will Theodicy can be used to respond to the objections raised by the Problem of the Hiddenness of God by addressing the relationship between God, free will, and the hiddenness of God. The following is an example of how the Free Will Theodicy might respond to these objections:

The absence of clear evidence: God allows people the freedom to seek him or not to seek him. Some people may choose to ignore or reject the evidence for God’s existence, and this is a result of their free will.
The lack of personal experience: People have the free will to seek or not to seek a personal experience of God. Some people may choose not to seek such an experience, and this is a result of their free will.
The existence of religious diversity: People have the free will to choose which religion, if any, they want to follow. The existence of religious diversity is a result of people’s free will to seek or not to seek God in different ways.
The existence of atheism and agnosticism: People have the free will to choose whether or not to believe in God. The existence of atheism and agnosticism is a result of people’s free will to seek or not to seek God.
The existence of suffering and evil: People have the free will to choose how they respond to suffering and evil in the world. Some people may choose to reject God because of the existence of suffering and evil, and this is a result of their free will.

These responses offer a way of understanding the relationship between God, free will, and the hiddenness of God within the context of the Free Will Theodicy. They argue that God allows people the freedom to seek or not to seek him and that the hiddenness of God is a result of people’s free will to seek or not to seek God.

V. The Christian Response to Evil and Suffering

A. The Comfort of God’s Presence

The comfort of God’s presence is a response to evil and suffering that emphasizes the idea that God is always with us, even in the midst of suffering and evil. This response argues that God is not distant or uncaring but is present with us in our pain and suffering and that he provides comfort and hope through his presence.

Some of the ways that the comfort of God’s presence can be experienced include:

Through prayer: Talking to God in prayer can help people feel his presence and comfort during difficult times.
Through community: Being part of a supportive community of believers can provide comfort and encouragement during difficult times.
Through scripture: Reading and meditating on scripture can provide comfort and hope, as it reminds people of God’s love, compassion, and faithfulness.
Through personal experience: People can experience the comfort of God’s presence through personal experiences of his love and grace.

This response argues that God is always with us, even in the midst of suffering and evil, and that he provides comfort and hope through his presence. By focusing on God’s presence, people can find comfort, hope, and peace in the midst of difficult times.

B. The Hope of Resurrection

The hope of resurrection is a response to evil and suffering that emphasizes the idea that there is a future hope beyond this life. This response argues that the hope of resurrection provides comfort and hope in the face of suffering and evil because it promises that there is a future state in which all things will be made right, and all evil and suffering will be defeated.

Some of the ways that the hope of resurrection can be experienced include:

Through faith: Believing in the promise of the resurrection provides comfort and hope, even in the midst of suffering and evil.
Through scripture: Reading and meditating on scripture, especially passages related to the resurrection, can provide comfort and hope.
Through community: Being part of a community of believers who share the hope of the resurrection can provide comfort and encouragement during difficult times.
Through personal experience: People can experience the hope of the resurrection through personal experiences of God’s love, grace, and provision, even in the midst of suffering and evil.

This response argues that the hope of the resurrection provides comfort and hope in the face of suffering and evil because it promises that there is a future state in which all things will be made right and all evil and suffering will be defeated. By focusing on the hope of the resurrection, people can find comfort, hope, and peace in the midst of difficult times.

C. The Call to Love and Compassion

The call to love and compassion is a response to evil and suffering that emphasizes the idea that people are called to respond to suffering and evil with love and compassion. This response argues that responding to suffering and evil with love and compassion can bring comfort and hope, both to those who are suffering and to those who are responding.

Some of the ways that the call to love and compassion can be experienced include:

Through service: Serving others who are suffering, such as volunteering in a soup kitchen or providing comfort to those who are grieving, can bring comfort and hope to both the giver and the receiver.
Through advocacy: Advocating for justice and standing up against evil and suffering can bring comfort and hope to those who are suffering.
Through generosity: Giving generously of time, resources, and money to organizations that serve those who are suffering can bring comfort and hope to both the giver and the receiver.
Through prayer: Praying for those who are suffering and asking God to bring comfort and hope can bring comfort and hope to both the pray-er and the one being prayed for.

This response argues that responding to suffering and evil with love and compassion can bring comfort and hope, both to those who are suffering and to those who are responding. By focusing on the call to love and compassion, people can find comfort, hope, and peace in the midst of difficult times, and can make a positive impact on the world.

VI. Conclusion

A. The Importance of the Problem

It is important for Christians to be able to talk intelligently about the problem of evil and suffering for several reasons:

To engage with non-believers: The problem of evil and suffering is one of the most common objections to the existence of God, and Christians need to be able to engage with this issue in order to share their faith with others.
To comfort those who are suffering: Christians are called to comfort those who are suffering, and being able to talk intelligently about the problem of evil and suffering can help people find comfort and hope in difficult times.
To deepen their own faith: Engaging with the problem of evil and suffering can help Christians deepen their own faith, as they consider the nature of God, the existence of evil, and the hope of the resurrection.
To foster community: Engaging with the problem of evil and suffering can help Christians connect with others who are also struggling with these issues, and foster community and support.
To demonstrate the truth of the faith: Being able to talk intelligently about the problem of evil and suffering can help demonstrate the truth of the Christian faith and show that Christians have thought through these difficult issues and have a coherent and meaningful response.

Therefore, it is important for Christians to be able to talk intelligently about the problem of evil and suffering in order to engage with non-believers, comfort those who are suffering, deepen their own faith, foster community, and demonstrate the truth of the faith.

B. The Role of Faith in Understanding Evil and Suffering

Faith plays a crucial role in understanding evil and suffering. For Christians, faith provides a lens through which they can understand the existence of evil and suffering and find hope in the midst of difficult times.

Faith provides a framework for understanding evil and suffering: Christians believe that God is all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good, and that the existence of evil and suffering is a result of human sin and the limitations of the world. Through faith, Christians have a framework for understanding the existence of evil and suffering and can make sense of these difficult realities.
Faith provides comfort in the face of evil and suffering: Christians believe that God is present with them in their pain and suffering, and that he provides comfort and hope through his presence. Through faith, Christians can find comfort in the face of evil and suffering and can know that they are not alone.
Faith provides hope in the face of evil and suffering: Christians believe that there is a future hope beyond this life, and that the hope of the resurrection provides comfort and hope in the face of suffering and evil. Through faith, Christians can find hope in the face of evil and suffering and can look forward to a future state in which all things will be made right.
Faith provides motivation to respond to evil and suffering: Christians believe that they are called to respond to suffering and evil with love and compassion, and that responding to suffering and evil with love and compassion can bring comfort and hope to both the giver and the receiver. Through faith, Christians can be motivated to respond to evil and suffering in meaningful ways, and can make a positive impact on the world.

Therefore, faith plays a crucial role in understanding evil and suffering, by providing a framework for understanding, comfort in the face of evil and suffering, hope in the face of evil and suffering, and motivation to respond to evil and suffering.

C. The Relevance of Evil and Suffering to Personal Faith

Evil and suffering are highly relevant to personal faith, as they raise important questions about the nature of God, the existence of evil, and the purpose of life. Engaging with the problem of evil and suffering can help deepen personal faith and strengthen one’s relationship with God.

Enhances spiritual growth: Engaging with the problem of evil and suffering can help people grow spiritually, as they seek to understand the nature of God, the existence of evil, and the purpose of life. This can deepen one’s faith and bring a greater sense of meaning and purpose to life.
Strengthens relationship with God: Engaging with the problem of evil and suffering can help people grow closer to God, as they seek his comfort and hope in the midst of difficult times. This can deepen one’s relationship with God and bring a greater sense of peace and security.
Helps develop empathy and compassion: Engaging with the problem of evil and suffering can help people develop empathy and compassion, as they consider the struggles of others and seek to respond to evil and suffering with love and compassion. This can help people become more compassionate and kinder and can make a positive impact on the world.
Provides opportunity for personal reflection: Engaging with the problem of evil and suffering can provide an opportunity for personal reflection, as people consider their own experiences of suffering and their response to it. This can help people grow in self-awareness and deepen their relationship with God.

Therefore, the problem of evil and suffering is highly relevant to personal faith, as it enhances spiritual growth, strengthens relationship with God, helps develop empathy and compassion, and provides opportunity for personal reflection.