3. Often-Asked Questions
If God is all-good and all-powerful, why did He make a world with so
much suffering?
2
4. Often-Asked Questions
If God is all-good and all-powerful, why did He make a world with so
much suffering?
Why do innocent people suffer from things like disease and natural
disaster?
2
5. Often-Asked Questions
If God is all-good and all-powerful, why did He make a world with so
much suffering?
Why do innocent people suffer from things like disease and natural
disaster?
If God is so good, loving, and powerful, why doesn't He put an end to
suffering now?
2
6. Often-Asked Questions
If God is all-good and all-powerful, why did He make a world with so
much suffering?
Why do innocent people suffer from things like disease and natural
disaster?
If God is so good, loving, and powerful, why doesn't He put an end to
suffering now?
How could a loving God send people to hell?
2
7. Often-Asked Questions
If God is all-good and all-powerful, why did He make a world with so
much suffering?
Why do innocent people suffer from things like disease and natural
disaster?
If God is so good, loving, and powerful, why doesn't He put an end to
suffering now?
How could a loving God send people to hell?
Did God create evil?
2
8. Often-Asked Questions
If God is all-good and all-powerful, why did He make a world with so
much suffering?
Why do innocent people suffer from things like disease and natural
disaster?
If God is so good, loving, and powerful, why doesn't He put an end to
suffering now?
How could a loving God send people to hell?
Did God create evil?
If God knew man would sin and bring evil into this world, why did He
bother to create him in the first place?
2
10. Why Do the Innocent Suffer?
Option I: Evil Exists and God Doesn’t
3
11. Why Do the Innocent Suffer?
Option I: Evil Exists and God Doesn’t
Option II: God Exists and Evil Doesn’t
3
12. Why Do the Innocent Suffer?
Option I: Evil Exists and God Doesn’t
Option II: God Exists and Evil Doesn’t
Option III: God Exists and Evil Exists
3
13. Why Do the Innocent Suffer?
Option I: Evil Exists and God Doesn’t
Option II: God Exists and Evil Doesn’t
Option III: God Exists and Evil Exists
Why Did an All-Good, All-Powerful God Allow Evil?
3
14. Why Do the Innocent Suffer?
Option I: Evil Exists and God Doesn’t
Option II: God Exists and Evil Doesn’t
Option III: God Exists and Evil Exists
Why Did an All-Good, All-Powerful God Allow Evil?
Why Hasn’t God Put an End to Evil?
3
16. Two Types of Evil:
1. Moral Evil
Hai Van Pass,
South Vietnam, 1968
4
17. Two Types of Evil:
1. Moral Evil
Dachau Concentration
Camp, Germany
Hai Van Pass,
South Vietnam, 1968
4
18. Two Types of Evil:
1. Moral Evil
Dachau Concentration Man, Bombay, India
Camp, Germany
Hai Van Pass,
South Vietnam, 1968
4
19. Two Types of Evil:
1. Moral Evil
Dachau Concentration Man, Bombay, India
Camp, Germany
Hai Van Pass,
South Vietnam, 1968
Source: Man’s hatred, overindulgence, or greed
4
40. Three Options
Why do the Innocent Suffer?
or, Why Does Evil Exist?
8
41. Three Options
Why do the Innocent Suffer?
or, Why Does Evil Exist?
Evil Exists;
God Doesn’t
8
42. Three Options
Why do the Innocent Suffer?
or, Why Does Evil Exist?
Evil Exists; God Exists;
God Doesn’t Evil Doesn’t
8
43. Three Options
Why do the Innocent Suffer?
or, Why Does Evil Exist?
Evil Exists; God Exists; God Exists;
God Doesn’t Evil Doesn’t Evil Exists
8
44. Three Options
Why do the Innocent Suffer?
or, Why Does Evil Exist?
Evil Exists; God Exists; God Exists;
God Doesn’t Evil Doesn’t Evil Exists
- Atheism
8
45. Three Options
Why do the Innocent Suffer?
or, Why Does Evil Exist?
Evil Exists; God Exists; God Exists;
God Doesn’t Evil Doesn’t Evil Exists
- Atheism - Pantheism
8
46. Three Options
Why do the Innocent Suffer?
or, Why Does Evil Exist?
Evil Exists; God Exists; God Exists;
God Doesn’t Evil Doesn’t Evil Exists
- Atheism - Pantheism - Theism
8
53. Classic Atheist Proposition
“If God is all-good, He will destroy evil.
If God is all-powerful, He can destroy evil.
11
54. Classic Atheist Proposition
“If God is all-good, He will destroy evil.
If God is all-powerful, He can destroy evil.
But evil is not destroyed.
11
55. Classic Atheist Proposition
“If God is all-good, He will destroy evil.
If God is all-powerful, He can destroy evil.
But evil is not destroyed.
Therefore, there is no all-good, all-powerful God.”
11
57. Conclusion 1: The Cruel God
View
“God is all-powerful.
God Pluto abducting Proserpina
12
58. Conclusion 1: The Cruel God
View
“God is all-powerful.
God is sadistic.
God Pluto abducting Proserpina
12
59. Conclusion 1: The Cruel God
View
“God is all-powerful.
God is sadistic.
God is therefore not all-good.”
God Pluto abducting Proserpina
12
60. Conclusion 1: The Cruel God
View
“God is all-powerful.
God is sadistic.
God is therefore not all-good.”
Leads to atheism
God Pluto abducting Proserpina
12
61. Conclusion 1: The Cruel God
View
“God is all-powerful.
God is sadistic.
God is therefore not all-good.”
Leads to atheism
The cruel-God and atheistic
views: God is not good, but evil
exists
God Pluto abducting Proserpina
12
68. Classical Proposition Restated
“If God is all-good, He will destroy evil.
If God is all-powerful, He can destroy evil.
14
69. Classical Proposition Restated
“If God is all-good, He will destroy evil.
If God is all-powerful, He can destroy evil.
Evil is not yet destroyed.
14
70. Classical Proposition Restated
“If God is all-good, He will destroy evil.
If God is all-powerful, He can destroy evil.
Evil is not yet destroyed.
Therefore evil will be destroyed one day.”
14
71. Classical Proposition Restated
“If God is all-good, He will destroy evil.
If God is all-powerful, He can destroy evil.
Evil is not yet destroyed.
Therefore evil will be destroyed one day.”
Revelation 20:10-15; 21:4; 22:3-8
14
74. Reexamining Atheism
My knowledge compared to all
knowledge is miniscule
Omniscience is required to truly
state ““I know that God does not
exist”
15
75. Reexamining Atheism
My knowledge compared to all
knowledge is miniscule
Omniscience is required to truly
state ““I know that God does not
exist”
Atheists don’t want God to exist-
vested interest
15
76. Reexamining Atheism
My knowledge compared to all
knowledge is miniscule
Omniscience is required to truly
state ““I know that God does not
exist”
Atheists don’t want God to exist-
vested interest
Implications: meaning, value,
purpose
15
89. Contradicted by Personal Experience
Deny our senses
Deny our experience
Seeing suffering in
every city of the world
19
90. Contradicted by Personal Experience
Deny our senses
Deny our experience
Seeing suffering in
every city of the world
Inability to verify the
Pantheist’s position
19
93. Contradicted by Scientific
Evidence (Natural Evil)
Points to the reality of pain and suffering
Natural evil: monitored for centuries;
universally verified
San Francisco Earthquake, 1906
20
94. Contradicted by Scientific
Evidence (Natural Evil)
Points to the reality of pain and suffering
Natural evil: monitored for centuries;
universally verified
Millions of dollars poured into disease
research
San Francisco Earthquake, 1906
20
95. Contradicted by Scientific
Evidence (Natural Evil)
Points to the reality of pain and suffering
Natural evil: monitored for centuries;
universally verified
Millions of dollars poured into disease
research
San Francisco Earthquake, 1906
20
96. Contradicted by Legal Historical
Evidence (Moral Evil)
Christian Leaders hung by Turks, 1915
Human slave shackles
21
97. Contradicted by Legal Historical
Evidence (Moral Evil)
Chronicles the reality of moral evil
Christian Leaders hung by Turks, 1915
Human slave shackles
21
98. Contradicted by Legal Historical
Evidence (Moral Evil)
Chronicles the reality of moral evil
Injustice, treachery, selfishness,
and cruelty
Christian Leaders hung by Turks, 1915
Human slave shackles
21
99. Contradicted by Legal Historical
Evidence (Moral Evil)
Chronicles the reality of moral evil
Injustice, treachery, selfishness,
and cruelty
To deny evil is to deny life as we Christian Leaders hung by Turks, 1915
know it
Human slave shackles
21
100. Contradicted by Legal Historical
Evidence (Moral Evil)
Chronicles the reality of moral evil
Injustice, treachery, selfishness,
and cruelty
To deny evil is to deny life as we Christian Leaders hung by Turks, 1915
know it
Yet Pantheists criticize falsehood
and immorality
Human slave shackles
21
102. Contradicted by Christ and the Bible
Matthew 23:15,28
“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you travel around on
sea and land to make one proselyte; and when he becomes one,
you make him twice as much a son of hell as yourselves.
...So you, too, outwardly appear righteous to men, but inwardly you are full of
hypocrisy and lawlessness.”
22
103. Contradicted by Christ and the Bible
Matthew 23:15,28
“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you travel around on
sea and land to make one proselyte; and when he becomes one,
you make him twice as much a son of hell as yourselves.
...So you, too, outwardly appear righteous to men, but inwardly you are full of
hypocrisy and lawlessness.”
Psalm 5:4-5
“For You are not a God who takes pleasure in wickedness;
No evil dwells with You.
The boastful shall not stand before Your eyes;
You hate all who do iniquity.”
22
105. Contradicted by Christ and the Bible
Psalm 51:2-5
“Wash me thoroughly from my iniquity
And cleanse me from my sin.
For I know my transgressions,
And my sin is ever before me.
23
106. Contradicted by Christ and the Bible
Psalm 51:2-5
“Wash me thoroughly from my iniquity
And cleanse me from my sin.
For I know my transgressions,
And my sin is ever before me.
Against You, You only, I have sinned
And done what is evil in Your sight,
So that You are justified when You speak
And blameless when You judge.
Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity,
And in sin my mother conceived me.”
23
108. Why do the Innocent Suffer?
or, Why Does Evil Exist?
25
109. Why do the Innocent Suffer?
or, Why Does Evil Exist?
Evil Exists;
God Doesn’t
- Atheism
25
110. Why do the Innocent Suffer?
or, Why Does Evil Exist?
Evil Exists; God Exists;
God Doesn’t Evil Doesn’t
- Atheism - Pantheism
25
111. Why do the Innocent Suffer?
or, Why Does Evil Exist?
Evil Exists; God Exists; God Exists;
God Doesn’t Evil Doesn’t Evil Exists
- Atheism - Pantheism
25
112. Why do the Innocent Suffer?
or, Why Does Evil Exist?
Evil Exists; God Exists; God Exists;
God Doesn’t Evil Doesn’t Evil Exists
- Atheism - Pantheism
25
113. Why do the Innocent Suffer?
or, Why Does Evil Exist?
Evil Exists; God Exists; God Exists;
God Doesn’t Evil Doesn’t Evil Exists
- Atheism - Pantheism
God < Evil
25
114. Why do the Innocent Suffer?
or, Why Does Evil Exist?
Evil Exists; God Exists; God Exists;
God Doesn’t Evil Doesn’t Evil Exists
- Atheism - Pantheism
God < Evil God = Evil
25
115. Why do the Innocent Suffer?
or, Why Does Evil Exist?
Evil Exists; God Exists; God Exists;
God Doesn’t Evil Doesn’t Evil Exists
- Atheism - Pantheism
God < Evil God = Evil God > Evil
25
116. Why do the Innocent Suffer?
or, Why Does Evil Exist?
Evil Exists; God Exists; God Exists;
God Doesn’t Evil Doesn’t Evil Exists
- Atheism - Pantheism
God < Evil God = Evil God > Evil
- Finitism
25
117. Why do the Innocent Suffer?
or, Why Does Evil Exist?
Evil Exists; God Exists; God Exists;
God Doesn’t Evil Doesn’t Evil Exists
- Atheism - Pantheism
God < Evil God = Evil God > Evil
- Finitism - Dualism
25
118. Why do the Innocent Suffer?
or, Why Does Evil Exist?
Evil Exists; God Exists; God Exists;
God Doesn’t Evil Doesn’t Evil Exists
- Atheism - Pantheism
God < Evil God = Evil God > Evil
- Finitism - Dualism - Theism
25
119. Why do the Innocent Suffer?
or, Why Does Evil Exist?
Evil Exists; God Exists; God Exists;
God Doesn’t Evil Doesn’t Evil Exists
- Atheism - Pantheism
God < Evil
- Finitism
26
120. Why do the Innocent Suffer?
or, Why Does Evil Exist?
Evil Exists; God Exists; God Exists;
God Doesn’t Evil Doesn’t Evil Exists
- Atheism - Pantheism
Deals with dilemma of evil by proposing a God
God < Evil who is finite in His powers and therefore
unable to control or stop evil:
- Finitism
26
123. Premise and Problems with
Finitism (God < Evil)
“God exists.
If God were all-powerful He would destroy evil.
27
124. Premise and Problems with
Finitism (God < Evil)
“God exists.
If God were all-powerful He would destroy evil.
Evil is not destroyed.
27
125. Premise and Problems with
Finitism (God < Evil)
“God exists.
If God were all-powerful He would destroy evil.
Evil is not destroyed.
Therefore God is not all-powerful.”
27
126. Premise and Problems with
Finitism (God < Evil)
“God exists.
If God were all-powerful He would destroy evil.
Evil is not destroyed.
Therefore God is not all-powerful.”
Failure to consider that God's timing is not human timing
27
128. Problems with Finitism (God < Evil)
Contrary to Bible’s position
of God’s omnipotence
The Last Judgment, Michelangelo, 1535-1541
28
129. Problems with Finitism (God < Evil)
Contrary to Bible’s position
of God’s omnipotence
56 times declares that God
is almighty (Rev. 19:6)
The Last Judgment, Michelangelo, 1535-1541
28
130. Problems with Finitism (God < Evil)
Contrary to Bible’s position
of God’s omnipotence
56 times declares that God
is almighty (Rev. 19:6)
Promises that God will
ultimately defeat evil
(Rev. 21-22)
The Last Judgment, Michelangelo, 1535-1541
28
131. Why do the Innocent Suffer?
or, Why Does Evil Exist?
Evil Exists; God Exists; God Exists;
God Doesn’t Evil Doesn’t Evil Exists
- Atheism - Pantheism
God < Evil
God < Evil God = Evil
- Finitism
29
132. Why do the Innocent Suffer?
or, Why Does Evil Exist?
Evil Exists; God Exists; God Exists;
God Doesn’t Evil Doesn’t Evil Exists
- Atheism - Pantheism
God < Evil
God < Evil God = Evil
- Finitism - Dualism
29
133. Why do the Innocent Suffer?
or, Why Does Evil Exist?
Evil Exists; God Exists; God Exists;
God Doesn’t Evil Doesn’t Evil Exists
- Atheism - Pantheism
Assumes that God
God < Evil
God < Evil God = Evil and evil are coeternal
opposites
- Finitism - Dualism
29
135. Dualism (God = Evil)
Rescues God’s goodness at the
expense of His omnipotence
30
136. Dualism (God = Evil)
Rescues God’s goodness at the
expense of His omnipotence
Ancient Greek and Zoroastrian
theology to modern-day process
theology
30
138. Premises of Dualism (God = Evil)
“Nothing can be the source of its opposite.
31
139. Premises of Dualism (God = Evil)
“Nothing can be the source of its opposite.
Evil is a thing. (if God were the only eternal source of all things,
then He would be the cause of evil.
31
140. Premises of Dualism (God = Evil)
“Nothing can be the source of its opposite.
Evil is a thing. (if God were the only eternal source of all things,
then He would be the cause of evil.
Therefore, God and evil must exist together (for all eternity or else
God would be responsible for evil).”
31
142. Problems of Dualism (God = Evil)
Evil can occur out of good (not intrinsically but incidentally)
32
143. Problems of Dualism (God = Evil)
Evil can occur out of good (not intrinsically but incidentally)
Opposites doesn’t mean first-cause opposites for each
32
144. Problems of Dualism (God = Evil)
Evil can occur out of good (not intrinsically but incidentally)
Opposites doesn’t mean first-cause opposites for each
It is logically absurd to have two absolute coequals in eternal
opposition
32
145. Problems of Dualism (God = Evil)
Evil can occur out of good (not intrinsically but incidentally)
Opposites doesn’t mean first-cause opposites for each
It is logically absurd to have two absolute coequals in eternal
opposition
Irresistible
Force
32
146. Problems of Dualism (God = Evil)
Evil can occur out of good (not intrinsically but incidentally)
Opposites doesn’t mean first-cause opposites for each
It is logically absurd to have two absolute coequals in eternal
opposition
Irresistible Immovable
Force Object
32
148. Problems of Dualism (God = Evil)
Evil is not a thing (having an existence of its own)
33
149. Problems of Dualism (God = Evil)
Evil is not a thing (having an existence of its own)
Evil is a corruption of something that already exists; it cannot
exist by itself
33
150. Problems of Dualism (God = Evil)
Evil is not a thing (having an existence of its own)
Evil is a corruption of something that already exists; it cannot
exist by itself
Unsanitary, unhealthy, unreliable, uncivilized, incurable, etc.
33
151. Problems of Dualism (God = Evil)
Evil is not a thing (having an existence of its own)
Evil is a corruption of something that already exists; it cannot
exist by itself
Unsanitary, unhealthy, unreliable, uncivilized, incurable, etc.
Evil is a negation, absence, or privation of something good
33
154. Problems of Dualism (God = Evil)
Contradicted by the Bible
Affirms God's omnipotence and sovereignty
34
155. Problems of Dualism (God = Evil)
Contradicted by the Bible
Affirms God's omnipotence and sovereignty
Never recognizes coeternal opposites in the universe
34
156. Problems of Dualism (God = Evil)
Contradicted by the Bible
Affirms God's omnipotence and sovereignty
Never recognizes coeternal opposites in the universe
Deuteronomy 4:35 “... the LORD, He is God; there is no other besides Him.”
34
157. Problems of Dualism (God = Evil)
Contradicted by the Bible
Affirms God's omnipotence and sovereignty
Never recognizes coeternal opposites in the universe
Deuteronomy 4:35 “... the LORD, He is God; there is no other besides Him.”
Colossians 1:16 “For by Him all things were created...”
34
158. Problems of Dualism (God = Evil)
Contradicted by the Bible
Affirms God's omnipotence and sovereignty
Never recognizes coeternal opposites in the universe
Deuteronomy 4:35 “... the LORD, He is God; there is no other besides Him.”
Colossians 1:16 “For by Him all things were created...”
1Timothy 4:4 “For everything created by God is good...”
34
159. Why do the Innocent Suffer?
or, Why Does Evil Exist?
Evil Exists; God Exists; God Exists;
God Doesn’t Evil Doesn’t Evil Exists
- Atheism - Pantheism
God < Evil God = Evil God > Evil
- Finitism - Dualism
35
160. Why do the Innocent Suffer?
or, Why Does Evil Exist?
Evil Exists; God Exists; God Exists;
God Doesn’t Evil Doesn’t Evil Exists
- Atheism - Pantheism
God < Evil God = Evil God > Evil
- Finitism - Dualism - Theism
35
161. Why do the Innocent Suffer?
or, Why Does Evil Exist?
Evil Exists; God Exists; God Exists;
God Doesn’t Evil Doesn’t Evil Exists
- Atheism - Pantheism
God < Evil God = Evil God > Evil
- Finitism - Dualism - Theism
Stipulates that the all-good, all-powerful God will finally conquer evil
35
163. Theism
All-Good:
Hab. 1:13 “Your eyes are too pure to approve evil,
And You can not look on wickedness with favor.”
36
164. Theism
All-Good:
Hab. 1:13 “Your eyes are too pure to approve evil,
And You can not look on wickedness with favor.”
All-Powerful:
Rev. 4:8 “...they do not cease to say, “HOLY, HOLY, HOLY is THE LORD
GOD, THE ALMIGHTY, WHO WAS AND WHO IS AND WHO IS TO COME.”
36
166. Theism
Rev. 21:3-4 “...“Behold, the tabernacle of God is among men,
and He will dwell among them,
and they shall be His people,
and God Himself will be among them,
37
167. Theism
Rev. 21:3-4 “...“Behold, the tabernacle of God is among men,
and He will dwell among them,
and they shall be His people,
and God Himself will be among them,
and He will wipe away every tear from their eyes;
and there will no longer be any death;
there will no longer be any mourning, or crying, or pain;
the first things have passed away.”
37
168. Why Did an All-Good, All-Powerful
God Allow Evil?
38
169. Why Did an All-Good, All-Powerful
God Allow Evil?
39
170. Why Did an All-Good, All-Powerful
God Allow Evil?
A Question of Causation- “Why did God allow evil to occur in
the first place?
39
171. Why Did an All-Good, All-Powerful
God Allow Evil?
A Question of Causation- “Why did God allow evil to occur in
the first place?
When did evil enter human history?
39
172. Why Did an All-Good, All-Powerful
God Allow Evil?
A Question of Causation- “Why did God allow evil to occur in
the first place?
When did evil enter human history?
Summary of a biblical account of the origin of evil
39
173. Man Created Perfect with Free
Choice
The Creation of Eve, Michelangelo, 1508-1512
40
174. Man Created Perfect with Free
Choice
God created man perfect
The Creation of Eve, Michelangelo, 1508-1512
40
175. Man Created Perfect with Free
Choice
God created man perfect
Man could reject God’s love
The Creation of Eve, Michelangelo, 1508-1512
40
176. Man Created Perfect with Free
Choice
God created man perfect
Man could reject God’s love
The ability to reject/accept is
essential to relationship
The Creation of Eve, Michelangelo, 1508-1512
40
177. Man Created Perfect with Free
Choice
God created man perfect
Man could reject God’s love
The ability to reject/accept is
essential to relationship
God did not force His love on man
The Creation of Eve, Michelangelo, 1508-1512
40
179. Real Consequences
God warned man of the consequences of accepting or
rejecting Him
41
180. Real Consequences
God warned man of the consequences of accepting or
rejecting Him
Rejection > spiritual and physical death
41
181. Real Consequences
God warned man of the consequences of accepting or
rejecting Him
Rejection > spiritual and physical death
Man chose to go his own way (disobedience, autonomy)
41
182. Real Consequences
God warned man of the consequences of accepting or
rejecting Him
Rejection > spiritual and physical death
Man chose to go his own way (disobedience, autonomy)
Evil and suffering then entered the world
41
183. God Did Not Create Evil
Temptation, by Huga va der Goes, c 1470
42
184. God Did Not Create Evil
God’s plan had the potential for evil but
only promoted good
Temptation, by Huga va der Goes, c 1470
42
185. God Did Not Create Evil
God’s plan had the potential for evil but
only promoted good
The origin of evil resulted from man’s
rejection of God toward his selfish desires
Temptation, by Huga va der Goes, c 1470
42
186. God Did Not Create Evil
God’s plan had the potential for evil but
only promoted good
The origin of evil resulted from man’s
rejection of God toward his selfish desires
A naked decision between God and self
Temptation, by Huga va der Goes, c 1470
42
187. God Did Not Create Evil
God’s plan had the potential for evil but
only promoted good
The origin of evil resulted from man’s
rejection of God toward his selfish desires
A naked decision between God and self
Man corrupted himself by disobeying God
Temptation, by Huga va der Goes, c 1470
42
188. Man Chose Disobedience, Evil
Consequences: Temporal
Adam and Eve Expelled from Paradise, by Massacio, c.1427
43
189. Man Chose Disobedience, Evil
Consequences: Temporal
Because of the Fall, mankind became imperfect
Adam and Eve Expelled from Paradise, by Massacio, c.1427
43
190. Man Chose Disobedience, Evil
Consequences: Temporal
Because of the Fall, mankind became imperfect
Yielded temporal and eternal consequences
Adam and Eve Expelled from Paradise, by Massacio, c.1427
43
191. Man Chose Disobedience, Evil
Consequences: Temporal
Because of the Fall, mankind became imperfect
Yielded temporal and eternal consequences
Temporal: Moral and Natural Evil
Adam and Eve Expelled from Paradise, by Massacio, c.1427
43
192. Man Chose Disobedience, Evil
Consequences: Temporal
Because of the Fall, mankind became imperfect
Yielded temporal and eternal consequences
Temporal: Moral and Natural Evil
Moral Evil caused by man’s inhumanity to man
Adam and Eve Expelled from Paradise, by Massacio, c.1427
43
194. Man Chose Disobedience, Evil
Consequences: Temporal
Man’s fall included a curse on him and a curse on creation
44
195. Man Chose Disobedience, Evil
Consequences: Temporal
Man’s fall included a curse on him and a curse on creation
Earth is a disease-death environment now
44
196. Man Chose Disobedience, Evil
Consequences: Temporal
Man’s fall included a curse on him and a curse on creation
Earth is a disease-death environment now
Gen. 3:17b “...Cursed is the ground because of you”
44
197. Man Chose Disobedience, Evil
Consequences: Temporal
Man’s fall included a curse on him and a curse on creation
Earth is a disease-death environment now
Gen. 3:17b “...Cursed is the ground because of you”
Rom. 8:21 “...the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption
into the freedom of the glory of the children of God.
44
198. Man Chose Disobedience, Evil
Consequences: Temporal
Man’s fall included a curse on him and a curse on creation
Earth is a disease-death environment now
Gen. 3:17b “...Cursed is the ground because of you”
Rom. 8:21 “...the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption
into the freedom of the glory of the children of God.
Rev. 22:3 “There will no longer be any curse; and the throne of God and
of the Lamb will be in it, and His bond-servants will serve Him...”
44
200. Man Chose Disobedience, Evil
Consequences: Eternal
Man was no longer a perfect being when he ceased to follow
the perfect way of God (Rom. 3:23; Isa. 53:6; 59:2)
45
201. Man Chose Disobedience, Evil
Consequences: Eternal
Man was no longer a perfect being when he ceased to follow
the perfect way of God (Rom. 3:23; Isa. 53:6; 59:2)
The judgment for sin is eternal separation from the holy God
(Rom. 6:23)
45
202. Man Chose Disobedience, Evil
Consequences: Eternal
Man was no longer a perfect being when he ceased to follow
the perfect way of God (Rom. 3:23; Isa. 53:6; 59:2)
The judgment for sin is eternal separation from the holy God
(Rom. 6:23)
Separation: confinement in hell forever (Matt. 25:46; Rev.
20:14-15)
45
205. God’s Solution: Substitution
God’s justice demands death as a penalty
God’s love seeks a solution to man’s terminal condition
46
206. God’s Solution: Substitution
God’s justice demands death as a penalty
God’s love seeks a solution to man’s terminal condition
God substituted Himself and made possible man's redemption
from sin.
46
208. Man Still Has Choice
The penalty for my sin will be paid. The only question is, "Who
will pay it?"
47
209. Man Still Has Choice
The penalty for my sin will be paid. The only question is, "Who
will pay it?"
Now we must choose whether to accept His payment, or pay it
ourselves
47
212. Why Hasn’t God Put an End to Evil?
Question of Cessation - “Why hasn’t God stopped evil if He can?”
49
213. Why Hasn’t God Put an End to Evil?
Question of Cessation - “Why hasn’t God stopped evil if He can?”
On whose terms?
49
214. Why Hasn’t God Put an End to Evil?
Question of Cessation - “Why hasn’t God stopped evil if He can?”
On whose terms?
Man’s: God should eliminate the cruel world leaders, murderers, and
thieves along with the natural disasters and diseases
49
215. Why Hasn’t God Put an End to Evil?
Question of Cessation - “Why hasn’t God stopped evil if He can?”
On whose terms?
Man’s: God should eliminate the cruel world leaders, murderers, and
thieves along with the natural disasters and diseases
God’s: must move against all actual evil and potential evil
49
216. Why Hasn’t God Put an End to Evil?
Question of Cessation - “Why hasn’t God stopped evil if He can?”
On whose terms?
Man’s: God should eliminate the cruel world leaders, murderers, and
thieves along with the natural disasters and diseases
God’s: must move against all actual evil and potential evil
Including evil in ourselves
49
220. Preserves Human Freedom
Some evil is the result of our own free choices
Some evil is the result of other’s free choices
51
221. Preserves Human Freedom
Some evil is the result of our own free choices
Some evil is the result of other’s free choices
Source of ≅ 95% of all evil
51
222. Preserves Human Freedom
Some evil is the result of our own free choices
Some evil is the result of other’s free choices
Source of ≅ 95% of all evil
Therefore, in order to destroy all evil all freedom must be
destroyed
51
223. Preserves Human Freedom
Some evil is the result of our own free choices
Some evil is the result of other’s free choices
Source of ≅ 95% of all evil
Therefore, in order to destroy all evil all freedom must be
destroyed
Human freedom is better for mankind; brings greatest glory to
God in time/eternity.
51
226. Prevents Greater Evil
Some evil warns us of greater physical pain
Not all pain is bad (Leprosy, a lack of pain is bad)
52
227. Prevents Greater Evil
Some evil warns us of greater physical pain
Not all pain is bad (Leprosy, a lack of pain is bad)
Some evil warns us of greater moral pain
52
230. “God whispers to us in our pleasures,
speaks in our conscience,
53
231. “God whispers to us in our pleasures,
speaks in our conscience,
but shouts in our pains:
53
232. “God whispers to us in our pleasures,
speaks in our conscience,
but shouts in our pains:
it is His megaphone to rouse a deaf world."
- C.S. Lewis
The Problem of Pain
53
233. “God whispers to us in our pleasures,
speaks in our conscience,
but shouts in our pains:
it is His megaphone to rouse a deaf world."
- C.S. Lewis
The Problem of Pain
Pain often can serve to purify and perfect people
53
234. “God whispers to us in our pleasures,
speaks in our conscience,
but shouts in our pains:
it is His megaphone to rouse a deaf world."
- C.S. Lewis
The Problem of Pain
Pain often can serve to purify and perfect people
Eccl. 8:11 “Because the sentence against an evil deed is not
executed quickly, therefore the hearts of the sons of men among
them are given fully to do evil.”
53
235. Prevents Greater Evil
Some evil warns us of greater physical pain
Not all pain is bad (Leprosy, a lack of pain is bad)
Some evil warns us of great moral pain
54
236. Prevents Greater Evil
Some evil warns us of greater physical pain
Not all pain is bad (Leprosy, a lack of pain is bad)
Some evil warns us of great moral pain
Therefore, to destroy some evil in a moral universe, would
increase some evil
54
237. Prevents Greater Evil
Some evil warns us of greater physical pain
Not all pain is bad (Leprosy, a lack of pain is bad)
Some evil warns us of great moral pain
Therefore, to destroy some evil in a moral universe, would
increase some evil
The least amount of evil (achievable with free creatures) is
better for mankind and it brings the greatest glory to God in
time/eternity
54
239. Promotes the Greatest Good
Some evil is the condition for immediate moral perfecting
55
240. Promotes the Greatest Good
Some evil is the condition for immediate moral perfecting
Some evil is the condition for ultimate moral perfection
55
241. Promotes the Greatest Good
Some evil is the condition for immediate moral perfecting
Some evil is the condition for ultimate moral perfection
Therefore, to destroy some evil in a moral universe would
decrease some good
55
242. Promotes the Greatest Good
Some evil is the condition for immediate moral perfecting
Some evil is the condition for ultimate moral perfection
Therefore, to destroy some evil in a moral universe would
decrease some good
The greatest good (achievable with free creatures) is better for
mankind and bring the greatest glory to God in Time/eternity
55
244. “As long as we remain as we are,
a world without pain,
56
245. “As long as we remain as we are,
a world without pain,
disappointment,
56
246. “As long as we remain as we are,
a world without pain,
disappointment,
obstructions, and
56
247. “As long as we remain as we are,
a world without pain,
disappointment,
obstructions, and
frustration
56
248. “As long as we remain as we are,
a world without pain,
disappointment,
obstructions, and
frustration
might well lead to such an increase in arrogance and hardness of heart
56
249. “As long as we remain as we are,
a world without pain,
disappointment,
obstructions, and
frustration
might well lead to such an increase in arrogance and hardness of heart
that life would become insupportable.
56
250. “As long as we remain as we are,
a world without pain,
disappointment,
obstructions, and
frustration
might well lead to such an increase in arrogance and hardness of heart
that life would become insupportable.
The timeless world of heaven is a suitable home only for man as he will be.”
56
252. Minimal Evil
A universe where the freedom of all moral creatures is
respected, where evil is minimal and good is maximal brings
the greatest good to mankind and the greatest glory to God.
57
253. Minimal Evil
A universe where the freedom of all moral creatures is
respected, where evil is minimal and good is maximal brings
the greatest good to mankind and the greatest glory to God.
Maximum possible opportunities for ultimate satisfaction
57
254. Minimal Evil
A universe where the freedom of all moral creatures is
respected, where evil is minimal and good is maximal brings
the greatest good to mankind and the greatest glory to God.
Maximum possible opportunities for ultimate satisfaction
Its the best possible way to get the best of all possible worlds
57
255. Minimal Evil
A universe where the freedom of all moral creatures is
respected, where evil is minimal and good is maximal brings
the greatest good to mankind and the greatest glory to God.
Maximum possible opportunities for ultimate satisfaction
Its the best possible way to get the best of all possible worlds
A hypothetical world where sin never occurs may be logically
possible - but it may be actually unachievable and morally less
desirable
57
257. God’s Promise to End Evil
2Pet. 3:7 “But by His word the present heavens and earth are being reserved
for fire, kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men.”
58
258. God’s Promise to End Evil
2Pet. 3:7 “But by His word the present heavens and earth are being reserved
for fire, kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men.”
Rev. 19:1-2 “After these things I heard something like a loud voice of a great
multitude in heaven, saying,
‘Hallelujah! Salvation and glory and power belong to our God;
BECAUSE HIS JUDGMENTS ARE TRUE AND RIGHTEOUS; for He has
judged the great harlot who was corrupting the earth with her immorality,
and HE HAS AVENGED THE BLOOD OF HIS BOND-SERVANTS ON HER.’”
58
260. God’s Promise to End Evil
Rev. 18:20 “Rejoice over her, O heaven, and you saints and apostles and
prophets, because God has pronounced judgment for you against her.”
59
261. God’s Promise to End Evil
Rev. 18:20 “Rejoice over her, O heaven, and you saints and apostles and
prophets, because God has pronounced judgment for you against her.”
Rev. 20:13-15 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it, and
death and Hades gave up the dead which were in them; and they
were judged, every one of them according to their deeds.
Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the
second death, the lake of fire.
And if anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he
was thrown into the lake of fire.
59
262. God’s Promise to End Evil
Cathedral ceiling, Florence, Italy
60
263. God’s Promise to End Evil
Rev. 21:8 “But for the cowardly and
unbelieving and abominable and
murderers and immoral persons and
sorcerers and idolaters and all liars,
their part will be in the lake that burns
with fire and brimstone,
which is the second death.”
Cathedral ceiling, Florence, Italy
60
265. God’s Patience
2Pet. 3:9 “The Lord is not slow about His promise,
as some count slowness,
but is patient toward you,
61
266. God’s Patience
2Pet. 3:9 “The Lord is not slow about His promise,
as some count slowness,
but is patient toward you,
not wishing for any to perish
but for all to come to repentance.”
61
267. God’s Patience
2Pet. 3:9 “The Lord is not slow about His promise,
as some count slowness,
but is patient toward you,
not wishing for any to perish
but for all to come to repentance.”
God delays putting an end to evil in order to allow us more
opportunities to share the Gospel of Christ with others
61
268. God Will Ultimately Defeat Evil
1Cor. 15:54-57
“But when this perishable will have put on the imperishable,
and this mortal will have put on immortality,
62
269. God Will Ultimately Defeat Evil
1Cor. 15:54-57
“But when this perishable will have put on the imperishable,
and this mortal will have put on immortality,
then will come about the saying that is written,
“DEATH IS SWALLOWED UP in victory.
“O DEATH, WHERE IS YOUR VICTORY?
O DEATH, WHERE IS YOUR STING?”
62
270. God Will Ultimately Defeat Evil
1Cor. 15:54-57
“But when this perishable will have put on the imperishable,
and this mortal will have put on immortality,
then will come about the saying that is written,
“DEATH IS SWALLOWED UP in victory.
“O DEATH, WHERE IS YOUR VICTORY?
O DEATH, WHERE IS YOUR STING?”
The sting of death is sin,
and the power of sin is the law;
but thanks be to God,
who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.”
62
273. God Will Ultimately Defeat Evil
God is greater than evil
God will indeed put an end
to evil and suffering
63
274. God Will Ultimately Defeat Evil
God is greater than evil
God will indeed put an end
to evil and suffering
God knew this world was
not the best possible world,
but it was the best possible
way to attain the best
possible world
63
278. God delivered us from the penalty of evil at the cross.
God delivers us from the power of evil in the crises.
65
279. God delivered us from the penalty of evil at the cross.
God delivers us from the power of evil in the crises.
God will deliver us from the presence of evil at His coming.
65
285. Reflections Ministries Resources
Reflections - A free monthly teaching letter
KenBoa.org website - Daily Growth email and
free text and audio resources
67
Often-Asked Questions:\nIf God is all-good and all-powerful, why did He make a world with so much suffering? \nWhy do innocent people suffer from things like disease and natural disaster? \nIf God is so good, loving, and powerful, why doesn't He put an end to suffering now? \nHow could a loving God send people to hell? \nDid God create evil? \nIf God knew man would sin and bring evil into this world, why did He bother to create him in the first place?\n\n
Often-Asked Questions:\nIf God is all-good and all-powerful, why did He make a world with so much suffering? \nWhy do innocent people suffer from things like disease and natural disaster? \nIf God is so good, loving, and powerful, why doesn't He put an end to suffering now? \nHow could a loving God send people to hell? \nDid God create evil? \nIf God knew man would sin and bring evil into this world, why did He bother to create him in the first place?\n\n
Often-Asked Questions:\nIf God is all-good and all-powerful, why did He make a world with so much suffering? \nWhy do innocent people suffer from things like disease and natural disaster? \nIf God is so good, loving, and powerful, why doesn't He put an end to suffering now? \nHow could a loving God send people to hell? \nDid God create evil? \nIf God knew man would sin and bring evil into this world, why did He bother to create him in the first place?\n\n
Often-Asked Questions:\nIf God is all-good and all-powerful, why did He make a world with so much suffering? \nWhy do innocent people suffer from things like disease and natural disaster? \nIf God is so good, loving, and powerful, why doesn't He put an end to suffering now? \nHow could a loving God send people to hell? \nDid God create evil? \nIf God knew man would sin and bring evil into this world, why did He bother to create him in the first place?\n\n
Often-Asked Questions:\nIf God is all-good and all-powerful, why did He make a world with so much suffering? \nWhy do innocent people suffer from things like disease and natural disaster? \nIf God is so good, loving, and powerful, why doesn't He put an end to suffering now? \nHow could a loving God send people to hell? \nDid God create evil? \nIf God knew man would sin and bring evil into this world, why did He bother to create him in the first place?\n\n
Often-Asked Questions:\nIf God is all-good and all-powerful, why did He make a world with so much suffering? \nWhy do innocent people suffer from things like disease and natural disaster? \nIf God is so good, loving, and powerful, why doesn't He put an end to suffering now? \nHow could a loving God send people to hell? \nDid God create evil? \nIf God knew man would sin and bring evil into this world, why did He bother to create him in the first place?\n\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
Traditionally we recognize two types of evil. The first is moral evil, caused by man through his rebellion against God and/or by his cruelty to others. The innocent suffer many times because of man's hatred (e.g., war), because of his overindulgence (e.g., the drunk driver who kills an innocent family), and because of his greed (e.g., many starving to death while others hoard surpluses).\n\n
Traditionally we recognize two types of evil. The first is moral evil, caused by man through his rebellion against God and/or by his cruelty to others. The innocent suffer many times because of man's hatred (e.g., war), because of his overindulgence (e.g., the drunk driver who kills an innocent family), and because of his greed (e.g., many starving to death while others hoard surpluses).\n\n
Traditionally we recognize two types of evil. The first is moral evil, caused by man through his rebellion against God and/or by his cruelty to others. The innocent suffer many times because of man's hatred (e.g., war), because of his overindulgence (e.g., the drunk driver who kills an innocent family), and because of his greed (e.g., many starving to death while others hoard surpluses).\n\n
Traditionally we recognize two types of evil. The first is moral evil, caused by man through his rebellion against God and/or by his cruelty to others. The innocent suffer many times because of man's hatred (e.g., war), because of his overindulgence (e.g., the drunk driver who kills an innocent family), and because of his greed (e.g., many starving to death while others hoard surpluses).\n\n
The second is natural evil, a result of the natural phenomena inflicted on the innocent. Examples include hurricanes, plagues, earthquakes, and other diseases and disasters.\nHow do we account for the presence of both classes of evil, and is there an answer for the plight it presents?\n\n
Natural disasters are the nature and the byproducts of a good physical world.\n\n
Natural disasters are the nature and the byproducts of a good physical world.\n\n
Natural disasters are the nature and the byproducts of a good physical world.\n\n
Natural disasters are the nature and the byproducts of a good physical world.\n\n
Natural disasters are the nature and the byproducts of a good physical world.\n\n
Natural disasters are the nature and the byproducts of a good physical world.\n\n
For some half-serious and comic relief. Never underestimate man&#x2019;s occasional lack of good judgment\n
For some half-serious and comic relief. Never underestimate man&#x2019;s occasional lack of good judgment\n
For some half-serious and comic relief. Never underestimate man&#x2019;s occasional lack of good judgment\n
For some half-serious and comic relief. Never underestimate man&#x2019;s occasional lack of good judgment\n
For some half-serious and comic relief. Never underestimate man&#x2019;s occasional lack of good judgment\n
For some half-serious and comic relief. Never underestimate man&#x2019;s occasional lack of good judgment\n
For some half-serious and comic relief. Never underestimate man&#x2019;s occasional lack of good judgment\n
For some half-serious and comic relief. Never underestimate man&#x2019;s occasional lack of good judgment\n
For some half-serious and comic relief. Never underestimate man&#x2019;s occasional lack of good judgment\n
For some half-serious and comic relief. Never underestimate man&#x2019;s occasional lack of good judgment\n
For some half-serious and comic relief. Never underestimate man&#x2019;s occasional lack of good judgment\n
The problem of evil is the old chestnut with which all philosophies and religions must wrestle. The problem is universal and complex. How to reconcile the concept of evil and God has baffled man for centuries. An examination of this problem reveals only three major alternatives: evil exists and God doesn't; God exists and evil doesn't; they both exist. Some people defend a perspective that allows for evil but not for God (atheism). Others seek to resolve the enigma by saying God exists but evil doesn't (pantheism). The third option states that both God and evil exist and that there is an explanation for this predicament (theism). \n\n\n
The problem of evil is the old chestnut with which all philosophies and religions must wrestle. The problem is universal and complex. How to reconcile the concept of evil and God has baffled man for centuries. An examination of this problem reveals only three major alternatives: evil exists and God doesn't; God exists and evil doesn't; they both exist. Some people defend a perspective that allows for evil but not for God (atheism). Others seek to resolve the enigma by saying God exists but evil doesn't (pantheism). The third option states that both God and evil exist and that there is an explanation for this predicament (theism). \n\n\n
The problem of evil is the old chestnut with which all philosophies and religions must wrestle. The problem is universal and complex. How to reconcile the concept of evil and God has baffled man for centuries. An examination of this problem reveals only three major alternatives: evil exists and God doesn't; God exists and evil doesn't; they both exist. Some people defend a perspective that allows for evil but not for God (atheism). Others seek to resolve the enigma by saying God exists but evil doesn't (pantheism). The third option states that both God and evil exist and that there is an explanation for this predicament (theism). \n\n\n
The problem of evil is the old chestnut with which all philosophies and religions must wrestle. The problem is universal and complex. How to reconcile the concept of evil and God has baffled man for centuries. An examination of this problem reveals only three major alternatives: evil exists and God doesn't; God exists and evil doesn't; they both exist. Some people defend a perspective that allows for evil but not for God (atheism). Others seek to resolve the enigma by saying God exists but evil doesn't (pantheism). The third option states that both God and evil exist and that there is an explanation for this predicament (theism). \n\n\n
The problem of evil is the old chestnut with which all philosophies and religions must wrestle. The problem is universal and complex. How to reconcile the concept of evil and God has baffled man for centuries. An examination of this problem reveals only three major alternatives: evil exists and God doesn't; God exists and evil doesn't; they both exist. Some people defend a perspective that allows for evil but not for God (atheism). Others seek to resolve the enigma by saying God exists but evil doesn't (pantheism). The third option states that both God and evil exist and that there is an explanation for this predicament (theism). \n\n\n
The problem of evil is the old chestnut with which all philosophies and religions must wrestle. The problem is universal and complex. How to reconcile the concept of evil and God has baffled man for centuries. An examination of this problem reveals only three major alternatives: evil exists and God doesn't; God exists and evil doesn't; they both exist. Some people defend a perspective that allows for evil but not for God (atheism). Others seek to resolve the enigma by saying God exists but evil doesn't (pantheism). The third option states that both God and evil exist and that there is an explanation for this predicament (theism). \n\n\n
\n
The atheist solves the problem by eliminating God. Evil and suffering are taken as givens, but the existence of God is not. Such prominent thinkers as David Hume, H.G. Wells, and Bertrand Russell have concluded, on the basis of their observations of suffering and evil, that the God of the Bible does not exist. \n
The atheist solves the problem by eliminating God. Evil and suffering are taken as givens, but the existence of God is not. Such prominent thinkers as David Hume, H.G. Wells, and Bertrand Russell have concluded, on the basis of their observations of suffering and evil, that the God of the Bible does not exist. \n
. Because of the prevalence of evil in the world, they formulated this classical proposition: (1) If God is all-good, He will destroy evil. (2) If God is all-powerful, He can destroy evil. (3) But evil is not destroyed. (4) Therefore, there is no all-good, all-powerful God.\n\n\n
. Because of the prevalence of evil in the world, they formulated this classical proposition: (1) If God is all-good, He will destroy evil. (2) If God is all-powerful, He can destroy evil. (3) But evil is not destroyed. (4) Therefore, there is no all-good, all-powerful God.\n\n\n
. Because of the prevalence of evil in the world, they formulated this classical proposition: (1) If God is all-good, He will destroy evil. (2) If God is all-powerful, He can destroy evil. (3) But evil is not destroyed. (4) Therefore, there is no all-good, all-powerful God.\n\n\n
. Because of the prevalence of evil in the world, they formulated this classical proposition: (1) If God is all-good, He will destroy evil. (2) If God is all-powerful, He can destroy evil. (3) But evil is not destroyed. (4) Therefore, there is no all-good, all-powerful God.\n\n\n
This line of reasoning leads the atheist to deny God, but it can lead to two other conclusions. One conclusion says that God is all-powerful, but He is sadistic and, therefore, not all-good. There are no serious proponents of this view for, carried to its logical conclusion, it leads to atheism. Both the cruel-God view and the atheistic view reject the notion of a good God and hold to the reality of evil. The former attributes the evil to God whereas the atheist simply admits the existence of evil. The cruel-God position usually has been espoused by atheists writing satirically about theism.\n\n
This line of reasoning leads the atheist to deny God, but it can lead to two other conclusions. One conclusion says that God is all-powerful, but He is sadistic and, therefore, not all-good. There are no serious proponents of this view for, carried to its logical conclusion, it leads to atheism. Both the cruel-God view and the atheistic view reject the notion of a good God and hold to the reality of evil. The former attributes the evil to God whereas the atheist simply admits the existence of evil. The cruel-God position usually has been espoused by atheists writing satirically about theism.\n\n
This line of reasoning leads the atheist to deny God, but it can lead to two other conclusions. One conclusion says that God is all-powerful, but He is sadistic and, therefore, not all-good. There are no serious proponents of this view for, carried to its logical conclusion, it leads to atheism. Both the cruel-God view and the atheistic view reject the notion of a good God and hold to the reality of evil. The former attributes the evil to God whereas the atheist simply admits the existence of evil. The cruel-God position usually has been espoused by atheists writing satirically about theism.\n\n
This line of reasoning leads the atheist to deny God, but it can lead to two other conclusions. One conclusion says that God is all-powerful, but He is sadistic and, therefore, not all-good. There are no serious proponents of this view for, carried to its logical conclusion, it leads to atheism. Both the cruel-God view and the atheistic view reject the notion of a good God and hold to the reality of evil. The former attributes the evil to God whereas the atheist simply admits the existence of evil. The cruel-God position usually has been espoused by atheists writing satirically about theism.\n\n
This line of reasoning leads the atheist to deny God, but it can lead to two other conclusions. One conclusion says that God is all-powerful, but He is sadistic and, therefore, not all-good. There are no serious proponents of this view for, carried to its logical conclusion, it leads to atheism. Both the cruel-God view and the atheistic view reject the notion of a good God and hold to the reality of evil. The former attributes the evil to God whereas the atheist simply admits the existence of evil. The cruel-God position usually has been espoused by atheists writing satirically about theism.\n\n
The second conclusion says God exists and is all-good, but He is incapable of stopping evil and, therefore, He is not all-powerful. We will deal with this in the section on theistic views.\n\n\n
The second conclusion says God exists and is all-good, but He is incapable of stopping evil and, therefore, He is not all-powerful. We will deal with this in the section on theistic views.\n\n\n
The second conclusion says God exists and is all-good, but He is incapable of stopping evil and, therefore, He is not all-powerful. We will deal with this in the section on theistic views.\n\n\n
The false assumption made in this classical proposition is that evil would have to have been destroyed by now if God were capable or wanted to. On the contrary, if there is an all-good, all-powerful God, then the proposition could be stated another way: (1) If God is all-good, He will destroy evil. (2) If God is all-powerful, He can destroy evil. (3) Evil is not yet destroyed. (4) Therefore evil will be destroyed one day. See Revelation 20:10-15; 21:4; 22:3-8 for a description of how God plans to do just that.\n\n
The false assumption made in this classical proposition is that evil would have to have been destroyed by now if God were capable or wanted to. On the contrary, if there is an all-good, all-powerful God, then the proposition could be stated another way: (1) If God is all-good, He will destroy evil. (2) If God is all-powerful, He can destroy evil. (3) Evil is not yet destroyed. (4) Therefore evil will be destroyed one day. See Revelation 20:10-15; 21:4; 22:3-8 for a description of how God plans to do just that.\n\n
The false assumption made in this classical proposition is that evil would have to have been destroyed by now if God were capable or wanted to. On the contrary, if there is an all-good, all-powerful God, then the proposition could be stated another way: (1) If God is all-good, He will destroy evil. (2) If God is all-powerful, He can destroy evil. (3) Evil is not yet destroyed. (4) Therefore evil will be destroyed one day. See Revelation 20:10-15; 21:4; 22:3-8 for a description of how God plans to do just that.\n\n
The false assumption made in this classical proposition is that evil would have to have been destroyed by now if God were capable or wanted to. On the contrary, if there is an all-good, all-powerful God, then the proposition could be stated another way: (1) If God is all-good, He will destroy evil. (2) If God is all-powerful, He can destroy evil. (3) Evil is not yet destroyed. (4) Therefore evil will be destroyed one day. See Revelation 20:10-15; 21:4; 22:3-8 for a description of how God plans to do just that.\n\n
The false assumption made in this classical proposition is that evil would have to have been destroyed by now if God were capable or wanted to. On the contrary, if there is an all-good, all-powerful God, then the proposition could be stated another way: (1) If God is all-good, He will destroy evil. (2) If God is all-powerful, He can destroy evil. (3) Evil is not yet destroyed. (4) Therefore evil will be destroyed one day. See Revelation 20:10-15; 21:4; 22:3-8 for a description of how God plans to do just that.\n\n
Although we are specifically dealing with the problem of evil, it is critical that we reexamine atheism as a whole. To do this, see chapter 3 on the untenable nature of atheism and the evidence for the existence of God. When atheism is no longer seen as a viable option, we can move on to the second or third options.\n\n
Although we are specifically dealing with the problem of evil, it is critical that we reexamine atheism as a whole. To do this, see chapter 3 on the untenable nature of atheism and the evidence for the existence of God. When atheism is no longer seen as a viable option, we can move on to the second or third options.\n\n
Although we are specifically dealing with the problem of evil, it is critical that we reexamine atheism as a whole. To do this, see chapter 3 on the untenable nature of atheism and the evidence for the existence of God. When atheism is no longer seen as a viable option, we can move on to the second or third options.\n\n
Although we are specifically dealing with the problem of evil, it is critical that we reexamine atheism as a whole. To do this, see chapter 3 on the untenable nature of atheism and the evidence for the existence of God. When atheism is no longer seen as a viable option, we can move on to the second or third options.\n\n
\n
The pantheist argues that evil cannot be real if his view of God (God is all and all is God) is correct. \n
The pantheist argues that evil cannot be real if his view of God (God is all and all is God) is correct. \n
The pantheist argues that evil cannot be real if his view of God (God is all and all is God) is correct. The teachings of\nVedanta Hinduism express evil as only a passing appearance, an illusion. There is only one reality, and that reality is good, regardless of how we perceive it. The illusion of evil is like thinking a coiled rope is a snake until one is close enough to see that it's only a rope. In America, the best known proponent of evil as an illusion is Christian Science. \n
The pantheist argues that evil cannot be real if his view of God (God is all and all is God) is correct. The teachings of\nVedanta Hinduism express evil as only a passing appearance, an illusion. There is only one reality, and that reality is good, regardless of how we perceive it. The illusion of evil is like thinking a coiled rope is a snake until one is close enough to see that it's only a rope. In America, the best known proponent of evil as an illusion is Christian Science. \n
The pantheist argues that evil cannot be real if his view of God (God is all and all is God) is correct. The teachings of\nVedanta Hinduism express evil as only a passing appearance, an illusion. There is only one reality, and that reality is good, regardless of how we perceive it. The illusion of evil is like thinking a coiled rope is a snake until one is close enough to see that it's only a rope. In America, the best known proponent of evil as an illusion is Christian Science. \n
The pantheist argues that evil cannot be real if his view of God (God is all and all is God) is correct. The teachings of\nVedanta Hinduism express evil as only a passing appearance, an illusion. There is only one reality, and that reality is good, regardless of how we perceive it. The illusion of evil is like thinking a coiled rope is a snake until one is close enough to see that it's only a rope. In America, the best known proponent of evil as an illusion is Christian Science. \n
There are two major objections to this alternative:\n(1) To accept it, we must deny our own senses and consistent personal experiences. All around us we see suffering resulting from evil. Man's inhumanity to man is apparent as we observe hatred, murders, robbery, famines, wars, etc. If we deny these, on what grounds can we verify the pantheist's position? If we can't trust our senses and experience in one area, how can we know that our senses and experience are not deceiving us when we accept pantheism?\n\n
There are two major objections to this alternative:\n(1) To accept it, we must deny our own senses and consistent personal experiences. All around us we see suffering resulting from evil. Man's inhumanity to man is apparent as we observe hatred, murders, robbery, famines, wars, etc. If we deny these, on what grounds can we verify the pantheist's position? If we can't trust our senses and experience in one area, how can we know that our senses and experience are not deceiving us when we accept pantheism?\n\n
There are two major objections to this alternative:\n(1) To accept it, we must deny our own senses and consistent personal experiences. All around us we see suffering resulting from evil. Man's inhumanity to man is apparent as we observe hatred, murders, robbery, famines, wars, etc. If we deny these, on what grounds can we verify the pantheist's position? If we can't trust our senses and experience in one area, how can we know that our senses and experience are not deceiving us when we accept pantheism?\n\n
There are two major objections to this alternative:\n(1) To accept it, we must deny our own senses and consistent personal experiences. All around us we see suffering resulting from evil. Man's inhumanity to man is apparent as we observe hatred, murders, robbery, famines, wars, etc. If we deny these, on what grounds can we verify the pantheist's position? If we can't trust our senses and experience in one area, how can we know that our senses and experience are not deceiving us when we accept pantheism?\n\n
) This viewpoint is contrary to two other kinds of evidence, scientific and historical. The evidence gathered through scientific investigation points to the reality of pain and suffering. Natural evil has been monitored for centuries and its existence has been universally verified. Scientists, with their investigative skills, have warned us accurately of impending disasters such as hurricanes, earthquakes, and tornadoes. Also, if pain were an illusion, the millions of dollars poured into research for disease control and cure would be worthless.\n\n
) This viewpoint is contrary to two other kinds of evidence, scientific and historical. The evidence gathered through scientific investigation points to the reality of pain and suffering. Natural evil has been monitored for centuries and its existence has been universally verified. Scientists, with their investigative skills, have warned us accurately of impending disasters such as hurricanes, earthquakes, and tornadoes. Also, if pain were an illusion, the millions of dollars poured into research for disease control and cure would be worthless.\n\n
) This viewpoint is contrary to two other kinds of evidence, scientific and historical. The evidence gathered through scientific investigation points to the reality of pain and suffering. Natural evil has been monitored for centuries and its existence has been universally verified. Scientists, with their investigative skills, have warned us accurately of impending disasters such as hurricanes, earthquakes, and tornadoes. Also, if pain were an illusion, the millions of dollars poured into research for disease control and cure would be worthless.\n\n
) This viewpoint is contrary to two other kinds of evidence, scientific and historical. The evidence gathered through scientific investigation points to the reality of pain and suffering. Natural evil has been monitored for centuries and its existence has been universally verified. Scientists, with their investigative skills, have warned us accurately of impending disasters such as hurricanes, earthquakes, and tornadoes. Also, if pain were an illusion, the millions of dollars poured into research for disease control and cure would be worthless.\n\n
Legal historical evidence chronicles at every turn the reality of moral evil. Injustice, treachery, selfishness, and cruelty are boldly displayed on the pages of history. To deny evil would be to deny life as we know it. This is exactly what pantheists say they do, but in reality, their lives are no different from ours. They criticize falsehood and immorality just as we do.\n
Legal historical evidence chronicles at every turn the reality of moral evil. Injustice, treachery, selfishness, and cruelty are boldly displayed on the pages of history. To deny evil would be to deny life as we know it. This is exactly what pantheists say they do, but in reality, their lives are no different from ours. They criticize falsehood and immorality just as we do.\n
Legal historical evidence chronicles at every turn the reality of moral evil. Injustice, treachery, selfishness, and cruelty are boldly displayed on the pages of history. To deny evil would be to deny life as we know it. This is exactly what pantheists say they do, but in reality, their lives are no different from ours. They criticize falsehood and immorality just as we do.\n
Legal historical evidence chronicles at every turn the reality of moral evil. Injustice, treachery, selfishness, and cruelty are boldly displayed on the pages of history. To deny evil would be to deny life as we know it. This is exactly what pantheists say they do, but in reality, their lives are no different from ours. They criticize falsehood and immorality just as we do.\n
The final and most important objection to this notion is that it contradicts the statements of Christ and the Bible (Jud. 2:11-15; Ps. 5:4-5; 51:2-5; Micah 3:1-3; Matt. 23:13-36; Gal. 5:19-26). For a closer look at the trustworthiness of Christ and the Bible, see chapters 4 and 6.\n\nThe second option is invalid because it violates our own personal experiences and reason, and it goes contrary to the testimony of Christ and the Bible, both of which we have shown to be true.\n\n
The final and most important objection to this notion is that it contradicts the statements of Christ and the Bible (Jud. 2:11-15; Ps. 5:4-5; 51:2-5; Micah 3:1-3; Matt. 23:13-36; Gal. 5:19-26). For a closer look at the trustworthiness of Christ and the Bible, see chapters 4 and 6.\n\nThe second option is invalid because it violates our own personal experiences and reason, and it goes contrary to the testimony of Christ and the Bible, both of which we have shown to be true.\n\n
The final and most important objection to this notion is that it contradicts the statements of Christ and the Bible (Jud. 2:11-15; Ps. 5:4-5; 51:2-5; Micah 3:1-3; Matt. 23:13-36; Gal. 5:19-26). For a closer look at the trustworthiness of Christ and the Bible, see chapters 4 and 6.\n\nThe second option is invalid because it violates our own personal experiences and reason, and it goes contrary to the testimony of Christ and the Bible, both of which we have shown to be true.\n\n
The final and most important objection to this notion is that it contradicts the statements of Christ and the Bible (Jud. 2:11-15; Ps. 5:4-5; 51:2-5; Micah 3:1-3; Matt. 23:13-36; Gal. 5:19-26). For a closer look at the trustworthiness of Christ and the Bible, see chapters 4 and 6.\n\nThe second option is invalid because it violates our own personal experiences and reason, and it goes contrary to the testimony of Christ and the Bible, both of which we have shown to be true.\n\n
\n
The third possible solution allows for the existence of both God and evil. This leads to three more choices. The first choice is finitism &#x2014; evil is greater than God. The second choice is dualism &#x2014; God and evil are co-eternal opposites. The third choice is theism &#x2014;God is greater than evil and will one day defeat it. Finitism.\n\n\n
The third possible solution allows for the existence of both God and evil. This leads to three more choices. The first choice is finitism &#x2014; evil is greater than God. The second choice is dualism &#x2014; God and evil are co-eternal opposites. The third choice is theism &#x2014;God is greater than evil and will one day defeat it. Finitism.\n\n\n
The third possible solution allows for the existence of both God and evil. This leads to three more choices. The first choice is finitism &#x2014; evil is greater than God. The second choice is dualism &#x2014; God and evil are co-eternal opposites. The third choice is theism &#x2014;God is greater than evil and will one day defeat it. Finitism.\n\n\n
The third possible solution allows for the existence of both God and evil. This leads to three more choices. The first choice is finitism &#x2014; evil is greater than God. The second choice is dualism &#x2014; God and evil are co-eternal opposites. The third choice is theism &#x2014;God is greater than evil and will one day defeat it. Finitism.\n\n\n
The third possible solution allows for the existence of both God and evil. This leads to three more choices. The first choice is finitism &#x2014; evil is greater than God. The second choice is dualism &#x2014; God and evil are co-eternal opposites. The third choice is theism &#x2014;God is greater than evil and will one day defeat it. Finitism.\n\n\n
The third possible solution allows for the existence of both God and evil. This leads to three more choices. The first choice is finitism &#x2014; evil is greater than God. The second choice is dualism &#x2014; God and evil are co-eternal opposites. The third choice is theism &#x2014;God is greater than evil and will one day defeat it. Finitism.\n\n\n
The third possible solution allows for the existence of both God and evil. This leads to three more choices. The first choice is finitism &#x2014; evil is greater than God. The second choice is dualism &#x2014; God and evil are co-eternal opposites. The third choice is theism &#x2014;God is greater than evil and will one day defeat it. Finitism.\n\n\n
The third possible solution allows for the existence of both God and evil. This leads to three more choices. The first choice is finitism &#x2014; evil is greater than God. The second choice is dualism &#x2014; God and evil are co-eternal opposites. The third choice is theism &#x2014;God is greater than evil and will one day defeat it. Finitism.\n\n\n
The third possible solution allows for the existence of both God and evil. This leads to three more choices. The first choice is finitism &#x2014; evil is greater than God. The second choice is dualism &#x2014; God and evil are co-eternal opposites. The third choice is theism &#x2014;God is greater than evil and will one day defeat it. Finitism.\n\n\n
The third possible solution allows for the existence of both God and evil. This leads to three more choices. The first choice is finitism &#x2014; evil is greater than God. The second choice is dualism &#x2014; God and evil are co-eternal opposites. The third choice is theism &#x2014;God is greater than evil and will one day defeat it. Finitism.\n\n\n
We have three choices here. The first choice is finitism &#x2014; evil is greater than God. The second choice is dualism &#x2014; God and evil are co-eternal opposites. The third choice is theism &#x2014;God is greater than evil and will one day defeat it. Finitism. \n\n\n\n
First, the finitist makes the same false assumption that the atheist makes. Both conjecture that God is incapable of defeating evil because He has not done it yet. Here is the finitist's line of reasoning: (1) God exists. (2) If God were all-powerful He would destroy evil. (3) Evil is not destroyed. (4) Therefore God is not all-powerful. Finitism fails to consider that God's timing is not human timing. The fact that God has not defeated evil today does not eliminate His ability to do it later.\n\n
First, the finitist makes the same false assumption that the atheist makes. Both conjecture that God is incapable of defeating evil because He has not done it yet. Here is the finitist's line of reasoning: (1) God exists. (2) If God were all-powerful He would destroy evil. (3) Evil is not destroyed. (4) Therefore God is not all-powerful. Finitism fails to consider that God's timing is not human timing. The fact that God has not defeated evil today does not eliminate His ability to do it later.\n\n
First, the finitist makes the same false assumption that the atheist makes. Both conjecture that God is incapable of defeating evil because He has not done it yet. Here is the finitist's line of reasoning: (1) God exists. (2) If God were all-powerful He would destroy evil. (3) Evil is not destroyed. (4) Therefore God is not all-powerful. Finitism fails to consider that God's timing is not human timing. The fact that God has not defeated evil today does not eliminate His ability to do it later.\n\n
First, the finitist makes the same false assumption that the atheist makes. Both conjecture that God is incapable of defeating evil because He has not done it yet. Here is the finitist's line of reasoning: (1) God exists. (2) If God were all-powerful He would destroy evil. (3) Evil is not destroyed. (4) Therefore God is not all-powerful. Finitism fails to consider that God's timing is not human timing. The fact that God has not defeated evil today does not eliminate His ability to do it later.\n\n
First, the finitist makes the same false assumption that the atheist makes. Both conjecture that God is incapable of defeating evil because He has not done it yet. Here is the finitist's line of reasoning: (1) God exists. (2) If God were all-powerful He would destroy evil. (3) Evil is not destroyed. (4) Therefore God is not all-powerful. Finitism fails to consider that God's timing is not human timing. The fact that God has not defeated evil today does not eliminate His ability to do it later.\n\n
Finally, and most importantly, this thesis is contrary to the Bible's position on both the character of God and how He intends to deal with evil. The Bible states in very clear terms that one of God's divine attributes is His omnipotence. Fifty-six times it declares that God is almighty (e.g., Rev. 19:6). The Bible also predicts that God will ultimately defeat evil (Rev. 21-22). For further documentation on the validity of the Bible, refer back to chapter 6.\n\n
Finally, and most importantly, this thesis is contrary to the Bible's position on both the character of God and how He intends to deal with evil. The Bible states in very clear terms that one of God's divine attributes is His omnipotence. Fifty-six times it declares that God is almighty (e.g., Rev. 19:6). The Bible also predicts that God will ultimately defeat evil (Rev. 21-22). For further documentation on the validity of the Bible, refer back to chapter 6.\n\n
Finally, and most importantly, this thesis is contrary to the Bible's position on both the character of God and how He intends to deal with evil. The Bible states in very clear terms that one of God's divine attributes is His omnipotence. Fifty-six times it declares that God is almighty (e.g., Rev. 19:6). The Bible also predicts that God will ultimately defeat evil (Rev. 21-22). For further documentation on the validity of the Bible, refer back to chapter 6.\n\n
The third possible solution allows for the existence of both God and evil. This leads to three more choices. The first choice is finitism &#x2014; evil is greater than God. The second choice is dualism &#x2014; God and evil are co-eternal opposites. The third choice is theism &#x2014;God is greater than evil and will one day defeat it. Finitism.\n\n\n
The third possible solution allows for the existence of both God and evil. This leads to three more choices. The first choice is finitism &#x2014; evil is greater than God. The second choice is dualism &#x2014; God and evil are co-eternal opposites. The third choice is theism &#x2014;God is greater than evil and will one day defeat it. Finitism.\n\n\n
Dualism. Dualism assumes that God and evil are coeternal opposites. This view is similar to finitism because it rescues the goodness of God at the expense of His omnipotence. But dualism holds God to be equal with evil rather than less than evil. Although there are variations of this position from ancient Greek and Zoroastrian theology to modern-day process theology, all who hold this view build it on the following premises:\n\n
Dualism. Dualism assumes that God and evil are coeternal opposites. This view is similar to finitism because it rescues the goodness of God at the expense of His omnipotence. But dualism holds God to be equal with evil rather than less than evil. Although there are variations of this position from ancient Greek and Zoroastrian theology to modern-day process theology, all who hold this view build it on the following premises:\n\n
Although there are variations of this position from ancient Greek and Zoroastrian theology to modern-day process theology, all who hold this view build it on the following premises:\nThe first premise for coeternality states that nothing can be the source of its opposite; light cannot be the source of darkness, or vice versa. The second premise states that evil is a thing, and if God were the only eternal source of all things, then He would be the cause of evil. Therefore, God and evil must exist together for all eternity or else God would be responsible for evil.\n\n\n
Although there are variations of this position from ancient Greek and Zoroastrian theology to modern-day process theology, all who hold this view build it on the following premises:\nThe first premise for coeternality states that nothing can be the source of its opposite; light cannot be the source of darkness, or vice versa. The second premise states that evil is a thing, and if God were the only eternal source of all things, then He would be the cause of evil. Therefore, God and evil must exist together for all eternity or else God would be responsible for evil.\n\n\n
Although there are variations of this position from ancient Greek and Zoroastrian theology to modern-day process theology, all who hold this view build it on the following premises:\nThe first premise for coeternality states that nothing can be the source of its opposite; light cannot be the source of darkness, or vice versa. The second premise states that evil is a thing, and if God were the only eternal source of all things, then He would be the cause of evil. Therefore, God and evil must exist together for all eternity or else God would be responsible for evil.\n\n\n
Both of these presuppositions are false. There are three problems with the first premise. First, it is possible for evil to occur out of good. This would not occur intrinsically but incidentally. A man may kill a dog while backing out of his driveway. There is nothing intrinsically evil about backing an automobile out of a driveway, but accidentally the animal is slain. \n\nSecond, just because we have opposites, this does not mean that we have a first-cause opposite for each. For instance, take the concepts of fat and thin. They are opposites, but this doesn't necessitate an eternal fat as opposed to an eternal thin. \n\nThird, the concept of two ultimate forces that are in eternal opposition, each having the same amount of power, is not logical. Philosophers have presented this dilemma in terms of an absolute irresistible force coming in conflict with an absolute immovable object. If the force cannot move the object, it is no longer irresistible. If the object can be moved, it is no longer immovable. Either evil is greater than God, or God is greater than evil. It is logically absurd to have them as absolute coequals in eternal opposition.\n\n\n\n
Both of these presuppositions are false. There are three problems with the first premise. First, it is possible for evil to occur out of good. This would not occur intrinsically but incidentally. A man may kill a dog while backing out of his driveway. There is nothing intrinsically evil about backing an automobile out of a driveway, but accidentally the animal is slain. \n\nSecond, just because we have opposites, this does not mean that we have a first-cause opposite for each. For instance, take the concepts of fat and thin. They are opposites, but this doesn't necessitate an eternal fat as opposed to an eternal thin. \n\nThird, the concept of two ultimate forces that are in eternal opposition, each having the same amount of power, is not logical. Philosophers have presented this dilemma in terms of an absolute irresistible force coming in conflict with an absolute immovable object. If the force cannot move the object, it is no longer irresistible. If the object can be moved, it is no longer immovable. Either evil is greater than God, or God is greater than evil. It is logically absurd to have them as absolute coequals in eternal opposition.\n\n\n\n
Both of these presuppositions are false. There are three problems with the first premise. First, it is possible for evil to occur out of good. This would not occur intrinsically but incidentally. A man may kill a dog while backing out of his driveway. There is nothing intrinsically evil about backing an automobile out of a driveway, but accidentally the animal is slain. \n\nSecond, just because we have opposites, this does not mean that we have a first-cause opposite for each. For instance, take the concepts of fat and thin. They are opposites, but this doesn't necessitate an eternal fat as opposed to an eternal thin. \n\nThird, the concept of two ultimate forces that are in eternal opposition, each having the same amount of power, is not logical. Philosophers have presented this dilemma in terms of an absolute irresistible force coming in conflict with an absolute immovable object. If the force cannot move the object, it is no longer irresistible. If the object can be moved, it is no longer immovable. Either evil is greater than God, or God is greater than evil. It is logically absurd to have them as absolute coequals in eternal opposition.\n\n\n\n
Both of these presuppositions are false. There are three problems with the first premise. First, it is possible for evil to occur out of good. This would not occur intrinsically but incidentally. A man may kill a dog while backing out of his driveway. There is nothing intrinsically evil about backing an automobile out of a driveway, but accidentally the animal is slain. \n\nSecond, just because we have opposites, this does not mean that we have a first-cause opposite for each. For instance, take the concepts of fat and thin. They are opposites, but this doesn't necessitate an eternal fat as opposed to an eternal thin. \n\nThird, the concept of two ultimate forces that are in eternal opposition, each having the same amount of power, is not logical. Philosophers have presented this dilemma in terms of an absolute irresistible force coming in conflict with an absolute immovable object. If the force cannot move the object, it is no longer irresistible. If the object can be moved, it is no longer immovable. Either evil is greater than God, or God is greater than evil. It is logically absurd to have them as absolute coequals in eternal opposition.\n\n\n\n
Both of these presuppositions are false. There are three problems with the first premise. First, it is possible for evil to occur out of good. This would not occur intrinsically but incidentally. A man may kill a dog while backing out of his driveway. There is nothing intrinsically evil about backing an automobile out of a driveway, but accidentally the animal is slain. \n\nSecond, just because we have opposites, this does not mean that we have a first-cause opposite for each. For instance, take the concepts of fat and thin. They are opposites, but this doesn't necessitate an eternal fat as opposed to an eternal thin. \n\nThird, the concept of two ultimate forces that are in eternal opposition, each having the same amount of power, is not logical. Philosophers have presented this dilemma in terms of an absolute irresistible force coming in conflict with an absolute immovable object. If the force cannot move the object, it is no longer irresistible. If the object can be moved, it is no longer immovable. Either evil is greater than God, or God is greater than evil. It is logically absurd to have them as absolute coequals in eternal opposition.\n\n\n\n
We can prove the second premise false by demonstrating that evil is not a thing. Evil does not have an existence of its own; it is a corruption of that which already exists. We generally think of evil in negative terms &#x2014;e.g., unsanitary, unhealthy, unreliable, uncivilized, incurable, etc. All these terms present evil as a negation of good.\nSt. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas both struggled with the identity of evil. They concluded that evil is real but not a substance in and of itself, because everything created by God is good. Evil, then, is an absence or privation of something good. Blindness was used as an example of the privation of sight. Aquinas noted that a thing is called evil for lacking a perfection it ought to have; to lack sight is evil in a man but not in a stone.\nEvil does not exist by itself, because it does not exist apart from good. For example, rot can exist in a tree only as long as the tree exists. There is no such thing as a perfect state of rottenness. A rusting car and a decaying carcass illustrate the same point. Evil exists as a corruption of some good thing; it is a privation and does not have essence by itself.\n\n\n\n\n
We can prove the second premise false by demonstrating that evil is not a thing. Evil does not have an existence of its own; it is a corruption of that which already exists. We generally think of evil in negative terms &#x2014;e.g., unsanitary, unhealthy, unreliable, uncivilized, incurable, etc. All these terms present evil as a negation of good.\nSt. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas both struggled with the identity of evil. They concluded that evil is real but not a substance in and of itself, because everything created by God is good. Evil, then, is an absence or privation of something good. Blindness was used as an example of the privation of sight. Aquinas noted that a thing is called evil for lacking a perfection it ought to have; to lack sight is evil in a man but not in a stone.\nEvil does not exist by itself, because it does not exist apart from good. For example, rot can exist in a tree only as long as the tree exists. There is no such thing as a perfect state of rottenness. A rusting car and a decaying carcass illustrate the same point. Evil exists as a corruption of some good thing; it is a privation and does not have essence by itself.\n\n\n\n\n
We can prove the second premise false by demonstrating that evil is not a thing. Evil does not have an existence of its own; it is a corruption of that which already exists. We generally think of evil in negative terms &#x2014;e.g., unsanitary, unhealthy, unreliable, uncivilized, incurable, etc. All these terms present evil as a negation of good.\nSt. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas both struggled with the identity of evil. They concluded that evil is real but not a substance in and of itself, because everything created by God is good. Evil, then, is an absence or privation of something good. Blindness was used as an example of the privation of sight. Aquinas noted that a thing is called evil for lacking a perfection it ought to have; to lack sight is evil in a man but not in a stone.\nEvil does not exist by itself, because it does not exist apart from good. For example, rot can exist in a tree only as long as the tree exists. There is no such thing as a perfect state of rottenness. A rusting car and a decaying carcass illustrate the same point. Evil exists as a corruption of some good thing; it is a privation and does not have essence by itself.\n\n\n\n\n
We can prove the second premise false by demonstrating that evil is not a thing. Evil does not have an existence of its own; it is a corruption of that which already exists. We generally think of evil in negative terms &#x2014;e.g., unsanitary, unhealthy, unreliable, uncivilized, incurable, etc. All these terms present evil as a negation of good.\nSt. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas both struggled with the identity of evil. They concluded that evil is real but not a substance in and of itself, because everything created by God is good. Evil, then, is an absence or privation of something good. Blindness was used as an example of the privation of sight. Aquinas noted that a thing is called evil for lacking a perfection it ought to have; to lack sight is evil in a man but not in a stone.\nEvil does not exist by itself, because it does not exist apart from good. For example, rot can exist in a tree only as long as the tree exists. There is no such thing as a perfect state of rottenness. A rusting car and a decaying carcass illustrate the same point. Evil exists as a corruption of some good thing; it is a privation and does not have essence by itself.\n\n\n\n\n
The final and foremost reason for rejecting dualism is that it is contrary to the Bible. The Bible clearly affirms God's omnipotence and sovereignty, and its authors never recognize coeternal opposites in the universe. Moses describes the one sovereign God in Deuteronomy 4:35, and this is echoed by the Prophet Isaiah (Isa. 45:5). Christ Himself discussed the defeat of Satan in Luke 10:17-19. Scripture not only accounts for one sovereign, almighty God, but also validates the statement that evil is a privation and not a thing in and of itself. Paul tells us in Colossians 1:16 that God created all things, and 1 Timothy 4:4 says that all things created were good.\n\n
The final and foremost reason for rejecting dualism is that it is contrary to the Bible. The Bible clearly affirms God's omnipotence and sovereignty, and its authors never recognize coeternal opposites in the universe. Moses describes the one sovereign God in Deuteronomy 4:35, and this is echoed by the Prophet Isaiah (Isa. 45:5). Christ Himself discussed the defeat of Satan in Luke 10:17-19. Scripture not only accounts for one sovereign, almighty God, but also validates the statement that evil is a privation and not a thing in and of itself. Paul tells us in Colossians 1:16 that God created all things, and 1 Timothy 4:4 says that all things created were good.\n\n
The final and foremost reason for rejecting dualism is that it is contrary to the Bible. The Bible clearly affirms God's omnipotence and sovereignty, and its authors never recognize coeternal opposites in the universe. Moses describes the one sovereign God in Deuteronomy 4:35, and this is echoed by the Prophet Isaiah (Isa. 45:5). Christ Himself discussed the defeat of Satan in Luke 10:17-19. Scripture not only accounts for one sovereign, almighty God, but also validates the statement that evil is a privation and not a thing in and of itself. Paul tells us in Colossians 1:16 that God created all things, and 1 Timothy 4:4 says that all things created were good.\n\n
The final and foremost reason for rejecting dualism is that it is contrary to the Bible. The Bible clearly affirms God's omnipotence and sovereignty, and its authors never recognize coeternal opposites in the universe. Moses describes the one sovereign God in Deuteronomy 4:35, and this is echoed by the Prophet Isaiah (Isa. 45:5). Christ Himself discussed the defeat of Satan in Luke 10:17-19. Scripture not only accounts for one sovereign, almighty God, but also validates the statement that evil is a privation and not a thing in and of itself. Paul tells us in Colossians 1:16 that God created all things, and 1 Timothy 4:4 says that all things created were good.\n\n
The final and foremost reason for rejecting dualism is that it is contrary to the Bible. The Bible clearly affirms God's omnipotence and sovereignty, and its authors never recognize coeternal opposites in the universe. Moses describes the one sovereign God in Deuteronomy 4:35, and this is echoed by the Prophet Isaiah (Isa. 45:5). Christ Himself discussed the defeat of Satan in Luke 10:17-19. Scripture not only accounts for one sovereign, almighty God, but also validates the statement that evil is a privation and not a thing in and of itself. Paul tells us in Colossians 1:16 that God created all things, and 1 Timothy 4:4 says that all things created were good.\n\n
The final and foremost reason for rejecting dualism is that it is contrary to the Bible. The Bible clearly affirms God's omnipotence and sovereignty, and its authors never recognize coeternal opposites in the universe. Moses describes the one sovereign God in Deuteronomy 4:35, and this is echoed by the Prophet Isaiah (Isa. 45:5). Christ Himself discussed the defeat of Satan in Luke 10:17-19. Scripture not only accounts for one sovereign, almighty God, but also validates the statement that evil is a privation and not a thing in and of itself. Paul tells us in Colossians 1:16 that God created all things, and 1 Timothy 4:4 says that all things created were good.\n\n
The third possible solution allows for the existence of both God and evil. This leads to three more choices. The first choice is finitism &#x2014; evil is greater than God. The second choice is dualism &#x2014; God and evil are co-eternal opposites. The third choice is theism &#x2014;God is greater than evil and will one day defeat it. Finitism.\n\n\n
The third possible solution allows for the existence of both God and evil. This leads to three more choices. The first choice is finitism &#x2014; evil is greater than God. The second choice is dualism &#x2014; God and evil are co-eternal opposites. The third choice is theism &#x2014;God is greater than evil and will one day defeat it. Finitism.\n\n\n
Theism. Theism stipulates that there is an all-good (Hab. 1:13), all-powerful (Rev. 4:8) God, who recognizes the reality of evil (Rom. 1:18-32), and will one day end evil and restore peace (Rev. 21:3-4). \n
Theism. Theism stipulates that there is an all-good (Hab. 1:13), all-powerful (Rev. 4:8) God, who recognizes the reality of evil (Rom. 1:18-32), and will one day end evil and restore peace (Rev. 21:3-4). \n
Theism. Theism stipulates that there is an all-good (Hab. 1:13), all-powerful (Rev. 4:8) God, who recognizes the reality of evil (Rom. 1:18-32), and will one day end evil and restore peace (Rev. 21:3-4). \n
Theism. Theism stipulates that there is an all-good (Hab. 1:13), all-powerful (Rev. 4:8) God, who recognizes the reality of evil (Rom. 1:18-32), and will one day end evil and restore peace (Rev. 21:3-4). \n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
The magnitude of any choice is determined by the size of the consequences. Choosing between Coke and Pepsi is not a major choice in life, but choosing between apples and arsenic is. The consequences of accepting or rejecting God make this the choice of supreme importance. God told man that if he chose to embrace Him, their fellowship and blessings could continue. To spurn God and His commandments, however, would bring separation from Him (spiritual death) and physical death as well (Gen. 2). Genesis 3 tells us that man chose to go his own way rather than follow God's. Man thus suffered the consequences of spiritual and physical death. It was at this point that evil and suffering entered the world.\n\n
The magnitude of any choice is determined by the size of the consequences. Choosing between Coke and Pepsi is not a major choice in life, but choosing between apples and arsenic is. The consequences of accepting or rejecting God make this the choice of supreme importance. God told man that if he chose to embrace Him, their fellowship and blessings could continue. To spurn God and His commandments, however, would bring separation from Him (spiritual death) and physical death as well (Gen. 2). Genesis 3 tells us that man chose to go his own way rather than follow God's. Man thus suffered the consequences of spiritual and physical death. It was at this point that evil and suffering entered the world.\n\n
The magnitude of any choice is determined by the size of the consequences. Choosing between Coke and Pepsi is not a major choice in life, but choosing between apples and arsenic is. The consequences of accepting or rejecting God make this the choice of supreme importance. God told man that if he chose to embrace Him, their fellowship and blessings could continue. To spurn God and His commandments, however, would bring separation from Him (spiritual death) and physical death as well (Gen. 2). Genesis 3 tells us that man chose to go his own way rather than follow God's. Man thus suffered the consequences of spiritual and physical death. It was at this point that evil and suffering entered the world.\n\n
The magnitude of any choice is determined by the size of the consequences. Choosing between Coke and Pepsi is not a major choice in life, but choosing between apples and arsenic is. The consequences of accepting or rejecting God make this the choice of supreme importance. God told man that if he chose to embrace Him, their fellowship and blessings could continue. To spurn God and His commandments, however, would bring separation from Him (spiritual death) and physical death as well (Gen. 2). Genesis 3 tells us that man chose to go his own way rather than follow God's. Man thus suffered the consequences of spiritual and physical death. It was at this point that evil and suffering entered the world.\n\n
So we see that God did not create nor is He responsible for evil and sin. God's plan had the potential for evil when He gave man freedom of choice, but the actual origin of evil came as a result of man who directed his will away from God and toward his own selfish desires. Evil, remember, is not a thing but a corruption of a good thing already created by God. God told man what to do but man corrupted himself by choosing to disobey God. God's way is the perfect way and anything less than complete obedience to His instructions will bring problems into the process. God is not to blame for man's disobedience; man is the moral agent who is responsible.\n\n\n
So we see that God did not create nor is He responsible for evil and sin. God's plan had the potential for evil when He gave man freedom of choice, but the actual origin of evil came as a result of man who directed his will away from God and toward his own selfish desires. Evil, remember, is not a thing but a corruption of a good thing already created by God. God told man what to do but man corrupted himself by choosing to disobey God. God's way is the perfect way and anything less than complete obedience to His instructions will bring problems into the process. God is not to blame for man's disobedience; man is the moral agent who is responsible.\n\n\n
So we see that God did not create nor is He responsible for evil and sin. God's plan had the potential for evil when He gave man freedom of choice, but the actual origin of evil came as a result of man who directed his will away from God and toward his own selfish desires. Evil, remember, is not a thing but a corruption of a good thing already created by God. God told man what to do but man corrupted himself by choosing to disobey God. God's way is the perfect way and anything less than complete obedience to His instructions will bring problems into the process. God is not to blame for man's disobedience; man is the moral agent who is responsible.\n\n\n
So we see that God did not create nor is He responsible for evil and sin. God's plan had the potential for evil when He gave man freedom of choice, but the actual origin of evil came as a result of man who directed his will away from God and toward his own selfish desires. Evil, remember, is not a thing but a corruption of a good thing already created by God. God told man what to do but man corrupted himself by choosing to disobey God. God's way is the perfect way and anything less than complete obedience to His instructions will bring problems into the process. God is not to blame for man's disobedience; man is the moral agent who is responsible.\n\n\n
Because of the Fall, mankind became imperfect. This state of imperfection yielded temporal and eternal consequences.\n\nThe temporal consequences encompass both moral and natural evil. Moral evil is caused by man's inhumanity to man. Man in his fallen nature often seeks to promote himself at the expense of others. The suffering of innocent people is part of the insidiousness of evil. If only the wicked suffered, we would call that justice, but because there are innocent victims, there is a problem of injustice.\n\n\n
Because of the Fall, mankind became imperfect. This state of imperfection yielded temporal and eternal consequences.\n\nThe temporal consequences encompass both moral and natural evil. Moral evil is caused by man's inhumanity to man. Man in his fallen nature often seeks to promote himself at the expense of others. The suffering of innocent people is part of the insidiousness of evil. If only the wicked suffered, we would call that justice, but because there are innocent victims, there is a problem of injustice.\n\n\n
Because of the Fall, mankind became imperfect. This state of imperfection yielded temporal and eternal consequences.\n\nThe temporal consequences encompass both moral and natural evil. Moral evil is caused by man's inhumanity to man. Man in his fallen nature often seeks to promote himself at the expense of others. The suffering of innocent people is part of the insidiousness of evil. If only the wicked suffered, we would call that justice, but because there are innocent victims, there is a problem of injustice.\n\n\n
Because of the Fall, mankind became imperfect. This state of imperfection yielded temporal and eternal consequences.\n\nThe temporal consequences encompass both moral and natural evil. Moral evil is caused by man's inhumanity to man. Man in his fallen nature often seeks to promote himself at the expense of others. The suffering of innocent people is part of the insidiousness of evil. If only the wicked suffered, we would call that justice, but because there are innocent victims, there is a problem of injustice.\n\n\n
Because of the Fall, mankind became imperfect. This state of imperfection yielded temporal and eternal consequences.\n\nThe temporal consequences encompass both moral and natural evil. Moral evil is caused by man's inhumanity to man. Man in his fallen nature often seeks to promote himself at the expense of others. The suffering of innocent people is part of the insidiousness of evil. If only the wicked suffered, we would call that justice, but because there are innocent victims, there is a problem of injustice.\n\nIt is easy to associate moral evil with the fall of man, but how does the theist relate natural evil to the Fall? This occurs when the innocent are afflicted by natural phenomena such as typhoons and tornadoes. The Bible tells us that man's fall included not only a curse on him but also a curse on the creation around him (see Gen. 3:14-19; Rom. 8:18-23; Rev. 22:3). We live today in a disease-death environment. God did not originally design this environment; it has changed as a result of man's sin. This is an abnormal state which God will rectify when sin is removed (see Rev. 31:3-4; 22:3). Eden saw no natural disasters or death until after the sin of man, and there will be no natural disasters or death in the new heavens and earth when God puts an end to evil.\n\n\n
Because of the Fall, mankind became imperfect. This state of imperfection yielded temporal and eternal consequences.\n\nThe temporal consequences encompass both moral and natural evil. Moral evil is caused by man's inhumanity to man. Man in his fallen nature often seeks to promote himself at the expense of others. The suffering of innocent people is part of the insidiousness of evil. If only the wicked suffered, we would call that justice, but because there are innocent victims, there is a problem of injustice.\n\nIt is easy to associate moral evil with the fall of man, but how does the theist relate natural evil to the Fall? This occurs when the innocent are afflicted by natural phenomena such as typhoons and tornadoes. The Bible tells us that man's fall included not only a curse on him but also a curse on the creation around him (see Gen. 3:14-19; Rom. 8:18-23; Rev. 22:3). We live today in a disease-death environment. God did not originally design this environment; it has changed as a result of man's sin. This is an abnormal state which God will rectify when sin is removed (see Rev. 31:3-4; 22:3). Eden saw no natural disasters or death until after the sin of man, and there will be no natural disasters or death in the new heavens and earth when God puts an end to evil.\n\n\n
Because of the Fall, mankind became imperfect. This state of imperfection yielded temporal and eternal consequences.\n\nThe temporal consequences encompass both moral and natural evil. Moral evil is caused by man's inhumanity to man. Man in his fallen nature often seeks to promote himself at the expense of others. The suffering of innocent people is part of the insidiousness of evil. If only the wicked suffered, we would call that justice, but because there are innocent victims, there is a problem of injustice.\n\nIt is easy to associate moral evil with the fall of man, but how does the theist relate natural evil to the Fall? This occurs when the innocent are afflicted by natural phenomena such as typhoons and tornadoes. The Bible tells us that man's fall included not only a curse on him but also a curse on the creation around him (see Gen. 3:14-19; Rom. 8:18-23; Rev. 22:3). We live today in a disease-death environment. God did not originally design this environment; it has changed as a result of man's sin. This is an abnormal state which God will rectify when sin is removed (see Rev. 31:3-4; 22:3). Eden saw no natural disasters or death until after the sin of man, and there will be no natural disasters or death in the new heavens and earth when God puts an end to evil.\n\n\n
Because of the Fall, mankind became imperfect. This state of imperfection yielded temporal and eternal consequences.\n\nThe temporal consequences encompass both moral and natural evil. Moral evil is caused by man's inhumanity to man. Man in his fallen nature often seeks to promote himself at the expense of others. The suffering of innocent people is part of the insidiousness of evil. If only the wicked suffered, we would call that justice, but because there are innocent victims, there is a problem of injustice.\n\nIt is easy to associate moral evil with the fall of man, but how does the theist relate natural evil to the Fall? This occurs when the innocent are afflicted by natural phenomena such as typhoons and tornadoes. The Bible tells us that man's fall included not only a curse on him but also a curse on the creation around him (see Gen. 3:14-19; Rom. 8:18-23; Rev. 22:3). We live today in a disease-death environment. God did not originally design this environment; it has changed as a result of man's sin. This is an abnormal state which God will rectify when sin is removed (see Rev. 31:3-4; 22:3). Eden saw no natural disasters or death until after the sin of man, and there will be no natural disasters or death in the new heavens and earth when God puts an end to evil.\n\n\n
Because of the Fall, mankind became imperfect. This state of imperfection yielded temporal and eternal consequences.\n\nThe temporal consequences encompass both moral and natural evil. Moral evil is caused by man's inhumanity to man. Man in his fallen nature often seeks to promote himself at the expense of others. The suffering of innocent people is part of the insidiousness of evil. If only the wicked suffered, we would call that justice, but because there are innocent victims, there is a problem of injustice.\n\nIt is easy to associate moral evil with the fall of man, but how does the theist relate natural evil to the Fall? This occurs when the innocent are afflicted by natural phenomena such as typhoons and tornadoes. The Bible tells us that man's fall included not only a curse on him but also a curse on the creation around him (see Gen. 3:14-19; Rom. 8:18-23; Rev. 22:3). We live today in a disease-death environment. God did not originally design this environment; it has changed as a result of man's sin. This is an abnormal state which God will rectify when sin is removed (see Rev. 31:3-4; 22:3). Eden saw no natural disasters or death until after the sin of man, and there will be no natural disasters or death in the new heavens and earth when God puts an end to evil.\n\n\n
The temporal consequences are harsh, but the eternal consequences are even more grave, for they involve our relationship with God. Man was no longer a perfect being when he ceased to follow the perfect way of God (Rom. 3:23; Isa. 53:6; 59:2). The justice of God demanded that a penalty be paid for man's disobedience. The judgment for sin is eternal separation from the holy God (Rom. 6:23). This separation is defined by God as a confinement in hell forever (Matt. 25:46; Rev. 20:14-15). \n
The temporal consequences are harsh, but the eternal consequences are even more grave, for they involve our relationship with God. Man was no longer a perfect being when he ceased to follow the perfect way of God (Rom. 3:23; Isa. 53:6; 59:2). The justice of God demanded that a penalty be paid for man's disobedience. The judgment for sin is eternal separation from the holy God (Rom. 6:23). This separation is defined by God as a confinement in hell forever (Matt. 25:46; Rev. 20:14-15). \n
The temporal consequences are harsh, but the eternal consequences are even more grave, for they involve our relationship with God. Man was no longer a perfect being when he ceased to follow the perfect way of God (Rom. 3:23; Isa. 53:6; 59:2). The justice of God demanded that a penalty be paid for man's disobedience. The judgment for sin is eternal separation from the holy God (Rom. 6:23). This separation is defined by God as a confinement in hell forever (Matt. 25:46; Rev. 20:14-15). \n
Two attributes of God's character must be kept in balance to understand how God resolves the dilemma. God's justice demands death as the penalty for the rejection of His command, and God's love seeks a solution to man's terminal condition. God cannot change the penalty because it is just, and it is in keeping with His character. But, out of His great love for His creation, He paid the penalty for man. God substituted Himself and made possible man's redemption from sin.\n\nThrough substitution, God can satisfy both demands of His character. God is a righteous judge, and He cannot change His verdict on man's rebellion. What He did do, though, was offer to pay the penalty for us. \n\n
Two attributes of God's character must be kept in balance to understand how God resolves the dilemma. God's justice demands death as the penalty for the rejection of His command, and God's love seeks a solution to man's terminal condition. God cannot change the penalty because it is just, and it is in keeping with His character. But, out of His great love for His creation, He paid the penalty for man. God substituted Himself and made possible man's redemption from sin.\n\nThrough substitution, God can satisfy both demands of His character. God is a righteous judge, and He cannot change His verdict on man's rebellion. What He did do, though, was offer to pay the penalty for us. \n\n
Two attributes of God's character must be kept in balance to understand how God resolves the dilemma. God's justice demands death as the penalty for the rejection of His command, and God's love seeks a solution to man's terminal condition. God cannot change the penalty because it is just, and it is in keeping with His character. But, out of His great love for His creation, He paid the penalty for man. God substituted Himself and made possible man's redemption from sin.\n\nThrough substitution, God can satisfy both demands of His character. God is a righteous judge, and He cannot change His verdict on man's rebellion. What He did do, though, was offer to pay the penalty for us. \n\n
Now the choice is up to us; we can pay the penalty ourselves, or accept the payment of our Heavenly Father. The penalty will be paid. The only question is, "Who will pay it?"\n\nGod has still left us with the ability to accept or reject Him and His payment. But, as before, each choice has a consequence. If we accept God's payment and enter into a personal relationship with Christ, we are restored to fellowship and we are guaranteed eternal life. If we reject God's offer, we will spend eternity in separation from God.\nMake sure you take the opportunity to make the Gospel clear at this point. For further help, refer to chapter 13.\n\n
Now the choice is up to us; we can pay the penalty ourselves, or accept the payment of our Heavenly Father. The penalty will be paid. The only question is, "Who will pay it?"\n\nGod has still left us with the ability to accept or reject Him and His payment. But, as before, each choice has a consequence. If we accept God's payment and enter into a personal relationship with Christ, we are restored to fellowship and we are guaranteed eternal life. If we reject God's offer, we will spend eternity in separation from God.\nMake sure you take the opportunity to make the Gospel clear at this point. For further help, refer to chapter 13.\n\n
\n\n
The first question was one of causation, and the second question is one of cessation. "Why hasn't God stopped evil if He can?" Most people want God to wipe out all evil that affects them, but they want to set the conditions for God's eradication process. They would like to see God eliminate the cruel world leaders, murderers, and thieves along with the natural disasters and diseases that afflict the world. But God is not interested in a partial containment of evil. He promised that He will someday permanently put an end to evil. To do this, He must not only move against actual evil but also potential evil.\n\n\n
The first question was one of causation, and the second question is one of cessation. "Why hasn't God stopped evil if He can?" Most people want God to wipe out all evil that affects them, but they want to set the conditions for God's eradication process. They would like to see God eliminate the cruel world leaders, murderers, and thieves along with the natural disasters and diseases that afflict the world. But God is not interested in a partial containment of evil. He promised that He will someday permanently put an end to evil. To do this, He must not only move against actual evil but also potential evil.\n\n\n
The first question was one of causation, and the second question is one of cessation. "Why hasn't God stopped evil if He can?" Most people want God to wipe out all evil that affects them, but they want to set the conditions for God's eradication process. They would like to see God eliminate the cruel world leaders, murderers, and thieves along with the natural disasters and diseases that afflict the world. But God is not interested in a partial containment of evil. He promised that He will someday permanently put an end to evil. To do this, He must not only move against actual evil but also potential evil.\n\n\n
The first question was one of causation, and the second question is one of cessation. "Why hasn't God stopped evil if He can?" Most people want God to wipe out all evil that affects them, but they want to set the conditions for God's eradication process. They would like to see God eliminate the cruel world leaders, murderers, and thieves along with the natural disasters and diseases that afflict the world. But God is not interested in a partial containment of evil. He promised that He will someday permanently put an end to evil. To do this, He must not only move against actual evil but also potential evil.\n\n\n
The first question was one of causation, and the second question is one of cessation. "Why hasn't God stopped evil if He can?" Most people want God to wipe out all evil that affects them, but they want to set the conditions for God's eradication process. They would like to see God eliminate the cruel world leaders, murderers, and thieves along with the natural disasters and diseases that afflict the world. But God is not interested in a partial containment of evil. He promised that He will someday permanently put an end to evil. To do this, He must not only move against actual evil but also potential evil.\n\n\n
Let's imagine that God stopped all evil at 12 o'clock. How many people would be left at 12:01? God showed us with Noah and the Flood that if He removes actual evil and leaves potential evil behind, actual evil eventually returns. \n
Negative: drugs, overeating, under-exercising, smoking, etc.\n Positive: Exercise\n Some evil is the result of other&#x2019;s free choices\n Drunk driving, wars, child abuse, wife-beating, mugging, hatred, selfishness; Ancestral choices: occupation, location, political affiliation in certain countries. Populating inhospitable areas.\n 95% of all evil\n \n \n\n
Negative: drugs, overeating, under-exercising, smoking, etc.\n Positive: Exercise\n Some evil is the result of other&#x2019;s free choices\n Drunk driving, wars, child abuse, wife-beating, mugging, hatred, selfishness; Ancestral choices: occupation, location, political affiliation in certain countries. Populating inhospitable areas.\n 95% of all evil\n \n \n\n
Negative: drugs, overeating, under-exercising, smoking, etc.\n Positive: Exercise\n Some evil is the result of other&#x2019;s free choices\n Drunk driving, wars, child abuse, wife-beating, mugging, hatred, selfishness; Ancestral choices: occupation, location, political affiliation in certain countries. Populating inhospitable areas.\n 95% of all evil\n \n \n\n
Negative: drugs, overeating, under-exercising, smoking, etc.\n Positive: Exercise\n Some evil is the result of other&#x2019;s free choices\n Drunk driving, wars, child abuse, wife-beating, mugging, hatred, selfishness; Ancestral choices: occupation, location, political affiliation in certain countries. Populating inhospitable areas.\n 95% of all evil\n \n \n\n
Negative: drugs, overeating, under-exercising, smoking, etc.\n Positive: Exercise\n Some evil is the result of other&#x2019;s free choices\n Drunk driving, wars, child abuse, wife-beating, mugging, hatred, selfishness; Ancestral choices: occupation, location, political affiliation in certain countries. Populating inhospitable areas.\n 95% of all evil\n \n \n\n
* Some evil warns us of greater physical pain, ie. chest pain, sore spot on foot as warnings. Toothache.\n\n* Not all pain is bad, i.e. Leprosy, which eliminates the feeling of pain, causing disastrous results.\n\n* Some evil warns us of a greater moral pain, i.e. Greater moral evil if you do not heed it; if you respond you benefit (Bridge washed out/hitting car with rock to warn).\n
* Some evil warns us of greater physical pain, ie. chest pain, sore spot on foot as warnings. Toothache.\n\n* Not all pain is bad, i.e. Leprosy, which eliminates the feeling of pain, causing disastrous results.\n\n* Some evil warns us of a greater moral pain, i.e. Greater moral evil if you do not heed it; if you respond you benefit (Bridge washed out/hitting car with rock to warn).\n
* Some evil warns us of greater physical pain, ie. chest pain, sore spot on foot as warnings. Toothache.\n\n* Not all pain is bad, i.e. Leprosy, which eliminates the feeling of pain, causing disastrous results.\n\n* Some evil warns us of a greater moral pain, i.e. Greater moral evil if you do not heed it; if you respond you benefit (Bridge washed out/hitting car with rock to warn).\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
&#x201C;Promotes the Greatest Good&#x201D; means that the highest goods are dependent on the preconditioning of evils.\n\n* Some evil is the condition for immediate moral perfecting, i.e. Joni Erikson; mercy, patience, forgiveness, courage\n\n* Some evil is the condition for ultimate moral perfection. i.e. preparing us for the life to come; cf. Habbakuk 3\n
&#x201C;Promotes the Greatest Good&#x201D; means that the highest goods are dependent on the preconditioning of evils.\n\n* Some evil is the condition for immediate moral perfecting, i.e. Joni Erikson; mercy, patience, forgiveness, courage\n\n* Some evil is the condition for ultimate moral perfection. i.e. preparing us for the life to come; cf. Habbakuk 3\n
&#x201C;Promotes the Greatest Good&#x201D; means that the highest goods are dependent on the preconditioning of evils.\n\n* Some evil is the condition for immediate moral perfecting, i.e. Joni Erikson; mercy, patience, forgiveness, courage\n\n* Some evil is the condition for ultimate moral perfection. i.e. preparing us for the life to come; cf. Habbakuk 3\n
&#x201C;Promotes the Greatest Good&#x201D; means that the highest goods are dependent on the preconditioning of evils.\n\n* Some evil is the condition for immediate moral perfecting, i.e. Joni Erikson; mercy, patience, forgiveness, courage\n\n* Some evil is the condition for ultimate moral perfection. i.e. preparing us for the life to come; cf. Habbakuk 3\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
Even though God hasn't done it yet, we have God's promise that He will put an end to evil and suffering in the future (2 Peter 3:7-12; Rev. 19:1-2, 11-21; 20:7-15; 21:4-8).\n\n\n
Even though God hasn't done it yet, we have God's promise that He will put an end to evil and suffering in the future (2 Peter 3:7-12; Rev. 19:1-2, 11-21; 20:7-15; 21:4-8).\n\n\n
Even though God hasn't done it yet, we have God's promise that He will put an end to evil and suffering in the future (2 Peter 3:7-12; Rev. 19:1-2, 11-21; 20:7-15; 21:4-8).\n\n\n
Even though God hasn't done it yet, we have God's promise that He will put an end to evil and suffering in the future (2 Peter 3:7-12; Rev. 19:1-2, 11-21; 20:7-15; 21:4-8).\n\n\n
Even though God hasn't done it yet, we have God's promise that He will put an end to evil and suffering in the future (2 Peter 3:7-12; Rev. 19:1-2, 11-21; 20:7-15; 21:4-8).\n\n\n
Peter gives us a glimpse of why God is so patient. The early church suffered many persecutions and the Christians clung to the promise of Christ's return. They knew that suffering and pain would then end. Knowing this, they questioned Peter as to why it was taking Christ so long to come. Peter answered, "The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance" (2 Peter 3:9). By delaying His return, Christ is extending the opportunity for people to turn to Him and thus escape eternal punishment. When Christ comes, there will be no more chances, for time will have run out. If a person has not accepted God's substitute before then, it will be too late.\n\nIt is imperative that we view temporal suffering in light of God's perspective. Believers are not in the land of the living going to the land of the dying. They are in the land of the dying going to the land of the living. One reason why God delays the return of Christ and allows temporal suffering to continue is to allow more people to hear about and accept Christ, and thereby escape eternal suffering. God could send Christ today and stop temporal suffering, but when He does all opportunity to know Christ as Savior goes with it. Pose this question to a friend who is concerned with why God allows suffering to continue: If God had sent Christ and eliminated all suffering the day before you had a chance to understand and accept Christ as Savior, where would you be now? God delays putting an end to evil in order to allow us more opportunities to share the Gospel of Christ with others.\n\n\n\n
Peter gives us a glimpse of why God is so patient. The early church suffered many persecutions and the Christians clung to the promise of Christ's return. They knew that suffering and pain would then end. Knowing this, they questioned Peter as to why it was taking Christ so long to come. Peter answered, "The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance" (2 Peter 3:9). By delaying His return, Christ is extending the opportunity for people to turn to Him and thus escape eternal punishment. When Christ comes, there will be no more chances, for time will have run out. If a person has not accepted God's substitute before then, it will be too late.\n\nIt is imperative that we view temporal suffering in light of God's perspective. Believers are not in the land of the living going to the land of the dying. They are in the land of the dying going to the land of the living. One reason why God delays the return of Christ and allows temporal suffering to continue is to allow more people to hear about and accept Christ, and thereby escape eternal suffering. God could send Christ today and stop temporal suffering, but when He does all opportunity to know Christ as Savior goes with it. Pose this question to a friend who is concerned with why God allows suffering to continue: If God had sent Christ and eliminated all suffering the day before you had a chance to understand and accept Christ as Savior, where would you be now? God delays putting an end to evil in order to allow us more opportunities to share the Gospel of Christ with others.\n\n\n\n
Peter gives us a glimpse of why God is so patient. The early church suffered many persecutions and the Christians clung to the promise of Christ's return. They knew that suffering and pain would then end. Knowing this, they questioned Peter as to why it was taking Christ so long to come. Peter answered, "The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance" (2 Peter 3:9). By delaying His return, Christ is extending the opportunity for people to turn to Him and thus escape eternal punishment. When Christ comes, there will be no more chances, for time will have run out. If a person has not accepted God's substitute before then, it will be too late.\n\nIt is imperative that we view temporal suffering in light of God's perspective. Believers are not in the land of the living going to the land of the dying. They are in the land of the dying going to the land of the living. One reason why God delays the return of Christ and allows temporal suffering to continue is to allow more people to hear about and accept Christ, and thereby escape eternal suffering. God could send Christ today and stop temporal suffering, but when He does all opportunity to know Christ as Savior goes with it. Pose this question to a friend who is concerned with why God allows suffering to continue: If God had sent Christ and eliminated all suffering the day before you had a chance to understand and accept Christ as Savior, where would you be now? God delays putting an end to evil in order to allow us more opportunities to share the Gospel of Christ with others.\n\n\n\n
God will defeat evil; His justice demands it; His power guarantees it\n
God will defeat evil; His justice demands it; His power guarantees it\n
God is greater than evil, and He will indeed put an end to evil and suffering. Christ defeated evil through His work on the cross (1 Cor. 15:54-57) and will finalize that defeat by confining evil in hell forever.\n\n
God is greater than evil, and He will indeed put an end to evil and suffering. Christ defeated evil through His work on the cross (1 Cor. 15:54-57) and will finalize that defeat by confining evil in hell forever.\n\n
God is greater than evil, and He will indeed put an end to evil and suffering. Christ defeated evil through His work on the cross (1 Cor. 15:54-57) and will finalize that defeat by confining evil in hell forever.\n\n
The story of the boy and his sailboat gives a clear picture of the sacrifice made by God for His creation:\nThe young boy used to play for hours by the lake with the sailboat he had carefully made. One day, a strong wind blew his boat away and he was heartbroken. Several weeks later when he passed a hobby shop, he noticed his sailboat in the window. He rushed inside and told the storekeeper that the sailboat in the window was his. The storekeeper replied, "That boat belongs to me now, and if you want it, you will have to buy it."\nFor six weeks the boy worked every job he could find and finally saved enough for the boat. Finally when he bought it, he walked out of the shop and said to his little boat, "I made you and I have bought you; you are now twice mine."\n\nGod is both our Creator and Redeemer, and He will forever receive the praise of His people.\n\n\n