The Problem of Evil/Suffering

[tstor]

I would like to hear some thoughts on my analysis of the problem of evil/suffering and my objections to some of the popular solutions. I hope this is the right board for this post. We non-Christians have slim pickings.

Introducing the Problem
Not that many will need this, but I will start by introducing the problem of evil/suffering. We all witness and experience both evil and suffering in this world. We observe and experience suffering in the form of poverty, illness, heartbreak, death, and too many others to name. This problem is one that saturates our world. However, Christianity has maintained that there is a loving God out there. Do the experiences we face in this life contradict the existence of a loving God? This problem has been a thorn in the side of many people who are doing their level best to discern truth about the nature of reality and their place in the universe. I cannot say that anything I offer here is a solution to those who are afflicted.

The Free Will Solution
I will start with what I believe is the most common of the proposed solutions to this problem. The free will solution has it that there is evil and suffering in this world because God made us free creatures. Just as Adam and Eve were free to disobey God in the Garden, so today we are free to disobey God in our perpetuating evil in this world.

Implicit in this solution is the desirability of free will. While I see no reason to argue against this desirability, I do believe there are a few issues with this view from a strictly biblical perspective. The Bible explicitly tells us that this world we currently reside in is not the only possible world. In fact, the Bible offers us three possible worlds:

1. The Garden - pleasant, abundance of food, all needs cared for, intimate communion with God (Gn. 2-3)
2. Our World - suffering, evil, death, sin, remoteness from God
3. The New Earth - paradise, no suffering, no evil, intimate communion with God (Rv. 21)

The question is whether those who inhabit/will inhabit these three worlds have free will. Did Adam and Eve have free will in the Garden? It would appear that way. They freely chose to disobey God. Do we have free will today? Well, the efficacy of this solution hinges on us having free will in this world, so we’d better! What about those who will inhabit the new earth? Will they have free will? The new earth is an eternal paradise for those who gain access. It would appear that those who inhabit it will not have free will; it would appear that they will not have the freedom to inflict suffering onto others. Yet even without this freedom, they are still said to prosper and find joy in paradise and communion with God. Is free will really desirable if one of the possible alternatives is eternal paradise without it?

One potential way around this consideration is to suggest that those who enter into the new earth have been conformed to Christ, i.e., they no longer desire to pursue that which is evil. If this is true, then why not conform humanity now? Why wait hundreds of thousands of years? It would appear that this solution to the problem of evil/suffering does not actually solve all that much for us. Either the desirability of free will is called into question by the biblical narratives of other possible worlds or the motives of a loving God still remain shrouded in secrecy.

There is a further problem with this solution though. While it is a valiant attempt at solving the problem of human evil, it does very little to solve the problem of suffering at large. Humans are not the only ones who inflict suffering onto others. Animals also inflict suffering onto others. Nature itself inflicts suffering in the form of natural disasters, inhospitable environments, and all sorts of other ways. How does our having free will account for these evils?

In conclusion, the free will solution to the problem of evil/suffering fails to account for the biblical narratives of other possible worlds and the existence of suffering perpetuated by non-free agents.

The Reformed Solution
The reformed solution to the problem of evil/suffering takes a different approach from the free will solution. The reformed solution has it that everything in this world is foreordained and decreed from eternity past by God. All of the evil and suffering we observe and experience is actually the result of God's will. Why would God do this? It is simple: The entire purpose of creation is to bring glory to God. That is why we were created; that is why we are here. All of the evil and nasty things in this world are actually working for God's purposes. Consider, for example, the story of the patriarch Joseph. He was sold into slavery by his brothers and taken away from his home to Egypt. However, Joseph reveals something special to his brothers: "Even though you intended to do harm to me, God intended it for good, in order to preserve a numerous people, as he is doing today." (Gn. 50:20) There are several instances in the Bible where we are told that God uses evil for good. (Ex. 14:4; Rm. 9:22-24)

This solution is often extremely unsavory for many people. To think that God decrees the molestation of children in order to bring about some plan or another for God's own glory just does not sit right with many people. I am in that camp. Reformed theologians maintain that God is omnipotent (all-powerful), omniscient (all-knowing), and omnibenevolent (all-loving). Assuming this is true, why could God not devise a better plan? You know, a plan like the new world. Except instead of it being a "new" world, it should have just been the world. An eternal world with no suffering and constant glorification of God.

The reformed solution really does not appear to be much of a solution at all. It suffers from the same difficulty as the free will solution, i.e., biblical narratives tell us about better possible worlds. God appears to receive maximum glory in the new world to come and there is not any suffering. What gives with this world?

The Open Solution
I must admit that this is my favorite solution. I find it to be the most unique and the most persuasive. However, it still has difficulties.

The open solution rejects two of the three attributes of God I mentioned when discussing the reformed solution: omnipotence and omniscience. Or I should say that the open solution rejects them as they are conventionally understood. The open solution maintains that God is not all-powerful. God does not have the power to stop a rapist, a murderer, a thief, or even an earthquake. That sort of power would contradict God's omnibenevolence. To be all-loving (or to be love; 1 Jn. 4:16) means to not be coercive, authoritarian, dictatorial, overbearing, or any of the other adjacent concepts. The open solution also maintains that God is not all-knowing in the conventional sense. Rather than thinking of God as outside of time and, thus, perceiving all of time and everything that takes place in it in the same way we perceive past events, God is in time and experiences time as we do. God knows all that has happened in the past and is powerless to change it. God also knows all that is currently unfolding in the present. As for the future, it is unknowable. The future is open. God cannot know it and neither can anyone else.

You might think this describes a gutted God, but this solution does have some power behind it. Suffering and evil is accounted for. An all-loving God experiences our pain and suffering and is there with us in enduring it. However, that same love prevents God from being able to force God's will onto others. God also lacks knowledge about future events like a murder, theft, or rape. There cannot be any forewarning. This solution even appears to get past the conflict with other possible worlds recorded in the Bible. It could be argued that certain events in the future can be known with some certainty. For example, we can be fairly certain that our sun will die. Perhaps God is aware that the opportunity for a better world is on the horizon. A lot more could be said here, but it looks promising.

The difficulty with this view is that there appears to be some inconsistencies (at least as I understand it). Consider, for example, these words form Greg Boyd:

The open view holds that some of the future is open, not all of it. God can pre-settle as much of the future as he wants to pre-settle. If, in order to fulfill specific prophecies, God needed to providentially orchestrate things so that certain people with evil characters played out their evil intentions in specific ways, he could easily do this, and do so with impunity.

If this is the case, it runs into same problems as the other two solutions.

 

[Dave L]

I would like to hear some thoughts on my analysis of the problem of evil/suffering and my objections to some of the popular solutions. I hope this is the right board for this post. We non-Christians have slim pickings.

Introducing the Problem
Not that many will need this, but I will start by introducing the problem of evil/suffering. We all witness and experience both evil and suffering in this world. We observe and experience suffering in the form of poverty, illness, heartbreak, death, and too many others to name. This problem is one that saturates our world. However, Christianity has maintained that there is a loving God out there. Do the experiences we face in this life contradict the existence of a loving God? This problem has been a thorn in the side of many people who are doing their level best to discern truth about the nature of reality and their place in the universe. I cannot say that anything I offer here is a solution to those who are afflicted.

The Free Will Solution
I will start with what I believe is the most common of the proposed solutions to this problem. The free will solution has it that there is evil and suffering in this world because God made us free creatures. Just as Adam and Eve were free to disobey God in the Garden, so today we are free to disobey God in our perpetuating evil in this world.

Implicit in this solution is the desirability of free will. While I see no reason to argue against this desirability, I do believe there are a few issues with this view from a strictly biblical perspective. The Bible explicitly tells us that this world we currently reside in is not the only possible world. In fact, the Bible offers us three possible worlds:

1. The Garden - pleasant, abundance of food, all needs cared for, intimate communion with God (Gn. 2-3)
2. Our World - suffering, evil, death, sin, remoteness from God
3. The New Earth - paradise, no suffering, no evil, intimate communion with God (Rv. 21)

The question is whether those who inhabit/will inhabit these three worlds have free will. Did Adam and Eve have free will in the Garden? It would appear that way. They freely chose to disobey God. Do we have free will today? Well, the efficacy of this solution hinges on us having free will in this world, so we’d better! What about those who will inhabit the new earth? Will they have free will? The new earth is an eternal paradise for those who gain access. It would appear that those who inhabit it will not have free will; it would appear that they will not have the freedom to inflict suffering onto others. Yet even without this freedom, they are still said to prosper and find joy in paradise and communion with God. Is free will really desirable if one of the possible alternatives is eternal paradise without it?

One potential way around this consideration is to suggest that those who enter into the new earth have been conformed to Christ, i.e., they no longer desire to pursue that which is evil. If this is true, then why not conform humanity now? Why wait hundreds of thousands of years? It would appear that this solution to the problem of evil/suffering does not actually solve all that much for us. Either the desirability of free will is called into question by the biblical narratives of other possible worlds or the motives of a loving God still remain shrouded in secrecy.

There is a further problem with this solution though. While it is a valiant attempt at solving the problem of human evil, it does very little to solve the problem of suffering at large. Humans are not the only ones who inflict suffering onto others. Animals also inflict suffering onto others. Nature itself inflicts suffering in the form of natural disasters, inhospitable environments, and all sorts of other ways. How does our having free will account for these evils?

In conclusion, the free will solution to the problem of evil/suffering fails to account for the biblical narratives of other possible worlds and the existence of suffering perpetuated by non-free agents.

The Reformed Solution
The reformed solution to the problem of evil/suffering takes a different approach from the free will solution. The reformed solution has it that everything in this world is foreordained and decreed from eternity past by God. All of the evil and suffering we observe and experience is actually the result of God's will. Why would God do this? It is simple: The entire purpose of creation is to bring glory to God. That is why we were created; that is why we are here. All of the evil and nasty things in this world are actually working for God's purposes. Consider, for example, the story of the patriarch Joseph. He was sold into slavery by his brothers and taken away from his home to Egypt. However, Joseph reveals something special to his brothers: "Even though you intended to do harm to me, God intended it for good, in order to preserve a numerous people, as he is doing today." (Gn. 50:20) There are several instances in the Bible where we are told that God uses evil for good. (Ex. 14:4; Rm. 9:22-24)

This solution is often extremely unsavory for many people. To think that God decrees the molestation of children in order to bring about some plan or another for God's own glory just does not sit right with many people. I am in that camp. Reformed theologians maintain that God is omnipotent (all-powerful), omniscient (all-knowing), and omnibenevolent (all-loving). Assuming this is true, why could God not devise a better plan? You know, a plan like the new world. Except instead of it being a "new" world, it should have just been the world. An eternal world with no suffering and constant glorification of God.

The reformed solution really does not appear to be much of a solution at all. It suffers from the same difficulty as the free will solution, i.e., biblical narratives tell us about better possible worlds. God appears to receive maximum glory in the new world to come and there is not any suffering. What gives with this world?

The Open Solution
I must admit that this is my favorite solution. I find it to be the most unique and the most persuasive. However, it still has difficulties.

The open solution rejects two of the three attributes of God I mentioned when discussing the reformed solution: omnipotence and omniscience. Or I should say that the open solution rejects them as they are conventionally understood. The open solution maintains that God is not all-powerful. God does not have the power to stop a rapist, a murderer, a thief, or even an earthquake. That sort of power would contradict God's omnibenevolence. To be all-loving (or to be love; 1 Jn. 4:16) means to not be coercive, authoritarian, dictatorial, overbearing, or any of the other adjacent concepts. The open solution also maintains that God is not all-knowing in the conventional sense. Rather than thinking of God as outside of time and, thus, perceiving all of time and everything that takes place in it in the same way we perceive past events, God is in time and experiences time as we do. God knows all that has happened in the past and is powerless to change it. God also knows all that is currently unfolding in the present. As for the future, it is unknowable. The future is open. God cannot know it and neither can anyone else.

You might think this describes a gutted God, but this solution does have some power behind it. Suffering and evil is accounted for. An all-loving God experiences our pain and suffering and is there with us in enduring it. However, that same love prevents God from being able to force God's will onto others. God also lacks knowledge about future events like a murder, theft, or rape. There cannot be any forewarning. This solution even appears to get past the conflict with other possible worlds recorded in the Bible. It could be argued that certain events in the future can be known with some certainty. For example, we can be fairly certain that our sun will die. Perhaps God is aware that the opportunity for a better world is on the horizon. A lot more could be said here, but it looks promising.

The difficulty with this view is that there appears to be some inconsistencies (at least as I understand it). Consider, for example, these words form Greg Boyd:



If this is the case, it runs into same problems as the other two solutions.

Gordon Clark solved for many the Problem of Evil. This is a bare-bones summary worth looking into if interested.

Clark first asks; "How can the existence of God be harmonized with the existence of evil?"

If God is all-good, He would want to destroy evil.

If God is all-powerful, He is able to destroy evil. But evil still exists.

It seems that God cannot be both all-good and all-powerful. However, Christianity teaches that He is both. This is the problem of evil."

Clark stated that "God's causing a man to sin is not sin. There is no law, superior to God, which forbids him to decree sinful acts. Sin presupposes a law, for sin is lawlessness." Clark explained that "God is above law" because "the laws that God imposes on men do not apply to the divine nature."

 

[TedT]

Did Adam and Eve have free will in the Garden? It would appear that way. They freely chose to disobey God.

But appearances can be deceiving, no? Did the serpent arrive in the garden with a free will? Not at all, he was already a sinner enslaved to the addictive nature of sin having sinned in the spirit world (probably Sheol), before being flung to the earth by Michael et al.

Yes, the ability to sin does indeed prove our free will but it does not prove when we chose by our free will to become sinners, does it.

 

[tstor]

Clark stated that "God's causing a man to sin is not sin. There is no law, superior to God, which forbids him to decree sinful acts. Sin presupposes a law, for sin is lawlessness." Clark explained that "God is above law" because "the laws that God imposes on men do not apply to the divine nature."

So God is lawless? To say that God is able to sin without contradicting attributes like omnibenevolence seems a bit odd. How could God decree sinful acts that are contrary to love and still remain all-loving? I believe it would be fair to say that God is governed by God's own nature. Given the view you've just presented, I'm not sure why anyone would have faith or trust in God.

 

[Abaxvahl]

For your first solution first free will needs to be defined. I do not think "free will" means the ability to do everything or the ability to do good and evil. God is utterly free and can not sin or contradict His nature, Christians are said to be free ("whoever sins is a slave of sin" and "who the Son sets free is free indeed") and even in our freedom we can not contradict our nature (for a live example try thinking of a square circle or any other contradiction, it is against our nature and so is impossible). Therefore the ability to do all things or even to do evil is irrelevant to free will. But even if free will is defined correctly it still does not account for all evil, only some of it as you pointed out.

The second solution might be true in some way but runs into the omnipotence (which is the ability to effect all possible things, this would is in no way necessary but was freely willed by God, no creature has necessity over God) problem you mention, and we know of no way to resolve it.

The third solution you present to me is simply not God at all but a being I would never pay adoration to as it is limited and is a mere creature like me.

And side-note: the three worlds you present are the same world in different states, created, fallen, divinized.

My solution to the problem of evil which may be unsatisfying to some but is satisfying to me as I believe I find it in Scripture and taste it in experience is this: God permits evil for greater goods always in every instance of evil (which is a deprivation and so unreal in one sense but real in the sense of a phenomena), will become all-in-all in the Eternal Kingdom, we do not know the reason why it is this way in every instance (although the meaning of some evil events is sometimes revealed such as with Joseph the Righteous and the man born blind), but we are to trust and submit to His judgment that this was the best way and is more than worth it, and in fact will be seen as glorious in that Day. We either can not at all or can not now know the reason for every instance of evil (see God's answer to Job) and it isn't our place to know it.

I see no reason to go beyond this.

 

[TedT]

Clark stated that "God's causing a man to sin is not sin.

Clark is deceived by his love for sin and his willingness to blaspheme GOD's nature as good..

 

[Dave L]

So God is lawless? To say that God is able to sin without contradicting attributes like omnibenevolence seems a bit odd. How could God decree sinful acts that are contrary to love and still remain all-loving? I believe it would be fair to say that God is governed by God's own nature. Given the view you've just presented, I'm not sure why anyone would have faith or trust in God.

God cannot sin because there is no other God he must answer to. Look at all the times God creates evil and uses it against sinners for His glory. The Old Testament would be shocking if any were to read it today.

 

[tstor]

God cannot sin because there is no other God he must answer to. Look at all the times God creates evil and uses it against sinners for His glory. The Old Testament would be shocking if any were to read it today.

I think this opens up way too many cans. To say that God can't sin because God makes the rules is just to say that God is inconsistent. The standards God uses to judge others, i.e., sinners, aren't the same standards God lives by. Is God love? If so, does that mean God can't not love? If God can not love, then how is God love? Is God faithful? Why do you place any faith or trust in the words of a God who offers no security? God need not love you or be faithful to the promises made to you. God is lawless and unaccountable. Is everything about this God totally arbitrary?

 

[Dave L]

I think this opens up way too many cans. To say that God can't sin because God makes the rules is just to say that God is inconsistent. The standards God uses to judge others, i.e., sinners, aren't the same standards God lives by. Is God love? If so, does that mean God can't not love? If God can not love, then how is God love? Is God faithful? Why do you place any faith or trust in the words of a God who offers no security? God need not love you or be faithful to the promises made to you. God is lawless and unaccountable. Is everything about this God totally arbitrary?

As Clark said, sin is a violation of the law. There is no law above God he must answer to. Plus where did sin come from if He did not create it?

 

[Abaxvahl]

I think this opens up way too many cans. To say that God can't sin because God makes the rules is just to say that God is inconsistent. The standards God uses to judge others, i.e., sinners, aren't the same standards God lives by. Is God love? If so, does that mean God can't not love? If God can not love, then how is God love? Is God faithful? Why do you place any faith or trust in the words of a God who offers no security? God need not love you or be faithful to the promises made to you. God is lawless and unaccountable. Is everything about this God totally arbitrary?

Relevant Scripture (which also happens to be one of my favorite passages of all time) from 2 Timothy 2:

For if we died with him, we will also live with him;
if we endure, we will also reign with him;
if we deny him, he also will deny us;
if we are unfaithful, he remains faithful—he cannot deny himself.

 

[tstor]

As Clark said, sin is a violation of the law. There is no law above God he must answer to. Plus where did sin come from if He did not create it?

No law above God, sure. That doesn't mean God is lawless. God is governed by God's nature. To say otherwise would be incoherent. You can say that sin entered the world through man's disobedience. (Rm. 5:12) That can be accounted for in a free will solution or an open solution. However, you've avoided all of the dangerous questions.

 

[Dave L]

No law above God, sure. That doesn't mean God is lawless. God is governed by God's nature. To say otherwise would be incoherent. You can say that sin entered the world through man's disobedience. (Rm. 5:12) That can be accounted for in a free will solution or an open solution. However, you've avoided all of the dangerous questions.

Without sin, you cannot know God or His attributes. Even God does not have free will. And James says you cannot even control your tongue. And you still think free will is a solution?

 

[Halbhh]

Without sin, you cannot know God or His attributes. Even God does not have free will. And James says you cannot even control your tongue. And you still think free will is a solution?

I think you may be using the term 'free will' in a different way than some of us do. For me, the term 'free will' means only and precisely just 'ability to think and to act' -- we are freely able to think and then to take actions.

The simple basic meaning:
Free Will -- "the ability to act at one's own discretion." (Oxford Languages)

One could use a different meaning for the term, such as freedom and intent to do evil, but that would be an confusing new definition. It would not fit what the great majority of people mean when they say "free will".

Of course God is able to think and take actions, obviously, though He will not choose to do evil (in the sense of truly wrong actions instead of merely in the sense of punishments dealt to nations or such), He is entirely able to do actions without limitation. So, of course, then God has "free will" in that straightforward way.

So, I think it's far too confusing to use an uncommon meaning for the term 'free will' that doesn't fit how most people are using the term.

The normal meaning of "free will" is very helpful for us to know: that we are created in the image of God, like God -- "I have said you are gods." as Christ Himself repeated/referenced, and therefore we have freedom of thought and action just like Him.


------
Related topic:

Here's a helpful passage on God intervening to "bring about" a different outcome than would have happened:

10 I make known the end from the beginning,
from ancient times, what is still to come.

I say, ‘My purpose will stand,
and I will do all that I please.’

11 From the east I summon a bird of prey;
from a far-off land, a man to fulfill my purpose.

What I have said, that I will bring about;
what I have planned, that I will do."

Isaiah 46 NIV

God saying that after telling us some ultimate outcome He intends to happen, that He will then take actions to make it happen, to "bring about" what He intends, by intervening. No matter what we do. No matter what nations do. They can't stop Him. He will bring about His chosen goals.

 

[theoneandonlypencil]

I would like to hear some thoughts on my analysis of the problem of evil/suffering and my objections to some of the popular solutions. I hope this is the right board for this post. We non-Christians have slim pickings.

Introducing the Problem
Not that many will need this, but I will start by introducing the problem of evil/suffering. We all witness and experience both evil and suffering in this world. We observe and experience suffering in the form of poverty, illness, heartbreak, death, and too many others to name. This problem is one that saturates our world. However, Christianity has maintained that there is a loving God out there. Do the experiences we face in this life contradict the existence of a loving God? This problem has been a thorn in the side of many people who are doing their level best to discern truth about the nature of reality and their place in the universe. I cannot say that anything I offer here is a solution to those who are afflicted.

The Free Will Solution
I will start with what I believe is the most common of the proposed solutions to this problem. The free will solution has it that there is evil and suffering in this world because God made us free creatures. Just as Adam and Eve were free to disobey God in the Garden, so today we are free to disobey God in our perpetuating evil in this world.

Implicit in this solution is the desirability of free will. While I see no reason to argue against this desirability, I do believe there are a few issues with this view from a strictly biblical perspective. The Bible explicitly tells us that this world we currently reside in is not the only possible world. In fact, the Bible offers us three possible worlds:

1. The Garden - pleasant, abundance of food, all needs cared for, intimate communion with God (Gn. 2-3)
2. Our World - suffering, evil, death, sin, remoteness from God
3. The New Earth - paradise, no suffering, no evil, intimate communion with God (Rv. 21)

The question is whether those who inhabit/will inhabit these three worlds have free will. Did Adam and Eve have free will in the Garden? It would appear that way. They freely chose to disobey God. Do we have free will today? Well, the efficacy of this solution hinges on us having free will in this world, so we’d better! What about those who will inhabit the new earth? Will they have free will? The new earth is an eternal paradise for those who gain access. It would appear that those who inhabit it will not have free will; it would appear that they will not have the freedom to inflict suffering onto others. Yet even without this freedom, they are still said to prosper and find joy in paradise and communion with God. Is free will really desirable if one of the possible alternatives is eternal paradise without it?

One potential way around this consideration is to suggest that those who enter into the new earth have been conformed to Christ, i.e., they no longer desire to pursue that which is evil. If this is true, then why not conform humanity now? Why wait hundreds of thousands of years? It would appear that this solution to the problem of evil/suffering does not actually solve all that much for us. Either the desirability of free will is called into question by the biblical narratives of other possible worlds or the motives of a loving God still remain shrouded in secrecy.

There is a further problem with this solution though. While it is a valiant attempt at solving the problem of human evil, it does very little to solve the problem of suffering at large. Humans are not the only ones who inflict suffering onto others. Animals also inflict suffering onto others. Nature itself inflicts suffering in the form of natural disasters, inhospitable environments, and all sorts of other ways. How does our having free will account for these evils?

In conclusion, the free will solution to the problem of evil/suffering fails to account for the biblical narratives of other possible worlds and the existence of suffering perpetuated by non-free agents.

The Reformed Solution
The reformed solution to the problem of evil/suffering takes a different approach from the free will solution. The reformed solution has it that everything in this world is foreordained and decreed from eternity past by God. All of the evil and suffering we observe and experience is actually the result of God's will. Why would God do this? It is simple: The entire purpose of creation is to bring glory to God. That is why we were created; that is why we are here. All of the evil and nasty things in this world are actually working for God's purposes. Consider, for example, the story of the patriarch Joseph. He was sold into slavery by his brothers and taken away from his home to Egypt. However, Joseph reveals something special to his brothers: "Even though you intended to do harm to me, God intended it for good, in order to preserve a numerous people, as he is doing today." (Gn. 50:20) There are several instances in the Bible where we are told that God uses evil for good. (Ex. 14:4; Rm. 9:22-24)

This solution is often extremely unsavory for many people. To think that God decrees the molestation of children in order to bring about some plan or another for God's own glory just does not sit right with many people. I am in that camp. Reformed theologians maintain that God is omnipotent (all-powerful), omniscient (all-knowing), and omnibenevolent (all-loving). Assuming this is true, why could God not devise a better plan? You know, a plan like the new world. Except instead of it being a "new" world, it should have just been the world. An eternal world with no suffering and constant glorification of God.

The reformed solution really does not appear to be much of a solution at all. It suffers from the same difficulty as the free will solution, i.e., biblical narratives tell us about better possible worlds. God appears to receive maximum glory in the new world to come and there is not any suffering. What gives with this world?

The Open Solution
I must admit that this is my favorite solution. I find it to be the most unique and the most persuasive. However, it still has difficulties.

The open solution rejects two of the three attributes of God I mentioned when discussing the reformed solution: omnipotence and omniscience. Or I should say that the open solution rejects them as they are conventionally understood. The open solution maintains that God is not all-powerful. God does not have the power to stop a rapist, a murderer, a thief, or even an earthquake. That sort of power would contradict God's omnibenevolence. To be all-loving (or to be love; 1 Jn. 4:16) means to not be coercive, authoritarian, dictatorial, overbearing, or any of the other adjacent concepts. The open solution also maintains that God is not all-knowing in the conventional sense. Rather than thinking of God as outside of time and, thus, perceiving all of time and everything that takes place in it in the same way we perceive past events, God is in time and experiences time as we do. God knows all that has happened in the past and is powerless to change it. God also knows all that is currently unfolding in the present. As for the future, it is unknowable. The future is open. God cannot know it and neither can anyone else.

You might think this describes a gutted God, but this solution does have some power behind it. Suffering and evil is accounted for. An all-loving God experiences our pain and suffering and is there with us in enduring it. However, that same love prevents God from being able to force God's will onto others. God also lacks knowledge about future events like a murder, theft, or rape. There cannot be any forewarning. This solution even appears to get past the conflict with other possible worlds recorded in the Bible. It could be argued that certain events in the future can be known with some certainty. For example, we can be fairly certain that our sun will die. Perhaps God is aware that the opportunity for a better world is on the horizon. A lot more could be said here, but it looks promising.

The difficulty with this view is that there appears to be some inconsistencies (at least as I understand it). Consider, for example, these words form Greg Boyd:



If this is the case, it runs into same problems as the other two solutions.

Most people tend to start this conversation with a somewhat of a snuck premise; that 'evil/suffering' is a non-necessity that, by allowing it to exist, would be in and of itself an evil or immoral act that contradicts the idea of a perfect, loving, benevolent being. The problem then becomes not 'how can a loving God allow evil?' but 'what exactly is evil in the first place and does it have purpose?'. After all, you can only claim God is guilty if it's on the basis of him allowing preventable, unnecessary evils to happen.

In a purely naturalistic view, there really is no such thing as 'evil' or even 'good'. Morals then are prescriptive, not descriptive; and only for humans, as animals don't seem to think very much on these things. Even if an animal can feel physical pain and perhaps feel depressed in certain circumstances, it isn't anything like the self-awareness of humans and the animal is likely not going to realize its own feelings as 'suffering', let alone attribute it to some 'evil' inflicted upon them.

Then we move onto the concept of adversity and its role in the progression of humanity. This in and of itself is enough to study for ages, as there are many, many different reasons for adversity to exist and the exact effects it has on our human timeline. For brevity's sake, I'll simplify it down to this; would you want to live in a perfect world where nothing bad ever happens? Shockingly enough, most people don't seem to want that very much. I know of more than a handful of people who find the conventional idea of heaven terrifying and would rather live in a world with the potential of suffering than to be stuck in a place of 'eternal joy, always the same and never changing'. It also makes one wonder why some of the most popular media is so angst-filled, with perseverance and suffering being central themes and why it's been this way from now all the way back to antiquity.

Nobody likes to suffer. Nobody likes evil. But the world would not be the same without it. There would be nothing to strive for, to fight for; no purpose. 'Evil' itself is just a concept; and one that is only 'evil' so long as it's juxtaposed with 'good'. One can't exist without the other, because they're counterparts. Two sides of the same coin. Without those concepts at play, and without a mind capable of even thinking of such things, it's only nature at work. The law of the jungle, and all of that good jazz.

As for why God, or any being powerful enough with the means to do so, would make his creation suffer before purging evil and thrusting them into that 'perfect world'; I can think of only two reasons.

1. Revelations isn't a perfectly accurate description of the new earth, and there is still a lot outside of what God supposedly revealed to us that we don't know(for example how an angel of heaven could even fall into sin in the first place).

2. We would not be the same people without our earthly experiences. I mentioned before that adversity shapes humanity--even if we're put in an environment that has removed all suffering and evil, as far as I'm aware you still retain all memories in the new earth/heaven which means your 'character development, so to speak, is still there. It might even be necessary to have experienced great pain and suffering in order to enjoy peace and happiness to the fullest extent.

That's that, then. I'd even go as far to say that 'eternal happiness' may be quite optional to some; I don't think I fully believe in a 'burn in hell forever' kind of hell, but more towards annihilationism which would end with the soul totally ceasing to exist entirely after a time. There are many other variables to this whole thing(namely how emotional arguments are often utilized on this subject), but this is the most streamlined reply I could make right now. I don't know if I'll end up having the time to write a part 2 to this/reply, so just take it as food for thought.

 

[com7fy8]

We observe and experience suffering in the form of poverty, illness, heartbreak, death, and too many others to name.

These can be things you can not control.

But there are evil things which make people suffer, and these can be controlled >

unforgiveness

worry

hurry

bitterness

nasty and negative arguing

dominating and dictatorial drives for pleasure and money and control of people

how we can try to control people so we can use them for what we want . . . what we demand and expect

These evil things in a person can do more harm than even death and sickness and poverty. Yet, ones can mainly give attention to what is not going on in their own selfish personalities.

And God through Jesus is the One with almighty power of peace to defeat such things and have us doing what is good, instead > Philippians 4:6-7. He is our only real resource, then, but this needs to begin in us, not only in our trying to change things around us.

 

[com7fy8]

Do we have free will today?

limited free will >

"God resists the proud," we have in James 4:6 and also in 1 Peter 5:5.

Also, we will reap so much more than we have sown > Galatians 6:7-8. We can not control the results of what we have sown . . . more or less, we can not. For one example, you can't hate people of another race and at the same time be a genuinely loving family member. You might choose to put on an act and even fool your own self . . . but the character of God's love has us loving any and all people, and ready to adopt any evil person to become a child of God with us.

So, in making certain choices and staying a certain way in our character, we can limit our own selves and freedom. We can't just turn real love on and off; we need to grow in Jesus and His character so it is our character, not just a choice, to love the way God desires.

1 Corinthians 13 describes the character and function of genuine love; this comes with character correction, and I offer such character can not just change around, but is stable in God's almighty power > so, this needs our attention, in any case; so I would be careful about giving attention elsewhere, including to complicated questions and explanations . . . if these keep our attention away.

One potential way around this consideration is to suggest that those who enter into the new earth have been conformed to Christ, i.e., they no longer desire to pursue that which is evil. If this is true, then why not conform humanity now? Why wait hundreds of thousands of years?

Right now, any of us can trust Jesus to conform us to Him. So, already yes this can be. But if you wait to see others do this first, uh-uh > you do well to become an example . . . how the Bible says we become because of God. Trust God to have you doing all He means by every scripture, and He uses example . . . not merely controlling and using people and reforming our acting . . . not just stopping the suffering and trouble, but in us God starts, in the heart.

In conclusion, the free will solution to the problem of evil/suffering fails to account for the biblical narratives of other possible worlds and the existence of suffering perpetuated by non-free agents.

Well . . . free will can be an idol. There are ones who want to be their own bosses; so they promote that they have their own choices to make, and they can make God seem distant and not interested in sharing with His own children and personally guiding us in sensitive and kind sharing with us as His family. But God is personal with His children; and in our human free wills, how well do we know this so we can choose this? Have we been choosing this??

One explanation for physical agents causing suffering is that Adam fell and then the whole creation fell with him, so that now nonhuman beings are killing and being eaten and physical things are causing suffering.

You can check out Romans 8:20-21.

With Jesus, we more than overcome the evil in this world. We do not only try to stop the physical problems and humans' physical bad behavior. But first we concentrate on stopping the spiritual evil which messes with our personalities.

Notice, by the way, how Jesus came and through His death can free people "who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage." (please see Hebrews 2:14-15) So, Jesus did not come to stop the deaths which are happening in this world, but He came to stop the fear and get us into His love and His way of loving. And then we are ready to die well.

It's what you make it,
how you take it . . .
just don't you fake it!!

 

[com7fy8]

All of the evil and suffering we observe and experience is actually the result of God's will. Why would God do this? It is simple: The entire purpose of creation is to bring glory to God.

For starters, I am not going to assume this is a correct representation of reformed belief.

I would say the presence of evil is not only in order to bring glory to God. But indeed Satan and his stupid and cruel nonsense does make Jesus look good; but Jesus does not need that sort of help. And Satan and his are in major trouble. Possibly, though, since there is evil, I think we can see how horribly stupid and anti-love evil is. It works to keep people from knowing God and how God is and can keep people from following the example of Jesus. It is evil's strategy to get you to notice it and doubt God, and get your attention elsewhere and take you down and out, especially in your personality.

All of the evil and nasty things in this world are actually working for God's purposes. Consider, for example, the story of the patriarch Joseph. He was sold into slavery by his brothers and taken away from his home to Egypt. However, Joseph reveals something special to his brothers: "Even though you intended to do harm to me, God intended it for good, in order to preserve a numerous people, as he is doing today." (Gn. 50:20) There are several instances in the Bible where we are told that God uses evil for good. (Ex. 14:4; Rm. 9:22-24)

Well, here you are referring us to scripture . . . not to a statement of reformed belief!! So . . . in my opinion . . . this is a scriptural explanation, not of why evil exists, but this shows how God is able to turn evil things to His purpose . . . with even all-loving good coming out of the evil.

This is a point to feed on > God did not only have things work for the good of Joseph, but there was all-loving benefit of how God used evil things . . . to help even those brothers who sold Joseph into slavery.

Plus, we see how God used the crucifixion of Christ. There is great all-loving benefit of that . . . not only for Jesus but for us who trust in Jesus for all He desires to share with us.

And here I would care to offer something I have learned > Jesus is about all the good He plans to share with us for eternity. And so, there needs to be separation of evil from the good which God is preparing. And here on earth is the place now where evil is being kept, for a while, on its way-away to the flaming sewer which burns with fire and brimstone. Evil is here as part of God's overall process of taking it and ones evil to where they will stay away from Jesus and His. But God now has humans here in this evil world so ones may leave Satan's kingdom and share with Jesus and help rescue others.

The main evil, I would say, is "the spirit who now works in the sons of disobedience" > in Ephesians 2:2. This spirit of Satan and selfishness messes up people much worse . . . deeper . . . than physical death and suffering and cruel behavior. And this ruin which is spiritual can last for eternity where this evil spirit is going. So, the main salvation we need now is first to trust in Jesus and be changed so Satanic stuff can not mess us. And then we do not go where it goes.

There are anti-love things which must be put away from us so we do not go where they are going, and so we love as family with God >

"Let all bitterness, wrath, anger, clamor, and evil speaking be put away from you, with all malice. And be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God in Christ forgave you." (Ephesians 4:31-32)

Things like bitterness and wrath help Satan's kingdom to succeed. But if we get into God's way of loving and forgiving, the almighty power of this can spread to effect evil people to change in their hearts, not only to be outwardly controlled from doing bad things.

This solution is often extremely unsavory for many people. To think that God decrees the molestation of children in order to bring about some plan or another for God's own glory just does not sit right with many people. I am in that camp. Reformed theologians maintain that God is omnipotent (all-powerful), omniscient (all-knowing), and omnibenevolent (all-loving). Assuming this is true, why could God not devise a better plan? You know, a plan like the new world. Except instead of it being a "new" world, it should have just been the world. An eternal world with no suffering and constant glorification of God.

I can not say I know what reformists believe; but I can read God's word and see that He is all-knowing, all-powerful, and all-loving. And He is all-controlling . . . managing the evil on its way to the flaming sewer.

So, don't be a sewer bucket of anti-love sorts of arguing and complaining and unforgiveness and wrath and foolish and controlling lusts for pleasure. Because you do not want to go where that stuff is going. And anyone who keeps on living in such stuff is helping the kingdom of evil, in some way, spiritually and by bad example . . . even if they are not the ones doing the raping and molesting and killing. Those horrible people were brought up by people > they are a product. In households of arguing and complaining and divorcing, children are not getting the example they need, of how to relate in love; and this can have them in weak and foolish character capable of many sorts of harmful things - - both as predators and as victims.

We see how certain people can come out because of being in superficially religious homes, too . . . so they do not know how to love. And then ones of them can turn into anything.

But if you become a good example, God can use you to help any person, at all >

"nor as being lords over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock." (1 Peter 5:3)

 

[com7fy8]

The Open Solution

This is what can come when people feel they need to defend God.

 

[Dave L]

I think you may be using the term 'free will' in a different way than some of us do. For me, the term 'free will' means only and precisely just 'ability to think and to act' -- we are freely able to think and then to take actions.

The simple basic meaning:
Free Will -- "the ability to act at one's own discretion." (Oxford Languages)

One could use a different meaning for the term, such as freedom and intent to do evil, but that would be an confusing new definition. It would not fit what the great majority of people mean when they say "free will".

Of course God is able to think and take actions, obviously, though He will not choose to do evil (in the sense of truly wrong actions instead of merely in the sense of punishments dealt to nations or such), He is entirely able to do actions without limitation. So, of course, then God has "free will" in that straightforward way.

So, I think it's far too confusing to use an uncommon meaning for the term 'free will' that doesn't fit how most people are using the term.

The normal meaning of "free will" is very helpful for us to know: that we are created in the image of God, like God -- "I have said you are gods." as Christ Himself repeated/referenced, and therefore we have freedom of thought and action just like Him.


------
Related topic:

Here's a helpful passage on God intervening to "bring about" a different outcome than would have happened:

10 I make known the end from the beginning,
from ancient times, what is still to come.

I say, ‘My purpose will stand,
and I will do all that I please.’

11 From the east I summon a bird of prey;
from a far-off land, a man to fulfill my purpose.

What I have said, that I will bring about;
what I have planned, that I will do."

Isaiah 46 NIV

God saying that after telling us some ultimate outcome He intends to happen, that He will then take actions to make it happen, to "bring about" what He intends, by intervening. No matter what we do. No matter what nations do. They can't stop Him. He will bring about His chosen goals.

The idea of "free will" takes God's control of the universe and makes it contingent on what people might or might not do. This means you control God and the universe. But scripture proves there is no free will.
“For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.” Philippians 2:13 (KJV 1900)

 

[timf]

Why There is Suffering

God is often seen by people as a meany because people can suffer in life. This assumes that the perfect life would be one of comfort and ease. That this is a false assumption can be seen in the story of the Prodigal Son. He had every advantage and comfort of a prosperous life. As a result, he rebelled against his father and sought to strike out on his own. He came to an understanding of the truth because of his suffering. It was suffering that helped rescue him.

We can suffer because of consequence such as hitting our thumb with a hammer. However, not all suffering is self-inflicted. People can look at the world and see injustice, hunger, homelessness, illness, and even old age and see suffering that they attribute to God’s failure to make life comfortable. The hardships of this fallen natural world are not God being unfair, but having love so great as to even see people suffer in the hope that they will learn to see truth. We have turned the world God gave us into a sinking ship. It is God’s love that allows this painful world to continue that some might come to see truth and turn to him.

It has been said that the place least likely for people to have an interest in God is a country club. The places more likely for people to have an interest in God are hospitals and prisons. God gave us free will. We also have suffering almost as a gift to rescue us from the soul destroying effects of using our free will to pursue selfishness. Some see prosperity and comfort as blessings from God, when they might more accurately be seen as deceptions from Satan.

Moses warned Israel that when they entered into the promised land they would transition from the hardships of wandering in the wilderness for 40 years to inheriting a land with wells already dug and orchards already planted. It was this prosperity that would tempt them to forget God (which is what happened).

Seeking truth, speaking truth, and following truth are not always activities that produce pleasure and comfort. Often we only undertake them in response to suffering. Old age is an example of a process of discomfort to disconnect us from this world and induce us to consider the next.

God could have chosen to wipe us all out for using our free will to inflict suffering on ourselves and others. Instead God chose to send Jesus to pay for all sin. If we trust in what Jesus did, we are placed into what is called “the body of Christ” by the Holy Spirit. This placement becomes the means we have to enter into the world to come. Jesus is our “lifeboat”.

As long as we are in this present world and live in the flesh, we will encounter suffering caused by ourselves, others, and the natural world. Even after we become Christian, we can experience difficulty and suffering. However, we have a more sure hope.

For which cause we faint not; but though our outward man perish, yet the inward man is renewed day by day. For our light affliction, which is but for a moment, worketh for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory; - 2 Corinthians 4:16-17