The Problem of Evil

Many atheist argue that Christianity cannot be valid because the existence of evil is inconsistent with a God who is omnipotent (all powerful) and omni-benevolent (all good). French philosopher Charles Baudelaire once wrote, “If God exists, he must be the devil.” This was his analysis as he observed the world around him filled with death, suffering, pain, and injustice. Indeed, how can there be an omnipotent, omni-benevolent God who is sovereign while such evils seem to prevail? Would such a God permit these things? Death and suffering, however, are not inconsistent from the nature of God and His perfect design. When God created all things, He declared that it was all “very good” (Gen 1:31). God did not create Adam and Eve as robots that were forced to love and worship Him. He gave them the ability to make choices, and in so doing, allowed for Adam and Eve to have the ability to choose to love and worship Him, or reject and rebel against Him. God warned Adam that the day he rebelled against His command to not eat from the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, he would die. As Scripture continues, we learn that Adam and Eve ate of that tree, and they fell into sin along with all of their progeny. This brought the death and suffering that we know today into the world.

While God is love, omni-benevolent, and omni-potent, He is also just. He will not let creatures exalt themselves over and above the Creator. In His goodness, He will not let lawlessness reign, but punishes sin by death (Rom 6:23), even the everlasting torment of the “second death” in the “lake of fire” (Rev 20:14). It was the sin of people that brought suffering into the world. As people continue to live in a sin cursed world, they will continue to experience the justice of God in punishing sin that is committed against an infinitely holy God. If God did not punish evil and demand order and righteousness, surely He would be the devil. We see then that God’s justness is good. God is justified, and man is left fully responsible for the condition of the world as we see it today. This is fully consistent with realty.

But God’s goodness extends far beyond His justice in the world. He has mercy on all who are alive by the fact that they are still alive and not ushered directly to hell to burn forever. Scripture teaches that, “He gives to all life, breath, and all things” (Acts 17:25, NKJV); every breath that is taken is drawn from the grace of God extended to sinners. God has gone to insurmountable heights by demonstrating ultimate goodness and love by taking on flesh and blood in order that He might bear the penalty for sin on the cross and reconcile a great number of otherwise recalcitrant people to Himself, “The just for the unjust” (1 Peter 3:18). There is nothing inconsistent with the character of God and the evil we see in the world today. When seen from the Christian perspective it actually demonstrates that God is not only omni-benevolent, but it also allows us to see that goodness demonstrated through multiple facets of God’s character and actions.

There are, however, problems for atheists on the issue of the problem of evil. Where, for example, do they get the notion that evil exists? If there is no God, from where a transcendent, absolute, objective standard for right and wrong, truth and error can be traced, then the notion of the existence of evil is a purely subjective opinion. For all atheists know, what they call evil may be good, or good, evil. Atheists have a problem because if there is no standard from which an evil deed can rebel (except the standard based on their mere opinion), then atheists themselves have to answer the question, “What about the problem of evil?” Ronald Nash, in his book Worldviews in Conflict writes, “The interesting point here is that few naturalists (atheists) seem to have realized how their reletivist approach to good and evil disqualifies them logically from being advocates of the problem of evil. Whenever they seek to embarrass Christians by describing a given evil, they do so in terms that simply are not consistent with their naturalistic understanding of things.”