Addressing the Problem of Evil

Many people have wrestled with what is commonly called "the problem of evil."  The logical syllogism behind the argument goes something like this:

1. If God is all-powerful, He is able to prevent evil
2. If God is good, He wants to prevent evil.
3. But evil exists.

Conclusion: either God is not all-powerful, or He is not good.

Christian orthodoxy affirms both the omniscience of God and the goodness of God.  Consequently, the conclusion above has been the chief weapon used in the battle against Christian theism.

In working through The Doctrine of God, I am now on the chapter that addresses the problem.  I am personally satisfied with Frame's address, as well as his critiques of various unbibilical attempts to solve the problem.  While I cannot give a complete summary of the chapter I can give a few points to whet the appetite.

Frame begins by identifying the difference between natural and moral evil.  Natural evil is that which brings suffering, unpleasantness, or difficulty into the lives of creatures.  Moral evil is the sin of rational creatures. The answer to the problem of natural evil is relatively clear in Scripture (Gen 3:17-19; Rom 8).  The answer to moral evil, on the other hand, demands more attention.  And this is where Frame spends most of his time.

The defense that best answers the problem of moral evil (while it may not sufficiently answer all questions) is the greater-good defense.  The verse that captures this best is Rom 8:28, "in all things God works for the good of those who love Him."  Frame comments, "It is essential to realize that even though God does bring evil into the world, He does it for a good reason.  Therefore, He does not do evil in bringing evil to pass."

There are many safeguards that he puts in place to keep the reader from running off of the "Scriptural cliff."  I will list only a few.  He says that good should be defined as that which brings most glory to God, and not what brings the most comfort (or whatever) to us.  Second, God's standards should be used to govern our concept of goodness.  We cannot just pull "goodness" out of the subjective air.

The last one I will mention is that we must evaluate God's actions over the full extent of human history, and with eternity in view.  In a million years of glory, we will look back on the relatively short time of "evil" and see with greater vision how the evils brought about the greater good.

We must always confess that God has a role in bringing evil about, and that in doing so He is holy and blameless.  The analogy that Frame gives that helps the mind to capture this is that of an author and a story.  Shakespeare wrote the murder of Duncan into his play, but Macbeth is the one who is to blame.  While the analogy stops short in some ways, it does provide a way of seeing that God is not to be blamed for the sin of His creatures.

Finally, we must never forget that God ordained the most evil event in history - the Cross of Christ.  We must also never forget that this ordination brought about the greatest good - our salvation.