With respect, I’m not sure that this is perhaps the best approach.  Your response would suggest that we DENY the omnibenevolence, omniscience, and omnipotence of God, while Scripture everywhere affirms these things.

You’re correct in identifying the question as problematic, but I think you’re mistaken in locating the error of the question in the conception of God, rather than in the conceptions of goodness and love that the questioner presupposes.

I’m not at all sure what the value would be of saying, “The God of the Bible is *NOT* all-good, all-loving, all-knowing…but you should worship, love, and obey Him anyway”...immediately the questioner’s response would probably be, “WHY should I worship such a God? WHY should I love him?”  I’ve found much value, however, in a two-pronged response to this kind of attack:

1. The moment we posit an all-knowing God, we necessarily concede that there could be purposes to evil and suffering that we (who are NOT all-knowing) cannot perceive. Further, we necessarily concede that such purposes could very easily be for the ultimate good of humanity…to insist otherwise (on EITHER point!) would be the height of arrogance.

2. This part of the approach is somewhat more difficult, but is necessary nonetheless: we have to call into doubt what the other person means by ‘goodness’—if that’s simply the alleviation of suffering, then we could never call a doctor or a surgeon ‘good’, for example. It may be (and this follows closely on the first response) that we are sick in such a way that only suffering can heal us.

And here there is good news—that in the Person of Jesus Christ God HAS passed judgment on evil and suffering. In the Cross of Jesus Christ we see that evil, pain, and suffering matter SO much to God that He sacrificed His Son, His Only Son, to make a final end of it. The Cross is the supreme demonstration of God’s determination to deal finally, dramatically, magnificently with pain and suffering and evil in a way that doesn’t compromise either His wisdom, His justice, His goodness, or His love.

Curtis, with respect, I think you read this wrong.  Mr. Payne is saying EXACTLY what you are saying.  He doesn’t suggest that we deny the omnibenevolence, omniscience, and omnipotence of God.  He asks that we deny that such a God would therefore eliminate all suffering.  Which is just what you are also saying.  Mr. Payne is agreeing with you, completely.

Curtis, i guess I don’t understand your objection.  What i see in the above is that when Mr. Payne says, “The God you’re talking about doesn’t exist”, he IS denying the second premise.  I will give that he may be saying inadequately, in such a way that it could be missed, but that’s what I hear him saying - - that the second premise is false, that the “God of the second premise” is the one he says he doesn’t believe in.

but then, we may be just talking past each other.  I’m very glad that you’re passionate about this.

A great point! Instead of focusing on apologetics in responding to the question, focus on exposing the questioner to the Bible, that is, the living word of God which, through acquaintance, is capable of making people “wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus” (2 Tim 3:15). Of course, I take it we can still “do apologetics” but in the context of exposing people to God’s living word first and foremost. After all, “All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction…” (2 Tim 3:16) and “For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart” (Heb 4:12).

On a related note, this Comparative Apologetic Anatomy by Steve Hays might be helpful.

Continued from above:

To speak of evil as “the problem of evil” assumes that evil is nothing but a problem.  Yet that is rather shortsighted.  Although it is only natural to think of goodness as a check on evil, we also need to appreciate the ways in which evil can serve as a check on evil—for one evildoer will often block the malicious designs of another evildoer.  Ambition counters ambition, incompetence gums up the totalitarian apparatus, and petty corruption impedes more heinous schemes.  “Tyrants could do much more harm in the world if all their servants were flawlessly efficient, untiringly industrious, and financially incorruptible.” So even vice, in moderation, has its fringe benefits. Remember that the next time you must deal with a blundering bureaucrat and pencil pusher. His plodding ineptitude is every bit as galling to the ruthless depot as it is to the man in line.   

The problem of evil takes for granted a distinction between good and evil. But when deployed against the existence of God, this distinction is deeply problematic. For, from a secular standpoint, what is the source and standard of right and wrong? Evil assumes a deviation from an ideal. But if we inhabit an accidental universe, if intelligent life is a fortuitous turn of events, then nothing was supposed to be one way or another. And if, when I die, it’s as though I never lived; and if nice guys and mean men suffer a common fate, then what does it matter how you and I conduct our affairs? [Source]

Other resources from Steve Hays are available here. Also, he regularly engages in apologetics on his weblog, Triablogue.

Also, John Frame has written some valuable material (e.g. see here). Frame has a website (with Vern Poythress).

For a more pastoral approach, I think it’s hard to find anything better than D.A. Carson’s How Long, O Lord?. Although there are other helpful books and booklets (e.g. Jerry Bridges’ Trusting God: Even When Life Hurts, John Murray’s Behind a Frowning Providence).

Hi, Hank! Actually I had an additional part to my post which might answer your question. But it looks like it didn’t get posted. I’m not sure why that is? I don’t think there was anything objectionable in the post? I don’t suppose one of the moderators might know? Kind thanks.

Hi Patrick,

That’s happened to me more than once, I think it is just a bug, so I always copy my text before hitting ‘submit’. I can almost guarantee it wouldn’t have been bounced by a moderator, the comment threads are moderated fairly lightly - you would have at least seen it before it disappeared.

It’s too bad that you’re not consistently Reformed on this issue.  If God is sovereign in Scripture and in salvation, then the God revealed in Scripture ought to be the one we consistently preach.  The idea that Christ died for those already in hell is ludicrous.  Christ came to save His elect and only His elect.  There are no hypotheticals in God’s mind—including a hypothetical atonement.  That idea is more Arminian or semi-pelagian than Scriptural or Reformed.

Charlie J. Ray

P.S. I might add that salvation/justification is absolutely by faith alone, nothing added whatsoever.  Confusing justification with sanctification is the Roman Catholic error.

http://reasonablechristian.blogspot.com

Here is a [very] summarised version of how I address this issue:

God COULD remove all suffering immediately, but to do so would require removing the source of the suffering - sinful human beings.

Because he loves us, he allows the suffering to continue for a time because the alternative is to simply destroy us.

But, one might argue, if God is all-powerful, then surely he can remove suffering, without destroying sinful human beings.

The answer is, that he HAS provided a way to remove suffering without destroying human beings - the Gospel.  However, the human beings [at a minimum] need to want to be non-sinful or else they would simply re-introduce the sin that caused the suffering in the first place - this is why the gospel is so critical.  It provides the means by which sinful human beings can be rescued from their sinfulness, and be able to [one day] enjoy a perfect world free of suffering.

One could argue - if God is all powerful, surely he could find a way to remove suffering from the world without requiring the sinful people to [want to] change.

The answer to that, is if God allowed sinful people who had no desire to change, to live in a perfect world [and who due to their free will would destroy this newly perfect world], then he would not be Good, because he would be allowing people who are BAD and who have no desire to be anything other than bad to enter into a perfect world and thereby destroy it.

Ultimately, the reason that an all-good, all-powerful and all-knowing God allows suffering to continue in this world is that he loves us - he loves us who are the source of the suffering - and is therefore allowing it to continue for a time to give everyone the opportunity to repent and to live forever in a perfect world in which there is no more suffering.

The means by which this occurs is the Gospel.

BTW, sorry, I realized I forgot to answer this bit:

Where would you put your view (that you described in your comment) within the comparative view of apologetics?

1. I usually take a more eclectic approach. All things equal, I don’t think I’d favor one over another, per se, although it depends on a number of factors. I think different approaches speak to different people at different times and in different contexts. It’s rare if not perhaps impossible to find a catch-all apologetic suitable for everyone. If I might paraphrase Abraham Lincoln: You may persuade all the people some of the time, you can even persuade some of the people all of the time, but you cannot persuade all of the people all the time.

I should add we don’t always have to do apologetics solely in order to convince the person with whom we’re speaking. If there are others present, we should also do apologetics for their benefit. If they’re Christians listening in, so to speak, our apologetics could strengthen their faith. If they’re non-Christians, then it could persuade them too. I think it’d be wise to operate with an audience in mind, say, when we do apologetics online. That’s in part what Steve et al do on Triablogue.

2. As far as apologetic methodology, Kenneth Boa and Robert Bowman have written a helpful introduction in his book Faith Has Its Reasons. If I recall, it’s available online for free via Boa’s website.

Similarly helpful is Five Views on Apologetics edited by Steven Cowan.

3. I’ve already mentioned the following above, but it bears repeating. Love the Lord with Heart and Mind is a nice collection of interviews with top-notch Chrisitan scholars speaking on apologetics, among other things. They provide helpful pointers on apologetics and other topics.

<i>“If God is both omnipotent and benevolent, why is there evil in the world?</i>

For a reason that’s perfectly sufficient to God.

God isn’t obligated to tell us why particular evils exist.  He didn’t tell Job, and He’s not obligated to tell us.

Moreover, if there is no God, there is no objection since good and evil don’t exist in a godless universe.  You don’t get objective morality from mere matter in motion.  With philosophical materialism, by logical extension, there can be no evil since evil is an immaterial concept that doesn’t have extension in space.  But since immaterial things don’t exist given philosophical materialism then evil can’t exist.  Also, there is no objective, transcendent standard that exists in a matter-only world, thus, there can be no evil in an objective sense since there is no standard by which to measure it.  The only way the objection can make sense is if the personal, theistic, transcendent God of Scripture first exists to make sense out of the question in the first place.

Hi David
I’m interested in your claim that we (humans, I suppose) are the source of all evil and suffering.  Would you explain how you arrive at this conclusion?
Brian

Further to my last post, I might add that I only contend that it provides a logical resolution to the matter of suffering.  Emotional resolutions are an entirely separate matter.  Knowing the resolution I describe won’t make the suffering go away or help you feel better.  At best, (if you accept the Christian world-view) it might give you a measure of hope that the world won’t always be the way it is.

But this life is always going to be filled with a certain degree of suffering and grief, and none of my description of a logical solution to the matter can [or is intended to] necessarily change this reality.

Hi David Buddedge,

I agree with your answer, and I also realize after thousands of witnessing encounters and hundreds of times open-air preaching on campus that the atheist probably won’t buy it but will accuse you of circular reasoning, etc.  Of course, that shouldn’t stop you from giving the answer, but I often give them this:

1.  God exists and is wholly good.
2.  Evil exists.
3.  There are no non-logical limits to what an all-powerful, all knowing being can do.
4.  Our perfectly good God always prevents evil unless He has a morally or logically sufficient reason to allow it.
5.  God prevents all evil that doesn’t have a morally or logically sufficient reason to allow (per Scripture),
6.  Thus, evil exists and our perfectly good God exists and there is no contradiction.

Your explanation above provides the theological grounding for the above premises and makes for excellent apologetical preaching.  Thanks for the interaction!

Tony,

Agree that any athiest worth their salt should be slapped around the ears with a wet fish if they proferred the argument you suggest as proof against a god-being.  We all know that the ‘problem of evil’ conversation can only get us so far, ending in opinions about the nature of the god-being, not wether the god-being exists.

Equally so, any ‘half-baked, neo-religious practicioner’ should be slapped with said fish if they offer this flimsy argument for the existance of a god-being, something I hear often:

1. Scripture is true.
2. Scripture says a god-being made the world.
3. the world exists
4. therefore the god-being made it.
5. the god-being exists.

Both arguments are a cocktail of a-priori and a-posteriori statements that get us nowhere.

The athiest should always start with the argument from improbablity, and invite the religious practicioner to respond accordingly.  Then the conversation can move onto things like “if there is no god-being, why be good?”  This can then lead to discussions of morality and ethics, and what is foundational for us in our day-today lives.

Cheers.