The Problem of Evil: A Biblical Perspective

by Doug Erlandson

“If God is all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good, why is there evil in the world? An all-powerful and all-knowing God would have the ability to eliminate evil while an all-good God would want to eliminate evil. Yet, evil exists. So, how can God possibly be all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good?”

Commonly known as the “problem of evil,” this question has perplexed philosophers and theologians for centuries. Countless books and articles have been devoted to trying to justify the goodness of God in the face of evil. Others have sought to show that these justifications are unpersuasive.

In The Problem of Evil: A Biblical Perspective, Dr. Doug Erlandson takes a fresh approach to the problem, one that is based on the revelation given in the Judeo-Christian scriptures. Drawing on his nearly forty years of teaching and writing on the issue, Erlandson first of all looks at the traditional attempts to provide a justification of God in light of the evil in the world. These justifications, known as “theodicies,” fall into three major types--metaphysical theodicies, the freewill defense, and greater-good theodicies. Erlandson devotes a chapter to each of these.

Metaphysical theodicies are those that argue that there is something in the nature of creation or in human beings that makes the existence of evil inevitable. Through an examination of St. Augustine’s theodicy as well as that of C.S. Lewis, Erlandson shows that this approach is particularly unpromising as a way of trying to solve the problem of evil.

The widely-held freewill defense, which argues that evil results from the wrong choices of free human beings, is shown to rest on certain debatable assumptions, the most crucial of which is that genuine free choice must result in evil. Through a careful analysis of the relationship between divine omniscience and human free will as well as an explication of what free will is, Erlandson demonstrates that this assumption is mistaken and that attempts to salvage the freewill defense through appeal to middle knowledge and timelessness are confused.

Finally, Erlandson examines greater-good theodicies, using the monumental work of John Hick (Evil and the God of Love) as his primary example. He shows that this approach, which argues that God permits evil to bring about a greater good, is as fraught with difficulties as are the other two approaches.

The second half of The Problem of Evil: A Biblical Perspective presents Erlandson’s fresh approach to theodicy. Arguing that the problem with the traditional theodicies is that they are anthropomorphic (man-centered), he proposes that we take a theocentric approach to the problem, one that assumes that God has created the world first and foremost to manifest His glory, and that He has created the world that is best suited to this purpose. We must also adopt the stance we consistently find in Scripture, as when God confronts Job: God is the eternal Creator of the universe. He knows what He is doing. We may not understand why He has created this world with its seemingly gratuitous evil. But He has promised to lead His children to glory. In the meantime, He asks us simply to trust Him.

Even so, although we must begin with trust, God has also revealed Himself sufficiently that we can gain some understanding of why He has chosen to create this world with its mixture of good and evil. The manifestation of God’s glory in creation involves the revelation of His attributes. Those that bear most crucially on the problem of evil are His righteousness, justice, mercy, and grace. Each of these is most adequately displayed in a world much like the one in which we live.

Finally, Erlandson points to the incarnation and the resurrection as proof that a good and loving God has not only experienced our sufferings and weaknesses but will fulfill His promise to bring His children to the eternal new creation where He will fully reveal to us how everything works to His glory and our good.

87 pages, Kindle Edition

First published October 1, 2012

About the author

Doug Erlandson was born in Chicago, Illinois in 1946. He received his B.A. from Wheaton College (Ill.) and his doctorate in philosophy from Johns Hopkins University. Doug was an assistant professor of philosophy at the University of Nebraska, Lincoln 1972-1980 and since 1994 has been an adjunct instructor of philosophy at Southeast Community College in Lincoln.

Doug is the author of 19 books, including the popular Kindle book, How to Think Clearly: A Guide to Critical Thinking; the Jargon-Free Guide Series, including Philosophy Basics: A Jargon-Free Guide for Beginners; Faith Reborn; Spiritual Anorexia: How Contemporary Worship is Starving the Church; Godly Contentment: Kingdom Living in an Age of Economic and Social Uncertainty.

Doug and his wife are co-owners of the online candy store Licorice International, which is located in the Historic Haymarket District in Lincoln, Nebraska.

Reviews

[Christopher Lawson · Rating 5 out of 5]

√ Looking for a Human Explanation

THE PROBLEM OF EVIL is a serious, well researched book, covering perhaps the most profound issue in all of Christianity. The author points out that the issues here are very similar to those raised in the question of election. Dr. Erlandson begins by framing the question, and giving an overview of the main explanations Christians usually offer. The main responses to the problem of evil are called "theodicies," (Greek, God + Justice.) A theodicy is an "attempt to show that God is indeed a righteous God despite the existence of evil in the world."

Early in his career, the author discovered a major flaw in all the "greater-good" theodicies. Dr. Erlandson calls his objection the "eschatological objection." It goes like this: If evil is necessary for the manifestation of some greater good, then that same evil should be present in the future life. Yet, the Bible clear states that the future world will not have any evil. So, if God can make a world without evil, "Why didn't He do so in the first place?"

Some tactics are clever, but don't really answer the question. For example, it is futile to show that the questioner has a "problem of good" on their hands. That is, one can deftly point out that the questioner can't even define "good," so who are they to ask questions about good and evil? Well, that may be true, the author concedes, but that doesn't do anything to solve the problem of evil we Christians have on OUR hands. (I admit, however, that I find this "turn the tables" tactic cute, and I like to use it.)

The author does not try to minimize the true magnitude of this issue. If we suppose that evil is somehow necessary for some divine reason, couldn't God have allowed fewer people to be tortured or killed? Did His purposes really required that ALL 6 million Jews be killed in World War II? Couldn't even one fewer have died? Or, if we adopt the "free will" response, and suppose that God doesn't want us to be "puppets," wouldn't it have been better to just allow us to be puppets, rather than allow millions of atrocities?

Common attempts to explain the problem of evil rarely quote scripture. For example, the common "free-will" explanation suggests that God doesn't really know about the evil that man will do. So, God isn't really all-knowing. The author points out that this explanation is "a matter of human speculation rather than divine revelation." Other explanations are similarly not found in the Bible, but "represent what the human mind, apart from anything the Word of God says, has invented in trying to solve this thorny problem. This is not a promising approach..."

The entire book of Job is filled with questions about the problem of evil. Near the end of Job, we finally get an explanation--but not what we would like or expect: "At no time does God give an explanation for why He has brought this evil upon Job, how this evil is leading to some greater good, or how this evil is somehow an inherent part of the created order. Yet in the end God has convinced Job of His righteousness and His right to do with the creation as He pleases." The bible is full of accounts of great evil. Never does the writer say, "Let me explain it to you in a way you'll naturally understand." Instead, the answer is always "I'm God, I'm the eternal, omnipotent, omniscient Creator of the entire space-time universe...You're a finite creature with limited understanding ..."

"What--that answer is unacceptable," we shout. Nevertheless, the key point is that the answer given--the answer ALWAYS given, is the RIGHT answer--it's the answer the Bible gives--it's not a "dodge." The "right answer" to this difficult problem is thus not a matter of finding which answer is most intellectually satisfying. Rather, it's changing our perspective, it's grasping who the creator is, and who the creatures are. If you don't like that answer (which most won't), it means that you're on a quest for a non-Biblical, man-centered answer. Of course, the explanation that "I am God" will be totally unsatisfactory to those holding to a man-centered view of creation. If you don't BEGIN your quest with belief, there is 0% chance you will find this answer acceptable.

Dr. Erlandson eventually realized his error; it was his starting point: "What if I make the assumption that God has created a world that best suits His purposes rather than a world designed to bring about what we assume would be the best state for humanity? ... What if God's ultimate objective in creating the space-time universe is to manifest His glory rather than to maximize the comfort of human beings?"

The author recounts a wonderful story of a professor who was searching for an intellectually satisfying answer to the problem of evil, and likewise, to the seemingly unfair doctrine of election. These two issues are very closely related. Visiting with a graduate student, the professor of philosophy came face to face with the above, correct answer to the problem of evil. In an instant--in a mysterious, yet marvelous way, that professor's life was completely changed. Doug Erlandson finally saw the answer, and he was transformed--he was not the same man from that point forward. He changed direction in a profound way. Now, many years later, he writes this book about his journey, and his discoveries.

THE PROBLEM OF EVIL is a profound book with serious consequences. In some ways, the "answer" given in this book leads us to another difficult quest--the question of how we humans know things. Does our faith precede our knowledge? Is Anselm right, when he said, "I believe that I may understand?"

So, THE PROBLEM OF EVIL is not an easy read, and the theme is not a trivial one to grasp. I think that's why we humans want a anthropocentric (man-centered) answer. We want an answer on OUR terms, and if it's not in the Scriptures, well, that's okay too. This book is jammed with some of the most profound doctrines in the history of Christianity, and I don't find these ideas easy to grasp at all. I learned a lot from this book, and am still thinking about many of the points discussed here.

For a related book by this author see, The Theory of Knowledge: A Jargon-Free Guide to Epistemology . Also, for some reason, this author reminds me of the writings of Greg Bahnsen, particularly, Always Ready: Directions for Defending the Faith . Maybe it's because they are both such clear thinkers and excellent writers.

[Theodore Zachariades · Rating 4 out of 5]

Interesting but also it contains some double-speak.

This is a healthy dose of Biblical reasoning. However, at times, the implications of this position leads to a necessary creation, which, by definition would mar God’s freedom. At other times the inconsistency is evidenced by affirming freedom. Compatibilism is not necessitated by a robust understanding of sovereignty and accountability. Here there appears to me to be capitulation to the libertarians, albeit unintentioned. A major mark missing in this treatment is the distinction between God’s inherent glory of being, and its manifestation to a created entity. This would have alleviated the pain of some contradiction, in my opinion. Nevertheless, I do commend this work as an interesting and worthy work.

[Raj · Rating 5 out of 5]

Deals with a difficult subject useful for lay people

The book is deep but not overly academic. Not a text book. Great for lay people who want a rounded explanation without the text book like writing.