THE GOODNESS AND OMNIPOTENCE OF GOD AND THE

EXISTENCE OF EVIL

__________________

A Research Paper
Presented to

Dr. Bruce Ware

The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary

__________________

In Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements for 27060WW

__________________

by

Andrew Bryant Smith

[email protected]

January 27, 2020

 THE GOODNESS AND OMNIPOTENCE OF GOD AND THE
EXISTENCE OF EVIL

Introduction
Throughout the centuries there have been many objections to the existence of God.

One such objection has been dubbed “The Problem of Evil.” Many state that the greatest
hindrance to their belief in an all-powerful, benevolent God is that such a God would not allow

the existence of pain and suffering in the world that he created. Children go hungry, earthquakes

shatter homes, terrorists kill mercilessly, and many live their lives in despair and pain.

Why would an all-powerful God allow evil to reign over his creation? If God is all-

loving, how can he sit back and watch the children of men suffer in darkness and pain? These are

questions asked by the atheist, in arrogance, asserting his logic over the God of the Bible and

these are questions asked by the hurting, in anger, attempting to make sense of the brokenness of

the world. For many, the absence of an answer to these questions has created a void that is still

longing to be filled; a problem in desperate need of a solution.

This paper will seek to prove that the goodness and omnipotence of God are not

threatened by the existence of evil, but, in fact, God’s sovereignty reigns supreme over evil,

limiting its power and reach, and in his perfectly good benevolence he purposes for every

believer a much greater good that far outweighs all the pain and suffering of this life. This will be

demonstrated by, first, explaining two dominate views presented by modern theologians in

answering the problem of evil, second, constructing a biblical and theological solution to the

problem of evil, and, third, demonstrating that the Christian can be confident of God’s

omnipotence and omnibenevolence being compatible with the allowance of evil because of the

hope of one day all things being restored and set right to how they were supposed to be.
 Two Prevalent Views

The Greater Good Theodicy

One of the most prominent methods of solving the problem of evil is called

“theodicy.” Theodicy can be defined as a justification for the ways of God. The word comes from

the Greek theos, “God,” and dikaios, “just” therefore referring to a justification of the ways of

God, especially in his dealings with men. Clay Jones says, “A theodicy attempts to explain God’s

true reasons for allowing evil.”1 Theologians have proposed many theodicies to attempt to justify

God’s allowance of evil in the world. However, the majority of theodicies stem from one main

theodicy called “The Greater Good Theodicy.” Greg Welty defines it this way, “A ‘greater good

theodicy’ (GGT) argues that the pain and suffering in God’s world play a necessary role in

bringing about greater goods that could not be brought about otherwise.”2

In the greater good theodicy, three premises are presented as explanations of God’s

“greater good” purpose that is accomplished through the means of allowing evil. God firstly aims

at great good either for himself, mankind, or for both. Secondly, God often in his dealings with

mankind allows evil to come to pass in order to bring about these great goods. And, thirdly, God

often leaves mankind in the dark when it comes to understanding what the greater good is in any

particular instance of suffering or pain.3 Mankind is left simply to believe that there is a greater

good, but rarely is the knowledge of what that greater good is given to the sufferer.

There are many examples of this greater good theodicy in scripture, but one that stands

out as the most prominent is the story of the life of Joseph in the Old Testament. Joseph at the

age of seventeen begins to suffer at the hands of his brothers (Gen 37). Driven by jealousy and

hatred for their brother, Joseph’s brothers sell him into slavery (Gen 38). Joseph then continues

his path of suffering as a prisoner in Egypt (Gen 39). Then Joseph is freed from prison and
1

Clay Jones, Why Does God Allow Evil? (Eugene Oregon: Harvest House Publishers, 2017), 21.
2

Greg Welty, “The Problem of Evil,” The Gospel Coalition, January 14, 2020, accessed January 17,
2020, https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/essay/the-problem-of-evil.
3

Welty, “The Problem of Evil.”

3
placed in a position of power. In all of this, not only is the greater good of Egypt and the

surrounding nations being saved from famine and the line to the messiah and savior of the world

providentially preserved, but Joseph also recognizes the greater good in his personal sufferings.

In Genesis 50:20 Joseph expresses this to his brothers: “As for you, you meant evil against me,

but God meant it for good, to bring it about that many people should be kept alive, as they are

today.”

However, while Joseph is given understanding to see the providence of God in his life,

others are left in the dark. As Welty states:

But God leaves Joseph’s brothers, the Midianite traders, Potiphar’s wife, and the
cupbearer in the dark. None of these people knew the role their blameworthy actions would
play in preserving God’s people in a time of danger. They had no clue which goods
depended on which evils, or that the evils would even work toward any goods at all.4
This brings to light one of the limitations of the greater good theodicy. As Philip Carry

states: “Of course this greater good principle, as it is often called, is far from a complete answer

to the problem of evil. It does not tell us how to find out what is the greater good that gives

meaning to each particular evil we suffer.”5 Theodicy then, while it does not answer the question

of what the greater good is, it affirms what is repeatedly taught in scripture that God has a reason

for the suffering of mankind. The sons and daughters of Adam suffer, but there is a providentially

good and benevolent Father that is watching over them and knows the end is good. But is it

possible for mankind to know what that greater good is? In order to explore the answer to this

question, the second method for solving the problem of evil must be employed.

The Inscrutability View

Unlike the method of theodicy, the inscrutability method does not seek to find the

reason (the greater good) for God’s allowance of suffering. It proposes instead that because it is

impossible for mankind to know everything, the mind of God cannot be fully known or
4

Welty, “The Problem of Evil.”

5

Philip Carry, God and The Problem of Evil: Five Views, ed. Chad Meister and James K. Dew Jr.
(Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2017), Loc. 215, Kindle.

4
understood. Therefore, it is impossible for men to scrutinize the ways of God in order to pinpoint

a particular greater good or reason for the evil in the world. Instead, because God is an all-good

and all-benevolent God, he must have a good reason for allowing evil. Just because the reason

for God’s allowance of evil cannot be known, does not mean that he is not good, nor does it

mean that he is powerless to stop it. It simply means that mankind is too finite to understand it.

This view has also been called “skeptical theism” because it denies the idea that man

can have accurate knowledge about God or any one of his actions. As Stephen Wykstra, a

proponent of this view, has stated, “…if God does exist, then we should not much expect to see,
in any fulness or detail, his purposes for not preventing more of this world’s evils.”6 A skeptical

theist, then, such as Wykstra would hold to the idea of a greater good theodicy explaining the

problem of evil in as much as asserts that God does indeed have a greater purpose in mind for the

evils that he allows. However, in skeptical theism, a step further must be made.

Wykstra qualifies his greater good theodicy with what he calls a “No-Other-Way

Condition.”7 He illustrates this idea further as follows:

Something like this No-Other-Way Condition seems to me an essential part of a good’s

giving one ample justifying reason for permitting an evil. If a doctor achieved the greater
good of saving your life by amputating your legs, but knew he could have equally well
done this by giving you a simple antibiotic, you wouldn’t say he had ample justifying
reason for the double amputation. You’d instead want him arrested.8
This method is seen in scripture in the book of Job. Job encounters insurmountable

evil and hardship which God allows for the purpose of vindicating his own name. Job is not

given any explanation by God of the reason for his suffering. Instead, God asks him where he

was when he created the world and everything in it (Job 38:4-39:30; 40:6-41:34). In other words,

Job does not have the right to know why God has allowed the suffering in his life. Job replies, “I

know that you can do all things, and that no purpose of yours can be thwarted. ‘Who is this that
6

Stephen Wykstra, God and The Problem of Evil: Five Views, ed. Chad Meister and James K. Dew Jr.
(Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2017), Loc. 3139, Kindle.
7

Wykstra, God and The Problem of Evil: Five Views, Loc. 3166, Kindle.
8

Wykstra, God and The Problem of Evil: Five Views, Loc. 3167, Kindle.

5
hides counsel without knowledge?’ Therefore, I have uttered what I did not understand, things

too wonderful for me, which I did not know” (Job 42:1-3).

The inscrutability method asserts that God is not just allowing evil for the greater

good, but that he is sovereign over all evil and therefore he sovereignly allows it without having

to give his creation a reason or explanation for it. This view of God’s sovereignty holds that God

not only is in control of everything, including evil, but that he also has ordained it.

This is where many have raised objections to this view, arguing that God must then be

the originator or creator of evil. Most who oppose this view reject the idea that God would
determine all the thoughts and actions of every creature. This view of God’s sovereignty has

often been called “determinism.” As John Frame notes, “The doctrine that God controls all

things, including human decisions, typically raises for us the question, ‘How, then, can we be

responsible for our actions?’”9 If mankind cannot be held accountable for the evil that it has

willed into the world, then God must be the originator of every evil deed; the creator of every

human atrocity. Clay Jones puts it this way:

If determinism is true—that God has determined every creature’s every thought and deed so
that they could never do otherwise—then the man who fantasizes about how he would rape
and torture to death the little girl next door, and actually carries out his wicked scheme, was
not able to do otherwise.10
This view in and of itself does not answer the problem of evil for, in fact, it does not

feel the need to answer the problem in the first place. Jones continues, “Thus determinists not

only struggle to explain why God allows evil, but most find it impossible.”11 Because God has

revealed himself in the scriptures as a good and gracious, all-powerful God, it does not matter

that mankind knows or does not know the greater good in every individual allowance of evil.

God is still sovereign over all and must have a greater good in mind.

John Frame, The Doctrine of God, (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing Company, 2002), Loc. 1469,
Kindle.
10

Jones, Why Does God Allow Evil?, 25.

11

Jones, Why Does God Allow Evil?, 25.

6
 Because God cannot be the originator of evil, one must first define what evil is and

where it comes from. To do this, a return to the classic mind of Augustine of Hippo must be

made. Though this view has similarities to the ones stated above, the classic view is strikingly

different in that it gives both a philosophical and theological answer that fits with scripture.

A Biblical Solution: The Classic View

The classic view has been called such because it holds to the views that have been

widely held by the church fathers throughout history, beginning with Augustine of Hippo. In the

classic view, the foundational question to the problem of evil is not, “because evil exists, how
can God be good and all-powerful?” but instead, “because God is good and all-powerful, why

then does he permit evil to exist?” The classic view, then, begins with the premise that God is

omnibenevolent and thus has a reason for permitting evil to exists. As Phillip Carry states, “The

basic answer to the problem of evil given by the classic view is that no evil takes place unless

God permits it, and that God has a good reason for permitting each evil, which takes the form of

a greater good that he uses the evil to bring about.”12 The greater good theodicy then is not a

modern attempt to solve the problem of evil, but one with roots in the classics. The classic view,

however, does not end with the greater good principle as a complete answer to the problem of

evil, but instead as a starting premise.

Because God cannot be the originator of evil in this view, where then does evil come

from? The classic view answers this question by defining what evil is. Evil firstly, is not a being,

nor is it a physical substance in and of itself. As Clay Jones rightly puts it, “There is no blob

somewhere in the universe named evil. If there were such a blob, it would be difficult to explain

why God would create such a blob.”13 Evil is instead a corruption of the good that God has

created. As C. S. Lewis put it, “badness is only spoiled goodness.”14 Every evil thought that is
12

Carry, God and The Problem of Evil: Five Views, Loc. 215, Kindle.
13

Jones, Why Does God Allow Evil?, 19.

14

C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity (New York: Macmillan, 1960), book 2, chap.2 (“The Invasion”).

7
born into an evil deed, every sickness, every splintered relationship, every loss and death is a

good thing that has been corrupted. Building on this idea, Carry says, “Corruption means loss of

form, which amounts to loss of being, a tendency toward decay, destruction, and death.”15 This is

a crucial starting point in answering the problem of evil.

If all the good that God has created has been corrupted, his goodness shines through in

his promise to make all things right again. As Paul says, “For this corruptible must be clothed

with incorruptibility, and this mortal must be clothed with immortality” (1 Cor 15:53 HCSB).

The great Christian hope throughout all the centuries has been that God will one day set all
things right; he will renew all that has been corrupted by sin. He can only do this if he is

completely and unequivocally good in all that he is and does. The classic view upholds this view

of God’s goodness because it asserts that all things were created good. As Augustine put it,

“whatever things exist are good.”16 God did not create anything bad or evil, for there is no thing

that exists which is intrinsically bad or evil. As Phillip Carry states, “…evil is what takes place

when things are deprived of some good they ought to have.”17

Some have proposed that God allows evil in order for mankind to know the good. This

idea, however, is not held by the classic view. In the classic view, darkness can only be known by

the absence of light, but light does not rely on darkness for it to be seen as light. In other words,

good can be known for itself, apart from evil, but evil can only be truly known in light of the

good that it is missing. This is crucial for the answer to the problem of evil, for this is precisely

how evil does not produce a problem for the existence of God, but instead points to his existence

as a good God. If corruption exists in the world, there must be an ultimate good, an ultimate

standard from which all the spoiled forms of it have arisen. A rotten banana is known to be

15

Carry, God and The Problem of Evil: Five Views, Loc. 240, Kindle.
16

Augustine, Confessions 7.12.18, trans. Henry Chadwick (New York: Oxford University Press, 1992).
17

Carry, God and The Problem of Evil: Five Views, Loc. 269, Kindle.

8
spoiled not by its rottenness, but by its failure to be a good, edible banana. God created the

perfectly good banana, mankind, in sin, brought about the corruption of it.

Another objection to the classic view is the free will objection. Those who oppose the

classic view’s assertion that God does not create evil do so for the defense of free will. They

avow that in order for there to be true free will, God must create bad or evil things for mankind

to choose. William Hasker refers to this type of free will as “libertarian free will.”18 He goes on

to assert, “If libertarian free will is rejected, I see no hope for any remotely plausible solution for

the problem of moral evil.”19

However, from an Augustinian perspective, libertarian free will is not at all necessary

for mankind to truly have free will. For, just as nothing was created with intrinsic “badness” but

instead all badness is just corrupted good, so it is with the will. God created the will to choose

good, and in choosing good lies true freedom. The possibility to choose evil does not create more

freedom, but brings about more corruption and limitation. As Phillip Carry states, “It is precisely

the will, by nature free to love the good, that can be subjected to the bondage of sin, just as it is

precisely the eye, by nature capable of vision, that can go blind and lose the power to see.”20

Another way that the classic view explains this is that, according to Augustine,

choosing evil does not mean choosing an evil thing. As has already been stated, in the classic

view evil cannot be a thing, but instead a corruption of good. Thus, choosing evil, in order to be

more precise, is really choosing in an evil way. As Augustine defines it,

When the will leaves the higher and turns to the lower, it becomes bad not because the thing
to which it turns is bad, but because the turning is itself perverse. It follows that it is not the
inferior thing which causes the evil choice; it is the will itself…that desires the inferior
thing in a perverted and inordinate manner.21
18

William Hasker, God and The Problem of Evil: Five Views, ed. Chad Meister and James K. Dew Jr.
(Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2017), Loc. 1272, Kindle.
19

Hasker, God and The Problem of Evil: Five Views, ed. Loc. 1272, Kindle.
20

Carry, God and The Problem of Evil: Five Views, ed. Loc. 308, Kindle.
21

Augustine, City of God, 12.6, trans. Henry Bettenson (New York: Penguin, 1984).

9
 Thus, evil is a parasite to the will of man. In choosing something other than the

ultimate good that is found in God alone, the will is corrupted and subjected to futility. As Paul

cries out, “For the creation was subjected to futility—not willingly, but because of Him who

subjected it—in the hope that the creation itself will also be set free from the bondage of

corruption into the glorious freedom of God’s children” (Rom 8:20-21 HCSB). Thus, the main

tenants of the classic view do not originate with Augustine, but, in fact, go all the way back to

Paul the apostle who was well acquainted with grief and hardship.

Conclusion
The earth is filled with darkness. Suffering lurks behind every corner. Corruption

perverts and destroys the good that God has made, but God has always planned to have the final

say. He will not leave his creation in futility, groaning in pain. He is not apathetic, or powerless.

The evil corruption of God’s good will one day be reversed, undone, and utterly crushed by the

good and gracious King. The Christian can firmly place his faith in an all-good, omnipotent God

who is not wringing his hands over the despondency of man, but has a greater good in sight that

far outweighs the bad, corrupted good of this life. The hope of renewal and re-creation gives

light and meaning to every hardship along life’s weary path. The insurmountable weight of glory

that awaits the Christian far surpasses any weight of suffering in this life.

*Honor Code: I have written this paper exclusively for 27060WW. If I received any editing or

proofreading advice, I have made all such corrections myself. I have also documented each

paraphrase, direct quotation, and borrowed idea in compliance with the Turabian and SBTS style

manuals.

10
11
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Augustine, Confessions 7.12.18, trans. Henry Chadwick, New York: Oxford University Press,
1992.

Carry, Phillip, God and The Problem of Evil: Five Views, Edited by Chad Meister and James K.
Dew Jr., Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2017, Kindle.

Frame, John, The Doctrine of God, Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing Company, 2002, Kindle.

Jones, Clay, Why Does God Allow Evil? Eugene Oregon: Harvest House Publishers, 2017.

Lewis, C. S., Mere Christianity New York: Macmillan, 1960.

Welty, Greg, “The Problem of Evil,” The Gospel Coalition, January 14, 2020, accessed January
17, 2020, https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/essay/the-problem-of-evil.

Wykstra, Stephen, God and The Problem of Evil: Five Views, Edited by Chad Meister and James
K. Dew Jr., Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2017, Kindle.