Why Do the Innocent Suffer

  • 2,751 views
Uploaded on

 

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
2,751
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
4

Actions

Shares
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
1

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide
  • \n
  • Often-Asked Questions:\nIf God is all-good and all-powerful, why did He make a world with so much suffering? \nWhy do innocent people suffer from things like disease and natural disaster? \nIf God is so good, loving, and powerful, why doesn't He put an end to suffering now? \nHow could a loving God send people to hell? \nDid God create evil? \nIf God knew man would sin and bring evil into this world, why did He bother to create him in the first place?\n\n
  • Often-Asked Questions:\nIf God is all-good and all-powerful, why did He make a world with so much suffering? \nWhy do innocent people suffer from things like disease and natural disaster? \nIf God is so good, loving, and powerful, why doesn't He put an end to suffering now? \nHow could a loving God send people to hell? \nDid God create evil? \nIf God knew man would sin and bring evil into this world, why did He bother to create him in the first place?\n\n
  • Often-Asked Questions:\nIf God is all-good and all-powerful, why did He make a world with so much suffering? \nWhy do innocent people suffer from things like disease and natural disaster? \nIf God is so good, loving, and powerful, why doesn't He put an end to suffering now? \nHow could a loving God send people to hell? \nDid God create evil? \nIf God knew man would sin and bring evil into this world, why did He bother to create him in the first place?\n\n
  • Often-Asked Questions:\nIf God is all-good and all-powerful, why did He make a world with so much suffering? \nWhy do innocent people suffer from things like disease and natural disaster? \nIf God is so good, loving, and powerful, why doesn't He put an end to suffering now? \nHow could a loving God send people to hell? \nDid God create evil? \nIf God knew man would sin and bring evil into this world, why did He bother to create him in the first place?\n\n
  • Often-Asked Questions:\nIf God is all-good and all-powerful, why did He make a world with so much suffering? \nWhy do innocent people suffer from things like disease and natural disaster? \nIf God is so good, loving, and powerful, why doesn't He put an end to suffering now? \nHow could a loving God send people to hell? \nDid God create evil? \nIf God knew man would sin and bring evil into this world, why did He bother to create him in the first place?\n\n
  • Often-Asked Questions:\nIf God is all-good and all-powerful, why did He make a world with so much suffering? \nWhy do innocent people suffer from things like disease and natural disaster? \nIf God is so good, loving, and powerful, why doesn't He put an end to suffering now? \nHow could a loving God send people to hell? \nDid God create evil? \nIf God knew man would sin and bring evil into this world, why did He bother to create him in the first place?\n\n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • Traditionally we recognize two types of evil. The first is moral evil, caused by man through his rebellion against God and/or by his cruelty to others. The innocent suffer many times because of man's hatred (e.g., war), because of his overindulgence (e.g., the drunk driver who kills an innocent family), and because of his greed (e.g., many starving to death while others hoard surpluses).\n\n
  • Traditionally we recognize two types of evil. The first is moral evil, caused by man through his rebellion against God and/or by his cruelty to others. The innocent suffer many times because of man's hatred (e.g., war), because of his overindulgence (e.g., the drunk driver who kills an innocent family), and because of his greed (e.g., many starving to death while others hoard surpluses).\n\n
  • Traditionally we recognize two types of evil. The first is moral evil, caused by man through his rebellion against God and/or by his cruelty to others. The innocent suffer many times because of man's hatred (e.g., war), because of his overindulgence (e.g., the drunk driver who kills an innocent family), and because of his greed (e.g., many starving to death while others hoard surpluses).\n\n
  • Traditionally we recognize two types of evil. The first is moral evil, caused by man through his rebellion against God and/or by his cruelty to others. The innocent suffer many times because of man's hatred (e.g., war), because of his overindulgence (e.g., the drunk driver who kills an innocent family), and because of his greed (e.g., many starving to death while others hoard surpluses).\n\n
  • The second is natural evil, a result of the natural phenomena inflicted on the innocent. Examples include hurricanes, plagues, earthquakes, and other diseases and disasters.\nHow do we account for the presence of both classes of evil, and is there an answer for the plight it presents?\n\n
  • Natural disasters are the nature and the byproducts of a good physical world.\n\n
  • Natural disasters are the nature and the byproducts of a good physical world.\n\n
  • Natural disasters are the nature and the byproducts of a good physical world.\n\n
  • Natural disasters are the nature and the byproducts of a good physical world.\n\n
  • Natural disasters are the nature and the byproducts of a good physical world.\n\n
  • Natural disasters are the nature and the byproducts of a good physical world.\n\n
  • For some half-serious and comic relief. Never underestimate man’s occasional lack of good judgment\n
  • For some half-serious and comic relief. Never underestimate man’s occasional lack of good judgment\n
  • For some half-serious and comic relief. Never underestimate man’s occasional lack of good judgment\n
  • For some half-serious and comic relief. Never underestimate man’s occasional lack of good judgment\n
  • For some half-serious and comic relief. Never underestimate man’s occasional lack of good judgment\n
  • For some half-serious and comic relief. Never underestimate man’s occasional lack of good judgment\n
  • For some half-serious and comic relief. Never underestimate man’s occasional lack of good judgment\n
  • For some half-serious and comic relief. Never underestimate man’s occasional lack of good judgment\n
  • For some half-serious and comic relief. Never underestimate man’s occasional lack of good judgment\n
  • For some half-serious and comic relief. Never underestimate man’s occasional lack of good judgment\n
  • For some half-serious and comic relief. Never underestimate man’s occasional lack of good judgment\n
  • The problem of evil is the old chestnut with which all philosophies and religions must wrestle. The problem is universal and complex. How to reconcile the concept of evil and God has baffled man for centuries. An examination of this problem reveals only three major alternatives: evil exists and God doesn't; God exists and evil doesn't; they both exist. Some people defend a perspective that allows for evil but not for God (atheism). Others seek to resolve the enigma by saying God exists but evil doesn't (pantheism). The third option states that both God and evil exist and that there is an explanation for this predicament (theism). \n\n\n
  • The problem of evil is the old chestnut with which all philosophies and religions must wrestle. The problem is universal and complex. How to reconcile the concept of evil and God has baffled man for centuries. An examination of this problem reveals only three major alternatives: evil exists and God doesn't; God exists and evil doesn't; they both exist. Some people defend a perspective that allows for evil but not for God (atheism). Others seek to resolve the enigma by saying God exists but evil doesn't (pantheism). The third option states that both God and evil exist and that there is an explanation for this predicament (theism). \n\n\n
  • The problem of evil is the old chestnut with which all philosophies and religions must wrestle. The problem is universal and complex. How to reconcile the concept of evil and God has baffled man for centuries. An examination of this problem reveals only three major alternatives: evil exists and God doesn't; God exists and evil doesn't; they both exist. Some people defend a perspective that allows for evil but not for God (atheism). Others seek to resolve the enigma by saying God exists but evil doesn't (pantheism). The third option states that both God and evil exist and that there is an explanation for this predicament (theism). \n\n\n
  • The problem of evil is the old chestnut with which all philosophies and religions must wrestle. The problem is universal and complex. How to reconcile the concept of evil and God has baffled man for centuries. An examination of this problem reveals only three major alternatives: evil exists and God doesn't; God exists and evil doesn't; they both exist. Some people defend a perspective that allows for evil but not for God (atheism). Others seek to resolve the enigma by saying God exists but evil doesn't (pantheism). The third option states that both God and evil exist and that there is an explanation for this predicament (theism). \n\n\n
  • The problem of evil is the old chestnut with which all philosophies and religions must wrestle. The problem is universal and complex. How to reconcile the concept of evil and God has baffled man for centuries. An examination of this problem reveals only three major alternatives: evil exists and God doesn't; God exists and evil doesn't; they both exist. Some people defend a perspective that allows for evil but not for God (atheism). Others seek to resolve the enigma by saying God exists but evil doesn't (pantheism). The third option states that both God and evil exist and that there is an explanation for this predicament (theism). \n\n\n
  • The problem of evil is the old chestnut with which all philosophies and religions must wrestle. The problem is universal and complex. How to reconcile the concept of evil and God has baffled man for centuries. An examination of this problem reveals only three major alternatives: evil exists and God doesn't; God exists and evil doesn't; they both exist. Some people defend a perspective that allows for evil but not for God (atheism). Others seek to resolve the enigma by saying God exists but evil doesn't (pantheism). The third option states that both God and evil exist and that there is an explanation for this predicament (theism). \n\n\n
  • \n
  • The atheist solves the problem by eliminating God. Evil and suffering are taken as givens, but the existence of God is not. Such prominent thinkers as David Hume, H.G. Wells, and Bertrand Russell have concluded, on the basis of their observations of suffering and evil, that the God of the Bible does not exist. \n
  • The atheist solves the problem by eliminating God. Evil and suffering are taken as givens, but the existence of God is not. Such prominent thinkers as David Hume, H.G. Wells, and Bertrand Russell have concluded, on the basis of their observations of suffering and evil, that the God of the Bible does not exist. \n
  • . Because of the prevalence of evil in the world, they formulated this classical proposition: (1) If God is all-good, He will destroy evil. (2) If God is all-powerful, He can destroy evil. (3) But evil is not destroyed. (4) Therefore, there is no all-good, all-powerful God.\n\n\n
  • . Because of the prevalence of evil in the world, they formulated this classical proposition: (1) If God is all-good, He will destroy evil. (2) If God is all-powerful, He can destroy evil. (3) But evil is not destroyed. (4) Therefore, there is no all-good, all-powerful God.\n\n\n
  • . Because of the prevalence of evil in the world, they formulated this classical proposition: (1) If God is all-good, He will destroy evil. (2) If God is all-powerful, He can destroy evil. (3) But evil is not destroyed. (4) Therefore, there is no all-good, all-powerful God.\n\n\n
  • . Because of the prevalence of evil in the world, they formulated this classical proposition: (1) If God is all-good, He will destroy evil. (2) If God is all-powerful, He can destroy evil. (3) But evil is not destroyed. (4) Therefore, there is no all-good, all-powerful God.\n\n\n
  • This line of reasoning leads the atheist to deny God, but it can lead to two other conclusions. One conclusion says that God is all-powerful, but He is sadistic and, therefore, not all-good. There are no serious proponents of this view for, carried to its logical conclusion, it leads to atheism. Both the cruel-God view and the atheistic view reject the notion of a good God and hold to the reality of evil. The former attributes the evil to God whereas the atheist simply admits the existence of evil. The cruel-God position usually has been espoused by atheists writing satirically about theism.\n\n
  • This line of reasoning leads the atheist to deny God, but it can lead to two other conclusions. One conclusion says that God is all-powerful, but He is sadistic and, therefore, not all-good. There are no serious proponents of this view for, carried to its logical conclusion, it leads to atheism. Both the cruel-God view and the atheistic view reject the notion of a good God and hold to the reality of evil. The former attributes the evil to God whereas the atheist simply admits the existence of evil. The cruel-God position usually has been espoused by atheists writing satirically about theism.\n\n
  • This line of reasoning leads the atheist to deny God, but it can lead to two other conclusions. One conclusion says that God is all-powerful, but He is sadistic and, therefore, not all-good. There are no serious proponents of this view for, carried to its logical conclusion, it leads to atheism. Both the cruel-God view and the atheistic view reject the notion of a good God and hold to the reality of evil. The former attributes the evil to God whereas the atheist simply admits the existence of evil. The cruel-God position usually has been espoused by atheists writing satirically about theism.\n\n
  • This line of reasoning leads the atheist to deny God, but it can lead to two other conclusions. One conclusion says that God is all-powerful, but He is sadistic and, therefore, not all-good. There are no serious proponents of this view for, carried to its logical conclusion, it leads to atheism. Both the cruel-God view and the atheistic view reject the notion of a good God and hold to the reality of evil. The former attributes the evil to God whereas the atheist simply admits the existence of evil. The cruel-God position usually has been espoused by atheists writing satirically about theism.\n\n
  • This line of reasoning leads the atheist to deny God, but it can lead to two other conclusions. One conclusion says that God is all-powerful, but He is sadistic and, therefore, not all-good. There are no serious proponents of this view for, carried to its logical conclusion, it leads to atheism. Both the cruel-God view and the atheistic view reject the notion of a good God and hold to the reality of evil. The former attributes the evil to God whereas the atheist simply admits the existence of evil. The cruel-God position usually has been espoused by atheists writing satirically about theism.\n\n
  • The second conclusion says God exists and is all-good, but He is incapable of stopping evil and, therefore, He is not all-powerful. We will deal with this in the section on theistic views.\n\n\n
  • The second conclusion says God exists and is all-good, but He is incapable of stopping evil and, therefore, He is not all-powerful. We will deal with this in the section on theistic views.\n\n\n
  • The second conclusion says God exists and is all-good, but He is incapable of stopping evil and, therefore, He is not all-powerful. We will deal with this in the section on theistic views.\n\n\n
  • The false assumption made in this classical proposition is that evil would have to have been destroyed by now if God were capable or wanted to. On the contrary, if there is an all-good, all-powerful God, then the proposition could be stated another way: (1) If God is all-good, He will destroy evil. (2) If God is all-powerful, He can destroy evil. (3) Evil is not yet destroyed. (4) Therefore evil will be destroyed one day. See Revelation 20:10-15; 21:4; 22:3-8 for a description of how God plans to do just that.\n\n
  • The false assumption made in this classical proposition is that evil would have to have been destroyed by now if God were capable or wanted to. On the contrary, if there is an all-good, all-powerful God, then the proposition could be stated another way: (1) If God is all-good, He will destroy evil. (2) If God is all-powerful, He can destroy evil. (3) Evil is not yet destroyed. (4) Therefore evil will be destroyed one day. See Revelation 20:10-15; 21:4; 22:3-8 for a description of how God plans to do just that.\n\n
  • The false assumption made in this classical proposition is that evil would have to have been destroyed by now if God were capable or wanted to. On the contrary, if there is an all-good, all-powerful God, then the proposition could be stated another way: (1) If God is all-good, He will destroy evil. (2) If God is all-powerful, He can destroy evil. (3) Evil is not yet destroyed. (4) Therefore evil will be destroyed one day. See Revelation 20:10-15; 21:4; 22:3-8 for a description of how God plans to do just that.\n\n
  • The false assumption made in this classical proposition is that evil would have to have been destroyed by now if God were capable or wanted to. On the contrary, if there is an all-good, all-powerful God, then the proposition could be stated another way: (1) If God is all-good, He will destroy evil. (2) If God is all-powerful, He can destroy evil. (3) Evil is not yet destroyed. (4) Therefore evil will be destroyed one day. See Revelation 20:10-15; 21:4; 22:3-8 for a description of how God plans to do just that.\n\n
  • The false assumption made in this classical proposition is that evil would have to have been destroyed by now if God were capable or wanted to. On the contrary, if there is an all-good, all-powerful God, then the proposition could be stated another way: (1) If God is all-good, He will destroy evil. (2) If God is all-powerful, He can destroy evil. (3) Evil is not yet destroyed. (4) Therefore evil will be destroyed one day. See Revelation 20:10-15; 21:4; 22:3-8 for a description of how God plans to do just that.\n\n
  • Although we are specifically dealing with the problem of evil, it is critical that we reexamine atheism as a whole. To do this, see chapter 3 on the untenable nature of atheism and the evidence for the existence of God. When atheism is no longer seen as a viable option, we can move on to the second or third options.\n\n
  • Although we are specifically dealing with the problem of evil, it is critical that we reexamine atheism as a whole. To do this, see chapter 3 on the untenable nature of atheism and the evidence for the existence of God. When atheism is no longer seen as a viable option, we can move on to the second or third options.\n\n
  • Although we are specifically dealing with the problem of evil, it is critical that we reexamine atheism as a whole. To do this, see chapter 3 on the untenable nature of atheism and the evidence for the existence of God. When atheism is no longer seen as a viable option, we can move on to the second or third options.\n\n
  • Although we are specifically dealing with the problem of evil, it is critical that we reexamine atheism as a whole. To do this, see chapter 3 on the untenable nature of atheism and the evidence for the existence of God. When atheism is no longer seen as a viable option, we can move on to the second or third options.\n\n
  • \n
  • The pantheist argues that evil cannot be real if his view of God (God is all and all is God) is correct. \n
  • The pantheist argues that evil cannot be real if his view of God (God is all and all is God) is correct. \n
  • The pantheist argues that evil cannot be real if his view of God (God is all and all is God) is correct. The teachings of\nVedanta Hinduism express evil as only a passing appearance, an illusion. There is only one reality, and that reality is good, regardless of how we perceive it. The illusion of evil is like thinking a coiled rope is a snake until one is close enough to see that it's only a rope. In America, the best known proponent of evil as an illusion is Christian Science. \n
  • The pantheist argues that evil cannot be real if his view of God (God is all and all is God) is correct. The teachings of\nVedanta Hinduism express evil as only a passing appearance, an illusion. There is only one reality, and that reality is good, regardless of how we perceive it. The illusion of evil is like thinking a coiled rope is a snake until one is close enough to see that it's only a rope. In America, the best known proponent of evil as an illusion is Christian Science. \n
  • The pantheist argues that evil cannot be real if his view of God (God is all and all is God) is correct. The teachings of\nVedanta Hinduism express evil as only a passing appearance, an illusion. There is only one reality, and that reality is good, regardless of how we perceive it. The illusion of evil is like thinking a coiled rope is a snake until one is close enough to see that it's only a rope. In America, the best known proponent of evil as an illusion is Christian Science. \n
  • The pantheist argues that evil cannot be real if his view of God (God is all and all is God) is correct. The teachings of\nVedanta Hinduism express evil as only a passing appearance, an illusion. There is only one reality, and that reality is good, regardless of how we perceive it. The illusion of evil is like thinking a coiled rope is a snake until one is close enough to see that it's only a rope. In America, the best known proponent of evil as an illusion is Christian Science. \n
  • There are two major objections to this alternative:\n(1) To accept it, we must deny our own senses and consistent personal experiences. All around us we see suffering resulting from evil. Man's inhumanity to man is apparent as we observe hatred, murders, robbery, famines, wars, etc. If we deny these, on what grounds can we verify the pantheist's position? If we can't trust our senses and experience in one area, how can we know that our senses and experience are not deceiving us when we accept pantheism?\n\n
  • There are two major objections to this alternative:\n(1) To accept it, we must deny our own senses and consistent personal experiences. All around us we see suffering resulting from evil. Man's inhumanity to man is apparent as we observe hatred, murders, robbery, famines, wars, etc. If we deny these, on what grounds can we verify the pantheist's position? If we can't trust our senses and experience in one area, how can we know that our senses and experience are not deceiving us when we accept pantheism?\n\n
  • There are two major objections to this alternative:\n(1) To accept it, we must deny our own senses and consistent personal experiences. All around us we see suffering resulting from evil. Man's inhumanity to man is apparent as we observe hatred, murders, robbery, famines, wars, etc. If we deny these, on what grounds can we verify the pantheist's position? If we can't trust our senses and experience in one area, how can we know that our senses and experience are not deceiving us when we accept pantheism?\n\n
  • There are two major objections to this alternative:\n(1) To accept it, we must deny our own senses and consistent personal experiences. All around us we see suffering resulting from evil. Man's inhumanity to man is apparent as we observe hatred, murders, robbery, famines, wars, etc. If we deny these, on what grounds can we verify the pantheist's position? If we can't trust our senses and experience in one area, how can we know that our senses and experience are not deceiving us when we accept pantheism?\n\n
  • ) This viewpoint is contrary to two other kinds of evidence, scientific and historical. The evidence gathered through scientific investigation points to the reality of pain and suffering. Natural evil has been monitored for centuries and its existence has been universally verified. Scientists, with their investigative skills, have warned us accurately of impending disasters such as hurricanes, earthquakes, and tornadoes. Also, if pain were an illusion, the millions of dollars poured into research for disease control and cure would be worthless.\n\n
  • ) This viewpoint is contrary to two other kinds of evidence, scientific and historical. The evidence gathered through scientific investigation points to the reality of pain and suffering. Natural evil has been monitored for centuries and its existence has been universally verified. Scientists, with their investigative skills, have warned us accurately of impending disasters such as hurricanes, earthquakes, and tornadoes. Also, if pain were an illusion, the millions of dollars poured into research for disease control and cure would be worthless.\n\n
  • ) This viewpoint is contrary to two other kinds of evidence, scientific and historical. The evidence gathered through scientific investigation points to the reality of pain and suffering. Natural evil has been monitored for centuries and its existence has been universally verified. Scientists, with their investigative skills, have warned us accurately of impending disasters such as hurricanes, earthquakes, and tornadoes. Also, if pain were an illusion, the millions of dollars poured into research for disease control and cure would be worthless.\n\n
  • ) This viewpoint is contrary to two other kinds of evidence, scientific and historical. The evidence gathered through scientific investigation points to the reality of pain and suffering. Natural evil has been monitored for centuries and its existence has been universally verified. Scientists, with their investigative skills, have warned us accurately of impending disasters such as hurricanes, earthquakes, and tornadoes. Also, if pain were an illusion, the millions of dollars poured into research for disease control and cure would be worthless.\n\n
  • Legal historical evidence chronicles at every turn the reality of moral evil. Injustice, treachery, selfishness, and cruelty are boldly displayed on the pages of history. To deny evil would be to deny life as we know it. This is exactly what pantheists say they do, but in reality, their lives are no different from ours. They criticize falsehood and immorality just as we do.\n
  • Legal historical evidence chronicles at every turn the reality of moral evil. Injustice, treachery, selfishness, and cruelty are boldly displayed on the pages of history. To deny evil would be to deny life as we know it. This is exactly what pantheists say they do, but in reality, their lives are no different from ours. They criticize falsehood and immorality just as we do.\n
  • Legal historical evidence chronicles at every turn the reality of moral evil. Injustice, treachery, selfishness, and cruelty are boldly displayed on the pages of history. To deny evil would be to deny life as we know it. This is exactly what pantheists say they do, but in reality, their lives are no different from ours. They criticize falsehood and immorality just as we do.\n
  • Legal historical evidence chronicles at every turn the reality of moral evil. Injustice, treachery, selfishness, and cruelty are boldly displayed on the pages of history. To deny evil would be to deny life as we know it. This is exactly what pantheists say they do, but in reality, their lives are no different from ours. They criticize falsehood and immorality just as we do.\n
  • The final and most important objection to this notion is that it contradicts the statements of Christ and the Bible (Jud. 2:11-15; Ps. 5:4-5; 51:2-5; Micah 3:1-3; Matt. 23:13-36; Gal. 5:19-26). For a closer look at the trustworthiness of Christ and the Bible, see chapters 4 and 6.\n\nThe second option is invalid because it violates our own personal experiences and reason, and it goes contrary to the testimony of Christ and the Bible, both of which we have shown to be true.\n\n
  • The final and most important objection to this notion is that it contradicts the statements of Christ and the Bible (Jud. 2:11-15; Ps. 5:4-5; 51:2-5; Micah 3:1-3; Matt. 23:13-36; Gal. 5:19-26). For a closer look at the trustworthiness of Christ and the Bible, see chapters 4 and 6.\n\nThe second option is invalid because it violates our own personal experiences and reason, and it goes contrary to the testimony of Christ and the Bible, both of which we have shown to be true.\n\n
  • The final and most important objection to this notion is that it contradicts the statements of Christ and the Bible (Jud. 2:11-15; Ps. 5:4-5; 51:2-5; Micah 3:1-3; Matt. 23:13-36; Gal. 5:19-26). For a closer look at the trustworthiness of Christ and the Bible, see chapters 4 and 6.\n\nThe second option is invalid because it violates our own personal experiences and reason, and it goes contrary to the testimony of Christ and the Bible, both of which we have shown to be true.\n\n
  • The final and most important objection to this notion is that it contradicts the statements of Christ and the Bible (Jud. 2:11-15; Ps. 5:4-5; 51:2-5; Micah 3:1-3; Matt. 23:13-36; Gal. 5:19-26). For a closer look at the trustworthiness of Christ and the Bible, see chapters 4 and 6.\n\nThe second option is invalid because it violates our own personal experiences and reason, and it goes contrary to the testimony of Christ and the Bible, both of which we have shown to be true.\n\n
  • \n
  • The third possible solution allows for the existence of both God and evil. This leads to three more choices. The first choice is finitism — evil is greater than God. The second choice is dualism — God and evil are co-eternal opposites. The third choice is theism —God is greater than evil and will one day defeat it. Finitism.\n\n\n
  • The third possible solution allows for the existence of both God and evil. This leads to three more choices. The first choice is finitism — evil is greater than God. The second choice is dualism — God and evil are co-eternal opposites. The third choice is theism —God is greater than evil and will one day defeat it. Finitism.\n\n\n
  • The third possible solution allows for the existence of both God and evil. This leads to three more choices. The first choice is finitism — evil is greater than God. The second choice is dualism — God and evil are co-eternal opposites. The third choice is theism —God is greater than evil and will one day defeat it. Finitism.\n\n\n
  • The third possible solution allows for the existence of both God and evil. This leads to three more choices. The first choice is finitism — evil is greater than God. The second choice is dualism — God and evil are co-eternal opposites. The third choice is theism —God is greater than evil and will one day defeat it. Finitism.\n\n\n
  • The third possible solution allows for the existence of both God and evil. This leads to three more choices. The first choice is finitism — evil is greater than God. The second choice is dualism — God and evil are co-eternal opposites. The third choice is theism —God is greater than evil and will one day defeat it. Finitism.\n\n\n
  • The third possible solution allows for the existence of both God and evil. This leads to three more choices. The first choice is finitism — evil is greater than God. The second choice is dualism — God and evil are co-eternal opposites. The third choice is theism —God is greater than evil and will one day defeat it. Finitism.\n\n\n
  • The third possible solution allows for the existence of both God and evil. This leads to three more choices. The first choice is finitism — evil is greater than God. The second choice is dualism — God and evil are co-eternal opposites. The third choice is theism —God is greater than evil and will one day defeat it. Finitism.\n\n\n
  • The third possible solution allows for the existence of both God and evil. This leads to three more choices. The first choice is finitism — evil is greater than God. The second choice is dualism — God and evil are co-eternal opposites. The third choice is theism —God is greater than evil and will one day defeat it. Finitism.\n\n\n
  • The third possible solution allows for the existence of both God and evil. This leads to three more choices. The first choice is finitism — evil is greater than God. The second choice is dualism — God and evil are co-eternal opposites. The third choice is theism —God is greater than evil and will one day defeat it. Finitism.\n\n\n
  • The third possible solution allows for the existence of both God and evil. This leads to three more choices. The first choice is finitism — evil is greater than God. The second choice is dualism — God and evil are co-eternal opposites. The third choice is theism —God is greater than evil and will one day defeat it. Finitism.\n\n\n
  • We have three choices here. The first choice is finitism — evil is greater than God. The second choice is dualism — God and evil are co-eternal opposites. The third choice is theism —God is greater than evil and will one day defeat it. Finitism. \n\n\n\n
  • First, the finitist makes the same false assumption that the atheist makes. Both conjecture that God is incapable of defeating evil because He has not done it yet. Here is the finitist's line of reasoning: (1) God exists. (2) If God were all-powerful He would destroy evil. (3) Evil is not destroyed. (4) Therefore God is not all-powerful. Finitism fails to consider that God's timing is not human timing. The fact that God has not defeated evil today does not eliminate His ability to do it later.\n\n
  • First, the finitist makes the same false assumption that the atheist makes. Both conjecture that God is incapable of defeating evil because He has not done it yet. Here is the finitist's line of reasoning: (1) God exists. (2) If God were all-powerful He would destroy evil. (3) Evil is not destroyed. (4) Therefore God is not all-powerful. Finitism fails to consider that God's timing is not human timing. The fact that God has not defeated evil today does not eliminate His ability to do it later.\n\n
  • First, the finitist makes the same false assumption that the atheist makes. Both conjecture that God is incapable of defeating evil because He has not done it yet. Here is the finitist's line of reasoning: (1) God exists. (2) If God were all-powerful He would destroy evil. (3) Evil is not destroyed. (4) Therefore God is not all-powerful. Finitism fails to consider that God's timing is not human timing. The fact that God has not defeated evil today does not eliminate His ability to do it later.\n\n
  • First, the finitist makes the same false assumption that the atheist makes. Both conjecture that God is incapable of defeating evil because He has not done it yet. Here is the finitist's line of reasoning: (1) God exists. (2) If God were all-powerful He would destroy evil. (3) Evil is not destroyed. (4) Therefore God is not all-powerful. Finitism fails to consider that God's timing is not human timing. The fact that God has not defeated evil today does not eliminate His ability to do it later.\n\n
  • First, the finitist makes the same false assumption that the atheist makes. Both conjecture that God is incapable of defeating evil because He has not done it yet. Here is the finitist's line of reasoning: (1) God exists. (2) If God were all-powerful He would destroy evil. (3) Evil is not destroyed. (4) Therefore God is not all-powerful. Finitism fails to consider that God's timing is not human timing. The fact that God has not defeated evil today does not eliminate His ability to do it later.\n\n
  • Finally, and most importantly, this thesis is contrary to the Bible's position on both the character of God and how He intends to deal with evil. The Bible states in very clear terms that one of God's divine attributes is His omnipotence. Fifty-six times it declares that God is almighty (e.g., Rev. 19:6). The Bible also predicts that God will ultimately defeat evil (Rev. 21-22). For further documentation on the validity of the Bible, refer back to chapter 6.\n\n
  • Finally, and most importantly, this thesis is contrary to the Bible's position on both the character of God and how He intends to deal with evil. The Bible states in very clear terms that one of God's divine attributes is His omnipotence. Fifty-six times it declares that God is almighty (e.g., Rev. 19:6). The Bible also predicts that God will ultimately defeat evil (Rev. 21-22). For further documentation on the validity of the Bible, refer back to chapter 6.\n\n
  • Finally, and most importantly, this thesis is contrary to the Bible's position on both the character of God and how He intends to deal with evil. The Bible states in very clear terms that one of God's divine attributes is His omnipotence. Fifty-six times it declares that God is almighty (e.g., Rev. 19:6). The Bible also predicts that God will ultimately defeat evil (Rev. 21-22). For further documentation on the validity of the Bible, refer back to chapter 6.\n\n
  • The third possible solution allows for the existence of both God and evil. This leads to three more choices. The first choice is finitism — evil is greater than God. The second choice is dualism — God and evil are co-eternal opposites. The third choice is theism —God is greater than evil and will one day defeat it. Finitism.\n\n\n
  • The third possible solution allows for the existence of both God and evil. This leads to three more choices. The first choice is finitism — evil is greater than God. The second choice is dualism — God and evil are co-eternal opposites. The third choice is theism —God is greater than evil and will one day defeat it. Finitism.\n\n\n
  • Dualism. Dualism assumes that God and evil are coeternal opposites. This view is similar to finitism because it rescues the goodness of God at the expense of His omnipotence. But dualism holds God to be equal with evil rather than less than evil. Although there are variations of this position from ancient Greek and Zoroastrian theology to modern-day process theology, all who hold this view build it on the following premises:\n\n
  • Dualism. Dualism assumes that God and evil are coeternal opposites. This view is similar to finitism because it rescues the goodness of God at the expense of His omnipotence. But dualism holds God to be equal with evil rather than less than evil. Although there are variations of this position from ancient Greek and Zoroastrian theology to modern-day process theology, all who hold this view build it on the following premises:\n\n
  • Although there are variations of this position from ancient Greek and Zoroastrian theology to modern-day process theology, all who hold this view build it on the following premises:\nThe first premise for coeternality states that nothing can be the source of its opposite; light cannot be the source of darkness, or vice versa. The second premise states that evil is a thing, and if God were the only eternal source of all things, then He would be the cause of evil. Therefore, God and evil must exist together for all eternity or else God would be responsible for evil.\n\n\n
  • Although there are variations of this position from ancient Greek and Zoroastrian theology to modern-day process theology, all who hold this view build it on the following premises:\nThe first premise for coeternality states that nothing can be the source of its opposite; light cannot be the source of darkness, or vice versa. The second premise states that evil is a thing, and if God were the only eternal source of all things, then He would be the cause of evil. Therefore, God and evil must exist together for all eternity or else God would be responsible for evil.\n\n\n
  • Although there are variations of this position from ancient Greek and Zoroastrian theology to modern-day process theology, all who hold this view build it on the following premises:\nThe first premise for coeternality states that nothing can be the source of its opposite; light cannot be the source of darkness, or vice versa. The second premise states that evil is a thing, and if God were the only eternal source of all things, then He would be the cause of evil. Therefore, God and evil must exist together for all eternity or else God would be responsible for evil.\n\n\n
  • Both of these presuppositions are false. There are three problems with the first premise. First, it is possible for evil to occur out of good. This would not occur intrinsically but incidentally. A man may kill a dog while backing out of his driveway. There is nothing intrinsically evil about backing an automobile out of a driveway, but accidentally the animal is slain. \n\nSecond, just because we have opposites, this does not mean that we have a first-cause opposite for each. For instance, take the concepts of fat and thin. They are opposites, but this doesn't necessitate an eternal fat as opposed to an eternal thin. \n\nThird, the concept of two ultimate forces that are in eternal opposition, each having the same amount of power, is not logical. Philosophers have presented this dilemma in terms of an absolute irresistible force coming in conflict with an absolute immovable object. If the force cannot move the object, it is no longer irresistible. If the object can be moved, it is no longer immovable. Either evil is greater than God, or God is greater than evil. It is logically absurd to have them as absolute coequals in eternal opposition.\n\n\n\n
  • Both of these presuppositions are false. There are three problems with the first premise. First, it is possible for evil to occur out of good. This would not occur intrinsically but incidentally. A man may kill a dog while backing out of his driveway. There is nothing intrinsically evil about backing an automobile out of a driveway, but accidentally the animal is slain. \n\nSecond, just because we have opposites, this does not mean that we have a first-cause opposite for each. For instance, take the concepts of fat and thin. They are opposites, but this doesn't necessitate an eternal fat as opposed to an eternal thin. \n\nThird, the concept of two ultimate forces that are in eternal opposition, each having the same amount of power, is not logical. Philosophers have presented this dilemma in terms of an absolute irresistible force coming in conflict with an absolute immovable object. If the force cannot move the object, it is no longer irresistible. If the object can be moved, it is no longer immovable. Either evil is greater than God, or God is greater than evil. It is logically absurd to have them as absolute coequals in eternal opposition.\n\n\n\n
  • Both of these presuppositions are false. There are three problems with the first premise. First, it is possible for evil to occur out of good. This would not occur intrinsically but incidentally. A man may kill a dog while backing out of his driveway. There is nothing intrinsically evil about backing an automobile out of a driveway, but accidentally the animal is slain. \n\nSecond, just because we have opposites, this does not mean that we have a first-cause opposite for each. For instance, take the concepts of fat and thin. They are opposites, but this doesn't necessitate an eternal fat as opposed to an eternal thin. \n\nThird, the concept of two ultimate forces that are in eternal opposition, each having the same amount of power, is not logical. Philosophers have presented this dilemma in terms of an absolute irresistible force coming in conflict with an absolute immovable object. If the force cannot move the object, it is no longer irresistible. If the object can be moved, it is no longer immovable. Either evil is greater than God, or God is greater than evil. It is logically absurd to have them as absolute coequals in eternal opposition.\n\n\n\n
  • Both of these presuppositions are false. There are three problems with the first premise. First, it is possible for evil to occur out of good. This would not occur intrinsically but incidentally. A man may kill a dog while backing out of his driveway. There is nothing intrinsically evil about backing an automobile out of a driveway, but accidentally the animal is slain. \n\nSecond, just because we have opposites, this does not mean that we have a first-cause opposite for each. For instance, take the concepts of fat and thin. They are opposites, but this doesn't necessitate an eternal fat as opposed to an eternal thin. \n\nThird, the concept of two ultimate forces that are in eternal opposition, each having the same amount of power, is not logical. Philosophers have presented this dilemma in terms of an absolute irresistible force coming in conflict with an absolute immovable object. If the force cannot move the object, it is no longer irresistible. If the object can be moved, it is no longer immovable. Either evil is greater than God, or God is greater than evil. It is logically absurd to have them as absolute coequals in eternal opposition.\n\n\n\n
  • Both of these presuppositions are false. There are three problems with the first premise. First, it is possible for evil to occur out of good. This would not occur intrinsically but incidentally. A man may kill a dog while backing out of his driveway. There is nothing intrinsically evil about backing an automobile out of a driveway, but accidentally the animal is slain. \n\nSecond, just because we have opposites, this does not mean that we have a first-cause opposite for each. For instance, take the concepts of fat and thin. They are opposites, but this doesn't necessitate an eternal fat as opposed to an eternal thin. \n\nThird, the concept of two ultimate forces that are in eternal opposition, each having the same amount of power, is not logical. Philosophers have presented this dilemma in terms of an absolute irresistible force coming in conflict with an absolute immovable object. If the force cannot move the object, it is no longer irresistible. If the object can be moved, it is no longer immovable. Either evil is greater than God, or God is greater than evil. It is logically absurd to have them as absolute coequals in eternal opposition.\n\n\n\n
  • We can prove the second premise false by demonstrating that evil is not a thing. Evil does not have an existence of its own; it is a corruption of that which already exists. We generally think of evil in negative terms —e.g., unsanitary, unhealthy, unreliable, uncivilized, incurable, etc. All these terms present evil as a negation of good.\nSt. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas both struggled with the identity of evil. They concluded that evil is real but not a substance in and of itself, because everything created by God is good. Evil, then, is an absence or privation of something good. Blindness was used as an example of the privation of sight. Aquinas noted that a thing is called evil for lacking a perfection it ought to have; to lack sight is evil in a man but not in a stone.\nEvil does not exist by itself, because it does not exist apart from good. For example, rot can exist in a tree only as long as the tree exists. There is no such thing as a perfect state of rottenness. A rusting car and a decaying carcass illustrate the same point. Evil exists as a corruption of some good thing; it is a privation and does not have essence by itself.\n\n\n\n\n
  • We can prove the second premise false by demonstrating that evil is not a thing. Evil does not have an existence of its own; it is a corruption of that which already exists. We generally think of evil in negative terms —e.g., unsanitary, unhealthy, unreliable, uncivilized, incurable, etc. All these terms present evil as a negation of good.\nSt. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas both struggled with the identity of evil. They concluded that evil is real but not a substance in and of itself, because everything created by God is good. Evil, then, is an absence or privation of something good. Blindness was used as an example of the privation of sight. Aquinas noted that a thing is called evil for lacking a perfection it ought to have; to lack sight is evil in a man but not in a stone.\nEvil does not exist by itself, because it does not exist apart from good. For example, rot can exist in a tree only as long as the tree exists. There is no such thing as a perfect state of rottenness. A rusting car and a decaying carcass illustrate the same point. Evil exists as a corruption of some good thing; it is a privation and does not have essence by itself.\n\n\n\n\n
  • We can prove the second premise false by demonstrating that evil is not a thing. Evil does not have an existence of its own; it is a corruption of that which already exists. We generally think of evil in negative terms —e.g., unsanitary, unhealthy, unreliable, uncivilized, incurable, etc. All these terms present evil as a negation of good.\nSt. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas both struggled with the identity of evil. They concluded that evil is real but not a substance in and of itself, because everything created by God is good. Evil, then, is an absence or privation of something good. Blindness was used as an example of the privation of sight. Aquinas noted that a thing is called evil for lacking a perfection it ought to have; to lack sight is evil in a man but not in a stone.\nEvil does not exist by itself, because it does not exist apart from good. For example, rot can exist in a tree only as long as the tree exists. There is no such thing as a perfect state of rottenness. A rusting car and a decaying carcass illustrate the same point. Evil exists as a corruption of some good thing; it is a privation and does not have essence by itself.\n\n\n\n\n
  • We can prove the second premise false by demonstrating that evil is not a thing. Evil does not have an existence of its own; it is a corruption of that which already exists. We generally think of evil in negative terms —e.g., unsanitary, unhealthy, unreliable, uncivilized, incurable, etc. All these terms present evil as a negation of good.\nSt. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas both struggled with the identity of evil. They concluded that evil is real but not a substance in and of itself, because everything created by God is good. Evil, then, is an absence or privation of something good. Blindness was used as an example of the privation of sight. Aquinas noted that a thing is called evil for lacking a perfection it ought to have; to lack sight is evil in a man but not in a stone.\nEvil does not exist by itself, because it does not exist apart from good. For example, rot can exist in a tree only as long as the tree exists. There is no such thing as a perfect state of rottenness. A rusting car and a decaying carcass illustrate the same point. Evil exists as a corruption of some good thing; it is a privation and does not have essence by itself.\n\n\n\n\n
  • The final and foremost reason for rejecting dualism is that it is contrary to the Bible. The Bible clearly affirms God's omnipotence and sovereignty, and its authors never recognize coeternal opposites in the universe. Moses describes the one sovereign God in Deuteronomy 4:35, and this is echoed by the Prophet Isaiah (Isa. 45:5). Christ Himself discussed the defeat of Satan in Luke 10:17-19. Scripture not only accounts for one sovereign, almighty God, but also validates the statement that evil is a privation and not a thing in and of itself. Paul tells us in Colossians 1:16 that God created all things, and 1 Timothy 4:4 says that all things created were good.\n\n
  • The final and foremost reason for rejecting dualism is that it is contrary to the Bible. The Bible clearly affirms God's omnipotence and sovereignty, and its authors never recognize coeternal opposites in the universe. Moses describes the one sovereign God in Deuteronomy 4:35, and this is echoed by the Prophet Isaiah (Isa. 45:5). Christ Himself discussed the defeat of Satan in Luke 10:17-19. Scripture not only accounts for one sovereign, almighty God, but also validates the statement that evil is a privation and not a thing in and of itself. Paul tells us in Colossians 1:16 that God created all things, and 1 Timothy 4:4 says that all things created were good.\n\n
  • The final and foremost reason for rejecting dualism is that it is contrary to the Bible. The Bible clearly affirms God's omnipotence and sovereignty, and its authors never recognize coeternal opposites in the universe. Moses describes the one sovereign God in Deuteronomy 4:35, and this is echoed by the Prophet Isaiah (Isa. 45:5). Christ Himself discussed the defeat of Satan in Luke 10:17-19. Scripture not only accounts for one sovereign, almighty God, but also validates the statement that evil is a privation and not a thing in and of itself. Paul tells us in Colossians 1:16 that God created all things, and 1 Timothy 4:4 says that all things created were good.\n\n
  • The final and foremost reason for rejecting dualism is that it is contrary to the Bible. The Bible clearly affirms God's omnipotence and sovereignty, and its authors never recognize coeternal opposites in the universe. Moses describes the one sovereign God in Deuteronomy 4:35, and this is echoed by the Prophet Isaiah (Isa. 45:5). Christ Himself discussed the defeat of Satan in Luke 10:17-19. Scripture not only accounts for one sovereign, almighty God, but also validates the statement that evil is a privation and not a thing in and of itself. Paul tells us in Colossians 1:16 that God created all things, and 1 Timothy 4:4 says that all things created were good.\n\n
  • The final and foremost reason for rejecting dualism is that it is contrary to the Bible. The Bible clearly affirms God's omnipotence and sovereignty, and its authors never recognize coeternal opposites in the universe. Moses describes the one sovereign God in Deuteronomy 4:35, and this is echoed by the Prophet Isaiah (Isa. 45:5). Christ Himself discussed the defeat of Satan in Luke 10:17-19. Scripture not only accounts for one sovereign, almighty God, but also validates the statement that evil is a privation and not a thing in and of itself. Paul tells us in Colossians 1:16 that God created all things, and 1 Timothy 4:4 says that all things created were good.\n\n
  • The final and foremost reason for rejecting dualism is that it is contrary to the Bible. The Bible clearly affirms God's omnipotence and sovereignty, and its authors never recognize coeternal opposites in the universe. Moses describes the one sovereign God in Deuteronomy 4:35, and this is echoed by the Prophet Isaiah (Isa. 45:5). Christ Himself discussed the defeat of Satan in Luke 10:17-19. Scripture not only accounts for one sovereign, almighty God, but also validates the statement that evil is a privation and not a thing in and of itself. Paul tells us in Colossians 1:16 that God created all things, and 1 Timothy 4:4 says that all things created were good.\n\n
  • The third possible solution allows for the existence of both God and evil. This leads to three more choices. The first choice is finitism — evil is greater than God. The second choice is dualism — God and evil are co-eternal opposites. The third choice is theism —God is greater than evil and will one day defeat it. Finitism.\n\n\n
  • The third possible solution allows for the existence of both God and evil. This leads to three more choices. The first choice is finitism — evil is greater than God. The second choice is dualism — God and evil are co-eternal opposites. The third choice is theism —God is greater than evil and will one day defeat it. Finitism.\n\n\n
  • Theism. Theism stipulates that there is an all-good (Hab. 1:13), all-powerful (Rev. 4:8) God, who recognizes the reality of evil (Rom. 1:18-32), and will one day end evil and restore peace (Rev. 21:3-4). \n
  • Theism. Theism stipulates that there is an all-good (Hab. 1:13), all-powerful (Rev. 4:8) God, who recognizes the reality of evil (Rom. 1:18-32), and will one day end evil and restore peace (Rev. 21:3-4). \n
  • Theism. Theism stipulates that there is an all-good (Hab. 1:13), all-powerful (Rev. 4:8) God, who recognizes the reality of evil (Rom. 1:18-32), and will one day end evil and restore peace (Rev. 21:3-4). \n
  • Theism. Theism stipulates that there is an all-good (Hab. 1:13), all-powerful (Rev. 4:8) God, who recognizes the reality of evil (Rom. 1:18-32), and will one day end evil and restore peace (Rev. 21:3-4). \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • The magnitude of any choice is determined by the size of the consequences. Choosing between Coke and Pepsi is not a major choice in life, but choosing between apples and arsenic is. The consequences of accepting or rejecting God make this the choice of supreme importance. God told man that if he chose to embrace Him, their fellowship and blessings could continue. To spurn God and His commandments, however, would bring separation from Him (spiritual death) and physical death as well (Gen. 2). Genesis 3 tells us that man chose to go his own way rather than follow God's. Man thus suffered the consequences of spiritual and physical death. It was at this point that evil and suffering entered the world.\n\n
  • The magnitude of any choice is determined by the size of the consequences. Choosing between Coke and Pepsi is not a major choice in life, but choosing between apples and arsenic is. The consequences of accepting or rejecting God make this the choice of supreme importance. God told man that if he chose to embrace Him, their fellowship and blessings could continue. To spurn God and His commandments, however, would bring separation from Him (spiritual death) and physical death as well (Gen. 2). Genesis 3 tells us that man chose to go his own way rather than follow God's. Man thus suffered the consequences of spiritual and physical death. It was at this point that evil and suffering entered the world.\n\n
  • The magnitude of any choice is determined by the size of the consequences. Choosing between Coke and Pepsi is not a major choice in life, but choosing between apples and arsenic is. The consequences of accepting or rejecting God make this the choice of supreme importance. God told man that if he chose to embrace Him, their fellowship and blessings could continue. To spurn God and His commandments, however, would bring separation from Him (spiritual death) and physical death as well (Gen. 2). Genesis 3 tells us that man chose to go his own way rather than follow God's. Man thus suffered the consequences of spiritual and physical death. It was at this point that evil and suffering entered the world.\n\n
  • The magnitude of any choice is determined by the size of the consequences. Choosing between Coke and Pepsi is not a major choice in life, but choosing between apples and arsenic is. The consequences of accepting or rejecting God make this the choice of supreme importance. God told man that if he chose to embrace Him, their fellowship and blessings could continue. To spurn God and His commandments, however, would bring separation from Him (spiritual death) and physical death as well (Gen. 2). Genesis 3 tells us that man chose to go his own way rather than follow God's. Man thus suffered the consequences of spiritual and physical death. It was at this point that evil and suffering entered the world.\n\n
  • So we see that God did not create nor is He responsible for evil and sin. God's plan had the potential for evil when He gave man freedom of choice, but the actual origin of evil came as a result of man who directed his will away from God and toward his own selfish desires. Evil, remember, is not a thing but a corruption of a good thing already created by God. God told man what to do but man corrupted himself by choosing to disobey God. God's way is the perfect way and anything less than complete obedience to His instructions will bring problems into the process. God is not to blame for man's disobedience; man is the moral agent who is responsible.\n\n\n
  • So we see that God did not create nor is He responsible for evil and sin. God's plan had the potential for evil when He gave man freedom of choice, but the actual origin of evil came as a result of man who directed his will away from God and toward his own selfish desires. Evil, remember, is not a thing but a corruption of a good thing already created by God. God told man what to do but man corrupted himself by choosing to disobey God. God's way is the perfect way and anything less than complete obedience to His instructions will bring problems into the process. God is not to blame for man's disobedience; man is the moral agent who is responsible.\n\n\n
  • So we see that God did not create nor is He responsible for evil and sin. God's plan had the potential for evil when He gave man freedom of choice, but the actual origin of evil came as a result of man who directed his will away from God and toward his own selfish desires. Evil, remember, is not a thing but a corruption of a good thing already created by God. God told man what to do but man corrupted himself by choosing to disobey God. God's way is the perfect way and anything less than complete obedience to His instructions will bring problems into the process. God is not to blame for man's disobedience; man is the moral agent who is responsible.\n\n\n
  • So we see that God did not create nor is He responsible for evil and sin. God's plan had the potential for evil when He gave man freedom of choice, but the actual origin of evil came as a result of man who directed his will away from God and toward his own selfish desires. Evil, remember, is not a thing but a corruption of a good thing already created by God. God told man what to do but man corrupted himself by choosing to disobey God. God's way is the perfect way and anything less than complete obedience to His instructions will bring problems into the process. God is not to blame for man's disobedience; man is the moral agent who is responsible.\n\n\n
  • Because of the Fall, mankind became imperfect. This state of imperfection yielded temporal and eternal consequences.\n\nThe temporal consequences encompass both moral and natural evil. Moral evil is caused by man's inhumanity to man. Man in his fallen nature often seeks to promote himself at the expense of others. The suffering of innocent people is part of the insidiousness of evil. If only the wicked suffered, we would call that justice, but because there are innocent victims, there is a problem of injustice.\n\n\n
  • Because of the Fall, mankind became imperfect. This state of imperfection yielded temporal and eternal consequences.\n\nThe temporal consequences encompass both moral and natural evil. Moral evil is caused by man's inhumanity to man. Man in his fallen nature often seeks to promote himself at the expense of others. The suffering of innocent people is part of the insidiousness of evil. If only the wicked suffered, we would call that justice, but because there are innocent victims, there is a problem of injustice.\n\n\n
  • Because of the Fall, mankind became imperfect. This state of imperfection yielded temporal and eternal consequences.\n\nThe temporal consequences encompass both moral and natural evil. Moral evil is caused by man's inhumanity to man. Man in his fallen nature often seeks to promote himself at the expense of others. The suffering of innocent people is part of the insidiousness of evil. If only the wicked suffered, we would call that justice, but because there are innocent victims, there is a problem of injustice.\n\n\n
  • Because of the Fall, mankind became imperfect. This state of imperfection yielded temporal and eternal consequences.\n\nThe temporal consequences encompass both moral and natural evil. Moral evil is caused by man's inhumanity to man. Man in his fallen nature often seeks to promote himself at the expense of others. The suffering of innocent people is part of the insidiousness of evil. If only the wicked suffered, we would call that justice, but because there are innocent victims, there is a problem of injustice.\n\n\n
  • Because of the Fall, mankind became imperfect. This state of imperfection yielded temporal and eternal consequences.\n\nThe temporal consequences encompass both moral and natural evil. Moral evil is caused by man's inhumanity to man. Man in his fallen nature often seeks to promote himself at the expense of others. The suffering of innocent people is part of the insidiousness of evil. If only the wicked suffered, we would call that justice, but because there are innocent victims, there is a problem of injustice.\n\nIt is easy to associate moral evil with the fall of man, but how does the theist relate natural evil to the Fall? This occurs when the innocent are afflicted by natural phenomena such as typhoons and tornadoes. The Bible tells us that man's fall included not only a curse on him but also a curse on the creation around him (see Gen. 3:14-19; Rom. 8:18-23; Rev. 22:3). We live today in a disease-death environment. God did not originally design this environment; it has changed as a result of man's sin. This is an abnormal state which God will rectify when sin is removed (see Rev. 31:3-4; 22:3). Eden saw no natural disasters or death until after the sin of man, and there will be no natural disasters or death in the new heavens and earth when God puts an end to evil.\n\n\n
  • Because of the Fall, mankind became imperfect. This state of imperfection yielded temporal and eternal consequences.\n\nThe temporal consequences encompass both moral and natural evil. Moral evil is caused by man's inhumanity to man. Man in his fallen nature often seeks to promote himself at the expense of others. The suffering of innocent people is part of the insidiousness of evil. If only the wicked suffered, we would call that justice, but because there are innocent victims, there is a problem of injustice.\n\nIt is easy to associate moral evil with the fall of man, but how does the theist relate natural evil to the Fall? This occurs when the innocent are afflicted by natural phenomena such as typhoons and tornadoes. The Bible tells us that man's fall included not only a curse on him but also a curse on the creation around him (see Gen. 3:14-19; Rom. 8:18-23; Rev. 22:3). We live today in a disease-death environment. God did not originally design this environment; it has changed as a result of man's sin. This is an abnormal state which God will rectify when sin is removed (see Rev. 31:3-4; 22:3). Eden saw no natural disasters or death until after the sin of man, and there will be no natural disasters or death in the new heavens and earth when God puts an end to evil.\n\n\n
  • Because of the Fall, mankind became imperfect. This state of imperfection yielded temporal and eternal consequences.\n\nThe temporal consequences encompass both moral and natural evil. Moral evil is caused by man's inhumanity to man. Man in his fallen nature often seeks to promote himself at the expense of others. The suffering of innocent people is part of the insidiousness of evil. If only the wicked suffered, we would call that justice, but because there are innocent victims, there is a problem of injustice.\n\nIt is easy to associate moral evil with the fall of man, but how does the theist relate natural evil to the Fall? This occurs when the innocent are afflicted by natural phenomena such as typhoons and tornadoes. The Bible tells us that man's fall included not only a curse on him but also a curse on the creation around him (see Gen. 3:14-19; Rom. 8:18-23; Rev. 22:3). We live today in a disease-death environment. God did not originally design this environment; it has changed as a result of man's sin. This is an abnormal state which God will rectify when sin is removed (see Rev. 31:3-4; 22:3). Eden saw no natural disasters or death until after the sin of man, and there will be no natural disasters or death in the new heavens and earth when God puts an end to evil.\n\n\n
  • Because of the Fall, mankind became imperfect. This state of imperfection yielded temporal and eternal consequences.\n\nThe temporal consequences encompass both moral and natural evil. Moral evil is caused by man's inhumanity to man. Man in his fallen nature often seeks to promote himself at the expense of others. The suffering of innocent people is part of the insidiousness of evil. If only the wicked suffered, we would call that justice, but because there are innocent victims, there is a problem of injustice.\n\nIt is easy to associate moral evil with the fall of man, but how does the theist relate natural evil to the Fall? This occurs when the innocent are afflicted by natural phenomena such as typhoons and tornadoes. The Bible tells us that man's fall included not only a curse on him but also a curse on the creation around him (see Gen. 3:14-19; Rom. 8:18-23; Rev. 22:3). We live today in a disease-death environment. God did not originally design this environment; it has changed as a result of man's sin. This is an abnormal state which God will rectify when sin is removed (see Rev. 31:3-4; 22:3). Eden saw no natural disasters or death until after the sin of man, and there will be no natural disasters or death in the new heavens and earth when God puts an end to evil.\n\n\n
  • Because of the Fall, mankind became imperfect. This state of imperfection yielded temporal and eternal consequences.\n\nThe temporal consequences encompass both moral and natural evil. Moral evil is caused by man's inhumanity to man. Man in his fallen nature often seeks to promote himself at the expense of others. The suffering of innocent people is part of the insidiousness of evil. If only the wicked suffered, we would call that justice, but because there are innocent victims, there is a problem of injustice.\n\nIt is easy to associate moral evil with the fall of man, but how does the theist relate natural evil to the Fall? This occurs when the innocent are afflicted by natural phenomena such as typhoons and tornadoes. The Bible tells us that man's fall included not only a curse on him but also a curse on the creation around him (see Gen. 3:14-19; Rom. 8:18-23; Rev. 22:3). We live today in a disease-death environment. God did not originally design this environment; it has changed as a result of man's sin. This is an abnormal state which God will rectify when sin is removed (see Rev. 31:3-4; 22:3). Eden saw no natural disasters or death until after the sin of man, and there will be no natural disasters or death in the new heavens and earth when God puts an end to evil.\n\n\n
  • The temporal consequences are harsh, but the eternal consequences are even more grave, for they involve our relationship with God. Man was no longer a perfect being when he ceased to follow the perfect way of God (Rom. 3:23; Isa. 53:6; 59:2). The justice of God demanded that a penalty be paid for man's disobedience. The judgment for sin is eternal separation from the holy God (Rom. 6:23). This separation is defined by God as a confinement in hell forever (Matt. 25:46; Rev. 20:14-15). \n
  • The temporal consequences are harsh, but the eternal consequences are even more grave, for they involve our relationship with God. Man was no longer a perfect being when he ceased to follow the perfect way of God (Rom. 3:23; Isa. 53:6; 59:2). The justice of God demanded that a penalty be paid for man's disobedience. The judgment for sin is eternal separation from the holy God (Rom. 6:23). This separation is defined by God as a confinement in hell forever (Matt. 25:46; Rev. 20:14-15). \n
  • The temporal consequences are harsh, but the eternal consequences are even more grave, for they involve our relationship with God. Man was no longer a perfect being when he ceased to follow the perfect way of God (Rom. 3:23; Isa. 53:6; 59:2). The justice of God demanded that a penalty be paid for man's disobedience. The judgment for sin is eternal separation from the holy God (Rom. 6:23). This separation is defined by God as a confinement in hell forever (Matt. 25:46; Rev. 20:14-15). \n
  • Two attributes of God's character must be kept in balance to understand how God resolves the dilemma. God's justice demands death as the penalty for the rejection of His command, and God's love seeks a solution to man's terminal condition. God cannot change the penalty because it is just, and it is in keeping with His character. But, out of His great love for His creation, He paid the penalty for man. God substituted Himself and made possible man's redemption from sin.\n\nThrough substitution, God can satisfy both demands of His character. God is a righteous judge, and He cannot change His verdict on man's rebellion. What He did do, though, was offer to pay the penalty for us. \n\n
  • Two attributes of God's character must be kept in balance to understand how God resolves the dilemma. God's justice demands death as the penalty for the rejection of His command, and God's love seeks a solution to man's terminal condition. God cannot change the penalty because it is just, and it is in keeping with His character. But, out of His great love for His creation, He paid the penalty for man. God substituted Himself and made possible man's redemption from sin.\n\nThrough substitution, God can satisfy both demands of His character. God is a righteous judge, and He cannot change His verdict on man's rebellion. What He did do, though, was offer to pay the penalty for us. \n\n
  • Two attributes of God's character must be kept in balance to understand how God resolves the dilemma. God's justice demands death as the penalty for the rejection of His command, and God's love seeks a solution to man's terminal condition. God cannot change the penalty because it is just, and it is in keeping with His character. But, out of His great love for His creation, He paid the penalty for man. God substituted Himself and made possible man's redemption from sin.\n\nThrough substitution, God can satisfy both demands of His character. God is a righteous judge, and He cannot change His verdict on man's rebellion. What He did do, though, was offer to pay the penalty for us. \n\n
  • Now the choice is up to us; we can pay the penalty ourselves, or accept the payment of our Heavenly Father. The penalty will be paid. The only question is, "Who will pay it?"\n\nGod has still left us with the ability to accept or reject Him and His payment. But, as before, each choice has a consequence. If we accept God's payment and enter into a personal relationship with Christ, we are restored to fellowship and we are guaranteed eternal life. If we reject God's offer, we will spend eternity in separation from God.\nMake sure you take the opportunity to make the Gospel clear at this point. For further help, refer to chapter 13.\n\n
  • Now the choice is up to us; we can pay the penalty ourselves, or accept the payment of our Heavenly Father. The penalty will be paid. The only question is, "Who will pay it?"\n\nGod has still left us with the ability to accept or reject Him and His payment. But, as before, each choice has a consequence. If we accept God's payment and enter into a personal relationship with Christ, we are restored to fellowship and we are guaranteed eternal life. If we reject God's offer, we will spend eternity in separation from God.\nMake sure you take the opportunity to make the Gospel clear at this point. For further help, refer to chapter 13.\n\n
  • \n\n
  • The first question was one of causation, and the second question is one of cessation. "Why hasn't God stopped evil if He can?" Most people want God to wipe out all evil that affects them, but they want to set the conditions for God's eradication process. They would like to see God eliminate the cruel world leaders, murderers, and thieves along with the natural disasters and diseases that afflict the world. But God is not interested in a partial containment of evil. He promised that He will someday permanently put an end to evil. To do this, He must not only move against actual evil but also potential evil.\n\n\n
  • The first question was one of causation, and the second question is one of cessation. "Why hasn't God stopped evil if He can?" Most people want God to wipe out all evil that affects them, but they want to set the conditions for God's eradication process. They would like to see God eliminate the cruel world leaders, murderers, and thieves along with the natural disasters and diseases that afflict the world. But God is not interested in a partial containment of evil. He promised that He will someday permanently put an end to evil. To do this, He must not only move against actual evil but also potential evil.\n\n\n
  • The first question was one of causation, and the second question is one of cessation. "Why hasn't God stopped evil if He can?" Most people want God to wipe out all evil that affects them, but they want to set the conditions for God's eradication process. They would like to see God eliminate the cruel world leaders, murderers, and thieves along with the natural disasters and diseases that afflict the world. But God is not interested in a partial containment of evil. He promised that He will someday permanently put an end to evil. To do this, He must not only move against actual evil but also potential evil.\n\n\n
  • The first question was one of causation, and the second question is one of cessation. "Why hasn't God stopped evil if He can?" Most people want God to wipe out all evil that affects them, but they want to set the conditions for God's eradication process. They would like to see God eliminate the cruel world leaders, murderers, and thieves along with the natural disasters and diseases that afflict the world. But God is not interested in a partial containment of evil. He promised that He will someday permanently put an end to evil. To do this, He must not only move against actual evil but also potential evil.\n\n\n
  • The first question was one of causation, and the second question is one of cessation. "Why hasn't God stopped evil if He can?" Most people want God to wipe out all evil that affects them, but they want to set the conditions for God's eradication process. They would like to see God eliminate the cruel world leaders, murderers, and thieves along with the natural disasters and diseases that afflict the world. But God is not interested in a partial containment of evil. He promised that He will someday permanently put an end to evil. To do this, He must not only move against actual evil but also potential evil.\n\n\n
  • Let's imagine that God stopped all evil at 12 o'clock. How many people would be left at 12:01? God showed us with Noah and the Flood that if He removes actual evil and leaves potential evil behind, actual evil eventually returns. \n
  • Negative: drugs, overeating, under-exercising, smoking, etc.\n Positive: Exercise\n Some evil is the result of other’s free choices\n Drunk driving, wars, child abuse, wife-beating, mugging, hatred, selfishness; Ancestral choices: occupation, location, political affiliation in certain countries. Populating inhospitable areas.\n 95% of all evil\n \n \n\n
  • Negative: drugs, overeating, under-exercising, smoking, etc.\n Positive: Exercise\n Some evil is the result of other’s free choices\n Drunk driving, wars, child abuse, wife-beating, mugging, hatred, selfishness; Ancestral choices: occupation, location, political affiliation in certain countries. Populating inhospitable areas.\n 95% of all evil\n \n \n\n
  • Negative: drugs, overeating, under-exercising, smoking, etc.\n Positive: Exercise\n Some evil is the result of other’s free choices\n Drunk driving, wars, child abuse, wife-beating, mugging, hatred, selfishness; Ancestral choices: occupation, location, political affiliation in certain countries. Populating inhospitable areas.\n 95% of all evil\n \n \n\n
  • Negative: drugs, overeating, under-exercising, smoking, etc.\n Positive: Exercise\n Some evil is the result of other’s free choices\n Drunk driving, wars, child abuse, wife-beating, mugging, hatred, selfishness; Ancestral choices: occupation, location, political affiliation in certain countries. Populating inhospitable areas.\n 95% of all evil\n \n \n\n
  • Negative: drugs, overeating, under-exercising, smoking, etc.\n Positive: Exercise\n Some evil is the result of other’s free choices\n Drunk driving, wars, child abuse, wife-beating, mugging, hatred, selfishness; Ancestral choices: occupation, location, political affiliation in certain countries. Populating inhospitable areas.\n 95% of all evil\n \n \n\n
  • * Some evil warns us of greater physical pain, ie. chest pain, sore spot on foot as warnings. Toothache.\n\n* Not all pain is bad, i.e. Leprosy, which eliminates the feeling of pain, causing disastrous results.\n\n* Some evil warns us of a greater moral pain, i.e. Greater moral evil if you do not heed it; if you respond you benefit (Bridge washed out/hitting car with rock to warn).\n
  • * Some evil warns us of greater physical pain, ie. chest pain, sore spot on foot as warnings. Toothache.\n\n* Not all pain is bad, i.e. Leprosy, which eliminates the feeling of pain, causing disastrous results.\n\n* Some evil warns us of a greater moral pain, i.e. Greater moral evil if you do not heed it; if you respond you benefit (Bridge washed out/hitting car with rock to warn).\n
  • * Some evil warns us of greater physical pain, ie. chest pain, sore spot on foot as warnings. Toothache.\n\n* Not all pain is bad, i.e. Leprosy, which eliminates the feeling of pain, causing disastrous results.\n\n* Some evil warns us of a greater moral pain, i.e. Greater moral evil if you do not heed it; if you respond you benefit (Bridge washed out/hitting car with rock to warn).\n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • “Promotes the Greatest Good” means that the highest goods are dependent on the preconditioning of evils.\n\n* Some evil is the condition for immediate moral perfecting, i.e. Joni Erikson; mercy, patience, forgiveness, courage\n\n* Some evil is the condition for ultimate moral perfection. i.e. preparing us for the life to come; cf. Habbakuk 3\n
  • “Promotes the Greatest Good” means that the highest goods are dependent on the preconditioning of evils.\n\n* Some evil is the condition for immediate moral perfecting, i.e. Joni Erikson; mercy, patience, forgiveness, courage\n\n* Some evil is the condition for ultimate moral perfection. i.e. preparing us for the life to come; cf. Habbakuk 3\n
  • “Promotes the Greatest Good” means that the highest goods are dependent on the preconditioning of evils.\n\n* Some evil is the condition for immediate moral perfecting, i.e. Joni Erikson; mercy, patience, forgiveness, courage\n\n* Some evil is the condition for ultimate moral perfection. i.e. preparing us for the life to come; cf. Habbakuk 3\n
  • “Promotes the Greatest Good” means that the highest goods are dependent on the preconditioning of evils.\n\n* Some evil is the condition for immediate moral perfecting, i.e. Joni Erikson; mercy, patience, forgiveness, courage\n\n* Some evil is the condition for ultimate moral perfection. i.e. preparing us for the life to come; cf. Habbakuk 3\n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • Even though God hasn't done it yet, we have God's promise that He will put an end to evil and suffering in the future (2 Peter 3:7-12; Rev. 19:1-2, 11-21; 20:7-15; 21:4-8).\n\n\n
  • Even though God hasn't done it yet, we have God's promise that He will put an end to evil and suffering in the future (2 Peter 3:7-12; Rev. 19:1-2, 11-21; 20:7-15; 21:4-8).\n\n\n
  • Even though God hasn't done it yet, we have God's promise that He will put an end to evil and suffering in the future (2 Peter 3:7-12; Rev. 19:1-2, 11-21; 20:7-15; 21:4-8).\n\n\n
  • Even though God hasn't done it yet, we have God's promise that He will put an end to evil and suffering in the future (2 Peter 3:7-12; Rev. 19:1-2, 11-21; 20:7-15; 21:4-8).\n\n\n
  • Even though God hasn't done it yet, we have God's promise that He will put an end to evil and suffering in the future (2 Peter 3:7-12; Rev. 19:1-2, 11-21; 20:7-15; 21:4-8).\n\n\n
  • Peter gives us a glimpse of why God is so patient. The early church suffered many persecutions and the Christians clung to the promise of Christ's return. They knew that suffering and pain would then end. Knowing this, they questioned Peter as to why it was taking Christ so long to come. Peter answered, "The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance" (2 Peter 3:9). By delaying His return, Christ is extending the opportunity for people to turn to Him and thus escape eternal punishment. When Christ comes, there will be no more chances, for time will have run out. If a person has not accepted God's substitute before then, it will be too late.\n\nIt is imperative that we view temporal suffering in light of God's perspective. Believers are not in the land of the living going to the land of the dying. They are in the land of the dying going to the land of the living. One reason why God delays the return of Christ and allows temporal suffering to continue is to allow more people to hear about and accept Christ, and thereby escape eternal suffering. God could send Christ today and stop temporal suffering, but when He does all opportunity to know Christ as Savior goes with it. Pose this question to a friend who is concerned with why God allows suffering to continue: If God had sent Christ and eliminated all suffering the day before you had a chance to understand and accept Christ as Savior, where would you be now? God delays putting an end to evil in order to allow us more opportunities to share the Gospel of Christ with others.\n\n\n\n
  • Peter gives us a glimpse of why God is so patient. The early church suffered many persecutions and the Christians clung to the promise of Christ's return. They knew that suffering and pain would then end. Knowing this, they questioned Peter as to why it was taking Christ so long to come. Peter answered, "The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance" (2 Peter 3:9). By delaying His return, Christ is extending the opportunity for people to turn to Him and thus escape eternal punishment. When Christ comes, there will be no more chances, for time will have run out. If a person has not accepted God's substitute before then, it will be too late.\n\nIt is imperative that we view temporal suffering in light of God's perspective. Believers are not in the land of the living going to the land of the dying. They are in the land of the dying going to the land of the living. One reason why God delays the return of Christ and allows temporal suffering to continue is to allow more people to hear about and accept Christ, and thereby escape eternal suffering. God could send Christ today and stop temporal suffering, but when He does all opportunity to know Christ as Savior goes with it. Pose this question to a friend who is concerned with why God allows suffering to continue: If God had sent Christ and eliminated all suffering the day before you had a chance to understand and accept Christ as Savior, where would you be now? God delays putting an end to evil in order to allow us more opportunities to share the Gospel of Christ with others.\n\n\n\n
  • Peter gives us a glimpse of why God is so patient. The early church suffered many persecutions and the Christians clung to the promise of Christ's return. They knew that suffering and pain would then end. Knowing this, they questioned Peter as to why it was taking Christ so long to come. Peter answered, "The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance" (2 Peter 3:9). By delaying His return, Christ is extending the opportunity for people to turn to Him and thus escape eternal punishment. When Christ comes, there will be no more chances, for time will have run out. If a person has not accepted God's substitute before then, it will be too late.\n\nIt is imperative that we view temporal suffering in light of God's perspective. Believers are not in the land of the living going to the land of the dying. They are in the land of the dying going to the land of the living. One reason why God delays the return of Christ and allows temporal suffering to continue is to allow more people to hear about and accept Christ, and thereby escape eternal suffering. God could send Christ today and stop temporal suffering, but when He does all opportunity to know Christ as Savior goes with it. Pose this question to a friend who is concerned with why God allows suffering to continue: If God had sent Christ and eliminated all suffering the day before you had a chance to understand and accept Christ as Savior, where would you be now? God delays putting an end to evil in order to allow us more opportunities to share the Gospel of Christ with others.\n\n\n\n
  • God will defeat evil; His justice demands it; His power guarantees it\n
  • God will defeat evil; His justice demands it; His power guarantees it\n
  • God is greater than evil, and He will indeed put an end to evil and suffering. Christ defeated evil through His work on the cross (1 Cor. 15:54-57) and will finalize that defeat by confining evil in hell forever.\n\n
  • God is greater than evil, and He will indeed put an end to evil and suffering. Christ defeated evil through His work on the cross (1 Cor. 15:54-57) and will finalize that defeat by confining evil in hell forever.\n\n
  • God is greater than evil, and He will indeed put an end to evil and suffering. Christ defeated evil through His work on the cross (1 Cor. 15:54-57) and will finalize that defeat by confining evil in hell forever.\n\n
  • The story of the boy and his sailboat gives a clear picture of the sacrifice made by God for His creation:\nThe young boy used to play for hours by the lake with the sailboat he had carefully made. One day, a strong wind blew his boat away and he was heartbroken. Several weeks later when he passed a hobby shop, he noticed his sailboat in the window. He rushed inside and told the storekeeper that the sailboat in the window was his. The storekeeper replied, "That boat belongs to me now, and if you want it, you will have to buy it."\nFor six weeks the boy worked every job he could find and finally saved enough for the boat. Finally when he bought it, he walked out of the shop and said to his little boat, "I made you and I have bought you; you are now twice mine."\n\nGod is both our Creator and Redeemer, and He will forever receive the praise of His people.\n\n\n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n

Transcript

  • 1. Why Do the Innocent Suffer? © Dr. Ken Boa and Bill Ibsen 2008. All Rights Reserved. 1
  • 2. Often-Asked Questions 2
  • 3. Often-Asked Questions If God is all-good and all-powerful, why did He make a world with so much suffering? 2
  • 4. Often-Asked Questions If God is all-good and all-powerful, why did He make a world with so much suffering? Why do innocent people suffer from things like disease and natural disaster? 2
  • 5. Often-Asked Questions If God is all-good and all-powerful, why did He make a world with so much suffering? Why do innocent people suffer from things like disease and natural disaster? If God is so good, loving, and powerful, why doesnt He put an end to suffering now? 2
  • 6. Often-Asked Questions If God is all-good and all-powerful, why did He make a world with so much suffering? Why do innocent people suffer from things like disease and natural disaster? If God is so good, loving, and powerful, why doesnt He put an end to suffering now? How could a loving God send people to hell? 2
  • 7. Often-Asked Questions If God is all-good and all-powerful, why did He make a world with so much suffering? Why do innocent people suffer from things like disease and natural disaster? If God is so good, loving, and powerful, why doesnt He put an end to suffering now? How could a loving God send people to hell? Did God create evil? 2
  • 8. Often-Asked Questions If God is all-good and all-powerful, why did He make a world with so much suffering? Why do innocent people suffer from things like disease and natural disaster? If God is so good, loving, and powerful, why doesnt He put an end to suffering now? How could a loving God send people to hell? Did God create evil? If God knew man would sin and bring evil into this world, why did He bother to create him in the first place? 2
  • 9. Why Do the Innocent Suffer? 3
  • 10. Why Do the Innocent Suffer? Option I: Evil Exists and God Doesn’t 3
  • 11. Why Do the Innocent Suffer? Option I: Evil Exists and God Doesn’t Option II: God Exists and Evil Doesn’t 3
  • 12. Why Do the Innocent Suffer? Option I: Evil Exists and God Doesn’t Option II: God Exists and Evil Doesn’t Option III: God Exists and Evil Exists 3
  • 13. Why Do the Innocent Suffer? Option I: Evil Exists and God Doesn’t Option II: God Exists and Evil Doesn’t Option III: God Exists and Evil Exists Why Did an All-Good, All-Powerful God Allow Evil? 3
  • 14. Why Do the Innocent Suffer? Option I: Evil Exists and God Doesn’t Option II: God Exists and Evil Doesn’t Option III: God Exists and Evil Exists Why Did an All-Good, All-Powerful God Allow Evil? Why Hasn’t God Put an End to Evil? 3
  • 15. Two Types of Evil:1. Moral Evil 4
  • 16. Two Types of Evil:1. Moral Evil Hai Van Pass,South Vietnam, 1968 4
  • 17. Two Types of Evil:1. Moral Evil Dachau Concentration Camp, Germany Hai Van Pass,South Vietnam, 1968 4
  • 18. Two Types of Evil:1. Moral Evil Dachau Concentration Man, Bombay, India Camp, Germany Hai Van Pass,South Vietnam, 1968 4
  • 19. Two Types of Evil:1. Moral Evil Dachau Concentration Man, Bombay, India Camp, Germany Hai Van Pass,South Vietnam, 1968 Source: Man’s hatred, overindulgence, or greed 4
  • 20. Two Types of Evil:2. Natural Evil 5
  • 21. Two Types of Evil:2. Natural Evil 6
  • 22. Two Types of Evil:2. Natural Evil 6
  • 23. Two Types of Evil:2. Natural Evil 6
  • 24. Two Types of Evil:2. Natural Evil 6
  • 25. Two Types of Evil:2. Natural Evil 6
  • 26. Two Types of Evil:2. Natural Evil 6
  • 27. Two Types of Evil:2. Natural Evil 6
  • 28. Man’s Stupidity 7
  • 29. Man’s Stupidity 7
  • 30. Man’s Stupidity 7
  • 31. Man’s Stupidity 7
  • 32. Man’s Stupidity 7
  • 33. Man’s Stupidity 7
  • 34. Man’s Stupidity 7
  • 35. Man’s Stupidity 7
  • 36. Man’s Stupidity 7
  • 37. Man’s Stupidity 7
  • 38. Man’s Stupidity 7
  • 39. Man’s Stupidity 7
  • 40. Three Options Why do the Innocent Suffer? or, Why Does Evil Exist? 8
  • 41. Three Options Why do the Innocent Suffer? or, Why Does Evil Exist? Evil Exists; God Doesn’t 8
  • 42. Three Options Why do the Innocent Suffer? or, Why Does Evil Exist? Evil Exists; God Exists; God Doesn’t Evil Doesn’t 8
  • 43. Three Options Why do the Innocent Suffer? or, Why Does Evil Exist? Evil Exists; God Exists; God Exists; God Doesn’t Evil Doesn’t Evil Exists 8
  • 44. Three Options Why do the Innocent Suffer? or, Why Does Evil Exist? Evil Exists; God Exists; God Exists; God Doesn’t Evil Doesn’t Evil Exists - Atheism 8
  • 45. Three Options Why do the Innocent Suffer? or, Why Does Evil Exist? Evil Exists; God Exists; God Exists; God Doesn’t Evil Doesn’t Evil Exists - Atheism - Pantheism 8
  • 46. Three Options Why do the Innocent Suffer? or, Why Does Evil Exist? Evil Exists; God Exists; God Exists; God Doesn’t Evil Doesn’t Evil Exists - Atheism - Pantheism - Theism 8
  • 47. Option I:Evil Exists and God Doesn’t 9
  • 48. Solving the Problem byEliminating God 10
  • 49. Solving the Problem byEliminating God 10
  • 50. Solving the Problem byEliminating God 10
  • 51. Classic Atheist Proposition 11
  • 52. Classic Atheist Proposition “If God is all-good, He will destroy evil. 11
  • 53. Classic Atheist Proposition “If God is all-good, He will destroy evil. If God is all-powerful, He can destroy evil. 11
  • 54. Classic Atheist Proposition “If God is all-good, He will destroy evil. If God is all-powerful, He can destroy evil. But evil is not destroyed. 11
  • 55. Classic Atheist Proposition “If God is all-good, He will destroy evil. If God is all-powerful, He can destroy evil. But evil is not destroyed. Therefore, there is no all-good, all-powerful God.” 11
  • 56. Conclusion 1: The Cruel GodView God Pluto abducting Proserpina 12
  • 57. Conclusion 1: The Cruel GodView “God is all-powerful. God Pluto abducting Proserpina 12
  • 58. Conclusion 1: The Cruel GodView “God is all-powerful. God is sadistic. God Pluto abducting Proserpina 12
  • 59. Conclusion 1: The Cruel GodView “God is all-powerful. God is sadistic. God is therefore not all-good.” God Pluto abducting Proserpina 12
  • 60. Conclusion 1: The Cruel GodView “God is all-powerful. God is sadistic. God is therefore not all-good.” Leads to atheism God Pluto abducting Proserpina 12
  • 61. Conclusion 1: The Cruel GodView “God is all-powerful. God is sadistic. God is therefore not all-good.” Leads to atheism The cruel-God and atheistic views: God is not good, but evil exists God Pluto abducting Proserpina 12
  • 62. Conclusion 2: God is Good andImpotent 13
  • 63. Conclusion 2: God is Good andImpotent “God is all-good. 13
  • 64. Conclusion 2: God is Good andImpotent “God is all-good. God is incapable of stopping evil. 13
  • 65. Conclusion 2: God is Good andImpotent “God is all-good. God is incapable of stopping evil. God is therefore not all-powerful.” 13
  • 66. Classical Proposition Restated 14
  • 67. Classical Proposition Restated “If God is all-good, He will destroy evil. 14
  • 68. Classical Proposition Restated “If God is all-good, He will destroy evil. If God is all-powerful, He can destroy evil. 14
  • 69. Classical Proposition Restated “If God is all-good, He will destroy evil. If God is all-powerful, He can destroy evil. Evil is not yet destroyed. 14
  • 70. Classical Proposition Restated “If God is all-good, He will destroy evil. If God is all-powerful, He can destroy evil. Evil is not yet destroyed. Therefore evil will be destroyed one day.” 14
  • 71. Classical Proposition Restated “If God is all-good, He will destroy evil. If God is all-powerful, He can destroy evil. Evil is not yet destroyed. Therefore evil will be destroyed one day.” Revelation 20:10-15; 21:4; 22:3-8 14
  • 72. Reexamining Atheism 15
  • 73. Reexamining AtheismMy knowledge compared to allknowledge is miniscule 15
  • 74. Reexamining AtheismMy knowledge compared to allknowledge is minisculeOmniscience is required to trulystate ““I know that God does notexist” 15
  • 75. Reexamining AtheismMy knowledge compared to allknowledge is minisculeOmniscience is required to trulystate ““I know that God does notexist”Atheists don’t want God to exist-vested interest 15
  • 76. Reexamining AtheismMy knowledge compared to allknowledge is minisculeOmniscience is required to trulystate ““I know that God does notexist”Atheists don’t want God to exist-vested interestImplications: meaning, value,purpose 15
  • 77. Option II:God Exists and Evil Doesn’t 16
  • 78. Pantheism 17
  • 79. Pantheism God is all and all is God 17
  • 80. Pantheism God is all and all is God Thus, evil cannot be real 17
  • 81. Is Evil Merely an Illusion? 18
  • 82. Is Evil Merely an Illusion? Vedanta Hinduism 18
  • 83. Is Evil Merely an Illusion? Vedanta Hinduism Only one reality: good 18
  • 84. Is Evil Merely an Illusion? Vedanta Hinduism Only one reality: good Christian Science 18
  • 85. Is Evil Merely an Illusion? Vedanta Hinduism Only one reality: good Christian Science 18
  • 86. Contradicted by Personal Experience 19
  • 87. Contradicted by Personal Experience Deny our senses 19
  • 88. Contradicted by Personal Experience Deny our senses Deny our experience 19
  • 89. Contradicted by Personal Experience Deny our senses Deny our experience Seeing suffering in every city of the world 19
  • 90. Contradicted by Personal Experience Deny our senses Deny our experience Seeing suffering in every city of the world Inability to verify the Pantheist’s position 19
  • 91. Contradicted by ScientificEvidence (Natural Evil) San Francisco Earthquake, 1906 20
  • 92. Contradicted by ScientificEvidence (Natural Evil)Points to the reality of pain and suffering San Francisco Earthquake, 1906 20
  • 93. Contradicted by ScientificEvidence (Natural Evil)Points to the reality of pain and sufferingNatural evil: monitored for centuries;universally verified San Francisco Earthquake, 1906 20
  • 94. Contradicted by ScientificEvidence (Natural Evil)Points to the reality of pain and sufferingNatural evil: monitored for centuries;universally verifiedMillions of dollars poured into diseaseresearch San Francisco Earthquake, 1906 20
  • 95. Contradicted by ScientificEvidence (Natural Evil)Points to the reality of pain and sufferingNatural evil: monitored for centuries;universally verifiedMillions of dollars poured into diseaseresearch San Francisco Earthquake, 1906 20
  • 96. Contradicted by Legal HistoricalEvidence (Moral Evil) Christian Leaders hung by Turks, 1915 Human slave shackles 21
  • 97. Contradicted by Legal HistoricalEvidence (Moral Evil)Chronicles the reality of moral evil Christian Leaders hung by Turks, 1915 Human slave shackles 21
  • 98. Contradicted by Legal HistoricalEvidence (Moral Evil)Chronicles the reality of moral evilInjustice, treachery, selfishness,and cruelty Christian Leaders hung by Turks, 1915 Human slave shackles 21
  • 99. Contradicted by Legal HistoricalEvidence (Moral Evil)Chronicles the reality of moral evilInjustice, treachery, selfishness,and crueltyTo deny evil is to deny life as we Christian Leaders hung by Turks, 1915know it Human slave shackles 21
  • 100. Contradicted by Legal HistoricalEvidence (Moral Evil)Chronicles the reality of moral evilInjustice, treachery, selfishness,and crueltyTo deny evil is to deny life as we Christian Leaders hung by Turks, 1915know it Yet Pantheists criticize falsehood and immorality Human slave shackles 21
  • 101. Contradicted by Christ and the Bible 22
  • 102. Contradicted by Christ and the Bible Matthew 23:15,28“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you travel around on sea and land to make one proselyte; and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as yourselves....So you, too, outwardly appear righteous to men, but inwardly you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness.” 22
  • 103. Contradicted by Christ and the Bible Matthew 23:15,28“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you travel around on sea and land to make one proselyte; and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as yourselves....So you, too, outwardly appear righteous to men, but inwardly you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness.” Psalm 5:4-5 “For You are not a God who takes pleasure in wickedness; No evil dwells with You. The boastful shall not stand before Your eyes; You hate all who do iniquity.” 22
  • 104. Contradicted by Christ and the Bible 23
  • 105. Contradicted by Christ and the Bible Psalm 51:2-5 “Wash me thoroughly from my iniquity And cleanse me from my sin. For I know my transgressions, And my sin is ever before me. 23
  • 106. Contradicted by Christ and the Bible Psalm 51:2-5 “Wash me thoroughly from my iniquity And cleanse me from my sin. For I know my transgressions, And my sin is ever before me. Against You, You only, I have sinned And done what is evil in Your sight, So that You are justified when You speak And blameless when You judge. Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, And in sin my mother conceived me.” 23
  • 107. Option III:God Exists and Evil Exists 24
  • 108. Why do the Innocent Suffer? or, Why Does Evil Exist? 25
  • 109. Why do the Innocent Suffer? or, Why Does Evil Exist? Evil Exists;God Doesn’t - Atheism 25
  • 110. Why do the Innocent Suffer? or, Why Does Evil Exist? Evil Exists; God Exists;God Doesn’t Evil Doesn’t - Atheism - Pantheism 25
  • 111. Why do the Innocent Suffer? or, Why Does Evil Exist? Evil Exists; God Exists; God Exists;God Doesn’t Evil Doesn’t Evil Exists - Atheism - Pantheism 25
  • 112. Why do the Innocent Suffer? or, Why Does Evil Exist? Evil Exists; God Exists; God Exists;God Doesn’t Evil Doesn’t Evil Exists - Atheism - Pantheism 25
  • 113. Why do the Innocent Suffer? or, Why Does Evil Exist? Evil Exists; God Exists; God Exists;God Doesn’t Evil Doesn’t Evil Exists - Atheism - PantheismGod < Evil 25
  • 114. Why do the Innocent Suffer? or, Why Does Evil Exist? Evil Exists; God Exists; God Exists;God Doesn’t Evil Doesn’t Evil Exists - Atheism - PantheismGod < Evil God = Evil 25
  • 115. Why do the Innocent Suffer? or, Why Does Evil Exist? Evil Exists; God Exists; God Exists;God Doesn’t Evil Doesn’t Evil Exists - Atheism - PantheismGod < Evil God = Evil God > Evil 25
  • 116. Why do the Innocent Suffer? or, Why Does Evil Exist? Evil Exists; God Exists; God Exists;God Doesn’t Evil Doesn’t Evil Exists - Atheism - PantheismGod < Evil God = Evil God > Evil - Finitism 25
  • 117. Why do the Innocent Suffer? or, Why Does Evil Exist? Evil Exists; God Exists; God Exists;God Doesn’t Evil Doesn’t Evil Exists - Atheism - PantheismGod < Evil God = Evil God > Evil - Finitism - Dualism 25
  • 118. Why do the Innocent Suffer? or, Why Does Evil Exist? Evil Exists; God Exists; God Exists;God Doesn’t Evil Doesn’t Evil Exists - Atheism - PantheismGod < Evil God = Evil God > Evil - Finitism - Dualism - Theism 25
  • 119. Why do the Innocent Suffer? or, Why Does Evil Exist? Evil Exists; God Exists; God Exists;God Doesn’t Evil Doesn’t Evil Exists - Atheism - PantheismGod < Evil - Finitism 26
  • 120. Why do the Innocent Suffer? or, Why Does Evil Exist? Evil Exists; God Exists; God Exists;God Doesn’t Evil Doesn’t Evil Exists - Atheism - Pantheism Deals with dilemma of evil by proposing a GodGod < Evil who is finite in His powers and therefore unable to control or stop evil: - Finitism 26
  • 121. Premise and Problems withFinitism (God < Evil) 27
  • 122. Premise and Problems withFinitism (God < Evil) “God exists. 27
  • 123. Premise and Problems withFinitism (God < Evil) “God exists. If God were all-powerful He would destroy evil. 27
  • 124. Premise and Problems withFinitism (God < Evil) “God exists. If God were all-powerful He would destroy evil. Evil is not destroyed. 27
  • 125. Premise and Problems withFinitism (God < Evil) “God exists. If God were all-powerful He would destroy evil. Evil is not destroyed. Therefore God is not all-powerful.” 27
  • 126. Premise and Problems withFinitism (God < Evil) “God exists. If God were all-powerful He would destroy evil. Evil is not destroyed. Therefore God is not all-powerful.” Failure to consider that Gods timing is not human timing 27
  • 127. Problems with Finitism (God < Evil)The Last Judgment, Michelangelo, 1535-1541 28
  • 128. Problems with Finitism (God < Evil) Contrary to Bible’s position of God’s omnipotenceThe Last Judgment, Michelangelo, 1535-1541 28
  • 129. Problems with Finitism (God < Evil) Contrary to Bible’s position of God’s omnipotence 56 times declares that God is almighty (Rev. 19:6)The Last Judgment, Michelangelo, 1535-1541 28
  • 130. Problems with Finitism (God < Evil) Contrary to Bible’s position of God’s omnipotence 56 times declares that God is almighty (Rev. 19:6) Promises that God will ultimately defeat evil (Rev. 21-22)The Last Judgment, Michelangelo, 1535-1541 28
  • 131. Why do the Innocent Suffer? or, Why Does Evil Exist? Evil Exists; God Exists; God Exists;God Doesn’t Evil Doesn’t Evil Exists - Atheism - Pantheism God < Evil God < Evil God = Evil - Finitism 29
  • 132. Why do the Innocent Suffer? or, Why Does Evil Exist? Evil Exists; God Exists; God Exists;God Doesn’t Evil Doesn’t Evil Exists - Atheism - Pantheism God < Evil God < Evil God = Evil - Finitism - Dualism 29
  • 133. Why do the Innocent Suffer? or, Why Does Evil Exist? Evil Exists; God Exists; God Exists;God Doesn’t Evil Doesn’t Evil Exists - Atheism - Pantheism Assumes that God God < Evil God < Evil God = Evil and evil are coeternal opposites - Finitism - Dualism 29
  • 134. Dualism (God = Evil) 30
  • 135. Dualism (God = Evil) Rescues God’s goodness at the expense of His omnipotence 30
  • 136. Dualism (God = Evil) Rescues God’s goodness at the expense of His omnipotence Ancient Greek and Zoroastrian theology to modern-day process theology 30
  • 137. Premises of Dualism (God = Evil) 31
  • 138. Premises of Dualism (God = Evil) “Nothing can be the source of its opposite. 31
  • 139. Premises of Dualism (God = Evil) “Nothing can be the source of its opposite. Evil is a thing. (if God were the only eternal source of all things, then He would be the cause of evil. 31
  • 140. Premises of Dualism (God = Evil) “Nothing can be the source of its opposite. Evil is a thing. (if God were the only eternal source of all things, then He would be the cause of evil. Therefore, God and evil must exist together (for all eternity or else God would be responsible for evil).” 31
  • 141. Problems of Dualism (God = Evil) 32
  • 142. Problems of Dualism (God = Evil) Evil can occur out of good (not intrinsically but incidentally) 32
  • 143. Problems of Dualism (God = Evil) Evil can occur out of good (not intrinsically but incidentally) Opposites doesn’t mean first-cause opposites for each 32
  • 144. Problems of Dualism (God = Evil) Evil can occur out of good (not intrinsically but incidentally) Opposites doesn’t mean first-cause opposites for each It is logically absurd to have two absolute coequals in eternal opposition 32
  • 145. Problems of Dualism (God = Evil) Evil can occur out of good (not intrinsically but incidentally) Opposites doesn’t mean first-cause opposites for each It is logically absurd to have two absolute coequals in eternal opposition Irresistible Force 32
  • 146. Problems of Dualism (God = Evil) Evil can occur out of good (not intrinsically but incidentally) Opposites doesn’t mean first-cause opposites for each It is logically absurd to have two absolute coequals in eternal opposition Irresistible Immovable Force Object 32
  • 147. Problems of Dualism (God = Evil) 33
  • 148. Problems of Dualism (God = Evil) Evil is not a thing (having an existence of its own) 33
  • 149. Problems of Dualism (God = Evil) Evil is not a thing (having an existence of its own) Evil is a corruption of something that already exists; it cannot exist by itself 33
  • 150. Problems of Dualism (God = Evil) Evil is not a thing (having an existence of its own) Evil is a corruption of something that already exists; it cannot exist by itself Unsanitary, unhealthy, unreliable, uncivilized, incurable, etc. 33
  • 151. Problems of Dualism (God = Evil) Evil is not a thing (having an existence of its own) Evil is a corruption of something that already exists; it cannot exist by itself Unsanitary, unhealthy, unreliable, uncivilized, incurable, etc. Evil is a negation, absence, or privation of something good 33
  • 152. Problems of Dualism (God = Evil) 34
  • 153. Problems of Dualism (God = Evil) Contradicted by the Bible 34
  • 154. Problems of Dualism (God = Evil) Contradicted by the Bible Affirms Gods omnipotence and sovereignty 34
  • 155. Problems of Dualism (God = Evil) Contradicted by the Bible Affirms Gods omnipotence and sovereignty Never recognizes coeternal opposites in the universe 34
  • 156. Problems of Dualism (God = Evil) Contradicted by the Bible Affirms Gods omnipotence and sovereignty Never recognizes coeternal opposites in the universeDeuteronomy 4:35 “... the LORD, He is God; there is no other besides Him.” 34
  • 157. Problems of Dualism (God = Evil) Contradicted by the Bible Affirms Gods omnipotence and sovereignty Never recognizes coeternal opposites in the universeDeuteronomy 4:35 “... the LORD, He is God; there is no other besides Him.” Colossians 1:16 “For by Him all things were created...” 34
  • 158. Problems of Dualism (God = Evil) Contradicted by the Bible Affirms Gods omnipotence and sovereignty Never recognizes coeternal opposites in the universeDeuteronomy 4:35 “... the LORD, He is God; there is no other besides Him.” Colossians 1:16 “For by Him all things were created...” 1Timothy 4:4 “For everything created by God is good...” 34
  • 159. Why do the Innocent Suffer? or, Why Does Evil Exist? Evil Exists; God Exists; God Exists;God Doesn’t Evil Doesn’t Evil Exists - Atheism - PantheismGod < Evil God = Evil God > Evil - Finitism - Dualism 35
  • 160. Why do the Innocent Suffer? or, Why Does Evil Exist? Evil Exists; God Exists; God Exists;God Doesn’t Evil Doesn’t Evil Exists - Atheism - PantheismGod < Evil God = Evil God > Evil - Finitism - Dualism - Theism 35
  • 161. Why do the Innocent Suffer? or, Why Does Evil Exist? Evil Exists; God Exists; God Exists;God Doesn’t Evil Doesn’t Evil Exists - Atheism - Pantheism God < Evil God = Evil God > Evil - Finitism - Dualism - TheismStipulates that the all-good, all-powerful God will finally conquer evil 35
  • 162. Theism 36
  • 163. Theism All-Good: Hab. 1:13 “Your eyes are too pure to approve evil, And You can not look on wickedness with favor.” 36
  • 164. Theism All-Good: Hab. 1:13 “Your eyes are too pure to approve evil, And You can not look on wickedness with favor.” All-Powerful: Rev. 4:8 “...they do not cease to say, “HOLY, HOLY, HOLY is THE LORDGOD, THE ALMIGHTY, WHO WAS AND WHO IS AND WHO IS TO COME.” 36
  • 165. Theism 37
  • 166. Theism Rev. 21:3-4 “...“Behold, the tabernacle of God is among men, and He will dwell among them, and they shall be His people, and God Himself will be among them, 37
  • 167. Theism Rev. 21:3-4 “...“Behold, the tabernacle of God is among men, and He will dwell among them, and they shall be His people, and God Himself will be among them, and He will wipe away every tear from their eyes; and there will no longer be any death; there will no longer be any mourning, or crying, or pain; the first things have passed away.” 37
  • 168. Why Did an All-Good, All-Powerful God Allow Evil? 38
  • 169. Why Did an All-Good, All-PowerfulGod Allow Evil? 39
  • 170. Why Did an All-Good, All-PowerfulGod Allow Evil? A Question of Causation- “Why did God allow evil to occur in the first place? 39
  • 171. Why Did an All-Good, All-PowerfulGod Allow Evil? A Question of Causation- “Why did God allow evil to occur in the first place? When did evil enter human history? 39
  • 172. Why Did an All-Good, All-PowerfulGod Allow Evil? A Question of Causation- “Why did God allow evil to occur in the first place? When did evil enter human history? Summary of a biblical account of the origin of evil 39
  • 173. Man Created Perfect with FreeChoice The Creation of Eve, Michelangelo, 1508-1512 40
  • 174. Man Created Perfect with FreeChoice God created man perfect The Creation of Eve, Michelangelo, 1508-1512 40
  • 175. Man Created Perfect with FreeChoice God created man perfect Man could reject God’s love The Creation of Eve, Michelangelo, 1508-1512 40
  • 176. Man Created Perfect with FreeChoice God created man perfect Man could reject God’s love The ability to reject/accept is essential to relationship The Creation of Eve, Michelangelo, 1508-1512 40
  • 177. Man Created Perfect with FreeChoice God created man perfect Man could reject God’s love The ability to reject/accept is essential to relationship God did not force His love on man The Creation of Eve, Michelangelo, 1508-1512 40
  • 178. Real Consequences 41
  • 179. Real Consequences God warned man of the consequences of accepting or rejecting Him 41
  • 180. Real Consequences God warned man of the consequences of accepting or rejecting Him Rejection > spiritual and physical death 41
  • 181. Real Consequences God warned man of the consequences of accepting or rejecting Him Rejection > spiritual and physical death Man chose to go his own way (disobedience, autonomy) 41
  • 182. Real Consequences God warned man of the consequences of accepting or rejecting Him Rejection > spiritual and physical death Man chose to go his own way (disobedience, autonomy) Evil and suffering then entered the world 41
  • 183. God Did Not Create EvilTemptation, by Huga va der Goes, c 1470 42
  • 184. God Did Not Create Evil God’s plan had the potential for evil but only promoted goodTemptation, by Huga va der Goes, c 1470 42
  • 185. God Did Not Create Evil God’s plan had the potential for evil but only promoted good The origin of evil resulted from man’s rejection of God toward his selfish desiresTemptation, by Huga va der Goes, c 1470 42
  • 186. God Did Not Create Evil God’s plan had the potential for evil but only promoted good The origin of evil resulted from man’s rejection of God toward his selfish desires A naked decision between God and selfTemptation, by Huga va der Goes, c 1470 42
  • 187. God Did Not Create Evil God’s plan had the potential for evil but only promoted good The origin of evil resulted from man’s rejection of God toward his selfish desires A naked decision between God and self Man corrupted himself by disobeying GodTemptation, by Huga va der Goes, c 1470 42
  • 188. Man Chose Disobedience, EvilConsequences: Temporal Adam and Eve Expelled from Paradise, by Massacio, c.1427 43
  • 189. Man Chose Disobedience, EvilConsequences: Temporal Because of the Fall, mankind became imperfect Adam and Eve Expelled from Paradise, by Massacio, c.1427 43
  • 190. Man Chose Disobedience, EvilConsequences: Temporal Because of the Fall, mankind became imperfect Yielded temporal and eternal consequences Adam and Eve Expelled from Paradise, by Massacio, c.1427 43
  • 191. Man Chose Disobedience, EvilConsequences: Temporal Because of the Fall, mankind became imperfect Yielded temporal and eternal consequences Temporal: Moral and Natural Evil Adam and Eve Expelled from Paradise, by Massacio, c.1427 43
  • 192. Man Chose Disobedience, EvilConsequences: Temporal Because of the Fall, mankind became imperfect Yielded temporal and eternal consequences Temporal: Moral and Natural Evil Moral Evil caused by man’s inhumanity to man Adam and Eve Expelled from Paradise, by Massacio, c.1427 43
  • 193. Man Chose Disobedience, EvilConsequences: Temporal 44
  • 194. Man Chose Disobedience, EvilConsequences: Temporal Man’s fall included a curse on him and a curse on creation 44
  • 195. Man Chose Disobedience, EvilConsequences: Temporal Man’s fall included a curse on him and a curse on creation Earth is a disease-death environment now 44
  • 196. Man Chose Disobedience, EvilConsequences: Temporal Man’s fall included a curse on him and a curse on creation Earth is a disease-death environment now Gen. 3:17b “...Cursed is the ground because of you” 44
  • 197. Man Chose Disobedience, Evil Consequences: Temporal Man’s fall included a curse on him and a curse on creation Earth is a disease-death environment now Gen. 3:17b “...Cursed is the ground because of you”Rom. 8:21 “...the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God. 44
  • 198. Man Chose Disobedience, Evil Consequences: Temporal Man’s fall included a curse on him and a curse on creation Earth is a disease-death environment now Gen. 3:17b “...Cursed is the ground because of you”Rom. 8:21 “...the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God. Rev. 22:3 “There will no longer be any curse; and the throne of God and of the Lamb will be in it, and His bond-servants will serve Him...” 44
  • 199. Man Chose Disobedience, EvilConsequences: Eternal 45
  • 200. Man Chose Disobedience, EvilConsequences: Eternal Man was no longer a perfect being when he ceased to follow the perfect way of God (Rom. 3:23; Isa. 53:6; 59:2) 45
  • 201. Man Chose Disobedience, EvilConsequences: Eternal Man was no longer a perfect being when he ceased to follow the perfect way of God (Rom. 3:23; Isa. 53:6; 59:2) The judgment for sin is eternal separation from the holy God (Rom. 6:23) 45
  • 202. Man Chose Disobedience, EvilConsequences: Eternal Man was no longer a perfect being when he ceased to follow the perfect way of God (Rom. 3:23; Isa. 53:6; 59:2) The judgment for sin is eternal separation from the holy God (Rom. 6:23) Separation: confinement in hell forever (Matt. 25:46; Rev. 20:14-15) 45
  • 203. God’s Solution: Substitution 46
  • 204. God’s Solution: Substitution God’s justice demands death as a penalty 46
  • 205. God’s Solution: Substitution God’s justice demands death as a penalty God’s love seeks a solution to man’s terminal condition 46
  • 206. God’s Solution: Substitution God’s justice demands death as a penalty God’s love seeks a solution to man’s terminal condition God substituted Himself and made possible mans redemption from sin. 46
  • 207. Man Still Has Choice 47
  • 208. Man Still Has Choice The penalty for my sin will be paid. The only question is, "Who will pay it?" 47
  • 209. Man Still Has Choice The penalty for my sin will be paid. The only question is, "Who will pay it?" Now we must choose whether to accept His payment, or pay it ourselves 47
  • 210. Why Hasn’t God Put an End to Evil? 48
  • 211. Why Hasn’t God Put an End to Evil? 49
  • 212. Why Hasn’t God Put an End to Evil? Question of Cessation - “Why hasn’t God stopped evil if He can?” 49
  • 213. Why Hasn’t God Put an End to Evil? Question of Cessation - “Why hasn’t God stopped evil if He can?” On whose terms? 49
  • 214. Why Hasn’t God Put an End to Evil? Question of Cessation - “Why hasn’t God stopped evil if He can?” On whose terms? Man’s: God should eliminate the cruel world leaders, murderers, and thieves along with the natural disasters and diseases 49
  • 215. Why Hasn’t God Put an End to Evil? Question of Cessation - “Why hasn’t God stopped evil if He can?” On whose terms? Man’s: God should eliminate the cruel world leaders, murderers, and thieves along with the natural disasters and diseases God’s: must move against all actual evil and potential evil 49
  • 216. Why Hasn’t God Put an End to Evil? Question of Cessation - “Why hasn’t God stopped evil if He can?” On whose terms? Man’s: God should eliminate the cruel world leaders, murderers, and thieves along with the natural disasters and diseases God’s: must move against all actual evil and potential evil Including evil in ourselves 49
  • 217. 50
  • 218. Preserves Human Freedom 51
  • 219. Preserves Human Freedom Some evil is the result of our own free choices 51
  • 220. Preserves Human Freedom Some evil is the result of our own free choices Some evil is the result of other’s free choices 51
  • 221. Preserves Human Freedom Some evil is the result of our own free choices Some evil is the result of other’s free choices Source of ≅ 95% of all evil 51
  • 222. Preserves Human Freedom Some evil is the result of our own free choices Some evil is the result of other’s free choices Source of ≅ 95% of all evil Therefore, in order to destroy all evil all freedom must be destroyed 51
  • 223. Preserves Human Freedom Some evil is the result of our own free choices Some evil is the result of other’s free choices Source of ≅ 95% of all evil Therefore, in order to destroy all evil all freedom must be destroyed Human freedom is better for mankind; brings greatest glory to God in time/eternity. 51
  • 224. Prevents Greater Evil 52
  • 225. Prevents Greater Evil Some evil warns us of greater physical pain 52
  • 226. Prevents Greater Evil Some evil warns us of greater physical pain Not all pain is bad (Leprosy, a lack of pain is bad) 52
  • 227. Prevents Greater Evil Some evil warns us of greater physical pain Not all pain is bad (Leprosy, a lack of pain is bad) Some evil warns us of greater moral pain 52
  • 228. 53
  • 229. “God whispers to us in our pleasures, 53
  • 230. “God whispers to us in our pleasures, speaks in our conscience, 53
  • 231. “God whispers to us in our pleasures, speaks in our conscience, but shouts in our pains: 53
  • 232. “God whispers to us in our pleasures, speaks in our conscience, but shouts in our pains:it is His megaphone to rouse a deaf world." - C.S. Lewis The Problem of Pain 53
  • 233. “God whispers to us in our pleasures, speaks in our conscience, but shouts in our pains:it is His megaphone to rouse a deaf world." - C.S. Lewis The Problem of Pain Pain often can serve to purify and perfect people 53
  • 234. “God whispers to us in our pleasures, speaks in our conscience, but shouts in our pains: it is His megaphone to rouse a deaf world." - C.S. Lewis The Problem of Pain Pain often can serve to purify and perfect people Eccl. 8:11 “Because the sentence against an evil deed is notexecuted quickly, therefore the hearts of the sons of men among them are given fully to do evil.” 53
  • 235. Prevents Greater Evil Some evil warns us of greater physical pain Not all pain is bad (Leprosy, a lack of pain is bad) Some evil warns us of great moral pain 54
  • 236. Prevents Greater Evil Some evil warns us of greater physical pain Not all pain is bad (Leprosy, a lack of pain is bad) Some evil warns us of great moral pain Therefore, to destroy some evil in a moral universe, would increase some evil 54
  • 237. Prevents Greater Evil Some evil warns us of greater physical pain Not all pain is bad (Leprosy, a lack of pain is bad) Some evil warns us of great moral pain Therefore, to destroy some evil in a moral universe, would increase some evil The least amount of evil (achievable with free creatures) is better for mankind and it brings the greatest glory to God in time/eternity 54
  • 238. Promotes the Greatest Good 55
  • 239. Promotes the Greatest Good Some evil is the condition for immediate moral perfecting 55
  • 240. Promotes the Greatest Good Some evil is the condition for immediate moral perfecting Some evil is the condition for ultimate moral perfection 55
  • 241. Promotes the Greatest Good Some evil is the condition for immediate moral perfecting Some evil is the condition for ultimate moral perfection Therefore, to destroy some evil in a moral universe would decrease some good 55
  • 242. Promotes the Greatest Good Some evil is the condition for immediate moral perfecting Some evil is the condition for ultimate moral perfection Therefore, to destroy some evil in a moral universe would decrease some good The greatest good (achievable with free creatures) is better for mankind and bring the greatest glory to God in Time/eternity 55
  • 243. “As long as we remain as we are, 56
  • 244. “As long as we remain as we are, a world without pain, 56
  • 245. “As long as we remain as we are, a world without pain, disappointment, 56
  • 246. “As long as we remain as we are, a world without pain, disappointment, obstructions, and 56
  • 247. “As long as we remain as we are, a world without pain, disappointment, obstructions, and frustration 56
  • 248. “As long as we remain as we are, a world without pain, disappointment, obstructions, and frustration might well lead to such an increase in arrogance and hardness of heart 56
  • 249. “As long as we remain as we are, a world without pain, disappointment, obstructions, and frustration might well lead to such an increase in arrogance and hardness of heart that life would become insupportable. 56
  • 250. “As long as we remain as we are, a world without pain, disappointment, obstructions, and frustration might well lead to such an increase in arrogance and hardness of heart that life would become insupportable.The timeless world of heaven is a suitable home only for man as he will be.” 56
  • 251. Minimal Evil 57
  • 252. Minimal Evil A universe where the freedom of all moral creatures is respected, where evil is minimal and good is maximal brings the greatest good to mankind and the greatest glory to God. 57
  • 253. Minimal Evil A universe where the freedom of all moral creatures is respected, where evil is minimal and good is maximal brings the greatest good to mankind and the greatest glory to God. Maximum possible opportunities for ultimate satisfaction 57
  • 254. Minimal Evil A universe where the freedom of all moral creatures is respected, where evil is minimal and good is maximal brings the greatest good to mankind and the greatest glory to God. Maximum possible opportunities for ultimate satisfaction Its the best possible way to get the best of all possible worlds 57
  • 255. Minimal Evil A universe where the freedom of all moral creatures is respected, where evil is minimal and good is maximal brings the greatest good to mankind and the greatest glory to God. Maximum possible opportunities for ultimate satisfaction Its the best possible way to get the best of all possible worlds A hypothetical world where sin never occurs may be logically possible - but it may be actually unachievable and morally less desirable 57
  • 256. God’s Promise to End Evil 58
  • 257. God’s Promise to End Evil2Pet. 3:7 “But by His word the present heavens and earth are being reserved for fire, kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men.” 58
  • 258. God’s Promise to End Evil2Pet. 3:7 “But by His word the present heavens and earth are being reserved for fire, kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men.”Rev. 19:1-2 “After these things I heard something like a loud voice of a great multitude in heaven, saying, ‘Hallelujah! Salvation and glory and power belong to our God; BECAUSE HIS JUDGMENTS ARE TRUE AND RIGHTEOUS; for He has judged the great harlot who was corrupting the earth with her immorality,and HE HAS AVENGED THE BLOOD OF HIS BOND-SERVANTS ON HER.’” 58
  • 259. God’s Promise to End Evil 59
  • 260. God’s Promise to End EvilRev. 18:20 “Rejoice over her, O heaven, and you saints and apostles andprophets, because God has pronounced judgment for you against her.” 59
  • 261. God’s Promise to End EvilRev. 18:20 “Rejoice over her, O heaven, and you saints and apostles andprophets, because God has pronounced judgment for you against her.” Rev. 20:13-15 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead which were in them; and they were judged, every one of them according to their deeds. Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire. And if anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire. 59
  • 262. God’s Promise to End Evil Cathedral ceiling, Florence, Italy 60
  • 263. God’s Promise to End Evil Rev. 21:8 “But for the cowardly and unbelieving and abominable and murderers and immoral persons and sorcerers and idolaters and all liars, their part will be in the lake that burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.” Cathedral ceiling, Florence, Italy 60
  • 264. God’s Patience 61
  • 265. God’s Patience 2Pet. 3:9 “The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, 61
  • 266. God’s Patience 2Pet. 3:9 “The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance.” 61
  • 267. God’s Patience 2Pet. 3:9 “The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance.” God delays putting an end to evil in order to allow us more opportunities to share the Gospel of Christ with others 61
  • 268. God Will Ultimately Defeat Evil 1Cor. 15:54-57 “But when this perishable will have put on the imperishable, and this mortal will have put on immortality, 62
  • 269. God Will Ultimately Defeat Evil 1Cor. 15:54-57 “But when this perishable will have put on the imperishable, and this mortal will have put on immortality, then will come about the saying that is written, “DEATH IS SWALLOWED UP in victory. “O DEATH, WHERE IS YOUR VICTORY? O DEATH, WHERE IS YOUR STING?” 62
  • 270. God Will Ultimately Defeat Evil 1Cor. 15:54-57 “But when this perishable will have put on the imperishable, and this mortal will have put on immortality, then will come about the saying that is written, “DEATH IS SWALLOWED UP in victory. “O DEATH, WHERE IS YOUR VICTORY? O DEATH, WHERE IS YOUR STING?” The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law; but thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.” 62
  • 271. God Will Ultimately Defeat Evil 63
  • 272. God Will Ultimately Defeat Evil God is greater than evil 63
  • 273. God Will Ultimately Defeat Evil God is greater than evil God will indeed put an end to evil and suffering 63
  • 274. God Will Ultimately Defeat Evil God is greater than evil God will indeed put an end to evil and suffering God knew this world was not the best possible world, but it was the best possible way to attain the best possible world 63
  • 275. 64
  • 276. 65
  • 277. God delivered us from the penalty of evil at the cross. 65
  • 278. God delivered us from the penalty of evil at the cross.God delivers us from the power of evil in the crises. 65
  • 279. God delivered us from the penalty of evil at the cross.God delivers us from the power of evil in the crises.God will deliver us from the presence of evil at His coming. 65
  • 280. The End 66
  • 281. Reflections Ministries Resources 67
  • 282. Reflections Ministries Resources Reflections - A free monthly teaching letter 67
  • 283. Reflections Ministries Resources Reflections - A free monthly teaching letter 67
  • 284. Reflections Ministries Resources Reflections - A free monthly teaching letter 67
  • 285. Reflections Ministries Resources Reflections - A free monthly teaching letter KenBoa.org website - Daily Growth email and free text and audio resources 67
  • 286. DVD Series 68
  • 287. DVD Series - Audio/visual presentations of crucial topics 68
  • 288. DVD Series - Audio/visual presentations of crucial topics - $20 each 68
  • 289. DVD Series - Audio/visual presentations of crucial topics - $20 each - Call 800-DRAW NEAR (800-372-9632) 68
  • 290. KENBOA.ORG KenBoa.org ken_boa Kenneth Boa