Objections
One common objection to the greater good solution is essentially a challenge to the omnipotence and wisdom of God. Schilling argues that many have distorted the doctrine of the providence of God because they believe that God “plans or orders all events, helpful or hurtful to human life.”[1] Surely, Schilling reasons, God “cannot prompt men to violate the highest norms of human conduct to fulfill his hidden purposes.”[2] The most difficult challenge to a solution is that which is supported by Scripture, and Schilling presents a strong case, citing Scriptures like Genesis 18:25 where Abraham asserts, “Shall not the Judge of all the earth deal justly?”
First, when reflecting upon the omnipotence and the providence of God, one must again remember that God does whatever He pleases. To place limitation on God by saying He cannot act in such a way without consideration of the entirety of Scripture is surely error. For example, in Deuteronomy 32:29 the Lord says “It is I who put to death and give life. I have wounded and it is I who heal, and there is none who can deliver out of my hand.” The Lord takes responsibility for killing, and yet has He not forbidden murder? One must remember that all things belong to the Lord, and it is His right as Creator to do with creation as He pleases, whether it is injury or deliverance. We cannot fully understand the means by which our Lord operates, and accordingly He has said through Isaiah, “My ways are higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts” (Isa 55:9). Thus it is evident that God is separate from humanity, and cannot be held under the same restrictions.
Another challenge issued to the greater good defense is why did God create a world in which humans have the capacity to commit evil? Could not the omnipotent God just dispense with the idea altogether, and then achieve the greater good with a more pleasant means?[3] This question is most aptly answered by Jonathan Edwards. He argues very convincingly that God ordained evil to be so that He might show His eternal attributes more fully. Surely we could not understand goodness if there were no contrast of evil. We would not comprehend His great mercy at all if we did not have the capacity to sin against Him. If there were no evil, God could not fully manifest His glorious grace by which He saves us or His terrible wrath which destines sinners to eternal destruction, and therefore we would have an incomplete understanding of the glory of God. “It is necessary that there should be evil, because the display of the glory of God could not but be imperfect and incomplete without it . . .”[4]
In a similar context, Paul in his letter to the Romans explains the motive of God to create people destined for sin and eternal punishment. Why did God create them at all? Would not it have been better for them to remain non-existent? Paul returns with another question, “What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction? And He did so to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for
glory . . .” (Rom 9:22-23) Therefore, God has ordained evil into existence and has predestined some for destruction because of that evil so that He might make known more fully “the riches of His glory,” which is His greater good.
It is clear through a careful reading of Scripture that the Lord is omnipotent, omnisapient, and good, and also that there is evil in the world. This does not refute the existence of God, nor do these truths exist together illogically. Scripture clearly teaches that the Lord uses evil for His sovereign, wise, and good purposes, and who are we to question the Almighty?
[3]George N. Schlesinger, “Suffering and Evil,” in Contemporary Philosophy of Religion, ed. Steven M. Cah and David Shatz (New York: Oxford University Press, 1982), 26.
Support
Because Scripture is God’s revealed Word, it should be the first source consulted when trying to solve the problem of evil. The greater good position seems to be the view that is most supported by and derived from Scripture. It is Scripture, after all, that claims God is omnipotent, omniscient, and good. Furthermore, Scripture clearly teaches that God uses evil to accomplish His own purposes, and is not an innocent bystander or victim of evil, as implied by the free will defense.
First, in view of omnipotence, God “does whatever He pleases.” (Psalm 115:3) Genesis 18:4 and Jeremiah 32:27 both ask the rhetorical question, “Is anything too difficult for the Lord?” The obvious answer is recorded in Jeremiah 32:17: “Nothing is too difficult for You.” God accomplishes whatever He wants to accomplish, and nothing is too difficult for Him. He is sovereign over all He has created.[i]
Scripture is also clear with regard to God’s wisdom. Paul declares God to be “the only wise God” in Romans
Not only is God powerful and wise, but He is also good. What a terrible thing it would be to belong to a god who is powerful and wise, and at the same time completely evil! David makes a similar observation about the goodness of God in Psalm 62:11-12 “Power belongs to God; and lovingkindness is Yours, O Lord.” Furthermore, Jesus challenges the rich young ruler in Luke 18:19 by saying, “No one is good except God alone.” Psalm 100:5 praises God saying, “The Lord is good; His lovingkindness is everlasting and His faithfulness to all generations.” David exhorts his people in Psalm 34:8 to “taste and see that the Lord is good.” God’s word is very clear that He is completely sovereign, wise, and good.[iii]
However, Scripture has much to say about God’s involvement with evil. First, God is not evil nor is He the author of evil. James clarifies that “God cannot be tempted by evil, and He Himself does not tempt anyone” (James
Even though God does not tempt, cannot be tempted, and evil does not exist in Him, God does use evil to accomplish His purposes. Joseph was despised by his brothers and sold into slavery by them. After a miraculous sequence of events, Joseph makes the bold statements that “It was not you who sent me here, but God,” and later, “You meant evil against me, but God meant it for good, in order to bring about this present result, to preserve many people alive” (Gen 45:8; 50:20). Clearly God used the evil deeds of Joseph’s brothers to bring about the preservation of humanity.[v]
In the exodus account, the Lord used the wickedness of Pharaoh to display His glory throughout the earth. The Lord tells Moses in Exodus 4:21, “I will harden his heart so that he will not let the people go.” Paul explains the Lord’s purpose for doing this, in Romans 9:17, “For the Scripture says to Pharaoh ‘for this very purpose I raised you up, to demonstrate my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed throughout the whole earth.’” The Lord hardened Pharaoh’s heart causing him to commit evil so that the Lord might show His power in delivering His people from Pharaoh’s hand.[vi]
While God permits evil through secondary means, the people who commit these evils bear responsibility for them.[vii] The Lord does not incur the guilt of sin, even though He is in control of everything. Job, for example, understood the source of his pain and suffering. Although it was Satan who asked permission to afflict him, Job rightly proclaims, “The Lord gave and the Lord has taken away. Blessed be the name of the Lord” (Job
Therefore, all four statements in the problem of evil are absolutely true. God is omnipotent, omniscient, and good, and there is evil in the world. It seems as if the greater good defense is the most scriptural explanation, especially when refined by Frame’s watchful eye. The Lord allows evil so that the greater good may be accomplished. Possibly, it would be better suited to name the perspective “His” greater good defense, supporting the idea that God permits evil inasmuch as He will receive the utmost glory. Humanity may not always recognize God’s greater good as such, but Scripture is clear that God does whatever He pleases and He will be glorified.[ix]
In fact, Christians understand God’s greater good to be their greater good also. Paul comforts Christians: “And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose” (Rom
Ultimately, the answer to this question culminates in faith. Scripture teaches that God is sovereign over everything, eternally wise, and infinitely good. It also teaches that God permits and uses evil so that He might be glorified all the more, and He achieves His purposes through the means of evil without incurring any responsibility for being sinful. Much of this seems clear, but there remains a lack of complete understanding. If Scripture is to be trusted, then one must have faith in God with regard to these matters. If a Christian is suffering at the hand of evil, then he must trust that God is using this for His sovereign will, even if it is unclear how. Even a Christian’s own sin and wickedness result in the glory of God as displayed on the cross of Christ. It is so perfectly clear that His grace is shown as glorious as He redeems those who were far off through the blood of His Son (Eph 1:5-6). Further, the dreadful wrath of God is also made painfully clear as He crushes Jesus for our sin.
[i]Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine, (
[iv]John Piper, Desiring God: Meditations of a Christian Hedonist, (Sisters, OR: Mutlnomah Publishers, 2003), 347.
Positions
Several different belief systems have attempted to solve the problem of evil. Christian-Scientists, Buddhists, and Christians have all weighed in and given answer to this problem. Christian-Scientists deny the reality of evil, while Buddhists have completely removed God from the equation.[i] Several Christians from different denominations and time periods have submitted very different answers, including the privation theory, the greater good position, and the free will defense.[ii]
In order to dismiss the apparent contradiction, Christian-Scientists and Buddhists challenge the validity of different pieces of the question. Christian-Scientists, such as their founder Mary Baker Eddy, claim that evil does not exist.[iii] She claims that what God created was good, and thus He did not create evil. Therefore, evil is an illusion and is reduced to only erroneous ideas.[iv]
Buddhists challenge God’s omnipotence, claiming that evil in the world is directly related to our karma or deeds.[v] In their view, God is not involved and He is not able to change the circumstances in which a person might find themselves. This very closely resembles the thinking of the disciples in John 9 when they ask, “Who sinned, this man or his parents that he was born blind?” Their assumption was that blindness had to be a result of someone’s deeds. One way, therefore, to solve the problem of evil is to simply deny the soundness of one of the four truths stated in the problem and thereby reject the existence of the God of the Bible and the reality in which humans exist.
Similarly, some Christians argue that evil exists, but only as privation. While supporters of this position such as Etienne Gilson and Augustine will defend the existence of evil, they will also reduce evil to a mere defect or lack of goodness.[vi] According to Gilson, humans and angels have the ability to fight against this tendency to return to their original lack-of-goodness state and refrain from evil since it exists only through the will.[vii] God is not responsible for evil in this view because He passively permits and does not actively cause it.[viii] Gilson claims that God cannot keep people from regressing back into nothingness because evil is the result of the will of the created sentient, not the will of God.[ix] Similar to Christian-Science, this view describes evil as an almost non-being and casts the burden on human defect.
Others, however, have sought to answer the problem of evil as it is, without dismissing the reality of evil, and also affirming the other three attributes of God. One of these views is known as the greater good defense. In this perspective, “the presence or at least the possibility of evil in the world is good, when seen from a broader perspective.”[x] The greater good defense claims that God brings good out of evil, and so He permits it that He might bring out a greater good. This view varies somewhat in its specifics, but the most commonly held position is that of the free will defense. Proponents of this position, such as Richard Swinburne and S. Paul Schilling, claim that God has granted humans the power to choose to do good or evil, and that God has taken a calculated risk in order to gain satisfaction when good is done freely.[xi] God, they argue, “thinks the higher goods so worthwhile that he is prepared to ask a lot of man in the way of enduring evil.”[xii] In view of the incarnation, the free will defense claims that God joined humanity in the struggle, that He might share the “burden of suffering.”[xiii] God cannot cause nor can He prompt humans to transgress the laws which He has established in order to accomplish His will.[xiv]
In another perspective, John Frame refines the greater good defense and concludes differently. He claims that the greater good should be viewed “not as greater pleasure or comfort for us, but as greater glory for God.”[xv] The broader perspective with which we must view circumstances must include all of human history, from the beginning of time to Christ’s return. Human perspective from only the current time period may not be sufficient to understand the greater good of God’s purposes. Frame also notes that God may not always accomplish His purposes in the way humans think He ought, and the attempts to understand His ways must be surrounded with and preceded by faith in His power, wisdom, and goodness.[xvi]
[iii]Mary Baker Eddy, Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures, (Boston, MA: The First church of Christ, Scientist, 1994), 470.
[v]Buddhism in Translation, Vol. III of Harvard Oriental Series. Edited by Charles Rockwell Lanman. Translated by Henry Clarke Warren (Cambridgeg, MA: Harvard University Press, 1896), 209.
[xi]Richard Swinburne, “The Problem of Evil,” in Contemorary Phiosophy of Religion, ed. Steven M. Cahn and David Shatz (New York: Oxford University Press, 1982), 6.
The Issue
In an attempt to dismantle the notion of a God-reality, atheistic philosophers have crafted seemingly unanswerable quandaries aimed at destroying theism. One of these predicaments is the so-called problem of evil.[i] The logic follows as such: If God is omnipotent, omnisapient, and infinitely good, then why is there evil in the world that He created? If God were all-powerful and wise, then He must not be good because there is obviously evil present in the world. Further, if God were wise and good, then He must not be omnipotent. This question rests upon a couple of presuppositions. First, this problem apparently refers to the God of the Bible because the God of the Bible is omnipotent, wise, and good.[ii] As soon as one of these three attributes is denied, the God of the Bible is not in view, and the best means to defend the God of the Bible is through His revealed Word. Second, the problem assumes that if the human mind cannot comprehend the existence of these seemingly contradictory circumstances, then God, especially the God of the Bible, must not exist, and there is no room for faith or a simple lack of understanding. Believers, challenged with a valid question from unbelievers, must give valid and earnest attention to this question, reasoning with them so that this hindrance to saving faith might be removed by God’s grace.
