Christians often insist that they do not have all the answers. However, when they say this, they almost always refer to something that is clearly explained in the Bible. But if the Bible addresses a topic, it is not up to us to speak as if it does not. While it is true that it does not grant us omniscience, the Bible contains more answers than Christians usually give it credit for.
A prime example is the so-called problem of evil. Although numerous attempts have been made to dampen the force of the dilemma, there seems to be an overall consensus among Christians that these attempts are not entirely satisfactory, and that evil is finally a mystery, something that we cannot understand or explain. Even the heirs of the Reformation, who boast of a most biblical and logical theology, back into the corner with whimpers of paradoxes and contradictions. One prominent theologian called sin a “black hole” and abandoned the effort to explain it.
This widespread retreat is unacceptable because the problem of evil portrays itself as a fatal blow to Christianity. It suggests that the nature of God and the existence of evil are logically incompatible. The threat cannot be underestimated, and an appeal to mystery is tantamount to surrender. And after one or two, or several hundred appeals to mystery, how can we compel non-Christians to admit that the Christian faith is eminently and obviously rational?
Even if we ignore public perception – that is, even if we allow God to be blasphemed – the fact is that no one can truly affirm two logically incompatible propositions. The claim that the contradiction is only apparent and not actual is irrelevant, because as long as one perceives a contradiction, he cannot affirm both propositions. The nature of a contradiction is such that to affirm one side of it is to deny the other, so that to affirm both is also to deny both in reverse order, and that to deny both is to affirm both in the reverse order again. Thus to affirm both sides of a contradiction is to affirm nothing, or worse than nothing. It is a meaningless exercise.
If the nature of God and the existence of evil are indeed mutually exclusive, then Christians must either abandon their belief in God or consign evil to a mere illusion. Either option would amount to a rejection of the Christian faith. If to affirm God is to deny evil, and if to affirm evil is to deny God, then to affirm both God and evil is to deny evil and God, which is to affirm God and evil, so on ad infinitum. Therefore, one who claims to affirm both God and evil, but who claims to perceive a contradiction between the two, is either a liar, so that he in fact affirms only one of the two, or he is a fool, and does not understand what he says.
Moreover, an appeal to mystery is unacceptable because the Bible explicitly informs us about the origin and the purpose of evil. Thus the appeal to mystery suggests either ignorance or rejection of the biblical explanation. In this case, the cliché, “We do not have all the answers,” is far from a humble admission of human finitude, but it is a refusal to hear from God. Since the Bible offers an answer that is intellectually, ethically, and psychologically satisfying, humility would demand Christians to learn it and accept it.
Therefore, the only right approach is to show that this so-called problem of evil presents a false dilemma, so that there is no mystery here, and no paradox, no antinomy, no contradiction between the two, and that it is possible to affirm the existence of both in a coherent fashion.
Again, the dilemma is that the nature of God and the existence of evil are allegedly incompatible. As an argument, it is stated in various forms, but the main thrust remains the same. For example: “If God is love, then how can there be evil?” Or, “If God is love, then he would want to eliminate sin, but he has not eliminated sin.” Natural evil is also included in this line of thinking: “If God is love, then how can he cause or allow this disaster that killed five thousand people?”
Keep in mind that the argument is supposed to uncover a contradiction within the biblical worldview. This means that the definitions for all key terms, including love and evil, must come from the Bible itself. The argument would not achieve its aim if it shows that the Christian idea of love is incompatible with the non-Christian idea of evil, or vice versa. This would only mean that Christians and non-Christians disagree – a redundant point in a debate where non-Christians present an argument to challenge the Christian faith. Rather, to demonstrate the incoherence of a worldview, all the key terms must be taken from within that worldview.
That said, the Bible never suggests that God, because of his love, must eliminate all evil, let alone do it right away. In fact, he would preserve evil forever in hell, and in the demons and sinners who must endure endless suffering there. There is a dilemma only if the Bible asserts that God must eliminate all evil on the one hand, and that he has not or will not eliminate evil on the other. But there is no dilemma if the Bible itself teaches that God will not eliminate evil on the one hand, and that he will preserve evil on the other, and then calls this the God of love. Evidently, the Bible defines divine love in a way that can accommodate this. It is futile to complain that an anti-biblical idea of divine love would not allow it. What is biblical obviously contradicts what is anti-biblical, but this shows no inconsistency within the biblical system.
No matter what form the challenge assumes, it can be likewise refuted. It never reaches the point where it shows some internal contradiction in the biblical view, and therefore it never attains relevance. It keeps repeating that one anti-biblical term is incompatible with a biblical term, and sometimes both terms are anti-biblical, and that this is somehow supposed to cause trouble for the Christian faith. Now that is a mystery!
As an argument against the Christian faith, the so-called problem of evil can never be intelligibly stated. If it can never be intelligibly stated, there is never an objection that Christians must answer. We could keep demanding the non-Christians to repair the argument and never be forced to contribute. Nevertheless, our answer is not wholly negative. It is indeed possible to discuss the existence of evil, as informed by biblical revelation, but only as a topic in Christian theology, and never as a problem for Christian theology. The Bible teaches that God himself is the Sovereign over all sin and evil, and in love toward his chosen ones, he has ordained this to show forth his patience and his wrath, and to display his glory and justice.
The argument from the existence of evil is not an embarrassment for the Christian faith; instead, it is a platform for Christians to attack those who dare to raise it. Sinners consider themselves informed and intelligent, but Paul writes that, although they think that they are clever, they are foolish. The use of this argument is one piece of evidence demonstrating that non-Christians are irrational, uninformed, and prejudiced. This problem of evil circulates among men, not because the Christian faith is inconsistent, but because non-Christians think nonsense. Next time a non-Christian confronts you with this argument, do not be afraid. Rejoice, rather, because the Lord has given you the victory. He has delivered the adversary into your hands.