In Psalms 103:19, the Bible states, The LORD has established His throne and His

sovereignty rules over all. In Psalms 115:3, we read, But our God is in the heavens, He does
whatever He pleases. In Matthew 6:13, Jesus himself told his disciples to pray to God saying,
for yours is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever. These verses are not alone in
proclaiming the power of God.
A study of the names of God might help one to also understand this idea of power or
sovereignty that we find in scripture. He is called, El- Shaddai The Almighty God, El- Elyon
The most High God, and El- Olam God of Eternity. These are but a few of the names that
describe God as the all-powerful one. Several other verses also ascribe to the sovereignty of God.
Ephesians 1:11 states that He, works all things after the counsel of His will. In Acts
14:15-17, we find the idea that He rules the destiny of men and nations. In Isaiah 45:7, we read
the words of God saying, The One forming light and creating darkness, causing well-being and
creating calamity; I am the LORD who does all these. All of this evidence within scripture
mounts to prove that God is an all-powerful God.
Even still, with all of the evidence that can be given for the sovereign power of God,
there is one issue that has the potential to stand in the way. It has been called the Achilles heel
of Christianity.1 R.C. Sproul calls it the most vexing philosophical issue we face when we
consider the full magnitude of the providence of God.2 This issue is what has traditionally been
known as The Problem of Evil. To deal with this issue one must try to understand why, behind

1
2

R.C. Sproul, The Invisible Hand: Do All Things Really Work for Good? (Dallas, TX: Word Publishing, 1997), 159.
Ibid.

2
all of this evidence that God is all-powerful, did He allow evil to become a reality in this world.
Also, one must understand how does that reality of evil affect how believers view Him.
In order to understand the problem of evil, one must understand the sovereignty of God.
When a person is speaking of the sovereignty of God, one should be speaking of Gods authority
and power.3 R.C. Sproul defined Gods sovereignty this way:
As sovereign, God is the supreme authority of heaven and earth. All other
authority is lesser authority. Any other authority that exists in the universe is derived from
and dependent upon Gods authority. All other forms of authority exist either by Gods
command or by Gods permission.
The word authority contains within itself the word author. God is the author of all
things over which He has authority. He created the universe. He owns the universe. His
ownership gives him certain rights. He may do with His universe what is pleasing to His
holy will.
Likewise, all power in the universe flows from the power of God. All power in the
universe is subordinate to him. Even Satan is powerless without Gods sovereign
permission to act.4
Another source from which an idea about the sovereignty of God can be drawn is the
Westminster Confession of Faith. In the third chapter of this decree, it reads,
God from all eternity did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and
unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass yet so, as thereby neither is God the
author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures, nor is the liberty or
contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.5
It is apparent that the writers of this confession also believed that God is sovereign and He
ordains what He sees fit to ordain. Through these sources one may see that in Gods sovereignty,
He is all-powerful and He can do anything. This is true, but under His sovereignty there are some
things that God cannot do. He cannot do things that are not in harmony with His nature. He
cannot go back on His word (2 Tim. 2:13); He cannot lie (Heb. 6:18); He has no relationship to
sin (Hab. 1:13; James 1:13)

R.C. Sproul, Chosen By God (Wheaton, Illinois, Tyndale House Publishers, Inc. 1986), 24.
Ibid.
5
Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology (Leicester, England, Inter- Varsity Press, 1994), 1181.
4

3
Not only should a definition of the sovereignty of God be examined, but also the ideas
contained within that definition. One of the ideas found within Gods sovereignty is the concept
of divine justice. Divine justice can be defined as an essential attribute of God whereby He
infinitely and perfectly just in Himself, of Himself, for Himself, by Himself and none other, does
what He wants. This must mean that humans can in no way define for themselves what is justice,
because God in His nature is just and right and whatever He does reflects that nature.
James Usher, many years ago, wrote, "The source of God's justice is His own free will
and nothing else. For whatsoever He wills is just and because He will it therefore it is just, not
because it is just therefore He wills it."6 He does not cause things to happen because it would be
just by human standards. God Himself is the standard. His divine justice is entirely different than
the type of justice that our finite minds can comprehend.
In order to understand Gods sovereignty, one must also understand the concept of His
omnipotence. Omnipotence, simply stated, is the idea that God is all-powerful. He can do all
things in His holy will. Under His own power, God can do what He decides to do. Gods
omnipotence is a sure guarantee that the world will conform to the plan that He has for it.
Eventually, everything will bend under His will.
Although Gods omnipotence is universal and absolute, it is not a blind omnipotence.
Therefore, it is necessary that His power in relation to His other attributes of goodness and
omniscience be understood. God in His sovereign power, never makes a decision based on power
alone. Those decisions are made with His power, infinite wisdom, and goodness all working
together.

John MacArthur, The Vanishing Conscience ( Dallas ,TX: Word Publishing, 1994.) 165.

4
Gods omniscience is the doctrine that God fully knows Himself and all things actual and
possible in one simple and eternal act.7 Nothing has ever happened or will ever happen
without God knowing it. Gods goodness means that God is the final standard of good, and all
that God is and does is worthy of approval.8 Through this definition one can understand that
good is what God approves and only what he approves. One can never say then, that
something God allows in His power, knowledge, and goodness is not good.9
In light of all that has been said about the sovereignty of God, one must apply this
understanding to the problem at hand; the problem of evil. To restate the problem one might say,
Why, behind all of the evidence that God is all-powerful, and the fact that His power is
tempered with His omniscience and goodness, did he allow evil to become a reality in this
world. It would seem necessary, in order to understand the problem of evil, one must understand
evil itself.
What is evil? Evil can be described in two ways, as the bad(moral evil) or the
harmful(natural evil). Therefore, evil can consist of all of the bad or harmful things that happen
to human beings. Evil is identified as September 11th, cancer, death of young children, murder,
rape, unexpected death of a loved one, war, and cheating. Evil can be all of these things and
many more. Then the problem, simply stated, is, If through Gods power and sovereignty He
controls everything, all of the time, then why does He allow these evil things to occur to the
humans that the Bible says He loves?
Over the years there have been many attempts made at trying to solve this problem. A
large number of philosophers have spent countless hours trying to understand the seeming
contradiction that lies within this problem. Some of these solutions have been creative, some of
7

Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology, 198

Ibid. , 196
9
Ibid. ,198
8

5
them heartfelt, some of them even logical and rational, but there are also those that reject the idea
of Gods omnipotence all together because of this problem. It seems logical then, that it would be
best for one trying to understand this problem to look deeper into some of the past attempts at
solutions or lack thereof.
One of those who deny the sovereign omnipotence of God would be John Stuart Mill.
Mill is quoted as saying:
Not even on the most distorted and contracted theory of good which ever was framed by
religious or philosophical fanaticism, can the government of Nature be made to resemble
the work of a being at once good and omnipotent.10
Mill seems quite sure that there is no way that God could be both omnipotent and good. He goes
on to say that:
It is not too much to say that every indication of Design in the Kosmos is so much
evidence against the Omnipotence of the designer. For what is meant by Design?
Contrivance: the adaptation of means to an end. But the necessity for contrivance- the
need of employing means- is a consequence of the limitation of power.11
Mill was not alone in his decision to negate the omnipotence of God. J.L. Mackie and David
Hume also believed that there was no way for God to be both omnipotent and good and made
their arguments much along the same lines.
Another popular solution to the problem of evil is evil as a privation of goodness. This
solution has mostly been associated with St. Augustine and Thomas Aquinas. Ed Miller states in
his book, Questions that Matter, It is our natural tendency to think of evil as some kind of
thing, a stuff, a substance, or a blob. However, Augustine and many others have argued,
exactly counter to this grain, that evil is no thing at all.12 It seems that what Augustine was

10

John Stuart Mill, Three Essays on Religion (New York: Henry Holt &Co., 1874), 38 quoted in Ed L. Miller,
Questions that Matter: An Invitation to Philosophy (Boston, MA: McGraw Hill, 1998), 300.
11
Ibid. , 304.
12
Ed L. Miller, Questions that Matter: An Invitation to Philosophy (Boston, MA: McGraw Hill, 1998), 308.

6
trying to say is that evil is something only a good being can do; therefore, since evil is a lack of
good, there must be good for its very existence.
R.C. Sproul, who wrote on this topic of evil as a privation of good, did not find a lot of
comfort in Augustines position. He said, Perhaps the only comfort we can draw from this is
that those who complain that evil is a problem can only do so once they have affirmed the
existence of the good.13 One must take caution here warns both Miller and Sproul that one does
not get caught in the idea of believing in the reality of evil. Miller wrote:
Who in his or her right mind would care to deny the reality of evil? What is involved
here is a question not about the reality of evil, but, rather, about the nature of evil. And
though St. Augustine denied that evil is a substance and called it the absence of goodness,
few have been more sensitive to it awful reality.14
Sproul concluded that if one were to decide that evil does not exist, then neither does good. He
Writes, then this view reduces to nihilism and the idea that we live in an amoral universe. There
is neither good nor evil, only conventions and preferences.15
A third solution to the problem of evil is know as the Free Will Defense. This view
was probably first originated also by Augustine, but has been made popular by American
philosopher Alvin Plantiga. This defense, as explained by Plantinga, concluded:
among good states of affairs there are some that not even God can bring about without
bringing about evil: those goods, namely, that entail or include evil states of affairs. The
Free Will Defense can be looked upon as an effort to show that there may be a very
different kind of good that God cant bring without permitting evil. These are good states
of affairs that dont include evil; they do not entail the existence of any evil whatever;
nonetheless God Himself cant bring them about without permitting evil.
Given these definitions and distinctions, we can make a preliminary statement of the
Free Will Defense as follows. A world containing creatures who are significantly free (
and freely perform more good than evil actions) is more valuable, all else being equal,
than a world containing no free creatures at all.16

13

R.C. Sproul, The Invisible Hand: Do All Things Really Work for Good?, 163.
Ed L. Miller, Questions that Matter: An Invitation to Philosophy, 311-312.
15
R.C. Sproul, The Invisible Hand: Do All Things Really Work for Good?, 163
16
Ed L. Miller, Questions that Matter: An Invitation to Philosophy, 313-316.
14

7
An objection that Miller gave to this idea was, Is there a real contradiction in the idea that God
might have so constituted his creatures that they always choose the right?
Most of the arguments discussed so far attempt to reconcile evil with God. These are
mostly optimistic type arguments that try to unravel the mystery of evil to some degree.17 But not
all of the arguments against the problem of evil are found to be this way. One of the less
optimistic views would be an argument called the evil as irrational theory. Ed L. Miller wrote
that this theory is basically a nihilistic one.18 This idea refers to specific values and ideals and
denies that they have any objective reality. One proponent of this pessimistic view of evil was
Albert Camus. Miller summarized this idea by explaining Camus writings and ideas. Miller
wrote:
If we take nihilism to mean the utter and absolute rejection of all value and meaning, then
there have not been very many nihilists. And, if there ever was one, he or she should have
just sat down and died. For even the barest pursuit of ones life is an affirmation of some
value and meaning, isnt it? But with some philosophers the irrationalist or absurdist
position takes a truly interesting turn. First, these philosophers are atheists or
humanists.
Second, for these thinkers the problem of evil becomes one of reconciling evil not
with God (there is no God) but, rather, with man- not theodicy, but, if you will,
anthropodicy.19
A final argument that one might need to understand would be that of evil as therapy or
the soul-making theodicy. When trying to understand this idea one must not think of therapy as
involving only aches, pains, and exercise, but as healing. Healing in the sense that a power is
applied to physical and psychological disabilities and disorders.20 Ed L. Miller wrote, This idea
tries to solve the problem of evil by arguing that evil is the instrument by which God has

17

Ibid. , 324.
Ibid. , 324.
19
Ibid., 325.
20
Ibid. , 318.
18

8
determined to correct, purify, and instruct his creatures- in a word, to bring them to spiritual
health and maturity.21
The main proponent of this idea was John Hick, a contemporary professor of philosophy
and author of Evil and the God of Love. Hick used the work of Irenaeus to help his readers
understand this idea of soul-making or what might be better termed, soul- building. Hick, in
explaining the idea of this argument wrote:
Instead of the doctrine that man was created finitely perfect and then incomprehensibly
destroyed his own perfection and plunged into sin and misery, Irenaeus suggests that man
was created as an imperfect, immature creature who was to undergo moral development
and growth and finally be brought to the perfection intended for him by his Maker.
Instead of the fall of Adam being presented, as in the Augustinian tradition, as an utterly
and malignant and catastrophic event, completely disrupting Gods plan, Irenaeus
pictures it as something that occurred in the childhood of the race, an understandable
lapse due to weakness and immaturity rather than an adult crime full of malice and
pregnant with perpetual guilt.22
These, in no way, encompass all there is to know about God and the problem of evil. In
fact, it seems that there is a different solution for every philosopher that is able to write. In order
to best understand this problem of evil and Gods sovereignty, one must also consider how these
diverse and sometimes strained attempts at solving the problem affect those who are believers in
Christ.
There are several aspects of the problem of evil that can and usually will affect the life of
a believer. These ideas can sometimes cause major issues within the mind of a believer and
cause them to question what he knows about God. In fact, one of the greatest Christian minds
ever, C.S. Lewis wrote a book that dealt with this problem titled, The Problem of Pain. Lewis,
who had been atheist, wrote of why he previously could not allow himself to believe in God. He
explained that whenever he was asked about his disbelief, one of the reasons he would cite was
21
22

Ibid. , 318-319.
John Hick, Evil and the God of Love, rev. ed. (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1978), 214-214

9
the mess that he saw humans in.23 He thought it impossible that any type of God would allow
such discord in something that He had created.24
In his book, Chosen by God, theologian R.C. Sproul wrote of the time when he first
realized the fact that evil resides in the world posed such problems to Christianity. He wrote I
was a freshman in college and had been a Christian for a only a few weeks. I was playing PingPong in the lounge of the mens dormitory, when in the middle of a volley, the thought struck me,
If God is totally righteous, how could he have created a universe where evil is present? If all
things come from God, doesnt evil come from him as well?25
Sproul and Lewis are not the only Christian thinkers that have tackled this problem. Ravi
Zacharias, in his book, Jesus Among Other Gods, takes a whole chapter to deal with it. The
chapter Is God the Source of My Suffering is an account of a letter that was written to
Zacharias. The letter was written by a man who felt that his son had been killed in an airplane
accident because of the disregard of sin in his own life. The mans words in the letter were
sobering:
In the weeks that followed Adams death, I began recalling the events of that day. I
became consumed with the guilt of my sin against God that day. I became acutely aware
of my wretchedness and the need to fall at His feet and seek forgiveness.Was I to
blame for this horror? Oh, dear God, let it not be so.26
It is obvious that the man who wrote this letter was deeply affected by the problem of evil and
that the answer to his question, Was I to blame?, would forever color the way that he would
view God.
Phillip Yancey has also written several books on the topic of pain, evil, and human
suffering. His most popular is titled, Where is God When It Hurts? He stated in the preface that
23

C.S. Lewis, The Problem of Pain (New York, NY: McMillan, 1962), 11-13.
Ibid, 13.
25
R.C. Sproul, Chosen by God, 28-29
26
Ravi Zacharias, Jesus Among Other Gods: The absolute claims of the Christian Message (Nashville, TN: Word
Publishing, 2000), 105.
24

10
when he decided to write this book he did quite a bit of reading from other authors who had
attempted to tackle the subject. Yancey was overwhelmed by the sheer number of books that had
been written. He questioned himself as to whether the world really needed another book dealing
with the same subject.27 He answered that question this way:
As I sent time among suffering people, however, I had to conclude yes. I learned that
many books on pain seemed oddly irrelevant to suffering people. For them the problem
of pain is not a theoretical problem, a theology game of lining up all the appropriate
syllogisms. It is a problem of relationship. Many suffering people want to love God, but
cannot see past their tears.28
Again it is more than clear that there are many in the world who deal with this problem, not in
classrooms or theology papers, but in hospitals, nursing homes, bedsides, and even terrorist
targets.
If these great theologians and writers have such a difficult time dealing with this thing
called the problem of evil, what is the common man or woman thinking? How many people have
discounted the idea of God because of some hurt in their life? How many have, in fact, recanted
their beliefs because of some awful tragedy? How many men or women have ruined their lives
wondering if some sin of their past caused God to take the life of a loved one? These are but a
few questions that must take place on a daily basis as the common world deals with this
theological, or as Yancey calls it, relational, problem.
Through all of the attempted philosophical answers one might find on the shelves of your
seminary or university library, it seems that there is one attempt that hasnt gained much
following. It may even seem odd to one researching this problem, that this attempt is not more
popular. It may seem even more odd considering that this problem deals directly with the nature
of God. It seems that the best approach to solving this problem then would be to take a look at

27
28

Philip Yancey, Where is God When It Hurts? ( Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing Co., 1990), preface.
Ibid. , preface.

11
what evidence we have that deals with the nature of God. This evidence may be more commonly
known as the Bible. It seems among all of these arguments, what is lacking more than anything,
is a true biblical approach to dealing with the problem of evil.
Out of all of the writings that have taken place on the subject one would think that none
of them would do the common believer more good than one dealing with Gods word. As
believers it is sometimes too easy to go to the world looking for answers. There are so many
psychologists, grief counselors and other social services available, the true source for answers
has become forgotten. In fact, one would think, that there is no better place for a believer to turn
when hurting than the Bible.
In order to take a biblical approach to dealing with the problem of evil, one must know
what the bible says about God. The introduction of this paper dealt with the idea that God is
sovereign. There was also discussion about the goodness and infinite wisdom of God. All of
these ideas can be backed with scripture, Gods word about Himself.
In order to best understand the biblical approach, one must pull together all that the
Scripture says about God. First, one must recognize God as sovereign, as being the creator and
the One who is the definition of goodness. As humans, the decision of right or wrong, good or
bad, is typically based on feelings. As Christians, it is necessary to understand that the scripture
clearly states that Gods ways are so very different from our own. It seems that the difference in
Gods ways and our ways come from the distinct differences in God and humans.
One of those differences is that God is holy. Ravi Zacharias wrote about the holiness of
God when dealing with evil. He wrote, Holiness is not merely goodness. Why did God not
create us to choose only good? Why do bad things happen to good people? The reality is that
the opposite of evil, in degree, may be goodness. But the opposite of absolute evil, in kind, is

12
absolute holiness.29 One must understand that the holiness of God is so far removed from what
one understands as goodness, it is possible that our finite minds cannot grasp it.
The Bible also clearly teaches that God has created people. If He has created people then
He must have had a plan in doing so. Therefore, if God is sovereign and He created us in
accordance to a plan, the plan must be seen through as originally conceived. In order for one to
have a biblical understanding of the problem of evil, one must understand the purpose of that
plan.
Through the reading of scripture it seems that the large purpose of Gods plan for
mankind was to create a being that He could have a love relationship with. It was Gods desire,
when creating man, to create a being that would freely choose to love Him. Therefore, God could
not have created a being who would have only chosen good. Ravi Zacharias wrote, God did not
choose to make us good, because had He done so humans could have never loved Him the way
He wants them to love.30 Zacharias wrote, It is not goodness we are called to, but worship.31
The Bible documents that Gods nature and ways are not our ways; therefore, some
things are not meant for our understanding. This is not an attempt out of the problem, merely a
statement of the truth found in Gods Holy word. It seems impossible that God would create a
man whom He knew would sin and who would have to have a savior in order to do what God
originally called him to do, to love Him. Although the idea is hard to grasp, one must believe by
all biblical accounts that God does what He desires, when He desires. Therefore, His plan must
have a perfect purpose and a perfect ending.
The idea of why evil exists can be found in the cross of Christ. Without the cross, Gods
plan could not have been brought to perfection. In order for there to be a cross, there had to be
29

Ravi Zacharias, Jesus Among Other Gods, 124.

Ibid. , 130.
31
Ibid. , 130.
30

13
evil. One could only imagine the terrible pain and suffering that was running through the mind of
those who were the closest to Jesus. It was this evil, that is able to bring a lost soul, back to God.
It seems then that the evil things that occur in this world, occur because a sovereign God
who is far more wise and far more powerful knows what is best for His creation. He knew what
it would take for His original purpose to occur and through His divine providence He directed
those events. Evil happens because it is part of Gods way to complete His plan, so that His glory
might be displayed. Ultimately, the problem of evil is not really a problem with God after all, but
a problem with man. It is mans problem when he cannot allow for the fact that God must use
evil in order to fulfill the purpose that He has for this earth and its inhabitants.
As humans it is imperative to understand that it is impossible to understand or decipher
the mind of God. It is biblically clear that Gods ways and ideas are so much deeper than ours
that one may never be able to understand them. Therefore, as a believer, one must know that
sometimes evil and pain come for reasons only known to God. It can be truly said that these
things that happen, happen for the glory of God. Believers can never say that evil does not affect
God. In fact, because of that evil, He had to send His only son to die for our sins. His son, Jesus
Christ, died at the hands of an evil crowd on an evil instrument of death. Yet God, in His divine
knowledge allowed this to happen, in order to save the very beings that He created to love. It
seems then, instead of despising the evil that takes place, we should praise God for the goodness
that He brings from it.

14