Dr Paul Allen

Portrait of Gottfried Leibniz (1646-1716), German philosopher (Photo credit: Wikipedia ) It has been called the Achilles’ heel of the Christian faith . Of course, I’m referring to the classical problem of the existence of evil . Philosophers such as John Stuart Mill have argued that the existence of evil demonstrates that God is either not omnipotent or not good and loving — the reasoning being that if evil exists apart from the sovereign power of God, then by resistless logic, God cannot be deemed omnipotent.  On the other hand, if God does have the power to prevent evil but fails to do it, then this would reflect upon His character, indicating that He is neither good nor loving.  Because of the persistence of this problem, the church has seen countless attempts at what is called theodicy. The term theodicy involves the combining of two Greek words: the word for God, theos, and the word for justification, dikaios. Hence, a theodicy is an attempt to justify God for the existen

John Stuart Mill (Photo credit: Wikipedia ) A recent controversial book on this matter was titled When Bad Things Happen to Good People . A common objection to religion is, How can anybody believe in God in light of all of the suffering that we see and experience in this world? John Stuart Mill raised this classic objection against the Christian faith : If God is omnipotent and allows all this suffering, then he is not benevolent, he is not a kindhearted God, he is not loving. And if he’s loving to the whole world and allows all this suffering, then he’s certainly not omnipotent. And given the fact of evil, or the fact of suffering, we can never conclude that God is both omnipotent and benevolent. As brilliant as John Stuart Mill is, we must look at what the Scriptures say about these things. Keep in mind that from a biblical perspective, suffering is intrinsically related to the fallenness of this world. There was no suffering prior to sin. I interpret Scripture to say that suf

Image via Wikipedia It has been called the Achilles ’ heel of  the Christian faith . Of course, I’m referring  to the classical problem of the existence of evil .  Philosophers such as John Stuart Mill have argued that the existence of evil demonstrates that God is either not omnipotent or not good and loving — the reasoning being that if evil exists apart from the sovereign power of God, then by resistless logic, God cannot be deemed omnipotent.  On the other hand, if God does have the power to prevent evil but fails to do it, then this would reflect upon His character, indicating that He is neither good nor loving. Because of the persistence of this problem, the church has seen countless attempts at what is called theodicy.  The term  theodicy  involves the combining of two Greek words : the word for God, theos , and the word for justification,  dikaios . Hence, a theodicy is an attempt to justify God for the existence of evil (as seen, for instance, in John Milton’s  Paradise Los

Image via Wikipedia The doctrine of hell has recently come under vicious attack, both from secularists and even from some evangelicals. In many ways, the assault has been a covert one.  Like a slowly encroaching tide, a whole complex of interrelated cultural , theological, and philosophical changes have conspired to undermine the traditional understanding of hell.  A second issue that has contributed to the modern denial of hell is a changed view of justice. Retributive justice has been the hallmark of human law since premodern times. This concept assumes that punishment is a natural and necessary component of justice. Nevertheless, retributive justice has been under assault for many years in western cultures, and this has led to modifications in the doctrine of hell. The utilitarian philosophers, such as John Stuart Mill and Jeremy Bentham argued that retribution is an unacceptable form of justice. Rejecting clear and absolute moral norms, they argued that justice demands resto

Image via Wikipedia A recent controversial book on this matter was titled   When Bad Things Happen to Good People . A common objection to religion is, How can anybody believe in God in light of all of the suffering that we see and experience in this world?  John Stuart Mill raised this classic objection against the Christian faith : If God is omnipotent and allows all this suffering, then he is not benevolent, he is not a kindhearted God, he is not loving. And if he’s loving to the whole world and allows all this suffering, then he’s certainly not omnipotent.  And given the fact of evil, or the fact of suffering, we can never conclude that God is both omnipotent and benevolent. As brilliant as John Stuart Mill is, I have to demur at that point and look at what the Scriptures say about these things.  Keep in mind that from a biblical perspective, suffering is intrinsically related to the fallenness of this world. There was no suffering prior to sin. I interpret Scripture to say

Image via Wikipedia It has been called the Achilles ’ heel of  the Christian faith . Of course, I’m referring  to the classical problem of the existence of evil. Philosophers such as John Stuart Mill have argued that the existence of evil demonstrates that God is either not omnipotent or not good and loving — the reasoning being that if evil exists apart from the sovereign power of God, then by resistless logic, God cannot be deemed omnipotent.  On the other hand, if God does have the power to prevent evil but fails to do it, then this would reflect upon His character, indicating that He is neither good nor loving. Because of the persistence of this problem, the church has seen countless attempts at what is called theodicy . The term  theodicy  involves the combining of two Greek words: the word for God, theos , and the word for justification,  dikaios . Hence, a theodicy is an attempt to justify God for the existence of evil (as seen, for instance, in John Milton ’s  Paradise L