Why does God allow bad things to happen to good people?

(1) the question facetiously supposes that God is ultimate therefore is responsible for both bad things that happen to good people. in view of this supposition, would God also be credited for good things happening to good people?

With relation to God, this question is also posited to disprove the existence of God. This is hardly a good litmus test since no real attempt has been made to prove the existence of God.

(2) the question supposes that there is some standard for bad and good. The problem here is that in order for this question to continue to have meaning and for this question to stand, there must be an absolute standard for good and an absolute standard for bad. For example, the reason absolutes are needed is because if every individual asks this question with their own definitions “good” and “bad” then there actually may be cases where the bad that happens to someone good may actually be thought “good” happening to someone “bad” in the mind’s eye of another individual.

C.S. Lewis said, “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.” [When Skeptics Ask by Geisler]

(3) this question also supposes that all men, determined to be good by whatever standard, deserve to receive good rather than bad. Who determines that good men deserve good, and by what standard? Why don’t good men deserve bad done to them?

(4) this question reveals the natural perception that man has for injustice. this question shows some level of morality or moral compass within him that is innate. This then leads to the question of where this moral compass came from.

(5) this question also seems to suppose that evil/bad will NEVER be vindicated since it is not immediately vindicated. this assumption may not often be considered by the questioner, but it is nonetheless important.

There are two forms that the argument against God from evil can take. They have been called the logical argument (which seeks to prove that there certainly is no such God) and the evidential argument (which reasons there probably is no such God.) [Keller, T. (2013). Walking with God through Pain and Suffering (p. 88). New York: Dutton.]

There are two forms that the argument against God from evil can take. They have been called the logical argument (which seeks to prove that there certainly is no such God) and the evidential argument (which reasons there probably is no such God.)

SLIDE#1

Keller, T. (2013). Walking with God through Pain and Suffering (p. 88). New York: Dutton.

Why Can’t Evil Be Stopped?

The classic form of this argument has been rattling through the halls of college campuses for hundreds of years.

1. If God is all-good, He would destroy evil.

2. If God is all-powerful, He could destroy evil.

3. But evil is not destroyed.

4. Hence, there is no such God.

Geisler, N. L., & Brooks, R. M. (1990). When skeptics ask (p. 63). Wheaton, IL: Victor Books.

The typical response to this question is that “true love is not possible without choice, and choice means allowing for evil.”

SLIDE#2:

What is the Purpose of Evil?

We can deal with this problem in two ways. First, we need to make a distinction. There is a difference between our knowing the purpose for evil and God having a purpose for it. Even if we don’t know God’s purpose, He may still have a good reason for allowing evil in our lives. So we can’t assume that there is no good purpose for something just because we don’t know what it could be. [Geisler, N. L., & Brooks, R. M. (1990). When skeptics ask (p. 65). Wheaton, IL: Victor Books.]

Geisler, N. L., & Brooks, R. M. (1990). When skeptics ask (p. 65). Wheaton, IL: Victor Books.

Two possible forms of the argument against God:

There are two forms that the argument against God from evil can take. They have been called the logical argument (which seeks to prove that there certainly is no such God) and the evidential argument (which reasons there probably is no such God.) [Keller, T. (2013). Walking with God through Pain and Suffering (p. 88). New York: Dutton.]

Evidential & Visceral Forms of Argument:

Most people who have grown up around church will probably lean more towards the evidential argument:

A skeptic might say, “Of course we can’t prove that there couldn’t be a God, or that there couldn’t be any sufficient reason for allowing evil. But have you watched a little child die by degrees—eaten out from the inside by cancer? While evil may not technically disprove the existence of a good and powerful God, it still makes his existence highly unlikely.”

Keller, T. (2013). Walking with God through Pain and Suffering (p. 99). New York: Dutton.

SLIDE#3

Another likely argument that people who have grown up around church would have is considered the “visceral argument from evil.” It is an argument that flows from emotion.

Probably the classic example of the visceral argument in our times comes in Elie Wiesel’s Night. He vividly describes how the very first night in the Nazi death camp devastated him. That first night, he wrote, “turned my life into one long night, seven times cursed and seven times sealed.” He looked at the furnaces turning human beings, including little children, into “wreaths of smoke.” The fires of those furnaces utterly destroyed his faith in God.

Never shall I forget those flames which consumed my faith forever.… Never shall I forget those moments which murdered my God and my soul and turned my dreams to dust.

Keller, T. (2013). Walking with God through Pain and Suffering (p. 102). New York: Dutton.

C.S. Lewis said, “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.” [When Skeptics Ask by Geisler]

This leads to our questions: “Why does God allow bad things to happen to good people?”

(1) the question facetiously supposes that God is ultimate therefore is responsible for both bad things that happen to good people. in view of this supposition, would God also be credited for good things happening to good people?

With relation to God, this question is also posited to disprove the existence of God. This is hardly a good litmus test since no real attempt has been made to prove the existence of God.

(2) the question supposes that there is some standard for bad and good. The problem here is that in order for this question to continue to have meaning and for this question to stand, there must be an absolute standard for good and an absolute standard for bad. For example, the reason absolutes are needed is because if every individual asks this question with their own definitions “good” and “bad” then there actually may be cases where the bad that happens to someone good may actually be thought “good” happening to someone “bad” in the mind’s eye of another individual.

This question supposes:

(3) this question also supposes that all men, determined to be good by whatever standard, deserve to receive good rather than bad. Who determines that good men deserve good, and by what standard? Why don’t good men deserve bad done to them?

the question facetiously supposes that God is ultimate therefore is responsible for both bad things that happen to good people. in view of this supposition, would God also be credited for good things happening to good people? With relation to God, this question is also posited to disprove the existence of God. This is hardly a good litmus test since no real attempt has been made to prove the existence of God.

(1) the question facetiously supposes that God is ultimate therefore is responsible for both bad things that happen to good people. in view of this supposition, would God also be credited for good things happening to good people?

With relation to God, this question is also posited to disprove the existence of God. This is hardly a good litmus test since no real attempt has been made to prove the existence of God.

the question supposes that there is some standard for bad and good. The problem here is that in order for this question to continue to have meaning and for this question to stand, there must be an absolute standard for good and an absolute standard for bad. For example, the reason absolutes are needed is because if every individual asks this question with their own definitions “good” and “bad” then there actually may be cases where the bad that happens to someone good may actually be thought “good” happening to someone “bad” in the mind’s eye of another individual.

(2) the question supposes that there is some standard for bad and good. The problem here is that in order for this question to continue to have meaning and for this question to stand, there must be an absolute standard for good and an absolute standard for bad. For example, the reason absolutes are needed is because if every individual asks this question with their own definitions “good” and “bad” then there actually may be cases where the bad that happens to someone good may actually be thought “good” happening to someone “bad” in the mind’s eye of another individual.

this question also supposes that all men, determined to be good by whatever standard, deserve to receive good rather than bad. Who determines that good men deserve good, and by what standard? Why don’t good men deserve bad done to them?

(3) this question also supposes that all men, determined to be good by whatever standard, deserve to receive good rather than bad. Who determines that good men deserve good, and by what standard? Why don’t good men deserve bad done to them?

this question reveals the natural perception that man has for injustice. this question shows some level of morality or moral compass within him that is innate. This then leads to the question of where this moral compass came from.

(4) this question reveals the natural perception that man has for injustice. this question shows some level of morality or moral compass within him that is innate. This then leads to the question of where this moral compass came from.

this question also seems to suppose that evil/bad will NEVER be vindicated since it is not immediately vindicated. this assumption may not often be considered by the questioner, but it is nonetheless important.

(5) this question also seems to suppose that evil/bad will NEVER be vindicated since it is not immediately vindicated. this assumption may not often be considered by the questioner, but it is nonetheless important.

So, in our cry to find answers, we must return to the absolute truth of the word of God to reveal what is absolutely true about God. This must form our expectations and thus our growing understanding of suffering relative to God.

(4) this question reveals the natural perception that man has for injustice. this question shows some level of morality or moral compass within him that is innate. This then leads to the question of where this moral compass came from.

SLIDE#4:

Review of Points:

Who is God?

How bad is what this God has allowed?

(5) this question also seems to suppose that evil/bad will NEVER be vindicated since it is not immediately vindicated. this assumption may not often be considered by the questioner, but it is nonetheless important.

How should you respond because of what this God has done?

Movements:

(1) Who is this God? ()

SLIDE#5

Modern discussions of the problem of suffering start with an abstract God—a God who, for the sake of argument, is all-powerful and all-good, but who is not glorious, majestic, infinitely wise, beginningless, and the creator and sustainer of all things. No wonder, then, that modern people are far more prone than their ancestors to conclude that, if they can see no good reason for a particular instance of suffering, God could not have any justifiable reasons for it either. If evil does not make sense to us, well, then evil simply does not make sense.

Keller, T. (2013). Walking with God through Pain and Suffering (p. 87). New York: Dutton.

As we approach this account, we immediately note that the LORD God is the one who had been identified earlier as the Creator (). His creation included a creature that was made in the image of God (). We also note that God created a world without evil or suffering. This is the way it was originally made to be.

In this particular account we immediately note two important details: (1) the LORD God is not distant or abstract but is involved with His creation and (2) His creatures recognize their accountability before Him. Here, we are introduced to the Fall. It is where man rejects the authority of God for his own self-governance.

We are also made aware that God allowed something. He allowed His creation to choose against His command. As a moral creature, created in the image of God, Adam was allowed to make a choice; but why? Why would God allow Adam to make a choice that would lead to seemingly endless pain and suffering? There are a few thoughts to keep in mind here:

God’s commanding of man in shows that God created man with the moral aptitude to respond to the sovereignty of God.

With the possibility to affirm God’s authority came the possibility to reject it.

This means that the possibility of glory and sincere love are tied to the possibility to evil and rebellion. God’s Lordship and authority as Creator is vindicated when His creature willingly and joyfully surrenders to Him.

Principle:

The beauty of this passage is that God does call sinners to repentance. Confession and repentance is tremendously liberating! he calls them to confession, which is actually hopeful and merciful. Think of all of this in view of suffering. Pain would soon ensue physically because of their decision to disobey. Already, we note that the affects of sin are that of guilt and shame; and God sovereign and yet loving is calling these who have rebelled against him to repent and no longer live under the obvious guilt and shame that they are manifesting.

This call to repentance is most loudly heard in the seed of this

God’s voice comes first to call sinners who are already suffering the affects of sin to repent and be liberated from this guilt. This voice of God is most loudly heard in the living Word, Jesus Christ - whose first message in his public ministry was “Repent, for the kingdom of Heaven is at hand.” In other words, the kingship that men rejected in the beginning is not come, and you are called to repent.

We must see that pain and suffering has entered a world where all was originally created good, but where bad was possible.

We must see that good and bad cannot be defined according to subjective values but according to an ultimately good God.

In moments of suffering, we must allow what is true about God to shape our perspective about suffering.

Transition:

It is not only important to note that this Creator God has spoken, but how bad really was the allowance of God?

(2) How bad is what this God has allowed? ()

a. the punishments show suffering & relief (v. 14 - 19)

i. the perpetual conflict between the seed of the serpent and the seed of the woman ()

ii. the two-fold curse upon the woman: childbearing & desire for dominion ( & )

iii. the curse upon the man would mean toiling to produce the fruit of the ground - until death ()

SLIDE#6:

It is important at the outset for the exposition to establish the nature of these oracles. They are not commandments to be obeyed but declarations of how life now must be. For example, if a woman avoids pain in childbirth or a man, sweat in his labor, they have not violated a commandment. That they must find ways to avoid pain and prevent sweat proves that the oracles are in effect.

Creation and Blessing: A Guide to the Study and Exposition of Genesis II. God Declares the Punishments for Sin and the Prospects for the Sinners (14–19)

It is important at the outset for the exposition to establish the nature of these oracles. They are not commandments to be obeyed but declarations of how life now must be. For example, if a woman avoids pain in childbirth or a man, sweat in his labor, they have not violated a commandment. That they must find ways to avoid pain and prevent sweat proves that the oracles are in effect.

Ross, A. P. (1998). Creation and blessing: a guide to the study and exposition of Genesis (p. 144). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books.

The greatest problem of this fall was not the suffering but the loss of access to the presence of God (NIV Application)

Is suffering unjust?

We consider suffering to be unjust when we don’t understand the weight of sin against our holy God.

We consider it to be unjust when we believe we deserve anything more or less than what we are receiving. In other words, people do NOT always suffer because they are doing something good or bad.

We consider ourselves deserving of more or less when we are not living in the reality of the offense caused towards God.

SLIDE#7:

SLIDE:

A recovery of the old sense of sin is essential to Christianity. Christ takes it for granted that men are bad. Until we really feel this assumption of His to be true, though we are part of the world He came to save, we are not part of the audience to whom His words are addressed. We lack the first condition for understanding what He is talking about. And when men attempt to be Christians without this preliminary consciousness of sin, the result is almost bound to be a certain resentment against God as to one always inexplicably angry. [Lewis, C. S. (2009-05-28). The Problem of Pain (Collected Letters of C.S. Lewis) (pp. 51-52). HarperCollins. Kindle Edition.]

Lewis, C. S. (2009-05-28). The Problem of Pain (Collected Letters of C.S. Lewis) (pp. 51-52). HarperCollins. Kindle Edition.

Transition:

Who is God?

How bad is what God has allowed?

(3) How should you respond because of what this God has done ()

a. Adam’s response shows acceptance and faith ()

b. God’s provision sufficiently clothes Adam & Eve ()

Walking with God through Pain and Suffering The Wounds of God

There is no other religion that even conceives of such a thing. Christian minister John Dickson once spoke on the theme of the wounds of God on a university campus in Sydney, Australia. During the question time, a Muslim man rose to explain “how preposterous was the claim that the Creator of the universe should be subjected to the forces of his own creation—that he would have to eat, sleep, and go to the toilet, let alone die on a cross.” Dickson said his remarks were intelligent, cogent, and civil. The man went on to argue that it was illogical that God, the “cause of all causes” could have pain inflicted on him by any lesser beings. The minister felt he had no knockdown argument, no witty comeback. So finally he simply thanked the man for making the uniqueness of the Christian claim so clear. “What the Muslim denounces as blasphemy the Christian holds precious: God has wounds.”

Keller, T. (2013). Walking with God through Pain and Suffering (pp. 120–121). New York: Dutton.

SLIDE#9:

See what this means? Yes, we do not know the reason God allows evil and suffering to continue, or why it is so random, but now at least we know what the reason is not. It cannot be that he does not love us. It cannot be that he does not care. He is so committed to our ultimate happiness that he was willing to plunge into the greatest depths of suffering himself

Keller, T. (2013). Walking with God through Pain and Suffering (p. 121). New York: Dutton.

Principle: As stated by Ross in Creation & Blessing - Sinful rebellion against God brings pain, conflict, and death; but confession to God ensures God’s gracious provisions.

SLIDE#8:

There is no other religion that even conceives of such a thing. Christian minister John Dickson once spoke on the theme of the wounds of God on a university campus in Sydney, Australia. During the question time, a Muslim man rose to explain “how preposterous was the claim that the Creator of the universe should be subjected to the forces of his own creation—that he would have to eat, sleep, and go to the toilet, let alone die on a cross.” Dickson said his remarks were intelligent, cogent, and civil. The man went on to argue that it was illogical that God, the “cause of all causes” could have pain inflicted on him by any lesser beings. The minister felt he had no knockdown argument, no witty comeback. So finally he simply thanked the man for making the uniqueness of the Christian claim so clear. “What the Muslim denounces as blasphemy the Christian holds precious: God has wounds.”

Keller, T. (2013). Walking with God through Pain and Suffering (pp. 120–121). New York: Dutton.

SLIDE#9:

See what this means? Yes, we do not know the reason God allows evil and suffering to continue, or why it is so random, but now at least we know what the reason is not. It cannot be that he does not love us. It cannot be that he does not care. He is so committed to our ultimate happiness that he was willing to plunge into the greatest depths of suffering himself

Keller, T. (2013). Walking with God through Pain and Suffering (p. 121). New York: Dutton.

(1) Suffering as entered God’s good world due to sin

(2) Suffering happens to all people whether good/bad

(3) Suffering must be kept in perspective of the Suffering Servant (the ultimate bad happening to the ultimate good)

(4) Suffering of the Savior calls us to trust Him for all past injustice, all present suffering, and hope of future restitution (Romans 8)

(1) Suffering has entered our world because of sinful rebellion

(2) Suffering is no respecter of persons

(3) Our definitions of good and bad must be rooted in something that is absolute

(4) God, the ultimate good One, has suffered incomparably

(5) Our expectations of suffering should be shaped by the truth of the gospel

(6) Our relief and hope comes as we become deeply rooted in the gospel of Christ

C.S. Lewis said, “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.” [When Skeptics Ask by Geisler]

Why does God allow bad things to happen to good people?

Application:

Principle:

Application:

Application: