Relating theodicy and the Bible is crucial to understanding Abrahamic theodicy because the Bible "has been, both in theory and in fact, the dominant influence upon ideas about God and evil in the Western world". Theodicy, in its most common form, is the attempt to answer the question of why a good God permits the manifestation of evil. Theodicy attempts to resolve the evidential problem of evil by reconciling the traditional divine characteristics of omnibenevolence and omnipotence, in either their absolute or relative form, with the occurrence of evil or suffering in the world.Mackie, John "Evil and Omnipotence", Mind, New Series, Vol. 64, No. 254. (Apr., 1955), pp. 200–12, included in The Philosophy of Religion, ed. Basil Mitchell (London: Oxford University Press, 1971), p. 92 and online at http://www.ditext.com/mackie/evil.html. Accessed September 27, 2015. Mackie says that “in its simplest form the [theodic] problem is this: God is omnipotent; God is wholly good; and yet evil exists.”
Theodicy is an "intensely urgent" and "constant concern" of "the entire Bible". The Bible raises the issue of theodicy by its portrayals of God as inflicting evil and by its accounts of people who question God's goodness by their angry indictments. However, the Bible "contains no comprehensive theodicy".
The most common theodicy is free will theodicy, which lays the blame for all moral evil and some natural evil on humanity's misuse of its free will.Alcorn, Randy, If God Is Good: Faith in the Midst of Suffering and Evil (Multnomah Books, 2009), 238–50, illustrates this interaction with the Bible in a section on "The Free will Debate" that covers the freedom given Adam and Eve along with what Jesus and Paul say regarding free will.
God and evil in the Bible Barry Whitney gives the reason why a theodicy is important for those who believe in the biblical God when he observes that "it is the believer in God, more so than the skeptic, who is forced to come to terms with the problem of evil."
Biblical scholar Walter Brueggemann observes that "theodicy is a constant concern of the entire Bible" and he describes theodicy, from the biblical perspective, as a subject that "concerns the question of God's goodness and power in a world that is manifestly marked by disorder and evil." The Bible evokes a need for a theodicy by its indictments of God coupled with expressions of anger at God, both of which question God's righteousness.See , , , , , and ,
The Bible contains numerous examples of God inflicting evil, both in the form of moral evil resulting from "man's sinful inclinations" and the physical evil of suffering. These two biblical uses of the word evil parallel the Oxford English Dictionary definitions of the word as (a) "morally evil" and (b) "discomfort, pain, or trouble." The Bible sometimes portrays God as inflicting evil in the generic sense.See , , and
In other cases, the word evil refers to suffering. Suffering results from either (a) "'moral' evil, due to human volition" or (b) "'physical' evil, directly due to nature." The Bible portrays God as inflicting evil in both senses because its writers "regarded God as the ultimate Cause of evil." The Bible contains examples of suffering caused by nature that are attributed to God,See , , , and as well as examples of suffering caused by humans that are attributed to God.See , , , , and
Biblical responses to evils Tyron Inbody avers that "there is no biblical theodicy." However, Inbody observes that the Bible proffers "various solutions" to questions about God and the evil of human suffering. These "various solutions" to the why of suffering and other evils are delineated in the Bible's "responses" (James Crenshaw) or "approaches" (Daniel J. Harrington) or "answers" (Bart Ehrman) to evil that these biblical scholars have identified. These scholars see a range of responses including punishment for sin, teaching or testing, or the means to some greater good.See , , , . , , and
Gregory Boyd, while appreciating "expositions of various biblical motifs that explain why we suffer, goes on to warn that "none of these motifs claim to be a comprehensive theodicy." In agreement with Boyd, Milton Crum comments that although such biblical passages might lessen the weight of suffering, ad hoc interpretations of evils do not provide a blanket theodicy. N. T. Wright "reminds us" that "the scriptures are frustratingly indirect and incomplete in answering questions of theodicy."
Deuteronomic "theodic settlement" Brueggemann observes that, while the various biblical books do not agree on a theodicy, there was a temporary "theodic settlement" in the biblical Book of Deuteronomy.
The "theodic settlement" in the Book of Deuteronomy interprets all afflictions as just punishment for sin, that is, as retribution. Brueggemann defines "the theological notion of retribution" as "the assumption or conviction that the world is ordered by God so that everyone receives a fair outcome of reward or punishment commensurate with his or her conduct." Brueggemann points to Psalm One as a succinct summary of this retribution theodicy: "the Lord watches over the way of the righteous, but the way of the wicked shall perish" (Psalm 1:6).Brueggemann, Walter (1997). p. 385.Brueggemann, Walter (2002). p. 174. chapter Theodicy.
Deuteronomy elaborates its "theodic settlement" in Chapter 28. Verse two promises that "blessings shall come upon you and overtake you, if you obey the Lord your God." This general promise of blessings is followed by a lengthy list of fourteen specific blessings. But, on the other hand, verse fifteen warns that "if you will not obey the Lord your God ..., curses shall come upon you." This general warning of curses is followed by a list of fifty-four specific curses, all of which would fit into the biblical use of the word evil.
The Deuteronomic retribution theodic settlement interpreted whatever evils ("curses") people suffered as just retribution meted out by a just God. However, at least as early as the early 6th century BC, Jeremiah was asserting that the retribution theodicy was contrary to fact. Jeremiah upbraided God for endowing the wicked with prosperity: "Why does the way of the guilty prosper? Why do all who are treacherous thrive? You plant them, and they take root."
In John 9:1–34, Jesus dismisses this "theodic settlement" by explaining that "It was neither that [a blind] man sinned, nor his parents [that caused his infirmity]; but it was so that the works of God might be displayed in him."
The Book of Job Brueggemann treats the biblical Book of Job as the prime example of the "newly voiced theodic challenges" to the "old [Deuteronomic] theodic settlement"Brueggemann, Walter (1997). p. 386. Job "was blameless and upright, one who feared God and turned away from evil," but nonetheless he suffered "all the evil that the Lord had brought upon him." In the midst of his suffering, Job explicitly contradicted the Deuteronomic theodic settlement: "it is all one; therefore I say, [God] destroys both the blameless and the wicked."
Not only did Job challenge the Deuteronomic theodic settlement by the fact of his own innocent suffering and by explicit contradiction of the old settlement, he interrogated God, "Why do the wicked live on, reach old age, and grow mighty in power?" Brueggemann judges the fact that God had no answer to Job's why? to be so important that "the Book of Job turns on the refusal, unwillingness, or inability of [God] to answer" Job's query.Brueggemann, Walter (1997). p. 387. Even worse, God says of himself: "... you [Satan] incited me against him to ruin him without any reason."
Brueggemann explains that the "turn" he sees in the Book of Job is a turn from seeing the 'right' as accepting the old theodic settlement. Now, he continues, "perhaps what is 'right' is Job's refusal to concede, and therefore what is celebrated is his entire defiant argument ... That is, what Yahweh intends as 'right' is that Job (Israel, humankind) should make a legitimate case" before God "without timidity or cowardice" to "carry the human question of justice into the danger zone of God's holiness."Brueggemann, Walter (1997). p. 392.
Bible and free-will theodicy
A theodicy is an attempt "to reconcile the power and goodness attributed to God with the presence of evil in the human experience." The Bible attributes both "power" and "goodness" to God.See
The free-will theodicy, first developed by Augustine, defends God by placing all the blame for evil on "the misuse of free will by human beings." This free-will theodicy is "perhaps the most influential theodicy ever constructed," and it is currently "the most common theodicy"
Explaining the free-will theodicy, Nick Trakakis writes that "the free will theodicist proceeds to explain the existence of moral evil as a consequence of the misuse of our freedom." Then "the free will theodicist adds, however, that the value of free will (and the goods it makes possible) is so great as to outweigh the risk that it may be misused in various ways."
In parallel with the free-will theodicy, The New Bible Dictionary finds that the Bible attributes evil "to the abuse of free-will." Others have noted the free-will theodicy's "compatibility with and reliance upon the Genesis account of creation" and the fall of Adam and Eve into sin. Because of the compatibility between the free-will theodicy and the Genesis account of the Creation and Fall of humanity "the Fall-doctrine" has been characterized as "fundamentally an exercise in theodicy-making."
Free will and freedom: definition problems
The two terms, "freedom" and "free will," are treated together (a) because, by definition, a "free will" means a "will" that possesses "freedom" and (b) because "free will" is "commonly used" as synonymous with "freedom."Ted Honderich, "Determinism and Freedom Philosophy – Its Terminology," UCL.ac.uk, accessed November 7, 2009. Likewise, Robert Kane, writing about "what is often called the free will issue or the problem of free will," says that it "is really a cluster of problems or questions revolving around the conception of human freedom"Robert Kane, The Significance of Free Will (Oxford University Press, US, 1998), 5.
In writing about free will, R. C. Sproul points out that "at the heart of the problem is the question of the definition of free will."Free Will or Choice Manual Vargas adds that "it is not clear that there is any single thing that people have had in mind by the term ‘free will'."Manuel Vargas, "Revisionism," in Four Views on Free Will, John Martin Fischer, Robert Kane, Derk Pereboom, and Manuel Vargas, 128 (Blackwell, 2007). Because of the confusion created when "definitions of free will are assumed without being stated," Randy Alcorn urges, "be sure to define terms."Randy Alcorn, If God Is Good: Faith in the Midst of Suffering and Evil (Multnomah Books, 2009), 243.
Adler's kinds of freedom
Mortimer Adler recognized the confusion resulting from the fact that there are "several different objects men have in mind when they use the word freedom."Mortimer Jerome Adler, How to Think about the Great Ideas: from the Great Books of Western Civilization, ed. Max Weismann (Open Court, 2000), 163. In The Idea of Freedom, Adler resolved this confusion by distinguishing the "three kinds of freedom" that various writers have in mind when they use the word. He calls these three kinds of freedom (1) "circumstantial freedom," (2) "natural freedom," and (3) "acquired freedom."Mortimer J. Adler, The Idea of Freedom: A Dialectical Examination of the Idea of Freedom, Vol 1 (Doubleday, 1958). "Natural freedom" and "acquired freedom" are germane to the Bible in relation to the free-will theodicy.
"Natural freedom" and the Bible