The Problem of Evil: A Reformed Theological Response to Theodicy
Jack Kettler
Abstract
This study addresses the theological challenge of theodicy, which seeks to reconcile the existence of evil with the sovereignty, holiness, and benevolence of God. Through exegesis of biblical texts where God employs evil spirits or calamity to fulfill His purposes (Judges 9:23; 1 Samuel 16:14; 1 Kings 22:20–23; Isaiah 45:7; Amos 3:6), the study argues that God’s sovereign decrees encompass both good and evil, serving His glory without compromising His sinless perfections. Drawing on Reformed theology, particularly Gordon H. Clark’s compatibilist framework, the study critiques the Arminian free will defense and engages with contemporary theodicies, such as Plantinga’s Free Will Defense and Hick’s Soul-Making Theodicy. Linguistic analysis of key Hebrew terms and a nuanced discussion of God’s decretive and preceptive wills strengthen the argument. This work offers a robust Reformed perspective, affirming that divine sovereignty resolves the theodicy question without recourse to human autonomy.
Introduction
The problem of evil, or theodicy, remains a central issue in Christian theology: how can a holy, omnipotent, and benevolent God coexist with evil? This study examines biblical passages where God appears to orchestrate evil spirits or calamity to accomplish His purposes, asking how these texts inform our understanding of evil’s origin and God’s sovereignty. Rooted in the Reformed tradition, the analysis draws on Scripture, historical confessions, and the philosophical theology of Gordon H. Clark to argue that God’s sovereign ordination of all events, including evil, aligns with His sinless perfections. By incorporating linguistic analysis, engaging with contemporary theodicies, and clarifying the distinction between God’s decretive and preceptive wills, this study addresses previous critiques and contributes to scholarly discourse on theodicy while glorifying God through fidelity to His Word.
Definition and Scope of Theodicy
Theodicy, from the Greek theos (God) and dikē (justice), seeks to vindicate God’s goodness and justice in the presence of evil. The issue is acute in light of God’s sovereignty, as affirmed in Proverbs 16:4 (“The LORD works out everything for his own ends—even the wicked for a day of disaster”) and Isaiah 45:7 (“I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the LORD, do all these things”). Scripture does not provide a systematic defense of God’s actions but offers sufficient revelation to address the question. This study focuses on biblical texts suggesting divine involvement in evil, critiques the free will defense, engages with alternative theodicies, and proposes a Reformed solution grounded in divine sovereignty and the distinction between remote and proximate causation.
Biblical Evidence and Exegesis
Several Old Testament passages attribute evil spirits or calamity to divine action, raising questions about God’s relationship to evil. Linguistic and contextual analysis clarifies their theological implications.
· Judges 9:23
“Then God sent an evil spirit between Abimelech and the men of Shechem; and the men of Shechem dealt treacherously with Abimelech.” The Hebrew rûaḥ rā‘â (“evil spirit”) likely denotes a spiritual being, possibly Satan, acting under divine permission (cf. Job 1:12). The verb šālaḥ (“sent”) suggests active divine agency, yet John Gill notes that God commissioned this spirit to stir discord, not as the proximate cause of sin but as the ultimate cause within His sovereign plan (Gill, Exposition, 145). This illustrates God’s decretive will, ordaining events without moral culpability.
· 1 Samuel 16:14
“But the Spirit of the LORD departed from Saul, and an evil spirit from the LORD troubled him.” The phrase rûaḥ rā‘â mē’ēt YHWH (“evil spirit from the LORD”) and the verb bā‘at (“troubled”) indicate psychological distress, not moral corruption. Jamieson-Fausset-Brown attributes Saul’s melancholy to divine withdrawal, with the evil spirit as a secondary agent (Commentary, 217). This parallels Job, where God permits Satan’s actions within His sovereign constraints.
· 1 Kings 22:20–23
This passage depicts a heavenly council where a spirit volunteers to be a “lying spirit” (rûaḥ šeqer) in Ahab’s prophets, with God’s approval. The context highlights Ahab’s prior rebellion (1 Kings 21:25), and Gill interprets this as a judicial act, permitting deception to fulfill God’s decree (Gill, Exposition, 291). The text underscores God’s sovereignty over deceptive agents, akin to Job 1:6–12.
· Isaiah 45:7
“I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the LORD, do all these things.” The Hebrew rā‘ (“disaster” or “evil”) denotes calamity, not moral evil, as evidenced by its parallel with šālôm (“prosperity”) and its use in contexts of divine judgment (e.g., Amos 3:6). The verb bārā’ (“create”) echoes Genesis 1:1, affirming God’s sovereignty over all creation. Jamieson-Fausset-Brown clarifies that rā‘ refers to calamity, countering dualistic interpretations (Commentary, 567–568).
· Amos 3:6
“Shall there be evil in a city, and the LORD hath not done it?” Here, rā‘â refers to calamity (e.g., famine, war), as Matthew Poole notes (Poole, Commentary, 905). Albert Barnes distinguishes this from moral evil, emphasizing God’s role in punishment (Barnes, Notes, 520). The rhetorical question affirms divine causation without implying moral authorship.
These texts collectively demonstrate that God, as the ultimate cause, ordains events involving evil spirits or calamity, yet remains distinct from proximate causes (human or demonic agents). The Reformed distinction between God’s decretive will (ordaining all events) and preceptive will (commanding righteousness) is critical, as articulated in the Westminster Confession (3.1): God ordains whatsoever comes to pass, yet “neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures.”
Theological Synthesis: A Reformed Solution
Drawing on Gordon H. Clark’s compatibilist framework, this study argues that divine sovereignty resolves the theodicy question without invoking libertarian free will. Clark’s solution comprises four elements:
· Free Agency vs. Free Will
Clark rejects libertarian free will, which posits choices free from any determining factor, and affirms free agency, where human volitions are free from natural compulsion but subject to God’s decree (Clark, Religion, Reason and Revelation, 227). Acts 4:27–28 exemplifies this, where Herod and Pilate act voluntarily yet fulfill God’s plan.
· God as Ultimate Cause
Clark asserts, “God is the sole ultimate cause of everything,” including sin, yet not its author (Clark, Religion, 237–238). Proximate causes (e.g., human agents) bear moral responsibility, as in Job 1:17, where the Chaldeans are culpable, yet Job attributes ultimate causation to God (Job 1:21).
· Responsibility from Divine Sanction
Human responsibility stems from God’s authority to judge, not the ability to do otherwise (Clark, Religion, 231). Romans 9:22–23 illustrates this, displaying God’s justice and mercy through vessels of wrath and mercy.
· Divine Justice by Definition
Clark argues that “whatever God does is just” because righteousness is intrinsic to God’s nature (Clark, Religion, 241). Romans 9:20 rebukes human judgment of God, affirming His aseity.
Charles Hodge complements this, arguing that evil manifests God’s justice and grace, serving His glory (Hodge, Systematic Theology, 1:435). John Calvin clarifies that God’s will is the “necessity of things,” yet human agents act voluntarily (Calvin, Institutes, III.xxiii.8). The crucifixion (Acts 2:23) exemplifies this, where divine ordination and human sin converge for redemption. Louis Berkhof’s distinction between God’s decretive and preceptive wills further clarifies that God ordains evil events without endorsing sin, preserving His holiness (Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 105–106).
Engagement with Contemporary Theodicies
To strengthen the argument, this study engages with two prominent contemporary theodicies: Alvin Plantinga’s Free Will Defense and John Hick’s Soul-Making Theodicy.
· Plantinga’s Free Will Defense
Plantinga argues that God creates beings with significant moral freedom, making evil a possible consequence of their choices (Plantinga, God, Freedom, and Evil, 30). While philosophically rigorous, this defense assumes libertarian free will, which Clark critiques as incompatible with divine omniscience. If God foreknows all events, human choices are inevitable, undermining libertarian freedom (Clark, Religion, 217–219). Moreover, Scripture prioritizes divine sovereignty over human autonomy (e.g., Ephesians 1:11), rendering Plantinga’s defense theologically inadequate within a Reformed framework.
· Hick’s Soul-Making Theodicy
Hick posits that evil is necessary for spiritual growth, enabling humans to develop virtues in a challenging world (Hick, Evil and the God of Love, 253). While pastorally appealing, this view subordinates divine glory to human development, contrary to Romans 11:36, which centers all things on God’s purposes. Additionally, Hick’s reliance on free will faces the same critiques as Plantinga’s, and his universalist leanings conflict with Reformed soteriology.
In contrast, the Reformed approach prioritizes divine sovereignty and scriptural authority, avoiding the anthropocentrism of these theodicies. The distinction between remote and proximate causation (e.g., Job 1:21; Acts 2:23) provides a biblically grounded alternative, affirming God’s justice without invoking human autonomy.
Critique of the Free Will Defense
The Arminian free will defense posits that evil results from human choices independent of divine causation, absolving God of responsibility. However, as Clark argues, divine foreknowledge renders human choices inevitable, negating libertarian freedom (Clark, Religion, 217–219). If God created the world knowing evil would result, He remains the remote cause, as Antony Flew observes (God and Philosophy, 78). The concept of divine permission is also incoherent, as nothing is independent of an omnipotent God (Acts 17:28). Clark’s lifeguard analogy illustrates this: a lifeguard who permits a drowning is culpable if he has the power to intervene; similarly, God’s permission of evil implies control, not neutrality (Clark, God and Evil, 17–18). Open theism, which denies divine omniscience, contradicts Scripture (Psalm 139:16) and fails to resolve the issue. Thus, the free will defense is theologically and philosophically inadequate.
Apologetic Considerations
For non-believers, the problem of evil often serves as a critique of theism. However, atheistic worldviews lack a coherent basis for defining good and evil, reducing morality to subjective conventions (Van Til, The Defense of the Faith, 65). The Reformed approach invites non-believers to consider the biblical worldview, where evil serves God’s redemptive purposes (Genesis 50:20). While maintaining theological rigor, this study adopts an irenic tone, acknowledging the emotional weight of suffering while pointing to God’s sovereignty as a source of hope (Romans 8:28).
Conclusion
This study affirms that God’s sovereign decrees, encompassing both good and evil, resolve the theodicy question within a Reformed framework. Biblical texts (Judges 9:23; 1 Samuel 16:14; 1 Kings 22:20–23; Isaiah 45:7; Amos 3:6) demonstrate God’s ultimate causation, with linguistic analysis clarifying that rā‘ often denotes calamity, not moral evil. Gordon H. Clark’s compatibilist framework, supported by Calvin, Hodge, and Berkhof, upholds divine justice and human responsibility without invoking libertarian free will. Engagement with Plantinga and Hick highlights the superiority of the Reformed approach, while the distinction between God’s decretive and preceptive wills clarifies His sinless ordination of evil. For believers, this perspective calls for submission to divine revelation; for non-believers, it offers a coherent worldview. As the Westminster Confession (3.1) declares, God ordains all things, yet remains untainted by sin, establishing the liberty of secondary causes for His glory.
Recommendations for Further Research
· The pastoral implications of divine sovereignty in counseling those suffering from evil.
· A comparative analysis of Reformed and Thomistic approaches to theodicy.
· The role of eschatology in resolving the theodicy question, particularly the ultimate defeat of evil (Revelation 21:4).
References
· Berkhof, Louis. Systematic Theology. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1996.
· Calvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion. Edited by John T. McNeill, translated by Ford Lewis Battles. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1960.
· Clark, Gordon H. God and Evil: The Problem Solved. Hobbs, NM: Trinity Foundation, 1996.
· Clark, Gordon H. Religion, Reason and Revelation. Jefferson, MD: Trinity Foundation, 1995.
· Flew, Antony. God and Philosophy. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 2005.
· Gill, John. Exposition of the Old and New Testaments. Grace Works, 2011.
· Hick, John. Evil and the God of Love. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2007.
· Hodge, Charles. Systematic Theology. Vol. 1. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1997.
· Jamieson, Robert, A. R. Fausset, and David Brown. Commentary on the Whole Bible. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1977.
· Plantinga, Alvin. God, Freedom, and Evil. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1974.
· Poole, Matthew. Commentary on the Holy Bible. Vol. 2. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1985.
· Van Til, Cornelius. The Defense of the Faith. Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 2008.
· Westminster Assembly. Westminster Confession of Faith. 1646.
· Biblical citations from the English Standard Version (ESV).
“For transparency, I note that I used Grok, an AI tool developed by xAI, and Grammarly AI for editorial assistance in drafting, organizing, and refining the manuscript’s clarity and grammar, as indicated in the article’s attribution. All theological arguments, exegesis, and interpretations are my own, and I take full responsibility for the content.”
“For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty in God for pulling down strongholds, casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God, bringing every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ.” (2 Corinthians 10:4-5)
Mr. Kettler, an author who has published works in Chalcedon Report and Contra Mundum, is an active RPCNA member in Westminster, CO, with 18 books defending the Reformed Faith available on Amazon.