Evil, The Problem of

Evil, The Problem of. The problem of reconciling God’s existence and/or goodness with evil. In the form of a question: If God is all-powerful (omnipotent), all-knowing (omniscient), and perfectly good (omnibenevolent), why does evil occur, and so much of it?

The problem of evil is among the most difficult challenges that face Christian belief. This issue has been the subject of much discussion by philosophers and theologians throughout Christian history. Attempts to resolve the problem of evil take the form of either theodicies or defenses. Gottfried Leibniz (1646–1716) coined the term theodicy, which derives from the Greek words for God (theos) and righteousness or justice (dikē) and in contemporary Christian thought may refer more broadly to any attempt to respond to the problem of evil or more narrowly to a more ambitious attempt to make a case for why God does not prevent evil. This narrow concept of theodicy as an explanation is sometimes set in contrast to a defense, defined as a more modest attempt to offer some possible way or ways in which occurrences of evil in the world might be consistent with God’s attributes, such as perfect goodness, knowledge, and power.

Three Kinds of the Problem of Evil. The most common form of the problem of evil is known as the logical problem of evil. In brief, as set forth in a robust, deductive form by philosophers such as J. L. Mackie (1917–1981), the logical problem claims that the following premises are not logically compatible: (1) God is all-powerful (omnipotent), (2) God is all-knowing (omniscient), (3) God is perfectly good (omnibenevolent), and (4) evil occurs.

Many philosophers (including many atheists), however, now conclude that the free will defense (discussed further below), particularly as set forth in robust form by Alvin Plantinga (1932–), resolves the logical problem of evil (though some have offered modified forms of the logical problem of evil). Instead of claiming the occurrence of evil renders God’s existence logically impossible, many now focus on the evidential or probabilistic problem of evil (especially the form set forth by William Rowe, 1931–2015), which claims God’s existence is improbable or implausible given the kind and amount of evil in this world. 

A third kind of the problem of evil, distinct from these two philosophical forms, is known as the religious or existential problem of evil (aka the pastoral problem), which focuses on how one might cope with evil and suffering, particularly alongside faith in God.

Definitions of Evil. Of course, these problems of evil hinge on what is meant by evil in the first place. In scholarly discussions, a distinction is often made between moral evil and natural evil. Moral evil is typically defined as evil caused by the free actions of persons. Natural evil, by contrast, typically refers to evils that are not direct results of the free actions of persons. In addition, systemic evil refers to evil at corporate levels and structures, specifically structural or institutional aspects of evil that are beyond the wrongdoing of individuals.

What counts as evil itself, however, is variously defined, with many discussions of evil revolving around suffering. The biblical definition of evil, however, may be distilled to something like that which is opposed to God’s ideal desires (cf. Ps 5:4), which are always consistent with God’s perfect character of goodness, justice, and love (and thus, the biblical concept of evil might be more simply distilled as that which is contrary to God’s love).

The Hebrew term ra‘/ra‘ah (often translated as “evil,” but sometimes referring more generally to a calamity or disaster) refers to that which is undesirable from some vantage point, whether or not it is unjust or morally wrong, and thus can refer to moral evils or to calamities rather than moral evil.

When God is the subject of this term, it never refers to wrongdoing (moral evil), for God never does evil—all His ways are perfectly good and just (Deut 32:4; Ps 145:17; cf. 1 John 1:5). “The Lord is righteous” and “He will do no unrighteousness” (Zeph 3:5; cf. Ps 92:15) and He is too righteous to even look on evil (Hab 1:13). When God is the subject of this term, then, it refers to consequences (e.g., calamities) God righteously brings or allows in judgment against moral evil (see Ps 44:2; Isa 45:7; Jer 25:29; 31:28; Mic 4:6; Zech 8:14). God’s vantage point alone is infallible and comprehensive. Hence, that which is undesirable in God’s view is that which is evil. Put differently, whatever God views as morally undesirable is that which is morally wrong or evil.

The Biblical Problem of Evil. The problem of evil is repeatedly expressed in Scripture itself in various forms. While suffering undeservedly, Job questioned God’s justice (Job 9:24) and thought God was “cruel” to him (Job 30:21). Others in the Bible also question God’s justice in the midst of suffering and evil, asking questions such as: “Where is the God of justice?” (Mal 2:17). “How long will the wicked triumph?” (Ps 94:3). “Why do You stand afar off, O Lord? Why do You hide in times of trouble?” (Ps 10:1). “Why does the way of the wicked prosper? Why are those happy who deal so treacherously?” (Jer 12:1). “Why have these things come upon me?” (Jer. 13:22). Even Jesus Himself, the ultimate example of one undergoing undeserved suffering, proclaimed: “My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?” (Mark 15:34; cf. Ps 22).

Attempts to resolve the problem of evil take various forms. Some of the most prominent approaches are briefly introduced below.

Denying or Modifying the Premises. One way to resolve the logical problem of evil is to simply deny or modify one of the premises—to deny or modify either God’s perfect goodness, omnipotence, or omniscience. Specifically, some take an anti-theodicy approach (aka, a theodicy of protest) that questions or denies God’s goodness.

Others deny the traditional understanding of God’s omnipotence, with some claiming God acts only by persuasion, such that God does not possess the kind of power that would be required to prevent evil and is thus not culpable for evil. Further, some offer an alternative view of divine omniscience in which God did not know in advance that evils would definitely occur. Such approaches, however, are often rejected by Christian theologians as inconsistent with biblical teachings that affirm that God is perfectly good (e.g., Deut 32:4; 1 John 1:5), omnipotent (e.g., Jer 32:17–20; Rev 1:8), and omniscient (e.g., Ps 139; 1 John 3:20; cf. Isa 46:10).

Felix Culpa Approaches. Alternatively, felix culpa (Lat., meaning “happy” or “fortunate fault,” often traced to Ambrose of Milan, AD 337–397) approaches claim it is actually better that evil occurs, arguing that God either determines or permits all evils in order to bring greater good out of evil that would be impossible without all those evils. One deterministic form of this approach, known as the divine glory defense, claims that God determines that all evils occur to bring about the greater good of manifesting His glory and His wrath against evil. This, however, requires that God determines that evil occurs and that somehow evil brings God glory, both of which run counter to biblical teachings. With respect to determinism, Scripture indicates that many events occur that God does not want to occur and creatures often will otherwise than God prefers (see, e.g., Ps 81:11–14; Isa 66:4; Matt 23:37; Luke 7:30).

Another form, the soul-making theodicy, rejects the biblical doctrine of the Fall, positing that the evils in this world are necessary for humans to grow into mature souls that are capable of love. These and other felix culpa approaches, however, posit that evil is necessary for good such that evil is a kind of instrumental good, which (among other problems) seems profoundly inconsistent with Paul’s rebuke of those who say “Let us do evil that good may come” (Rom 3:8).

Skeptical Theism. Another approach focuses on how God’s ways are much higher than our ways (see Isa 55:8–9) such that we should not expect to be in a position to know or understand why God acts or refrains from acting as He does with respect to evil.

This approach, known as skeptical theism, maintains that God has good reasons with respect to evil, but we are not in a position to know just what those reasons are. This approach is skeptical not about God or God’s goodness, but skeptical that humans are or can be in a position to know or understand what God’s reasons are with respect to the evil in this world. From the fact that we might not see or recognize what God’s reasons might be with respect to evil, it does not follow that God has no good reasons. Critics of skeptical theism, however, argue that the appeal to mystery about God’s ways does not provide much help with respect to the problem of evil.

Notably, some elements akin to skeptical theism seem to find biblical support in the story of Job and elsewhere. Job suffered undeservedly and had no way of knowing or understanding why such horrible things befell him. His friends wrongly claimed such things were divine punishments, but the events in Job were part of larger, unseen proceedings in the cosmic conflict (discussed further below) of which Job was unaware (see, e.g., Job 1:6–12; 2:1–7). Eventually, God Himself entered into dialogue with Job and made it clear that there are many things that Job was not in a position to know (see, e.g., Job 38:1–4). Accordingly, Job responded, “Therefore I have uttered what I did not understand, Things too wonderful for me, which I did not know” (Job 42:3).

Put simply, relative to the case of Job and elsewhere, Scripture repeatedly indicates that there are many things we do not know and/or are not in a position to understand now with respect to God’s ways. In this regard, Paul writes that now we only “know in part” (1 Cor 13:12). We are not now in a position to see or understand all the factors involved. Since God alone knows all the factors involved and has the capacity and wisdom to know and do what is preferable in light of all factors—seen and unseen—it follows that humans should be humble and recognize how little they know.

The Free Will Defense. Beyond skeptical theism, many Christian thinkers over the ages (e.g., Augustine, AD 354–430) have made a case for what is known as the free will defense. In the second half of the 20^th century, Christian philosophers (particularly Alvin Plantinga) set forth an especially robust form of the free will defense.

In brief, the free will defense proposes that evil is not God’s fault, but is the result of creaturely misuse of free will. As typically understood, according to the free will defense, God consistently grants to intelligent creatures free will of the kind that is incompatible with determinism and, thus, whether intelligent creatures misuse that free will to do evil is not controlled by God. In other words, God consistently grants creatures free will such that He does not determine what creatures do. And God granted this kind of free will for sufficiently good reasons or values. Here, some advocates of the free will defense posit the sufficiently good reason for God granting creatures free will is for the sake of love, for love must be freely given and freely received. Sadly, creatures have misused their free will (e.g., Gen 3) to do otherwise than God prefers, and that is why there is evil in this world.

At least a minimal form of the free will defense appears to be firmly rooted in biblical teachings. The Bible repeatedly includes instances where God’s ideal will—that which God actually prefers to take place—does not occur (e.g., Ps 81:11–14; Isa 30:15–18). For example, God Himself laments that people “chose that in which I do not delight” (Isa 66:4). And Scripture directly teaches that humans often do otherwise than God wills, with Luke 7:30 (for example) directly stating that some people “rejected the will [Grk. boulē] of God for themselves.” Likewise, Jesus Himself laments over Jerusalem: “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted [Grk. thelō] to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, but you were not willing [Grk. thelō]!” (Luke 13:34). From these and many other texts that indicate many things occur against God’s ideal will, it follows that God grants intelligent creatures such as humans free will of a kind that He does not determine.

Importantly, in contrast to felix culpa approaches wherein evils amount to instrumental goods, the free will defense posits that evil is not necessary for the greater good. Free will entails only the possibility of evil, but evil need not have ever been actualized, and (according to most accounts) it would have been better if evil never occurred.

Critics of the free will defense argue that free will is not worth the cost, particularly in light of the amount of evil in this world. Further, some claim the free will defense does not adequately address natural evils (such as natural disasters), which do not seem to be directly attributable to the free actions of creatures. And some argue that it seems God could prevent many of the evils in this world without undermining creaturely free will.

 The Cosmic Conflict Approach. Beyond the free will of humans, Scripture is filled with instances of the cosmic conflict motif. In brief, cosmic conflict approaches to the problem of evil build on the biblical teaching that this world is embroiled in an ongoing cosmic conflict between God’s kingdom of light and a creaturely demonic realm of darkness consisting of the devil and his minions (see, e.g., Rev 12:7–10; cf. Matt 12:24; 25:41), who are fallen angels who were originally created good but rebelled against God’s government (see 2 Pet 2:4; Col 1:16–17; cf. Ezek 28:12–19; Isa 14:12–14). Of this cosmic conflict, Paul writes: “Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places” (Eph 6:11–12; see also Col 2:15; Rom 8:38; 13:12; 2 Cor 10:3–5).

The core of the cosmic conflict approach to the problem of evil can be summarized in the simple, but profound words in Jesus’ parable of the wheat and the tares: “An enemy has done this” (Matt 13:28). Specifically, in this parable, a landowner (who represents Christ, Matt 13:37) “sowed good seed in his field; but while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares [noxious weeds] among the wheat” (Matt 13:24–25). When the tares became evident, the owner’s servants asked him: “Sir, did you not sow good seed in your field? How then does it have tares?” (Matt 13:27). This mirrors the question many ask today: If God created the world good, why is there evil in it. The owner’s response is simple, but profound: “An enemy has done this” (Matt 13:28), whom Jesus later identifies as the devil (Matt 13:39).

To this reply, the servants ask, “Do you want us then to go and gather them up?” This is also akin to questions asked today, such as, If evil is caused by the rebellion of the devil, why doesn’t God simply destroy the devil and uproot his kingdom now? Again, the owner’s response is simple, yet profound: “No, lest while you gather up the tares you also uproot the wheat with them” (Matt 13:29). Somehow, to prematurely uproot evil would result in an unacceptably massive amount of collateral damage, uprooting the good with it. Evil must be allowed for a time in order to be finally uprooted in a way that will inoculate the universe from evil forevermore.

 The Nature of the Cosmic Conflict. Importantly, this conflict is not one of sheer power. There could be no conflict of sheer power between the omnipotent God and any mere creature or creatures (such as the devil and his angels). This conflict is a conflict of another kind. It is primarily a conflict over God’s character caused by the devil’s slanderous allegations against God’s goodness, justice, love and government, lodged in the heavenly court (see, e.g., Job 1–2; Zech 3:1–3; Matt 13:27–29; John 8:44; Rom 3:3–8, 25–26; Jude 9; Rev 12:9–11; 13:4–6; cf. Gen 3:1–6). Accordingly, the Bible identifies the “serpent” in the garden as the devil who “deceives the whole world” and “the accuser of our brethren, who accused them before our God day and night” (Rev 12:9–10; cf. 20:2–3).

In this conflict, the devil continually wages a war of disinformation, revolving around slanderous allegations against God’s character, claiming God does not truly desire and act in the best interests of his creatures (see, e.g., Gen 3:4–5). Thus, Jesus Himself identifies the devil as “a liar and the father of lies” (John 8:44; cf. 2 Cor 11:3), and the Greek word translated devil (diabolos) itself can be translated as “slanderer.”

This kind of conflict over allegations against God’s character cannot be settled by sheer power, but only by a demonstration that definitively proves that God is perfectly good and just and loving, utterly defeating the devil’s allegations in a way fully consistent with justice and love, forever restoring trust and harmony to the universe. Even as a governor could not prove accusations against his character to be false by exercising his power—indeed, the exercise of power would only strengthen such allegations—a conflict over character cannot be settled by sheer power, but only by an utterly decisive demonstration of God’s character of perfect love and justice.

Thus, Scripture teaches that, in contrast to the devil who operates as the arch-deceiver of the whole world (Rev 12:9), Christ came into the world to “witness to the truth” (John 18:37). And, in contrast to the devil’s slanderous allegations against God and His people in the heavenly court (Rev 12:10; cf. Job 1–2; Zech 3:1–2; Jude 9), via the cross and beyond Christ demonstrates God’s perfect righteousness (Rom 3:25–26) and love (Rom 5:8) once and for all, thus utterly defeating the devil’s allegations in the heavenly court (Rev 12:10–11).

The Temporary Ruler of this World. In this conflict, Scripture identifies the devil as the temporary ruler of this world. Indeed, Jesus Himself repeatedly refers to the devil as “the ruler of this world” (John 12:31; 14:30; 16:11; cf. 2 Cor 4:4). This and other biblical data indicates that the devil possesses some genuine authority and power in this world—some temporary and limited rulership, though it is quickly approaching its end (see Rev 12:12).

It is only possible for the devil to be the ruler of this world in this way if some temporary jurisdiction has been granted to him, according to which God Himself also has committed to temporarily abide in the context of the heavenly courtroom (see, in this regard, the pervasive biblical motif of the heavenly council). Through Adam and Eve’s sin in Eden, Satan became the ruler of this world (temporarily, ultimately taken back on behalf of humanity by the second Adam, Jesus). But for the devil to have some real rulership, he must have some genuine jurisdiction to operate and make his case in the heavenly court within some parameters or “rules of engagement” in the cosmic conflict (see, e.g., Job 1:9; Dan 10:12–13; Matt 8:29; Mark 6:5; 9:29; Luke 4:6; 22:31; John 12:31; 14:30; 16:11).

Thus, we find instances of parameters (or rules of engagement) in which the devil and his forces have significant authority within some parameters, such as when an angel sent by God is withstood or opposed by the “prince of Persia” for three weeks (Dan 10:12–13) and when Paul says he “wanted to” go to the Thessalonians “again and again—but Satan blocked our way” (1 Thess 2:18, NRSV; cf. Rev 2:10), among many other examples throughout Scripture. Indeed, Revelation depicts Satan as a usurping dragon ruler of this world who stands behind and gives power to the earthly rulers and empires who oppose God and oppress God’s people throughout the ages (Rev 12:7–10; 13). And 1 John 5:19 teaches that “the whole world lies under the sway of the wicked one.”

This understanding provides a framework that might help make sense of why God might not intervene to prevent evils. If in this cosmic conflict God temporarily operates within some parameters or rules of engagement set in the heavenly court that specify the limits within which the devil is permitted to act, being the temporary ruler of this world as a result of Adam’s sin, then for God not prevent some horrendous evil could mean that God would have either:

(1) undermined free will of the kind necessary for the flourishing of love,

(2) required that God break His commitment with respect to the rules of engagement in the cosmic conflict, which would be impossible since God’s promises are unbreakable (Heb 6:16–18; cf. Titus 1:2) and God “cannot deny Himself” (2 Tim 2:13), or

(3) ultimately resulted in greater evil or less flourishing of love and goodness with respect to the entire history of the world.

Critiques of Cosmic Conflict. Critics of cosmic conflict approaches to the problem of evil raise questions about whether the cosmic conflict itself is plausible in an “enlightened” and scientific age. And some maintain that cosmic conflict approaches do not adequately address natural evil.

Regarding the latter critique with respect to natural evil, cosmic conflict advocates do not claim that instances of natural evil are typically caused by demonic agents directly, but posit that the laws and process of nature itself have been affected by the fall (see, e.g., Gen 3:17–19) such that even so-called natural evils are ultimately traceable to the entrance of evil into the universe—first via the fall of the devil and his angels and later in our world via the fall of Adam and Eve. In other words, evil in nature might be understood as a byproduct of the entrance of moral evil (see, e.g., Rom 8:20–22).

Regarding the plausibility of the cosmic conflict paradigm, it is notable that the vast majority of Christians throughout the ages have believed in some kind of conflict between God and demonic agencies. And the cosmic conflict is not a peripheral concept, but is central to the entire storyline of Scripture, including the very story of the gospel itself, with cosmic conflict scenes permeating the story of Jesus’ life (see, e.g., Matt 4:1–11; 8:28–34; 12:24–29; Mark 1:21–28; Luke 10:18; John 8:44; 12:31) and directly connected to His mission. It is no coincidence that the Bible teaches, “For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that He might destroy the works of the devil” (1 John 3:8) and that the Son of God became human so “that through death He might destroy him who had the power of death, that is, the devil” (Heb 2:14).

Some, however, question how the cosmic conflict accords with the sovereignty of God. Importantly, a cosmic conflict understanding does not lend credence to cosmic dualism (the view that good and evil are locked in an eternal conflict). Rather, the cosmic conflict rules out cosmic dualism, holding that the devil and his angels are finite creatures, with only the limited jurisdiction granted them temporarily via the heavenly court. While God operates within the parameters of the cosmic conflict temporarily—and while doing so God is no less the omnipotent sovereign—in the end He will exercise His power to fully eradicate suffering and evil forevermore.

The Suffering God of the Cross. Central to the cosmic conflict understanding is the work of Christ, who through His perfect life, death, resurrection, and ministry in the heavenly sanctuary provides the conclusive demonstration of God’s perfect righteousness and love.

Prior to the eradication of the devil’s kingdom of darkness, the devil must first be legally defeated via demonstration and judgment in the heavenly court. The final execution of judgment that ends the devil’s kingdom of darkness and forever eradicates all evil is thus delayed until the appointed time (Matt 8:29; cf. Ps 75:2; 1 Cor 4:5; Heb 10:12–13; Jude 9), after the pre-advent judgment is completed in the heavenly court (Dan 7:13–14). Christ’s victory over evil, then, takes place in stages. First, via the cross, Christ legally defeats Satan’s slanderous allegations in the heavenly court (see Rev 12:10–11; cf. John 12:31; Col 2:15). Second, Christ ministers as our high priest in the heavenly sanctuary, after which He will return to set all captives free forevermore.

Via the cross and His heavenly ministry, then, Christ utterly defeats the devil’s slanderous allegations against God’s character in the heavenly court (see Rev 12:10–11), unequivocally demonstrating God’s righteousness and God’s love. Thus, Paul writes in Romans 3:25–26, “God set forth [Christ] as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed, to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.” And “God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us” (Rom 5:8).

Christ’s work demonstrates that God has done all that could be done to eliminate evil without undermining the flourishing of love. Christ not only suffered for us and demonstrated God’s love via the cross, but whenever humans suffer, God suffers with us because of His great compassionate love for us—taking all the world’s suffering on His shoulders. God, then, suffers most of all, suffering with us in all our sufferings. Had there been any preferable way, would He not have chosen it? What more could He do? (see Isa 5:1–7).

In this regard, Scripture attests that God always does everything He can (given the alternatives) to bring about the best good for all concerned and He will finally eradicate evil forevermore (Rev 21:4). In the meantime, we can look to the cross and have confidence that this God who willingly suffers with us can be trusted. Paul assures us “the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed” (Rom 8:18; cf. 2 Cor 4:17).

Accordingly, in the end, the song will go forth, “Great and marvelous are Your works, Lord God Almighty! Just and true are Your ways, O King of the saints!” (Rev 15:3).

Concluding Thoughts. The problem of evil is among the most difficult challenges that face Christian belief (though other belief systems also face this problem). However, Scripture provides a robust framework that helps us to make sense of how God’s perfect power, wisdom, and goodness can be reconciled with the evil in this world.

Though questions about the problem of evil remain, some biblically warranted points that provide the framework of a response to the problem of evil include the following:

(1) There are many things we do not know.

(2) Many things occur that are contrary to what God ideally wills (or prefers).

(3) God grants and respects free will, even when creatures do evil, because it is a necessary prerequisite of love.

(4) There is more to the story—a cosmic conflict. “An enemy has done this” (Matt 13:28). This conflict is primarily a dispute over God’s character, caused by the devil’s slanderous allegations against God’s goodness, justice, and love, which can only be met by an overwhelming demonstration of God’s love and justice.

(5) In this cosmic conflict, there are rules of engagement, parameters agreed upon in the heavenly court within which the allegations raised against God can be settled, without damaging love.

(6) God always does everything He can (given the alternatives) to bring about the best good for all creatures, and He will finally eradicate evil forevermore.

(7) In the meantime, we can look to the cross and have confidence that this God who willingly suffers with us can be trusted and He will ultimately end suffering and evil forevermore.

In the end, “God will wipe away every tear from their eyes; there shall be no more death, nor sorrow, nor crying. There shall be no more pain, for the former things have passed away” (Rev 21:4).

References

Acolatse, Esther. Powers, Principalities, and the Spirit: Biblical Realism in Africa and the West. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2018.

Boyd, Gregory A. Satan and the Problem of Evil: Constructing a Trinitarian Warfare Theodicy. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2001.

Davidson, Richard M. “Cosmic Metanarrative for the Coming Millennium,” Journal of the Adventist Theological Society 11, no. 1–2 (2000): 101–119.

Duah, Martha O. “A Study of Warfare Theodicy in the Writings of Ellen G. White and Gregory A. Boyd.” PhD dissertation, Andrews University, 2012.

Holbrook, Frank B. “The Great Controversy.” In Handbook of Seventh-day Adventist Theology. Edited by Raoul Dederen. Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald, 2000.

Peckham, John C. Theodicy of Love: Cosmic Conflict and the Problem of Evil. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2018.

Peterson, Michael L., ed. The Problem of Evil: Selected Readings. 2^nd ed. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 2016.

Pfandl, Gerhard, ed. The Great Controversy and the End of Evil. Silver Spring, MD: Review and Herald/Biblical Research Institute, 2015.

Plantinga, Alvin. God, Freedom, and Evil. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977.