The Problem of Evil: Christocentric Harmonized Theodicy

Introduction

Why does an all-powerful and all-loving God allow evil and suffering? Before offering a response, one must understand the depths of the question being asked. It is being asked of a finite and imperfect mortal human being who is limited in knowledge why the infinite (eternal), perfect, omniscient immortal Being (God) allows evil and suffering. It should not be expected, then, of the Christian to confidently provide a sufficient answer to the question for all instances of evil and suffering without speculation. However, just because every specific instance may not be able to be explained, one can still show that there is no inconsistency between God and evil coexisting. Not only that, but Christians can also offer reasons for why God permits evil in the world—also called a theodicy.[1]

 This so-called “problem of evil” is not one for just the Christian to address. Instead, evil and suffering are universal—independent of race, religious belief, and geographic location, which means they are critical components of reality. For a religion to be true, it must correspond with reality. Therefore, every world religion must sufficiently account for evil to be considered true. Christianity, however, best addresses the problem of evil through various theodicies. Despite the numerous theistic explanations (theodicies) suggested to address the problem of evil, the most comprehensive solution is achieved by integrating these explanations into one theodicy centered on the cross, also called the Christocentric harmonized theodicy.

Overview of the Problem of Evil

The Nature of Evil

Before explaining the specifics of the problem of evil and examining various individual responses typically offered, it is essential to define the term “evil.” Having described the nature of evil, the problem of evil and suffering can be more thoroughly assessed. It is helpful to distinguish between two types of evil—moral and natural.[2] Moral evil is the resulting evil from human freedom and the direct consequence of sin.[3] Natural evil, on the other hand, consists of human suffering due to natural disasters (earthquakes, tornadoes, etc.).[4] The question becomes, however, how did both moral and natural evil arise? To answer this question, the nature of evil must be investigated.

To understand the nature of evil, consider the following illustration: darkness is not a thing in itself; instead, it exists only in the absence of light. Similarly, evil is not something; instead, it is some contingent thing. In other words, evil is merely the absence of good.[5] Therefore, evil was not created by God but instead a by-product of human rebellion, disobedience, and the perversion of good. At the end of the biblical creation account, God overlooks his entire creation and declares it as “very good,” which is hennah tov in Hebrew (Gen. 1:31). However, hennah tov does not mean perfect. Instead, it “affirms the intrinsic goodness of the creation and its Creator.”[6] Creation can be seen as the manifestation of God and, thus, should, in essence, consist of beings who are good, free, and rational.[7] This led to humans carrying a unique characteristic to the species among all creation, that is, free will—which enabled genuine love and connection with God and each other. This would not be possible if humans were made as merely robots.

While this concept will be expanded further below in this paper, it is relevant to how evil came into the world. Adam and Eve, created with free will, were allowed to eat from any tree of the various trees planted in the Garden of Eden except one unless they would face death (Gen. 2:16-17). Eventually, they perverted their free will by disobeying God and eating from the one tree they were told not to eat from. This led to death coming upon humanity (Gen. 2:17; 3:2-3; 19) and various curses God declared as a result (Gen. 3:16-18)—evil entered the world and corrupted humanity as well as creation itself (Rom. 8:19-23). This insight is critical before considering the problem and reviewing reasons for why God allows evil (theodicies).

The Intellectual and Emotional Problems of Evil

 The problem of evil and suffering may take many forms, but it typically involves asking why an all-loving and all-powerful God allows evil and suffering. Many times, at least when an atheist asks the question, it contains undertones of skepticism and attempts to show the inconsistency of an apparent all-loving and all-powerful God coexisting with evil and suffering. Before responding to such a question or objection, time must be spent clarifying the problem being raised.

William Lane Craig, a well-known Christian philosopher, has divided the problem of evil into two subcategories: the intellectual and emotional problems of evil and further splits the intellectual problem of evil into two additional subcategories—the logical and evidential problems of evil.[8] It is essential to distinguish the problem of evil in this way because responding to somebody struggling intellectually with an emotional response may come off as sappy and unconvincing, whereas approaching somebody with an emotional dislike of the problem of evil intellectually may give a dry and insincere impression. The logical problem of evil (intellectual) is centered on the idea that the coexistence of God and evil is logically impossible.[9] The evidential problem of evil grants that it may be logically possible that God and evil coexist but proposes that it is improbable to be the case.[10] Lastly, the emotional problem of evil, despite the answers provided for the intellectual problems above, maintains doubt concerning the coexistence of God and evil due to a strong dislike of it being so.

In this paper, the evidential problem of evil will be the main focus, as the Christocentric harmonized theodicy that will be proposed will adequately show it is probable that an all-loving and all-powerful God exists despite suffering throughout the world. However, this theodicy will also address the emotional problem of evil. Still, it is beneficial to briefly address how one can defend against the logical problem of evil before proceeding further. Those who raise the logical problem of evil state that the statements (1) an all-loving, all-powerful God exists and (2) evil and suffering exist are logically contradictory. Yet, no explicit contradiction exists between (1) and (2). Therefore, if the skeptic claims an implicit contradiction between (1) and (2), there must be hidden assumptions that bring out such an explicit contradiction. The hidden assumptions may be as follows: (5) Given God is all-powerful, He should be strong enough to overpower evil, and (6) Given God is all-loving, He prefers a world without evil and suffering.[11]

In first responding to (5), as it would be impossible for the strongest person to turn a paper clip into a square circle, it is the case why God cannot force free beings to do what is good. This is because logical impossibilities have nothing to do with strength or power. Therefore, since God made humans with free will, that inevitably results in the possibility of evil.[12] In response to (6), God may have morally sufficient reasons for allowing evil and suffering, just as one endures the pain of going to the dentist for cleaner and healthier teeth.

Therefore, given these responses, it is at least possible that God and evil coexist. This is why most philosophers no longer defend the logical problem of evil but instead focus on the evidential problem, which will be the focus of this paper.[13] Though various theodicies have been proposed to address this problem, it will be shown that a Christocentric harmonized theodicy best explains why God allows evil and suffering. First, it is beneficial to provide an overview of the popularly offered theodicies and the limitations with each taken in isolation.

Theodicies 

Free-will Theodicy

 The free-will theodicy is nearly identical to the free-will defense offered above in response to the logical problem of evil. However, the free-will theodicy is different in that it emphasizes the goodness of free-will as a reason for God permitting evil. Namely, the free-will that God granted human beings in the beginning is immensely good despite the possibility of that freedom resulting in some inevitably choosing to do evil.[14] One may ask, however, what makes free will so good? C.S. Lewis offers a profound response,

"Because free will, though it makes evil possible, is also the only thing that makes possible any love or goodness or joy worth having. A world of automata—of creatures that worked like machines—would hardly be worth creating. The happiness which God designs for His higher creatures is the happiness of being freely, voluntarily united to Him and to each other in an ecstasy of love and delight compared with which the most rapturous love between a man and a woman on this earth is mere milk and water. And for that they’ve got to be free."[15]

While the free will theodicy may adequately address the moral evil seen worldwide, it does not explain the natural evil.[16] Therefore, by using this theodicy to answer the problem of evil (either evidential or emotional), one is still left with an unexplained evil. Plantinga, in response to this objection, has said that such natural evil is to be blamed on nonhuman beings, such as Satan and his cohorts, but this seems rather unconvincing.[17]

Regularity of Nature Theodicy

The “regularity of nature” theodicy addresses why God permits natural evils that arise from nature and the laws of nature (earthquakes, tornadoes, hurricanes, etc.).[18] Namely, it is beneficial that God has created a universe containing regularly occurring and predictable natural laws (among other forces found throughout nature)—making science and the ability to think and act rationally possible. However, this also means that God must refrain from supernaturally intervening except in rare cases (also called miracles) to maintain the order of the natural system. Therefore, it is good that God does not intervene with every natural “disaster,” even if people and animals suffer.

While the Bible teaches that God holds all of nature together (Col. 1:16-17), there are also times when God supernaturally intervenes to bring about certain weather patterns in accordance with His plan (Deut. 11:17, James 5:17, Num. 16:30-34). Those who question why God allows natural disasters are essentially wondering why God allows such pointless suffering. However, a recent study showed that when suffering is presented with its specific broader context, the appearance of pointlessness, on average, significantly diminishes.[19] Yet, the regularity of nature theodicy does not adequately address moral evil. Thus, this theodicy used in isolation is limited to nature and the outcomes of various natural events. Moreover, it fails to address why earthquakes and the like occur in the first place.

Soul-Making Theodicy

The soul-making theodicy, according to John Hick, is that God created humans at an epistemic distance from God (Gen. 3) so they can freely know and love Him while simultaneously attaining some of the most valuable good moral qualities that are only possible by enduring through trials and suffering.[20] This theodicy, then, is centered on the potential of humanity, both spiritually and morally, to eventually make them fit for communion with God while maintaining their free will.[21] C.S. Lewis developed his own version of the soul-making theodicy, which emphasizes how “man, as a species, spoiled himself” (by sinning) and that suffering (both moral and natural) functions as a “remedy or correction” to such spoilage—resulting in the improvement of the human moral character.[22]

 Nicholas Wolterstorff has recently objected to Lewis’s version of the soul-making theodicy. One objection he raised was that if suffering is the method by which God causes reform in humanity, then working to alleviate such suffering seems counterproductive to God's plan.[23] In response, philosophers have argued that the soul-making theodicy, adequately viewed, addresses this objection.[24] However, in isolation, the soul-making theodicy does not address this objection as sufficiently as a harmonized theodicy nor sufficiently explain moral evil. With each popular theodicy examined individually, the harmonized theodicy can be addressed.

Harmonized Theodicy

Harmonized Theodicy Addresses Limitations

As shown above, each theodicy, taken in isolation, has limitations that hinder its ability to explain why God permits evil sufficiently. While attempting to explain every specific instance of evil and suffering is an unattainable task (given the finite minds of human beings trying to understand the infinite mind of God), harmonizing the individual theodicies into one explanation best shows why an all-loving and all-powerful God allows evil and suffering while addressing the various limitations of each individual theodicy.

For instance, the primary limitation of the free-will theodicy is that it fails to explain natural evil adequately. However, the Regularity of Nature theodicy addresses this limitation in explaining why God allows natural disasters to occur. Yet, the Regularity of Nature theodicy has its own limitations when taken in isolation. Namely, it cannot explain why God allowed natural storms (earthquakes and hurricanes) to happen in the first place. This can be addressed by looking to the Fall of mankind as presented in the Bible, a key part in the soul-making theodicy, in which the fall of Adam and Eve negatively affected not only humanity as a whole but also creation itself (Rom. 8:19-12).

As mentioned above, Wolterstroff objected to the soul-making theodicy by proposing if God uses suffering as a means for human reformation, then attempting to avoid suffering is counter-productive to the plan of God, in which it would be ludicrous not to avoid suffering and purposefully disrupt God’s plan. In response, Lewis writes in A Grief Observed, “If there is a good God, then these tortures are necessary. For no even moderately good Being could possibly inflict or permit them if they weren’t.”[25] In other words, being good entails trying to prevent suffering as much as possible unless one is certain that such suffering is for the greater good. However, given the finiteness of human beings, such certainty is unattainable, which means humans should attempt to avoid all suffering wherever possible rather than falsely assume to know which instance of suffering is beneficial, for only God knows. Moreover, Lewis does not hold that all suffering contributes to soul-making, but rather, he states that about four-fifths of suffering is due to an abuse of free will.[26] Therefore, the free-will theodicy and the soul-making theodicy explain evil and suffering at a larger scale than either in isolation—supporting the argument for a harmonized theodicy.

Therefore, a harmonized theodicy is a much more efficient way of showing why God allows evil and suffering over individual theodicies. However, the theodicies listed above are primarily theistic and not specific to Christianity (Muslims and Jews who are theistic religions would hold the theodicies above as well). To best respond to the problem of evil, however, a theodicy specific to Christianity is essential in which all other theodicies can be rooted—the cross.

Christocentric Theodicy: The Cross

As somebody not interested in a philosophical approach to the problem of evil, Dietrich Bonhoeffer (1906-1945), a Christian martyr, passionately believed that the theology of the cross (theologia crucis) was the ultimate theodicy.[27] His approach to the problem of evil primarily emphasized Christ being the “center” and that all things must be understood in light of it. Therefore, sin and evil must be explained in light of the death and resurrection of Christ.[28]

The theology of the cross roots the origins of evil back to The Fall (Gen. 3), but it emphasizes what God did to overcome evil. Namely, the death of Jesus on the cross and his miraculous resurrection shows that Christ defeated evil—Christus Victor (“Christ the victor”).[29] It was through suffering on the cross that Jesus (the Lamb of God) took away the sins of the world (John 1:29). Furthermore, the sacrifice of Jesus and the immense suffering He endured resulted in eternal life for those who deserve punishment for their sins but need to accept the pardon of God (John 3:16). Humanity has been hopelessly fallen since Adam, which resulted in evil and suffering. The only way humanity could have been redeemed and saved from such a state was if God had taken it upon Himself, which is what He did through the cross and suffering of Jesus. Despite the transcendence of God, because of the suffering Jesus endured on the cross, God is not far away and looking down at human suffering but instead is in the middle of every instance of individual human suffering (Heb. 2:17-18, Rom. 8:28).[30]

Therefore, the cross is not only essential in addressing the problem of evil, but it must be the foundation in which all other theodicies are rooted. As Blocher says, “At the cross, God turned evil against evil and brought about the practical solution to the problem. He has made atonement for sins, conquered death, and triumphed over the devil. He has laid the foundation for hope. What further discussion do we need?”[31] Establishing the cross as the basis for the harmonized theodicy, this approach to the problem of evil can be called a Christocentric (Christ-centered) harmonized theodicy. Having established this theodicy, it can now be used to address the problem of evil.

Christocentric Harmonized Theodicy: The Problem of Evil

Now that a Christocentric harmonized theodicy has been established, the evidential and emotional problems of evil can adequately be addressed. The evidential problem of evil states that it is improbable that both God and evil coexist—the evil in the world is so great that it is improbable there are good reasons for God to allow it to take place. The Christocentric harmonized theodicy can be used to show that Christianity not only indicates that the existence of God and evil is probable but also that Christianity is the best explanation for evil and suffering.  

The Christocentric harmonized theodicy can be used to answer the evidential problem of evil by showing that Christian-specific doctrines increase the probability of suffering and God coexisting. For instance, according to Christianity, the purpose of life is not mere happiness and comfort but rather possessing the knowledge of God and being in a relationship with Him (Isaiah 43:7). This relationship with God brings about everlasting human fulfillment, far more exceedingly than comfortability and superficial happiness can bring with the things of the world. Since humans were created with the ability to make free moral choices (such as choosing God or not), God cannot simply force those who reject Him to be in a relationship with Him (free-will theodicy). Moreover, although suffering may appear pointless at face value, it can bring free and rebellious human beings closer to Him.[32] Not only that, but per the soul-making theodicy, suffering can also bring about virtues that would not come to fruition without the chance to freely endure suffering—such as courage, compassion, generosity, persistence, and cooperation, among others (soul-making theodicy, Rom. 5:3-5).[33] The question must be asked: if free human beings were to live perfectly comfortable lives, would anybody desire to be dependent on God? As Craig said, “Innocent human suffering provides an occasion for deeper dependency and trust in God, either on the part of the sufferer or those around him."[34]

This includes suffering from natural disasters (regularity of nature theodicy). In fact, according to Operation World, countries that have undergone the most severe hardships show the most significant growth rates of Christianity.[35] For instance, through a 12-year civil war, natural disasters, and over 80% living in poverty throughout El Salvador, the percentage of evangelical Christians increased from 2.3% in 1960 to about 20% today.[36] Lastly, despite experiencing large waves of famine, war, and persecution, Protestants in Ethiopia went from making up 0.8% of the population in 1960 to 13% by 1990.[37] Thus, research shows that extreme suffering has not lessened the number of Christians worldwide but instead drastically increased those in the Kingdom of God.

 Also, this life spills beyond the grave into eternity because of what Jesus did on the cross (the cross theodicy). Thus, God may allow His children to suffer in this life, but this is because eternity will be spent with Him where there will be no evil, suffering, or pain. This was made possible by the Second Person of the Trinity humbly entering into flesh as Jesus of Nazareth (Phil. 2:7-8), living a perfect life, serving as the ultimate sacrifice being brutally put to death, taking the punishment sinful humans deserve on Himself, and conquering death by resurrecting from the dead and ascending to prepare a place for all who put their trust in Him in heaven with God for eternity (John 3:16, John 14:2-4). The apostle Paul is an excellent example of somebody who endured extreme suffering yet found encouragement by living in the perspective of eternity (2 Cor. 4:16-18). Therefore, assuming Christianity is true, it is probable that an all-loving and all-powerful God exists along with evil and suffering.

The cross is the ultimate solution for those who struggle with the emotional problem of evil. There are four answers to this problem: (1) good people suffer, but this life is not the end (2 Cor. 4:16-18), (2) good people suffer, but God uses all things for ultimate good according to His purpose (Rom. 8:28, Gen. 50:19-21), (3) good people suffer, but through such endurance, believers can be better equipped for deeper ministry (2 Cor. 1:3-5), and (4) good people suffer but the best Person suffered the most, and it was Him, Jesus, who told believers to expect to suffer in this world but to fear not because He has overcome the world (John 16:33, 1 Pet. 2:20-23). Thus, not only does the Christocentric harmonized theodicy address the evidential problem of evil, but it provides reassurance for those struggling with the emotional problem as well.

Conclusion

The problem of evil and suffering is one of the most common objections to Christianity and the existence of God in general (theism). Moreover, everybody experiences suffering and evil, making it a critical part of reality. With this being the case, every worldview and religion must adequately address the problem of evil if it is considered sound. For instance, Buddhism teaches that suffering can be eliminated by detaching from all desires.[38] However, this approach is self-refuting, for one would have to desire not to desire.[39] Others deny God altogether because of evil, but this approach does nothing to avoid suffering. All this is to say that evil and suffering are universal for all.  

Christianity offers the best explanation for how evil originated (Gen. 3), why evil and suffering are allowed, and the solution for how it is resolved (Rev. 20-21). While various theodicies have been raised in the past, as discussed above, each has its own limitations when taken in isolation that hinder its adequacy. Therefore, it has been argued in this paper that a harmonized approach, by merging all the various individual theodicies together grounded in the cross, called the Christocentric harmonized theodicy, is a comprehensive solution to the problem of evil and suffering.

Footnotes

[1] Louis P. Pojman and Micheal Rea, Philosophy of Religion an Anthropology (Wadsworth: Cengage Learning, 2008), p. 277.

[2] Joseph, Onuche and Jonathan Aminu Abbas, “The Problem of Evil and Theodicy,” BTSK Insight (2016), 60.

[3] Robert Audi, The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy (Edinburgh: Cambridge University Press, 1999), 610.

[4] Peter Kreeft, Making Sense of Suffering (Ann Arbur: Servant Press, 1986), 345.

[5] Augustine, Handbook on Faith, Hope, and Love (Floyd, VA: SMK Books, 2012), 14.

[6] Gordon J. Wenham, “Genesis,” in New Bible Commentary: 21st Century Edition, ed. D. A. Carson et al., 4th ed. (Leicester, England; Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity Press, 1994), 60.

[7] Mark Johnson, “How Did Evil Come into the World? A Primordial Free-Will Theodicy,” Religions 14, no. 402 (2023), 13. https://doi.org/ 10.3390/rel14030402. 

[8] William Lane Craig, On Guard: Defending Your Faith with Reason and Precision (Colorado Springs, CO: David C. Cook, 2010), 152-154.

[9] Ibid., 154.

[10] Ibid., 157.

[11] William Lane Craig, On Guard: Defending Your Faith with Reason and Precision (Colorado Springs, CO: David C. Cook, 2010), 155.

[12] Alvin Plantinga, God, Freedom, and Evil (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1974), 30.

[13] William Lane Craig, On Guard: Defending Your Faith with Reason and Precision (Colorado Springs, CO: David C. Cook, 2010), 157.

[14] Alan Rhoda, “Divine Providence and the Problem of Evil,” Encounter 82, no. 2 (2022), 5.

[15] C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity (New York: HarperOne, 1952), 48.

[16] Paul Gould, Travis Dickinson, and Keith Loftin, Stand Firm: Apologetics and the Brilliance of the Gospel (Nashville, TN: B&H Academic, 2018), 155.

[17] Theodore Shimmyo, “The Problem of Evil: Unification Theodicy,” Journal of Unification Studies 17 (2016), 44.

[18] Alan Rhoda, “Divine Providence and the Problem of Evil,” Encounter 82, no. 2 (2022), 5.

[19] Ian M. Church, Isaac Warchol, and Justin Barrett, “The Context of Suffering: Empirical Insights into the Problem of Evil, TheoLogica: An International Journal for Philosophy of Religion and Philosophical Theology (2022), 5-6. https://doi.org/10.14428/thl.v6i1.61183.

[20] John Hick, “A Soul Making Theodicy,” in Christian Apologetics: An Anthology of Primary Sources, ed. Khaldoun A. Sweis and Chad V. Meister (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2012), 437.

[21] Michael Tooley, “The Problem of Evil,” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ed. Edward N. Zalta (2019), n.p. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2019/entries/evil/.

[22] C.S. Lewis, The Problem of Pain (New York: HarperOne, 2001), 54.

[23] Nicholas Wolterstorff, “C.S. Lewis on the Problem of Suffering,” Res Philosophica 90, no. 1 (2013), 45.

[24] Erik J. Wielenberg, “In Defense of C.S. Lewis’ Soul-Making Theodicy: A Reply to Wolterstorff,” Journal of Inklings Studies 9, no. 2 (2019), 192. https://doi.org/10.3366/ink.2019.0048.

[25] C.S. Lewis, A Grief Observed (New York: HarperCollins, 2001), 43.

[26] Erik J. Wielenberg, “In Defense of C.S. Lewis’ Soul-Making Theodicy: A Reply to Wolterstorff,” Journal of Inklings Studies 9, no. 2 (2019), 196. https://doi.org/10.3366/ink.2019.0048.

[27] Annette G. Aubert, “Theodicy and the Cross in the Theology of Dietrich Bonhoeffer,” Trinity Journal 32 (2011), 48.

[28] Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Gesammelte Schriften 5, ed. Eberhard Bethage (Munich: Chr. Kaiser, 1958-1972), 147.

[29] Annette G. Aubert, “Theodicy and the Cross in the Theology of Dietrich Bonhoeffer,” Trinity Journal 32 (2011), 66.

[30] William V. Johnson, “Suffering in the Theology of Dietrich Bonhoeffer: A Critical Analysis,” Ph.D. diss., Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, 1992, 157.

[31] Henri Blocher, Evil and the Cross, trans. David G. Preston (Downers Grove, IL: InterVaristy Press, 1994), 104.

[32] William Lane Craig, On Guard: Defending Your Faith with Reason and Precision (Colorado Springs, CO: David C. Cook, 2010), 163.

[33] Alan Rhoda, “Divine Providence and the Problem of Evil,” Encounter 82, no. 2 (2022), 5-6.

[34] William Lane Craig, On Guard: Defending Your Faith with Reason and Precision (Colorado Springs, CO: David C. Cook, 2010), 163.

[35] Patrick Johnstone, Operation World (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1993), 164, 207-208, 214. 

[36] Ibid., 207.

[37] Ibid., 208.

[38] Paul Gould, Travis Dickinson, and Keith Loftin, Stand Firm: Apologetics and the Brilliance of the Gospel (Nashville, TN: B&H Academic, 2018), 180.

[39] Dean C. Halverson, “Buddhism,” in The Compact Guide to World Religions, ed. Dean C. Halverson (Minneapolis: Bethany House, 1996), 64.

Bibliography

Aubert, Annette, G. “Theodicy and the Cross in the Theology of Dietrich Bonhoeffer.” Trinity Journal 32 (2011).

Audi, Robert. The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy. Edinburgh: Cambridge University Press, 1999.

Augustine. Handbook on Faith, Hope, and Love, trans. Albert C. Outler. Floyd, VA: SMK Books, 2012.

Blocher, Henri. Evil and the Cross, trans. David G. Preston. Downers Grove, IL: InterVaristy Press, 1994.

Bonhoeffer, Dietrich. Gesammelte Schriften. Munich: Chr. Kaiser, 1958-1972.

Carson, D.A. New Bible Commentary: 21st Century Edition, 4th ed. Leicester, England; Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity Press, 1994.

Church, Ian M., Isaac Warchol, and Justin Barrett. “The Context of Suffering: Empirical Insights into the Problem of Evil.” TheoLogica: An International Journal for Philosophy of Religion and Philosophical Theology (2022). https://doi.org/10.14428/thl.v6i1.61183.

Craig, William Lane. On Guard: Defending Your Faith with Reason and Precision. Colorado Springs, CO: David C. Cook, 2010.

Gould, Paul, Travis Dickinson, and Keith Loftin. Stand Firm: Apologetics and the Brilliance of the Gospel. Nashville, TN: B&H Academic, 2018.

Halverson, Dean C. “Buddhism.” The Compact Guide to World Religions. Minneapolis: Bethany House, 1996.

Johnson, Mark. “How Did Evil Come into the World? A Primordial Free-Will Theodicy.” Religions 14, no. 402 (2023). https://doi.org/10.3390/rel14030402.  

Johnson, William V. “Suffering in the Theology of Dietrich Bonhoeffer: A Critical Analysis.” Ph.D. diss., Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, 1992.

Johnstone, Patrick. Operation World. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

Kreeft, Peter. Making Sense of Suffering. Ann Arbur: Servant Press, 1986.

Lewis, C.S. A Grief Observed. New York: HarperCollins, 2001.

Lewis, C.S. Mere Christianity. New York: HarperOne, 1952.

Onuche, Joseph, and Jonathan Aminu Abbas. Joseph. “The Problem of Evil and Theodicy.” BTSK Insight (2016).

Plantinga, Alvin. God, Freedom, and Evil. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1974.

Pojman, Louis P., and Michael Rae. Philosophy of Religion an Anthropology. Wadsworth: Cengage Learning, 2008.

Rhoda, Alan. “Divine Providence and the Problem of Evil.” Encounter 82, no. 2 (2022): 1-37.

Shimmyo, Theodore. “The Problem of Evil: Unification Theodicy.” Journal of Unification Studies 17 (2016): 33-70.

Tooley, Michael. “The Problem of Evil.” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ed. Edward N. Zalta (2019). https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2019/entries/evil/.

Wielenberg, Erik J. “In Defense of C.S. Lewis’ Soul-Making Theodicy: A Reply to Wolterstorff.” Journal of Inklings Studies 9, no. 2 (2019). https://doi.org/10.3366/ink.2019.0048.

Wolterstorff, Nicholas. “C.S. Lewis on the Problem of Suffering.” Res Philosophica 90, no. 1 (2013).