Negative Presuppositions and the Problem of Evil

Introduction

Have you ever let your circumstances change your understanding of God? The author of this essay has, and it drastically took a toll on his spiritual life. At the heart of this, there are many schematics to follow as to why this happened to the author. However, what is focused on this paper is on the topic of presuppositions. These preconceived notions are, for example, that if someone knows Wendy’s may not be substantial enough to eat, compared to the positive that this restaurant will satisfy the guest. This methodology also impacts a believer’s walk with Jesus Christ. Furthermore, throughout this essay, the conversation will disclose two biblical people. First, the book of Job as he was tested (valuing his presuppositions during this time). Second, will be looking at Apostle Peter’s writing on suffering (1 Peter). Following this area, there will be a conversation on the problem of evil and spiritual formation. While this question is addressed in apologetic circles, it should also focus on edifying discipleship and sanctification circles. Lastly, how negative presupposed thought impacts a believer spiritually, intellectually, and emotionally. This is essential as presuppositions are defined and display impact to the believer. Negative presuppositions carry significant intellectual and spiritual implications that can shape an understanding of an individual’s faith in Christ through the overview of the thesis, understanding the Lord’s character as it is relevant to the issue of evil, clarifying the problem of evil and spiritual formation, and negative intellectual and spiritual presuppositions that impact a believer’s life.

Overview of the Thesis

The first point is that negative presuppositions carry significant intellectual and spiritual implications that can shape an understanding of an individual’s faith in Christ through the overview of the thesis. It is essential to comprehend the subject of presuppositions before diving into this topic. First, presuppositions are not inherently evil. Graeme Goldsworthy provides a unique definition of this vital term, “Presuppositions, then, are the assumptions we make to be able to hold some fact to be true.”[1] clarifying this even further, presuppositions can be highly complex. People may know and comprehend the thoughts they bring; others may not.[2] There are positive and negative presuppositions that are essential to the individual. From the outset, it is valuable to consider that God’s Word should impact the believer’s presuppositions.[3] Diving deeper into preconceived notions, these thoughts can be harmful, positive, and even gray areas. These components will be touched upon through intellectual and emotional statements.

While general presuppositions play a role in the Christian life, they significantly impact those aware of intellectual presuppositions. In recent years, philosophical thought has become substantially rational and logical. Now, intellectual presuppositions are significant because of the conciseness of the idea. One of the primary positive reinforcements of presuppositions is that the individual considers many aspects of the issue, especially in argument fashion. This would fall closer to the theological and apologetic, biblically nuanced side of ministry. Now, this impact on the believer is unique; it can cause a Christian to ask further questions or doubt the wonders of God. For clarification, these questions can lead to deeper faith, comprehending the vast scholarly and nuanced sources provided to the specific topic.[4] If this Christian doubted, it could impact this individual’s faith to a hardened heart (Heb. 3:7-12). Now, it is crucial to consider that the individual is mature and appropriately uses intellectual presuppositions for the glory of God. The next area highlights the emotional side of presuppositions.

Intellectual emotions are familiar, yet some think through these topics with emotions. To clarify, this does not mean making a quick decision for a great choice; the emotion described here is colorful, not so much mental, but ascribes experiences to the field of study. Such as someone who went through a serious divorce, lost a job, died in a war, or an individual died out of unnecessary means. This adds weight to the person's picture, and a person would add, “Why does God allow this pain in his/her life?” Someone may be emotionally creative and deal with pain through art. Instead of providing an argument for/against the issue, the understanding is situational or taking care of oneself. Biblical counseling, chaplaincy, and preaching would fall into this area. Furthermore, positive reinforcement of emotional presuppositions involves emotional joy and happiness (generally speaking)—even excellent confidence levels in situations. The negative connotations look like more profound sadness, even paralysis. Instead of wrestling or arguing in the mind, a person may physically feel symptoms or think emotionally rather than rationally. The authors of Stand Firm suggest that when it comes to emotional presuppositions, it is to close the person off from the outside world instead of opening and trusting the Lord.[5] The following section briefly discloses why positive and negative preconceived thoughts are relevant to growing in Jesus.

Having disclosed presuppositions' intellectual and emotional side, positive and negative connotations contribute to comprehending the Lord more excellently. It is fascinating to consider the Psalms, for the Lord’s name is fantastic, and His glory is above all (Ps. 148:13). This is something like an intellectual presupposition that shows an understanding of His name and glory. An example of a negative presupposition would be taking the woes from Ezekiel and ascribing that the Lord brings wrath and that the individual rejects God from this point on. This is a negative connotation, as God also brings redemption through Christ (Jn. 3). Also very close to Marcionism.[6] Positive presupposed thought expounds and brings joy to a greater understanding of Christ. A negative connotation destroys time to search for clues and impacts a Christian’s life to the point of believing false teachings. The next area expounds on the problem of evil in Job and the Apostle Peter.

Understanding the Lord’s Character as it is Relevant to the Issue of Evil

The second point is that Negative presuppositions carry significant intellectual and spiritual implications that can shape an understanding of an individual’s faith in Christ through understanding the Lord’s character as it is relevant to the issue of evil. It is essential to note that Job was around the time of the patriarchs.[7] The first person to study is Job. Now, Job was perfect and upright before the Lord (Job. 1:1). He feared the Lord and hated evil; this is the mark of someone who walks close to the Lord (Like Enoch, Gen. 5:24). The book is laid out where the prosperity of Job is great, family, house, and purification before the Lord (Job. 1:2-5). Unbeknownst to Job, Satan tempts him many times through physical suffering, death of family members, and sores (Job. 1:6-2:10). Francis Andersen notes Job’s case as human agony because he is the only one dealing with these circumstances.[8] Interestingly, many books have been written on Job’s three friends with Elihu’s responses. In this paragraph, the conversation will show Job and friends presuppositions, concluding with a display of the Lord’s character. Robert Alden states the theological premise behind Job’s three friends' conversations, “The overall thrust of the friends’ speeches is that the wicked suffer and the righteous are rewarded.”[9] Job and his friends provide many presuppositions as to the reason for the hero’s suffering. Eliphas discusses the implications of righteousness being innocent (Job. 4). It is fascinating to note that Job hears Eliphaz's comments and questions if there is any iniquity in himself because of his righteousness (Job. 6:29-30). So, Job was aware of his presupposition that he was righteous before the Lord. Eliphaz's preconceived thought was righteous, judging Job for his sanctified status before God (not soteriological). Before Bildad speaks, Job asks for the solution to redemption, in contrast to the psalmist as to why he does not pardon his transgression (Job. 7:21; Neh. 9:17; Ps. 51:3-4). This is but a short taste of the unique conversations between Job and his friends. Job was described as righteous in his own eyes, so his companions ceased conversation (Job. 32:1). The next area shows Elihu and the Lord’s stance.

Job and his friends are having theological debates, and two other people move forward to settle the issue. While Elihu witnesses Job’s self-righteousness, the solution has yet to be resolved if his righteousness is on par with the Lord.[10] Elihu asks Job to hear his words and instructions, to know (Job. 34:2). At the end of his speech, Elihu proclaims the wonders of the Lord through His character, knowledge, justice, and fear (Job. 37:1-24). Out of the whirlwind, the Lord questions Job about His greatness (Job. 38-40:2). Job, in humility, repents to the Lord, his friends repent of their words, and prosperity is restored (Job. 42:7-17). God’s character is shown through his friends needing God’s grace.[11] God is love; Job’s sacrificial service offers offerings to atone for his friends (Job. 42:8-9).[12] The Lord is righteous in declaring justice and motives of Job’s friends’ hearts.[13] His restoration was because of the Lord’s grace, not his righteous service.[14] This explanation shows the Lord’s character in Job; it is time to reconvene in Peter’s First Letter.

Similarly to the book of Job, First Peter addresses believers walking through many persecutions. These believers were dispersed throughout many areas of Asia Minor (1 Pet. 1:1). Christians were dealing with great tribulations and were deeply distressed because of their situation.[15] Furthermore, Christians should rejoice when they face great temptations, and the trial of faith is found with praise and honor at Jesus Christ's appearance (1 Pet. 1:6-7). Charles Biggs describes interpreting Greek in these passages as it relates to refining, “We are driven, therefore, to take δοκίμιον here as adjectival, and to translate “the tested residue of your faith,” that faith which remains when all impure alloy has been burnt away.”[16] The residue could be seen as the component of sanctification where dishonor is being purified for honorable use in the house (2 Tim. 2:21). In this book, suffering is panned out towards growth in Jesus, like in the book of Job. Grant Osborne and Robert Mulholland describe the Petrine Community dealing with unique verbal abuse and harassment from the local context of the nation.[17] In parallel to Job, as he received grace with future prosperity, the apostle describes how following Jesus reflects future reward, as He is the Suffering Servant (1 Pet. 4:1-19).[18] Jesus Christ suffered at the hands of sinners, from the garden of Gethsemane, asking the Lord to remove his cup from Him (Lk. 22:42). To His final words for God to forgive them who put Him on the cross, for they do not know what they are doing (Lk. 23:34). To the Christian, let him glorify the Lord (1 Pet. 4:16-19). The Apostle Peter shows his readers that the character of God, through suffering, is redemptively portrayed through Jesus Christ. Remain steadfast in the faith, as other brothers deal with similar afflictions being perfected in the end with Jesus (1 Pet. 5:9-10). The following section declares the problem of evil as it relates to sanctification.

Apostle Peter

Clarifying the Problem of Evil and Spiritual Formation

The third point is that Negative presuppositions carry significant intellectual and spiritual implications that can shape an understanding of an individual’s faith in Christ by clarifying the problem of evil and spiritual formation. Now, after considering the biblical evidence of Job and the Apostle Peter’s writing to Asia Minor, the gears are transitioning towards discipleship and the issue of malice. As proven through First Peter, the Lord suffers uniquely, as described in the doctrine of impassibility. Ronnie Campbell presents his perspective as it impacts the problem of evil, “In other words, God is not fickle in his response to his creatures. The doctrines of impassibility and immutability, properly understood, ensure that God remains steadfast in his nature, character, and responses to his creatures.”[19] This is an essential truth to consider regarding spiritual formation. The Lexham Survey of Theology describes that the problem of evil is surrounded by two pillars: the knowledge of God and the reality of evil in creation.[20] In his article on anti-theodicy, Toby Betenson writes that suffering grows moral character; this is transformational for the believer.[21] Betenson further adds that Job was the first Christian character to start the issue of evil.[22] Furthermore, Ronnie Campbell explains in the providence of God, the church’s divine ordinance in the issue of evil, “This is followed by reflection on the church’s responsibility in and through the power of the Spirit to be a force for stopping evil in the world.”[23] So, it is safe to reason that having a negative presupposition against God is not entirely utilizing his resources to solve the individual’s issues. For the benefit of the doubt, it is a fight-or-flight response to the believer. It is fascinating that in humanity’s fallenness, Jesus Christ, God’s begotten Son, was innocent and deliverer for all to be saved (Jn. 3:16).[24] Christians live through suffering as they participate in Jesus’ tribulations (1 Pet. 4:12-19). Paul Helm adds that there are many reasons for the issue of destruction: free will, God’s reasoning, and God’s judgment in dealing with something with zero consequences.[25] The following paragraph will discuss these in-depth as they impact the believer. These are essential aspects of the doctrine of God about the problem of evil; the next area surrounds this issue of destruction with spiritual formation.

Considering God's doctrine, it asks how these vital truths impact spiritual formation. The believer, having witnessed the death of a loved one, experiences a few things. First, the fight or flight response, the pain settling in. The question “Why God?” begins to arise. Or maybe peace with sadness or anger. This negatively impacts a believer because a statement of their worldview changes. A theological strain on their knowledge of God unexpectedly appeared, and the belief was transformed from a different result. It is a typical result in spiritual formation because a believer’s thinking is being changed by the Lord daily into the image of Jesus Christ (2 Cor. 3:18). So, there is also the opportunity for spiritual attack, in which the believer is called to put on the whole armor of God (Eph. 6). As described, there is also catastrophic evil such as earthquakes, sickness, terrorism, world policy, yet this should provide the believer the opportunity not to be afraid and dig closer into Jesus Christ.[26] This is valuable for Christians' growth and circumstances, which are much further from which to interact or change. Lastly, there is also the opportunity to doubt God in unbelief. While this limit grows in Christ, it does play a role in the problem of evil. For example, a believer was already not walking with God and then claimed to blame Him on circumstances. There are many reasons why a believer would be farther from the Lord. In writing to Jewish Italians, Paul notes that you should not harden your heart in the wilderness during the rebellion (Heb. 3:8), not as those who shrink back from faith but live by faith (Heb. 10:38-39). Furthermore, have peace and holiness with all men, and look diligently at the Lord Jesus Christ unless any root of bitterness springs up, and there may be defiled (Heb. 12:14-15). Part of this is because God hates sin, not changing His character yet requiring justice.[27] Furthermore, if there were no consequences at all, the world would be in a different place. There may be a probability of the problem of evil if there were no consequences or judgment. Consequences are essential for Christians to grow in their faith. This concludes the conversation as spiritual formation impacts the believer in the problem of evil. The next area describes in detail the thesis.

Negative and Spiritual Presuppositions that Impact a Believer’s Life

The fourth point is that Negative presuppositions carry significant intellectual and spiritual implications that can shape an understanding of an individual’s faith in Christ through negative intellectual and spiritual presuppositions that impact a believer’s life. Now, while much research is covered in this essay, it is essential to value the purpose of this essay through the problem of evil. Having discussed presuppositions from the outward perspective, it is efficient to focus on the individual from here on out. What are the results of having negative presuppositions? The first significant results begin with depression. Suppose someone was treated horribly in their family because the situation had a negative connotation of the Lord. Arguing that it persisted for the sake of argument, the individual will become depressed for a long time. A theme of rebelling will probably follow in the person’s life, rejecting the Lord. From here, it may lead to disregarding Jesus altogether or visiting a church for the opportunity to close off God in his/her life. While this factor is one angle of the puzzle, it is a wrestle with the Lord for the believer. Another part of depression and rebellion that has not been discussed yet is the aspect of intertwined, tangled, negatively connotated presuppositions. For example, logically, the problem of evil consists of God being omnipresent, while good and evil are contradictory.[28] Yet, a person will hold this and another negative presupposition. While this is abstract thinking, it is the case with many people dealing with the problem of evil. The next area discloses intellectual presuppositions.

Having a broad overview of the results and abstractness of the problem of evil, it is crucial to discuss negative intellectual presuppositions impacting Christians. The first area to discuss is free-will defense. Earlier in this paper, the topic was individual intellectual presuppositions. Now, with the Calvinist and Armenian conversation, free will is essential to the contribution of this paper through trusting God. Today, a Calvinist lives in the creedal celebration of TULIP. Looking at this historically, Abraham Kuyper states the motive behind predestination and sovereignty, “Belief in predestination is nothing but the penetration of God’s decree into your own life; or, if you prefer it, the personal heroism to apply the sovereignty of God’s decreeing will to your existence.”[29] Right before the twentieth century, sovereignty is applied to the modern day’s version of “calling” in different Christian circles. Now, Kuyper explains that in nuancing the name “Calvinist,” a sect divides limited atonement, treating those who disagree with dogmatic narrowness.[30] However, after years of digging, according to some, this is not the status quo of Calvinism. The authors of The Doctrines of Grace explain that if an individual questions his salvation, he should believe Jesus and repent.[31] Having dived into limited atonement, Millard Erickson proves that being an android is not part of being human, “And the possibility of evil was a necessary accompaniment of God’s good plan to make people fully human.”[32] Even so far as to say that the curse in the Fall was used for greater glory through Jesus Christ (Gen. 3:15). Next area dives into Arminianism.

Having discussed Calvinism, it is time to step back to Arminianism and the problem of evil. Stephen Evans notes that Arminius taught God’s election was conditioned based on the person’s free will.[33] It is fascinating to note that Calvinists and Armenians are within the exact structure of the denomination. However, Arminianism argues that salvation is universal, not leading to liberal universalism.[34] How does this conversation impact negative presuppositions to the Christian? Denominational theological presuppositions impact someone’s faith in their walk with Christ through unnecessary bias toward others. The author can recount many people having grudges against those who follow a Calvinist background, and vice versa, with the Arminian cultural outlook. As discussed above with Hebrews, these negative or extreme presuppositions of God’s sovereignty or free will may leave the believer in laziness or ignorance of the Lord. John Feinberg emphasizes another area of the free will defense through Smart’s utopia idea, as much as it is digressed by the author, logically argues ways that would portray the Apocalypse’s new Heaven and new Earth (Rev. 21).[35] What is crucial to consider in this conversation is the Lord’s amount of grace, and these beautiful implications in the life of the believer.[36] Through wrapping up the intellectual comprehension of negative presuppositions, it is vital to understand that sin is still sin, for which God holds individuals responsible unless they bring it to Jesus.[37] As the conversation begins to draw into spiritual and practical matters, the problem of evil is referenced about pride and hypocrisy in Christians.[38] Now, it is time to switch gears towards negative spiritual preconceived thoughts.

The intellectual comprehension of the problem of evil is essential, yet all theology is practical. It is valuable for the readers to understand that the writer has dedicated this essay to his Great-Uncle, who passed into glory in the week of this assignment (12/3/2024). The many evils present in this world are far and great. Such as continued disease, those who had trauma-related circumstances, faith issues in general, doubt, unbelief, low confidence, and fear. Even negative connotations on the reasoning for God to allow X or regretting committed sin. There are many reasons, stipulations, options, beliefs, culture, and other facets of life that an individual can relay against God and people. Thomas Aquinas discusses in his systematic theology catechism book that there is a difference between pain and fault and further identifies the gray area between the two.[39] While many have apologetically argued about the problem of evil, realizing the person of Christ is crucial.[40] Paul Moser elaborates that Christ on the cross experienced the problem of evil, and God calls believers to relate to Him in obedience.[41] Furthermore, evil would be impossible without pain.[42] Forgiveness is also necessary for this notion of pain.[43] It is fascinating to consider that the Lord is redemptive in providing a solution to save others from sin.[44] There is a solution to gravitating evils, fault, and pain.

Conclusion

In conclusion, negative presuppositions carry significant intellectual and spiritual implications that can shape an understanding of an individual’s faith in Christ through the overview of the thesis, understanding the Lord’s character as it is relevant to the issue of evil, clarifying the problem of evil and spiritual formation, and negative intellectual and spiritual presuppositions that impact a believer’s life. In the first section, the overview of the dialogue of the paper announced that a person comprehends the Lord intellectually and emotionally by considering these preconceived thoughts. The second area discloses God’s character in the problem of evil through the book of Job and First Peter. Job received his stuff back because of God’s grace. Peter writes that believers are being harassed and mocked, proclaiming that Christ suffered under similar conditions. The third factor is witnessing the problem of evil through spiritual formation, and this “evil” and “pain” influence believers to mature into good characters. The fourth area disclosed negative intellectual and spiritual presuppositions related to the contemporary theology of free will and the attributes of grace and forgiveness to others. Resulting in a solution through Jesus Christ, forgiveness, and His grace. The call to action is to study the problem of evil, to grasp reality, and to grow in Jesus.

Negative Presuppositions and the Problem of Evil RF.pdf

Download PDF • 278KB

Bibliography

Alden, Robert L. Job. Vol. 11. The New American Commentary. Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1993.

Andersen, Francis I. Job: An Introduction and Commentary. Vol. 14. Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1976.

Betenson, Toby. "Anti-Theodicy." Philosophy Compass 11, no. 1 (2016): 56-65.

Bigg, Charles. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistles of St. Peter and St. Jude.

International Critical Commentary. Edinburgh: T&T Clark International, 1901.

Boice, James Montgomery, Philip Graham Ryken, and R. C. Sproul. The Doctrines of Grace:

Rediscovering the Evangelical Gospel. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2002.

Campbell, Ronnie P., Jr. Worldviews & the Problem of Evil: A Comparative Approach.

Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2019.

Coley, Scott. “The Logical Problem of Evil: A New Approach.” Edited by David E. Lanier. Faith and Mission 24 (2006).

Davidson, A. B. The Book of Job, with Notes, Introduction, and Appendix. The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1884.

Erickson, Millard J. Christian Theology. 3rd ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2013.

Evans, C. Stephen. Pocket Dictionary of Apologetics & Philosophy of Religion. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2002.

Feinberg, John S. The Many Faces of Evil: Theological Systems and the Problems of Evil. Revised and Expanded edition. Wheaton, Ill: Crossway Books, 2004.

Goldsworthy, Graeme. According to Plan: The Unfolding Revelation of God in the Bible. IVP,

1991.

Gould, Paul, Travis Dickinson, and Keith Loftin. Stand Firm: Apologetics and the Brilliance of

the Gospel. Nashville, TN: B&H Academic, 2018.

Harrower, Scott D. “The Problem of Evil.” In Lexham Survey of Theology, edited by Mark Ward, Jessica Parks, Brannon Ellis, and Todd Hains. Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2018.

Helm, Paul. The Providence of God. Edited by Gerald Bray. Contours of Christian Theology.

Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1993.

Henry, Carl F. H., ed. Basics of the Faith: An Evangelical Introduction to Christian Doctrine.

Best of Christianity Today. Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2019.

Kreeft, Peter, and Ronald K. Tacelli. Handbook of Christian Apologetics: Hundreds of Answers to Crucial Questions. Westmont, IL: IVP Academic, 1994.

Kuyper, Abraham. Calvinism: Six Lectures Delivered in the Theological Seminary at Princeton. New York; Chicago; Toronto: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1899.

Moreno, Jonathan. “A Good God in a Wicked World: Considering the Problem of Evil.” Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal 22 (2017): 75–90.

Moser, Paul K. “Theodicy, Christology, and Divine Hiding: Neutralizing the Problem of

Evil.” The Expository Times. 129, no. 5 (2018): 191–200. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014524617743183.

Osborne, Grant R., and M. Robert Mulholland Jr. Cornerstone Biblical Commentary: James, 1–2 Peter, Jude, Revelation. Edited by Philip W. Comfort. Cornerstone Biblical Commentary. Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 2011.

Poythress, Vern S. “Presuppositions And Harmonization: Luke 23:47 As A Test Case.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 56 (2013).

Schulz, Heiko. “Suffering, Guilt—and Divine Injustice? The Nature and Forms of Evil in Their

Bearing on the Problem of Theodicy.” Toronto Journal of Theology. 36, no. 2 (2020): 194–213. https://doi.org/10.3138/tjt-2020-0102.

Schreiner, Thomas R. 1, 2 Peter, Jude. Vol. 37. The New American Commentary. Nashville:

Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2003.

Smith, Kevin G. “Review of Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities by Roger E Olson.”

Conspectus Volume 11 (2011).

Thomas Aquinas. Summa Theologica. Translated by Fathers of the English Dominican Province. London: Burns Oates & Washbourne, n.d.

Tooley, Michael. The Problem of Evil. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2019.

Trakakis, Nick. The Problem of Evil: Eight Views in Dialogue. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018.

Wright, N. T. Evil and the Justice of God. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2013.

[1] Graeme Goldsworthy, According to Plan: The Unfolding Revelation of God in the Bible (IVP, 1991), 44.

[2] Vern S. Poythress, “Presuppositions And Harmonization: Luke 23:47 As A Test Case,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 56 56, no. 3 (2013): 508.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Such as, why does a good God allow evil and suffering, decides to study Feinberg, in Feinberg, John S, The Many Faces of Evil: Theological Systems and the Problems of Evil. Revised and Expanded edition (Wheaton, Ill: Crossway Books, 2004). Compared to reading a book that relates more to emotional aspect of this issue.

[5] Paul Gould, Travis Dickinson, and Keith Loftin, Stand Firm: Apologetics and the Brilliance of the Gospel (Nashville, TN: B&H Academic, 2018), 159.

[6] Marcion separated God’s character between the NT and OT, declared heresy and was sent away from the church around 140 A.D. See, David Salter Williams, “Reconsidering Marcion’s Gospel,” Journal of Biblical Literature 108 (1989): 477.

[7] Robert L. Alden, Job, vol. 11, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1993), 412.

[8] Francis I. Andersen, Job: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 14, Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1976), 67.

[9] Robert L. Alden, Job, vol. 11, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1993), 82.

[10] Francis I. Andersen, Job: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 14, Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1976), 265.

[11] Francis I. Andersen, Job: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 14, Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1976), 316.

[12] Ibid, 317.

[13] Robert L. Alden, Job, vol. 11, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1993), 412.

[14] Andersen, Job, 318.

[15] Grant R. Osborne, “1 Peter,” in Cornerstone Biblical Commentary: James, 1–2 Peter, Jude, Revelation, ed. Philip W. Comfort, Cornerstone Biblical Commentary (Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 2011), 134.

[16] Charles Bigg, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistles of St. Peter and St. Jude, International Critical Commentary (Edinburgh: T&T Clark International, 1901), 104.

[17] Grant R. Osborne, “1 Peter,” in Cornerstone Biblical Commentary: James, 1–2 Peter, Jude, Revelation, ed. Philip W. Comfort, Cornerstone Biblical Commentary (Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 2011), 141.

[18] Thomas R. Schreiner, 1, 2 Peter, Jude, vol. 37, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2003), 199.

[19] Ronnie P. Campbell Jr., Worldviews & the Problem of Evil: A Comparative Approach (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2019), 242.

[20] Scott D. Harrower, “The Problem of Evil,” in Lexham Survey of Theology, ed. Mark Ward et al. (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2018).

[21] Betenson, Toby. “Anti‐Theodicy.” Philosophy Compass. 11, no. 1 (2016): 56–65. https://doi.org/10.1111/phc3.12289.

[22] Ibid.

[23] Ronnie P. Campbell Jr., Worldviews & the Problem of Evil: A Comparative Approach (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2019), 230–231.

[24] Paul Helm, The Providence of God, ed. Gerald Bray, Contours of Christian Theology (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1993), 195.

[25] Ibid, 196-216.

[26] Ibid, 197.

[27] Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology, 3rd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2013), 550.

[28] Coley, Scott. “The Logical Problem of Evil: A New Approach.” Edited by David E. Lanier. Faith and Mission 24 (2006): 44.

[29] Abraham Kuyper, Calvinism: Six Lectures Delivered in the Theological Seminary at Princeton (New York; Chicago; Toronto: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1899), 148.

[30] Ibid, 6.

[31] James Montgomery Boice, Philip Graham Ryken, and R. C. Sproul, The Doctrines of Grace: Rediscovering the Evangelical Gospel (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2002).

[32] Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology, 3rd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2013), 395.

[33] C. Stephen Evans, Pocket Dictionary of Apologetics & Philosophy of Religion (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2002), 13.

[34] Kevin G. Smith, “Review of Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities by Roger E Olson,” Conspectus Volume 11 (2011): 212.

[35] Feinberg, John S. The Many Faces of Evil: Theological Systems and the Problems of Evil. Revised and Expanded edition (Wheaton, Ill: Crossway Books, 2004), 108-111.

[36] William Childs Robinson, “Predestination,” in Basics of the Faith: An Evangelical Introduction to Christian Doctrine, ed. Carl F. H. Henry, Best of Christianity Today (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2019), 77.

[37] Jonathan Moreno, “A Good God in a Wicked World: Considering the Problem of Evil,” Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal 22 (2017): 90.

[38] Peter Kreeft and Ronald K. Tacelli, Handbook of Christian Apologetics: Hundreds of Answers to Crucial Questions (Westmont, IL: IVP Academic, 1994), 122.

[39] Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, trans. Fathers of the English Dominican Province (London: Burns Oates & Washbourne, n.d.), STh., I q.48 a.6 resp.

[40] For conversations on this argument, see Tooley, Michael. The Problem of Evil (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2019).

[41] Moser, Paul K. "Theodicy, Christology, and Divine Hiding: Neutralizing the Problem of Evil." The Expository Times, (2017). Accessed December 5, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014524617743183.

[42] Schulz, Heiko. “Suffering, Guilt—and Divine Injustice? The Nature and Forms of Evil in Their Bearing on the Problem of Theodicy.” Toronto Journal of Theology. 36, no. 2 (2020): 194.

[43] This is explained no clearer than N.T. Wright’s book. In, Wright, N. T. (Nicholas Thomas). Evil and the Justice of God (Downers Grove, Ill: IVP Books, 2006), 105-132.

[44] Gleeson, Andrew, 'God and Evil without Theodicy', in N. N. Trakakis (ed.), The Problem of Evil: Eight Views in Dialogue (Oxford, 2018; online edn, Oxford Academic, 19 July 2018), 26. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198821625.003.0009, accessed 5 Dec. 2024.