"If God is a God of love, why
hasn’t He dealt with evil?"
In Dr. Robert Morey’s
book The New Atheism and the Erosion of Freedom, he
talks with an atheist about this issue. The atheist
assumes that everything is relative, and there are no
absolutes (he is absolutely sure of that). Morey replies
that the first thing an atheist must do is prove the
existence of evil. By what process can an atheist identify
evil? He must have a universal absolute to do so. Without
an absolute reference point for "good" (which
only God can provide), no one can identify what is good
or evil. Thus without the existence of God, there is
no "evil" or "good" in an absolute
sense. Everything is relative. The problem of evil does
not negate the existence of God. It actually requires
Many assume that because
evil still exists today, God has not dealt with it.
How can atheists assume that God has not already solved
the problem of evil in such a way that neither His goodness
nor omnipotence is limited? On what grounds do they
limit what God can and cannot do to solve the problem?
God has already solved the problem of evil. And He did
it in a way in which He did not contradict His nature
or the nature of man. We assume God will solve the problem
of evil in one single act. But why can’t He deal
with evil in a progressive way? Can’t He deal
with it throughout time as we know it, and then bring
it to the climax on the Day of Judgment?
God sent His Son to die
on the cross in order to solve the problem of evil.
Christ atoned for evil and secured the eventual removal
of all evil from the earth. One day evil will be quarantined
in one spot called "hell." Then there will
be a perfect world devoid of all evil. If God declared
that all evil would, at this moment, cease to exist,
you and I and all of humanity would go up in a puff
of smoke. Divine judgment demands that sin be punished.
By Ron Meade