A Good God Could Not Allow Suffering

At a glance

Relevant Scripture

“For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us.”

Romans 8:18 KJV

UECF.NET summary

Keller distinguishes the philosophical version of this objection (evil logically disproves God) from the personal, existential version (why does a loving God let this happen to me?). Philosophically, he argues the classic "logical problem of evil" fails: it would only work if we could be sure God has no possible good reason for allowing a particular evil, and finite human beings are simply not in a position to rule that out. Drawing on philosophers such as Alvin Plantinga, he notes that a world with real, morally significant freedom will include the possibility of evil, and that our inability to see the point of a specific instance of suffering is not evidence there is no point — it may only show the limits of our vantage point compared to God's.

Keller then turns the objection around: without God, on what basis can anyone call anything genuinely "evil" rather than simply unpleasant or evolutionarily disadvantageous? A consistently naturalistic account of the universe can describe suffering, but struggles to ground the claim that suffering and cruelty are really, objectively wrong and not just distasteful to us. Ironically, the very outrage that fuels the objection to God — the conviction that some things ought never happen — presupposes a standard of justice that fits a moral universe with a Lawgiver far more naturally than a universe of blind physical processes. Finally, Keller points to what Christianity uniquely offers in the face of suffering: not a tidy explanation for every instance of pain, but a God who, in Christ, entered into suffering and death himself, and who promises a future resurrection and renewal of all things in which suffering is not just endured but ultimately undone.

Main themes

• Human limits on seeing God's reasons are not the same as there being no reasons.
• Moral outrage at evil implicitly assumes a moral order that fits a universe with a good God better than a purely material one.
• Christianity's answer to suffering is not merely intellectual but centers on a God who suffers with us and promises renewal.
• Free will and real relationship require the possibility, though not the necessity, of evil.

Key ideas

• "I can't see a good reason for this suffering" is not the same claim as "there is no good reason for this suffering."
• Naturalism struggles to explain why anything is objectively, not just subjectively, wrong.
• The cross shows a God who does not remain distant from suffering but enters it.
• The resurrection promises suffering will ultimately be redeemed, not merely tolerated.

Important concepts

• The logical problem of evil — The argument that the mere existence of evil is logically incompatible with an all-good, all-powerful God — widely regarded by philosophers, including many skeptics, as unsuccessful.
• Skeptical theism — The reasonable claim that finite human beings are not positioned to know all of God's possible reasons for permitting a particular evil.
• Theodicy — An attempt to explain why a good God permits evil and suffering in the world.

Related Bible references

• Romans 8:18
• Job 38:4
• Isaiah 53:3
• 2 Corinthians 4:17
• Revelation 21:4

Practical Christian application

• Sit with someone who is suffering this week without trying to explain their pain away — simply be present, as Christ is present in suffering.
• Identify one place you have assumed "I can't see a reason" means "there is no reason," and hold that assumption more loosely.
• Read the book of Job's ending (chapters 38–42) and notice that God answers Job's suffering with his own greatness and presence, not a tidy explanation.

Questions for study