Thus, "although we must live within the Devil's domain, he no longer has any legal authority over us" (p. 136). However:

So God's victory over the devil at Calvary was not complete; he still cannot overstep the legal exercise of free will. We must authorize him to intervene in this world: "our prayers and faith 'authorize' God and His Son to intervene into Satan's worldly domain and help us" (p. 136). On the other hand, our disobedience limits God's ability to protect us:

However, those who suffer are not necessarily guilty of committing some sort of sin:

Thus, it is not a matter of being "good enough" to escape the death and suffering the devil brings; it is a matter of being "good enough" and invoking the legal authority we have in Christ. Without these essential ingredients, God finds it "very difficult" to intervene and help us.

In a nutshell, then, their theodicy or vindication of God hinges on the proposition that God is not all-powerful:

For all the limitations of this scheme, it is internally consistent. Since it provides the essential framework for their interpretation of evil, we will address it before considering their less consistent arguments.

I would first like to question CES' confident assertion that the Bible plainly teaches Satan gained legal dominion over the earth when Adam fell (p. 75). Interestingly, the only verses they can marshall in support for this radical statement are Luke 4:6 and 2 Corinthians 4:4 (p. 33).

In 2 Corinthians 4:4, Satan is called "the god of this age." Clearly the devil exercises some sort of authority, but this does not at all imply that it is a legal authority. "Satan is only a god," writes Steve Jones, "insofar as wicked people pay him homage and carry out his schemes - as if he were their God. The devil has no real authority over this planet."⁵

Luke 4:6 is clearly their strongest evidence. In Luke 4:5, we read that the devil took Jesus to a high place and showed him a vision of "all the kingdoms of the world." In verse 6 Satan said to him, "I will give you all their authority and splendor, for it has been given to me, and I can give it to anyone I want to" (emphasis theirs). Who had given the devil that authority? "The one who originally had it - Adam," write the authors of Don't Blame God!. "God had given Adam and Eve dominion over the world, and they had relinquished that dominion to the Devil" (p. 33).

Putting aside for a moment the fact that no verse of the Bible actually says that Adam gave the devil any legal authority, we would like to point out that "the father of lies" (John 8:44) himself is hardly the best place from which to derive our theology.⁶

The Biblical fact is that Satan has no legitimate authority over the earth. He exercises authority, it is true; but he has no legal right to it. God is not bound by a contract with the devil. Satan has no title-deed to the earth and the people on it. On the contrary, the Bible very clearly teaches that God owns the earth.

King David praised God by saying that "everything in heaven and earth" is his (1 Chron. 29:11). In the book of Psalms, God declared that "the world is mine, and all that is in it" (50:12, emphasis mine; cf. also 89:11). The New Testament teaches this truth as well; Stephen quoted Isaiah 66:1, in which God said: "Heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool" (Acts 7:49). Not only does the Bible not teach that the devil gained legal authority over the earth; it flatly contradicts that teaching at every turn.

What about God's "legal limitations" which prevent him from interfering with free will? Although I believe that God generally chooses not to interfere with the free will of his creatures (human and angelic), I believe that he certainly can do so if he desires. For example, even CES teaches that God sometimes inflicts pain, suffering, and death (but only on unbelievers).⁷

This admission alone calls their entire thesis into question. Did God "interfere" with Herod's free will when he struck him down (Acts 12:23)? Of course he did. I seriously doubt that Herod wanted to be killed. Not only did God (illegally?) overstep Herod's free will; he apparently disregarded Satan's "jurisdiction" as well. Didn't Herod belong to Satan, not having been bought with Jesus' blood? Notice also that no Christian seems to have "authorized" God to intervene. CES' contention that God is bound by all sorts of legal limitations (self-imposed or otherwise) is clearly at odds with the teaching of the Bible, which indicates that God "does whatever pleases him" (Psa. 115:3).

Lastly, I would like to question Ellen G. White's highly speculative account of why God chose not to destroy Satan at the very beginning. This is a critical issue, because White's (and CES') theodicy ultimately hinges on that speculation. Since God regained "legal authority" at the crucifixion of Christ, the devil's legal "jurisdiction" over the earth can no longer be considered the fundamental reason that God has not already put an end to evil.⁸ Since God's ability (or lack thereof) to interfere with his creatures' free wills appears to be a constant (i.e., there is no reason that God's "overstepping" the free wills of evil persons should be any more "legal" at the Second Coming than it is now), their explanation of why God has allowed evil to develop and spread has become the crucial determinant in their theodicy.

White and CES explain that God did not destroy the devil at the beginning because it would have compromised his justice, particularly since evil had not yet matured. In order to be fully vindicated in his destruction of evil, God must allow the consequences of evil to become fully manifest (pp. 28,42,119). Their lack of Scriptural references at this critical juncture is noteworthy.

Even considering the fact that this is all speculation (a questionable hanger on which to hang one's theological coat), the Bible's description of God and his actions seems to fly in the face of it. Why would God's justice be called into question for destroying a single rebellious angel, but not for wiping out an entire planet in a universal Flood? Furthermore, haven't the ghastly consequences of evil already become painfully obvious? Hasn't the point already been made? What is God waiting for?

CES has other answers to this question, but they are less consistent with their thesis.

At certain points, one is left with the impression that the authors are presenting ad hoc arguments that do not lend themselves to a smooth inclusion in CES' overall position. For example, they quote verses such as 2 Peter 3:9 and 1 Timothy 2:3,4 to make the point that "until that glorious day when sin and its consequences are forever eradicated, He [God] is willing to take the long way around to a righteous conclusion so that as many people as possible can come to repentance."⁹ Of course this is entirely true; it is in fact a Scriptural argument. However, it implies that God could take the "short way" around. The argument that God is delaying the Second Coming (and thus putting off destroying evil) so more people may be saved is inconsistent with their assertion that God does not in fact allow evil for the cause of a divine plan:

CES offers another ad hoc answer to the problem of evil by arguing that God cannot be held responsible for the evil that men do:

That, however, is not the point. Of course it is true that we are not to blame God for someone else's evil. But the question is, does he allow it? They have argued that he doesn't:

Let's adapt this illustration to their argument about societal evil. Does the point change significantly if Bill refrains from telling you about the guy with the pipe because it was the responsibility of the restaurant's security guard to tell you? Certainly not. The above argument is simply not relevant.

The authors of Don't Blame God! have much explaining to do. They have confidently asserted that not only would God never do anything to harm his people, he would not even allow any harm to come to his people if he could stop it. Of course many Scriptures teach otherwise. Most of them are in the Old Testament. This is convenient for the authors, because they can invoke the principle of progressive revelation to pit the New Testament against the Old: "any argument that uses Old Testament scriptures to prove that God causes or allows suffering must be examined in light of the New Testament teaching" (p. 61).

Their reasoning is very simple. For example, the New Testament teaches that Satan is "the god of this age," i.e., the legal owner of the earth. This implies that he does not need to:

Notice that a theological principle (allegedly derived from the New Testament) is invoked to dismiss critical Old Testament material, banishing it to the ethereal realm of a figure of speech.

Similarly, when God is depicted as inflicting punishment on his people Israel, a figure of speech is involved. Again, the New Testament is invoked as a witness against the Old (when in fact a much more satisfactory harmonization is possible):

When the Old Testament depicts God as punishing the Israelites, it is using the figure of speech known as metonymy, they argue.

In applying this principle to God's Old Testament activity, they explain:

Was it not actually dishonest of God to conceal the truth from Old Testament Israel? Why did God tell his people that he would punish them for disobedience, when in fact it was the devil who was doing it?

The authors explain that God's punishment is not always a figure of speech, however:

The guiding principle to discerning this figure of speech seems to be this: Whenever God is said to punish his own people, it is a figure of speech; he is not really the one doing it. Whenever God is said to punish other people, it is not a figure of speech; he is really the one doing it.

This principle of interpretation is clearly arbitrary. Apparently CES' theology, not the biblical text, is guiding their interpretation.

What about God's punishment in the New Testament? What about Ananias and Sapphira? They were members of the early New Testament church, yet God punished them. The authors of Don't Blame God! explain the passage (Acts 5:1-11) as follows:

In my opinion, arguments such as these are not credible. I have confronted people with lies before, but none of them have ever dropped dead with terror. The text obviously implies that God smote Ananias and Sapphira. Peter pronounced the judgment and it happened. We may compare Acts 13:9-12, where Paul pronounced judgment on a wicked sorcerer who subsequently lost his sight.

Several New Testament verses must also be addressed. The first is Romans 8:23, which reads in the King James Version:

Of course this would destroy CES' proposition in a single blow, for they do not teach that all things "work together for good to them that love God." They attempt to escape this dilemma by appealing to other Bible translations, such as the NIV, which propose the reading "in all things God works for the good of those who love him." Their point is that not everything is good or of God, but God can work with any bad circumstance to bring good out of it (pp. 173-180).

Strictly speaking, they are correct about the translation of Romans 8:28. Textual variants lie at the heart of the issue; in many good Greek manuscripts the term "God" is the subject of the verb "works with." This calls the KJV reading into question.¹⁰

They are also correct in asserting that God is not the source of evil. However, I am not so sure they can consistently state that God works "in all things." They seem to teach rather that God can work in all things, provided he is legally authorized to do so. We may also note that the difference between the two readings of Romans 8:28 is not great; if God works "in" all things, then it follows that "all things work together for good to them that love God." This verse provides a formidable challenge to their theodicy, regardless of the Bible translation they use.

2 Corinthians 12:8-10 provides another challenge. There Paul asked the Lord to remove his "thorn in the flesh" three times, only to receive the answer that "My grace is sufficient for you" (v. 9). They interpret Jesus to mean "Paul, I cannot totally remove this persecution, but even amidst these circumstances, I will, by my power, accomplish my purposes within you" (p.197, emphasis mine).

This interpretation is not suggested by the text, however; an entirely different reason is given. According to Jesus, the real reason Paul's affliction was not removed was because "my power is made perfect in weakness" (v. 9). "Therefore I will boast all the more gladly about my weaknesses," Paul writes, "so that Christ's power may rest on me. That is why, for Christ's sake, I delight in weaknesses, in insults, in hardships, in persecutions, in difficulties. For when I am weak, then I am strong" (v. 10). Jesus' purpose for allowing Paul to experience crippling problems was clearly so that his grace could turn Paul's weakness into strength. This is part of the paradox of evil which CES refuses to recognize.

CES must also wrestle with John 9:1ff, the account of the man born blind. When the disciples asked Jesus whose sin was responsible for the man's blindness, Jesus answered: "It was neither that this man sinned, nor his parents; but it was in order that the works of God might be displayed in him" (v. 3, NASV). To get avoid the teaching that God allowed this man to be born blind so he could display his power in the man's healing, CES rearranges the punctuation marks. They would much rather hear Jesus say that "Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents. But that the works of God should be made manifest in him, I must work the works of him that sent me..." (p. 23).

This does not do justice to the text, however. If we place the period after the word "parents," the entire passage becomes somewhat awkward: "It was neither that this man sinned, nor his parents. But in order that the works of God might be displayed in him, we must work the works of him who sent me as long as it is day; night is coming, when no man can work." Notice that this would place the emphasis entirely on the timing of the healing, not on the healing itself. It would make Jesus say that if God's works were not displayed in the blind man in this age, they could not be displayed in him at all. That could hardly be Jesus' meaning, for God's works will be displayed in all his people when they are resurrected (cf. Rom. 8:18ff).

Furthermore, periods and commas aside, the presence of the word "but" argues against their interpretation. Whether the word "but" begins a sentence or not, it clearly denotes a contrast with the preceding phrase.¹¹ For this reason, I suggest the usual meaning suggested by Bible translators is to be preferred to CES' interpretation.

CES' position preserves the goodness of God only at the expense of his immeasurable power. Throughout their book, they repeatedly express their concern that believing God even allows suffering (when he could stop it) jeopardizes people's faith. For example, Charles Darwin gave up his belief in God because "apparently, whatever he was taught [when studying for the ministry] laid the blame for human suffering on God" (p. 19). Thus, in a sense, the entire theory of evolution may have been caused by more traditional theodicies. "Only God knows how many millions of others have turned away from Him for this same reason" (Ibid.).

It is true that some Christians lose their faith in God when a tragedy strikes, embittered that God would allow them to experience that kind of pain. However, CES' easy answer is no answer at all. Someone who loses faith because God did not prevent a tragedy is just as likely to lose faith because God could not prevent a tragedy. I would ascribe such loss of faith to things other than peoples' views of God's goodness or power; I would ascribe it to shallow faith. Those who lose faith in God are like the shallow soil of Jesus' parable of the sower; they "are the ones who receive the word with joy when they hear it, but they have no root. They believe for a while, but in the time of testing they fall away" (Luke 8:13).

I fear that CES' solution is worse than the problem. Undermining the power of God can serve only to cast salvation history into doubt. Inconsistently, they do exude great confidence in God's eventual victory; but this by no means follows from their thesis, which could throw believers into a chaotic, fearful state, uncertain of their ability to overcome the devil, even with God's help.

The authors write, for example, that "God is the most powerful and most wise one in the fight, and that means that human history as a whole will be resolved according to His will" (p. 121). This seems to be their strongest argument for God's certain victory, but it is not a good one. We know from experience that "the race is not to the swift or the battle to the strong...but time and chance happen to them all" (Eccl. 9:11). "The most powerful one" does not always win the fight. Considering the state of our world today, one might even surmise that God is losing the battle. The authors assure us that God and Jesus "are fighting tooth and nail" for us (p. 141); but those who are losing battles fight "tooth and nail."

Interestingly, the authors of Don't Blame God! tell us that there are only four alternatives to the problem of evil - Nontheistic evolutionism, the New Age Movement, Determinism, and their view:

I would like to re-word proposition (d) to capture better the spirit of their theodicy, and then offer a fifth proposition:

This proposition will not be palatable to the authors of Don't Blame God!, for whom any element of mystery is unwelcome. Human reasoning is fully sufficient to tackle the problem of evil. Since evil exists, God can be either all-good or all-powerful, but not both (pp. 84ff). Of course this is a popular argument, and it is thousands of years old. Epicurus asked, "Is he [God] willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then is he impotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then is he malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Whence then is evil?"¹³

God is not only all-good; he is also all-powerful. This point is easy to prove from the Scriptures. God asked Moses, "Is the LORD's power limited?" (Num. 11:23, NASV). This rhetorical question certainly demands a negative answer. The angel Gabriel told Mary that "nothing is impossible with God" (Luke 1:37). The Lord God is "Almighty" (Rev. 21:22); his power is not limited in any way.

I might also state that I am not a Calvinist. I too believe that God has purposely chosen to create free-will beings who may make their own decisions about whether to do good or to do evil. I believe, with Jack Cottrell, that "God cannot overrule every evil choice of man and every evil consequence therefrom without contradicting his own purposes in creating beings with free will. This is part of the price we pay for freedom, and which God himself pays for creating us thus."¹⁵ Yet our the men of CES must understand the vast difference between saying that God cannot overrule each of his creatures' free choices without contradicting his own purposes, on the one hand, and that God cannot overrule each of his creatures' free choices because he is unable on the other.

The Bible clearly teaches that God is not the author of moral evil and cannot be blamed for it.¹⁶ "When tempted," James writes, "no one should say, 'God is tempting me.' For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone" (Jas. 1:13). The Bible clearly teaches that there is a degree to which the principle of evil is independent of (if ultimately subject to) God. To the degree that God permits evil, he is not directly responsible for it and cannot be blamed.

However, CES rightly points out that if God even permits evil, then to a degree he is ultimately responsible for it. The argument of free-will is not particularly helpful at this point, since we would not consider a human judge good (for example) who "respects" the freedom of criminals to perpetrate their crimes. Furthermore, even though God is not the author of evil, now that it has arrived God chooses to work through it to accomplish his purposes. How can this be?

The authors of Don't Blame God! frequently ask this question (pp. 54, 55, fn. 61, 56ff, 80, 87, 116). "If everything that happens were God's will," they write, "then nothing would be sin or disobedience. What a travesty of logic!" (p. 87). They cannot see how God can manipulate evil without being evil, without "making" free-will creatures do what is bad.

Ironically, one illustration they use to demonstrate how God does not manipulate evil actually elucidates the view that he does:

It should now be apparent that the analogy does not support the conclusion it has been invoked to bolster. It actually seems to go in the other direction, illustrating the view of theodicy presented here. In the analogy, is Bobby Fischer reaching across the chess board, grabbing his opponent's hand and actually forcing him or her to move certain pieces? Of course not. Every move the teenager makes is one of his or her own choice. Is Fischer manipulating his opponent? Absolutely.

Fischer is not desperately fighting "tooth and nail" to win the game; he sees the bigger picture and knows how to win. He knows how to entice or frighten his opponent into making certain moves which will ensure his victory. In this sense, Fischer is using his opponent. This is exactly how the Bible pictures God "using" the devil or accomplishing his purposes through evil; there really is a spiritual conflict in which free-will beings assert their own wills against God's, but ironically they seem to end up playing into God's hands, somehow accomplishing his purposes. Corrado Balducci writes:

The most dramatic example of this principle is the crucifixion of Christ. As the authors of Don't Blame God! point out, Satan worked "behind the scenes" to cruficy Christ (cf. Luke 22:3; John 13:2,27; 1 Cor. 2:8).¹⁸ However, God had predetermined that Christ would die on the cross, and that it would be the crux of salvation history (Acts 2:23; Rev. 13:8). Using the chess analogy, we might say that God intentionally sacrificed his queen in order to place the devil in check mate. CES suggests that God did not manipulate Satan and wicked men in that maneuver. But if God had intended it all along, how else could he have accomplished it?

This is the point of Job 1 and 2, and is why Job's trials are variously said to have come from Satan (1:12; 2:6,7) and from God (1:11,16,21; 2:3,5,10). Both statements are true. It was the devil who brought these problems upon Job, but it was God who granted him permission to do so (1:12; 26). Thus, the devil was directly responsible, and God indirectly responsible, for Job's trials. Notice, however, that they led to a good end (42:7-16), certainly to the devil's great frustration.

Apart from affirming that God is in control, there is much about the problem of evil that must remain veiled from our understanding. Though CES is not satisfied with God's answer to Job (38:1-41:34),¹⁹ we must be. "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, declares the LORD. As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts" (Isa. 55:8,9).

When tragedies happen in our lives, we struggle. We become angry and we question why God allowed them to happen. That is all right; it is healthy. This anguish is a necessary part of the healing process. But knowing that God is working in the situation to bring about good can and will bring comfort. We do not need to be good enough Christians or understand how to "authorize" God to intervene; God works for our good anyway.

Can we be any more specific about interpreting the tragedies of life? Not much. While we are experiencing a tragedy, we can almost never see the bigger picture; we must exercise our faith, knowing that there is a bigger picture. Only with hindsight can we sometimes understand how God manipulated the circumstances to bring good out of the tragedy.

Did God himself instigate the tragedy? Before we can even consider answering this question we must first consider the type of tragedy. Regarding natural disasters, we may recall that:

Regarding moral evil, we may affirm with CES that we cannot blame God for the moral sins committed by free-will beings, be they human or angelic (cf. Job 1:22). At the same time, however, it is true that God allowed the sin to be committed. Can we justify God's allowing such atrocities? We may if we recognize, first, that the potential for moral sin is the high price of freedom; and second, that although we cannot yet understand how, "in all things God works for the good of those who love him."

This second point will no doubt invite the criticism that I am affirming God's omnipotence and acknowledging the essential reality of evil at the inexcusable cost of depicting his goodness in such a way as to empty it of all appreciable meaning. The criticism is a valid one and has often been levelled at traditional theodicies which are content to vindicate the character of God and stop there. For this reason we must be quick to add that there is another dimension to this answer, namely, that "God rejects evil and desires us to fight it."²¹ In Christian theology, God is vindicated from the charge of cruelty not only by virtue of his unsearchable ways, but also because he willingly subjected his only Son whom he loves to all the horrors of the cross for our sakes. As someone has aptly paraphrased John 3:16, "For God so loved the world that he got involved."

Thus, as Jeffrey Burton Russell writes, we must recognize two equally important levels to the understanding of God and evil. On the first level, although God is both all-powerful and all-good, we cannot yet fully understand God's goodness and how it is being accomplished in the tumultuous events we perceive around us. On the second level, God hates evil and wants us to fight it, and he has paved the way for us in his Son whose example we are to follow. Russell writes:

Leaving room for the mystery inherent in this perception of God's goodness is the key to affirming his omnipotence and his goodness even while recognizing the reality of evil, sin, and suffering.

I have not attempted to address all of the issues surrounding the problem of evil; this is strictly a response article, and it should be read in that light. I have tried to the best of my ability to be fair and objective in my criticism. This issue is of more than minor importance. What we think about God's nature can determine whether or not we find the divine comfort we need when difficult times arise. We must make sure our theodicy does not leave us stranded when trust in God is needed most.

As we have seen, we certainly are not to blame God for the evils rampant in the world today. However, I would add that we must not doubt his power either. My reply to Christian Educational Services is, "Don't doubt God!"

1The term "theodicy" comes from two Greek words, theos ("God") and dike ("right" or "justice").