God's Natural Knowledge and His Decree

One of the most difficult areas of theology concerns the interplay between God’s knowledge (or foreknowledge) and what comes to pass in space and time. Every theological position comes at this issue in a different way, depending on their other theological commitments.

The specific issue is between the content of what is often termed "God’s Natural Knowledge" (also sometimes called "God's Necessary Knowledge") and everything that happens in reality from the first instant of creation through to the final consummation of all things in the new creation.

God’s natural knowledge could be defined as that part of God’s knowledge by which he perfectly knows himself, his very nature or essence. Since his essence is necessary, it follows that his natural knowledge includes all necessary truths. Since God's knowledge of himself must, by definition, include knowledge of everything God could do or permit in his creation, this knowledge includes knowledge of all possible creations, all possible creatures and all possible events that could happen to all those possible creatures. His natural knowledge contains every logically possible truth.

God's natural knowledge is often spoken of by Molinists, who distinguish between God's natural knowledge of possibilities and God's free knowledge of what will come to pass. Molinists also posit a third type of knowledge called "middle knowledge" which comes between the other other two and is God's knowledge of what free creatures would do in all feasible circumstances in which they could be placed.

Calvinists, by contrast only speak of God's natural (or necessary) knowledge and God's free knowledge of what will come to pass because God has decreed it.

Because Molinists often speak of natural knowledge, some of the best defintions of natural knowledge come from the Molinists. Here are some definitions:

“God knows all possibilities, including all necessary truths (e.g., the laws of logic), all the possible individuals and worlds he might create, as well as everything that every possible individual could freely do in any set of circumstances in which that individual found itself and everything that every possible stochastic [chance] process could randomly do in any set of circumstances where it existed…God knows his natural knowledge…as indispensable to his very nature, such that God could not lack this knowledge and still be God.” —Kirk R. MacGregor, Luis Molina: The Life and Theology of the Founder of Middle Knowledge (Zondervan, Grand Rapids, MI, Kindle Edition, p. 92)

“With natural knowledge God knows everything that could logically happen.”—Max Andrews, An Introduction to Molinism (Kindle Edition, pp. 38-39)

“God’s natural knowledge includes knowledge of all possibilities. He knows all the possible individuals he could create, all the possible circumstances he could place them in, all their possible actions and reactions, and all the possible worlds or orders which he could create. God could not lack this knowledge and still be God; the content of God’s natural knowledge is essential to him.” —William Lane Craig, The Only Wise God.

The following quote is from the Reformed theological perspective:

“Natural knowledge is God’s knowledge of all necessary truths. What this means is that God’s natural knowledge includes those things that are impossible not to be true, such as the law of non-contradiction (LNC) and God’s attributes. For example, there is no possibility that an object while being a rock is not a rock (LNC), or that God can be other than holy (divine attribute). We might observe up front that objects of natural knowledge are true without God willing them to be so. Rather, objects of natural knowledge are true because they are grounded in God’s unwilled nature. In addition to these sorts of necessary truths, God also knows all possibilities according to his natural knowledge. From a distinctly Reformed perspective, God’s natural knowledge of all possibilities correlates to God’s self-knowledge of what he can do. Which is to say, God can actualize all possibilities, which is not a tenet of Molinism.” —Ron DiaGiamo, “The Reformed Doctrine of Divine Foreknowledge – A Call for A Coherent and Unified Voice (https://philosophical-theology.com/2024/07/01/the-reformed-doctrine-of-divine-foreknowledge-a-call-for-a-coherent-and-unified-voice/)

This is an excellent point. Everything that God could have decreed (i.e. absolutely everything you could ever imagine having been decreed that is not illogical) and God’s natural knowledge of all possibilities are two ways of looking at the same body of possibilities. One limitation of Molinism is that there may be no feasible worlds in which person A would freely do act B at time C. But, provided A, B and C are not illogical nonsense, there is always a possible world in which God could decree that A would do B at time C in a Calvinist paradigm where free will means compatibilist freedom. There is less constraint on God—thanks to compatibilist free will—in Calvinism than there is in Molinism.

Also of interest are Paul Helm’s views found in his blog article “Shunning Middle Knowledge” (http://paulhelmsdeep.blogspot.com/2009/05/shunning-middle-knowledge.html)

Helm’s views have been influencing on me (as they have been on theologians like Terrance Tiessen I believe) that in Reformed theology with a determinative decree and compatibilist freedom, there is no need for the concept of middle knowledge at all. All we need is natural knowledge (the knowledge God has in himself by his own nature as God) and the free knowledge of everything that will be in line with what he himself has decreed.

I believe this is correct and I think some Calvinists muddy the waters by arguing that all counterfactual truths and possibilities are also part of the decree and are dependent for their existence on the decree. I can see no need why anything other than what comes to pass needs to be part of the decree.

Finally, look at Terrance Tiessen who seems to hold a view similar to what I am proposing: https://www.thoughtstheological.com/introducing-calvinism-and-middle-knowledge-a-conversation/

It is interesting that it seems to be always Molinists who talk about God’s natural knowledge. Why don’t Reformed theologians make greater use of this concept?

Linking God's natural knowledge of all possibilities by way of the eternal decree to God's exhaustive free knowledge of what will come to pass seems to me to be a very fruitful way of approaching subjects such as God's sovereignty over evil and his power to decree evil to occur without in any way being the author of sin.

If God has natural or necessary knowledge in himself of all possibilities, this means he has such knowledge of all possible evils, as well as all the matrices and nodes of secondary causation, free choices, and the circumstances that precede any evils as well as the impact or outcomes of any evils. If God has such knowledge, his ability to sovereignly decree evil to occur is entirely possible by a purely permissive decree. 

In other words, by way of natural or necessary knowledge of all possibilities and by a permissive decree, God can allow evil to certainly occur without in any sense having to be the author of sin. He merely has to let creatures act in ways of their own choosing. This concept destroys criticism of Calvinism from Arminians and others who mistakenly think that if God decrees an evil to take place this means God somehow has to positively bring that evil about. 

A "Calvinist" God who knows all possibilities and chooses to allow certain evils to take place is no more blameworthy than a "Molnist" or "Arminian" God who does the same thing.

I believe this approach is fully in line with the relevant teachings of the Westminster Confession of Faith as outlined in these excerpts:

WCF, II.2: “In His sight all things are open and manifest; His knowledge is infinite, infallible, and independent upon the creature, so as nothing is to Him contingent, or uncertain.”

WCF, III.1: “God from all eternity did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass: yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures, nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.”

WCF, III.2: “Although God knows whatsoever may or can come to pass upon all supposed conditions, yet hath He not decreed anything because He foresaw it as future, or as that which would come to pass upon such conditions.”

WCF, III.3: “By the decree of God, for the manifestation of His glory, some men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting life, and others foreordained to everlasting death.”

WCF, V.1: “God the great Creator of all things doth uphold, direct, dispose, and govern all creatures, actions, and things, from the greatest even to the least, by His most wise and holy providence, according to His infallible foreknowledge, and the free and immutable counsel of His own will, to the praise of the glory of His wisdom, power, justice, goodness, and mercy.”

WCF, V.2: “Although, in relation to the foreknowledge and decree of God, the first Cause, all things come to pass immutably, and infallibly: yet, by the same providence, He ordereth them to fall out, according to the nature of second causes, either necessarily, freely, or contingently.”

WCF, V.4: “The almighty power, unsearchable wisdom, and infinite goodness of God so far manifest themselves in His providence, that it extendeth itself even to the first fall, and all other sins of angels and men; and that not by a bare permission, but such as hath joined with it a most wise and powerful bounding, and otherwise ordering and governing of them, in a manifold dispensation, to His own holy ends; yet so, as the sinfulness thereof proceedeth only from the creature, and not from God, who, being most holy and righteous, neither is, nor can be, the author or approver of sin.”

I don’t think Calvinists make enough use of God’s natural knowledge in our theology. I have heard Calvinists say that the reason God knows what will happen is because God decreed it to happen. That is true as far as it goes, but it is like looking at a cropped picture. This is where I think natural knowledge, which is prevolitional and logically before the decree comes in.

God’s decree does decide what will happen. As the Confession says: “God from all eternity did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass” (WCF, III.1). But God’s decree does not simply come out of nowhere. God has natural knowledge logically prior to the decree and the decree flows out of God’s natural knowledge. We might even say that God’s natural knowledge of all logical possibilities includes knowledge of all possible decrees God could have put into effect. From all these, he chose one to be the decree that ordains everything in this world. 

I think the important point, in terms of God not being the author of sin, is that God does not have to actively decree anything evil to happen. He can decree is permissively, genuinely permissively, as long as he has natural knowledge that an actor will behave in a certain way in certain conditions. While this is similar in some respects to the Molinist explanation of foreordination via middle knowledge of libertarian choices, this Reformed providential mechanism is different because it is based only on natural knowledge of all possibilities along with a compatibilist view of freedom. Compatibilist freedom or free will is the view that free will and divine determinism are compatible. The explanation for this is because the view accepts a choice was made freely as long as (a) the actor did what he wanted to do, (b) he was neither forced nor coerced so to act.

If God has natural knowledge of all possibilities, this must include knowledge of what any creature would choose to do in any possible matrix of characteristics, desires, conditions and situations, and all causal linkages from the first nanosecond of creation. That knowledge, in combination with a compatibilist view of human free will, is enough to account for a providential model in which God can decree everything which comes to pass yet is in no sense the author of sin.

And this is the Reformed or Calvinist model of providence I believe best accounts for the entirety of scriptural teaching.

The Biblical Doctrine of Common Grace

Reformed theology is often regarded as a theology of particularism. We believe that God unconditionally elects a particular people for salvation. We believe Christ with the intention of saving only the elect. We believe the Holy Spirit regenerates the elect and that irresistible grace draws the elect to saving faith. The whole focus of our doctrine of salvation is on the saving grace of God shown to a particular people chosen by God from every nation, tongue and tribe on earth to be his own.

Yet in viewing the world as it is and the whole counsel of God in the Scriptures, Reformed theology also teaches the doctrine of common grace, to account for all the goodness God gives to people indiscriminately, elect and non-elect alike.

In this piece we have three objectives:

1. To define what we mean by common grace.

2. To explain the content of common grace

3. To present the biblical basis for common grace.

1. Defining Common Grace

Common grace is essentially the goodness and kindness God shows to all people, elect and non-elect alike, out of his love for them as his creatures, in this world.

I agree with the Presbyterian theologian, John Murray, who said that common grace is 'every favour of whatever kind or degree, falling short of salvation, which this undeserving and sin-cursed world enjoys at the hand of God.' (from 'Common Grace' in Murray's Collected Writings, Vol. 2).

Each part of Murray's definition is significant. Common grace covers every good things of any kind and to any extent that God gives to the world other than instant judgment and destruction. Yet the 'boundary' of common grace is, as Murray says, that these favours or gifts given by God are those 'falling short of salvation.'

The Reformed theologian, Louis Berkhof, provides a similar definition to Murray. Berkhof says that common grace is 'the natural blessings which God showers upon man in this present life, in sprite of the fact that man has forfeited them and lies under the sentence of death.' (Systematic Theology, p. 435).

The Reformed Baptist theologian, Wayne Grudem, makes the point that everything human beings receive from God other than immediate judgment must be considered gracious on God's part. He says:

Once people sin, God's justice would require only one thing—that they be eternally separated from God, cut off from experiencing any good from him, and that they live forever in hell, receiving only his wrath eternally. In fact this was what happened to the angels who sinned, and it could justly have happened to us as well. (Systematic Theology, p. 657)

Why didn't this happen? Grudem asks the pertinent questions: 'How can God continue to give blessings to sinners who deserve only death—not only to those who will ultimately be saved, but also to millions who will never be saved, whose sins will never be forgiven?' (p. 657).

The answer, of course, is common grace, which Grudem simply defines as 'the grace of God by which he gives people innumerable blessings that are not part of salvation.'

The pastor-theologian, Sam Storms, helpfully defines 'common grace' like this:

Common grace, as an expression of the goodness of God, is every favor, falling short of salvation, which this undeserving and sin-cursed world enjoys at the hand of God; this includes the delay of wrath, the mitigation of our sin-natures, natural events that lead to prosperity, and all gifts that human use and enjoy naturally. ("The Goodness of God and Common Grace" at The Gospel Coalition).

A world of fallen, totally depraved sinners would soon dissolve into absolute mayhem, chaos and wickedness without common grace. Life in such a world would be as the philosopher, Thomas Hobbes, put it, one of 'continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.' (Leviathan, I. xiii. 9).

The fact that the world is not, in general, like this, is accounted for in Reformed theology by common grace. The Reformed theologian, Louis Berkhof, put it this way:

[Common grace] curbs the destructive power of sin, maintains in a measure the moral order of the universe, thus making an orderly life possible, distributes in varying degrees gifts and talents among men, promotes the development of science and art, and showers untold blessings upon the children of men. (Systematic Theology, p. 434)

Yet, common grace has limitations. As it does not provide saving benefits, it only consists of 'temporary benefits' in this life. Although that does not make God's goodness or kindness any less real, they merely cover a temporary postponement of God's justice to come in the future. As Thomas Boston put it, such blessings are 'a mere temporary and permissive right, as a condemned man has to nourishment, as long as it pleases the king to postpone the execution, but this is a very uncertain and sad possession' (quoted by G. H. Kersten in his Dogmatic Theology, p.75).

Kersten, a Dutch Reformed theologian, says common grace has a threefold purpose:

• It glorifies God in the goodness and kindness he continues to show to humanity as his creatures.
• It supports God's good pleasure and purpose in bringing forth God's elect for salvation
• It exalts the righteouness of God in his judgment of the wicked (so they are utterly without excuse in rejecting God).

Having reviewed this material, I offer the following definition of common grace. 

Common grace is all temporal blessings given to human beings as creatures, proceeding from the goodness and love of God, furthering God's purpose in saving the elect and consistent with God's purpose in rejecting the reprobate.

2. The Content of Common Grace

Since common grace encompasses everything humanity receives from God other than immediate judgment and condemnation, the content of common grace is hugely extensive and it is not possible to cover every conceivable instance of common grace.

Yet theologians have put forward a number of broad categories of common grace, which we will briefly summarise.

1. Sustaining Life and the World - since the death sentence on sinners is delayed on average for 70 or more years, every day of life given to human beings from their birth is common grace. Sustaining the existence of the world is also part of God's providential care, as are things necessary to life such as the water cycle, seedtime and harvest, sunshine and rain.

2. Providing Good Things - this would include giving us family and friends, resources such as food, shelter, work, money, enjoyment, work, leisure, which are all enjoyed by the elect and non-elect alike.

3. Providential Restraint of Sin - instituting civil government to promote good and punish evil, limiting sinful behaviour, maintaining civil order, peace, police and armed forces, giving people a conscience .

4. Providing Civil, Cultural and Scientific Advances - this would include music, art, medical, scientific and technological advances to improve human life and flourishing.

3. The Biblical Basis of Common Grace

There are many Bible verses that speak to the type of non-saving gracious goodness and kindness extended to all people, that we call 'common grace.' The following verses all speak to aspects of common grace and most of them can be listed without additional comment. All verses are quoted from the New Heart English Bible simply because it is a modern translation in the public domain.

Psalm 145:8-9: "The LORD is gracious, merciful, slow to anger, and of great loving kindness. The LORD is good to all. His tender mercies are over all his works."

Acts 14:16-17: "In the generations gone by [He] allowed all the nations to walk in their own ways. Yet he did not leave himself without witness, in that he did good and gave you rains from the sky and fruitful seasons, filling your hearts with food and gladness."

2 Thessalonians 2:6-7: "Now you know what is restraining him, to the end that he may be revealed in his own season. For the mystery of lawlessness already works. Only there is one who restrains now, until he is taken out of the way."

Speaking here of the "Man of Lawlessness," Paul states that God is restraining sin, which of one of the central aspects of common grace, which accounts for how a world of totally depraved sinners is not as evil as we might expect it to be.

Romans 2:4: ""Or do you despise the riches of his goodness [or "kindness"], forbearance, and patience, not knowing that the goodness [or "kindness"] of God leads you to repentance?"

Romans 2:14-15: "For when the non-Jews who do not have the law do by nature the things of the law, these, not having the law, are a law to themselves, since they show the work of the law written on their hearts, their conscience bearing witness, and their thoughts either accusing or defending them."

These verses in Romans 2 make it clear that even pagan non-believers have a conscience which is a gift from God, a particular part of his common grace to restrain sin and leave everyone without excuse.

The following passage is part of Paul's sermon at the Areopagus in Athens. Among other points, Paul is clear that every in our lives, including our lives themselves, come from God. Agreeing with a pagan poet, Paul says "in him we live, and move, and have our being."

Acts 17:24-31: "The God who made the world and all things in it, he, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands, neither is he served by human hands, as though he needed anything, seeing he himself gives to all life and breath, and all things. He made from one blood every nation of the human race to dwell on all the surface of the earth, having determined appointed seasons, and the boundaries of their dwellings, that they should seek God, if perhaps they might reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us. 'For in him we live, and move, and have our being.' As some of your own poets have said, 'For we are also his offspring.' Being then the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Divine Nature is like gold, or silver, or stone, engraved by human art and design. The times of ignorance therefore God overlooked. But now he commands that all people everywhere should repent, because he has appointed a day in which he will judge the world in righteousness by the man whom he has ordained; of which he has given assurance to everyone by raising him from the dead."

Matthew 5:43-48: "You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbour, and hate your enemy.' But I tell you, love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the just and the unjust. For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? And if you only greet your brothers, what more do you do than others? Do not even the non-Jews do the same? You therefore are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect."

This is one of the most relevant passages regarding common grace and is the direct teaching of Jesus himself. Clearly Christ links the command for us to love our enemies with the fact that God loves everyone and that from this love he sends good gifts to the righteous and unrighteous alike. This is practically the definition of what we mean by common grace. A similar but not identical version of Christ's teaching occurs in the next passage from Luke.

Luke 6:35-36: "But love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing back; and your reward will be great, and you will be children of the Most High; for he is kind toward the unthankful and evil. Therefore be merciful, even as your Father is also merciful."

Christ links us loving our enemies and doing good to them with being children of God—which includes being like God since "he is kind" to all, even the unthankful and evil.

1 Timothy 6:17: "Charge those who are rich in this present world that they not be haughty, nor have their hope set on the uncertainty of riches, but on God, who richly provides us with everything to enjoy."

James 1:17: "All generous giving and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom can be no variation, nor turning shadow."

Dangerous Freedom

A year ago today, Glasgow was shocked by the tragic accident in which a bin lorry went out of control, killing a number of Christmas shoppers and injuring many more.

Today we remember those who lost their lives and those still alive whose lives will never be the same again.

It is not often I quote Roman Catholic archbishops, but I still recall the words of Philip Tartaglia at the funeral of some of the victims. I thought he managed to convey a deep theological truth in his words of comfort, and touched on something of the relationship between divine providence and human freedom that still resonates with me. It certainly challenges the "God did this/blame God" mentality that many people seem to accept, sadly even many Christians, whenever tragic loss of life occurs. The archbishop said:

God created us for life and freedom. And in this life we are free. We move as we wish. We are not puppets on a string, not robots controlled from afar. At the same time we are not indestructible, not immune from forces which are too much for us. Our bodies cannot survive everything here on earth. These are the limitations of the human condition.*

Great freedom gives us the scope for great joy, love and compassion, but it also gives scope for great evil, danger and loss. We saw the dangers last year on the streets of Glasgow, but we saw also great love and compassion in the response of the people of Glasgow afterwards and it is in the human capacity to love that we find the deepest reason for why God has granted the sometimes dangerous but priceless gift of freedom.

__

* Philip Tartaglia's funeral address was reported in The Scotsman on 3rd January 2015.

Providence and Prayer

Providence and Prayer: How Does God Work in the World?
Terrance Tiessen
Inter-Varsity Press, Downers Grove, Illinois 2000

This book on providence and prayer is great. It is one of the best Christian books I have read this year. In it, Tiessen explores various models of God's providence and how the various views have an impact on how we might view intercessory prayer.

Tiessen presents a total of eleven different models of providence. The first ten models he presents with meticulous fairness, presenting each model in as positive a light as possible (as if being presented by a proponent of the view) without negative criticism. The models presented range in a spectrum from "semi-deism" at the one extreme through to "fatalism" on the other extreme. The viewpoints explored include:

• The Semi-Deist Model
• The Process Model
• The Openness Model
• The Church Dominion Model
• The Redemptive Intervention Model
• The Molinist Model
• The Thomist Model
• The Barthian Model
• The Calvinist Model
• The Fatalist Model

One of the most interesting aspects of the book is that Tiessen presents a fictional scenario to begin with in which a man's son who is a missionary has been kidnapped with two others and is being held for ransom in a foreign country. The father then goes to his church prayer meeting and people pray for the men who have been kidnapped. Each chapter ends with how a person holding to each of the models of providence might pray in the circumstances in line with what each model teaches.

Towards the end of the book, Tiessen changes approach from a neutral presentation of facts to a more polemical approach favouring an eleventh model of providence which is his own preferred choice. Tiessen calls this view "Middle Knowledge Calvinism" (hereafter "MKC"). MKC is an attractive model somewhere between Molinism and Calvinism.

MKC differs sharply from Molinism because it rejects libertarian free will and accepts compatibilist free will - that we have a free will to make choices voluntarily, but not independently of our own desires, characteristics, circumstances, etc. Because God can influence these things, he is able to achieve his plans and purposes through the free choices of human beings without using anything like force or coercion. In effect, God has an infallible ability to influence us to do what he wants through doing what we want.

MKC is basically a form of infralapsarian Calvinism. The only difference being that in Tiessen's MKC, God does not need to positively foreordain everything in order to foreknow it will happen. Because he has middle knowledge of everything a free creature would do in any set of circumstances in any one of an infinite number of possible worlds, God merely has to choose to realise or "actualise" the particular world in which what human beings do what he wants to fulfil his purposes. God's will is then perfectly carried out while human beings act perfectly freely in the world God chose to actualise. The difference in Tiessen's view from standard Calvinist models is that MKC gives a much greater place to God's permission of events to achieve his purposes. If God knows what creatures would do in particular circumstances, all God has to do is create this particular world in which those circumstances arise to render certain future events without having to directly control them or even cause them. Due to middle knowledge, much of what happens in history only has to be left to happen because it is foreknown, though God is still free to intervene or display his power in direct action whenever he wishes to do so.

It seems to me that MKC is an excellent model of God's providence that preserves the biblical teachings on God's sovereignty and on human responsibility and freedom. Tiessen's view combines the sound aspects of several different models of providence. Although basically Calvinist, it also incorporates the key idea of middle knowledge from Molinism, and the concept from Open Theism that God's emotional responses to events are real and not merely anthropomorphisms.

Tiessen's book concludes with a chapter on how MKC offers a useful background to a sound doctrine of prayer.

Though not an easy read in that it deals with some of the most complex issues in theology, Providence and Prayer is not a technically difficult book. The chapters are all well-written and clearly explain the ideas involved in each model presented. It deserves to be better known that it is. It is a classic treatment of the doctrines of providence and prayer.

God in the Shadows

God in the Shadows
Brian Morley
Christian Focus Publications 2006

This book is subtitled "Evil in God's World" and is a good overall textbook on what theologians and philosophers call "the problem of evil". This treatment of the subject is written from an evangelical Christian perspective.

The problem of evil can be stated quite simply in this question: How can it be that there is evil in the world created by a all-good and all-powerful God? The problem being, so philosophers state, that if God can stop evil but doesn't then he isn't wholly good, yet if God cannot stop evil but would, then he isn't all-powerful.

Brian Morley's book looks at this issue and these presuppositions and subjects them to biblical and theological examination.

The book begins with looking at what Morley - and Christian theism generally - would say are wrong answers to the problem which include:

1. There is no God
2. There is no real evil
3. God is not really all-powerful
4. God is not really all-good

He then examines a number of answers that have been put forward to show that there are reasons why an all-good and all-powerful God might nevertheless permit evil to exist in the world he created. These include the following arguments:

1. The free will defence - God gives human beings real choices. We are not mere robots or actors who don't realise we are acting out a pre-written play. As soon as freedom is given to a moral creature, it is possible to choose evil instead of good.

2. That suffering is used to build character - in other words, that there are ways in which our character can be shaped through the suffering we go through. For example, suffering the grief of losing someone close to us might give us the empathy, sympathy and compassion to help other people who are grieving in ways that wouldn't be the same if we hadn't gone through it. I don't think this is a strong argument as it doesn't really explain why there is suffering in the first place; rather it is an argument for how some good can come out of evil, but for me that's a different point.

3. The justice defence - that the world is sinful and we are all sinners. Sometimes, "evil" or suffering comes to us in response to our own actions. On some occasions, the link is natural: if we do harmful things to ourselves like over drinking, taking drugs or smoking, for example, then there is a price to pay for this. If our health suffers as a result, such suffering should be expected. Sometimes the link is moral: although it is unpopular to say it, Morley doesn't shy away from saying that sometimes bad things happen to bad people. Finally, there are times when there is no link and a person suffers who has "done nothing to deserve it." However, in a fallen world where sin has consequences, there is often what military theorists would call "collateral damage". Morley points out the Bible has a different understanding of responsibility to our western philosophical ideas. Sometimes there must be corporate responsibility and individuals suffer because of the sins of a nation or a society.

There are a number of other chapters dealing with subjects such as illness, war, poverty, etc. And there is a useful chapter on looking at the world from the eternal viewpoint of heaven and hell to come (putting suffering now in perspective).

I thought this was an excellent book addressing some of the most difficult theological and pastoral problems. Definitely recommended.