Why Does God Allow Suffering

Why Does God Allow Suffering

Thomas Allen

In “Suffering and the God of Love,” Glad Tidings of the Kingdom of God, issue 1666, pages 13–17, Chris Furniss attempts to explain why God allows suffering. His argument seems to center around disproving the atheist’s assertion about the nonexistence of God.

He admits that suffering “has probably caused more people to lose faith, and prevented more people from finding faith, than almost any other problem.” (P. 13.) Although he does not discuss prayer specifically, unanswered prayer has done more damage. In Matthew 7:7, Jesus said, “Ask and it shall be given you.” As everyone who has ever prayed knows that this promise has not been kept. (See “Why Elijah Defeated the Baal Priests” by Thomas Allen.)

Furniss summarizes the atheist’s argument that God does not exist:

Christians believe in a loving, all-powerful God. But such a God would want to stop all the suffering in the world. He has not stopped the suffering, therefore either:

a He is all-powerful but not loving, or 

b He is loving but not all-powerful, or 

c He does not exist. (P. 13.)

Furniss does not discuss an argument that is not atheistic. According to this argument, only two of the following propositions can be true:

1. God is all-knowing, omniscient.

2. God is all-powerful, omnipotent.

3. God is a God of love, benevolent.

If God possesses the two attributes, omniscience and omnipotence, commonly given to Him (and the Bible supports these attributes), then He is not benevolent. Instead, He is malevolent. If God is benevolent, then He lacks one or both of the attributes that the Bible claims that He has.

Furniss asserts that the atheist’s argument is based on four false assumptions:

1.  that God is in some way responsible for suffering,

2.  that suffering is necessarily bad,

3.  that if God allows suffering when He has power to stop it, He is therefore lacking love, and

4.  that because God has not so far stopped suffering, He therefore never will. (P. 13.)

Then, Furniss proceeds to refute these four propositions. He presents four arguments against the first proposition.

First, deliberate acts of humans cause suffering. These acts include crimes and wars. Furniss believes that blaming God for these acts is unfair. (Yet, God is omniscient and omnipotent. Since He does not intervene to prevent such acts of suffering, He is at least partially responsible. Moreover, He commanded the Israelites to war against the people of Canaan, so He is solely responsible for the suffering of the Israelites and the people of Canaan caused by these wars.)

Second, humans unintentionally cause suffering. Furniss uses famine and starvation as examples. According to him, God has provided the world with more than an adequate food supply, but people refuse to share. (Furniss fails to realize that most famines are political. They result from wars or political leaders deliberately starving their people. No amount of sharing will relieve these types of famines. Nevertheless, since God is omniscient and omnipotent and since He fails to intervene to relieve the suffering, He is at least partially responsible.)

Third, human foolishness causes suffering. As an example, Furniss uses a drunk driver causing an accident. He asks who is to blame. The implication is that the drunk driver is solely to blame. (True, the drunk driver is to blame. However, being omniscient and omnipotent, God could have prevented the accident. Therefore, He is at least partially responsible.)

Fourth, suffering is beyond a person’s control, i.e., the suffering is not the fault of the sufferer. An example is a child born deformed. (Again, since God is omniscient and omnipotent, He can prevent such suffering. Therefore, He is at least partially responsible.)

(I am not sure which one of the four above arguments Furniss would place the plagues of Egypt that occurred just before Moses led the Israelites from Egypt. Nevertheless, God was responsible for the plagues as He caused them, and, therefore, He was responsible for the suffering that they caused.)

In response to the second proposition, Furniss argues that suffering is not necessarily bad. In his argument, he confuses pain with suffering. For example, when a person touches a hot object, he feels pain, which causes him to withdraw his hand and prevents him from suffering a third-degree burn. Furthermore, Furniss states that according to Paul, suffering is a gift from God and good for the sufferer. (Consequently, following Furniss’ reasoning, child abuse, battery, etc. are gifts from God and are good for the sufferer. Thus, he makes God appear malevolent. Moreover, his argument for this proposition contradicts some of his arguments for the first proposition since people attempting to relieve suffering are depriving the sufferer of a gift from God.)

For the third proposition, Furniss argues that God deliberately allows people to suffer because He loves them. (Do parents show their love for their children by beating their children unmercifully? Following Furniss’ reasoning, they do. Or, do they show their love by sparing their children from as much suffering as possible?) Although God can prevent suffering, Furniss claims that God is completely innocent of all human suffering. (However, other than assertions, Furniss offers no convincing argument on why an omniscient and omnipotent benevolent God bears no responsibility for human suffering.) Furniss blames sin as the cause of suffering.

Furniss answers the fourth proposition by claiming that God will eventually end suffering. God ends suffering by removing the cause of suffering: sin. Then, Furniss offers two ways for God to remove sin.

First, God makes it impossible for people to sin. According to Furniss, the only way that God can prevent people from sinning is to strip them of their free will and turn them into robots.

Second, God sets forth a plan that shows people how to live and provides a way to salvation. (How following God’s plan, even perfectly, prevents suffering beyond a person’s control, Furniss does not explain. Moreover, if God can only prevent sin by stripping people of their free will and converting them to robots — as Furniss asserts, then saved people in the hereafter must be robots with no free will. If not, they would start the sin cycle again. Not only can people sin willfully, but they can also sin accidentally or because of ignorance or stupidity.)

For Furniss’ arguments to be valid, at least one of these three must be true:

1. The sin of omission does not exist, i.e., failure to act is not a sin. (For more on the sin of omission, see “Some Random Thoughts on Religion” by Thomas Allen.)

2. If the sin of omission does exist, then God, who is omniscient and omnipotent, is the greatest sinner of all.

3. If the sin of omission exists and if God is not a sinner, then God is held to a lower standard than are humans.

Trying to refute the atheist, Furniss attempts to present God as a benevolent God who shows his love for people by allowing them to suffer. However, he portrays a God who either revels in human suffering or is limited in knowledge and power like humans.

Copywrite © 2023 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More religious articles.