苦难与恶的问题
The Problem of Evil and Suffering
核心论证 Core Argument
苦难问题常被用来反对上帝存在，但实际上它预设了客观道德——而客观道德恰恰需要上帝。改革宗神学认为：（1）上帝有充分的道德理由允许苦难；（2）人的有限性使我们无法完全理解上帝的旨意；（3）上帝自己在十字架上进入了人类最深的苦难；（4）上帝应许最终消除一切苦难（启示录21:4）。 普兰丁格在《上帝、自由与恶的本质》中证明了"逻辑版恶的问题"已被解决——上帝和恶的共存在逻辑上不矛盾，因为创造拥有自由意志的存在物本身是善，自由意志的可能被滥用是恶的来源。即使麦基也承认普兰丁格的自由意志辩护成功回应了逻辑版恶的问题。 当代讨论转向"概率版恶的问题"。"怀疑有神论"指出：我们有限的认知使我们没有资格判断某种苦难是否真的"无意义"。正如两岁孩子无法理解打针为何是好的，我们也可能无法理解上帝允许某些苦难的理由。 基督教最独特的回应是位格性的：上帝在基督里亲自进入苦难最深处。十字架表明上帝不是旁观者，而是亲自承担了罪恶的终极代价。复活应许苦难的最终结局：上帝将擦去一切眼泪。
The problem of evil is often used against God's existence, but it presupposes objective morality — which requires God. Reformed theology holds: (1) God has morally sufficient reasons for permitting suffering; (2) Human finitude prevents fully grasping God's purposes; (3) God Himself entered deepest suffering on the Cross; (4) God promises to eliminate all suffering (Revelation 21:4). Plantinga in 'God, Freedom, and Evil' demonstrated the logical problem of evil is resolved — God and evil's coexistence isn't logically contradictory, since creating free beings is a good, and possible misuse of free will is evil's source. Even Mackie conceded Plantinga's Free Will Defense succeeded. Contemporary discussion shifted to the evidential problem. Skeptical theism responds: our limited cognition disqualifies us from judging whether any suffering is truly 'pointless.' Just as a two-year-old cannot understand vaccination's benefit, we may not grasp God's reasons for permitting certain sufferings. Christianity's most unique response is personal: God in Christ entered suffering's deepest depths. The Cross shows God personally bore the ultimate cost of evil. The resurrection promises suffering's final resolution: God will wipe every tear.