[1] Theodicy, in its most common form, is the attempt to answer the question of why a good God permits the manifestation of evil.
These scholars see a range of responses including punishment for sin, teaching or testing, or the means to some greater good.
"[24] In agreement with Boyd, Milton Crum comments that although such biblical passages might lessen the weight of suffering, ad hoc interpretations of evils do not provide a blanket theodicy.
Brueggemann defines "the theological notion of retribution" as "the assumption or conviction that the world is ordered by God so that everyone receives a fair outcome of reward or punishment commensurate with his or her conduct."
"[31] In John 9:1–34, Jesus dismisses this "theodic settlement" by explaining that "It was neither that [a blind] man sinned, nor his parents [that caused his infirmity]; but it was so that the works of God might be displayed in him.
"[32] Brueggemann treats the biblical Book of Job as the prime example of the "newly voiced theodic challenges" to the "old [Deuteronomic] theodic settlement"[33] Job "was blameless and upright, one who feared God and turned away from evil,"[34] but nonetheless he suffered "all the evil that the Lord had brought upon him.
"[35] In the midst of his suffering, Job explicitly contradicted the Deuteronomic theodic settlement: "it is all one; therefore I say, [God] destroys both the blameless and the wicked.
Now, he continues, "perhaps what is 'right' is Job's refusal to concede, and therefore what is celebrated is his entire defiant argument ... That is, what Yahweh intends as 'right' is that Job (Israel, humankind) should make a legitimate case" before God "without timidity or cowardice" to "carry the human question of justice into the danger zone of God's holiness.
"[41] A theodicy is an attempt "to reconcile the power and goodness attributed to God with the presence of evil in the human experience.
[43] The free-will theodicy, first developed by Augustine, defends God by placing all the blame for evil on "the misuse of free will by human beings."
"[47] Others have noted the free-will theodicy's "compatibility with and reliance upon the Genesis account of creation" and the fall of Adam and Eve into sin.
[48] Because of the compatibility between the free-will theodicy and the Genesis account of the Creation and Fall of humanity "the Fall-doctrine" has been characterized as "fundamentally an exercise in theodicy-making.
"[52] Manual Vargas adds that "it is not clear that there is any single thing that people have had in mind by the term ‘free will'.
"[54] Mortimer Adler recognized the confusion resulting from the fact that there are "several different objects men have in mind when they use the word freedom.
Natural freedom is "(i) inherent in all men, (ii) regardless of the circumstances under which they live and (iii) without regard to any state of mind or character which they may or may not acquire in the course of their lives"[57] Biblical scholars find that the Bible views all humanity as possessing the "natural freedom" of the will that enables "self-determination."
But Jesus' hearers did not understand that he was not talking about freedom from "economic or social slavery,"[67] so they responded, "we are descendants of Abraham and have never been slaves to anyone.
"[71] When the New Bible Dictionary says of humanity's connatural condition that "all his voluntary choices are in one way or another acts of serving sin," it references Romans 6:17–22.
Nelson's Student Bible Dictionary describes "the fall" as "the disobedience and sin of Adam and Eve that caused them to lose the state of innocence in which they had been created.
In their fall, Adam and Eve "disobeyed God and so lost their innocent, ideal existence" and "brought moral evil into the world.
Shortly after the Fall, "the Lord saw that the wickedness of humankind was great in the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of their hearts was only evil continually" (Genesis 6:5).
"[80] Critics of the free-will theodicy believe that it "fails" because "God could have created free agents without risking bringing moral evil into the world.
And, Mackie adds, "clearly, [God's] failure to avail himself of this possibility is inconsistent with his being both omnipotent and wholly good.
"[87] With no "definitive answer" to the theodic question, "debates about theodicy continue among believers and unbelievers alike," observes Robert F. Brown.
Theodicy remains a "perennial concern" because, Brown reports, "how the divine can be compatible with the existence of evil in the world has perplexed profound thinkers and ordinary people right down to the present day.