Having ruled out finitude as an explanation for sin, we face another dilemma: if sin isn’t inevitable and rebellion is voluntary, how did evil enter a good creation if God made man upright? Human logic fails to fully grasp divine sovereignty and human responsibility. The Bible affirms this paradox without fully explaining it. Theology becomes mystery, as Paul notes (1 Tim 3:9). This isn’t a mystery of ignorance but one of revealed truth beyond our systematization.

The problem of evil has long been the sharpest blade pressed against the Christian faith. If God is good, why is there evil? If God is sovereign, why does He allow suffering? If God is both good and sovereign, how can a world like this exist at all? If you haven’t been asked this question, maybe you have wrestled with this problem yourself. As Christians, we must understand how to answer this question for ourselves and for the people we interact with, to shed biblical clarity on this difficult question. 

These questions are not new. They are as old as Eden and as persistent as human pain. They’re at the forefront anytime you turn on or read the news headlines. And Scripture never treats them lightly. But neither does Scripture surrender the ground of God’s holiness, sovereignty, or goodness in order to make evil more palatable.

At the outset, we must be clear, using R. C. Sproul’s language: evil is not a “thing.” It is not a substance God created. Evil is a privation, a lack of what ought to be there. Moral evil is the absence of moral good. Physical evil is the absence of physical good. Metaphysical evil is the absence of metaphysical perfection. Evil exists parasitically, not independently. It is important for us to understand that evil is not merely circulating in the air we breathe, that we can “catch” it if we pay attention. Evil is possible when it is attached to a “thing.”

This distinction matters because it guards us from accusing God of creating evil while still allowing us to speak honestly about its reality. We must avoid the temptation of “defending God” from what the Scriptures teach, and instead, speak plainly and clearly about what the Bible does teach us about God and His attributes.

Creatureliness, Finitude, and the Limits of Explanation

Gottfried Leibniz famously argued that moral evil flows from physical evil, which in turn flows from metaphysical evil. Metaphysical evil, in his framework, is simply finitude. To be created is to be limited. To be limited is to be weak. To be weak is to err. “To err is human” because humans are finite.

This is true: we are not God. We lack omniscience, omnipotence, and immutability. Scripture clearly shows our creaturely limitations: “He knows our frame; He remembers that we are dust” (Ps 103:14, LSB). We are beings dependent on others, prone to decay, ignorance, and weakness. Yet, this explanation alone cannot fully bear the moral responsibility it is often expected to support. Why is that? Why is it a problem that evil is associated with and attached to finitude? 

The answer is simple: if sin is a necessary consequence of finitude, then logically it follows that sin is excusable. Human moral responsibility collapses, and God’s judgments become unjust. Paul anticipates this question directly: “Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?” (Rom 9:19). How can Christ be the righteous judge if we are merely a consequence of our finitude? Scripture never answers that question by appealing to inevitability. It answers by appealing to divine authority and human accountability.

Finitude explains capacity, not culpability. It shows how a creature can sin, not why. Being finite means being limited, lacking omniscience, omnipotence, and moral flawlessness. Finite creatures can be tempted, deceived, pressured, and tested, but these do not cause sin; they only make it possible.

Sin is not an inevitable result of being limited. If it were, God would be morally accountable for sin simply because He created finite beings. However, Scripture clearly rejects this idea. “Far be it from God that He should do wickedness” (Job 34:10). Moral evil stems not just from weakness, but from a will that opposes God.

Adam serves as a strong reference point for us. Although he was finite, he was created as “very good” (Gen 1:31). He did not possess omniscience, but he knew enough to obey. While he lacked immutability, he still had genuine righteousness. Ecclesiastes 7:29 clearly states: “God made men upright, but they have sought out many schemes.” Adam’s finiteness did not compel him to sin; rather, his will chose to sin.

The temptation in Eden did not coerce Adam. It appealed. The serpent did not remove Adam’s moral capacity; it exploited his desire. God made the prohibition clear, and the consequences were explicit (Gen 2:16–17). Adam’s disobedience was not a tragic inevitability of creaturehood but a conscious act of rebellion. Paul confirms this by calling Adam’s act a transgression (Rom 5:15), meaning a “violation of moral standards,” not an accident, limitation, or inevitability. 

This distinction is crucial. Limitation may create vulnerability, but sin requires volition (choice). James makes this explicit: “Each one is tempted when he is carried away and enticed by his own lust” (James 1:14). The word “lust” James uses is purposeful, as it means “a desire for something forbidden.” When we understand that temptation operates externally but sin is born internally, desire conceives. The will acts. Responsibility remains with the individual. 

Read More