This paper compares and contrasts the theologies of Jürgen Moltmann and Wolfhart Pannenberg, focusing on their respective approaches to the problem of evil and theodicy. The analysis examines how each theologian understands human freedom, divine nature, and the role of suffering in the world. While Pannenberg emphasizes creaturely independence and a traditional conception of God as omnipotent and omniscient, Moltmann stresses God's solidarity with human suffering and a more relational divine nature. Despite these differences, both theologians converge on the promise of a future Kingdom free from suffering, grounded in the physical resurrection of Christ as the definitive answer to evil.
How is it possible for God to be good in a world full of evil? This is one of the most essential questions all theologians grapple with, including Jürgen Moltmann and Wolfhart Pannenberg. Although there are similarities between both thinkers, according to Kane (2005), the two theologians hold fundamentally different views of human freedom and its relationship to the existence of evil.
For Pannenberg, all human beings have the freedom to fulfill their human destiny in either a positive or a negative fashion. "The ability to decide among possibilities of conduct is a high form of creaturely independence," but true freedom finds its fullest expression in the Trinity (Kane 2005: 41). Furthermore, although creation may manifest imperfections, this is not a reflection upon God, who remains separate from His creations, which are given free will and agency to choose evil (Kane 2005: 42).
In other words, if there is evil in the world, it is because of human origins, not because of God's imperfection. God could not give His creation all of His infinite wisdom and perfection without making that creation a rival God — hence the existence of evil in the world. As Kane summarizes Pannenberg's position: "If the creator willed a world of finite creatures and their independence, then he had to accept their corruptibility and suffering and the possibility of evil as a result of their striving for their own autonomy" (Kane 2005: 42).
In contrast, Moltmann suggests that suffering is a reality and that it is an opportunity to understand God better. He acknowledges the challenge of believing in a good God given a world full of suffering innocents. Yet Moltmann points out that even God in the form of Jesus cries out against the injustice of suffering, indicating God's own awareness of this problem. "Although Jesus went willingly…he did not suffer passively…he cried out 'My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?' (Mk. 15:34)" (Kane 2005: 44).
"Shared eschatological hope through Christ's resurrection"
"Contrasting views on divine nature and omnipotence"
You’re 48% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 2 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.