The basis of the Irenaean type theodicy is that human beings are developing towards perfection. The emphasis is to understand the world as a ‘vale of soul-making’. God deliberately created a world in which it is not immediately and overwhelmingly evident that there is a God. This allows human beings to have freedom to come to God and to make free and responsible moral choices. Evil and suffering are justified since they are the means by which all human beings will eventually succeed in becoming morally perfect. Indeed, some moral goods are responses to evils and hence cannot exist without them – for example, compassion.
In the 21st century this approach to the problem of evil has some attractions. It is compatible with a scientific view of evolution and therefore is more successful than the Augustinian type theodicy. However, if the Biblical accounts are regarded as depicting historical events then the Irenaean type theodicy would not be persuasive. Indeed, for a Christian theodicy, it would seem to be wanting as the atoning work of Christ and his redemptive power of salvation through death on the Cross seems to be irrelevant. There seems no place for the forgiveness of sins. Also, surely an all powerful benevolent God could find a more compassionate mechanism for his creation to grow and develop towards God? Indeed, evil often ruins and destroys people rather than making them perfect.
However, such criticisms may not be sufficient to reject the theodicy. It does have strengths that may outweigh its apparent weaknesses. For instance, it seems reasonable that some goods do require the existence of evil (e.g. compassion) and the end does justify the means since all ultimately experience the ultimate joy and that joy lasts eternally. There is clearly purpose in the experience of evil. The theodicy also involves genuine human responsibility and so respects genuine human free will.
Furthermore, it is true that it removes the problem of hell since all achieve perfection, ie the end result is guaranteed since that is the justification for the existence of evil – it achieves its end. But if the end result of perfection is guaranteed then what is the point of going through all the pain and suffering? In addition surely we could use our free will to rebel eternally and so never reach perfection?
The arguments show that it can offer a solution to the problem of evil but not without some serious difficulties remaining. However, it could be argued that the alternative theodicies raise even greater problems and so many may feel that the Irenaean type theodicy is not totally unsuccessful. After all it does provide a solution but the extent it is persuasive will be up to the individual to weigh up and decide. In particular, the problem of the lack of the need for the death of Jesus may be for many, a deciding factor in rejecting the theodicy.