Brian Leftow’s observation that the logical problem of evil is largely resolved, mainly due to the success of free-will defenses, is not universally accepted.1 Graham Oppy, for instance, acknowledges the current shortcomings in formulating a logical argument from evil but contends that deeming such efforts futile is premature.2 Likewise, James Sterba’s recent work shows continued attempts to develop this argument.3 These views prompt a critical question: Is constructing a successful logical argument from evil futile, or will persistence yield success as it has in other philosophical inquiries?

This article introduces the ‘Layers of Reality Response’ to the logical problem of evil, aiming to conclusively resolve the debate for classical theists, independent of free-will defenses. This response establishes two points:

1. 1. Common linking principles in logical arguments from evil are not evidently true and fail to apply across different layers of reality.

2. 2. There is no non-question-begging linking principle for proponents of the logical argument from evil, making a successful formulation inherently unachievable.

If correct, this renders the logical argument from evil not just a philosophical failure but an argument that cannot, in principle, be successfully reformulated – it is not only dead but ‘unresurrectable’.

This article investigates how two eminent scholars, the French cultural historian Rémi Brague and the American professor of Government J.Budziszewski misunderstand Aquinas on law. It explores the possible reasons for their misunderstandings. In both cases there is a failure to appreciate the theological context and content of what St Thomas has to say about law. Their lack of appreciation for the theological content explains also their individual specific distortions of the account of law. Brague confuses eternal law and divine law, which Aquinas explicitly distinguishes, and applies an abstract notion of the divine which heapplies not only to medieval Christian texts, but also to Greek, Egyptian, Jewish, and Islamic ideas on law. Budziszewski imposes on St Thomas’s classification of types of law the logical structure of genus and species, despite acknowledging that Aquinas avoids this language. The result is that he fails to appreciate the significance of eternal law. Both scholars misapprehend eternal law, and this is due to their ignoring theology. They exemplify a characteristic mistake of treating St Thomas as a philosopher, and his theology as something added on to the philosophical account.