The Problem of Evil combined with the problem of Free Will

[Harry Nevis]

How do theists justify the fact that people have different experiences, not under their own control in anyone's definition of free-will, and maintain that God is Just.

BECAUSE FREE WILL IS NEVER MENTIONED IN THE BIBLE!!!! IT IS A GREEK CONSTRUCT LATER ADDED TO "CHURCH DOCRTINE!"

Let's play pretend.  Sure let's pretend you know the difference between the Christianity set up in the bible and the one set up by men via things like 'church doctrine.' Let us also assume that you understand that church doctrine is often rife with contradictions, such as free will. But if you take what God actually says over that of what man says God said.. you get a completely different understanding of Christianity...

...also rife with contradictions.

---

Bold mine. 
Could you kindly back up this assertion with a link or two?
I actually spent some time seeing if this statement had any basis in fact, and only come across many modern references to people STILL discussing it.  It is referenced in the "Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy", and I see conferences and meetings scheduled this very year to discuss it.  I have yet to find any claim that it has "largely been abandoned".  
There are modern philosphers even composing new arguments using the Problem of Evil, and of course, modern apologists right there to form there counter-arguments.  This hardly seems largely dismissed

I found this one on the same site you referenced: http://www.iep.utm.edu/evil-log/#H8 

You can read the whole article, but Section 8 has some quotes and analysis. 

Rowes argument is a probabilistic argument and not making the claim that there is a logical problem. There is no logical problem. From the opening paragraph of your article:

The evidential problem of evil is the problem of determining whether and, if so, to what extent the existence of evil (or certain instances, kinds, quantities, or distributions of evil) constitutes evidence against the existence of God, that is to say, a being perfect in power, knowledge and goodness. Evidential arguments from evil attempt to show that, once we put aside any evidence there might be in support of the existence of God, it becomes unlikely, if not highly unlikely, that the world was created and is governed by an omnipotent, omniscient, and wholly good being. Such arguments are not to be confused with logical arguments from evil, which have the more ambitious aim of showing that, in a world in which there is evil, it is logically impossible—and not just unlikely—that God exists.

So, my points a-d apply to Rowes' argument.

Did I miss where it said it was largely abandoned by professional philosophers?