The first claim is in and of itself controversial. To use another controversial claim to support a controversial argument is question-begging. The second claim is not very strong. As an example of where it weakens we may take the free will of Adolf Hitler vs. the resulting evil caused by ``choosing'' incorrectly. The last claim (3) is not necessarily true. Does my choosing of chocolate ice cream over vanilla ice cream, consistently, show that I am not free? Further, does my consistently choosing to save someone's life (as a volunteer EMT, for example) mean that I have no free will, or that it will result in evil?
That last claim (3) may be replaced with the following:
Now a few bells go off! It seems that (4) is against Biblical theism. (4) implies that God does not have complete control or is not omniscient. So God, then, sees all evil as not ``really'' being evil or not being able to control evil. However, there not ``really'' being any evil is counter Biblical theism which states evil as sin. So we have left the incontrolability of evil![6, p. 192]
There are some additional problems for the Free Will Theodicy argument. First off, it may explain moral evil, but it does not explain natural evil. It may even require natural evil (ie: dementia, or psychosis)[9] To further complicate things, many theologians have attributed these natural evils as ``acts of god'' or ``acts of demons.'' If natural evils are caused by demons then we may say that this is a complication of the argument once again, but an assumption which is hypothetical at best.[7, p. 162]