What is the difference between Irrenaean and Augustinian theodicies?

Irrenaeus and Augustine both use free will to explain how an all-good, all-powerful God could allow evil in the world. Where they differ is in the role that free will plays. Irrenaeus' is a soul making theodicy, whereas Augustine's is best described as soul-judging. For Irrenaeus, free will is what allows human beings to develop a relationship with God. Human beings are created in the image of God, but must develop into his likeness. This development can only be achieved through freely made moral choices, meaning that there must be a real possibility of choosing evil. According to Irenaeus, the moral development of humans is the purpose of creation, and the suffering is part of this development, drawing humans closer to God. In order to allow humans true freedom, God must maintain an 'epistemic distance', explaining why he doesn't interfere to prevent moral or natural evil. Augustine, on the other hand, sees free will as a necessary condition for the moral judgement of human beings. His theodicy draws on the story of the Fall of Man from the Book of Genesis. In order to judge human beings fairly, God had to allow us free will. Adam and Eve's disobedience in the Garden of Eden was an abuse of this free will, meaning that humans, not God, are the source of moral evil in the world. Whereas Irrenaean theodicies present natural evil as part of a process of moral development, for Augustine, it is the result of a separation between God and man brought about by this original sin.