Tag Archive for: Problem of evil

A Deeper Understanding Of Christ's Love Through Suffering

A Deeper Understanding Of Christ’s Love Through Suffering

, ,

By Luke Nix

Introduction

How can you helplessly watch as a child dies from agonizing cancer? Doesn’t the love you feel tell you that that suffering is evil and a God who is all loving and all powerful would rescue that child? How can God be all loving and all powerful if He allows such a child to suffer and die?

This is a challenge that is often raised by atheists to reject the God of the Bible. But today, I am not going to answer the atheist who raises the challenge as an armchair hypothetical that they have never experienced; instead I want to speak to the person who either has experienced this tragedy or is in the middle of it, and it causes them to be skeptical of the goodness and even existence of God.

This Is What Love Feels Like

But could God have a purpose for the pain that you feel? Before I get to that, please watch this tribute to those who have cared for a loved one at the end of their life: This Is What Love Feels Like, by dc Talk, inspired by Toby McKeehan‘s experience:

Knowing Love Through Suffering

Jesus knew the suffering that would take Him to His physical limits, yet He persisted and conquered: This was His love for you as He suffering the torture of crucifixion. If you have been taken to your limits through the suffering of a loved one, you know this love.

Without the suffering of a loved one, we would not know this love for someone else that takes us to our limits (and live to tell of it), what love truly feels like. Without the suffering of a loved one, we would not have the privilege of getting a trace of understanding of the depth of Christ’s love for us that took Him to the end of His physical limits. Caring for a spouse, parent, or child as they leave this world has to be one of the most painful experiences, and we do not escape it unchanged by the suffering it has caused. We are wounded, but we can use those wounds to heal. We can become the wounded healer (see my post “The Wounded Healer: Finding Ultimate Purpose In Your Suffering” for more on this concept). And just as we are alive today to be wounded healers, Jesus conquered death through His bodily resurrection to be the Ultimate Wounded Healer that we point to.

While it is a privilege to experience what this kind of love feels like (though it comes at a great cost, just like it did for Christ), our experience only scratches the surface of the love that Christ has. And our experience is only one person (or maybe a few people in extremely tragic situations) at a time. But Jesus’ love, as He suffered death, was not just for you or just for a few people, it was for every person (John 3:16).

Conclusion

We must not forget that our suffering in this life will come to an end. It is finite, and this finite suffering is not worth comparing to the infinite glory that will one day be revealed in us (Romans 8:18) and can be revealed in others to enjoy with us if we are willing to be used by God to be wounded healers. Do not be discouraged. Our perfect God has a purpose for your suffering. Without Him, your experience is a gratuitous pain with no purpose or meaning. But because God exists and Christ is resurrected from the dead, your experience is both purposeful and meaningful. Through your experience, God has blessed you with a deeper understanding of His love for you, and now He gives you the privilege to speak hope, life, love, meaning, and purpose to the brokenhearted suffering and struggling the same as you are.

 

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2RFk6Ql

/by
Would A World Without Satan Lack Evil_

Would A World Without Satan Lack Evil?

By Rajkumar Richard

The question, “Would there be less evil in a world without Satan?” could be relevant, for if the answer to this question is a yes, then we could plausibly ask, “Why did God create angels, i.e., Satan if evil in this world would be lesser without Satan?”

Within this context, if God had not created Satan, evil would have been less, and our world would have been a good world. However, since God created Satan, could we then infer that God erred in HIS decision to create Satan?

The entailment to this thought process could potentially debunk Historic Christianity. God (as a maximally great being) cannot err. If God erred in creating Satan, HE cannot be God. Hence God’s existence could be disputed. The infallibility of the Bible that reveals God to mankind could also be thus disputed. We could go on and on.

Let us discuss this theme by considering the following aspects albeit from a biblical standpoint.

The Source of Sin

Sin is an evil action or motive that opposes and assaults God. Sin replaces God with something or someone in God’s rightful place of supremacy. Sin entails evil.

Understanding the source of sin is vital to understanding the theme we are discussing now. If Satan is the source of sin and evil, one could argue that God should not have created Satan to keep the world free of sin and evil.

The “Animal Nature” of man is the source of sin, claimed British Philosopher and Theologian Frederick R. Tennant. Under this notion, humans possess natural animalistic impulses as a means to human survival that have intensified through natural selection based on their evolution from less highly developed forms. Other theologians have posited other sources of sin. However, each of these views has been found to be largely inadequate.[1]

The Bible teaches differently. Sin is not caused by God (James 1:13), but man is responsible for his sins (James 1: 14-15).

Man possesses certain innate desires. He could either satisfy those desires in moderation or sin by abusing those desires to either hurt himself or the others.

His ‘desire to enjoy’ could result in an enjoyment of eating in moderation or a sin by being a glutton, whereby he injures himself.  His ‘desire to obtain’ could be satisfied either by legitimately acquiring material possessions or he could sin by exploiting and stealing from others. His ‘desire to achieve’ could be satisfied either through legitimate achievement or he could sin and achieve at the expense of others.

Man could satisfy these desires in a godly manner by dwelling within the divinely imposed constraints. But man sins when he fails to accept the divine limits to these desires and makes these desires as ends in themselves, which are the cravings of a sinful man (1 John 2: 16).

While desires are natural, there could be external inducements (Satanic or human) that motivate a man to sin. Whatever be the case, man is wholly responsible for his sins. Sin is the choice of the person who commits it.

Function of Satan in Sin

Satan is a demon (cf. Luke 10: 17-20). He is the tempter and deceiver. Satan opposes God and the work of Christ by tempting and deceiving humans. Satan tempted Adam & Eve, Jesus, Judas, etc. (cf. Acts 5:3, 1 Corinthians 7:5, 2 Corinthians 2: 11, Ephesians 6: 11, 2 Timothy 2: 26).

Sometimes we state that Satan is the source of sins. While making such statements, we use the word “source” informally. In this informal usage, “source” refers to an ‘originator’ or an ‘instigatory cause.’

If we claim that Satan is the source of all sins, i.e., if we use the word ‘source’ to mean, in an Aristotelian sense, the material cause (‘that out of which’) or the efficient cause (‘the primary source of…’), then we posit dualism. Dualism contradicts the Bible, for there are no two equally ultimate powers, one good, and the other evil.

God is the only ultimate power and God is good. God is not the source or the originator of sin or evil. Moreover, Satan was originally created good; hence Satan is not the source of sin and evil.

Potency of Freewill to Sin without Satan

If asked differently, the title question would be, “Would Adam & Eve have sinned without Satan?” Since man is responsible for his sins, the answer should be yes.

The premise on which this argument is also predicated on is the freewill-based rebellion of angels in the heavenly realm. (This premise presupposes the metaphysical similarity of the free will of angels and humans.)

The angels that rebelled against God did not have an external inducement (as Adam & Eve had Satan as an external inducer). There were only two entities during the angelic fall – God and Angels. (Even if mankind was created before the fall of Satan, man was totally incapable of influencing Satan’s fall.)

Since God can neither tempt nor cause evil, the angelic rebellion was an entailment of their free will. Therefore, it is quite reasonable to conclude that Adam & Eve had the potential to sin or would have sinned irrespective of the presence of Satan.

Satan merely accelerated the sin of Adam and Eve. Had Satan not existed, Adam and Eve would have sinned (or eaten from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil) sooner or later.

Conclusion

Satan is not the source of sin. Man’s free will is the source of sin. Man would have inevitably sinned regardless of Satan’s existence.

Would the quantum and the extent of sins be minimized if Satan was not created? Not necessarily so, for if Satan is to be considered as an accelerant of sin, then there is a possibility that the quantum and the extent of sins would be actualized at a later time. So the quantum and the extent of sins would have been the same with or without Satan, for the potency of man’s free will to sin is independent of Satan.

The other possibility is that the quantum and the extent of sins would be lesser without Satan. In which case, the question, “If evil in this world would be lesser without Satan, then why did God create Satan?” gains legitimacy.

If Satan is the sole cause of evil, then evil would have been absolutely eliminated, had Satan not been created. However, since Satan exists and that Satan is not the sole cause of evil, only God, in HIS omniscient wisdom would be able to determine the extent to which evil would be reduced had angels not been created.

But on the other hand, if the good that is to be actualized from the good angels in ministering to people is commensurately immeasurable, then God would be justified to create Satan even with the potential of evil.

Finally, natural evil, which is devoid of human willing and acting, such as hurricanes, tornadoes, volcanic eruptions, earthquakes, tsunamis, etc. and suffering caused by a host of diseases such as cancer, cystic fibrosis, etc. exist independent of Satan and adds substantial numbers to the victims of evil. The pain and suffering caused by natural evil and diseases are innate in the creational design of this world and the human body.

The fact of the matter is that evil would not cease to exist if Satan were to be non-existent. Hence, numbers need not matter. When evil exists, the terms ‘lesser’ and ‘greater’ do not gain greater significance, for the world we live in would be evil even if only 1% of the total population (1 out of 10 people) are adversely affected by evil. Moreover, if only 1% of the total population is affected by evil, then there is a certain possibility for evil to increase.

Therefore, the question, “Would there be less evil in a world without Satan?” would neither debunk nor harm Historic Christianity.

Notes:

[1] Other theologians have posited various sources for sin. The “Anxiety of Finiteness” was proposed by Reinhold Niebuhr (1892-1971). The idea of “Existential Estrangement” was proposed by Paul Tillich (1886-1965), the “Economic Struggle” proposed by the Liberation Theology, and “Individualism and Competitiveness” as argued by Harrison Sacket Elliott (1882-1951).

 

Rajkumar Richard is passionate to strengthen the faith of fellow Christians, especially the young Christians. He has a Masters in Religion (Southern Evangelical Seminary, NC, USA) and Masters in Biology (School of Biological Sciences, Madurai Kamaraj University, India). He is a Christian blogger, itinerant speaker, social evangelist, and a mentor to young Christians.

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2OKqCUp

/by
Evil, Suffering and Evidence for God

Evil, Suffering and Evidence for God

,

By Mikel Del Rosario

On November 13, 2015, coordinated terrorist attacks rocked Paris, France: A shooting rampage, explosions, and a mass hostage-taking that leftover 100 people dead and over 300 more badly injured; people who went out to see a band, a soccer game, grab a bite to eat or just enjoy the evening. The Islamic State claimed responsibility and the media called it the deadliest attack in France since World War II.

Many around the world mourned for those who lost their lives in this tragedy. Many Christians called for prayer via social media, punctuating their posts with #PrayforParis.

Still, some skeptics say prayer is nothing but an empty act of desperation or sentimentality. Like wishing upon a star. In fact, The Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science posted a “Pray for Paris” graphic on Facebook altered to read, in part, “Don’t Pray for Paris…” Why? Because of the naturalistic worldview, there is no deity who hears a thing people are praying. After all, how could God exist when stuff like this happens?

But what about this?

Does evil disprove God? In this post, I’ll share three reasons that evil and suffering in the world point us to the existence of God. First, we know objective evil is real. Second, this points us to an objective standard of goodness. And third, objective moral laws are real communications from God.

Something’s Wrong

First, skeptics who challenge the existence of God because of evil and suffering in the world have to assume that evil is real; that something’s terribly wrong with our world today. It’s pretty obvious that murder and terrorism aren’t just examples of people breaking social norms. No, these things are really, objectively wrong. Objective evil is real, and everyone knows this isn’t the way things should be.

Hit up your favorite news app or Web site, and you’ll find tons of examples of evil happening right now: stories of racism, human trafficking, you name it. But what is evil itself? What all these instances of evil have in common is that they represent a departure from the way things should be. St. Augustine wrote in The Enchiridion:

For what is that which we call evil but the absence of good?

Think about it like this. Evil is kind of like a donut hole. I don’t mean a little, bite-sized ball of dough and frosting. I mean, an actual hole that was cut out in the middle of a donut that was intended to be a solid one. And so you get a spot where there’s nothing, instead of more donut.

Kind of like this, evil is the lack of good—it’s when the good that should be there isn’t there. We all know people should be loving each other, not hurting each other. But the question is: “Where’s this idea of should come from?”

There’s no way you’re going to somehow trace the idea of should back to matter behaving according to law. But that’s basically what everything boils down to if atheism is true. No, it seems evil came as a result of free creatures using their free will badly; the total opposite of the way human beings were designed to function in a community.

“Should” Points to God

Second, the fact that we know there is a should point us to an objective standard of goodness. See, in order to even bring up this whole issue of God and evil, the skeptic has to borrow the idea of objective evil from theism; the worldview of people who believe in God. If there’s really such a thing as evil, it’s just more evidence for God.

Why? Because if you’ve got objective evil, then you’ve got to have an objective good. Not just something our culture made up, but something beyond us that actually establishes what good is—God’s own nature.

C.S. Lewis, a former skeptic, said:

My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line

An Objection to the Moral Argument

But wait. What do we say to the skeptic who challenges this idea by saying, “How can you say there are objective moral values when Muslim terrorists sincerely believe it is right to kill innocent people?”

William Lane Craig gave a good answer to this: Just because terrorists think terrorism’s a good thing, that doesn’t mean objective moral laws aren’t real. It just means the terrorist’s got it all wrong. Here’s what Craig says about terrorists:

If they sincerely believe it’s right, then they also believe in objective moral values. There’s no contradiction here at all. It’s just that we have a disagreement about what the objective moral truths are. To say that there are objective moral values doesn’t mean that there won’t be moral disagreements. Or that there won’t be moral growth as you come to see that maybe you were wrong in the past and now you have a clearer perspective on things.

Don’t confuse the reality of moral values with the knowledge of them.

To say that there are objective moral values doesn’t mean we are infallible in our moral apprehensions. I think we do apprehend objective moral values, but many times, we can make mistakes.

I think the Muslim terrorists have made a terrible mistake. And the reason is: I think they have the wrong god. The god that they think has commanded them to do this doesn’t exist. Therefore, they are terribly, and tragically mistaken. But there’s no contradiction at all here between someone believing that something is objectively right and there being objective moral values and duties.

Objective moral laws are real, and that fact doesn’t change, even if people disagree about whether or not a certain action’s good or evil.

Evil Requires a Good God

Third, objective moral laws don’t just come out of nowhere. They are a communication of one mind to another. This is totally different from some Scrabble letters that fall on the ground and happen to spell out a word. Totally different from what a Magic 8 Ball might tell you when you shake it up.

Objective moral laws have an undeniable force that you feel obligated to obey. That’s because they come from a moral lawgiver who has authority over you and me; a being whose jurisdiction is the universe he created.

In order for evil to exist, there must be an objective standard of goodness. Did you know you could have good without evil? But you can’t have evil without good; without a standard of goodness. Think about it like this: You can have a standard with nothing falling short of that standard, but you can’t have something falling short of a standard without a standard! Get it? Reminds me of an old Switchfoot song, “The Shadow Proves the Sunshine.” Objective moral laws are real communications from a good God.

Conclusion

We mourn with those who mourn. Christianity is very real about the problem of evil. This isn’t the way things should be. But the very concept of “should” points us to an objective standard of goodness: God’s own nature. Turns out, evil and suffering are evidence for God and not against him–a God who hears our prayers and to whom all people are accountable for their actions.

 

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2KZNsrR

/by
Thoughts and Prayers

If You’re Sick of Thoughts and Prayers Because Shootings Still Happen, You Don’t Understand Christianity

, , ,

By Natasha Crain

In response to the latest tragic school shooting, social media is on the warpath against anyone who dares to offer “thoughts and prayers” for the situation.

Popular articles feature headlines like, “Everyone Is Finally Realizing ‘Thoughts And Prayers’ Are Not Saving Our Kids” and “People Sick of ‘Thoughts and Prayers’ Demand Action After Florida School Shooting.”

The hashtag #thoughtsandprayers is trending on Twitter, with scathing tweets about how worthless thoughts and prayers are.

My own Facebook newsfeed is filled with similar posts and comments.

Scrolling through these articles and social media posts, I can’t help but wonder how many people who make such comments understand the Christian worldview and the role of prayer within it. The online commentary often reflects a serious misunderstanding of what Christians believe.

With that in mind, I’m writing this post for two reasons. First, if you’re a regular reader of my blog, this is an important subject to discuss with your kids. The war on “thoughts and prayers” is one they need to understand given the unfortunate frequency with which this subject is arising. Second, I hope non-Christians will take the time to read this and better understand why being “sick of thoughts and prayers” because shootings still happen doesn’t make sense if you know what Christians believe.

Let’s start here: the phrase “thoughts and prayers” lumps two completely different things together.

The “thoughts and prayers” verbiage became part of our cultural lexicon because people wanted a way to request help and/or care from a mixed audience of religious and non-religious listeners. But just thinking something—no matter how charitable those thoughts may be—does nothing. This is something that Christians and non-Christians should all be able to agree on. “Sending thoughts” is simply an expression of solidarity with no practical consequence.

Now, some people would say, “There’s no difference between those inconsequential thoughts and prayer. Thoughts do nothing, and prayers do nothing. That’s the point.”

If God doesn’t exist, then that’s true. People are praying to a supernatural being who isn’t there. By saying, “I’m sick and tired of thoughts and prayers because they don’t matter,” you’re basically just stating you don’t believe God exists. Fair enough. In that case, it makes more sense just to say, “I don’t believe in God, so I don’t pray as part of my response, but here’s what I think we should do…”

However, there’s no reason to be sick and tired of Christians praying to the God you don’t believe in unless you hold the faulty assumption that Christians see prayer as an alternative to other actions and you’re resentful of that presumed choice. That leads me to the next point.

Christians expect to pray and take other action.

When Christians say, “We’re praying about this,” it doesn’t mean we don’t think anything else should be done. We don’t, for example, say we’re praying over the school shooting, and therefore we don’t need to have discussions about gun control policy, about how to provide for the financial and physical needs of victims, or about school security. Commenting on how prayer won’t do something, but (fill in the blank) action will, betrays the incorrect assumption that Christians think only prayer is needed. Kim Kardashian’s recent tweet is one example of such faulty logic:

Note that some people are complaining specifically about what they see as the hypocrisy of leaders who offer thoughts and prayers and allegedly do nothing else, but that’s another issue. The Bible clearly demonstrates that God asks Christians to pray and take other action.

So what do Christians pray about in a situation like this? A number of things, such as comfort for the victims’ families that God would bring some kind of good from the tragedy, that those who are injured would heal, that the families of the kids who survived would know how to get the help they need, and much more. But for purposes of this post, it’s more important to understand what Christians don’t pray for… 

Christians don’t pray expecting God to rid the world of free will.

Many people, like the Twitter user below, seem to resent that Christians and other theists still believe in God when our past prayers didn’t “work” to prevent school shootings—in other words, could we all just dump this crazy belief in God already?

It’s important to understand why this is a significant misunderstanding of the nature of free will in a Christian worldview.

Christians believe God created humans with the ability to make morally significant choices. We can use that free will to do good or to do evil. If God had chosen to create us without free will, we would simply be robots. Given this nature of our world, it’s hard to imagine how this Twitter user and so many like him envision God eliminating school shootings specifically—through prayer or anything else.

Would God make it so that every time a troubled youth enters a school for such a purpose, they change their mind? Or would He make it, so they accidentally break their gun on the way in? Or would He have them fall and break a leg? Or would He make a vicious dog appear out of nowhere to attack them?

It would be a bizarre world where God completely eliminated the free will to conduct a specific type of evil. Christians don’t pray expecting that as an outcome of prayer because it’s inconsistent with the basic nature of the world we believe God created.

The continuation of school shootings literally has nothing to do with whether or not God exists and whether or not God answers prayer.

There’s, therefore, no reason to look at Christians with contempt for continuing to believe in God after multiple school shootings. We never expected our prayers to eliminate free will.

Furthermore, it should be noted that if God doesn’t exist, there’s little reason to believe people have free will at all. In an atheistic worldview, life is the product of purely natural forces. In such a world, our decisions would be driven strictly by physical impulses—we would be bound by the shackles of physical law.

As biologist Anthony Cashmore acknowledges regarding his atheistic worldview, “The reality is, not only do we have no more free will than a fly or a bacterium, in actuality, we have no more free will than a bowl of sugar. The laws of nature are uniform throughout, and these laws do not accommodate the concept of free will.”

If you don’t believe God exists, then don’t blame the shooter. He would just be acting according to his physical impulses. And don’t blame people for offering thoughts and prayers. They didn’t have a choice.

Finally, if you assume that shootings are evil and something needs to be done, you’re assuming an objective moral standard that only exists if God exists.

I understand the outrage that everyone feels right now. A tragic event like this is evil. But here’s the thing: If you believe that certain actions like killing 17 people at a school are objectively wrong—meaning they are wrong regardless of anyone’s personal opinion—then you believe objective moral standards exist. However, objective moral standards cannot exist unless a higher-than-human moral authority like God exists.

I’ve talked a lot about this moral argument for God’s existence with my kids, and my 9-year-old son came up with an insightful example to illustrate it last week. He loves Rubik’s Cubes and for some reason had been looking at a video with my husband where someone was using an all-black one. A normal cube has different colors on each square, and the challenge is to turn the cube until each side only has one color.

The day after he saw the video, he came to me with a serious face and wide eyes and said, “I think I have an example of what we were talking about with morality. When a Rubik’s Cube is all black, none of the moves matter. You can do anything. But when they have colors, then there is a pattern you’re supposed to do.”

It took me a second and then I realized what a great insight that is! If God doesn’t exist, morality is like the squares on an all-black Rubik’s Cube. There’s no right or wrong way to go; no move is better than another because there is no pattern or standard in place. It’s just your choice. In such a world, school shootings can legitimately be considered good or evil. But if God exists, He provides the colors and the objective standard for how they are to line up; we can see where the pieces should or should not go. In such a world, school shootings are an example of what should not happen. On all-black Rubik’s Cubes, however, there can be no should.

So let’s sum up what Christians believe:

  • God exists.
  • He’s perfectly good, and that goodness is the basis for the objective moral standards by which we can call things good and evil.
  • School shootings are objectively evil.
  • School shootings and other evil actions will always occur in our world because God created us with free will.
  • We don’t expect prayer to eliminate free will because that’s the nature of our created world.
  • We pray for God’s help in the midst of evil.
  • Prayer is in addition to, not instead of, other human action.

There’s nothing here to resent if you don’t believe in God.

In fact, if you believe that shootings are evil and that people have the free will to choose whether to shoot or not, your worldview is actually more consistent with theism than atheism. Maybe you should reconsider prayer after all.

For full conversations to have with your kids on the subjects discussed in this post, see the following chapters in my book, Talking with Your Kids about God:

Chapters 1-6: Evidence for God’s existence

Chapter 23: How do we know God hears and answers prayer?

Chapter 26: Do we really have free will?

Chapter 29: How should we make sense of evil?

 

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2oADJv9

/by
God Behaving Badly

God Behaving Badly? – Destruction of the Canaanites

By Timothy Fox

This is the second article in my series God Behaving Badly? where I address passages of the Bible where God seems to do some immoral things. In the introductory article, I discussed what it means for an action to be immoral, that it goes against some moral code. However, I argued that God is the best explanation of an objective moral code, so to call something really wrong is actually to provide evidence for God’s existence.

But still, this does not resolve some of the more troubling passages of the Old Testament. God commits and commands some actions that seem to contradict his all-loving, morally perfect nature. So we must examine the actual act or command and see if God had a morally-admissible reason. The one cited most often is the destruction of the Canaanites.

Destruction of the Canaanites

In the Old Testament, God commanded the Israelites to completely wipe out the Canaanites living in a certain region (Deut. 7:1-5; 20:16-18): “you must destroy them totally. Make no treaty with them, and show them no mercy” (7:2), “do not leave alive anything that breathes” (20:16). And Israel obeyed. How could a good and loving God possibly command something like this?

King of the Universe

We first must understand who God is. God is not just another ruler of some earthly kingdom. God is Creator of all things and King of the Universe. He gives life and he can take life whenever he wants, however he wants.

Furthermore, there are times that we think it is justified for humans to take another’s life, like in self-defense, to protect others, or in a just war. A general can order his troops to attack and kill enemy combatants. So was God morally justified in destroying the Canaanites?

Judgment, Not Genocide

The Bible is clear that God did not arbitrarily order Israel to kill the Canaanites. They were evil. God told the Israelites “It is not because of your righteousness or your integrity that you are going in to take possession of their land; but on account of the wickedness of these nations” (Deut. 9:5, emphasis mine). And while the Canaanites committed many wicked acts, I think only one example would suffice: child sacrifice. They would burn their children alive in a fiery furnace as a sacrifice to the god Molech. Just that one act alone would be justification for their complete annihilation.

The irony is that many skeptics question why God doesn’t prevent great evils in the world. But here we have an example of God eradicating a wicked culture, and yet skeptics complain about it!

God did not act impulsively or arbitrarily when he commanded the destruction of the Canaanites. He was judging the wicked. And He even imposed harsh judgment upon his own people, Israel, when they partook of the same wicked actions of the nations surrounding them. After all, one of the reasons God gave for destroying the Canaanites was so Israel would not adopt their evil practices (Deut. 7:3-4; 20:18).

But surely they weren’t all bad, right? Recall the account of Abraham bargaining with God to spare Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 18). God played along, knowing that Abraham could not find ten righteous in the cities, and God also knew that the Canaanites were completely and utterly evil. So he commanded them to be destroyed.

Occupy Promised Land

God did not command the Israelites to destroy every Canaanite on earth, only the ones living in the land he was giving to Israel (Deut. 7:1; 20:16). It is definitely possible that many Canaanites fled their cities once they saw the Israelites coming and only the defiant who remained to fight were killed.

What About the Children?

This is extremely hard to comprehend and I admit that it does trouble me. How could a loving God command the Israelites to kill innocent children? Now, it is possible that every child was evacuated from the land. But still, God gave the command to kill them. How do we make sense of this?

As stated above, God gives life, and he can take it however and whenever he wishes. No one is guaranteed a long, peaceful life and to die of old age in one’s sleep. And a child’s quick death by the edge of a sword would be much more merciful than being burned alive as a sacrifice to Molech, wouldn’t it? Plus, what if God knew that if these children were to grow up, they would be just as wicked and depraved as their parents? I strongly believe that young children who die are saved by God’s grace and will inherit eternal life, which is infinitely greater than being raised in the wicked culture of the Canaanites. Thus, God was actually showing these children mercy and calling them home to himself.[1]

God Is Patient and Merciful

God does not enjoy the death of the wicked but patiently waits for us to repent of our sins (Ezek. 18:23, 2 Peter 3:9). Yet, he will only permit evil for so long until he finally passes judgment. God gave the Canaanites 400 years to cease their wickedness. But when their evil reached its peak, then God had the Israelites destroy them (Gen. 15:16).

Conclusion

God commanding the destruction of the Canaanites is a difficult passage to comprehend. But as creator and king of the universe, God has the right to give and take life as he pleases. This was not an act of genocide but divine judgment, as the Canaanites were a thoroughly wicked people. God is patient and merciful, always willing to show mercy and forgive our sins.

Now, if you are not convinced by any of these arguments and believe the destruction of the Canaanites was an immoral act, what moral standard are you judging God by? You cannot call any action truly evil unless an objective moral standard exists, and the best explanation for objective morals and duties is God. But if you choose to reject objective morality instead, then there was nothing wrong with God commanding the destruction of the Canaanites.

As for me, I choose to trust that an all-knowing, all-loving, morally perfect God always does what is best for mankind, even if I cannot always understand it.

For a further discussion of the destruction of the Canaanites, see:

Tim Stratton: TEN Problems with the Canaanite Objection

Clay Jones: http://www.clayjones.net/category/canaanites/

William Lane Craig:

Paul Copan has a different take on the Canaanite destruction. He argues that the passages are hyperbolic, which some disagree with, such as Clay Jones. But his books on the topic are still worth exploring:

[1] In case you’re wondering, this in NO WAY justifies infanticide. This was a unique incident in history in which Israel was a theocracy and directly commanded by God to carry out these actions.

This blog was originally published by FreeThinkingMinistries.com here: http://freethinkingministries.com/god-behaving-badly-destruction-of-the-canaanites/

/by
mass shootings

Questions about Mass Shootings w/ J. Warner Wallace

Podcast: Play in new window

Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Amazon Music | Android | iHeartRadio | Blubrry | Email | TuneIn | RSS

In the wake of the Sutherland Springs First Baptist Church mass shooting in Texas, many questions arise, and our national conversation about gun violence intensifies. We grieve with these families and cannot ignore the evil done by the perpetrator. Detective J. Warner Wallace answers some questions about mass shootings and how we should handle the discourse on these delicate issues.

Article: Three Important Questions to Balance in the Wake of Gun Violence

mass shootings

/by
Jesus Problem Evil

Jesus on the Problem of Evil

By Aaron Brake

In Luke 13:1-5 we have Jesus’ clearest teaching on the problem of evil:[1]

Now there were some present at that time who told Jesus about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices. Jesus answered, “Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans because they suffered this way? I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish. Or those eighteen who died when the tower in Siloam fell on them—do you think they were more guilty than all the others living in Jerusalem? I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish.

Not only is this Jesus’ clearest teaching on the problem of evil but we see Him addressing both moral and natural evil in His response. Notice that Jesus is first questioned regarding an example of what we would call moral evil: the murder of some Galileans by Pilate. In providing an answer, Jesus Himself introduces an example of natural evil: the falling of the tower of Siloam which killed eighteen.

How did Jesus answer the problem of evil presented to Him? His answer is short and to the point: “They weren’t worse sinners, they were just sinners. And unless you repent, you’ll die too.”

D.A. Carson in his book How Long, O Lord? provides several important insights into this passage. It would behoove us as Christians to reflect deeply on these points.

First, Jesus takes it for granted that the wages of sin is death (Rom. 6:23):

Jesus does not assume that those who suffered under Pilate, or those who were killed in the collapse of the tower, did not deserve their fate. Indeed, the fact that he can tell those contemporaries that unless they repent they too will perish shows that Jesus assumes that all death is in one way or another the result of sin, and therefore deserved.[2]

Second, because death is what we all deserve, it is only God’s mercy that keeps us alive:

Jesus does insist that death by such means is no evidence whatsoever that those who suffer in this way are any more wicked than those who escape such a fate. The assumption seems to be that all deserve to die. If some die under a barbarous governor, and others in a tragic accident, it is not more than they deserve. But that does not mean that others deserve any less. Rather, the implication is that it is only God’s mercy that has kept them alive. There is certainly no moral superiority on their part.[3]

Third, wars and natural disasters are always calls to repentance, and the fact that we question God’s goodness in times of calamity is a reflection of our own depravity and rebellion:

Jesus treats wars and natural disasters not as agenda items in a discussion of the mysterious ways of God, but as incentives to repentance. It is as if he is saying that God uses disaster as a megaphone to call attention to our guilt and destination, to the imminence of his righteous judgment if he sees no repentance. This is an argument developed at great length in Amos 4. Disaster is a call to repentance. Jesus might have added (as he does elsewhere) that peace and tranquility, which we do not deserve, show us God’s goodness and forbearance.

It is a mark of our lostness that we invert these two. We think we deserve the times of blessing and prosperity, and that the times of war and disaster are not only unfair but come perilously close to calling into question God’s goodness or his power—even, perhaps, his very existence. Jesus simply did not see it that way.[4]

Dr. Clay Jones in his class on Why God Allows Evil entertainingly replays the dialogue from Luke 13 like this:[5]

Questioner: Jesus, we have the problem of evil here, the great problem of the ages. People are being killed Jesus. What have you got to say?

Jesus: They weren’t worse sinners, they were just sinners, and unless you repent you’ll die too. Next?

Questioner: Whoa! Jesus, hold on for a minute here! This is the PROBLEM OF EVIL! The question of the ages! Philosophers have debated this forever! People are dying here Jesus! What have you got to say???

Jesus: They weren’t worse sinners, they were just sinners, and unless you repent you’ll die too. Next?

Questioner: No, Jesus, don’t you get it?!? Let me put it to you this way. You see, if God were all-loving, He would want to prevent evil. If God were all-powerful, He could prevent evil…

Jesus: They weren’t worse sinners, they were just sinners, and unless you repent you’ll die too. Next?

Jesus’ answer to the problem of evil is that all fallen, unregenerate sinners born in Adam are worthy of death. Whether we die by murder, accident, or disease isn’t anything more than we deserve. It is only by God’s grace that anyone is saved and it is only by God’s mercy that anyone is kept alive.

What implications does this have for Christian apologetics? At least three:

First, it means that Christian apologists need to take the consequences of sin and reality of human depravity seriously when addressing the problem of evil. Many Christians simply pay lip service to what the Bible has to say about these topics. It’s no wonder then we are often at a loss for words when someone asks, “Why do bad things happen to good people?” A completely biblical, though partial, rejoinder is this: no one is good but God alone! Bad things don’t happen to good people because no one is good. Jesus raised no qualms about our naturally born status as sinners before God, the universal corruption and guilt of humankind, or our need for repentance. He introduced these very issues Himself in addressing the problem of evil. He took it for granted that the wages of sin is death. Christian apologists should do likewise.

Second, when addressing the problem of evil, Christian apologists need to present a theodicy whichminimally includes the biblical teaching of original sin and human depravity. Why God allows evil won’t make sense unless we have the problem of sin clearly before us. J.I. Packer stated,

The subject of sin is vital knowledge…If you have not learned about sin, you cannot understand yourself, or your fellow-men, or the world you live in, or the Christian faith. And you will not be able to make head or tail of the Bible. For the Bible is an exposition of God’s answer to the problem of human sin and unless you have that problem clearly before you, you will keep missing the point of what it says.[6]

The same is true for the problem of evil. The subject of sin is essential because in raising the problem of evil, the skeptic must put forth an anthropodicy (justification of man) by arguing that man is “basically good” and God is unjust for allowing the suffering and evil He does. In response, the theist must show these assumptions to be false, and in their place put forth a theodicy (justification of God) which includes evidencing the depths of human depravity and arguing that God has morally sufficient reasons for allowing the evil that He does. Until we clearly articulate and defend the gravity of sin, as well as the universal corruption and guilt of humankind, many of our answers to the problem of evil will largely remain unpersuasive.[7]

Third, the present moral and natural evils we experience are appropriate segues into our need to practice and preach repentance in light of the final eschatological judgment. Those who experience such evils are not any more deserving. Rather, these disasters serve as warnings to all of us that finaldisaster awaits everyone who remains hardhearted and unrepentant:

So when disaster strikes, let us not wring our hands over the mysterious ways of God but encourage everyone to reflect on their sinful and doomed state in hopes that some will escape the Final Disaster that awaits the ultimately unrepentant.[8]

Notes

[1] I am indebted to Dr. Clay Jones for most of the material and insight presented here, as well as pointing me to the following passage by D.A. Carson.

[2] D.A. Carson, How Long, O Lord?: Reflections on Suffering and Evil (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2006), 61.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Ibid.

[5] This is a loose reconstruction with some additions of my own.

[6] J.I. Packer, God’s Words, 71.

[7] For more on these first two points, I highly recommend reading Clay Jones, “We Don’t Take Human Evil Seriously so We Don’t Understand Why We Suffer” found at http://www.clayjones.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Human-Evil-and-Suffering.pdf.

[8] Clay Jones, “Disaster Is Always a Call to Repentance!” found at http://www.clayjones.net/2011/11/disaster-is-always-a-call-to-repentance.

 

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2fOEhK1

/by
Euthyphro Is Dead!

Euthyphro Is Dead!

By Timothy Fox

It’s the zombie argument. The objection that won’t stay down: the Euthyphro dilemma. Skeptics just can’t accept the fact that Euthyphro has been dead for centuries and keep dragging him out of his grave.

In case you don’t know who Euthyphro is, let me introduce you to him. Euthyphro is a character from one of Plato’s writings who has a discussion with Socrates about the gods and piety. His dilemma has been repurposed as an argument against the goodness of God and can be stated as follows:

Is something good because God commands it or does God command something because it is good? In the first option, God’s commands seem arbitrary, that he could have easily commanded murder and rape to be good and love and kindness to be evil. In the second option, God merely reports to us the commands of some other moral standard that even he is subject to. So we’re caught in a dilemma: either God’s commands are arbitrary or he is not the ultimate authority. This is the Euthyphro dilemma.

At first it seems like we’re stuck. Except, as mentioned earlier, this dilemma has been resolved for centuries: God is good. He is the source of goodness. Heis the moral standard. His commands are not arbitrary, nor do they come from some standard external to him. They are good because they flow from his innate goodness. Dilemma averted.

Euthyphro is dead.

Now I know this doesn’t settle the issue of God’s goodness. Since this article is only intended to discuss the Euthyphro dilemma, I’ll just briefly touch on two related objections:

1 – God is not good. This is typically in response to an action or command from God in the Old Testament. And I agree that there are some things that are hard to understand and need to be discussed. But generally speaking, if we question God’s goodness, what are we judging him against? Our own moral standard? Then it’s our opinion against God’s and, if he truly exists, I’m going to trust his judgment over any finite, fallible human’s.

2 – How do we know that God is good? This question completely misses the point of Euthyphro’s resolution: God is the standard of goodness. There is nothing to compare him against or judge him by. But let’s suppose there does exist some higher moral standard. By applying this objection’s logic, we should ask “How do we know that this standard is good?” See the problem? You’re forever asking “How do we know?” to any moral standard. But if there is an objective moral standard, that is the standard by which morality is measured. It simply is good.

The best you can do is try to find some kind of inconsistency in God’s moral character. But then you can still only judge him against himself, which would point you back to objection 1. And even if you feel that one (or both) of these objections has not been resolved, my broader point is that the Euthyphro dilemma fails as a dilemma since there’s a third possible option, whether you like it or not. Thus, it’s an invalid argument.

Euthyphro is dead.

Why do skeptics keep digging him up? You may as well as ask why zombies keeps coming back. Because they do. That’s what makes them zombies. Bad arguments will always come back into fashion. But you need to see Euthyphro for what he is: a dead, defeated argument. Yet unlike zombies from tv shows and movies, he has no bite. He doesn’t even have teeth. His dilemma has been resolved for centuries.

So if you’re looking for an argument against God’s goodness, Euthyphro is not your man.

Euthyphro is dead!

 

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2IWKnqD

/by