An apologetic from Romans 1:18-25

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their ungodliness and unrighteousness suppress the truth. 19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things. 24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, 25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen. (Rom 1:18-25, ESV)

In Paul's opening of the book of Romans, as he lays the groundwork for the necessity and efficacy of Christ's substitutionary atoning sacrifice on the cross, he points out where the "ungodliness and unrighteousness of men" (v. 18a) leads. They, and by they, Paul really means all of us before the justification and sanctification of Jesus (Rom 3:22b-25a), "suppress the truth" (v. 18b), ignore the "things that have been made" that point to God (v. 19-20), and "did not honor him as God or give thanks to him" (v. 21b) even though "they knew God" (v. 21a). As a result, they "became fools" (v. 22) and exchanged God's glory for "images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things" (v. 23). Paul reemphasizes this point in verses 24-25. God gives them over to what is in their hearts because they worshiped the creature rather than God. Now clearly, Paul is talking about traditional forms of idol worship as forbidden by God in the 10 commandments:

4 You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. 5 You shall not bow down to them or serve them... (Exo 20:4-5a, ESV)

 The parallel phrases between the two passages make this evident:

Exodus	Romans
carved image	image
likeness	resembling
in the heaven above	birds
in the earth beneath	mortal man, animals, creeping things
not bow…or serve	worshiped and served the creature

The point I am about to make was not the point on Paul's mind. Paul's point was that idol worship, or creature worship, is a result of the unrighteousness of men. So, if we see someone worshiping "the creature rather than the Creator", we know that they are unrighteous and need the Lord Jesus Christ before they perish in their unbelief. From here, I think we can develop a powerful offensive apologetic for our Mormon friends and family. For starters, we have to look at the Mormon conception of Jesus Christ.

"Now who is Jesus Christ, and how could he bring about the resurrection when no other man nor all men put together could do so? The Scriptures respond to these questions. They make it clear that the spirit person Jesus Christ-as are the spirits of all men-is the Son of God, our Eternal Father. In this respect he is like all other men. He differs from all other men, however, by reason of the fact that men's bodies are begotten of mortal men and are, therefore, subject to death, being descendants and inheritors from Adam, while Christ's physical body was begotten of God, our Heavenly Father-an immortal being not subject to death. Christ, therefore, inherited from his Father the faculty to live on indefinitely." (Marion G. Romney, Conference Reports, April 1975, pp. 123-4)

The emphasis above is mine. So, Jesus Christ is just like all other men. He is a Son of God by virtue of the fact that he is a spirit child of the Eternal Father just like the rest of us. All of us, on the Mormon conception, were begotten in the pre-existence by Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother.

"Jesus was born of heavenly parents in a premortal world-he was the firstborn of our Heavenly Father" (Robert D. Hales, "Your Sorrow Shall Be Turned to Joy," Ensign (Conference Edition), November 1983, p. 67)

Jesus was the firstborn to heavenly parents. What does this mean? What does this have to do with the Romans passage I talked about earlier? The Mormon Jesus is a created being whom Mormons worship as the savior of mankind. Make no mistake that this is a different Jesus from the one in the Bible.

"As a church we have critics, many of them. They say we do not believe in the traditional Christ of Christianity. There is some substance to what they say." (Gordon Hinckley, "We look to Christ," Ensign (Conference Edition), May 2002, p. 90)

Their own leaders reluctantly admit that this is a different Jesus. Their doctrine proclaims that he is just another creature, an exalted one perhaps, but a creature none-the-less. But this is a major problem for them according to Paul in Romans 1:18-25. They are worshiping the creature rather than the Creator if Jesus Christ is not God, the creator. They are unrighteous as evidenced by the fact that they worship a created Jesus who is not God. I think this could be an effective apologetic for use with Mormons. I wouldn't expect any Mormon, on the spot, to admit that you are right and then ask how they can be saved. But, I think a major task of apologetics is just to "put a stone in their shoe" as Greg Koukl says. Just give them something to think about that ruffles their worldview.

Healing in the Atonement

There is an ongoing argument between different camps of Christians about the extent of healing in the atonement. The extremes of the camps dominate the conversation, although there are nuanced positions that lean toward each extreme. I don't think either of the extremes is correct. While this is surely oversimplified, the controversy centers on one text:

4 Surely he has borne our griefs

and carried our sorrows;

yet we esteemed him stricken,

smitten by God, and afflicted.

5 But he was pierced for our transgressions;

he was crushed for our iniquities;

upon him was the chastisement that brought

us peace,

and with his wounds we are healed.

6 All we like sheep have gone astray;

we have turned-every one-to his own

way;

and the Lord has laid on him

the iniquity of us all. (Isa 53:4-6, ESV)

One extreme camp says that when you read this in context it only means "wounds" brought about by sin. It is simply talking about "peace" with God that is fixed by Christ's atoning for our sin on the cross. And, in context, I would agree partially. Verse five clearly equates these "wounds" with sin using words like "transgressions" and "iniquities". This view says there is no physical healing in the atonement. That is where I think they are wrong. Other translations treat "griefs" and "sorrows" from verse four differently. We'll look at that later.

The other extreme camp says that physical healing is guaranteed in the atonement and we just have to appropriate it by faith and we will be healed. What they get right is that there is provision for physical healing in the atonement. We'll talk about that in a moment. What they most assuredly get wrong is the guarantee. Healing is not guaranteed in the atonement. The text makes no mention of physical healing or a promise from God that if you simply have enough faith you will be healed.

I think the correct view for physical healing, I think both extreme camps and everyone in between agrees that our sin is healed on the cross, in the atonement is a nuanced position between the extremes. One apostle in particular, Peter, can help us out.

14 And when Jesus entered Peter's house, he

saw his mother-in-law lying sick with a fever.

15 He touched her hand, and the fever left her, and

she rose and began to serve him. 16 That evening

they brought to him many who were oppressed

by demons, and he cast out the spirits with a word

and healed all who were sick. 17 This was to fulfill

what was spoken by the prophet Isaiah: "He took

our illnesses and bore our diseases." (Matt 8:14-17, ESV)

This little anecdote about Peter's mother-in-law in Matthew's gospel quotes Isaiah 53:4 at the end. Where the ESV says "griefs" and "sorrows", apparently the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the OT from about 300 BC) says "illnesses" and "diseases". Other translations also indicate this is a possible translation. The HCSB says "sicknesses" and "pains". The NIV says "pain" and "suffering". The ESV, ASV, KJV, NKJV, and NASB all translate this as "griefs" and "sorrows". On the other hand, the Matthew passage is translated most often as "infirmities" and "diseases". What does this tell us? There is a provision for healing in the atonement. While clearly the purpose of the cross was to deal with sin, physical healing is a part of it. In order to say that there is no physical healing in the atonement, you have to ignore the connection that Matthew is making by quoting from Isaiah. Notice, however, what is not said in Matthew's passage. There is no mention of a guarantee or a promise that you will always be healed. This notion is easily done away with when we consider Paul's thorn in the flesh (2 Cor 12:7-10) that the Lord refused to take away. Did Paul have too little faith?

24 He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree,

that we might die to sin and live to righteousness.

By his wounds you have been healed. 25 For you

were straying like sheep, but have now returned to

the Shepherd and Overseer of your souls. (1 Pet 2:24-

25, ESV)

Peter himself quotes from Isaiah 53:5. In this instance, it has nothing to do with physical healing and everything to do with sin. Verse 24 says directly that Christ "bore our sins" and then connects that to the "wounds" that are healed. In one instance (Matthew) Christ's sacrifice is directly connected to physical healing. In another (1 Peter) Christ's sacrifice is directly connected to spiritual healing. The position that seems most likely to make sense of all this is that both spiritual and physical healing are part of the atonement. Spiritual healing is guaranteed and was the primary focus of the cross. Our sins will be forgiven us forever if we repent and believe in Jesus Christ by faith. Physical healing was a secondary focus and is not guaranteed. Our illnesses and diseases may or may not be healed by God when we pray in faith. Many times, and this is a great example, going to one extreme or the other on controversial theological positions will lead you into mistaken assumptions that hinder the "renewal of your mind" (Rom 12:2) as you try to walk with Christ.

God's all-encomapssing grace

Have you ever stopped to think how expansive God's grace is in your life? It is because of His grace that you are saved and in the Kingdom of God. That is how His grace is most often referenced. But, it is much more than that, though salvation is certainly the centerpiece. His grace is foundational. Grace means giving something you don't deserve. God allows us to live by giving us breath moment to moment (Job 33:4). God extends His common grace to believer and unbeliever alike through the regular functioning of the earth (Acts 14:17). These, among many other things, are all brought about by God due to His overflowing grace.
In His eternal state, before creation, God was perfect (as He is now) and needed nothing. He didn't (and doesn't) need sustenance or medical care, material goods to survive, or a creation to act in. He didn't (and doesn't) need creatures to love and be loved back. Because God is a Trinity in His essential nature consisting of three persons in one essence, there was eternal intra-trinitarian love between the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit (John 3:35; 5:20). This means that the mere act of creation, vast and impressive as it is, wasn't necessary on God's part and was an immense act of His all-encompassing grace. None of us would even be here if not for an act (creation) of God's grace. That is how foundational God's grace is.

Are you an associator?

I am reading a book about the birth of Islam through the eyes of John of Damascus. It is titled, John of Damascus: First Apologist to the Muslims. John lived from around 675-750 AD. At this time, Islam, although not known by that name in that time, was still developing theologically. The dominant view of the Quran during this period was that, since it contained the words of God, and God was uncreated and eternal, so was the Quran. Of course, for Christians, the uncreated Word of God is not the Bible, which is the created word a la creation, but Jesus Christ. Because Muslims are strict monotheists, unitarians in fact, they accused Christians of being associators. This meant that they associated Jesus, who they saw as created, with the uncreated God and thus committed the heinous sin of shirk.
John, in his turn, accused Muslims of being mutilators by separating God from His spirit and His word. For an explanation of this, I will quote from John himself in his Disputation between a Christian and a Saracen (Muslim):

If you will be asked by a Saracen, "What do you say the Christ is?" say to him, "Word of God." And do not suppose that you commit a sin, because in the Scripture he is called Word and wisdom and arm and power of God and many other similar things, for he has many names. And you also return the question to him and ask "What is Christ called in your Scripture?" If he tries to avoid the question and wants to question you on another subject, do not answer him before he has answered your question. He will be compelled to answer you, "In my Scripture Christ is called Spirit and Word of God." [This can be found in Surahs 4:171 and 5:110] And then ask him again, "According to your Scripture, are the Spirit of God and the Word said to be uncreated or created?" If he says they are uncreated, tell him: "Behold, you agree with me, for that which is not created by someone must be God who creates!" If he is actually bold enough to say that they are created, say to him, "And who created the Spirit and the Word of God?" And if, out of perplexity, he tells you that God created them, say to him: "a little before you were saying that God created them. Well, if I told you the same thing, you would have said to me, 'You have destroyed your testimony, and whatever you say from now on, I will not believe you.' Nevertheless, I will ask you this, 'Before God created the Spirit and the Word did he have neither Spirit nor Word?'" And he will flee from you, having nothing to say in answer to you. For those who say such things among the Saracens are regarded as heretics and are rejected and detested by other Saracens. And if you wnat to denounce him to other Saracens he will be very much afraid of you. (John of Damascus, Disputation between a Christian and a Saracen, 5:1-22)

The thrust of John's apologetic is easy to see. If the Word is uncreated, then He is God, but if the Word is created, then the Muslim is a heretic based on the orthodoxy of the day and his testimony is invalid. In other writings, John carried this argument further by questioning them about how God could be without His Word and Spirit for eternity. Thus we have the accusatory names that Christians and Muslims exchanged at this time: associators and mutilators.

Satan as a serpent in the Garden of Eden

This is a long excerpt from Steve Hays' ebook Apsotasy & Perseverance (pages 50-54) which can be found at Triablogue. It concerns the issue of why Genesis uses a talking snake that tempts Eve. There is seemingly no introduction to the serpent and as modern readers, we are sometimes at a loss when it comes to the implied connotations that an Israelite who just underwent the exodus (the original audience of Genesis) might have about a serpent. I copied and pasted this, so some of the formatting is different from the original. Normal text is words from Steve Hays, italics are other authors he quotes.

i) Gen 3:1-5
          
Now the serpent was more crafty than any other beast of the field that the Lord God had made. 
         
He said to the woman, "Did God actually say, 'You shall not eat of any tree in the garden'?" And the woman said to the serpent, "We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden, but God said, 'You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.'" But the serpent said to the woman, "You will not surely die. For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."

Modern readers often poke fun at the specter of a talking snake. However, other issues aside, we need to approach this text from the viewpoint of what the "serpent" would connote to the original audience, and not to modern readers who may be wholly ignorant of its narrative associations.

This text raises some basic exegetical questions. Why is the Tempter depicted as a serpent? What‘s the intertextual connection between the serpent and the devil? (101)

a) One obvious reason to depict the Tempter in ophidian terms is due to the fact that serpents were ritually unclean animals (cf. Lev 11; Deut 14). The audience of Gen 3 is the same audience as the audience for the ceremonial laws. So they‘d associate a snake with an unclean animal.

b) On a related note, as a number of scholars have shown, Eden is sacred space. A bucolic temple. By the same token, that makes Adam a "priest" in the sense that one of his duties is to act as a gatekeeper to prevent the garden from being defiled by ritually impure intruders. (102)

The mere presence of an unclean animal like a serpent ritually desecrates the garden. This depiction alerts the reader that fact that this speaker is an unwelcome guest. He doesn‘t belong there. Something is already amiss.

As a practical matter, it doesn‘t seem realistic to suppose that Adam and Eve could prevent a snake from entering the garden. How would two human beings be in able to patrol every square inch of the perimeter to keep the garden a snake-free zone? Even if Eden were walled garden, snakes can climb over walls.

And, of course, an ancient Jewish reader could ask himself the same question. That's a narrative clue to the true identity of the "serpent."

c) In the ANE, snakes were associated with wisdom. And Gen 3 exploits that association:

The serpent of Gen 3, the most"subtle" animals of creation, represents also supernatural wisdom. Although the first man is forbidden to eat from the tree of the garden before the serpent is created (Gen 2:16-20), the reptile knows of the prohibition before accosting the woman (3:1). It pretends to know as much about the tree "to make one wise" as God does (Gen 3:4-5)…The serpent convinces the woman that it is wider than she, knowing even the secret intents of the mind of God so that in its supernatural wisdom it understands that mind better than can the woman in her believing obedience. It invites her to stand in that wisdom…The serpent as a figure of wisdom is encountered frequently in the ancient Near East. (103)

d) In addition, the name of the tempter may well be a metonymic pun or double entendre, from homonymic or paronomastic folk etymology. (104) That's a common convention in the Pentateuch. As one scholar explains, in this particular case:

A more directly sinister nuance may be seen in Heb. nahas if it is to be connected with the verb nahas, 'to practice divination, observe signs' (Gen 30:27; 44:5,16; Lev 19:26; Deut 18:10)…The related noun nahas means "divination" (Num 23:23; 24:1). Near Eastern divination formulae frequently include procedures involving a serpent. (105)

Such a play on words would trade on the ophiomantic connotations of name in ANE culture, and thereby clue the audience to the malevolent and preternatural identity of the Tempter.

e) Apropos (d), there is a polemical thrust to the serpentine trappings of the Temper. As one scholar points out,

In Egypt, the people had seen the serpent venerated as either a force of life or of death, for the tombs were painted with snakes, and the king even wore a stylized serpent on his headdress. The Israelites would have regarded the serpent as an evil force because it was often a symbol of death, and its status as a symbol of life would have been rejected since only the Lord can produce life. Thus, in addition to its importance as the account of how evil entered the human race, this narrative also has a polemical force, showing the connection of the serpent with rebellion against God, which is death. In other words, divinity cannot be achieved (as promised in 3:5) by following the pagan beliefs and symbols, for they only bring death. (106)

f) Apropos (e), this is reinforced by two Pentateuchal comparisons:

alpha) The serpentine staff of Moses (Exod 4:2-4). And that, in turn, involves a premeditated confrontation with Egyptian ophiomancy and ophiolatry (7:8-12). As one scholar explains:

Some snakes were to be worshipped, others were to be considered incarnations of evil…Probably the most important serpent worship was the cult of Uraeus centered in the city of Per-Wadjit in the delta. There a temple was build in the early dynastic period in honor of the Uraeus-goddess Wadjet. She personified the cobra and was the tutelary goddess of Lower Egypt…The two goddesses and the sovereignty they imparted to Pharaoh were physically represented on the front of the king‘s crown in the formed of an enraged female cobra. (107)

This identifies the goddess as Wadjet, the serpent-goddess of Lower Egypt. Wadjet was frequently portrayed as a snake that spit forth flames as her poison. (108)

Aaron's casting of his staff before Pharaoh and its transformation into a snake was an incident of judicial irony, an extensive polemic against Egyptian thought and practice…finally, the scene is ironic in that the Hebrew leaders cast before Pharaoh his very emblem. The two tutelary goddesses of Egypt and Horus were represented in the cobra of the crown. (109)

Since the Pentateuch forms a literary unit, the implied reader of Genesis would be cognizant of this ophidian symbolism when he read Gen 3. And this is reinforced by the fact that the implied reader for the Pentateuch is a member of the Exodus generation–with fresh memories of life in Egypt.

beta) The iconic serpent in Num 21:8-9. As Currid explains:

Reacting to the last grumbling incident before the Hebrews reached the Promised Land, God sent hannehasim hasseraphim ("fiery serpents") upon them because of their unfaithfulness. The nehasim bit many of the Hebrews and some died. Yahweh then ordered Moses to fashion a saraph and set it on a standard or pole in the middle of the Israelite camp. So Moses crafted a nehas nehoset ("bronze serpent"), and whoever had been bitted needed only to look at the image to be healed. (110)

Isaiah 6 represents the attendants of Yahweh as seraphim with six wings, and elsewhere the prophet speaks of seraph meopep ("a fiery flying one" [Isa 14:29; 30:6]). By definition, "a seraph is a serpent, and for Isaiah it may have wings, as in the case of the seraphim of Isaiah 6." (111)

It is clear that the uraeus was a fiery snake which the Egyptians believed would protect the Pharaoh by spitting forth fire on his enemies. (112)

This episode is an example of sympathetic magic, that is, "controlling an adversary through manipulation of a replication."…Sympathetic magic was especially common in dealing with snake bites–the Egyptians believed they could be healed by an image of a snake. (113)

Episodes such as the divining of the Red Sea and the serpent confrontation were ironic critiques of similar accounts in Egyptian literature…Moreover, the biblical writer often used a parallel idiom as a polemic against Egypt…Likewise, Numbers 21 is a scene of polemical taunting against Egypt. (114)

a) So a spitting cobra was a cultic and occultic emblem. It represents the tutelary "gods" of Egypt.

b) If Exod 4, 7 and Deut 21 make polemical use of ophidian symbolism, then it‘s natural to assume that Gen 3 is another case in point.

c) It's also striking that Isaiah can employ ophidian imagery to depict angelic figures. That, of course, falls outside the Pentateuch. But it's probably an allusion to the Pentateuch. It suggests a natural association.

d) One also wonders if the "stones of fire" in Ezk 28:14, 16 (in conjunction with the cherub) are meant to trigger a free association with blinding venom of the spitting cobra, in its emblematic status as a numinous being with fiery venom. Likewise, the incendiary image of king's fiery demise (v18).

Footnotes in this excerpt:
(101) James Barr asks, "Why, after all, a snake?" The Garden of Eden and the Hope of Immortality (Fortress 1993), 65. Yet there are several plausible reasons for a serpentine tempter, viz. the wisdom motif, the unclean animal motif, the polemic against ophiolatry and ophiomancy.
(102) Cf. T. Desmond Alexander, From Eden to the New Jerusalem (IVP 2008); G. Beale, The Temple and the Church’s Mission (IVP 2004).
(103) Joines, K. "The Serpent in Gen 3," Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft. 87/1 (1975), 4.
(104) On the general convention of metonymic names in Biblical literature, cf. T. Stordalen, T. Stordalen, Echoes of Eden: Genesis 2-3 and Symbolic of the Eden Garden in Biblical Hebrew Literature (Peters 2000)., 55.
(105) V. Hamilton, The Book of Genesis: Chapters 1-17 (Eerdmans 1991), 187.
(106) A. Ross, Genesis (Tyndale House 2008), 50.
(107) J. Currid, Ancient Egypt and the Old Testament (Baker 1997), 88-89.
(108) Ibid. 91n42.
(109) Ibid. 92-93.
(110) Ibid. 146.
(111) Ibid. 146.
(112) Ibid. 147.
(113) Ibid. 148.
(114) Ibid. 154-55. Cf. R. Hess, Israelite Religions (Baker 2007), 202-07.

Knowledge of God: Attributes of God, Part 13-Evil, Suffering, Hell

(the picture in the video is from Tim Challies)

H. Excursus on problem of evil, suffering, and the reality of hell and its consequences

1. These are the strongest arguments against God’s existence and the most brought up objection to God’s existence

2. Evil and suffering from a Christian perspective

a. 2 Corinthians 1:3-10: Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies and God of all comfort, who comforts us in all our affliction, so that we may be able to comfort those who are in any affliction, with the comfort with which we ourselves are comforted by God.  For as we share abundantly in Christ's sufferings, so through Christ we share abundantly in comfort too.  If we are afflicted, it is for your comfort and salvation; and if we are comforted, it is for your comfort, which you experience when you patiently endure the same sufferings that we suffer.  Our hope for you is unshaken, for we know that as you share in our sufferings, you will also share in our comfort. For we do not want you to be unaware, brothers, of the affliction we experienced in Asia. For we were so utterly burdened beyond our strength that we despaired of life itself.  Indeed, we felt that we had received the sentence of death. But that was to make us rely not on ourselves but on God who raises the dead.  He delivered us from such a deadly peril, and he will deliver us. On him we have set our hope that he will deliver us again.

b. 2 Corinthians 4:7-18: But we have this treasure in jars of clay, to show that the surpassing power belongs to God and not to us.  We are afflicted in every way, but not crushed; perplexed, but not driven to despair; persecuted, but not forsaken; struck down, but not destroyed; always carrying in the body the death of Jesus, so that the life of Jesus may also be manifested in our bodies.  For we who live are always being given over to death for Jesus' sake, so that the life of Jesus also may be manifested in our mortal flesh.  So death is at work in us, but life in you. Since we have the same spirit of faith according to what has been written, “I believed, and so I spoke,” we also believe, and so we also speak, knowing that he who raised the Lord Jesus will raise us also with Jesus and bring us with you into his presence.  For it is all for your sake, so that as grace extends to more and more people it may increase thanksgiving, to the glory of God. So we do not lose heart. Though our outer self is wasting away, our inner self is being renewed day by day. For this light momentary affliction is preparing for us an eternal weight of glory beyond all comparison, as we look not to the things that are seen but to the things that are unseen. For the things that are seen are transient, but the things that are unseen are eternal

3. There are 3 general forms

a. Logical: God’s existence/attributes are incompatible with the reality of evil

            b. Evidential: probabilistic argument that God doesn’t exist b/c evil does

c. Existential: not an argument, but the personal problem due to suffering or evil

                        4. Inadequate responses to the problem of evil and suffering

                                    a. Have some good, got to have some evil

                                                i. If I were the only person in the world, would I be tall?

                                                ii. Evil is a relational property; good is an absolute property

iii. God existed alone as a Trinity before creation with no evil present

                                    b. All suffering is punishment from God

i. Some punishment is natural consequence of sin; some remedial on God’s part

                        5. Logical argument

                                    a. Belief in God is positively irrational

                                    b. B/c of evil, God does not exist

c. Tries to introduce a logical contradiction b/w attributes of God and presence of evil

                                    d. Syllogism

                                                i. God exists.

                                                ii. He is omnipotent.

                                                iii. He is omniscient.

                                                iv. He is omnibenevolent.

                                                v. Evil exists.

                                                vi. A good being always eliminates evil as far as it can.

                                                vii. There are no limits to what an omnipotent being can do.

                                                viiia. Therefore, God does not exist.

viiib. Therefore, God isn’t omnipotent and/or omniscient and/or omnibenevolent.

                                    e. as Christians, we must hold to premises 1-5

                                    f. Premise 2: When Bad Things Happen to Good People by Rabbi Kushner

                                                i. Decided God was not omnipotent

                                    g. Premise 3: Open theists

i. Deny God’s foreknowledge in an attempt to excuse God from evil like the Holocaust

                                    h. Premise 4: Islam

                                                i. A God to be feared, not worshipped

                                    i. Premise 5: Christian Science, Buddhism

                                                i. Evil does not exist

                                    j. Attack premise 6

                                                i. God would have to eliminate free will (Alvin Plantinga 1970’s)

                                                ii. God will eliminate evil in the end

                                    k. Attack premise 7

                                                i. There are limits to what God can do

                                                ii. He can’t make free creatures not sin

l. Just show God’s existence is not logically incompatible with evil (moral or natural)

                                                i. Possible reason(s) evil X is allowed, not actual

ii. Skeptic then must claim omniscience themselves to answer back

                                                            -I know there is no reason for evil X!

iii. The non-theist must show that it is impossible logically that God has morally sufficient reasons for permitting the evil in the world that is due to natural disasters.

                        6. Evidential argument

a. Preponderance of evidence from evil suggests beyond a reasonable doubt that God does not exist

                                    b. Gratuitous evil

i. Natural evil: A fawn in a forest breaks its leg. 5 days later a fire starts and the fawn suffocates.

                                                ii. Moral evil: A 9-year-old girl is tortured, raped, and murdered.

iii. There are no good reasons we know of that come out of these scenarios. So, why does God allow them?

                                    c. Syllogism

                                                i. If God exists, gratuitous evil does not exist.

                                                ii. Gratuitous evil exists.

                                                iii. Therefore, God does not exist.

                                    d. Short answer

                                                i. Deny premise 2

-Requires omniscience to say that no good will arise from these evils

-Takes an inferential leap from inscrutable evil (cannot understand) to pointless evil (no reason)

                                    e. Other answers

                                                i. Soul-making defense (Irenaeus, John Hick)

                                                            -Suffering develops virtue in us

                                                ii. Free will/process defense

                                                            -God cannot make morally free creatures not commit evil

-God has allowed the world to be affected by sin (disease, natural disasters, etc.)

                                                iii. G. E. Moore shift

                                                            -Negate the consequent

                                                                        -If there is evil, God doesn’t exist

                                                                        -It is not the case that God doesn’t exist.

-Therefore, it is not the case that the existence of evil undermines the case for God’s existence.

                                                            -Build a cumulative case that God exists

-I have many good reasons, despite evil’s existence, to believe God exists.

                                                            -Frank Turek: Does God exist? (from Stealing from God)

Yes	No
Beginning of the Universe	Evil
Fine-tuning of the Universe
Consistent Laws of Nature
Reason: Logic and Math
Information (DNA) & Intentionality
Life
Mind and Consciousness
Free Will
Objective Morality
Beauty and Pleasure
OT Prophecy
Life and Resurrection of Jesus

                        7. Existential problem

                                    a. Personal, intense suffering or the remembrance of that suffering

b. Job

                                                i. The proper response

-Job 2:11-13: Now when Job's three friends heard of all this evil that had come upon him, they came each from his own place, Eliphaz the Temanite, Bildad the Shuhite, and Zophar the Naamathite. They made an appointment together to come to show him sympathy and comfort him.  And when they saw him from a distance, they did not recognize him. And they raised their voices and wept, and they tore their robes and sprinkled dust on their heads toward heaven.  And they sat with him on the ground seven days and seven nights, and no one spoke a word to him, for they saw that his suffering was very great.

                                                ii. Bildad (3), Eliphaz (3), Zophar (2) speak in 3 cycles after…

                                                iii. Try to get him to confess his sin (suffering=punishment)

iv. Elihu says that God is teaching Job something, learn and the suffering will end

                                                            -wrong about Job, but not wrong overall

                                                            -only friend not condemned (Job 42:7)

                                                v. God’s doesn’t answer why, but who

                                                            -our power and knowledge is limited

                                                            -trust Him

                        8. The argument for God from evil

                                    a. If God does not exist, then objective moral values do not exist.

                                    b. Evil exists.

                                    c. Therefore, objective moral values do exist.

                                    d. Therefore, God exists.

                        9. The reality of Hell

a. Hell is a place of eternal conscious punishment for the wicked. (Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology, pg. 1149)

i. conscious: Matthew 25:30: And cast the worthless servant into the outer darkness. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’

ii. eternal: Matthew 25:41: “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.

iii. punishment: Matthew 25:46: And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.

b. Punishment in hell is variable based on the knowledge and actions of the condemned

i. Luke 12:47-48: And that servant who knew his master's will but did not get ready or act according to his will, will receive a severe beating.  But the one who did not know, and did what deserved a beating, will receive a light beating. Everyone to whom much was given, of him much will be required, and from him to whom they entrusted much, they will demand the more.

                        10. What can we say about the punishment of those in Hell?

a. In our treatment of the subject of eternal punishment we must remember that false doctrine is often a reaction from the unscriptural and repulsive over-statements of Christian apologists. We freely concede: 1. that future punishment does not necessarily consist of physical torments,—it may be wholly internal and spiritual; 2. that the pain and suffering of the future are not necessarily due to positive inflictions of God,—they may result entirely from the soul’s sense of loss, and from the accusations of conscience; and 3. that eternal punishment does not necessarily involve endless successions of suffering,—as God’s eternity is not mere endlessness, so we may not be forever subject to the law of time. (Augustus Strong, Systematic Theology, pg. 1035)

b. Hell is the negation or absence in the soul of all that is meant by heaven. As heaven is the fruition of all right desire, so hell is the frustration of all such desire. Heaven is the fulfilment of love. Hell is the fulfilment of selfishness. Heaven is the ripened fruit of the regenerate life which has been created anew in Christ. Hell is the reverse of all that is implied in Christian experience. As moral and spiritual causes begin to operate by faith, which in the end produce the essential elements of heaven, so also moral and spiritual causes operate in the soul through unbelief to produce the essential elements of hell. (Edgar Young Mullins, The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression, pg. 488–489)

                        11. How is it just for God to punish people eternally for temporal sins?

                                    a. All sin is against God

i. Psalm 51:4: Against you, you only, have I sinned and done what is evil in your sight, so that you may be justified in your words and blameless in your judgment.

ii. Our fundamental obligation is to God because He is our creator, sustainer, and sovereign Lord

iii. God is the ultimate authority

iv. All other obligations derive from our obligation to God

v. Violation of any obligation is to violate our fundamental obligation to God

                                    b. God’s status as an eternal being makes rejection of Him eternal

i. Those who do not find forgiveness in Jesus Christ are guilty of an eternal sin against an eternal being

ii. Mark 3:28-29: “Truly, I say to you, all sins will be forgiven the children of man, and whatever blasphemies they utter, but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin”

                                    c. It is plausible to think that people keep on sinning in hell

iii. Revelation 16:10-11: The fifth angel poured out his bowl on the throne of the beast, and its kingdom was plunged into darkness. People gnawed their tongues in anguish and cursed the God of heaven for their pain and sores. They did not repent of their deeds.

                        12. What about those who have never heard the gospel?

a. General revelation in nature makes everyone morally culpable to God already (Romans 1:18-20)

b. God’s providence was done in part so that men might seek God (Acts 17:26-27)

c. If people seek God they will find Him (Matthew 7:7)

d. This makes it impossible to say that people don’t have an opportunity to believe in Jesus Christ