Worldview, Evangelism & Apologetics

Introduction – Our Calling as Christians
The last words of Jesus to His disciples before He ascended to heaven were the command to make disciples of all the nations.[1] This is typically termed as the Great Commission and it is the calling of all Christians. Every Christian has the privilege and the responsibility of sharing the gospel of Christ. Believers are to make non-believers aware of their sin. The world must also be warned of the desperate position they are in under the wrath of God. Finally they need to know that there is hope in Christ.
Yet the regenerate Christian thinks of things in a way quite different from the unregenerate person. This different way of seeing things results in questions and objections being raised. When this occurs the believer is called to have a reasoned defense for what they believe.[2] In spite of what many unbelievers think, Christianity is not based merely on blind faith. Christianity has many solid evidences that validate the reasonableness of believing in Christ. This is not to say that everything in the Christian faith can be understood; it is merely stating that God has provided evidence so that the sinful, rebellious hearts of men may have no reason not to believe.
What causes this difference in the way the Christian and the non-Christian view the world around them? The core difference is the presence of sin.[3] Man in general views his world in an anthropocentric sort of way. This is to say that everything is viewed in light of how it relates to mankind. Anything that cannot be explained is either claimed to be unreal or is attributed to a deity designed by man that can be manipulated by man. In contrast the Christian views all things in light of the belief that the sovereign God that created all things has revealed Himself to mankind.[4] This is a theocentric way of viewing the world. It sees things in light of how they relate to God and His revelation.

Overview of Worldview
As would seem apparent by the title and theme of this paper there will be many references to worldview. Basically a worldview is an all-encompassing and structured way of looking at life and the world.[5] To put it more simply a worldview is like a windshield in a car. It is what we view the world through and that view can be obscured by what is “on our windshield”, or, in our worldview. If one has inconsistent or bad ideas integrated into their worldview it is like having ice or mud on the windshield of their car.[6] It is difficult to see clearly and may result in great damage to the person viewing the world through that system. A worldview is not merely a vision of life but a vision for life.[7]
A thorough worldview should answer several basic questions regarding such things as the nature and task of mankind, the nature of the world, the basic hurdle to overcome in fulfilling man’s purpose and how that hurdle is overcome.[8] To unregenerate man the answers to these questions are typically sought within man himself. Most non-Christian worldviews hold man at the center and make little allowance for the God found in the Bible. In some worldviews the universe is a closed system that operates by a given set of rules. Some would say that the universe is eternal while some claim that it was created by a divine being but that deity is now shut out of the operation of the universe. Other views state that there is at least one god but that god is impersonal, not caring about the affairs of men, or so personal as to be merely a higher level of humanity and not powerful enough to make a significant difference in the universe as a whole. Any of these views leaves man as the one that is primarily responsible for using his ingenuity to provide for his day-to-day needs and to improve his state of being.
In contrast to this, the Christian worldview holds that an omnipotent and sovereign God created the entire universe for His own purposes and that the universe He created was very good. This God has revealed Himself to mankind in three persons (the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit). The problems that we now experience are a result of mankind rebelling against the God that created him. This rebellion brought sickness, evil and death into the world. The solution to this problem was that God the Father sent God the Son to take on an additional, human, nature in order to live a perfect life in the place of mankind and to suffer the punishment due the sins of mankind. Man cannot fulfill the purpose that God created him for until God has changed his heart from one of rebellion to one of obedience. When God has changed a man’s heart in this way he views the world in a new way. He no longer sees things as centered around man, but on God.
There are differing levels, or layers, of beliefs in a person’s worldview. Some of these beliefs are held to lightly, or with little conviction.[9] Other views, though, are very central to the overall worldview and are foundational in the way the person sees the universe. When these core beliefs are challenged it can cause a great crisis in the person who holds them. This crisis forces one to rethink their belief and they will either find an explanation for the point in question that is consistent with their worldview and continue to hold the worldview or they will be unable to answer the challenge in an acceptable way and find themselves having to change their worldview.

Worldview and Evangelism
The Christian worldview emphasizes that man is subject to a sovereign God and the purpose of man is to love and obey that God. One of the commands that this sovereign God has given to His followers is to make followers of others. The challenge in this is that those who are not followers of God have a mindset that is in rebellion to God and all His purposes.
The key concept in worldview that is helpful in doing evangelism is that unregenerate man thinks in a man-centered way. Because of this man is viewed as essentially good. This is totally opposite the view of man in the Christian worldview which states that man is essentially sinful and in rebellion against God. In evangelism, the first points that need to be made are that man is sinful and that he is accountable to a holy God. These points are typically met with much resistance due to the fact that most non-Christian worldviews either deny the reality of sin (or the person’s personal sinfulness) or they deny the existence of God (or at least of a god that would interfere in the affairs of man). With this in mind it must be pointed out that man is not perfect and that this lack of perfection is what constitutes sin. It is the area of apologetics to point out the evidence for the existence of God. This will be addressed in the next section. Ultimately it is the work of the Holy Spirit which changes the hearts of man in order to see the sinfulness of their heart and to bring about the repentance necessary for salvation.

Worldview and Apologetics
As mentioned above the ideas of man’s sinfulness and his accountability to God typically encounter much resistance when sharing the truths of Christianity with an unsaved world. This is where apologetics comes in. Anyone that is not familiar with Christianity is going to have questions about many of the beliefs within that system. The process of answering these questions and objections is the object of the discipline of apologetics.
Many, if not all, unsaved people believe that Christianity is based upon blind faith. While they may concede that Jesus was a real person they deny the supernatural aspects of His life. In actuality Christianity has solid evidence to support many of the claims it makes. While there is not necessarily evidence for all that Christianity holds there is enough evidence in other areas to indicate its reliability as a system of belief. Besides, if Christianity comes from an infinite God no finite mind will ever be able to understand it fully.
Again the key point is regeneration. A person that has not been touched by God will turn a blind eye to any evidence or argument that supports Christianity. So it is that the point is underscored that “unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.”[10] So in the final analysis it is the work of the Holy Spirit that enables a person to see the evidence for what it is and to repent of their sin and believe in Christ for salvation. Yet, at the same time, the Christian is still to have answers for the unbeliever’s objections so that they will be without excuse and all the more condemned on the Day of Judgment.

Summary – Is There Common Ground?
In summary it has been shown that Christians are to share their faith with those in the world around them. This command is obeyed because the Christian worldview holds that there is a sovereign God that created mankind for His glory and that, because of this, man is to obey God. The challenge in actually making disciples of all the nations is that their worldview is diametrically opposed to that of Christianity.
The worldview of man is centered upon man and is in rebellion against God. Therefore many of Christianity’s truth claims are going to be challenged as backward and primitive. Simply put there is no common ground for the Christian to start with. Yet there is still hope in reaching the lost; for, while Christians are commanded to have a reason for their faith, it is not the reasoned argument that wins the soul to Christ. It is only through the work of the Holy Spirit upon the life of the individual that a person is regenerated and granted salvation.

Bibliography
Greer, James. Christian Worldview. class notes.
Nash, Ronald H. Worldviews in Conflict. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1992.
New American Standard Bible. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1995.
Thomas, Jim. Coffeehouse Theology. Eugene, OR: Harvest House, 2000.
Walsh, Brian J. and J. Richard Middleton. The Transforming Vision. Downers Grove, IL:
InterVarsity Press, 1984.

[1] Matthew 28:19, NASB.
[2] 1 Peter 3:15, NASB.
[3] Ronald H. Nash, Worldviews in Conflict (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1992), 40-41.
[4] James Greer, Christian Worldview, class notes.
[5] Nash, 14.
[6] Jim Thomas, Coffeehouse Theology (Eugene, OR: Harvest House, 2000), 26.
[7] Brian J. Walsh and J. Richard Middleton, The Transforming Vision (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1984), 31.
[8] Ibid, 34.
[9] Greer.
[10] John 3:3, NASB.

Pathetic "pastor"

After reading this, I will never buy anything by Joel Osteen (not that I have to this point anyway...but all the same).

New Links!

Woo-Hoo!! I finally figured out how to add links to my sidebar! Now you can see what blogs I've been surfing fairly regularly. Maybe now Phil Johnson will mention me next time he does his "blogspotting" and I can get a few more hits. (Now I just have to figure out how to get my hit counter to work...)

Legalism and pluralism in the church

Sorry I haven't posted much lately... been very busy at work. Found this excellent point surfing through some other blogs (see the full article here):

"I find it odd that, in an age marked by an explosion of licentious antinomianism in the Church, most pastors are preoccupied with 'legalism' so-called. Teenagers in the church can be fornicating with one another; wives can be leading their husbands around by the nose; or husbands can be passive and withdrawn from their responsibilities, but is this kind of open rebellion against the law of God attacked by pastors? Hardly. They’re too busy condemning the father whose daughters wear head coverings and Pilgrim dresses. 'Legalism!' he cries, and most of his sermons denounce such 'false piety,' while temple prostitution takes place right under his nose. It seems to me that our priorities are all bent out of shape. The primary problem in the Church today is not an over-zealous, legalistic application of God’s Word to all areas of life. The primary problem is rank, unadulterated antinomianism. It is a denial of the sufficiency of Scripture. It is theological pluralism. It’s the 'I’m okay, you’re okay' theology of syncretism. It’s the ear-tickling, hip, Burger King ('have it your way') Christianity. "

On the Scriptures

This material is excerpted from a series of lessons I taught at my church last summer and includes information from other sources that I have not referenced here. I will post those references as soon as I track down my main notes. This is by no means a comprehensive treatment of the issues but I believe it to be fairly thorough for its brevity.

ON THE HOLY SCRIPTURES

The doctrines regarding the nature and origin of the Scriptures are very controversial these days. What is the importance of it? Many would say that the Bible of today is merely a moral guide for how we should live our lives and that its precepts are not hard and fast rules for us to live by today. Others claim that in its pages are written the very words of God. So who is right and why does it matter? It is critical for Christians to know not only the truth of the inspiration of the Scriptures but the importance this doctrine has in the life of every believer. An examination will be made of the view of the early Church as well as the philosophical ideology that began to undermine this original view. To start with, let us take a look at why we even need Scripture.

The Need for Scripture
Prior to the Fall man had complete, unhindered access to God. The Lord spoke to Adam face to face and the creature had perfect fellowship with his Creator. But with the sin of Adam came a change in that relationship. Adam was cast from the Garden and no longer had direct access to God. The glory of God was concealed from mankind (otherwise man, being in a state of sin, would have been consumed [Exodus 33:20]) and therefore God had to make a way to reveal Himself and His will to His special creatures. This revealing, or “revelation”, takes two forms: general revelation and special revelation.
General revelation (sometimes called “natural” revelation) is that evidence given by God through what He has created as well as through the conscience of men. Psalm 19 states:
The heavens declare the glory of God; And the firmament shows His handiwork. Day unto day utters speech, And night unto night reveals knowledge. There is no speech nor language Where their voice is not heard. Their line has gone out through all the earth, And their words to the end of the world.
(Psalm 19:1-4; NKJV)

What this passage states is that every person on the face of the earth is given, through the wonders of the creation, clear evidence of the existence of God. Yet this type of revelation is not sufficient to inform man of God’s will nor to give a saving knowledge of God to those who heed it. It is possible to see God in the created order and not be saved. This is demonstrated in the book of Romans:
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.
(Romans 1:18-23, NKJV)

So, it is seen here that general revelation is not sufficient to save, it is only sufficient to condemn. For this reason God gave a special revelation of Himself that clearly demonstrates His will for mankind as well as the way of salvation. This special revelation is found in the pages of Scripture. One children’s catechism asks, “Where do we learn to love and obey God?” and the answer is, “In the Bible alone.”
The importance of the doctrine has been evidenced throughout the history of the Church in that nearly every book on systematic theology has this doctrine either first or second in the order of doctrines addressed (second only to the doctrine of God). The reason for this is that all other doctrines rest on this one. There must be a high view of the Bible in order to have an objective basis for any other teaching. God has condescended to reveal Himself to mankind in the pages of Scripture and so any teaching regarding God must begin there. There are many other books men have written since the beginning of time but only the Bible has the very words of God given to man so that he would know how to be saved from judgment. In the same way that a person would not use a Kansas roadmap to find out how to get from St. Louis to Chicago, one cannot use any book but the Bible to find the way of the Lord.

The Origin of the Modern Bible
A common argument against the Bible is that it is merely a book written by imperfect men and that the Bible did not even reach its present form until the A.D. 400’s. On the surface this may seem like a valid argument. But one must look at the process of putting the Bible together in order to truly evaluate this argument. A brief mention will be made here of the rules used to determine if a writing was to be considered the inspired word of God.
In the early Church, what we call the Old Testament was immediately accepted as Holy Scripture simply due to the fact that it had been recognized as such by the Jews for centuries. It was written from the time of Moses up to about 400BC. This was the same Scripture used by Christ when He preached during His earthly ministry and He did not refute it’s validity as the word of God (and would have been in a unique position to do so, Himself being God!) As the apostles began preaching and teaching, they and their immediate companions wrote gospels and letters to be shared among the churches of the ancient world. There were probably hundreds of such letters circulating, so how did the Church determine what was inspired? The basic rules for canonicity were:
1) The writing had to bear apostolic authority. That is, it had to be written by or under the guidance of an apostle who had witnessed the risen Christ;

2) The writing had to conform to the “rule of faith.” That is to say it could not contradict what had already been recognized as Scripture; and

3) The writing had to be accepted as inspired by the Church at-large.

These were the basic guidelines that the various Church Fathers and Councils used in order to determine if a particular writing was to be authoritative in the lives of Christians. All this having been said, when Church leaders gathered in Carthage in 397A.D. it was not to decide what would be in the canon of Scripture, but to codify what had already been generally accepted as Scripture for centuries.
The next issue that tends to come up is in the arena of transmission. Of course the exact original documents of the New Testament have long ago rotted away and are no longer in existence. Because of this, the current translations in use today have been developed using copies of copies of copies. So how can it be determined that these copies are accurate representations of the originals? This question can actually be answered very simply. During Old Testament times the Scriptures were kept in the tabernacle or the temple near the Ark of the Covenant. When these copies began to wear out, a new copy would be made. Since this was ages before the printing press these copies had to be made by hand and there was a special class of men whose job it was to copy the Scriptures and they were the Scribes. Scribes took their job very seriously because they recognized that they were dealing with the very word of God. It would be a very grave matter to misrepresent Yahweh by adulterating His word with error so the Scribes made every effort to avoid this. When a copy of a particular book (scroll) was completed the scribes would count the number of letters in the copy and compare it with the number of letters known to be in the book being copied. If the number did not match, the copy would be destroyed and the scribe would have to begin anew. Then the letter in the exact center of the copy would be located by counting. If the center letter of the copy did not match the center letter of the original, again the copy would be destroyed. Measures such as these show the great care taken by the scribes in copying the Old Testament manuscripts in order to faithfully preserve God’s word for future generations. And example of the accuracy of this is seen is the sect of the Massoretes. This was a scribal group who copied Scriptures up to the 900’s. When the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered in the 1930’s there was found a complete copy of the book of Isaiah dating to the 100’s BC. When this was compared to the Massoretic copy of Isaiah it was found to be an exact representation even after 1000 years of copying by hand. Needless to say, there can be no real argument that the Old Testament is today what it was at least in the time of Christ.
But what about the New Testament? A different route was taken in copying the gospels and the letters found in the New Testament, yet accuracy was maintained. Before looking at the New Testament manuscripts, writings of various secular authors will be considered. For instance, Julius Caesar’s work The Gallic Wars is undisputed even by liberal scholars as far as its historical accuracy goes, yet there are only ten surviving copies with a 1000 year lapse between the original writing and the oldest available copy. Homer’s Illiad is much better by comparison with 643 copies and only 500 years between the original and the oldest available copy. Yet the New Testament has over 24,000 copies (over 5,000 in Greek alone) and less than 100 years between the actual events and the oldest existing fragment! Through the science of statistical analysis it has been determined that the Bible we have today is a 99.5% accurate representation of the actual original documents.
Now on to the question of what the early Church believed regarding what we have today as our Bible. In the “first generation” of Christianity the apostles merely taught what had been handed to them by Christ. The second generation, who had learned from the apostles themselves, included Polycarp of Smyrna, Ignatius of Antioch and Clement of Rome. It could be said that these men merely passed on what they learned from their mentors, the apostles. It was not until around A.D. 200 that the question arose as to the authenticity and/or inspiration of the apostles’ writings. The Mauratorian canon (A canon being a collection of writings considered to be authoritative. The Bible we have today is our modern canon.) consisted of all the books we have in our current Bible with the exceptions of: 1 John, 1&2 Peter, Hebrews & James (note none of Paul’s writings were in doubt). The Church father Irenaeus made mention of all but Jude, 2 Peter, James, Philemon, 2&3 John & Revelation. The Syriac Canon dating from the 3rd century named all but John’s Revelation. Athanasius of Alexandria called the current 27-book New Testament canon the “only source of salvation and of the authentic teaching of the religion of the Gospel.” and Jerome (who wrote the Latin Vulgate) referenced the current listing of books in his writings. Lastly the current listing of 27 book of the New Testament was confirmed to be Holy Scripture at the Synods of Carthage in A.D. 397 and 418. Please note that the canon was confirmed, not decided. The distinct difference, as recognized by those at the Synods, is that the canon is determined by God and discovered by man; the canon is not determined by man.

Development Over Time of Doctrines Regarding Scripture
Over time the Church got away from the idea that the Scriptures were the final authority in the matters of man. The Roman Catholic church taught that the Scriptures do not represent the full revelation of God and that there are other traditions that were passed down from the apostles and that these teachings were also authoritative in the lives of Christians. As stated in the Baltimore Catechism, the church “does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored….” (C 82). They also held that the canon was an infallible collection of infallible books produced by the Church. The position of the reformers of the 1500’s was diametrically opposed to this position. They stated that the canon was a fallible collection of infallible books discovered by the Church. The reformers also held that the preservation of God’s word was insured by God Himself and not by the Church and that Christians needed only the witness of the Holy Spirit in order to understand the Scriptures and not the authorities of the Church. John Calvin stated in his Institutes of the Christian Religion:
“Let it therefore be held as fixed, that those that are inwardly taught by the Holy Spirit acquiesce implicitly in Scripture, carrying its own evidence along with it, deigns not to submit to proofs and arguments, but owes the full conviction with which we ought to receive it to the testimony of the Spirit. Enlightened by Him, we no longer believe, either on our own judgment or that of others, that the Scriptures are from God; but, in a way superior to human judgment, feel perfectly assured as much so as if we beheld the divine image visibly impressed on it that it came to us, by the instrumentality of men, from the very mouth of God.”

One of the more current assaults on the Scriptures began in the Enlightenment of the 17th Century. Philosophers like Descartes and Hobbs began teaching that the only things that can be known are known through sense perception. Immanuel Kant expanded this idea from the fields of science and philosophy into the religious arena by dividing the physical, or knowable, realm from the spiritual, or unknowable, realm. He believed that in order to have any knowledge of the spiritual, one must make a “leap of faith” because the spiritual realm, being unseen, could provide no real evidence for the truth claims made. This trend culminated in the teachings of David Strauss, who outright denied the existence of the supernatural and, thus, the possibility that God may have intervened in this world either through verbal revelation through the Scriptures, miracles or the Incarnation and resurrection of Christ.
The theological beliefs that sprang from this period became very man-centered, or anthropocentric, as opposed to being God-centered, or theocentric. Doctrine and theology became very much about how man can benefit from God rather than what man’s responsibilities are before God. The doctrine of original sin was either significantly weakened or eliminated altogether. Man was viewed as essentially good on his own rather than being tainted with sin in every part of his being. Because of this, the traditional (and biblical) views regarding redemption were replaced with the idea that man didn’t really need to be “saved” from anything and that Jesus was just an example and a great teacher who died either as an example of self-sacrificial love or as a political revolutionary. In either case, the critics say, Jesus was not divine and He was not raised from the dead (some even say His body was thrown in a shallow grave to be dug up and eaten by wild dogs.)

The Orthodox Christian View of the Bible
So what do Christians believe about the Bible? How do we know the Scriptures were inspired by God? It has already been shown that the historical position of the Church has been that the Scriptures are the word of God. In this treatment of the topic an examination will be made of the belief in the verbal, plenary inspiration of Scripture. First, what is meant by inspiration is that God, through the agency of the Holy Spirit, acted upon the authors of the books of the Bible in such a way so as to insure His message was accurately conveyed and recorded for future generations. This can be shown in passages such as 2 Timothy 3:16-17: “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.” (in this passage the word translated as “inspiration of God” actually means “God-breathed.”) and also in 2 Peter 1:20-21: “…knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.”
A belief in verbal inspiration means that one holds that the very words of Scripture were given by God (though not through a dictation-type of process). Evidence of this is seen in the gospel of Matthew where Christ states that “…assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.” (Matthew 5:18) In this passage, Jesus is specifically referring to the Old Testament; but, in regards to the New Testament, Christ also promised the coming Holy Spirit in verses such as:
Luke 12:12 – “For the Holy Spirit will teach you in that very hour what you ought to say.”

John 14:6 – “But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you.”

John 16:13 – “However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you things to come.”

Plenary inspiration simply means that the Bible is inspired in all of its parts. The Old Testament is constantly confirmed by Christ in His teachings and none of it is called into question. Again we have the references above regarding Christ’s promise to the Apostles regarding what they would go on to write and there are also passages where the writers of the New Testament refer to one-another’s works (as well as their own) as Scripture such as:
I Thessalonians 4:8 – “Therefore he who rejects this does not reject man, but God, who has also given us His Holy Spirit.”

I Corinthians 2:13 – “These things we also speak, not in words which man’s wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual.”

II Peter 3:15-16 – “and consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation—as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures.” (emphasis added)

So the verbal, plenary inspiration of Scripture can be seen clearly from those passages cited. Much better arguments have been made elsewhere by much better authors but the argument presented here should be more than sufficient to indicate that this doctrine is quite biblical in its foundation and, hopefully, it can also be seen that verbal, plenary inspiration is what the Bible teaches about itself.

Summary
As was stated in the opening, the doctrines regarding the nature and origin of the Scriptures are very controversial. But when evaluating the various views one must answer certain questions: 1) Has God revealed any kind of knowledge to man? (2) How? (3) What is the nature of that revelation?
The orthodox position can confidently state that God has revealed Himself to man in the pages of the Scriptures and that those Scriptures are the infallible word of God Himself and are inspired equally in all parts down to the very words used. One must then ask if any of the opposing views can give such a confident answer. If only parts of the Bible are inspired, how are we to know which parts? If the Bible is not inspired at all, how are we to know God properly? The answer is, there is no way to know God in any satisfying way apart from a belief in the inspired, inerrant word of God given to us in the pages of Scripture.

On the Problem of Evil

This was a brief item I put together for a co-worker who had expressed doubt in the existence of God based on the "problem of evil."

The Basic Issue
It seems that every night on the news there are reports of war, famine, rape and murder. What is the purpose? Why do such things happen? If God exists, why does He allow such evil and suffering? The problem of evil has plagued mankind from the beginning of time. Many of the great thinkers of the world have put forth their own ideas on why there is pain and suffering and a few of these ideas will be examined here. While this is not intended to be an exhaustive study on the issue it is a presentation of my understanding of it. It is my hope that some may find it useful in their attempts to find an answer to the question of “why?”
A Discussion of Evil

The problem of evil is possibly one of the most difficult issues that any philosopher or theologian can address. The basic anti-theistic argument in the problem of evil goes something like this:
1. If God were all-powerful He would be able to prevent evil.
2. If God were all-good He would want to prevent evil.
3. If God were all-powerful and all-good there would be no evil.
4. There is evil in the world.
5. There is no all-good, all-powerful God.

This particular formulation would seem to present a formidable challenge to the theist but it is not impossible to overcome. As a matter of fact the theists (Christian theists in particular) would appear to have the best response to this particular issue. Some of the non-biblical views will be presented and then the biblical view will be expressed.
Some of the Eastern religions (as well as some Western cults) believe that evil is just an illusion; that there is no such thing as evil. As absurd as this may sound to many reasonable people, this is actually the core belief of the moral relativist. The moral relativist says that there is no objective morality and that morality is just a matter of taste or preference. By saying this, the relativist is actually giving up their right to make any judgment on what is good or evil because they have marginalized the meanings of these two terms. The idea that evil is just an illusion is also a slap in the face to anyone who has actually experienced what would be termed “evil.” One would be hard pressed to explain to a survivor of the Holocaust that their experience was all in their head. And try telling a grieving parent that their child wasn’t really killed by that stray bullet from the gangster’s gun. Those words would be devoid of any comfort or hope for those experiencing such pain. Therefore, in light of practical experience and what we know to be true, this view would have to be rejected outright.
Another possible explanation for the existence of evil is that, as mentioned above, God is not powerful enough to overcome it. So, you may ask, what is wrong with this? The problem with this view is manifold. First, the Bible teaches that God is all-powerful and sovereign. This means that He is in absolute control of all things. Second, if God cannot overcome evil then mankind has absolutely no assurance that evil will not triumph one day. Lastly, if God is not able to overcome evil then He is no god at all and is certainly not worthy of our honor or worship.
A third possibility is that this is the best possible world that God could have created. The line of reasoning used here states that in order for mercy to be shown, there has to be suffering. In order for there to be good, it logically follows that there must be evil. The problem with this is that it puts God beneath and subservient to certain “laws” of logic. This does not recognize that God is the source of logic and His ways may transcend our human reason (just as it states in the Bible ‘for My thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways My ways’ – Isaiah 55:8, NIV).

A Biblical Answer
There are many other “solutions” that have been offered up for the problem of evil both in theistic and anti-theistic circles, but most fall short in some way or other. So, you may ask, if these views are all flawed in some way, what better answer is there? In order to get a good answer, one needs only to turn to God’s word. In the Bible we see that God is absolutely all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good and sovereign. But where does this leave us in regards to the existence of evil in the world? The explanation comes in the transcendence of God. The fact that God is infinite in all His attributes and perfections means that mankind will never fully understand Him or His ways. As God spoke through the prophet Isaiah: “as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways, and My thoughts than your thoughts.” (Isaiah 55:9, NKJV) We know that mankind is finite and limited. This being the case, mankind can never fully comprehend an infinite, eternal God. If man could fully understand God, he would be a god.
So what does all this have to do with explaining the problem of evil? Specifically this: just because God chooses to allow certain things to go on in the universe He created does not mean that it is purposeless. Being the sovereign creator of all that is, God does not owe us any explanation at all for what He does; and even if He did offer an explanation it does not mean that we would even be able to comprehend it. But He has condescended to provide somewhat of an answer in His word. We see one explanation in the story of Joseph.
Joseph had ten brothers who didn’t care too much for their spoiled sibling. Their father had shown great favoritism toward Joseph and this created resentment in his other sons. When an opportunity arose, Joseph’s brothers threw him in an empty well only to draw him out later to sell to slave traders headed for Egypt. They soaked his coat in animal’s blood and told their father that his favorite son had been eaten by wild beasts. Joseph was then sold as a household slave to a prominent Egyptian official where he gained favor for the good work he did. When the official’s wife wanted Joseph to lie with her and Joseph refused, she accused him of rape. After being left in prison for several years, he interpreted a troubling dream that Pharaoh had. The dream predicted seven years of abundant crops followed by seven years of great famine. Because of his interpretation and his plan to save back food for the lean years Joseph was placed as second to Pharaoh in the land of Egypt. After a time, Joseph’s brothers came to buy food from the Egyptians for their starving family. Now Joseph finally had his answer for all of the hardships he had suffered. As he so aptly said to his brothers, “as for you, you meant evil against me; but God meant it for good, in order to bring it about as it is this day, to save many people alive.” Did God have to go through such a roundabout way of saving the Joseph’s family from famine? Maybe not; but would his brothers have ever learned the dangers of jealousy and impulsive actions? Would Joseph have learned the humility he learned as a slave or the patience of being in prison for so long?
So we see that God is sovereign in all that happens and has reasons for allowing what He allows. He may not always give us those reasons and we may not always understand those reasons. But we know that God does all things in order to display His glory and to encourage growth in His people. His plans and actions are always to that end and He has a plan for the overall good of those whom He loves (Romans 8:28). Sometimes His plan may involve allowing evil to exist in order to display His glory in the most clear way (Romans 9:17). Just because we, as finite beings, cannot comprehend God’s reasons for allowing certain things to come to pass does not mean that He does not exist or that He is less than who the Bible makes Him out to be. We are simply called to trust that what happens will result in the ultimate good of those who love God and for His glory.

Critique of Blaker, pt. 4

Once he turns the corner to the twentieth century, Mr. Kagin introduces the modern-day Fundamentalists. He cites the series of pamphlets titled The Fundamentals which stressed the ideas of: the verbal inspiration of the Bible, the virgin birth, substitutionary atonement, the bodily resurrection and the second coming. I would agree that these issues have been correctly identified as fundamentals of Christianity. If any of these particular doctrines are taken away or diminished then the faith that is based on that new understanding is not rightly Christian. In fact, these fundamentals can be traced back to the very beginning of Christianity. The early Christians believed with all their heart that the Bible was the very word of God. They also believed (obviously according to the Gospel accounts) that Jesus of Nazareth was born of a virgin. The letters of Paul (written no later than 66A.D.) abound with the doctrine that Christ’s death was a substitutionary atonement. There were over 500 eye-witnesses of the physically resurrected Christ, and Jesus promised (as shown in the Scriptures) that He would return again to gather His Church and judge the world.
Next, Mr. Kagin quotes Don Lattin where he states that Fundamentalists “believe that the Bible is literally true and without error, stress evangelism, emphasize the approaching ‘end times’ and the second coming of Christ and practice separation from nonbelievers.” I agree with most of what Mr. Lattin is quoted here as saying. It is fair to characterize true Christianity in these terms with the exception of the last phrase. This may stem from a misunderstanding of what it means to be separated from “the world.” What Biblical Christianity teaches is that we are not to participate in and become acclimated to the way of life found in this world. It would be the same as an American traveling in, say, Zambia. He is going to behave as an American even though those around him are behaving as Zambians. So, the Christian is to behave as a citizen of God’s Kingdom rather than as a citizen of this world. Also, if the Christian is to emphasize evangelism, how can this be done if he is separated from nonbelievers? This is a logical impossibility. You cannot win someone to your point of view by avoiding them. Christians are to engage the unbelieving world around them and share their faith in a gentle and respectful way.
Once the historical foundation is laid, Mr. Kagin begins to analyze and critique what he believes to be representative of Christian fundamentalism. He begins by attacking the doctrine of the inerrancy of Scripture. Right from the start, he reveals his total disdain for the Bible. He contrasts the evolutionistic view of an earth that is billions of years old with the “creation myth” presented in Scripture, totally disregarding the many scientists in every field of study he mentions (physics, geology, astronomy, biology, etc.) that at least question the truth of the evolutionary theory or hold to the biblical account of the origin of all things. He states that “when the facts don’t fit the dogma, the literalists discard the facts.” In actuality, it is the dogmatic evolutionist that, while they may not discard the facts, certainly distort the facts or manufacture “facts” in order to support their increasingly untenable position. Mr. Kagin then makes the mistake of taking a particular verse of Scripture out of context in order to support his point of view. He states that fundamentalists want prayer in schools and other public settings, while Jesus condemns public prayer in the Sermon on the Mount as shown in Matthew 6:6. The problem with the application of this verse to the situation in question is that of context. In Matthew 6:6, Jesus was commanding His followers not to pray “as the hypocrites do.” The idea presented in this passage, as taken in its larger context, is to avoid practicing “religiosity” in order to be noticed by men. Of course the Scriptures are packed with instances where great men of God pray publicly; so Jesus is not contradicting the practice in general, He is condemning the motive.
The first issue that I have in regards to the description given for evangelism is that the author implies that the evangelist is the one that is doing the “saving” where true Christianity teaches that the evangelist only points the individual to the one who actually does the saving, that being Jesus Christ. Next, Mr. Kagin claims that evangelism is based on the idea of an eminent apocalypse. While this may be true in some minority circles within Christendom, true evangelism is predicated on the command given in Scripture by Jesus when he gave what is called the “Great Commission”:
“And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, ‘All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.’” (Matthew 28:18-19, NKJV)

Another motive for evangelism would be the Christian’s concern for the eternal destiny of those with whom they associate. Again, if one were convinced that another person were in impending danger it would be inhuman not to warn them of the danger and show them the way of escape.
It is at this point that Mr. Kagin gets to what I believe to be the source of his disdain for “fundamentalist Christians.” He claims that fundamentalist Christians hold to a kind of authoritarianism that demands “blind obedience” and that they exercise “aggression”, “mean-spiritedness” and “vindictiveness” against any who would oppose them. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Granted, the biblical model of the authority structure for mankind does not mesh well with Mr. Kagin’s secular or humanist ideas of authority structures, it is a solid structure nonetheless. While the structure may seem rigid, any structure of lasting value should be. Who would build a suspension bridge from marshmallows? Secondly, no one on earth is called to “blindly” follow any other person. While man is given authority, that authority is a conditional authority. No one is required to obey a command that is in contradiction to what has been revealed previously. Therefore, when the young Hebrew boys were commanded by the God-ordained ruler of Babylon to bow to a golden statue, they disobeyed upon pain of death, because God had already commanded not to bow down before a graven image. Lastly, Mr. Kagin ignores the fact that, though God gives men the authority on the earth He also holds them responsible for what they do with that authority. There is great responsibility in being a man in a Christian home. He is God’s representative in the home and will be judged for every thought, word and deed that departs from the picture God gives of Himself in the Bible. Every idle word will be called into account. It’s no wonder that Mr. Kagin would like to see women in charge; he likely couldn’t handle the responsibility.
Lastly, the author gets into an “analysis” of eschatological views, completely ignoring the fact that this very issue is a source of contention throughout all Christendom. The only reason that it is even brought up is because of the fact that one of the common characteristic beliefs of the “fundamentalists” is the second-coming of Christ. Again, while Christians do hold to the second coming, there are many different views on the details of the events surrounding the event itself. Once all of the most popular eschatological views have been critiqued, the author goes on to point out that the very idea of the second coming drives Christians to be “socially irresponsible” as they just do for themselves while waiting for Christ to return. It eludes me how Mr. Kagin can, on the one hand, decry the Christian lack of social concern (nevermind all the Christian charities, food kitchens, homeless shelters, orphanages, hospitals, etc.) and on the other hand, criticize them for being involved in the political process. Does Mr. Kagin not consider voting to be a “social responsibility”? I will not delve into all the various issues that Mr. Kagin brings up at the end of his article, but will just leave the previous statement as it is to simmer for a while.
In conclusion I will return to my statement in the opening paragraph. In this article, from the opening quote by Randall Terry to the closing implication that Christian fundamentalists could bring about a crisis “such as what was seen on September 11, 2001,” a massive straw-man has been erected and Edwin Kagin has hung the name-tag of “Christian Fundamentalist” on it. He then takes his own limited observations of what he believes Christianity to be and burns the effigy. Dishonest tactics are used in order to paint Christians in the most negative light possible. History and science are distorted and the logical implications of a totally secular society are not even mentioned. Far from being a fair-minded critique of Christianity, this article represents nothing but a hit-piece against those who do not conform to Mr. Kagin’s vision of what Christianity should be.

Blaker update

Finished reading chapter 3: an article by feminist Bobbie Kirkhart entitled Little Ones to Him Belong. Very disturbing reading to be sure. I will post the rest of my response to Edwin Kagin's article soon and will begin developing my response to Ms. Kirkhart this week. Keep watching for it!

Examining our election

Two days in a row, now, I’ve heard on the radio references to the biblical exhortation to “make your calling and election sure.” Today, Alastair Begg tied this with the admonition Christ gives in the Sermon on the Mount to enter through the “narrow gate” and how making your calling and election sure is a process of making sure you have entered through the narrow gate. All this brought to mind the analogy of a road-trip. Just as a driver utilizes a road map or atlas, checking for signs, towns and intersections for reference, in order to make sure they are on the right path to reach their desired destination; so the Christian utilizes the Bible, checking their lives against the clear definitions and pictures of what a true Christian lives like, to make sure they truly have been converted and are on the path to that Celestial City they long to reach.