The Temple

Musings on the Problem of Evil

In response to John’s comments on the post “Plantinga’s Version of the Ontological Argument” I have begun to formulate a more formal post on the problem of evil. This is a sermon I wrote back in 2004 in response to the Tsunami in the Indian Ocean, killing approximately 250,000 people.

The physics of a Tsunami are not a mystery; the displacement of water by a large seismic event resulting in a massive movement of water on a collision course with land.

The disastrous effects of the Tsunami are also no mystery. Humans caught in the path of rushing water are no match in strength, the resultant deaths are not a surprise.

The response to such a tragedy is no mystery. Can we do less than help? The world has responded in an overwhelming way, and rightly so.

In a purely mechanistic universe, the events in the Indian Ocean are classified as “natural.” Techtonic plates slipping and the universe in movement are natural processes. Man got in the way, his warning system not up to snuff, certainly not as good as the animal warning system – as animal advocates are noting, apparently animals are smarter than humans, they know when to seek higher ground (a spiritual allegory????).

From a Christian standpoint and from the Biblical world view, WHY?

Why did this happen? Is that a question we can answer? What is the appropriate Biblical response to the disaster in the Indian Ocean region of the world, Christmas time 2004?

One of the best passages, one well suited to our question is found in the words of Jesus as recorded by Luke in chapter 13 of his gospel. It reads as follows:

Now on the same occasion there were some present who reported to Him about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices. 2 And Jesus said to them, “Do you suppose that these Galileans were greater sinners than all other Galileans because they suffered this fate? 3 “I tell you, no, but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish. 4 “Or do you suppose that those eighteen on whom the tower in Siloam fell and killed them were worse culprits than all the men who live in Jerusalem? 5 “I tell you, no, but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish.”

Jesus addresses two kinds of events: The first, human killing by the hands of humans; Second, human death by the hands of, to use a “popular” term, fate.

The first event has to do with Pilate killing some Galilean worshippers who apparently came to Jerusalem to offer their sacrifices. The details are not given, only the descriptive phrase: “Galileans whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices.” Everything we say beyond that is interpretive and speculative. We have no elucidation of this event either in this context, in the rest of the Gospels or in any other historical record. We know that Pilate was cruel. So the description fits the culprit. But beyond that we know no details. Suffice it to say that Pilate killed people indiscriminately to suit his political and popular purposes.

In Jesus fashion, Jesus asks a question to get to his point: “Were these people singled out by God for punishment because they were more sinful than other Galileans?” Jesus is not concerned with Pilate’s judgment of these people but of God’s judgment of them. Note carefully that Jesus does not call them innocent, he simply asks if they were sinners (a`martwloi.) above all other Galileans because they suffered this fate? Jesus answers his own question, he says they were not.

He asks the same question using the natural disaster/accident scenario: “Were the people who were killed when the tower fell on them culprits, sinners, debtors (ovfeile,tai) above all other people living in Jerusalem at the time? Again Jesus answers no. They were not punished for being sinners “above all” others.

They were not worse; they were sinners just like the rest. The point is that they were just like us – theologically – we all deserve their fate!!! The question turns the issue on itself – the question isn’t “why did they die?” the question is, why am I still alive? I am no better than they are, so why am I still here?

The Jews of Jesus time were very much like us in this regard. They firmly believed in the principle of reaping and sowing: “They must have brought this upon themselves by indulgence in sin” and “They are being punished for their sin.” This principle is accurate. I don’t challenge the principle of reaping and sowing, nor do I question it. But it is not a question of comparison, it is a universal principle – Paul put it this way: “All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” It is not a matter of doing better than the next guy. It is a matter of getting right with God.

We use comparison to justify ourselves.

  • God will accept me; I am not a murderer like Scott Peterson.
  • God will accept me; I am not an Adolph Hitler, I am not a …
  • God will accept me; I am not as bad as my neighbor

The problem is that the premise is false, and Jesus challenges this idea – you are no better than those who have just perished. He goes on to warn his listeners, twice with this statement: “…unless you repent, you will all likewise perish.”

This fate awaits all sinners, the only escape is repentance. The only escape is to appeal to the mercy and grace of God.

Jesus gives no answer beyond this. He simply says two things: They weren’t any worse than you and you had better take note and repent, or else the same fate awaits you.

The question we must answer before we move on to application to the tsunami is this: Was Jesus speaking of the generalities of sin, salvation and the problem of evil, or did he have a more specific issue in mind.

Some have said that Jesus here is specifically referring to the need for Jews to repent and follow Jesus so that they would heed his warnings to flee the things to come and escape a fate similar to the two scenarios listed here, i.e. Roman oppression and the destruction of the temple. I think that is likely. But does that hinder us from expanding the application to the generalities of sin, salvation and the problem of evil. No, it does not, because it harmonizes with the Biblical teaching on these issues.

The Sovereignty & Providence of God

We believe that God is sovereign. That means he rules everything. He is the only God, therefore He is the ultimate authority over all things, including evil and calamity.

This absolute sovereignty of God has posed a philosophical problem for us. What distinguishes God from being the ruler of everything including evil and being responsible for everything including evil? Before I make a meager attempt at explaining how God can be over evil but not responsible as evil, let me make this one cogent point. The Bible never attempts to make this distinction, or to explain God’s proximity to evil. It simply declares that God is good and not evil.

Look carefully at Isaiah 45:5-7:

5 “I am the LORD, and there is no other; Besides Me there is no God. I will gird you, though you have not known Me; 6 That men may know from the rising to the setting of the sun That there is no one besides Me. I am the LORD, and there is no other, 7 The One forming light and creating darkness, Causing well-being and creating calamity; I am the LORD who does all these.

What seems more important to God is not to distance Himself from evil or “calamity” as this verse calls it, but to express His absolute sovereignty. He simply says “Where else did it come from?? I am the only God.”

The Providence of God can be defined as His sovereignty in action.

Here is how Louis Berkhof defines Providence:

“…that continued exercise of the divine energy whereby the Creator preserves all His creatures, is operative in all that comes to pass in the world, and directs all things to their appointed end. This definition indicates that there are three elements in providence, namely preservation, concurrence or cooperation, and government.”

The parts of Providence:

Preservation: “…that continuous work of God by which He maintains the things which He created, together with the properties and powers with which He endowed them.”

Concurrence: “…the cooperation of the divine power with all subordinate powers, according to the pre-established laws of their operation, causing them to act and to act precisely as they do.”

Government: “…that continued activity of God whereby He rules all things teleologically so as to secure the accomplishment of the divine purpose.”

(L. Berkhof, Systematic Theology, pp. 166-175)

According to this definition nothing occurs outside the providence of God. He is purposefully navigating the course of the world and all that is in it. The erroneous picture of God and human events that arises out of a bad theology of providence is that God only controls good things or good outcomes. If there is an avoidance of disaster, we thank God (rightly so), but if there is a disaster we attempt to insulate God. We say “he allowed it to happen.” But the doctrine of providence says more than that – there was a purpose in it happening.

So, what could possibly be God’s purpose in a Tsunami and the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people?

Wrong question. That is simply a question of magnitude. Why ask that question when every human that has ever lived has come to a tragic end. Today’s population is 6.5 many billion. Within 70 years they will mostly be dead!!!! Why does it matter that the deaths took place in one day or in many days? They still die!! Life is still removed from them. The providence of God tells us that God has ordained the length of my days (Psalm 139:16). My death is part of the decree and providence of God. To put it bluntly, He kills me.

The appropriate question is: Why does any man die?

But the other question, “why the Tsunami?”, still deserves an answer. It is found in understanding the holiness and wrath of God.

The Holiness & Wrath of God

Just as God is completely sovereign, absolutely sovereign if you will, He is just as completely holy. He is righteous, good and pure. Part of the definition of holiness is that He has abhorrence for sin.

In order to understand God’s holiness, we must understand evil. What is evil? Mostly we define evil as the loss or diminishing of human life. Therefore, the Tsunami can be classified as evil (although our culture has a hard time calling natural calamity evil). Someone killing someone else though would be considered evil. A god who used natural disaster to kill people is questioned, his goodness is doubted. But Biblically evil is more appropriately defined as rebellion against a sovereign and holy creator. This would include in most cases the killing of human life, but not in every case. Hence we can postulate a just war or capital punishment.

God has abhorrence for rebellion against himself. That is Biblical evil. When God’s creation rebels, mocks, blasphemes the God who created it, God punishes with a wrath that is holy and justified.

The Book of Romans explains it most clearly. God has shown himself to be God, man has rebelled against Him. There is not one righteous person. All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. The wages of sin is death. That is our straightforward Biblical explanation of death. One at a time, 400,000 all at once, it makes no difference. It is the righteous activity of a sovereign and providential God.

The Noah story demonstrates this principle. God was justified killing those who rebelled against Him. Noah’s salvation is shown not simply in the salvation of his physical existence, that is simply a down payment on the true salvation of God, eternal life. So, the Bible tells us that God is still actively responding in wrath against ungodliness. He uses whatever means at His disposal.

Biblically, natural disaster can easily be classified as an expression of the wrath of God in response to the rebellion of man, just as every man’s death is an expression of punishment for sin. Salvation by no means cancels human responsibility.

List of disasters in 20th century here

Yangtze River Flood, 1931.The summer flood along the Yangtze during July- August 1931 was the most severe, with over 51 million people affected (1/4 of China’’s population). 3.7 million people perished from this greatest disaster of the century due to disease, starvation or drowning. This flood was preceded by a prolonged drought in Chinaduring the 1928- 1930 period.

Bangladesh Cyclone, November 1970. The greatest tropical system disaster this century occurred in Bangladesh in November 1970. Winds coupled with a storm surge killed between 300,000- 500,000people. These cyclones usually cause the most misery, loss of life, and suffering in low lying areas in Bangladesh and coastal India.

BangladeshCyclone 02B, April 1991. Another cyclone struck the Chittagong region in Bangladesh in 1991 killing over 138,000 people and causing damage in excess of 1.5 billion dollars. The tropical cyclone devastated the coastal area southeast of Dacca with winds in excess of 130kts and a 20 foot storm surge.

Asian Droughts.

Numerous drought related disasters have occurred over the Asian mainland this century. The most notable include:

Indian Drought of 1900-1/4 to 3 1/4 million die due to drought, starvation and disease

Chinese Famine of 1907-Over 24 million perish from starvation

Chinese Famine of 1928-1930-Over 3 million perish in northwest China

Chinese Famine of 1936-5 million Chinese die in what is called the ““New Famine””

Chinese Drought 1941-1942-Over 3 million perish from starvation

Indian Drought of 1965-1967-Over 1.5 million perish in

Soviet Union(Ukraine and Volga regions) 1921-1922-¼¼ to 5 million perish from drought

The study, which categorizes by cause and demographics the over 50 million deaths which occurred worldwide in the year 1990

The study authors determined the top 10 global killers to be: heart attack (6.3 million deaths); stroke (4.4 million); pneumonia (4.3 million); diarrhea (2.9 million); birth-related illnesses (2.4 million); bronchitis/emphysema (2.2 million); tuberculosis (2 million); measles (1.1 million); road accidents (1 million); and cancers of the lung, bronchus, and trachea (900,000).

Almost 200,000 murders worldwide in 2000…

Let’s rewrite Luke 13:4:

“Or do you suppose that those 400,000 on whom the Tsunami and earthquake fell in the Indian Ocean region were worse sinners than all the men who lived in America?? I tell you, no, but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish.”

Ecclesiastes tells us: 7:2 It is better to go to a house of mourning Than to go to a house of feasting, Because that is the end of every man, And the living takes it to heart.

Why is that true?? These sort of things remind us of our frailty. That life is a gift, not a right. That we die because we are sinners deserving of death. That salvation comes only by the mercy and grace of God – not my choices, my righteousness, my goodness. The end of every man is a certainty, the living takes that to heart while he is living.

Last week we looked at Psalm 90 – it would be good to read it again this morning. Remember the prayer: teach us to number our days so that we may present to you a heart of wisdom. The radical disaster of last week should point us to the Lord and cause us to bend our knee to Him who created us and rules by His word.

Technorati Tags: , , ,


March 30, 2007 Posted by | Christianity, Philosophy, Theological | 6 Comments

Some Things are just Funny

Heavy topics recently, so here is something funny, thanks Sue!

One Sunday morning, everyone in a bright, beautiful, tiny town got up early and went to the local church. Before the services started, the townspeople were sitting in their pews and talking about their lives, their families, etc.

Suddenly, Satan appeared at the front of the church.

Everyone started screaming and running for the front entrance, trampling each other in a frantic effort to get away from evil incarnate.

Soon everyone was evacuated from the church, except for one elderly gentleman who sat calmly in his pew, not moving, seemingly oblivious to the fact that God’s ultimate enemy was in his presence. Now this confused Satan a bit, so he walked up to the man and said, “Don’t you know who I am?”

The man replied, “Yep, sure do.”

Satan asked, “Aren’t you afraid of me?”

“Nope, sure ain’t,” said the man.

Satan was a little perturbed at this and queried, “Why aren’t you afraid of me?”

The man calmly replied, “Been married to your sister for over 48 years.”

March 29, 2007 Posted by | Silly Stuff | Leave a comment

Plantinga’s Version of the Ontological Argument

The Ontological Argument for the existence of God was developed by Anselm in the 12th Century. Since then it has been a topic of conversation and criticism with regard to the argument of God’s existence. Alvin Plantinga is a Christian philosopher teaching at Notre Dame and considered the premier Christian thinker of our time. His Ontological Argument for God uses the logical notion of possible worlds. This notion of possible worlds is used to help distinguish between necessary truths and contingent truths.

Necessary truths are truths that must be true and cannot be false.

Contingent truths happen to be true if all the circumstances line up; contingent truths are not of necessity true. An example of a contingent truth would be: John Smith owns a red Ferrari. It could be true or it could be false.

A necessary truth is: 2 + 2 = 4. A necessary truth must be true, it cannot be false.

2 + 2 = 5 is necessarily false, it cannot ever be true.

We use the notion of possible worlds to help distinguish between these two things. It is possible somewhere that John Smith owns a red Ferrari. It is necessary in every possible world that 2 + 2 = 4. It is not possible in any world that 2 + 2 = 5. This argument attempts to conclude that the existence of God is a necessary truth and is true in all possible worlds. If you have read this far and are not confused, brace yourself:

  1. There is a possible world in which maximal greatness is instantiated.
  2. Necessarily, a being is maximally great only if it has maximal excellence in every world.
  3. Necessarily, a being has maximal excellence in every world if it has omniscience, omnipotence, and moral perfection in every world.
  4. In the possible world mentioned in (1) above the following proposition is necessarily false: “There is no omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect being.”
  5. A proposition necessarily false in one possible world is necessarily false in all possible worlds, i.e., what is impossible does not change from one world to another.
  6. Since the actual world is a possible world, the proposition referred to in (4) above is necessarily false there as well.
  7. Hence, there exists in the actual world, as well as in every possible world, a being who essentially has the qualities of omnipotence, omniscience, and moral perfection.

The bottom line in this argument is the attempt to categorize the existence of this maximal being as a necessary truth.

The form of this argument taken from Class Notes, Christian Apologetics, Dr. Stanley Obitts, Westmont College, April 9, 1981.

Technorati Tags: , , ,

March 28, 2007 Posted by | Christianity, God's Existence, Philosophy | 5 Comments

Shift Happens

Here is an interesting video on the speed of information growth, the size of the world in human terms and some information that should challenge our “America is superior” tendencies…

Technorati Tags: ,

March 28, 2007 Posted by | Culture - Values, Technology | 5 Comments

Faith and Science, Pts 3-6

I have posted the rest of this video series in the sidebar widget named VodPod, if you are interested.  The videos simply demonstrate that many scientists were/are believers.

March 27, 2007 Posted by | Christianity, God's Existence | Leave a comment

Faith and Science, Pt. 2

Dr. Henry Schaeffer III is the speaker in this video. This is the second of six segments.

Technorati Tags: ,

March 23, 2007 Posted by | Christianity, God's Existence, Philosophy, Theological | Leave a comment

The Lost Holiday


We celebrate Christmas. We celebrate Easter. We celebrate Good Friday. We celebrate the important events of the life of Christ. Why don’t we celebrate the Ascension of Jesus? Certainly the Ascension is as important as the Incarnation. I contend that our ignorance of the Ascension has adversely affected our theology, especially our eschatology.

The Ascension is recorded in Luke 24:50-51 and Acts 1:9-12. See post on Acts 1:1-11.

Part of our prejudice toward the Ascension is that we regard it as only a physical movement of Jesus into heaven. The incarnation is the physical movement of Jesus to the earth, but additionally, actually primarily, we ascribe theological meaning to the Incarnation. We do not afford the Ascension the same privilege. So it is relegated to any other physical movement of Jesus, say his travels from Galilee to Jerusalem. This is a major mistake for our theology.

The doctrine of the Ascension has its roots in the military movements of the Old Testament culture and the priestly movements approaching the temple for worship (Exodus 34:24). The Psalms of Ascent are found from Psalm 120 – 134, these are possibly the hymns sung in approach to the temple and the temple mount.

But the real foundation of the doctrine of the Ascension is found in Psalm 110:1: “the Lord said to my Lord; Sit at My right hand until I make Your enemies a footstool for Your feet.”

Here are some passages of Scripture for your own study of the Ascension: Luke 24:50-53; Acts 1:6-11; John 6:62; 14:2, 12; 16:5, 10, 10, 17, 28; 17:5; 20:17; Ephesians 1:20; 4:8-10; 1 Timothy 3:16; Hebrews 1:3; 4:14; 9:24.

Here are some important elements of the doctrine:

  1. It is the capstone of the resurrection. We believe that the resurrection affirms the work of Christ on the cross, it is God’s stamp of approval on what Christ has done. In like manner, the ascension cumulatively continues this affirmation, and elevates Christ to His appropriate place of adoration.
  2. It shows that the kingdom of Christ is a universal kingdom and not simply the kingdom of the Jews. He ascends and takes the eternal throne of David, and its realm includes the heavens and the earth. The kingdom is an eternal one, never to end, and Christ will not be replaced or superseded.
  3. In his work as King he sends the Spirit by whom He rules and guides and protects his Church.
  4. It points the believer to the true nature of the kingdom, and the true focus of his attention. Now the mistake that is made in most eschatalogical systems is the missing of this very point. The kingdom of Christ extends to the earth, even now, as we express and obey the gospel. So it puts our proper focus on the life which we have here and now, a new creation in us. It pushes us back to the original mandate of the book of Genesis, to subdue and fill the earth. The focus of our work is the work of redemption and the sharing of life. Here and now. Many, who still see major kingdom work left for Christ to accomplish, adopt a pessimistic view of the world and church – hence tend to be inappropriately “other-worldly”.
  5. It includes his work of mediation and intercession for us.
  6. It is expressed in the squashing of his enemies. In this sense it would include his judging activity in the events surrounding AD 70.
  7. It will culminate in total justice.
  8. It is included in however you define the “second coming” of Christ. The Second Coming is considered a part of the exaltation of Christ, which is a subset of the Ascension of Christ.

I will expand on these ideas in future posts.

Technorati Tags: , , ,

March 22, 2007 Posted by | Christianity, Eschatology, Theological, Uncategorized | 7 Comments

Faith and Science, Pt. 1

Dr. Henry Schaeffer III is the speaker in this video. He is a professor at the University of Georgia, and a believer. There are six videos at about 10 minutes in length, I will post them all. I have not watched all of them as of yet, in the ones I have watched he is simply pointing out that faith and science are not diametrically opposed.

Technorati Tags: ,

March 21, 2007 Posted by | Christianity, God's Existence, Philosophy | Leave a comment

Should We Rid the Mind of God?

Here is a video that is right up our recent chain of posts on the existence of God. This debate is between Alistair McGrath and Peter Atkins. It is poorly moderated, but the accents of the speakers makes up for it. Why do the British sound more intelligent? Unfortunately, the audio is rough in spots, especially during the Q & A. It is also over an hour in length if you choose to watch it.

I think there are some important elements to notice here that are characteristic of the current debate between theists and atheists.

Atheists, or scientists who are atheists of the sort as the speaker here (Peter Atkins) and Richard Dawkins et. al. believe that the only way to know anything is through science. There is no other truth available to us, and that all we can know can be shown through science. As a result, there is no basis for conversation about God, because from a scientific standpoint God cannot be proven, therefore it is delusional to speak of a God. This epistemological starting place rules out God’s existence before the discussion has begun. They view philosophy and theology with disdain as deceitful supporting institutions which need to be done away with as well. They refuse to discuss the possibility of knowledge outside the boundaries of science and the scientific method.

Secondly, a question is asked in the Q&A section about arrogance. Peter Atkins, the atheist, repeats a phrase he claims to regret saying in a previous venue: “It’s ok to be arrogant when you are right.” I find that to be a frightening posture for anyone to put themselves into. As amazing as our puny minds are, they remain puny. To arrogantly land on our present plateau of scientific knowledge with anything other than an overwhelming sense of what we still do not know, and how that knowledge may affect our worldview is stunning arrogance. At least in my view.

Third, another point made in the video is that Atheism is a philosophy that needs to show justification. Alistair McGrath says (and I agree with him) that the honest starting point for scientists (empiricists) in all of this is not atheism, but agnosticism. The most science can say in this debate is that we cannot know whether or not there is a God. It cannot prove or disprove, and in this way it demonstrates its limitations. Peter Atkins response, which is a common one, is to say that the idea of God is the equivalent to the idea of “a teapot once revolving around Mars.” It is simply absurd.

Not all scientists subscribe to what is seen here as “scientism.” Scientism is the belief that science is the only way to know whatever it is we know. For Scientists who subscribe to scientism, nature is all that there is and there is no reason to talk about anything else. Science for them explains everything.

In the next few days I am going to post portions of a lecture given by University of Georgia professor Dr. Henry Schaeffer on the relationship between faith and science.

Technorati Tags: , , , ,

ht:Between Two Worlds

March 20, 2007 Posted by | Christianity, God's Existence | 3 Comments

On the Lighter Side…

March 19, 2007 Posted by | Christianity, Silly Stuff | 2 Comments