Original Sin: Its Importance & Fairness

Posted on May 8, 2013 by clayjones

It is no surprise that in a 2002 survey almost three-quarters of Americans (seventy-four percent) rejected the teaching of original sin.

After all, Americans want to feel good about themselves. Nathaniel Brandon, whom many consider the father of the self-esteem movement, said, “The idea of Original Sin…is anti-self-esteem by its very nature. The very notion of guilt without volition or responsibility is an assault on reason as well as on morality.” Also, many view this as an idea from the so-called “Dark Ages”; philosopher and historian Ernst Cassirer noted, “The concept of original sin is the most common opponent against which the different trends of the philosophy of Enlightenment join forces.” But, sadly, the survey also revealed that only fifty-two percent of evangelicals held to the doctrine of original sin.

The denial or misstatement of any Christian doctrine not only distorts our understanding of reality, but has grave implications for other Christian doctrines, and this certainly is true for the doctrine of original sin. For example, if there were no “first Adam” who actually was a man who sinned, the parallel to Jesus being the “last Adam” is lost. Also, if nothing happened to human nature when Adam sinned, then it becomes theologically inexplicable why Scripture constantly portrays all of humankind as evil and thus deserving punishment. On the contrary, a robust view of human sinfulness justifies God’s judgment, demonstrates God’s patience, and magnifies the significance of Christ’s sacrifice.

Although Christians define original sin differently, historically for Protestants original sin has two commonly held components: humankind is guilty for the sin of their first parents and humankind inherited a corrupted nature, since they are sexual reproductions of their first parents.

You can read the rest of the article I wrote online at the Christian Research Journal.

Posted in Apologetics, Self-esteem, Why God Allows Evil | Tagged , , , | 4 Comments

How I Study the Bible… and Love It!

Posted on January 28, 2013 by clayjones

When I first came to Christ I absolutely loved reading the Bible. I would often read it for hours at a time. But, as is the case with most Christians, once I got to know the Bible well, I didn’t have the same passion for reading it. I kept reading it anyway, but I wished I had my former enjoyment of it.

Well, now, I’m very thankful to report, I absolutely love reading the Bible and that is because I’ve changed the way I read it.

There are certainly many different ways to study the Bible (Jean E. has written a similar post), but here’s what I’ve done.

First, I’ve taken every book of the Bible and turned it into a Word doc. So in my Bible folder I have every individual book of the Bible listed by its title. This has been tremendous as it allows me to footnote everything I think is important. This has the added benefit that I don’t lose my notes when I wear out a Bible.

Second, I use Google to find maps and photos which I insert into the text. One valuable site is the Matson collection of photos taken from 1898 to 1946. While not ancient, the thousands of Matson photos reveal a less modern Israel much closer to how it must have looked in Bible times. The maps and photos aid my understanding and imagination. I have included a sample Word doc for you to see what I mean (it’s also on the Resources page).

Third, I almost never set out to read a section of Scripture (e.g., I don’t say, “Today I’m going to read five chapters of Ezekiel,” or “Today I’m going to read Ephesians”). Instead, I dedicate a set time to study the Bible (“I’m going to read for ten minutes,” or “I’m going to read for an hour”). This is extremely important for me because if I decide to read a certain amount of Scripture it too easy to race to my goal and not really spend the time thinking through, reflecting upon, or praying about what I’ve read.

Although some may think this heresy, I discourage people from doing those read-through-the-Bible-every-year plans (I think it’s great to do it once or twice) because it is too easy for Christians to practice their Evelyn Wood while striving to meet that day’s quota. Also, those who read Scripture quickly end up collecting troubling thoughts about Scripture (“God sent an evil spirit into Saul?” or “Jesus called people vipers?” or “Jesus said you should hate your children?” and so on and on and on). As troubling passages accumulate in their subconscious, they hinder their ability to love the Lord with all their minds. But, if you read for a period of time instead of by amount, you can spend the whole time thinking these issues through until you understand them. It is much better that people spend 30 minutes thinking through one verse and asking how it applies to their lives than their being able to say, “Today I read ten chapters in Matthew.”

Fourth, and closely related to the above, except for some prophetic passages that are intentionally oblique, I rarely stop studying a passage until I understand it! And it may take a while but amazingly sooner or later, I understand the troubling passages! As Paul said in 2 Timothy 2:7 “Think over what I say, for the Lord will give you understanding in everything.” I learn much more this way and I thoroughly enjoy the Bible.

Fifth, I read the Bible with at least one excellent commentary next to me (that helps me not leave a passage until I understand it). I’ve heard people say things like, “I don’t need to hear what others think. I only want to hear what the Spirit has to say to me through the Bible.” That may sound spiritual but it’s not. It’s another way of saying, “I can’t learn about the Bible from others.” Frankly, Christians who say that are misinformed, arrogant, lazy or all of the above (I know what you’re thinking: “Come on, Clay, tell us what you really think!”). Using an excellent commentary is no more than learning in writing from an excellent Christian teacher who has probably spent years studying the particular book he’s written on.

Of course commentaries can be expensive but consider how much money you spend on going out to dinner just one time. I now have a good commentary on nearly every book of the Bible (I’ve been doing this a long time) and it makes a huge difference in my enjoyment and understanding of Scripture.

The key to commentaries is to make sure you aren’t wasting your money on the mediocre by using commentary surveys. The first I suggest buying is D. A. Carson’s New Testament Commentary Survey (IVP). Carson is a great commentator himself (his commentary on John is superb) and a deeply spiritual man (I had him as a professor at TEDS).

For the OT get Tremper Longman’s Old Testament Commentary Survey (Baker Academic). These two are indispensable and you’ll save a lot of money by not purchasing mediocre or liberal works.

I don’t recommend commentary sets unless you have money to burn because although some of the individual commentaries will be excellent in just about every set, others will disappoint. It’s better to pick and choose based on the opinion of experts like Carson and Longman. Newer commentaries are usually more valuable than older ones because the careful commentator will utilize the best material from prior commentaries in his own writing.

Sixth, and this will appeal more to those apologetically inclined, I never leave a so-called Bible contradiction without resolving the contradiction and then carefully footnoting the resolution in the text itself. Often I will try to write it in such a way that I could read my resolution verbatim to those who ask about it. Although a good conservative commentary will help you resolve most of these (often in more detail), two helpful books are Norman Geisler’s When Critics Ask: A Popular Handbook on Bible Difficulties (Baker) and Gleason Archer’s New International Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (Zondervan).

Seventh, when I’m reading other books and I find a quote that elucidates a particular passage of Scripture, I stop what I’m reading, turn on my laptop, open that book of the Bible, and insert that comment into the footnotes of the relevant passage. This is huge! I wish I’d started that forty years ago!

Again, check out my example Word doc to see how I do this.

Eighth, I use Bible software. In particular I use WORDsearch (Lifeway) which makes it easy to review hundreds of different resources quickly (I didn’t link to one because there are many different versions of it).

Last but certainly not least, when I read Scripture I ask myself if I’m doing what that verse says. This is the most important point of all. It is too easy to read verses, agree with them, but not actually do them. To only hear the word, and even agree with it, without doing it is folly and leads to destruction (Matthew 7:24-27).

John 8:31-32: “Jesus said to the Jews who had believed in him, “If you abide in my word, you are truly my disciples, and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”

Amen.

Posted in Spiritual Growth, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | 12 Comments

Ehrman’s Problem 22: His Book’s Title Is Misleading

Posted on September 25, 2012 by clayjones

Although most of Bart Ehrman’s final chapter, “Suffering: The Conclusion,” is just a rehash, he does make one last point worth examining. When I teach on suffering I remind my students that whatever else we think about suffering, we should remember that Christianity is primarily about God the Son suffering for humankind. Ehrman gives his view on this concept (272-273):

And what do we see when we look to Jesus? We see one who spent his entire life, and went to his death, in self-giving love…. It cost Jesus everything while he was living, and at the end it cost him his life…. God is one who suffers with us…. His character is shown when his followers give themselves to others, even unto death. This may seem like a severe religious view, and it is. It is serious Christianity.

Indeed, this is crucial! If Christianity is true, then when we consider the suffering around us we should never, ever forget that God Himself suffered when, Jesus, the Second Person of the Trinity, was tortured to death on the cross. It was torturous because those crucified had to constantly raise themselves by putting an upward pressure on their spike-pierced feet so that they could pivot on their spike-impaled wrists in order to continue breathing. Only when they became too exhausted to raise themselves did they die. If Christianity is true, then God the Son suffered to pay the penalty for our sins. Jesus’ torturous crucifixion, after all, isn’t a small point to Christianity: it is central. Our God suffered the ultimate penalty for us and that must always be kept in view when considering human suffering.

Ehrman has three strange objections to this. First, he objects that God didn’t really suffer because the view that Jesus was God was “not a view shared by most of the writers of the New Testament” but was “developed rather late” (273). That’s bizarre for several reasons. For one, Ehrman says he left Christianity because it couldn’t explain why we suffer, but if he had already given up the deity of Christ, then he had already left Christianity. So again, which is it? He couldn’t discount Jesus’ deity when he was an evangelical, as he has claimed he was, but this is apparently his major objection to the argument that God Himself suffered. What gives?

Similarly, another problem throughout God’s Problem is that Ehrman reads the Bible as liberal scholarship reads the Bible. In other words, he treats each author, not as if they were inspired by the Holy Spirit and that the Holy Spirit is continually unfolding God’s plan, but as if they were just men, writing books that are no more than books, and because of that the collection of books named “Bible” is impotent. Well, if Ehrman wants to take it that way, he has the free will to do so, but then Ehrman should have entitled his book something like, God’s Problem: How a Liberal New Testament Scholarship Reading of the Bible Renders the Bible as Incapable of Answering Our Most Important Question—Why We Suffer. But that would have warranted no more from the evangelical community than a collective “Duh.”

But it’s worse than that. Ehrman says emphatically that he left Christianity (and Christians believe the Bible is inspired by God) because the Bible couldn’t answer why we suffer. But in God’s Problem much of the time Ehrman disqualifies the Bible’s answers exactly, precisely because he doesn’t believe the Bible is inspired by God.

Ehrman’s second objection is equally troubled: “One could just as plausibly argue, theologically, that since Christ took on the suffering of the world, the world no longer needs to suffer. That is, after all, what theologians have argued about damnation: Jesus bore our sin and experienced the condemnation of God precisely so we wouldn’t have to do so. Didn’t he suffer so that we don’t need to?” (273-274). “Just as plausibly”? What a mess: again I feel like I’m trying to get gum out of my foster daughter’s hair. It is true that there are a few errant Christians—I’d be surprised if any of them teach in an accredited seminary in the United States—who believe that Christians shouldn’t have to suffer here (they’re a part of the confession teaching, name-it-and-claim-it clan). But, I’ve never known even one Christian—not even one—who believes that the unregenerate are freed from suffering. Also, it is true that Christians believe that Christians will be spared the second death because of Christ’s work, but I’ve never known a Christian to argue that they won’t have to experience the first death–barring the Lord’s return–and whatever kills you is rather unpleasant. Further, Ehrman didn’t believe this as a Christian either, did he?

Ehrman’s third objection is also gummed up: “If the Christian God is the one who suffers, then who is the one who created and sustains the world? Isn’t it the same God? By saying that God suffers with his creation, we seem to have sacrificed the view that God is sovereign over his creation. In other words, once again, God is not really GOD” (274). Seriously? Anyone who has ever been in charge of others knows that sometimes you can choose to get down in the trenches with them without losing your inchargeness.1 Exactly because God is sovereign He can humble himself and take on the form of a servant, if He wants to (Phil. 2:7).

  1. Yes, I made that word up. [↩]
Posted in Apologetics, Ehrman, Why God Allows Evil | Tagged , , | 2 Comments

Ehrman’s Problem 21: Confused about Who God’s Kids Are

Posted on September 11, 2012 by clayjones

In the ninth and final chapter of Ehrman’s book, God’s Problem, he says that often people write to tell him that “God is like a good parent, a heavenly father, and that he allows suffering into our lives as a way of building character or teaching us lessons about how we should live. There is, of course, biblical precedent for this view…” (263-264). But, he says that he didn’t devote an entire chapter to it because: “I don’t think it’s one of the most common explanations found in the Bible” (264). Ehrman mentions passages from Prov. 3:11-12 and Amos 4:6-11 as Biblical examples.

It’s interesting that Ehrman references only those passages. Here are some others.

Hebrews 12:5-11: And have you forgotten the exhortation that addresses you as sons? “My son, do not regard lightly the discipline of the Lord, nor be weary when reproved by him. For the Lord disciplines the one he loves, and chastises every son whom he receives.” It is for discipline that you have to endure. God is treating you as sons. For what son is there whom his father does not discipline? If you are left without discipline, in which all have participated, then you are illegitimate children and not sons. Besides this, we have had earthly fathers who disciplined us and we respected them. Shall we not much more be subject to the Father of spirits and live? For they disciplined us for a short time as it seemed best to them, but he disciplines us for our good, that we may share his holiness. For the moment all discipline seems painful rather than pleasant, but later it yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness to those who have been trained by it.

Romans 5:4 says “endurance produces character.” In James 1:2-4 we read, “Count it all joy, my brothers, when you meet trials of various kinds, for you know that the testing of your faith produces steadfastness. And let steadfastness have its full effect, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing.” In 2 Cor. 1:8-9 Paul tells us that the affliction he and others experienced taught him to “rely not on ourselves but on God who raises the dead.” Later Paul says in 2 Cor. 4:11, “For we who live are constantly being delivered over to death for Jesus’ sake, so that the life of Jesus also may be manifested in our mortal flesh.” In v. 17 Paul says, “For this light momentary affliction is preparing for us an eternal weight of glory beyond all comparison.” Also, in 2 Cor. 12:7 he says that a “thorn was given me in the flesh” to “keep me from becoming conceited.”

Regardless of how many verses discuss it, we can add this to the many reasons that the Bible says God allows suffering. Apparently Ehrman’s biggest problem with this reason for suffering is (264):

This view would make sense to me if the punishment were not so severe, the discipline so harsh. Are we to believe that God starves people to death in order to teach them a lesson? That he sends epidemics that destroy the body, mental diseases that destroy the mind, wars that destroy the nation, in order to teach people a lesson in theology? What kind of father is he if he maims, wounds, dismembers, tortures, torments, and kills his children—all in the interest of keeping discipline? … Is the heavenly father that much worse than the worst father we can imagine? I don’t find this view very convincing.

Reading this made me remember how hard it was to get gum out of my foster-daughter’s hair. As I’ve said before, the Bible gives many reasons for suffering, and no one reason explains every instance of suffering.

First, and I think Ehrman would know this (or at least that he used to), most of the people who live on planet earth are not God’s children. You need to be born again to be adopted as God’s child. The horrible things that happen to those who are not God’s children are not God the Father disciplining His children. Terrible things happen for the other reasons that I discussed in my first 20 posts on the subject, including at times God allowing evil in an effort to encourage the lost to repent and so to become His children (see my post on this).

Second, related to the above and related to my post on the apocalyptic answer, Scripture reveals that those who reject Christ are actually Satan’s kids and Satan certainly doesn’t treat his kids very well. Consider this 1 John 3:8-10:

Whoever makes a practice of sinning is of the devil, for the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the works of the devil. No one born of God makes a practice of sinning, for God’s seed abides in him, and he cannot keep on sinning because he has been born of God. By this it is evident who are the children of God, and who are the children of the devil: whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is the one who does not love his brother.

This is why Jesus told the Pharisees (the good people of the day) in John 8:44, “You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father’s desires.” Satan does not treat his kids well at all.

Third, as someone who has endured suffering in my life (including a very painful run-in with bone cancer—I’ll talk about that at length someday) and who has known many other Christians who have endured much suffering: I have always, in time, seen suffering work out for the believer’s good. In other words, Romans 8:28 holds true: “And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good.”

Therefore, that suffering comes because God is disciplining His children is still another biblical reason for why we suffer.

Posted in Ehrman, Why God Allows Evil | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off

Ehrman’s Problem 20: Everything But the Kitchen Sink

Posted on August 29, 2012 by clayjones

In my last post I pointed out that Ehrman begged the question for his major argument as to why the apocalyptic argument didn’t help us answer why God allows suffering. In this post I will address his next two arguments. I titled this post, “Everything But the Kitchen Sink,” because, frankly, his arguments appear rather desperate.

Here’s his second major argument against the apocalyptic answer (259-260):

Moreover, the fervent expectations that we must be living at the end of time has proved time after time—every time—to be wrong. It is true that those who suffer can find hope in the expectation that soon all things will be transformed, that the evil they experience will be destroyed, and that they will be given their just reward. But it is also true that this expected end never has and never will come, until for whatever reason, the human race simply ceases to exist…. They tell us that events in the Middle East, or in Europe, or in China, or in Russia, or in our own country are fulfilling what was predicted by the prophets of long ago…. Most obvious is the problem that everyone who has ever made a prediction of this sort—every single one of them—has been absolutely and incontrovertibly wrong.

There are two things wrong with this. One, although it is true that an unseemly number of people have predicted when the Second Coming would occur, Jesus was unambiguous in Matt. 24:36-39, 42 that the day is unknown:

But concerning that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only. For as were the days of Noah, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day when Noah entered the ark, and they were unaware until the flood came and swept them all away, so will be the coming of the Son of Man…. Therefore, stay awake, for you do not know on what day your Lord is coming.

Those people who have precisely pontificated their prognosticated of the Parousia have done so in spite of Jesus saying even He didn’t know! To say that Christianity is false because some of its adherents have erred is no more than guilt by association.

Two, and this is rather obvious, just because Jesus hasn’t come yet doesn’t mean that He isn’t still coming.

Ehrman’s third argument (I can’t call it “major”; it’s tiny) is that “this kind of perspective tends to breed religious complacency among those who ‘know’ what the future holds and are unwilling to examine their views critically. There are few things more dangerous than inbred religious certainty” (260). This is silly. Is it possible for people to become complacent about what they believe? Sure. But that’s every bit as true for atheists and agnostics as it is for Christians. That some people stop examining things critically tells us nothing about the truth or falsehood of their beliefs—it just tells us about them.

Ehrman’s fourth and last argument against the apocalyptic view (it’s tiny too) is that, “‘knowing’ that all things will eventually be made right by a supernatural intervention can lead to a kind of social complacency, an unwillingness to deal with evil as we confront it here and now…” (260).

Frankly, I’m surprised that Ehrman would even bother bringing these last two up because he knows very well (I would hope) that the truth or falsehood of a particular position isn’t decided by how some people respond to it! In fact, he has committed the argumentum ad consequentiam (appeal to consequences) fallacy. Just because a belief has good or bad consequences doesn’t make it true or false. For example, some Christians argue that atheism is false because it is a socially destructive belief. Now, I agree that atheism is socially destructive, but that doesn’t, of itself, tell me whether atheism is true or false. Likewise, finding out that you have terminal cancer may be devastating but that doesn’t tell us anything about the truth of whether you have terminal cancer. Thus these last two Ehrman arguments are no arguments at all.

Nonetheless, I’m absolutely convinced that the opposite of Ehrman’s fourth argument is true: those who really, truly believe that Jesus is coming back remember Jesus’ warning in Matt. 25:44-46: “Then they also will answer, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to you?’ Then he will answer them, saying, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.’ And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.’” As C. S. Lewis said, “If you read history you will find that the Christians who did most for the present world were precisely those who thought most of the next. It is since Christians have largely ceased to think of the other world that they have become so ineffective in this.”

James 1:27: “Religion that is pure and undefiled before God, the Father, is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world.”

Amen.

Posted in Apologetics, Ehrman, Why God Allows Evil | Tagged , , , , | 1 Comment

Ehrman’s Problem 19: Begging the Question

Posted on August 28, 2012 by clayjones

Now we turn to Ehrman’s fuller critique of the apocalyptic solution. He writes, “For apocalypticists, cosmic forces of evil were loose in the world, and these evil forces were aligned against the righteous people of God, bringing pain and misery down upon their heads, making them suffer because they sided with God. But this state of affairs would not last forever” (205). Later he writes, “For the Jesus of our earliest Gospels, those who are suffering in the present world can expect that in the world to come they will be rewarded and given places of prominence. Those who are causing pain and suffering, on the other hand, can expect to be punished” (223).

Indeed this is one of the Bible’s major answers to why we suffer and what God is going to do about it.

It is interesting that Ehrman likes a lot about the apocalyptic answer: “I must say that there are aspects of this apocalyptic vision that I find very powerful and attractive” (258). He is right that “This is a view that takes evil seriously” (258).

Also, Ehrman’s correct that “the apocalyptic view takes into account the horrendous sufferings experienced by people who fall prey to natural disasters,” and he mentions hurricanes, earthquakes, mudslides, and tsunamis as examples (259).

Further, Ehrman is correct here (259):

It is also a view that gives hope to those experiencing suffering that otherwise seems too much to handle, suffering that seems to be completely nonredemptive, suffering that tears not just at the body but at the very core of our emotional and mental existence. The hope provided by the apocalyptic view is the hope in ultimate goodness. It says that even though evil is on the ascendancy now, its days are numbered…. Death is not the end of the story; the future Kingdom of God is the end of the story.

It is important to emphasize what Ehrman has just admitted. He finds this reason for why God allows suffering to be “powerful and moving,” he says it “takes evil seriously,” and it “takes into account the horrendous sufferings experienced by people who fall prey to natural disasters.” In other words, this view, all by itself, answers much of why we suffer.

But he says he must reject it (and this appears to be his major reason) because “the apocalyptic view is based on mythological ideas I simply cannot accept” (259). What can’t Ehrman accept? He tells us: “there is no God up there, just above the sky, waiting to come ‘down’ here or take us ‘up’ there” (259).1

Wait. What?

Do you, dear reader, already see the fatal flaw in this Ehrman argument?

Consider that Ehrman opened chapter one of his book with this: “If there is an all-powerful and loving God in this world, why is there so much excruciating pain and unspeakable suffering?” He says this “led me to question my faith when I was older. Ultimately, it was the reason I lost my faith” (1). Here Ehrman says he lost his faith that the God of the Bible exists because of suffering. That’s it, right? But now, 258 pages later, Ehrman disallows one of the Bible’s major reasons for why we suffer because he says the God of the Bible doesn’t exist. Well, which is it? Ehrman can’t have it both ways. Nobody can. When he says he doesn’t believe in the God of the Bible because the Bible can’t answer why we suffer, but then he says that the Bible can’t answer why we suffer because he doesn’t believe in the God of the Bible, he commits the fallacy of circular reasoning (or begging the question). Like a terrier chasing his tail, Ehrman has assumed what he wants to prove.

But there’s another problem. Ehrman said that his reason for leaving Christianity was because the Bible couldn’t answer why we suffer. But if Ehrman had already decided that the apocalyptic answer was false because he knew that the God the Bible didn’t exist, then Ehrman left Christianity for reasons other than he claimed.

Further, Ehrman entitled his book God’s Problem: How the Bible Fails to Answer Our Most Important Question—Why We Suffer. And if the apocalyptic answer has great explanatory power, as Ehrman says it does, then it is one of the Bible’s answers regardless of whether Ehrman thinks it should be disqualified because of his pre-commitment to other beliefs. Do you see what I mean?

In sum, the apocalyptic answer—that there are cosmic forces who enable all kinds of suffering but will be put in their proper place at the Judgment where God will punish the wicked but reward the righteous—is another one of the Bible’s major reasons as to why we suffer.

  1. Of course, Ehrman’s characterization of God being “just above the sky” isn’t the Bible’s characterization. Rather, the Bible reveals an omnipresent God: “If I ascend to heaven, you are there! If I make my bed in Sheol, you are there!” (Psalm 139:8). [↩]
Posted in Apologetics, Ehrman, Why God Allows Evil | Tagged , , , | 6 Comments

Ehrman’s Problem 18: Confused About Jesus’ Coming “Soon”

Posted on August 27, 2012 by clayjones

Ehrman entitled what he considers the last of the Bible’s explanations for suffering, “God has the Last Word: Jewish Christian Apocalypticism.” The apocalyptic answer, in short, is that at the Judgment God will resolve all the injustice that is in the world.

Let’s start with Ehrman’s preliminary objection that the Biblical authors said that the resolution of all evil was coming “soon,” but that obviously didn’t happen. As Ehrman put it, “When the author of Revelation expected that the Lord Jesus ‘was coming soon’ (Rev. 22:20), he really meant ‘soon’—not two thousand years later” (247).

But remember that terms like “soon” or “quickly” are always relative to the importance of the thing referred to. For example, if a waitress says my entrée is coming soon, I suspect she means in the next five minutes. Similarly, if the Honda mechanic says my car will be done soon, I think (hope!) he means within the next 30 minutes. But when I tell my friends that my dad is taking us on a cruise soon, it still might be two weeks away. One man told me he was retiring soon and was talking about two or three months! Now (and this might make you glad you’re not in one of my classes) sometimes I tell my students that they will all be dead “soon” even though some of them are still very young. What I mean by that—and I do mean it—is that even if some of them live another 60, 70, or 80 years, their death is coming “soon”! Do you see how these terms are relative to the importance of the thing they’re in relation to?

Well, let me be very clear, when it comes to the End-of-All-Things-as-We-Know-Them, to the Second Coming of Christ where Revelation tells us that people will beg the mountains to fall on them (Rev. 6:16), and to the FINAL JUDGMENT where people will be sent forever to Heaven or Hell—this is coming soon! Really soon! For many, no matter how far off, it is coming waaay too soon!

So in 2 Peter 3:4-10 we read:

They will say, “Where is the promise of his coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all things are continuing as they were from the beginning of creation.” For they deliberately overlook this fact, that the heavens existed long ago, and the earth was formed out of water and through water by the word of God, and that by means of these the world that then existed was deluged with water and perished. But by the same word the heavens and earth that now exist are stored up for fire, being kept until the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly. But do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance. But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, and then the heavens will pass away with a roar, and the heavenly bodies will be burned up and dissolved, and the earth and the works that are done on it will be exposed.

Of course Ehrman calls these words “sophistry” and a “redefinition of what ‘soon’ might mean” (247), but where Ehrman errs is that this isn’t a redefinition of “soon.” It is the definition of “soon” because, again, words like “soon” are always understood in relationship to the significance of the event involved.

In the meantime, Christians are commanded to live in expectancy (Matt. 25). I don’t know whether Jesus will return in my lifetime or not, but either way, we’re all going to see Him soon.

Revelation 1:7: “Look, he is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see him, even those who pierced him; and all the peoples of the earth will mourn because of him. So shall it be! Amen.”

Posted in Apologetics, Why God Allows Evil | Tagged , , | 3 Comments

Ehrman’s Problem 17: Humility Is Absent Without Leave

Posted on August 14, 2012 by clayjones

Ehrman calls the other answer to why God allows suffering found in the book of Job, “The Poetic Dialogues of Job: There Is No Answer” (172). Ehrman concludes that “God does not listen to the pleas of the innocent; he overpowers them by his almighty presence” (183).

Ehrman writes that Job wanted a divine audience so that he could declare his innocence but that Job “is never given a chance to get in a word” (187). Perhaps Ehrman means this figuratively? Because in the poetic section, Job answered the LORD and said: “I know that you can do all things, and that no purpose of yours can be thwarted. ‘Who is this that hides counsel without knowledge?’ Therefore I have uttered what I did not understand, things too wonderful for me, which I did not know. ‘Hear, and I will speak; I will question you, and you make it known to me.’ I had heard of you by the hearing of the ear, but now my eye sees you; therefore I despise myself, and repent in dust and ashes” (Job 42:1-6). Job answers; he is overwhelmed by how little he knows about the nature of reality in comparison to God and concludes that God must have His reasons. Ehrman just doesn’t like Job’s answer.

But there’s a larger point in Job’s answer. Namely, if God does exist and really is omniscient and really is omnipotent, then He really does understand countless things that we don’t comprehend and so shouldn’t we approach His work, again, with humility? Duh! If an omnipotent, omniscient being really did create the universe out of nothing, then humility isn’t just warranted but demanded.

After all, a toddler, in comparison to Einstein, knows infinitely more about nuclear physics than the smartest among us, in comparison to the OMNISCIENT ONE, knows about the universe. And although that toddler may one day grow to understand even more than Einstein did, no finite being will ever make the jump to all-knowing.

Also, is there any loving parent that hasn’t heard one of their children grouse, “That’s not fair!”? We certainly heard that a lot! And, certainly, if an omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent being does exist, then our moral capacity to judge His fairness is infinitely dwarfed by the moral capabilities of a complaining child.

But there’s more. If Job really was an historical person as I believe, then who is to say that Job wasn’t, later, also informed of the contest in Heaven? On what basis would Ehrman divine that Job didn’t also learn of that?

Thus skeptics who employ the so-called problem of evil should dismount their high horses to acknowledge that perhaps it is they who misunderstand the nature of reality. After all, if it is possible that the God of the Bible does exist, then we should examine the revelation of His purposes for allowing evil with all due humility.

Posted in Ehrman, Why God Allows Evil | Tagged , , , , , | 2 Comments

Ehrman’s Problem 16: Cosmic Issues He Doesn’t Understand

Posted on August 13, 2012 by clayjones

We come next to Ehrman’s chapter, “Does Suffering Make Sense?” In it he divides the book of Job into two separate answers and concludes, no surprise, that neither of them succeeds in answering our many questions.

Ehrman even argues that the book of Job has two separate authors, but that’s just an assertion largely based on the fact that Job begins and ends with prose and the rest is poetry.1 But, whether Job had one author (as I believe), or two, doesn’t change whether the answers add two more Biblical answers to why we suffer, which is what Ehrman’s book is about.

So let’s look at each answer individually. Today’s post will address Ehrman’s first answer, which he entitles, “The Folktale: The Suffering of Job as a Test of Faith” (164). This post is longer than most because the ideas are extremely important but complex.

The book of Job begins by telling us that Job is wealthy, successful, renowned, has a happy family, and fears God. But next we are told about a dialog in Heaven where the angels and Satan present themselves before the Lord. But then God asks if Satan2 has noticed Job: “Have you considered my servant Job, that there is none like him on the earth, a blameless and upright man, who fears God and turns away from evil?” (Job 1:8). But Satan replied, “Does Job fear God for no reason? Have you not put a hedge around him and his house and all that he has, on every side? You have blessed the work of his hands, and his possessions have increased in the land. But stretch out your hand and touch all that he has, and he will curse you to your face” (1:9-11). In other words, Satan proclaims that the only reason that Job serves God is that God has given Job everything that Job desired. Satan then says that if God takes away what Job desires, that Job will curse God to His face.

Ehrman says, “The overarching view of suffering in this folktale is clear: sometimes suffering comes to the innocent in order to see whether their pious devotion to God is genuine and disinterested” (167). So far, so good. But then Ehrman says: “God did this to him in order to win a bet with Satan…. Anyone else who destroyed all your property, physically mauled you, and murdered your children—simply on a whim or a bet—would be liable to the most severe punishment that justice could mete out. But God is evidently above justice and can do whatever he pleases if he wants to prove a point” (168). Ehrman concludes his discussion by saying, “As satisfying as the book of Job has been to people over the ages, I have to say I find it supremely dissatisfying. If God tortures, maims, and murders people just to see how they will react—to see if they will not blame him, when in fact he is to blame—then this does not seem to me to be a God worthy of worship. Worthy of fear, yes. Of praise, no” (172).

Before I answer Ehrman’s ire, I need to point out that what I’m about to say isn’t how I would proceed with someone who has just suffered a major loss. The Scripture tells us to “weep with those who weep” (Rom. 12:15) and that should be our first response. But, after that, after some time has passed, there is much to say as to what God’s doing in the universe.

First, let’s remember that since the fall of Adam the mortality rate remains at 100% and God didn’t promise us a long life here. As I’ve said before, barring the Lord’s return, only one thing will prevent you from watching everyone you know die from murder, accident, or disease and that will be your own death from murder, accident, or disease.

Second, although it is true that God allowed Satan to cause Job’s suffering, God himself didn’t torture, maim, or murder. This goes back to the whole free will issue that I’ve previously discussed: God is either going to allow hateful creatures to harm others or He is not. It is true that he could stop creatures from ever harming each other but He would certainly be limiting, if not annihilating, their freedom. (How many are hurt by adultery? Consider how changed our world would be if God made adultery impossible.)

Third, consider the context. From what we can see in Scripture, Satan thought he deserved more than he was getting and so Satan rebelled against God and tried to take it for himself. Satan was able to get other angels to join his rebellion and so “there was war in heaven” (Rev.12:7). Ponder the significance of “there was war in heaven.” What’s God to do about that? How does God respond to the rebellion of these free beings? Well, God created this relatively puny race of humans, who now live amidst difficulty and death, and as these puny creatures honor the Creator they justify the judgment of Satan and the likeminded. Apparently, then, Satan’s modus operandi is to accuse puny yet God honoring humans of not measuring up—that’s why he’s called “the accuser.” Come to think of it, many non-Christians love to accuse Christians too—it makes them feel that their own judgment is unjustified.

And that brings us to Job. Satan argued that Job wouldn’t honor God if God weren’t making his life easy. After all, if Satan was able to prove that Job wouldn’t honor God if God thwarted Job’s desires, then Satan could argue to heavenly beings that God demands too much; that God is unfair. If that were the case, then Satan could argue that God had unfairly judged Satan. But as God’s servants, like Job, continue to honor God through disease and death; they then justify God’s judgment of Satan and others who rebel against God. That is why Christians who remain faithful to the end will not only judge the world but judge angels (1 Cor. 6:2-3). I’ve previously posted on this.

Fourth, perhaps the most important fact about this life is that there is infinitely more than this life. Those who don’t understand eternal life will never understand why God allows evil any more than a child who doesn’t understand simple addition could understand calculus. But if our life here is just the beginning of life forever, then eternity will dwarf our suffering to insignificance.

2 Cor. 4:16-18: “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.”

Amen.

  1. Look, I’ve written a little poetry and a lot of prose and I’ll bet if someone looked at them side by side they would suspect two different authors. Ehrman also claims “that the names for the divine being are different in the prose (where the name Yahweh is used) and the poetry (where the divinity is named El, Eloah, and Shaddai)” (164). But “Yahweh” is used in the poetry section: 12:9, 38:1, 40:1, 3, 6, and so on. [↩]
  2. Ehrman opines that “the Satan is not the fallen angel who has been booted from heaven…. He is not an adversary to God” (165). That’s bizarre! Perhaps at that time Satan hadn’t been “booted,” but to say he’s not an adversary? Do you, dear reader, not see in this passage that Satan is defiant, scoffing at God, and accusing Job? Is this not the same “Satan” who in Rev. 12:10 is called “the accuser”? Certainly that is the way evangelicals understand the passage and I’d be surprised indeed if when Ehrman considered himself an evangelical that he understood the passage as he does now. [↩]
Posted in Ehrman, Why God Allows Evil | Tagged , , , , , , | 12 Comments

Ehrman’s Problem 15: He Failed to See Eternity

Posted on July 24, 2012 by clayjones

I mentioned previously that most apologists argue that the reason God allows evil is that it is a greater good for God to allow evil than to create a world where evil is impossible. For God to create a world with significantly free beings, He must allow these free beings to use their free will wrongly (or He hasn’t given free will in the first place). Christians believe, in fact, that that is exactly what Adam and Eve did. They used their free will wrongly and so plunged us into suffering and death. But, with all the horrors that this misuse of free will has wrought, it is preferable to a world without significantly free beings.

So now we come to Ehrman’s only relevant criticism of the greater good theodicy. He writes, “I am absolutely opposed to the idea that we can universalize this observation by saying that something good always comes out of suffering. The reality is that most suffering is not positive, does not have a silver lining, is not good for the body or soul, and leads to wretched and miserable, not positive, outcomes” (155-156).1

What Ehrman is arguing about is what philosophers call “gratuitous” evil. Gratuitous evil is evil which appears to serve no “greater good.” For example, skeptics point out that sometimes fawns burn to death in a forest fire and ask what possibly good purpose could result from that? What skeptics hope to accomplish by this is to say that God isn’t good for allowing the fawn to suffer since no possible good can come from it.

I have several things to say in about this.

First, when we say that God can do all things we don’t mean things that are logically contradictory. Even God cannot make square-circles or colorless-red cars. Likewise, it wouldn’t be possible for God to let a man use his free will, say, to start a forest fire and at the same time to protect all the inhabitants of the forest unless he were to intervene miraculously for millions or billions of creatures (I say “billions” because, after all, the case could be made that He shouldn’t let beetles or butterflies burn to death). If God were to intervene like this and in countless other situations, rebellious humans would have undeniable empirical evidence of His existence which would then interfere with these rebels’ free will (they would be compelled to feign loyalty).2

Second, when humankind sinned, God cursed the ground. This presumably enabled all kinds of natural evils as a consequence of their rebellion. Once creatures rebel against God, there is no moral obligation upon Him to make the rebels’ lives joyous or even easy any more than a man has a duty to protect someone who seeks to terrorize him. Therefore, if the race of Adam suffers because God has withdrawn His protection then they should understand that as the price of rebellion. If we don’t like all the suffering that ensued from Adam and Eve’s sin then there is a cosmic lesson: Hate Sin! Learning that rebellion against God results in going it on your own outside of God’s constant protection is a “greater good” lesson available to anyone paying attention.

Third, and related to the above, it is true that many who suffer in this life won’t see good come out of it here. But, Christianity isn’t primarily about this life—as in this life on earth! Christianity is primarily concerned about eternal life and we are learning lessons here that will benefit us for eternity. One of those lessons happens to be that God is and was right all along. We are learning here to distinguish good from evil and learning to overcome evil with good (Heb. 5:14, Rom. 12:21). At the Judgment everyone will see the horror of human rebellion, and that is a greater good than God shielding all of us from the consequences of rebellion. Experience is usually a harsh teacher, but it is the most thorough teacher, and eternity will dwarf our suffering to insignificance.

  1. Emphasis his. [↩]
  2. This could be intellectually unpacked for many hours, but there’s not time for that here. For a thorough treatment of this answer, read Kirk R. MacGregor, “The Existence and Irrelevance of Gratuitous Evil,” Philosophia Christi 14 (2012): 165-180. [↩]
Posted in Apologetics, Ehrman, Why God Allows Evil | Tagged , , , , | 8 Comments