What is the answer, then? God could have created a world which was better than this one, a world where people freely loved Him and there was no sin or suffering or death. He could have created a world where tens of thousands of people are not killed by tsunamis, earthquakes, and plagues; nor by drugs, guns, and germ warfare. For whatever reason, God chose not to create that world, or, at least, created an initally 'good' world with the knowledge that it would become as it has. He is the Creator: He is the one who is responsible. Ultimately, He will avenge suffering, punish those who have done evil, reward those who have done good, and right the wrongs which He has permitted/caused to have occurred. And, perhaps, the way we come to truly know something is by it's contrast: therefore, to know God's love, it benefits us to know hate. To know God's justice, it benefits us to know injustice. To know God's mercy and grace, it benefits us to know His sternness and wrath. To know His power fully, it benefits us to see His power demonstrated both in the saving of those who call on Him and in the destruction of those who do not.
[end 4/4]
7.10.2005
"If God created everything then He must have created evil also" [3/4]
And let us not even bother with the argument that God did not want automatons and so He had no alternative but to create us to be capable of profound evil in order for us to be capable of genuine love. Is God not free? Is God not bound by His very nature to be without sin, without blemish? No one seems to claim that God is not free because He is unable to sin, yet the most popular refuge in this argument is that God had to create man with the capacity for sin so that he would be free to love Him. Moreover, those who advance this argument are left with a very difficult problem: When God fully realizes His kingdom on earth and all those who have opposed Him are removed from His presence forever, there will no longer be any sin. In that day, when sin is banished from God's presence forever, will we suddenly become automatons who incapable of genuine love? Or, for all eternity, will God permit the potential of sin to remain so that we can be truly 'free'? Of course not. There is an implicit belief, then, that it is possible for humans to be free and yet not sin, nor have the capacity to sin, at least in this eternal state. Moreover, love and obedience to God is not invalidated by this lack of choice. If it is possible in eternity, then there is no reason to claim that it would have been impossible for God to create beings capable of genuine love while incapable of sin.
[part 3/4]
[part 3/4]
7.09.2005
"If God created everything then He must have created evil also" [2/4]
To be perfectly honest, the best answer that I can give you is that God created the world He created, and that world has a lot of terrible experiences in it that don't make sense. As a follower of Jesus, I can take comfort when I suffer for my proclamation of Him, even if I were to suffer terribly for it. But, for the child who is kidnapped and killed for no other reason that she was in the wrong place at the wrong time; for the wife and mother who is paralyzed in a drive-by shooting for no other reason that that others enjoy causing misery; for the tribe that is wiped out by a neighboring people for no other reason than an ancient feud, the details of which are nearly forgotten--for these things I see no justification, 'no sanctification through suffering.'
[end part 2 of 4]
[end part 2 of 4]
7.06.2005
Just to get some discussion going...
Alright, I realized my last paper, though of course erudite and fascinating, was just plain long to post. For those of you desperately curious to find out how it all ends, let me know. Actually, it's in need of some revision at this point, since there were some issues that came up at a healing conference we went to at the Scottsdale Vineyard that I wanted to address. I am done with classes for a little while - 2 whole months with no classes. Followed by 4 years straight of classes with no breaks, most likely! So I'm going to enjoy my free time while it lasts. I recently finished up an apologetics class, and had to interact with issues like the existence of evil, the nature of God's sovereignty, and it ended up leading into some really interesting discussions of the implications of limited atonement. I'm still trying to get my understanding of all this stuff, so hopefully as I process through some of this it will all get clearer. As part of that process I wanted to post some excerpts from a paper I wrote recently and get some other perspectives on it. Here's the stage 1 of 4 stages to my argument, basically interacting with aspects of the Problem of Evil and specifically the statement "If God created everything then He must have created evil also."
...
I grant that this statement is accurate. If, as Paul writes in Colossians 1:15-16, all things were created through, for, and by Jesus, then the conclusion seems inescapable that He is the one responsible for everything, good or bad, and that He is responsible regardless of whether He created it directly or merely created its potentiality. Moreover, He is the one by whose word of power all things are sustained (Hebrews 1:3), so presumably He is able to cause things which are evil to cease existing by simply ceasing His sustaining power for the evil in question. One could argue that evil is merely an illusion and doesn't really exist, but this hardly seems worth considering, for if evil is only an illusion, then the problem of evil disappears altogether. Alternatively, one might argue that evil is simply a privation of good, an 'ontological parasite.' While I think that is closer to the truth, we would have only to rephrase the question to ask why God made a creation where these privations, these parasites, could exist and thrive and we would find ourselves back at the beginning and facing the same difficult questions. Nor will I offer the patronizing answer that this particular world is the best world that God could possibly have created; we all know it could be better. And, while I am grateful for whatever measure of freedom God has given us to make choices in our lives, I don't value my freedom so much that I think it justifies the freedom of the murder or rapist or madman.
[end of part 1/4]
...
I grant that this statement is accurate. If, as Paul writes in Colossians 1:15-16, all things were created through, for, and by Jesus, then the conclusion seems inescapable that He is the one responsible for everything, good or bad, and that He is responsible regardless of whether He created it directly or merely created its potentiality. Moreover, He is the one by whose word of power all things are sustained (Hebrews 1:3), so presumably He is able to cause things which are evil to cease existing by simply ceasing His sustaining power for the evil in question. One could argue that evil is merely an illusion and doesn't really exist, but this hardly seems worth considering, for if evil is only an illusion, then the problem of evil disappears altogether. Alternatively, one might argue that evil is simply a privation of good, an 'ontological parasite.' While I think that is closer to the truth, we would have only to rephrase the question to ask why God made a creation where these privations, these parasites, could exist and thrive and we would find ourselves back at the beginning and facing the same difficult questions. Nor will I offer the patronizing answer that this particular world is the best world that God could possibly have created; we all know it could be better. And, while I am grateful for whatever measure of freedom God has given us to make choices in our lives, I don't value my freedom so much that I think it justifies the freedom of the murder or rapist or madman.
[end of part 1/4]
5.09.2005
A very excellent day.
It's beautiful and sunny and not too hot out today, and I've been getting stuff done at work but there's always a lot more to do - and not enough time each day. We're going to be meeting with some pastors around the new seminary facility in the next couple days, just getting to know them and introducing ourselves and Phoenix Seminary to people who may still not know much about us even though we've been here since 1987. Incidentally, 1987 is the year when the most excellent album of all time was released: U2's Joshua Tree, which (also incidentally), I was listening to this very morning. Coincidence? Yes.
I'm also getting ready for the new semester - only one four credit class this term! So I'll have more time, which will be very nice. Becca and I start our History of Christianity class tomorrow, and I've been reading my textbook and really find it fascinating. The development of the early church is something which I think would be so helpful for Christians to learn about - I wish I could just take a couple of years and spend all my time reading all the primary sources for the period. So much turmoil and schism and confusion as the church tried to understand its position in Christ and every member his position in relation to other members.
Also, here's a little snippet from my paper on Healing & Sickness in Acts through Revelation. Installment #1 of 4 or 5 on the topic. I've shared it with Brian, and I'd appreciate any other feedback.
---
In the tradition of Peter, we find the foundation for our present hope of physical, emotional, and spiritual healing in Christ. This hope stands on the same foundation as does the present reality of our forgiveness: the once for all sacrifice of Jesus. Peter writes, “He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross, so that we might die to sin and live to righteousness; for by His wounds you were healed.” (1 Peter 2:24) Peter is elaborating on an OT passage in light of the healing ministry and atoning work of Jesus: “But He was pierced through for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities; The chastening for our well-being fell upon Him, And by His scourging we are healed.” (Isaiah 53:5) In the Old Testament, the Lord sometimes healed His people in a direct response to their prayers, as in the case of Hezekiah (cf. Isaiah 38:1-22). At other times, He chose to use His prophets to even raise the dead (Elijah in 1 Kings 17:17-24; Elisha in 2 Kings 4:18-37). During Jesus’ earthly ministry, He healed the sick (i.e., Mark 2:1-12; 5:25-34; 6:5), cleansed the lepers (i.e., Mark 1:40-42), gave sight to the blind (i.e., Mark 8:22-25), gave hearing and speech to the deaf and mute (i.e., Mark 7:32-37), delivered the demon-possessed (i.e., Mark 1:23-27; 5:1-20; 7:25-30; 9:16-29), and even raised the dead (i.e., Mark 5:21-24, 35-43).[1] Not only did He do these works Himself, but He also gave those who followed Him the authority and commission to do the same works (cf. the commissioning of the Twelve in Mark 6:7-13 and of the Seventy-two in Luke 10:1-20).
Peter seems to have more in view here than solely physical healing—but physical healing not excluded from view either, particularly in light of the way in which Matthew cites the exact same passage from Isaiah 53:
[16] When evening came, they brought to Him many who were demon-possessed; and He cast out the spirits with a word, and healed all who were ill. [17] This was to fulfill what was spoken through Isaiah the prophet: “He Himself took our infirmities and carried away our diseases.” (Matthew 8:16-17)
It seems then unnecessary to ‘spiritualize’ this passage such that it refers then only to spiritual healing or forgiveness from sin, so that believers cannot find in this passage the same hope for healing as the New Testament authors found in it. Thus, both through the healings Jesus performed in His earthly ministry, as well as through His death on the cross, He was able to bear our iniquities and our infirmities, our sins and our sicknesses. Though it is not appropriate to put sins and sickness in too strict of a parallelism, it doesn’t seem to go too far to say that God wants us to live lives free of both. In the same way that we have been redeemed from sin and yet nevertheless experience sin’s effects until Christ returns, we also have a foretaste of the healing wrought by Christ which we will not experience in it’s fullest sense until we see Him face to face (cf. 1 Corinthians 12:12).
[1] I restricted these citations only to Mark’s gospel as a full survey of Jesus’ healing ministry lies outside of the scope of this paper. However, even this sampling established the breadth of Jesus’ authority over sickness, demons, and death. The Twelve and the Seventy-two saw no limits on Jesus’ authority and ability to heal, and so would have had no reason to view His authority and ability as inadequate for the works which He sent them out to perform. Mark seemed to be the most suitable gospel to cite in relation to Peter, in light of the early tradition passed on by Papias that Mark collected and recorded Jesus traditions from Peter.
I'm also getting ready for the new semester - only one four credit class this term! So I'll have more time, which will be very nice. Becca and I start our History of Christianity class tomorrow, and I've been reading my textbook and really find it fascinating. The development of the early church is something which I think would be so helpful for Christians to learn about - I wish I could just take a couple of years and spend all my time reading all the primary sources for the period. So much turmoil and schism and confusion as the church tried to understand its position in Christ and every member his position in relation to other members.
Also, here's a little snippet from my paper on Healing & Sickness in Acts through Revelation. Installment #1 of 4 or 5 on the topic. I've shared it with Brian, and I'd appreciate any other feedback.
---
In the tradition of Peter, we find the foundation for our present hope of physical, emotional, and spiritual healing in Christ. This hope stands on the same foundation as does the present reality of our forgiveness: the once for all sacrifice of Jesus. Peter writes, “He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross, so that we might die to sin and live to righteousness; for by His wounds you were healed.” (1 Peter 2:24) Peter is elaborating on an OT passage in light of the healing ministry and atoning work of Jesus: “But He was pierced through for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities; The chastening for our well-being fell upon Him, And by His scourging we are healed.” (Isaiah 53:5) In the Old Testament, the Lord sometimes healed His people in a direct response to their prayers, as in the case of Hezekiah (cf. Isaiah 38:1-22). At other times, He chose to use His prophets to even raise the dead (Elijah in 1 Kings 17:17-24; Elisha in 2 Kings 4:18-37). During Jesus’ earthly ministry, He healed the sick (i.e., Mark 2:1-12; 5:25-34; 6:5), cleansed the lepers (i.e., Mark 1:40-42), gave sight to the blind (i.e., Mark 8:22-25), gave hearing and speech to the deaf and mute (i.e., Mark 7:32-37), delivered the demon-possessed (i.e., Mark 1:23-27; 5:1-20; 7:25-30; 9:16-29), and even raised the dead (i.e., Mark 5:21-24, 35-43).[1] Not only did He do these works Himself, but He also gave those who followed Him the authority and commission to do the same works (cf. the commissioning of the Twelve in Mark 6:7-13 and of the Seventy-two in Luke 10:1-20).
Peter seems to have more in view here than solely physical healing—but physical healing not excluded from view either, particularly in light of the way in which Matthew cites the exact same passage from Isaiah 53:
[16] When evening came, they brought to Him many who were demon-possessed; and He cast out the spirits with a word, and healed all who were ill. [17] This was to fulfill what was spoken through Isaiah the prophet: “He Himself took our infirmities and carried away our diseases.” (Matthew 8:16-17)
It seems then unnecessary to ‘spiritualize’ this passage such that it refers then only to spiritual healing or forgiveness from sin, so that believers cannot find in this passage the same hope for healing as the New Testament authors found in it. Thus, both through the healings Jesus performed in His earthly ministry, as well as through His death on the cross, He was able to bear our iniquities and our infirmities, our sins and our sicknesses. Though it is not appropriate to put sins and sickness in too strict of a parallelism, it doesn’t seem to go too far to say that God wants us to live lives free of both. In the same way that we have been redeemed from sin and yet nevertheless experience sin’s effects until Christ returns, we also have a foretaste of the healing wrought by Christ which we will not experience in it’s fullest sense until we see Him face to face (cf. 1 Corinthians 12:12).
[1] I restricted these citations only to Mark’s gospel as a full survey of Jesus’ healing ministry lies outside of the scope of this paper. However, even this sampling established the breadth of Jesus’ authority over sickness, demons, and death. The Twelve and the Seventy-two saw no limits on Jesus’ authority and ability to heal, and so would have had no reason to view His authority and ability as inadequate for the works which He sent them out to perform. Mark seemed to be the most suitable gospel to cite in relation to Peter, in light of the early tradition passed on by Papias that Mark collected and recorded Jesus traditions from Peter.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)