Tag: atheism

Jonathan Edwards on the Problem of Evil

~ Bob Hayton ~ 5 Comments

With the recent tragedy at Newtown Connecticut, the problem of evil is on everyone’s mind. How could such an evil act be perpetrated? How could God allow such evil? Would a loving God really allow the deaths of 20 innocent children?

Tragedies like this, and the questions it raises, lead meany people to blame God. Others point to this problem as evidence that a true God does not exist. Or they reshape their thoughts about God. He is nice and helpful and all, but limited. Like an old grandfather, he is saddened by our losses and didn’t want this to happen. He was just unable to prevent it – or worse, he didn’t see it coming.

In contrast to such man-centered thoughts, the Scripture’s teaching on evil and suffering is that God permits it, and works behind it, to accomplish His purposes. For those who love God and believe in Him (the elect), God works everything together for their good (Rom. 8:28). And ultimately, God “works all things according to the counsel of his will” (Eph. 1:11). God “does according to his will among the host of heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth; and none can stay his hand or say to him, ‘What have you done?'” (Dan. 4:35). He “has made everything for its purpose, even the wicked for the day of trouble” (Prov. 16:4). And Amos 3:6 declares soberingly, “Does disaster come to a city, unless the LORD has done it?”

If God is truly sovereign, then, why did He choose to allow such sin and suffering in this world? Theologians refer to this as “the problem of evil.” Why does evil exist, in such poignant and powerful measure as displayed so chillingly just this last week? This question is not merely for theists. What explanation can atheists give to this puzzling question? They would have to explain how evil, as a category, can exist without a holy God. If there is no God, than who’s to say what evil is?

Ultimately, Jonathan Edwards has perhaps the clearest answer that I have found. I delve into his thought a bit in this article, but here I want to share a quote I recently included in my SS class this past Sunday. May it help clarify your thinking on this point, and see how truly great and glorious God really is.

God’s awful majesty, his authority and dreadful greatness, justice, and holiness… would not shine forth as the [other parts of divine glory] do, and also the glory of his goodness, love, and holiness would be faint without them; nay, they could scarcely shine forth at all… There would be no manifestation of God’s grace or true goodness, if there was no sin to be pardoned, no misery to be saved from. No matter how much happiness he might bestow, his goodness would not be nearly as highly prized and admired…. and the sense of his goodness heightened. So evil is necessary if the glory of God is to be perfectly and completely displayed

[quoted in Chosen for Life by Sam Storms (Crossway, 2007), pg. 186-187]

As a follow up to this thought, here are some earlier articles of mine along these same lines.

Aliens & Atheist Absurdity

~ Bob Hayton ~ 8 Comments

My wife and I rented Knowing, a newly released (on DVD) movie with Nicolas Cage in it. I have to admit I love end-of-the-world, science fiction movies. Some of my favorites are Deep Impact, Independence Day and Core.

There is a scene in Knowing, where the professor character that Cage plays, explains two competing views of the universe: determinism and randomness. Determinism says everything happens for a reason, and is bolstered by the understanding of how small the probabilities are that life on Earth could just accidentally happen. The opposite view claims that in fact everything is an accident, a freak of randomness and chance. Life has no meaning.

By the end of the movie, we are left to side with determinism, but in a very meaningless way. <spoiler alert> The world will end and we glimpse the awe-inspiring (at least for the main character in the movie) truth about our existence — aliens protected us, and evidently seeded our planet. </spoiler alert>

What amazes me is how rational and realistic all of this seems from a secular, scientific viewpoint. Real scientists propose mainstream, class-room theories about all of life possibly having evolved on a different planet. Aliens brought the beginnings of life to our planet. In the movie Expelled, with Ben Stein, Richard Dawkins posits that in the face of evidence for intelligent design, a plausible theory is just this: life came here from another world.

Anyone intrigued by UFOs have seen how Biblical accounts such as Ezekiel’s vision of the presence of God among the wheels, are turned into ancient evidence for the existence of UFOs. While to a certain extent, science laughs off UFO claims; nevertheless, the search for extraterrestrial life continues in the most respected institutions.

All of this seems absurd. Aliens who bring life to earth in a spaceship; UFOs behind Biblical visions and indeed all the religions on earth (think Stargate); even the Big Bang itself — all of this is flat out crazy. If you take a step back, these theories are preposterous and absurd — beyond belief. But major motion pictures and scientific documentaries are endlessly preaching this dogma.

Now we come to my ironic point. In a world where science lets us dream of intelligent life all throughout the universe, why is the scholarly consensus so dead set against any notion of the Christian faith? Why is it that Christians are laughed to scorn for believing in a God who created life, and will one day bring all people to a moral accounting? Why is that unbelievable and absurd, whereas aliens, UFOs, paranormal experiences and the like aren’t?

Could it be that we deify man and his pursuits in understanding the universe (science)? At the end of the day, atheists refuse to believe Christianity’s worldview, because they cannot tolerate it. They don’t want to believe.

Atheist No More: Antony Flew

~ Bob Hayton ~ 3 Comments

click to learn more about this bookAntony Flew has been one of the world’s most influential atheists. Recently, he published a book explaining how and why he has changed his mind. He now acknowledges God.

For a great review of his book, and explanation of the arguments that eventually conquered Flew’s resistance to theism, check out this superbly written piece by R.C. Sproul: “A Tale of Two Parables” [HT: Justin Taylor]. (For more information on R.C. Sproul, check out Ligonier Ministries’ website.)

Puppets, Popoli & The Open Theism Debate

~ fundyreformed ~ 5 Comments

I’m sure my astute readers are all up to speed on the open theism debate. Then again, some of you probably aren’t. And I haven’t really ever debated the issue, so I had to do some homework too.

The Issue

Open Theism is the belief that God is in a sense bound by time. He knows as much as can be known, but not absolutely all things in the traditional sense of “omniscience”. He can’t know the free decisions of humans before those decisions occur, otherwise they wouldn’t be completely free.

This is obviously not a Calvinistic idea, but even most Arminians would repudiate the idea as just plain wrong. Yet the open theists have some verses they will marshal, verses showing that God changes his mind, repents, is surprised by things, and gives contingent prophecies. They also have some logical arguments at their disposal. It can sound plausible, and even helps make Christianity more palatable for the post-modern atheists of today. And– surprise, suprise– open theism is gaining in popularity among evangelicals today.

Puppets & Popoli?

I mention all of this because my friend “jamsco” runs a blog named “The Responsible Puppet“. His title stems from his adherence to what he dubs “hyper-compatibleism”: God is the puppetmaster, yet we are totally responsible for our actions. He is still working out his position which is not quite 5 point Calvinism, he tells me.

Jamsco links to Vox Popoli (with the “read at your own risk” warning, for Vox’s sometimes-edgy views & speech), who he knew personally in college, largely because he takes issue with Vox’s adherence to OT. Vox does a great job of tearing down popular atheistic arguments, yet he often employs OT in his efforts to disarm his opponents. Jamsco wants to defend a compatibleist view and I’m sure wishes he could convince Vox of the error of his ways.

So Vox for most of this year has had Jamsco on his blogroll under the section “target-rich environments”. And he has promised to interact on the issue.

Round 1

So round 1 of the debate has begun. Vox has responded to Jamsco’s “A Defense of the Omniderigence of God” (where Jamsco had interacted with some of Vox’s views). In his characteristic witty style, Vox does a good job advancing his argument (and answering Jamsco). Jamsco has yet to respond, but its easy to get lost in the hundreds of comments Vox’s posts generate.

Now Vox mentions me in the post, since I had commented under Jamsco’s original post. I stand corrected, yet I did follow up with some comments of my own on the issue. I look forward to Jamsco’s response, and Vox’s promised follow up of Scriptural proof for his view. It will be good to be aware of what kind of arguments are out there on this, and gain an education on this issue.

Recommendations

In doing my homework for my comment under Vox’s post, I came across some excellent articles I should recommend here. A couple are fairly short and yet give a good overview of a conservative response to OT. They are worth reading at some point.