Theodicy: A Justification of the Justice of God Amidst the Problem of Evil

Introduction

On November 17, 2013, the date of writing for this opening paragraph, news outlets across the United States have been flooded with reports of tornado outbreaks in the Midwest.[1] Multiple people have been killed, homes have been destroyed, businesses have been greatly affected; perhaps the word “chaos” would be most appropriate. Beyond natural disasters, the world has also been tarnished with unspeakable horrors resulting from immoral and downright evil activities such as murder, rape, extortion, terrorism, and physical abuse. “How is it,” some would ask, “that God would allow such things to happen?” There is a logic frequently assumed in discussions such as these that a good God could not possibly eternally exist while such evils consume the earth. The question itself is understandable, but the answer to that question is one of the most vital reconciliations that a Christian can make. Matters of synthesizing both the existence of evil and the complete goodness of God are often part of a doctrine labeled “theodicy.” The Lexham Bible Dictionary defines theodicy as “The attempt to defend God’s omnipotence and goodness in the face of the problem of evil in the world.”^[2] Theodicy comes from two Greek words, θεός and δικέ, to literally mean “divine justice.”[3] Therefore, this research will attempt to reconcile the justice, or more specifically the “justness” or “rightness” of God who has chosen to allow pain and suffering into His sovereign plans. And while many questions will continue to persist on this side of eternity as to why God permitted certain things, the “problem of evil” is answered sufficiently from the Christian perspective, and God’s justice is completely justified.

The Goodness of God

The whole issue of theodicy depends on what evidence one chooses to use for analyzing God’s goodness. If a wholly naturalistic presupposition is adopted, and the Bible is merely treated as a human document, then answers to theodicy will not even matter since God, in the naturalist’s mind, has not revealed Himself (if He exists) in any form of special revelation. However, if one begins his/her analysis on the goodness of God and the “problem of evil” with looking at the natural world as the primary source of investigation, adding occasional glances to Scripture, then one’s view of theodicy will be a never-ending state of frantic cluelessness. When the Bible is put in a secondary position for interpreting the world, whole theologies such as “process theology” and “open theism” arise to account for philosophical conjectures that put God in the position of being less than the sovereign ruler of the universe.[4] Only when the Bible is the lens through which one interprets theodicy can the goodness of God and the problem of evil be reconciled satisfactorily.

Before considering the reality and sheer power of evil present in the world, it is necessary to first seek what Scripture teaches on the goodness of God. After all, if God is not supremely good, then there is no possible way to reconcile the “rightness” of God in the study of theodicy since no true standard of rightness would exist. The Bible, however, is quite clear on the issue. First of all, God cannot sin and will not cause others to sin. James 1:13 says, “Let no one say when he is tempted, ‘I am being tempted by God,’ for God cannot be tempted with evil, and he himself tempts no one.” Secondly, it is noteworthy that God is frequently (over 900 times) described with the attribute of holiness, something of which Jonathan Edwards describes as “the sum of all His attributes, the outshining of all that God is.”[5] Thirdly, authors from Scripture appeal to God’s goodness quite often. The Psalmist David rather clearly declares in song, “Oh, taste and see that the Lord is good!”[6] It is abundantly clear, then, that the Bible presents God to be wholly good and just, a Being fit for providing the moral standard for what constitutes “goodness” and “justness.”

The Evilness of Evil

Where the predicament lies in the discussion of theodicy is in how the presence of evil and suffering seems to contradict the goodness of God. The issue is complex to say the least, and as Daniel Clendenin states, “For some the problem is the fact that God allows any evil in the world, while for others the problem is not simply that evil exists but that too much evil exists.”[7] The existence of evil, although doubted by some, is one of the most verifiable doctrines of the Christian faith.[8] For as John Frame writes, “If evil is an illusion, it is a terribly troublesome illusion, an illusion that brings misery, pain, suffering, and death. If it is said that the pain also is illusory, I reply that there is no difference between illusory pain and real pain so far as the problem of evil is concerned.”[9] Indeed, the reality of evil is a “problem.” All of humanity suffers the ill effects of evil, and Christians particularly are faced with the apparent dilemma that leads back to Epicurus which has been quoted and paraphrased by philosophers in many ages since his time: “Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”[10] Although there are multiple questions listed, only the second and third questions require a rebuttal. Once again, the assumption is that a good God could not allow evil, and certainly not the degree of evil that infests the present state of humanity. The “problem” with Epicurus’ “problem of evil” is that Bible does not see it as a “problem” towards God’s goodness. On the contrary, the Bible majestically reconciles the goodness of God in the discussion of theodicy.

God and Evil: A Biblical Reconciliation

Pain and suffering are agonizing realities in the world today. However, if theodicy itself is as big of a problem as skeptics believe, then why does the Bible speak about the reality of evil so frequently? Far from being a concealed secret of Christianity, the Bible is actually unashamedly honest on the reality and purposes that God has for permitting evil. To demonstrate this proposition, three examples will be introduced from Scripture: Job, Joseph, and Jesus Christ.

The book of Job is possibly the oldest book of the Bible which, for purposes of the topic of theodicy, ironically is all about the reality of evil, pain, and suffering. In it, “Satan, Eliphaz, Bildad, Zophar, and to some extent Job wrongly assumed that punishment of the wicked and reward of the righteous in this life is a fixed doctrine.”[11] Out of all people in the world, the least likely candidate for enduring suffering was Job, described as being a man who “was blameless and upright, one who feared God and turned away from evil.”[12] Yet God in his sovereign wisdom permits Satan to cause intense pain and suffering to Job, Job is accused of being blameworthy for his own troubles, but then in the final chapter God has the closing rebuke of the false accusers after Job repents of his questioning of God. And according to what has been revealed in Scripture, Job is never even given the answer as to why he had to suffer so brutally. But what is known is that God must have had a purpose for this seemingly senseless trial (even if not explicitly revealed in Scripture). After observing both Joseph and Jesus Christ, principles found elsewhere in Scripture for theodicy will help bring to light some of what can be known about theodicy.

Joseph is another example of a man who would be an unlikely recipient of pain and suffering, especially in regards to the goodness of God and what He sovereignly wills. Not only is he sold into slavery by his own family (Genesis 37) but also is falsely accused by Potiphar’s wife for attempted rape, and is subsequently imprisoned (Genesis 39). Nevertheless, this story does have a happy ending, and unlike the story of Job, God’s purpose for Joseph’s suffering is included. In the final chapter of Genesis, Joseph reunites with his brothers, speaking these words to them concerning what had occurred: “Do not fear, for am I in the place of God? As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good, to bring it about that many people should be kept alive, as they are today.”[13] There are many who would still accuse God of being unloving towards Joseph by allowing him to suffer. But as stated by the very sufferer himself, “God meant it for good.”

In moving on to the third example, Jesus Christ, it must be mentioned that the first two examples were certainly what most would call “good” people. The truth is, however, that the Bible is clear that all have sinned and are deserving of God’s wrath, including Job and Joseph. What sets apart Jesus Christ so distinctly is that He never sinned (Hebrews 4:15) and was wholly undeserving of His suffering, both in human and in God’s standards. R.C. Sproul, Jr. once stated this humbling fact: “No matter what we are suffering, we are living in the lap of God’s grace. None of us ever gets worse than we deserve. What God owes us is death and destruction. Why do bad things happen to good people? Well, that only happened once, and He volunteered.”[14] Jesus Christ not only endured a grueling death via crucifixion, but it was on that very cross in which He endured the wrath of God for the sins of the world (1 John 2:2). If anyone had a reason to accuse God of fault in what He allows, it was Jesus Christ. Nevertheless, He submitted to the will of His Father because His suffering was not in vain. Likewise, those who trust in the Word of God can trust that their own forms of suffering serve a mysterious yet genuine purpose.

Moving beyond examples of the Bible, there are whole “systems” of theodicy views that need to be briefly investigated.[15] Some philosophers/theologians would resort to a “free will” argument of sin and its relation to the world, as well as God’s goodness. Norman Geisler states, “The answer [for theodicy] is found in one of God’s good gifts: free will. While freedom is good in itself, it also allowed the potential for evil. Hence, free will made evil possible.”[16] But a major problem with this view is that “Scripture never uses the free-will defense in any passage where the problem of evil is up for discussion.”[17] On the contrary, the Bible is clear that God is not simply a passive onlooker of the world’s events, allowing humans to do as they please, but that He is sovereign over all actions, even in matters of evil.[18]

Another proposed solution is in Jay Adams’s doxological view of theodicy, that the problem of evil is thoroughly summarized in Romans 9:17, God’s purposeful raising up of Pharoah to declare His own glory.[19] Certainly this is a helpful part of the theodicy question, but there are other biblical applications to consider as well. Hebrews chapter twelve, for example, speaks of God’s discipline to believers which could certainly include pain and suffering. Therefore, instead of narrowing down one’s view of theodicy to one locus classicus passage, a proposed solution would be an “eclectic” view of theodicy: doxological (Romans 9), sanctifying (Hebrews 12), for a greater purpose (Genesis 50:20; Romans 8:28), etc. That is, taking a variety of Scripture passage together, as pieces of a puzzle that slowly fit together, to reveal a more substantial understanding of God’s reasoning for allowing evil and suffering in the world. Not everything about theodicy is revealed in Scripture, some things have been and will remain to be a mystery (Deuteronomy 29:29; First Corinthians 13:12), but there are sufficient foundational principles that speak life into the darkness of pain and suffering. They may not be all one wants to know, but they are sufficient for what one needs to know for “life and godliness.”[20]

Conclusion

It would be truly convenient for the Christian apologist to have every single “problem” of evil answered by direct revelation from God, but the simple fact is that God has not chosen to reveal all that is questioned. Nevertheless, based on what has been revealed in Scripture, there is ample evidence to be convinced of the proposition that: (1) God is good, (2) evil exists, and (3) God has a purpose for the permitting evil and will ultimately and comprehensively defeat the effects of evil. But until that day comes, there are questions that address legitimate concerns. As Al Mohler reflects on theodicy, “We cannot explain why God has allowed sin, but we understand that God’s glory is more perfectly demonstrated through the victory of Christ over sin. We cannot understand why God would allow sickness and suffering, but we must affirm that even these realities are rooted in sin and its cosmic effects.”[21] For all that is possible to be answered in this present age, the Bible is the source of authority on theodicy. But for all that the Bible is not explicit such as personal traumas, natural disasters, death, and disease, there are at least underlying glimpses of hope found in what is revealed. And it is in these passages of revelation that God’s justice is justifiable, even when one is in the midst of a world filled with pain, suffering, and evil.

---

[1] Steve Almasy, Ted Rowlands, and Catherine E. Shoichet, “Midwest Tornadoes, Winds Slam Towns and Trucks; 5 Killed in Illinois,” http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/17/us/weather/ [accessed November 17, 2013].

 

^[2] D. A. Neal, “Theodicy” in The Lexham Bible Dictionary, ed. John D. Barry and Lazarus Wentz (Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2012).

 

[3] Ibid.

[4] See for example, Harold S. Kushner, When Bad Things Happen to Good People (New York, NY: Schocken Books, 1981). See also John M. Frame, Apologetics to the Glory of God (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 1994), 157, for a brief overview of the “Divine-Weakness Defense” theodicy view, as well as a concise rebuttal.

[5] Quoted in John H. Armstrong, “What Makes God So Totally Different?” Reformation and Revival 4:2 (Spring 1995), 9. See also pages 11-14 of the article for an overview of God’s holiness.

 

[6] Psalm 34:8. Also, it is interesting to note that the prophet Habakkuk, in his distress of considering the evils in the world, appeals to God’s good nature by questioning, “You who are of purer eyes than to see evil and cannot look at wrong, why do you idly look at traitors and remain silent when the wicked swallows up the man more righteous than he?” (Habakkuk 1:13)

 

[7] Daniel Clendenin, “Security But No Certainty: Toward A Christian Theodicy” JETS 31:3 (September 1988), 321-322.

 

[8] G.K. Chesterton once even noted that the doctrine of original sin was the only empirically verifiable doctrine of the Christian faith. See Orthodoxy (Image Books, 1959), 15.

 

[9] Frame, Apologetics to the Glory of God, 156.

 

[10] Quoted in Michael Houdmann, “What is Theodicy?” http://www.gotquestions.org/theodicy.html [accessed November 10, 2013].

[11] Larry J. Waters, “Reflections on Suffering From the Book of Job,” Bibliotecha Sacra 154:616 (Oct 1997), 448.

 

[12] Job 1:1

 

[13] Genesis 50:19-20

 

[14] R.C. Sproul, Jr., “2011 Ligonier National Conference – Session 6 (R.C. Sproul Jr.)” http://www.ligonier.org/blog/2011-ligonier-national-conference-session-6-rc-sproul-jr/ [accessed December 1, 2013].

 

[15] The following views are propagated by orthodox, evangelical Christians to keep the discussion concise. There is an assortment of other possible views, so only a selected few were mentioned. Out of all views, the most common view among philosophers is the “free will” defense. See Frame, Apologetics to the Glory of God, 159.

 

[16] Norman Geisler, Systematic Theology, Volume Three: Sin and Salvation (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2004), 98.

 

[17] John Frame, Apologetics to the Glory of God (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 1994), 162.

 

[18] One could look back to the life of Joseph and observe the quotation of Genesis 50:20. Likewise, even Christ’s own crucifixion was “according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God” (Acts 2:23). It should be also noted that God is not the “cause” of evil by any means, but that He superintends evil plans of man for producing an even greater and glorious outcome.

 

[19] See John Frame, Apologetics to the Glory of God, 151-152, for a brief summary and mild critique of this view.

[20] Second Peter 1:3

 

[21] Albert Mohler, “The Goodness of God and the Reality of Evil,” http://www.albertmohler.com/2013/05/21/the-goodness-of-god-and-the-reality-of-evil-4/ [accessed November 29, 2013].

Biographical Wiki: William Lane Craig

A BIOGRAPHICAL WIKI ON APOLOGIST WILLIAM LANE CRAIG

Biography of Life

It is an unfortunate yet all too common notion to believe that faith and reason cannot coexist. William Lane Craig would profoundly disagree, and has made it his life work to further prove his convictions and likewise empower others to do the same. After all, the phrase “reasonable faith” has accompanied his work in book format (Crossway, 3^rd edition, 2008), via his podcast on philosophy entitled “Reasonable Faith,” and in his personal website: www.reasonablefaith.org. Craig was born on August 23, 1949, and while he did not grow up with Christian parents, he first encountered the teachings of Christianity in his teenage years. At the age of sixteen, he heard the message of the Gospel and “yielded his life to Christ” (www.reasonablefaith.org). Concerning his personal life, William married Jan in 1972 and have two sons. Regarding his academic credentials, Craig has a wide array of degrees: a B.A. from Wheaton College, two M.A.’s from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, a Ph.D. from the University of Brimingham (England), and a D.Theol. from Ludwig-Maximilliéns-Universität München, Germany. William Lane Craig has already influenced the fields of Christian philosophy and apologetics in a significant fashion, yet it does not appear his contributions are slowing down. Therefore, an even closer examination of his work would be most worthwhile.

Major Works

Dr. Craig has written a plethora of publications, comprising of both scholarly and popular-level books and articles. Despite two doctorate degrees, Craig connects with the youngest of audiences in his ten-volume set of short children’s books on the attributes of God, “What Is God Like?” However, most of his work is aimed for adults in matters of philosophy, theology, and the resurrection of Jesus. Some of his more simplified works include: Apologetics: An Introduction (1984), Hard Questions, Real Answers (2003), Reasonable Faith (2008), On Guard (2010), and most recently, A Reasonable Response (2013). Also, some of his more complex works are The Kalam Cosmological Argument (2000), Time and the Metaphysics of Relativity (2000), Time and Eternity (2001), The Cosmological Argument from Plato to Leibniz (2001), and Creation Out of Nothing (2003, with Paul Copan) just to name several of many scholarly writings. Additionally, he has contributed to a wide array of theological and philosophical research journals and has even served as president on both the Evangelical Philosophical Society and the Philosophy of Time Society. Suffice it to say that William Lane Craig has compiled an impressive list of research for an assortment of readers young and old as well as scholarly and popular-level.

Methodology, Major Ideas, and Important Argumentation

Craig’s methodology of apologetics would fall in the category known as “classical apologetics.” Although similar to “evidential apologetics” in that it utilizes philosophical arguments for God’s existence, “classical apologetics” always begins with the evidences for the existence of God prior to introducing Christian doctrines such as the resurrection of Jesus and other miracles. Likewise, many ancient Christian philosophers applied similar techniques. One major issue (and debate method) that has been propagated by Craig is the Kalam Cosmological Argument, upon which he has written two books and multiple articles. Another significant contribution in a lesser-known subject has been in promulgating the “middle knowledge” view of predestination. While the latter issue is more of an in-house “theology” discussion among Christians, many of Craig’s debates have been in apologetics arguing against non-Christians. In whatever topic of debate he faces, his argumentation is always meticulously structured yet strikingly eloquent. Undoubtedly, he is an apologist of prominence.

Assessment of the Apologetic Approach

            Classical apologetics is a very intriguing approach, one that incorporates both extra-biblical sources of philosophy as well as biblical authority. No skeptic or spiritual seeker will ever be won over to Christianity by mere reason alone since “faith comes by hearing…the word of God” (Romans 10:17). Nevertheless, the apostle Paul engaged his audience Acts 17 without necessarily restricting himself to the Bible alone as argumentation. William Lane Craig appears to attempt a similar strategy, and while he may be a little excessive in his incorporation of philosophy, he has certainly been influential in his work.

Conclusion

            Very few Christian apologists alive today could claim more prominence than William Lane Craig. With his debates against some of the most distinguished skeptics in the world, he has done more than simply defend the faith; he has demolished his opponents’ arguments. In matters of theology, he has written and taught extensively. Some would most definitely argue that his conclusions are based upon philosophy than biblical exegesis, but regarding issues of philosophy, he has is a significant authority. What can hardly be disputed is that faith can coexist with reason, thanks to the contributions of William Lane Craig and many others like him.

 

Bibliography

Craig, William Lane. “William Lane Craig’s testimony,”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kV5vZQQCjiE [accessed September 8, 2013].

—. “Biographical Sketch,” “Curriculum Vitae,” “Publications,” and “Scholarly Articles.”

http://www.reasonablefaith.org [accessed September 8, 2013].

—. 5 Views on Apologetics, gen. ed., Steven B. Cowan. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2000.

Slick, Matt. “Classical Apologetics.” http://carm.org/classical-apologetics [accessed September

9, 2013].

Talbot School of Theology. “Faculty.” http://www.talbot.edu/faculty/profile/william_craig/

[accessed September 8, 2013].

The Heresy of Love

Photo Credit: http://www.msruntheus.com

It’s possible that the greatest “sin” in the world today (according to Facebook comments, blog posts, and social media) is intolerance. If you are against something, then you will probably be seen as bigoted, hateful, and arrogant, especially if that something is a trendy topic of debate. People are demanded to “accept” others in what the secular media calls “love,” but the moment anyone takes a stand for a conviction, he/she will surely meet fierce opposition. The angry crowd will cry out against this heretic of hate. But in truth, the actual heresies are in the popular understanding of what love is supposed to mean.

• Heresies of Love in Contemporary Culture

The very problem of the contemporary notion of love is that it’s misconstrued. Maroon 5 came out with a recent song that spoke of “love.” Here’s what the band says in a very sensual fashion:

“I really wanna love somebody
I really wanna dance the night away
I know we’re only half way there
But you can take me all the way, you can take me all the way
I really wanna touch somebody
I think about you every single day
I know we’re only half way there
But you can take me all the way, you can take me all the way”

Perhaps the problem in this debate is in semantics. For example, in the Greek language there are multiple words that express different kinds of love. But look at these lyrics, this isn’t wholesome, selfless love! This is one of the most self-centered, shallow songs I’ve ever heard. No, Maroon 5, you don’t really wanna love somebody, you want exploit her for your personal benefit. Genuine love gives, sacrifices, and works, even if it is a romantic love.

While romantic love is mistaken far too often in our cultures, so too is what some might call social or relational love – how we treat others on a non-marital or non-romantic basis. How ironic it is to see first-hand of people who act in hatred while accusing others of hatred. Back when Chick-Fil-A was receiving a lot of heat for the founder’s stance on homosexuality, a video went viral of a man named Adam Smith who went through the drive-thru line to accuse others of hatred all while he was showing nothing but actions of hatred. You can see the video here. What is so obvious in this video is that Smith was certainly not loving in any stretch of imagination. Since when does returning hate to whom you think is hateful justify your actions?

Another idea of love that is similar to the one just listed, but perhaps different, is tolerable love. I heartily recommend D.A. Carson’s book, The Intolerance of Tolerance if you haven’t read it, he treats this subject sufficiently. But essentially what has happened in our world is that our understanding on how we define “tolerance” has changed over the years. It used to mean that to tolerate something or someone, we do not agree with the person or thing causing us irritation, but we are still respectful despite our differences. In the religious realm, this would mean that I could wholeheartedly disagree with the Mormon view of Jesus Christ, even though I would still can be gracious. But that is not what tolerance has come to mean. “New tolerance” would mean that in order for me to be loving, I must agree with other people’s views about God. And although some might still testify that there can be some wiggle-room for credal statements on God, what is so frequently asserted is that the one unifying theme of the purpose all religions is love. First, this belief is not true. And secondly, this brings us back to the very significant problem I’ve already addressed: how is love defined? Love has essentially become “God” for many people, and primarily it is secularists who have made this new “God” into their own image so that the definition of love is standardized by their own agendas.

• Biblical View of Love

Let me briefly pause to say that churches and individual Christians have not helped this situation. In fact, I would dare say that most professing Christians have been duped into conforming to the contemporary views of love. The blame must not be given to non-Christians, but rather, it is churches that have failed. And the reason we have failed is because we have looked outside of the Bible to define love. Let’s consider just a few passages to build a biblical theology of love.

– (John 3:16) “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.” — God did not “accept” people in their state of depravity, nor did He express selfishness in His love.

– (1 John 3:1) “See what kind of love the Father has given to us, that we should be called children of God; and so we are. The reason why the world does not know us is that it did not know him.” — once again, selfless, sacrificial love.

– (Matthew 5:43-47) “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? And if you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same?” — this is what a biblical view of love towards others looks like, even when we are in stark disagreement with others.

It is completely evident that love is sacrificial, it’s for the benefit of others, and it can be quite costly. Love is usually manifested through action, and it is not necessarily received by all. There are, I think, two “heresies of love” prevalent in local churches today that I would like to further expound upon.

• Heresies of Love in Churches

Church discipline is usually viewed as hateful in today’s cultures. It’s no wonder why, contemporary thought doesn’t think too highly of correction and that “harsh” word, excommunication. And when we base our view of love on things outside of the Bible, then it’s only a matter of time before that unstable foundation gets tested and torn apart. First Corinthians 5:9-13 essentially tells us to keep two spheres of relationships in mind: those within the church and those without. For non-Christians, this passage doesn’t apply, except for the fact that God promises to one day judge them. But for Christians, this is undoubtedly important. It clearly teaches that churches are to hold members accountable in their lifestyle decisions. If someone is sexually immoral, he needs to be confronted (Matthew 18). And if repentance is not reached, then that person needs to be removed. You might not think this is loving, but it is. Church leaders are acting in selfless, sacrificial ways for the benefit of the one being disciplined. On the contrary, it would be an unloving thing to passively watch other Christians destroy themselves with sin. Perhaps the heresy of love in regards to church discipline is that we simply don’t know how serious sin and repentance are. And it is a heresy precisely because some of those being disciplined might not truly be saved – you could potentially be saving their eternal lives if they repent (see 1 Timothy 1:20).

Another heresy of love in churches is the “God loves you” Gospel. Now, this is true, God does love the whole world, each individual. But that love does not eliminate his justice. The implications of this heresy are quite obvious once explained a little further. What I am communicating here is that the good news of Christianity isn’t simply “God loves you.” The good news is that Jesus Christ died on a cross for your sin and was raised from the dead so that you can be delivered from your sin and declared righteous before a holy God – this happened because God loves you, but we need to explain what this love produced. What can be potentially heretical about the “God loves you” Gospel is that we diminish the true Gospel of Christ’s saving death, burial, and resurrection. Either we neglect what Christ has done to butter people up with a warm message of “love” (and, as already inferred, that meaning in contemporary culture is always changing) or we water down the justice and holiness of God Almighty. Could a loving God send people to hell? Yes. And it’s because the Bible’s definition of love is different from the world’s. God has already manifested the greatest love ever known, but people resist and reject that love. In other words, God’s justice does not negate His love, they are both continually present. God’s love is not contingent upon man’s response.

• Conclusion

Hopefully, I have cleared some muddy waters on the understanding of what love means. Christians might be labeled as a bigoted (the secularist’s label for a heretic), but I would seriously question if that’s always the case. I should not be required to agree with other people on issues like abortion, homosexual marriage, and other social issues – but I do love them. No, it’s not a kind of love that advocates their agendas, but it’s a genuine concern for their well-being, especially their spiritual well-being. It’s a love that is caring enough to speak the truths of Scripture, but in a way that is sensitive yet unwavering. And when it comes to the sphere of in-church relationships, it would be unloving of me to be apathetic of the holiness of others. It seems, then, that the only antidote to the heresy of love is by applying Scripture to all of life.

P.S. If your last resort was to bring up Matthew 7, “Judge not, lest ye be judged”…read the rest of the chapter. Verse 5 says that you can pick the speck out of your brother’s eye once you’ve examined yourself. You know what that’s called? Love.

The Goodness of Christianity

In the fall of 2012, I compiled a research paper entitled, “The Consistent God: Refutations Against New Atheism.” You can read that essay here. The following piece of argumentation was originally composed for “The Consistent God” paper, but I was encouraged by my professor to narrow my research down into lesser categories in order to be more particular on my argumentation and thesis. Therefore, if you are interested in reading about “The Goodness of Christianity,” I would encourage you to read “The Consistent God” first and then ponder over these “bonus thoughts” on a rather important subject.

Claim of New Atheists: Religion is Harmful

While science is New Atheism’s favorite choice of armor for defending its views, publicly promoting the alleged horrors and dangers of religion is one of its favorite weapons in attacking Theism. Though every New Atheist may pick and choose different instances which “prove” religion to be dangerous, essentially there are arguments in which they select from the Old Testament, New Testament, and church history that are found to be disturbing and evil. Sam Harris, in his book Letters to a Christian Nation, turns from atheist philosopher to secular Bible commentator. In an excurses of multiple texts, Harris’s main point is to prove the alleged wrongdoings of both Israelites and Christians. In the Old Testament, he lays forth material from Exodus, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy, begrudging the apparently harsh laws that God wanted His people to follow. To spark even more sensitivity in his audience, Harris also reveals how slavery is permitted in the Old Testament, and even in the New Testament both Jesus and the Apostle Paul are not forbidding it.[1] Finally, into the era of church history, there is much warning made concerning the actions of religious men and women. With so many acts done in the name of Christ that are contrary to morality and decency, New Atheists attempt to convince their audiences that the world would be a better place without religion. And so, they continue their attempts to free the world from such problems.

Response to New New Atheists: Religion is Culturally Beneficial

Identifying the areas in which religion, particularly Christianity, has benefited the world cannot in itself prove the existence of God. However, such evidence does add to the previously submitted information [see “The Consistent God”]. Likewise, New Atheists are constantly attacking religion regarding its societal danger. There are four major issues that require an address. First, the arguments compiled by New Atheists are almost always out of context, incorrectly explained, or not understood in light of the rest of the Bible. Ironically, Sam Harris is guilty of the very same assumptions made about Christians, “People have been cherry-picking the Bible for millennia to justify their every impulse, moral and otherwise.”[1] After all, he cherry-picks his passages such as Deuteronomy 13:6, 8-15, Leviticus 25:44-46, and Exodus 21:7-11 and develops an argument regarding morality and how Christians live. While every question about the Old Testament law cannot be answered in this paragraph, this major theological premise is missed: “You are not under the law, but under grace.”[2] To be clear, the Old Testament law is good, but “the law was our guardian [tutor] until Christ came.”[3] Second, when the Bible speaks of slavery, it is historically fallacious to compare it to the slavery formerly existent in the United States. Timothy Keller informs:

In the first-century Roman empire, when the New Testament was written, there was not a great difference between slaves and the average free person. Slaves were not distinguishable from others by race, speech, or clothing. They looked and lived like most everyone else, and were not segregate from the rest of society in any way. From a financial standpoint, slaves made the same wages as free laborers, and therefore were not usually poor. Also, slaves could accrue enough personal capital to buy themselves out. Most important of all, very few slaves were slaves for life. Most could reasonably hope to be manumitted within ten or fifteen years, or by their late thirties at the latest.[4]

Third, Christian groups have done much good for the health and well being of people all around the world. The Salvation Army, city “Rescue Missions,” Compassion International, Habitat for Humanity, World Vision, and thousands of local churches have consistently been a beacon of help for the impoverished, abused, underprivileged, and abandoned. From a survey in 2007, reports found, “Born again Christians were somewhat more likely than non-Christians to donate money to organizations addressing global poverty and slightly more likely to give food directly to poor people… Atheists and agnostics emerged as the segment of people least likely to do anything in response to poverty.”[5] Such evidence does not disclose the possibility of an atheist giving to the poor, nor does it mean that every Christian will always give to those in need. Nevertheless, to make an argument that groups all Christians to a standard of wrongdoing committed by a select few Christians is simply not true of a majority of Christians. Four, New Atheists do not have a strong history of social benefit in observing previous atheists. Alister McGrath reminds his audience, “The twentieth century gave rise to one of the greatest and most distressing paradoxes of human history: that the greatest intolerance and violence of that century were practiced by those who believed that religion caused intolerance and violence.”[6] Certainly, while the evidence for the existence of God is better found in other arguments, it should be a reminder for the Church that one of the greatest apologetics is to be a culturally beneficial people, different from the generalized overstatements of New Atheists.

Conclusion

To be sure, the arguments listed within this rather brief essay are not the greatest defenses for the Christian faith. However, to say that all religion is poisonous and evil is simply not true. Why is it that so many Christians are doing so much good for the society? Are they the delusional ones? Now, there are also plenty of very nice Atheists, Agnostics, Deists, and non-religious people in this world. But to lump all of Christianity together with the sins of our fathers is simply not very reasonable. It can’t be that one’s faith in Christ is what corrupts himself and causes him to be a threat to society. It cannot be scientifically or sociologically proven. The goodness of Christianity is that followers are instructed to love God and love their neighbors. Surely, we fail. But the good news of Christianity is that we worship a God whom we believe hasn’t failed, but has triumphed over sin and death. And it’s because of that good news that we are empowered to do good to others.

---

[1] Sam Harris, Letters to a Christian Nation (New York, NY: Vintage Books, 2008), 18.

[2] Romans 6:14

[3] Galatians 3:24

[4] Timothy Keller, The Reason for God (Hudson Street, NY: Penguin Group, 2008), 110.

[5] The Barna Group, Americans Are Misinformed About Poverty, but Widely Involved in Helping the Poor.” http://www.barna.org. http://www.barna.org/culture-articles/101-americans-are-misinformed-about-poverty-but-widely-involved-in-helping-the-poor (accessed September 25, 2012).

[6] Alister McGrath, The Twilight of Atheism (New York, NY: Doubleday Publishing, 2006), 230.

Book Preview & Review: “Clear Winter Nights” by Trevin Wax

Introduction

The past decade has not been exactly produced a good amount of quality “Christian Fiction” books or novels. I hardly ever even browse the fiction section at Christian bookstores, mostly because I have no interest in Amish love stories or allegories/life stories, the kinds that have weak applications to biblical truths. I don’t think “every” modern-day Christian fictional book has been a train wreck, but I certainly haven’t been impressed with some of the New York Times‘ bestselling books that have some kind of Christian connection. Here are three that come to mind:

1) The Shack – I listened to the audiobook version, and really thought it was an intriguing plot for a while…but once the story introduced “God” in the shack, I was very irritated. Not to mention the clear inferences to a very anti-institutional, anti-doctrinal mindset that Young was trying to convey. This was not helpful to the Body of Christ, perhaps even heretical.

2) The Harbinger – This was another audiobook I listened to within the past couple of years. And another doctrinal dud. While I must admit that the mysterious character to the book with ancient hidden messages was somewhat intriguing, there is no excuse for such poor usage of the Bible, particularly in the book of Isaiah. This was just another “Bible Code” disaster.

3) Blue Like Jazz – This book was my favorite of the three mentioned (not fiction in this case, more of an autobiography). Donald Miller is a much better writer to be sure. However, this book was still very weak foundationally. It’s not your typical Christian book, a little course at times, but it helps the listener wrestle with problems of doubt and hypocritical Christianity. For those that read this book, I would heartily recommend the book I have previewed and will review in this post: Clear Winter Nights.

Clear Winter Nights

Now that I have made my rant, let me introduce Trevin Wax’s Clear Winter Nights…

Chris Walker is a recent college graduate, he’s engaged, and is about to start the thrilling journey of working with a new church plant. Everything’s wonderful, but really, it’s not…From his college courses on religion, Chris is starting to have doubts about his faith. What is so great about Christianity, anyways? This hits home to Chris, as his father was as hypocritical as they come. Before long, tragedy strikes his family with the death of a loved one. This situation leads Chris to spending a night with his grandfather, Gil. It just so happens that Gil is a retired, Baptist preacher. By now, Chris feels so distant from God and wonders if Christianity is even true. I invite you to enter into grandfather Gil’s home for a few days and wrestle with your questions about God, the exclusive claims of Christ, the social ills and blessings that have resulted from Christians in times past, everything.

Pros & Cons

Trevin Wax does an excellent job of taking several contemporary “hot topics” relative to Christianity in today’s culture and providing biblical solutions within his slim, 147-page novel. A majority of the book deals with Chris’s conversations with his grandfather, Gil, and in those talks, issues such as religious pluralism, homosexuality, heaven and hell, and works vs. grace in salvation. For certain, one of the biggest praise for this book is how carefully Wax expounds on Scripture through the gracious, grandfatherly figure that so many of us can probably relate to in our lives, but in the book it was, of course, Gil. This book is proof that you can be conservative in doctrinal usage while writing in a novel format.

Another great aspect of this book is in Wax’s portrayals of his characters. There are so many “Chris Walker’s” in the world, I would submit. He’s the young 20-something, college graduate who, though raised in church, has several questions of doubt regarding faith. Plenty of readers will find a little bit of themselves in Chris Walker, I certainly did. His grandfather, Gil, as mentioned above, is very loving, gracious, and patient, but at the same time, he is presented as an imperfect, Baptist pastor, who doesn’t have it all together. One word could define Gil: a sinner saved by grace. Chris’s father, Chris Sr., is an all-too-common example of the hypocritical Christian figure – the kind of person who goes to church on Sundays, but abuses his wife Monday-Saturday. Other characters are important and well-described too, but in summary, this is a wonderful strength of the book. Everybody can find part of themselves in one or more of these characters, which leads to the relevancy of the Gospel’s saving power.

While I do not have a great critical eye in novels, I would suggest one point of critique. A significant amount of this book is dialogue between Chris and Gil, thus, some readers might find Clear Winter Nights a little dry. Personally, I found it to be quite intriguing since I have a great burden for young Christians that have questions of doubt about faith and Christianity. But I also know that everybody has different burdens and tastes in genres.

Conclusion

Trevin Wax’s book, in my opinion, can be described as a Blue Like Jazz type of book (one that might especially appeal to younger audiences about questions and concerns pertaining to Christianity and church hypocrisy) but unlike Donald Miller’s book, Wax provides much greater substance. There are good answers to all of these questions people wrestle with, and throughout Clear Winter Nights the reader is given several reasons why churches can love all people in the world and still hold true to biblical convictions. Clear Winter Nights is scheduled to hit bookstores (hard-copy and digital) September 17, 2013.

“I received this book for free from WaterBrook Multnomah Publishing Group for this review.”

See also:

http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/trevinwax/

http://waterbrookmultnomah.com/blog/2013/02/04/podcast-clear-winter-nights-by-trevin-wax/

http://waterbrookmultnomah.com/catalog.php?work=226836

http://waterbrookmultnomah.com/author-spotlight.php?authorid=174787

“The Case for Christ” DVD Study Questions for Student Ministries (3 of 3)

“The Case for Christ” Video {3 of 3}

~ Discussion Questions:

• 1- According to the Bible, Jesus died and He resurrected three days later…so why is that good news?
• 2- Three days after Jesus’ crucifixion, the people who had first discovered that Jesus was alive were women. If you were to create a fake resurrection story (as some critics say) back in the culture of Jesus’ lifetime, would it be smart idea to say that women were the first eyewitnesses? Why is this an important question?
• 3- Even back in Jesus’ day, His enemies were trying to make up a story about how Jesus was no longer to be found in his tomb. What was this story [read Matthew 28:12-13 to find out]?
• 4- How courageous were Jesus’ disciples before His resurrection? What about afterwards? Pretty big difference, right?
• 5- Why is the resurrection important? Can you share at least two reasons?

 

~ Memory Verse:

• ““I am the resurrection and the life. The one who believes in Me, even if he dies, will live.” (John 11:25) [HCSB]

 

~  Jesus’ Death

• People have tried to come up with all kinds of theories about Jesus’ death. But think about this: “But one of the soldiers pierced his side with a spear, and at once there came out blood and water” (John 19:34). Many scientists believe this was actually from a ruptured heart, and overall, is it reasonable to believe that a man could survive crucifixion? Seriously, if the Roman soldiers were to have gone to college in our day, they would major in killing people as cruelly as possible – in other words, they were really good at making sure people died, otherwise they (the soldiers) would be killed for not doing their job. So really, we’re left with three options: (1) Jesus died and His body was stolen (2) Jesus miraculously didn’t die (3) Jesus died and resurrected three days later. The last two options require miracles to be possible, and so that doesn’t settle well with skeptics. So was it the first option? Matthew 28:12-13 includes this very accusation, and really, it wasn’t very compelling to Jesus’ disciples. In fact, why would you risk your life to take a dead body out of a tomb? No, the most believable scenario is that option 2 or 3 happened – and if God performed a miracle, why wouldn’t He perform the miracle of raising Jesus from the dead?

 

~  Jesus’ Empty Tomb

• We haven’t found the body of Jesus in almost 2,000 years of history. There were, however, eyewitnesses to Jesus’ empty tomb who saw not a dead body of Jesus, but a living one. Luke 24 tells us that a group of women were actually the first to witness the resurrected Jesus. Now here’s the thing: if you were going to make up a story about Jesus rising from the dead, you would NOT have women be the first eyewitnesses. Back in the first century, women were not trusted as much as men. It would be a very foolish thing to say that women were the first eyewitnesses – unless, of course, the account was true. And not only women saw Jesus, but also His disciples, and hundreds of other followers (see 1 Corinthians 15).

 

~  Jesus’ Resurrection

• If you’ve seen The Hunger Games movie or read the book, then you probably remember how a couple of districts always had the strongest tributes to send to the “hunger games” battle, whereas other districts were not quite as powerful. Now, to make a comparison with the disciples, let’s just say that they weren’t as naturally courageous as some – at least not before the resurrection. In other words, they were the underdogs and the outcasts to be chosen for a dangerous assignment. Peter denied Jesus three times on the eve of Jesus’ crucifixion despite Peter’s original intentions; the other disciples abandoned Jesus too. However, after Jesus rose from the dead, these men were transformed by God – they were willing to do anything for Christ. Most of the disciples were killed for their faith, but none denied Jesus in their greatest of struggles. But the only reason why there was such a change is because they met the resurrected Savior and God Himself empowered them to proclaim the Gospel to every nation. So here’s the thing: if Jesus really did rise from the grave, you can’t just say “Man, what a good teacher!” Plenty of people can and have tried to claim themselves to be a savior from God, but only Jesus has risen from the dead to prove it. Is Jesus your Savior and Lord, or is He just an interesting person from history? Are you trusting in Him to cover your sins, or are you trying to cover up your own guilt? And are you telling people about the good news of what Jesus has accomplished through His death, burial, and resurrection?

“The Case for Christ” DVD Study Questions for Student Ministries (2 of 3)

• Discussion Questions:
  • 1- Jesus is often called the “Son of Man” in the Bible, does that simply mean that He was the “son” of a “man” (Joseph) or did that have a more important meaning? Why, then, is it so special that Jesus is the “Son of Man”?
  • 2- Both Jesus’ followers as well as those who hated Him spoke of Jesus as being a “miracle-worker.” How did His followers explain these miracles? [Who gave Him this power?] How did His opponents explain these miracles? [Who gave Him this power?]
  • 3- Let’s say you bump into a friend who says, “Miracles are impossible, they go against the laws of nature!” What would you say?
  • 4- In some crime scenes, leaving a thumb-print identifies the ONLY possible suspect. Jesus fulfilled over 40 Old Testament prophecies, could anyone else have done this? Can you name a few prophecies He fulfilled? [think about Isaiah 53, Psalm 22, Daniel 7, and Isaiah 9]
  • 5- What is Jesus doing now that He has ascended into Heaven? Is He just taking a break from ministering to us or is He active? [check out 1 John 2:1, Hebrews 4:14-16, and Hebrews 7:23-25)
• Memory Verse:
  • “But he was pierced for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities;
upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace,
and with his wounds we are healed.” (Isaiah 53:5)

 

Study Notes 

~  Son of Man

• On the surface, it sounds kind of irrelevant for Jesus to be called the “Son of Man.” After all, you are a son or daughter of a man and woman – not overly impressive, if that’s all the title means. The “Son of Man” is actually an incredible title that goes back into the Old Testament, Daniel 7:13-14 to be exact. There, we read of the “Son of Man” who is in the presence of the “Ancient of Days” (God the Father), and is promised a kingdom. Unlike kingdoms and nations that rise and fall (Greece, Rome, Turkey, Spain, even the USA), Jesus will one day rule this world and wipe out the problems of sin, pain, suffering, and heartache forever. What’s the good news about Jesus being the “Son of Man”? It means we have a King who will take back this sin-cursed world and transform it into what it was it created for: peace, love, joy, and mostly importantly, the worship of the One True God.

~ Miracle-Worker

• Hockey isn’t a very popular sport down in the South, but you may have at least heard of the movie, “Miracle.” It’s the story of how the 1980 USA hockey team won the gold medal in the Olympics, against all odds. A lot of people look at the extremely “unlikely” things in life and say “that’s a miracle.” But here’s the thing: Jesus did the extremely “impossible.” You can’t just heal the blind and the crippled, raise the dead (John 11), walk on water, feed thousands with one boy’s lunch, and rise from the dead yourself – but according to the Bible, Jesus did. While His followers believed that God’s power was within Him, those who hated Jesus claimed that Satan gave Him the power. What do you believe?

~ Promised Messiah

• God’s people longed for their promised Savior (Messiah) to finally come. The descriptions about this Messiah from Psalm 22 and Isaiah 53 are clearly about His death as a substitutionary sacrifice for our sin. Before He could be the Kingdom ruler (“Son of Man”), He became a servant who suffered – “the cross precedes the crown.” Why should we think that as Christians life will be easy? No, to be like Jesus, we will go through trials and difficulty. While false teachers announce that you can have “Your Best Life Now,” Jesus says “If anyone wants to come with Me, he must deny himself, take up his cross daily, and follow Me” (Luke 9:23). Why on earth would you do that? Because the cross (your daily decision to being a follower of Jesus, even at the cost of pain) precedes the crown.

“The Case for Christ” DVD Study Questions for Student Ministries (1 of 3)

“The Case for Christ” DVD Study Questions for Student Ministries

  Discussion Questions:

• 1- If someone were to tell you that the New Testament Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) were written much later after Jesus’ life, how would you respond?
• 2- How did the New Testament Gospel writers get their information?
  • Matthew?
  • Mark?
  • Luke?
  • John?
• 3- We don’t have the original manuscripts that the writers of the New Testament wrote on [just copies of copies of copies, etc.]; does that mean our New Testament is not reliable? Why or why not?
• 4- There are some documents that were written in the 2^nd and 3^rd centuries called “Gnostic Gospels.” Which Jesus is the actual Person in history? How do you know?
• 5- Do you have a favorite book in the New Testament? If so, what makes it special to you personally

Memory Verses

• “It seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you…that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught.” (Luke 1:3-4)

Commentary Notes (The Case for Christ Video Part 1 of 3)

• Oral Tradition:

The way we communicate in the 21^st century is incredibly different from even 30-40 years ago. Imagine a world without cell phones, the internet (including Twitter and Facebook!), email, iPods, and the radio – scary! But really, that was the world when the New Testament was written. When the “average Joe” wanted to keep his entertainment, he didn’t have an Amazon Kindle to digitally save his books, he didn’t have an iPod to store his songs; he memorized it. If he made a mistake on a line of a song, then he had a whole community of people to tell him “you’re wrong.” We don’t have the New Testament because one fan of Jesus started the whole thing, who told another guy, who told another guy…there were HUNDREDS of eyewitnesses! Yes, the 4 Gospels were completed in written form roughly 15-30 years after Jesus returned to heaven, but the message of what Jesus did spread like wildfire because of spoken word. And when you look at all 4 Gospels, you see the same story! Why? Because it was preserved accurately.

• Eyewitness Accounts

If in the year A.D. 4013 people were to look back 2,000 years and say, “I don’t know if there really was a pop singer named Justin Bieber” – that wouldn’t be very reasonable, especially since there are all kinds of eyewitnesses (yes, lots of eyes paying careful attention to his every move, as you’ve heard all too often). Comparing Jesus with J-Biebs may not be a great comparison, but you get the idea. Let’s think about the Gospel writers for a second. Matthew and John were the very disciples of Jesus – they traveled with him and listened closely to his teaching for years. Mark was a close friend to Peter (one of the 12 first disciples, aka “apostles”). And Luke was a close friend to Paul, who wrote down first-hand eyewitness accounts [Luke 1]. That’s what you call good sources! Not to mention, all Christians were agreeing with these writers.

• Original “Autographs” of the New Testament

When I first heard that we don’t have the original piece of manuscript [“autographs’] that Paul or Peter or Luke wrote on, I was shocked – you don’t need to be. The material that people wrote on back in the day was not very good quality. Plus, we do have about 5,000+ copies of the New Testament in the original language AND all of the New Testament quoted in the writings of Christians shortly after the life of Jesus AND everybody is saying the same thing: Jesus is the Son of God, who lived a perfect life, died on a cross for our sins, resurrected 3 days later, and ascended to heaven. [See also 1 Corinthians 15:1-11 for more info]

• Gnostic Gospels

About 100+ years after the New Testament was written, some false teachers started writing about “Jesus.” A lot of critics look at these writings (Gnostic Gospels) and think, “We’ve found the real Jesus!” This, once again, is not very reasonable. Let’s say you are a judge and a case is brought to you from 100 years ago. Would you trust the sources closest in time to the crime scene (that all agree with one another – even the people who didn’t like the victim) or would you trust a small handful of people who never lived during the time of the crime scene? Your call, your honor…

Identifying the Opponents in First John

Introduction

            Christological heresies are not new to the Church. For centuries, men have postulated various opinions on the Person and work of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. Of all of the different opponents of orthodox Christian dogma found in the New Testament, one of the most curious case studies is identifying whom the Apostle John (“the elder”) is arguing against in his first epistle. Generally, three heresies have been proposed: Gnosticism, Cerinthianism, or Docetism. These three will be carefully considered within this research. Regarding the biblical text, Barry Clyde Joslin outlines four main tenets of what John indicates to be heretical in his opponents’ doctrine: (1) They denied that Jesus was the Christ, (2) They denied that Jesus had come in the flesh as God’s Son, (3) They downplayed the dominating power of sin and did not abstain from sin themselves, and (4) Their conduct was so loveless and schismatic that they consequentially denied the Gospel and caused others to ask of themselves “if they had the Spirit at all.”[1] Altogether, these traits of the false teachers had tremendous ramifications to the very core doctrines of Christianity. Therefore, the task of identifying who these opponents actually were is both a needful and rather difficult task. Carson and Moo, commenting on two potential heresy candidates, explain, “The discernible errors and abysmal practices that are being opposed have much in common with the Docetism and Cerinthianism of which we know all too little.”[2] Nevertheless, upon evaluating the texts in First John, historical analysis, and theological distinctions of each heretical group, one of the three appears at least to be most likely the group described in the apostle’s epistle.

Argument for Gnosticism

            The first heresy to consider as those being criticized in First John is Gnosticism. Writing about the era from A.D. 150-300, John Hannah writes, “The principal religious opponent from outside the church was Gnosticism, a blend of Eastern ideologies, Platonic philosophy, and some Christian principles.”[3] He continues by stating, “Gnostics denied God as the Creator of the universe, the incarnation of Christ, and the salvation of the body.”[4] The history of Gnosticism is quite complex, as Robert Lightner asserts that it was technically a “pre-Christian” belief system, possibly stemming from “ancient Hinduism” or “Persian religions.”[5] However, Cross and Livingstone testify, “Some think it originated within the Church, as an erratic development of Christian teaching (as the Fathers thought). Others claim that the movement had already begun before the Christian period, but there is no Gnostic document which in its present form pre-dates the New Testament.”^[6] Whichever is the case (a pre-Church or not a pre-Church heresy) does not matter too greatly since the belief system to consider at the moment for being the opponents of John’s epistle is not proto-Gnosticism with its supposed various forms, but the second-century, fully matured “Christian” movement.[7] Although plenty of the theology is consistent with First John[8], this theory runs into devastating historical problems. With the discovery of the P⁵² fragment of John 18 (dated around 125), then the original manuscript of John’s Gospel was considerably earlier.[9] Likewise, if indeed the same author wrote First John (which, according to evidence, is a very reliable proposition), then a date in the 90s is appropriate – this is decades before fully developed, second-century Gnosticism.[10] Overall, “Most scholars today agree that John is not countering full-orbed Gnosticism.”[11] Yet, it is quite probable that he is combating a proto-Gnostic group such as Cerinthianism or Docetism, which will in turn be necessary to evaluate now.

Argument for Cerinthianism

            What sets Cerinthianism apart from both Gnosticism and Docetism is that it is the only heresy with a specified founder, namely Cerinthus. Amidst studying Cerinthus, the person, and Cerinthianism, the theological heresy, it can be rather challenging to retrace all of the steps that lead back to this movement’s origins. The reason being is that instead of having the writings of Cerinthus to analyze, scholars have primarily just the rebuttals of his theology from Irenaeus and Eusebius.[12] Cerinthus, the person, is said to have been Jewish,[13] yet according to Irenaeus was “a man who was educated in the wisdom of the Egyptians.”[14] The church father explains what he means of “wisdom of the Egyptians” by saying that Cerinthus was “taught that the world was not made by the primary God, but by a certain Power far separated from him, and at a distance from that Principality who is supreme over the universe, and ignorant of him who is above all.”[15] After all, Cerinthus was from Ephesus, not Egypt, says Larry Crutchfield.[16] Undoubtedly, Cerinthus caused reason for Christians to be wary of his theology, and likewise, delving additionally into what he believed should help to further conclude whether or not he is the leader of the heresy being rebuked in First John.

First of all, there is fairly strong evidence for the biblical text to be in unison with what is known as Cerinthianism. Perhaps the clearest passage is First John 5:6-8 which states, “This is he who came by water and blood—Jesus Christ; not by the water only but by the water and the blood. And the Spirit is the one who testifies, because the Spirit is the truth. For there are three that testify: the Spirit and the water and the blood; and these three agree.” The Bible Knowledge Commentary helpfully notes the following: “Cerinthus taught that the divine Christ descended on the man Jesus at His baptism and left Him before His crucifixion. Thus he denied that one Person, Jesus Christ, came by both water and blood.”^[17] A second evidence is from church history, and recorded by Eusebius. Allegedly, the Apostle John himself fled from a bath house when he saw Cerinthus enter, “Fearing that the house would fall on the enemy of truth.”^[18] If this incident was indeed genuine, then the possibility of John writing to correct Cerinthianism is rather significant.[19] On the other hand, there are also some troubles with this view.

The first problem is that John never mentions Cerinthus by name. While John does not identify by name certain men and women quite as often as the Apostle Paul, two men are mentioned in the book of Third John, Diotrephes (verse 9) and Demetrius (verse 12). Thus, John is clearly not opposed to pointing out people by name. Such an argument is more so from silence than it is by evidence. Nevertheless, it is something to consider. Another problem relates to the biblical text, namely, that the theology of Cerinthus does not appear to be altogether congruent with First John’s heresy. For example, this epistle mentions nothing about a heresy related to creation as Cerinthus proposed this world was formed “not by the supreme God, but either by a Demiurge, a far less exalted being, or by angels, who had produced it out of formless matter.”^[20] Also, the claims of sinlessness as in chapter one of the biblical text or the practical implications of lacking love towards believers are not mentioned in historical literature to be authentically Cerinthian. On the contrary, the common elements of First John’s heresy consist of three things: a denial that Jesus is the Christ (chapters two and four), a claim to sinlessness (chapter one), and a lack of Holy Spirit empowered love towards believers (chapter four). While the first is true of the Cerinthian heresy, the latter two simply are not emphasized in available sources. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that the probability of John’s opponent being Cerinthianism is much greater than Gnosticism, though a sizeable amount of evidence is lacking for a sure answer.

Argument for Docetism

            A third possible option for identifying the opponents in First John is Docetism, a heresy that taught Jesus appeared to be a man in human flesh, though in actuality was not.[21] While the previous view, Cerinthianism, proposed a problematic view in relation to the union of the God-man (denying that Jesus, the man, was the Christ), Docetism is the denial of Jesus Christ’s humanity. Carson and Moo say, “Docetism asked, How can a spirit-being, ‘Christ’ or the ‘Son of God,’ good by definition, actually become flesh, which is evil by definition? Although such a spirit-being may temporarily assume it, it could never become it.”[22] The same authors also state, “Docetists so misconceived the true locus of evil that they fell into sin and puffed themselves up with Gnostic pride.”[23] While there is not a primarily leader to look to as the original founder of this heresy, much can be concluded by evaluating the theological implications of Docetism in relation to the biblical text as well as considering historical evidence of whom John is rebuking.

A couple of elements should be observed concerning Docetism’s relation to John’s epistle. (1) John clearly condemns one facet of the heresy of his opponents to be the denial of Jesus’ humanity: “By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God.”[24] Both Grudem[25] and Allison[26] cite this passage as a reference to the heresy of Docetism. (2) The pride stemming from their boasts of sinlessness, as mentioned in chapters one and three, matches that of the Docetists. Carson and Moo claim “Docetists so misconceived the true locus of evil that they fell into sin and puffed themselves up with Gnostic pride.”[27] The locus of evil Carson and Moo speak of relate to the dualistic beliefs of Docetism, namely that matter is evil and the only hope of salvation is through the escape of flesh via secret knowledge. Allison explains, “Docetism became part and parcel of Gnosticism, a complex group of movements that focused on a secret gnosis, or knowledge, that was reserved for the elite members of its sects.”[28] Exegetically, the opponents of First John align fairly well with the available information on Docetism. Next, it will also be a valuable endeavor to consider the historical implications pertaining to Docetism before evaluating some proposed objections.

Undoubtedly, the best source to consider in the study of anti-Docetic doctrine from the early second century is Ignatius of Antioch. In his letters, Ignatius frequently countered the proposed doctrines of Docetism.[29] The following statement appropriately summarizes Ignatius’s strong beliefs of the humanity of Christ: “He really was born, who both ate and drank; who really was persecuted under Pontius Pilate; who really was crucified and died…who, moreover, really was raised from the dead when his Father raised him up…But if, as some atheists (that is, unbelievers) say, he suffered in appearance only…why am I in chains? And why do I want to fight with wild beasts? If that is the case, I die for no reason.”[30] The question, then, that is inescapable is whether or not Ignatius had connections to the Apostle John. Trebilco helpfully guides the discussion henceforth:

Ignatius was the bishop of Antioch in Syria (Ign Rom. 2.2), where he was arrested and sent to Rome under armed guard (Ign Rom. 5.1). He probably traveled by ship from Antioch to a port on the southern coast of Asia Minor, although he could have gone by land. Ignatius passed through Philadelphia, where he met Christians from that community (Ign. Phld. 7.1). He then traveled to Smyrna where he got to know Polycarp, the bishop of Smyrna and where he was visited by Christians from Ephesus, Magnesia, and Tralles, whom he had contacted to inform them of his journey. He then wrote letters to each of these communities in return, and also to the church in Rome. He then went on to Troas, and from there wrote to the churches of Philadelphia and Smyrna and also to Polycarp. We know that he was then taken to Philippi (Pol., Phil. 9.1); we do not know for certain that he was martyred in Rome, although we have no reason to doubt this.[31]

Evidently, it is quite conceivable that Ignatius, while in Asia Minor, either met John or at least encountered the same group of heretics mentioned in First John. Therefore, the possibility of John arguing against the same opponents as Ignatius is rather strong, especially when compiled together with the exegetical evidence.

However, there are some important objections to the Docetism view. Kruse presents the first of two problems: “Ignatius’s heretics were real docestics who reduced the existence of Jesus to mere semblance, and there is no evidence that the secessionists [opponents in First John] did this.”[32] While this is certainly a considerable dispute, the words in First John 4:2-3 are hard to reconcile with Kruse’s assertion: “By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God.”

Secondly, Kruse indicates, “Ignatius’s heretics had strong affinities with Judaism…and there is no hint in 1 John that the secessionists had such affinities.”[33] He goes on to quote Ignatius who states, “It is monstrous to talk of Jesus Christ and to practise Judaism. For Christianity did not base its faith on Judaism, but Judaism on Christianity, and every tongue believing on God was brought together in it.” By itself, Kruse’s reasoning makes for a solid argument. There is a problem to his view, however. In the available letters of Ignatius, he did not simply address one heresy (Docetism). While it is true that in his letter to the Magnesians, Ignatius addressed a problem related to Judaism[34], his specific rebuttal of Docetism was addressed in his letter to the Trallians.[35] Additionally, in his letter to Smyrna, Ignatius rebukes what seems to be Docetism. Ignatius claims, “For He suffered all these things for our sakes; and He suffered truly, as also He raised Himself truly; not as certain unbelievers say, that He suffered in semblance, being themselves mere semblance.”[36] The point is that Ignatius could possible have faced different heresies during his travels in Asia Minor. Therefore, it could cautiously be proposed that First John is speaking of the same heresy as combated by Ignatius in his letters to the Trallians and to the Smyrnaeans, but perhaps not the Magnesians.[37]

Conclusion

As manifested in this study, most conclusions are put forward hesitantly. After all, the evidence is quite limited in what questions it permits the student of the Bible to answer. Furthermore, an option that really was not given is that all three groups (Gnosticism, Cerinthianism, and Docetism) could be wrong. Often identified as a non-specific “proto-Gnostic” heresy, this fourth choice essentially rests on the assertion that second century Gnosticism had roots in the first century. Carson and Moo deduce, “The most plausible conclusion is that the movement was gaining strength when John wrote his epistles, and some of the contours of the particular form it took in this case can be hesitantly delineated from these letters.”[38] On the other hand, it could easily be interjected that Docetism is proto-Gnostic, or at least one branch of it rather than a non-specific proto-Gnostic community. The trouble with identifying these heresies is that the different proto-Gnostic sects did not have a formulated “confession of faith” or “creed” whereby all who identified themselves as “Cerinthian” or “Docetist” could stand autonomously in their beliefs. But in the end, it is fairly clear that Docetism, with its dualism and “secret knowledge” salvation, is inseparable from the proto-Gnosticism that predated the heretics opposed by, for example, Irenaeus in the second century. And while plenty has been said to prove against this thesis, still it seems most likely that Docetism is the heresy rebuked in First John based on exegetical, theological, and historical proof.

---

[1] Barry Clyde Joslin, “Getting Up to Speed: An Essential Introduction to 1 John,” SBJT, 10:3 (Fall 2006), 8-9. Exegetical evidence can be attributed to First John 1:8-10; 2:22, 26-27; 4:2.

[2] D.A. Carson and Douglas Moo, An Introduction to the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2005), 680.

[3] John Hannah, Our Legacy (Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress, 2001), 369.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Robert Lightner, The Epistles of John & Jude (Chattanooga, TN: AMG Publishers, 2003), 175.

^[6] F. L. Cross and Elizabeth A. Livingstone, The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, 3rd ed. rev. (Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, 2005), 687.

[7] See Joslin, “Getting Up to Speed,” 10.

[8] For example, First John 4:2 combats the heretical Gnostic teaching that flesh is inherently evil.

[9] Carson and Moo, Introduction to the New Testament, 677.

[10] Ibid., 676.

[11] Joslin, “Getting Up to Speed,” 10.

[12] Carson and Moo, Introduction to the New Testament, 679.

[13] Grant, R.M. Gnosticism and Early Christianity (New York, NY: Columbia University Press, 1959), 98.

[14] Irenaeus, Against Heresies, ed. by Phillip Schaff. Christian Classics Ethereal Library. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.ii.xxvii.html [accessed April 20, 2013].

[15] Ibid.

[16] Larry V. Crutchfield, “The Apostle John And Asia Minor As A Source Of Premillennialism In The Early Church Fathers” JETS, 31:4 (Dec. 1988), 412.

^[17] John F. Walvoord, Roy B. Zuck and Dallas Theological Seminary, The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1985).

^[18] Cited in F. L. Cross and Elizabeth A. Livingstone, The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, 3rd ed. rev. (Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, 2005), 316.

[19] It should be noted that the story has been made public by the writings of Eusebius, though he did quote Irenaeus, and Irenaeus purportedly heard it from Polycarp, a disciple of John the Apostle. That, of course, covers decades of time. Nevertheless, it still stands as a strong evidence for the Cerinthian argument in regards to the opposition of First John. Cited from C. Hicks and M. Winter. “Cerinthus”. In Who’s Who in Christian History. Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House, 1992.

^[20] F. L. Cross and Elizabeth A. Livingstone, The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, 316.

[21] The word Docetism comes from the Greek word dokeo which means “to seem, to appear to be.” See Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2000), 540.

[22] Carson and Moo, Introduction to the New Testament, 679.

[23] Ibid.

[24] First John 4:2

[25] Grudem, Systematic Theology, 540.

[26] Gregg Allison, Historical Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2011), 366.

[27] Carson and Moo, Introduction to the New Testament, 679.

[28] Allison, Historical Theology, 366.

[29] See Colin G. Kruse, The Letters of John (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000), 22.

[30] Cited in Allison, Historical Theology, 366. Originally from, though with updated language, Ignatius, Letter to the Trallians, eds. J.B. Lightfoot and J.R. Harmer (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1988), 148.

[31] Paul Trebilco, “Christian Communities in Western Asia Minor Into the Early Second Century: Ignatius and Others as Witnesses Against Bauer,” JETS,  49:1 (Mar 2006), 19-20.

[32] Kruse, The Letters of John, 24.

[33] Ibid.

[34] Ignatius, The Apostolic Fathers, 144-145.

[35] Ibid., 148-149.

[36] Ibid., 156-157.

[37] Or, to speculate even further, perhaps the heretics in Magnesia were centrally Docetic with a “flavor” of Jewish tendencies. Evidence, of course, simply is not conclusive.

[38] Carson and Moo, Introduction to the New Testament, 680.

The Consistent God: Refutations Against New Atheism

THE CONSISTENT GOD: REFUTATIONS AGAINST NEW ATHEISM

“In the beginning, God…”[1] Such words conjure up the absolute antithesis of New Atheism. Belief in the existence of God is something Timothy Keller calls “unavoidable.”[2] However, doubters and critics are nonetheless present and active in attempting to free the world from a nonsensical and irrational understanding of the world known as religion. According to well-known New Atheist, Richard Dawkins, “Historically, religion aspired to explain our own existence and the nature of the universe in which we find ourselves. In this role it is now completely superseded by science.”[3] Consequently, the general proposition made by New Atheists is that religion has been proven obsolete as a result of the findings in the field of science. Such an understanding also correlates with the Darwinian ideal of human progress.[4] Thus, believing in God is simply a matter of falling behind the intellectual abilities now attainable in the present century. Additionally, it is fairly clear that the anticipated goal for the New Atheism movement is to raise the support for secularism, particularly in America, and to usurp the present authority of Theism.[5] Before providing evidence for the existence of God, namely Christian Theism, it will be necessary to observe the claims of New Atheism. The stakes are high for adopting such a belief system; however, the refutations that are to be presented will attempt to prove that despite the rise of a contemporary philosophy, the eternal God of Christianity has sufficiently revealed Himself and is indeed trustworthy.

Historical Analysis

A.    Old Atheism

While there has been a recent philosophical movement titled “New Atheism,” the actual belief system of “atheism” is not very new. Although atheism has been more formally developed in the last few hundred years, Psalm 14:1 comments on atheism’s main understanding, “The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God.’” While in Greek culture prior to Christ’s incarnation there was the term “atheistos,” meaning “one who denies the traditional religion of the Athenian establishment,”[6] the word atheist did not appear in the English language until 1568.[7] However, atheism did not really gain much prominence until the Enlightenment.[8] In that particular century came intellectuals such as Immanuel Kant,[9] David Hume,[10] and others. Nonetheless, the Enlightenment seemed to play more of a foundational role to open the door for greater skepticism and eventually an influx of what is known as atheism. R. Albert Mohler, Jr. identifies that it was not until the nineteenth century that the world was influenced by whom he calls the “four horsemen of the modern apocalypse-Friedrich Nietzsche, Karl Marx, Charles Darwin, and Sigmund Freud.”[11] It was Nietzsche who strongly proposed “God is dead,” Marx who insisted God was a human invention arising from “social conditions,”[12] Darwin who contributed to atheism’s area of scientific naturalism and the theory of evolution, and Freud who believed religion to be an “illusion.”[13] In summary, older atheists possessed a strong desire for human progress and replaced a belief in God with a belief in science and nature for ultimate authority.

B.    New Atheism

Between the time of the older atheists of the nineteenth century and New Atheism of the late twentieth century there was much that occurred, including two World Wars, different philosophical worldviews, and theological resurgences. Alister McGrath notes that during the twentieth century, there was actually a re-awakening of Christian teaching, or as he puts it, a “baptized imagination” with authors such as G.K. Chesterton, C.S. Lewis, J.R.R. Tolkien, Dorothy Sayers, and Flannery O’Connor.[14] Nonetheless, what permitted the “cultural opening” for New Atheism was the “secularization of Europe and of America’s elites.”[15] The major proponents of New Atheism are called by Mohler, “The Four Horsemen of the New Atheist Apocalypse,” namely Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens.[16] While being referred to as “New” Atheists, these men, and others like them, are not entirely different from previous atheists. However, Mohler writes, “The New Atheists are, in their own way, evangelistic in intent and ambitious in hope.” Also, they view religion as something “we can no longer afford to tolerate, much less encourage.”[17] Thus, for New Atheists, belief in God is not just an incorrect belief system, but is a target to be destroyed. Likewise, it does not seem to be just an opposition to Theism, but particularly Christianity. Sam Harris informs in his book Letters to a Christian Nation, “The primary purpose of the book is to arm secularists in our society, who believe that religion should be kept out of public policy, against their opponents on the Christian Right.”[18] Notice that he first uses the word “religion,” but he then identifies his purposes against Christianity more precisely. Therefore, with a brief understanding concerning some of the history of Old and New Atheism, it is necessary to further evaluate the claims.

Claims of New Atheism

A.    Religion is Irrational

The first claim made by New Atheists is that religion is not based upon a rational foundation. Sam Harris states his firm belief, “The fundamental problem with religion is that it is built, to a remarkable degree, upon lies.”[19] No doubt, Theism has been popular for centuries, but according to New Atheists, religion had its “evolutionary advantages” for the advancement of humanity at a point in history.[20] Nevertheless, religion is now at an “evolutionary disadvantage” with the new discoveries of science.[21] Harris believes religion is “the greatest impediment to our building a global civilization.”[22] In response to the knowledge now available in human history, it would be important to dispose the world of such lies and inadequate philosophies, at least in the eyes of New Atheists. What exactly are these irrational presuppositions? First of all, there is definitely a criticism of religious authority. For Christians, the Bible is believed to be inspired by God, infallible, and inerrant. However, Sam Harris says these assertions are “false” because of the supposed contradictions and evils displayed in the Bible.[23] Likewise, not a single religion has the right or evidence to provide an ultimate source of authority. Instead, New Atheists insist that people look to science for a unified theory of knowledge. Even Daniel Dennett strives to “come up with a purely materialist interpretation of absolutely everything-from a mother’s love for her child to voting patterns in a national election to, of course, belief in God.”[24]

Secondly, New Atheists consider the teachings of religious authority to be simply unreliable. Richard Dawkins claims, “Although Jesus probably existed, reputable biblical scholars do not generally regard the New Testament (and obviously not the Old Testament) as a reliable record of what actually happened in history, and I shall not consider the Bible further as evidence for any kind of deity.”[25] For example, “the Jesus Seminar” movement has declared that no more than 20 percent of what the Bible teaches about Jesus can be historically authenticated.[26] Essentially, if indeed the Bible can be legitimately proven to be fraudulent, then Christians have very little to base their beliefs. New Atheism would propose such a theory, and in their most critical defense, proponents would enforce their beliefs that science allegedly disproves God’s existence.

B.    Science Disproves God

New Atheism does not just incorporate science for understanding nature, but also for the basic questions philosophers have been asking for centuries. Questions that need answering relate to these three areas: (1) The origins of the universe. (2) The present purpose for mankind. (3) The future of the universe. The starting point for New Atheists in understanding the origins of the universe begins with Darwinian evolution, though more precisely, “philosophical naturalism.” That is, New Atheists believe “everything has a natural cause and that organic life is solely the product of random forces guided by no one.”[27] Richard Dawkins writes:

After Darwin, we all should feel, deep in our bones, suspicious of the very idea of design. The illusion of design is a trap that has caught us before, and Darwin should have immunized us by raising our consciousness. Would that he had succeeded with all of us.[28]

To clarify the position taken by Dawkins, he doesn’t believe in a world brought about by chance, but says, “Design is not the only alternative to chance. Natural selection is a better alternative. Indeed, design is not a real alternative at all because it raises an even bigger problem than it solves: who designed the designer?”[29] Natural selection can be defined as “a natural process that results in the survival and reproductive success of individuals or groups best adjusted to their environment and that leads to the perpetuation of genetic qualities best suited to that particular environment.”^[30] Thus New Atheism looks to Darwinian evolution for understanding the origin of the universe. Secondly, the actual purpose for existence is a question somewhat subjective for all atheists to answer, but it will be helpful to look into a couple of possibilities. Like the answer to the first question, the second can also be answered by natural selection, according to Dawkins. In his book, The Selfish Gene,he states, “[Genes] are in you and me; they created us, body and mind; and their preservation is the ultimate rationale for our existence.”[31] Although this statement reflects part of the first answer in addition to the second, it is nonetheless a philosophical attempt to formulate an entire theory of knowledge by science alone. Subsequently, it is very difficult for atheists to propose an answer to the question, “What is the purpose of human existence without a transcendent/supernatural being?” Christopher Hitchens was asked this very question during a debate with William Lane Craig at Biola University. His answer was to “be free,” and “try to help others to be free too.”[32] Finally, it is crucial to understand how New Atheists foresee the universe’s future. In the same debate just mentioned, Hitchens professes that the “heat death of the universe” is the bleak, but in his opinion, truthful future of the eventual extinction of humanity.[33] New Atheists collectively see that “science is the way of liberation, the way of freedom, and the way of enlightenment.”[34] Indeed, further evidence will either prove atheism to be freedom or bondage.

C.    Concluding Statements for New Atheism

While New Atheists continue to write books and speak at events, the general principles of New Atheism are fairly simple. The first is obvious; they believe there is no God. Secondly, New Atheists attempt to view all areas of life with foundational belief of evolutionary naturalism, that man is simply a product of natural selection. While the arguments are allegedly against Theism, it is overwhelmingly obvious that Christianity is the primary target. As mentioned before, the stakes are very high for adopting atheism, but from the evidence provided by a Christian worldview, it will be abundantly clear that there is a God and He has revealed Himself in a gracious, loving, powerful, and sufficient way.

Refutations of New Atheism

A.    The Bible Provides Stronger Evidence Than the Rationality of New Atheism

Although the claims for New Atheism might be convincing for some individuals, there is much to be explored in refuting the previously presented claims. In order to firmly establish a belief in God, the authority of the Bible must first be examined. Al Mohler affirms, “Evangelical Christians simply cannot surrender biblical authority, propositional revelation and biblical theism in order to meet the various challenges to us in the twenty-first century.”[35] There are three arguments that must be considered for defending biblical authority. (1) The Bible self-testifies of its authority. Second Timothy 3:16 says, “All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness.” The Apostle Peter also declares, “Knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone’s own interpretation. For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.”[36] Quite simply, Christians believe the entire Bible to be the very words from God because of the claims from Scripture itself. (2) The Bible is historically reliable. While criticisms of the Bible’s reliability are made from men such as Bart Ehrman, there are multiple reasons as to why the Bible is trustworthy. First of all, the world possesses almost 5,700 manuscripts of the Greek New Testament.[37] That number compared to other Greek manuscripts is well above and beyond other historical writings: Homer [643], Demosthenes [200], Herodotus [8], Plato [7], Tacitus [20], Caesar [10], and Pliny [7].[38] Secondly, the period of time between the author’s original estimated writing and existing New Testament manuscripts is exceedingly short, as little as 25 years.[39] Thirdly, the Bible is without errors. Liberal scholars will scoff at such a claim, but this foundational truth must be known: “Every word of God proves true.”[40] No doubt, there are some texts in the Bible that are hard to interpret or uncomfortable to accept,[41] but overall, as Wayne Grudem states, “Belief in inerrancy is entirely consistent with a lifetime of detailed attention to the text of Scripture.”[42] Fourthly, liberal scholars’ claims are often a misrepresentation of legitimate evidence. Anne Rice, a woman who was looking for answers from such scholars writes, “Conclusions were reached on the basis of little or no data at all…I discovered in this field some of the worst and most biased scholarship I’d ever read.”[43] Needless to say, Anne Rice is no longer an atheist.[44] (3) The Bible provides a unified theory of knowledge. Timothy Keller writes, “When evolution is turned into an All-encompassing Theory explaining absolutely everything we believe, feel, and do as the product of natural selection, then we are not in the arena of science, but of philosophy.”[45] On the contrary, the Bible answers the basic philosophic questions of life with precision. “Who am I?” “Why am I here?” “Where am I going?” All of these questions and more are answered in the Bible, as the next section details that even science works in harmony with God’s existence.

B.    Science Affirms God

“Either half my colleagues are enormously stupid, or else the science of Darwinism is fully compatible with conventional religious beliefs-and equally compatible with atheism,” states Stephen Jay Gould, “America’s leading evolutionary biologist,” according to Alister and Joanna McGrath.[46] While this statement argues for the plausibility of both evolution and God, the purposes for this refutation is for understanding how science affirms God and how the Bible answers three questions: (1) What are the origins of the universe? (2) What is the present purpose for mankind? (3) What is the future of the universe?[47] First of all, the Bible clearly communicates that God created the universe; the existence of mankind is contingent on an uncaused cause.[48] That is, the universe is not eternal. The Bible confirms, “All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made.”[49] Therefore, the question on how human life came into existence is answered by Scripture in Genesis 2:7, “The Lord God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature.” Atheists, on the other hand, are faced with the incredible difficulty at explaining how man has become a living creature. Their answer is “spontaneous generation.”[50] Kofahl and Segraves estimate the probability of spontaneous generation producing life to be one chance in 10^340,000,000.[51] Overall, the Bible’s explanation on how man came into being is much more probable and is provided with greater evidence.[52] Secondly, the Christian worldview provides a solid foundation for man’s present purpose of existence. The well-known quotation from the Westminster Shorter Catechism proclaims, “Man’s chief end is to glorify God, and to enjoy him forever.”[53] Contrast that with the previously referenced quotation from Richard Dawkins, “[Genes] are in you and me; they created us, body and mind; and their preservation is the ultimate rationale for our existence.”[54] However, Denis Noble, an Oxford physiologist and systems biologist, interprets genes in a different manner, “[Genes] are in you and me; we are the system that allows their code to be read; and their preservation is totally dependent on the joy that we experience in reproducing ourselves. We are the ultimate rationale for their existence.”[55] The consequence of interpreting all of life with a philosophical naturalism leads to a life that truly disregards man’s purpose of existence. Thirdly, Christianity provides a reasonable answer for the future of the universe. Revelation 21:1-4 tells of this future hope, “Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and the sea was no more. And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, ‘Behold, the dwelling place of God is with man. He will dwell with them, and they will be his people,and God himself will be with them as their God.’” What a glorious hope, indeed.

C.    Concluding Statements for Christian Theism

Upon observing the arguments for Christian Theism, it is abundantly clear that the strongest arguments rest in what has been specially revealed by God. Examining science and the cultural impact that the Church has imprinted on this world are two valid pieces of evidence. Yet, even if the evidence is difficult to deny, each man and woman faces the predicament of having to yield before a Being much greater than any other. Likewise, the temptation of Satan, “You will be like God” is a temptation sweet to the taste buds of all who have eaten of the forbidden fruit.[56] The only place of hope is found in the Gospel, for in it can mankind truly “taste and see that the Lord is good.”[57]

Conclusion

Contrary to the claims of New Atheism, Christianity is based on solid reasoning, it is in complete agreement with science, and overall, it is irrefutable. Quite simply, New Atheists are trying to force science into all areas of life in order to answer questions that science cannot answer. Alister and Joanna McGrath explain why this is so, “Scientific theories cannot be said to ‘explain the world’-they only explain the phenomena that are observed within the world.”[58] By God’s grace, humanity has received a revelation that explains the foundational questions to the world’s existence. Not just that, however, but also the solution to how humanity can be reconciled to its Creator. New Atheism is a recent trend that has captivated audiences by its passion for attacking religion. Nonetheless, the consistent God of the universe has sufficiently revealed Himself and has time and time again proven Himself trustworthy. In the words of the very God of the universe, “I the LORD do not change.”[59]

 

---

[1] Genesis 1:1

[2] Timothy Keller, The Reason for God (Hudson Street, NY: Penguin Group, 2008), 142.

[3] Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion (New York, NY: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2008), 389.

[4] R. Albert Mohler, Jr., Atheism Remix (Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway, 2008), 46-47.

[5] Ibid., 50-51. In using the term “secularism,” Mohler is essentially referring to those who advocate the position of wanting to discard religion from the world.

[6] Alister McGrath, The Twilight of Atheism (New York, NY: Doubleday Publishing, 2006), 8.

[7] R. Albert Mohler, Jr., Atheism Remix (Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway, 2008), 17.

[8] Ibid., 18.

[9] Ibid., 19.

[10] Alister McGrath, The Twilight of Atheism (New York, NY: Doubleday Publishing, 2006), 15.

[11] R. Albert Mohler, Jr., Atheism Remix (Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway, 2008), 19.

[12] Alister McGrath, The Twilight of Atheism (New York, NY: Doubleday Publishing, 2006), 223.

[13] R. Albert Mohler, Jr., Atheism Remix (Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway, 2008), 19-23

[14] Alister McGrath, The Twilight of Atheism (New York, NY: Doubleday Publishing, 2006), 186.

[15] For a good overview of the secularization that has taken place, see R. Albert Mohler, Jr., Atheism Remix (Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway, 2008), 28-35.

[16] Ibid., 39.

[17] Ibid., 12.

[18] Sam Harris, Letters to a Christian Nation (New York, NY: Vintage Books, 2008), vii.

[19] Ibid., 111.

[20] R. Albert Mohler, Jr., Atheism Remix (Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway, 2008), 46.

[21] Sam Harris, Letters to a Christian Nation (New York, NY: Vintage Books, 2008), 90-91.

[22] Ibid., 91.

[23] Ibid., 8.

[24] R. Albert Mohler, Jr., Atheism Remix (Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway, 2008), 59.

[25] Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion (New York, NY: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2008), 122-123

[26] Timothy Keller, The Reason for God (Hudson Street, NY: Penguin Group, 2008), 100.

[27] Ibid., 87.

[28] Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion (New York, NY: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2008), 139.

[29] Ibid., 146-147.

^[30] Merriam-Webster, Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary. Eleventh ed. (Springfield, MA: Merriam-Webster, Inc., 2003).

[31] Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1976), 21.

[32] “Debate – William Lane Craig Vs Christopher Hitchens – Does God Exist?” http://www.youtube.com, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4KBx4vvlbZ8 (accessed September 24, 2012).

[33] Ibid.

[34] R. Albert Mohler, Jr., Atheism Remix (Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway, 2008), 59.

[35] R. Albert Mohler, Jr., Atheism Remix (Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway, 2008), 102.

[36] Second Peter 1:20-21

[37] Norman L. Geisler and Frank Turek, I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist (Wheaton, Ill: Crossway, 2004), 226.

[38] Ibid.

[39] Ibid.

[40] Proverbs 30:5

[41] Things “uncomfortable to accept” would include issues such as miracles or doctrines that might be seen as offensive or impossible. Atheists dismiss miracles because of their presupposition that God does not exist, and therefore, miracles are impossible. Even though, historical and biblical evidence insists otherwise. One’s faith will either rest in the miracle of philosophical naturalism or in the miracles of Jesus.

[42] Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2000), 98.

[43] Quoted in Timothy Keller, The Reason for God (Hudson Street, NY: Penguin Group, 2008), 99.

[44] Timothy Keller, The Reason for God (Hudson Street, NY: Penguin Group, 2008), 99.

[45] Ibid., 87.

[46] Quoted in Alister and Joanna Collicutt McGrath, The Dawkins Delusion? (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2007), 34.

[47] In Christianity, there are different views on creation. These are: Theistic Evolution, The Gap Theory, Day Age Creationism, Progressive Creationism, Literal 6-Day Creationism, and perhaps variations of others. While there are different nuances particular to each view, the main issue for this discussion is not about which of these views is preferable, but to how science is not in opposition to the Bible. Nor is there reason to believe that adhering to the theory of evolution disqualifies a person from believing in God.

[48] Norman L. Geisler and Frank Turek, I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist (Wheaton, Ill: Crossway, 2004), 74-75.

[49] John 1:3

[50] Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2000), 284.

[51] Quoted in Ibid., 285.

[52] Wayne Grudem proclaims, “It seems ironic that brilliant scientists could advocate so fantastic a theory without one shred of evidence in its favor, all the while rejecting the straightforward explanations given by the one book in the history of the world that has never been proven wrong, that has changed the lives of millions of people, that has been believed completely by many of the most intelligent scholars of every generation, and that has been a greater force for good than any other book in the history of the world.” Ibid., 286.

[53] F. L. Cross and Elizabeth A. Livingstone. The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church. 3rd ed. rev. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), 1745.

[54] Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1976), 21.

[55] Denis Noble, The Music of Life: Biology Beyond the Genome (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006), 11-15.

[56] See Genesis 3:5

[57] Psalm 34:8

[58] Alister McGrath and Joanna Collicutt McGrath, The Dawkins Delusion? (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2008), 38.

[59] Malachi 3:6