In contemporary America, pornography is both a public reality and big business. Ambient pornography — sexually explicit advertising, entertainment, and merchandising — is all around us. But pornography is also big business, producing sexually explicit materials in printed, video, and digital formats and making billions of dollars in the process.

The pornography industry has a big stake in defending itself against legal challenges and restrictive laws, and it has been stunningly successful in doing so. One of the leading legal defenders of pornography has been David Ogden, a lawyer who can only be described as a First Amendment extremist, who has even argued against laws against child pornography.

President Barack Obama has nominated David Ogden as Deputy Attorney General of the United States. This nomination is both ominous and dangerous. Given David Ogden’s high visibility in defense of pornography, this nomination sends a clear and unmistakable message. The pornography business will have a friend in high office in the Department of Justice.

In addition to making it harder to prosecute those who sell images of child molestation and rape, Ogden has sought to ensure that pornography can be easily distributed and readily accessed in almost any medium or location. He has fought cases in Puerto Rico to allow Playboy to broadcast explicit programming on TV. He represented Philip Harvey, a man who runs the nation’s largest mail-order pornography shop out of North Carolina, in his attempt to deflect a Department of Justice investigation of his business. Completing a sort of multi-media grand slam, Ogden has sued to allow sexually-explicit content to be transmitted over the phone. Taking this quest to its absurd limits, he has even claimed in court that there is a constitutional right for pornography to be kept in firehouses. Ogden’s position is good for the industry groups he has represented but bad for female firefighters who could be subjected to humiliating and harassing images in the workplace. With an equal disregard for the comfort and protection of children, in 2000 Ogden sued to allow pornography to be accessed in public libraries.

In essence, David Ogden has been in the forefront of arguing for the unrestricted sale and distribution of any and all pornography by any and all means - and now he will be in charge of prosecuting those who were his clients and arguing against all that he has argued in the past. Are we to believe that this will have no effect on prosecutions against pornography?

The idea that pornography is “speech,” within the meaning of the first amendment, and thereby protected by the Constitution, is so absurd that it is hard for an outsider to see how American judges have been persuaded to accept it again and again. Of course porn is big business, and can afford to keep beating at the doors of the courts. But the real reason for the legalization of pornography in America lies in the culture of the liberal elite and in the strategy of legal activism whereby that elite continues its relentless assault on majority values. Porn has been incorporated into the “culture war” precisely because ordinary Americans see it as a threat to family and religious values. This fact is sufficient to prompt the liberal establishment to add porn to its agenda, as one more thing to be defended in the court against the legislature. Again and again we have seen this process at work, as the values and transgressions of elites are seized upon by the ACLU and similar organizations, rebranded as essential liberties, and defended as constitutional rights, regardless of their subversive effect on society as a whole.

The legal defense David Ogden has presented in defense of the pornography industry is also applied to other arenas of legal activism as well. The spread of the contagion is inevitable.
Pornography is one of the most insidious dimensions of American culture today. It is a plague that is ruining lives, marriages, and public morals. It endangers women, children, and the most vulnerable among us. Putting one who can only be described as an extremist for pornography in such a high position in the Department of Justice — Deputy Attorney General of the United States — sends a clear signal at home and around the world. If David Ogden is confirmed, the U.S. Senate becomes a party to this disaster.

What signal does President Obama intend to send by this nomination, and to whom?

For those of you who don’t know, Thabiti Anyabwile is pastor of First Baptist Church in Grand Caymen. He was discipled by Mark Dever as a member of his church, Capitol Hill Baptist, in Washinton D.C. I’m looking forward to hear his lecture this March at the Ligonier Conference.

I write today to say how much I appreciated his thoughts on the heavenly intercession of Christ. I hope you will also be encouraged.

Almighty God, Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, Maker of all things, Judge of all men, we acknowledge and bewail our manifold sins and wickedness, which we from time to time most grievously have committed, by thought, word and deed, against thy Divine Majesty, provoking most justly thy wrath and indignation against us. We do earnestly repent, and are heartily sorry for these our misdoings; the remembrance of them is grievous unto us. Have mercy upon us, have mercy upon us, most merciful Father; for thy Son, our Lord Jesus Christ’s sake, forgive us all that is past; and grant that we may ever hereafter serve and please thee in newness of life, to the honor and glory of thy name, through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

I highlight those words, “the remembrance of them is grievous unto us,” because, how many of us actually feel that way about our sins? After confessing the grievous nature of our sins, the Book of Common Prayer adds the wonderful words, “the burden of them is intolerable.” O how I pray God would cause my residual sin to become intolerable to me!

Here come the precious words! If we were to truly meditate upon all of our sins we would be crushed under the weight of them! If there were no hope of forgiveness, we would all certainly perish in our sins. Praise God that we have the God-man as our Redeemer and Mediator (1 Tim. 2:5). As believers in the Lord Jesus Christ, our grief turns into hope. The cross, which was once a symbol of death, is now a symbol of hope. Why do we have hope? I love the way Thabiti puts it: “we don’t stop with grieving, for in heaven sits enthroned our Perfect Righteousness. Our grief is turned to joy when our eyes are turned to Christ. In the gospel is the complete forgiveness of sins, but also the imputation of perfect righteousness which consoles us even when the knowledge of forgiveness can’t.” AMEN!!! I need the gospel everyday.

Question 1 in the Heidelberg Catechism asks: What is your only comfort in life and death? Read this beautiful answer thoughtfully and carefully:

That I am not my own, but belong with body and soul, both in life and in death, to my faithful Saviour Jesus Christ. He has fully paid for all my sins with His precious blood, and has set me free from all the power of the devil. He also preserves me in such a way that without the will of my heavenly Father not a hair can fall from my head; indeed, all things must work together for my salvation. Therefore, by His Holy Spirit He also assures me of eternal life and makes me heartily willing and ready from now on to live for Him.

O God, whose blessed Son became poor that we through His poverty might become rich: Deliver us from the inordinate love of this world, that we may serve you with singleness of heart, and attain to the riches of the age to come; through Jesus christ our Lord, who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, now and forever. Amen.

Feel free to view this post at my blog.

Introduction and Thesis Statement

“If God exists, how can there be so much evil in the world?” has long been a question that philosophers and theologians have done their best to answer.[1]  Many skeptics assert that the presence of evil is proof of the fact that God does not exist.   Their syllogism usually follows this order:

            Premise 1: If God were all powerful, he would be able to prevent evil.

            Premise 2: If God were all-good, he would desire to prevent evil.

            Conclusion: So, if God were both all-powerful and all-good, there would be no

evil.

Premise 3: But there is evil.

Conclusion: Therefore, there is no all-powerful, all-good God.[2]

While this syllogism has been used in the past, in light of the “New Atheists” (i.e. Richard Dawkins, Chris Hitchens, etc.) spreading their propaganda, this argument is resurfacing with some force.  That is to say, the idea and concept of atheism is now attractive to many people.  This is significant due to the fact that ideas have consequences.  As Alister McGrath has wisely noted, the Great Empires are no longer Rome or Great Britain, but rather ideologies.[3]  Also of importance is the fact that “The New Atheism is not just a reassertion of atheism.”  Rather, “It is a movement that represents a far greater public challenge to Christianity than that posed by the atheistic movements of previous times.”[4]

            Al Mohler suggests that this is the case because “The New Atheists are . . . evangelistic in intent and ambitious in hope.”[5]  In his book The God Delusion Richard Dawkins asserts that belief in God is evil and leads to violence.[6]  It is because of the past and present violence that has been done in God’s name that many question whether or not God exists, and if so, whether such a belief is legitimate.  I will canvass two traditional arguments put forth by Christian theists, and one argument advocated by non-traditional theists to see if they are sufficient in dealing with the problem of evil.  My argument is that open theism, along with two traditional Christian theodicies—that evil is a privation, and the free will defense—are not adequate answers to the problem of evil.

The Need for an Answer

            When Christians are confronted with the problem of evil—through personal trials or questions put forth by skeptics—it is important for them to have answers.  The reality of evil becomes even more apparent when tragedy strikes an individual.  It is during these difficult times that one’s theology is either strengthened or weakened.  Thus, it is necessary that Christians have “a vision of God . . . that will not let us down in the worst of times.”[7]

            The problem of evil has been a reality that many Christians have had a hard time accepting.  For example, both Augustine and C.S. Lewis considered this an almost insurmountable hurdle through which to jump.  Lewis reasoned thus: “If GOD were good, He would wish to make His creatures happy, and if God were almighty, He would be able to do what He wished.  But the creatures are not happy.  Therefore God lacks either goodness, or power, or both.”[8]  He admits it was the problem of evil that gave him the most difficulty in becoming a Christian.[9]  John Frame says the problem of evil is the most difficult question to answer.[10]  John Feinberg agrees that this is a difficult question as well.[11]  Alister McGrath agrees: “Suffering is a problem for Christian apologetics primarily because it appears to demonstrate the logical incoherence of Christianity.”[12]  Peter Kreeft also says, “The reality of evil seems to refute the reality of God . . .”[13]  One of the more popular apologists, Ravi Zacharias says, “Pain, suffering, and evil are indisputable realities and present the sharpest edge of criticism against God’s existence.”[14]  This topic seems to generate so much discussion for the simple fact that everyone has to deal with it at some point in their life.  Feinberg says, “Anyone who has ever suffered affliction or had friends or loved ones who have suffered has probably wondered why there should be such pain if there is a God who truly loves us and has power to do something to remedy our plight.”[15]  With the reality of these questions looming large, Christians must have satisfying answers that will sustain them through personal tragedy, as well as meet the demands of rational debate. 

            As has been mentioned, the existence of evil has been an issue tackled by many philosophers.  From a philosophical standpoint it appears that the first person to deal with the issue was Plato.[16]  Thus, by the time Christian philosophers were on the scene, the debate had already been raging for quite sometime.  As McGrath notes, “Christian theology has long learned to live with the reality of pain and evil.”  Sarcastically, he continues, “It is not as if suffering was a well-kept secret, whose existence has suddenly been sprung on the world that fervently believed it did not exist.”[17]  Just as throughout history Christians have dealt with this problem, so likewise today, many Christian philosophers and theologians have put forth answers that they believe sufficiently vindicate their position. 

A Heretical Argument

With the reality of evil constantly being witnessed, a variety of defenses have been asserted.  Some are cogent, some are not, and others are sub-Christian.  The first argument is a rather poor defense being espoused by those claiming to be Christian.  This view is known as open theism.  Open theism deals with the problem of evil by suggesting that God does not know the future.  This view contends that evil in no way impugns the character of God, because God never saw it coming.  By asserting that God does not know the future, He is “off the hook.”  One of the well-known open theists presently is Greg Boyd.  In his book God of the Possible, Boyd asserts that God does not know the future “exhaustively.”[18]  He says, rather, “To whatever degree the future is yet open to be decided by free agents, it is unsettled.  To this extent, God knows it as a realm of possibilities, not certainties.”[19]

Despite this position, Boyd assures readers that “Open theists affirm God’s omniscience as emphatically as anybody else does.”[20]  He says, “The issue is not whether God’s knowledge is perfect.  It is.  The issue is about the nature of the reality that God perfectly knows.”[21]  How can open theists claim that God is omniscient, yet still maintain that He does not know the future exhaustively?  Boyd speaks for himself: “If God does not foreknow future free actions, it is not because his knowledge of the future is in any sense incomplete.  It’s because there is, in this view, nothing definite there for God to know!”[22]  Thus, in open theism, God only knows that which is knowable.  It should be pointed out that open theists are aware that their view is different from the “classical view of divine foreknowledge.”[23] 

Theological Differences and Distinctions

When it comes to divine foreknowledge, theologians usually either find themselves as Augustinian (Calvinistic) or Arminian.[24]  Stated simply, Augustinians (or Calvinists) assert that God knows the future because He has foreordained it.[25]  For example, speaking for the Calvinistic position, Lorraine Boettner says, “What God foreknows must, in the very nature of the case be fixed and certain as what is foreordained” (Boettner 42).[26]  In contrast, Arminians assert that God simply knows the future, but He does not necessarily ordain everything that comes to pass. 

            These theological positions are important for this discussion because, if open theism is true, then the problem of evil is lessened considerably.  Further, the distinctive positions between and Calvinists and Arminians are important because open theists disagree with both views.  However, what is significant is that open theists appear to think the Calvinistic position is more logical.  They would agree that God knows the future because He has ordained it to come to pass.  They think the Arminians want to

“have their cake and eat it too.”  They find the Arminian position both unbiblical and illogical.  Boyd agrees: “Open theists agree with some followers of Augustine and Calvin

that future events cannot cause God to know them.”[27]  For one to say that God knows the future but does not cause it is unacceptable to them.  Therefore, they invent a third category.  They say that if God foreknows a future event in any way, human actions are not truly free, and it makes God responsible for the action.  For instance, open theist Clark Pinnock writes: “Total knowledge of the future would imply a fixity of events.  Nothing in the future would need to be decided.  It also would imply that human freedom is an illusion, that we make no difference and are not responsible.”[28]

            Again, this position is dealt with because if God does not know the future, then tragedies, hurricanes, tornadoes, and other events can be answered by simply saying, “God did not want this happen, but there was nothing He could do.  He simply did not see it coming.”  It was indeed these very issues (i.e. human freedom and the problem of evil) which led Greg Boyd to question the classical view.  He writes:

If you think about the matter deeply, the classical view raises a number of thorny questions.  For example, if every choice you’ve ever made was certain an eternity before you made it, were you really free when you made each choice?  Could you have chose differently if it was eternally certain you’d make the choice you did? . . . Even more troubling, if God foreknew that Adolf Hitler would send six million Jews to their death, why did he go ahead and create a man like that?  If I unleash a mad dog I am certain will bite you, am I not responsible for my dog’s behavior?  If so, how is God not responsible for the behavior of evil people he “unleashes”

on the world—if, in fact, he is absolutely certain of what they will do once “unleashed”?[29]

Boyd actually continues with his tirade and finally questions that if God foreknows every person who will go to heaven and hell, why does He create them?[30]  Open theism is thus a fitting discussion when pondering the problem of evil.  Open theists accuse traditional theists of adopting a theological view that is not historically Christian.  They believe those who affirm the classical understanding of God’s foreknowledge have imported Hellenistic philosophy into their Christianity.[31]  Moreover, open theists believe that the early church agreed with them, since none of the early church documents affirm God’s exhaustive foreknowledge.  Apparently the absence of an affirmation not only implies agreement, but also, that antiquity necessitates veracity. 

            To sum up, open theism proposes to be a solution to the problem of evil.  It would be incorrect, however, to assume that this is the only position that has been put forward.  Rather than list all of the theodicies Christians have used throughout the ages, looking at two of the more popular ones will suffice. 

Two Traditional Christian Theodicies

            One of the most historical theodicies is that evil does not exist, but rather it is a privation.  This position asserts that evil does not exist because it is not a physical entity.  Further, this position asserts that evil is an absence (that is, a privation) of good.  John Frame calls this argument “The Unreality-of-evil Defense.”[32]  Historically, Augustine is credited with having introduced this idea.  In Augustine’s Confessions, after recounting some of his difficulties with the problem of evil, he says, “The reason was that I did not know that evil is only the privation of a good, even to the point of complete nonentity.”[33]  Later on he confesses, “I had not as yet known or learned that evil is not a substance.”[34]  Augustine is convinced evil cannot be a substance since everything God created is good.  He says, “If things are deprived of all good whatsoever, they will not exist at all.”[35]  Lastly, Augustine concedes, “But evil, of which I asked, ‘Whence is it?’ is not a substance, for if it were a substance, it would be good.”[36]  While Augustine says evil is a privation, he is not suggesting that evil is an illusion.  He is arguing that God is responsible for creating everything that has “Being.”  God is not, however, responsible for creating “Nonbeing.”[37]  Nevertheless, as Frame says, “These explanations are quite inadequate.”[38]  Even if evil is seen as a nonentity, this explanation does not solve the dilemma of how a good God allows this to happen.  Frame notes, “There is no point in creating a distinct metaphysical category (“nonbeing,” or “privation”) for evil.  The problem is simply that God is sovereign over all events, good and evil, and however one analyzes evil metaphysically, it is part of God’s plan.”[39]  Thus, this theodicy does not appear to be too helpful after all.

The “Free Will” Defense

            The most common theodicy put forth by Christians is free will.[40]  The argument is simple: Evil exists because human beings use their free will.  Geisler and Bocchino write, “When people use their free will, their ability to make an unforced decision between two or more alternatives, they actualize their potential to do good or evil.”[41]  Thus, in this view God is not held responsible for evil in the world since evil came about by the free will of man.  “Since that free choice was in no sense controlled or foreordained or caused by God,” John Frame explains, “he cannot be held accountable for it.”[42]  It should be mentioned, however, that the theologians who use this argument hold to a particular view of free will, namely, libertarian free will. 

            Those who hold to this view assert that human “choices are not determined in advance by God.”[43]  Furthermore, libertarians (as they are called) espouse that “our character may influence our decisions, as may our immediate desires.  But we always have genuine freedom to choose contrary to our character and our desires,[44] however strong.”[45]  They assert that humans must have the power of contrary choice, for if humans do not, they cannot be held responsible.  Frame summarizes this position as follows: “To be responsible, we must be able to do otherwise.”[46]  While those who hold this position seek to uphold moral responsibility, an argument can be made that in reality, libertarian freedom actually destroys it.  Further, there is evidence to suggest that libertarian freedom is in fact, unbiblical.  If this is true, then the free will argument collapses and should no longer be used by Christians. 

John Frame asserts that human beings are free in the sense that we choose according to our desires, and we are not slaves to determinism.  R..C. Sproul agrees with this assessment: “This is the very essence of free will—to choose according to our desires.”[47]  He also agrees that humans are not slaves to determinism, since “Determinism teaches that our actions are completely controlled by something external to us, making us do what we don’t want to do.”[48]  Further, libertarians are to be commended in that they realize that man is responsible for his own sin.  Libertarians appear to be incorrect, however, in saying that human actions are in no way ordained or caused by God.  The example of Joseph is worth noting.  Despite all of the bad that came about in his life, he said, “As for you, you meant it for evil against me, but God meant it for good . . .” (Gen. 50:20).   Concerning His crucifixion Jesus says, “For the Son of Man goes as it has been determined, but woe to that man by whom he is betrayed!” (Lk. 22:22 emphasis mine).  In Zechariah 11:12-13 it is prophesied that Jesus will be betrayed for thirty pieces of silver.  This raises the question about Judas: Could he have not betrayed Jesus?  Is it better to say that God only knew the event would take place, rather than saying He caused the event to take place?  If one concedes that God ordained the death of Jesus Christ, one would also be admitting that God ordained[49] the means by which that event took place.[50]  If this is so, this would mean that God ordained both lying and killing, which was necessary to take place in order for Jesus to be killed.  This would also imply that it was not human beings who killed Jesus Christ, rather it was God.[51]  In fact, Isaiah 53:10 actually says, it was the will of the LORD to crush him; he [God] has put him to grief (emphasis mine).  The NASB says, “the LORD was pleased to crush Him” (emphasis mine).  In Acts 2:23 God says He foreknew the event and still held the people accountable for doing it.  While these passages may not convince all, it is what has led some theologians to reject libertarian free will.

Problems with Libertarianism

            Libertarians assert that the human will is not determined by anything, not even a person’s nature.  Regarding the will, they say, “Its motions to choose one course of action over another are self-motivated or spontaneous.”[52]  If a will is not determined by anything, then what causes it to act in the first place?  Further, there does not seem to be any passage in the Bible that teaches libertarian freedom.  John Frame notes, “There is no passage that can be construed to mean that the human will is independent of God’s plan and of the rest of the human personality.”[53]  It appears that libertarian freedom is nothing more than metaphysical speculation, rather than a view based off an exegetical conclusion.

As far as being morally responsible, Scripture nowhere teaches humans must be able to do the opposite in order to be held responsible.  God holds humans responsible, “because [He] made us, owns us, and has a right to evaluate our conduct.  Therefore, according to Scripture, God’s authority is the necessary and sufficient ground of human responsibility.”[54]  Those who want to assert that humans cannot be held responsible if they do not have the power of contrary choice must appeal to Scripture to justify their position, rather than philosophical notions.[55]  Thus, it appears that God is sovereign over the sins of men.  God can stop people from sinning if He so chooses (Gen. 20:6), but in His most holy wisdom He allows sin to take place for His own glory.  Why He does this, He has not revealed to us.  This discussion is germane to the problem of evil because “Scripture never uses the free-will defense in any passage where the problem of evil is up for discussion.  You will not find it in the book of Job, in Psalm 37, or in Psalm 73.  Indeed, all of these passages presuppose the usual strong view of divine sovereignty.”[56] 

The Inevitable Conclusion

If the “Unreality-of-evil Defense” fails, and so does the free will argument, what answer are Christians to give?  Is there an answer to the problem of evil?  With respect to how to answer this question, John Piper gives sound advice: “To answer a question like [this] we should put our hands on our mouths and silence our philosophical speculations.  Our opinions don’t count here.  All that counts is what God himself has shown us in his word” (Piper, Spectacular Sins 101).[57]  The question that must be answered here is: Is God the author of evil?  The answer to that question is an emphatic “No.”  The prophet Habakkuk says, “You who are of purer eyes than to see evil and cannot look at wrong . . .” (Hab. 2:13).  Moreover, the Bible reveals that God is three times holy (Is. 6:3).  The clear revelation from Scripture is that God is holy and therefore, He is not the author of sin. 

Does God Will Evil to Come to Pass?

Another question that must be answered, however, is: Does God will evil to come to pass?  The answer to this question is a bit more complicated.  What do the Scriptures say?  For starters, there is no such thing as a random event with God.  He withholds rain from one town and gives it to another (Amos 4:7).  Regarding the famine that led Joseph’s brothers to Egypt, the Bible does not say that God simply foresaw the famine; it says He summoned the famine (Ps. 105:16).  In Proverbs 16: 4 it says, “The LORD has made everything for its purpose, even the wicked for the day of trouble” (emphasis mine).  Despite king Nebuchadnezzar, and all the evil he would do, God calls him “My servant” (Jer. 25:9; 27:6; 43:10).  Further, in Jeremiah 25:8-12, God prophesies that He will use Nebuchadnezzar to punish His people Judah and take them into captivity.  God says, “This whole land will be a desolation and a horror, and these nations will serve the king of Babylon seventy years” (Jer. 25:11).  Then, in the next verse God says, “ ‘Then it will be when seventy years are completed I will punish the king of Babylon and the nation,’ declares the LORD, ‘for their iniquity, and the land of the Chaldeans; and I will make it an everlasting desolation’” (Jer. 25:12 emphasis mine). 

In context, God says He is going to use the Babylonians to punish His people, but then later punish them for their own sin (Jer. 50-51).  The events in the future do not seem to be merely known, but rather settled facts.  In Isaiah 45:7, God says, “I form light and create darkness, I make well-being and create calamity, I am the LORD, who does all these things” (emphasis mine).  Lamentations 3:37-38 says, “Who has spoken and it came to pass, unless the Lord has commanded it?  Is it not from the mouth of the Most High that good and bad come?” (emphasis mine).  In Amos, the prophet asks, “Does disaster come to a city, unless the LORD has done it?” (Amos 3:6).  As unsettling as it

may be to some, John Frame appears to be right in saying that, “God does not merely allow these things to happen; he makes them happen.”[58]  Again, this is not to suggest that God is the author of evil, but rather that He does will evil to come to pass.  God controls what happens in this world.  Even if it is asserted that God merely allows these things to happen, since He does not forbid it from coming to pass, He is in control of what happens.  Next question: How can God allow the evil to come to pass, yet not be responsible?  The Bible does not answer this question.  The Bible assures readers that God is not the author of sin, and nothing more. 

            In seeking to answer questions to which humans do not have access, R. Scott Clark diagnosis this as a “Quest for Illegitimate Religious Certainty.”[59]  This happens when humans seek “to achieve epistemic and moral certainty” on issues which God has not sought to reveal.[60]  Simply put, on why God does what He does with respect to evil—why He allows it and chooses not to stop it—we do not know.  John Frame gives the best answer: “By his failure to defend himself, God is claiming his sovereign right to be trusted and believed, whatever suspicions his actions may provoke in human minds.”[61]  Why? “In his decisions, he will not submit to man’s judgments.”[62]  This is the whole point of the book of Job.  God is not going to submit Himself to be questioned by sinful human beings who have no right to an answer.  As Frame states it, “God is not subject to the ignorant evaluations of his creatures.”[63] 

 Conclusion

To the extent that the biblical writers fail to deal with these questions shows that they are unaware that any such problem exists.[64] In dealing with the problem of evil, John Frame offers four pieces of advice:

(1)We have no right to complain against God, and when we do, we expose ourselves as disobedient.  (2) God is under no obligation to give us an

intellectually satisfying answer to the problem of evil.  He expects us to trust him in spite of that.  (3) God’s sovereignty is not to be questioned in connection with the problem of evil; it is rather to be underscored.  (4) God’s word, his truth, is altogether reliable.[65]

In the end, all attempts to answer the problem of evil may never satisfy the human heart and mind.  Christians must joyfully bow under the mighty hand of God.  While evil will persist until the end of time, Christians can be sure that when evil takes place, it does not happen arbitrarily.  It happens for a purpose, and under the watchful eye of a sovereign God.  Christians must not pry too deeply into the mind of God and attempt to find answers to questions that God has not revealed.  If one desires to keep asking God these types of questions, it appears that God has two questions of His own: “Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth?  Tell me, if you have understanding” (Job 38:4).  Or, “who are you, O man, to answer back to God?” (Rom. 9:20).  Believers can rest and know that they are loved by a sovereign God. 

Works Cited

Augustine.  The Confessions of St. Augustine.  Translated by John K. Ryan.  Doubleday:

NY, 1960.

Boettner, Loraine.  The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination.  Presbyterian & Reformed:

Philipsburg, 1932.

Boyd, Greg.  God of the Possible: A Biblical Introduction to the Open View of God. 

Baker: Grand Rapids, 2000.

Clark, Scott. R.  Recovering the Reformed Confession: Our Theology, Piety, and

Practice.  Presbyterian & Reformed: Philipsburg, 2008.

Dawkins, Richard.  The God Delusion.  Houghton-Mifflin: NY, 2006.

Feinberg, John.  The Many Faces of Evil: Theological Systems and the Problem of Evil. 

Zondervan: Grand Rapids, 1994.

Frame, John.  Apologetics to the Glory of God: An Introduction.  Presbyterian &

Reformed: Philipsburg, 1994.

—. No Other God: A Response to Open Theism.  Presbyterian & Reformed: Philipsburg, 2001.

Geisler, Norman and Peter Bocchino.  Unshakable Foundations: Contemporary Answers

to Crucial Questions about the Christian Faith.  Bethany House: Minneapolis, 2001.

Kreeft, Peter.  Making Sense Out of Suffering.  Servant Books: Ann Arbor, 1986.

Lewis, C.S.  The Problem of Pain: How Human Suffering Raises Almost Intolerable

Intellectual Problems.  Macmillan: NY, 1962.

McGrath, Alister.  The Twilight of Atheism: The Rise and Fall of Disbelief in the Modern

World.  Doubleday: NY, 2004.

—.  Intellectuals Don’t Need God & Other Modern Myths: Building Bridges to Faith

through Apologetics.  Zondervan: Grand Rapids, 1993.

Mohler, Albert.  Atheism Remix: A Christian Confronts the New Atheism.  Crossway:

Wheaton, 2008.

Pelikan, Jaroslav and Valerie Hotchkiss. Eds.  Creeds and Confessions of Faith in the

Christian Tradition. Volume II: Reformation Era.  Yale University Press: New Haven, 2003.

Piper, John.  Fifty Reasons Why Jesus Came to Die.  Crossway: Wheaton, 2006.

—. Spectacular Sins And Their Global Purpose in the Glory of Christ.  Crossway:

Wheaton, 2008.

Schaff, Philip.  The Creeds of Christendom with a History and Critical Notes. Vol. III:

The Evangelical Protestant Creeds. Baker: Grand Rapids, 1969.

Sproul, R.C.  Essential Truths of the Christian Faith.  Tyndale House: Carol Stream,

1992.

—.  Reasons to Believe: A Response to Common Objections to Christianity.  Zondervan:

Grand Rapids, 1978.

 Wright, R.K.  No Place for Sovereignty: What’s Wrong with Freewill Theism. 

Intervarsity: Downers Grove, 1996.

Zacharias, Ravi. Ed.  Beyond Opinion: Living the Faith We Defend.  Thomas Nelson:

Nashville, 2007.

Do you ever sound like that? I know I do.

Going through the Peacemaker curriculum has been a life changing experience for me. I have been learning so many helpful skills about dealing with conflict in healthy ways. I really hope to see our whole church do this helpful study.

I recently expressed that thought in a group and a dear friend asked a thoughtful question. Her question was, “is the church experiencing some conflict that moves me to think this study is necessary right now?” My answer was, “No, I don’t think so.” In fact I believe our church is experiencing a season of profound blessing. We have no major conflicts brewing that I am aware of. For the first time in our brief 8-year history our giving has exceeded our budget. Earlier this month we began a new season of discipleship classes that are all full and staffed. We are feeling the anticipation of moving into a building that is almost complete, and we are supporting a significant missionary work in Nigeria that I will be visiting in one month. So, why do we need the study?

Well, let me answer this way. What would you think of an athlete that did not train for competition until the night before the first game? Or, what would your opinion be of a soldier who did not train until the day before he was shipped out to war? You probably would think this was unwise. In the same manner if you wait for a crisis of conflict to arise, it is too late at that point to implement new strategies. Training in peacemaking must occur before the conflict comes just like an athlete trains before the game or a soldier trains before the war.

So, let’s turn back to those desires we were discussing at the top. Ken Sande says that when our desires become demands those demands are the birth of an idol. Yes, even good desires, when they become demands, they become idols. Even pastors can experience this with their ministry. Speaking as a pastor, most pastors want their churches to be a certain way. Theologically sound, God-centered, peaceful, scriptural, growing, financially strong and a good reputation are all descriptions of good desires. However, there can be obstacles to these desires and the pastor has to be careful how he treats those who seem to be in the way of his desires. Now, I know cannot forsake standing for the truth and having convictions and all that, but if I believe that I cannot be happy unless I pastor a church that looks like what I described above then I have made my image of what the church ought to be an idol in my life. And so I pray, Lord help me break free from conflict by renouncing those demands and asking You to help me find all of my security, joy and fulfillment in Jesus Christ alone.

I challenge you. Examine your heart and life this week. Do you have desires that have become demands? Those demands may be at the center of the conflicts you have in your life. If so, renounce those demands and seek your security, joy and fulfillment in Jesus Christ.

Making Peace Together,

Pastor Andy

The “New Atheists” are Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens.  Each of them is well-respected in their area of study.  These are not your average atheists, however.  As Mohler points out, “the New Atheism is not just another example of marketing an idea in the postmodern age.  The New Atheists are, in their own way, evangelistic in intent and ambitious in hope.”  What makes them different from atheists of the past is that “They see atheism as the only plausible worldview for our times, and they see belief in God as downright dangerous . . .” (Emphasis mine).  Worse than this, “They see science as on their side and argue that scientific knowledge is our only true knowledge” (Emphasis mine).  In reality this is not science, but rather a view known as scientism. 

Throughout the book, Mohler suggests that parents must make a concerted effort to teach their children about this movement.  This is due to the fact that these atheists “know that the most important audience is the young.”  They are specifically targeting teenagers and college students.  They want to influence the next generation.  In fact, Richard Dawkins suggests that parents who desire to pass on their own religious convictions to their children are engaging in illegal behavior. 

As for the structure of the book, Mohler begins by giving a brief historical outline of how atheism came to be an acceptable worldview.  From there he tells readers a little about the New Atheists and why Christians should take them seriously.  After that, he points out the Christian philosophers and theologians who have done a good job in confronting the New Atheists, namely, Alister McGrath of Oxford University, and Alvin Plantinga of Notre Dame.  Mohler applauds both McGrath and Plantinga for their efforts.  In fact, he goes so far as to say that Alvin Plantinga is “the most important Christian philosopher of our day.”  As for McGrath, he says that he is the one man equipped to take on the New Atheists.  McGrath holds two earned doctorates from Oxford: one in molecular biochemistry, and one in theology.  Also, he was a one-time atheist!  Praise God that He has raised up the right men for our time.

After all of this, Mohler makes his final appeal: “Christians must summon the courage to respond to this challenge with the full measure of conviction and with a bold assertion of biblical theism.” 

Newcomers to this subject should not be afraid to pick up this book.  It is only 108 pages and can be read in a matter of hours.  It is not a difficult read.  The book is aimed to reach all audiences.  I highly recommend it for those seeking to gain a basic understanding of this present challenge. 

Joseph Romeo

In the May issue of Christianity Today there is an article written by James K.A. Smith, professor of philosophy at Calvin College entitled “Teaching a Calvinist: In Pentecostal worship, my Reformed theology finds its groove.”

While on many issues Reformed theology and Pentecostalism are at odds with one another, many seem to like the blend. For example, there exists presently a Reformed Charismatic denomination of sorts. Visit the website http://www.charismaticreformed.org/ for more details.

In addition to this, C.J. Mahaney, and his Sovereign Grace ministries also share a common identity in having a strong Charismatic Reformed affection. I am not here to debate whether or not Charismatic theology and Reformed theology are antithetical to one another, I am simply pointing out that this connection seems to already exist.

While I am sure many would say it is impossible (at least logically) to be Reformed and be Charismatic, Professor James Smith says “being charismatic actually makes me a better Calvinist; my being Pentecostal is actually a way for me to be more Reformed.” How can he say such a thing? Smith continues: “Pentecostals live out a spirituality that takes [the sovereignty of God] really, really, seriously.” If you read the article you will find that what Smith means by this is that, because God is so sovereign, he believes God can speak to him anyway he pleases (I’m assuming he means outside of Scripture here) and that the Spirit will move in a way that will “surprise you.”

Speaking to this, Smith says “In Pentecostal spirituality, the Calvinist conviction about the sovereignty of God is extended to worship in a way that makes us open to and even expectant of the sovereign Lord surprising us.”

Smith notes that when you are in a confessionally reformed church, most likely the services (and the sermon for that matter) will be a bit cerebral, with not much attention given to the role of the Spirit. As a Reformed Christian, I will be the first to admit that our services can have a tendency to be a bit cerebral. This is nothing new. I have heard it said in the past that our services are too erudite. Jokingly, I have heard a fellow Reformed guy say that the attendees of a reformed church will need a master’s degree to understand the sermon!

This may be an area of weakness that should be addressed. At a point in the article, Smith says:
“I’ve always found it a bit strange that Reformed worship so often treats human beings as if we’re brains-on-a-stick. All week long we talk about how good creation is, how good embodiment is. But then we have habits of worship that merely deposit great ideas in our heads, making us cerebral disciples.”

Again, I understand where Smith is coming from. However, in defense of Reformed worship, I would say that one must understand the theological grounds which undergird the liturgy in the worship. The fundamental difference between Pentecostals and ALL other traditions within Christendom is their pneumatology (i.e. their doctrine of the Holy Spirit). After all, this is what makes Pentecostals . . . Pentecostals. At the core of who they are, they believe that the Holy Spirit works outside of Scripture. Classical Protestantism never has, and (Lord willing) never will. As Alister McGrath says, “Classical Protestantism holds that God’s will and purpose are revealed only through the written text of the Bible” (Christianity’s Dangerous Idea, 433).

All this being said, I am not surprised that many enjoy Pentecostal worship services. There is nothing wrong with wanting to express our love to God through heart-felt, passionate worship. However, the problem comes when one starts to think that Pentecostalism is the only true form of worship. I have often heard Pentecostals say that they don’t like such and such a church because “that church doesn’t believe in the Spirit.” For starters, if a church doesn’t believe in the Spirit, then they are not Christian. The doctrine of the Trinity is essential to the Christian faith (i.e. the co-eternality, co-equalness, and consubstantiality of the Godhead). It must be a correct view of the Trinity. Not the heretical understanding espoused by the oneness pentecostals. For an accurate description see the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds.

So what is the appeal of Pentecostalism? I think the appeal is what Alister McGrath calls “the immediacy of God ( Christianity’s Dangerous Idea 429). McGrath notes:

“The feature that both characterizes and distinguishes Pentecostalism from all other forms of Christianity is it insistence and emphasis upon an immediate encounter with God through the Holy Spirit and the ensuing transformation of individuals” (Christianity’s Dangerous Idea 424).

From another perspective, in Pentecostalism, a persons spiritual empowerment “is not determined by their sociological location or their intellectual ability, but by their gifting by the Holy Spirit” (427).
When Pentecostals look at the Reformed community, all they see is a bunch of people with their noses in books (the stereotype), who are too busy studying, and therefore, are not experiencing the power of the Holy Spirit. In Pentecostalism, a “living faith” (as Pietists called it) “is not about doctrinal rectitude or theological precision, but about the experience of God as a living reality in the believer’s soul” (428).

An expert on the history of Pentecostalism, Walter Hollenweger says this about Pentecostalism:
“[Pentecostalism] is an oral religion. It is not defined by the abstract language that characterises, for instance, Presbyterians or Catholics. Pentecostalism is communicated in stories, testimonies, and songs….When you become a Pentecostal, you talk about how you’ve been healed, or how your very life has been changed (Quoted in McGrath, 428).

Because Pentecostals view other denominations, especially the Presbyterians, as being so focused on the cerebral aspect of the faith, Pentecostals of the past are somewhat suspicious of too much studying. McGrath comments:

“Such reflections led an earlier generation of Pentecostals to be suspicious of academic study and to wear their anti-intellectualism as a badge of honor” (428)

All in all, what attracts many to Pentecostalism is the immediacy of the Spirit and the thought that everyone can have a direct experience with God. Thus, “Pentecostalism eschews the aridity of dogmatic theology and sets in its place the personal renewal of the believer through the Spirit–something that can be narrated and proclaimed rather than logically dissected and analyzed” (431).
“Pentecostalism declares that it is possible to encounter God directly and personally through the power of the Holy Spirit. God is to be known immediately and directly, not indirectly through the study of a text” (431).

The last sentence is key to understanding Pentecostalism. It is not about studying, it is about experiencing. I do not say any of this in a pejorative sense. Many contemporary Pentecostals have said the same thing, and are doing their best in trying to focus more on the studying aspect. There are now many scholarly Pentecostals. Gordon Fee would be a great example of this.

While we may certainly disagree with Reformed Charismatics, and Pentecostals in general, it is important to do so in a loving and Christian manner.

Joseph Romeo

I am so thankful that God is a God of peace.  Romans 5:10 summarizes for us how God made peace with us, “For if, when we were God’s enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life!”  Building on this great work of peacemaking the Bible tells us that, “If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone” (Romans 12:18).  So, the big question is, “How do I do that?”

Ken Sande gives a helpful diagram in his book Peacemaker that explains the Biblical responses that are available to us along with their dangerous counterparts.  Imagine that the arc below is a mound and you are standing at the top of the crest.  In the middle, where it is safe to stand, there are six biblical peacemaking responses colored in brown.  We should employ these responses when we have a conflict: 1. Overlook the offense 2. Reconciliation 3. Negotiation 4. Mediation 5. Arbitration 6. Accountability.  The three responses on the left side of the brown area involve the other person and me and the three responses on the right side of the brown area involve using a third party to help resolve the conflict.

If you respond with any of the responses in the blue area (denial, flight, suicide), you begin to walk where it is more difficult to keep your footing.  Therefore, Sande calls it a slippery slope.  If overlooking is a method you rely on frequently with a person, you may be in denial about a real conflict, which is actually a negative response that pushes you toward fleeing when the conflict gets really bad.

On the other end of this slope is what Sande calls attack responses.  These are assault (verbal or physical), litigation, and murder.  Isn’t it interesting that both extremes end in violence and death?  This helpfully illustrates that escape responses as well as attack responses are equally sinful.  Neither leads to anything positive.

What you should do is ask yourself, “Which end of the slippery slope do I tend to move toward?”  The answer to that question can be very helpful to learning how to make peace with others.  In future articles, we will take a more in depth look at the peacemaking responses.  However, for now take some time to examine your responses to conflict.  Do you attack?  Or, do you try to escape?

Let’s work together to make peace with those around us.  Let’s be ready to overlook that which can be overlooked.  And, let’s be ready to be reconciled to one another as well as negotiate how we will relate in the future.  If need be, let’s get a third party involved.  Be assured, conflicts will arise, and it will be important for us all to be prepared to put off our old ways of handling disputes and to put on some new responses that will be productive and honoring to God.

Making Peace with You,

Pastor Andy

MTV is the channel to which our culture listens. It is the channel by which junior high, high school, and college students are influenced. But are there views and the messages they dispense, things that we should be listening to? Are their T.V. shows portraying lives consistent with biblical principles? So much of what is seen on pop-culture television presents a view of success and happiness that is tragically skewed.

Though there are a number of television shows that currently present a twisted view of reality, one that I have seen has provoked some thoughts: MTV’s “The Real World.” Some of my concerns are the lives that they portray as being “the real world.” What should the Christian’s thoughts be when we encounter situations like these coming across the T.V. screen? What’s more, how do these views hold up in light of what Scripture says?

I have noticed that on “The Real World,” the epitome of “fun” is getting drunk, engaging in pre-marital sex, living the fast life, then, waking up the next day, and doing the same thing over again. What does the Bible say about all of these issues? Though some might like to think that people in biblical days faced none of these issues, they are sadly mistaken. The city of Corinth was world renowned for its wickedness and sexually debauched culture.

In light of the way MTV portrays “the real world,” I believe Paul, being inspired by the Holy Spirit has written some words in 1 Thessalonians 4:3-7 that can help us tremendously when confronted with what our culture deems normal.

While pop-culture says we should live life carefree, and have all the fun we can now since we only have one life, God’s Word clearly says otherwise.

3 unbiblical views MTV portrays as being okay that clash with Scripture

1. Casual sex

For this is the will of God, your sanctification; that is, that you abstain from sexual immorality (1 Thess. 4:3)

Notice Paul’s first words are, “This is the will of God.” These are extremely important words since many people ask the question, “What is God’s will for me?” So what is God’s will? Paul says, “your sanctification.” Sanctification means being set apart from sin to a life of holiness. In the context of these verses it means being set apart from sexual immorality. So while the world says it is okay to have sex before you are married, God says He wants us set apart from sexual sin.

2. Lack of self-control

That each of you know how to possess his own vessel in sanctification and honor (1 Thess. 4:4)

Next, Paul says we should know how to possess our own vessel. All that means is that we should know how to control our own body. God gave us this power when we were saved, so for the believer this is one of the fruit’s of the Spirit (Gal. 5:22-23).

3. Lust

Not in lustful passion, like the Gentiles who do not know God (1 Thess. 4:5)

Love and lust are something our world confuses big time. You might have heard it said before that “love is a verb,” and that is true. Love is an action. Love doesn’t “say” something, love “does” something. Lust doesn’t do this. Lust takes and never gives. Lust is self-seeking. Paul says Christians should not live like “the Gentiles who do not know God.” The word “Gentile” is used here to represent unbelievers (i.e. “those who do not know God).

The implications of this behavior

And that no man transgress and defraud his brother in the matter because the Lord is the avenger in all these things, just as we also told you before and solemnly warned you. (1 Thess. 4:6)

This verse discusses the spiritual implications involved in sexual sin. Notice the text says, “The Lord is the avenger.” This means God will judge all those who engage in such behavior. Hebrews 13:4 says- Marriage is to be held in honor among all, and the marriage bed is to be undefiled; for fornicators and adulterers God will judge.
Believers should be different

For God has not called us for the purpose of impurity, but in sanctification (1 Thess. 4:7)

When Paul uses the words “called us” it refers to God’s effectual call, which always results in salvation. God has not saved us for the purpose of impurity, but “in sanctification.” At salvation God has justified us, which means He has declared us righteous. God has credited the righteousness of Christ to our account. Since Christ has justified us, He will sanctify us. Sanctification is the process by which God makes us like His Son.

We see from just a cursory reading of these verses that what the Bible teaches flies in the face of what this world teaches. While this show portrays fun as doing things that the Lord clearly condemns, many are led to believe that this will fill the void in their life. Sadly, many are headed down this road. If this happens to be where you find yourself, or someone you know at this time, know you will not find happiness by indulging in sin. God has created a void in all of our hearts that only He can fill. The sad thing is that many attempt to fill a spiritual void with physical pleasure.

The Body of Christ has the antidote for the world’s sickness. Let us live the lives God has called us to live. Let us remain unswervingly loyal to Christ in this dark world. Remember, we are the light of world, but “if the light that is in you is darkness, how great is the darkness!” (Matt. 6:23)

Joseph Romeo

A culture of peace

As I make preparations for a new men’s Bible study in our church, I can’t help but think that the material we have chosen needs to be shared with every member of the congregation.  Therefore, I have chosen to take small, bite sized portions of the lessons and disseminate them through a devotional thought on the church’s new blog.

I have invited Joe Romeo to assist in responding to your comments and questions, and he will be posting his own thoughts for you to respond to as well.

Grace Community Church is a body of believers who desire to experience intimate fellowship with one another, a fellowship that is infused with the grace of God.  Some time ago a fellow pastor asked me, “what is a ‘community church’?”  I told him I wasn’t sure what others meant by the term, “community,” but for us it had to do with experiencing God’s grace with other believers.  Our church is a community.  We are people sharing the common experience and unifying experience of God’s grace.  In many ways community is a helpful, alternative translation of the Greek term koinonia, which is usually translated as fellowship or partnership.

Human beings seek to find community in many ways.  We seek to share our passions with others because our lives are not naturally connected to one another.  People rarely know their neighbors and only speak to co-workers while at work.  However, people go to great lengths to share their passions with like-minded folk.  One example of what I am describing is the commitment people express by joining clubs in order to share their sporting passions such as running, volleyball, basketball or hiking and camping.  In these clubs or societies people find community.  They discover common experiences and delights that connect them to other human beings.  That is community.  At Grace Community Church we believe God has given us the highest and best reason to come together, which is our shared experience of God’s grace through faith in Jesus Christ.  We are passionate about Christ because we have had our sins forgiven and been restored to a personal relationship with our creator.  When we come together to delight in and share this common experience, we get to participate in the best community, the community of the redeemed.

However, even with all this unity and fellowship, conflict can spring up.  When conflict does occur, it is helpful to know why.  Ken Sande, in his book Peacemaker (the one our men are now studying), says that conflict occurs for four basic reasons:

1.      Misunderstanding or poor communication (Joshua 22:10-34)
2.      Differences in values, goals and expectations (Acts 15:39, 1 Cor. 12:12-31)
3.      Competition over limited Resources (Genesis 13:1-12)
4.      Sinful habits and sinful attitudes that lead to sinful actions and sinful words (James 4:1-12)
When we know what our goal is and when we know what the obstacles to achieving that goal are, we can take the right steps to avoiding or overcoming those obstacles and achieving the goal.  The goal of our existence as a church is to glorify God by spreading a passion for his glory and his gospel to all peoples.  Let’s not lose sight of this, so that as we come together to work for this goal out of our shared experience of God’s grace through faith in Jesus Christ, that same grace and faith would help us maneuver through our misunderstandings, differences, perceived competitions and most importantly those sinful habits and sinful attitudes that lead to sinful actions and sinful words.

Experiencing God’s Grace with you,

Pastor Andy