alrighty folks, sorry to do this, but I'm moving this blog to thoughts.zachjones.net.
please come on over, peruse the new place, and give me some feedback! let me know what you think!
Friday, October 24, 2008
Thursday, August 28, 2008
Understanding Theoldicy (Part 2) - The Conflict
The existence of evil, to many, stands at odds with the concept of God. A "theodicy" is an attempt to explain, in a manner that man can understand, the ways of God in the specific way they relate to the existence of evil in the world. Many times people speak of the "problem of evil", approaching the issue as something to be fixed. Here, though, it would be better to understand the issue as the "argument from evil" (against the existence of God). Understanding how evil can exist in a world where an all-loving, all-powerful God is a reality is different from addressing the "problem of evil" - that is an approach which, in starting from the concept of a problem seeks a solution. Here the attempt is not to "solve" evil, but to understand how it is that it (evil) can exist and actually does.
The issue at hand doesn't really concern how evil entered the world either. The Bible is very clear on that, that sin entered the world through one man's disobedience, and death itself came into the world by the entrance of sin (Romans 5:12). From this, natural, moral, and physical (as well as psychological) suffering resulted immediately.
As the "argument from evil" is approached there is a specific misunderstanding that must also be addressed. This issue has nothing at all to do with Satan. Satan is not the King of Evil, standing on par with God. No, rather, Satan stands as the prime example of one enslaved by sin, one consumed by sin. He is not sin's ruler, but rather its ultimate slave. Evil is no force that it needs a figurehead or mastermind behind it. Evil is only a degredation, a corruption. It is a reality, but not a valid one - it is Wrong, and that is why man has such a problem with it. In his heart, man knows that evil is wrong and should not be.
In the end, that is the heart of this issue. The "argument from evil" proposes that there is no God (at least in the Biblical, Christian sense) because there is evil. The question is why an all-loving, all-powerful, all-knowing God allows such terrible evils as this world knows to exist and continue. In short, how could a good God allow bad things? The answer seems to be that either he is loving, but weak and impotent because he cannot stop evil, or he is all-powerful and all-knowing but uncaring because he will not stop evil.
Though both answers seem valid, they are inadequate in a Biblical sense and paint the picture of a God not worthy of honor or loyalty. A more Biblical answer can be proffered, but it will not be as quick and simple and painless as some would like.
The issue at hand doesn't really concern how evil entered the world either. The Bible is very clear on that, that sin entered the world through one man's disobedience, and death itself came into the world by the entrance of sin (Romans 5:12). From this, natural, moral, and physical (as well as psychological) suffering resulted immediately.
As the "argument from evil" is approached there is a specific misunderstanding that must also be addressed. This issue has nothing at all to do with Satan. Satan is not the King of Evil, standing on par with God. No, rather, Satan stands as the prime example of one enslaved by sin, one consumed by sin. He is not sin's ruler, but rather its ultimate slave. Evil is no force that it needs a figurehead or mastermind behind it. Evil is only a degredation, a corruption. It is a reality, but not a valid one - it is Wrong, and that is why man has such a problem with it. In his heart, man knows that evil is wrong and should not be.
In the end, that is the heart of this issue. The "argument from evil" proposes that there is no God (at least in the Biblical, Christian sense) because there is evil. The question is why an all-loving, all-powerful, all-knowing God allows such terrible evils as this world knows to exist and continue. In short, how could a good God allow bad things? The answer seems to be that either he is loving, but weak and impotent because he cannot stop evil, or he is all-powerful and all-knowing but uncaring because he will not stop evil.
Though both answers seem valid, they are inadequate in a Biblical sense and paint the picture of a God not worthy of honor or loyalty. A more Biblical answer can be proffered, but it will not be as quick and simple and painless as some would like.
Blogged with the Flock Browser
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
Understanding Theodicy (Part 1) - God vs. Evil
The reality of evil is often used as an argument against God's existence. Some questions that are often asked are as follows:
Others have said that God's knowledge does not extend into the future, putting the responsibility on man, because God can't be responsible for any evil a person commits because he can't know what they are going to do. Besides being blatantly unbiblical, this claim also portrays God as rather unobservant and, in the end, unintelligent. And there is also the very callous claim that God is judging people for their disobedience. This is very unsatisfactory because, though we can see in the Bible where God has judged people (or peoples) for their disobedience, it was the text of the Bible which revealed the "why" behind the catastrophes they endured. In the present day we do not have this level of certainty to explain when people (or persons) might be being judged.
What should the Christian's response be? First understand that the Christian claims a specific worldview, a worldview (claimed to be) superior to other worldviews. In fact, Christianity claims to be a worldview which gives answers to those questions which arise in the hearts of all men, and one of the most persistent questions of humanity is the problem of evil (or the reality of suffering). If the Christian's worldview is as true and real as it is claimed to be, then it must have an answer for this crucial issue.
In approaching the issue, it also must be understood that this is not an academic issue, but rather a pastoral issue, and therefore must be answered by the leaders in the community of faith. The answers provided must be Biblically accurate, not affirming what God clearly denies and not denying what God clearly affirms - therefore there can be no claim that God is the source of evil. Also, the answers must be theologically consistent as well as contextually relevant to the modern context. Finally, the answers have to be personally applicable.
A Theodicy is an explanation for why God allows evil, an attempt to reconcile the ways of God to the existence of evil in a way that man can understand. A truly Christian response to this challenge (of the reality of God in the face of the reality of evil) is not one which seeks to make one happy or feel good, but rather glorifies God at the same time speaking to the heart of man (and those who do and have suffered).
- Why does God allow so much suffering
- Why might God allow a father to die before he could see his grandchildren
- Why does God not protect children from terrible suffering?
- Why might God allow a good man (or woman) to die young? Why not someone mean?
- Couldn't God stop the worst of the evils in this world?
- How can there be any purpose in this?
Others have said that God's knowledge does not extend into the future, putting the responsibility on man, because God can't be responsible for any evil a person commits because he can't know what they are going to do. Besides being blatantly unbiblical, this claim also portrays God as rather unobservant and, in the end, unintelligent. And there is also the very callous claim that God is judging people for their disobedience. This is very unsatisfactory because, though we can see in the Bible where God has judged people (or peoples) for their disobedience, it was the text of the Bible which revealed the "why" behind the catastrophes they endured. In the present day we do not have this level of certainty to explain when people (or persons) might be being judged.
What should the Christian's response be? First understand that the Christian claims a specific worldview, a worldview (claimed to be) superior to other worldviews. In fact, Christianity claims to be a worldview which gives answers to those questions which arise in the hearts of all men, and one of the most persistent questions of humanity is the problem of evil (or the reality of suffering). If the Christian's worldview is as true and real as it is claimed to be, then it must have an answer for this crucial issue.
In approaching the issue, it also must be understood that this is not an academic issue, but rather a pastoral issue, and therefore must be answered by the leaders in the community of faith. The answers provided must be Biblically accurate, not affirming what God clearly denies and not denying what God clearly affirms - therefore there can be no claim that God is the source of evil. Also, the answers must be theologically consistent as well as contextually relevant to the modern context. Finally, the answers have to be personally applicable.
A Theodicy is an explanation for why God allows evil, an attempt to reconcile the ways of God to the existence of evil in a way that man can understand. A truly Christian response to this challenge (of the reality of God in the face of the reality of evil) is not one which seeks to make one happy or feel good, but rather glorifies God at the same time speaking to the heart of man (and those who do and have suffered).
Blogged with the Flock Browser
Sunday, March 16, 2008
the right response
Okay, I just thought of this today at church. The praise team had just finished doing an excellent song for the offering, a song which really (at least for me) focused me on God and what he had done for me on the cross. More specifically, it had me thinking about how incredible God is and how worthy of our praise he is.
The thing which struck out to me was our Pastor's response. It was only a short statement, a few sentences. But it struck me as the immediate response of one who was passionately focused on Christ, on God. He was tuned in and had responded perfectly, not too much (over the top), but he had used the moment to allow God's glory to shine.
The issue is, can I cultivate a heart which can instantly respond to the glory of God - appropriately? With the right amount of humility, the perfect dose of passion mixed with pursuit, but all to his glory. That's the key, for God to be glorified with my response. I know I can, but I fear I am not. If I am not, there is where I must go.
The thing which struck out to me was our Pastor's response. It was only a short statement, a few sentences. But it struck me as the immediate response of one who was passionately focused on Christ, on God. He was tuned in and had responded perfectly, not too much (over the top), but he had used the moment to allow God's glory to shine.
The issue is, can I cultivate a heart which can instantly respond to the glory of God - appropriately? With the right amount of humility, the perfect dose of passion mixed with pursuit, but all to his glory. That's the key, for God to be glorified with my response. I know I can, but I fear I am not. If I am not, there is where I must go.
Friday, January 11, 2008
The aim being love from a pure heart.
The aim of our charge is love that issues from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith. - 1 Tim 1:5
I was reading through 1 Timothy (obviously) and came across this verse, which stuck out to me. I love verses which specify purpose. The charge Paul is writing about is found in the two verses preceeding this one. The charge is centered on teaching doctrine. I find it interesting that Paul would define the purpose of his charge to teach good doctrine as love flowing from a pure heart, good conscience and sincere faith.
I think this illustrates how many modern (and post-modern) theologians and thinkers have misstepped in their exploration of the Bible: they have misplaced the reality of the gospel with much controversy and miscellaneous debate (1 Tim 6:4).
But Paul's perspective on what it means to teach is this: to cultivate pure hearts, good consciences and sincere faith from which true love can issue. Good, biblical doctrine helps all these flourish. And that is why congregations need to be taught the basics of Theology Proper (the doctrine of God), Soteriology (the Doctrine of Salvation), Christology (the Doctrine of Christ) and the others. Church members don't need five steps to following Christ - if you help them to see who Christ really is, they will follow him!
The depressed man doesn't need seven steps to a healthy outlook on life. He needs to understand the Doctrine of Creation - how it was God who created him; and then he needs the Doctrine of Sin, which will illustrate the depraved state he is in...and finally he needs the doctrine of Salvation to show how much God loved him and that God does have a purpose for him, as well as the Doctrine of Last Things (Eschatology) to show him the Hope that is to come.
This is what is wrong in so many churches across the United States as well as around the world. The Bible is not being taught, but used as a basis for self-help. The scripture should permeate the entire service, and it relevance and importance should be be continually emphasized, explained and illustrated.
And that is how we can carry out Paul's charge to Timothy, to build up a people who have love issuing from pure hearts, good consciences and sincere faith.
I was reading through 1 Timothy (obviously) and came across this verse, which stuck out to me. I love verses which specify purpose. The charge Paul is writing about is found in the two verses preceeding this one. The charge is centered on teaching doctrine. I find it interesting that Paul would define the purpose of his charge to teach good doctrine as love flowing from a pure heart, good conscience and sincere faith.
I think this illustrates how many modern (and post-modern) theologians and thinkers have misstepped in their exploration of the Bible: they have misplaced the reality of the gospel with much controversy and miscellaneous debate (1 Tim 6:4).
But Paul's perspective on what it means to teach is this: to cultivate pure hearts, good consciences and sincere faith from which true love can issue. Good, biblical doctrine helps all these flourish. And that is why congregations need to be taught the basics of Theology Proper (the doctrine of God), Soteriology (the Doctrine of Salvation), Christology (the Doctrine of Christ) and the others. Church members don't need five steps to following Christ - if you help them to see who Christ really is, they will follow him!
The depressed man doesn't need seven steps to a healthy outlook on life. He needs to understand the Doctrine of Creation - how it was God who created him; and then he needs the Doctrine of Sin, which will illustrate the depraved state he is in...and finally he needs the doctrine of Salvation to show how much God loved him and that God does have a purpose for him, as well as the Doctrine of Last Things (Eschatology) to show him the Hope that is to come.
This is what is wrong in so many churches across the United States as well as around the world. The Bible is not being taught, but used as a basis for self-help. The scripture should permeate the entire service, and it relevance and importance should be be continually emphasized, explained and illustrated.
And that is how we can carry out Paul's charge to Timothy, to build up a people who have love issuing from pure hearts, good consciences and sincere faith.
Monday, October 15, 2007
The Gospel without Sin
I couldn't go to sleep last night. So, in flipping through our numerous (read: six) channels, I came across Jonathan Falwell preaching at his church, Thomas Road Baptist Church. He was doing a pretty decent job. His use of scripture was less than desirable in my mind, though. The message title was something along the lines of "Moving in and Moving out", and consisted of many points, each of which were punctuated by a scripture supporting that particular point, but not really relating to each other much at all. It was akin to quoting a well-respected book or author to support each point. My only problem with this is if you use the bible in this manner (you defining something and using the Bible to back you up), then you are teaching your congregation that you can live the same way, determining yourself what must be done and then using scripture to support your decision rather than letting the scripture define you and your life.
But that's not even what scared me the most. When he got to the climax of his message, talking about "moving out" - basically evangelism, he started a nice little list of reasons why we share Christ. It was a nice list, primarily focused on the joy, peace, and comfort found in Christ, climaxing in that Christ has washed us white as snow. But he never once mentioned sin. Not once. I was listening, waiting for it.
Take the book of Romans, not just a single passage, but, say, at least the first five chapters. Paul here is dealing with salvation, and sin is integral to it. Check out Ephesians, specifically the first half of the second chapter where there is this wonderful description of the Gospel hinging on the reality of sin and God's provision for man because of it.
The sad thing is, if you share Christ with someone without ever addressing the sin in their life, their acceptance of him never approaches the fullness of the Gospel. In fact, if they never repent of and turn from their sin, then, biblically speaking, they really aren't saved at all (see the essentiality of understanding, repenting of, and turning from sin to in Romans 6:1-14).
There is no gospel without sin - there's no need for the gospel without sin. If you remove sin from what you are teaching, then how is it really different from the numerous self-help doctrines permeating our society? Let us never lose site of the fact that it was because of our sin that Christ came, it was our sin that put him on that cross, and that because of our sin we can only have a right relationship with God through Christ's sacrifice on the Cross.
But that's not even what scared me the most. When he got to the climax of his message, talking about "moving out" - basically evangelism, he started a nice little list of reasons why we share Christ. It was a nice list, primarily focused on the joy, peace, and comfort found in Christ, climaxing in that Christ has washed us white as snow. But he never once mentioned sin. Not once. I was listening, waiting for it.
Take the book of Romans, not just a single passage, but, say, at least the first five chapters. Paul here is dealing with salvation, and sin is integral to it. Check out Ephesians, specifically the first half of the second chapter where there is this wonderful description of the Gospel hinging on the reality of sin and God's provision for man because of it.
The sad thing is, if you share Christ with someone without ever addressing the sin in their life, their acceptance of him never approaches the fullness of the Gospel. In fact, if they never repent of and turn from their sin, then, biblically speaking, they really aren't saved at all (see the essentiality of understanding, repenting of, and turning from sin to in Romans 6:1-14).
There is no gospel without sin - there's no need for the gospel without sin. If you remove sin from what you are teaching, then how is it really different from the numerous self-help doctrines permeating our society? Let us never lose site of the fact that it was because of our sin that Christ came, it was our sin that put him on that cross, and that because of our sin we can only have a right relationship with God through Christ's sacrifice on the Cross.
Monday, July 30, 2007
My favorite communicator?
I received a questionnaire to fill out from a church I had submitted my resume to. In it they asked who my favorite Christian Communicator was. Very interesting question, especially for me. I've always had a slight aversion to focusing on an individual, especially one with a more 'mainstream' reputation, as a spiritual authority. So the question made me stop and think. I thought about how in the past, when I was in my mid-teens, I had really been influenced by Promise Keepers and Bill McCartney. Then when I was in college I was really interested in John Maxwell and his leadership stuff. But at present I have no mainstream individuals to whom I really look up to and allow to influence me spiritually.
Why? You might ask? Well, let me give you my thoughts on a few of the Christian Communicators that popped to mind when I started to think about my options - and I'll also tell you why I discarded them.
Joel Osteen - Okay, never been a fan of his because he blinks so much when he speaks. I just keep remembering some random thing I heard that some people blink when they're lying. But look at the title of his bestseller: "Your Best Life Now." Definitely not a biblically based philosophy. In fact, the more I think about it, the more it feels almost like heresy...
T.D.Jakes - Here's one I was actually starting to enjoy. Well, that is until I was taught some basics of bible study in seminary and I read a book called "Religious Affections" by Jonathan Edwards. Then all of his teaching began to show a very poor exegetical technique, with very dangerous spiritual philosophies being born out of them. And then my theology teacher pointed out that T.D.Jakes didn't seem to believe in the Trinity. With that in mind, Jakes becomes and even more dangerous "pseudo" christian communicator.
Rick Warren - actually, I kind of like this guy. Though I think some of my reservations have to do more with how he's structured his church (more of a pastoral concern for the unity of the body due to their many different services).
So who did I say where my present favorite communicators? The pastor at my church, Larry Trotter, an elder at my church who is also a professor at my seminary, Mark Leiderbach, and my Theology professor, David Nelson. These men all ground everything they teach in the Word and encourage you to search out the Word yourself, not just to accept it because they say it's in there. And I think I chose them as well because they are individuals whom I can watch live out their faith on a regular basis.
Why? You might ask? Well, let me give you my thoughts on a few of the Christian Communicators that popped to mind when I started to think about my options - and I'll also tell you why I discarded them.
Joel Osteen - Okay, never been a fan of his because he blinks so much when he speaks. I just keep remembering some random thing I heard that some people blink when they're lying. But look at the title of his bestseller: "Your Best Life Now." Definitely not a biblically based philosophy. In fact, the more I think about it, the more it feels almost like heresy...
T.D.Jakes - Here's one I was actually starting to enjoy. Well, that is until I was taught some basics of bible study in seminary and I read a book called "Religious Affections" by Jonathan Edwards. Then all of his teaching began to show a very poor exegetical technique, with very dangerous spiritual philosophies being born out of them. And then my theology teacher pointed out that T.D.Jakes didn't seem to believe in the Trinity. With that in mind, Jakes becomes and even more dangerous "pseudo" christian communicator.
Rick Warren - actually, I kind of like this guy. Though I think some of my reservations have to do more with how he's structured his church (more of a pastoral concern for the unity of the body due to their many different services).
So who did I say where my present favorite communicators? The pastor at my church, Larry Trotter, an elder at my church who is also a professor at my seminary, Mark Leiderbach, and my Theology professor, David Nelson. These men all ground everything they teach in the Word and encourage you to search out the Word yourself, not just to accept it because they say it's in there. And I think I chose them as well because they are individuals whom I can watch live out their faith on a regular basis.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
