Keep the Faith Tony (2)

Continued from he articulated a quite foolish notion. In fact, not only is this argumentation foolish on Russell’s part, it is sinful. Russell has to use something for which he can give no reason or foundation for existing (the laws of logic) to try to argue that the only logical “reason” for their being in existence, God Himself, does not in fact exist. God does exist because of the impossibility of the contrary. Let me explain.

Science declares that the universe is here, and that it is definitely something, and that it had a definite beginning. Though science affirms that there was a time or a point in space (big bang theory) when we can’t go back any further and predicate anything, it still affirms that the universe had a beginning. What was the universe before it had a beginning? Well, it is hard to say scientifically, except that there was a time when it was not. Yet even so, I think we must all conclude that there was a time when this universe was not, before it came into being. Science tries to steer as far away from the idea of an Eternal Universe, as much as is possible because all the evidence points to a time when it came into being i.e. a beginning. So both the atheist and the Christian needs to have a rational explanation as to why there is in fact something, and not nothing.

Why is that? Well try for a moment to imagine nothing. Now I grant you that it is very hard to think of nothing, because nothing is not a thing – it is no-thing. But go with me in your imagination to the time when there was nothing.

What would happen if it (nothing) was left alone for 10 minutes? How about 10 years? How about a few billion? Would nothing change into something given enough time to do so?

No, of course not. It doesn’t really matter how long nothing is left to be by itself – nothing cannot change into something, no matter how long it is left to become something. If there ever was a time when there was nothing, all there would be today would be nothing, for “out of nothing, nothing comes.”

How does the atheist explain this something (everything around us), when science today affirms there was a time when there was nothing? Well lets look at a mathematical formula. The atheist would have to believe that:

Nothing + No One = Everything

This is absurdity in the extreme, I am sure you will agree Tony.

So what formula does the Christian propose?

The opening declaration of the Bible is that “In the beginning (when there was nothing), God created the heavens and the earth.” This is creation ex nihilo or “out of nothing.” God has always existed, and so when we speak of a time when there was nothing, I am referring to the physical material realm. God is a Spiritual Being, who existed eternally before anything came into being. What would this look like as a mathematical formula? It is a proposition that is both rational and satisfying. The Christian believes that:

Nothing + God = Everything

When we add God to the formula it makes this a valid and rational argumentation. God, being God, can obviously make something out of nothing. When there was no light, God said, “Light be!” and light was. Again, God created everything, out of nothing.

The clear teaching of the Bible in Romans 1 is that mankind is made in the image of God and knows of God’s existence but suppresses (holds under) that knowledge. The fact that Russell knows anything at all is due to his unacknowledged dependence upon the suppressed truth about God within him. The truth is that no one is morally neutral before God. Men are culpable because God’s existence, His power and Godhead are clearly seen and understood. Scripture declares that this knowledge of God “is manifest in them for God has shown it to them.” Therefore, all of mankind, including Bertrand Russell is “without excuse,” or literally “without an apologetic” as they rationalize the clear evidence within them and all around them. All argumentation against the knowledge of God then is pure and simple rebellion. The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge, and despite his brilliance, Russell has not started in the realm of true knowledge, because it begins in dependence and the fear of the Lord.

I find it fascinating that instead of honoring the Creator, Russell propagated the worship of creation, just the very thing Romans 1 says happens when suppression of God’s truth takes place. He entreats men to “worship at the shrine that his own hands have built; undismayed by the empire of chance…” (Why I am not a Christian; p. 115,116)

I am sure Tony that you noticed, when reading Russell’s essay that he resorted to arguing ad hominem (against the man) as he directed everyone’s attention to the personal character flaws of Christians. Even if these charges were accurate, which I do not believe they are, the fact would remain that he resorted to arguing against a truth claim on the basis of the defects of the person/s that held that claim. For a person of Russell’s intellectual prowess, this is not acceptable at all, and I am sure Russell would be upset at any person who would try to do such a thing himself. He simply should have known better.

He attacked the Christians for their cruelty, for the wars they have waged, for the inquisitions, etc. but isn’t it amazing that Russell didn’t even stop to acknowledge the atrocities perpetrated by those who have not made a profession of faith in Christ. Russell didn’t mention the atrocities of Stalin or Genghis Khan, for example. No, these things were just swept under the carpet. Of course, he didn’t mention the great good done by Christians – the schools and hospitals built by Christians, and the care they have shown for the poor, etc.

There are other holes in Russell’s arguments. One obvious one is that he presumed to know the motivation of someone in becoming a Christian – even the motivation of all Christians, including those who lived in ages past. He did this based on a miniscule sampling of his own experiences with them. Then Russell goes on to use double standards in his arguments against the Christians. Russell tried to show that there was an emotional factor in a person becoming a Christian.

It is here, that I would have to acknowledge that Christians do have emotional reasons for accepting Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord. I accept that one motivation would be the fear of not doing so – the result being an eternal punishment in hell. I would have to agree with him that there is dread, and dread alone, awaiting those who do not believe in Christ. With Christ there is an endless hope, without Him, there is a hopeless end!

Continued in Part 3

Keep the Faith Tony (1)

Scripture commands us to “always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you to give a reason for the hope that is in you…” (1 Peter 3:15) To give a defense is to give a reasoned explanation for the things we believe, I think it is always a good thing for him to seek to sharpen his skills. In learning there was an apologetics course taking place in a Bible College locally (some time back), I signed up for the class, not to gain credit, but for the practical benefits of the study. The course was a very enriching experience for me. Though in many ways it was similar to one I took more than 20 years before, I gained far more from the course this time through. Perhaps that’s because my experience as a pastor allows me to now understand just how relevant the material is to help reach people in our day.

One of the tasks we as students had was to imagine someone who had sat under our ministry for some time who had now gone to a secular College or University, and was now feeling fragile in their faith after reading Bertrand Russell’s book, “Why I am not a Christian.” Our first task was to actually read Russell’s book and then respond to an imaginary letter from this person who was now questioning the claims of Christ. I chose the name Tony for this man… here’s what I wrote:

Dear Tony,

It was a pleasure to hear from you and I am glad that things are going well for you in your studies.

I would like to respond to you regarding your very real concerns about your Christian faith after reading Bertrand Russell’s essay, “Why I Am Not a Christian.” You said that you felt your faith had been “seriously violated” and was very much “under fire.”

Since talking to you, I have read through Russell’s essay a number of times. Russell had undoubted intelligence, but I do have to say that I found his arguments, upon close examination, to have very little weight. Let me explain.

The first thing I would point out is Russell’s obvious bias against Christianity. I was amazed to read his statement, “Historically it is quite doubtful whether Christ ever existed at all, and if He did we do not know anything about Him.” To make this statement, Russell portrays a predisposition against the facts, or in other words, a great bias. He dismisses, in one breath, the entirety of the New Testament Gospels, which were written by eye witnesses concerning the events they described. These eye witnesses were also willing to die for the truths they professed. Though many men have died for things that were in fact untrue, I don’t know of anyone who was prepared to die for what they knew to be untrue. Yet these men faced death because of their testimony, but preached the Gospel anyway. (Of course, Luke wrote after ascertaining the facts from eye witnesses – Luke 1:1-4).

Even if we were to ignore the sure testimony of scripture, outside sources certainly establish the historicity of Jesus. As you know Tony, I did an entire lecture on the references to Christ found outside the New Testament, while you were part of the youth group here at the Church. You remember Tony how in that lecture, I also taught that the Gospels were written within a relatively short time span after the time of Jesus’ earthly life, and I am sure you remember that there are so many copies of them still in existence, which adds much weight to the reliability of the texts themselves. The reliability of the New Testament far exceeds any other ancient document.

My charge of Russell being biased is fueled by his statement that he found the very existence of Jesus Christ “quite doubtful.” To take this view, logically, he would also have to doubt every fact we know about ancient history, because there is far greater evidence for the existence of Christ than just about any other person in the ancient world. Russell shows great inconsistency here. I am left to just ponder the obvious bias that Russell had in writing what he did. Russell had a great disdain for religion, especially Christianity.

That said, I do need to respond to Russell’s arguments themselves. Russell had a history of going from one idea to another in his earlier life concerning the nature of reality. It is important to state this to assess the intellectual “platform” that Russell stood on to make his boasts. It is also important to point out that Russell provided no real alternative to the truths he was attacking and died disillusioned, never having achieved what he hoped he could do – establishing a philosophical mathematical world-view that is internally consistent and not circular (i.e. does not require presuppositions).

Russell claimed that Christ was wrong about the timing of His Second Coming into the world. Of course, to answer each of the points he makes in this section of his essay “Defects in Christ’s Teaching” would require a book in itself. Certain background information is foundational to our thinking before we can build a case defending Christ’s words here. Fortunately such a book has been written, and before you left for University I gave you a copy. It is Dr. R.C. Sproul’s book, “The Last Days According to Jesus.” I believe you will find the points Russell brings up answered in this fine volume from page 12 onwards, in the section, “Russell’s Rejection of Christ.” Sproul’s response to Russell here takes on a partial preterist view concerning eschatology; however, whether or not you and I go all the way with Sproul in this, I do believe that Sproul is at least honest in dealing with the objections that Russell raised. Let me know what you make of Sproul’s defense of Christ here.

I must say Tony that I found Russell’s thinking to be very contradictory on a number of issues. For instance, he suggests that our values are not objective, but relative and very fleeting. Yet, Russell presents his values (that we gain autonomously) within a universe that he claims is without values. In other words, he wants us to act as if his arguments actually mean something; that we are to value his values though values do not exist! Yet he does this believing that his values are the absolute evaluation concerning Christ Himself and of Christians! In attacking the claims of Christ, I have to ask the question “upon what moral basis does Russell do so?” In his universe without values, he is giving us his evaluation of Christ!

Tony, I hope you can see that if Russell was consistent he would have to say that his own values were fleeting and doomed to oblivion as well as anyone else’s. He would also have to argue that since values are temporary and have no place in objectivity, there is no need to listen to anything he had to say. Yet, of course, that’s not what he says at all. He certainly wanted us to listen to his values and arguments; indeed he wanted us to adopt them. Here then is inconsistency personified.

It seemed that Russell had a limited time to deal with many issues under the topic at hand. However, he did say enough to make me alarmed. He made definite claims that need to be scrutinized. The first one is that the Roman Catholic Church is wrong to say that we can prove the existence of God by “unaided reason.” He then went on to try to defeat these same arguments… but Tony, isn’t it amazing that Russell tries to destroy these arguments based on unaided reason, by using his own unaided reason? Again, I would have to say that this is bias in the extreme. Russell simply takes it for granted that autonomous reason enables man to know things. But how does he know that? How does he know anything about the “laws” of science, for example?

He makes a great deal of assumptions without any objective criticism of his own paradigm. If this is a chance universe (as Russell claims) what is the basis for saying that anything in the universe is uniform. In other words, how do we know that science can teach us anything? Russell has no basis, within his own thinking structure to believe that science will continue to bring uniform results. I might mention here that the skeptic David Hume made a devastating critique of this, showing this very point.

Let me give you an example of what I am saying Tony. Though water may have boiled at 100 C in the past, there is no basis whatsoever for Russell to believe that it will do so today or in the future, in this chance driven universe. Yet it is obvious that he would take this (water boiling at 100 C) as a given – a known fact – but my point is that he has no rational basis for doing so within his epistemological system. Though pigs may not have flown in the past, they may well do so if we test one today. The result may be very different today. Who is to say that something random can’t happen right now that changes everything? With this philosophy or world view, it is impossible to have a true knowledge of anything. Though oranges are usually orange in color, they may be green with red spots tomorrow. The point is that in Russell’s random/chance driven universe, nothing can be known with any degree of certainty.

Russell tries to argue based upon the laws of logic. That’s all well and good, but we must understand that these laws are not observable to the senses. Russell needs to face the fact that either these laws are universal, binding and unchanging (as they are in reality), or else they are merely preferences based upon relativism. Russell cannot rationally account for the laws of logic, yet desires to base his arguments upon them. It is only in a universe created and sustained by God that we can account for such things as the laws of logic or science. Russell’s very use of logic presupposes a God who set up those laws, and it is here that we need to press Russell to admit that.

Continued in Part 2

Miscellaneous Quotes (26)

“The one thing that can add agony to the agony of the lost is, even amongst the lost themselves, than a lost minister shut up in hell with his congregation.” – Brownlow North, The Rich Man and Lazarus

“Men and women who refuse to acknowledge God’s existence do so, in the final analysis, because it is contrary to their manner of living. They do not want to bow to the moral claims of a holy God on their lives.” – R.C. Sproul

“Has it ever occurred to you that one hundred pianos all tuned to the same fork are automatically tuned to each other? They are of one accord by being tuned, not to each other, but to another standard to which each one must individually bow. So one hundred worshippers meeting together, each one looking away to Christ, are in heart nearer to each other than they could possibly be were they to become “unity” conscious and turn their eyes away from God to strive for closer fellowship.” – A. W. Tozer — The Pursuit of God [1948] (Wilder Publications, 2009), p. 63.

“True faith takes its character and quality from its object and not from itself. Faith gets a man out of himself and into Christ. Its strength therefore depends on the character of Christ. Even those of us who have weak faith have the same strong Christ as others!” – Sinclair Ferguson, The Christian Life

“When the Word of God converts a man, it takes away from him his despair but it does not take from him his repentance.

True conversion gives a man pardon, but it does not make him presumptuous.

True conversion gives a man perfect rest, but it does not stop his progress.

True conversion gives a man security, but it does not allow him to leave off being watchful.

True conversion gives a man strength and holiness, but it never lets him boast.” – Spurgeon: quoted in Iain Murray, The Forgotten Spurgeon (Banner of Truth 1966), 112

“I recall during my twelve year-old salvation crisis (brought on by my developed fear of the rapture) being told the illustration of a young girl who was being hounded by the Devil every day. The evil accuser challenged her salvation, lying to her about her conversion and shaking her assurance. An angel of the Lord came to her and took her to a tree in which she had carved the date of her decision, three years earlier. The angel said, “The next time the devil comes to accuse, you show him what is carved in this tree.”

This is a neat little story, and at the time, as dubious as my conversion at six years of age seemed to me, it prompted me to say the sinner’s prayer again and mark the new date. But looking back now I find it theologically tenuous and practically useless for the cause of assurance. My decisions are a shallow hope indeed. These days when the devil comes to accuse, I show him what is carved on my Savior’s hand. I rebuke him not with some sentimental tree memorializing my own spiritual movements but the tree upon which the Son of God was sacrificed for me.” – Jared C. Wilson, Gospel Wakefulness (Crossway, 2011), 30

“When the law of God is written on our hearts, our duty will be our delight.” – Matthew Henry

“I answer, We know, without ascending into heaven, or prying into unrevealed secrets, that our names were in that covenant, if, (1.) You are believers indeed; for all such the Father then gave to Christ: “The men that thou gavest me, (for of… them he spake immediately before,) they have believed that thou didst send me,” John xvii. 6, 8. (2.) If you savingly know God in Jesus Christ, such were given him which the Father: “I have manifested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me,” ver. 6. By this they are discriminated from the rest: “The world hath not known thee, but these have known,” ver. 25. (3.) If you are men and women of another world: “They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world,” ver. 16. May it be said of you, as of dying men, that you are not men and women for this world, that you are crucified and dead to it, Gal. vi. 14, that you are strangers in it: Heb. xi. 13, 14. (4.) If you keep Christ’s word: “Thine they were, and thou gavest them me; and they have kept thy word,” John xvii. 6. By keeping his word, understand the receiving of the word, in its sanctifying effects and influences into your hearts, and your perseverance in the profession and practice of it to the end: “Sanctify them through thy truth, thy word is truth,” ver. 17. “If ye abide in me, and my words abide in you, ye shall ask what ye will,” John xv. 7. Blessed and happy is that soul upon which these blessed characters appear, which our Lord Jesus hath laid so close together, within the compass of a few verses, in the 17th chapter of John. These are the persons the Father delivered unto Christ, and Christ accepted from the Father, in this blessed covenant.” – John Flavel

“Here are you and I, miserable worms in this world, miserable worms with our arrogance and our pride and our appalling ignorance. We deserve nothing but to be blotted off the face of the earth. But what has happened is that before the foundation of the world this blessed God, these three blessed Persons, considered us, considered our condition, considered what would happen to us, and the consequence was that these Three Persons, God, whom man hath never seen, stooped to consider us and planned a way whereby we might be forgiven and redeemed. The Son said, I will leave this glory for a while, I will dwell in the womb of a woman, I will be born as a babe, I will become a pauper, I will suffer insult in the world, I will even allow them to nail Me to a Cross and spit in My face. He volunteered to do all that for us, and at this very moment this blessed Second Person in the Trinity is seated at the right hand of God to represent you and me. He came down to earth and did all that, and rose again, and ascended to heaven; and it was all planned ‘before the world’ for you and for me.” – Martyn Lloyd-Jones

“Before all time; prior to all worlds; when there was nothing “outside of” God himself; when the Father, Son and Spirit found eternal, absolute and unimaginable blessing, pleasure and joy in their holy triunity — it was their agreed purpose …to create a world which would fall, and in unison — but at infinitely great cost — to bring you (if you are a believer) grace and salvation. This deeper grace from before the dawn of time — pictured in the rituals, the leaders and the experiences of the Old Testament saints (cf. Heb. 11:39–12:3) — is now ours. These are the dimensions of what the author of Hebrews calls “such a great salvation” (Heb. 2:3). Our salvation depends on God’s covenant, rooted in eternity in the plan of the Trinity, foreshadowed in the Mosaic covenant, fulfilled in Christ, enduring forever. No wonder Hebrews calls it “great.”” – Sinclair Ferguson Continue reading

As Expected, Nothing Happened

After the failed prophecy of May 21, 2011, no one payed too much attention to false teacher Harold Camping’s prediction for all that did not happen then to happen instead on Friday, October 21. However, as expected, the date passed and nothing happened.

ABC News’ Alyssa Newcomb and Lyneka Little Report:

Doomsday prophet Harold Camping’s revised prediction that the world would end on Oct. 21, 2011 turned out, once again, not to come true.

According to the preacher’s prediction, which was revised after his May 21, 2011 prophecy failed to materialize, Christians would ascend to heaven, while sinners would be left behind to suffer five months’ worth of natural disasters before the earth ignited into a fireball.

Camping’s Family Radio did not respond to ABCNews.com’s earlier requests for comment, and seems to be keeping mum on yet another “doomsday” that has come and gone.

“I’m sorry to disappoint you, but we at Family Radio have been directed to not talk to the media or the press,” Camping’s daughter Susan Espinoza wrote to the Associated Press on Friday.

Although this is Camping’s second failed prediction this year, a source familiar with the preacher said he has predicted the end of the world 12 times. His first prediction of the end of times apparently dates back to 1978.

But it was his May 21, 2011 prediction that drew the most fanfare. Camping went on a media blitz, inspiring followers to drain their personal savings to warn Christians that the end was near.

Family Radio spent millions on more than 5,000 billboards and 20 RVs plastered with the doomsday message marking May 21 as the apocalypse, according to the Associated Press.

His May 21st End of the World website stated: “…the Bible has given us absolute proof that the year 2011 is the end of the world during the Day of Judgment… Amazingly, May 21, 2011 is the 17th day of the 2nd month of the Biblical calendar of our day…”

Camping, who stated he pinpointed the date for the end of the world, placed the time of the rapture at 5:59 p.m. But the day came and went without a big bang. Later he said his math was off.

Callers to Open Forum, the show Camping hosts, expressed outrage.

“You’re really pathetic, you know? I wasted all my money because of you. I was putting all my money and my hopes on you… I wish I could see you face to face, I would smack you. Mr. Camping, you always say a lot of (redacted) I lost all my money because of you, you (redacted),” a caller said, according to The Christian Post.

There is no word yet on whether the 89-year-old Camping plans to offer another prediction, but if history is any indicator, this won’t be the last Camping’s listeners have heard from the doomsday prophet.

The truth is that Jesus will indeed return, but as He made very clear, at an hour when we do not expect Him.

Sovereign Election, Human Responsibility, Evangelism and the Gospel

These two messages by Dr. John MacArthur are exceptional. Taken from the recent the two sessions I make mention of here seek to provide biblical answers to questions such as “How are we to harmonize divine sovereignty with human responsibility? How can we understand that salvation is a matter of God’s will and God’s choice and God’s purpose, and God’s timing, and at the same time, make man in any sense responsible for what happens? How do we harmonize the issue of divine sovereignty and human responsibility with our evangelistic duty.”

I am delighted that these teaching sessions have now been made available in this way and I hope a great many people take the time to watch them. Get ready for deep insights into God’s word, the fruit of a lifetime of service from Dr. MacArthur.

As each of us learn and inwardly digest the contents, I am confident that the biblical truths learned here will have deep and profound effects as to how each of us conduct Christian ministry helping us become more informed and effective servants of Christ. I cannot recommend these videos highly enough.

Part 1 – An Introduction to the Sovereign Gospel (44 minutes) – found here.

Part 2 – An Explanation of the Sovereign Gospel (45 minutes) – found here.

(Full transcripts of the messages are available at the above links also)

Lord, Pour out Your Spirit

“Pray daily for a great outpouring of the Spirit on the Church and on the world. This is the grand need of the day – it is the thing that we need far more than money, machinery, and men. The “company of preachers” in Christendom is far greater than it was in the days of Paul; but the actual spiritual work done in the earth, in proportion to the means used, is undoubtedly far less. We need more of the presence of the Holy Spirit, more in the pulpit, and more in the congregation, more in the pastoral visit, and more in the school. Where He is, there will be life, health, growth, and fruitfulness. Where He is not, all will be dead, tame, formal, sleepy, and cold. Then let everyone who desires to see an increase of pure and undefiled religion, pray daily for more of the presence of the Holy Spirit in every branch of the visible Church of Christ.” – J.C. Ryle

“The question of gifts is entirely within the sovereignty of the Spirit and that because of that we should always be open, in mind and in heart, to anything that the Spirit of God may choose to do in His sovereignty.” – Martin Lloyd Jones

“When the Holy Spirit is poured out in a day of power the result is bound to affect whole communities and even nations. Conviction of sin, an anxiety to possess the Word of God, and dependence upon those truths which glorify God in man’s salvation, are inevitable consequences.” – Ian Murray

Theology is for Everyone

“No Christian can avoid theology. Every Christian has a theology. The issue, then, is not, do we want to have a theology? That’s a given. The real issue is, do we have a sound theology? Do we embrace true or false doctrine?” – Dr. R. C. Sproul

Here is Dr. J. I. Packer speaking on the importance of Theology in a talk given at St. Peter’s Anglican Church (Tallahassee, Florida) on February 1, 2010, entitled “Theology Is for Everyone”:

Does it Make God a Moral Monster if He Ordains All that Comes to Pass?

I am proud to call John Hendryx my friend. He is the founder and overseer of monergism.com, the most comprehensive theological website on the internet, as well as its blog site of reformationtheology.com (where I serve as one of the writing contributers).

In the following short article John Hendryx responds to Roger Olson. He writes:

One of the major premises of Roger Olson’s new book “Against Calvinism” is his declaration that classic Reformed doctrine of meticulous providence makes God into a moral monster, or worse, indistinguishable from the devil. He asserts that the Calvinist cannot consistently affirm that God ordains all that comes to pass, including the wicked acts of men, without also making God the author of sin.

Does it follow? Not in the least. The charge that it makes God a moral monster if the God of Scripture ordains all things, even the wicked acts of men, rests ultimately on the assumption that unless we can explain his actions then we may sit in judgment upon Him. In other words, the charge rests purely upon rationalism and extra-biblical logic. We acknowledge that we cannot explain all of God’s secret acts since God has chosen not to reveal many things about Himself. But one very prominent feature of the Bible is that it frequently declares that God meticulously ordains all that comes to pass (Eph 1:11) AND that men are responsible for their actions. One major example sticks out: the greatest sin ever committed by men in history — the crucifixion of Jesus —when the Apostle Peter, preaching at Pentecost declares:

“…this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men.” (Acts 2:23)

and two chapters later in Acts it again says:

“…both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together, For to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done.” (Acts 4:27-28)

The Bible itself testifies, in plain language, that God ordained evil men to crucify Jesus. Yet “lawless men” are 100% responsible for carrying it out. So those who embrace the Bible as authoritative need to be able to develop a theology which fits that into their view. While you may not understand it, you must yield to what the Scripture teaches regarding God’s meticulous hand of providence in all things, and His blamelessness in doing them.

The fatal flaw in Olson’s argument flows mostly from his insistence that Calvinists must somehow explain this philosophically or else we are being inconsistent, or worse, make God into a monster. But I would argue to the contrary: since the Bible holds forth our highest presuppositions, the most consistent position possible is to yield to the Bible’s teaching that both are true. God does not tell us much about HOW he can ordain evil acts while not being guilty of evil, only shows many examples where He does so. It may be a mystery for human beings to understand, yet crystal clear as regards to its established truth.

Likewise, nowhere in the Bible did God call us to work out the details of this doctrine by philosophical means, or pry into the secret things of God. Rather He calls us to be faithful to the Text that says God ordains all things, even evil, and that, at the same time, God is blameless in doing so. That He ordains sin sinlessly. I do not have to hold these truths together rationally (according to human knowledge) or philosophically but because they are axiomatic in the Bible. My understanding the intricacies of how this comes about is secondary. God is God. DO our finite minds have to understand HOW He does this in order for it to be true?

It appears that, ultimately, Olson’s objections to this are moral and philosophical rather than exegetical. He is, therefore, basing his considerations and thus his theological foundations on sand. The conclusions we reach, I would contend, must be based on what the Scripture says. For the alternative is to draw our highest presuppositions from something other than an authoritative source, such as unaided human reason. It is of utmost importance that he come up with exegetical grounds for his position, rather than base his theology on an emotional reaction.

I honestly cringe for Olson when he says that if God ordains evil events then God is indistinguishable from the devil, because the Bible declares that God does ordain them, and also declares that he does so blamelessly, i.e. without sin. And if our theology is biblical, (and I believe it is) then Dr. Olson ends up calling God a monster or worse, the devil. YIKES!!! I would not want to be him.

Note: It should be a given for Christians, that due to the fall, all human beings are not safe from temporal and eternal punishment. Why should it, therefore, so surprise Olson that God justly exercises this authority during our lives? Judgement has already begun east of Eden and we all are subject to death. So nothing (no suffering) should surprise us here except for the great mercy He has shown us in Jesus Christ. Regarding the Tower of Siloam (Luke 13:4), Jesus declared that it did not fall on people for their particular sin(s) because they were somehow worse that others, but as a sign in this fallen world that we are all ill-deserving sinners, under a curse who need to repent and receive the mercy of Jesus Christ. Don’t be surprised that the tower fell on those people – let it be a sober reminder that you deserve the same.

Similar Online Resources
Seven things the Bible says about Evil by Johnathon Bowers
Letter from Visitor on Calvinism, Evil and God’s Holiness by John Hendryx
Testing Roger Olson’s Depth of Exegesis: 1 Timothy 2:4 by James White

Now available at Monergism Books “For Calvinism” by Michael Horton and “Against Calvinism” by Roger Olson.