For All Believers

An exegetical look at Proverbs 22:6

ryanbareng@gmail.com (RBAR) — Sat, 12 Sep 2009 21:30:00 +0000

Answering The Problem of Evil

ryanbareng@gmail.com (RBAR) — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 16:58:00 +0000

With the memory of 9/11 fresh in our minds, we must be prepared to answer the question is likely to arise; namely, if God is all-loving and all-powerful then how can he allow such evil as in the 9/11 terrorist attacks to happen? This is a philosophical argument for atheism called, the "Problem of Evil."

Below are my notes and PowerPoint from a lesson I taught on dealing with the "Problem of Evil." I hope this helps you answer questions that may be coming your way.

INTRO
a. Read Wikipedia Article: Virginia Tech Massacre.
b. It’s times like this where we can’t help but ask, “What is the World coming to?”
c. And every time something bad happens in the world you can always count on one thing: People (especially anti-religious) will come to you with a myriad of questions expecting you to answer their questions.
d. They raise a real issue: THE PROBLEM OF EVIL.
i. It’s the #1 Question in response to tragedy: “How could a loving God allow this to happen?” What would you say?
ii. Albert Einstein: This was Einstein’s objection to the existence of the God of the Bible. His scientific discoveries convinced him that there must be a God, but he opted for an impersonal account of God because of the problem of evil.
iii. C.S. Lewis: Famous Christian writer (Chronicles of Narnia) Got married late in life (55) and a couple years into the marriage lost his wife. He didn’t question the existence of God, but His character.

2. Expose Need:
a. Not only do we need to be ready to give a reason (1 Peter 3:15) for the hope that we have as Believers, but we also need to take advantage of unfortunate events like this and use them to point people to the truth.
i. When Peter wrote his epistle, he was talking to believers who were suffering for doing good. The punch line was for them to “set apart Christ as lord and always be prepared to give a reason for the hope that is in them.”
ii. We can apply this to ourselves when we address unbelievers and critics: Set apart Christ in us and give a reason for our hope!
b. And we need to realize that situations like this don’t really prove that God doesn’t exist anyways!
i. First, situations like this actually prove God exists and that the Bible is true and…
ii. Second, situations like this show us how much people really need to admit that they need God and stop suppressing the truth (Romans 1).
c. But, then again, there is no easy way to address the Problem of Evil.
i. You can’t offer a quick fix (30 sec rebuttal)
ii. It’s also raised in the midst of some crazy catastrophe.
d. We can’t even begin to calculate all the evil, pain and suffering that mankind has experienced.

3. Orient to Message/Big Idea:
a. The Problem of Evil goes like this:
i. If God is all powerful and all loving, then why would he allow so much suffering and evil in the world?
ii. He is either all powerful, but not all loving or he is all loving, but not all powerful.
iii. He either CAN’t destroy evil or he DOESN’t Care.
iv. Or, maybe there is no such thing as God and the fact that Evil exists is proof.

b. And to make the Problem of Evil more difficult, it also refers to NATURAL EVIL.
i. Nature: Floods, Earthquakes, tornados
ii. Diseases: Cancer, small pox
iii. Developmental Disability: Autism, Downs Syndrome
iv. Accidents/injuries: Being burned, drowining, falling.
v. Note: Sometimes natural and moral evil are combined. In Ethiopia, thousands of people are starving to death, but it was cauased by the political leaders who were using food as a political weapon against the resistance.

c. Remember that this is the #1 Argument for Atheism and it’s not even that good. Keep these thing in mind:
i. There is a perfectly good explanation why God allows evil.
ii. It’s because of his Love and Goodness that he allows it.
iii. In fact, Evil in this life is part of the Master plan. W/o it the plan doesn’t make sense. It plays a part.

TRANSISTION: We’re going to use our time to learn how to respond to THAT question, but first, we must lay out some ground rules. It will challenge your thinking. This is how church should be.

1. First Point: Evil Is Something. Evil Exists. It’s Real.
a. Some believe in RELATIVISM. That is, they believe everything is RELATIVE.
b. How can we know if somebody is a relativist?
i. What’s right for you isn’t right for me.”
ii. You can’t legislate morality!” But, the law IS morality! (Don’t kill, steal or destroy).

c. Relativism is SELF-refuting!
i. IF THEY SAY: “I don’t believe in moral absolutes. What’s right for you is right for you, etc…”
ii. ASK: “are you absolutely sure?”
iii. THEN: Take his car keys and he’ll start believing in Absolutes real quick.
d. Examples of moral relativism and the notion of “Tolerance.”
i. Premarital relations? If that’s what they want to do its okay.
ii. Abortion? It’s their body. Let them do what they want.
iii. Killing? “It depends, if the person deserves to be killed.”
iv. Homosexuality? “Who are we to say that isn’t true love?”

e. People are drowning in a sea of Moral Relativism.
f. BUT, no matter what, built inside us is knowledge of God. Men just suppress the truth.

2. The Problem: Relativism simply says EVIL does not Exist. How do we prove this?
a. If everything is relative (allowed) then nothing is ultimately wrong. Then nothing can be considered evil!
i. We can only say something is evil if (and only if) we assume that there is GOOD (i.e. absolute truth).
ii. Evil = the opposite of Good (aka. Absolute Moral Truth).
iii. You cannot have evil without having Good!
iv. All in all, Evil is simply a departure from the way things ought to be.

b. NOTE: If there is no Standard (way things should be), then there can be no departure; and thus no EVIL.
i. C.S. Lewis: “My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I gotten his idea of just and unjust? A man does not call something crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line” (Lewis, Mere Christianity, p. 31).

ii. If relativists believe there is no standard; no absolutes.
iii. Then, they can’t complain about evil.

CASE IN POINT: That’s like someone complaining about crooked lines but doesn’t believe in straight lines either.

c. AGAIN: The problem of evil argument is based on the existence of evil, which is an absolute!
i. The phrase, “evil exists” is an absolute.
ii. For evil to exists, then there MUST be things that are ABSOLUTELY wrong.
iii. These departures from good are called EVIL.

d. But REMEMBER the problem with Relativism: Everything is subjective (i.e. it depends on the SUBJECT). Imagine how silly this conversation would sound:

“I can’t believe in God!” -- “Why not?” -- “Kim-Chee!” -- “Kim-Chee? What does Kim-Chee have to do with anything!?”
“I hate Kim-Chee! and I can’t believe that an all loving God would create something I hate so much. I almost die when my
workmates open their Tupperware’s full of kim-Chee.”

e. The PROBLEM with relativism is seen in this translation:
“How could a good God allow things that make me mad or sad exist? If it offends me then God should not allow it!!!!!!!!”

f. Relativism is completely self-centered! It’s all about YOU and what makes YOU mad/sad/angry.

3. Relativism and the problem caused by objective evil are strange bedfellows. They couldn’t possibly both be true at the same time.
a. If morality is ultimately a matter of personal tastes (like preferring a snickers over Kim-Chee)
b. Then the objection vanishes, because the objection depends on the fact that some things are absolutely evil.
c. But, If there’s no absolute right or wrong then there is no evil, and how can we hold God responsible for something that doesn’t exists?
d. A relativist can’t complain about the problem of evil because there is no EVIL to create a problem.
i. There is no Right, and therefore no wrong.
ii. To complain about it is nonsense.
iii. You can’t have both feet firmly planted in mid air.
4. However, if you can complain about evil (because true evil does exist), then you can’t be an atheist. Real evil must mean there’s a real Good and a real God.
a. If there is no God, there’s no perfect standard, no absolute right or wrong, and therefore no departure from that standard.
b. If there is no God, then, there is no evil, and we’re back to personal likes and dislikes again (relativism).
5. How do we know what’s ABSOLUTELY(intrinsically) evil?
a. God is the one to define it!
b. Our standards are too subjective because the truth is we just care about ourselves!
i. Everyone thinks he’s basically a good person (ROLL PLAY).
ii. “I’m a good person. At least I’m not like HIM; he doesn’t go to Church…”
c. You may not be a Hitler, but you’re’ not a Jesus Christ either, and you’re probably a lot more like Hitler than you are like Jesus.
d. If God defines evil, it involves a lot more than kill, steal and destroy.
6. So we face an ironic situation: The problem of evil only exists if a personal, moral God exists.
a. This is why the existence of evil is one of the best evidences for the existence of God, not against it.
b. Once cannot even BEGIN the debate if there is no God.
i. There will be no true evil to discuss, just OPINIONS.
ii. Pluralistic Lady Story:
“people should worship God however they want.”
Philistines worshiped Molech by baby sacrifice
(lev. 18:21- don’t sacrifice your child to Molech!)

c. The alternative if God doesn’t exist?
i. Everything becomes relative.
ii. No right or wrong, and you do what you want.
iii. Problem: that will be chaotic.

SO FIRST, evil is something. If it’s real, it must be grounded in an objective, personal, moral standard of Good. Therefore, God exists.

1. Second Point: Evil is Not Some Thing.
a. Evil is not “stuff.”
b. Evil isn’t a blob of “stuff” crawling around infecting the universe.
c. It isn’t something that gets into to a man, forcing him to do bad.
d. We can’t put it in a piety dish and observe it.

2. It IS an unnatural or improper use of things (that are not evil in themselves).
a. Illustration: A Knife and a Human Body.
i. Are either items evil? No.
ii. The knife starts cutting up the Human. Is the knife then evil?
iii. What if there is a surgeon behind the knife? Is it evil?
b. What is the point of the illustration?
i. Evil didn’t need to be created. It is not a substance!
ii. Therefore, God did not create it!

3. Evil is a word that describes the condition of something missing, a privation (Augusting, Thomas Aquinas).
a. Doughnut holes and shadows are not things in themselves, but things missing.
i. Evil is a “hole” in goodness, a “shadow” that results when goodness is missing.
ii. “Sin” (Gk. Hamartia) refers to a target that was missed!
b. THE POINT: If evil isn’t some thing, then it wasn’t created.

Transition: Since the attack here is on the God of the Bible, let’s let Him answer for Himself.
Read the first three chapters and the last three chapters of the Bible to find the issue described, explained, and resolved.

So evil is something, but It’s not some thing.
What does the Bible say about where it came from?

1. THIRD POINT: Evil Is an Intruder, Brought by Man, Not God.
a. It was not something created by God.
i. Genesis 1:31 “God saw all that He had made and it was very good.”
ii. Genesis 1 uses the word “good” seven times to describe the world that God made.

b. Evil is a description of what happened when man refused God’s leadership.
i. It is a condition that resulted from man’s choice to disobey God.
1. Genesis 2:15-17 “You must not eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die.”
2. Genesis 3:17 “Because you…ate from the tree…cursed is the ground because of you.”

ii. Adam chose to disobey. That infers that man has free will.
iii. The first Adam Failed! Now the whole world is born in sin.

c. We live in a world that WE messed up, and a messed up world produces messed people and messed situations.
i. What does the Bible say?
1. Romans 5:12 “Sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned.”
2. Jeremiah 17:9 “The hear is deceitful above all things and beyond cure. Who can understand it?

d. The point: Evil is an intruder. THE WORLD WAS NEVER MEANT TO BE MESSED UP!
And it’s man’s fault, not God’s.
1. POINT FOUR: Evil exists because man is FREE to Choose.
a. If man has the choice between right and wrong, someone, sometime, will definitely choose evil; it is inevitable.

b. Back to the Problem of Evil
i. Review The Argument
ii. Critique the Argument

c. Two Hidden Assumptions
i. if God is all powerful than He can create any world He wishes.
ii. if God is all good, than He would prefer a world without evil over a world with evil.

d. ASSUMPTION 1: The objector reasons that since God is all-powerful He could create a world containing free creatures who always choose to do what is right or morally good.
i. Such a world would be an evil-free world.
ii. By the same token, since He is all-powerful He could also create a world where no natural evil/suffering exists. It would be a world free of all pain and suffering.

(VIDEO- QUIZZNOS COMMERCIAL) → God cannot create a world where we are free to always choose Good.

e. ASSUMPTION 2: he would prefer such a world over one that is affected with evil. If God had the choice of allowing a perfect world or a world with evil, they believe in his all-goodness/lovingness he would prefer the perfect one otherwise He himself would be evil.

(Illustration- Picture of PENUEL on Ramp) → God may have good reasons for allowing us to experience pain/suffering now.

f. The problem with the “Problem of Evil” is the two assumptions mentioned above:
i. they are simply not necessarily true.
ii. It is simply not necessarily true that God’s omnipotence entails that He could create any world He wishes,
iii. nor is it necessarily true that his omnibenevolence entails that He would prefer a world with no evil in it.

g. Omnipotence does not mean that he has the power to contradict himself.
i. God’s omnipotence does not mean He has the power to bring about logical contradictions.
ii. He could not create a round square, make 1+1=3, or makes something true and not true at the same time and in the same context.
iii. Thus, he could not create a world where he makes people always do good and be loving at the same time. Dictatorship is not love.

h. The point is that God cannot create a world where people freely choose to always do good.
i. If people are truly free, then not even God could make them choose good; they must be allowed the possibility of choosing to do wrong even though others might suffer because of it.
ii. So in a sense, God creates the person who has free will and stands back when that person wants to deviate from His ways.

i. In sum, the notion of a world where people always choose to freely do good is contradictory.
i. If they were truly free, then over time, it would probably be the case that eventually some time down the timeline that one individual would deviate from God’s ways and freely choose to do evil.
ii. The only way God could prevent this would be to take away that individual free will or to force them to choose good.

j. Conclusion: On those grounds alone, the argument of the logical problem of evil becomes invalid.

TRANSITION: Now we believers may be sitting there thinking, that’s nice, but why would God allow ME (a lover God) to suffer? I know man has free will, but why would God allow me (a good Christian) to suffer?

I. Possibilities (DOGS → Discipline | Others | God | Self

a. The choice is ours: We can do one of 2things:

i. React in PRIDE:
1. I must be doing something wrong.
2. No. Why doe it have to be YOU?
3. God may just be trying to get your attention.

4. Other considerations
a. Resist the temptation to FIX yourself.
b. Resist the temptation to react.

ii. Respond in HUMILITY:
1. Listen for God’s voice: “I’m going to let you experience what’s really goin on! [To let you see who you really are].
2. Pause: “Okay Lord. You have my attention.”
3. Reflect: This is an invitation to dialogue with God. Maybe God is trying to get your attention.

A Philosophical Response to the Problem of Evil

ryanbareng@gmail.com (RBAR) — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 16:24:00 +0000

Undoubtedly the greatest intellectual obstacle to the belief in the existence of God is the widespread and trendy “Problem of Evil” argument. For the Problem of Evil advocate, it just seems unbelievable that an all loving and all-powerful God could permit evil to exist as it has in this world. Indeed, the amount of evil or pain and suffering in this world is beyond measure, whether caused by humans (moral evil)[1] or natural disaster (natural evil); the amount of pain and suffering in the world is unfathomably incalculable. Christian theists in return challenge the contention that the problem of evil posits with a theodicy. This term, theodicy, refers to a counter-argument, which seeks to defend the existence of God including his all powerfulness (omnipotence) and all goodness (omnibenevolence/moral perfection) in light of the evil that exists. Countless attempts by atheistic, agnostic, and non-believers of various types have all shared aims in the attack of theism based on the presence of pain and suffering among the innocent.

Not only is this topic bound to come up in the workplace, at home, or in a classroom setting, but also the believer could be put on the spot, and may not have an adequate answer to give. Perhaps the real problem here is for the believers who are left speechless in a spur-of-the-moment predicament when confronted with the issue. Or it may just be the case that not enough time and preparation takes place in the local Church for such a test. Whether or not the Bible calls for theodicy, one thing is for sure: the Bible calls all believers to be ready in and out of season for the defense of the Gospel (cf. 1 Peter 3:15). And it is safe to say that the attack on theism is an indirect attack on the gospel of Jesus Christ. Therefore, when the problem of evil is presented, which is an indirect attack on the message of the gospel, it is the job of the believers to make a defense.

The major proponents of the Problem of Evil are David Hume, J.L. Mackie, Paul Draper, and Richard Gale. Alvin Plantinga, Doug Geivett, and William Lane Craig are the major respondents who offer the theodicy’s that will be considered in this paper. The purpose of this paper is to evaluate and respond to various forms of the problem utilizing a freewill defense. In addition, it will provide some practical conclusions for the believer on the basis of observing the debate and its effect on the contemporary culture/church setting.

Overview

The heart of the Problem of Evil lies in an apparent contradiction between God’s attributes of omnibenevolence and omnipotence in light of the existence of evil in the world. The proponent of the argument argues: if God is all loving and all-powerful, since evil exists in the World, either God cannot defeat it, or he will not defeat it. Consequently, if God cannot stop evil, he cannot be omnipotent. And if God does not wish to stop it, he cannot be all loving. The 18th century Scottish skeptic David Hume, in Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion posed the questions that stabbed the conscious’ of Christian theists: “Is he [God] willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then is he impotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then is he malevolent. Is he both able and willing? When then is evil?”[2]

By and large, the common thread that ties all logical formulations together is the apparent contradiction with the existence of evil in the world in light of God’s character. Although the form may vary, the focus of the attack is directed toward theism. Consider the following syllogisms:

Traditional formulation

P1: If evil exists, an omnipotent and omnibenevolent God cannot exist.

P2: Evil exists

C: Therefore, an omnipotent and omnibenevolent God does not exist.[3]

Expanded form

P1: If God exists, then God is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect.

P2: If God is omnipotent, then God has the power to eliminate all evil.

P3: If God is omniscient, then God knows when evil exists.

P4: If God is morally perfect, then God has the desire to eliminate all evil.

P5: Evil exists.

P6: If Evil exists and God exits, then either God doesn’t have the power to eliminate all evil, or

doesn’t know when evil exists, or doesn’t have the desire to eliminate all evil.

C: Therefore, God doesn’t exist.[4]

Various formulations

P1: If God is perfectly loving, He must wish to abolish evil

P2: If He is all powerful, He must be able to abolish evil

P3: But evil exists

C: Therefore, an all powerful, loving God does not exist.[5]

P1: God is the author of everything.

P2: Evil is something

P3: Therefore, God is the author of evil.[6]

P1: God made everything perfect.

P2: Imperfection cannot come from perfection.

P3/C: Therefore, perfectly created beings cannot be the origin of evil.

C2: Therefore, God must be the origin.[7]

Attack Based on the Persistence of Evil

P1: If God is all good, He would destroy evil

P2: If God is all-powerful, He could destroy evil.

P3: But evil is not destroyed.

C: Hence, there is no such God.[8]

J.L. Mackie, a leading proponent of the argument proposes what he believes is the “simplest form:” “God is omnipotent; God is wholly good; and yet evil exists.”[9] He goes on to clarify in his celebrated article, “God and Omnipotence,” that God could have created a world where people freely chose to always do good.[10]

In addition to these logical formulations is the “probabilistic” approach, which is not so rigid, and is perhaps a “safer” argument. It says: If evil exists, then it is highly improbable that an omnipotent, morally perfect God exists. If it is highly improbable that an omnipotent, morally perfect God exists, then you should not believe in God. Evil exists. Therefore, it is highly improbable than an omnipotent, morally perfect God exists. Therefore, you should not believe in God. In either the traditional or probabilistic approach, it is understood that such objectors have an agenda to deny God’s existence as well as his attributes of omnipotence and omnibenevolence. Also, it is likely that the problem of evil proponents will accuse their theistic adversaries with irrationality.

In sum, the “problem” arises from the speculation that a perfectly good God would not tolerate evil or suffering to subsist and persist in the world, and that an omniscient and omnipotent God ought to set up an evil-free world in accord with his perfection. Since evil and suffering are noticeably present, it gives the impression that God either intends it that way and is therefore not entirely good; or He lacks an adequate amount of knowledge to foresee pain and suffering, or lacks sufficient power to arrange a world free of pain and suffering.

A Closer Look: Variations of the Problem of Evil[11]

Prior to a response and critique of the problem, a distinction between the two major formulations is needed; namely, the distinction between the “Intellectual problem of evil” and the “Emotional problem of evil.” The first type concerns how to give a rational explanation of the existence of God and evil while the emotional problem of evil focuses on how to comfort those who are going through intense suffering. This emotional problem of evil lies in the territory of the pastor or the counselor while the intellectual problem of evil lies in the area of the philosopher. The answer to the intellectual form appears to be dry and insensitive to someone who is experiencing intense suffering while the answer to the emotional problem of evil will appear shallow and unsatisfactory to someone who is actually contemplating it merely on an academic level. This paper seeks to take a look at both types in hopes of providing sufficient reasons to believe that God co-exists with evil for a season that we are currently living in.

In addition to the intellectual type and the emotional formulations are two versions; namely, the logical version and the probalistic or evidential version. The first version holds that it is logically impossible for both God and evil to co-exist. Since both seem to be incompatible, they say that both cannot exist simultaneously. [12] These proponents all agree that evil exists and thus they build their case that God cannot exists in light of that reality. On the other hand, the probabilistic or evidential version of the problem of evil admits that it is logically possible for God and evil to co-exist, but nevertheless they maintain that it is highly improbable that God exists given the reality of evil in the world. They say, since evil exists, then God probably does not exist.

The Logical version of the problem of evil states that it is logically impossible for God to co-exists with evil; they are two logically incompatible premises. However, at face value, these two statements: God exists and Evil exists are not in and of themselves contradictions. After all there is no explicit inconsistency here. Therefore, the objector is really saying that there are implicitly contradictory. If that is the case then the objector must be assuming something that would bring out this contradiction to make it explicit. The quest for the believer/apologist is to point out those assumptions.

Evaluation and Critique

In any attempt to construct a problem of evil, one must keep in mind that finite man is trying to comprehend an infinite God. Although the skeptics have no problem accepting his omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent attributes, it seems as if they totally disregard the attribute of transcendence, which basically says that God is not limited to what man is capable of understanding. Be that as it may, the task of the apologist is to make a defense for the gospel, which in this case, involves breaking down and responding to their logic.

As it stands, the Problem of Evil argument appears deductively valid. But as is the case with all logical arguments, there are still several ways in which the argument could backfire. First and foremost, an argument could contain a false premise, based on mere assumption. Secondary, it may contain an equivocation. The Problem of Evil violates both of these principles, and thus would be considered an invalid argument. Furthermore, a solid argument must demonstrate that something is true; if the debater cannot fulfill this task, then his or her argument ceases to be a good argument and ought not to be referred to as such.

The Freewill Defense to the Problem of Evil

St. Augustine is perhaps the first great theologian to rebut the contention that theism contains an internal contradiction in, On Free Choice of the Will. This indispensable treatise on the free choice of the will delineates a theodicy, which affirms that God is not the cause of evil; but rather, the individual who exercises his or her freedom.[13] Following in the footsteps of Augustine is Alvin Plantinga, a world-renowned Christian philosopher and professor at the University of Norte Dame. He sums up the free will defense as:

“…an effort to show that there may be a very different kind of good that God can’t bring about without permitting evil… [it] is the idea that of being free with respect to an action (italics mine).”[14]

He goes on to specify that:

“…God can create free creatures, but he can’t cause or determine them to do only what is right. For if He does so, then they aren’t’ significantly free after all; they do not do what is right freely(italics his).…He must create creatures capable of moral evil; and He can’t give these creatures the freedom to perform evil and at the same time prevent them from doing so.”[15]

The heart of the Free Will Defense is the belief that it is possible that God could not have created a universe containing moral good, but no moral evil. And if so, then it is possible that God has morally sufficient reasons for creating a world containing evil.[16]

Three Apologetic Methods of Response[17]

Alongside the Free Will defense Theodicy rests three major methods of dealing with the Problem of Evil, which makes for a compelling rebuttal. The first method is to point out the unclear allegations, which merely assume what God should do in light of his all-powerfulness and moral perfection. Secondly, there is the option to demonstrate the consistency of the propositions in question. Finally, the responder could provide positive reasons for God’s existence in an effort to cast any undemonstrated inconsistency as only “apparent.” The remainder of this paper will seek to show that by utilizing each methodological principle, the argument, regardless of its form or version will come up invalid. In fact, the first methodological principle alone is sufficient in disproving the validity of the Problem of Evil argument.

The Major Weakness of the Problem of Evil Argument

There are two hidden assumptions in the logical problem of evil. The first assumption is that if God is all-powerful than He could create any world He wishes; namely, a world without evil, pain, or suffering. The second assumption is that if God is all good and loving, than He would prefer a world without evil. If God had the choice of allowing a perfect world or a world with evil, they believe in his all-goodness he would prefer the perfect one otherwise He himself would be evil. The weakness in this argument is that these two assumptions do not logically follow. It is not necessarily true that God’s omnipotence entails that He could create any world He wishes, nor is it necessarily true that His omnibenevolence entails that He would prefer a world with no evil in it.

A good reason for rejecting the first assumption is that God’s omnipotence does not mean He has the power to bring about logical contradictions. He could not create a round square, make 1+1=3, or make something true and not true at the same time and in the same context. Omnipotence does not mean that he can violate the law of non-contradiction. Accordingly, God cannot create impossible worlds. Possible worlds are ones that do not contain within them any logical contradictions. And it is only possible worlds that God is able to create. C.S. Lewis’ book on The Problem of Pain harmonizes all-powerfulness with the problem of evil:

“[God’s] Omnipotence means power to do all that is intrinsically possible, not to do the intrinsically impossible. You may attribute miracles to Him, but not nonsense. This is no limit to His power. If you choose to say “God can give a creature free will and a the same time withhold free will from it,” you have not succeeded in saying anything about God: meaningless combinations of words do not suddenly acquire meaning simply because we prefix to them the two other words “God can.” It remains true that all things are possible with God: the intrinsic impossibilities are not things but nonentities. It is no more possible for God than for the weakest of His creatures to carry out both of two mutually exclusive alternatives; not because His power meets an obstacle, but because nonsense remains nonsense even when we talk it about God.”[18]

The notion of a world where people always choose to freely do good, although it is a possible world, it is not really a feasible world, for certain logically possible worlds are not feasible ones. If they were truly free, then over time, it would probably be the case that eventually some time down the timeline that one individual would deviate from God’s ways and freely choose to do evil. The only way God could prevent this would be to take away that individual free will or to force them to choose good. It is possible that every world God created would result in some sort of evil in it because God created each individual with the freedom to choose between right and wrong; He does not build sinless robots. Such a world is merely a hypothetical one, which may be logically possible, but in all reality may be actually unachievable and perhaps morally less desirable.[19]

The purpose up to this point is to show that although the possible worlds theory may be logically possible, it may not be feasible. Furthermore, there is no logical incompatibility with the co-existence of God and evil. Those facts, side by side do not contradict one another. Thus, the first assumption, namely that God could create any world He wishes, is simply not necessarily true. On those grounds alone, the argument of the logical problem of evil is invalid.

The second assumption needs to be rejected because it is not necessarily true that a morally perfect God would never prefer a world with any moral evil in it over one where it is absent, for he may have morally sufficient reasons for permitting the evil that he does. Again, this notion of God preferring a world with no evil is merely an assumption, which they only hope is true. Furthermore, it does not seem obvious that just because God is morally perfect, that he has to create a world that is morally perfect. He is justified to allow that evil for the sake of the greater good. His holiness is still safeguarded even though he allows evil in this world.

A few illustrations are helpful in rejecting the second assumption. Imagine a parent who “loves” his or her child so much that he or she shelters them from encountering the evil beyond the shelter of home. Would this parent be regard as a “good” parent? Most people would say that treatment is evil itself. A bad parent is not one who lets their children outside to encounter evil. It is over ridden by the fact that the child will gain life experience in hopes of growing up into a matured individual. In fact, to rob a child of his or her childhood not only is cruel, but it sets up that child for failure. Their first encounter with the “real world” may be too much for them to handle if it comes later on in life. Consider a second illustration regarding child rearing. For parents, there is an overriding morally sufficient reason to discipline their children. Of course the discipline must be given if the child has committed a wrong. A parent who inflicts pain and “suffering” upon their child, is not a bad parent for doing so because there is a morally sufficient reason for doing so; namely, parental discipline, which teaches the child about rules, regulations, and consequences. Take a look at one last illustration of an 8yr old boy named Penuel. For his birthday, we built a skateboard ramp. When it came time for his first “drop in” I realized there was high probability that he would fall and experience some pain. In fact, I knew that he would get hurt eventually; it is an inevitable occurrence in skateboarding. Nonetheless, the reason why I did not prevent him from falling is because I wanted him to have a sense of accomplishment, which he would eventually have after dropping in the ramp. A short time of pain is a small price to pay for the glory that comes in executing a skateboard trick. On his first try, he fell on his rear, but after mastering “drop in,” he became a new kid; he had a sense of pride that experience and courage could only impart. The greater morally sufficient reason in letting this child experience pain was the pride and sense of accomplishment that he gained in the long run. In the same manner, it is likely that God has similar morally sufficient reasons to create a world with the amount of freedom that ours has. He has morally sufficient reasons for allowing humans to feel the effects of living in a fallen world. In light of this, assumption number two is dead; God would not just prefer a morally perfect world just because he is all good and all loving.

Having engaged in the first method of responding the to the Problem of Evil, we can now turn briefly to the second and third methodological principles, which reiterate and reinforce the first method. As mentioned earlier, this second method or response seeks to demonstrate the consistency of the propositions in question. Consider the following two points. First, God could not have created a world with just as much freedom and resultant good as the actual world, but had less evil, whether moral or natural in terms of quantity and quality. Such a world is infeasible. Furthermore, God may have morally sufficient reasons for allowing the amount of freedom into the world he has, with all of its resultant evil. The last method of handling this problem is to simply provide positive reasons to think God does exist in an effort to cast any undemonstrated inconsistency as only “apparent.” That is to say, we can take this argument, which focuses on the reality of evil and turn it around for establishing God’s existence.

Logical Argument from Evil for God

Beyond the simple defense against the problem of evil argument is an attempt to establish theism based upon the existence of evil.

William Lane Craig’s Version

P1: If objective moral values exist, then God exists.

P2: Evil exists.

C1/P3: Therefore objective moral values do exist.

C2: Therefore, God exists.

P1: Evil cannot exist without an opposite

P2: Evil exists.

C1/P3: Therefore objective moral values do exist.

C2: Therefore, God exists.

R. Douglas Geivett’s Version

P1: If evil exists, it is a departure from the way things ought to be.

P2: If evil is a departure from the way things ought to be, then there is a way things ought to be.

P3: If there is a way things ought to be, then there is a design plan for how things ought to be.

P4: If there is a design plan, there is a designer (i.e., God).

P5: Evil exists.

C: Therefore, God exists.

Forallbelievers.org

P1: Evil cannot exist without an opposite.

P2: The opposite of evil is objective moral values.

P3: Only God could create objective moral values.

C2: Therefore, God exists.

Each of these logical arguments plays off the direct claims that the problem of evil posits. What the objectors do not realize is that they presuppose an ultimate standard of good with their reference to evil. Josef Pieper says, “the incomprehensibility of evil in the world becomes fully apparent only against the background of the indestructible happiness of God.”[20] Any attempt to object to the way things are infers that there is a way, which things should be. Overall, although their arguments are sincere, this paper has shown that they are sincerely wrong.

Biblical Considerations

From a Biblical standpoint, the believer should keep several things in mind when formulating a theodicy. To begin with, the believer could concentrate on the fact that God created the fact of freedom while man performs the act of freedom. There is no evidence in the Bible that says God forces or coerces individuals to disobey what he has commanded. Along the same lines, it is safe to say that God made evil possible, but man makes evil actual. What the problem of evil proponent must come to grips with is that the ability to do something does not necessitate the actual doing it. God is able to control everything, yet he allows man to exercise volition even if it is negative. In his omnipotence, God allows individuals the freedom to choose. Secondly, the proponent of the problem of evil must avoid an equivocation of why God allows the persistence of evil from why he permitted it in the first place. One must take into account God’s sovereign overall purpose -- His divine plan for mankind. Lastly, the Bible speaks of a time where evil will be eradicated. In the final stage of salvation, commonly referred to as Glorification salvation, the believer will be saved from the presence of sin, which includes any pain or suffering. Just because God is allowing some pain and suffering in this life does not mean His divine plans are not working out for the best.

FINAL CONCLUSION

Ironically, in an argument called “The Problem of Evil,” the only problem is for the one who presents the argument in an attempt to disprove the existence of God. Without God there is no concept of evil. Without the existence of objective moral values, there can be no deviation from that which is right; there is no evil. There are no “crooked” lines without a straight line with which to compare it. Any person objecting to the existence of God in light of evil in the world only create more reasons to believe in God.

In the midst of a focus on evil and the characteristics of this fallen world, individuals have missed the big picture; namely, that not only will evil be dealt with, but the God who will deal with it also provides the solution to the penalty and the power of sin in the life of the believer. It is true, evil exists, and has dreadfully affected the human race, but God has provided the solution to the problem, which is by grace through faith in the work of the Lord Jesus Christ (John 3:16; 20:31; Acts 16:31). So it seems ludicrous to disregard what God has provided for all eternity in exchange for what we experience in this short life.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Adams, Marylin McCord. Horrendous Evils and the Goodness of God. Ithaca, NY: Corness

University Press, 1999.

Augustine, On Free Choice of the Will, trans. Anna Benjamin and L.H. Hackstaff. New York:

The bobs-Merrill company, Inc., 1964.

Copjec, Joan. ed. Radical Evil. New York, NY: Verso, 1996.

Craig, William Lane, The Problem of Evil. Audiocassette (1-2). In 1997 Masters Series in

Christian Thought. Signal Hill, Ca: Stand To Reason, 1997.

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

Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1979, 1994.

__________."And the Atheist Shall Lie Down with the Calvinist: Atheism, Calvinism, and the

Free Will Defense." Trinity Journal . 1 NS (Fall 1980).

Geisler, Norman L. The Roots of Evil. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 1978, 2002.

Kwak, John. Apologetics Syllabus, Talbot School of Theology, Spring 2004.

Lewis, Clive Staples. The Problem of Pain. New York, NY: Macmillan, 1944.

Mackie, J.L., “Evil and Omnipotence,” Mind 64, 1955.

McCallum, Dennis. The Problem of Evil. Internet. www.xenos.org/essays/evilpo.htm

Pojman, Louis P. Philosophy of Religion: An Anthology. Belmont, Ca: Wadsworth Publishing

Company, 1998, p. 186.

Plantinga, Alvin C. God, Freedom, and Evil. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1974, 1977, 1980.

Rowe, William L. ed. God and the Problem of Evil. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers Inc,

2001.

Simon, Ulrich. A Theology of Auschwitz. Altanta, GA: John Knox Press, 1967, 1978.

Tooley, Michael. “The Problem of Evil.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Internet.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/evil/

[1] Perhaps some of the worst cases of moral evil were the anti-Semitic acts of the Germans during World War II. See Ulrich Simon’s, A Theology of Auschwitz: The Christian Faith and the Problem of Evil (Atlanta, GA: John Knox press, 1967, 1978).

[2] Quoted in John Feinberg’s book Theologies and Evil (Portland: OR: University Press of America, Inc., 1979), p. 1.

[3] John Kwak, Apologetics Syllabus. Talbot School of Theology, Spring 2004.

[4] Michael Tooley, “The Problem of Evil.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Internet. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/evil/

[5] Dennis McCallum, The Problem of Evil. Internet. www.xenos.org/essays/evilpo.htm.

[6] Ibid.

[7] Ibid.

[8] Ibid.

[9] Louis P. Pojman ed. Philosophy of Religion: An Anthology (Belmont, Ca: Wadsworth Publishing Company, 1998), p. 186.

[10] J.L. Mackie, “Evil and Omnipotence,” Mind 64 (1955): 200-12.

[11] William Lane Craig, The Problem of Evil. Audiocassette (1-2). In 1997 Masters Series in Christian Thought (Signal Hill, CA: STR, 1997).

[12] William L. Rowe, ed. God and the Problem of Evil (Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers Inc., 2001), p. 75-76.

[13] Augustine, On Free Choice of the Will, trans. Anna Benjamin and L.H. Hackstaff (New York: The Bobbs-Merrill Company, Inc., 1964), Bk. I, Chap 1, p.3.

[14] Alvin Plantinga, God, Freedom, and Evil (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1974, 1977, 1980), p. 29.

[15] Ibid., p. 30.

[16] Ibid., p. 31.

[17] Three methodologies adapted in John Kwaks Apologetics syllabus, Talbot School of Theology, Spring 2004.

[18] Clive Staples Lewis, The Problem of Pain (New York: NY: Macmillan, 1946), p. 25.

[19] Norman L. Geisler, The Roots of Evil (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 1978, 2002), p. 59.

[20] Josef Pieper, Happiness and Contemplation (New York: Pantheon Books, 1958), p. 57.

WORD DOCUMENT AVAILABLE HERE ENJOY.

The Doctrine of Sanctification

ryanbareng@gmail.com (RBAR) — Sun, 30 Aug 2009 09:59:00 +0000

What does it mean to be holy? to live a holy life? What is the connection to holiness and sanctification? They are the same thing. To be "holy" or "sanctified" mean simply to be "set apart." But to determine what one is set apart from is contingent on the context.

View the WORD STUDY on "Sanctification" here

Basic Training Bible Ministries Conference

ryanbareng@gmail.com (RBAR) — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 10:06:00 +0000

28-30 August 2009. Stand by for notes.

R. B. THIEME MEMORIAL SERVICE

ryanbareng@gmail.com (RBAR) — Mon, 24 Aug 2009 05:39:00 +0000

It was a very nice memorial!

Be sure to order the video from --> www.rbthieme.org

R.B. THIEME 1918-2009 S.Y.L.B.

ryanbareng@gmail.com (RBAR) — Sun, 16 Aug 2009 16:45:00 +0000

On 16 August, 2009 R.B. Thieme Jr. (AKA. The Colonel) went home to be with the Lord. S.Y.L.B Pastor Thieme (i.e. See You Later Brother!).

I will never forget the first time I discovered Pastor Thieme. I had isolated myself in a hidden corner of the addict of the Old School Biola Library in 2000. I was doing a research paper for my class on the Gospel of John. I discovered an outline of the entire book by none other than R.B. Theime. I was very impressed by the outline and decided to share my findings with my best friend Freddy Cortez who lived on the east coast. Freddy was surprised that I had discovered him because he was being mentored by a man named Robby Dean who was mentored by R.B. Thieme. Freddy was listening to tapes and reading Thieme's books and told me I could order tapes free of charge. I ordered some tapes on the Prison Epistles and Hebrews and from then on have not stopped listening to his teachings. Listening to tapes got me though Bible College and Seminary because every sermon was packed with exegesis, hermeneutics and isogogics (i.e. historical background).

Pastor Thieme, only the Lord knows how much you have impacted my life and I will see you soon. Thanks for being faithful to the teaching of the Word. You will be missed, but not forgotten.

Below is Pastor Thieme's Obituary:

--------------
ROBERT B. THIEME, JR., of Houston, Texas, passed from life through death and into eternity on Sunday, the 16th of August 2009. He is now absent from the body and face to face with the Lord Jesus Christ. Bob was born on the 1st of April 1918 in Ft. Wayne, Indiana, to Robert Bunger and Anna Cloakey Thieme. He was the beloved husband of Betty Beal Thieme and devoted father of Robert B. Thieme III. He is also survived by his sister, Ann T. Wallis, and his cousins, Fredericka Botts and Nancy N. Harder. Bob was pastor of Berachah Church in Houston, Texas, where he faithfully shepherded his congregation for fifty-three years. He was also president of R. B. Thieme, Jr., Bible Ministries, established in 1967 to distribute his eleven thousand hours of Bible lessons and numerous books without charge or obligation. Pastor Thieme was called to Berachah Church in 1950 following distinguished academic achievements at the University of Arizona (Phi Beta Kappa) and Dallas Theological Seminary (summa cum laude). His seminary studies were interrupted by the impending entry of the United States into World War II. By the end of the war he had attained the rank of lieutenant colonel in the Army Air Corps. Throughout his ministry he was affectionately known as "Colonel." Pastor Thieme accepted Jesus Christ as his Savior while a young man and began to prepare himself for the ministry. His extensive academic training in Greek, Hebrew, theology, history, and textual criticism equipped him for a life dedicated to studying, instructing, exhorting, and comforting with God's truth. Pastor Thieme began every Bible class with Hebrews 4:12: "The Word of God is alive and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a critic of the thoughts and intents of the heart." His tireless devotion to Bible teaching and enduring love for his congregation provided those who studied under his ministry the opportunity to grow in grace and knowledge of Jesus Christ. Pastor Thieme made his transfer from time to eternity in God's provision of dying grace and with the firm understanding that "for me, living is Christ, dying is profit" (Philippians 1:21); for Jesus Christ proclaimed, "I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in me shall live even if he dies" (John 11:25). The apostle Paul wrote a eulogy for this faithful servant in 2 Timothy 4:7, "I have fought the good fight, I have finished the course, I have kept the faith." The Bible doctrine taught by R. B. Thieme, Jr., will challenge those positive to God's Word to seek the high ground of spiritual maturity and glorify God. The Memorial service will be conducted at ten o'clock in the morning on Sunday, the 23rd of August, at Berachah Church, 2815 Sage Road in Houston. During the service, the nursery will be available for infants through 4 years of age and childcare services will be available for ages 5 - 13 in the primary department. In lieu of usual remembrances, contributions in memory of Pastor Thieme may be directed to R. B. Thieme, Jr., Bible Ministries, 5139 West Alabama St., Houston, TX, 77056.

http://www.legacy.com/obituaries/houstonchronicle/obituary.aspx?n=robert-b-thieme&pid=131604527
http://rbthieme.org/

1 Corinthians 1:18-19

ryanbareng@gmail.com (RBAR) — Sun, 21 Jun 2009 07:02:00 +0000

The Message of the Cross:

1 Corinthians 1:13-17 - Division in the Church (Part 2)

ryanbareng@gmail.com (RBAR) — Sun, 14 Jun 2009 09:20:00 +0000

Today's Sermon - 1 Corinthians 1:13-17 - Division in the Church (Part 2) By Ryan Bareng.

1 Corinthians 1:10-13 - Divisions in the Church

ryanbareng@gmail.com (RBAR) — Sun, 24 May 2009 08:08:00 +0000

1 Corinthians 1:1-3

ryanbareng@gmail.com (RBAR) — Thu, 07 May 2009 07:18:00 +0000

Many commentators have designated the Corinthian letters as the harshest of Pauline exhortation. The only other letter that comes close is Galatians. This designation is hardly a misnomer for the Apostle clearly reprimands their worldly behavior, addresses them derogatorily as “babes in Christ” (see 1 Cor 3:1-3), and tells them to “examine” themselves to see if they are “in the faith” (see 2 Cor 13:5). Despite the theological and pastoral problems that these letters raise for modern scholarship, it offers a fascinating window not only on a tiny corner of the social world of the first century, but on practical Christian principles of Grace at work in a very real setting within the early church.

The Perspective of Grace

ryanbareng@gmail.com (RBAR) — Tue, 05 May 2009 04:39:00 +0000

(Rom 5:1-2, Luk 18:9-14, 1Co 15:10)
Spiritual growth should do something to our self-image. It did something to Paul's. When he wrote to the Corinthians in about AD 59, Paul called himself "the least of the apostles" (1Co 15:9). Four years later, he had grown to the point that he saw himself as "the least of the saints" (Eph. 3:8). A few years-and many tribulations -- later, writing his last letters to the young- pastor Timothy, Paul declared himself to be the worst sinner in the world (1Ti 1:15).
As he matured and his intimacy with Jesus Christ deepened, Paul saw both God and himself more clearly. Instead of causing him to feel better about himself, growth opened Paul's eyes to the fact that his sin nature was worse than he had ever imagined; it was incorrigible. He saw with greater clarity every day the depth of his need for grace from God. And that was the secret of his greatness.
"Therefore having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom also we have obtained our introduction by faith into this grace in which we stand." (Rom 5:1-2)

We stand in grace or we do not stand at all. Grace is all that God is free to do for mankind on the basis of the work of Jesus Christ. It is a resource that can never be earned or deserved, but only received as a gift. We are saved by grace through faith; we grow in the Christian life by grace through faith.
Because grace can be initiated and sustained only by God, anything we try to do other than respond is worthless. Anything we try to do on our own takes us out of the sphere of grace and puts us into the sphere of "works" or "law." Paul explained this to the Romans when he said, "If it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace" (Rom 11:6).
No one can work his way to God or earn God's approval through human effort. Paul, the former Pharisee who had been found "blameless" by the strictest standard of righteousness that had ever been devised (Phi. 3:4-7), knew about trying to work his way to God. He understood how the legalistic mind sets itself against grace, refusing to accept the fact that in man there dwells no good thing (Rom 7:18).
Most people can see that sin is a violation of the righteousness of God, so they understand why it had to be judged on the cross. But not very many people are reconciled to the fact that the good things man does on his own are abhorrent and are absolutely unacceptable to God. In the Hebrew, Isa 64:6 is graphic in its description of the good that man can produce. " All our righteousness," it says, "is as the rags of a menstruous woman." Why would the Holy Spirit inspire Isaiah to use this particular analogy? Because the flow of blood in the menstrual cycle is evidence that there has been no conception. No conception means there will be no birth, and no birth means no life. Isaiah is saying that all human good is dead in God's sight.
That is exactly why human good is referred to as "dead works" in Heb 6:1-2. The author is not talking about sins here. Sins are never called "dead works" in the Bible. "Dead works" is a reference to man's attempts to work his way to God, to earn His approval. But he cannot do it. All our good is relative good; all our righteousness is relative righteousness. Compared to other men, we may appear good, righteous. But compared to the absolute goodness and righteousness of God we are less than nothing.
At every moment we have two choices: we can trust in ourselves -- relying on our intellect and our strength and our goodness -- or we can take a realistic look at ourselves and see that our only hope is to trust in God and rely on the riches of His grace. In Luke 18, the Lord has a story to tell about two men and who they chose to trust.
"And He also told this parable to certain ones who trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and viewed others with contempt ..." (Luk 18:9)

The most natural thing in the world is for men to use one standard to measure themselves and another to judge everyone else. The men to whom Jesus directs this parable look at them selves from the stand point of all their virtues. They are preoccupied with all the wonderful things they do. But when they look at others, they minimize anything that might be worthwhile and magnify the flaws they see. They measure themselves by comparing their strengths to other men's weaknesses. Of course, by this kind of comparison they tower above others. So of course they look at others with contempt.
Exoutheneo means " to make of no account, to despise utterly. " This is the mental attitude sin of scornfulness--the basis of hatred, hostility, enmity. The word translated "others" is loipos. It means "the rest." As far as these men were concerned, everyone who was outside of their little sect was not worth spitting on. "Two men went up into the temple to pray, one a Pharisee, and the other a tax-gatherer." (Luk 18:10)
The Pharisees were pillars of the community. They were respected and honored. The name "Pharisee" means "the separated ones." The Pharisees were, first of all, separatists. They stood apart, aloof. They wore special clothing to make sure that everyone would be properly impressed with who they were. They were legalists, preoccupied with keeping not just the Mosaic Law but the thousands of regulations that had been added to it through the years. Especially they liked to concern themselves with the externals like tithing and ritual purity. The g Pharisees thought they could meet God's standards by keeping all the outward rules. Like all legalists, they were very proud-of themselves, of their association, of their own righteousness. They expected to be looked up to. Tax-collectors, on the other hand, expected nothing but contempt. They did, after all, work for the hated Roman conquerors. The Romans did not pay the tax collectors, but gave them total freedom in collecting taxes from their fellow Jews. Everything they could weasel out of people above what was owed to the Romans was theirs. So they became very adept at chiseling people out of their money. It was a lucrative business. They were considered traitors and were despised by almost everyone. Especially did the Pharisees look down on these "sinners," classing them with harlots and Gentiles.
"The Pharisee stood and was praying thus to himself, 'God, I thank Thee that I am not like other people: swindlers, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax-gatherer. I fast twice a week; I pay tithes of all that I get'. " (Luk 18:11-12)

Notice that Jesus says that the Pharisee was praying to himself. It is no wonder, because in his mind he really was god. He was convinced that God was made in his image; he was convinced God held his standard. The Pharisee said "thank you," but there was no thanksgiving here. He was thankful that he was not like other people, which of course was a bold-faced lie. He was exactly like other people. He made no request of God. Why would he ask God for anything when he was unconscious of any need? He did not feel that he needed anything; he was very content with himself.
He had no praise for God. In the place of praise was self-exaltation. He congratulated himself first for all the things he did not do and for being such a fine individual. As he prayed, he looked around, because he had to look around at other people to remind himself of how wonderful he was. As his eyes fell on the tax-collector, he reminded himself how much better he was than all the others. Of course, he measured himself and others by the human standard of relative righteousness. He built himself up by beating others down. By zeroing in on the failures of others, he could make himself look pretty good. But not to God. Relative righteousness is despicable in God's sight.
Finally he began to list his good deeds, and everything he had to say was an expression of law and of the externals. Jesus cuts the account of the Pharisee's prayer at this point, but you can bet that his prayer went on and on and on, into all the details of how many good things he did and how wonderful he was. This man had a system based on two things: what he did and what he did not do. But nowhere was there a place in his system for what he was. Everything he was concerned with was external; there was nothing inside--no relationship with God, no fellowship, no faith.
"But the tax-gatherer, standing some distance away, was even unwilling to lift up his eyes to heaven, but was beating his breast, saying, "God, be merciful to me, the sinner!" (Luk 18:13)

The tax-gatherer--hated, rejected, an outcast in his own nation--stood in the temple and uttered seven words. The fact that he felt he must stand apart from God, as well as from the Pharisee, indicates that he knew he was an outcast. He did not have any inflated ideas about being good enough for God. The Pharisee acted as if he and God were old buddies; the publican had a reverent fear of God. It shows in his posture and in his refusal even to look up. Beating his breast, he cried for mercy. Everything about this man said that he was defeated, ashamed, grieved. He saw how a great his need was, and he knew that nothing but God's mercy could sustain him.
Whereas the Pharisee chose to magnify his good points, this man focused on his flaws. The Pharisee saw himself as better than everyone else. The tax-gatherer saw himself as worse than everyone else. He·was so concerned about his sinfulness that he did not even have time to think about the Pharisee's flaws. He considered himself the sinner of sinners, the worst of all, and all he asked for was mercy.
God's mercy withholds from us what we deserve. Because God judged Jesus Christ on the cross for all our sins, He can offer us mercy He can also offer us grace. God's grace gives us what we do not deserve--the righteousness of Jesus Christ, the riches of His glory, inheritance, power, and much more. But the only people who can lay hold of grace are those who realize a their need for mercy.
What was Jesus' evaluation of these two men and their prayers? "I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other; for everyone who exalts himself shall be exalted." (Luk 18:14)
The word "justified" from dikaioo, means "declared righteous." No matter how proud and righteous the Pharisee felt when he walked out of that temple, he was not justified before God. "The sacrifices of God," David wrote in Psa 51:17, "are a broken spirit, a broken and contrite heart, 0 God, thou wilt not despise." We are not told how the tax collector fell when he left the temple, we only know how God saw him. A part of maturity is being able to see ourselves as God sees us--knowing absolutely when we are out of fellowship and displeasing to Him and just as absolutely when we are functioning in His grace and causing Him pleasure.
"But by the grace of God, I am what I am, and His grace toward me did not prove vain; but I labored even more than all of them, yet not I, but the grace of God with me." (1Co 15:10)

Grace is a resource that we choose whether or not to use. Every believer stands in the sphere of grace, in an encapsulated environment where all the riches of God are available to us. The same power, the same wisdom, the same historical impact, that was available to Paul is available to each of us.
Why then do some believers seem to be blessed and prospered while others are not? Maybe it is because some work harder. Paul took the resources of God's grace and he worked and sweat and did without sleep and went without all kinds of comforts so he could accomplish the plan of God for his life. He labored past physical and mental exhaustion, because he knew that he would never understand divine power until he had pushed past Paul's strengths and abilities. God honored that, and it was all grace, because on Paul's part it was all faith.
A German proverb says, "God gave us nuts, but He didn't crack them." O.A. Baptiste said, "God gave us wheat, but we must bake the bread. He gives us cotton, but we must make the clothes; He gives us trees, but we must make our homes. He provides raw materials, we must make the finished product." This is the principle of grace at work.

This material was originally a lesson in "The Basics" found here.

COH Q&A: Romans 13:1-4

ryanbareng@gmail.com (RBAR) — Sun, 03 May 2009 21:18:00 +0000

This months Q&A topic: re-cap on Pastor Bobby Thieme's exegesis of Romans 13:1-4 from the California Bible Conference in Costa Mesa, CA.

Download notes here

Dallas Theological Seminary Timeline

ryanbareng@gmail.com (RBAR) — Sat, 02 May 2009 16:49:00 +0000

Where Do You Go When You Die?

ryanbareng@gmail.com (RBAR) — Sun, 26 Apr 2009 21:51:00 +0000

Chances are you have asked yourself at some point, "Were would I go when I die?" or "Where do people go when they die?" A systematic study on the Doctrine of the Resurrections reveals a five-fold answer. So, the answer to the question is: "It depends on which dispensation you were in when you died/die?"

SPIRITUALITY?

ryanbareng@gmail.com (RBAR) — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 03:06:00 +0000

What makes a person spiritual? Some people would look to externals for the answer—they would say a person is spiritual because of the pious way he dresses or talks, the things he does or does not do, the places he goes or refuses to go. Others would say a person is spiritual simply because he believes in and seeks to tap some sort of higher power in the universe. Webster's dictionary vaguely defines spirituality as "sensitivity or attachment to religious values."
God's definition is anything but vague. According to the Bible, a person is spiritual when—and only when—he is filled with the Holy Spirit. Spirituality is an absolute—at any moment of time we are either one hundred percent filled with the Spirit and therefore spiritual, or we are not filled with the Spirit at all and are therefore carnal (1Co 2:14–15; 1Co 3:1–4; Gal 5:16–17; Gal 6:1).

At the moment of salvation, every believer is indwelt by God the Holy Spirit. Indwelling is a once-for-all thing; it cannot be changed or lost. The Spirit indwells every believer all the time (Rom 8:9; 1Co 6:19–20; Gal 3:2; Gal 4:6). But with the indwelling, an inner conflict begins between the Holy Spirit and our old sin nature. Our volition—our freedom to choose—is the arbiter in the conflict. We decide moment by moment who will be in control of our soul.
So, the filling of the Spirit is a matter of choice. We are commanded to be filled (Eph 5:18), and we choose every day whether to obey that command or not. The command in Ephesians Five is in the passive voice, indicating that the filling of the Holy Spirit is a gift which we can receive or reject, but cannot earn. Like everything else in the Christian life, the filling of the Holy Spirit comes one way: by grace through faith. We lose the filling of the Spirit by choosing to grieve or quench the Spirit through sin or apathy (Eph 4:30; 1Th 5:19). We regain it by choosing to confess, which results in our being cleansed from all unrighteousness (1Jo 1:9; Pro 1:23).
Being filled with the Spirit is not an end in the Christian life; it is the means to an end. The Holy Spirit is not given to us for nothing; He is given to us to provide power for life. Our goal is to bear fruit (Joh 15:4–5); the fruit described in Gal 5:22–23 is the character of Jesus Christ. Spirituality—the life that is produced by the consistent filling of the Holy Spirit—is the life of Christ in us.
This material was originally a highlighted topic in "The Basics". Additional topics can be found here.

See what's new on the BTBM web site at http://basictraining.org

CHAFER THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY BIBLE CONFERENCE 09' MARCH 9-11

ryanbareng@gmail.com (RBAR) — Sun, 15 Mar 2009 01:08:00 +0000

Not only was the 2009 Chafer Theological Seminary Bible Conference spiritually and intellectually edifying, but I was able to travel with two of my best friends Freddy and Bret. We rented a mini van and spent 24 hours driving (each way). We stayed at the comfort suites (off Clay St.) in West Houston - very nice!

DAY 1 highlights:

Freddy, Bret and I had breakfast with Dr. Robert L. Thomas, who Dr. Rigsby calls, "The greatest living Greek Scholar." We picked his brain for over an hour. The man works for John MacArthur, does not completely agree with Chafer's soteriology, but came to speak at the conference. This is grace in action. Rather than concentrating on a point of friction, he brought to the conference a hermeneutical model, which seeks to eliminate the notion of a "pre-understanding" of the text. That is to say, when the text does not line up with our theology, we need to go with the text. He also mentioned that, "If you want to create a heresy, change the meaning of key words." Assigning new meaning to old words is a good way to create a new heresy.

During lunch, we munched on buffalo wings with Dr. Charlie Bing, another grace-oriented man in regards to the recent gospel debates. He believes in including the message of the cross when sharing about Christ on the basis of the progressive revelation that God as given us. Basically, the event did happen, we have it in Scripture, so we ought to share it.

Dr. Merryman (from Merryman ministries) closed up the night with words from the heart in 2 Timothy 3:10-4:8. Here Paul was encouraging Timothy to remain faithful in the midst of Apostasy to use the entire council of God, not just selected portions. And then there was evening and night, and that was the first day.

DAY 2 highlights:

Dr. Thomas emphasized the importance of "single meaning" in hermeneutics. We use the addage, "One interpretation, many applications." he concluded that, "The value of following the principle of single meaning is beyond estimation. It eliminates all sorts of hindrances to letting the text speak for itself, which is, of course, the goal in Bible interpretation." Dr. Thomas Ice spoke on highlights and low-lights in the history of Hermeneutics. His fundamental contention against Hank Hannegraff was that literal interpretation is the only way to go, which I think is good to go.

DAY 3 highlights:

Dr. Thomas closed his series by stating that we need not change they way we have handled the Biblical text. It is accurate and we CAN trust it. To my surprise, some scholars are not far from the claims of the Jesus Seminar in saying we really cannot know exactly what Jesus said. "Evangelicals need to retrace their steps of the last fifty years if they are to regain their
appreciation for the reliability and precision of the Bible."

Dr. Hixon presented his paper on, "What is the Gospel?" with reference to his book, "Getting the Gospel Wrong." I can see Scripturally that the content of the Gospel may include the death and resurrection of the Lord, but the dilemma I have is seeing where people are told to believe in the "Gospel" for "Eternal Life." I raised this question during Dr. Hixon's Q&A, and he replied with Romans 1:16, which he believes is speaking about Justification Salvation. I asked this question to several men at the conference and did not receive a straight answer. I do not believe (as does Pastor Freddy) that people are to believe in the "Gospel" in order to receive "Eternal Life." However, we may be missing something and are open to other ideas. For now, John 3:16 is a sufficient "ice breaker" in starting a conversation with a stranger or non-believer.

OVERALL, the trip was edifying, stimulating and a good time with two of my best friends!

UPDATE

ryanbareng@gmail.com (RBAR) — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 07:16:00 +0000

Hello to all our Bible Students! It's ironic that the busier we get and the more we cover in our Bible study, the less we put up on the blog. I guess it's because we're preoccupied studying and do not have the free time to blog... and that's a good thing. Be sure to catch our live streaming broadcasts on Sunday afternoons and Thursday evenings @ http://www.ustream.tv/channel/church-of-hope

CHARIS KAI EIRENE! (Grace and Peace) - Ryan.

1 Thessalonians 5:1-11 - I Wish We'd All Been Ready

ryanbareng@gmail.com (RBAR) — Sun, 18 Jan 2009 22:06:00 +0000

Dr. Bob Wilkin spoke on 1 Thessalonians 5:1-11 at the Church of Hope today. I had the privilege of introducing him.

The Doctrine of Justification

ryanbareng@gmail.com (RBAR) — Sun, 04 Jan 2009 08:32:00 +0000

What is Justification? Some would say it means “just-as-if-I’d-never-sinned.” Although this sounds good, preaches well, and is good rhetoric, it’s somewhat misleading. Technically, justification is better rendered, “just-as-if-I’d-sinned-but-God-still-made-me-right.” Even that definition needs to be unpacked – So let’s unpack it…

Some believe that the purpose of Romans is to demonstrate the doctrine of Justification by Faith – and rightly so. It is here that where we will find out what it is, how it works, and how it affects the believer.

First of all, Justification means, “to declare as righteous” and righteous simply means ‘right.’ In essence, justification is when God declares a person “okay.” Justification makes a person “okay” so that they can go to heaven. Consider this illustration:

A long time ago, there was a boy who ran a red light and was pulled over by a police officer. The boy knew what he had done, which is why he was sweating and ticked off at himself. The police officer approached him. “License and registration please” he said firmly. After realizing they were from the same neighborhood, the police officer then asked, “do you know my son?” The boy looked at the officers name tag and made the connection! He had realized the officer was his friend’s dad! So, he said, “Yes. We’re good friends.” The officer, in grace, justified the boy: “take him out to lunch next time you see him. Now get outta here.”

I am embarrassed to admit I am the boy, but I use it as an illustration for justification because it captures the big idea. Justification does not change what you’ve done (state), it changes your current status (standing) or how you are currently viewed. Although at fault and deserved of a penalty, the officer justified me; that is, he “declared the me as righteous” (“okay”) on the basis of my relationship with his son. The boy didn’t earn justification; he didn’t deserve it; he could never repay it; but the boy received justification. He received grace; something that he didn’t earn or deserve, and that which he could never repay.

Romans 4:4-5 explains the Justification as a divine transaction. All that means is God puts something in our spiritual bank account.

More to come on this issue in our next class. Stand by for a 10 minute doctrine in the near future.

Semper Scriptura!
Ryan

The Doctrine of Christmas

ryanbareng@gmail.com (RBAR) — Thu, 25 Dec 2008 03:48:00 +0000

Why do evangelicals/protestants celebrate Roman Catholic holidays? Christmas comes from two words, "Christ" and "Mass," which makes it the mass of Christ. This is a breakdown of the doctrine of Christmas in 10 minutes.Christians, who are extremely critical of those who follow "tradition." All in all, all believers in Jesus ought to use this time of the year to spread the good news about Jesus the Savior who is Lord and who happened to be born in a manger.

Merry Christmas vs. Happy B-Day Jesus

ryanbareng@gmail.com (RBAR) — Sun, 21 Dec 2008 07:20:00 +0000

Nowhere in Scripture is “Christmas” mentioned; it is neither alluded to nor defined. And since Scripture lacks a “doctrine of Christmas,” the holiday/celebration must be defined by the extra biblical framework from which it surfaced. Christmas is literally, “the Mass of Christ” created by the Roman Catholic Church to counter the ancient pagan holidays that designated 25 December as their day of debauchery. It was a day to celebrate the birth of Jesus Christ in the face of those who wanted to indulge in self. Today, Christmas is frequently associated with parties, gift exchanging, shopping malls, jolly music, bright lights and an old chubby man with a white beard and a hearty laugh.

Rather than focusing on Christmas as we know it, let us focus on the Birth of Christ, how it fulfilled major prophecies in the Old Testament and how Believers can turn this traditional holiday into an opportunity to share the good news of Eternal Life, which is an available free gift any day of the year.

The birth of Christ marks the apex of all humanity and the fulfillment of messianic prophecy. The dating system, which we know and use revolves around the birth of Christ. The time before Christ is known as B.C. and after his birth is designated A.D. (anno Domini, Latin for “The Year of our Lord”). All government and military documents use this dating system (ex. The US Constitution and any Military award). Just take a look at your own birthday year, which marks roughly how many years older you are than baby Jesus. The point is, Jesus was born a long time ago and the world has never been the same.

This “Christmas” be sure to share the gift of Eternal Life with someone who needs it. The message is simple: Jesus was born in Bethlehem from his mom, the virgin Mary. This even was the fulfillment of many Old Testament Prophecies that spoke of Yeshua Ha Meshiach or Jesus the Messiah/Christ. The Bible says God gave loved the World unconditionally so much he gave his only Son (Jesus) that anybody who believes in him would not perish but would have Eternal Life. Do you believe this? If you do, you have Eternal Life and you will be with the Lord Jesus for all of eternity.

CHECK DISC Romans 5:1-5

ryanbareng@gmail.com (RBAR) — Sat, 29 Nov 2008 20:52:00 +0000

INTRO TO "CHECK DISC"

ryanbareng@gmail.com (RBAR) — Sat, 29 Nov 2008 20:44:00 +0000

watch in high quality

There is no passage in all of Scripture that cannot be interpreted for today. The CHECK DISC technique makes this possible in five easy steps. The need for this hermeneutical tool is based on the fact that the majority of contemporary Christians who study the Bible are guilty of “RTC syndrome;” They find themselves “Running to Commentaries.” Bibles now come with an abundant amount of footnotes that seek to explain the text. There is no substitute for spending time in the Word in order to extrapolate the intended meaning. Although footnotes may be helpful, they may produce laziness.

CHECK DISC is the simplest approach to Bible study. CHECK DISC is the art of interpreting the text in it’s original context using only the original words and surrounding text to establish the basis for a contemporary meaning. Furthermore, the CHECK DISC technique forces the interpreter to stick with the text only. That means, one cannot add any of foreign thoughts, ideas and theology into the text. With the CHECK DISC formula, there is no room for eisegesis (i.e. reading ones own thoughts into the text).

Step 1 – CHECK yourself (i.e. confess your sins – 1 John 1:9 and restore fellowship with God).
Step 2 – DISCOVER the context of the passage (i.e. surrounding verses, chapter, book, genre, etc.).
Step 3 – IDENTIFY the key words, which capture the big idea of the author (i.e. what is he getting at?).
Step 4 – SUBJECT – Create a question that captures the big idea of the passage.
Step 5 – COMPLEMENT – Answer the question using the text/context only mentioning the original audience, author and situation (i.e. dead people only!).

The key progression in CHECK DISC is observation → interpretation → application. Prior to interpreting the text for today, one must concentrate on observation (exegesis) and once the “big idea” of the passage is captured (i.e. the subject and complement) stop exegeting!

Many Pastors and Teachers spend most of their time exegeting the text and in worst cases they are exegeting until Sunday morning! This is a terrible feeling. The Subject-Complement method is the tool that saves time, energy and stress. Without the right tools, the job takes twice the amount of time. For instance, if the goal is not set at capturing the big idea, all of the side issues serve as distractions and the message becomes unclear. A lot of people walk away from Church saying, “Wow. That was a great message.” Ironically, they could not tell you the big idea of the message.

Once the exegetical idea (subject-complement) is in the “bag” then contemporize the idea and communicate/apply it to the people today. This is connecting what it meant with what it means. STAY FAITHFUL TO THE TEXT!

There is more to this 5-step process, but that is it in a nutshell. This notion cuts bible study prep time in half and allows for ample time of contemporizing the message. If believers cannot apply the Word to today’s problems, they remain in defeat.

As a rule of thumb, remember that the more time spent in Observation, the less time is needed for interpretation. Have fun CHECK DISCing through the Scriptures!

Watch the video here: Check DISC Hermeneutic

Download the mp3 here: Check DISC Hermeneutic mp3

View the PowerPoint here:

Dr. Zane Hodges - 1932-2008

ryanbareng@gmail.com (RBAR) — Mon, 24 Nov 2008 20:54:00 +0000

Our beloved Dr. Zane Hodges went home to be with the Lord today (24 November 2008). He was a pioneer for the Gospel of Grace and a major contribution to FORALLBELIEVERS.org. The following was written by Dr. Bob Wilkin from (faithalone.org):

********************************************
Zane has been like a father to me. He taught me how to exegete the Scriptures. He taught me so much about ministry and life. I am in shock.

Zane didn’t show up Sunday night at the Lord’s Supper meeting held in his office. Robert Calhoun and Mike Lii went to his apartment and found him. They think he died on Saturday night or Sunday morning. He was 76.

The funeral is set for Tuesday December 2nd at 11AM at Oak Cliff Bible Fellowship in Dallas (1808 W Camp Wisdom Rd, Dallas, TX 75232; phone 214.672.9100), Dr. Tony Evans, Pastor. I’ve already heard from people from as far as California, Oregon, Nebraska, Pennsylvania, and Colorado who plan to fly in so that they can be there to honor Zane.

There will be a viewing on Monday night from 7 to 9 PM at Eastgate Funeral Home in Garland TX (1910 Eastgate; phone 972.270.6116).

We have arranged for a block of ten rooms at a highly discounted rate at a very nice hotel in Frisco, Texas. There are still a few rooms left. If you are planning on coming to the funeral and need a hotel, you can email us at faithalone77@yahoo.com. You must do by Friday, however, as these rooms must be held in advance.

Zane was born on June 15th, 1932. He graduated from Wheaton College and then Dallas Theological Seminary. After graduating he was hired to teach Greek at DTS where he taught for 27 years until 1986. Over the last 22 years Zane devoted himself to writing and speaking. He taught for over 45 years at Victor Street Bible Chapel in Dallas. He wrote more than 10 books including The Hungry Inherit, The Gospel Under Siege, Grace in Eclipse, Six Secrets of the Christian Life, Harmony with God, Power to Make War, and stand-alone commentaries on James and 1-3 John. He and Dr. Art Farstad co-edited The Greek New Testament According to the Majority Text.

Zane influenced thousands of pastors and missionaries directly and hundreds of thousands by means of his writings.

Grace Evangelical Society would never have come into existence but for the influence of Zane Hodges on my life. He was on the original GES board and remained on the board for nearly 10 years. The entire 22 years of GES’s existence he has always been there for me and for GES.

Anyone who knew him would say that he was a very godly and gracious man.

Zane never married. His parents, Z.C. and Virginia Hodges, went to be with the Lord in the past decade. His brother David died of a heart attack around 1981.

While we will miss him greatly, we rejoice that he is now with the Lord and with his mom and dad and brother.

******************************************

Zane, we will not say goodbye, but see you soon. We will keep on studying hard to show ourselves approved unto God, workmen that need not be ashamed and who rightly divide the Word of Truth.