Andy Naselli

Thoughts on Theology

Systematic Theology

“If God displays his mercy in some and his justice in others, there is goodness in his justice and justice in his mercy”

by

Stephen Westerholm movingly summarizes Augustine’s view on election and reprobation (Perspectives Old and New on Paul: The ‘Lutheran’ Paul and His Critics [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004], 19):

Augustine can offer no explanation why God chooses some and not others. Any explanation based on a difference in the human beings concerned would mean there was something in some human beings that God recognized and rewarded; their salvation would no longer depend on his grace alone. [n. 26: Note, however, Augustine’s earlier thinking in De div. quaest. 68.4.] If, on the other hand, the decision rests exclusively on God’s sovereign will, then it must remain impenetrable for human minds.

But Augustine does insist on the justice of what God does. Blame for human sin rests on humans alone—God has not compelled them to sin [n. 27: Texts that speak of God “hardening” sinners can only mean that God leaves them in their sinful ways; Augustine will not allow that God plays any active role in promoting sin (Ad Simpl. 1.2.15–16).]—and all merit condemnation. The condemned are justly condemned (Ench. 24.94); and since justice itself is a good thing, there is even goodness in their condemnation. Furthermore, that some are condemned reminds the forgiven of what their sins merit and of the magnitude of God’s mercy (De don. pers. 12.28). As one to whom many owe money can decide to cancel the debts of some and exact payment from others, and it would be presumptuous of the debtors either to think the decision should be theirs or to fault their creditor for exercising a creditor’s prerogative, so God is free to show mercy as he pleases without doing injustice to any (Ad Simpl. 1.2.16). If God displays his mercy in some and his justice in others, there is goodness in his justice and justice in his mercy (De don. pers. 12.28).

Harold Netland on Religious Pluralism

by

The fifth CCI esssay is now available: Harold A. Netland, “One Lord and Savior for All? Jesus Christ and Religious Diversity.” Netland, who studied under John Hick, authored Encountering Religious Pluralism: The Challenge to Christian Faith and Mission (Downers Grove: IVP, 2001).

Here’s an outline of his 37-page essay: [Read more…] about Harold Netland on Religious Pluralism

Chawkat Moucarry on Islam

by

The fourth essay in Christ on Campus Initiative’s series was just published: Chawkat Moucarry’s “A Christian Perspective on Islam.” (The essays are also hosted by the Henry Center.)

The CCI essays are (1) by evangelical scholars, (2) geared for campus evangelism, and (3) edited by D. A. Carson.

Here’s the outline for Moucarry’s essay:

1. The Bible: The Christian Scripture

[Read more…] about Chawkat Moucarry on Islam

Bruce Little on the Problem of Evil

by

Matt Capps interviews Bruce Little (CV) on the problem of evil.

Here are a few examples of where I’d raise questions:

  1. BAL: These are not things God planned or caused, they are, in light of Genesis 3, the result of man’s disobedience in the Garden.
    ADN: Is this a false disjunction? Doesn’t Scripture affirm both?
  2. BAL: I am not saying that we may not learn valuable lessons in our suffering, but that does not mean that is why the suffering came to us. God may bless, but if He does, it is in spite of the suffering, not because of the suffering.
    ADN: Does this square with Jesus’ suffering on the cross?
  3. BAL: We must ask the question: if God allows evil to bring about a good, is that good a necessary good? If it is a necessary good, then the evil that brings it is necessary and the only way it could be necessary is if God planned it. This makes God responsible for evil, something I think is clearly contrary to scripture because God is light and in Him is no darkness at all. If on the other hand the good is not necessary then we are back to asking the question why the evil?
    ADN:     Is this trying to relieve logical tension by over-qualifying or denying what Scripture says about God’s sovereignty? (See 3.6 here.)

The Logical and Emotional Problems of Evil

by

cross-posted at Justin Taylor’s blog

This summer my church, CrossWay Community Church in Kenosha, Wisconsin, has hosted a “Difficult Issues Series” on Wednesday nights, and last night I addressed this topic: “How Could a Good God Allow Suffering and Evil? A Biblical Approach to the Logical and Emotional Problems of Evil” (MP3s Part 1 & Part 2 | Handout PDF). I am especially indebted to Drs. Carson, Feinberg, Frame, and Piper. Here’s the outline:

1. Introduction

  1. What is evil?
  2. What are some examples of evil that are (almost) universally outrageous?
  3. What is the problem of evil?
  4. Why must Christians address the logical and emotional problems of evil?
  5. What are some challenges to solving the logical and emotional problems of evil?

2. What are some unbiblical/inadequate solutions to the logical-intellectual-philosophical problem of evil?

  1. Evil is not real.
  2. God is not all-powerful.
  3. This is the best possible world, and evil is necessary for its perfection.
  4. Evil is a result of peoples’ free will, so God is not accountable for evil.
  5. Evil is necessary for people to mature (i.e., build character).
  6. God is the indirect (not direct) cause of evil, so He is not accountable for evil.
  7. God is above the law, so He can do what seems evil to other people.
  8. Non-Christians have no right to question whether God is both all-powerful and all-good.

3. What does a biblical approach to the logical-intellectual-philosophical problem of evil include?

  1. Bad things do not happen to good people; good and bad things happen to bad people.
  2. The problem of evil is an argument for God, not against Him.
  3. God is not obligated to explain the problem of evil to anyone.
  4. God (not our sense of justice) is the standard for what He does.
  5. God ordains and causes evil, but He cannot be blamed for it.
  6. The logical problem of evil (including providence) involves mystery, requiring that Christians maintain doctrinal tensions in biblical proportion.
  7. God uses evil for a greater good.
  8. There was no problem of evil before the fall, nor will there be one in the eternal state.
  9. God uses natural evil to illustrate how bad moral evil really is, and the right response is repentance.
  10. The most significant problem of evil is the cross.

4. What does a biblical approach to the emotional-religious-existential problem of evil include?

  1. People who are suffering typically are wrestling primarily with the emotional problem of evil (not the logical one).
  2. Understand how people initially react to suffering.
  3. You shouldn’t say certain things to people who are suffering.
  4. You should do certain things to people who are suffering.

5. Conclusion

6. Recommended Resources

  1. Books [23 resources]
  2. MP3s [8 resources]

The handout includes a more detailed outline, and the recommended resources section asterisks the most highly recommended resources, hyperlinks to every author and resource, and ranks the level of difficulty of each resource.

Updates:

  1. The address is condensed as a simple four-page essay for CrossWay Community Church’s Exploring Christianity outreach.
  2. Reformation 21 reprinted this article in June 2009.
  3. Related: “Do We Have a Free Will?” (which Reformation 21 reprinted in August 2009)
  4. Two addresses at a conference on April 9, 2010: “The Logical Problem of Evil” | “The Emotional Problem of Evil”
  5. Interview with John Frame on the Problem of Evil

Response to Carson’s Review of “Rescuing the Bible”

by

A couple weeks ago I noted this: “The latest batch of RBL reviews includes D. A. Carson’s review of Roland Boer’s Rescuing the Bible. The analysis and conclusion are refreshingly blunt.”

Roland Boer just responded to DAC’s review on his blog. His response is telling and sad. It is filled with incorrect assumptions about DAC and reveals his misunderstanding of what he lumps together as “the religious right,” which is “extreme.” This is a common tendency I’ve noticed in people (including ones at BJU and TEDS): people generally present themselves as the sensible mediating position between two self-constructed or self-perceived “extremes.”