More on this book
Community
Kindle Notes & Highlights
Read between
March 3 - April 6, 2015
Given the dizzying complexity of life, we are simply in no position at all to judge that God has no good reason for permitting some instance of suffering to afflict our lives.
one of the decisive objections to utilitarianism (the theory of ethics that says that we should do whatever will bring about the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people) is that we have no idea of the ultimate outcome of our actions. Some short-term good might actually lead to untold misery, while some action that looks disastrous in the short term may bring about the greatest good. We don’t have a clue. Once we contemplate God’s providence over the whole of human history, I think you can see how hopeless it is for finite, limited observers to speculate about the probability that
...more
Second, relative to the full scope of the evidence, God’s existence is probable. Probabilities are always relative to some background information.
Now the atheist says God’s existence is improbable. You should immediately ask, “Improbable relative to what?”
The interesting question is whether God’s existence is probable relative to the full scope of the evidence. I’m convinced that whatever improbability suffering may cast upon God’s existence, it’s outweighed by the arguments for the existence of God.
we may argue as follows: 1. If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist. 2. Evil exists. 3. Therefore, objective moral values exist (some things are evil!). 4. Therefore, God exists.
suffering actually proves God’s existence.
* Not suffering itself, but our RESPONSE to suffering.
If the atheist believes that suffering is bad or ought not to be, then he’s making moral judgments that are possible only if God exists.
What you need to understand is that most people who write about the problem of suffering are tacitly assuming that there are no goo...
This highlight has been truncated due to consecutive passage length restrictions.
Third, Christianity entails doctrines that increase the probability of the coexistence of God and suffering.
Christianity entails certain doctrines that increase the probability of suffering. What are these doctrines? Let me mention four:
1. The chief purpose of life is not happiness, but the knowledge of God.
Much of the suffering in life may be utterly pointless with respect to the goal of producing human happiness; but it may not be pointless with respect to producing a deeper knowledge of God.
Our hope lies not in worldly happiness but in that day when God will wipe away every tear.
Of course, whether God’s purpose is achieved through our suffering will depend on our response. Do we respond with anger and bitterness toward God, or do we turn to Him in faith for strength to endure?
Except that God has prepared everything for a purpose, even the wicked for the Day of Judgment.
A reading of a missions handbook such as Patrick Johnstone’s Operation World reveals that it is precisely in countries that have endured severe hardship that Christianity is growing at its greatest rates, while growth curves in the indulgent West are nearly flat.
It is estimated that 20 million Chinese lost their lives during Mao’s Cultural Revolution. Christians stood firm in what was probably the most widespread and harsh persecution the Church has ever experienced. The persecution purified and indigenized the Church. Since 1977 the growth of the Church in China has no parallels in history. Researchers estimate that there were 30–75 million Christians by 1990. Mao Zedong unwittingly became the greatest evangelist in history.
El Salvador: The 12-year civil war, earthquakes, and the collapse of the price of coffee, the nation’s main export, impoverished the nation. Over 80% live in dire poverty. An astonishing spiritual harvest has been gathered from all strata of society in the midst of the hate and bitterness of war. In 1960 evangelicals were 2.3% of the population, but today are around 20%.
Ethiopia is in a state of shock. Her population struggles with the trauma of millions of deaths through repression, famine, and war. Two great waves of violent persecution refined and purified the Church, but there were many martyrs. There have been millions coming to Christ. Protestants were fewer than 0.8% of the population in 1960, but by 1990 this may have become 13% of the population.
2. Mankind is in a state of rebellion against God and His purpose.
3. God’s purpose is not restricted to this life but spills over beyond the grave into eternal life.
the length of this life, being finite, is literally infinitesimal in comparison with the eternal life we’ll spend with God. The longer we spend in eternity, the more the sufferings of this life will shrink by comparison toward an infinitesimal moment.
It may well be that there is suffering in the world that serves no earthly good at all, that is entirely pointless from a human point of view, but which God permits simply that He might overwhelmingly reward in the afterlife those who undergo such suffering in faith and confidence in God.
4. The knowledge of God is an incommensurable good.
These four Christian doctrines increase the probability of the coexistence of God and the suffering in the world. They in turn decrease any improbability that suffering might seem to cast upon the existence of God. The atheist may respond at this point that we have no reason to think that these four Christian doctrines are true. Whoa! He’s trying to shift the burden of proof again! It’s the atheist who claims that suffering makes God’s existence improbable. It’s entirely legitimate for you to say, “Not the Christian God!” The atheist needs to show that the Christian God is improbable relative
...more
These four doctrines increase the probability of the coexistence of God and suffering: 1. The chief purpose of life is not happiness, but the knowledge of God. 2. Mankind is in a state of rebellion against God and His purpose. 3. God’s purpose is not restricted to this life but spills over beyond the grave into eternal life. 4. The knowledge of God is an incommensurable good.
Response to the Evidential Argument 1. We’re not in a position to say that it’s improbable that God lacks good reasons for permitting the suffering in the world. 2. Relative to the full scope of the evidence, God’s existence is probable. 3. Christianity entails doctrines that increase the probability of the coexistence of God and suffering.
In summary, the evidential version of the problem of suffering just can’t be put through successfully. It requires probability judgments way beyond our ability, it fails to take into account the full scope of the evidence, and it is diminished in force when it comes to the Christian God. Since neither the logical nor the evidential version of the problem goes through, the intellectual problem of suffering fails as a disproof of God.
for most people suffering is not really an intellectual problem but an emotional problem. You might be thinking, Then why go through all this intellectual material if it’s not really the problem? Two reasons: First, people think their problem is intellectual, so by working through it we can respect their opinion and help them to see the real problem. Second, what I’ve shared can be of tremendous help to you when God calls upon you to go through suffering.
some people may need counsel, and we ourselves may need to deal with this problem when we suffer. Does the Christian faith also have the resources to deal with this problem as well? It certainly does! For it tells us that God is not a distant Creator or impersonal ground of being, but a loving Father who shares our sufferings and hurts with us. On the cross Christ endured a suffering beyond all understanding: He bore the punishment for the sins of the whole world. None of us can comprehend that suffering. Though He was innocent, He voluntarily underwent incomprehensible suffering for us. And
...more
Paradoxically, then, even though the problem of suffering is the greatest objection to the existence of God, at the end of the day God is the only solution to the problem of suffering. If God does not exist, then we are locked without hope in a world filled with pointless and unredeemed suffering. God is the final answer to the problem of suffering, for He redeems us from evil and takes us into the everlasting joy of an incommensurable good: fellowship with Himself.
(Jan has since formulated a saying that aptly describes our lives: “The Lord is always almost late!”)
One evening during dinner at the Goethe Institute she astonished me. There’s a German proverb, “Ohne Fleiss, kein Preis!” (“Without effort, no reward!”) So during the meal Jan asked the Turkish fellow next to her (in German) to pass the meat. But he showed her the empty serving dish and offered her the bowl of rice instead. To which she instantly retorted, “Danke, nein! Ohne Fleisch, kein Reis!” (“No thanks! Without meat, no rice!”) I about split! Here she was already punning in German!
I’ve had the opportunity to debate some of the world’s leading skeptical New Testament scholars, like John Dominic Crossan, Marcus Borg, Gerd Lüdemann, and Bart Ehrman, as well as best-selling popularizers like John Shelby Spong, on the historicity of Jesus’ resurrection. In all objectivity, I have to say I’ve been shocked at how impotent these eminent scholars are when it comes to refuting the evidence for Jesus’ resurrection.
Very often, and I mean, very often, it will be philosophical considerations, not historical considerations, that lie at the root of their skepticism. But, of course, these men aren’t trained in philosophy and so make amateurish blunders which a trained philosopher can easily spot. I’m so thankful that the Lord in His providence led us first to do doctoral work in philosophy before turning to a study of Jesus’ resurrection, for it is really philosophy and not history that undergirds the skepticism of radical critics.
An event without a context is inherently ambiguous. That’s especially true for an alleged miracle. Considered in isolation, an alleged miracle might be nothing more than a scientific aberration, a freak of nature. Thus, an event like Jesus’ resurrection must be explored in its historical context if we’re to understand it correctly. So what is the proper context for understanding Jesus’ resurrection? It is Jesus’ own unparalleled life and claims. The resurrection comes as the climax to Jesus’ extraordinary life and ministry. So before we look at the historical credibility of Jesus’
...more
situation isn’t unusual for figures of antiquity. For example, the famous Greek philosopher Socrates also left behind no writings of his own. We’re dependent upon his disciple Plato for most of our knowledge of Socrates’ life and teaching.
The writings contained in the New Testament can be scrutinized using the same historical criteria that we use in investigating other sources of ancient history like Thucydides’ Peloponnesian War or the Annals of Tacitus. Now the first thing we need to do in order to conduct a historical investigation of Jesus is to assemble our sources. Jesus of Nazareth is referred to in a range of ancient sources inside and outside the New Testament, including Christian, Roman, and Jewish sources.
This is really quite extraordinary when you reflect on how obscure a figure Jesus was. He had at most a three-year public life as an itinerant Galilean preacher. Yet we have far more information about Jesus than we do for most major figures of antiquity.
The most important of these historical sources have been collected into the New Testament. References to Jesus outside the New Testament tend to confirm what we read in the gospels, but they don’t really tell us anything new. Therefore, the focus of our ...
This highlight has been truncated due to consecutive passage length restrictions.
the best historical sources were included in the New Testament. People who insist on evidence taken only from writings outside the New Testament don’t understand what they’re asking us to do. They’re demanding that we ignore the earliest, primary sources about Jesus in favor of sources that are later, secondary, and less reliable, which is just crazy as historical methodology.
The so-called apocryphal gospels are gospels forged under the apostles’ names during the centuries after Christ. None is earlier than the second half of the second century after Christ. While not very valuable as sources for the life of Jesus, they are significant to the church historian who wants to learn about the various competing movements, often deeply influenced by pagan gnostic philosophy, that the Christian church contended with during the first few centuries after Christ. Some of the apocryphal gospels include: Gospel of Peter Gospel of Thomas Gospel of the Hebrews Infancy Gospel of
...more
The apocryphal gospels are later, derivative writings shaped by the theology of the second century and beyond.
Skeptical scholars almost always assume that the gospels are guilty until proven innocent, that is, they assume that the gospels are unreliable unless and until they are proven to be correct concerning some particular fact. I’m not exaggerating here: This really is the procedure of skeptical critics. I want to list, however, five reasons why I think this skeptical assumption is wrong.
1. There was insufficient time for legendary influences to erase the core historical facts.
Good evidence doesn’t become poor evidence just because of the passage of time! So long as the time gap between the event and the evidence for that event is short, it’s just irrelevant how long it has been to the present day.
2. The gospels are not analogous to folk tales or contemporary “urban legends.”
Did you know that you can read about people like Pontius Pilate, Joseph Caiaphas, and even John the Baptist in the writings of the Jewish historian Josephus?
3. The Jewish transmission of sacred traditions was highly developed and reliable.
4. There were significant restraints on the embellishment of traditions about Jesus, such as the presence of eyewitnesses and the apostles’ supervision.
