In an interview in 2006, renowned atheist Sam Harris stated:
“If I could wave a magic wand and get rid of either rape or religion, I would not hesitate to get rid of religion. I think more people are dying as a result of our religious myths than as a result of any other ideology.”
Harris would rather remove religion than rape. A response such as this surely raising more questions than answers. The removal of a principle rather than an action defined as evil by the principle calls these objections to religion – in this case, objections specific to Christianity – into question. If Harris’ thinking is followed through, then the action of rape cannot be considered evil because the very principle which defines rape as evil has been removed.
There can be a tendency for us to focus mainly on the New Testament when the central figure of our faith manifests in the New Testament. I know that I for one am certainly guilty of this, on occasions. The Old Testament is full of Godly wisdom, and in places such as Habakkuk’s writing, questions much like the ones raised today have been placed in front of God. How can we call God good when there is so much violence in the world? How can we call God good when levels of injustice are high? How we call God good when evil exists and manifests how it does? These issues of violence, injustice, and evil, are the three main strings to the bow of the sceptic. Each grievance consists of a legitimate question, and each requires a genuine and measured response. What is interesting, though, is that so often the sceptical questioner does not wait to receive the answer given by the Christian worldview. Sceptics tend to use a one-dimensional approach when attempting to reconcile the legitimate questions of violence, injustice and evil. They will often only argue on a superficial level, as the logical conclusions reached by the genuine exploration of these issues leaves them with an unresolved answer. If violence, injustice, and evil exist, then it stands to reason that the opposite must exist, namely peace, justice and good. If peace, justice and good exist, there must be a point of reference for differentiation between them. There must, therefore, be an overarching ethical principal that governs us, but the Christian worldview explains this as God, which is the very concept the sceptic argues against. If God does not exist, then there is no way of differentiating between peace and violence, justice and injustice, and good and evil. The nonexistence of God leaves no reason why value is placed on someone other than that which we arbitrarily place upon them. If we are merely products of the evolutionary process, as Charles Darwin, Richard Dawkins and others would suggest, then humans have not value but obscurity. If people have no intrinsic value, then these issues do not, indeed cannot, arise. Historically, the church has many sins, crimes, and systematic cover-ups to answer for, however, political leaders like Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and successive North Korean regimes are all responsible for violence, injustice, and evil. The atrocities were not committed because of God, but because by these leaders removed God and elevated themselves to the position of God. Therein lies the difference. God is good, man is not. Who commits the acts of violence? Injustice? Evil? Man or God?
See, the reformed theologians are on to something. If we are not careful, we can make it all about us. The sacrifice, the blood, the cross, God has done all of this because of who we are. Not the case. The sacrifice, the blood, the cross, all of that represents who God is. That is about all they get right, though. Their theological framework is wrong, and here is where they get tangled up. I work with a reformed Christian, and he misses a crucial aspect of God’s character.
I have never heard another framework doctrine, for which election is a foundational premise, presented so firmly and aggressively. Individual election leaves me feeling uncomfortable and unsatisfied. He would say it is the Bible; I would say he is wrong. If God has only elected certain people for salvation before the foundations of the earth, can one suggest that this is the actions of a good God? A sovereign God, yes, but a good God? The words of Jesus in John 3:16 seem to indicate a good God. He so loved the world that whoever believes will gain eternal life. Eternal life is inclusive and available to all, attainable via belief in him. Romans 9 is one of the essential passages of scripture foundational to the reformed church. As conversations traverse in the direction of whether people have the freedom to choose Christ, the rebuttal is almost immediately Jacob I loved and Esau I hated, thus indicating the sovereignty of God in his election of some, but not others. My argument is not against the sovereignty of God. God does what he wants to do and ordains that specific events occur, as is his prerogative. After all, he is God. My argument is that God is a good God. Does he choose to save some people and condemn others before they are born? 2 Corinthians makes this abundantly clear:
For Christ’s love compels us, because we are convinced that one died for all, and therefore all died. And he died for all, that those who live should no longer live for themselves but for him who died for them and was raised again.
Christ died for all. I am by no means claiming that all people attain salvation. That is known as universal reconciliation, with people like Rob Bell promoting such doctrines. I do not hold universal reconciliation as correct. Jesus, John the Baptist, and others make explicitly clear that belief in Jesus is required. Rather, I suggest that God offers the gift of salvation to all. This is echoed in 1 Timothy 2:
This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Saviour, who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.
If it is God’s desire that all come to salvation, how can this be reconciled with the election of some but not others? Ephesians 1 is the other often quoted chapter of scripture which appears to validate individual election, but only if viewed through the bias of this specific lens. We are indeed chosen, but we are chosen in Jesus. We are not chosen before the foundation of the earth for individual salvation, nor are we meritoriously chosen. We know we are chosen because of our faithful response to God’s call. The offer of salvation is to all people, not just for a unique group of which you and I may or may not belong to and have no way of confirming. For God so loved the world. As A. W. Tozer wrote in his book The Knowledge of the Holy: The Attributes of God:
God sovereignly decreed that man should be free to exercise moral choice, and man from the beginning has fulfilled that decree by making his choice between good and evil. When he chooses to do evil, he does not thereby countervail the sovereign will of God but fulfills it, inasmuch as the eternal decree decided not which choice the man should make but that he should be free to make it. If in His absolute freedom God has willed to give man limited freedom, who is there to stay His hand or say, ‘What doest thou?’ Man’s will is free because God is sovereign. A God less than sovereign could not bestow moral freedom upon His creatures. He would be afraid to do so.
However, when we consider the redemptive message and the forgiving nature of Jesus, it can be difficult at times to acknowledge our role in the separation experienced between us and God. Remember –
…for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God…
A common theme from some reformed theologians is the grasping of the totality of man’s sinful nature, while seemingly ignoring the redemption and forgiveness found in Jesus Christ. Man is entirely evil and sinful, and this is the message conveyed ad nauseum as if it were the message of Jesus himself. Yet Jesus rarely used such vitriolic language when communicating with sinners and the so-called depraved. Luke 19:1-10 contains the encounter between Jesus and Zacchaeus, the tax collector – And when Jesus came to the place, he looked up and said to him, “Zacchaeus, hurry and come down, for I must stay at your house today.”
Jesus made no mention of Zacchaeus’ supposed depravity, nor called him on his sinful nature, but rather Zacchaeus was convicted via the gentle, relational, and redemptive nature of Jesus. The claim of some reformed theologians is that humanity’s depravity is so great that we cannot so much as see God, let alone follow or obey him, and our only hope is that God chooses to draw us to him through unconditional election. The depravity of their human state is highlighted to the point of them appearing proud that God has elected them despite their depraved nature. As is often the case with Calvinist doctrine, the fruit of this belief is an aggressive theology that is impersonal, nonrelational, highly judgemental and focused on condemnation. Arguably, they are taking pride in their fallen state.
While I can appreciate the self-deprecating pride associated with this reformed view of total depravity, if I cannot see God, then my behaviour and rejection of God can be excused. But if I can see God but I choose to reject him, it is then my behaviour becomes inexcusable and God’s love and grace becomes sovereign. In fact, I am displaying total depravity through my clear and conscious rejection of God. Romans 1 –
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honour him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened.
Here, Paul’s audience knew God but did not honour him. This is vastly different to having an innate inability to see. Although, equally as one-sided and as unhelpful is the modern Pentecostal focus on the love and redemption of Christ with little to no acknowledgement of and subsequent focus on dealing with the sinful nature of humanity.
Gerhard Lohfink writes of his own exploratory processes, which resulted in the book ‘Is This All There Is? On Resurrection and Eternal Life –
Contemplating and then writing this book have made me newly aware of how liberating Christian faith in the resurrection of the dead really is. Those who root themselves in that faith can live without fear in the biblical “now,” because every hour of their lives has both weight and hope. They can invest their strength in building up a just society, because the world is to be resurrected in the final form intended for it by God is precisely the world for which we are fighting here, in this history.
I am so grateful for Christ, as I have immense hope for what lies ahead of me. In one sense, I am not worried about my death. The one who believes in Jesus, though he may die, yet he may live. While I do not wish to leave my family in a circumstance or situation that is unmanageable, and I do desire to grow old into eventual retirement with my wife having watched our children progress into adulthood, enjoying their lives adventures with them, I rest assured in the confidence I have in Jesus as the resurrection and the life. Our hope in Jesus is why Christians speak into the public sphere. All of Christianity hinges on one event: the resurrection of Jesus. All of us here hold the resurrection to be an irrefutable fact, however it is another string in the bow of the sceptic. After all, the Gospels of Matthew, Luke, and John, relied heavily on the Gospel of Mark – the first Gospel written – and Mark chapter 16 from verse 9 onwards is not in the earliest manuscripts. What do verses 9 through 20 cover, I hear you ask? The resurrected Jesus appearing to his followers. The very thing that our faith is hinged on. Now, before you become sceptical and begin questioning your own faith, in his book ‘The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus’, Gary Habermas uses what he terms a ‘minimal facts’ approach when examining the resurrection. This approach requires that the evidence used to establish the resurrection can be independently verified and it is necessary that most scholars, both sceptics and believers, accept this evidence as historical truth. The result is the undeniability of six crucial pieces of evidence supporting the resurrection. 1) that Jesus died by crucifixion; 2) soon after, his followers experienced who they thought was the risen Jesus; 3) their subsequent transformation and willingness to hold to their beliefs in the face of death; 4) these events were taught soon after the crucifixion event; 5) Jesus’ brother, James, became a believer based on a personal experience with who he thought was the risen Jesus; and 6) Paul – formally Saul – initially persecuted the early Christians but himself became a believer after a personal encounter with Jesus.
Paul affirms this in 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 –
For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me.
Paul also clarifies in verses 14 and 15 that unless this is true, his teaching and the teaching of others is not only ineffectual, but deliberately false.
And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain. We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified about God that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised.
If these six pieces of evidence are held to be scholarly and historically truthful among both sceptics and believers, then we can feel confident accepting the resurrection as recorded in the four Gospels.
Vince Vitale wrote about an experience he had ministering to one of his good friend’s father’s, who had been diagnosed with terminal cancer.
But as a Christian I was able to explain to Joe that while Christianity does say that God wants us to do good, that is not what makes us right with God. I was able to share with him that the message of Christianity is that what makes us right with God is not about anything we do or ever could do, but rather about what Jesus has already done—once, and in full, and for all. I explained that in Jesus, we no longer need to fear judgment, because when he died Jesus took the judgment for everything we have ever done or will ever do wrong. And we no longer need to fear suffering, or shame, or even death, because Jesus has joined us in all of it, and invited us beyond it.
It is not life after death that brings hope to us, as life after death is promised by more than Christianity. It is belief in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ that brings us hope. It is the goodness of God which brings us hope.
I appreciate that sceptics will attempt to paint us as sightless and lacking in knowledge and are therefore reliant on faith to bridge the gap. Yet a simple search of antonyms reveals that the opposite of knowledge is not faith, but ignorance, or inability, or weakness, or misunderstanding. The opposite of faith is not knowledge, but disbelief, or distrust, or agnosticism, or rejection. The thought that faith and knowledge are opposing viewpoints is not what Christianity offers, yet many Christians have a conceptual understanding of faith that is incorrect, contributing to both a decrease in their personal faith and an increase in the acceptance of antitheist worldviews. Having faith means to trust in what is true because there is a justification for your beliefs. Much of what is written before this, in the eyes of the sceptic, is debatable, disputable, and refutable. However, what is not up for debate, dispute and refute is your justification, the reasons for your belief. No one can debate, dispute, or refute your sense of joy and wonder in the gospel message of Jesus Christ.
If you are parents, think about your children for a moment. When they were newborn, who was more anxious the first time you too them out in public? You or them? When they were three years old and sitting in their pram while you are at the supermarket watching the world frantically pass them by, who was more nervous? You or them? I will almost guarantee it is not them. They know where to look when lifting their eyes, and they know where their help comes from. Psalm 121:1-2 –
I lift up my eyes to the hills. From where does my help come? My help comes from the Lord, who made heaven and earth.
I know a lady whose daughter is quite mentally handicapped. Yet during an evening service at my church, her daughter was dancing around near the stage and the music team lead the congregation in worship. As they reached the chorus of the Hillsong song ‘Who You Say I Am’, this little girl stopped dancing and stared at the band with a smile that beamed from ear to year. The lyrics to this song are:
Who am I that the highest King would welcome me?
I was lost but He brought me in oh His love for me Oh His love for me
Who the Son sets free, oh is free indeed
I’m a child of God, yes I am
Free at last, He has ransomed me, his grace runs deep
While I was a slave to sin, Jesus died for me
Yes He died for me
Who the Son sets free, oh is free indeed
I’m a child of God, yes I am
In my Father’s house, there’s a place for me
I’m a child of God, yes I am
I am chosen, not forsaken
I am who You say I am
You are for me, not against me
I am who You say I am
A sceptic would look at this little girl and see what their worldview dictates they see; someone not functioning as they should. The assumption is that this little girl will not achieve anything, will not attain anything, and will not become anything. Oh, how wrong. This little girl has already attained knowledge far beyond her age, and faith beyond our explanation. She knows who she is, and she knows whose she is. This should cause us to raise our hands above our head in awe and wonder at the magnificence, the glory, and the love of Jesus Christ.
See, the reformed theologians are on to something. If we are not careful, we can make it all about us. The sacrifice, the blood, the cross, God has done all of this because of who we are. Not the case. The sacrifice, the blood, the cross, all of that represents who God is. I went on a bit of a search in the New Testament to try and find how Jesus describes God. Luke 18:18- 19 –
And a ruler asked him, “Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?” And Jesus said to him, “Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone.
The reformed theologians love the first half of that last sentence. No one is good. I would like them to finish the sentence – …except God alone. No one is good, except God alone. God is sovereign; God is just; God is to be feared, revered, and adhered…….to; God will rightfully punish sin; God will judge the living and the dead. Yes, all of that is true. However, how did Jesus describe God? Good. Above all else, God is good.
