Engaging God's Problem -- Three Objections Part 3 -- No Answer Will Do

This is my final post on this subject and Bart Ehrman's book: God's Problem. The final issue is one of heart and not head. This is mainly because in this book I see a lot of heart and not head when it comes to addressing the problem of evil from Bart Ehrman himself. I simply believe that based on his arguments in this book no response will do or be accepted because Bart is no longer able to accept them because of his prejudice against the Bible as God's Word. He does not accept this and this is a conviction of his heart not his head.

I Have Heard This All Before
One of the great disappointments I had with this book is that there was nothing really new here. I have heard all these arguments before and all Bart really did was repackage them for the masses and thus much of his argument has an emotional, not intellectual, appeal. This is water cooler stuff given an intellectual spin but the arguments are not laid out with any new thing being forefront. This is old stuff redone. At least with his other book Misquoting Jesus there was a well laid out argument, fallacious, but well laid out.

Inability to See Other Possibilities
Bart is entrenched in his viewpoint and cannot see any other one. The freewill defense is shutdown and he never really engages it. He engages theodicy briefly but says it is basically correct but never engages objections. He sticks to his 'the Bible is not the Bible, the Reformed Baptist view of God is correct' point of view throughout.

Fallacious Argument
Bart's whole book hinges on his belief that the answers the Bible presents to the issue contradictory views on how evil is dealt with. He never really proves this and I find the reasoning he does give fallacious. Is God not big enough to have several response to the problem of suffering and evil? Can't God have a multifaceted approach to dealing with the problem?

1. Punish evil because it is a wilful act and causes suffering
2. Warn people that Sin has its Consequences
3. Wage a continuing war against evil without violating mankind's freewill including send your own Son to destroy the work of the devil -- sin
4. Oppose the forces of evil -- the devil and his minions.
5. In the End -- destroy all the supporters and practitioners of evil and sin so that the new world can be free of them -- destroying all the instigators forever in hell. Give the new mankind that survives a fresh start with a place of life where suffering ends.

I fail to see inconsistency here but a multifaceted approach to the problem of evil and suffering by God depending on the nature of the evil and suffering involved. Bart thinks not.

Avoidance of Personal Culpability
I think Bart's reasoning is personal in the sense that he is seeking divorce from his own personal responsibility for suffering. He wants man off the hook so he can be off the hook. I find this strange for a guy who is bothered by the problem of suffering but then washes his hands of it using Ecclesiastes -there is nothing man can do including me Bart Ehrman. Seems like the finger pointing of who is responsible did not stop with Adam and Eve, only Bart has the guts to point his finger at God and say 'foul'. He better hope he is right.

A Final Personal Note
All criticism aside, I feel Bart's pain. If I was going to be anything else besides a Christian, I would also embrace hedonistic agnosticism. I find atheism intellectually vacant -- you can't know their isn't a God either. You are to limited in what you know to make a judgment on that. All other religions saving Judaism seem very man reasoning to the divine to me and I thus reject them. Of course if I reject the Hebrew Scripture then Judaism is out as well. If we are to know what the divine truly is it must reveal itself to us. That gives only two possibilities for me -- Christianity with its Bible as revelation of God as he really is or a rejection of that revelation (the Bible) to agnosticism and living for myself trying to find God's revelation in the world around me. Everything points only to believe in Christ and his resurrection or 'let us eat and drink for tomorrow we die". If I wasn't a Christian I would be joining Bart for those cigars and sherry with a circle of friends to enjoy it with. As it is however, I see that suffering is our fault -- all of it and God has made an answer to it; we just continue to reject it.

Finis

Engaging God's Problem -- Three Objections Part 2 -- Bart's Bible is Not Mine

The Full Title of the book by Bart Ehrman's is God's Problem: Why the Bible Fails to Answer Our Most Important Question -- Why We Suffer. The problem is that the Bible Bart is using is not mine or for that matter the Bible most Christians use. It is Bible that is edited to fit what the liberal scholars have decided it is.

Every Theory Believed but not the Text Itself
Bart's Bible is one in which the Bible is not what it says it is:
1. JEPD Theory is considered fact -- Moses did not write the Pentateuch
2. Two people Wrote Job
3. Two or Three People wrote Isaiah
4. The apostles did not write the documents of the New testament
5. Etc., etc., etc.

In short, the "Bible" is not as the Bible presents itself but a concoction of theories and speculation that is not supported by textual fact. This makes it difficult to say 'the Bible does not answer the question of evil'. This is not accurate in this book by Bart -- He is not using the Bible but a theoretical Bible. I find Bart's position, and those who believe like him, ironic; they reject the Bible on the one hand because of textual error (most of which are not significant), but will present as facts theories that have not textual facts or evidence whatsoever.

A Bible Removed of History
Because of this the Bible's history including Gods acts in history are non-issues for Bart except when they make his case for him. Bart has an interesting argument here -- he rejects any Biblical argument that contradicts what he says because we cant trust the Bible in being historically accurate but then he will turn around and take as fact any event that fits his belief that God is responsible for evil.

Because of these two factors I would say the full title of Bart's book is not true -- it is not how the Bible fails to answer the problem of suffering, but it is rather how the liberal edited Bible fails to answer the problem of suffering and to that I would agree. An edited Bible does not answer the problem of suffering but the real deal does.

Next -- Objection 3 -- No Answer Will Do

Engaging God's Problem -- Three Objections Part 1 -- Over Reliance on Classical Theology

Well it is time to put Bart Ehrman's book God's Problem to bed in a threefold posting. The original three objections to the book i had when i started this things still stand:
1. Ehrman's has an over reliance of classical theology models
2. Ehrman's objects to a God that is not really a God of the Bible
3. No answer will ultimately satisfy Ehrman's

Now I have made it no secret that I don't think much of classical theological models. my chief objection to them is that in theology there is a coupling of western philosophical thought on God with the Bible. Western philosophical thought is dominated by pagan philosophers who for the most part created a God that was unfeeling being that was not touched ultimately by our existence as human beings. Like it or not some of this has spilled over into classic theology and I feel it has tainted it. Bart comes at the problem from a classic understanding of God probably based on his Reformed and Baptist background. This has a couple problematic effects when dealing with the problem of evil.

Classic Theodicy
Bart's first problem is that he relies on a classic theodicy model:
1. God is all powerful
2. God is love
3. There is suffering.

This is a problem for me because his definition of what it means for God to be all powerful is one of -- "God controls everything" -- does he? The Bible indicates to me that God leaves a great deal to our responsibility and it is because of this failed responsibility that evil exists.

Secondly, classic theodicy is, IMHO, incomplete. I would add a lot more attributes of both God and man to the discussion. How about: God is holy, God is good, Man is a morally free agent, etc. I have always found this argument to be overly simplistic when discussing the problem of evil.

Single Minded Atonement Theory
Bart, in engaging Christ's suffering and it's affect on the problem of evil, never departs from the Penal Atonement theory. Not once does he even consider the many other atonement theories and what affect they might have the problem of evil. There are at least 7 other theories that could have been considered but Bart once again proceeds based on the idea that his education is correct in how atonement works.

Nothing New Here
I put this in too, If your looking a new arguments about the problem of evil from Bart, sorry there is nothing new to see here. I have heard all these arguments around the halls of the various academic institutions I have been a part of and every book I have read on the issue. Bart does not give anything new, he just repackages it well.

Next: Part 2 -- Bart's Bible not the Bible.

Who is Responsible for Evil?

I am getting ready to finish up my Series on Engaging God's Problem with three posts that will be my final review of Bart Ehrman's argument in his book. But as I head into it, it remains as a question in my brain that mankind is responsible for evil and is capable of stopping it. At the same time I am struck by Solomon's argument in Ecclesiastes chapter 4 where he states their is no end to evil in this world and that the real objective of life cannot be this.

Mankind disobeyed and the door opened up to evil and each decision we have made as individuals and as a race has caused more and more evil -- including natural disaster if you take Genesis 6 literally and what must have been the after affects of a worldwide flood.

If we are responsible it is because it was all avoidable. This was not only avoidable but now that we are in it we continue to make the same bad choices that cause the problem.

What bothers me the most is the continued finger pointing at God -- why do we do this? Why is it that people cannot face their own responsibility for their actions and then deal with the consequences? The same answer --sin. Not only do we want to do what we want, we want no consequences to the decisions we make.

I wonder if the human race would have less evil to worry about if they actually listen to God's solution -- accept Christ as Lord, believe in the power of his resurrection and live in obedience to his commandments?

I really think this is all God has been trying to teach us and the only reason evil continues to abound is that we continue to reject the answer.

The Bible and Tattoos

OK, this post is the result of about two hundred people (well maybe only five) that have asked me about this subject and well I suppose i should give a response

The problem is -- the Bible does actually say some thing about this directly.

Leviticus 19:28: You shall not make any cuts in your body for the dead nor make any tattoo marks on yourselves: I am the LORD.

The issue in context (Leviticus 19) is that God did not want his people to be acting in any way like the pagans around him. It is a good principle and maybe we should take it to heart but then again I have been a Christian Headbanger for years and I remember that in the 70's and 80's Christian Rock as a major dividing line in the church. Tattoos and Cutting were part of pagan rites in the time of Moses and God didn't want any element of it in his people's worship of Him.

The problem is that things changed in Acts 15 because of the Gentiles -- As a Gentile Christian believer I have not entered into the Jewish covenant but the New Covenant with Christ -- Paul recognized this and thus Acts 15 -- The rules that come out are designed to keep Gentiles out of pagan worship but also faithful to Christ.

How does this relate to Tattoos -- well I love the Word and the Word includes Leviticus 19:28. I have made a choice to honor it because it was God's desire for his people not to do this -- there is something to this. Maybe however you are freer in Christ than me and I will allow that it is possible that this is a matter of conscience for Gentiles. Here are some things to consider.

1. Tattoos are permanent, well you can get them removed but it is a long painful process. Putting 'Bob loves Sally' on your arm may seem great until Sally decides she doesn't want to be with Bob anymore and until marriage there is really no way to get such a thing and know for sure your committed -- do not fool yourself. If your going to put anything on your body you better be sure that it is something you you can live with the rest of your life -- think hard on this. The fact is for myself is that the only tattoos I have ever considered getting were ones involving my faith, my earthly father or my wife.

2. Bodies change and yours will too. If you get a strawberry by your naval as a young female remember that when you get married and start popping out kids that strawberry is going to turn into an entire field of them. If it is something that will change its look as that part of your body changes -- be ready to live with it.

3. Tattoos fade and don't look as good as you get older. In fact, as a personal opinion, tattoos look ugly on old people -- If you are cool with it go ahead.

4. Note that in many Christian circles you will not be accepted and you will be attacked in many ways. If that kind of grief is something you do not want -- Don't get a tattoo. Don't get one out of rebellion either.

5. Here is something personal with me and God -- I like the way God created me and I don't see any need to improve the look of my skin in the sense of drawing on it in permanent ink. I think God made all of us the right color, gender and shape. I exercise to stay fit and look better but I don't feel this need to follow culture in looking like them.

When considering a tattoo as a Christian think hard about it.

Christians and Sexuality: Self-Righteousness and Nudity

When I started this blog I did a series on Nudity, Modesty and Culture (a good read if you haven't read it) but this post is about Christians and the attitude they should have in dealing with well...pagans who don't share our ethics and/or morals. Particularly when it comes to sex and nudity issues.

The incident that got me thinking on this is something that happened yesterday. I was stopped at the local convenience store and in our town it is located near a recreational trail. Some girls were coming off the trail and had been running as evidence by the level of sweat coming off them. The stopped by their packs and one of them proceeded to change her shirt. She stripped off her sweaty shirt and put on a clean one. My wife's reaction was classic Christian -- "Hello, what does she think she is doing?" Now, she had a sports bra on and the fact is she did not show anything. It was my wife's reaction that got me thinking. Note: I love my wife and what she did is not only typical of her but of many Christians so I am not picking on her. Are these kinds of reactions to such thing smelling of a little self righteousness? When a Christian sees something like this and makes a comment about it what exactly are we saying?

1. Are we saying that we have become the official judges of morality in our culture that we have the right to tell these people what is right and wrong? I hope not -- we earn the privilege to be heard, we do not have an inherent right to it.

2. Does this make us feel better about our own morality? Are we saying in our hearts: Man I am sure glad I am not like other people -- I keep my clothes on. I often wonder about this when women do this to other women -- is this a hen pecking order thing? I am a better women because I live virtuously and this other woman does not.

3. Do we really have a Biblical view on nudity, modesty and culture when we do this? I doubt it. Most Christians have never bothered to study the subject Biblically -- what they judge on is what they have been taught by their church culture.

I am not sure but I think we violate some Scripture when we do this -- Luke 19:9-14 comes to mind:

And He also told this parable to some people who trusted in themselves
that
they were righteous, and viewed others with contempt: "Two men went
up into the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector.
"The Pharisee stood and was praying this to himself: 'God, I thank You that I am not like other people: swindlers, unjust,
adulterers, or even like this tax
collector. 'I fast twice a week; I pay tithes of all that I
get.' "But the tax collector,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!' "I tell you, this man went to his
house justified rather than the other; for everyone who exalts himself will
be humbled, but he who humbles himself will be exalted."

As much as I have thought Matthew 7:1-5 is misused it may be in this case it may not be. If we do not have Biblical understand of what constitutes nudity -- that is what is Biblical and what is church culture -- are we not judging people on a man made standard rather than letting the Word do it itself? Think so.

Perhaps if we spent as much time praying for people as we do judging slights of morals and ethics maybe we would be more effective in persuading people that Christianity is the real deal.

IMHO

Engaging God's Problem -- Disagreements with Chapter Nine

This is the final disagreement post with Bart Ehrman's God's Problem, although I have a few more to close the discussion out about this book. Disagreements with chapter nine are many so hang on.

1. More politics --the book is obviously written before the surge which worked and ended the main problems in Iraq.

2. Bart restates his idea that God's discipline of the Israelites was too harsh but the question remains: how do you discipline a nation without doing something that effects the nation as a whole?

3. God held responsible, mankind let off the hook again.

4. Bart decries this world as a good world God has created. My point is this -- this is not the world as God created it --it is a world that stands as it is because we have ruined it. I don't believe God made the best possible world he could make but one in which free creatures could grow and develop in their relationship with him. We destroyed that with sin.

5. Bart continues to rely on a Reformed/Baptist/Classic view of God's nature in his criticism and states that the God of the Bible is incompatible with the world as it is -- but not all view of God do this but Bart never explores them. When talking about God being all powerful he uses classic definitions but not Biblical ones.

6. God does suffer in a sense because of sin -- he grieves over it, gets angry over it, and gets disappointed with sin and human beings. To say God does not suffer in some sense is not Biblically true. This doesn't make God any less God as Bart would assert but it odes make him a person. Bart makes a leap of logic here on p. 274 that he cannot back up -- that the God of the Old Testament and the New Testament cannot be the same because the way of dealing with the problem of evil is different. The problem is he never really proves that the Bible's answers to the problem of evil contradict each other as he claims.

7. Bart does not think that some suffering is redemptive but the problem is that he dos not have God's perspective on the event. How does he know for certain that there is no redemption in events for sure -- is he God?

8. Suffering is only a test of faith if it is faith that causes the suffering-- this is a point Bart seems to miss.

9. Bart talks about the gift of life we have -- but who or what is it a gift from? Ironic that when you get rid of God you don't really have anyone to say life is a gift from anymore.

10. Bart ultimately shows a lot of pride -- he does not want to admit that in the grand scheme of things - -he might just be a peon after all. After a final reading i can also say there is a lot of self righteousness to someone who wants to call God to account but sees no problem with himself or his own contributes to the problem of evil.

Next: Wrap Up #1 -- Over Reliance on Classic Theology