God's Fault - Who is Responsible for Evil?

What Is Reformed Theology? (With Presbyterian Minister Ethan Sayler)

The African Roots of Christianity

The Chopping Block // Reformed Theology

I grew up in a Church of God In Christ, which is predominantly Black Christian denomination. While I was growing up there was never any discussion of the Calvinist position on Soteriology.  It was assumed that every human being had free will and if they ended up in hell it was because of their own free will choice to deny Christ. We never really discussed any other train of thought. As an adult, I've realized that it way more complicated than I thought. It is my experience that many African-American Christians do not discuss or concern themselves with Soteriological issues beyond being born again and going on to serve God as much as their White brothers and sisters. This is why I really like the following video because it's four black Christians honestly discusses it and given that they don't have the same background and experiences as guys like James White, John Piper, Leighton Flowers, or any of the prominent scholars that I see discuss these things. That is why it is interesting.

What is the Gospel? Thabiti Anyabwile

We all tend to live in our own bubbles. It can be really scary when your bubble is breached. When Donald Trump was elected President, it became clear that many white evangelical Christians  were willing to overlook Trump's  habit of telling lies and record of racism because they believed he would eventually help get rid of abortion because he claimed to be a Christian. Jemar Tisby. at the time wrote an opinion piece about so many white Christians would support racism and how it made him feel "unsafe". When James White (a Reformed Baptist Theologian/Apologist) read his words it really rubbed him the wrong way, prompting many a Twitter battle between some white Christians and Black Christians. James White and others like John MacArthur see the criticisms of racism brought by black Christians like Tisby and Thabiti M. Anyabwile as divisive and unproductive in spreading the Gospel and leading people to Christ. They argue that being Christian transcends race. However, the reason they can ignore the inequities and prejudices endured by black people in America and around the world is because they don't got to live with them. I have heard James White and John MacArthur have harsh words for all people who call for the repentance of White Christians and change in how White and Non-White Christians interact and the power dynamics in Church. They argue that they embrace socialism, Critical Race Theory, Social Justice, and Black Liberation Theology. Many Evangelicals have signed a formal statement - Statement on Social Justice and the Gospel - explaining they disagree with their perceived shift in the church toward social justice. 

One problem is the definitions of  Social Justice does not match what neither what I nor any Black Christian would say it is or what accountability we have to one another when it comes to respecting each other despite the color or skins. They argue against the crazy people who say that white people should put themselves in servitude to black people to pay penance for racism and slavery. Men like Jemar Tisby and Thabiti Anyabwile are not arguing for this at all or changing the Gospel message in the slightest. See the following video below in which Anyabwile defines the Gospel message.



However, given that many black Christians do not have a  background in Reformed Theology, Anyabwile is uniquely qualified to discuss some insight on that and I found his viewpoint helpful.

In What Sense Did Christ Die for the Non-Elect? // Ask Pastor John

John Piper starts with 1 Timothy 4:10; Titus 2:11; John 3:16; Romans 8:32. I find that I agree with Him. I don't think any Christian disagrees what Jesus's death means for the Elect. Jesus literally saved us and this effective to everyone who believes. The Gospel should be given and spread to everyone and we need not worry who is going to be elected for salvation because we do not know who will be believe or if they will ever believe. That's the job of the Holy Spirit to convict and thereby save them. We just need to tell them what Jesus did.

Can We Judge the Morality of God?: A Response to Roger Olson

Dr James White has written a great article about judging the morality of God. His article is in response to Roger Olson and other people who deny the sovereignty of God in all matters. Some say they reject reformed theology because they refuse to accept the idea that God is so sovereign that no one can challenge his choice of election to salvation. Dr White does such a great job answering this, but I think that his answer is also great against atheists who think that God owes them an explanation for the things He does and the things He allows. This is an answer to anyone who would try to challenge God and judge the rightness and wrongness of His commands and decrees. This has bearing on how we view and discuss evil and suffering. You don't have a theodicy without thinking of these matters.. Take a look and the link.

Can We Judge the Morality of God?: A Response to Roger Olson

Are there Levels of Love?

Are there different quantities of love we should have towards others - depending on their relative closeness to us? In other words: Is it okay to love some people more than you love other people? Biblically, it's not a matter of loving someone more or less than someone else. For example look at something Jesus said:

⁴³ “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ ⁴⁴ But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, ⁴⁵ that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. - Matthew 5:43-45 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%205:43-45&version=NIV)

A lot of people think that this means that  you have to be nice to your enemies and not that you have to love them as much as you do your friends.  But if you look more closely - say on Crosswalk.com that contains a KJV Strong's Concordance - you find out more about what kind of love Jesus was talking about. (Just click on the hypertexted word in the passage to see what the Strong's entries are.

43 Ye have heard that it hath been said , Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. 44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; 45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. - Matthew 5:43-45

(http://www.biblestudytools.com/kjv/matthew/passage.aspx?q=matthew+5:43-45)

If you look at the word "love" as in "love your neighbor" and compare "love" as in "love your enemies" you see that they are coded as the same Strong's number demonstrating that Jesus did not mean to imply different kinds of love for neighbors and enemies. This is significant because Kione Greek is extremely more precise then English. If there was a desire to imply a different kind of love for friends and enemies, there is a Greek word that could have been used rather than "ajgapavw". "Ajgapavw" refers to a deep love that is so "other-centered" that you seek the good of the person who is the recipient of that love - whether or not they deserve it.. That is how God loves us - and in no way do we deserves it. We know that this is what Jesus is referring to because He points out that this is how God loves just and unjust people - the same - to the extent that all enjoy the sun that belongs to Him.



This isn't the same as saying that just because God loves everyone that He doesn't  treat us differently. God does. "Just" doesn't mean that God has to give me everything He give you and vice versa. This also doesn't mean that God expects a man to love all women the same as he does his wife or that God doesn't do more for His chosen people than he does for those "vessels of dishonor". Therefore there aren't different quantities of love  but there is a difference.in quality and the way love is expressed. I'm going to write more about this in the future, but here are some more passages to consider.

 ¹⁰ Not only that, but Rebekah’s children were conceived at the same time by our father Isaac. ¹¹ Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God’s purpose in election might stand: ¹² not by works but by him who calls—she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” ¹³ Just as it is written: “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”
 ¹⁴ What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! ¹⁵ For he says to Moses,
   “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,
   and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.”
 ¹⁶ It does not, therefore, depend on human desire or effort, but on God’s mercy. ¹⁷ For Scripture says to Pharaoh: “I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” ¹⁸ Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.
 ¹⁹ One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist his will?” ²⁰ But who are you, a human being, to talk back to God? “Shall what is formed say to the one who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’” ²¹ Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for special purposes and some for common use?
 ²² What if God, although choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? ²³ What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory— ²⁴ even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles? ²⁵ As he says in Hosea:
   “I will call them ‘my people’ who are not my people;
   and I will call her ‘my loved one’ who is not my loved one,”  - Romans 9:10-25

How Should Christians Approach the Problem of Evil

I was on Facebook Tuesday Night and came across a post from the Bible Answer Man with a link to an article from the Christian Research Journal called How Should Christians Approach the Problem of Evil by E. Calvin Beisner and Chad Meister. Beisner approaches the "Problem of Evil" from a Reformed perspective and Meister gives the Free Will perspective.They agree on the formulation and how the problem should  be posed.

Through the centuries theologians and philosophers from a wide range of backgrounds and interests have tried various responses to explain what appears to be a logical contradiction in the following five propositions:

             1.      God exists.

             2.      God is all-powerful.

             3.      God is all-knowing.

             4.      God is all-good.

             5.      Evil exists.

Both men are Christians and agree on a lot of things. Beisner wrote:

Does this mean God justifies His means by His ends? Yes. Is that wicked? No. An end-justifies-the-means ethic is fallacious and therefore wicked for finite men (who can neither control nor know all the results of their choices), but it is perfectly fitting for the infinite God (who both controls and knows all the results of His choices)–and, after all, God being supreme need not justify His choices to anyone:

So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires. You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?” On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, “Why did you make me like this,” will it? Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use? (Rom. 9:15–21).

Does the reality of evil make the existence of the Christian God impossible? No. For good reasons, God created a world that contained evil. For those same reasons, as we have seen, the Christian position does not self-contradict.

Meister wrote the following:

We have seen, then, that the atheist’s claim that there is a contradiction in believing in the coexistence of God and evil is false, and that the Christian faith does have reasonable explanations for how the God of the Bible and evil could coexist.¹⁰ For God to create a good and moral universe, He needed to make creatures with free will. Along with free will came the possibility—and, as it turned out, the reality—that these creatures freely would choose evil. God, however, is willing and able to redeem this fallen world and abolish evil. He will do it, and all will be well.

Where they disagree is regarding how to reconcile the existence of evil with the existence of God. I find that I agree more with Beisner than Meister. 


Beisner wrote:

A False Choice. Meister presents a false choice between libertarian freedom and “sham” freedom. That choice presupposes that for the compatibilist–that is, one who holds determinism and moral responsibility/free choice to be compatible, as I have argued–there is no difference between how a stone responds to gravity and how a child responds to his or her parent’s command. Hidden within this mistake is a deeper one: the assumption that “a real ability to choose one way or the other”—“libertarian freedom”—is the same thing as free will, that is, a will that is not predetermined. Compatibilists assert that moral agents (God, angels, and men) choose, but that choosing per se and choosing indeterminately are not synonymous.

I don't think we as human beings have libertarian free will because  we are enslaved to sin. The only one who truly had that kind of will was Adam, Eve, and Jesus. Adam and Eve were free of sin when they were created. They chose to be enslaved by sin when they chose to disobey God. Us? Not so much...like not at all. Jesus was sinless because he is God.  No one else is in their league. We were born into sin. We can't obey God, without His help,  even if we wanted to and we don't want to by default outside of God replacing our hearts of stone with a heart of flesh!

Those who live according to the flesh have their minds set on what the flesh desires; but those who live in accordance with the Spirit have their minds set on what the Spirit desires. The mind governed by the flesh is death, but the mind governed by the Spirit is life and peace. The mind governed by the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so. Those who are in the realm of the flesh cannot please God.- Romans 8:5-8

How Should Christians Approach the Problem of Evil

Related articles

• Saint Augustine - The Problem of Evil (socyberty.com)
• The Problem of Suffering (smoodock45.wordpress.com)
• The Mystery of Iniquity Times Ten (zwingliusredivivus.wordpress.com)

God Centered vs. Man Centered: the Dividing Line

James White's webcast today was too good not to share. He talked what really separates us from Roman Catholics and what the nature of the Gospel really is. I agree with him. This isn't a small issue. The issues Dr White covered today is what the main point of the Protestant Reformation was and should still be: God is the beginning and ending of everything and He has chosen to redeem his people from their sins. Great news!

Covered two primary texts on the program today, Hebrews 7:25 and James 2:14, but I did so in the context of recognizing the difference between a God-centered faith and a man-centered one. I drew illustrations from my debate with Robert Sungenis on the Mass that took place in Utah a number of years ago. An hour of biblical teaching, no calls, but I think one of the more important discussions we've had on the Dividing Line. Here's the program.

(I noted that the debate with Sungenis on the Mass was one of the clearest examples of theocentric faith vs. anthropocentric faith I know of. You can get the debate here).

God Centered vs. Man Centered: the Dividing Line

Debates: Greg Bahnsen vs RC Sproul - Apologetics Methodology

In a recent video, James White discussed what Biblical Apologetics is and why he uses the methodologies he uses. During the course of the video, he mentions a debate between Greg Bahnsen and RC Sproul in which they debate the differences between apologetic methods. I was confused as to who was arguing for what position so I went and found the original debate online.


Apologetics-ApologeticsMethodologyBahnsenVsSproul13183.mp3


Apologetics-ApologeticsMethodologyBahnsenVsSproul23248.mp3


Apologetics-ApologeticsMethodologyBahnsenVsSproul33945.mp3


After listening to the debates I found that I agree with both Dr. Bahnsen and Dr. Sproul.  Dr. Sproul was arguing for Evidential Apologetics and Dr. Bahnsen argued for Presuppositional Apologetics. It turns out that Dr. James White is on the side of Bahnsen's. I was surprised that White and Sproul disagree on the value of Evidential Apologetics though they both agree and respect one another on many things. Bahnsen brought up a great deal of important points. I think he has a point that we can't answer people according to their folly in that using their logic is counter-productive because without God you can't reason correctly. Nothing makes sense without God. At the same time I think Sproul is right that it's difficult to reach people who do not take the Bible as a literal authority if you can't show that God exists and has the right to hold us accountable without using the Bible. I have been accused of "circular reasoning" more often than I'd care to count. I think both men agree in more ways than they disagree.

I find the weakness of the Evidential approach is that it seems only good to really explain that there has to be a god and not necessarily the God of the Bible. It takes a lot  to make that connection and not everyone is adept to it. And if you are not careful atheist will eat your lunch on that. For example, Christopher Hitchens tripped up Frank Turek a little bit on this in their first debate. The other problem I see is that it does not seem that neither Jesus nor the Apostles used this method.  But I have to admit that it does work to help some understand and believe God's word so I don't think we should throw it away. I think that one of its strengths is that you can appeal to facts and objective truths outside of the Bible to point back to the Bible. However, I think it poorly addresses the "Problem of Evil" and the reality of suffering.

As for Prepositional Apologetics, I think it has the full strength of the Bible behind it. I often find myself leaning on this especially when people are attacking the Bible's validity and veracity. The only problem is that I think Sproul is right it opens one up to the charge of circular reasoning and although people like Bahnsen, Douglas Wilson,  and James White can answer and deflect that charge, I don't think that most people are ready to answer that really well. One of the things it does very well is answer the Problem of  Evil.

At the end of the day I think that both methods are needed in my tool box. I tend to find myself following Sproul's example of using objective evidence to show that the Bible should be believed and yet when the Problem of Evil using the same arguments that Bahnsen uses. Sproul does the same. I heard him do it live last year when he gave a lecture in the Bay Area in answering the question "Why bad things happen to good people?" I don't think either man won this because they weren't really disagreeing on a fundamental level. I think we need to listen to the people we are witnessing to and then based on where they are use the methodology that works best to truthfully give them the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

apologetics links

Iron Sharpens Iron: Eric Redmond: When Your Theology Costs You Your Pulpit: An African American's Journey into Reformed Christianity

Iron Sharpens Iron is a wonderful broadcast. Pastor Eric Redmond was a guest talking about how he came tom accept Reformed Theology. I could really identify with him. He used to have the same problem I have with "Limited Atonement". He talked about how your theology can cost you your pulpit if people don't like your theology. It is an awesome interview.  There was a call from a man who was part of the Church of God in Christ from Canada. That was interesting being I'm from that denomination.

Iron Sharpens Iron: Eric Redmond: When Your Theology Costs You Your Pulpit: An African American's Journey into Reformed Christianity

Salvation By Grace: Dr Skepple Defining Sovereign Grace

Here is a video in which Dr. Roger Skepple defines what Reformed theology is. I really like the way he breaks it down and explains that it's more than just the 5 points we usually point out in Reformed Theology. He also points out that it's about the 5 "solas" or the 5 "onlies" (ie only faith, only Christ, ect). Check him out.





Salvation By Grace: Dr Skepple Defining Sovereign Grace

Iron Sharpens Iron: Roger Skepple: Looking For Love in All the Wrong Places: Is Reformed Theology Antithetical to the Love of God? (An African-American's Journey

As a black Christian, I've got to ask why don't more black people agree with the reformed position and doctrine? As I study and learn more about the reformed doctrine it definitely answers questions I have been asking my entire life - things concerning the nature of God and human free will. The one point in 5-point Calvinism that I have issues with is "L" - "Limited atontement". I'm just having issues with going that far. The other four make sense to me. I really enjoyed this interview with Dr. Roger Skepple on Iron Sharpen Iron. Not only does he explain how he came to accept Reformed Theology, but he also deals with the Biblical texts that are usually raised against Limited Atonement. I liked how he talked about it. follow the link below to hear him out.

Iron Sharpens Iron: Roger Skepple: Looking For Love in All the Wrong Places: Is Reformed Theology Antithetical to the Love of God? (An African-American's Journey

Iron Sharpens Iron: Redditt Andrews III: A Plea For Real Answers: An African-American's Journey into Reformed Christianity

I've been studying Reformed theology for a few years now and I think it has some points superior top what Im grew up with. It's more consistent and fits with the Bible better than what I thought. I'm still studying it because I wanna know what God really said in the Bible. I've documented much of what I've learned on this very blog.

One of my challenges is the realization that there seems to be few living African-American Christians whom have embraced the Reformed view. I know I grew up Armenian. This is why I love the radio program Iron Sharpens Iron. I enjoyed this broadcast in which an African-American, Redditt Andrews III, talks about how he became reformed. I could identify with his journey because it mirrored my own. He discussed a particular situation where his wife asked him if there were anyone else who believed as he was coming to believe. He gave her a lot of names, but she wanted to know if there was anyone alive?! I laughed because my wife and I have had a similar conversation! This Pastor is out of Elk Grove, CA - about 90 miles from me. Maybe I'll get to visit one day. This interview is great! Listen to it at the following link:

Iron Sharpens Iron: Redditt Andrews III: A Plea For Real Answers: An African-American's Journey into Reformed Christianity

Doctrines of Grace Seminar, Introduction, St. Charles

Last Friday, James White delivered a presentation of what the Reformed Theology is and is not. This is a great lecture.





Doctrines of Grace Seminar, Introduction, St. Charles