Thoughts On "Stumbling Block" Issues In Romans 14 And 1 Corinthians 8-10

Recently some in our congregation have faced issues of disagreement about which it has been suggested they might be “stumbling blocks”. Essentially, a “stumbling block” issue is one in which an action or activity may not necessarily be sinful in and of itself, yet some think it is sinful. In such times the person who believes he has the freedom to engage in it must refrain from causing the other person to stumble.

A classic example of a stumbling block issue would be drinking alcohol. If a Christian drinks in front of a fellow-believer who thinks alcohol consumption is wrong or if he tries to get the friend to drink, it could cause the person to go against his conscience and sin. In other words, it could cause him to stumble.

Not all issues are so easily decided. How do we determine when we are dealing with a stumbling block issue or not?  Here are a number of observations derived from the two main stumbling block passages that I trust will lead us toward an answer.

1. Not all issues or disagreements among Christians in a congregation can be classified as stumbling block matters. Beginning in Cor. 7:1 Paul writes to the Corinthians of “the matters about which you wrote” (7:1). In other words, these are matters that troubled the Corinthians and they wanted to get Paul’s take on them. Of all the matters Paul addresses in this section (being married or not being married, ch. 7; food related to idol/temple worship, 8-10; head coverings, 11:2-16; the Lord’s Supper, 11:17-34; “spirituals” or “spiritual things” [extraordinary spiritual activities, including spiritual gifts], 12:1-14:40; and the resurrection, 15:1-58), there is only one that constitutes a stumbling block issue. In all the others Paul clearly comes down upon a particular side. For example, in regard to whether or not Christians should marry (ch. 7), Paul is clear that though there is the freedom not to marry (if God has gifted and/or called a person to such a single lifestyle), most should marry because of sexual sin. So, Paul does not say, “Hey, if you have people in your church who don’t think any Christian should marry, don’t allow anyone to marry—after all you don’t want to be a stumbling block.” No, Paul is clear that though some may not want to marry, marriage is good and, in many cases, it is the wisest step for Christians to take. Likewise, he doesn’t leave it up to the Corinthians to decide whether or not they practice “spirituals” or spiritual gifts in a way that trumps love for one another and God’s Word (12-14); nor does he leave it up to them whether or not they believe in the resurrection (15).[1]

2. Even in stumbling block issues there tends to be a stronger (more defensible) and weaker (less defensible) position, which appears to be why Paul uses “weak” to refer to the person prohibiting the activity (e.g. 1 Cor. 8:11). The issue in Romans 14 appears to be that of Jewish food and Sabbath laws, and whether or not Christians (Jewish or Gentile) must keep them.[2]  The issue in 1 Corinthians 8-10 appears to revolve around the eating of meat related to pagan temples and idol worship. The pagan temples in many first century, A.D., Greco-Roman cities also served as the local butcher. Once meat was sacrificed to pagan gods it would be sold for food. Because of this, many guilds and groups of people would have feasts and get-togethers at pagan temples. Additionally, this meat would also be sold so it could be eaten off-site. In 1 Cor. 8 Paul appears to be addressing the issue of eating at the temples (8:10) and in 1 Cor. 10 eating meat sold at the temple, but eaten off-site (10:25, 28). In both situations, Paul makes it clear that bottom-line there is nothing unethical in and of itself about eating the food some were prohibiting in Rome (Rom. 14:14a) or the meat related to the pagan temples and idols in Corinth (1 Cor. 8:4-6).[3]

3. Because of #2, it appears that Paul felt the freedom to state that in the given issue there was a stronger and weaker position, which implies that discussions could take place among the Christians that may lead to a weaker brother leaving behind his conviction that a particular activity was unethical. So, even in situations in which Christian leaders must be adamant that stronger brothers give up freedoms for weaker brothers, at one and the same time, they can teach weaker brothers with the goal of helping them see that the particular activity is not wrong. This teaching must be done with great care, however. It must be careful to allow God’s Spirit to convince without forcing a person to engage in something against their conscience.

4.  Though #3 seems to follow from #2, nevertheless, the accent in both passages is that as long as an activity is thought wrong to a particular Christian or group of Christians, then the stronger brother must give up his freedom for the sake of the weaker brother’s conscience—as a matter of love and glorifying God (e.g. Rom. 14:7-8; 15:1-2; 1 Cor. 10:23-33). This is true as long as there are no stronger theological issues that would trump the opposition by the weaker brother. For example, in Corinth a potential weaker brother might claim, “I am bothered by Christians marrying since my experience with sexual relations among Corinthians-at-large has been so negative and so filled with sin. I think all true Christians should abstain from all sex, including marriage.” (This, by the way, appears to be the situation behind chapter 7) To this, Paul would not say, “Well, o.k. Corinthians, don’t marry because you don’t want to offend the weaker brother.” No, there is a stronger biblical principle in play—namely the potential of dishonoring God through sexual sin if most Christians are not marrying. Likewise, he would not allow the practice of spiritual sensational gifts (such as ecstatic speech) to trump the preservation of love and the priority of God’s Word (1 Cor. 12-14). In other words, he would not allow a Christian to say, “I am offended by those who put the brakes or restraints upon my use of ecstatic speech or utterances, since they are part of my worship of God.” No, in Paul’s mind, there are stronger issues at play.

5. It appears that stumbling blocks can exist merely by one’s presence at a place associated with an offensive activity (1 Cor. 8:10). Also, a stumbling blocks can exist at the level of engaging in an action when a particular person is present for whom the activity is a problem (1 Cor. 10:25, 28). As an example in the first case, when a person is part of a congregation that largely believes any alcohol consumption is wrong, the wisest approach for a Christian who affirms moderate alcohol consumption is not to go to the town liquor store. Such in and of itself can be a stumbling block, especially if the Christian going to the store is in a position of authority.

As an example in the latter case, if a person is part of a congregation that does not have a corporate position on drinking one way or the other, yet they invite over to their house a brother or sister who believes abstinence is the only ethical position, it would be wrong to drink in front of them or to offer them alcohol when the host knows they have this stance.[4]

6. In both of the key biblical texts (Romans 14; 1 Corinthians 8-10), it appears that a stumbling block is present when Christians are legitimately concerned that an activity may involve or lead to sin. In each case the most likely concern on the part of the weaker Christian was that those who held on to the freedom would be involved in idolatry. Paul’s contention in both cases was that this would not necessarily arise, but the stronger believer must take into consideration the conscience of the weaker brother who feared the possible sin.

Very different from this would be a group of Christians who were concerned that the surrounding town was offended by non-sinful activities of fellow Christians. If such concern led to the first group of Christians being offended by the actions of the second group, this would not constitute a stumbling block issue. For example, let’s say a church had a number of college-age students who like to go onto the local campus to preach on the sidewalks. A second Christian group believes such preaching is more harmful than helpful—based upon the reactions of their co-workers in town. In such a situation no potential stumbling block is present—at least as defined by Rom. 14 and 1 Cor. 8-10.

7. Based upon experience in the Church, it seems clear that though many potential stumbling block issues can be decided based upon the above principles, there will remain disagreement on a minority of issues among Christians. In other words, there will be some issues that some say are stumbling block issues and some will say there are greater biblical issues at play and cannot be constituted as stumbling block issues.  In such issues all involved must do their best to preserve love among each other to the glory of God, even when they must agree to disagree. In such cases, biblical guidelines for working through differences must be followed (e.g. Mt. 5:23-24; 18:15ff.) and those involved must do their best by the grace of God to give each other the benefit of the doubt (see 1 Cor. 13:7).  The wisest approach may even be for church leaders and/or the congregation to draw up a statement upon the congregation’s position—one which would formulate the key biblical boundaries to be followed and then leave room for freedom of conscience in the details (e.g. Acts 15:1-35).

---

[1] To give parallels from other areas of congregational life, whether or not pastors teach on God’s sovereign grace is not a stumbling block issue. In other words, a pastor should not refrain from such teaching simply because some might not like it or be offended. There are larger issues (doctrinal fidelity) at play than one’s offense. Additionally, it cannot be deemed a stumbling block issue whether or not a person follows biblical guidelines of conflict resolution and whether or not they release resentment against others. The Bible is clear on these issues. Though the biblical steps might be uncomfortable for some Christians, they are absolutely necessary.

Another Pauline example of a disagreement that could not be classified a stumbling block issue was his account of the time he confronted Peter who capitulated to Judaizers from Jerusalem and ceased having table fellowship with Gentiles. Paul confronted his fellow Apostle in the presence of others because what he was doing was not in step with truth that flowed out of the gospel. See Galatians 2:11-14. Though the Judaizers might be offended by Jew/Gentile table fellowship, it could not be classified a stumbling block issue. Clear and greater theological principles were in play.

 

[2] It appears that some in Rome had taken Jewish food laws and extended them to a point of demanding vegetarianism, perhaps b/c so much meat might be considered unclean or connected into idol worship (cf. 1 Cor. 8-10). This is the case even though the Old Testament never demanded vegetarianism (although it was present in Daniel 1).

 

[3] Because Revelation 2:14 mentions eating food sacrificed to idols in a negative light, some Bible readers might ask, “What is going on there? Does this contradict Paul who seems to say that eating such food is not wrong in and of itself unless it causes another to stumble?” Upon closer inspection of Revelation 2:14 the reader will notice that John is not writing that those in Pergamum are eating such food. This eating of such food was engaged in by the Israelites in the wilderness at the instigation of Balaam. If the reader goes back to that incident, he will find out that the Israelites were actually engaging in idol worship (Nu. 25:2). So, in the case of Rev. 2:14, the eating of food sacrificed to idols stands for actual idolatry. The point is that the false teaching present in Pergamum was leading people both to idolatry and sexual sin, as did the false teaching of Balaam with Israel in the wilderness. So, there is no contradiction with what Paul writes.

Most likely the “food sacrificed to idols” in the subsequent context (Rev. 2:20) is meant to carry the same meaning as 2:14, namely there was actual idolatry taking place among the believers of Thyatira whenever they participate in such meals. It was not merely eating the food or being at the place that was under consideration. So, again, there is no contradiction with what Paul writes.

[4] In either case it seems most likely to me that there is a known problem among the group or the individual against the activity. For example, a generation or two ago many Christians opposed going to movies b/c a Christian from anywhere might drive by and see a Christian attending a theater and be offended. That is a misapplication or over-application of this teaching. It would only apply if a person was part of a congregation who wrestled with this issue or if a Christian tried to “drag” along with him to a theater a Christian brother who was bothered by going to such a place.

Why Joyful Followers Are Served Well By Good Catechisms

In Sunday morning’s sermon I mentioned the Evangelical Catechism that we have available on our web site (Resources/Articles). This collection of 107 questions and answers designed to teach the basics of the gospel and the Christian faith is patterned after the Westminster Shorter Catechism. More than its origin, though, many will want to know why would anyone use a catechism?

To answer this question and to introduce you to this teaching instrument I am reproducing my introduction to that catechism in this blog post with the prayer that it will inspire you to check out the catechism, to utilize it for your own growth, and also to make use of it in the instruction of your children.

One final comment I will make before the introduction. A helpful companion tool to the Evangelical Catechism is Starr Meade’s Training Hearts, Teaching Minds: Family Devotions Based On The Shorter Catechism (P & R, 2000). I would strongly encourage you to purchase and make use of this tool to help your family learn the Evangelical Catechism.

Now the introduction…

Professing Christians who have been in Evangelical churches any time at all will think it odd that anyone is encouraging the use of a catechism.  There is not only a prejudice against such tools, but a great deal of misunderstanding.  Many conclude, “Catechetical instruction is one of those religious hoops to jump through in cold, sterile congregations!”[1]  Like any tool, a catechism can be misused and sometimes is.  However, this does not negate their helpfulness if utilized properly—namely to ground a person in the basics of the gospel and the Scriptures.

The lack of biblical and theological understanding among the Church today is well documented.[2]  Part of this stems from a misunderstanding of grace, one which suggests we exercise easy belief (mere mental assent) in Jesus Christ as Savior and then try to stay away from study as far as we can, lest we become legalistic and/or make our Christianity something less than a relationship.  It is almost as if the less we know, the more we can claim, “Hey, it’s all about a relationship with Jesus!”

The lack of biblical literacy also stems from the fact that the contemporary Church has made little use of theologically-substantive training materials that can aid believers to grow in the grace and knowledge of Jesus Christ.  Catechisms are just such a tool, which were designed to root and ground children, new saints, and inquiring unbelievers in the basics of the faith and the gospel. In fact, since it was so common in the early church for those who had professed faith in Jesus Christ eventually to turn away from their profession, catechisms were developed to help the person “decide if he still wanted to submit to Christian baptism and gave the church opportunity to discern (as far as human observation can do this) the genuineness of his, or her, conversion…. This use of catechisms served as a safeguard for the purity of the church.”[3]

The term catechism is taken from the Greek word katecheo, which means “teach” or “instruct”. To catechize “simply means to teach biblical truth in an orderly way.  Generally this is done with questions and answers accompanied by biblical support and explanation.”[4]  Catechetical instruction is not something done only in Roman Catholic or cold liberal churches.  In fact, it was one of the factors which enabled the Reformation of the 16^th-17^th centuries to remain on solid footing and to spread successfully.[5] 

Because the Westminster Shorter Catechism (1647) is the most well-known catechism among Evangelical believers, because it is so biblically-sound, and because of its brevity in relation to some other options, I have used it as the starting point.  I have kept the same order of questions, as well as the same number of questions and answers.  The changes I have made include:  (1) In those questions dealing with baptism and the Lord’s Supper I have followed the original Baptist Catechism (sometimes called Keach’s Catechism), as well as the revision of that catechism by John Piper.  (2) I have modernized some of the language to make it more accessible.  (3) In a few places I have borrowed from John Piper’s revision to increase accuracy and clarity. (4) I have put some of my own choices (as well as Piper’s) for scriptural proofs with the answers.

I have titled this revision An Evangelical Catechism since it primarily sets forth the gospel (or evangel), that word of truth (Ephesians 1:13), which forms the core of the Scriptures.  It should also be known this revision is Baptist in doctrine to match the convictions of our own congregation for whom it is primarily written.   

My prayer is that God will use this instrument in your life, the life of your children, and the lives of those whom you are discipling that he, his Word, and the truth of the gospel, will be opened up in new and fresh ways for your delight in him and for his glory.

---

[1] Tom J. Nettles, Teaching Truth, Training Hearts: The Study Of Catechisms In Baptist Life (Amityville, NY: Calvary Press, 1998), 15, draws attention to the reality many evangelicals are suspicious of catechisms.

[2]For example, David Wells, No Place For Truth (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), 4, wrote:  “I have watched with growing disbelief as the evangelical Church has cheerfully plunged into astounding theological illiteracy.”

[3] Nettles, Teaching Truth, 16.

[4] John Piper, A Baptism Catechism (Desiring God Ministries), 1. He lists Acts 18:25; 1 Corinthians 14:19; Galatians 6:6 which all use the verb katecheo to speak of biblical instruction.

[5] Nettles, Teaching Truth, 17.

Dealing With Conflict As A Joyful Follower

Conflict is a regular part of human relationships. This is confirmed by the fact that Jesus taught what we should do if we hurt someone else (Matthew 5:23-24) or if someone does something against us (Matthew 18:15).  It is also confirmed by the fact that Paul and Barnabas even parted ways, disagreeing over what to do with John Mark on Paul’s second missionary trip (Acts 15:36-41).  Too often disagreements lead to people dividing from and hurting each other even further.  The Bible, however, offers very clear and effective teaching on how to approach conflict with others.  There are four key principles we are well-served in keeping before us in any conflict.[1]

First, we must realize conflict is an opportunity to

Glorify God.  Glorifying God (putting His greatness on display) is the ultimate purpose of mankind. (Matthew 5:16; 1 Corinthians 10:31) When God changes our lives through His grace, results such as righteousness, good works toward others, forgiveness, love, and peace bring glory to God. (Matthew 5:16; John 13:34-35; 15:1-12; 2 Corinthians 9:13; Philippians 1:9-11; 2:14-15) All of this means that when conflict arises, it is an opportunity to put God’s life-changing grace on display. Most people do not work out their differences well.  When, by God’s grace, we face conflict head-on, it puts on display what God can do through us. When we remember this, it transforms how we face these hard times in relationships, helping us to face them rather than run from them.  It also reminds us to pray for God’s help. (Matthew 7:7-11; John 15:7)

With this mind frame we are ready to take the next step…

Get the log out of your own eye.  This phrase comes from Matthew 7:1-5: "Judge not, that you be not judged…. Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye?...You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye.”  (emphasis added)  Before we go and communicate to someone how we believe they have hurt or offended us, this passage urges us to:  (1) Ask how I might have contributed to the problem?  (2) Communicate to the person how I have contributed to the problem and, if applicable, ask for forgiveness.  Doing these two things not only may decrease in our mind the part the other person played while increasing our part; it also may lead them to be more receptive to what we have to say.  Sometimes you might even conclude you do not have to go to the person except to apologize.  Surely, it will enable us to be more gracious, humble, and understanding. 

Gently Restore.  Once we have wrestled with what our part in the conflict has been, if there is still a need to communicate to the other person their part in the situation, do so with grace and gentleness (Proverbs 18:13; Ephesians 4:29, 32; 2 Timothy 2:24-26), with the purpose of restoring your relationship and, if needed, restoring the person in their walk with Christ (Matthew 18:15; Galatians 6:1).  As you do this, speak the truth in and motivated by love (Ephesians 4:15; 1 John 4:8).  We must remember that as the family of Jesus Christ, we are to treat each other as brothers and sisters—thus caring enough not to look the other way when a fellow Christian is self-destructing and/or dishonoring God (2 Thessalonians 3:15).  Here are the seven A’s to remember when you gently restore:

• Address everyone involved.

• Avoid "if," "but," and "maybe".

• Admit specifically.

• Apologize.

• Accept the consequences.

• Alter your behavior.

• Ask for forgiveness.

Go and be reconciled.  Once you have worked things out with the other person, forgive them (Ephesians 4:32; Colossians 3:13).  This is a mark of those who are true believers (Matthew 6:14-15).  If you cannot reconcile with the person and/or they are unwilling to talk to you, then get others involved to help (Matthew 18:16-20).  There are four promises you can make which are helpful in forgiving another person:

• I will not think about this incident any more.

• I will not bring this incident up and use it against you.

• I will not talk to others about this incident.

• I will not allow this incident to stand between us or hinder our personal relationship.

Few things in life can be as difficult and as draining as conflict. Yet, when we approach it with God’s grace in Jesus Christ so that we can deal with it in an appropriate manner, nothing can be more rewarding that seeing our Savior make the difference, heal wounds, and bring peace. May God be honored as we deal with our differences as joyful followers of him and lovers of others to his glory!

---

[1] These are taken from the book by Ken Sande, The Peacemaker.  See also his web site hispeace.org.  We regularly offer classes on the peacemaking process.

Self-Examination For Idolatry

In our sermon series through the book of Hosea (“The Glorious Good News Of God’s Love In Hosea”) we have discovered just how widespread and dangerous idolatry is. This is not a sin committed only in the Old Testament or only in third world countries where we find actual physical idols erected for worship. It is a problem of every heart.

 Mike Wilkerson, in Redemption: Freed By Jesus From The Idols We Worship And The Wounds We Carry, writes:  “We usually make idols out of good things, even meat and bread, not the obviously bad things like fornication…. The greater the good, the more likely we are to expect it can satisfy our deepest needs and hopes.”

 Because this is true, we have a need to exam our own hearts and lives to root out idolatry. To help with that below I have included five statements that give a full-orbed description of idolatry. Under each statement I have included in bullet point form questions for us to ask. My prayer is that this will take us further in identifying and being freed from our idols. Each of these statements are found in Timothy Keller, Counterfeit Gods: The Empty Promises Of Money, Sex, And Power, And The Only Hope That Matters.

 

1. Idolatry is “anything more important to you than God.”

• When I look at my life priorities and how I spend my time, does God take a back seat or is he behind the steering wheel?
• When I focus upon my relationship with God do I put my hope in my works and goodness, or do I trust in God’s only way of salvation, which is by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone?
• When I think about the well-being of my family, which would be more important to me: making sure they do not miss sports camps and opportunities to make family memories (e.g. weekends at the lake) or worshiping together in our church?
• What and who are more important to you than God? (Ask God to help you change your heart’s priorities)

2. Idolatry is “anything that absorbs your heart and imagination more than God.”

• When I dream about the future and what will make me happy, successful, or fulfilled, does God enter into the picture or are my dreams filled with other things?
• If you were to complete the statement, “I love ______,” would “God” truly be one of the first words with which you would fill that blank?
• What and who absorbs my heart and imagination more than God? (Ask God to change your heart that you would love him more than anything or anyone)

3. Idolatry is “anything you seek to give you what only God can give.”

• When I think about my life, what or whom do I truly believe will bring me success and true happiness—God or something/one else?
• When I think about my children or grandchildren, what or whom do I truly believe will bring them success and true happiness—God or something/one else?
• Do I believe that keeping my children busy to stay out of trouble is more important to them than shaping their hearts so they love Christ and love him supremely?

4. Idolatry is “whatever you look at and say in your heart of hearts, ‘If I have that, then I’ll feel my life has meaning, then I’ll know I have value, then I’ll feel significant and secure.’”

• How do you complete this sentence, “My life would have meaning, value, significance, and security, if I had this….?”
• Whom or what am I trusting in above God? (Ask God to help you trust in him alone for your salvation, your meaning, your value, and your security)

5. Idolatry is “anything that becomes more fundamental than God to your happiness, meaning in life, and identity.

• How would you complete this sentence: “My life would be destroyed and meaningless, if this happened…?” (Ask God to grant you grace to look to Christ for your hope and so that you can turn from idols unto the living God)

Seek To Have An Interest In God’s Love

In our current sermon series on the Old Testament book of Hosea we are discovering that God’s love is like a diamond with multiple facets of beauty and glory. In fact, the more we discover about God’s love the more we should be left breathless by it.

There is, however, a question that each of us should ask in response to Hosea: Who experiences God’s love?  The answer to that is given clearly by the Apostle Paul in Romans 8:39. We experience God’s love “in Christ Jesus”.  In other words, those united to Christ through faith experience the full, rich, saving love of God. Those who are not united to Christ do not (John 3:36).

In his classic book, Holiness: Its Nature, Hindrances, Difficulties, And Roots, the 19^th century British pastor,  J. C. Ryle, offers helpful counsel to all who would desire to know God’s love.  Because of the seriousness of this topic, I will quote him at length.

“I entreat you not to stifle conscience by vague hopes of God’s mercy, while your heart cleaves to the world. I implore you not to drown convictions by childish fancies about God’s love, while your daily ways and habits show plainly that ‘the love of the Father is not in you.’ There is mercy in God, like a river—but it is for the [repentant] believer in Christ Jesus. There is a love in God towards sinners which is unspeakable and unsearchable—but it is for those who ‘hear Christ’s voice and follow Him.’ Seek to have an interest in that love. Break off every known sin; come out boldly from the world; cry mightily to God in prayer; cast yourself wholly and unreservedly on the Lord Jesus for time and eternity; lay aside every weight. Cling to nothing, however dear, which interferes with your soul’s salvation; give up everything, however precious, which comes between you and heaven.

“This old shipwrecked world is fast sinking beneath your feet: the one thing needful is to have a place in the lifeboat and get safe to shore. Give diligence to make your calling and election sure. Whatever happens to your house and property, see that you make sure of heaven. Oh, better a million times be laughed at and thought extreme in this world than go down to hell….”

So, as Pastor Ryle wrote, make it your desire to “seek to have an interest in that love.”

Why The Unusual Preaching?

Many of the people who attend the Minden Evangelical Free Church have some church background and in that experience you are accustomed to pastors preaching on different topics each week that are not related to the previous week. In some cases you may have been in congregations where the pastor followed a lectionary that assigned different passages and topics each week to fit with the calendar of the church year. Others of you may be have known pastors to preach a series of sermons on a topic. These are the most common approaches to preaching.

If you have been attending our Sunday services any time at all you have discovered I spend most of my time preaching verse by verse through sections of a Bible book or through an entire book of the Bible, a manner often called expository preaching. I have a very strong conviction that most preaching should be of this type. Here are a number of reasons that stand behind my conviction.

1. Expository preaching, as the label suggests, has as its goal, to expose what the text of the Bible says, rather than reading in what we want it to say or reading it in some general way that acknowledges the main theme, but then shapes it according to a preacher’s personal thoughts or preferences. This type of preaching demonstrates to the congregation that the pastor works to remain true to what God says in the Bible, rather than espousing his own thoughts. In other words, such an approach can give added confidence the congregation is hearing a word from God and not merely from man.

2. God gave the Bible to us in books, so to understand each book of the Bible as it was given is to grasp Scripture in the same form God inspired it. There should be something in this method that comes closer to the message God originally intended for us in each book. This is not to suggest that topical preaching (if done with great care and flowing out of diligent and careful study) has no place. After all, Jesus, Paul, and most every other preacher recorded in the Bible preached topical sermons. It does, however, honor the form in which the Bible was inspired. It also is the method of preaching that best serves preaching’s ultimate goal, which is to uncover what the text of the Bible says to us.

3. Expository preaching provides a good model to the congregation for how to read or study through a book of the Bible. It demonstrates what kinds of questions to ask, how to study words, how to understand the flow-of-thought. Similarly, it lays a foundation for a congregation to understand a book of the Bible with greater detail as they read through it after the pastor has preached on it. Such preaching is some of the best preparation a congregation can go through for their own devotions and for family devotions.

4. This approach to preaching provides greater variety of topics, as well as forces the pastor to deal with topics he may not choose to take up if he were not going through the book. What this results in is a better understanding of the entire counsel of God in Scripture.

5. As a pastor studies Bible books verse by verse it forces him to wrestle thoroughly with an entire book and to discover the inspired author’s flow of thought as the latter gives wise counsel, direction, correction, encouragement, and the like to his first readers. Such disciplined study forms a very solid biblical foundation for a pastor’s counseling ministry, as well as for his understanding of the entire Bible. This is why thoughtful, careful expository preachers often make for good counselors.

6. Expository preaching gives a preacher the boldness to address a controversial topic since it is what comes next in the text. It helps to know he did not personally have to choose the topic, but is simply being faithful to what God inspired the biblical author to write next. Similarly, it can put a congregation at ease as they hear such a topic addressed that it is not the “hobby horse” of the pastor or something he has chosen to preach on merely to hit the congregation over the head. Again, they know it was simply the next topic in the text to cover.

7. Finally, verse by verse expository preaching tends to force the preacher and the congregation to dig deeper in the text. The result is the discovery of greater nuggets of truth, as well as more nourishing spiritual food.

All in all, though expository preaching has fallen on hard times among many evangelicals recently, I strongly believe it is the most beneficial manner of preaching for any congregation. It has a long, rich heritage, one that has often been at the heart of the strongest churches and the deepest, most lasting works of God. May our sovereign God be pleased to move among us through the verse by verse teaching of his Word!  

The Problem Of Evil

      In the July 1^st sermon on Hosea 1:2-11 we talked about how God can demonstrate his love through hardships. Behind this sermon stands a perennial problem that plagues many people and leads a significant number away from belief in God. I am talking about the problem of evil. The problem of evil is this: If God is all-powerful, it seems he would be able to prevent the presence of evil in the world and, at the same time, if God is all-good, it seems he would want to do so. Since evil does exist in the world, then many conclude either that God lacks one or both of these attributes or that he does not exist.

How have Christians usually answered this problem?  In one of two ways.

(1) First, many have suggested that if man is truly to love God, then he must have a kind of freedom wherein his decision to love is has very little or no influence from God behind it. (Some, not all, of those who hold this view also go on to argue that the decision to love God cannot be determined.) Since God had to take a hands-off approach to man, he had to allow man to make absolutely free choices (a view of freedom known as Libertarian Freewill) and this resulted in evil. Based upon this understanding, the problem of evil is dealt with since that God purposefully limited his power in order to create the best of all possible worlds—one in which man is free in the libertarian sense. So, the proponent of this view disagrees with the first part of the statement of the problem of evil as classically stated—that if God is all-powerful, he could prevent evil. A greater good (the achievement of true love) propelled him to limit his power (or one might say that it is logically impossible to cause or strongly influence man to love God truly).

(2) Second, many have suggested that God ordained to allow evil for the purposes of displaying the glory of his grace and mercy in a fuller sense than if he had not. Yet, God did this in such a way that he does not render men mere robots and in a way he is not morally responsible for, he is not the author of sin. In this understanding man still has freedom, yet it is a freedom that allows for God’s absolute sovereignty and power, his strong influence upon those who come to love him, and also for determined free outcomes. This view of freedom is known as compatibilistic freedom since it views absolute sovereignty and man’s freedom (and responsibility) as compatible.  With this view of the problem of evil, the second part of the problem, as classically stated, is rejected—namely that a good God would always prevent evil or that he would not allow it. A greater good (the magnification of the glory of God) is behind God’s decree that evil is present in the world.

      I believe very strongly that the Bible teaches view #2 as the answer to the problem of evil and that view #1 brings with it many problems that need to be avoided.

      Recently, I wrote a response to a friend of mine on this topic. This pastor holds to the libertarian view of man’s freedom and so answers the problem of evil in accordance with view one above. This friend had shared a paper of his with me from a class and desired my response.

      Below I have included my response to this friend. My desire is that it serves not only as a model for how to engage in theological discussion among Christian friends who disagree, but also that it will serve to give support for my approach to this all-important problem of evil.

      I have changed the name of my friend. In this post I have called him “Todd”.

      Todd, I am very excited to see your treatment of the problem of evil (hereafter P.O.E.) because in it you are wrestling with two very important biblical foundations:  God’s sovereignty and man’s responsibility. Anytime anyone does this, I find it encouraging. This is especially so with you since I know you have such a passion for God, as well as a desire to see people trust Jesus Christ as savior. What is more, you have applied your keen intellect to a very serious, disciplined approach to defending the faith and helping answer people’s questions. So, I commend you wholeheartedly, not only for your overall work, but also for a well-written paper.

      Because I believe you desire me to respond to your paper, I offer the following as part of a familial discussion on this very difficult topic. As you will see, there is agreement with you on more major points than disagreement. Nevertheless, there is some disagreement on some points. I will try to explain my disagreement with you at those points in such a way that will benefit both of us.  I am looking forward to the future dialogue.

My Understanding Of Your Position

      In this section I want to set forth in two syllogisms (along with some additional text) what I understand your argument to be. Once I have done that I will then proceed to explain the points at which I differ from you with the hope that we can sharpen each other.

      I will begin by setting forth what I believe to be the most basic argument in your paper. I will call this Syllogism #1:

1: God exists.

2: The God who exists is good and he is all-powerful.

3: Evil cannot exist if the God who exists is both good and he is all-powerful in an unqualified sense.

4: Therefore, since evil does exist, God cannot be both good and absolutely all-powerful in an unqualified sense.

      In this first part of your argument it seems to me that you conclude the way to take care of the problem is to be more precise in our definition of the omnipotence of God. You conclude: “I do not believe God can do ALL things! …Can God make a circle with four corners?  Can God make a ‘married bachelor?’ Can God create a rock that is so big that even He can’t lift it? Can God sin?  The answer to all the above is a resounding, ‘No!’”  So, if I understand you accurately, you are saying God can do all things he desires, that are not self-contradictory, and that do not violate his attributes (a very classic and good way of defining omnipotence).

      Next, you present what appears to be a foundational principle that true love is only possible between two persons who freely choose to enter into that loving relationship together. You write, “Moreover, it is logically impossible for someone to make someone else do something freely” and this applies to making someone love another (which by definition must be done freely). As such, though God desires people to love him, He cannot make people love him, which necessitated him to create in such a way people have libertarian freewill (hereafter LFW). [For the purpose of our readers LFW is that view of freewill that states a choice is free only if there is very little or no constraint or causation upon the person. Some who hold to LFW also argue that the decision cannot be determined.] Because of this LFW, people chose to sin and continue to choose to sin, which is at the bottom of the presence of evil in the world. So, it seems that evil exists since God made the best of all possible worlds—a world in which people can love him, which necessitates LFW and which results in evil.

      To put this in a syllogism would look something like this (Syllogism #2):

1: God created the best of all possible worlds.

2: This best world God created is one in which sentient beings can love him.

3: Love demands LFW.

4. LFW demands God limit himself and not coerce people to love him.

5: Such LFW has led to the presence of evil.

6: Therefore, evil can exist in the world without calling into question God’s goodness, his power, or even his existence.

      Todd, once you move into the discussion of what evil proves and the existence of objective moral values (pp. 6-10) I am in agreement with what you say. So, I will confine my response to your first five plus pages and then also your assessment on pages 10-11.

Response To Syllogism #1

      As you probably assume, I am in virtually complete agreement with your first syllogism. I do, however, want to address one implication present in most Christian answers to the P.O.E, namely, that if God is good, he would not be the direct cause of evil. In fact, I believe virtually all Christians would agree on this. Yet, the question then emerges, for what purpose did God allow evil? You have answered that question, as represented in Syllogism #2, by saying, in essence, there was a divine contingent necessity. In other words, contingent upon the realities that God determined to create and he determined to create sentient beings who could love him (this demanding LFW), then the possibility for evil was necessary since such sentient beings (angels and men) were created capable of LFW.

      Now, I believe you would also argue that the ultimate purpose for God creating was for His glory. I believe you would say that glory is carried out to its fullest extent by sentient beings who freely love (in the LFW sense) God, which also means that some sentient beings turn their back on God.

      Now, it seems to me that this or something like it would be the understanding of the person holding to the LFW answer to the P.O.E. regarding the purpose of creation and the allowance of evil. If I am correct in this, the conclusion is that even though God allowed evil and even though God created a world knowing evil would enter it, he is not morally responsible for it, since he is not the near cause of sin and he also allowed evil for good and moral purposes—namely his glory and man’s benefit.

      Now, my understanding of the interplay of God’s purpose in creation and the allowance of evil is similar, but also slightly different. I agree that God’s ultimate purpose for creation was his glory (Ps. 8:5-6; Is. 43:7; Rom. 11:36). Yet, I believe the biblical answer to why God allowed sin was so that the riches of his glory, namely his mercy, could be shown to a greater degree in the light of sin (Rom. 9:22-23). This appears to be Paul’s meaning in this text and it is given in the context of an epistle that clarifies that no man can stand before God someday in judgment and accuse him of injustice (Rom. 1:18ff.), man is morally responsible for his sin and for truly rejecting God—not as a robot, but a free agent (Rom. 1:18-23), and also no one who desires to trust in Jesus Christ as Savior will be turned away (Rom. 10:13-17). I take all this to mean that God’s driving force in the allowance that man would sin is his glory through the display of his mercy and power rather than the preservation of LFW.[1] I will defend this in greater detail below. For now I simply want to show that though the two views differ slightly, one point is the same. We each say that God is not morally responsible for evil, even though he allowed it—and this because he allowed it for morally good purposes and also he is not the near cause of it.[2]

      I believe what I have just established is important since sometimes it is alleged that those who hold to compatibilistic freewill (hereafter CFW) and God’s absolute sovereignty (as opposed to general sovereignty) somehow make God morally responsible for sin. The reality is that neither side truly makes God morally responsible for sin, even though both sides similarly say he allowed near causes (sentient beings) to bring about sin for morally good purposes.

Response To Syllogism #2:

      As you probably anticipated, the bulk of my response will be found underneath this syllogism.

      The heart of my response is pointed at premise #3:  “Love demands LFW”. My understanding of LFW is this: Some argue freedom or freewill is present when a person always has more than one choice to make and can truly go more than one direction with that decision up until the time she actually makes the decision (i.e. it has an uncertain outcome). What is more, virtually all adherents of LFW require that little or no coercion can take place, lest freedom be lost. Throughout your paper you talk about love not being true love if one is “made” or “forced” to love against their will.

      I have several problems with this line of reasoning.

1. Classic Calvinists or Compatibilists Do Not Assert God Makes, Forces, Or Coerces Love Upon Unwilling People.

      What is asserted instead is that God works on the will so that the person desires to trust in Christ and to love him (Phil. 2:13). Such is a change of the heart from the inside out (Jeremiah 31:31-34) that comes about as God lovingly allures people to him so that they will love him (Hosea 2:14-15) and desire to do his will (Ezekiel 36:25-27; Titus 2:11-14; 3:5-6). Such a work of God is necessary since left to himself the sinner is spiritually dead and incapable of seeing his need for Christ, not much less trusting in him (1 Cor. 2:14; Eph. 2:1-3).

      “Irresistible grace” is not a matter of God making anyone come to him who does not want to. It is a matter of taking people who do not want to come to him and working in them such that they see Christ as glorious and they see their need for the gospel (1 Cor. 2:14; 2 Cor. 4:6).[3]

2. The Bible Appears To Define Freedom As Truly Wanting To Do Something (CFW), Rather Than Defining It As the Absence Of Influence Or The Presence Of Uncertain Outcome (LFW).

      In Philemon Paul seeks to convince Philemon to receive the slave Onesimus as a beloved brother rather than merely a slave. The apostle writes that “for love’s sake” (9) he wants Philemon to take these actions and not “by compulsion but of your own free will” (14). Though Paul is seeking to influence Philemon strongly, he does not want Philemon to carry out his request in a way that is forced, but in a way that he truly wants to do it, yet it is part of his obedience (21). It is true that this Christian brother certainly could refuse Paul. Because of this, perhaps the sense of “your own free will” might be that he do it free of influence and in such a way he might or might not do it. Yet, I believe it is far more likely that Paul’s point is that he truly desires Philemon to want do this. It is a similar argument that Paul makes to the Corinthians in 2 Corinthians 8-9 where he exhorts them strongly to carry through on their promise to give toward helping poor believers in Jerusalem, yet he wants them to respond as cheerful givers who really want to do it—and this because God can provide for and enable them to do this, all to his glory (2 Cor. 9:6-15). So, very strong influence in Scripture is not contrary to freedom.

      What is more, a certain or determined end is not contrary to free love for God. Regardless of how one defines election (conditional or unconditional), the outcome is certain (Rom. 8:29-30). Yet, such persons are defined as those who love God (8:28). What this means is that freedom or free love cannot necessarily be defined as the ability to choose more than one option with no certain outcome.

      Additionally, free love of God is not inconsistent with a very strong influence by God that brings a certain outcome. The ultimate certain outcome for the saint is glorification (Rom. 8:30), which includes moral perfection, i.e. it is certain that throughout the age-to-come one will not sin (Heb. 12:23; Rev. 21:27). This means that free love of God cannot be defined biblically as the lack of strong influence. This glorification is wholly the work of God upon the saint (Rom. 8:28).

3. Our Own Experience Demonstrates The Weakness Of The LFW Position And The Strength Of The CFW Position

      In my estimation one of the weaknesses of those who hold to the necessity of LFW for a choice or act of love to be free is that it does not match with our experience. I would not make this argument without having made the first two points. What the Bible presents as to how God works in a person to save or grow them by changing their heart and will and thereby rendering a certain outcome—and yet the person believes, repents, and loves God freely—matches experiences we have in life. Consider some examples.

      I had a biology professor during my undergraduate days from India. One day in class he surprised us by telling the story of how his marriage to his wife was arranged by their two sets of parents. It was decided by parents, not him (or his wife-to-be), whom he would marry. He admitted he did not know or love her at first. Nevertheless, over the course of time, they learned to love each other. Here is a certain outcome (an arranged marriage) with a great amount of influence by the parents, yet the end result is a free love by the CFW definition—namely, they now want to live together and they deeply love each other because their hearts, their wills were changed.

      I can tell a similar story of my son and his early martial arts days as opposed to his later martial arts days or his study skills ten years ago versus now. As Jeff progressed in martial arts and as he progressed through his school career, his heart and will changed such that he wanted to do martial arts and he now wants to study. Many adults who had parents engage in similar activity of providing very strong influence to change their will during their childhood or youth years (at times not giving them a choice) would now say that very parental approach was a sign of love.  

      Another example would be a hiker lost in the Rockies for five days without food and water. Once he is found, is it certain that he will accept the canteen of water offered to him by the rescue workers? If he is conscious and unless something else is wrong (e.g. for some reason he thinks the canteen poison), it is certain he will freely and without coercion drink even though the outcome is certain and his choice is heavily influenced by antecedent events.

      I could multiply examples to show that decisions with certain outcomes, heavy influence, and even minimized choices can be free because we want to do them. Of course, you could counter with examples out of each category where it did not work out the same way (arranged marriages, for example, that did not end in love). Yet, my point is not that such circumstances always end in free choices, but that often they do. In other words, as the Bible appears to teach over and over, divinely-decreed, certain outcomes can at one and the same time be truly free actions on the part of the sentient beings.

      Since this is the case, we should be able to hold to CFW when it comes to God’s saving and sanctifying work, as well as his governance of the affairs of men, as I believe Scripture demands.

      Yet, you might ask, “In addition to what you have just asserted, Tom, what other reason would lead you to espouse CFW over LFW? This brings me to my fourth reason for denying the LFW position.

4. There Are Many Other Biblical Reasons For Holding To CFW Over LFW.

      Here I will try merely to set forth bullet points since this paper is already becoming quite lengthy. If there is need for further exposition I can do that in a follow-up communication.

·         The Bible asserts that God is absolutely sovereign, not merely generally sovereign. In other words, he does not merely set forth the general direction of the world or decide the main things, but leave the details up for grabs. He works all things in accordance with the counsel of his will (Eph. 1:11), including the very sustaining of the universe (Col. 1:17; Heb. 1:3), and even those things that are evil (Gen. 50:20; Hab. 1:6; Acts 2:23)—and all of this without being the author of sin (James 1:13). This sovereignty is so absolute he can even control the amount of temptation or testing that can come our way (1 Cor. 10:13). Such absolute sovereignty necessitates a CFW view of freedom.

·         The Bible asserts the bondage of the will and the total inability of the sinner when it comes to seeing the need for Christ and trusting in him (Jer. 17:9; 1 Cor. 2:14; Eph. 2:1-3). This demands that God must radically change the person so they desire to trust Christ and love him. Without such a work, there is no salvation (John 3:1-8; Titus 3:5-6).

·         The Bible asserts that God ordained the current situation, namely that sin blinds us and we cannot figure out salvation ourselves and that salvation must happen through the humbling proclamation of the humbling gospel (1 Cor. 1:21) and this all that he might be glorified (1 Cor. 1:31). Did man truly sin and rebel against God in a free way? Yes. Yet, did God determine in eternity-past this would take place so that his glory could be magnified to an even greater degree?  Yes.

      So, however, we “tie together God’s sovereignty and man’s freedom, I believe we must be tying together absolutel sovereignty and a freedom that allows for certain outcomes and great influence, namely CFW.

      As I wrap up my thoughts about Syllogism #2, Todd, I will merely say that given what I have written to this point it should be fairly clear I disagree with premises 4 and 5.

Reasons The Above Differences Matter:

      Todd, as I bring this paper to a close I want to state briefly why I believe it is important that we hold to the absolute sovereignty view of God and also the CFW view of man’s freedom. After all, you and I are in agreement on so much. Yet, why do I believe the points at which we disagree are important?

A Number Of Other Practical Biblical Doctrines May Be At Stake

      I say “may” because I have known plenty examples of people answering the P.O.E. as you have and yet the following problems have not arisen (or at least not all of them). Yet, I have also known far more (perhaps a majority) where they have arisen.

      First, there can often be far less of an ability to see God’s sovereign purpose in and behind suffering. Because there is a strong desire behind LFW (and the General Sovereignty view that often goes with it) to provide a theodicy in behalf of God, he can be so distanced from the hard, evil, and difficult things of life, that it is very difficult for a person to say about their sufferings the same thing Joseph did:  “You meant it for evil, but God meant it for good.” (Gen. 50:20) I believe one of the callings I have as a pastor is to prepare people for suffering. It appears to me that this task is much more difficult to do with a LFW and/or a General Sovereignty view.

      Second, LFW tends to be more at home with “decisional salvation,” i.e. our salvation is first and foremost a decision we make. Once we make this “decision,” then God gets involved, saves us, and gives us eternal life. Such a view of salvation either diminishes or shortchanges the biblical teaching on Total Depravity and Total Inability (e.g. Rom. 3:9ff.; 1 Cor. 2:14, et. al). It also usually does not hold to the need for God’s gracious and supernatural regeneration/transformation to take place so that one can believe (Matthew 11:25-27; John 3:1-8; 2 Cor. 4:6; Eph. 2:6-10; Col. 2:13; Titus 3:5-6). This often places too much emphasis upon human argumentation and not enough on the need for God’s Spirit to work through God’s Word in response to prayer.

      Third, among most Christians there is a difficulty seeing how the grace of God not only saves, but also transforms (e.g. Titus 2:11-14). I believe part (though not all) of the issue is thinking that salvation is a free gift of God’s grace, but then sanctification is kind of our own thing. Additionally, it is not that important to God. “If we want to grow, we get more rewards, but if not, it’s really not that big of a deal,” some conclude. This discounts the reality that the Spirit’s strong influence upon the believer to transform them (Eph. 1:13-14) is such a certain part of true salvation that New Testament assurance is connected, in large part, to the evidence of God’s transforming grace in the life of a person (Mt. 7:21-24; 25:31-46; Rom. 2:6-10; James 2:14-16; 2 Peter 1:3-11; I John 2:15-17). This also involves none other than the New Testament principle that the imperative (commands or our ethics) flows out of the indicative (what Christ has done in us). Such a way of viewing sanctification is best supported by a view of God’s love in the believer that includes a very strong divine influence deriving from divine initiative (e.g. Phil. 2:12-13).

      Fourth, you testified to a reality in your paper that I believe can become a potential problem for philosophical theologians of the LFW persuasion, namely, they do not like tension. On the one hand, I see what they mean and agree that too often Christians invoke tension too early and just because they do not want to do their theological homework. I believe we can say far more about God’s sovereignty and man’s responsibility than is normally done by the average believer. On the other hand, we also must preserve the incomprehensibility of God. This doctrine does not suggest we cannot understand God at all, but that we cannot fully understand him. Such seems to be part of the point of Paul in Romans 11:33-36.  Whether it is God’s sovereignty and man’s freewill or whether it is the relation of the two natures of Jesus Christ, there comes a point in our view of God where the greatest and most capable of theologians ought to be willing to say, “I acknowledge I cannot fully explain the nature or the ways of God.”

We Must Not Lose The War For The Sake Of Winning A Battle

      One of the attractive aspects of holding to LFW and General Sovereignty is that more quickly and up front we “let God off the hook” when it comes to the P.O.E. After all, with CFW and Absolute (or Specific) Sovereignty, we then have to follow up and deal with a number of questions both on the intellectual, as well as the personal/pastoral level. For example, there are hard truths to grapple with when we come to see that God, though not the author of sin, ordained: The existence of Satan, Sin, 9/11, the death of a child, the collapse of the bridge over the Mississippi River in Minneapolis, my mom’s Parkinson’s, etc., etc. Certainly, we must exercise care in the communication of such truths (and especially in the timing of such communication). Yet, ultimately I believe the only thing harder than facing these difficult facts is concluding that God does not have a purpose in such hardships because he either could not stop them or has chosen to limit himself.

      We want to make sure we do not have to win people to Christianity with a view of God that we then have to change once they become a Christian. After all, we will win people to the same gospel with which we win them. If the latter is a gospel that puts us in the “driver’s seat” to make a decision and gives us a view of God such that he is not sovereign over and in the specifics of our lives, the gospel they will follow as a Christian may cause them to struggle with trusting God and submitting to him. We must keep in mind that one of the major views of New Covenant salvation found in the Synoptic Gospels is that of the inauguration of the kingdom of God. At the very heart of our knowing God, then, is submitting to him as our King (our absolute Sovereign) and following him as his servants.

We Must Not Lose Our Trust In The Gospel As The Power Of God For Salvation

      I have noticed a tendency among Christians, especially those who lean toward LFW, to conclude that since “God is a loving gentleman and will not force himself upon people,” they conclude that what is necessary is for the herald to help the person to takes steps toward God. Along with this comes a desire often to tweak or change the message, to make it more palatable, so that the lost person is not turned off. I believe truth-be-told, the advocate of LFW has to ask himself, “Have I taken my position so that I can ‘let God off the hook’ and so that some of the offense of the gospel is removed?” If so, this can lead to an approach that will not boldy proclaim the very gospel that is needed for salvation (part of the point of Paul’s argument in 1 Cor. 1:17-2:16).

We Want To Preserve A Healthy And Biblical View Of Reason

      Finally, we want to make sure we view reason the way the Bible does. We get a taste of this in 2 Timothy 2:7, where Paul writes: “Think over what I say, for the Lord will give you understanding in everything.” Paul has exhorted Timothy away from fear and toward the bold, Christ-empowered work of the gospel and disciplemaking (1:6-2:6). He wants Timothy to think about what he has just said. This is similar to all the times in Paul’s epistles where he makes some very long, detailed argument and then says, “Therefore….” Paul wants us to reason, he wants us to think, he believes God made us as rational people and this is part of the way we come to know things. At the same time, Paul believes God is necessary to help us in the process. This is the same note Paul strikes elsewhere when he makes it clear that our fully understanding things as they are—especially things related to the gospel and our morality, things we are predisposed against by sin—must come by divine help (1 Cor. 2:14; 2 Cor. 4:6; Col. 1:9, et al). Such an interplay of reason and the need for divine illumination fits with CFW.

      Again, let me emphasize I am not saying all LFW proponents fall prey to a troublesome view toward reason, but there is a tendency to do so, since they tend to minimize Total Depravity and Total Inability, as well as the need for regeneration prior to faith.

In Closing

      Todd, let me sign off by clarifying that in my final section I have addressed tendencies LFW proponents can have. Not all have every tendency. These are merely things to watch out for and that often do derive from the overall theology.

      Finally, let me suggest (if you have not already done this), that you read other philosophical theologians who do not hold to LFW. Some good choices would be John Feinberg[4] and John Frame. Though D. A. Carson is not technically a philosophical theologian, but more primarily an exegete and biblical theologian, he does at times show great awareness of philosophical issues as he writes. His Divine Sovereignty And Human Responsibility is very helpful and very well done.

      I will look forward to our further dialogue.

---

[1] What is seen on a macrocosmic scale (creation) is also demonstrated on a more microcosmic scale in Jesus’ treatment of Mary, Martha, and Lazarus in John 11:5-6. John writes these words after Jesus received the report that Lazarus was ill:  “Now Jesus loved Martha and her sister and Lazarus. Therefore, when he heard Lazarus was ill, then he remained in the place where he was two days.” (author’s own translation) Here is the point. Because Jesus loved Mary, Martha, and Lazarus, therefore, wanting what is best for them, he waited two more days so that by the time he would get to them Lazarus would have been dead four days already (39). Yet, so that they would see God’s glory in a greater way (11:40), Jesus purposefully allowed Lazarus to die and the sisters to suffer this pain so that God would be glorified in the resurrection and they would see that glory. It seems then that God’s love is shown to the fullest when he makes much of himself, i.e. through glorifying himself in his mercy and power (see Is. 30:18). We also see a similar divine purpose in the blind man healed in John 9 (see 9:3).  Similarly, God ordained to allow sentient beings to sin that his grace, mercy, and love could be displayed to an even greater extent.

[2]I would also propose that the Compatibilistic Free Will response would disagree with premise #3—“Evil cannot exist if the God who exists is both good and he is all-powerful in an unqualified sense.” This assumes that if God could do something about it to prevent evil and did not, he would not be good. Though I will not expound upon it, I do believe this statement is wrong. One example of how it is wrong is found in the previous footnote.

[3] We find a great example once again in the resurrection of Lazarus. Lazarus had been dead four days. As such, he could do nothing connected to physical life. He could not hear a call to come out of the grave, he could not breathe oxygen into his lungs, he could not cause his heart to pump blood, he could not regenerate already dead tissue throughout his body, he could not get up and walk out of the tomb, and he could not open his eyes to see those awaiting him. Clearly, there was no desire in him, nor ability to be resurrected. Yet, Christ spoke life into him and resurrected. Truly, this act by Christ was an act of love, it was for the benefit of Lazarus, but it was not “allowed” by Lazarus. Yet, at the same time, no one would doubt that Lazarus wanted to come out of that tomb, responding to the word of Jesus Christ, once he was reanimated. Such is what God does in regeneration and salvation (Ephesians 2:1-10).

[4] Feinberg’s 800 page doctrine of God titled No One Like Him (Crossway) is extremely good. Almost 200 of the pages deal with sovereignty, man’s freedom, providence, and also the problem of evil. Another good one is The Many Faces Of Evil: Theological Systems And The Problem Of Evil. Feinberg taught in the M.A. in Apologetics program at Liberty the year before I got into it. Then, once I transferred to the M.Div. program at TEDS he was a Systematic Theology prof. there. He is still there.