From Chris Sinkinson, speaking at UCCF Joint South Team Days, April 2008.  

 

Apologetics in Practice

 

Some boundaries (or presuppositions, if you like!) as we begin:

- Apologetics & evangelism: need to be so together that they are one and the same thing.

- Apologetics & faith: we can’t create faith, but we can create the conditions favourable to faith.

- Apologetics & evidence: there is evidence there to be used.

 

“I believe in Christianity in the same way as I believe the sun has risen – not just because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.” – C.S. Lewis

 

If dealing with apologetics we must consider C.S. Lewis – not because it’s the right thing to do (!) but because he’s so influential.  He is the singlemost best read Christian apologist among non-Christians.  He quite naturally mixed evidentialism, presuppositionalism etc and didn’t see a problem with that.  Take the above quote as an example: why did he believe in God?  Partly because evidence suggests it; partly because his faith makes everything else make sense.  

 

1. Why does God allow suffering?

In answering this question, firstly we need to define terms.  

(Don Carson in ‘How Long Oh Lord?’ takes great care to do this.)

This question of suffering could be regarding one of the following: 

(i) social evils, poverty & war

(ii) natural disasters

(iii) holy wars and hell (eg issues in the book of Joshua, and the doctrine of hell)

(iv) illness, death, and bereavement.

 

The question arises because of the scaffolding of philosophy in the background.  The following three assumptions are made: 

(i) God is all powerful and all knowing

(ii) God is completely good

(iii) There is suffering in the world.  

It is a logical problem for these three to co-exist, if there is no reason for suffering.  So the problem arises that God has no sufficient reason for suffering.  

What could be the reason for suffering?

 

The next step in answering the question is to go to the Bible.  Let’s do theology before apologetics.  

Theology & suffering:

- Luke 13:1-5.  Personal suffering isn’t normally a direct result of God’s judgement.  (Note: Jesus considers suffering a gospel issue – need to repent!)

- Gn 6:5-6.  God is not immune from suffering.

- The Fall accounts for the origins of human suffering (though not of cosmic evil) *

- 1 Peter 1:6 Suffering in this life is not abnormal.

 

* Note: worth pointing out that the bible shines a narrow torchlight down history.  It does not (claim to) teach us all we want to know, but only what we need to know.  Some of the origins of suffering are in the dark.  

 

That’s the theology.  Two major historical answers to the question of suffering are the greater good defence, and the free will defence.  In relation to the ’scaffolding’ previously mentioned, the ‘free will’ defence changes the definition of God’s power; the ‘greater good’ defence changes the definition of God’s goodness.

 

- The Greater Good Defence

Irenaeus 130-202 AD.  Known as the ‘Irenaeian Theodicy’.

A world of suffering is ultimately better than a world without suffering.  In other words, Adam & Eve were better off/more mature after the Fall than before it!  Genesis 3:5.  “All will be well, and all manner of things will be well.” – Julian of Norwich.  Hence, this defence is often tied in with mysticism.  

 

- The Free Will Defence 

God must have a reason for suffering – and it goes hand in hand with human freedom.  

“It never occurred to me to blame God for the holocaust.  God was not the cause of this event.  Wicked, sinful human beings were the cause of this event.” – Rabbi Kushner, ‘When Bad Things Happen To Good People’.  

In other words, God is not responsible for sufferings; humans are.  

Many natural disasters can also be blamed on human negligence.  

 

Problems with this defence:

- danger of slipping towards bad karma

- danger of slipping towards open theism

- it just doesn’t seem to be in the bible!  Not in Job, Romans, Luke 13 etc.  

 

Further reading:

Don Carson, ‘Divine Sovereignty & Human Responsibility’ – argues the two are compatible.  

Jim Packer, ‘Evangelism & The Sovereignty Of God’ – says it’s an ‘antinomy’ (a mystery).  

Paul Helm, ‘The Providence Of God’ – also explores ‘compatibility’.  

 

What do people mean by ‘free will’?  

Free will = “the absolute power to the contrary”, ie the ability to do the opposite.  Imagine going into a shop with the express intention of buying a Mars Bar.  Free will maintains that when you are in the shop, you are still free to buy a KitKat.  

This is not biblical.  Biblical freedom = “to get what you want”.  So you go into the shop to buy the Mars Bar, but all the shop sells is Mars Bars.  You can still buy what you want, but the option to choose something different isn’t there.  The issue is ‘how free is freedom?’.