IrContent

There are a significant number of Christians out there that seem to think that their beliefs offer some sort of protection from tribulation. After all, didn’t God promise to provide for believer’s needs and protection? If so, why do Christians suffer all over the world?  Despite some scriptures that might seem to imply that this is the case (see below), the idea that God will keep believers from suffering is clearly unbiblical. Christians are not promised a life free from suffering - quite the opposite in fact as Jesus and His followers plainly spell out in Scripture.

Jesus said, “In this life you will have tribulation” (Jn. 16:33). Jesus promised His own disciples that they would be “handed over to be tortured . . .  put to death, and . . . hated by all nations because of my name” (Mt. 24:9). Jesus told certain churches that they would suffer tribulation, but that they would ultimately be delivered to heaven (Rev. 2:10). So from the Gospels to Revelation Jesus predicted suffering for believers. 

Jesus’ disciples were not under the impression that believers would be kept from suffering. James says that Christians should “consider it all joy . . . when you encounter various trials, knowing that the testing of your faith produces endurance . . . that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing,” because, “the man who perseveres under trial . . . will receive the crown of life, which the Lord has promised to those who love Him” (James 1:2-12). The author of Hebrews says that suffering leads to “great reward. For you need endurance in order to do God’s will and so receive what is promised” (Heb. 10:32-39). Peter says that if anyone suffers as a Christian, he should “not feel ashamed, but instead glorify God” (1 Pt. 4:14-16, see also 1:6-7). John, writing from imprisonment for his faith, called himself, “John, your brother and partaker with you in tribulation” (Rev. 1:9). Clearly the disciples did not understand any of Jesus’ teachings to mean that God would protect believers from suffering. 

Paul, the greatest of the apostles, was not confused by his or any other believer’s suffering. In fact, he says that believers are destined to suffer (1 Thess. 3:3-4), and that “all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution” (2 Tim. 3:11-13). Yet Paul also said that Christians are to “exult in our tribulations, knowing that tribulation brings about perseverance” (Rom. 5:3). The believers at Thessalonica “received the word in much tribulation with the joy of the Holy Spirit” (1 Thess. 1:6), and this led to Paul’s telling them that “we ourselves glory in you in the churches of God for your patience and faith in all your persecutions and tribulations that you endure . . . that you may be counted worthy of the kingdom of God, for which you also suffer” (2 Thess 1:4-5). Paul’s last letter, 2 Timothy, was written just before he was cruelly martyred. Rather than complain or express disappointment with God, Paul devoted the entire letter to exhorting Timothy and other believers to endure persecution and suffering. Just after proclaiming that “God did not give us a Spirit of fear but of power,” he says, ”by God’s power accept your share of suffering” (2 Tim. 1:7-8). Later, Paul exhorts Timothy to “take your share of suffering as a good soldier of Christ Jesus” (2 Tim. 2:3). Paul even pointed to his own trials and tribulations as part of what built his character (Phil. 4:1-13). He goes so far as to claim that he “takes pleasure in infirmities, in reproaches, in necessities, in persecutions, in distresses for Christ’s sake: for when I am weak, then am I strong” (2 Cor. 12:7-10). This hardly sounds like a man who expected protection from suffering! 

Even this brief survey covers Jesus and all of the apostolic writers except Jude. Yet even Jude wrote to believers facing false teachers in a time of predicted trouble (Jude 1:18 quoting Peter in 2 Pt. 3:3). So whatever promises God may have for his children they certainly do not exclude suffering. The most important thing for a believer to consider with regard to suffering is that God will keep them through it - and thus tribulation will not separate true believers from His love (Rom. 8:35). 

What about Luke 21:18 (“Not a hair of your head will perish.”)? The context makes it clear that this does not refer to physical suffering because Jesus had just said that, “You will be betrayed even by parents, brothers, relatives, and friends, and they will have some of you put to death” (Lk. 21:16). The expression “not a hair of your head will perish” should be taken to refer to eternal life (as opposed to eternal perishing, or death). Note that this promise is in connection with the next verse: “By your endurance you will gain your lives.” “By your endurance” is a call to remain faithful – it is a parallel to Mt. 24:13 which states, “But the person who endures to the end will be saved.” Jesus was not teaching a works-based salvation, rather that genuine faith is one that endures tribulation. 

What about Matthew 6:25-34 (“Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life.”)? Once again, in context this does not seem to be referring to protection from suffering or death. Jesus asks, rhetorically, just after this, “Isn’t there more to life than food and more to the body than clothing?” Well, yes – but if asked with reference to remaining physically alive then it isn’t true for more than a few days! Rather, Jesus’ point is that worrying won’t help you one bit with your physical life. “Which of you by worrying, ” He asks, “can add even one hour to his life?” (Mt. 6:27). Even the analogy Jesus uses – that of the birds in the air – shows that physical protection is not in mind here (birds die all the time, and sometimes pretty nastily if a cat gets them!). Jesus’ admonition is to simply trust God for your physical life needs, for “your heavenly Father knows that you need them.” Whether or not we get them is up to Him. 

What about Matthew 6:13 (“Deliver us from evil.”)? Although often quoted, and sometimes translated, this way, the Greek actually uses the definite article in the “evil” reference. Thus, it should read “the evil” which can be understood as “the evil one” – in other words, Satan.  This same construction is used just a bit earlier in 5:37. Clearly the command is not “do not resist evil”! The NET commentary states that “Every instance of this construction in Matthew is most likely personified, referring either to an evildoer (13:49) or, more often, ‘the evil one’ (as in 5:37; 6:13; 13:19, 38).” Therefore, what we are asking for in the Lord’s Prayer is protection from Satan, not evil in general (and, it should be noted, that even here this does not guarantee that God will answer in the affirmative).

Why? This is, of course, the most important question most anyone ever faces when undergoing suffering. It is important to see that God is not simply being mean. Rather, as we suffer from sin (ours and others), punishment for our sin, natural dangers, and specific trials, it is our response that matters. In fact, the Greek underlying both of the terms “trial” and “temptation” are the same. We are tempted when we react sinfully (James 1:14-15) to a trial (which should have led to building up our character - see above verses, cf. Heb. 12). When we react in godly ways to life’s circumstances (good or bad) we are really preparing for the prize - the full enjoyment of God in heaven in concert with godly character. Believers who fail to do so will spend eternity with “full cups,” but their cups will be smaller than those who by perseverance were made worthy of greater reward.

Hank’s Hanegraaff’s long awaited eschatology book The Apocalypse Code is finally here and to kick off the release he was interviewed by Dr. Frank Turek (a popular apologist made famous by his speaking / writing relationships with Norman Geisler). I listened to the broadcast and even got on the second hour (I am “Doug from Monroe, NC”). My comments on that interaction are below, but what it boiled down to for me was that after waiting for about a decade to have Hanegraaff’s views spelled out, I was disapointed to discover that he offers little to the current eschatology debate. Most of his interpretations fall well within the partial Preterist view as anyone even remotely familiar with the subject will quickly see. I am not necessarily in disagreement with many of these arguments, but I am rather frustrated by his campaign strategy for The Apocalypse Code and would now like to officially rant about it.

When I called in to the show I asked Hanegraaff if he, in his book, had responded to criticisms leveled by respected dispensational scholars against the views he holds in concert with standard partial Preterism (which up until that point in the show were all he had given). He did not answer my question. Instead, Hank simply stated that he was not a partial Preterist (not that I had said he was) and spent a few minutes commenting on his interpretation of some unrelated verse in Isaiah. I was then asked by Frank Turek to provide some good dispensational arguments. I did not want to get away from my initial question, which had not been answered, and so I attempted to explain that I knew Hank’s position was labeled neither Preterist nor Futurist, and that I simply wanted to know about how he answered scholarly criticisms of the arguments. Before I could make that clear Hanegraaff interrupted me saying, “Just answer the question, I already answered yours.” Well, no he didn’t. Further, I did not wait on hold for 45 minutes to be asked questions - this was still the Bible Answer Man show wasn’t it? Unfortunately, Hanegraaff  seems to simply sidestep criticisms of “his” interpretations by disavowing himself of the commonly accepted titles for them. The titles, however, are not the issue. If the arguments are the same then the responses to those arguments (which have been around for some time) should be dealt with.

What really bothers me is the fact that Hanegraaff  seemed to be presenting his views as if they represent some “paradigm shift” (his words) in biblical eschatology. Those in the know realize that the bulk of Hank’s “discoveries” are just warmed over partial Preterism, repackaged for popular consumption. The examples and arguments given on Hank’s show Tuesday and Wednesday are what one would hear in their the first day of a ”Preterism 101″ class. Not only are these views old news, but none of the hermeneutical principles he espouses are new or unique either. The title of his view is, laughably, Exegetical Eschatology (or “E2″ for you Bible Answer Man nerds) - as if he alone has discovered that the key to eschatological truth is “letting the Bible speak for itself” and “comparing Scripture with Scripture.” Does Hanegraaff seriously expect his listeners to believe that no one else makes these very same claims? Those seeing “E2″ as a startling new methodology or interpretive scheme only show their ignorance of the subject.

Another problem I have with Hanegraaff is that while he claims to “not be offering a different model of eschatology, but only a different method of biblical interpretation,” he openly attacks one view in particular (Dispensationalism). But Hank does not interact with seriously respected scholars from the dispensational position (e.g., Charles Ryrie, John Walvoord, Tom Ice, etc.). Instead, Hanegraaff’s attacks are leveled against fringe speakers like John Hagee and fiction authors like Tim LaHaye. I did a quick perusal of Apocalypse Code’s  Notes section and counted 100 citations of Tim LaHaye, 14 of Hal Lindsey, and 12 of John Hagee. On the other hand, I found notable Dispensationalist scholars like John Walvoord, Norm Geisler, and Paul Benware cited no more than 2 times each (sometimes Tom Ice was cited with LaHaye. Ice was cited 4 times in non-LaHaye collaborations).  Charles Ryrie, who literally wrote the book on Dispensationalism, is not cited once! Hanegraaff can get away with this, though, because his audience falls neatly between the academics (who generally aren’t interested*) and the lay-Christian community (that generally does not know enough to challenge him). This allows Hank to get away with more than he would otherwise.

*Two apparent exceptions to the above concern deserve comment. First, Dr. Norman Geisler (during his time as president of Southern Evangelical Seminary), commented on Hank’s fictional book The Last Disciple on his website (www.normgeisler.com), but this was in response to those contacting him at SES concerning Hank’s view. Second, Dr. Frank Turek, Hank’s interviewer on the Bible Answer Man show in question, holds a professional Doctor of Ministry degree (D.Min) - not an academic one - in an unrelated subject area (apologetics). No emphasis in Eschatology is included in the curriculum for this degree, and was the subject of only one half of one semester during his Master’s program (also in apologetics, see www.ses.edu). Dr. Turek himself admits in his review on Amazon.com that, “Perhaps the reason I hadn’t realized this sooner is because I never took a real interest in eschatology.” Therefore neither his educational background nor his credentials should be seen as evidence that scholarly dispensational eschatologists are taking Hank’s view seriously. If they do in the future, and Hank takes the opportunity to engage them, that would correct a serious deficiency.

So, should you read Apocalypse Code? Sure, why not? But whether or not you are impressed with the arguments – and especially if you are – make sure to follow up with scholarly books that are keeping up with the current debate. Recent books by (Preterist) Kenneth Gentry and (Dispensationalist) Tom Ice would be a good place to start.

The current issue of Newsweek (April, 2007) includes a debate between pop-Christian icon Rick Warren and up-and-coming atheist champion Sam Harris. The article does not represent the best in Christian thinking for a number of reasons (my first thoughts when I saw the front page was that I was going to have to write a blog called “In Case Christianity Did Not Look Stupid Enough . . .”), but did not turn out as bad as I had expected. Unfortunately the interview is basically a collection of choppy excerpts and shows obvious signs of editing. It was stated that it lasted 4 hours but there can’t be more than 20-30 minutes here so we’re missing about 80% of the interview. So let me state a big disclaimer here: it is, of course, possible that either side did much better at representing their side than the article shows (the opposite is also true, of course). Obviously I can only respond to what was published. My brief commentary is below but you should read the whole thing here first: The God Debate.
 
My initial (and biggest) concern was in the choice of Rick Warren as the representative for the Christian side. Rick Warren is a pastor and popular author, but has no serious academic credentials (he has an D.Min from Fuller Theological). Sam Harris is a Ph.D. student in neuroscience. This is like pitting Chuck Norris against Xander the Power Ranger - entertaining, but hardly a fair match up. Any number of Christian scholars could have made this “debate” much more interesting and relevant (i.e., Ravi Zacharias, J. P. Moreland, Norm Geisler, Alvin Plantinga, or William Lane Craig whose career includes a steady diet of guys like Sam Harris). Not that Harris’s pedigree is terribly impressive either (considering the subject at hand) - but while he may be a mere popularizer of atheistic arguments, at least that role fits the discussion. In any case, I was not at all confident in Warren’s ability to deal with Harris. The kind of training one receives to be a pastor (proclaiming the faith) does not, unfortunately, necessarily include apologetics (defending the faith) - nor is it a scholarly pursuit.
 
Right out of the box Warren lived up to my low expectations. When the interviewer asked, “Rick, what is the evidence of the existence of the God of Abraham?” His response was, “Trying to understand where God came from is like an ant trying to understand the Internet. Even the most brilliant scientist would agree that we only know a fraction of a percent of the knowledge of the universe.” Well, Rick, this is simply not true. First of all, “where God came from” is not what the interviewer asked about. Evidence for the existence of God has nothing to do with “where God came from.” Second,  entertaining the question about “where God came from” is like asking for the date of a bachelor’s wedding anniversary. The notion is incoherent because God did not come from anywhere. Third, an ant’s knowledge of the Internet is a false analogy. Knowing only a fraction about the universe does not mean that certain things cannot be known for sure, and even if we had complete knowledge of the physical universe we could still, theoretically, have zero knowledge about God (for God is not an object of study for physical science). Rick stepped into a common trap – atheists like to make issues of theology out to be issues of science, then say science has not proveided good evidence for God. However, since God is not an object of physical science making it the arbiter of theological truth is irrational. It would have been nice to see that pointed out.
 
Then, to the question, “Is the Bible inerrant?” Warren responded, “I believe it’s inerrant in what it claims to be. The Bible does not claim to be a scientific book in many areas.” I guess he means by this either: (A) the Bible is inerrant only as the kind of text that it claims to be, or (B) the Bible is inerrant only in those sections where it claims to be inerrant. In response to the former, what does the Bible claim to be? I don’t see it claiming to be a systematic theology text nor an ethical treatise anywhere so would that mean that it isn’t inerrant in its theology or ethics? To the latter I ask, in which sections does the Bible claim to be inerrant? Why, all of them! (Ps. 12:6; Prov. 30:5-6; 2 Tim. 3:16-17; 2 Pet. 1:20-21). Either answer is misleading.
 
Warren began what looked like an intelligent discussion of presuppositions in interpreting experience, but then caved in to subjectivism instead of going for the objective jugular. Warren opened with, “Sam makes all kinds of assertions based on his presuppositions. I’m willing to admit my presuppositions: there are clues to God. I talk to God every day. He talks to me.” Uh-oh . . . Sam asks the same question I would have asked: “What does that actually mean?” The conversation then takes a nose-dive when Warren continues with, “One of the great evidences of God is answered prayer. . . .” Funny, I haven’t seen that one used in too many debates (perhaps Rick should phone William Lane Craig and have him add this one to his arsenal!). The interviewer even caught his mistake and said, “There must have been times in your ministry when you’ve prayed for someone to be delivered from disease who is not—say, a little girl with cancer.” Warren admits that this is the case (”Oh, absolutely!”) – so the interviewer continued: “So, parse that. God gave you an immigration attorney, but God killed a little girl.” Warren’s response was less than moving: “Well, I do believe in the goodness of God, and I do believe that he knows better than I do. God sometimes says yes, God sometimes says no and God sometimes says wait. I’ve had to learn the difference between no and not yet. The issue here really does come down to surrender.” It all comes down to surrender??? So “one of the great evidences of God” is Rick Warren’s surrender? besides being hopelessly subjective, it assumes God’s existence in the first place! Take a critical thinking class Rick!!

Then the interviewer later asks, “Rick, if you had been born in India or in Iran, would you have different religious beliefs?” Warren responded by saying, “There’s no doubt where you’re born influences your initial beliefs. Regardless of where you were born, there are some things you can know about God, even without the Bible.” Excellent point, but he then traps himself by merely looking at what is true about creation and making the unwarranted jump to “God must like it like that.” Instead of pointing to a creator, Rick just points to features of creation. That’s not Christian theology at all! We can’t see what God “likes” by looking at how this fallen world currently functions. Harris rightly slammed him for this by stating, “Then God also likes smallpox and tuberculosis.” Oops.
 
Warren actually began to turn the tide when it came down to Harris’ societal issues. He stated that, “All of the great movements forward in Western civilization were by believers. It was pastors who led the abolition of slavery. It was pastors who led the woman’s right to vote. It was pastors who led the civil-rights movement. Not atheists.” Harris did not have much to say to this. Another good move on Warren’s part was his response to Harris’ diatribe concerning religion’s role in threatening cultural survival when he said, “I believe that history split into A.D. and B.C. because of the Resurrection. And the Resurrection is not only the resurrection of Jesus Christ, it is the hope of the world: it says there’s more to this life than just here and now. That doesn’t mean that I do less, it means that this life is a test, it’s a trust and it’s a temporary assignment. If death is the end, shoot, I’m not going to waste another minute being altruistic.” Harris then asked, “How do you account for my altruism?” Warren gave a Pascal-like response: “Even in people who don’t believe in God, there is a spark God has put in you that says, ‘There’s got to be more to life than just make money and die.’ I think that that spark does not come from evolution.”
 
Warren’s best work came right at the end when the “rubber met the road” so to speak. When the interview asked, “Rick, let’s be blunt. Is Sam’s soul in jeopardy, in your view, because he has rejected Jesus?” He simply said, “The politically incorrect answer is yes.” When Harris asked, “Is that the honest answer?” Warren said that “The truth is, religion is mutually exclusive. The person who says, ‘Oh, I just believe them all,’ is an idiot because the religions flat-out contradict each other.” Woo-Hoo! Good job there at the end Rick.
 
Overall, not the best representation of Christianity but at least he got a few good shots in. Imagine what someone trained in apologetics could have done.

I remember back when I was first being introduced to pop Christian culture I heard a song by Michael W. Smith called I Miss The Way concerning someone who had fallen away from the faith. One of the lines is, “Somewhere in the saddest part of heaven’s room our Father sheds a tear for you – He’s missing you too.” It’s a beautiful song, and while it was certainly touching to think of God like that, it always seemed a bit . . . off. I still have a difficult time picturing the all-powerful creator of the universe having to go off into a quiet corner of heaven and have a good cry because one of His creatures doesn’t like Him anymore.

Through college I kept hearing about how “passionate” God was for me. I even knew a girl who had regular “dates” with Jesus. Sorry, but that just seemed rather creepy. Later I was told that our relation to God was a “sacred romance.” In seminary I thought things might get a bit clearer and was told that God had “unchanging emotions.” This made more sense – God cannot change nor be affected then however He feels cannot change or be affected either.

But then someone asked me what it meant for God to have feelings about things that did not affect Him. Hmmmm. Good question! Another good question: Without a body what would it mean for God to have “feel-ings” in the first place? Double hmmmm. So I turned to The Theologian, St. Tommy (Aquinas) himself, and found some interesting stuff that I thought might be of interest.  By considering different attributes of passions in light of what we know about God (I will be assuming the classical view here), we can discover if they may be found in God. (Note that the word “passion” as used in Aquinas is equivalent to how we use “emotion” or “feeling.”)

First we can look at the source of the passion. Passions are considered to be movements of the senses which require a body with which to sense. This also implies the possibility of undergoing some change (as when our hearts beat faster to produce certain feelings). But God does not have a body, nor does He change, so at the very least when we speak of emotion or feelings in God we are not using the terms as we often do when ascribing these things to humans. Rather, we are referring solely to the intellect - the will. In good marriage counseling it is often pointed out that love is a choice - it is the willing of the good of another. Now in humans this is often accompanied by feelings – but that is a separate matter. Likewise, joy, delight, and happiness are not properly said to be passions, although they can be accompanied by passions and are often referred to in that way. But love, joy, happiness, etc. in God are not  passions as they can be and most often are in us.

Second, we can look at what object a given passion is directed toward and in what way that passion is directed to its object. For example, sorrow’s object is some evil that affects us. God cannot be directed toward nor affected by evil, thus He cannot have sorrow. Joy, however, is the opposite of sorrow for its object is goodness. God can have joy, for He is the good to which He is directed and in which He has joy. Hope is in relation to a good that is not present. Because God is directed to His own good, which is always present, God cannot have hope (and, oddly, neither will we when we enter into his presence!). Fear, the opposite of hope, is relating to a non-present but threatening evil. Fear cannot be found in God then, for He cannot be threatened.

Using these philosophical criteria we may deduce the appropriateness of assigning passions to God in a literal manner. Some examples include:

• Envy, which is sorrow over the good of another, cannot be found in God – not only because it requires sorrow, but it takes the good of another as being evil – and this confusion is not present in God.

• Anger, which is the willing of the evil of another due to sorrow over injury, cannot be found in God for it too requires sorrow, the willing of evil, and the suffering of injury which God cannot experience (in fact, if God were to will evil of a thing then it would simply not exist).

• Love, which is the willing of good for another, is not improperly said of God, for He wills the good of Himself and others. Joy and delight are properly attributed to God, for both require that one finds rest in a present good – which is God in Himself.

• Hatred, which is the willing of the evil of another is not properly said of God, unless one takes hatred to mean the willing of less good (which it often does in Scripture, see Luke 14:26 and Rom. 9:11-13). It is not that God necessarily wills less good for one than another, rather that the proper good of one is less than the proper good of another.

So what about the Bible passages ascribing the above passions to God? Thomas’ answer is simple: other than love and joy these other passions are said of God metaphorically. These are usually attributed to God to describe actions that, when considered from a human perspective, would usually indicate the passion’s presence (such as anger from the action of punishment).

While it might at first seem merely arbitrary to label some statements in Scripture as metaphor and others as proper truths, we must remember that all metaphors require some prior knowledge of a thing’s essence (metaphysics) in order to properly communicate meaning. This knowledge comes from natural revelation (Rom. 1). Thus, one’s prior metaphysical beliefs (from natural revelation) will determine how one understands the Bible (special revelation). This includes all biblical descriptions of God, not just the “obvious” ones, for if they are all taken literally it seems that contradictions would result (e.g., Num. 23:19 cf. Ex. 32:14). So it is really a matter of whose metaphysical beliefs are most correct - and the system by which we derive the classical  attributes of God (infinity, simplicity, immutability, omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence, etc.) also includes impassibility of some sort.