"The Narrow Road": Blogs By Shane Kastler

The Socratic Method vs. The Sadducees on the Resurrection

By Shane Kastler

The "Socratic Method" (attributed to Socrates) involves learning, teaching, and arguing by asking questions. This is one effective way of helping people think through issues and recognize flaws in their logic and belief system. Listed below are 30 questions used to challenge a hypothetical Jewish Sadducee on how he could accept the Torah and yet reject the idea of the resurrection. Beginning with the Apostle Paul's question before Herod Agrippa in Acts 26:8, thirty additional questions are presented to the Sadducee to reconsider his position. This merely provides one example of how asking simple questions can lead to accurate answers. (Note: To hear an audio message on this topic, click here).

The initial question, asked by the Apostle Paul: “Why is it considered incredible among you people if God does raise the dead? Acts 26:8

30 Questions for a Sadducee, Based on Paul's Question:

Logical Questions about the Resurrection:

1. Would a naturalist believe in the resurrection? No.

2. Why not? Resurrections are “supernatural.”

3. Would a Jew believe in the resurrection? Pharisees, yes. Sadducees, no.

4. Are Sadducees naturalists? Not entirely. They accept the Torah.

5. Why do Sadducees not believe the resurrection? It's not in the Torah.

6. What is resurrection? Bringing back to life, one who was dead.

7. Can MAN do this? (No)

8. Can GOD do this? (Yes)

9. Then, why would that be amazing? (Rhetorical question to provoke thought).

10. Who was the first man? Adam.

11. Who created Adam? God.

12. How was he created? Dust of the earth.

13. Where did the dust come from? Ex Nihlio (out of nothing)

14. Does dirt possess living, breathing, human properties? No.

15. How did DIRT....form into man..... and become alive? (God breathed into him the breath of life)

16. Then isn't it true that the first man was FORMED out of Non-Living substance, and BROUGHT to LIFE? (Yes)

17. If God could CREATE life ex nihlio, then why could He not RE-CREATE life after it was lost?

Torah Argument for God's Ability to Resurrect:

18. Do you believe the Torah to be Divine and true? (Yes)

19. Does the Torah contain the creation account? (Yes)

20. Then.... do you believe the creation account to be true? (Yes)

21. If God CREATED life in the beginning, couldn't he Re-Create it after death?In Theory:Yes. Theologically: No.

22. Why not? Because no example is given in Torah. (Argument from silence)

23. Could things be true in life that the Bible doesn't address specifically? Yes.

24. What is the most important building on earth (to a 1^st cent. Jew)? The Temple.

25. Does the Torah give instructions for the building of the Temple? No.

26. Where are the instructions for the Temple found? 1 Kings 7.

27. Is 1 Kings 7 a part of the Torah? No.

28. Earlier you stated that you couldn't accept the resurrection because it was not in the Torah, How then can you accept the Temple as being legitimately sanctioned by God when it is not in the Torah either?

29. NOW, would you say there are “Divine things” mentioned outside the Torah?

30. Then couldn't the resurrection be one of those things?

If the answer is YES. THEN, you also admit the possibility of the resurrection.

If the answer is NO. THEN, you must relinquish your adoration for the Temple as being sanctioned by God.

Atheism, Evolution, & Suicide

By Shane Kastler

While people and animals have some similar traits, they are not the same. In several places, the Bible affirms that people are more important than animals. God gave Adam dominion over the animals in the Garden of Eden (Genesis 1:26). Jesus likewise told His disciples, “Are not five sparrows sold for two cents? Yet not one of them is forgotten before God. Indeed, the very hairs of your head are all numbered. Do not fear; you are more valuable than many sparrows.” (Luke 12:6-7)

People and animals are alike in the sense that they are both a part of God's creation, and are thus dependent upon Him. They are both born. They both die. But people, who possess an eternal soul, are more important. Which means that modern day attacks on humanity, are not only incorrect, they are potentially dangerous.

Not all atheists believe in evolution; and not all evolutionists are atheists; but most are. Atheism teaches that there is no God and evolution teaches that man came about as a result of “accidental” chemical processes that eventually led from primordial ooze to humanity. Such nonsensical explanations for humanity and the world around us are simplistic answers, disguised as intellectualism. Believers are often mocked for being gullible and/or stupid. But the evidence for God is clearly seen in the creation which gives compelling evidence of intelligent design. Believing in God is not foolish. Rejecting obvious proof for His existence is.

One, potentially fatal byproduct of embracing a Godless worldview is the despair that it can lead to. If people are nothing more than evolved animals, and there is no God nor after life to consider; then what is the point of life? Many people embrace this fatalistic mindset and spiral into a life riddled with depression. This can, and sometimes does, lead to an over reliance on drug or alcohol use to lift the spirit and ease the pain. Which in turn sometimes leads to a chemical dependency with chilling, and even fatal results. It is no coincidence that the modern day increase in atheistic worldviews has coincided with skyrocketing depression and suicide rates.  Some suicides can be traced to specific events that sent a person reeling into a black hole.  But some suicides are "systemic suicides."  That is to say, they are the result of an atheistic educational system that tells people from day one that they are unimportant and that life has no meaning.  Over the course of time, some will sadly start to believe this lie.  And the results can be catastrophic.  If life has no point, then who cares what you do? Embrace all the sinful pleasures you can while you have breath. But if you were created for a purpose, then pursue that purpose and find the peace and joy that only the Lord can provide.

You are here for a reason. People were created to glorify God; and the only way to rightly do that is to embrace His son Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior. Life makes sense, when it is correctly oriented around your Creator. You are not a cosmic accident, and there is eternal purpose in your existence. Don't let the educated idiots of modern society tell you otherwise. Life does have purpose. And you should have hope. Reject the dark answers that Godless philosophies provide to life's ultimate questions. You were made to know and enjoy God. Get about doing what you were created to do.

Answering an E-Mail in Response To My Belief in God's Sovereignty, Man's Responsibility, & Eternal Security

By Shane Kastler

Recently I received an anonymous e-mail that took issue with my belief that God is sovereign over salvation and that those who are saved cannot lose their salvation.  While I have not published the writer's original e-mail, I am publishing my response to it below.  Hopefully it will be helpful to others who might want to explore these topics.

Hi,

Thanks for the email. By the way, my name is Shane. What's yours? I noticed the email wasn't signed, so perhaps you wish to remain anonymous. But I thought I'd try to be neighborly nonetheless.

You said in your email that if God chooses to save some while sending others to Hell – this would make God “unrighteous and unjust.” With all due respect, you and I do not get to judge what is righteous and just. That is God's domain. And if God, as our Creator, were to set a standard of holiness; He is completely within His rights to do so. And if any person falls short of the standard, God (as our Creator) has every right to condemn such a person to Hell. And if EVERY PERSON sins and fails to live by God's standard, then God would be just in sending EVERY PERSON to Hell. And finally, if God so chose to send SOME people to the Hell that they deserve, and chose to SAVE OTHERS of His own choosing, then that would be an example of God's grace. Not an example of God being unjust. Interestingly enough, your position is the very same one the Bible refutes in Romans 9, a chapter that is very germane to this question. God is not required to be gracious to all, nor is He required to be gracious to any. But He chooses to be gracious to some.

I believe many people make the mistake of not beginning with the idea of all people being spiritually “dead in their trespasses and sins” (Ephesians 2:1); and thus all people deserving condemnation. If we STARTED with this truth, then the idea of God's electing grace makes a lot more sense. Most people start with the idea of man being basically good, and having free will. And when you start with the wrong premise, you will invariably be led to the wrong conclusion.

You also objected to my belief that faith is a gift from God. Your exact words were, “Salvation is a gift of God, available by his goodness to all mankind via Christ – to those who will believe his message and receive it.” While I agree with you that salvation is a gift of God. And I agree that the message of salvation should be proclaimed to all. I would ask a deeper question of you and say, “Who are those that believe and receive this message?” If man is truly “dead in his trespasses and sins” then man, by nature, will reject Christ. Of course, Jesus himself taught that sinners will not come to him by nature. But that “all that the Father gives Me, will come to Me.” (John 6:37) He furthermore, told a baffled Nicodemus that to see the kingdom he must be “born again” (John 3:3). Which is to say that the Spirit must grant life to one who is dead. And the Spirit clearly doesn't do this for everyone. Which was why Jesus told Nicodemus, “The wind blows where it wishes and you hear the sound of it, but do not know where it comes from and where it is going; so is everyone who is born of the Spirit.” (John 3:8) I fear that your argument puts you on the side of Nicodemus in John 3, and opposite Jesus in John 6; which is not a good place to be. When a sinner is “born again” they are granted faith to embrace Christ for who He is. They turn from sin, and they come to Him. The Apostle Paul reiterates that faith is a gift in Ephesians 2:8-9: "For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, IT IS THE GIFT OF GOD; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.” (emphasis added)

Moving on now, to your complaint that I believe that those who are saved cannot lose their salvation. What some refer to as “eternal security” or the more accurate description of “perseverance of the saints.” My belief that those saved will never be lost is based on the teaching of Jesus, and goes “hand-in-hand” with my belief that salvation is a work of God and not man. While you pointed out verses that teach that some will fall away, I would contend that those who fall away were false converts who were not born again. We have all known people who professed Christ, then after a season they “fell away.” I don't see this as a loss of salvation, but rather as evidence that they never were truly converted. I base this on Jesus's words, “My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me; and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of My hand. My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand.” (John 10:27-29)

Several arguments could be made to defend my position from this passage alone. Not the least of which would be to say that if Jesus promises “ETERNAL” life then it cannot be lost. How can you temporarily possess something that is ETERNAL? If this were possible, then Jesus's use of the word ETERNAL has lost all meaning. Furthermore, Jesus's clear teaching in this passage is that no one can pluck a believer out of HIS HAND, nor the FATHER'S HAND. They are secure. You stated that there are many passages in the Bible that warn about falling away, and that if believers are truly secure then these warnings would be “hot air.” To the contrary, I believe that such warnings are some of the very ways that God uses to keep His sheep secure. Those who are truly His, will respond to the warnings and those who are not His, will ultimately reject the warnings. God doesn't need these admonitions in order to see who are His, but we need the admonitions, and the resulting responses of obedient faith to bolster our assurance. The warnings help us, not God. Since God needs no help.

As for your statement that when the Lord threatens to blot names out of the book of life in Revelation 3:5, this is teaching the loss of salvation... I disagree. I think you are confusing a general reference to “life” with what is sometimes called the “Lamb's Book of Life” as recorded in Revelation 13:8. Incidentally, this passage would also further bolster my argument that salvation is a gift of God to His elect, since Revelation 13:8 says the names were written, “BEFORE THE FOUNDATION OF THE WORLD.” This ties in directly with what Ephesians teaches, that we were “chosen in Him BEFORE THE FOUNDATION OF THE WORLD.” (Ephesians 1:4 emphasis added)

To have one's name blotted out of the “book of life” is used frequently in Scripture to describe someone's death at the hand of God. It speaks of the temporal judgment of dying, not the loss of salvation. With all of this said, I will concede one point to you. If indeed salvation is attained by a free act of man's will, then it would also stand to reason that man could change his mind or change his ways and thus lose the salvation he chose. I believe that many Baptists are in error when they teach that salvation is an act of man's free will, but that once attained man can never lose this salvation. This teaching would be both unbiblical and illogical. Which is why I believe that the sinner's security is bound up in the fact that salvation is a sovereign act of God, and not an act of man. Since man is spiritually dead, desperately wicked, hopelessly confused, and endlessly fickle.

As for the last text you cited from Genesis 4, “Then the LORD said to Cain, “Why are you angry? And why has your countenance fallen? If you do well, will not your countenance be lifted up? And if you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door; and its desire is for you, but you must master it.” (Genesis 4:6-7) You say this is evidence in Cain's (and thus man's) free will. I disagree. To the contrary, Cain is clearly enslaved to sin, as all people are. And both WOULD NOT and COULD NOT obey of his own volition. No one can or does, unless God grants it. Cain could only "master" sin by God's grace changing him.  Which is the only way any of us can master sin.  If God commands us to change, then our response should not be, "I can change on my own."  But rather, "God, I can change if you CHANGE ME!  Please be merciful to me, the sinner!" (see Luke 18:13) 

While I understand the difficulty in trying to reconcile God demanding something that is impossible for us to naturally do, I would argue that this is exactly what the gospel does. It commands spiritually dead sinners to come to life and follow Him. And this they will not do, unless He grants them life. This then, is what gives God the utmost glory. That He would demand something that we cannot do. He would supernaturally change us, so that we DO what He commands. And then, amazingly, He rewards us for doing what ultimately was HIS WORK in us (see Eph. 2:10). To me, this is what is so AMAZING about GRACE.

In conclusion, while you and I have clear theological disagreements; I think they partially stem from how we view the Scriptures. You have cited several verses that might seem to defend your position. I have cited verses that defend my position. Yet, hopefully we can agree that ALL of these verses are God-inspired and true. The questions then become, How do we reconcile such verses? Do they contradict each other? Are they compatible in some way? Or are they merely beyond our capacity to comprehend? While there is much about God that is beyond us, it behooves us to try as we might to understand all of His Word that we can. We may conclude that some passages are too difficult for us. But hopefully we will never conclude that our verses are right, while someone else's verses are wrong. All of Scripture is Divine truth, to the extent that it is interpreted correctly, taken in context, and applied accurately to our life.

Hopefully this email clarifies my views somewhat.

Blessings to you,

Shane Kastler

 

If and Is

By Shane Kastler

People live in an unknown world with an unknown future. But God doesn't live in this type of reality. For us, there is always a question of “if.” If I do this.....then that will happen. If I work hard, then I might get a promotion. If I exercise, then I might lose weight. If I drive fast, then I might get a speeding ticket.

Of course this also applies to spiritual matters. If I turn from my sin and trust in Christ, then I will be saved. If I spend time in Bible study and prayer, then I will grow in Christ. If I resist temptation, then I will not sin. Looking at life from our perspective, all we see is “ifs” – But God's perspective is different, because there isn't anything past, present, or future that God doesn't already know.

When God spoke to Moses through a burning bush, Moses asked Him what His name was. God simply referred to Himself as “I am.” (Exodus 3:14) This phrase is in the present tense, because God exists outside the corridors of time. He doesn't reflect on the past as we do, nor does He wonder about the future. All of time is a present reality to Him because He lives outside the realm of time. He lives in “eternity.”

Thinking of God in eternal terms is difficult for limited creatures like us to do. In our world, everything is based on time and the unknown. In God's world, nothing is. While this may be difficult to comprehend, it is nevertheless how God is and how we should view Him. We should not be surprised that He is above and beyond us. But we should be amazed at His sovereign power and believe in Him accordingly.

Do you know the God who calls Himself, “I am”? Do you know the God who always “is”? The only way to know God the Father is by trusting in God the Son, Jesus Christ. And when we trust in Christ, then God the Holy Spirit comes and lives inside us. God always “is” and God is Triune in nature. Which opens up a whole new aspect of mind-boggling, divine characteristics.

Your world is full of “ifs” – But God's world is full of “is.” And though you don't know what tomorrow holds, you can trust in Him today. If you come to Jesus in repentant faith, He promises to not cast you out. (John 6:37) And that's an “if” that you can take to the bank.

Is Christianity a Myth?

By Shane Kastler

The gospel of Luke tells us that several women who were followers of Jesus went to his tomb and encountered angels that told them of Jesus's resurrection. The women then went and told the apostles, but they did not believe them. One of the apostles is famous for his unbelief in the resurrection. “Doubting Thomas” insisted on seeing Christ before he would believe, but he was not the only one that doubted. The Bible says that all of the apostles did. Luke records their reaction to the news of the resurrection, “These words appeared to them as nonsense, and they would not believe them. (Luke 24:5 NASB) The Greek word, translated as “nonsense” literally means “fairy tale.” In other words when the women told the apostles that Jesus was alive they thought it was too far-fetched to take seriously. Jesus's death was a public execution and no one would believe that he arose from the dead. Of course, Jesus told them he would; so they should have believed him.

It is interesting to note that the apostles' reaction to the resurrection is the same reaction a lot of people have to Christianity today. They see it as a bunch of made up stories, or fables that teach a moral lesson. The creation account, Noah's ark, and the parting of the Red Sea are all historical accounts from Scripture that modern man scoffs at as mythical. Likewise the life and death of Jesus. But if God is real and is the creator of all things, then no miracle is impossible for Him. God can do anything, including raising the dead.

Every person who has ever lived must figure out what they will do with Jesus. Will they embrace him and follow him? Will they ignore him? Or will they oppose him? The Bible teaches that he is the only one who can save us from our sins. “The Father sent the Son to be the Savior of the world.” (1 John 4:14) But he only saves those who come to him with repentant faith. He only saves those who turn from their sin and submit to his lordship. He only saves those who become believers.

The apostles eventually believed in Jesus. They even accepted the resurrection. Doubting Thomas had his doubts erased when he saw the risen Christ. But Jesus told him, “Because you have seen Me, have you believed? Blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed.” (John 20:28) Hopefully you fall into the last category of those who did not see, yet still believe. Because one day you will see and it will be too late. We will all appear before the Lord on Judgment Day and those who know Christ will be welcomed into Heaven. Those who don't will not. Christianity is not a fable, it is supernatural truth. Believe it. Embrace it. And be saved. 

The Unseen God

By Shane Kastler

“Though you have not seen Him, you love Him, and though you do not see Him now, but believe in Him, you greatly rejoice with joy inexpressible and full of glory.” (1 Peter 1:8) 

The late theologian R.C. Sproul was once asked what separated the God of Christianity from the gods of other religions.  Sproul’s simple, yet profound answer was, “The God of Christianity actually exists.”  While other religions might reject this statement as false and overly simplistic; it is what sets Christian belief apart from other faith systems.  Many forms of paganistic religions point to a physical object of some kind as their “god.”  Even the Israelites of the Old Testament sought an object to worship.  And this they did after seeing God perform numerous miracles in delivering them from Egyptian bondage.

There is a famous expression that says, “Seeing is believing.”  But genuine faith involves believing in something you can’t see. At least not with physical eyes.  God is probably not going to walk into your living room and sit on your couch today.  But His existence is more real than the couch itself.  Physical items are created, exist for a time, then are destroyed.  But God is eternal.  He has always been and always will be.  And though you don’t physically see Him, the evidence for His existence is all around you.

Have you ever wondered how the earth spins at a constant rate for centuries?  How there is such consistency in our days and months and seasons?  How our planet can be the perfect distance from the sun, while sitting suspended in space?  How do we not draw closer to the sun and burn up?  Or drift further into space and freeze?  Scientists might describe this with fancy formulas and explanations of gravity.  But why should we expect gravitational pull to be consistent, unless there is an all-powerful Creator and Sustainer behind it all?

Though you can’t see God, He is everywhere.  Indeed, He is all around you.  The Bible teaches that God not only provides for our physical needs, but also our spiritual ones.  Though we are all sinners by nature who have rebelled against our creator; God has been gracious to us by sending His son Jesus Christ.  Jesus came and lived a perfect life and then died on the cross to sacrificially pay the eternal price for all who trust in Him.  Have you turned from your sin in repentance and committed your life to Christ by faith?

While you don’t physically see God today, one day you will.  We will all appear before the Lord in judgment and we will all either spend eternity in His glorious presence or experience His righteous wrath.  Today, while you can’t see God you should prepare for the day in which you will.  He is all around you.  Turn to Him today.

BOOK REVIEW: “C.S. Lewis's Mere Christianity: A Biography, By George Marsden” (Reviewed By Shane Kastler)

If you have an interest in people, then biography is a compelling genre for you.  To learn the background, childhood, education, career, and later years of an historical figure brings great interest.  But, have you ever considered reading a book that is a “biography” of a book rather than a person?  That is what you’ll find in the Lives of Great Religious Books series by Princeton University Press.  And recently I had the joy of reading C. S. Lewis’s "Mere Christianity": A Biography, by George Marsden.

Marsden is an imminent scholar and author, having written the Bancroft Prize winning biography, Jonathan Edwards: A Life, in 2004. In Marsden's latest work, however, his subject is a book itself rather than an individual.

Mere Christianity, by C.S. Lewis, has gone down in time as one of the most read and re-read introductions to the Christian faith. What some may not realize about the book is that it originally was birthed as a series of radio addresses Lewis gave on the British Broadcasting Company (BBC) during World War II. As Britain, and all of Europe, were in the throes of war, Lewis laid out, in 15 to 20 minute segments, what the basic tenets of Christianity were. As a masterful storyteller (most notably seen in his Chronicles of Narnia series) Lewis was able to provide vivid analogous examples to describe the basic foundations of the faith. This, coupled with his past history as an atheist, gave him a good background in skepticism, so as to speak to the skeptics that were so prominent in Britain at the time.

Of course, when writing the biography of a “book” it is impossible to not also write a semi-biography of the man who wrote the book. Lewis was an instructor in English Literature at Oxford University when he gave the talks that would become Mere Christianity. And the response to his radio talks was mesmerizing, in both good and bad ways. Many people desired to hear them again and reconsider the Christian faith. Others, rationalistic in nature, abhorred Lewis's archaic religious beliefs and ridiculed him for both the radio addresses and the ensuing book. This was one of the most enlightening aspects of the book for me, the realization that Lewis was intellectually persecuted for his Christian faith by British liberals in general, and by his Oxford colleagues in particular. In fact, Lewis's adherence to the faith, perhaps cost him promotions from within the university.

Lewis's life was forever changed with the publication of Mere Christianity. He incorporated the help of his faithful brother Warren (Warnie) to answer the correspondence he received as a result of the radio broadcasts and the book itself, which emerged from a desire by so many to re-read what Lewis had said. From Mere Christianity, Lewis went on to pen several, short philosophical works devoted to various aspects of the Christian faith. While many modern day evangelicals would disagree with Lewis on several issues, it could also safely be said that his book has been used of God to bring many an atheistic skeptic to reconsider their stance on Christianity. Some of these well known Christian figures (Charles Colson for example) are mentioned in the book. It should also be noted that Lewis went to great pains to ensure the book presented as “basic” a view of Christianity as possible. He was not interested in drawing sharp doctrinal and denominational lines. And this can be seen throughout the work. If you are expecting a sharp-tongue polemic for your branch of Christianity, you will be disappointed. But if you desire, a more vague introduction to the faith, then Mere Christianity will satisfy. Lewis claimed that he was simply trying to bring unbelievers into the vestibule of the faith, and that whatever specific “room” they chose was up to them. As an Anglican himself, he was not trying to win unbelievers to Anglicanism. But rather to coax unbelievers to consider Christianity as a whole.

After having been passed over one too many times at Oxford, Lewis eventually accepted a promotion at the rival Cambridge University. His latter years were spent in study and in the late-in-life marriage to American Joy Davidman, who succumbed to cancer in 1960. Lewis himself died on November 22, 1963, largely overshadowed by the assassination of John F. Kennedy, on the same day.

Marsden's book is an interesting read that presents an aspect of Lewis's life and of Mere Christianity that might not be known to the reader. Never boring, Marsden weaves an interesting narrative about Lewis and how the book came to prominence. If you have not yet read the book itself, it would behoove any Christian (or even skeptic) to read Lewis's Mere Christianity. Then read Marsden's biography of the book itself. The historical context, extenuating circumstances, and the author, Lewis himself, make for a fascinating read. Marsden succeeds in writing a readable and interesting “biography” of Mere Christianity. I would highly recommend both Lewis's original work, and Marsden's biography of it.

My Twitter Debate With an Atheist Over The Existence of Evil

By Shane Kastler

 

I recently had a Twitter debate with an atheist over the issue of "evil." My premise was that atheism cannot explain an evil act like the Las Vegas shooting; since atheism has no moral foundation with which to call anything "good" or "evil."  The atheist, "Daniel" disagreed.  We had a short, but productive dialog.  The contents are below.   To read my original article click here.  To see it on Twitter, click here

 

One final note. Winning intellectual arguments is not the same thing as winning a soul to Christ.  God uses reasoning faculties to change hearts.  But only God can truly change hearts. Therefore, pray for Daniel. Whoever he is, and wherever he is.

 

Shane E. Kastler‏ @sekastler

 

#LasVegasShooting shouldn't make u question God. Instead question #Atheism & #Evolution which cannot define evil.  http://shanekastler.typepad.com/pastor_shanes_blog/2017/10/atheism-evolution-cannot-explain-evil-like-the-las-vegas-massacre.html

  

 

 Daniel

What? Of course we can explain it (though not calling it by the religious term "evil"). Mental illness makes stuff like that happen.

 

 

  Shane E. Kastler‏ @sekastler Oct 13

 

So there is no "evil"....only "illness"? Who gets to decide what is classified as "illness"?

 

 

 

 

Daniel Oct 13

 You are misquoting me. I did not say "illness" was the only cause of bad acts. I was talking about *that* one. (Las Vegas.) Nice try, though

 

 

 

 

  Shane E. Kastler‏ @sekastler Oct 13

Sorry. Wasn't trying to misquote. Just clarifying. Would you still call his acts "evil"; even if he is mentally ill?

  

 

  Daniel

No. I don't use the word "evil.". People do bad acts for many reasons: coercion, desperation, confusion, ignorance, illness, and more.

 

 

  Shane E. Kastler‏ @sekastler Oct 13

I notice you did use the word "bad" - Are you using it the same way I use "evil"? Do you believe "bad" exists then?

 

 

 Daniel

 I see them with different connotations. To me, "bad" means "contrary to behavior standards set by society." "Evil" means "contrary to God."

  

 

 

  Shane E. Kastler‏ @sekastler Oct 13

I see. Thanks for clarifying. How does society determine these standards of good and bad? Or would u not use the word "good"?

 

 

  Daniel

 

 I hate the 140-character limit.

  

  Shane E. Kastler‏ @sekastler Oct 13

Ditto on the 140.

Your racism example is a good one.  You would say that such racist talk was considered "good" in the 1850s, but "bad" today, based on societal norms.  I would argue that it was "bad" even in 1850.  If society determines what is "good" and "bad" then aren't we always subject to the prevailing notions of the day? Theoretically, if a society determined rape to be "good" then no one could argue with the notion.  After all, society has spoken. Isn't this a problem for you?

 

  Daniel

 

 

  Shane E. Kastler‏ @sekastler Oct 13

 

Enjoyed chatting with you...

Actually, I just posted an article on my Twitter feed.  You responded, and I'm glad you did.  You find your explanation acceptable to you.  That is fine.  But it doesn't necessarily make your explanation correct, or rational.  The argument for morality based on societal norms doesn't work, and I think you and I both know that.  Your racism example proves my point.  How can something be good in 1850 and bad today?  Either, society was WRONG THEN (in which case your whole argument on morality based on societal norms falls apart); or there must be a moral standard apart from the consensus of selfish creatures.....It was nice visiting with you. Have a good weekend.

Atheism & Evolution Cannot Explain Evil Like The Las Vegas Massacre

By Shane Kastler

After tragedies such as the Las Vegas shooting occur, people often question God. Sincere debates arise in people's minds as to how this unspeakable horror could occur. Is there a God? If so, is he powerful enough to prevent such tragedies? And if so, then why doesn't he? But before any of these questions can be addressed, we should consider the question as to what is “good” and “evil.” And how can these categories exist, if there isn't a God who establishes a righteous standard? Las Vegas shouldn't make us question God. It should make us question atheism.

Since the shooting, I've heard two different atheists make very interesting statements. One of them claimed that he could not believe in God, since such evil exists in the world. The other one explained the shooting by making the statement, “This is the result of living in a fallen world.” I would like to consider both of these statements, and point out how they expose the atheist worldview as a worldview that cannot adequately explain reality. In short, atheism is illogical and these two statements prove it to be so.

First of all, let's examine the idea that God cannot exist if such evil is present in the world. Before we can debate the issue of God's sovereignty versus man's responsibility; or God's power over evil; we have to establish how there can be categories such as “good” and “evil” in the first place. Atheism attempts to provide a moral standard for the world by presenting an irrational worldview that cannot adequately define or explain the evil around us. Sometimes, atheists will say that “good” is defined as whatever brings the most amount of happiness to the greatest number of people. But such “majority rules” types of standards hold no water. What if the “majority” of people decide that rape makes them happy? Does this make rape righteous? Of course not. And while some may claim I'm using an absurd example to make a point, my point remains nonetheless. There was a time when the “majority” of Americans believed slavery was acceptable. Did this make it so? The atheist cannot consistently argue against this, especially if they believe in evolution; as most atheists do.

If atheism is true, then the Las Vegas shooter's actions could not be called evil. How can categories of “good” and “evil” exist in a world with no God to establish a righteous standard? Categories of “good” and “evil” make no rational sense in world devoid of God. In all honesty, the very fact that our sense of justice wells up within us in the wake of tragedies like the Vegas shooting is proof that God is there. And that he has given us, in some measure, a sense of right and wrong; flawed though it may be.

Likewise, evolution cannot adequately explain the heinous actions of the Las Vegas shooter. At least not from a moral perspective. After all, if evolution is true, then the Las Vegas shooter could not be held accountable for his actions, as it would simply be an example of “survival of the fittest.” He's nothing more than an evolved monkey who learned to shoot. Evolution itself is based on a chemical chaos that cannot be explained by the world around us. If molecules randomly appeared, exploded, and evolved into self-aware creatures capable of rationalizing what is “good” and “evil”; then how can we blame a human who is as “off-kilter” to the point of mass murder? At best he would be a warped mutation. At worst, he is merely an example of what all “evolved creatures” are capable of. This thought is both scary and irrational.

Atheism cannot adequately define or explain evil. Nor can evolution. But atheistic evolutionists know full well that evil exists. Being created in the “image of God” they have enough of the stamp of the divine on their soul that they can express shock and profound sadness when they experience evil, which explains the second statement I heard an atheist utter: “This is the result of living in a fallen world.” My answer to this atheist, is that he is EXACTLY right! And in making this statement, he is exposing the fact that deep down, even he knows his worldview is hopelessly flawed. Deep down he knows that God is there. That good exists. And that evil is truly evil. By nature, man knows God is there; but because of sin he “suppresses” this truth in unrighteousness. (Romans 1:18) When an atheist speaks of a “fallen” world; what “fall” is he referring to? Regardless of whether or not he would admit it, he is referencing the “fall of man” that occurred in the Garden of Eden, when our first parents disobeyed God and brought a sin curse upon us all. This curse is exemplified daily in countless ways. What happened in Las Vegas is one graphic example and deep down, even the atheist knows this to be true. Indeed sinful man has “fallen” and we all feel the daily effects of this spiritual plunge.

Even the atheist can see the evil around them, just as they can recognize acts of kindness. But they cannot explain either. Random evolutionary “chance” produces neither good nor evil. Neither kindness nor cruelty. It simply produces chaos that cannot be described in moral terms. To be sure, there is indeed chaos around us. But the chaos is produced by created beings who rebel against their Creator and harm their fellow creatures......sometimes fatally. This moral chaos is Biblically defined as sin; that unrighteous act that is described as “unrighteous” because there is a God who has determined it to be so.

After a tragedy like the one that occurred in Las Vegas, emotions are raw, sorrow is deep, and the questions are many. And in the light of such depravity it is normal to seek explanations for the evil that exists all around us. But atheism cannot explain it. In fact, atheism cannot even define evil as evil. But “theism” - or more specifically, Christian “theism” can. Christianity alone can give you the moral categories to understand the world in which you live. Christianity defines sin, explains evil, and presents a remedy for it in the gospel of Jesus Christ; who came to earth and lived and died so that sinners such as us might be forgiven and know God in a profoundly saving way. Atheism will do nothing but fill your mind with unanswerable questions. Christianity will answer the unanswerable, give life true meaning, and plant deep within you an eternal hope that no bullet can take away.

BOOK REVIEW: "The Presbyerian Philosopher: The Authorized Biography of Gordon H. Clark" by Doug Douma (Reviewed by Shane Kastler)

Gordon Haddon Clark was one of the most influential, though unheard of, Christian philosophers of the twentieth century.  A Calvinistic Presbyterian, he was educated at the University of Pennsylvania and taught philosophy there, and later at Wheaton College and Butler University in Indianapolis, Indiana.  Within evangelical circles he is probably best known for the controversies he was involved in.  The “Clark-Van Til” controversy involved opposition to Clark’s ordination by fellow Presbyterian philosopher Cornelius Van Til, over what many would consider a minute theological disagreement.  Clark’s ordination in the Philadelphia presbytery of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church was eventually thwarted by the Van Til faction; and Clark moved to Indiana where he had a distinguished career as a philosophy professor at a largely secular university.  In his later years, Clark moved to Colorado and taught at Sangre de Christo Seminary until his death in 1985.  Clark is the subject of Doug Douma’s biography, “The Presbyterian Philosopher: The Authorized Biography of Gordon H. Clark.”

Douma’s book is both highly readable and well researched with copious footnotes and annotations.  Having written with the blessing of Clark’s family the work is also described as an “authorized biography” which no doubt gave the author access to more information of both a personal and professional nature.

The book gives a good overview of Clark’s life in the church and the academy, but also delves into his family life.  While the primary topic involves the various denominational controversies Clark was involved in, we also learn something about the personalities of not only Clark, but his wife and children as well.  A highly educated and devout family, Clark’s wife and two daughters were involved in both church life and Christian ministry as well.

One of the stronger points of the book is Douma’s explanation of some of the more tedious nuances of the theological minutiae that Clark fought for.  The average lay person would look at Clark and Van Til as two men who agreed on almost everything.  Yet what divided them was mammoth in their own eyes.  To both Clark and the Van Til faction, the debate centered on the nature of God and was thus of great importance.  But Clark’s controversies were not always theological in nature.

Clark at times disagreed with his denomination over whether or not they should work with other Christian denominations, or even whether or not they should merge with other Presbyterian denominations.  Over the course of his life he was a member of several different Presbyterian denominations and was thus active and opinionated in denominational matters.  While this aspect of his character is interesting to consider, some of his scruples will be lost on those who are not interested in Presbyterian denominationalism.  Nevertheless, Douma excels at providing relevant information without becoming verbose or mundane.

Ultimately, Clark is known not as a preacher, professor, denominational or educational leader per se; but rather as a Christian, who happened to be philosopher and spent his life defending theologically Reformed Christianity in a secular world.  While Clark might have preferred training Christians to defend the faith by serving as an apologetics professor at a seminary; he instead taught philosophy at Butler, a secular university with a religious background.  In God’s providence, Clark’s contribution to Christianity involved the critique of non-Christian philosophies which he was able to combat with his sharp mind and philosophical training.  With that said, most of his writings are of an unmistakably Christian nature.  In his later years, he devoted much of his time to writing commentaries on the New Testament that were non-technical and accessible to the average believer.

Clark’s life is an interesting one to consider.  As stated above, he is unknown in many Christian circles, yet much could be learned from a discovery of his life and writings.  The late John Robbins, founder of the Trinity Foundation, did much to see Clark’s works published in the 1980s and 1990s.  With the advent of the internet, Christians now have access to books and articles that were heretofore unattainable.  Clark’s life is worthy of study and Douma has done the church a great service in producing this biography.  While the reader may find themselves disagreeing with Clark’s positions on various issues, they are largely left to decide for themselves as Douma, in most cases, sticks to the facts rather than meandering into personal opinions.  There is no doubt that the author admires Clark greatly, yet he still manages to produce a biography that cannot be accused of being a mere “puff piece.”  I recommend the reading of this book for those who wish to understand the life and thought of an influential Christian philosopher, churchman, and family man.  Well-written, well researched, and interesting; Douma achieves his goal of introducing those unaware of Clark to his life; and giving those familiar with Clark more information on who he was and what made him tick.