I took Intro to Philosophy with Dan back in 2002 at APU! absolutely loved his class. Excited to watch. I remember he said we could call him Dan but to remember that doesn’t mean we are friends and he would still give you an F if you failed a test 😂
Hey Gary! I met Dan in that class as well (probably in 2003). side note--I also remember you rocking/jazzin' that guitar with Dr. Beatty. Dr. Speak was kind enough to meet with me almost weekly at APU the following year and really helped ease my mind on some of the unique struggles we face at a Christian University.
As a vegan and an agnostic, I really appreciate Dr. Speak’s careful attention to animal suffering and the problem of evil. Really made me think! Please have him on the show again. Peace.
Cam! You should have David Wood and Dr Speak have a conversation. David's dissertation was tackling the 'best version of the problem of evil' right? It would be pretty cool to hear that discussion
Great interview Cameron!! But that last comment about atheists not wanting to invite Daniel because he takes problem of evil seriously really wasn't necessary in my opinion. That's probably true for some atheists and even some Christians (because Daniel accepts universalism), but there are great atheology channels that would like to talk with him. I think we shouldn't generalize
One thing I noticed is that Dr. Speak didn't quote or appeal to Scripture at all to make his points. I understand that when talking with unbelievers, you can't necessarily argue from the Bible, but if you are trying to convince me as a Christian of your view, you are going to need to show how it is consistent with Scripture.
I'm not going to say this is a "silver bullet" argument pertaining to the problem of evil, but it's one that seems overlooked and is a major problem for the whole "gratuitous suffering" argument. I would argue that limiting suffering (allowing some suffering but not allowing an excess of suffering) is incompatible with a rational universe (a universe that makes sense where we can study it and draw accurate conclusions, which includes doing science). To illustrate what I'm talking about, let's take the deer dying slowly from smoke inhalation. Maybe God should have made it so that smoke inhalation killed animals quicker. However, if He had, fire would be more dangerous to us. Maybe He should have made it such that trees don't catch fire. Well, that would mean wood wouldn't burn and we would be lacking in materials to make fire, which is all sorts of problematic. The truth is, any changes to how the world works to limit suffering has consequences that we can't even begin to predict, consequences that likely lead to what people would think of as gratuitous suffering, which we would then have to consider how to limit, which would lead to other problems that would cause such suffering and so on and so forth until we end up with a universe that doesn't operate in a coherent way. Let's consider a paper cut. Paper cuts aren't pleasant, but we would hardly use them to disprove the likely existence of God. Now, if you get a second paper cut, we expect to feel more pain than if we simply had one paper cut. Well, what if we got 1,000 paper cuts? Shouldn't that be worse than only two paper cuts? It's only rational that suffering should be cumulative. If suffering is cumulative though, how could it be limited, how would a limitation on the amount of suffering be rational? Maybe nothing should ever go wrong. Well, if nothing ever goes wrong, we wouldn't have to do anything. We wouldn't need to eat, we wouldn't need to build shelters, we would be perfectly content just sitting around all day doing nothing. We wouldn't advance because we wouldn't need to, which also means we wouldn't learn anything because there would be no need. Trying to describe an irrational universe where some suffering is allowed but so-called gratuitous suffering is prevented, well it would be irrational and therefore not make any sense. The point is, I don't think it's actually possible for a rational universe to exist that places limits on the amount of suffering. And complaining about the amount of suffering experienced in our universe, and trying to argue that it somehow proves that God probably doesn't exist is more of an emotional argument rather than one grounded in rationality. A challenge for those who think otherwise, describe a universe that is both rational and which you believe prevents what you would call gratuitous suffering, and we can explore the internal logic and rationality of that universe to see if it actually works, to see if it is in fact coherent.
Heres what makes all this endless rationalisation pointless. Would you go to someone whos in grief, depressed, lonely, traumatised and tell them all this fancy rhetoric ? Exactly the problem. None of these intellectual gymnastics take away the pure pain of suffering somebody goes through. *And complaining about the amount of suffering experienced in our universe, and trying to argue that it somehow proves that God probably doesn't exist is more of an emotional argument rather than one grounded in rationality* Obviously, the very nature of suffering is emotional. Do you think this is some math equation where you just plug in some variables and everythings solved. This is the problem with theodicies. They dont offer anything to those in pain, only endless attempts to justify evil.
@@Yameen200 you quoted the bit where I said that the problem of suffering was an emotional rather than intellectual one. You seem to agree with me on that point. Now, tell me, when philosophers and theologians and atheist UA-camrs and so on bring up the problem of suffering in an attempt to disprove God or the likelihood of the existence of God, are they typically doing so out of their own emotional pain, or are they attempting to do it in some intellectual capacity? The entire context of my comment is how the problem of suffering is dealt with intellectually. If you have a problem with my response because it can't deal with the emotional situation of suffering, then you should also have a problem with people bringing it up as an intellectual argument to disprove the existence of God. I'm not responding to a person who's bringing up the problem of suffering out of emotional pain, I'm responding to the intellectual argumentative use of it, which you obviously know to be the case considering the portion of my comment you quoted. Further, you are attempting to make an intellectual argument against my intellectual argument by telling me that it can't deal with the emotional aspect, when I never claimed it could. The problem with your argument is that it did nothing to disprove, on an intellectual level, which is the level my argument was made on, that anything I said was wrong. Essentially what you said boils down to, "your intellectual argument can't deal with the emotional aspect therefore it's invalid," which frankly isn't remotely true. You can either deal with the problem of suffering emotionally or intellectually, but you can't do both at the same time. If you are dealing with it emotionally, no intellectual argument will be helpful, and this is true of any problem being dealt with emotionally. Ask any married person if any intellectual argument ever helped an emotional problem their spouse was dealing with. Does that mean that we shouldn't ever discuss the intellectual side of any problem? And how would our court system work if we removed the intellectual aspect from argumentation over something emotionally charged? Now, the opposite is also true, if you want to deal with something intellectually you have to check your emotions because emotions have a tendency to not follow rationality. Emotions cause us to believe things that aren't actually true. Are you going to tell me that truth isn't important, that the truth of whether or not God exists and what the existence of suffering in the world truthfully means regarding the existence of God is unimportant? I mean, the truth of how suffering relates to the existence of God isn't something that's based in emotion. What is based in emotion is how we feel about the possibility of God existing when there's suffering in the world. I was dealing with the former not the latter, and all you had to say was that me dealing with the former was wrong because it didn't deal with the latter. The problem is that in dealing with the former I couldn't deal with the latter. Had I chosen to deal with the latter, it wouldn't have dealt with the former, and nothing I would have said in doing so would rationally mean anything regarding whether or not God can exist if there's suffering in the world. Basically all you did was make an emotionally charged but intellectually meaningless comment. Now, if you want to leave the intellectual aspect aside and get my thoughts regarding the emotional aspects, you could simply ask, and I'll be happy to listen and talk with you regarding the emotional aspect. They are two separate things though, and should be kept separate, which is why I didn't go into the emotional aspects. Btw, there's a difference between giving an account or an explanation of why something happens and justifying it. A person can say that they were late to work because they stayed up drinking, which certainly explains why that person was late, but it doesn't justify them being late.
@@laurameszaros9547 it's true that theodicies don't offer anything to those in pain, and they aren't meant to. Intellectual and emotional points are like oil and water, they don't mix. The fact that an intellectual argument or point or whatever doesn't offer anything of emotional help doesn't mean that the intellectual arguments, points, or whatever are invalid. Similarly, the intellectual stuff doesn't invalidate emotional responses. Now, having said that, there are people who find emotional comfort in the intellectual aspects of a situation. Some of us need to be able to understand intellectually why something horrible was able to occur in order to deal with it emotionally. I'm not saying it makes the pain go away, just that it helps some of us process what we're going through so that we can move on. Btw, there's a difference between giving an account or an explanation of why something happens and justifying it. A person can say that they were late to work because they stayed up drinking, which certainly explains why that person was late, but it doesn't justify them being late.
@@miltonwetherbee5489 There may, as you say, sometimes be people who can obtain a degree of solace from being able to think that they understand why something horrible has happened to themselves or to others with whom they are able to empathise. But I doubt that this would ever be true of any animal species which we as yet know. I don't think it is true that atheists raise the problem of evil in order to justify their unbelief. On the contrary, I think many, perhaps most atheists find themselves incapable of mustering up such belief on account of said evil to begin with. I know this has certainly been the case for me, for almost as long as I can remember, and I am older than most of those who generally comment on this channel. My suspicion is that most believers who seek refuge in theodicies do so in order to try to justify beliefs they want to embrace and/or sustain, rather than because they are sincerely convinced by them. It is only comparatively recently that scholars in the Abrahamic traditions have even begun to address the problem of animal suffering as being one that requires explanation, which would strongly suggest - let's be frank - that they couldn't have cared less, or at least very little, about it beforehand. This callous unconcern on the part of a religious tradition that claims virtue and goodness to be its primary essence is far too incongruous and cognitively dissonant for my liking, so had I ever been on board with it, this is the certainly the stage where I would have decided to disembark
Horrible experiences, full-fledged evil, traumatic experiences. even to an extreme, can truly be healed and the person transformed by the power of God so much so the person would say she's be willing to experience them again in order know what she knows today, meaning knows intimately WHO she knows today, her loving merciful God. That I know this is possible is because I am that person. I lived this. It does take a lot of hard work to forgive, let go and choose to have the victory of Love and goodness in one's life.
@@Yameen200 What' are you referring to that you consider wishful thinking? Nothing in what I said is wishful thinking at all. What I shared is sheer honest personal experience.
@@Yameen200 Actually you're not treating me with respect. It is not my feeling, as you called it, my comments are based on fact. I experienced every form of abuse a person can experienced. From my early years I experienced pain so profound and deep I wouldn't wish it on my greatest enemy. I experienced evils I wouldn't write about here. I then experienced years of trauma suffering because of it. But with God's grace and personal hard work I forgave everyone, I worked hard and I m completely healed. I am a women free from any of the residue of those evils I experienced. I'm free from the emotional and spiritual and physical effects. This is not wishful thinking nor a feeling. What I now have is true interior freedom from all the effects of the crap I experienced for years. This is not generalizing anything. This is speaking proof of what is possible. I now live my life to help others heal to gain this victory in their lives. They respect me and see in me someone who truly understands where they are, because i indeed do. It's painful hard work but that does not make it impossible. This is about giving hope to those who have experienced evil. You can say whatever you want to say to discredit me, someone you do not even know. Your saying that simply tells others something about who you are. But that does not change the truth of what I have been through in my life nor does it change the truth that over 20 years ago my victory from it all was gained. I have a joy and peace in my life not even your unbelieving words can take away. The truth doesn't need to be defended. I feel sorry for you and others here who can't rejoice in someone else's victory. I wish you peace though.
@@mercy2453 I think it was Francis Schaefer who said no human being is 100% healed in this life. That makes perfect sense to me as sin runs through our veins and we live in a fallen world. My question to you would be the following: what may happen to your convictions if you were to experience profound suffering upon suffering at this point? Can you project yourself into a scenario like that? The reason I ask is because I know a lot about childhood suffering. I also know a lot about deep suffering during my 50's and now into very early 60's. Btw, I am holding onto my faith though it is tenuous at times.
In the book of Job, property was destroyed, animals were wiped out, children were killed, and Job was overcome with nasty boils. Talk about evil, senseless and unwarranted misfortune. Job, in his pain, said, "The LORD gives and the LORD takes away. Blessed be the name of the LORD." But to what are we privy to which he was not? Is it not the debate over him? That one man, Job? Was the dreadful evil not meant to break him, pressure him into abandoning his faith in God? Were his animals and children not ruthlessly used? Does it not teach us about what is happening behind the scenes of our material world? The suffering we see for which there seems to be no reason? It amazes me how Christian philosophers run on their own tracks to what they imagine is light, completely disregarding the signs provided by the Bible along the way to speak right.
I appreciate the banter and the talk about the couch! Though, I do think that Dr. Daniel is sitting on the throne and judging God and presuming that he doesn’t have any good reasons for allowing what he allows in the here and now. Also, the mockery of Genesis 1-3 from Marilyn Adams fits that same type of thinking, namely, that God is deficient in his character and that he is to be blamed for human rebellion.
Christianity has to account for the Problem of Evil. Atheism has to account for everything else, including moral absolutes that tell us that there is a thing called evil.
Morality is behaviour that evolved to help us survive as a social species. Talking about moral absolutes makes as much as sense as talking about nest building absolutes for finches
7:20 the problem is ... "evil" is intelligent intent. and requires conciseness. a fawn dying from a fire is just a fawn dying in the fire. there is no intent one way or the other.
I agree. I wish this were more clearly shown, however I suspect that the argument of the Atheist would more accurately be seen as “the Omniscient Omnipotent God ALLOWING the fawn to suffer when he could have intervened.”
@@micahprice2807 yep. but it would be a false argument. because it comes from a non-omniscient / non-omnipotent being thinking he knows more than an omniscient / omnipotent being. and thinking they have the knowledge to judge such a being.
A thought about sin as a response to the suffering problem. One of our tasks as imagers of God is to be stewards of the planet. Sinning is missing the mark or going in the wrong direction etc. If we were better stewards, we would have a better system developed to keep animals from suffering. To the forest fire example. We have a system in place to put forest fires out. Our sin in this regard is that it's not good enough because we lazily and thoughtlessly made that system or rather haven't improved it. Probably a weak response currently but it seems to have explanitory power because it covers many examples. Tsunami deaths? Dikes were too small and the warning and evacuation plan was poor. Earthquakes? Better earthquake shelters. Etc etc. But, that's besides the other strong responses to the arguments... did Dr speak mention the cursed and fallen world?
This is a bit like listening to two Harry Potter fans speculating about how Owl Post works. Unless you have the tools for investigating your hypothesis, you can speculate all you want, but you’re never going to solve the mystery
My argument for evil and free will addressing gratuitous evil, is looking at the big picture of physical consistency in relation to free will. Should God physically provable? If it is the case that every time something happens that would be gratuitous evil, (the fawn) then physical cause and effect either has to change, or it would have to be the case that there are is a physical reason that it does not happen. If some physical reason there is not gratuitous evil, then that would have to be explained. Why this limitation? Why this boundary on physics. If no (seemingly) gratuitous evil, then that may make God obvious, therefore what happens to free will? If as observers humans can’t conclude anything other than God for this reason, then only theism is rationally true. If this is the case, then if one concludes freely not to follow or believe in God, would be irrational or mentally deficient. I believe this would create theistic tyranny. How could one hire a mathematician who doesn’t believe in math? How can you hire a science teacher who doesn’t believe in the creator? If God were a fact as true as gravity, practical faith and free will is secondary. From a physic perspective predictably of gratuitous evil would have to be built into formulas for everything built. I would posit this would be close to impossible and an unreliable guess.
The problem of evil or suffering as an internal critique of Christianity can't logically succeed. First, Christians believe that we can't fathom the purposes and designs of God. There's no way to prove that the evil or suffering in the world is actually gratuitous from a Christian theological perspective. Any attempt to prove that there is gratuitous suffering in the Christian view requires that the person making the argument supply some definition of what constitutes gratuitous suffering, and that definition is necessarily one that comes from outside Christian theology. A second line of argumentation that doesn't make sense as far as an internal critique goes is that things like soul building and love are insufficient reasons to allow suffering on various levels. External of the Christian worldview it might be problematic to claim that love is an ultimate good worth all the pain and suffering we go through to understand it fully. But within Christianity, the belief is that love is of utmost importance. Christians believe God is love, we don't merely believe that God loves, or that He has decided that love is worthwhile. We believe that love is a quintessential aspect of God, that it can't be separated from Him, that He is the source, that He is the objective standard of what love is. So, for a Christian, God is love, and God, being the creator of everything and being a perfect being, a being that is the necessary standard of what goodness is, is what we should be love, what we should understand to the fullest. And, with that being the case, if suffering, even great suffering, allows us to move fully understand what love is, which necessity would allow us to more fully know God, then even great suffering must be permitted. It's simply not possible to claim that God probably doesn't exist because there are problems internal to Christianity that make God's existence unlikely. All attempts to prove that suffering is internally problematic for Christianity comes from views that are external to Christianity, does that don't follow from Christianity. Internally, the existence of great evil and great suffering is entirely consistent with Christian theology. The problem is that the problem of evil and suffering is an emotional problem that prevents people from properly understanding Christian theology. They think God should be a different sort of god from that which is presented in the Bible. And, they are quite right to think that the evil and suffering in the world is incompatible with their view of who god should be. Of course, I don't think the god they think should exist if God does in fact exist makes proper rational sense. I think their view of what God should be like would be irrational. And why should I be wrong to think so? We are very limited beings, unable to comprehend the full consequences of even the simplest of our actions. We create things which at first seem wonderful only to later realize that they are exceptionally harmful to us, such as buildings made with asbestos and using certain insecticides on our crops. Further, on the Christian belief, our time on earth is relatively short, and no matter how much suffering we endure here, there will be an infinitely greater amount of time spent without suffering. On the Christian view, our time living is more like a way for us to experience things that will provide us with insights into how we should live, insights we wouldn't get being created directly in God's presence in heaven. Here we have the opportunity to decide if we believe in Him without Him forcing that belief on us. We get to decide if we are willing to trust Him, accept who He is, and decide if we want to spend eternity with Him. The amount of suffering in this world isn't incompatible with any of that either. Now, for my view on the rationality of the existence of evil apart from God, see my other comment. Personally, though, the evil and suffering in the world is consistent with the loving God presented in the Bible (not the uninformed, imagined views of who the God of the Bible is) and so as an internal critique, the problem of evil and suffering only revels the lack of understanding of what Christians actually believe regarding God. Further, I expect God to create a rational universe, and, as my other comment attempts to show, it seems logically and rationally impossible for a rational universe to exist which didn't allow great suffering. And, since God would create a rational universe, and because great evil and suffering are compatible with the Christian God, not only is the problem of evil and suffering not problematic for the existence of God, but it's supportive of the Christian belief.
*our time on earth is relatively short, and no matter how much suffering we endure here, there will be an infinitely greater amount of time spent without suffering* The heaven/afterlife theodicy as its known, but heres some problems with it. If i beat up a child then give them candy & games as a reward does that justify the beating ? How does so called heaven/afterlife justify allowing evils even when excessive ? Say a child thats born then starves to death ? What was the point of this ? How can these evils be repaired ? Any eternal relationship with a divine being would be stained with blood in that this god allowed such evils to occur. Furthermore how can you possibly compensate a starving kid. By giving them eternal feasts & delicasies ? By magically making it seem ok for people to suffer horrors ?
@@Yameen200 a problem with your analogy, in it you are the one beating up the child, and that doesn't correspond to God allowing suffering. In your analogy you are performing the evil act, which is not analogous to what God does. Second, you used the word "excessive." Excessive is a non-specific term. Take the word "heap" for example. Let's say I have a heap of start and I start taking grains away from the heap one at a time. At some point I'll no longer have a heap, but there's no way to say when that point is. Also, what I may call a heap you may not. The same is true of the word excessive. You may see a certain level of suffering as excessive, but that's your opinion. In this comment I'm dealing specifically with the internal logic of Christianity, which means your definition of excessive doesn't apply as it's not part of the internal aspects of Christianity. You are bringing into a discussion of the internal aspects of Christianity something external and attempting to use that to show that Christianity doesn't make internal sense. But, that's not a valid way of proving or disproving the internal logic of any system. The rest of your comment similarly fails to deal with the internal aspects of Christianity without bringing into the discussion things external to Christianity. Essentially you are saying that the internal workings of Christianity don't make internal sense because they don't match your external view. The reality is that what's actually happening is that you have a view of what the Christian God should be like that differs from what Christianity says God is like. And, it's fine to have that view, to disagree with the claims of Christianity, to say that you don't think that's how it should be and that you don't want any part of a religion that claims God is something other than what you think He should be...but none of that means that the internal aspects of Christianity are inconsistent with each other, or incompatible, which is my whole argument. Now, you've commented on both of the comments that I've made. Essentially I've stated that God is both all loving and rational. Now, suffering allows us to understand the depths of what it means to love. Losing a child only causes us such pain and suffering because of love. If a person tells his father that he's going to save the life of his father's dear friend, which is you, knowing he will die doing do, and his father allows his son to go, knowing that his son will die in the process, but knowing his son's heart, that he couldn't live with himself if he didn't save you, it would have a tremendous effect on you. Now, I'm not saying that all suffering leads to great experiences of love. But, the full depth of what it means to love can't be experienced if great suffering couldn't happen. You might say that love isn't that important, and maybe on your point of view that's true. However, we're talking about the Christian point of view, and Christianity believes in an all loving God, and if God is all loving, being able to fully comprehend the depth of what it means to love is important. After all, we wouldn't claim that God possesses unimportant attributes that we shouldn't bother trying to comprehend. So, for Christianity to be internally consistent, if it claims God is love and all loving, it has to accept that great suffering must be possible. Further, Christianity claims that Jesus, who is God, experienced great suffering in order to save us, demonstrating the depth of His love for us and partaking in suffering along with us. But also, allowing great suffering is also consistent with creating a rational universe in which there is any suffering. As my other comment explains, if a universe is rational and some suffering occurs a logical consequence is that great suffering must also occur as there is no way to limit the amount of suffering if the universe is to be rational. Now, so far, both here and in your response to my other comment, you have attempted to use an emotional stance to counter an intellectual stance. You have not put forth any intellectually based responses to either of my comments. For example, if you could demonstrate that a universe can be rational while also capping the amount of suffering such that it wouldn't exceed your definition of excessive suffering, that would discredit my stance. But so far, you've done nothing to undermine anything that I've actually said.
I have always and still suffer and question the needless awful suffering of many animals. specially those we eat and don't have any goodness in their short lives. Which makes me seriously start considering veganism but I digress,...I wonder how a loving God can allow such a thing. Does he not care at all for animals and if so why did He even create them, specially with the ability to fear, feel sad, and suffer. I heard no real explanation from him for this.
Probably the best video I have seen on this channel thus far. That being said, I have been commenting and arguing for many years now, that for God to be Morally Perfect or Maximally Great [ in Morality ] He must be morally good and kind to each Person. This has been 'most generally' ignored by the Apologetics Community. A God who has the majority of Humanity ( which are unsaved ) thrown into an Eternal Hell is not Morally Perfect. A God who has the majority of Humanity ( which is unsaved ) Annihilated by first a period of punishment and then burning them into non existence is not Morally Perfect. I am not claiming that I am a Universalist but I know that when I read Marilyn McCord Adams and David Bentley Hart that I am on the right track. However, I would go as far as to say that God must be morally good and kind to Satan and every single Demon if He is to get anywhere close to being Morally Perfect. If evil is not overcome and defeated in every Person’s life and every Angel or Spiritual Beings life, then God cannot go no where near to being Morally Perfect or Maximally Great. As for Open Theism: The Number One problem for Open Theism is Unconditional Prophecy. In the Bible, God proclaims that something in the future will happen but if He has to rely upon the unknown free will choices and decisions of people for the prophecy to be fulfilled, then there is no way to guarantee that what God says will happen will actually happen. People could make decisions and choices that will cause God’s prophecy or proclamation to fail. This means, that God could be wrong in what He proclaims will happen. A God who can be wrong cannot be Maximally Great. A God who is not All Knowing in regard to the future cannot be All Wise. Namely, because He could lead people in the wrong direction or down the wrong path for their life. God would be just as in the dark about the future as we are in the dark about the future. If, however, God can intervene in history ( just as Open Theists have told me that He can ), then that means, that human freedom is stifled or even hindered ( when God intervenes ), so that, God can bring His desired will to pass. This then brings about a huge moral problem for the Open Theist. Namely, if God can intervene in human history whenever He wants, then He could intervene and stop Horrendous Evils ( like child abuse and rape ). God could have intervened and stopped Adam and Eve from partaking of the wrong tree and plunging the whole human race into sin and death. Open Theism, therefore, is not a Solution. Open Theism raises problems of Free Will, Determinism, Morality, and Wisdom. The God of Open Theism cannot be Maximally Great.
My View of Spiritual Reality God created humans because he wants (he doesn’t need) beings like him to have fellowship and intimacy. He has free will, and humans have free will. God has perfect self-control and perfect knowledge, so he knows that he must always be “others-focused” and not self-focused because He holds absolute power (omnipotence). We are on God’s level. Just as a human will not have intimacy with another species, God will not have intimacy with a being who is not on his level. [John 10:34 (NIV): “Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are “gods”‘?” Jesus was referring to Psalm 82:6 (NIV) “I said, ‘You are “gods;” you are all sons of the Most High.’”] Repeating, God created humans to have an intimate personal relationship with him. No other creatures, not even angels have that possibility. Humans are special to God. I am not talking about Mormonism. Sin is selfishness, righteousness is unselfishness and holiness is sacrificial unselfishness. God’s absolute holiness, His purity from any selfish motivation, keeps His love pure and keeps Him from abusing His absolute power. You’ve heard the saying that absolute power corrupts absolutely. God can hold absolute power without abusing it because He is holy. God is always “others-focused.” He is so focused on others that he was willing to become a human and die the death on the cross to provide the OPPORTUNITY to be restored to a relationship with God. Greater love has no one than this: that a being lay down His love for those he loves. The gift of free will to humans was not just a choice but a necessity for them to have the capacity to love like Him. In this context, love is defined as doing what is best for another without requiring anything in return. 1 Corinthians 10:24 (NLT) “Don’t be concerned for your own good but for the good of others.” Philippians 2:3-8 (NASB) “Do nothing from selfishness or empty conceit, but with humility consider one another as more important than yourselves; do not merely look out for your own personal interests, but also for the interests of others. Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, who, as He already existed in the form of God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but emptied Himself by taking the form of a bond-servant and being born in the likeness of men. And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death: death on a cross.” The choice to be unselfish, made possible by free will, is a key element in the human-God relationship. However, it's important to remember that with free will also comes with the potential to choose selfishness. This underscores the responsibility that comes with this gift and the need for humans to use it wisely in their relationship with God. Because of our high level of being like God (we are gods (little g) in training), we must see how seriously any action we take affects others. Adam and Eve were deceived by the temptation that “you can be like God” by eating the forbidden fruit. It’s so sad, but they already were like God. Their sin caused the human race to be infected with selfishness, which is sin. This is why people don’t want just freedom. They want autonomy. Freedom means you’re free to do anything within the boundaries of right and wrong. But autonomy is where we decide what is right and wrong according to our selfish desires. We don’t want to be told that we can’t do what we want to do when we want to do it the way we want to do life. Sinners do not obey God’s laws. So what’s the problem with selfishness? Selfishness is the motivating and driving force of all sin. If you think about it, the inherent selfishness that all humans are born with IS the sin nature in all of mankind. Satan was created sinless and with free will, but he began to think more highly of himself than he should. In doing this, he filled his heart with pride. Notice that no one tempted Satan. There was no negative influence on him. He just thought he could do whatever he wanted without regard for God. He abused his free will. He thought he could make himself “Like the Most High” (Isaiah 14:14, NIV). Then he used his free will to choose to be selfish. Satan is the first recorded sinner. Then he convinced a third of the angels to follow him. Then he caused the fall of the human race. Lesson #1 to be learned by living in this sin-ridden world: When you are a god, your actions, good or bad, will ripple out and affect future beings under you and your domain with effects (good or bad depending on what you do) that you can’t imagine. The Bible says that those who make it to heaven will rule and reign with Christ. Revelation 5:9-10 (NKJV) And they sang a new song, saying: “You are worthy to take the scroll, And to open its seals; For You were slain, And have redeemed us to God by Your blood Out of every tribe and tongue and people and nation, and have made us kings and priests to our God; And we shall reign on the earth.” 1 Corinthians 6:1-3 (NIV) If any of you has a dispute with another, do you dare to take it before the ungodly for judgment instead of before the Lord’s people? Or do you not know that the Lord’s people will judge the world? And if you are to judge the world, are you not competent to judge trivial cases? Do you not know that we will judge angels? How much more the things of this life! [Luke 12:32 KJV] 32 Fear not, little flock; for it is your Father's good pleasure to give you the kingdom. Lesson #2 to be learned in this life: You MUST control your thought life because, as a god, your thoughts translate to actions towards others. You could destroy others with just an impulsive thought. If God didn’t have self-control, we would all be on our way to eternal containment in flaming torment since we are immortal like God and can’t be annihilated. That is why Jesus raised the bar and said if you have hate in your heart, that’s like the sin of murder. The same goes for lust and covetousness. If you entertain sinful thoughts, it is a sin for a god. Lesson #3 to be learned in this life: Once a god, or angel, chooses sin they are instantly addicted to self. Like one cancer cell, sin grows irreversible and progressively until the being is so completely consumed with selfishness that it will be consumed with hate and rage, just like what has happened to Satan and his demons. Sin is attractive but spiritually deadly. Lesson #4 to be learned in this life: God wants humanity to learn by experience that despite man recognizing the truth about sin and his self-determination to be good, sin inside of man inhibits the ability to be good. We all want to do good, but selfishness is like malware running in the background of our brains. We can use our focused willpower to do tremendously good deeds, but eventually, in quiet, unrestrained moments, selfishness begins to take over again. Just like cancer treatments, you can manage the disease for a while. But unless you get the cure (accepting Jesus is the ONLY cure for sin), the disease will pop up again in the future and continue to grow until death.
Obviously does not believe in a literal account of creation in book of Genesis by stating that humans came on the scene long after animals existed so therefore he disregards the fall and sin of Adam of all suffering and evil in the world. This is what happens when man gets puffed up in his own knowledge and disregards Gods Word. I find that many philosophers and that includes Christian and atheist are are arrogant and lack humility. They have become puffed up in their own knowledge.
@@abullard8409 Perhaps, (though the majority of places where Jesus is commonly interpreted to be speaking about the afterlife (I.e. the rich man and Lazarus) just have absolutely nothing to do with the afterlife) but the evidence that Jesus spoke about post-mortem punishment as eternal conscious torment is vastly overrated. For a good introduction to these discussions, I'd recommend All You Want to Know About Hell by Steve Gregg. Steve goes into some background material and then gives the best case that he can for all 3 orthodox Christian eschatologies: ECT, annihilation, and universal reconciliation. As for his logic, I think he laid out his case quite well. Omnipotence + universal salvific will probably lead to the reconciliation of all, and if God gets rid of all non-rational inhibitors, no rationally free creature will reject the infinite Good.
Universalist and an Open Theist. Cameron, this was a poorly conceived interview. This guy is not considered an orthodox Christian by any historical Christian tradition. Why are we promoting his ideas?
What? Many early church fathers were universalists like Gregory of Nissy, Origen etc. Augustine even said that many Christians in his time believed that hell was not eternal. Also just because someone disagrees with yoo, that doesn't mean we shouldn't platform them. Maybe we should be more open minded to the ideas of other people
@@zarla4204 The acceptance of heresy in the past does not justify it today. Was Augustine praising those who reject an eternal hell? I’m open to an optimistic universalism a la C.S. Lewis, but true universalism is very antithetical to Christianity given that Jesus talked about Hell more than anything else
@@whatsinaname691 Universalism is not heresy, it was not rejected by the early church. You can be universalist christian, many early church fathers were.
@@whatsinaname691 the word Jesus used for “Hell” is the English translation of the Aramaic word “Gehenna”. It’s an actual place in Jerusalem that Jews at the time considered so forsaken (because of its history as a site for human sacrifice), that Jesus referenced it when threatening annihilation. Jesus had no concept of an eternal soul that goes somewhere after death. He believed in a bodily resurrection into the Kingdom of God on Earth. “Hell” (or Gehenna) is where your body ends up if you do not follow God’s law.
Here is my problem of evil argument. Premise 1) an omnibenevolent being CANNOT accept evil, by definition. Premise 2) an omnipotent being would NEVER have to accept evil, by definition. Premise 3) a being that is both omnipotent and omnibenevolent CANNOT and WOULD NOT accept evil under ANY circumstances, by definition. Premise 4) evil exists. Conclusion) a being that is both omnipotent and omnibenevolent CANNOT exist, by definition.
@@whatsinaname691 I think calling the problem of evil an argument against the existence of God is to ambitious. I think it's an argument against God's omnibenevolence. If theists said they believe in an indifferent God the problem goes away.
Omnibenevolence is not about accepting evil, its about not doing evil or being evil by nature. Premise 1 fails as a definition. Benevolence has never even meant accepting evil. It comes from the Latin for "good will" _benevolentia_ and Old French "good will, disposition to do good" _benivolence._ Benevolence is then the tendency or desire to do good.
@@TamerSpoon3 I would like to challenge that. If I were to watch my neighbors continually abuse there children in the worst ways possible every day. I never take part but I'm fully aware of what's happening and do nothing to stop it would you consider me a good person?
Cameron, when you bring someone to this channel make sure that they are true theists and know what they're talking about. In this video you brought an agnostic that's not even positive that God exists! and you want him to solve the problem of evil for you? This channel should strengthen the belief in the heart of the theists, not bringing a self describing "philosopher" that obviously haven't solved any philosophical problem in his life, even the mere basic ones that all you need to prove them is rational axioms and a basic syllogism, and what's worse is that he claims that no one can! It's a real problem when someone sees everyone is as turbulent as he is. You should've debated him in such allegations and proved him wrong, not just say "yes yes you're right" all along the interview and negate the whole purpose for which you even opend this channel. You brought an agnostic person posing as a "theist philosopher" and he doesn't know anything and skeptical about everything, what a philosopher.
I agree. To be fair, Im glad there are diverse views on this channel, and I think we should give people a chance to speak and for us to hear them out. But also calling a universalist/open theist's views on the problem of evil "the most honest" is pretty disappointing to see.
Though I sympathize that you want more clear cut answers, I don't recall him saying that no one could solve these problems, in fact he gestured towards partial answers. I also don't think he gave any indication that he's agnostic. He is also clearly knowledgeable about the field whether you agree with his conclusions or not.
The Gospel: Plain and Simple “But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.” - 2 Corithians 11:3 Ask someone today if they are saved and you will most likely hear responses like these: “I have accepted Jesus into my heart.” Or “I have made him Lord of my life.” “I’ve been baptized.” “I said a prayer.” Sounds all good and churchy don’t it; but it is difficult to de-termine whether or not a person actually knows the gospel that saves them. These useless phrases don’t describe a thing about what the gospel is and has left a devastating effect of people not knowing what it is that they are saved from nor how they are saved; which leaves a more serious effect of people questioning their salvation. Let’s not muddy the simplicity of salvation that is in Christ with vague church sounding phrases that do not communicate anything. But rather present God’s word with clarity and assuredness. So here is the gospel: plain and simple. Sin was passed upon all men by one man Adam, and death is a consequence of this sin (Rom 5:12). Mankind has an eternal destiny of condemnation and wrath - Hell - because of this sin (Rom 6:23). No matter what good works one might do we are still found sinners in the sight of our Creator God. And all unrighteousness and those who follow get indignation and wrath. We cannot be found righteous for by God’s law we are found sinners (Rom 3:19-20). If we have broken even one law we are found guilty. It is for this reason of not being able to create our own righteousness and being born in a sinful flesh that we need a savior (Titus 3:5). Christ is that Savior, God manifested in the flesh, sinless, died in our place on a cross 2000 years ago. Taking upon him the wrath and judgement that was intended for us sinners. And it is through his bloodshed, burial, and resurrection on our behalf that we are able to have peace with God and forgiveness of our sins (1 Cor 15:1-4, Col 3:14). This good news is unto all but only those that believe in it are made righteous in Christ (Romans 3:22). It is then after we have heard this good news of Christ’s righteousness available to us freely, that we are sealed with the Holy Spirit and we are now part of Christ’s body the church (Eph 1:13) There is nothing that we need to do, no good works that are required, and no bad works that can separate us from our new position in Christ (Romans 8:35-39). Faith and belief in this information from God’s word is the gospel. The gospel is not accepting Jesus into your heart. The gospel is not making him lord of your life, it is not saying a prayer and it is not being baptized with water. So next time someone asks you if you are saved. Give them the clear assured answer “Yes! And let me tell you why! Find more free resources at www.graceambassadors.com
Prediction: the content of this video won't be clipped by UA-cam atheists.
As an atheist it was very enjoyable and spurred the memories of many past struggles.
I double dare you to step into Pinecreeks den and let him interview you
I took Intro to Philosophy with Dan back in 2002 at APU! absolutely loved his class. Excited to watch. I remember he said we could call him Dan but to remember that doesn’t mean we are friends and he would still give you an F if you failed a test 😂
Hey Gary! I met Dan in that class as well (probably in 2003). side note--I also remember you rocking/jazzin' that guitar with Dr. Beatty. Dr. Speak was kind enough to meet with me almost weekly at APU the following year and really helped ease my mind on some of the unique struggles we face at a Christian University.
Good interview, always appreciate when a theist can admit these problems are hard.
Fully fully agree. It was like a breath of fresh air
So Bill i assume you are not a theist?
@@torontoash45 Yep
As a vegan and an agnostic, I really appreciate Dr. Speak’s careful attention to animal suffering and the problem of evil. Really made me think! Please have him on the show again. Peace.
Cam! You should have David Wood and Dr Speak have a conversation. David's dissertation was tackling the 'best version of the problem of evil' right? It would be pretty cool to hear that discussion
Great interview Cameron!! But that last comment about atheists not wanting to invite Daniel because he takes problem of evil seriously really wasn't necessary in my opinion. That's probably true for some atheists and even some Christians (because Daniel accepts universalism), but there are great atheology channels that would like to talk with him. I think we shouldn't generalize
One thing I noticed is that Dr. Speak didn't quote or appeal to Scripture at all to make his points. I understand that when talking with unbelievers, you can't necessarily argue from the Bible, but if you are trying to convince me as a Christian of your view, you are going to need to show how it is consistent with Scripture.
I'm not going to say this is a "silver bullet" argument pertaining to the problem of evil, but it's one that seems overlooked and is a major problem for the whole "gratuitous suffering" argument. I would argue that limiting suffering (allowing some suffering but not allowing an excess of suffering) is incompatible with a rational universe (a universe that makes sense where we can study it and draw accurate conclusions, which includes doing science).
To illustrate what I'm talking about, let's take the deer dying slowly from smoke inhalation. Maybe God should have made it so that smoke inhalation killed animals quicker. However, if He had, fire would be more dangerous to us. Maybe He should have made it such that trees don't catch fire. Well, that would mean wood wouldn't burn and we would be lacking in materials to make fire, which is all sorts of problematic.
The truth is, any changes to how the world works to limit suffering has consequences that we can't even begin to predict, consequences that likely lead to what people would think of as gratuitous suffering, which we would then have to consider how to limit, which would lead to other problems that would cause such suffering and so on and so forth until we end up with a universe that doesn't operate in a coherent way.
Let's consider a paper cut. Paper cuts aren't pleasant, but we would hardly use them to disprove the likely existence of God. Now, if you get a second paper cut, we expect to feel more pain than if we simply had one paper cut. Well, what if we got 1,000 paper cuts? Shouldn't that be worse than only two paper cuts? It's only rational that suffering should be cumulative. If suffering is cumulative though, how could it be limited, how would a limitation on the amount of suffering be rational?
Maybe nothing should ever go wrong. Well, if nothing ever goes wrong, we wouldn't have to do anything. We wouldn't need to eat, we wouldn't need to build shelters, we would be perfectly content just sitting around all day doing nothing. We wouldn't advance because we wouldn't need to, which also means we wouldn't learn anything because there would be no need.
Trying to describe an irrational universe where some suffering is allowed but so-called gratuitous suffering is prevented, well it would be irrational and therefore not make any sense.
The point is, I don't think it's actually possible for a rational universe to exist that places limits on the amount of suffering. And complaining about the amount of suffering experienced in our universe, and trying to argue that it somehow proves that God probably doesn't exist is more of an emotional argument rather than one grounded in rationality.
A challenge for those who think otherwise, describe a universe that is both rational and which you believe prevents what you would call gratuitous suffering, and we can explore the internal logic and rationality of that universe to see if it actually works, to see if it is in fact coherent.
Heres what makes all this endless rationalisation pointless. Would you go to someone whos in grief, depressed, lonely, traumatised and tell them all this fancy rhetoric ?
Exactly the problem. None of these intellectual gymnastics take away the pure pain of suffering somebody goes through.
*And complaining about the amount of suffering experienced in our universe, and trying to argue that it somehow proves that God probably doesn't exist is more of an emotional argument rather than one grounded in rationality*
Obviously, the very nature of suffering is emotional. Do you think this is some math equation where you just plug in some variables and everythings solved. This is the problem with theodicies. They dont offer anything to those in pain, only endless attempts to justify evil.
@@Yameen200 " ..Theodicies ..They don't offer anything to those in pain, only endless attempts to justify evil..". Brilliantly well summarised.
@@Yameen200 you quoted the bit where I said that the problem of suffering was an emotional rather than intellectual one. You seem to agree with me on that point.
Now, tell me, when philosophers and theologians and atheist UA-camrs and so on bring up the problem of suffering in an attempt to disprove God or the likelihood of the existence of God, are they typically doing so out of their own emotional pain, or are they attempting to do it in some intellectual capacity?
The entire context of my comment is how the problem of suffering is dealt with intellectually. If you have a problem with my response because it can't deal with the emotional situation of suffering, then you should also have a problem with people bringing it up as an intellectual argument to disprove the existence of God.
I'm not responding to a person who's bringing up the problem of suffering out of emotional pain, I'm responding to the intellectual argumentative use of it, which you obviously know to be the case considering the portion of my comment you quoted. Further, you are attempting to make an intellectual argument against my intellectual argument by telling me that it can't deal with the emotional aspect, when I never claimed it could.
The problem with your argument is that it did nothing to disprove, on an intellectual level, which is the level my argument was made on, that anything I said was wrong. Essentially what you said boils down to, "your intellectual argument can't deal with the emotional aspect therefore it's invalid," which frankly isn't remotely true.
You can either deal with the problem of suffering emotionally or intellectually, but you can't do both at the same time. If you are dealing with it emotionally, no intellectual argument will be helpful, and this is true of any problem being dealt with emotionally. Ask any married person if any intellectual argument ever helped an emotional problem their spouse was dealing with. Does that mean that we shouldn't ever discuss the intellectual side of any problem? And how would our court system work if we removed the intellectual aspect from argumentation over something emotionally charged? Now, the opposite is also true, if you want to deal with something intellectually you have to check your emotions because emotions have a tendency to not follow rationality. Emotions cause us to believe things that aren't actually true. Are you going to tell me that truth isn't important, that the truth of whether or not God exists and what the existence of suffering in the world truthfully means regarding the existence of God is unimportant? I mean, the truth of how suffering relates to the existence of God isn't something that's based in emotion. What is based in emotion is how we feel about the possibility of God existing when there's suffering in the world. I was dealing with the former not the latter, and all you had to say was that me dealing with the former was wrong because it didn't deal with the latter. The problem is that in dealing with the former I couldn't deal with the latter. Had I chosen to deal with the latter, it wouldn't have dealt with the former, and nothing I would have said in doing so would rationally mean anything regarding whether or not God can exist if there's suffering in the world.
Basically all you did was make an emotionally charged but intellectually meaningless comment.
Now, if you want to leave the intellectual aspect aside and get my thoughts regarding the emotional aspects, you could simply ask, and I'll be happy to listen and talk with you regarding the emotional aspect. They are two separate things though, and should be kept separate, which is why I didn't go into the emotional aspects.
Btw, there's a difference between giving an account or an explanation of why something happens and justifying it. A person can say that they were late to work because they stayed up drinking, which certainly explains why that person was late, but it doesn't justify them being late.
@@laurameszaros9547 it's true that theodicies don't offer anything to those in pain, and they aren't meant to. Intellectual and emotional points are like oil and water, they don't mix. The fact that an intellectual argument or point or whatever doesn't offer anything of emotional help doesn't mean that the intellectual arguments, points, or whatever are invalid. Similarly, the intellectual stuff doesn't invalidate emotional responses. Now, having said that, there are people who find emotional comfort in the intellectual aspects of a situation. Some of us need to be able to understand intellectually why something horrible was able to occur in order to deal with it emotionally. I'm not saying it makes the pain go away, just that it helps some of us process what we're going through so that we can move on.
Btw, there's a difference between giving an account or an explanation of why something happens and justifying it. A person can say that they were late to work because they stayed up drinking, which certainly explains why that person was late, but it doesn't justify them being late.
@@miltonwetherbee5489 There may, as you say, sometimes be people who can obtain a degree of solace from being able to think that they understand why something horrible has happened to themselves or to others with whom they are able to empathise. But I doubt that this would ever be true of any animal species which we as yet know. I don't think it is true that atheists raise the problem of evil in order to justify their unbelief. On the contrary, I think many, perhaps most atheists find themselves incapable of mustering up such belief on account of said evil to begin with. I know this has certainly been the case for me, for almost as long as I can remember, and I am older than most of those who generally comment on this channel. My suspicion is that most believers who seek refuge in theodicies do so in order to try to justify beliefs they want to embrace and/or sustain, rather than because they are sincerely convinced by them. It is only comparatively recently that scholars in the Abrahamic traditions have even begun to address the problem of animal suffering as being one that requires explanation, which would strongly suggest - let's be frank - that they couldn't have cared less, or at least very little, about it beforehand. This callous unconcern on the part of a religious tradition that claims virtue and goodness to be its primary essence is far too incongruous and cognitively dissonant for my liking, so had I ever been on board with it, this is the certainly the stage where I would have decided to disembark
Horrible experiences, full-fledged evil, traumatic experiences. even to an extreme, can truly be healed and the person transformed by the power of God so much so the person would say she's be willing to experience them again in order know what she knows today, meaning knows intimately WHO she knows today, her loving merciful God. That I know this is possible is because I am that person. I lived this. It does take a lot of hard work to forgive, let go and choose to have the victory of Love and goodness in one's life.
Thats nothing more than wishful thinking and platitudes people tell each other.
@@Yameen200 What' are you referring to that you consider wishful thinking? Nothing in what I said is wishful thinking at all. What I shared is sheer honest personal experience.
@@mercy2453 Thats your personal feeling. Good for you but you dont get to generalise this to everyone as if its all ok.
@@Yameen200 Actually you're not treating me with respect. It is not my feeling, as you called it, my comments are based on fact. I experienced every form of abuse a person can experienced. From my early years I experienced pain so profound and deep I wouldn't wish it on my greatest enemy. I experienced evils I wouldn't write about here. I then experienced years of trauma suffering because of it. But with God's grace and personal hard work I forgave everyone, I worked hard and I m completely healed. I am a women free from any of the residue of those evils I experienced. I'm free from the emotional and spiritual and physical effects. This is not wishful thinking nor a feeling. What I now have is true interior freedom from all the effects of the crap I experienced for years. This is not generalizing anything. This is speaking proof of what is possible. I now live my life to help others heal to gain this victory in their lives. They respect me and see in me someone who truly understands where they are, because i indeed do. It's painful hard work but that does not make it impossible. This is about giving hope to those who have experienced evil. You can say whatever you want to say to discredit me, someone you do not even know. Your saying that simply tells others something about who you are. But that does not change the truth of what I have been through in my life nor does it change the truth that over 20 years ago my victory from it all was gained. I have a joy and peace in my life not even your unbelieving words can take away. The truth doesn't need to be defended. I feel sorry for you and others here who can't rejoice in someone else's victory. I wish you peace though.
@@mercy2453 I think it was Francis Schaefer who said no human being is 100% healed in this life. That makes perfect sense to me as sin runs through our veins and we live in a fallen world. My question to you would be the following: what may happen to your convictions if you were to experience profound suffering upon suffering at this point? Can you project yourself into a scenario like that?
The reason I ask is because I know a lot about childhood suffering. I also know a lot about deep suffering during my 50's and now into very early 60's. Btw, I am holding onto my faith though it is tenuous at times.
In the book of Job, property was destroyed, animals were wiped out, children were killed, and Job was overcome with nasty boils. Talk about evil, senseless and unwarranted misfortune. Job, in his pain, said, "The LORD gives and the LORD takes away. Blessed be the name of the LORD." But to what are we privy to which he was not? Is it not the debate over him? That one man, Job? Was the dreadful evil not meant to break him, pressure him into abandoning his faith in God? Were his animals and children not ruthlessly used? Does it not teach us about what is happening behind the scenes of our material world? The suffering we see for which there seems to be no reason?
It amazes me how Christian philosophers run on their own tracks to what they imagine is light, completely disregarding the signs provided by the Bible along the way to speak right.
I appreciate the banter and the talk about the couch! Though, I do think that Dr. Daniel is sitting on the throne and judging God and presuming that he doesn’t have any good reasons for allowing what he allows in the here and now. Also, the mockery of Genesis 1-3 from Marilyn Adams fits that same type of thinking, namely, that God is deficient in his character and that he is to be blamed for human rebellion.
Christianity has to account for the Problem of Evil. Atheism has to account for everything else, including moral absolutes that tell us that there is a thing called evil.
Morality is behaviour that evolved to help us survive as a social species. Talking about moral absolutes makes as much as sense as talking about nest building absolutes for finches
7:20
the problem is ... "evil" is intelligent intent.
and requires conciseness.
a fawn dying from a fire is just a fawn dying in the fire.
there is no intent one way or the other.
I think I agree. There should be a distinction between suffering and evil.
@@ChristianStuff256 correct.
I agree. I wish this were more clearly shown, however I suspect that the argument of the Atheist would more accurately be seen as “the Omniscient Omnipotent God ALLOWING the fawn to suffer when he could have intervened.”
@@micahprice2807 yep.
but it would be a false argument.
because it comes from a non-omniscient / non-omnipotent being thinking he knows more than an omniscient / omnipotent being.
and thinking they have the knowledge to judge such a being.
@@grayman7208 I agree
A thought about sin as a response to the suffering problem. One of our tasks as imagers of God is to be stewards of the planet. Sinning is missing the mark or going in the wrong direction etc. If we were better stewards, we would have a better system developed to keep animals from suffering. To the forest fire example. We have a system in place to put forest fires out. Our sin in this regard is that it's not good enough because we lazily and thoughtlessly made that system or rather haven't improved it. Probably a weak response currently but it seems to have explanitory power because it covers many examples. Tsunami deaths? Dikes were too small and the warning and evacuation plan was poor. Earthquakes? Better earthquake shelters. Etc etc. But, that's besides the other strong responses to the arguments... did Dr speak mention the cursed and fallen world?
Okay... I have an Open Theist/Universalist Defense... I'll just check back later to see if Christianity is what is being captured again.
This is a bit like listening to two Harry Potter fans speculating about how Owl Post works. Unless you have the tools for investigating your hypothesis, you can speculate all you want, but you’re never going to solve the mystery
My argument for evil and free will addressing gratuitous evil, is looking at the big picture of physical consistency in relation to free will. Should God physically provable? If it is the case that every time something happens that would be gratuitous evil, (the fawn) then physical cause and effect either has to change, or it would have to be the case that there are is a physical reason that it does not happen. If some physical reason there is not gratuitous evil, then that would have to be explained. Why this limitation? Why this boundary on physics. If no (seemingly) gratuitous evil, then that may make God obvious, therefore what happens to free will? If as observers humans can’t conclude anything other than God for this reason, then only theism is rationally true. If this is the case, then if one concludes freely not to follow or believe in God, would be irrational or mentally deficient. I believe this would create theistic tyranny. How could one hire a mathematician who doesn’t believe in math? How can you hire a science teacher who doesn’t believe in the creator? If God were a fact as true as gravity, practical faith and free will is secondary.
From a physic perspective predictably of gratuitous evil would have to be built into formulas for everything built. I would posit this would be close to impossible and an unreliable guess.
The problem of evil or suffering as an internal critique of Christianity can't logically succeed. First, Christians believe that we can't fathom the purposes and designs of God. There's no way to prove that the evil or suffering in the world is actually gratuitous from a Christian theological perspective. Any attempt to prove that there is gratuitous suffering in the Christian view requires that the person making the argument supply some definition of what constitutes gratuitous suffering, and that definition is necessarily one that comes from outside Christian theology.
A second line of argumentation that doesn't make sense as far as an internal critique goes is that things like soul building and love are insufficient reasons to allow suffering on various levels. External of the Christian worldview it might be problematic to claim that love is an ultimate good worth all the pain and suffering we go through to understand it fully. But within Christianity, the belief is that love is of utmost importance. Christians believe God is love, we don't merely believe that God loves, or that He has decided that love is worthwhile. We believe that love is a quintessential aspect of God, that it can't be separated from Him, that He is the source, that He is the objective standard of what love is. So, for a Christian, God is love, and God, being the creator of everything and being a perfect being, a being that is the necessary standard of what goodness is, is what we should be love, what we should understand to the fullest. And, with that being the case, if suffering, even great suffering, allows us to move fully understand what love is, which necessity would allow us to more fully know God, then even great suffering must be permitted.
It's simply not possible to claim that God probably doesn't exist because there are problems internal to Christianity that make God's existence unlikely. All attempts to prove that suffering is internally problematic for Christianity comes from views that are external to Christianity, does that don't follow from Christianity. Internally, the existence of great evil and great suffering is entirely consistent with Christian theology.
The problem is that the problem of evil and suffering is an emotional problem that prevents people from properly understanding Christian theology. They think God should be a different sort of god from that which is presented in the Bible. And, they are quite right to think that the evil and suffering in the world is incompatible with their view of who god should be.
Of course, I don't think the god they think should exist if God does in fact exist makes proper rational sense. I think their view of what God should be like would be irrational. And why should I be wrong to think so? We are very limited beings, unable to comprehend the full consequences of even the simplest of our actions. We create things which at first seem wonderful only to later realize that they are exceptionally harmful to us, such as buildings made with asbestos and using certain insecticides on our crops.
Further, on the Christian belief, our time on earth is relatively short, and no matter how much suffering we endure here, there will be an infinitely greater amount of time spent without suffering. On the Christian view, our time living is more like a way for us to experience things that will provide us with insights into how we should live, insights we wouldn't get being created directly in God's presence in heaven. Here we have the opportunity to decide if we believe in Him without Him forcing that belief on us. We get to decide if we are willing to trust Him, accept who He is, and decide if we want to spend eternity with Him. The amount of suffering in this world isn't incompatible with any of that either.
Now, for my view on the rationality of the existence of evil apart from God, see my other comment.
Personally, though, the evil and suffering in the world is consistent with the loving God presented in the Bible (not the uninformed, imagined views of who the God of the Bible is) and so as an internal critique, the problem of evil and suffering only revels the lack of understanding of what Christians actually believe regarding God. Further, I expect God to create a rational universe, and, as my other comment attempts to show, it seems logically and rationally impossible for a rational universe to exist which didn't allow great suffering. And, since God would create a rational universe, and because great evil and suffering are compatible with the Christian God, not only is the problem of evil and suffering not problematic for the existence of God, but it's supportive of the Christian belief.
*our time on earth is relatively short, and no matter how much suffering we endure here, there will be an infinitely greater amount of time spent without suffering*
The heaven/afterlife theodicy as its known, but heres some problems with it. If i beat up a child then give them candy & games as a reward does that justify the beating ?
How does so called heaven/afterlife justify allowing evils even when excessive ? Say a child thats born then starves to death ? What was the point of this ? How can these evils be repaired ? Any eternal relationship with a divine being would be stained with blood in that this god allowed such evils to occur. Furthermore how can you possibly compensate a starving kid. By giving them eternal feasts & delicasies ? By magically making it seem ok for people to suffer horrors ?
@@Yameen200 a problem with your analogy, in it you are the one beating up the child, and that doesn't correspond to God allowing suffering. In your analogy you are performing the evil act, which is not analogous to what God does.
Second, you used the word "excessive." Excessive is a non-specific term. Take the word "heap" for example. Let's say I have a heap of start and I start taking grains away from the heap one at a time. At some point I'll no longer have a heap, but there's no way to say when that point is. Also, what I may call a heap you may not. The same is true of the word excessive. You may see a certain level of suffering as excessive, but that's your opinion. In this comment I'm dealing specifically with the internal logic of Christianity, which means your definition of excessive doesn't apply as it's not part of the internal aspects of Christianity. You are bringing into a discussion of the internal aspects of Christianity something external and attempting to use that to show that Christianity doesn't make internal sense. But, that's not a valid way of proving or disproving the internal logic of any system.
The rest of your comment similarly fails to deal with the internal aspects of Christianity without bringing into the discussion things external to Christianity. Essentially you are saying that the internal workings of Christianity don't make internal sense because they don't match your external view. The reality is that what's actually happening is that you have a view of what the Christian God should be like that differs from what Christianity says God is like. And, it's fine to have that view, to disagree with the claims of Christianity, to say that you don't think that's how it should be and that you don't want any part of a religion that claims God is something other than what you think He should be...but none of that means that the internal aspects of Christianity are inconsistent with each other, or incompatible, which is my whole argument.
Now, you've commented on both of the comments that I've made. Essentially I've stated that God is both all loving and rational. Now, suffering allows us to understand the depths of what it means to love. Losing a child only causes us such pain and suffering because of love. If a person tells his father that he's going to save the life of his father's dear friend, which is you, knowing he will die doing do, and his father allows his son to go, knowing that his son will die in the process, but knowing his son's heart, that he couldn't live with himself if he didn't save you, it would have a tremendous effect on you. Now, I'm not saying that all suffering leads to great experiences of love. But, the full depth of what it means to love can't be experienced if great suffering couldn't happen. You might say that love isn't that important, and maybe on your point of view that's true. However, we're talking about the Christian point of view, and Christianity believes in an all loving God, and if God is all loving, being able to fully comprehend the depth of what it means to love is important. After all, we wouldn't claim that God possesses unimportant attributes that we shouldn't bother trying to comprehend. So, for Christianity to be internally consistent, if it claims God is love and all loving, it has to accept that great suffering must be possible. Further, Christianity claims that Jesus, who is God, experienced great suffering in order to save us, demonstrating the depth of His love for us and partaking in suffering along with us. But also, allowing great suffering is also consistent with creating a rational universe in which there is any suffering. As my other comment explains, if a universe is rational and some suffering occurs a logical consequence is that great suffering must also occur as there is no way to limit the amount of suffering if the universe is to be rational.
Now, so far, both here and in your response to my other comment, you have attempted to use an emotional stance to counter an intellectual stance. You have not put forth any intellectually based responses to either of my comments. For example, if you could demonstrate that a universe can be rational while also capping the amount of suffering such that it wouldn't exceed your definition of excessive suffering, that would discredit my stance. But so far, you've done nothing to undermine anything that I've actually said.
I have always and still suffer and question the needless awful suffering of many animals. specially those we eat and don't have any goodness in their short lives. Which makes me seriously start considering veganism but I digress,...I wonder how a loving God can allow such a thing. Does he not care at all for animals and if so why did He even create them, specially with the ability to fear, feel sad, and suffer.
I heard no real explanation from him for this.
Exactly !
Probably the best video I have seen on this channel thus far. That being said,
I have been commenting and arguing for many years now, that for God to be Morally Perfect or Maximally Great [ in Morality ] He must be morally good and kind to each Person. This has been 'most generally' ignored by the Apologetics Community.
A God who has the majority of Humanity ( which are unsaved ) thrown into an Eternal Hell is not Morally Perfect. A God who has the majority of Humanity ( which is unsaved ) Annihilated by first a period of punishment and then burning them into non existence is not Morally Perfect.
I am not claiming that I am a Universalist but I know that when I read Marilyn McCord Adams and David Bentley Hart that I am on the right track. However, I would go as far as to say that God must be morally good and kind to Satan and every single Demon if He is to get anywhere close to being Morally Perfect.
If evil is not overcome and defeated in every Person’s life and every Angel or Spiritual Beings life, then God cannot go no where near to being Morally Perfect or Maximally Great.
As for Open Theism: The Number One problem for Open Theism is Unconditional Prophecy. In the Bible, God proclaims that something in the future will happen but if He has to rely upon the unknown free will choices and decisions of people for the prophecy to be fulfilled, then there is no way to guarantee that what God says will happen will actually happen. People could make decisions and choices that will cause God’s prophecy or proclamation to fail. This means, that God could be wrong in what He proclaims will happen.
A God who can be wrong cannot be Maximally Great. A God who is not All Knowing in regard to the future cannot be All Wise. Namely, because He could lead people in the wrong direction or down the wrong path for their life. God would be just as in the dark about the future as we are in the dark about the future.
If, however, God can intervene in history ( just as Open Theists have told me that He can ), then that means, that human freedom is stifled or even hindered ( when God intervenes ), so that, God can bring His desired will to pass. This then brings about a huge moral problem for the Open Theist. Namely, if God can intervene in human history whenever He wants, then He could intervene and stop Horrendous Evils ( like child abuse and rape ). God could have intervened and stopped Adam and Eve from partaking of the wrong tree and plunging the whole human race into sin and death.
Open Theism, therefore, is not a Solution. Open Theism raises problems of Free Will, Determinism, Morality, and Wisdom. The God of Open Theism cannot be Maximally Great.
My View of Spiritual Reality
God created humans because he wants (he doesn’t need) beings like him to have fellowship and intimacy. He has free will, and humans have free will. God has perfect self-control and perfect knowledge, so he knows that he must always be “others-focused” and not self-focused because He holds absolute power (omnipotence).
We are on God’s level. Just as a human will not have intimacy with another species, God will not have intimacy with a being who is not on his level. [John 10:34 (NIV): “Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are “gods”‘?” Jesus was referring to Psalm 82:6 (NIV) “I said, ‘You are “gods;” you are all sons of the Most High.’”] Repeating, God created humans to have an intimate personal relationship with him. No other creatures, not even angels have that possibility. Humans are special to God. I am not talking about Mormonism.
Sin is selfishness, righteousness is unselfishness and holiness is sacrificial unselfishness. God’s absolute holiness, His purity from any selfish motivation, keeps His love pure and keeps Him from abusing His absolute power. You’ve heard the saying that absolute power corrupts absolutely. God can hold absolute power without abusing it because He is holy. God is always “others-focused.” He is so focused on others that he was willing to become a human and die the death on the cross to provide the OPPORTUNITY to be restored to a relationship with God.
Greater love has no one than this: that a being lay down His love for those he loves.
The gift of free will to humans was not just a choice but a necessity for them to have the capacity to love like Him. In this context, love is defined as doing what is best for another without requiring anything in return.
1 Corinthians 10:24 (NLT) “Don’t be concerned for your own good but for the good of others.”
Philippians 2:3-8 (NASB) “Do nothing from selfishness or empty conceit, but with humility consider one another as more important than yourselves; do not merely look out for your own personal interests, but also for the interests of others. Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, who, as He already existed in the form of God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but emptied Himself by taking the form of a bond-servant and being born in the likeness of men. And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death: death on a cross.”
The choice to be unselfish, made possible by free will, is a key element in the human-God relationship.
However, it's important to remember that with free will also comes with the potential to choose selfishness. This underscores the responsibility that comes with this gift and the need for humans to use it wisely in their relationship with God. Because of our high level of being like God (we are gods (little g) in training), we must see how seriously any action we take affects others.
Adam and Eve were deceived by the temptation that “you can be like God” by eating the forbidden fruit. It’s so sad, but they already were like God. Their sin caused the human race to be infected with selfishness, which is sin.
This is why people don’t want just freedom. They want autonomy. Freedom means you’re free to do anything within the boundaries of right and wrong. But autonomy is where we decide what is right and wrong according to our selfish desires. We don’t want to be told that we can’t do what we want to do when we want to do it the way we want to do life. Sinners do not obey God’s laws. So what’s the problem with selfishness?
Selfishness is the motivating and driving force of all sin. If you think about it, the inherent selfishness that all humans are born with IS the sin nature in all of mankind.
Satan was created sinless and with free will, but he began to think more highly of himself than he should. In doing this, he filled his heart with pride. Notice that no one tempted Satan. There was no negative influence on him. He just thought he could do whatever he wanted without regard for God. He abused his free will. He thought he could make himself “Like the Most High” (Isaiah 14:14, NIV). Then he used his free will to choose to be selfish. Satan is the first recorded sinner. Then he convinced a third of the angels to follow him. Then he caused the fall of the human race.
Lesson #1 to be learned by living in this sin-ridden world: When you are a god, your actions, good or bad, will ripple out and affect future beings under you and your domain with effects (good or bad depending on what you do) that you can’t imagine.
The Bible says that those who make it to heaven will rule and reign with Christ.
Revelation 5:9-10 (NKJV) And they sang a new song, saying: “You are worthy to take the scroll, And to open its seals; For You were slain, And have redeemed us to God by Your blood Out of every tribe and tongue and people and nation, and have made us kings and priests to our God; And we shall reign on the earth.”
1 Corinthians 6:1-3 (NIV) If any of you has a dispute with another, do you dare to take it before the ungodly for judgment instead of before the Lord’s people? Or do you not know that the Lord’s people will judge the world? And if you are to judge the world, are you not competent to judge trivial cases? Do you not know that we will judge angels? How much more the things of this life!
[Luke 12:32 KJV] 32 Fear not, little flock; for it is your Father's good pleasure to give you the kingdom.
Lesson #2 to be learned in this life: You MUST control your thought life because, as a god, your thoughts translate to actions towards others. You could destroy others with just an impulsive thought.
If God didn’t have self-control, we would all be on our way to eternal containment in flaming torment since we are immortal like God and can’t be annihilated. That is why Jesus raised the bar and said if you have hate in your heart, that’s like the sin of murder. The same goes for lust and covetousness. If you entertain sinful thoughts, it is a sin for a god.
Lesson #3 to be learned in this life: Once a god, or angel, chooses sin they are instantly addicted to self. Like one cancer cell, sin grows irreversible and progressively until the being is so completely consumed with selfishness that it will be consumed with hate and rage, just like what has happened to Satan and his demons. Sin is attractive but spiritually deadly.
Lesson #4 to be learned in this life: God wants humanity to learn by experience that despite man recognizing the truth about sin and his self-determination to be good, sin inside of man inhibits the ability to be good.
We all want to do good, but selfishness is like malware running in the background of our brains. We can use our focused willpower to do tremendously good deeds, but eventually, in quiet, unrestrained moments, selfishness begins to take over again.
Just like cancer treatments, you can manage the disease for a while. But unless you get the cure (accepting Jesus is the ONLY cure for sin), the disease will pop up again in the future and continue to grow until death.
I can see only one book.
A sharp guy in philosophical issues, a heretical one in theological ones. Strange mix. Not surprising tho.
Obviously does not believe in a literal account of creation in book of Genesis by stating that humans came on the scene long after animals existed so therefore he disregards the fall and sin of Adam of all suffering and evil in the world. This is what happens when man gets puffed up in his own knowledge and disregards Gods Word. I find that many philosophers and that includes Christian and atheist are are arrogant and lack humility. They have become puffed up in their own knowledge.
He kept saying there is no easy answer. There is an easy answer. There is no God and bad things happen to fawns, because atoms.
Guest: I’m an open theist (a view not in the least compatible w orthodox Christianity, nor Scripture)…
Cam: how bout that couch?
Smh 🤦🏻♂️
What is the problem of evil? It's a problem that it sucks, but how else is it a problem?
Does He believe in Hell? When he said he was a universalist that threw me off…
Yea me too I was hoping for a clearer answer on that. Jesus spoke about Hell so not sure where his logic comes from
@@abullard8409 Perhaps, (though the majority of places where Jesus is commonly interpreted to be speaking about the afterlife (I.e. the rich man and Lazarus) just have absolutely nothing to do with the afterlife) but the evidence that Jesus spoke about post-mortem punishment as eternal conscious torment is vastly overrated.
For a good introduction to these discussions, I'd recommend All You Want to Know About Hell by Steve Gregg. Steve goes into some background material and then gives the best case that he can for all 3 orthodox Christian eschatologies: ECT, annihilation, and universal reconciliation.
As for his logic, I think he laid out his case quite well. Omnipotence + universal salvific will probably lead to the reconciliation of all, and if God gets rid of all non-rational inhibitors, no rationally free creature will reject the infinite Good.
Universalists do believe in hell, they simply don't believe in an eternal hell.
As Christians, our philosophy must not be in conflict with the clear teachings of scripture. We should always be checking ourselves in this way.
@@YanoPratt Who determines what exactly is "clear" about Scripture though?
Universalist and an Open Theist. Cameron, this was a poorly conceived interview. This guy is not considered an orthodox Christian by any historical Christian tradition. Why are we promoting his ideas?
What? Many early church fathers were universalists like Gregory of Nissy, Origen etc. Augustine even said that many Christians in his time believed that hell was not eternal. Also just because someone disagrees with yoo, that doesn't mean we shouldn't platform them. Maybe we should be more open minded to the ideas of other people
@@zarla4204 The acceptance of heresy in the past does not justify it today. Was Augustine praising those who reject an eternal hell? I’m open to an optimistic universalism a la C.S. Lewis, but true universalism is very antithetical to Christianity given that Jesus talked about Hell more than anything else
@@whatsinaname691 Universalism is not heresy, it was not rejected by the early church. You can be universalist christian, many early church fathers were.
@@whatsinaname691 the word Jesus used for “Hell” is the English translation of the Aramaic word “Gehenna”. It’s an actual place in Jerusalem that Jews at the time considered so forsaken (because of its history as a site for human sacrifice), that Jesus referenced it when threatening annihilation. Jesus had no concept of an eternal soul that goes somewhere after death. He believed in a bodily resurrection into the Kingdom of God on Earth. “Hell” (or Gehenna) is where your body ends up if you do not follow God’s law.
Here is my problem of evil argument.
Premise 1) an omnibenevolent being CANNOT accept evil, by definition.
Premise 2) an omnipotent being would NEVER have to accept evil, by definition.
Premise 3) a being that is both omnipotent and omnibenevolent CANNOT and WOULD NOT accept evil under ANY circumstances, by definition.
Premise 4) evil exists.
Conclusion) a being that is both omnipotent and omnibenevolent CANNOT exist, by definition.
Sounds like Mackie
@@whatsinaname691 I think calling the problem of evil an argument against the existence of God is to ambitious. I think it's an argument against God's omnibenevolence. If theists said they believe in an indifferent God the problem goes away.
Omnibenevolence is not about accepting evil, its about not doing evil or being evil by nature. Premise 1 fails as a definition.
Benevolence has never even meant accepting evil. It comes from the Latin for "good will" _benevolentia_ and Old French "good will, disposition to do good" _benivolence._ Benevolence is then the tendency or desire to do good.
@@TamerSpoon3 I would like to challenge that. If I were to watch my neighbors continually abuse there children in the worst ways possible every day. I never take part but I'm fully aware of what's happening and do nothing to stop it would you consider me a good person?
@@vinnygiggidy Then I guess this is Hume
Cameron, when you bring someone to this channel make sure that they are true theists and know what they're talking about.
In this video you brought an agnostic that's not even positive that God exists! and you want him to solve the problem of evil for you?
This channel should strengthen the belief in the heart of the theists, not bringing a self describing "philosopher" that obviously haven't solved any philosophical problem in his life, even the mere basic ones that all you need to prove them is rational axioms and a basic syllogism, and what's worse is that he claims that no one can! It's a real problem when someone sees everyone is as turbulent as he is.
You should've debated him in such allegations and proved him wrong, not just say "yes yes you're right" all along the interview and negate the whole purpose for which you even opend this channel.
You brought an agnostic person posing as a "theist philosopher" and he doesn't know anything and skeptical about everything, what a philosopher.
I agree. To be fair, Im glad there are diverse views on this channel, and I think we should give people a chance to speak and for us to hear them out. But also calling a universalist/open theist's views on the problem of evil "the most honest" is pretty disappointing to see.
Bein an "open theist" and an "agnostic" is not compatible.
He did not say "I am an agnostic but if I were a christian I would be an open theist"
Though I sympathize that you want more clear cut answers, I don't recall him saying that no one could solve these problems, in fact he gestured towards partial answers. I also don't think he gave any indication that he's agnostic. He is also clearly knowledgeable about the field whether you agree with his conclusions or not.
Good interview, but it is so hard to not scream that God answered all of this in the Bible! Horrors = Job!!! Christ is the answer.
The way Cam becomes visibly uncomfortable and struggles to hold his tongue when he admits to being an open theist. 😄
I literally paused the video as soon as he said that and came to see if anyone commented on it haha
The Gospel:
Plain and
Simple
“But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent
beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your
minds should be corrupted from the simplicity
that is in Christ.” - 2 Corithians 11:3
Ask someone today if they are saved and
you will most likely hear responses like these:
“I have accepted Jesus into my heart.” Or “I
have made him Lord of my life.” “I’ve been
baptized.” “I said a prayer.” Sounds all good
and churchy don’t it; but it is difficult to de-termine whether or not a person actually
knows the gospel that saves them. These useless phrases don’t describe a thing about what
the gospel is and has left a devastating effect
of people not knowing what it is that they are
saved from nor how they are saved; which
leaves a more serious effect of people questioning their salvation.
Let’s not muddy the simplicity of salvation that is in Christ with vague church
sounding phrases that do not communicate
anything. But rather present God’s word with
clarity and assuredness. So here is the gospel:
plain and simple.
Sin was passed upon all men by one man
Adam, and death is a consequence of this sin
(Rom 5:12). Mankind has an eternal destiny of
condemnation and wrath - Hell - because of
this sin (Rom 6:23). No matter what good
works one might do we are still found sinners
in the sight of our Creator God. And all unrighteousness and those who follow get indignation and wrath. We cannot be found
righteous for by God’s law we are found sinners (Rom 3:19-20). If we have broken even
one law we are found guilty.
It is for this reason of not being able to
create our own righteousness and being born
in a sinful flesh that we need a savior (Titus
3:5). Christ is that Savior, God manifested in
the flesh, sinless, died in our place on a cross
2000 years ago. Taking upon him the wrath
and judgement that was intended for us sinners. And it is through his bloodshed, burial,
and resurrection on our behalf that we are
able to have peace with God and forgiveness
of our sins (1 Cor 15:1-4, Col 3:14). This good
news is unto all but only those that believe in
it are made righteous in Christ (Romans
3:22).
It is then after we have heard this good
news of Christ’s righteousness available to us freely, that we are sealed with the Holy Spirit
and we are now part of Christ’s body the
church (Eph 1:13)
There is nothing that we need to do, no
good works that are required, and no bad
works that can separate us from our new position in Christ (Romans 8:35-39).
Faith and belief in this information from
God’s word is the gospel.
The gospel is not accepting Jesus into your
heart. The gospel is not making him lord of
your life, it is not saying a prayer and it is not
being baptized with water.
So next time someone asks you if you are
saved. Give them the clear assured answer
“Yes! And let me tell you why!
Find more free resources at
www.graceambassadors.com