Video Transcript: The C/R Reply

We're now going to look at what replies are available to us against this criticism  of belief in God, if we do it from the Cappadocian reformational theology that I  called C/R theology, which has very different assumptions. First of all, the  Cappadocian reformational view will not start an argument with God is the being with all only perfections. If there are perfections, God created them says Basil of Caesarea, and God does not relate to us, he doesn't reveal that he relates to us, as this perfection that perfection the other perfection, or even the unity of them.  In fact, Scripture never says, God's perfect in the sense that Plato meant it. And  the only one of the few places in the New Testament where that term perfection  arises, is when Jesus says to His disciples, you be perfect as your Father in  heaven is perfect. Well, if perfect, there meant what the AAA theology says it  means. Jesus would be telling them to be God. But of course, that's not what's  their goal. The Hebrew use of the word perfection always meant complete, not  an infinite mode of possessing a property that makes everything better to have it than not. What it what it means. What he means in that context, is you be  completely faithful to your end of the covenant as God is completely faithful to  his end. That has nothing to do with perfections in the Platonic sense of the  word. So nobody who knows the Cappadocian reformational position would ever agree with premise one. Let's go to premise two. If God is all good, he would not want undeserved suffering to exist. And the reply here is that God, God is hugely good, and offers that goodness to us, chiefly, in the way of making himself  known and offering us redemption. God is good in just the ways he has chosen  to be, and that he tells us about God is not ever said to be good in Scripture, in  the sense of being as good as possible to as many people as possible. That's  nowhere. That's not the scripture at all. In fact, there's plenty against that. So  premise two, I think, the Cappadocian reformational position, would, would say,  needs to be rewritten or that needs to be just rejected. It's not the case that  God's goodness is such that he could not allow any undeserved suffering  whatsoever to occur. And, indeed, you heard me quote, Isaiah in our last  segment, I create disaster I, the Lord do all these things. So whether we receive  good from God's hand or suffering from God's hand, it's still from God's hands.  And he's still the one who loves and cares for us and offers us redemption, and  eternal life with him. Those are the main ways that God is good, in that He sent  His Son to die and pay the penalties and fix up the relation between humanity  and God. So it's not just open ended. It's not that God possesses a perfection,  he can't help but possess. And it bids him always, always to do a certain line of  action rather than another. Same thing for premise three, if God were all  powerful, he could stop any undeserved suffering. Well, God's powerful enough  to stop any undeserved suffering. Certainly, but power again, is not a perfection  in the C/R theology, it's not an infinite mode of a characteristic that he cannot  help but have, and which bids him do what he does. That's not it. God has all  the power he needs at any time. First of all, he's in control of all the powers that 

are in the world. And secondly, he can step into the world and exercise whatever power he wishes at any time that he wishes. So, undoubtedly, that's what  happened when he raised Jesus Christ from the dead. But it's not an abstract  philosophical concept of power in the way that this argument tries to make it in  making it a platonic perfection. So we we have reservations about premise  three, too that it needs some serious reworking premise four there's undeserved suffering in the world. Of course, we agree. And anybody who says there isn't, I  suppose, has either lead an unthinkably sheltered life and never suffered hunger undeservedly or has perhaps bought into an idiology that says, well, there  appears to be but isn't real, such as the answer of Hinduism and Buddhism. So  then the conclusion is either God is not all good or not all powerful. Well, I say  God isn't either one in the sense that's defined here, as possessing a perfection  He didn't create and has no control over. That's not it. That's not true at all. But  then it doesn't follow, therefore, that God doesn't exist either. Because the  premises are false. We don't we're not compelled to accept the conclusion. So I  think that at least three of the four premises are, are objectionable as they  stand, they are false as they stand four is true. And five and six follows from 1,  2, 3, 4. But since three of them are false, so So are those conclusions? That  God isn't all good or all powerful? If you mean by all, that he possesses the  perfection that compels him to do the good thing under every circumstance  where he possibly could, then I don't agree with that either. I think that's not true. That's why he says he creates disaster there's another place in Scripture that  deals with this question of undeserved suffering. An entire book of the Bible is  devoted to it. And it's, it's the book of Job. This is the book is named for the main character, it looks like the word job in English, but it's pronounced Job. And what happens here in the story, and that is summarized the beginning and read to the end. So what happens in the story is that there's a man who's good, he loves  God, and he tries to be good to his fellow man. He doesn't oppress people, he  doesn't cheat them in business. He becomes fantastically wealthy. In the story,  Job is so wealthy that when his children get married, he gives each one of them  a ranch for a wedding present. That's, that's pretty wealthy. And, and life is good. And then God allows Satan to test him. To test his faith. And so bad things begin to happen. His children are killed, some of them are killed by a tornado, children  are wiped out his business goes to pot, his wife turns on him and says, I can't  stand it. I'm not going to stay here. I'm not gonna stay here. Why don't you curse God and die. That's big help. She leaves a Job breaks out the terrible disease.  That means he has to go live in the valley of the lepers. So that's where he ends up. And he says, I don't know why God is doing this. I don't know why he lets  this happen to me. When they're I haven't done anything to deserve it, at least  nothing I can see. Now after he's there for quite a while some of his friends  come. And they can't they come to comfort him, they really feel sorry, they're  concerned for Job. They have a real care for him. But the advice that they give, 

uniformly goes like this. Look, we're sorry to see you in this state. But you have  it within your power to correct it. God couldn't allow this to happen to you unless  you deserved it. So if you just confess whatever it is you did to God, he'll restore you. You'll your wife will come back to you will be wealthy again. And Job says, I  

didn't do anything. What did I do. Tell me who I ever cheated. Who did I  oppress? Did I not give money to help care for the widow and the orphan? And  the sick? What what did I do tell me? Listen, he says to his friends, if God  himself came down here, I would tell God I didn't do anything to deserve this.  What we have to face Job says is that Sometimes God allows the wicked to  prosper. And those who love him suffer. And his friends have a fit Whoa, what  did you just say? That's slander against God you I hope God didn't hear that you don't don't talk like that. This goes back and forth and back and forth for some  time, each one of these friends making a speech. And then finally at the end of  the story, and that's where the point of all Hebrew literature is at the end. God  does appear. And here it is chapter 42. God then said these things to Eliphaz,  that was one of Job's friends. I'm angry with you and your two friends, because  you have not spoken about me was true as my servant Job has. Did you hear  that? Job said, at times God lets the wicked prosper, and the good suffer? And  the friend says, no, no, he's perfect. He couldn't do that. See the idea of  perfections that control God, the Platonic idea, that's what they're working under. God is all good. In a sense, he just can't help. There isn't a good that he could  do that he doesn't do. God says, You haven't told the truth about me, and Job  did. So they'll go offer sacrifices. And my servant Job will pray for you. And I will  accept his prayer, and not deal with you according to your folly. And God says  the same thing to the other two friends. After Job prayed for his friends, the Lord did make him prosperous again, and gave him twice as much as he had before.  But the point of the story was, God can't be judged by the standards that apply  to us. He created those standards. Is he good? Anyway? Yes. In whatever way  he chooses to be and promises to be. But we have no position to say that he's  to be judged by the standards that apply to us. That's why I started with that  illustration of me sitting by the pool, and not rescuing a little kid that falls in. And  I said, if you wouldn't call me good, how can you call God good, because of all  the good that he does for us? Because It's he who gives us life, and he who  offers to Redeem us and every other man, woman and child whoever lived.  That's why he's good. And that's the sense in which he's good. Is he good in the  sense that he makes only good things happen to good people? No. And he  never promised to be. And right here, he says, Job spoke the truth. At times I do  let the wicked prosper. And those who are good suffer. And you told him no. So  you have to ask offer sacrifice to be forgiven. This is a powerful comment on  Porphyry's argument. Porphyry heard people that were committed to the what I  call the triple A theology, that God has being with all and only perfections. And so his rebuttal, in the form of this argument, is a very good one of that theology. I 

don't think the replies to try to save it work. I think this wins against that  theology, but it's the wrong theology. God is not to be understood by us by  combining a pagan theory with what Scripture says. God's to be understood, as  he reveals it makes Himself known in his Word in our lives, as He guides us,  and not by appealing to a pagan theory about postulated entities called  perfections that may exist in some great barnyard in the sky. And then if we take  them and say, Oh, no, they're not in that barnyard, they're all in God. That's even worse. It corrupts the biblical doctrine of God. And it makes it into something that it was it was not given to be. And I think that's the reply to the problem of evil.  Here's another way to put the reply. Why does God let the good suffer? We don't know. The answer isn't the soul making argument or maximizing good argument, the freewill argument? I haven't given an argument. I said, I've shown you that  the argument that the Porphyy's proof here that God doesn't exist, is rooted in  based on a theology that's false. That doesn't do away with the question, Why  does God Let the wicked prosper? And the good sometimes suffer? And the  answer to that is, we don't know. That's just God's will. And there is no answer  past something being God's will. doesn't make it any easier to live with except to know that what suffering does come our way is, God still is in control. And he still will keep his promises of love, forgiveness, and everlasting life. Scriptures don't  go out of their way to say, oh, Satan causes all the natural disasters. No, they  quote, God is saying I do it. But that's all the more reason why we can have  confidence in God. He doesn't do what he often doesn't do something because  he didn't promise to but he always keeps his promises. That's the main burden  of the book of Hebrews in the New Testament. We can count on God promises  just the same way we count or don't count on other people's by their past record of keeping their promises, God's record's perfect says Hebrews. Perfect, not as  a platonic perfection. It's complete in the Jewish sense of perfection. There are  no exceptions to God keeping his promises. No. All of this bears on the idea of a Christian philosophy and I don't want you to forget how. So let's lrt mr go back  over where we've come. We've looked at two different theologies explaining the  nature of God, which I've argued that one is biblically based, and the other is  based in the, in the, in the theory of Plato, who is a pagan thinker didn't know  God, and he did the best he could try to explain things. But to take that theory  and put together with what Scripture says and declare that the whole picture  about God is is a huge mistake. If you do that, not only does it lead you to say,  as Thomas did that God has no real relation to creatures. It leads to this  argument. That leads to the argument from the called the problem of  undeserved suffering evil. And the replies that are available to people on the  basis of that AAA theology don't work. By contrast, the Cappadocian  reformational view I think does work. It certainly does allow the God has  characteristics that are not essential to him. God has characteristics that aren't  perfection, real relations to us. He feels real anguish when we sin against Him. 

He feels real joy when sinners repent. He shows real love, in fact, the greatest  love we'll ever know incarnate in Christ and when and offered to us. And finally,  not only does it have the Cappadocian reformational, do you have a reply to the  problem of evil? In one sense, that shows why that argument doesn't work. In  another sense. It doesn't explain why God does, God does allow the absurd  suffering that he does. But with this behind us, we can now turn to the idea of a  Christian philosophy. And I will in the next few sections be showing you why and  how the AAA view forbids a Christian philosophy and why and how the  Cappadocian reformational view calls for a Christian philosophy and then we will look at one that has been proposed by a Christian thinker. So those are the  adventures yet to come. And I hope that you will enjoy them as much as I will  enjoy presenting them to you