Baptismal Regeneration, A Research Paper

Introduction
The use and practice of baptism in the church is a very important issue for many reasons, not the least of these is because the Lord commanded that it be done. The extent and execution of the practice of baptism, however, is widespread and various. In the time of Pentecost, there seems to have been practiced only one type of Christian baptism. However, when the church was still young, around the second and third centuries, different beliefs and practices began to emerge. Today, there are dozens of different beliefs and forms of baptism from the sprinkling of infants, to the submerging of babies, to the submerging of professing believers. The mode of baptism is being practiced different ways. More importantly, there are widespread ideas on the results of baptism. Does baptism save a soul doomed to hell? Does baptism merely cover the sins of a child until adulthood when the child may accept his parent’s faith for himself? Does baptism merely symbolize a person’s salvation? How important is it for a believer to be baptized? The beliefs on baptism are as widespread as its execution.
This issue has immense importance in the church. If salvation comes through baptism alone, as some believe, then it is essential that it be practiced and understood correctly. If salvation comes from baptism and other “sacraments”, then it is just as important to practice correctly. If, however, baptism is merely symbolic and offers no avenue of saving grace, then it has been misunderstood and abused for almost eighteen hundred years. Furthermore, if baptism is merely symbolic, how important is it to become baptized? Why is it still practiced today?
This paper will look historically and modernly at the teaching of baptismal regeneration and its use in the church, then try to point out the validity of its major proponents. We will look at the various strengths of different views on baptism, and conclude that the symbolic use of baptism is the one most closely taught and practiced in Scripture.
Baptism in the Scriptures
In the Bible, baptism is tied to following the message of Christianity. There is no debate among scholars today that baptism is important and not an optional act for an obedient Christian. It is commanded by God. The debate is then, how is baptism practiced in the Scriptures?
From the very beginning of Jesus’ ministry, baptism is seen in the Scripture. It is a valid argument to look at the Scriptures, both the narratives and the commandments on baptism, to come away with an idea of how baptism should be practiced.
Scriptural Support for Baptism as Symbolic
Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist. There is little question that Christian baptism originated in the practice of John the Baptist. Baptism in Jewish practice was a rite that identified the one being baptized with the teaching of the one performing the baptism. Therefore, when Jesus was baptized he was identifying Himself with the teaching of John the Baptist. John’s message was twofold. John preached repentance and the coming of the Messiah. By being baptized by John, Jesus not only validated John’s teaching, but identified Himself to the public as the Messiah, the One who “is coming that is mightier than I (John), and I am not fit to stoop down and untie the thong of His sandals” (John 1:27). As the Spirit descends on Jesus during His baptism, Jesus begins His ministry. After taking this information into consideration, could one come away thinking that Jesus needed to be baptized by John for salvation? Did Jesus even need to repent? Of course not, Jesus simply was baptized by John to identify Himself with John’s teaching, to identify Himself as the Messiah and to begin His ministry. It is clear that the origin of Christian baptism is far away from anything that remotely resembles baptismal regeneration.
It is also clear in the use and teaching of the NT that baptism takes place after conversion, in fact in most scriptural accounts on the teaching of salvation, baptism is not even mentioned. In their book Across the Spectrum, Gregory Boyd and Paul Eddy point out, “Though Jesus did not personally baptize people (John 4:2), His message was essentially the same as John’s “The kingdom of God has come near,” He taught so people must “repent and believe in the good news” (Mark 1:15). What made a person a participant in the kingdom of God was his or her willingness to repent, believe, and obey the gospel. This is why Jesus’ disciples baptized only people who were old enough to be made disciples.” Again, plain biblical teaching does not allow for baptism to take place prior to belief. Baptism is not even an essential part of the salvation process.
Boyd and Eddy go on to overwhelmingly prove, from Scripture, that baptism is only after full conversion to Christianity:
Baptism is an act of discipleship that can be entered into only by people old enough to be disciples. This is why every example of baptism in the New Testament involves a person old enough to decide to follow Christ. Never do we read about infants being baptized.
For example, it was only after the Samaritans “believed Philip” as he preached the good news that “they were baptized, both men and women” (Acts 8:12). It was only after the Ethiopian eunuch embraced the good news about Jesus that he was baptized (Acts 8:35-38). The apostle Paul was baptized after he encountered Jesus and obeyed the heavenly vision (Acts 9:18). Peter commanded Cornelius and his household to be baptized only after he saw evidence of their faith in Jesus Christ (Acts 10:44-48). It was only after God opened Lydia’s heart and she believed that she and her household were baptized (Acts 16:14-15). And it was only after the disciples of John the Baptist accepted Paul’s teaching about Jesus that they were baptized “in the name of the Lord Jesus” and received the Holy Spirit (Acts 19:5-6). Without exception, baptism follows faith and constitutes the first act of discipleship made by a responsible person who has decided to follow Jesus.

From here, one can look at many other instances of baptism in the NT and see how baptism developed into a rite that allowed one’s entrance into the body of believers. In Acts 8:35-39, we see the baptism of the Ethiopian eunuch:
“Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning from this Scripture he preached Jesus to him. As they went along the road they came to some water; and the eunuch said, "Look! Water! What prevents me from being baptized?"
And Philip said, "If you believe with all your heart, you may." And he answered and said, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God." And he ordered the chariot to stop; and they both went down into the water, Philip as well as the eunuch, and he baptized him. When they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord snatched Philip away; and the eunuch no longer saw him, but went on his way rejoicing.”

It is profitable to make a few observations about how Philip practiced baptism. First, as stated above, the eunuch was baptized after he believed. After the eunuch inquired whether or not he could be baptized, Philip replied, “If you believe with all your heart, you may.” Not only is it clear that belief preempted Philip’s requirements for baptism, but confident belief preempted his requirements, belief with all your heart. Secondly, we see that baptism was immediately followed after conversion. Many people and churches throughout history emphasized the immediacy of baptism after conversion. Thirdly, we see that this conversion was not for membership into a local church, but merely done out of a desire to be obedient. All of these factors can be seen in other NT accounts of baptism including the Apostle Paul’s baptism in Acts nine.
Looking at only the biblical narratives, one may come to the conclusion that the Baptist, or believer’s baptism, view of baptism is most accurate, however, there are some difficulties.
Scriptural Support for Baptismal Regeneration
It is understandable that various views of baptism develop. There is not one explicit passage in the Bible teaching the correct view of baptism. There are various narrative passages along with commandments on baptism, from where we can get implications on how to carry out baptism, but then there are references to the cleansing of baptism, which can be interpreted as baptismal regeneration. For instance, Paul writes in Romans 6, “Or don't you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.” The catholic or reformed theologian would argue that the sacrament of baptism is seen as regenerative in this verse. However, we must remember that the word baptism (Greek, baptizo) means immerse. Strong’s exhaustive Concordance defines baptize as “to make whelmed, i.e., fully wet” or “to cover fully with a fluid.” Greek lexicons define baptizo as “dip, immerse, plunge, sink, drench, overwhelm.” Baptism is transliterated from baptizo (to immerse) therefore when one reads Romans six we should read it as such. When Paul speaks of being baptized into Christ leading to eternal life, we should understand that it means being immersed into the life and death of Christ. An understanding of the Greek helps with the implications of many problem passages. Acts 2:38 is sighted by reformed theologian Richard L. Pratt Jr. as scriptural support of baptismal regeneration. There we read, “Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” It is understood by Pratt that baptism leads to the forgiveness of sin. However, when one takes notice that the word repent is used before the verb be baptized, and remembers that baptism can be interpreted as identifying oneself with the teachings of Christianity, one can easily come away thinking that it is through repentance and faith in Christ, not baptism, that we receive eternal life.
One of the strongest scriptural supports for baptismal regeneration is found in 1 Peter 3:17-22. Here we read:
“It is better, if it is God's will, to suffer for doing good than for doing evil. For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive by the Spirit, through whom also he went and preached to the spirits in prison who disobeyed long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water, and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who has gone into heaven and is at God's right hand—with angels, authorities and powers in submission to him.”

This is a difficult passage for those who do not subscribe to believer’s baptism. It is one that points to validity of baptismal regeneration. The writers of the Expositors Bible Commentary offer this response (note that the context of 1 Peter 3:17-21 is about the flood of Noah)
Although the parallel between the OT deliverance of Noah's family and NT salvation through Christ is not precise in every detail, Peter says that the water of the Flood-judgment portrays the water of baptism: "And this water symbolizes baptism." Baptism is an antitype (Gr. antitypos) or counterpart of the type (typos, cf. TDNT, 8:246-59). Baptism is the "copy," the "representation, or even the "Fulfilment" (BAG, p. 75) of the OT deliverance from judgment. How does baptism "save"? Peter says it does not concern an external washing from filth but relates to the conscience. In the proclamation of the gospel, salvation from sin and its punishment is announced through Jesus' death and resurrection. The announcement of the penalty for sin stirs the conscience and the spirit brings conviction (John 16:8-11; Acts 2:37 f.; 13:37-41).
"The pledge of a good conscience toward God" renders a difficult expression in Greek. The thought appears to be as follows: The conviction of sin by the Spirit in the mind calls for a response of faith or commitment to Christ and his work. This is concretely and "contractually" done in the act of baptism. Saving faith ("saving" because of its object—Christ) is expressed in baptism (cf. Acts 2:38-39). Salvation comes to men because Christ has risen from the dead.

This is, admittedly, not a strong refute of baptismal regeneration. There are various arguments attempting to refute the tie between baptism and regeneration in the teaching of Peter in this passage but many of them fall short, as they attempt to do expositional acrobatics around this passage. The strongest explanation of this passage that does not lead toward baptismal regeneration, is the consideration that the passage is teaching that what saves a person is what is represented by baptism, that is the resurrection of Jesus as referenced in verse 21, “It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.” This is also seen in the commentary referenced above. The saving object (Christ) is expressed and represented in baptism.
Roger M. Raymer offers another explanation. He says the context of the passage is persecution and being blessed under trials. This is seen in verses 13 and 14. Therefore, Raymer says that professing Christ through baptism would save them from a guilty conscience. He writes, “[Peter] exhorted them to have the courage to commit themselves to a course of action by taking a public stand for Christ through baptism. The act of public baptism would “save” them from the temptation to sacrifice their good conscience in order to avoid persecution…To make the source of salvation perfectly clear Peter added, ‘by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.’” This is the closest that one can get to understand this passage as not teaching baptismal regeneration.
It is reasonable to assume that in Peter’s thinking baptism in some way is tied to salvation. An interpretation of this nature is understandable from the superficial reading of the text. However, we know that no text stands alone and all of Scripture must be taken into account. The passages in the previous section show us that, without a doubt, salvation is from faith alone before baptism. These passages need to be taken into consideration. One has to stop and ask if there is a more logical explanation for Peter’s statement in 1 Peter 3:21. Because of the rest of Scripture, including Peter’s own words of Acts 10:47, it is next to impossible to be fair to Scripture and keep the view of Peter teaching baptismal regeneration.
Historical Development of Baptismal Regeneration
There is some debate among scholars about when baptism was first believed to carry saving grace. However, when this was accepted, the baptizing of infants closely followed. Around the second half of the third century, baptism became a ceremonial rite that established membership in to the church, both the local church and the universal church. Baptism was done after interviewing a candidate on the acceptance of the Apostles Creed. There was also a great deal of ceremony and preparation. Everett Ferguson gives an account of the ceremony of baptism from the writings of Tertullian around 200 AD.
After a period of instruction that could last three years, the candidate was examined and prepared for the baptism to occur on the night before Easter Sunday. The Holy Spirit was petitioned to come upon the baptismal waters; the candidates disrobed, renounced Satan and all his works, and was anointed with the oil of exorcism to banish all evil spirits. Standing in the water, the candidate confessed faith in each person of the Trinity and was immersed three times, once after each confession. Then the candidate was anointed, reclothed, and anointed again with the laying on of hands (symbolizing the reception of the Holy Spirit). The congregation gave the kiss of peace, and the baptismal eucharist followed.

It is easy to see the natural transition from the over-performed ceremony of baptism to the belief that this rite bestowed salvation. Tertullian’s are the earliest of the church father’s writings we have today that point to baptismal regeneration. In one of his writings, he discusses that Abraham’s generation was saved by bare faith, however, in the current age; faith is “amplified” by baptism to salvation, “Grant that, in days gone by, there was salvation by means of bare faith, before the passion and resurrection of the Lord. But now that faith has been enlarged, and is become a faith which believes in His nativity, passion, and resurrection, there has been an amplification added with the sacrament, viz., and the sealing act of baptism.”
After it was believed and preached by church fathers, the doctrine of baptismal regeneration was passed on to many great church leaders of the ancient church. Augustine for instance was a master of theology and still taught that baptism bestows salvation. In fact, many times in his writing Augustine calls the baptistery the “laver of regeneration.” Augustine does not deny that faith in Christ leads to salvation, but simply teaches that baptism does the same. In City of God he writes, “For whichever unbaptized persons die, confessing Christ, this confession is as effective for the remission of sins as if they were washed in the sacred font of baptism. For He who said, ‘Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God,’ made also an exception in their favor, in that other sentence where He no less absolutely said, ‘Whoever shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven.’”
The official Catholic Church taught baptismal regeneration exclusively. Until the reformation age, anyone who denied baptismal regeneration was accepted into the church. That did not mean that nobody tried to preach a more pure doctrine. In the 12th century alone, a few evangelical preachers sprang up teaching against baptismal regeneration. Of note was a pair of evangelical preachers in the south of France named Peter de Bruys and his successor Henry of Lausanne. Both men were widely popular, charismatic preachers who viciously opposed the sacramental teaching of the Catholic Church. Five of their teachings they were condemned for. The abbot of Cluny called the teachings “five poisonous bushes.” They were, “(1) The baptism of persons before they have reached the years of discretion is invalid. Believers’ baptism was based upon Mark 16:16, and children, growing up, were rebaptized. (2) Church edifices and consecrated altars are useless. (3) Crosses should be broken up and burnt. (4) The mass is nothing in the world. (5) Prayers, alms, and other good works are unavailing for the dead.” Peter de Bruys and Henry of Lausanne were condemned to death. Peter was burned at the stake in 1126 and Henry was put into prison until he died in 1148.
Baptismal regeneration was one of the issues discussed at the Council of Trent along with other sacraments. Under the influence of Thomas Aquinas, the council affirmed the use of baptism as well as six other sacraments as a means of obtaining salvation. On baptism, they declared, “if anyone says that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation, let him be anathema.” This was, in part, a response to the teachings of Martin Luther and the new founded reformation.
After the reformation, baptismal regeneration was still widely held by Protestants and Catholics alike. The centuries of belief in infant baptism had its sway on the post-reformation preachers. Many people did not want to break from this doctrine. Around the 15th century baptismal regeneration evolved from a belief that the Spirit was on the baptismal waters and sealed salvation, to a belief that in God’s grace, He has allowed men who would later choose to accept or reject Him to be saved by baptism in infancy. This also is an example of the evolution to universal salvation continued in the second Vatican council which states that Jews and Muslims can be saved out of a desire to know God. Luther continued the practice of infant baptism, and many other reformist movements did as well.
Today, a large number of Protestant denominations practice infant baptism. There are a large number of writings that defend baptismal regeneration from both reformed and Lutheran theologians. The theology of baptismal regeneration in the Lutheran tradition changed to a non-universal salvation. G. W. Bromiley explains, “Where infant baptism is practiced, it is right and necessary that those who grow to maturity should make their own confession of faith. But they do so with a clear witness that it is not this that saves them, but the work of God already done for them before they believed. The possibility arises, of course, that they will not make this confession or do so formally. But this cannot be avoided by a different mode of administration. It is a problem of preaching and teaching. And even if they do not believe or do so normally, their prior baptism as a sign of the work of God is a constant witness to call or finally to condemn them.” In this definition of the Lutheran view, we see baptism evolving to a practice that condemns the baptized unbeliever.
In the reformed tradition, baptism is a sacrament that not only gives grace to the infant, but also blesses those involved. Pratt explains, “Reformed theology views baptism as a mysterious encounter with God that takes place through a rite involving physical elements and special ceremony. Through this encounter, God graciously distributes blessings to those who participate by faith and also judgment to those who participate without faith.” It is interesting to note the evolution of the theology from what it was under catholic theology.
Even though the reformed theologians do not accept the revelation given to the papacy, they do, however, accept the sacramental belief not at all based on Scripture. Pratt continues, “Spiritual realities occur in conjunction with baptism, but the Scriptures do not explain in detail how baptism and divine grace are connected. Thus, Reformed theology speaks of a connection as a ‘sacramental [i.e., mysterious] union.’” In Reformed tradition, the word sacrament (as first adopted by Catholics in the Council of Trent), is a transliteration of the Vulgate word mystery.
During the reformation movement, some more extreme reformers gained in popularity and were dubbed “Anabaptists.” The Anabaptists were a movement that developed in Zurich. They are known for many things, among them they are seen as the first major reformist movement that saw baptism as symbolic. They began to baptize believers that were already baptized as infants. This shocking practice was seen as a second dispersion of saving grace. Believer’s baptism was a view never widespread until their origin in the 16th century.
The Baptist movement has its roots tied in with the Anabaptists . They continue the tradition that baptism is a “believer’s privilege,” and developed the terminology and practice of baptism being one of only two “ordinances,” the other being the Lord’s Supper. Today, believer’s baptism is practiced by around 25 percent of Christendom.
Conclusion
Baptismal regeneration, despite its 1800 year long populous view, has no scriptural warrant. The proponents of the view use non-scriptural means to justify their belief. The Catholics have always accepted that Scripture is not the only revelation from God; instead every decree of the church was and is God’s Word. This belief set the ancient church system up for false interpretations to become doctrine. The indoctrination of baptismal regeneration set up a near two millennia popular tradition that is not easily rejected unless one desires to be seen as a radical. It is not the biblical view of symbolic baptism that is radical as much as it is the view of infant baptism that is radically contrary to Scripture. There is nothing in Scripture that lends itself to the baptizing of infants to salvation. The early church made a grave mistake of veering away from Scripture narrative and towards a personal eisegetical interpretation.
The doctrine of baptismal regeneration is a rejection of soli fide, the belief that faith alone saves. Justification by faith is taught over and over in the Scriptures. The words of Jesus are rejected when one accepts baptismal regeneration. Jesus said, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” Instead of a believer accepting unto himself or herself Jesus to have access to the Father, baptismal regeneration declares that the Father steers around Jesus to the baptismal waters that “bestow salvific grace” to a person that has not yet made the decision to sin, let alone to accept or reject Christ.
Furthermore, baptismal regeneration belittles the centrality of Calvary. The central theme of the entire Bible is the redemption and salvation of mankind. The cross is the climax of all Scripture. The gospel ends at the cross and the epistles have their foundation in the cross. The cross is the means by which we are saved and brought into God’s family. Baptismal regeneration replaces the cross with the baptistery. It can be argued that the devil has successfully used the “sacraments” as a means of accomplishing his goal of keeping as many people as possible from becoming right with God. If any man or woman trusts in anything besides Christ’s death on the cross for forgiveness of sin, then that soul is eternally condemned. Soli fide!
















Bibliography
Gonzalez, Justo. The Story of Christianity Vol 1. New York: Harper Collins Publishers, 1984.

Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (Oxford University Press 2005)

Evangelical Dictionary of Theology (Baker Publishing Group 2009)

Armstrong, John, general editor. Understanding Four Views on Baptism. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishers, 2007

Gaebelein, Frank, general editor, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1976

Walvoord, John, Zuck, Roy, editors, The Bible Knowledge Commentary. Colorado Springs: Cook Communications Ministries, 2000

Mead, Frank, Handbook of Denominations. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1989

Boyd, Gregory, Eddy, Paul, Across the Spectrum. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House Company, 2002

Strong, James, New Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible. Ontario: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1990

Bettenson, Henry, Maunder, Chris, editors, Documents of the Christian Church. Oxford: oxford University Press, 1999

Schaff, Philip, Ante-Nicene Fathers vol 3.Grand Rapids: Eerdman’s Publishing Company, 2005,
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf03.vi.iii.xiii.html (accessed May 2010)

Schaff, Philip, History of the Christian Church vol 5. Grand Rapids: Eerdman’s Publishing Company, 2005, http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/hcc5.ii.xii.iv.html (accessed May 2010)

Ferguson, Everett, Encyclopedia of Early Christianity vol. 1. Garland,1997.

The Irony Of Catholic Origins

Around the second century the popular heretical religion at the time was Christian Gnosticism. Among other things the Gnostics believed that Jesus secretly had a favorite apostle with whom he shared a secret message. This message was the key to true salvation. The apostle passed it down to his favorite disciple and so forth. To combat this false idea that the authority of Jesus rested with a certain apostolic successor, the church started calling themselves Catholic. Catholic means “universal”, or “according to the whole.” The idea behind it is the authority of Christ was given to any and every Bible believing church. The whole of Christian believers is to carry on the gospel of salvation. The church being the main instrument through which God operates.

The irony comes in through an evolution that took centuries, debates regarding the true meaning of “catholic” came to be centered on the person and authority of a single apostle—Peter. The Catholic Church believes that Jesus gave the authority of the church singularly to Peter.

If you are interested in knowing more look up Matthew 16:15-18. Here Catholics claim that Jesus is giving the authority of the church to Peter. The Bible says:

"But what about you?" [Jesus] asked. "Who do you say I am?" Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."

It is almost understandable that they would claim that from this verse, however, it is a classic mistake of reading a passage out of context. The word Peter means rock and the apostles and Jesus are having this conversation in front of a massive wall of rock in Caesarea Philippi (see picture). The rock being refered to is clearly seen in verse 16, “You are the Christ the Son of the living God.” Christ is the rock the church is to be built on, Jesus, not Peter. Jesus was simply using a play on words which was quite common in the Gospels. The disciples, including Peter, have the responsibility to build the church, hence all the binding and loosing talk. The disciples do not have the authority of the church within themselves. Something the second century “catholic” church knew very well.

The Christology of John, a Research Paper

Introduction

John is a beautiful, Spirit-filled, unique book written in the obedience of an apostle who passionately adored his Lord. In the book of John, Christ is magnified as the Son of God. His deity and messiahship are heavily-promoted so much so that many modern Christians come to saving faith from an understanding of passages in John. Of the book of John, Martin Luther writes, “Never in my life, have I read a book written in simpler words than this, and yet the words are inexpressible.1” In John, these words hit home for men of every age, conveying the ultimate truth of the wonderful thing God did for our sin-sick world when He gave His beloved Son to save it.
When the dying John Knox wished to comfort his grieving wife, he said to her, “Go read where I first cast my anchor.” Without further instruction, she turned to the seventeenth chapter of John and read on the great love that Christ has for His followers. The anchor Knox refers to still holds for any who would accept it in John, the most profound of the Gospels.
John is distinct from the Synoptic Gospels. In this book, many of the events and sayings of Christ that are found in the synoptic gospels are left out. Of the distinctiveness of John, Blume writes, “John does not include the birth, baptism, temptation, casting out of demons, parables, transfiguration, instituting the Lord’s Supper, His agony in Gethsemane, or His ascension.2” Instead, John stresses Christ’s ministry in Jerusalem and pays particular attention to Jesus’s divinity and messiahship.
John is largely Christological. The focus of John is on the person of Christ and the revelation of God that came through the advent of Christ. In this sense most of John’s theology is what scholars call “high Christology.” He mostly focuses on the fact that Christ is God.
The One who was God and was with God in eternity past now became flesh, and John beheld His glory. John writes to reveal that Lord and His glory in a particularly theological and spiritual framework. The deity of Christ is revealed in various ways throughout the gospel of John.

Purpose of John’s Writing

“Therefore many other signs Jesus also performed in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name.” (John 20:30, 31)

An insight into John’s purpose for writing his gospel is significant for a study on John’s Christology because in it one sees many Christological insights. John’s purpose for his writing of the book is to explain to the growing church that Jesus is in fact divine—that is, God Himself—and that belief in Him leads to eternal life. This purpose is seen in the logos statement in the prologue of the text, the strong attention paid to the signs and John’s own words in 20:30, 31. Here John writes the reason for his writing. The subject of this passage is the signs of Christ. As John narrates a rich text on who Christ is, a large part of John’s perspective is the focus on Christ’s signs. The signs are the proof that Christ is divine—that is, He is the Son of God. In John 2:11, we see the beginning of Christ’s signs, the miracle at Cana. After writing the narrative of the miracle, John says that when Christ preformed the miracle He, “manifested His glory, and His disciples believed in Him.” It is clear by this, the first of many recorded signs that John’s purpose of writing his account to the reader is to show Christ as divine, for only a divine being can manifest His glory in the form of a miracle. Furthermore, the belief of the disciples in this passage is also a reason for John’s writings, as stated in John 20:31.

I. The Prologue (John 1:1-18)

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God”
(John 1:1, 2)

The prologue of John is arguably the most profound and beautiful description of Christ found in the New Testament. The book of John begins in an entirely unique way. The first three words begin in the fashion of Genesis and after that, the term logos used here is found in no other place as a description of Christ. The term logos means “word” or more specifically it means “speaking a message or words.” It is a word that would be very familiar to John’s first centuary readers. When John refers to Christ as the logos he is referring to Christ as the human manifestation of God Himself and the message of God Himself. It is interesting that John opens up this way. Of this passage, Edwin Blum writes: “It is almost as if John is saying, ‘I want you to consider Jesus in His teaching and deeds. But you will not understand the good news of Jesus in its fullest sense unless you view Him from this point of view. Jesus is God manifest in the flesh, and His words and deeds are those of the God-Man.3’”

Today, the word logos is not as understood as it was in the first century. The word logos is where we get the suffix “ology” from. The suffix “ology” means, the explanation or study of. It is easy to see the parallels of how logos is used in John’s prologue and how it is used today.
As stated before, John’s readers would be very familiar with the word logos. This term would have been used in Hellenistic and Hebrew throughout of the first century.
Logos in Hellenistic Understanding
In first century Hellenistic philosophical understanding, logos is a universal, unchanging principal that basically is the voice of the supernatural. They would say that through philosophical knowledge one can hear and be guided by logos. On this term, J. Adams writes, "[Hellinism] seems to conceive it as the rational principle, power, or being which speaks to men both from without and from within--the universal word which for those who have ears to hear is audible both in nature and in their own hearts, the voice, in short, of the divine.4" Many other Hellenists were familiar with logos as it was taught by many philosophers, including Plato and the Hellenistic Jew Philo.

Logos in Hebrew Understanding

In the Old Testament, as well as Qumran literature, there is a Hebrew word that parallels logos it is the Hebrew word “dabar.” The divinely spoken “word” (dabar) of God in the Hebrew Bible communicates the creative powerful nature of God. “Dabar” is sometimes translated as deed. The word “dabar” is found in Genesis 1:3. (“Then God said (dabar) ‘Let there be light.’”) “Dabar “is also found in Psalm 33:6 and 107:20. It is the dynamic word of God. In Isaiah 55:11, the word “dabar” has personification as it says: “So will My word (dabar) be which goes forth from My mouth; It will not return to Me empty, without accomplishing what I desire, and without succeeding in the matter for which I sent it.”
The word “dabar” had strong understanding amongst the Jews, which were a large part of John’s audience. “Dabar” was how God created the world. It is very fitting for John to carry this concept through in his prologue as He states Christ is the Creator; “All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being” (John 1:3).

Logos in John

When John uses the word logos, translated as “word,” he does so making explicit equation with Jesus to the Father. In John 1:1 he says, “In the beginning was the Word.” This phrase obviously communicates preexistence. In John’s next phrase, he says, “and the Word was with God and the Word was God,” obviously suggesting that someone besides God the Father was present at the creation of the universe. To John’s Hebrew readers, the work of creation was ascribed to only the Father regardless of the pronoun “us” used in Genesis 1:26 in the creation account of man. Many Jewish rabbis describe this plural pronoun as the Father consulting, or speaking with angels. John’s account of the preexistence of the Word before creation further pushes John’s prologue as a parallel to Genesis.
John goes on to describe the Word as a personal being that carries within Himself the “light (righteousness) of men.” In John 1:14, John explicitly states the Word as Christ when he says “The Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.” This passage and the following verse, equates the Word to Christ in the following ways: First, this is an introduction to John’s account of Christ. This prologue is John’s introduction to Christ. The term, “became flesh and dwelt among us” is a description of the beginning of Jesus’s life on earth. Notice the book of John does not have a birth account of Christ. This passage is it. John is putting Christ’s account in a theological framework. Therefore, John puts it this way as a more accurate statement of where Christ came from as opposed to the birth account found in the synoptics. Secondly, the phrase “we saw His glory,” also is John’s testimony of the glory that he beheld of Christ. John does not testify in the book about any other divine being but Christ. Thirdly, we see Christ’s divinity in the phrase “begotten of the Father.” Here John says Christ came from the Father and is the only One who directly came from the Father. Since we know that all men and women find their origin in God, we are not “begotten of the Father” Christ is, leading to the conclusion that Christ is divine. Fourthly, in the following verse, John the Baptist is introduced as one who “testified about Him.” The One whom John testified about was the Christ. Reading John’s prologue clearly and without eisegesis, one could confidently conclude that the Word is Christ who is God.

II. The Son of God

“She said to Him, ‘Yes, Lord; I have believed that You are the Christ, the Son of God, even He who comes into the world.’”
(John 11:27)

In John’s purpose statement in John 20:31, John clearly tells the reader that one of his intentions for writing is for the reader to “believe that Jesus is the Son of God.” This is further evidence that John writing this account is not only to record what Jesus said and did, but to promote Christ’s true divinical nature. The mere title, Son of God, alone is not all that promotes Christ’s divinity. The title Son of God is found multiple times in the gospel, (1:34, 1:39, 11:27). A more concrete case for Christ’s divinical Son-ship is made in the passages relating to Christ’s relationship with God. John records, more than a hundred times, Christ calling God His Father. Four times in the gospel, John describes Christ as only begotten. The term “only begotten” (monogenes) can be translated “alone of its kind,” further evidence for Christ’s divine nature. On the phrase “only begotten,” Vine lends the following: “With reference to Christ, the phrase ‘the only begotten from the Father,” (John 1:14), indicates that as the Son of God He was the sole representative of the Being and character of the One who sent Him. In the original the definite article is omitted both before ‘only begotten’ and before ‘Father’, and it’s absence in each case serves to lay stress upon the characteristics referred to in the terms used4.”
There are many specific passages on the Father-Son relationship that point to Christ’s deity. In John 17:24, John records Jesus’s high priestly prayer, where Jesus shares about His eternity past with the Father, “Father, I desire that they also, whom You have given Me, be with Me where I am, so that they may see My glory which You have given Me, for You loved Me before the foundation of the world.” In John 17, a total of six times, we see Christ refer to the Father as His Father, more than any other chapter, thus showing the intimacy between the Son and the Father.
Furthermore, in John 5:19 we see the perfect obedience of the Son towards the Father, “Therefore Jesus answered and was saying to them, ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of Himself, unless it is something He sees the Father doing; for whatever the Father does, these things the Son also does in like manner.’” These passages show the reader that Christ is much more than a Son of God, as all believers are sons and daughters of God (Romans 8:14), He is the Son of God, the monogenus Son of God, declaring His divinity and His equality with God.

III. Signs

“This beginning of His signs Jesus did in Cana of Galilee, and manifested His glory, and His disciples believed in Him.”
(John 2:11)

Throughout the Bible, signs are symbols that refer to something else. Baptism is a sign of new life in Christ and resurrection. Circumcision is a sign of the Abrahamic covenant. The signs of Jesus are symbolic of His power. This comes out more in the Greek. Semeia is the Greek word used by John for signs and it emphasizes the symbolic character of the acts (2:11). Christ uses signs to inspire faith, validate His message as well as to minister to people. John records Christ’s signs in order to declare His glory (2:11). There are many recorded signs or miracles in the gospel of John. However, there are noticeably fewer miracle accounts in John than any other gospel. Nonetheless, John leans heavily on these accounts to promote Christ’s glory. This purpose is explicitly written in two places. In John 20:30-31, within the context of signs, John writes “but these [signs] were written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God.” Also, it is clearly seen in John 2:11, where after Christ performs His first miracle of His recorded ministry. Because it is the first recorded miracle, John offers some extra narrative and explains to the reader the purpose for the miracle. He writes, “This beginning of His signs Jesus did in Cana of Galilee, and manifested His glory, and His disciples believed in Him.”
The symbolism for the miracles performed by Christ are evident. In John 2:1-11, we have the account of Christ turning water into wine. This miracle had two results. First, it symbolized His glory, which caused belief in His followers, and second, showed Christ’s power over creation. Jesus’s miracles on the Sea of Galilee, where He walked on water and calmed the storm, point to His power over nature. The miracle of the healing of the nobleman’s son, as well as the healing of the lame man in chapter five, demonstrates Christ’s power to heal even to the point of saving a life. These signs are very symbolic of the spiritual healing and life giving ministry of Jesus Christ to all believers. The same symbolism carries over to the account of Christ raising Lazarus from the grave. This miracle included the infinite life giving power of Christ, the mastery over sin, sickness, decay, nature and death itself. Just before Jesus raises Lazarus, He gives a discourse to His disciples in which He states that he is the “resurrection and the life” (11:25). This is clear evidence that along with His care for Lazarus, Jesus preformed this miracle to promote His divinity and divine ministry.
As in the case of the Lazarus passage, there are other miracles that are connected with a discourse where Jesus explains to the people His divinity, as in The feeding of the 5000 in John 6 where Jesus declares, “I am the bread of life” (6:35). These signs are performed so that the people, as well as the future reader of the words of John, could believe that Christ is who He says that He is, the Son of God. Also, it should be noted, that some prophets performed miracles (Moses, Elijah, etc.), so it may be logical to assume that Christ had only the equivalent powers. However, when one suggests that Christ made explicit statements about Himself that He is divine, such as, “I and the Father are one” (John 10:30), “I am the bread of life” (John 6:35) and “Before Abraham was born, I am” (John 8:58), one can assume that He is in fact equal to God. God would not allow a prophet to exalt himself to the status of God the way Jesus did. The reader of John can rest assured that the performer of the miracles recorded in John is in fact divine Himself. John writes with the desire for the reader to come away with the same conclusion (20:30, 31).


IV. The “I Am” Sayings

“God said to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM"; and He said, "Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, 'I AM has sent me to you.'"
(Exodus 3:14)

A study on the sayings of Jesus is relevant to the Christology of John. Of particularly strong meaning are the “I am” statements of Christ. These are powerful and meaningful statements, that when spoken around people familiar to the Torah would have a serious impact. The “I am” statements of Christ had serious impact multiple times.
In Exodus 3:14, God gives to Moses the name God chose for Himself where He said, “Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, 'I AM has sent me to you.’” When Jesus gives the “I am” statements, He is pointing back to this highly sacred name for the Father. When Jesus uses these statements, His audacity is great as He is claiming Himself to be God.
There are seven “I Am” statements in John. His first two, “I Am the bread of life” (6:35) and “I Am the light of the world” (8:12), refer back to John’s prologue where John says, “In Him [Jesus] was life, and the life was the Light of men” (1:4). As John’s prologue professes Christ’s incarnation (“the Word became flesh and made His dwelling among us”), so does the “I Am” sayings of Christ that point to the prologue.
Of particular audacity and explicitivity is the statement in John 8:58, where Jesus says, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.” This statement is profoundly explicit. On this verse, Merrill writes:
The rejoinder of Jesus, "Before Abraham was born, I am (ego eimi)" could only mean a claim to deity. "Was born" could be better translated "came into being" or "became," since the aorist tense of ginomai ("to become") is used. The same verb is used in John 1:14 to denote the Incarnation: "The Word became flesh." It implies the event of entering into a new state or condition of existence. "I am" implies continuous existence, including existence when Abraham appeared. Jesus was, therefore, asserting that at the time of Abraham's birth, he existed… The same use of "I am" appears also in the theistic proclamations of the second half of Isaiah: "I, the Lord—with the first of them and with the last—I am he" (Isa 41:4; cf. Isa 43:11-13; Isa 44:6; Isa 45:6, Isa 45:18, Isa 45:21; Isa 48:17). The title became part of the liturgy of the Feast of Tabernacles, the time when this controversy recorded in John occurred.5
It is clear that Christ intended to claim deity here. Three clear reasons for this conclusion are: First, Christ is invoking the holy name of God (YAHWEH) that His audience would be familiar with. Second, by His choice of the verbs was and am, Christ essentially is saying, “In the past, before Abraham was born, I currently existed as I do now.” This is, of course, decaling His eternality. Finally, we see by the Jews’ reaction, they clearly understood His claims at divinity. They wasted no time in declaring His words blaspheme and immediately attempting to execute Him.

V. Miscellaneous

Christ’s Humanity

There is more Christology recorded in John than merely high Christology. However, since this is where John chose to focus, this is where this study focuses as well. In John, the gospel writer records about Christ’s humanity and human limitations. Christ had human flesh (1:14, 2:21), He grew weary (4:6), thirsty (19:28) and was dependant on His father for strength (6:15). With all His limitations, He was still sinless (8:44) and still fully God and fully man (1:14).

Called God

In John, we see the title God being used of Christ twice. Once in the prologue John calls the Word God (1:1), and second in Thomas’ declaration to the risen Christ (20:28). Here he says, “My Lord and my God.” This strong statement carries divinical consequences. Unless Christ is God, He nor the Father would allow such an exclamation without being refuted as a sin. No such refuting takes place.

Christ Accepts Worship

In John 9:38, Jesus is speaking with a blind man that He had healed. Towards the end of the conversation, right after Christ tells the man that He is indeed the Christ, the healed man worshipped Jesus. Here Jesus does not refute or admonish the man but He continues His discourse and speaks to the Pharisees. This tells us that Christ must be God or He is sinning. From the aforementioned evidence, we know the latter is not the case. In chapters, seven and eight, Christ teaches a great deal about the law (7:19, 23, 49, 51, 8:17). He preaches about it and validates it. One of the strongest commandments in the law is, “You shall have no other gods before Me,” the first of the ten commandments. It is first because of its primary importance. Jesus, because He was God, did not see a problem with His followers worshiping Him.

Conclusion

The deity of Christ has undoubtedly been under attack since Christ walked the earth. To the Jews, Christ is a false messiah. The Muslims view Christ as a messenger of God that was a strong teacher and prophet but was not divine. They reject Him as the Son of God. Hinduism validates Christ’s deity to the extent that all objects of worship are valid as long as they help the worshipper attain their goal. This is obviously not a true validation of Christ’s deity. Among the most interesting views of Christ are the Scientologists. They believe that Christ is merely a memory implant inserted into all people to give them something to believe in. There is no shortage of disbelief in Christ. On this subject Paul Enns writes:
“An attack on the deity of Jesus Christ is an attack on the bedrock of Christianity. At the heart of orthodox belief is the recognition that Christ died a substitutionary death to provide salvation for a lost humanity. If Jesus were only a man He could not have died to save the world, but because of His deity, His death had infinite value whereby He could die for the entire world.”6
John makes it abundantly clear, repeatedly, in his gospel that Jesus is the divine Son of God and is Himself God. This is seen in the prologue, the titles of Christ, the sayings of Christ, and the signs of Christ. The only conclusion that a reader of John can come to is that John believes thoroughly that Christ is God incarnate and that believing in Him can lead to eternal life. When one does place their faith in Christ, as John encourages the reader to, they find how truly faithful, divine, and real the Christ truly is.

Bibliography

Hunter, A. M. The Gospel According to John. London: Cambridge University Press, 1965.

Blum, Edwin. The Bible Knowledge Commentary. Colorado Springs: Cook, 1983.

Howard W. F. Christianity. According to St. John. London: Duckworth, 1978

Vine, W. E. Vine's Complete Expository Dictionary. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1996.

Tenney, Merrill C. The Expositor's Bible Commentary. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1981

Enns, Paul. The Moody Handbook of Theology. Chicago: Moody Press, 1989.

Thiessen, Henry, Lectures in Systematic Theology. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1949.

Tenney, Merrill, Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994

Parker, James. "The Incarnational Christology of John." Criswell Theological Review, no. 3.1 (1988): 31-48.

Footnotes

1 Hunter, A. M.. The Gospel According to John. London: Cambridge University Press, 1965. (p. 14)

2 Blum, Edwin. The Bible Knowledge Commentary. Colorado Springs: Cook, 1983. (p. 268)

3 Blum, Edwin. The Bible Knowledge Commentary. Colorado Springs: Cook, 1983. (p. 273)

4 Vine, W. E.. Vine's Complete Expository Dictionary. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1996. (p. 447)

5Tenney, Merrill C. The Expositor's Bible Commentary: Volume 9. 99. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, © 1981. (8:48-59)

6 Enns, Paul. The Moody Handbook of Theology. Chicago: Moody Press, 1989. (p. 225)

My Story

I have not always been a Christian. I did not become one until I was 21, nine years ago. Around that time I was depressed and suicidal. Christianity was a last resort for me before suicide. I lost my mom in a house fire when I was seventeen years old. I got out of the house; my mother did not. Because of this, I was haunted psychologically for years. After a time of depression and drug abuse I found myself alone without any friends or family around. I could not hold down a job or a substantial relationship. I hated myself, wanted to die, and above all, I needed a great Someone to come into my life. I soon discovered that people are unreliable. They die, they go away, they let you down or leave you feeling abandoned. I sensed in those years that God would not abandon me. I began to pray that the true God would reveal Himself to me.
I realized I needed Jesus and received him into my life when, at the age of 21, I ran into a friend of mine named Brandon Wall that was a strong Christian. Brandon was a friend that I used to party with. He tried to kill himself by overdosing on cocaine. When he woke up fine the next morning he knew that God had spared him. As a preacher’s boy he knew what he must do to be saved and he did it. February 21st, 2001 Brandon came over to my house and shared with me that Jesus died on the cross for my sin. I eagerly accepted Christ into my heart and life that night through prayer. I asked the Master to change me, take away my pain and my sin. I told the Lord that day that if he spared me from my crippling depression and anxiety that I would serve Him for life as a career choice. I knew that if Christianity is genuine, and God could love a sinner like me with His unique, infinite love, that there was simply nothing else I could do with my life that would make it worthwhile. I refer to this as my call or surrender into ministry.
The biggest change I have noticed in my life is the absence of pain or insecurity that used to control my life. Almost instantly, within a couple of months, the Lord delivered me from my pain and frustration. He has replaced it with a love for Him and a love for His ministry. He has become my best friend, my Redeemer, my Savior and my Father. He replaced what I lost by losing my mother or not knowing my dad. He gave me purpose, passion and a reason to wake up in the morning, salvation, the forgiveness of sins and eternal life.
Since being saved, the Lord has changed my life dramatically. He has provided me a stable mentality, a beautiful wife and family, as well as many opportunities to serve Him. He gave me the means to go to college and seminary to work on degrees and train to lead a church. He sent me to be a youth pastor in Ames, IA for two years, as well as opportunities to teach and preach along the way.
May I share how something like what happened to me can happen to you? Christianity is not just a religion, it is a personal relationship with God. God sent His Son to die on the cross for our sins. When one trusts that sacrifice of Christ as payment for their sins, resulting in forgiveness, God wipes the slate clean. John 3:16 says, “For God so loved the world that He sent His one and only son, that whosoever believes in Him will not perish but have everlasting life.” If you turn from your sins, surrender to let Christ have your life and place your trust in Christ’s death on the cross for your personal sins, then you will never perish but have eternal life. Furthermore, when one lets Christ have control of their life God takes your problems and turns them into something that glorifies Him, which is truly what is best. Placing your trust in Christ is the most important decision one could ever make. Do not put it off, you never know what may happen tomorrow. Place your faith in Him today.

His Eye is On the Sparrow: The Bible and the Problem of Evil, a Research Paper

Introduction

In Matthew chapter ten, verse 29, the Lord is instructing His disciples about their life of ministry. In this great passage on the sovereignty of God, Jesus poetically reveals the nature of God’s providence. He says, “Are not two sparrows sold for a cent? And yet not one of them will fall to the ground apart from your Father.” This verse is not simply implying that God merely knows the sparrow falls. Instead, Christ is saying that all things that happen in this world, even the death of a sparrow, are completely controlled, ordained, orchestrated, foreseen and come to pass by the will of God the Father Himself. In other words, God is completely sovereign. The question then remains, if God is in such powerful control of His creation, then why do disease, death and suffering exist. How can such great evil co-exist with such great good?

The problem of evil comes into the mind of almost all rational people who ponder the status of their dark world. Can God who is so fully in control, so capable of miracles and intervention into every area of His created physics, who is omniscient in His understanding and knowledge, who knows the thoughts of every heart, who is omnipotent and sovereign over the universe, allow such evil as murder, rape, acts of terrorism and natural disasters to exist? Why would He allow such perverse and cruel happenings such as sin, suffering and moral indecency to occur? Why would He allow Satan and the demonic realm to corrupt humanity? Why is He not doing something about it? Ever since humankind could first record their thoughts, the question of the problem of evil has been asked and re-asked.

George Barna once conducted a national survey where he asked adults, “If you could ask God only one question and you knew He would give you an answer, what would you ask?” The highest percentage of adults replied, “Why is there pain and suffering in the world.”[1] It is easy to see that the problem of evil is the single biggest obstacle for those who seek spirituality.

In his book, If God is Good, Randy Alcorn calls the problem of evil “atheism’s cornerstone.” He goes on to say, “Every day the ancient argument gets raised in college philosophy classes, coffee shops, dinner discussions, e-mail exchanges, blogs, talk shows, and bestselling books.”[2] Because this is such a prominent question, it is the duty of ministers of the gospel of Jesus Christ to provide a satisfying answer. To be immature in this area does not help the cause of the church. John Piper says, “Wimpy worldviews make wimpy Christians. And Wimpy Christians won’t survive the days ahead.”[3] It is also the responsibility of the ministers of the church to teach on how Christians are to process the problem of evil. Alcorn writes, “Our failure to teach a biblical theology of suffering leaves Christians unprepared for harsh realities. It also leaves our children vulnerable to history, philosophy and global studies classes that raise the problem of evil and suffering while denying the Christian worldview. Since the question will be raised, shouldn’t Christian parents and churches raise it first and take people to Scripture to see what God says about it.”[4]

From a legal point of view if God could do something about the evil and does not then one may think that He is simply guilty of the evil Himself. From an atheistic point of view, God could not exist because the presence of evil contradicts an infinitely good creator. However, from a biblical and Christian worldview, God is an infinitely good Being who cares about the pain and suffering of His creation, therefore, can, and does relieve that pain through means of His eternal plan. Proper understanding of Him and His plan for humankind philosophically and emotionally resolves the problem of evil. Furthermore, because He is the only one who can do anything substantial to relieve the evil in the world, He is the ultimate answer to the problem. Therefore, the thesis of this paper is while skeptics claim that the problem of evil discredits Christianity, through biblical teaching, we can know that God is the only satisfying answer to evil and suffering in the world.

This paper will look at common solutions to the problem and how many of them fall short. We will look at Scripture and attempt to show how God’s Word provides the most satisfying and logically sound solution to the problem of evil. After explaining common solutions, the next sections will attempt to answer the proposed solutions.

The Intellectual Nature of the Problem

Theists and non-theists have basic agreement that the problem of evil comes from the logical consistency of the following propositions: “God is all-loving,” God is all-powerful,” and “Evil exists in this world created by God.” Simply looking at these propositions, we have a logical breakdown. If God is all-powerful and all-loving, then He would not let evil exist. One of the other two statements has to be false. Either God is not all-loving or He is not all-powerful. If God is all-loving and all-powerful then the argument goes; He did not create this world and it’s evil. The logical integrity of these propositions is more formally termed the internal problem of evil. In their book, Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview, the authors J. P. Moreland and William Lane Craig breakdown the internal problem of evil into two categories, the logical version of the problem of evil, and the probabilistic version of the problem of evil.[5]

The logical version of the problem suggests that the very existence of evil is a contradiction to the Christian view of God. As stated above, God must not be all-powerful or He must not be all knowing. Since we can know for sure that evil exists, the argument goes, logically God must not exist.

In the probabilistic version of the problem of evil, the argument says that it is possible for such evil to coexist with a loving and powerful God, however, highly improbable. A Christian worldview then is stuck believing two propositions that tend to undermine each other. It is possible but improbable. This would tend to lead to little, if any, true faith in the Christian views of God.

The Emotional Nature of the Problem of Evil

The intellectual aspect to the problem of evil is simply philosophical in nature and solving the matter would do nothing to bring comfort to the people that suffer unjustly by evil in the world. When a person loses a loved one or a person is dramatically sinned against, the emotion involved leads many to think, “Why would God let this evil happen to me?” This is the heart of the emotional nature of the problem of evil. For most people, their problem with evil is more emotional than intellectual in nature. People tend to object to a God who would let a loved one die, or allow them to be hurt. People often do not rationalize the heart of the biblical and philosophical answers to the problem and simply reject allowing God to have any place in their life or belief system. In a legal sense, if a person allows a crime to happen and has the means of stopping the crime without any harm to them then they are liable to stop it. When people see God allow evil and suffering into their personal life leading to intense pain and emotion, they so dramatically, emotionally, and understandably blames God for the evil.

Common Solutions to the Problem of Evil

Many answers are popularly suggested for why evil exists. Most commonly the answer has to do with a limited view of God. Often, these are born from a need to explain away evil. One may not want to think that God would allow suffering, so they seek to downplay His power, His knowledge, or His love. Some even deny that evil exists in an attempt explain the problem. Not listed here is the Christian worldview on the problem of evil, which this writer suggests is the most satisfying answer. Much time to this common solution is spent later in the report.

The Limited Power Approach

Many people believe that God allows evil to exist because he lacks the power to stop it. Limited power is a common solution, and one that is given considerable attention since the popular decline of traditional Christian theology and the rise of postmodernism.

Postmodernism brought with it a belief system called process theology. In process theology, God is a Being that is evolving in His power and understanding similar to humans, but merely on a higher level. This view allows God to exist and be all-loving, while unable to do anything about the evil in the world. About process theology Stephen Davis writes, “Faced with evil God has his powerlessness as his excuse. He aims, intends, seeks, works and ‘tries his best’ to overcome evil: rather than blame, he deserves sympathy, even pity.”[6]

The popular book entitled When Bad Things Happen to Good People is an example of the limited power approach. In the chapter called God Can’t Do Everything, the author proposes that unanswered prayer is proof of His limited power. Furthermore, he suggests that what God can do is give someone strength inside of themselves and people around them to help get through the evil rather than take it away. He does not take it away because He is not able, the author suggests.[7]

The Limited Knowledge Approach

Open theism is also a popular liberal view of God. Open theists suggest that God does not know the future and only interacts with the world based on knowledge of past or present events. In open theology, the source of evil is the free will of man or the devil. Because free agents can freely choose to do evil and God does not know what those agents will choose, God is exempt from responsibility. The problem of evil becomes the problem of free will. Many people find comfort in this answer to the problem of evil, and can still gladly worship God through their trials.

The Limited Love Approach

Many people interpret the Old Testament and see God’s wrath on Israel and her enemies as proof that God does not love His creation infinitely, and therefore, allows evil to happen to punish those who are abundantly sinful. In this view, God’s love is limited and is not as strong as His holiness or His justice. The hate group Westboro Baptist Church tends to preach this philosophy. They declare that all of the evil that happens in America is a response to the advancement of the homosexual movement.[8] This errant view of God brings little hope to anyone in the midst of grief over the emotional problem of evil.

The Atheistic Approach

Traditional atheism answers the problem of evil by simply declaring there is no God. If God does not exist then good and evil are simply philosophical terms used to describe what takes place in the world, however, without God good and evil are relative. An atheist who applies such an approach is not held to any morality outside that which they impose on themselves. The rise of atheism in the western world brought with it many views of God and the world including many errant views on the problem of evil. Atheism spreads disbelief and relativism, which makes popular the attempt to change one’s view of God without the support of Scripture. This leads to many of the common solutions listed above.

Answering Common Solutions

In the section of this paper that answers the atheistic approach to solving the problem of evil, this writer will attempt to prove God exists and that Scripture is valid. Time will not be spent before then validating Scripture, even though Scripture is used as a means of contradicting the errant views proposed above.

The limited power approach suggests that God can try His best to overcome or stop an evil taking place in the world, but He is unable to stop it. This view is errant for multiple reasons: first, Scripture emphatically reveals God as all-powerful. In Matthew 19:26, Jesus says, “With God all things are possible.” Ephesians 3:20 says, “To Him who is able to do far more abundantly beyond all that we ask or think.” A common term used for God is the Almighty. About God’s power, John the Baptist says, “From these stones God is able to raise up children to Abraham” (Matthew 3:9). In Scripture, God’s perfect power is a basic element of God being God.

Secondly, this view is seen as errant because it presupposes that God created the world or at least set physics and evolution into motion. If God has the power and talent to create, it is absurd that he would be unable to intervene and stop evil from happening.

Many theologians who adhere to this errant solution do so because they want to explain away what is happening in the world. Therefore, this view is based on emotion or a driving need to both believe in God and have the problem of evil explained. This approach is not purely based on logic or Scripture.

Harold Kushner writes, “I can worship a God who hates suffering but cannot eliminate it, more easily then I can worship a God who chooses to make children suffer and die, for whatever exalted reason.”[9] This statement proves that Kushner believes he can choose to reject what Scripture says when it declares God is all-mighty and simply change God’s omnipotence based on what is easier to worship. Kushner wrote his work for the intended purpose to comfort the reader who is experiencing trials rather than expositing on truth, logic and Scripture. This is not a sound or satisfying answer to the problem of evil.

The limited knowledge approach to explaining the problem of evil easily breaks down when one confronts Scripture. The Bible says that God is “perfect in knowledge” (Job 37:6). 1 John 3:20 says, God “knows all things.” Psalm 139:1-4 poetically describes, “O LORD, You have searched me and known me. You know when I sit down and when I rise up; You understand my thoughts from afar. You scrutinize my path and my lying down, And are intimately acquainted with all my ways. Even before there is a word on my tongue Behold, O LORD, You know it all.”

Open theists suggest that God who created free agents does not know what those agents will choose and therefore is excused from their evil. The problem with this logic comes when God finds out that the evil is happening, why does He not do something about it. Open theism does not attack the omnipotence of God, only the omniscience. If a man is being choked to death, or a woman attacked, why does God not intervene after the evil is premeditated and before the enormity of the evil occurs? This view leaves much to be desired.

If one holds to this view as it suggests that the problem of evil is more a problem with free will than why isn’t, the God that created free will held unaccountable. God is responsible for setting off the chain of events that lead to evil just as an arsonist is responsible for lighting the fire that kills people. This view not only is easily contradicted by Scripture and reasoning, but does not even really work to take the accountability off God to solve the problem of evil.

Fulfilled prophecy does a great deal to harm this view. Hundreds of times in Scripture, prophecies of the Old Testament are fulfilled completely. Psalm 22:16, 17, as well as Daniel’s seventy weeks are prime examples of this. Gregory Boyd, who is an open theist, writes on the subject of fulfilled prophecy. He says that when the New Testament fulfills a prophecy of the Old Testament Scripture, it is simply saying, “An aspect of Jesus’ life serves as the supreme example of the point of that passage.” Rather than it being fulfilled, it is simply exemplified by Jesus. The problem with this is that Jesus (humanly speaking and according to open theism) did not choose when, where and from whom He would be born. He did not choose the day and manner of His death and He did not choose that God the Father would resurrect Him three days later. All these are prophecies written in the Old Testament and fulfilled in the New Testament, over which God had complete knowledge and control.

The limited love approach breaks down in the face of Scripture. Dozens of times the Bible emphatically speaks on this great issue. Exodus 34:6-7 says, “The LORD God is compassionate and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in lovingkindness and truth; who keeps lovingkindness for thousands, who forgives iniquity, transgression and sin.” Nehemiah 9:17 says, “But You are a God of forgiveness, Gracious and compassionate, Slow to anger and abounding in lovingkindness; And You did not forsake [Israel].” First John 3:1 proclaims, “See how great a love the Father has bestowed on us, that we would be called children of God; and such we are.” In one of the most beautiful passages in all of Scripture, the New Testament proclaims God’s great love; “In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins. Beloved, if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another” (1 John 4:10-11) Christians loving others, even those that persecute them, is central to the orthodox Christian faith. This application of Christian love has been taught and preached on for two millennia. It is absurd to claim that God’s love in limited the way those who hold this view do.

The atheistic approach to why there is evil breaks down a number of ways. First, if one believes there is no God, and the Bible is from man, it logically follows that there is no evil and no good. As mentioned before, it is relative. Therefore, in admitting that there is a problem of evil, the atheist contradicts the classic understanding of his worldview. However, atheism itself is easily broken down.

It is understandable that arguing for the existence of God is a great exercise in philosophy and one that touches on every issue. Here this writer will only briefly list basic arguments for God’s existence. First, the cosmological argument proposes that since there is something that obviously exists now, and everything that exists now must have an origin, there must be an original uncaused cause. A.J. Hoover writes, “[God] therefore must have been without beginning. An Eternal Something must be admitted by all, theist, atheist and agnostic.”[10]

Among the most convincing proofs of God’s existence is also one that validates the Bible and therefore, inadvertently, proves the Christian worldview that is the existence of fulfilled prophecy. Fulfilled prophecy is seen dozens of times in Scripture. Among the most notable is Psalm 22:16-18, “For dogs have surrounded Me; The congregation of the wicked has enclosed Me. They pierced My hands and My feet; I can count all My bones. They look and stare at Me. They divide My garments among them And for My clothing they cast lots.” In this passage, written 900 years before Christ was born, the writer of Psalms writes what Christ would go through from His Christ’s perspective. Here we have three very specific prophecies that are fulfilled. First, the piercing of hands and feet is a reference to the manner of Christ’s death. Second, the reference to bones implies that not one of Christ’s bones would be broken. This is fulfilled in John 19:36. Thirdly, the mention of casting lots for clothing is fulfilled in John 19:24. Other fulfilled prophecies include Christ being born of a virgin from Isaiah 7:14, fulfilled in Matthew 1:20-23; Christ being born in Bethlehem from Micah 5:2, fulfilled in Matthew 2:1; and Christ being betrayed for 30 pieces of silver from Zechariah 11:12-13, fulfilled in Matthew 26:14-15. This is just a few of hundreds of prophecies throughout the Old and New Testaments that are fulfilled. The atheistic approach breaks down dramatically in light of the overwhelming evidence stacked against it.

Biblical Teaching on the Problem of Evil

Answering the Intellectual Aspect of the Problem of Evil

In the world of Christian philosophy, the intellectual nature to the problem of evil takes its shape from the following two points: (1) An omnipotent benevolent God exists, and (2) evil exists. This is the same description to the problem mentioned above, but simplified. The atheist would look at these two views and say that the Christian worldview is false. Of course, these two propositions are not the whole of the Christian worldview. J. P. Moreland and William Lane Craig borrow from the ideas of Alvin Plantinga as they deal with this issue in the book Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview. In this work, they write the following:

“There is no explicit contradiction between [the two propositions]. If the atheist thinks they are implicitly contradictory, then he must be assuming some hidden premises that would serve to bring out the contradiction and make it explicit. But what are those premises? There seems to be two: (1) If God is omnipotent, then he can create any world that He desires. (2) If God is omnibenevolent, then He prefers a world without evil over a world with evil.”[11]

The authors point out here what is popularly added by atheists to the original two propositions. Atheism argues when the benevolent God would prefer an absence of evil, it is only logical that He would create a world without evil. Evil exists, therefore, the argument goes, God does not. Moreland and Craig pick up the defense, “Not only has the atheist failed to prove that God and evil are inconsistent, but we can, on the contrary, prove that they are consistent. In order to do that, all we have to do is provide some possible explanation of the evil in the world that is compatible with God’s existence. And the following is such an explanation:

(5) God could not have created a world that had so much good as the actual world but had less evil, both in terms of quantity and quality; and, moreover, God has morally sufficient reasons for permitting the evil that exists.”[12]

This provides sufficient reasoning for the consistency of the existence of God and evil. It is permissible by God that such evil exists. Because of God’s moral reasoning, He is allowing evil for the time being. Moreland and Craig go on to say, “Because it is the atheist who claims to have discerned a contradiction within theistic truth claims, it is the atheist who bears the burden of proof to show that there is no possible world in which (1) and (2) are true. That is an enormously heavy burden, which has proved to be unbearable. After centuries of discussion, contemporary philosophers including most atheists and agnostics have come to recognize this fact. It is now widely admitted that the logical problem of evil has been solved.”[13]

Answering the Emotional Aspect to the Problem of Evil

Understanding the basic tenants to the Christian worldview is by far the most satisfying of all answers to the problem of evil. Not only can one who is suffering be comforted by the teachings of Scripture, but often Christians can thrive in the midst of suffering. Many Christians claim that when they are hurting the worst they find that God is the closest. Before we get into how God comforts emotional toil in the life of a Christian, we will cover some teachings essential to understanding the Christian worldview.

God is infinitely wise. In understanding that God is omniscient in His knowledge, the Bible also teaches that God is infinite in His understanding. In Psalm 139:6, David writes, “Such knowledge is too wonderful for me; It is too high, I cannot attain to it.” Under inspiration, David admits that God’s wisdom is beyond comprehension. Later in Psalm 147:5, Scripture says, “Great is our Lord and abundant in strength; His understanding is infinite.” His understanding is even called perfect, “Do you know about the layers of the thick clouds, the wonders of one perfect in knowledge” (Job 37:16) Knowing that God is infinite and perfect in His omniscience brings comfort that He can be trusted. Because His understanding is beyond human comprehension, it makes no sense to critique the creative work of God.

Understanding God’s plan is essential to understanding why God allows evil. In the creation account, God is not the one who ushers in evil. Satan is. When God finished His work of creation, He saw that it was without evil. “God saw all that He had made, and behold, it was very good” (Genesis 1:31) Satan ushered in the fall, and with it great evil. In Genesis 3, Satan tempts Eve. The Bible says,

The serpent said to the woman, "You surely will not die!”For God knows that in the day you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil." When the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was desirable to make one wise, she took from its fruit and ate; and she gave also to her husband with her, and he ate. Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves loin coverings.

The Bible makes it clear that Satan and mankind’s sin is the source of evil, not God. To ascribe God as the author of sin is unbiblical and untrue. The fall of man brought with it human freedom to do evil. In his book, The Problem of Pain, C.S. Lewis accounts as much as four-fifths of human suffering is a result of the misuse of human freedom. Lewis goes on in his book to note that Scripture associates Satan with disease (see, for example, Job; Luke 13:16; 1 Corinthians 5:5; 1 Timothy 1:20)

When understanding God’s plan, one comes to realize that suffering is temporary. Revelation 21 describes future events in God’s plan. In verses one through four the apostle John writes:

I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea. And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God. And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.

This passage and others like it brings great comfort to all who believe in Christ. God will usher in a time of great bliss—one where God is present and evil is not. Note verse four, “God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes… neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.”

God’s entire plan since the fall has been for the purpose of first, glorifying Himself, and second, relieving sin and suffering. This is the reason Christ came into the world. Jesus came to earth a man to die for our sins (John 3:16). Faith in His death and resurrection brings salvation and eternal life for the believer (Romans 10:9, 13). Jesus suffered more than humans can understand when He took on the sins of the world after His torture and crucifixion. About this, Moreland and Craig say, “Christ endured a suffering beyond all understanding: He bore the punishment for the sins on the whole world. None of us can comprehend that suffering. Though He was innocent, He voluntarily underwent incomprehensible suffering for us. Why? Because He loves us so much. How can we reject Him who gave up everything for us?”

It becomes a paradox then that we are the ones who are creating suffering and we deserve the punishment. It can be argued that God is the ultimate victim of sin and suffering as it affected His plan for the world and violated His perfectly holy nature. His entire plan since the fall has been to alleviate suffering and to establish heaven and earth as He intended before the fall. The death of Jesus is one of the first steps in that plan. In the book Where is God When it Hurts, Philip Yancy writes, “The fact that Jesus came to earth where He suffered and died does not remove pain from our lives. But it does show that God did not sit idly by and watch us suffer in isolation. He became one of us. Thus, in Jesus, God gives us an up-close and personal look at His response to human suffering. All our questions about God and suffering should, in fact, be filtered through what we know about Jesus.”[14] Yancy sees God as not only the satisfying answer to why God allows suffering, but also the example of how to deal with suffering.

Joni Erickson Tada who is a victim suffering herself has written much on the problem of suffering. After a car accident left her a quadriplegic, Tada spent much time coming to terms with why God allows suffering. In her book, When God Weeps, Tada seems to capture the essence of the emotionality of great suffering. She writes, “When a person is sorely suffering people are like hurting children looking up into the faces of their parents, crying and asking, ‘Daddy, why?’ Those children don’t want explanations, answers, or ‘reasons why’; they want their daddy to pick them up, pat them on the backs, and reassure them that everything is going to be ok.” In the midst of suffering, God is the only satisfying answer because He can personally comfort us with a presence we can sense. Tada goes on to write, “God, like a Father, doesn’t just give advice. He gives Himself. He becomes the husband to the grieving widow (Isaiah 54:5). He becomes the comforter to the barren widow (Isaiah 54:1). He becomes the Father to the orphaned (Psalm 10:14). He becomes the bridegroom to the single person (Isaiah 62:5). He is the healer to the sick (Exodus 15:26). He is the wonderful counselor to the confused and depressed (Isaiah 9:6).”[15] Because God gives of Himself, He does more to help suffering than anyone can do. He does more than the non-believer gives Him credit for. He does far more abundantly beyond all that we ask or think.

Conclusion

The Christian worldview is the only solution that comes close to a satisfying answer to the problem of evil. Reason and Scripture prove and validate the existence of God and the reliability of Scripture. Through faith in Christ, we can have a close walk with the One who has given, gives and will continue to give of Himself over, and over, to alleviate our suffering. Through understanding whom He is and His plan for us, we can know that our suffering matters to the Almighty. We do not even have to be good for Him to enter our lives and help us in our time of need. He does that because He loves us, and He loves us enough to die on the cross for our sin, to bring about the ultimate answer to the problem of evil. Through His future plan, we will live in a world that does not know sin, suffering, death, disease or even tears. I praise God that I know Him, that He has helped me through my mother’s fiery death and through other suffering in my life, and that he has taken the enormity of my sin, which caused Him pain, and took it on the cross when He died.

The cross of Calvary speaks louder on the finality of evil than any cacophony of sounds or philosophical ramblings ever could. Compared to the cross, any proposed answer is silly and absurd. When Christ took the nails, He became the end of suffering. He became the greatest love humanity could ever know. Of this great act, C.S. Lewis writes:

Love’s as hard as nails

Love is nails:

Blunt, thick, hammered through

The medial nerves of One

Who, having made us, knew

The thing He had done,

Seeing (with all that is)

Our cross and His[16].

God is sovereign. He knows the happenings of His entire created world. He understands the intense emotion of human pain and agony. He cares infinitely. He intervenes physically and spiritually. He is not apart from any suffering, not even that of a sparrow when it falls. With divinity such as His, who could turn away?

Bibliography

Philip Yancy. Where is God when it Hurts. Grand Rapids, MI. Zondervan Publishing House, 1990

Joni Eareckson Tada and Steve Estes. When God Weeps. Grand Rapids, MI. Zondervan 1997

James Moreland and William Lane Craig. Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview. Downers Grove, Il. Intervarsity Press, 2003

Harold S. Kushner, When Bad Things Happen to Good People New York: Schocken Books, 1981

Stephen T. Davis, “God the Mad Scientist: Process Theology on God and Evil,” Themelios 5, no.1 (1979): http://s3amazonaws.com/tgc-documents/journal-issues/5.1_Davis.pdf

Lee Strobel, The Case for Faith Grand Rapids, Mi: Zondervan, 2000.

Randy Alcorn, If God is Good. Colorado Springs, Co: Multnomah Books, 2009

Gregory Boyd. Is God to Blame? Downers Grove, IL. InterVarsity Press, 2003

Henry Morris and Henry Morris III. Many Infallible Proofs. Green Forrest, AR. Master Books, 1974

Bart Ehrman. God’s Problem. New York, NY. HarperCollins Publishers, 2008

C. S. Lewis. The Problem of Pain. New York, NY. Macmillan, 1962

Josh McDowell and Don Stewart. Answers. Carol Stream, IL. Tyndale House, 1980


[1] Lee Strobel, The Case for Faith Grand Rapids, Mi: Zondervan, 2000. (p. 38)

[2] Randy Alcorn, If God is Good. Colorado Springs, Co: Multnomah Books, 2009, ( p. 11)

[3] Ibid. p. 12

[4] Ibid. p. 14

[5] James Moreland and William Lane Craig. Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview. Downers Grove, Il. Intervarsity Press, 2003 (p. 537)

[6] Stephen T. Davis, “God the Mad Scientist: Process Theology on God and Evil,” Themelios 5, no.1 (1979): http://s3amazonaws.com/tgc-documents/journal-issues/5.1_Davis.pdf

[7] Harold S. Kushner, When Bad Things Happen to Good People New York: Schocken Books, 1981 (p. 176)

[8] Fred Phelps, “‘God Loves Everyone’ The Greatest Lie Ever Told: 701 Passages Proving God’s Hate and Wrath for most of Mankind,” http://www.westborobaptistchurch.com/written/reports/20060331_god-loves-everyone-lie.pdf

[9] Harold S. Kushner, When Bad Things Happen to Good People New York: Schocken Books, 1981 (p. 134)

[10] A.J. Hoover, Evangelical Dicitonary of Theology Grand Rapids, MI. Baker Academic 2009 (p. 489)

[11] James Moreland and William Lane Craig. Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview. Downers Grove, Il. Intervarsity Press, 2003 (p. 538)

[12] Ibid. p.539

[13] James Moreland and William Lane Craig. Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview. Downers Grove, Il. Intervarsity Press, 2003 (p. 541)

[14] Philip Yancy. Where is God when it Hurts. Grand Rapids, MI. Zondervan Publishing House, 1990 (p. 234)

[15] Joni Eareckson Tada and Steve Estes. When God Weeps. Grand Rapids, MI. Zondervan 1997 (p. 125)

[16] Philip Yancy. Where is God when it Hurts. Grand Rapids, MI. Zondervan Publishing House, 1990 (p. 235)