Should We Question God?

Introduction

Have you ever asked a theological question of a Christian and were told "who are you to question God?" This is all too common today in the Church. I remember experiencing this quite often as a child, teenager, young adult, and even just in the last couple weeks. I have written about the importance of asking questions about our worldview (here and here), but the most recent admonition included a biblical appeal that I believe needs to be addressed.

My frequent readers know that I often post and converse on science/faith issues. I believe that it is important that we defend not only the correct overall worldview, but also the details of the worldview. These details often include our views of origins, and these in-house discussions can get heated. My recent discussion was with a fellow brother-in-Christ. He takes a young-earth creationist position (YEC), and I take an old-earth creationist (OEC) position. In my efforts to understand his view better (and demonstrate a possible inconsistency in his view), I posed several theological challenges (you can find the details in this post: Historical Science, Deception, and Blind Faith), in the form of questions, to his particular position.

Instead of attempting to answer the question, he told me not to question God. He appealed to the story of Job to justify his refusal to provide an answer. He explained that Job asked questions and God refused to answer because God is not responsible to man- man cannot be the judge of God. According to him asking such questions means that, like Job, we are attempting to place ourselves above God as His judge. This seems like a biblical position to hold. After all, it is true that no man stands as a judge of God. Our lack of omniscience prevents us from always knowing how God is justified in His actions. However, due to that lack of omniscience, unless we ask questions, we are not able to understand God more. If my brother is correct in his appeal to Job to deflect my questions, we have a theological contradiction: God wants to be known but then will not answer our questions of Him.

Historical Science, Observational Science, and Creation- Clarification and Critique

Introduction

Early last year I wrote a post addressing the common young-earth creationist (YEC) distinction between historical and observational science (click here). It was brought to my attention that a critique of my article was recently posted (click here). The critique was retweeted quite a few times, so it seems that it resonated with many supporters of the blogger and/or the YEC view. After I read the critique, I had mixed feelings. The post did not accurately represent my rejection of the distinction (which could be my fault for not being more specific in the original post), and the author cited scholars who support the antiquity of the earth. These two things are what prompts this short response.

11 Quotes From J. Warner Wallace on Evidence For God's Existence

"The layers of foundational, regional, and locational evidence in the universe show signs of tampering."

"The totality and interconnected nature of our galaxy's unique backstory, along with its rare circumstances and unlikely conditions, overwhelmingly indicate tampering."

"Researchers have been consistently unable to identify a viable location, pathway, or mechanism explaining the origin of life. With each passing year, the level of complexity and interaction at the cellular level becomes more apparent and more difficult to explain."

"Most investigators have sought the secret of life in the physics and chemistry of molecules. But they will look in vain for conventional physics and chemistry to explain life, for that is a classic case of confusing the medium with the message. The secret of life lies, not in its chemical basis, but in the logical and informational rules it explains."

"If a model attempts to explain the origin of life yet fails to explain the origin of information foundational to life, it falls dreadfully short of its goal."

"Choice is a feature of design and a reflection of intelligent agency. Designers make conscious choices between options. Their designs often reflect these decisions, especially when other options are available."

"In order to think rationally about their thoughts, they must have the freedom to do so, but this freedom is unavailable if the laws of physics and chemistry are controlling their thoughts. The fact skeptics are free to believe their thoughts are entirely physical is evidence their thoughts are not entirely physical."

"Naturalism fails to explain two attributes of the universe related to objective moral truth. It cannot adequately explain the existence of objective moral truths, and it cannot explain objective, transcendent personal obligations. Naturalism...can be reasonably eliminated because it fails on two counts."

"No single explanation will account for every act of evil. There are often several causes involved in explaining any given episode of suffering."

"When multiple divergent lines of evidence all point to the same conclusion, you can trust you're making a proper inference."

"I believe God exists because the evidence leaves me no reasonable alternative."

All these quotes can be found in Wallace's latest book "God's Crime Scene." 

Religious Refugees and the Mission Field

Introduction

Since the recent attacks by Muslim extremists in Paris, there has been much debate on the internet and in the media about whether or not it is wise for America (or any other western country) to accept refugees from Islamic countries. I've heard the arguments for both sides. One side says we must accept every refugee that seeks asylum because it is our duty to protect their lives, while the other side says that we should not because it is our duty to protect our own lives. The debate in America has even become politically polarized. Liberals tend to be on the side of accepting them, and conservatives are saying to reject them. Liberals are accusing conservatives (mainly conservative Christians) of being hypocritical in refusing to care for the widows and orphans (James 1:27); while conservatives accuse liberals of refusing to protect the people God has placed under their protection. I have seen Christians taking both sides (yes, I'm guilty too). Since this is an issue that I do not see going away as long as evil exists in our world (it is not just an issue that we will deal with today), I do feel the need to address it.

My intention with this post is not to get political, but to help Christians think through the situation given the truth of the Christian worldview. It is important that Christians take a position that is consistent with their worldview; otherwise, they will be accused of hypocrisy, and that will be used by the skeptic as a reason to believe that Christianity is not true. This is not only a practical issue, it is an apologetic issue.