Matt Capps Philosophy, Religion, Thoughts

The Books that ‘Shaped’ C.S. Lewis

More than just an author (which is how most of us know him today), C.S. Lewis was an avid reader. More than that, he was an avid reader of books on Christian doctrine. He always pointed to books of doctrine over ‘devotion’. In Lewis’ introduction to a particular translation of Athanasius work ‘On the Incarnation’ he wrote,

“for my own part I tend to find the doctrinal books often more helpful in devotion than the devotional books, and I rather suspect that the same experience may await many others. I believe that many who find that ‘nothing happens’ when they sit down, or kneel down, to a book of devotion, would find that the heart sings unbidden while they are working their way through a tough bit of theology with a pipe in their teeth and a pencil in their hand.”

I think this points us to an important idea pertaining to good writing, it requires hard thinking.

I agree with Lewis, my own experience attests to this. Even when it comes to subjects other than Christian theology, I would rather be challenged than spoon fed. But…I have always been curious to what books made Lewis’ heart sing?

Well, we might have one source. In 1962, The Christian Century magazine published C.S. Lewis’s answer to the question, “What books did most to shape your vocational attitude and your philosophy of life?” While some of the books listed are not solely focused on the subject of Christian theology, we can gleam something about the life and mind of Lewis.

Here is C.S. Lewis’s list.

1. Phantastes by George MacDonald.
2. The Everlasting Man by G. K. Chesterton.
3. The Aeneid by Virgil.
4. The Temple by George Herbert.
5. The Prelude by William Wordsworth.
6. The Idea of the Holy by Rudolf Otto.
7. The Consolation of Philosophy by Boethius.
8. Life of Samuel Johnson by James Boswell.
9. Descent into Hell by Charles Williams.
10. Theism and Humanism by Arthur James Balfour.

Matt Capps Life, Religion, Thoughts

Nate Saint: The Life of a Missionary Martyr

I just finished the book Jungle Pilot, it is the story of Nate Saint, pilot, mechanic, and infamous missionary martyr. The most intriguing thing about this book is that the majority of the text is composed of Saint’s personal letters to loved ones. In every page it is extremely evident that Saint loved pioneering missions; he once wrote of this work as the “call of God to the regions beyond the ends of civilization’s roads- where there is no other form of transportation…(probing) the frontiers to the limit of physical capacity” with prayer “for a means of reaching the regions beyond.” The grounding for such a passion in reaching the lost was formed at a young age. The Saint family was devout when it came to the Christian disciplines; one of Nate’s siblings described their parents as ruling the house with a good mix of Old Testament law and New Testament grace. Lawrence and Katherine Saint carefully taught their children the ways of the Lord, in the end three became missionaries and one a preacher. His brother Dan vividly recalls memories of a young Nate during family devotions continually praying that the Lord would ‘show the right way’. This prayer seemed to mark his life and mission.

Nate always had a strong urge to fly. This began when his older brother Sam took him up in an airplane at a young age. Nate’s love for flying lead him to join the armed services and pursued Air Corps training, but Saint never lost his spiritual grounding. He once wrote to his mother “pray that the Lord will have his way in this flying business. Seems as though his stamp of approval is 100 percent ‘go ahead’, but I’m not calling personal interest the Lord’s will.” The road of military service took Saint all over the United States and globe often leaving him longing for something more. At times he became impatient writing, “I know the Lord is still running things, but sometimes I am shortsighted, I am the Army’s lock, stock, and barrel-but I’m the Lord’s own-heart, soul, and spirit.” While in the service Saint was dismissed from his dreams of being a military pilot because of an incessant battle with an infection in one leg. It was during these hard moments of his life that God started to reveal his plans for Saint, to be a full-time missionary. Nate wrote, “I’ve always believed that if the Lord wants a guy in full-time service on the mission field, he would make him unbearably miserable in the pursuit of any other end.” This God did, through different affairs that Saint pursued God continued to clarify this vision. It was in a short stint of plane repair in Mexico that Saint demonstrated to others ‘his unique mechanical ability in making repairs to planes in difficult to impossible circumstances’. Hard flying circumstances were not far off.

Eventually God had pressed Ecuador on the heart of Saint and his wife Marj, he later wrote of Marj that “the Lord surely knew that in this kind of work I would need a partner with a brain like a filing cabinet and one incapable of saying ‘can’t’.” As they began their lives in Ecuador, the purpose of the mission became clear, and was twofold: to provide adequate supply line for the present work and make possible deeper penetration into the jungle for further work. Saint quickly realized that there were only two types of landing areas in these areas, at the top of a jungle, or in the raging waters of a river. In fact one of Nate’s associates reflected that whoever decided to take up the work of missions in that area could not be short in flying or mechanics, if it be flying “he must be an absolute expert in mechanics.” But this is what God had been preparing for Nate Saint, in a letter to his mother he wrote “Mine is a one track mine…It’s airplane-Indian-Christ”. The Indian is the motive. The airplane is my job; unless the airplane fly’s the Indian does not hear the good news of Christ. Unless the Indian gets Christ, he’s eternally lost.

In December of 1948 Saint was pressed through his first test, a plane crash in Quito, Ecuador after visiting Marji in the capital city, who was awaiting the birth of their first child. After the crash, in which no one was killed, Saint gathered his thoughts in a letter to his parents. “This I believe, is the result of the deep assurance we have in our hearts that Satan himself cannot stop us, nor sign our death certificate, without the permission of Almighty God.” These powerful words were a deep reminder of Nate Saint’s resolve that his life would be expendable, “The Lord tells us He that Loveth his life- we might say that he that is selfish with his life- shall loose it.”

Nate’s ‘inventor spirit’ pioneered missions in this hard to reach area. He was able to invent the famous ‘bucket dropping system’ that allowed transport of medicines, staple foods, and gifts from airplanes hundreds of feet in the air. But all these gadgets had one purpose, Saint was sold out, “everytime I take off, I am ready to deliver up the life I owe to God.” The tool of an airplane was uniquely important to missions in this area. The ground Nate was able to cover by plane would have required forty days of land travel. Frank Drown, a missionary to the Jivaro head shrinkers of Ecuador, said of Nate, “He was always conscientious and serious. He was more than just a pilot; he was an inspiration to us. We were impressed with his fervency, honesty, and dependability, and complete devotion to Christ.” Drown eventually became the connection that brought Roger Youderian to the ‘Operation Auca’ team. Three Plymouth Brethren missionaries by the names of Jim Elliot, Pete Fleming, and Ed McCully joined soon after. All knowing the dangers involved.

This particular tribe of Indians had refused contact with outsiders for hundreds of years, they were known for their killing patterns in that area. Auca hunters would slip quietly from the jungle and attack their unsuspecting victims in ambush, but this did not stop the five. Operation Auca was well underway, in prayer and preparation. Over the next period of weeks these men lowered thirteen gifts to these un-reached people as an attempt at friendly contact. Despite their worries, these five men were consumed with a passion to reach the Auca killers with the Gospel. Nate wrote “more important than any precaution we might take we are anxious to operate within the will and providence of God.” Their mission was set, to get the Gospel of Jesus Christ to these ‘stone-age’ pagans known as Auca.

Well aware that attempting contact with this primitive group of Indians could cost them their lives, they felt confident that the Lord was blessing their efforts and they moved forward one step at a time. On the morning of January 3rd the mission began, and three days later they made their initial contact with three Auca Indians. During this time Nate would fly back and forth from ‘Palm Beach’ (in Auca territory) to the home base for supplies and fear of rain water destabilizing the planes landing area. On Saturday morning, January 8th, Nate left for ‘Palm Beach’ one final time leaving behind the last prayer request for the missionary wives, “Pray for us…today is the day things will happen.” Later that day, in a moment of confusion, all five missionaries were speared to death. Beyond making initial contacts that would eventually lead to the evangelization of an ‘unknown’ people group, these men’s lives brought to surface the need of frontier missions to the international stage. Saint’s story is a powerful depiction of God’s providence in the small details and interests of ordinary men to accomplish extraordinary tasks. Saint’s life is marked as one sold out for Christ, doing only what God can do.

You can obtain a free copy of this book from the Mission Aviation Fellowship

Matt Capps Religion, Thoughts

Theology and Christian Leadership

Every Christian leader should see themselves as a practicing theologian. It seems to me that many Christian leaders see theology only as an academic discipline to be exercised in the ivory towers of our seminaries. As a leader, one who is placed in authority, the spiritual and philosophical health of the church depends on proper theology in biblical exposition. A leader’s theology plays out, and has implications, in the practical application of biblical texts to everyday situations and life. Therefore, as a Christian leader, one should prayerfully and articulately think, teach, and practice ministry through a theological lens. The philosophical foundations and presuppositions are the grounds by which people think and act, therefore the Christian leader should labor to uncover the deep truths of biblical teachings.

The very nature of Christian leadership demands theological underpinnings. The Apostle Paul exhorts his disciple Timothy to not shrink back in his testimony about the Lord, because it was God who called him for in to the work of the ministry. Paul even takes his commandments further and asks Timothy to “follow the pattern of the sound words that you have heard from me, in the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus. By the Holy Spirit who dwells within us, guard the good deposit entrusted to you” (1 Timothy 1:1-14). What is this ‘pattern of sound words’, the ‘good deposit’ that has been entrusted to the Christian leader to guard?

The exhortation to guard ‘the truth’ (‘the pattern of sound words’, ‘good deposit’) is in itself Biblical evidence that proper theology is the foundation of Christian leadership. In Titus 1:9 Paul writes similar word to those he wrote to Timothy, that the Christian “must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it”. Paul makes it clear here that one of the duties of Christian leadership is to refute false teachings. Biblical teaching is theological through and through, there is no place for the Christian leader who is no theologian, in fact I would argue that every Christian is a theologian. With this being the case, every church should aim to sharpen the theological education of the members in order to equip them to answer the hardships of the Christian life with Biblical promises. Theology goes beyond religious philosophy, but reaches into everyday practice.

Beyond the refutation of false teaching, theology enlightens man on sin, and all the issues that pertain to the implications of sin. Therefore, there is no personal problem, no relational problem, no philosophical problem, and no ethical problem that cannot be spoken to by theology (obviously, this is not an all inclusive list). In every dimension there is an inescapable truth that a Christian’s leader’s theology reaches into, and speaks to every area of life and practice in their ministry. The main task of Christian leadership is to lift the veil of sin (through teaching and practice) in order that those who are following you, listening to you, and looking to you for leadership can discern the truth in all situations themselves, philosophical and practical.

There is an inseparability in the pursuit of truth from the task of theology. If ‘all truth is Gods truth’, then as we have shown, all things must be informed by theology in one sense or another. Therefore, building a ‘theological grid’ that will aid in the sifting through the wisdom (and lies) of this world against biblical truth is the task of every Christian, even more so for the Christian leader. Thus, our starting point is Biblical material, and from here we see the need for organization of these materials, thus the exercise of systematic theology. Millard Erickson provides a helpful organizational chart in moving from Bible exegesis to building a theological system systematically  (Christian Theology, Pg. 70).

Moving through this process develops a systematic approach in developing a theology that is accurate to biblical teaching, and develops the theological framework which should inform all of the leadership decisions that must be made. Theology informs proper practical application. As R. Albert Mohler once put it, ‘the pastor who is no theologian is no pastor’. It is important to notice that ‘from a proper theology comes a philosophy of leadership’, and out of this philosophy of leadership comes practical everyday application. Theology is the grid work by which we interpret, and validate all leadership decisions.

Therefore, a philosophy of leadership is grounded in the leaders Biblical convictions. All this must start with the leader who allots much time to the study of Gods word through prayer and deep thought to come to theological convictions. All Christian leadership must be rooted in the deep truths of God’s word. The Christian leader’s concentrated attention to biblical texts brings forth a theological vision that is deeply rooted in God’s truth and in the truth about God that forms the very basis of Christian theology, which gives us a vision of ‘how to lead’.

Matt Capps Philosophy, Religion, Thoughts

Francis Schaeffer on Christian ‘Faith’

One of Schaeffer’s classic works is “The God Who Is There”. In it Schaeffer looks forward through the lens of culture and defends historic Christianity against the modern religions which find roots in existentialism and the popular ‘anti-philosophy’ movements of the day. Though this book was first published in 1968 it would seem that Schaeffer was writing for our generation, I would recommend every Christian thinker become familiar with his work. I have only recently become aware of Schaeffer’s writing and have benefited greatly.

Here is one sample. At the end of a chapter in this book Schaeffer makes a great point about the Christian faith; this is very simple…but very profound. He is comparing the modern ‘inward faith movements’ (nihilism) to Christianity;

“In Christianity the value of faith depends upon the object towards which the faith is directed. So it looks outward to the God who is there, and the Christ who in history died upon the cross once for all, finished the work of atonement and on the third day rose again in space and time. This makes Christian faith open to discussion and verification.”

Of note: There will be a conference on Francis Schaeffer in November at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary titled, “A Mind and Heart for God”. Click here to find out more!

Matt Capps Culture, Life, Media and Technology, Personal, Philosophy, Thoughts

A Thought on Media Technology and Human Relationships

While in college, I took a class on ‘Popular Culture’, the class filled one of my sociology requirements. One of our texts for the class was a book titled Media Society. In this book the authors made an obvious but profound observation on the effect of media on social situations; they wrote “One important characteristic of media technology, is that it is usable by almost anyone with access to it; it does not require elaborate technical knowledge on the part of its users. The significance of media technology, as a result, is far reaching.”

The authors continue, “the social significance of media communication is that it differs substantially from unmediated face to face interaction…when we take a sociological look at media technology, we are asking how these technologies shape the ways we interact and communicate with one another.” Let’s think about the significance of media technology for a minute.

Almost everyone can use what they called ‘media technology’ (the internet, television, ipods), but have we given serious thought to the implications of these devices if gone unchecked? We need to become what Neil Postman called ‘great noticers’. If we stop and think about it, a live internet/television feed of an event (that can be hundreds or thousands of miles away) is an astonishing manipulation of time and space. We can “be there” without being there.

You can literally live one block away from the a football stadium, not be watching or listening to the game, and someone who lives across the country can know the outcome of the game before you do. Physical distance becomes irrelevant. Why does this matter? Beyond football games, think about your relationships with friends and family. How many of us keep up with friends or family via facebook or myspace. How many of us opt for a computer camera or instant messenger for having ‘face to face conversations’ because it is more convenient. Sure, for some of us we have too because of physical distance reasons. But others, the cost of gas is no excuse for disregarding the importance of quality personal time with the ones we love.

Back to facebook and myspace, the whole concept of ‘virtual community’ suggests that relationships no longer need to be geographically based. While technology has radically changed the way we understand the ‘meaning of distance’, it should not radically change the way we engage in human relationships.

We often talk of the possibilities that new technologies create, the awesome powers of new machines, but rarely do we consider the social implications of such things. We should not only be asking ‘what can technology do for us, but what should we do with technology?’ Yes, these technologies are easily accessible for most of us, but we need to be ‘great noticers’ of its effects, the results are far reaching.

Matt Capps Life, Philosophy, Religion, Thoughts

An Interview with Bruce Little (PhD) on the ‘Problem of Evil’

There seems to be a renewed interest in the ‘blog world’ on issues dealing with evil and suffering. So I decided to contact one of my former professors, Dr. Bruce Little, and ask him if he would be willing to answer a few questions regarding his “Creation Order Theodicy.”

Bruce Little presently teaches at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary (Wake Forest, NC) where he serves as Professor of Philosophy and Director of the L. Russ Bush Center for Faith and Culture. Dr. Little received his Bachelors degree from Baptist Bible College of PA, a M.A. in Apologetics and a M.R.E. from Liberty University, a D.Min from Columbia Biblical Seminary, and a PhD from Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary.

In Dr. Little’s book “A Creation-Order Theodicy” (University Press of America, 2005) he presents a theodicy from a moderate libertarian position. This basically means that he does not believe in radical freedom. “I think man’s choices are limited and/or influenced by God’s providential ruling, physical limitations, and antecedent events and choices.” I thought it would be interesting to hear his thoughts, and responses to a few questions.

What is a theodicy, and why is it important that pastors think through the issues of evil and suffering?

A theodicy is a way of explaining the ways of God regarding the matter of evil. I served as pastor for over 30 years and that is where I first started thinking deeply about all this. In fact, I did not know that it was called a theodicy in those days. I realized that people need answers regarding the reality of evil and suffering in this world. Furthermore, those answers had to square with what I had just preached on the Sunday before. The problem is that at once when we suffer we wonder why God did not protect me from it. In fact, maybe I had even prayed that He would, or I have been good, why did this come to me. But, the tension comes because we believe God is all-good, all-knowing, and all-powerful and that He is the sovereign of Creation, yet His creation is riddled with evil and suffering. So, as a pastor we need to have answers that not only answer the cry of the heart, but the objections of the non-Christian. The argument from evil is probably the most often heard objection to believing there is a God. Maybe at first the individual simply needs for you to pray with them, weep with them, listen to them, but in the end, they will want answers to there legitimate questions about God and evil. If Christianity is a superior belief system to all others, then we must have an answer at this most important point.

For me, the hardest part of constructing a Theodicy is dealing with the question, “if God is all good and all powerful why is there so much intense, unequally distributed suffering of innocents”? In a situation of pastoral counseling, how would you approach such a question?

You are right; this is the great question, especially suffering of children. In pastoral counseling, I think the approach is that we confront people with the reality that we live in a fallen world, one that is out of joint. It is not as it was intended to be. There is a lot of evil and suffering in this world because nature is out of joint and moral agents choose to do evil things that bring suffering. These are not things God planned or caused, they are, in light of Genesis 3, the result of man’s disobedience in the Garden. So, I have, over the years, pointed people to God, His comfort, His mercy (II Cor. 1:2-5) and His sufficient grace (II Cor12:9) in their time of trouble knowing that He is sufficient. In fact, I would go so far as to say that in many cases He weeps for humanity for all its suffering as this is not the way it was intended. When I read the Gospels, I find Jesus, who revealed the Father to us, having compassion on those who suffered. The widow of Nain is such a clear example of this as no one asked Jesus to do anything—He was simply moved with compassion to raise the widow’s dead son. I have always tried to have them focus on the God who will never leave of forsake us, to know that He walks with us through the difficulty if we know Him, and to know that His grace can strengthen us to be a testimony in the midst of our difficulties. Many times, people think that the suffering has been allowed by God to bring some good to their live so they try to find the good. However, on many occasions that has led to bitterness because they never found the good. I am not saying that we may not learn valuable lessons in our suffering, but that does not mean that is why the suffering came to us. God may bless, but if He does, it is in spite of the suffering, not because of the suffering. In that case, we simply praise God for His grace. I have know a good number of people who spent time trying to find the good so they could still believe God and when they did not find it they became bitter towards God.

You make a distinction from speaking about the ‘Problem of Evil’ and the ‘Argument from Evil’, why is this important or even necessary?

I would say that it is important in formal debate or discussion within the academy. The reason is, that for the Christian, evil is not a problem in the sense that does not cause us to wonder whether God is there or not—so in that sense it is not a problem. What it is, is an argument by the atheist to claim that God cannot exist as the all-good, all-knowing, all-powerful God in light of all the evil. Some argue that it is a logical impossibility for God to exist, others argue that it is more probable that God does not exist than that He does exist. So, in that case I would make the point that we are dealing with an argument and then see if the argument wins the day. That is, is evil a defeater of the claim that God exists. Of course I think it is not.

The classical explanation given to answer questions of suffering and evil is that “God allows only that evil in this world from which He can bring about a greater-good or prevent a worse evil” (this is the Greater Good Theodicy). You devote a good portion of your book to refuting this argument. Why is it that this argument fails?

Well, this argument fails because it simply lacks biblical support in my mind. I know that many use Ro 8:28 as the grounding for this position, but when we look at the text the most it would say is that God works for good those who love Him and are called according to His purpose. This means that it would only be an answer for suffering of the Christian and further, I believe the context of the text limits it to only when one suffers for righteousness. This is what Jesus teaches in Matt 5: 10-12; Peter in I Pet 1:6-7 and so forth. So, I think that Ro 8:28 is insufficient for claiming what the greater-good theodicy claims. There are other verses, but I believe they fail to support the Greater Good theodicy. Other reasons it fails, I think, tend to be obvious once we think about it. For example: consider abortion (which I would call an evil). According to the Greater-Good theodicy abortion is allowed by God in order to bring about a greater good. If that is the case, then we should not stop abortion for in doing so the good God intended is denied, but we are called to stand for social justice and against evil practices. The same argument goes for prayer. Why we would pray for someone when they are terminally ill (it is allowed by God for a greater good). Furthermore, we must ask the question: “if God allows evil to bring about a good, is that good a necessary good? If it is a necessary good, then the evil that brings it is necessary and the only way it could be necessary is if God planned it. This makes God responsible for evil, something I think is clearly contrary to scripture because God is light and in Him is no darkness at all. If on the other hand the good is not necessary then we are back to asking the question why the evil? In addition, if the good cannot come about except by evil, then God needs evil to accomplish something good which means there are certain things God cannot do, namely bring about the good without evil. I am doubtful that one really would want to accept that conclusion. Of course much more could be said on this matter, but I will let this serve as my answer at this time.

Dealing with the ‘Greater Good Theodicy’ we often hear arguments like “God allows the evil, because in the end his judgment of the wicked will bring glory to himself”, how would you defend your argument in light of this explanation?

Well, I say that God does not need evil to bring glory to himself—He will do that anyway. While it is true that in the end, every knee shall bow and confess Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of the Father, that is another issue altogether. So I think the response fails to see that there is a difference in God receiving glory in the judgment and God needing judgment to bring Him glory. In addition, it is far better that God should be glorified by His people doing right as Jesus glorified the Father in doing the Father’s will. In my thinking, this response fails to understand the heart of God. Much of the evil that comes touches the innocent, so in this case, innocents suffer profoundly so that God can be glorified in judging the person who committed the crime—you know like raping a little girl and then burying her alive. Think of the multiplied suffering that caused for the little girl, her family, her friends, and her community—all so that God can get glory in judging the one committing the evil.

In ‘Creation Order Theodicy’ you put up an argument for ‘the best of all possible worlds’, some would say this is irrelevant in formulating a theodicy. Why is the ‘best of all possible worlds’ argument important to the theodicy?

In my mind, the best of all possible worlds is necessary to answer the question: “Why did not God actualize a world with less evil—a better world we might say?” Surely if that could have been done and all other things remained the same, God would be acting in a way less than what He was capable of if he did not do it. It is not just that He did less that what He could have done, like making another kind of animal, this acting in a fashion below His creative capabilities concerns the morality of God. That is, a serious indictment—God acting in a fashion that reveals an act not sponsor by His perfect goodness. Furthermore, but connected to this, is I think that the logic of a God who holds all His attributes in maximal perfection requires that in all things He does the best that is possible under the circumstances. Genesis 1:31 says that God saw that everything He made was very good. Very good by God’s standard is the best possible. If God does not do what is best in the actualizing of the world and yet He claims it is very good, then one wonders about the summary statement. In addition, if He does not do His best, then one could reply that He is morally delinquent for not doing His moral best.

In ‘Creation Order Theodicy’ you talk about a ‘two minds’ theory, could you explain that and what place it has in your theodicy?

By two minds, I mean two kinds of minds—real minds. We have the divine mind and the human mind. If the human mind is to function as a true mind, then it must have the capacity to think and to choose which means man must have what is called libertarian freedom. Otherwise man would just be a machine doing what he had been programmed to do, or man’s action being only the consequence of a series of causal events either mental or physical. But man is not a machine, he is a being made in the image of God. He is given commands and is expected to obey them, but with the possibility he will disobey them. If man chooses to disobey, there are consequences and he is held responsible for his choices. We must understand that we have a real person to person relationship with God, not just a personal relationship in the sense of a private relationship. We need to think about this deeply. It is amazing that man, because he has a mind patterned after God’s mind making it possible for a real personal relationship to exist between the divine mind and the human mind. But more than this, man is called to love God (Matt 22:37-39) which is the highest calling of humanity. You cannot love God without having the freedom to choose to love and this requires a mind, otherwise, it would be something else, but it would not be love. This is important to my theodicy as it places the problem of evil in a larger context, the context of creation, and the wonder of man having a real mind to which God can communicate and with which man can understand and respond either affirming or denying the truth God communicates. I would say that God respects man’s choices because He gave man his mind and because the consequences of man’s choices (good and bad) flow into history. We surely see this in Gen 3.

How does the idea of middle knowledge influence how we understand God’s providence and man’s responsibility?

Middle knowledge is a large subject, but in its basic form it affirms that God not only knows what man does or will do, God knows the choices man would have made under difference circumstances or in a different world. So, God saw all the possible worlds and then actualized the best of those worlds. So, in any world man freely chooses what he chooses. When God actualizes a world (the one in which we live), the choices we make in this world are free choices. Because God’s middle knowledge is active in which world to actualize, we know that this is the best of all possible worlds. However, because this is the world God has sovereignly chosen, our free choices are fixed and the end is assured as God knows the end from the beginning of this creation. God’s providence acts in this world, working with the choices of man assuring that the end will be as He has promised it shall be.

Do you have any forthcoming projects or work in this area?

Yes, I am working on a book which places the problem of evil in a much larger context. That means, as a part of our larger Christian worldview and how Christians understand better how to reach their culture.

Continue reading “An Interview with Bruce Little (PhD) on the ‘Problem of Evil’” →

Matt Capps Thoughts

Thoughts on Expository Preaching: Albert N. Martin

Albert N. Martin (Trinity Church, Montville, NJ) published a little booklet in 1967 titled “What’s Wrong with Preaching Today” (The Banner of Truth Trust). Martin answers the question (title) in two ways, first he looks at the Man, then looks at the Message. This is a short (29 pages) but powerful read arguing for preaching that is exegetically founded and textually oriented.

Dealing specifically with the Message Martin contends that modern preaching lacks power for a couple of reasons. First, ‘there is a lack of biblical content’. This is the very foundation of expository preaching (it exposes God’s word). Martin argues that every sermon should be ‘packed full of solid biblical substance, so that one feels that standing between him and the preacher is a wall of divine truth.’

Beyond that, modern preaching lacks in ‘solid doctrinal substance’. Martin explains that doctrinal preaching is disciplined by the framework of the whole counsel of God. Martin writes that solid preaching “seeks to set every individual facet of truth into the context of the whole spectrum of divine truth” (This is commonly known as Biblical Theology).

Lastly, Martin gives much effort to the area of practical application. Martin desires that preachers should labor in order that “men see the implications of the content and doctrine, so that they may know how to adorn the doctrine of God our Saviour in all things.” This means that the preacher spells out the necessity and nature of evangelical repentance, present the whole Christ to the whole man, and clearly distinguish the traits of a true believer. This is preaching that presents the truths of God in an urgent, orderly, and direct manner.

This is one booklet that I would recommend all pastors read annually, it is clear and convicting.

Matt Capps Philosophy, Religion, Thoughts

A Plausible God?

Dr. Albert Mohler reviews Mitchell Silver‘s book “A Plausible God” today on his blog. Which is basically an “attempt to construct a concept of God that modern secular people will find plausible” (Self evident in the title). Mohler asks,

“What kind of god would be plausible in this postmodern age?  Taken by itself, that question represents the great divide between those who believe in the God of the Bible and those who see the need to reinvent a deity more acceptable to the modern mind.”

Read the article here.

Also of note; Dr. Mohler has three books being published this year. The first one, ‘Atheism Remix’ which has already been released, “explores the newest strain of atheism, its foremost thinkers, the cultural conditions that have bred it, and how Christians should respond.” Mohler also has two other books due out this year. “He is not Silent” where Mohler discusses preaching in a postmodern world, and “Desire and Deceit” about the “real cost of sexual tolerance”.

I agree with Piper when it comes to Mohler, “Albert Mohler is a steady guide, unremittingly clear-headed.”

Matt Capps Religion, Thoughts

Discerning Reader: Read More-Read Better!

One of the reasons I set up this blog was to direct people to resources, and I think this one can be very helpful. I was recently directed to ‘Discerning Reader’, I will let the site host speak to the purpose of this site;

“Discerning Reader is a site dedicated to promoting good books–books that bring honor to God. At the same time, we hope to help Christians avoid being unduly influenced by books and teachers that are not honoring to God.

We do not seek to be harsh or judgmental. Rather, we seek only to be discerning as we compare books to the written Word of God. We let the words of authors speak for themselves and simply hold the books up to the light of Scripture. In doing so, we are building a database of reviews which we feel cast a discerning light on the books that are found in Christians homes, churches and bookstores.

We invite you to browse around, to read the reviews, and to examine the features of this site. We think you will find it to be a blessing.”

Right now the site mainly consists of book reviews, but it looks slated for much more (summaries, church resources, and upcoming releases). Check it out!

Matt Capps Philosophy, Religion, Thoughts

Religious Doubt and the Christian Faith

We as Christians rarely talk about doubt. I think this is a problem, for doubt is one of the defeated one’s oldest schemes. Be Honest with yourself, have you ever doubted your salvation? Have you ever doubted your calling? Have you ever doubted the existence of God? Have you ever doubted an essential Christian doctrine? I think doubt is a normal part of the human condition. Often times I find myself growing deeper in the faith when I am working through the darkness of doubt.

When talking about ‘doubt’, as Christians we need to begin this conversation at the very beginning of creation. It was in the Garden of Eden that the serpent used doubt as a tool to deceive the first man and woman, “are you sure God told you that?” Ever since the beginning we find different giants of the Christian faith in seasons of doubt (Abraham, Job, David, and the most notorious doubter, Thomas). Doubt is a universal symptom of sinful humanity, we doubt the truth, we doubt God’s promises, and we doubt God.

At the very core of doubt is the where we find eternal truth and our temporal human emotions waging war against one another. C.S. Lewis seemed to locate the struggle of doubt to the emotions, I think he might be right. No matter who you are, or what beliefs you hold about ‘reality’, human feelings will always assault your convictions.

It was C.S. Lewis who drew the illustration of uncertainty with having an operation; “when they have me down on the table and clamp that horrible mask over my face, a mere childish panic begins inside me” (Mere Christianity). The question might arise, how then do we put these ‘feelings’ in their proper place? According to Habermas, C.S. Lewis would have proposed a stepped process in ‘taming our unruly emotions’;

  1. “We begin by recognizing the role of moods and feelings. They can change on a daily basis and color how we view our beliefs.”
  2. We must daily practice the classical disciplines of the faith to be reminded of Christian doctrine (prayer, fasting, worship, and reading). “We must constantly review and keep what we believe before us”.

See, the point is not to convince yourself of something that is wholly untrue and bring about some state of self delusion. In reality it is the very opposite, to remind ourselves of what we know to be true, and bring our emotions in line with truth. Here is an adapted form of the process Cognitive Therapists usually promote;

  1. Identify an irrational belief. This is usually the foundation of a particular ‘religious doubt’.
  2. Remove that irrational belief by arguing against it, and reminding oneself with Biblical doctrine.
  3. Replace that irrational belief with the truth.

Gary Habermas notes that the key in this process “is tracing a bad mood or painful moment precisely to an image, concept, troublesome comment, or irrational belief.” When truth or fact enters the picture, emotions are usually revealed for what they are: in other words “proper thinking trumps undisciplined emotions”.