Is it unethical to steal someone else's blog title?

You'd laugh if I told you how much time I spent looking up whether that word is spelled 'unethical' or 'inethical'.  ...And I claim to be good at spelling.

So, Al Mohler, on his blog this week, posted a little ditty called, "Richard Dawkins Jumps the Shark".  That is a great title, by the way.  Apparently, after Mr. Dawkins' laughable attempt to lobby support for atheism, (Signs on buses, reading, "There's Probably no God".  Key word, 'probably'.) he has now gone to the Grow-an-Atheist end of the platform.  Basically, he's organizing a summer camp designed to help kids renounce God forever.  One wonders why he bothers.  Of course, since he also spent the time to write on the subject, (See, "The God Delusion" if you have a few spare hours that you don't mind never seeing again.) it seems clear that he's pretty big into trouncing God once and for all.  Why do I suddenly have images of a fly trying to attack a dog dancing in my head?  The dog is laughing, incidentally.  Yes, dogs do laugh, contrary to popular opinion (of course, if you disagree, I don't mind listening to you try to prove otherwise).

Anyhow, the article isn't quite as snappy as the title, but one snippet from a news article that Dr. Mohler quotes from caught my attention.  "...There will also be a £10 prize for the child who can disprove the existence of the mythical unicorn."  For some reason, I had thought that atheism was unable to disprove the existence of such things.  Googling, "atheism cannot disprove", I found a site appropriately named, atheism.about.com.  The article it brought up was called, "Atheism is Based on Faith?  Atheism Myths: Atheists Can't Disprove God & Have Faith in God's Nonexistence".  Link, if you care for a read: http://atheism.about.com/od/atheismmyths/a/faith.htm

The writer hadn't done his homework: His results are flawed because his understanding of the God of the Bible is flawed.  Basic principle: Bad foundation makes a weak argument.  I can't really blame him, though, since so many pastors get paid way too much to misrepresent truth about God every Sunday morning (or every other Sunday if it's going halves with the Skit Ministry).  I mean, really: If most professing Christians don't even necessarily affirm that the Bible is God's Word (I'm too lazy to look up the source on that, but if you really want it, drop me a comment about that), it's a bit hard to be upset when atheists misrepresent what Christianity believes.

You can skip the rest of this post if you want.  I don't want to make you miss the Home Shopping Network, after all.  I'm just going to be setting straight this poor deludee (is that a word?  It should be.  Deludee: One who is deluded) on the error of his argument.

"Myth: You cannot prove that God doesn’t exist; therefore, atheism is based on faith."  This is what he wants to disprove.  I suppose that if we stick to the basic premise, he succeeds, but his argument is mostly wrong.  The premise is about the only thing he does prove. 

Their response: "Often theists will try to place atheism and theism on the same plane by arguing that while theists cannot prove that god exists, atheists also cannot prove that god does not exist. This is used as a basis for arguing that there is no objective means for determining which is preferable because neither has a logical or empirical advantage over the other. Thus, the only reason for going with one or the other is faith and then, presumably, the theist will argue that their faith is somehow better than the atheist’s faith."  Actually, the last statement (in bold) is incorrect.  Some will, I won't.  Here's the incorrect assumption on his part: I do not have to prove my faith is better than his faith.  Paul affirms at the start of 1 Corinthians that we aren't necessarily smarter than they are.  Fact is, he says that God has chosen the foolish things of the world to put to shame the wise.  Problem: If we're foolish, how does God expect us to convert anyone?  Answer: He doesn't.  Christians proving their faith is great: Peter tells us to always be ready to give a defense of our faith.  But ultimately, that's not going to convince someone who is deadset in his opinion.  God's Word alone has the power to change men's (and women's) hearts (Heb. 4:12).

The author continues by admitting that the existence of God, without defining who God is, cannot be disproved.  He suggests that that is ours to prove.  But skipping that a second, he says, "Other propositions, however, can be disproven — and conclusively. There are two ways to do this. The first is to see if the proposition leads to a logical contradiction; if so, then the proposition must be false. Examples of this would be “a married bachelor exists” or “a square circle exists.” Both of these propositions entail logical contradictions — pointing this out is the same as disproving them.  If someone claims the existence of a god, the existence of which entails logical contradictions, then that god can be disproven the same way. Many atheological arguments do exactly that — for example they argue that an omnipotent and omniscient god cannot exist because those qualities lead to logical contradictions."  If someone claims the existence of an omnipotent and omnicient God, they are incorrect because such a being is logically contradictory.  I feel almost embarrassed actually answering this one, but here goes:  God is, by his very definition (omnipotent and omniscient) beyond our understanding.  If we consider for half a second: God created the world.  In the Bible, He claims to keep it running on a daily basis.  Also, consider the complexities of the world or even the human body.  If God is the God of the Bible and He does all that He claims to in scripture...you expect to be able to prove him with your mind?  You can't even fully contemplate His universe (not by a longshot, actually) and you feel competent to state that an omnipotent and omniscient God cannot exist?  

"Similarly, when a god is defined adequately, it may be possible to construct empirical or logical tests to see if it exists. We can look, for example, at the expected effects which such a god might have on nature or humanity. If we fail to find those effects, then a god with that set of characteristics does not exist. Some other god with some other set of characteristics may exist, but this one has been disproven.

One example of this would be the Argument from Evil, an atheological argument which proposes to prove that an omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent god cannot exist alongside a world like ours which has so much evil in it. If successful, such an argument would not disprove the existence of some other god; it would instead merely disprove the existence of any gods with a particular set of characteristics."  Paragraph one, clear enough.  One issue I might take with it is simply that you assume that this God fits into your little black box.  Assuming he does, you might be correct.  The 'Argument from Evil'...Wow, what an uncatchy title.  Personally, I prefer, 'The Theodicy Dilemma'.  To answer that particular problem, I'd suggest looking up John MacArthur's closing sermon at the 2009 Shepherd's Conference (there's also a short write-up about it on my blog post about the '09 conference, if you can't get the sermon).  MacArthur proves that evil is not a problem from a biblical standpoint, and that God's glory (His and our ultimate end, the Bible tells us) is made greater through it. 

The author (who's name, by the way, is Austin Cline.  I thought that after calling him 'he' this whole post, the only decent thing to do was to include his name) is basically only out to prove in his article that we are incorrect to say that God cannot be disproved.  He used arguments to prove that God can be disproved if God is properly defined.  And I know I stated at the start that his premise is basically correct, but you can scratch that.  Depending, of course, on how God is defined, I don't believe it's possible to disprove God.  It is obvious that God is not like us.  To assume that we can disprove someone who cannot be seen or fully understood attaches a touch of the divine to our intelligence (which subsequently disproves atheism to some degree). 

Most of you found this post boring, but I figured I owed you one about now.  This is what you get.  Hope you're happy.

How does one review a review?

At any rate, be my guest. 

I promised you a review in my last post and here it is.  To give you a quick background: While at the Shepherd's Conference in March, I spotted a small paperback book in Banner of Truth's Puritan Paperbacks series.  The title was "The Bruised Reed".  Now, I'd had my eye out for this little book for some time.  Dr. Mark Dever of Capitol Hill Baptist Church in Washington D.C. had recommended it, and, more recently I found that D. Martyn Lloyd Jones was blessed by it as well.  Seeing as how it was only about five dollars, and I had a (relatively) free $50 gift card, I bought it.  If you check out my Shepherd's Conference post, you'll find that my list of books bought then is somewhat large.  At any rate, it's large enough to prevent me from getting through it too quickly.  So, I did what any good son does.  I brought some out for my Mom to read and let me know what she thought, since she reads faster than I do.  She liked the Bruised Reed very much.  So much, in fact, that my Dad and Mom bought copies of the book as gifts for the Warner Avenue Christian Academy graduates this year.  Since I was just getting through it myself, and since five new copies of the book had just arrived at church, this seemed an appropriate book to review just at this moment.  That said, the following is my review of The Bruised Reed:

                                                                      -~*~-~*~-~*~-

The Bruised Reed was written by Richard Sibbes, a man often referred to as "The Heavenly Doctor Sibbes".  After reading his book, I can affirm the truth of the title.  Sibbes' writing not only impresses the reader with his love for God, but also his great understanding of God and His love for us.  Richard Sibbes was born in 1577 and converted at the age of 18 under the preaching of Paul Bayne (or Baynes).  Deciding to become a preacher, Sibbes earned his B.Div. in 1610 at the age of 33.  The Bruised Reed was written in his later years, Dr. Sibbes being 53 at the time and passing on five years later.  He died just prior to the English revolution against Charles II by Parliament, led primarily by Oliver Cromwell. 

The book, although short in length (only 128 pages) takes considerably longer to read than the 7x5in. size of the book suggests.  It is comprised of sixteen chapters expounding on the prophecy of Isaiah:

" ¹ “Behold! My Servant whom I uphold,
      My Elect One in whom My soul delights!
      I have put My Spirit upon Him;
      He will bring forth justice to the Gentiles.
       ² He will not cry out, nor raise His voice,
      Nor cause His voice to be heard in the street.
       ³ A bruised reed He will not break,
      And smoking flax He will not quench;
      He will bring forth justice for truth. "

Isaiah 42:1-3

It is later quoted by Matthew (ch.12,vs.18-20) who refers to it's fulfillment by Jesus.

• The Good

Sibbes illustrates effortlessly the love of God for us, particularly in how He demonstrates this love.  The passage talks primarily about a bruised reed - something that anyone but God would cast aside as worthless - and smoking flax - referring to a light that has burned it's wick so low that only a spark remains; an irritation to any but our Lord.  Sibbes discusses our inability in relation to God's care for us, explaining that despite our apparent uselessness, God can and does use us.  Also, he encourages the reader with exhortations to do the will of God as laid out for us in scripture.  He does not use our inability as an excuse to promote inaction, but rather suggests that we should take action in spite our helplessness outside of God. 

• The Bad

Like many of his time period, from what I've heard, Sibbes has an annoying habit of quoting from Song of Solomon and using a non-literal interpretation of the text to refer to the Bride and her Beloved as representing the Church and Christ.  I find this interpretation lacking, though I won't go into why just at the moment.  Still, it's not as bad as Mark Driscoll's dreadful exposition which I still haven't gotten over reading parts of a transcript on.  It's only quoted briefly two or three times, but it's enough to be annoying if you hold the same interpretation as I do on the Song of Songs (which is Solomons). 

There's also the problem of it being an older book.  I suppose you could argue that this is a problem with me, and not the book.  Basically, older books weren't usually written in the ultra-simple way they are today.  Many books today are written with non-readers in mind and tend to be appropriately easy to understand.  Books of Sibbes' era were written under the assumption that the reader was a thinker and could grasp what was being said.  Still, this version is one of the more readable older books I've come across (quite possibly revised to make it clearer), but it still takes time (and a brain that's not begging for sleep) to read. 

Honestly, there's little to criticize here.  Aside from advising you not to listen to someone else reading it aloud (bad idea unless your brain is totally hooked up and ready to follow along), I can't say much else against it.  The only reason 'The Bad' is longer than 'The Good' is because I'm trying to avoid spoilers.

• The Heavenly

Okay, so it's a corny header, but I'll just throw a few more thoughts out there before closing up.  I was tempted to quote a few lines from the book in this review, but honestly, while thinking about it, it occurred to me that even if I preached every Sunday of a year (morning and evening) and presented a different Sibbes quote from this book in each sermon, I would probably still have more unheard ones to put in this post.  For a book of 128 pages, (and small ones at that), that is quite impressive.  Exaggeration?  Maybe slightly, but not by much.  I keep getting blown away by how many wonderful quotes of encouragement and exhortation he shares throughout this slim work. 

The loveliest thing of all about it is that while reading it, I felt like I made a new friend; one that, Lord willing, I'll be able to spend many happy hours with in the future (even as I have already). 

Highly recommended.  If you have it, you have no excuse not to have started reading it yet.  If you don't...well, there are copies online, though I don't recommend online reading.  It's much too hard to focus that way for me.

...And that is officially the world's longest review.  The attempt was to tell you my impressions about the book, share some background on the author to give you an idea of the man who you'll be spending so much time with as you read, avoid spoiling any of the moments (moments which flow much more eloquently from Dr. Sibbes' tongue than mine) from the book and let you know what I thought didn't work.

If you've read it or are reading it currently, drop a comment to let me know what you think of the book, I'd love to hear what you think of it.  All other comments are always welcome, as well.  Thanks for dropping by.

What I look For in a Review

This is such a random concept for a blog post that I'll be surprised if anyone actually reads more than the first paragraph.  If you actually read the whole thing, you seriously have to comment just to let me know you did. [/shameless blog comment bait]

I was tempted to call this post "How To Write A Review", but it struck me that that would be terribly egotistical for almost anyone without a PhD to pretend to know something about (especially when you consider I've never written one).  Actually that's only partly true.  I've written reviews of various things up, but just so we're on the same page: The reason I felt like writing this post is to vent on all reviews that don't live up to my high judging standards.

Confused?  Keep on reading.

Right, so when I want to read a book, watch a movie or do something else with an item requiring a review (we'll focus mainly on books here), I have particular things I want to see.  First off, I'll almost always look for negative reviews first.  Why?  Well, basically, I'll try to find all the negative reviews and skim over them.  Some are ridiculous: "This book is lame...'cause it's like...Calvinistic 'n stuff.  And Calvin was Catholic.  He executed some guy named Sertevus." [/Random Arminian blog post jab of the day].  Those kinds of reviews are even more incoherent than this blog post.

Usually I can tell when skimming over reviews which ones are likely to give me an idea of the weak points of the book(/anything else that can be reviewed).  This wouldn't ordinarily be necessary, except that most good reviews consist of, "I loved this book!  It meant so much to me and encouraged me.  Read it, you won't be sorry!" 

Unhelpful. 

Why?

It tells me absolutely nothing. 

Let me give you an example: I hate eggs.  Obviously, I have lots of things with eggs in them.  Most good tasting things have eggs hidden in them somewhere.  But personally, I think they taste terrible by themselves.  I'll eat them if I have to, but they're about my least favorite thing I've ever tried.  You can stow all the 'picky eater' comments.  I've heard them.  Back to the point: I could write a review on eggs (assuming there was a place where eggs could be reviewed - get back to me if you find one and I'll write a review on them) saying that I think eggs are evil.  That God intended them only to be eaten inside other stuff.  I could further say that it's sinful to eat eggs by themselves.  Who knows, if I sounded intelligent enough, I might even be able to convince someone (yeah, right).  But my review would only be helpful to someone who also disliked eggs.  Anyone who liked eggs would look at me like I was nuts. 

Point: Reviews that say, "I loved this book!  It meant so much to me and encouraged me.  Read it, you won't be sorry!" only work when the person reading the review thinks the same thing about the product as the reviewer.  They have to have a similar mindset about it. 

A review is supposed to help you decide if you want to read/watch/use it.  Simply saying that they liked it tells you only that you'll like it if you are similar enough to the person who reviewed it positively. 

Anyhow, bad reviews:  If a bad review is well written, usually the reviewer will give actual reasons why they disliked something.  They'll tell you what it was that didn't work for them.  If it is a book or movie, or something that can be spoiled by hearing too much about it, the reviewer must be able to elaborate on why they disliked it without telling you too much about it and ruining for you. 

Frankly, when I see a review that doesn't list anything bad about whatever is being reviewed, what I'll see out of that is that the reviewer is not discerning.  It probably won't convince me to buy the product unless I've already decided to buy it anyway. 

To sum up for you who skipped to the bottom: Bad reviews are more likely to be helpful than good reviews because bad reviews tell you what they didn't like about it, giving you facts to guide your decision as to whether you should use the product.  Good reviews rarely tell you anything.  That is what you need: Facts that will help you determine whether the product is for you. 

And just for the record, I usually only give helpful reviews when I'm negatively reviewing something - on positive reviews, I tend to be just as undiscerning as the next guy.

As for what's going on right now: Sunday, I'll be speaking at Carmel Village (and possibly in the evening service at church) on John 15:1-8.  Wow, that is a convicting set of verses.  Encouraging at the same time.  They're the kind of verses that you cannot study closely and leave unscathed.  They're exactly what the writer of Hebrews is talking about when he says, "the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit."

If I get an audio, I might post a copy on here (and if I don't...or if it goes really bad, I'll post an mp3 of John MacArthur preaching on it. )

In a week or so, whenever I finish it, I'll see if I can get a review up of a book I'm reading right now: "The Bruised Reed" by Richard Sibbes.

¹ “I am the true vine, and My Father is the vinedresser.  ² Every branch in Me that does not bear fruit He takes away; and every branch that bears fruit He prunes, that it may bear more fruit. ³ You are already clean because of the word which I have spoken to you. ⁴ Abide in Me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, unless it abides in the vine, neither can you, unless you abide in Me.  ⁵ “I am the vine, you are the branches. He who abides in Me, and I in him, bears much fruit; for without Me you can do nothing. ⁶ If anyone does not abide in Me, he is cast out as a branch and is withered; and they gather them and throw them into the fire, and they are burned. ⁷ If you abide in Me, and My words abide in you, you will ask what you desire, and it shall be done for you. ⁸ By this My Father is glorified, that you bear much fruit; so you will be My disciples.

(John 15:1-8)

Wind, Snow, Heat - Gotta Love the Desert.

On our last desert trip last weekend, we saw all three of those.  The heat was actually fairly mild.  And, obviously, since it's the desert, the snow wasn't much to speak of.  But it WAS SNOW!

...Sorry, I'm from California.  Snow is kind of unexpected most of the time.

We spent the night at church Wednesday night.  The party somehow broke up early (by that I mean late).  The alarms went off at 4:30 or something ridiculous.  We decided to sleep in another 30 minutes or so.  You'd think that since it was only a week ago, it'd be easy to remember, but somehow sleep deprivation just drives away memories of all specifics.  It took us a while to pack up and get going.  By the time we arrived it was 10 something or other, I think.  We stopped off away from where we'd be camping.  The camp site was in the Mojave National Preserve and shooting is illegal there, so we had to shoot the skeet prior to hitting MNP land.

Those glasses are defense against wind.  Has little to do with fashion, except to the extent that *I* think it looks cool.  Most people don't care for them so they aren't in any way fashionable in the traditional sense.  Brian, Jacob (on his first trip with us), Richard and I hanging out while waiting for our turn to shoot.

Kyle obliterating a skeet.

Me, probably missing.  I went 0/2.  In my (very humble) defense, I only missed 2 out of the next 17.  We also shot a few more on Saturday.  My total for both days was 24/30.  I've done better.  No excuses.

Be grateful for this picture.  I took my shades off, and got enough dust in my eyes to irritate them for most of the rest of the day.  Had to post it, though.  This is one of the few I could find with Drew in it.

We kept in contact during the trip.  Our car was Snow Panther (Brian picked it).  I think theirs was Eagle 5.  Affectionately, we called them Prairie Dog and they called us Little Kitty.  Personally I think the jeep did look like a Prairie Dog.  And will someone tell me how a "Little Kitty" could carry as much stuff as we had in the truck bed?

Brian and I bought groceries the night before and figured we'd hang out together on the drive out there.  Worked out pretty good.  We had a fun time.

Some nasty wind while we were there.  That tent fell over several times.  I didn't sleep well during the night so I was still kind of out of it in the morning.  And since the purpose of the trip was to relax, Brian and I skipped out on the morning hike.  More on that on Kyle's blog - paladinw94.blogspot.com - While playing a friendly card game of 'War', the tent started falling on top of us.  I won his last card just in time to grab my shoes and hop out the tent door before the thing finished collapsing.  We actually had to fix it once that morning while they were gone and didn't feel like doing it again just then. 

Lovely camping spot.  It had a table and the campfire spot...thing...whatever they're called, had rocks actually cemented in...or something like that.

Just after this picture was taken, a strong wind came up, knocking that top one off it's pedestal and through our campsite.  Jk.

Kyle posted a similar picture on his blog.  I opted for the smoky one.  Somehow it looked more epic to me.

Hard to tell from the background, but snow is actually starting to come in.  Personally, I was glad.  Snow beats wind any day.  Especially if you have contacts.

There's some hills behind Kyle that could be seen quite clearly most of the time.  However, the wind was blowing some snow off the mountain onto us.  Wasn't cold enough for any to settle on the ground, though.

Hiking up to the mines.  After we pushed him down this hole, we suddenly realized Jacob had the camera.  He decided to take a picture of us trying to figure how to get him out.  Actually, the guys had seen there was an open shaft and Jacob kindly volunteered to take a shot of us.

Chillin'.

Looking down a mine shaft.  We drove over to some old mines.  There were some old buildings and supplies around, too.

Me reading a piece of an old newspaper, or possibly a magazine.

Kyle climbed down.  You can't see us too clearly at the top, but anyway...

The rest of Drew's pictures can be found at - http://picasaweb.google.com/aks427/DesertTripApril2009#

Thanks for stopping by.  It's been a while since I've posted on here. 

Power and Honor and Glory...Oh My!

To those of who check your calender, this week was National Shepherds Conference Week.

Well, anyway, last Wednesday, Dad, Kevin and I took off the Shepherds Conference.  Coincidentally we met Jonathan, Kyle and Drew Stevens and Jonathan McIntire there.  (Okay, so it wasn't quite so coincidental).

John MacArthur.  His opening message on why all Christians should believe the Biblical six-day Creation (as opposed to theistic evolution) was good, though I'd heard a lot of it from him recently, so it wasn't really very new.  Wednesday night we got back to the session only 15 minutes early and the church was already almost packed.  We managed to scrounge some seats in the far back corner. 

Let me tell you: Three-thousand pastors (and laymen) singing hymns is quite an experience.  Nothing like it short of Heaven I'll bet.

Al Mohler spoke on preaching with authority.  In Matthew 7, when Jesus was closing off the sermon on the mount, it says the people were amazed because He spoke as one having authority - unlike their leaders.  He noted how many leaders today want to turn the sermon into a dialogue.  'Where would I be if the pilot who flew me out here wanted to have a dialogue with me on how to fly the plane?' Mohler asked.  Or, as he also noted, what if a doctor doing surgery asked the patient for his opinion on how to get the job done.  The goal of a preacher is not to discuss the message.  The goal of a preacher is to proclaim the gospel message for the glory of God. 

I'm not sure why I grabbed this picture.  Though on the last session, we were sitting in the middle section sixth row back (which you can kinda see in this picture). 

Well, Al Mohler told us to preach with authority (and he practiced what he preached).  Steve Lawson was listening to the message.  Not that I've ever heard Steven Lawson preach without authority.  The man is passionate about God.  His message on Galatians 1 exhorted preachers to 'Guard the Gospel'.  Just as in Galatia where false prophets were preaching a different gospel than what Jesus and His disciples taught, in the same way in our day, the gospel is diluted, edited, or just plain thrown out with the bathwater.  He reminded us of the testimony of John Knox.  John Knox condemned Queen Mary over the Mass.  Calling Knox to the palace, she threatened him.  Unconcerned, Knox began to preach the gospel to her while stating in no uncertain terms that what she was doing was sin.  She burst into tears and ran out of the room.

One particularly strong point he made was, "The problem with preachers today is that no one wants to kill them anymore."  How true, unfortunately.

Jubilant Sykes.  His rendition of "Were You There" was masterful and moving.  I was blessed by it.  Jubilant, he certainly was.

John MacArthur was coaxed onto the stage himself to perform a spiritual number. 

Dr. MacArthur's final message, "The Dilemma of Theodicy" was sobering, but, at the same time, very encouraging.  Theodicy is essentially the question: If God is all powerful and all loving, why is there evil in the world?  Typically, the free-will advocates try to 'save' God by insisting that either God did not plan for evil - He simply knew it would happen and prepared the Cross to save all who would accept Him (The Cross was an afterthought?) - He limited Himself purposely to allow for their free choice; Or God hadn't a clue that evil would happen and is as shocked as anyone that it occurred - As a result, God is simply reacting to our actions; trying to fix the problems we're making. 

Understand this: We may want to rescue God from the problem of evil by reducing His sovereignty, but God does not want to be rescued.  He is perfectly willing to be sovereign, despite what scoffers accuse Him of as a result of that.  God's ultimate purpose in creating the world was to glorify Himself.  God could have created a perfect world where nothing bad would happen.  But He made a deliberate choice to leave some people in their sins and shed His sovereign, saving grace on others. 

How does that work?  God's divine attributes are praiseworthy in and of themselves - His great love, mercy, power, holiness - Yet , how well would we understand His love without seeing it manifested towards us when we were dead in sins and totally incapable and unwilling to return to Him?  How would we understand His power if we did not see Him subjugate the greatest powers of the universe with less effort than it takes us to read this overly long blog post.  And particularly, how could His ultimate purity and holiness be so perfectly displayed and honored except against the backdrop of sin? 

As MacArthur noted at the end, does the existence of evil give God more or less glory?  Infinitely more! Rom. 3:5.

Let's be clear on one thing, though: James 1 and other places are clear that God is responsible for good, yet He forces no one to sin.  Can I explain that to your rational, skeptical mind?  No.  I know that nothing happens outside the will of God.  How is God responsible for evil without directly causing it?  Hard question.  Yet God puts the ultimate smackdown on anyone who questions His wisdom on this issue:

"You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?”  But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, "Why have you made me like this?"" Romans 9:19-20.

Furthermore,

"What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory," Romans 9:22-23. 

God works primarily for His name's sake.  His plan was not foiled at the outset.  The cross was not Plan B.  I can hear the protesters screaming right now: "That's not fair!  How dare God act for His own desires ahead of ours!  What an Eternal Egotist!"  Okay, so they wouldn't say it like that.  But that's essentially what's going through their minds, whether they recognize and admit it or not.  God can and does act for Himself first because He alone deserves praise, honor and glory.  He desires His creation to glorify Him - That's why He created us!

In Isaiah 43, after describing all that He does for us, God explains why He does what He does:

"Everyone who is called by My name, whom I have created for My glory; I have formed him, yes, I have made him." Isaiah 43:7.

It's not as though these are obscure references.  The Bible is full of the truth.  The problem is inside us.  It's called pride.  Pride felled Lucifer, condemned Adam and Eve (in their desire to be 'like God'), humiliated Nebuchadnezzar, and it will ultimately send all of us to hell except for the sovereign grace of God. 

"For of Him and through Him and to Him are all things, to whom be glory forever. Amen." Romans 11:36.

As I finish up this post, I'll use that verse to tie me into my final section: Books.  I bought over a dozen books this year.  On 'The Unwavering Resolve of Jonathan Edwards' by Steven Lawson, I managed to get an autograph from him.  When he autographed it, he included that verse. 

Also got a Ryle book which looks like it'll come in handy on my next paper about the future of Israel.  J.C. Ryle's book was called, "Are You Ready for the End of Time?" 

Last night before bed I read over half of John Newton's autobiography, "Out of the Depths".  Incredible story of God's grace in the life of Newton.  Consider this a recommendation (even though I haven't finished it).

Got some Piper books, John Bunyan's autobiography, "Grace Abounding" (The title won me over; jk. ) and a Puritan Paperbacks entry by Bunyan called, "The Sacrifices of God", dealing with Psalm 51:17. 

I'd pull out a complete list of books I either bought or got free, but I doubt anyone really cares all that much (except the people who went with me...and already know).  But I'll post it on comments if anyone really wants it.

Blessed week.  Soli Deo Gloria!