I was happy to find out Ratio Christi was hosting a Ravi Zacharias International Ministries (RZIM) speaker on campus on the first day of classes. I have known of Dr. Zacharias for a while now, and have watched many of his lectures on YouTube. He is a great apologist and I've learned a great deal from him. While Dr. Zacharias himself wasn't going to be on campus, I was excited to have the chance to learn something new in apologetics. The RZIM speaker John Njoroge was speaking on the topic of morality, of which I don't have in-depth knowledge on, though I have the basics.
Perhaps my expectations were too high, but I was not impressed in the least with Njoroge's presentation. His monologue seemed to have no central, unifying point. Was he trying to argue for universal morals? That a transcendent God is the ultimate source of objective morals? Whatever his main argument, it was not expressed clearly. I understood his individual arguments, and agreed with them, but there came a point when I had to ask myself, "What is the man trying to persuade me, or inform me of?" In fairness, it had been a long first day of classes, so, perhaps, I wasn't able to fully appreciate his lecture due to my fatigue—and I do hope that to be the case, since I know how important RZIM's mission is.
I do not wish to criticize the good works of a brother in Christ, but I must make one more criticism about Njoroge. After the his presentation, the speaker took questions from the audience. Many of the questions were on subjects I know next to nothing about, so I cannot comment on them. However, the question about "Why would a loving God order the atrocities in the Old Testament?" was poorly handled. First, the speaker took a long time to actually answer the question—which is not a bad thing per se—and did not give the underlying reason as to why God could do such things justly.
After circling the question for a few minutes, Njoroge answered the question with, "It was understood in that culture for historians to speak in this manner, over-emphasizing the victory, and did not literally mean every man, woman, child, and animal was necessarily killed." [paraphrased, but his point is intact] Which is a perfectly valid argument (assuming it is true, which I am not contesting, but I do not know whether it is true); however, it did not address the underlying issue.
The question is really asking, "You say your God is the source of objective morality, but we can all read in the Old Testament God commanding the Israelites to kill everyone of a particular ethnicity, including children. How can that possibly be morally acceptable?"
Njoroge's answer only addresses the Israelites' actions. He is claiming the record of events was written in custom of the culture: over-emphasizing victories. Yet, this does not address the underlying issue of why such actions were acceptable to a God of perfect love, mercy, and justice.
A better answer is the Lord God has the authority to order such brutal annihilation because he is the Almighty Creator of the world and everything in it. Those people were made in his image, and he has authority to do with them as he pleases. Those people did not follow God's commandments and he, being a just God, punished them for their sins. He has every right to do so, and to suggest otherwise implies God Almighty does not have full authority.
The question is asking, "Is God being inconsistent when he commands the Israelites to do such things?" No, he is not. God is the perfect judge, and for him to not punish sin would make him no longer a good judge—he would no longer be following the law he gave to the world. God's mercy is apparent in places such as Gen. 15:16, where he does not destroy the Amorites immediately for their sins, but lets them have a chance to repent, even though he knows they will not.
No comments:
Post a Comment