REFORMED SKEPTICAL THEISM

BY: MATT MANRY 6640 AKERS MILL ROAD APT#1330. ATLANTA, GA. 30339

404-983-7659

ADVISOR: DR. BILL DAVIS

�2

Introduction

Is the reason for tornadoes touching down in Atlanta, Georgia on Tuesday a sign

that God was displeased with a sinful legislative decision that was made on Monday? Did

the 9/11 attacks take place because of the fact that America has been declining in its

moral behavior for years? Is the reason that Zach, a sixteen-year-old male, who was

diagnosed with leukemia receive that diagnosis because of the fact that he had stolen

money from his mother’s purse over the last year? Some might suggest that these

situations are totally unrelated consequences of living in a universe that is governed by

chance and pure indifference. For Christians, however, some reason or belief must be

given for why these acts of evil occur in our world. The typical answer that is given by

Christians is that we live in a fallen world that is affected by sin. The consequences of the

Fall in the Garden of Eden (Gen. 3) is that we now live in a world that is full of natural

and moral evil. This is obviously a Biblical response that can be given. However, what

about specific moments of evil that occur at a specific place or in a specific person’s life?

Do these evils simply occur because of a specific sin in one’s life or the sins of a specific

city? There seem to be a few different answers or opinions given. For example, John

Piper once said in August of 2009 that the reason that a tornado hit Minneapolis was

because it was “a gentle but firm warning to the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America

(who were voting on whether or not homosexuality is a behavior that should disqualify a

man/woman from pastoral ministry) and all of us to turn from the approval of sin.” 1

John Piper. “Tornado, the Lutherans, and Homosexuality,” Desiring God, August 19, 1

2009, http://www.desiringgod.org/blog/posts/the-tornado-the-lutherans-and-homosexuality.

�3

There is no doubt that this is a very bold statement. Is John Piper right though? Is the

reason that there was a tornado in Minneapolis because of the ELCA’s view on

homosexual relations? Or perhaps think about these comments made by evangelical

leader Pat Robertson. Robertson said that the earthquake that occurred in Haiti in 2010

was due to the fact that Haiti had made a “pact with the devil.” Is this true? And if so, 2

how would Pat Robertson be the only one to know that it is true? In this paper, I hope to

at least suggest an answer that can be given to some of these questions that have been

proposed above.

Over the past decade, there has been a lot of discussion about the relation between

the problem of evil and skeptical theism by atheists, philosophers, and theologians. For 3

the purpose of this paper, instead of re-engaging in in a dialogue in defense of skeptical

theism, I propose to assert a new stance of skeptical theism that is compatible with

Reformed theology. Henceforth, I will refer to this position as Reformed Skeptical

Theism (RST). In this paper, I plan on defining and defending RST, and to propose that it

should be adopted as a new apologetic stance in defense of the Christian faith.

In section I, I plan on defining RST and presenting an introduction as to why I

believe that RST is a genuine apologetic stance. In section II, I will demonstrate how

RST provides a worthwhile defense against the problem of evil. In section III, I will

argue that RST has a Biblical foundation and is supported throughout the Holy

“Pat Robertson says Haiti paying for ‘pact to the devil,’” CNN.com, January 13, 2010, 2

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/01/13/haiti.pat.robertson/.

Michael Bergmann and Michael Rea, “In Defense of Skeptical Theism: A Reply to 3

Almeida and Oppy,” The Australasian Journal of Philosophy 83 (2005): 241-51.

�4

Scriptures. In section IV, I will discuss the Reformed tradition and how I believe that RST

stands committed to Reformed Theology. In section V, I will suggest that RST should be

adopted into the Presuppositional Apologetic method. In section VI, I will discuss some

of the objections that are most likely going to be brought forth against RST. And finally,

in section VII, I will present some concluding remarks in defense of the RST position.

I. Reformed Skeptical Theism: Some Preliminaries

A. What is Skeptical Theism?

Skeptical theism has been defined as the view that God exists but that we should

be skeptical of our ability to discern God’s reasons for acting or refraining from acting in

any particular instance. The Notre Dame Center for Philosophy of Religion also 4

provides a helpful definition of skeptical theism. This definition states that: “We have no

reason to think that we could discern divine purpose in (God) allowing horrendous evils

if there were any, and so we have no warrant for believing that such evils do not serve a

divine purpose.” With these two definitions in mind, let us now turn to defining RST. 5

B. Defining Reformed Skeptical Theism

The purpose of this paper is to show that skeptical theism and Reformed theology

are compatible. Therefore, a working definition of RST must be provided. The definition

that I propose for RST goes as follows: In light of what the Bible reveals, human beings

Justin P. McBrayer, “Skeptical Theism,” Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Last 4

accessed July 10, 2014, http://www.iep.utm.edu/skept-th/.

“Skeptical Theism,” University of Notre Dame Center for Philosophy of Religion, Last 5

accessed July 10, 2014, http://philreligion.nd.edu/research-initiatives/problem-of-evil/skeptical-theism/.

�5

should be skeptical of their ability to discern what God’s sovereign/divine purpose is (or

is not) in allowing particular acts of evil in certain situations. What this definition asserts

is that the Bible makes it clear that human beings should doubt their ability to discern the

purpose and plan of God in specific situations. One of the obvious and noteworthy 6

differences between RST and skeptical theism is the fact that RST presupposes the truth

of the Bible and seeks to submit itself to the authority/inerrancy of Scripture.

C. Reformed Skeptical Theism and Christian Apologetics

Our preliminary discussion of RST enables us to discuss (at least initially) why

RST should be considered an apologetic stance within Christianity. It seems that RST

would be a use of negative apologetics in the sense that the apologist would simply use

RST as a defense against an attack from its atheological opponents. As Dr. John Feinberg

notes: “The point (of negative apologetics) is to rebut arguments raised against your

views, not to offer positive evidence that your beliefs are correct.” Therefore, in 7

proposing the adaptation of RST as a Christian apologetic stance, it must be stated that

RST falls in line with being a defense of the Christian faith and not as a theodicy. All of

this is important to note from the outset (a more detailed discussion will follow below). In

the next section I am going to introduce readers to the problem of evil.

II. Reformed Skeptical Theism And The Problem Of Evil

A. Introduction

I am going to discuss this further below. 6

John S. Feinberg, Can You Believe It’s True?: Christian Apologetics in a Modern and 7

Postmodern Era (Wheaton: Crossway, 2013), 200

�6

To begin off with, I am going to focus in on why I believe RST is a worthwhile

apologetic defense against the evidential problem of evil. For now, I am going to assume

that the RST stance is in line with the Christian Scriptures and the Reformed theological

tradition. I am going to spend a majority of the time in this section interacting with two

different forms of the evidential problem of evil in because I believe that these arguments

are currently the most formidable opponents to belief in the God of the Bible. While the

logical problem of evil seems to have been defeated by Alvin Plantinga’s free will

defense, I will not venture to explore in this paper how the RST position could possibly 8

by used to defend against the logical problem of evil. In this section my main concern is

going to be showing why I believe RST provides Christians with an apologetic defense

against the evidential problem of evil.

B. Reformed Skeptical Theism And The Evidential Problem Of Evil

How can a loving God exist in a world where there is so much suffering and evil?

This has been a question posed by many people over the course of time. However, the

main questions that seem to be being asked now are whether or not evil provides us with

enough evidence to consider belief in God to be irrational. Some of the main proponents

of the evidential problem of evil have been philosophers William Rowe and Paul Draper.

I am going to specifically interact with their two arguments that they have set forward

See Alvin Plantinga, God, Freedom, and Evil (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974). 8

�7

because I believe that they are the most daunting. The argument that William Rowe sets

forward can be construed in the following way:

1. There exist instances of intense suffering which an omnipotent, omniscient being could have prevented without thereby losing some greater good or permitting some evil equally bad or worse.

. 2. An omniscient, wholly good being would prevent the occurrence of any intense

suffering it could, unless it could not do so without thereby losing some greater good or permitting some evil equally bad or worse.

. 3. (Therefore) There does not exist an omnipotent, omniscient, wholly good

being. 9

This argument seeks to establish the fact that since we observe intense suffering within

humans and animals, we should conclude (by observing the evidence) that it is highly

unlikely that God exists. Before I begin interacting with Rowe’s argument, I believe it

would be wise to set forth Paul Draper’s argument as well. Draper’s argument is:

1. Gratuitous evils exist

2. The hypothesis of indifference, i.e., that if there are supernatural beings they are indifferent to gratuitous evils, is a better explanation for (1) than theism.

3. Therefore, evidence prefers that no god, as commonly understood by theists, exists. 10

William Rowe, “The Problem of Evil and Some Varieties of Atheism,” in The Evidential 9

Argument from Evil, ed. Daniel Howard-Snyder (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1996), 2.

Paul Draper, “Pain and Pleasure: An Evidential Problem for Theists,” in The Evidential 10

Argument from Evil, ed. Daniel Howard-Snyder (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1996), 12-13.

�8

Again, Draper is trying to show that the observable evidence of evil in the world provides

evidence against the existence of an all-loving, all-powerful being. At first glance, both of

these arguments seem very impressive. However, I will explain why I believe that the

RST stance that I have set forth provides Christians with a defense against these

formulations of the evidential problem of evil.

In both arguments that have been set forth by Rowe and Draper, they seem to

believe that observable evidence gives reasons to believe that because of the amount of

evil that we see in the world, there probably is no God who exists. Or perhaps, if a God

does exist, he is indifferent to what is actually taking place in the world. Now how would

a Christian answer these issues? I propose that the RST stance can be used. As you might

remember, I stated the RST position in the following way:

In light of what the Bible reveals, human beings should be skeptical of their ability to discern what God’s sovereign/divine purpose is (or is not) in allowing particular acts of evil in certain situations.

How exactly does this stance provide a defense for the Christian against the arguments

set forth by Rowe and Draper? To begin, we will consider Rowe’s argument. It must be

made clear that if a Christian can undercut one of the two premises set forth by Rowe,

then this provides adequate reason for not accepting his argument. In Rowe’s argument

he asserts the following:

1. There exist instances of intense suffering which an omnipotent, omniscient being could have prevented without thereby losing some greater good or permitting some evil equally bad or worse.

�9

2. An omniscient, wholly good being would prevent the occurrence of any intense suffering it could, unless it could not do so without thereby losing some greater good or permitting some evil equally bad or worse.

Now what is concerning for those who accept the RST stance is discovering how Rowe

actually knows that God would prevent the occurrence of any intense suffering that he

could. Perhaps, God has good reason for allowing the suffering that occurs in the world.

Perhaps, because God is omniscient, he has certain knowledge that humans beings will

never understand or attain when it comes to the suffering and evil in the world. Does this

not seem like a reasonable assertion to make? Any person who is intellectually honest

must admit that if there is a god, he would most likely know more than we do—probably

a significant amount more than we do. So why does Rowe believe that there are no God-

justifying reasons for God allowing intense/gratuitous evil in the world? Obviously, the

best answer that can be given is that he (Rowe) cannot see any good reason for God

allowing these instances of evil. But how does it follow that just because Rowe sees no

reason for intense suffering to exist, that there is no reason. It would be absurd to suggest

that just because I see no reason for God allowing this evil to occur, that there must be no

good reason at all. As William Alston once noted: “The most salient feature of the

inference from ‘I can’t see any sufficient reason for God to permit this evil’ to ‘There is

no sufficient reason for God to permit this evil’ is that we are taking the insights

attainable by finite, fallible human beings as an adequate indication of what is available

in the way of reasons to an omniscient, omnipotent being.” Both of Rowe’s premises 11

William Alston, “Some (Temporarily) Final Thoughts on Evidential Arguments from 11

Evil,” in The Evidential Argument from Evil, ed. Daniel Howard-Snyder (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1996), 317.

�10

seem to be asserting things that Rowe could not possibly know given his epistemic

position. For that matter, there is no human being that could possibly know the reasons

that God does/does not have in allowing acts of evil and suffering to occur. Of course, the

Bible clues us in on perhaps some of the reasons (i.e. sin), but we still must recognize the

Creator/creature gap that exists. There seems to be no way to epistemically assert that

God probably has no good reason for allowing evil and suffering in the world just

because we cannot see a reason for it. Rowe’s argument can be weakened seemingly if

one simply asserts the RST position as a defense against his evidential problem of evil.

We should be skeptical of our abilities to discern why God doesn’t prevent some of the

evil and suffering in the world. So what about Draper’s argument? Does his evidential

argument for evil fair any better? Here are Draper’s two premises that he sets forth:

1. Gratuitous evils exist

2. The hypothesis of indifference, i.e., that if there are supernatural beings they are indifferent to gratuitous evils, is a better explanation for (1) than theism.

Now the problem that I see with Draper’s argument is found in both of his premises as

well. In his first premise, Draper professes that uncalled evil and suffering exists. But

doesn’t Draper face the same dilemma that Rowe faced? How is he in any position to

assert that there are unwarranted acts of suffering and evil in the world? Again, it seems

that Draper is overstepping his cognitive boundaries. In my mind, Draper’s second

premise fails as well. Why does Draper believe that the hypothesis of indifference is a

better explanation than theism? Draper believes that the pain and pleasure that we

�11

observe in the world is better explained by the hypothesis of indifference. However, 12

why couldn’t the Christian counter this claim with the observation that pain and pleasure

in this world is better explained by the Fall of man and original sin? I see no reason why

this claim could not be made. Of course, the argument mainly faces difficulties because

of the first premise. It seems like both Draper and Rowe are making the following claim:

P: I see no justifiable reason for this suffering and evil to take place.

To

C: There is no justifiable reason for this suffering and evil to take place.

Do they both not realize the cognitive leap they are making when asserting this? Well, to

a degree I am sure that they do. But since they both are not Christians, and are operating

from an atheistic worldview, it is hard for them to comprehend how it is possible that a

good and loving God would allow all of the evil that we see in the world. This is why

Rowe and Draper tend to believe that because they can’t see a reason for evil and

suffering to occur, that there must not be one that a divine being would have. But there 13

really is not much epistemic humility in this stance. Again, William Alston notes:

Given what we know of our limitations—the variety of questions we don’t know how to answer, the possibilities we can’t exclude of realms of being to which we have no access, our ignorance even of many of the details of humans history, and so on—how can we suppose that we are in a position to estimate the extent to

Paul Draper, “Pain and Pleasure: An Evidential Problem for Theists,” in The Evidential 12

Argument from Evil, ed. Daniel Howard-Snyder, 12-26.

Stephen Wykstra, “Rowe’s Noseeum Arguments from Evil,” in The Evidential 13

Argument from Evil, ed. Daniel Howard-Snyder (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1996), 126-150.

�12

which the possibilities we can envisage for divine reasons for permitting evils even come close to exhausting the possibilities open to an omniscient being? 14

Or as Pastor Tim Keller says:

The problem with this argument (the evidential problem of evil) is that it isn’t fundamentally any different from the logical argument. It rests on the same premises and has the same Achilles heel. If we are unable to prove that God has no morally sufficient reasons for evil, we are certainly unable to assess the level of probability that he has such reasons. To insist that we have a sufficient vantage point from which to evaluate percentages or likelihood is to again forget our knowledge limitations. If there is an infinite God and we are finite, there would be no way for us to lay odds on such things. 15

Or perhaps as these theologians and philosophers note:

• Paul K. Moser: “Even if we have personified wisdom from God, we still remain in the dark about some questions about God’s specific purposes for evil in the world. Arguably, we should have expected this limitation, after reflection on our highly limited understanding of God’s purposes in general.” 16

• Richard Gale: “Because our imaginative and cognitive powers are so radically limited, we are not warranted in inferring that there are not or probably are not God-justifying reasons for evils.” 17

• Peter van Inwagen: “For all logic can tell us, God might have reasons for allowing evil to exist that, in his mind, outweigh the desirability of the non-existence of evil.” 18

William Alston, “Some (Temporarily) Final Thoughts on Evidential Arguments from 14

Evil,” in The Evidential Argument from Evil, ed. Daniel Howard-Snyder (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1996), 311-332.

Timothy Keller, Walking with God through Pain and Suffering (New York: Dutton, 15

2013), 99. It is important to note that Keller is in fact using a presuppositional approach within this quote.

Paul Moser, The Severity of God: Religion and Philosophy Reconceived (Cambridge: 16

Cambridge University Press, 2013), 35.

Richard Gale, “Evil as Evidence Against God,” in Debating Christian Theism, ed. J.P. 17

Moreland, Chad Meister, and Khaldoun Sweis (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013), 203.

Peter van Inwagen, The Problem of Evil: The Gifford Lectures Delivered in the 18

University of St. Andrews in 2003 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006), 65.

�13

• Stephen Wykstra: “If we think carefully about the sort of being theism proposes for our belief, it is entirely expectable—given what we know of our cognitive limits—that the goods by virtue of which this Being allows known suffering should very often be beyond our ken.” 19

• Todd R. Long: “Indeed we are not in any position to be epistemically rational in believing that we can comprehend what would be the full purposes of a perfect creator.” 20

This is why the RST stance that I have proposed should be adopted. Of course, I

recognize that the only people that will be willing to adopt the RST stance will be

Christians who believe in the authority and trustworthiness of the Bible. That is fine.

There is no one who approaches the argument from evil from a neutral position. This is

why I propose for the RST stance to be adopted as an apologetic position that is used in

the school of presuppositional apologetics. I will discuss this more thoroughly in the next

section. For now, I just want to quickly sum up why I believe the RST stance is the

proper defense that can be used against the evidential problem of evil.

The problem of evil seems to be the main reason why people stop believing in

God. Christians and non-Christians alike would both agree that suffering and evil exists

in the world and that sometimes the experience of suffering can be overbearing. This is

why pastoral care, love, and support is so important to display to those who are suffering.

I am suggesting that the RST stance be used as a philosophical and theological defense

against the problem of evil. In no way am I suggesting that this position be asserted to

someone going through a painful situation. The RST stance asserts that we should be

Stephen Wykstra, “The Humean Obstacle to Evidential Arguments from Suffering: On 19

Avoiding the Evils of Appearance,” International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 16 (1984): 73-93.

Todd R. Long, “Minimal Skeptical Theism,” in Skeptical Theism: New Essays, ed. 20

Trent Dougherty and Justin P. McBrayer (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014), 65.

�14

skeptical of our ability to understand the ways and work of God. This provides a defense

against the evidential problem of evil because of the fact that it asserts that just because

we cannot see any reason for God to allow evil does not mean that there is not one. In the

next section, my goal is to show the scriptural support for the RST stance.

III. Reformed Skeptical Theism And Its Biblical Foundation

A. Introduction

For RST to be considered a worthy apologetic defense in Reformed theology, I

must show how the Bible supports its methodology. Therefore, the purpose of this section

is to offer up Scriptures throughout the Old and New Testaments that support the RST

approach. The reason for doing this is to show the compatibility that RST has with

Reformed theology and to demonstrate how RST makes more sense than skeptical theism

because it actually is founded on the Bible (Since the Bible is the center of the Christian

faith I am arguing that skeptical theism would be a stronger apologetic defense if it was

founded on the Bible. That is why I am proposing that RST be adopted as a new stance

because I am strictly founding RST on what the Bible reveals. Of course there are other

monotheistic religions that could use a skeptical theistic approach. However, unless the

model is founded on that religion’s Scripture, then I would argue that that approach

cannot be considered as strong of a position). In the following sections, I will focus on

the Old and New Testaments and then offer some concluding remarks for why Scripture

strongly supports the RST stance.

B. The Old Testament Foundation for Reformed Skeptical Theism

�15

In this section, I am going to discuss the Old Testament foundation for RST.

While this is not an exhaustive list of Scriptures that one could use to support RST, I

believe that these texts provide a strong and firm foundation for the RST position. By

providing exegetical evidence from these texts, I believe that I will be able to

demonstrate why the Old Testament is supportive of the RST stance that I have set forth.

B1. Job 38:1-42:6

In this exegetical discussion, I am going to specifically focus on why Job

38:1-42:6 is supportive of the RST stance that I have discussed. This is, perhaps, the main

text in the Bible that will support RST. However, a little background information of the

Book of Job will help us understand why Job 38:1-42:6 aligns with my definition of RST.

It is clear from the outset of the Book of Job, that Job is a man who was considered to be

blameless and upright, a man who feared God and turned away from evil (1:1). He was

also a man who had a large family and a lot of material possessions (1:2-3). As the

narrative continues, it is clear that Satan receives permission from God to afflict Job

(1:6-12). Job ends up losing all of his possessions and his sons and daughters during this

infliction (1:13-19). However, even in the midst of all this suffering, Job does not charge

God with any wrongdoing (1:22). After this, Satan returns to the presence of God once

again, and receives permission to afflict Job’s bone and flesh with painful sores (2:1-7).

Again, Job is faithful and does not claim that God is in the wrong for his affliction (2:10).

This leads to the three friends of Job, Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar coming to comfort him

(2:11). Various conversations and speeches take place over the course of the next twenty-

�16

thirty chapters. In chapter 32, another one of Job’s friends, Elihu enters into the story and

offers up a very long speech to Job. With this background in mind, I will now investigate

specifically Job 38:1-42:6.

Elihu concludes his speech at the end of chapter thirty-seven. As soon as this

moment is over, God answers Job out of whirlwind (38:1). It is hard to imagine the fear

that overcame the onlookers. From Job 38:4 - 40:2, the Lord God of Heaven speaks and

there is little doubt about what he is trying to accomplish. What God is revealing to Job is

that his divine power and his sovereign purpose are unsearchable and unknowable. God is

the one who has created the material world and all that is in it, so who is man to question

the sovereignty of God’s design? It is obvious that Job understands the assertion that God

is making because he promises to be silent from henceforth on (Job 40:3-5). The Lord

then answers Job again and continues his declaration of his complete rule and sovereignty

over all things. In this section of Scripture it is obvious that God is challenging Job’s

wisdom and power to an extent. This is revealed to us particularly in the fact that Job

repents of unbelief and confesses that his wisdom and knowledge are limited (42:1-6).

The Lord then turns and rebukes Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar for their unwise counsel

that they offered to Job (42:7-9), and then restores Job’s fortune and family to him

(42:10-17). This is the end of the narrative and how the story of Job concludes.

Now there is little doubt that the Book of Job has been a hot topic of discussion

throughout the history of philosophical and theological thought. It is very hard to

understand and comprehend why Job, as a righteous and blameless individual, had to go

through the amount of suffering that he had to go through. There are so many questions

�17

that seem to pop into our heads after reading Job’s account. Why did God allow Job to go

through an intense amount of suffering? Why did God not reveal to Job (or the readers of

Job’s account in the Bible) the reason why he chose to afflict him? It is only readers of

Job’s account who get to even see the fact that Satan actually stood before God and

petitioned to afflict Job in the first place. Job had no idea that this is what occurred. Now

various theodicies have been offered up over the years to try and justify God’s action in

the Book of Job. Perhaps, the most popular one over the past century comes from Harold

Kushner’s book, When Bad Things Happen To Good People. That is of no significant 21

matter for us though at this time, because I am simply trying to propose a possible

defense that Christians can use against the evidential problem of evil or other forms of

the argument.

Probably one of the most disturbing facts about the Book of Job is that neither Job

nor the reader of Job’s account are ever given a reason as to why Job suffered the way

that he did. As David Atkinson points out, “The book of Job has shown us that there are

questions for which there are no answers this side of heaven, and problems which human

logic cannot solve.” This can definitely cause Christians to feel very helpless and 22

indefensible when confronted with what seems like gratuitous evils of this world. The

problem of evil and suffering in the world is the main reason that many people choose to

de-convert from belief in the Christian God. However, for the Reformed Skeptical Theist,

there is a solution to the problem. Simply put, there is no reason for anyone (Christian or

Harold Kushner, When Bad Things Happen to Good People (New York: Anchor 21

Books, 2004).

David Atkinson, The Message of Job (Downers Grove: Inter-Varsity Press, 1991), 155. 22

�18

skeptic alike) to assume that God does not have good reason for allowing the evil that he

does. Obviously, this can definitely be said about the account of Job. Why should we

assume that just because God does not offer Job or us a reason for the suffering that he

went through in the Bible, that it then follows that there probably is not a good reason?

That obviously makes no logical sense. Again, as David Atkinson points out: “There are

some things which have, by their very nature, to be left within the mystery of God.” For 23

now, I am simply arguing that the Book of Job is in line with the Reformed Skeptical

Theists’ thesis and can be stated in the following way: In light of what the Bible reveals

about Job, in the Book of Job, human beings should be skeptical of their ability to discern

what God’s sovereign/divine purpose is (or is not) in allowing particular acts of evil in

Job’s situation. The book of Job is completely in line with what we have seen take place

in the Book of Job. Even though Job never was told the reason for why he suffered, he

still believed God and endured his suffering with patience until it was taken away (James

5:11). As Mitch Stokes points out: “Job takes God’s ever-so-subtle hint, realizing that, in

this case, the inference from ‘I don’t know of any good reason for allowing this’ to

‘There’s no good reason for allowing this’ is poor indeed.” This message should 24

definitely encourage Christians to persevere through their sufferings because the God of

the Bible is full of mercy. However, at this point, we still have a long way to go. Let us

now look at another passage in the Old Testament that supports the RST stance.

Ibid., 155.23

Mitch Stokes, A Shot of Faith (to the Head): Be a Confident Believer in an Age of 24

Cranky Atheists, (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2012), 196.

�19

B2. Ecclesiastes 11:5 The Book of Ecclesiastes is believed to have been written by King Solomon. In

Ecclesiastes 11:5 it says: “As you do not know the way the spirit comes to the bones in

the womb of a woman with child, so you do not know the work of God who makes

everything.” The reason that I have decided to include this passage in my discussion of

RST is because of how it clearly expresses the infinite wisdom of God. One of the key

propositions that is assumed in the RST position is that God is infinitely wise and

knowledgeable, while human beings have significant limitations in both of these areas.

This assumption can be made because it is in line with what the Bible has revealed and

because of the Creator/creature distinction that is made within Christian theology. With

that in mind, it is clear that Solomon expresses that God’s work is unknowable in this

text. To what extent God’s work is unknowable seems very ambiguous in this text.

However, we can assert that Solomon is at least suggesting that human beings cannot

know what God is doing at every moment. Sometimes his work is completely mysterious

to us. As Michael Eaton rightly notes, “certain aspects of God’s working on earth defy

explanation.” But at this point, all I am simply doing is demonstrating that Ecclesiastes 25

11:5 can be seen as a supportive text for RST. Let us now explore Psalm 145:3.

B3. Psalm 145:3

Psalm 145 is attributed to King David. The reason for the exploration of this

specific psalm is due to the fact that David recognizes and declares that God’s greatness

Michael Eaton, Ecclesiastes: An Introduction & Commentary (Downers Grove: Inter-25

Varsity Press, 1983), 143.

�20

is unsearchable. The recognition of the fact that God’s greatness is unsearchable allows

us to see why this characteristic is supportive of the RST stance. The greatness of God

simply declares what God does is illustrious, distinguished, and eminent. This is

something that King David attributes to the God of the universe. He even specifically

recognizes that the greatness of God is unsearchable. Therefore, with that in mind, it must

be stated that the unsearchable greatness of God shows us that what he does and where he

does it is distinct. Simply put, it stands out. As A.A. Anderson points out, “the full extent

of his greatness and power is beyond human comprehension.” While this in no way 26

validates RST, it at least demonstrates that God’s greatness is unsearchable, and that

human beings should recognize that God’s renown is completely unfathomable.

B4. Isaiah 55:8-9 The Book of Isaiah is written by Isaiah the son of Amoz (1:1). The literary style

of this book is mostly prophetic, and in Isaiah 55, we get a clear and concise statement of

who God reveals himself to be. In Isaiah 55:8-9 it says: “For my thoughts are not your

thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, declares the LORD. For as the heavens are

higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your

thoughts.” Now in the immediate context of this passage, there seems to be an appeal that

is being made. In light of Isaiah 55:7, it is clear that the people are being called to turn

away from their sinful ways, and exchange their unrighteous thoughts and ways for the

unimaginably great thoughts and ways of God. This demonstrates the need for people to

A.A. Anderson, The New Century Bible Commentary (Psalms 73-150) (Grand Rapids: 26

Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1989), 937.

�21

humble themselves and meditate on the vastness of God’s great glory. However, this

passage can also be seen as verses that describe the incomparable wisdom of God. This

fact obviously demonstrates to us the reason why Isaiah 55:8-9 and RST stand in union

together. The thoughts and ways of the Lord are infinitely wise and incomparable to the

thoughts and ways of sapient beings. Edward J. Young agrees: “In other words, the ways

and thoughts of God are incomprehensible to man.” This text emphasizes the sovereign 27

plan of God and how he is infinitely above mankind in all that he does. Again, we are

simply laying a firm biblical foundation that supports the RST position. We now turn to

examine our last Old Testament passage.

B5. Amos 3:6

The Book of Amos is recorded by a shepherd named Amos. In Amos 3:6 it says

the following: “Is a trumpet blown in a city, and the people are not afraid? Does disaster

come to a city, unless the LORD has done it?” The specific detail of this passage that

stands in concord with RST is God’s total sovereignty over all matters. The Hebrew

word, ra’ah, is used in this passage and seems to convey various types of evil ranging

from moral evil to natural evil. Essentially, what is revealed in this text is that the 28

various evil in this world does not simply happen by chance, but rather is subjected to the

complete authority and control of God. This shows the meticulous control that God exerts

over all of creation. There is no hurricane, tornado, or tsunami that occurs outside of

Edward J. Young, The Book of Isaiah: Vol. 3 (Chapters 40-66) (Grand Rapids: 27

Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1972), 383.

John Oswalt, Commentary On Amos: ESV Study Bible, (Wheaton: Crossway, 2008), 28

1663.

�22

God’s control. There is little doubt that Amos 3:6 demonstrates to us how God is supreme

and absolute in all things.

B6. Concluding Remarks on the Old Testament

I have spent time examining five different passages found in the Old Testament

that explicitly support the RST stance or that infer characteristics of the God of the Bible

that support RST. What has been demonstrated through this exegetical exploration is that

God’s work is unknowable, that he does not owe us an explanation for why we suffer,

that his greatness is unsearchable, that his ways are infinitely wise and above ours, and

that he is completely sovereign over all the evils that occur in this world. It seems that the

Old Testament stands in concord with the RST stance that I have defined. I have tried

show that the God of the Old Testament is unsearchably great and at work in unknowable

ways. In my mind, this should provide comfort and solace for those who are going

through trials of various kinds. Even though we might not understand the reason why

God is acting or not acting, we should still be willing to trust in God’s perfect sovereign

plan. This is what a proper understanding of the RST stance leads too. Now let’s explore

some Scripture in the New Testament that supports the RST methodology.

C. The New Testament Foundation for Reformed Skeptical Theism

In this section, I am going to discuss the New Testament foundation for RST.

Again, it must be stated that while this is not an exhaustive list of Scriptures that one

could use to support RST, I believe that these texts provide a strong and firm foundation

for the RST position. By providing exegetical evidence from these texts, I believe that I

�23

will be able to demonstrate why the New Testament is supportive of the RST stance that I

have set forth.

C1. John 9:1-3

In our exploration of the New Testament, there is no doubt that starting with the

words of Jesus seems to be a great place to begin. The beloved disciple, John, records the

following encounter in his gospel: “As he passed by, he saw a man blind from birth. And

his disciples asked him, ‘Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born

blind?’ Jesus answered, ‘It was not that this man sinned, or his parents, but that the works

of God might be displayed in him.’” What is clear in this passage is that the disciples

initially believe that the reason that this man was born blind was due to either the sins

that he committed or the sins that his parents committed. There is little doubt that the

disciples were most likely thinking that this was a perfect example of retributive

punishment on display when walking past this man. It can also be assumed that the

disciples simply thought this is the way that the world works. However, according to

Jesus, this is not (thankfully) how the world works. What is clear in Jesus’ response to his

disciples is that specific sin does not necessarily cause particular suffering or evil in one’s

life. The disciples were looking for a correlation between this man’s sin and his suffering.

However, this is completely off base. Again, what is clear in the words of Jesus is that

God is sovereignly working even through physical sufferings. This is very clear when we

understand that what Jesus is simply saying is that this man was born blind so that the

work of God would be displayed in his life. Of course, we do not know directly what the

�24

work of God entailed of in this man’s life. Perhaps, it can be assumed that the work of

God consisted of this man not only having his physical sight healed (9:7), but also his

spiritual sight (9:38). It really does not matter for my purposes what the specifics of the

work of God was. However, it is at least clear in this text that Jesus saw purpose in this

man’s suffering, while the disciples could only see from a “cause and effect” mentality.

The karma disposition that the disciples operated from was what Jesus was trying to

undercut in this situation. The cause of this man being born blind was not due to the fact

that his parents specifically sinned in a situation that led to their son being born with a

disability. D.A. Carson notes: “Although Jesus does not disavow the generalizing

connection between sin and suffering, he completely disavows a universalizing of

particular connections.” The reasons for why he was born with a disability remain 29

unclear to us, but we at least are able to determine that it was not due to specific sins that

he/his family committed. Again, we see the sovereignty of God on display in this

passage. This text communicates to its readers the idea that God is sovereign over

suffering and evil, and that even though we do not know the reason(s) for why God

continues to allow evil in the world, we should not resort to questioning God’s infinite

wisdom in situations where we cannot see no justifiable reason for this evil to take place.

As Paul K. Moser says: “Given our real cognitive limits regarding God, a quest for a full

explanation of God’s purposes in allowing evil is sure to fail in our current

D.A. Carson, The Gospel According to John (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing 29

Company, 1991), 362.

�25

predicament.” Another passage in the New Testament that supports RST is found in the 30

book of Luke.

C2. Luke 13:1-5

It is believed that Luke the evangelist wrote the Gospel of Luke. I want to specifically

interact with the following account offered up in Luke 13. It says this:

There were some present at that very time who told him about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices. And he answered them, ‘Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans, because they suffered in this way? No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish. Or those eighteen on whom the tower in Siloam fell and killed them: do you think that they were worse offenders than all the others who lived in Jerusalem? No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish.’

The specific reason for interacting with this text is to again show the way that Jesus

connect sin and suffering. In this passage, we see Jesus actually confront both moral evil

and natural evil. Some Galileans are killed by Pilate (moral evil), and then Jesus brings

up the falling of the tower in Siloam, which killed eighteen people (natural evil).

Obviously, this situation demonstrates to us that Jesus was willing to confront the evil in

this world with a particular message. He did not leave us hanging. It is clear in this

passage that Jesus simply assumes that because of the fact that we live in a sinful world,

it makes sense for these events to happen. The Galileans who suffered under the hand of

Pilate were probably not the worst sinners in this region. Jesus seems to be presupposing

Paul Moser, The Severity of God: Religion and Philosophy Reconceived (Cambridge: 30

Cambridge University Press, 2013), 86.

�26

the fact that because all men have sinned (Rom. 3:23), all men also deserve death (Rom.

6:23). There was no difference between the people who died at the hands of Pilate, the

people who died at Siloam, and the people who were standing there listening to Jesus. It

was only by God’s mercy that these people who were listening to Jesus at that moment

were alive. Jesus is communicating the need to repent and turn away from sin in light of

the evils that occurred. What this demonstrates is that there does seem to be an

overarching message of repentance that is implicitly assumed whenever or wherever

natural or moral evils occur. For the purposes of the RST stance, we can simply state that

this text reveals to us that the fact that these people perished was not due to a particular

sin committed. The overarching reason for these people dying is in indeed sin. The Bible

seems to be clear on that fact. However, the particular reason for the eighteen people

dying at Siloam cannot be traced back to distinct sins that were committed at a precise

point in time. As Darrell Bock notes: “He (Jesus) rejects the assertion that worse sin was

the cause of the tragedy and again issues the warning to repent.” The Bible does not 31

give us any reason to believe that these people died because they were more sinful than

others. Rather, it is epistemically virtuous to assume that we, as human beings, perhaps

will never know the specific reason why these people died. Again, this fact demonstrates

that the Bible, and in this case the words of Jesus, stand in concord with the RST stance.

Because of our cognitive limitations we should not assume that the people who are

spoken of in Luke 13 were more sinful people than the others to whom Jesus was

speaking to directly. It is now time to explore Acts 2:23.

Darrell Bock, Luke Vol.2: 9:51-24:53 (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1996), 1207. 31

�27

C3. Acts 2:23

Again, we are going to be interacting with a statement given to us in the Book of

Acts recorded by Luke the evangelist. This text deals directly with evil, the freedom of

men, and the sovereignty of God. The apostle Peter makes the following statement right

after Pentecost. He says: “This Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and

foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men.” A few

things are evident when examine this text. First, it is clear that Peter believes that Jesus

Christ’s crucifixion was predestined by God. It was God’s sovereign plan and will for

Jesus Christ to suffer and die on the cross at calvary. This might cause some people to

believe that God is some “divine child abuser.” However, at this point, I am simply going

to assume that Jesus Christ’s crucifixion and death was a part of God’s divine plan and

that he had reasons for willing Jesus to the cross. This mode of thought stands in line 32

with the Reformed theological tradition, and so therefore also stands in concord with the

RST position. Secondly, it must be noted that Peter also sees men responsible for the

death of Jesus as well. There is no doubt that Pilate, the chief priests, the scribes, etc. are

still held accountable for their actions that sent Jesus Christ to the cross. Simply put, this

text shows how man’s freedom definitely plays a part in some of the evil that takes place

There are other texts in the Bible that support this belief as well. For example, see - 32

Matt. 20:19; Acts 3:18, 4:28, 13:27.

�28

in the world. Lastly, the problem of evil is demonstrated in this text because of the fact 33

that Jesus (who was a righteous and innocent man) died a monstrous and heinous death.

He was crucified and killed at the the hands of lawless men. Obviously, evil is on full

display in this moment. However, for our current purposes, it is simply important to note

that the sovereignty of God and the free actions of men stand in support of the RST

position that has been outlined.

C4. John 11:1-4

The beloved disciple introduces the amazing story of Lazarus in John 11. Here is

the specific text that we are going to examine in this section:

Now a certain man was ill, Lazarus of Bethany, the village of Mary and her sister Martha. It was Mary who anointed the Lord with ointment and wiped his feet with her hair, whose brother Lazarus was ill. So the sisters sent to him, saying, ‘Lord, he whom you love is ill.’ But when Jesus heard it he said, ‘This illness does not lead to death. It is for the glory of God, so that the Son of God may be glorified through it.’

This is probably one of the most famous accounts given in the Gospel of John. What is

interesting about this text in John 11 is the fact that we specifically get a glimpse into the

I do not have the space to outline in this paper the reason why I believe that God is 33

absolutely sovereign over all things (Prov. 16:33; Matt. 10:29), and yet human beings are still held accountable for their free choices/actions (Gen. 50:20; Acts 4:23-28). Personally, I believe that compatibilism is most in line with what the Bible teaches. For a good introduction to compatabilism, see Paul Helm, The Providence of God (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 1994). Now there could be other Christians who might assert that libertarian free will, open theism, or molinism is the proper biblical/philosophical position to take in regards to God’s sovereignty and human freedom. Again, I do not have the room to discuss each of these positions. I am simply taking for granted that RST, Reformed orthodoxy, and compatabilism are the positions that align the best together, and stand in concord with the teaching of Scripture.

�29

way that Jesus viewed Lazarus’ illness. To Jesus, Lazarus’ sickness was for the glory of

God. Think about the boldness of this statement. Mary and Martha, with whom Jesus was

extremely close with, send for him because they believe that Jesus has the power to heal

Lazarus. It is implied in this text that Lazarus must be severely ill, and this is why Mary

and Martha are sending for Jesus. It is easy to imagine the pain and suffering that Lazarus

was going through. We do not know the specifics of his sickness, but we do know that it

was severe enough to cause Lazarus to die (11:14). However, Jesus does not seem to be

acting with any sense of urgency in this text. Does he know something that we do not?

Well, yes. In this amazing account, Jesus Christ eventually raises Lazarus from the dead

(11:38-44). This miracle that Jesus performs shows that he has authority over death and

life (11:25). However, what Jesus specifically says after Mary and Martha send for him is

what I want to focus on in this text because it gives us strong support for the RST stance.

What Jesus proclaims is that Lazarus’ illness is for his glory and for the glory of his

Father in Heaven. This suffering that Lazarus is going through, that eventually leads to

his death, is simply for the glory of God. The initial question that arises in our mind when

reading this is why would Jesus allow this to happen. Why would Jesus let his friend die

when he had the power to go and heal him? The text does not seem to give a specific

answer to these questions. It actually is revealed that Jesus, after being sent for by Mary

and Martha, stayed for two days longer in the place that he was (11:5-6). Was Jesus

indifferent to the suffering of Lazarus? Did he simply not care what he was going

through? I don’t believe so. John 11 reveals that Jesus loved Lazarus (11:5). He loved

Lazarus so much that he wept at the sight of his tomb (11:35). So why would he let him

�30

suffer and die? The text does seem to give us view hints as to why Jesus let Lazarus die.

The main reason that can be given is that this illness was for the glory of God. Perhaps,

another reason is to simply display the power that Jesus had over death (11:38-44). Or

maybe it was for people to see that Jesus was in fact from God (11:42). These obviously

are a few answers that can be given. But the question still remains as to why Lazarus had

to suffer as he did for the glory of God to be revealed. Could there not have been another

way that this could have been accomplished? This is obviously where RST can be

employed. We simply do not know the exact reason why this had to happen. We can

assert that Lazarus’ illness and subsequent death was for the glory of God as the text

explicitly reveals, but we cannot assert the reason why God chose to work and act in this

way. We simply are not in a cognitive position to make such a claim. We may know that

the consequences of sin is death (Rom. 6:23), but we do not know why God specifically

chose Lazarus to die at this moment. It is even clear in this text that Jesus knew that

Lazarus was going to die (11:13-15), and yet he still chose to not go and heal him. This

may cause us to think that Jesus was unconcerned about Lazarus’ suffering, but that

would cause us to ignore texts that explicitly reveal Jesus’ love for Lazarus (11:5).

Whatever the reason was for allowing Lazarus to suffer and die we may never know, but

we at least do know that the purpose of it was to bring glory to God. The RST stance

again is supported by what we have analyzed in John 11. It is clear that this text gives us

reason to doubt our ability to determine why God allowed Lazarus to suffer the way that

he did. Let’s now turn and examine the final passage that deals with RST in the New

Testament.

�31

C5. Romans 11:33-34

The apostle Paul is considered to be the author of the letter to the Romans. I want

to specifically examine in this section the following text that the apostle Paul sets forth in

Romans 11. He says: “Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God!

How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways! ‘For who has known

the mind of the Lord, or who has been his counselor?’” I believe that this text is very

important to examine because it again demonstrates the infinite knowledge of God. The

apostle Paul makes it very clear in this doxological statement that the ways and

judgments of God are mysterious and incomprehensible. What this suggests is that we as

human beings have no ability to access the mind of God and comprehend all of his ways.

What God does is sometimes impossible to understand or interpret. This demonstrates to

us the need for epistemic humility whenever making statements about what God is or is

not doing in particular situation. Again, this doxology supports what I have outlined in

RST because it simply suggests that what God does is unfathomable and not up for

questioning. Practically speaking, this means that the judgments and ways of God in

particular moments of suffering and evil cannot be discerned by humans beings. The

cognitive distance between humans beings and God cannot be measured. This is what the

apostle Paul is trying to get the church at Rome to understand. We just are not in the

position to judge what God’s reasons are for acting or not acting in a particular instance

of suffering. Let’s conclude this section by evaluating what the New Testament has

revealed to us.

�32

C6. Concluding Remarks On The New Testament

I have spent time discussing 5 different passages in the New Testament that I

believe support the RST position that I have outlined. By exploring different passages

throughout the Gospels and the Pauline letters, I believe I have demonstrated that RST

can be supported by texts found in the New Testament. My focus has been to show that

there is a significant amount of concord between the RST stance that I have set forth and

the Christian Bible. I believe that I have conclusively shown to this point that RST is a

worthwhile position that should be adopted as a Christian apologetic position. I am now

going to turn and specifically discuss why RST stands in support or Reformed theology.

III. Reformed Skeptical Theism In Service Of Reformed Theology

A. Introduction

In this section, my desire is to show why Reformed Skeptical Theism supports the

Reformed faith as outlined by John Calvin and others. I do not plan to defend the

Reformed theological tradition in this section. Others have done this extremely well, so I

will just suggest that readers should consult their works if they are having difficulties in

understanding the Reformed tradition. For the purpose of this paper, I am simply going 34

to assume that the Reformed faith is a reasonable Christian theological tradition that

stands most in line with what the Bible has revealed. More specifically, this means that

the RST position should stand in line with the Westminster Confession of Faith and the

See Michael Horton, For Calvinism (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2011).34

�33

doctrine of the absolute sovereignty of God. My purpose is to show why RST is

compatible with the Reformed theological tradition. To this, I turn to next.

B. The Westminster Confession of Faith

Reformed orthodoxy has been historically grounded within the Westminster

Confession of Faith. This confession, simply put, is an exposition of the Reformed

understanding of the Christian faith. Therefore, the RST stance that I have outlined must

be seen as explicitly supporting that which is discussed in the Westminster Confession. In

my mind, what I have outlined thus far throughout this paper would indeed stand in

concord with what the Westminster Confession of Faith says in regards to God’s

providence and man’s free will. Again, for the purpose of this paper, I am simply 35

outlining what I believe is necessary for RST to be adopted as a stance in the Reformed

tradition.

C. The Absolute Sovereignty Of God

The Bible is is clear that God is absolutely sovereign over all things. According to

the Christian Bible, God exercises his providential control over his creation at all times

(Eph. 1:11; Lam. 3:37-38; Dan. 4:34-35; Ps. 104:14; Is. 51:12-13). We also know that

Jesus Christ upholds the universe by his word (Heb. 1:3). There is no sparrow that even

falls to the ground without the consent of the God of the Bible (Matt. 10:29). Obviously,

this brief sketch enables us to see and recognize that God is sovereign in an absolute

See The Westminster Confession of Faith. 3rd ed. (Lawrenceville: Committee for 35

Christian Education and Publications, 1990). Specifically see chapters 5 and 9.

�34

sense. What this demonstrates is that the RST stance that I have set forth must be

prepared to give an account as to how God is meticulously sovereign and yet still never

considered to be the author of evil. It must be stated that the Reformed doctrine of the

absolute sovereignty of God does not entail God forcing human begins to act in particular

evil ways. God is absolutely sovereign, and yet he does not cause evil situations to occur

without having a sovereign/divine purpose in them. Reformed theology has explicitly

rejected the idea that God is the author of sin. Obviously, RST must reject this idea as

well. Simply put, for the RST stance to succeed it must demonstrate how it is compatible

with the idea of God’s meticulous sovereignty, and yet still provide a rational answer to

the problem of evil.

D. Concluding Remarks

The purpose of this section has been to demonstrate some of the reasons why the

RST stance stands in line with Reformed thought. This has not been an exhaustive study

of the Reformed tradition, but I believe that I have at least demonstrated that RST can be

seen in service of the Reformed theological tradition. I am certain that readers will have

specific questions or perhaps even objections to some of the points that I have made thus

far. I simply suggest that you need to try and remain patient, because I do plan to deal

with objections that will be raised against RST near the end of this paper. 36

V. Reformed Skeptical Theism And Presuppositional Apologetics

A. Introduction

See section VI. 36

�35

Presuppositional apologetics is an apologetic school of thought that was

developed by Cornelius Van Til. Within this methodology, the Christian simply asserts

belief in the Christian God and the validity of the Christian Scriptures to be foundational.

For the purpose of this paper, I am simply suggesting that the RST stance should be seen

in concord with the Presuppositional apologetic method. This is obvious when one 37

understands that within the Presuppositional method, the Christian Bible is seen as a

supernatural revelation from God, and the foundation for the Christian worldview. The

presuppositionalist simply affirms that there is no such thing as neutral ground when

engaging with a non-believer. This apologetic methodology has been central to the

Reformed tradition because of the fact that the Bible is viewed as absolutely

authoritative.

B. The Compatibility Of Reformed Skeptical Theism With Presuppositional Apologetics

The RST position is compatible with the Presuppositional apologetic method

because RST is founded on the Bible. It seems to me that because the Presuppositional

school of thought constantly submits itself to the authority of Scripture, that the RST

stance can be seen in service of Reformed theology, which usually devotes itself to

Presuppositional apologetics. Of course, this is one of the main reasons why I believe

RST is a worthwhile apologetic defense that Christians can use. Certainly, RST should

not be seen as the only apologetic defense against the problem of evil that Christians can

It is possible that RST might align even better with the Presuppositional apologetic 37

approach that is set forth by Dr. John Frame. See John Frame, Apologetics to the Glory of God (Nutley: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1994).

�36

use. I am simply suggesting that the RST stance can be seen as one of the positions that

Bible-believing Christians can use because of how the Bible is presupposed to be true

above everything else. It is within this framework that I believe the RST stance must

operate.

VI. Objections To Reformed Skeptical Theism

A. Introduction

In this section, I am going to discuss some of the main objections that are usually

raised against skeptical theism. My argument is going to focus on why I believe RST is

actually a better stance than the traditional skeptical theism position and discuss why it

does not deal with as many issues. There have been a number of objections that have

been raised against skeptical theism over the past few years. I cannot deal with all of the

objections have been raised, but I will try and deal with the main arguments in the

following sections. I will then defend RST against some foreseeable objections that will

most likely be raised in Reformed/Christian circles. I will conclude that RST is a position

that can withstand the scrutiny, and that is should be adopted into Christian apologetic

schools of thought.

B. Knowledge of God and Reformed Skeptical Theism

Perhaps one of the most popular objections that has been raised against skeptical

theism thus far has centered around whether or not the individual who accepts the

skeptical theists’ theses can also claim to attain knowledge of God. There is no doubt that

this does seem to be a very formidable objection. The main reason that this objection

�37

seems daunting is because the skeptical theist claims that we have no reason to believe

that we are able to discern God’s purpose in allowing particular evils to occur in the

world. Therefore, this objection asserts that sense the skeptical theist promotes skepticism

about knowing the ways of God, then there is good reason to also be skeptical about how

one can truly come to know God. Now I believe that there is some truth to this objection

because most philosophers of religion do not clarify or discuss which or what god we

should be skeptical about in the first place. However, for the Reformed Skeptical Theist,

it is clear which God he is describing. The Reformed Skeptical Theist submits himself to

the God of the Bible, and this is why he can essentially claim to have knowledge of God.

Reformed theologians have always believed that the way that God communicates to

human beings is through the Word of God. God is revealed to us first and foremost

through his son Jesus Christ, and since Jesus Christ is the Word incarnate, it is clear that

knowledge of God is always centered upon the Word. Therefore, the Reformed Skeptical

Theist can assert that he can indeed know God, and still hold to the Reformed Skeptical

Theist’s theses. Christians have everything that they need for living a godly life (2 Pet.

1:3), and have enough knowledge of who God has revealed himself to be. Of course the

Bible does not go into exhaustive detail about every single decision that God makes, and

the defender of RST should be fine with that. Because human beings are finite, we should

never expect to understand the infinite completely. However, the RST defender concludes

that the Bible gives him enough reason to trust in God and believe that He is working all

things together for good for those who love him (Rom. 8:28). It is by coming into a

deeper understanding of the Christian gospel message that the RST defender is able to

�38

place his faith in a benevolent God even when it may seem that gratuitous evil is

occurring in his life, or in the lives of those he loves. This mindset enables the Reformed

Skeptical Theist to assert that he does indeed know God, and yet also still holds the belief

that he should be skeptical of claiming to know God’s particular action or inaction in a

situation. Therefore, the objection that one cannot claim to be a skeptical theist and claim

also to attain knowledge of God is defeated when submitting to the RST stance.

C. Moral Living and Reformed Skeptical Theism

Is it possible for the traditional skeptical theist to remain skeptical about particular evils

that occur in the world, and also hold the belief that there are moral standards or laws that

all sapient beings must follow? This objection has been raised against skeptical theism on

numerous occasions and suggests that if one is going to be skeptical about instances of

gratuitous evil in the world, then why shouldn’t one be skeptical about whether or not

they have the responsibility to perform a moral action in any particular situation.

Consider the following example:

“Suppose you are witnessing an attempted killing that you could easily prevent by intervening. According to the approach under consideration, you cannot sensibly assign any probability to the proposition that the one being killed is a dangerous terrorist who is the target of an emergency assassination. So it seems that you can't possibly conclude that preventing the killing is the best thing to do.” 38

This objection seems to point out some of the limitations that the traditional skeptical

theist might face. However, does the Reformed Skeptical Theist face these same

Trent Dougherty, “Skeptical Theism,” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, First 38

published on January 25, 2014, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/skeptical-theism/.

�39

difficulties? I believe that he does not. The main reason that the traditional skeptical theist

faces this moral objection is because of the difficulties he faces in finding a moral code

rooted in god. However, the Reformed Skeptical Theist does not face these difficulties

because he looks to the God of the Bible to find his grounding for morality. The

Reformed Skeptical Theist believes that God has commanded human beings to act in

particular ways and that morality is based on His good and perfect character (Exodus

20:1-17; Isaiah 40:28; 1 Peter 1:16). Therefore, this gives the Reformed Skeptical Theist

a solid foundation to stand on when charges of moral skepticism are brought up. It is

worth also noting at this time that just because the Reformed Skeptical Theist endorses a

thesis that suggests that one should be skeptical of their ability to know the ways and

work of God, that this does not mean that the Reformed Skeptical Theist is implying that

we should be skeptical of our abilities to determine what is morally right and wrong in

the world. Of course, the Reformed Skeptical Theist will do all that he can to prevent the

suffering of his neighbor (Mark 12:31). He will also try and prevent any unneeded

suffering. What is clear is that the Reformed Skeptical Theist does not face the same

issues as the traditional skeptical theist because of the fact that he presupposes the truth

of the Bible and bases his morality on the perfect character of God.

D. The Divine-Human Relationship and Reformed Skeptical Theism

Another criticism of the traditional skeptical theism position has been whether or

not human beings can claim to have a relationship with God, while also claiming to not

know the reasons why God would allow particular acts of evil in the world. This

�40

interpretation seems to suggest that human beings should be skeptical of their ability to

claim that God is good or all-knowing if they endorse a skeptical theses. Again, a

majority of this argument seems to focus on the inability of humans beings able to know

God. Perhaps, God is a liar, some declare. Perhaps, God is out to deceive us! The

criticism wants us to conclude that we should all be agnostic about who God is and what

he is like. However, is this is an issue for the Reformed Skeptical Theist? Again, I believe

that it is not.

Of course, the main reason that the Reformed Skeptical Theist does not face these

issues because he knows what God he has founded on. Since the traditional skeptical

theism stance has mostly been discussed by philosophers of religion, it seems to me that

there has never been an explicitly Christian contribution to this project. It makes sense

within the traditional skeptical theism stance to face criticisms about the divine-human

relationship because nobody seems to have asserted what God(s) they are trying to

defend. However, the Reformed Skeptical Theist is only concerned with defending the

God of the Bible. This is what enables him to recognize that God is faithful and that God

never lies (Hebrews 6:18). The Reformed Skeptical Theist asserts that he is able to trust

God because of the fact that God did not withhold his only Son from humanity. The

divine condescension of Jesus Christ reveals that God was willing to go to

incomprehensible measures to save humanity from their sins. This enables the Reformed

Skeptical Theist to trust the God of the Bible even though he might not know the

particular reasons as to why God allows particular moments of suffering and evil in the

world. Since God was willing to send Jesus Christ and make a way for humanity to attain

�41

salvation, human beings are able to recognize the goodness and mercy of God despite the

evil that takes place in the world. This is what the Reformed Skeptical Theist posits, and

he in no way is epistemically irresponsible for doing this. The Reformed Skeptical Theist

has every right to adhere to the teaching of the Bible, and because of this this, he does not

face any issues from the argument of the divine-human relationship.

E. Reformed Theology, Skepticism, and Reformed Skeptical Theism

I am now going to shift gears and explain some of the possible objections that

RST might face within the Reformed theological tradition. It must be noted that I have

already explained why I believe that RST is compatible with the Bible, the Reformed

theological tradition, and the Presuppositional apologetic method. However, I believe that

it is still important for me to discuss some of the reasons why I believe that RST is a

worthwhile apologetic stance and what some of the adjustments that the Reformed

tradition might make if they are not currently comfortable with the RST position that I

have proposed.

Now there is no doubt that the Reformed tradition has always been founded on the

notion that human beings are created in the image of God, and can therefore come into

knowledge of God, through creation and/or the revelation of Jesus Christ. This might

seem like a very commonsensical assertion. However, I do foresee the possibility of some

within the Reformed tradition becoming somewhat nervous about the fact that I am

proposing stance that asserts that we should be skeptical about some aspects of God’s

work within the world. It seems to me that sometimes the words “skepticism” and

�42

“Christianity” are seen as words that should never go together. Whenever skepticism is

brought up in Christian circles, there seems to be a lot of hesitation and caution

displayed. No matter though. This should not cause anyone to get upset. With that being

said, I am willing to propose that even if the Reformed tradition has a problem with

asserting the RST stance (because of the fact that the position openly discusses the need

for human beings to be skeptical), that the position can be adjusted to not cause

dissension within the Reformed community. Perhaps a simple change of language would

do the job. So this is what I propose: It is obvious that one of the main reasons that I

decided to propose a position that was known as Reformed Skeptical Theism, was mainly

due to the fact that the traditional skeptical theism stance has already been around for a

long time, and also because of the fact that there has been a lot of discussion around this

idea. However, I am more than willing to propose the idea that Reformed Skeptical

Theism (RST) could also be known as Reformed Epistemic Humility (REH). If this will

help the stance to take root in Reformed circles, than I am all in favor of accepting this

name change. This could also lead to a slight adjustment in the original definition that I

asserted for the RST stance at the beginning of this paper. As you may recall, the RST

position can be defined in the following manner:

In light of what the Bible reveals, human beings should be skeptical of their ability to discern what God’s sovereign/divine purpose is (or is not) in allowing particular acts of evil in certain situations.

�43

However, if the Reformed community wants to adjust the definition to avoid “promoting

skepticism,” I am fine with proposing the following definition for Reformed Epistemic

Humility (REH):

In light of what the Bible reveals, human beings should display epistemic humility when it comes to their abilities to discern what God’s sovereign/divine purpose is (or is not) in allowing particular acts of evil in certain situations.

This definition allows Reformed theologians and philosophers to avoid the skeptical

language when proposing a defense against the evidential problem of evil. It seems to me

that these definitions are almost perfectly synonymous, and I do not foresee there being

problems with adopting the REH stance if (for some reason) the RST stance is viewed as

an unacceptable position. Again, my purpose is to simply show that there are options for

those who are committed to the Reformed tradition. We should never let language distract

us from the cogency of an argument, and that is why I am proposing that either RST or

REH should be used within Reformed apologetics as a defense against the problem of

evil. Either stance will do.

F. Particular Sins, Evil, Punishment in the Bible, and Reformed Skeptical Theism

A foreseeable objection that I believe will be brought up from those in the

Reformed community is this: “Doesn’t the Bible give us an account of the particular sins

of some people being punished in some form or fashion?” Well, yes. In this section, I am

going to discuss some of the moments in the Bible where particular individuals are

directly punished for sins that they committed in particular situations. I believe that these

�44

moments in no way take away from the effectiveness of RST, and will conclude that the

RST stance can still be used by Christians.

Perhaps, the most well-known case that we can discuss in this section is the story

of Ananias and Sapphira in Acts 5:1-11. This text gives an account of the fact that

Ananias and Sapphira kept some of the proceeds from a piece of property that they had

sold, and did not lay down the proper amount at the apostles’ feet. Peter the apostle then

declares that Ananias has in fact lied to the Holy Spirit, and then, after Peter finishes

talking, Ananias breathes his last breath and dies. Three hours later Sapphira shows up on

the scene not knowing what all has taken place, and she lies about the amount of money

in which the land was sold for. This is what then leads to Sapphira falling down dead at

the feet of her husband. Obviously, this account reveals to readers the consequences of

sin and lying to the Holy Spirit.

For the purpose of this paper though, the question that must be considered is why

did Ananias and Sapphira die for these particular sins? Of course, the answer seems to be

identified within the text. Ananias and Sapphira did in fact lie to the Holy Spirit, commit

hypocritical acts, and were punished by God for committing these sins. In this moment,

the particular punishment was death. As Darrell Bock rightly notes: “In sum, this is a

difficult passage because the judgment against Ananias and Sapphira is instantaneous and

direct.” The dilemma that this presents for the Reformed Skeptical Theist is that he 39

must give an account as to why he can remain skeptical of particular sins that lead to

specific suffering in today’s world, and yet also believe that God did in fact punish

Darrell Bock, Acts (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007), 227. 39

�45

particular sins committed by people in the Bible. This might lead some to think that the

Reformed Skeptical Theist is now in a bind. However, I believe that there is a way out.

Christians believe that the Bible is an authoritative revelation from God. The

Bible is in fact inspired by God. Therefore, every word that is recorded in both the Old

and New Testaments are given to Christians for teaching, reproof, and correction (2 Tim.

3:16). Of course, Reformed Christians believe that in fact the canon of Scripture is closed

and that nothing can be added or subtracted from the 66 books of the Bible. Therefore,

the story of Ananias and Sapphira must be dealt with in an exegetically responsible way.

While the story in Acts 5:1-11 does show that Ananias and Sapphira’s particular sin lead

to their death, I believe that we are in no cognitive position to make claims like that

today.

Now, of course there might seem to be some exceptions to this rule. If a 16 year

old kid goes out and gets intoxicated, crashes his Father’s car on the way home, and dies

in the crash, it does seem that his particular sin of drunkenness led to his death. However,

who in their right mind is going to approach the mother and father of this child, and

proclaim that their child’s particular sin lead to his death. That would be beyond

heartless. Now of course it does seem that this kid freely chose to get intoxicated and

drive home and that this in fact is what led to his death. However, the Reformed Skeptical

Theist promotes skepticism/humility in this situation, instead of making absolute claims

as to why these events occurred, more specifically as to why God allowed these events to

take place.

�46

Now this is perhaps the most difficult objection to get around when discussing the

RST stance. The reason is because there are indeed moments in the Bible in which there

does seem to be particular sins committed by individuals, that leads to particular

punishment and suffering (See Leviticus 10:3). However, as human beings living in

today’s 21st century world, I believe that the RST position provides Christians with a

better way to think about particular instances of suffering and evil in today’s world. To

me, it seems more epistemically responsible when people are going through extended

periods of suffering and evil, to not pronounce that they are indeed suffering because of a

particular sin. Reformed believers know that all suffering and evil is a consequence of

sin, but that does not mean that Reformed believers know which particular sins are the

ones that caused suffering and evil to occur in an individual’s life. This is why the RST

stance is something that Christians will benefit in using. Ananias and Sapphira’s

particular sin led to their death. This is a fact that we know because it is recorded in

God’s Word. However, as Christians, it would be arrogant and epistemically irresponsible

to make the claim that a particular individual is suffering due to a particular sin that they

committed today. As mentioned above, there definitely might be some exceptions to the

rule, but I do believe that the RST stance is still an effective position that can be used,

even though there might be some exceptions to when and where the stance is employed.

G. Concluding Remarks

What I have discussed in this section are some of the objections that have been

usually raised against the tradition skeptical theism stance, and determined that the RST

�47

stance does in fact not face the same difficulties. I then turned to explore some of the

objections that might be raised within the Reformed community. I determined that

although the RST stance might deal with some complications, it still indeed does prove to

be an effective and useful stance because it demonstrates to Christians the need to be

epistemically humble in responding to particular evil, suffering, and pain in the world.

While it may not be a bulletproof stance, I do in fact believe that Reformed believers will

benefit from applying the RST position in their everyday lives.

VII. Concluding Remarks On Reformed Skeptical Theism

A. Introduction What have I tried to show in this paper is that Reformed Skeptical Theism

provides Christians with a defense against the evidential problem of evil. I have shown

that the RST position is founded on the Bible, and is compatible with Reformed theology

and Presuppositional apologetics. In this section, I am going to discuss why the Reformed

Skeptical Theist can make more sense out of the suffering and evil that we experience in

the world. Also, I am going to offer some concluding remarks on the RST position and

discuss where I see this position heading in the future.

B. Sin And Its Effects On Our Cognitive Equipment

Ever since the Fall of Man in the Garden of Eden (Gen. 3) human beings have had

to deal with the effects of sin entering into the world. One of the areas in which sin has

infected human beings is through the use of their cognitive faculties. What I mean is that

sin affects our minds, how we reason, and how we understand different aspects of this

�48

world. Of course, the Reformed Skeptical Theist believes that one of the main reasons

that there is suffering, pain, and evil in the world is because of his belief that sin has

enormous ramifications. The traditional skeptical theism stance does not usually discuss

sin at all. Either traditional skeptical theists believe that sin is simply an imaginary

concept, or they just do not take into account how sin (1) causes a lot of the pain and

suffering in the world and (2) leads to people not sensing God’s presence with them

during their suffering. For the Reformed Skeptical Theist though, he believes that sin

does cause a lot of evil in the world, and that it affects our abilities in discerning God.

Again, what am I trying to demonstrate is that the Reformed Skeptical Theist is operating

within his own worldview, and is trying to provide a defense against the problem of evil

that lines with what the Bible has revealed. The Reformed Skeptical Theist sees sin in the

world and attributes a lot of the suffering, pain, and evil in the world to this fact.

C. The Finitude Of Man

Dr. Kevin Diller once said, “Our finitude means the lack of capacity for, or bridge

of analogy to, God.” At first glance, this seems like very bad news for human beings. If 40

man is finite, and God is infinite, how is it possible for any human being to claim to have

knowledge of God? This is where the Reformed Skeptical Theist can step in though.

Since the Reformed Skeptical Theist believes in the authority of Scripture, he simply

asserts that it is the divine grace of God through Jesus Christ that allows human beings to

Kevin Diller, Theology’s Epistemological Dilemma: How Karl Barth and Alvin 40

Plantinga Provide a Unified Response (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2014), 58.

�49

comprehend some of the purposes and plans of God. Of course the Reformed Skeptical

Theist accepts the Creator/creature gap, and asserts that we must always be epistemically

humble. Knowing God comes through divine revelation by grace. The Reformed

Skeptical Theist does not claim that revelation allows him exhaustive access to the mind

of God. There is a mystery to God that the Reformed Skeptical Theist humbly accepts.

D. The Suffering And Sacrifice Of Jesus Christ

One of the key reasons why I believe the RST position proves to be a more

sufficient and worthwhile apologetic stance is because it is founded on the Christian

Bible. The traditional skeptical theism stance faces more difficulties because it is not

grounded in a particular religious tradition. I have mentioned that the RST stance might

face some difficulties, but at this point I believe it is important to mention that it also

benefits from adhering to the Christian Bible. In particular, it benefits from the fact that

the Bible reveals the suffering and sacrifice of Jesus Christ and how God went to great

lengths to redeem people from their sins.

Tim Keller once said: “When believers in Jesus suffer, he is quite literally with us

in our furnace of trouble, in some way actually feeling the flames too.” How can this 41

be? Perhaps, since the early apostles of Jesus Christ, Christians have held to the belief

that Jesus—the God-Man—did in fact leave his heavenly home, take on a human body,

and suffer for the sins of mankind. Christians have never claimed to believe in some kind

of deistic god who is distant from us and does not empathize with us in our weakness and

Tim Keller, Walking with God through Pain and Suffering (New York: Dutton, 2013), 41

152.

�50

sufferings. No, Christians have held the belief that God has actually suffered. Suffered in

ways that are unimaginable to us as human beings. On the cross, Jesus Christ, the Son of

God, suffered complete separation from his Father in Heaven. He bore the weight of all

the sins of mankind and experienced death so that one day, those who belief in God

through him, can experience everlasting bliss. Christianity offers a message of hope to

those who are going through various trial and suffering. The Reformed Skeptical Theist

proclaims that he does not know why God does or does not act in particular instances of

what looks like gratuitous evil and suffering, but he does trust that God has a sovereign

plan, and he has not forsaken him during this painful trial. Because God was willing to

lay the absolute evil of the world on the shoulders of his son, Christians are able to trust

that God will not withhold his love from them when they are experiencing trials and

suffering. Jesus Christ suffered so that Christians could be made right with God. This is

very good news. And as Tim Keller says once again: “So, while Christianity never claims

to be able to offer a full explanation of all God’s reasons behind every instance of evil

and suffering—it does have a final answer to it.” This answer is that all of evils and 42

suffering in the world will be made right. All tears will be wiped away. All of God’s

children will experience delight forever. Though we are not quite there yet, the Reformed

Skeptical Theist can lay hold to these truth because he is firmly committed to the Bible.

He holds on to hope even when life does not make sense because he knows that his

Savior was willing to leave his home, and suffer on his behalf.

Ibid., 15842

�51

E. The Future Of Reformed Skeptical Theism

For a long time, I have thought about how Reformed theology could defend itself

against the evidential problem of evil. Perhaps, the main reason that I have been

interested in proposing a new defense against the problem of evil is because of how many

people turn away from the Christian faith because of the evil that they experience or see

in the world and also because so many people do not believe that evil and God can

coexist. This is what led me to develop the RST stance. I believe that Reformed theology

is the theological tradition that aligns mostly with what the Bible says. This is the main

reason that I have constructed my stance from the Reformed perspective. Of course, I do

believe that there are plenty of ways in which this current project could be expanded.

There are more biblical texts that could be discussed, and perhaps even a more thorough

explanation of why RST is so compatible with Reformed theology. With a project of this

though, I certainly had to pick and choose which areas I thought needed to be discussed

to support my current definition of RST. As mentioned above, while I believe that RST is

a faithful stance to Christian theology and the Bible, I also believe that the Reformed

Epistemic Humility stance (REH) could be used within Reformed circles to defend the

Christian faith. The focus and desire of this project has been to defend the Reformed faith

against the problem of evil by providing believers with a solid position and definition on

what Reformed Skeptical Theism entails. My hope is that Reformed Skeptical Theism

will be adopted by Reformed theologians and philosophers because I do believe that my

position provides a solid biblical/philosophical defense against the problem of evil. It is

on that note that I will now leave you with the following concluding thoughts.

�52

F. The End and (Beginning) Of Reformed Skeptical Theism

I must admit that I am extremely disappointed that this paper must come to an

end. I have spent close to two years thinking about how skeptical theism could be

integrated into the Reformed tradition. I am so grateful for so many people who have

encouraged me along the way during the writing of this project. Dr. Bill Davis has been

an outstanding advisor and mentor during the writing of this project. He has encouraged

me during the entire process, and has greatly improved the arguments that I have set forth

in this paper. I would also like to thank Dr. Bruce Lowe for all that he has done for me at

Reformed Theological Seminary. He is an excellent professor, but an even better man of

God. I would like to thank my parents for always believing in me, and for all the support

that they have provided for me during the writing of this paper. I am grateful to so many

friends of mine who have significantly helped me in developing and clarifying what

exactly Reformed Skeptical Theism entails.

While this paper is now coming to a close, I must admit that I desire to expand

these ideas that are found throughout this paper in the near future. My prayer and desire

is that anyone who reads this paper will see that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and that

you can find everything that you need through him. This might be the end of this paper

on Reformed Skeptical Theism, but I hope (and pray) that this is only the beginning of

the discussion around the Reformed Skeptical Theism stance.

�53

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Alston, William. “Some (Temporarily) Final Thoughts on Evidential Arguments from Evil.” In Daniel Howard-Snyder (ed.), The Evidential Argument from Evil (pp. 311-332). Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1996.

______________. “The Inductive Argument from Evil and the Human Cognitive Condition.” Philosophical Perspectives 5 (1991).

Alvarez, Bertha. “How the Problem of Evil Poses an Obstacle to Belief in God.” Dialogue 41, (1998).

Anderson, A.A. The New Century Bible Commentary (Psalms 73-150). Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1989.

Atkinson, David. The Message of Job. Downers Grove: Inter-Varsity Press, 1991.

Bergmann, Michael. “Commonsense Skeptical Theism.” In Science, Religion, and Metaphysics: New Essays on the Philosophy of Alvin Plantinga, ed. Kelly Clark and Michael Rea. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012.

______________. “Skeptical Theism and Rowe’s New Evidential Argument from Evil.” Nous 35, (2001).

Bergmann, Michael. and Michael Rea. “In Defense of Skeptical Theism: A Reply to Almeida and Oppy.” The Australasian Journal of Philosophy 83, 2005.

Bock, Darrell. Acts. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007.

______________. Luke Vol.2: 9:51-24:53. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1996.

Carson, D.A. The Gospel According to John. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1991.

Craig, William Lane and J.P. Moreland. Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview. Downers Grove: Inter-Varsity Press, 2003.

Diller, Kevin. Theology’s Epistemological Dilemma: How Karl Barth and Alvin Plantinga Provide A Unified Response. Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2014.

Dougherty, Trent. “Skeptical Theism.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. First published on January 25 2014, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/skeptical-theism/.

�54

Dougherty, Trent. and Justin McBrayer. Skeptical Theism: New Essays. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014.

Draper, Paul. “Pain and Pleasure: An Evidential Problem for Theists.” In Daniel Howard- Snyder (ed.), The Evidential Argument from Evil (pp. 12-29). Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1996.

Durston, Kirk. “The Consequential Complexity of History and Gratuitous Evil.” Religious Studies 36, (2000).

Eaton, Michael. Ecclesiastes: An Introduction & Commentary. Downers Grove: Inter- Varsity Press, 1983.

ESV Study Bible. Wheaton: Crossway, 2008.

Feinberg, John. Can You Believe It’s True? Christian Apologetics in a Modern & Postmodern Era. Wheaton: Crossway, 2013.

Frame, John. Apologetics to the Glory of God. Nutley: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1994.

______________. The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God. Philadelphia: Presbyterian & Reformed, 1987.

Gale, Richard. “Evil as Evidence Against God.” In Chad Meister, J.P. Moreland, and Khaldoun Sweis, (ed.), Debating Christian Theism (pp. 197-207). Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013.

Helm, Paul. The Providence of God. Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 1994.

Horton, Michael. For Calvinism. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2011.

Howard-Snyder, Daniel. The Evidential Argument from Evil. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1996.

Hume, David. Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, edited by Richard Popkin. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing, 1980.

Keller, Timothy. Walking with God through Pain and Suffering. New York: Dutton, 2013.

Kushner, Harold. When Bad Things Happen to Good People. New York: Anchor Books, 2004.

�55

Long, Todd. “Minimal Skeptical Theism.” In Trent Dougherty and Justin McBrayer, (ed.), Skeptical Theism: New Essays (pp. 63-75). Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014.

Mackie, J.L. “Evil and Omnipotence.” Mind 64, no. 254 (1955).

McBrayer, Justin. “Skeptical Theism.” Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Last accessed July 10, 2014, http://www.iep.utm.edu/skept-th/.

Meister, Chad, J.P Moreland, and Khaldoun Sweis. Debating Christian Theism. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013.

Moser, Paul. The Severity of God: Religion and Philosophy Reconceived. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013.

Oswalt, John. “Commentary On Amos.” In ESV Study Bible (p. 1663). Wheaton: Crossway, 2008.

“Pat Robertson says Haiti paying for ‘pact to the devil.’” CNN.com. Last modified January 13 2010, http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/01/13/haiti.pat.robertson/.

Piper, John. “Tornado, the Lutherans, and Homosexuality,” Desiring God, August 19, 2009, http://www.desiringgod.org/blog/posts/the-tornado-the-lutherans-and- homosexuality.

Plantinga, Alvin. God and Other Minds: A Study of the Rational Justification of Belief in God. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1967.

______________. God, Freedom, and Evil. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974.

______________. Warranted Christian Belief. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000.

Rowe, William. “Skeptical Theism: A Response to Bergmann.” Nous 35, (2001).

______________. “ The Problem of Evil and Some Varieties of Atheism.” In Daniel Howard-Snyder (ed.), The Evidential Argument from Evil (pp. 1-11). Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1996.

Sennett, James. “The Inscrutable Evil Defense against the Inductive Argument from Evil.” Faith & Philosophy 10, (1993).

�56

“Skeptical Theism,” University of Notre Dame Center for Philosophy of Religion. Last accessed July 10 2014, http://philreligion.nd.edu/research-initiatives/problem-of- evil/skeptical-theism/.

Stokes, Mitch. A Shot of Faith (to the Head): Be a Confident Believer in an Age of Cranky Atheists. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2012.

The Westminster Confession of Faith. 3rd ed. Lawrenceville: Committee for Christian Education and Publications, 1990.

Van Inwagen, Peter. The Problem of Evil: The Gifford Lectures Delivered in the University of St. Andrews in 2003. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006.

Wilks, Ian. “Skeptical Theism and Empirical Unfalsifiability.” Faith & Philosophy 26:1, (2009).

Wykstra, Stephen. “Rowe’s Noseeum Arguments from Evil.” In Daniel Howard-Snyder (ed.), The Evidential Argument from Evil (pp. 126-150). Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1996.

______________. “The Humean Obstacle to Evidential Argument from Suffering: On Avoiding the Evils of ‘Appearance’.” International Journal of Philosophy of Religion 16, (1984).

Young, Edward J. The Book of Isaiah: Vol. 3 (Chapters 40-66). Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1972.