Part I of this series demonstrated that the genocidal God objection (GGO) is an emotional reaction to the biblical text, not a logical objection leveled at the God of the Bible. Part II demonstrated that God’s actions with regard to the GGO were in actuality full measures of grace and mercy on His part, as His actions always are.
Part III intends to forward an idea relating to the GGO discovered at William Lane Craig’s Reasonable Faith site. WLC is one of the premier Christian philosophers alive today and Reasonable Faith is an easily accessible, excellent resource for Christians of all stripes. In fact, for you free willies out there, be sure to check out Molinism while you’re visiting. It just may be the best theological position for those of you of a semi-pelagian bent. Better yet, check out the Scriptures for the reformed view…
At any rate, the GGO, as it turns out, is not only not a logical objection, it’s not an objection aimed at the existence of God, the truth of Jesus Christ, or the resurrection. Stunningly, even if correct, the GGO succeeds only in refuting a certain Christian doctrine: the inerrancy of Scripture. If it were true, and in no sense do I grant that it is, the GGO would only demonstrate that Moses–or if the inerrancy of Scripture is false, perhaps several redacted sources–was incorrect in his assessment of the nature of God as it relates to the conquest of Canaan.
That’s it.
Nothing more is demonstrated by the GGO. It does not question the existence of God. It does not provide any rationale for believing the resurrection is not an historical fact. It does not question any major doctrine of Christianity, except biblical inerrancy. This is an outright startling conclusion…thanks, WLC. Lastly, and most importantly, because of this, even if true, the GGO in every real sense imaginable provides absolutely no support or rationale for rejecting Jesus Christ or the God of the Bible.
To be clear, the Bible is, in fact, inerrant in the best estimation of The Areopagus. GGO Part IV to come…
“Lastly, and most importantly, because of this, even if true, the GGO in every real sense imaginable provides absolutely no support or rationale for rejecting Jesus Christ or the God of the Bible.”
It does provide an excuse to dismiss Christianity, though…a stumbling block, perhaps?
That’s exactly it, Shema…an excuse, perhaps, but not a rational basis.
“If you answer yes, then I guess you are not or have never been married.”
I do see the humor in this, Tat. In other people’s lives, of course 🙂
Nevertheless, yours is a false dilemma. There’s a tertium quid that stands to both logic and rationality. The biblical account states that prior to the fall, Adam and Eve were without sin. In this state, they would live in perfect harmony, as they were created so to do. Moreover, in this pre-fall state, they were not in the garden alone, but enjoyed fellowship with God.
“It does not question the existence of God…”
I’ve had an amusing little tickle in the back of my mind over this point since the beginning of the discussion, thank you for including it. Looking forward to what’s next.
Marc, much as I’d like to, WLC’s site is like reading Greek to me. The Molinist thing was a battle, my eyes crossed halfway through, and I gave up, though with a nagging feeling that the content is rather important to my learning curve at the moment. If you ever feel like posting a plain-English take on some of that stuff, I’d like finding out what it meant. In all your spare time, of course. 😉 I just cannot learn from that type of writing.
Densely,
Cat
Hi. I am glad you are writing on this topic. It needs to be addressed in this way as “genocide” it is a common argument amongst atheists against God’s goodness. I wish GCT would have a look at what you have to say.