click here to tweet this post
click here to share with your friends
subscribe to this feed
Taking Calvinism Too Far: R.C. Sproul Jr.’s Evil-Creating Deity
by Paul CopanSeptember 2nd, 2008
245 Comments
In his book Almighty Over All (Baker, 1999), R.C. Sproul Jr. makes some controversial statements—ones that appear to be sub-biblical. What tipped me off to this was hearing a paper presentation at a conference in April in New Orleans. R.C. Sproul Jr. was being quoted, and I shocked at what I heard. Though the paper presentation came from a reliable source (Dr. Ken Keathley of Southeastern Seminary in Wake Forest), I wanted be like the Bereans of Acts 17 and check out Sproul Jr.’s work myself—especially if I wanted to offer some reflections on this topic.
As I assumed, upon further investigation, Keathley’s assessment was correct: Sproul Jr. has simply taken Calvinism way too far. His father R.C. Sproul Sr., also a Calvinist, has been much more tentative and modest about the question of sin’s starting point; he basically concludes that this is a mysterious matter, stopping well short of attributing the origin of evil to God:
Herein lies the problem. Before a person can commit an act of sin he must first have a desire to perform that act. The Bible tells us that evil actions flow from evil desires. But the presence of an evil desire is already sin. We sin because we are sinners. We were born with a sin nature. We are fallen creatures. But Adam and Eve were not created fallen. They had no sin nature. They were good creatures with a free will. Yet they chose to sin. Why? I don’t know. Nor have I found anyone yet who does know (Chosen by God [1986], p. 30).
Sproul Sr. allows for a libertarian understanding of free will in Eden, which itself is a departure from Calvinism proper. But let that pass.
Sproul Jr., however, wants to get to the bottom of the matter and weigh in on what he takes to be the source of evil: God! Shocked? I certainly hope so. Sproul Jr. lists the range of possible “suspects” in his third chapter, entitled “Who Dunit?” He lays out and discusses the only five possible alternatives: Adam, Eve, Satan, the environment, and God. God created a good environment (“it was very good”), and Adam, Eve, and Satan were originally created good; so their strongest desire or inclination (which dictates how we will choose, Sproul Jr. claims) must also have been originally good. This, then, means that none of the first four candidates can be the source of sin. The “culprit” (Sproul Jr.’s term) is God himself, who “introduced evil into this world” (p. 51). In fact, God acted according his strongest inclination; he acted on what he most wished to come to pass—as he always does (p. 54).
The reason he wanted Adam and Eve to fall into sin was because of God’s eternal attribute of wrath—and “God is as delighted with his wrath as he is with all of his attributes” (52). So in light of this eternal attribute of wrath, God must create objects of wrath: “What I’ll do is create something worthy of my wrath, something on which I can exhibit the glory of my wrath” (pp. 52-53). Without creating human beings (and let’s include fallen angelic beings here too), he would not have had the opportunity to display his glory in this way. So Sproul Jr. affirms something rather startling: “It was [God’s] desire to make his wrath known. He needed, then, something on which to be wrathful. He needed to have sinful creatures” (p. 57).
Anticipating a rejoinder, Sproul Jr. asks: “Isn’t it impossible for God to do evil?” He acknowledges that God can’t sin. This isn’t much of a consolation, as Sproul Jr. goes on to say: “I am not accusing God of sinning; I am suggesting that he created sin” (p. 54). Sproul Jr. doesn’t think he’s crossed any line by saying this. Referring to the Westminster Confession’s definition of sin as “any lack of conformity to or transgression of the law of God,” he says that this doesn’t exclude God’s creating evil. It seems that Sproul Jr. is not only using an argument from silence from the Confession, but he is ignoring an important emphasis in Scripture—that God cannot be the author of evil. Let me go into a bit more detail about some problem areas in Sproul Jr.’s theology.
1. “God can do what he wants.” Sproul Jr. appeals to Romans 9 to justify his point (pp. 53, 56). If God is accused of doing evil, Sproul Jr. gives a rough equivalent of what Paul is saying: “Shut up! He’s God, and he can do what he wants” (p. 56). Yes, God can do what he wants, but what God does (and what he wants) will be good and just and reflecting his love and his holiness. We can’t rightly say, “God can break his promise or lie because ‘he’s God, and he can do what he wants.” No, what sets God apart from us fallen, rationalizing, faithless humans is that he alone is true (Romans 3:4). We’re told that it is “impossible for God to lie” (Heb. 6:18; cp. Titus 1:2).
James 1 doesn’t only tell us that God can’t do evil; it also tells us that every good and perfect gift comes from above; that is, God shouldn’t be accused as being the source of evil. God is intrinsically good and so cannot “create evil.” This harks back to what Jesus says about the nature of God—in contrast to fallen humans, who still seek the good of their children: “Or what man is there among you who, when his son asks for a loaf, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, he will not give him a snake, will he? If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give what is good to those who ask Him!” (Matthew 7:9-11). In fact, earlier on, God is said to be one who doesn’t simply love those who love him, but he loves the wicked and unrighteous as well, thus showing a perfect love (Mt. 5:48).
2. The Manichean error: Sproul Jr., it seems, has pushed things over the orthodox edge by saying that God is the author or creator of evil. This stands in violation of what 1 Timothy 4:4 tells us: “For everything God created is good.” Of course, Augustine fought against the Manichean heresy, which takes evil as a thing rather than the absence or corruption of goodness, but Sproul Jr. seems to be slipping into some version of Manicheanism.
One side note here: The King James Version can be misleading on this point. The translation sometimes gives the impression that God is the maker or the source of both good and evil: “I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things. (Isaiah 45:7); “Who is he that saith, and it cometh to pass, when the Lord commandeth it not? Out of the mouth of the most High proceedeth not evil and good?” (Lamentations 3:37-38); “Shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be afraid? Shall there be evil in a city, and the Lord hath not done it?” (Amos 3:6). This rendering is inaccurate. The word for “evil” (ra’ah) can also be translated “trouble,” “disaster,” or “calamity.”
3. A God in need isn’t a God indeed: It is quite startling to read a staunch Calvinist who says that God needs something outside himself—in this case, sinners on whom to pour his wrath! The Scriptures are full of reminders of God’s self-sufficiency and that he needs nothing outside himself. For instance, “If I were hungry I would not tell you, For the world is Mine, and all it contains” (Psalm 50:12). Again, “Who has known the mind of the Lord? Or who has become his adviser? Or who has given him something only to have him pay it back? For all things are from him, by him, and for him. Glory belongs to him forever! Amen” (Rom. 11:34-36).
Orthodox Christianity affirms that God did not need to create. He could have chosen not to create. The doctrine of creation out of nothing affirms that God is not in need of, say, pre-existing matter or of human beings. The triune God is content and joyful within himself. His creation of human beings is the result of God’s gracious choice to extend to others his joy, his love, and his community. Sproul Jr.’s view of God’s needing to create human beings diminishes rather than exalts God. According to Sproul Jr., God couldn’t help but create humans upon whom to pour his wrath. (Keep in mind Sproul Jr.’s insistence that God always acts according to his strongest desire.) If wrath is an attribute that is an eternal and necessary aspect to God, then this means God necessarily had to create; he couldn’t help but create. All of this sounds quite troubling to my mind.
In an attempt at philosophical consistency, Sproul Jr., it seems, has taken his causal determinism to some problematic theological conclusions—a direction his father, apparently, feared to go.
Similar Posts:
- Heresies: Gnosticism – A Divided World
- Calvinism and the Divine Decrees – Correcting a Misunderstanding
- Why Doesn’t God Save Everyone? (Sam Storms)
- Is Arminianism Cooperative Justification?
- Longings and Needs as Reasons for Belief in God
245 Comments
Like or Dislike:
1
Paul, great post. As a Calvinist, I am truly sorry to hear that Sproul Jr. has taken such a radical and, what I believe to be, unbiblical position.
You have done a good job here of showing the errors in such a short space. Thanks for taking the time.
Like or Dislike:
0
Very troubling stuff. I’m encouraged by this post.
I do wonder, Paul or Michael, if you would be interested in engaging David Hart’s The Doors of the Sea. It is by far the best thing I’ve read on the problem of evil. He does fire quite a few shots at the sort of view Sproul is employing here. I’m not a Calvinist myself, so I wonder if Hart’s theology is something that can be affirmed from a Calvinist perspective or not.
Like or Dislike:
1
As an ex-Calvinist, I think RCj is stating plainly what all Calvinists imply and hint at, but are rarely willing to be so plain about. If there’s no libertarian free will, and everything is deterministic, and by God’s sovereign will, then clearly God did do it. It’s an inevitable result of Calvinist thought.
Historical Orthodox thought has focused on the picture of God painted by Jesus. The father who welcomes back the prodigal son, running to him even while distant.
Now as an Orthodox Christian, I look back at the Calvinist years a bit like Luther looked back at his Roman years. I secretly hated God, or was at least ambivilent to this abstract entity who needed wrath.
Listen to the Pilgrims podcast for discussion:
http://ancientfaith.com/podcasts/pilgrims
Like or Dislike:
0
I am not so certain Sproul Jr’s ideas are atypical. I wrote a response to the idea the God creates evil recently. Granted my take is an non-Calvinist one: Does God create evil?
I agree that evil should not be seen as an attribute of itself (whether or God or anyone), rather it is a distortion of good.
I am not so certain about wrath being an attribute in and of itself either. It is more an outworking of justice when goodness is broken. God can be just (fair) without evil existing. And if it does come into existence then the reaction of justice against the distortion of good is what wrath is.
As important as logic is, it is subservient to scripture. Not because it lacks in and of itself, rather because we are fallen and therefore our logic is broken. Sproul’s logic has taken him away from Scripture which should be the pointer to go back the Bible and start again.
A further question emerges from this post.
God cannot do evil but could Jesus the man potentially do so? If not, what do the temptations mean?
Like or Dislike:
0
I would like to hear what Sr. says about Jr.
Like or Dislike:
0
[...] “Sin” originate with God? According to a post yesterday on Reclaiming The Mind, R. C. Sproul, Jr. may be taking a position that evil originates with God. Hmmmm. [...]
Like or Dislike:
3
I have to echo what others have written above: this is not “taking Calvinism too far”, it is merely being consistently calvinist.
Like or Dislike:
1
What do you think about John Frame’s answer to the question?
Quoting from here.
Yes, well, I discuss a number of these terms at some length in Doctrine of God. Certainly God “permits” evil, and I think it’s legitimate to use that language. People sometimes think that we should say God “permits” evil, but doesn’t bring it about. They think that would alleviate the problem of evil.
The question, though, is whether God merely permits evil, or whether in addition he actually brings evil about in some sense. I think the latter is true. Scripture often says that God brings about sinful decisions of human beings (see above under Question 4). This is a hard teaching, and on one level it makes the problem of evil more difficult. But in another sense, this teaching is reassuring. If evil comes from some source other than God, that would be pretty scary. It would imply that there are forces of evil that are capable of resisting, even overcoming God’s desires. But if evil comes from God, we know that he has a good purpose in bringing it about (Rom. 8:28).
I avoid saying that God “authors” evil, an unclear expression which seems to suggest that God (like the author of a book) not only brings evil about, but approves of it. “Creates” is awkward: evil is a quality, not a thing, and God creates things, not qualities. “Wills” is ambiguous, since it can mean that he approves it or simply that he brings it about. “Incites” suggests that God encourages people to do evil things; Scripture says he does not do this. “Stands behind” can also suggest this. The other terms listed above differ mainly in their connotations. I think any of them are legitimate, depending on the context. I have used all of them, but I tend to prefer plain-English phrases like “brings about” and “makes happen.”
Thanks,
Mark
Like or Dislike:
0
Michael calling Sproul’s version of God’s nature “unbiblical” is exceedingly kind. It would seem to me to be more properly termed heresy.
If God created evil and evil is just one part of God’s nature then what standard would we have to make judgments or moral decisions if every behavior is part of our God-given make up? How can evil be part of God’s nature, when we believe God to be just, how can evil be just? Can God contain contradictory principles or can he do things that offend his other characteristics? Or perhaps if evil is part of God’s nature as Sproul contends then God is not just.
ChadS
Like or Dislike:
1
I have to echo what others have written above: this is not “taking Calvinism too far”, it is merely being consistently calvinist.
If by “consistant” you mean maintaining no mystery between divine sovereignty and human freedom, then I agree.
But what about what the Westminster Confession says?
God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.
This is clearly the writing of people who understand that there are certain places theology should not go, and this is put up as poles of a mystery – that whatever we say about God, we must say that he is sovereign and yet also that he is not the author of evil, and that there is genuine creaturely freedom. Call it inconsistent as you like, but I daresay there is more healthy Christian mystery in the confession than in this pop-Calvinism.
Like or Dislike:
0
“The reason he wanted Adam and Eve to fall into sin was because of God’s eternal attribute of wrath—and “God is as delighted with his wrath as he is with all of his attributes”
I bet Sproul Jr. would have a fit if you suggested God created man to have some one to love and to be loved, yet ,as you point out, speaks of God as creating evil to fufill some twisted “need” to be able to vent upon evil and sin. Wow! He must be very close to God, that God should reveal this side of himself to Sproul jr. God must have reaveled it to him because I cannot imagine from where else he could muster the nerve to say it.
Yet I know many will applaud him and that scares me.
David Di Giacomo, where do you say evil comes from?
Like or Dislike:
0
Satan tempted Adam and Eve toward rebellion. The question would go back to what caused Satan to rebel.
How about we just say that there isn’t enough information to form a dogmatic conclusion as to why.
From the biblical text we just know what happened, and answering the question of “why?” just leads to confusion, or arguments.
Like or Dislike:
0
First switching back to young earth creationism and now this position that even makes an Arminian (or at least psuedo-arminian) like me a bit squeamish. My impression is that Sproul is becoming very subjective and basing his views on what he, personally, can imagine or accept or “deal with” internally, rather than accepting the mystery of some of these issues. I could be wrong, of course.
Like or Dislike:
2
Paul,
You wrote of Sproul, Sr.:
Sproul Sr. allows for a libertarian understanding of free will in Eden, which itself is a departure from Calvinism proper.
Are you deducing this from the quote above or from some other writing? The quote itself doesn’t actually say or necessarily mean this.
Also, I think Sproul, Jr. is getting a bad rap here. Everything you write opposing his position is based on this rather ambiguous statement:
he is ignoring an important emphasis in Scripture—that God cannot be the author of evil.
This idea of “authoring” evil is often cast forth in these sort of discussions but rarely defined with precision. I’m reminded of something Jonathan Edwards wrote in his treatise on free will:
“If by the author of sin, be meant the sinner, the agent, or the actor of sin, or the doer of a wicked thing; so it would be a reproach and blasphemy to suppose God to be the author of sin. In this sense, I utterly deny God to be the author of sin; rejecting such an imputation on the Most High, as what is infinitely to be abhorred; and deny any such thing to be the consequence of what I have laid down. But if, by the author of sin, is meant the permitter, or not a hinderer of sin, and, at the same time, a disposer of the state of events, in such a manner, for wise, holy, and most excellent ends and purposes, that sin, if it be permitted, or not hindered, will most certainly and infallibly follow;—I say, if this be all that is meant by being the author of sin, I do not deny that God is the author of sin, (though I dislike and reject the phrase, as that which by use and custom is apt to carry another sense), it is no reproach for the Most High to be thus the author of
sin. This is not to be the actor of sin, but on the contrary, of holiness. What God doth herein is holy, and a glorious exercise of the infinite excellency of his nature” (Yale Edition, 287-88).
I wonder if Sproul, Jr. is understanding the concept of “authoring” evil in this way?
Like or Dislike:
0
Jay,
I think Paul’s argument is based upon much more than the one statement from Sproul that you quoted. Paul’s assessment of Sproul’s argument seems to be pretty fair and not really a misrepresentation.
If his whole blog was based on one line from one book then I’d agree, but this case seems pretty clear to me.
ChadS
Like or Dislike:
0
Hi Paul,
This is disturbing but sadly not really novel in the world of Calvinism (or well hyper-Calvinism). You can find these concepts peppered throughout Reformed thinking for centuries. It is grossly blasphemous. Thankfully it doesn’t represent a majority view within our (Calvinists) camp.
Let’s hope that Sproul, Jr. comes to his senses on this.
Blessings
Carrie
Like or Dislike:
0
Hi Chad,
Take another look. That wasn’t a quote from Sproul. It was Chopan’s own words, a summary statement of why he disagrees with Sproul’s position.
Like or Dislike:
2
Disclaimer: I like Sproul Jr.’s take on this point. This message is therefore an attempt at a defense.
As to the question of whether God would be evil if the evil in the world were attributed to Him: let me pull out a metaphor.
Did Shakespeare author the murders in his plays? Is Shakespeare guilty for them? Could his characters be portrayed as justly or properly accusing him of those murders, or of any guilt for the murders?
I claim that even within the framework of the story, even if Shakespeare were to grant a character knowledge about him, that character could not justly accuse S of guilt in the murder. On the contrary, the murder is a necessary part of the story, and although the murder is clearly evil (something S always shows) S’s use of it in the story is clearly good.
If all the world’s a story, and God is the author of it, then even if God _did_ knowingly and deliberately script the evil, that doesn’t make him evil — the question is, what type of story is it, a good one or a bad one? A bad story — if God scripted it — would make God evil. A good one shows His goodness, even if the story has evil (and what story doesn’t?).
Also, separate issue:
“It is quite startling to read a staunch Calvinist who says that God needs something outside himself—in this case, sinners on whom to pour his wrath!”
That’s not what RCJr said. He said that God made objects of wrath for the explicit purpose of displaying his wrath, which is His own purpose. And this is PRECISELY what Paul says in Rom 9:22-23. This doesn’t imply that God NEEDED to do any of this; it simply says that God _did_ it.
So don’t complain to RCJr there — complain to Paul.
Like or Dislike:
1
Carrie,
If Sproul, Jr. is understanding that God authors evil in the way Jonathan Edwards did (as quoted in my first comment above), then any charge of hyper-Calvinism, due to this one issue, is clearly out-of-bounds.
Like or Dislike:
0
Vance First switching back to young earth creationism and now this position that even makes an Arminian (or at least psuedo-arminian) like me a bit squeamish. My impression is that Sproul is becoming very subjective and basing his views on what he, personally, can imagine or accept or “deal with” internally, rather than accepting the mystery of some of these issues. I could be wrong, of course.
I understand that Sproul senior switched to (not back to) creationism.
Sproul junior is the man proposing God creates evil.
2 different people talking about different issues. I would surely hate to be judged on the theological concepts of my relatives.
Like or Dislike:
0
Whoa! I had no idea there were two of them out there! :0)
Sorry about that!
Like or Dislike:
1
If you don’t want your views to be confused with that of your son’s, you shouldn’t name him your full name.
Like or Dislike:
1
I’m not in any way surprised by this. Sproul The Junior has for years been taking various doctrines to absurd extremes. He is by nature an extremist, and he likes it so.
It astounds me that there are still some who, to this very day, will ardently defend and excuse Sproul The Junior about the abuses over which he was defrocked and declared “unfit for the ministry.”
Having been defrocked, how can he consider himself worthy of any respect to continue expounding the Holy Word of God? Even more significant, why does anyone even bother to listen to what he has to say? Is it only because his last name is Sproul? I suspect so. If his name were John Smith he would have been disregarded and forgotten long ago.
While I do respect many of the opinions of Sproul The Senior, I have no respect at all for his son. The one has often demonstrated wisdom, and the other folly. Apparently the apple fell quite far from the tree.
Like or Dislike:
0
[...] Paul Copan at Parchment and Pen has a review of the extreme Calvinism RC Sproul, Jr. You can check it out by clicking here. The major problem that Copan has with Sproul’s assertions is Sproul’s position that [...]
Like or Dislike:
1
Wow, this thread is one interesting conversation. Arminians assuming that this is “typical” Calvinism, Calvinists assuming this is wholly “unbiblical,” etc.
Even though I don’t necessarily advocate this position, it is nothing new, and it is centuries old back to the Reformation.
A big debate within Calvinism is “Infralapsarianism” and “Supralapsarianism.” These terms are from the Latin, “Infra” meaning “below, after” and “supra” meaning “above, before.” “Laps” refers to “Fall.” So, the terms mean, “before-Fall,” and “after-Fall.”
The question is, at what stage did God plan election of believers? (Not when did he *carry it out,* which Ephesians makes clear was before the foundations of the world; rather, what was the order of decree). If God decided the process of election *after* the Fall (infralapsarianism), then sin is man’s doing, and men going to Hell is their own doing.
If God decided the process of election *before* the Fall (supralapsarianism), then sin is God’s doing (in order to bring about redemption), and men going to Hell is God’s reprobation of certain people to Hell (Rom 9).
It is a historic belief, just a very debated one.
-ACR
Like or Dislike:
0
Sproul Jr says that God doesn’t sin but creates sin. What does sin look like in its created form?
Like or Dislike:
0
So how did evil come to be if it was not created?
Like or Dislike:
0
R.C. Sproul, Jr. defrocked? I’ll drink to that!
Like or Dislike:
0
Evil is a privation of the good. It isn’t some *thing* that comes to exist. Aquinas has a lot of fine things to say about this in his Summa.
Like or Dislike:
2
Cal, as someone who could scarcely disagree more strongly with Sproul Jr.’s views outlined above, which I’m about ready to call a more dangerous heresy than even the early Christological ones, I think the video you linked to here is absolutely shameful. Christians of all people should avoid damaging slander and parading the faults of others for all to see. Shame on you, sir, for contributing to it.
Like or Dislike:
0
“I’m about ready to call a more dangerous heresy than even the early Christological ones”
Help me, please — see my post for why I don’t understand that. This “heresy” — if such it is — has been widely accepted as normal variation (aside, of course, from Trent). And “dangerous”? How is it dangerous?
One problem with identifying this as being on a level with the Christological heresies is that it affects only the ‘How’ of creation, not the ‘Who’.
Like or Dislike:
0
Thank you Cal for linking to that video. I don’t agree with Wonders that your linking to the video is “shameful.” If anything is shameful it would have to be the conduct in the video itself. If there is cause for shame it would need to be Sproul who should be ashamed.
There have been many allegations of alcohol abuses at RC Sproul Jr’s Highlands Study Center / Saint Peter Presbyterian Church. Defenders have claimed that it’s just a matter of Christian liberty and that any drinking there is always done in moderation. Yet what defines with moderation? Is Sproul entitled to manufacture his own novel definitions and foist them off on us without an argument?
Some have alleged that Sproul has a very twisted understanding of “moderation”, as he has a warped understanding of many other issues, as well. As someone already noted here, Sproul Jr is an extremist and he enjoys being an extremist. Is it logical that an extremist would be skilled in demonstrating moderation in much of anything?
Like or Dislike:
0
Hello Mr. Tanksley,
Obviously you will disagree with me on this – and I’m sorry for having to use such a harsh word for what you consider adiaphora. But there are a lot of implications here that I see as every bit as serious as the Arian heresy – if not more so.
The Christological heresies were serious because they involved the nature of God himself in Christ. This is as serious because we are dealing with the nature of God again – this time in relation to evil. Evil is being called a kind of good, and attributing it to God. Nothing less than the goodness of God himself is at stake here. And a vision of God is being proposed – where for the sake of his eternal attribute of wrath he specifically creates conscious creatures to be tortured – that is indistinguishable from the cruelest of the pagan gods of antiquity. What is being challenged is the orthodox Christian picture of “a good God, who loves mankind” who “hates nothing that he has made”.
This is a big deal.
Like or Dislike:
0
Evan,
The conduct may be shameful. But it is unfaithful to our Lord to delight in parading the shames of others for all to see. The commandment is to love one another – even one’s enemies – even the enemies of the gospel. Never forget that in what you do to the least of these, you do to your Lord – you are mocking Christ, and delighting in it. For the sake of your own soul, repent.
Like or Dislike:
0
“you are mocking Christ, and delighting in it.”
An absolutely outrageous allegation! Funny how Sproul has been accused of being an extremist, and then you pop in to make such an extremist allegation yourself.
1. I take no “delight” in anything I stated. Rather, I grieve over the atrocious example that Sproul sets for his flock. You, apparently, disagree that his atrocious example should be publicly exposed, and you’re entitled to your opinion, as am I entitled to mine. I am not judging your motives or pretending that I can determine the motives of your heart. Why would you presume to do so with me?
2. You are WAY out of line to accuse me of “mocking Christ.” I didn’t even “mock” RC Sproul Jr, let alone my Lord and Savior! Do you dare to call me a blasphemer? An apology for this outrage is in order.
Like or Dislike:
0
Cal, while your, “I’ll drink to that!” comment was temptingly funny, it shouldn’t trump our desire to reach those who may be hurting. I’m sure you didn’t intend to smash Sproul when down. Perhaps, we should all be careful. Take care.
Good post, Paul!
Like or Dislike:
0
Evan,
Insofar as you insist you are not mocking Sproul, or delighting in a scandal of one whom that even I agree seems to be teaching some toxic stuff, I apologize. But Cal’s comment was indeed poking fun at scandal (and the comments on the youtube were atrocious, as was the inline commentary in the movie), and this sort of thing in Christ we should have no tolerance for. I backpeddle not an inch that every careless word we will answer for, and every slight cruelty or smug satisfaction at others failure will be shown as done to none other but the Lord himself. It is him that we mock. It is him that we deride among the tax collectors and sinners. It is him to whom we say “He trusts in the Lord; let him deliver him; let him rescue him, for he delights in him!”
The culture we live in is one of voyeurism and sensationalism – of people lapping up scandal like water. It should not be so with us – we should love our neighbors (even our enemies) as ourselves.
Like or Dislike:
0
Wonder, I find Jonathan’s admonishment, “Perhaps, we should all be careful” to be far more measured and gracious than your own.
Quite frankly, I find the manner of your comments against Cal for his link to the You Tube video to conflict directly with what you have expressed on Sproul’s teaching: “dangerous heresy”, “teaching some toxic stuff”, etc. Is that “loving your neighbor”? And yet you say, “every careless word we will answer for.” I think your words here, in every respect, and regardless of who they have been directed at, have been far from carefully measured.
BTW, I happen to agree with you about the dangers of what Sproul teaches. I just don’t think it wise to put it in such “harsh” terms (your own word for it). And then for you to come down so hard on me and Cal?
Please try and show a little more consistency by practicing what you preach. In so doing you might find your opinions to be more warmly received.
Like or Dislike:
0
In my view God does not normally act to cause any person to make a decision. He can, but in His graciousness He generally allows us to make our decisions for good or ill.
From that perspective God cannot be the author of evil. He can permit us to make the decisions that lead to evil, but that is not the same thing as causing it Himself.
If “good” is the position of being in accord with His will, His commands provide us with the framework to make good decisions. Necessarily of course, if He commands it it becomes good. Israel’s war of annihilation against Amalek is an example. Under normal circumstances “annihilation = bad” but under these particular circumstances God had decreed judgment on Amalek and “annihilation = good”.
Vance, get off your anti-YEC hobbyhorse. YEC is the traditional position of the Church from antiquity and anyone as obsessed with “inerrancy” as you claim to be should accept it.
As I may have said before. “Theological liberals have no problem believing that Genesis describes creation over a period of six days a few thousand years ago. They just don’t believe it. Theological conservatives on the other hand will insist that they believe everything written in Genesis, except the plain reading of it.”
Like or Dislike:
0
I find the manner of your comments against Cal for his link to the You Tube video to conflict directly with what you have expressed on Sproul’s teaching: “dangerous heresy”, “teaching some toxic stuff”, etc. Is that “loving your neighbor”?
I’m attacking the teaching, and not the man. I do not need to love the heresy as myself, just the man.
But I do not withdraw even slightly my vehemence against congregating around scandal involving an opponent. It’s deeply sinful, and a cancer to the soul.
Like or Dislike:
0
There’s a couple of major holes in this argument.
First, your claims are one-sided; the other side does NOT claim to be denying the goodness of God, or anything of the sort. The Arians, in contrast, explicitly denied the eternality of the Son. Thus, you have to actually prove your point, not merely state it: do these doctrines require the denial of the goodness of God, or does RC actually deny that goodness?
Next, you’re singling out an issue which isn’t in any way decided; there’s a lot of variation in this that’s been (aside from Trent) allowed throughout the Church, and held by some of its great leaders.
That’s a horrible slander, and you know it. RC doesn’t claim anything about Hell that you don’t; he doesn’t claim anything about suffering or evil that you don’t. Your use of the word “torture” implies that RC’s God is about to do something that the God of historic Christianity isn’t. And that’s nonsense.
So here’s another rephrasing of your quote: “for the sake of [X] he specifically creates conscious creatures although He knows they will suffer.” I think all Christians at all times would have to agree with this; some would say that we cannot know X, others would assign some ultimate reason. RC says that the ultimate reason is God’s glory; some say the ultimate reason is man’s free will.
Both sides hold that God is all-powerful, all-knowing, and perfectly good. Both sides MUST agree that there is actually evil in the world (the Bible says so!). Neither side holds that there’s more or less actual evil than the other, and both sides agree that God could, if he wanted, make its existence utterly impossible, and by the same token could have created (or not created) in such a way that the evil was not possible.
The clear fact that both sides agree on is that there IS evil and suffering. If one side is to be blamed for a dark god and sacrificial altar, I don’t see how the other side can escape the same blame.
The only difference between the sides is in explaining the exact purpose of the evil. Perhaps it was to allow full free will; perhaps it was to allow God to tell a glorious story that emphasizes His glory. (one with dragons, knights, danger, and eucatastrophe). Perhaps there was some other reason.
What part of the Bible — or creeds — are you quoting from? I don’t recognize either quotation. Did God not make Esau?
Like or Dislike:
0
Has anyone heard the sermon by John Piper on Ruth(Desiring God Blog) as delivered in the U.K.? He says,in planning for certain events “God ordains sin to pass.” Is this different from Sproul Jr.?
Like or Dislike:
0
The only difference between the sides is in explaining the exact purpose of the evil.
No, the difference is one side IS claiming to attribute evil to God. The other side does not claim that God ordains evil for a purpose, for the other side does not claim that God ordains evil.
Anyway, this is certainly a tired debate, but I’m glad to hear that some Calvinists condemn this stuff.
Like or Dislike:
0
Rom 3:7 For if the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie unto his glory; why yet am I also judged as a sinner?
Rom 3:8 And not rather, (as we be slanderously reported, and as some affirm that we say,) Let us do evil, that good may come? whose damnation is just.
Paul is pretty harsh against those who slandered him. I wonder what he would say to those who slander God in the same way?
Like or Dislike:
0
I don’t agree that God could make evil impossible. I’d take the position that if God is to make a universe in which every moral creature is to have free will then there must be a possibility of some of those free moral agents choosing to do evil.
If there is not at least that possibility then their choices are not free.
Like or Dislike:
1
“I don’t agree that God could make evil impossible.”
Of course He could — he doesn’t have to create at all. He could have created automatons, or He could have set the guidelines (somehow) such that they couldn’t be transgressed.
Of course, such a world would be less glorious to God than this one is. THEREFORE, He created this one, with evil in it, for His own glory.
Think about it. Before time He foreknew His church. That means he foreknew their salvation. That means He foreknew their sin, and the Fall. He created _knowing_ that all those things would happen (indeed, I’d say that He created in such a way as to decree those things).
The great plan of salvation includes redemption AND the Fall.
“…there must be a possibility of some of those free moral agents choosing to do evil. If there is not at least that possibility then their choices are not free.”
Is God not free, then? There’s no possibility of Him choosing evil…
No, that’s not a useful definition of freedom, since it excludes God. It would also seem to exclude us once we’re in heaven.
Like or Dislike:
1
“Paul is pretty harsh against those who slandered him. I wonder what he would say to those who slander God in the same way?”
Look at those verses — the slander is people claiming that Paul taught that everyone should sin so that grace would abound. This is not even tangentially related to our discussion. Yes, Paul considered THAT slander; this doesn’t mean that you can call RC’s claim also slander, since the two are different.
Like or Dislike:
1
“No, the difference is one side IS claiming to attribute evil to God. The other side does not claim that God ordains evil for a purpose, for the other side does not claim that God ordains evil.”
Be very careful there. No, it’s not true that any Calvinist claims that God is evil or performs evil. However, He authored the entire universe, and it all fulfills His plan, including when that fulfillment causes us suffering; and even including when the heart of the king is turned to do evil. God wrote that story. It’s not evil for Him to have done that, because He wrote a good story; it’s about Goodness and Righteousness, not about the evil that they overcome.
Remember, the last enemy to be defeated will be death. Death is evil and an enemy. Yet God planned that defeat, and planned it to be _last_.
Again, God created the universe and made it to have evil in it. You can’t deny that. He Himself claims to control that evil — He took credit for Pharaoh, and claims to hold the heart of the king in His hands. He takes credit for natural disasters (the “I create woe” claim the original post looked at), and every tiny little detail (down to the fall of a sparrow) is part of His plan. Several times He claims to be actively restraining lawlessness, and other times He judges by giving people over to their sinfulness. Even if you manage to argue that there’s some evil that God doesn’t totally control (why would you want evil to triumph over God????), you’re left admitting that at least SOME evil is unmistakably allowed by God, even though He didn’t need to.
And then you have Romans 9. There it looks like God’s wrath is one of His motivations for His patience. There it looks like God prepared some objects specifically for destruction, with the initial purpose of showing His wrath. Pharaoh is again singled out, with detail that makes it very hard to deny that God controlled that entire situation, including the evil that happened — and still blames Pharaoh.
I don’t want to make too strong of a claim. I’m not arguing _against_ libertarian free will — I just think you’re taking it too far to claim that because this view doesn’t fit into libertarian free will, therefore it can’t be orthodox. LFW fits within orthodoxy, but it doesn’t define orthodoxy.
Like or Dislike:
1
That’s certainly true; if God or chance altered our decisions from what we truly desired they wouldn’t truly be ours. (This gets a little philosphical rather than Biblical, but so be it.)
I have to affirm that, of course — in the sense that God does not author (i.e. commit) evil. But even if we suppose that the only way for God to plan for an evil thing to happen would be for God to force someone’s decision, your argument only suggests that God doesn’t normally do that. It doesn’t show that He never does, and in fact the Bible shows that He sometimes has done EXACTLY this. Consider, for example, Pharaoh, as described in Romans 9 and many other verses — not only did God harden his heart after he’d decided, God even says that He raised him up _for_ that purpose.
So at least once, God did the thing that you claim he can’t do. Therefore, what you describe is not the correct understanding of authoring evil, since God doesn’t do that. God CAN cause someone to decide to commit evil, without himself incurring guilt.
-Wm
Like or Dislike:
0
Wm Tanksley,
Do you agree with this statement from Sproul Jr.?
“What I’ll do is create something worthy of my wrath, something on which I can exhibit the glory of my wrath” (pp. 52-53).
Do you agree would you say this?
“It was [God’s] desire to make his wrath known. He needed, then, something on which to be wrathful. He needed to have sinful creatures” (p. 57).
Like or Dislike:
1
Paul Copan, remarked considerably about Sproul Jr.
But then Paul, you never shown any evidence that God did not create evil. Just openly mocked S’Jr.
So whats your answer Paul, and back it with Scripture, Did God create evil?
Please do not insult my intelligence by chasing a rabbit and going all around the world to say no or yes.
I believe that Scriptures are clear that when they state God created all things, that this infact does include evil. If God did not then show clear evidence of its origin, Please…..
Like or Dislike:
1
I’ve already said that I find them to be reconcilable with Romans 9, and I can’t disagree with that. Can you explain how they differ from Romans 9?
You may philosophically find it unpleasant to think of God as allowing evil; but if the Bible says He does, you can’t fight that with philosophy, and you certainly can’t brand someone a heretic because they oppose your philosophy.
Like or Dislike:
1
Now, a distinct issue: I finally thought of an explanation for something that’s been bugging me: why it’s important to say that God is not the author of evil. The important thing is that no person ever look back on an evil deed they did and say, “well, God authorized that.” No, He did not. He forbade it.
His plan for the world includes the existence of evil (we must all agree), but the purpose of evil in His plan is NOT so that people would do it; the purpose of evil in His plan is to be conquered by God, Christ, and His Body. Anyone committing evil is violating God’s purpose.
Like or Dislike:
0
Wm Tanskley,
I have no intention of philosphying. I have no intention of going out side of what scripture tells us
Sproul Jr. is saying man was created to be sinners, I find no where in scripture including Romans Chapter 9 that man was CREATED TO sin…you cannot even say it yourself…
“You may philosophically find it unpleasant to think of God as allowing evil;”
alowing and creating are two different things. I may not fully understand how evil is present. How God planned his plans before the world began. But God did not create man to be cast in hell or to show his wrath…He indured the vessels fitted for destruction with much longsuffering, but he did not create man to be destroyed, nor does he take pleasure in thier death.
That is what is wrong with the quotes from Sproul Jr, he ignores other scripture to have God delighting in the death of the wicked.
Like or Dislike:
0
Wm Tanksley,
“Now, a distinct issue: I finally thought of an explanation for something that’s been bugging me: why it’s important to say that God is not the author of evil. The important thing is that no person ever look back on an evil deed they did and say, “well, God authorized that.” No, He did not. He forbade it.
His plan for the world includes the existence of evil (we must all agree), but the purpose of evil in His plan is NOT so that people would do it; the purpose of evil in His plan is to be conquered by God, Christ, and His Body. Anyone committing evil is violating God’s purpose.”
That just negated every post you made prior
????
Like or Dislike:
1
Romans 9 addresses Pharaoh: “for this purpose I have raised you up.” The purpose: to demonstrate His power. Pharaoh was evil. He ignored the word of God, even in the face of miracles. He “touched the apple of God’s eye”. Yet God raised him up! And this tells us to read that as meaning that God raised him up in order to have him do evil, so that God could conquer the evil for His glory.
Now, I do want to mention that I don’t agree with Sproul that St.Paul is claiming that God wanted to do this “to show His wrath”. St. Paul is asking a question, not making a positive statement. But the reason he’s asking that question IS to offer a possible explanation for God wanting to raise up an evil person: what if He wanted to do it in order to demonstrate His wrath? Now, we can’t be dogmatic with a rhetorical question; we could claim that there’s some OTHER reason He raises up evil people. But we can’t call people heretics for accepting St.Paul’s explanation.
And above all, we can’t claim that God didn’t raise up those people. He most certainly DID. St. Paul is quoting from many other verses!
You mean “contradicted”. No, the contradiction is only present in your (mis)interpretation of my statements. I speak truly, and you agree (I know) that God is not to blame for people’s evil actions. But I also speak truly when I say that people’s evil actions don’t take God by surprise. He knew; he planned for them, from before time. Did he know all about Judas? Well, he could have. I think He did.
Like or Dislike:
0
Wm,
“You mean “contradicted”.
No I didn’t. I couldn’t summon the correct word. Still can’t.
Like or Dislike:
0
I have to say that the one thing I am most disturbed by is that this book is published in 1999 and we barely know about it now. I barely know about R Jr.’s position now? That is so weird. Considering that I tackled this issue around 2003 to 2006 and I came out Moderate and probably more Arminian from where I started (essentially I believe it is possible for someone to lose their salvation).
I have to echo what most people are saying. I believe this to be hyper-Calvinism. Despite the best arguments from what some on the comment page are making. From those defending RCS Jr, please provide for me another Calvinist Theologian who clearly has no issue and endorses the idea that God is the author of Evil. From what I understand most (if not almost all) Reformed Theologians will dance around it and/or deny that God is the author of Evil.
Although I think this is the logical conclusion of Reformed thought, I do respect those like RCS Sr who left that conclusion toward mystery.
As far as the debate going on in the comment page. I think this would be a great post to debate in the Theologica. Moreover, I think people should better define their terms. Especially what they mean by evil.
I’m no master Theologian or Philosopher, but it would seem that evil could be one of two things:
1) Evil is the deprivation or the absence of good. The classical Thomist view.
a. If this is true then evil comes about by God “allowing (permitting) the possibility of evil” through man’s free actions.
i. This seems to be Jonathan Edwards view.
b. God (John Marks above comment) actively or directly brings sin about.
2) Or as RCS Jr. and Wm Tanksley’s view that Evil is created indirectly when God directly “creates sin” through Adam. Whether you agree with RCS Jr that it was so God could delight in His wrath or not, lets just focus on the “evil/sin” issue specifically.
a. So please correct me if you think this break down is incorrect. So RCS Jr. does not believe that God allows the possibility or moves upon one the will to Sin after the fall of Adam, but creates a sin nature (the desire to sin) in Adam, Eve, and the Devil before the Fall.
Please correct me if I am misunderstanding RCS Jr’s position or view and please tell me how that view compares and contrasts with scripture. That is so extra-Biblical it is scary. What does this say about Jesus when he is called the new Adam? This has far reaching ripple effects through all of the Gospel and the saying of Christ.
Like or Dislike:
1
“No I didn’t. I couldn’t summon the correct word. Still can’t.”
Good enough
. I’m still trying to cache this out myself.
We were discussing how although God created and purposed all things, and all actions, whether evil or not, he does NOT authorize any evil action, so that nobody is able to make the excuse, “I’m blameless, God was the one who made me do that act.”
Another way of putting my point, since you found it so confusing that you thought it was contradictory, would be to quote Jacob’s words: “You meant it for evil, but God meant it for good.” God was behind the act of selling Jacob into slavery, but while it was an act of evil for the brothers, it is an act of good for God. Note that it doesn’t say that God _used_ the evil act for good; it says that God _meant_ the act for good. Before the act was carried out, the brothers purposed to do that act and their heart was evil; and before the act was carried out God purposed for them to do that act and His heart was good.
Yet another bit of support for my argument would be St.Paul’s words in Rom 9:19, where he has a rhetorical questioner make this exact excuse: “Hey, I couldn’t resist God’s will — how can He accuse me?” St. Paul’s answer is complicated, but any way you read the answer, you CAN’T read it as saying either that God is to blame, OR that God’s will doesn’t decree what acts of evil He will use to accomplish His purpose.
Like or Dislike:
1
No, it’s not — read Edwards, “The Freedom of the Will” (available online, of course). He exhaustively examines possibilities to decide that the only Biblically and philosophically tenable option is that man’s will is determined by his nature, and God is the creator and controller of that nature.
God doesn’t create sin or evil, since those are not things. He does, however, ordain us to desire sin rather than righteousness, and He has ordained at least SOME people to do at least SOME acts of evil (most Calvinists, including Edwards, believe that God has ordained and directed ALL choices, and nothing, including evil action, is out of His control — but that’s more than this argument requires).
God has a plan. Nothing is outside of His plan, including evil. Yet every actor in His plan is accountable for its own actions.
I think the purpose of evil is to provide something for God and His people to gloriously defeat. I don’t know if God’s wrath is the purpose of evil; St.Paul suggests that it might be, but I think he’s only providing a possibility, not a certainty.
What IS a certainty is that you can’t call someone a heretic for taking St.Paul’s question seriously — although conversely, THEY can’t call anyone a heretic for doubting that perhaps God had some OTHER reason aside from wrath. The point St. Paul was making wasn’t that God told him that wrath was the purpose; the point was that God has a purpose for the evil that people do.
BTW, “hypercalvinism” is usually used to describe the soteriological heresy of fatalism: that because God predestines salvation, therefore it’s pointless to try to save people or even to try to act like a Christian. I think it’s a bad idea to twist the term out of its usual meaning.
Like or Dislike:
1
Some more, after close reading:
Not that I can see. That’s certainly not what I believe.
I do believe that God had a plan of salvation before He created Adam, which means that he knew that Adam would fall, which implies that he knew what Adam would do. Furthermore, since He did not stop that, He for some reason intended it. Since He is all-wise, He had a reason for doing that.
This doesn’t imply that Adam had a sin nature before the fall. It simply means that God created him planning that he would fall (and obtain a sin nature).
I see why that conclusion (the creation of Adam with a sin nature) would be scary. Fortunately, it’s not a conclusion you can force onto the quote, at least not without evidence that the author intended it, since there are many interpretations that do NOT require such a horrid contradiction.
Anyhow, the Biblical reason Christ is called the New Adam isn’t that He’s like Adam in all ways; it’s that He’s like Adam in His representation of us.
Like or Dislike:
0
Wm Tanksley
Man’s will is determined by his nature and God is controller of that nature.
Man’s nature is to sin (after the fall) so God controls man’s will to sin.
Adam’s will is determined by his nature and God is controller of that nature.
Adam’s nature is not to sin (before the fall), but Adam sinned.
Would it not conclude that God controlled Adam’s nature to go against its normal and natural direction?
Also you said that God did not create evil or sin. Fair enough and I agree. However, Paul quotes RCS Jr directly saying “I’m not accusing God of sinning; I’m suggesting that He created sin” (p. 54).
Now it would probably be best for us to get or check out the book and try to read that statement in its context. However, I am taking Paul Copan at what he seems to be trying to understand. I don’t know if you have the book or not. However, if that isn’t what RCS Jr means isn’t that just bad wording on his part. Also if that isn’t what he means then what did he mean? (I’m assuming you have the book and could you please quote from other passages to clarify what he means?).
Like or Dislike:
1
No. The Bible does not say that “Adam’s nature was not to sin,” nor do I make that claim. Augustine claims that Adam was by nature capable of not sinning, but was also capable of sinning; in practice, we don’t know whether he was actually capable of not sinning, because he *did*. All we know is that unlike us, there was a time when he was not a slave to sin — and yet he chose to serve sin and die to righteousness anyhow.
My point is that God did not need to control Adam against his will; He created Adam’s nature according to His design. If God had wanted to create men who couldn’t sin, He could create them already united with His Son (or some other way I don’t know). For some reason, God chose to create men who fell, so that He could redeem some and punish others.
What bad wording are you talking about? There are a few disconnected passages, which one are you suspecting is bad? I think his meaning is clear enough, and it looks like he’s simply paraphrasing Romans 9. If he’s making any error, it’s assuming that St. Paul meant the rhetorical question Romans 9 as a statement of revelation when it’s actually a statement of possibility — but you can’t claim he’s a heretic for saying something that Scripture also said.
Again, can someone please explain how what he said differs from Romans 9:22?
Like or Dislike:
0
The bad wording I am talking about is:
Paul Copan quotes RCS Jr directly saying “I’m not accusing God of sinning; I’m suggesting that He created sin” (p. 54).
You state that God has not created sin or evil. Therefore, you seem to disagree with RCS Jr. What Does RCS Jr. mean by this other than it’s plain meaning? Why would he pick those words?
Like or Dislike:
1
Thank you. Good question.
I don’t know what sense RCJr wanted that to be read, but it seems we have to read it to exclude God committing evil or sin. He could be saying that God is ultimately responsible for all evil, that all evil happens because He created all of its causes (as He is the ultimate cause of everything), and/or that He controls all evil, keeping it in check but nonetheless allowing it to happen in order to form an intentional part of His plan.
God created each of us. We say that even though God didn’t perform a miracle to knit me together in my mother’s womb; but the handicraft is His nonetheless. In a similar way, because God designs how, where, and by whom evil takes place, He creates it. Or that’s how I read it.
I think RC’s comments are intended to highlight God’s control of evil. He owns and controls it in every way — nothing, from the purest angel to the most depraved devil, is out of His control, even at its most rebellious.
Like or Dislike:
0
Hi Paul, I heard you today with Hank Hanegraaff on the Bible Answer Man Program. I was so glad to hear you on discussing questions answered in your new book: When God Goes to Starbucks. That was a great interview! I may just have to have a copy of that book now. I’m always open to sharing the Gospel with people so I love this sort of guide to get me over the speed-bumps along the way…. so that I can get to the Gospel.
I hope that your book will become very popular now!
Like or Dislike:
0
[...] is an interesting post over at Parchment and Pen about taking Calvinism too far and a good post on this subject at Between Two Worlds (an interview [...]
Like or Dislike:
1
It’s been two days… Looks like this is dying down.
I don’t think it’s appropriate to claim victory — in particular, no decent argument has been made FOR RCJr’s claim. But I do think the claim that he’s a heretic is completely hollow, and has been demonstrated to be so, until such time as someone can explain how his statements differ from St.Paul’s statements in Romans 9.
Like or Dislike:
0
Wm, Tanksley, I see no resemblance between Sproul Jr. and Paul (Rm 9). Will you unpack the similarity? The only resemblance I sort of see seems to rest in the mind of a reader imposing his western narrative on the text of a 1st century document written to 1st century Greco/Judeo folks. Read any Witherington?
It’s unwise to suggest that because God is sovereign He is therefore the direct cause of every single event in life. God is not the author of evil! In terms of sovereignty, God prior to creation, saw it fit to actualize this possible world. He could have created a different world, one with different people and consequences but He saw it good to create the one we know. There are better ways to discuss sovereignty than to attribute all events to God. Sovereignty is not synonymous with causation.
“In Hebrew thought they have this extraordinarily strong sense of divine sovereignty in which everything that happens in a sense can be attributed to God. But they don’t see this as antithetical or exclusive of human freedom by any means. A beautiful illustration of this is the story of Saul’s suicide in 2 Samuel and Chronicles. In Samuel it describes Saul as he sees the Philistines about to take him and so in order to avoid capture by the Philistines Saul falls on his own sword and commits suicide. In the Chronicles account we have the same story with Saul committing suicide but the Chronicler adds this commentary, “thus the Lord slew Saul” (1 Chronicles 10:14).”
And so there is a sense that both Saul and God are responsible for the suicide – Saul more directly of course. Part of this Jewish manner seems to be an understanding of God’s directive will (a will in which he is the effective cause of an event) and a permissive will (a will in which he permits the acts of his creation).
There are countless Jewish examples of this in scripture. We might remember the Joseph story where he acknowledges both the will of men and God. And I quote, “”As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good in order to bring about this present result, to preserve many people alive” (Gen 50:20). I don’t think we want to interpret a Jewish understanding of sovereignty in such a way as to obliterate human free agency thereby relieving men from responsibility. The Jews didn’t, why should we? Joseph seemed to understand that it was his brothers who sold him into slavery but that God used it for a greater purpose.
Like or Dislike:
0
Can anyone see the incoherence in stating both that God and Saul are the direct cause of one specified event?
Like or Dislike:
0
Wow, this blog posting has taken on a life of its own! Lots of fascinating comments here. Thanks for your contributions. I obviously can’t respond to these numerous comments. I’ll try to pinpoint a few that, in my estimation, could use a response.
For those who may wonder if I’ve cited Sproul Jr. accurately, keep in mind that what I heard at first sounded so troubling that I wanted to check it out for myself. So I would encourage any doubters about this to do the same. I give a number of quotations from Sproul Jr. in order to make my point. (And let me add that the quotation by Sproul Sr. does indeed imply libertarian freedom. That seems evident.)
Bethyada, I try to address the question of Jesus’ temptation in “That’s Just Your Interpretation” and “Loving Wisdom.” I argue that, as part of his mission, gave up having access to the knowledge that it was impossible for him to sin so that he could truly endure the trials of temptation—not as mere play-acting.
Robert Booth, I was surprised to hear you say that I was “slandering” R.C. Sproul Jr.; indeed, I think it unfair. I was quite measured in my response and allowed his words to speak for themselves. Did God create evil? No, I made reference to 1 Tim. 4—that everything God creates is GOOD. The point is the same in James 1. Where did evil come from? It arose from creatures abusing their own God-given freedom. Is that terse enough? There is a difference between God’s permitting evil and creating evil. This is borne out by the possibility that people can—like Israel’s religious leaders—“reject God’s purpose for themselves” (Lk. 7:30).
Some of the comments made on the goodness of God being at stake are quite right. We do not want to attribute evil to God, which is the very point James 1 is making. Every good and perfect gift comes from God, and we shouldn’t consider God as the source of evil in any way.
As for Romans 9, yes, God can work through “vessels of wrath” like Pharaoh. If such vessels persist in their defiance and resist God’s grace (Acts. 7:51), then the outcome However, Paul uses this same language in 2 Tim. 2:21. “Therefore, if anyone cleanses himself from these things, he will be a vessel for honor, sanctified, useful to the Master, prepared for every good work.” As long as people rebel and disobey God, then they are appointed to doom (1 Pet. 2:8). But if they turn and respond to God’s initiating grace, then they become part of God’s elect people. Let’s also keep in mind God’s great exasperation when he does everything he can and expects fruit from his people, but it doesn’t come (e.g., the song of the vineyard in Isa. 5: “what more was there to do for My vineyard than had been done in it?”). Jesus expects and gives opportunity for the prophetess Jezebel and her followers to repent, but she refuses. As Revelation 2:21 reads: “I gave her time to repent; and she does not want to repent of her immorality.” Indeed, if God commands all people everywhere (not just the elect) to repent, as Paul says in Acts 17, surely he must give them grace to do so.
Finally, Susan, thanks for your comments. I’m glad you got to hear me on the Bible Answer Man program. I hope the book *When God Goes to Starbucks* will be a good tool for people grappling with those difficult questions I’m tackling.
Thanks to you all for your engaging comments and discussion. There’s a lot to take in here. That’s why I blog just once a month!
Like or Dislike:
0
One correction to the typo above (third-to-last paragraph)–an accidental deletion:
As for Romans 9, yes, God can work through “vessels of wrath” like Pharaoh. If such vessels persist in their defiance and resist God’s grace (Acts. 7:51), then the outcome is wrath. Paul, however, uses ….
Like or Dislike:
1
Paul,
I can’t help but wonder if something is being missed in the definition of terms as Steve Hays pointed out.
Where did evil come from? It arose from creatures abusing their own God-given freedom.
Does “arose” mean created here? Did people create evil out of good? What are you saying exactly? Who would the source be here? And the source of that?
I think this is one of the complaints with your initial post. You leveled a charge against Sproul, Jr. and yet didn’t offer a solution.
As for Romans 9, yes, God can work through “vessels of wrath” like Pharaoh. If such vessels persist in their defiance and resist God’s grace (Acts. 7:51), then the outcome is wrath.
Not only “can” God work through vessels of wrath, but He “does.” In Romans 9 Paul doesn’t tell us that the persistence of Pharoah’s defiance lead to wrath. Paul tells us that it was God’s purpose to use Pharoah to proclaim His name. Also, see Assyria.
Let’s also keep in mind God’s great exasperation when he does everything he can and expects fruit from his people, but it doesn’t come
Unless you’re an open theist or hold to process theology wouldn’t this just be an anthropomorphism?
Indeed, if God commands all people everywhere (not just the elect) to repent, as Paul says in Acts 17, surely he must give them grace to do so.
Isn’t this the same or similar logic to what Sproul, Jr. is using? Just assume the what we think the logic bears out by observation aside from God’s revelation?
Thanks,
Mark
Like or Dislike:
1
No problem, although it seems to me that if someone’s going to make charges of heresy it’s up to them to prove the difference, rather than up to the accused to prove their innocence.
It’s also hard for me to “explain the similarity”, since the two claims are so similar; it’s like being asked to prove that zero is equal to zero. Fortunately, I have in fact proven that 0=0 in my abstract algebra class, so I think I’m up to this
. I personally think you’re being a bit hyperbolic when you claim to see “no similarity”; you have to see SOME.
The similarity is apparent in Rom 9:17-18, where Paul says that God “raised up” Pharaoh and hardened him in his evil. Thus, God designed Pharaoh and then hardened him — thus God caused the results that came of Pharaoh’s evil actions, including the suffering they caused. A few verses later a pushback appears; St.Paul imagines someone objecting that if God has willed all the acts of evil, then nobody could possibly be guilty of evil. This constructed pushback indicates that St.Paul expects people to conclude that God attributes moral evil to people even though those specific people were irresistibly willed to perform those morally evil acts by God; and St.Paul’s reply doesn’t object in any way to that conclusion, but instead claims that God has his own good reasons; as one possibility St.Paul offers that God might want to do that in order to show His wrath. The latter possibility is advanced by RCJr as a generalization: he claims that in general, all evil exists because God wants to display His wrath on it.
Thus, we see two direct points of similarity: that God is responsible for the presence of evil, and that God made it be present for a purpose: specifically, for the purpose of wrath (I don’t see RCJr claiming that wrath is the only purpose, just that it’s a generally applicable purpose). To explain God’s responsibility for the presence of evil, RCJr uses the word “created”, which seems reasonable in comparison to how we explain God’s responsibility for the existence of matter.
Although I agree that St. Paul wasn’t a modernist, you also have to agree that he wasn’t a postmodernist; he makes many logical arguments, and although he uses argument forms that we wouldn’t use commonly (for example, I think a fortiriori is rare nowadays), he nonetheless depends on basic logic.
I guess what I’m trying to say is that you’ll have to be more specific if you hope to convince me
.
Nope. I just now read the Amazon.com reviews for his book on Romans; it looks to be very interesting.
RCJr didn’t claim he was — he said He’s the creator of all things, including evil things, and the disposer of all actions and motives, including evil actions and motives, and that everything serves His good purpose, including evil things, actions, and motives.
I agree, and appears to as well. But Joseph says much more than you claim; he says not that God used it for good, but that God _meant_ it for good. I read this to mean that before Joseph’s brothers ever threw him into a well, God meant for them to do it, and He meant it in order to bring about His redemptive purpose.
The error so many fall into is understanding “human free agency” in a way that undermines the sovereignty of God. They are perfectly compatible — unless you insist that if God disposes our actions, we are not accountable for them. But St.Paul contradicts this in Romans 9:19-22; he says that even if God set you up to fall, you are still responsible for your fall (or more accurately, he says that being set up to fall is not a sufficient excuse for having fallen).
Human free agency (in a libertarian sense) is NOT required in order to earn condemnation. Nor is free agency required in order to earn salvation. God saves those whom He wills, and whom he wills He hardens.
Like or Dislike:
1
“Can anyone see the incoherence in stating both that God and Saul are the direct cause of one specified event?”
No. Can you? God is the direct cause of my body’s coming into existence (He’s given full credit for forming me), and the biochemical processes in my mother’s womb are also given full credit for my body coming into existence. Both are true at the same time; there’s no inherent contradiction.
Like or Dislike:
0
Wm Tanksley, the Witherington shout out serves to dispose of the “means what it says, says what it means” hermeneutic. Again, my argument is that we ought not primarily be governed by word studies (you write: he says not that God used it for good, but that God _meant_ it for good) – unless we’re prepared to accept an incoherent theology (see God/Saul/suicide above). A meta-narrative resembles more the 1st century writer. And yes I’d recommend Witherington’s Romans commentary. Peace
Like or Dislike:
0
Wm Tanksley, unless you’re a materialist, I’m at least puzzled by your suggestion that God and biochemical processes are causally responsible for my existence. Beyond that, your example has no relation whatsoever to my earlier point about God and Saul. I was examining two separate Hebrew accounts of the same story attempting to make sense of an apparent contradiction. One account states that Saul commits suicide; the other states that “the Lord slew Saul.” Which is correct? In my view, there is an explicit contradiction teetering toward incoherence or this is a Hebraic way of distinguishing God’s permission for human freedom. Reread my longer post above. Take care
Like or Dislike:
1
An argument serves better to dispose of an argument than a shout-out does. I do respect what Witherington appears to be saying, though, since it is VERY important to understand both the cultural and intentional context of any communication, Romans included.
Nonetheless, the words are relatively clear; the cultural context is very unclear. If the words can engender reasonable arguments, surely then the cultural context even more so.
Although we should always be ready to hear a culturally-based argument, we should be wary of overturning doctrines based on such, and we should be totally against declaring heresy based only on cultural arguments. And the declaration of heresy is what I’m arguing against.
After all, we have (close to) the original text. We don’t have anything close to the original culture. We barely have clues.
What are you talking about? Culture won’t magically remove apparent contradictions in the text! The text actually says both things; it’s not a word study saying both things. A cultural understanding — which we cannot POSSIBLY have dating that far back, by the way — won’t help you if you aren’t willing to try to resolve the tension (or simply allow it to remain).
The only Biblical resolution is to conclude that both God and Saul are in some way responsible for Saul’s death. Different churches explain the responsibility in different ways. The only ones that are heretical are the ones that DENY one of the texts entirely — the fatalists who deny all human responsibility, or the extreme humanists who deny God’s power. Neither heretical side is being displayed here.
Is this a parody of postmodernism? “A meta-narrative resembles …a writer.”??? What??? I studied postmodernism under an ordinary guy who happened to be a convinced postmodernist, and he never said anything like that. I don’t even know what it has to do with the discussion.
I’m puzzled. Do you think materialists attribute responsibility to God? Because you clearly say that I do.
God created me (the individual now talking to you). He designed me and even knit me in my mother’s womb. I praise Him for that. He did all that through the means of chemical processes operating under orderly laws, as well as “coincidental” events. All of those means were entirely under His control, and may have been decreed from before the beginning of time (I don’t press that point, I don’t know).
Why can’t both be correct? God could have slewn Saul by a lightning bolt from a clear sky, but He didn’t. If he’d done that, the atheists would have claimed that lightning bolts sometimes come from clear skies for no reason. If God had slain Saul with a lightning bolt from a cloudy sky, some would have assumed it was just coincidence. If God has slain Saul by instantly driving him mad, causing him to decide to stab himself, the atheist would assume God didn’t exist and Saul was just crazy. Instead God pressured Saul until even a reasonable person could conceivably despair, and so God slew Saul.
You can dive headfirst into philosophy if you want, and declaim about human freedom, but the Bible doesn’t go there, so we can’t declare heresy when someone disagrees from us on that point. What’s certain is that God can and did act through the decisions of some people, according to His determinate purpose. Whether those people were free in their will is a different argument, and not really a Biblical one.
Do you think that Pharaoh was forced by God to act against his will when God hardened his heart? Do you think that when men executed the Son of God “by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God”, they were acting against their will? I don’t think so; I think human will and divine sovereignty are totally compatible.
If you disagree, YOU have to deal with the question of who killed Saul, and how God could have foreknown Christ’s murder without foreknowing that there would be murderers, and how Pharaoh could have been both evil and raised up by God on purpose.
There’s no retreat in simply saying that it’s cultural, UNLESS you’re also saying that one of the verses is merely a cultural token (i.e. they didn’t really mean it, like when an insurance company talks about “acts of God” in their contract). All we can learn by talking about culture is that either one verse is not factual, OR that there exists some way of reconciling the two verses. And that choice is a logical necessity.
-Wm
Like or Dislike:
1
Paul, thank you for your engaging, challenging post. Although I disagree with your point, you make it in a respectful manner. Some of the commenters have taken it much too far in deducing heresy rather than simple error. (Again, I don’t think it’s either, but I’m taking the simpler point of defending against the heresy charge.)
With this post I’ll take on not just defending RCJr against this heresy charge, but also whether the general doctrine he’s teaching is actually correct.
More accurately, it *allows* libertarian freedom, specifically for unfallen man (it doesn’t require it). RC Sr. clearly does NOT believe in libertarian freedom after the fall. I haven’t heard any preaching by RCJr, but I have listened to a fair amount of RCSr.
Paul was talking about purity and impurity, as Peter had been told. The fact that nails are good and driving nails is good doesn’t mean that driving them through Jesus’ hands was good.
Yet… at the same time that driving nails through Jesus’ hands was an act of untold evil, the fact that those nails were going through Jesus’ hands was exactly what God planned, and it was not just good, but perfect.
It is terse, but you’re not quoting James. James didn’t talk about freedom. He did talk about desires. Evil acts come not from “abuse of freedom”, but from following our own desires. This is the point of compatibilism: that our desires are part of us, something that God created as he created each of us. Just as a Down’s Syndrome child was created by God, so also a lost sinner is created by God, and in both cases God knew the sadness that would result, and that sadness is part of God’s plan.
As I’ve said before, you can’t tell a good story without a villain, and even a dragon. Good can exist without evil (that’s God), but you can’t tell a story about good without contrasting it to evil.
Were they free to reject or accept God’s purpose for themselves? No. They did so “because they had not been baptized by John.” Sounds like either God had no control over who John happened to baptize, or He set up the religious leaders to not be able to accept His purpose for them. If God didn’t have control, though, who did?
In any way? You quoted one of the ways — that God creates calamity. Isn’t that an evil? And how about an evil king — Proverbs 21:1 indicates that God turns the heart of the king however He wishes.
James 1 doesn’t say that God didn’t create evil; it says that our own desires are what lead us astray, and that we can’t accuse God of tempting us. I’ve been tempted, and I know what James is talking about here.
Why then does St.Paul quote the OT as telling Pharaoh “for this purpose have I raised you up”? Why does Paul imagine an objection to his teaching being “Why does He find fault — for who can oppose His will?”
It appears that God willed for Pharaoh to oppose and oppress His people. And it appears that Paul agrees that nobody can resist that will. So could Pharaoh have done anything BUT oppress God’s people?
I agree… But only partially, since you meant to say more than you actually did say. The Calvinistic (or Augustinian) branches of the Church (in which RCSr and RCJr are preachers) add that God’s gracious intervention is the only way an unsaved person can ever possibly be interested in God, and once God has graciously intervened that unsaved person will be interested in God, and therefore will seek Him (and, as per His promises, will find Him).
This is heterodox to your church, and that’s okay. It’s not heretical.
Right — and then, to continue the song, Jesus told of the vineyard owner sending His own Son.
Why? He commands of us all that we follow His holy law perfectly as well, and yet we can’t do it. Why should we be able to follow an additional rule (repent and seek God) when we couldn’t follow the first set (don’t kill each other, etc)?
Grace isn’t forced. God can’t be REQUIRED to give it, or it wouldn’t be grace — it would be simply justice.
The grace of God is given as He wills (as it should be). The commandment of God is upon all of us (as it should be).
-Wm
Like or Dislike:
0
Wm Tanksley, I don’t have the time to engage specific points you’ve made to me, Copan, or others. I have some brief thoughts, nevertheless. There is nothing postmodern about reading early Christian writers through the lens of early Christian writers rather than Calvin, Augustine, or John Piper. Don’t confuse me with an emergent or Jesus seminarian. I’m interested in reading the bible for all that its worth, believe me!
Take another look at Saul’s death in 2 Samuel and Chronicles. In Samuel, SAUL falls on his own sword and COMMITS SUICIDE. In the Chronicles account we have the same story with the following commentary: “thus THE LORD SLEW SAUL” (1 Chronicles 10:14).” Your take to compatibilism requires God to pressure Saul to commit suicide. This is eisogeses. But suppose God did pressure Saul to commit suicide. Are pressures causal? Suppose your child argued that she took drugs because pressures at school caused her to do so. Does she get a pass? It seems to me that the better explanation for such apparent contradictions is that Hebraic stories should not always be read in a wooden literal sense when much of the Hebrew mind is idiomatic anyway. In other words, we should be very careful that we do not to read scripture like a 21st century American!
Like or Dislike:
0
Typo!
In other words, we should not read scripture like a 21st century American!
Like or Dislike:
1
I’m still confused — why did you tell me that “A meta-narrative resembles more the 1st century writer”? What did that mean?
Don’t get me wrong; I’m not a modernist; my pomo friends and CS Lewis have convinced me otherwise.
Nope. I’m not making those passages teach compatibilism. Those passages teach that God slew Saul, and that Saul killed himself. I can’t tell how you’re handling the contradiction, but you start by saying that it’s a contradiction, and then you go to say something about culture. Well, we both agree that the ancient Jews had their own culture which was different from ours and more similar to other ancient cultures, but that in itself doesn’t resolve the tension. To resolve the tension you’re going to HAVE to import some information from outside the two passages.
I’ve guessed that your decision was to take one of the passages non-literally, as in “God slew Saul (but not really, just kidding).” I can’t tell, you won’t say.
At least you know my take: I think both are meant to be taken literally. I therefore have to think they’re compatible, and when Saul killed himself (a sin?), God was the agent (and did not sin).
Like or Dislike:
0
Oh, cool. Yes, you don’t want to accept that both of the statements are true. To justify this, you’ll claim that Hebrew culture, in some vague way, was prone to making untrue statements about God’s actions.
I’m not totally hostile to your point here, but seriously, all you’ve shown me is that you WANT Hebrew culture to work this way. You’ve given no evidence whatsoever that it actually does.
And as to whether we should read Scripture like a 21st century American… Of course we should steep ourselves in the environment of the original authors. That’ll inevitably reveal figures of speech where we thought there were none, and vice versa. But that doesn’t mean anyone can reject a verse just because it MIGHT have been culturally inspired. It’s hard work to interpret ancient cultures — and although it’s a shame to avoid that hard work by ignoring the task, it’s even more so to avoid it by paying lip service to the task and not actually doing the work.
Like or Dislike:
0
Last question, before this conversation get’s ugly (I’m not into polemics). Does God literally *hate* Esau?
Like or Dislike:
0
Or is the *hate* merely an idiomatic expression used by the Hebrew writer to express something entirely different? Just curious, what sort of evidence for idiom use are you looking for?
Like or Dislike:
0
Wm Tanksley,
I’ve finished reading your first entry——-It appears the entries that follow are governed by a hollowed-out version of theistic fatalism.
The post below is from my blogspot: God, Omniscience, and Human Freedom?
The confusion called Theological Fatalism is the idea that if God knows the future then the future from necessity (your usage) is fatally fixed—if God foreknows A, then A will necessarily occur! The subtlety here is that our actions now are causally inert and irrelevant to what actually obtains in the future. This is because God’s knowledge is evidently a powerful force! I’ll argue (with the help of William Lane Craig) that theological fatalism is muddleheaded and that free creatures explain the knowledge God indeed has.
Fatalism goes as follows: 1) necessarily, if God foreknows X, then X will happen. 2) God foreknows X. 3) Therefore, X will necessarily happen. But the argument so formulated, is logically fallacious. What follow from 1 & 2 is not 3, but 3’ (Therefore, X will happen). The fatalist confusedly carries the necessity of the premises to the conclusion. It would be like reasoning: 1) necessarily, if Jones is a bachelor, Jones is unmarried. 2) Jones is a bachelor. 3) Therefore, Jones is necessarily unmarried. Does the necessity of the premises follow through the conclusion? Well, clearly not, for Jones could certainly marry if he so desired. All that follows is 3′) Therefore, Jones is unmarried.
Many people also confuse certainty with necessity. God can be absolutely certain (implied by His foreknowledge) that Jones is a bachelor, however, it does not follow that Jones is necessarily a bachelor—unless however there exists an argument from omniscience and determinism that causally connects God’s knowledge to human action—the argument doesn’t exist! “Certainty is an epistemic property of persons; necessity is a modal property of propositions. The proposition that Jones is a bachelor is contingently true, meaning it could be false. A necessarily true proposition could never fail to be true in any circumstance. An example would be a mathematical proposition like 2 + 2 = 4. It is necessarily true.”
It is true however that “whatever will be, will be,” but in what sense is this true? “Whatever will be, will be” is not a statement of necessity to which Gods knowledge causally determines human actions. Blogger, Epistemonkey explains the difference between logical and temporal priority. “Temporal priority refers to the order of events that occur in time. It is true that God possesses all knowledge temporally prior to even the creation of the universe, including all our actions. However, our choices are logically prior to God’s knowledge of them. Logical priority means one serves to explain the other. Here, our choosing A over B explains why God foreknew us choosing A. We do not choose A because God foreknew it. Rather, if we had chosen B, then God would have always foreknown we would choose B. In short, God’s knowledge stands in no causal relationship with the world –Thus it really matters what we do!
Like or Dislike:
0
Wm Tanksley, forgive me, please. I spoke too soon. When I commented: “last question, before this conversation gets ugly,” I wrote that in response to something I thought I read in the text. My eyes must be failing me —- or, perhaps, the Japanese last night is affecting me deeply. I’m still not into polemics =)
Many thanks for the discussion!
Like or Dislike:
1
Malachi used a word that could be translated as “rejected” or “hated”, or possibly “shunned”. St.Paul quoted it and used the Greek word for hatred and detestation.
Either way, cultural factors come into play; it’s quite plausible that both St.Paul and Malachi meant a shunning or rejection.
But what precise emotions God felt aren’t the issue. The point is that God rejected/hated/shunned/detested Esau before he was born as part of His plan. This rejection wasn’t based on Esau’s works (for example, it wasn’t based on whether or not Esau would sell his birthright, Rom 9:11); it was based on God’s plan.
Any evidence. A passage that appears to be literal should be treated literally, inasmuch as possible. This is simply how you normally read texts. You can show any textual evidence that it shouldn’t be taken literally, for example an internal contradiction; or you can show from other texts written at that time that what seemed to be a unique doctrine was actually a common cultural idiom.
The point is that you can’t just claim to interpret something culturally without knowing anything about the culture!
-Wm
Like or Dislike:
1
That would be painful to my case, since I condemned fatalism as a heresy.
Fortunately for me, I don’t make that confusion. God’s knowledge cannot cause events (it’s the other way around — reality is prior to God’s knowledge, even for advocates of middle knowledge). God’s decrees, however, are the cause of events, and it’s not clear to me how many or how few events are decreed by God (although all events are known by God).
One question we have to answer is whether God has actually decreed any choices, thus causing them. It seems that Rom 9 (esp v16) implies that God does decree some desires and actions, and it seems that Pharaoh’s oppression of Israel is being given as an example.
And does this therefore mean that Pharaoh’s actions are meaningless, since God controlled them? Well, St. Paul foresaw that objection in verse 19. They are NOT meaningless; we bear full responsibility for what we do. James also gives the same answer: our sins spring from our desires (notice that he doesn’t say that they spring from our choices!).
The idea that we are only responsible if we can choose in a libertarian manner is nowhere supported in the Bible, and when you think about it, doesn’t make much sense. A libertarian choice is one that is logically dependent on nothing; but a choice that is utterly independent is a choice that is not dependent on what you desire. A choice that’s not dependent on what you desire is not your choice; it’s essentially random.
I like your analysis. What’s the URL of your blog?
Like or Dislike:
0
God endures with Pharaoh and endures with us also. When the creation spurns light and correction God is known to give the creation what the creation wants most—himself! The natural consequence of rejecting God’s correction is separation and a hard heart. Romans 1 tells us this story. It was good talking with you, Tanksley! I’m going to rest on this last point but I wish you well.
My site is @ http://www.defeatingdefeaters.com
I haven’t had a whole lot of time to update it. Don’t expect much.
Blessings
Like or Dislike:
0
John 12 tells my point well. You get a sense that Jesus wants men to believe and so reveals light. Yet the people refuse to believe and become children of the light. While ye have light, believe in the light, that ye may be the children of light. These things spake Jesus, and departed, and did hide himself from them.
Like or Dislike:
0
The prophecy from Isaiah is the consequence of those who spurn correction and ignore light. See John 6 also for similar accounts. Okay, now I am officially finished. Blessings
Like or Dislike:
1
Don’t say it; show it. Romans 9 doesn’t say that God endured with Pharaoh; it said that God raised up Pharaoh in order to show God’s power. I don’t think there’s any verse that says that God endured Pharaoh, except perhaps in the sense of longsuffering (Exodus 9, the source of the Romans 9 quote, indicates that God could have ended the persecution MUCH more quickly).
In fact, come to think of it, Exodus 9 is another example of God “creating evil” in the sense that RCJr means it. God could have ended the persecution anytime He wanted; instead He stretched it out, for His own purposes. No doubt the Hebrews could have murmured against God for that; instead they put the guilt where it belonged, on the Egyptians for their evil treatment.
Thank you, Jonathan; but I’m not sure how this affects our argument. It certainly doesn’t impact the question of whether God created evil or ordained belief and disbelief.
John 12 seems to be an exhortation to behave appropriately for the circumstances; Jesus seems to be telling them to rejoice in His bodily presence. (I’m not sure.) You can’t simply say that Jesus wants all to believe, though, because He also hid his meaning by speaking in parables; nor can you say that He expects everyone to be able to believe, because He explained that some people are sons of Satan and unable to accept Him. While we’re in John 12, don’t miss verses 39 and 40, where John explains that the hearers of this sermon (not all of them) could not believe because God had blinded them.
Like or Dislike:
0
Hey Paul! What about getting that Dan Wallace on the BAM broadcast?? Maybe you could suggest it to HH? You are the one with the necessary connections after all! Would Dan not be a most appropriate guest for that program?
Like or Dislike:
0
Wm Tanksley, very briefly. Inasmuch as God waits over and over again for Pharaoh to relent (as is evidenced by ANE scripture) God can be said to endure with Pharaoh. The sense I get from scripture is that God does this with every individual. The disclaimer though is that while God endures with creation, separation remains a consequence of persisitent sin and hardening is one of its entailments.
And Tanksley, I didn’t forget v. 39 and 40. I explained it with a reference to Isaiah. The idea there is that Jesus wants men to believe and so reveals light. Yet the people refuse to believe and become children of the light. The consequence for them who do not believe is God retrieving light and hard hearts. This, in my view, is a snap shot picture of hell!
Like or Dislike:
0
I don’t have time to tie John 6 into this conversation, but I’d like you to read this entry nontheless to see where I’m coming from. A close read will reveal what I believe about those who spurn light and correction. Sry, for the carpet bombing and disconnected post. I’m in a hurry. Here are my thoughts on John 6:
Jesus is in a debate with the religious leaders who claim to have special knowledge and standing with God. Their charge seeks to disassociate Jesus with God, denying the former while affirming the latter. They are attempting to show that they know God but Jesus is foreign to them – that they are in a right relationship with God and they reject Jesus.
Jesus counters them by asserting that they never knew God in the first place. “You have never heard his voice nor seen his form, nor does his word dwell in you.” (John 5:37-38). They had already rejected testimony of John the Baptist as well as Moses: “If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me. But since you do not believe what he wrote, how are you going to believe what I say?” (John 5:46).
The point of the passage is this: Jesus’ opponents could not come to him because of their track record of rejecting his previous offerings of light. They had denied God and spurned correction. Had they fully accepted Moses, they would have belonged to God and he would have lead them to Christ. Since they did not belong to God, they would not be part of the transfer from God to Jesus (6:37, 39). If they dropped their presuppositions and surrendered to God’s teaching, they would have been taught by God and lead to Jesus (6:45).
There is no reason to think that this passage teaches that people need some special permission from God in order to come to Christ. The point is that one cannot affirm God while denying Christ. All that God has he gave to Jesus, thus all who were in his care, he handed over to Jesus to shepherd.
The answer to the question to whom does “no one” refer is quite simple: it means no one who has a relationship with the one true God and creator of the universe refrains from coming to Christ. Part of the confusion may lay in our point of view. One might assert that we come to God through Christ. We meet with Christ and are then able to get to the father. That is quite correct, but it is not the situation Jesus was addressing. Jesus had just come to earth. The Jews supposed they already had a relationship with God.
Like or Dislike:
1
ANE=Ancient Near East?
There’s no Bible scripture that talks about God waiting for Pharaoh to repent. It’s true that God has Moses ask Pharaoh many times, but there’s no evidence He’s waiting for or expecting repentance; on the contrary, toward the end God has Moses ask even though God has hardened Pharaoh’s heart.
You’re right that God endures Pharaoh, of course, but the only expectation God has his inspired writers record is Moses saying that God keeps Pharaoh alive for His glory, and St.Paul saying that God raised Pharaoh up for His glory. You can interpret Moses’ statement to mean that God’s hoping for Pharaoh’s repentance, but nobody’s shown any way to read Romans that way.
(Can anyone bring forward a reading of Romans 9 that suggests that God hoped Pharaoh would turn around? Keep in mind that it must be consistent with the rest of the argument St.Paul is making.)
But this misses the fact that John is explaining why they did not, then and there, believe. John is not quoting “He has blinded their eyes… BECAUSE they would not see”; rather, he’s quoting “He has blinded their eyes… SO THAT they would not see.” The entire structure of the passage is an explanation of why those people do not believe. If you believe that is not its purpose, then what purpose DOES it have?
Perhaps this runs a bit off-topic, though, as interesting as it may be. The question we’re supposed to be discussing here is whether God can be said to create and control evil. To prove that, we have only to show that God says He has created or controlled ONE evil. Quite aside from natural evils, I think it’s clearly plausible that God raised up and controlled Pharaoh, and claimed credit for it in a number of places. I can also make an argument that God claims credit for causing other people to do evil, as I do for Romans 9 or Proverbs 21:1.
I can see that you find that distasteful, but theology is not about taste; it’s about revelation. The fact is that the theories you find distasteful are a direct result of a frank look at the consequence of the basic, revealed premises we all accept: that God is sovereign as creator over all, and that the world contains evil. If that doesn’t imply to you that God is sovereign as creator over evil, then I’d like to know why.
Like or Dislike:
0
WM Tanksley, the entire structure of *John 12* indicates what???? Any reason why Jesus says this in 12? “You are going to have the light just a little while longer. Walk while you have the light, before darkness overtakes you. The man who walks in the dark does not know where he is going. 36Put your trust in the light while you have it, so that you may become sons of light,” if Isaiah unqualifiedly explains their unbelief anyway?
Briefly and 1: the scriptures indicate that prior to God hardening Pharaoh’s heart—Pharaoh had no problem hardening it himself. Any reason God hardens a heart that’s already hard? Do you think Paul is aware of these scriptures?
2: you mention Paul’s argument in Romans 9, but you’ve given me no impression you understand it. Perhaps the single most overlooked fact about predestination is its biblical purpose. What I mean by this is not its theological purpose which is the salvation of souls. Rather, what is overlooked is its purpose in regard to why Paul wrote about predestination in the first place. The two places where Paul writes about predestination are in Romans 9-11 and Ephesians 1-2. In both of these sections of Scripture Paul is making a case for the inclusion of Gentiles into the household of God. In both of these sections of Scripture Paul refers to the “mystery” that has been hidden and now revealed (Eph. 1:8-10 and Rom. 11: 25). He explicitly describes what that mystery is in Ephesians 3.
Ephesians 3:4-6 “4 In reading this, then, you will be able to understand my insight into the mystery of Christ, 5 which was not made known to men in other generations as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to God’s holy apostles and prophets. 6 This mystery is that through the gospel the Gentiles are heirs together with Israel, members together of one body, and sharers together in the promise in Christ Jesus.”
You may be aware that the Apostle Paul had a ministry-long battle with both Jews and Jewish-Christians in regard to the salvation of the Gentiles. Many Jewish-Christians believed that Gentiles had to become Jews before they could become Christians. Paul, based on a revelation from Jesus, resisted this idea and proclaimed salvation to the Gentiles by faith. Predestination was one of Paul’s key arguments for the inclusion of Gentiles into God’s family. Put in the vernacular, predestination was Paul’s “battering ram” doctrine against Jewish-Christians who wanted to restrict the salvation message to God’s Old Testament chosen people. In simple terms, Paul was saying that God will have compassion on whom He will have compassion and nobody can argue with God. Your arms are to short to box with God. Throughout the letter Paul references OT stories to illustrate the sovereignty and grace of God. Paul described ways in which God has already worked with individuals and nations. But in the end he was simply delivering the Gospel to the Romans (Rom 4:5 & Eph 2:8-9). He was NOT describing a God who arbitrarily chose some for salvation and others for damnation.
The problem arises with predestination when people turn its purpose on its head. To Paul predestination meant that God has sovereignly thrown open the gates of heaven to all of humanity and wants His (as Jesus said in Luke 14:23) “house full.” Unfortunately, some people now want to re-define predestination as a restrictive doctrine. The impression one gets from this redefinition of predestination is that God is a miser in heaven choosing a few special “elect” out of humanity and consigning the rest of the world to hell. According to this view God does this because it proves He is in charge and that He is a glorious God. However, such a view of God violates the love-drenched spirit of the New Testament and would likely horrify the Apostle Paul. Paul gloried in predestination because it validated extreme evangelism. A proper understanding of predestination puts it in its biblical context as connected to the mystery of Jew and Gentile being saved. It is a generous and wonderfully outrageous doctrine of God’s love for all of humanity. All humans are now invited to come to God’s salvation banquet–the blind, the lame, the rich and poor, all are welcome.
1 Tim 2:3-6 “3 This is good, and pleases God our Savior, 4 who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. 5 For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, 6 who gave himself as a ransom for all men.”
-Reread my John 6
-STOP allowing words more than context and culture to dictate meaning. You don’t do it consistently anyway
-Peace
Like or Dislike:
0
Tanksley wrote: “He has blinded their eyes… SO THAT they would not see.” The entire structure of the passage is an explanation of why those people do not believe. If you believe that is not its purpose, then what purpose DOES it have?
I have no problem with God blinding their eyes “so that they would not see.” God gave them what they wanted. Jesus’ opponents could not come to him because of their track record of rejecting his previous offerings of light (law, prophets, miracles, etc, Christ…) They had denied God and spurned correction. Had they fully accepted Moses, they would have belonged to God and he would have lead them to Christ. Since they did not belong to God, they would not be part of the transfer from God to Jesus (6:37, 39). If they dropped their presuppositions and surrendered to God’s teaching, they would have been taught by God and lead to Jesus (6:45).
There is no reason to think that this passage teaches that people need some special permission from God in order to come to Christ. The point is that one cannot affirm God while denying Christ. All that God has he gave to Jesus, thus all who were in his care, he handed over to Jesus to shepherd.
The answer to the question to whom does “no one” refer is quite simple: it means no one who has a relationship with the one true God and creator of the universe refrains from coming to Christ. Part of the confusion may lay in our point of view. One might assert that we come to God through Christ. We meet with Christ and are then able to get to the father. That is quite correct, but it is not the situation Jesus was addressing. Jesus had just come to earth. The Jews supposed they already had a relationship with God.
This is consistent with the task of John anyway as it has more to do with Christology than soteriology. This ordo salutis reading into the text isn’t helping your understanding.
God generously offers light and correction to his creation but also pulls back himself from those who spurn light and correction. The consequence is a hard heart. Part of the reason I think folks will not sin in heaven is because of the beatific vision and immediacy of Christ. Ever cheat on your wife with her standing directly in front of you?
Like or Dislike:
0
Perhaps we’ll have to agree to disagree
Best of providence
Like or Dislike:
0
Possibly — but I’m enjoying reading your posts, and your recent ones are quite thought-provoking. I’ll be responding to them very carefully later; they’re worth more than a QuickReply.
Thank you for the time and thought you’re putting into this. God’s Word certainly is worth it!
-Wm
Like or Dislike:
0
After closely looking at the grammar and your arguments, I can agree with this. This passage teaches exactly what you say above. The problem is that it also does not teach the negation of what I’ve been saying; it simply teaches that those who know or desire God will know or desire His Christ.
So although I admit that I read a little much into it, it seems to me that when you bringing it up as a refutation to my arguments, you also read too much into it.
I admit guilt: I brought this topic up, and it’s pure speculation. St. Paul might call it “empty philosophy”. I apologize; God hasn’t told us HOW we won’t sin in Heaven. So I’ll accept your speculation in the same spirit that I made my speculation, and with just as much willingness to believe the one as I do the other. We’ll just have to wait and see
!
-Wm
Like or Dislike:
0
Many thanks for the discussion!
Like or Dislike:
0
Regarding philosophy, I take it to mean what Alvin Plantinga says that it means—to think hard! This isn’t unbiblical. Blessings
Like or Dislike:
1
Thank you very much and very sincerely for your profound challenge to my thinking. I really had to pray and study to answer this, and I’m very glad I did it. Many here have claimed that culture provides another meaning for the passages they and I cite, but you’re the first one to attempt to actually elucidate the actual meaning rather than simply to claim that it’s there.
Jesus says that because it’s the truth, which He needs to teach and they need to hear. John explicitly says that “they could not believe”, but that doesn’t mean that they should not believe.
Furthermore, I sense that you’re also asking why Christ specified “while you have it” when talking about “the light”. Perhaps you’re reading that to indicate that if they turn from the light long enough, there will come a time when they will be left in the dark specifically BECAUSE they had turned away from the light for so long.
If so, my answer is simple: Christ is answering the crowd’s immediate question, in which they ask how He could claim to be the Messiah and claim to be about to be lifted up, since they knew that the Messiah would remain forever. It seems to me that His answer identifies His own physical presence with “the light”; I believe His point is that the crowd imagined that they could participate in the Messiah’s kingdom without participating in the Messiah; although the kingdom is at hand, if you shun the Messiah you have no part in the kingdom, and for that crowd in particular the Messiah was actually right before them.
I’m not sure if that’s right, but I do feel reasonably sure that Christ’s answer has something to do with the crowd’s question, and therefore must contain some reference to Himself. John elsewhere frequently refers to Christ by the title of “the light”, so it seems not implausible that the same is the case here.
And furthermore, it’s also true that John quotes Isaiah in order to explain their unbelief. If you try to say that their unbelief explained their own unbelief, then why did John quote Isaiah?
I’m not sure what this has to do with our discussion. Clearly God _did_ harden Pharaoh’s heart, so I don’t know how it can matter _why_ He did that.
But it’s more on topic to look at the consequences of God hardening Pharaoh’s heart: He did it, and as a consequence Pharaoh committed more evil. Doesn’t this make God part of the causative chain for this evil? Doesn’t this provide an example of where God clearly DID “create” an evil action, but just as clearly one where the evil action was entirely the fault of Pharaoh?
That touches on my ears a little harsher than I hope you intended.
I think you’re also looking past the purpose of the discussion on this thread, which is not originally about soteriology or predestination (although I’m enjoying discussing that, and I entirely agree that it’s appropriate to discuss), but about God’s purpose for evil, and whether He can be said to create it. The question of why and how evil is present in the world is not the same as the question of why and how Christians are saved.
I spoke on Romans 9 in that context; I spoke not about Pharaoh being predestined to damnation, but rather about him being sustained by God for the purpose of doing an evil that was an intrinsic part of God’s plan. In Acts 2 we also see that God planned the betrayal and crucifixion of Jesus — said betrayal and crucifixion being acts of horrifying evil.
That’s fine, but you still are stuck with what Paul DID mean when he talks about predestination. I agree that in both passages the purpose is to point out that God’s will includes both Jews and Gentiles; but in arguing for for that inclusion, St.Paul actually DID describe a God who “arbitrarily” chose some for salvation and some for damnation. (I put “arbitrarily” in scare quotes because the choice is only arbitrary by our standards; God chose people based on good criteria, but not on any criteria within the people themselves. The correct term is not “arbitrarily”, but rather “graciously and mercifully”.)
If he didn’t mean to describe that God, as you claim, why did he do it? Couldn’t he have used any number of other arguments? He could, for example, have simply said that God has thrown open the gates of Heaven, and whosoever will may come. Such a claim is quite fitting with the rest of the Bible (i.e. it’s true).
In other words: you’re right that the reason Paul brought up predestination was to explain that God had a total right to allow whomever He wished, including the Gentiles as a class. But you’re wrong to suppose that predestination has no meaning outside of showing that the Gentiles could be part of God’s plan. Paul wasn’t only talking about predestination because it was useful to his argument; he was talking about it because it is true.
That’s isn’t at all the meaning of the word “predestination”. It doesn’t seem to be a related concept. It’s true, mind you, based on other Biblical texts, but it doesn’t address the question of what predestination means.
I think we agree that God is not a miser. And I think we agree that God has chosen, collectively, all true followers of Christ as the exclusive recipients of His salvation, leaving the rest to the otherwise-inevitable eternal destiny brought on by their sinful nature. Given those points of agreement, how can you accuse me of imputing miserliness to God? We both face as a fact that some will be saved and some will not, and all of this is by the work of God!
Both of us face the same accusation of divine miserliness at the hands of the unbeliever. How is the doctrine of special election (that God picked out specific individuals) any different from the doctrine of generic election (that God picked out general characteristics of people for salvation) in this respect? Keep in mind that the general characteristics must not be in and of themselves praiseworthy, or those people possessing them would be “able to boast”.
Yes, and in 1 Timothy 4:10, Paul says that God is the savior of “all men” (the same Greek), “especially of believers”. If both of these verses are true in the sense you take them here, then why shall we not read this as meaning that no people will go to Hell?
I’m glad you pointed that out. When I first read it I missed the references, and assumed you were talking about John 12. But John 6 is very significant. Jesus is definitely indicating that anyone who truly comes from God will recognise and worship Jesus; your reading is perfectly true, albeit incomplete.
But in this passage He not only says that all who learn from God will come to Christ (v45); He also says that nobody comes to Him unless they learn from God (v44). So everyone who is of God will come to Christ (as you say), but also nobody who is not of God will come to Christ. This, therefore, cannot be limited to ONLY the Jews who thought they were from God; it’s a general statement about everyone, whether or not they claim to be from God. If you think you’re from God but you reject Christ you’re wrong; and if you think you accept Christ but you haven’t learned to do that from God you’re wrong.
And you, as an Arminian: you claim to be following Christ, but you also claim that you didn’t get a gift from God to enable that. You’re wrong as well — I believe you are following Christ because you have a gift from God.
It would be permissible to read verse 44-45 that way, if one assumes that God makes the decision of whom to draw based on a choice of that person. The two verses don’t rule that out. But look at verse 65, in which Christ appears to be interpreting those verses: “Because of this I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has allowed him to come.” The Greek for “has allowed” is literally “has given it”, which may be idiomatic for permission. Many (perhaps most) translations assume this idiom. I personally am inclined to be more permissive (especially in this argument), and to suppose that what’s being given by the Father might not be permission to believe but possibly some earlier referent; but if it is an earlier referent, it’s either “the words I spoke to you”, “the Spirit”, or “life”, and “the words” couldn’t be it because many of the listeners weren’t believing. Both of the remaining choices imply a Calvinist soteriology of regeneration followed by belief.
So in conclusion, one must interpret John 6:65 to mean that only those who God has given SOMETHING will believe, where the something is either permission, life, or the Spirit. Furthermore, this must be seen as a clarifying interpretation of Christ’s words in verses 44-45.
If you wish to prove me wrong, continue as you’ve done, as you’re the first one here to attempt to provide cultural evidence and discussion (thank you for that) rather than vague claims that there might be some. Don’t simply tell me that I’m wrong; show me.
-Wm
Like or Dislike:
0
Unfortunate happenings: 1. unfortunate that with reasoning folks are free to form muddleheaded beliefs about scripture 2. unfortunate that you have missed the heart of my arguments and they are many 3. unfortunate because I don’t have the time to clarify all that’s been said. Keep praying and reading. I’ll do the same. Take care
Like or Dislike:
0
Thank you — God bless.
To others who have more time… I don’t consider this the last word by any means, but it appears that at the very least, the concept of God as the creator of all, with authority even over evil rebels, is at least arguably true, contrary to the original post. The immediately above argument doesn’t even attempt to dispute this, and the other arguments have disputed it unsuccessfully.
At least, it’s extremely clear that the concept is not heretical.
Like or Dislike:
0
You say “Sproul Sr. allows for a libertarian understanding of free will in Eden, which itself is a departure from Calvinism proper. But let that pass.”
Sprawl says that God is the “culprit” who “introduced evil into this world” and that God did it (i.e. forced Adam and Eve to sin) because “God is as delighted with his wrath as he is with all of his attributes.”
Now, you respond to Sprawl by saying “It seems that Sproul Jr. is not only using an argument from silence from the Confession, but he is ignoring an important emphasis in Scripture—that God cannot be the author of evil.”
Yet what I have quoted of Sprawl above is not different from what I have quoted of you above. You admit that Calvinism doesn’t allow for real free will even in Eden because in Calvinism God decreed that Adam would sin before he ever created Adam. That’s the same thing Sprawl is saying, but he uses real language rather than the normal sophistry you are used to from Calvinist teachers (including yourself). Again, in your other blog post, where you say that the reason people disagree doctrinally is that God wants them to, you are asserting the same thing, that God is the author of evil and of doctrinal confusion (doctrinal confusion is evil, you do believe so, right?).
Like or Dislike:
0
To All,
I’m going to avoid labels and simply make some observations. Sproul’s remark: “I don’t know isa theologically righteous fact. We simply don’t know – something which many have a problem stating in truth and righteousness. Augustine stated: “God permitted sin” and the ‘why’ thereof is left unanswered because the answer is beyond human comprehension.
Vladimir
Like or Dislike:
0
God also decrees that God could not sin. Does God lack “real free will” by your analysis?
Vladimir, I agree with you there — Sproul Jr claims he does know, and the reason is God’s wrath; but he’s trying to quote from Romans 9, which only offers God’s wrath as a legitimate possibility, not a certain revelation of the reason. We don’t actually know.
What we do know is that there is truly a good reason, and it’s God’s good reason.
Like or Dislike:
0
I’ve read Calvin’s Institutes and some of his commentaries a number of years ago as well as St. Augustunes confessions (in Latin). Neither denies free will/free moral agency, but both see a mysterious intertwining of God’s will and man’s will with God’s will the final arbiter in everything. Luther, the former Augustinian monk that he was, was also incline to relate this way (contra Eramus).
Charles Hodge in his 3 vol. Systematic Theology uses repetedly the word “rendered” in his expostions about this and other topics involving free moral agency. Hodge uses the fact that angels, as free moral agents, are “rendered” by God incapable of sinning, yet affirming that it is their own choice and volition that causes them to choose thus.
The fact that the evil angels were once good does not nullify God’s interaction in their decision making processes nor their own accountability/cupability in their decision to defect from the heavenly host. Remember, Lucifer, a created angelic entity, was once good/beautiful, before he fell and was cast out and down.
Hodge further illustrates this fact by the mysterious intertwined nature of prayer and God’s answering prayer.
No, it is not true that the free moral agency and responsibility of both Adam and Eve was somehow lost or non existent either before or after the fall. Neither St. Paul, St. Augustine, Calvin or Luther deny this fact(or).
Vladimir
Like or Dislike:
0
Maybe what R.C. Sproul Jr. means is that God didn’t “inject” an evil nature into Adam or Eve but rather withheld grace such that they would not have enough grace to “not have the disposition not to sin”.
Also, if there is a such thing as elect angels and EVERY angel who was NOT elect chose to sin, it’s extremely improbable that they could have easily chosen to “not sin” or else around 50% of the non-elect angels would choose NOT to sin. And plus, protecting some from sinning and not others BEFORE they’d done anything wrong would seem to suggest that God loved some angels more than others but a God with different degrees of love for individual “volitional” beings (such as loving humans more than angels) for no reason would not be a God I could love (I would expect that if he were that kind of God, he’d at least be loving enough NOT TO REVEAL TO VOLITIONAL CREATURES WHO WAS LOVED BETTER; it’s okay that he loves humans and angels better than animals because the animals do not know that they are inferior). Now, if as Edwards suggests in “THe End for Which God Created the World”, God, out of an infinite number of choices, created the universe in such a way that creatures would MOST praise him (which would be the ultimate good), then GOd is exonerated from any of the charges I listed above.
So there is probably no such thing as “elect angels” BEFORE the fall but that after the fall, God confirmed the obedient angels in a disposition such that they would never sin (post-destination). So humans were pre-destined and angels post-destined.
Like or Dislike:
0
In after Calvinists and their “we must have the last word” technique.
In compliments to Calvinism (as you know by the fire I lit while talking to you and Bill last week) how do you explain Isaiah 45:7?
Good writing as always, Paul.
D.
Like or Dislike:
0
Darrin, this is a really old thread, so probably not many people are listening… You might want to move on to a more recent Calvinism thread. Perhaps “the least rational” thread might make sense.
Also, I don’t really understand your post… Particularly the first paragraph. I don’t understand whether you’re speaking as a Calvinist, or challenging the Calvinists.
And someone else posted on Isa 45:7; their correction of the KJV from “I create evil” to “I create calamity” is quite reasonable as far as it goes, but it doesn’t solve the problem of evil in general, since even if you assume that “calamity” excludes moral evil (which is hard to believe, since so much calamity, such as famines, is traced back to evil or negligence), you still have to face the fact that the Bible is at least crediting God with the violence of nature, also known as “the problem of natural evil”.
If your theology isn’t robust enough to handle God being supreme over moral evil, then I don’t see how it can handle natural evil. It makes no sense to me to say that God can “create calamity” without moral agents involved and be blameless, but at the same time God can’t decree evil deeds done by moral agents lest He be guilty of the same evil.
Frankly, this whole thing seems like a tempest in a teapot; the rule we follow is that we must not claim that God is the author of evil, but the meaning of author is an older one, implying the committer of evil. If God created everything, including all infants about to be born, then He is responsible for the birth defects — without evil on His part, but by His design.
-Wm
Like or Dislike:
0
I don’t like the theory that “the strongest inclination always wins.” Sometimes it’s a real battle to do the right thing when tempted to do otherwise.
Like or Dislike:
0
David: true, that. And Paul wrote about it too; he was even stronger about it, explaining that he usually did things he wanted to NOT do.
I think the answer Paul gave is reasonable as an answer to this problem: as Christians we have not merely many different desires to juggle (which is enough of a problem in itself), but two entirely disjoint natures (hearts). The old sin nature wants itself to be glorified; the new nature wants God to have the glory.
Like or Dislike:
0
[...] Saved by linusnyman on Thu 25-12-2008 Seminary adventure Saved by eostrom on Sun 21-12-2008 Taking Calvinism Too Far: R.C. Sproul Jr.’s Evil-Creating Deity Saved by Isabel2233 on Thu 18-12-2008 One thing I didn’t learn in seminary: Saved by yoda7890 [...]
Like or Dislike:
0
Yikes!! I wrote a post defending Dr. R.C. Sproul Jr. and it was passed over. It was about this (it was written in November 2008) If God elected angels not to fall and EVERY angel who was non-elect chose to fall, then R.C. Sproul Jr. is right. If the non-elect angels (among which there were millions since there are millions of angels) could have just as easily chosen to stand as to fall and all fell, the probability of this would be exceedingly remote. It would be so illogical that a Calvinist who insists that the angels were elected BEFOREHAND should also accept at least the possibility that God withheld enough grace from the non-elect angels as to make their fall inevitable.
Somebody please respond to this. I need some insight on this.
Matthew Swartz, 38, from Walnut Creek, California (about 20 miles northeast of San Francisco)
Like or Dislike:
0
Since when is error taking Calvinism too far. RC Jr. is wrong, but it is not Calvinism. Calvin does not agree with RC Jr. If fact, who does agree?
Like or Dislike:
0
Does it surprise you? Did he form those ideas on his own, or maybe it came from years of sitting in private conversation with his father? Didn’t Sproul Sr. even confess doubts in Calvinism?
What makes Calvinism more special than any other Christian doctrine? Don’t tell me because it’s the only one based in rightly dividing the Bible. Sproul is indicative of a lot of other people like him.
Like or Dislike:
0
Paul, in this article you toss around the word or concept of evil as if it is absolute. yes, you can say there is objective evil, but only within the broader context of God’s purposive will (both decretive and preceptive) for creation. evil has no being. people always have a hard time defining evil because its not tangible (though it’s results are). most people call it a ‘force’ which might be the best we can do. but however you define it, evil is an affect and God (if he is indeed sovereign), is the cause. a man can conceive of a monster without being one. God can conceive of evil without being evil.
you say-
“I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things. (Isaiah 45:7); “Who is he that saith, and it cometh to pass, when the Lord commandeth it not? Out of the mouth of the most High proceedeth not evil and good?” (Lamentations 3:37-38); “Shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be afraid? Shall there be evil in a city, and the Lord hath not done it?” (Amos 3:6). This rendering is inaccurate. The word for “evil” (ra’ah) can also be translated “trouble,” “disaster,” or “calamity.”
you haven’t really solved anything here. even if you translate ra’ah as ‘troubled’ or ‘disaster’ you still have a problem. is God troubled? or distressed?
some use the anology of cold/heat. as coldness is simply the absence of heat so evil is the absence of goodness (God’s goodness, there’s no such thing as ‘generic’ goodness).
it is appropriate to say that God is offended by evil. but God cannot somehow be overwhelmingly or ‘absolutely’ offended by it…precisely because it has no being.
the result of evil is a corrupted created order so it’s paradoxical to say God ‘created’ evil. but that’s probably the easiest way to put it.
i think the sharpest question to ask is not “can God create evil?” but “why did he create it?” the best answer i have found is itself shrouded in mystery-”For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. (Romans 8:20-21)
we shouldn’t be afraid of saying God causes evil as long as we’re clear by what we mean by evil. if one is tempted to ask “if God causes evil, then why does he hold us accountable?’ i would (with sympathy) direct them to Romans 3:5-7.
“But if our unrighteousness serves to show the righteousness of God, what shall we say? That God is unrighteous to inflict wrath on us? (I speak in a human way.) By no means! For then how could God judge the world? But if through my lie God’s truth abounds to his glory, why am I still being condemned as a sinner? And why not do evil that good may come?—as some people slanderously charge us with saying. Their condemnation is just.”
Like or Dislike:
0
[...] but Sproul Jr. seems to be slipping into some version of Manicheanism. Parchment and Pen ; Parchment and Pen Taking Calvinism Too Far: R.C. Sproul Jr.?s Evil-Creating Deity ; 5/10/09 __________________ John 3:16. "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only [...]
Like or Dislike:
0
The apple does not fall far from the tree. Any form of Calvinism is over the line as I see it.
3 This is good, and it pleases God our Savior, (D) 4 who wants everyone (E) to be saved (F) and to come to the knowledge of the truth. (G)
5 For there is one God (H)
and one mediator (I) between God and man,
a man, (J) Christ Jesus,
6 who gave Himself—a ransom for all, (K)
a testimony at the proper time.
While Jr. is apparently more extreme than Sr. I would suggest both are out of the main stream of Conservative Evangelical Christianity.
To posit that God can go against his desire to save all suggest that the doctrine of a selected few attacks God’s Holiness.
Gordon
Like or Dislike:
0
Any level of Calvinism is taking Calvinism too far! The only good Calvinist is a zero point Calvinist.
Like or Dislike:
0
Ooooooh! Them is fightin’ words!
Like or Dislike:
0
Why when I say things like that everyone goes off on me? But others say it more explicitly and no one jumps on them.
Like or Dislike:
0
Many Evangelicals and others allow the Calvinist to bully their way over truth and sensibility. I stopped playing games with them a while back and now I just flat out call it heresy. I don’t care what the big boys think or the little ones either. Take a stand and stand. They do it and so should anyone that is not a Calvinist do it too, take a stand and stand. None Calvinist are relegated to the trash heap by Calvinist over any infraction against their erring theology. Strong words you bet. In love yes because I don’t have any hate in my heart toward one person, but dislike for their false theology is not hate, it is the right approach to defending the truth.
I don’t have a problem with a person being a Calvinist, but I have a serious problem with those who, out of a sense of superiority, deal with other believers as if they are second class and this goes on infinitum in real life and on blogs. There are godly, sensible Christians who are Calvinist who do not approved of the “jerks” in their system, who give them a bad name, in spite of their false doctrine. However, because of the “jerks” and the issues of their doctrine I started long ago to take a different approach. They are relentless and you will not win with them who are cold hearted, hateful and have creative ways of belittling anyone not like them, so take a stand and stand, don’t back down from your conviction and truth.
Like or Dislike:
0
Gordon, you might want to make a repost — post #127 seems to be calling ALL Calvinists heretics, but in it you clearly and rightly condemn all people who “deal with believers as though they were second class citizens.”
I think I understand what you were trying to say: that people who “bully their way over truth” are heretics (I would actually call the schismatics); but given the context (the hate-filled post directly above) you need to be careful lest you be taken to fall into the same trap you’re condemning.
Like or Dislike:
0
WT,
Calvinist must understand that they are their own worst enemies. The attack dog mentality they employ on other believers is real and even this blog is evidence of the widening divide it brings to the table of Biblical Discussion.
Gordon
Like or Dislike:
0
Its not the attack dog mentality that is their problem, Gordan. Take that away and the problem still remains. Or, in other words, they will always have an inevitable relapse into attack dog mode. Why? Because the root of the problem is they believe God is the author of evil, and the mere fact of believing that makes them evil. Attacking believers in Christ is merely a symptom of the problem. I have met many Calvinists who say “I’m not like those other Calvinists who cannot rest unless they convince you that God is the author of evil.” But after I ask them a few question on this passage or that, they are in full “I’m going to make you an atheist Christ-hater if it kills me” mode. Their belief that God is the author of evil makes them evil, because you are what you worship. This is what Romans chapter 1 teaches. The Pagans by worshiping beasts became beastial in their behavior. The Calvinist by worshiping a tyrannical demon god author of evil tyrant become evil tyrants!
Like or Dislike:
0
There’s no excuse for the fundamental error you’re making here, rey. Either Calvinists are Christians, and you should address their error as a brother; or they are not Christians, and you should NOT address their error but rather present the Gospel to them.
It is absolutely a disgrace to mix the categories, and either slander your brother in Christ before the world, or to spend time nitpicking on an unbeliever whose REAL need is to be saved from his sin (note: the unbeliever’s problem is NOT bad theology!).
The fact that when you do this you also commit the exact error you condemn is amazing in its blindness.
-Wm
Like or Dislike:
0
“There’s no excuse for the fundamental error you’re making here, rey. Either Calvinists are Christians, and you should address their error as a brother; or they are not Christians, and you should NOT address their error but rather present the Gospel to them.”
How do you propose I present the Gospel to these unbelievers called Calvinists without first showing them that the evil system which they teach is not the gospel? That’s like telling you that you need a new car without first demonstrating that yours simply doesn’t run. You thought you had some wise “gotcha” but you didn’t. I AM PRESENTING THE GOSPEL TO THESE UNBELIEVERS WHEN I CORRECT THEIR ERRORS.
Like or Dislike:
0
rey, if you could indulge me, i’d like to know how you define evil and where you think it comes from in light of the sovereignty of God. its seems like you think that if God causes evil, then that necessitates that He is somehow evil. i fail to see how that is so. God can create something without taking on the nature of his creation. God did not become the heavens and the earth when He brought them into being, nor does he become evil by bringing evil into ‘being’. and i put ‘being’ in quotations because evil has no being unto itself. you could say the nature of evil is ‘anti-being’, anti-creation-, anti-God, etc. now, though it may be difficult to know why God would subject His good creation to evil, an even sharper question is why God would subject His own son to that same futility on the cross. but that’s another subject. God causes evil for a time, but the day will come when God will wipe away all tears from all faces, and thats what the Christian hope is all about
Like or Dislike:
0
Lion Crater, evil is not a thing, a substance or an essance; it is a moral description of an action. It is, as defined by the Bible, “falling short of the mark.” To cause evil is inherently evil. Causing evil is not the same as watching evil occur and doing nothing to stop it. Thus for God to watch another causal agent do evil is not evil in itself. But to determine that the evil will occur and so bring it about, is evil.
regards,
John
Like or Dislike:
0
“I AM PRESENTING THE GOSPEL TO THESE UNBELIEVERS WHEN I CORRECT THEIR ERRORS.”
rev, you aren’t. I appreciate your desire to teach against heresy; but this is not a matter of heresy, since both sides of this issue concede that God saves regardless of our beliefs on these issues. And this is the important point that you’re missing utterly: we are not saved by having a correct belief about salvation, ANY correct belief; we are saved by partaking in Christ’s death and resurrection. The gospel you are preaching is “another gospel”, and you stand accursed by Paul, just as much as the ultra-Calvinists against whom you correctly are angered.
Like or Dislike:
0
This is not as obvious are you’re trying to make it. Yes, it’s evil to “bring evil about”; but it’s not evil to create things with known evil. Consider an obvious example: an infant with a congenital defect (natural evil). All Bible-believing Christians must accept that God is fully responsible for that defect; He “knit me in my mother’s womb”, and although we weep for what happens, we cannot point anywhere else but at God. God knew what He was doing.
God created the angels with the potential for evil. He created the entire universe with at least the potential of evil at least harming it (by the hand of Satan), if not infecting it (by man’s fall). God knows the future; it’s not tenable to argue that He was taken by surprise. He was at least prepared for the rebellions, and He may have actually planned for them as a natural result of creating the way He did, versus planning for them as a mere possible contingency of creating the way He did.
The interesting thing is that we’re willing to accept His power and provision right now; we know that He numbers every hair on our head and watches over us, and nothing immediately bad happens without His consent (and furthermore, that all the immediately bad things will work together for good); but you somehow assume that He couldn’t possibly do the exact same thing when He created the Universe.
Yes, evil is evil, and God has no part in that. But God will use that evil for good — and He knew He would, and far from being evil by making that plan, God is good for doing it.
Like or Dislike:
0
WmT: ” All Bible-believing Christians must accept that God is fully responsible for that defect;”
No. I, for one, don’t.
Furthermore, your use of the verse misunderstands and misuses the poetic nature of the language. When some one knits, they actively take the yarn and using needles make the fabric. But for the direct knitting action of the knitter, the fabric would not be created. As we know from observation and analysis, God does not actively move the cells into place and break the cells apart, etc. as the new human develops. God has created a process that works independent of His direct involvement. God is not involved except in the general sense that He sustains the universe.
The deformities, etc., are a result of prior and contemporary evil. The entire world groans to be saved, because it is infected and affected by evil; it does not function as intended.
God is not good for bringing evil about; a god who did that would be an evil god. Of course, despite evil Yahweh God can bring about goods. God can always bring good out of any evil that occurs, but God does not cause the evil so that he can bring good out of it. Such an assertion would be contrary to the Biblical narrative and to God’s character as He has revealed it to us.
Regards,
John
Like or Dislike:
0
WmT, your assertion regarding creating known evils runs afoul of Copan’s argument, without supplying any reasoning or data to support your argument or to oppose his. Copan states, “James 1 doesn’t only tell us that God can’t do evil; it also tells us that every good and perfect gift comes from above; that is, God shouldn’t be accused as being the source of evil. God is intrinsically good and so cannot “create evil.” This harks back to what Jesus says about the nature of God—in contrast to fallen humans, who still seek the good of their children: “Or what man is there among you who, when his son asks for a loaf, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, he will not give him a snake, will he? If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give what is good to those who ask Him!” (Matthew 7:9-11). In fact, earlier on, God is said to be one who doesn’t simply love those who love him, but he loves the wicked and unrighteous as well, thus showing a perfect love (Mt. 5:48).
2. The Manichean error: Sproul Jr., it seems, has pushed things over the orthodox edge by saying that God is the author or creator of evil. This stands in violation of what 1 Timothy 4:4 tells us: “For everything God created is good.” ”
Regards,
John
Like or Dislike:
0
I think most of us realize that even within our own camp or model of theology we have differences. What concerns me are those elements found in many camps that embrace a do or die need to shove a particular doctrine down another brother’s throat.
1. Calvinist, not all, my experience, seems to belittle and talk down to other believers as if they are superior.
2. Tongues: Those, in their own mind and heart that see tongues as real today, can be, found see themselves as if they are superior too.
3. Amillenialst (many reform / Calvinist and many not) because of the theological model can be hateful and ugly.
4. Salvation by water baptism: Here in the south this can be major issues with meaningful conservation with those who hold to this belief.
My point is there are those who have tunnel vision in conversation with other believers in that all they can think, speak and discuss is a particular issue or doctrine they personally believe.
Gordon
Like or Dislike:
0
John,
I’m sorry if this has been discussed before, but it’s been a while since I read this thread.
I’m not saying you’re wholly wrong there. We have to be reeeeeallly careful in how we discuss the relationship between God’s will and evil. It’s easy to err on both sides. And I think “God is fully responsible for” has issues. But “God brings good out of the evil we hand to him” doesn’t cut it, either.
Remember, God specifically and intentionally decided that the most evil event in history would occur: The Crucifixion.
That doesn’t mean God took some innocent people and forced them to crucify Jesus; it doesn’t mean he placed that evil into their hearts. In that sense at least, he didn’t bring it about. But he planned that it should happen, and brought it about in some sense.
At the very least, God “planned and intentionally allowed” the Crucifixion, to bring about the greatest good. God can have that kind of relationship to the evil that occurs. Including the suffering, evil, and sickness in our lives.
Be careful that you don’t call him evil for doing so.
Like or Dislike:
0
Jugulum, depends on what you mean by “some” sense.
I would say that the sacrifice of God’s earthly life, of His incarnation, was a response to evil. Furthermore, we must account for the Satan and his role. It is not a stretch to believe that the crucifixion was inevitable given the incarnation and the opposition of Satan to Christ. That does not imply or necessitate that God determined that the crucifixion would happen and was a direct cause of it. To sacrifice oneself for another is not evil, but love.
God did not bring about certain evils in order that Christ would die. In the context of great evil he laid down his life.
God is never a causal agent of evil (a bit redundant, but done for emphasis). Judging, and blinding someone to the nature and results of their evil, such as happened to Pharoah and Judas, or even members of the crowd before Pilate, is not evil but justice. Judging is not a morally culpable act, and so even if it led to the crucifixion, it would not be evil. What God could not do and remain morally innocent is to determine the actions of the people that resulted in the crucifixion, in the killing of an innocent person. So, for example, He could not at creation determine (in the J. Edwards sense of determine) that Judas would betray Christ and remain morally innocent.
Regards,
John
Like or Dislike:
0
According to Acts 2:23, handing Christ over to the unbelievers was “according to the predeterminate plan and foreknowledge of God.” If that’s not saying that Christ’s crucifixion is according to God’s plan, I don’t see what WOULD say that.
Now, I DEFINITELY agree with you that God was not the direct cause of Christ’s crucifixion. The term “direct cause” should hint that there are some types of causation other than “direct”.
In fact, the Psalm that I cited earlier gives another example: David praises God for making him “fearfully and wonderfully”. You appear to want to read that as pure poetic language, that God didn’t have anything to do with making either David or a disfigured child; but this is what the Bible says, not only for embyology but also for the fall of every sparrow (death — an evil thing!), down to such seemingly irrelevant details as the hairs on your head. Christ not only told us this as a statement of fact, He then used those facts to try to give us reassurance against worries. How could those statement reassure us if God, in fact, was NOT in control of the outcome of those things?
I like how Jugulum puts this; I think he’s right, and I like how he warns against errors on either side.
Like or Dislike:
0
“To sacrifice oneself for another is not evil, but love.”
No, but torturing and killing an innocent man IS evil.
I also agree with Jugulum.
Like or Dislike:
0
John,
I agree that God is never the causal agent of sin, and I was being careful not to say that he is. (Giving particular examples of what we can’t say.)
I’ll say this: I do not know how to articulate the way that God interacts in history in order to bring about his purposes.
However.
You are correct that the second sentence doesn’t necessarily follow from the first sentence.
But if you are saying effectively, “Maybe the crucifixion wasn’t God’s plan A for the work of Christ in his Incarnation,” you are absolutely, positively, unequivocally, wrong–because of the direct and explicit revelation of God about the crucifixion.
Wm T. already quoted the relevant verse, Acts 2:23. The Crucifixion was why Christ came. God planned that it would happen, and sinners sinfully acted according to God’s predetermined plan and foreknowledge. God didn’t commit evil–like you say, sacrificing yourself isn’t evil. And like I already said, God didn’t put the evil into their hearts; they acted according to the evil that was there.
You might think that I’m saying more than I really am. It’s really difficult to be precise about this, and to be understood. In terms of the mechanics of how this works, we might be closer than you’re thinking.
My point is to stress that the explicit statement of Scripture is that God can plan a great sin, such that people act according to his predetermined plan & foreknowledge. God can choose that an evil event will occur. God is not limited to, “Well, if that’s what’s going to happen, I’ll make the best of it.” “Cause” is tricky. But I suspect that “intentionally allow” is close.
Like or Dislike:
0
Because the Bible uses human language, language that is given to us by God, it uses poetry and metaphor. To say, in poetry, that God knit one together in the womb is to use a metaphor. It does not mean that God was actively involved in the movement of the cells, and the movement of the proteins, etc., within and between the cells. It means that God is, ultimately, the creator of all that is. In a factual, nonmetaphorical description, one would say that God created the processes by which humans and animals reproduce and develop, and once begun those processes carry on themselves without further “outside” assistance.
The same goes for the poetic language in “fearfully and wonderfully made”. What God has done is fearful and wonderful, so no issue with those descriptors. Again, however, “made” is to be understood in a poetic and ultimate sense. God did not make David like one builds a car or makes a painting, with direct intervention and direct movement of the pieces. To fail to use language according to the way in which God has given it and intends it to be used is to fail in understanding Him.
Planning is not equivalent to determinism. Determinism is the belief that a complete description of the system at one time, and of all the laws that govern that system, logically entails a complete description of that system at any future time. Thus, for example, if Judas was determined then it is inevitable that, when he was placed in the particular circumstances that he experienced, he would betray Jesus.
Knowledge of details does not entail determinism. Nor is it correct to state that lack of determinism means that God is not in control or cannot arrive at any result he desires.
The Bible does not state that God creates disfigured people. Evil intervenes and causes disfigurement. If it were not so, then God would be able to call the disfigurement or disability “good and perfect” and not change it when the disfigured or disabled person receives their new body. Jesus healed a man who was blind from birth; that fact implies that the blindness was not perfect or good but a wrong, an evil that needed to be corrected. God did not create him blind.
Regards,
John
Like or Dislike:
0
Interesting example, in your last paragraph.
When Jesus was asked who sinned, so that a particular man 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.” (John 9:3)
He was born with a defect so that he could be healed by God. The fact that God had a good purpose for him in particular to be born that way does not mean that his blindness was “good and perfect.” The fact that God ordained Paul’s sufferings does not mean that his sufferings were “good and perfect,” and suitable for him to keep experiencing them after the Resurrection.
You are right that evil agents (or the effects of evil in the world) are the direct cause of defects & suffering & illness.
What I am saying–because the passages I’m citing explicitly say so–is that God (at least sometimes) directly plans that a particular evil will occur. He intentionally allows that particular evil to occur.
Like or Dislike:
0
‘Lion Crater, evil is not a thing, a substance or an essance; it is a moral description of an action. It is, as defined by the Bible, “falling short of the mark.” To cause evil is inherently evil. Causing evil is not the same as watching evil occur and doing nothing to stop it. Thus for God to watch another causal agent do evil is not evil in itself. But to determine that the evil will occur and so bring it about, is evil.’
ok, a few problems here
first, ‘falling short of the mark’ relates specificaly to human sin, not evil in general. it’s not as if evil was trying to hit the mark in the first place.
second, you say, ‘To cause evil is inherently evil.’ how so? as i wrote earlier, ‘God can create something without taking on the nature of his creation. God did not become the heavens and the earth when He brought them into being, nor does he become evil by bringing evil into ‘being’.’
third, it seems inconsistent for one to say ‘To cause evil is inherently evil.’ and then say ‘Causing evil is not the same as watching evil occur and doing nothing to stop it. Thus for God to watch another causal agent do evil is not evil in itself.’ that would mean that in luke 10, the priest and the levite were perfectly within their moral rights to keep on truckin past the man beaten in the street.
i agree John, when you say, ‘Because the Bible uses human language, language that is given to us by God, it uses poetry and metaphor.’ As i wrote earlier, ‘it is appropriate to say that God is offended by evil. but God cannot somehow be overwhelmingly or ‘absolutely’ offended by it…precisely because it has no being. the result of evil is a corrupted created order so it’s paradoxical to say God ‘created’ evil. but that’s probably the easiest way to put it.’
there is an important sense in which evil is purely hypothetical. because God has no existing and absolute opposite or rival, he has to postulate in our minds eye, a sort of enemy of that which is good, a darkness to contrast from His light.
so again, i have no problem saying God ‘created’ evil, as long as these things ive mentioned are kept firmly in mind.
but, if one still wanted to insist that evil does not come from Gods decree, they would need to provide at least a faint positive case for where it does in fact come from.
but please don’t tell me it comes from creation, for then as God is necessarily God, then creation is necessarily evil, and forevermore.
Like or Dislike:
0
lioncrater, God watches evil all the time and does nothing to stop it. In America a murder happens every few minutes, God sees the murder, He does nothing to stop it. God is moral. Therefore, it cannot be inherently immoral or evil to see evil occur and do nothing to stop it. In the parable of the Samaritan, the point of the parable was not who sinned but who was a neighbour. Jesus did not say that the priest and levite sinned, only that they did not recognize their neighbour.
In addition to things that are inherently evil, there are things that are evil because they are contrary to a command of God. That is, it is evil to disobey a command of God; obviously, such an evil cannot apply to God, only to those who must obey Him. Thus, if we are commanded to lve our neighbour and help him, and then do not, we have sinned because we have not obeyed the command. No such command exists in relation to God, and God is not obliged to directly assist the samaritan (e.g., miraculous healing). It would be an act of love for Him to do so, but not an evil for Him to fail to do so; it would also be an act of love for us to do so, and an evil for us to fail to do so (assuming a command to do so, which seems apparent).
Regards,
John
Like or Dislike:
0
Jugulum, the verses are open to at least two interpretations, both consistent with the facts stated therein. Normal human development, as created by God, is for humans to develop and be born with funcitioning eyesight. So, the fact that the man was born blind requires some sort of action or effect that disrupted normal development. God could have directly caused the developmental defect, or God could have refused to intervene in a developmental defect caused either by natural evil (genetic or environmental cause) or a supernatural evil (demonic). Either cause (direct action of God; no intervention by God) is consistent with God having the man born blind in order that he can heal the blind man.
In addition, even assuming that your apparent interpretation (i.e., that God directly caused the blindness) is correct, my reasoning and conclusions are not shown to be incorrect. God does not directly cause most (or even possibly all) development disfigurements and disabilities. God does not directly move the molecules and cells in the process of conception and intra-womb development. That is, He is not knitting together the cells in the same direct manner that a human knitter creates a garment. The phrase is poetic metaphor and refers to God’s ultimate creative power and sovereignty, not to any direct action (such as potentially occurred when the walls of Jericho fell down,or in a miraculous healing).
Regards,
John
Like or Dislike:
0
We agree on at least this much.
I think where we part ways is that you believe that there are only two ways for something to happen: either God directly causes something by miraculously intervening without any physical cause, OR you say that God had nothing to do with the thing that happened.
The problem with your philosophy here is that it contradicts the Psalm, where David praises God for making his body, a process which we KNOW is purely chemical and hereditary. If God does not get the credit/blame for making a crippled body, he also should not get the credit for making a healthy body.
The fall of a sparrow is also governed entirely by natural processes, as is the identity of each hair on my head; but God gives personal attention to each and every one, and Christ tells us that fact in order to tell us not to worry. Why not worry? Because anything that happens to those is part of God’s plan.
God, of course, creates all people, disfigured or not. And if God knows each of my hairs, and reassures me that it’s under His supervision and providence, He also knows about my receding hairline and knows that it’s part of His providence — and by extension, He knows about my neurological tremor, and it occurs under His supervision and providence.
But the blindness was — Christ specifically said — for a purpose. It wasn’t just a historical accident (well, that man’s parents sinned, or that man made a mistake); it was for the purpose of displaying God’s works. Christ said that there was a purpose, which means that there was a purposer and a designer. Someone decided that the purpose was best served by having a man be born blind. The purpose, according to Christ, was “so that the acts of God may be revealed” — which makes it probable that God is the designer.
Christ healing the man doesn’t prove that the blindness was an accident; it proves that God wanted to heal the man. In other words, the reason the man was born blind was that God wanted him to be healed by Christ. The universe is burdened with sin SO THAT God can redeem it.
-Wm
Like or Dislike:
0
John,
I said this:
You interpreted that as, “God directly caused the blindness”.
I’m not sure how that happened. “Directly plan” is not “directly cause”.
And I already said this:
And this:
I could try to say it another way, and we could repeat the cycle. But communication is failing for some reason, and I really don’t know how to fix that.
Like or Dislike:
0
WmT: “The universe is burdened with sin SO THAT God can redeem it.” I take it then that you are a believer in the so-called “happy accident” theology. Interesting.
It does not follow that if God does not get the blame for disfigurement, then he should not get praise for a healthy body. The two statements are not logically connected in the way that you suggest. God does not get the blame for disfigurement because the disfigurement is a result of an intervening evil. God does get the praise for a healthy body, because that is the way he created bodies to be. Similarly, God gets the credit for all good things because ultimately all good things come from Him and, in many cases, arrive because the natural world is functioning as he created it.
Your post contains a gap in reasoning which makes it nonsensical. If God does not control and direct the movement of the molecules and cells, then in what sense does He create the human? According to my argument, our development is a result of the molecules and cells following the pattern and design that God built into the universe. Ignoring the issue of randomness and post-Newtonian physics, the universe operates mechanically according to God’s design; that includes the fertilization of an ovum and the subsequent development of a human.
It is further problematic that you give no regard for the use of language (i.e., poetic use is not the same as propositional use).
Your reference to the sparrow is not germaine to the issues raised in my post, and does not seem to be inconsistent with what I asserted anyway. Yes, I agree that God sees the sparrow fall. That does not mean He personally swatted it down.
In regard to the blind man your comment does not address the means by which the man was or became blind, only the end for which he was left blind. To speak of purpose is not inconsistent with what I wrote. I am doubtful that God directly intervened and exercised His power to interfere with natural pre-birth development of the man’s eyes. God does create things incomplete (e.g., in the days of creation he created seeds that grew into plants), and so incompleteness does not entail imperfection or evil. Hence it is possible that the development of his eyes was merely delayed until Jesus healed them. However, it would not be the typical case with blindness. In the more usual case blindness would be a result of evil, not a result of God’s direct creation.
Getting back to the main point of Copan’s post, Sproul jr. does not know his Calvin very well, for Calvin argues in his institutes that though God is the author of sin, he is not its creator. It’s a point that also trips up lioncrater. Since at least Augustine, a dominant view of evil and is is that it is a privation, an absence, but not a thing in itself.
Regards,
John
Like or Dislike:
0
Copan also rightly notes that Sproul jr. makes a very junior grade philosphical and theological mistake when he states that God can do what ever he wants. That is akin to the reasoning a couple of centuries ago that either morality is whatever God makes it, and is therefore arbitrary and subject to change, or that a moral standard exists outside of God and he is subject to it (and hence not complete and perfect in himself). The correct answer is that morality is the nature of God; that is, what the nature of God is (which is eternal and unchangeable) is morality. God is the god of truth and god does not lie, and that is why those things are moral.
If God is meticulously all-determining and nothing has any incompatibilist (libertarian) freedom, then where did Satan’s and then Eve’s first evil motive or intent come from? From a determinist standpoint the logical and only answer is God, ultimately. It is no good for a Calvinist to allow for Satan or Eve to be an autonomous creature, because this then opens up a hole in divine determinism so large it consumes it. Calvin, and Edwards, try to grapple with this by (unsuccessfully, to me) arguing that there is a distinction between “authorship” in some sense and creation, and that moral culpability attaches to the latter but not the former.
Calvin is quite unafraid to have a very meticulous God, down to personally directing the movements of atoms: “With regard to inanimate objects again we must hold that though each is possessed of its peculiar properties, yet all of them exert their force only in so far as directed by the immediate hand of God. Hence they are merely instruments, into which God constantly infuses what energy he sees appropriate, and turns and converts to any purpose at his pleasure.” [note the word "immediate"] (from book 1, c. 16).
So also, Calvin would have God immediately directing the development of the cells in the womb, and not leave God to be the first mover: “God is deemed omnipotent, not because he can act though he may cease or be idle, or because by a general instinct he continues the order of nature previously appointed; but because, governing heaven and earth by his providence, he so overrules all things that nothing happens without his counsel.
For when it is said in the Psalms, “He has done whatsoever he has pleased,” (Ps. 115:3), the thing meant is his sure and deliberate purpose. It were insipid to interpret the Psalmist’s words in philosophic fashion, to mean that God is the primary agent, because the beginning and cause of all motion. This rather is the solace of the faithful, in their adversity, that every thing which they endure is by the ordination and command of God, that they are under his hand. But if the government of God thus extends to all his works, it is a childish to confine it to natural influx.”
Regards,
John
Like or Dislike:
0
Jugulum: “What I am saying–because the passages I’m citing explicitly say so–is that God (at least sometimes) directly plans that a particular evil will occur. He intentionally allows that particular evil to occur.”
Your two sentences are not equivalent, and I can agree with the second while not agreeing with the first.
The verses you refer to are not consistent with only one interpretation (yours, i.e. God intentioned the evil of blindness), but are are consistent with more than one interpretation (God used existing or foreseen evil). Hence, the verses do not “prove” your proposition to the exclusion of others.
It is immoral for both us and God to directly / immediately bring about an evil in order to bring about a later good.
Regards,
John
Like or Dislike:
0
John,
Before I respond to your first two paragraphs, you said:
Please read #151 again. You think I said that God did so?
Like or Dislike:
0
No. Deliberate design (“SO THAT”) is the opposite of accident. The man was born blind SO THAT Christ could heal him. Joseph was sold into slavery in Egypt SO THAT the sons of Jacob could be saved from famine. Pharaoh was raised up SO THAT God could demonstrate his power. By analogy, the universe was cursed with man’s sin SO THAT God could redeem it into His kingdom.
The redemption is greater than the fall.
That’s your presumption, yes. You have to insert something else to take what you insist must be blame. The apostles tried to do the same thing; they assumed that the man born blind must have been blind because of some blameworthy (evil) problem. Christ corrected them. His explanation was that there was no blame involved; but rather, there was deliberate design. The purpose behind the design was to allow God’s work to be displayed; Christ then did that work by healing the man.
God does not get the blame for the blindness — because there is no blame. But the reason there’s no blame is NOT that embryology is controlled by impersonal, uncaring random forces that God does nothing about (as you say); rather, it’s because God had a plan for all mankind that involved the blindness of that man.
No. We don’t know, but God may have exercised His power through His creation to cause the man’s eyes to fail to work. Both miraculous intervention and natural causes are examples of God’s work. Doesn’t God bring rain both on the just and the unjust — and isn’t that God’s doing, even though it’s done by means of natural causes?
So apparently you believe that Jesus is reassuring us “don’t worry about tomorrow, because God stands by and watches sparrows die; how much more can He stand by and watch you die as well.” ?
Christ is trying to reassure people. Why would he do that in your interpretation? (Yes, this IS germane; it’s crucial.)
What Christ seems to me to be saying is that God cares for every detail of the suffering and prospering of even the tiniest things (sparrows, grass, hair), and He will certainly care for yours.
He doesn’t just stand by and watch. He doesn’t wince and wish things could work some other way. He works everything according to His council, and He does all His will, and none can stay His hand.
-Wm
Like or Dislike:
0
John, good post. (I don’t say that often.)
I agree with you in that I shy away from insisting that God steer each atom; because I think the witness of creation in general shows us that He’s content with the laws He’s established, and allows those laws to function. But I think the reason He allows those laws to function is that He designed them to do His will, and they are in fact accomplishing that.
In a sense, there’s an analogy… Calvin’s quote would have God sink all the balls on a pool table by picking them up in His hand and dropping them into the pockets (steering them every second of the way). I believe, in contrast, that God could sink all the balls on a pool table from the break, with a single hit of the cue ball, steering them only at the First Cause but nonetheless guiding them inerrantly by that cause. Metaphorically speaking, of course.
What do you believe? As far as I can tell, your extension of my metaphor is that God can’t sink all the balls in a single shot; people keep sticking their hands in the way and messing up His shots, so He has to keep trying (and He will).
Please forgive in advance my metaphor, and feel absolutely free to dismiss it if it’s inadequate to explain your theology, or if it’s simply offensive.
-Wm
Like or Dislike:
0
Wm,
For clarification: Didn’t you already say that God does not directly cause evil? Even when God specifically decides that something will happen, we can’t say that God directly causes it?
Hmm… How to say it?
You and I both agree that God specifically plans (at least some) evil events, because of the explicit statements of Scripture about Joseph, Jesus’ crucifixion, etc. But that still leaves something unsaid:
“God decided that X should happen, so he ________, and it happened the way he planned.”
How would you fill in the blank?
There are ways to fill in the blank that make God the author of evil. John is super-concerned to avoid that, and rightly so. (Frustratingly, he keeps assuming that I fill it in with “directly causes it,” or “directly brings it about”. Though that might be happening because you seem to be getting closer to that.)
Like or Dislike:
0
‘lioncrater, God watches evil all the time and does nothing to stop it. In America a murder happens every few minutes, God sees the murder, He does nothing to stop it. God is moral. Therefore, it cannot be inherently immoral or evil to see evil occur and do nothing to stop it. In the parable of the Samaritan, the point of the parable was not who sinned but who was a neighbour. Jesus did not say that the priest and levite sinned, only that they did not recognize their neighbour’
a few problems here
you say ‘God is moral’. this a very misleading statement. it’s not like you have God on one hand and morality on another. morality is contextual within the being of God, not seperate from it. if you say ‘God is moral’, one will ask ‘Are God’s actions moral because their moral or because God’s the one doing them?’, which creates a false dilemma. In reality God’s actions are in accordance with his nature, which is love.
you say ‘Jesus did not say that the priest and levite sinned, only that they did not recognize their neighbour.’ im puzzled by this. OF COURSE they sinned. look at the broader context of the passage. the rich man is asking about inheriting eternal life, and christ talks to him about keeping the law with perfection to inherit it.
Like or Dislike:
0
and John, just for clarification, do you consider yourself an arminian or a molinist?
Like or Dislike:
0
A person who causes a problem so that they can fix it and make themselves look good is called a charlatan. How about I come set your house of fire so I can then put it out? According to Calvinism, this is what God has done and he actually expects us to praise him for it. It cannot be so. If this is what Christianity truly teaches, then Christianity must be false. Therefore, Calvinism must be heresy. To prove that Calvinism is not heresy is to prove Christianity false.
Like or Dislike:
0
WmT states: ” But the reason there’s no blame is NOT that embryology is controlled by impersonal, uncaring random forces that God does nothing about (as you say); rather, it’s because God had a plan for all mankind that involved the blindness of that man.”
and also:
“I agree with you in that I shy away from insisting that God steer each atom; because I think the witness of creation in general shows us that He’s content with the laws He’s established, and allows those laws to function. But I think the reason He allows those laws to function is that He designed them to do His will, and they are in fact accomplishing that.”
It appears to me that those statements are either inconsistent with each other, or they attribute to my reasoning an assumption that I do not make and do not find necessary to make. Are God’s “laws”, as you call them, “impersonal, uncaring random” or not? If not, then why assume that my description of intra-womb development depends on uncaring forces? God, in his creative love established our prenatal development. It now requires no more than his general sustaining of the universe to continue as he designed it. Hence, the forces at work are not impersonal, but the result of personal intent, design, and action.
To be born blind is to fail to develop in accordance with the design of God. That is typically considered to be a natural evil or the result of demonic interference. Such evils are apart from, and different from the sin of the man or his parents. The issue addressed there by the disciples is one of punishment for sin, a common belief. It has no bearing on other causes of the evil of blindness.
I put “happy accident” in quotes to indicate that it is a term of jargon that does not necessarily indicate that the incident of first sin was accidental. Though the planned necessity, before there was any sin, of Christ’s crucifixion is not a settled question, those who do not want to blame God for the first sin, but who believe that the sin was necessary in order that the crucifixion and resurrection occur, have used that or similar terms to escape the need to explain the first sin. It means “it had to happen, but I don’t know how”.
In order to avoid having God sin by meticulously and directly bringing sin into existence and to avoid further incoherence, most Calvinists are left with claiming ignorance and the impossibility of knowledge about that matter. Some, like Sproule jr., figure they’re intellectually brave and honest by claiming that God can sin without moral culpability (i.e, I’m God and anything I do is de facto not sin, simply because it is Me doing it). Unfortunately, jr. is not only junior in name, but also junior in philosophical and theological knowledge and skill.
Regards,
John
Like or Dislike:
0
The fact that Jesus heals the blind man reveals that blindness is not a matter of indifference and that it does not accord with a good creation. For God to have made the “innocent” (I mean no more than his blindness is not a punishment for his sin) man to be blind would have been to do an evil act.
God can no more be responsible for the man’s blindness than he can be responsible for original sin.
This is not to say that blindness cannot be justifiably imposed as a punishment or judgement (the disciples recognized this). In this regard I note that there are times when God did do this, for example in certain Old Testament battles where the enemy was blinded.
Regards,
John
Like or Dislike:
0
That would, I agree, be awful of Calvinists to say about God. But this is not what Calvinists say.
First, Calvinists say that God created us, NOT violated preexisting intrinsic rights. His creating us at all is by its nature a good thing, for a similar reason that our parents bringing us into the world is a good thing, even though God and our parents certainly knew that we would suffer as a result of existing in this world. So the suffering we experience is compensated by and intrinsic to the simple good of existence, without which no goods are possible at all.
Second, Calvinists say that God’s redeemed creation is far, far better than the old one. Taking your own metaphor, if you built me a house, placed me in it, then forced me to leave, burned it down, built a much better house, and placed me in that… Would you be acting unjustly?
-Wm
Like or Dislike:
0
Jugulam… That’s familiar. Is your first name “Carpe”? Nice.
Agreed. There are many things God does not directly cause, and evil is NEVER directly caused by God.
Right. And by the way, I really appreciate your precision on this topic.
There’s many things God could do. Normally, God works though means, so we could say “…so God created means sufficient for that end, and…” That’s vague and general, and I don’t think it clarifies this discussion much. Let’s pick some specific examples.
“God desired that Jacob be in charge in Egypt, so He created his father with a favoritism that caused his brothers to hate him and sell him into slavery there.”
“God desired that Jesus be crucified to redeem the cosmos, so He delivered Him into the hands of fallen men who hated the truth.”
“God desired that Jesus illustrate that God is a healer as well as a judge, so He created a blind man who would meet Jesus when his disciples would be curious about judgment.”
You’re totally right. The fact that I repeatedly claim that I don’t allow “God directly caused evil” isn’t enough — I’m not speaking clearly enough about what I truly believe.
Perhaps I should be quiet and let you speak.
-Wm
Like or Dislike:
0
This is a question for ANYONE HERE. I can understand what you are saying about how God can use-without creating-evil for a greater good (eg. the crucifixion). But I have a few questions:
1) It seems as though many Calvinists believe that angels were elected just as humans were, I am imagining that what they are saying is that before any of the angels fell, God chose which ones he would preserve from falling and let the rest make their own choice and that ALL of the NON-elect angels chose to fall. Aside from the seeming injustice of this (it doesn’t seem that God should ‘care about’ one volitional creature more than another without having a reason to; animals don’t count because they don’t know that they are loved less), there is another glaring problem; IF THE NON-ELECT ANGELS WERE FREE TO STAND OR FALL AND THERE ARE MILLIONS OF ANGELS, THEN 50% would have ‘stood’ and 50% would have fallen. The statistical probability of ALL of the non-elect angels choosing to fall would be 1-in-2 to the millionth power, in other words (1/2) of (1/2) of (1/2) millions of times (since there are millions of angels). Hence, if this is what actually happened, then either it was inevitable that the non-elect angels would fall OR that God did NOT choose certain angels to allow to sin while preserving those who persevered. If it is the first, then I am okay with that but would seem to have a problem with the idea of Calvinists who believe in elect angels AND a God that loves some volitional creatures better than others FOR NO REASON should be “up in arms” over the idea that God made it INEVITABLE that certain creatures would stand and certain ones would fall. I am NOT saying that he created ‘evil’ in the creatures but according to the position of the group of Calvinists I mentioned above, it seems that they should at least be willing to accept the POSSIBILITY that God did NOT give Adam or the NON-ELECT angels enough enabling grace for them to choose good over evil.
Like or Dislike:
0
Also, if God “passively” hardens the non-elect, then in hell, he has God to “passively” punish people by “removing himself” and if God is infinitely sweet and good, then he could “inflict” infinite misery on the creatures by simply removing himself and his benefits.
Like or Dislike:
0
typo: I wrote, ” he has God to “passively” punish people. I meant, he (God) has goT to “passively”, not “actively” punish people in hell etc…….
Like or Dislike:
0
WmT: your response re the better house does not address rey’s original point. The blind man did not end up better off in terms of sight, but in the same place he would have, and should have, been had the proper development of his eyes not been interfered with in the first place.
The story of Job is interesting in that God used an evil intermediary to effect evil in the world. God did not restrain the Satan, but let him do what he wanted to do, and would do, if he were not restrained—which is to afflict God’s children. There is no reason, on the basis of the parts of the story handed down to us, that the same thing might not be occurring with the blind man. In fact, I think it much more likely that the blindness was the result of satanic activity because Christ came to destroy the works of the devil, to defeat his kingdom and to bring about His (Christ’s) own kingdom. Many of Jesus’ other miracles are clearly to be understood in this way.
Jugulum, I inferred incorrectly from your writing that you meant some kind of direct immediate causation on the part of God, but you have clarified that you do not.
I think that intention is important, which is why I responded in opposition to the use of the word “plan”. For example, it is stated in Genesis 50:20 “As for you, you meant to harm me, but God intended it for a good purpose, so he could preserve the lives of many people, as you can see this day.” It does not seem to me that the morality of God, as revealed in the Bible, allows one to do evil deeds so long as one has good intentions. Rather, it seems that the Joseph story is an illustration of the Romans principle, where God can bring good out of any evil situation. There were any number of ways that God could have gotten Joseph into Egypt, but he chose to defeat the evil of Joseph’s brothers by using that evil to deliver Joseph to Egypt. That is, God did not have the intention that Joseph should be cast into a pit and sold, but had the intention to resue Joseph from the intentions and acts of his brothers.
In regard to Matthew’s post, it should be noted that we have no probability value for angel’s deciding to follow God and so can’t use 50%, except in the statistical sense that 50 is the default probability where a value is not known. But the probability function is not relevant, so we can leave it behind. The key difference that I see between the angel problem and the Eve problem is that Even had an evil temptor, while the angels would not have had any evil around at all.
Regards,
John
Like or Dislike:
0
Just received this in my inbox John Piper:
1. The reason this terrorized and troubled world exists is not because God is not in total control.
The Bible is overwhelmingly clear that God governs everything in the universe from the smallest bird to the largest storm. “Are not two sparrows sold for a penny?And not one of them will fall to the ground apart from your Father” (Matthew 10:29). “Even winds and sea obey him” (Matthew 8:27). “The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the Lord” (Proverbs 16:33). “The king’s heart is a stream of water in the hand of the Lord; he turns it wherever he will” (Proverbs 21:1). “Who has spoken and it came to pass, unless the Lord has commanded it?” (Lamentations 3:37). “Does disaster come to a city, unless the Lord has done it?” (Amos 3:6). “He commands even the unclean spirits, and they obey him” (Mark 1:27). “I am God, and there is none like me . . . saying, ‘My counsel shall stand, and I will accomplish all my purpose’” (Isaiah 46:9-10).
There is no person or being in the universe that can thwart the sovereign will of God. Satan is his most powerful enemy and does much evil in the world, but he must first get God’s permission, and none of his actions is outside God’s governance. He never breaks free from his leash (Luke 22:31; Job 2:6-7; 42:11).
2. The reason this terrorized and troubled world exists is not because God is evil or unjust.
“This is the message we have heard from him and proclaim to you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all” (1 John 1:5). “Good and upright is the Lord” (Psalm 25:8) The angels cry before God day and night, “Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of hosts; the whole earth is full of his glory!” (Isaiah 6:3). And when he does things that seem evil to us, the Bible teaches us to speak to man like this: “As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good” (Genesis 50:20). God is not evil, even when he wills that evil come to pass. There are good and holy and just purposes in all he does. For those who love him he “works all things together for good” (Romans 8:28). Now and forever.
Now the four positive reasons why this world exists…..
Like or Dislike:
0
(continued)
1.The reason this terrorized and troubled world exists is because God planned the history of redemption and then permitted sin to enter the world through our first parents, Adam and Eve.
In 2 Timothy 1:9 the apostle Paul said, “[God] saved us and called us toa holy calling, not because of our works but because of his own purpose and grace, which he gave us in Christ Jesus before the ages began.” In other words, before there was any world or any sin in the world, God planned saving grace through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. That means that God knew Adam would sin. He was already planning how he would save us.
Therefore Adam’s sin was part of God’s plan so that God could reveal his mercy and grace and justice and wrath and patience and wisdom in ways that could have never been revealed, if there were no sin and no Savior and no history of salvation. God’s aim for this fallen world is that he be known more fully, because knowing God most fully is what it means for us to be most fully loved. If you turn to Christ, you will discover in God more wonders in this fallen world than could be imagined in any other world.
2.The reason this terrorized and troubled world exists is because God subjected the natural world to futility. That is, God put the natural world under a curse so that the physical horrors we see around us in diseases and calamities would become a vivid picture of how horrible sin is. In other words, natural evil is a signpost pointing to the horrors of moral evil.
Before I say another word, hear this word of clarification: some of the sweetest, most humble, godly, Christ-exalting, heaven-bound people carry some of those signs. Listen to Romans 8:18-21:
The sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that is to be revealed to us. 19 For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God. 20 For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope 21 that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to decay and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God
Like or Dislike:
0
In other words, God subjected the creation to futility and bondage to decay and misery and death. He disordered the natural world because of the disorder of the moral and spiritual world–that is because of sin. In our present condition blinded by sin and dishonoring God every day, we cannot see how repugnant sin is. Hardly anyone in the world feels the horror that our sin is. Physical pain we feel! And so it becomes God’s trumpet blast to tell us that something is dreadfully wrong in the world. Diseases and deformities are God’s portraits of what sin is like in the spiritual realm. That is true even though some of the most godly people bear those deformities. Calamities are God’s previews of what sin deserves and will one day receive in judgment a thousand times worse. They are warnings. And that is true even when they sweep away Christ-followers and Christ-rejectors.
Oh, that we could all see and feel how repugnant, how offensive, how abominable it is to blackball our Maker, to ignore him and distrust him and demean him and give him less attention in our hearts than we do the carpet on our living room floor. We must see this, or we will not turn to Christ for salvation from sin. Therefore, God mercifully shouts to us in our sicknesses and pain and calamities: Wake up! Sin is like this! Sin leads to things like this. (See Revelation 9:20; 16:9, 11.) The natural world is shot through with horrors to wake us from the dreamworld of thinking sin is no big deal. It is a horrifically big deal.
3. The reason this terrorized and troubled world exists is so that followers of Christ can experience and display that no pleasure and no treasure compares to knowing Christ. That is, the loss of every good thing in this world is meant to reveal that Christ himself more than compensates for all losses.
We see it in the New Testament and the Old Testament. The apostle Paul says, “I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things and count them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ” (Philippians 3:8). The superior worth of Christ is magnified because in all Paul’s losses, he experiences Christ as all-satisfying.
Like or Dislike:
0
The prophet Habakkuk said it with amazing and painful beauty:
Though the fig tree should not blossom, nor fruit be on the vines, the produce of the olive fail and the fields yield no food, the flock be cut off from the fold and there be no herd in the stalls, 18 yet I will rejoice in the Lord; I will take joy in the God of my salvation. (Habakkuk 3:17-18)
Famines, pestilence, persecution–these happen so that the world might see in the followers of Jesus and discover for themselves that God made us for himself and that he is our “exceeding joy” (Psalm 43:4) and at his right hand are pleasures for every more (Psalm 16:11). The losses of life are meant to wean us off the poisonous pleasures of the world and lure us to Christ our everlasting joy.
4. Finally, the reason this terrorized and troubled world exists is to make a place for Jesus Christ the Son of God to suffer and die for our sins. The reason there is terror is so that Christ would be terrorized. The reason there is trouble is so that Christ could be troubled. The reason there is pain is so that Christ could feel pain. This is the world God prepared for the suffering and death of his Son. This is the world where God made the best display of his love in the suffering of his Son.
Romans 5:8, “God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.” All his suffering was the plan of God to reveal redeeming love to us. The sovereignty of God, the evil of the world, and the love of God meet at the cross of Christ. Listen to this amazing statement from Acts 4:27-28 about God’s plan for the suffering of his Son–for you! “Truly in this city [God] there were gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place.” All the scheming, all the flogging, all the spitting, all the beating with rods, all the mockery, all the abandonment by his friends, all the thorns in his head, all the nails in his hands and feet, the sword in his side, weight of the sins of the world–all of it according to God’s plan. For you to see God’s love more graphically.
God’s deepest answer to terrorism and calamity is the suffering and death of his Son. He entered into our fallen world of sin and misery and death. He bore in himself the cause of it all–sin. And he bought by his death the cure for it all–forgiveness and everlasting joy in the age to come.
On his behalf I invite–I urge–you to receive him as your Savior and Lord and the supreme Treasure of your life.
By John Piper. © Desiring God. Website: http://www.desiringGod.org.
Like or Dislike:
0
Susan, aside from the fact that your three posts break one of CMP’s rules (no long quotes), they do not engage either the topic raised in CMP’s lede nor the comments of previous contributors. They are related to the same subject matter, but being related to the same subject matter is not the same as being within the topic at issue.
We would actually appreciate your own thoughts on the topic, perhaps coupled with a link to Piper’s post, and some small excerpts that would support or illustrate a point you are making.
Piper’s theology is hardly convincing to many (me among them), and the quotes from his writing betray a lack of familiarity with issues raised by Piper’s apparent supralapsarianism. However, Calvinists might also be infralapsarian, which would provide a different take on some of the passages Piper talks about. Moreover, all of the passages he notes are capable of an interpretation that does not involve meticulous providence.
I think that Piper does not take sin seriously enough and don’t believe that God would dip the world into sin just so that he could glorify himself and test our faith. Sin is too much of an affront to God for God to use it like that (on the more personal and pastoral level, I do agree with Piper that many people give more thought to their carpet than too sin). Indeed, Piper comes very close to what Sproul jr. advocated.
Your posts might have been relevant had they addressed the similarities between Piper and Sproul jr., or noted how they are very close but Piper gets it right (for whatever reasons you could point out). I would encourage you to think about it and make a further post along that line.
Regards,
John
Like or Dislike:
0
Back on topic, I note that Sproul jr.’s book is still offered for sale by Ligonier Ministries, though at a discount, and Amazon.com is out of stock of the hardcover. Reviews at the Amazon site were either extremely favourable, or extremely negative, with no one giving it a middling 3 stars. Many reviewers note that Sproul used very little scripture, had an undue reliance on and reverance for Jonathan Edwards, and made too much of the reliability of so-called crime solving techniques. In assuming his “crime solving” is a useful route to the truth, Sproul falls afoul of the fallacy of the “false dilemma” or “excluded middle”.
Both Sproul jr. and Piper appear to be supralapsarians. Moreover, the point of view of Sproul jr. is not as strange or original as it at first appears. Take for instance, the following views:
“Even the fall of Adam, and through him the fall of the race, was not by chance or accident, but was so ordained in the secret councils
of God.” Lorraine Boettner, The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination p. 234
“All things that happen in all the world at any time and in all history—whether inorganic matter, vegetation, animal, man or angels (both
good and evil ones– come to pass because God ordained them, Even sin- the fall of the devil from heaven, the fall of Adam, and every
evil thought, word, and deed in all of history.” and “It is even biblical to say that God has foreordained sin.” Edwin Palmer, The Five Points of Calvinism, 1999.
How different are those from Sproul jr.? no distance at al: “. . . God desired for man to fall into sin . . . God created sin . . .” R.C. Sproul, Jr., Almighty Over All, 1999.
But what does God say?
James 1:13: Let no man say when he tempted I am tempted of God, for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man.
That is one reason, among others, that Sproul Sr. would not speculate on the origin of evil from within his Calvinist system. The logic of supralapsarian Calvinism includes God as the author of sin, but those who are wise Calvinists park that thought at the door of “paradox” and leave it there.
Regards,
John
Like or Dislike:
0
Additional quotes like Sproul jr’s.:
A. W. Pink, – Clearly it was the divine will that sin should enter this world, or it would not have done so. God had the power to prevent it. Nothing ever comes to pass except what He decreed…God’s decree that sin should enter this world was a secret hid in Himself. —A. W. Pink, Gleanings from the Scriptures, (Chicago, IL, Moody Press, 1964), p. 207
Dr. John MacArthur – Sin is something God meant to happen. He planned for it, ordained it—or in the words of the Westminster Confession, He decreed it. Evil and all it consequences were included in God’s eternal decree before the foundation of the world. —John MacArthur, Vanishing Conscience, (Waco, TX, WordPublishing, 1995), p.113
Like or Dislike:
0
John C.T.,
I think I need to say something here. First of all, I have appreciated many of your comments and views in the past and I want to thank you for much of what you have said.
However, something has really been bothering me lately. In the past week or so you have started sounding like the blog moderator on many of the threads on this site. I understand your desire to keep a thread on topic. And there are certainly times when something needs to be said. But it seems like you are doing it on many threads and with many people lately. Maybe I am the only one taking this in the way I am, I don’t know.
And before you start reminding people of the blog rules they are breaking, (by the way, the rule you mentioned above is not even listed in the official blog rules), maybe you need to remember this one that is listed there: “5. Do not spam a post with comments one right after the other. Stay focused . . . one comment at a time is helpful.” Again, there are certainly times we have all broken that rule, but you have done it several times lately while at the same time calling out others for an infraction.
I hope this doesn’t come across as harsh, but this just hasn’t been setting right with me for some time now.
Like or Dislike:
0
Here’s what I’m wondering: How do we simply dismiss all this as ‘a paradox’ after so many strong arguments against it?
The paradox argument in itself is a strawman, if we are not presenting a strong case for the other side as well, i.e.: if God did not create evil/sin how did it originally come to be?
Yes, if He merely allowed evil to come into the human world via the ‘tree of good and evil’ in the garden of Eden one could say He permitted it. However where and who did originate evil itself prior to the fall?
if God created everything as Colossians states, then who created evil? Did it just appear with no explanation? That doesn’t make sense in God’s ordered plan of things either.
Understand I am not taking a position here one way or another, I just want to hear those questions answered, and it seems to me no one has done that.
Like or Dislike:
0
Just being honest but when I hear John Piper’s statements I walk away with the conviction that John Piper’s god is a sadist. The god of Piper plans and effectuates the fall from all eternity, and then through his arbitrary choice sends billions to hell as a result of the fall he planned. Furthermore he sends disease and destruction in the natural world as a sign of sin even though no one will ever recognize the sign unless He predestines them and causes them to see it. So there’s really no point in giving the signs or warnings at all. All these he does not out of benevolence or love, but out of some narcissistic need for glory. I can’t think of such a god as anything but a sadist. He gets off on our suffering and arbitrarily sending humans to eternal torment as a result of something he ultimately planned and caused.
Like or Dislike:
0
Mbaker,
I think it depends on how when defines “evil”. If evil is simply defined as that which is in opposition to God’s will or perhaps the Augustinian definition of being the deprivation of good then evil isn’t so much a thing as the absence of something. So God in a sense doesn’t create evil, rather it exists as a result of contingent beings having the choice to follow God or not follow Him.
Like or Dislike:
0
Thanks Michael.
What I am really looking for is a theological position which defines the origin of evil so I can put this entire discussion about Sproul, Jr. into context.
For instance, satan was thrown down from heaven because he tried to exalt himself above God. What was the source of his thought to even disobey God in the first place, if evil didn’t already exist in some form prior to what many refer to as ‘original sin’ in the garden of Eden?
Are there two separate theological definitions here of the two words? Is human sin the causal factor or did evil originate with satan himself, or is it both? And if evil did originate with satan how did he create it without God’s foreknowledge?
It’s certainly a question I believe we should all have a viable answer to give to non-believers when they invaribly ask the question: Did God create evil? And if so, why?
Like or Dislike:
0
A post script here to further quantify my questions in #’s 178 and 181 Some are talking about the absence of good as a definition of what evil is.
Others are taking about the act of committing sin. I simply need to understand the difference in theological terms here, if there is one, in addition to wanting to hear answers to my questions in the comments above.
Thanks.
Like or Dislike:
0
Mbaker,
I’m not a Calvinist and most Calvinist’s I know say that the origin of evil is in fact a mystery. They essentially don’t answer the question. R.C. Sproul Jr. answers it by saying that God is the creator of evil. Sproul teaches that “Wrath” is an inherent characteristic of God and thus he creates evil so he has “objects of wrath” upon which to release his wrath.
I am an Arminian and I tend to accept a common Arminian argument that goes something like this. In order to have genuine love one must have the ability to freely choose between loving and not loving. If love is coerced it is not love. It was God’s intent in creation (both human and angelic) to create beings which were capable of having a love relationship with God an each other which reflected the love relationship which God was (the Trinity). In order for this love to be genuine there had to be the possibility that we would reject Him. This rejection and rebellion against God is evil and sin. Thus the origin of evil is not the creation of God so much as what results when contingent beings are created with the ability to reject God. Evil is actually is a necessary choice in order for their to be love.
As for what sin is. It is both the individual actions we take which are contrary to God’s will or violate His law and our condition. As a result of the fall we are all born with a disease which causes us to be in a state of rebellion against God and commit individual actions of sin. It is not so much that we just sin, rather the root of the problem is that we are sinners (I think me and Mr. Piper might actually agree on that point lol). And I agree with CMP when he writes elsewhere that it is not so much the individual actions of sin which causes people to go to hell as it is their remaining in a condition of rebellion against God.
Like or Dislike:
0
“But what does God say?
James 1:13: Let no man say when he tempted I am tempted of God, for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man.”
The Calvinist, being a twisted individual, will respond to this, “Of course God doesn’t entice you to sin–he forces you to sin by the internal compulsion of an irresistible decree.” They just can’t let go of their Satanic doctrine for anything.
Like or Dislike:
0
Michael,
Thanks for a thoughtful explanation of where you are on these questions. I too tend to follow that Arminian line of thinking more so than the other. It certainly makes more sense.
Of course, I’d like to hear from the other side too, regarding the questions I asked in my post above.
Like or Dislike:
0
John C.T., I figured someone might object to me dumping that large quote into a post, but here’s the deal: I felt like it addressed some elements of recent conversation. I guess I don’t worry so much about being perfectly on-topic when a thread is as old as this one…. which was in hibernation for quite awhile (but is currently experiencing a resurgence). Frankly, it’s been quite awhile since I read what Paul Copan wrote here (but I recall that I agreed with him)…. so, I may indeed have been off-topic without giving it much thought. But then, Paul is a friend of mine…. and I think he would extend grace to me for this ‘infraction’…. because he is an awesomely kind man.
.
As for interacting with this conversation…I spent my ENTIRE day working with my son on his science project…. and this on the heels of another report/project of his (!) …and we are in the midst of construction on our home…SO, I haven’t been much of a participant lately (here).
So, there you have my list of excuses for the dump-n-run post this morning…… but if you read it anyway, that was nice!
rey, I’m rather Calvinistic, but I don’t believe that God forces me to sin. Do you think you could tone down the hate-speech by the way?
My friend Paul Copan, on the other hand is of a more Arminian persuasion, as I understand, but we get along just fine! It’s funny how brothers and sisters in Christ can disagree on some things here and there, but still think highly of one another…. love one another, and pray for each other. I have a hard time respecting those who spit despising language at other believers, and who characterize them with evil intent just because they hold to a different perspective.
I think it might have been R.C.Sproul (senior) whom I heard say, “God didn’t create evil, but he created the potential for evil…. and, it is good that he created that potential, because all that comes from God is good.” At least that’s what I recall him saying.
Like or Dislike:
0
Those who are not Calvinists do not have a problem with the mystery of the origin of evil or the mystery of how the will works because they can point to something beyond themselves that gives evidence that the “will” does exist in a free sense. God has a free will. As traditionally understood, God does not need anything outside of himself and so was free to create or not create the universe (he was not caused to do so by some strongest desire). We know that “free will” exists because God has it, even if we cannot fully explain what it is or how it works. God could bestow the same sort of free will upon a creature, such as man or angels, and he in fact did so.
The fact that morality and goodness is an aspect of the very nature of God (that is, his nature defines what good is) likely helps explain why sin could enter and why in the new heaven and earth we will not sin. It does not appear that Adam was indwelt by the Spirit in the garden. In the new earth we will be fully indwelt by God the Spirit. Since God cannot sin, and we will be fully indwelt by the Spirit and in union with Christ, it seems we will participate in this nature to such an extent that we will not sin either.
Calvinists, however, have a problem that they cannot solve–except by throwing up their hands as Sproul senior does, or remaining consistent with the logic of their system–as Sproul jr. does. If God immediately and meticulously controls everything, and has eternally established the destiny of everything, then evil too must be part of what was destined to be and under his meticulous and immediate control. But we have statements in God’s word that he is not the author of evil, such as the verse in James (quoted above in several posts), or others such as Hab.1:13, “Thou art of purer eyes than to behold evil, and canst not look on iniquity” , or 1 John 2:16, “For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father”
If one is a Calvinist, then it seems that the approach of Sproul sr. is wiser and more biblical.
Cherylu, you are correct, Susan and I did break a rule by multiple posts, for which I hereby apologize. It is true that long quotes are not an enumerated rule, but I recall that CMP did comment negatively on that in one of his posts, but even if I am wrong about that, it is still not considered appropriate blogging. But that is past now, and posted, and I did read all four entries, and the subsequent interesting dialogue by Michael and mbaker.
Regards,
John
Like or Dislike:
0
Thanks, John CT, for a balanced look at both sides of the question.
I too wonder how that all fits in with predestination. If Adam and Eve were presumably the elect of God before the fall, how could they have fallen without some direct predetermined choice on God’s part being involved? Yet it seems from the account in Genesis they made the choice to rebel against God and sin themselves, just as satan did before he was thrown down from heaven.
And while I have no desire to start WW III with anyone here over this, I confess that one point presents a real sticking point in the whole Calvinistic view on predestination to me. It seems that following that to its logical conclusion, God, who predetermines who will be His from before the foundations of the world, would then also be the sole determining factor of who was destined to be evil or not.
Perhaps that’s why even Sproul, Sr. is unable explain it.
Like or Dislike:
0
mbaker, Scot McKnight (Jesuscreed blog) has this to say about the Arminian view of predestination (in his review of Olson’s book): “Myth #8: Arminians do not believe in predestination. Not so, says Roger Olson in Arminian Theology. Predestination, because it is in the Bible, is believed by Arminians. Here’s his point: predestination is God’s sovereign decree to elect believers in Jesus Christ, and it includes God’s foreknowledge of those believers’ faith. The basic Bible verse for Arminians is Romans 8:29 (with 8:28): “28 And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose. 29For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers.” Now, what this text says is that God predestines according to foreknowledge; and 1 Peter 1:1-2 says the same. . . . Essentially, Arminians believe God knows what humans will do and predestination is rooted in, or related to, that foreknowledge. Election, for the Arminian, is corporate: God chooses Christ; all in Christ are chosen. There is an individual meaning (foreknowledge of individual choices) and collective meaning (election of a people).”
It is interesting to note that Lorraine Boettner, author of “The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination” acknowledges that the early church fathers did not ascribe to the Calvinist version of the doctrine of predestination: “It may occasion some surprise to discover that the doctrine of Predestination was not made a matter of special study until near the end of the fourth century….They of course taught that salvation was through Christ; yet they assumed that man had full power to accept or reject the gospel. Some of their writings contain passages in which the sovereignty of God is recognized; yet along side of those are others which teach the absolute freedom of the human will.”
In this regard one may note that Methodius (260-315 AD) wrote “Those [pagans] who decide that man does not have free will, but say that he is governed by the unavoidable necessities of fate,
are guilty of impiety toward God Himself, making Him out to be the cause and author of human evils.” (The Banquet of the Ten Virgins discourse 8, chap. 16)
Justin Martyr- c. 100/114AD – c. 162/168 AD wrote, “Man acts by his own free will and not by fate.” (Second Apology, 7), “We have learned from the prophets, and we hold it to be true, that punishments, chastisements, and rewards are rendered according to the merit of each man’s actions. Otherwise, if all things happen by fate, then nothing is in our own power. For if it be predestined that one man be good and another man evil, then the first is not deserving of praise or the other to be blamed. Unless humans have the power of avoiding evil and choosing good by free choice, they are not accountable for their actions-whatever they may be . . . (First Apology chapter XLIII [43])
Like or Dislike:
0
John CT.
Good quotes. Thanks for all the information.
I’d say that pretty much ties into my views upon it as a compatabilist, regarding predestination, because it allows for both God’s sovereignty over all things, and the common grace which He bestows upon all mankind as a loving Creator, in giving us free will choices to either accept Him or reject Him.
The biggest problem I find with Sproul, jr’s basic assumption is it reduces the choice to an over simplistic view of God’s character – an He loves me, He loves me not kind of thing, depending upon His mood rather than upon His perfect character and holiness.
And to posit it as only a choice between a good and evil view of God’s purpose in creation is to in effect say: He may love me today if He’s in a good mood, or maybe not tomorrow if He gets in a wrathful mood. God obviously did not want to be placed in that position in the first place, since he told man from the beginning not to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
I’d say Sproul, jr. is in effect re-inventing the wheel.
Like or Dislike:
0
John C.T.,
I appreciate those verses and quotes too. This is a subject that I have trouble wrapping my brain around too. They certainly provide more balance to the subject.
Like or Dislike:
0
mbaker, I’m interested in knowing what kind of free will you believe in, because compatibilists do not define free will in the same way as an arminian / non-compatibilist. A compatibilist free will is still determined, and what is free is not the choice but the physical freedom to carry out an action.
And here are two more quotes from church fathers on the Biblical necessity and existence of a non-determined free will:
Irenaeus (ca. 130-202), “Men are Possessed of Free Will, and Endowed with the Faculty of Making a Choice. It is Not True, Therefore, that Some are by Nature Good, and Others Bad.” Against Heresies (Adv. Haer.) III.3.4), and “Man is Endowed with the Faculty of Distinguishing Good and Evil; So That, Without Compulsion, He Has the Power, by His Own Will and Choice, to Perform God’s Commandments, by Doing Which He Avoids the Evils Prepared for the Rebellious. (Against Heresies Book IV Chapter XXXVII [37])
Clement of Alexandria (190 AD), “Neither praise nor condemnation, neither rewards nor punishments, are right if the soul does not have the power of choice and avoidance, if evil is involuntary.” (Miscellanies bk. 1, chap. 17).
Regards,
John
Like or Dislike:
0
John CT,
I am not a strict compatibilist in the the sense that I necessarily believe everything is strictly written in stone, except for freedom of physical action, but in the sense that I believe God is sovereign over all creation, as Lord and not just as Savior. But, as a loving God, at the same time He does not make us robotic in nature, thus our ability to think and to reason for ourselves. Otherwise, we would be strictly creatures driven by physical instinct and action, as animals are, just following God’s predestined purpose for them.
However, I think that all men innately realize there is something higher than just their own free will choices, and doing their own thing, which is what drives even the most savage cultures to seek out a god of some sort to worship. In that respect, I believe God puts something in mankind’s spirit to look for something much higher than what we have or know here on earth. What we do about it is another story. We can either accept that inner longing in ourselves as something self-actualization can fulfill, as in the case of the new agers, or we can deny it altogether and become atheists, or we can accept that God is who He says He is. I can freely choose to accept God and who He says and have no problem having my identity both as a Christian and an individual.
I’m not sure what ‘camp’ that puts me in, and in truth don’t completely identify with any certain one, even though I probably lean more toward a combination of an arminian/compatibilist view.
That’s about the best way I can explain it.
Like or Dislike:
0
Acts 17:26-27 “and He made from one {man} every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined {their} appointed times and the boundaries of their habitation, that they would seek God, if perhaps they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us;”
If these Scriptures have been brought up here before, I am sorry, I don’t remember. Those two verses are ones that have spoken to me of man’s free will in seeking after God. The Calvinist position always seems to make much of the verses that say no one seeks after, or even can seek after, God. But I honestly don’t know how a person can get around one like this. This doesn’t seem to say in any way shape or form that no one will seek unless God elects him and then he can’t resist.
To me there is still much mystery involved in all of this. Like mbaker, I don’t think I necessarily fit in either camp. To believe in either a completely Calvinistic or Ariminian way seems to me to leave out other whole sections of Scripture that just can’t be made to fit either one.
Like or Dislike:
0
A related debate, not resolved, revolves around a question related to original sin and God’s involvement in it (or not): Even if Adam and Eve had not sinned, God would have become incarnate. I believe John Duns Scotus (Scotland, 1265/6 – 1308) was among those who wrote on this. He believed that moral propositions are contingent to God (God could/can decide what is moral), and that morality is impossible without libertarian freedom. Scotus was a Fransican and believed (as they still do) that Christ, the Word of God, did not become a creature, a human being, because Adam and Eve sinned. Rather, the divine Word became flesh because from all eternity God wanted Christ to be creation’s most perfect work, the model and crown of creation and of humanity—the glorious destination toward which all creation is straining. Hence, Christ would have been incarnated even if Adam and Eve had never sinned.
Supralapsarians such as Sproul jr., or J. MacArthur (JM: “Sin is something God meant to happen. He planned for it, ordained it—or in the words of the Westminster Confession, He decreed it. Evil and all it consequences were included in God’s eternal decree before the foundation of the world.” in Vanishing Conscience (1995), would not, obviously, agree with the Franciscans. However, the difference between the two shows that there is more than one way to skin the cat and that the calvinist TULIP determination is not critical to rightly dividing the Word of God and could, in fact, be wrong.
Arminians, non-compatibilists, do not have a problem with original sin and the sovereignty of God not just because of the free will to choose belief but also because of their deference to the sovereignty of God. God desires to have his creatures freely love him and to make moral choices on this earth, but cannot determine the wills of the creatures to do so—-for if he does determine that they will love Him, then he loses that very thing that he desires to have: love. However, God can overrule choices JUST AS WE CAN, at any time he wants. But when he does so the result cannot render the creature involved either loving or morally culpable.
For example, Paul Bundy, the serial killer, ended many lives against their will. The fact that those women had free will did not stop Bundy’s actions interfering in their lives. If we are crossing the road together, and you have the will and intent to continue crossing and do so, but I pull you back and save you from being run over by a car, I have interfered with your free will. A torturer could even put a knife in your hand, and force your hand to stab someone. God can similarly interfere with free will because He was, is, and continues to be an actor in this world. Consequently, He can make anything come to pass that He wants (i.e., prophecy), so long as it conforms to his moral nature.
Thus an Arminian (used loosely to refer to all non-determinists) does not face the problem exemplified by Sproul sr. vs. Sproul jr.
Like or Dislike:
0
Cheryl,
I’ve always struggled with those passages as well. On one hand Romans 3:9-19 seems to indicate that no one seeks after God while on the other hand numerous other passages such as the one you mention in Act 17:26-27 seem to indicate that people can “find” God. I find that ultimately this issue is inconclusive for either the Calvinist or Arminian side or for any other position one might hold. However, as an Arminian, they way I interpret it is that man, in his natural state, cannot search for or find God without some intervention from God. Despite this God in his grace and through the work of Jesus Christ is drawing ALL people to himself. Thus God gives every human being “enabling grace” which allows them to find Him, but they are free to accept or reject His “saving grace”.
Like or Dislike:
0
The recent posting storm on this thread has outstripped my ability to reply, but I just wanted to correct one major misapprehension:
This is wrong, I’m even tempted to say utterly wrong. Compatibalism by definition maintains free choice, since the “compatibility” is between “free choice” and God’s sovereignty. It also does not in any way refer to physical freedom; one can easily make a sinful choice without physical freedom, and vice versa.
The difference is that to compatibilism, the freedom is not located in the will, but in the individual who possesses the will.
Compatibilism defines “the will” as the name for a person’s power (or ability) to choose between alternatives. To “have free will” a person must make choices according to their own desires; to not have free will a person would make choices according to someone else’s desires.
Libertarianism requires that moral freedom be an attribute of the will itself, and be considered independently of the person as a whole. (I’ve even seen libertarians on this blog claim/admit that they would expect to see most people make decisions _against_ their desires, since they believe the will is free from the rest of the person, including the desires.)
-Wm
Like or Dislike:
0
I agree with “would have”, yes. But “should have”? Isn’t that incredibly presumptuous? You’re saying that God was immoral to allow that man’s eyes to be “interfered with”. I think you’re also implicitly requiring there that every evil in the world is a miracle caused by Satan, NOT caused in any way by God or God’s laws.
If the man’s eyes “should have” been that way, wasn’t God failing morally every single day of that man’s life?
That’s fine, and I’m largely okay with that; but is it enough for your theory of morality? I mean, if God truly has the authority to restrain or not restrain Satan, then his decision to NOT exercise that restraint seems to leave him open to your exact accusation.
I think “more likely” requires some actual textual support. All we know for sure from the text is that the blindness was intended for a future purpose, not for a past punishment; and if Christ’s work illustrates that purpose, we know that by the action of healing and speaking, Christ fulfilled the purpose of the blindness.
BTW: I hope you’ll accept that I don’t, either.
More in a moment.
-Wm
Like or Dislike:
0
When Joseph says “intended it”, what is he talking about? It seems that he’s talking about the evil that his brothers planned; the thing that he specifically called evil just before. It seems that just as Joseph’s brothers are planning that he be sold into slavery, God is planning the exact thing — EXCEPT that their goal is ridding themselves of him, while God’s goal is feeding His people.
Agreed entirely. But is God “doing” an evil deed when He plans that someone else will do an evil deed, but He will use it for good? I don’t think the answer is simple, but you seem to.
-Wm
Like or Dislike:
0
Among the numerous errors made by Wm Tanksley in the course of his several posts, one of the most fundamental is his misunderstanding of what free will and compatibilism are. WT is wrong in his assertion that a compatibilistic free will is not determined. Any intro text on philosophy that includes a section on free will (most do) will explain it, as will good on line sources.
The online Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy states that “A standard characterization of determinism states that every event is causally necessitated by antecedent events.” A person who is a morally responsible agent is not merely a person who is able to do moral right or wrong, but also one that is accountable for her morally significant conduct. Free will is understood as a necessary condition of moral responsibility since it would seem unreasonable to say of a person that she deserves blame and punishment for her conduct if it turned out that she was not at any point in time in control of it.
The Stanford Encyclopedia observes, correctly, that there are different ways of understanding and defining free will, not a single way. However, common to the various free will theories is the attempt to provide for the unique ability of persons to exercise control over their conduct in a manner necessary for moral responsibility. This characterization of free will in terms of control can be developed in two ways: (1) “an agent’s freedom over alternatives” and (2) “the source of an agent’s actions.”
The control over alternatives is often referred to as “the garden of forking paths”. Determinism provides that, at any time, given the facts of the past (including the identity, desires and character of a person) and the laws of nature, only one future is possible. “But the Garden of Forking Paths model suggests that a freely willing agent could have acted other than she did and, hence, that more than one future is possible.”
However, as noted above, the second way of understanding control (i.e., the control necessary to provide moral responsibility) is that “an agent’s control consists in her playing a crucial role in the production of her actions. . . . For instance, consider the choice to pick up a cup of coffee [agency] as opposed to the event of one’s heart beating or one’s blood circulating [a mere bodily happening]. In the latter cases, one recognizes events happening to one; in the former, one is the source and producer of that happening. Control is understood as one’s being the source whence her actions emanate. On this model, a Source model of control, one’s actions issue from one’s self (in a suitable manner).”
[continued in next post]
Like or Dislike:
0
As with free will, there are varieties of compatibilism. “Classical compatibilism is often associated with the thesis that the word freedom in the expression freedom of will modifies a condition of action and not will. For this reason, some writers advised burying the expression altogether and instead speaking only in terms of freedom of action (e.g., Schlick, 1939). . . . Free will is the unencumbered ability of an agent to do what she wants. . . . It is plausible to assume that free will, so understood, is compatible with determinism since the truth of determinism does not entail that no agents ever do what they wish to do unencumbered.”
This is the type of compatibilism espoused by Johnathan Edwards. Free will is not access to the garden of forking paths, but rather the freedom to do what one desires. Freedom of the will has to do with impedances or blocks to actualizing desires. The will is entirely determined and one will always do what one’s desires are, in so far as one is permitted by physical circumstances.
Calvinists thus make bedfellows with atheists / materialists. For obvious reasons, materialists describe us as mere bags of chemicals reacting in accordance with the laws of nature. Some still provide for moral responsibility by subscribing to compatibilism. Others don’t care and openly state that perceptions of “free will” (in the garden of forking paths sense) are mere illusions (e.g., Dawkins and Dennet).
Regards,
John
Regards,
John
Like or Dislike:
0
Wow, I had no idea that my remarks about being a compatibilist would touch off such a string of comments!
So let me correct some errors here myself: I explained my views in comment #193, only because I was asked my view on free will.
The scenario John CT has described is the philosophical definition. I in no way subscribe to the brand of compatibilism that is described in the Stanford paper. I simply use the term very loosely to describe why I do not have a problem in recognizing both God’s complete sovereignity and His gift to us of free will choices.
I thought I made that pretty clear the first time around.
So getting back to the subject of the post, how does this all tie in with Sproul, jr’s causal determinism regarding God creating evil?
Like or Dislike:
0
John C.T.,
Oh, give me a break.
Guess what? You make bedfellows with atheists & materials too! They believe that sunlight powers photosynthesis, and so do you!
That has got to be one of the most tired and substanceless rhetorical tricks. “You agree in part with some view we both reject! I get to play guilt-by-association! Or is it false-by-association?”
I hate it when Calvinists use it, I hate it when Creationists use it, I hate it when non-Calvinists use it, I hate it when anyone uses it.
Like or Dislike:
0
P.S. I would like to reply to the last things Wm and John C.T. said to me, but I haven’t gotten around to it.
Like or Dislike:
0
P.P.S. I should add that this isn’t always just a rhetorical trick.
Examples:
“Your theory of the gospel means that human works is part of the grounds of our salvation. You agree with Catholicism!” <– This could be a substantive critique from one Protestant to another.
“Your theory of ‘free will’ means that we’re just molecules in motion. You make bedfellows with atheists and materialists!” <– This could be a substantive version of what John said.
But:
“You believe in a form of determinism, and atheists and materials do, too. Therefore, you make bedfellows with atheists and materialists!” <– This is empty rhetoric.
It’s an empty trick unless you’re saying, “We reject those people’s beliefs because they believe X. And what you’re saying here amounts to X!”
Like or Dislike:
0
By “bedfellows” I mean, as do most people who use that phrase, that materialists and Calvinists believe the same thing about free will and determinism. Among other things, the comment is therefore an indication that when reading the literature on the topic one profitably use a wide range of sources. It is a fact that Calvinist philosophers and atheist philosophers use the same definitions and lines of reasoning in respect of compatibilist theories of the will.
I did not say that because atheists are wrong, so are Calvinist compatibilists. I never stated that we should reject the atheist beliefs regarding compatibilism simply because the beliefs come from atheists, or reject calvinist compatibilist beliefs because of their association with the same reasons coming from atheists (genetic fallacy or guilt by association fallacy). Consequently, there is no rhetorical trick at work, and you’ve spent 3 emails on an uncharitable reading of my post (i.e., assuming the worst and weakest interpretation possible), a reading which is in fact incorrect, and have not addressed the substance of the post itself.
Since my description / expression of the compatibilism argument is one that has been used for a few hundred years, there is not much to disagree with. What one could do, is argue for a particular form of compatibilism (and there are more than one), or argue that compatibilism is correct/ incorrect for the reasons you might advance.
Like or Dislike:
0
mbaker, in the sense that you’ve used “compatible”, every Christian could agree and indeed should agree. That is, God is sovereign and we have free will. And, of course, since it is logical thinking about life it counts as philosophy. However, that does not provide much information. To go further, and to understand what that means and whether it might affect how we live and how we might counsel others means additional, deeper reflection–i.e., deeper philosophy. We need to understand what is meant by “free will” and by “sovereignty”, among other things. Once one gets to those deeper levels, then the initial use of “compatible” is discarded and there is a long history of usage in which “compatibilism” refers to a specific way of understanding the terms “free will” and “determinism”, etc., and the relationships between these terms.
regards,
John
Like or Dislike:
0
I am well aware of what you are speaking of, John CT, and perhaps I should have chosen a more non-controversial term, such as perhaps explaining why I am outside of either Calvinism or Armianism, or compatibilism as strictly stated, which would lead us even further off-topic. Suffice it to say for now that I use the word compatibilism only in the sense of a descriptive adjective, not necessarily as an entire belief system.
Now that you have asked all of us where we stand on our personal beliefs, and made your replies to us accordingly, may I ask what are your beliefs? As you once noted to another poster, it is very difficult to reply to someone when you don’t where there they stand either.
And please understand something else about me – I enjoy vigorous discussion, on both sides, but I object to people stating outright that someone else is in error, at least from their point of view. To me that ends up in a shooting match, because it puts people on the defensive and ends any kind of productive discussion, or even the desire to continue one. We’ve already had that unfortunate experience on some of the other threads, and I am enjoying discussing things with you, so I hope we can keep it on a respectful and productive plane for all here.
Thanks.
Like or Dislike:
0
My view is that free will is non-compatibilist and partakes of the garden of forking paths. That would typically put me outside of TULIP Calvinism as it is conventionally understood, but still within the gospel (i.e., the good news of Jesus Christ does not entail a particular belief about one’s will). I say “typically” because it is logically possible that God could give us non-compatible free will except in the area of salvation.
Discussion is good, but there are some things things that are scientifically, morally and philosophically right or wrong in the black and white sense. Basic philosophical terminology is one of those areas, especially where there is a well established foundation of terms and ideas. “Compatibilism” is such a term, and hence WmT is wrong.
It is important to point out error or else the discussion cannot advance productively. It is not disrespectful to point out that someone is wrong, and it would be counterproductive to fail to do so. I did not, however, degenerate into name calling or snide comments, but instead provided data, reasoning and references to establish why I was correct and WmT incorrect—-which is the appropriate way of carrying on a vigorous discussion.
Regards,
#John
Like or Dislike:
0
#John1453,
I certainly agree it is okay and even necessary to address issues where we believe there is error and can back up our thesis with facts, as long as we understand that like Calvinism, and Armianism, both of which are also well documented, there are also areas of valid disagreement about compatibilism.
But, be that as it may, it has been an interesting discussion.
However, I am more interested in having some of the valid questions I asked above regarding evil answered than having to defend my personal theology to someone, which by the way is certainly not outside the gospel either, but rather, I think, encompasses it quite well.
Thanks.
Like or Dislike:
0
mbaker, I infer (hopefully correctly) that you are referring to your earlier post that “how does this [compatibalism] all tie in with Sproul, jr’s causal determinism regarding God creating evil?”
Sproul jr. and similar TULIP Calvinists (such as John Frame, see quote of him in post #8) go off track and become unbiblical when they pursue the logic of their version of Calvinism past the Biblical text instead of wisely stopping as Sproul sr. does. The logic of TULIP Calvinism and its description of God as meticulously controlling creation entails determinism with respect to our actions. However, the Bible is clear that we bear moral responsibility for our actions AND that God did not bring evil into existence.
Free will compatibilism is an explanation that claims that determinism and moral responsibility are compatible and that garden-of-forking-paths free will is not necessary for moral responsibility. Even assuming that it’s explanation and analysis of moral responsibility is consistent with the revelation of God in the Bible, it does not explain how the first evil can occur. If one sticks with the logic of destiny and meticulous control, it can only be that God introduced evil but is somehow not morally culpable or blameworthy. So go Frame, MacArthur, Pink, Sproul jr., etc. On the other hand, one does not have to stick with that logic. One can instead say that the Bible is opposed to that conclusion (God introduced evil) and that one will reject that conclusion on the basis that God does have a resolution for that contradiction/ paradox, but has not revealed how he can create only what is good and perfect, and be in meticulous control of what he created and yet also have evil. John Calvin, Jonathan Edwards, and Sproul Sr. take the latter, wiser, route.
The fact that some otherwise Biblical Calvinists have accepted and taught the former, does not mean that it is acceptable. Although I concur that the logic of TULIP Calvinism (i.e., determinism) entails God introducing evil, I accept the argument of Calvinists who refuse to take that step and who instead just say “I don’t know”. I think that sort of Sproul Sr. response is a weakness of Calvinism. But—-and this is important—-I let the Calvinists determine where the weakness of their argument lies. That is, I don’t argue, “Calvinism is wrong / less likely because it logically makes God morally responsible for the introduction of evil” (which is denied by most Calvinists), but I instead argue, “Calvinsim is wrong / less likely because it has no explanation for the introduction of evil”. Unless, of course, I were arguing against Sproul jr. and his particular version.
Regards,
#John (formerly John C.T. but now a John with a more unique moniker)
Like or Dislike:
0
JCT is wrong in his assertion that I asserted that a compatibilistic free will is not determined.
Let’s go again to what I refuted:
Now, what I disagree with there is that stuff about choice and physical freedom. I talked about both at great length. I didn’t say a word about determination.
Sadly, your post missed the opportunity to talk about the “many weaknesses” in my arguments, since you spent time refuting something I didn’t say.
This doesn’t even make sense. I can’t see it as an insult; it’s just incoherent. Yes, as you say, there are some atheists who are not compatibilists and some who are, and what of it? That may allow them to account for responsibility, but it doesn’t allow them to explain morality.
My point: compatibilism isn’t about denying the existence of “free choice”, contra your claim. Nor is it in any way about physical freedom; that definition may serve some limited philosophical purposes (frankly, I doubt it), but it doesn’t help with soteriological questions.
-Wm
Like or Dislike:
0
WmT stated “This is wrong, I’m even tempted to say utterly wrong. Compatibalism by definition maintains free choice, since the “compatibility” is between “free choice” and God’s sovereignty. It also does not in any way refer to physical freedom;”
WmT can only mantain his proposition by using the term “compatibilism” in a manner in which it is not used in the relevant literature and by ignoring the standard Calvinist descriptions of what “predestination” is. WmT. did not refute my statement that “A compatibilist free will is still determined, and what is free is not the choice but the physical freedom to carry out an action”, but rather appears not to have understood it.
The Arminian position is that free will is only free if its description includes the “garden of forking paths”. That is, a person is only free if they could, if they have the power to, choose between one or more alternative and exlusive courses of action (e.g., go to the kitchen, stay seated, go out the front door). The Arminian believes that God knows what the individual will in fact choose and do because of His foreknowledge. There are different theories about how God has this knowledge, and the scope and character of this knowledge.
The determinist denies this. All forms of Calvinism, except potentially those forms that use the concept of middle knowledge (some debate where middle knowledge theories are Calvinist, but that is not relevant here), are deterministic. They all (except middle knowledge theories) deny the garden of forking paths. All forms of Calvinism say that freedom of the will relates only to whether the will can do what it desires. If I desire to walk outside but am locked in a cell, then I do not have the freedom of the will to walk outside. However, if I have the desire to walk outside, and the door is not locked (and I can walk), then I will exercise my will to do that which I most desire and which is physicallly possible for me. For a Calvinist, the will always does what is most desired, but sometimes it is not possible to do what is most desired because of some physical impediment. Where the will can activate the body to do what is desired it is free; where it cannot then it is not free. However, the will is not free to select between alternatives because it always does what is most desired.
Indeed, determinists, i.e. including Calvinists, criticize the garden of forking paths model because they believe that model requires a will that is random, not subject to the individual, is incoherent, etc.
All atheists are materialists, and nearly all are determinists. They, the atheists, use the same arguments as Calvinists against non-compatibilism and the garden of forking paths. The source of the determination is different (atheists: bags of chemicals react in accordance with the fixed laws governing those reactions; Calvinists: God has predestined all that occurs), but the argumentation flowing from determination is the same.
Regards,
#John
Like or Dislike:
0
Okay, John, I kind of think I see where you are going a little better now.
I agree with your assessment that the Calvinistic argument pretty much refutes itself when it comes to actually claiming unconditional election on one hand and then stopping short of of saying “God did it” when it comes to His determining evil. That I would certainly like to hear better explained by CMP, who has identified himself as a Calvinist compatibilist.
Now here is where I agree with Wm T. Through definition alone, you seem to want to make compatibilism and determinism equal regarding soteriology. I do not see how they are because it would seem to me there would be a natural antithesis there.
For instance, if we are to claim God is sovereign over all creation, and everything was created by Him, for Him and through Him as Colossians states, where did evil originate? It evidently existed before the foundations of the world, i.e satan being thrown down from heaven, and being able to tempt Adam and eve in the garden.
Now, it would seem to me that would dictate that there was already a determined choice (God’s) between the knowledge of good and evil and eternal life in perfection with Him, prior to the fall, via the two trees already in existence in the garden. On that much we can agree.
However, there was a warning by God to avoid eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. So the fateful decision was a choice which involved a lot more than just physical function/freedom on Adam and Eve’s part. There obviously was a spiritual curiosity, which made them question if God was really letting them in all they needed to know. They acted not out merely out of physical function/freedom, because the fruit was looked good and they wanted something different to eat. The fruit was already available from the beginning. But they made a free will choice, when they were given another option because they thought with this knowledge they could be just as powerful as God in their own right.
Was that causal determinism on God’s part, after his stern warning? Or did Adam and Eve act as they did because of determinism on satan’s part? To use the argument there would be saying that satan was equal to God in cause and effect.
Was it merely that Adam and Eve had the physical freedom to do it, if they so chose? I think that would be a gross over simplification of the fall of man, because it would put them on a level of mere unthinking rebellious children, 9 although determined to be sure). Obviously if they could walk and talk with God personally they weren’t completely unaware of the consequences of their choices. That’s why I cannot accept the link between compatibilism, at least as Wm T and I are apparently meaning it and your thesis that it is soteriologically equal to the kind of compatibilism you are defining.
Like or Dislike:
0
“the good news of Jesus Christ does not entail a particular belief about one’s will” (#John1453)
It does if it is to truly be called “Good News” rather than “Bad News.”
“Good News! Jesus died for everyone who won a cosmic lottery but everyone else is damned no matter what they do.” That is not good news at all by any standard but Satan’s.
Like or Dislike:
0
mbaker, you have nailed the problem.
The problem with determinism is soteriological as well. A thoroughgoing Calvinist does not have a solution to the problem (the contradiction / antithesis / paradox) except to say that God knows the solution and we don’t. That is why Sproul sr. indicates that he does not know the answer and why he, apparently, leaves open the possibility of libertarian or non-compatibilist free choice for that first sin.
However, once the evil ball starts rolling, the Calvinists have much less of a problem. Given that Satan is evil, and that Satan does the tempting, and that Eve is apparently not yet indwelt with the Spirit and in full union with Christ, it is entirely possible that the temptation by Satan was impossible to resist, and that though God knew that He did not do anything to stop it. That still leaves the first sin, Satan’s sin. Given that he was created good and perfect (as with all God’s creations) how is it that he sinned? The Calvinist problem only moves back one step, but still remains.
Of course, the Calvinist response is that the doctrine of the sovereignty of God is so clear and strong and so obviously as described by Calvin that they cannot accede to the Arminian view.
Further to WmT’s posting, he states in post 197 “Compatibilism defines “the will” as the name for a person’s power (or ability) to choose between alternatives. To “have free will” a person must make choices according to their own desires; to not have free will a person would make choices according to someone else’s desires.” The first sentence (compatibilism defines the will as the power to choose between alternatives) is incorrect, for the reasons I pointed out in my post 200, in which I referenced the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (that’s only one of many places, but it’s easily accessible). The second sentence (choices according to desires) is substantially correct in that it refers to desires, but still uses the word “choices” which is not really an aspect of compatibilism. The last part, regarding other peoples choices is not really relevant, and I’m not sure where that comes from. True, a will would not be free if it was only able to do someone elses desires, but a non-compatibilist would also agree with that (i.e., that point is not a feature that would distinguish between the two views).
For me, but obviously not for CMP or WmT, I am not convinced that the Calvinist understanding of the sovereignty of God is correct or in accord with a proper understanding of the Word of God. If I were convinced, I would end up in Sproul sr.’s camp–but the analysis of sovereignty is a topic for another thread.
Regards,
#John
Like or Dislike:
0
Yes Rey, you are right in a sense. And I’ve read of reports of counsellors at evangelistic outreaches being taught not to tell the prospective convert that “Jesus died for your sins”, because one can’t know that until after someone converts. However, practically speaking most people who witness ignore the issue of will and make their presentation of Jesus as if the other person had a free will ability to choose and not as if God had determined and destined the outcome anyway. Plus, Jesus himself pitched his message as if people could accept or refuse, so one has a good example to follow. The crucial aspect is whether one believes or not; the explanation of why a person believed is aside from that fact and will not change the fact that they did (or didn’t) believe.
It seems intuitively appealing to argue that Calvinists are more likely to drop the ball on witnessing and the great commission (since nothing anyone does can increase or decrease the number of the elect)—and some do argue that–but I am not aware of any actual statistical data or reliable facts that would support that apparent intuition. Anecdotally, one can point to both non-witnessing Calvinists and great Calvinist missionaries, but anecdotes do not an argument prove.
There certainly is much greater evidence of the pastoral harm that comes from the Calvinist view of the origin of evil and election. However, Calvinists point to goods that also result from their view and to alleged pastoral problems in the Arminians view (and Arminians point to goods). It might seem that this also is a wash, but it appears to me that the Calvinist view has certain inherent pastoral problems even when it is properly understood and taught. That may also be a topic for another thread.
Regards
#John
Like or Dislike:
0
“However, practically speaking most people who witness ignore the issue of will and make their presentation of Jesus as if the other person had a free will ability to choose and not as if God had determined and destined the outcome anyway.” (#John1453)
Of course, because assuming that everyone has free-will to choose is the only thing that makes sense with all the sayings and parables of Jesus in the Synoptics (Matthew, Mark, and Luke). The whole notion of predestination is absent in them. We don’t find the Father in the parable of the Prodigal Son remote-controlling the Prodigal to leave and remote-controlling him to return. It makes no sense for the Shepherd to leave the 99 and seek the one lost sheep if he remote-controlled it to be lost. Why seek? Why not just remote-control it to come back? Again, the Parable of the Sower doesn’t present everyone as rock and some rocks are elect and when the seed touches them they become good ground whereas the non-elect rocks remain rock. No, it represents everyone as one of 4 types of ground that they already are based on their free-will choices prior to hearing the word. Again, in Matthew 22 the King doesn’t force the invited guests to make excuses and not come, but he does instruct his servants to invite new guests once those previously invited prove themselves “unworthy” (Mat 22:8) by their excuses. Nor does he remote-control the man who comes in with no wedding garment to come unprepared! Does he say to the man “I made you come unprepared so I could laugh at you”? Maybe in some Calvinist paraphrase, but not in any legitimate translation. The Pauline theory of predestination which accumulates somehow in the gospel of John and the general epistles as well, is clearly a heretical accretion and not a doctrine that came from Jesus Christ Himself.
Like or Dislike:
0
rey,
I am not a Calvinist, so I am not making this comment to defend Calvinism.
You made this comment, ” The Pauline theory of predestination which accumulates somehow in the gospel of John and the general epistles as well, is clearly a heretical accretion and not a doctrine that came from Jesus Christ Himself.”
If you believe what the Bible says about itself in II Timothy 3:16, that all Scripture is given by inspiration of God, you can’t believe that what is said in the Bible about predestination is a heresy. God certainly doesn’t inspire heresy! That seems to leave two other choices: you either believe that those parts of the Bible are not Scripture at all or you have to realize that they are but that there is something in our understanding of them in relationship to other Scriptures that is probably not correct. To me, the second choice is obviously the right one. After all, if we start saying we won’t accept certain parts of the Bible as true and accurate, we are certainly opening ourselves up to a dangerous slippery slope, aren’t we?
Like or Dislike:
0
“Compatibilism” in this context refers to the fact that “free choice” and “God’s soverignty” are entirely compatible when properly understood — that both are fully operational, God being fully sovereign over all His creation, and His creation including creatures who make, and are responsible for, free choices. This definition closely parallels the one given by Edwards.
You are free to establish your own definition of the terms, but I insist that you represent other people’s definitions fairly; and you are being neither fair nor charitable with me.
I agree. But there is no actual _thing_ represented by the “garden of forking paths”. It’s not present in reality, nor in the Bible. It’s a highly speculative philosophical concept. As such, it makes a poor definition.
This doesn’t distinguish libertarianism from anything else — even fatalists believe that. Fatalists differ from us by claiming that our choices don’t determine our outcomes. Libertarians believe that our choices are radically free of all constraint, even our own constraints. Compatibilists believe that our choices belong to us precisely because those choices are constrained by who we are and what we desire.
-Wm
Like or Dislike:
0
Wm Tanksley,
I have to admit that I have gotten lost in this conversation–it has been too deep for me at times! You may very well have given the answer to what I am wondering about and I have missed it.
You gave your definition of compatibilism: “Compatibilism” in this context refers to the fact that “free choice” and “God’s soverignty” are entirely compatible when properly understood — that both are fully operational, God being fully sovereign over all His creation, and His creation including creatures who make, and are responsible for, free choices.”
Are you saying that God’s sovereignty is functional in His very act of his giving men free choice–that this is what He sovereignly decided to do? Or are you saying that men make and are responsible for free choice but somehow that is still controlled by God’s sovereignty and determination of who they will be? I guess I am not sure of what your understanding is when you say God is fully sovereign over his creation.
Like or Dislike:
0
WmT said, “You are free to establish your own definition of the terms, but I insist that you represent other people’s definitions fairly; and you are being neither fair nor charitable with me.”
I am not establishing my own definitions. I am using definitions and concepts that are used currently in literature relating to discussions of free will and that have been used for hundreds of years.
WmT said, “But there is no actual _thing_ represented by the “garden of forking paths”. It’s not present in reality, nor in the Bible. It’s a highly speculative philosophical concept. As such, it makes a poor definition.”
“Name calling” something does not invalidate it. The “garden of forking paths” is a well known concept; there is an entire website dedicated to discussing it. Many, including Arminians, would disagree with you and believe that it is present in reality and in the Bible. As a concept, it has been around since the ancient Greeks. You may disagree with it, but your disagreement does not invalidate it.
Your responses illustrate why it is important that people who participate in or read this thread understand the nature of the disagreement between Arminians, moderate Calvinists (Sproul sr.) and unbiblical Calvinists (Sproul jr.). Arminians and Calvinists DO NOT mean the same thing when they use terms like “free will”, “choice”, “sovereignty”, etc. Other terms such as “compatibilism” do have the same meaning.
For an Arminian, and those of similar beliefs regarding moral responsibility, free will includes a real and possible choice between exclusive alternatives. For a Calvinist free will does not include such a choice. Calvinists, of all stripes, are determinists. Calvinists, however, believe that determinism is compatible with moral responsibility; Arminians do not.
Consequently, the first evil act is unexplainable from within the Calvinist belief system (as Sproul sr., John Calvin, etc. acknowledge). The first evil act is, however, explainable from within the Arminian system. The Calvinist and Arminian disagree, obviously, on which belief system is more rational and more biblical.
Discussion of these other disagreements between Calvinists and Arminians is not the topic of this thread. I am willing to continue such a discussion, if others want to, but I suggest it be moved to one of the previous Calvinist threads. I am also interested in further discussion of the unbiblical nature of the beliefs of Sproul jr., John Frame, etc.
Regards,
#John
Like or Dislike:
0
# John,
You have more than once said that the Calvinist most throw up his hands in regards to the origins of evil. This is not just a question that the Calvinist cannot answer (other than the answer God is not the author of evil) but it is unanswerable to anyone who believes God is omniscient . If God created Satan with the ability to sin, If God knew Satan would sin then He allowed for that sin and he planned accordingly. Satan’s sin became apart of God’s plan before Satan ever sinned. How is your answer different?
Like or Dislike:
0
Let me re-phrase that question, because it sounded accusatory, and because I’m a work in progress.
How can you answer the origin’s of evil without jeopardizing God’s omniscience? Can that be done and still be a reasonable answer or can it be considered an answer to the origin’s of evil if God‘s omniscience needs to be impinged on?
Like or Dislike:
0
No offence taken. My answer relies on God’s revelation that he possesses agent causation that includes the garden of forking paths. That is, God can choose one of several mutually exclusive paths. Creation is not necessary. God was free to create or not create. He had both options open to him and is not the slave of his desires. God chose to create (thereby taking one of the two mutually exclusive paths).
God could give this same libertarian agent causation to his creatures, including angels and humans. Calvinists believe that he did not. Arminians/ nonCalvinists believe that he did. Thus Satan had two alternatives before him: sin or not sin (well, possibly more, since there is more than one kind of sin). He chose to sin.
The difference between God and his creatures is that it is God’s nature that he cannot sin, but it is not part of the nature of his creatures at this time (well, I suppose it could now be part of the nature of the good angels, and ultimately it will be part of our nature).
[more to come later]
Regards,
#John
Like or Dislike:
0
“My answer relies on God’s revelation …..That is, God can choose one of several mutually exclusive paths.”
Could you show me an example in the bible of this? Not that God puts forth a choice to man but God brings about his will by several possibilities. I’m not saying he can’t but your claiming it is revealed, where?
If we are going to say this is part of God’s plan and that this is the way he plans, seeing none of us were present in his counsels of eternity past , it has to be specifically revealed. The bible gives me no cause to think that “Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. ” was one of several outcomes.
Like or Dislike:
0
Just disambiguating again: the rey above is not the same rey as Me, the Rey from the Bible Archive and Theologica.
Like or Dislike:
0
It is a well accepted interpretation of the Bible that God has revealed himself as one who is a completely self sufficient trinity and not in need of something external to himself. It is a conclusion built up from the Bible as a whole and not from a particular proof text. It is such a well accepted proposition among Catholics and Reformed and evangelical and Baptists that I have not set out the proof.
Thus, given the fact that God did not have to create but did in fact create we can conclude that God had two mutually exclusive paths before him, neither of which he was obligated to take by anything inherent in his nature. If he could do either, then His choice meets the definition of libertarian, non-compatibilist, non-determinative free will. That is, it meets the Arminian definition of free will and not the Calvinist definition of free will. As far as I am aware, most Calvinists would agree that God does have libertarian free will.
Where Calvinists and Arminians disagree is over whether God gave (or could give) such free will to his creatures (e.g., us, angels).
I don’t propose to set out the proof for God having libertarian free will as it would be going quite far off topic. In addition, I’m not as familiar with the literature in that area and have accepted the conclusions without much investigation (and of what I’ve read, I don’t currently remember the details).
Regards,
#John
Like or Dislike:
0
In answer to Cadis question in comment #223 and 224:
I believe if we look at the first sin, which was satan’s attempt to exalt himself above God we can see that in God’s omniscience, He would have chosen to have already prepared an alternative in advance, not because He had to, but because He chose to in His complete foreknowledge of first the heavenly rebellion, by satan and his angels, then the subsequent earthly rebellion they would cause by offering mankind another option to replace Him.
Therefore, it was because of his complete foreknowledge that God, did not react to sin after the fact, as is sometimes supposed, but planned for its ultimate defeat in advance of creation. As #John1453 has pointed out, the entire Bible points to this, since it prophesies throughout about the coming of Christ to reconcile creation back to God.
So we must accept that a completely sovereign God was never driven by a mere reaction to sin, (causal determinism) either through our choices. or through satan’s, but chose to offer us free will choices instead through His own sovereign grace, even as a unique and totally self sufficient God who really had no need to create, or for that matter to even endure anything outside Himself. I think that alone is an incredible tribute to the glory of God that he would even allow any of us a choice of what to believe, (or not) in the first place. And why I cannot accept Sproul’s, jr’s concept that God was driven to create evil because in His capacity as a judge He simply needed someone to pour out His wrath upon. If that were His focus, He could have just as easily proved it by choosing not to create us at all, since he already knew full well how we would react.
Why go to the trouble instead of creating a sacrifice for sin, in the form of His own son, Jesus Christ?
And certainly we must remember that we humans are created beings, unlike the angels, (including satan), who are spirits and who already resided/reside in heaven eternally as ministering spirits of God. This why the first sin of trying to exalt himself above God, was so severe that it got satan and a third of the angels kicked out of heaven, and why satan and His angels cannot return. Even in the process of having the full measure of God’s grace, they’ve already rejected eternal life with God by trying to replace Him with their own self-styled version.
So God, foreknowing all this in advance, made sure His plan for the ultimate good of his creation would endure and forever remain victorious before evil was ever chosen as another option to Him in the hearts of satan, or of man.
So rather than, in my view at least, questioning his omniscience, it actually proves His complete foreknowledge of how all His creation would ultimately respond instead, and His advance plan to counteract it, due to His own ultimate choices in the matter.
Like or Dislike:
0
“How can you answer the origin’s of evil without jeopardizing God’s omniscience?” (Cadis)
How does an omniscient God say, as in Genesis 18:21, “I will go down now, and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it, which is come unto me; and if not, I will know”?
The statement “and if not, I will know” clearly indicates that he does not already know. This ought really to be obvious, as it is clear that thoughts are by definition the processing of new information, and therefore no being who is beyond the ability to receive new information (i.e. to learn) can possibly have thoughts. If you know everything, you can’t think, because thinking presupposes an attempt to learn. Therefore, when God says “my thoughts are higher than your thoughts,” he admits to having “thoughts,” and by extension, to not knowing everything already. It would be interesting to do an exhaustive search in the Bible to see if God really ever says “I know everything” or if omniscience is only attributed to him by human speakers in the Bible, as when Peter says to Jesus “Lord, thou knowest all” (John 21:17) or where the disciples say “Now are we sure that thou knowest all things,” (John 16:30) It could also be observed the same omniscience is actually ascribes to Christians by John, when John says in 1st John 2:20 “But ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things.” With that verse taken into account, it becomes apparent that literal omniscience is clearly not the meaning of “you know all things”!!!! So, does the Bible really teach that God is literally omniscient at all, or is this altogether a misinterpretation?
(BTW, I didn’t realize the name Rey was so popular.)
Like or Dislike:
0
Guys, I am going to have to shut this one down, unless Paul says otherwise. It is too hard to moderate when a post is this old. Thanks for participating.
Like or Dislike:
0
[...] Philosopher Paul Copan takes Sproul to task on this point by citing that all which God creates is good (1 Timothy 4:4, James 1:17, which [...]
Like or Dislike:
0
[...] answers, “I don’t know.” However, his son, R. C. Sproul, Jr., as noted by Paul Copan, is confident that the origin of the very first impulse to evil comes from God. Perhaps Sproul Jr. [...]
Like or Dislike:
0
Hello, everyone.
Until yesterday, I wasn’t aware that so many people had commented on my RC Sproul Jr. blog posting. I thought the conversation gradually died down after my posting (around #71 in the first batch).
I typically get emails on any P&P posting in response to my blogs, but not on this one. So I aware of all of your engaging comments, and I won’t start to respond now. As an aside, Michael will be posting shortly my new piece on “Divine Exasperation,” which will may be a topic of interest to many of you. Indeed, it addresses another angle of the topic of God’s sovereignty, grace, sin, and human free will (in response to God’s initiating grace).
I asked Michael Patton to give me one more opportunity to comment before he closes down the discussion. I wanted to inform you that I plan to read all of your comments eventually–and that I’ll be interacting with some of the salient points in an essay I’m writing for a book on evil (coedited by Chad Meister and Norman Geisler). My chapter will be entitled, “Primeval Sin.” So be on the lookout for it in print—in a couple of years!! Actually, I’ll be presenting a paper on at at the International Society for Christian Apologetics in April 2011. (You can follow my itinerary at http://www.paulcopan.com for more details.)
Thanks, folks!
Like or Dislike:
0
[...] of sin, responsible for sin, and culpable for decreeing and bringing sin to pass (which renders R. C. Sproul Jr. a hyper-Calvinist [...]
Like or Dislike:
0
[...] and nature of God is atrocious and nefarious from my perspective, he is at least consistent (as is R. C. Sproul Jr., who affirms that God actually is the author of sin). John Piper, however, seeks to affirm [...]
Like or Dislike:
0
[...] Calvinists who, consistent with their Calvinistic theology, confess that God is the author of sin. R. C. Sproul, Jr., for example, in his book Almighty over All: Understanding the Sovereignty of God (which, clearly, [...]
Like or Dislike:
0
[...] of sin,” they are too quick to say, “No, God is not the author of sin.” [R. C. Sproul, Jr. openly admits that God is the author of sin.] And then they twist and turn and writhe on the floor, [...]
Like or Dislike:
0
[...] Philosopher Paul Copan takes Sproul to task on this point by citing that all which God creates is good (1 Timothy 4:4, James 1:17, which [...]
Like or Dislike:
0
[...] children of Calvinists become either non-Calvinists (the Schaeffer route) or hyper-Calvinists (the Sproul route). If you happen to be a level headed second generation Calvinist, there are lots of YCs who [...]
Like or Dislike:
0
[...] where did Adam and Eve’s inclination to disobey the LORD arise? If we accept the teaching of R. C. Sproul, Jr., we will admit that this inclination came from God. One will search Scripture in vain, however, to [...]
Like or Dislike:
0
[...] decreed by God. Most theological determinists deny that God actually is the author of sin and evil (R.C. Sproul, Jr., and those who agree with him, are [...]
Like or Dislike:
0
[...] In Olson’s defense, when some Calvinists attribute authorship of sin to God, as does R.C. Sproul, Jr., then I side with Olson. Typically, however, Calvinists — at least in speech and in writing [...]
Like or Dislike:
0
[...] filósofo cristão Paul Copan toma Sproul a explanar este ponto citando que tudo que Deus criou é bom (1Tm 4:4, Tg 1:17 que concorda fortemente com 1Jo 2:15-16), [...]
Like or Dislike:
0
[...] filósofo cristão Paul Copan toma Sproul a explanar este ponto citando que tudo que Deus criou é bom (1Tm 4:4, Tg 1:17 que concorda fortemente com 1Jo 2:15-16), [...]
More Comments: