I'd have to guess, however, that the entire unbelieving world and, likely, the vast majority of the believers in this world disagree with that assessment. Here, test yourself and see. In a debate this last Tuesday night Indiana GOP U.S. Senate candidate Richard Mourdock made this statement on the question of abortion:
You know, this is that issue that every candidate for federal or even state office faces.Romney's camp, who has endorsed Mourdock, offered this statement: "Mr.Mourdock's comments do not reflect Gov. Romney's views." The press has practically taken up arms at this "extremist" remark and seem ready to hang the entire GOP for it. The president has called on Romney to fully disown Mourdock for his "rape comments".
And I, too, certainly stand for life.
I know there are some who disagree and I respect their point of view but I believe that life believes at conception.
The only exception I have for – to have an abortion is in that case for the life of the mother.
I just – I struggled with it myself for a long time but I came to realize that life is that gift from God, and I think even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape that it is something that God intended to happen.
I was interested at the delivery, myself. Mourdock was clearly disturbed by his own statement. That is, he knew when he was about to make it that it was hard to swallow and wouldn't go over well. And I looked carefully to see what he claimed. The statement was about life, not rape. Using standard English, the subject of his statement "it is something that God intended to happen" is not rape, but life. Still, it's not clear if anyone actually heard that.
So we're left with a dilemma. Apparently it is not the position of Mitt Romney that life occurs by God's intent. Nor is it the position of Obama (quite clearly since he is by far the most pro-abortion president we've ever put in office). Nor is it the position of the unbelieving world or, apparently, most of the believing world. Therefore, it can only be concluded that life occurs by accident. "No, that's a leap." No, that's the only possibility. Surely you can't argue that life occurs by God's intent when it's not rape, but by accident when it is. That's as crazy as Rep. Todd Akin's stupid comments that women's bodies prevent pregnancy in cases of rape!
What is your response? Is life an accident or is it God's intent? Does life that occurs in a rape occur by God's intent or is it an accident? Does justice demand that we imprison the rapist and murder the victim of that rape, the unborn child? But the broader question is the one I started with. Is God Sovereign? Or is He only mostly sovereign, kind of handcuffed, tied down to His creation and sometimes overwhelmed by sinners? Mourdock's statement is that God is Sovereign and life occurs by His design. Is that false, or do you stand with the "extremist"? More to the point, is it more extreme to say that God is Sovereign even in matters of sin or that He is not sovereign?
________
As a postscript, I need to address the question I did not address in the post. By his words and by his subsequent clarifying remarks since, Mourdock did not intend to say that rape was God's will. I've been asked, however, "Do you see how that is offensive to rape victims and their loved ones, to hear someone saying, 'You know, don't you, that your rape is part of God's will ... that God's desire was for you to be raped, so that even that wrong could be used for God's glory?'"
First, this tells me that people (not just the questioner, but apparently a lot of them) were not listening. Mourdock argued that life is God's will, even if it occurs by means of rape. I don't actually believe that Mourdock believes in the Sovereignty of God. He just believes in a bigger view of God's sovereignty than most. Most would argue that pregnancy by rape cannot be God's will, so murdering a baby who is a product of rape is not wrong. So be it. If your view of justice allows for the imprisonment of a rapist and the murder of one of his victims, then you have, from my perspective, an odd view of justice.
But in response to the question, I would first point out that I stated at the beginning that Scripture quite clearly states that God intends to use the evil that men intend for His good purposes. It was undeniable in the case of Joseph. It was undeniable in the case of Christ. Should I then conclude that these are the exceptions, and that all other cases occur outside of God's control? Do I conclude that God "works all things after the counsel of His will" ... except when bad things happen?
The second question I would ask appears to have no answer. If we assume that God has no intent when evil occurs -- that evil occurs completely outside of God's will (with all the attending troubles with Scripture that such a position would include) -- then what are we to tell the rape victim? "Yes, very sad. No, no, God didn't intend it. It wasn't His will. Oh, sure, He could have intervened and stopped it, but He didn't. Sorry. Bad things happen. God was either unwilling or unable to prevent it in your case. Take comfort in that." Is that really the best we can offer? Is that really a superior position?
27 comments:
Stan...
It's a fine line. The claim is not that God causes sin, but that God intends sin to achieve His good purposes...
Stan...
The statement was about life, not rape. Using standard English, the subject of his statement "it is something that God intended to happen" is not rape, but life. Still, it's not clear if anyone actually heard that.
The problem people are having, Stan, is not with Mourdock's suggestion that he thinks God "causes life" but that, in the case of a rape pregnancy, one can't "cause" the pregnancy without also "causing" the rape. One can't get pregnant from rape if no rape happens.
Do you see the difference?
Beyond that, it appears you are saying, "Yes, God INTENDS the rape - it's not God's will, but God INTENDS that sin to achieve God's purposes..." Is that not what you are saying? That God intends rapes that happen? Your quote was "God INTENDS sin to achieve God's good purpose..." so you DO believe that God "intends" sin - rape, child molestation, genocide, bestiality... you appear to be saying that God "intends" them all to happen.
I guess maybe (or maybe not) it would help if you explain what you mean by "intend." Merriam Webster defines "Intend" - "to have in mind as a purpose or a goal." Thus, are you saying that God had in mind the goal of a rape or genocide so that, long term, some better goal might be achieved? Was the rape God's Plan? Was it what God wanted to happen? Was it God's desire? God's will?
I think that "intend" might be where people are getting hung up here. When I INTEND to go to the store, then I make it happen as a matter of will and my own power, unless something stops me. When a person INTENDS to kill someone, they make it happen as a matter of their own will and power, unless something stops them.
Do you mean "Intend" in that sense - that God plans on this happening and then makes it happen, barring being stopped by something? Or do you mean it in some other sense?
It sounds like you're saying something comparable to this human scenario:
Mr X loves his neighbor, Mr Z. It is Mr X's will to get along with Mr Z and love him and do only good for him.
However, Mr X discovers that Mr Z is planning an act of deadly terrorism in a few minutes. Not having time to get the police there in time to stop the deaths, Mr X devises a plan. While it is Mr X's WILL and DESIRE to love Mr Y, Mr X's PLAN is to kill Mr Y first, before Mr Y can kill others. It becomes Mr X's INTENTION to kill Mr Y (and it is something that Mr X WILL DO or cause to happen, unless he's stopped), even though that is not Mr X's will.
Is that something close to your hunch about this idea of God's Will versus God's intention?
"Is God Sovereign? Or is He only mostly sovereign, kind of handcuffed, tied down to His creation and sometimes overwhelmed by sinners?"
In the beginning God created the Earth and the living creatures upon it, looked over what He had done, and pronounced it good. But it seems that it really wasn't all that good being as He/it then became "overwhelmed by sinners", therefore He essentially decided to start all over again, didn't He? Except the inhabitants of the ark, He was so upset or disgusted by those sinners that He wiped them all out by a worldwide flood.
But, according to your understanding, that whole thing was all by His good and Sovereign design, right? And that mass devastation somehow brought Him glory, correct? I ask these questions of you because, also according to what I think is your understanding, isn't this whole Earth theatrical production being played out all for the purpose of His glory?
It would be nice if just those questions were addressed, but even nicer if this bonus question were also addressed: Who do you suppose is watching this grand production? If there is no one watching whom God desires to impress, what do you suppose might be the purpose of keeping people in Hell forever? Who do you suppose observes them and might learn something valuable by them still being held there 10,000 years down the road? If them being there is no longer bringing God glory, why not eventually forgive them and let the poor tortured souls finally come live with their creator and fellow creatures? After all, we creatures are repeatedly instructed to forgive one another.
Isn't it interesting that Dan's perspective on this question is far closer to the atheist's perspective than to the theist's perspective? "No, God is not actually in control. Stuff happens. Some (most? all?) is out of God's domain. He lets it happen. Nature, sin, it's all just there and it all just happens. Life itself is not a gift from God. It just ... happens."
Comfort to the rape victim? "No, not really. Stuff happens. God didn't plan it, control it, even allow it. He could have, perhaps, intervened, but chose not to. Your bad luck. Too bad. But rest assured that this position is far superior to the notion that God actually plans for the good. Now that is a bad idea."
"Oh, and, by the way, if you find yourself pregnant from a rape and we have a perpetrator and two victims, justice would demand that the perpetrator get prison time and one of the victims, the absolutely, totally innocent one, can be summarily executed. That is only right."
Let me see if I understand your questions. "Is it your belief that a being that doesn't exist actually has knowledge you don't have and plans outside of your comprehension that don't require your approval? If a being that doesn't actually exist is trying to impress no one, why does he do it?" How does one answer such questions?
Quick question, Dan. You obviously do not believe that God works all things after the counsel of His will. (I would have to guess that "God causes all things to work together for good" would be equal hyperbole.) Since God does not intervene in conception, nature, or sin, what do you believe? What comfort do you offer to people who suffer because God is either unwilling or unable to help?
Would you mind answering my question so I know what your position is?
Do you believe that God "INTENDS" rapes, child molestation, genocide and murder to happen?
Why would you not just give a straight answer to that question so we can be clear what your position is?
If it IS your position that God "INTENDS" these atrocities to happen, what do you mean by "INTEND..."?
That it is God's plan that God causes to happen?
Or that God allows to happen?
If you believe it is something that God allows to happen - but doesn't cause - then that would be closer to what I (and most of Christendom, I'm sure) believe and, if so, why would you try to demonize me for agreeing with you?
The standard, historical, orthodox, biblical position is that God works all things (which would encompass ... all things) after the counsel of His will. It was Joseph's position. It was Paul's position. It's mine. "Ordain", "intend", or even "allow" does not require "personally and forcefully intervenes to cause to happen". Oddly enough, that seems to be an elusive concept. It still requires that when evil occurs, God "intends" it for His good purposes, and that is the difference between your view and mine.
WHAT is the difference?
That God "works" all things together for the good? I could agree with that, unless by "works" you mean, "causes evil to happen."
So, again, why are you rejecting "my" position if it agrees with yours?
So, to be clear, you think God "INTENDS" rapes to happen, right?
BUT by "intend," you do not think that means God causes or plans or wills for it to happen?
Because I have to tell you, I think for most people, "intend" suggests a causative force. Seeing as how that is how it is defined. God INTENDED that child abuse to happen, God PLANNED for that child's murder to happen... it was God's GOAL for that child to be raped... that is how "intend" is defined normally in the English language.
If I INTEND to go to the store, then I MYSELF DO go to the store.
You seem to be suggesting that God does NOT INTEND rape in that sense, am I right?
Again, I think your PR problem is with the word "intend" or other words that suggests causation. If you're going to use that word (or Mr Mourdock or whoever), I would suggest making it clear that you do not mean "intend" in the normal English usage of the word.
You DID read that earlier post here about changing the definition of concepts, right?
I think you know on some level how ridiculous it sounds on the face of it to say, "You know, God INTENDED for your child to be raped and then have her head bashed in by a serial killer..." and for that reason you won't use those words directly, even though you WILL say "God intends sin for God's good purposes..."
Can you say with a clear conscience, "God INTENDS the rape of that child for God's good purpose..."? Or "God's GOAL is for that village to be slaughtered by terrorists..."? or do you recognize how wrong it sounds.
I would suggest that "allows" is a much different concept than "intends." In the English language. I suspect you know it, too, or else you would come out and answer these questions directly (ie, if you BELIEVE that God intends rape to happen, then say it. I don't think you are saying it because you recognize how very wrong that sounds).
Okay, Dan, as I understand it, your MO, your "rules of order", your demand is that you get to ask all the questions without answering any. Got it. Clear enough. Thanks.
For those who are interested, "intend" is defined in the dictionary as "plan or purpose". Nothing in the word demands "force or cause". I am using the word "intent" because that's what my Bible says. About a specific and definite sinful event, Joseph said to his brothers, "You intended it for evil, but God intended it for good."
Given the specific, sinful event at hand, who caused the event? Clearly it was the brothers. God didn't cause them to do it. Indeed, the text indicates two intents. One was theirs (evil), and the other was God's (good).
If it is mandatory that "intent" requires "force or cause", I suppose we are exactly at the place I was complaining about. Words have changed, meaning has deviated, concepts are lost, and I (and the Bible translators) am going to have to find another way of getting across that God plans for sin to accomplish His purposes but never causes it.
(Seriously, Dan, how is it possible that God would "intend" for sin to happen without "willing" it to happen. I mean, aren't the two terms synonymous? You seem to be arguing that God never wills sin even though He intends for it to happen. It appears, I suppose, that you're stuck on this "if plan then cause" false dichotomy.)
Readers, let me give you a silly example. Mom bakes cookies to give to her kids when they come home from school. They arrive and go into their rooms to do homework. (I told you it was a silly example.) She walks in with a plate of cookies and says, "Anyone want cookies?" What was her intent? What was her "will"? Did she cause them to choose to eat cookies?
Now, don't get bogged down in details. It's an illustration. "Intend" or "will" does not necessarily demand "cause". As a clear biblical example (as if Joseph and the Crucifixion aren't sufficient), what was God's will for Job? Who caused it? And, oh, you'd better believe, there are so many more where that came from.
You ridicule my use of words (which, oh, by the way, is the biblical choice) and then you offer nothing in response to my request. What's your alternative? God doesn't will, intend, plan, even without causing for rape, murder, or probably even a hurricane. It happens. In what remote sense does that fit with God working all things after the counsel of His will? You tell me it's wrong, but my position is the biblical one. You tell me, then, that the biblical, historical, orthodox position is wrong. What's right? "Allows" is not an answer. "Allows" requires "He knew it would come and didn't do anything to stop it. It was, therefore, His will ... His intent." That's unacceptable to you.
So, to be clear, you think God "INTENDS" rapes to happen, right?
BUT by "intend," you do not think that means God causes or plans or wills for it to happen?
I have not made light of your positions, I have asked questions to clarify your positions. I'm still just seeking some clarity. IF I get an answer, then I may make light of those answers, if I think they're silly, but so far all I've done is ask the questions.
DO YOU BELIEVE THAT WHEN RAPES OCCUR, GOD INTENDS FOR THEM TO HAPPEN?
WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY INTEND?
Your answer to that appears to be "To plan or to purpose..." So, you are saying that when rapes occur, God PLANNED for that rape to occur? It was God's PURPOSE for that to occur?
If that is what you believe, can you just say it? "YES, I believe that God INTENDS for rapes to happen when they happen. YES, I believe that women who are raped are raped according to God's plan and purpose."
If that is what you believe, why don't you just say it?
Dan Trabue: "So far all I've done is ask the questions."
Yes, that's right. No answers. No give and take. And even though I've repeatedly answered your questions clearly, completely, and even with biblical references, you keep "asking questions to clarify". Two things are abundantly clear. 1) This isn't a dialog. In a dialog there is give and take, questions asked and answered. In this "exchange" it has been all "I demand answers to my questions and because your answers are not worded in the format I demand, you haven't answered." Hey, I've even asked for clarification of what you mean when you say "intend" since it's the word Scripture uses. But no answer is forthcoming from your end. I'm required to answer and you're not. I've given answers and you won't accept them. 2) As is apparently very often the case, you use words in a radically different way than I do. I understand "marriage" to mean what it has always meant and you understand it to mean something different. I understand "intend" to mean what the Bible says when it says that God intended an evil act for good and you understand it to mean something the Bible does not. We have come to the brick wall of common language.
Since I've stated it as many ways as I can and it isn't geting any clearer, we are, sadly, once again, finished here.
(For reference, 1) you haven't answered any of my questions at all -- haven't even tried, 2) and I answered yours. From this last comment refer to, in the order that you asked, my answers at 1:16 PM, 1:16 PM, 1:16 PM, 1:16 PM (where I even gave a definition of "intend" ... from the dictionary). The answers weren't clear enough?)
To all readers, please note. I haven't said anything new here. Kevin Drum, a writer for the politically left Mother Jones, disagreed with Mourdoch but said, "Can't we all acknowledge that this is just conventional Christian theology?" Further, "What I find occasionally odd is that so many conventional bits of theology like this are so controversial if someone actually mentions them in public." Amy Sullivan, writing for The New Republic, made it clear she wasn't defending Mourdoch, but agreed with me that he was not arguing that rape was God's will. "I don’t think that politicians like Mourdock oppose rape exceptions because they hate women or want to control women," she said. "I think it’s pretty clear that Mourdock is referring to a life that is conceived by a rape. He is not arguing that rape is the something that God intended to happen." She goes on to say, "This is a fairly common theological belief, the understanding of God as an active, interventionist deity."
Some would like you to think I'm far out there. These people seem to understand, even if they don't agree, that it's standard biblical fare. That Christians would argue against it is beyond me.
Stan,
thanks for writing what I've been thinking since this blew up.
Any honest reading/hearing of his words makes it clear that while the rape is evil, the life conceived thereby is not.
As in the fictional story of Joseph you cite, many evil things end up bringing goodness. I keep thinking of what Corrie ten Boom or Joni Erickson Tada would say about this subject.
The problem is that in this case those on the left get you shout, "SEE HE IS IN FAVOR OF RAPE" or "HE THINKS GOD MAKES RAPE HAPPEN" or other nonsense.
The best part is the fact that we get to use the word "RAPE". It's one thing to say that God can make something out of something as evil as RAPE. It's another to talk about how it's possible that God can take the "evil" of the two bulging disc's in my spine and have something good come from the massive disruption of my life caused by this. It's an equally valid example, just not as emotionally manipulative as saying RAPE early and often.
One a slightly different, but related topic, didn't we just discuss this convenient adherence to the dictionary definitions when advantageous to ones argument.
Anyway, thanks. I know that whole sovereignty of God thing can get contentious.
Just to be clear, and answer the original question you posed (I believe I'm the first to do so).
Yes, God is sovereign.
Yes, we did talk about the malleability of adhering to dictionary definitions. Another fine example.
The Sovereignty of God can indeed get contentious, but until someone 1) comes up with a biblical explanation as to why this is not what the Bible says and 2) comes up with better comfort when things like bulging disks or job loss or, yes, even rape go wrong, I feel the need to stick with it. You're welcome.
Craig, did I read that right? You believe the story of Joseph is FICTION?
David, Craig will correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe he meant "what opponents will call fiction".
It is interesting to me what some prefer to believe are "mysteries" of God. This subject describes one legitimate mystery: how evil can be intended by God for good. I'm willing to simply accept it without putting my mind through the torture of trying to explain the fine details of God's Master Plan. It hardly constitutes a duty of mine to do so. I know I'm instructed to have an answer for my faith, but I'm not sure I'm required to have one for these types of "mysteries".
Yet, I would point to the story of Jesus being questioned about a blind man and what he or his ancestors did to cause his blindness as holding an answer. How might a woman's response to her rape-caused pregnancy reflect the teaching of that story?
It is true that God purposes -- His reasons for allowing evil to occur -- are a mystery to us. But that's not really so mysterious. I mean, it is a mystery to a kid why his parents don't let him drive at 8 when he's perfectly capable or why her parents take her to the doctor where they poke her with needles. The lesser doesn't always know the thoughts of the greater even in human conditions. When people ask me, "Why did God allow ...?", I generally don't try to answer. He didn't share it with me. Why should He? I only assume it's good and only assume that because He did share that with me.
To me, Sovereignty isn't a problem because I have absolute faith that ALL things are done for His glory. I don't need to know how it works, I just know that God has told us it does, so it must.
From reading these, I get the impression that some of the views stated sort of "box God in". But if you just take Genesis, you see that from the beginning, God gives freedom to created beings--freedom to choose, and do good or evil. He gave freedom to the angels prior to man, and some of them chose evil.
Whatever the reason, God saw that He had to deal with evil within high beings who had been given the freedom/power to choose. Human history is the account of this plan--of human beings being overwhelmed by it and offered a way out.
God is in control and grants man freedom in a controlled physical environment governed by laws of space and time that limit the evil one man can do. He also limited the evil that Satan could do to Job.
If you believe the bible, God does NOT know which choice you will make. Remember when he tested Abraham and after Abraham passed the test, God said, "Now I KNOW...."
God could know every detail, and force every action but the Bible shows He is not that way. The flood grieved God because He saw the high increase of evil. It would indicate he hadn't expected it to be so bad, since he considered ending the human race. But Noah found favor....
God can be surprised---"Jesus marveled, I have not found faith so great....etc."
God can be pleasantly surprised as he was with Ahab when he fasted and humbled himself, and God changed his mind about his punishment. When you or I choose to repent of a wrong action, and yield to Him, he is pleased. Sometimes He waits patiently for this.
But all of this is within God's granted freedom. It is not in spite of His will. His will is to grant that freedom. If I grant my teenagers freedom to go out to an event and tell them what they should behave like, and they disappoint me, I am not complicit in their wrong decisions. Yet I may have told them if they do disobey, they are grounded for a month. If they do well, they will have good results. I am in control whichever choice they make. I know the end result of either choice. And I am also thinking of their character and how it is being formed for the future.
Some would say, "You limit God's sovereignty." But don't you limit God when you say He can't grant freedom to his created beings? He has a purpose and a plan, but human choices are crucial to it. You and you alone are responsible for what you say and do, good or bad--else there could be no honest judgement. God is not complicit in the evil men do. Thankfully He has made a way of escape for us all in Jesus Christ because he foresaw all the choices possible and made provision.
As to God's glory, that's for us to share in. Once you discover that God is love and does love you; you realize that he wants to share his exultation (glory) with you.
As to hell, it's another subject with no space here to go into it.
Try this link to see something that is sorely needed today:
http://www.amazon.com/Two-Views-Hell-Biblical-Theological/dp/0830822550/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1351717253&sr=8-1&keywords=two+views+of+hell
Small Sol: "If you believe the bible, God does NOT know which choice you will make."
In your version (your understanding of the Bible), then, God is not omniscient, and any claim that He is would be counter to the Bible. That, of course, would also be counter to other Scriptures as well as the historical, orthodox understanding of Scripture and the nature of God. It is perfectly compatible with new, unorthodox views ... views I do not hold.
Omniscient means all knowing or all wise. God knows you have a choice. He knows it is A or B or C etc. When you make the choice, he knows what choice you made.
Omniscience means "all knowing". You contend God is "all knowing", but "does NOT know which choice you will make." "All knowing" and "does not know" are mutually contradictory. You will need to redefine "omniscient" so that it doesn't mean all knowing (which many have) and decide against the longstanding, traditional, orthodox understanding of God's absolute omniscience (where God actually knows everything) to arrive at your version. You'll also need to figure out an answer to the many Scriptures that contradict your view. Note that I'm not saying you can't. I'm just pointing out that your current version is contradictory.
Post a Comment