Audacious Intent

Recently I asserted that God is Sovereign. By "Sovereign", I included the assertion that God "intended" sins to occur that He would use to accomplish His good purposes. Now, by no means was I suggesting that God causes sins to occur. By allowing a sin to occur which He could prevent (Gen 20:6), I would say that 1) God intends sin without causing it and 2) He intends it for good. Never suggesting that sin is good, it is still my contention that God uses the evil that men do for His good purposes.

Understandably, this wasn't well received. It was not acceptable. "These things cannot be!" I say "understandably". Every moral person will balk at the suggestion that God plans for sin to occur while still holding it as sinful and without causing it because, well, sin is sin. After all, "God is not the author of sin", is He? I understand that response. So, why in the world would I make such an outlandish assertion?

I will offer two reasons. First, and most importantly, I read that, as an overall statement, God "works all things after the counsel of His will" (Eph 1:11). Now, I understand "all things" to mean, well, all things. And "all" would include evil. Further, I read that, when faced with his brothers who sold him into slavery, Joseph said, "You intended it for evil, but God intended it for good" (Gen 50:20). In this statement there are two intents. One is evil, and those who intended evil are culpable for that evil. The other, however, is God's intent. That intent is for good. And that tells me that God intends evil for good. That does not tell me that God causes evil for good, but that He sees it, anticipates it, and when it fits with His purposes, allows it. Intent. I read that, speaking about Jesus's impending betrayal by Judas Iscariot, Jesus understood that it was 1) predetermined and 2) that Judas was culpable for His actions (Luke 22:22). God's intent without cause. I read that God actually "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" (Acts 4:27-28). Did you get that? God put Herod, Pilate, the Gentiles, and the Jews in place to perpetrate the worst sin in all history. That sin was "predestined". They were culpable for their sin. But it was God's plan. His will. His intent. Why would I have the audacity to claim that God intends sin for His good purposes? Because that's what I read repeatedly in my Bible.

Look, you can start from what you think you know, what you think God is or should be like, what you think morality should be, or you can start from what God declares Himself to be and, following on that, what He says is good or bad. I guarantee you your selection of a starting point will lead you to a radically different conclusion than the other would have. So I choose to operate from the basis of "God said" (rather than "Did God say ...?") and run with those things He said about Himself and assume those to be true. With that basis, I can then filter other things in Scripture, in my thinking, in life that will certainly lead me to conclusions that do not conform to standard human thinking. And, in truth, that actually gives me some measure of comfort because if I ended up on the popular side, I'd do so against Scripture's repeated claim that the world hates God and His people. I, therefore, understand that my claim is not popular, but I am required to operate from the revealed nature of God before I operate from my own personal feelings about what should or shouldn't be. Indeed, to me it is pure audacity to claim that my feelings and perceptions trump God's clear Word.

There is a second reason, as I said. That one is a logical, practical one. Scripture says "God intended it for good", where "it" in that quote was the evil Joseph's brothers did to him. Paul says that God works all things together for good to those who love God. If God works all things after the counsel of His will and works them for good, what am I to conclude when bad things happen? Logic would dictate that I conclude that those things are "after the counsel of His will" and that, although they are indeed evil, God intended it for good. Practically speaking, then, the answer I need to hear when bad things happen to me is, "Yes, that was evil and it's painful and regrettable, but rest assured, in the final analysis, that God will work that for good according to His purposes."

Consider, then, the alternative. If God does not intend (will, plan, expect, allow) evil to occur, then it occurs outside of His will, intent, plan, expectations. He could prevent it but doesn't. That means that either God is not willing or able to act. Maybe He didn't see it coming in time. Maybe His hands are tied by His prior commitment to Human Free Will. Maybe He just doesn't care enough about the little things. Here, let me restate that. He is either unloving, not omnipotent, not omniscient, not good, or not sovereign. These are the alternatives. If evil happens outside of God's will and intent, then God's will and intents are being subverted by His creation. That's the only alternative. And I don't know about you, but for me, the alternative doesn't help.

That doesn't work for me. It doesn't align with Scripture. It isn't logical. It isn't practical. As many problems that the claim that God intends for evil to occur for His good purposes causes, the alternative causes far, far more problems. If God does not intend evil for good, then Joseph was wrong, Job suffered outside God's will, Jesus was mistaken about Judas Iscariot, the believers in Acts were wrong about God using those around them to carry out the Crucifixion, and God is not God. Now, maybe that works better for you, but it doesn't work at all for me. So, I'll stick with the "audacious" claim that I think is the only biblical, logical, reasonable, practical position to take. Feel free to take your own.