Like Button

Thursday, November 01, 2012

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.

35 comments:

Dan Trabue said...

Stan, I ask you questions because I think we probably agree. You insist that we don't, I think, but I think we do on the MEANING of what you're saying. We just disagree on whether you're using "will" and "intend" in the proper English manner.

We BOTH agree...

that God does not cause evil.

that God does not want evil to happen.

that God doesn't push or encourage evil to happen.

that evil DOES happen because people choose to do wrong and God allows it.

that God can take even evil circumstances and good things can come of it, by God's desire.

Am I correct that we agree on each of those points? If so, we agree on the ideals.

Where we would disagree is whether something that happens that God doesn't want to happen, that God doesn't cause to happen, that is outside of God's desire for us... if we can properly use the English words "God's Will" for something that happens that God doesn't want and doesn't cause or push or encourage to happen... and whether we can rightly use the English word "intend" for something that God does not cause, encourage or want.

Where am I mistaken, or are we in agreement except for some English usage?

Dan Trabue said...

Where we DO actually disagree, I'd suggest, is in how you treat disagreement over biblical interpretation. You say things like...

That doesn't work for me. It doesn't align with Scripture.

...as if the Others are deliberately rejecting Scripture and by extension, God. What would be more helpful, I'd suggest, is for you to point out, "That doesn't work for me. It doesn't align with Scripture as I understand it..."

We love God. We love the Bible. We just don't think (and you agree) that every word in the Bible must need be taken as a literal word that must only be used, even if it contradicts other (to us) plain teachings of the Bible.

The point, Stan, is NOT that we disagree with the Bible, but - LIKE YOU - we look at the whole of the Bible and see that God does not cause sin, God does not encourage sin, God does not WANT sin, when sin happens, it happens outside the will of God... we see that and think, "Okay, using the English words 'will' and/or 'intend' do not make sense in this context... they must have been used more metaphorically or with some poetic license in the original text..."

We're all seeking God's will, striving to rightly understand God's will as revealed in Scripture, we're just disagreeing over English usage of a couple of words, in this instance. I think it is very helpful, respectful and of God's grace to make that clear, rather than implying that those who disagree with you, disagree with the Bible.

At least in this case, where we appear to be saying the exact same thing. And really, in all cases.

David said...

I think that if God were a "hands-off" God and left humanity completely to our own devices, we would have wiped ourselves out long ago. I've heard it said that humanity isn't nearly as bad as it could be because of the restraining hand of God.

Stan said...

Sorry, Dan. You're much more ... creative at Bible reading than I am.

When I read that God "works all things after the counsel of His will", I understand that to mean all things. Thus, while there is a part of God's will that doesn't want sin to happen (as evidenced by His counter commands for sin), it does happen according to His Sovereign will. That is, we agree that He doesn't cause it or "want" it, that people choose to do wrong (rather than God causing them to do wrong), but, in the ultimate sense, it is God's will.

My point in the post was that Scripture indicates this, logic dictates it, and, in all honesty, in the final analysis, I need it. One commenter on the previous post assured me that Man has Free Will (given by God) and, as such, God doesn't know what Man will do. In the next breath he assured me that God was still omniscient. That doesn't work for me. It doesn't align with Scripture.

By the same token, you assure me that this stuff happens apart from God's will without offering an explanation about how things that happen outside of God's will are worked "after the counsel of His will". You assure me that God does not intend for sin to happen without giving a reasonable explanation of how God intends good from evil without intending it. Thus, like that other commenter, you're holding in tension two opposing statements. Somehow "God doesn't intend/will/plan/purpose evil", and He "allows" it. It doesn't answer how He allows something to occur that is outside His will and still be Sovereign, working all things after the counsel of His will.

In other words, I've given my biblical reasons for where I stand. I have yet to hear a biblical reason why it's wrong. So when I say it "doesn't align with Scripture", I've explained why. No one has yet explained why the opposing view does align with Scripture. "It's merely your hunch" isn't an explanation.

Dan Trabue said...

Biblically speaking, God does not cause evil, God does not encourage evil, God does not WANT evil to happen, either by us or to us.

Do we agree on that?

IF that is true (and I think clearly, biblically speaking it is a sound conclusion - as well as logically) then to suggest that God "wills" something to happen does not make sense, given the English definition of the word, "will."

Will (MW) intransitive verb: To have a wish or desire

Or: disposition, inclination

Given those definitions of the term, to suggest that God WISHES for a baby to be raped by a splintered broom handle, or God DESIRES for a baby to be raped, or that God is disposed to have a baby raped, or God is inclined to see a baby raped... none of those make sense from an English language point of view, given that God does not want us to sin, that God does not cause or desire evil.

My problem is with your English, not your Bible beliefs, in this case.

Since you and I agree (don't we?) that God does not cause, encourage, want or promote evil/sin to happen, (but that God does allow it), I don't think you can say God opposes evil AND AT THE SAME TIME "wills" for it to happen or "intends" for it to happen, given the English definition of those words.

But tell me, Stan, are you disagreeing with my position (which, language aside, appears to be the same as yours) and, if so, on what point (beyond the English definition problems)?

You make a pretty big deal about changing language concepts, but here, you appear to be using "will" to mean something other than the standard English meaning. What is your definition for "will.." when you refer to God's "sovereign will..."?

You appear to have two different definitions for the same word.

God's WILL is for us not to sin, for evil NOT to happen

BUT

Sometimes, it IS God's "sovereign" will for evil to happen, so that other stuff can happen.

Isn't that your position and, if so, what does that mean? How are you defining "will" when you place sovereign in front of it?

Dan Trabue said...

Stan...

Dan. You're much more ... creative at Bible reading than I am.

I believe that God does not DESIRE or WANT evil to happen.

I believe that God does not MAKE or CAUSE evil to happen.

I believe that God ALLOWS evil to happen, though.

Specifically where in what I specifically believe am I being "creative" in my Bible reading, because it appears that I agree with you on this point.

Stan said...

Well, Dan, that's exactly what I'm talking about as creative Bible reading. God works all things after the counsel of His will, but not all things are His will. Very creative. God intends good from evil, but God does not plan/purpose/will evil. Very creative. He allows it but He doesn't will it. Very creative.

My problem, you say, is my English. Your problem, on the other hand, is your logic. He is sovereign while stuff outside His will is going on. Things happen outside His will. People do things God never planned, intended, or willed. And He's still Sovereign. He works all things together for good, I suppose, but it's a tough job given that not all things are His will.

Look, here's where I cannot even begin to fathom your position. God "allows" (your word) evil to happen. It's not in any sense of the word His "will". He allows it but does so against everything that He is. In what remotely possible sense is He, then, sovereign? Stuff happens that He doesn't want to happen in any way, shape, or form. In what possible sense can it be said that He works all things after the counsel of His will when a good portion of those things are not His will?

All of this requires much more creative Bible reading than I seem to be able to muster. I will point out, however, that at no point in any of your discussions have you offered one, single, solitary reason why the Bible agrees with your position, so maybe it's not the Bible about which you're being creative.

Dan Trabue said...

Stan...

I will point out, however, that at no point in any of your discussions have you offered one, single, solitary reason why the Bible agrees with your position

I've done so several times. I guess you keep missing it. Let me be explicit and repeat what I've said so you don't miss it:

BIBLICALLY SPEAKING, God does not cause evil, God does not encourage evil, God does not WANT evil to happen, either by us or to us.

I haven't pointed out the specific Bible verses because I presume you know of which I speak. Would you like me to point out (again) the verses that says God does not cause evil, does not want evil, does not encourage evil? Or do we agree that this is sound BIBLICAL (as in, FROM THE BIBLE) teaching?

Stan...

God works all things after the counsel of His will, but not all things are His will.

So, are you stating clearly and for the record that sometimes RAPE IS GOD'S WILL?

I, and I think most Christians throughout history, would stand by the notion that rape is NOT God's Will.

Again I ask: What definition of "Will" are you using, because you SEEM to agree that God does not want to see a baby raped, God does not CAUSE nor ENCOURAGE a baby to be raped, you seem to, on one level, agree with the majority that rape is not part of God's will.

But then you add "sovereign" and apparently change the definition of "will" to... what?

What specific definition are you using? If you could answer that, we might be able to get on the same page, because on every other point, we appear to be IN TOTAL AGREEMENT. And yet still you chastise me for, what? Agreeing with you?

Stan said...

I guess you don't understand what I mean by a biblical argument. I've offered Scripture that makes a certain statement. You haven't offered any biblical reason why I'm wrong. You referenced the term, "biblically", but haven't offered any biblical support for your idea that things happen outside of God's will. For reference, please note that "want" and "will" are not necessarily the same thing. We routinely want something but choose something else. Hopefully it's something better. In God's case, it would always be something better.

I am stating, have stated, repeatedly, with biblical references and with biblical texts and with logical reasons that all that occurs occurs by the will of God.

The temptation on your part, of course, will be to ridicule and scoff while my side remains the straightforward, historical, orthodox position of the Church. From the Westminster Confession, for instance, "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." That's what I've said, too.

Dan Trabue said...

What definition of "will" are you using?

Stan said...

From a variety of dictionaries:
"The faculty by which a person decides on action"
"to choose"
"intent"
"volition"
"to consent to"
"ordain"
"to determine"

That one.

Dan Trabue said...

So God "chooses" rape to happen?

God "determines" that a baby will be raped and have her head bashed in?

Is that your position?

Stan said...

My position. The position in all the Scriptures I listed. The historical, orthodox position. The Christian position. Yes.

Again, when you offer some biblical reason why that is not true (that, you know, aligns with Scripture), then we have something to talk about.

Dan Trabue said...

Looking at your definitions, I still don't see how they are reasonable in context of God's Will. Consider...

God's Will = God's "to choose" (or perhaps God's Choice). So, it is God's CHOICE that a baby get raped. But if God doesn't cause it, doesn't endorse or encourage it, how is that a "choice?"

If my son "chooses" to go to Harvard, but does not apply there, does not contact them to make his case why he should go there, and doesn't even graduate from high school, in what sense does his "choice" mean anything at all? Could you address this problem with your definition?

Or, if God's Will = God's consent, are you saying that an evil person says, "God may I rape this baby with a broom stick?" And God says, "Yes, you may, for my greater glory, even though rape is evil, I give you permission to do this evil..."?

If God is merely giving consent to an evil person, does this not place God BENEATH the evil person's will, thus meaning God's will is sovereign, but contingent upon agreeing with an evil person to commit the rape?

Do you really think God agrees with an evil person, "Yes, you may rape that baby..."?

I don't think that is how God is described in the Bible at all. So, to your earlier question...

Stan...

I guess you don't understand what I mean by a biblical argument. I've offered Scripture that makes a certain statement. You haven't offered any biblical reason why I'm wrong.

I guess I presumed too much that you would know the Bible well enough to know what I was speaking of. I apologize for over-estimating your biblical knowledge.

BIBLICALLY, then, the most common verse would be from James 1...

When tempted, no one should say, "God is tempting me."
For God cannot be tempted by evil,
NOR DOES GOD TEMPT ANYONE [to do evil]
.


Do you really need for me to provide the biblical basis for why we don't think God causes evil? That God WANTS evil? This passage (along with just plain reasoning) tells us that a good, perfect, loving God does not consent to, agree with or cause evil. Not for "ANYONE," according to the Bible.

God's nature, according to the Bible, is Love, Goodness, Righteousness. Read the Psalms...

"The LORD is upright; he is my Rock, and there is no wickedness [evil] in God."

Or 1 John...

God is light, in God, there is no darkness at all...

My argument, the argument of the orthodox Church, is that God is good, God is love, there is no evil in God, God does not cause evil, God does not do evil, God does not suggest that people should do evil.

In what part of any of that am I mistaken? Be specific. Am I mistaken to think that God does not DO evil? That God does not ENCOURAGE evil? Where specifically am I mistaken, Stan?

We don't appear to disagree on anything other than how we define WILL and INTEND. I don't think your definition in context has any meaning.

God "WILLS" for something evil (baby rape) to happen, which means God INTENDS for it to happen, which means God "CHOOSES" for it to happen.

But what does any of that MEAN if by "choosing" or "willing" for it to happen, God doesn't do it, cause it or encourage it God's Self?

Could you answer the "my son 'WILLS/CHOOSES' to go to college" question? Because, in trying to answer that question, I think you will see that your definition of "will" doesn't really have any real world meaning (or maybe you'll surprise me and be able to make some sense of that, I just can't see it meaning anything at all).

Stan said...

I suppose you're still unclear on the concept of a biblical argument. Here's what you've offered.

"God does not cause evil."

Agreed.

"God is not evil."

Agreed.

"God is good."

Agreed.

"God is good, God is love, there is no evil in God, God does not cause evil, God does not do evil, God does not suggest that people should do evil."

Agreed.

"God is sovereign."

Oh, no, I guess you didn't say that.

Look, where are you specifically mistaken? Specifically, "God is sovereign but things happen outside His will." "God works all things after the counsel of His will, but some things happen outside His will." "God intends good from evil, but does not intend, by any remote stretch or possible understanding of that term, evil." Where are you specifically mistaken? You have not correlated any of the passages I've offered with any of the contradictions you've offered ... leaving contradictions.

I cannot answer your required question about your son choosing Harvard. It would appear, from your continued, unending position that "choose", "will", "intend", or anything remotely related demands "caused". It cannot be, in your view, anything but "caused" if "willed" or "intended". No possibility. That's what your example requires.

How about a silly example? Romney suggested that bailing out car companies was a bad choice. The government should have let them alone. They would collapse and rebuild and they would rebuild stronger without the failed financial problems. True or not, let's go with that. The government wills/chooses/intends that car companies rebuild without failed financial problems. Their action? Nothing. They do nothing at all. They didn't cause the problem. They didn't perpetuate the problem. They didn't add to the problem. They do nothing. And assuming the premise was true, car companies collapse under their own weight, recover, and rebuild without the failed financial problems. The government in this silly example did nothing to cause or even exacerbate the problem. The outcome was exactly what they willed/chose/intended. Not caused. Some choices/intentions require actions -- causation. Some don't.

I guess you don't have that as a remote possibility. As such, you will need to continue with a contradictory view of a sovereign God whose world is spinning out of control because lots of stuff happens outside His will. Frankly, I don't understand the notion of a good God who could prevent sin but refuses.

Interestingly, your argument puts the absolutely worst sin in history outside the will of God ... which Scripture repeatedly indicates was God's will, His plan, His predetermined course. Good luck with that contradiction.

Stan said...

I have to admit, though, that I'm baffled by this:

"I guess I presumed too much that you would know the Bible well enough to know what I was speaking of."

You assumed I knew the passages you listed (and indeed I did). Apparently, then, you think that those passages (of which we are both fully familiar) contradict the concept I've laid out so completely that no sane person could miss it. Thus, I can only assume that you think I'm dumber than a box of rocks.

Maybe not those words. But if I'm so absolutely blind that I can't see that those passage clearly and irrefutably prove that God is not Sovereign and things certainly do occur outside His will, why would you bother interacting with me? Why interact with someone that idiotic?

Dan Trabue said...

I'm not saying God isn't Sovereign. I think God IS Sovereign.

I just don't think that saying "God 'wills' people to rape babies" is a good defense for God's Sovereignty. It's a good defense for an amoral, horrifying, evil God, but not for a Sovereign God.

Nor do I think you're idiotic. I presumed you WERE familiar with the passages in question that teach that God does not cause/want/desire/demand/choose or otherwise encourage evil.

As it turns out, you DO agree with me. Your defintion/explantion of God's "will" is the same as mine.

You say...

Their action? Nothing. They do nothing at all. They didn't cause the problem. They didn't perpetuate the problem. They didn't add to the problem. They do nothing.

Their action? Nothing. They do nothing at all. They didn't cause the problem. They didn't perpetuate the problem. They didn't add to the problem. They do nothing.

This is what I have been saying that I think God does. God does NOT "choose" evil, nor otherwise encourage or "will" evil. Rather, God, in God's Total Sovereignty, ALLOWS people to choose their own actions. God, in other words, does nothing OTHER THAN allow people to make their choices.

This is EXACTLY my position. So, given that, do YOU think we agree or are you still insisting that we disagree?

Just because I don't call "doing nothing" the same as "God 'wills'/'chooses'/'intends' rape to happen" doesn't mean I disagree with this concept as you're describing it now. That is exactly my position.

But to say, in your example, that it was Mitt's "will" that the companies go bankrupt would be not quite accurate. Rather, it was Mitt's "will" to allow them to make their choices and suffer the consequences. I would be willing to bet that Mitt would say that HIS will would be that people WOULDN'T go bankrupt, but that he thinks people ought to be free to make decisions, even if those decisions lead to bankruptcy.

So, are we in agreement, other than terminology?

Stan said...

Do we still disagree?

Well, since I am still saying that God ordains/plans/wills/intends evil (without causing/producing/tempting/coercing/encouraging it) (or even approving it -- evil is still and always evil) and you are saying He does not, we are still disagreeing. Since I say that only those things ordained/willed by a Sovereign God will occur in God's domain and you argue that lots of stuff happen that He does not ordain/will, we are still disagreeing.

I am saying that God does not cause evil, but I am saying that it is in His plan and will, without His instigation or other causation, for evil to occur. He prevents that evil which will not fall in His plan. He allows that which will. He punishes the evildoer for his/her evil, but produces good from the evil as it suits His plan.

Here, let's try a simple thought experiment. I have referred multiple times to it. You keep hanging up on raped babies. I consider another sin worse. I consider the worst possible sin of all time the false arrest, trial, and murder of the innocent Son of God to be the worst possible sin ever. Raped babies are really sad, but as bad as that is, murdering God's Son was worse. The claim is that God "allows" but does not "will", "plan", "choose", or in any way "intend" evil. So here's the question. Did God will/plan/choose/intend the murder of His Son? I'm not asking if He caused it, instigated it, perpetrated it. I'm asking if He willed/planned/chose/intended it?

If it is true that God willed/planned/chose/intended one sin (and such a sin), then it cannot be said that He does not will/plan/choose/intend sin. The question then becomes can He will/plan/choose/intend sin without causing it? More to the point, if He did will the death of His Son, how does that fit with all the Scriptures you offered that told me (in your mind) that He couldn't do that?

Dan Trabue said...

Stan...

I am saying that God does not cause evil, but I am saying that it is in His plan and will, without His instigation or other causation, for evil to occur. He prevents that evil which will not fall in His plan.

My brother, like it or not, we agree on this issue. The only difference is that you say God allows it but does not cause or want it and call that God's "plan" or "will," whereas I say God allows it but does not cause or want it and I call, rape, for instance, NOT God's will.

But you will agree that, "on some level" rape is not God's will. But it's God's "sovereign plan/will" but you can't define what that means because it doesn't really mean anything OTHER THAN what we agree about: That God allows it.

Other than our words, we agree, on the theoretical level, we agree.

God does not want it or cause it. God does allow it.

The only question remains is, IF something is NOT wanted or caused or encouraged by a person, can it reasonably be called their "plan" or "will" that it happens?

You don't seem able to offer any answer to this way of looking at it (ie, if my son "plans" and "wills" to go to college, but does nothing about it, does he really "plan" or "will" it? No, of course not) because, I say, there IS no answer to this fundamental dilemma.

The "sovereigntists" have painted themselves into a corner, defining "will" in two totally opposing ways (It's not God's will that someone would rape a baby, but when it happens, it is God's sovereign will...) that make no rational sense, it's self contradicting and meaningless.

Still, other than semantics, we agree, my friend.

Dan Trabue said...

To address this...

Did God will/plan/choose/intend the murder of His Son? I'm not asking if He caused it, instigated it, perpetrated it. I'm asking if He willed/planned/chose/intended it?

Do I think that God EVER "wills" evil? ANY evil?

No. God is good and there is NO evil or darkness in God, thus God can't "Will" evil.

"Will" implies causation, by definition.

"Allowing" does NOT imply causation, by definition.

God deliberately chose to come to earth, knowing (I believe) that Jesus would be killed. But KNOWING does not imply causation. ALLOWING does not imply causation.

"WILLING," however, by definition, implies causation. If you can provide an instance of something happening "by someone's will" but where they did not cause or otherwise support it happening, I'd be willing to listen to the argument.

Until you can explain the "my son 'wills/plans' to go to college but does nothing to make it happen" conundrum, I will stand on this fundamental biblical Truth: God does not cause, support, want or otherwise encourage any evil.

Stan said...

The exercise I offered and your response made my point.

"No. God is good and there is NO evil or darkness in God, thus God can't 'Will' evil."

It isn't mere semantics.

Of His own murder Jesus said, "Behold, the hand of the one betraying Me is with Mine on the table. For indeed, the Son of Man is going as it has been determined; but woe to that man by whom He is betrayed!" (Luke 22:21-22). Of Jesus's death His disciples said, "For truly in this city 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 purpose predestined to occur" (Acts 4:27-28).

You're fine with "There is no sense in which God plans or wills evil" and I cannot correlate that position with the very clear position that the worst sin of all time was determined and certainly planned by God's predestined purpose.

And, of course, it breaks down from there. For instance, I would agree that God doesn't "want" sin, but, in another sense He does and must or sin would not exist.

Clearly we do not agree. And clearly I'm going to have to write something more extensive on the will of God. Next week sometime.

(And your insistence on working from your singular "son goes to college" scheme isn't helpful. I chose one where the one doing the choosing had nothing to do to obtain the result. Yours requires the son to act or it doesn't occur. As such, it is the logical fallacy known as "begging the question" where it assumes the proposition it's trying to argue. I can't work with a logical fallacy.)

David said...

And how is the concept of different levels of will so difficult for you? Yes, there is an absolute difference between God's will and God's Sovereign Will. One can be contradicted, one cannot. God willed that the Israelites would enter the promised land and live separate from their neighbors. They would judgment on the Canaanites. The Israelites defied that will. But through the eyes of history we know that God's Sovereign Will was for them to fail at the task He put forth for them, so that Christ could come in the perfect time to become out Savior. No person in all time could go against that Sovereign Will.
Oh, and according to basic English, adding an adjective to a subject necessarily changes the subject.

Dan Trabue said...

The "son going to college" is more apt to the point you're making - that God "Wills" SOMETHING to happen, as opposes to ALLOWS something to happen by "doing nothing." That's why I'm referencing it.

Look, here is what we both believe:

God does not cause evil.

God does not encourage evil.

God does not want evil (although now you seem to be backing away from that).

God does allow evil to happen, though.

The difference is, you want to consider this set of beliefs and yet, say, "when a baby is raped, it is because it was God's WILL for that baby to be raped. In some sense, you say, God WANTED that baby to be raped."

Even though God does not encourage evil, nor cause evil, God was, what? pulling for evil to happen?

But what does that mean? Again, if my son WILLED or even WANTED, in some sense, to go to college (wanted something specific to HAPPEN), but did nothing to make it happen, can it really be said that his "will" or "want" meant anything?

I can't see how "will" the way you're using it means anything, other than "allowed to happen," which is exactly what I believe.

I DO think the notion "God wants baby rapes to happen" is a non-starter, from a moral or rational point of view, though.

Thanks for trying to explain your position, I'll look forward to next week.

I just think the sovereigntists are starting with a hopelessly impossible position - that a good and loving and just God simultaneously wants and doesn't want baby rapes to happen. It's irrational, like saying, "Can God create a rock that is too large for God to lift...?" It's an exercise in meaninglessness.

Seems to me.

Thanks again.

Stan said...

Do you want to break eggs? Those poor, defenseless little things! No, of course not. But you can't make an omelette without breaking eggs.

Silly concept, I know, but you're missing the point. The "will" is the outcome.

God willed the death of His Son. It is unavoidable. The Bible is not even remotely ambiguous. It's not my hunch, my childish reading, some opinion. God foreordained, predestined that His Son would come to Earth and be murdered. Did He want His Son murdered? Not really. But He did want the outcome -- our salvation. And the only means to achieve that outcome was the evil of the murder of His Son. So in as much as He wanted to achieve our salvation, He wanted His Son murdered. And He "determined" (Jesus's word) that it would include the betrayal of Judas while still holding Judas responsible for his sin.

It seems to me that you're starting with a hopelessly impossible position -- that a sovereign, good, and loving God is simultaneously sovereign and not. He allows things in direct opposition to His will. He is good and loving and could stop violations of His will if He chose to, but does not. He doesn't lift a finger. Things happen that He does not want to happen. And still you stand on your position that He's sovereign. You think that my use of the word "will" loses all meaning. Your use of the word "sovereign" suffers the same death. God is no more "sovereign" than King George was. Or, to put it another way, He is not the "only Sovereign".

Quick question. I offered an alternative because you seem to enjoy using an emotionally wrenching example. I say "seem" because you retained your choice of examples. Is it your opinion that a baby being raped is a better example of the worst kind of evil than the murder of the Son of God? (I ask because it appears that you didn't even address what I stated regarding God's planning that evil, as if it wasn't really that evil in the first place.)

Dan Trabue said...

And how is the concept of different levels of will so difficult for you?

It's not difficult for me. It's difficult for this position that Stan seems to be proposing.

The idea of God "willing" people to not rape babies and simultaneously "willing" people TO rape babies is innately nonsensical and, of course, the idea of a good and just God "willing" people to rape babies is morally nonsensical.

Also, the idea of "intending" to do something that involves doing "nothing" is also nonsensical/irrational.

Again, we're speaking of POSITIVE ACTIONS. Here's a baby rape happening. Your argument appears to be that God "wills" it to happen, while simultaneously NOT wanting it to happen (but also, on some level WANTING A BABY RAPE TO HAPPEN!!???), while simultaneously not doing anything to make it happen.

If a person says, "It is MY WILL to go to college (or rape a baby or whatever action) and he does nothing to make that happen, I can't see that it's really his will, in any rational sense. It is, at best, his WISH, his DESIRE, but then, doing nothing would indicate it was a desire he couldn't really fulfill or didn't want to fulfill.

As they say, A goal without a plan (a plan OF ACTION) is only a wish.

Standing by and letting someone do something that you don't really want (except maybe God DOES really want a baby rape to happen in some sense??) is not really fulfilling your will, it's allowing an action to happen. The "Will," in that case, is to allow people to make their own decisions, NOT to see a baby rape.

It's irrational gobbledy gook on the face of it. That's the problem you all face. That, and the sheer immorality of suggesting a good God WANTS to see a baby raped.

Dan Trabue said...

Stan...

Did He want His Son murdered? Not really. But He did want the outcome -- our salvation.

EXACTLY. God DOES want our salvation. God does NOT want to see evil. Yet, God was willing to endure that evil NOT BECAUSE GOD WANTED TO SEE PEOPLE DO EVIL - THAT'S PATENTLY RIDICULOUS AND CONTRA-BIBLICAL, but because Jesus' life and death and resurrection was all part of God's grace by which we are saved. But to say "God WANTS TO SEE THE EVIL DONE... it is GOD'S DESIRE or WISH or HOPE for evil to be done" is ridiculous. God is WILLING to ALLOW the evil to be done for the greater good, but God does NOT WANT the evil done.

It's an irrational and morally ridiculous suggestion.

Stan...

Quick question. I offered an alternative because you seem to enjoy using an emotionally wrenching example... Is it your opinion that a baby being raped is a better example of the worst kind of evil than the murder of the Son of God? (I ask because it appears that you didn't even address what I stated regarding God's planning that evil, as if it wasn't really that evil in the first place.)

Is "raping a baby" LESS evil than "murdering a God..."? BOTH are evil, I would not begin to know how one could "measure" the evilness of those actions. Both are shockingly evil. To suggest that a Loving and Just God DESIRES to see these evils happen is incredibly ridiculous.

I use the baby being raped because it is easiest for most of us humans to understand that there is nothing more naturally innocent and undeserving of evil actions than a baby. Of course, Jesus was innocent, too, in a far more glorious and marvelous way than even a baby. But I suspect for 99.9999% of humanity, it is just stunningly obvious that there is NO SENSE in which raping a baby is in any way a moral good or conceivably "God's Will."

It's a stunningly stupid and even offensively ignorant suggestion. No offense intended. Just stating the facts.

Stan said...

Note that for a logical contradiction to exist, it has to violate this rule: "A thing cannot be A and not A at the same time and in the same sense." Thus, to say that God does not want something in one sense but wants it in another is not a logical contradiction. To say that God works all things after the counsel of His will in one sense and in the same sense allows things that violate His will is a logical contradiction. Thank you for the opportunity to explain and illustrate the concept of logical contradictions.

And you haven't addressed Christ's murder. The Bible is absolutely clear: GOD PLANNED AND PREDESTINED THE MURDER OF HIS SON. You claim He didn't want it in any possible sense and He didn't plan or will or intend it in any possible sense. Again, basic logical contradiction. Oh, by the way, also an illustration and definition of "irrational". On the other hand, "God does not want in one sense but does in another" is not.

And you have affirmed my thought. The idea is not to think it through. The idea is to appeal to the emotions. Raping babies is a horrendous thought to humans (and should be). Murdering the Son of God is not (although it should be). Humans more closely ally themselves and feel the pain of children than God's Son.

And suggesting that God predestined the death of His Son but didn't will it in any possible sense is astoundingly irrational.

Your perception will not change. Not even shift. This discussion hasn't moved you one inch closer to understanding. (Obviously agreement will not be possible.) We can end this now.

David said...

I don't imagine you will let hum reply, and I don't necessarily need one. But I think it can be argued from the Sovereign God position that in a lesser way, God has willed ALL sin for all time. It is actually an argument used against Christians,"If a good and loving God who is omniscient created everything knowing it would all turn out like it did, why wouldn't He have made it better?" The answer is of course that God HAS made the better option, when the goal is the demonstration of His glory. Without the Fall there would be no need for redemption, without redemption there would be no need for Christ. The glory of God shines most brightly in the death, burial, and resurrection of His Son and the salvation of unworthy sinners through no merit of their own. Because God is Sovereign, nothing can happen that God doesn't absolutely want to happen. If God hadn't wanted 9/11 to happen, it wouldn't have. Because it happened, He wanted it as part of His plan, and because He is good, it will ultimately prove to demonstrate His glory. This has been repeated in many people's lives, and throughout history and the Bible. Sin happens so that God can demonstrate His glory.

What does Dan and his ilk say about God and His desire that all people are saved? If God CANNOT have 2 different types of desire, how can He desire everyone be saved, and yet not everyone is saved?

Maybe it is because I grew up being taught about a Sovereign Lord, but Dan's position is scary. If things happen that God is incapable of preventing, how can I be assured that EVERYTHING that happens to me is good?

I think the problem with Dan's illustration of the son and college is faulty because it doesn't deal in the realm of ultimate Sovereignty. It is like trying to compare an image that has been in the sun for 1000 years to the original. It is just too dim of an image to clearly make out. There are things the son has no control over. There is NOTHING God has no control over. Huge difference in comparisons.

Stan said...

If there is a God and if evil occurs, we can only conclude that God is either incapable of or unwilling to prevent evil. Oh, of course, we have the third possible conclusion of skeptics -- no God.

The argument (not merely Dan's) is that God allows evil. He doesn't want it or will it. The problem with that is that you still have a God who is either incapable or unwilling.

If we agree that God is capable of preventing evil (and we do so based on ... oh, I don't know ... Scripture?), then we have only one other option. He is unwilling. I would, in fact, argue that He is unwilling to prevent (all) evil. But what is apparently missed at this point is that if God is capable of preventing (all) evil and does not, it can only be concluded that in some sense He wants it. Or He would prevent it.

Or we can run at it from the other direction. He is unwilling for evil to occur and yet it occurs. The only other possible conclusion is that He is incapable of preventing it.

The skeptic will argue that if God is either unable or unwilling, He is not good at best and, by any evaluation, not God. I would beg to differ. If God is incapable of preventing evil, I would agree that God is not God. But if He is unwilling because He plans to produce something better out of the evil that He allows (and, by definition, He wants in that sense), then He is still God and still good.

The "allows but doesn't want or will" concept logically produces only atheism.

The question we come down to, then, is are we going to allow God to be God and let Him label what He will as "good"? Because I'm quite confident that His version of "good" won't always coincide with ours.

Dan Trabue said...

David...

What does Dan and his ilk say about God and His desire that all people are saved? If God CANNOT have 2 different types of desire, how can He desire everyone be saved, and yet not everyone is saved?

It is God's will that none should perish, according to the Bible. I believe that.

It is also God's will that we have free will.

I believe that.

God offers us the gift of salvation by God's grace. We can accept that gift or not. That's on us.

God WILL NOT MAKE US TAKE that gift.

This is the orthodox evangelical position in most strains of Evangelical Christianity today, if I'm not mistaken.

I don't see any rational or biblical problem at all in saying, "God's will is that people don't sin. AND God's will is for people to make their own choices. Thus, while God's will is for us not to sin, God won't force us not to sin, to do so would be against God's will/nature/plan."

No rational or biblical problem at all.

HOWEVER, the notion "God's will is for babies NOT to be raped, but sometimes it IS God's will - in 'some sense' - that babies get raped..." is a rational non-starter. It is inherently irrational.

You're not arguing that, IF a rape happens, it's God's will that we find some way to mourn, grieve, support each other and get past it eventually, growing in grief from that horrible tragedy, you're arguing that it was God's will for that baby to be raped! And simultaneously NOT God's will.

It is rationally nonsensical and morally nonsensical.

Also, the concept that God "wills" something but does nothing to make it happen seems every bit as illogical as the son who "wills" to go to college but does nothing about it.

You all have a public relations problem in that reasonable people (and I think even conservatives like Marshall would agree with me here, maybe) find your position to be immoral and irrational. If you want to make your case, you'll have to be prepared to explain it better than has happened here.

Stan said...

The complete lapse of reason is mind-boggling.

Marshal Art said...

Frankly, Dan T, I'm not sure you've successfully offered an alternative to Stan with which I could agree if I could understand it. The concept of which Stan speaks is not one around which one can easily wrap one's mind. How it works is difficult to ponder as it so easily becomes similar to a "chicken or egg" type conundrum. But that He is Sovereign and all things happen according to His plan suggests that even nasty things occur as part of His plan. From even Adam and Eve we get, at the very least, hints of Christ's coming and His coming had a distinct purpose, which was to suffer and die as the perfect sacrifice for our sins. Certainly what happened to Christ was sinful, but I can't imagine another way for Him to be the perfect sacrifice without having died. So, all that sinful stuff that preceded His death had to be a result of God's Will.

Dan Trabue said...

Stan, do you even see how it seems to others that your position is the irrational one?

"A good, loving, just God doesn't want ANY babies to be raped, it is a horror to God that such a thing would happen. AND YET, in some sense, God DOES want those raped babies to have been raped..."

???!!

Are you telling me you don't see how crazy that sounds?

Whereas, to you, my "lack of reasoning" is in that I think that God IS sovereign and that a sovereign God chooses to let people make decisions, even decisions against what God's perfect will is, because God values the free agency of human will.

Much the same way that a parent will allow their beloved child to make decisions contrary to their will. They have willed for that child to be able to make their own adult decisions, even when those decisions may contradict their desires.

Do you not see how that at least appears rational?

It's funny that to me (and most of the world, including most Christians, I am pretty sure), that your position here is so clearly insane and wholly lacking in reason, and yet, you appear to think the same of "our side's" opinion.

I just don't see how you can not see at least the rationality of our position, if not agree with it - because of the weird sometimes-literality of some (seemingly random) Scripture verses you take.

Stan said...

Dan, see my response to David on 11/03/2012 at 8:45 AM. I laid out the logical problem you hold. Your response to that logical problem, apparently, is, "If I ignore it, call on 'most of the world including most Christians', and continue to say that you're wrong, I think my position is the logical one." That is not a response. That is not an answer to the logical problem. That is not rational. When the Bible clearly says that God predestined the murder of His Son and you clearly deny it, it's not my logic that's faulty. It's yours.

David said, "Sin happens so that God can demonstrate His glory." That's not a hunch, mere opinion. In Paul's discussion of God's choices of who to save (Rom 9), he addresses the complaint "If God chooses sovereignly, how is that just?" (Rom 9:19). His response is, "Who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, 'Why did you make me like this,' will it? Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use? What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction?" (Rom 9:19-22).

Two things appear in this passage. 1) God makes people. Some for honorable use; others for dishonorable. Solomon concurs. "The LORD has made everything for its own purpose, even the wicked for the day of evil" (Prov 16:4). People are not random. They are made for a purpose -- God's purpose. 2) Paul states exactly what God's will is for "vessels of common use" -- for sinful humans. His will is "to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known." That's not a guess. That's a statement of fact.

God would prefer no sin occur. However, in order to accomplish what He intends, which includes a display of both justice and mercy, wrath and grace -- His absolute holiness -- sin must occur. No sin, no justice, mercy, wrath, grace, holiness. The question becomes, "Does God want to display His attributes?" If yes, then God wills that sin exists in order to better demonstrate His own glory. This aligns with His absolute Sovereignty which your view, in its final analysis, discounts in favor of the Sovereignty of Human Free Will.

Do "most Christians" agree with your view? Maybe. At least, American Christians. (I don't think your view plays as well in places where Christians face more difficult hardships.) But that's because they haven't read their Bibles, engaged their brains, encountered the suffering that others have, or actually believed in the God that the Bible describes. They have abandoned the truth in favor of comfort. Historic, orthodox Christianity disagrees with your view. So does the Bible. And you have yet to offer a reason that the texts I've offered are not what they say they are. So I'll still stick with the historical and biblical view rather than a false sense of comfort in "the majority", the world, or even so-called "most Christians".

David said...

Gotta love how early on Dan didn't seem to understand the concept of different types of will, and then suddenly, without acknowledging it, mentions God's perfect will as something separate from His will. He then tries to make it work for him, even though he is misusing the concept of Perfect Will. Then he goes on to make the claim that you have used "some (seemingly random) Scripture verses", when in fact you have used MANY direct, clear verses, and not out of context, but paragraphs of passages. And the best one is this weird "PR" business. Since when was it the job of Christians to make Christianity look good to the world? We are told by Scripture that we CAN'T. We are told that the unsaved will see our religious beliefs as folly. The fact that he continues to tell us that we are making Christianity look bad is more proof that he hasn't really spent all that much time REALLY reading Scripture. Anyone that has made an honest reading of the Bible will tell you that Christianity is crazy talk to those that aren't redeemed. And Dan, Stan's target audience isn't non-believers, so whether or not they "get it" is really not an argument to be using in this forum. Unless they ask him questions, he's not concerned with how they perceive what the Holy Book says, at least not when it comes to his blog.