I thought I'd written on this before, but I can't find it. If it's there, it's just embarrassing because ... it's my own blog! Well, since I can't find it and since it continues to be an issue for a lot of people, I thought I'd write it ... again?
The question is regarding the will of God. Years ago when my youngest son was in high school, he asked me, "Dad, how can I know the will of God?" "That's easy, son," I answered. "Everything that has happened up to this moment in time has been God's will." Well, of course (as my kids came to know about their dad), it was not the answer he expected or wanted. "No, I mean in the future!" "Oh, that. Yeah ... that's much harder."
Seriously, what do we know about the will of God? Now, remember, we need to operate from the revealed rather than from what we want or think or premise. Let's not impose on God that which He hasn't given about Himself. So, working from what we know from Scripture, what can we tell about the will of God?
Well, there are different senses of the use of the word "will". We can say quite definitely, for instance, that it is God's will for us to be perfect. Perfect obedience. Sinless. Why? Well, He laid down commands and instructions. He clearly wills that we follow them. One of those comes from the lips of Jesus Himself: "You are to be perfect as your Father in heaven is perfect" (Matt 5:48). Clear enough. Got it. But ... we aren't. And if anything is clearer in Scripture than the fact that God wills us to be perfect is that we are not. Thus, we can clearly see that God's will is not accomplished in this sense.
Another use of the word "will" would include "desires". The Bible talks on multiple occasions about God's "will" in the sense of "desires". We know, for instance, that "God is not willing that any should perish" (2 Peter 3:9), and while we could discuss who "any" referred to, it is clearly His "will" in some sense. A parallel would be God "will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth" (1 Tim 2:4). That's pretty clear. God desires "all men to be saved." That's ... His will. And while there may be some outlying disagreement, I think the Bible is abundantly clear that not all will be saved. Indeed, narrow are the gates that lead to life. Conversely, "the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many" (Matt 7:13-14). Again, here is a sense in which God's "will" is stated clearly and, yet, certainly does not come to pass.
So we have at least two senses of the use of the word "will" in which God's will is not accomplished. And that gives us a bit of a dilemma. Job was confident that "I know that you can do all things, and that no purpose of yours can be thwarted" (Job 42:2). He knew that God "is unchangeable, and who can turn Him back? What He desires, that He does" (Job 23:13). Solomon contrasted Man and God by saying, "Many are the plans in the mind of a man, but it is the purpose of the LORD that will stand" (Prov 19:21). Paul assured us that God works all things after the counsel of His will (Eph 1:11). He referred to God as "the only Sovereign" (1 Tim 6:15). Heaven itself declares Him the "Sovereign Lord, holy and true" (Rev 6:10). So, which is it? Does He will perfection and desire the salvation of all and His will is blocked, or does He actually accomplish His will? Well, to make sense of it, the answer would be "Yes". That third use of the concept of "His will" would be a third sense. That third sense would be what actually happens. Nothing good happens without God willing it. Nothing bad happens without God willing it. All that happens occurs because of this Sovereign sense of God's will.
There are, then, three perspectives from which to view God's will. Theologians offer handy names for these three. There is His "preceptive will" -- that which He commands. There is His "will of disposition", that which He desires. These two are violable. The third is God's Sovereign or "decretive" will. That one happens ... always. Nothing happens outside that one. There isn't one maverick molecule. Some refer to His "permissive will", His "preceptive will", and His "decretive will" (like here). Others refer to His "intentional will", God's ideal plan, His "permissive will", that which He will allow and use, and His "ultimate will", that which occurs, good or bad, that He ultimately uses to accomplish His good purposes (like here). Lots of names. Same concepts.
Quite clearly, the names are our own inventions, but the concepts are not. They are straight from Scripture. Without these quite biblical concepts about God's will, you cannot arrive at a reasonable perception of God's Will in any rational or complete sense. On the other hand, understanding that God intends some things, permits others, and ultimately accomplishes His own plan will, when properly considered, produce a great deal of comfort, especially when faced with trials and troubles. It is ultimately true then that God does work all things together for good. And that's a good thing.
23 comments:
So, what does "sovereign will" MEAN?
Can you give a definition of it?
Something beyond, "If it happened then that was God's sovereign will..." would be helpful.
In the English language, "Will" and "Intend" generally have the connotation of causation. If someone "wills" or "intends" for something to happen, but don't do anything about it, they aren't truly willing or intending it to happen, not in any serious way. In that case, "will" and "intend" come down to just wishful dreaming.
What is your English language definition of "sovereign will..."?
Thanks.
So ... we're going to do this dance again.
"In the English language, 'Will' and 'Intend' generally have the connotation of causation."
It is quite apparent that this is your understanding and that nothing I can say or demonstrate or provide by reference (because I have repeatedly done so) can sway you from this. On the other hand, nothing in the dictionary requires that "causation" accompany either "will" or "intent". Indeed, while I've offered a variety of examples of "will" without "cause" (which you've repeatedly rejected without reason), I'm pretty sure that you yourself have more than once willed or intended something that you did not cause.
Suggesting that "will" without "causation" is "wishful dreaming" in reference to God is, well, just plain stupid. An omniscient being doesn't suffer from "wishful dreaming".
Have you heard of the term "second cause"? A human example would be when a person holds a ball out and drops it. The ball will necessarily fall, hit the ground, bounce, and eventually come to rest. In this example, there were multiple "second causes". There was gravity (which the person in the example didn't create, cause, or affect), the surface of the ground, the elasticity of the ball, and the weight of the ball (all off the top of my head). None of these causes were controlled nor affected by the person. But his will was that the ball fall, hit the ground, and bounce. He didn't do it. All those second causes did it. His input was to release the ball -- do nothing. "Intent" without "cause".
In a biblical example, God intended (even though you've repeatedly ignored and even denied it) that His Son would be betrayed and murdered. He was. What did God do to cause that betrayal? Nothing. He simply did not prevent Judas Iscariot from choosing to do what he would choose to do. God did nothing, and His will was accomplished. No causation.
Definitions of God's Sovereign Will:
"God is in control of all things, though He may choose to let certain events happen according to natural laws which He has ordained." – Charles Ryrie
"All things are either caused by Him or allowed by Him for His own purposes and through His perfect will and timing." - GotQuestions.org
God is Sovereign. That means that He works all things after the counsel of His will. That "will" is His Sovereign Will. It means that He can cause whatever good He wishes to cause, prevent whatever bad He wishes to prevent, and allow whatever bad He wishes to allow in order to accomplish the good He wishes to accomplish.
"All things are either caused by Him or allowed by Him for His own purposes and through His perfect will and timing."
So, by THIS defintion of "will" and "intend," you mean that when evil happens, God merely allows it to happen, NOT that God wanted it to happen?
That would be my position and I think the position of the vast majority within the church.
In your basketball analogy, God has created circumstances (gravity with the ball, free will with humanity) and it is God's will that those circumstances play out. God allows gravity to pull the ball to the earth and God allows evil to happen NOT because God wants evil to happen, but because God created us with free will and God wants us to choose. Thus, the CHOOSING is God's will and what God wants, but we can't reasonably say that God WANTED us to choose evil when we choose evil.
If that is all you're saying, then we're agreeing. Where specifically in what I just said are we disagreeing?
Re: "Do this dance again..." I'm asking the question because I do not know how you are defining intend or will differently than I am. Not knowing the answer, I ask a question.
Is there anything unreasonable about that?
The "dance" of which I spoke was the "intend means cause" dance. I've repeatedly denied it. You've repeatedly demanded it. We dance ... again.
I'm actually baffled by the view you're asking me to agree with. All things occur by His will, but not because He wants it. He "allows" evil but doesn't "intend" it. It was not part of His plan. It was not something He expected. It was not, in any real sense, His "will" (since "will" and "intend" are the same thing and you've determined that God doesn't will evil in any possible sense). That makes absolutely no sense to me, so I can't agree. And, of course, it is in direct opposition to plain Scripture, so I can agree with that either. It may be the position of "the majority of the church", but I think it's quite clear that "the majority of the church" is not concerned about a biblical, historical, or even rational theology, so I don't know that that proves. It is not the historical or orthodox position.
"Allow" certainly doesn't require "cause", but if He has the ability to prevent something He doesn't want (will) and does not, by no stretch of any rational use of the word can we say that God works all things after the counsel of His will. You would necessarily have to agree that God allows things contrary to His will while arguing that they are in agreement with His will.
When I say (with GotQuestions.org) that He allows things to occur "for His own purposes and through His perfect will and timing", that requires that those things that He allows are "for His own purposes and through His perfect will." So the evil that God allows is intended to accomplish His purposes.
You've taken my ball-and-gravity example to places it doesn't go. Thanks for that. I was suggesting human terms; you've pushed it to the divine -- "God has created circumstances (gravity with the ball, free will with humanity) ...". (Oddly, you're quite confident that God does not operate gravity and certainly never intervenes in Human Free Will.) Apparently, then, you've concluded that, to God, the ultimate good is Human Free Will and what He actually wants above all else is for humans to make choices. That is the ultimate goal. Ergo, if humans make choices, God's will is accomplished.
But, of course, as I've repeatedly indicated, this is not what I mean, what I said, or what I believe. I even offered the biblical reason why God plans for evil -- the complete revelation of His character. And, of course, you've rejected that. Are you still unclear on what it is we disagree about?
Got it. You actually think that God WANTS EVIL TO HAPPEN. Is that what you're saying we disagree about? God WANTS babies to be raped and children to be killed and serial killers to eat the brains of hundreds of people and entire peoples to be wiped out by genocide. This is all part of what God WANTS, according to you.
Except that God doesn't really want it. But God DOES want it, on some level, not that God wants it, but, yeah, God wants evil to happen. The grossest most despicable acts of violence even against innocent babes, this is what God truly desires. Except... not. But yes.
Whereas I believe the more rational and direct, "God does not want evil to happen. No exceptions."
Is that what you're saying our difference is? Okay, fair enough, we disagree. Yours is a God that desires evil, mine is not.
Thanks.
There it is! There's "the dance". Well done! I knew I could count on you!
When you can explain (most likely to yourself because I know you won't to me) how it is that the Master of the Universe would ordain and predetermine from the beginning of time that His own sinless Son would be murdered and die as a criminal without "willing", "wanting", "planning", or "intending" it in any possible sense, I suppose we'll be closer to an understanding. In the meantime, it is quite clear that you aren't going to come to a conclusion based on what the Scriptures say, but on how you feel. And how it is you can express such outrage regarding crimes against babies while not batting an eye either over the murder of the Son of God or the murder of innocent babies in the womb says something really ... odd. But, hey, we knew that, didn't we?
Dan, I have to ask. When your kids were babies, did you have them inoculated against standard diseases? I know I did. I hated taking my babies to the doctor for those visits. I knew it would hurt them. I knew they would scream. I knew they would be miserable. So in what possible sense could it be said that I wanted to take my little babies in to have some stranger ram a long, painful needle into their bodies? Well, I did. Because the alternative was much worse. That's how it is possible to not want evil to occur but allow it and even, in some sense, want it in order to achieve something greater than the evil itself.
I don't know. It doesn't seem that hard to understand to me. It doesn't seem that far-fetched. It doesn't seem that wrong. And I'm only thinking in ordinary human terms.
Sometimes it seems that Dan just goes and copy/pastes his arguments. Doing the same thing expecting a different result.
Stan mentions the Sovereignty of God, Dan demands God doesn't will babies be raped, Stan points out the WORST SIN OF ALL TIME, the unmerited execution of the only sinless human in all time for sins He didn't commit, Dan demands God doesn't will babies be raped. Back and forth like this, Stan produces new examples, Dan points to babies being raped. And yet, if I were to see a movie that showed a baby being raped, I would be outraged, certainly, but everytime I see the Passion, I weep. Dan, the rape of babies, while horrible, pales in comparison to the execution of the Son. Stop trying to goad us with the raped babies, since Stan has already said very clearly that God willed, intended, desired, the death of His perfect Son. If He can will that sin, no other sin being willed is hard to imagine.
Stan...
So in what possible sense could it be said that I wanted to take my little babies in to have some stranger ram a long, painful needle into their bodies? Well, I did. Because the alternative was much worse.
The point I'm making and that I don't think you're getting is that you DID NOT want to see your children hurt. That was NOT your intention. It was not your will that your children be in pain.
It was your will - what you WANTED - to keep them healthy. As part of that DEEP DESIRE for them to be healthy, you ALLOWED them to suffer some pain. But unless you're a sadist, you DID NOT WANT your children even to suffer that tiny little pain a shot would give them.
Where am I mistaken? Did you actually WANT to see them in pain?
I think not.
“… to take my little babies in to have some stranger ram a long, painful needle into their bodies?”
Just curious about something. If you had been born a thousand years earlier, would you have prayed that God would supernaturally and painlessly keep your babies from suffering from contagious diseases? And if your answer is “Yes,” do you believe He would have been faithful to answer your prayer?
Anonymous, some say that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing repeatedly while expecting a different outcome. Asking the same question repeatedly while expecting a different answer comes really close.
I have always asked God to keep my children from pain. Jesus asked God to let the cup pass from Him. What God chooses to do in response is okay with me because, well, you know, He's a lot smarter than me ... and knows what is best. He would be faithful to answer my prayer as He was faithful to answer His Son's prayer.
Demanding that God bend His will to mine and objecting to His existence because He doesn't makes zero sense.
I did not "want" the pain applied to my babies, but I wanted the outcome, so I allowed the pain since that was the means to obtain the outcome. In that sense, then, I wanted the pain. I could have chosen not to have the pain inflicted. My priority was that they be safe from the illnesses over the avoidance of the pain. Thus, when I opted for the safety, I opted for the pain.
In that sense, then, God wants evil.
“I have always asked God to keep my children from pain... What God chooses to do in response is okay with me because, well, you know, He's a lot smarter than me ... and knows what is best.”
By that logic, you—-modern day Stan, living in the age of medical science—-could “merely” pray that He do His will with your child regarding contagious diseases. The fact that you don’t tells me something important.
Stan...
so I allowed the pain since that was the means to obtain the outcome. In that sense, then, I wanted the pain.
You WANTED THE PAIN? You WANTED your child to be in pain?
If you can have your child get immunized and you have the choice to do it painlessly or painfully, which would you choose?
You DON'T WANT the pain for your kids, Stan, not even so minor as a shot and you certainly don't want your child to be raped for some presumed "greater good."
I don't believe you are that evil, Stan. Do you?
No, you have the right of it: You might ALLOW a temporary pain for a greater good, but you don't WANT the PAIN for your kids, that would just be sadistic.
Consider this, Stan: If you could be assured that IF a child would just submit to a rape, they would get to live for two more years, would you WANT that rape?
Don't be silly. Of course you wouldn't.
Anonymous, the fact that you don't pay attention tells me something important. I did indeed say "I have always asked God to keep my children from pain." So, from you, "The fact that you don't ..." indicates that you don't bother reading ... or understanding.
You have a very simplistic idea. If God doesn't do what you demand, He doesn't exist. If there was a God, He would be a super butler at your beck and call. The fact that no such being exists proves that there is no God. Or, to put it another way, "If God existed, He would be defined as a unicorn. Since no unicorns exist, there is no God." Nonsense. You can't create a irrational definition and then complain because He doesn't meet it.
Beyond this simplistic notion, you also appear to believe that "faith" demands no action whatsoever. That is, if there was a God and if there were true believers in that God, they would do nothing at all because faith would demand it. An extremely narrow, simplistic idea. Because, you see, if there is a God who wishes to involve His creation in His activities, it would stand to reason that He would involve them. He would use means to accomplish His ends and those means would include human action. George Washington said, "Trust God and keep your powder dry." Makes perfect sense to believers. Any normal parent can explain this to you. A father who wants to spend time with his son and teach him to, say, use tools will allow his son to help out and do what the father could have done better and faster without him. The act of trusting and acting is an act of faith. Or, as we believers call it, "the obedience of faith".
I know you think you're terribly sagacious in your atheism, but your notions are far too simple -- simplistic. You premise a simpleton god who would do whatever you demand and demand that you do nothing and no such god exists, quite obviously. This kind of being, however, would have no connection whatsoever to a divine being who is bigger, smarter, wiser, and more powerful than you. That God (the one I believe in) would not resemble the false one you discard. You'll have to do much better than that.
I wanted what the pain would provide. I needed the pain in order to get it.
But, look, I've about had it ... again. The worst possible event on the face of the planet is a child rape. Nothing I say will move you past that. You have never explained how God could plan, predetermine, and execute the murder of His Son and not "want" it. You will not. And since you can't come to terms with that, but rather demand that we only deal in human, emotional terms, why continue? I'm done.
Dan seems to have difficulties with analogies. The choices in the child getting immunized are pain=health OR no pain=no health. But Dan decides to add a third choice that is either inapplicable to the analogy, or detrimental to God. If God has the choice of sin=glorification, no sin=glorification, or no sin=no glorification, and He doesn't choose the 2nd option, He then becomes an evil God. If He has the option to prevent sin and evil and still demonstrate His glory, AND doesn't, He is an evil God. In Dan's presentation, the fact that evil occurs proves that either God doesn't exist or is evil. But instead of thinking his "argument" through, he tries to apply emotion to a logical equation. 3+heart=5. Doesn't work. The fact that evil happens, and God doesn't prevent all of it, means that God wants evil to happen. Dan misses the point of sin. There is a reason God has allowed sin to be in His creation, but Dan ignores that reason. But if you can agree with the reason for sin, then God wanting sin to happen isn't a far step. God wants sin to happen so that He can demonstrate His glory. Where sin abounds, grace super abounds. Without sin, there is not demonstration of glory. Without sin, there is no creation. God didn't make the universe perfect and is now making up for His mistake. He made the universe, planning for it to be corrupted. If anyone cannot agree with that, then they CANNOT agree with an absolutely Sovereign God, Who has explained Himself clearly in His Word.
Stan...
I wanted what the pain would provide. I needed the pain in order to get it.
Yes, yes, yes. Of course you did. But you did not want the pain for your children.
This is just silly.
Set aside the physical benefit of the shot, did you WANT THE PAIN? The answer is, no, of course not.
We ALL are willing for the pain for the benefit, but we don't WANT the pain. We AGREE on that. There is no argument here, UNLESS you are saying YOU WANTED THE PAIN ITSELF.
But you don't.
You fellas go awfully far out of your way to make it sound like there's a disagreement when I really don't think there is. At least not so far as you WANTING your children to be harmed or pained. You're just not that sadistic.
No one but possibly a few extremely mentally ill people are.
I guess you don't hear yourself. "We ALL are willing for the pain for the benefit." You just agreed that "We all are willing for the pain", but still stand on "God is not willing for the evil". The Bible is abundantly clear that God determined the details of His Son's murder (including spcifically who would be in power -- Acts 4:27-28 -- and Judas Iscariot's betrayal -- Luke 22:22), but you insist that in no possible sense did God "will the evil" even while you agree that "we all are willing for the pain." Joseph was abundantly clear that his brothers' evil was evil and was intended to be evil right along side with the very clear statement that God intended it (the evil they did) ... for good.
Clearly the pain is not the end, the goal, even the good. Nor is the evil. But surely you have to admit as you already have that if the pain or the evil produces a higher good, there must be a sense in which God wills it. Else the pain/evil would not occur.
“You have a very simplistic idea. If God doesn't do what you demand, He doesn't exist.”
You ascribe a dichotomy to my views, which tells me you have not read me carefully. I actually hold to a TRIchotomy of possibilities:
1) God does not exist
or
2) God does exist and is not worthy of worship
or
3) God does exist and is worthy of worship.
You look at the world around you and conclude number 3 is the way to go. I look at the world around me and conclude that number 1 or 2 are the way to go, and I don’t have to make a firm choice between them because my actions won’t be affected by such a choice.
You clearly made no attempt to think deeply about my question concerning what would have happened to your child if you had lived prior to medical science. Oh well, I can’t make you think critically.
I see no signs that anything I have said has had any effect on your viewpoint, so I will let this be my last comment at your blog. If you get any ‘anonymous’ comments claiming to be Lee, you will know they are pretending.
To end on an upbeat note… I just found a website that visitors here can find by doing a search for Project Euler. It is a bunch of math and computer science questions that are quite challenging. There’s hours of “work” to be had trying to figure them out. I think I know the answer to a few of them so far, but I have not sent my answers to the website for verification.
Ah, the problem of "anonymous" -- you never know who it is. Maybe I should stop accepting "anonymous" for comments altogether?
Note that "God does not exist" and "God exists but isn't worthy of my attention" works out exactly to the same thing, as indicated by "my actions won't be affected by such a choice."
Note also that despite all the time we've interacted (and, quite honestly, I didn't know this "anonymous" was Lee or I might have responded differently), you're still offering the same argument so the suggestion that you have not caused me to think critically would go both ways, wouldn't it? I haven't caused you to do the same.
As an aside, I should point out that these questions/objections are not new. I have thought critically and deeply, long and hard, over them. I haven't revisited that process because I've addressed it already and no one is offering new reasons to do so.
Dan suggests that if we don't agree with his way of thinking on the subject, clearly we haven't thought it through and are obviously wrong. You suggest the same thing. I am not complaining about that. I would suggest something similar, I think. We all do. I'm only pointing out that it's not a one-way street and thinking otherwise (like "you know, if you really thought it through like I have, you'd agree with me") would be a mistake.
Why doesn't Dan think the murder of babies is bad? Only the rape of...
Wow, Dan and Anonymous often sound very alike. "if there is a God He wouldn't ________ (fill in the blank)"
I think they basically are trying to rationalize there depraved views, and not submit to the God who gets to make the rules.
Post a Comment