The Lord will not cast off forever, but, though He cause grief, He will have compassion according to the abundance of His steadfast love; for He does not willingly afflict or grieve the children of men (Lam 3:31-33).So, what have we here? It is an echo of a more remote text where God says, "Have I any pleasure in the death of the wicked and not rather that he should turn from his way and live?" (Ezek 18:23) or the more common text that assures us that God "desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth" (1 Tim 2:4). It is an echo because these are the all the same problem. If God is Sovereign and God does as He pleases (Psa 115:3), then why does He grieve when He isn't willing to do so or why does He slay the wicked if He takes no pleasure in it or why are not all saved if He desires that all be saved? What's up with that? Is He Sovereign or isn't He?
I think there is such a beautiful answer found here in this Lamentations text. As it turns out, the word translated "willingly" is a two-word Hebrew construction. The first is min which means "out of" and the second is labe which means "the heart". Lest you think I'm playing with language here, look it up in other translations. Here's what you'll find. Some say "willingly" while others say "from His heart".
You know, that changes things, doesn't it? Jeremiah (the author of Lamentations) is saying here (under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit) "Yes, God causes grief, but I'll tell you this: His heart is not in it." What we have in all of these instances is the reality that, all things being equal, God would rather not inflict grief nor slay the wicked nor have anyone go to Hell. Of course, there is no point where all things are equal.
Does God cause grief? Yes. Does He enjoy it? No. So, does that mean He doesn't do as He pleases? No. He is pleased by what He does. Whether that is causing grief when He'd prefer not to or removing the wicked to an eternal death when He'd rather not or not saving everyone when He wished all were saved, He always does what pleases Him the most. That does not require that He have a mean streak. Nor does it require that He is not Sovereign. It simply means that one possible, agreeable course of action will not produce what another course of action will produce, and the product of the second course of action is much better than the first. And since God is the highest Being, the Center of the Universe, the All-Important One, He always does what's best for Him. He ought to. And that would be that which brings Him the highest glory. Always. God's interests over Man's interests every time.
55 comments:
Man has a tendency to be ashamed of his God because of things like these, so he downplays them, or attempts to reinterpret what the text says so he can keep his manly God. I think we often unwittingly chose between these two. We attempt to become Godly men, or we attempt to make for ourselves a manly god.
I agree. I believe the every-present tide of human thought is to elevate Man and minimize God. Make Man to be more like God and God to be more like Man. Both are errors. Oh, funny thing ... both fit in the error of "setting your mind on Man's interests instead of God's interests."
I disagree. I don't see why we must see God as the all controlling, micro managing, supreme dictator. I think it is fine to attribute the evil and grief in the world to principalities and powers, the natural self, the fall of man, free will. Why must God be on the hook for all the grief?
You stated that God causes grief, he doesn't enjoy it, but he is pleased by it. This makes God seem schizophrenic. It sounds a lot like Paul when he says he can not do good, even when this is what he wants to do, because of his flesh nature.
This view doesn't make God less. In fact a God that can defeat and redeem evil, without authoring it all is much greater than a God that writes the history of time and watches it unfold like the pages of a book, or the scenes of a movie.
Well, first, I offered this view based on Scripture. If you have an opposing scriptural view (you know, one that says that God is not Sovereign), then you should use it. You offered "I don't see why ..." as your support.
God is, according to Scripture, Sovereign. If you are offering a somehow-less-than-sovereign God as your alternative, you're going to have to figure out in what possible sense this is the God of the Bible.
I'm baffled by the charge of schizophrenic. I do not enjoy causing my children grief, but I certainly took them to the doctor for shots and if I didn't I would have been (rightly) classified as a poor parent. That's not schizophrenic; that's normal. Sometimes the greater good requires some pain. Doesn't mean that we (or God) specifically has to enjoy the pain.
And, of course, there's the whole theodicy problem you're left with. The problem of evil. I suggest that God intends evil for His good purposes. You suggest that evil is out of God's hands. You've managed to free Him from being blamed, but at the same time, you have no answer to the problem of evil. So, is it that He is not powerful enough or not loving enough to stop evil when He could and should?
Oh, and, by the way, I said that God inflicts grief because the text says He does. You'll have to figure out how God does not cause grief without contradicting God's own words.
As you know if you have done much research there is plenty of scripture that can be used to argue against Calvinism, and your version of Sovereignty. I think that God could control everything if he wanted to, but he limited his control to allow free will and the ability for free agents to truly love and obey him.
Secondly, I think as I demonstrated with my first reply, you are the one that has the problem with the problem of evil. As to your doctor analogy, if all pain in life could bring us closer to God I would agree, but what about the mother who accidentally backs over her 2 year old with their SUV? God didn't cause her to do this. He could bring good out of it, but his hand wasn't in this situation.
Not to mention that in your view God sends people to hell for being exactly the person he created them to be.
I think the most logical and scriptural theodicy is the warfare theodicy, the evil in the world is caused by free agents that work in contradiction to the will of God. Some of these are people, others are angels and spiritual forces. As we align ourselves with Christ we bring God's will on earth as it is in heaven. To the degree we refuse the will of God, we choose to hinder the furthering of his kingdom.
Since I have no interest in defending Calvinism, I'm not much concerned. Since I have all of Scripture to defend God's Sovereignty, there is a problem there. But I can tell that defending your theology from Scripture isn't of much concern to you, nor is it of much interest on your part to understand anyone else.
For instance, I know of no one who believes that God sends people to hell for being who God created them to be. Everyone who believes in the biblical hell understand that people go there because they earn it by sin.
For instance, you've managed to completely miss the problem of Sovereignty. As it turns out, "to the degree we refuse the will of God," God is not sovereign. To the degree that "he limited his control to allow free will", God is not sovereign. And to the degree that God is not sovereign, the Bible is in error and God is not God.
And the whole problem of evil appears to have eluded you. You say evil exists because of those outside of God. So either God cannot change that or He just doesn't care. Not omnipotent, or not loving. Your call.
By the way, your whole praise of "free will and the ability for free agents to truly love and obey him" thing -- I'd suggest you locate that in Scripture somewhere. I can't.
You have the same problem with the text, you just presuppose that the grief has a higher purpose. Where is the support of this?
Let me see ... I have the same problem with the text ... I wonder what problem you're talking about. Your argument is that God does not cause grief. My argument is that I agree with the text. No, can't be that problem. I hold that God causes grief, but has compassion in it (you know, like the text says). You argue that He works to preserve the free will of man over His own will (you know, in opposition to the rest of Scripture). So that can't be it. I argue that God works all things together for good and you want to know why I believe that God has a higher purpose? I'm still not getting it.
I would love to address your objection, but I can't figure out what it is.
Let's imagine a hypothetical mother whose 2-year-old is kidnapped and murdered. Very, very sad. Tragic. And providing answers at the front of such an event would be pointless. But what answers are there? My answer would be, "God saw it coming and planned for it for a greater good." Your answer would be "God could have stopped it but, He had a higher concern for the sanctity of the killer's free will, so you're out of luck. Sorry."
But, look, none of this is the point. Here's what you need to do. Examine the text (Lamentations 3:31-33). It says that God causes grief and it says that God does not willingly grieve. I've suggested, connecting to Romans 8:28 as well as Genesis 50:20 (the Romans 8:28 of the Old Testament), that God doesn't like it, but does it for a higher purpose. You disagree. That's your prerogative. Don't merely tell me I'm wrong. Tell me what the text means in light of your certainty that God does not cause grief (even though the text says so) and does not have a higher purpose (except, it appears from your argument, the defense of Man's Free Will). Disagree with me all you want. I'm most concerned about Scripture and what it says. Tell me what this says and how it correlates with your position.
A couple months ago you wrote about the benefits of being able to both understand and well argue commonly held beliefs in opposition to your own. I agreed with that. I'm too busy to look back for that particular post but I think I also recall you saying that you enjoy this exercise. I have always found your commenter named Bubba (whoever he is) to sound like a very level-headed, intelligent, well-reasoned person, yet it seems you usually are rather quick to dismiss him, rather than engage him in long and satisfying-to-him (and some us readers) discussions of your opposing views. The same with this new commenter.
I'm quite sure your readers would find it interesting to hear you attempt to present a very strong case against Calvinist beliefs. It might result in a very big and freeing change or two to your entire world view. I have never been able to understand why you can't seem to fathom the possibilty of God having chosen (because He is sovereign, therefore He can) to give mankind free will. Were you raised as a Calvinist, seeped in this worldview since Day 1? If not, do you ever ever even imagine (anymore) the possibility that you could be in error in your thinking, that somewhere along the line you may have begun to buy into some deception? It happens to the best of us.
Please consider the fun and potentially very affirming exercise of trying hard to turn us all against Calvinist beliefs, if even just for a day. Then you can go right back to promoting your beliefs the following day. It would be so interesting to know WHY all those crazy Arminians believe the fallacies they do anyway, wouldn't it? What are all of the scriptures they use and how do we Calvinists explain all of them away? I'm gathering that the God of Arminian beliefs is a much more loving sort than the God of Calvinism.
I've asked liveuntothelord to present arguments. His version is "It's not what you believe, but what I believe." No biblical support. No reasons. Just "no". I don't call that an argument. If you think I've dismissed this person too quickly, I don't know what to do.
As for defending Arminian theology, you'd have to know more of my history. I was not always Reformed in my views. I came to it with great fight and difficulty. I was forced to it by the weight of Scripture. Originally I was a 4-point Arminian (I always believed you couldn't lose your salvation). So I do understand the Arminian theology since it was once mine.
I'm afraid, though, that the possibility of "a very big and freeing change or two to your entire world view" is not in the cards. That is, if it turns out that God is not Sovereign, Scripture is not either as plain or reliable, that Man is much, much more in charge, that we ourselves are the final and ultimate reason that we are saved, then I end up with a much, much smaller God and a much, much less impressive salvation. Now, don't misunderstand me. I'm not saying that they hold to a smaller God and lesser salvation. I'm saying that I would have to settle for such.
And I have to say that the idea that "the God of Arminian beliefs is a much more loving sort than the God of Calvinism" belies a rather radical failure to grasp the God of Reformed theology, both in His Sovereignty and in His love. The God of the Arminians loves everyone equally. Imagine that in human terms. "Yes, I love all women equally." My wife would not be pleased. But the God of Reformed theology loves His elect so intensely that He absolutely and certainly accomplishes their salvation, justification, sanctification, and glorification without fail. No errors. No mistakes. No failures. I find that to be a more remarkable love than the God who loves everybody but can't actually save the ones He loves ... without their permission. To me it would be like loving my child but failing to do what's best for them because "they won't let me". What kind of a loving father would I be? Just one of the differences of worldview, I suppose.
I think there are plenty of Arminian sources (I think they outnumber Reformed sources) that do an adequate job of making their case. I think this because of the large number of Arminians like this liveuntothelord commenter. I think there is a large number of Arminians primarily because it holds humans in higher regard, elevating Free Will to a sovereign position and lower God to a subordinate position. That scares me.
This passage of Lamentations deals with God's punishment of Israel for their unfaithfulness. He warned them and they continued to disobey. This grief is not arbitrary and we can not use this passage to expound to all people at all places. In fact God says in Jeremiah 18 that he would change his punishment if they changed their ways.
God planning for a 2 year old to be murdered for the "greater good" seems a bit of a stretch. How is it better to blame God for this murder, than to blame the murderer?
Is your response to the problem of evil: There is no evil just differing degrees of God's planned good?
You think that your definition of Sovereignty put's God on top. But if god is Sovereign why can't he choose to give free will? Why can't he choose to change his mind? Why can't he choose to change his punishment? You put God in a box.
What if the greater good you speak of was actually God giving humans true free will? What if that was his sovereign will?
On top of all of this I just want to add that I enjoy the back and forth and don't want to come off as rude or disrespectful. I am convinced we are both trying to make sense of tough situations and using the Bible to get there. We just interpret things a bit differently. Thanks for the responses.
Anonymous says I dismissed you too readily. I'm asking some questions for clarification and I'm not getting answers.
First, you'll need to read the context of Lamentations before you conclude that it is about punishment. The book is about lamenting. Second, "It's about punishment" doesn't solve the dilemma. He does it (whatever it is) and He doesn't do it willingly. I say He does it because there is a higher purpose. You say He is forced against His will to do it because Man sins? (And isn't punishing sin a higher purpose?) It's not an answer. Nor does Scripture help when you have God saying things like "I am the LORD, and there is no other, the One forming light and creating darkness, causing well-being and creating calamity; I am the LORD who does all these" (Isa 45:6-7).
Then there was the whole hypothetical. I asked you for your response. Your response was "I don't agree with your response." That's not an answer. Unless you tell me otherwise, I can only conclude that you would need to tell this mother that God could have prevented this evil, but He had a higher commitment to defend that murderer's Free Will, so He's sorry, but bad stuff happens and there's nothing He can do about it.
Then there's this whole problem of not even coming close to understanding what the position here is. Calling evil "degrees of good" is horrible. Not what I said. Not the position I find in Scripture. I find this: "You meant it for evil, but God meant it for good" (Gen 50:20). That's calling it evil. God doesn't produce evil, but He allows it and turns it to His good use. It is no less evil.
The problem of evil is why doesn't God eliminate it? My answer is that He can use it. Your answer is that God is more dedicated to preserving Man's Free Will than to either being loving. Again, not an answer.
Despite what a lot of people think, there are a lot of things God cannot do. God cannot lie (Heb 6:18). God cannot change (Mal 3:6). He cannot sin (James 1:13). He cannot fail (Jer 32:17). And much more. No being can violate their own nature, not even God. So when you ask, "Why can't he choose to give free will?" what you're asking is "Why can't God sovereignly submit to His creation?" which, oh, by the way, is the primary sin (Rom 1:25). But I think the problem is that you and I are using different words (which is another case of not coming close to understanding what the position here is). It is simply a violation of logic, language, reason, not to mention Scripture for God to Sovereignly surrender Sovereignty. Can't be done.
You are offering the standard responses, I suppose (although most of them are "You're wrong"). I'm still not finding biblical reasons to uphold Man's Free Will over God's Sovereignty or a biblical response to God's claim that He causes evil (King James version) while not causing it or an explanation from your view why God would cause grief while not willing to cause grief (for whatever reason, punishment or otherwise). I understand you deny it's for a higher purpose. What then? And when I read that God "works all things after the counsel of His will" (Eph 1:11), I'm going to be unable to agree that some things are out of His control because He is too committed to Man's Free Will.
Jeremiah wrote Lamentations after the fall of Jerusalem. He is Lamenting the fall of his nation after he had predicted and prophesied it. This is the context and I am not mistaken.
Arbitrary grief, and God punishing his people for disobedience is different and his use in Isaiah is the same. It is the prophets proclaiming calamity of disobedience. It is laid out in Deuteronomy
Surely, this commandment that I am commanding you today is not too hard for you, nor is it too far away…See, I have set before you today life and prosperity, death and adversity. If you obey the commandments of the Lord your God that I am commanding you today, by loving the Lord your God, walking in his ways, and observing his commandments, decrees, and ordinances, then you shall live and become numerous, and the Lord your God will bless you in the land that you are entering to possess. But if your heart turns away and you do not hear, but are led astray to bow down to other gods and serve them, I declare to you today that you shall perish…I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Choose life so that you and your descendants may live…. (Deut. 30:11–19)
My answer to the hypothetical is God does not impede on free will, and free agents are free to choose against the will of God. This is the cause of evil. Like it says in Isaiah 30:1 “Oh, rebellious children…who carry out a plan, but not mine; who make an alliance, but against my will, adding sin to sin”
People continue to not choose God, even when he wills all people to choose him. His will is thwarted by the free will of people. (1 Tim. 2:4; 2 Pet 3:9)
Jesus even acknowledges this: Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often I have desired to gather your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you were not willing! (Matt. 23:37)
I also do not believe there is nothing he can do about it. I agree with you that he brings good out of evil, and continues to work through His influence, His people and angels to bring about His will on earth.
In your view you say God uses evil and therefore doesn't need to remove it. If God is in complete control and his plan is always carried out, why wasn't his plan no evil? Or is this where we say God's ways are higher than our ways?
On Sovereignty. Do you define it as God controlling all things? I guess I define it as God having ultimate authority. I don't think that free will gets us out from under God's authority, because we will all arrive at judgement some day and will then see that our free will gives us little authority.
Ah, good! You've offered some real responses here!
But here's what I want to know. You claim that God does not cause grief. The text in question (and elsewhere) says that He does while affirming that He does not do it willingly. I claim this is because He has a higher purpose in it. You claim He doesn't. What I'm looking for is not the reason for which He causes grief (in this case you say it's punishment), but how it is that He can both cause grief and not willingly cause grief.
Your version of God's available course of action in the case of evil is "influence". Yet I read that He can and has actually prevented people from sinning (Gen 20:6). This doesn't bode well for God's supposed commitment to Man's Free Will. Nor does it solve the problem of the hypothetical poor woman who lost her child to a murderer. You word it the way you wish -- "God does not impede on free will, and free agents are free to choose against the will of God" -- but in the end you are indeed committing yourself to the principle that God is more concerned about defending the Free Will of Free Agents than He is about the welfare of the mother and her child. And that is the problem of theodicy -- the problem of evil.
You are quite sure that God's will is, apparently with regularity, thwarted. Do you, then, have a different understanding of Eph 1:11? In what sense does God "work all things after the counsel of His will" when "His will is thwarted by the free will of people"?
As to guessing God's higher purposes for allowing evil to continue, that would be foolhardy on my part. "The secret things belong to the LORD our God" (Deut 29:29). We do have some hints, however. We do know that it is God's will to demonstrate His power and His wrath on vessels of wrath prepared for destruction. There are, in fact, a large number of God's attributes that are invisible in the absence of evil. With no evil, how would we know justice, mercy, grace, or wrath? Even love would become dim. If His purpose is to more surely display His nature and His glory, evil would be necessary.
I define Sovereignty as "supreme power or authority" (because, after all, that's the dictionary definition). This doesn't mandate control, but authority. A human sovereign commands his servant to execute a particular task, for example. He doesn't have to actually exercise control over the servant in the execution of that task. The servant carries it out. If that servant does not execute the task assigned he is exercising free will and demonstrating that the sovereign (lowercase "s" for a human sovereign) is not actually sovereign; the servant's will has contravened the sovereign's will. But if God is actually Sovereign (capital "S" for God), then He works all things after the counsel of His will. Nothing that occurs is outside His will, whether He directly causes it or whether He allows it to happen without causing it. Conversely, if He intends to work all things after the counsel of His will and that will is routinely thwarted, He cannot be called "Sovereign" ("supreme power or authority"). To "thwart" is to prevent someone from accomplishing what they intend. In the cases of God's will being thwarted, the supreme power or authority would be the one who thwarted God. The one whose will is accomplished over another is the one who is Sovereign, the one with the ultimate power or authority.
You are obviously of the opinion that there is nothing much higher in God's opinion than Man's Free Will (note the capital letters ... for a reason). I've offered Scripture that says that God works all things after the counsel of His will, placing His will at the top. Could you offer any biblical support that gives some sort of clear statement that God has a prior commitment to Man's Free Will?
If God causes grief, but does not do so willingly, this is a contradiction. If he causes it he must will it, and thus it is done willingly. Do you mean that he finds no joy in it, or wishes it were a different way?
I think that everything God accomplishes is in accordance with his will, but not everything accomplished was accomplished by God. Therefore Ephesians 1:11 could just say that what God accomplishes, he does so in alignment with his will. You presuppose that everything done is done by God, but I don't think it must be read this way. I again cite the Biblical texts that show that man has thwarted God's will.
You keep saying that I elevate Man's Free Will, and maybe that is true. But I think that the only reason God holds free will in high regard, is because he holds true love and obedience in high regard. He desires a relationship with his creation. As a parent, if I raise my kids and truly and deeply express my love for my kids, there is a good chance they will end up reciprocating that love for me. They can still choose to love me or reject me. This is much greater than if I were to have created a robot child that tells me it loves me all the time. In a deterministic environment there is no true love, there is only us doing what we were predetermined to do.
I think God holds Love in high regard, as those are the two commandments Jesus gives. Love God, and Love others.
Do I mean He finds no joy in it? What I mean is irrelevant. Jeremiah said it. Either you view it as a contradiction as you just indicated, or you view it as something else. What?
So, if I understand you correctly, you understand Eph 1:11, when it says "all things", to mean "all things that God does" as opposed to "all things in reality." Seems kind of silly to say, I suppose. It's merely "Everything I do I do because I intend to." As everyone does. But, again, I do not presuppose that "everything done is done by God" but that God "works all things according to His will." Thus, if Man does evil, he is allowed to do it because God will use it "according to His will." If the evil that Man might do will not work "according to His will", He does not allow it.
That Man has failed to do God's will is a given. I suggest that there is an ultimate will of God by which God oversees all things (there's that phrase again) that determines what does and doesn't happen. There is a will of God in which God commands what we do and we routinely violate that will. There is a will of God in which God reflects what He'd prefer (such as the salvation of all men), but that is also routinely violated. But if there is no ultimate will of God that does not get thwarted by anyone, then indeed we do not have a Sovereign God, He does not work all things after the counsel of His will, and I'm going to have to go to a new religion ... or give up everything entirely. I mean, seriously, Eph 1:11 is a lie, all the reference to a Sovereign God are false, Man is the ultimate ruler, and we're lost.
"The only reason God holds free will in high regard, is because he holds true love and obedience in high regard." That's where I'd like to get an answer. You have defined "Free Will" as an ultimate reality for God, something He is willing to surrender His actual Sovereignty in order to maintain. You have defined "true love" as necessarily dependent on "Free Will". And you've defined "obedience" as necessarily dependent on "Free Will". Now, I know that this is a popular viewpoint, but I can't find "Free will" anywhere in Scripture nor can I find it anywhere in the definitions of either "love" or "obedience". So if your only reason for arguing that God holds free will in high regard is this, you might want to rethink it. Give me Scripture. Even a dictionary definition would help.
Note, by the way, that a straightforward reading of Eph 1:11 does not require "a deterministic environment". You're misunderstanding the idea.
I also need to point out that you have an unusual notion of "Free Will". You're using the term loosely. Perhaps you can give me a definition of what you mean.
God punished his people for disobedience. His will was that his people would change their ways. They didn't, so he responded in the way he had said he would. This interpretation makes the most sense of 1 Tim. 2:4 and Ezek 18:23 as well. Punishment grieves God and he wills for them to choose him and obey him, but often they don't.
As I see it you interpret the Bible to say that God allows evil, SO THAT he can use it. As I interpret it God allow people to choose, sometimes that results in evil, he can always turn the evil they choose and bring a good result to it.
When I use the term free will I mean a person's decisions can't be completely determined by powers outside themselves. I believe that free will is incompatible with determinism. With out this type of free will a person can not be held morally accountable for their actions, because they couldn't choose otherwise. In essence a person must be able to truly choose option A or B.
As far as scripture for free will, I have given you some verses that show that people can choose. I would also say that one of the main themes of the Old Testament is God continually showing grace to a people that continually choose not to obey.
If you are looking for the verse that says "I am God and I have given people free will to choose, so they can truly love me." You won't find it. If you look for the verse that say "I am God and I have predestined everything for my glory." You won't find that either. That is why people interpret verses differently, and fall in different camps.
You said, "If God causes grief, but does not do so willingly, this is a contradiction." You are now embracing the contradiction?
No, of course I wasn't looking for a verse with particular wording. What I was looking for from you would be something like I would provide. "God works all things after the counsel of His will" (Eph 1:11) which requires that God works all things after the counsel of His will. Why? Repeatedly in Scripture the point is "to the praise of the glory of His grace" (Eph 1:12). We are commanded to do everything for the glory of God, so if God is true to His nature and since God works all things after the counsel of His will, I can only conclude that He is God and He predestined everything for His glory.
There is no doubt you can find verses that say we make choices, which is beside the point since I'm not even hinting that we cannot. The existence of the ability of human beings to make uncoerced choices is a given. That's not the question. What I'm looking for is something -- anything -- that would demonstrate the high regard you say God has for Man's Free Will. I say it's high regard because He was willing to diminish His own capacity in order to protect it. I say it's high regard because He's willing to surrender His own Sovereign Will to it and to allow evil to occur because of it. This "Man's Free Will" thing is really, really big. It lowers God and elevates Man and I'd like to know on what basis you believe this is so. I'd also like to find the source of your apparently standard definition of "love" and "obedience" that requires "Free Will".
And I'll be generous and not ask for an explanation of how, in any sense of the word "Sovereign", God can be both "Sovereign" and limited in His Sovereignty. I've asked probably hundreds of people for that. They tell me "He's so sovereign that He can stop being so sovereign and still be sovereign." Fine. Not making any sense to me. But I will have to say that if you are hoping to convince me of this kind of sovereignty on God's part, you will be hoping to succeed in convincing me to give up the existence of a biblical God ... and all the hope that goes with that. If it is indeed true that Man routinely thwarts God with his Free Will, then God cannot deliver on His promise to work all things together for good, and, I have to tell you, I'm counting on that.
Thank you for so comprehensively addressing comments I made the other day. (Didn't know you used to hold Arminian beliefs.) Out-of-town guests have kept me away. I have only a minute even now, but see that lots of dialogue has transpired. At a glance, looks interesting. Always food for thought at this blog.
I second Anoy. Lots of food for thought.
In what logical sense can God be at the mercy of Man's Will and still accomplish His goal? It would be like trying to direct a colony of ants to construct a wall. There are several examples in Scripture of God directly effecting people's decisions. This doesn't mean that He is puppetteering everyone's actions, but nobody's actions happen without the permission of God. If an evil act, or a good act, would be in opposition to His divine Will, He is perfectly willing and able to influence people to do or not. The Bible clearly teaches that Man has the ability to choose, and is culpable for their actions, but the Bible is also just as clear that nothing happens without God's stamp of approval. We have two seemingly contradictory conditions that must both be true or the Bible is useless. So, people like Stan come up with the "two will" theology. There is God's will, aka desire, wish, hope. This would be our obedience, our repentance. Then there is God's Will, Divine, Immovable. All things happen according to this Will, nothing opposes this Will. If I remember correctly, in the original languages, this is apparent because of the different words translated "will". We lose these differences due to the limitations of translation and English. That's why many like Stan differentiate between free will and Free Will, sovereign and Sovereign, will and Will. We daily, freely thwart God's will. We sin, we disobey, we ignore Christ. But nobody can oppose God's Will because anyone that can thwart that Will now has authority over God. Because of God's Will, we can do evil, but God can mean good. Nothing evil happens without God's approval, otherwise we'd be far worse than we are now. God's restraining hand on evil keeps us from completely annihilating ourselves. Without God's intervention on our will, Christ's work on the cross was meaningless.
I am not embracing the contradiction, I am saying that God can punish(cause grief), but wish his creation would have heeded his warning(not will it). I making a crucial distinction between arbitrary grief, and punishment or judgement.
Can God work everything to council of his will, without everything working to the council of his will? God can always be influencing things to the council of his will, but it doesn't mean that this is always accomplished. In each of our lives we choose to succumb to His influence and align our will with his, or we choose to stop up our ears and reject his influence or in other words harden our hearts.
You are saying that we have choices, but I can not see the logic of choice in a predestined reality. I can see how you might think we have the perception of choice, but If all things are predestined, we have no true choice. If our lives are all planned out, we never had the chance to make a real choice. You say it is a given, but it doesn't align with the fact you present that God controls all.
You give too high credit to the influence of Man's Free Will. This is not the only sphere of God's influence, and there is no doubt in my mind that God can accomplish anything he wants without man.
Oh, okay, then you're now saying that your original "If God causes grief, but does not do so willingly, this is a contradiction" is wrong and you're agreeing with me that God has two wills. With one He does what is good (in this case, justice), and with the other He wishes for things that might have been but has something better in mind (in this case, justice). In short, you're agreeing with me on that point.
Clearly you are not agreeing with me that when the Bible says that God works all things after the counsel of His will that it means what it says or is an accurate representation of reality. Paul said that God did that, but didn't actually mean "all things" to mean "all things". Instead, either by "all things" He meant "all things that don't go against Man's Free Will" or, well, he was just wrong.
And, of course, as I said, you and I will simply disagree on the definition of free will, so we won't be able to agree on free will. You seem to require a libertarian sense of the term in which free will requires no internal or external influence, predisposition, or inclination. I don't. So while we appear to be discussing a common term ("free will"), we are, in fact, discussing two different things. I see no problem of the existence of (my version of) free will wherein God draws boundaries -- "you can choose in this arena and not elsewhere" -- which still allows choice. Clearly I'm going to have to write a piece on free will, aren't I?
And, of course, it is I who would suggest you give too high credit to Man's Free Will. You stated categorically that Man frequently thwarts God's will. Then you say that "God can accomplish anything he wants to without man." Apparently you mean He can, but doesn't. It is your view that a being hostile to God (Rom 8:7), inclined only to evil (Gen 6:5; 8:12), and blinded by the god of this world (2 Cor 4:4) with a sovereign Free Will defended by God will not subvert God's will while he fights against God's will. Sorry. I'm lost at this point. Not getting it.
And I have nothing, under your view, that would offer any comfort to, say, the families who lost members in the 9/11 attack. I would be forced to tell them, "Sorry. God could have stopped it, but He is more highly committed to their free will than to your well-being."
(By the way, have you found anything in the Bible yet that tells us that God diminishes His Sovereignty in favor of Man's Free Will or perhaps anything that says that God so dearly loves Man's Free Will because love and obedience don't exist without it?)
As I read this thread I am not only more convinced of the sovereignty of God, but I am more convinced that a step away from that view of God is one step closer to apostasy. Not that I would call "liveuntothelord" an apostate. There are many brothers who hold similar views who produce great fruit. But apostasies don't just flick like a switch, they are the result of generational sized shifts as man is increased and God is decreased from generation to generation.
I am reminded of the man who lost his son, and the pastor was attempting to console him by saying that God did not want this to happen. The man rebuked the pastor. He said, not only have I lost my son, but you are now taking away my God too. I, for one, would echo such sentiments.
As to me agreeing with you. After further recollection, I think I almost agree with you. I don't think that God's punishment is "better", it is just required due to lack of obedience. Maybe it appears as if he has two wills, but his punishment occurs with tears in his eyes like Jesus coming into Jerusalem, with his intended result still being the same. In the case of Lamentations the will of God was for his people to obey.
I read the verse as, God accomplishes all things according to his coucil and will. This is as opposed to all things are accomplished according to God's council and will.
On top of that the same greek word for "all things", panta, is used in a similar way in 1 Cor. 12:6 where it clearly means all things pertaining to gifts of the Holy Spirit.
On top of that we must understand the context of what God's will is, in particular for this passage. In Ephesians 1:9 it speaks of God's mysterious will. Which if we continue to read the passage through 1:14 becomes apparent. God's will is to unite Jews and Gentiles. We see this as Paul changes from using us and we language (Jews), to you and they language(Gentiles). So the verse can be interpreted to say, through Christ, God has worked his mysterious will to bring the Gentiles into the fold of God. Like 1 Cor. 12:6 the "all things", is focused and not general.
I would like to read a post on your view of free will. I do hold a libertarian view of free will.
As you can imagine I find no peace in your view when it comes to tragedy. If you tried to console me in a time of tragedy, by saying God did this for a greater purpose, I would blame God. I believe most people understand that true love must be freely chosen, and I believe most people can see how God would have to limit himself to have true obedience and love. I don't think that most people even have a problem blaming the terrorists for 9/11. I don't disagree with you that God is working in those situations, and brings good out of them, but he doesn't cause them.
As to your "boundaries" example. Doesn't this still limit God's sovereignty? If he does not author all things within the boundaries, he isn't in control and therefore is not sovereign, and then you are left in the same position I am in. In you view is God the author of sin, and does that fall within the boundaries?
As to my statements about God being able to accomplish anything he wants without man. I am not sure if I fully thought this out, in a rush to get it up before bed... :) I will think on this. I agree with you that at present it makes no sense...
I'm a little confused. If we don't have a God that predestines things, then why does God say He predestines things?
I think the image of the love of God for His chosen has eroded, just as the image of love in marriage has eroded. Even 150 years ago, it wasn't uncommon for 2 people to be married without their choosing...and still love each other. In the last 70 years, we have given this feeling of "love" dominion over the choice of love. I choose every day to love my wife, even when she makes me mad. She doesn't always engender warm, loving feelings in me, but I choose to love her none the less. That kind of love is lacking in our world, and so the image of how we can love God by "force" wanes. We give such priority to being in "love", that we forget that love is a volitional action, not merely warm feelings or happy thoughts. My theology says that we love God because He allowed us to choose to love Him. And just as I must choose every day to love my wife, I must choose to love God, but just as I am bound by oath to love my wife always, I am bound by God to love Him.
No, seriously, you are going to suggest that the text of Ephesians 1 is about God's grand plan to unite Jews and Gentiles, let alone that this might be the "all things" to which Paul refers? Seriously? I cannot begin to fathom the suggestion that the passage is talking about anything less than God's will to bring glory to Himself in all things (Eph 1:3, 6, 12, 14). But, hey, if you want to limit Paul's "all things" to "uniting Jews and Gentiles", have at it. That, and your libertarian free will argue wholly and fully for a less-than-sovereign God.
So, I would console you that God is doing a good thing and you would blame God? I can hear the echoes already: "You are not setting your mind on God's interests, but man's" (Mar 8:33). (When you figure out to whom Jesus said it and why, you'll see the significance.) On the other hand, "God doesn't care nearly as much about you in this tragedy as He does about the free will of the sinner that did it" is much better? Knowing that God could have prevented it but refused gives you comfort?
You're right, I'm sure. Most people believe that love must be freely chosen. Of course, the basis for that belief is not offered, discussed, or demonstrated. Nor can you find anything like it in the pages of Scripture. Let me know when you find the basis for this popular but unfounded claim.
I don't know what to tell you on God limiting Man. Turns out you have a very small view of God (from my perspective, of course). Mine is an Omniscient God who knows what you will choose to do tomorrow and can decide whether or not to let you do it. Mine is a Sovereign God who always accomplishes His ultimate intentions, so I can count on His promises. Mine is an Omnipotent God who can and does do whatever He pleases, so I can always believe that whatever happens He intends for good. And, of course, mine is a Good God, which means that everything He does is good, so even on the occasion that I might question Him (you know, like Job did), He's good and I'm wrong.
Imagine an earthly father (so keep in mind that he will be limited in his good traits). He puts child locks on cabinets to keep his toddler out of places she must not go (limited free will). He allows her some choices, but with a careful eye on her to be sure she doesn't do anything dangerous. He teaches her by allowing limited choice and controlling consequences (positive and negative). He is ... sovereign. A father that says, "I so highly prize my daughter's free will and do not believe that if she loves me out of duty, she loves me at all, so I'm not going to limit her choices or interfere in her free will" is deemed a bad father (at best -- more likely a child abuser). This is the Father you're offering me. It's not the Father I find in the pages of Scripture. If it turns out that this is the God of the Bible, I'm not interested, thanks. Fortunately for me, I have yet to get a reasonable biblical explanation of your version of God that fits with all the other Scripture I've offered.
Okay, that last was an answer to liveuntothelord, not David.
Yes, absolutely, David! The Bible commands us to love. If love isn't love unless it is "Free Will", it makes no sense. Biblically, loving out of duty is good.
The scary thing about your analogy, is the earthly father knows what is good and right for his children and prevents them from those things, but God in your view allows the majority of people into the cupboard that contains eternal suffering and torment. He guides them right into the fires of hell, unless I am misinterpreting you.
Four quick points:
1. The earthly father example included "He allows her some choices, but with a careful eye on her to be sure she doesn't do anything dangerous. He teaches her by allowing limited choice and controlling consequences (positive and negative)." Every earthly father knows that some learning and some benefits require danger and pain.
2. The earthly father analogy was imperfect by definition.
3. The earthly father would have his child's interest as primary. God has His own interests as primary.
4. You are indeed misunderstanding and misinterpreting me.
Would you say it is in His own interest that a good portion of his creation goes to hell?
Well, I could provide a straight answer, but let me ask you. Is it your suggestion that it is not in God's best interest and, so sorry, but God has failed miserably to achieve His best interests? (Hint: Please refer to passages like Psa 115:3, Isa 59:1, and Jer 32:17 before you answer.)
Seriously, this whole line of thinking is completely baffling to me. It is the suggestion God is being shortchanged by Man's Free Will. God wants to do better, but just cannot. Man has cut Him off from what He wants to achieve or acquire. Is that really the position you're taking?
1. God desires all people to be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth. (1 Tim 2:4).
2. This does not always happen.
3. God doesn't always get what he desires.
I would then contend that for some reason it was in God's best interest to not get everything he desired. I find the only logical reason for God to not get what he desired is to open up the possibility for true love and obedience, considering this is what he asks his people for.
You say God always does what is in his best interest, and yet he clearly doesn't always get what he desires. Why is that?
Well, actually, that was kind of the point of the original post here. God desires (or, in the case of the Lamentations, does not desire) things, but doesn't always do them because He has something better in mind. That could be that He doesn't enjoy the death of the wicked but desires more that justice occur, or it could be that He desires that all be saved but desires more that His power and wrath be demonstrated (Rom 9:22). This would mean that even though God doesn't always do what He desires, He always does what He wills.
Let me make this perfectly clear, though. A God who surrenders His Sovereignty to Human Free Will is not a God who can be counted on. You can never know if the hoped for thing God was going to do would be thwarted by Free Will. His promises are only expectations without any real certainty. His prophecies could easily be wrong since Man's Free Will could intervene at any moment. He may wish to work all things together for good to those who love God, but you can't really rely on that because Man's Free Will is sure to thwart His plans.
I also assume that you place a high expectation on Man's Free Will. You believe, for instance, that there is nothing preventing an unbeliever from choosing Christ. In terms of salvation, you would have to concur that Man's Free Will is the Ultimate Determination of who does and doesn't get saved. Not God. He kind of places the gift out there and hopes a lot of people take it, but He won't interfere. I would also have to assume that you believe that it is Man's Free Will that retains that salvation ... or not. At any time, any human being could choose, thanks to God's firm commitment to Man's Free Will, to leave off his salvation. Thus, I would consider it an extremely high expectation of Man's Free Will. I would, of course, also consider it unbiblical.
By the way, have you yet found any biblical foundation for the claim that God's deep desire is for "true love" and "obedience" (where these terms demand MAN'S FREE WILL)? (Anything at all that suggests a biblical definition of "true love" including "Free Will" would be helpful.) (I ask because you continue to assume it while avoiding any support or the comments to the contrary.)
There is another serious problem with Libertarian Free Will. If the God of the Bible is Omniscient -- knows all things, past, present, and future -- then He knows all choices. This means that these choices are fixed. It's not that He fixes them, but that they cannot be other than what they will be. If this is true, then Libertarian Free Will cannot exist, since that kind of free will requires that choices must be "real" in the sense that they can be one way or another, not fixed. So either God is Omniscient and knows all things -- past, present, and future -- and Libertarian Free Will does not exist, or Libertarian Free Will exists and God is not Omniscient. There are no other options.
In your view could God pick and choose what he wants to predetermine, and yet still grant man a great deal of free will? Could he indeed grant man enough free will to go against God's will?
Do you see God's predestination as an all encompassing thing, or could predestination be only partial?
I will give you a few scriptural examples that I feel defend a God that gives man, at the very least, a great deal of free will. Enough free will for man to miss God's purpose for their life.
Luke 7:30 states that by refusing to be baptized the pharisee's missed God's purpose for their lives.
Isaiah 30:1 Speaks of the children carrying out a plan, but not God's plan.
Deuteronomy 30:11-19 shows God laying out the choices for the people of Israel. They can choose life, or choose death. God's will for them is to choose life.
And Matthew 23:37 shows a God that wanted to gather Jerusalem to himself, but they were not willing.
The Bible speaks a lot of the heart. Whether that is turning your heart towards God, or hardening your heart. As I read scripture, I interpret the "heart" to be the that part of humans that is able to choose God, or not. It is the part of the human that loves God, or not. It is the part of the human that obey's God, or not.
Man's heart can turn towards God, or harden towards God. God expresses the desire for our hearts to obey and love him.
You keep saying that I have a low view of God. I believe my view of God requires him to be much greater than the God in your view. In your view God can only accomplish his will when he completely or nearly completely controls his creation. It takes a much greater, much more intelligent God, to continually redeem the evil choices that are made than it takes to author them. It takes more intelligence to work evil for good, than author evil and call it good.
I'll share the best, albeit limited, analogy that I have found to demonstrate this. God is like the most intelligent chess master. He always has the best and most perfect move to counter any move made against him. Not only that but he sees every "evil" move that could possibly be made, and can foresee every possible "good" counter move that would be needed. An interactive, working, influencing God like this is much greater than a completely predetermining God. It is the difference between an author and a chess master. An author writes everything for a purpose, the chess master responds perfectly to every move brought against them. The God in the Bible is more like the chess master than the author.
I want to thank you again for you thorough and reflective responses. This is the best back and forth I have ever experienced on the subject, and I have used this conversation to reevaluate where I stand. You make very strong Biblical points, and I respect the tone in which you make them. It is hard to tell someone you think they are wrong and be respectful, and yet I continually feel this way. The more we go back and forth, the more I tend to think parts of the future are predetermined, but I still see a great deal of scripture that defends man's ability to choose God or not. Thanks again.
Question 1: We need to determine which "will" you're asking about. Desires or will? If God works all things after the counsel of His will and "all things" means "all things" as I would contend (from the text, the context, and the rest of Scripture), then no created being has the capacity to ultimately go against God's will, although it may be God's will that He doesn't get what He desires.
Question 2: If God works all things after the counsel of His will and "all things" means "all things", then "predestination" would include everything. Note that it doesn't require "cause", "precipitate", "force", or any such thing.
Question 3 (so to speak): You're offering me texts where people don't choose what God wants. You're not offering me biblical reasons to assume that, in the final analysis, God is no longer Sovereign. You've offered me texts that, as we agreed, God doesn't always get what He desires. What I want is some biblical reason to believe that God is not Sovereign, as is your claim -- that God has surrendered His working together of all things according to the counsel of His will in order to give Man Ultimate Sovereignty. What I'm looking for is something other than a modern "true love is not true love if it is not free will" point of view -- something from Scripture.
Note, by the way, that I there are several texts where God "put it in their hearts" to do things, which would, I think, directly violate your Libertarian Free Will concept, would it not?
I'm still curious about two things. First, if God is Omniscient -- actually knows all things, past, present, and future -- which would include all our choices, wouldn't your chessmaster scenario fail? God wouldn't know all things contingently -- not all possible choices -- but actually know what choices you would make. If you hold to an Omniscient God, in what sense can there be true Libertarian Free Will? Second, in your "bigger view of God", in what possible sense can He be either Sovereign (having limited Himself, which demands "limited") or reliable? Since His will is regularly thwarted by Man's Free Will, how can we expect He will be able to accomplish anything He intends to accomplish?
(And at what point did I say that God authors evil?)
Somebody pointed out that I addressed this whole issue directly in another post.
I would also like to point out that I have an entire category on the topic of the Sovereignty of God. Lots of stuff there like, oh, I don't know, Scripture.
I'm really confused by the glaring contradiction within liveuntothelord's position. If God is a chess master playing against...who I don't know, god must move some pieces in order to counter the evil pieces. If God is unwilling to directly interfere with the actions of Man, how can He make His will come to pass? Does He just whisper and plead into the ears of His people? Does He woo them into a path? In what way can He be both hands-off and hands-on at the same time? If absolute Free Will is true, and God refuses to directly control people, how could He ever hope to accomplish His will? A chess master must move the pieces. He can't just know what the right moves are to make, he must make them. And a note, I'm not attacking the analogy, but the premise.
Stan
Response to Answer 1:
I say will equals desires, you say will does not equal desires. You could then say God's desires are thwarted and have no dilemma. Is this right? This is probably the point of the original article :)
What if it is God's will to give man free choice, and thus they don't do as he desires?
Response to Answer 2:
You contend that "all things" means "all things" in Ephesians, but when the same term for all things is used with the same verb for works in 1 Corinthians 12:6 it doesn't mean "all things." You say the context leads you to think it is actually all things, I say the context does not lead us to that conclusion.
Finally a short note about Libertarian Free Will. I believe that God knows everything past, present, and every possibility for the future. I don't think we must hold that the future is completely settled. God may have predestined certain aspects of the future, but I contend that God knows all the future in terms of possibilities not actualities. He knows certain actualities that will come to pass, but much of the future depends on the choices of man.
Finally, it seems you contend that God didn't author evil(or at least you didn't say it), yet you contend that God's will always comes to pass. God does anything he wants. Sin and evil happen. God must have wanted them to happen or at least didn't want to stop them from happening. How do you get away from God being the cause of evil and sin?
David,
God has an army of people and angels at his disposal. By the power of the Holy Spirit, these free will beings have aligned themselves with his will and with his strong influence God's Kingdom is built.
God continually shows in the Bible he can use the weak to beat the strong, and the meek to shame the bold. God uses us to further his Kingdom and destroy the principalities, powers, and spiritual forces.
Problem: Will cannot equal desires since you agree that God does not desire to grieve but does it (will).
The context of a phrase determines the meaning of a phrase. A "good dog" is not the same as a "good man", and arguing, "Well, you used the same word to describe both the dog and the man, so you meant the same thing" doesn't make sense. The context of Ephesians 1 doesn't lend any credence to "all things" means less than "all things", since the point of the text is that the "all things" he is referencing lead to the praise of God's glory, and that isn't a limited "all things".
On God's Omniscience, your explanation of the concept puts you in the category of an Open Theist who believes in a limited omniscience (lowercase "o") instead of the classic, historically held, orthodox (and biblically supported) full Omniscience. That would explain why you believe in a limited sovereignty. Fully consistent. Unbiblical and irrational as far as I can tell, but consistent.
On God "authoring" evil, I believe that the Bible clearly teaches that God knows all things, past, present, and future. As such, God knew in advance that Adam would sin. If God knew in advance that Adam would sin, and the only possible sin that Adam could commit was eating the fruit of the tree, why would God put the tree there? Why not bypass the whole problem of sin and just not allow what He knew would happen to happen? End of problem. Worse, according to Acts 4, God predestined the murder of His Son by Herod, Pilate, the Jews, etc. (Acts 4:27-28). Is that "authoring evil"? God sent an evil spirit between Abimelech and the men of Shechem (Judges 9:23), an evil spirit to Saul (1 Sam 16:14), and a deceiving spirit to the prophets of Ahab (1 Kings 22:23). Is that "authoring evil"? I am quite sure that "God cannot be tempted by evil, and He Himself does not tempt anyone" (James 1:13), but I'm not entirely sure what your version of "authoring evil" is nor how you fit all these texts into your version.
And, of course, I still can't figure out in what sense God can be "sovereign" when He has "limited his control to allow free will" (because "limited control" is not Sovereignty) or how He can be Omniscient when He doesn't actually know what will happen in the future or how to fit either of these into biblical texts that I've offered.
Oh, and apparently He can only use the weak to beat the strong if the weak are willing.
So, those people that align their wills with His are the only ones God can use to accomplish His will? And this impossible people, do they ALWAYS align their will with His? While angels are useful tools, they are not nearly as active as humans. I'm still lost on how God can know what moves need to be made, by using wishy-washy pieces to make those moves, and actually accomplish His will. It seems that you version of God is sitting in heaven, wringing His hands, hoping that His people will do what He wants them to do to hopefully accomplish what He wants. He is not a very reliable God since He can't actually make ANYTHING happen for the good of those that love Him, He can only hope that we will do the things that would create a good outcome. Your version doesn't really give any comfort during bad times, since there is no assurance that it will turn out for the good since it is completely dependent on the wills of fallen, corrupted humans to hopefully obey God. I'm much more comforted by a God that can, will, and does move people to accomplish His will, even when it opposes their will. This God can turn evil to good without hoping that His people will do what He wants.
No Problem: God's will doesn't always come to pass. Therefore, He can grieve in response to something against His will that grieves him.
You assume that God knew in advance that Adam would sin, therefore it must have been his plan. I assume God saw it as a possibility and planned for it. If God removes the tree he removes the chance for obedience.
I see no scriptural reason to think that the future is completely determined. God may predetermine some things about the future if he desires, for example the life and death of Christ.
God is Omniscient if he knows every possibility for the future, especially since scripture is clear that God win's in the end. There is not one possibility that he doesn't know and respond to perfectly. All possibilities end in God being victorious over sin, satan, and evil.
I suppose at some point we will exhaust all arguments against each other (maybe not). When it is all said and done, I still will not be a Calvinist, because I do not believe Calvinism adequately reflects the Love of God demonstrated in the Bible. You also will not become an Armenian, Molinist, or Open Theist because you do not believe these positions adequately reflect the Sovereignty of God. It has been a great back an forth, and I will continue to read and comment on your blog from time to time. Thanks for the time you devoted to this. I appreciate it.
David,
When God controls everything isn't everything good? Sure it might look evil, but God controls every aspect that happened, so how couldn't it be good?
You underestimate what God can accomplish with Christians empowered by the Holy Spirit. We will do greater things than Christ after all.
Also those who love him have been given the Holy Spirit. God can constantly work through the Holy Spirit for the good of those who love him.
He doesn't hope for anything. He sees all that could happen and plans for each and every outcome. He is never caught off guard, and always responds perfectly.
My version gives much more comfort during bad times, because bad things are not necessarily from God. If you insist that God controls everything then he must control every bad thing. Therefore if your hypothetical 2 year old is murdered, you must attribute that to God, since he controlled all parties involved.
To be perfectly clear, I have not been trying to make little Calvinists, and I will not become an Open Theist not because it doesn't align with my preferences on the Sovereignty of God, but because it does not align with biblical, historical, or orthodox Christianity. I can't find it in the pages of my Bible. Instead, what I find is precisely the opposite. I do find that God plans everything. I do find that God is Sovereign. And I can't make any sense of the concept of a sovereign God limited or an omniscient God who doesn't know ... something. So I guess we're pretty much done with this one.
You are mixing the two. Evil happens, and it is not good that it happens. but evil does not end in evil, but good. God says He works all things for the good of those that love Him. Now, if we follow your view, there is the complete possibility of evil things happening that don't end in good. How is that a comfort? Is it really a consolation to know that God didn't want something to happen, and refused to do anything about it, and there is no good to come out of it?
David,
You misunderstand me. God can work all things for good, because He can see every possible outcome and has a response for every possible evil. He brings good to the evil, and He redeems the evil for good.
Apparently in your view, the ends justify the means. God can use evil (that he controlled to happen), to make a good outcome. But, until the good happens isn't God controlling or causing evil to happen? The only way I see this not being a problem, is if evil is only a man made thing and doesn't apply to God.
Do you agree that evil exists? If so what causes it?
Does evil "exist"? Not so sure. People certainly do evil. But the metaphysical question aside, is it your view that God doesn't have anything to do with evil? I listed lots of Scripture that says He does without actually agreeing that He necessarily "authors" evil. (Actually, I gave you the Scriptures and asked if you considered it "authoring evil".) You didn't respond.
But you miss David's point. If God's will is regularly thwarted and God has limited Himself to Man's Free Will, but what possible means can you be assured that God's plan won't be thwarted (because you've already said it regularly is) and Man's Free Will will not prevent God from achieving His plans (because you've already said He doesn't)?
I don't consider your examples authoring evil. The people who killed Jesus were evil, and the spirits were allowed by God to exercise their free will and commit evil.
God "works" all things for good. All things that come to pass are not good. God can be working for good, while others can be working for evil. God has already accomplished a great good for those who love him. It is salvation. I have faith that Christ's work on the cross is the ultimate good that God had in mind. This is the main way he works for the good of those who love him.
If anybody here is NOT a Biblical inerrantist, I have a question for you.
Was it God’s will that some errors (however slight) crept into the Word through the process of copying or translating?
Possibly of relevance is that the Word says God “is not the author of confusion.”
The response is too limited, I think. Notice that they did evil when they crucified Christ, but they did evil that God had predestined (Acts 4:27-28). God sent an evil spirit to Abimelech and to Saul. God sent a deceiving spirit to the prophets of Ahab. These cannot simply be placed in the category of "allowed by God to exercise their free will and commit evil" because the Bible clearly indicates they were from God. And Joseph clearly indicates a duality in the problem of evil. "You meant it for evil, but God meant it for good" (Gen 50:20). That is, what Joseph's brothers did was evil and they intended it for evil. One side. On the other side, God wasn't a passive observer, watching Joseph's brothers "exercise their free will and commit evil." God meant it for good. He knew the evil would occur, understood that they meant it as evil, and allowed it for His purposes ("meant it"). You see God as inactive when evil occurs and scrambling around after the fact to try to make things work out. I see God as allowing men to choose evil only when it won't contravene His plans and blocking it when it does (see, for instance, Genesis 20:6).
In all cases, though, you understand God to not know the actual future and, therefore, always in response rather than predestination mode. That cannot end up good, God cannot ultimately be considered "sovereign", and expecting Him to pull off all His promises while subjugating Himself to Man is silly at best and idolatry at worst.
Anonymous, I am a biblical inerrantist, so you likely don't want my answer, nor can I fathom in what sense your question correlates to the post, but it's my blog, so you're going to get my answer anyway.
1. A biblical inerrantist doesn't necessarily have a problem with scribe/copy errors. The official position on the inerrancy of Scripture is that it is without error, infallible, in its original texts. Subsequent copy errors don't change that original claim. Nor does the lack of original texts produce much concern. Textual criticism tells us we're pretty sure that we're around 99.1% equivalent to the originals.
2. As to the copy errors that may exist, have you looked at what they are? Primarily numerical differences or a detail here or there. Of the differences in texts that exist in the whole range of available manuscripts, the types of errors that exist are mostly spelling errors or meaningless errors. Of all the discrepancies, maybe 1% actually have any real meat to them. And all of these errors vanish when Scripture is compared with Scripture (as it always should be). So the suggestion that errors make God the author of confusion is kind of silly since there is no real confusion brought on by these questions.
3. The biblical phrase is actually, "For God is not a God of confusion" (1 Cor 14:33). The context is church and the gifts of the Spirit, not general existence. (See, for instance, Genesis 11:9). (Thus the opening "for" in the sentence.) The word translated "confusion" doesn't mean "people are confused" kind of confusion, but "commotion, tumult," that sort of thing. It refers to instability, and as I've already indicated, any copy errors you find don't actually end up producing such instability, so, from that angle, the question again seems pointless.
4. From the position of a Sovereign God, the answer to your question would be that God knew about and, therefore, ultimately "willed" (as in allowed, accepted) copy errors to occur. Since none are significant, it seems a bit of a no-problem concern (and, in my opinion, proves to be a benefit in requiring the people of God to think, to pay attention, to rightly handle the Word, to search the Scriptures ... you know, all sorts of things we're supposed to do).
Post a Comment