At times I feel like there is a very real sense among believers that God has made some bad choices or has failed to do what He intended. Now, of course, I don't think that any true believer would actually agree with that, but it sure feels like it.
Take, for instance, the whole salvation thing. Most Christians believe that Christ came to save the world. And failed. Clearly and unequivocally. He desired to save everyone and He tried to save everyone but ... well ... couldn't pull it off. His hands were tied by His creatures that prevented Him from accomplishing His will.
Take, as another example, Jesus's promise to send His Holy Spirit. "When the Spirit of truth comes, He will guide you into all the truth" (John 16:13). Well, again, nice try, Jesus. Apparently the Spirit has made a miserable mess of this. Because, clearly it took 2000 years for Him to get through to His disciples that homosexual behavior really is a good thing, that marriage isn't at all what we thought it was, that women really should be in power in churches, that God really is not Omniscient ... all sorts of things like that. We've recently (from the Enlightenment through the Post-Modern world) figured out that the Church and Christianity have all been wrong on so many things for the entire lifetime of Christendom and we have arrived at the truth. Sorry, Holy Spirit. That has been a colossal failure.
I've heard some believers question God's failure to provide enough information. Maybe it's in the Word. Why didn't He say more? Why wasn't He clearer on what He did say? What about other situations like we face today that weren't around back then? How are we to face our current cultural and societal worldviews with a book written 2000 years ago? I mean, look, He doesn't even address the morality of driving as a simple and silly example. How can we know what is true and right when there is so much left unsaid? Or maybe it's in His presentation to the world. Why doesn't God make Himself clearer to unbelievers? Why doesn't He do miracles and signs today that would make believers out of skeptics? Why doesn't He have a dead person rise, for instance? The New Atheists complain that they can't see enough evidence for the existence of God. Why not give them the evidence? God could have provided us with more comprehensive input and He could provide measurable, visible proofs of His existence. Why doesn't He? It's a point of failure.
Skeptics are very happy to point out the failure of God in removing evil and pointless suffering. Unfortunately, even believers will complain about this to some degree. Why do bad things happen to good people? It has been a question for ages. Why doesn't God solve the problem of evil? There are only a few possibilities here. Either God lacks the will or the ability. Either He is not omnibenevolent or He is not omniscient or He is not omnipotent. God could solve the problem of evil, could prevent children from dying, could stop natural disasters and man-made disasters and the like. Why doesn't He? We can't fix, as an example from current events, the whole ISIS problem where fanatic Muslims are murdering and beheading and killing and destroying, but God could, couldn't He? Worst of all is the whole problem of Hell, the ultimate evil. Is this a failure of His love or a failure of His power? Your choice.
I, of course, see all of these through a different lens. If I start with "God is good" and other clear biblical presentations of His nature, including "God works all things after the counsel of His will" (Eph 1:11), then I answer these questions from a different direction. He hasn't failed. He saves whom He intends. He has provided the truth and our failure to accept it is not His failure to provide it. He has given us enough information in the Word and has provided more than sufficient evidence of His existence. It isn't a failure on His part when ungodly and unrighteous men suppress the truth (Rom 1:18). I even see, in His nature and in the pages of Scripture, an answer to the problem of evil and why God hasn't removed it. But that's just me.
I don't expect the skeptic, the unbeliever, to have a problem with God's failures. They're unbelievers. But I am stunned at the number of believers that hold positions that require the conclusion that God has indeed failed. They won't admit to it and they will explain why it's all okay. One well-known apologist argues, "God has to play the hand He was dealt," as if that solves the dilemma. It doesn't. So what about you? Is yours a God who has succeeded at everything He does, or is He not quite that capable? Did He intend to save the world and fail, or is He accomplishing exactly what He intended? Did the Holy Spirit lead His own into the truth, or are we only now discovering what that is? Is there a real problem with God's failure to provide sufficient instructions and adequate evidence, or has He done exactly as He intended, and it is good? Is the problem of evil and suffering a story of a shortcoming on God's part, or is it exactly His plan, and that for good? You decide.
16 comments:
The Bible is full of examples of God failing to get what he wants. I will give some of them:
Matthew 23:37 “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you were not willing!”
Ezekiel 22: 30-31 30 And I sought for a man among them who should build up the wall and stand in the breach before me for the land, that I should not destroy it, but I found none. 31 Therefore I have poured out my indignation upon them. I have consumed them with the fire of my wrath. I have returned their way upon their heads, declares the Lord God.”
Ezekiel 18:23 23 Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should die? saith the Lord God: and not that he should return from his ways, and live?
Ezekiel 18:32 For I have no pleasure in the death of anyone, declares the Lord God; so turn, and live.”
Ezekiel 33:11 Say to them, As I live, declares the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live; turn back, turn back from your evil ways, for why will you die, O house of Israel?
Genesis 6:66 And the Lord regretted that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart.
Mark 8:22-25 22 And they came to Bethsaida. And some people brought to him a blind man and begged him to touch him. 23 And he took the blind man by the hand and led him out of the village, and when he had spit on his eyes and laid his hands on him, he asked him, “Do you see anything?” 24 And he looked up and said, “I see people, but they look like trees, walking.” 25 Then Jesus laid his hands on his eyes again; and he opened his eyes, his sight was restored, and he saw everything clearly.
Romans 10:21 21 But of Israel he says, “All day long I have held out my hands to a disobedient and contrary people.”
1 Samuel 15:11 "I regret that I have made Saul king, because he has turned away from me and has not carried out my instructions." Samuel was angry, and he cried out to the LORD all that night.
1 Samuel 15:35 Until the day Samuel died, he did not go to see Saul again, though Samuel mourned for him. And the LORD regretted that he had made Saul king over Israel.
It seems abundantly clear that God fails to get what he wants, so the question then becomes: Why?
Then when I said, "You decide", you have decided that those passages do speak of a God who fails.
Of course, since I don't see anything in Scripture as a list of failures for God, I couldn't begin to answer "Why".
The only thing God has failed at is to meet the expectations imposed upon Him by His creation.
Perhaps "demands" might be another word?
A couple of quotes from A.
w. Pink in his book, "The Sovereignty Of God":
"As we turn to this Word and are instructed thereout, we discover a fundamental principle which must be applied to every problem: Instead of beginning with man and his world and working back to God, we must begin with God and work down to man—“In the beginning God!”
and:
Here is the fundamental difference between the man of faith and the man of unbelief. The unbeliever is “of the world,” judges everything by worldly standards, views life from the standpoint of time and sense, and weighs everything in the balances of his own carnal making. But the man of faith brings in God, looks at everything from His standpoint, estimates values by spiritual standards, and views life in the light of eternity. Doing this, he receives whatever comes as from the hand of God. Doing this, his heart is calm in the midst of the storm. Doing this, he “rejoices in hope of the glory of God” (Rom 5:2).
Pink, Arthur W. (2013-04-01). The Sovereignty of God (Kindle Locations 205-208). . Kindle Edition.
So ... is this a comment on the view that God has failed, or is this an agreement about my concern/complaint about "Christian humanism" that begins with Man?
If your last question is addressed to me, I think Pink underscores your point very well. Do you not?
Danny, I think Pink's quotes were perfect ... for both blog entries.
You would deny that any of these verses demonstrate that God fails to get what he wants?
Yes, I would.
Interesting. Should I expect a future blog post on this, or would you care to expound?
Well, as for the texts about God wishing for some things that didn't happen, see my entry on the Three Wills of God.
I'll write something on the "regret" texts because I think it disturbs other orthodox believers as well.
I read through the "Three wills post". I was wondering why according your post, God couldn't choose to offer libertarian free will?
Why couldn't His "decretive will" or "permissive will" be to give humans freedom in the truest sense of the word?
Josh, first, "libertarian free will" can't actually exist in its standard definition. The definition is choices that are free from the determination or constraints of human nature and free from any predetermination by God. The will is always determined. It is determined by the nature of the one doing the choosing. It is constrained by circumstances or ability. Logically "libertarian free will" cannot exist. If you were able to choose free of all constraints, you would lack the ability to make meaningful choices. They would be random.
Setting aside the logic, I'm pretty sure you didn't understand the terms. "Permissive will" refers to the things He desires but may not choose. All of us have this. When that which we wish is countermanded by something more important, we set aside that which we wish in favor of the more important. Offering "Libertarian Free Will" as a matter of "wish" might be okay, but it doesn't take into account "Decretive will". God's decretive will is that which God decrees to happen. And it happens. Anything that actually occurs is part of God's decretive will. Nothing can countermand God's decretive will. It is this will of which Paul writes that God causes all things to happen. So if God decreed that His decrees would not happen, it would be a simple contradiction. If God works all things after the counsel of His will and that means that the counsel of His will does not happen (as you have suggested), then it is irrationality at its best and insanity at its worst.
Once again. What if when God works all things after the council of his will, he offers this kind of freedom?
What if that is his Decretive will?
Can it not be that God allows us, through his sovereignty and Decretive will, to make free choices that potentially thwarts His will?
It seems to me you are the one limiting the sovereignty of God, by defining a set of circumstances by which he couldn't have created the world...i.e. libertarian free will
You simply repeated your question. So ... this is rational to you. God can accomplish His entire will ... by declare that it will not be accomplished. He can "work all things after the counsel of His will" by declaring that not all things will be worked after the counsel of His will? Seriously, this is a rational thing to you?
Would you say I'm limiting God's omnipotence when I declare that He cannot make a rock too big for Him to pick up?
Post a Comment