Have you ever wondered about that? I can tell you the skeptics have. It's the problem we call "theodicy." If there is a God, why is there evil?
I heard in church the clear answer to the question. If God is omniscient and omnipotent and loving and all that, why didn't He make Adam and Eve incapable of sin? Why not avoid the whole "evil" thing altogether? Well, it's clear. God wanted humans to love Him of their own free will. Now, I get it. This is a popular answer. It is, for most, the answer. But I have some problems here.
The suggestion on one hand is that this is an adequate answer. "So, God wanted people to love Him freely, so He made them capable of eternal damnation?" On the other hand, the suggestion is that we can actually exercise our free will and choose God. The Bible says otherwise (1 Cor 2:14; John 6:64-65; Eph 2:1-3; Rom 8:7; etc.). As a pure function of human free will it just can't happen. It only happens by a work of God. There is, of course, another problem with that answer. It's not biblical. It might ring true to us humans, but it isn't found in Scripture.
Does the Bible, in fact, offer an answer to the question? Does God's Word answer the question of why an omniscient, omnipotent, loving God would allow humans to sin? As a matter of fact, it does. In Paul's epistle to the Romans he writes, "What if God, desiring to show His wrath and to make known His power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of His glory for vessels of mercy, which He has prepared beforehand for glory?" (Rom 9:22-23). The text there says that it was God's will -- God's desire -- to show His wrath and to make known His power in order to make known the riches of His glory.
"That's an answer?"
Indeed it is. Consider. There are lots of things that we cannot know without a frame of reference. Quite often that frame of reference is the opposite. We know light because we know darkness. We know cold because we know hot. We know pain because we know comfort. In this case God wanted to display His glory more thoroughly. The only way we could know justice is to have a lack of righteousness. The only way we could know grace is to lack merit. The only way we could know mercy is to deserve something else. So much of who God is can only be known by our shortcomings. And remember, the one who is forgiven much loves much (Luke 7:47).
This, in fact, is an answer. First, it is biblical. Second, it is correctly aimed -- it starts with God first. And, of course, it properly informs us. Even where it contradicts the "free will" answer. "Wait, you mean I couldn't choose to come to Christ all on my own? Wow! That means His grace and mercy and power are huge!" But, of course, I'm pretty sure a lot of Christians will disagree here. And that's fine. I can see the draw. It certainly elevates the human being. It does call into question all those contrary Scriptures. Sure, there is some form of free will. ("Some form" because some people make demands for a definition that is not biblical or even rational.) Yes, we choose Him. Yes, He wants -- commands -- us to love Him. I just think that He enables that choice that we make because, well, that's what I see in my Bible. And I find that answer satisfying and biblical.
8 comments:
I believe we love God of our own free will. I also believe we only would will to if He has chosen is to. And I believe that anyone He chooses can't not will to love Him exactly because it is through His call. Without His call, we would never want to love Him, so we hate Him through our own free will as well.
Interesting use of double negatives for effect.
If the sign of victory is when your critics compare you to NAZIs, then I guess you just won.
Of course, given the competition that’s not saying much.
I was wondering if the larger picture includes the fall of angels as well.
it begs the question why did anyone fall? when we read Romans what if statement, concerning objects created to demonstrate God's wrath or mercy, can we include the fallen angels as well?
it blows my mind to think that the rebellion began in heaven before the fall of man. because God is omnipotent and omniscient, He must have ordained all the circumstances of both, the fall of angels and the fall of man. somehow the fall of angles was an instrumental necessity to bring about the fall of man. so after the fall of man, God begins to reconcile man by means of mercy and grace. but the fallen angles will only receive wrath, no mercy, no grace.
but still the question of why comes back to me. then I read romans again and catch the key phrase; "to demonstrate" . if so then, who is the target audience?
perhaps to the faithful angles of heaven....I may have gone to far on this one lol..
I know we often think of the "fallen" angels as rebels, but that is Catholic apocrypha, or even just Catholic tradition. The primary difference between humans and angels is will. We have it, they don't. My brother posited that Lucifer wasn't some rebel struggling against the unfairness of God's plan to save us traitors, but was instructed by God to be our temptor. Look at Job. We see Satan coming to God for permission. Is that the action of a rebel trying to steal God's chosen? Or a servant trying to demonstrate God's glory?
And to answer your question about demonstrating to who, it's all of us. All of Creation. He solely is worthy of worship, and giving beings an example of all of His attributes includes punishing sin AND forgiving it. If He saves everyone, then Mercy is diminished without the Wrath. His plan is perfect, and while it may seem unfair to us, who are we to complain? Does the chamber pot have the right to complain about it's use in comparison to the vase's use? The gap of significance between the potter and the clay is infinitely smaller than the gap between God and His Creation. We fail constantly to realize that because we feel so important because of all the effort He has put into us, but we are simply insignificant compared to Him.
David, Satan faces eternal judgment in the lake of fire in the end. You're suggesting that God instructed him to be a tempter and then punishes him for doing it? What makes you think angels have no will?
There must be something that separates us, otherwise, why not just have Jesus save them instead? It may not be will (that might be a hold over from a teacher I had in school who had an entire quarter dedicated to angels), but something must make us fundamentally different from angels. If Satan was just a rebel trying to break God's toys, why would he need to ask permission to torment someone? The same could be asked of Judas. If his crime led to the only means of saving people, how could he be punished for doing what he was designed to do? His one purpose in life was to betray Jesus without a chance of redemption.
Why was there no plan of salvation for angels? That would require the Son of God to take on the form of an angel, live a sinless life as an angel, and take the payment for the angels. The thinking suggests that God is obligated to do something like that for all of His creation.
Satan is a created being. (We're both clear on that.) All created beings are subject to the Creator. In the example of Job, Satan did not ask permission. He challenged God. God limited his actions. God has the right to limit all of His creatures' actions.
In the case of Judas (and Pilate and Herod and the Jews, etc.) Judas chose his sin and God justly condemned him for his sin but used his sin to accomplish His will. Like Joseph said, "You intended it for evil, but God intended it for good." That God can use our sin to accomplish His will does not negate the fact that it is sin or nullify the responsibility for it. Judas had the same chance of redemption as anyone ever has.
Post a Comment