An interesting point is made in this talk by Ken Ham... If you're not in the mood for the whole thing, start watching at about 34 minutes and watch for about 10 minutes.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Oil and Gold Price
about me
recent comments
categories
- government (26)
- economy (23)
- human nature (18)
- discernment (16)
- recession (15)
- free market (14)
- regulation (14)
- beating the system (13)
- depravity (12)
- Theology (11)
- children (8)
- unemployment (8)
- gospel (7)
- hilarity (7)
- Beauty (6)
- business (6)
- federal reserve (6)
- humour (6)
- communication (5)
- discipline (5)
- education (5)
- currency (4)
- efficiency (4)
- exegesis (4)
- free speech (4)
- real estate (4)
- abortion (3)
- church (3)
- competition (3)
- evangelism (3)
- free trade (3)
- headship (3)
- inflation (3)
- Elders (2)
- Film (2)
- healthcare (2)
- photography (2)
- redemption (2)
- righteousness (2)
- Apple (1)
- Jesus is God (1)
- Peter Schiff (1)
- charity (1)
- creation (1)
- credit (1)
- engagement (1)
- grammar nazi (1)
- gun control (1)
- homosexuality (1)
- idolatry (1)
- service (1)
- sloth (1)
- sovereignty (1)
- submission (1)
my stalkers
blog archive
some of my friends
- the red sox fan
- the fiancée!
- Stuff Christians Like
- reviewed
- obsession with clive
- jay see dub
- her?
- fun with charts!
- Free iTunes Downloads
- everybody's favorite asian
- even girls are funny (pt. 2)
- even girls are funny
- cuppie cake
- contrast
- Coeur d'Alene SEO
- clever, and then some
- Church near Chapman University
- a theologian
193 comments:
At 41:41 you see a large percentage of kids reported doubting the truth of the Bible because they encountered compelling scientific evidence that the earth is more than 10,000 years old. In other words, they presumed, together with Mr. Ham, that the Genesis narrative teaches a young earth, and when encountering evidence to the contrary, began to question the Bible.
What if the author of Genesis did not intend to addresses the age of the earth? Then by insisting that belief in a young earth is part of Biblical Christianity, we are laying the foundation for the temptation to doubt the veracity of scriptures.
they presumed, together with Mr. Ham, that the Genesis narrative teaches a young earth
But why did they presume that Louis? Was it because they really wanted the earth to be young, or was it because the plain reading of Scripture teaches a relatively young earth?
What if the author of Genesis did not intend to addresses the age of the earth?
Then the author (God) would not have mentioned how long it took to create the earth.
Here's the problem: If we have to reinterpret the plain meaning of Scripture and we were misled by the plain meaning of Scripture for thousands of years until Darwin came along, then what else have we misunderstood? What other plain teachings of Scripture do we have to reject and come up with a new interpretation for when science comes along and says our interpretation is wrong? Is it possible to understand Scripture or must we wait in the dark for science and other disciplines to tell us what parts of the Bible we can accept and what parts we have to invent reinterpretations for?
But why did they presume that Louis? Was it because they really wanted the earth to be young, or was it because the plain reading of Scripture teaches a relatively young earth?
I'm not sure why some presume that the scriptures teach that the earth is young, while others don't. It could have something to do with young earth evangelists like Mr. Ham insisting that faith in a young earth is critical to a Biblical worldview.
Then the author (God) would not have mentioned how long it took to create the earth.
I am trying to figure out whether I am missing something here. How would knowing how long it took to create the earth tell us how long ago the earth was created?
Here's the problem: If we have to reinterpret the plain meaning of Scripture and we were misled by the plain meaning of Scripture for thousands of years until Darwin came along, then what else have we misunderstood? What other plain teachings of Scripture do we have to reject and come up with a new interpretation for when science comes along and says our interpretation is wrong? Is it possible to understand Scripture or must we wait in the dark for science and other disciplines to tell us what parts of the Bible we can accept and what parts we have to invent reinterpretations for?
I think the Bible is in a very important sense clear, and am in favor of a very straightforward hermeneutic. I just haven't ever been shown where a plain reading of scripture teaches that the earth is about 10,000 years old or less (or even comes close to addressing the age of the earth).
Part of reading the Bible plainly is allowing it to address what it's author intends to address, while refraining from reading our own topics into it.
I am trying to figure out whether I am missing something here. How would knowing how long it took to create the earth tell us how long ago the earth was created?
Because a literal 6-day creation week rules out the evolutionary theories of earth's history. We cannot know exactly how old the earth is, but we can certainly rule out theories that contradict a 6-day creation.
I'm sorry for not being able to put 2 and 2 together. What does that have to do with the age of the earth?
If God created the earth in 6 literal days, then there was not a time of billions of years before man existed, for example.
So could man have existed for a long time, then?
Without looking into it further, that seems a possibility. However, I'm not aware of any theory that says man has existed on earth for billions of years (and with dinosaurs).
What's your opinion of Answers in Creation?
They all deny the Genesis account of creation in 6 literal days.
The Days of Creation
And their disclaimer about "this doesn't have to do with salvation so it doesn't matter" is silly.
Their disclaimer is a bit silly, I'll grant you that.
But I don't think you go far enough. A plain reading of Genesis 2:4 will show you that God created everything in a single day.
No it wouldn't
wow. is this what ignited louis' whole "young earth creationist" blog? freaking a man.
What do you think the plain teaching of 2 Peter 3:9 is?
Do you mean v8?
No, verse 9
God is waiting to destroy the earth by fire until all the elect have repented.
Come now is that the plain reading?
Yes.
haha.
Brandon's reading is definitely what I came away with. Luckily, the systematic indoctrination of those pesky "Arminians" throughout the ages hasn't infected my interpretation here.
Right... when I read that God desires that 'none' should perish but that 'all' should come to repentance, I come away with the face-value understanding that God desires that 'some' should perish and that the 'some others' come to repentance...
that's all cute, but "face value" clearly does not mean out of context, or without the whole counsel of Scripture. Where else in Scripture do we have overwhelming evidence of an old earth that matches the overwhelming evidence of a sovereign God?
who's claiming to have Biblical evidence of an Old earth?
Right, that's as clear as when St. Paul says that God makes some pots for destruction. I mean, who could possibly think that God would do anything else but make some for destruction. Isn't a God who makes some for destruction better than a God who makes all for glorification, and none for destruction? Without something beautiful to destroy, like those made in His Image, God's glory would be entirely lacking.
Derek, I love sarcasm, but yours crosses the line when you make comments like that.
I would love to have a serious dialogue with the two of you over various texts concerning God's absolute predestination of all things, but I will not engage you if both of you continue to approach it in this way.
David:
Do you make a distinction between the "active" and "passive" wills in God?
Putative "active" will: "God created the heavens and the earth"
Putative "passive" will: "Satan came to God and, and per Satan's request, God allowed Satan to terrorize Job."
The former is oft-thought to be "active" because the heavens and the earth are completely passive relative to God's action-viz., in no sense did the heavens and earth move themselves to be, and everything they do, or however they move, is absolutely and unequivocally brought about by "the finger of God."
The latter is oft-thought to be "passive" because, Satan, unlike the heavens and the earth, is not entirely controlled by God's finger: Though God sustains Satan's existence and any of the choices he makes, God did not bring about Satan's asking God if he could terrorize Job-viz., God is not playing puppet-master and thereby talking to Himself when Satan makes his "can I terrorize Job" request.
Do you agree that this distinction in God's actions is vertical (taught of implicit in Scripture)?
Brandon: I don't think sarcasm is a per se evil, but I will confess my sins to you and say that I said what I said maliciously. Please forgive me. But, I'd like to point out that what I said really is no caricature.
*veridical
@Derek, I suppose so.
Then welcome to the land of the free, Dave
See LBC 1689 3.1: God hath decreed in himself, from all eternity, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably, all things, whatsoever comes to pass; yet so as thereby is God neither the author of sin nor hath fellowship with any therein; nor is violence offered to the will of the creature, nor yet is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established; in which appears his wisdom in disposing all things, and power and faithfulness in accomplishing his decree.
( Isaiah 46:10; Ephesians 1:11; Hebrews 6:17; Romans 9:15, 18; James 1:13; 1 John 1:5; Acts 4:27, 28; John 19:11; Numbers 23:19; Ephesians 1:3-5 )
LBC 1689 5.3 & 5.4: 3._____ God, in his ordinary providence maketh use of means, yet is free to work without, above, and against them at his pleasure.
( Acts 27:31, 44; Isaiah 55:10, 11; Hosea 1:7; Romans 4:19-21; Daniel 3:27 )
4._____ The almighty power, unsearchable wisdom, and infinite goodness of God, so far manifest themselves in his providence, that his determinate counsel extendeth itself even to the first fall, and all other sinful actions both of angels and men; and that not by a bare permission, which also he most wisely and powerfully boundeth, and otherwise ordereth and governeth, in a manifold dispensation to his most holy ends; yet so, as the sinfulness of their acts proceedeth only from the creatures, and not from God, who, being most holy and righteous, neither is nor can be the author or approver of sin.
( Romans 11:32-34; 2 Samuel 24:1, 1 Chronicles 21:1; 2 Kings 19:28; Psalms 76;10; Genesis 1:20; Isaiah 10:6, 7, 12; Psalms 1:21; 1 John 2:16 )
“The almighty power, unsearchable wisdom, and infinite goodness of God, so far manifest themselves in his providence, that his determinate counsel extendeth itself even to the first fall, and all other sinful actions both of angels and men; and that not by a bare permission, which also he most wisely and powerfully boundeth, and otherwise ordereth and governeth, in a manifold dispensation to his most holy ends; yet so, as the sinfulness of their acts proceedeth only from the creatures, and not from God, who, being most holy and righteous.”
The “not by a bare permission” clause seems to negate/collapse the active/passive distinction I thought you assented to, David.
Consider two acts that proceedeth from providence:
(1) Grass growing on my lawn
(2) A Roman soldier spiting on Jesus.
No doubt, David, you would like to say that God is not responsible for the sin of (2), but would you say that both (1) and (2) are subject to His will in the same way? If you’re answer is “yes”, then what makes up the difference? Why can we attribute and glorify God for (1)’s being the case, and not attribute and glorify God for (2)’s being the case. Whateth characterizes the difference?
grass doesn't have a will
please characterize "having a will."
will = the mind/soul choosing
no mind = no will
characterize "choosing."
making a choice, deciding one thing over another
Let me know what other kind of clarification you're looking for
My two cents: the LBC is eloquent, yet it’s claims often protrude beyond those made by scripture. And sometimes these claims contradict one another.
For example:
"God hath decreed in himself, from all eternity, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably, all things, whatsoever comes to pass"
This claim is not conclusively entailed by anything in the Bible. It ranges into philosophical territory.
And since we're in philosophical territory, I feel warranted in disputing it's logical consistency with the following philosophical claim:
"...yet so as thereby is God neither the author of sin nor hath fellowship with any therein"
I’m glad that the LBC insists that God is good. But I feel compelled, on the grounds that God is good, to disagree with the first claim. It simply is not logically consistent to say that God determines everything and that God does not determine sin.
Using synonyms for “determine” doesn’t get you out of the dilemma.
The Confession is not saying God does not ultimately determine sin. It says He is not the author sin, meaning God does not sin.
"God hath decreed in himself, from all eternity, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably, all things, whatsoever comes to pass"
This claim is not conclusively entailed by anything in the Bible.
Really? You may disagree with the interpretations of the pertinent texts, but clearly the Bible speaks directly to the issue. Consider the referenced verses:
Isaiah 46:10 declaring the end from the beginning
and from ancient times things not yet done,
saying, ‘My counsel shall stand,
and I will accomplish all my purpose,’
Ephesians 1:11
in whom also we were made a heritage, having been foreordained according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his will;
Acts 4:27 - 28
for of a truth in this city against thy holy Servant Jesus, whom thou didst anoint, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, were gathered together,to do whatsoever thy hand and thy council foreordained to come to pass.
Eph 1:3 - 5
Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ: even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blemish before him in love: having foreordained us unto adoption as sons through Jesus Christ unto himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,
I'm curious what you think the authors of the Confession meant by the statement. According to your reading, the sentence is a blatant contradiction in and of itself. Do you therefore think the authors knew it was a contradiction but felt that God's truth can be contradictory? Or do you think the authors did not believe what they said was a contradiction? If the latter, how did they understand the statement so as to avoid contradiction?
"The Confession is not saying God does not ultimately determine sin. It says He is not the author sin, meaning God does not sin."
Give me a cogent distinction between "determining" and "authoring". To my lights, I cannot possibly conceive of any state of affairs where one determines X to be the case without also authoring X to be the case, and vice-versa. That is, we use them interchangeably in such a way that if they aren't really just synonyms, then the terms are coextensive and codistributed in their extension.
Someone, of course, can just insist that "God causes [determines] me to sin, but He's not responsible or guilty [he's not the author] of [my] sinning." But I don't know what this means. Until you can give us an account the difference between "determining" and "authoring" that isn't purely nominal and doing the work you want them to do by definitional fiat, you aren't doing anything.
So, in reply to your question, if in fact those verses are saying what you think they are saying, they are, pending the cogent distinction, contradicting themselvesn, and hence, so much for your reading of them.
fair enough. But first, can you tell me what you think the authors of the Confession meant? Do you believe:
1) They were comfortable with asserting a contradiction
2) They used different words to try and escape the contradiction because they didn't see a difference
3) They believed there is a difference between the two and chose their language accordingly
4) some other option
(3)
If you believe 3) then I don't understand your belligerent tone. Why can't you just ask me to explain what you don't understand rather than accuse me of trying to escape by way of definitional fiat?
What is your understanding of Gen 50:20?
As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good, to bring it about that many people should be kept alive, as they are today.
If you believe 3) then I don't understand your belligerent tone. Why can't you just ask me to explain what you don't understand rather than accuse me of trying to escape by way of definitional fiat?
All I said was that, pending the cogent distinction between “determining” and “authoring”, the distinction is empty and begs questions (in the loose sense).
What is your understanding of Gen 50:20? As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good, to bring it about that many people should be kept alive, as they are today.
I understand this verse to communicate, or to be an instance, of the following principle:
(prov.) God’s goodness is such that whatever man freely does, whether good or evil, God will use such actions for the best.
So, in this case, God has a plan for developing Israel as a nation, and one of the avenues for such developing is Joseph’s tenure in Egypt. Now, sans Joseph’s brother’s ill-will God could have gotten Joseph over to Egypt. God could have sent an angel to Jacob and said, “Send your son Joseph to Egypt, for I have plans for him there.” But as it actually happened, Joseph’s brothers sold him into slavery, and despite their intent, they unwittingly brought about God’s plan for Joseph to go to Egypt. This isn’t to say, of course, God’s plan was for Joseph’s brothers to be evil; for again, the same good, Joseph’s tenure in Egypt, could have been brought about in entirely benign ways. The point, again, given (prov.), is that God’s good plan can be achieved even when men are evil. This story illustrates that God is trustworthy no matter what the heart of man is like.
As for the metaphysics of Gen 50:20, I think this verse is perfect illustration of how God doesn’t unequivocally will whatever comes to pass.
Ex hypothesi, if God unequivocally wills (causes) whatever comes to pass, then he unequivocally wills (causes) that
(mean) Joseph’s brothers intend evil against Joseph.
Or, in other words, if God unequivocally causes everything that comes to pass, God unequivocally caused Joseph’s brother’s evil. Or again, this is equivalent to saying that God made Joseph’s brothers evil in the same way he makes grass grow.
But surely, lest God makes men evil, this is false. But this means that God does not unequivocally will (cause) (mean).
Rather, the plain reading of the text seems to communicate that it was Joseph’s brothers, and not God, who intended evil; and given (prov.) God used such unnecessary evil for good.
But the only way this can be right is if there are some things God doesn’t determine (cause). In this case, God is not the cause of Joseph’s brother’s evil, but rather they are the cause of their own evil.
To put this in “authoring” and “Determining” terms, I maintain that these terms are coextensive (if not synonyms), and hence, because God didn’t determine (mean), God is not the author of (mean). But, if you think God determined (mean), then God is the author of (mean).
Hey Brandon. I enjoyed our private chat yesterday and am glad we have a little bit better understanding of each other and a decent start on a real friendship.
I still feel a little bad for bringing up such a red herring. I just couldn't help but find it a bit ironic that you were insisting that "day" be taken so woodenly in the face of clear instances wherein the Bible uses it to refer to periods of time other than singular solar days. And, knowing you guys are Calvinists, I thought I would point out a verse that Calvinists traditionally do not take in a woodenly literal manner, hoping you would see the inconsistency with which you apply your "plain" hermeneutic.
I wasn't clear about this and it was a bad idea altogether. But you know most of this after our talk!
Anyway, given that we've started down this road, I would like the chance to respond to your questions and comments.
The Confession is not saying God does not ultimately determine sin. It says He is not the author [of] sin, meaning God does not sin.
Are you saying that the LBC claims that God determines others to sin, but doesn’t determine Himself to sin?
If so, the LBC’s claim is painfully untenable for the obvious reason that determining others to sin is a sin.
You may disagree with the interpretations of the pertinent texts
It’s likely.
...clearly the Bible speaks directly to the issue.
I don’t think it does, to be honest. I think it speaks to the broader matter of God’s providence, without delving into the detailed metaphysical outworkings of it.
Isaiah 46:10 declaring the end from the beginning
and from ancient times things not yet done,
saying, ‘My counsel shall stand,
and I will accomplish all my purpose,’
I think first part of this verse says something about God determining the initial conditions of the universe and the timing of its end. The second part says something about God determining long beforehand that He will take certain actions when certain circumstances arise. The third part says something about making sure that His ultimate goals will be reached.
None of this entails that God sufficiently determines everything by determining the initial conditions of the universe, or as the means by which He determines when the end will come, when He will take certain actions, or how it is that His ultimate goals will be accomplished.
It leaves open the possibility that God is powerful enough to create free agents capable of making decisions, which were enabled by conditions laid down by God, whose ultimate determination is found in the agents themselves (being images of God, they bear an image of sovereignty this way, in contrast to the One who exists in the form of God and therefore bears the very Form of Sovereignty). It leaves open the possibility that God’s omniscience is so thorough that He is able to know in advance what these decisions will be. It leaves open the possibility that God’s providence is so clever that He is able to account for the actions of the free agents He created, skillfully corralling them into an orchestral masterpiece of providence that ultimately accomplishes His ends.
The LBC’s claim that “God decreed... all things, whatsoever comes to pass” protrudes, philosophically, far beyond the claims of this passage.
Ephesians 1:11
in whom also we were made a heritage, having been foreordained according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his will;
I think the first part of this verse says something about those of us, to whom God gives an inheritance, being foreordained. It doesn’t philosophically expound upon what it means to be "foreordained”. The second part says something about this God being the same One who works all things after the counsel of His will. It does not expound upon what God’s will is. It leaves open the possibility that God’s will is to work all things in the way I described earlier in this post.
I don’t condemn Christian brothers and sisters for engaging in philosophical activity in order to try and understand how God’s providence might work or the means by which He goes about foreordination, but because philosophical musings of this kind protrude beyond the scriptures themselves, I feel free to disagree with the conclusions of my London Baptist brethren on philosophical grounds.
But I don’t maintain that my mutterings to myself about how the details of God’s providence and foreordination might work should be held with the same degree of certainly as the broader claims that scripture does in fact make. For, as we know, Lady Philosophy is merely the lowly handmaiden of Lady Theology.
Acts 4:27 - 28
for of a truth in this city against thy holy Servant Jesus, whom thou didst anoint, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, were gathered together,to do whatsoever thy hand and thy council foreordained to come to pass.
“Whatsoever” it is that God did in fact foreordain to come to pass is what we’re arguing about, since this passages doesn’t tell us. It also doesn’t tell us how the mechanics of foreordination work, so we’re left free to argue about that too if we really want.
The crucifixion of Jesus, I think, is likely in the list of things (“whatsoever”) that God foreordained to come to pass. And I think it might be that the way God foreordained this was by knowing what all of the people involved in the outcome would do if presented with certain circumstances, then arranging those circumstances in such a way so as to orchestrate (“gathering them together”) one of His ultimate goals: the atonement. In this way God was able to accomplish His purposes by harnessing the freely performed evil actions of His wayward creatures. If humans are going to sin, God will squeeze every ounce of glory He can out of them, weaving their evil together with good in order to accomplish His ends.
So I think this verse says something about Herod, Pilate, the Gentiles, and the Israelites being cleverly, providentially gathered together by God under the circumstances that He knew would give rise to the crucifixion of Jesus.
But I don’t pretend to know what the mysteries of God’s will or ways hold, and so I can’t speak authoritatively on whatsoever it was that God chose to foreordain or howsoever it was that He chose to foreordain it. I only have humble speculations.
But, darn it! As long as we’re comparing speculations, mine make a whole lot more sense than those of the LBC!
Eph 1:3 - 5
Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ: even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blemish before him in love: having foreordained us unto adoption as sons through Jesus Christ unto himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,
I think this verse says something about God, who blesses us, choosing us to be set apart and sinless. This was done for God’s benefit and by way of His foreordaining that we be adopted into His family. He accomplished this by the work of Jesus, in just the way He wanted to.
I don’t mean to sound like a broken record, but none of this entails that God determines everything that comes to pass. It says that the outcome of God’s choosing us is that we will be holy and blameless. It doesn’t explain the reason God chose us and not others. Will you pretend to know? It says that this choice occurred before the foundation of the world. Which, again, doesn’t explain the basis for the choice or deny that God’s omniscience informed His choice. It says that the result of God’s foreordination was our adoption into His family. Once again, it does not expound upon why we were foreordained or how it works out metaphysically. It says that this plan worked according to how God wanted it. Pardon the redundancy, but this verse doesn’t explain the details of how God’s plan designed it all to work out, aside from mentioning that it involved Jesus.
Naturally, God’s word elsewhere reveals a little bit more about the work of Jesus. But it doesn’t reveal much else about the work of God’s providence - only the implications and results of it. For example when Paul’s imaginary interlocutor raises philosophical questions about how election works, Paul says “who are you, O man, to answer back to God?”. Now again, I don’t condemn others for wondering about how election or providence works. In fact I think it is a good activity to marvel at God’s creation. But sometimes we obsess over philosophical trivia in an unhealthy manner, to an unhelpful degree, or in the wrong contexts. Among the Christians in Rome in the first century, Paul had major goals he needed to be focusing on. Musing about the mechanics of election was not among them. He had to operate as one of God’s instruments in cultivating healthy churches and spreading the gospel in the face of intense persecution. It just wasn’t the time or the place, especially when they all agreed that God is just, and that God is sovereign. Between these two attributes there is no logical contradiction, and there is no blatantly heretical way of viewing their interaction. So why waste space in scripture on it? Leave it for the philosophers of later centuries to talk about.
The LBC introduces problems, not by taking a position on the “how” of election and divine providence, but by elevating that position to Confessional status.
I'm curious what you think the authors of the Confession meant by the statement. According to your reading, the sentence is a blatant contradiction in and of itself. Do you therefore think the authors knew it was a contradiction but felt that God's truth can be contradictory? Or do you think the authors did not believe what they said was a contradiction? If the latter, how did they understand the statement so as to avoid contradiction?
I suspect the authors were convinced, in error, that the Bible definitively teaches that God directly and sufficiently determines everything. Since they were also convinced, correctly, that the Bible teaches that God is morally good though and through, they had to formulate statements that somehow affirmed both. They couldn’t use identical language in their affirmations, because they probably maintained that God’s word and universe are ultimately coherent.
And so I suspect that the authors of the LBC thought that phrasing their affirmations as “God decreed... all things”, and yet “is [not] the author of sin”, skillfully threaded the needle, affirming that God determines everything but somehow can’t be said to be the author of sin. I suspect they had a great deal of respect for the mysteries of God’s will and work and had faith that this had to make sense somehow, because the Bible affirms both.
But my criticism is that you can’t coherently have both and so we need to go back and check our work. And I think that when we do, we find that the Bible does not in fact teach that God determines everything. And since it does teach that God is good, we can say on logical grounds that it is unlikely that God determines everything.
How do you think Ezekiel 33:11 plainly reads?
Thanks for the responses. I'm not going to be able to respond today as I have to finish some work and then prepare for a Bible study tonight, but I'll get back to both of you as soon as I can.
Derek:
Rather, the plain reading of the text seems to communicate that it was Joseph’s brothers, and not God, who intended evil; and given (prov.) God used such unnecessary evil for good.
You offered some interesting hypothesis and arguments, but they are devoid of what the text itself says. You claim that ...God will use such actions for the best. In other words, things happen and then God reacts to those things to make them suit His purpose.
If that is what the text meant it would have said something to the effect of "You meant evil against me, but God responded to your evil actions by working them into His plan..." But that is not what the verse says.
It uses the same word to refer to the actions of Joseph's brothers and the actions of God, so whatever our interpretation, it has to equally apply to both. If you are claiming that God simply reacts to an event He did not cause and adapts His plan accordingly, then you also have to say that Joseph's brothers were simply reacting to an event they did not cause and they used that event to fit their plan for evil.
But that is not what the verse says and that is not what "meant" means. "Meant" refers to intent/motive. It is talking about the same event, Joseph's brothers selling him into slavery, and it ascribes two distinct motives behind that one action. One is the secondary cause (men), the other the ultimate cause (God).
Thus God caused Joseph's brothers to sell him into slavery and because Joseph's brothers willfully did so with evil/sinful intent they sinned. Yet God was not the author of sin, meaning He did not sin, because His motive was good, not evil.
Louis:
I wasn't clear about this and it was a bad idea altogether.
I don't think it was a bad idea. It was clear. I understood exactly what your intention was, I just felt that it was asked rhetorically, not honestly, so I didn't feel like elaborating.
I'll get to the rest of your comments when I can, just wanted to note that.
Louis:
The LBC introduces problems, not by taking a position on the “how” of election and divine providence, but by elevating that position to Confessional status.
In your opinion, what is the point of a Confession?
So you felt the move I made was a good idea and was clear, but you suspected it was done for rhetorical purposes and not made in earnest?
In your opinion, what is the point of a Confession?
To define orthodoxy. Do you disagree?
So you felt the move I made was a good idea and was clear, but you suspected it was done for rhetorical purposes and not made in earnest?
Yes.
To define orthodoxy. Do you disagree?
I would clarify by saying it is to define orthodoxy against error. In the case of the LBC, it was a statement made as a defense of what the signatories believed. We don't need to get sidetracked on it though.
Thanks Brandon, for your response.
Thus God caused Joseph's brothers to sell him into slavery and because Joseph's brothers willfully did so with evil/sinful intent they sinned. Yet God was not the author of sin, meaning He did not sin, because His motive was good, not evil.
Did God cause Joseph's Brother's (JB's)evil intention?
"One is the secondary cause (men), the other the ultimate cause (God)."
For sake of clarity, can you give me a putative secondary vs. ultimate cause independent of human/angelic agency? I suppose you might agree to the following:
Event: Grass growing.
Secondary cause: grass itself.
Ultimate cause: God.
Whatever the merits of the distinction, here's what must be said. If God is the ultimate cause of grass, then all of grass's secondary causes are directly and absolutely due to how God made grass to be. In other words, the secondary cause of the grass is caused to be by grass's ultimate cause: God. If this is right, then every thing grass does itself is directly and ultimately attributable to God. So when the grass grows, even though grass is the secondary cause, we can correctly say and without qualification: “Thank God for causing grass to go”, and “It’s entirely attributable to God, and nothing (no one) else, that grass grows.”
But now, instead of grass’s growing, consider
Event: JB’s evil motivation. Assuming the same relata:
Secondary cause: JB’s themselves.
Ultimate cause: God
JB’s being the secondary causes is directly attributable to God. We can say, correctly, that “JB’s being the secondary cause of JB’s evil motivation is because God made JB’s to be such.”
Anything that causes something to have an evil intention is itself evil. P->Q
God caused JB’s to have an evil intention. P
God is evil. Q
Derek, with all due respect, please stick to the text and deal with it first.
"Derek, with all due respect, please stick to the text and deal with it first."
I'm not clear why we should beging with text. If your interpretation entails the problem I just articulated, then your interpretation must be rejected, lest Scripture be in error.
Let the text speak first and determine our philosophy, not the other way around. If you believe my interpretation is in error, then you need to provide an alternative. Your first attempt failed exegetically.
I'm not clear why we should begin with text.
I just re-read that statement. Wow. That reveals a lot about why we disagree.
If I could chime in on Genesis 50:20, I would suggest care in our understanding of the Hebrew verb that the ESV translates as “meant”.
Here is what Strong’s has to say about the verb 2803:
[chashab /khaw·shab/] v. A primitive root; TWOT 767; GK 3108 and 3110; 124 occurrences; AV translates as “count” 23 times, “devise” 22 times, “think” 18 times, “imagine” nine times, “cunning” eight times, “reckon” seven times, “purpose” six times, “esteem” six times, “account” five times, “impute” four times, “forecast” twice, “regard” twice, “workman” twice, “conceived” once, and translated miscellaneously nine times. 1 to think, plan, esteem, calculate, invent, make a judgment, imagine, count. 1A (Qal). 1A1 to think, account. 1A2 to plan, devise, mean. 1A3 to charge, impute, reckon. 1A4 to esteem, value, regard. 1A5 to invent. 1B (Niphal). 1B1 to be accounted, be thought, be esteemed. 1B2 to be computed, be reckoned. 1B3 to be imputed. 1C (Piel). 1C1 to think upon, consider, be mindful of. 1C2 to think to do, devise, plan. 1C3 to count, reckon. 1D (Hithpael) to be considered. [1]
And look at one of the ways this verb's use is described by the Brown-Driver-Briggs:
work of the cunning (ingenious, inventive) workman (of artistic devices in weaving [2]
Can an ingenious weaving artisan use materials that he is not the ultimate cause of?
Translating this verb, to carry across the nuances it often carries, as something closer to “ingeniously intended to weave” or “plotted to use” might be preferred to the translation “meant”.
I think this translation could be supported by the use of the verb in other contexts in the Tanakh. For example, In Exodus 26:1, this verb is used to describe the weaving of Cherubim into the tabernacle curtains.
This, in my opinion, is a picture much closer to how Joseph’s brothers intended the situation to turn out bad for Joseph, and how God took the threads of those evil intentions and wove them into a good bigger picture.
This verb is used similarly in Exodus 26:31; 28:6, 15; 36:35; 39:3, and 8.
In Nahum 1:11 the ESV translates this verb as “plot”. Can one “plot” a group effort without being the ultimate cause of every action of every individual?
In the infamous Jeremiah 29:11, the ESV translates this verb “plans”.
In Micah 2:3 the ESV translates it “devise”.
And as it turns out, other Bible translators have in fact preferred translations of Genesis 50:20 that are closer to this possible translation than the ESV’s:
you planned evil against me but God used those same plans for my good (MSG)
You meant to hurt me, but God turned your evil into good (NCV Everyday Bible)
You planned to harm me. But God planned it for good. (NIrV)
God turned into good what you meant for evil. (Outline Bible)
As far as I am concerned, God turned into good what you meant for evil (NLT)
So I think in light of this, it's your turn to cough up grammatical/lexical reasons for 1. translating this verb as “meant”, 2. interpreting it to mean “ultimately cause” when it comes to God and “secondarily cause” when it comes to Joseph’s brothers, and 3. insisting that we use must interpret it to mean the same thing both times it is used in this sentence, even though it is used of two different types of agents in slightly different syntactical positions, and even though you want to get to interpret it to mean two different things in its two different positions in this sentence.
NOTES
[1] Strong, J. (1996). The exhaustive concordance of the Bible : Showing every word of the text of the common English version of the canonical books, and every occurrence of each word in regular order. (electronic ed.) (H2803). Ontario: Woodside Bible Fellowship.
[2] Brown, F., Driver, S. R., & Briggs, C. A. (2000). Enhanced Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon (electronic ed.) (363). Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems.
There are also a number of commentaries that expound upon this verse along the same lines:
Note, When God makes use of men’s agency for the performance of his counsels, it is common for him to mean one thing and them another, even the quite contrary, but God’s counsel shall stand. See Isa. 10:7. Again, God often brings good out of evil, and promotes the designs of his providence even by the sins of men; not that he is the author of sin, far be it from us to think so; but his infinite wisdom so overrules events, and directs the chain of them, that, in the issue, that ends in his praise which in its own nature had a direct tendency to his dishonour; as the putting of Christ to death, Acts 2:23. This does not make sin the less sinful, nor sinners the less punishable, but it redounds greatly to the glory of God’s wisdom. [1]
A glimpse of God’s purpose in bringing Israel into Egypt helps us to focus on the primary message of these Genesis chapters. Joseph himself summed it up as he reassured his brothers: “God sent me ahead of you to preserve for you a remnant on earth, and to save your lives by a great deliverance. So then it was not you who sent me here, but God” (45:7–8). What is the message? God is a Person who is in control of circumstances, who works providentially to accomplish His good purposes.
It’s important that we grasp this truth about God as firmly as Joseph did. In Genesis we’ve seen God act in direct interventions. He created Adam and Eve. He set aside the orderly processes of nature to bring on earth a cataclysmic flood. He spoke to Abraham directly. He acted in a clearly supernatural way to overthrow Sodom and Gomorrah. But there is no record that God spoke directly to Joseph. Joseph had heard stories of the covenant from his father. Joseph had dreamed dreams. But God did not meet with Joseph or confront him.
There is no record of God acting to set aside natural processes on Joseph’s account. God blessed Joseph’s efforts in Potiphar’s house, in prison, and in his position as a ruler of Egypt. But it was through Joseph’s own honesty and efforts that the Lord worked. In the unfolding of circumstances, Joseph saw the hand of God. But certainly others would have seen only luck—both good and bad.
But Joseph’s view is the true one.
As we trace through the rest of the Old Testament, we’ll see that God does sometimes intervene directly. But in most cases God works through the ordering of circumstances: through the natural progress of events whose sequence nonetheless is patterned to shape history according to God’s plan and will.
It is important for us to see that this same will is active in our own circumstances. Each child of God is as important to Him as Joseph. Not because we have a task as great as Joseph’s, but because we are just as precious to the Lord. Thus we have that great New Testament affirmation of God’s control of circumstance for our benefit: “We know that in all things God works for the good of those who love Him, who have been called according to His purpose” (Rom. 8:28). Even tragedies such as Joseph experienced are meant for good. True, they may not lead us to a place of blessing in some earthly Egypt. But one day we will find our place as kings and priests to reign with the triumphant Christ.
In that day the pattern of our individual lives will be seen, woven into the great tapestry of the overall plan of our God: a plan that has in sharp focus the preservation of human beings for a life that extends far beyond the short span allotted you and me on earth. A plan that involves, with eternity, the full restoration in our personalities of the purified image of our God. [2]
NOTES
[1] Henry, M. (1996, c1991). Matthew Henry's commentary on the whole Bible : Complete and unabridged in one volume (Ge 50:15). Peabody: Hendrickson.
[2] Willmington, H. L. (1997). Willmington's Bible handbook (28). Wheaton, Ill.: Tyndale House Publishers.
FYI, for anyone interested, my contribution to the conversation on the age of the earth can be found here.
I'm out of time for today, but I'll just say that's it's never a good sign when you have to call upon The Message, NLT, and NIrV. None of these "translations" you quoted from are accurate and none are used by anyone for study.
"I just re-read that statement. Wow. That reveals a lot about why we disagree."
At first glance, maybe. But I don't really think it does. Suppose someone interprets a verse by saying, "According to X #:##, Jesus did A at t1." And then later, the same person says "According to Y #:##, Jesus did not-A at t1." We don't even need to read the text, I think, to know that someone's interpretation of either X or Y is false.
Suppose further that myself and someone agree that someone's interpretation of X is correct and uncontroversial. Since the agreed upon reading of X contradicts someone's reading of Y, and we both agree X is correct, this gives us good reason to think someone's interpretation of Y must be rejected.
To put some meat on the abstract, both you and I agree that God cannot do evil. But your interpretation of Gen 50:20 entails that God does evil, and hence so much for your interpretation.
Does this make sense?
You can insist that that your interpretation is correct all you want to, but this doesn't engage the incoherency charge.
Derek, like I said, you need to actually deal with the text. Louis is at least attempting to do so. If you can't offer an exegetically valid interpretation then perhaps your philosophy is unbiblical and needs to be changed in order to submit it to what Scripture teaches.
For example, in your syllogism, you need to prove the following from Scripture:
Anything (God) that causes something to have an evil intention is itself evil. P->Q
You must prove from Scripture, not your philosophy, that God cannot be the ultimate cause of sin.
I know you ran out of time yesterday and I look forward to hearing out your interaction with the rest of our arguments. I am waiting to address the translation issue you brought up until after you finish getting the rest of your thoughts out. I am curious to read what you have to say.
But when you added the following comment, I couldn't help but feel like it wasn't really fair to Derek or to yourself.
You must prove from Scripture, not your philosophy, that God cannot be the ultimate cause of sin.
Shifting the burden of proof this way and making it seem like he's not taking God's word seriously isn't very charitable and it's not helpful to our discourse.
It's obvious that Derek is working hard to maintain a robust understanding of divine omnibenevolence, and also to cling very tightly to the inerrancy of scripture and I don't feel like you are acknowledging that.
On top of that, even the translation "God meant it for good" is ambiguous.
The very first definition given for "meant" in MW is "to have in the mind as a purpose" [1]. And MW isn't alone.
The most straightforward reading of the passage then, is "As for you, you had an evil purpose in mind against me, but God had it in mind for a good purpose, to bring it about that many people should be kept alive, as they are today."
You can't pretend like the text says "As for you, you secondarily caused evil against me, but God ultimately caused it for good, to bring it about that many people should be kept alive, as they are today.
It really isn't as if you have a higher view of the scriptures or the plain reading of the text you proffered on your side on this case.
NOTES
[1] Merriam-Webster, I. (2003). Merriam-Webster's collegiate dictionary. (Eleventh ed.). Springfield, Mass.: Merriam-Webster, Inc.
Louis, I appreciate your willingness to deal with the text. However, you start out by urging caution in understanding the Hebrew verb chashab, but you then immediately proceed to ignore your own advice. Do you read Hebrew? If not, then you should not be making recommendations as to what the best translation is. I'm not saying this to be rude, but owning Logos software does not make you a Hebrew scholar.
What you have challenged is not my interpretation of the text but instead you have challenged the validity of every reputable translation of the verse. You have accused the ESV, NASB, KJV, NET, NIV, NRSV, and NKJV of mistranslation and as evidence you have quoted The Message. Here is James White's phone number 1-877-753-3341 Give him a call today at 3 during the Dividing Line and let him know that he and the rest of the NASB team mistranslated the passage. I'm not saying this to be rhetorical. If you honestly believe those translations are in error, then you have a rare opportunity to call one of the translators and let him know. I would be very interested to hear what he has to say.
Simply because a single Hebrew word has more than one potential meaning is not sufficient to claim it could have that meaning in this context. Every reputable translation team has decided that in this context the meaning of the word is "meant", or "intended." The Septuagint uses different words for Genesis 50:20 and Exodus 26:1. In Gen 50:20 "bouleuo" is used, which means "1) to deliberate with one's self, consider, 2) to take counsel, resolve" and is used in the NT in places like John 11:53 "So from that day they planned together to kill him" and 12:10 "So the chief priests planned to kill Lazarus too." In Ex 26:1 "ergasia" is used, which means "1) a working, performing 2) work, business 3) gain got by work, profit 4) endeavour, pains" and is used in Acts 19:24, 25; 16:16, 19; Eph 4:9; Luk 12:58
The point is, even though the original Hebrew may mean more than one thing in different contexts, it does not mean both. It either means "meant/intended" or it means "weave." It does not always mean "weave" and if you think it does here, you must demonstrate why every reputable translation is in error, not simply point to other places where the Hebrew (a language you do not read) word is translated differently.
Let me give an illustration of what you're doing:
Let's say I have a Mexican friend who doesn't speak English. I write him a letter in English and mail it to him. His sister speaks both English and Spanish so she translates it for him. In the letter I told him at one point that my back was hurting. Later on I tell him that I walked to the store and then I walked back. His sister translated it as "I returned." He had been following along with my original English letter and at this point he jumps up and says "Hey, that's not what it says. Brandon said he laid down and walked on his back." His sister looks at him confused. He points out that the same word is used in this sentence as when I said my back hurt. His sister tells him to sit down and listen to her until he can read English himself.
Can one “plot” a group effort without being the ultimate cause of every action of every individual?
Not if you're God. But assuming your view for a moment, what does that even mean in Gen 50:20? What was it that God was plotting? What does "it" refer to? Does "it" refer to getting Joseph into Egypt? No. "It" is something other than the "present result." "It" refers to Joseph being sold into slavery. The verse means that God plotted the selling of Joseph into slavery just as Joseph's brothers plotted the selling of Joseph into slavery. The difference was the motive.
From our chat, you seem to think I have made an unwarranted leap from "meant" to "cause." But I honestly don't understand that complaint. Please refer to the paragraph I just wrote. The point of a plan is to put it into action. And when it comes to God's plan, what God "intends":
‘My counsel shall stand,
and I will accomplish all my purpose,’
Note also that you don't intend something after it happens, you intend it before it happens. God did not intend the selling of Joseph into slavery after it happened, He intended it for good before it happened (and it only happened because He intended it).
Furthermore, Who has spoken and it came to pass, unless the LORD has commanded it? Is it not from the mouth of the Most High that good and bad come? Lam. 3:37-38.
---
So I think in light of this, it's your turn to cough up grammatical/lexical reasons for 1. translating this verb as “meant”,
I have to do no such thing. All I have to do is ask you to read any legitimate translation of the Bible.
2. interpreting it to mean “ultimately cause” when it comes to God and “secondarily cause” when it comes to Joseph’s brothers,
Throughout Scripture we see various acts attributed both to God and to man. For example, Scripture says God hardened Pharaoh's heart, but it also says that Pharaoh hardened his own heart. Another example is Jonah. In 1:15 we read So they picked up Jonah and hurled him into the sea, and the sea ceased from its raging. And yet just a few verses later (2:3) we read that God cast Jonah into the sea:
For you cast me into the deep,
into the heart of the seas,
and the flood surrounded me;
Another example is David's census of Israel. In 2 Sam 24:10 we read But David's heart struck him after he had numbered the people. And David said to the Lord, “I have sinned greatly in what I have done. But now, O Lord, please take away the iniquity of your servant, for I have done very foolishly.”
However, if we go back a few verses we read: Again the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel, and he incited David against them, saying, “Go, number Israel and Judah.” Scripture teaches that God ultimately caused David's sin and that David also caused David's sin. Furthermore, we read how God did that in 1 Chronicles 21:1 Then Satan stood against Israel and incited David to number Israel.
Consider also:
Proverbs 16:9 The heart of man plans his way, but the LORD establishes his steps.
Proverbs 19:21 Many are the plans in the mind of man, but it is the purpose of the LORD that will stand.
Proverbs 21:1 The king's heart is a stream of water in the hand of the Lord;
he turns it wherever he will.
and 3. insisting that we use must interpret it to mean the same thing both times it is used in this sentence, even though it is used of two different types of agents in slightly different syntactical positions, and even though you want to get to interpret it to mean two different things in its two different positions in this sentence.
You lost me here. First you say that I'm insisting we must interpret it to mean the same thing both times, then you accuse me of trying to make it mean two different things. Can you re-state point 3?
---
As for commentaries, I can quote those too. But in the case of Matthew Henry, I believe you have misread him. He is saying the same thing I am. When God makes use of men’s agency for the performance of his counsels, it is common for him to mean one thing and them another, even the quite contrary, but God’s counsel shall stand. See Isa. 10:7. That's exactly what I have said. God used Joseph's brothers to perform His counsel and the difference is the motive. Note Henry's reference to Is. 10:7.
...and promotes the designs of his providence even by the sins of men; Note that Henry says God works his providence by the sins of men, not in reaction to the sins of men.
Furthermore, if Henry is simply saying that evil things happen and then God reacts to bring about good, then there is no reason for his comment about God not being the author of sin. No one would call God the author of sin if He was just reacting to evil. The reason Henry mentions that God is not the author of sin is because people would accuse him of believing that based on what he just said.
Here is a helpful quote from B. B. Warfield:
Nor does the moral quality of these acts present any apparent difficulty to the Old Testament construction. We are never permitted to imagine, to be sure, that God is the author of sin, either in the world at large or in any individual soul - that He is in any way implicated in the sinfulness of the acts performed by the perverse misuse of creaturely freedom. In all God's working He shows Himself pre-eminently the Holy One, and prosecutes His holy will, His righteous way, His all-wise plan: the blame for all sinful deeds rests exclusively on the creaturely actors (Ex. ix. 27, x. 16), who recognize their own guilt (II Sam. xxiv. 10, 17) and receive its punishment (Eccl. xi. 9 compared with xi. 5). But neither is God's relation to the sinful acts of His creatures ever represented as purely passive: the details of the doctrine of concursus were left, no doubt, to later ages speculatively to work out, but its assumption underlies the entire Old Testament representation of the Divine modes of working. That anything - good or evil - occurs in God's universe finds its account, according to the Old Testament conception, in His positive ordering and active concurrence; while the moral quality of the deed, considered in itself, is rooted in the moral character of the subordinate agent, acting in the circumstances and under the motives operative in each instance. It is certainly going beyond the Old Testament warrant to speak of the 'all-productivity of God,' as if He were the only efficient cause in nature and the sphere of the free spirit alike; it is the very delirium of misconception to say that in the Old Testament God and Satan are insufficiently discriminated, and deeds appropriate to the latter are assigned to the former. Nevertheless, it remains true that even the evil acts of the creature are so far carried back to God that they too are affirmed to be included in His all-embracing decree, and to be brought about, bounded and utilized in His providential government. It is He that hardens the heart of the sinner that persists in his sin (Ex. iv. 21, vii. 3, x. 1, 27, xiv. 4, 8, Deut. ii. 30, Jos. xi. 20, Isa. lxiii. 17); it is from Him that the evil spirits proceed that trouble sinners (I Sam. xvi. 14, Judg. ix. 23, I Kings xxii, Job i.); it is of Him that the evil impulses that rise in sinners' hearts take this or that specific form (II Sam. xxiv. 1). The philosophy that lies behind such representations, however, is not the pantheism which looks upon God as the immediate cause of all that comes to pass; much less the pandaimonism which admits no distinction between good and evil; there is not even involved a conception of God entangled in an undeveloped ethical discrimination. It is the philosophy that is expressed in Isa. xlv. 5 f., 'I am the LORD, and there is none else; beside me there is no God. . . . I am the LORD, and there is none else. I form the light and create darkness; I make peace and create evil; I am the LORD that doeth all these things'; it is the philosophy that is expressed in Prov. xvi. 4, 'The LORD hath made everything for its own end, yea, even the wicked for the day of evil.' Because, over against all dualistic conceptions, there is but one God, and He is indeed GOD; and because, over against all cosmotheistic conceptions, this God is a PERSON who acts purposefully; there is nothing that is, and nothing that comes to pass, that He has not first decreed and then brought to pass by His creation or providence. Thus all things find their unity in His eternal plan; and not their unity merely, but their justification as well; even the evil, though retaining its quality as evil and hateful to the holy God, and certain to be dealt with as hateful, yet does not occur apart from His provision or against His will, but appears in the world which He has made only as the instrument by means of which He works the higher good.
Predestination
Sorry, it's either 4PM or 5PM your time, not 3
http://aomin.org/articles/webcast.html
On your understanding, Brandon, do you think God meant [intended} for JB's to be evil? That is, did God make JB's evil?
You have accused the ESV, NASB, KJV, NET, NIV, NRSV, and NKJV of mistranslation and as evidence you have quoted The Message.
There are several issues here that I think need treatment. First, I didn’t mean to accuse any of those Bibles as having a mistranslation. I wondered whether a better translation of a single verb might exist.
Is it blasphemy to ask questions? Are these translations inspired? Can better translations never be reached? What do translation committees do with their time, if not look into potentially better ways of putting Greek and Hebrew sentences into modern English? After talking to James White, do I now need to call the NASB translation committee and tell them I judge their work complete and that they should not to release any more editions? That seems more arrogant than pondering over a word choice!
Moreover, to support this curiosity I had, I cited other instances of how at least one of even these, respected Formal Equivalent translations, choses to translate the exact same verb within the same historical section of scripture. I also referenced the works of genuine Hebrew scholars and reputable commentators to try to gain some insight into the answer to my question.
Do you have any insight to offer? Do you have a justification for preferring the “meant” translation that you can share with me? I am interested in hearing why you prefer this word choice, since I know that you do.
In addition to why the author chose this particular word (I hear there are supposedly around 500 Hebrew roots used in the Tanakh) and what it’s best English equivalent is (I hear English has around 9,000 verbs alone), I am also interested in why he chose this particular verb tense and how that might best be carried over into English. As you know, Hebrew has seven tenses, and in this case the author chose not to use the Hiphil (active causal) tense, or even the Hophal (passive causal) tense. He chose to use the simple Qal (active) tense. Why? If he meant “cause”, why didn’t he use any of the causal tenses available to him?
Second, I didn’t just question the translation, I did also in fact question your interpretation of it. The fact still stands that even the word “meant” in English is ambiguous and does not by itself entail either “ultimately cause” or “secondarily cause”. You’re not off the hook just because I happened to mention The Message.
Third, on the matter of translations, I would like to say that I did also cite the NLT, which happens to be the #1 Bible in America. And you brought up the NET Bible yourself as a reputable translation. Indeed, it’s been acclaimed widely and highly, even by Wayne Grudem himself, who helped translate the ESV. But the NET Bible also prefers a different translation than the ESV, which turns out to be closer to the one I said “might be preferred”:
“As for you, you meant to harm me, but God intended it for a good purpose, so he could preserve the lives of many people, as you can see this day.”
The verb in this passage in the NET Bible also links to a list of Strong’s definitions that all are all closer to my interpretation than to yours:
1) to think, plan, esteem, calculate, invent, make a judgment,
imagine, count
1a) (Qal)
1a1) to think, account
1a2) to plan, devise, mean
1a3) to charge, impute, reckon
1a4) to esteem, value, regard
1a5) to invent
Substituting any of these for the verb suggests that your definition of “meant” as “cause” in this context might not be the most obvious one.
For example, some of those in the Qal tense yield:
As for you, you thought evil against me, but God thought it for good
As for you, you planned evil against me, but God planned it for good
As for you, you esteemed evil against me, but God esteemed it for good
As for you, you calculated evil against me, but God calculated it for good
As for you, you invented evil against me, but God invented it for good
As for you, you judged evil against me, but God judged it for good
As for you, you imagined evil against me, but God imagined it for good
As for you, you accounted evil against me, but God accounted it for good
As for you, you regarded evil against me, but God regard it for good
Or what if, as the NET suggests, the author meant it differently in each of its syntactical positions? Let’s imagine some possibilities:
As for you, you meant evil against me, but God imagined it for good,
As for you, you intended evil against me, but God planned it for good, or
As for you, you devised evil against me, but God valued it for good, etc.
Again, none of these suggest “you secondarily caused evil against me, but God ultimately and sufficiently caused you to do it for good”.
The other translations I referenced, which are all pretty popular, are admittedly less word-for-word and more dynamically equivalent or paraphrased. But they don’t claim to be as literal or accurate as the ESV or KJV. In the case of 50:20, there may be translators from the ESV committee who would agree that the paraphrased versions did a good job in this case or that my interpretation is correct, even if “meant” is the most literal translation of the verb in question. I only quoted them after looking at other resources in order to gain some insight into how men greater than I have interpreted or paraphrased this text. I don’t know about you, but I think even those that translated The Message and the NCV are greater scholars than I am. And it’s not as if there is a scholarly consensus that says it reads “God caused it for good” and nothing else but The Message reads otherwise. “Meant” is ambiguous and The Message’s paraphrase is compatible with it.
Since you condemned me along with The Message, I wonder why you did not first esteem me along with Strong’s? Citing one doesn’t make everything I say invalid any more than citing the other makes me a scholar.
The Septuagint uses different words for Genesis 50:20 and Exodus 26:1. In Gen 50:20 "bouleuo" is used, which means "1) to deliberate with one's self, consider, 2) to take counsel, resolve" and is used in the NT in places like John 11:53 "So from that day they planned together to kill him" and 12:10 "So the chief priests planned to kill Lazarus too."
Am I missing something here? Are you saying that the LXX translates this Hebrew verb into a Greek verb typically translated into English as “consider”, or “plan”? This was what I have been suggesting as a possible translation this whole time. Are you now agreeing with me? You brought up John 12:10 "So the chief priests planned to kill Lazarus too”, which seems like a great example of a “plan” that involves multiple wills. It wasn’t as if one of the priests devised a plan and subsequently caused all of the other priests to execute the plan in such a way that their actions were determined but their wills were secondary causes so as to ground their responsibility for what they did. The LXX’s verb and its use in John 12:10 just drives my point home.
The point is, even though the original Hebrew may mean more than one thing in different contexts, it does not mean both. It either means "meant/intended" or it means "weave."
It can’t? It can’t be painting the pictorial image of an “ingenious weaving artisan” to illustrate divine providence?
Hebrew, like the other early Semitic languages, concentrates on observation more than reflection. That is, things are generally observed according to their appearance as phenomena, not analyzed as to their inward being or essence. Effects are observed but not traced through a series of causes...
Hebrew is a pictorial language in which the past is not merely described but verbally painted. Not just a landscape is presented but a moving panorama. The course of events is reenacted in the mind’s sight. (Note the frequent use of “behold,” a Hebraism carried over to the NT.) Such common Hebraic expressions as “he arose and went,” “he opened his lips and spoke,” “he lifted up his eyes and saw,” and “he lifted up his voice and wept” illustrate the pictorial strength of the language.
Many profound theological expressions of the OT are tightly bound up with Hebrew language and grammar. Even the most sacred name of God himself, “the Lord” (Yahweh), is directly related to the Hebrew verb “to be” (or perhaps “to cause to be”). Many other names of persons and places in the OT can best be understood only with a working knowledge of Hebrew...
Most Hebrew roots originally expressed some physical action or denoted some natural object. The verb “to decide” originally meant “to cut”; “to be true” originally meant “to be firmly fixed”; “to be right” meant “to be straight”; “to be honorable” meant “to be heavy.”
Abstract terms are alien to the character of Hebrew; for example, biblical Hebrew has no specific words for “theology,” “philosophy,” or “religion.” Intellectual or theological concepts are expressed by concrete terms. The abstract idea of sin is represented by such words as “to miss the mark” or “crooked” or “rebellion” or “trespass” (“to cross over”). Mind or intellect is expressed by “heart” or “kidneys,” and emotion or compassion by “bowels” (see Is 63:15, kjv). Other concrete terms in Hebrew are “horn” for strength or vigor, “bones” for self, and “seed” for descendants. A mental quality is often depicted by the part of the body thought of as its most appropriate embodiment. Strength can be represented by “arm” or “hand,” anger by “nostril,” displeasure by “falling face,” acceptance by “shining face,” thinking by “say.”
Some translators have attempted to represent a Hebrew word always by the same English word, but that leads to serious problems. Sometimes there is considerable disagreement on the exact shade of meaning of a Hebrew word in a given passage. A single root frequently represents a variety of meanings, depending on usage and context. The word for “bless” can also mean “curse, greet, favor, praise.” The word for “judgment” is used also for “justice, verdict, penalty, ordinance, duty, custom, manner.” The word for “strength” or “power” also means “army, virtue, worth, courage.”
Further ambiguity arises from the fact that some Hebrew consonants stand for two different original consonants that have merged in the evolution of the language. Two words that on the surface appear to be identical may be traced back to two different roots. For an example of this phenomenon in English, compare “bass” (a fish) with “bass” (a vocalist).
Elwell, W. A., & Comfort, P. W. (2001). Tyndale Bible dictionary. Tyndale reference library (581). Wheaton, Ill.: Tyndale House Publishers.
Let me give an illustration of what you're doing:
Let's say I have a Mexican friend who doesn't speak English. I write him a letter in English and mail it to him. His sister speaks both English and Spanish so she translates it for him. In the letter I told him at one point that my back was hurting. Later on I tell him that I walked to the store and then I walked back. His sister translated it as "I returned." He had been following along with my original English letter and at this point he jumps up and says "Hey, that's not what it says. Brandon said he laid down and walked on his back." His sister looks at him confused. He points out that the same word is used in this sentence as when I said my back hurt. His sister tells him to sit down and listen to her until he can read English himself.
This is disanalagous for the obvious reason that “back” in the English passage you offered is used once as a noun and once as an adjective, whereas the Hebrew word in question is used as a verb in all of the many cases I offered.
Can one “plot” a group effort without being the ultimate cause of every action of every individual?
Not if you're God.
Wow. So you are saying that God is incapable of weaving circumstances together to accomplish His ends. I remember coming to this point myself several years ago. Realizing what I had done was instrumental in my becoming a non-Calvinist. While touting sovereignty, it is a plastic sovereignty, and you end up actually having a lower view of God.
But assuming your view for a moment, what does that even mean in Gen 50:20? What was it that God was plotting? What does "it" refer to? Does "it" refer to getting Joseph into Egypt? No. "It" is something other than the "present result." "It" refers to Joseph being sold into slavery. The verse means that God plotted the selling of Joseph into slavery just as Joseph's brothers plotted the selling of Joseph into slavery. The difference was the motive.
I am not convinced “it” refers to the method and not the outcome. But even it if referred to the method, that doesn’t entail that God couldn’t have plotted for Joseph’s brothers to sell Joseph into slavery any other way than by full-blown causation. God is pretty clever.
From our chat, you seem to think I have made an unwarranted leap from "meant" to "cause." But I honestly don't understand that complaint. Please refer to the paragraph I just wrote. The point of a plan is to put it into action. And when it comes to God's plan, what God "intends":
‘My counsel shall stand,
and I will accomplish all my purpose,’
Once again, I believe that God is capable of using more ways to accomplish all of His purposes than full-blown causation. As for your jump from “meant” to “cause” - I don’t know how I could be any more clear. But that may be due to my lack of creativity.
If the translators meant “cause”, then why did they choose “meant”?
Note also that you don't intend something after it happens, you intend it before it happens. God did not intend the selling of Joseph into slavery after it happened, He intended it for good before it happened (and it only happened because He intended it).
I agree.
Furthermore, “Who has spoken and it came to pass, unless the LORD has commanded it? Is it not from the mouth of the Most High that good and bad come? Lam. 3:37-38.
Amen. To quote from the Tyndale Bible Dictionary again, “things are generally observed according to their appearance as phenomena, not analyzed as to their inward being or essence.” [ibid.]. This verse, like all of the others I interacted with earlier, doesn’t entail all of the philosophical claims about causation that you want it to.
Throughout Scripture we see various acts attributed both to God and to man.
Yes we all agree on this. No one is arguing about that. Again, how it works is what we’re arguing over.
First you say that I'm insisting we must interpret it to mean the same thing both times, then you accuse me of trying to make it mean two different things. Can you re-state point 3?
Yes, first you tell Derek “It uses the same word to refer to the actions of Joseph's brothers and the actions of God, so whatever our interpretation, it has to equally apply to both.”. But then you tell us “One is the secondary cause (men), the other the ultimate cause (God).”. I was just pointing out the inconsistency there. It seems like you want to get to interpret it two different ways “secondary cause” versus “ultimate cause”, but that you require us to interpret it the same way twice. That doesn’t seem fair.
As far as the commentaries go, you’re right, we can quote them to one another all day long. And as far as Henry goes, I’m not convinced of your reading, but we don’t need to add the interpretation of extra-Biblical texts to our already lengthy list of Biblical texts to disagree on.
In summary, neither “meant” nor it’s tense has been shown to mean “cause”, you have yet to produce even a single scripture that entails your philosophical views about how divine providence works, and you have shown that your view of God is lower than ours.
By the way, that Warfield article you linked to agrees with me in part:
"We are never permitted to imagine, to be sure, that God is the author of sin, either in the world at large or in any individual soul - that He is in any way implicated in the sinfulness of the acts performed by the perverse misuse of creaturely freedom"
And perhaps more significantly:
"Its metaphysics never come to explicit discussion"
Interesting stuff Louis. What do you make of the following:
"As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good, to bring it about that many people should be kept alive, as they are today."
I'm okay reading "God meant" as "God caused", so long as we have a metaphysic that not only distinguishes between God's intent and JB's intent, but also that enables God to be absolved from making people have evil intentions. That is, I think it's true in a loose sense that God is the cause of evil in the sense that all states of affairs are made possible by God's decree. But "making possible" does not entail "making JB's evil" in the strict sense. I, like Brandon, want to distinguish human agency and God's agency in such a way that we can make man responsible for evil and not God. I just don't think a mere secondary/ultimate cause distinction will be able to do this work so long as it's true that God decrees, in the strict sense, that JB's are evil. Put another way, without a hard and fast distinction between what God causes qua enables or makes possible, and what God causes qua determines simpliciter, I think Brandon's ultimate/secondary distinction collapses.
So, I wholly affirm that God caused Joseph's Brothers to sell Joseph into slavery. I deny that God caused this in the same way he causes grass to grow.
but also that enables God to be absolved from making people have evil intentions.
Derek, I appreciate your concern here, but for my sake, can you provide Scripture for us to consider on this issue? I would affirm that we don't know exactly how God accomplishes His purpose. I would also affirm that Scripture teaches God permits evil, but that it is not a bare permission. God withholds His mercy, giving men over to the lusts of their heart as Rom 1 describes it, which is different from how Ezekial 36 describes regeneration. Yet it is God that causes this to happen. Psalm 105:25 says He caused them to hate his people, and to mistreat his servants (NET). or He turned their heart to hate His people, to deal craftily with His servants (NASB) (Cf. Rom 9:18). Aside from how God accomplished this, the verse teaches that God's intent was specifically the evil intentions of the hearts of the Egyptians. (Also refer to my above quotations of 2 Sam 24 showing that it was God that incited David to sin, and that Satan was the direct means of David being incited).
To answer your previous question, God intended for Joseph's brothers to sell him into slavery and He intended for them to do so sinfully. God's purpose was "to bring it about that many people should be kept alive" and the means or instrument He chose, according to His good pleasure, was the sinful action of men. These sinful actions were not something that happened apart from God, something that he reached into a toolbox of pre-existing instruments and selected, they were part of His plan/purpose/intent.
I'll come up with verses later, but for now:
"To answer your previous question, God intended for Joseph's brothers to sell him into slavery and He intended for them to do so sinfully. "
I think this needs to be qualified: You wouldn't say they God wanted evil to come upon Joseph, would you? Nor would you want to say that God wants people to sin, do you? At least, not in a completely unqualified way, right?
I think, in perfectly a uncontroversial, yet highly qualified, sense, God wants men to sin. He wants people to make choices, and allowing men to sin is what enables the good of us making choices. So it's a 'good' thing that we sin only in the sense is that God has his reasons for allowing it- right?
But we don't want to say that God causes people to sin, or absolutely desires men to sin, right? To say so is awfully grotesque.
Perhaps the following is beyond your purview, since you don't like to stray too far from the text, but what's your response to this:
God, being all powerful, and on your view, the absolute cause of anything that comes to pass, why does God not just allow evil (because, on your view, He's allowing evil is no mere allowing), but also absolutely make his creatures evil? It seems to me God can achieve all of his ends without any evil whatever, so why any evil at all? Why didn't he send an angel to Jacob, telling him to send his son into Egypt, as opposed to causing JB's to be evil? If either one does the job, the one where makes his creatures evil to achieve the ends is wholly gratuitous, is it not?
When Derek wants “God to be absolved from making people have evil intentions.” Brandon you say “can you provide Scripture for us to consider on this issue?”, and then Derek raises some excellent questions (the answers to which, along with your full reply to the comments I made this morning, I eagerly anticipate), but replies “I’ll come up with verses later”.
May I suggest “Let no one say when he is tempted, "I am being tempted by God," for God cannot be tempted with evil, and he himself tempts no one. But each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire. Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin, and sin when it is fully grown brings forth death.” (James 1:13-15)?
Notice how James traces the causal chain backwards from death, to sin, to man’s own desire, and then makes it clear that the chain ends there, because God tempts no one.
Could God have been the one who planted the evil desire in man in the first place? This passage in James doesn’t allow for this, because he calls man’s evil desire his own. Further, placing an evil desire in someone surely falls into the category of “tempting them”, which James teaches God does not do. In fact, tempting someone by placing an evil desire in them is even more intense than tempting them externally, and would be even more difficult to resist!
Furthermore “...everything created by God is good” (1 Timothy 4:4a). Evil desires are by very definition “not good”, so evil desires cannot be created by God.
But Brandon in your reply you also say something very curious, which marks a divergence from how you were initially arguing. You say “I would affirm that we don't know exactly how God accomplishes His purpose. I would also affirm that Scripture teaches God permits evil, but that it is not a bare permission. God withholds His mercy, giving men over to the lusts of their heart as Rom 1 describes it, which is different from how Ezekial 36 describes regeneration.”.
This seems definitively distinct from your argument that God is the ultimate cause of everything and the LBC’s position that God decrees whatsoever comes to pass, and it is beginning to sound surprisingly closer to the position we’ve been defending this whole time. What exactly do you disagree with us about? Has your position changed at all? Even a little bit? I thought I was clear on what your position was, but I’m not sure anymore.
Would you be so kind as to simply but completely articulate your position and the exact and thorough nature of your disagreement with us?
And are there any details to our position that you need any clarification on?
Or take Jonah and the Nineveh episode. On your view, it's God who makes Jonah reluctant to preach to Nineveh, and this is what explains the whale episode. Why didn't God make Jonah willing to preach in the first place? Or better yet, why didn't God make the men of Nineveh in such a state that they didn't need preaching in the first place. If God is the cause of of men's sin and lack of repentance, why does God call men to repentance as if it's not entirely up to God that men are sinful and unrepentant in the first place? That is, without a robust distinction between what Got permits and what God absolutely causes, the entirety of salvation history, from God's point of view, is nothing but a video game that God created for himself to play, or a chess game with God on one side, and God putting the form of men and angels on the other, and every move anyone makes is entirely made by God alone in such a way that it's really God just playing himself, getting angry sometimes and rejoicing at others when he moves whatever pieces exactly how he has the move. The type of people I know who play chess games like this are schizophrenic and pathetic. But the picture of God you're painting here is no different, is it not?
Louis, my position has not changed at all. I have simply maintained throughout, with the confession, that God's permission is not a bare permission. This is what Derek took issue with.
I think, in perfectly a uncontroversial, yet highly qualified, sense, God wants men to sin. He wants people to make choices, and allowing men to sin is what enables the good of us making choices. So it's a 'good' thing that we sin only in the sense is that God has his reasons for allowing it- right?
We would ascribe different reasons for this, but the basic premise that God has a higher purpose in the causing/allowing of sin I agree with.
God, being all powerful, and on your view, the absolute cause of anything that comes to pass, why does God not just allow evil (because, on your view, He's allowing evil is no mere allowing), but also absolutely make his creatures evil? It seems to me God can achieve all of his ends without any evil whatever, so why any evil at all? Why didn't he send an angel to Jacob, telling him to send his son into Egypt, as opposed to causing JB's to be evil? If either one does the job, the one where makes his creatures evil to achieve the ends is wholly gratuitous, is it not?
The bolded above is exactly why we must start with Scripture. You are rejecting what I believe Scripture clearly teaches because in your mind, God does not have a purpose for evil. You are, in effect, judging God.
But let me ask you this: Since you say God can achieve all His ends without evil, what is God's ultimate purpose/end?
"But let me ask you this: Since you say God can achieve all His ends without evil, what is God's ultimate purpose/end?"
Hmm. I think God, qua God, has no need for any ends other than HImself. I believe God is wholly fulfilled being God and in need of nothing external to Himself. This means that God didn't have to create anything, and God is no need to receive glory from anything He might create.
So if He creates, He creates because He wants to share His glory. So God's telos in the Creation of things other than Himself is the glorification of Himself as well as the glorification of that which He creates.
It's quite apparent to me that God can achieve this contingent end-viz., the glorification of God's self and the glorification of what He created, without causing any evil whatever.
It's quite apparent to me that God can achieve this contingent end-viz., the glorification of God's self and the glorification of what He created, without causing any evil whatever.
Which, again, is why you should form your opinion from Scripture because what is apparent to you may not be to God. Do you have any Scriptural support for your assertion?
Romans 3:5-8 demonstrates how evil magnifies the goodness of God5 But if our unrighteousness serves to show the righteousness of God, what shall we say? That God is unrighteous to inflict wrath on us? (I speak in a human way.) 6 By no means! For then how could God judge the world? 7 But if through my lie God's truth abounds to his glory, why am I still being condemned as a sinner? 8 And why not do evil that good may come?—as some people slanderously charge us with saying. Their condemnation is just.
Ephesians 3:7-12 reveals that the purpose of creation was the glorification of Christ by His redemption of His people:
7of which I was made a minister, according to the gift of God's grace which was given to me according to the working of His power. 8 To me, the very least of all saints, this grace was given, to preach to the Gentiles the unfathomable riches of Christ,9 and to bring to light what is the administration of the mystery which for ages has been hidden in God who created all things; 10 so that the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known through the church to the rulers and the authorities in the heavenly places. 11 This was in accordance with the eternal purpose which He carried out in Christ Jesus our Lord, 12 in whom we have boldness and confident access through faith in Him.
And Romans 9:22-23 teaches us that the creation of the reprobate serves the the higher purpose of glorifying God:
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-
It has been compared to the black velvet that further magnifies the beauty of a diamond placed upon it.
Jonathan Edwards put it this way:
It is a proper and excellent thing for infinite glory to shine forth; and for the same reason, it is proper that the shining forth of God’s glory should be complete; that is, that all parts of his glory should shine forth, that every beauty should be proportionably effulgent, that the beholder may have a proper notion of God. It is not proper that one glory should be exceedingly manifested, and another not at all; for then the effulgence would not answer the reality. For the same reason it is not proper that one should be manifested exceedingly, and another but very little. It is highly proper that the effulgent glory of God should answer his real excellency; that the splendour should be answerable to the real and essential glory, for the same reason that it is proper and excellent for God to glorify himself at all. Thus it is necessary, that God’s awful majesty, his authority and dreadful greatness, justice, and holiness, should be manifested. But this could not be, unless sin and punishment had been decreed; so that the shining forth of God’s glory would be very imperfect, both because these parts of divine glory would not shine forth as the others do, and also the glory of his goodness, love, and holiness would be faint without them; nay, they could scarcely shine forth at all. If it were not right that God should decree and permit and punish sin, there could be no manifestation of God’s holiness in hatred of sin, or in showing any preference, in his providence, of godliness before it. There would be no manifestation of God’s grace or true goodness, if there was no sin to be pardoned, no misery to be saved from. How much happiness soever he bestowed, his goodness would not be so much prized and admired, and the sense of it not so great, as we have elsewhere shown. We little consider how much the sense of good is heightened by the sense of evil, both moral and natural. And as it is necessary that there should be evil, because the display of the glory of God could not but be imperfect and incomplete without it, so evil is necessary, in order to the highest happiness of the creature, and the completeness of that communication of God, for which he made the world; because the creature’s happiness consists in the knowledge of God, and sense of his love. And if the knowledge of him be imperfect, the happiness of the creature must be proportionably imperfect; and the happiness of the creature would be imperfect upon another account also; for, as we have said, the sense of good is comparatively dull and flat, without the knowledge of evil.
-Dissertation Concerning the Divine Decrees in General and Election in Particular
Louis said, May I suggest “Let no one say when he is tempted, "I am being tempted by God," for God cannot be tempted with evil, and he himself tempts no one. But each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire. Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin, and sin when it is fully grown brings forth death.” (James 1:13-15)?
Notice how James traces the causal chain backwards from death, to sin, to man’s own desire, and then makes it clear that the chain ends there, because God tempts no one.
I agree with this statement, however, I think, that the piece that you are missing is that God does not have to tempt fallen men to commit evil acts, this is the way that men naturally act unless He intervenes with grace. God simply decreed the fall as the best (and most loving) means of demonstrating His glory through redemption in Jesus Christ...of which Joseph is a type. (there can be no redemption without there first being sin and misery to be redeemed from)
Joseph's brothers, Pharaoh, Hitler and Stalin all committed evil acts because, like all of us who are naturally descended from Adam, they were intrinsically evil beings and from the heart [nature] they desire to do evil actions.
God is the ultimate cause of evil [Isaiah 45:5-7] because He has decreed the fall and does not actively work to prohibit the evil done natural by fallen men, but is not the immediate cause because He does not actively have to do anything in a given situation order to make a fallen sinner, sin.
There is, I believe, an unequal ultimacy that must be considered in understanding the "how" of God's providence.
I'm enjoying this discussion, but as a humble Baptist I can't follow the terminology and rules set forth in fallen man's science of logic (which I think is called philosophy)...so when you want to beat me like a piñata, just talk like you're talking to your hillbilly cousin from the Ozarks.
Back to sermon prep.
Brandon, should I be looking for additional posts from you before I reply to your most recent comments and to Jon's?
Re: Edwards' "theodicy":
God has the wizardry to cause man to sin without Himself sinning, but He entirely lacks the ability to express HIs goodness to mankind without absolutely and unequivocally decreeing the Holocaust, for instance, as contrast?
yup, that's what the Bible teaches
Louis, I will reply to your previous comments as soon as I can, but I don't know when that will be. If you want to say something else, go for it.
Hello Jonathan,
you say:
God is the ultimate cause of evil [Isaiah 45:5-7] because He has decreed the fall and does not actively work to prohibit the evil done natural by fallen men, but is not the immediate cause because He does not actively have to do anything in a given situation order to make a fallen sinner, sin.
If this account is correct, it would get to absolve God from being, as you say, the "immediate" cause of post fall human sin. But what of the fall itself? Since there is no "sinful nature" for pre-fall Adam, would you then say God is the "immediate and active cause" of Adams' sin?
Suppose further: On your view, Jonathan, God is not the active and immediate cause of post-fall sin since, as you say, all such sin is due to man’s sinful nature. Perhaps we can liken this state of affairs to a cascade of falling dominos: God doesn’t need to actively and immediately cause domino 39 to fall, since 39’s fall is sufficiently caused by its antecedent conditions (the conditions that preceded its fall); namely, domino 38’s falling. Indeed, domino 1’s fall itself is sufficient to guarantee that any domino D+1 one to fall. But again, what of domino 1’s fall? There is no domino D-1 to cause it to fall, and so we need an active and immediate cause of its fall, and surely this must be whoever pushed it. But for whoever pushed the first domino, it’s clear that she is the active and immediate cause of 1’s fall, and if 1’s fall is sufficient to guarantee the fall of the set of all dominos D+1, then her immediate and active causing of 1’s fall is sufficient for all the dominos’ fall.
Suppose further that she intends both domino 1’s fall, and she knows and intends that 1’s fall is sufficient for every other domino D+1’s fall. It seems quite clear that under such conditions, we can call her the author of both 1’s fall and everything that follows from it, even if she doesn’t actively and immediately cause what happens after domino 1’s fall.
(1) IF X is the immediate and active cause of Y’s fall, then X is wholly the author of Y’s fall.
(2) If Y’s fall is sufficient for Z’s fall, then whatever causes Y’s fall is also the author Z’s fall (assuming whatever caused Y’s fall knows and intends that Y’s fall will cause Z’s fall.)
So, ex hypothesi:
X= God
Y= Adam
Z= all men after Y (Adam).
(3) God is the immediate and active cause of Adam’s fall.
By (1), Then God is wholly the author Adam’s fall.
(4) Adam’s fall is sufficient for all men’s sin after Adam.
By (2) God is the author of all men’s sin.
This is roundabout way saying the following: even if God is not the active and immediate cause of everyone’s sin besides Adam’s, God still is the author of all such sin if his active and immediate causing of Adam’s sin is sufficient to guarantee everyone’s sin besides Adam’s.
The only way out of this, it seems, is by saying that God is not active and immediate cause of Adam’s sin.
Thus it becomes important to define what we mean by "author of sin." If you want to use "author" as synonymous with "cause," then God is the author of sin. But the way I have used it is to mean God Himself does not sin. To use your analogy, God caused the domino to fall, but He Himself did not fall.
right, we're back to this again.
Suppose
(Fall) it's wrong to make something fall.
Surely, if I were to make Adam fall, I did something wrong, and I should be considered fallen for making him fall.
So,
(Fallen too) whatever causes something to fall is itself fallen.
So, ex hypothesi,
(!) God made adam fall.
By (fall) and (fallen too), God fell.
In order to say otherwise, I need a putative case where someone causes someone else to sin without themselves being guilty for the sin of causing another to sin.
or again: suppose I made a machine that kills someone.
Though it's false, strictly speaking, that I killed someone, I'm nevertheless guilty of killing someone, since I devised the machine that did. What's the non-ad hoc exemption for God?
Or again. The relevant moral issue in the dominos' falling is not "being fallen", but "causing another the fall." In my case, the person who pushes the first domino is didn't fall, but she did cause another fall. If causing another to fall is itself wrong, then she's guilty.
I need a putative case where someone causes someone else to sin without themselves being guilty for the sin of causing another to sin.
I have a better idea. Why don't you reason from Scripture and submit yourself to what it says?
Surely, if I were to make Adam fall, I did something wrong, and I should be considered fallen for making him fall.
You want to justify God by holding Him to the same standard as men. You want an example of man acting like God so that you can therefore exonerate Him. That's a terrible way to approach the issue.
I have given sufficient answers to all of your questions from Scripture and you have simply ignored them, telling me you'll "come up with verses later." That is not how we are to think upon the most Holy God. I can appreciate the desire to push everything as far as we can, working out every consequence of an idea, but I cannot appreciate the way you do so. We cannot know these things unless God has revealed them to us, so we must reason from Scripture, not our experience.
But to answer your question, consider that what makes something a sin is the heart, the motive. The murder of the only innocent human being, and more than that, of God Himself, was a wicked sin but it was ordained and caused by God (Acts 4:27-28). Is. 53:10 Yet it was the will of the Lord to crush him; he has put him to grief; The reason that Christ's death was not sinful for God the Father was because He did it for His own glory. The Romans and the Jews did not crucify Christ out of a desire to glorify God.
Rom 3:23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God
Rom 1:21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.
1 Cor 10:31 So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God.
Rom 14:23 whatever does not proceed from faith is sin.
If one's motivation is something other than the glorification of God, then it is sinful. That is the core of sin. That is the core of every violation of the law of God. Scripture speaks directly to the issue we are discussing. In Romans 9, Paul teaches God's sovereignty in election and reprobation and then he answers man's objection.
First he teaches that God's sovereign election does not depend upon anything about the individual (v.11). The first objection (yours) is that God is therefore unjust. Paul responds first by demonstrating that this is what Scripture clearly teaches (v15), but that itself does not answer the objection directly. His answer is found in v17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth."
Note what Paul has done. How does v17 answer the charge that God is unrighteous? It does so by explaining God's motive in all He does: the glorification of Himself. Piper notes:
It can scarcely be overemphasized that, for the sake of Paul's defense of God's righteousness, in Rom 9:15 and 17, Paul employs Old Testament texts in which the exercise of God's sovereign freedom, in mercy and in hardening, is the means by which He declares the glory of His name! This is the heart of Paul's defense: in choosing unconditionally those on whom He will have mercy (love) and those whom He will harden (hate) God is not unrighteous, for in this "electing purpose" He is acting out of a full allegiance to His name and esteem for His glory.
-The Justification of God, p. 180
Please read the rest of the passage, taking particular, personal note of:
But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use?
Piper also notes:
...the only way Paul can even attempt to justify God's sovereign hardening is not to show that it accords with normal human values, nor that it follows from the ways humans regularly employ their reason, but rather that it follows necessarily from what it means to be God. It is precisely the incomprehensible distinction between the never-having-begun givenness of the infinite God and the utterly dependent brevity of human life that makes it so hard for us, especially with our incorrigible bent toward self-exultation, to affirm the ways of God. But I do not doubt that Paul cherished the hope that, perhaps not many, but some would see what it means to be God and would "justify him" (cf Luke 7:29, 35) in all lowliness and trust.
-p.188
But to answer your question, consider that what makes something a sin is the heart, the motive.
I see how having impure motives is sinful, in the sense that, having impure motives is not how God made us to be.
But if my impure motives were caused by God; if God, and not myself, is the one who gave me impure motives, then I can hardly be guilty for having them. I just don't know what that means...
Suppose a beautiful pot says, "Look how beautiful I am, won't you congratulate me for being so beautiful?" And the potter then says, "You don't deserve any credit for being beautiful because I am the one who made you beautiful; I am the one who should be praised for making you beautiful, and you have no right to claim any credit for it."
The potter's response, to my lights, is completely sensical.
But now exchange "beautiful" with "ugly"": The pot says "Look how ugly I am, won't you blame me for be being so ugly?" And the potter then says, "You don't deserve any blame for being ugly because I am the one who made you ugly; I am the one who should be blamed for making you ugly, and you have no right to claim any blame for it."
If the potter to pot relation undercuts the pot's ability to be praised, the same relation undercuts the pot's ability to be blamed.
And hence, so much for a soteriological reading of Romans 9.
First of all, you missed the entire point about motives. Go back and read what I said again. Second,
if God, and not myself, is the one who gave me impure motives, then I can hardly be guilty for having them.
This is encouraging to hear because it means I'm teaching exactly what Scripture teaches. When Paul taught this, the objection was: You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?”
Once again, if you continue to refuse to reason from Scripture, it's pointless to continue this conversation.
Hi Derek,
I'm okay reading "God meant" as "God caused", so long as we have a metaphysic that not only distinguishes between God's intent and JB's intent, but also that enables God to be absolved from making people have evil intentions.
Me too.
Louis, I will reply to your previous comments as soon as I can, but I don't know when that will be. If you want to say something else, go for it.
I have done some thinking and some praying, and for my own private reasons decided to take you up on this.
Hello to everyone who has posted and everyone following along. I know this thread is getting longer and more involved, but I believe it to be very important, as I believe that we dealing, not only with God’s profound and holy goodness, but also with a matter that divides whole Christian traditions, one of which I earnestly believe is actually harmful to the hearts and lives of fellow believers, even some to whom I am very close, and a cave out of which my mind was freed only a short time ago.
I would like to take Brandon’s advice to deal strictly with the text, and so I have purposed to do so. But I would like to first give a State of the Union, and then I will reply to the additional passages that have been given in support of Brandon’s position since my last major post, and after that I would really like to contribute my own list of passages that I believe teach that God does not in fact cause evil.
STATE OF THE UNION
It might be helpful, for nothing else than organizing my own thoughts, to assess the state of this thread. I perceive the main disagreement to be whether God is the ultimate cause of everything, including evil.
I understand this to be Brandon’s position when he references “God's absolute predestination of all things” and Warfield’s comment that “even the evil acts of the creature are so far carried back to God that they too are affirmed to be included in His all-embracing decree, and to be brought about... in His providential government.”, and by David when he quotes from the LBC, "God hath decreed... freely and unchangeably, all things, whatsoever comes to pass" and “The almighty power... of God... extendeth itself even to the first fall, and all other sinful actions both of angels and men”. Brandon interpreted these portions of the LBC by saying that it “is not saying God does not ultimately determine sin”, and when asked, Brandon affirmed that his “position has not changed at all”. Jonathan added his voice in support of this position when he said that “God...decreed the fall” and that “God is the ultimate cause of evil”.
In earnest disagreement, Derek and I have maintained that this position is not entailed by any scripture. Moreover, it seems to be very obviously incompatible with the scriptural teaching that God is good.
There have been a number of comments back and forth on the matter. From what I can tell, Brandon has a number of my comments left to respond to. Most of these have to do with Genesis 50:20, which has been offered by him as a passage that directly affirms that God caused an evil to occur. I explained exegetically why I think this verse does not entail all of the claims about causation that he wants it to. There was also a list of other scriptures that Brandon offered as teaching that God causes evil, in response to which I also briefly explained why I believe they do not entail his position.
Derek and Brandon also have a back and forth going on, wherein Derek is demonstrating why he believes it is impossible for God to be good and yet to cause evil, in which case Brandon’s interpretation of scripture must be in error. Brandon, politely refusing to interact with Derek’s arguments, is objecting to them based on the fact that he believes the Bible clearly teaches that God causes evil, in which case Derek’s reasoning must be in error.
Overall, the agenda can so far be summarized as Brandon attempting to show that various scriptures teach that God causes evil, in response to which Derek and I have, in our own ways, each attempted to undercut these arguments by showing how such scriptures do not in fact teach so.
Though I am anticipating Brandon’s interaction with many of my previous comments, there has been some material posted since my last contribution to the discussion that I would like to interact with.
PSALM 105:25
After my answers to all of the previously offered scriptures, the first passage brought up in support of the position that God causes evil is Psalm 105:25. In the ESV, this verse says:
He turned their hearts to hate his people, to deal craftily with his servants.
WIth Calvinistic presuppositions in our minds, a shallow reading of this verse out of context in English might seem to very explicitly support Brandon’s position. But, as is the case with the verb in Genesis 50:20, this verb is in the “Qal” tense. The Qal tense in Hebrew is simply active, but not active-causal like the Hiphil tense. So how could God actively turn someone’s heart to hate, without doing so in a causal sense?
A long time ago, Derek quoted a passage to me written by St. Maximos the Confessor in which the heart of man is compared to clay (think of Romans 9), and God is compared to the sun (think of Malachi 4). If a lump of clay allows itself to be drawn toward the Sun, it softens and becomes moldable, and it’s Potter can make a useful vessel out of it. But if that same lump of clay chooses rather to distance itself from the Sun, the distance will result in that same Sunlight baking the clay into a rock-hard vessel that isn’t any good and will be thrown into the furnace to be destroyed. The intention of the Sun and the Potter, who are indeed both God, is always that no vessel should perish, but that all should come to the Sun.
Like the sun hardens clay, God turns hearts who hate Him against His people. And while this is due to the active shining of the sun in the case of the clay, and the active shining of God’s glory, in the case of God, the hardening of clay is not deterministically arranged by the sun and the hardening of men’s hearts is not causally determined by God. Imagine a lump of clay in a sunny field being beaten by rays actively shone by the Sun. Imagine that the Sun desires the clay to advance toward it, so that the clay may soften. Imagine the clay refusing and so being baked into hardness while the Sun weeps.
Now that is why, in context, the statement that “God turned their hearts to hate his people” is actually a praise to God sung by His people. Otherwise this phrase would be found in a lamentation, like “why, O why, did God turn their hearts to hate his people?”. If this verb was causal, it would sound like God had cursed His people by turning the hearts of their foes against them! Instead it is found in a list of praises to God for making his people “very fruitful” and much “stronger than their foes” (verse 24). It was due to the greatness of these blessings that the hearts of the foes of God’s people were turned. It was due to the active blessings of God - the shining of His glorious Sunlight - that hearts were hardened.
Have you ever been in such a rotten mood that even when people who love you are genuinely kind, it pisses you off? Have you ever been so self-centered, so distanced from the Source of the rays of God’s glory, that you envy others who receive blessings? Doesn’t it actively harden you when you observe these things? I’ve been there. And that’s exactly what happened to the foes of Israel. Their hearts were turned to hatred when they witnessed God’s active blessings upon Israel. And even any grace God showed them went unnoticed, or only served to harden their hearts further. But this was not because God causally determined them to hate His people. Why would a Psalm of praise delight in that?
That’s why the chapter begins by encouraging its readers who seek the Lord to “glory in his holy name” and to “rejoice”. That’s why it pleads with those readers who are not allowing themselves to be drawn toward the Sun to “seek the LORD and his strength; seek his presence continually!”. Why plead with readers if it were God and God alone who causally determines the direction of the heart?
Brandon would have us believe that God wanted and even causally determined the Egyptians to sin (!?), but Matthew Henry agrees that this verse says nothing of the sort:
God’s goodness to his people exasperated the Egyptians against them; and, though their old antipathy to the Hebrews (which we read of Gen. 43:32; 46:34) was laid asleep for a while, yet now it revived with more violence than ever: formerly they hated them because they despised them, now because they feared them. [1]
Thus, with which the tense of the verb concurs, it is by God’s activity, but not by His causality, that men’s hearts are hardened.
NOTES
[1] Henry, M. (1996, c1991). Matthew Henry's commentary on the whole Bible : Complete and unabridged in one volume (Ps 105:25). Peabody: Hendrickson.
ROMANS 9:18
As a note on Psalm 105:25, Brandon directs us to Romans 9:18, which in the ESV reads:
So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.
This verse appears to be offered without context, commentary, or exegesis (is “prooftext” too harsh an accusation?). It begs the questions “whom does He will to harden?”, “why does He harden those He does?”, and “how does He go about hardening?”.
The context seems to be saying that God has His means of election for one purpose (to steward the Law, the covenants, and the bloodline of the Messiah for example) or another (to receive salvation), and this broad providential concept might at first give rise to questions about the goodness of God (it’s good to feel validated by Paul himself for having such questions), but is nevertheless assuredly performed in a way that is just (verse 14). Paul recalls in verse 15 God’s comment to Moses about reserving the right to have mercy on whom He will and to harden whom He will (a phrase that, again, doesn’t itself entail any of Brandon’s claims about who, how, and why any of this goes down). In verse 16 Paul gets up on his favorite soapbox and reiterates, for the thousandth time: God’s compassion has everything to do with Him and His grace, and nothing whatsoever to do with the desires or efforts of humans.
Now, have I contradicted myself? If God’s grace has nothing to do with human efforts, what was all that talk about the clay choosing to allow itself to be drawn toward God? I believe that it is compatible with my position to say that God’s grace has nothing to do with human efforts in the same way the softening of the clay has nothing to do with the clay, but is solely caused by the heat of the sun. It is not as if men can increase the intensity of the shining of God’s glory. It is not as if man has coaxed God into sending His Son so that salvation may be offered to humanity. It is not as if the blessings that come down from God are themselves ever performed by men. No, no, God’s compassion, God’s mercy, and God’s grace are generated, made possible, and offered by God alone without a lick of work on man’s part.
However, I believe none of this denies that, though divine grace itself is generated by God’s work alone, a choice must be made on each human’s part - to accept God’s forgiveness of sins in the case of the elect, or to properly steward the Law, the covenants, and the bloodline of the Messiah in the case of Israel. This is what allows for the disconnect between man’s will and God’s. The refusal or poor stewardship of God’s blessings on the part of so many humans is what gives rise to God’s frustrations.
God gets frustrated with Israel:
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 would not! (Luke 13:34)
And God even gets frustrated with the elect:
But I have this against you, that you have abandoned the love you had at first. (Revelation 2:4)
But how could God possibly have wanted Israel to have allowed themselves to be “gathered together as... brood under [a hen’s] wings” without it being so? God can accomplish whatever He wants! It can only be possible if He wants even more for this to be willing on their part, and thus He mourns that they “would not”.
And how could God possibly want the Elect in Revelation 2 to return to their First Love without it being so? God can accomplish whatever He wants! The only way this can occur is if the Elect have been allowed to choose (lest God be angry with Himself for causing them to abandon Him!).
There is more to be said on Romans 9, but Brandon has only referenced a single verse without explanation of how it supports his point, and so I think this commentary suffices for now. This will be a long series of posts already.
2 SAMUEL 24
Brandon cites this passage as if it shows that God (who tempts no one according to James 1), incited David to sin. But what does it show?
2 Samuel 24:1 says God’s anger was kindled against Israel (because they sinned!), and it says God incited David to “number Israel and Judah”. Now, last I checked, taking a census isn’t a sin.
So what about this verse would cause one to think that God incited David to sin? Verse 10:
But David’s heart struck him after he had numbered the people. And David said to the LORD, "I have sinned greatly in what I have done. But now, O LORD, please take away the iniquity of your servant, for I have done very foolishly."
This, read with Calvinistic presuppositions, would read like God caused David to sin. Here would be the argument:
1. Taking a census is a sin
2. God incited David to take the census
3. Therefore, God incited David to sin.
But Matthew Henry points out that Moses twice numbered the people without any crime. Thus, the census itself was not sinful. And thus, without presupposing the truth of (1), the argument that God caused David to sin falls apart.
What was the sin that David repented of then? The context doesn’t tell us. But, as Brandon is so eager to point out, the same action may be performed with two different motives, one being sinful and the other righteous. Perhaps David’s motives in carrying out the census were sinful, and Moses’ righteous. Matthew Henry lists several interesting theories.
The point is that this passage, like those before it, fails to teach that God causes sin unless you presuppose (against scriptural evidence) that taking a census is sinful.
ROMANS 3:5-8
Brandon says that this passage “demonstrates how evil magnifies the goodness of God”. But even if we outright agree with what Brandon says about this verse, it doesn’t mean that God has to cause evil in order to bring Himself glory by it. As for how we ought to look at evil in contrast to good, I will have more to say later.
EPHESIANS 3:7-12
Brandon says this passage “reveals that the purpose of creation was the glorification of Christ by His redemption of His people”. But look at what the verse actually says:
Of this gospel I was made a minister according to the gift of God’s grace, which was given me by the working of his power. To me, though I am the very least of all the saints, this grace was given, to preach to the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ, and to bring to light for everyone what is the plan of the mystery hidden for ages in God who created all things, so that through the church the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly places. This was according to the eternal purpose that he has realized in Christ Jesus our Lord, in whom we have boldness and access with confidence through our faith in him.
It says that Paul preached to the Gentiles so that through the church God’s wisdom will be made known. It says that this was all part of (not “causally determined by”) God’s eternal plan, which was realized by the work of Jesus, and was for a long time unknown. While this passage teaches that God brings Himself glory by redeeming what has been lost, it does not say that He needed humanity to first fall and then be redeemed in order for Him to be glorified. God would have been far more glorified if Adam and Eve had not sinned, and He is far more glorified when we chose not to sin.
For clearly, when we choose to do what is righteous we bring glory to God by mirroring His, whereas if we sin against God we tarnish ourselves as mirror-Images of Him. This is why God told Adam and Even not to eat of the fruit, and this is why the Bible exhorts us not to sin. But though we do, God ingeniously squeezes every bit of glory out of it for Himself that He can.
And it’s a glory so beautiful and so powerful that it might almost fool you into thinking that even sin itself was caused by Him. But no, it was merely permitted in order to make room for the kind of love only freedom makes possible, and knowing that such permission would in this case give rise to its existence, He accounted for it ingeniously.
In summary, this passage teaches that Paul was equipped to reveal the truth about God’s plan for salvation that thereby the church he helped spread could in turn make God’s wisdom known. It shows that God’s plan to bring glory to Himself through redeeming what has been lost was devised long ago and was previously hidden. It does not show that God caused the Fall or that God causes evil.
ROMANS 9:22-23
Brandon says that this passage “teaches us that the creation of the reprobate serves the the higher purpose of glorifying God”. This is another claim that, even if fully agreed to, does not entail that God causes the reprobate to be evil or created them because He wanted some images of Himself to destroy. In fact, the passage itself says that God endured with much patience the vessels of wrath. “Patient” is defined by The Oxford American Dictionary as "able to wait without becoming annoyed or anxious". “Endurance” and “patience” imply that God is withstanding the actions of others outside Himself, lest God be tempted to become annoyed or anxious with Himself. God is not psychologically conflicted, He is thoroughly internally blessed!
But doesn’t the passage also say that the vessels of wrath were “prepared for destruction”? This is another phrase that, read with Calvinistic presuppositions, sounds like it directly affirms their philosophy. But the passage doesn’t say the reprobate were “created” with the exclusive aim of destruction. Preparation is something that can occur after creation. Preparation only needs to occur before the activity that the object is prepared for. I don’t have to create my sandwich at the same time I prepare it for consumption. I might create the sandwich tonight and wrap it in a plastic bag and stick it in the refrigerator. Then, tomorrow afternoon, I might decide that it is time to prepare it for consumption, and so I might take it out of the fridge, unwrap it, put it on a plate, garnish it, and supplement it with some chocolate milk. Obviously God created those who would become reprobate, but His preparation of them for destruction may have occurred much later than their creation. So this is how I read this passage:
‘What if God, desiring to show His wrath (because of actions He never wanted to happen and against which therefore His wrath burned) and to make known His power, has endured with much patience those who have rejected Him and thereby incurred His wrath, each of which He prepares during their lifetime for future destruction, in order to make known the riches of His glory for vessels of mercy, each which He prepares during their lifetime for future glory.’
How would preparing vessels of wrath for destruction make known the riches of His glory for vessels of mercy? It displays His justice. But justice isn’t the type of thing that requires evil in order for itself to be displayed. If nobody ever sinned, or if everybody repented, it would be just not to destroy anybody. Justice is simply a matter of debt satisfaction. If there isn’t ever any debt, or if the debt is paid in full by Christ, then justice does not require that anybody be sent to hell. In fact, the most just will would desire that nobody sin, or that once people sin, none of them perish, but all come to repentance. It is only when someone sins and refuses to repent that being just requires their Judgment. Therefore the destruction of the reprobate makes known God’s glorious justice, but God didn’t want it this way. He would rather nobody sin. He would rather all repent.
That’s sort of the concept behind “sin”. It’s something God doesn’t like. It’s definitionally deviant from His very nature.
The purpose of the destruction of the reprobate then, is to glorify God. But the verse that says “God caused the reprobate to sin” is suspiciously missing from Romans 9.
ISAIAH 45:5-7
Jonathan cites this verse after claiming that “God is the ultimate cause of evil”. Here is what the passage says:
I am the LORD, and there is no other,
besides me there is no God;
I equip you, though you do not know me,
that people may know, from the rising of the sun
and from the west, that there is none besides me;
I am the LORD, and there is no other.
I form light and create darkness,
I make well-being and create calamity,
I am the LORD, who does all these things.
I think the word “calamity” is the one Jonathan is using to mean “evil”. But his interpretation is far-fetched, as is evidenced by the translation of this verse in the ESV. This word in Hebrew more often means “destruction” or “havoc”. And in context, it is directly contrasted to “well-being” or “order”, and not to “moral goodness”.
So sure, God wreaks havoc at times, He creates storms when He wants to, and He certainly creates a means of destruction for the wicked. It just doesn’t say “evil”, sorry.
ACTS 4:27-28
Brandon once again says this passage teaches that God ordained the murder of the only innocent human being, who was in fact God Himself. But he ignores my previous commentary on this passage:
“Whatsoever” it is that God did in fact foreordain to come to pass is what we’re arguing about, since this passages doesn’t tell us. It also doesn’t tell us how the mechanics of foreordination work, so we’re left free to argue about that too if we really want.
The crucifixion of Jesus, I think, is likely in the list of things (“whatsoever”) that God foreordained to come to pass. And I think it might be that the way God foreordained this was by knowing what all of the people involved in the outcome would do if presented with certain circumstances, then arranging those circumstances in such a way so as to orchestrate (“gathering them together”) one of His ultimate goals: the atonement. In this way God was able to accomplish His purposes by harnessing the freely performed evil actions of His wayward creatures. If humans are going to sin, God will squeeze every ounce of glory He can out of them, weaving their evil together with good in order to accomplish His ends.
So I think this verse says something about Herod, Pilate, the Gentiles, and the Israelites being cleverly, providentially gathered together by God under the circumstances that He knew would give rise to the crucifixion of Jesus.
But I don’t pretend to know what the mysteries of God’s will or ways hold, and so I can’t speak authoritatively on whatsoever it was that God chose to foreordain or howsoever it was that He chose to foreordain it. I only have humble speculations.
But, darn it! As long as we’re comparing speculations, mine make a whole lot more sense than those of the LBC!
ISAIAH 53:10
Brandon says that the “reason that Christ's death was not sinful for God the Father was because He did it for His own glory.”. Where did the evil occur in the arrangement of the crucifixion? The Father did not sin by punishing the Son, who willingly laid down His life for the sheep. God did not sin in using the sinful actions of His creatures to bring about the earthly components of this arrangement. Who sinned? The men who’s actions and intentions were evil. But where in Isaiah 53:10 does it say that those evil actions or intentions were themselves directly caused by God?
ROMANS 3:23, ROMANS 1:21, 1 CORINTHIANS 10:31, ROMANS 14:23
These verses are all quoted but to be honest I can’t figure out how they are meant to support the position that God causes any evil.
VERSES THAT TEACH THAT GOD DOES NOT CAUSE EVIL
Many of these verses happen to be from my friend Brandon Ridley’s most excellent podcast on the matter: http://www.thedonjohnsonshow.com/DonJohnsonRadioShow1-26-09.MP3, but really this teaching is all over the Bible.
Proverbs 6
This passage lists six things - wait seven - that are an abomination to God. Seven things that God absolutely hates. If God causes everything, then He causes men to do even these seven things. So I have to ask, “is it even possible for God to cause things that He hates to occur?”. What would that look like? God, who hates these seven things more than anything else, creates beings and causes them to do these things, and then is frustrated beyond belief by them and wonders why in the world they would ever do these things, and so saves some and destroys the others. Is that really the picture of God the Proverbs paint for us here?
Jeremiah 19
Here we have a verse that actually directly denies that God decrees everything. God sends the prophet Jeremiah out to the valley to proclaim “Hear... O kings of Judah... I am brining such disaster upon this place that the ears of everyone who hears of it will tingle. Because the people have forsaken me and have profaned this place by making offerings in it to other gods whom neither they nor their fathers nor the kings of Judah have known; and because they have filled his place with the blood of innocents, and have built the high places of Baal to burn their sons in the fire as burnt offerings to Baal, which I did not command or decree, nor did it come into my mind”.
Such horrifying actions were so far outside of God’s will that He says they “didn’t even come into [his] mind”! He says that He didn’t command them to do it, and He did not decree that they would occur. These are truly horrific evils and God has nothing to do with them whatsoever, and His wrath burns against them because they are so contrary to His nature.
How on earth could someone say that God caused these things to occur?
1 John 1:5a
“God is light, and in him is no darkness at all”. Can a source of light itself produce a shadow? No. Only by obscuring it’s rays are shadows produced. God is the lightsource of moral goodness. Only by obscuring the rays of His glory is evil produced. In God there is no darkness. None at all. This is absolutely and totally incompatible with Compatibalism or any other awful worldview that regards the Holy God as being the ultimate cause of evil.
1 John 2:16
This verse says:
For all that is in the world— the desires of the flesh and the desires of the eyes and pride in possessions—is not from the Father but is from the world.
Mark 7:21
This passage teaches that evil thoughts come out of the heart of man, not from God.
CONCLUSION
Does anyone else find it ironic that under Brandon's view, God is determining us to believe that we are not determined?
Doesn't that seem deceitful on God's part?
Isn't deceit the opposite of truth?
And how could God, the source of truth, nay Truth Himself, be able to spout both Truth and its opposite?
"Does a spring pour forth from the same opening both fresh and salt water?" (James 3:11).
No, for "it is impossible for God to lie" (Heb. 6:18b), and therefore "he committed no sin, neither was deceit found in his mouth." (1 Peter 2:22).
Another point of irony for me is that there are even self-proclaimed Calvinists who outright deny that God causes evil, and rebuke other Calvinists for teaching so: http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2008/09/taking-calvinism-too-far-rc-sproul-jr’s-evil-creating-deity/. What they don’t realize is that what is typically called “hyper-Calvinism” is a simply a plain and honest statement of what Calvinism teaches: that God causes evil, which is a logical and Biblical impossibility.
In arguing for this, Brandon himself has been reduced to affirming several things that he believes God cannot do. He believes that God is dependent on evil to accomplish His holy purposes, and that God is not powerful enough or clever enough to accomplish His divine purposes without fully and causally determining everything.
How does this position start? Jonathan himself tells us: “there can be no redemption without there first being sin and misery to be redeemed from”. He presupposes that redemption itself is what God wanted from the beginning. But this is affirmed nowhere in scripture. Redemption is what God had to go through to get what He wanted from the beginning: to be worshipped and enjoyed forever.
Where does this position end? Brandon himself tells us: “[Evil] has been compared to the black velvet that further magnifies the beauty of a diamond placed upon it.”
What a nauseating example of the images produced by the ways in which determinism warps the perspective of its host.
Evil is nothing like velvet or anything of the sort.
It’s far more accurate to compare evil to the foulest-smelling excrement you can imagine that has been smeared onto the diamond, and obscures it’s beauty.
I don't know how soon I will be able to respond to anything. It may be many days before I can. Honestly, I have lost interest by witnessing your stubborn refusal to reason from Scripture. You have a philosophy and you are willing to read Scripture and adapt Scripture to fit your philosophy, or mute Scripture and say that because it doesn't teach your philosophy, it doesn't say anything on the matter, but you have not demonstrated to me any desire to learn first and foremost from what God has revealed.
I have worked through the overall scheme and presented my view, the conclusion of which was my last post to Derek re: Romans 9. That was my intent. It is clear that neither of you are interested in allowing Scripture to interpret Scripture and then submit yourselves to what it teaches. If I find time, I will respond to Louis' interpretations of the Bible, though I am less eager to because my view has been fully explained and I see no desire in you to determine what Scripture actually says, but instead are more interested in determining what Scripture might possibly mean if it were molded to your philosophy. There's a big difference. Thanks for the interaction. I'll get back to you when I can.
Dear Brandon,
I have to say I am disappointed that you see it that way. It was never my intention to overwhelm you, and if you could show me even a single verse that teaches your philosophical position about God ultimately causing evil, I would return to Calvinism.
I'm pretty surprised that though I spent the weekend studying and praying over the scriptures you sent me you still think I'm not reasoning from them, while your philosophy seems to stand in contempt of all the scriptures I brought to the table this morning.
I have hope that our standing disagreement won't prevent us from being friends.
"It’s far more accurate to compare evil to the foulest-smelling excrement you can imagine that has been smeared onto the diamond, and obscures it’s beauty."
Yuck. Reading this gave me the mental picture of beautiful diamonds imbedded in a disproportionately large mass of fecal matter (after all, isn't the ratio of created-to-be-fecal matter to created-to-be-diamonds at least very many/very few?) . That's incredibly disgusting, and I hope that my God is not the sort of Being who absolutely and unequivocally thinks such a rubbish heap brings him glory.
Calvinist Theodicy = "diamond in the rough."
Sin is disgusting.
yup
the heart of man is compared to clay (think of Romans 9), and God is compared to the sun (think of Malachi 4)...
I would prefer to stick with the clay of Romans 9 and the potter of Romans 9, rather than mixing and matching Scripture to suit my fancy. Do you honestly just not get it Louis? Do you honestly not understand what it means to let Scripture speak for itself? Romans 9 does not teach that God is a sun. That passage teaches that God is a Potter who makes two vessels out of the same lump of clay. I simply do not care if you don't like the conclusion. It says what it says.
The intention of the Sun and the Potter, who are indeed both God, is always that no vessel should perish
That's nice, but I don't care what St. Maximos says. That's not what Scripture says. The Potter creates a vessel of wrath in order to destroy it (9:21-22).
Imagine...Imagine...Imagine...
No.
Re: Psalm 105
It was due to the active blessings of God - the shining of His glorious Sunlight - that hearts were hardened.
Sure, but regardless of how God chose to bring it about, the point is that it was God who turned their hearts and that was His purpose. To use Derek's analogy, God made the domino fall, even if the actual preceding domino was the fruitfulness of Israel. Certainly God works in many different ways, but God works! That has been my point this entire time, but you seem unwilling to acknowledge it.
Why plead with readers if it were God and God alone who causally determines the direction of the heart?
Because it pleases God to use Scripture as a means of causing us to respond to His commands.
Brandon would have us believe that God wanted and even causally determined the Egyptians to sin (!?), but Matthew Henry...
How's that straw man of yours doing? Tell him I say hello. I don't disagree with anything in the quote from Henry. Perhaps you should develop a fuller understanding of what you're rejecting.
it is by God’s activity, but not by His causality
Yeah... because God's activity doesn't cause anything...
I quote Calvin's comments on v25, not as an appeal to authority, but simply because I think his words are very pertinent to this entire conversation:
The Egyptians, though at first kind and courteous hosts to the Israelites, became afterwards cruel enemies; and this also the prophet ascribes to the counsel of God. They were undoubtedly driven to this by a perverse and malignant spirit, by pride and covetousness; but still such a thing did not happen without the providence of God, who in an incomprehensible manner so accomplishes his work in the reprobate, as that he brings forth light even out of darkness. The form of expression seems to some a little too harsh, and therefore they translate the verb passively, their (i.e., the Egyptians') hearts were turned. But this is poor, and does not suit the context; for we see that it is the express object of the inspired writer to put the whole government of the Church under God, so that nothing may happen but according to his will. If the delicate ears of some are offended at such doctrine, let it be observed, that the Holy Spirit unequivocally affirms in other places as well as here, that the minds of men are driven hither and thither by a secret impulse, (Proverbs 21:1) so that they can neither will nor do any thing except as God pleases. What madness is it to embrace nothing but what commends itself to human reason? What authority will God's word have, if it is not admitted any farther than we are inclined to receive it? Those then who reject this doctrine, because it is not very grateful to the human understanding, are inflated with a perverse arrogance. Others malignantly misrepresent it, not through ignorance or by mistake, but only that they may excite commotion in the Church, or to bring us into odium among the ignorant. Some over-timid persons could wish, for the sake of peace, that this doctrine were buried. They are surely ill qualified for composing differences. This was the very cause why in former times the doctors of the Church, in their writings, swerved from the pure and genuine truths of the gospel, and turned aside to a heathen philosophy....
...Whence originated the doctrine of free-will, whence that of the righteousness of works, but because these good fathers were afraid of giving occasion to evil-tongued or malignant men if they freely professed what is contained in the sacred Scriptures? And had not God, as it were by a strong hand, prevented Augustine, he would, in this respect, have been exactly like the rest. But God, so to speak, polishing him with a hammer, corrected that foolish wisdom, which rears its crest against the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit, we see, affirms that the Egyptians were so wicked, that God turned their hearts to hate his people. The middle-scheme men seek to evade and qualify this statement, by saying, that his turning their hearts, denotes his permitting this; or, that when the Egyptians set their hearts upon hating the Israelites, he made use of their malice, as what, so to speak, came accidentally in his way; as if the Holy Spirit, from being defective in the power of language, spoke one thing, when he meant another. If the doctrine of this text, at first sight, seem strange to us, let us remember that God's judgments, in other places, are justly called "unsearchable," (Romans 11:33) and "a great deep," (Psalm 36:6) Did not our capacity fail in reaching the height of them, they would not have that intricacy and mystery by which they are characterized. It is, however, to be observed, that the root of the malice was in the Egyptians themselves, so that the fault cannot be transferred to God. I say, they were spontaneously and innately wicked, and not forced by the instigation of another. In regard to God, it ought to suffice us to know, that such was his will, although the reason may be unknown to us. But the reason is also apparent, which vindicates his righteousness from every objection. If we learn and keep in mind only this small word of advice, That the revealed will of God ought to be reverently acquiesced in, we will receive, without disputation, those mysteries which offend either the proud, or such as would be over-careful to remove the difficulties, in which, according to their view, such mysteries seem to be involved.
is “prooftext” too harsh an accusation?
Nope, prooftext is an accurate word. The text proves that what I am saying is true.
Now, have I contradicted myself?
Yes.
However, I believe none of this denies that, though divine grace itself is generated by God’s work alone, a choice must be made on each human’s part
Which, again, contradicts what Paul very clearly teaches in Romans 9. though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls.
First, you should not defend your "exegesis" of Romans 9 by jumping out of Romans 9 and into the imaginary context of St. Maximos.
Second, Romans 9 teaches that God does not have mercy on all. The entire point of the passage is God's discerning choice. So even if we adopt your unbiblical view of a sinner needing to respond to an offer in order to receive mercy, you must admit that not everyone has been offered mercy. The Holy Spirit, spoken by Paul, is just a babbling fool and v11 is meaningless if you maintain otherwise.
Third, you do contradict yourself because you maintain that the reason one person receives mercy and another is hardened is their own will. The difference between the two is one exercised their will and made a better choice. God's election does not play a factor in your view. The deciding factor is man - it is up to "him who runs and him who wills," not to God who has mercy. You can't contradict Romans 9 any more blatantly. Romans 9 does not say God offers mercy to whomever He pleases, but that He in fact does have mercy on whomever He pleases. You contend that no, God does not have mercy on whom He pleases because if God pleases, and man does not, then God cannot bestow His mercy on them. Likewise, Romans 9 does not teach that God offers to harden anyone. His hardening is done equally irrespective of anything that person has done - before they were born and had done anything good or bad.
Fourth, the example Paul uses has nothing to do with someone choosing to accept God's mercy or not. That is not found anywhere in the text. The example he uses is that God declares before Jacob and Esau are born that He has elected one to be the heir and rejected the other and that NOTHING they do in their life can change God's decree, nor is anything they do throughout their life the basis of God's blessing one over the other. This example is not referring to God offering mercy to Jacob and Jacob then choosing to accept it. No, what happens is that Jacob deceitfully stole his brother's birthright (an act which God foreordained), and there was nothing Esau could do to change what God had decreed before they were born.
This verse appears to be offered without context, commentary, or exegesis
If you would like to hear my exegesis, you can listen to the sermon I preached about a year ago on the passage:
Election and Reprobation to the Glory of God
Re: Luke 13:34
First of all, you have misunderstood Luke 13:34. It does not say "how often I would have gathered you and you would not." It says, "how often I would have gathered your children and you would not." The context of the passage is in reference to Herod and the leaders of Jerusalem (hence the mother hen analogy). Christ is rebuking them for hindering his ministry in Jerusalem.
It can only be possible if He wants even more for this to be willing on their part, and thus He mourns that they “would not”.
Second, you will find absolutely nothing in Scripture that teaches what you have just said. It is a purely philosophical assumption without any foundation in Scripture.
Rev 2:4 is entirely irrelevant and it doesn't say what you apparently think it says. V4 simply brings a charge against them and v5 calls them to repent.
Re: 2 Samuel 24:1
Nice try. Next.
(P.S. You forgot about 1 Chron 21:1)
Ephesians 3
God would have been far more glorified if Adam and Eve had not sinned, and He is far more glorified when we chose not to sin.
That's a nice assumption, but notice the pattern of your assertions not finding any Scriptural support? That's not a good habit. But beyond that, it's disgusting. You are asserting that the glorification of Christ in the redemption of His church was just something God had to accept and be content with. He really wanted to glorify Himself more, but we just wouldn't let that happen, so He had to settle for less. Really, what glorifies God most is not Christ, but us! And we would have glorified God more fully and completely than Christ if we had just used our free will to obey. The ultimate key to God's glory lies not within Himself, but within us! What disgusting pride! God is eternally disappointed and His decision to create the universe was a mistake because we have eternally diminished His glory!
Re: Romans 9:22-23
So this is how I read this passage:
‘What if God, desiring to show His wrath (because of actions He never wanted to happen and against which therefore His wrath burned) and to make known His power, has endured with much patience those who have rejected Him and thereby incurred His wrath, each of which He prepares during their lifetime for future destruction, in order to make known the riches of His glory for vessels of mercy, each which He prepares during their lifetime for future glory.’
So much for context. You believe v22-23 are talking about God's reaction to something happening outside of his will, that it is talking about God's reaction to man's will. If we just take 2 seconds to re-iterate the context and read the preceding verses, we see the following:
You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?”
It is impossible to make that context fit with your interpretation of 22-23. "Why have you made me like this?" Not, "Why are you punishing me for disobeying you?"
each of which He prepares during their lifetime
Context? though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls
How would preparing vessels of wrath for destruction make known the riches of His glory for vessels of mercy?
Thank you for asking the question. It demonstrates that you have failed to understand the whole point of what I have been saying. I apologize for not being more clear. "Mercy" would be meaningless if the elect did not know the deserving, just wrath God mercifully withheld from them. When we witness the destruction of the wicked, and recognize that is what we all deserve, then we will praise God for His mercy. That is the purpose of the vessels of wrath. That is what Romans 9 teaches.
But the verse that says “God caused the reprobate to sin” is suspiciously missing from Romans 9.
Yeah, just like that verse that says "God is a trinity, 3 persons in 1" is missing from the Bible. What's your point?
Re: ACTS 4:27-28
I ignored your comments because they weren't worth commenting on. And they're still not.
----
Re: Isaiah 53:10
Thank you for the correction.
ROMANS 3:23, ROMANS 1:21, 1 CORINTHIANS 10:31, ROMANS 14:23
These verses are all quoted but to be honest I can’t figure out how they are meant to support the position that God causes any evil.
That's because you have intentionally chosen to ignore the fact that I am making an argument with several different points. Please go back and re-read what I wrote. After you do that, if still have honestly no idea why I quoted them, then let me know and I will explain it again.
Re: Proverbs 6
Please re-read everything I have written over the last week or so.
Re: Jeremiah 19
If we are going to interpret this the way you do, then we must become Open Theists (which I hope you haven't done yet) and deny God's omniscience, for it clearly says it did not come into His mind. He was utterly ignorant of it.
The ESV is the only translation that uses "decree" here. Note the other translations:
They have built places here for worship of the god Baal so that they could sacrifice their children as burnt offerings to him in the fire. Such sacrifices are something I never commanded them to make! They are something I never told them to do! Indeed, such a thing never even entered my mind! (NET)
They have built the high places of Baal to burn their sons in the fire as offerings to Baal—something I did not command or mention, nor did it enter my mind. (NIV)
and have built the high places of Baal to burn their sons in the fire as burnt offerings to Baal, a thing which I never commanded or spoke of, nor did it ever enter My mind; (NASB)
They have built also the high places of Baal to burn their sons with fire for burnt offerings unto Baal which I commanded not, nor spake [it], neither came [it] into my mind (KJV)
This would be a great place to do a Hebrew study with Logos and check the definition of "dabar."
Re: 1 John 1:5a
In God there is no darkness. None at all.
Amen! And yet God creates darkness (Is. 45:7). Clearly God can create darkness and not Himself be dark, just as God can create sin and He Himself be sinless.
Re: 1 John 2:16
Amen! Let us also note Romans 11:36 For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory forever. Amen.
Re:Mark 7:21
This passage teaches that evil thoughts come out of the heart of man
I agree. But that's wholly irrelevant to whether or not God is the ultimate cause of all things. You have to read into that verse your unbiblical view of libertarian free will in order to come to the conclusion you do.
Your first point of irony is not ironic and God is not deceitful.
What they don’t realize is that what is typically called “hyper-Calvinism” is simply a plain and honest statement of what Calvinism teaches
Yup! You can also read/listen to John MacArthur if you want. Why Does Evil Dominate the World?
----
Thank you for taking the time to actually engage with what Scripture says. I would encourage you to go one step further and submit to what it says, rather than just consider it. But at least you're willing to go one step further than Derek.
btw, Louis, I was providentially directed towards a great quote about the dangers of knowing a little Hebrew. You should read it ;-)
A Smattering of Greek is Worse than None at All
Jeremiah 19 says:
“ [they] and have built the high places of Baal to burn their sons in the fire as burnt offerings to Baal, which I did not command or decree, nor did it come into my mind”.
And Brandon responds:
“If we are going to interpret this the way you do, then we must become Open Theists (which I hope you haven't done yet) and deny God's omniscience, for it clearly says it did not come into His mind. He was utterly ignorant of it.”
Let the irony ensue: Did you not, Brandon, object to our reading of Gen. 50:20 on the grounds that we weren’t being faithful to the text? If so, then who’s not being so faithful now?
If you think you can qualify the plain reading here, then you have no principled objection to Louis and I not going with what you take to be your plain reading elsewhere.
“The middle-scheme men seek to evade and qualify this statement […] as if the Holy Spirit, from being defective in the power of language, spoke one thing, when he meant another.”
Tu quoque.
Oh my goodness Derek. I can see now why you don't deal with Scripture very often. Please read the provided translations of Jeremiah 19. It's not an issue.
Derek:
Suppose a beautiful pot says, "Look how beautiful I am, won't you congratulate me for being so beautiful?" And the potter then says, "You don't deserve any credit for being beautiful because I am the one who made you beautiful; I am the one who should be praised for making you beautiful, and you have no right to claim any credit for it."
The potter's response, to my lights, is completely sensical.
But now exchange "beautiful" with "ugly"": The pot says "Look how ugly I am, won't you blame me for be being so ugly?" And the potter then says, "You don't deserve any blame for being ugly because I am the one who made you ugly; I am the one who should be blamed for making you ugly, and you have no right to claim any blame for it."
If the potter to pot relation undercuts the pot's ability to be praised, the same relation undercuts the pot's ability to be blamed.
And hence, so much for a soteriological reading of Romans 9.
Derek, your statements here betray a poor understanding of salvation. By beauty and ugliness I assume you are referring to righteousness and unrighteousness (since that is the standard of salvation). Let's plug those words back into your objection and see where it gets us:
Suppose a righteous pot says, "Look how righteous I am, won't you congratulate me for being so righteous?" (Luke 18:9-14) And the potter then says, "You don't deserve any credit for being righteous because I am the one who made you righteous; I am the one who should be praised for making you righteous, and you have no right to claim any credit for it."
Now, if the righteous pot was righteous because he lived a life of perfect obedience, then he deserves congratulation (Rom 4:4). Even if it was God who willed him to live that perfect life, he still did it, so he does deserve honor. But the truth is, no pot can say "look how righteous I am" because no pot is righteous. The vessels of mercy are not made righteous, they are counted righteous. They are covered, or clothed, in an alien righteousness, the righteousness of Christ. That is why they cannot boast in their righteousness, because they have none of their own.
“and have built the high places of Baal to burn their sons in the fire as burnt offerings to Baal, a thing which I never commanded or spoke of, nor did it ever enter My mind; (NASB)”
“commanded” is ambiguous, admittedly; it can be read/used as a normative prescription, e.g., “I commanded you not eat the fruit!”; or it can be read/used in the causal sense, like the Psalmist used the same Hebrew verb causally in Ps. 33:9, 42:8, 78:23, 91:11, 105:8, 111:9, 133:3, and 148:5.
To my lights, I think it’s entirely redundant for Jeremiah to use it in the normative/prescriptive sense, for what member of his audience could possibly think that YHWH really prescribed burnt offerings to Baal?
So, on my reading, I see no reason why we couldn’t read it causally:
“[…] a thing which I never [caused] or spoke of, nor did it ever enter My mind.”
Furthermore, we can quibble all we want about the sense of the term “commanded”, but as regards the “[…] nor did it ever enter My mind” part, the plain reading seems to be “what they did never occurred to God!”. I have no problem qualifying this part (whatever we qualify it, the context itself doesn’t unambiguously demand what kind of qualification we should give it); but if we can qualify it according to our desiderata here, then there is no principled objection to qualifying the “plain reading” in other places. This was the point of my previous comment.
I understand the point of your previous comment. Both of you have misunderstood what I mean when I say "plain reading." David made this meaning perfectly clear when he said that's all cute, but "face value" clearly does not mean out of context, or without the whole counsel of Scripture.
The original reference to "plain meaning" was in regards to the sufficiency of Scripture over against the need for extrabiblical information to understand what Scripture says. I haven't commented on Louis' blog post about all of that, but I do not believe he has understood my view (if he was writing against me at all) because I agree with a lot of what he said. If a Scriptural argument can be made by comparing Scripture with Scripture, then I'm all for it. My objection was against re-interpreting the words of Scripture based upon the sandy foundation of science.
No problem. This is all fine. Here's the payoff:
If you can interpret "it did not even come into My mind" to mean something other than "I didn't even think of this", than you have no principled objection to reading "[...] He meant it for good" to meaning something other than "God caused JB's to have evil intentions."
Do you agree?
No.
Hahaha. And why not, Mr.?
"Now, if the righteous pot was righteous because he lived a life of perfect obedience, then he deserves congratulation (Rom 4:4). Even if it was God who willed him to live that perfect life, he still did it, so he does deserve honor. But the truth is, no pot can say "look how righteous I am" because no pot is righteous. The vessels of mercy are not made righteous, they are counted righteous. They are covered, or clothed, in an alien righteousness, the righteousness of Christ. That is why they cannot boast in their righteousness, because they have none of their own."
"Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness."
I read this to mean that Abraham himself is now righteous because he believed in God.
Though Abraham believed, his mere believing isn't what makes him righteous; because he believed, he can now take on the righteousness of Christ. So Abraham's believing is a necessary but insufficient condition for Abraham being righteous. Do you agree?
Though, on my view, it was up to Abraham to believe or not, his act of believing itself is no work, and even though we can credit Abraham, in part for believing, the consequence of his believing-viz. taking on the righteousness of Christ, is not something Abraham can credit himself for.
I think the forensic model is helpful here. Suppose the the Judge says "someone else has atoned for your sins, do you accept?" If the defendant says, "Yes." We can say correctly that, "He said "yes", and therefore he as become atoned, in part, because he believed. But because the actual work of atonement was not his own, but another's, he cannot credit himself for his own righteousness, though whether or not to be atoned was something he did choose.
You might insist: Paul says his faith is not "of himself". In one sense this is true: Without the calling of the HS, Abraham couldn't have had any faith-viz., the Holy Spirit is an enabling condition. But though the HS is a necessary condition, the HS's enabling is not itself sufficient, for it is Abraham who believed and not HS; not the HS causing Abraham to believe.
I was told to just let my yes be yes and my no be no. ;-)
Just because we interpret one passage in more than one way does not give us license to interpret any passage however we want. I find no reason to interpret Gen 50:20 the way you do and I do not find any support in the text for that option. The driving principle is to let Scripture interpret Scripture. We must understand Jeremiah 19:5 as teaching that God does not know all things unless that contradicts what Scripture says elsewhere. It does contradict Scripture elsewhere (ie Psalm 139:1-4, 15-16; Is 46:10, etc) so we must understand all or some of those texts differently. If you can demonstrate how my understanding of Gen 50:20 contradicts Scripture, I will gladly seek an understanding other than its obvious meaning. The point has been that you are not rejecting what Gen 50:20 says because of what Scripture says elsewhere but because of your unbiblical philosophy being imposed on the text.
"Just because we interpret one passage in more than one way does not give us license to interpret any passage however we want."
I might agree with this. No one is claiming that it's okay to interpret "S did X" to mean "S didn't X".
"I find no reason to interpret Gen 50:20 the way you do and I do not find any support in the text for that option."
And I find no reason to interpret "meant" to mean "unequivocally cause", and I find no support in the text that it must mean this.
"The driving principle is to let Scripture interpret Scripture."
I don't have a principled objection to this, but I don't know how employing it is going to help any of us. Suppose S qualifies her interpretation of X:XX with Y:YY, and then suppose T does the opposite. S and T will still disagree, and so letting "Scripture interpret Scripture" won't settle the score.
"We must understand Jeremiah 19:5 as teaching that God does not know all things unless that contradicts what Scripture says elsewhere. It does contradict Scripture elsewhere (ie Psalm 139:1-4, 15-16; Is 46:10, etc) so we must understand all or some of those texts differently." Right, but hopefully mere frequency doesn't demand that Jeremiah 19:5 should be qualified by the Psalm verses. What would be theSola Scriptura argument for that?
"If you can demonstrate how my understanding of Gen 50:20 contradicts Scripture, I will gladly seek an understanding other than its obvious meaning. The point has been that you are not rejecting what Gen 50:20 says because of what Scripture says elsewhere but because of your unbiblical philosophy being opposed on the text."
Though I've been giving philosophical reasons to reject your reading, Louis (I think) and myself aren't even convinced Gen 50:20 is saying everything you think it says, independent of any philosophical concerns.
his act of believing itself is no work
This is a very important point. We must understand exactly why believing is not a work, even though it is equally an act of the will of Abraham. Why is it that Paul contrasts the two so strongly? Why is faith so diametrically opposed to works?
The answer lies both in the object of saving faith and in the necessary flipside of saving faith - repentance. I would argue that the illustration you have provided is not wholly biblical and may be introducing some difficulty. Nowhere in Scripture do we see a sinner told that Christ atoned for their sin and then asked if they would like to accept it or not. What we read in Scripture is that all men everywhere are commanded to repent of their sin. They are also told that if they repent and place their faith in the work of Christ alone, they will be saved. Repentance is an essential part of saving faith. You cannot have one without the other.
I would also add that Abraham was not clothed in Christ's righteousness as a result of his faith. Abraham's faith was itself the putting on of Christ. I think the difference is very important. That is what is meant by faith being the instrumental cause of justification. I would also say that faith is much closer to someone (the Holy Spirit) notifying you (by monergistic regeneration) of the fact that your debt has been paid. It serves the function of a receipt for what has already been paid in full and nothing else is required.
The London Baptist Confession states this very well when it says:
Those whom God effectually calleth, he also freely justifieth, not by infusing righteousness into them, but by pardoning their sins, and by accounting and accepting their persons as righteous; not for anything wrought in them, or done by them, but for Christ's sake alone; not by imputing faith itself, the act of believing, or any other evangelical obedience to them, as their righteousness; but by imputing Christ's active obedience unto the whole law, and passive obedience in his death for their whole and sole righteousness by faith, which faith they have not of themselves; it is the gift of God.
What is repentance and how is it related to saving faith? Repent means to change your mind. It means to change your mind about who you are and who Christ is. It means to turn away from trust in yourself and place your trust in Christ alone.
Job 42:5-6
I had heard of you by the hearing of the ear,
but now my eye sees you;
therefore I despise myself,
and repent in dust and ashes.”
This is why saving faith is so diametrically opposed to works - because saving faith in Christ's work means abandoning all faith in your work and worth and despising yourself as nothing.
So then, to bring this back around to your original illustration:
Suppose a repentant sinner says, "Look how righteous I am, won't you congratulate me for being so righteous?" And the potter then says, "You don't deserve any credit for being righteous because you are not. I am the one who is righteous; I am the one who should be praised for being righteous, and you have no right to claim any righteousness of your own."
Suppose a repentant sinner says, "Look how righteous I am" is a contradiction. It is not possible. If someone says "look how righteous I am," they are not repentant and do not have saving faith in Christ's work and thus are not justified. This is what Christ teaches us in Luke 18:9-14
Here is an excellent (short) statement in regards to this:
Do Protestants Believe that True Faith = Faith + Works?
“This is a very important point. We must understand exactly why believing is not a work, even though it is equally an act of the will of Abraham. Why is it that Paul contrasts the two so strongly? Why is faith so diametrically opposed to works? ”
Yeah, we’re already going to part ways from here. From my reading of Paul, we could summarize works as:
(works) = S’s living/acting in accordance with the law.
Whereas,
(faith) = S’s trust in Christ.
Understood like so, though faith and works are both what proceed from Abraham’s will, it’s simply wrongheaded to think of faith as a work because of this similarity. Faith is simply when Abraham trusts God, and works are simply Abraham’s living in accordance with the law; and this difference is the one and only difference between “faith” and “works”, and this difference itself is what constitutes their “diametric” opposition.
“The answer lies both in the object of saving faith and in the necessary flipside of saving faith - repentance. I would argue that the illustration you have provided is not wholly biblical and may be introducing some difficulty. Nowhere in Scripture do we see a sinner told that Christ atoned for their sin and then asked if they would like to accept it or not. What we read in Scripture is that all men everywhere are commanded to repent of their sin. They are also told that if they repent and place their faith in the work of Christ alone, they will be saved. Repentance is an essential part of saving faith. You cannot have one without the other. ”
Right. Who said this? My view is that Christ’s work is sufficient for atoning S’s sin on the condition that they have faith. I.e., Sinners are told that their sins will be forgiven if they repent. And this is tantamount to saying that if S trusts in Christ’s blood (which would include repentance), then he shall be forgiven.”
“[…] Lest they should turn, And their sins be forgiven them.” (Mk 4:25)
“I would also add that Abraham was not clothed in Christ's righteousness as a result of his faith. Abraham's faith was itself the putting on of Christ.”
I agree here, but I don’t agree with what follows.
“I think the difference is very important. That is what is meant by faith being the instrumental cause of justification. I would also say that faith is much closer to someone (the Holy Spirit) notifying you (by monergistic regeneration) of the fact that your debt has been paid. It serves the function of a receipt for what has already been paid in full and nothing else is required.”
Nope. If faith (and repentance) are conditions for one to be forgiven, then I don’t know what it means to construe faith “as the notification that your debt has been paid.” Faith, again, is S’s trust in Christ and his atonement, and the result POST-FACTO is that S’s “debt has been forgiven.”
“What is repentance and how is it related to saving faith? Repent means to change your mind. It means to change your mind about who you are and who Christ is. It means to turn away from trust in yourself and place your trust in Christ alone. Job 42:5-6 I had heard of you by the hearing of the ear, but now my eye sees you; therefore I despise myself, and repent in dust and ashes.” This is why saving faith is so diametrically opposed to works - because saving faith in Christ's work means abandoning all faith in your work and worth and despising yourself as nothing.”
We both agree that faith and repentance are coextensive; one who has faith is one who repented.
I do think, however, Job’s language ought to be qualified a bit. It’s true that we are absolutely nothing without God, since only He makes our very being possible. But, insofar as we have being, even in our fallen state, we are still made in God’s image, and Christ thought that we are worthy to be saved (Christ loved as, even as sinners), and hence if we weren’t worthy to be saved, Christ wouldn’t have gone through the trouble.
”So then, to bring this back around to your original illustration: Suppose a repentant sinner says, "Look how righteous I am, won't you congratulate me for being so righteous?" And the potter then says, "You don't deserve any credit for being righteous because you are not. I am the one who is righteous; I am the one who should be praised for being righteous, and you have no right to claim any righteousness of your own." Suppose a repentant sinner says, "Look how righteous I am" is a contradiction. It is not possible. If someone says "look how righteous I am," they are not repentant and do not have saving faith in Christ's work and thus are not justified. This is what Christ teaches us in Luke 18:9-14”
I agree this all true for anyone who is saved by grace. My original issue is that if God unequivocally causes men to sin, then he cannot blame them for sinning, and if God unequivocally causes Job to be righteous, for instance, then he cannot be praised. So if someone goes to hell, it’s because they freely sinned and because they rejected Christ, and they deserve such a fate because God did not unequivocally cause them to reject Christ.
if we weren’t worthy to be saved, Christ wouldn’t have gone through the trouble.
Again, what disgusting pride!
Ezek 36:
“Therefore say to the house of Israel, Thus says the Lord God: It is not for your sake, O house of Israel, that I am about to act, but for the sake of my holy name...I will vindicate the holiness of my great name...And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules. You shall dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers, and you shall be my people, and I will be your God. And I will deliver you from all your uncleannesses. And I will summon the grain and make it abundant and lay no famine upon you. I will make the fruit of the tree and the increase of the field abundant, that you may never again suffer the disgrace of famine among the nations. Then you will remember your evil ways, and your deeds that were not good, and you will loathe yourselves for your iniquities and your abominations. It is not for your sake that I will act, declares the Lord God; let that be known to you. Be ashamed and confounded for your ways, O house of Israel.
I don’t know what it means to construe faith “as the notification that your debt has been paid.”
This is because you don't understand the atonement and you reject monergistic regeneration.
My original issue is that if God unequivocally causes men to sin, then he cannot blame them for sinning
Ok, then just go back to my original response, and Paul's:
So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.
You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?"
and if God unequivocally causes Job to be righteous, for instance, then he cannot be praised
Yes He can, and for all the reasons I just laid out, including the fact that Job is not MADE righteous. He is counted righteous. You might also want to keep in mind the point of your argument. You were making an ad hominem argument, adopting my position to show it's inconsistency. However, you cannot therefore, in the process, reject parts of my system and inject your own in order to demonstrate an inconsistency in what the Bible teaches about God's predestination of all things. That's not how that form of argumentation works.
“and if God unequivocally causes Job to be righteous, for instance, then he cannot be praised.” Yes He can, and for all the reasons I just laid out, including the fact that Job is not MADE righteous. He is counted righteous.”
It’s clear from the account that Job not only had faith like Abraham did, but unlike Abraham, he lived completely in accordance with whatever the law required of him:
“[…] and that man was blameless and upright, and one who feared God and shunned evil.” (1:1)
I take the “blameless” and “upright” part of the conjunction to be describing Job’s works: he never did anything wrong and did everything correctly. If your not convinced that this is right, then the whole narrative loses it’s potency, for Job’s friends are trying to find the one thing Job did wrong to explain his misfortune. That is, they are trying to construe what happened to him as an instance of God’s justice, as opposed to the unjust suffering of an unequivocally innocent man.
I take the “feared God” part of the conjunction to be describing Job’s faith in God.
So, on my account, God deems Job “blameless” because it was up to Job whether or not to sin (God didn’t unequivocally cause his blamelessness), and hence, we think Job is praiseworthy.
But, counterfactually, suppose that Job did sin yet feared (had faith) in God. He would then be in Abraham’s “camp”, where his faith would be “accounted to him for righteousness.”
Looking at the big picture.
I think that everything is causally dependent on God, in the sense that anything whatever is made possible by God’s existence.
So suppose that Adam resisted the temptation of the Serpent, or suppose, as is actually the case, that Job didn’t do anything wrong. We can praise Job and Adam because it was up to them whether or not they decided to be good. We can praise them because of their choices. They can say, rightly, that “God won’t punish us for our sins, for we have none.” Of course, they still must acknowledge that God is what made their righteousness possible, so they could never say, even if they never sin, “We don’t need God because we made the right choices.” Any righteous man who never sins still would acknowledge that his righteousness is derived from God.
But suppose that Adam sinned, like he actually did, and that Job sinned, though he actually didn’t. Because they sin, and God didn’t cause them to sin, then God rightfully punishes them with death, “for the wages of sin is death.” Paul’s whole story, I think, is this: even though they didn’t live in accordance with the law, they can be saved by grace, and take on an alien righteousness, if they have faith. Suppose that Adam has faith; then he will be saved. Suppose Job doesn’t; then, for the sins he chose to commit, and for rejecting Christ’s blood, he shall forever be left in his sin and the natural consequence that follow from it- i.e., damnation.
As to Romans 9, I don’t think Paul is addressing these broad soteriological issues. He is, of course, addressing soteriology, but he’s dealing specifically with Israel’s function in soteriological history. Jews considered themselves, qua the chosen ones, to have priority and superiority in God’s plan. Paul, in profound irony, likens Israel to Esau, and the Gentiles to Jacob: The birthright of “being God’s people” is now given to the one who, in the Jews’ mind, is not the rightful heir. The Jews’ response: “That’s not fair!” Paul’s response: God can choose whomever he wants to be his chosen people. So now Jews and Gentiles are on equally footing, not only in the sense that the Jew’s messiah is also the Gentile’s messiah, but the exclusive function that Israel once had is now extended to the “Esaus”-i.e., the Gentiles, as well.
“You might also want to keep in mind the point of your argument. You were making an ad hominem argument, adopting my position to show it's inconsistency.”
I wasn’t attacking your character (that’s what ad hominem means); I was attacking your position by demonstrating its absurdity (reductio).
“However, you cannot therefore, in the process, reject parts of my system and inject your own in order to demonstrate an inconsistency in what the Bible teaches about God's predestination of all things. That's not how that form of argumentation works.”
Agreeing with you on some things doesn’t mean I’m adopting any “system”.
Where I agree with you: If a man sins, and nevertheless has faith, God will forgive his sins. Such a man cannot boast that he himself is righteous, because the atoning of his sin was not his own.
Where I disagree with you: Paul’s potter to pot analogy doesn’t concern God’s determining men to be sinful or making men righteous, not does it have anything to do with God’s choosing some men to be saved. Rather, it concerns God’s right to extend Israel’s once privileged position in salvation history to the Gentiles.
Seriously?
for real.
he lived completely in accordance with whatever the law required of him
Let me pick my jaw up off the ground. Your Pelagianism places you outside of Christianity and it reveals a lot about why you won't accept the teaching of Scripture.
The point of the book of Job was not Job's perfect obedience to the law. Noah is also described as blameless (Gen 6:9), but only after He found favor in the eyes of the LORD (8). It is only by God's grace that Job was counted blameless. The purpose was to make it clear that Job found favor in the eyes of the LORD (by grace), thus whatever happened to him was not out of wrath. You honestly believe that Job was in no need of a Savior?
But suppose that Adam sinned, like he actually did, and that Job sinned, though he actually didn’t. Because they sin, and God didn’t cause them to sin, then God rightfully punishes them with death, “for the wages of sin is death.” Paul’s whole story, I think, is this: even though they didn’t live in accordance with the law, they can be saved by grace, and take on an alien righteousness, if they have faith. Suppose that Adam has faith; then he will be saved. Suppose Job doesn’t; then, for the sins he chose to commit, and for rejecting Christ’s blood, he shall forever be left in his sin and the natural consequence that follow from it- i.e., damnation.
Let's first acknowledge that your first argument has failed. There is no inconsistency in the fact that the vessel of mercy has no righteousness of his own to claim and that man is responsible. Having acknowledged that, let's move onto your next objection, that God cannot hold a vessel of wrath responsible (the same objection to which Paul responds who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” Has the potter no right over the clay,)
Yes, obviously, all have sinned and will be damned for their sin unless they are clothed in the righteousness of Christ. But, once again (I don't know how many times this needs to be repeated), you are injecting your own personal philosophy and sense of justice into Scripture, rather than letting Scripture speak. God causes all things, including the actions of man, and man is responsible for his actions. This is what Scripture clearly teaches and you may not reject it because you think it is unfair. Again, Paul rather strongly rebukes such nonsense when he is faced with your objection. Stop ignoring him. Man is responsible because man chooses, and, more importantly, man is responsible because there is a law giver who says He is responsible.
Determinism and Responsibility
I wasn’t attacking your character (that’s what ad hominem means); I was attacking your position by demonstrating its absurdity (reductio).
I know, I never said it was abusive ad hominem, I said it was ad hominem (of which reductio is a form).
Agreeing with you on some things doesn’t mean I’m adopting any “system”.
You missed my point. You cannot use reductio ad absurdum if you inject your own philosophy into mine. You must adopt my view completely and trace out it's implications in order for the argument to work. This you have not done.
----
As to Romans 9...
I am so very happy that you have decided to interact with Scripture. Will you please provide a verse by verse exposition of Romans 8:31 - 9:23, noting the meaning of each verse and it's place in Paul's overall argument that you have just described?
Hi Brandon,
Thank you for taking some time to talk with me again privately, and for accepting my apology.
While I was a Calvinist for four years, this dialogue has driven me back to the scriptures to prayerfully reconsider a lot of my views, and I want to thank you for that. Thank you for challenging me to submit myself and my views to scripture. I truthfully don’t want to be reading any unwarranted philosophical presuppositions into the text, and this dialogue is fostering caution in me to that end.
It has also brought to my mind a couple of heart issues that I have had to repent of. By God’s grace I hope to reform my heart and my rhetoric.
I was also very glad when you said “thanks for the correction” concerning Isaiah 53:10. It proves that you are open to correction and humble enough to admit when you need it. Thank you. I have hope that I am also open-minded this way.
I have a few questions for you, and I would appreciate it if you would be patient with me in answering them. I have been reading over our dialogue and studying these passages and while I think I have a pretty thorough understanding of Calvinist theology (having been one myself), I want to make sure I get the details and nuances of your personal view right.
My first set of questions concern 2 Samuel 24. While I think we might all agree that this passage doesn’t explicitly teach that God causes all things (which I perceive to be our central disagreement), I understand you to have offered this an example of God causing evil, or causing someone to commit evil. In response to this, I originally explained why I didn’t see such in the passage.
You gave me two things in return: a “nice try”, and a mention of 1 Chronicles 21. Wondering what I was missing, I went back and re-read 2 Samuel 24 and 1 Chronicles 21. The only thing I could find in 1 Chronicles 21 that I thought might be relevant was the statement that it was Satan (literally “an adversary” in Hebrew, but that seems irrelevant) who incited David to take the census.
If we synthesize 2 Samuel and 1 Chronicles, we see that God incited David to take the census, and that Satan incited David to take the census. There may be multiple ways to think about how this worked (the introduction to Job comes to mind as a possible example of such an occurrence), and I am interested in considering them, but the more seemingly relevant question weighing on my mind is:
Do you think that taking a census is a sin?
The reason I ask is because 2 Samuel only says that “the LORD... incited David against [Israel], saying, ‘Go, number Israel and Judah’”. Correct me if I’m wrong, but it doesn’t seem like God incited David to do anything other than just this one thing.
If you don’t think that taking a census is a sin, then where is the example of God inciting David to sin?
If you do think that taking a census is a sin, why? Why would God have laid down the guidelines for censuses in Exodus 30:11-16? Why would Moses have been able to take a census twice (once as documented in Numbers 1-4 and another in Numbers 26) without any divine rebuke?
Do you think that it is possible that David’s sin lay, not in taking the census, but in his motivation for, or method of, taking the census? Do you think 1 Chronicles 27:23-24 might support such a view?
If, regardless of whether you maintain that taking a census is a sin, you yet maintain that God incited David to sin, do you think that “inciting” someone to sin is any different from “tempting” him? The reason I ask is because I think I understand James 1 to teach that God doesn’t tempt anyone to sin. If I understand James 1 correctly, then “inciting” must be different than “tempting”, lest 2 Samuel be a fatal counterexample to James 1. If you do think that “inciting” is distinct from “tempting”, would you mind explaining the distinction?
If you would be willing to answer one more question on this matter, I would like to ask you how your view reconciles Psalm 119:172 with 2 Samuel 24:1.
Psalm 119:172 says that “My tongue will sing of your word, for all your commandments are right.”, and 2 Samuel 24:1 says that “the LORD... incited David... saying ‘Go, number Israel and Judah’”.
I can’t help but process this information thusly:
If everything that God commands is right, and
God commanded David to number Israel and Judah, then
numbering Israel and Judah must have been right.
But if God incited David to number Israel and Judah, and
numbering Israel and Judah is right, then
God incited David to do something right (not evil).
Where David’s sin lay exactly and what Satan’s part in the episode was may be interesting, but seem irrelevant. Am I missing something?
In summary, I am struggling to understand what you think 2 Samuel 24 and 1 Chronicles 21 teach. Would you mind elaborating on it for me?
“he lived completely in accordance with whatever the law required of him Let me pick my jaw up off the ground. Your Pelagianism places you outside of Christianity and it reveals a lot about why you won't accept the teaching of Scripture.”
(Brandon at the Right Hand of Christ) = Derek doesn’t agree with Brandon’s interpretation of Scripture, therefore Derek isn’t a Christian (?) or Derek’s beliefs aren’t Christian (?), or both (?). [Saying “Your Pelagainism places you outside of Christianity” is ambiguous]. Either way, Brandon is not at the Right Hand of Christ.
“Noah is also described as blameless (Gen 6:9), but only after He found favor in the eyes of the LORD (8).”
What’s Noah got to do with Job?
“It is only by God's grace that Job was counted blameless.”
So you assert.
“The purpose was to make it clear that Job found favor in the eyes of the LORD (by grace), thus whatever happened to him was not out of wrath.”
Do you think what happened to Job was just desert?
“You honestly believe that Job was in no need of a Savior?”
No man who is unequivocally blameless is in need a Savior. This shouldn’t be a scary thought.
“There is no inconsistency in the fact that the vessel of mercy has no righteousness of his own to claim and that man is responsible.”
On my reading, a “vessel of mercy” is he who has faith; and a “vessel of wrath” is he who does not. Neither of them can claim their own righteousness, since any man in either category is sinful. “Merciful” and “Wrathful” are the attitudes God has towards someone who is responsible for their own sin. This much we agree. Where we disagree: “being a sinner” is not something God unequivocally causes anyone to be. The reason? God cannot punish a sinner for sinning if God caused him to sin. Furthermore, whether one is a vessel of wrath or a vessel of mercy is conditioned upon he who has faith, which is not something God unequivocally causes, though whether or not God makes the promise that “the vessels of mercy will be such by faith” is surely something God causes.
“that God cannot hold a vessel of wrath responsible (the same objection to which Paul responds who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” Has the potter no right over the clay,)”
God can hold a vessel of wrath responsible if: (a) their inclusion in either category is due to their own, un-caused sin; and (b) their inclusion in the “vessel of wrath” category is due to their own, uncaused, rejection of Christ. This is the point Paul so desperately tries to make to his “brethren of the flesh.” “All Israel is not Israel” means not all who are decedents of Jacob are the children of God, for not all who descended from Jacob meet the conditions for being a son of God-viz., the “promise” was conditioned upon faith in Christ, and not all Israel, qua the seed of Jacob, has faith in Christ. Since not all Israel met this condition, it is not unjust for God to use the ones who rejected Christ as vessels of wrath-viz., to use their very rejection as a means to display and declare God’s power and name to all the earth.
“Man is responsible because man chooses”
I agree, but I doubt we’re going to agree upon what counts as “chooses”, at least in the responsibility-relevant sense of the term.
“and, more importantly, man is responsible because there is a law giver who says He is responsible.”
Surely God says man is responsible because it’s true that man is responsible. Furthermore, being a lawgiver, as surely God is, is not itself sufficient for man’s responsibility, for without making men to have the power to choose to abide by God’s law or to transgress it there would be no one to be responsible. God cannot believe that there is green grass until, in fact, there is green grass. So likewise, God cannot believe that man is responsible, until men are, in fact, responsible.
“Will you please provide a verse by verse exposition of Romans 8:31 - 9:23, noting the meaning of each verse and it's place in Paul's overall argument that you have just described?”
As for Roman’s 9, Wesley’s commentary should suffice.
Furthermore, being a lawgiver, as surely God is, is not itself sufficient for man’s responsibility
Yes it is.
God cannot believe that there is green grass until, in fact, there is green grass. So likewise, God cannot believe that man is responsible, until men are, in fact, responsible.
To be completely honest, that's one of the stupidest responses I've ever heard on this topic.
As for Roman’s 9, Wesley’s commentary should suffice.
Wesley does not provide a verse by verse commentary. He skips the parts he doesn't like. Will you please fill in his gaps? If not, I will assume you cannot do so.
Do you think that taking a census is a sin?
I think David's census taking was a sin.
Do you think that it is possible that David’s sin lay, not in taking the census, but in his motivation for, or method of, taking the census?
Of course the sin lies in his motivation, that's where every sin lies. But that doesn't change anything. You continue to create imaginary "what-ifs" that are not in the text. The text says that God incited David to do the exact same thing that Satan incited David to do.
do you think that “inciting” someone to sin is any different from “tempting” him?...If I understand James 1 correctly, then “inciting” must be different than “tempting”, lest 2 Samuel be a fatal counterexample to James 1.
That is the proper way to answer your question.
If you do think that “inciting” is distinct from “tempting”, would you mind explaining the distinction?
I don't have an absolute answer. But I would say that James is writing to Christians encouraging them to persevere when they experience trials. There is a tendency for some professed Christians who believe in God's sovereignty to sinfully ignore sanctification by excusing their responsibility. That would fit the context of James' letter. Thus James would be rebuking such excuses and insisting that we are responsible for our actions.
I think the difference is perhaps seen in the example at hand, or that of Job. Satan was the immediate agent, yet it was God that ultimately did the thing. Satan is God's tool and He uses him how He pleases. I think Job 1:22 is important.
20 Then Job arose and tore his robe and shaved his head and fell on the ground and worshiped. 21 And he said, “Naked I came from my mother's womb, and naked shall I return. The Lord gave, and the Lord has taken away; blessed be the name of the Lord.”
22 In all this Job did not sin or charge God with wrong.
It was Satan that attacked Job, yet Job attributed it to God, and in doing so he did not sin or charge God with wrong.
Here are a few helpful quotes:
However, this is not to distance God from evil, for to "author" the sin implies far more
control over the sinner and the sin than to merely tempt. Whereas the devil (or a person's
lust) may be the tempter, and the person might be the sinner, it is God who directly and
completely controls both the tempter and the sinner, and the relationship between them.
And although God is not himself the tempter, he deliberately and sovereignly sends evil
spirits to tempt (1 Kings 22:19–23) and to torment (1 Samuel 16:14–23, 18:10, 19:9). But
in all of this, God is righteous by definition.
The verse is telling you that when you deal with temptation, you must directly address
your lust, and not just blame God and then do nothing, or remain in your sin. Read all of
James 1 and see if this is not his obvious emphasis. He deals with joy, faith,
perseverance, doubt, pride, lust, anger, moral filth, and being a doer of the Word. He is
dealing with the Christian's direct responsibilities in practical living, and he does this by
relating it to the internal motives and characteristics of the person.
...
Those who cite James 1 to assert that God cannot be the author of sin might use verse 17
to reinforce their understanding of verse 13; however, if verse 17 is interpreted in a way
that is consistent with their interpretation of verse 13, then this would make verse 17
contradict Isaiah 45:7. But if verse 17 is correctly interpreted so that it does not
contradict Isaiah 45:7, then it no longer reinforces their false interpretation of verse 13.
-Vincent Cheung
Even though the Confession teaches that God decrees sin, it denies that God is the author of sin. This denial is to be justified on the basis of 'the liberty or contingency of second causes' mentioned in paragraph 1. God is not the author of sin because he does not by his own immediate causation bring it to pass. It is the responsibility of the second causes who willingly engage in it. This i illustrated by the case of God's decreeing that David should sinfully number Israel (2 Sam 24:1; 1 Chron 21:1). Form the latter passage we learn that his decree was not carried out by the Holy Spirit moving David, but by Satan.
Another thought which helps to alleviate this problem may be gleaned from the passages which speak of God's decree of sinful actions (Gen 50:20; 2 Sam 24:1; Acts 2:23). In each of these passages it is clear that God's rationale in decreeing the sin was completely pure. In the first and third his motive is graciously redemptive. In the second it is justly redistributive.
-Samuel Waldron, Exposition of the LBC
The history of David’s sin is stated thus, "And again the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel, and He moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah" (2 Sam. 24:1), or as 1 Chronicles 21:1 gives it, "And Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel." Those two statements are not, as some have foolishly supposed, contradictory, but are complementary. Though God is not the Author of sin, and can never be charged with evil, yet as the Governor of the universe He is the Controller and Director of it, so that when it serves His righteous purpose even Satan and his hosts are requisitioned by Him: 1 Kings 22:20-22; Ezekiel 14:9, etc. In this instance it is clear at least that God permitted Satan to tempt David, and David being left to himself yielded to the temptation and sinned. Moreover, the fact that David yielded so readily, and so obstinately rejected the counsel of his servants, seems to indicate that he had not been walking with holy watchfulness before God.
A. W. Pink The Life of David
Here, near the end of David’s career as king, we find the one known as the “man after God’s own heart” in yet another moment of sin against Yahweh. Once more, we are told—“Again”—the Lord grew angry at Israel and His wrath “burned against” His covenant children. Simultaneously, David was “incited” by the Lord to “go and count Israel and Judah.” According to the parallel record in 1 Chronicles 21:1 “Satan rose up against Israel and incited David to take a census of Israel.” Perhaps the best way to understand this is to see that both accounts represent the truth of what happened from two distinct perspectives. On one hand, this was the work of Satan, tempting and deceiving the king. On the other hand, it was part of the mysterious operation of God’s secret, sovereign will much in the same way that Job (Job 1:1ff) and, centuries later, Judas (Luke 22:3; Acts 2:23), as well as the apostle Paul (2 Cor. 12:7) experienced first hand. While there are components of this account that remain deeply shrouded in divine mystery—for instance, we do not know why the Lord was angry with Israel—we may safely assume that Yahweh was “going to use David’s sin as the vehicle of His wrath upon Israel” [Davis, 261]. Indeed, the Lord will do this very thing without being the author of evil or tempting His people to sin (James 1:13).
Special note: Appeals to what is popularly called the “permissive” will of God are of little value in understanding such admittedly difficult passages. In the end, God must will or decide to permit the act to occur, and this fact brings one back full circle to the original dilemma. We conclude with Dale Davis that, “we cannot use Satan to avoid God” [260]. Consider also the helpful comments of Dale Bergen:
In order to bring judgment against Israel, the Lord “incited David” to “take a census of Israel and Judah.” The writer’s attribution of the action to the Lord is not contradictory to 1 Chr. 21:1; it reflects his understanding that Yahweh is Lord of the universe, exercising dominion over all powers and authorities whether in heaven or on earth (cf. Ps. 97:9; Eph. 1:20). . . . The Bible teaches that God empowers even destructive beings—whether superhuman (cf. 1 Kgs. 22:19-23; 2 Thess. 2:11) or human (cf. Judg. 1:14; Hab. 1:6; Acts 4:28)—in limited ways to bring judgment and, ultimately, redemption. In the present case the Lord used both superhuman and human beings to enforce the moral order so as to bring judgment on Israel [475].
-Mike Calvert's Sunday School Lesson
Also, Abraham Kuyper's The Hardening in the Sacred Scripture
I would like to ask you how your view reconciles Psalm 119:172 with 2 Samuel 24:1....
If everything that God commands is right, and
God commanded David to number Israel and Judah, then
numbering Israel and Judah must have been right.
God did not command David to number Israel, He incited Him. There is a difference. God's precepts are different from His decree.
But aside from that, if you are just trying to argue that whatever God does is right, then David's census was right, then we are back to where we started pretty much - differing motivations behind actions that have ultimate and secondary causes (see Waldron above).
to avoid confusion, Cheung is using "author of sin" differently than we have been (the phrase is used differently all over the place, and is not found in the Bible, thus the need to define what one means)
Thank you for taking some time to explain your view to me in some more depth.
You say about David's census that:
Of course the sin lies in his motivation...
And I was wondering what verse in 2 Samuel 24 or 1 Chronicles 21 teaches that God caused David's motivation to be sinful?
God incited (note that word) David to take a census and God did so out of wrath. That very act was sinful. There is nothing in the text to say otherwise or to suggest that God intended something different to happen but Satan intervened and ruined God's plan by changing David's motivation.
Thanks. I am still a little confused on your view though. First you said that the sin lie in his motivation, and then you said that the very act was sinful. Which is it?
You can't separate the two.
Oh sorry, I think I was a bit unclear there. You said about the census "that very act was sinful". Is it possible to take a census without sinning?
Louis, your method of interpretation is not sustainable. You will either get tired of swimming against the current of Scripture and allow it to carry you or you will drown resisting it. Either way it cannot last.
David's census taking was sinful. God incited David's census taking.
Well, I am trying hard not to interpret scripture at all in this case. I just want to make sure I understand your position thoroughly. Would you please be patient with me?
Do you think that taking a census is always sinful?
No, taking a census is not always sinful. But we are not talking about hypothetical situations. We are talking about David's census taking.
taking a census is not always sinful.
Where in the text does it say that God caused David to take the census sinfully?
Where in the text does it say that God caused David to take the census sinfully?
v1 and v10.
I would urge you to read the texts referenced in the quotes I provided if you would like more of a picture of how this could work.
1. The anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel
2. He incited David against them
3. If there is nothing wrong with the census, then why does the text say God used David against Israel by inciting him to take a census?
Verse 1 & 10 say:
Again the anger of the LORD burned against Israel, and he incited David against them, saying, "Go and take a census of Israel and Judah." David was conscience-stricken after he had counted the fighting men, and he said to the LORD, "I have sinned greatly in what I have done. Now, O LORD, I beg you, take away the guilt of your servant. I have done a very foolish thing."
I apologize for my blindness. If you could go a little further than you have already, and please direct me to where in these verses it says that God caused David to take the census sinfully, it would be hugely helpful. I am reading it and re-reading it and all I can find in the text attributed to God is His incitement saying "Go and take a census of Israel and Judah."
I would urge you to read the texts referenced in the quotes I provided...
I read them several times, along with several other commentaries. They are thought-provoking, but I am more interested in what the text of the scripture itself actually says.
...if you would like more of a picture of how this could work.
I am laboring to take your advice not to read any philosophical presuppositions into the text, and so I am not interested in how this "could work", I am interested in what the text itself actually says.
To help me toward this end, will you please break this down even further for me - pretend you are talking to a first grader - and explain to me how the words in the Bible commit the readers who take them plainly and seriously to the view that God caused David to take the census sinfully?
i just wanted to give a heads up that i'm headed out of town for a week so i won't be able to reply until then
Post a Comment