What Kind of God?!
Apr 4th, 2008 by John
Children used in Nazi medical experiments*
I watched a video titled “Inhumanity” produced by Day of Discovery (a Radio Bible Class production). It was about the Slavic holocaust as the Nazis moved east toward Russia through Poland and Belarus. As I watched I kept playing over in my mind a concept from J. I. Packer’s little book Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God. Packer introduced me to the teaching that within God’s eternal and all-inclusive decree God decreed even the hostile activities of Satan himself against God. If Satan’s deeds are God-decreed then it follows all the evils of human beings are decreed by God, too. The ten dollar word for this is antinomy.
This is fine theological concept in the safety of a seminary classroom as the best minds wrestle with theodicy (the justice of God). To me, it is theological malpractice in the face of incarnate, unimaginable evil. Gaze at the picture of the children above and think, “My gracious, loving, almighty sovereign God ‘decreed’ these Nazi demonic medical experiments on these innocent children. And my God did this for his glory.” Does that even compute?
The classical determinists are fine as long as evil is a concept to wrestle with. They have no good answer for answering exactly why a God defined by John the Apostle as Love could decree (predetermine) heinous evil as illustrated in the picture above. And I am so sick when the classical determinists respond that it is a “mystery.” What a sorry, sorry cop-out.
A great, seasoned theologian friend of mine blurted out one time in a prayer meeting when a young man complained about why God allowed a horrible thing to happen in his life, “I am tired of all the bad and evil things that happen being laid at the feet of God. He had nothing to do with it!”
Now we’re getting somewhere.
* from Google/images.
Popularity: 100% [?]
I have experienced comparatavely little suffering in my life, yet I cannot believe that God is the author of, or somehow wills, evil. I cannot accept a theology that leads to that conclusion; such a theology is bad theology, and for some mysterious reason, I think those who hold to it know neither the scriptures nor the power of God.
I’m not usually that blunt about my theological disagreements, and there aren’t too many “hills I would die for”- but this is one on which I would gladly stand shoulder to shoulder with you to the death, John. It really is that big a deal for me at this point in my life with God.
You sure you’re not Italian somewhere in your heritage?!
Dana
I feel the same way when people refer to deadly tornadoes as “acts of God.” Jesus called Satan the prince of the power of the air, and the last time I looked that includes tornadoes and certain cable channels. God gets blamed for an awful lot of things. What I do believe is that God can *use* all things and turn them to his ultimate glory (see the story of Joseph and his brothers).
My head hurts when I try to think too much.
I struggle also with what comes too close to either blaming God for not stopping evil, or somehow “crediting” God with pre-determination in some way that evil will happen, and thereby impuning some backhanded causation-by-passivity to the Sovereign. Bob–I agree in principle with your thoughts, but struggle also with the pragmatism embedded in “God can use” all things. This comes a bit to close, for me, to the notion that God will incorporate evil means along the way to a just end. Perhaps it is only semantics, but I am more comfortable framing this discussion within the redemptive desire of God. Evil does happen as a consequence of the real choices of Satan and fallen men. God as Sovereign can redeem the evil and evil consequences of these choices and re-create goodness, beauty, and justice. Ultimately, God is thus always working to redeem and repair, and is, temporarily, in love allowing men a free choice in Divine Hope that men will freely choose Him. I confess up front, I am not a theologian–just a person who has had a tough year who is trying to make sense of life.
Dana,
Classical determinism (in the Augustinian tradition) really is a faulty theology with regard to God, to human suffering and to reality itself. Yet, this prevailing view fills the very air we breathe (in W Mich at least) and it confuses believers and alienates those who need a relationship with God.
No Italian blood to my knowledge
Bob,
I agree that God enters into our suffering and can engage evil in such a way that good may come. I have a hard time breaking the logical cause-effect of classical determinism “…whatsoever comes to pass…” is in *God’s* decree.
Howard,
I appreciate your comments, especially, “Ultimately, God is thus always working to redeem and repair, and is, temporarily, in love allowing men a free choice in Divine Hope that men will freely choose Him.”
Thanks.
Howard (#3),
I did not mean to imply that (in your words) “God will incorporate evil means along the way to a just end.” What you said after that, that’s what I meant. And you said it beautifully, I might add.
Bob…thanks. This is one of those really hard topics. The fact John brought this idea up was, for me, a call from God to really dig into the good/evil issue again. I started last year with a serious illness that ultimately took most of a year from me–and still has some lingering cleanup work. It is interesting how a physical challenge can become a serious spiritual battle–right out of nowhere. This has become my greatest prayer: that I might understand just a little more about God’s love, even when it isn’t visible and felt.
I too struggle with the idea that God who is love could will or determine such evil, horrific events. My concern about this thread though is that while you have all expressed your distaste for determinist theology, none of you have provided scripture to refute the position. It seems that although it goes against your philosophies of evil and suffering, either you don’t rely on scripture to form these philosophies or scripture simply does not support your convictions. I hope neither of these are true and I have just stumbled onto an atypically scriptureless thread.
One of the many passages that I struggle with comes from Isaiah 45:5-7 where God (among other things) claims to “form light and create darkness, I make well-being and create calamity” You all don’t need a Hebrew lesson by any means but I would point out that the word for calamity is the Hebrew “Ra” which is the OT’s strongest word for the concept of evil. Also the two words that Isaiah uses for “form” and “create” have varying levels of implied action. Unfortunately for us, the stronger of the two is used for darkness and evil.
All this to say, that my hope would be that no matter how much certain theologies or philosophies violate our delicate world views, we should strive to root our responses in scripture.
I have no doubt that you are all Christ-centered Godly men and women and you will have very well thought out responses for me.
Justin,
Your response makes a claim that I am sure you don’t want to make. As you allude to Isa. 45:5-7, are you comfortable you are inferring that God *is* the source of evil (as depicted in the holocaust picture of above)? I am not. I am not persuaded all evil is tracable to God’s mysterious, all-inclusive, eternal decree. God made truly free creatures (both angels and humans) with an authentic capacity to love and be loyal to God or to rebel and hate God. Evil is sourced in these free creatures who are at war with God. (And God did not “decree” the minutia of the cosmic war either). God truly and freely interacts with free creatures and compassionately engages evil; and in so doing God is able to achieve his good purposes. I don’t think I need “to chapter and verse” these biblical realities. Do I?
Justin, your first paragraph brought me up short, as I think of myself as one who always finds Scriptural support for my views, and it is possible I haven’t done that in this area. I tend to reject a thing, however good it may sound, if I don’t find support in the written Word of God. (This is what caused me to reject the charismatic movement for a long time, and ultimately what led me to embrace it and reject cessation theology. But those are topics for another time.) So many passages tell us to avoid evil, flee evil, etc. that surely God isn’t telling us, as my earthly father used to so often, “Do as I say, not as I do.” Too many times the Bible tells me that the Lord is good, and his mercy endures forever. I can’t believe otherwise. So the deficiency must be in my knowledge of Him and His Word, not in Him.
Your citing Isaiah 45:5-7 makes me wonder about Job 2:10, though, where Job’s wife has just urged him to curse God and die, and Job replies, “Thou speakest as one of the foolish women speaketh. What? shall we receive good at the hand of God, and shall we not receive evil? In all this did not Job sin with his lips.” That’s KJV language, but even though the NIV says “trouble” instead of “evil,” the Hebrew word in Job 2:10 is also “Ra,” which you said in your comment above is the OT’s strongest word for the concept of evil. This question is for John: Am I wrong to read an understood [at the hand of God] after the word “evil” in Job 2:10? Because when I mentally do that it certainly affects my understanding of what Job is saying. Could he mean, instead, “What? shall we receive good at the hand of God and shall we not receive evil [at the hand of others who do evil, like Satan and those whom he has deceived with his lies, those that hate and reject God]?” This is why people say that the Bible seems to be used to prove just about anything, because we don’t really know what it’s saying a lot of the time. Or maybe we settle for partial truth rather than searching the Scriptures for a more complete picture of truth and the One Who said, “I am the…Truth.”
I’m not saying this very well, but I’ll give you a part of my story as an example of what I mean. My mother was Jewish (non-practicing) and single when I was born. Fast forward about twenty years. I had become a believer in Jesus Christ and happened to be reading in the book of Deuteronomy when I was dumbstruck by the second verse of chapter 23: “A bastard shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the LORD.” I was on the verge of despair. According to what I had just read, not only could I never “enter the congregation of the LORD” but neither could my children, grandchildren, and on down the line, and none of it was my fault. It almost seemed useless to have believed in Jesus Christ. Then the thought struck me (I’m sure it was the whisper of the Holy Spirit) to see what the New Testament had to say to my situation. I flipped the pages over (I don’t recommend this as a Bible study method), landed in John 6, and within a few seconds was reading verse 37: “All that the Father giveth Me shall come to Me; and him that cometh unto Me I will in no wise cast out.” As far as I’m concerned, case closed. Hallelujah! I had come to Jesus, and He took care of the rest. The OT told me something that condemned me, but Jesus Christ told me something that brought deliverance and hope. If given a choice, I will always come down on the side of deliverance and hope. I guess what I’m saying is that when a passage is difficult to swallow, pray for guidance and keep reading until more light breaks through.
This isn’t good exegesis, my hermeneutic leaves a lot to be desired, my epistemology and eschatology might even be suspect, my response isn’t even on-topic, but I know what I know what I know. Praise the Name of the LORD.
John, please straighten me out if you think I’m way out in left field.
John, you posted while I was writing my comment. Thank you for what you said to Justin (and to me).
Bob,
The Job story is important because we see that the Adversary (the “satan”) is the source of some evil. He inflicted the calamities upon Job. To note that God allowed so much and no more to be done by Satan to Job does not mean God “decreed” Job’s afflictions and just used Satan as the instrument. Job thought God did bring the evil and that is why we have Job arguing with God (and his friends) about the “justice” of it all. But we know because we have a peek behind the scenes that “the satan” was the source of the calamity, not God.
I am no theologian, nor a student of biblical languages. That said, one of the passages that does form my philosophy–whether in the correct context or not–is Lamentations, particularly chapter 3. Verses 37-39 tell me “doesn’t the High God speak everything, good things and hard things alike, into being?” Clearly, the writer of this passage wasn’t experiencing such awful and crushing affliction because of sin (though all men are indeed sinners.) Nevertheless, it seems that across the remainder of this book, one purpose of the affliction was to encourage him to examine his life, to look more fully upon God, to hope and trust more deeply in the Sovereign. It seems to me that this issue of “determinism”–or cause-effect/God-evil is a trap of modernism that we all struggle to get out of, just as “sovereignty” is a divine concept that we cannot quite wrap our minds around. Sovereign power, for modern minds, cannot be divorced from ultimate cause. We struggle to parse out that God can indeed stop evil activity or things that appear this way to us, but apparently chooses not to. I read a terrific book this past year called “God On Mute” and learned a lot about this piece of faith. Sometimes bad things just happen because the world and humanity are fallen, because for a short period of time (at least from God’s perspective), He is allowing everything to play itself out according to a seriously broken script–that at the end we will rejoice as He “makes all things new.” I’m not sure about the Hebrew words, but I know that there are days that this is all I can hold onto.
Howard,
I think many of us enter into the struggle you present here. Yet there are key words or phrases you use that seem to indicate a leaning toward some form of determinism. The verse from Lamentations implicates God in evil (as you express it). Your idea of “sovereignty”–does it mean absolute micro-management (ie, control)? Concepts “we can’t wrap our minds around” = mystery or “God on mute.” And most interesting ” a seriously broken script.” So, there was a script? God is “allowing” things to happen? What if there is gratuitous evil that God has no hand in or purpose for? He didn’t decree it nor “allow” it; it just is undeniably there? What then?
All this discussion takes on a whole new meaning within the frame of “open theism.” There are still mysteries to encounter, but the mysteries are about God, not about evil. Evil is not mysterious at all. Evil is ugly, even heinous, but biblically, not mysterious. Check out Greg Boyd’s book *God at War* (IVP) and read about Zosia.
John,
What do you make of Isaiah 46:9-10 in relation to open theism?
“Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me, Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure.”
Wow , this is quite the discussion, and coincidentaly one I have just had with my father, who is new to Christ. I investigated the way I felt about this, mostly within the framework of my own mind and understanding. I am definitely not a theologian, not even a mature Christian, but these are some simple questions that come to my mind when I consider this topic. God created Satan, and every single one of the angels that fell with him. God created us in His image, and because of the fall of Adam, we are all created with a sinful nature. God creates each of us still, “knits us together” in our mothers womb. Is the sinful nature something that is added afterward, by someone or something else? In the story of Job, I read and understood that Satan had to ask permission to attack Job, and again when he tempted Jesus. This leads me to understand that Satan has to ask permission and that God in turn gives it. Is that assumption wrong? So then where do these questions fit in with the too-horrible-to-think about realities of our world? Is the evil just the result of God’s Love being absent when we turn from or fall from Him? Is it not something that is created or causal, but just a symptom?
Thanks to John’s recommendation, I’m reading Boyd’s book “God at War.” The “Reformed” people I’ve talked to don’t like being reduced to determinists… but that, I’m convinced (as Boyd argues), is what they are. This acquiescence to determinism in the name of Sovereignty is for them, a kind of enlightenment. It’s an evangelical Nirvana – their theological moment of “aha.” To give in to this comprehensive view Sovereignty as it relates to freedom (there is none) and evil (it, like freedom, is an illusion) somehow solves a serious intellectual problem (“Reformed theology is the most intellectually satisfying and comprehensive view of reality” so they say). But there is a cost. This new creed requires the suspension of logic on another level; and that means a retreat into an intellectual isolation that makes dialogue impossible. Unable to withstand the scrutiny of conversation, it puts on the guise of elitism. It labels questioners as heretics. But most tragically, it numbs one into a state of insulation as well as isolation. Evil no longer evokes anger. Injustice does not illicit a cry for relief or repair. Abuse goes on neglected. And one can view a horrifying photo of the children of Nazi atrocities without a trace of compassion.
Jesus would go postal.
Ken K,
One of these days, I’ll have to meet you so that you don’t pigeon hole all of us Reformed types as lacking compassion, elitist, narrow-minded, etc….I assure you, there are many that do not fit your description. I’m actually Calvinist-Bapticostal, which defies about every stereotype imaginable. My calling is a minister of the gospel in the inner-city of Grand Rapids where I disciple high-risk teens and young adults, which includes fighting for injustice and demonstrating compassion on a daily basis. At one time I was very Armenian (I probably had a skewed version of it) and it almost killed me emotionally. I put the burden of every soul and every injustice on myself. When I finally embraced God’s sovereignty, it truly freed me to serve my ‘hood.
I don’t claim to know the all the answers, but this passage gives me some measure of comfort how God is in control, but Satan is also an instigator:
Look at these two Scriptures, which describe the same event:
2 Samuel 24:1 Again the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel, and he incited David against them, saying, “Go, number Israel and Judah.” (ESV)
2 Chronicles 21:1 Then Satan stood against Israel and incited David to number Israel. (ESV)
I am willing to live with this theological tension. Is that a cop out? I don’t know how else to explain it but to chalk it up as mystery without reading to much into the narratives.
Ken,
Many classical determinists do not intnetionally live out their theology. They can’t. It’s inhuman. They live practically as Arminians or open theists, and only get fiesty when you question God’s decreed micro-management of all reality. It apprears that they have only polar opposites to play with: God is in absolute, micro-mangement control (via his eternal decree) OR God loses all control if just one nano-particle does what it wasn’t “decreed” to do. Sad, sad.
I agree with Joel Shaffer (#19) that not all determinists are strident, but the pop-star determinists (aka John Piper) go critical and start using phrases like “another Gospel” for anyone who disagrees with them.
Joel Shaffer (#19),
I am not Ken (and Ken will probably answer for himself), but I want to offer my thoughts. The case you cite: 2 Sam 24:1 and it’s parallel in 1 Chron 21:1 where the Bible attributes one human act (David’s census) to both God and Satan doesn’t solve the determinists’ dilemma. Open theists (and Arminians) agree that at times there is a harmony between God’s purpose and Satan’s work. God wanted Israel judged and Satan did, too. What we can’t do is leap to the determinists’ conclusion that *all evil acts motivated, incited by Satan, demons and humans* are decreed by God and achieve some kind of “hidden, glorious purpose.” Jesus certainly did not believe and serve with that view, and John 9 can’t be shoe-horned into that view. The man’s blindness was not for the glory of God; Jesus’ healing of the man’s blindness was for the glory of God.
God bless your ministry to the marginalized here in Grand Rapids.
Stephanie (#17),
At one level we all are theologians because theology simply means what we think, say and write about God (theo- God + logos- word, that is, a word about God). Your example from Job is good. We are informed of a conversation between God and Satan when the “sons of God” (the NIV has “angels” but the Hebrew is “sons of God”) came before God Satan was among them. To read that Satan got permission is not the same as saying God “decrees” (predetermines) all of Satan’s activities, that God scripted evil into his eternal plan. God can intervene in any evil and bring beauty from it (only God can do that), but that does not mean God decreed all evil. Evil is not just the absence of love or goodness. It is Satan’s and demons’ and fallen human beings’ intentional, vile actions against God and God’s creatures and other human beings.
Bob (#16),
From what I understand, an open theist will happily affirm everything God says in Isaiah 46:9-10. It is clear from the verses that God “declares all that is not yet done” which is explained by God as “my counsel” and “my pleasure.” We need not conclude that God declares “all things not yet done” by truly free creatures–Satan, demons, and human beings. God can intervene in any or all free decisions made and work them for his purpose. This does not mean that he “decreed” all free decisions. That is an oxymoron—a decreed free decision.
This article by Udo Middelman is worth reading if you get the chance. He is the son-in-law of Francis Schaeffer and mentions his position as well.
http://www.francisschaefferfoundation.com/open.html
John, I wonder if you’ve really engaged with the best representatives of the Augustinian tradition. Your post was not really an argument but more of an emotive statement of your opinion, almost reducible to, “I really don’t like this idea!” It probably won’t be helpful to engage with conservative American Calvinists on this issue, who tend to be unhelpfully biblicist and both theologically and philosophically naive. I would recommend not only the primary sources Augustine’s De Trinitate and Thomas Aquinas’s Summa Theologica (at least the relevant sections) but also Kathryn Tanner’s book God and Creation in Christian Theology: Tyrrany or Empowerment and an essay by Reinhard Huetter on Luther and Erasmus on free will in relation to Augustine (the title of which I cannot recall off the top of my head, but I’m sure you can look it up.) There is also a great essay about shifts in the understanding of causality from the 13th to the 17th centuries in a book I just read that is coming out called “Surnaturel: A Controversy at the Heart of Twentieth Century Thomistic Thought” from Sapientia Press. As a side note, Miroslav Volf once told me that he thought open and process theism (and, by extension, Molinism, which is behind arminiansim… see the last chapter of Tanner’s book, which was her Yale dissertation under Hans Frei) were inherently violent in their understanding of power, for God’s “causality” inherently opposes human causality; God must self-limit and carve out a sphere of freedom for us if we are to be free. This puts a model of violence at the heart of God’s power and providence. God treats us like adolescents rather than adults. God acts only in the effects of the secondary causes and not in the agent or secondary causes themselves. In this way, it is possible for God to clash with people.
Again, the conservative Calvinists are almost entirely unhelpful on this issue and are probably best left to their own theological ghetto — better ignored than engaged. I think contemporary Augustinians and Thomists as well as academic theologians like Miroslav Volf or Kathy Tanner have much better things to say about this.
Sean,
I appreciate your very thoughtful and informative response. I do admit that I have not read the primary theologians (Augustine and Aquinas) nor Prof. Tanner’s work. Because I am a pastor in a heavily Reformed region of the USA, I have personally encountered the negative effects of classical determinism, so you are right that I “just don’t like the idea.” I don’t think it is impossible that the Augustinian idea is dreadfully wrong. Did you read my post “Whatsoever comes to pass…Really?”?
I agree with Volf that open theism may be present a more “violent” causality in God’s power, but I disagree that this is necessarily abhorent. Open theism, grounded in relational theism, sees a very passionate, engaged God with infinite love behind his use of violent power in a universe held hostage to evil, demonic beings (who at times work in and through humans). You know of Greg Boyd’s book *God at War,* I’m sure.
I am certainly willing to learn more on this vital theological and practical topic. For me it cannot just remain a theoretical theological issue.
John, I agree with you that the next move that an open or process theist would have to make would be to justify their understanding of divine power. I am familiar with Greg Boyd. I read a few of his books years ago, and I am sympathetic with some aspects of open theism, specifically, the epistemological view that future propositions don’t have truth values. I have two main problems with the understanding of power. First, I think it is condescending to humanity and gives too much room to evil. God treats us like we’re childish. Second, I think that when people are really suffering, they need a God who is strong enough to save them. Process theism, especially that of Hartshorne in The Divine Relativity, presents a false dilemma of a dictator-like God or a God who finally is committed to freedom and passionately suffering with the creation but isn’t strong to save. I think Hartshorne’s account of power is revealing and can be mapped onto political realities today…
By the way, I am also reformed (neo-calvinist)… but just not conservative reformed. They’re the problem.
you might also be interested in a discussion of good power on the website for the yale center for faith and culture. Kathy Tanner, Nick Wolterstorff, and Catherine Keller (a process theologian) all wrote papers about divine power. http://www.yale.edu/faith/ghf-good-powe-cons.htm
John, the best philosophical treatment of God’s providence and evil is Bill Hasker’s “The Antinomies of Divine Providence” in Philosophia Christi vol.4 (issue 2, 2002), p. 363ff. He shows conclusively, to my mind, that both traditional Austinianism/Calvinism and what is called Molinism have at least one of the same problems, i.e., making God ultimately responsible for evil. So Hasker plumps for an Open or “risk-taking” view of God. For me, it is the problem of evil more than any peculiarly philosophical problems with Divine Determinism that leads me to a “risk-taking” view of God.
btw: in my introductory level philosophy course at Calvin, it is the problem of divine providence and the problem of hell (a special problem of evil for Christians) that ranks among the students’ favorite sections of the course. And by far, most of my students are Augustinian/Calvinists.
Kevin (#27),
Thanks for your response and don’t be surprised to see me sitting in on a session or two of your intro class (if that’s allowable). I’d also gladly buy you a breakfast or lunch in order to leisurely explore these things.
“My friend and colleague Jamie Smith says I’m a postmodern analytic ecclesiological philosopher. Whether you hear that as a compliment or an insult probably says a lot about you.” I take it as a compliment, Kevin
Sean (#26),
Wouldn’t being treated as childish at least be a step above being widgets in God’s eternal decree? Unless there is a view that logically upholds authentic human freedom and classical determinism, then I pastorally am going to opt for open theism. Why does open theism necessarily conclude that God treats us as children? From reading John Sanders and Greg Boyd, I see a presentation of God (relational theism in a vigorous Trinity), real human (creaturely freedom with its attendant risks) decisions, the making of a real divine/human interactive story within an overall (yes, predestined) purpose of God. Open theism “fits” the way life happens. Classical determinism is a biblical “theory” that can’t be falsified and therefore is vacuous. You can believe it theoretically, but you can’t “live” it. What do you think?
Kevin,
My friend Keith DeRose has spoken highly of you to me. He and I have gone in circles on some of these questions. One thing I’ve determined from many hours of hashing through Calvin, Barth, Schleiermacher, Thomas, and even Kant with Keith is that philosophers, especially analytic philosophers, tend to allow their controlling question to be the problem of evil on matters of divine providence. Systematic theologians, whose disicipline is far more textually based than philosophy (and, insofar as both are textually based, the texts and manner of reading is very different), tend to think about it through at least two formal lenses: (1) textually, within a tradition of discourse they’ve inherited (though, of course, most theological writing as opposed to dogma is nonbinding for all Christian traditions). For Calvinists this may start with Augustine, Calvin, Schleiermacher, Barth, Edwards, etc., but, due to a common Augustinianism, can reach toward Thomism and Lutheranism, and even to Eastern Orthodoxy through Gregory the Theologian, John Chrysostom, perhaps even Origen, and, of course, scripture. (2) Conceptually they think within a different set of questions starting with the incarnation; they tend to start with Christology and soteriology and move out from there. This is evident, I think, in the twentieth century Thomist debates about nature and grace involving Henri de Lubac. Reformed theologians would benefit by reading Ockham, Scotus, and Thomas next to one another. For me, questions about freedom and power have everything to do with theological anthropology, which relates directly not only to life in Christ but also political questions like those Miroslav Volf addresses — hardly a merely academic discussion; the problem of evil is far less interesting.
I don’t know about classical determinism. I find evangelical accounts of the Augustinian tradition like Greg Boyd’s in Satan and the Problem of Evil far too schematic to be of any use in real discussion about such matters. There is no single account “classical determinism”; I have found that it is often a straw figure that isolates the question from its systematic moorings and presents it in an unappealing light. I don’t know what it would mean to say that it can’t be falsified. Ideas are public and can therefore be scrutinized philosophically and theologically. One should take the strongest representatives of a tradition, read them as sympathetically as possible, and then detail one’s disagreements.
My major problem is in the alternative that seems to reign: either widgets or children. It is the same as Hartshorne’s problem at the end of The Divine Relativity (an argument for a dynamic, relational account of God not significantly different from Boyd’s as far as I can tell). This is what you get when you begin to give up the second order belief (very hard to hold after nominalists like Ockham and Scotus, but mostly just Ockham) that God is radically transcendent and therefore exists on a higher plane of causality that is non-competitive with the creaturely sphere. Tanner’s project in her book is to argue that this second order belief needs to be made first order in order to preserve Christian faith in the “modern world”.
I don’t think Boyd (I haven’t read Hasker) to be far too surfacy and selective in his account of God. One can’t just decide what seems to be the case from one’s impressions of the biblical narrative; that’s what I think Boyd does. One case in point is the treatment of open theists of the static, eternal now of Augustine. For Augustine (see book III of De Trinitate, which is all about the way an eternal God relates to the world), God’s eternity meant not that God was somehow less alive, but as fully alive as possible, fully present to Godself in a way that we can’t even imagine so that all of God’s thoughts and works were always simultaneously present. God is, so to speak, overflowing with life — not static. It is only because we take our embodied, time-bound standard of what it means to be alive as the highest possible account of life that we project ourselves into an omnitemporality and give God as many powers as we could possibly imagine, and we think that anything like what Augustine says makes God sound like a machine.
I think Augustine’s account of God is very livable. Again, read De Trinitate. Living into God is the entire point. I think the problem is some ideas of what freedom must mean that came out of nominalist philosophers (mostly Fransicans) that prevent us from understanding this. Boyd’s account of freedom is held captive to an account of freedom that is, I think, finally antithetical to the gospel; it makes it very difficult to imagine how God could be incarnate (see Tanner’s Jesus, Humanity, and the Trinity). It is no surprise that the next move is to resort to a kenotic Christology. Augustine and Thomas are two great champions on the freedom of the will. But they don’t mean what many today mean by it. That should give one pause and cause one to figure out what changed. I think that Augustine’s account of God can “live” in another way. Serene Jones (Reformed theologian at Yale and now president-elect of union seminary) made the point in a seminar on trauma and grace that a classical augustinian God is exactly what someone who has been raped or shell shocked needs to save them (this seems to me to be an uncommon thing for a feminist theologian to say) — not a co-sufferer, etc. We could go back and forth forever on what lives better or what is pastorally better. That seems to be a matter of taste, which can often be quite undisciplined. But then we’re not really having a theological discussion.
Sean (#31),
What does this mean? “Tanner’s project in her book is to argue that this second order belief needs to be made first order in order to preserve Christian faith in the ‘modern world’.” Is second order belief similar to “middle knowledge”?
I think Boyd is writing pastorally as well as theologically. Why do we need to press Platonic philosophy onto the biblical text?
Kevin (#27),
This statement is key: “He [Hasker] shows conclusively, to my mind, that both traditional Austinianism/Calvinism and what is called Molinism have at least one of the same problems, i.e., making God ultimately responsible for evil.” I do not know how any determinist can escape the logic that God is ultimately the source of evil. Though Sean seems to write (see his comments in this thread) that the ideas of freedom and especially power are more pertinent to the discussion than the problem of evil.
Sean (30):
…especially analytic philosophers, tend to allow their controlling question to be the problem of evil on matters of divine providence.
What does this mean? And how does the last clause of the last sentence of your comment relate to the preceding clause? Are you saying that the problem of evil is a far less interesting question than questions about freedom and power?
I used to think the logical and inductive problems of evil were really interesting. In my intro classes I used to spend a fair amount of time on them, taking students through the various moves and counter moves. And then it occurred to me. While my students should know what those problems are and have perhaps a general sense of the issues involved, the problem of evil that either has already kept them up some nights or will keep them up some nights, is not either of those merely academic problems; no, the problem that either has will keep them up is the religious or existential problem of evil, the problem of how to think about horrific instances of evil in light of a commitment to some sort of Divine providence. I don’t know that I’d say this is an “interesting” problem. But I would say it’s a problem of profound and paramount importance. (To say it’s interesting leaves a bad taste in my mouth; it’s to think of the problem in a disembodied sort of way. It’s sorta like the difference between a brain surgeon thinking of brain cancer as a “problem” and thinking of one’s spouse’s or child’s brain cancer as a “problem”.” Anyway, my aim is not to sell students on my view of these matters, but to get them to see what they are committing themselves to if they embrace various views. What their views cost them.
As for Keith, you can do better than working through issues with Keith. He’s a first-rate philosopher and a mighty decent human being.
John:
You’re most welcome to sit in on my class. Suffering, death and God are coming up soon and then it’s on to hell. Which discussions would you like to sit in on? I can shoot you some dates.
btw: I wonder if we’ve ever met. I attended a couple ewm Wed. morning meetings a year or so ago. I even spoke at one on embodiment (last year, I think). Anyway, I’d love to get together. Email me. kcorcora@calvin.edu
Sean: By all means, read Hasker’s piece. You’re not likely to agree with his view, but it’s a thing of beauty.
John, a second order belief is like a background belief… Tanner talks about it as a rule for theological discourse. When we say something about God, we don’t really know what we’re talking about. So we have rules that constrain our meaning. Molinism is not a second order belief as far as I am concerned, but makes assumptions that are relevant to the very important second order belief of radical (as opposed to simple) transcendence.
The reason (to use your language) we need Platonic philosophy in the biblical text is because there’s always already philosophy we’re putting in it when we’re reading. The philosophy that I fear Boyd reads into the biblical text (and it’s illusory to think one doesn’t do this, for there is always something in the background that informs the meanings of the words we use — words like free or perhaps even God) prevents him from talking about God properly. These meanings (probably somewhat more dynamic than I’m letting on) that are there before he uses them pull God into the creaturely world and make God one being among many whether he wants them to or not. When this happens, all language about God shifts, and, some theologians would say we’re no longer talking about God. That is the effect of the shift in understanding of causality by Duns Scotus and William of Ockham. Christian use of philosophy is almost always ad hoc. It is very rare (and perhaps impossible, depending on one’s views of the possibility of the “Thomistic synthesis”) to have a fully systematic Christian philosophy. Some theologians (such as Reinhard Huetter) think that it is the loss of neo-platonic ideas of participation in relation to analogical language about God that precipitated not only some of the major modern tendencies toward unbelief (there’s a way of reading Charles Taylor’s Sources of the Self this way) but also moral crises. Specifically, the argument is that nominalist voluntarism that denies that the intellectual will can be both directed by the Good and free has come under fire in modern moral philosophy. Both Kantianism (which is more complex and which I am deeply sympathetic with) and utilitarianism are seen from this perspective as moral systems we have when we can no longer talk about the good and the moral life. Servais Pinckaers (who Stanley Hauerwas thinks is one of the main writers of JPII’s Veritatis Splendor) makes this argument and contrasts “freedom of indifference” with “freedom for excellence” in his book Sources of Christian Ethics. He wrote a chapter that may cover some similar themes in the Cambridge Companion to the Summa that Denys Turner is editing right now.
John, I found you through Jeremy Bouma and have been lurking. I am very curious about “Out of Print.” This particular topic is one I think about a great deal, and though I have no answers, I would like to share.
To be honest with you, I have met many believers who subscribe to various “brands” of theology, and this rarely seems to correlate with their spiritual maturity or their affections towards God. Likewise I know plenty of brothers and sisters of all theological backgrounds who have terrible thoughts about God and have no clue how to live out the Christian faith. Just as you council hurting people coming from Calvinist backgrounds (who maybe think of God as a hairy thunderer), I was the equivalent coming from an Armenian upbringing (who thought of God as a weak cosmic muffin).
Sometimes wonder if I am too quick to dismiss someone’s thoughts. Once becoming aware of theology, I remember being so curious about Calvinists and how they can think about God as they do and actually be in love with him. This curiosity drove me to understand. I’m not saying I am a Calvinist now, but I don’t mind telling you that journey changed my life.
One of the things I began to ponder is this: If God, as you say (correct me if I’m wrong), created the human race with free will for the resulting love relationship that would then be possible, He has still acted in His own self interests. God knew free will would be detrimental to mankind; however, He was willing to give it, which means He placed something before the safety and well being of the human race. His own glory perhaps?
I’m not saying this was a bad decision or that an all-knowing and perfect Creator can be selfish, because it isn’t possible for Him to be; however, I am saying that some of us only think we’re getting God “off the hook,” so to speak, and we’re not at all. In other words, we can talk about God being great, and we can talk about Satan being bad, and we can have our neat little explanations for all the inconvenience and tragedy in life, but I don’t think we can escape the fact that we are not the highest priority in this whole story. I don’t think we can escape the fact that the point of our existence is to worship The Creator with our very lives.
If that’s true, then I’m not sure figuring out who to blame for World War 2 is my biggest fish to fry. Maybe it is. Maybe the answer to that question solves all of my theological problems. All I know is that I must work to keep affections for God stirred up in my heart, and in order to do this, it has been necessary to be able to say that I love and trust Him no matter what. If He ordained or willed or allowed that tragedy to happen for some reason I can’t understand, then it is well with my soul. It has to be. To whom else will I turn? There is no other.
Some days I find myself ready to trust God, even if that means lying down in His gigantic hands to be crushed or to die for the sake of the gospel or…whatever else for His glory. Funny thing is happiness and fulfillment are at all-time highs for me when my heart is in that posture of surrender. Maybe that is how we are meant to live? Oh, I think the doctrine of God’s sovereignty can be really beautiful and helpful when balanced with the rest of the scriptures. He is in control. And He is good.
~Just my thoughts,
Chris
Chris (#39),
Thanks, brother, for sharing your story. I do believe many Calvinists have a deeply devoted love for God. I wonder, frankly, how they process that love in view of God’s inclusive, eternal decree of “whatsoever comes to pass,” but they do.
I don’t think God acted in self-interest in created beings who can voluntarily love God-Father, Son and Spirit. Just the opposite as a matter of fact. Creation was so that the Trinitarian God’s love, unity and joy could be shared with others. The Calvinistic mantra that everything was decreed (including unspeakable evil) for his glory seems to me to make God horribly egocentric. But I could be misunderstanding the issue.
God’s greatest glory is giving himself away.
Thanks for stopping by and commenting.
John
Why Does God Let Us Suffer?
“God is up in heaven where everything is pleasant, while we are down here suffering.”—Mary.*
TODAY’S young people have been born into a cruel world. Tragic earthquakes and natural disasters that snuff out the lives of thousands seem to be commonplace. Wars and terrorist attacks dominate the news. Sickness, disease, crime, and accidents rob us of loved ones. For Mary, quoted above, evil hit close to home. Her bitter words were uttered after the death of her father.
When tragedy touches us personally, it is only human to feel frustration, loss, or even anger. ‘Why did this have to happen?’ you may wonder. ‘Why me?’ or ‘Why now?’ Such questions deserve satisfying answers. But to get the right answers, we must go to the right source. Granted, as a youth named Turrell observed, sometimes people are “hurting too much to think things through.” So you may need to find a way to calm your emotions a bit so that you can think—logically and rationally.
Facing Unpleasant Realities
It may be unpleasant to contemplate, but death and suffering are facts of life. Job put it well when he said: “Man, born of woman, is short-lived and glutted with agitation.”—Job 14:1.
The Bible promises a new world in which “righteousness is to dwell.” (2 Peter 3:13; Revelation 21:3, 4) Before those ideal conditions are realized, however, mankind must go through a time of unprecedented wickedness. “Know this,” says the Bible, “in the last days critical times hard to deal with will be here.”—2 Timothy 3:1.
How long will these difficult times last? Jesus’ disciples asked more or less the same question. But Jesus did not give them a specific day or hour when this misery-stricken system of things would end. Instead, Jesus said: “He that has endured to the end is the one that will be saved.” (Matthew 24:3, 13) Jesus’ words encourage us to take a long-range view. We must be prepared to endure many unpleasant situations before the end finally comes.
Is God to Blame?
Does it makes sense, then, to be angry with God because he permits suffering? Not when you consider that God has promised to end all suffering. Nor does it make sense to feel that God causes bad things to happen. Many tragic happenings are simply the result of random events. Imagine, for example, that the wind blows a tree down and it injures someone. People may call this an act of God. But God did not make that tree fall down. The Bible helps us to appreciate that such things are simply the sad result of “time and unforeseen occurrence.”—Ecclesiastes 9:11.
Suffering may also stem from poor judgment. Suppose a group of youths indulge in alcoholic beverages and then go for a drive. A serious accident results. Who is to blame? God? No, they have reaped the consequences of their poor judgment.—Galatians 6:7.
‘But isn’t God powerful enough to end suffering now?’ you may ask. Some faithful men in Bible times wondered about that. The prophet Habakkuk asked God: “Why is it that you look on those dealing treacherously, that you keep silent when someone wicked swallows up someone more righteous than he is?” However, Habakkuk did not jump to hasty conclusions. He said: “I shall keep watch, to see what he will speak by me.” Later, God assured him that at an “appointed time,” He would end suffering. (Habakkuk 1:13; 2:1-3) We must therefore be patient, waiting for God to end wickedness at his appointed time.
Avoid jumping to the rash conclusion that God somehow wants us to suffer or that he is personally testing us. It is true that suffering can bring out the best in us and that the Bible says that the trials God allows can refine our faith. (Hebrews 5:8; 1 Peter 1:7) Indeed, many people who undergo trialsome or traumatic experiences do become more patient or compassionate. But we should not conclude that their suffering was God’s doing. Such thinking does not take God’s love and wisdom into account. The Bible plainly states: “When under trial, let no one say: ‘I am being tried by God.’ For with evil things God cannot be tried nor does he himself try anyone.” On the contrary, from God comes “every good gift and every perfect present”!—James 1:13, 17.
Why God Permits Evil
From where, then, does evil come? Remember that God has opposers—principally the “one called Devil and Satan, who is misleading the entire inhabited earth.” (Revelation 12:9) God placed our first parents, Adam and Eve, in a trouble-free world. But Satan convinced Eve that she would be better off without God’s rulership. (Genesis 3:1-5) Sadly, Eve believed Satan’s lies and disobeyed God. Adam joined her in this rebellion. The result? “Death spread to all men,” says the Bible.—Romans 5:12.
Rather than immediately squashing this rebellion by destroying Satan and his followers, God saw fit to allow time to pass. What would that accomplish? For one thing, it would allow Satan to be exposed as a liar! It would allow proof to accumulate that independence from God brings nothing but ruin. Is that not exactly what has taken place? “The whole world is lying in the power of the wicked one.” (1 John 5:19) Furthermore, “man has dominated man to his injury.” (Ecclesiastes 8:9) Mankind’s religions are a maze of conflicting teachings. Morals have fallen to an all-time low. Human governments have tried every conceivable form of rule. They sign treaties and adopt laws, but the needs of the common people are still unfulfilled. Wars add misery on misery.
Clearly, we need to have God intervene and end wickedness! But this will happen only in God’s due time. Until then, it is our privilege to support God’s rulership by obeying his laws and principles as found in the Bible. When bad things happen, we can take comfort in the confident hope of life in a trouble-free world.
Not Alone
Still, when suffering touches us personally, we may find ourselves asking, ‘Why me?’ The apostle Paul reminds us, however, that we are not alone in suffering evil. Paul says that “all creation keeps on groaning together and being in pain together until now.” (Romans 8:22) Knowing this fact can help you to cope with suffering. Nicole, for example, was emotionally traumatized by the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, in New York City and Washington, D.C. “I was horrified and scared,” she admits. But as she read accounts of how her fellow Christians coped with that tragedy, her viewpoint changed.# “I realized that I’m not alone at all. Slowly I’ve begun to recover from my pain and grief.”
It may be helpful to express your grief
In some cases, it is wise to seek out someone you can talk to—a parent, a mature friend, or a Christian elder. Pouring out your feelings to someone you trust will allow you to receive a “good word” of encouragement. (Proverbs 12:25) A young Brazilian Christian recalls: “I lost my father nine years ago, and I know that Jehovah will resurrect him one day. But something that helped me was putting my feelings in writing. Also, I talked things out with my Christian friends.” Do you have any ‘true companions’ in whom you can confide? (Proverbs 17:17) Then benefit from their loving help! Don’t be afraid to cry or express your emotions. Why, even Jesus once “gave way to tears” over the tragic loss of a friend!—John 11:35.
The Bible assures us that one day we will be “set free from enslavement to corruption” and enjoy “the glorious freedom of the children of God.” (Romans 8:21) Until then, many good people may suffer. Take comfort in knowing why such suffering takes place—and that it will not last long.
God doesn’t will bad things to happen; when people go against His divine plan, bad things happen.
John,
WHO KNOWS?? But theology for me is following the loving example of Christ when faced with suffering. We are God’s hands and feet. My favorite book on the subject is COMPASSION by Henri Nouwen.
God bless and keep you.
As a teenager who hasn’t been brought up on any religion other than when it’s convenient – at christmas, funerals etc – I’d still like to agree with you John. I have no incredible faith or belief in God but I appreciate what his symbolism means to Christians. Whether or not he exists the thought that he decree’s such evil is a dangerous idea to entertain. It threatens the security that religion creates in the lives of an incredible portion of the population. I don’t believe in God but I believe in miracles. I don’t believe in Hell but I believe in Heaven. I like to believe that God gave us intelligence, compassion, and love because eventually all that is evil will fall to it. Though the holocaust happened, it may be because God gave us strength that the world overcame it.
Melissa
Bueno pues a mi en lo personal esta pagina se me hizo muy interesante y mas por la imagen tan conmovedora que es y es un ejemplo de lo que sucedio en la segunda guerra mundial durante el gobierno de Adolf Hitler.
A mi en lo personal la historia de la segunda guerra mundial se me hace muy interesnte y es algo que me gusta mucho.
msn:princezita_66@hotmail.com
now i’m not huge on the whole theology thing at the moment as i am not a religious person or taking theology, i do how ever have a religious family, or household would be better to describe them as.
any way, i think that by God having decreed that all deeds are being done in his name can be viewed as more of allowence of freedom.
my brother described it to me once as God letting us choose from right or wrong, and then seeing what paths we see fit for ourselves to follow.
now from this i concluded that god was a sadist of sorts.
i mean to say that he watchs us all everyday and night, into our lives and dreams.
he allows for evil to bend our days and surroundings, for the mood to suddenly chill and turn for the worse.
from this he sees how we react and he continues to push. our okay morning turns too a crappy evening, into a horrible night.
he does this every where, everyday, to watch us struggle, he watchs us suffer, he watchs us die, and he allows theses events to pass when he knows from the start how the game will end, he’s a sadist.
now to ‘allow’ in the term which you used or they used, i believe is more like a mother allowing her child out to play and harass a child and turn a blind eye while condoning it.
the ‘allow’ i’m speaking of is like a mother allowing her child free reign over her dolls, knowing that she will cry as soon as shes to rough with them. as soon as that child crys to her mother what does she tell her child?
‘ you want to be a big person now don’t you? you need to learn to be responsible. you should know right from wrong now, you need to learn to grow up.’
harsh but true.
God allows these things to happen because as adults and people, human beings should be able to considered the consequences of their actions and be able to understand the right things to do.
now i understand that it’s hard to see pictures of the innocent in pain and suffering, but God did condone these events, by decree it is in his honour that their blood was spilled as his sons was, and the ones who slew them came to a hard end like those who harmed his son did.
he did decree that all is done by him for him, he is a selfish God whom we love and respect.
i learned from a young age that God is to be feared, because as much as he protects us, he will punish us as well.
to fear is to respect, and God being rightful, he is not to be questioned.
to bad for my parents that God gave them me, i question every thing.
i know i go off on tangents sorry.
anyway by questioning his doing i notice that he likes to see our choices and how the events will play out, like reading a book, then watching the movie.
you want to know which will be better, even though you know the general outcome.
God lets us choose, We allow things to happen, We condone, We contradict, We try to justify, We lose, and God watchs.
the only thing God allows is our freedom to choose, we allow the rest because we fear God no longer, We are ignorant to him and are quite happy to stay that way.
God just leaves it in our hands
Aww poor kids! They didn’t deserve to be used for stupid experiments!
I agree, they where blocking my Godly powers with some sort of Black Magic at that Time thank goodness there was other functions who serve and protect the people to maintain their state of bliss…
Jumping in here at a level I can relate to…and digging the dialog, by the way. Thanks to all. Sean: So what’s so wrong with being treated like a child, when that treatment comes from the Almighty, who brought into being all that is, by merely speaking His will?! Not yelling, or even with any groaning; just…speaking. Surely you’ve read the passages that show how God feels about children. And am I not his child? I’d settle for being his boot-licking slave, to be honest about it! A child rather than an adult? You’re comparing inches vs feet on a Galactic Unit scale, brother! Treat me like a child? You bet! Bring it on, Lord! Let me become like a child. …It would be an improvement!
John, I agree with the young man you mentioned in your original post who said, ““I am tired of all the bad and evil things that happen being laid at the feet of God. He had nothing to do with it!”
Justin in #9 said, “none of you have provided scripture to refute the position.” I would say to Justin that I look at ALL of the New Testament and particularly the Gospels to see that God being responsible for evil is totally disputed by Jesus…by everything he said, everything he did, and everything he was. I have to admit that sometimes when I read things in the Old Testament, it certainly sounds like God is saying he caused horrible things, including canabilism in Ezekiel. But, unlike a lot of Christians, though I believe that the Bible is true, I do not believe that every word written in the Bible are God’s thoughts. I think men were trying to come to understand the world around them and evil and God. Sometimes the Holy Spirit was inspiring them in what they wrote, sometimes not. The books of the Bible show us the journey that humankind has been on in coming to know God. When Jesus came among us, he was bringing us his Father’s love, his Father’s knowledge and forgiveness. He said that if we have seen Him, we have seen the Father. (Not that the Father and Jesus are the same, but Jesus respresented all that God is.) And when we see Jesus, we see him healing, making whole, redeeming. We never see him bringing destruction to innocent little children.
I know this is an old post and likely not anyone other than John will see my comment, but I wanted to comment anyway!
i do not believe that God lets us go through sufferings for nothing. i think this was ment to happen as a thing to teach us. to tell us how blest we really are. that is what i think and will always think.
Wow, You People Sure Have Got A Lot Of Time On Your Hands.
It is a test for the Jewish nation
because they do not want to believe god jesus ..
tp god do not let them perish
but they became a great nation who
although they were slightly but they were wealthy nations who
da smartest else in between his nation