As a brief introduction, a friend and I engaged in a discussion where we were discussing a post I did recently entitled "Is God The Author Of Sin". Click the link if you'd like to read it and the comments that followed, of which are the core focus of this post. I lifted from the comments questions and positions that were put forth and I intend to offer rebuttal here. For my purposes, I did not include the entirety of the comment, but rather enough background to understand the point and the point itself. I think I've been fair in my representation. His comments are in blue.
That said, you made it all too easy with the challenge on justice. Genesis 18:24-33 and Exodus 32 9-14...In the former (Gn 18), Abraham is pleading for the city of Sodom and argues to God that it would be unjust for Him to sweep away the just with the unjust and God agrees that if he finds 50 good, he'll spare the entire city for the sake of the 50 (and the negotiations continue). In allowing these negotiations, God is demonstrating or us that His justice is fixed and not whimsical. As the story unfolds, we also come to find out that He in fact spared Lot and his family out of justice though He was planning to just wipe out the city before being persuaded by Abraham.
If he was pleading that God would be unjust, he was only pleading that it would be unjust that God would destroy the elect along with the heathens. Abraham was defending HIS knowledge that his nephew Lot was there. I think what's being demonstrated by this account is simply that God is exceedingly long-suffering where His elect are concerned. Not only this, but help me make sense of what God means when He says:
17And the LORD said, Shall I hide from Abraham that thing which I do;
18Seeing that Abraham shall surely become a great and mighty nation, and all the nations of the earth shall be blessed in him?
19For I know him, that he will command his children and his household after him, and they shall keep the way of the LORD, to do justice and judgment; that the LORD may bring upon Abraham that which he hath spoken of him.
What in the world is God saying here? How does He in one hand make decisions based on His foreknowledge, but then question himself, seemingly in the absence of it? God is setting up this example where He says, "should I?" knowing that Abraham shall surely become a great nation...as if to say that some how by God engaging Abraham in this way, it was to affect him. Did God not already know what he was going to do? And was this event planned? Or was this one just forseen, and which part was foreseen, just Abrahams part of the conversation or God's too? Is God disingenuous? Careful, if you say it's FOR Abraham, then God MUST have planned it. If you say that he must react, then He's not God, for He certainly does not have complete and perfect forknowing of all events.
Ofcourse the deal killer is, 'For I know him; HE WILL command his children, and they WILL keep the way of the Lord; to do justice and judgement, that the LORD may bring upon Abraham that which he hath spoekn of him'. So then, by who's power, and under which promise is Abraham able to do these things? For scripture says;
Man plans his ways, but God directs his steps
The heart of the king is in the hand of God and directs it like a river, which way it should go.
For He says to Abraham, I will make you a great nation and a company of nations.
Yes, God relents. And if you can explain to me how exactly it is that an all-knowing, all-powerful God has the ability to 'relent', then we can talk about this. But near so far as I can tell, neither foreknowledge, nor determinism explains this account. For even if you lay them both on the table and take them to their logical conclusions, there are logical errors and problems with comprehension. So, I say stalemate; so too the example of how Christ did not know when the day or the hour of the Father's return would be. Unexplainable. These are the secret decrees.
You quote Isaiah 53:10. However, if we take the whole passage in context, we see that God’s will is continuous here. In merciful response to man’s transgressions, God wills to restore union with man. God’s desire for union with mankind is the impetus of creation and salvation alike. Verse 3 explains how sinful man spurns God and hides his face from Him “suffering and accustomed to infirmity” God, in His mercy wills that His Son be crushed in infirmity because “If He gives His life as an offering for sin, He shall see His descendants in a long life, and the will of the LORD shall be accomplished through Him.” Verse 5 in particular makes clear distinctions and assigns ownership of offenses and sins on man! This chapter (particularly in verses 4 and 5) are so clear in assigning ownership of sin and offense to man that it’s impossible to logically conclude that the sins are God’s will. There’s no conflict here unless you decide that sin is the will of God.
I have never and will never offer that man is NOT responsible for his sin. I simply deny that he has any choice in the matter, and furthermore, I deny that choice is required for responsibility to be required. You agree with this reasoning already, as most do. You simply are not seeing it for what it is.
If the law says, do not steal and your son steals something, then he's responsible to you for stealing and perhaps other consequences may follow.
If your oldest son, though no law be given for coercion, was the one who forced your younger son to steal, then who is responsible for the theft? Your eldest son did not steal anything. He didn't violate any laws, per se, but your youngest son did. Will you only punish your younger son because he chose to steal? So then, your youngest son may well have had a choice, but his choice did not change that he was forced to steal; so then choice did not affect the theft. Neither did it affect responsibility, neither did effect the repulsion of the coercion. It could not repel the coercion before it even started. No, I say that responsibility is assigned by the authority over you, not by your performance, adherance or inadherence as it were, to the prescribed law. So then, you're guilty for transgressing the law, though you don't have a choice. It's correct that sin entered by one man, this does not answer the question of how it became possible for the transgression to even take place. You say free will, but if it's that's true, how is it that God in foreknowing that man would sin, created him anyways? Why didn't He create a perfect Adam, who was entirely free but just wouldn't sin...not couldn't, but wouldn't? Isn't Adam's "Choice" directly traceable to the plan God had for his creation? Romans says that the "creation was subjected to futility, though, not willingly!"
Lastly, where does the Bible explicitly say or intimate that man MUST be a free-moral agent, in order that God might justly hold him accountable to the ends of his Holy purpose and by whatever cause He may deem necessary?
It is simply the case with God that there are holy and righteous causes to the effect of sin. In fact one of the most obvious is what Paul points out in Romans 7. So that the law of commandment would show that sinfulness is utterly sinful! Futhermore it's simply not enough to take the whole passage. You must understand that chapters 40-66 are the entire discourse of the human relationship with God. Let us consider what precedes it to understand what comes after it.
Isaiah 44:6-8 (King James Version)
6Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.
7And who, as I, shall call, and shall declare it, and set it in order for me, since I appointed the ancient people? and the things that are coming, and shall come, let them shew unto them.
8Fear ye not, neither be afraid: have not I told thee from that time, and have declared it? ye are even my witnesses. Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any.
Then;
Isaiah 44:18 (King James Version)
18They have not known nor understood: for he hath shut their eyes, that they cannot see; and their hearts, that they cannot understand.
You might say this only refers to the Israelites, ofcourse then you'd be wrong about either their free-will, or yours. But in any case, even if I were to hold to a free-will theology, there is a point at which man loses his free-will as the scripture so obviously points out. You cannot say on one hand that God desires unimpeded love and unrestricted responsibility, but then not give the responsibility to God when He clearly demonstrates the taking of their ability to see and their spiritual perception of Him; and yet, does He not still hold them accountable? He does in deed!
Then;
Isaiah 45
1Thus saith the LORD to his anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have holden, to subdue nations before him; and I will loose the loins of kings, to open before him the two leaved gates; and the gates shall not be shut;
Cyrus is a pagan ruler. He's not a Hebrew neither does the scripture reveal that he is called of God to be part of His kingdom. Yet, if we're to understand Christ to be accurate that 'unless one is born again he cannot even see the kingdom of God' then we're to understand that Cyrus certainly had no clue that what he was doing was a spiritual endeavor, exacting the justice of God Himself on His people. Yet what do the scriptures say?
2I will go before thee, and make the crooked places straight: I will break in pieces the gates of brass, and cut in sunder the bars of iron:
Why doesn't he tell Cyrus that he has to do these things, in order to complete the commands of God?
3And I will give thee the treasures of darkness, and hidden riches of secret places, that thou mayest know that I, the LORD, which call thee by thy name, am the God of Israel.
Why doesn't He say that Cyrus must go 'take' the treasures? Or why doesn't He say that He 'knows' he will?
4For Jacob my servant's sake, and Israel mine elect, I have even called thee by thy name: I have surnamed thee, though thou hast not known me.
And finally we're to the purpose and the cause for God being in control. For Israel, MINE ELECT, tho thou has not known me, I've called YOU to be my instrument of justice - and that, with no vote, or complicit understanding.
5I am the LORD, and there is none else, there is no God beside me: I girded thee, though thou hast not known me:
6That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none beside me. I am the LORD, and there is none else.
7I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.
I form the light, create the darkness, send peace and create evil. Why doesn't He say that when you fall into evil that you're the one that causes that? This is very confusing. Why would God say that He's the cause of Evil that comes upon man, when really, it's man's choice that ultimately stands or falls as the cause of whatever befalls him? Ultimately it's because God is the first cause of all things. And he will not share that with any man, as though man could possibly carry the mantle of responsibily of governing God's creation. The first man that God gave any part of that responsibility to, sinned the very first time the possibility of sin was wafted under their noses.
1) If God's will encompasses all that is (even contradictory things) how can sin exist? Even if He has multiple contradictory decrees as you posit, their sum total would still comprise the total of His will. How can God at once will something that he doesn't will?
Consider and excerpt from John Piper's article on the matter;
Why I Do Not Say, "God Did Not Cause the Calamity, but He Can Use It for Good"
How God governs all events in the universe without sinning, and without removing responsibility from man, and with compassionate outcomes is mysterious indeed! But that is what the Bible teaches. God "works all things after the counsel of his will" (Ephesians 1:11).
This "all things" includes the fall of sparrows (Matthew 10:29), the rolling of dice (Proverbs 16:33), the slaughter of his people (Psalm 44:11), the decisions of kings (Proverbs 21:1), the failing of sight (Exodus 4:11), the sickness of children (2 Samuel 12:15), the loss and gain of money (1 Samuel 2:7), the suffering of saints (1 Peter 4:19), the completion of travel plans (James 4:15), the persecution of Christians (Hebrews 12:4-7), the repentance of souls (2 Timothy 2:25), the gift of faith (Philippians 1:29), the pursuit of holiness (Philippians 3:12-13), the growth of believers (Hebrews 6:3), the giving of life and the taking in death (1 Samuel 2:6), and the crucifixion of his Son (Acts 4:27-28).
From the smallest thing to the greatest thing, good and evil, happy and sad, pagan and Christian, pain and pleasure - God governs them all for his wise and just and good purposes (Isaiah 46:10). Lest we miss the point, the Bible speaks most clearly to this in the most painful situations. Amos asks, in time of disaster, "If a calamity occurs in a city has not the LORD done it?" (Amos 3:6). After losing all ten of his children in the collapse of his son's house, Job says, "The LORD gave and the LORD has taken away. Blessed be the name of the LORD" (Job 1:21). After being covered with boils he says, "Shall we indeed accept good from God and not accept adversity?" (Job 2:10).
No comments:
Post a Comment